Chapter 9: Romans - Romans–Galatians (2024)

ROMANS

EVERETT F. HARRISON AND DONALD A. HAGNER

Introduction

1. Founding and History of the Church at Rome

2. Authorship, Date, and Place of Origin

3. Destination and Integrity

4. Occasion and Purpose

5. Composition of the Roman Church

6. Literary Form

7. Theology

8. The New Perspective on Paul

9. Canonicity

10. Bibliography

11. Outline

1. FOUNDING AND HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AT ROME

By common consent, Romans is the greatest of Paul’s letters and one of the foundational documents of Christianity. The Roman church was to become one of the major centers of Christendom, yet next to nothing is known about the circ*mstances surrounding the founding and early history of this church. The apostle writes to a well-established Christian community that seems to have existed for decades and had already become famous far and wide for its faith (Ro 1:8). Luke refers to “visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism)” as pilgrims who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:10). From this it seems possible, or even probable, that converts within this group who became Christians returned to Rome and became the nucleus of the first Christian church there. This agrees with the testimony of Ambrosiaster (fourth century AD) that the Roman church was not established by an apostle but by unnamed Hebrew Christians: “The Romans had embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rites, although they saw no sign of mighty works nor any of the apostles” (preface, Ad If it is correct that the church was founded by new Jewish Christians returning from the Feast of Pentecost, then the foundation of the Roman church may be said to go back virtually to the beginning of Christianity. Beyond this, Luke tells us only that Aquila and Priscilla, with whom Paul lived and labored at Corinth, had recently come from Italy (18:2). He says nothing about Paul’s preaching of the gospel to them, so the presumption is that they were already believers.

In AD 49, the emperor Claudius expelled both Christian and non-Christian Jews from Rome as the result of what the historian Suetonius 25) describes as “disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” Since the confusion of “i” and “e” was not unknown in Latin renditions of Greek, it is possible to conclude from this statement that the Roman Jews had become unusually agitated and disorderly over the proclamation in their midst of Jesus as the Christ provoking the emperor to take action against them. But the stir could have been caused by messianic fervor with revolutionary During the years that the Jews were under the ban from Rome, the remaining church would have been exclusively Gentile in composition. The return of the Jews and the Jewish Christians after Claudius’s death in AD 54 and the reintegration of the latter into the Christian community constituted the apparent cause of tension between the Gentiles and Jews (see Ro 11; 14) in the Roman house churches (at least five such groups may be reflected in ch. 16).

The emperor Nero made the Christians into scapegoats, accusing them of starting the fire that destroyed almost the whole of Rome in AD 64 and thus bringing a time of great persecution on the Roman church. In the aftermath or shortly thereafter, both Peter and Paul were martyred in Nero’s Rome Clem. 6). From the middle of the second century, the places of their respective martyrdoms were known and marked. As F. F. Bruce observed, “Christianity in Rome, having survived the first attack on its existence, was destined to advance, in spite of subsequent and more severely organized attacks by supreme authority, until at last it was the city and empire that capitulated to the

2. AUTHORSHIP, DATE, AND PLACE OF ORIGIN

From the postapostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, Romans has been credited to Paul. If the claim that the apostle wrote the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly. A few examples must suffice: the doctrine of justification by faith (Ro 3:20–22; Gal 2:16); the church as the body of Christ appointed to represent and serve him through a variety of spiritual gifts (Ro 12; 1Co 12); the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem (Ro 15:25–28; 2Co 8–9). Understandably, Paul makes fewer references to himself and to his readers in Romans than in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians, since he had not founded the Roman church and guided its struggles to maturity as he had the others. We know that Paul used a scribe in writing this epistle, since the latter boldly inserts his name in 16:22: “I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.” Paul probably dictated the letter to Tertius, who may well have taken it down by shorthand. This may account for some of the broken sentences of the letter, although anacoluthon (broken syntax) is not unusual in the writings of Paul, whose mind must have often raced along faster than his words.

Fixed dates for the span of Paul’s labors are few, but one of them is the summer of AD 51, when Gallio arrived in Corinth to serve as proconsul of Achaia. After this, the apostle stayed in the city “for some time” (Ac 18:18). Possibly in the spring of 52 he went to Caesarea and Jerusalem, stopping at Antioch on the way back and probably spending the winter of 52 there. Presumably his return to Ephesus was in the spring of 53, marking the beginning of a three-year ministry there (20:31). At the end of 56, he spent three months in Corinth (20:3), starting his final trip to Jerusalem in the spring of 57. When he wrote Romans, the fund for the Jerusalem church seems to have been finally completed (Ro 15:26–28). This may indicate a date in early 57 rather than late 56 for the writing of the letter. (The fund was incomplete when Paul, on the way from Ephesus to Corinth, wrote 2Co 8–9.) It is highly unlikely that Romans was written before 55 or after 58.

Corinth is the most likely place of composition, since Phoebe of nearby Cenchreae was apparently entrusted with the carrying of the letter (Ro 16:1–2). The mention of Gaius as Paul’s host (16:23) confirms this conclusion, Gaius having been one of the most prominent of converts during the apostle’s mission at Corinth (1Co 1:14). Cenchreae is a less likely possibility. Paul would not naturally have gone there except to board ship. At that juncture, a plot against his life forced him to change his plan (Ac 20:3). Thus it is hard to imagine Paul finding time or peace of mind at Cenchreae for composing a book such as Romans. A Macedonian origin has also been claimed, with Romans 15:25–26 as support (“I am on my way”). But the present tense of the verb GK can also be understood futuristically (“I am going to,” i.e., “I am about to go”).

3. DESTINATION AND INTEGRITY

The titles of the Pauline Epistles are not part of the original text, so the superscription “The Letter of Paul to the Romans” cannot be attributed to the apostle but must be taken as reflecting the understanding of the church as a whole sometime during the second century. Nevertheless, there can be no serious doubt that the intended readers were located at Rome. It is true that a few minor textual witnesses omit the words “in [or at] Rome” in the two places where they occur: in 1:7 (G, noted in the margins of 1739 and 1908, Old Latin, some MSS of the Vulgate, Origen, Ambrosiaster) and 1:15 (G and Origen [Lat. translation]). This may well be due to the apparent fact that Romans at an early point circulated in more than one form.

Further textual variations argue in favor of this conclusion. The early papyrus manuscript has the entire closing doxology (16:25–27) at the end of ch. 15 rather than at the end of ch. 16. The minuscule 1506 puts it at the end of both chs. 14 and 15 and lacks ch. 16 altogether. It is furthermore worth noting that the last verse of ch. 15, “The God of peace be with you all. Amen” (15:33, found in the entire manuscript tradition, except for a few manuscripts that omit the final “Amen” [ A F G, a few minuscules, and Ambrosiaster]) seems to be the end of the epistle, thus excluding the following chapter. These data seem to point to a confusing situation in which different editions of the letter were sent to different churches. T. W. Manson suggested that reflects the letter as Paul wrote it to the Roman church but that the apostle at the same time sent a copy, minus the indication of Roman destination and with ch. 16 added, to the church at This would explain the long list of names of persons to be greeted in a church that Paul had never visited. The people mentioned in the closing chapter were thus living at Ephesus rather than at Rome. Attractive though this view is, it has not been universally received, because a good case can still be made for a Roman destination for ch. 16.

Nevertheless, the conclusion that ch. 16 was a part of the original document sent to Rome does not exclude the probability, suggested by the textual variations that have been mentioned, that the letter was sent to different recipients in slightly different Probably the original letter written by Paul contained all sixteen chapters, but then when it was sent to other churches, ch. 16, together with the words “in Rome” (1:7), were omitted for obvious reasons. The more unusual fourteen-chapter version may possibly have been the work of Marcion or his disciples.

4. OCCASION AND PURPOSE

When Paul’s Ephesian ministry had continued for more than two years, with tremendous impact on the city and province, he sensed that it would soon be time to move to another field of labor. It may be that for some time he had been looking westward toward Rome (see “many years” in Ro 15:23). Now the conviction grew that he must act by beginning to plan for work in the West (Ac 19:21). He had already preached the gospel in the strategic centers of population in the East, and his restless spirit yearned to reach out to places where Christ was not known. He would go through Rome to Spain to plant the gospel there (Ro 15:22–24).

The question naturally arises, Why did this plan dictate the writing of a letter such as Romans? Why not send a note by Phoebe simply to inform the church that he would be coming to them in a short time? What are the reasons for the writing of Romans?

Although this question has been much discussed in recent years, no unanimity has been reached. For a long time, the view of Romans as a time-transcending compendium of doctrine, a kind of final summary of Paul’s theology, reigned supreme. In recent years, however, the occasional character of Romans has emerged with new It is also increasingly observed that Paul probably had several purposes in writing Romans. This seems already apparent in the fact that Paul has three journeys before him as he writes—journeys to Jerusalem, Rome, and Spain. The probable truth is that Romans is directed both to specific realities in the churches of Rome and at the same time constitutes a systematic presentation of Paul’s gospel. Though it is clearly not an abstract doctrinal treatise, yet that it is a deliberately systematic presentation of Paul’s gospel can hardly be doubted.

There are some obvious specific reasons for Paul’s desire to write a full account of his understanding of the gospel. First, since Paul hoped to go beyond Rome, even as far as Spain, he evidently expected to have in the Roman church a base of missionary operation comparable to Antioch in the East. If this was to be realized, he needed to share with the church a rather complete exposition of the gospel he had been preaching for over twenty years. By putting this exposition in writing and sending it ahead, he would give the Christian community in Rome an opportunity to digest the message and be ready to share in the extension of the gospel to the West. Jacob Jervell has suggested another possibility: Romans may be a defense of Paul’s gospel that the apostle intended to present to the Jerusalem church (cf. 15:28, 31; Ac 21:21–22)—a defense he thought useful to send also to the Roman church in preparation for his Another factor may have entered in. The very passage that sets forth his plan and purpose is followed by one requesting prayer for his safety and success as he went on to Judea (to deliver the offering collected for the church there) prior to leaving for Rome. Particularly ominous is his expressed need to be delivered from unbelievers in Judea (Ro 15:31). The plot by Jews at Corinth against his life (Ac 20:3) may already have been made and become an omen of future events. Possibly at this point intimations from the Holy Spirit began to warn him about the imprisonment and afflictions that awaited him (Ac 20:23; cf. 21:11). What if he should not live to declare the gospel in the West? Then he must write a letter so systematic and comprehensive that the church would be able intelligently to continue his work, proclaiming the very gospel he was spelling out for them, taking it in his stead to the farthest reaches of the empire. For all he knew at the time, this letter might be in a sense his last will and testament, a precious deposit bequeathed to the church and through it to the community of the faithful everywhere. John Drane argues that Paul wrote this letter to define his gospel in the light of the challenge by the Judaizers:“What we have in this, his magnum is therefore a conscious effort to convince himself as well as his opponents that it is possible to articulate a theology which is at once antilegalistic without also being Manson’s theory that the apostle provided a copy of the letter to go to Ephesus (see DESTINATION AND would fit into this concept, such a copy being intended as a lasting memorial to him and a blueprint for intensified evangelization by his friends in the yet unreached regions of the East. But believers at Ephesus must already have been well informed about the gospel after Paul’s long ministry in their midst. So Manson’s conclusion is speculative. We should not overlook the distinct possibility that, in addition to its evangelistic function, Romans may have been designed to meet needs within the congregation, for alongside its kerygmatic materials it abounds in teaching. The degree to which Paul was familiar with conditions within the church at Rome may be debatable, but it is highly probable that he knew a good deal about them. Beginning at least from the time of his contact with Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth, he doubtless had a fairly continuous stream of information about the church, especially during his stay at Ephesus, since travel to and from Rome was relatively easy. The number of people listed in ch. 16 suggests many individual sources of information.

Yet for Paul to exhibit on the surface too intimate a knowledge of conditions in the church would be indelicate and might even betray the confidence of his informers. Likewise, to deal with these problems too directly and pointedly would be unseemly in view of his personal detachment from the Roman situation. Consequently, passages that may seem a little broad and general might well have been penetrating and highly relevant to the Christians at Rome, who could hardly avoid seeing the passages as a reference to themselves and thus feel compelled to wonder at the unexpected discernment of an apostle who had not set foot in their city. Especially pertinent in this regard is the tension between Jews and Gentiles within the church (cf. 11:18), two groups that may be approximately identified with the weak and the strong (see 15:1–8). Then there is the warning not to be lifted up with pride because of Israel’s being set aside (11:20–21), followed by a reminder that this setting aside is temporary (11:25–26). The very fact that Jews and Gentiles (rather than general humanity) are given so much prominence in the main theme (1:16) and in the section that demonstrates the need for salvation (1:18–3:20) argues for the impact on the apostle of this tension at the time of writing.

5. COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH

The problem of the composition of the church at Rome has divided students of Romans through the years. The church seems clearly to have been a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile congregations. But can we decide whether the believers were mainly Gentiles or mainly Jewish Christians? At the outset Paul seems to refer to his readers as Gentiles (1:13; cf. 1:5–6), and this should incline us to think of the church as predominantly Gentile. On the other hand, there is also evidence that may point to Jewish readers—for example, where the apostle speaks of Abraham as “our forefather” (4:1) and in the passage where he deals with the law (presumably the Mosaic) and says that his readers know it (ch. 7). These passages, however, constitute no guarantee that the readers were necessarily Jewish, since Gentile Christians could also claim Abraham as their father (cf. 4:11), and those Gentile believers who had earlier been God-fearers would also have known the Scriptures from their synagogue attendance. Furthermore, Paul was always careful to teach the spiritual kinship that existed between the Israel of the past and the people of God in the Christian dispensation. As to the familiarity of Roman Christians with the Mosaic law, we know that Paul feels perfectly free to quote the Law and other portions of the Scriptures even when writing to obviously Gentile churches—e.g., Galatians and Corinthians. Furthermore, in writing to the Galatian churches about the purpose of the law, Paul affirms that it “was put in charge to lead us to Christ” (Gal 3:24). Though Gentiles were not under the law, they were to profit from it as a guide leading and impelling them to Christ as Savior. With consistency, Paul preserves the same stance in writing to the church at Rome.

There remains, however, the fact that the apostle devotes three chapters (9–11) to the nation of Israel. The failure of this people as a whole to turn to Jesus as the Messiah was a source of deep grief to him. One may well ask,Was it not to inform and comfort a church essentially in the same position as himself that he discusses this matter at such length? Not necessarily. Here one can ask a counterquestion:Would Paul be at pains to warn Gentile believers in direct terms not to take their position for granted and lapse into a false security (11:13) if he were writing for the benefit of a chiefly Hebrew-Christian group?

Going back to the solid fact that Paul addresses the church as Gentile in character (1:13), we must ask ourselves whether chs. 9–11 might have a special purpose as addressed to Gentile believers. These people could certainly learn much from the passage—namely, the obvious advantages God had given the Jew, his own sovereignty in setting them apart as his chosen people, his righteousness in cutting them off as far as national privilege was concerned, and his faithfulness to covenantal commitments to be seen when the nation by repentance and faith would be restored. Gentile believers could find much here to warn them and much to lead them to prayer and witness on behalf of Israel. When these considerations are added to the generous use of the OT in the development of the theme of Romans, it becomes clear that Paul is concerned, lest Gentile Christianity lose sight of its heritage in OT history and revelation.

6. LITERARY FORM

Of the four types of writing found in the NT (gospel, acts, epistle, apocalypse) the epistle is by far the most common. The word itself is a transliteration of the Greek epistole m(GK meaning “a communication,” usually of a written nature. Romans bears this label in 16:22 (“letter”). Paul uses the word fairly often in reference to his correspondence with churches (e.g., 1Co 5:9; Col 4:16; 1Th 5:27). There is also a reference to his writings in 2 Peter 3:16 (“all his letters”).

The appropriateness of using the word “epistle” to describe Paul’s written works has been challenged in modern times by Adolf who contended for a distinction between epistle and letter, based not on the form but on the intent of the author. He reasoned that the epistle has a public character, often being of an official nature, intended to be preserved for posterity, whereas the letter is a private communication dealing with matters of the moment and not expected to survive for scrutiny by future generations. Furthermore, Deissmann pictured Paul as a rough artisan possessed of little literary skill and requiring the aid of a secretary in composing his letters. Such a view is certainly not in accord with the judgment even of Paul’s opponents (cf. 2Co 10:10). C. H. Dodd exposed the fallacy of this view when he acutely observed, “That [Paul] was not born to a proletarian status seems clear from the tone of his letters. A man born to manual labour does not speak self-consciously of ‘labouring with my own hands’” [1Co The very fact that we can speak of a Pauline style shows in itself that even when Paul used an amanuensis, the mold of his thinking was well preserved. A passage such as 1 Corinthians 13 can hardly be attributed to an assistant.

Deissmann’s weakness was his failure to recognize the wide gap between the letters found in the nonliterary papyri and the letters of Paul. The latter are not properly classed as private correspondence; indeed, even the most personal, the letter to Philemon, was directed also to the church that met in his house. So we must conclude that as far as Paul’s writings are concerned, the line between private and public letters cannot be sharply drawn. One may with perfect propriety describe them either as letters or as epistles. As letters, they are direct, unstilted, relevant to the needs of the moment; as epistles, they convey in elevated and beautiful expression the timeless truth of the gospel intended by God for all generations.

Many have observed that Romans is almost like an essay, showing comparatively little attention to the personal needs and pressing problems of the readers; in this respect it is strikingly different from 1 Corinthians, for example. Such a difference is not unexpected, since Paul did not found the Roman church and was doubtless acquainted with only a limited number of its constituency (ch. 16). But the difference should not be overstated because, as we have already indicated, Paul is to some extent addressing himself to the situation of his readers. For example, he would hardly have allowed himself to discuss the problem of the strong and the weak (14:1–15:7) at such length had he not learned that this was a matter of concern to the Roman church. Again, his warning about “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in [the] way” (16:17) could reflect awareness of actual threats to the unity and soundness of the church. The source of his information could have been one or more of the friends listed by name in the closing chapter.

7. THEOLOGY

Romans satisfies the craving of the human spirit for a comprehensive exposition of the great truths of salvation set out in logical fashion, supported and illumined by OT Scripture. The systematic element includes due attention to doctrine and life—and in that order, because right relations must be established with God before one can live so as to please him and mediate his blessings to others.

The question as to what is most central to Pauline theology has been long debated. Some have said that it is justification by faith. Others have insisted that life “in Christ” is the secret, for it lifts one out of the rigidity and barrenness of legal terminology, disclosing the positive and dynamic relationship the believer may have with God’s Son. Thankfully, we do not have to choose between these two, because both are important in Paul’s presentation. Without justification there can be no life in Christ (5:18), and such life in turn confirms the reality of justification.

Salvation is the basic theme of Romans (cf. 1:16)—a salvation presented in terms of the righteousness of God, which, when received by faith, issues in life (1:17). It is helpful to realize that “salvation,” “righteousness,” and “life” are primarily eschatological terms. The apostle talks about salvation with a future reference (13:11). Righteousness, too, in the absolute sense, belongs only to the perfected state. Again, life comes to fullness of meaning only in terms of the future (6:22; cf. Mk 10:29–30).Yet all of these future realities are to be entered into and enjoyed during the earthly pilgrimage of the saints. Salvation is a present reality (Ro 10:10). So is righteousness (4:3–5). So is life (6:23; 8:2). In the last analysis, only the grace of God permits us to participate now in that which properly belongs to the future.

Though Romans does not give special instruction about the Trinity, it clearly delineates the respective responsibilities of the members of the Godhead. The gospel of salvation, which is the theme of the letter, is called “the gospel of God” at the very beginning (1:1) before it is called “the gospel of his Son” (1:9). God’s righteousness must be reckoned with, both by sinner and by saint, for it is the basis of judgment and the wellspring of salvation. The Son of God is held up to view also from the first, because the gospel centers in him (1:3). He is the one through whom the grace of God is mediated to sinful humanity in justification, reconciliation, and redemption. The man Christ Jesus is set over against the first Adam as the one who has succeeded in undoing the universal ruin wrought by the fall (5:12–21) and who now sustains and preserves all who put their trust in him (5:10). The Spirit’s role is to nurture the new-creation life of the children of God by providing assurance of their sonship (8:16), release from the bondage of sin (8:2–4), effectiveness in prayer (8:26–27), and experience of the love of God (5:5), as well as other joys of the spiritual life (14:17). It is the Spirit who crowns the saints with the confident hope of the bliss of the better state that is to come (8:23; 15:13). The Spirit also provides the dynamic for Christian service (15:19).

It is not possible, however, to claim for the epistle a complete coverage of doctrine. Salvation is central in Romans, yet its climax in terms of the future coming of the Lord is not unfolded to any extent (cf. 13:11). The glorification of the saints is given some attention (8:18, 19, 23) and the future salvation of Israel is spoken of in 11:26, but these subjects are not developed fully. Furthermore, though the word “church” appears five times in ch. 16, it is not itself a theme for definitive instruction in Romans. Too much can be made of this seeming incompleteness, however. From chs. 9–11 it appears that Paul is deeply concerned about the composition of the church, about how Jew and Gentile relate to it in the divine plan. Again, any attempt to deal with the concept of “covenant” is lacking, for the two references (9:4; 11:27) say nothing about the new covenant in Christ (cf. 2Co 3; Gal 3–4). That there should be no mention of the Lord’s Supper may seem strange, especially since baptism is mentioned (Ro 6:4). But in Romans Paul is not concerned with ecclesiology, at least not in the sense of giving it specific (as opposed to incidental) treatment. Despite these omissions, it remains true that nowhere else in Scripture is the subject of salvation dealt with so systematically and in such breadth and thoroughness.

In the so-called practical section of the epistle (chs. 12–15), the effect of these great truths (“the mercies of God”) is set forth in terms of transformed conduct. Christians have a life to live in this world as well as a faith to hold and a fellowship to enjoy. Paul was pastor as well as preacher. In Romans, as in his other letters, his theological teaching was given not merely for the sake of information but always to build up and encourage the people of God.

8. THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL

In the last twenty-five years, a revolution in Pauline studies has been underway. This revolution centers on the understanding of Second Temple Judaism and Paul’s relation to that Judaism. There had already been a tendency among Jewish scholars to see Paul as increasingly But in 1977, E. P. Sanders published his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress), a book that was to have an enormous impact on Pauline scholarship. From his survey of Jewish literature Sanders concluded that the Judaism of Paul’s time was not legalistic, i.e., that the Jews did not attempt to gain salvation by observance of the works of the law. Instead, their observance of the law was within the prior framework of the covenant; hence Judaism was, in Sanders’s phrase, a “covenantal nomism.” A fair view of Judaism shows that it is as much a religion of grace as is Christianity. The salvation of the Jews depends not on observance of the law but on the election of Israel—a matter of pure grace, as the OT indicates.

The traditional understanding of Paul as one who opposed the idea of righteousness before God as something gained by works of the law is now therefore regarded by some as wrongly conceived. It has been dubbed a “Lutheran” reading of Paul, namely, a reading of Paul in the light of Luther’s private struggle with the issue of righteousness. This point had been made nearly fifteen years earlier by Krister Stendahl in a now-famous article, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the These developments have given rise to a reevaluation of the place of the law in Paul’s theology, which affects greatly the interpretation of Romans. The so-called “new perspective on Paul,” as for example represented in the writings of J. D. G. a main proponent of this view, argues that Paul had no fundamental problem with the law per se. He only opposed the law insofar as it constituted Jewish identity markers (i.e., circumcision, Sabbath laws, and dietary laws) that by definition excluded the Gentiles from salvation. Paul’s problem, as it has been put, was not grace but race. Paul has no polemic against works of the law as the means of salvation since no Jews (according to Sanders’s thesis) would have thought of the law as the means to salvation.

There is little to quarrel with in the contention that Judaism ideally conceived—i.e., in its best representatives—was a religion of grace and not works-righteousness. At the same time, however, there is also little reason to doubt that there were probably many de facto legalists—persons who lived daily life as though their salvation depended on observance of the law. The postexilic emphasis on the law had the practical effect of pushing the law to center stage and the covenant to the wings rather than maintaining a healthy balance between law and covenant. There is, moreover, a natural human tendency to believe that one must earn one’s way with God. Paul’s language about the law is much easier to understand if he is arguing against such a mistaken perspective. Only if we understand Paul as mounting a basic soteriological argument with equal relevance for both Jew and Gentile can we do justice to passages such as Galatians 2:16; 3:10–14; and Romans 3:20, 28; 4:4–6; 5:20; 11:6.

On the other hand, as we will see, in a few passages (e.g., Ro 2:6–10, 13–16; 3:31; 8:3–4) where Paul speaks positively about the law, the new perspective could make good sense, were it not for Paul’s overwhelmingly negative polemic against the law as a means of salvation. It is Paul’s position on the universality of human sin and its single antidote in the death of Christ that leads us to the conclusion that his critique of the law has to do with more than its function in specifying national identity markers. The law is not a problem simply for the Gentiles; it is also a problem for the Jews. For the Jews too, and not only the Gentiles, the issue is nothing less than the basis of salvation or justification.

It is, of course, clear that Paul would have been opposed to the law conceived of as the marker of national identity, insofar as it excluded Gentiles from the possibility of salvation. But this represents only a relatively small part of Paul’s “problem” with the law of Moses. For in Paul’s view, many, if not most, Jews had misunderstood and therefore misused the law. Paul’s statements in Romans concerning the law are hardly less than revolutionary in

9. CANONICITY

Since ancient authorities regularly include Romans without question, the full canonicity of Romans has never been seriously challenged. Marcion had it in his list, as does the Canon of Muratori. Although its position in the various lists is not uniform, from the fourth century onward and even in the third ( of the Chester Beatty Papyri collection), Romans stands at the head of the Pauline Epistles. Though the reason for this is its length—since the NT epistles are primarily ordered by length—there is nevertheless a suitability to its being first in the Pauline corpus as the supreme exposition of the Pauline gospel. Indeed so powerful is this document that, consciously or unconsciously, it serves for many as a canon within the canon, the classic interpretation of the meaning of Christ’s work.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following is a selective list of commentaries and monographs on Romans available in English, confined for the most part to those referred to in the commentary (they will be referred to simply by the author’s name [and initials only when necessary to distinguish two authors of the same surname]). In instances where the same author has written a commentary as well as (a) book(s) and/or (an) article(s), the commentary will be referred to by the author’s name, and the book(s)/article(s) by the author’s name and short title.

References to resources that do not appear in the bibliography will carry full bibliographic details at the first mention and thereafter a short title.

Achtemeier, Paul J. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the 2nd rev. ed. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991.

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Translated by E. C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933.

Bengel, John Albert. New Testament Word 1864.Vol. 2. Translated by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent. Repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Byrne, Brendan. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996.

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Translated by R. Mackenzie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1975, 1979.

Denney, James. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Expositor’s Greek New Testament. Vol. 2. Pages 557 — 725. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1904.

Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Moffatt New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1932.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Revised and expanded edition. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. 2 vols.Word Biblical Commentary 38. Dallas:Word, 1988.

Edwards, James R. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992.

Fitzmyer, J. A. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Godet, Frédéric. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 1883. Translated by A. Cusin. Repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Translated and edited by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Leenhardt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Translated by H. Knight. London: Lutterworth, 1961.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Revised edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994.

Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Meyer Kommentar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Mounce, Robert H. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Translated by C. C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949.

Sanday,William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the International Critical Commentary. 5th ed. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1902.

Schreiner,Thomas R. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1994.

Taylor,Vincent. The Epistle to the London: Epworth, 1955.

Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 20. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972.

11. OUTLINE

I. Introduction (1:1 — 15)

A. Salutation (1:1 — 7)

B. Paul and the Church at Rome (1:8 — 15)

II. Theme: The Gospel as the Revelation of the Righteousness of God (1:16–17)

III. The Need for Salvation:The Plight of Humankind (1:18 — 3:20)

A. In the Pagan World (1:18 — 32)

B. Principles of Judgment (2:1 — 16)

C. Specific Guilt of the Jew (2:17 — 29)

D. God’s Faithfulness and Justice (3:1 — 8)

E. Summary (3:9 — 20)

IV. Justification:The Imputation of Righteousness (3:21 — 5:21)

A. Justification as the Answer to the Sinfulness of Humanity (3:21 — 26)

B. The Availability of Justification through Faith Alone (3:27 — 31)

C. The Illustration of Justification from the Old Testament (4:1 — 25)

1. The Case of Abraham (4:1 — 5)

2. The Case of David (4:6 — 8)

3. The Promise to Abraham—Prior to and Apart from Circumcision (4:9 — 12)

4. The Promise to Abraham—Apart from the Law (4:13 — 17)

5. Abraham’s Faith the Standard for Every Believer (4:18 — 25)

D. The Benefits of Justification (5:1 — 11)

E. The Universal Applicability of Justification (5:12 — 21)

V. Sanctification:The Impartation of Righteousness (6:1 — 8:39)

A. The Believer’s Union with Christ in Death and in Resurrection Life (6:1 — 14)

1. The Statement of the Fact (6:1 — 11)

2. The Appeal Based on the Fact (6:12 — 14)

B. Union with Christ Viewed as Enslavement to Righteousness (6:15 — 23)

C. Union with Christ Viewed as Deliverance from Law (7:1 — 6)

D. The Relationship between Law and Sin (7:7 — 13) E. The Struggle to Observe the Law (7:14–25)

F. The Blessings of Life in the Spirit (8:1 — 39)

1. Liberation by the Spirit from the Law of Sin and Death (8:1 — 13)

2. Additional Ministries of the Spirit (8:14 — 27)

3. The Security and Permanence of the Life of the Redeemed (8:28 — 39)

VI. The Problem of Israel: God’s Righteousness Vindicated (9:1 — 11:36)

A. Paul’s Sorrow over Israel’s Condition (9:1 — 5)

B. God’s Choice of Israel Based on Election, Not on Natural Generation or Works of Merit (9:6 — 13)

C. God’s Freedom to Act in His Own Sovereign Right (9:14 — 29)

D. Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness Due to Reliance on Works Rather Than Faith (9:30 — 10:21)

E. Israel Not Entirely Rejected;There Is a Remnant of Believers (11:1 — 10)

F. Israel’s Temporary Rejection and the Salvation of Gentiles (11:11 — 24) G. Israel’s Future Salvation (11:25 — 32)

H. Praise to God for His Wisdom and His Ways (11:33 — 36)

VII. Our Spiritual Service:The Practice of Righteousness (12:1 — 15:13)

A. The Appeal for Dedication of the Believer (12:1–2)

B. Varied Ministries in the Church, the Body of Christ (12:3 — 8)

C. Principles Governing Christian Conduct (12:9 — 21)

D. The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority (13:1 — 7)

E. The Comprehensive Obligation of Love (13:8 — 10)

F. The Purifying Power of Hope (13:11 — 14)

G. Questions of Conscience Wherein Christians Differ (14:1 — 15:13)

1. Christians Must Refrain from Judging One Another (14:1 — 12)

2. Christians Must Avoid Offending One Another (14:13 — 23)

3. The Unity of the Strong and the Weak in Christ (15:1 — 13)

VIII. Conclusion (15:14 — 16:27)

A. Paul’s Past Labors, Present Program, and Future Plans (15:14 — 33)

B. Personal Greetings,Warning Concerning Schismatics, and Doxology (16:1 — 27)

Text and Exposition

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1–15)

A. Salutation (1:1–7)

OVERVIEW

The opening lines of Romans follow the basic ancient letter form: A to B, greeting. In a way that he is particularly fond of, Paul expands the elements of this form with material that sets the tone and anticipates what follows. In vv.1–6, allowing himself unusual length, he describes both his calling and the gospel he proclaims.

a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

COMMENTARY

1 As in all of his letters, Paul uses his Roman name, The shift from “Saul” occurs in the biblical context where he came in contact with a Roman official (Ac 13:6–12). Paul’s relation to Christ is primary, so to express his attachment to his Lord he uses the term “servant” GK lit., “slave,” suggesting full, but not unwilling, obedience). By beginning in this fashion, Paul initially puts himself on the same plane as his readers. But Paul is more than a “servant” of Jesus Christ. He is an “apostle” by divine calling (the sense of “called” here; cf. 1Co 1:1) and accordingly possesses a special authority as Christ’s appointee. This would include not only his right to preach the gospel (believers in general could do that) but to found and supervise churches and, if necessary, to discipline them.

Paul has been “set apart” r GK in order to proclaim “the gospel of God” cf. 15:16). As a Pharisee he had been set apart to a life of strict observance of Jewish law and custom. Now his life’s work has become the proclamation of the gospel, the good news God has for humanity—something this epistle will focus on powerfully. Possibly Paul locates the time of this “setting apart” at the Damascus Road commission (cf. Ac 9:15; 26:16), but more probably he thought of it as occurring already at his birth. Thus in Galatians 1:15–16 he refers to being “set apart” (using the same verb as in Romans) before he was born (perhaps an allusion to Jer 1:5) and being called to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

The word “gospel” GK in its verbal form has a rich background in the LXX. The “proclamation of good news” in Isaiah (40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1) comes readily in the NT to indicate good news referring to Jesus Christ (cf. Jesus’ citation of Isa 61:1 in Lk 4:18).“The gospel of God” is what Romans is all about.

2 Before the historic events providing the basis for the gospel message unfolded, God “promised” the good news in the prophetic Scriptures (16:26). Promise means more than prophecy, because it commits the Almighty to make good his word, whereas a prophecy could be just an advance announcement of something that would happen. The concept of promise and the associated idea of God’s faithfulness permeate Romans (see, e.g., 4:13–25; 9:4; 15:8). God did not invent the gospel to cover up disappointment over Israel’s failure to receive Christ. The gospel was God’s purpose from the beginning (cf. 1Pe 1:20). Nor did Paul create the gospel, which was “his” (Ro 2:16; 16:25) in an entirely different sense (cf. Gal 1:10). The reference to “the Holy Scriptures” prepares the reader for the rather copious use of the OT in Romans, beginning with 1:17. For Paul, as for the early church, the gospel is the fulfillment of the OT expectation.

3–4 The gospel above all centers in God’s “Son,” who at the end of v.4 is referred to as “our Lord.” These two verses appear to enshrine and adapt an early liturgical confession. This seems evident not only from the weighty content of the material but especially from the balanced, antithetical form: (lit.) “born of the seed of David according to the flesh”; “appointed Son of God according to the Spirit [or, possibly, his spirit] of holiness.” In the original manuscripts all the letters were capitals, and hence it is not clear whether the word “Spirit” here should be capitalized—i.e., whether this is a reference to the human spirit of Jesus or a reference to the Holy Spirit. The balanced construction of kata pneuma (GK over against kata sarka (GK may suggest “spirit” in contrast to “flesh,” perhaps making the point that the human nature of Jesus was so holy, so absolutely free of sin, that death could not hold him (cf. Ac 2:24). If one takes this statement as a flesh-spirit antithesis, this would be a reference to the twofold nature of Jesus Christ: as to his humanity a descendant of David; as to the holiness of his spirit, his deity, the Son of God. More probably, however, “Spirit of holiness” is a Hebraic way of referring to the Holy Spirit rather than to Jesus’ spirit, and these two clauses are to be understood as sequential. That is, in the humility of the incarnation Jesus was born a descendant of David, but now through “his resurrection from the dead” he has been appointed Son of God in power by means of the Spirit.

There may be a suggestion here that Jesus, anointed and sustained by the Holy Spirit in the days of his flesh, was acknowledged by the fact of the resurrection to have successfully endured the tests and trials of his earthly life, having been obedient even to death. By resurrection he has become a life-giving spirit (1Co 15:45). His rising was indeed “from the dead.” But Paul says more: “of the dead” (the simple genitive nekr GK suggesting that Christ is the forerunner of others in this transformation (cf. 15:20–21).

“As to his human nature,” i.e., becoming a man, he became not only an Israelite (9:5) but a son of David (Mt 1:1; Lk 1:32; Ac 13:22–23; 2Ti 2:8), a qualification he needed as Messiah (Isa 11:1). With the affirmation of the divine sonship of Jesus at the beginning of v.3, Paul guards his whole statement from doing service for a heretical, adoptionist Christology. We have here a three-stage Christology (cf. Php 2:6–11). The period of Christ’s earthly life and ministry was followed by another phase—that which resulted from his resurrection. The point of “declared” or “appointed” GK is not that Jesus here became the “Son of God” for the first time but rather that his sonship, veiled by the incarnation, is made unmistakably plain by the resurrection. “With power” GK may belong with “declared,” but it may with greater warrant be joined with “Son of God,” indicating the new quality of life Jesus had after his resurrection (Php 3:10; Col 1:29).

Appropriately, Jesus Christ is now described as “our Lord” kyriou [GK h m Though the title was fitting during his earthly ministry, it attained more frequent use and greater meaning following the resurrection (Ac 2:36; 10:36). Notable is the fact that in this initial statement about the gospel nothing is said concerning the redeeming work of Christ, which is reserved for later consideration (Ro 3:21–26; 4:25; 5:6–21). It was the infinite worth of the Son that made his saving work possible.

5 Now the apostle returns to his responsibility to proclaim the good news (cf. v.1). Two problems present themselves in v.5, and they are somewhat related. Who is indicated by “we,” and how should one understand the phrase “all the Gentiles”? Clearly, in using “we” Paul cannot be including his readers, because they did not possess apostleship. He could be referring to other apostles, of whom the Roman believers must have heard, but this would be unexpected, and it is not amplified. Mention of the intended sphere of labor—“among all the Gentiles”—makes the limitation of the “we” to Paul (as a literary plural) natural, since the Gentiles constituted his special field of labor (cf. 15:16, 18, where the word “obey” corresponds to the word “obedience” in this passage). On the other hand, “all the Gentiles” tois can equally well be rendered “all the nations” or “all peoples” (cf. Mt 28:19). This would favor the wider reference of “we” to all the apostles, since Israel would be included as one of the peoples. It is difficult finally to decide this question. The mission of Paul in preaching the gospel is “for his name’s sake,” i.e., for the glory of Jesus Christ.

Paul’s apostleship is by the calling (cf. v.1), and hence the grace, of God. “Grace and apostleship” are probably to be understood in the sense of “the gift of apostleship” (a hendiadys, the two words referring to one thing). “Grace” GK the unmerited favor of God, is a word of key importance to Paul since it captures the essence of the gospel.

The desired response to the gospel message is “the obedience of faith” n piste GK which probably means “the obedience that comes from faith.” It would be equally possible, however, to understand these words as an apposite genitive: “the obedience that is faith.” After all, Paul’s gospel calls preeminently for faith (cf., e.g., 10:9–11). Of course, it also calls for obedience, and for Paul the two are ultimately inseparable. (On obedience, see 15:18; 16:26; on faith, see 1:16–17; 10:17.)

6–7a Just as Paul was “called” to apostleship (v.1), the readers too are “called to belong to Jesus Christ” and “called to be saints.” The idea here is the divine initiative that is responsible for their conversion (cf. 2Ti 1:9–10). The readers are “loved by God”; they are the recipients of unmerited love , Gk that makes grace possible. The word “saint” GK the common term designating believers, has almost the same force as the expression Paul uses for himself when he says he was “set apart” (v.1). While it does not indicate actual condition (as opposed to position) of righteousness, the designation implies the holiness to which every child of God is called (Ro 6:19, 22). On the words “in Rome,” see Introduction, p. 23).

7b At length the apostle is ready to extend a greeting to his readers—“grace to you and peace.” Ordinary letters of that period usually contained a single word meaning “greeting” (as in Jas 1:1). Paul, however, is partial to terms with theological import. He desires for his readers a continuing and deepening experience of spiritual blessing that only God can bestow. “Grace” is above all the word that captures the essence of God’s favor toward sinners; “peace” n , GK refers to the fruit of grace, a šālôm (GK 8934) that connotes ultimate well-being in every regard. It is important to note that the Father and the Son are the joint benefactors. While the NT contains several explicit statements of the deity of our Lord, in addition it has many that imply this deity, as here in the formulaic linking of God and Jesus.

NOTES

3–4 Paul probably makes use of a Christological formula not original with him but presumably known to the Roman church. This judgment is based on the absence of mention of the Davidic descent in the Pauline Epistles (2Ti 2:8 being widely regarded as deutero-Pauline), the unparalleled use of “the Spirit of holiness,” and likewise the use of (“declare”)—a word attributed to Paul in Acts 17:31 (“appoint”) but not appearing in his writings—and the absence of any reference to the death of Christ. There are other examples of brief creedal statements in Paul (e.g., 1Co 8:6), and there is probably enough reason to warrant the conclusion in this case that the passage is pre-Pauline. But we cannot be certain. It is worth noting that in Acts 13:33–35 Paul is credited with emphasizing, in close connection with each other, three items found in Romans 1:3–4, namely, the sonship of the Messiah, his relation to David, and his resurrection from the dead. On these verses, see P. Beasley-Murray,“Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus,” TynBul 31 (1980): 147–54.

5 See Don B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith”: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (WUNT 2.38; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991).

B. Paul and the Church at Rome (1:8–15)

OVERVIEW

Still following the general format of the Greek letter, Paul proceeds to a proper introduction that includes thanksgiving and intercession in behalf of the readers, as well as indicating his hope of visiting them in the near future.

I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

COMMENTARY

8 The salutation has been unusually long, and now, instead of moving to his theme at once, the apostle lingers over introductory matters. Doubtless he felt the need of getting acquainted, so to speak, by unburdening his own heart about what his readers meant to him. It is a shining example of his pastoral concern mingled with gracious sensitivity in dealing with the saints.

First of all, Paul must express his thanks to God for his readers. This was customary, and in all of his letters, with the exception of Galatians, he includes an expression of thanks. He thanks God above all for the faith of the Roman believers (cf. Eph 1:15–16; Col 1:3–4; 1Th 1:3). He offers his thanks “through Jesus Christ,” the One on whom the gospel itself depends (cf.“the gospel of his Son” [v.9]). He furthermore thanks God for “all of you” because every Christian is important to Paul.

Not without reason Paul has become known in Christendom as “the apostle of faith.” To him, faith was the basic Christian virtue, and he was eager to commend it. Here the commendation is exceedingly generous, even hyperbolic: the whole world has heard of their faith (cf. 1Th 1:8). It was Paul’s habit to praise believers when this was in order. If rebuke had to be given, it would find a more ready reception if the way was prepared by heartfelt appreciation.

9–10 Paul’s statement about his thanksgiving is followed by a statement concerning his prayer—both intercession for them and a special plea that his hope of coming to be with them, providing it is God’s will, will be realized. The whole of Paul’s life was conditioned by the reality of God’s sovereignty. He refers to his preaching of the gospel as a matter of serving , Gk God “with my whole heart,” i.e., with his whole being. The word “serve” has the connotation of worship (the same root being used in the expression “spiritual act of worship” in 12:1) or being “a minister …with the priestly duty” (15:16).

But why should Paul find it necessary to summon God as his witness that he had been faithful in praying for the Roman believers? There are two reasons. For one thing, he had been praying “constantly” (cf. “at all times” in v.10). Paul prayed regularly for the readers, and they were never far from his mind. This seems almost too much to expect of a man who did not know most of them. Furthermore, as he will tell his readers later (15:25), he is about to leave for Jerusalem, and this could give the appearance of his not putting the visit to Rome high among his priorities. Here, as elsewhere, when Paul calls God as his witness, it is because the thing he is claiming may seem difficult to believe.

11–12 The apostle confesses to a great desire to see his readers, not simply that he might come to know them personally, but that he might minister to them. By “spiritual gift” GK we are probably not to understand the more special charismatic gifts (the purpose “to make you strong” is not favorable to such a view), since Paul does not specify any particular gift and avoids the plural (cf. 1Co 12:1). Moreover, his own prominence in the contemplated bestowal hardly makes room for the specialized gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1Co 1:7). But no sooner has this sentiment been expressed than it is halfway recalled, being revised because it seems to suggest that blessing will flow only one way—from Paul to the church. So he alters his language to make room for mutual encouragement and upbuilding. Paul wants to underline that he shares a common faith with the readers and that he therefore can be on the receiving end as well as on the giving end. Verse 12 emphasizes this mutuality t s en all lois piste s hym n te kai lit., “through the in-one-another faith, both yours and mine”).

13 As Paul had prayed constantly for the Romans, so he had planned many times to visit them, but again and again the plan had to be set aside. Rhetorically, the introductory words “I do not want you to be unaware” function to emphasize the following point (cf. 11:25; 1Co 10:1; 12:1; 2Co 1:8; 1Th 4:13). There is no intimation of satanic opposition, as in the case of the attempt to visit the Thessalonian church (1Th 2:18), so we are left with the supposition that his work in the East had involved him so completely that he did not see his way clear to break away for the projected trip to Rome.

His hope to have “a harvest” among his readers should not be interpreted narrowly, as though he is hinting that some in their ranks need to be evangelized. Probably we are to think in terms of the mutual upbuilding referred to in v.12. “The other Gentiles” indicates that Paul thinks of the Roman church mainly in terms of its Gentile membership.

14 Paul looks forward to his visit, but he also considers it an obligation. On what is this based? He has already laid the groundwork for such a statement by acknowledging that he is Christ’s servant (v.1) and that he has been given a charge to take the gospel to all peoples (v.5). In mentioning “to Greeks and non-Greeks GK he seems to have in mind all humanity, Jewish and non-Jewish members of the human race. He is carrying forward the term he has just used at the end of the previous verse—Gentiles.

The Hellenistic writers Philo and Josephus tended to think of the Jews as a third group. Philo in particular had the concept that the Jews, with their special religious advantages, were destined to be the people who, by means of their universal faith, could unify these diverse groups. In classical and even in early Hellenistic times, the Greeks were prone to include the Latins among the But by the time of Paul this was no longer the case. The Romans had become the caretakers of Hellenic civilization. This being so, it is probable that in using barbaroi Paul had in mind the territory beyond Rome to the East, where he had worked, and to the West, where he soon hoped to go. At the same time, when v.15 is taken into account, it should be granted that he would not have to look beyond Rome itself with its diverse population to find representatives of both groups.

The “wise” are not being equated with the Greeks, for this would mean that non-Greeks are being dubbed “foolish,” which would be unwarranted. The wise are perishing in the midst of their worldly wisdom (1Co 1:18–21) and the foolish in their abject simplicity. Both need the gospel.

15 How heartwarming is the apostle’s attitude toward his obligation! Instead of considering it a burden he must bear, a duty he must carry out, he is “eager” to fulfill it. If one has the finest intellectual and formal preparation for preaching but is lacking in zeal, one cannot hope for much success. The call to preach and the need for the message together constitute the preacher’s compelling incentive to proclaim the message of salvation. On the words “also to you who are in Rome,” see Introduction, p. 23.

NOTES

14 In the word , the first two syllables are the same, which points to the original force of this word as indicating a stammerer. Later it came to mean “non-Greeks,” i.e., those who did not use the Greek language. A further development was its application to uncivilized people, where it takes on the meaning of “savage,” which is the usual connotation of the word “barbarian” today.

II. THEME: THE GOSPEL AS THE REVELATION OF THE

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (1:16–17)

OVERVIEW

Paul now offers his definition of the gospel and a statement concerning the basis of the gospel in the saving activity of God. These initial thesis sentences are foundational and provide themes that will occupy Paul for the remainder of the letter.

am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

COMMENTARY

16 Having confessed his fervent desire to preach the gospel at Rome, Paul goes on to give the reason for his zeal to preach the gospel. He has no sense of reserve about his mission. “I am not ashamed” is rhetorical understatement (litotes) pointing to Paul’s confidence in the gospel. He does not in any way consider his task unworthy or one that will prove to be illusory. He is ready to challenge the philosophies and religions in Rome that vie for attention, because he knows, on the basis of his experience in the East, that God’s power is at work in the proclamation of the good news and that it is able to transform lives. The gospel is nothing less that “the power of God” (cf. 1:1), foretold in the prophets (v.2), concerning the Son of God, Jesus Christ (v.3). “Power” here refers to the intrinsic efficacy of the gospel. It offers something desperately needed by humanity and not to be found anywhere else—a “righteousness from God” (v.17).

The linkage between power and salvation is striking. Judaism was prone to think of the law as power, but this is not affirmed in Scripture. As for salvation, the OT is clear in its teaching that, whether it is conceived of physically as deliverance (Ex 14:13) or spiritually (Ps 51:12), it comes from the Lord. This is maintained in the NT as well and is affirmed in Paul’s statement that the gospel is “the power of God” for salvation. So when the apostle permits himself to say that he himself saves some (1Co 9:22), it is only in the sense that he is Christ’s representative who is able to proclaim the way of salvation to others.

“Salvation” t GK is a broad concept. It includes the forgiveness of sins but involves much more, because its basic meaning is “soundness” or “wholeness.” It promises the restoration of all that sin has marred or destroyed. It is the general term that unites in itself the particular aspects of truth suggested by “justification,” “reconciliation,” “sanctification,” and “redemption.” But its efficacy depends on a person’s willingness to receive the message. Salvation is available to “everyone who believes.” That is, salvation is by “faith.” (In Greek,“believe” , GK and “faith” GK are from the same root.) This sweeping declaration concerning “everyone who believes” ties in with the previous statement (concerning Greeks and non-Greeks) and now includes both the Jew and the Gentile. The Jew receives “first” mention. This does not mean that every Jew must be evangelized before the gospel can be presented to Gentiles; it does mean that the gospel is in the first instance the fulfillment of the hope of Israel (cf. Ac 28: 20) and must therefore be proclaimed first to the Jews. In this era of fulfillment, just as Jesus came first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24; 10:6), so now the gospel concerning Jesus must first go to the Jews. Thus to them was given the first opportunity to receive him, both during his ministry (Jn 1:11) and in the Christian era (Ac 1:8; 3:26). Paul himself followed this pattern (13:45–46). The theological priority of Israel rests on the reality of God’s covenantal faithfulness. The Gentiles are latecomers (Eph 2:11–13) and, as Paul will declare later on, foreign branches grafted into the olive tree (Ro 11:17).

17 Next the apostle passes to an explanation of his statement that the gospel means salvation for those who receive it by faith. The reason given is that this salvation discloses (lit.) “the righteousness of God” [GK Paul depends on the OT for this language (Isa 46:12–13; cf. 61:10). Note how in the verses just mentioned “righteousness” and “salvation” are nearly equivalent terms. “In the Hebrew tradition, early and late, God’s righteousness is the way he acts, and notably the way he acts in maintaining the covenant” (Ziesler, 186). Such an idea was quite foreign to Greek thought. Clearly, the character of God is involved in the sense that what he does and provides must be in keeping with his nature (cf. Ro 3:26). But just as clearly, the expression must go beyond this to include the activity of God whereby he extends salvation to his people. The gospel would not be the good news if it simply disclosed the righteousness of God understood as an abstract description of God’s character. Such a message would scarcely demand faith. In view of humanity’s sinful state, it could only create fear. But salvation as God provides it and offers it is fully in keeping with his righteous character. God saves because he is faithful to his covenantal promises.

“The righteousness of God” thus refers to God’s saving activity. The significance of this may be seen by looking at Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:9, where he contrasts his pre-Christian state, in which he had a righteousness based on his activity of observing the law, with his present situation, in which he rests on a righteousness which is of (from) God, based on faith. God’s righteousness in the present context, while it has an implied reference to his character, stresses divine provision. What this entails will be unfolded in due course. In earlier letters Paul had already taught that Christ was the medium for the bringing of righteousness from God to sinful humanity (1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:21).

Somewhat baffling is the twofold reference to faith: “from faith to faith” piste s eis cf. NIV, “by faith from first to last”). Are these two prepositional phrases to be joined to the verb “revealed,” or should they be taken with God’s righteousness as indicating how that righteousness is to be received? The position in the sentence may be said to favor the former alternative, but the resultant sense is obscure. Furthermore, when Paul restates the theme of his letter (3:21–22) in such a way as to take account of the intervening material, he mentions God’s righteousness as manifested (corresponding to “revealed” in 1:17), then repeats the word “righteousness” and characterizes it as a righteousness “through faith” piste and for all who believe. These phrases are probably to be understood as a recapitulation of what has been said in 1:17.

Assuming, then, that we are to connect the statement about faith with God’s righteousness, we must still inquire into the distinctives of the two phrases involving faith. Among the numerous suggestions are these: “from the faith of the preacher to the faith of the hearer”; “from OT faith to NT faith” (based on the quotation immediately following); “entirely from faith”; and “from faithfulness [God’s] to faith [human],” as Barth, 41, interprets it. These various renderings understand “from” as a point of departure. This would be entirely legitimate if the preposition was but it is which Paul uses repeatedly with faith when indicating the basis on which God grants justification (3:26; 5:1; Gal 2:16) or righteousness (Ro 9:30; 10:6)—a fact that incidentally shows how readily the term “righteousness” can take on the force of “justification.” The really troublesome element here is the second phrase,“to faith.” Perhaps what it conveys is the necessity of issuing a reminder to the believer that justifying faith is only the beginning of Christian life. The same attitude of faith must govern believers in their continuing experience as children of God.

Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 is of very great importance. Bruce, 78, rightly says that it “may be called the ‘text’ of this Epistle; what follows is in large measure an exposition of the prophet’s words.” The order of the Greek words presents some ambiguity. Are we to understand this text as saying, “The righteous will live by faith,” or, “The one who is just by means of faith shall live”? That is, do the words “by faith” piste which occur in the Greek in the middle of the sentence, modify the preceding words (“the righteous,” ho GK or do they modify the verb that follows (“will live,” z GK If it is the former, the meaning amounts to, “a person who is righteous by faith—that person will live.” If the latter, the meaning amounts to, “a righteous person—that person will live in accordance with his or her faith [= will live faithfully].” Since the apostle quotes the same passage in Galatians 3:11 to show that one is not justified by law but rather by faith, it is probable that he intends the reference in the same way here. It would also be consonant with the argument that Paul is about to pursue. Since the quotation is used in Romans at the beginning of his argument, where he confronts the problem of the sinner’s getting right with God, the wording that fits most closely the movement of thought should be chosen. At this point Paul is not concerned with how the justified person lives but how the sinner can be considered just (“righteous”) in the sight of God, i.e., how the sinner can “live” in the sense of having “salvation.” Righteousness as a matter of ethical conduct is reserved for later treatment (chs. 6–8). Ethical righteousness depends on right relation to God, so the latter merits priority of treatment.

Paul presents a unique form of Habakkuk 2:4, omitting the personal pronouns found both in the Hebrew (= “his” faith[-fulness]) and LXX (= “my” [i.e., kyrios faith[-fulness]). Since the word pistis (GK can mean either “faith” or “faithfulness,” the ambiguity of the text is increased. Paul’s understanding of the text is closer to the form represented in the LXX. (For a different understanding of the text, see Heb 10:37.) Does Paul’s form of the text indicate his knowledge of the Hebrew and LXX forms and a desire to steer between the two? We know that he would endorse the truth that the Christian is not only justified by faith but is also expected to live by faith in order to please God. Without question, such an emphasis has its place. But only when the initial problem of the sinner’s plight has been met does Paul turn to ethical paranaesis. The liberty involved in using a quotation in a way somewhat different from its original setting is made possible by a Jewish hermeneutic governed by a prior conviction of fulfillment “this is that”). This practice was also common in Judaism before Paul’s time, as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran community, for example, applied Habakkuk 2:4 to their own situation by an interpretative elaboration.“Its interpretation concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will free from punishment on account of their deeds and of their loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab 8.1). Here the passage is made to do service on behalf of the special type of piety, grounded in the study of the Torah, which distinguished the Qumran community.

NOTES

17 On the righteousness of God, see Ernst Käsemann,“The Righteousness of God in Romans,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82; S. K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90.

Of the various efforts to handle “from faith to faith,” Barth’s is the most intriguing, being based on the double meaning of , as “faithfulness” and “faith.” It is a very plausible progression to move from God’s prior faithfulness to human faith as the appropriate response. The LXX can be translated, “The just shall live by my faithfulness,” or,“The just shall live by faith in me” (cf. the construction in Ro 3:26). Both statements are true and relate to each other as two sides of the same coin. It is likely that Paul is reaching beyond faithfulness to what underlies it, namely, faith. He uses , in Romans 3:3 when writing of God’s faithfulness, but when he states his theme, the argument requires him to insist on the more fundamental concept of faith. The very fact that in the previous verse (v.16) he has posited faith (in its verbal form) as the necessary condition for receiving salvation creates a presumption that faith in v.17 (second and third occurrences) will have the same connotation.

On the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17, see D. M. de dikaios ek piste s z in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis ed. B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 13–25; D. S. Dockery, “The Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Some Hermeneutical and Theological Considerations,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 24–36.

III. THE NEED FOR SALVATION: THE PLIGHT OF HUMANITY

(1:18–3:20)

OVERVIEW

Instead of plunging into an exposition of the gospel, Paul launches into a lengthy exposure of the sinfulness of the human race. This is sound procedure, for until people are persuaded of their lost condition they are not likely to be concerned about deliverance. So Paul undertakes to demonstrate in the universal human situation a grievous lack of the righteousness God requires. The root of the problem is the failure of human beings to acknowledge God. The result is the power of sin over all, Jews and Gentiles both, and the consequent moral paralysis of the human race. The climax of the discussion, as well as its main goal, is to show that the Jews, too, are in need of the gospel.

A. In the Pagan World (1:18–32)

OVERVIEW

Paul takes aim first mainly at the idolatry of the pagans. A knowledge of God was available to them, but they refused it, turning instead to gods of their own making. And their accompanying choice of immorality was confirmed by the true God, who “gave them over” (three times: vv.24, 26, 28) to their sins. Here then we find the explanation of the gross immorality of the nations and the long history of human unrighteousness. In this section the Gentiles are mainly in focus, but this does not exclude an application also to the Jews.

The background of vv.18–32 has been much discussed. Since the use of the past tense predominates in this section, are we to conclude that Paul has in view some epoch in the past when sin manifested itself with special intensity? This is unlikely, for he moves now and again to the present tense also. The conclusion is that the description fits his own time as well as earlier ages. If this were not so, the passage could scarcely deserve a place in the development of the theme. At the same time, deliberate allusion to earlier eras is not impossible.

Another problem is raised by the sweeping nature of the charge made in this portion of the letter. Are we to believe Paul is charging every pagan with this total list of offenses? Such a conclusion is unwarranted. Sinful people are capable of committing all of them, but not every individual is necessarily guilty of each and every one.

A further query concerns the originality of the presentation. Was the apostle dependent on earlier sources? The image of the fall of Adam in the Genesis account (Ge 1–3) seems to hover in the background (cf. v.23 with Ge 1:20, 24). As we will see, somewhat the same ground is covered in the work of Second Temple Judaism titled Wisdom of Solomon. This product of Hellenistic Judaism reproaches the nations for their idols and, like Paul, notes a connection between idolatry and fornication (Wis 14:12). But the development of the thought is not fully the same, for a resort to idolatry is related to human ignorance of God (13:1), whereas Paul emphasizes a limited knowledge of God gleaned from his works. In another Jewish source Naph. 3:2–4), the forsaking of the Lord by the Gentiles is noted as resulting in sexual perversion:

Sun, moon, and stars do not alter their order; thus you should not alter the Law of God by the disorder of your action. The Gentiles, because they wandered astray and forsook the Lord, have changed the order, and have devoted themselves to stones and sticks, patterning themselves after wandering spirits. But you, my children, shall not be like that: In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature.

Undoubtedly, the synagogues of the Diaspora made use of material of this kind in trying to proselytize Gentiles. None of it would have seemed strange to Jewish readers. And they would have been fully on track with the criticism of pagan immorality.

wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. they claimed to be wise, they became fools exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

COMMENTARY

18 At the outset it is important to observe the correlation between righteousness and wrath. In parallel statements, both are represented as being “revealed” GK as in v.17). As previously observed, full salvation in terms of divine righteousness awaits the future, being eschatological in nature; but salvation also belongs to the present and is appropriated by faith. Similarly, wrath is an even more obviously eschatological concept, yet it is viewed here as parallel to the manifestation of righteousness, belonging therefore to the present age. It is “revealed” or “being revealed” (so NIV, reflecting the progressive present tense). This means that the unfolding of history involves a disclosure of the wrath of God against sin, seen in the terrible corruption and perversion of human life. This does not mean that the price of sin is to be reckoned only in terms of the present operation of wrath, for there is a day of judgment awaiting the sinner (2:5). But the divine verdict is already in some measure anticipated in the present. “Paul regards the monstrous degradation of pagan populations, which he is about to describe (vv. 24–27 and 29–32), not as a purely natural consequence of their sin, but as a solemn intervention of God’s justice in the history of mankind, an intervention which he designates by the term paradidonai [GK give over” (Godet, 101).

Paul states that “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven.” It is difficult to accept Dodd’s assertion, 47–50, that we are mistaken to conclude that God is angry. Dodd notes that Paul never uses the verb “be angry” with God as its subject. He further points out that in the Pauline corpus “the wrath of God” appears elsewhere only in Ephesians 5:6 and Colossians 3:6. Most of the time we encounter the simple “wrath” or “the wrath,” which appears intended, according to Dodd, to describe “an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe.” It is precarious, however, to make much of the fact that God is not directly linked with wrath in every Pauline reference. The context usually makes it clear when the divine wrath is intended. In the passage before us, the words “from heaven” are decisive. As Gustaf Dalman Words of Jesus [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909], 219) points out, “from heaven” in the Gospels means “from Furthermore, since there is a wrath to come that will inevitably involve God, there is no reason why he should not involve himself in manifesting his wrath in the present. Human objection to the idea of the wrath of God is often molded, sometimes unconsciously, by the human experience of anger as passion or desire for revenge. But this is only a human display of wrath, and one that is corrupted. God’s wrath is not to be thought of as merely or purely an emotion but primarily as his active judgment (cf. 13:4–5, where its juridical character is evident). It is “the necessary response of a perfect and holy God to violations of his will” (Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002], 56).

The object of the divine wrath is twofold—the “godlessness and wickedness” of humanity. Paul explicates the first term in vv.19–27 and the second in vv.28–32. “Godlessness” GK means a lack of reverence, an impiety that arrays a person against God, not simply in terms of neglect but also of rebellion.“Wickedness” GK means injustice, relating to the immorality that destroys human relationships. The two together point to human failure regarding the commandments of both tables of the Decalogue. As Nygren, 101, puts it, “a wrong relation to God is the ultimate cause of man’s corruption.”

They “suppress the truth by their wickedness” (v.18). Unrighteousness has a blinding effect not only on its perpetrators but also hinders others from seeing the truth. Presumably the truth referred to here is basically the truth about God (cf. v.25). Suppression of the truth implies knowledge of the truth, and what this involves is explained next.

19–20 The creation bears clear witness to its Maker, and the evidence is “plain to them.” Here Paul enters into a discussion of what is usually designated as natural revelation in distinction from the special revelation that comes through the Scriptures. Four characteristics are noted. First, it is a clear and perceivable testimony, as the word “plain” implies. Second, from the use of “understood” (v.20), the revelation does not stop with perception but is expected to include reflection, the drawing of conclusions about the Creator. Third, it is a constant testimony, maintained “since the creation of the world” (cf. Ac 14:17). Fourth, it is a limited testimony in that it reflects God in certain aspects only, namely, “his eternal power and divine nature.” One has to look elsewhere for the full expression of his love and grace, i.e., to the special revelation of Scripture and especially to the revelation of God in his Son (Jn 1:14). Natural revelation is sufficient to make humanity responsible: “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5; cf. Ps 19:1–4; Isa 40:12–31). But such knowledge is not by itself sufficient to accomplish salvation. The element of power is common to the two spheres of nature (v.20) and grace (v.16). Acquaintance with it in the former area should have prepared people to expect it in the latter. But they have failed and are left “without excuse.”

21–22 Despite the knowledge of God conveyed to human beings through the creation, they failed to act on it. They neither “glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.” Humans are religious beings, and if they refuse to let God have the place of preeminence that is rightfully his, then they will put something or someone in God’s place.

The suggestion that emerges from “their thinking became futile” is that mythology and idolatry grew out of humanity’s insistent need to recognize some power in the universe greater than itself, coupled with the refusal to give God the place of supremacy. It is highly suggestive that the verb “to become futile” ,Gk is paralleled by a nominal form n matai “worthless things,” GK used in Acts 14:15 for idols. It is clear that idols are unreal and unprofitable, and their service can only lead to futility and further estrangement from the true and living God. The irony of v.22 should not be missed: Supposed wisdom so often turns out to be foolishness (cf. 1Co 1:23–29).

23 This abandonment of God in favor of inferior objects of worship is traced in a descending scale here. “Mortal man” is the first substitution. The Creator is forsaken in preference for the creature. Scripture gives us an example of the deification of a human in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Da 3:1–7; cf. Daniel’s rebuke of Belshazzar in 5:23). In Paul’s day, the cult of Caesar had spread throughout the empire. Before long, Caesar and Christ would be competing for the worship of the Roman Empire. In modern times, the Western world may have outgrown crass idolatry, but humanism has subtly injected the worship of the human being without the trappings. God is quietly ruled out and humanity is placed on the throne.

The next stage is the worship of animals. Verse 23 owes its wording largely to Psalm 106:20. The context there refers to the sin of Israel in making a calf at Horeb and bowing down to this molten image (see Ex 32). Paul makes one change in the text of the psalm, which reads, “They exchanged their Glory for an image of a bull, which eats grass” (cf. Wis 11:15; 12:24; 13:10). To the psalmist, God is the glory of the Israelites. Paul seems to make the glory of God his spirituality, in contrast to any attempt to express his majestic excellence in physical terms (cf. Ex 20:4).Whereas Paul is dealing with a characteristic sin of paganism, in the allusion to Horeb he resorts to OT history for an illustration. God did not and could not condone idolatry in the people he had chosen. His judgment fell heavily when there was no repentance (cf. Ex 32:28), even to the point of desolation and deportation from the land he had given to Israel. Jewish readers would have been very familiar with the polemic against idolatry (see, e.g., Isa 44:9–20).

24 The opening word, “therefore,” carries the reader all the way back to the mention of the revelation of God’s wrath, taking in also what lies between. The false worship just pictured is God’s judgment for abandoning the true worship. Ironically and tragically, religion in its various cultic forms is a species of punishment for spurning the revelation God has given of himself in nature. This should dispose of the naive notion that religion as such is necessarily a beneficial thing for mankind. On the contrary, it is in many cases a means of keeping people so occupied with falsehood that they never arrive at a confrontation with the true God.

“God gave them over” becomes a refrain (vv.24, 26, 28) that in each instance follows the reference to their own decision: “they exchanged” (vv.23, 25–26). God in effect confirms the choices already made. Here the reference is to the judgment of God (cf. delivering over “to Satan,” 1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20); it is also used of God’s judgment on Israel for idolatry (Ac 7:42). In our passage, the reference is principally to Gentiles. (Israel was largely purged of idolatry by means of the captivity in Babylon.) We are not told how this “giving over” was implemented, but most likely we are to think of it in negative terms—i.e., that God simply took his hands off and let willful rejection of himself produce its ugly results. There is no direct, redemptive intervention here such as was granted to Israel by sending prophets to rebuke God’s people concerning their unfaithfulness.

It is no surprise to find reference to sexual immorality here. In Jewish polemic, a connection between idolatry and sexual immorality was often made (cf. Wis 14:12). How true is the observation that “their foolish hearts were darkened” (v.21). Paul was no stranger to the matter he discusses here. Writing from Corinth, where prostitution was so common, he must have been keenly aware of this scourge that affected the moral life of the city so adversely.

25 While many versions are content to render it “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” the definite article precedes “lie” and probably should be brought out in the translation. This is the lie above all others—the contention that something or someone is to be venerated in place of the true God. Bengel, 26, makes the laconic observation that this is “the price of mythology.”

The indictment here is that by a wretched exchange humanity came to worship and serve “created things rather than the Creator.” An alternative translation is possible—“more than” in place of “rather than.” But the flow of the argument demands the latter. It is not that humanity grants God a relative honor in their devotion, but none at all. They have wholly rid themselves of him by substituting other objects in his place. This should be sufficient to banish the notion that in the practice of idolatry people simply use the idol as a means of worshiping God (cf. Hos 14:3). Contemplating this abysmal betrayal, the apostle cannot resist an outburst to counteract it. The Creator “is forever praised.” God’s glory remains, even though unacknowledged by many of his creatures. There is only one true God.

