Roma 2 PDF

ROMANS
Translation with Study and Meditation
John DelHousaye
Phoenix Seminary Press

Sonoran Desert
2017
INTRODUCTION
Paul dispatched Romans between the years 57 and 58, which, in retrospect, can be considered the apex of
his ministry. The apostle distills themes in his earlier letters into one majestic argument:
Justification (being righted) by faith, not works of the Law (Rom 1-4 = Gal 3-5)
Fatherhood of Abraham (Rom 4 = Gal 3)
Adam and the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-19 = 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49)
Church as Christ’s body of diverse elements (Rom 12:4-8 = 1 Cor 12)
Constraine Freedom (Rom 14—15 = 1 Cor 8—10).
Paul revisits some arguments he made in Galatians, but with nuance after the compromise at the
Jerusalem Council. Romans is not a crisis letter.1
Paul informs his readers he finished the mission in the east (15:19-23) and plans to visit Rome after
returning to Jerusalem (vv. 24-32). He composed Romans during a three month stay at Corinth (Acts
20:2-3), where Gaius served as host (16:23 = 1 Cor 1:14).2 He gave the letter to Phoebe, possibly a
deacon of the church at Cenchreae, a port city of Corinth (16:1), and they went in two different
directions: Paul, to Jerusalem, Phoebe, Rome. We learn from Acts that he is arrested in the city, but, after
a harrowing journey, comes to the imperial city in chains (chs. 21-28).
The church placed Romans at the beginning of Paul’s letters for its length, but perhaps also as a fitting
summation of his gospel. Augustine and Calvin, among others, rightly use the argument for “systematic”
presentations of the faith.
GENRE AND STRUCTURE OF PAUL’S LETTERS
All of Paul’s extant writings are a kind of Greco-Roman letter.3 The genre allows separated parties to
communicate.
Paul’s letters have an Opening, Body, and Closing. Like a sandwich, the bread is greetings and prayers.
OPENING
The basic Greco-Roman epistolary greeting is
A to B Greetings! (χαίρειν).
This can be embellished in many ways.4
The apostle begins every letter the same way: his cognomen Paul (Gr. Παῦλος, Paulos). This nickname,
often third in a series, was taken from a unique physical attribute or achievement. For example, Nero’s
birth to adoption name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. Ahenobarbus means “red-beard.” In Latin
1
Johnson, Romans, 6.
2
This provenance is supported by two early subscriptions to the letter in MSS B1 and D1.
3
This was the basic insight of Adolf Deissmann, although he wrongly separated “letters” (real letters) from “epistles” (non-real
or literary letters): Stowers, Letter Writing, 18.
4
Stowers, Letter Writing, 20.
2
Paul (Paulus) means “small.” So the great apostle, perhaps originally named after King Saul (Heb.
Sha’ul), the tallest of his generation, introduces himself as “small one.”5 Perhaps this focuses attention on
God and his unique Son, Christ Jesus.
The apostle’s name is always part of a greeting, which often includes other co-senders: Sosthenes (1
Cor), Silvanus (1-2 Thess), “all the brothers with me” (Gal), Timothy (2 Cor, Phil, Col, 1-2 Thess, Phm).
He then identities the recipients—those who assemble in regions (Galatia) and cities (e.g., Corinth, Rome)
as well as individuals (Timothy and Titus).
The greeting ends with a health wish. Greek writers often opened their letters with χαίρειν “greetings”
(see Acts 15:23). Paul may adapt this usage with χάρις “grace.” Jewish letters from roughly the same
period have shalom (“peace”):
Letter of Shimeon bar Kosiba to Yehonathan, son of Be'ayan:

Peace! My order is that whatever Elisha tells you, do to him and help him and those with him. Be
well.
The apostle may join these elements into a new form of health wish:
(May) grace to you and peace (come down) from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:3).
Grace and peace may have a cause and effect relationship. Grace is God’s unmerited delight in us as his
adopted children, which brings peace into every sphere of life. A change in reality—the divine and human
relationship—may have encouraged a change in form.
BODY
Paul often signals a transition to the body with a disclosure formula:
I make known to you (Gal 1:11)
I do not want you to be uninformed (Rom 1:13).
The body typically addresses the exigence—a problem requiring the apostle’s attention—and offers
updates on the apostolic mission. There is usually a primary exigence that almost demands a response, but
also ancillary problems related or tucked into the discourse.
The body is similar to a homily, as if Paul were preaching to the community. The apostle often moves
from the “is” to the “ought.” The English modal falls between “must” and “may,” which is a helpful
description of exhortation in a sermon.
Another way of putting it is goodness grounded in truth (reality). He begins with the readers’ identity in
Christ, God’s fundamental expression of grace, and then sketches how that relationship should affect
everything else—peace. Before the incarnation, the ethics of God’s people were grounded in the Exodus;
after, the resurrection.
5
Luke does not explain the origin of the cognomen. He simply transitions to it during the first missionary journey, beginning at
Acts 12:9, just before he mentions the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus (v. 7). This might have triggered the switch. For
Paul’s Benjamite heritage, see Phil 3:5.
3
CLOSING
The apostle often ends where he begins, with greetings and prayers.
GOAL (SKOPOS)
A majority of modern commentators find a theme for the letter at the end of the Greeting and Beginning
of the Body:
For I am not ashamed concerning the gospel. For it is God’s power for salvation for all who
believe—both for the Jew first and for the Greek. For in it God’s righteousness is being revealed
by faith for faith, as it stands written: Now the righteous one will live by faith. (1:16-17).6
In the letter’s argument (duktus), Paul moves through the general plight of Gentiles and Jews and then
specific tensions between these ethnicities in the Roman house churches. All are weakened by sin and
death, so that human judgments are impossible, but all may be saved by faith when they stand before him
at the Judgment Seat of God.
We should also consider the letter’s inclusio.7 At the end of the Body, Paul recapitulates the theme,
Therefore, I have a boast in Christ Jesus—the things pertaining to God. For I will not dare to
speak of anything except what Christ accomplished through me for the obedience of the peoples
by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit [of God], so that
from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
(15:17-19)
but also a part of the Greeting:
Therefore, welcome8 one another, as Christ also welcomed you into the glory of God. For I say:
Christ became a minister over the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the
promises of the fathers, and concerning the peoples on behalf of mercy to glorify God, as it stands
written: For this (reason), I will confess you among the peoples. And I will sing to your name. [Ps
17:50 OG; 2 Sam 22:50] And again it says: Rejoice, o peoples, with his people. [Deut 32:43
LXX] And again: Praise the Lord, o all peoples, and let all peoples praise him. [Ps 117:1] And
again Isaiah says: The root of Jesse will come, even the one who rises to rule the peoples. Upon
him the peoples hope. [Isa 11:10 OG] (15:7-12)
Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called (as) an apostle, having been appointed for (the) gospel of
God, which he himself promised beforehand through his prophets in Holy Writings about his Son,
WHO WAS BORNFROM A DESCENDANT OF DAVID [2 Sam 7:12 OG] ACCORDING
TO FLESH, WHO WAS APPOINTED SON OF GOD WITH POWER ACCORDING TO
(THE) SPIRIT OF HOLINESS [Isa 63:10] from the resurrection of those who are dead—Jesus
6
Peter Chidolue Onwuka offers a helpful chart: The Law, Redemption and Freedom in Christ: An Exegetical-Theological Study
of Galatians 3,10-14 and Romans 7,1-6 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia UniversitàGregoriana, 2007), 177-178.
7
Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and The Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2008), 16.
8
Welcome can also refer to eating food together (Acts 17:5).
4
Christ, our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship for obedience of faith among
all the peoples for his name—among whom, you yourselves are also called by Jesus Christ, to all
who are in Rome, loved by God, called to be holy: May grace and peace from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! (1:1-7)
Nearly half of Paul’s citations of Ancient Israelite Scripture in Romans are from Isaiah. He is cited at the
beginning and end of the letter. This suggests the prophet’s vision, given elaboration by Jews up to the
time of Paul, guides his argument. The earlier herald justifies the Gentile mission: “Isaiah sings of the
root of Jesse who comes to unite Jew and Gentile into a single community of worship and praise.”9 I.
Howard Marshall notes: “The purpose of the gospel and of Paul’s missionary work is to call together a
people drawn from all the peoples of the world who are obedient to God but whose obedience springs
from faith. The rest of the letter will develop this basic theme.”10
Isaiah also describes a mysterious Suffering Servant (ch. 53). Contemporary messianic expectation did
not emphasize this passage. Yet Paul maintains that human sin must be addressed for salvation to take
place. Jesus died in place of Israel and the Gentiles, and has already been raised from those who are dead,
escaping the power of death, and is exalted at the right hand of God the Father, but “will come” after the
Gentiles are given an opportunity to be forgiven, and to hope in him.
Over the last two decades, the apostle had preached this gospel throughout the Mediterranean, and now
looked to Spain (Hispania) on its farthest edge (15:24). He may have seen the region as a final mission.
Hispania was part of Roman Empire. The contemporary Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was
born there. According to tradition, Paul was released from his Roman imprisonment and completed the
journey. Christianity was introduced to Hispania in the first century.
UNIQUE GENRE ELEMENTS
Sermon: Paul takes the role of a preacher: “I exhort you, brothers” (12:1). The verb παρακαλέω
(parakaleō, “I exhort”) is related to the substantive παράκλησις (paraklēsis), an “exhortation” or
“sermon.”11 He dispatched Romans as his surrogate because he could not personally instruct his audience.
Didactic Epistle: Tertius identifies this text as an ἐπιστολή (epistolē), which is transliterated into English
as “epistle” (16:22). The Greek substantive is based on the verb ἐπιστέλλω (epistellō), which can mean
sending a letter for teaching, although scholars like Ben Witherington emphasize the oral background.12
While couching his intent with the language of reminder, Paul aims at instruction (15:14-15). Seneca (c. 4
BC – AD 65) appropriated the genre to explain Stoicism. Their common interest was noted by a later
Christian who penned the pseudonymous Epistle to Seneca the Younger. The Stoic writes:
I suppose, Paul, you have been informed of that conversation, which passed yesterday between
me and my Lucilius, concerning hypocrisy and other subjects; for there were some of your
disciples in company with us; For when we were retired into the Sallustian gardens, through
9
J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to The Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2.
10
New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, one Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: InterVarsity, 2004), 306-307.
11
Hebrews, which is probably also intended for a Roman audience, uses the verb and substantive (13:22).
12
BDAG, s. v. ἐπιστέλλω; Witherington, Philippians, 12-13.
5
which they were also passing, and would have gone another way, by our persuasion they joined
company with us. I desire you to believe, that we much wish for your conversation: We were
much delighted with your book of many Epistles, which you have wrote to some cities and chief
towns of provinces, and contain wonderful instructions for moral conduct: Such sentiments, as I
suppose you were not the author of, but only the instrument of conveying, though sometimes both
the author and the instrument. For such is the sublimity of those doctrines and their grandeur, that
I suppose the age of a man is scarce sufficient to be instructed and perfected in the knowledge of
them. I wish your welfare, my brother. Farewell. (1.1-6 )
Paul responds:
I received your letter yesterday with pleasure: to which I could immediately have wrote an
answer, had the young man been at home, whom I intended to have sent to you: For you know
when, and by whom, at what seasons, and to whom I must deliver everything which I send. I
desire therefore you would not charge me with negligence, if I wait for a proper person. I reckon
myself, very happy in having the judgment of so valuable a person, that you are delighted with
my Epistles: For you would not be esteemed a censor, a philosopher, or be the tutor of so great a
prince, and a master of every thing, if you were not sincere. I wish you a lasting prosperity. (2.1-
5)
They write back and forth several times. Seneca expresses appreciation for Paul’s letters, acknowledging
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (7.2). Virtually no one argues for historical reliability of the epistles, but
the document reveals how the corpus Paulinum was read in the early church. They are morally sublime.
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC) wrote letters for his disciples, who preserved and studied his words like
oracles.13 Paul is similar to Lucretius (c. 99 – c. 55 BC), a disciple of Epicurus, who sought Roman
converts by composing The Nature of Things (De rerum natura).14 Like Paul’s letters, it moves between
metaphysics (“is”) and ethics (“ought”).
Luke acknowledges a superficial likeness between Paul and these philosophical schools in that all were
evangelistic and didactic (Acts 17:18). However, the epistolary genre was also at home in Judaism. In the
pseudepigraphal Letter of Jeremiah, published more than a century before Paul’s birth, the author teaches
the impotence of idolatry.15 However, Paul does not pretend to be anyone but himself, and takes the role
of prophet in the new covenant reality, especially concerning the future of Israel (chs. 9—11). He
indirectly likened his calling to Jeremiah in earlier letters.16
Diatribe: Much of the opening argument takes the form of diatribe.17 The form is vivid and dialogical and
had the following tropes: apostrophe (2:1, 3, 17; 9:20), rhetorical questions (2:3-4, 21-23; 7:1; 8:31-35;
13
See Inwood, Gerson, and Hutchinson, The Epicurus Reader, vii-xvi.
14
However, Lucretius communicates his philosophy with poetry, not the epistolary genre.
15
The letter is referenced in 2 Maccabees (2.1-3), and a fragment was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (7Q2). For more discussion,
see Sean A. Adams, The Epistle of Jeremiah: a commentary based on the texts of Codex Vaticanus (Leiden: Brill, 2014). He
notes the liturgical setting (7).
16
See Jeffrey W. Aernie, Is Paul Among the Prophets?: An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament
Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 158-184.
17
Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1910).
6
9:19-21, 30; 10:14-15; 11:34-35), sharp retorts like “never!” (3:2-9; 6:1-2, 15; 7:7, 13; 11:1, 11),
hyperbole (8:37-39; 9:3) sorites (5:3-5; 8:30; 9:14-15), vice lists (1:29-31), examples from the past (4:1-
25; 5:12-21), and citation from authorities.18
Scholars are confident the sparing is invented, but I am not sure.19 There could very well be actual debates
with Pharisees behind Paul’s rhetoric. In Galatians, Paul recreates a disagreement with Peter (2:11-21). In
any case, the back and forth is challenging for interpreters because there are no quotation marks in the
Greek manuscripts, so that it is not always clear who is speaking.20
Romans is like a theodicy—justifying the ways of God to those whose life experience raises legitimate
questions.21 Isaiah frames the issue:
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God . . . . I form light and create
darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isa
45:5, 7 ESV)
Contextually, the language rejects Persian dualism and assert unqualified monotheism.
Commendation: There is an uncertain relationship between the final chapter and the Body. It probably has
a semiautonomous function of commending (“introducing and recommending”) Phoebe to the hospitality
of the Roman churches.
STRUCTURE (DUKTUS)
Paul conveys the skopos through inclusio (1:1-17 = 15:14—16:27).22 He enjoys and looks forward to
Jews and Greeks (Gentiles, Nations) worshipping the one true God together. Its body is traditionally
divided into three sections:
1) The Way of Salvation (chs. 1—8)

2) God’s relationship with Israel (chs. 9—11)
3) Application (chs. 12—15).
The letter moves from an explanation of the gospel (chs. 1—11) to exhortation: “Therefore, I exhort
you…” (12:1), from the “is” (the reality of newness of life in Christ) to the “ought” (the need to follow
his example). This presupposes a unity between truth and goodness, grace and responsibility.23
In the first eight chapters, Paul explains how God may accept the Nations into his people in a way that is
congruent with Scripture. In the middle section, he attempts the inverse with Israel—why so many
Judeans reject their Messiah. The final section focuses on the fuller people of God.
18
Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: a literary and theological commentary (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2001),
12.
19
Johnson, Reading Romans, 12.
20
James 2:18-20 is especially difficult.
21
J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and The Justification of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008) , 9-
10. Kirk is a former student of Richard Hays, who has argued for the term.
22
See Matera 2010, 24-27.
23
We find this pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians. David Hume attacked the link, but Truth, Goodness, and Beauty
comprise an ancient, convincing-for-many triad.
7
RECEPTION
Martin Luther’s preface to Romans greatly impressed me:
This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well
worth a Christian’s while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with
it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this
letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes and the
better it tastes. (tr. Andrew Thornton)
Countless writers share this estimate, so that no one can read all the commentary. And yet the student is
blessed with a rich tradition, although this is a mixed blessing. Romans is well-crafted by contemporary
Roman standards, which praised brevity and sparkle.24 Paul packs a lot into relatively few words, but this
also creates ambiguities and therefore differences of interpretation and, sadly, disunity and conflict.
2 PETER
2 Peter mentions Paul’s letters:
And consider the longsuffering of our Lord as salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul,
according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you. He speaks about these matters in all his
letters in which there are things hard to understand and which the uneducated and unstable twist
to their own destruction, as they do also with the other Scriptures. (3:15-16)
Since the 2 Peter was dispatched from Rome and probably after Paul’s death, it is likely that Romans was
a part of this collection, if not already at the head of the collection. “Given to him” is probably a divine
passive—God’s Spirit gave Paul “wisdom” into the mystery of salvation (2 Pet 1:21). Paul is “our
beloved brother,” who also “wrote” to Peter’s readers. If these letters were merely “occasional,” Peter
does not see them that way. They are part of the “Scriptures” for the church.
Yet Peter acknowledges that some of what Paul wrote is “hard to understand.” Biblical ambiguity was
assumed in contemporary Jewish thought.25 God’s Word required what the Ethiopian eunuch sought—a
capable, pious interpreter (Acts 8:31). The context suggests the difficulty lies in theodicy: Why is it
necessary to suffer with God’s Servant (Isaiah) before the age to come (Paul)? Why does suffering
become chronic, even life-long? (Epicurus taught suffering was either manageable or short, but
experience belies this claim.) In contrast, false prophets deny “the Master who redeemed them” (2:1).
Since the unqualified teachers do not understand Christ, they not only distort Paul’s gospel but “the other
Scriptures.” All Scripture finds its meaning and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Romans was dear to Marcion, a heretic, and Irenaeus, a framer of orthodoxy.
24
See Campbell’s introduction to Seneca’s letters (1969, 22-24).
25
Raymond Brown finds the tone to be patronizing with Peter hinting “at his own superior teaching position as the interpreter of
the Scriptures” (1997, 761). Donald Hagner feels the language is “a little forced and is perhaps an attempt to smooth over
differences between the two Apostles” (2012, 720).
8
ORIGEN
The interpretive tradition continues with Origen’s commentary.26 It is his second longest extant work
after Contra Celsum and the only complete commentary. He also reads the letter in the context of the
entire corpus Paulinum, focusing on the literal sense.27 Therefore, we have a very early model of reading
Paul’s letters as a single work. In contrast, modern interpreters often focus on a single letter. This allows
for greater specialization, but risks obscuring how the Scripture was heard in the Church.
Origen acknowledges diverse points of view.28 The disagreement, however, is not between insiders and
outsiders (apostles against false prophets), but recognized authorities within the church. Critical scholars
do not write for the church, but those who do must face what initially seems to be a dichotomy: on the
one hand, rejecting Paul’s gospel—and at a more pernicious level, exploiting its ambiguity—places a
teacher outside the faith. So Romans can be a tool for discerning orthodoxy. Many commentaries on
Romans are written for this purpose: to expose heresy. On the other, one can begin with the reality of
ambiguity and extend charity towards other points of view. The best interpreters, in my opinion, avoid a
false dichotomy: they engage the interpretive tradition and do what they can to delimit ambiguity and
foster clarity. Paul did not write in riddles, but to communicate the truth of the gospel. But part of that
truth is God’s mystery.
Origen anticipates the Council of Trent by affirming “the application of redemption through the
indivisible cooperation of God and man, the effective sanctification of the soul through divine grace, and
the meritorious value of its actions in view of glory.”29 This view is vehemently opposed by Luther and
Melanchthon.
Origen seems to have had the effect of stabilizing the tradition.
Jerome appropriates Origen’s reading as does Pelagius, but also Augustine!30
CANON
The Third Council of Carthage (397) lists Paul’s letters after Acts: “The Canonical Scriptures are these:
. . . four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul,
one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews . . .”31 In Codex Sinaiticus, Acts falls between the Pastoral
and Catholic Epistles.
26
Commentary on the Epistle to The Romans Books 1-5 (tr. Thomas P. Scheck; Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2001).
27
For a discussion of Origen’s exegesis, see my Today You Will Be with Me in Paradise.
28
1.4; Scheck, Commentary, 67.
29
Thomas P. Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation of Romans,” in A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages (ed., Steven R.
Cartwright; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 15-50, 18.
30
Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation,” 19.
31
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html. The site also provides the Latin.
9
We read Romans canonically after Acts, which contextualizes Paul’s letters (and perhaps offers a defense
of the apostle), and before the other twelve (or thirteen) letters attributed to him.32 In Acts Paul is last
mentioned by name when he enters Rome:
And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The
Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: Go to this people and
say, ‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For
this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they
have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with
their heart and turn, and I would heal them. [Isa 6:9-10 OG] So let it be known to you that this
salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” (28:25-28)
The Holy Spirit, Gentiles, Isaiah—all contribute to the opening of Romans and throughout.
The letter’s first place is partially because it is the longest (approx. 7,111 words).33 But the placement also
suggests Romans as an introduction the Pauline corpus.34
Augustine’s (354 – 430) interpretation of Romans became foundational to the Western church.35 He
finally surrendered to Christ after reading from the letter (13:11-14, Confessions 8.12). We have two
transitionary works, Commentary on Statements in the Letter to the Romans and his Unfinished
Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, which claim God predestines according to foreknowledge—
that is a person’s free decision to believe in the gospel. But Augustine revises his position in . . .
Augustine attacked Pelagius with Paul’s argument. According to the African, the British monk did not
grasp the problem of sin: human beings did not require grace to obey God.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), an Augustinian monk, focused completely on Paul’s gospel, sparking the
Reformation. The church was demoted from being the gatekeeper of heaven. The gospel or good news is
that God saves people through their faith alone (sola fide). This is a remarkable moment in the history of
interpretation: earlier commentators may have distinguished faith from works, but there is no separation:
one demonstrates faith through good works.
Ironically, we lack a mature work on Romans from the Reformer (except for his famous preface, 1552).
Luther began lecturing on Romans on November 3 1515, two years before he posted the 95 theses, and
ended on September 7 1516.36 The manuscript was lost until discovered in the Vatican Library.
Melanchthon’s Loci communes, the first textbook of Protestant systematic theology (1521), is arranged
according to the letter’s structure.
John Calvin (1509-1564) based his Institutes on the Letter.37 He cites Romans more than any other book.
32
See Gregory Goswell, “The Place of the Book of Acts in Reading the NT,” JETS 59 (2016): 67-82. Paul’s relationship to
Hebrews is unclear.
33
We should note, however, that texts were counted by lines (Hadas 1999, 14).
34
Brevard S. Childs, The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 175.
35
See Daniel Patte and Eugene TeSelle, eds., Engaging Augustine on Romans: Self, Context, and Theology in Interpretation
(Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2002).
36
Commentary on Romans (tr. J. Theodore Mueller; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1976), vii.
10
Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) wrote a youthful commentary against the liberal (semi-Pelagian) dillution of
the gospel in the 19th century. It changed the theological landscape.
1:1-7—GREETING
The Greeting is delimited by the identification of sender (v. 1) and recipients (v. 7).
[1:1] Paul, a slave of [Christ Jesus]38, called (as) an apostle, having been appointed39 for40 (the) gospel of
God, [2] which he himself promised41 beforehand through his prophets in Holy Writings42 [3] about his
Son,
WHO WAS BORN43

FROM A DESCENDANT 44 OF DAVID [2 Sam 7:12 OG]
ACCORDING TO FLESH,
[4] WHO WAS APPOINTED SON OF GOD WITH POWER45
ACCORDING TO (THE) SPIRIT OF HOLINESS [Isa 63:10]
from the resurrection of those who are dead46—Jesus Christ, our Lord,47
[5] through whom we received grace and apostleship48 for obedience of faith among all the peoples for
his name [6]—among whom, you yourselves are also called49 by Jesus Christ, [7] to all who are [in
Rome]50, loved by God, called to be holy: May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ be with you!
P: This is the longest greeting in Paul’s letters. The apostle may have wanted to build rapport before
launching into his argument. Many of the intended hearers did not know him, and perhaps some were
unsympathetic to his interpretation of the gospel. The extended greeting also rhetorically balances the
longer body and conclusion.
37
See Gregory Neal Hanson, “Door and Passageway: Calvin’s Use of Romans as Hermeneutical and Theological Guide,” in
Reformation Readings of Romans (eds., Kathy Ehrensperger and R. Ward Holder; New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 77-94.
38
Witnesses are evenly divided on the order of the name and name/epithet (Comfort, Commentary, 300). The common variant
does not significantly affect the sense. Paul may have intended inclusio—“Christ Jesus . . . Jesus Christ” (v. 7).
39
ἀφορίζω may also signify “separate” (Matt 25:32). Paul uses the verb with both senses in Galatians (1:15; 2:12). The perfect
participle may convey a perpetual state from a previous action—in this case, his calling on the way to Damascus.
40
εἰς may convey purpose: Harris, Prepositions, 88.
41
προεπαγγέλλω only occurs in the middle voice in the New Testament (BDAG). Traditionally classified as a deponent, it is best
to treat the form as a middle. The reflexive (intensifying) pronoun (“himself”) is intended to emphasize the engagement of the
subject with the action.
42
A common expression for ancient Israelite Scripture (Philo, Life of Moses 2:290-292; On Reward and Punishment 79;
Legation to Gaius 195; Josephus, Ant. 1.13; 10:210; Against Apion 1.54). ἅγιος attributes a sacred function to someone or
something to endure the presence of God (BDAG). Paul often omits the adjective (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 1 Cor 15:3,
4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16). γραφή may refer to secular writing, but only refers to what wil be considered
canonical in the New Testament (BDAG).
43
Who was born (tou genomenou): The Greek does not normally refer to birth, and may suggest Jesus’s birth took place without
human fatherhood (see Gal 4:4; Witherington, Romans, 32).
44
Lit. a “seed.”
45
In power modifies son of God. Before the resurrection, this power was hidden (Phil 2:6-11).
46
A reference to sheol (Abraham’s bosom).
47
Lord corresponds with slave (1:1).
48
Grace and apostleship may convey hendiadys—“the grace of apostleship.”
49
Called or “elected.”
50
The city is omitted in several later witnesses—either accidentally or “as a deliberate excision, made in order to show that the
letter is of general, not local application” (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 505). The earlier, more specific reading is preferred.
11
After Paul (Paulos, Παῦλος), which begins all his letters (except Hebrews if is by the apostle), the sender
is presented as a slave of Christ Jesus (doulous Christou Iēsou, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) or, according to
other manuscripts, “of Jesus Christ” (see note). Earlier letters only feature the epithet apostle.51
In a North American context, the translation “slave” evokes a sad, evil history that many would prefer to
ignore, but that is an illegitimate reason for choosing the less offensive translation “servant.” Paul will use
the same word in his argument to describe slaves of sin.52 The Genitive Christou Iēsou (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ)
conveys ownership: Paul belongs to Christ Jesus.53 Slaves identified themselves by their master’s name.54
A slave owner was called Lord (κύριος).55 Our Lord (tou kuriou hēmōn, τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν, v. 4) includes
the readers.56 Perhaps nearly half of them belonged to someone.57 In an earlier letter to the Corinthians, he
encourages manumission from these earthly lords, the purchasing of one’s freedom (1 Cor 7:21), but also
insists believers were “bought with a price” (6:20). The Romans assumed that whatever was seized in
battle belonged to the victor.58 Our Lord suggests that Paul and the Roman Christians are part of a
household, where Jesus is their master. A slave did not retain any previous identity; this made the social
role ideal for describing adoption into God’s family.59 The language may echo parables that feature a lord
evaluating the work of his slaves because Paul describes his own responsibility.60
What does Jesus mean? Matthew’s Gospel, which may not have been written at this time, preserves a
tradition that a certain Mary became pregnant with a son, but not through sexual intercourse, and that an
Angel of the Lord instructed Joseph, her fiancé, to name him Jesus “because he will save his people from
their sins” (1:21). The Greek Ἰησοῦς is a transliteration of the Hebrew (Aramaic) name ‫י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬, which means
“Yahweh is salvation.”61 Imbedded in the name is the Tetragrammaton (“the four letters, ‫)יהוה‬. Its correct
pronunciation remains mysterious (“Jehovah” is incorrect). Before the first century, Jews avoided voicing
the Tetragrammaton and instead employed the circumlocution “Lord” (‫אדֹנָי‬, κύριος). There are several
names for God in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). Yahweh is primarily used in reference to God’s
work of salvation. The name was formally revealed to Moses at the Burning Bush when Yahweh
determined to save his people from slavery in Egypt (Exod 3).
Jesus was a common Jewish name (see Col 4:11), but there was only one (known to history) also called
Christ or Messiah (Matt 1:16). And this was a loaded word. A few years before Paul dispatched Romans
(AD 52), emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the city because of arguments over Chrestus, a Latinized
spelling for Christ (Seutonius, Life of Claudius 25.4). After the emperor’s death (54), many returned, like
51
See Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1. The Greetings of 1 and 2 Thess lack epithets.
52
See 6:16, 17, 19, 20, 22. He also employ the cognate verb δουλεύω with this sense (6:6). The ESV is inconsistent, translating
δοῦλος as “servant” at 1:1, but “slave” in ch. 6.
53
For a discussion of ownership, see Sandra R. Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational
Inscriptions (London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992), 28-29.
54
Even after manumission, a slave often adopted the name of their master as a praenomen or nomen.
55
See, for example, Eph 6:9.
56
If the first occurrence is an “apostolic we” (v. 4), the Lordship of Christ over the readers is presumed at the end of the unit (v.
7).
57
Several names in the final greeting (ch. 16) were typical of slaves. Estimates hover around 40% for slaves in Rome in the first
century AD. Many were brought from their ancestral homes through military campaigns.
58
Joshel, Work, 29.
59
Joshel, Work, 29.
60
Matt 13:33-37 // Luke 12:34-38. 40; Luke 19:11-27.
61
It has also been suggested the name is a prayer: “YHWH save!”
12
Prisca and Aquila (16:3; cf. Acts 18:2), but tensions in the Jewish community remained: “Do not think
that I came to bring peace on the earth! I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a
man against his father and a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-
law. And the enemies of a person will be those of his household” (Matt 10:34-36).
The most distinctive element of the Greeting is a confessional piece, sandwiched between the sender and
recipient (vv. 3-4). The Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) wording suggests a Palestinian provenance.62 Paul
may have appropriated the language to endear himself to Jewish Christians in Rome.63 The words are
confessional because they express the content of their faith.
The relevance of Jesus’s birth and resurrection are proclaimed—born from a descendant of David and
therefore a possible recipient of God’s promise to “establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2
Samuel 7:13), and he became the eternal King of all people at the resurrection.
Matthew emphasizes Joseph’s Davidic ancestry, but insists he is not the biological father (1:20). Some
claim Paul is ignorant of the virginal conception, but he regularly follows tradition eventually published
in Luke’s Gospel, which focuses on Mary in his birth narrative. She too is from Nazareth, which appears
to have been resettled by descendants of the King from Bethlehem. Presumably, her father was Davidic.
The preposition ek (ἐκ) can describe birth from a woman (Matt 1:3, 5, 6). In Galatians, Paul claims Jesus
was “born from a woman” (genomenon ek gynaiokos, γενόµενον ἐκ γυναικός).
Paul presents himself as part of a group, the apostles, who were given grace and apostleship (v. 5; see 1
Cor 4:1-21). They were to summon the elect from among the peoples (en pasin tois ethnesin, ἐν πᾶσιν
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), a common biblical expression for the diaspora, Jews (or Judeans) outside of Judea,64 but, as
context shows, also non-Jews, to obedience of faith (eis hupakoēn pisteōs, εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως), the
appropriate human response to the gospel, a yielding to its truth.65 Luke uses a similar expression: “And
the word of God was spreading, and the number of the disciples was increasing greatly in Jerusalem; and
a great crowd of priests were obeying the faith (ὑπήκουον τῇ πίστει)” (Acts 6:7).
The final line of the unit, ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, echoes transitions in other
letters (2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).
R: Moses, Joshua, David, the Prophets—all were slaves (douloi) of God.66 Their “success” as leaders was
determined by obedience to God’s instructions. Separated (ἀφορίζω) echoes prophetic callings in
Scripture.67 The crucified yet resurrected Lord came to Paul, who was then Saul, and personally called
him to become apostle (ἀπόστολος), a messenger of the gospel. This responsibility weighed heavily on
Paul’s shoulders (see 1 Cor 9:24-27).
62
Cullmann 1949, 55ff.; Cranfield 1975, 1:57. The antithetical parallelism and fronting of the participle may evidence an
Aramaic or Hebrew origin (see Käsemann 1980, 10-11). Elsewhere, Paul makes little use of Jesus’s Davidic ancestry (with the
exception of 1 Tim 2:8). The verb “appointed” (horizein) does not occur elsewhere in his letters. The expression pneuma
hagiōsunēs for the Holy Spirit is unique (but see the allusion at Eph 4:30).