26–27 For the second time the sad refrain is sounded—“God gave them over” again to immorality, with emphasis on perversion in sexual relations. The sequence Paul follows—idolatry, then immorality—raises the connection between the two. Sanday and Headlam, 50, make a helpful suggestion: “The lawless fancies of men invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to follow their own unbridled passions.” Men and women went so far as to project their own license on to their gods, as a perusal of the Homeric poems readily reveals. Sinning against God results in their sinning against their own nature.

Paul’s use of “exchanged” is suggestive. The first exchange, that of the truth for the lie, is followed by another—the upsetting of the normal course of nature in sexual relations. Instead of using the ordinary terms for men and women, Paul employs arsenes (“males,” GK and th leia (“females,” GK This perversion is the unique contrivance of the human species, not being found in the animal kingdom. It was apparently abundantly evident in first-century Rome. At the end of this section, the apostle uses two expressions, “received” and “due penalty,” which in the original involve the idea of recompense, the punishment being in keeping with the offense. It can hardly be denied that for Paul hom*osexuality is “unnatural” GK lit., “against nature,” v.26), and involves “shameful lusts.” His perspective would have been dictated by the OT (e.g., Lev 18:22; 20:13). This is a subject that in our day of open advocacy has brought a new urgency and requires a special sensitivity. Stuhlmacher’s conclusion, 37, seems wise:“But now that in the course of the history of the church Paul’s general formulations have led simply to excommunicating hom*osexuals, instead of getting to the root of their distinct behavior, accepting them, and helping them, there does exist for us today a reason not to repeat Paul’s statements without reflection!”

To sum up, what people do with God has much to do with their character and lifestyle. Nygren, 111, writes, “When man attempts to escape from God into freedom, the result really is that he falls prey to the forces of corruption.” Throughout the passage the human race is represented as active—seeing, thinking, doing. They are not represented as victimized, as taken captive against their will, or as the dupes of evil influences from outside themselves.

28–32 Here the second key word of v.18 NIV, “wickedness; NASB, “unrighteousness,” GK reappears (v.29), indicating that this section is to be given over almost totally to a picture of the havoc wrought in human relations because of suppressing the knowledge of God. Paul describes the sinful world that we know all too well from experience. There is a wordplay in the Greek—people “did not think it worthwhile” GK to retain God in their knowledge, so God in turn gave them over to a “depraved GK mind,” which led them in turn to commit all kinds of sin. It is God’s function to judge, but human beings have usurped that prerogative in order to sit in judgment on him and dismiss him from their lives. The prior emphasis on the mind is in accord with the appraisal of our Lord, who traced the wellspring of sinful acts to the inner life rather than to environmental factors (Mk 7:20–23). The depraved mind is explained in terms of what it approves and plans—“to do what ought not to be done,” namely, what is “offensive to man even according to the popular moral sense of the Gentiles, i.e., what even natural human judgment regards as vicious and wrong” 3:440).

29–31 Scholars have found it difficult to detect any satisfactory classification in the long list of offenses included here. It can be pointed out, however, that the initial group contains broad, generic descriptions of sin. The first of these, “wickedness” or “unrighteousness” by its derivation, is the antithesis of righteousness, denoting the absence of what is just. The term “iniquity” expresses it rather well. It necessitates the creation of laws to counteract its disruptiveness, lest society itself be rendered impossible. The next term, “evil” GK denotes what is evil not in the sense of calamity but with full ethical overtones, signifying what is sinister and vile. This is the term used when the devil is called “the evil one.” The third word, “greed” GK indicates the relentless urge to acquire more (cf. Col 3:5). “Depravity” is an attempt to render kakia (GK a term that indicates a condition of moral evil, emphasizing its internal and resident character. It is related to the word translated “malice” GK later in the text, but the latter goes further, denoting malignity, a mind-set that attributes evil motives to others without provocation.

Among the final twelve phrases, “God-haters” GK stands out, since it alone is related directly to an attitude toward the Almighty. But it is not isolated, not introduced without reason. The hatred that vents itself on God readily finds objects of its displeasure among his creatures. When human beings come to the place of worshiping themselves, overweening and insolent pride is the inevitable attitude assumed toward others. Some of the descriptions Paul uses here are not found again in his writings or elsewhere in the NT, but four of them occur in 2 Timothy 3:2–3 in predictions of the state of society in the last days.

32 The final item in the indictment is climactic. It is prefaced by the reminder that people have not lacked a sufficient knowledge of “God’s righteous decree” dikai ma [GK tou God’s requirement (see 2:26; 8:4). If the knowledge of his “eternal power and divine nature” (v.20) was sufficient to obligate them to worship God with gratitude for his benefits, the knowledge of his righteousness innate in their very humanity was sufficient to remind them that the price of disobedience would be death. Yet they were not deterred from their sinful ways by this realization. In fact, they were guilty of the crowning offense of applauding those who practiced wickedness in its various manifestations. Instead of repenting of their own misdeeds and seeking to deter others, they promoted wrongdoing by encouraging it in others, allying themselves with wanton sinners in defiant revolt against a righteous God.

B. Principles of Judgment (2:1–16)

OVERVIEW

In turning to this section, one can recognize considerable similarity with 1:18–32. Human inadequacy in the light of divine standards continues to characterize the discussion (cf. “without excuse” in 1:20, and “no excuse” in 2:1). The indictment continues to be stated first in broad terms, with no indication whether the people in view are Jews or Gentiles (cf. 1:18; 2:1), but as the picture unfolds, the Jews come into focus just as the Gentiles had in the previous section. Likewise, in both portions general terms for sin are followed by very specific accusations (cf. 1:18 with 1:23, 26–32 and 2:1–16 with 2:17–29).

therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. “will give to each person according to what he has done.” those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. God does not show favoritism.

who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

COMMENTARY

1–4 A stylistic change occurs here. The apostle shifts to the second person singular and enters into dialogue with an imagined interlocutor who has absorbed what was said up to this point and shows by his attitude that he is in hearty agreement with the exposure of Gentile wickedness. This type of dialogue with an imaginary opponent, known as a “diatribe,” was a common rhetorical device in the Greco-Roman world. That Paul had actually experienced such encounters in his missionary preaching is hardly open to doubt. We may have an echo here of just such occasions.

1 The implication in the opening verse is that a Jewish auditor, heartily endorsing the verdict rendered concerning the Gentiles, fails to realize his own plight. True judgment rests on the ability to discern the facts in a given case. If one is able to see the sin and hopelessness of the Gentiles, one should logically be able to see oneself as being in the same predicament. But it is possible to be so taken up with the faults of others that one does not consider one’s own failures (cf. Mt 7:2–3). The charge that the person who passes judgment on others does the very same things is enlarged in 2:17–24. There is a real sting in the allegation “you … do the same things,” for the word prass (GK NIV, “do”; NASB, “practice”) is the term used in 1:32 for the practices of the benighted Gentiles. Paul repeats it in 2:2. The Jewish critic is also without excuse (cf. the same word, anapolog GK 1:20). “What Paul is here especially concerned about is to break down the supposed protection on which the Jew depended. There is no escape for the Jew in the fact that he aligns himself with God in judging the unrighteousness of the heathen” (Nygren, 118).

2–3 As Paul moves to state the first of the principles of divine judgment (v.2), he carries the observer with him. Surely this person will agree (“we know”) that when God pronounces judgment on those who make a practice of indulging in sin, his judgment is based on This has no reference to the truth of the gospel but simply means that the judgment is reached on the basis of reality, on the facts of the case and not on the basis of appearances or pretensions. “Do you think you will escape God’s judgment?” (v.3). Two words are emphatic here—“think” “count as reality,” GK and the redundant (in the Greek) pronoun sy (“you”) in front of “will escape.” Paul is reading the inmost thoughts of the Jewish debater, whom he understands thoroughly from his own pre-Christian experience. That Judaism could be guilty of such complacency is clear from a passage in Wisdom that immediately follows the portion already noted about pagan idolatry and immorality: “But you, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours. For to know you is complete righteousness” (Wis 15:1–3a).

4 Paul carries the probing deeper still, suggesting that in addition to self-righteousness, with its accompanying false security, there is an ignoring and despising of the fact that God, to be true to himself, must bring sin under judgment. There is even a scornful attitude toward God’s tolerance toward his people Israel, as though that tolerance were but a confirmation of their security, if not a sign of weakness on God’s part. “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong” (Ecc 8:11). God’s “kindness” toward Israel is noted again at a later and crucial point in Romans (11:22).

In this passage “tolerance” and “patience” seem to be explanatory of “kindness” GK which is repeated as the governing thought. The word rendered “tolerance” has the idea of the restraint of wrath. In classical Greek it is used of a temporary truce. “Patience” or “long-suffering” refers to God’s merciful tolerance of our failures. The intent of the kindness is to give opportunity for “repentance” GK cf. 2Pe 3:15), a term that surprisingly occurs in Romans only here, though it must have been often on Paul’s lips in preaching (cf. Ac 20:21). In this epistle he places greater emphasis on faith.

5–6 Using language often applied to the nation of Israel in the OT, Paul refers to the stubbornness and impenitence of his Jewish interlocutor, who has been described as guilty of the very things for which he judges others. This attitude invites retribution and is slowly but surely building up a reservoir of divine wrath that will break on the guilty in the day of reckoning. Then God’s “righteous judgment” will be revealed, patent to all, in contrast to the revelation and indirect working of God’s wrath in the present scene, as depicted in ch. 1.

At that time, a second principle of divine judgment will become apparent—one emphasizing performance—namely, that what people receive depends on how they to each person “according to what he [or she] has done GK lit., works]” (v.6). Profession does not take the place of production. This is very close in sense to the first principle (see comments at vv.2–3 above). In view of the comprehensiveness of the passage as a whole, it will hardly do to explain this day of wrath as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The explicit statement that God “will give to each person according to what he has done” points to the final reckoning. National judgment may fit into a temporal scheme, but personal judgment belongs to the frontier of the ages to come. The use of the phrase “day of God’s wrath” is decisive enough to settle the issue.

6–11 Paul’s argument in vv.6–11 is a carefully structured chiasm (a pattern of ABC/C’B’A’), with v.6 corresponding in thought to v.11 (God’s judgment is impartial); v.7 to v.10 (those who do good will be rewarded); and v.8 to v.9 (those who do evil will experience divine wrath). In amplifying the second principle of judgment, Paul makes room for only two broad classes—(1) those “who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality” (v.7) and (2) those who follow an evil course (v.8). The first group is promised eternal life. But what can the apostle mean by his breathtaking assertion that those who “by persistence in doing good” are the ones who obtain eternal life? How are we to understand this affirmation and that of v.13, as well as the statements of vv.14–15 and 26–27, which seem to imply that the law can indeed be kept? Does not Paul here go against the cumulative argument of 1:18–3:20, namely, that observance of the law cannot result in salvation and that all are trapped in their sin?

Short of the desperate conclusion that Paul simply contradicts himself, and instead assuming that Paul knows what he is saying, how are we to put together these apparently disparate strands? Commentators have adopted two main possibilities. The first is that Paul is speaking only hypothetically (so Moo); i.e., if there were any who could keep the law, they would obtain eternal life, but this option is only theoretical (since all in fact “fall short” [3:23]). The other possibility is to conclude that Paul is actually talking about a manifestation (albeit limited) of righteousness that demonstrates loyalty to the law, as exhibited by Christians (so Fitzmyer, Schreiner, Stuhlmacher).

The key to understanding Paul here is the realization that he does not entertain the notion of a Christian who does not produce the fruit of the Spirit, thus fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law (8:4). Paul in v.6 quotes Psalm 62:12 or Proverbs 24:12 verbatim (except for slight variations in the form of the verb). The affirmation that God “will give to each person according to what he [or she] has done” is for Paul a statement of Scripture that he cannot and will not go against. Paul indicates in several other places the continuing importance of what a person does (1Co 6:9–11; 2Co 5:10; Gal 5:19–25). Here is something of a paradox. For Paul, no person can be saved by observing the law. Salvation, as he will soon argue, depends exclusively on being declared righteous through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross. At the same time, however, the person who is justified by faith out of a new nature and empowered by the Holy exhibit righteous living. The effect of this is that those who are given eternal life are, in fact, people marked by righteousness. As Nygren, 127, notes, “Justification does not mean carte blanche for the Christian, so that God no longer asks as to his works.”

Paul does not contradict here what he says later about the impossibility of gaining salvation by means of the works of the law (3:20). These verses do not teach a system of salvation by works. On the contrary, “The reward of eternal life … is promised to those who do not regard their good works as an end in themselves, but see them as marks not of human achievement but of hope in God. Their trust is not in their good works, but in God, the only source of glory, honour, and incorruption” (Barrett, 45). Paul is simply portraying the motivation and tenor of the life that will culminate in eternal fellowship with God. In view is “the one to whom God the creator grants, as an act of free grace, a new nature in righteousness and the spiritual ability to do what is right, and then establishes at the judgment an advocate at his or her side, against whom no accuser can appear” (Stuhlmacher, 47).

As applied to the “seeker” (cf. Ac 17:27), the principle commits God to honor the moral aim and provide the means for making a decision, as we see in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac 8) and Cornelius (Ac 10). Both were seekers making use of the light they had. The good works the believer performs do not bring salvation, but they attest the salvation the believer has already received by faith (Ro 6:22), and therefore they have an essential function (cf. Eph 2:8–10). On the other side of the ledger, we find a pattern of evil defined in terms of self-seeking and rejection of the truth leading to divine wrath (Ro 2:8) in terms of trouble and distress (v.9). In the statement “who reject the truth and follow evil” we detect a distinct echo of 1:18. Destiny does not depend on whether one is a Jew or a Gentile (v.9). The Jews are mentioned first simply because of God’s prior dealing with Israel in history. Mention of the two divisions of humanity leads naturally to the pronouncement of the third principle: God’s judgment is “There is no partiality with God” (v.11). This is the truth that Peter learned in the Cornelius incident (Ac 10:34). Paul’s explanation of this important point belongs to the following paragraph.

12–16 The principle of impartiality has to face a problem as soon as the two groups, Jews and Gentiles, are considered together. God has not dealt with them in similar fashion. To the Jews God has given a revelation of himself in Scripture that has been denied the Gentiles. But in this section, Paul will show that the Gentiles do have a law, and this suffices as a basis for judgment.

12 It is clear that this law has no power to save, for “all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law.” Gentiles do not perish for the reason that they lack the law that Jews possess but because they sin against the law they do have. In speaking of the Jews, Paul says they “will be judged by the law,” but this does not imply exoneration, for no Jew has succeeded in keeping the law.

13 The expression “all who sin under the law” (v.12) could strike a Jewish reader as incongruous, but Paul is linking sin with law deliberately in order to prepare the way for his next statement to the effect that the righteous are not “those who hear the law.” We have a reminder in James 1:22–24 of the ease with which a person could hear the law read and go away without any effect on his or her life and conduct. Those who will be “declared righteous,” by contrast, are the doers of the law (v.13). This is the first occurrence in Romans of the important expression “declared righteous” (NASB, “justified”). Full treatment of this matter must wait until we encounter the term again in ch. 3. Sometimes the verb dikaio (GK may have a general, as opposed to a theological, frame of reference, as in the statement “wisdom is proved right by all her children” (Lk 7:35), where vindication is clearly intended. But the passage before us is dealing with law, sin, and judgment, so that the full theological significance of the word meaning “to declare as righteous” should be retained (see comments at Ro 3:20).

Paul’s purpose is to undercut the position of the person who is counting on obedience to the law for acceptance with God. Compliance would have to be perfect if one were to be declared righteous by an absolutely righteous God (cf. Gal 5:3; Jas 2:10). By analogy, the Gentiles are in essentially the same position, because they also are not without law, as Paul goes on to indicate. The future tense of the verb (“will be declared righteous”) favors the conclusion that final judgment is in view. Paul is not raising false hopes here; on the contrary, he is dashing them—in keeping with the progress of the argument. Only after the flimsy edifice of humanly contrived righteousness has been leveled will the apostle be ready to put in its place the sturdy foundation of the justification provided by God in Christ. Though Paul usually uses the verb dikaio (“justify, declare righteous”) in a realized and positive sense (e.g., Ro 3:24), here the frame of reference is eschatological and negative. Hearing of the law, or mere possession of the law, is no substitute for obedience to the law. (See Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace—To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 [1986]: 72–93.)

14 The opening connective of v.14—“for”—is important as showing that, in the discussion of the Gentile situation to which Paul now briefly turns, he has in mind a presentation designed to counter the boastfulness of the Jews. He seems anxious to avoid the impression that he is discussing the Gentiles in their entirety. (He says “Gentiles,” not “the Gentiles.”) He is thinking of them in individual terms, not as masses. Furthermore, if he encompassed all people except the Jews in his statement, the contrast with the adverse picture of pagans in ch. 1 would be so startling as to suggest contradiction. There are Gentiles who, despite their apparent disadvantage in not possessing the Mosaic law, “do by nature” what the law requires.

What are these things? Presumably they are not matters peculiar to the law of Moses but moral and ethical requirements widely recognized and honored, such as caring for one’s parents and not stealing or committing murder. It is a commonplace of rabbinic teaching that Abraham kept the laws of Sinai long before they were given. Philo 1:5) taught a correspondence between the law and nature, saying that Moses “wished to show that the enacted ordinances are not inconsistent with nature.” Again, Philo notes that Moses begins his work with an account of the creation of the world, “implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the Law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered” 1:3).

Paul states that such Gentiles are “a law for themselves.” By no means does he intend to say that they are indifferent to any law except that which they invent in their self-interest. On the contrary, he goes on to say that they are governed by the particular law that is written on their hearts (v.15). This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren, 124, observes, Gentiles “would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it.” Paul is not asserting this; rather, he is insisting that the basic requirements of the law are stamped on human hearts. Presumably he can say this because human beings are made in the image of God. C. S. Lewis begins his argument in Mere Christianity (1952; repr., New York: HarperCollins, 2001, 3–4) by pointing out that when quarrels develop between people, the thing to be determined is who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The parties may differ radically as to their respective positions on this issue, but they are very clear that there is a right and a wrong. Similarly, despite the great differences in laws and customs among peoples around the world, one thing that unites them in a common humanity is the recognition that some things are right and others are wrong.

15 An additional element that belongs to the equipment of the Gentiles is “conscience.” The translation speaks of their consciences as “bearing witness.” In the Greek prefix syn at the front of the verb, there is an emphasis that does not appear in the translation—“bearing witness We may ask, With what? Only one answer seems possible, namely, with the requirements of the law written on the heart. The two function together. The word “conscience” GK does not appear in the OT. Perhaps this is due to the Jews’ overwhelming awareness of the regulating power of revealed truth. However, the operation of conscience is recognized (e.g., in the guilt of Ge 42:21; 2Sa 24:10), even though the word is lacking.

Paul’s fairly frequent use of “conscience” indicates his indebtedness to his Greek environment and the desirability of capitalizing on a concept that was familiar to his Gentile churches. With reference to this passage, C. A. Pierce in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1955], 86) writes, “That the everyday language of the Gentiles contains a word for confessing to feelings of pain on commission or initiation of particular acts—feelings which carry with them the conviction that the acts ought not to have been committed—is first-hand evidence that the Gentiles are subject, by nature, to a ‘natural law’ as the Jews, by vocation, to the Torah.” So it can be maintained that the function of conscience in the Gentile is parallel to the function of the law for the Jew. The way conscience operates is described as a process of accusation or defense by the thoughts of a person, the inner life being pictured as a kind of debating forum, so that at times he or she is exonerated at the bar of conscience, at other times convicted of wrongdoing.

16 The difficulty to be faced here is the determination of what will take place. Does Paul mean that only at the judgment will conscience be engaged in the manner he has just indicated? This would seem to be a severe limitation, unless the intent is to indicate a heightened operation of this God-given monitor as the soul faces the divine assize. If it is correct to take vv.14–15 as a parenthesis (cf. NIV), then what takes place on the day of judgment is the declaration of righteousness (or otherwise) referred to in v.13.

God’s judgment will include human “secrets” (cf. 1Co 4:5). This is the only court able to assess them. Many an act that seems entirely praiseworthy to those who observe it may actually be wrongly motivated; and contrariwise, some things that may seem to merit stern disapproval may pass muster in this supreme court because the intention behind the deed was praiseworthy. The Jews theoretically admitted judgment and certainly welcomed it in the case of the Gentiles, while trying to shield themselves behind their privileged position. The Gentiles admitted the reality of judgment implicitly by the very process of reasoning that either accused or excused their conduct. What the Gentiles did not know was the item included here—that God will judge “through Jesus Christ” (Jn 5:27; Ac 17:31).

Some interpreters have seen in the statement “as my gospel declares” to euangelion [GK NASB, “according to my gospel”), a fourth principle of judgment intended to be linked with the three already noted. Two of the three principles mentioned earlier are given in the form of similar prepositional phrases with the preposition kata (“according to”): judgment is kata al theian (GK lit., “according to truth”), v.2; and kata ta erga (GK autou (lit,“according to his works”), v.6. But to make the gospel, in the sense of its content, to be the criterion for judgment in this context is clearly wrong, for Paul is not dealing with the gospel in this chapter. What he is saying is that the gospel he preached includes the prospect of judgment and that it will be conducted through the mediation of Christ.

C. Specific Guilt of the Jews (2:17–29)

OVERVIEW

Paul turns now to the question of the advantage of the Jews in terms of their possession of the law and the distinctive mark of circumcision. This advantage (cf. 3:1) is seen as offset by their boastfulness and fruitlessness.

you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? it is written:“God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

COMMENTARY

17–24 Here Paul again engages in dialogue with a representative Jew, making effective use of a superb, razor-sharp irony. He begins by building up this person, citing his various distinctives and appearing to appreciate them (vv.17–20), only to swing abruptly into a frontal assault by exposing the inconsistency between his claims and his conduct (vv.21–24). The Jews were characterized by their reliance on the law, given by God through Moses. The law came to Israel as the result of a relationship with God enjoyed by no other people. In Paul’s time, some of the leaders of Judaism were making such extravagant statements about the law as to put it virtually in the place of God. Many Jews were obsessed with the law to the extent that salvation was wrongly thought to be dependent on obedience to the law. Concern to obey the law could easily become central and obscure the grace of God’s covenantal love. This tendency became even more developed after the fall of Jerusalem, when the law constituted the rallying point for a nation that had lost its holy city and its temple.

Paul concedes that the use of the law will bring knowledge of God’s will and recognition of its superior teaching. Paul refers to it as “the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (v.20). But this is not all, for the Jews think that this advantage makes them superior to the Gentiles. This is what Paul speaks to. We can paraphrase here,“You come to the Gentiles and propose yourself as a guide for their blindness, when, as a matter of fact, as I have already shown, they have a light and a law as well as you. You come to the Gentiles as though they were dumb and childish, giving you the whip hand (as a trainer), which you thoroughly relish. To you they are mere infants, knowing next to nothing.” By employing terms actually used by the Jews for the Gentiles, one after the other—not once suggesting that the Gentiles have anything to their credit but invariably magnifying the Jews—Paul is now in a position to expose Jewish pride and boasting as totally unfounded.

21–24 Abruptly the shadowboxing with Paul’s opponent turns aggressive and the blows become lethal as the Jew is confronted by the disparity between what he or she would teach others as the will of God and his or her own manner of life. The thrust loses nothing of its forthrightness by being posed in a series of questions, for the effect is to turn the complacent opponent back on himself or herself to search his or her own soul.

The indictment is summarized by the general charge of breaking the very law the Jew boasts of (v.23). There is a tragic irony in the fact that the Jew who boasts in God’s law ends up dishonoring God and breaking the law. The reference to robbing temples (v.22) is obscure but may have in view the expropriation of monies or goods from pagan shrines. The failure of the Jews is so notorious that even non-Israelites notice the discrepancy. At this point, Paul introduces a quotation (Isa 52:5; cf. Eze 36:22) about the Jews causing the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. God had been obliged to chasten his disobedient people by permitting them to go into captivity, where their captors made sport of their God, who apparently was unable to prevent their deportation (cf. Eze 36:20–21). Then, as in Paul’s day, the fault lay not with God but with his people, who had refused to obey his law.

25–27 If the law was the major distinctive of the Jews, a close second was circumcision. As with the law, so with circumcision: the nation was guilty of placing unwarranted confidence in the rite. Jewish tradition pictures Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna to ensure that no circumcised person be allowed to enter perdition Rab. 48). The view that only those who were circumcised shared in the world to come was commonly held. Circumcision was to Jewry what baptism is to those who maintain baptismal regeneration. In dividing men into two classes, circumcised and uncircumcised, the Jews were in effect indicating those who were saved and those who were not.

But Paul’s contention is that circumcision and observance of the law cannot be separated. If one has the symbol of Judaism and lacks the substance, of what value is the symbol? Symbols are of value only when there is a reality to which they correspond. Circumcision profits, but only if the law is observed (v.25). The latter is precisely the issue. Lack of obedience to the law nullifies the significance of circumcision. If Gentiles should manifest success in observing the law, the lack of circumcision is surely not so important as to discount their spiritual attainment (cf. the line of thought in 2:14). In fact, says Paul, one can go a step further (v.27) and say that the circumcised may find himself on a lower plane than the despised Gentiles, because if the latter obey the law that the Jews take for granted instead of taking it seriously, then the Gentiles will in effect “condemn” the Jews. This does not involve the bringing of any charge but is a specialized use of the word krin m(“judge,” GK to indicate the effect created by some who surpass others despite an inferior status or limited advantage (cf. Mt 12:41). Such Gentiles appear in a more favorable light than the Jews.

The meaning of dia grammatos kai peritom s (lit., “through having the letter of the law and circumcision,” v.27) is difficult. Calvin’s attempt, 56, to handle the matter by combining the two to make them mean a literal circumcision in contrast to what is spiritual is hardly satisfactory. When Paul wants to make explicit the fact of literal circumcision, he uses the qualifying phrase “in the flesh” (v.28; NIV, “physical”). The basic problem, however, centers in the force of the preposition which when it occurs with the genitive, as here, is normally rendered “through.” But is “through” to be taken as instrumental or in the less common sense of indicating attendant circ*mstance? An example of the latter usage is in Romans 4:11, where Abraham is spoken of as the father of all who believe “through” uncircumcision, i.e., “while” not being circumcised. Clearly this refers not to instrumentality but to the status of these people at the time they believe. Thus the common interpretation is the NIV’s “even though you have the written code and circumcision.” The factor that makes one hesitate is Paul’s shift from nomos (law, GK to gramma (letter, GK One can detect in Paul’s use of the latter term in v.29 and in 2 Corinthians 3:6 a somewhat pejorative connotation—what is written, laid down as law, but lacking any accompanying enablement. If taken in this sense here, something of the force of instrumentality may be detected.

When we are told in v.27 that the Jew dia grammatos kai peritom s is a transgressor of the law, the dia cannot just be translated “in spite of,” as though to denote an accompanying circ*mstance; it must also be given an instrumental significance. It is precisely through what is written and through circumcision that the Jew is a transgressor. He is to see that his true position involves possession of the gramma and the peritom (GK but with no genuine fulfillment of the law, since neither what is written nor circumcision leads him to action (cf. 1:765).

In the immediate context (v.23) Paul also uses dia with the instrumental sense in raising the question of the Jew’s dishonoring of God “by breaking the law.” The transgression of the law is common to both statements.

28–29 That this portion is intended as a conclusion to the discussion of the law and circumcision is evident, for both are mentioned, though the law is referred to only in terms of “letter” (NIV, “written code”) as in v.27. There was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Dt 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26). A real Jew, says Paul, is one who has circumcision of the heart, accomplished “by the Spirit, not by the written code” (cf. 2Co 3:6). How striking this is! The law is part of the Scripture that the Spirit has inspired, yet there is no hint here that the true Jew is one in whom the Spirit has made the teaching of the law dynamic. By the avoidance of any such suggestion, Paul prepares the way for his treatment of the law in ch. 7. He goes on to note that Jews transformed by the Spirit would really be living up to the name they bear, for “Jew” comes from Judah, which means “praise.” They would be praiseworthy in the eyes of God, fulfilling what the law requires but cannot produce (cf. 8:3–4).

Paul writes, of course, as a Christian Jew, as one who has suffered much for his faith from his countrymen. But these closing verses of ch. 2 show that for all the bluntness of his references to the Jews he is not motivated by a desire to belittle his nation on account of the treatment he has received. He rather seeks their highest good (cf. 9:1–3; 10:1). From Paul’s argument it follows that the criteria which mark out one who is truly a Jew can equally be satisfied by (physically) uncircumcised Gentiles. It is not an exaggeration to say that Gentile Christians have become “honorary” Jews, having been brought into the family of God’s people by virtue of their faith in Christ (cf. 4:16–17).

It is worth stressing that Paul is speaking salvation-historically in this chapter. None of these verses should ever be used against the Jews or Judaism in an anti-Semitic fashion. Stuhlmacher, 50, notes, “As spoken by the Jew, Paul, over against Jews, their original purpose is not to declare the election of Israel simply null and void, but to direct the Jews to the reality of the coming God.”

In 3:1–8 a new factor is introduced: Israel’s failure to respond to God in terms of trust and obedience, justifying the visitation of his wrath on them.

NOTES

17 The view that a number of Jews were obsessed with the law to the extent that they regarded their salvation as dependent on observance of the law is a point forcefully denied by the “new perspective” (see Introduction, pp. 29–30).

22 “Do you rob temples [ , is not fully clear. A cognate of the same word occurs in Acts 19:37,“robbers of temples” ( where it covers sacrilege in the general sense of desecrating sacred things. Here a precise, strong contrast is intended. The Jews who have been taught to abhor idols are charged with laying hands on them for the sake of profit. This may sound inconceivable, but if the robbery was directed at the offerings brought to the idol, this was tantamount to robbing the idol and thereby desecrating the temple. Ancient temples were repositories of treasure and were therefore a source of temptation to the avaricious (cf. Josephus, 4:207).

24 See Edgar Krentz, “The Name of God in Disrepute: Romans 2:17–29,” Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990): 429–39.

25–27 On these verses, see Joel Marcus, “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35 (1989): 67–81.

D. God’s Faithfulness and Justice (3:1–8)

OVERVIEW

The subject of the guilt of the Jews is continued, but now with a couple of new emphases: (1) the element of unbelief and (2) the claim of immunity from divine judgment on the strange grounds that God’s faithfulness is thrown into bolder relief by human failure. What reasonable basis remains for acting in judgment?

advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak

and prevail when you judge.”

if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

COMMENTARY

1 The opening question reflects the devastating attack the apostle has launched in the preceding chapter. “Circumcision” (the definite article is used) could serve to denote Israel (cf. 4:9), but here it refers to the rite of circumcision, as in 2:25–27.

2–3 In the light of Paul’s preceding argument (cf. the statement he will make in 3:9), one might well expect a negative answer to the question of v.1. Surprisingly, however, Paul answers his question with the strong statement,“Much in every way!” He begins to enumerate the aspects of that advantage, “first of all,” but proceeds no further than his first point (for what he could have added had he continued, see the fuller list in 9:4–5). As Stuhlmacher, 52, puts it, “The relativizing of the special claims of the Jews in view of the final judgment according to works in no way means for Paul that Jews and Gentiles were equal in terms of the history of election.”

The chosen advantage noted here is that this nation has been “entrusted with the oracles of God” (NASB; NIV, “very words of God”). The Greek word for “oracles,” logia (GK is related to logoi (GK as used, e.g., in Jn 14:24) but has a specialized meaning in classical Greek, where it is used especially for divine utterances, often for those preserved and handed down by earlier generations. Jewish writers used it both for pagan oracles, which they considered false, and for revelations from the God of Israel. LXX usage makes it evident that two elements could belong to a (1) a disclosure of what God proposes to do (especially in terms of prediction, as used in the LXX of Nu 24:16) or (2) a pronouncement of the duty laid on men and women in view of the divine will or promise (e.g., Ps 119:67 [LXX 118:67]).

To be “entrusted” with the divine oracles obviously means more than to be the recipient of them. It means more even than to be the custodian and transmitter of them. What is called for, in the light of the meaning of is faith and obedience. Just at this point the Jews failed (v.3). Paul has already dealt sufficiently with Jewish failure in terms of the law, but here he deals with it in terms of God’s revealed purpose. The statement that “some did not have faith” is reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 10:7–10, where the same author says that some became idolaters, some grumbled, etc. Actually, only two men of the exodus generation pleased God and were permitted to enter the Promised Land. Paul is recognizing the concept of the faithful remnant in Israel.

Is the rendering “did not have faith” acceptable here, or should one regard the NRSV translation, “were unfaithful,” as preferable? The problem is to determine which fits better with the contrasting term—“God’s faithfulness.” We should recall that the oracles of God summon both to faith (in their promissory character) and to faithfulness (in their legislative aspect). From the Jewish standpoint, a logion could involve both halakah and haggadah— something to be done and something to be believed. embraced the promises and much else.) But since Paul has dealt with obligation already in ch. 2, we should perhaps think here in terms of emphasis on the area of belief. Of course, the two concepts of faith and faithfulness are closely related. Barrett, 60, renders it “proved unbelieving,” which fits the context.

We should understand “God’s faithfulness” in terms of the covenantal aspect of God’s dealings with Israel. There are really two sides to this faithfulness—the one positive and the other negative, in line with a similar duality in connection with the righteousness of God (1:17–18). That the negative aspect is before us here is evident from the mention of his wrath (v.5). This is in harmony with a frequent emphasis in the prophets. When Israel fractured the Sinaitic covenant, God’s very faithfulness compelled him to judge his people by sending them into captivity. The positive aspect (which we might have expected from v.1 but which is deferred) will appear in the sustained discussion of God’s dealings with Israel (chs. 9–11).

4 As might be expected, Paul vigorously rejects any suggestion that God could fail in terms of his faithfulness. This is the first of ten occurrences in Romans of the expression “may it never be!” NASB; NIV, “not at all!”), which Paul uses to make a vehement denial of a conclusion that must be resisted. God’s faithfulness is a fixed point in Paul’s universe: “The faithfulness of God is unchangeable” (Bengel, 40). The concept of God’s fidelity is carried forward by the use of a closely related term. He is “true” to his covenantal promises because he is true in himself. If one had to choose between the reliability of God and of human beings, one would have to agree with the psalmist when he declared in his disillusionment, “All men are liars” (Ps 116:11). One of the best men in Israel’s history, declared to be the man after God’s own heart, proved a disappointment. After being chastened for his sin and refusal to confess it for a long period, David was ready to admit that God was in the right and he was in the wrong (Ps 51:4—a psalm traditionally ascribed to David).

5–6 The supposition that human unrighteousness could serve to display God’s righteousness may have been suggested by the passage from Psalm 51 just cited. Is it not possible (so the logic runs) that since human failure can bring out more sharply the righteousness of God, the Almighty ought to be grateful for this service and soften the judgment that would otherwise be due the offender? The question is one Jews might well resort to in line with their thought that God would go easy on his covenant people. So Paul speaks for a supposed interlocutor. The mention of “wrath” ties in with 2:8–9.

Paul’s explanatory statement “I am using a human argument” is due to his having permitted himself to use the word “unjust” of God, even though it is not his own assertion (cf. 6:19). But God is not unrighteous. Paul responds to the suggestion with his strongest form of objection: “May it never be!” (v.6; NASB; NIV, “Certainly not!”; see v.4). “If that were so,” i.e., if God were unrighteous, he would not be qualified to judge the world. The idea is unthinkable—indeed, blasphemous—and there is no need to establish God’s qualifications, since the readers, at least, are not in doubt on a point of this sort about which Scripture is so clear.

7–8 Once more the apostle entertains a possible objection. The thought is closely related to what was stated in v.4, as the similarity in language indicates. Though the construction is somewhat rough, the general sense is clear enough. Speaking for an objector, Paul is voicing the hoary adage that “the end justifies the means”: “Let us do evil that good may result” (v.8). He has evidently had to cope with this in his own ministry, and he will be dealing with it again in a different context (6:1). Here he is content to turn the tables on the objector. If any claim that their falsehood, which throws into sharp relief the truthfulness of God, promotes God’s glory and should therefore relieve the sinner of condemnation, let them ponder the apostolic verdict—“their condemnation is deserved” (v.8).

NOTES

4 The infinitive , krinesthai (GK should probably be taken as a middle rather than a passive (see Cranfield, 1.182; Bruce, 96), so that the second line of the quotation runs, “and may prevail when you judge.”

5 David Daube New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: Athlone, 1956], 396) has examined the expression , kata anthrop on lit., “I speak according to man” (NIV, “I am using a human argument”) in the light of rabbinic usage and has concluded that it is a technical term in Paul’s writing. Daube writes, “It constitutes an apology for a statement which, but for the apology, would be too bold, almost blasphemous.”

E. Summary (3:9–20)

OVERVIEW

Paul’s argument about the human problem of sin reaches its climax in these verses. He seals his argument in the most powerful way, with the quotation of a montage of Scripture passages that indict humanity before the bar of God’s righteousness. Paul’s argument about sin thus finds its basis and final authority in Holy Scripture.

shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

is no one who understands,

no one who seeks God.

have turned away,

they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good,

not even one.”

throats are open graves;

their tongues practice deceit.”

“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

feet are swift to shed blood;

and misery mark their ways,

the way of peace they do not know.”

is no fear of God before their eyes.”

we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

COMMENTARY

9 Questions of both text and punctuation confront us at this point. As to text, we need not hesitate to accept proechometha (GK rendered “Are we any better?” Other renderings of this word are possible (see Notes). The basic idea of the verb is “to stand out, excel, surpass,” and this is the most likely sense here. There is a difficulty, to be sure, in that the word could be either middle or passive in voice. If it is middle in force as well as in form, the sense is,“Do we have a defense?” or, “Do we excuse ourselves?” But the middle may well be used here in an active sense, as is often done with other verbs, hence,“Are we any better?” If a passive, the sense is, “Are we excelled?” i.e., “Are we worse?” (NASB text note). In Paul’s view, the Jews are neither better nor worse; they are under sin, just as are the Gentiles.

Assuming that Paul is identifying himself here with the Jews, of whom he has been speaking, the question would suggest that the indictment of the Jews has been so severe as to open the possibility that the Gentiles are actually in a better position. But insufficient ground has been provided to suggest such a possibility. So the best conclusion is that Paul intends to question once more whether the Jews have an edge over the Gentiles. His answer, “Not at all!” registers an emphatic denial. Such a denial may seem to be in conflict with the statements in vv.1–2, and for this reason some would render it, “Not absolutely.” But in vv.1–2, he deals with the distinctive position of the Jews in the divine economy; here he is dealing with the Jews’ moral and spiritual fitness—how they stand before God in terms of fulfilling their God-given role.

Paul backs up his denial of Jewish superiority by reminding his readers of the charge he has been bringing, namely,“that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin.” To be “under sin” is to be imprisoned under its sway and condemnation. No one escapes this plight except through the death of Christ, as Paul will tell us, beginning in 3:21.

10–18 A final and clinching argument seals the verdict: the testimony of Scripture. Writing to those who are for the most part Gentiles, Paul does not set down Scripture first and then work from that as a base for exposition (which is the method used in the epistle to the Hebrews); rather, he comes to the OT only at the conclusion of his argument to substantiate what he has established on other grounds. Both the Jews and the early Christians were in the habit of drawing up collections of Scripture passages relating to various topics in order to use them as proof texts for instruction or argumentation. It is not known whether the present collection, taken mostly from the Psalms, is the work of Paul or whether he is utilizing something previously formulated.

10b—12 The present catena serves a double purpose: to affirm the universality of sin in the human family and to assert its encroachment on every facet of individual and corporate life. The universality of the opening citation,“There is no one righteous, not even one,” is striking. The language is devastatingly clear and sharp. No exception is allowed. It can be put positively: “All have turned away” (v.12), which seems to echo the thought of ch. 1 that human beings had the opportunity to know God but turned away from him to their own detriment and confusion. Paul wants the full impact to register. He does not bother to consider the objection that the OT speaks of righteous people and in fact recognizes them as a class over against the wicked (Ps 1) or as individuals (Job 1:8). From the standpoint of the divine righteousness, the fact is that they all fall short, as Paul has affirmed of both the Jew and the Gentile, and hence whether under the law or lacking it.

13–18 The latter half of the catena, beginning with v.13, reflects the second emphasis, namely, the ramifications of sin in human life. As far as relationship with God is concerned, the rupturing power of sin has been noted (vv.11–12). But what effect does sin have on the sinner? The effect is total because the sinner’s entire being is vitiated. Observe at this point the various members of the body referred to: the throat, the tongue, and the lips (v.13); the mouth (v.14); the feet (v.15); and the eyes (v.18). This list serves to affirm what theologians speak of as total depravity, i.e., not that human beings in their natural state are as bad as they can possibly be, but rather that every aspect of their life is adversely affected by sin. Their whole nature is permeated with it. Human relations also suffer because society can be no better than those who constitute it. Some of the obvious effects—conflict and bloodshed—are specified (vv.15–17).

18 The chain of quotations from Scripture closes with a statement of the root difficulty:“There is no fear of God before their eyes” (v.18). This is the same observation gleaned from the study of ch. 1. Getting out of step with God is the cause of conflict and chaos in human relations. It is the cause of the pervasive fallenness of the world that confronts us at every point of our existence.

19 In the closing statements of the indictment, the apostle may be reading the mind of a Jew who questions the legitimacy of appealing to passages of the sort he has used, on the ground that humanity in general is in view—or at any rate, if Jews are in view, they are Jews who by their very godlessness are not representative of the nation as a whole. The stubborn fact, however, is that “whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law” (v.19). In the first clause “the law” must refer to the law in the broad sense of the OT revelation (cf. 1Co 14:21), for to take it as referring to the Pentateuch or to its legislative portions would destroy the continuity of thought in the passage. As already observed, the string of quotations derives from the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew canon) and the Prophets.“Under the law” is more literally “in the law” to so the thought is probably not so much that the Jews are under the law’s authority and dominion in the legal sense as that they possess Scripture (so Cranfield, 1:196), which has relevance to them at every point. Otherwise the shift in meaning of nomos (“law”), from Scripture to the commandments, is very abrupt. Yet the legislative aspect of the law is, of course, also involved by virtue of being a part of Scripture.

“That every mouth may be silenced” refers to the silencing of all human claims on God. When human achievement is measured against what God requires, there is no place for pride or boasting but only for a silence that is consonant with the verdict of guilty. In the various biblical scenes of judgment, the silence of those who are being judged is a notable feature (e.g., Rev 20:11–14). Questions may be raised for the sake of clarification of the reason for the verdict (Mt 25:41–46), but when the explanation is given, no appeal is attempted. The judgment rendered by the Judge of all the earth is always just (Ge 18:25).

In making these statements, the apostle has been occupied with the Jews because Scripture has been at issue, but suddenly he makes a statement that involves all humanity. He pictures “the whole world” as “accountable to God.” This seems to be a non sequitur. How can Jewish failure in terms of what Scripture requires lead to the involvement of the remainder of the human race? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that the Jewish nation is being regarded as a test case for all peoples. If given the same privileges enjoyed by Israel, the rest of the nations would likewise have failed. Their human nature is no different from that of the children of Abraham. Another possibility, which is the more likely explanation, is that the failure of the non-Jews is so patent that it is not a debatable subject; it can be taken for granted as already established (1:18–32). Once it has been determined that the record of the Jews is not really any better, then judgment is seen as universally warranted.

20 The final word to the Jews is designed to rob them of any fancied support in the Mosaic law, the word “law” being used as in the second occurrence in v.19. Justification before God cannot be attained by attempted observance of the law, no matter how hard a person may work at it. The fact is that no one has succeeded in keeping the law (cf. Jn 7:19).

For the first time in Romans we encounter the expression ex erg n nomou (lit. “by works of law”; NIV, “by observing the law” (cf. v.28), which has such prominence in Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). The meaning of this phrase has been much discussed in recent years owing to the influence of the “new perspective” on Paul (see Introduction, p. 29). An increasing number of scholars conclude that “works of law” refers not to a general obedience to the law but specifically to those issues that marked out the Jews from the Gentiles, namely, circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws. Thus, the issue in v.20, as articulated by Dunn, 1:159, is not “works of the law as a means to achieving righteousness and acquittal,” as it has traditionally been understood, but “the function of the law as an identity factor, the social function of the law as marking out the people of the law.” What Paul wants to oppose, according to this view, is the restricting of salvation to the Jews and the consequent exclusion of the Gentiles. It is clear, of course, that Paul would have been opposed to the law as constituting a boundary marker that would exclude the Gentiles from God’s grace. But Paul’s argument here is a more basic one. It gives a negative verdict on any and every claim of righteousness via the law, and it is applied not merely to the Jews (as would be the case, according to Dunn’s view) but to all flesh, so that “every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God” (v.19).

Part of v.20—“no one [lit., no flesh] will be declared righteous in his sight”—is a quotation from Psalm 143:2, in which a change in the Greek text is made from “no one living” to “no flesh” (NIV, “no one”), an alteration designed to bring out the frailty and inability of human beings with respect to meeting God’s requirements (cf. 8:3). The practical result of the study of the law is to “become conscious of sin” (cf. 5:20; 7:7 — 11). How startling it is to contemplate the fact that the best revelation one has apart from Christ only deepens the awareness of failure. While the Jews thought of the law as the means by which righteousness could be achieved, Paul takes a decidedly more pessimistic view—indeed, a contrary view: the law simply brings a heightened awareness of sin. And thus the law loudly proclaims the need for the gospel.

NOTES

9 The first three words of the Greek text could be taken together as one sentence, yielding some such translation as, “Wherein, then, are we excelled?” But the following words, , ou pant “not at all,” do not properly answer this question. It is thus preferable to retain the double question, as in the NIV. Uncertainty as to the meaning of , proechometha (“are we any better?”), accounts for the interpretative variant reading , prokatechomen supported principally by D* G 104 it and having the meaning, “Why, then, are we especially superior?”

10–12 These words are a somewhat free rendering of Psalm 14:1–3 (= Ps 53:2–4); cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20.

10–18 On this passage, see Leander E. Keck, “The Function of Romans 3:10–18: Observations and Suggestions,” in God’s Christ and His ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 141–57.

13 Verse 13 is quoted verbatim from the LXX of Psalm 5:10 (MT Ps 5:9), with the last line from the LXX of Psalm 139:4 (MT 140:3).Verse 14 quotes Psalm 10:7; vv.15–17 quote Isaiah 59:7–8 (cf. Pr 1:16); and v.18 quotes Psalm 36:1, with the slight change of the pronoun from singular “his” to plural “their.”

20 For helpful discussions of the expression “works of law,” see C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991): 89–101; Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Works of Law’ in Paul,” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44; J. D. G. Dunn, “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law,’” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117; Douglas J. Moo,“‘Law,’‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1985): 90–96; Joseph A. Fitzmyer,“Paul’s Jewish Background and the Deeds of the Law,” in According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle (New York: Paulist, 1993), 18–35.

For a superb treatment of the subject of 1:18–3:20, see Marguerite Shuster, The Fall and Sin:What We Have Become as Sinners (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

IV. JUSTIFICATION: THE IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

(3:21–5:21)

A. Justification as the Answer to the Sinfulness of Humanity (3:21–26)

OVERVIEW

To help his readers follow his train of thought, the apostle reverts to the term he used in stating the theme of the letter in 1:17—God’s “righteousness.” He repeats again the necessity for faith (cf. 1:16) and then summarizes the material from 1:18–3:20 by the reminder that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as sin is concerned, concluding that there is only one way in which the universal human plight can be remedied. Having done this, he goes on to give a rich exposition of salvation through the use of various theological terms, with principal attention to justification.

now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

COMMENTARY

21 With the words “but now,” Paul indicates the arrival of a new era of salvation brought through the work of Jesus Christ (v.22). God’s righteousness—i.e., his saving activity whereby he brings human beings into right relation to himself—has been manifested “apart from law” (cf. John Reumann,“The Gospel of the Righteousness of God: Pauline Reinterpretation in Romans 3:21–31,” Int 20 [1966]: 432–52). The law, as Paul has just indicated, cannot bring a right relationship with God. Instead, it functions only to make those who live under it conscious of their sin (v.20). The perfect tense of “has been made known,” in contrast to the present tense “is revealed” in 1:17 (where the ongoing proclamation of the gospel requires it), draws attention to the appearing of Jesus Christ in the arena of history (cf. 2Ti 1:10). More specifically, it points to the fulfillment of God’s saving purpose in him. Yet even before the initial appearing of the Savior, this method of making men and women right with himself was operating in principle, as “the Law and the Prophets”—a summary term for the OT—testify. This observation prepares the reader for the recital of God’s dealings with Abraham and David to be considered in ch. 4. They, too, were justified by God’s saving activity apart from the law.

22 God’s righteousness becomes operative in human life “through faith in Jesus Christ.” This statement is more explicit than the initial mention of faith in connection with the gospel (1:16–17), since it specifies the necessary object of faith, even Jesus Christ. Much discussion has been given to the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ.” Is piste s I sou Christou (lit., “faith [faithfulness] of Jesus Christ”) to be understood as a subjective or objective genitive? If the phrase is taken as a subjective genitive, in view would be the faith of Jesus, or more precisely, his faithfulness (which is also one of the meanings of GK in fulfilling his mission (for an example of the same genitival construction n pistin tou understood as a subjective genitive, see 3:3, “will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?”; cf. 4:16). On the other hand, if the construction is taken as an objective genitive, it would mean, as commonly translated, “faith in God” (for an example that requires this meaning, see Mk 11:22). The same construction is found in Romans 3:26; twice in Galatians 2:16; and also in Galatians 2:20; 3:22; and Philippians 3:9. In all of these instances, there is a degree of similar ambiguity. In Galatians 2:16 we find the identical phrase, “by faith in Jesus Christ,” followed by the explanatory statement, “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus.” In this present instance, it seems that the objective genitive (so NIV, “faith in Jesus Christ”) is to be preferred.

It is worth noting that it is never said that people are saved on account of their faith in Christ, a construction that might encourage the notion that faith makes a contribution and has some merit. Rather, it is through faith that salvation is appropriated. Faith is simply a mode of receptivity (“the hand of the heart,” as Frédéric Godet puts it). Faith receives what God bestows but adds nothing to the gift. As all are under the curse of sin (v.9), so all recipients of salvation depend on its appropriation through faith, “for there is no difference” (10:12).

23 The reason all must come to God through faith in Christ is that “all have sinned and fall short of [or lack, as in Mk 10:21] the glory of God.” This crisp summarizing statement repeats the point already established by Paul in 3:9, 19. The glory in view cannot be eschatological (as in 5:2), since even believers, for whom the sin problem has been solved, lack the future glory now. The suggestion that the glory is God’s approbation or praise (Denney, 610) is unlikely, since this meaning of doxa (GK common in Luke, is somewhat rare in Paul. Dodd, 50–51, seeks to link the glory with the image of God in man (cf. 1Co 11:7), which is marred by sin. This is suggestive, but it would be more acceptable if Paul had used the past tense (“have fallen short”) to match the sense in the previous statement about sin. Probably the best interpretation is to associate the glory with the divine presence and the privilege Adam and Eve originally had of direct communion with God. This ever-present deprivation is depicted in the restriction of the glory to the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle and the denial of the right of access to the people except through the high priest once a year. God’s glory is the majesty of his holy person. To be cut off from this direct fellowship is the great loss occasioned by sin.

24 At first glance, it seems that Paul is committing himself to a doctrine of universal salvation, that all who have sinned are likewise justified. This impression is certainly incorrect. The problem can be handled in one of two ways: (1) to suppose that the reader is intended to supply something along this line:“Since all have sinned, all must be justified—if they are to be saved—by God’s free grace”; or (2) to understand the last phrase in v.22 and all of v.23 as semiparenthetical, so that the words “to all who believe” (v.22) are followed directly by “are justified freely by his grace” (v.24).

In the word “justified,” we encounter perhaps the leading doctrinal contribution of Romans. How to be just in God’s sight is the age-old human problem (Job 9:2; 10:14). To get at the meaning of the doctrine, some attention must be given to terminology. In classical Greek the verb dikaio m(GK was sometimes used to mean “do right by a person, give him justice.” As a result, it could be used in the sense of “condemn.” But in its biblical setting it is used in the opposite sense, namely, “to acquit” (Ex 23:7; Dt 25:1). It is clear both from the OT and the NT that dikaio mis a forensic term—it is the language of the law court. But to settle on “acquittal” as the meaning of justification is to express only a part of the range of the word, even though an important part (Ac 13:39).

There is a positive side that is even more prominent in NT usage—“to consider, or declare to be, righteous.” The word does not mean “to make righteous,” i.e., to effect a change of character. Some consider it ethically deplorable that God should count as righteous those who have been and to some extent continue to be sinful. E. J. Goodspeed’s translation, for example, defied the linguistic evidence and rendered dikaio as “to make upright.” Goodspeed failed to realize that the question of character and conduct belongs to a different area, namely, sanctification, and is taken up by Paul in due course, whereas justification relates to status and not to condition.

In the background is the important consideration, strongly emphasized by Paul, that the believer is “in Christ.” This key Pauline concept is a truth that will be unfolded at a later stage in Paul’s presentation and summarized by him in 8:1 (cf. 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:21). Nowhere is the relation between justification and being “in Christ” better stated than in Paul’s declaration, “that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ” (Php 3:8–9). To be justified includes the truth that God sees the sinner in terms of the sinner’s relation to his Son, with whom he is well pleased.

Though justification has much in common with forgiveness, the two terms ought not to be regarded as interchangeable. Even though forgiveness of sins can be stated in comprehensive fashion (e.g., Eph 1:7; 4:32), its continuing aspect, related to the ongoing confession of sin (1Jn 1:9), sets it somewhat apart from justification, which is a once-for-all declaration of God in behalf of the believing sinner. The surprise for Paul was that God declares a person “righteous at the beginning of the course, not at the end of it” (Bruce, 102).

Sinners are justified “as a gift” GK NASB; NIV, “freely”). The same word is used in John 15:25, where it bears a somewhat different but not unrelated meaning—“without reason.” God finds no reason, no basis, in sinners for declaring them righteous. He must find the cause in himself. This truth goes naturally with the observation that justification is offered “by [God’s] grace.” Perhaps the best synonym we have for it is “lovingkindness” (NASB; NIV, “love”; see, e.g., Pss 23:6; 36:5; 130). It is a matter not simply of attitude but also of action, as the present verse attests.“Grace” GK lies at the basis of joy GK for the believer and leads to thanksgiving GK

If justification is a matter of “gift,” with grace as its basis,“the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” is the means a gracious God employed to achieve this great salvation. With the word “redemption” GK Paul employs the language of the slave market, namely the manumission of slaves. The benefit redemption brings in this life, according to Ephesians 1:7, is forgiveness of sins, and this is applicable in our passage. Another aspect, belonging to the future, is the redemption of the body, which will consummate our salvation (Ro 8:23; cf. Eph 4:30).

25 Paul turns next to the language of the temple sacrifices: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” Some propose the translation “purposed” (lit., “set before himself “), objecting to the rendering of proetheto (GK with “presented” (NASB, “displayed publicly”) on the ground that a public exhibition of the person of Jesus is too theatrical. But the public character of God’s redemptive act on the cross seems also in view in Galatians 3:1, which reads, “Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Furthermore, we have in the immediate context words such as “made known” (v.21) and “demonstrate” (vv.25, 26). It should be pointed out, however, that the emphasis on faith (v.25) suggests that the real force in “presented” is found not so much in the actual exhibition of Christ on the cross as in the proclamation of the gospel that makes his saving work central (so too probably in the Gal 3:1 passage). This very proclamation emphasizes that Christ, under God, has become “a propitiation” (the NASB’s rendering of the difficult word hilast rion [GK NIV, “sacrifice of atonement”).

In the LXX, the first occurrence of hilast rion (Ex 25:17–22, translating the Hebrew word kapp GK 4114; NIV, “atonement cover”) has reference to the lid or cover of the ark in the Most Holy Place, the innermost sanctuary of the temple. The KJV, following Tyndale, regularly translates the word as “mercy seat,” which was in turn dependent on Luther’s translation “Gnadenstuhl.” The idea of “seat” is altogether misleading. What is in view is “place” of atonement, since the lid is the place where the High Priest sprinkled blood to atone for the sins of the people on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:13–16), once a year. (The cognate verb kipper means “to atone.”)

What is meant when Paul refers to Christ as a hilast A famous twentieth-century debate on the question took place between C. H. Dodd and Leon Morris. Dodd’s contention Bible and the Greeks [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935], 82–95) is that when the LXX translators used the cognate verb hilaskesthai (“to make propitiation, make atonement for,” GK and its derivatives to render the Hebrew root they did not attach to the word the classical sense of “propitiation” but rather gave it the force of “expiation,” i.e., a removal of sin’s guilt (cf. in 3:25 the RSV’s translation “expiation,” under Dodd’s editorship). The idea of the appeasem*nt of the wrath of a god, as in the concept of propitiation, struck Dodd as more of a pagan idea than a biblical one. Admitting faint traces of propitiation in the OT data, he nevertheless advocated that when the subject of the verb is human, the idea is simply that of making expiation, and when the subject is divine, the concept is that of forgiveness. Leon Morris Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955]), working through the same OT materials, came up with different results, which can be summarized in two observations: (1) Dodd, 138, ignored the fact that the verb which he would render “forgive” in reference to God, is used repeatedly in situations where the context makes it clear that the wrath of God is a factor, so that propitiation is actually involved; and (2) the argument from context is also important for the interpretation of the Romans passage, because the first main section of the book (1:18–3:20) is permeated with the concept of the divine wrath along with the emphasis on judgment. The word “wrath” , Gk is found four times here (1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5). Under these circ*mstances, it would be strange for Paul to give a statement of the remedy for human sin and unrighteousness without indicating that the wrath of God has been satisfactorily met by God’s own provision. There is no term in 3:21–26 that conveys this idea if it is not to be found in hilast rion (cf. Dodd, 169).

Hilast rion probably includes both ideas—propitiation and expiation—and therefore some translations opt for the more general “sacrifice of atonement” (e.g., NIV; cf. NJB, “sacrifice of reconciliation”), shifting the emphasis appropriately from the place of the atonement to the means of atonement itself. Supporting this are the words “in his blood,” which are probably meant to modify hilast rion (see below). The only other occurrence of the word in the NT (Heb 9:5) is a clear allusion to the lid that covered the ark of the tabernacle. The cognate verb hilaskomai occurs in an important passage in Hebrew 2:17: “make atonement for the sins of the people” (NIV). Another related word, hilasmos (GK occurs in 1 John 2:2; 4:10, where the NASB translates “propitiation for our sins” (cf. the NIV’s “atoning sacrifice for our sins”).

Remarkably, the hilast the lid of the ark within the Most Holy Place—hence the most hidden place of all—is said by Paul now to be “displayed publicly” (NASB; NIV, “presented”) in the cross. T.W. Manson JTS 46 [1945]: 5) remarks, “The mercy-seat is no longer kept in the sacred seclusion of the most holy place: it is brought out into the midst of the rough and tumble of the world and set up before the eyes of hostile, contemptuous, or indifferent crowds.” Indeed, Christ has become the meeting place of God and man where the mercy of God is available because of the atoning sacrifice of the Son: “His death is the eschatological expiatory event established by God, which transcends and at the same time abrogates the previous forms of atonement in the cult…. The crucified one has thus become the place where God himself has brought about expiation publicly and for all” 2:186).

On the basis of the use of hilast rion on inscriptions of the Koine period, Adolf Deissmann Studies [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901], 124–35) maintains that the word should be rendered “a votive offering” or “a propitiatory gift.” He concludes, “The crucified Christ is the votive gift of the Divine Love for the salvation of men.” But all the examples he gives from pagan sources concern votive gifts brought by men and women and designed to propitiate the deity, whereas Christ is set forth by God as propitiatory. The difference is very real.

The phrase “in his blood” poses somewhat of a problem since in the word order of the Greek text the words “through faith” come just before it. This suggests that the believer’s faith is to be placed in the blood of Christ (so KJV and NIV, “through faith in his blood”). It has been pointed out, however, that there is no example of Paul’s calling for faith in a thing rather than a person, unless we allow the gospel to be included in this category. So if the translation is allowed to stand, it has to be regarded as anomalous. In the immediate context, the idea of putting faith in is expressed without a preposition by using the genitive case (vv.22, 26). The alternative suggestion is to place a comma after “faith,” thus separating the clauses and making both dependent on hilast This makes good sense, as in the NASB: “a propitiation [sacrifice of atonement] in His blood through faith” (cf. NRSV, “a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith”).

The remainder of v.25 deals with the necessity of the propitiatory provision in terms of God’s “justice” [GK the same word in the original as “righteousness”). The perfect, holy character of God needs justification for his passing over “sins committed beforehand”—i.e., in the ages prior to the cross. His “forbearance” is not to be thought of as sentimentality or weakness but as an indication that meeting the demands of his righteous character would be accomplished in due season. This happened at the cross. The Greek paresis (GK NASB, “passed over”; NIV, “left … unpunished”) is close to aphesis (“forgiveness,” GK in meaning, but with an appreciable difference in that paresis denotes a temporary remission of a debt, which fits the situation here exactly (see MM, s.v. In line with God’s forbearance, the full penalty for sin was not exacted.

Stuhlmacher, 60–61, summarizes this effectively: “Inasmuch as Jesus gives up his life to death as a substitute for all, he suffers vicariously the judgment of destruction on behalf of sinners. But because he does this in the name of God as one who is innocent and out of his own love, his blood is the infinitely valuable means of atonement which is effective once for all time and procures for those who believe the forgiveness of their sins, new life before and with God, and consequently the righteousness of God which sinners lack.”

26 Now the bearing of the cross on God’s dealings with men “at the present time” is unfolded. Paul’s statement here amounts to a declaration that God is at once just in himself while at the same time he justifies the sinner who has faith in Jesus. Gottlob Schrenk 2:188) thus speaks of a new feature in this verse: “the fact that the justice of the One who is absolutely righteous is demonstrated in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus…. The new factor is the absolute connection with the atoning death of Christ in which God shows himself to be Only the death of Jesus makes possible the forgiveness of sinners without compromising the very character of God (cf. J. Piper, “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25–26,” JSNT 7 [1980]: 2–32; on this entire passage, see D. A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans [JSNTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992]).

NOTES

22 On the debate concerning subjective versus objective genitive, see Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ:The Narrative Substructure of Galatians (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002; esp. the introduction [xxi—lii] and the appendixes, which contain James D. G. Dunn’s “Once More, Pistis and Hays’s and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?” [249–98]). See also Arland Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 148 — 63; Paul J. Achtemeier, “Apropos the Faith of/in Christ,” in Pauline ed. E. E. Johnson and D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 4:82 — 92; Morna D. Hooker, NTS 35 (1989): 321 — 42.

Instead of “for all” ( , eis a few Fathers have “upon all” ( , epi A group of manuscripts ( plus many cursives and Fathers) combine the two readings (cf. KJV).

24 In his important study of righteousness in Paul, Ziesler, 34–35, concludes that whereas the verb , dikaio , is essentially forensic in meaning (“to justify”), the noun , dikaiosyn , and the adjective , describe “behavior within relationship” and so are basically ethical in their import. This position is open to the criticism that it too sharply distinguishes the force of the noun and adjective from that of the verb. In other words, the noun and the adjective are capable of carrying the forensic connotation also.

For a clear statement on justification as status, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1951), 1:276. On justification, see the discussion in G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New ed. Donald A. Hagner (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 478 — 91.

On the Hebrew ḥesed (“loving-kindness,” GK 2876), see TDOT 5:62: “Everything that is said focuses on what Yahweh does for Israel and the individual worshiper. The history of Yahweh’s people, past, present, and future, the life of the individual Israelite—in fact, the entire world—is the stage for the demonstration of Yahweh’s kindness.”

We are confronted here with a major theological concept. The Greek term , apolytr sis (GK has as its kernel the word , lytron (“ransom,” GK used by Jesus of his self-giving in behalf of the many (Mk 10:45). Paul does not use this word, though , antilytron (GK appears once (1Ti 2:6). The word “redemption” has its OT background chiefly in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex 6:6; 15:13) and is used often without any reference to sin or the payment of a ransom. But something of the idea of the cost involved continues to cling to the word even though unexpressed (cf. 1Pe 1:18, where the cognate verb lutrow, , is used). The term here may be said to connote “deliverance through the substitutionary death of Jesus, the emphasis being all the time on liberation” (David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967], 76).

25 See also Leon Morris, “The Meaning of hilast rion in Romans iii. 25,” NTS 2 (1955–56): 33–43. An independent study by David Hill Words and Hebrew 23–48) leads to conclusions substantially in agreement with Morris’s position.

On the phrases “in his blood” and “through faith,” see Arland Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from His Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 47–72.

B. The Availability of Justification through Faith Alone (3:27–31)

then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

COMMENTARY

27–28 The opening words suggest that Paul may have in mind Jews who tended to boast in the law (cf. 2:17, 23). He asks “on what principle” (lit., “by what kind of law”) boasting is excluded. But does “principle” convey the idea adequately? Certainly nomos (GK is used in this sense later on (e.g., 7:21, 23). But perhaps the use of the word so familiar to the Jews and so treasured by them, is calculated to catch their eye and make them think. Perhaps something between “law” and “principle” is needed here—something special in the sense of what is ordained by God (cf. TDNT 4:1071). God has ordained faith as the sole condition of receiving salvation, and that provides no basis for boasting, since in the last analysis faith, like the salvation it embraces, is “the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).

Paul could speak of the righteousness he sought through keeping the law as “my own” righteousness (Php 3:9), but he cannot so speak of the righteousness he has in Christ. Once more he insists on justification by faith (Luther famously added the word “alone”), “apart from observing the law” (v.28; cf. vv.20–21). This may appear to bring him into contradiction with his assertion in 2:13. But Paul will maintain that those who are justified by faith will be doers of the law, even though their justification does not depend on that fact. The point here is that to glory in one’s achievement ruins the whole enterprise; it becomes an affront to God, its value is gone. The basic fact of justification by faith necessarily excludes boasting.

29–30 Again Paul moves to catch the eye of his Jewish readers by appealing to their awareness that God is one; an allusion to the Shema is intended (cf. Dt 6:4). The Jews, surrounded by pagan idolatry, proudly repeated their monotheistic confession. Paul now turns it to good account. Logically, if God is one, if he alone is God, then we may well expect him to employ only one method to bring humanity to himself. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation on the part of Jews and Gentiles alike (v.30). Neither has any advantage over the other. The Gentiles must come by the same faith that is required of the Jews (cf. 1:16; Gal 2:15–16). It is doubtful that the difference in prepositions used with faith (“by faith,” “through that same faith”) implies any clear distinction in God’s dealings with the two groups.

31 Given Paul’s polemic against “observing the law” (e.g., vv.27–28), his strong, positive statement about the law here may seem surprising. One might indeed think that since justification is the gift of God appropriated by faith, the law is thereby nullified. Paul vehemently denies such a conclusion. “Absolutely not,” the apostle would answer, for the operation of faith ultimately upholds or establishes the law. Unfortunately, Paul does not explain the sense in which this is true.

Two main possibilities have been suggested. First, we may understand “law” here in the sense of “Scripture” or a part thereof. Since Paul regards the gospel of justification by faith as witnessed to by Scripture (v.21) and as anticipated already in Abraham and David (4:1–11), his argument about justification by faith amounts to an upholding of the law. Even if we take “law” here in the sense of commandments, Paul could mean that the limited purpose of the law is fulfilled by bringing an awareness of sin (v.20) and thus pointing to the necessity of the cross (vv.24–25). Both Scripture generally and the specific, divinely intended role of the law can be regarded as established by the gospel.