63
E. R. Richards notes: “Quoting preformed tradition was—and is—a very powerful tool for building bridges with an audience”
(2004, 95).
64
Deut 4:27; 30:1; 2 Chron 7:20; Ps 81 (80 OG):8.
65
Many recognize a genitive of apposition. Hultrgren speaks of a “virtual consensus”: Romans, 50.
66
Josh 14:7; 24:29; 2 Kgs 17:23; Ps 89:3.
67
Lev 20:26; Isa 29:22; Ezek 45:1; see Gal 1:15 = Jer 1:5; Käsemann, Romans, 6.
13
The word translated gospel (euangelion) is derived from Isaiah, who sees a herald of salvation (ho
euangelizomenos)—“one who announces good news” (40:9; see Mark 1:1-3). The expression Spirit of
Holiness (pneuma hagiōsunēs) evokes the oracle in the context of new creation (63:10).68 Paul returns to
this theme at the end of the letter: “And again Isaiah says: The root of Jesse will come, even the one who
rises to rule the people. Upon him the peoples hope (15:12).
D: There are implicit exhortations in the Greeting. As holy ones (hagīoi, ἅγιοι), like the Holy Writings (v.
2), Paul’s hearers are consecrated to serve God (see 12:1).69 Everyone is being resituated in Christ their
Lord. Paul became a slave (he was born free, a citizen of Rome) and apostle; the Romans, priests. The
mechanism is a summons, κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (v. 6). The Genitive may convey possession, as the
ESV and NIV render (“called to belong to Jesus Christ”), but the action suggests agency: called by Jesus
Christ (MIT). This is consistent with the call stories in the Gospels and Paul’s Damascus Road
experience. In Acts, Jesus continues to call people to himself through the apostles. This brings the
Romans, but also today’s Christian, immediately into the great story of redemption. But this requires our
own resituation. On this passage, Augustine notes: “we have all been crucifed and we have all been
raised.”70
S: Lord, may I be your servant, who quietly sets the table and waits. May I be a priest who serves others
in your name. Amen.
Romans is a book about God. θεός, a generic word for any divine being, occurs four times in the opening
unit (1, 4, 7 x2). Paul uses more specific language to identify his God. God has a son (huios, υἱός, vv. 3,
4), who is identified as Jesus Christ (v. 4).
SPIRIT OF HOLINESS (πνεῦµα ἁγιωσύνης). THERE IS NO ARTICLE IN GREEK, DESPITE

THE ASSUMPTION OF TRANSLATIONS (“THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS” NIV, ESV), WHICH
MAY ARGUE AGAINST A REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. But Paul withholds articles from
all the proper nouns in the unit. English translations rarely reflect this phenomenon, but it is not unusual
for names to have articles (be arthrous) in Greek. Interestingly, Paul begins to employ articles in the
following unit.71 In any case, the absence of an article does not automatically render a Greek substantive
indefinite.72 Decisive to overcoming the ambiguity is εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ
νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν, “But if the Spirit who raised (the) Jesus from dead (ones) dwells in you” (8:11). We
have a thematic parallel with the expected articles for the Holy Spirit and Jesus.
The substantive holiness is unusual, occurring only here in the New Testament. As we noted, Paul may
appropriate an earlier confession with its distinctive diction. πνεῦµα ἁγιωσύνης is a Semitism.73 The word
may describe the Spirit consecrating the Son for his postresurrection ministry.
68
Noted by Käsemann, Romans, 11.
69
The Testament of Levi applies the language to the holy ones at the end of the age (18:11).
70
Propositions, 3.
71
In some cases, the article is anticipated because of a modifying possessive pronoun: τῷ θεῷ µου (1:8). But we also find µάρτυς
γάρ µού ἐστιν ὁ θεός (v. 9) . . . ἐν τῷ θελήµατι τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 10) and so on.
72
There were no indefinite articles, except for the rarely employed circumlocution “one.”
73
The same language occurs in T. Lev. 18.11; see Hultgren, Romans, 45 n. 33.
14
So Paul’s opening unit is Trinitarian: There is God (singular) and Father, Son, and Spirit. The apostle
prays for grace abd peace from the Father and the Son. The verbal iconography presents them as
reigning over creation, King and co-regent, and the Spirit as a link.
God is identified with Yahweh, the God of Israel. God (θεός) is not silent, but communicative. God
communicates through (dia, διά) Prophets in (en, ἐν) their writings (v. 2). Paul was given a gospel
(euangelion, εὐαγγέλιον) or “good message” from God in Isaiah (v. 1). God makes promises (v. 2), and
allows accountability to that reality (proepangellō, προεπαγγέλλω). Paul cannot imagine a scenario in
which God breaks a promise.
1:8-12—PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING AND REQUEST
The Prayer is delimited by First (Πρῶτον µὲν) and a disclosure formula at v. 13, which opens the Body,
as well as repeating faith. Paul moves from thanksgiving (v. 8) to request (vv. 9-12).
[8] First,74 on the one hand, I thank my God [through Jesus Christ]75 for all of you because your faith76 is
being proclaimed77 in the whole world. [9] For God is my witness—whom I serve in my spirit78 in the
gospel of his Son—how unceasingly I make mention of you [10] always in my prayers asking if
somehow, at last, it will be possible by God’s will to come to you. [11] For I want to see you, that I might
impart some spiritual gift79 to you for you to be strengthened. [12] Now this is to be mutually encouraged
through one another’s faith, yours and mine.
P: Paul likes to open letters with thanksgiving (1 Cor 1:4; Phil 1:3; Phm 4). Requests were also a part of
corporate worship (1 Tim 2:1). Will may echo the Lord’s Prayer.
The verb to serve (latreuο, λατρεύω) often describes priestly service, which is appropriate to the context,
although Jesus Christ is the ultimate mediator (through). The service itself is prayer and charismatic
mediation (charisma . . . penumatikon, χάρισµα . . . πνευµατικὸν). The reciprocity language assumes the
“priesthood of all believers” (12:1-8).
Paul similarly praises the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:8), whose faith (turning to God) was impacting
regions beyond Macedonia and Achaia (Greece), but Rome invites hyperbole: between a quarter and a
third of the world’s population was part of the Roman Empire, with the capital as head of this massive
political body.
D: Psychological studies link gratitude and mental health. Paul challenges us to move beyond our own
interests—gratitude for God’s work in others (13:9). Today, we may give thanks for the spreading of the
74
First could signify “of the first importance.” It is clear from 3:2 and 1 Cor 11:18 that Paul begins by enumerating his points,
but ceases to do so after making the first one (BDAG s.v. πρῶτος; BDF §447; Schreiner, Romans, 56). Contextually, offering
thanksgiving is essential (vv. 21-23). The sense is “First of all, before we do anything else…”
75
The phrase is absent in the original edition of ‫א‬. There is no reason to doubt this was an accidental omission.
76
Shorthand for obedience of faith and/or “faithfulness” (3:3, 22).
77
The passive voice ambiguates agency. Perhaps God is spreading his gospel through the Romans, a part of the Nations, just as
he had proclaimed earlier through the prophets (1:2). Or Paul refers to human word of mouth. Or both?
78
Or “Spirit”: see S.
79
Some detect a disclosure of a problem here. After praising the Romans for their faith, Paul implies that it nevertheless requires
some strengthening because of the in-fighting between Gentile and Jewish Christians. But it is also possible that Paul wants to
share his spiritual gifting—teaching, prophesying, and proclaiming the gospel—in addition to a “mere” letter.
15
gospel in Asia and Africa and the opportunity to be with them for our mutual edification.80 It is also
wholesome to voice desire. Paul has surrendered to God’s will, so that requests are partly letting go—like
a priest leaving a gift at the altar.
S: Paul prefaces God (theos, θεός) in this unit with articles, which serve to distinguish the “living and
true God” from idolatry—in this case, the Roman pantheon (see 1 Thess 1:9).
The Trinitarian language persists from the Greeting, although translations render ἐν τῷ πνεύµατί µου as
“in my spirit.”81 As Paul speaks of “my God” (v. 8), “my Spirit” is possible (v. 9). However, a majority of
commentators insist the apostle refers to his spirit. The ambiguity is very early. Pneuma (πνεῦµα) is not
spelled as a somen sacrum (sacred word”, but plene (“full”) in Codex Vaticanus, but is in Papyrus 26 and
Codex Sinaiticus.82 In any casse, Paul wants to impart some spiritual gift, or, as Karl Barth writes, “The
Spirit gives grace through him.”83 Spiritual is written as nomen sacrum (sacred word) in Codex
Sinaiticus.84
Paul is so close to God that God can serve as his witness. God’s will determines Paul’s travel plans (Acts
16:1-5).
1:13-17—TRAVEL PLANS, CALLING & SUMMATION
The conjunction δέ finishes a two-part construction beginning at v. 8, which may be translated “On the
one hand (µέν) . . . On the other hand.” The unit is delimited by a “disclosure formula,” which leads to the
letter’s body and thematic transition at v. 14.85
[13] On the other hand, [I do not want]86 you to be uninformed, brothers,87 that I often planned to come to
you—but was hindered thus far—that I might also receive some fruit among you like also among the rest
of the peoples.
P: Paul may address criticism for not making a personal appearance. He does not offer an explanation
here, but at the end of the letter: the church in Rome was established, and he was called to break new
ground (15:14-22).88 He does reveal a desire for a mutual sharing of the Spirit’s gifts. There are various
interpretations of the metaphor fruit.89 Context suggests the “fruit of the Spirit,” a sign of new creation
and inclusion in the New Covenant reality.90
80
K. Barth focuses on a “ground of solidarity” in the gospel, which unites two otherwise strangers (1968, 33).
81
Arland Hultgren insists the reference is to the “human spirit . . . not the Holy Spirit”: Romans, 63.
82
Comfort, Commentary, 300-1.
83
Romans, 33.
84
Comfort, Commentary, 301.
85
Cranfield, Romans, 81; Käsemann, Romans, 20. We often find the positive form γινώσκειν σε θέλω (“I want you to know”) in
Hellenistic letters.
86
The original wording of D is οἴοµαι (“I do not suppose”). The reading is confined to the Western tradition (Metzger,
Commentary, 505-6).
87
Brothers (7:1, 4; 8:12; 10:1; 11:25; 15:14, 30; 16:17) cultivates intimacy (Cranfield 1975, 81).
88
Barth 1968, 34; 15:20-22.
89
At this point, he probably does not have the collection for the poor in mind (Fitzmyer, Romans, 250). Cranfield looks to Phil
1:22—“the return to be hoped for from apostolic labours, whether new converts gained or the strengthening of the faith and
obedience of those already believing” (Romans, 82; also Käsemann, Romans, 20).
90
Gal 3:1-4; 5:22-23.
16
Paul’s hearers are treated as one of the peoples (ethnos, ἔθνος). The Greek substantive is often translated
“nation” (KJV, ESV), but this is anachronistic because today’s reader, without guidance, will presume the
modern nation state. Other translations opt for “Gentile,” but this focuses too much on ethnicity. Ethnos
refers to “a body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions.”91 Paul is writing to
Romans, a people with a distinctive culture and history.
[14] Both to Greeks and Barbarians, both to wise and to foolish, I am a debtor.92 [15] Likewise, (there is)
an eagerness about me also to proclaim the gospel [to you]93 [who are in Rome].94
P: The trope, which consists of two merisms, is a way of referring to all kinds of people. A barbarian
(barbaras, βάρβαρος) speaks a foreign language (1 Cor 14:11). For the Greeks, it was any tongue but
their own. The word may be onomatopoeic. Paul writes this letter in Greek because the language was
dominate even in Rome. Wise (sophos, σοφός) and foolish (anoētos, ἀνόητος) was another common
distinction, which may emphasize age—“young and old”—and level of formal education (see Prov 17:28
OG).95 The Greeks were proud of their wisdom, although it hindered many of them from understanding
the gospel (1 Cor 1:18-31). The greatest schools in the Mediterranean were Hellenistic. Most philosophers
traced their heritage to Athens. As we shall see, these dichotomies are destroyed by the gospel.
D: As Christ’s representative, the apostle rejects what may be called racism, bigotry, prejudice, elitism,
classism, and the like. The gospel is for all people. We cannot proclaim the gospel with contempt.
Faithfulness to calling often creates the impression of indifference to something else that is equally
important. If we are called to teach, the time we give to that is necessarily lost opportunities for something
else. We are always letting someone down. Yet a lack of communication fosters unwholesome thoughts.
If we are unable to meet the request or expectations of other brothers and sisters, we should promptly say
“yes” or “no,” while communicating respect and value for what they do, with the hope of partnership if
God allows in the future.
[16] For96 I am not ashamed concerning the gospel [of Christ].97 For it is God’s power [for salvation]98 for
all who believe—both for the Jew [first]99 and for the Greek.100 [17] For in it God’s righteousness is being
revealed by faith for faith, as it stands written: Now the righteous one will live by faith. [Hab 2:4]101
91
BDAG s.v. ἔθνος.
92
A debtor is a fairly rare word, occurring elsewhere in Paul’s letters only three times (8:12; 15:27; Gal 5:3). He refers to his call
as a slave and apostle.
93
The original wording of D is ἐν ὑµῖν (“among you”). The sense is little affected, although the shorter, more broadly attested
reading is preferred.
94
Bilingual G and Origen’s Latin translation omit—perhaps because the location is assumed, or more likely to generalize the
letter (see comment at 1:7, following Metzger, Commentary, 506).
95
“You fool!” was a typical verbal barb. Justification for my translation is provided by Paul, who writes: “You foolish
Galatians!” (Gal 3:1).
96
Against Käsemann (Romans, 21-22), Schreiner argues γὰρ does not connect with v. 14, but links vv. 15 and 16 together
(Romans, 58). Note the three-tiered causal logic: Paul is eager to preach the gospel in Rome (v. 15) because he is not ashamed of
the gospel (16a) because it is God’s power that brings salvation to all who believe (16b) because God’s righteousness is revealed
in it by faith.
97
The Byzantine reading appears to be a late expansion. Our earliest witnesses (e.g., P26, Sin, Alex, Vat, C, Bez) have the shorter
reading, which is preferred.
98
G omits.
99
Metzger attrubutes the omission to Marcion “to whom the privilege of the Jews was unacceptable” (Commentary, 506).
17
P: The apostle offers a précis, a summation of his argument that will be unpacked in the body.102 He is
not ashamed (indeed boasting in Christ will follow) of the gospel because it empowers believers and
reveals God’s righteousness.103
Power (dynamis) is repeated from the Greeting (v. 4) in reference to the resurrection and exaltation of
Christ.104 Salvation (sōtēria, σωτηρία) deliverance from death, a consequence of sin, and judgment.105
Paul echoes Jesus, who exhorts us not to be ashamed of the son of man, so that when he comes, he will
not be ashamed of us.106 Luke uses the same verb (epaischunomai “to be ashamed”) for Jesus, who adds
“and my words” (kai tous emous logous), a reference to the gospel (9:26). Jesus presents the gospel as an
extension of himself. So Paul and all who have faith are ultimately saying they are not ashamed to be
associated with Jesus Christ.
Paul breaks the original ethnic dichotomy, “Greeks and Barbarians,” to introduce Jew or “Judean”
(Ioudaios, Ἰουδαῖος), a term that originates in a revolt within the province of Yehuda (Judah/Judea)
against the Seleucids’ zeal for Hellenismos, which became an all-out war against Hebrew faith and
practice (2 Macc. 2.21; 8.1; 14.38). This has been the most significant division in Paul’s ministry.
Paul does not emphasize the temporal prioritization of Israel—to the Jew first—in the earlier letters,
except that the exodus generation served as a type to avoid (1 Cor 10:6) and that contemporaries in Judea
resist Christ and the church (1 Thess 1:14-16). His message does not change, but the tone is different in
this letter.
The meaning of righteousness or “justice” of God (dikaiosunē theou, δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ) is contested.
On the one hand, the focus may be on God’s character.107 The substantive dikaiosunē (δικαιοσύνη) may
be translated “righteousness” or “justice,” depending on the context. But this is an unfortunate split in our
language. If anything, Paul embues dikaiosunē with a meaning that is probably too large for any single
word. He uses dikaiosunē elsewhere to signify upright behavior (2 Cor 6:14), which is probably how most
English users hear “righteousness,” but, according to the standard lexicon, the predominate signified in
this letter is the “quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness or
“equitableness.”108 The average Roman might have heard “equity” (Lat. [a]equitas).109 In context, God is
willing to save all kinds of people—Greeks and barbarians, the wise and foolish (v. 14). If not always in
100
Paul celebrates the inclusion of the Nations into the Kingdom of God. The manifestation of the Holy Spirit among them seals
their place in the inheritance. Youngmo Cho observes: “the spirit embodies the essence of the Kingdom” (2005, 108).
101
All three occurrences of pistis may be translated “faithfulness” (3:3, 22).
102
Matera, Romans, 27-28.
103
Käsemann, Romans, 22. In Rabbinic literature, the same claim is made for the Torah. The Pharisees hoped that obedience to
Torah would merit resurrection and reward. The apostle will attack this presumption, beginning in ch. 2, arguing, instead, that
faith is the decisive factor.
104
1 Thess 1:4-5; 1 Cor 1:23-24, 26-29.
105
Käsemann, Romans, 22.
106
Matt 16:24-28; Mark 8:34—9:1; Luke 9:23-27.
107
Ambrosiaster (Pseudo-Ambrose) and other fathers. Fitzmyer suggests the translation “the uprightness of God”—“the quality
whereby God actively acquits his sinful people, manifesting toward them his power and gracious activity in a just judgment”
(Romans, 257).
108
BDAG s.v. δικαιοσύνη. The lexicon lists Rom 1:17; 3:5, 25; 5:17; 10:3 with this sense.
109
The virtue was personified as a goddess, Equitas, who was inscribed on Roman coins from the period enthroned and holding
scales (Thielman 2010).
18
practice, the Romans were exemplary jurists. The concept of God as a perfect Judge perfectly executing
justice would have been attractive, and that is, according to Paul, exactly who God is.110 So
Luther claims this righteousness “is not that according to which God Himself is righteous as God, but that
by which we are justified by Him through faith in the Gospel.”111 It describes a legally recognized upright
state given or imputed to us by God, an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena) from Christ, not ourselves.
Calvin follows.112 This Protestant reading anticipates 3:21-22 as well as Philippians 3:9 and takes
seriously the sacrificial language of the letter. The Lutheran scholar Arland Hulgren, from this
perspective, insists the phrase describes God’s saving activity.113 Again, we should avoid a false
dichotomy. Union with Christ allows Christians to share in God’s character.114 In Christ, we become what
God requires.
The “New Perspective on Paul” emphasizes the covenantal side of God’s righteousness.115 This view has
been criticized for not being part of the semantic range of dikaiosunē.116 But God’s promises are part of
the context.
Paul links two prepositional phrases together—ek pisteōs eis pistin, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν—which are
variously interpreted:
1) “from [initial] faith to a [deeper] faith;117
2) “faith from beginning to end” = sola fide;118
3) “from [God’s] faithfulness to [a person’s] faith;119
4) from the faithful one [Christ] to those who have faith120
Often missed, the initial phrase (ἐκ πίστεως) anticipates the citation from Habakkuk.
110
There are at least three ways to relate dikaiosunē to God. (1) God acts according to an external standard of dikaiosunē. (2)
God condescends to our standard of dikaiosunē. (3) God is dikaiosunē. In other words, the righteousness/justice of God is the
ontological reality behind dikaiosunē. My reading of Scripture does not allow the first two senses: (a) God does not appeal to
anything greater than God. (b) The dikaiosunē of God often does not conform to human definitions. Paul has just cited Habakkuk
who exemplifies this crisis: Despite evidence to the contrary, the prophet trusts in the ultimate expression of God’s dikaiosunē
(2:4). God will ultimately make all things right. The profundity of the gospel is that God has already accomplished this in Jesus
Christ.
111
Commentary, 41.
112
Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans (trans. and ed. John Owen; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998), 64.
113
Romans, 154.
114
Protestants may emphasize the role of the Spirit; Catholics, infusion or the transformative effect of the Spirit, but the positions
are not incompatible (unless either is pushed to extremes).
115
N. T. Wright emphasizes God’s faithfulness to his promises or covenant, which follows from the big idea: What Saint Paul
Really Said: Was Paul the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 95-111; Paul and the Faithfulness of
God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 40, 795-804, 836-60. James Dunn takes a similar position.
116
Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (WUNT
2/386; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).
117
Calvin, Romans, 65; see Ps 84:8; 2 Cor 2:16; 3:18.
118
Dodd, Romans, 13-14; Cranfield, Romans, 100.
119
Barth, Romans, 41.
120
Keck, Romans, 53-54; Witherington, Romans, 56.
19
R: Paul cites one of God’s prophets (v. 20): Now the righteous one will live by faith (2:4).121 Habakkuk
is nowhere named in Scripture outside of his own book (1:1, 3). The apostle employs the “citation
formula” it stands written (gegraptai, γέγραπται). The perfect tense allows an enduring effect from a
previous action. In this case, what was promised beforehand and written down long ago is now fulfilled.
The actual citation differs from the Hebrew (MT) and Greek textual traditions:122
Now the righteous lives by his faith (Hebrew)
Now the righteous will live by my faith (Greek)123
Now the righteous will live by faith (Paul).
We may imagine at least three scenarios to explain the variant: (1) Paul was aware of the two conflicting
readings and eliminated both to avoid confusion. (2) He possessed or memorized a textual tradition that is
no longer available, differing from both the Hebrew and Greek as they have come down to us. (3) He
intentionally altered the text in light of the gospel.
If working from the Hebrew, Paul simply dropped the pronominal suffix. But there is also a
transformation of meaning. In the context of Habakkuk, the Hebrew emuna signifies “faithfulness.”124
The Hebrew is anthropocentric, focusing on the faithfulness of the readers. The Greek pistis, which is
used to translate emuna, may also bear this meaning. However, the Greek translation is theocentric,
focusing on God’s faithfulness to bring about a vision:
For there is still a vision for an appointed time, and it will rise up at the end and not in vain. If it
should tarry, watch for it, for when it comes it will come and not delay. If it draws back, my soul
in pleased in it. But the just shall live by my faith [or faithfulness]. (NETS)
The translator appears to read Habakkuk as messianic prophecy.125 This leads to a crux interpretum
(“crossroads of interpreters”). Many view the righteous one as a general reference to anyone with
faith.126 A growing minority see a reference to Christ’s faithfulness, which led to the resurrection.127 The
original wording of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450) may support this reading: ὁ δὲ δίκαιος µου ἐκ
πίστεώς µου ζήσεται, “No my righteous one will live by faith.”128 We find precedent for Christological
readings based on small details in Galatians.
There is ambiguity, which requires charity. Perhaps we can avoid a false dichotomy: believers are
righteous by virtue of Christ and because of our union with him enjoy eternal life. This leads me to
choose the fifth option above, but with slightly different wording:
121
He cites the same line in his earlier letter to the Galatians (3:11), but may also presume it whenever he discusses living “by
faith” (e.g., Gal 3:7, 9). The placement and repetition of the line suggest the claim was important to Paul. He may have intended
to evoke more than the six words of the citation, but the extent is difficult to determine. Ochsenmeier (2007) claims Paul took the
context of his citations seriously.
122
The citation at Hebrews 10:38 is another departure: “my righteous one will live by faith.”
123
ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς µου ζήσεται.
124
Beale & Carson 2007, 608-611; see NET.
125
Beale & Carson 2007, 609.
126
Hultgren, Romans, 77 n. 145.
127
Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 132-41.
128
The scribe may appropriate the µου from the OG, but the placement differs (see note above).
20
by faith for faith.
The faithfulness of Christ reveals God’s righteousness, which is for the faith of all peoples. God keeps all
his promises in Christ (2 Cor 1:20) and, as the argument will show, is able to wed justice with compassion
through Jesus’s self-sacrifice. The original context of the citation may be described as “answered
lament.”129 Paul probably heard Habakkuk 2:4 as a the Father’s promise to the Son, which secondarily
applies to the members of his body.
D: I don’t believe Paul would flinch at addressing the United Nations. He would fearlessly insist that
Jesus Christ is their only hope. Paul recognized cultural differences, but was not intimidated by them. He
knew Jesus overcame the greatest problem and that the Holy Spirit would move the heart and clear the
mind.
S: The hypostatic union of Christ might explain the textual variant in the Habakkuk citation: Jesus
simultaneously expresses human faith and God’s faithfulness!
1:18-23—THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE PEOPLES
V. 18 functions as the opening statement for an extended argument (1:18—3:20), which unpacks the
problem of the solution given in the summation (For130): Why do all people need salvation?131
[18] For the wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven132 against all irreverence and unrighteousness of
people, who are suppressing133 the truth [of God]134 by unrighteousness, [19] because what is knowable
about God is evident in them.135 For God evidences (this) to them.136
P: The judicial side of God’s righteousness is rehearsed. A righteous judge, by definition, holds
unrighteous people accountable. This is just because they should know better. Paul writes for a culture
that assumed calamity followed irreverence and unrighteousness.137 Hesiod opens Works and Day with
a hymn to Zeus:
For easily he makes strong, and easily he oppresses the strong, easily he diminishes the
conspicuous one and magnifies the inconspicuous, and easily he makes the crooked straight and
withers the proud. (tr. West)
129
See Channing L. Crisler, Reading Romans as Lament: Paul’s Use of Old Testament in His Most Famous Letter (Eugene, Ore.:
Wipf & Stock, 2016).
130
γὰρ, an inferential particle, links the claim to the summation. Some claim God is presently revealing his wrath through the
gospel (Barth, Romans, 42-45; Cranfield, Romans, 103-4). Others see the parallelism as contrastive (Dunn, Romans, 1:54;
Fitzmyer, Romans, 277; Witherington, Romans, 64).
131
Dunn, Romans, 1:56. See Matt 5:8; 6:22-23; John 3:36; Heb 11:3; 2 Macc. 7.28; 2 En. 24:2.
132
From heaven, a euphemism for God, avoids unnecessary repetition.
133
Or, according to Danker, “laying claim to” (BDAG s.v. κατέχω).
134
A variant found in early translations.
135
Or “among them” (ἐν αὐτοῖς).
136
διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. My translation attempts to show the
cognate repetition: φανερόν and ἐφανέρωσεν. The assumed direct object is τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.
137
Epicureans were an exception.
21
The underlying theology is that “Zeus has organized his universe justly and wisely” and will not accept
disruption of that order.138 The average Roman took a similar view of Jupiter, king of the gods and
recipient of the largest temple in the city. Historians often appeal to divine wrath to explain tragedy.139
Josephus, in his introduction to Antiquities, interprets all of his people’s sacred history this way:
obedience to God brings blessing; disobedience, chaos. The Jewish historian appeals to the sensibilities of
his Roman audience, but can also appropriate Israelite Scripture for this premise, which links covenantal
disobedience with the Babylonian Exile. Josephus and Paul are similar in this regard.
D: Many in our culture no longer process reality this way. They may accept a causal relationship between
“bad habits” and consequences, but will not use words like unrighteousness or irreverence, which
presuppose a transcendent value system. We (perhaps unconsciously) have embraced the teaching of
Epicurus: “There are no divine beings that threaten us.”
This is partly the result of the explanatory power of science. Pliny the Elder (23/24 – 79) predicted that
natural science would neutralize fear of the divine (Natural History 2.54). For instance, we perceived a
causal relationship between pathogens (Gr. pathos “suffering”; genos = “cause of”) and certain diseases.
Before their discovery by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, in 1675, with the invention of the microscope, and
the subsequent recognition of the correlation with disease two centuries later, by Louis Pasteur (1822-
1895), many people attributed disease to demonic oppression or ultimately God. With the rise of science,
many intellectuals discarded God as an unnecessary hypothesis for comprehending truth (reality).140 They
placed their faith in the seemingly infinite power of human perception.
But this conclusion may be challenged at least three ways. First, the Church has always taken a low view
of superstition. The Christian tradition, going back to Jesus and the apostles, recognized the complexity of
causality. Jesus taught his disciples that not all suffering resulted from personal sin (John 9:1-5). Paul
assumes God mediates wrath or discipline through secondary agencies, such as government (13:4, 5) and
Satan (2 Cor 12:1-10). This leaves the door open for the discovery of other agencies, like germs. Scripture
presents God as Creator—distinct from yet mysteriously involved in creation.
We are beginning to appreciate the limits of the scientific approach to reality. When one empirical
discipline asserts hegemony, others point out the limits of its authority. Concerning our example,
pathogens, there are many variables to why people become ill—social, ecological, genetic, dietary,
lifestyle, and mental come easily to mind, but there are many others, including those that have yet to be
uncovered and perhaps some that cannot be discovered. Reality (truth) cannot be reduced to one
approach.
This leads to a third point: The abundance of resources in our culture should bring utopia, but people
remain sick—physically, mentally, and socially. Clearly, there is a dimension of health that eludes us.
Paul’s diagnosis is our alienation from God.
138
West 1991, xviii.
139
Tacitus, Historia 4, 26, 84; Annals 16, 16; Livy, Hist. 5, 14, 3; 22, 9, 1; TDNTT 1:108.
140
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (23 March 1749 – 5 March 1827) is famously remembered for replying to Napoleon, who
asked why he did not mention God in his book on astronomy: "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” (“I had no need of
that hypothesis”).
22
The apostle claims what is knowable about God is evident in them. The claim appears to be
“gnomic”—a timeless truth and therefore a dependable ground for evangelism. There are at least five
implications:
(1) God is knowable. The Greek adjective gnōstos refers here to what is capable of being known or
intelligible.141 Paul is not claiming exhaustive knowledge of God (11:33-36). But God is not complete
mystery. This Jewish conviction finds expression in the Wisdom of Solomon, probably written in
Alexandria (Egypt) in the first century. The author attacks the Epicureans, who shared some of the values
of the Sadducees, as well as popular Egyptian religion, which worshipped animals and human pharaohs
(kings).142 The author rebukes Pagans for not “recognizing the artisan while paying heed to his works”
(13.1) because “from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their
Creator” (13.5, NRSV).143 The Greek word translated “corresponding” is the adverbial form of analogia.
Via analogia is knowledge by way of analogy. Creation is able to say something about the Creator
without showing God’s face. It has conducive properties that lead us to Truth, Goodness, Beauty and
ultimately their originator.
Greeks and Romans accepted what may be called natural theology. Julian the Apostate (331/2 – 363)
notes:
Now that the human race possesses its knowledge of God by nature and not from teaching is
proved to us first of all by the universal yearning for the divine that is in all men whether private
persons or communities, whether considered as individuals or as races. For all of us, without
being taught, have attained to a belief in some sort of divinity, though it is not easy for all men to
know the precise truth about it, nor is it possible for those who do know it to tell it to all men . . .
(tr. Wright; Against the Galileans 1)
This revelatory optimism is developed by the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), who
noted that God may be known outside of Scripture (special revelation) by the effects of his activity.
Aquinas presupposes that God, the originating source of all form, is the fashioner of all beauty
(perfection). Since the world in which beauty is perceived is related to God as its agent, “its being being
his doing,” it is possible to say something about the Creator through creation.144 But this perception is
always indirect because creation is distinct from the Creator: “The world with a million fingers points
toward God, but it cannot reveal Him to us.”145 Aquinas drew from Pseudo-Dionysius, but this apophatic
constraint goes back at least to Philo, who distinguished between God’s ousia, his essential nature, and
his dunamis (“power”) or energeiai (“energies”). He claims we cannot know God’s ousia, but for the sake
of revelation, God communicates with us through his activities in the world.146 The universe itself seems
to be analogous: what ultimately holds it together cannot be observed directly, but only studied by its
effects. No one has seen a quark in any of its six flavors, although the universe exists because for about
141
BDAG; see Gen 2:9; Sir 21:7; Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.18.60-61; Fitzmyer 1993, 279. Another possibility is “known” (e.g., Isa
19:21; Ezek 36:32; Acts 1:19; 2:14; 15:18; 28:22; John 18:15).
142
For instance, birds were linked to Horus; bulls, Apis; crocodile, Sobek. This is an expression of zoomorphism.
143
ἐκ γὰρ µεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισµάτων ἀναλόγως ὁ γενεσιουργὸς αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται. See also 12:1; 14:8, 12; 13:10-14.
144
McDermott 1989, xxxvii.
145
The author of Hebrews, John, and Paul believe this indirectness has been partially overcome in the revelation of God in
Christ—see Notes at Heb 1:1-4; John 1:1-18; Col 1:15-20. The quote is taken from Emil Brunner, Our Faith (tr. John W. Rilling;
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n.d.), 5.
146
The Special Laws 1.43. For more discussion, see my notes at John 1:1-18.
23
every billion pair of quarks and antiquarks, there was an extra quark.147 Also helpful is the theorem of
Kurt Gödel (1906 – 78), which (apparently) shows that any formal logical or mathematical system has
propositions that are not verifiable within that system.