Second, however, Paul may have in mind the important fact that the righteousness described by the law and the moral standards toward which the law pointed remain of the highest importance. This would at once hark back to 2:6–10, 13, as well as anticipating the argument about sanctification in ch. 6 and the statement of 8:4. That is, there remains a sense in which the one who is justified by faith will also freely live out the righteousness of the law. Paul’s argument to this point might seem to undermine this righteousness, and to forestall the expected objection, he affirms with great strength that far from overthrowing the law, the gospel of grace and faith establishes it. Those who are justified by faith will live righteously.

C. The Illustration of Justification from the Old Testament (4:1–25)

OVERVIEW

The fact that in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed (1:17) could suggest that justification is a new thing, peculiar to the Christian era. To discover that it was already present in the OT, as Paul has already maintained (3:21), serves to engender confidence in the ongoing continuity of the purpose of God and in the basic unity of the Bible: “It is essential for the structure of faith that behind the appearance of Christ in an historical perspective a preceding activity of God appears” (Leonhard Goppelt, “Paul and Heilsgeschichte,” Int 21 [1967]: 325).

Romans 4 is devoted almost exclusively to Abraham and to God’s dealings with him. The NT writers seem to turn to Abraham almost instinctively when discussing faith (besides Paul in Galatians and Romans, cf. Heb 11 and Jas 2). Abraham is a supremely important figure—even a kind of paradigm—at the beginning of God’s covenantal relationship with the people who would later be called “Israel.” If Paul can establish as true that the father of the nation of Israel was justified by faith rather than by works, he will have effectively established his argument, especially with his Jewish readers.

1. The Case of Abraham (4:1–5)

then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

COMMENTARY

1–5 In calling Abraham “our forefather,” the apostle is not turning aside to address Jewish believers only, because he makes the point in this chapter that Abraham is also the father of Gentiles who are justified by faith (v.16). The argument of this passage has universal applicability.

What reality had Abraham “discovered” in his relation to God? (cf. Richard B. Hays, “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Father According to the Flesh?’A Reconsideration of Romans 4:1,” NovT 27 [1985]: 76–98). The perfect tense of the word points to the ongoing importance of what he learned.

2 Picking up the matter of boasting from 3:27, and making his familiar link of boasting with works, Paul seems to allow that Abraham could conceivably have had something to boast about—at least before others. If anyone could be considered a man of obedience and righteousness, Abraham was the perfect candidate (cf. Ge 26:5). Even before Paul’s day, Judaism laid great emphasis on Abraham’s piety, grounding it in his obedience. About 150 years earlier, one author asked, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc 2:52; cf. Sir 44:20; Jub. 23:10; and in the NT, Jas 2:21, where Ge 15:6 is quoted to make a different point from Paul’s). But as we have already seen Paul argue, no one is able to boast in works “before God.” No one can claim a righteousness that establishes a right relationship with God. Nygren, 168, observes,“What Paul does in the fourth chapter can be stated most simply as follows. He takes Abraham away from the representatives of righteousness by the law and sets him forth as the type of those who through faith are Justification, as Paul has shown us, is the work of God, and hence no human being can boast before him.

3 To show that Abraham’s close relation to God was not based on works, a simple appeal to Scripture is decisive: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Nothing whatsoever is said about his obedience in leaving country and kindred in response to God’s call. Faith was required for such a response, of course, and that faith was of the same sort that Abraham exercised later. Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 because it makes precisely the point he wants to make, and even with the same vocabulary that he has been using. (Part of the quotation is presented again in v.22; Paul uses the whole quotation again in Gal 3:6.) It not only has Paul’s favorite pisteu (“believe” [GK which in Greek is the same root as “faith”), but also dikaiosyn , “righteousness” (GK as well as the verb, “credit” (GK This last verb is picked up in Paul’s exposition of the theme of justification in this chapter, being used no fewer than ten more times. Since it means something like “to consider something true,” it is exactly suited for the legal fiction of the acquittal of the guilty, and hence it is perfect for Paul’s argument.

At the time referred to in the quotation, Abraham was in the Promised Land but had as yet no progeny. Abraham reminded God that Eliezer of Damascus, a servant of his household rather than his own offspring, would therefore become his heir (Ge 15:3). As shown by the Nuzi tablets, in the society of Chaldean Ur out of which Abraham had come, a couple could adopt a son to help them in their old age and to see that they were properly buried. In consideration of these services, the one adopted was named the heir. As time went on, Abraham saw no prospect other than this. But God directed him to look up into the heavens and count the stars, promising that his descendants would be as numerous. Abraham accepted this promise, relying on God to fulfill it. This was the basis on which God pronounced him righteous.

The nature of Abraham’s faith was essentially the same as that of the NT believer, despite the difference in circ*mstances and time. (Abraham looked forward to something God would do, whereas the Christian looks back to what God has provided in Christ.) In retrospect, we can see a degree of continuity between the covenant with Abraham and the fulfillment brought by Christ. It does seem that we are warranted in concluding that Abraham trusted in a promise that pointed to Christ (Jn 8:56; Gal 3:16), though at that time this may not have been clear to the patriarch. Much depends on how he understood the promise in Genesis 12:3. Abraham’s faith was credited to him “as righteousness,” which means that faith itself does not constitute righteousness.

4 Paul goes on to contrast faith with works, noting that work yields wages that must be treated as an obligation for an employer. Faith, on the other hand, entails the receiving of a righteous standing simply as a “gift” (lit., “grace”) from God. So grace is pitted against obligation and faith against works (cf. 11:6). It is possible that Paul has borrowed the term “wages” GK from the LXX of Genesis 15:1, where reward or recompense is assured to Abraham.

5 How far grace goes beyond justice is seen in the remarkable statement that God “justifies the wicked.” Not only does God justify men and women apart from works, but he does so contrary to what they deserve. Bruce, 115, points out the shocking contradiction with Exodus 23:7 (“I will not acquit the guilty”), where “in the LXX version the same Greek words are used to convey what God forbids in the law as Paul here uses to declare what God in fact does in the gospel.” OT law required the judge to condemn the wicked and justify the righteous (Dt 25:1), but where God is both Judge and Savior, the wicked have an opportunity denied to them in ordinary human reckoning. The prophetic word anticipated this result through the work of the Servant (Isa 53:5–6, 11). In saying that God justifies the ungodly, the text is not singling out Abraham as the sinner par excellence but rather is pointing to the universal human predicament wherein all are desperately in need of justification (cf. 5:6), including even Abraham. Justification is a matter purely of grace, unmerited favor, with no admixture of works as part of its basis.

NOTES

1 There is a textual problem in this verse. The Greek infinitive , heur kenai (GK NASB, “found”; NIV, “discovered”), is placed after “our forefather” in some manuscripts, in which case it is naturally taken with , kata lit., “according to the flesh” (GK giving a meaning such as “discovered by his own powers.” A more important group of manuscripts place the same infinitive after “shall we say,” in which construction the words , kata go with “our forefather,” thus indicating a natural or blood relationship. A small group of witnesses, including the important manuscript B, omit the infinitive altogether. The uncertain position of the infinitive in some witnesses may tend to support the omission. A few translations (e.g., NEB, REB, NJB) reflect the omission in their wording. But with the textual committee of the United Bible Societies, one may wonder why any copyist would have added the infinitive if it was not there originally (see Metzger, 450).

5 Judaism mingled things that Paul was careful to keep apart. Michel, 162, observes, “Law and works, faith and obedience, obedience and merit, reward and blessing are a unity in the rabbinic theology.” Stuhlmacher, 72, writes, “In view of this divine activity, there is no longer any room for the Jewish and Jewish-Christian middle way of justification on the basis of faith and works, that is, on the basis of both God’s mercy and the meritorious deeds of the pious Ezra 7:7; 13:23; James 2:20ff.).”

2. The Case of David (4:6–8)

says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

are they

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

is the man

whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

COMMENTARY

6 Though the case of David is not strictly parallel to that of Abraham, and though it is treated only briefly, it is clear from the opening word “the same thing,” GK that the general theme remains the same. Note Paul’s introductory words about God’s blessing of the person “to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” What we found in Abraham was the positive reckoning of justification; in David we find the equivalent, but in reverse—the nonreckoning of sin.

7–8 What immediately strikes one as peculiar is the apparent lack of harmony between what Psalm 32 states and what Paul announces as the bearing of the quotation. Whereas Paul indicates that the quotation has to do with the reckoning of righteousness apart from works, the passage itself contains neither of these terms. Instead it speaks of offenses that have been forgiven and of sins that have been covered. As we compare v.6 with vv.7–8, one word stands out as common to both passages. It is the word translated “credits” in v.6 and “count” in v.8 GK As we have noted, this word dominates the early part of the chapter, occurring in vv.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Paul’s training under Gamaliel (Ac 22:3) shows through here, since it is evident that he is utilizing a principle of rabbinic interpretation made famous by Hillel, namely, the principle of analogy. This means that in situations where the same word occurs in two passages of Scripture, the sense in one may be carried over to explain the meaning in the other. In the case of Abraham, righteousness was credited to him, apart from works, on the basis of faith. In the case of David, the question does not concern good works but rather the fact of the sins he committed. So the far-reaching nature of justification is seen ever more clearly. Not only are good works not required for justification, but even the obstacle of their opposite, namely, grievous sins committed, is taken away by the forgiving grace that is part of justification.

One may add that since David the sinner was actually already a justified man, known as the man after God’s own heart (1Sa 12:14; Ac 13:22), in his case we learn the truth that sin in the life of a believer does not cancel justification. God is able to forgive. His calling and gifts are irrevocable (Ro 11:29). At the same time, God showed his displeasure regarding David’s sin, severely chastening him until the sin had been fully confessed. Even afterward, his sins continued to produce havoc in his family. David suffered the humiliation of the revolt led by Absalom. Yet God did not withdraw his favor and support, as seen by a succession of events: Absalom’s setting aside of Ahithophel’s counsel, the triumph of David’s forces in the battle, the ignominious death of Absalom, and the resurgence of desire on the part of the people for David’s return as their king. In contrast to Abraham, David lived under the regimen of the Mosaic law. Though the law is not mentioned, the text says that David “speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” (v.6). There may be a suggestion here that after having sinned, David could not rectify his situation by means of works. He was completely shut up to God’s mercy exhibited in the forgiveness of his transgressions. Forgiveness is always and only a matter of God’s grace.

3. The Promise to Abraham—Prior to and Apart from Circumcision (4:9–12)

this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. what circ*mstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

COMMENTARY

9 The issue discussed here is the importance of the time of God’s declaration of righteousness on behalf of Abraham in relation to the time of his circumcision. By using the term “blessedness” from the opening of Psalm 32, Paul makes the transition from David back to Abraham. Are the uncircumcised able to share in this blessedness? The answer one might expect from the Jewish perspective is a negative one. One must remember the enormous importance of circumcision to the Jews as the sign of the Mosaic covenant and the chief identifying mark of God’s covenantal people over against the pagans. It is God’s covenantal people who are the recipients of forgiveness, not pagan Gentiles.

10 Paul dissents, arguing skillfully that the benefit David enjoyed was enjoyed by Abraham and, very significantly, that Abraham received it when he was still uncircumcised (note the repetition for emphasis in v.10). The narrative of Abraham’s circumcision does not occur until Genesis 17:9–27, some time after Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness.

11 Paul makes the point very explicitly: “the sign m GK of circumcision” was “a seal GK of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” For all intents and purposes, at this point Abraham was like one of the Gentiles. This opens the door to the extension of the blessedness of justification to the Gentiles. Paul is still using the method of analogy regarding logizomai (“credit,” GK see comments at vv.7–8).

As Genesis 15:6 had been explained with the aid of Psalm 32:1–2, now the apostle reverses direction and explains Psalm 32 with the aid of Genesis 15:6, which he again quotes (v.9). David, of course, was circumcised, but Abraham was not circumcised at the time of his faith being reckoned as righteousness. According to the record, it was not until fourteen years later that he received the rite (Ge 17:24–26). His circumcision, then, was really a sign of what he previously had. It was a testimony to justifying faith, not something in which to take any pride (cf. Ro 2:25–29). Nygren, 174, observes,“The Jews looked upon Abraham as the great dividing point in the history of mankind. But according to Paul, Abraham through his faith became the great rallying point for all who believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. There is no distinction; all who are justified are justified by faith alone.”

12 The similarity of the faith of uncircumcised Gentiles and the faith of the uncircumcised patriarch brings them into a special relationship with Abraham, who in effect becomes their father and they his children (vv.11, 16; cf. Gal 3:6–9). Again in this passage we see Paul’s emphasis on the fact that the justification of Jews and Gentiles rests on exactly the same basis (cf. Ac 15:11; Gal 2:16). Just as in v.11 the apostle speaks of the Gentiles, assuring to the uncircumcised the reality of justification, so in v.12 he speaks of the Jews. Here he refers to Jews in two categories—not only as circumcised but, what is far more important, as believers who share the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised. Thus for Paul, those of the circumcision must also “walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

NOTES

9 The answer of the synagogue to the question in this verse was that the blessedness was properly confined to the circumcision (Str-B, 3:203). Fitzmyer, 380, quotes Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 29B, 4:36: “The state of uncircumcision is the impurity of all impurities …, the mistake of all mistakes.”

11 It is from the language of this verse that the church understands the sacrament of baptism as the outward sign and seal of an inward reality already possessed.

4. The Promise to Abraham—Apart from the Law (4:13–17)

was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

COMMENTARY

13 The thought moves on to the consideration that Abraham’s justification was apart from the law or legal considerations. It is surprising that Paul does not parallel the argument of the preceding verses by once more appealing to the temporal priority of Abraham’s justification by faith to the giving of the law. He uses such an argument in Galatians 3:17–18: “the law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” Here Paul is content to indicate that the promise (the word is a collective, referring to the totality of what God promised) to Abraham was quite apart from the law.

Paul speaks of the promise to “Abraham and his offspring” that “he would be heir of the world GK Clearly, in terms of the Abrahamic covenant, one expects the word “land , Gk here (as in the LXX of Ge 12:7; 15:7). This easy move from the land of Israel to the world points to Paul’s conception of the universal dimensions of the salvation history that began with Abraham. That story involves greater dimensions than Abraham could have envisioned. Indeed, for Paul, as for the OT prophets, it is a story that involves the entire created order (cf. Ro 8:20–22). For Paul it is the world rather than the land that is always in view (cf. 1Co 6:2).

14–15 Paul’s argument is that if the inheritance of the promise comes to those “who live by law” (v.14), then faith is emptied of value and the promise has effectively been put out of operation. As soon as a promise is hedged about with conditional elements, it loses its value. Particularly is this true of the law because of its inflexible character. As Paul shockingly puts it, “law brings wrath” (v.15). Instead of leading to righteousness, the law brings judgment, as Paul has already indicated (3:20). To make the promise conditional on observance of the law would pit the God of grace against the God of judgment, an absolutely intolerable situation. Where there is no law there may indeed be sin, but not “transgression” GK technically, a point Paul makes again in 5:13. If the promise had been conditioned by the keeping of the law, the human inability to observe the law with complete fidelity would have occasioned disobedience and consequently the operation of wrath, resulting in forfeiture of what was promised. The introduction, therefore, of observance of the law as a condition for receiving the promise would have two disastrous effects: (1) it would put a question mark over the character of God for adding a condition, and (2) it would make the realization of the promise impossible, since no one has been able to keep the law fully.

16 The promise, on the other hand, belongs to the realm of “faith” and “grace.” Faith is mentioned first and emphasized, in reaffirmation of v.13, because of the intended contrast with works of law, which are ruled out in vv.14–15. The only ground for certainty in relation to the promise is grace (as appropriated by faith and as opposed to attempted legal obedience). Probably the element of certainty is intended to apply to faith as well as to grace. This is just another way of saying that the ultimate guarantee must be God and his faithfulness.

“Those who are of the law” are listed as among the offspring of Abraham. In what sense is this to be understood? Fitzmyer, 385, concludes that “the divine promise still holds good for the Jewish people descended physically from Abraham,” apparently in anticipation of Paul’s argument in ch. 11. It is possible, however, and more consistent with Paul’s soteriological argument to conclude that he means here Jews who have come to faith in Christ. Cranfield, 1:242, notes that “more probably Paul means by it the Jewish Christians, who possess the law as well as sharing Abraham’s faith.” A further option worth considering is that a person who happened to live during the Mosaic era (i.e., one who could be described as “of the law”) was not thereby automatically excluded from the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant, provided that person had faith. The expression cannot refer to legal obedience, however, without bringing Paul into contradiction with himself. And so the blessing of Abraham is both for those Jews who may have belonged to the Mosaic epoch yet who shared in the faith of the patriarch, and also for those Gentiles who share in the faith of Abraham. Both groups are in view in the statement that he is “the father of us all.”

17 This is followed by a quotation of the prediction that Abraham would be “a father of many nations” (Ge 17:5, where the very change of name from Abram to Abraham [= “father of a multitude”] is the result of this promise). It is difficult to know how Abraham would have understood this promise. From the perspective of the NT, of course, it is taken as referring to the church, composed of a membership from all the nations. It was in this unforeseen way that Abraham would become the father of many nations. Only God could foresee the course of history that was to include the coming of Christ, his finished work, his command to evangelize all nations (Mt 28:19–20), and the response of faith to the gospel around the world.

The syntax of the words after the quotation is unclear. A good solution is to connect them with “the promise … may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring” (v.16). The resultant sense is that “the promise may be certain before God whom Abraham believed” (following Bruce, 117).

God is described here by two terms. First, he is one “who gives life to the dead.” It is perhaps natural to think of such an expression in terms of resurrection (vv.24–25) but hardly with reference to receiving Isaac back, as it were, from the dead, when Abraham was ready to offer him to God (a subject pursued in Heb 11:19 but not mentioned here). The thought seems to move rather toward the discussion in the next verses, anticipating the provision of offspring despite the deadness of Abraham and Sarah as would-be parents (cf. v.19, where the word “dead” occurs twice). This conclusion is favored by the second affirmation in which God is said to be the one who “calls into being that which does not exist” (NASB). This may be a reference to God’s creative activity (see Isa 48:13; 2 21:4). But the NASB text note supplies an alternative, literal translation: “calls the things which do not exist as existing” (cf. NIV, “calls things that are not as though they were”). It is as though Isaac already existed; Isaac was real in the thought and purpose of God before he was begotten.

NOTES

13 The idea of the descendants of Abraham inheriting the earth rather than merely the land can already be found in Jubilees 22:14 in an account of Abraham’s blessing of Jacob.

15 It is precisely because of the failure of the law that everything depends on grace and that the death of Christ was necessary. As Paul writes in Galatians 2:21, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

16 The relation between grace and faith is made clear in the formula of Ephesians 2:8: “by grace … through faith.”

5. Abraham’s Faith the Standard for Every Believer (4:18–25)

all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him,“So shall your offspring be.” weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

COMMENTARY

18 The final value of the illustration of Abraham in respect to justification is that his faith becomes the standard for all believers. “Against all hope,” this man had faith in God’s promise (cf. Ernst Käsemann, “The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4,” in Perspectives on Paul [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 79–101). In view of his condition (and Sarah’s as well) because of advanced age (“as good as dead,” v.19), the situation honestly had to seem beyond hope. Nevertheless, he believed the promise of God that offspring would be given. The words “father of many nations” and “so shall your offspring be” clearly echo the promises recorded in Scripture and serve to sharpen Abraham’s dilemma. “Against all hope” takes account of the great change that came over his outlook due to the pledge God gave him. After making the original promise (Ge 15:5), God waited until it was physically impossible for this couple to have children. Then he repeated his pledge (17:5) as though to test Abraham. Abraham’s act of faith was essentially the same as on the previous occasion, but meanwhile circ*mstances had made the fulfillment of the promise impossible apart from supernatural intervention. His only recourse was God, and he was able to rest his faith in God’s promise.

19–20 Abraham faced the fact of his physical condition (“as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old”) and that of Sarah and did not waver in his faith. Abraham apparently suffered a momentary hesitancy (Ge 17:17, where he laughed at the idea, as Sarah would also [18:12]), but it passed and was not held against him. That he really trusted God for the fulfillment of the promise is seen in his readiness to proceed with circumcision for himself and his household before Isaac was conceived (17:23–27). This act in itself could be construed as giving “glory to God,” an expression of trust in the power of the Almighty to make good his promise. Moreover, it was an open testimony to others of his ongoing trust in God’s faithfulness to his word. If God should fail in this matter, Abraham would be an object of pity from some, of ridicule from others.

21 As far as Abraham was concerned, he was not taking a chance. He was “fully persuaded” that God’s power would match his promise. This man of God was called on to believe in a special divine intervention—not after it occurred, but before. His faith is the more commendable because it was exercised in the face of apparent lack of necessity. Would not Ishmael do as the desired progeny? He had been born to Abraham through Hagar in the interval between the original promise (Ge 15) and its renewal (ch. 17). Abraham was willing to rest in the wisdom as well as in the will of God.

22 Verse 22 probably refers to the original statement of Abraham’s justification (Ge 15:6, quoted in v.3), emphasizing that his ability to meet the renewed promise of God of a son by unwavering faith was strictly in line with the faith that brought justification at an earlier point. Stuhlmacher, 75, observes, “Abraham is, for the apostle, the ‘father’ of all who believe. He is not, therefore, merely an individual from history, but the historically determined prototype of what it means to have faith in God.”

23–24 Having dealt with Abraham’s situation,the apostle turns finally to applying God’s dealings with the patriarch to the readers of his letter. This procedure accords with his observation that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (15:4). There are differences between Abraham’s case and the position of the readers, yet the basic similarity in God’s dealings with both is unmistakable. Both believe in God as the one who acts on their behalf; both receive justification. Of course, the mention of the resurrected Jesus (v.24) is an element that could not belong to the OT as history, but the intended parallel with Abraham’s experience is nevertheless fairly evident. The same God who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead made alive the “dead” body of Abraham so as to make parenthood possible. In v.24, Paul says that just as righteousness was credited to Abraham, so also God “will credit lit., “about to be credited”]” to those who believe “in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” The futurity is from the perspective of the OT, since Paul asserts justification as a present reality for believers. The point is clear: the pattern of being “credited” as righteous by faith is the same for Abraham and those who are Christians.

25 Death and resurrection were the calling and experience of Jesus. One can hardly fail to notice the carefully balanced character of this final statement, relating as it does the death of Jesus to our sins and his resurrection to our justification. Beyond question, the statement owes much to Isaiah 53, where in the LXX the Servant is pictured as “delivered over” mi [GK in the LXX [53:6, 12], as here) on account of the sins of the many. Justification , Gk appears in the LXX of 53:11. Moreover, the resurrection, though not stated in so many words, is implied in 53:10, 12. Whether Paul’s statement is one he has taken over from Christian tradition (cf. 1Co 15:3–4), as some believe, or is entirely his own composition may be an open question. But one can at least affirm that this passage shows the early tendency to phrase redemptive truth in brief, creedlike formulations.

The chief difficulty for the interpretation of v.25 lies in the preposition “for,” common to both clauses. In the first clause,“delivered over … for our sins” probably means that it was on account of them that Jesus had to die for salvation to be procured. In the second, more difficult clause, “raised …for our justification” can mean that Jesus was resurrected because our justification was accomplished in his death (cf. “justified by his blood,” 5:9). Since justification is already achieved through the cross, however, it is unlikely that Paul means that the resurrection of Christ achieved our justification. More likely is the idea that our justification is confirmed or guaranteed by the resurrection.

Justification, considered objectively and from the standpoint of God’s provision, was accomplished in the death of Christ (5:9) and therefore did not require the resurrection to complete it. Paul does not mention the resurrection in his definitive statement on justification in 3:21–26. Subjectively, however, the resurrection of Christ was essential for the exercise of faith, since if he remained under the power of death, serious doubts would arise about the efficacy of his sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, justification is not simply a forensic transaction, important as that aspect is, but involves also a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ (5:18).

Finally, the justification to which Paul refers is justification through faith (cf. 5:1), and this applies as definitely to us as to Abraham (cf. v.24). To believe in a Christ who died for our sins is only half the gospel. The resurrection cannot be omitted—observe how Paul includes both aspects in 6:3–4 when showing how the work of Christ provides the foundation for Christian living. For Paul, the death and resurrection of Christ belong together, and the former without the latter would be of little significance. Therefore he rarely thinks of the one without the other.

NOTES

19 The best manuscripts ( A B C), among others, have the reading , kateno sen (GK meaning “he contemplated” (NASB; NIV,“faced the fact [about]”) his physically old body. Other texts (D G K P 33 etc.) have a negative before this verb, apparently to emphasize the faith of Abraham—he gave no thought to the age of his body. It is rare to have two opposite readings that nevertheless yield finally much the same sense. Metzger’s comment, 451, is appropriate:“here Paul does not wish to imply that faith means closing one’s eyes to reality, but that Abraham was so strong in faith as to be undaunted by every consideration.”

D. The Benefits of Justification (5:1–11)

OVERVIEW

Commentators on Romans differ on whether ch. 5 concludes the section begun in 3:21, or whether it begins a new major section of the letter. In fact, a good case can be made either way. Chapter 5 can be taken as the conclusion of the discussion of the subject of justification (so Calvin, Godet, Sanday and Headlam, Bruce, Murray, Dunn, Stuhlmacher, Byrne), or as the beginning of the section on sanctification that lasts through ch. 8 (so Barrett, Cranfield, Moo, Schreiner, Fitzmyer [beginning at 5:8]).

Here the discussion of justification (the dikaio root occurs no fewer than eight times in the chapter) goes beyond the exposition of what it is in itself, for that has been sufficiently covered. At this point we hear no more of the law or of supposed merit built up through obedience to it. Justification is now viewed in the light of the wealth of blessings it conveys to the child of God. Many indeed are the gifts that lie enfolded in this cardinal truth, as we see in this passage. It becomes a serious thing, then, to say, as some have done, that justification is not a central teaching with Paul but just an illustration of salvation drawn from the law court, or to call it merely a line of argumentation worked out to save his Gentile converts from the ignominy of being circumcised for their admission to the fellowship of the church. If this general appraisal had any truth in it, we should expect the apostle to make much more sparing use of the term “justify” than he does. Indeed we should look for him to be satisfied with “salvation” terminology.

Some would contend that we are already on the ground of sanctification in this chapter, and in support of this opinion they are able to point to the strong emphasis on experience in vv.2–5. No doubt the elements mentioned there do have an important bearing on Christian life, but the overall emphasis still remains on justification (vv.9, 16) along with reconciliation as seen against the background of enmity occasioned by sin (vv.10–11). Perhaps even more decisive is his use of prepositions—a small but significant indicator. The emphasis in ch. 5 is on what has been done for the believer through Christ and his saving work (5:1–2, 9–11, 17–19, 21; cf. 3:24), whereas in ch. 6 Paul deals with what has happened to the believer together with Christ (6:4–6, 8) and what he or she enjoys in Christ (6:11, 23). Furthermore, it is in ch. 6 (vv.19, 22), not in ch. 5, that sanctification (or holiness) first makes its appearance. Nevertheless, it is true that ch. 5 (especially in vv. 12–21) prepares for chs. 6–8 and thus has somewhat of a transitional character. In this passage, the union of the people of Christ with him, as over against their former union with Adam, furnishes the needed context for the development of the various aspects of sanctification. A common and appealing description of chs. 5–8 asserts that in successive chapters we learn of freedom from wrath (5), sin (6), law (7), and death (8).

since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; character; and character, hope. hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

COMMENTARY

1 The first statement of ch. 5 presupposes the whole argument from 3:21 as the background for what is now set forth (cf.“therefore”). Paul assumes the reality of justification for himself and his readers (“since we have been justified”). This could have been inferred from 4:24–25, but Paul is careful to emphasize that justification is an assured fact before going on to show what it involves. So he includes the part that faith plays also, though this too has been affirmed in 4:24.

The first of the blessings conveyed by justification is “peace.” We have encountered the word in the salutation (1:7) and in an eschatological setting (2:10). Here, however, the background is the estrangement between God and humanity because of sin, and hence the divine wrath set forth in the first section of the epistle. Justification means that we are no longer subject to that wrath. Observe also in the present chapter the occurrence of “wrath” (v.9) and “enemies” (v.10). Peace in this setting means the objective reality of harmony with God rather than a subjective state in the consciousness of a person, though it may be expected to give rise to a feeling of security.

That the objective meaning is to be adopted in the present passage is put beyond all doubt by the fact that the kind of peace in view is “peace with God.” Since this particular reality is placed first among the benefits of justification, it should be evident how central is the wrath of God to Paul’s exposition of the plight of fallen humanity. That plight could be dealt with only through the mediation of “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Related passages tell the same story. Christ made peace through the blood of his cross (Col 1:20). “He himself is our peace,” writes Paul in Ephesians 2:14, and then he goes on to show how this peace works in two directions, removing the enmity between Jew and Gentile to make them one in the body of Christ and reconciling both in one body to God through the cross. The term “peace” is nearly synonymous with the messianic salvation (cf. Ac 10:36). Indeed, underlying the Greek word eir n (GK is the Hebrew concept of šalôm (GK 8934), namely, ultimate well-being in every regard.

2 The second benefit is “access by faith into this grace.” The word prosag g m(GK connotes “access” into the presence of God (it is the language of the temple) and hence can be associated with the Christian’s state of grace and also the hope of glory. Here also faith is mentioned as the essential instrumentality, as in justification itself. We are to think of the Father in his exaltation and glory as the one approached, with Christ introducing us as those who belong to him and so to the Father. There is a striking similarity in thought between this passage and Ephesians 2:17–18, where Paul asserts that Christ came and preached peace to those far away (Gentiles) and to those near (Jews), “for through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.” Later in that epistle Paul shows that this access enables one to approach God in prayer with freedom and confidence (3:12).

The “grace in which we now stand” sums up the privilege of the saints in this present time, enjoying every spiritual blessing in Christ, and the possession of this grace gives warrant for the hope that we shall share the glory of God. Here will be the restoration of the glory that was first lost in Adam’s fall (3:23). In this prospect believers exult. Grace opens the door that someday will swing wide to permit the experience of the glorious presence of the Almighty, a privilege to be enjoyed without end. Grace is the only sure basis for the expectation of sharing eternity with God. Worth noting is the close relationship between faith and hope in v.2. As with Abraham (4:18), so with believers of every era the two virtues have much in common (cf. 1Pe 1:21; Heb 11:1).

3 The word “rejoice,” which was used to characterize the hope of the Christian for participating in the glory yet to be revealed (v.2), now carries over to another area totally different in nature as well as in time, namely, that of “sufferings” (NASB, “tribulations”). Peace with God does not necessarily bring peace with others. The actual conditions of life, especially for believers in the midst of a hostile society, are not easy or pleasant, but the knowledge of acceptance with God, of grace constantly supplied, and the prospect of future glory enable believers to rejoice, even in the face of sufferings. The term thlipsis (GK refers often to external suffering such as persecution, but it is used occasionally for distress—a natural extension of the application of the word, since external events tend to affect the human spirit.

We should not expect to find a full treatment of the subject of suffering here, since sufferings are viewed simply as one link in a chain of events and interactions designed to show what profit they bring to Christian experience, not what they are in themselves. Elsewhere Paul stresses that they are an extension of the sufferings experienced by Christ in the days of his flesh, rightly to be experienced now by those who make up his body (Php 3:10). Believers rejoice when by their suffering they can show their love and loyalty to Christ (Ac 5:41; cf. 2Th 1:4–5).

Suffering has this value, namely, that it produces “perseverance” or “steadfast endurance.” This is a suitable element to go along with tribulation because it denotes resistance to pressure; hypomon (GK means literally “a bearing up under [it].” One does not take the pressure passively by abjectly giving in to it, as much Eastern philosophy counsels its devotees to do. Christ “endured” the cross (Heb 12:2) and thus triumphed over death. Just here lies one of the remarkable distinctives of the Christian faith: the believer is taught to glory and rejoice in the midst of suffering rather than to sigh and submit to it as a necessary or inevitable evil, or indeed as a punishment sent by the gods.

4 The value of perseverance is that it develops “character.” Job sensed the worth of perseverance, saying in the midst of his troubles, “When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold” (Job 23:10). The word rendered “character” , Gk indicates tested value. The newborn child of God is precious in his sight, but the tested and proven saint means even more to him because such a one is a living demonstration of the character-developing power of the gospel. When we stand in the presence of God, all material possessions will have been left behind, but all that we have gained by way of spiritual advance will be retained. This progress is a testimony to God’s provision, so it rightly has a place in glory.

This helps to explain Paul’s statement that character produces “hope” GK Looking back, we see that hope consummates a series of items beginning with tribulations. But just prior to this, Paul has considered hope from the standpoint of another series: faith, peace, access, grace, and then hope of the glory of God (vv.1–2). So we are entitled to say that just as our present access gives hope of sharing the divine glory, so too do our sufferings. They help to produce character, and approved Christian character finds its ultimate resting place in the presence of God, not in the grave. By means of this school of suffering, the Lord is fitting us for his eternal fellowship. Hope for the Christian is not wishful thinking, as it so often is in the world, but rather confident expectation.

5 Next Paul makes it plain that this hope is not just a pious wish, for it does not put one to shame. It “does not disappoint” (cf. the quotation of Isa 28:16 in 9:33 and 10:11) because it depends on “his [God’s] love.” This is, of course, a subjective rather than an objective genitival construction. In view is not our love for God but his love for us. Ordinary human hope may bring disappointment and frustration, but not this hope. Totally unlike ordinary human hope, this hope will never disappoint, exactly because it rests not on human potentiality but on the faithfulness of God’s love (cf. Ps 22:5). For this reason, NT hope is a matter of confident expectation—confident because it is based on what God does, not on what we do. The objective basis of all that Paul speaks of here is supremely important. As Fitzmyer, 397, has observed, “Paul is not advocating some sort of Pelagianism when he says that tribulation produces endurance, endurance character, and character hope, for the basis of it all is divine grace.”

And it is the Holy Spirit who brings a foretaste of the future into our present experience and who thus brings the consciousness of unmovable love and strengthens us to run the course. Subjective desire is supported by an objective divine gift guaranteeing the realization of an eternal fellowship with God. This passage thus contains an intimation of the importance of the believers’ possession of the Holy Spirit as a certification concerning the future aspects of their salvation. In ch. 8 this will be developed more fully. But even in the limited treatment given the Spirit in the present passage we get a glimpse of something that specially characterizes the Spirit. By him God’s love is “poured out … into our hearts.” The initial outpouring at Pentecost (Ac 2:33; cf. Isa 32:15; Eze 39:29; Joel 2:28; Zec 12:10) is maintained in individuals who receive the Spirit at conversion. The verb “poured out” speaks of the inexhaustible abundance of the supply, being reminiscent of the copious provision for the thirsty children of Israel in the wilderness (Nu 20:8, 11; cf. 1Co 10:4). The blessings found in Christ are mediated to the people of God by the Spirit: “St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he [the believer] definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from his baptism” (Sanday and Headlam, 126). Looking back over the opening paragraph of ch. 5, we see that the thought has advanced from faith to hope and from hope to love (the same order as in 1Co 13:13).

6–8 Having dwelt on the powerful influence of the divine love ministered to the hearts of believers by the Spirit, Paul next explores the depth of that love, finding it in the cross of Christ. The demonstration of God’s love in Christ came “at just the right time,” while we were “still” in our sins. This recalls Paul’s placing of the incarnation and redeeming work of Jesus in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4). Since the argument of Romans has included the purpose of the law as bringing clear knowledge of sin (3:20) and as working wrath (4:15), the connection with the Galatians material is fairly close. The law had operated for centuries and had served to expose the weakness and inability of humanity to measure up to the divine standard of righteousness. God does not wait, as some thought, for us to produce a sufficient and acceptable level of righteousness before he acts to save. Quite the contrary: he acts “at just the right time”—i.e., at the time of our manifest helplessness and captivity to sin.

“Powerless” GK is the translation of a word that commonly means “weak” or “sickly,” but here it has a somewhat specialized force well expressed by Sanday and Headlam, 127, as “incapable of working out any righteousness for ourselves.” A still more uncomplimentary description of the necessity of Christ’s death for the world is the word “ungodly.” The same term was used in the striking statement of 4:5 that such are the people God justifies. This astonishing truth is the very heart of the meaning of grace. As Stuhlmacher, 80, has written, “The history of the sending of Christ, which climaxes in his atoning death, is thus the absolute realization of the grace of God which exists prior to faith.”

A third word descriptive of those for whom Christ died is “sinners” (v.8). The verb “to sin” has been used in 3:23 to summarize the human predicament traced in the opening chapters. We need to see how Paul prepares the way for the impact of this term by contrasting it with both “righteous” and “good” (v.7). Here, in a parenthetical statement about one person dying for another, he puts aside for the moment the technical theological force of the word “righteous” in the sense of “justified” and uses it as it is used in ordinary parlance. Likewise, he ignores the fact that in 3:12 he has quoted from Psalm 14:3, “There is no one who does good,” and then proceeds to use “good” as we do when recognizing kindness and benevolence in one another. In other words, Paul is illustrating a point from ordinary life.

It is unclear here whether or not Paul uses the two words “righteous” GK and “good” GK synonymously (so Barrett, Murray, Bruce). Possibly the second half of v.7 means to correct the first half with the concession that such a thing is conceivable, albeit unlikely. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the two words are different in meaning (so Sanday and Headlam, Cranfield, Moo). In that case, Paul would be saying it is a rare thing to find a person ready to die for another upright person, but it would be easier to find one willing to die for a good person. In this case, “a good man” stands on a higher plane than “a righteous man.” Bengel, 65, put the point succinctly:“Every good man is righteous; but every righteous man is not good.”

A further complicating factor is the absence of the article with “righteous,” whereas “good” has it. This opens the possibility that tou agathou should be understood as a neuter noun, referring not to a good man but to “the good cause,” especially the public good (so Leenhardt, 136). Thus one might well die for a good cause, if not for a righteous person. Against this, however, the context requires that all three words—“righteous,” “good,” and “sinners”—be treated as personal. In the last analysis, “a good person” is not merely righteous, but one who is a benefactor—hence, one for whom others might well be willing to die (see esp. A. D. Clarke, “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7,” TynBul 41 [1990]: 128–42).

Paul is ready now to proceed to his point (v.8). It was for “sinners” that Christ died, for human beings who were neither “righteous” nor “good.” The contrast is between the tremendous worth of the life laid down and the unworthiness of those who stand to benefit from it. The motivating force behind the death of Christ for sinners is the love of God: God loved, and so Christ died. No attempt is made to deal with the Savior’s reaction or motivation. Paul leaves much to Christian awareness of the intimate bond between Father and Son, the whole truth about God being in Christ (2Co 5:19) and Christ being motivated by love for the lost (as in Jn 15:12–13). What he puts in the foreground is the love of God, and this Paul underscores by designating it as “his [God’s] own love.” It is distinctive, unexpected, unheard of (cf. Jn 3:16).

Four times in vv.6–8 the verb “to die” sk , Gk occurs, and in each instance the preposition is hyper (“for” or “on behalf of “), commonly employed by Paul in such contexts. He could have used anti (“in the place of “), which would stress the substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ. He probably avoids it, however, because he wants to stress something else as well, in line with the emphasis on the divine love. For this purpose hyper is eminently suited; it can express the substitutionary character of the sacrifice of Christ (as papyri usage indicates) plus the additional element of action on behalf of another, in line with the loving empathy of God in Christ.

9–11 Whereas the preceding paragraph dealt with the depth of the love of God as seen in the cross, the present section moves on to declare the height of that love, its refusal to stop short of effecting final and everlasting salvation in which the enmity created by sin has been completely overcome.

We are invited to take our stand on the fact of an achieved justification (the participle being the same as in v.1 and probably here, as there, bearing a causal aspect: “because we have been justified”) and then turn to face the far-reaching effects of this justification on our future—effects that will be in view through ch. 8. Lest it be taken lightly, the means of that justification is repeated (cf. 3:25): “by his [Christ’s] blood.” The REB has “by Christ’s sacrificial death,” and Barrett, 99, renders it “at the cost of his blood” (cf. BDF, para. 219.3). This takes the place of the reference to “through faith” in v.1.

Though we were reconciled when we were still enemies, God no longer looks on us as enemies, and therefore we will be saved from eschatological wrath (v.9; cf. 1Th 1:10; 5:9). God will furthermore not suffer us to lapse back into the unreconciled position but, on the contrary, will carry us on to the full end of our salvation (v.10). The agency of Christ continues to be crucial, only now with this difference: that whereas our justification was achieved by his death, our salvation is secured by his life (cf. 4:25). “His life” is a clear reference to Christ’s postresurrection life rather than to his life in the days of his flesh. Here Paul conjoins justification and salvation, as he did in the thematic statement of 1:16–17.

The right understanding of vv.10–11 depends on a correct understanding of the word echthroi (“enemies,” GK the fourth term Paul has used for those in the unsaved state (see vv.6–8 for the others). Is “enemies” used in an active sense to mean those who have enmity toward God (cf. 8:7), or in the passive sense meaning those who are reckoned as enemies by God? Several reasons dictate that the latter is the intended force of the word. First, that the word is capable of conveying this meaning is evident from 11:28, where the people of Israel are spoken of as enemies in the reckoning of God and yet loved by him, involving the same combination as in the passage we are considering. The enmity here, as in 11:28, is not temperamental but judicial. Second, the mention of “God’s wrath” in v.9 points to the conclusion that the echthroi are the objects of the wrath. Third, the tenor of the argument leads one to the same conclusion. Paul reasons from the greater to the lesser. If God loved us when we were enemies, now that he has made provision for us at infinite cost, much more will he go on to see us through to the final goal of our salvation. But if the sense is that God loved us and saved us when we were enemies in our attitude toward him, the “much more” loses its point.

Closely related to the above considerations is the fact that Paul not only states that we have been reconciled (v.10, twice) but that “we have now received reconciliation , Gk (v.11, emphasis added). He avoids saying that we have done anything to effect the reconciliation. God provided it through the death of his Son. The matter is made even clearer, if anything, in the companion statement of 2 Corinthians 5:18 that God has reconciled us “to himself.” In an excursus on the relation between justification and reconciliation, Stuhlmacher, 82, puts it well: “God is thus the one who creates atonement, grants justification, and establishes reconciliation, on the basis of his free will and grace.” The appropriate response of the reconciled community is exultation (cf. vv.2–3). (For Paul’s argument, see S. E. Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?” JBL 110 [1991]: 655–77.)

NOTES

1 The famous textual problem in this verse concerns whether the main verb of the sentence is an indicative (“we have”) or subjunctive (“let us have”). The only difference between the two is the middle vowel in , echomen (GK If it is an omicron (short) the verb is indicative; if it is an omega (long) the verb is subjunctive. This is one of the few places in textual criticism where the strongest possible manuscript evidence has been made to yield to the internal logic of the passage. The textual evidence for the omega, the subjunctive, is sterling: A B C D K L, in addition to cursives, versions, and patristic citations. Support for the short vowel, the indicative, is found only in the “corrected” editions of and B, as well as F G P, besides cursives, versions, and patristic citations.

As for internal considerations, however, exhortation seems out of place here. This is especially true since the construction demands that this same hortatory thrust be carried to a point midway through v.3. This is particularly awkward in v.2, because the text says that through Christ we have also gained access—and this is fact, not exhortation. The word “also” ( , which a number of translations omit, seems clearly to point to something mentioned earlier that we also have through Christ. This decidedly favors the indicative rendering, “we have peace.”

Moreover, the confusion can easily be explained. It is well known that the short and long “o” of Greek were often confused in pronunciation during the Hellenistic period. J. H. Moulton writes,“It is indeed quite possible that the apostle’s own pronunciation did not distinguish [short] ‘o’ and [long] ‘o’ sufficiently to give Tertius [16:22] a clear lead, without his making inquiry” Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906], 1:35). For the same confusion of the same vowels, see 1 Corinthians 15:49. This means that it is precarious to lay too much store by the superior manuscript testimony for the (long) “o” reading. A further possibility is that the indicative was deliberately changed to the subjunctive in order to harmonize it with the verb , kauchom etha (GK v.2), itself misunderstood as a subjunctive (see Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1899], 155)!

The discovery of a vellum fragment of part of Romans in 1950 is an interesting development. It supports the text of B everywhere (through some thirty verses) except at 5:1. The Wyman fragment, designated 0220, is dated by W. H. P. Hatch in the latter part of the third century, whereas B dates from the first third of the fourth century. Hatch (“A Recently Discovered Fragment of the Epistle to the Romans,” HTR 45 [1952]: 83) wrote, “This evidence for echomen is probably pre-Hesychian. Therefore the argument for the indicative is greatly strengthened, and the claim of the subjunctive to be the correct reading is correspondingly weakened.”

2 It is unclear whether the words , t pistei (“by faith”), are original. The textual evidence is closely balanced: for inclusion, A C K P 33; for omission, B D G 0220. The words in the Greek text are accordingly put into brackets.

6 Strong manuscript evidence ( A C but not B) supports a somewhat awkward repetition of the word “yet” in the text ( , eti gar … as though to emphasize the overwhelming fact that Christ died for humanity precisely at the time when it was in its hopeless condition of sin.

The inability of the law had become abundantly clear. It was the right time that Christ died for the ungodly. One may ask, If we were to grant that Galatians and Romans have the same emphasis on this point, why then do they not have the same term for “time” (Romans has , kairos [GK and Galatians , chronos [GK Actually there is no perceptible difference, since the word “fullness” ( , pl r GK in Galatians introduces the very emphasis of time as to its character rather than as to its duration.

7 J. B. Lightfoot on Epistles of St. Paul [London: Macmillan, 1895], 286–87) berates those who profess to see no substantial difference between the GK and GK here, quoting extensively from the Fathers to show that they are not synonymous. The righteous man is righteous, but nothing more. He lacks feeling for others. He may be so severely just that he is unattractive, if not actually repellent. On the other hand, the good man, while not lacking righteousness, goes beyond the other by being kind and benevolent.

8 On , see M. J. Harris’s superb article,“Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament” 3:1196–97).

9–10 Barrett, 100, notes the parallel content in vv.9 and 10.Verse 9 says of justification what v.10 says of reconciliation, namely, that through the death of Christ we will be saved.

11 As Bruce, 125, has pointed out, “where reconciliation is mentioned in the New Testament, God or Christ is always the Reconciler, and man is the object (or among the objects) of reconciliation…. God’s abhorrence of sin does not make him the enemy of sinners or seek their ill.”

E. The Universal Applicability of Justification (5:12–21)

OVERVIEW

This important and difficult portion of the epistle, packed with close reasoning and theological terminology, stands at the very heart of the development of Paul’s thought. He has presented all human beings as sinners and Christ as the one who has died to redeem them. Now he delves into the question, How does it come about that all—with no exception but Jesus Christ—are in fact sinners? In answer, he goes all the way back to the first man, Adam, to affirm that what Adam did has affected the whole of humankind, involving everyone in sin and death. But over this record of disaster and loss he puts the countermeasures taken on behalf of the race by another man, Jesus Christ, of which all are potential beneficiaries. Adam and Christ are the two turning points of all human history.

just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

COMMENTARY

12 The one man through whom sin entered the world is not immediately named (reserved until v.14). The same procedure is followed with the other man to be considered: he too is called a man before he is named (v.15). Except for two non-theological references (Lk 3:38; Jude 14), every mention of Adam in the NT comes from the pen of Paul. In 1 Timothy 2:14, he makes the point that Adam, unlike Eve, was not deceived but sinned deliberately. In 1 Corinthians 15, as in the Romans passage, he institutes a comparison between the first and the last Adam but confines the treatment to the issue of death and resurrection, even though sin is dealt with somewhat incidentally (vv.17, 56), whereas in Romans 5, both sin and death are named immediately and are woven into the texture of the argument throughout. In the earlier letter, Paul makes the significant statement, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1Co 15:22), in line with Romans 5:12. Paul has already referred to the inevitable connection between sin and death in the only previous mention of death in Romans (1:32), except for reference to the death of Christ (5:10). But here in v.12 he pictures sin and death as entering the world through one man, with the result that death permeated the whole of humankind. It was the opening in the dike that led to the inundation, the poison that entered at one point and penetrated every area of humanity’s corporate life.

If Paul had stopped with the observation that death came to all humanity because all sinned, we would be left with the impression that all sinned and deserved death because they followed the example of Adam. But subsequent statements in the passage make it abundantly clear that the connection between Adam’s sin and death and what has befallen the race is far closer than that. Paul says that the many died because of “the trespass of the one” (v.15; cf. vv.18–19). Clearly the gist of his teaching is that just as humankind has become involved in sin and death through Adam, it has the remedy of righteousness and life only in Christ.

What, then, is the precise relation of Adam in his fall to those who come after him? Paul does not say, unless he provides the information in the last clause of the verse. The NIV uses the word “because,” which is certainly the meaning of eph’ ho min 2 Corinthians 5:4 and probably also in Philippians 3:12. The Vulgate rendering of the Greek is in which could be understood as meaning “in which” (i.e., death) or “in whom” (i.e., Adam). The former does not make sense and the latter is so far removed from the antecedent (“man”) as to be dubious, though this was Augustine’s conclusion (see Notes).

Now if the correct translation is “because all sinned,” why did not Paul go on to say specifically that all sinned in the first man? That he could have done so seems clear from v.19: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Was it the sudden breaking off to follow another line of thought (vv.13–14) that prevented the full statement? Or was it Paul’s reluctance to gloss over human responsibility, which he had already established in terms of universal sin and guilt (3:23)? Experience demonstrates that despite the inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam, people are convicted of guilt for the sins resulting from it, i.e., for the sins they themselves commit. Conscience is a factor in human life and the Holy Spirit does convict of sin (cf. Jn 16:8). Perhaps, then, as some hold, while the emphasis on original sin is primary in the light of the passage as a whole, there is a hint that personal choice and personal sin are not entirely excluded (cf. “many trespasses” in v.16).

That we could have sinned in Adam may seem strange and unnatural to the Western mind. Nevertheless, it is congenial to biblical teaching on the solidarity of the human race. (For a famous example of corporate solidarity in the OT, see the story recorded in Jos 7:16–26.) When Adam sinned, the race sinned because the race was in him. Similar views are found in Jewish writings perhaps a half century after Paul: in 2 Esdras 7:118, “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants” (cf. 2 Esd 3:7, 21), and 2 Baruch 54:15,“Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time” (cf. 2 Bar 17:3; 23:4). To put it boldly, Adam was the race. What he did, his descendants, who were still in him, did also. This principle is utilized in Hebrews 7:9–10: “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”

The doctrine of original sin and the punishment of Adam’s progeny for Adam’s sin would be an intolerable doctrine if any of his progeny had actually lived a life without sin. In fact, however, as Paul has made abundantly clear in 1:1–3:21, every human being is guilty of sin. The author of 2 quoted above, also puts emphasis on our own responsibility:“each of us has become our own Adam” Bar 54:19); all human beings consistently repeat for themselves the sin of their forefather. Sin is part of the natural makeup of the children of Adam, and they cannot escape living out their Adamic nature.

If one is still troubled by the seeming injustice of being born with a sinful nature because of what the father of the race did and being held accountable for the sins that result from that disability, one should weigh carefully the significance of reconciliation as stated by Paul: “that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against (2Co 5:19, emphasis added). The sins committed, which owe their original impetus to the sin of the first man, are not reckoned against those who have committed them, provided they put their trust in Christ crucified and risen. God takes their sins and gives them his righteousness.

13–14 The dash at the end of v.12 is intended to indicate that the comparison Paul has launched with his “just as” is not carried through (in three statements to come the comparison is complete: vv.18–19, 21). In view of what follows, the complete statement, if given here, would have run something like this: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all, because all sinned, so righteousness entered the world by one man, and life through righteousness.” Grammatically, the conclusion is not formally stated at all, though in the KJV it is assumed that vv.13–17 are parenthetical, with v.18 stating the conclusion of v.12. Verse 18, however, is a recapitulation of the argument (it begins with a “just as” clause that repeats the “just as” clause of v.12), not a resumption of the statement of v.12. The necessary conclusion to v.12 is stated already in vv.15–17 in various ways. Throughout the passage, the thought is so tremendous as to prove intractable from the standpoint of expressing it in orderly sequence. The thought outruns the structural capacity of language.

Judging from the use of “for” at the beginning of v.13, these two verses are intended to support and explicate v.12. The point is made that from Adam to Moses the law was not yet given, so sin, though actual (“sin was in the world”),was not present in the sense of technical transgression. During this period, there was no charge from God similar to that given to Adam, which he had violated. In this situation, therefore, “sin is not taken into account.” The verb elloge (GK which appears only here in the NT, has the technical sense of “charge to someone’s account.” But the very fact that “death reigned” (v.14) during this period is proof that some specific transgression was being accounted, since death is the consequence of sin. The sin in view, therefore, must be the sin of Adam (whose very name means “human being”), a sin that accordingly involved all of his descendants. Death was not the consequence of actual sinful conduct during this period, since that sin was not the transgression of given commandments and thus could not exact a penalty. Death in this case rather obviously means physical death, which suggests that the same is true in v.12. This agrees with Paul’s treatment of the subject of death in 1 Corinthians 15 (see esp. v.22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”).

Adam is described as “a pattern GK NASB, “type”] of the one to come” (v.14). “The one to come” is to be taken from the perspective of Adam and his time and refers to the first coming of Christ, not his second coming (cf. Mt 11:3). A “type” involves a historical pattern wherein by divine ordination an earlier, parallel similarity (= type) resembles a later, parallel similarity (= antitype).

It may seem strange that Adam should be designated as a type of Christ when the two are so dissimilar in themselves and in their effect on humankind. But there is justification for the parallel. Nygren, 218, put it eloquently: “Adam is the head of mankind in the sense that in him mankind was lost. Christ is the head of mankind in the opposite sense, that in Him mankind was saved. Adam is the head of mankind, from which the contagion of sin and death spreads to all its members. Christ is the head of mankind, from which righteousness and life come to all its members.”

15–17 In this section, Christ’s effect on the human race is seen as totally different from that of Adam, and vastly superior. Note the repeated expression “how much more” (vv.15, 17). Any hint of parallelism suggested by “type” is now replaced by the element of contrast. True, there appears to be similarity in one point, in that the work of Adam and that of Christ relate to “the many” GK It will readily be seen by comparing v.15 with v.12 that “the many” is the same as “all” (“death came to all” and “the many died”). This point is also clear from v.19 in the statement that through Adam’s sin “the many were made sinners” (cf. v.12). This use of “the many” has a Semitic background and is to be understood in the inclusive sense of “all,” or at least “virtually all.” The parallel statement of 11:32 employs “all.” Paul “ascribes the greatest conceivable breadth to hoi (J. Jeremias, TDNT 6:542). The phrase thus underscores the importance of Adam and Christ respectively. What one did, in each case, affected the entire human race. The expression goes back to Isaiah 53:11–12, which underlies Jesus’ use in Mark 10:45. Calvin, 114, effectively draws out the sense in which Christ’s work is greater that Adam’s: “We may quite appropriately infer that if the fall of Adam had the effect of producing the ruin of many the grace of God is much more efficacious in benefiting many, since it is granted that Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to destroy.”

Another notable feature of the expression “how much more” is its connection with the recurring use of “grace” and “gift,” suggesting that the work of Christ not merely cancelled the effects of Adam’s transgression so as to put humanity back into a state of innocence under a probation such as their progenitor faced, but rather gives to humanity far more than was lost in Adam, more indeed than Adam ever had. The gift, prompted by grace, includes righteousness , Gk v.17) and life GK v.18), which is later defined as eternal life (v.21). Paul makes a further observation to the effect that in Adam’s case, a single sin was involved, and that was sufficient to bring condemnation, but in the work of Christ a provision is found for the many acts of sin that have resulted in the lives of his descendants (v.16).

16 Verse 16 contains a remarkable break in the symmetry we have become accustomed to in Paul’s argument. Again and again in ch. 5 Paul draws out the parallel: through one man’s sinful deed has come condemnation; through one man’s act of obedience has come the gift of righteousness and life. Here we read that “the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation.” Then, however, Paul continues by asserting that “the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification” (emphasis added). The parallelism requires Paul to say that the gift followed one act of obedience or the equivalent (as esp. in vv.18–19). But instead he shocks us with the words “many trespasses.” Paul focuses on the human contribution to justification. All that human beings have to offer are their sins. Justification, as Paul has already demonstrated, does not arise from our acts of righteousness. The effect of this substitution of sins for deeds, or Christ’s deed, of righteousness is to underline the human dilemma and the reality of salvation by free grace rather than by works of the law. William Tyndale writes in the margin of his translation,“Adam’s disobedience damned us all ere we ourselves wrought evil. And Christ’s obedience saveth us all, ere we ourselves work any good” (D. Daniell, Tyndale’s New Testament [New Haven, Conn.:Yale Univ. Press, 1995], 230).

17 Whereas up to this point Paul’s train of thought has been concerned with developing the concept of sin taken over from v.12, he now turns to its companion factor, death, likewise mentioned in v.12, with a view to enlarging it. The point of the “much more” appears to be that in Christ not only are the hold of death (its ability to reign over humanity; cf. v.14) and the hold of sin (“sin reigned in death,” v.21), established by Adam’s sin, effectively broken, but because of Christ’s redeeming work the believer is able to look forward to reigning in life through Christ. Again the parallelism is not strict: it is not life that reigns, but rather believers who will “reign in life.” This, of course, implies participation in the resurrection. Believers will have a share in the Lord’s kingdom and glory (cf. v.2; 8:17).

18 At this point, as noted above, Paul provides something of a conclusion to v.12, but in such a way as to take account of the intervening material. The opening word, “consequently,” shows his intent to summarize. Now Paul presents in stunning clarity the contrast he started to make in v.12. Notice the careful, symmetrical balancing of the clauses. One trespass brought condemnation for all humanity, and one act of righteousness brought justification for all. Adam’s sin is labeled “trespass” (NASB, “transgression”), indicating that it was deliberate. The basic meaning of the word rendered “trespass” GK used five times in vv.15–18 and again in v.20, is to convey the idea of “falling aside” or “going astray.” “It refers directly to the disruption of man’s relation to God through his fault” 6:172).

The reference is clearly to the violation of the divine restriction laid down in Genesis 2:17, with resulting condemnation for the entire human race. Adam’s act involved others directly; it did not merely set a bad example. Over against that act Paul put another of an entirely different character—an “act of righteousness.” The same Greek word GK occurs at the end of v.16, where it is rendered “justification.” The word is set over against “condemnation,” as in v.16, but now something is added, namely, the observation that justification is more than the antithesis of condemnation, more than the setting aside of an adverse verdict due to sin—more even than the imputation of divine righteousness. It is the passport to life, the sharing of the life of God (cf. v.21).

19 Another term for Adam’s failure occurs in v.19, namely, “disobedience” , Gk This word accents the voluntary character of his sin. Matching it is the “obedience” , Gk of Christ (see esp. Php 2:8). This concept was highly meaningful for Paul, as we know from Philippians 2:5–11. The interpretation of that passage along the lines of a latent comparison between Adam (unnamed, but in the background) and Christ is most satisfactory. Instead of grasping after equality with God, as Adam had done, Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, even to the point of accepting death on a cross.

The result of Christ’s obedience is that “the many will be made righteous.” Does this refer to righteous character? Possibly so, if the future tense is definitely eschatological in its thrust, pointing to the consummation in glory, when imputed righteousness will have become righteousness possessed in unblemished fullness. But “will be made righteous” may simply be the equivalent of “will become righteous” in the forensic sense, as in 2 Corinthians 5:21, in which case the future tense need not be thought of as eschatological but as embracing all who in this age are granted justification. Most of these were indeed future to Paul’s time. Paul’s thought has not shifted away from the forensic.

Does the sweeping language used (“the many” being equivalent to “all,” as argued above) suggest that all humanity will be brought within the circle of justification, so that none will be lost? Some have thought so; the language sounds that way. But if the doctrine of universalism were being taught here, Paul would be contradicting himself, for he has already pictured some as perishing because of sin (2:12; cf. 1Co 1:18). Furthermore, his entire presentation of salvation has emphasized the fact that justification is granted only on the basis of faith. Note the implied reference to faith in the words “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace” (v.17).We must conclude, therefore, that only as “the many” are found in Christ can they qualify as belonging to the righteous. When it comes to describing the saving work of Christ, however, Paul does not shy away from universal language. Rather, he must portray it in absolute terms and with the broadest strokes. In principle, de jure, Christ’s obedience—his atoning death on the cross—can only be thought of as outstripping the effects of Adam’s disobedience. Paul would not be amenable to language that described the work of Christ as a “limited atonement.”

20 At the conclusion of the chapter, Adam as a figure fades from view. Yet his influence is still present in the mention of sin and death. Paul now introduces another factor—the Mosaic law—to show its bearing on the great issues of sin and righteousness. There is scarcely a subject treated by Paul in Romans that does not call for some consideration of the law. The closest affinity to the thought in v.20 is found in 3:20: “through the law we become conscious of sin.” Also, ch. 7 traces the relationship between the law and sin in rather elaborate fashion.

The apostle is not maintaining that the purpose of the giving of the law is exclusively “so that the trespass might increase,” because he makes room for the law as a revelation of the will of God and therefore a positive benefit (7:12). The law also serves to restrain evil in the world (implied in 6:15; stated in 1Ti 1:9–11). Paul uses the unusual verb pareiserchomai (GK at the beginning of v.20 (“added”; NASB, “came in”). It has the idea of “slipping in between” (cf. its use in Gal 2:4), as though to say that the law had a limited and temporary role to perform. Similar language is used in Galatians 3:19 (“added”), where the law is regarded as something temporary, designed to disclose the “trespass” aspect of sin and prepare the way for the coming of Christ by demonstrating the dire need for his saving work. Stuhlmacher, 88, writes, “Just as it did between Abraham and Christ (cf. Gal. 3:19ff.), so too the law also ‘came in between’ Adam and Christ (at Sinai).” The function of the law to increase trespass was not recognized in rabbinic Judaism (cf. H.-J. Schoeps, Paul [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 174). From the Sermon on the Mount, however, it appears that Jesus sought to apply the law in just this way, i.e., to awaken a sense of sin in those who fancied they were keeping the law tolerably well but who had underestimated its searching demands and the sinfulness of their own hearts. The law thus finally leads to an understanding of the necessity of grace: “If it had looked as if the law worked hand in hand with sin, it is now made clear that it works hand in hand with grace” (Nygren, 227).

The bad news of this negative influence of the law is countered by good news announced with the words, “grace increased all the more.” The apostle waxes almost ecstatic as he revels in the superlative excellence of the divine overruling that makes sin ultimately serve a gracious purpose. The statement is akin to Paul’s repeated “how much more” argument (cf. vv.15, 17). The saving grace of God far exceeds the damning sin of Adam’s offspring.

21 With great effect, Paul brings the leading concepts of the passage together in the final, summarizing statement.“Sin reigned in death” picks up vv.12, 14; “grace” looks back to vv.15, 17; “reign” reflects vv.14, 17; “righteousness” harks back to v.17 as well as to 1:17 and many other passages; “eternal life” completes and crowns the allusion to “life” in vv.17–18. Sin and death are virtually personified throughout. Sin poses as absolute monarch, reigning through death as its vicar, but in the end it is exposed as a pretender and is obliged to yield authority to another, whose reign is wholly absolute and totally different, being as much (or more) a blessing as the other is a curse.“Eternal life” easily overcomes the threat of death.

The treatment of sin, death, and salvation in terms of “righteousness” is crucial to our understanding of our relation to God. It loudly proclaims that no sinner, whether a mystic aspiring to direct contact with God or a legalist counting on good works for approval in God’s sight, is able in those ways to find acceptance with God. Because one man, Adam, has intervened between humanity and the Creator, still another, even Jesus Christ, must be the medium of the return of sinners to a righteous God. Jesus of Nazareth alone is the means by which salvation can be experienced (cf. Jn 14:6). Thus grace reigns in sovereign power only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (cf. Karl Barth, Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5 [New York: Harper, 1956]).

NOTES

12 See C. E. B. Cranfield, “On Some Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41; S. E. Porter, “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background,” TynBul 41 (1990): 3–30.

Entering the debate about the meaning of , eph’ h (NIV,“because”), Nigel Turner does not attach great importance to the fact that Paul uses , with the dative rather than , the preposition that appears in 1 Corinthians 15:22. He remarks that “even in classical Greek, and much more so in the New Testament period, the distinctions between the cases with this preposition are difficult to maintain” Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1965], 118). He goes on to suggest that man is “under the power of “ and “within the jurisdiction of “ Adam. He does not deal with the problem of the remoteness of , eph’ h , from its alleged antecedent , anthr

A departure in the attempted understanding of , eph’ h , has been made by F.W. Danker (“Romans V 12: Sin under Law,” NTS 14 [1968]: 424–39), who interprets Paul to mean that death passed to all men “on the basis of what law h ] they committed their sins under.” He relies both on the previous teaching about law as involving Jew and Gentile (2:12–16) and on the immediate context in 5:13–14. He is able to make a plausible case, but one is left with the uneasy feeling that if scholars have missed this down through the years, the chances that the Roman church caught the meaning are rather slim.

Bruce, 130 (citing T.W. Manson), notes that although “in whom” (as in the Vulgate) “may be a mistranslation, it is a true interpretation.” For a full discussion, see Cranfield’s article mentioned above (“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12”). Fitzmyer, 413–17, discusses eleven options and concludes in favor of the words as introducing a result clause.

14 Barrett, 105–6, is of the opinion that since Paul has just mentioned Adam, the word “one” should be thought of in terms of the Adam to come, the last Adam, as Christ is explicitly termed in 1 Corinthians 15:45. Barth and 29) has advanced a provocative interpretation of Adam as a type of Christ. He has attempted to reverse the order: “Man’s essential and original nature is to be found … not in Adam but in Christ. In Adam we can only find it prefigured. Adam can therefore be interpreted only in the light of Christ and not the other way around.” It should be evident, however, that Paul’s thought here is not moving in the orbit of man as made in the image of God and therefore in the image of Christ who is the image of God. To import the preexistence of Christ is to introduce an element foreign to Paul’s purpose and treatment in this passage. For a careful review of Barth’s position and its weaknesses, see Murray, 384–90.

V. SANCTIFICATION: THE IMPARTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

(6:1–8:39)

OVERVIEW

Up to this point, the letter has answered such questions as these: Why is salvation needed? What has God done to effect it? How can we appropriate it? The answers have come in terms of sin, condemnation, the gift of Christ, faith, and justification. Is there need for anything more? In fact, this is hardly the end of the story of salvation—for those who are presently justified have not yet reached the goal of perfection. They must still contend with sin and must depend on divine resources to do so. God’s plan of salvation does not stop with justification but continues on in sanctification.

The Christian life begins with conversion or, objectively seen, with regeneration—a fixed point at which the fact of justification takes place. In this event, sinners are declared righteous solely by means of the work of God on their behalf. Justification by faith means that one is lifted once and for all to the level of God’s righteousness. The Christian’s standing before God is complete and perfect because it is the work of Christ who has been made the Christian’s righteousness (1Co 1:30; cf. 2Co 5:21). At no time in this life or in the life to come will the Christian’s status in terms of righteousness be any greater. It will neither diminish nor fade, “for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable,” as Paul says in another connection (11:29).

Of course, God is concerned not only with the believer’s status but also with the state, or actual condition, of the believer. No sooner has God justified a person than he begins a process of growth that we know as sanctification. This is a process, to be sure, but it should be observed that the term “sanctification” is used in Scripture also to express a “setting apart” that is true at conversion and that is basic to any progress in the Christian life. Consider the description of the Corinthian believers as (already) “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1Co 1:2), in seeming contradiction to the unholy state of many of them, as the letter testifies. The puzzle is solved by Paul’s observation about what happened at their conversion:“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1Co 6:11). Mention of their sanctification is actually given priority over their justification, which reverses the expected order. But this is initial or “positional” sanctification, a setting apart of the sinner to God, which is basic to any improvement in his or her manner of life (cf. 1Pe 1:2). This aspect of sanctification cannot be distinguished from justification in respect to time. But sanctification as a process is naturally dependent on and subsequent to justification.