(2) The knowledge of God is evident. The Greek adjective phaneros may be translated visible, clear,
open, plain, evident (BDAG). Paul does not proclaim a “god of the gaps,” hidden only where science has
yet to reach. God is obvious everywhere.
(3) God is known in them—that is, their psuchē (“soul, life, being, self”), which bears some relationship
to “mind.”148 (Even if the Greek is taken “among them,” this knowledge must be internal.) The meaning
of psuchē is of perennial interest to philosophy. Paul does not engage in speculation, but takes the
generally agreed upon view that human beings have a spiritual capacity. The large human brain (average
1500 cubic centimeters), with its generous circuitry for language, is well-suited for such reflection on
creation. Karl Rahner (1904-1984) notes:
In every human being . . . there is something like an anonymous, unthematic, perhaps repressed,
basic experience of being oriented to God, which is consititutive of man in his concrete make-up
(of nature and grace), which can be repressed but not destroyed, which is “mystical” or (if you
prefer more cautious terminology) has its climax in what the older teachers called infused
contemplation.149
John Calvin uses the term sensus divinitatus, which he defines as a belief-causing faculty of mind that
was harmed by sin:
That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus
divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending
ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead . . . this is not a doctrine which is
first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one
which nature herself allows no individual to forget. (Inst. 3.1)
(4) But God is ultimately responsible for demonstrating God’s existence. Paul uses the same root behind
the adjective evident for the verb (phaneroō). God enables the human being to become aware of God by
giving the mind something for reflection. Does that mean God withholds this capacity from some? The
Gnostics championed that view: only those with an inner, divine spark know ultimate reality. But Paul
emphasizes what may be called the “noetic effects” of sin, which distort everyone’s knowledge of God,
but do not fully eliminate the ability to know something.
R: Habakkuk, just cited by Paul, sought God’s judgment against the irreverence150 and
unrighteousness151 of his generation, who suppressed the truth revealed in the Law of Moses (1:4).152
147
I.e., “up,” “down,” “strange,” “charmed,” “bottom,” and “top.” See Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free
Press, 2006), 72.
148
Philo claims reality imprints itself on the soul, which is then able to comprehend it (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.61).
149
Opportunities for Faith: elements of a modern spirituality (SPCK, 1974), 125.
150
1:3, 9; see also 2:8, 17 [x2] LXX.
151
1:2 (verb); 2:12 LXX.
152
The interplay between rebellion and ignorance is also explored by Isaiah (1:2-3).
24
D: The apostle links Goodness and Truth. Evil people cannot discern reality, which is what makes them
so dangerous. (Liars often reach a point of self-deception.) Would Paul’s logic lead to the conclusion that
atheists and agnostics are necessarily evil? Yes. But so is the rest of humanity whose sin is idolatry.153
Would his logic lead to the conclusion that righteous people necessarily know God. Yes. But the only
righteous person, Paul will argue, is the son of God.
S: The Greek word orgē (ὀργή) may stress emotion or retribution.154 In the previous unit, we suggested
that righteousness is part of God’s character. It is essential to who God is. An unrighteous god is not the
God of Scripture. The apostle suggests that wrath is the necessary expression of God’s righteousness.
Paul will claim God’s wrath is mediated through government (13:4, 5).
But we should not separate this wrath from God’s love: they are expressions of the same righteousness
seen from very different perspectives.155 The problem is partly deviation from a standard—in this case,
inherent knowledge of God—but God is responding like a betrayed spouse or abandoned Father. The
Prophets may use anthropopathic language, but to deny any emotion from YHWH in response to human
faithlessness distorts Scripture.
[20] For since the creation of the world, his invisible (attributes)—his eternal power and deity156—being
understood,157 are clearly seen in what are made, so that they are without excuse,158 [21] because after
knowing God, they did not glorify (him) as God or offer thanksgiving.159 Instead, they became futile in
their speculations, and their senseless heart became darkened.160
P: God evidences what is evident about God through creation. There is a moral grain to the universe
(Stanley Hauerwas). Those who understand or perceive this truth but do not acknowledge their Creator
through disobedience are without excuse. God’s retributive wrath is therefore justified. By attempting to
replace true knowledge of God with their own speculations, they became further alienated from reality
(truth).
Paul highlights two necessary responses to the awareness of God: to glorify and to be grateful.
The verb doxazō (δοξάζω), translated glorify, describes the perception of another that enhances the
latter’s reputation.161 There is an internal and external aspect. Responding to “natural revelation” enlarges
our view of God, which compels us to praise and evangelism.
Human beings intuitively know the wholesomeness of gratitude, a disposition of the heart to
acknowledge a benefit that one has or will receive.162 The Romans were sympathetic to this moral
153
In my experience, it is rare to find a pure atheist. Generally, confessing atheists have simply absolutized part of creation or
something in their imagination, thereby falling into idolatry.
154
BDAG s.v. ὀργή.
155
Ward, God, 143.
156
Cicero uses the phrase vis et natura deorum, “the power and nature of the gods” (N.D. I.18.44, cited in Cranfield 1975, 115).
157
Or “perceived.”
158
The claim may be an intentional oxymoron (Cranfield 1975, 114).
159
We find the same recurrent theme of human ingratitude toward God in Muslim literature. “Infidel” approximates the meaning
“one who lacks thankfulness” (Earhart 1993, 636). For an earlier Jewish complaint, see Wisdom of Solomon 13:1.
160
Wisdom of Solomon 13.1, 5, 10.
161
BDAG s.v. δοξάζω.
25
argument.163 Cicero (106 – 43 BC) notes: “gratitude is not only the greatest of the virtues but the parent
of all others.” Luther describes gratitude as the “basic Christian attitude.”
The disposition often results from three elements: the recipient perceives the a) the value of the benefit, b)
the cost to the benefactor, and c) the benevolent intention of the giver, in contrast to ulterior motives. As
we shall see, the gospel meets all three criteria. Paul models thanksgiving in the salutation.
D: Medieval Christians enjoyed composing the bestiary or “compendium of beasts.” The tradition
presumes creation is God’s other Word and therefore revelatory. “Look at the birds,” Jesus says.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became foolish.164 [23] And they exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for a likeness of an image of a mortal human being and of birds and of four-footed animals and of
reptiles. [Gen 1:26-27]
P: Desire for wisdom, insight into the nature of reality, was nearly universal. But here, we have the first
reversal (see 1:14): The peoples claimed to be wise, but because of their idolatry, they became foolish.
R: Paul alludes to the creation story, specifically the fifth (birds) and sixth (four-footed animals and
reptiles) days (Gen 1:20-24). There are two ironies in the allusion. (1) God created human beings in the
likeness and image of God (Gen 1:26-27). But people confused the image with the reality, worshipping a
human king instead of God. (2) God created the human being to have dominion over birds, four-footed
animals, and reptiles, but human beings began to worship them!
D: If God is ultimate reality (Truth), then any truth claim that sidesteps this ground is false or incomplete.
This is the basic problem of all fields of knowledge that seek a “unifying theory” without God. They
cannot escape reductionism. Writing in the context of the vapid, liberal Christianity of the early twentieth
century, Karl Barth notes: “The Gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark
against all truths.”165 This is the Achilles Heel of Modernism: we went the way of Aristotle, but never
overcame the ghost of Plato, who saw more than his student.
S: The Wisdom of Solomon (2:23) and Paul claim God is immortal. The Greek adjective aphthartos
signifies what cannot suffer corruption or die (see 1 Tim 1:17). Paul claims our resurrected bodies will
have this quality (1 Cor 15:52).
Lord, you are our only hope. Without your resurrection, I am dust and breath.
1:24-27—GOD REVEALS HIS WRATH THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR

SIN
The unit is delimited by the rhetorical marks, therefore (∆ιὸ) and For this reasons (∆ιὰ τοῦτο). Paul uses
the inferential conjunction sparingly (1:24; 2:1; 4:22; 13:5; 15:7, 22).
162
We find expressions of gratitude in the Muslim and Buddhist traditions. Humanistic secularists prize this virtue.
163
The Athenians were so frightened of this blasphemous oversight they created an altar to an unknown god (Acts 17:23). Few
things were more despised than ingratitude.
164
See Wisdom of Solomon 12:24, where idolatry is the source of all kinds of evil.
165
1968, 35.
26
[24] Therefore, by the lusts of their hearts God [also]166 gave them167 over to impurity, so that their bodies
would be treated shamefully among themselves, [25] who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and
worshipped and served168 the creation instead of the Creator,169 who is blessed forever. Amen.170
[26] For this (reason), God gave them over to shameful171 passions. For their females exchanged the
natural function [of sexual intercourse] for what is against [the function of] nature. [27] Likewise, the
males also, after leaving the natural function of a female [for sexual intercourse], were inflamed by their
lustful passion toward one another—males with172 males, doing the shameful act and receiving within
themselves the return [of their act], which was necessary for their error.
P: God expresses his retributive wrath by allowing a distorted attraction to debase human dignity.
Unwholesome thoughts lead to shameful behavior. Paul illustrates this principle with the confusion of
males and females rejecting their complementary sexual partners, with a graphic depiction of a “piercer”
becoming the “pierced” in sodomy. The apostle views sexual acts between two men or two women—this
is the only discussion of lesbianism in the New Testament—as a deviation from God’s intention for the
sexual organs to unite a husband and wife for the procreation of children and to channel the sexual drive
in a loving, unifying direction (1 Cor 7:1-7).
Sexual activity between (active) men and (passive) teenage boys was practiced widely in Greek culture
since the sixth century BC.173 Eroticism between husband and wife was not encouraged. The purpose of
marriage was societal stability and producing legal heirs. Greeks venerated the human body, producing a
highly sexualized society.
Roman culture took a similar view of marriage, which encouraged prostitution. But unlike the Greeks
sodomy was generally proscribed. Being the passive recipient of sodomy threatened Roman notions of
male virility.174 We find the expression muliebria pati (“take it like a woman”). No pleasure was
associated with the position, which was generally taken by a boy, slave, or woman: “I hate it when both
partners don’t enjoy / A climax—that’s why a boy / Doesn’t appeal to me much.”175 Lex Scantinia
prohibited pederasty and sodomy among free-born men under the penalty of death.176 (Yet ironically all
the Caesars took male lovers, except Claudius.) The law was supplemented in 17 BC, with Lex Iulia de
Adulteriis coerrendis, under Augustus, which also outlawed adultery—sleeping with another free-born
male’s wife. The laws did not protect a slave who was viewed as a res or “thing” and could meet any
utilitarian purpose of the owner.
166
The Alexansdrian witnesses differ from the Western and Byzantine mss. that include an adverbial καί.
167
The antecedents of them are the idolators of the previous unit.
168
Served means fulfilling religious duties (2 Tim 1:1; Euripides, Ion 152; Philo, Special Laws 1:300).
169
Creator or “one who created.”
170
See Wisdom of Solomon 13:17; 14:11, 21. Vv. 21, 23, 25, and 28, which describe the violation of the first commandment of
the Decalogue (Stuhlmacher, 36).
171
ἀτιµία signifies a state of dishonor or disrespect.
172
Or “in.”
173
See Innocent Himbaza, Adrien Schenker, and Jean-Baptiste Edart, The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality (Benedict M.
Guevin, tr.; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011).
174
See Martial, Epigrams 36, 46.
175
Ovid, The Art of Love 685-690.
176
See Juvenal, Saitires 2.40-45.
27
Consequently, Romans attempted to hide their sexually immoral behavior, while their enemies gleefully
exposed it. Martial (bet. 38 and 41 – bet. 102 and 104) describes a certain Maternus: “We bathe together,
and his line of vision / Keeps below waist-level, he devours / Ocularly the boys under the showers, / And
his lips twitch at the sight of a luscious member” (96; tr. Michie). There was a homosexual sub-culture in
Rome: “queers stick together like glue.”177 We get the impression from contemporary literature that
Roman society was Victorian in their sexuality—Stoic in word, but often Epicurean in behavior. Juvenal
(fl. end of 1st cent. – early 2nd cent.) notes: “Whores use a curtain, a bolt or a porter / To bar the public—
you won’t find many chinks in the red-light quarter” (34; tr. Michie).
R: There were several ways the apostle could argue against inappropriate expressions of sexuality. Paul
weaves the biblical creation story with contemporary Stoic sentiment.178 The philosophical school
claimed homosexual behavior was a departure from nature (physis).179 Male and female genitalia have an
obvious complementarity and function. Genesis similarly claims:
And God made man—according to the image of God he made him—male (arsēn) and female
(thēlus) he made them. And God blessed them, saying: “Grow and multiply and fill the earth . . .”
(Gen 1:27-28a, LXX)
Paul uses the same substantive adjectives. Authors use adjectives in the place of nouns when they want to
emphasize a particular aspect of the person (like “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”). The underlying
Hebrew for “male” zakar (‫ )זָכָר‬also signifies “penis” (HALOT); “female” neqēvah (‫“ )נְ ֵקבָה‬pierced”
(HALOT, Lat. perforata). (Similarly, English “vagina” is from the Latin vagina originally meaning
“scabbard”).
Sexual acts between two men or two women are condemned in the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:22; 20:13; see
also Gen 19:4-5; Judg 19:22). Paul brings a new covenant dimension to the purity at issue in 1
Corinthians.
D: Amy Schifron, a Lutheran theologian, focuses on the act: the penis, the origin of life, going into a
man’s anus, a place of decay and death.180 In contrast, non-perverted heterosexual intercourse involves
giving the spouse what he or she is lacking.181
To justify our sinful desires and behaviors we create false realities. Alienation from reality inevitably
leads to sin, a distortion or twisting of God’s will reflected in creation. We become a slave to our own
fiction. Yet truth often beckons through shame. A part of salvation is making peace with our created
selves and the role our bodies were intended to play in creation.
The Fathers universally condemned homosexual behavior.182 Yet many today view the “lifestyle” as a
normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation.183 Homosexuals have the same right to engage
177
Juvenal, Satires 2.40-50.
178
If one focuses on the ethical dimension of Stoicism, not its metaphysics, it is easily appropriated into a biblical worldview.
179
Paul may not be consciously appealing to the Stoics. Their philosophical vocabulary had been part of Jewish philosophy for
over a century, as we find in The Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of Philo.
180
“Marriage Rites: Mirror of God’s Sacred Design” at the national Evangelical Theological Society Meeting (San Diego, Ca.,
19 Nov 2014).
181
Sergio Benvenito, “Perversion and Charity: an ethical approach” in Perversion: Psychoanalytic Perspectives (eds. Dany
Nobus and Lisa Downing; London: Karnac Books, 2006), 59-78, 63.
28
in sexual intercourse with a consenting adult as heterosexuals. To disagree, by definition, makes a bigot
on par with those who opposed the civil rights movement.
Before attempting to hear God’s Word it is important to dispense with misunderstanding. The claim that
homosexuality is a “choice” does not comport with the experience of many. Our sense of self, before the
beginning of our transformation through union with Christ, is a dynamic perception shaped by many
variables: genetically preconstructed, coconstructed by sociocultural dynamics, and furthered by personal
determination. Assigning weights is complex. Sexual orientation may be a product of all three. For this
reason, many Christians who repent from homosexual acts do not become re-oriented for a heterosexual
relationship at their conversion. Darrell Bock uses the illustration of hard-wired and soft-wired
homosexuals.184 Brothers and sisters who are hard-wired this way should be extended the same mercy and
space for growth as the rest along the Way.185 Discipleship is a life-long process. Paul does not present
sodomy here as a choice, but an enslavement to a distorted mind.
Yet science has not demonstrated that homosexuality is genetically predetermined.186 Without jumping to
language of “choice,” fatalism is equally simplistic. The relationship between nature and nurture remains
an argument. Indeed, the relationship may be different for every person. Sociocultural dynamics play a
role (like the Greeks, discussed above). There are cultural forces that romanticize alternative lifestyles.
Sexual molestation and pornography are impactful.
Pope John XXIII, when asked why he had convoked the Second Vatican Council (October 1962),
responded: “. . . To make the human sojourn on earth a little less sad.” It seems that my culture has gone
too far in the other direction, expecting nothing less than heaven in this life. We could learn from the
Pope’s realism. Following Christ involves real sacrifice. Scripture does not present sexual expression as a
human right for self-gratification, but as the self-giving ground of building a family, which, in turn, is the
ground of society.
Some—and perhaps in the near future the majority—of Christians will no longer understand the New
Testament’s purity code. But no one knows why eating pork is forbidden in the Mosaic Law. There have
always been boundaries that do not make sense to us, but are nevertheless binding for each season of the
God-human relationship.
I reject the slander that personal abstinence from sodomy is bigotry on par with racism. Racism, which is
the rejection of the gospel, is the belief that some races of people are better than others. A bigot is a
person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people . . . or who hates or refuses to accept the members
of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).187 I love all my neighbors, regardless of their
182
See, e.g., Tertullian, Coron. 6; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.83ff.; Lactantius, Div. inst. 6.23; Ambrose, De Abrahamo
1.6.52; Cyril of Alexandria, Ador. 1.
183
See, e.g., http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx. This view is grounded “in the human
presumption that we are free to remake the world to our own specifications, that nature itself has no order or goodness that we
need to respect” (Westerholm 1997, 13).
184
“Challenge or Invitation? The Church’s Dilemma and Why Sexuality Discussions Are So Hard for the Church” at the national
Evangelical Theological Society Meeting (San Diego, Ca., 19 Nov 2014).
185
See Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1998).
186
Homosexual behavior among animals is not persuasive because the Christian tradition demands more from human beings
created in God’s image.
187
Both definitions are taken from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
29
behavior. Scripture is an external standard under which I and other believers must live. It does not reject
persons, but does put boundaries on behavior. I do not force these boundaries on others, although my
conscience requires partners in God’s mission to abide by them, acknowledging that we all need grace
and mercy.
According to one study, around one in 1000 children are born with bodies that differ from the binary male
or female body types. Some children are born with a penis and vagina, along with other genetic disorders
that ambiguate gender.188 Some infer that God created the children this way. But this is a noetic effect of
sin. God creates human beings as male and female. But they may also serve as a sign that God is neither
male nor female, and that genitalia is not essential to human nature. There is no marriage (sexual
intercourse) in heaven. Like all human beings, those with ambiguously gendered bodies are created in
God’s image and deserving of honor and love.
S: People often conceive of divine wrath as something God does, instead of what God finally allows to
happen. Like any good parent, God shields a wayward child from the full impact of his sin. But there
comes a time when God treats us like adults. The Wisdom of Solomon claims: “one is punished by the
very things by which one sins” (11:16).
1:28-32—THE CORRUPTED MIND
[28] And just as they did not think fit to have God in mind,189 [God]190 gave them over to a corrupted
mind191—to do what is improper [29], being filled with all unrighteousness, evil,192 greed, wickedness; (a
mind) full of envy,193 murder, rivalry, guile, meanness194; (they are) gossips, [30] slanderers,195 God-
haters, arrogant, prideful, boastful, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, disloyal,
unfeeling, [irreconcilable],196 unmerciful,197 [32]—who, while knowing the requirement of God198 that
those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same things, but also give approval to
those who practice [such things]. [Exod 20:12-17 = Deut 5:16-21]199
P: God reveals his wrath by giving us over to the impulses of our sin, a corrupted mind, which manifests
itself in many ways.200
188
http://religionnews.com/2016/05/14/3-reasons-conservative-christians-will-lose-the-transgender-debate/. Retrieved 14 May
2016.
189
Rambam (1135 – 1204) notes: “As time passed on, the revered name of God vanished from the lips and minds of all human
beings and they knew him no more” (Mishneh Torah, 30).
190
Absent in the original version of Sinaiticus.
191
Earlier Jewish writing (e.g., Wis. Sol. 14:22b) correlated idolatry with (what we call) mental illness. S. Hauerwas and J.
Berkman note: “our practices in all their diversity—including our sinful ones—exercise coercive power over us with regard to
our ability to think” what is at stake (1993, 63).
192
Evil signifies a “state or condition of a lack of moral or social values” (BDAG).
193
Envy is the opposite of philanthropy, “love of humankind.”
194
Meanness signifies “a basic defect in character that leads one to be hurtful to others” (BDAG).
195
A later addition to ms D reads “speakers of evil.”
196
The Majority Text and other MSS read αςπονδους, due to assimilation from 2 Tim 3:3 (Schreiner, 101).
197
As with the case of homosexuality above, Paul’s Roman readers would agree with his judgment of these conventional vices.
Paul is not attempting to be exhaustive, but illustrative.
198
Paul uses the noun δικαίωµα in reference to the requirements of the Torah (2:26; 8:4).
199
Wisdom of Solomon chastises those who have a “fascination” with wickedness (4:12).
200
Like James, Paul does not allow us to blame Satan or other external forces.
30
The key word in the unit is mind (nous). The problem is its defilement; the solution, renewal through
fellowship with Christ by the Spirit (12:2). Wrong thinking leads to wrong action; right thinking, right
action. But we must not flatten Paul’s point to mere intellectualism.
R: After reviewing the devastation of idolatry, Paul moves to the “horizontal” tablet of the Ten
Commandments, a summation of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:12-17 = Deut 5:16-21).201 The logic is an
unrighteous relationship with God leads to injustice towards other human beings. This claim would
correlate with Jewish and Greco-Roman assumptions. The apostle may still have homosexual behavior in
mind, echoing the Law (Lev 20:13).202
D: We must never side-step the moral dimension of the gospel. Some pastors have actually expressed
frustration to me because people come to their church wanting to become better people. For them, the
gospel has been reduced to the observation that we are all sinners but saved by grace, as if the call to
holiness was not part of the New Covenant relationship. As we shall see, Paul viewed this as slander
against his gospel. The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.203
Furthermore, we cannot be complicit with evil. Albert Camus writes: “When a Spanish bishop blesses
political executions, he ceases to be a bishop or a Christian or even a man; he is a dog just like the one
who, backed by an ideology, orders that execution without doing the dirty work himself.”204
2:1-29—THE HYPOCRITE AND GENTILE BELIEVER
Paul makes a rhetorical shift and therefore a transition.205 But the conjunction ∆ιὸ (2:1) is inferential, so
that he can assume the vice list in the previous unit (such things). The large unit, delimited as chapter two
in our Bibles, functions as a synkrisis (σύνκρισεις, Lat. comparatio), the comparative juxtaposition of
people—in this case, a Jewish hypocrite and Gentile believer.206
A 2:1-11—THE HYPOCRITE
[2:1] Therefore, you are without excuse,207 O human—everyone who judges. For in the way you judge the
other,208 you condemn yourself because whoever judges practices the same. [Matt 7:1-5 // Luke 6:37] [2]
201
Rhetorically, Paul fills out the list with synonyms and additional “internal” vices.
202
See Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago, IL:
University Press, 1996) 281-99, esp. 282. I am grateful to Ronald Pierce, a professor at Talbot, for this reference.
203
Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:10.
204
The Unbeliever, excerpted in Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Boston: Little, Brown
and Company, 1990), 31.
205
Hultgren, Romans, 111.
206
T. E. Duff, “Plutarchan synkrisis: comparisons and contradictions” in Rhetorical theory and praxis in Plutarch (ed. L. Van
der Stockt; Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers, 2000), 141-161; Hartmut Erbse, “Die Bedeutung der Synkrisis in der
Parallelbiographien Plutarchs,” Hermes 84 (1956): 389-424. Sean Adams provides extensive discussion of Plutarch: The Genre
of Acts and Collected Biography. Zeba Crook notes the absence of any attempted definition in ancient literature:
Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 118. Quintilian discusses the rhetorical effect of comparing the merits of two persons (Inst. 2.4.21).
207
Paul ties this person with others who are condemned in part by repeating without excuse from 1:20. These are the only two
occurrences of this word in his letters.
208
A few MSS add krimati a “legal action taken against someone” (BDAG). Paul uses the word in the plural for lawsuits (1 Cor
6:7).
31
For we know that God’s judgment is according to truth against those who practice such things.209 [3] But
are you thinking this, O human—the one who judges those who practice such things and does the same
things—that you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or are you despising the wealth of his goodness and
tolerance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is to lead you to repentance?
P: The unit, a diatribe, begins with a rhetorical sting: After inviting the moralist to point a finger, Paul
exposes his hypocrisy.210 He focuses the attack by shifting to the second person singular (you).211 A
biatribe was not a literary genre, but a mode of teaching. The teacher would address a matter of popular
interest, like self-control or divine providence. Instead of employing a particular structure, he (or she)
would introduce a faulty, alternative view, often with the imaginary voice of an interlocutor, and then
chip away at the opposition with various rhetorical devices, arousing pathos, ethos, and logos, like
striking metaphors, similes, and personification.
Paul alludes to Jesus Tradition.212 Jesus rebukes those who fixate on the “speck” in their neighbor’s eye
while ignoring the “log” in their own (Matt 7:1-5 = Luke 6:37-42; see Mark 4:24-25). He warns that we
shall be “measured” (judged) according to our measurement (judgment) of others.
Our Lord also teaches that the heavenly Father sends rain (blesses) on the just and unjust, so that
everyone may repent and be reconciled to him (common grace) (Matt 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-28, 32-36).
He relates a parable about the gathering of all the people before the Son of Man, who will separate them
like a shepherd does with sheep and goats (Matt 25:32). The basis of separation—blessing vs.
condemnation—is clearly works of mercy toward his missionaries (vv. 34-46).
[5] But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day
of wrath and revelation of God’s just judgment,213 [6] who will repay to each according to his works [Ps
62:13; Prov 24:12]—[7] to those who, according to an enduring good work, are seeking glory and honor
and immortality—eternal life [Dan 12:2], [8] but to those who are also disobeying the truth from
selfishness and are obeying injustice, (God will repay with) wrath and anger—[9] affliction and distress
against214 every soul of humankind, who is doing evil—both the Jew first and the Greek. [10] But glory
and honor215 and peace (God will repay) to everyone who is producing the good—both to the Jew first
and to the Greek. [11] For there is no partiality before God.
P: A portion of this unit is chiastic:
A: 2:6, divine judgment is according to deeds
B: 2:7, doing good/seeking glory leads to eternal life
209
I.e., the vice list in the previous unit.
210
Most identify the interlocutor as an “imaginary Jewish hearer,” but Hultgren discusses other options: Romans, 111-12. Paul
may respond to Roman moralism against Greek homosexuality. For the genre diatribe, see S. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s
Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1981), 110-17.
211
212
Hultgren speaks of a “resonance” (Romans, 113).
213
A subjective genitive—essentially, “God judges righteously” (McFadden, Judgment according to Deeds, 44).
214
The translation “against” would be consistent with Paul’s use up to this point in the argument (see 1:18 and 2:2).
215
Notice the repetition of “glory and honor” from v. 7—God gives what people spend their lives pursuing, either good or bad.
32
C: 2:8, obeying wickedness leads to wrath and fury
C’: 2:9, doing evil leads to affliction and distress
B’: 2:10, doing good leads to glory, honor, and peace
A’: 2:11, there is no partiality with God216
The parallelism (A // A’) suggests that judgment according to deed is how God remains impartial.
R: Paul cites a biblical motif: God will repay to each according to his works (Prov 24:12; Ps 62:13).
Jesus uses the same language in reference to the Parousia when the Son of Man comes to judge (Matt
16:27). Psalm 62 is a meditation on God’s ultimate justice. There is no mention of resurrection, but Jews
probably read the Psalm this way in light of further revelation. The same could be said for Proverbs
24:12. However, Paul may not have a specific text in mind, but is rather appealing to Jewish maxim.217
Eternal life is another motif. In the Old Testament, the expression only occurs in Daniel (12:2), the only
explicit prophecy of the resurrection of the dead. But its pervasiveness in the Gospels suggests
contemporary interest. Many Jews looked forward to the resurrection as a demonstration of God’s
righteousness because the righteous often die unjustly and the unrighteous benefit from injustice. (This is
a central problem to worldviews grounded in notions of karma). This is not to claim that the righteous
were morally perfect, but that some had attempted to do the right thing at great personal cost and received
no vindication—at least in this life. But Jesus, according to Paul’s gospel, was vindicated at the
resurrection. The rest of humanity will follow Jesus in the resurrection and judgment (14:10-13).
D: This passage has been difficult for traditionally Protestant interpreters.218 Calvin and Melanchthon
argue for a hypothetical scenario.219 This has the feel of polemics, and seems to undercut the exhortation
of the unit. Arland Hultgren, a Lutheran, notes: “Judgment according to works stands in tension with
justification by faith.”220 Some find a contradiction in Paul’s argument. But the apostle claims elsewhere
that righteous behavior is a condition for entering God’s Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21).
In light of the whole argument, Paul is assuming here that Christians “keep the law by the power of the
Holy Spirit.”221
S: Paul rehearses some traditional Jewish claims about God—his goodness, tolerance, and patience.
God is good (chēstotēs, χρηστότης). This conducive property warms Truth and disciplines Beauty. If God
were real but evil, such revelation would be like Wells’s War of the Worlds. Socially, the meaning is
uprightness in one’s relationships with others.222 The Psalmist links this attribute to God’s covenant
faithfulness (24:7 OG). In context, God keeps promises made through the Prophets. Paul also uses the
cognate χρηστός (“kindness”). Paul repudiates the popular image of God looking for ways to make the
life of a sinner miserable. God is tolerant (anochē, ἀνοχή)—willing “to hold back” condemnation. God is
216
Hultgren, Romans, 114; Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 153.
217
Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 283; McFadden, Judgment According To Deeds, 45.
218
Schreiner seeks a “resolution of the problem”: Romans, 113 n. 4.
219
Schreiner, Romans, 114.
220
Romans, 112. See also his critique of harmonizations (115).
221
222
BDAG, “χρηστότης.”
33
patient (makrothumia, µακροθυµία). Personally, the meaning is remaining tranquil while awaiting an
outcome.223 These divine qualities cannot be separated from God’s commitment to justice. They are what
make repentance and reconciliation possible. God’s tolerance and patience, like their human analogies,
are not eternally deferred. These attributes are clearly seen in the books of Scripture and Creation.
B 2:12-16—THE GENTILE BELIEVER
[12] For whoever sinned without-nomos will also die without-nomos. And whoever sinned by nomos will
be judged through nomos. [13] For the hearers of nomos are not righteous before God, but the doers of
nomos will be justified. [14] For when peoples, those who by nature224 do not have the nomos, are
practicing the things of the nomos,225 these, not having the nomos, are a nomos to themselves,226 [15] who
demonstrate the work of the nomos227 written on their hearts. [Jer 31:33]228 Their conscience bears
witness and among each other their thoughts condemn or even defend229 [16] in the day when God judges
the hidden things of humankind according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.
P: While God will judge all people according to their works, Jews will be held accountable according to
nomos. This is Paul’s first mention of nomos (νόµος) in the Letter. The substantive may be glossed
custom, rule, principle, norm, law (a constitutional or statutory legal system), and sacred ordinance (a
collection of holy writings precious to God’s people).230 When nomos refers to Israelite Scripture, it often
functions as synecdoche, a part representing the whole, or with Prophets as a merism, “Law (‫ַתּוֹרה‬ָ ‫ )ה‬and
231
Prophets” (‫) ַהנְּבִיאִים‬, as Paul will do (3:21).
Paul employs nomos with various senses, so that context must be determinative. For this reason, I opt to
transliterate nomos and then explain its immediate significance. In this case, the apostle is referring to
what is read (and to be heard) in the synagogue, the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy). He may, in fact, allude to the Shema: “Hear, O Israel . . . (Deut 6:4; see 3:30). He also
cites or alludes to the Ten Commandments as nomos—in the immediate context (vv. 21-23) and later
(7:7). Jesus, of course, united these passages: the Ten Commandments essentially exhort God’s people to
love God and one another (Matt 22:34-40).
Whereas hearing and obeying are held together in the Shema, at least some Jews had fallen into a false
dichotomy: they would listen to the Pentateuch, their constitution as a people, on the Sabbath and
festivals, but not integrate the commandments into their everyday life. Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and
scribes for this in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5—6). James addresses the exigence (1:19-27), and we
find a similar concern in Rabbinic literature.
223
BDAG s.v. µακροθυµία.
224
Probably referring to their uncircumcised status.
225
BDAG suggests: “when Nations fulfill the law’s demands by following the natural order (of things).”
226
I.e., a virtuous person, who does not require the guidance or sanctions of external law (Cranfield, Romans, 157).
227
I.e, “the work which the law requires” (Cranfield 1975, 158). Paul regularly employs the plural of this expression (3:20, 28;
Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). The apostle may emphasize the unity of the Torah’s demand, or he may not intend the singular/plural shifts
to be significant (cf. John 6:29).
228
In contrast to circumcision; see below (2:27).
229
For difficulties translating the Genitive Absolute, see Dunn, Romans, 95, Hultgren, Romans, 111, and Schreiner, Romans,
118.
230
BDAG s.v. νόµος.
231
1:2; cf. Matt 5:17; 7:12.