Eventually the process of sanctification will reach its consummation, when the saints will experience complete sanctification because the sinful nature is left behind and their lives are fully conformed to the divine standard as seen in God’s Son (8:29). This will occur at death (Heb 12:23) or at the return of Christ, in the case of the saints who are alive at that time (1Jn 3:2). Then for the first time the believer’s actual experience in terms of righteousness will conform to the status conferred at the point of justification (Gal 5:5). Then the Christian’s standing and experience will be identical. Righteousness de jure will become righteousness de facto. The gap between what we are in Christ and what we are in Adam will be fully closed.

A. The Believer’s Union with Christ in Death and in Resurrection Life (6:1–14)

OVERVIEW

In this section, we will see that Christ passed through certain epochal experiences—namely, death, burial, and resurrection. Viewed from the standpoint of his substitutionary sacrifice for sin, these events do not involve our participation, though our salvation depends on them. Christ was alone in enduring the cross, in being buried, and in being raised from the dead. But his redeeming work is not only substitutionary; it is also representative: “One died for all, and therefore all died” (2Co 5:14). So Christians are viewed as being identified with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. And as truly as Christ, having borne our sin, is now removed from any claim of sin against him—because he died to sin and rose again—we also by virtue of being joined to him are delivered from any claim of sin to control us. This line of thought is what Paul proceeds to develop in this passage. It is evident that God has a plan for dealing with the power of sin as well as with its guilt. The way has been prepared for this emphasis by the presentation of the solidarity between Christ and the redeemed in 5:12–21.

1. The Statement of the Fact (6:1–11)

shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

COMMENTARY

1 It is notable that Paul begins this discussion by raising an objection and answering it. The objection grows out of his presentation of justification in the previous section of his letter, especially the teaching that “where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (5:20). The query, then, is to this effect: “Are we not able or even obliged, by the logic of justification, to continue on in sin now that we are Christians, in order to give divine grace as much opportunity as possible to display itself? The more we sin, the more will God’s grace be required to meet the situation, and this will in turn contribute the more to his glory.”

2 The apostle shows his horror at such a perverse suggestion: “By no means!” Other renderings are possible, such as, “Away with the notion!” “Perish the thought!” or “Certainly not!” Paul has already repudiated a similar suggestion in a somewhat different context (3:8). It is probable that in his earlier missionary work as he taught justification, objections of this sort were raised from time to time by those who feared that his teaching opened the door to libertinism by encouraging indifference to the ethical demands of the law. If so, his answer is not something recently developed, but rather forged through years of reflection under divine guidance.

His answer is crisp: “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Throughout this chapter, as indeed from 5:12, Paul speaks of sin in the singular (cf. the personified “sin” in 5:21), not of “sins” in the plural. Sin, as a formidable power, is the basic problem that gives rise to specific sins, and hence the problem that must be dealt with. Note that Paul does not say that sin is dead to the Christian. Chapter 7 may serve as a sufficient refutation of any such notion. At this point, Paul does not explain when or how we died to sin, being content to state the fact and its obvious implication, namely, that to go on sinning is therefore logically impossible. What he does present here is not the impossibility of committing a single sin but the impossibility of continuing in a life dominated by sin. Death to sin is not something hoped for or resolved on by the believer; it is something that has already taken place. It is a simple fact basic to the living of the Christian life. The explanation of our death to sin follows immediately (vv.3–4).

3 Our death to sin was accomplished by being “baptized into Christ Jesus” (cf. G. Bornkamm, “Baptism and New Life in Paul: Romans 6,” in Early Christian Experience [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 71–86; G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries [Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967]). What is being described in this phrase is a spiritual reality of the deepest import. Just as we are identified with Adam (ch. 5), so now we are identified with Christ by means of baptism. In the act of baptism, one is identified with and participates with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. Paul’s focus here is our participation in Christ’s death. The metaphor of baptism is clearly used in a relational sense elsewhere, as in the case of the Israelites baptized into Moses by reason of the crossing of the Red Sea (1Co 10:2). They became identified with and united to him as never before, recognizing his leadership and their dependence on him. Union with Christ means union with him in his death. Baptism is a metaphor for death in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50.

4 Paul uses baptism to illustrate this vital union with Christ in his death. Paul apparently pictures burial with Christ, however momentarily, in the submergence of the body under the baptismal waters. The importance of burial is that it attests the reality of death (1Co 15:3–4). It expresses with finality the end of the old life governed by relationship with Adam. It also expresses the impossibility of a new life apart from divine action. The God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead has likewise imparted life to those who are his. The ability to “walk in newness of life” (NASB; NIV, “live a new life”) is the evidence of the new type of life granted to the child of God. This is a distinctive type of life realized only by one united to Christ (cf. 2Co 5:17), so that Christ is its dynamic. In this connection, the question arises,Why should the resurrection of Christ be described as accomplished “through the glory of the Father?” It is because “glory” here has the meaning of “power” (cf. Jn 11:40).

The latter half of v.4 has a noticeably balanced structure (“just as Christ …, we too”), recalling the pattern in 5:12, 18, 21. This suggests that the principle of solidarity advanced in 5:12–21 is still thought of as operating here in the significance of baptism. There is no explicit statement that in baptism we were raised with Christ, as well as being made to share in his death. Resurrection is seen rather as an effect that logically follows from the identification with Christ in his death. However, resurrection is verbally connected with baptism in the important parallel passage in Colossians: “having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12). So it would not be wrong to associate resurrection with baptism here (cf. vv.5, 13).

There is a certain awkwardness in the statement that we were buried with Christ through baptism into death, since in human experience, burial follows rather than precedes death. However, as Sanday and Headlam, 156, have pointed out, this awkwardness disappears in the prominence given death in the whole passage. It is not into Christ’s burial that believers are baptized but into his because it was there that he dealt with sin. (On these verses, see E. Schweizer, “Dying and Rising with Christ,” NTS 14 [1967–68]: 1–14.)

5–7 A difficult question in v.5 is whether Paul is referring to the future bodily resurrection of the saints. Many commentators think so, and they can point to the future tense of the verb esometha (“we will be,” GK Ordinarily, of course, the future tense relates to something that will happen. Occasionally, however, it indicates what must logically or inevitably occur (e.g., Gal 6:5). So if there are other grounds on which to question a future bodily resurrection here, the tense of the verb is not an insuperable obstacle. A second factor to consider is that Christ’s resurrection, mentioned in the previous verse, was indeed a bodily resurrection. This is true enough. But it should be observed that Paul does not say that just as Christ was raised, we too will be raised. Instead he connects the resurrection of Christ with the possibility of a new life for those who are his. And this new life belongs to the present time. Furthermore, the syntax at the beginning of v.6 is intended to relate closely to the mention of resurrection at the end of v.5. Yet one looks in vain for anything in v.6 that relates to future bodily resurrection. Instead Paul returns to consider the matter of participation in Christ’s death in its bearing on freedom from the bondage of sin. Consequently, one is led to conclude that “resurrection” in v.5 has to do with spiritual resurrection—raised with Christ now—as in Colossians 2:12; 3:1 (cf. Eph 2:6).

The certainty of our present participation in this new resurrection life is grounded on the truth that “we have been united with him like this in his death.” Paul uses the phrase symphytoi gegonamen (GK translated here “united with”; more literally it means “grown together,” virtually with the force of “fused into one.” Clearly this union is not something gradually arrived at through a process of sanctification. Rather, it is something established by God that becomes the very basis of sanctification, in which the Christlike life is expressed through the individuality of the one joined to him.

6–7 The problem of sin, however, continues to dominate the thought of this section, and Paul returns to this theme by insisting that “our old self was crucified with him” (v.6).While the relation to v.5 is close, the language now becomes sharper and more realistic—e.g., “united with him like this in his death” becomes “crucified with him” (cf. Gal 2:20). Our spiritual history began at the cross. We were there in the sense that in God’s sight we were joined to him who actually suffered on it. The time element should not disturb us, because if we sinned in Adam, it is equally possible to have died to sin with Christ. At this stage of the teaching, it is not a question of our personal, conscious participation but simply of our position as God has arranged it and as he sees it.

But what was it that was crucified? “Our old self “ is literally “our old man” palaios [GK h m n anthr The same truth is taught in Colossians 3:9. In Ephesians 4:22, however, the putting off of the old man is a matter of exhortation. In some sense, then, the old man has been crucified; in another sense, he may still claim attention. Since “man” has been used of Adam (Ro 5:12, 17, 19), whose name means “man,” it is possible that what has been crucified with Christ is our place in Adam, our position in the old creation, which is under the sway of sin and death. Our solidarity with Adam has been broken. For Christians, the old is gone; they belong to the new creation order (2Co 5:17).

Yet the old order seeks to dominate the believer, as Ephesians 4:22 implies and experience confirms. Though the seeming inconsistency between that passage and this one is not easy to resolve, it may be that in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul, while presupposing the supplanting of the old Adam, wants to exhort his readers to refuse to live in terms of the old self and instead to live deliberately and consciously in the reality of the new creation. It is necessary to distinguish between the old creation—namely, our inheritance from Adam—and our old nature, or the flesh. The latter still persists in the life of the redeemed and can become a prey to the operation of sin unless countered by the powerful influence of the new life in Christ.

The purpose behind the crucifixion of our old self is that sin should be rendered powerless so far as we are concerned. But the expression “body of sin” s ma t s GK is a phrase that needs clarification. It should not be regarded as equivalent to “sinful body,” for the body itself is not sinful. Scripture is clear in its teaching that sin arises from the heart, the inner life (cf. Mk 7:21). Should we settle for “sinful self “ (REB)? This is suggestive, since the word s ma (“body”) sometimes conveys the idea of the totality of a human being, not simply the physical organism. But this may be going too far in the present passage. The term “body” may allude to the fact of crucifixion, which Christ endured in the body. Our body can become the instrument of sin, thus negating the truth of crucifixion with Christ. So “body of sin” seems to mean “body insofar as it may become the vehicle of sin.” Paul tells us that the “body of sin” has been “done away future resurrection will constitute a final victory over sin and its fruit, death. But this future resurrection is anticipated in our present resurrection, and therefore there is also the possibility of a victory over sin already in the present. For a brief time, death, as the executor of sin, held Christ, but not for long (v.9). Since he was not guilty of personal sin, death had no right to hold him indefinitely (cf. Ac 2:24). Likewise, it had no right to recall him to experience death again. Once having been raised from the dead, our Lord is alive forever and ever (Rev 1:18). Through him death has finally been conquered. A totally new order of life has been with,” or possibly “rendered powerless,” as katarge (GK may also be translated. Its previous slavery to the dictates of sin is broken. This annulling of the power of sin is based on a recognized principle, namely, that death settles all claims. A dead person is no longer subject to the penalties or power of sin. Our union with Christ in his death, which was designed to deal with sin once and for all, means that we are free from the hold of sin. Its mastery is broken (v.7). Hence,“we should no longer be slaves to sin” (v.6).

8–10 Union with Christ continues to be the theme in vv.8–10, which essentially restate the argument of vv.5–7:

v.5 = v.8

v.6: “For we know …”

v.9: “For we know …”

v.7: gar (“because …”; NASB,“for …”; ground

for the preceding statement)

v.10: gar (NASB,“for …”; untranslated in NIV)

Resurrection again comes into view in these verses. Though there is considerable similarity with the close of v.4 and v.5, the note of futurity (“we will also live with him,” v.8) makes it apparent that now future bodily resurrection is in view. Our future resurrection will constitute a final victory over sin and its fruit, death. But this future resurrection is anticipated in our present resurrection, and therefore there is also the possibility of a victory over sin already in the present. For a brief time, death, as the executor of sin, held Christ, but not for long (v.9). Since he was not guilty of personal sin, death had no right to hold him indefinitely (cf. Ac 2:24). Likewise, it had no right to recall him to experience death again. Once having been raised from the dead, our Lord is alive forever and ever (Rev 1:18). Through him death has finally been conquered. A totally new order of life has been inaugurated.

10 It was important for Paul to emphasize this truth: “[Christ] died to sin once for all GK and now “the life he lives, he lives to God.” Similarly, since we have been united with him in baptism, we are to exhibit the same death to sin and the living out of a new life characterized by righteousness. In this respect, Christ presents a pattern for believers in their expectation of the future and also in their motivation for life in the present time (2Co 5:15). Christians are thus called to “live in this world as those who do indeed share in Christ’s death, not yet fully liberated from the power of death, but no longer in bondage to sin, as those who draw their vital energies and motivations from God in Christ Jesus” (Dunn, 1:333).

11 In the previous verses, Paul has been imparting information on the subject of union with Christ, and in keeping with this he has three times used the word “know” (vv.3, 6, 9), as a way of focusing on what is true. Now he employs a different key word—“count” or “reckon” [GK the same term used so often in ch. 4 in connection with righteousness), used in the imperative. We encounter here the oddity of the juxtaposition of the indicative and the imperative—i.e., something is flatly affirmed to be true, and then immediately we encounter the command to act in a way that manifests this truth. This interesting feature of Pauline thought is the result of the tension between what is sometimes called “positional” truth and “experiential” truth and is not unlike that between present and future eschatology. The challenge of Christian living for Paul can be stated in the maxim,“Be what you are,” or,“Act out your true identity.”

Counting something as true does not create the fact of union with Christ but makes it operative in one’s life. The charge to consider oneself “dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” is thus in the present tense, stressing the necessity to keep up the process if one is to avoid reactivating the body of sin. Paradoxically, the Christian is dead and alive at the same time, as in Galatians 2:20—dead to sin and self but alive and responsive to God. The Christian is to give no more response to sin than a dead person can give. On the other hand, all the potential afforded by redeemed life is to be channeled godward: “alive to God.”

Paul seems to lay considerable stress on the importance of this process of counting true or reckoning. It is not a matter of attempting to convince oneself of something untrue, thus amounting to self-deception. Rather, it is a matter of letting the truth of union with Christ have its intended effect. What is factually true must be allowed to become a matter of experience. Christians are “to arm themselves with the mentality that they are dead to sin; for that is what happened to them in the baptismal experience” (Fitzmyer, 438).

2. The Appeal Based on the Fact (6:12–14)

do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

COMMENTARY

12 The element of willing cooperation receives emphasis in v.12. The implication is that sin has been reigning. The believer must refuse obedience any longer to sin’s enticements. The word “obey” , Gk has as its root idea “listening” or “heeding.” If the body is kept mortified, it will have no ear for the subtle suggestions of evil. Paul here describes the body as “mortal” GK reminder that, despite the glorious asset of being united to Christ, we are still living in a frail instrument affected by the fall and subject to death. The “evil desires” GK of the mortal body continue to be a force that can still, but need not (v.14), bring one into slavery again.

13 Turning from the body as a whole to its separate members, Paul admonishes his readers not to hand these over to sin (the old master). But this is only half of the Christian’s obligation. On the positive side, they are to offer themselves (personalities and life-potential) to God with, as a corollary, their separate bodily capacities as “instruments of righteousness.” The word “instruments” GK is the word used for weapons and thus conjures up the notion of a battle against evil and for righteousness. The word “offer,” by virtue of its tense,“implies a critical resolve, a decision of surrender” (H. C. G. Moule, Epistle of Paul to the Romans [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1902], 168). This passage prepares the way for a similar emphasis in 12:1.

14 Paul concludes this portion of the text with encouragement and an incentive. He promises the Roman Christians that if they will do as he has enjoined, sin will not be their master , Gk lit., “will not be lord over”), and he adds, “because you are not under law, but under grace.” What is the relevance of this closing statement? Why should law be injected here? Surely because under law sin increases (5:20; cf. 1Co 15:56). The inference is that law lords it over its subjects. It condemns and brings them into virtual slavery. It faces them with their guilt and uses that guilt as a manacle to keep them in helpless subjection. But under grace there is liberty to live in accord with a higher principle—the resurrection life of the Lord himself. Fitzmyer, 447, writes, “The kyrios of Christian life is not legalism of any sort, but the prompting Spirit of God, whence comes grace.”

It is worthy of attention that Christians are said to be grace” GK Usually grace indicates a principle of divine operation, a moving out in kindness and love to lift the sinful and unworthy to God. Occasionally it is used of the sphere of the believer’s life of privilege (5:2). But here in 6:14 it appears as a disciplinary power, in line with the apostle’s effort to show that grace is not license (6:1–4). Somewhat parallel is the word of Jesus promising rest to the weary and burdened but followed up with the mention of his yoke (Mt 11:28–30). Related also is the reminder that God’s grace has appeared for the salvation of all, training us to live sober, upright, and godly lives (see Tit 2:11–12).

NOTES

1–4 Addressing the question of the unity of the argument in this chapter and its coherence, Nygren, 263, notes that Paul presents two basic affirmations: (1) that Christians are dead to sin and hence free from sin, and (2) that Christians must fight against sin. He argues that these statements are not incompatible. On the contrary, the former fact makes the latter charge both possible and necessary: “He who is not free from sin cannot fight against it, for he is the slave of sin…. Only he who, through Christ, has been freed from sin can enter the battle against it; and he, because of his status as a slave of righteousness, is obligated to join in that battle.”

4 It is clear that Paul has baptism in mind here. This need not mean, however, that he views the act of baptism as an operative power in Yet baptism is more than merely a symbol. Nygren, 233, has written, “That which baptism symbolizes also actually and precisely through baptism.” Paul, of course, presupposes the faith of the recipient in baptism, so that he would probably have agreed with the later church that the sacrament of baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality based on the grace of God.

11 Many important manuscripts have the infinitive , einai (“to be”), after “yourselves”: “count yourselves to be dead to sin,” making explicit what is already implied in the sentence.

B. Union with Christ Viewed as Enslavement to Righteousness (6:15–23)

then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

COMMENTARY

15 Paul has just affirmed, “you are not under law.” He goes on to show that this does not mean that Christians are free from the demands of righteousness. It would be strange and contradictory if those who are under grace should now evidence a manner of life inferior to the standard held by those who are under law. As a matter of fact, the believer must face the fact that salvation actually means a change of masters. Once the servant of sin, the Christian is now committed to a life of practical righteousness. Obedience becomes the key issue.

At first glance the opening question seems virtually a repetition of v.1. The difference, however, lies in the tense of the verb. In v.1 we encounter the present tense: “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” Here we find the aorist tense: “Shall we sin [in any given case, or sin at all] because we are not under law but under grace?” Law is supposed to be a restraining influence. If one moves out from under the umbrella of law, will one not be exposing oneself to the danger of committing sin even more than in the previous situation?

16 In answering, Paul appeals first to a fact familiar to all, namely, that whatever one submits to becomes in effect one’s master: “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34). To commit sin, then, puts one in bondage to sin, and the sequel to that is death (cf. 5:12; 8:13). The other option is a life of obedience resulting in “righteousness” , GK The word is a surprise since it breaks the parallel. One expects the word “life,” as in v.22. “Righteousness” and “life” have become nearly synonymous.

17 Paul is happy to acknowledge that his readers have renounced the service of sin and are now wholeheartedly obeying Christian teaching. Attention should be called to the KJV’s mistranslation at this point: “that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” In some other context, Paul might have expressed himself that way, because he frequently spoke of Christian tradition—that which had been handed down to the church as apostolic teaching. But here the normal order is reversed:“you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.” By virtue of becoming Christians, the believers had obligated themselves to obey what we might call “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2; cf. 1Co 9:21). Even though he had not founded the Roman church, Paul was confident that those who had preached the gospel there and taught the converts had reproduced the characteristic teaching that had been standard from the beginning (Ac 2:42, “the apostles’ teaching”). The word “form” translates “type,” or better, “pattern” (GK and refers to a relatively fixed form of ethical teaching (cf. 1Th 4:1–2). Just as the gospel had certain ingredients (the kerygmatic substratum of 6:1–5, namely, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, as in 1Co 15:3–4), so the teaching relating to the life the believer was expected to live was standard throughout the church (cf. C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951]).

The teaching of Jesus and the apostles, especially in terms of the demands of discipleship, the ethical requirements of the faith, and the principles that must guide believers in their relationships with each other and the world became in time so definite and fixed that one could go from one area of the church to another and find the same general pattern. The Mosaic law was a fixed, definite entity with precepts and prohibitions. Grace has its norms also. (For an illuminating study of this subject, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter [London: Macmillan, 1946], 363ff.)

18 The term that most adequately describes the standard Christian instruction is “righteousness.” Here Paul arrives at the full answer to the question raised in v.15. To be set free from obligation to serve sin means entrance into the service of righteousness (“have become slaves , Gk to righteousness”). There is no middle ground, no place in Christian experience where one is free to set one’s own standards and go one’s own way. So it is idle to object that on becoming a believer one is simply exchanging one form of slavery for another. There is no alternative. The psalmist perceived this long ago when he wrote, “O truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds” (Ps 116:16 KJV). Let no one say, however, that the two slaveries are on the same plane. The one is rigorous and relentless, leading to death; the other is joyous and satisfying, leading to life and peace. To be free from bondage to sin is a great boon in itself. But life cannot be lived in a vacuum. Service to righteousness means an enrichment of self and others that adds meaning to life, even as it fulfills the will of God.

19 Reviewing his own remarks, Paul grants that he has spoken “in human terms.” This is really a kind of apology for using language that is not strictly appropriate (see comments at 3:5), here for having described Christian life in terms of servitude to righteousness. As Nygren, 257, points out,“There is a difference as wide as the heavens between the two forms of bond service spoken of. The service of sin is an actual bondage and the service of righteousness and of God is an actual In the metaphors of slavery, Paul uses language that is foreign to the OT and Judaism. David Daube New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: Athlone, 1956], 284) has written, “There is not a single Old Testament or rabbinic text with the phrase ‘slaves of righteousness’ or anything like it—say, ‘slaves of the law’ or ‘slaves of good deeds.’ The faithful are ‘slaves of God’; they could be slaves to no one and nothing else.”

Paul gives a reason for using the unusual language: “because you are weak in your natural selves.” The nature of the weakness is not expressed—whether it relates to comprehension, so needing an illustration such as slavery, or whether it refers to moral fiber. At any rate, the weakness of the Roman Christians has called for strong language to drive the point home. The remainder of the verse may be said to favor somewhat the second alternative because the apostle enlarges his earlier description of their pre-Christian life as slaves of sin, going so far as to speak of their “impurity” GK and “wickedness” GK NASB, “lawlessness”)—uncleanness within and lawlessness without—indeed, as Paul graphically puts it,“slaves … to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness” (NASB).

The readiness and zeal with which they once served sin now becomes the basis for a challenge. Surely the new master is worthy of at least equal loyalty and devotion! This new master is not described in personal terms but in personification—as “righteousness” and “holiness.” The latter word suggests not so much a state of sanctity as an activity, a progression in the life of sanctification: “righteousness leading to holiness.” This is also implied by the antithetical parallel “lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness.” Again Paul presents the call to offer the parts of one’s body in “slavery to righteousness” (cf. v.13).

20 To be a slave of sin, Paul affirms, is to be “free from the control of righteousness.” Under the circ*mstances, this is a most undesirable freedom. It would be a misunderstanding to interpret these words as meaning that a sinner has no obligation with respect to righteousness. The intent is simply to maintain that one cannot serve two masters. Each involves a master so rigorous, so exacting, that it consumes the whole of one’s attention.

21 So far is the pre-Christian state from being a desirable one that Paul can say it yields no “benefit” GK lit., “fruit”). In fact, it leaves behind memories that produce shame. Its end is death (cf. 1:32).

22 On the other hand, the Christian state of freedom from the necessity of serving sin and the corresponding new slavery to God has produced a harvest of “holiness” (NASB,“sanctification,” GK At the end of this process is “eternal life” (cf. Gal 6:8). Paul is not denying the present possession of eternal life, as v.23 makes plain, but is simply presenting eternal life as the inevitable conclusion of the process of sanctification (cf. N. A. Dahl, “In What Sense Is the Baptized Person ‘simul justus et peccator’ According to the New Testament?” Lutheran World 9 [1962]: 219–31). Jesus similarly taught that eternal life was the sequel to genuine discipleship (Mk 10:29–30). Bruce, 142–43, has written, “Those who have been justified are now being sanctified; if a man is not being sanctified, there is no reason to believe that he has been justified.”

23 In a fitting conclusion, Paul puts God over against sin, gift over against wages, eternal life over against death, crowning it all with the acknowledgment that the mediation of “Christ Jesus our Lord” accounts for the shift from the one camp to the other. The term “wages” GK is found mostly in military contexts to indicate the pay of the soldier. Something of this background is retained in the present passage (cf.“instruments” or “weapons” in v.13). Particularly striking here, in a context where the emphasis has been on the need to live righteously, is the breaking of the parallelism encountered in the immediately preceding verses (cf. also vv.16, 19). Now life is the result not of righteousness but very noticeably of “the gift GK of God.” Salvation for Paul is always a matter finally not of righteous works but of God’s sovereign and free grace. And it is always the result of what Christ has done for us.

NOTES

23 In his study of the word “wages” in this context, H. W. Heidland 5:592) finds a threefold connotation: (1) since , ops means provision for one’s living expenses, sin turns out to be a wretched paymaster, promising life but meting out death; (2) since in practice wages are paid not in a lump sum but regularly and periodically, death is not to be regarded merely as the final payment but as that which already casts its dark shadow over life, a portent of the deeper darkness to come; and (3) inasmuch as , ops is a legal term, in contrast to “gift”), we are to see a pitting of law over against grace.“Man has rights only in relation to sin, and these rights become his judgment. When he throws himself on God without claim, salvation comes to him” (ibid.). Cf. C. C. Caragounis, A Reconsideration of Its Meaning,” NovT 16 (1974): 35–57.

REFLECTIONS

Looking back over vv.15–23 of ch. 6, we see that truth has been taught by means of the elaboration of one great contrast. Obedience, whether to sin or to righteousness, is the one concept common to both sides of the contrast; otherwise, all is different:

Obedience to sin→fruitlessness and shame→death

Obedience to righteousness→sanctification→life

C. Union with Christ Viewed as Deliverance from Law (7:1–6)

OVERVIEW

As already observed, sin and death in their correlation have occupied Paul to a great degree from 5:12 on, with an occasional reference to a third element, namely, the law. In ch. 6, he has sought to explain that the believer’s crucifixion with Christ has brought freedom from enslavement to the dominion of Since the law has served to promote sin (5:20), it is expedient now to show that Christ’s death, which involved the death of those who are his, effected release from the law also. At the same time, Paul is careful to indicate that this emancipation from the law is in order to permit a new attachment, namely, to the risen Lord and his Spirit, so that from this union will flow a fruitfulness of life unattainable under the law. Since union with Christ has already been shown to be so powerful a factor in its intended result as to warrant the figure of “slavery” (to righteousness), the way has been made clear to teach deliverance from the law as not opening the door to irresponsible and sinful conduct.

These verses reveal an argument parallel to that of ch. 6 (adapted from Nygren, 268):

you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

COMMENTARY

1 The readers are described as those “who know the law.” Because the definite article is lacking before “law” (GK in the original, some have thought that perhaps the Mosaic law is not in view here. Could it be that since the recipients of the letter reside in Rome, the seat of legislation and government for the empire, Paul is referring to secular law? This conclusion is hardly necessary, however, since “law” similarly occurs without the article in passages that clearly have to do with the Mosaic legislation (e.g., 5:20). Almost certainly that is what Paul is referring to here. At the same time, it may be that Paul is not interested so much in identifying which law he has in mind as in pointing to the character of law as that which has binding force.

Already in this initial statement we have a clue for determining the thought that Paul is about to develop. The law has authority over a person only for that person’s lifetime. Since it has been established that the believer died with Christ, one can anticipate the conclusion—that whatever authority the law may continue to exercise over others, for the believer that power has been abrogated: “Only for him who in faith appropriates the righteousness of God in Christ is the law abolished” 4:1075). It remains, of course, as an entity that expresses the will of God. The life under grace does not belittle the ethical demands of the law (cf. 3:31).

2–3 To illustrate the binding character of the law, Paul presents the case of a woman who is married to a husband and remains bound by law in this relationship as long as the husband is living. During this time, she is not free to seek another sexual relationship. This may be done only in the event that the husband dies. By design, the status of the wife as subject to the husband is presented by the term hypandros (GK a rather rare word meaning (lit.) “under a husband” (NIV, “married”). This pictures more readily than “married woman” what Paul is seeking to bring out. Particularly in Jewish life this was the actual legal status of the wife, for she could not divorce her husband; divorce was a privilege granted only to the man. If the husband died, she was then released from “the law concerning the husband” (NASB; cf. REB, “she is released from the marriage bond”). A new marriage became possible in which the woman would not be regarded as adulterous (v.3).

4–6 The opening “so” lit.,“so that”) indicates that illustration is now giving way to application. But the careful reader may be somewhat disturbed in that there is a measure of inconsistency in the way the illustration is applied. Note that in the case under consideration three essential statements are made: a woman is married to a man; the man dies; then the woman is free to be married to another (vv.2–3). In the application, three statements likewise appear or can be readily inferred: the readers have had a binding relation to the law; they have died to the law; and they are now free to be joined to another, even the risen Lord. A glance at these two triadic propositions shows that the parallel breaks down at the second item, for the law, which is the assumed master or husband in the application, is not represented as dying, since the readers are said to have died to the law. Paul avoids saying that the law died—something that is never affirmed in Scripture—though the law had a certain, temporary course to run (Gal 3:19). All he is concerned with is continuing the emphasis already made in ch. 6, namely, that death ends obligation. It was not feasible in the illustration to have the woman die, because then she would not have been available for marriage to another, which is vital to the application in which a new relationship is set up between the believer and Christ.

Paul was no doubt aware of this incongruity between illustration and application, but he counted on the understanding of his readers that he was seeking merely to underscore the truth that death with Christ brought to an end the sway of the law over those who are in him and ushered in a new relationship, as superior to the old as Christ is superior to the law.

4 Death to the law is said to have occurred “through the body of Christ.” This is a reference to the crucifixion of Christ’s body. Through the same means, believers became dead both to the law and to sin (cf. 6:6). “The body of Christ” s matos [GK tou should not be interpreted here as a reference to the church, since the word has not been used in the corporate, mystical sense thus far in Romans, and when it is so used (12:4–5), Paul brings in the human body as an analogy in order to make his meaning clear, as he had done in an earlier letter (1Co 12:12–13).

Death to the law occurred so that believers “might belong to another” (cf. Gal 2:19–20). To be joined to Christ involves participation not only in his death but also in his resurrection (6:5). Severance from obligation to serve the law is only part of the truth. We are married, as it were, to the risen Lord, with a view to “bearing fruit to God.” It is probably “far-fetched” (thus Bruce, 146) to argue that an analogy is intended here—as a marriage produces progeny, so the believer’s union with Christ results in spiritual fruit. (The general idea, however, is consonant with the Johannine emphasis on the secret of fruit bearing as being union with Christ [Jn 15:1–8].) A somewhat different background for fruit bearing is presented in Galatians 5:22–23, where the fruit is attributed to the Spirit, in contrast to the output of the flesh and of the law. Since Paul also speaks of the Spirit in Romans 7:6, the parallel with Galatians 5 is close. Fruit is readily attributed both to Christ and to the Spirit. The point here is that “it is only when man is free from the law that he can really bear fruit for God” (Nygren, 275).

5 Pre-Christian experience produced fruit of a sort, but it was corrupt and perishable, emanating from the “sinful nature” and produced by the “sinful passions” as these were aroused by the law (cf. vv.7–13). The contrast between the two types of fruit is striking (cf. 6:21). Paul has used sarx (GK NASB, “flesh”; NIV, “sinful nature”) in several senses thus far: (1) the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:3); (2) the physical body (2:28); (3) humanity—lit., “all flesh” (3:20); and (4) moral, or possibly intellectual, weakness (6:19). Now he adds a fifth: the so-called “ethical” meaning of “flesh,” which is the most common use of the word in his writings and denotes the old sinful nature. It is this sense of the word that pervades chs. 7 and 8, together with a final use in 13:14. Paul did not earlier employ the word “flesh” in this sense when exposing the universality of sin in chs. 1–3. In noting that the “sinful passions” path mata t n harmati GK are aroused by the law (v.5), Paul is anticipating his fuller statement in vv.7–13 about the manner in which the law promotes sin. These passions were formerly at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death.

6 The strong language of our freedom from the law in v.6 should be stressed: “by dying to what once bound us, we have been released r g th GK from the law.” In the same way that the death of a husband releases the wife for a new relationship, so the law has no remaining power over us:“The power of sin is the law” (1Co 15:56). We are now free for something other, something new. Release from the law has as its objective a bond service to God “in the new way of the Spirit” in contrast to the “old way of the written code.” This contrast is not between a literal mode of interpreting Scripture and one that is free and unfettered. “The written code,” which has special reference to the law rather than to Scripture in general, has no power to give life and to produce a service acceptable to God. Only a human can beget human life, and only a divine person can impart spiritual life, which is then fostered and nurtured by the Spirit. The word kainot s (GK NASB, “newness”; NIV, “new way”) refers not so much to the idea of newness in time as freshness and superiority. This is the only mention of the Spirit in ch. 7. It anticipates ch. 8, with its unfolding of the wealth of blessing to be experienced through the Spirit.

NOTES

4–6 Stuhlmacher, 102, calls attention to a rabbinic parallel based on Psalm 88:6: “If a person has died, he has become free from the Torah and from fulfilling the commandments” Šabb.

5 Stuhlmacher, 104, regards v.5 as a kind of heading and table of contents for the remainder of the chapter, with v.6 serving in a similar way for 8:1–17.

6 Though , gramma (lit., “letter,” GK comes from the same root as , graph (GK the word for “Scripture,” the two are not treated by Paul as equivalents. The very fact that , is pitted against , pneuma (“Spirit,” GK is revealing. It becomes a surrogate for law in its written form. G. Schrenk 1:768) notes that is not used when [Paul] speaks of the positive and lasting significance of Scripture. This positive task is always stated in terms of graph . When the reference is to Paul is always thinking of the legal authority which has been superseded, while graph mis linked with the new form of authority determined by the fulfillment in Christ and by His Spirit, the determinative character of the new no longer being what is written and prescribed.”

Considerable affinity can be detected between the presentation here and that in 2 Corinthians 3:6, where the , tension likewise appears. In both passages, the concepts of death and life occur; also the verb , katarge , occurs (Ro 7:6; 2Co 3:7, 11, 13–14), with the meaning “to be released from” in Romans and “to fade away or disappear” in the 2 Corinthians passage, except for v.14, where it has the force of “to be taken away.” In both passages, the subject is the abrogation of the law, though the matter is put somewhat differently in Romans, where believers are said to have been discharged from service to the law. But the thought is essentially the same in both places.

Not all translations allow for mention of the Holy Spirit here. The REB, for example, has “to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way of a written code” (similarly the NJB). However, it is probable that we have in 7:6 an anticipation of that fullness of treatment of the Spirit that comes out in ch. 8. Also, the parallelism between Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3 favors a reference to the Holy Spirit, since there is no doubt that , refers to the Spirit in the latter passage.

The contrast between the newness and freedom of the Spirit and the oldness and bondage of the written code probably alludes to the “new covenant” passage of Jeremiah 31:31–34. Note how Paul alludes to the same passage in 2 Corinthians 3:6.

D. The Relationship between Law and Sin (7:7–13)

OVERVIEW

Paul now turns to clarify the relationship between law and sin. When he flatly states that the believer has died to sin (6:2) and to the law (7:4), does this mean that the two are so similar as to be in some sense equated? The relation between the two has been touched on briefly in 7:5, but Paul now digs into the subject more fully. In essence, the solution of the problem is this: the law cannot be identified with sin, because it is the law that provides awareness of sin (cf. 3:20). Can one say of an Xray machine that reveals a disease that the machine itself is diseased? That would be utterly illogical.

From v.7 through the end of the chapter Paul employs the first person pronouns “I” and “me.” The identity of this “I” remains one of the greatest enigmas of the epistle. In fact, the question is a double one since the “I” of vv.7–13 is not necessarily exactly the same as the “I” of vv.14–25, where all the verbs suddenly change to the present tense. Commentators remain divided on the question. Here we will address the question of vv.7–13, reserving the question of vv.14–25 for an extended note on those verses.

Verses 7–13 present a historical perspective on the subject Paul addresses. It is clear that even if Paul speaks autobiographically here, the “I” may also be representative of a larger entity. Since vv.7–13 concern the law of Moses, the “I” must represent a Jew or Jews (or possibly Gentiles who were Godfearers). A decisive issue is how to explain the statement of v.9 that “once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” If one takes the “I” as Paul himself, perhaps the turning point was when he became “a son of the commandment,” being accountable thereafter to obey the law. Another obvious candidate is Adam, for whom the coming of the commandment became a crucial turning point. Bruce, 148, who is inclined to identify the “I” of this passage as Paul (so too Barrett, Sanday and Headlam), notes that “Paul, of course, did not think of his own experience as unique; he describes it here because it is true in a greater or lesser degree of the human race … it may well be that here, as in Romans v. 12 ff., Paul has Adam’s transgression in mind as well as his own.” Dunn, 1.378, also opts for Adam, as does Stuhlmacher, 106. Bruce, 148, quotes T.W. Manson approvingly: “Here Paul’s autobiography is the biography of Everyman.” It is also possible that Paul speaks more generally of the experience of the people of Israel, to whom the law was given through Moses (preferred by Moo, 431, who concludes that the “I” is “Paul in solidarity with Israel”). What is important is not so much who is in view in the “I” but rather the contrast of the pre-law and post-law state.

As Paul has appealed to the experience of his converts to support Christian truth (Gal 3:1–5; 4:1–7), so now he begins suggestively with his own experience, as a mirror of both Adam and Israel (Ro 7:7–13). This personal reference then broadens into a more general picture of the soul-struggle of a person who tries to serve God by obeying the law but who encounters only failure because of the continued power of sin (vv.14–25).

The observation that consciousness of sin is produced by the law is sharpened by a specific example. Paul seizes on the tenth commandment, which says,“You shall not covet” (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). This is of the highest importance for our understanding of the meaning of law in Romans 7:1–6, the law from which the believer has been released. What the apostle has in mind includes the moral law. While students of Scripture find it convenient at times to distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law, Paul regards the law as a unit. To any who may be disturbed by the thought that the divine standard for one’s life is abandoned by maintaining release from the law, Paul will reply in due course that no such danger exists (cf. 8:4).

shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said,“Do not covet.” sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

COMMENTARY

7–13 “Sin” is an oft-repeated word in this section. It does not refer here to specific acts of sin but to the “sin principle,” to that mighty force which cannot be tamed but which lurks dormant or relatively inactive in a person’s life, then is brought to the fore by prohibition, and proceeds to rise up and slay its victim, whom it has utterly deceived. Sin, then, has the same meaning here as in 5:12–21. The same conditions of prohibition and desire, leading to a fall, are latent in both passages. But whereas in 5:12–21, sin is further defined as parapt ma (GK “trespass,” which has in it the very word for “fall,” here hamartia (GK alone is used. This is suggestive, for since the fall of Adam and Eve there is an inability to get back to God. Humanity is always “falling short,” which is precisely the meaning of hamartia (cf. 3:23). Paul strongly denies the outrageous idea that the law itself is sin. Rather, as he has already indicated, the law serves to expose sin (cf. 3:20; 5:13).

7 The words “indeed I would not have known” could be translated, “I did not know,” giving them a fully historical setting, but the hypothetical construction is no doubt preferable. In view is the awareness of sin in a personal, existential sense—an awareness created by the law’s demands. To come to grips with this, the apostle selects an item from the Decalogue, the very last of the ten commandments. Is he selecting more or less at random one of the ten for an illustration? Could he have chosen just as readily the prohibition against stealing or bearing false witness? Possibly he saw something basic here, for “coveting” GK is more precisely “desiring.” If one gives rein to wrong desire, it can lead to lying, stealing, killing, and all the other things prohibited in the commandments. The sin indicated here is not so much a craving for this or that wrong thing but the craving itself. (Note that Paul does not bother to spell out the particulars of the tenth commandment, such as mentioning the object of the coveting—the possessions or spouse of one’s neighbor.) In analyzing sin, one must go behind the outward act to the inner person, where desire clutches at the imagination and then puts the spurs to the will.

8 In the background is the Genesis story of the temptation and the fall (Ge 3:1–24). Adam and Eve were faced with a commandment—a prohibition. When desire was stirred through the subtle suggestion of the serpent, a certain rebelliousness came into play that is the very heart of sin—a preference for one’s own will over the expressed will of God. The warning “Don’t!” to a small child may turn out to be a call for action that had not even been contemplated by the child. A sure way to lose blossoms from the garden is to post a sign that says, “Don’t pick the flowers!” The word “opportunity” in the Greek , Gk is a military term meaning “a base of operations.” Prohibition furnishes a springboard from which sin is all too ready to take off. The possibilities for seeking satisfaction through giving way to wrong desire are manifold: “every kind of covetous desire.”

Paul concludes this verse, “For apart from law, sin is dead.” It appears from a comparison of “dead” here with “sprang to life” in v.9 that the word “dead” is intended to be taken in a relative sense, namely, quiescent, dormant, inactive. The statement appears to be an axiom, a broad principle. But since the verb “is” does not appear in the original, a possibility exists that “was” should be supplied, making the reference personal to Paul rather than a general statement (so Murray, 250). On the other hand, when some part of the verb “to be” is left for the reader to supply, as here, it is more apt to be a generalization than a specific historical allusion.

9 Paul was the son of a Pharisee (Ac 23:6) and lived in strictest conformity to the regulations of his sect (Ac 26:5). If there was ever a time when he was not yet under the law, it would have been as a child, before he became Insofar as he speaks generally or implicitly of Adam or Israel, however, it is easier to understand this verse as referring to the time before the coming of the commandment or the law. With the coming of the commandment, sin “sprang to life” , Gk When Paul writes in v.10 that as a result “I died” de apethanon [GK this dying is, of course, entirely unrelated to dying with Christ, of which we have been informed in ch. 6. This refers not to a death to sin but a death because of sin.

10 The commandment referred to, like the others, “was intended to bring life.” That is to say, its design and ideal were to promote observance that would lead to divine blessing and consequent human happiness: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the (Lev 18:5). The practical difficulty, of course, is that sinful humanity fails to do the will of God as set forth in the commandments. The contradictory result was that the law led to death.

11 In v.11 sin is strongly personified, being represented as an acting person taking up an opportunity (cf. v.8). The language is reminiscent of the fall, with sin taking the place of the tempter and provoking a deception that led to death. (The spiritual death that occurred then and there was prophetic of the physical death to follow.) The word “deceived” , Gk occurs here in a strong form, indicating a thorough deception. Paul uses the same word on two other occasions when speaking of the deception effected by the serpent in relation to Eve (2Co 11:3; 1Ti 2:14; cf. Ex 8:25 [LXX]). The statement is reminiscent of the words of Eve in Genesis 3:13, where the LXX uses the verb without the prepositional prefix , Gk Sin within him led Paul to do the very thing the commandment forbade, thus bringing him under condemnation as a lawbreaker. Recall his statement about the law in 2 Corinthians 3:6—“the letter kills.”

Günther Bornkamm’s insight Christian 91–92) is helpful:

What constitutes this deception and death? The deception of sin can only consist in the fact that it falsely promises life to me. This it cannot do by itself, but only with the help of the divine commandment. Deceptively it appropriates the call to life, which actually declares God’s law: do that, and you shall live. What it quietly and deceptively conceals from me is simply this, that it has now usurped this call to live, and therefore the encounter with the divine commandment is no longer direct. Sin always stands in between and has fundamentally perverted my relationship to God’s commandment. This perversion is both deception and death.

12 It is time for the apostle to give a decisive answer to the question he had raised in v.7: “Is the law sin?” So very far from being identifiable with sin, “the law is holy” GK as are the individual commandments it contains. It is possible to understand “the commandment” entol , GK as a reference to every single precept of the law, but the singular form leads one to think that Paul is casting a backward glance at the tenth commandment. But what Paul says of that commandment refers equally to the law as a whole. The commandment is “holy” because it comes from a holy God and searches out sin. It is “righteous” GK in view of the just requirements it lays on humans, and also because it forbids and condemns sin. It is “good” , Gk or beneficent, because its aim is life (v.10). The misuse of the law at the hands of sin has not altered its own intrinsic character. Its goodness is twice reaffirmed in v.13. Stuhlmacher, 108, writes, “In contrast to what his opponents maintain, the law is, for Paul, in no way a sinful power, but rather the arrangement and gift of God.”

13 Having detached the law from any wrongful association with sin, Paul still has the necessity of treating the problem of the law’s relation to death, the other great enemy of humanity. Continuing to present the case in personal terms, he insists that the responsibility for incurring death must be assigned to sin rather than to the law. Its use of the law to bring death shows how “utterly sinful” sin is. At the same time, the law, which seemed to be victimized by being taken over by sin, emerges as having gained an important objective: it has exposed sin for the evil thing it is. Nygren, 283, has written, “By reason of its relation to sin, the law becomes a destroying power—something which, in its own nature, it is not. From that destroying power Christ has saved us.”

NOTES

8 In the KJV, the word for “desire” ( , GK is rendered “lust” in v.7 and “concupiscence” in v.8. Since both of these renderings are readily associated with sexual desire, they unduly restrict the frame of reference.

9 The objection often mentioned as disqualifying the view that Paul’s bar-mitzvah is in view is that he had been circumcised on the eighth day and thus was not “apart from law.” But what is in view is Paul’s consciousness of the demand of the law, and that reaches a formal turning point at the age of accountability and does not arise merely by circumcision or early childhood training in the commandments.

E. The Struggle to Observe the Law (7:14–25)

OVERVIEW

A shift of emphasis is discernible on moving from vv.7–13 to vv.14–25. In the former section, Paul has shown that the fault lay not with the commandment of God but with sin in its use of the commandment. In this section, he maintains that the responsible party, ultimately speaking, is not “I” but the sin that dwells within.

From this point on to the end of the chapter, the personal emphasis continues but with increased intensity, as the powerful forces of law and sin are depicted as producing a struggle that ends in a confession of despair relieved only by the awareness that in Jesus Christ there is deliverance. Paul does not shrink from putting himself prominently in this arena of conflict if only his doing so will help others (cf. 1Co 4:6).

If his portrayal of the struggle of the soul to observe the law despite the enticement of sin is presented at greater length and with greater intensity than the struggle with the powers of darkness (cf. Eph 6:10–18), it is not necessarily because the former is intrinsically more important (seeing that the powers are evil also), but because it is so immediately and desperately personal (the other is equally so only in cases of demon-possession).

know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. in my inner being I delight in God’s law; I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

COMMENTARY

14 At the outset, Paul wants it understood that he is not depreciating the law, for it is “spiritual” GK emanating from God (vv.22, 25), who is Spirit (Jn 4:24). Of course, it is true also that the law as a part of Scripture is the product of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers. But that aspect is not prominent here. The law is a reflection of the character of God. Godly people recognize this fact (“we know”).

“But I am of flesh GK (NASB; NIV,“unspiritual”).What a stark contrast! “Flesh” is used here in the sense of moral corruption, what I am in myself. I am not subject to the law and therefore I am in rebellion against God, since the law is from him. Fitzmyer, 474, observes, “The Ego possesses a nature in which sin is entrenched because of Adam.” (The problems as to whether Paul speaks individually or universally here, and whether as a Christian or a non-Christian, will be dealt with in an extended note on 7:14–25.) Here he moves on to a second description more wretched than the first: he has been “sold as a slave to sin.” This strikes the keynote of what follows, down to the anguished cry, “Who will rescue me …?” (v.24).

15 The slavery extends to the totality of his being. It numbs and blinds him, for he confesses that he does not know what he is doing. It is a graphic picture of many an action carried out by a slave, going through certain motions under the authority and direction of a master. If there appears to be obedience, it is really not a matter of volition but something almost mechanical. Paul’s figure of slavery is cogent here, since he is forced to carry out what he does not want to do, what he really hates, whereas what he would like to do he never manages to accomplish.

16 The failure to do what he desires to do is not to be attributed to some defect in the law, since Paul concurs in the verdict that the law is praiseworthy. It inculcates the right kind of conduct, the things that are beneficent in their results. The very act of not wanting to do what the law forbids is itself an admission that the law is good.

17 If the failure does not come from an intrinsic weakness of the law or a wrong attitude toward the law, such as indifference or defiance, then the doing of things contrary to the law must be traced to the power of sin working within him. Paul is not attempting to escape responsibility but rather is putting his finger on the real culprit—indwelling sin. The invader had managed to secure more than a foothold; he roams the place, considering it his home. In putting the matter this way, Paul has moved from a consideration of outward acts to an emphasis on the unwanted tenancy of sin. With this alien master in control, no matter how strongly he wants to do the good, he finds himself frustrated.

18–20 The inability to do the good that he wants to do points to the fact that “nothing good lives in me” (v.18; cf. 3:12, “there is no one who does good, not even one”). But Paul quickly adds the important qualification “that is, in my flesh GK i.e., in his fallen, sinful nature (NIV). Verse 19 is a virtual repetition of v.15; the same is true of v.20 in relation to v.17.

Since Paul was a Jew, it is natural to inquire whether there was anything in his Jewish inheritance he may have been drawing on to depict the struggle against sin. A strong case can be made, simply on the basis of similarity, for the conclusion that Paul was indeed dependent on rabbinic teaching at this point as far as the formal framework of his presentation is concerned (cf.W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [4th ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980], 17–35). The rabbis taught that within man there are two impulses, both attributable to God. One is evil (the yetzer the evil impulse), usually understood as present from birth but inactive during the early years, and the other good (the yetzer the good impulse), making itself felt at the time a Jewish lad at thirteen became a barmitzvah (“son of the commandment”). Thereafter the two impulses contend for mastery within the person. The rabbinic remedy suggested for this situation was a devoted study and application of the law. At this point, however, Paul’s presentation differs radically from the rabbinic view, for he stoutly maintains that the law, despite its divine origin and intrinsic excellence, is not able to counteract the power of sin.

21–23 The language here clearly indicates a purpose to summarize what has gone before. The word nomos (GK is translated “principle” by the NASB; elsewhere nomos is usually translated “law.” So far, the law under discussion is the law of Moses, but here the specialized meaning “principle” is intended (see comments at 3:27 and 8:2). Some insist, however, on retaining the meaning of nomos as Mosaic law throughout the chapter (see, e.g., A. A. Das, Paul and the Jews [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 161–63). But would Paul really have referred to the Mosaic law in this way? This usage makes it necessary, when speaking once more of the (Mosaic) law, to call it “God’s law” (v.22) for the purpose of differentiation.

The “principle” is that for the one desiring to do good, “evil GK lies close at hand”—which is the more literal rendering of the verb parakeimai (GK than the NASB’s “is present in me” (v.21). In Paul’s inner being, the divine law is welcome and brings delight (v.22), but that which manifests itself in his bodily members (what may be called the “outward man”) is the “law [principle, or perhaps authority] of sin.” It is a state of war (v.23), and he finds himself taken captive (cf. the earlier figure of a slave in v.14) to the imperious operation of sin.

24 The agony of this unhappy condition bursts forth in the cry “Wretched GK man that I am!” It is a powerful and moving cry recalling the words of Isaiah when he became aware of his sin (Isa 6:5). Since Paul is unable to help himself, he must look elsewhere. In this verse and the next one, the “I” is clearly the man himself, which warns us against trying to analyze the “I” at earlier points in the chapter in schizophrenic terms. Barrett, 141–42, has noted, “The source of Paul’s wretchedness is clear…. it is not the conflict of a ‘divided self.’ Through sin, the word of God in the law has become not a comfort but an accusation. Man needs not a law but deliverance, a new creation.”

In line with this, the apostle does not ask,“What will rescue me?” but “Who …?” Deliverance is provided by God through Jesus Christ. No answer is to be found within the Christian: “Threatened by defeat in the conflict between willing and execution, the Ego finds no relief in its own native resources” (Fitzmyer, 476). The appeal from self to Jesus is meaningless if the latter has the same problem as the tormented suppliant. Jesus’ sinlessness and triumph over evil are assumed. It is because of who Jesus is and what he has done that he can deliver us. The NASB’s “the body of this death” s matos [GK tou thanatou [GK is better understood as “this body of death” (so NIV), taking the last word (“this”) as modifying “body.” A body marked by sin is a body marked for death.

25 The final statement (v.25b) of the chapter is another summary. Coming as it does after the cry of thanksgiving for deliverance through Christ (v.25a), it seems strange that there should be a reversion to the state of tension described earlier. Because of this, some students have ventured the opinion that this part of the verse has somehow been misplaced in the course of the transmission of the text. In his translation, Moffatt actually puts it after v.23 (Dodd agrees), despite the fact that there is no manuscript authority for this. In v.25, the expression “I myself “ serves as a contrast with “Jesus Christ our Lord.” How, then, shall we account for the strange order? Apparently Paul felt the desirability of stating once more the essence of the struggle he had depicted in order to prepare the reader to appreciate more the grand exposition of the deliverance in terms of Christ and the Spirit that is presented in ch. 8.

Romans 7 performs a service by calling into question certain popular notions that lack biblical foundation: that the soul’s struggle is essentially against specific sins or habits (Paul talks here not of sins but of sin); that human nature is essentially good (cf. v.18); that sanctification is by means of the law; that if one will only determine to do the right, one will be able to do it. These are some of the misconceptions that must be removed, and they might not have been removed had the apostle proceeded directly from ch. 6 to ch. 8. Without ch. 7 we would not be able to fully appreciate the truths presented in ch. 8.

NOTES

1–25 On Romans 7, see G. Bornkamm, “Sin, Law and Death: An Exegetical Study of Romans 7,” in Early Christian Experience (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 87–104; C. L. Mitton,“Romans 7 Reconsidered,” ExpTim 65 (1953–54): 78–81, 99–103, 132–35.

14–25 See the following for further discussion of this passage: J. D. G. Dunn, “Romans 7:14–25 in the Theology of Paul,” TZ 31 (1975): 257–73; R.Y. K. Fung, “The Impotence of the Law: Towards a Fresh Understanding of Romans 7:14–25,” in Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. ed. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 34–48; D. Wenham, “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experience in Paul,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 70th ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 80–94.

18 The final clause of the sentence in v.18 ends in ou, ou (“not”), unaccompanied by a verb. Some manuscripts (D F G and TR) add , heurisk (GK “find”; a few others, , gin sk , “know” (GK The NASB appropriately supplies “is” (“the doing of the good is not”). The NIV translates, “I cannot carry it out.”

REFLECTIONS

Before moving on to ch. 8, we must return to the problems of interpretation in 7:14–25. First of all, is Paul giving a truly autobiographical sketch, or is the “I” a vehicle to present humanity in its extremity, a means to universalize the experience treated here? It is difficult to decide. The first person (“I”) was occasionally used in antiquity as a rhetorical device for expressing something applicable to others. It was so used somewhat by the rabbis (see W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus [Leipzig: Hinrich, 1929], 128–31—a book widely regarded as a classic treatment of the subject). That Paul could think and write in this fashion is apparent from Romans 3:7. Romans 7, however, is unique in its extent. Perhaps the personal and the universal are intended to mingle here. As we have seen, it is probable that the “I” of vv.7–13 refers not only to Paul but is also an allusion to Adam, the man who had so much to do with sin and death.

With regard to the particular issue of the interpretation of vv.14–25, are we to regard the state pictured here as that of the non-Christian, such as the Jew (perhaps the Pharisee Saul)—so Dodd, Taylor, Moo, Stuhlmacher (the Adamic I before baptism and without Christ)—or the moral secular person (Fitzmyer: “unregenerate humanity faced with the Mosaic law—but as seen by a Christian”)? Or is it that of the Christian (so Nygren, Bruce, Barrett, Cranfield, Mounce, Edwards)? After reviewing the arguments, Schreiner, 390, concludes that Paul speaks with neither group in mind, but rather of humanity in the broadest sense. Interesting secular parallels to the idea of doing what one wants not to do and vice versa have been found, e.g., in Horace, Ovid, and Epictetus, but there are also significant differences (cf. Bruce, 154).

The case for concluding that in view is non-Christian or pre-Christian experience includes the following points: (1) It was the prevailing view among the Greek fathers of the early church. (2) Such expressions as “I am of flesh” (NASB) and “sold as a slave to sin” (v.14) seem incompatible with Paul’s earlier statements—“anyone who has died has been freed from sin” (6:7), “sin shall not be your master” (6:14), and “you have been set free from sin” (6:18, 22)—and also with statements to come in 8:4–9, where the Spirit is said to overcome the sinful nature, enabling the achievement of righteousness. (3) If the “now” of 8:1 means what it seems to mean (cf. the “now” of 7:6), Paul is passing from a consideration of the pre-Christian to the present Christian condition. (4) Romans 7:14–25 provides the grounds for the statement in 7:13 (cf. [NASB], at the beginning of v.14; untranslated in NIV), thus indicating its application to the non-Christian. (5) The absence of the Holy Spirit from the discussion, and even of Christ (until the very close), is hard to understand if a redeemed experience is under review.

A second interpretation holds that a Christian is being depicted, despite the emphasis on wretchedness. For this view the following arguments may be mentioned: (1) This was the conclusion of Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. (2) Appeal is made to the change from the use of the past tense in vv.7–13 to the consistent use of the present tense in vv.14–25. This is readily understandable if the former section relates to Paul’s pre-Christian experience and the rest of the chapter, beginning with v.14, to his present post-conversion experience. (3) The author’s description of his pre-Christian life in Philippians 3:6 as a blameless condition in terms of the law does not jive with the passage before us. Paul counted this faultlessness as one of the things that could be listed as gain. Both pictures cannot readily apply to the same period. It has been replied that he is speaking in Philippians of his standing with others and not, as in Romans 7, of his relation to God. Paul, however, was a transparent person who would hardly have represented himself as possessing what he recounts in Philippians in a merely human frame of reference, if everything within him protested against it as a hollow unreality. (4) The progress of thought in Romans needs to be taken into consideration. Paul has passed beyond his description of the unsaved state and is now giving attention to sanctification and its problems; so the theme here is really relevant only to believers. (5) The sort of conflict described here can and does characterize the Christian life, as is apparent elsewhere in Paul, especially in Galatians 5:17. (6) The power of self-diagnosis at the penetrating level found here (vv.22–23) is beyond the capacity of the natural human being. Advocates of the other view suggest that the explanation here is that Paul is writing retrospectively as a Christian who naturally has gained in perception, and this colors his presentation. (7) A person desiring holiness of life, as pictured here, could only be a believer, for the non-Christian person does not long for God but is hostile toward him (cf. 3:11, 18). (8) The end of the chapter, in terms of the text as it stands and with out attempted rearrangement, acknowledges the deliverance in Christ yet goes on to state the very problem sketched in vv.14–24 as though it continues to be a problem for one who knows the Lord.

The wide difference between these two views has plagued interpreters of Romans. Since each view seems persuasive, perhaps one way to do justice to the complexity of the question is to conclude that the passage does not refer exclusively to either group. If it primarily has in mind the non-Christian—the arguments here seem strong—there may at the same time be a secondary sense in which it also refers to Paul the Christian.

Several recent commentators have found such an approach appealing. For example, Stuhlmacher, 114, who identifies the “I” as the Adamic “I” of the preconversion experience, can nevertheless write these words: “Once again, the apostle intentionally formulates this summarizing maxim from 7:7–24 in the present tense and in so doing brings to expression the fact that every believing Christian bears in himself or herself the unhappy dichotomy of the Adamic ‘I,’ whose spirit is willing, but whose flesh is weak (cf. Mk. 14:38 par.). The Christian bears this dichotomy in the sense of a need which is more than something that is simply well remembered, but has been overcome with God’s help.” Similarly, though Dunn, 1:410, refers to the larger passage as describing “everyman in the present,” concerning v.24 he writes, “Here certainly Paul speaks for himself, and not merely as a spokesperson for humanity at large; this is not the stylized formulation of one who is long since removed from the situation in question. The one who cries for help so piteously cries from within the contradiction; he longs for deliverance from the endless war and frequent defeat.”

The applicability of vv.14–25 to the Christian is readily explained by the tension of life between the first and second comings of Christ. John Reumann (“Romans,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the ed. J. D. G. Dunn [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 1296) points to this in the following words: “It remains worth pondering whether the key is not eschatological (‘now’ is the same phrase as in 3:21), a tension in existence, even under Christ. Paul surely describes life under the law in the aeon of Adam, but though the new age of Christ has broken in and marks believers’ lives, the old age continues on until the parousia.” This perspective has been worked through most thoroughly by Nygren, who finds the tension between the old and new aeons to be the key to the entire epistle. Consonant with this understanding is the future tense of “will rescue me” (GK v.24), which points to the end of the tension in the future. For the present, just as the Christian is free from death yet still subject to it, thus too the Christian is free from sin yet still in an inescapable struggle against it. Cranfield’s observation, 1:346, is worth quoting: “With regard to the objection that it is incredible that Paul should speak of a Christian as [sold as a slave to sin], we ought to ask ourselves whether our inability to accept this expression as descriptive of a Christian is not perhaps the result of failure on our part to realize the full seriousness of the ethical demands of God’s law (or of the gospel).” And in this struggle the Christian will experience the occasional defeat. Calvin, 148, has written, “It should be noted that this conflict mentioned by the apostle does not exist in man until he has been sanctified by the Spirit of God.” It is the righteous person who knows the struggle against sin, and who is sensitive to sin in a way that the oblivious sinner never can be. For the present, the Christian is a walking civil war. But Paul will speak more encouragingly in ch. 8, referring to the power of the Spirit in the life of the Christian.

F. The Blessings of Life in the Spirit (8:1–39)

OVERVIEW

It is altogether too narrow a view to see in this portion of Romans simply the antidote to the wretched state pictured in ch. 7. Chapter 8 is one of the absolutely high points in the entire corpus of Pauline literature. It gathers up various strands of thought from the previous discussion of both justification and sanctification and unites them under the crown of glorification. Like ch. 5 it presents the blessings of the justified life, grounded in the removal of condemnation. Like ch. 6 it stresses freedom from the bondage of sin and ultimately from the bondage of death. Like ch. 7 it deals with the problem of the law and the flesh, finding the solution in the liberating and productive ministry of the Spirit. The Spirit dominates the chapter (the word occurs nineteen times), which begins with instruction, rises to consolation, and culminates in jubilation. This is high and holy ground indeed for the Christian pilgrim to tread.

1. Liberation by the Spirit from the Law of Sin and Death (8:1–13)

there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

COMMENTARY

1 The reader is hardly prepared by the contents of ch. 7 for the glorious pronouncement that there is “no condemnation” at all for those who are in Christ Jesus. Here is the statement of the gospel in just a few words. Here is the answer to the condemnation mentioned in 5:18. It is not easy to associate the “therefore” with anything in the immediately preceding context. The connection must be sought in the entire sweep of the thought as developed from ch. 3 on. The natural antithesis to the sentence of condemnation is justification. It can be replied, of course, that Paul has already covered this truth and would not be likely to revert to it here. However, this is such a basic truth that Paul brings it even into his discussion of the Christian life (vv.33–34; cf. v.10). Justification is the basis and starting point for sanctification. One must be assured of acceptance with God before one can grow in grace and conformity to Christ.

At the same time, it is clear that the construction of vv.2–4 carries us beyond the thought of freedom from condemnation in the sense of guilt. What is developed is the application of the redeeming work of Christ by the Spirit to the believer’s life in such a way that the dominion of sin is broken and the reign of godliness assured. In Christ we have entered a new aeon, and those “in Christ Jesus,” i.e., Christians, participate in the freedom of this new aeon. The noun “condemnation” GK has its counterpart in the verb “condemned” (v.3), which is followed immediately, not by a statement about the standing of the believer, but by one concerning the believer’s manner of life (v.4). Consequently, there is both a forensic and a practical force in “no condemnation.”

2 Verse 2 immediately picks up this practical, dynamic aspect by concentrating on freedom from the imperious rule of sin (cf. 6:18) and death (cf. 6:22–23), the two archenemies of humanity. This new freedom is now available to and made possible for the believer through the operation of the Spirit. The word “law” is again probably to be understood figuratively here (cf. 7:21, 23). It seems improbable (though not impossible) that Paul would refer to the law of Moses as “the law of sin and of death,” even though it provokes sin (7:7–8) and produces death (7:9–11; 2Co 3:6, 7). For Paul, the law in itself remains holy (7:12). In the present passage, therefore, “law” is used in the sense of a “principle” to indicate the certainty and regularity of operation that characterizes sin (which leads to death) on the one hand and the work of the Spirit on the other. Whereas the word “law” GK emphasizes regularity, “life” , Gk emphasizes both supernaturalness and spontaneity—hence the superiority of the Spirit’s operation over that of sin (cf. L. E. Keck, “The Law and ‘the Law of Sin and Death’ [Romans 8:1–4]: Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel [New York: KTAV, 1980], 41–57).

The syntax leaves unclear whether the words “through Christ Jesus” are to be taken with the words “the Spirit of life” or with “set me free.” Probably the latter is to be preferred. “The Spirit of life through Christ Jesus set me free” points to the Spirit as the life-giver (cf. 2Co 3:6) but only as mediating that which is in, or through, Christ (cf. Col 3:4). Paul has already noted the enslaving power of sin and the freedom from it achieved by Christ (6:18, 22; cf. Jn 8:34–36).

3 But how was this freedom gained? The opening statement here about the powerlessness of the law because of the weakness of the sinful nature to which its commands are addressed is an obvious reminder of the major thrust of ch. 7. The problem is not caused by something intrinsic to the law but is rather the result of the flesh and sin. The law makes demands, and it condemns when those demands are not met, but it cannot overcome sin. This inability of the law necessitated another solution, namely, the personal action of God in Christ. God thus sent “his own Son.” The mission could not be entrusted to anyone else or anyone less than his Son. While the preexistence of the Son is not formally taught here, it is implied (as it is in the gospel of John, where the sending of the Son is often mentioned; cf. e.g., Jn 3:17; 7:33; 17:18; 20:21; also Gal 4:4; 1Jn 4:14). Taken together, vv.2–3 can be seen to contain Trinitarian implications and bear a close resemblance to Galatians 4:4–6, where Father, Son, and Spirit are also pictured as involved in the mission of Christ.

The Son was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh” hom*oi mati sarkos NASB). Paul exercises great care in the choice of words here. He does not say “in sinful flesh,” lest the Son’s sinlessness (cf. 2Co 5:21) be compromised, nor “in the likeness of flesh,” which would convey a docetic idea and thereby deny the reality of the humanity of Jesus, making it only an appearance of corporeality.

So much for Christ’s person. What about his work? “To be a sin offering” (NIV; NASB, “as an offering for sin”) expresses the purpose of his coming. The proper translation of the phrase peri hamartias (lit., “for sin”) is a matter of some controversy. Since the phrase is used regularly in the LXX for “sin offering,” the NIV’s “sin offering” is a possible rendering (cf. the similar point made in the language of 2Co 5:21: “made him … to be sin”). But this may not be what Paul intends to say, since he does not surround the expression with sacrificial language. And if it were his intent to stress expiation, we might expect the use of the word “offering” or “sacrifice.” If we translate literally, “for sin,” we can conclude that Paul is simply stating broadly that the mission of Christ was to deal effectively with sin, thereby making possible among his people the type of life presented in the following verse. This includes expiation but also goes beyond it.

Possibly the words “he condemned sin in the flesh” (NASB) are to be correlated with “through the flesh” (NASB; NIV,“by the sinful nature”) at the beginning of the verse, so that what is in view is the judgment of sinful humanity (cf. NIV. “so he condemned sin in sinful man”). However, since “flesh” can be used of Christ apart from any sinful connotation (e.g., Col 1:22), it is also possible to refer the phrase to the corporeality of Jesus (so Schweizer, TDNT 7:133) and in particular his sacrificial death on the cross. Stuhlmacher, 120, observes,“As a result, with the condemnation of Jesus, sin brought God’s judgment upon itself in its most inherent sphere of power, the flesh.” This brings the teaching in line with 6:5–11. The viewpoint is well expressed by Murray, 282:

In that same nature which in all others was dominated and directed by sin, God condemned sin and overthrew its power. Jesus not only blotted out sin’s guilt and brought us nigh to God. He also vanquished sin as power and set us free from its enslaving dominion. And this could not have been done except in the “flesh.” The battle was joined and the triumph secured in that same flesh which in us is the seat and agent of sin.