34
Merely hearing nomos read in the synagogue is insufficient for being declared righteous at the
resurrection. Only doers of nomos will be justified.232 The future tense (δικαιωθήσονται) is consistent
with Jewish (perhaps especially Pharisaic) eschatology that anticipated justification or condemnation at
the general resurrection of the dead.
The peoples (or non-Jews or non-Judeans) embarrass Israel because of their greater obedience. Paul may
refer to (1) Gentiles in general, (2) a smaller group of “righteous” Gentiles,233 (3) “God-fearers” (Gentiles
attracted to Judaism, but stopping short of conversion [= circumcision]), or, most likely, (4) Gentile
Christians. The latter fits the context—specifically, the apostle’s use of conscience and the New Covenant
citation from Jeremiah (31:33).234 There is no room for “righteous Pagans” in the argument, and little
evidence for reading God-fearers into the context. It is tempting to hear an echo of the Good Samaritan
since Jesus Tradition is presumed throughout the letter, although it is too subtle, I believe, to function as
Paul’s primary reference. The apostle does emphasize the power of the Spirit to unite Jew and Gentile
with Christ and to lead them into a way of life that is pleasing to God.
Eventually, Paul will clarify what obedience to nomos in the New Covenant looks like by evoking Jesus’s
teaching on loving neighbor as ourselves (13:8-9). He also echoes Jesus (and the Shema) by emphasizing
complete love for God (8:28).
R: Paul cites Jeremiah (LXX):
For this is my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, says the Lord, I
will surely put my laws (νόµους) into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people. (Jer 31:33 [OG 38:33])
The reference to “mind” illuminates Paul’s argument: God promises to covenant with his people in a way
that the divine laws will be written inside the person, in contrast to the Mosaic nomos, which can then be
practiced because of the renewal of the mind (12:1-2). This is the “new covenant” (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor
3:2, 3, 6, 14; 6:16). This promise was originally directed to “the house of Israel,” but Jeremiah sees a
future when the peoples will join Israel to worship God at Zion (3:17).
D: Many have struggled to reconcile a seeming contradiction with a later claim in the argument: “For by
the works of the nomos no flesh will be justified (δικαιωθήσεται) before him because through the nomos
(comes) the knowledge of sin” (3:20).235 The confusion, I suggest, results from the misidentification of
232
Paul is not contrasting human action and faith but human action and mere hearing (Ortlund 2009, 333). James, the brother of
the Lord, makes the same point (1:22ff.). The rabbis similarly emphasize “action” over “mere hearing” (m. Abot 1:17).
233
If the Mosaic Torah is a sharper image of a universal law intuited through the human conscience, which can be obeyed or
disobeyed, then a Gentile could attain to a high level of righteousness through what God has revealed. This would not lead to
justification, however, because even the strongest human conscience will condemn the person in front of the holy God (see Isa
6:5). Experience relates that no one perfectly obeys conscience, particularly as life and knowledge sharpen its penetration into the
human heart.
234
Cranfield, Romans, 159; Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2000), 131-150; Simon J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14-15 Revisited,” JSNT
85 (2002): 46-47. Their arguments have also convinced Peter J. Leithart: Delivered From The Elements of The World:
Atonement, Justification, Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2016), 27 n. 4.
235
Noted by Aquinas. C. Cranfield writes: “In its context in Romans this sentence can hardly be intended to imply that there are
some who are doers of the law in the sense that they so fulfill it as to earn God’s justification. Rather Paul is thinking of that
beginning of grateful obedience to be found in those who believe in Christ, which though very weak and faltering and in no way
deserving God’s favour, is, as the expression of humble trust in God, well-pleasing in His sight” (Romans, 155).
35
the “peoples” in the previous unit. If, as we argue, Paul refers to Gentile recipients of the New Covenant,
there is no contradiction: the doers of nomos are “have the nomos within them,” “on their hearts” (Jer
31:33). They are obedient Christians, who are united to Christ and therefore share in his justification. In
the larger context of the argument, we learn that anyone in Christ is already justified, but there remains a
final judgment to determine the reality of this union. Augustine interprets the verse as distinguishing
genuine faith that issues in good works (= love or “charity”) from what is barren or dead.236
At this point, we must disagree with traditional Reformation interpretation. At an earlier stage, Luther was
able to hear this verse positively: the justified Christian could fulfill the Law. But this gave way to a false
dichotomy in his mature works: Law vs. Gospel.237 Melanchthon and Calvin interpret the claim as
impracticable “an ‘empty set’).238
Goodness and Truth cannot be separated, although Beauty, for the moment, is secondary. The telos of
Scripture is not aesthetics. It will never be normal for me to hear non-believers enjoy biblical language as
lyrics or poetry, but then persist in immoral behavior. Hearing God’s Word should bring repentance and
faith.
The apostle introduces conscience, an inner awareness of wrong, with an inclination towards thinking
and acting rightly.239 Unbelievers have a corrupted conscience (Titus 1:15). This suggests that conscience
is innate, part of the imago Dei, but has been corrupted by sin. Some believers are “weak in
conscience”—a way of life not fully conformed to the pattern of Christ through the Spirit (1 Cor 8:7, 10,
12; 10:29). A goal of the Christian life is to have a pure conscience before God (1 Tim 1:5), to which Paul
has attained (2 Cor 1:12).
The Qur’an describes conscience as “the reproving spirit” (s. 95. V. 3). We know him as the Holy Spirit.
A’ 2:17-24—THE HYPOCRITE
Paul delimits this unit with an inclusio concerning boasting in God and nomos.
[17] But if you regard yourself240 a Jew and rely upon nomos and boast in God, [18] and know the will
and test the things that are superior, while being taught by the nomos, [19] and you have persuaded
yourself that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those in the darkness, [20] a corrector of the foolish,
a teacher of infants—while having the outward form of knowledge and of the truth in the nomos—[21]
then, the one who teaches another, are you not teaching yourself? The one who preaches not to be
236
Eighty-Three Various Quesitions 76.2 (PL 40.88); noted by Bruce L. McCormack, Justification in Perspective (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006), 65.
237
Charlotte Methuen, Luther and Calvin: Religious Revolutionaries (Oxford: Lion, 2011), 70-71.
238
Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans (trans. Fred Kramer; St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), 89; John Calvin,
Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (trans. and ed. John Owen; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1948, 89-96. See Charles Raith, Aquinas and Calvin on Romans: God’s Justification and Our Participation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014), 39. The quotation is from McFadden, Judgment According to Works, 141.
239
The basic sense is “knowledge shared with oneself” (see LXX Eccles 10:20; WisdSol 17:10; Cranfield 1975, 159-60). Jews
associated the experience with the kidneys. Scripture describes conscience as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut
30:14; Ps 1:1-2; Prov 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, are expected to act
rightly (Gen. 4:1-16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelech, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1-
7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).
240
Or passive: “are called.”
36
stealing, are you stealing? [Exod 20:15] [22] The one who says not to be committing adultery, are you
committing adultery? [Exod 20:14] The one who hates idols, are you committing sacrilege? [Exod 20:3-
4] [23] You who are boasting in the Torah, through overstepping the Torah, are you dishonoring God?
[24] For the name of God because of you is being blasphemed among the peoples, as it stands written.241
[Isa 52:5 OG]
P: Paul takes another swipe at his interlocutor.242 The language echoes Jesus’s criticism of the Pharisees:
“Woe to you, blind guides” (Matt 23:16); “you also on the outside shine [as if you were] righteous, but on
the inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (v. 28).
R: Paul again alludes to the horizontal tablet of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:15, 14, 4-5 = Deut
5:19, 18, 8-9), which prohibits stealing, adultery, and idolatry. He probably reverses the canonical order
because the charge of idolatry would have been the most devastating to a staunch monotheist.
He cites a short line from Isaiah, who provides the big idea of Romans:243
And now why are you (all) here? Thus says YHWH, Because my people was taken for nothing,
wonder and howl. Thus says YHWH: Because of you my name is continually blasphemed among
the peoples. (52:5)244
In context, the Babylonian Captivity shamed God’s name. But God’s glory will be vindicated.
Contemporary Roman perceptions of Jews (= Judeans) were largely negative. Tacitus (c. 60 - c. 120)
faults the Jews for being standoffish and hypocritical:
…they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they
sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from
intercourse with foreign women.245
Juvenal (fl. end of 1st cent. – early 2nd cent.) attacks Romans drawn to Judaism, who
want to condemn our Roman laws, preferring to learn and honor and fear the Jewish
commandments, all that Moses handed down in that arcane tome of his.246
We get the impression that Romans were offended by Jewish moralism. Tacitus suggests hypocrisy. It is
important to note that many Jews were innocent of these judgments. In my opinion, we find the root of
anti-Semitism in Greco-Roman literature. But, no doubt, some Jews acted in a way that brought shame
upon their God (just as some Christians do today).
241
Like his earlier citation (1:17), Paul is rather free with the LXX—at least as we have it. See also the similar wording at
Ezekiel 36:20.
242
J. Dunn claims Paul’s target is a Jew, who boasts in covenant privilege over the Nations, not self-achieved righteousness
(2008, 9-10). But Paul appears to interact with the premise that justification was contingent upon not merely covenant
membership, but the acquisition of righteousness through obedience to the Mosaic Torah (2:6-10, 12).
243
See Notes at 1:1-7.
244
δι᾽ ὑµᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνοµά µου βλασφηµεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Paul’s citation differs slightly in word order and vocabulary:
τὸ γὰρ ὄνοµα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ ὑµᾶς βλασφηµεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.
245
History 5.2.5, trs. Church and Brodribb.
246
Satire XIV, tr. Green. I have Americanized his translation.
37
Paul may echo Jeremiah’s temple sermon against idolatry (7:9-11). Don Garlington notes:
Against this backdrop, Paul’s verb ἱεροσυλέω in 2:22 actually means “commit sacrilege” (not
“rob temples”), that is, the sacrilege or idolatry of elevating the Torah to a position of
unwarranted devotion and bestowing on it a permanence it was never intended to have in God’s
long-range plan. It is this that accounts for the additional charge of idolatry in passages such as
Rom 11:7–10 and Gal 4:8–11.247
D: The Pharisee of Paul’s critique has only the outward form (morphōsis) of knowledge and of the
truth in the Torah. In the other occurrence of morphōsis in Paul’s letters (2 Tim 3:5), the substantive
clearly signifies mere outward form: “while having the outward form of godliness but denying its power.”
This raises the question: What is the inner knowledge and truth of the Torah? The veil is lifted by Christ.
B’ 2:25-29—THE GENTILE BELIEVER
[25] For circumcision is valuable, if you practice the nomos. But if you are a nomos-breaker, your
circumcision has become foreskin.248
P: The apostle introduces circumcision (peritomē, περιτοµή) into the argument. Obedience to nomos
must follow circumcision; the covenant is otherwise broken.249
Cutting off the foreskin from a male’s penis was the ritual expression of the covenantal bond between
Yahweh and Israel, giving Israel a religious identity.250 In the Hellenistic period, Gentiles began to
“convert” to “Judaism” (Gr. Ioudaismos), which required circumcision as an entrance rite.251 Judith notes:
When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was
circumcised, and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day. (14:10)252
The Romans knew this and generally, like the Greeks, despised the practice as barbaric. Tacitus notes:
“Circumcision was adopted by them [Jews] as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come
over to their religion adopt the practice.”253
R: Circumcision is first mentioned as a sign of a covenant between YHWH and Abraham (Gen 17:10f.).
[26] So if “the foreskin”254 (Gentile) guards the righteous requirements of the nomos, will not his un-
circumcision be reckoned as circumcision? [27] And “the foreskin” by nature who perfects255 the nomos
247
Don Garlington, review of Kyle B. Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the
Transformation of the Heart, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2017).
248
I.e., the circumcision has been undone. Jews actually reversed their circumcisions during the Seleucid crisis. This claim is a
contemporary Jewish truism (Elliott 2000). Jesus captures the sense: “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt
18:17). Foreskin (akrobustia) may have functioned as a slur (see Acts 11:3; Eph 2:11).
249
Elsewhere, he redefines “circumcision” in light of the New Covenant work of the Holy Spirit (Col 2:8-12).
250
The original intent of the practice may have been to distinguish them from the sexual immoralities of the Canaanites.
251
Earhart 1993, 386.
252
In an addition (E) to Esther in the LXX, it is noted that “many of the Nations were circumcised and became Jews out of fear
of the Jews” (8:17, Apocrypha).
253
History 5.5, trs. Church and Brodribb. See also Juvenal, Satires XIV 95-105.
254
The foreskin is a polemical synecdoche for the non-Jew.
255
Or “keeps.” The verb teleō anticipates the claim that Christ is the telos of Torah (10:4).
38
will judge you, who through the written [nomos] and circumcision became a nomos-breaker. [28] For one
is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision outwardly in the flesh. [29] But one is a Jew
inwardly—even a circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, not by the written (nomos) whose praise is not
from people, but from God. [Deut 10:16]
P: This unit seems to prove my earlier choice to identify the godly Gentiles with believers. Non-believers
would not be in a position of perfecting the nomos. A Gentile believer, who obeys the spirit of the
nomos, empowered by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant, will be treated by God as if he were
circumcised, whereas a disobedient Jew, who happens to be physically circumcised, will be judged like a
Gentile.
The Pharisees acknowledged that being Jewish was more than the physical sign of circumcision.
Circumcised Jews who became habitual sinners—tax collectors and prostitutes—lost their covenant
position. Paul uses this logic against his opponents!
R: Jesus warned his generation about this embarrassment (Matt 12:41-42 par.).
Paul cites the finale of Moses’ preliminary instructions to Israel in Deuteronomy (10:12—12:1), which
emphasize love of the Lord as the criterion (measure) of covenantal obedience. The circumcision of the
heart presumes obstinate human wills (minds) are the barrier to knowing and doing what the Lord
requires.256 Yet the addition by the Spirit casts a New Covenant light on the nomos. The Holy Spirit
performs what God’s people could not do by themselves.
D: Paul treats the physical act of circumcision as an outward sign of an inner reality—the actual
relationship between God and Israel.
We should not interpret Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is an in-house rebuke. Christians feel ashamed
when non-believers act more like Christ than themselves.
S: The Holy Spirit circumcises the heart.
3:1-20—THE ORACLES OF GOD
Many find this unit to be especially difficult.257 The Greek is elliptical, and there are no quotation marks
in our earliest manuscripts. The unit may be divided into two parts. Paul allows a single advantage for the
Jew—being entrusted with the oracles of God (3:1-8). This may be called “special revelation” in contrast
to the “general revelation” available to all human beings. But the apostle follows with another rhetorical
sting (see 2:1-11): What do the oracles reveal? That every person, including the Jew, is unrighteous and
deserving of condemnation (3:9-20). Paul demonstrates with a string of biblical citations.
3:1-8—THE JEWISH “ADVANTAGE”
256
See also Deut 30:6; Lev 26:41.
257
Schreiner, Romans, 146-47.
39
[3:1] “So what is the advantage258 of the Jew, or what is the gain of circumcision?”259 [2] Great according
to every way!260 [For] first of all261 [they have an advantage] because they were entrusted with the oracles
of God.
P: The interlocutor rebuts Paul, a common rhetorical move in diatribe (see, e.g., James 2:18-19). He
expresses concern over the implications of his redefinition of a Jew as one inwardly (2:28-29). The first
and only advantage listed here for the Jewish people was the reception of God’s oracles through earlier
prophets, including Moses (1:2). The Athenians had to construct an altar to an “unknown God” (Acts
17:23). They knew the reconciling God, our alienated Creator, before everyone else. This connection will
grease a future reconciliation (chs. 9—11).
D: Although growing up in the church may foster complacency or legalism, Sunday school is a blessing.
Those raised in the church see the world differently. We have the responsibility and privilege of passing
on this communal memory to new believers who do not understand the Bible.
S: This unit continues the motif of God communicating through Prophets to Israel and the peoples. The
Fourth Gospel (3:34; 8:47) and 1 Peter (4:11) also mention the oracles of God (ta logia tou theou, τὰ
λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ). The emphasis is not on the text, but what God says.262
[3] For what if some were unfaithful?263 Will their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness264 of God?265 [4]
Never! Rather, may God be true but every human being a liar,266 as it stands written: So that you might be
justified by your words—that you might overcome when you are judged. [Ps 50:6 OG (51:4 MT)]
P: This claim anticipates chapters 9-11: The Jews were given the greatest of gifts, the word of a righteous
and faithful God. Despite their disobedience, God is faithful to his promises. Because of the promises
given, God will never give up on the Jewish people.
R: Paul cites from David’s quintessential psalm of confession (51).267 The sentence reads: “Against you
only I sinned, and I practiced evil before you, so that you might be justified in your words and [that] you
might overcome when you are judged.” Human sin validates God’s judgment, so that his justice will not
be questioned at the end of days.