4 The purpose of the incarnation, as far as the believer’s life is concerned, is stated here in such a way as to indicate that the apostle has not allowed the agonizing struggle of ch. 7 to fade from view. There the law was pictured as faultless in itself, a revelation of a holy God but agonizingly elusive for the person who tries to keep it on his or her own strength. Those who are self-satisfied will minimize the law’s demands by magnifying their own achievements, whereas those who are conscientious will end up in despair. In God’s plan, however, the law is to be honored not simply in lip service or in desire but in reality. Its “righteous requirements” GK cf. 2:26) are to be fully met in the life of the Christian (contra Moo, who maintains that this refers to justification accomplished by Christ on our behalf). Schreiner, 399, observes correctly, “Thus those who limit Romans 8:1–4 to forensic categories fail to perceive the connection drawn in the text between judicial and dynamic realities; those freed from the curse of the law are now liberated to keep the law’s commands.” The requirements of the law can be accomplished only by living according to the Spirit rather than according to the flesh, i.e., the sinful nature of humanity (cf. “Spirit of life” in v.2). It is only those who “live … according to the Spirit” who are able to exhibit the righteousness of the law. Divine aid is needed to meet the divine requirement. Stuhlmacher, 121, draws out the significance in the following words:

It is thus not a rhetorical pretense when the apostle maintains in 3:27, 31 that he establishes the law anew as a mark of faith. Rather, he teaches and shows how the breakthrough of the new revelation and spiritual internalization of the instruction of God promised in Jeremiah 31:31ff. comes about in and through Christ and now this instruction is then followed by Christians in the power of the Spirit!

Paul makes no attempt to particularize the divine requirement, but later on he significantly depicts love as “the fulfillment of the law” (13:10). That love is the primary item in the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) is surely no happenstance. Observe the balance in this passage between the divine and human elements in Christian life. Paul recognizes that believers have a life to live; believers are not robots but persons accountable for their redeemed life as a stewardship. At the same time, and most important, Paul pictures the requirement of the law as fulfilled (a key passive) in believers, not by them, as though to remind them that redeemed persons do not possess spiritual power they can control and utilize on their own. Rather, the Spirit is always channeling this power and never releases it to those he indwells for them to use independently of him. The power resides in the Spirit, not in the one he indwells (cf. Eze 36:27).

It would be a mistake to ground the Christian walk solely on the enabling ministry of the Spirit. The close connection with v.3 demands that we include the saving work of Christ. In a previous passage, Paul has observed that identification with the Savior in his death and resurrection has this very objective, namely, that “we too may live a new life” (6:4; NASB, “walk in newness of life”).

The conclusion that v.4 refers to the actual fulfillment of the law in Christian living does not entail perfectionism. It refers to a basic orientation of one’s life and basic patterns of righteousness about which Paul will speak in chs. 12–14. Nevertheless, in view is a degree of victory that answers to the defeat of ch. 7. Bruce, 160, 162, has written,“The warfare between the two natures still goes on, but where the Holy Spirit is in control the old nature is compelled to give way…. All that the law required by way of conformity to the will of God is now realized in the lives of those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit and are released from their servitude to the old order. God’s commands have now become God’s enablings.”

5–8 At this point, Paul launches a fairly extended statement contrasting the terms “flesh” (NASB; NIV, “sinful nature”) and “Spirit,” which he has just used in v.4. Both terms are difficult because they can have more than one meaning. For example, “flesh” can be used of ordinary physical life shared by believer and unbeliever alike (cf. 2Co 10:3). But usually in Paul the ethical force of the word, referring to human nature as corrupted and weakened by sin, is dominant. Because the variety of expressions about the flesh may be confusing, some explanation is necessary. To be “in the flesh,” as the word is used in v.8 (NIV, “controlled by the sinful nature”), is to be in the unregenerate state. To be v.5) “according to the flesh” is to have the flesh as the regulating principle of one’s life. To “walk GK NIV,“live”] according to the flesh” (v.4) is to carry out in conduct those things dictated by the flesh, i.e., to live sinfully.

Less complicated is the use of “Spirit,” but even here there is some question as to whether the word used in contrast to “flesh” may not properly be considered as referring to the (redeemed) human spirit. (In the original manuscripts all the letters are capitalized.) This much is clear: in the passage under consideration, pneuma (GK does not mean “spirit” simply as an element in the constitution of man as, for example, clearly in 1 Corinthians 5:3. The problem is to determine whether pneuma in this passage means the divine life-principle (the new nature communicated to the believer), or whether it should be understood to mean the Spirit of God.

The presence or absence of the definite article does not decide the question, since a reference to the Holy Spirit, considered as a proper name, would not require the article. Neither does the contrast (flesh versus spirit) necessitate a reference to the new nature on the ground that if flesh has a human reference, the same must be true of spirit, for the context of Galatians 5:16–17, where the two terms are in evident contrast, requires that this be understood as a reference to the Holy Spirit.

Two considerations strongly favor the view that these verses refer to the Holy Spirit: (1) The chapter has begun with an obvious allusion to the divine Spirit (v.2), so that unless there is clear indication to the contrary, one should expect this to be the intended meaning of pneuma in the verses that follow. (2) It is likely that in stating the ground of Christian victory over sin, the apostle would assign the basis of that victory to the highest source rather than to a lower, intermediate factor such as the human spirit. It is the indwelling Spirit of God who makes the victory of renewal and sanctification possible. (The decision on the meaning of pneuma in v.10 is more difficult and will be deferred until we come to that verse.)

The statements made about the flesh or human sinful nature in vv.5–8 are to be understood as referring to the unregenerate person, judging by the care with which Paul excludes his readers in v.9. This is not sufficient ground, however, for claiming that the Christian has nothing to do with the flesh. The warning of vv.12–17 would be meaningless if that were the case. But for the moment Paul wishes to expose the flesh in its stark reality as being totally alien to God and his holy purposes. He makes the point that there is a correspondence between the essential being and the interests or outlook of a person. The fleshly are occupied with fleshly things, whereas those who possess the Spirit are controlled by and concerned with the things of the Spirit. Paul has already taught (1Co 2:14) that the natural or fleshly person does not welcome the things of the Spirit. They are foolishness to such a person, who neither comprehends them nor desires to do so. That mind-set is totally different. To “set one’s mind on” GK v.5) denotes far more than a mental process. It includes not only concentration of thought or perspective but also desire (cf. Php 2:5ff.; Col 3:2).

The same root word appears again in v.6, now in the nominal form phron GK “the mind set on the flesh is death” (NASB; NIV, “the mind of sinful man is death”). The unregenerate person is cut off from God, and this amounts to death in the sense of separation from God. The spiritual person, on the other hand, enjoys life from God (cf. v.2) and the peace such life affords (cf. 14:17). The dead state of the natural person, both present and future, is traced to the inveterate opposition to God that characterizes “flesh” (v.7). This hostility manifests itself in the natural person’s attitude toward the law of God. The fact that it is God’s law does not move or soften such individuals. They refuse to obey it and thereby put themselves into the position of rebels against God, since the law is an expression of God’s will.

Note the sharp contrast in the response of the believer to the law (v.4). There is a contrast also with the “I” in 7:14–25, where there is at least a desire to fulfill the law’s demands, even if the doing of it is grossly deficient. Sinful human beings are plagued by a double limitation: they neither submit to God’s law nor are able to do so (cf. a similar twofold limitation of fallen human nature respecting spiritual knowledge, as stated in 1Co 2:14). They “cannot please God” (v.8). Such persons neither can nor will receive the things of the Spirit. In summary, Paul has named four characteristics of sinful humanity: hostility toward God, insubordination to his law, failure to please God, and death. It is no wonder that when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of the flesh (and the Spirit), he went on to declare, “You must be born again” (Jn 3:7).

9 Turning now to his readers Paul reminds them of the basic difference between themselves and those he has been describing, those who have nothing more than sinful human nature. As believers, they have in the Spirit an antidote for the flesh. Furthermore, the Spirit of God “lives” in them. The “if “ is not intended to raise doubt, as though to suggest that some of Paul’s readers might have to be excluded. In this type of construction, the “if “ presupposes the truth of the statement (in effect, “since”; so too in vv.10–11). Previously (v.2) the Spirit has been called “the Spirit of life” because of his regenerating and renewing power; here he is set forth as “the Spirit of God” and as “the Spirit of Christ,” indicating that he carries out the purposes of God and applies the fruit of Christ’s redemptive mission to the lives of believers (cf.“the Spirit of his [God’s] Son” in Gal 4:6).

No one who lacks the Spirit belongs to Christ. According to Paul, for Christians the indwelling Holy Spirit is the sine qua non. It is a given that everyone who trusts Christ has the Spirit (5:5; 1Co 6:19; cf. Eph 1:13). The title “Spirit of Christ” is justified and made meaningful by the deliberate way in which Paul says essentially the same thing about both the Spirit and Christ in relation to the believer: the Spirit “lives in you” (vv.9, 11) and Christ “is in you” (v.10). The presence and fullness of Christ are realized in the life of the Christian by means of the indwelling Spirit (Eph 3:16–17). Clearly, the notion that “the Spirit of Christ” is a reference to Christ’s disposition, his kindness, etc., is entirely wide of the mark.

10 Paul’s observation about those in whom Christ lives—“your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness”—has proved difficult for interpreters. Translation is to some extent interpretation, and the NIV stands in line with most leading modern translations in making “spirit” refer to the spirit of the Christian rather than to the Spirit of Christ. On the other hand, able commentators in increasing numbers (e.g., Michel, Barth, Barrett, Bruce, Murray, Leenhardt, Moo) are coming to a different conclusion. Two factors seem decisive. One is the unlikelihood that in a passage that has consistently referred to pneuma in terms of the Spirit of God, the word would be given a different frame of reference in this one instance. To be sure, the use of “body” over against “spirit” might seem to be sufficient ground for assuming that Paul is talking about two contrasting elements of the human constitution. But whereas such a sharp contrast is congenial to Greek thought, it is alien to the Hebraic concept of life that characterizes both Testaments. In fact, it has been recognized that in Paul’s usage, “body” usually means the totality of one’s being, “man as a whole, not a part which may be detached from the true I” 7:1064). Can we really suppose that when he speaks of “this body of death” (7:24) he has reference merely to the physical organism? In the passage before us, he is asserting that sin necessitated our dying with Christ and that even so we must expect physical death in the future. The second reason for choosing the rendering “Spirit” over “spirit” is found in the last clause of v.10, where the pneuma is said to be “alive because of righteousness.” In reality Paul says more than this, for the word he uses is actually the noun “life” , Gk “the Spirit is life.” This is more than can be properly said of the human spirit. It has been said, however, of the Spirit at the beginning of the chapter (v.2).

So the best conclusion is that pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit. The very fact that the first part of the following verse (v.11) refers to the living presence of the Spirit in the believer seems to indicate that Paul is repeating what he sought to say at the end of v.10 in order to build on it for a further observation, namely, that the same Spirit will provide resurrection life in due season. The end of v.10 teaches that the Spirit who is life in himself brings life to the person he indwells only because that person has already been granted God’s righteousness (justification). So the presence of the Spirit in the redeemed life is at once the evidence of salvation bestowed and the earnest of that final phase of salvation that belongs to the future (v.11). In v.10, righteousness cannot be understood in any other sense than as imputed righteousness (cf. 1Co 1:30).

11 Here the Spirit is given yet another title:“the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead.” The reference is, of course, to God (cf. 4:24). Paul is not asserting, as some claim, that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. The title is a specialized variation of the Spirit of God now related to the resurrection of Jesus. His future work in behalf of the saints will similarly be to “give life” to their mortal (i.e., subject-to-death) bodies (cf. 1Co 6:14). This accords with Paul’s description of the glorified bodies of believers as “spiritual” GK 1Co 15:44). The life bestowed by the Spirit in that coming day is beyond the power of death or any other agency to vitiate or destroy. It is the very life of God, blessedly spiritual and indestructibly eternal.

12–13 These are transitional verses, which many take as beginning a new section but which are better understood as concluding the preceding discussion with a word of application and exhortation, moving from what God has done through Christ and the Spirit to what the believer is expected to do by way of response. Even with the strong emphasis here on human responsibility, we see behind the human effort that which can be accomplished only “by the Spirit.” It is the message of 6:11–14 all over again, except for the reminder that no one can hope to deal effectively with the sinful nature simply by determination alone. The Holy Spirit is needed, and he is the Spirit of power.

“Obligation” is the keynote. Only the negative side is stated; the positive side—that we are debtors to the Spirit—must be inferred. If we do not have an obligation to live in terms of the sinful nature, the conclusion must be that our obligation is to live and serve God in terms of the Spirit. It is tremendously important to grasp the import of v.12, because it teaches beyond all question that the believer still has a sinful nature, despite having been crucified with Christ. The flesh has not been eradicated. But we are obliged not “to live according to the flesh [sinful nature].” There is really no option, for the flesh is linked to death as life is linked to the Spirit. Sanctification is not a luxury but a necessity. Life in accordance with the flesh is doomed to suffer death (cf. v.6).

The temptations of the fleshly nature are virtually constant; hence the necessity to continually “put to death [the force of the present tense of the verb GK the misdeeds of the body” (v.13). Though this may seem to give a negative emphasis to the life of sanctification, it should be stressed that this is only part of the divine plan. The positive is just as important—the clothing ourselves with the Lord Jesus in such complete preoccupation with him and his will that the believer does not think about gratifying the desires of the flesh (cf. 13:14). Yet since the Spirit is the Spirit of life, he cannot do otherwise than oppose the flesh and its desires, the things that lead inevitably to death.

In summary, Stuhlmacher, 122, observes,“Christians may thus answer the lament of the Adamic ‘I’ in 7:24 as follows: By the power of the Holy Spirit which indwells us, we participate in the righteousness, sanctification, and redemption established by Jesus (1 Cor. 1:30). As a result, we fulfill the instruction of God and, in faith, are certain of our eschatological resurrection.”

NOTES

1 Some late manuscripts (TR) conclude v.1 with the added words, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (cf. KJV). This addition is not warranted, being absent from the leading manuscripts; clearly it has been introduced by scribal zeal from the end of v.4.

2 A decision must be made between two readings: “me” ( , or “you” ( , “You” has the stronger manuscript support ( B F G), and for this reason a number of versions follow this reading. On the other hand, there are two factors that warrant retaining “me.” For one, it is the logical term for Paul to have used, in agreement with the personal thrust of ch. 7. Also, the close of the preceding word in the Greek text ( , leuther “set free”) has in it the letters , se (the final n, “n,” would have been indicated by a stroke over the , so that a copyist could easily have transcribed , for , by visual error. If this is what happened, it must have occurred early in the transmission of the text, since , appears in many of our early and most reliable manuscripts. (A mistake of this kind was more easily made in the earlier copies because for several centuries the text was written without any space between the words.) A further argument in favor of retaining “me” is the oddity of the singular “you.” Had Paul shifted to the second person pronoun, one might have expected the plural , h

2. Additional Ministries of the Spirit (8:14–27)

those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry,“Abba, Father.” Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.

COMMENTARY

14–17 If the Spirit’s ministry in v.13 can be described as his ministry here can be thought of as his in which he confirms for the believer the reality of his or her position as a child of God based on adoption into the heavenly family. Though this ministry is mentioned after that of mortification, it is basic to it, because to be successful in contending against the flesh, one must be assured that one has been claimed by God and hence equipped with his infinite resources. Later (v.23) Paul will set forth another aspect of adoption that belongs to the future, identified with redemption in its ultimate realization.

14 The relation of the Spirit to the “sons of God” (i.e., “children of God”; cf. vv.16–17) is presented as being much like that of a shepherd to his sheep. They are “led” by him as their guide and protector. In Galatians 3:24, the law is pictured as a tutor having the responsibility to lead us to Christ. Once this goal is achieved, however, the law must hand over the guiding role to the Spirit, who guides into the truth (Jn 16:13) and into holiness. Unlike sin, which may at first only gently seduce, then deceitfully begin to drive as a hard taskmaster, the Spirit relies on persuasion rather than force. In fact, Paul goes to some pains to avoid misunderstanding on this very point (v.15), assuring us that the Spirit’s leadership does not involve a new bondage that is no improvement over the old one in which fear ruled (probably a fear of the consequences of sin and a fear of death, as in Heb 2:15).

15 It is difficult to know whether the word “spirit” should be capitalized in v.15. The NASB uses the lower case “spirit” in both occurrences of the word. It would be equally possible to capitalize the word in both instances. On the other hand, Paul may well be playing on the word, so that we could take the first as “spirit”—“spirit that makes you a slave”—and the second as “Spirit”—“the Spirit of sonship” (so NIV). The new title given to the Spirit, “the Spirit of sonship,” emphasizes the vast gulf between slavery and family relationship. It is by the Spirit that believers can Father.” The two terms are equivalent, the first being the Aramaic word Jesus used in prayer (Mk 14:36). Paul’s use of the Aramaic alongside the Greek both here and in the closely related Galatians 4:6 may well indicate that the tradition concerning the prayer life of Jesus filtered down through the church even before Mark wrote his gospel. J. Jeremias Central Message of the New Testament [New York: Scribner’s, 1965], 28) notes that in permitting the Twelve to use the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus “authorizes his disciples to follow him in saying Abba. He gives them this address as the token of their discipleship.” The “cry” refers to calling on God in prayer.

The important term huiothesia (GK NASB, “adoption”; NIV, “sonship”) bears a relationship to justification in that it is declarative and forensic (inasmuch as it is a legal term). Adoption bestows an objective standing, as justification does; like justification, it is a pronouncement that is not repeated. It has permanent validity. Like justification, adoption rests on the loving purpose and grace of God (Eph 1:5). Though the term is used of Israel in relation to God (Ro 9:4; cf. Hos 11:1), it is doubtful that adoption was practiced in the OT period. Much more likely is the conclusion that Paul was drawing on the background of Roman law both here and in Galatians 4:5. The readers of both epistles would be familiar with adoption in their own society (for a thorough discussion, see J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God [WUNT 2.48;Tübingen: Mohr, 1992]). Paul’s readers are called “sons” (v.14) and “children” (v.16) without any appreciable distinction. Both are family terms used interchangeably by Paul.

16 Here, as in Galatians 4:6, the Spirit is represented as bearing witness together with the redeemed spirit in Christians to the reality of membership in the family of heaven, i.e., to the actuality of salvation through Christ. Hebrew law prescribed that every matter was to be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses (Dt 17:6; cf. Mt 18:16). Similarly, there are two witnesses to one’s salvation: the inner person and the Holy Spirit, who confirms the believer’s realization that he or she has indeed been made God’s child through faith in Christ. Because this witness takes place in the heart (Gal 4:6), it is not a witness others receive, though it may be the basis for testifying to others about the reality of salvation. It may be aided by Scripture (Jn 20:31; 1Jn 5:13) but is not dependent on the written word. It is a secret inner witness (cf. Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959]).

A comparison of vv.15 and 16 will bring out an important truth concerning the assurance of salvation. All too often believers may come to the point of doubting their salvation because their sanctification has proceeded so slowly and so lamely. The Spirit, however, does not base his assuring testimony on progress or the lack of it in the Christian life. He does not lead us to cry, “I am God’s child.” Rather, he leads us to call on God as Father, to look away from ourselves to the One who established the relationship.

17 A final truth about adoption is the important point that it involves an inheritance. If Christians are God’s children, they are also “heirs of God.” In line with current legal provisions that enabled even a slave, once adopted, to inherit his master’s possessions, Paul teaches that the Christian follows a similar course: a slave (to sin), a child, then an heir (vv.15–17; cf. Gal 4:6–7). The marvel of the goodness of God’s grace increases with the news that we are “co-heirs with Christ.” Sharing his sufferings may be looked at as the cost of discipleship. Yet it also has a brighter aspect, for it is the prelude to partaking with him of the coming glory (cf. vv.18–21; 1Pe 4:13).

18–25 Before passing to the final ministry of the Spirit in vv.26–27, Paul lingers over the concept of future glory in relation to the present era of suffering. His presentation may be seen as an expansion of what he had already written to the Corinthians (2Co 4:17 NASB, “an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison”). Weighed in the scales of true and lasting values, the sufferings endured in this life are light indeed, compared with the splendor of the life to come—a life undisturbed by anything hostile or hurtful. Scripture does not tell us much of what that glory will be, but it assures us that it will be. The glory will be revealed “to us” h v.18; NASB; NIV,“in us”), as well as exhibited within us (v.21; cf. J. C. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HBT 7 [1985]: 105–19).

19 Instead of considering the future simply from the standpoint of the redeemed, Paul enlarges the perspective to include the whole creation, which is here personified in exuberant language as longing for the time when the children of God will finally enjoy the consummation. The creation’s own deliverance from the frustration imposed on it by the fall cannot come until that time. The glorious future that awaits the children of God accords with the superior place given humanity in the creation (Ge 1:26–28; Ps 8:5–8). Literally Paul’s sentence reads,“The eager expectation GK of the creation awaits eagerly GK the revelation of the sons of God.” In the NT, the verb most often concerns the Christian’s attitude toward the Lord’s coming (e.g., Gal 5:5; Php 3:20; Heb 9:28).

20–21 The personification of creation is continued with the verbal construction “subjected to frustration,” which, as Sanday and Headlam, 208, note, “is appropriately used of the disappointing character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection of which it is capable.” The one who subjected the creation is not named. Some early Fathers assumed that Adam is in view. Others (e.g., Godet, 315) incline to the notion that Satan is meant. But by far the most natural interpretation is that which postulates God as the One who did the subjecting. The words “in hope” (of a future redemption) are otherwise difficult to understand. The personification is sustained, with the creation being pictured as not willingly enduring the subjection, yet having hope for something better, i.e., liberation from its “bondage to decay” (v.21). Thus the creation longs to share the “glorious freedom” of the children of God. Bruce, 169, has observed:

At present, as old Qoheleth proclaimed, “Vanity of vanity” is writ large over all things beneath the sun. But this vanity—this state of frustration and bondage—is only temporary; just as man at present falls short of the glory of God, so creation as a whole cannot attain the full end for which she was brought into being. Like man, creation must be redeemed because, like man, creation has been subject to a fall.

The entire creation suffered from the effects of the fall, coming under bondage to corruption, but with fallen humanity creation will also experience the benefits of redemption. So humanity and the creation stand together as they await the glorious redemption and renewal promised by God. The consummation will bring a new garden of Eden, where all will be even more wonderful than it was initially.

22–23 From v.22 it appears at first sight that “the whole creation” includes humankind. But v.23 alters this impression, for it sets the creation over against the whole body of the redeemed (“we ourselves”) and therefore does not include in it the people of God. The groaning of the creation looks back to its subjection to frustration (v.20), whereas “the pains of childbirth” anticipate the age of renewal. In other words, the same sufferings are at once a result and a prophecy. Jesus spoke of the renewing of the world and called it a “regeneration” GK Mt 19:28 NASB).

Paul makes a parallel between the saints and the material creation. In at least two respects their situation is the same—groaning (cf. 2Co 5:2) and eagerly awaiting the new age (v.23). Perhaps a third element of comparison is intended: “the redemption of our bodies,” corresponding to the transformation of the earth. But in one respect no parallel can be made: only the people of God have “the firstfruits of the Spirit.”

The concept of firstfruits Gk v.23) is prominent in the OT, where, according to the law, Israelites were expected to bring each year’s first-ripened elements of grain, fruit, etc., to the Lord as an offering (Ex 23:19; Ne 10:35). By this observance of worship, the offerer acknowledged that all produce was the provision of God and really belonged to him. Implicit also in the ritual was the assurance from the divine side that the general harvest to be enjoyed by the offerer would providentially follow. As applied to our passage, the concept may appear to be somewhat out of place, for if the Spirit is truly a person, how can any more of him be given in the future than has been given at conversion? Clearly this is not the line of thought intended. On the contrary, it is a matter of what the Spirit provides. We are to understand that the gift of the Spirit to the believer at the inception of Christian life is God’s pledge of the completion of the process of salvation, which is here stated as “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” Recall that previously Paul has described the finished product as “a spiritual body” (1Co 15:44). The future bodily resurrection of believers will be the full harvest of redemption. Our bodies will be like that of the glorified Lord (Php 3:21).

In this connection, we encounter adoption for the second time (cf. v.15). The saints already have an adoption: they are already acknowledged as God’s children. They are “sealed” by the Spirit for the day of redemption (Eph 1:13–14; 4:30). Then will take place the second and final adoption. Between the two there stretches the course of sanctification; but only at the final adoption will the child of God be fully conformed to the likeness of God’s Son (v.29; cf. 1Jn 3:2). As the physical body is admirably suited to life in this world, the promised spiritual body will be seen to be wonderfully congruent with the coming world. But most important of all, it will be like the body of him who has provided redemption from sin and death. This is the Spirit’s work of

24–25 In keeping with the eager waiting of those who long for their complete salvation (v.23) is the emphasis on hope (vv.24–25). Far from being a kind of wishful thinking as in ordinary parlance, “hope” GK is the confident expectation of the promised future Christians can and should have in the present era. The connection between hope and suffering should not be overlooked (cf. 5:4). The translation “in this hope” (v.24) is correct, suggesting that from the very moment of the reception of the gospel, i.e., from the moment of initial salvation, the Christian life is characterized by the anticipation of the final phase of salvation alluded to in v.23. The Christian pilgrim is on the road to glory, assured that the promises of the word and the spiritual energy provided are not illusory. The dark tunnel of death cannot take away the Christian’s confidence that beyond it the road leads on to a glorious destination, though it remains unseen. Simply because a very important element of our salvation—the redemption of the bodies—is held in reserve, we have a legitimate exercise of hope. If all were ours now, there would be no place for hope. Since this object of our hope is not yet realized in the present, “we wait for it patiently” (v.25).

26–27 At length, Paul arrives at the final ministry of the Spirit mentioned in this chapter, namely, his work of “In the same way” seems to link this ministry with hope. Both help sustain the believer amid the burdens and disappointments of life. It is unclear whether the “weakness” spoken of here refers generally to the Christian’s limitations while still in the flesh or whether it is intended to point to weakness in the specific area of prayer. We know that the apostle had long before discovered his weakness and along with it the compensating factor of the power of God (2Co 12:9–10). The broader interpretation of weakness may well be correct here. Paul may be saying that we do not know how to pray so as to get help for our many-sided weakness. “How to pray as we should” (NASB) may suggest that we do not know the art of prayer—how to phrase our petitions properly. But we do not have here the Greek word commonly used for “how.” More probably the literal wording “what we should pray” indicates what is in view. This would be not the manner or even the topics, but rather the actual content of our prayers. Do we know our real needs as God sees them, and do we know the needs of others? Going deeper, do we know the will of God with regard to these things? In the last analysis, this will determine how our prayers will be answered.

Standing over against this severe limitation is the gladdening information that the Spirit is present to help us. Indeed so important is the Spirit to our prayers that we fail to find in the remainder of the passage any statement about our praying. Everything that is said relates to the activity of the Spirit on our behalf, culminating in the declaration that he “intercedes for the saints.” It is clear, however, that our praying is assumed throughout the passage. The Spirit, therefore, “helps” us in our praying. A previous mention of prayer and communion with God also shows that prayer is a joint activity of the Spirit and the children of God (vv.15–16). Since “hearts” (v.27) suggests immediate personal involvement as well as the residence and operation of the Spirit, the best conclusion seems to be that prayer activity on the part of the believer goes on together with the indispensable work of the Spirit of God. Elsewhere (Eph 6:18) the same reality is referred to as “praying in the Spirit.”

Verse 27 is needed to clarify something referred to in v.26, i.e., the inexpressible “groaning” GK How can such prayer, if it be called prayer at all, be answered? Are not such prayers unintelligible? Not for God! He is no stranger to the intent of the Spirit. He knows what the inexpressible meaning is, because the petitions the Spirit voices are strictly in accord with the will of God. Karl Barth Shorter Commentary on Romans [Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1959], 102) observes that God “makes himself our advocate with himself, that he utters for us that ineffable groaning, so that he will surely hear what we ourselves could not have told him, so that he will accept what he himself has to offer.” It is a mistake to associate the inexpressible groanings with glossolalia. The passage is intended to include all Christians, whereas speaking in tongues is a special charismatic gift not possessed by all. In addition, tongues are not mentioned elsewhere in connection with intercession.

NOTES

24 The KJV’s “we are saved by hope” unnecessarily makes hope encroach on the sphere of grace (cf. Eph 2:8). The translation of the JB, “For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved,” is both inaccurate (Paul says we have been saved) and unfortunate, suggesting that one cannot in this life be sure of one’s salvation. The NJB has corrected this to, “In hope, we already have salvation.”

A twofold textual problem is encountered in v.24. Some good authorities, including and A, read , hypomenei (“endures,” GK perhaps by influence of the word , hypomon in v.25, instead of , elpizei (“hopes,” GK The latter reading has the better textual support ( B C D G, as well as ancient versions and patristic citations). Secondly, in v.24c the NKJV follows the reading that has the interrogative , ti (“why does one still hope”). Probably, however, , tis ( and a few other witnesses), is to be preferred: “who hopes for” (so NIV, NASB).

25 Whether to translate , di’ hypomon s (GK as “with perseverance” (so NASB), “patiently” (so NIV; cf. NRSV), or “with fortitude” is a difficult decision. If God’s promise is chiefly in view (cf. Abraham in 4:18), then “patiently” is appropriate, but if the hardships and sufferings that remain to be faced are in view (note the emphasis on suffering in the context), then the more usual force of the word as “perseverance” or “endurance” should be preferred. One can understand the reason for the combined rendering sometimes chosen, e.g., “we wait with patient endurance” (cf. REB).

26 The word for “helps” ( , GK occurs in the NT in only one other passage (Lk 10:40). Martha had more than she could handle in the preparation of the meal and asked the Lord to bid her sister Mary to come to her aid. We can paraphrase the request in this way:“Tell her to help me by taking hold of her end of the task.” Prayer is the work of the Christian and the Spirit who helps.

3. The Security and Permanence of the Life of the Redeemed (8:28–39)

OVERVIEW

God’s provision for his own is spelled out in exalted and fervent language that reaches back into the past to include his eternal purpose and its implementation in the love and sacrifice of Christ, moves into the present to proclaim God’s keeping power, and sweeps down the years to defy any power that would separate the saint from the abiding love of God in Christ.

we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;

we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

COMMENTARY

28 Verse 28 has problems of text, of connection with the context, and of interpretation. As to the text, some manuscripts make “all things” the subject; others include God as the subject. The problem is not crucial, since even without God’s being named, there could be no thought in Paul’s mind that all things by themselves worked for the good of believers. The entire chapter protests against any such impersonal notion. As to the context, the thought may be connected with the foregoing if we assume we now have a broad general statement after a more specific one relating to the work of the Spirit as intercessor. So, for example, the REB reads, “and in everything, as we know, he co-operates for good with those who love God.” The difficulty with taking the Spirit as the subject of the verb is that in the remainder of the sentence, “purpose” must then refer to the Spirit, whereas elsewhere this is regularly the function of God the Father.

We must also try to settle the meaning of “all things.” It is unlikely that the items in vv.29–30 are intended to provide the content of the “all things,” which is deliberately general. In view are especially those things that, while themselves adverse, are turned to good account by the sovereign operation of God in our behalf. This line of thought agrees with 5:3–5 as well as with the mention of sufferings and opposition in the present chapter. The “good” is not defined but should be sought in the intended conformity to God’s Son. The beneficiaries are those who on the human side “love him [God]” and on the divine side are “called according to his purpose.” Paul seldom refers to love for God on the part of the saints (1Co 2:9; 8:3). Nor does he introduce the idea here as the ground for the benefit he has been describing, for it is not meritorious but simply a response to the divine love and grace. The “called” are not those who are merely invited to respond to the proclamation of the gospel; they are those who are called according to God’s (electing) purpose.

29 This calling is further explained in terms of “foreknowledge” and “predestination.” The former term does not indicate advance awareness or knowledge of someone; it refers to God’s choice, his electing decision. This is rendered crystal clear from the use of the same word in 1 Peter 1:20. God’s calling is not haphazard, nor is it cold and formal. It is filled with the warmth of love, as in the Hebrew word “to know” (Ge 18:19; Am 3:2 [LXX, gin sk , Gk Though foreknowledge is not mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:6–8, that passage illumines the concept. The antecedent character of God’s choice precludes any possibility of human merit as entering into the decision (cf. Eph 1:4). Observe also that we are called according to purpose, not according to foreknowledge, hence foreknowledge must be included in the electing purpose.

If “predestined” stood by itself without any amplification, one might conclude that all that is involved is an action by God whereby one is chosen to salvation. But the remainder of the sentence indicates otherwise, pointing to much more than deliverance from sin and death. The background is adoption, but now presented not as in v.15 (where it is related to the Father and the Spirit) but as related to the Son. Paul elsewhere presents two aspects of being “conformed to the likeness of his Son.” By a sharing in the sufferings of Christ (Php 3:10) that is based on having the mind of Christ (Php 2:5–8), the believer is gradually being made into his likeness. This is the essence of sanctification. Its second and final aspect is conformity of the body to that of the risen Lord to be realized at the resurrection (Php 3:21), which is the culmination of a growth in likeness to Christ based on the Spirit’s work in the believer (2Co 3:18).

From passages such as these we learn that fellowship with Christ in his sufferings is the prelude to sharing with him in his glory. God sent his Son in our likeness (v.3) that we might eventually be like him. This makes understandable and legitimate the use of “brothers” (cf. Heb 2:17) as a description of believers in relation to the Son. The likeness will be complete except for the fact that glorified humanity never, of course, becomes deity.

30 Verse 30 presents the various steps involved in the realization of the divine purpose: the call (cf. v.28), justification, and glorification. The marvel is that the final item is stated by means of a verb in the past (aorist) tense (“glorified,” GK as though it had already occurred. This led Denney, 652, to declare that this is the “most daring” verse in the Bible. One is reminded of the so-called prophetic perfect used occasionally in the OT, as for example, in Isaiah 53, where the future work of the Servant of Yahweh is spoken of as though his sacrifice had already been made. What God will do can be relied on to such an extent that it can be spoken of as already having happened.

Why is sanctification not mentioned in this verse? Since the goal of predestination according to the preceding verse is conformity “to the likeness of his Son,” it may well be thought of as including sanctification. On the other hand, it is possible that it is left out deliberately because the focus is on what God alone does, and sanctification is the one area in which human cooperation is essential. There is no appeal anywhere to be called or justified or glorified, but there are numerous appeals to cooperate with God in the realization of the life of holiness.

31–32 From this point on to the end of the chapter Paul expounds the impregnable position of the believer. The key lies in the sentence, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (v.31). God has not given empty promises. He has acted, and what he has done in Christ and by the Spirit constitutes all the proof we need that the glorification will be ours in due season. This is precisely the point of v.32. God’s activity has cost him dearly—he “did not spare his own Son.” In the background is the readiness of Abraham to give up his son Isaac (Ge 22, the the “binding” of Isaac). But whereas a substitute was found for Isaac and he was restored to his father without dying, no other than God’s own Son could take away the world’s sin and provide reconciliation. So Jesus had to endure the cross. In all of this God was with or in him (2Co 5:19). Moreover, the Son was not an unwilling victim pressed into sacrificial service. God “gave him up” expresses the Father’s participation, but the same verb is used of the Son’s involvement (Gal 2:20). With the cross before us as the mighty demonstration of God’s grace in giving his dearest to help the neediest, it naturally follows that the same gracious spirit will not withhold anything from those who are his. Such is the assurance given in 2 Peter 1:3 that “everything we need for life and godliness” has been given to us.

33 Paul, of course, does not deny that the Christian faces foes and hardships. Yet his challenging question stands:“If God is for us, who can be against us?” (v.31). Amplifying it, he proceeds to ask a series of questions, to which he also provides answers. The first question is, “Who will bring a charge against those whom God has chosen?” (v.33). None can successfully press charges, no matter how hard they may try. Satan may be busy doing just that (Rev 12:10), no doubt pointing out the discrepancy between the profession of believers and their “walk,” but he gets nowhere with his pretended zeal for righteousness. In the final analysis, as David also perceived (Ps 51:4), all sin is ultimately committed against God, no matter how much it affects others. Logically, therefore, God is the only one in a position to bring charges against us. This, Paul says, God refuses to do, because he is “for us,” not against us (v.31). And because he is the injured party, he alone can forgive and justify, i.e., declare the sinner righteous.

34 The second question, “Who is he that condemns?” suggests the futility of such condemnation. Because of Christ no one can condemn the Christian. Christ will never renounce the efficacy of his own work on our behalf. Paul packs four aspects of that work into one great sentence (v.34b): (1) Christ “died” and thereby secured the removal of sin’s guilt; (2) he was “raised” to life and is able to bestow life on those who trust him for their salvation (cf. Jn 11:25; 14:19); (3) he was exalted to “the right hand of God,” with all power given to him both in heaven, so as to represent us there, and on earth, where he is more than a match for our adversaries; and (4) he “is also interceding for us” at the throne of grace, whatever our need may be (Heb 4:4–16; 7:25).

35 A third question is, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Can there conceivably be a contradiction between Christ’s love for his own and his allowing suffering to overtake them? Should the saints question whether Christ’s love has grown cold? Severance from his love is no more thinkable than that the Father ceased to love his Son when he allowed him to endure the agonies of the cross, apparently forsaken. Christ predicted trouble for his people who are left in the world, but he told them to be of good cheer because he had overcome the world (cf. Jn 16:33).

36 The quotation from Psalm 44:22 reminds believers that suffering has always been the lot of the people of God, and therefore their own situation is not peculiar. The church follows in the steps of Israel. But whereas the people of God in the OT were often perplexed about the reason for their trials, the saints of NT times can trace their sufferings to identification with Christ and rejoice that they are counted worthy to suffer for his name (cf. Ac 5:41).

37 Here Paul bursts into a magnificent piece of eloquence, as he will do on occasion (e.g., 1Co 3:21–23; 1Co 13). This passage (vv.37–39) is especially notable for its largeness of conception and majesty of expression:“No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (cf. NASB, “we overwhelmingly conquer,” which some find puzzling; it could mean that believers turn their enemies into helpers, as 5:3–5 suggests, but this is rather conjectural). BDAG, 1034, affirms that the verb hypernika (GK used here is a heightened form of “conquer” and suggests the translation, “we are winning a most glorious victory.” Bauernfeind 4:945) renders it, “we win the supreme victory through him who loved us.”

By saying “loved us,” Paul does not intend to restrict Christ’s love to the past; rather, he is emphasizing the historic demonstration of this love on the cross that gives assurance of its continuing under all circ*mstances. Nothing in all of life, with its allurements and dangers and trials, can separate the believer from that love. Not even the last and great enemy, death, can separate him or her from that love (cf. 2Co 5:8; Php 1:21). Death has lost its sting and victory (1Co 15:54–55).

38 Surprisingly, Paul includes “angels” here. Since he uses other terms for hostile supernatural powers, the angels should be understood as good ones. Perhaps the meaning is that no angel of this sort would seek to come between Christ’s love and the object of that love. We are dealing with a strictly hypothetical possibility (cf. the idea that an “angel from heaven” might preach a gospel different from Paul’s [Gal 1:8]). “Demons” are evil spirits such as those often mentioned in the Gospels. Being agents and underlings of Satan, they would delight to separate Christians from Christ, but they cannot do so. Time is equally powerless to do this, whether it be “the present” with its temptations and sufferings or “the future” with its uncertainties. “Powers” probably has reference to hostile spiritual intelligences who, though conquered by Christ (Eph 1:21), are nevertheless permitted to carry on spiritual warfare against the saints of God (Eph 6:12).

39 Nor can space come between us and the love of Christ. Samuel Angus Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World [New York: Scribners, 1929], 254) translates “neither height nor depth” as “neither the ascension of the stars nor their declinations,” considering that Paul has in mind the fatalism of astral religion. If there are other possibilities, Paul is sure they are all equally impotent. For he declares that in fact there is nothing conceivable “in all creation” that can drive a wedge between the love of the Savior and his redeemed people. After all, the creation itself is his handiwork and cannot possibly thwart the will of the Creator. God is love, and this love has been manifested in the redemption of humanity.

NOTES

28 The KJV’s rendering, “all things work together for good,” is based on the text attested by C D G and the great bulk of manuscripts and many ancient versions, as well as quotations from the Fathers. The rendering “in all things God works for the good,” with the subject , ho is supported by A B, among others. Though the second group includes what are generally the superior manuscripts, the first group is more diversified and hence to be preferred (cf. Metzger, 458). It is probable that the second form of the text came into being at an early date to clarify the meaning by specifying God as the subject of the verb, tracing this activity definitely to God. Otherwise it is hard to explain how “God” ( , ho could have dropped out of the majority of witnesses to the text.

VI. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS

VINDICATED 9:1–11:36)

OVERVIEW

Chapters 9–11 constitute an obviously self-contained unit within Romans that is distinct from what precedes and follows. Some have even conjectured that these chapters had an existence prior to and independent from their present location in Romans. Because Romans 1–8 contains such a well-connected argument, ending with its glorious and eloquent climax on the wonder of God’s love, some have been tempted to regard the main part of the book as complete and chs. 9–11 as a kind of appendix or parenthesis unnecessary to the whole. Furthermore, some have argued, one may proceed from the end of ch. 8 to the beginning of ch. 12 very smoothly, without noticing the absence of chs. 9–11 at all. But such conclusions miss the fact that these chapters are integral to chs. 1–8. They deal with an issue that, after the argument of chs. 1–8, inevitably must haunt Jewish readers especially, just as it would have haunted Paul the Jewish Christian himself. In light of the argument that Jews and Gentiles are equally in need of the gospel, and in light of widespread unbelief of Jews in the gospel, what are we to conclude about God’s purposes? What does the apparent leveling of the ground on which Jews and Gentiles stand mean as far as God’s promises to Israel are concerned?

In reality, therefore, this major section of the book deals with “unfinished business.” Though Paul has insisted on the priority of the Jews with regard to the gospel (1:16) and has noted in part their advantages (3:1 ff.), he has also been obliged to expose their failure and guilt despite their being the chosen people of God. Those who have been under divine tutelage for centuries in preparation for the coming of the Messiah in large part failed to receive him. Has the purpose of God been frustrated? What does the future hold for this people? The problem faced here was underscored in Paul’s own ministry. He had been faithful in going to the Jew first (cf. 1:16), but in place after place he had been rebuffed by Jewish unbelief. In Rome itself his strenuous effort to win a favorable verdict for the gospel was to prove largely unsuccessful (Ac 28). Was his earlier statement about the power of the gospel (Ro 1:16) too hasty, too optimistic? Or were his own labors among his people inadequate? Paul could not subscribe to either conclusion. He had to face the problem from the standpoint of God’s purposes and ways.

Jews and Gentiles are distinguished in the first three chapters and are still distinguished, as the circumcised and the uncircumcised, in ch. 4. In chs. 5–8 the tension drops out of sight, only to be renewed in chs. 9–11 and brought under searching examination. Notable is the shift in terminology. Though the word “Jew” occurs twice in this section, Paul prefers “Israel,” using it twelve times here and nowhere else in the letter. The reason for the change will be noted later.

In line with the nature of the problem Paul is dealing with, he frequently mentions God in chs. 9–11 (twenty-three times). References to Christ are limited (seven times), and the Holy Spirit has no place except in 9:1.

For all its distinctiveness, this section does not lose continuity with the forgoing material. “Salvation” (cf. 1:16) and “save” are prominent.“Righteousness” (cf. 1:17) is found eleven times; “believe/trust” (cf. 1:16), eight times; and “faith,” six times.

Not only is there a connection with the theme of the letter but also a tie-in with the close of ch. 8; for election, which is treated on an individual basis in 8:28–30, 33, is now viewed from the national perspective of Israel.“Adoption” is an element common to both portions (8:15; 9:4), as is also the concept of “call” or “calling” (8:28–30; five times in ch. 9).

Another feature of these chapters is the liberal use of OT quotations, partly to emphasize the sovereignty of God and his covenantal faithfulness and partly to substantiate the apostle’s view of Israel’s failure. Unfaithfulness to God in OT times finds its parallel in the rejection of his Son in Paul’s times. In that sense, little has changed.

A survey of the movement of thought in these chapters warrants the conclusion that they serve as a species of theodicy. Paul, who has written so penetratingly on the justification of sinners, now turns to write on the justification (vindication) of God himself (cf. 3:3–4). He reminds us that the Almighty is free and sovereign in what he does (ch. 9). Then he turns the discussion to the mistake of the Jews in trying to establish their own righteousness before God in terms of meritorious obedience to law instead of responding to the gospel of Christ by faith. They have not lacked opportunity to hear (ch. 10). So God did not set Israel aside arbitrarily. This matches the great section on condemnation at the beginning of the epistle.

In ch. 11 Paul introduces further considerations that are of the highest order of importance. Paul first calls attention to the fact that Israel’s rejection was not complete, for there was a believing remnant in Paul’s day. This can be seen as corresponding to the discussion of justification in chs. 3–5. Paul then stresses that the rejection is not final, for a mass conversion of Israel will occur, answering roughly to the glorious future pictured in ch. 8. In addition, Paul weaves in the observation that during the time Israel is set aside God continues his work of grace by saving a host of Gentiles. In the end, God is found faithful to his covenantal promises, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel. Moreover, he has turned to good account the failure of the Jews by bringing in the Gentiles during the period of Israel’s hardening. This grand achievement, finally embracing both Jews and Gentiles, leads Paul to conclude with a worshipful note of praise to God for this unfathomable divine wisdom. It is a testimony to the divine mercy (11:32), which along with God’s righteousness provides the insight needed to appreciate his ways. And from later chapters it becomes clear how important these insights should be to the Christian churches of Rome, where there was considerable tension between Gentile and Jewish believers.

Because of the argumentative nature of these chapters, some have described them as presenting the style of a diatribe (so Käsemann). On the other hand, the heavy use of the OT and the extent to which the argument depends on the interpretation of the OT quotations has led others to describe the genre of these chapters as midrash (so E. E. Ellis).

A. Paul’s Sorrow over Israel’s Condition (9:1–5)

speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

COMMENTARY

1 The apostle begins on a personal note, expressing his grave concern for his own people. His soul is burdened over their condition in a way similar to the prophets of old. Since to some it seemed that Christianity left Judaism behind (whereas, more accurately put, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled), this sorrow might be interpreted as somewhat less than sincere. Hence the solemn introduction in which he summons two witnesses—his union with Christ, “in Christ,” who is the truth (cf. Eph 4:21), and his “conscience” as aided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Ro 8:16; 2:15).

3 As though this were not enough, he declares himself ready to accept severance from Christ (cf. 8:39) if that would avail to bring his countrymen into the fold of the Savior (cf. Ex 32:32). The phrase “I could wish” faithfully brings out the idiomatic construction used here for stating an impossible wish. Paul could not actually become anathema from Christ (ch. 8 proclaims the impossibility of that).Yet if it were possible, he would gladly make the sacrifice. This readiness takes on poignancy in light of the fact that Paul had suffered the loss of all things in order to gain Christ (Php 3:8). To lose Christ would mean a double loss.

Paul’s longing for the salvation of his people comes out in the way he speaks of them—“my brothers.” To avoid misunderstanding, he has to qualify this by noting that the bond is one of race (“those of my own race”) rather than of a common faith in Christ. But more than a blood relationship is involved, because he goes on to cite the spiritual heritage of his people that he shares with those of them who have not become Christians. This use of “brothers” in reference to non-Christian Jews appears elsewhere (e.g., Ac 2:29; 3:17; 22:1; 28:17).

4 When Paul uses “people of Israel” rather than “Jews,” he apparently wants to emphasize that they are the covenantal people of God different from every other people on earth. This distinctiveness may explain Paul’s avoidance of the term “Israel” when speaking of the church (see TDNT 3:387; such may also be the case even in Gal 6:16 [cf. P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969), 74–84]). It is only when the distinctives of Israel are spelled out that the full implication of the word can be appreciated. Paul had earlier begun to speak of the advantages of his people (Ro 3:2), and now he carries it further. In the forefront in v.4 he puts “the adoption as sons.” The Greek word “adoption as sons” (GK used also in 8:15), does not occur in the LXX, but the idea is certainly present, especially in Deuteronomy 14:1–2 (cf. Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1). Israel has been granted the status of sons of God by virtue of God’s gracious election to be “his treasured possession.” This explains Israel’s enjoyment of “the glory” that was symbolized by the the pillar of cloud that settled over the sanctuary in the wilderness and filled the temple at its dedication (cf. REB, “the glory of the divine presence”).

“The covenants” probably refers to the arrangements God entered into with Abraham, with the nation of Israel at Sinai, and with David, though it is possible that the reference is to the covenant made with Abraham (Ge 15), then renewed with Isaac (Ge 17), and with Jacob (Ge 28). The word “covenant” here implies divine initiative rather than a mutual agreement between equals.

“The receiving of the law” refers, of course, to what was communicated through Moses to the children of Israel at Sinai. In Paul’s time, the nation tended to view the law as its most prized possession (cf. 2:17), the most precious portion of the OT. A closely related item is “the temple worship,” since the sacrificial cultus maintained by the priests is meant, and all this was prescribed in the law.“The promises” have a close relationship to the covenants (cf. Eph 2:12) and represent various aspects of the messianic salvation promised in the OT.

5 The importance of “the patriarchs” can be seen in 11:28, where it is said that Israel is loved “on account of the patriarchs.” These are the fathers to whom the promises were given prior to the giving of the law. God is pleased to identify himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15).

“From them is traced the human ancestry of Christ [= the Messiah]” refers probably to the people of Israel (v.4) rather than the patriarchs. Account is taken of the intervening generations prior to the advent of the Messiah (cf. the genealogies in Matthew and Luke). A subtle distinction is to be noted between “theirs” and “from them.” Israel cannot lay claim to Christ in the same way she can claim the patriarchs, even though he entered the human family as an Israelite (cf. 1:3). Christ is much more than the patriarchs. Only in his earthly origin does he belong to the one nation. Because of his heavenly origin and mission he cannot be claimed exclusively by any segment of the race, seeing he is “God over all,” as the verse goes on to affirm.

But is “God over all” the correct translation? Does this verse refer to Jesus as God? The conclusion is hardly transparently clear. On the ground that elsewhere Paul avoids such a stark identification, despite his high Christology, many scholars reject the traditional rendering, preferring something on the order of the REB’s “May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever!” (so too RSV; but NIV, NRSV, NASB, and KJV take the passage as a reference to Christ as God). The question involves not a matter of text but of punctuation. Since the earliest original manuscripts of the Greek NT have only the most rudimentary punctuation, if any at all, the issue depends entirely on syntax, i.e., the flow of the words and the sense of the passage. Should a full stop be understood following the word sarka (NIV, “human ancestry”; NASB,“flesh”), so that the next words begin a new sentence, a separate doxology? Or should we supply a comma, so that what follows affirms something more about Christ?

Several considerations favor the traditional wording, which understands “who is God over all” as describing Christ. (1) Perhaps most important is the grammatical concord between the noun ho christos and the participial phrase ho producing a natural order in syntax that applies the participle to Christ. The alternative view, on the other hand, entails taking the participle as referring to a new, not yet expressed subject, involving an abrupt change in subject and resulting in a break in syntax (asyndeton). (2) Furthermore, Metzger, 461, points out that if the passage is taken as “an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word on is superfluous, for ‘he who is God over all’ is most simply represented by ho epi panton For an excellent study of the punctuation and interpretation of Romans 9:5, see Metzger’s article “The Punctuation of Romans 9:5,” in Christ and Spirit in the New ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), 95–112. The most natural understanding of the participial clause is that it functions as a relative clause. (3) Normally in doxologies the word “praised” is placed before the one who is praised. Here it comes after. (4) Christ’s relationship to Israel on the human side (lit.,“according to the flesh”) has been stated in such a way earlier in the verse as to suggest the appropriateness of a complementary statement on the divine side. This is provided by the usual translation but not by the alternative rendering. (5) Since there is no definite article before “God”—it occurs with the forgoing words (lit., “the one being over all”)—Paul is not trying to displace God with Christ but is doing what John does in saying that the Word was God (Jn 1:1), i.e., has the rank of God. Murray Harris rightly notes, “Given the high Christology of the Pauline letters, according to which Jesus shares the divine name and nature, exercises divine functions, and is the object of human faith and adoration, it should generate no surprise if on occasion Paul should refer to Jesus by the generic title (M. J. Harris, Jesus as God:The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 171, with Harris’s entire discussion [pp. 143–72] being valuable).

NOTES

9:1–11:36 On chs. 9–11, see J. Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nations: Romans 9 — 11,” RevExp 73 (1976): 437 — 50; B. Corley,“The Jews, the Future, and God (Romans 9 — 11),” SwJT 19 (1976 — 77): 42 — 56; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977 — 78): 4 — 39; J.W. Aageson, “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9 — 11,” CBQ 48 (1986): 265 — 89; J. C. Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HTR 79 (1986): 10 — 16; B.W. Longenecker,“Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9 — 11,” JSNT 36 (1989): 95 — 123.

4 There is rather good manuscript evidence ( B D F G and several ancient versions) for the singular , diath k , “covenant” (GK rather than “covenants.” But this reading can hardly be original, for it would most naturally suggest the Mosaic covenant (2Co 3:6, 14), which would render the next item, the reception of the law, quite unnecessary.

5 An alternative wording has been favored by a few scholars—one arrived at by emendation of the text (transposing the order of , ho to , n yielding the following: “whose is the God over all, praised forever.” This would make Israel’s possession of the true God her climactic blessing, and it would be a fitting close to the paragraph. However, this conjecture lacks any manuscript authority.

REFLECTIONS

Looking back over vv.1–5, one is bound to conclude from the combination of Paul’s sorrow and the extended enumeration of Israel’s privileges that the subject of his nation’s spiritual condition must have constantly weighed on him. His statement of the advantages of Israel anticipates the fuller discussion of her election and serves to accent the element of tragedy in her current state. A double purpose is served by the culminating statement concerning the Messiah: it not only underscores the blindness of Israel but is also calculated to keep believing Gentiles from gloating over Israel’s fall (11:20), seeing that Israel has been the channel by which God gave Christ to the world.

B. God’s Choice of Israel Based on Election, Not on Natural Generation or Works of Merit (9:6–13)

is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary,“It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. this was how the promise was stated:“At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: by works but by him who calls—she was told,“The older will serve the younger.” as it is written:“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

COMMENTARY

6–9 At once the atmosphere of tragedy is qualified by Paul’s forthright denial that the course of events has taken God by surprise. If there is failure, it must be attributed to humans, not to God, for God cannot fail, nor can his purpose fail. By “the word of God” (v.6) we are to understand “the declared purpose of God” (Sanday and Headlam, 240). This certainly involves the element of promise (cf. vv.8–9).

Paul shows from the OT that God’s saving purpose does not include all who belong to Israel in the biological sense. The distinction he makes is similar to that drawn earlier concerning the use of the term “Jew” (2:28–29). Though unnamed, Ishmael is apparently in view, in contrast to Isaac, his half brother. Paul in v.8 thus draws a contrast between being a descendant of Abraham in a merely physical sense (lit, “children of the flesh”; NIV, “natural children”) and enjoying God’s call to a spiritual destiny by belonging to the godly line of descent (“children of the promise”), which would culminate in the Messiah himself (Gal 3:16). The point is made clear in the words quoted by Paul in v.7: “it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” (Ge 21:12). It was not true of Isaac that he was born in due course, by natural processes, and that God then acknowledged him for the reason that he belonged to Abraham. Such was the case with Ishmael insofar as it provided a ground for bestowing on him material blessings (Ge 17:20; 21:13). Isaac was unique in that he was the child who was promised (Paul in v.9 quotes words from Ge 18:10). God’s purpose was centered in him before he was born. It was, in fact, God, not a human, who set the time of his birth. Apart from divine enablement of the parents, Isaac would never have been born, for Abraham was impotent and Sarah was no longer able to bear children. Paul here returns to a theme he had already spoken of in 4:18–22, where he stressed Abraham’s faith.

10–12 Something more needs to be said (“not only that,” v.10), for a similar division took place later between the grandsons of Abraham, but one that was perhaps even more important for the history of Israel. It must be noted that the nation of Israel looked back to its origin in Isaac rather than in his half brother Ishmael or his half brothers born to Keturah. After all, it was only natural that the son of promise born to Sarah should be chosen rather than the son of flesh born to Hagar the slave woman. So Paul feels impelled to cite the case of the twin brothers, sons of Isaac and Rebekah, who lacked nothing in the least regarding their parentage. According to ordinary human expectation, they should stand on equal terms before God in his dealings with them. But it was not so. Natural generation from Isaac, the promised seed of Abraham, did not assure them of the same place in the divine economy. God made a distinction between them, indeed before they were born—before their characters had been shaped or any deeds had been performed that might form a basis for evaluation and choice (vv.11–12). Note the language of justification reminiscent of Paul’s arguments earlier in Romans: “not by works but by him who calls” (v.12). The freedom and sovereignty of God were thus safeguarded. He deliberately disturbed the normal pattern of the culture into which the children were born by decreeing that the older, if only by a few minutes, should serve the younger (Paul quotes words from Ge 25:23).

13 What thus happened is “just as it is written” in the book of Malachi. The words quoted from Malachi 1:2–3 address the nation of Israel under the name “Jacob,” and Paul similarly lifts the discussion from what might appear to be a purely personal one to the plane of corporate, national life. God’s love for Jacob and hatred for Esau ought not to be construed as temperamental. Malachi is appealing to the course of history as fulfilling the purpose of God declared long before. Hatred in the ordinary sense will not fit the situation, since God bestowed many blessings on Esau and his descendants. The “hatred” is simply a—perhaps to us strange—way of saying that Esau was not the object of God’s electing purpose (cf. the use of the word “hate” in Lk 14:26, where discipleship is stated to involve “hatred” for one’s own family and one’s own life; they are simply put in a subordinate position when it comes to the preeminent responsibility of following Christ).

NOTES

8 The same contrast between the two sons of Abraham is drawn in Galatians 4:22–31, using again the contrasting language kata sarka (lit.,“according to the flesh”; NIV,“in the ordinary way”), and , di’ epangelias (lit., “through the promise”; NIV, “as a result of a promise”). There, however, the focus is more on the two mothers—Hagar,“the slave woman,” and Sarah,“the free woman” (Gal 4:23).

12 Bruce, 193, notes that the prophecy necessarily relates to the descendants of Esau and Jacob, since Esau never rendered service to Jacob, while for lengthy periods the Edomites were in bondage to Israel.

REFLECTIONS

The value of the account of the two brothers is to make clear that in election God does not wait until individuals or nations are developed and then make a choice on the basis of character or achievement. If he did so, this would make a mockery of the concept of election, because it would locate the basis in humanity rather than in God and his purpose. God’s love for Jacob, then, must be coupled with election rather than explained by some worthiness found in him (cf. Dt 7:6–8). Such, too, is the case with the nation of Israel.

C. God’s Freedom to Act in His Own Sovereign Right (9:14–29)

then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. the Scripture says to Pharaoh:“I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

of you will say to me:“Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,‘Why did you make me like this?’” not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,

‘You are not my people,’

they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,

only the remnant will be saved.

²⁸ For the Lord will carry out

his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”

is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty

had left us descendants,

we would have become like Sodom,

we would have been like Gomorrah.”

COMMENTARY

14 God’s dealings with Jacob and Esau might be challenged as arbitrary on the ground that Esau was the object of injustice. Paul refuses in the strongest language the notion that there is any injustice with God: “Not at all!”

15 To demonstrate that injustice is by no means consistent with God’s character, Paul goes further into the history of Israel, focusing on the “golden calf “ incident at Sinai. There the people sinned grievously. If God had acted simply in justice, he could have blotted out his people. Instead, he recalled Moses to the mountain and for a second time gave him the tables of commandments, yet not until he had proclaimed to his servant Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Ex 33:19). That mercy was seen in sparing a sinful nation.

16 And lest this mercy be construed as depending on a person’s desire or effort, Paul strongly denies any such qualification. Mercy, like grace, stands over against human worth and effort whenever salvation is concerned. It is free because God is not bound to show mercy to any.

17 The thought moves from Moses to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt at the time of the exodus—from the leader of Israel to its oppressor. “The Scripture” is represented as speaking—a vivid reminder that it is God’s word. “I raised you up” is not strictly a reference to Pharaoh’s emergence in history but to God’s providence in sparing him up to that time. Pharaoh deserved death for his oppression and insolence, but his life would not be taken during the series of plagues, so that the full extent of his hardness of heart might be evident and the glory of God in the deliverance of his people enhanced “in all the earth” (cf. Jos 9:9). The fame of this pharaoh actually depended on the mercy of God in sparing him. God can be glorified through those who oppose him, as well as through those who trust and serve him. Human wrath can contribute to the praise and glory of God (cf. Ps 76:10).

18 Paul concludes the Pharaoh episode with this observation: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” He does not so much as bother to indicate that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (cf. Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34)—an evidence of unbelief and rebellion—because he is emphasizing the freedom of God’s action in all cases. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can profitably be related to the principle laid down in Romans 1 that God’s method of dealing with those who reject the revelation of himself in nature and history (and in Pharaoh’s case also in miracles) is to abandon them to still greater excess of sin and its consequences (cf. G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9,” TJ 5 [1984]: 129–54).

19 Paul, continuing the review of God’s sovereign activity, presents another problem. If God acts unilaterally, according to his own will and purpose, does this not remove all basis for judgment, since man is not in a position to resist the divine will? Why, then, should man be blamed?

20 In reply, Paul first points out the inappropriateness for the creature to talk back to God, as though he had sufficient wisdom to judge the Almighty. The creature must yield to the Creator and not bring him to the bar of his paltry, not to mention sin-affected, wisdom and judgment. (On the whole subject, see Wis 12:12–18.)

21 The illustration of the potter and the clay shows how ridiculous it is to challenge God. Two of Israel’s greatest prophets had made the same point (Isa 29:16; Jer 18:6). Some interpreters have concluded that Paul has in mind the creation. While it is true that Genesis 2:7 contains the word “formed,” which is from the same root word as “potter,” it is clear that Paul envisions the clay as a “given,” and the real problem is what the potter does with the clay, namely, fashion one type of vessel or another. The apostle is insisting on the right of the potter to make whatever type of vessel he chooses. Those made for “noble purposes” are valuable for their beauty and decorative function, while those made for “common use” are not admired, though they are actually more essential to the household than the other ones. Pharaoh was useful in fulfilling God’s purpose. Apart from this, he would not even have appeared on the pages of sacred history.

22–23 In v.22 the crucial problem is to interpret correctly the expression “prepared for destruction.” Is Paul teaching a double predestination? This is improbable, because he avoids involving God in this case, whereas God is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy (v.23). Furthermore, God’s patience in bearing with the objects of his wrath suggests a readiness to receive such on condition of repentance (cf. 2:3–4; 2Pe 3:9). So “prepared for destruction” designates a ripeness of sinfulness that points to judgment unless there is a turning to God, yet God is not made responsible for the sinful condition. The preparation for destruction is the work of human beings, who allow themselves to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience.

There is a remarkable asymmetry in Paul’s (and the NT’s) viewpoint that should keep us from the conclusion of double predestination. Those who are saved are saved only by the mercy of God; those who are lost are lost only because of their refusal to repent. The basic premise, argued earlier in Romans, is that no one, not even the most “righteous,” deserves to be saved. Quite the contrary—all deserve condemnation; that any are saved is the astonishing fact. Precisely for this reason everything depends on the sovereign grace of God. It is worth quoting the words of F. F. Bruce, 191, here:

In point of fact, as appears with blessed clarity later in the present argument [11:25–32], God’s grace is far wider than anyone could have dared to hope, but just because it is grace, no-one is entitled to it, and no-one can demand that God should give an account of the principles on which He bestows His grace, or that He should bestow it otherwise than in fact He does. Grace in its sovereignty may impose conditions, but it cannot be made subject to them.

But God delights to show mercy, and He has lavished it upon men and women beyond counting—from Gentiles and Jews alike.

Presumably, and in view of what follows, when Paul speaks of “objects of [God’s] wrath” (v.22), he has in mind those in Israel who have remained obdurate in opposing the gospel yet are still the objects of the divine long-suffering. In contrast to them are “objects of [God’s] mercy” (v.23), in whom God wills to show the riches of his glory (in contrast to his wrath; cf. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983]).

24–25 Those God has prepared for glory include both Jews and Gentiles (v.24), in line with Paul’s previous teaching (1:16; 2:10 — 11; 3:22) and with the prophetic announcement. The same God who declared to Israel through Amos, “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth” (Am 3:2), declared through Hosea his freedom to call others to be his people (v.25). In all strictness, this passage from Hosea 2:23 refers to the reversal in Israel’s status from being called “not my people” (Hos 1:9) to being restored, but in both Romans 9:25 and 1 Peter 2:10 the meaning is broadened and applied to the Gentiles, as Romans 2:24 intimates. Gentiles, who are not actually a people but only masses of humanity, are called by the grace of God to a new role—that of joining Israel in being the people of God. This was dramatically happening in Paul’s day. Those once in the category of “not my people” were becoming those who are “my people.”

26 The second quotation is from Hosea 1:10 (omitting the first half of the verse), which refers to the prophesied increase in the number of the people of Israel. Here also the background is the “Lo-Ammi” prophecy of Hosea 1:9, which is now seen to be revoked when Israel will once again be called “sons of the living God.” Since 1 Peter 2:10 uses the Hosea 2:23 passage as applying to Gentiles, Paul’s intimation of a similar application is the more understandable. It is just possible that Paul does not intend the second passage (Hos 1:10) to apply to Gentiles (though this is by no means certain), in which case by the sequence of the passages he may be giving a hint of something developed in ch. 11, namely, the influx of Gentiles during Israel’s temporary rejection, to be followed by the turning of Israel to the Lord in great numbers (11:25–27).

27–29 As Paul has used Scripture to show that it teaches God’s purpose to extend his mercy to Gentiles, so now, returning to the main subject of Israel’s unbelief, he uses Scripture again to make clear that the election of Israel does not preclude her reduction through chastening judgments, yet in the sparing of the remnant his mercy and faithfulness are to be seen. Both quoted passages are from Isaiah. The former anticipates the depletion of the nation by reason of the Assyrian invasion under Sennacherib, described from God’s viewpoint as “the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!” (Isa 10:5). Without softening his decree and without delay, God will permit the judgment to fall. Jacob, now numerous, will be reduced to a remnant (Isa 10:22). Thus far judgment is emphasized, but the remainder of the sentence underscores the divine mercy—“the remnant GK will be saved.” The Hebrew text has “will return” (i.e., after deportation). Paul, however, following the LXX, sees the promise of a greater deliverance, for he says, “will be saved.” Even as he wrote, there was a remnant of Israel to be found in the church. In view of the nation’s rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Gentile Christians should be grateful for the minority of Jews who have embraced the gospel of Christ and who provide a constant reminder of God’s faithfulness to his people. In Romans 11:5 Paul will return to the theme of the remnant.

Verse 28 continues quoting Isaiah (Isa 10:23) and includes some words from Isaiah 28:22b. The point of this verse is rather unclear. The general sense is to stress that the Lord will accomplish his purpose on the earth, presumably in the salvation of the remnant as well as in judgment. The uncertainty stems from the two participles, which, literally rendered, say “finishing it” and “cutting it short” (see NASB text note). Probably this idea of “cutting short” refers to the limitation of the salvation of Israel to the remnant who have believed in the gospel. If God’s judgment had been unsparing, Paul goes on to note by means of further quotation from Isaiah (Isa 1:9) that the nation would have become as truly wiped out as Sodom and Gomorrah were (v.29). But the divine judgment is tempered by unfailing mercy, of which the remnant is the eloquent proof. This dual theme of the kindness and severity of God comes into focus again at 11:22.

NOTES

26 The question of whether Paul does or does not intend the second passage (Hos 1:10) to apply to Gentiles depends not only on the sense of the passage but also on whether the , at the beginning of v.27 should be taken as “and” or as the stronger adversative “but,” the latter suggesting a new subject in view—now Israel rather than the Gentiles.

28 The TR, together with (third corrector), D G K P et al., and some ancient versions, has conformed the text more closely to that of the LXX of Isaiah 10:23 by adding missing words, apparently in an effort to make the text more intelligible (cf. KJV, “For he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth”). Metzger, 462, observes, “It is not credible that Paul, who in ver. 27 does not follow the Septuagint closely, should in ver. 28 have copied verbatim a sentence that is so opaque grammatically.”

D. Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness Due to Reliance on Works Rather Than Faith (9:30–10:21)

then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble

and a rock that makes them fall,

and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law:“The man who does these things will live by them.” the righteousness that is by faith says:“Do not say in your heart,‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: if you confess with your mouth,“Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. the Scripture says,“Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written,“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says,“Lord, who has believed our message?” faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.”

I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;

I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;

I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”

concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands

to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

COMMENTARY

30–31 The introductory question indicates that here Paul comes to the point of the preceding section and also anticipates much in the following chapter. He presents a strong contrast between the Gentiles and Israel. It is no small irony that the Gentiles, without pursuing righteousness, “obtained” GK it, namely, the “righteousness that is by faith,” whereas Israel, pursuing righteousness through the law, did not “attain” GK it. The Greek has the word “law” GK as the object of “attain” where one expects a repetition of the word “righteousness.” Perhaps we can translate, “has not arrived at the goal of the law,” namely, the law of righteousness in the sense of righteousness gained by means of the law. In view here are the two types of righteousness Paul has introduced earlier (3:19–31; chs. 4 and 5; cf. Php 3:9). There Paul has already shown the impossibility of arriving at righteousness through the law and stressed the fact that righteousness comes through faith. The language of pursuing and obtaining/attaining is an athletic metaphor alluding to a race in which the prize may be thought of as righteousness. From Israel’s point of view, the Gentiles had not run the race but nevertheless shockingly received the prize. As F. F. Bruce, 198, has observed, “It was indeed a hard lesson for them to learn that, in spite of all the privileges which were theirs as Israelites, the divine righteousness could be attained by them only in the same way as it was open to those complete outsiders of Gentiles who had been for ages past shut out from the knowledge of God and His ways.”

Undoubtedly the reference to “a righteousness that is by faith” refers to the status of being justified or declared righteous. At the same time, however, consistent with what we have seen earlier, Paul believes that actual righteousness can and ought to be attained by Christians through the Spirit (cf. 8:4). Again the paradox is stunning: the people who did not have the law attain through Christ the righteousness of the law, while the people who had the law fail to achieve its goal. Gentile success is attributed not to the observance of the works of the law but to their faith. Hardly a passage in the NT is stronger than this one in its exposure of the futility of works as a means of justification (cf. Thomas Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3,” TJ 12 [1991]: 209–20).

32 The words “they stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’” employ a metaphor from Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14 that is used a number of times to point to the unbelief of Israel. Isaiah 28:16 is again quoted in 1 Peter 2:6, and Paul repeats the last line of it in 10:11, where it serves to make a different point. Christ is both the rejected stone that has become the chief cornerstone (Ps 118:22; cf. Mt 21:42; Ac 4:11; Eph 2:20) as well as the stone of stumbling (cf. Mt 21:42; Lk 20:17–18). The analogy of the race may continue to influence Paul’s thought (see comments at vv.30–31). Absorbed in their own efforts, the Israelites did not recognize in Christ the stone of their prophetic Scripture—the sure foundation for their faith and life—and fell headlong over him. By failing to receive him, they denied also their own election, of which he was the fulfillment and crown.

33 The passage Paul quotes is a combination of Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16. From it we glean that the Lord himself, provided as a foundation stone, was actually to become for Israel a stumbling stone. This became especially true with respect to his cross (1Co 1:23). The misdirection of Israel’s thinking became painfully clear in that the preaching of the cross, the event that was at once the quintessence of sin and the sole hope of salvation, could find no hearing in her as it did among the Gentiles.

It is perhaps the fact that 10:1 again refers to Paul’s deep concern for his people, in a way reminiscent of the opening of ch. 9, that caused ancient editors to begin a new chapter at this point. Verse 1 hardly marks a break in the thought, however, for key words such as righteousness, law, and faith continue to appear, especially early in the chapter.

Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure but not censoriously. He has empathy with his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected in his going to the Jews first (Ac 13:46; 18:5–6; cf. Ro 1:16) but also in praying to God on their behalf. As earnest as Paul’s praying and preaching must have been, they could not in themselves convert his kinsfolk. God had to move in their hearts.

2 Paradoxically, it is Israel’s “zeal” for God that constitutes their greatest barrier. The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal in behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Gal 1:14; Ac 22:3). That very zeal so preoccupied him that he felt bound to consider Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted the Christians in ignorance (1Ti 1:13). Zeal in itself is admirable, but not when it is driven by ignorance. So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge” (for Israel’s ignorance, see 1Co 2:7–8; 2Co 3:14–15), i.e., as having the same problem as his own prior zeal.

3 His people have ignored the “righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In working so hard to gain a righteous standing before God, seeking “to establish their own,” they have refused submission to God’s righteousness. As Fitzmyer, 582, writes,“Real zeal for God has become in effect disobedience.” By looking forward to v.4, where the law is mentioned, we see that this striving of Israel to achieve their own righteousness was related to their quest for success in meeting the demands of the Mosaic law. Paul is able to analyze their trouble in expert fashion, for he has been over the same route in his spiritual pilgrimage. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on service to the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith (Php 3:9).

4 Israel’s covenantal relation to God and reliance on law keeping do not add up to salvation, since only in and through God’s Messiah is salvation possible (cf. Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). For this reason, Paul points away from the law and instead to Christ as the way to righteousness for Israel, just as for the Gentiles. The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to the will of God, to the extent of rebelling against him, lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the bringer of a salvation in full accord with the divine righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul is required for his people.

Considerable debate has focused on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word the NIV translates as “end” (most translations use this word and thus preserve the ambiguity of Paul’s statement; contrast NJB, “the Law has found its fulfilment in Christ”). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and use the expression “to the end that”—the one expression meaning conclusion or termination, and the other, purpose or goal—the Greek word telos (GK allows the same dual possibility. Commentators have been seriously divided about which way to take telos in Paul’s statement, though the majority seem to favor the conclusion that Paul here speaks of the termination of the law (e.g., Käsemann, Dodd, Michel, Sanday and Headlam, Nygren, Stuhlmacher, Schreiner). The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea is the contrast in 9:30–32 between the law and God’s righteousness (cf. 10:5–6). Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the basic incorrectness of it, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by acceptance of the divine gift. Also favorable to this understanding is the fact that the law had a certain course to run in God’s economy (see esp. Gal 3:19–25; cf. Lk 16:16), and now with the coming of Christ, the law, having fulfilled its job, has come to an end. The law has been terminated both in a salvation-historical sense and in a soteriological sense (cf. 3:21). Adolf Schlatter The Righteousness of God [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995], 213) writes, “God’s righteousness has become manifest in that Christ is the end of the law and thus he also is the end of all of the individual’s own righteousness. For the believer righteousness is brought about precisely because Christ acts apart from the law and takes its place as the individual’s Lord.”

At the same time, the second meaning has some plausibility here, since there is also a sense in which (1) Christ is himself the goal of the law as its fulfillment, and (2) Christ has not brought the law to an end but rather to its goal (examples of those who favor this interpretation include Barth, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Byrne, and Badenas [see note at 10:4]). If we think of the goal of the law as righteousness and the fact that Paul has argued that the gospel upholds the law because Christians will produce the righteousness of which the law spoke (e.g., 8:4), then we can see how the passage can easily be taken in this way. It also fits with Paul’s teaching about the law as the child-leader to bring human beings to Christ (Gal 3:24).

In fact,surprisingly,both concepts—termination and goal—seem to fit our passage rather well; it is, therefore, tempting to conclude that both ideas are true, namely, that in Christ the law has in one sense been brought to its termination, but in another sense the law has arrived at its intended purpose. A number of commentators who favor the idea of termination also see the possibility of truth in the fulfillment idea (e.g., Barrett, Bruce, Achtemeier, Dunn, Moo, Edwards).

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as “the end of the law so that there may be righteousness.” He is that “for everyone who believes.” This seems to imply that the law is still applicable to those who do not believe: “Those who have not yet passed from the being-in-the-Law to the being-in-Christ, and those who allow themselves to be misled into exchanging the being-in-Christ for the being-under-the-Law, are under the Law and are made to feel its power” (A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle [New York: Holt, 1931], 189).

5–8 The thread of the discourse from here through v.13 is a continuation of the emphasis on “everyone who believes”—the last words of v.4. This is developed in two ways: first by showing that the principle of faith is amply set forth in the OT—in fact, in the pages of Moses—and then by expressly indicating, in line with 1:16, that “everyone” includes the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

5 We encounter here a strong contrast between two opposite positions. The first is articulated by Moses (v.5); the second is represented as spoken by the personified “righteousness that is by faith” (v.6). In fact, however, since “righteousness” also echoes material drawn from Moses, Paul pits Moses against Moses. Paul deals first with the law’s insistence on the attainment of righteousness through observing the commandments. He does this by citing a passage from Moses (Lev 18:5) that calls for obedience and performance of the will of God as contained in the statutes and ordinances of Scripture. The unmistakable point is that the one who complies will live.

The textual evidence is divided as to whether the last word in the Greek text of v.5 is a singular pronoun ) or a plural pronoun The NASB follows the singular, which would normally be translated “by it” (so RSV, REB), but specifies the content of the pronoun with the words “by that righteousness.” If the plural is accepted, the translation would be “by them” (so KJV, NRSV, NIV), and the implied antecedent would be “the things written in the law,” as in Galatians 3:12. The difference is very small, and the NASB’s “by that righteousness” makes essentially the same point, i.e.,“the righteousness that is by the law,” as earlier in the verse. We are aided in our understanding from the quotation of the same passage in Galatians 3:12: “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary,‘The man who does these things will live by them.’” In both letters the emphasis falls on doing if one expects to live—the very viewpoint Paul is intent on refuting. Indeed, Paul has firmly shut that door earlier in Romans (cf. 3:20). The dark side of the picture is that a curse rests on the one who fails to meet the law’s demands (cf. Gal 3:10). The upshot of the matter is that because of human weakness and imperfection, the course being pursued by Israel—the attempt to gain righteousness for themselves by law keeping (v.3)—cannot bring life. We must remind ourselves here that Paul believes that Christians will, in fact, produce the righteousness of which the law speaks (cf. 2:13; 6:18; 8:4), but through a totally different dynamic, namely, the power of the indwelling Spirit. Apart from Christ, however, the law of Moses cannot help.

6–7 What is the contrasting view articulated by “the righteousness that is by [lit., “from”] faith”? Now, too, we encounter quotations from Moses (Dt 30:12–14). At first sight, the selection of this portion seems inappropriate, since neither “righteousness” nor “faith” can be found here and since there is heavy emphasis on doing, as in Leviticus 18:5. The passages seem closely related rather than opposed. Indeed, at first we encounter questions asking for the apparently impossible: “Who will ascend into heaven?” and “Who will descend into the deep?” Whereas in view in Deuteronomy is the performance of the commandments (Dt 30:11, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach”), Paul cannot resist finding in the questions allusions to the Messiah: “to bring Christ down” (the coming of the Messiah);“to bring Christ up from the dead” (his resurrection). Bruce, 204, suggests that the connection could have been made by Paul if he had associated the passage with wisdom, as does Baruch 3:29–30. The point here is that these Herculean efforts are not necessary. These are the glorious and gracious acts of God in behalf of humanity.

Thus Paul makes his own application of the reference to “heaven” (v.6) in order to emphasize aspects of the gospel. There is no need to try to ascend to heaven to gain spiritual knowledge or acceptance, for Christ has come from heaven to proclaim and effect salvation for the world. He has come within human reach by his incarnation.

In v.7 Paul substitutes “the deep” (NASB, “abyss”) for “the sea” in the Deuteronomy passage, changing the figure from one of distance to one of depth, not to mention the Jewish view of the sea as the abode of evil, which makes the contrast with heaven sharper. This affords opportunity to think of Christ as going down into death as a prelude to resurrection. Apparently lost to us by death, he has been returned to us by resurrection. We have had no part in bringing about the Lord’s resurrection any more than in effecting his incarnation. All has been of God. Our part is to believe. The saving message lies at hand, waiting to be received.

8–10 So, too, righteousness cannot come as the result of Herculean efforts. The reason righteousness is not out of our reach is that it is the gift of God through faith. The whole burden of the passage is to discourage the idea that the doing of God’s will means to aspire after something that is too difficult and out of reach. Through what Christ has accomplished on our behalf, the doing of God’s will is as near as the “mouth” and “heart” (the mouth as the organ to repeat the word of God and turn it back to him in prayer and praise, the heart as the source of desire to please him). It is a matter of confessing and believing, as Paul will explain in the following verses (cf. M. J. Suggs,“‘The Word Is Near You’: Romans 10:6–10 Within the Purpose of the Letter,” in Christian History and ed. W. R. Farmer et al. [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967], 289–312; M. A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Approach to the Old Testament in Romans 10:6–8,” TJ 6 [1985]: 3–37).

Building on the Deuteronomy passage, especially its use of “mouth” and “heart,” Paul goes on to speak directly of the content and the availability of the Christian gospel to Jew and Gentile alike (vv.9–13).

Paul identifies the Deuteronomic “word” GK that is “near you” with “the word of faith” rh ma t s piste s [GK the gospel preached by Paul (v.8). What is as near to you as your mouth and heart is the possibility of confessing and believing in the gospel. What one may do with one’s mouth is to confess and with one’s heart is to believe (v.9). Thus Paul draws a direct correlation with the Deuteronomy passage, and in effect he finds the dynamic of the gospel in Moses. Salvation, rather than righteousness, is the direct result, but lived righteousness is the result of free salvation.

“Confess” , Gk when used of sin means to say the same thing about it that God says; when used in the creedal sense, as here in v.9, it means to say the same thing that other believers say regarding their faith. This was done within the Christian group especially by new converts in connection with their baptism; when it was done “before men” (Mt 10:32) it had a witnessing and an evangelizing function. The oddity that in our passage confession is given prior mention over believing is simply due to Paul’s preservation of the order given in Deuteronomy 30:14, which he had just quoted and where “mouth” is mentioned before “heart” (the order being reversed in the chiasm provided by v.10). The influence of the OT passage is likewise evident in that, whereas it provided a point of contact for citing the resurrection of Jesus (vv.7, 9), there was nothing to provide a basis for mentioning the saving death of Christ (contrast 1Co 15:3–4). The concentration on the resurrection is understandable also when it is recognized that the creedal statement before us pertains to the person of Christ rather than to his redeeming work. “Jesus is Lord” was the earliest declaration of faith fashioned by the church (Ac 2:36; 1Co 12:3). This great truth was recognized first by God in raising his Son from the dead—an act thus far acknowledged by the church but one day to be acknowledged by all (Php 2:11).

It was natural for the church to have a fundamental confession of this sort, since at the beginning it was Jewish/Christian in its composition and therefore had in its background the example of confession in Israel, and no doubt regularly repeated by Jewish Christians, “The our God, the Lord is one” (Dt 6:4). The incarnation necessitated the enlargement of the confession to include the Lord Christ: “for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1Co 8:6).

Paul’s statement in vv.9–10 is misunderstood when it is reduced to the claim that one cannot be saved unless by a personal commitment one makes Jesus the Lord of one’s life. That is, of course, true. In this passage, however, Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, “Jesus is Lord,” which is the very cornerstone for faith, something without which no one could be saved. Intimately connected as it was with the resurrection, which in turn validated the saving death, it proclaimed something that was true no matter whether or not a single soul believed it and built his or her life on it.

The balanced parallelism of v.10 is notable: believing results in justification; confessing results in salvation. These are hardly separable; rather, they form a unity of response to the preaching of the word. Fitzmyer, 588, observes, “Thus to confess Christ as Lord and to believe in him as the risen Lord is one and the same thing.” The heart and mouth of the Christian thus echo the heart and mouth of the Deuteronomy passage (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, “‘Righteousness from the Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 216–28).

11 Scripture indicates how faith can be transforming for one’s life, replacing fear and hesitation with bold confidence that rests on the sure promises of God. For this purpose Paul uses Isaiah 28:16 (repeating a line he quoted at the close of 9:33): “Anyone who trusts in him [Jesus] will never be put to shame.”

12 This belief and its blessing are open to Jews and Gentiles alike. Whatever “difference” there may be in the two groups in some respects, there is no difference when it comes to the fundamental problem of sin, the need for Christ, and the availability of his salvation (cf. 3:22). The source of their spiritual life is found in “the same Lord,” whose blessings are richly bestowed on all without partiality. The all-embracing blessing is salvation.

13 In support of this Paul cites Joel 2:32. Peter used the same passage in his Pentecost sermon to indicate to his Jewish audience that the door of salvation was open to them all, despite their shared guilt in rejecting the one whom God had sent (Ac 2:21). This calling on the Lord is the echoing within the human heart of the call of God according to his gracious purpose (8:28–30). The prayer promises of Scripture are restricted to the people of God, with one notable exception, namely, that God will hear the cry of any who call on him for salvation. When v.13 is compared with v.9, it becomes evident that the Lord of Joel 2:32 is being identified with the Lord Jesus Christ. Ho “the Lord,” in the Hebrew of Joel 2:32 is Yahweh, and thus in effect Paul equates Jesus with Yahweh, an important name of the deity in the OT.

14–15 Now the apostle turns parenthetically to emphasize the importance of those who proclaim the good news of the gospel, and thus by implication the importance of his apostolic ministry. A series of logically connected questions makes the point. A first question is implicit, though not stated, from the fundamental point made in the preceding verse, namely,“How shall they be saved if they cannot call on the name of the Lord?” Paul begins with the next question, in order: “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?” Then the sequence follows: “How can they believe … [if] they have not heard?” “How can they hear without someone preaching to them?” and finally,“How can they preach unless they are sent?” Is this last question possibly a veiled indication that Paul needs the support of the Romans for his planned evangelistic work in Spain?

Faith, in fact, depends on knowledge. One must hear the gospel before one can be expected either to receive it or reject it. The choice of words is suggestive. To “hear” the message was the one vehicle open to people in that day. The NT had not yet been written so as to be available to the reader, though a few churches had received letters from Paul. There was no visual depiction of the Savior and his mission. The message had to be communicated by word of mouth to the hearing of others. This was as true in the days of the apostles as in the time of the prophets, as a look at the concordance will show.

“Someone preaching,” of course, refers to anyone who proclaims the gospel or witnesses to its truth. Christians are saved to serve, and a paramount element in that service is to bear witness to the saving power of Christ. To be “sent” (v.15) suggests at least two things: that one operates under a higher authority and that one’s message does not originate with oneself but is given by the sending authority. The prophets were those who were sent in these two respects. So was Jesus (cf. Jn 3:34; 7:16). So are Christians in their witness-bearing capacity. The apostles received their commission from the risen Lord as he in turn had been sent by the Father (Jn 20:21). In addressing the Roman church, Paul was careful to state at the very beginning that he was called and set apart for the ministering of the gospel (Ro 1:1).

Is the apostolate alone in view here as representing Christ and his gospel? This is unlikely, judging from what Paul says later about the widespread proclamation of the gospel to the Jews (vv.17–18). The task was too big for a handful of preachers (in this connection, see Ac 8:4; 11:19–20). It is not clear from vv.14–15 whether the sending that is in view here is intended to include the sending out of missionaries by a sponsoring group of believers, as in Acts 13:3. But even if this is not included, it is obviously an integral part of the entire process of the communication of the gospel. In the case of the church at Antioch, the divine and human aspects of the sending were closely bound together (Ac 13:2–3).

Once again, Paul corroborates his statement with words from the prophets, this time Isaiah (52:7), heralding the favor of the Lord to the city of Jerusalem that had lain desolate during the Babylonian captivity (v.15). The tidings are good; the proclamation is one of peace. Paul changes the wording somewhat—the single announcer in Isaiah becomes a company in line with the “they” in his own depiction of gospel messengers in the same verse. If the message to returning Israel in the former days was good news, how much more the promise of eternal salvation in God’s Son!

16 The good news of physical restoration may have been welcome to Israel, but the sad fact is that the spiritual salvation God promised to provide through his Servant and did provide in the fullness of time has met with unbelief. The elation of Isaiah 52:7 (v.15) concerning those who bring the message of good news now meets the reality of unbelief in the exasperation of Isaiah 53:1. The prophet foresaw a repudiation of the message about salvation through a suffering Servant. History has sustained that prophecy in the unbelief of Israel in the crucified Servant-Messiah (cf. 1Co 1:23).

17 Paul now turns two of the questions of v.14 into declarative statements in preparation for what follows: Faith depends on “hearing the message”—i.e., hearing it with understanding and acceptance. And the message is heard “through the word of Christ.” This can mean either the word about Christ (objective genitive) or the word proclaimed by Christ (subjective genitive). The former sense is somewhat favored by the fact that in Isaiah 53, which may still be in Paul’s thought, the Servant is not a proclaimer but a suffering redeemer. On the other hand, the second possibility cannot be ruled out. Barrett, 189, writes, “Christ must be heard either in his own person, or in the person of his preachers, through whom his own word 17) is spoken; otherwise faith in him is impossible.”

18 In his indictment of Israel, Paul is prepared to investigate any possibility that would offer an excuse for the nation’s failure to believe. Could it be, he asks, that they did not hear the gospel? He is writing more than twenty-five years after Pentecost. Not only in Palestine but also out in the dispersion, where he himself has been especially active, the message has been widely and repeatedly heralded, as the book of Acts testifies. Such has been the widespread proclamation of the gospel that Paul is able to compare it hyperbolically to the universal witness of nature (general revelation), quoting from Psalm 19:4, which speaks of the heavens and the firmament as declaring the glory of God “to the ends of the world.” The widespread proclamation of the gospel in the areas where Jews made their home—essentially the Mediterranean basin, where Paul and his helpers had been laboring for some years—was an undeniable fact. Thus Paul’s kinsfolk could hardly claim as their excuse that they had not heard the gospel (cf. Ac 17:6; 21:28). That is not the reason for their failure to believe.

19 There remained the possibility, however, that in spite of hearing the message Israel had not understood it. If this were true, it would be a mitigating factor in explaining their unbelief. But the very form of the question (the initial negative m , as also in the question of v.18) in the original expects a denial that Israel’s failure results from lack of understanding. Early in Acts (3:17), Peter spoke of the ignorance of his countrymen with respect to the crucifixion. But as time went on, fewer and fewer Jews in proportion to the total population of the nation responded to the gospel, and that lack of response was not due to ignorance. The precedent of the Jews who did respond to the gospel, instead of moving their fellow Jews, apparently only embittered them. Then, as the gospel spread abroad and was received by Gentiles in ever-greater numbers, this served to antagonize them further.

It is over against this situation that Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:21b, a part of Moses’ song to Israel in which he chides the congregation for perversity and (in Dt 32:21a, not quoted here) voices the complaint of God that the people had provoked him to jealousy by their idolatry. This in turn prompts God to resort to something that is calculated to make Israel jealous (cf. Ro 11:11). It will be done through a people “who are not a nation” (the l - “no people,” here being reminiscent of the Hosea 2:23 passage Paul quoted in 9:25) and “a nation that has no understanding.” This is to be understood as referring to Gentile response to God and his Word in such a way as to surpass the response of Israel. Exactly such a situation had developed by the time Paul wrote, so the quotation is particularly apt and telling in its effect. Those who lacked special revelation and the moral and religious training God provided for Israel have proved more responsive than the chosen people. The irony that a “non-people” lacking in understanding respond rightly, while the people of God’s covenants respond wrongly, is pursued in the following verses.

20 The quotation from Isaiah 65:1 is clearly intended to parallel what has been declared in the previous passage (Dt 32:21), as is evident from the “first” in v.19. Paul sees in the Isaiah passage an anticipation of what has come to pass in his day. The thought is somewhat similar to the implication in 9:30 that the pagan world, occupied with its own pursuits, was in the main not seeking after God. If there was a religious interest, cults and superstitions abounded to which one could turn.

21 In the next quotation from Isaiah (65:2), the paradoxical situation regarding Israel is set forth. God is the one who keeps seeking, reaching out to his people continually with a plea that Israel return to him in loving obedience, only to be rebuffed. So we may draw the conclusion that the spiritual condition of Israel does not come from a lack of opportunity to hear the gospel or a lack of understanding of its content, but must be traced to a “disobedient and obstinate” spirit such as cropped up in the days of Moses and the days of the prophets. It is the more grievous now because God has spoken his final word in his Son and yet has been rebuffed by those who should have been the most ready to respond.

Not to be missed, however, is the emphasis at the end of ch. 10 on the persevering character of God’s grace and mercy despite the unresponsiveness of Israel: “All day long I have held out my hands.” In ch. 11 it becomes crystal clear that God has not and will not give up on his people. And remarkably, the unbelief of Israel was already anticipated in the OT Scriptures. It should come as no surprise. Indeed, as we are about to find out, it was fully within the plan of God, and this temporary unbelief will not always mark the people of Israel.

NOTES

9:32–33 The most remarkable constellation of “stone” passages is in 1 Peter 2:4–8. The last verse of that passage is particularly relevant to Paul’s argument: Christ became “‘a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’ They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.”

10:4 On 10:4, see R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); C. T. dikaiosynes and the Meaning of Romans 10:4,” CBQ 47 [1985]: 486–99.

5 Manuscripts vary considerably in the wording of the quotation from Leviticus 18:5. Those that have , “in [or “by”] them” ( [second corrector] D F G and TR) are perhaps influenced by the LXX and by the form of the quotation in Galatians 3:12, where , fits the context (cf. the antecedent “everything written in the Book of the Law” in Gal 3:10). Though the witnesses for the singular , aut , “in [or “by”] it,” are strong ( * A B among others), the currently accepted critical text adopts the plural. The difference between the two is, in the end, insignificant.

17 The word for “hearing” ( , ako , Gk in this verse is the same word translated “message” in the quotation from Isaiah in v.16. “The word of God” ( , rh matos is the reading of the TR, but “the word of Christ” ( , rh matos clearly has superior attestation ( * B C et al.).

E. Israel Not Entirely Rejected; There Is a Remnant of Believers (11:1–10)

OVERVIEW

Thus far Paul has treated the problem of Israel from two standpoints: In ch. 9 he has emphasized the sovereignty of God in choosing this people for himself in a special sense. In ch. 10 he has dealt with Israel’s failure to respond to God’s righteousness, ending with the verdict that she is “a disobedient and obstinate people” (10:21). These two presentations involve a serious tension. We are, therefore, back to the main issue: How are we to understand the problem of Israel’s election and her unbelief? This is the problem with which Paul began: What about the faithfulness of God to his promises? To this question Paul now turns. His answer will dip into Israel’s past, encompass her present, and reveal her future.

ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,

eyes so that they could not see

and ears so that they could not hear,

to this very day.”

David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,

a stumbling block and a retribution for them.

¹⁰ May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,

and their backs be bent forever.”

COMMENTARY

1 Preparation for this section has been made—especially in 9:27–29, where the teaching of the OT concerning the remnant is summarized by quotations from Isaiah. That teaching involved both judgment and mercy—judgment on the nation as a whole for its infidelity and wickedness, and mercy on the remnant, who are permitted to escape the judgment and who form the nucleus for a fresh start under the blessing of God.

The opening question, “Did God reject his people?” (based on Ps 94:14) requires that we keep in mind what was made clear early in the discussion—that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). The form of Paul’s question expects a negative answer. This negative answer is articulated in the strong formulaic “By no means!” The loss of the bulk of the nation that proved disobedient (both in OT days and at the opening of the gospel period) should not be interpreted as God’s rejection of “his people.” The remnant is in view, as the ensuing paragraph demonstrates.

Why is it that Paul, in repudiating the suggestion that God has rejected his people, injects himself into the discussion as an Israelite descended from Abraham and belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Php 3:5; 2Co 11:22)? It is unlikely that Paul details his background merely to indicate that he can be expected to handle the subject with fairness to Israel. In fact, he presents himself as the initial, obvious evidence that God has been faithful to his people and thus as the first answer to the question he has just posed.

2–3 Just for that reason, Paul immediately makes the statement “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (cf. 1Sa 12:22). The context and the argument make it clear that in view is the entirety of the nation. And here Paul provides an important antidote to his earlier outburst in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16; the present passage provides Paul’s considered opinion. For God to reject his people would require repudiation of his deliberate, unilateral choice of Israel. (For the meaning of “foreknew” here, see comments at 8:29.) This is something, however, that God could not do, for it would go against his own word.

Instead of dealing in abstractions, Paul turns to the OT for confirmation—specifically, to the time of Elijah. If ever there was a period of flagrant apostasy it was during the reign of Ahab, when his queen Jezebel promoted the worship of Baal in the court and throughout the land. The situation was so bad that Elijah, in his loneliness, cried out to God against the killing of prophets and destruction of altars (v.3). He even went so far as to suggest that he was the only one left and that he was being hunted down so as to complete the destruction of God’s servants (1Ki 19:10). He knew that other prophets had escaped through the action of Obadiah (1Ki 18:13), but they were in hiding. Elijah had stood alone on Mount Carmel and later fled alone to the desert—an object of pursuit. It is just possible that Paul, likewise persecuted by his own countrymen, felt a special kinship with Elijah, and this may help to account for his mention of himself in v.1.

4 The really important thing is the contrast between the assertion of Elijah—“I am the only one left” (v.3)—and God’s reply, “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (v.4; 1Ki 19:18). The fact that in that dark hour so many faithful existed, despite all appearances, provides compelling evidence that God does not permit his own at any time to approach the vanishing point. The sparing of the remnant is inseparably related to the choice of the remnant. The very fact of God’s choice excludes the possibility of his desertion of his own. “God’s answer” (v.4) is literally his “oracle” GK indicating both its revelatory character and its intrinsic importance. (This “oracle” was given to Elijah at Horeb, the mount of God, the place where God had appeared to Moses to affirm his preservation of Israel in her affliction and his purpose to deliver her from bondage in Egypt; cf. Ex 3; 1Ki 19.)

5 As in the days of Elijah, so now in Paul’s own time the vast majority of Israel had resisted God. This majority had resisted the gospel, and, in spite of their claim of loyalty to God and the law, they rejected the climactic revelation in his Son. Those who had turned to Christ were only “a remnant.” But the matter of numbers is not crucial. What is of the greatest importance is the very existence of the remnant itself. The faithfulness of God rests squarely on this remnant of Jews who have believed the gospel, this remnant, as Paul puts it, “chosen by grace.” The remnant is of such great importance because it is, as Stuhlmacher, 163, points out, “a sign of hope which God has established for all Israel.”

6 In a way fully consistent with Paul’s exposition of the gospel earlier in the letter, Paul stresses that this remnant is constituted not “by works” but “by grace.” If the remnant were to owe its existence to “works,” then Paul concludes that “grace would no longer be grace.” Grace and works are mutually exclusive as a means of establishing relationship to God (cf. Eph 2:8–9). Grace is determinative for salvation, and that grace is exclusive to those who are in Christ. It is those who are chosen who constitute the remnant. The remnant owes its existence solely to the action of God, for “the grace and election of God can never serve as the basis for human pretensions” (Nygren, 398). It is evident, though not expressed, that the existence of the church, far from being contrary to the will of God (as the leaders of Judaism supposed), is actually the present channel of the operation of God’s grace.

7 Israel’s failure again comes to the fore. The tragedy is that Israel did not obtain what it so earnestly sought. There is a clear connection with 9:30–32 and 10:3, which noted the effort of Israel to attain righteousness in God’s sight by their method rather than his. In stark contrast, “the elect” eklog , Gk obtained righteousness because they did not go about it the wrong way but depended on divine grace. While this was true in the past, Paul is thinking mainly of the present situation (cf. v.5). In distinction from the chosen ones who constitute the remnant, Israel as a whole has become “hardened.” This translates the verb p ro (GK rather than skl ryn (GK which is used in 9:18. The verbs are synonyms, and both are used figuratively of the hardening of hearts. The comparison between present and past, already made on the favorable side between the current remnant according to the election of grace and the seven thousand in Elijah’s time, is now projected to cover the negative aspects of the situation.

8 The failure of the bulk of Israel to attain divine righteousness and their being hardened instead are in line with OT history. Since nothing speaks more bluntly or severely about Israel than Scripture, Paul is able to make his point powerfully through two quotations. In the first of these he weaves together two passages (Isa 29:10 and Dt 29:4), providing illustrations from two periods. In Isaiah, the people are so unresponsive to the message of the prophets that they seem to be in a deep sleep. Isaiah concludes that God sent them “a spirit of stupor.” The emphasis is on the unresponsiveness of Israel, parallel to the unresponsiveness of Israel to the gospel. The Deuteronomy passage stresses the lack of sensory perception—unseeing eyes, unhearing ears. Despite all that the Israelites had seen in the exodus and wilderness wandering, they did not derive a heart of loving trust in God. From the context of both quotations it is clear that God did not give his people deaf ears to mock them any more than he gave them blind eyes to taunt them. What was involved was a judicial punishment for failure to use God-given faculties to perceive his manifested power and to glorify him. At the same time, the sovereignty of God is also mysteriously behind what has happened to Israel both in the past and in the present (cf. Jn 12:39–40).

9–10 David’s imprecation against his enemies in Psalm 69:22–23, as grim a word as can be found, is applied to unbelieving Israel in Paul’s day. This psalm is quoted and alluded to a number of times in the NT in relation both to Jesus and his passion (e.g., Mk 15:23, 36 par.; Jn 2:17; 15:25), and Paul quotes from it again in Romans 15:3. David’s enemies are viewed as the Lord’s enemies as well. How a “table” can become the various things mentioned in the first line of the quotation is unclear. The details are hardly important, however, since the general sense of the passage is clear. David wants his enemies to be ensnared and trapped, to stumble and to experience retribution. He asks for a darkening of their eyes to keep them from seeing, and finally that “their backs be bent”—a metaphor probably indicating subjugation or enslavement, possibly with the law in mind (cf. Paul’s view in Gal 4:24–25).

One problem arises in connection with the final word of the quotation. “Forever” renders dia which in Greek usage may occasionally mean “forever” but which more commonly means “continually.” The latter sense fits better the following context, where Israel’s obduracy and rejection is not treated as lasting indefinitely, certainly not eternally, but as giving way to a great ingathering of repentant Israel (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Significance of dia pantos in Romans 11:10,” SE 2 [1964]: 546–50).

NOTES

2 F. F. Bruce, 214, points out that the literal “in Elijah” refers to the section about Elijah in the books of Kings (cf. [lit.] “in the bush” in Mk 12:26, i.e., that part of Exodus).

5 On this verse, see G. F. Hasel, The Remnant:The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (2d ed.; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1974); R. E. Clements, “‘A Remnant Chosen by Grace’ (Romans 11:5): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant Concept,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 106–21.

6 For the underlying logic of this verse, see Galatians 2:21. Grace is inseparable from the cross of Christ because it depends on it. The additional words “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work,” made familiar by the KJV, are found only in relatively late manuscripts (TR) and thus lack sufficient authority to be included in the text.

8 The word for “stupor” ( , GK means a “pricking” or “stinging,” which apparently was thought of as producing numbness and hence lack of responsiveness. It is intriguing that Paul does not use Isaiah 6:9–10, which was perhaps the most popular passage in the early church to explain the unbelief of the Jews in the gospel (cf., in relation to inability to understand the parables, Mk 4:12 par.; Jn 12:40; Ac 28:26–27).

9 Schreiner, 588–89, mentions five options regarding the symbolism of the table: the cultus; a general sense; God’s bounteous providence; a feast relating to trust in the law; a table set up on the ground.

F. Israel’s Temporary Rejection and the Salvation of Gentiles (11:11–24)

OVERVIEW

Having dealt with the remnant, Paul returns to a consideration of Israel as a whole, insisting that her rejection is not final and that during the period when the nation continues to resist the divine plan centered in the Messiah, God is active in bringing salvation to the Gentiles. The figure of the olive tree emphasizes that Gentile salvation is dependent on Israel’s covenantal relationship to God. Gentiles have to be grafted into the olive tree. The purpose of the Gentile influx into the church is not merely to magnify the grace of God toward outsiders but to evoke envy on the part of Israel as a factor in leading to her ultimate return to God as a people. This, in turn, prepares the way for the climax in 11:25–27.

I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. will say then,“Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

COMMENTARY

11 Paul has just cited exceedingly pessimistic-sounding words from the OT. He has also spoken openly about the unresponsiveness of Israel. This leads naturally to an inquiry. What is the result of this hardening? Is it a hopeless situation? Now that the people have eyes that do not see, are they doomed to stumble so as to fall and rise no more? We are back to the problem with which Paul began in ch. 9 and the question he asked in 11:1. Given Israel’s failure to believe, has the word of God been nullified? Paul’s strong denial is again, as in 11:1, “Not at all!” The stumbling is admitted; an irreparable fall is ruled out. This is already a broad hint of the future salvation of Israel that Paul goes on to affirm. Those who stumbled are “the others” of v.7, those not included in the believing remnant. Though the actual Greek words used are different, the language of stumbling recalls the indirect reference to the Messiah in 9:32–33 as the “stumbling stone” and the “rock that makes them fall.”

God is bringing good out of apparent evil. Israel’s stumbling has opened the way for Gentile salvation on such a scale as to make Israel envious (cf. Ac 13:42–47). That envy, though it may involve bitterness, will ultimately contribute to drawing the nation to her Messiah. Paul is dependent on Deuteronomy 32:21 (which he has already quoted in 10:19) for this notion of Israel’s being made jealous of another nation. (Paul’s hope that jealousy could be something that draws Israel to the gospel seems much less likely now, given the history of “Christian” persecution of the Jews climaxing in the Holocaust.)

12 Paul next makes the remarkable statement that Israel’s transgression means “riches for the world”; i.e., the nations in contrast to Israel, as the parallel statement “riches for the Gentiles” makes clear. Parallel to the word “transgression” GK is the word “loss” tt GK which is basically a military figure referring to defeat (cf. 1Co 6:7). Like a bright ray of hope, in stark contrast to the “transgression” and “loss” of the present, is the reference to “their fullness” pl r ma [GK aut Here we encounter the first explicit statement concerning a positive future for Israel. This is a motif that will gather strength as the chapter proceeds. As surely as Israel’s defeat (identified with her stumbling) has brought the riches of God’s grace to the Gentiles on a large scale, the conversion of Israel to her Messiah (v.26) will bring the victory of even greater blessing to the world. The word “fullness” points to the conversion of the nation, meaning the full complement in contrast to the present remnant of Israel. And so it will mark an end to the state of hardening that now characterizes the nation.

13 The next paragraph follows naturally from the preceding, because Paul now applies to his own position and ministry the truth he has stated. He wants the Gentiles in the Roman church to catch the full import of what he is saying. They have viewed him as “an apostle to the Gentiles.” Very well, but they must not suppose that he is unmindful of Israel’s need of the gospel. Far from it. And here we come to an extremely important insight into Paul’s perspective on Israel. He regards his work among the Gentiles not simply as an end in itself but as the means of a greater goal, namely, the conversion of his kinsfolk. James Daane Freedom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 145) has written, “The Gentiles are not saved merely for their own sake, but for the sake of God’s election of Israel. How unshakable is the faithfulness of God to the nation he has chosen!” The paradox is that the Gentiles are important to the salvation of Israel (cf. v.31). Johannes Munck and the Salvation of Mankind [Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1959], 301) captured the point succinctly: “However strange it may sound, the way to the salvation of Israel is by the mission to the Gentiles.”

14 This involves the envy/emulation idea already stated in v.11. Paul hopes that his success in evangelizing the Gentiles will be an aid to “save some of them,” i.e., fellow Israelites (cf. 1Co 9:22). He knows that only Christ can save, but he himself can be the instrument. The word “some” is important. It is a clear indication that he does not expect his efforts to bring about the eschatological turning of the nation to the crucified and risen Son of God, when “all Israel will be saved” (v.26). This belongs to the indefinite future. “My own people” is, literally, “my flesh” t n sarka [GK cf. “my kinsmen according to the flesh,” kata in 9:3 [NASB]). If God could turn him around—this proud Jew who bitterly set himself against Jesus as the Christ—surely through him as God’s instrument others can be won. These others are the firstfruits, who contain in themselves the promise of the ultimate harvest of a nation of believers (cf. v.16).

15 Here we again encounter the tragic paradox (cf. the parallel in v.12): the “rejection” , GK of Israel leads to “the reconciliation of the world” kosmou [GK for this phrase, see 2Co 5:18–20). In this mysterious way, Israel fulfills her role as servant to the nations. But the rejection of Israel is not the whole story. We have already read of “their fullness” (v.12); now we read of their “acceptance” GK antonym to “rejection,” alluding to what God has in store for Israel. Paul likens this reversal to “life from the dead.” Rather than referring to literal resurrection, Paul uses metaphor to describe the quickening and spiritual life that will come to Israel when she is restored to divine fellowship. As Stuhlmacher, 167, notes, “The redemption of the entire world depends on God’s way with Israel; it is the decisive component of the history of election and salvation!”

16 “Dough offered as firstfruits” translates the single word aparch (GK lit., “firstfruits”). Because the second half of the comparison uses “whole batch” GK “firstfruits” is understood to refer to dough. The word “firstfruits” is a rich theological word that anticipates eschatological fulfillment, and here it indicates the remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus as the beginning of eschatology. The key here is to understand the remnant of Israel as the first installment of a greater fulfillment in the future—the conversion of the whole nation, i.e., “the whole batch.” Both are holy GK in the primary sense of the word—“separated, consecrated to God.” The grain taken from the fields as the firstfruits was prepared and worked into dough, then baked into a cake for an offering (Nu 15:18–21).

What Paul refers to in the last part of the sentence is a little less clear: “if the root is holy, so are the branches.” In keeping with the immediately preceding words (note the “and” untranslated in NIV], which ties this clause closely to the preceding), the root here represents the remnant and the branches the rejuvenated Israel of the future. In the immediately following verses (vv.17–24), Paul uses the metaphor in a quite different way, now understanding “root” in reference to the historic Israel, especially its patriarchal foundation.

17–24 Paul continues to use the figure of root and branches, enlarging it to the allegory of the olive tree (cf. P. E. Hughes, “The Olive Tree of Romans XI,” EvQ 20 [1948]: 22–45;W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Gentiles: A Suggestion Concerning Romans 11:13–24,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 153–63). In fact, there are two trees, the cultivated olive and the wild olive. Israel is the cultivated olive (cf. Jer 11:16), the Gentiles the wild olive. The breaking off of some of the branches of the former and the grafting in of the branches of the latter represent the present partial rejection of Israel and the corresponding reception of the Gentiles. From this presentation Paul draws two lessons. The first is a warning to the Gentile Christians who may be in danger of repeating the sin of the Jews—boasting of their privileged position (vv.18–21). Even more important is the point that if God, by cutting off the branches of the natural tree, has made room for Gentile believers, how much easier will it be for him to restore the natural branches to their place in the cultivated tree (vv.23–24)! In this way, Paul lays the groundwork for the next stage in the argument. God is not only able to do this—he will do it (vv.25–27).

17 By stating that only “some of the branches have been broken off,” Paul inserts a reminder of the fact that Israel’s rejection is not complete (cf. v.5). “The others” refers to the branches symbolizing the Jewish Christians who rub shoulders with Gentile believers in the church. Both depend on the “nourishing sap from the olive root GK Considerable debate has focused on how to identify this root. Second Temple Judaism points to the patriarchs and specifically Abraham as the “root” Jud. 24:5; Jub. 16:26; 1 En. 93:5, 8; Philo, 279), and we may thus conclude that it refers to the patriarchal base established by God’s covenant (cf. 4:11–12). In view is not ethnic Israel per se but so-called “spiritual Israel,” i.e., those who have responded to God in the exercise of faith. Here we may consider with profit what the apostle says in Ephesians 2:11–22: the Gentiles, once aliens and foreigners, are now fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household. The two are made one in Christ.

18 Here Paul begins to draw practical advice from his analogy:“do not boast over those branches.” These are the broken-off branches mentioned in vv.17, 19. It is after all the root that supports the uncultivated branches. The prior reality of Israel and its relationship with God can never be forgotten: “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” The concern over Gentile arrogance here reflects the reality of tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the Christian churches of Rome in Paul’s day (cf. chs 14–15). The temptation of Gentile Christians to boast must have been considerable, a kind of anti-Semitism that magnified the sin of the nation of Israel in rejecting Jesus and that saw in Jewish persecution of the church a sure token of an irreparable rift between the nation and her God. But Paul forcefully stresses that Israel’s plight is not to be traced to a change of attitude on the part of God toward her. It is due to her unbelief, a condition noted earlier (3:3). At the same time, the mysterious sovereignty of God stands behind their unbelief. Stuhlmacher, 169, can thus speak of an “involuntary condition of guilt,” noting that “Israel’s present unbelief is ordained by God; Israel cannot and may not yet come to a full understanding of Christ.”

19–21 The only reason Gentile believers have a standing with God is that they have responded to the gospel in faith—the very thing that Israel has hitherto failed to do. It is correct that “branches were broken off “ so that new branches could be grafted in (v.19), but just as they were broken off “because of unbelief,” so the fact is that “you stand by faith” (v.20, the position of the words “by faith” making them emphatic). There is, therefore, no room for conceit; indeed the proper attitude is one of humility and fear (v.20), for God will not spare these wild branches if they fall into unbelief, any more than he did the natural ones (v.21).

Paul treats the Gentile element in the church as a unit, addressing it consistently in vv.17–24 with the singular pronoun “you” The matter in hand is the current Gentile prominence in the church made possible by the rejection of the gospel on the part of the nation of Israel as a whole. Let Gentile Christians beware. Their predominance in the Christian community may not last!

22–23 “Kindness” stot GK and “sternness” GK are aspects of the divine nature, the latter experienced by Israel in her present condition, the former being the portion of Gentile believers. But the positions can be reversed, and if this occurs, it will not be due to any fickleness in God but to the nature of the human response. Gentiles can become objects of God’s sternness and Israel can just as easily become the object of his kindness. Once Israel’s unbelief is put away, God is prepared to graft her branches in again (v.23).

24 Paul’s concluding observation has a double value. It helps to explain the curious circ*mstance that his illustration of the olive tree does not follow the pattern of grafting ordinarily found in the ancient Mediterranean world but is, in fact, the reverse of it. If this is not merely a reference to grafting itself as unnatural, Paul may be granting that his allegory is “contrary to nature” physin [GK It has often been concluded that Paul’s illustration is foolish because it involves the impossible. But parallels to the odd practice spoken of by Paul do exist.

A further specific matter in which the illustration runs counter to horticulture is the expectation that the natural branches, though broken off, will in fact be grafted in again. In v.24 this is not spoken of as a mere possibility but as a future reality. (Note the future passive tense of the verb, with God as the assumed acting subject.) Paul’s argument is that if it is a hard thing to accept the grafting of wild branches into a cultivated olive tree—yet something that has been accomplished—one should not find it difficult to believe that God can and will also restore the broken-off branches of the cultivated olive tree to their former position. The future restoration of the Jews is in itself a more probable event than had been the introduction of the Gentiles into the church of God (cf. H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1893], 214).

Since in terms of a literal tree this would be impossible because of the deadness of the branches after they were removed, Paul is indeed talking “contrary to nature.” But he rests his case not on nature but on God’s being “able” (v.23) to do it. With God, nothing is impossible. Inevitably, the branches that will be grafted in are not identical to those that were broken off, but they are also the same in that they are Jews who in the past have been characterized by unbelief. They represent a continuum with the Israel of Paul’s day. It should also be noted that the grafting in again of Israel is not intended to suggest that this involves a supplanting of the Gentiles, but only that both Jew and Gentile now share together the blessings of God’s grace in Christ.

NOTES

15 Fitzmyer rejects interpreting , h apobol [GK aut n (“their rejection”), as an objective genitive and favors a subjective genitive in both halves of the verse; thus in view is not God’s (temporary) rejection of Israel but rather Israel’s rejection, and subsequent acceptance, of the gospel. But the entire passage is based on a temporary hardening of Israel, and had Paul meant the rejection and acceptance of the gospel, he would probably have specified it.

F. F. Bruce, 216, interprets “life from the dead” as meaning “that Israel’s conversion will be the immediate precursor of the resurrection, to coincide with Christ’s parousia.”

24 Evidence exists that in nineteenth-century Palestine it was customary to reinvigorate a cultivated olive tree “by grafting it with a shoot of the Wild-Olive,” enabling the tree again to bear fruit (William M. Ramsey [citing Theobald Fischer], Pauline and Other Studies [London Hodder & Stoughton, 1906], 223–24).

G. Israel’s Future Salvation (11:25–32)

OVERVIEW

This is the crowning point of the discussion, the climactic goal to which everything in chs. 9–11 has been pointing. The same mercy that has overtaken the Gentiles, who were formerly disobedient, will finally, by God’s sovereign grace, overtake the now disobedient Israel.

do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;

he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

this is my covenant with them

when I take away their sins.”

far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

COMMENTARY

25–27 Now Paul speaks of a “mystery,” lest his readers imagine that either he or they are capable of understanding the course of Israel’s history simply by observation and insight. The term “mystery” GK as used in the NT does not mean “enigma” but refers to the activity of God in salvation history made known to his people by revelation. Paul is not claiming revelation in the sense of those mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:4, 7, but presumably revelation in the sense of the guidance of the Spirit. The mystery relates to things hidden in the past (cf. 16:25) but now made known.

The content of the mystery of Israel is stated immediately by Paul. It consists of two parts: (1) Israel’s hardening is partial, both in scope, because of the reality of the remnant, and time, because it is limited in duration, lasting only “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in”; and (2) the salvation of “all Israel” will take place in the future. Bengel, 131, makes this observation: “The call of the Gentiles had been a mystery (16:25). But now the conversion of Israel is likewise a

The much-debated expression “all Israel,” when taken in the light of the context, must be understood of the nation of Israel as a whole, in contrast to the present situation when only a remnant have trusted Christ for salvation. The word “all” is to be understood in a widespread, inclusive way (i.e., the salvation of Israel as a nation) but need not imply the conclusion that every living Jew will be included (cf. R. Batey, “‘So All Israel Will Be Saved’: An Interpretation of Romans 11:25–32,” Int 20 [1966]: 218–28; O. Hofius, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9–11,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplementary Issue 1 [1990]: 19–39).

Not all interpreters agree, however, on the meaning of “all Israel.” Some take it not to refer to Israel according to the flesh but rather to so-called “spiritual Israel”—hence the church, including both Jews and Christians. It was the view of Calvin, for example, that the entire company of the redeemed, both Jew and Gentile, is intended. The crucial argument against this view is that the word “Israel” has not been used of Gentiles in these chapters, and it is doubtful that such is the case anywhere in Paul’s writings, with the possible but uncertain exception of Galatians 6:16. There may be grounds for speaking of the church as “the true Israel,” but so far as terminology is concerned, certainly in the discussion in Romans 9–11,“Israel” means the nation or the godly portion of it (cf. 9:6). To be sure, Gentiles are included in the seed of Abraham (4:11–12). Though this concept is applicable to the church at the present time, Paul is speaking of something definitely eschatological, actually to be fulfilled in the future, and he has not used the concept of the seed of Abraham in chs. 9–11. (It appears only in 11:1, where it has a literal, historical connotation.) Just as Paul does not discuss the situation of those Jews who remain unbelievers during this age, so in v.26 he drops from view the Gentiles who have figured in vv.17–24.

Another suggested possibility is that “all Israel” refers to the total number of elect Jews, the aggregate of the godly remnant that exists in each age of the OT and of the church’s history (cf. C. M. Horne, “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And thus all Israel will be saved,’” JETS 21 [1978]: 331–34). This fails to come to grips with the climactic nature of Paul’s argument, however—in particular the contrast between all Israel and the remnant as set forth, for example, in v.16a, and the necessity for the “fullness” of the Gentiles to be realized before (note “until”) the salvation of Israel. It fails also to explain the use of the word “mystery” in v.25. Murray, 97, has written, “While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle’s governing interest in this section of the epistle.” Clearly “all Israel” stands over against “in part,” which allows for the remnant by way of contrast.

The meaning of hout “so,” in v.26 has been much debated. Is it to be taken in a temporal sense (“then”) or in a modal sense (“in this way”)? Those who favor the modal sense believe it supports the view that “all Israel” refers to “spiritual Israel,” i.e., the church. In this manner all church and the newly saved Jews—will be saved. On the other hand, the temporal sense fits well. The “so” is apparently intended to correlate with “until” (v.25), thereby acquiring temporal force (cf. 1Co 11:28 for a similar usage of hout The REB rendering here is “once that has happened”; the JB has “then after this” (it is interesting to observe the shift in interpretation in the NJB: “and this is how”). BDAG, 742, notes that the hout s points forward as a correlative of the following kath “just as,” and thus refers to what follows in the cited Scriptures. According to this understanding, the meaning would be that “all Israel will be saved in the way the Scriptures indicate.”

Does our passage throw light on the time when Israel’s national conversion is to be expected? Certainly not in terms of the “day or hour” (Mt 24:36), but rather in terms of the time when “the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (v.25). It is after the essential completion of the evangelization of the Gentiles that the salvation of the nation of Israel will be accomplished. Some, notably N. T. Wright, do not see this passage as referring to a future large-scale conversion of Jews but rather as a reference to the conversion of Jews that has taken place over history and that continues to take place. Wright concludes, “Paul is envisaging a steady flow of Jews into the church, by grace through faith” Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 249; see his ch. 13, “Christ, the Law and the People of God: The Problem of Romans 9–11,” 231–57). This, however, seems to go against a quite natural reading of the future passive tense of s th “will be saved” (GK which can be understood as a future widespread turning to Christ. The passive is a so-called divine passive, which assumes God as the acting subject: God will save all Israel.

The salvation that is in view, I should add, is the same as the salvation of Christians. The word “saved” can hardly be understood as a reference to a national-political deliverance distinct from the church’s salvation. The verb s z , “save,” is the same word commonly used for Christian salvation. Furthermore, the basis of this salvation of Israel is no different from that of the Gentiles. It is appropriated by faith in Christ and rests on the objective work of the cross. There is for Paul, in Romans and elsewhere, only one way of salvation (contra John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul [New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000], 146). It is not correct, then, to speak of a special way of salvation for Israel entirely apart from faith in Christ (cf. esp. R. Hvalvik, “A Sonderweg for Israel? A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11:25–27,” JSNT 38 [1990]: 87–107). Stuhlmacher, 174, is right in concluding that “apart from confessing Christ there is therefore no salvation for Israel before God.”

The declaration concerning the future of Israel, made on apostolic authority, is now confirmed by citing Isaiah 59:20–21 and 27:9. The interpretation is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Hebrew has “to Zion” and the LXX, “for the sake of,” whereas Paul has “from.” Paul appears to alter the LXX text deliberately, perhaps through the influence of Psalm 53:6: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!” The perplexity over the prepositions is largely cleared up by the supposition that Paul has chosen his own wording in order to hint that the conversion of Israel will occur at Messiah’s return, when he will come out of Zion, i.e., from the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Gal 4:26; 1Th 1:10; Heb 12:22). It is hard to account for the wholesale conversion of Israel in any other way, since the activity of the Spirit of God has not produced any such mass movement of Israel during the course of the present age. It is at least possible that Paul sensed a certain parallel between his own dramatic conversion and what he foresees for his people as a whole. He therefore naturally associates the event with the approach of the eschaton.

The effect on Israel is not at all couched in terms of material prosperity or martial invincibility but purely in spiritual terms. Her “godlessness” will be taken away; her sins will be forgiven. The words “this is my covenant with them,” as well as the mention of forgiveness of sins, suggests that Jeremiah 31:31–34 may have been in the mind of the apostle along with the passages from Isaiah. Stuhlmacher, 173, writes,“It is primarily this salvation of all Israel from the hardening of unbelief that is the goal of salvation history, and not the fact that the Gentiles are already obtaining salvation.”

28–29 Even though in the present the Jews as such are considered (by God) as enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, yet all the time, when viewed from the standpoint of the election of Israel, they are loved by God “on account of the patriarchs” (cf. v.16). This last phrase indicates that behind the fulfillment that awaits Israel is the constancy of God’s faithfulness to the covenants made with the patriarchs. God will not renege on those promises. There is an obvious parallel as well as contrast between “enemies” and “loved.” Nygren, 404, rightly says, “About the unfaithful Jews it can at one time be said that they are ‘enemies’ of God and ‘beloved’ of God.” Likewise, there is a parallel between the words “gospel” and “election,” which forbids taking the latter in the concrete sense of an elect people; rather, it is the purpose or principle of election that is meant.

“God’s gifts” (v.29) are doubtless the special privileges of Israel mentioned in 9:4–5. These bear witness to the reality of the calling—the summons of Israel to a unique place in the purpose of God. The key word in these verses is the word “irrevocable” GK which in the Greek is put first in the sentence (v.29) for emphasis. Indeed this word is a key to all of Romans 9–11 and to an adequate Christian view of Israel. This one word cancels out the possibility of supersessionism—the idea that the church has supplanted Israel or taken her place. On the contrary, God’s promises are irrevocable, and time will prove it. Israel, therefore, remains special in God’s eyes. (On this subject, see D. A. Hagner, “A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 69 [2004]: 6–27.) It should be added that “Romans 9–11 … show irrefutably that a Gentile-Christian anti-Semitism can never legitimately be derived from Paul” (Stuhlmacher, 183).

30 God’s purpose must be implemented if it is to be effective. His mercy is the needed factor. Paul is addressing his Gentile readers here. In fact, the “you” (plural) is emphatic, as though to remind Gentile believers (who might be prone to think it strange that God has a glorious future in store for Israel) that they themselves were formerly disobedient to God. It was Jewish disobedience in regard to the gospel that opened the gates of mercy for the Gentiles. It was the recurrence of a characteristic often displayed before. Israel had scarcely become a nation when the people rejected the good news about Canaan and as a result had to face years of wandering in the wilderness (cf. Heb 4:6). The consequence of their disobedience to the gospel (e.g., Ac 14:2; 19:9) was still more tragic, for it meant shutting themselves out of the kingdom. This disobedience was stubborn unbelief, a confirmed negative attitude. Yet at the same time, one must remember that God’s sovereignty lay behind these unusual developments. Especially striking is the irony that good should come out of Israel’s disobedience and that what came should also ultimately become the remedy for Israel’s disobedience: “in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you” (v.31).

31 To warn the Gentiles against being inflated over their present position in grace, Paul advances the reminder that it was the very mercy received by the Gentiles that made the Jews firmer in their disobedience. This is graphically illustrated by the effect of the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15). While it gave marked encouragement to the Gentile mission by its decision, it deepened and strengthened Jewish opposition to the gospel. Yet God does not abandon his chosen people but ever keeps in view his plan for their salvation and continues to extend his mercy. The second “now” in v.31 is somewhat perplexing in the light of the eschatological emphasis in vv.26–27. It may refer to the present salvation of the remnant or it may even be intended to include the future along with the present and so anticipate the ultimate salvation of the nation. This might especially be the case if Paul thought of the eschaton as imminent.

32 The conclusion of the whole matter is that God magnified his mercy by the very fact of disobedience, binding all humanity over to it (cf. 3:9), for the ultimately magnificent goal that he may have mercy on “all” When Paul considers the work of Christ that conquers evil, he will speak only in universal terms (cf. 5:18). Sin, the enemy of humanity, cannot and does not have the last word (cf. Gal 3:22). Not for the Gentiles. Not for Israel.

H. Praise to God for His Wisdom and His Ways (11:33–36)

OVERVIEW

In view of the solid assurance generated by v.32, it is no wonder that Paul, despite his burden for the Israel of his day, is able at the end of these three chapters to lift his heart in adoring praise to God. In the face of such grand, sweeping, mysterious, and humbling realities, one can only sing to God words such as these. Indeed, this doxological passage is rightly the climactic conclusion to the entire first section of Romans (chs. 1–11).

the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgments,

and his paths beyond tracing out!

has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?”

has ever given to God,

that God should repay him?”

from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

COMMENTARY

33 Here Paul clearly speaks out of his heart as a response to the argument he has been pursuing (cf. G. Bornkamm, “The Praise of God: Romans 11.33–36,” in Early Christian Experience [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 105–11). Even the great apostle had to wonder at the ways of God. At the same time, the thoughts he utters here are not uncommon in the piety of Israel, as the similar passage in Isaiah 55:7–9 shows. There we read, for example: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” And these words occur in a context where the ungodly and sinful person is urged to turn to the Lord and find mercy. God’s plans defy the penetration of the human mind, and his ways surpass our ability to trace them out. There is no measuring of the “wisdom” GK and “knowledge” GK possessed by God. Beyond fathoming are his “judgments” GK and his “paths” GK If these things remain ultimately incomprehensible, the unchanging faithfulness of God to Israel remains clear and unmistakable.

34–35 Paul now strengthens his statement with words drawn from the Scriptures. Verse 34 consists of a quotation of words from the LXX of Isaiah 40:13–14. The source of the words in v.35 is less certain, but they are similar to the Hebrew text of Job 41:11 and 35:7 (though the LXX differs). The point of these scriptural allusions is not difficult to see. The Lord has not been obliged to lean on another for advice (v.34). No one knows enough to be the Lord’s counselor, nor has he ever had to depend on human assistance, which would make him indebted to a human being (v.35). The Lord has infinite resources, and there is no one who can add to them.

36 By means of three (“from”), dia (“through”), and eis (“to”)—Paul asserts that God is the source, the means, and the goal of all things. The exalted and moving ascription of praise in vv.33–36 has in view God’s plans and operations in the history of salvation affecting the great segments of humankind, Jew and Gentile. That they are true in a wider sense is evident from parallel Pauline passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16–17. Perhaps the only suitable way in which to bring Romans 9–11 to an end is with this magnificent doxology. “To him [God] be the glory forever!”

VII. OUR SPIRITUAL SERVICE: THE PRACTICE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

(12:1–15:13)

OVERVIEW

Readers of Romans are bound to be conscious of a distinct break in the train of thought as they move from 11:36 to 12:1. The theological exposition (or argument) of Romans, centering in the problem of how sinful humanity can be put into right relationship with God, is now over. But there is more to be said, because those who are made right with their Maker need to know what difference this makes in their relationships with their fellow human beings. They need to know what is expected of them and how to apply their new resources to all the situations confronting them. Paul never tolerated the idea of justification by faith without consideration of the necessity of a lived-out righteousness in those who are justified. This last main section of the epistle is designed to meet these needs (see the similar turning point in Eph 4:1).

A useful way of understanding the relationship between doctrine and ethics in the NT is to think in terms of two types of verb—the “indicative” and the “imperative” (M. Parsons, “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing,” EvQ 60 [1988]: 99–127). The one expression covers what God has done in terms of the gospel; it deals with divine provision. The other deals with what Christians are expected to do by way of working out the salvation that has been given them (cf. Php 2:12–13); consequently it majors in exhortation. It is, therefore, surprising that the key word “righteousness,” which has so dominated the book up to this point, occurs only once in the closing chapters (14:17), where it is used not in the forensic sense denoting right relationship with God but rather in the practical meaning of right relations with others. The hortatory element includes both commands and prohibitions and is spread over various areas of application, including Christian conduct toward fellow believers, toward society (especially in meeting hostile reactions), and toward the state.

A. The Appeal for Dedication of the Believer (12:1–2)

OVERVIEW

This introductory portion is a prelude to the discussion of specific duties of the believer. It sets forth the fundamental obligations one must meet before one is prepared to face the challenge of living as a believer in this world. Only an intelligent commitment of life in the light of God’s gift of salvation will suffice.

I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

COMMENTARY

1 The important “therefore” establishes a connection with the entire foregoing presentation rather than with chs. 9–11 alone. Indeed, the whole of the preceding material serves as the basis and motive for the present exhortations. The connection is particularly close with 6:13, 19, as a comparison of the terminology will show. The apostle begins now to “urge” his readers instead of simply instructing them. He chooses to use the word parakale (GK i.e., to motivate on the basis of what has been argued earlier rather than simply command his readers.

Though t n oiktirm n (GK is plural (“mercies”), conceptually it should perhaps be thought of as a singular (so NIV), since the possibly underlying Hebrew word raḥămîm (GK 8171) is a so-called intensive plural, meaning “great mercy” or “compassion” (for “mercy,” cf. 11:30 — 32). Sometimes oiktirmos is used in the LXX together with the more common eleos (GK as in Isaiah 63:15 and Hosea 2:19 (LXX 2:21). It denotes that typical characteristic of God which moves him to avoid the judgment of sin deserved by humanity and therefore underlies his gracious saving activity in Christ. Here this “mercy” is the leverage for the appeal that follows. Whereas the pagans are prone to sacrifice in order to obtain mercy, biblical faith teaches that the divine mercy already experienced provides the basis for sacrifice as the fitting response.

“Your bodies” mata [GK hym is prompted by the language of the temple sacrifices, but in the Hebraic view the word “body” stands for the whole person. In the closely related discussion in 6:13, the original text does not have the word “body” but instead has “parts of your body” mel hym lit., “your members”) and “yourselves” Both are what the believer is to present to God for his service. Though Greek thought was prone to consider the body as the receptacle containing the soul, this was not the Hebraic concept, which viewed the human being as a unit. So it should be clear that Paul is not urging the dedication of the body as an entity distinct from the inner self; rather, he views the body as the vehicle that implements the desires and choices of the redeemed spirit. (The REB offers an interesting translation: “to offer your very selves …, the worship offered by mind and heart.”) The body is essential for making contact with the society in which the believer lives. It is through the body that we serve God in righteousness.

One is reminded by “living sacrifices” that the apostle is using cultic language here (cf. 15:16). Before a priest in Israel could minister on behalf of others, he was obliged to present himself in a consecrated condition, and the sacrifices he offered were to be without blemish (Mal 1:8 — 13). “Holy” is a reminder of that necessity for the Christian, not in terms of rite or ritual but as renouncing the sins of the old life and being committed to a life of obedience to the divine will (cf. 6:19). The body is not evil in itself; if it were, God would not ask that it be offered to him. As an instrument it is capable of expressing either sin or righteousness. If the latter, then it is an offering “pleasing to God.” The word “living” strongly contrasts with the animal sacrifices of the OT, which once offered no longer possessed life. But it is also a reminder that spiritual life, received from God in the new birth, is the presupposition of a sacrifice acceptable to him. Christian sacrifice, though made decisively and once for all (the force of “offer”), has in view a life of service to God. In Israel the whole burnt offering ascended to God and could never be reclaimed. It belonged to God.

Next the living sacrifice is equated with “spiritual act of worship.” The exact sense of the adjective logik n (GK is difficult to determine. “Spiritual” (so too NASB, NRSV) may be an improvement on “reasonable” (KJV; cf. NJB, “that is the kind of worship for you, as sensible people”), since the latter term could be understood in the sense of adequate, seeing that no less a sacrifice could be offered in view of the sacrifice God has made in Christ for our salvation. The idea is rather that the sacrifice we render is intelligent and deliberate, perhaps to be understood in contrast to the sacrifices of the Jewish cultus in which the animals had no part in determining what was to be done with them. BDAG, 598, defines it as thoughtful service (in a dedicated spiritual sense).”

“Worship” translates latreia (GK which Paul has already used for the entire Jewish cultus (9:4). Here he gives it a metaphorical turn—i.e., he spiritualizes it, or transforms it to a new level of meaning. The NASB’s “service of worship” comes close to the intended meaning. It captures not merely the idea of the adoration of God but covers the entire range of the Christian’s life and activity (cf. Dt 10:12). Service is always the proper accompaniment to worship.

2 The dedicated life is also the transformed life. Whereas v.1 has called for a decisive commitment, v.2 deals with the maintenance of that commitment. The stress provided by the present tenses in this verse points to the necessity of continual vigilance, lest the original decision be vitiated or weakened. The threat to Christians comes from “this world,” whose ways and thoughts are so prevalent and powerful. Paul here uses ai n (GK essentially a time word meaning “age,” but it has much common ground with kosmos (GK the more usual term for “world.” Christians have been delivered from this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4), which has Satan for its god (2Co 4:4). They live by the powers of the age to come (Heb 6:5), but their heavenly calling includes residence among sinful people in this world, where they are to show forth the praises of him who called them out of darkness into God’s wonderful light (1Pe 2:9). They are in the world for witness but not for conformity to that which is a passing phenomenon (1Co 7:31).

The positive call is complementary to the negative call. That is, with the command to avoid conformity to the pattern of this world comes the command to “be transformed.” (The striking verb is metamorpho [GK used of the transfiguration of Jesus [Mk 9:2 par.] and applied to the Christian in 2Co 3:18.) The two processes are viewed as going on all the time, as the present tenses indicate—a continual renunciation and renewal. Our pattern here is Jesus, who refused conformity to Satan’s solicitations in the temptation but was transformed to the doing of the will of God and to acceptance of the path that led to Calvary. As the mission of Jesus can be summarized in the affirmation that he had come to do the Father’s will (Jn 6:38), so too the service of Christians can be reduced to this simple description. They are in the present age to “live a new life” (6:4), to “live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (1Th 2:12), to “live a life worthy of the calling you have received” (Eph 4:1). But they must “test” what is in accord with the will of God, refusing the norms of conduct employed by the sinful world and reaffirming for themselves the spiritual norms befitting the redeemed. Only from Christ do the redeemed “finally obtain the criteria for that which in the world can be called good, well-pleasing, and perfect” (Stuhlmacher, 189).

Crucial to the process of being transformed is “the renewing of your mind” anakain sei tou GK seems to indicate the necessity of setting one’s mind on the theological truths of the faith—to the basis of one’s original commitment, reaffirming its necessity and legitimacy in the light of God’s grace. It is by means of this use of the mind that transformation and renewal take place. In this activity, the working of the Holy Spirit should no doubt be recognized (cf. Tit 3:5, where the Holy Spirit is the agent of renewal). It appears from the context that the believer is not viewed as ignorant of the will of God but as needing to avoid blurring its outline by failure to renew the mind continually (cf. Eph 5:8–10). Dedication leads to discernment, and discernment to delight in God’s will. That there is an intimate connection between certifying the will of God and making oneself a living sacrifice is indicated by the use of “pleasing” in each case (cf. Php 4:18; Heb 13:16). For the Christian, the will of God is “good” GK “pleasing” GK and “perfect” GK

NOTES

12:1–15:13 See E. Käsemann, “Worship and Everyday Life: A Note on Romans 12,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 188–95; R. A. Culpepper, “God’s Righteousness in the Life of His People: Romans 12–15,” RevExp 73 (1976): 451–63; M. B. Thompson, with Christ:The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).

12:1–2 On these verses, see H. D. Betz, “The Foundation of Christian Ethics According to Romans 12:1–2,” in Witness and Existence: Essays in Honor of Schubert ed. P. E. Devenish and G. L. Goodwin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 55–72.

1 F. F. Bruce, 226, observes, “It has been well said that in Christianity theology is grace and ethics is gratitude; and it is not by accident that both ‘grace’ and ‘gratitude’ are expressed by the same Greek word,

B. Varied Ministries in the Church, the Body of Christ (12:3–8)

OVERVIEW

The will of God, concerning which Paul has just spoken, is identical for all believers in respect to holiness of life and completeness of dedication. But what God’s will involves for each person with respect to special service in the church may be considerably diverse. Since individual application is called for in appropriating the teaching, the apostle finds it expedient to remind his readers of his authority to expound this subject, even though he is unknown to most of them and their gifts are unknown to him (cf. 1:5; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:7). But this reminder is not intended to erect a barrier between himself and them, because what he has by way of authority and teaching ability is clearly traced to divine “grace” (v.3)—the same grace that has bestowed spiritual gifts on them.

by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

COMMENTARY

3 In addressing himself deliberately to “every” person of the community, Paul seems to be granting that every believer has some spiritual gift (cf. v.6; Eph 4:7; 1Pe 4:10). But the primary purpose in getting the attention of each one in this way is to drive home the necessity of appropriating and using one’s gift for the sake of others with the utmost humility. After all, God was not obligated to spread his gifts around so lavishly. Paul recognizes the danger that the possession of a gift could easily result in a self-esteem that was nothing more or less than wretched pride. His experience with the Corinthian church had alerted him to this problem, and he addressed the matter very similarly in 1 Corinthians 12 (1Co 12:14–31; cf. 13:4; 14:12, 20). In our passage he virtually equates humility with “sober judgment.” The latter will serve as a guard against thinking of oneself more highly than one should. In v.16, Paul returns to this fundamental matter. Obviously, the great danger to be avoided is pride, the exaggeration of one’s own importance.

Is there some gauge that will enable a person to estimate his or her position with respect to spiritual gifts? Paul answers in the affirmative, pointing to the “measure of faith.” Though this is intimately related to sober judgment, its precise meaning is not easy to determine. We may probably exclude the conclusion that “faith” in this context means “the faith” in the sense of a body of truth that is believed. Such a usage is familiar to us from Jude 3, but Paul seems to avoid it. To him, faith is what the Christian exercises. It is subjective rather than objective. That this is so here is clear from the end of v.3. Faith is what “God has given you.” The “measure of faith” appears to refer to the divine qualification for a task, “the spiritual power given to each Christian for the discharge of his special responsibility” (Bruce, 227–28). C. E. B. Cranfield piste s in Romans 12:3,” NTS 8 [1961–62]: 345–51), understanding “measure” in the sense of standard, takes the phrase to mean that one’s faith should provide the basis for a true estimation of oneself, since it reveals that one is dependent, along with other believers, on the saving mercy of God in Christ. To be sure, this ought to induce humility. Godet, 429, concludes that “this gift, the measure of the action to which we are called, is the divine limit which the Christian’s renewed mind should discern, and by which he should regulate his aspirations in regard to the part he has to play in the church.” This view brings “measure of faith” into close agreement with the phrase “in proportion to his faith” in v.6. It should be added that faith, as used in this passage, is hardly the initial act of faith that makes one a Christian but faith in the sense of grasping the nature of one’s spiritual gift and having confidence to exercise it rightly.

4–5 To offset the danger of individualistic thinking, with its resulting danger of pride, Paul refers to the human body—an illustration familiar from his earlier use (1Co 12:12–31). Three truths are set forth in vv.4–5: the unity of the body; the diversity of its members, with their corresponding diversity in function; and the mutuality of the various members—“each member belongs to all the others.” Of the greatest importance for Paul is the notion of the church as “one body in Christ,” and he often draws ramifications from it. The unity of the body is never regarded as incompatible with the diversity of the body. The latter is also very important for Paul.

The third item, mutuality, calls attention to the need of the various parts of the body for each other. They cannot work independently (cf. Paul’s classic analogy of the hand/foot and eye/ear in 1Co 12:15–21). Furthermore, each member profits from what the other members contribute to the whole. Reflection on these truths reduces preoccupation with one’s own gift and makes room for appreciation of other people and the importance of the gifts they are called to exercise.

6 The “different gifts” are not gifts in the natural realm but those functions made possible by a specific enablement of the Holy Spirit granted to believers (cf. E. E. Ellis, “‘Spiritual’ Gifts in the Pauline Community,” NTS 20 [1973–74]: 128–44). The gifts do not contradict what God has bestowed in the natural order, and though they may even build on the natural gift, they must not be confused with the latter.

Variety in the gifts should be understood from the standpoint of the needs of the Christian community, which are many, as well as from the desirability of giving every believer a share in ministry. With his eye still on the danger of pride, Paul reminds his readers that these new capacities for service are not native to those who exercise them but come from divine grace. Every time he delves into this subject he is careful to make this clear (1Co 12:6; Eph 4:7; cf. 1Pe 4:10).

Though Paul has spoken of different gifts, he does not proceed to give anything like an exhaustive list (cf. 1Co 12:28). He seems more intent on emphasizing the need for exercising the gifts and for exercising them in the right way—“in proportion to his faith.” He uses this expression only in connection with prophesying, but there is no reason to suppose it is not intended to apply to the other items as well.

What is meant by “in proportion to his faith”? Theologians have tended to favor the translation “according to the analogy of the faith” (transliterating the Greek word analogia [GK and stressing the definite article before “faith”). On this construction is built the Reformed principle that all parts of Scripture must be interpreted in conformity to the rest. This is a valid principle but hardly germane to this context. Another view understands the phrase as referring to the hearers rather than to those prophesying, so that, in framing the messages given to them, those who speak should consider the stage of development attained by their audience. This view, too, may have merit, but against it is the fact that in this passage it is not spiritual gifts that are being treated for the edification of the hearers, as in 1 Corinthians 14, but the proprieties that should govern those who use the gifts.

The most satisfactory explanation is that “faith” retains the subjective force it has in v.3 and that the whole phrase has the same thrust as “measure of faith” there. Prophets are not to be governed by their emotions (1Co 14:32) or by their love of speaking (1Co 14:30) but by total dependence on the Spirit of God.

Paul does not give a definition of “prophesying” here, but if we are to judge from the earlier reference in 1 Corinthians 14:3, 31, the nature of the gift is not primarily prediction but the communication of revealed truth that will both convict and build up the hearers. This gift is prominent in the other listings of gifts (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11), where prophets are second only to apostles in the enumeration. That Paul says nothing of apostles in the Romans passage may be a hint that no apostle, Peter included, had anything to do with the founding of the Roman church (see Introduction p. 21).

7 “Serving” is such a broad term that some difficulty attaches to the effort to pin it down. The Greek diakonia (GK is sometimes used of the ministry of the word to unbelievers (Ac 6:4; 2Co 5:18), but the gifts in this passage in Romans seem intentionally restricted in their exercise to the body of Christ. (It may be significant that there is no mention of evangelists here, as there is in Eph 4:11.) Despite its place between prophesying and teaching, the narrower meaning of service as “ministration to the material needs of believers” is probable here. The REB translates the word as “administration,” perhaps hinting that the term should be taken as referring to the supervision of the giving of aid to the needy, which was specifically the province of the deacons (cf. NJB,“practical service”). Even so, it should be recognized that others also could engage in a variety of helpful ministries addressing the needs of the saints (1Co 16:15). In fact, Paul inserts in the midst of a catalog of restricted terms dealing with gifts this very broad designation—“those able to help others” GK 1Co 12:28).

The gift of “teaching” and GK is mentioned next. It differed from prophesying in that it was not characterized by ecstatic utterance as the vehicle for revelation given by the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14:6 teaching is paired with knowledge, whereas prophecy is coupled with revelation. Probably the aim in teaching was to give help in the area of Christian living rather than formal instruction in doctrine, even though it must be granted that the latter is needed as a foundation for the former. Indeed the very structure of Romans attests this. Paul himself gives a notable example of teaching in vv.9–21. In the latter part of this section his considerable use of the OT suggests that early Christian teachers were largely dependent on it for their instruction.

8 The Greek parakl sis (GK has a variety of meanings. Only the context can indicate whether the most suitable rendering is “encourage” (so NIV) or “exhortation” (so NASB). They are closely related. In Acts 15:31, encouragement is certainly the idea conveyed. But in 1 Timothy 4:13, exhortation is clearly involved, evidently in application of the OT as it was read in the assembly during worship (cf. Ac 13:15). Assuredly, some encouragement could be included, but exhortation seems to be the dominant meaning here.

“Contributing to the needs of others” has to do with spontaneous private benevolence (cf. 1Jn 3:17–18). This is evidently not intended as a repetition of “serving” (v.7), and this favors the view that the latter activity belongs to the public distribution of aid by the church to its needy. The only doubt concerning this interpretation resides in the words en haplot ti (GK The NIV has “generously” (NASB, “with liberality”; NRSV, “in generosity”), a possible translation but hardly as likely as “with simplicity” (so KJV; cf. REB, “without grudging”)—i.e., with singleness of heart, free of mixed motives, without regret (over having given so much). That wrong motivation could enter into giving is shown by the account of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.

“Leadership” GK is the translation of a word that means “to stand before” others, so the idea of governing derives readily from it. The need is for one to carry out one’s ministry “diligently” spoud , Gk Even in church life some people are tempted to enjoy the office rather than use it as an avenue for service. A few interpreters, doubtless influenced by the items immediately preceding and following, favor the meaning of “giving aid,” “furnishing care,” etc., and this is possible. However, the exercise of leadership is the more common in NT usage (1Th 5:12; 1Ti 3:4–5; 5:17). “Diligently” fits well in either case.

“Showing mercy” does not pertain to the area of forgiveness or sparing judgment. It has to do with ministering to the sick and needy. This is to be done “cheerfully” GK in a spontaneous manner that will convey blessing rather than engender self-pity.

Stuhlmacher, 193, draws the following appropriate conclusion concerning this section:The body of Christ can “flourish only when every individual member and group within the church remains mindful of the good of all, and thus sets aside individual interests for the sake of the common life and witness.”

NOTES

3 For a different understanding of the word “faith” here, see Stuhlmacher, 192, who argues that Paul urges his readers “to endeavor to gain that prudence which is measured by the standard of faith which has been established for all.”

C. Principles Governing Christian Conduct (12:9–21)

OVERVIEW

The presupposition here is the dedicated life, which enables one to discover and demonstrate the will of God. Though the division is not strictly adhered to, vv.9–13 tend to deal with the relationship to fellow Christians, whereas vv.14–21 tend to deal with the Christian’s stance toward those who are outside the faith. A considerable amount of material in this section seems to rest on sayings of Jesus (known to Paul through oral tradition) that are eventually taken up by Matthew into the Sermon on the Mount.

must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written:“It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

COMMENTARY

9 “Love” is primary, but if it is mere pretense, acted out rather than being authentic, it does not qualify as love. When one recalls that Paul paused in his discussion of spiritual gifts to interject a chapter on love (the incomparable 1Co 13, which bears a close resemblance to Ro 12:9–21), it is altogether fitting that he should follow his presentation of spiritual gifts here in Romans with the same emphasis. The whole of the believer’s conduct, in fact, should be bathed in love. Love is the rubric for the whole of the Christian life. If a Christian fails to love others, doubt is cast on his or her professed love for God (1Jn 4:19–21). Love is the first of the fruit of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:22. Nygren, 425, has written, “That love has that place does not mean that it is only first in a series of comparable qualities, but that it includes the rest in itself. If love be unfeigned, all that to which Paul exhorts the church will follow.” One is reminded that Jesus (and Paul, following Jesus, Ro 13:9–10) summed up the law in the love commandment (Mt 22:37–40; cf. Mt 7:12).

Love readily suggests purity. The two are found together in God, whose eyes are too pure to look on evil (Hab 1:13) and who cannot be tempted by it (Jas 1:13). The God who loves is also the God who hates evil. The human attitude must follow the divine in this respect, because love and evil are opposites. Therefore to love on the one side, and to hate evil on the other, belong together. To “cling to what is good” (v.9) is to be wedded to it. Total commitment leaves neither time nor inclination to court evil.

10 The apostle has called for love, but lest this be construed simply as an ideal, he now puts it in a living context. Far from being an abstract idea for Paul, love is to be shown to people. He uses a special term denoting “brotherly love” GK as also in 1 Thessalonians 4:9 (cf. 1Pe 1:22; 3:8; Heb 13:1). “Be devoted” GK is nearly synonymous, denoting a “heartfelt love” (BDAG, 1059) that customarily denotes the family tie. Believers are members of the family of God, and that family should be characterized by self-giving love.

In words that remind us of the emphasis in v.3 about humility, Paul writes, “Honor one another above yourselves” (cf. Php 2:3). To “honor” is “to accord recognition and show appreciation.” Presumably, this is based not on some personal attractiveness that is perceived in others or usefulness that is known about them, but rather on the fact that every Christian has Christ in his or her heart and is of the highest worth. Consequently, this recognition is based on the new creation (2Co 5:17) rather than on the old. One honors God when he or she recognizes his transforming work in the lives of others. Christians, like their Lord, care nothing for their own prestige and esteem; rather, they live for the sake of others and their advancement.

11–12 Paul now momentarily directs attention toward the Lord and his service before returning to the horizontal relationship with the body of Christ in v.13. In vv.11–12 he presents a series of six items, only loosely related, that should continually be exhibited in the Christian. The first concerns the importance of not failing in “zeal” , Gk that energetic living of the Christian life that is the opposite of spiritual inertia. Along the same line, Paul calls his readers to have “spiritual fervor” (the same language is used of Apollos in Ac 18:25). As happens often, it is not fully clear whether “spirit” should be capitalized and taken as a reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. RSV [but not NRSV], “be aglow with the Spirit”). “Serving GK the Lord” is fundamental to the calling and life of the Christian. Though this seems obvious and straightforward, it is a priority that even seasoned Christians have been known to lose.

12 The nature of “hope” GK as confident expectation is something that should always be the cause of rejoicing. But because hope is in reference to something not yet seen, it can often weaken instead of providing the strength that it should. Hope is meant to sustain the servant of Christ and enable him or her to be “patient in affliction” GK Paul brought together the same constellation of ideas earlier in 5:3–4. The last item in these verses is the Christian’s need to be “faithful GK lit., “persevering”] in prayer.” Regular prayer, of course, is a characteristic of the vibrant Christian. In brief, the thrust of vv.11–12 is that Christians are called to live in a way that is consistent with the grace they have received.

13 Returning from the vertical to the horizontal or ethical level, Paul comes to the importance of providing material support for “God’s people” n hagi GK lit., “the saints”). A Christian can never become insensitive to the temporal needs of other believers. Care for those who are not a part of the church is also appropriate, but the priority is the supply of the needs of those within the church.

When this sharing takes place under one’s own roof, it is labeled “hospitality.” The Greek term philoxenia (GK is more expressive than the English word “hospitality,” for it literally means “love for strangers.” Paul’s word for “practice” GK “pursue”) is strong (the same word being used in the sense of “persecute” in v.14), calling for an undiminished ardor in extending this courtesy to traveling believers. Jesus had encouraged his disciples to depend on such kindness during their missions (Mt 10:11). Hospitality became very important in the early church (cf. Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:9) and even requisite for one who would become a bishop (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8). Without it, the spread of the gospel during the days of the early church would have been greatly impeded. With it the “house church” became a reality (16:5, 23). What sanctified this practice above all was the realization that in receiving and entertaining the traveler, those who opened their doors and their hearts, as Jesus instructed, were receiving and entertaining Christ (Mt 10:40; 25:40).

14–16 The material in this paragraph is not so easy to characterize as that in the foregoing and following paragraphs. It seems to describe Christians’ relations to their neighbors and friends (not excluding believers), as well as one reference to their opponents, whereas the next section definitely pictures the people of God bearing up under pressure from the unbelieving world. Perhaps the best thing is to view this portion in the light of Paul’s word in Galatians 6:10 and consider it transitional.

14 Paul’s injunction to bless persecutors rather than curse them undoubtedly goes back to the teaching of our Lord (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:28) through oral tradition. The teaching was incarnated in Jesus himself and became clearly manifested during his trial and his suffering on the cross. The word used for “persecute” means literally “to pursue.” Persecution could take various forms, running the gamut from verbal abuse and social ostracism to the use of violence resulting in death. A few years later, Roman Christians were to lose their lives in great numbers at the hands of Emperor Nero. Persecution in some form or another was so common in the experience of the early church that Paul is able to assume as a matter of course that it is a factor in the lives of his readers. To “bless” one’s persecutors obviously includes not responding in kind but forgiving them, wishing them well, and praying for them. This response to one’s persecutors can be accomplished only by the grace of Christ.

15 One charge follows another without any apparent connection as Paul next calls on his readers to share one another’s joys and sorrows. This is not merely a matter of empathy with others; rather, it presupposes the unity of the members of the body of Christ. As Paul expressed the point in 1 Corinthians 12:26, “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored [lit., “glorified”], every part rejoices with it.”

16 The content, and even to some extent the wording, here bears some similarity to the exhortations in Philippians 2:2–3, where Paul writes to dispel the discord in the church. “Live in harmony with one another” (lit, “be of the same mind toward one another”), together with the exhortations against pride, is perfect instruction to guard against strife in the body of Christ. One means to maintaining harmony stressed by Paul as a necessity consists in rejecting the temptation to think high thoughts about oneself, as though one were a superior breed of Christian, and of coming down off the perch of isolation and mingling with “people of low position,” or those of a humble frame of mind. Alternatively, if tois tapeinois (GK is taken as a neuter, the reference could be to “lowly things,” e.g., “menial tasks.” And lest one consent to do this while still retaining heady notions of one’s own superiority, Paul puts in a final thrust: “Do not be conceited” (cf. Pr 3:7). Egotistical conceit has no place in the life ruled by love (1Co 13:4), and it is destructive of the community that should mark the body of Christ.

17 Paul turns next to explicit counsel about how to face the hostile world. Here again he draws on the teaching of Jesus available to him through oral tradition (cf. Mt 5:39, 44; 1Pe 3:9). “Do not repay anyone evil for evil,” for to do so would be to follow the inclination of the flesh. The remainder of the verse is open to more than one interpretation. It could mean that the Christian should be concerned to do what all persons understand to be right. But this presupposes no real difference between Christians and non-Christians in their evaluation. Consequently, the other explanation is preferable, namely, that since believers are constantly under the scrutiny of both unsaved persons and fellow Christians, they must be careful that their conduct does not betray the high standards of the gospel (cf. Col 4:5; 1Ti 3:7). The verb pronoe (GK which the NIV translates as “be careful” is literally “to think of beforehand,” suggesting that the conduct of believers ought not to be regulated by unthinking habit but rather that each situation be freshly considered so that the action taken will not reflect unfavorably on the gospel.

18 The charge to “live at peace with everyone” is hedged about with two qualifying statements. “If it is possible” suggests that there may be instances in human relations when the strongest desire for concord will not avail. The second condition is “as far as it depends on you.” In other words, if disharmony and conflict should come, let not the responsibility be laid at your feet. One may not be able to persuade the other party, but one can at least refuse to be the instigator of trouble. Christians can be peacemakers, as Jesus taught (Mt 5:9), only if they are recognized as those who aim to live at peace with others.

19 This peace-loving attitude may be costly, however, because some will want to take advantage of it, figuring that Christian principles will not permit the wronged party to retaliate. What is to be done in such a case? The path of duty is clear: We are not to take vengeance. This would be to trespass on the province of God, the great Judge of all: “Leave room for God’s wrath.” Such matters are best left with the God who always does what is right. Here Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:35, where the context indicates that the Lord will intervene to vindicate his people when their enemies abuse them and gloat over them. God’s action will rebuke not only the adversaries but also the false gods in which they have put their trust.

20 There is no suggestion that God’s wrath will be visited on the wrongdoer immediately. On the contrary, this wrath is the last resort, for in the immediate future lies the possibility that the one who has perpetrated the wrong will have a change of heart and will be convicted of sin and won over by the refusal of the Christian to retaliate. Here again Paul lets the OT (Pr 25:21–22) speak for him. The course of action recommended is the positive aspect of what has been stated in v.17. Paul again follows the teaching of Jesus, who taught, “Love your enemies” (Mt 5:44), where “love” means acting for their welfare. “Burning coals” are best understood as “the burning pangs of shame and contrition” (Cranfield, 2:649). By going the second mile and showing unexpected and unmerited kindness to those who wish them ill, Christians may well become the means used by the Holy Spirit to attract others to the faith.

21 Guidance on the problem of coping with evil reaches its climax in the final admonition: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” In this context, to “be overcome by evil” means to give in to the temptation to meet evil with evil, to retaliate. To “overcome evil with good” has been illustrated in v.20. Many other illustrations could be given, such as David’s sparing the life of Saul, who was pursuing him to snuff out his life. When Saul realized that David had spared his life, he said, “You have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil” (1Sa 24:17 NRSV). The world’s philosophy leads people to expect retaliation when they have wronged another. The doer of evil expects, and usually receives, evil in return. To receive kindness, to see love when the opposite is expected, can melt the hardest heart. The conduct of the Christian ought regularly to shock a world in which self-centeredness is taken for granted.

NOTES

9–10 Nygren, 425–26, notes the similarity of this passage with 1 Corinthians 13 and supplies a paraphrase of the latter, using phrases from Romans 12:9–21. Cf. D. A. Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9–21,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 2 (1989): 3–22.

11 It is reasonably certain that the variant reading , kair , “in season” (GK thus, “serving in season [or “opportunity”]”), found principally in Western witnesses, arose from a misreading of , kyri (“Lord”), due to similar-looking abbreviations ( , k , and , kr ).

17–21 On the use of sayings of Jesus, see C. H. Dodd, “The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1959), 106–18; D. Wenham, “Paul’s Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples,” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the ed. D. Wenham (Gospel Perspectives 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 7–37; F. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” in L’Apôtre Paul: style et conception du ed. A. Vanhoye (BETL 73; Louvain: Leuven Univ. Press, 1986), 265–321; J. D. G. Dunn,“Paul’s Knowledge of the Jesus Tradition:The Evidence of Romans,” in Christus Bezeugen: Für Wolfgang ed. K. Kertelge et al. (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1990), 193–207.

D. The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority (13:1–7)

OVERVIEW

This is the most notable passage in the NT on Christian civic responsibility. Its viewpoint probably reflects the famous word of Jesus, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mt 22:21). That Paul lived in conformity with his own teaching is apparent from his relation to various rulers as recorded in Acts. Pride in his Roman citizenship and his readiness to appeal to it in critical situations are also reflected in Acts. Because Paul realized that this subject had a definite bearing on the spread of the gospel (1Ti 2:1–7), he saw its relevance in this epistle on the theme of salvation written to the capital city of the Roman Empire.

Some, however, have found it difficult to relate Romans 13 to the flow of thought in the book as a whole. It seems to them detached and so isolated from the material on either side of it as to suggest that it might even have come from a later period when such concerns were more pressing for the church. Nevertheless, it is possible to see in 13:1–7 an expansion and special application of the teaching about good and evil (12:17, 21) and living “at peace with everyone” (12:18). Perhaps the reference to “wrath” , Gk 12:19) is intended to anticipate the org in 13:4, 5 (“wrath” in 13:4; “punishment” in 13:5).

More important, however, is the broader connection in terms of thought. Here there are two pertinent elements. One is the natural connection with 12:1–2, where the foundation is laid for Christian service in its various ramifications. The believer’s relation to the state is one of those areas. Another and more specific connection with the foregoing material is possible. Paul may be intent on warning the Roman church, which contained Christian Jews as well as Gentile believers who sympathized with them over the plight of their nation, not to identify with any revolutionary movement advocating rebellion against Rome (cf. Marcus Borg, “A New Context for Romans xiii,” NTS 19 [1972–73]: 205–18). If this need was in Paul’s mind as he wrote, then 13:1–7 may be considered a kind of postscript to chs. 9–11. This would put the apostle solidly behind the stance taken by Jesus, who was faced with pressure from Zealot elements in Palestine but refused to endorse their use of violence. Borg inclines toward the view that the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius (Ac 18:2; cf. Suetonius, Claud. 25:4) was not due to Christian proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah that excited and divided the Jewish community at Rome, but to messianic agitation involving the expressed hope that the deliverer would bring release from the grip of Rome. If this is indeed the background, then Paul was not simply giving counsel of a general or universal nature (though applicable elsewhere), but was speaking to a definite historical situation that could have proved explosive from the Christian as well as the Jewish standpoint. Adjustment to the state was especially difficult for the Jews because, from the days of the OT theocracy, they looked to God as supreme and felt no tension in their own national life between the realms of politics and religion. There is also a possibility that the Jews (including some Christian Jews) who returned to Rome after the death of Claudius were hostile toward the state because of the way Claudius had treated them. These needed to be mollified. On the other hand, Stuhlmacher, 202, urges caution: “We do not know exactly whether among the Christians in Rome there were those who were inclined toward such opposition.”

must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

COMMENTARY

1 The teaching that follows is addressed to “everyone” psych ), i.e., every believer rather than everyone in general, even though government is necessary for society as a whole. Paul could admonish only Christians. What he requires is “submission,” a term that calls for placing oneself under someone else. Here and in v.5 he seems to It is probably significant that the name of Christ does not appear anywhere in the passage. The thought does not move in the sphere of redemption or the life of the church as such, but in the relationship to the state that God in his wisdom has set up. While Christians have their citizenship in heaven (Php 3:20), they are not on that account avoid using the stronger word “obey” , GK and the reason is that believers may find it impossible to comply with every demand of the government. A circ*mstance may arise in which they must choose between obeying God and obeying human authority (Ac 5:29). But even then they must be submissive to the extent that if their Christian convictions do not permit compliance, they will accept the consequences of their refusal.

Those to whom submission must be rendered are called “the governing authorities.” Two different words are used for “authority” in this passage. In v.1, the word exousiai (GK is not a specific or technical term; it simply means those who are over others. With respect to the second word, arch n (GK v.3), we find Josephus using it, as Paul does, with reference to Roman rulers, but specifically to those who ruled in the name of Rome over the Jews in Palestine 2.350).

Paul makes a sweeping statement when he says, “There is no authority except that which God has established.” It is true even of Satan that what authority he exercises has been given to him (cf. Lk 4:6). God has ordained this tension between authority and submission: “God has so arranged the world from the beginning—at the creation, by all means, if you like—as to make it possible to render him service within it, and this is why he created superiors and subordinates” (E. Käsemann,“Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13,” in New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961], 208).

It is probably significant that the name of Christ does not appear anywhere in the passage. The thought does not move in the sphere of redemption or the life of the church as such, but in the relationship to the state that God in his wisdom has set up. While Christians have their citizenship in heaven (Php 3:20), they are not on that account excused from responsibility to acknowledge the state as possessing authority from God to govern them. They hold a dual citizenship.

2 Those who refuse to submit are in rebellion against what God has ordained. To ground refusal on the fact that the believer is “not of the world” (Jn 17:14) is to confuse the issue, because the state cannot be identified with the world, no matter how “worldly” its attitude may be. The world can be set over against God (1Jn 2:16), but this is not true of the state as an institution, despite the fact that individual governments may at times be anti-God in their stance. Midway in v.2 Paul shifts from the singular (“he who rebels”) to the plural (“those who do so”). If this is more than a stylistic variation, it may be intended to recognize that rebellion is not feasible at all unless it is instigated by collective action. Defiance of government is futile on an individual basis except as a demonstration of personal disagreement. Those who rebel “will bring judgment on themselves.” By rendering judgment as “damnation,” the KJV suggests forfeiture of final salvation, which is wide of the mark. From the movement of thought the judgment is to be conceived of as coming from God, in the sense of bearing his approval, even though administered through human channels and in the sphere of human affairs. One may cite the words of Jesus, given in warning to one of his own: “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52). Sufficient illustration is provided by the Jewish war of revolt against Rome that was to begin within a decade of the time Paul wrote. This disastrous rebellion led to the sacking of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation. The question as to whether rebellion is ever justified (in the light of this passage) cannot profitably be examined until more of the paragraph has been reviewed.

3 Here we encounter the most difficult portion of the passage, for the presentation seems to take no account of the possibility that government may be tyrannical and may reward evil and suppress good. A few years after Paul wrote these words, Nero launched a persecution against the church at Rome; multitudes lost their lives, and not because of doing wrong. Later on, other emperors would lash out against Christians in several waves of persecution stretching over more than two centuries. However, the empire did not persecute Christians for their good works, and not directly because of their faith, but rather because they were perceived as endangering the peace and welfare of the state by their refusal to honor the gods.

One way to deal with the problem is to assume that Paul is presenting the norm, that is to say, the state as functioning in terms of fulfilling the ideal for government, which is certainly that of punishing evil and rewarding or encouraging good. If this is the correct interpretation, then we can understand why Paul warns against rebellion and makes no allowance for revolutionary activity. The way is then open to justify revolution in cases where rights are denied and liberties taken away, making life intolerable for freedom-loving men and women, since the state has ceased to fulfill its God-appointed function. However, Christians will not as a church lead in revolution, but only as citizens of the commonwealth. At the very least, under circ*mstances involving a collapse of justice, the Christian community is obliged to voice its criticism of the state’s failure, pointing out the deviation from the divinely ordained pattern. Subjection to the state is not to be confused with unthinking, blind, docile conformity. An interesting contrast in viewpoint can be seen in Revelation 13, where the Roman state is portrayed as the enemy of God and is symbolized by a beast coming up out of the sea. On the other hand, at about the same time (the turn of the century), Clement of Rome prays a model prayer that embodies the attitude toward the state Paul inculcates in this passage Clem. 60.2–61.2; F. F. Bruce, 235, quotes this long prayer in its entirety).

Another possibility is to introduce the principle of Romans 8:28 whereby God finds ways to bring good out of apparent evil, so that even in the event that the state should turn against the people of God in a way that could rightly be termed evil, he will bring good out of it in the long run. Käsemann (“Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13,” 215) remarks, “Sometimes the Lord of the world speaks more audibly out of prison cells and graves than out of the life of churches which congratulate themselves on their concordat with the State.”

4 The state is presented as “God’s servant GK to extend commendation to the one who does good and, conversely, to punish the wrongdoer. This certainly implies considerable knowledge on the part of the governing authority as to the nature of right and wrong—a knowledge not dependent on awareness of the teaching of Scripture but granted to human beings in general as rational creatures (cf. 2:14–15). While “God’s servant” is an honorable title, it contains a reminder that the state is not God and that its function is to administer justice for him in areas where it is competent to do so. Even as God’s servant in the spiritual realm can err, so the state is not to be thought of as infallible in its decisions. Yet this does not entitle the individual to flout the state’s authority when the decision is not to his or her liking.

The warning to the believer to avoid evil carries with it the admonition that if this warning is neglected, fear will be in order because the authority has the power to use the sword. This can hardly have to do with private misdoing that would rarely, if ever, come to the attention of those in power; presumably it refers to public acts that would threaten the well-being or security of the state. Consequently, even though traditionally the bearing of the sword is thought to signify the power of punishment—even to death—which the government rightly claims for itself in handling serious crimes, this understanding of the matter is somewhat questionable because these words are addressed to Christians. Were Christians liable to descend to such things? Interpreters who have assumed that Paul’s allusion to the sword refers to the ius gladii (the “law of the sword”) need to consider the evidence to the effect that at the time of Paul this term had a very restricted application that would not fit our passage. A. N. Sherwin-White Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 10) states, “For the first two centuries of the Empire the term referred only to the power given to provincial governors who had Roman citizen troops under their command, to enable them to maintain military discipline without being hampered by the provisions of the laws of Provocatio denotes “right of appeal.” So it is probable that Paul is warning believers against becoming involved in activity that could be construed by the Roman government as encouraging revolution or injury to the state. In that case, he is not referring to crime in general. To engage in subversive activity against the state would invite speedy retribution, as the word “sword” implies.

5 In bringing this portion of the discussion to a close, Paul advances two reasons why the Christian must be in submission to the state. One is the threat of capital “punishment” , Gk “wrath”) if one does not put oneself in subjection. This appeal is based on personal advantage, the instinct of self-preservation. To defy the state could mean death. The other reason is a little more difficult to determine. “Conscience” s GK commonly means “the pain a man suffers when he has done wrong” (C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1955], 71). But this meaning of the word is questionable here, because the believer who goes so far as to defy the state could hardly be described as having a tender conscience; in fact, such individuals have steeled their will and suppressed their conscience. More satisfactory is the statement of Christian Maurer 7:916): sis is responsible awareness that the ultimate foundations both of one’s own being and also of the state are in God. Members of the community are to have neither a higher nor a lower estimation of the state than as a specific servant of God.” In other words, Christians, by virtue of divine revelation, can have a clearer understanding of the position of the governing authority than officials of the government are likely to have. Let that knowledge guide them in their attitudes and decisions. This usage of the word “conscience” is found again in 1 Peter 2:19.

6 Building on his allusion to conscience, the apostle explains the payment of taxes on this very basis. The clearer the perception of the fact that the governing authority is God’s servant, the greater appears the reasonableness of providing support by these payments. The person in authority may be unworthy, but the institution is not, since God wills it. Without financial undergirding, government cannot function. For the third time, Paul speaks of rulers as “God’s servants,” but this time he uses a different word GK one that means “workers for the people,” “public ministers.” But the relationship to God is added in keeping with the emphasis made in v.4. Their work is carried on under God’s scrutiny and to fulfill God’s will. These public servants give their full time and attention to governing; therefore they have no time to earn a living by other means. This is parallel to the point made by Jesus that “the worker deserves his wages” (Lk 10:7).

7 There is deliberate repetition in the sense that the paying of taxes is assumed (v.6), then enjoined (v.7). But in the repetition Paul adds an important ingredient, found in the word “give” GK It is full of meaning, for literally it means “give back.” When Jesus was interrogated on the subject of taxes, his questioners used the word “pay” GK lit., “give”), but in his reply he used “give” lit.,“give back”; Mk 12:14–15, 17), suggesting that what is paid to the government in the form of taxes presupposes value received or to be received. It is quite possible that Paul, through familiarity with the tradition concerning Jesus’ teaching, was aware of the language the Master had used and adopts it for himself. Some of the reluctance to pay taxes to the Romans that was associated with political unrest in Palestine probably infected Jewish believers at Rome, accounting for Paul’s specific allusion to the subject. But on this point one cannot be sure, since the allusion comes in rather naturally during a discussion of the believer’s relation to the state. Furthermore, the assumption is that the Roman Christians were, in fact, paying taxes (v.6).

The various items mentioned in v.7—“taxes,” “revenue,” “respect,” and “honor”—are all classified as obligations to the governing authorities. The word for “taxes” GK often means tribute paid to a foreign ruler and implies a dependent status (it appears in Lk 20:22 in the incident concerning paying taxes to Caesar). “Revenue” GK pertains to indirect taxation in the form of toll or customs duties. It forms a part of the word for “tax collector” n GK Mt 10:3).“Respect” GK lit.,“fear”) here seems to mean appropriate respect for the governing authorities. It is just possible, however, that Paul intends “respect” or “fear” to apply to God rather than to public officials (cf. 1Pe 2:17, where the verb phobeomai [“fear”] is used in relation to God and in contrast to honor paid to the supreme earthly ruler). The word “honor” , Gk is very similar in its import and clearly applies to those in public office.

NOTES

1–7 On vv.1–7, see C. K. Barrett “The New Testament Doctrine of the State,” in New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972), 1–19; A. J. Hultgren, “Reflections on Romans 13:1–7: Submission to Governing Authorities,” Dialog 15 (1976): 263–69; J. D. G. Dunn,“Romans 13:1–7—A Charter for Political Quietism?” ExAud 2 (1986): 55–68; R. H. Stein, “The Argument of Romans xiii 1–7,” NovT 31 (1989): 325–43.

1 The term , exousiai (“authorities,” GK is a matter of keen debate. Does it denote earthly rulers alone, or is it intended to refer also to invisible powers, as in Ephesians 1:21; 6:12? Oscar Cullmann and Time [London: SCM, 1951], 191–210; The State in the New Testament [New York: Scribners, 1956], 95–114) has advocated the latter position, arguing that the plural form calls for this meaning and that Christ by his death and exaltation has triumphed over these powers of darkness, so that they are subject to him even when they influence earthly rulers. Though it is not possible to delve into the pros and cons of this debate, suffice it to say that victory over the powers of the invisible world does not necessarily mean that Christ has pressed them into his service. If Paul had meant to include them here, it seems logical that he would have made this clear by a more specific description. Paul never suggests that Christians are to be subject to angelic beings. Beyond v.1 he shifts from the plural to the singular, which suggests that the plural is meant to refer to the emperor and subordinate rulers, whereas the singular indicates any official of the government with whom a believer might become involved. It is difficult, furthermore, to believe that Paul could advocate submission to unseen powers, even in indirect fashion, since in Ephesians 6:12–18 he calls for the most strenuous resistance to them (cf. F. F. Bruce,“Paul and ‘The Powers That Be,’” BJRL 66 [1983–84]: 78–96).

REFLECTIONS

Stuhlmacher, 206, summarizes these verses with these words: “In Romans 13:1–7 Paul summons the Christians from Rome to the greatest possible loyalty toward the existing power of the state and sees in it an ordinance of God.” He also cautions that “the fundamental question of how Christians should relate to the power of the state per se should not be decided from Romans 13:1–7 alone, but on the basis of all of the pertinent texts of the Old and New Testaments” (ibid., 204).

E. The Comprehensive Obligation of Love (13:8–10)

OVERVIEW

Though Paul has previously put in an urgent call for love (12:9–10), he now returns to this theme, knowing that he cannot stress too much this essential ingredient of all Christian service. The connection of the present paragraph with the foregoing section is indicated by the verb opheilete (GK “owe”; NIV, “debt remain outstanding”), which has the same root as “owe” in v.7. There is an effective transition to the very highest demand on the child of God, who owes submission and honor to the civil authorities but owes all people much more.

no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. commandments,“Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule:“Love your neighbor as yourself.” does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

COMMENTARY

8 The NASB’s “owe nothing to anyone” (NIV, “let no debt remain outstanding”) should not be taken as meaning that it is wrong to borrow. If incurring any indebtedness whatever is contrary to God’s will, Jesus would not have said, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Mt 5:42). Of course, to be perpetually in debt is not a good testimony for a believer, and to refuse to fulfill one’s obligations is unacceptable (v.7). Now comes the remarkable exception to the rule. There is one debt owed to all: “to love one another.” One can never say that one has completely discharged it. Ordinarily, “one another” in the Epistles refers to relationships within the Christian community. But such is not the case here, for the expression is explained in terms of one’s “fellow man” (lit., “the other [person]”). Since the passage goes on to refer to one’s “neighbor” (vv.9, 10), we may be reasonably sure that the sweep of the obligation set forth here is intended to be universal. It is, therefore, a mistake to accuse the early church of turning its eyes inward on itself and to a large extent neglecting the outside world. Granted that the usual emphasis is on one’s duties to fellow believers, yet the wider reference is not lacking (Gal 6:10; 1Th 3:12).

In saying that the one who loves “has fulfilled the law,” Paul presents a truth that parallels his statement in 8:4 about the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in those who live according to the Spirit. The connecting link between these two passages is provided by Galatians 5:22–23, where first place in the enumeration of the fruit of the Spirit is given to “love” and the list is followed by the observation that “against such [fruit] there is no law.” So the Spirit produces in the believer a love to which the law can offer no objection, since love fulfills what the law requires—something the law itself cannot do. Paul again follows the teaching of Jesus that love is the fulfilling of the law (cf. Mt 22:39–40; see also Mt 7:12; Jas 2:8).

9 When one seeks to know what the law requires, one is naturally referred to those precepts that pertain to human relationships, since love for one’s neighbor is at issue, not love for God. Consequently, Paul lifts from the second table of the law certain precepts calling for the preservation of the sacredness of the family, the holding of human life inviolable, and the recognition of the right to ownership of property, concluding with the key item that is involved in the other three, namely, the control of one’s desires (“do not covet”; cf. 7:7). The words “and whatever other commandment there may be” reflect not uncertainty but constitute a rhetorical way of saying, in effect, “all other commandments.”

One might object that these prohibitions belong to the sphere of justice rather than that of love, but this limited view is ruled out by the affirmation that these and other demands of the law are summed up in the positive command, “Love your neighbor as yourself “ (Lev 19:18). Once again, Paul follows the Lord Jesus in summarizing the horizontal bearing of the law by this quotation of Leviticus 19:18 (cf. Mt 22:39).

Jesus rebuked the narrow nationalistic interpretation of the word “neighbor” in the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–37). The literal meaning of neighbor is “one who is near.” Both the priest and the Levite found their nearness to the stricken man a source of embarrassment (vv.31–32), but the Samaritan saw in that same circ*mstance an opportunity to help another. In the light of human need, the barrier between Jew and Samaritan dissolved. Love provides its own imperative; it feels the compulsion of need, or it cannot be said to exist.

10 “Love does no harm to its neighbor” is an understatement, for love will always do positive good. But the negative form is suitable here, because it is intended to fit in with the prohibitions from the law (v.9). By concluding with the observation that love is “the fulfillment r GK of the law,” Paul returns to the statement he made at the beginning of this section (v.8), thus forming an inclusio.

It is clear that for Paul, as for Jesus, love can serve as a summary of the moral law. The person who loves another, in the NT sense of the word, will act only for the welfare of that person. It easily follows that love excludes the doing of harm to another—the very thing that the second table of the commandments speaks to negatively. Love, in its very quality of self-giving, takes one far beyond the commandments. To love is to walk in the steps of Christ: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (Jn 13:34). Love is the essence of the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Paul in this way holds to his conviction that the Christian will fulfill the requirement of the law (cf. 8:4; see T. R. Schreiner,“The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT 35 [1989]: 47–74).

Nygren, 435, sums up the matter well: “To live ‘in Christ,’ to walk ‘in love,’ is something entirely different from living under the law and striving to fulfill all its requirements; and yet the law is fulfilled in it. Therefore it can be said at the same time that the Christian is from the and that in him law is (italics his).

NOTES

9 With the quotation of Leviticus 19:18 about loving one’s “neighbor,” compare Leviticus 19:34: “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself.”

Since Paul omits only the ninth commandment (“thou shalt not bear false witness”) from the second table of the law, later manuscripts (TR) felt obliged to add it, and thus this commandment is found in the KJV.

F. The Purifying Power of Hope (13:11–14)

OVERVIEW

Though this passage contains no explicit mention of hope, the idea is obviously in the background. The confidence that the eschaton is “at hand” (v.12) should serve as an important motivating factor in the living out of the Christian life. “And do this” (v.11) is connected to the general moral instruction that Paul has provided in the preceding material. Now he plunges into a delineation of the critical nature of the time that intervenes before the Lord’s return. It is as though he is saying, “Live a life that is consonant with your Christian confession, even as you remain girded with hope and sobriety for the consummation.” The Christian refuses to be conformed to the present age, satisfied with earthly things (cf. Php 3:18–21), but is transformed and galvanized by the approach of the end, so as to be ruled by self-discipline and thereby to escape profligate living.

do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

COMMENTARY

11 Paul first sounds a call for alertness. The era between the advents is critical because now the promise of the return of Christ hovers over the believer. The Christian must not be lulled to sleep by indulgence in pleasure or be influenced by the specious word of those who suggest that the Lord is delaying his coming or may not return at all. It is important to note that Paul does not say how near the day of the Lord’s appearing is. As a matter of fact, he does not know. He is content to advance the reminder that “salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.” To be sure, salvation is already an achieved fact for the believer (Eph 2:8) and a continuing fact as well (1Co 15:2, where the Greek has a present tense; 1Pe 1:5). But it has also its future and final phase, as Paul here intimates (cf. 1Pe 1:9). With this third aspect in mind, he says elsewhere that “we eagerly await a Savior” (Php 3:20), for only then, at his return, will salvation be complete (Ro 8:18–25).

The time of the appearing is subordinate to the fact of the appearing. Franz Leenhardt, 339, has written,“If primitive Christianity could note, without its faith being shaken thereby, that the ‘end’ did not come within the calculated times, that is just because the chronological framework of its hope was a secondary matter.” The believer is not like a child looking for a clock to strike the hour because something is due to happen then. Rather, the believer is content to know that with every passing moment the end is that much closer to realization. And it cannot be denied that the time is getting closer and closer (cf. E. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament [Lund: Gleerup, 1963], 25–45).

One thing that is known about the time is that it is d (GK lit., “already”), the time to be fully awake. The statement suggests above all the need for readiness—preparedness—for the return of Christ (cf. 1Th 5:4–9, where there is also the image of putting on armor). The confidence of the approach of the end should awaken Christians out of a state of stupor and instill urgency to live in a way that reflects their discipleship.

12 The line of thought here closely resembles the treatment in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11. Even as darkness is symbolic of evil and sin, the “light” fittingly depicts those who have passed into the experience of salvation. The light of dawn is not far away, and one should live in anticipation of it. “The day” is the day of the Lord, i.e., the day of judgment and blessing—the arrival of the eschaton, the consummation of the Christian hope. There may be elements of baptismal liturgy underlying this passage, especially in the putting aside of the old garments, “the deeds of darkness” that characterized one’s earlier life, and the putting on of new garments, symbolizing the new life. These new garments, however, are unusual. They are likened to “armor,” just as in 1 Thessalonians 5:8 (cf. Eph 6:13–17). Evidently the purpose is to suggest that to walk through this world as children of light involves warfare against the powers of darkness (cf. Eph 6:12–13). Even though the day as an eschatological point has not yet arrived, Christians “belong to the day” (1Th 5:8), anticipating by the very atmosphere of their transformed lives the glory that will then be revealed (2Co 3:18; 4:4).

13 The approaching of “the day” is the basis for the plea,“Let us behave decently, as in the daytime.” The Christian is to live as though that final day has actually arrived and brought with it the personal presence of Christ. There should be no place, then, for the conduct that so often characterizes pagans in the dark of night. Paul describes this manner of life (all too common in Corinth, where he was writing from) in three couplets, the first emphasizing intemperance; the second, sexual misconduct; and the third, contention and quarreling.

14 In his conclusion, the apostle returns to his figure of putting on clothing (cf. v.12), but now the garment is personified. He urges his readers to “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Col 3:10, “[you] have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator”). This amounts to appropriation—the deliberate, conscious acceptance of the lordship of Christ—so that all is under his control: motives, desires, and deeds. It is true that believers have already clothed themselves with Christ, according to Galatians 3:27, at conversion and baptism. But there is also a sense in which one needs to renew one’s commitment to the lordship of Christ on a regular basis. To be clothed with Christ should mean that believers become like their Lord in his righteousness, so that they can be effective witnesses to the truth of the gospel.

If, however, this putting on of Christ is done in a spirit of complacency, as though a life of godliness and uprightness will automatically follow, disappointment will result. The redeemed person must be attuned to the Savior. In the present complexity of old and new aeons, as well as old and new natures, the Christian must exercise ceaseless vigilance, lest the flesh be allowed to prevail. No thought must be given to satisfying the desires of the old nature, and certainly no provision made for them. Though the language differs from the teaching in ch. 6, the message is the same. If union with Christ is to be experientially successful, even though one is already dead to sin, he or she must accompany that fact with a constant reckoning of oneself as dead to sin and alive to God and his holy will.

G. Questions of Conscience Wherein Christians Differ (14:1–15:13)

OVERVIEW

It is uncertain to what extent Paul possessed definite information about the internal affairs of the Roman church. Consequently, it is difficult to know whether his approach to the problem of “the weak” and “the strong” is dictated by awareness of the precise nature of a problem in Rome or whether he is writing out of his own experience with other churches, especially the Corinthian congregation (1Co 8:1–11:1). His treatment in Romans is briefer and couched in more general terms, though there are obvious similarities, such as the danger that by their conduct the strong will cause the weak to stumble or fall and the corresponding danger that the weak will sit in judgment on the strong. The differences, however, are numerous: there is no mention in Romans of idols or food offered to idols; the word “conscience” does not appear; the strong are not described as those who have knowledge. On the other hand, we read in Romans of vegetarians and of those who insist on observing a certain day in contrast to others who look on all days as being alike. Neither of these features appears in 1 Corinthians.

Probably the “weak” ones at Rome should be identified with the Jewish element in the church (as well as those Gentiles who may have been attracted to their viewpoint), because believing Jews might easily carry over their avoidance of certain foods from their former observance of the dietary laws of the OT. It is possible that information had reached Paul to the effect that with the return of Jewish Christians to Rome after the death of Emperor Claudius in AD 54, tension had developed in the church with the Gentile element that had been able for several years to enjoy without challenge its freedom in the matter of foods. It is unlikely that this problem was caused by the influence of pagan religions.

Judging from the discussion in 1 Corinthians, Paul would place himself among the strong. Yet he was careful not to become an occasion of stumbling to a weak person. He has words of warning and words of encouragement to both groups. His primary concern is to promote a spirit of unity in the church (15:5, 7). The issue clearly does not involve the salvation of either group—something settled some years earlier at the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15)—which is assumed throughout, but rather a question of how the community of the redeemed should live in this age.

1. Christians Must Refrain from Judging One Another (14:1–12)

him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will confess to God.’”

then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

COMMENTARY

1–2 “Eat” , Gk v.2) is the recurring verb that characterizes this section. Dietary practices differed, and the differences were bound to be noticed; they became a topic of conversation and a basis of disagreement. “Passing judgment GK on disputable matters” (v.1) could well be translated “getting into quarrels about opinions” (BDAG, 231). Paul’s designation for the overscrupulous believers is those “whose faith is weak,” meaning that their faith is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ to partake. The “weak” are not troubled by questions of doctrine but are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this hesitancy is to “accept” them. That this word , Gk is capable of conveying the sense of warm wholeheartedness is shown by its use in Acts 18:26 (“invited”) and 28:2 (“welcomed”). Such acceptance is impossible as long as there is any disposition to pass judgment on disputable matters:“The weak man should be accepted as the Christian brother he claims to be. One should not judge the thoughts which underlie his conduct. This is for God alone to do” 3:950). The weak person must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted or “odd.”

2 The specialized use of “faith” GK becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context. As used here, it has the approximate meaning of “conscience” (as in 1Co 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25–29). Some, obviously strong in faith, feel they can “eat everything.” Paul would concur that the believer has this freedom (1Ti 4:3–4). Others, weak in their faith, confine their diet to vegetables. No reason is advanced for this self-limitation. It could have been due to ascetic zeal. Some modern vegetarians believe they are healthier for not eating meat. Others have scruples about eating anything that has been consciously alive (perhaps unaware of research tending to establish that plants also have sensation). But the motive is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of “the strong” to this practice.

3 Omnivorous persons are apt to “look down on” the weak—an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak may retaliate by condemning those who have no inhibitions about their food. If so, the latter need to reflect on the fact that God has “accepted” (the same word as in v.1) such people. And why should they themselves not do so? Paul may again depend in this section on the words of Jesus in oral tradition (cf. Mt 7:1).

4 Paul brings in what must have been a familiar parallel in the Roman Empire: servants are responsible only to their own masters and not to others (cf. Paul’s view of the matter as it bears on those judging him, 1Co 4:3–5). In ordinary life it would be wrong for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the actions of someone else’s servants. It is a matter purely between the particular servant (the word used here is oiket s [GK probably a synonym for the more common “slave” [GK and the particular master. The initial word of the sentence, the interrogatory sy (“you,” singular) is emphatic and personal in application (the same device is used in v.10). And in the present instance, Paul says, “the Lord GK the same word used for “master” earlier in v.4] is able to make him stand”—and presumably this means whether the servant falls into the category of the weak or the strong. There is, therefore, no need for a common mind here, but only an attitude of tolerance and a nonjudgmental spirit. As for the strong, however, Paul clearly affirms that they do not stand on slippery ground when enjoying their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain them:“The Apostle … is confident that Christian liberty, through the grace and power of Christ, will prove a triumphant moral success” (Denney, 702, italics his).

5–8 In vv.5–8 the phrase “to the Lord” (contrast the twofold “to himself “ in v.7), occurs repeatedly, indicating that whether one is thought of as “weak” or “strong,” the important thing is to conduct one’s life in the consciousness of God’s presence, because God’s approval is more significant than the approval or disapproval of fellow Christians. Eating is still in view, but alongside it Paul places a fresh topic—the holding of certain days as “sacred.”

5 Whether the question of regarding one day as more sacred than another refers to Sabbath observance or to special days for feasting or fasting is not easily determined. Since the early church in Jerusalem almost certainly observed the Sabbath (as well as the first day of the week) because of its Jewish constituency and the danger of giving offense to non-Christian Jews, and since the Roman church presumably had a sizable minority of Jews, it is not improbable that Paul has the Sabbath in mind (cf. A. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A and Theological ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 343–412). Perhaps because the observance of the day was not being pressed on the Gentile believers in the church in the way that Jewish sects challenged such believers elsewhere (Col 2:16), it was not necessary to identify the day explicitly. Even so, if the day of worship is in view, it is strange that any believer could be said to consider “every day alike.” It should be noted, however, that the word “alike” is an added word that does not appear in the Greek text. The text as it stands may mean that there were some who esteemed every day as equally holy. The close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul may have in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or fasting. The important thing is that one should “be fully convinced in one’s own mind” as to the rightfulness of observance or nonobservance.

6 More important still is the certitude of believers that their motivation is the desire to honor the Lord in whatever they are doing. It is possible for the observant and the nonobservant to do this, as illustrated by the giving of thanks at mealtime (cf. 1Ti 4:5). Those partaking can give thanks for the meat before them, while those abstaining from meat can give God thanks for their vegetables. The latter should be able to do this without resentment toward those who feel free to enjoy richer fare.

7–8 We should not understand Paul in v.7 as expressing a maxim applicable to all people, as though he intended to suggest the commonplace truth that everyone has some sort of influence with others, even though in some instances it is more limited. Verse 8 shows that he is speaking of believers. The reason Christians do not live to themselves is that they live “to the Lord,” i.e., under his lordship. This defining relationship, which is also an obligation, does not cease with death but carries forward into the next life (Php 1:20–23). Paul has already affirmed that death cannot separate Christians from the love of God in Christ (8:38–39; cf. 2Co 5:8–9). Their death is not merely a transfer from this arena of struggle to a realm of rest. Rather, it is to be viewed as an enlarged opportunity to show forth the praises of the Lord. This inseparable relationship to him is the key to life on either side of the veil.

9–12 In vv.9–12 Paul returns to his opening concern and makes the point that both groups, the strong and the weak, will have to answer to God in the coming day. So it is premature to pass judgment on one another (cf. 1Co 4:5), seeing that an infallible judge will assume that responsibility on the day of judgment.

9 Christ gave his life, laying it down in obedience to God’s will, and thereby purchased the church by his blood (Ac 20:28). But only after his resurrection could he assume the active headship of his people. Though the title “Lord” was appropriate to him in the days of his flesh (e.g., Mk 5:19), the title came into more frequent and more meaningful use after the resurrection, since that event established his claim to deity, Saviorhood, and universal dominion. His triumph included victory over death, so that even though his people may be given over to death’s power temporarily, they have not ceased to be his, as the future bodily resurrection of Christians will demonstrate. He is, in fact, the Lord of both the dead and the living. The order in which these two divisions appear reflects the order in the previous statement about Christ in his death and return to life.

10–12 Against this background the apostle returns to direct address, first to the weak, then to the strong. The former is prone to judge, the latter to depreciate or even scorn. Both attitudes amount to virtually the same thing, for they both involve improper judgment. The only true judge is God, and his time for judging is coming, making human judgment not only premature but also a usurpation of God’s role (cf. Lk 6:37). Notable is the ease with which Paul passes from the Lord (v.9) to God (v.10) in the same milieu of thought. The two are inseparable in their operations. In fact, “God’s judgment seat” is to be identified with the “judgment seat of Christ” (2Co 5:10).

We see the same phenomenon in the quotation introduced here (v.11), which is a combination of Isaiah 49:18 and 45:23. In Philippians 2:10–11 the same two passages from Isaiah are utilized and the deity of Christ comes into focus. In the summary of the situation (v.12), the note of judgment is retained, but the emphasis falls on the fact that each person must “give an account of himself [or herself]”—not of any other—to God (cf. Gal 6:4–5). The same word for “account” GK occurs at the end of Hebrews 4:13. Paul’s conclusion in v.12 not only has the effect of invalidating the judgment of others, but it also “increases the importance of the church’s mutual responsibility before the Christ who as the redeemer is at the same time also the heavenly Lord, advocate, and judge of the members of the congregation” (Stuhlmacher, 225–26).

NOTES

14:1–15:13 See W. A. Meeks, “Judgment and the Brother: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 290–300; R. J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (ed. Donfried), 65–84; F. Watson, “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in The Romans 203–15.

14:4 Some late manuscripts have , “God,” instead of , “the Lord.” In favor of “the Lord” are A B C and other witnesses. This change apparently crept into the text as copyists carried the mention of “God” over from v.3.

10 In many textual witnesses, most of them late, the Greek has , instead of , apparently because of the copyists’ desire to conform the statement to 2 Corinthians 5:10.

2. Christians Must Avoid Offending One Another (14:13–23)

OVERVIEW

In this section, the appeal is directed for the most part to the strong, who are warned that their example may have a disastrous effect on the weak by leading them to do something for which their spiritual development provides no ground of approval (cf. the cognate material in 1Co 8:7–13). The discussion proceeds along the same lines as before, focusing on what Christians should include in their diet. (Wine is included for the first time in v.21.)

let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

COMMENTARY

13 The opening statement gives the gist of what has already been said in vv.1–12. Both parties have been guilty of “passing judgment” on one another. Then by a clever use of language, Paul employs the same verb , Gk in a somewhat different sense (“make up your mind”). He is calling for a determination to adopt a course of action that will not hurt others, a decision once for all to avoid whatever might impede others in the faith or cause them to fall. Though Paul does not single out the strong, it appears that he must have them in mind in this admonition against putting a “stumbling block” in the way of others. A stumbling block GK is literally something against which one may strike one’s foot, causing a stumble or even a fall. The second term GK here rendered “obstacle”) presents a different picture—that of a trap designed to ensnare a victim. It is used of something that constitutes a temptation to sin. Jesus applied this word to Peter when that disciple sought to deter him from going to the cross (Mt 16:23,“stumbling block”). In v.13 it could be taken as a stern warning against deliberately enticing fellow Christians to do what for them would be sinful (cf. v.23). Even if such an act were motivated by the desire to get such persons out of the “weak” category, it would still be wrong.

14 In a most remarkable conclusion for a former Pharisee, Paul himself argues, against the weak, “that no food is unclean in itself “ (cf. v.20; cf. 1Co 6:12). Elsewhere he affirms in a similar context that “everything God created is good” (1Ti 4:4)—an observation that rests on the record of creation (Ge 1:31). But here in Romans the apostle seems to have reference to some utterance made by “the Lord Jesus” during his earthly ministry. Perhaps he has in mind the words of Jesus in Mark 7:15–23, where he declares that we are not rendered unclean by what goes into us, what we eat, but rather by the evil that comes out of us, from our inner life. Mark adds the comment that in this pronouncement Jesus “declared all foods ‘clean’” (Mk 7:19). Not everyone has been enlightened on this issue, however, and if some are convinced in their heart that some foods are unclean (e.g., in terms of the Levitical food laws), for them such foods remain unclean. Until they are convinced otherwise, it would violate their conscience to partake of them. Even the apostle Peter, who had been with Jesus and had heard his teaching, felt constraint on this point until some time after Pentecost (Ac 10:9–15).

15 Moreover, even if the strong do not try to convince the weak to change their habits, their own practice, since it is known, can become a stumbling block to the others, causing “distress” of soul; indeed, Paul goes so far as to use the strong word “destroy” GK This harm is caused by the callous indifference of the strong. Tragically, this hurt is due to following the example of the strong, by which those who are destroyed find their conscience ablaze with rebuke and their whole life out of fellowship with the Christ. In such a situation, the strong are “no longer acting in love.” But love is supposed to be the supreme mark of the Christian, as Paul has already stressed (13:8–10).

Paul’s basis of approach to the strong has changed from granting them their position on the grounds of their liberty to eat. Now the appeal is not to liberty but to love, which may call for a measure of sacrifice. If such sacrifice is refused, then the strong must face the responsibility for bringing spiritual ruin on the weak. In effect, the strong care only about their liberty and not the welfare of the weak who are a part of their fellowship. Christ died equally for the weak and the strong. A selfish insistence on liberty may tear down and destroy, but love, when it is exercised, will invariably build up (1Co 8:1).

16 Some understand Paul’s exhortation—“Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil”—in terms of possible slander by unbelievers who find occasion to deride the Christian community for its squabbling over such minor matters. But the thought does not necessarily range beyond the circle of the redeemed. The “good” is naturally understood as the liberty to eat, since all foods are regarded as clean. This liberty, however, if resented because it has been flaunted in the face of the weak, can be regarded as an evil thing on account of its unloving misuse.

17 With typical pastoral insight, Paul now lifts the entire discussion to a higher level than mere eating and drinking. His readers—all of them—are the loyal subjects of Christ in “the kingdom of God.” In that sphere the real concerns are not externals such as diet but the spiritual realities motivating life and shaping conduct. Surely the strong will agree that if their insistence on Christian liberty endangers the spiritual development of the community as a whole, they should be willing to forgo that to a tender conscience and begin to search their own hearts to discover that they have cared more about maintaining their position than about loving those who are weaker. Through the fresh manifestation of love by the strong, the weak will be lifted liberty. In this context, “righteousness” , GK is not justification, but the right conduct to which the believer is called in obedience to the will of God (cf. 6:13, 16, 18). This conclusion is supported by the fact that “peace” and “joy” are experiential terms. “Peace” n , Gk is sometimes peace with God (5:1), at other times the peace of God (Php 4:7). The second meaning is appropriate to this passage (cf. v.19). Mention of the Holy Spirit is fully in keeping with Paul’s understanding of the work of the Spirit, because “joy” GK and “peace” are included in the fruit the Spirit produces in the believer’s life. The list in Galatians 5:22 is not intended to be complete (see Gal 5:23), so we may legitimately claim practical righteousness as also effected by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

18 Further confirmation of this interpretation is furnished by v.18, where Paul links these matters to the believer’s service of Christ. The manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit is not only “pleasing to God,” who provides it, but also to those who see it in operation and experience its blessings.

19 The entire church is urged to pursue peace (harmony between the two groups being the immediate application), which alone can provide the atmosphere in which “mutual edification” can take place. It will be recalled that oikodom “(GK lit., “building up”) was Paul’s key word in dealing with the problems created by the manifestation of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian situation (1Co 14:5, 12, 26). Mutual edification implies that the strong, despite their tendency to look down on the weak, may actually learn something from them. It may be that they will come to appreciate loyalty to a tender conscience and begin to search their own hearts to discover that they have cared more about maintaining their position than about loving those who are weaker. Through the fresh manifestation of love by the strong, the weak will be lifted in spirit and renewed in faith and life.

20 Having spoken of the edification of the saints, Paul reinforces his point by warning against the reverse process. The strong of the Roman church must not “destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” If they do, much time and painful labor will be required to restore the edifice to the point where it can function again as the instrument of the divine purpose. It is disheartening to realize that such colossal loss could be occasioned by a difference of opinion over something as trivial as food! The important fact remains that since all food can properly be regarded as “clean” (repeating the emphasis of v.14), it is not wrong in itself for one to eat whatever one finds healthful or desirable. At the same time, however, it is plainly wrong to cause someone to stumble by what one eats. What must be heeded is Paul’s remarkable comment that good things become evil when they are allowed to give offense (cf. v.16).

21 The “good” GK i.e., “noble” or “praiseworthy” but probably here in the comparative sense of “better” [so NIV]) course is to do without meat under the circ*mstances and to refrain from drinking wine if partaking would be a stumbling block to anyone. Paul extends the principle to include anything that might have this effect. For the first time in the discussion wine is mentioned, suggesting that a measure of asceticism may be in view here. (The apostle may have anticipated this item by referring to drinking in v.17.) The strong stand taken here on giving up one’s liberty, lest one cause the ruin of another, is already to be found in Paul’s dealing with the same question in the Corinthian church (1Co 8:13). Paul here commends to others what has for some time been the rule for himself.

22 Though the language of the opening statement of this section is general (cf. vv.1–2), and could therefore apply to both groups, in all probability Paul is directing his counsel chiefly to the strong. It is most likely the strong who are to keep their convictions “between [themselves] and God.” The obvious explanation is that the exercise of freedom in public would grieve the weak and raise a barrier between the strong and the weak—the very thing to be avoided if at all possible.

The strong are “blessed” GK in the private enjoyment of their freedom, because they are free from doubt and because no one who might be scandalized is looking on. For Paul, it is a happy state to be strong and to know the liberty of conscience that the weak do not know. It should be granted that the language of v.22b can with equal propriety refer to the weak who live in accord with their conscience. But since the next verse is so definitely applicable to the weak, Paul is probably following his practice of having a word of encouragement or admonition for each party. This seems to be confirmed by the way the adversative introduces his remark about the weak in v.23.

23 It is important to understand “faith” here in the same way that it was used at the beginning of the chapter. Again, there is no question of saving faith but only of confidence that one is free to make use of what God has created and set apart for humanity’s good. In keeping with this, “condemned” does not refer to a future action of God excluding one from salvation but, as the tense indicates, means that one stands presently condemned by one’s own act as being wrong. The case of Peter comes to mind. In his actions at Antioch, “he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11 NASB), because out of fear he did not act in a way true to his convictions (note the reference to “hypocrisy” in 2:13). When Paul pointed out his fault, Peter had no defense. He was in the wrong, and he knew it. The issue at Antioch was more grievous because the clarity of the gospel was at stake.

On the relation of our actions to faith, Stuhlmacher, 229, writes: “For every action that does not take place from faith or is not based on it is sin, because and inasmuch as it is determined by other circ*mstances, regulations, or requisites than those which ought to be decisive on the basis of one confession of Christ, the Lord (cf. 1Co 12:3; Ro 10:9f.). For Paul, this statement has a fundamental significance.”

NOTES

17 See G. Johnston,“‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters,” in From Jesus to ed. P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd (Waterloo, Ont.:Wilfred Laurier Univ. Press, 1984), 143–56; K. P. Donfried,“The Kingdom of God in Paul,” in The Kingdom of God in Twentieth-Century ed. W. Willis (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 175–90.

19 Though the indicative , di “we pursue” (GK has strong support ( A B et al.), given the context the subjunctive , di k “let us pursue,” expressing exhortation, seems to be the better choice here.

22 The opening words of v.22 can also be translated as a question: “Do you have faith?” Either reading makes tolerably good sense.

23 Since some manuscripts include the benediction of 16:25–27 at the end of v.23, it appears that one form of the letter that circulated very early ended with ch. 14 (see comments at 16:25–27).

REFLECTIONS

The content of ch. 14 centers on the questions of liberty and responsibility and the necessary balance between them. Two famous successive sentences from Martin Luther’s treatise On the Freedom of the Christian Man have beautifully captured the tension: “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Paul had spoken exactly this way in 1 Corinthians 9:19. Augustine’s famous words are also apropos to Paul’s perspective: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials tolerance; in all things love.”

3. The Unity of the Strong and the Weak in Christ (15:1–13)

OVERVIEW

Two fairly distinct motifs run through this section. In vv.1–6 the appeal to both the strong and the weak is grounded on the example of Christ, who did not please himself but gladly accepted whatever self-denial his mission required. Again in vv.7–13 Christ is the key. He has graciously accepted both Jew and Gentile in accordance with the purpose of God. For Christians to refuse to accept each other is to resist this purpose in its practical outworking.

who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written:“The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;

I will sing hymns to your name.”

it says,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”

again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,

and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”

again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,

one who will arise to rule over the nations;

the Gentiles will hope in him.”

the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

COMMENTARY

1 As Paul draws the discussion of the strong and the weak to a close, he openly aligns himself with the strong: “we who are strong.” They are the ones who hold the key to the solution of the problem. If they are interested simply in maintaining their own position, the gulf between the two groups will not be narrowed and the weak will continue to be critical and resentful. But if the strong will reach out the hand of fellowship and support, this will serve as a bridge. So to the strong belongs the responsibility of taking the initiative. “Ought” GK is not to be watered down, as though it meant the same thing as “should.” It speaks not of something recommended but of obligation. The verb “bear” , Gk was used in an earlier letter when the apostle enjoined the Galatian believers to “carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Let the strong, then, bear the burden of the scrupulousness of the weaker brothers and sisters. But if they do this in a spirit of mere resignation or with the notion that this condescension marks them as superior Christians, it will fail. When the strong bear with the weak, they must do it in love—the key to fulfilling the law of Christ. The temptation to be resisted by the strong is the inclination to please themselves, to minister to self-interest. This is the very antithesis of love. For example, were the strong to indulge their liberty openly in the presence of the weak, this would be labeled self-pleasing, for it would do nothing for the weak but grieve or irritate them.

2 Indeed, the refusal to live a self-pleasing, self-centered life should characterize every believer, whether strong or weak. Christians should extend their love beyond the narrow circle of like-minded people to all with whom they come in contact—in short, to their neighbors, whoever they may be. This is not a matter of acting merely to please others, for Paul goes on to add the phrases “for his good, to build him up.” In view is the ultimate well-being of the other and his or her spiritual good. The present injunction is akin to Paul’s own principle of making himself all things to all people in order to win as many as possible to the Lord (1Co 9:19–23). There is no conflict between what is advocated here and Paul’s refusal to “please men” (Gal 1:10), since in the latter context he is merely setting himself against any altering of the gospel message designed to avoid giving offense to those resisting revealed truth. The goal to be achieved here is the good of others, their edification (cf. 14:19). This leaves no room for anything like mere ingratiation.

3 For the first time in this letter, Paul holds Christ before his readers as an example. It may well be that we should translate ho christos here not as a proper noun, as is usually the case, but rather as a title—“the Messiah.” It is the Messiah who suffers for his people. The Christ was faced with the same challenge that confronts his followers. Should they please themselves, go their own way, speak what people want to hear—or should they resolve to be guided by their commitment to do the will of God? Jesus affirmed God’s will over his own desires: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mk 14:36; cf. Jn 8:29). The cost was heavy: “The insults of those who insult you [God] have fallen on me” (a quotation of Ps 69:9b, a messianic psalm). Even in Israel, through the years, God’s servants had suffered reproach and insult when they attempted to warn their kinsfolk that their sin and rebellion were inviting God’s judgment. The first half of Psalm 69:9 is quoted in John 2:17 in connection with the cleansing of the temple—“Zeal for your house will consume me.” This is generally interpreted to mean that the opposition stirred up by Jesus would lead eventually to his death. To espouse the cause of God fervently is to arouse the passions of sinners. According to John 15:25, quoted from the same psalm (69:4), Jesus acknowledged that human hatred had dogged his steps, but unjustly. But Jesus did not on this account turn away from the work God had given him to do in behalf of others. Paul would have his readers realize that they are also to seek the good of others, even if they are misunderstood or maligned in so doing.

4 The citation of Psalm 69, portions of which were evidently regarded in the early church as messianic, leads the apostle to a more general statement concerning the usefulness of the Scriptures for the “instruction” GK NIV,“to teach”) of Christians—in fact, as deliberately planned for their edification (“was written to teach us”; cf. 1Co 10:11).

The very phenomenon of the regular quotation of the OT speaks loudly of the dependence of the church on the course of redemption history reflected there. Things both new and old enter into Christian faith. The example of Christ was bound to influence the church to revere and use the OT, and this was made easier because at the beginning its membership was largely Jewish-Christian. Stuhlmacher, 231, calls attention to the importance of this perspective on the OT: “Accordingly, the church of Christ may and can relate the Holy Scriptures, read from the perspective of Jesus, to themselves, to their path in life, and to God’s future with the world.” As for the Gentiles, in many cases at least, they had become familiar with the Greek OT (reflected in the LXX) in the synagogue (Ac 13:44–48) before hearing the gospel and putting their trust in Christ.

The use of the Scriptures, Paul adds, promotes “endurance” , Gk and supplies “encouragement” GK Both may be seen in these records of the past. And these two elements are intimately connected with a third, namely, “hope” GK for the endurance is worthwhile only if it takes place on a course that leads to a glorious future, and the encouragement provides exactly that assurance.

5 Endurance and encouragement are ultimately God’s gifts, though they are mediated through the Scriptures. They tend, however, to be individually appropriated, some realizing them to a greater degree than others. So Paul prays for a spirit of unity (lit, “to be of the same mind”; cf. 12:16, “live in harmony”) that will minimize individual differences as all fix their attention on Christ (“as you follow Christ Jesus”) as the pattern for their own lives (cf. v.3). This does not mean that believers are intended to see eye-to-eye on everything, but that the more Christ fills the spiritual vision, the greater will be the cohesiveness of the church. The centripetal magnetism of Christ can effectively counter the centrifugal force of individual judgment and opinion.

6 Though this unity will, of course, help the church in its witness to the world, Paul is more interested here in its effect on the worship of God’s people—that “with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Worship is not merely something the church does; it is basic to its very existence. The unity of the church enhances its worship.

7 As Paul moves forward to the conclusion of his treatment of the strong and the weak, he pauses, good teacher that he is, to summarize what he has already stated. “Accept one another” picks up the emphasis of 14:1, where the same verb occurs, but here the charge is directed to both groups rather than to the strong alone. Each group is to accept the other group as they are, as fully justified members of the Christian church, without prejudice and without the attempt to change them. Then, in line with 15:3, he brings in the example of Christ once more and states that bringing praise to God is the grand objective, in agreement with v.6. It is not fully clear whether this final phrase, eis doxan tou theou (lit., “to the glory of God”; NIV, “in order to bring praise to God”), relates grammatically to the command to receive one another or to the fact that Christ has received them. As far as the sense of the passage is concerned, it could apply to either, but the wider context suggests the former: receive one another to the glory of God.

8–12 From the three elements that constitute v.7 Paul now singles out the second—Christ’s acceptance of all who make up his body—and proceeds to enlarge it, first in relation to the Jewish Christians (v.8) and then in relation to the Gentiles (vv.9–12). The central thrust is to show that in these two directions Christ has fulfilled the anticipations of the OT.

8 The simple, brief statement “Christ has become a servant of the Jews” epitomizes the earthly ministry of our Lord, who announced that he was sent only to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 15:24) and restricted the activity of his disciples during those days to their own nation (Mt 10:5–6). The word “servant” GK reminds us to what lengths Jesus was prepared to go to minister to the needs of Israel (cf. Mk 10:45). This dedicated limitation of ministry to his own people was in the interest of “God’s truth” in the sense of God’s fidelity to his word, more specifically his promises made to the patriarchs (cf. 9:4–5). God pledged himself to provide for Abraham a progeny that would culminate in Christ himself as the Redeemer (Gal 3:16). God remains faithful to his promises (Ro 11:29). This was a salutary reminder to the Gentile element in the church (the strong) that God had given priority to Israel, lest Jewish believers should feel slighted or depreciated (cf. 11:18). In a fundamental way, Christianity is in the first and primary instance the working out of God’s faithfulness to Israel, and that is why the gospel is “first for the Jew” (1:16). As noted earlier, a similar motive underlies Paul’s treatment of the question of Israel in chs. 9–11.

9–12 Once that point has been made, Paul brings out the truth that God’s purpose was not exclusively directed toward the nation of Israel (cf. Ge 12:3), since from virtually the beginning, already in the Abrahamic covenant (cf. 4:16–18), God’s design to show mercy also to the Gentiles was evident. Consequently, the Jewish believers of Paul’s time should not think it strange for God to lavish his grace on the nations through the gospel.

There is an element of progression in the marshaling of quotations from the OT in vv.9–12. In each of the four quoted passages, the word “Gentiles” , Gk features prominently. The first (from Ps 18:49) pictures David as rejoicing in God for his triumphs in the midst of the nations that have become subject to him. In the second (from Dt 32:43), the position of the Gentiles is elevated to participation together with Israel in the praise of the Lord (according to the LXX). The Gentiles rejoice that they are included with God’s people Israel into a status of grace. In the third and fourth quotations, the Gentiles, no longer pictured in relation to Israel, are seen in their own right, whether as praising the Lord (Ps 117:1) or as hoping in “the Root of Jesse” whom God has raised up to rule over the nations (Isa 11:10). The Gentiles find their salvation in the God of Israel.

13 As he had done at the close of the first section in this chapter (v.5), Paul expresses his desire that God will meet the needs of his readers. Although eschatology is a significant feature of ch. 8, eschatology in a formal, structured sense has little place in Romans. Its subjective counterpart,“hope” GK however, is mentioned more often than in any other of his letters, especially in this portion (vv.4, 12–13).

The expression “the God of hope” means the God who inspires hope and imparts it to his children. “Hope” in the NT does not mean “wishful thinking”; quite to the contrary, “hope” in the NT connotes “a confident expectation.” The confidence of Christian hope derives from the fact that God can be counted on to fulfill what yet remains to be accomplished for the church (5:2; cf. 13:11). Likewise, in the more immediate future and with the help of Paul’s letter, they can confidently look to God for the working out of their problems, including the one Paul has been discussing. Hope does not operate apart from trust; in fact, it is the forward-looking aspect of faith (Gal 5:5; 1Pe 1:21). Paul prays that the Romans might be filled “with all joy and peace”—words that remind us of key traits of the kingdom of God according to 14:17. Peace, of course, is very pertinent to the concerns of this portion of Romans.

Paul in his pastoral zeal is not satisfied with anything less than a rich experience of hope that “overflows” GK even as elsewhere he desires his readers to abound in love (Php 1:9; 1Th 3:12), in pleasing God (1Th 4:1), and in thanksgiving (Col 2:7). The reason for this emphasis in Paul is that the God who is supplicated here has so wonderfully abounded in the exercise of his grace (5:15) that he can also be expected to enable his people to increase in the manifestation of Christian graces, especially as this is ensured “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” who indwells and fills the inner life.

NOTES

10 This is the third quotation in Romans from the Song of Moses (cf. 10:19; 12:19; also cf. the allusion in 11:11).

VIII. CONCLUSION (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s Past Labors, Present Program, and Future Plans (15:14–33)

OVERVIEW

The remainder of ch. 15 can be regarded as complementary to the introduction of the letter, since there is a similar prominence of personal matters that Paul senses will be of interest to the believers at Rome. In both portions, however, his own affairs are invariably regarded as important only as they relate to the gospel of Christ, which is the controlling factor in his life.

myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. as it is written:

“Those who were not told about him will see,

and those who have not heard will understand.”

is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.

urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed. God of peace be with you all. Amen.

COMMENTARY

14–16 Paul now reflects on the character of his readers and what he can expect his letter to accomplish for them. If his assessment of them seems unexpectedly favorable after his admonition in the last chapter and a half, we need not conclude that he was beginning to chide himself for being too hard on the Roman Christians. Study of his epistles reveals that he had a sense of fairness that led him to strike a just balance between pointing out deficiencies and finding things he could honestly commend. Concerning the church at Rome, since he has already acknowledged their strong faith (1:8), it is now in order to acknowledge some other items he has apparently picked up from various sources of information, including people mentioned in the closing chapter.

14 First he mentions the “goodness” Gk of the Roman Christians. Having just written of the Holy Spirit, Paul undoubtedly has in mind the goodness that is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). So it is not a native disposition but the moral excellence wrought into the texture of life by the Spirit’s indwelling. Paul may give it prominence as the preeminent quality needed to carry out the recommendations directed to both groups in the previous discussion.

Desire to do right and personal goodness are essential, but “knowledge” is also essential. Paul speaks of his readers as being “complete in knowledge” r menoi pas s gn se lit., “filled with all knowledge”). Paul regards them as “competent to instruct one another.” Such language shows his confidence that the Roman church, which had been in existence for at least a decade, had been well taught (cf. 6:17). At the same time, this relative maturity did not make his contribution superfluous, because Paul confirmed what they knew, underscored it with apostolic authority, and made them the more capable of instructing each other. Nouthete m(GK reflects more than the imparting of information; it connotes the giving of counsel, reproof, or warning (cf. NASB, “admonish”; cf. Col 3:16; 1Th 5:14). The members of the Roman house churches were under mutual obligation (“one another”) to exercise such a ministry among themselves. Paul’s use of the term at this point reflects the admonition he had provided in the preceding chapter.

15–16 Though he was not the founder of the Roman church, Paul has been outspoken, and he proceeds to explain this, lest he be thought of as immodest or overbearing or simply tedious in going over things he now admits they already knew (“as if to remind you”). His boldness, however, has been in evidence “on some points” but has not pervaded the letter as a whole. He has simply been fulfilling the commission that God in his “grace” has granted him as “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles” (v.16). Since in this connection he emphasizes his call to go to the Gentiles, one may assume that most of his readers were Gentiles (cf. 1:13) and would be especially interested in this allusion.

It is particularly interesting that in v.16 Paul uses the language of the temple ritual and sacrifices and spiritualizes it so as to apply it to his own ministry. Paul seems to imply that what he is called to do is the fulfilling counterpart of the work of the priests in the temple. Thus the word underlying “minister” is leitourgos (GK which is the special word used for sacred or cultic service. “With the priestly duty” translates the participle hierourgounta (GK another special word reserved for the performing of the holy service or sacrifice done by a priest (the word for “temple” is Then Paul proceeds to describe the redeemed Gentiles as his special “offering” GK a sacrifice “acceptable” GK again the language of the temple sacrifices) to God (cf. the imagery of Isa 66:18–20 in reference to the offering of “all the nations”). One last word in this verse associated with the temple is “sanctified” , Gk where it is used in reference to “consecrating” or “making holy” the sacrifice that is offered. It was especially important that the Gentiles, otherwise by nature ritually defiled, be cleansed and made holy by the Spirit (cf. Ac 15:8–9). Paul thus sees his own function in terms of being a priest, and his missionary work among the Gentiles is described as a temple offering. The proclamation of the gospel and the winning of Gentiles to Christ is a holy work that Paul prays will be acceptable to God.

Paul used the same type of language in 12:1 in urging the personal commitment of the Romans to God, namely, as “living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God.” Directly, he will refer to his labors in the East that have also involved a priestly ministry in behalf of the Gentiles. It was important for Paul to note that the acceptability of Gentiles to God comes not only from their reception of the gospel of Christ but also from the ministry of the Holy Spirit that sets them apart to God as the people of his possession (cf. 1Co 6:11). The Gentiles are fully a part of the people of God. This initial sanctification makes possible the progressive spiritual development that spans the two great foci of justification and final redemption—all through the agency of the Spirit (cf. 5:5; 8:11).

17 Paul refuses to boast in his ministry to the Gentiles. He will only “glory in Christ Jesus” (cf. Gal 6:13–14) when it comes to his “service to God” pros ton NASB, “things pertaining to God”), i.e., the gospel and all connected with it. As a minister of Christ, Paul must depend on Christ for everything that is accomplished in connection with his mission. Paul is merely the instrument by which God brings Gentiles to obey him in faith and life (cf. 1:5). Christ is the one ultimately responsible as he continues to work through his servant (cf. Ac 1:1).

18 The obedience of the Gentiles has been accomplished through Christ both by “word and deed.” As far as the ministry of the word is concerned, it is sufficient at this stage in the letter to express the content of it as the “gospel of Christ” (v.19), since he has been explaining the gospel from almost the first word he has written. So he elaborates the other aspect of his ministry (the “deed” aspect).

19 “The power of signs and miracles” dynamei s mei n [GK kai terat n [GK served to accredit the messenger of God and validate the message he brought. It was so in the ministry of Jesus (Ac 2:22) and in that of the original apostles (Ac 5:12). Paul is able to certify the same for himself (cf. 2Co 12:12). A “sign” is a visible token of an invisible reality that is spiritually significant. The same act may also be a “wonder,” something that appeals to the senses and is recognized as a phenomenon that needs explanation. In the OT, God’s presence and power were indicated through such means, especially at the time of the exodus and during the wilderness sojourn. However,“the power of the Spirit” (v.19) was required to persuade people to make the connection between the miracles and the message and so to believe the gospel and be saved. Israel saw countless miracles, both in OT times and during the ministry of Jesus, but often without profit. Stephen supplied the explanation for this failure: they resisted the Spirit (Ac 7:51).

How well has Paul fulfilled his task in proclaiming the gospel as a minister of Christ? He now affords his readers a glimpse into his activity over many years (v.19b). There is no account of churches founded or the number of converts or the sufferings entailed in all this service. Paul is content to draw a great arc reaching from Jerusalem to Illyricum (a Roman province northwest of Macedonia) to mark the course of his labors. Years—perhaps as many as ten—were spent in Syria and Cilicia before his ministry in Antioch, which led in turn to travels in Asia Minor and Greece and to establishing congregations in those areas. Luke’s account of Paul’s final visit to Macedonia and Achaia before going up to Jerusalem for the last time is very brief (Ac 20:1–2). Yet it is at least possible that a visit to Illyricum or its border was made before settling down at Corinth for the winter. The Egnatian Way would have made travel easy from Thessalonica to the Adriatic Sea. Paul mentions Illyricum probably because he was closer to Italy there than he had ever been before. We can picture him anticipating in Illyricum the day when he would be free to cross the water and set foot in Italy, making contact with the Roman church. Stuhlmacher, 238, calls attention to Paul’s accomplishment: “This fulfillment of his commission to go out with the gospel, which Paul very briefly outlines here geographically, represents an enormous achievement. And it appears all the greater the more one takes into consideration ancient travel and living circ*mstances.”

The statement “I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” is not intended to mean that he had preached in every community between the two points mentioned but that he had faithfully preached the message in the major communities along the way, leaving to his converts the evangelizing of surrounding districts. “Fully proclaimed” r GK is literally, “have fulfilled,” and suggests that Paul saw his work as bringing the gospel to its goal. His ministry in Jerusalem was brief and met with great resistance, for he was a marked and hated man, both for abandoning his former life as a Pharisee and for the persecution of the church he had carried on with such vigor in Jerusalem (Ac 9:28–29). But the very fact that he preached in Jerusalem at all displayed his determination to fulfill that part of his commission which included Israel (Ac 9:15; cf. Ro 1:16). His habit of visiting the synagogues wherever he went points in the same direction.

20 From this brief outline of his missionary activity, the apostle turns to the drive that kept him ceaselessly at his task. He had a godly ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known. This particular inclination was not a part of his call to service except by implication in connection with reaching the Gentiles. It represents Paul’s great burden to evangelize and to blaze a trail for the gospel, no matter how great the cost to himself (cf. 1Co 9:19–23). He longed to reach the unreached “in the regions beyond” and to avoid working in “another man’s territory” (2Co 10:16). This man Paul could not be an ordinary witness for his Lord. Somewhat parallel is his insistence on preaching the gospel without charge, supporting himself by the labor of his hands (1Co 9:18).

Verse 20 should be taken in close connection with vv.18–19 as providing a reason for the passing of so many years without a visit to Rome: Paul had been fully occupied elsewhere. When conditions in the Corinthian church detained him so long, it would have burdened him that he was not free to pursue his ambition to move on to another area. His dislike of “building on someone else’s foundation” did not come from an overweening sense of self-importance that could be satisfied only when he could claim the credit for what was accomplished. Actually, he preferred to work with companions, as both his letters and the book of Acts attest, and he was always appreciative of the service rendered by his helpers. His strong desire not to build on another’s foundation requires no more explanation than that he was impelled by the love of Christ to reach as many as possible. He felt deeply his obligation to reach all with the good news (1:14).

21 Paul supports his strategy by the quotation of Isaiah 52:15. Isaiah was for Paul a favorite source of quotations, especially from the sections dealing with the Servant of the Lord and his mission, to which this citation belongs.

22 Concluding this section of the letter is the observation that Paul’s delay in coming to Rome was the result (“this is why”) of his constant preoccupation with preaching the gospel elsewhere. The verb enekoptom n (GK “have been hindered from”) is a divine passive indicating that the will of God has thus far kept him from visiting Rome. Now his readers will understand why he has not come from Jerusalem, the Holy City, directly to Rome, the royal city, with the message of reconciliation and life in Christ.

23 Only as we take into account the restless pioneer spirit of Paul can we understand how he could claim to have “no more place” to work in the regions where he had been laboring. Plenty of communities had been left unvisited, and several groups of believers could have profited from a visit, but his eyes were on the western horizon, to which they had been lifted during his stay at Ephesus (Ac 19:21). In view of his mention of “many years,” perhaps we may believe that his desire to go to Rome had been born even earlier, though not crystallized into resolve until the successes at Ephesus showed him that a move to more needy fields was in order. Others could carry on after he had laid the foundation.

24 Now a still more remote objective than Rome comes into view. Spain marked the frontier of the empire on the west. So the stay in Rome is seen as limited. Though Paul looks forward to fellowship with the believers there, in line with his earlier statement (1:11–12), he wants to go beyond. Openly he announces his hope that the Roman church will assist him in making the Spanish campaign a reality, becoming for him a base and a support. This sharing will naturally include their prayers on his behalf, their financial cooperation, and possibly some helpers to go with him to the limits of the West. If Paul were ever to reach Spain, he would no doubt feel that he had realized in his own ministry a measure of fulfillment of the Lord’s commission that his followers go to “the ends of the earth” (Ac 1:8).

Whether Paul actually reached Spain is not certain. The strongest positive evidence is found in 1 Clement 5.7, a late first-century writing: “He [Paul] taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West terma t s dyse he gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world.” Spain fits “the limits of the West,” unless it reflects a Roman view that there was nothing to speak of west of Rome. The remainder of the statement applies more naturally to Rome but may be intended to refer to a later period in Paul’s life.

25 The contemplated trip to Spain by way of Rome would have to be postponed until another mission was accomplished, namely, his impending visit to Jerusalem. So three geographical points lie commingled in the mind of the apostle: Rome as the goal of much praying, hoping, and planning; Jerusalem as the necessary stop on (or out of!) the way; and Spain as the ultimate objective. One can see how absolutely necessary the journey to Jerusalem was in Paul’s thinking, since otherwise the lure of the West might have taken precedence over everything else; therefore Paul explains just how important this trip to the mother church is, so his readers will understand that his delay in visiting them is not the result of procrastination.

The principal reason, no doubt, for his having to remain in the East so long is the situation necessitating this final trip to Jerusalem. Paul’s churches were made up mainly of Gentile converts. While the Jewish-Christian element in the church, strongest in Jerusalem, had an interest in the growing work among the Gentiles (Ac 11:18, 21–22; 15:4), some were concerned that these Gentiles were not being required to accept circumcision in accordance with the OT provision for receiving proselytes into Israel (Ex 12:48) and were not keeping the various ordinances of the Levitical law, such as avoiding foods listed as unclean (Ac 15:1, 5). A further concern was the rapid growth of the Gentile churches, while growth in Jerusalem and Judea had diminished because of persecution and other factors. Jewish believers might be outnumbered before long.

26 As the leading apostle to the Gentiles, Paul found this situation troubling. What could be done to cement relations between the Jewish and Gentile elements in the church? He was led to conclude that the answer might well lie in a great demonstration of love and desire for unity on the part of his churches toward the mother church in Jerusalem. This could take the same form as the gift of assistance to the poor Christians there that Barnabas and Paul had brought years before on behalf of the Antioch church (Ac 11:27–30). The gratitude of the recipients was real and lived on in Paul’s memory. One cannot help surmising that the quick trip Paul himself made to Jerusalem as reported in Acts 18:22 was undertaken with the definite purpose of conferring with the leaders of the church there about the plan taking shape in his mind, namely, to enlist the cooperation of all of his churches in establishing a fund to help the mother church (“in the service of the saints,” diakon n tois v.25), which had a hard time caring for its poorer members. At an earlier period, he had expressed eagerness to help the leaders at Jerusalem in ministering to their needy (Gal 2:10). Shortly thereafter, he began to inform his congregations of the plan and their responsibility to participate in it (1Co 16:1; cf. 2Co 8–9). Soon after writing to the Romans, he made preparation for the trip to Jerusalem, during which he was accompanied by representatives of the various churches bearing the offerings that had been collected over a period of time (Ac 20:3–4).

27 According to Paul’s remarks, this contribution could be looked at from two standpoints: as a love-gift (“they were pleased to do it”) and as an obligation (“they owe it to them”). The latter statement is then explained. Had it not been for the generosity of the Jerusalem church in sharing (“shared,” ekoin n GK their spiritual blessings (the gospel as proclaimed by people from Jerusalem and Judea, as seen in Ac 10; 11:19–22; 15:40–41), the Gentiles would still be in pagan darkness. So it was not such a great thing that they should reciprocate by “sharing GK with them their material things.”

Some have seen another aspect of this element of obligation. F. F. Bruce, 263–64, makes this observation:

Here indeed the question suggests itself whether the contribution was understood by Paul and by the Jerusalem leaders in the same sense. For Paul it was a spontaneous gesture of brotherly love, a token of grateful response on his converts’ part to the grace of God which had brought them salvation. But in the eyes of the Jerusalem leaders it perhaps was a form of tribute, a duty owed by the daughter-churches to their mother, comparable to the half-shekel paid annually by Jews throughout the world for the maintenance of the Jerusalem temple and its services.

This must remain a conjecture, though it gains somewhat in plausibility by the fact that Luke’s report of the arrival of Paul and his companions in Jerusalem says nothing about any word of thanks by James and the elders for the offering they brought (Ac 21:17–25).

Paul mentions only those of Macedonia and Achaia as taking part in the “contribution” (calling it a koin nia [GK a “sharing” or “participation,” v.26) perhaps because he was in Achaia at the time of writing and had recently passed through Macedonia (2Co 8–9 reflects the last stages of preparation by these churches). From 1 Corinthians 16:1 and Acts 20:4 it is clear that believers in Asia Minor participated also.

28 Evidently Paul looks forward to a great feeling of relief when he will be able to convey the monetary offering into the custody of the Jerusalem church. It will mark the completion of an enterprise that has taken several years. He speaks of the gift as “this fruit.” This may mean that the generosity of the Jerusalem church in dispersing the seed of the gospel to the Gentiles will now be rewarded, the offering being the fruit of their willingness to share their spiritual blessings. On the other hand, it could be conceived of as the fruit of the willingness of the Gentiles to share their material blessings. In either case, it is God who has given the fruit growth. Paul’s deep investment in and connection to the gift seems indicated by the words “have put my seal GK NIV, “have made sure”] on this fruit of theirs” (NASB). F. F. Bruce, 264, emphasizes the significance of the collection for Paul: “It was, indeed, the outward and visible sign of that ‘offering up of the Gentiles’ which crowned his priestly service as an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

29 The completion of the service to be performed at Jerusalem will free Paul to make good on his announced purpose to visit the saints at Rome. He looks forward to it as a time when the blessing of Christ will be poured out on all. It will be a time of mutual enrichment in the Lord, a time of “the full measure of the blessing of Christ.” Paul’s expectations were somewhat shadowed, as it turned out, by the emergence of a group in the Roman church that he characterizes in Philippians 1:15 as motivated by envy and rivalry, but his initial welcome was hearty, despite his coming as a prisoner (Ac 28:15).

30 At the time of writing, Paul was aware of Jewish opposition to him and his work. The attempt on his life when he was about to leave for Jerusalem (Ac 20:3) clearly shows that his apprehension was justified. Paul had received prophetic warnings of what awaited him in Jerusalem (21:11), and he seems to have had a premonition of what lay ahead (Ac 20:22–25). He had experienced deadly peril before and knew that prayer was the great resource in such hazardous times (2Co 1:10–11); so he requests prayer now—the kind involving wrestling (“join me in my struggle”) before the throne of grace, that the evil designs of his enemies may be thwarted (cf. Eph 6:18–20). In doing so, he enforces his request by presenting it in the name of him whom all believers adore,“our Lord Jesus Christ”—and adding “by the love of the Spirit.” This is a subjective genitive and could mean the love for one another that the Spirit inspires in believers (Gal 5:22). But since the phrase is coupled apparently equally with that of the person of Christ, it is probably better to understand it as the love that the Spirit has (cf. 5:5). The warmth of the expression is enough to warn us against thinking of the Spirit rather impersonally as signifying the power of God. Paul had already affirmed the Spirit’s deity and equality with Father and Son (2Co 13:14).

31 The request for prayer includes two immediate objectives. One was deliverance from unbelieving Jews in Judea. This group had forced his departure from the city at an earlier date (Ac 9:29–30), and there was no reason to think they had mellowed. The other objective concerned the attitude of the Jerusalem church to the mission that was taking him and his companions to the Jewish metropolis. Evidently the opposition of the Pharisaic party in the church (Ac 15:5) had not ceased, despite the decision of the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15:19–29). This opposition, as it related to Paul, was nourished by false rumors concerning his activities (Ac 21:20–21), so there was reason for concern. It would be a terrible blow to the unity of the church universal if the love-gift of the Gentile congregations were to be spurned or accepted with only casual thanks. The body of Christ could be torn apart into Jewish and Gentile churches.

32 These two items are intimately related to the successful realization of his hope of reaching Rome safely, coming “with joy” because of the goodness of God in prospering his way, and being “refreshed” GK in the fellowship of the saints. Yet he knew that all of this, as with everything, was conditional and depended on “God’s will” (cf. 1:10). As it turned out, this meant that he would reach Rome, but not as a free man. Yet that very circ*mstance enabled him to demonstrate the all-sufficient grace and power of Christ (Php 1:12–14; cf. 2Ti 4:17).

33 However strife-torn may be Paul’s lot in the immediate future, he wishes for his friends the benediction of “the God of peace” (cf. v.13; 16:20).

NOTES

16 See D.W. B. Robinson, “The Priesthood of Paul in the Gospel of Hope,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. ed. R. Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 231–45.

19 “Of the Spirit” ( , has the support of B. The other principal reading, , pneumatos theou (“of the Spirit of God”), is found in et al., but , is quite possibly a scribal addition.

20 See N. A. Dahl, “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans,” in Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 70–94.

24 See R. Jewett, “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark ed. J. Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 142–66.

26 See L. E. Keck, “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament,” ZNW 56 (1965): 100–129.

29 Many late manuscripts have “the blessing of the gospel of Christ” (so KJV), but this appears to be a later addition, and the shorter reading, “the blessing of Christ,” is to be preferred.

B. Personal Greetings, Warning Concerning Schismatics, and Doxology (16:1–27)

OVERVIEW

The main content of the letter has come to an end. The final chapter contains a variety of practical instructions that concern named individuals. In typical fashion, however, Paul cannot resist returning to an earlier concern, namely, the unity of the church (vv.17–20), before finally concluding. On the question of whether or not this chapter was part of the letter sent to Rome, see Introduction p. 23.

commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

also the church that meets at their house.

Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.

Mary, who worked very hard for you.

Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Ampliatus, whom I love in the Lord.

Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.

Apelles, tested and approved in Christ.

Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.

Herodion, my relative.

Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.

Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.

Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.

Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them.

Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.

one another with a holy kiss.

All the churches of Christ send greetings.

urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

my fellow worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my relatives.

Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings.

Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings.

to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

COMMENTARY

1–2 Paul has referred to his hope of coming to the believers at Rome (15:32), but he has also mentioned a circ*mstance that prevented his immediate departure (15:25). Another person, however, is about to leave for the imperial city, so Paul takes this opportunity to commend her to the church. It was customary for believers who traveled from place to place to carry with them letters of commendation (cf. 2Co 3:1) roughly similar in function to letters of transfer used today when Christians move from one church to another. Here “sister” refers to a woman who is a believer rather than to a blood relative. The name “Phoebe” means “bright” or “radiant”—a well-known epithet of the Greek god Apollo. She belonged to the church at Cenchrea, located some seven miles from Corinth and serving as the seaport of the city for commerce to the East. Paul had sailed from this port when he went from Corinth to Ephesus several years before (Ac 18:18). It was one of the communities to which the gospel spread from Corinth during and after Paul’s original ministry in that city (2Co 1:1).

Phoebe is called a “servant” GK of this church. The same word can be rendered “deaconess” (RSV, NJB) or “minister” (REB). Women as well as men served in leadership positions in the early church, and there is no reason to exclude the possibility that some of the diakonois of Philippians 1:1 were women (cf. 1Ti 3:11).Women clearly held positions of responsibility in local congregations. Stuhlmacher, 246, rightly comments, “Women played a role in the work of the early Christian mission churches which was in no way merely subordinate, but rather fundamental.” In the present passage, there is not the slightest controversy associated with Phoebe’s being a deacon. Her service in that role is taken for granted (v.2).

Phoebe, it seems, had stopped at Corinth on her way from Cenchrea to Rome. A logical inference from what is said about her is that Paul is sending his letter in her care. She is accustomed to serving, so this will be in character for her. Many had reason to thank God for her assistance in the past, Paul among them. Possibly, as with Lydia, Phoebe was a businesswoman as well as someone active in Christian work and would need help in connection with her visit to the great metropolis.

3–16 Certain observations are in order before plunging into the greetings to individuals. It has seemed strange to some Pauline scholars that the apostle would know so many people in the imperial city, seeing that he had never been there. The theory that this chapter was sent to Ephesus has therefore become popular. Still, it remains probable, as we will see, that Paul greets persons now in Rome. Clearly if they are in Rome, he must have met them or at least heard of them elsewhere. Travel, however, was facilitated by peaceful conditions in the empire, by the fine network of Roman roads connecting the principal centers, and by available shipping in sailing season. As F. F. Bruce, 268, has noted, “Rome was the capital of the world; all roads led to Rome, and it is not surprising that many people whom Paul had come to know in other places should in the meantime have made their way to Rome.” With regard to references to travel in early Christian documents, William Ramsay to the Seven Churches of Asia [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1904]) comments,“Probably the feature in those Christian writings which causes most surprise at first to the traveller familiar with those countries in modern times, is the easy confidence with which extensive plans of travel were formed and announced and executed by the early Christians.”

But on the assumption that many, if not most, of those mentioned in ch. 16 were obliged to leave Rome because of Claudius’s edict expelling the Jews (Ac 18:2), and that they crossed Paul’s pathway in different places prior to returning to Rome after the death of the emperor, a problem is created by the almost complete lack of Semitic names. (“Mary” in v.6 is an exception.) However, this is not an insuperable difficulty. K. P. Donfried (“A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans 48) has observed,“We have sufficient evidence from papyri and inscriptions which indicates that both in the Diaspora as well as in Palestine, the changing of personal names was a common practice. The Jews acquired not only Greek, but Latin and Egyptian appellations as well.” Paul’s kinsfolk (vv.7, 11, 21) were Jews but do not bear Jewish names.

An element of doubt may remain, however, because most of Paul’s letters lack personal greetings. How are we to account for so many here? A clue is provided by the letter to the Colossians, which also contains greetings and is written to a church he did not personally establish. In his letter to the Romans, Paul is taking advantage of all the ties he has with this congregation that he hopes to visit in the near future. To send greetings to individuals in churches where he knew virtually the entire congregation could expose Paul to the charge of favoritism. But the congregation at Rome was not such a church. Paul is preparing the way for his visit, and he mentions as many as he can who know him and are able to vouch for him.

Since his letter to the Philippians was in all probability written from Rome, the greetings he sends from “those who belong to Caesar’s household” (Php 4:22) to the believers at Philippi may well have been from slaves and freedmen serving in the imperial establishment—people who had been converted before Paul wrote to the Roman church. That this is so seems evident from the fact that many of the names in Romans 16 appear also in the burial inscriptions of households (establishments) of emperors of that period, notably those of Claudius and Nero (the reigning emperor when Paul wrote). In a study of the inscriptions available in his time, J. B. Lightfoot Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians [London: Macmillan, 1879], 177) concluded that even though it is not demonstrable that the individuals mentioned in Romans 16 are identical with those whose names occur on the inscriptions, at least it can be said that “the names and allusions at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keeping with the circ*mstances of the metropolis in St. Paul’s day.” So the appropriateness of this chapter as the close for a letter to Rome is confirmed.

3–5a First to be greeted are Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, Paul’s very close friends. Priscilla is usually listed before her husband, as here, indicating her great gifts and prominence in the work of the church. Paul’s friendship with them went back several years to his mission at Corinth, when they gave him hospitality, encouragement, and cooperation in the Lord’s work (Ac 18:2). Their usefulness is confirmed by his taking them with him as he left Corinth (Ac 18:18).When he left Ephesus for Jerusalem, they remained in Ephesus to lay the groundwork for his long ministry there (Ac 18:19) and were used by God in the life of Apollos (Ac 18:24–28). It was during the mission at Ephesus that these “fellow workers” proved their mettle and personal devotion to Paul. Paul says that they “risked their lives” for him (v.4). Probably the reference is to the dangerous riot that broke out and endangered the apostle’s life (Ac 19:28–31; cf. 1Co 16:9; 2Co 1:8–10). Their presence with him at Ephesus just prior to this incident is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 16:19 (cf. 16:8). At that time they had a church in their house, so it is not surprising to find that the same is true of their situation in Rome (v.5a).

So important was Priscilla’s and Aquila’s work in assisting Paul that he says “all the churches of the Gentiles” (v.4) join in offering them thanks. Their return to the imperial city fits with their earlier residence there (Ac 18:2), even though Aquila came originally from Pontus. He had a Roman name meaning “eagle.” It is quite likely that their return to Rome was encouraged by Paul so that they could prepare for his arrival by acquainting the church with his work in some detail and with his plans for the future (cf. Ac 19:21). It may have been their business interests that dictated the return of this couple to Ephesus at a later time (2Ti 4:19), but the work of the Lord must have engrossed them along with their occupation.

Since several women are mentioned in this chapter, we do well to note that in addition to single women who served Christ, there was one gifted married woman whom Paul encouraged to labor in the gospel along with her husband.

5b Epenetus (“praiseworthy”) is the next to be greeted. It is understandable that Paul should speak of him as “my dear friend,” since this man was “the first convert to Christ” in connection with the mission to the province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the leading city. In referring to him as “the first convert,” Paul uses the Greek word aparch , the “firstfruits” (GK of that area, which hints that many more were expected to follow as the full harvest; and this indeed came to pass. This individual, however, naturally held a special place in the heart of the missionary.

If the statement is somewhat differently rendered as “the first of Asia’s offerings to Christ” (NJB), then the emphasis falls more on what Epenetus meant to the believers who came after him. His dedication to the work of the Lord as well as his faith may be implied. The presence of Epenetus in Rome, in view of travel conditions, creates no more difficulty than that of Priscilla and Aquila.

6 Mary (Miriam) is a Semitic name borne by several women in the NT. Paul indicates his precise knowledge of her, testifying to her hard work for the saints but without any hint as to the nature of the work. Emphasis falls rather on her willingness to grow weary in serving them. If Paul had been writing to Ephesus, as some assert, it is doubtful that he would have made this precise observation; where he knew so many Christians, it would have been inappropriate to single out one in this way. He could safely make such a comment, however, in writing to a church where he knew a limited number of people.

7 Andronicus and Junias are Latin and Greek names respectively. To begin with, there is uncertainty about whether Junias refers to a man or a woman—in the latter case, “Junia” (the feminine form of the name) would be the wife of Andronicus. (The NRSV and REB translate the name as “Junia.”) The patristic writers up to the Middle Ages understood the name as referring to Andronicus’s wife. Three out of the four things said about the two create difficulty for the interpreter. What is the meaning of “relatives” (lit., “kinsfolk”)? The identical word GK is found in 9:3, but there it is qualified by the addition “according to the flesh” (NASB) indicating that the meaning is fellow Jews. Here in Romans 16, other Jewish people are named (e.g., Aquila and Mary) who are not described in this way. Yet even so, this may be the best conclusion if one adds mentally, “who are also Christians.” To take the word in the ordinary sense of “relative” is a little difficult because of the improbability of his having three kinsfolk in Rome (cf. v.11) and three more in Corinth (v.21). William M. Ramsay Cities of St. Paul [New York: Armstrong, 1908], 175–78) suggests that all these were fellow tribesmen in the sense that the Jews at Tarsus were organized into a “tribe” by the civil authorities, as in other leading communities where Jews were prominent. A possible objection to this solution is that Greek has a word for “fellow tribesmen”—and it is not used here.

Paul adds that these have been in prison with him. Since he was imprisoned many times (2Co 11:23), the expression in this case is doubtless intended to be taken literally, even though we are left uninformed as to the specific circ*mstances.

The two are further described as “outstanding among the apostles” moi en tois We cannot well reduce the word “apostle” GK to “messenger” in this instance, however suitable it may be in Philippians 2:25, and it goes without saying that Andronicus and Junias do not belong in the circle of the Twelve (cf. R. Schnackenburg,“Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time,” in Apostolic History and the ed. W.W. Gasque and R. P. Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 287–303). What is left is the recognition that occasionally the word is used somewhat broadly to include leaders in Christian work (cf. 1Th 2:7, as numbered in the Greek text and the NRSV, but 2:6 in most translations). To interpret the statement as meaning that they were outstanding in the estimation of the apostles scarcely does justice to the construction in the Greek. Evidently their conversion to the faith occurred in the early years of the history of the church, so they have had ample time to distinguish themselves as leaders. Perhaps they were considered “apostles” because they had seen the risen Lord (so Bruce, 272). If Junias is really Junia, then we have the further remarkable fact of a woman with the title of “apostle.”

8 Ampliatus is a Latin name. Again, as in the mention of Epenetus (v.5), Paul confesses to a very warm personal attachment, “whom I love in the Lord,” demonstrating the reality and depth of Christian friendship that developed between him and others who remain rather obscure to us. Paul was a man who gave himself to the people among whom he served and to those who worked alongside him.

9 Urbanus, another Latin name, means “refined” or “elegant.” Paul seems to indicate that this man helped him at some time in the past and that he assisted others also in the work of the Lord (“our fellow worker in Christ”).

Regarding Stachys, Paul contents himself with indicating, as with Ampliatus, a very close bond of affection: “my dear friend.”

10 Apelles was a fairly common name, but this man has an uncommon pedigree, for he is one who is “approved GK in Christ.” This was Paul’s desire both for Timothy (2Ti 2:15) and for himself (cf. 1Co 9:27, m …

Something of an enigma confronts us in trying to identify those who belong to “the household of Aristobulus.” J. B. Lightfoot 174–75) identified Aristobulus as the grandson of Herod the Great who lived in Rome and apparently died there. If this is correct, Aristobulus was either not a believer or had died before Paul wrote, since he is not personally greeted. Those addressed would then be family members, slaves, and employees who had become Christians. On the other hand, if this identification is incorrect, we must think of an otherwise unknown figure whose family is mentioned here.

11 The former alternative is somewhat favored by the fact that the next person to be greeted is Herodion, a name suggestive of association with or admiration for the family of Herod. Even though no actual relationship may have existed, such close placement of the two names with Herodian association may support Lightfoot’s thesis. That Herodion was a Jewish Christian is evident from the use of the word “relative”

Regarding the household of Narcissus, Lightfoot 175) judges that again contemporary history furnishes a clue:

Here, as in the case of Aristobulus, the expression seems to point to some famous person of the name. And the powerful freedman Narcissus, whose wealth was proverbial … whose influence with Claudius was unbounded, and who bore a chief part in the intrigues of this reign, alone satisfies this condition…. As was usual in such cases, his household would most probably pass into the hands of the emperor, still however retaining the name of Narcissus.

12 Similar in name, Tryphena and Tryphosa were likely sisters, since then, as now, it was not uncommon to give daughters names with a certain semblance (e.g., Jean and Joan). Possibly they belonged to an aristocratic family, since “dainty” and “delicate” (or “luxuriating”), as their names mean, would seem to fit this category. If so, their Christian convictions would have led them to put aside any tendency to live a life of ease. They are given an accolade for having “work[ed] hard” in the Lord’s cause.

To these two Paul adds another, probably a single woman. Persis means simply “a Persian lady.” She too was close to Paul, who describes her as “my dear friend.” Possibly from their correspondence he was able to know enough about her efforts to commend her as having “worked very hard in the Lord.”

13 A person bearing the name of Rufus (Latin for “red”) is also mentioned in Mark 15:21, where it is indicated that he was one of the sons of Simon, the man who was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus. On the supposition that Mark’s gospel was composed at Rome, all is clear: Rufus is referred to in Mark because of being well known to local readers as a member of the Roman church. He is designated here as “chosen GK NASB, “a choice man”] in the Lord.” The NASB rightly provides an unusual translation of the word “elect,” since the whole Roman church would qualify as “elect.” What seems to be meant is something about his character, e.g., that he was “noble,” or “eminent” (cf. REB, “an outstanding follower of the Lord”). There may also be a hint that the incident involving his father brought him a certain fame among believers at Rome. This possibility is heightened if he was a tried and true Christian workman.

Paul cannot think of Rufus without turning his thoughts to Rufus’s mother. Though she remains unnamed, she was special in the eyes of the apostle because she evidently had served as a surrogate mother to him. This required great understanding and tact, but Paul sensed her loving purpose and did not resent her ministrations. Where this occurred remains unknown (though Syrian Antioch is a possibility), but her presence in Rome made him look forward with special anticipation to his visit. Incidentally, the Mark 15:21 reference serves as a confirmation that ch. 16 is genuinely a part of the Roman epistle rather than being intended for the church at Ephesus, as some scholars contend.

14–15 In vv.14–15, two groups of believers, consisting of men and women, are mentioned without accompanying descriptions or commendations. Apparently Paul’s ties with them were less strong than his ties with those previously mentioned. Lightfoot 176) notes that “Hermes” (v.14), like its variant “Hermas” (name of the famous messenger of the gods), was a name often borne by slaves. In connection with both groups, a greeting is extended to the believers associated with them. This appears to indicate a house church in both cases. Rome was a large place, making it probable that there were circles of believers in several sections of the city. They would certainly maintain communication and, when necessity dictated, could arrange to meet together.“All the saints” (v.15) corresponds to “the brothers” (v.14).

16 The admonition to share “a holy kiss” may well be intended in this case to seal the fellowship of the saints when the letter has been read to them (cf. 1Co 16:20; 2Co 13:12; 1Th 5:26). The reminder that it is a “holy” kiss guards it against erotic associations. It was like the kiss or embrace exchanged in many cultures even today but served the church as a sign of the love of Christ mutually shared and of the peace and harmony he had brought into their lives.

Desiring to encourage warm relations among churches as well as among individuals within them, Paul takes the liberty of extending the greeting of the churches he has founded in the East. Reference to “all the churches of Christ” sending greetings makes far better sense in the view that this chapter was also directed to Rome rather than to Ephesus.

17–18 This warning concerning schismatics raises questions that cannot be answered with certainty. How can we account for its position between greetings from Paul to members of the Roman church and greetings from those who are with him? Could it be an insertion from a later time? This is improbable, for if both groups of greetings were originally one unit, it is doubtful that anyone would destroy this unity by placing something between them. The language and style are certainly Pauline. Could it be simply that at this point the danger Paul speaks of gripped him so powerfully that he felt urged to mention it at once? Dodd, 243, may be right in thinking that here Paul took the pen from his secretary and wrote this final admonition himself. That v.20b contains the usual benediction found in his letters is somewhat favorable to this conclusion.

Is it possible to identify the troublemakers? Could this passage be intended to glance back at the problem of the strong and the weak already discussed in 14:1–15:13? One conceivable link is the word “obstacles” GK lit., “causes of stumbling”), found also in 14:13. However, the general tone of vv.17–20 is so much sharper than the earlier one that any relationship is questionable. If the church read it as related to the foregoing discussion, it could well have been offensive and could have undone the good that Paul’s irenic approach had already accomplished.

What sort of people were those the apostle singles out here? Were they already in the church at Rome, or were they simply in the offing? Dealing first with the latter question, one gets the impression that they had not yet come on the scene but posed a threat of doing so. If they had already been active in Rome, those who corresponded with Paul, such as the spiritually discerning Priscilla and Aquila, would surely have given information to enable him to point out specifically the nature of the danger the false teaching of these schismatics presented. Observe that Paul does not specify the particular content of the doctrine of these interlopers. Apparently he is counting on the instruction given the Roman church by others (6:17), buttressed by his own teaching in this letter, to enable his readers to recognize the propaganda as spurious when they hear it, even though it may be sufficiently attractive to some to cause division in the church.

By contrast, Paul is much more pointed in identifying the motives and tactics of these people, which suggests that his warning is based on his missionary experience that had brought him into contact with false teachers who tried to build their own work on the foundation he had laid (Ac 20:29–30; Php 3:18–19). Some of them may even have kept track of Paul’s movements and, being aware of his plan to visit Rome, were hoping to arrive there before him. If they could gain a foothold in this influential church, it would be a notable success.

17 Paul urges vigilance regarding the troublemakers. Alertness to the danger is the main consideration, because failure to be on guard could result in being deceived. “Obstacles” is too general a term to yield anything specific for our knowledge of these propagandists. Whatever they did, their activity could affect the whole church; therefore they should not be identified with those in 14:13, where the singular “obstacle” occurs, since the latter seems to have been a problem to only one segment of the congregation.

As an antidote to the corrupting influence that may threaten the Roman believers, the apostle points them to “the teaching you have learned.” This is hardly to be identified solely with the contents of this letter but is more particularly intended to refer to the instruction they have already received in the basics of the faith (cf. 6:17). This should serve as the touchstone enabling them to discern error. But such counsel is not enough. As a practical measure, it is necessary to “keep away from them,” giving them no opportunity for inroads into the congregation.

18 Paul speaks of “such people” rather than “these people”—a slight distinction, perhaps, but nevertheless an important one confirming the opinion already given that he does not have in mind a group he could name or identify precisely, but a class he has become all too familiar with in his travels. They may talk about the Lord, but they do not serve him. Rather, they serve “their own appetites” (cf. Php 3:18–19; 1Ti 6:3–5). With their smooth talk and flattery intended to deceive, they brand themselves as sophists and charlatans. Those they aim to reach are “naive people,” the simpleminded folk so innocent of ulterior motives themselves that they imagine others are like them. Their gullibility can be their downfall. (Compare “the simple” in Psalms and Proverbs—a class distinguished both from “the wise” and “the foolish.”)

19 Here, despite the warning, the apostle affirms his confidence that his readers will be able to handle the situation (cf. a similar expression in 15:14 after dealing with the weak and the strong). This assurance is based chiefly on their “obedience” (cf. 1:5; 6:16), which is so well known in the church at large as to make it almost inconceivable that there will be a failure in the matter under discussion. So Paul strikes a balance: on the one hand, he has joy as he thinks of the good name of this congregation; on the other hand, he wants to make sure that they are discerning, able to spot trouble and to avoid falling into it. The proverbial-sounding “wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil” is similar to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:20.

20 Perhaps the mention of “what is evil” GK v.19) leads Paul to think of the ultimate instigator of it—Satan—and then of God, who blocks Satan’s efforts and will thwart his hoped-for triumph. God is “the God of peace” (cf. 15:33; Php 4:9; 1Th 5:23), who is concerned to preserve harmony among his people and protect them from divisive influences. He is able to defeat the adversary, who delights to sow discord among Christians. Probably in view here is the eschatological deliverance that God will bring at the end of the age. That future victory will come “soon” and it will mean not only the end of Satan but also the end of all evil, including, of course, those who oppose the work of God in the church. The expectation of an imminent eschatology was common in the early church. The word “crush” , Gk suggests that Paul may have in mind Genesis 3:15 as the background for his statement.

As usual, the benediction magnifies “the grace of our Lord Jesus” (cf. 1Co 16:23; Gal 6:18; Php 4:23). The odd feature, however, is that it does not conclude the letter. Did Paul intend to stop here but then as an afterthought decide to allow his companions to send greetings when they requested the privilege?

21–23 Paul usually had coworkers and friends around him (cf. E. E. Ellis, “Paul and his Co-Workers,” NTS 17 [1970–71]: 437–52). This occasion is no exception, and they take this opportunity to send greetings.

21 Timothy, named first, had been Paul’s helper on the mission to Macedonia and Achaia (Ac 17–18; cf. Php 2:19–22) and his assistant in handling problems in the Corinthian church (1Co 4:17; 16:10).

The next three persons named are called “relatives,” raising the same problem of interpretation faced in vv.7, 11. Though Lucius could be an alternate form for Luke, this is not the spelling Paul uses for the beloved physician (Col 4:14). And if “relatives” is the proper meaning of the word so rendered here, Luke is excluded from this group anyway, because he was a Gentile (cf. Col 4:11, which excludes him from “the circumcision” [NASB]). It seems likely that Luke was with Paul at Corinth (cf. Ac 20:5), so the temptation is strong to identify him with Lucius. Yet it should probably be resisted. Jason could be the individual who entertained Paul and his two helpers at Thessalonica (Ac 17:5). But here, too, there is uncertainty, because he is not named as a representative of the Thessalonian church traveling to Jerusalem (Ac 20:4). Sosipater, on the other hand, could be the Sopater mentioned in that passage, since these are forms of the same name (cf. Hermes/Hermas in Ro 16:14). His home was in Berea.

22 At this point, Paul’s amanuensis, who by this time had become thoroughly wrapped up in the message and had developed a feeling of rapport with the Roman Christians, asks for the privilege of adding his personal greeting (cf. R. N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 281–97). Beyond his name, Tertius (Lat., meaning “third”), we know nothing about him. Though it was Paul’s habit to dictate his letters except for the close (2Th 3:17), we may be sure he was careful to use believers rather than public secretaries who would do their work without any spiritual concern or special care. We also may be sure that people such as Tertius would undertake the task as work for the Lord, so that it would cost the apostle nothing.

23 Resuming his closing remarks, Paul passes on the greeting of Gaius, with whom he had been staying while he wintered at Corinth. Evidently this man had a commodious house that he made available for the meetings of the congregation. He seems to have been one of the early converts in Paul’s mission to the city (1Co 1:14), and the very fact that Paul made an exception in his case by personally baptizing him suggests that his conversion was a notable event due to his prominence. Because of Paul’s remark that the whole church enjoyed Gaius’s hospitality, it is tempting to suppose that he is the man (Titius Justus) who invited believers into his home after the break with the synagogue (Ac 18:7). This involves the supposition that Paul is giving only a part of his name and that Luke provides the remainder. (Romans bore three names.) At any rate the mention of Gaius as Paul’s host is strong evidence that the apostle was writing from Corinth rather than from Cenchrea or from some point in Macedonia.

Erastus, a notable figure because of his public office as “director of public works,” also sends a greeting. Oscar Broneer, a prominent Greek archaeologist who did considerable excavating at the site of ancient Corinth, reported the following in “Corinth: Center of St. Paul’s Missionary Work in Greece” Archaeologist 14 [1951]: 94):

A re-used paving block preserves an inscription, stating that the pavement was laid at the expense of Erastus, who was aedile (Commissioner of Public Works). He was probably the same Erastus who became a co-worker of St. Paul (Ac 19:22; Ro 16:23, where he is called of the city), a notable exception to the Apostle’s characterization of the early Christians: “Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1Co 1:26).

One should add, however, that the correlation with the Erastus named in Acts 19:22 is uncertain.

Nothing more is known of Quartus than what is stated here. He was probably a member of the Corinthian church and may have had some contact with the congregation in Rome.

25–27 The doxology that begins with v.25 presents problems. One of these is the varying position it holds in the manuscripts. Though most of the best manuscripts ( B C D and others) have it here at the end of the letter, a few place it after 14:23 (L and TR), one after 15:33 ( ), and a few others both after 14:23 and after 16:24 (A P and a few others). Marcion, the second-century heretic, apparently refused to include the doxology and the last two chapters.

Another source of difficulty is the style and content of this portion. It has been said that nothing like it is to be found elsewhere in Paul’s acknowledged writings (Eph 3:20–21 and 1Ti 1:17 are held by most scholars to be post-Pauline). It must be granted that a few terms do not occur elsewhere in the Pauline corpus: “eternal God,” “prophetic,” and “hidden” , Gk though a synonym for the latter , Gk is fairly frequent in Paul, used as here in contrast to “revealed” or “manifested.” On the other hand, most of the items in vv.25–27 agree very well indeed with Paul’s teaching in his letters and especially with his teaching in Romans, as we have already seen. Hence there is no insuperable difficulty in ascribing the doxology to him.

Since Paul has already given his usual benediction of grace (v.20) found at the close of all of his letters, we must see some explanation for the doxology here. The greetings in vv.21–23 may have seemed to Paul a somewhat ill-fitting close, leading him to write this magnificent doxology that draws into itself words and concepts found in his earlier epistles and that gives special emphasis to the leading matters broached in the preceding chapters of the present letter. Whereas a benediction is the pronouncing of a blessing from God on his people, a doxology is an ascription of praise to him. This concluding doxology is so lengthy and so comprehensive that after all the material following the initial ascription, “to him,” the ascription itself must be resumed in v.27 in order to bring it to a close, “to the only wise God.”

25 The opening words express confidence in God’s ability to do what is needful for the readers. The same formula is found in Ephesians 3:20 (cf. Jude 24). In his introduction (1:11), Paul wrote that he was looking forward to his ministry at Rome as a means of strengthening the congregation. Now he acknowledges that, in the ultimate sense, only God can bring this result riz , “make strong,” “establish” [GK being used in both places). This establishing of the saints is in agreement with, or “according to” the purpose of the gospel itself. Paul is not being egotistical or possessive in calling it “my gospel” (cf. 2:16; 2Ti 2:8). Doubtless the possessive pronoun points up the fact that in Paul’s case it came by direct revelation (Ro 1:1; cf. Gal 1:12), though confirmed as to its actual historical content by leaders of the Jerusalem church (1Co 15:1–11). Another term for the gospel is “the proclamation of Jesus Christ,” by which we should understand not a subjective genitive, i.e., the proclaiming done by the Lord Jesus while on earth, nor his proclamation through his servant Paul (2Co 13:3 uses this conception but with emphasis on authority). Rather, it is an objective genitive, i.e., the proclamation that has Jesus Christ as its content (cf. Ro 1:2–3). This is the only time the word k rygma (“preaching,” “proclamation,” GK occurs in Romans, though Paul had used it earlier (1Co 1:21; 2:4; 15:14).

“Proclamation” follows “revelation” GK and both stand in contrast to “mystery” and “hidden.” There is a similar tension between mystery and revelation in 1 Corinthians 2:7–10. In fact, this is usual in the apostle’s reference to mystery. What is hidden in the divine purpose ultimately is revealed and becomes then the truth known to all his people. The only other allusion to “mystery” in Romans (11:25) is more restricted in its scope than in the present passage, but it too refers to something previously hidden but now made plain. The mystery was hidden “for long ages past” ai GK This includes at least the OT period (though the Scriptures contained data on the gospel, according to 1Co 15:3–4), but may refer to “all eternity” (cf. the same phrase, translated by the NIV as “beginning of time,” in 2Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2; see also the KJV for Ro 16:25 “since the world began”). This understanding finds some support in the matching description of the deity as “the eternal God” ai niou v.26).

26 The disclosure of the mystery has been made known in the present (“now revealed”; cf. 3:21 for the same verb) through Jesus Christ. The content of the mystery is not specified by Paul in this doxology. But it seems clear that it has to do with the full acceptance of the Gentiles into the people of God by the grace embodied in the gospel (cf. Col 1:25–27). Salvation is thus for Israel and the nations. Paul makes three points that substantiate his assertion here. First, the truth of the salvation of the Gentiles is clear from “the prophetic writings” te graph n proph tik as they can now be understood through the fulfillment brought by Christ (cf. Lk 24:44–45; 1Pe 1:10–12). This has been shown by Paul’s continual appeal to the Scriptures throughout the present epistle (cf. 1:2). Second, this climactic development in the history of salvation is due to “the command , Gk of the eternal God.” It is nothing other than the working out of his sovereign will, as Paul often insists. And third, this good news has been “made known” to “all nations ta ethn ].” With these words Paul undoubtedly has in mind the Gentile mission that has been his life’s calling (cf. 1:1, 5; 11:13; Tit 1:3). The result of the gospel’s going to all the nations, including Israel, has been the hypako n piste s (GK lit. “obedience of faith” (NIV, “believe and obey”). And with that phrase Paul has brought us back to the opening words of the epistle, where he wrote, “Through him [Jesus] and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5).

27 God is described under two terms. “Only” GK cf. 1Ti 1:17) may well be intended to recall the line of thought in 3:29–30. He is God of both Jew and Gentile, with a provision for all in the gospel of his Son. “Wise” GK invites the reader to recall the outburst of praise to God in his wisdom (11:33) that brings to a close the long review of God’s dealings with Israel in relation to his purpose for the Gentiles. Wisdom is also allied to the hidden/revealed tension noted in v.25, as we gather also from 1 Corinthians 2:6–7. So the God whose eternal purpose has been described as hidden and then manifested in the gospel of his Son draws to himself through his Son the praise that will engross the saints through all the ages to come. The mystery of the gospel as “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Ro 1:16), gives rise in the last words of Romans to vocal and unending praise: “To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.”

NOTES

1–16 See especially P. Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” in Romans ed. K. P. Donfried, 216–30; J. A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings:The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994): 226–28.

1–2 On the role of women in the early church, see D. M. Scholer, “Paul’s Women Co-Workers in the Ministry of the Church,” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980): 3–6.

2 The word “help” ( , GK as applied in the last clause of this verse to the service of Phoebe, is not the same as that used for assistance ( , parist GK to be given her; it is a somewhat rare term used nowhere else in the NT and conveying the idea of affording care and protection (for papyri examples, see MM). One may conclude that she was outstanding in her ministry of aiding and befriending others.

7 The male name “Junias” (nowhere else known in the ancient world) and the female name “Junia” (a common name) have exactly the same form in the accusative case, , as in our text, leaving the nominative form unclear ( actually has the name Julia here; cf. v.15).

On the possible identification of Junia with Joanna (Lk 8:3; 24:10), see R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies in the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 166–72.

24 This verse (see NIV text note), which consists of a benediction that is a slightly expanded version of v.20b, is a part of the complicated textual history of Romans (see Introduction). It is omitted by leading witnesses, including A B C. It is included by Western witnesses (D G et al.), which omit its counterpart at v.20b. A few manuscripts put this benediction after the doxology of vv.25–27.

25–27 See L. W. Hurtado, “The Doxology at the End of Romans,” in New Testament Textual Its Significance for ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 185–99; I. H. Marshall, “Romans 16:25–27—An Apt Conclusion,” in Romans and the People of ed. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 170–84.

REFLECTIONS

Two summary observations can be made concerning the greetings found in vv.3–16, since the church at Rome was destined to become the strongest in all Christendom. First, as J. B. Lightfoot 173–77) has pointed out, several of these names appear in inscriptions of the period at Rome in reference to slaves of the imperial household. If many of Paul’s friends were actually slaves, this may seem a rather inauspicious beginning for an influential church. But slaves in the Hellenistic age were often people of education and outstanding ability. Frequently they were able to gain their freedom and play a larger role in society. The very fact that at Rome believers were found in the service of the emperor (Php 4:22) augured well for the growth of the church in subsequent days. Yet it should be remembered that God’s grace, not human nobility, is the important thing (see 1Co 1:26–31).

Another notable feature of this list of names is the prominence of women in the life of the church. They occupied various stations—one a wife, another a single woman, another a mother—and all are represented as performing valuable service for the Lord. Evidently Paul esteemed them highly for their work. His relation to them and appreciation for them makes more than suspect the verdict of those who would label him a misogynist or one opposed to the active leadership of women on the basis of such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11–15. Paul’s real heart can be gauged more effectively from such seemingly insignificant greetings as these in Romans 16 than in positions he sometimes took because of the pressures of contemporary Greco-Roman culture.

1. Christus (“Christ”) is the Latin translation (from Gk. of the Hebrew māšîah (“Messiah”), which means “anointed one.”

2. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (London: Nelson, 1969), 393.

3. T.W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1962), 225 — 41.

4. See Harry Gamble Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

5. See Karl Paul Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001);A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

6. Jacob Jervell,“The Letter to Jerusalem,” in Romans Debate (ed. Donfried), 53 — 64.

7. John Drane,“Why Did Paul Write Romans?” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th ed. D.A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 223–24.

8. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies (1895; repr., Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1903), 3 — 59; Paul:A Study in Social and Religious History (1912; repr., New York: Harper, 1957), 3 — 26.

9. C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1953), 71.

10. See D.A. Hagner,“Paul in Modern Jewish Thought,” in Pauline 143 — 65.

11. Krister Stendahl,“The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199 — 215; reprinted in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 78 — 96.

12. See J. D. G. Dunn,“The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95 — 122 (available also in his Paul and the Law [Louisville, Ky.:Westminster, 1990], 183–214).

13. For a critical evaluation, see D. A. Hagner,“Paul and Judaism:Testing the New Perspective,” in Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification:A Challenge to the New ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 75–105.

For a masterful treatment of the subject of Paul and the law, see Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).