D: Paul rebukes some of his fellow Jews for not being faithful to the revelation. I find the same dialectic
in the church. Yes, we have done a pretty good job at preserving and disseminating God’s Word—
258
Lit. “the more.”
259
Notice how “Jew” and “circumcision” are stylistically in parallel relationship. Paul referred to his ‘religion’ as Ioudaismon,
which was primarily a particular way of life (Gal 1:13, 14). Circumcision was central to Jewish identity.
260
Commentaries often find Paul’s answer surprising, but he has anticipated this response with his “to the Jew first” motif (1:16;
2:9, 10).
261
The adverb may refer to the first in the sense of foremost advantage (see 1:8). In any case, if Paul intended a list he makes
only one entry.
262
Clement of Rome (c. 95-96) uses the same phrase in this sense (1 Clem. 53.1).
263
Were unfaithful links with were entrusted in the previous verse.
264
“Faith” does not work here (see 3:22).
265
The Greek could also be read as a claim: “Their unfaithfulness will not nullify the faithfulness of God.”
266
In context, “liar” here probably refers to the human twisting of divine revelation, an assertion found earlier in Paul’s argument
(see 1:18-32). Another option is the general unreliability of human agents of revelation. In other words, while a human oracle
may be challenged, one from God is above reproach.
267
Ochsenmeier (2007) claims Paul appropriates David as an exemplar of perseverance through suffering.
40
thousands of translations and counting—but, with the exception of an enduring remnant, our history is
largely a story of failure. Almost every American household has a Bible; few read it; a fraction, practice.
S: This unit presumes two theological methods: (1) Heilsgeschichte and (2) the Via Negativa.
Heilsgeschichte is a German term that can be translated “sacred history” or “story.”268 The basic apology
for history as an academic discipline is that discerning the present requires the broader context of the past.
George Santayana (1863 – 1952) famously wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it.”269 God covenanted with a specific people, Israel, as a gradual form of self-disclosure. As a
wife and husband learn more about each other over a lifetime, so Israel (and now other Nations too)
discover God through the patterns of history. Outside of divine activity in history, the name Yahweh
would remain ineffable. That God is trustworthy or “faithful” (pistis, πίστις) is demonstrable only from
history. A husband is not faithful on his wedding, but after the honeymoon. The depth of this faithfulness
increases over a lifetime of commitment. Without the Bible intuitions of the divine would remain too
vague to win most hearts. Many philosophers have intuited God, but their exposition is cold and
impersonal. In Scripture, we are given a transcendent yet immanent, personal yet holy God, the Creator
and sustainer of all things. The peoples who come to worship the one true God must be forever grateful to
the Jews for their careful preservation of Scripture.
Via Negativa. Paul engages in apophatic theology: God is not like us. Some analogies for the divine
bear no relation to the God of Israel and must be rejected. For instance, God does not desire sexual
intercourse with human beings. But we must not forget that all analogies fall short of the divine reality.
God is like a husband to Israel, but is ultimately not a husband. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical
Homilies, says: “For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge
concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge” (6.2). The
Cappadocian fathers remind us that God does not exist as creation does. (When atheists maintain that God
does not exist, we can agree to a point.) God is true or “real” (Gr. alēthēs). God is ultimate reality, the
context for everything else. God is the ground of all knowledge, whether God is acknowledged or not.
Tertullian writes:
That which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet
beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of
what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known
and unknown. (Apologeticus, § 17)
How does one “know” God? The Eastern branch of the Church reminds us that knowledge must be
sought in a direct experience of God (“energies”) by theoria (“vision of God”). This happens communally
and individually. The immediate experience of God throughout the history of God’s people is part of our
experience. We “re-actualize” some of these experiences in the worship of the church. Without excusing
our hypocrisy, we must nevertheless confess that God is greater (Arabic, Allāhu Akbar)—infinitely
greater—than our feeble attempts to be like God. God is faithful; we back out of commitments, break
promises, and commit adultery. We are reminded of God’s faithfulness every time we confess our sins.
268
Geschichte can mean either or both. See the works of Johann C. K. von Hoffmann (1810 – 1877) and Oscar Cullmann (1902-
1999).
269
Reason in Common Sense vol. 1, 284. In context, Santayana is arguing that progress requires retentiveness.
41
[5] But if our270 unrighteousness makes known the righteousness of God, what shall we say?—“Is not the
God who brings271 wrath unrighteous?” I speak according to a human being.272 [6] Never! Otherwise, how
does God judge the world?273
P: The apostle anticipates a rebuttal, a false implication of his argument (again, typical of diatribe): if
human unrighteousness reveals God’s righteousness, why does God judge the unrighteous? The question
seems to presuppose that God sets people up to fail, like a father who beats his child after eating cookies
he put on her plate.274 But this misreading contradicts Paul’s emphasis on God’s kindness and tolerance.
The language anticipates the larger argument in chs. 9—11. But Paul must finish his point about the
nature of God’s righteousness before he can address human responsibility. The hint given here is that
there would be no ultimate accountability for human sin.
D: We must anticipate rebuttals in our presentation of the gospel.
S: There is a human perspective and a divine perspective.
[7] [But]275 if the truth of God abounded with my deceitfulness for his glory, why am I still judged as a
sinner?276 [8] And not as we are slanderously reported [and] as some allege that we say that “Let us do
evil things, so that good things might come!277”—whose judgment is just.
P: The apostle approaches the rebuttal from a personal standpoint, addressing a slander against his gospel:
if human unrighteousness reveals God’s glory, why not sin all the more? This anticipates the argument in
chapter 6. He is accused of “teaching an antinomian gospel because of his emphasis on divine sovereignty
and the inability of human beings to keep God’s law.”278
3:9-20—ALL ARE UNRIGHTEOUS
[9] Therefore, what (is the advantage of the Jew)? Are we (Jews) better off?279 Not at all! For we already
charged280 both Jews and Greeks: all are under sin, [10] as it stands written:
There is not one who is righteous. [Ps 14:3 [13:3 OG]/53:3 [52:3 OG]; Eccles 7:20 OG]
[11] There is not one who understands. [Ps 14:2 [13:2]/53:2 [52:2]
There is not one who seeks God. [Ps 14:2/53:2 [52:2]]
[12] All have turned aside.
Together they have become depraved. [Ps 14:3/53:3]
There is not one who practices kindness.
270
Some view the “our” as rhetorical. But Paul probably includes himself, the “greatest of sinners.”
271
Or “inflicts.” In Context, God’s expresses his wrath indirectly.
272
This parenthetical statement shows Paul’s embarrassment of even contemplating the injustice of God.
273
Or, if we read the verb as a present (see above), “how does God judge the world.”
274
For a similar accusation against God, see James 1:13.
275
Several witnesses read γάρ (“for”).
276
Paul seems to recapitulate the previous question (v. 5), but in a more personal way. If Paul’s sin brings about God’s glory—an
opportunity for God to express his justice—why does God still judge him and everyone else as a sinner?
277
N-A27 reads as a question.
278
279
Students struggle with the punctuation of this clause, but, in my opinion, Paul is simply engaging in extensive ellipsis. The
Greek matches 3:1. An alternative translation is “at any disadvantage.”
280
Paul signals to his hearers that he is returning to the primary argument of the letter up to that point.
42
There is not even one. [Ps 14:1-3; 53 (52 OG):2-4]
[13] Their throat is an opened grave.
They were deceiving with their tongues.281
The venom of snakes is under their lips [Ps 5:10 OG]
[14] whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. [Ps 10:7]
[15] Their feet are quick to shed blood. [Isa 59:7s; Prov 1:16]282
[16] Destruction and misery are in their paths.
[17] But the way of peace they have not known.283
[18] There is no fear of God before their eyes. [Ps 35:2]
[19] But we know that whatever the nomos says, it speaks to those who (live) by the nomos, so that every
mouth might be silenced and (that) the whole world might be held accountable before God. [20] For by
the works of the nomos no flesh284 will be justified before him285 because through the nomos (comes) the
knowledge of sin.
P: Paul giveth and taketh away. The apostle recapitulates his main argument, which began at 1:18:
everyone, both Jew and Greek, despite the advantage of the Jew receiving the oracles of God is under the
power of sin. (Paul will further unpack this claim in chs. 6 and 7).
As we noted, the language appears to contradict or reverse an earlier claim: “For the hearers of nomos are
not righteous before God, but the doers of nomos will be justified” (2:13). So works are the means of
justification, but no one will be justified by works!286 Ernst Käsemann (1906 – 1998) finds the same
tension in Jewish apocalyptic literature, which emphasizes universal sin.287 This is helpful background,
but one need go no further than Christ’s work on our behalf, which is introduced in the next unit.
R: Paul offers a florilegium or compilation of excerpts from other writings—in this case, all from
Scripture. This form, which seems to have originated in the first century BC, is perhaps the beginning of
biblical theology. The oracles of God are strung together according to topic. It betrays a canonical
awareness and the belief that God, the ultimate author of Scripture, continues to speak through the written
word.288 The unit follows a clear progression, with an inclusio: eyes of the heart (vv. 10-12, 18), throat,
lips (vv. 13-14), and action (vv. 15-18).289 The theme is clearly all are under the power of sin. We are
slaves to harmful thoughts and behaviors.
281
Note how this matches up with Paul’s previous statements about human deception.
282
Paul’s earlier citation from Isaiah was from 52:5 (2:24).
283
See Luke 1:79.
284
Synecdoche for human being (see John 1:14).
285
Paul uses the same language at Gal 2:16. Perhaps “flesh” underscores human mortality and weakness, although it may also
simply be synecdoche.
286
The New Perspective on Paul suggests he refers to ceremonial law, which separate Jews from the Nations, but this is not
supported by the context or the holistic view of Torah we find in Second Temple Judaism. Rather, Scripture teaches that Israel
needed a New Covenant in order to be reconciled to God—one that provides forgiveness and empowerment. The latter is
demonstrated, to the chagrin of the Jewish moralist, in Gentile believers.
287
Romans, 86.
288
The verses coalesce around the theme of universal sin. The linking word for many of them is “not” (ou, ouk). We can only
guess its origin. Perhaps Paul appropriates the cento from early Christian worship (Cranfield, Romans, 192). We find a briefer
parallel in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 17.9-12 (Käsemann 1980, 86). We find similar collections of “proof texts” in the
Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q174) and New Testament (Heb 1:5-14).
289
Cranfield divides these verses into three strophes, each consisting of two sets of two lines (Romans, 191).
43
Paul may begin with a citation from Ecclesiastes (7:20), giving it thematic prominence. (If so, it is the
only citation of that book in the New Testament.) Rabbi Eleazar ben Hyrcanus (end of 1st cent.) was
remembered for citing this verse with a similar point (b. San. 101a; Cranfield 1975, 192). The reference to
flesh evokes the opening of the letter—Jesus’s Davidic ancestry (1:3). Even a man after God’s own heart
sinned horrifically, with Bathsheba, and must throw himself at God’s mercy (3:4). Someone greater than
David is here!
D: Human depravity is clear from our history.290 The Romans lamented this element of the human
condition. Horace (65 – 8 BC) notes: “No one is born without faults. The man is best who has fewest.”291
Donald Brown published an important study, Human Universals (1991), in which he argued that all
people, regardless of culture, experience, among other things, conflict, envy, gossip, insulting, judging
others, language employed to misinform or mislead, materialism, mood- or consciousness-altering
techniques and/or substances, nepotism, rape, and shame.292
S: The root cause of sin is not fearing and honoring God.
3:21-26—GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE DEATH OF JESUS
This unit is a key turning point in the argument.293 Paul marks a transition with But now (Νυνὶ δὲ).294
[21] But now, apart from nomos,295 the righteousness of God,296 which is witnessed to by the nomos and
the Prophets,297 has been made evident, [22]—that is, a righteousness of God (has been made evident)
through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Indeed, there is no distinction (before God).298 [23] For all sinned299 and therefore fall short of the glory of
God. [24] But they are being justified300 freely301 by his grace through the redemption302 which is in Christ
Jesus,303 [25] whom God (publicly) displayed (as) a mercy seat through (his) faith in his blood—for the
proof of his righteousness [that comes] through the passing over of sinful actions committed in the past
290
Barth 1968, 85-86.
291
Omnibus hoc vitium; tr. Kraemer.
292
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
293
Schreiner, Romans, 179-80.
294
See also Rom 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23; 25:1; 1 Cor 12:18; 13:13; 15:20; 2 Cor 8:11, 22; Phlm 9, 11. On the transition, see
Cranfield, Romans, 201.
295
I.e., not according to the reward-and-punishment logic of Torah.
296
Paul recapitulates his primary thesis given 1:16-17.
297
This claim is established by the citations. The expression occurs only here in Paul’s letters. Other hapax legomena in this unit
lead some students to conclude that Paul is using pre-existing source. Whether or not this is true, the essence of what the apostle
is saying was definitely a core conviction of the entire church. Concerning the expression itself, just as Scripture revealed sin,
then condemned humankind, it also looked ahead to a messiah (= Christ), who would save his people from their sin.
298
For the sense “before God,” see v. 20.
299
All sinned: Paul must contrast sin with the glory of God, because, otherwise, his contemporaries justified themselves through
comparison with other people.
300
Or “treated as righteous” (e.g., CEB).
301
Paul repeats this idea at Eph 2:8.
302
Or “ransom” (e.g., CEB).
303
I.e., “paid by Christ Jesus” (CEB).
44
[26] by the tolerance304 of God—for the proof305 of his righteousness in the present season, so that he is
righteous [dikaion] even while justifying [dikaiounta] the one by the faith of Jesus.306
P: The adverb now emphasizes a temporal shift in the special revelation of the cross.307 The nomos and
Prophets, witness to God’s righteousness by admonishing Israel for sin, but the oracles find a strange
and wonderful fulfillment in the gospel.
R: Falling short of the glory of God, according to Jewish literature, describes the loss of “communion”
between God and the first human beings.308 Adam says to Eve: “O evil woman! Why have your wrought
destruction among us? You have estranged me from the glory of God.”309 But Paul will claim the gospel
restores human glory (5:2; 8:18-21; 1 Thess 2:12).
Redemption (apolutrōsis, ἀπολύτρωσις) echoes Israel’s exodus (= journey) from Egypt.
Scripture foreshadows expiation (Exod 32:11-14; Num 25:8, 11; Josh 7:25-26), but the most striking
typology is the Binding of Isaac.
The Father put forward the Son as a “mercy seat” (hilastērion, ἱλαστήριον), where the exchange took
place.310 The word has been translated propitiation and expiation. Propitiation emphasizes the subjective
side of the exchange: the assuagement of God’s wrath (1:18). Expiation, the objective. On the Day of
Atonement, the High Priest would slaughter a goat serving as the sin offering for the people, and then
sprinkle the blood on and in front of the mercy seat. The act represented the life of the people, the loss of
which they had merited by their sins, which is offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and
that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated.
Jesus, the son of man, who represents humanity before God, died—that is, suffered the full penalty of
sin—in our place. This is an expression of the Son’s faith or “trust” in God to recognize his offering and
rescue him from death (see below). So Christ embodies God’s election of humanity and God’s rejection
of human sin.311
The Father and Son preserved an objective moral standard in the universe, nomos, while graciously
saving dying, enslaved sinners. God appropriated the ancient intuitive logic of sacrifice: life (blood) for
life (blood).
D: Paul offers several angles on the atonement in this passage. Occasionally, one model is pitted against
another, but we should embrace all of them if they are warranted by Scripture. Here, we find the
expiation model: like the Old Testament sacrificial victim, Jesus “covers” our sins with his blood,
304
See 2:4.
305
Or “demonstration.” The basic sense of the noun is pointing to something beyond itself.
306
Or “faith in Jesus.” CEB reverts here to the objective genitive.
307
Schreiner claims a majority recognize this (Romans, 180).
308
309
See also 4Q504.8.1.4; 2 Apoc. Bar. 4.16: “Adam through this tree was condemned and was stripped of the glory of God.”
310
In the Greek translation of Scripture, the word signifies the lid of the ark of the covenant in the Tabernacle on which the blood
of the animal sacrifices was sprinkled by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement for the sins of the people (Lev 16:14). The
only other occurrence of ἱλαστήριον has this signified (Heb 9:5). The word may also point to the effect of that blood as
propitiatory (Marshall, New Testament Theology, 310).
311
For more discussion, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II/2.
45
removing the effect of sin that keeps unclean things out of God’s presence (see also Eph 2:13). We also
have the redemption model: to redeem means “to buy back”; as slaves to sin and its effect (death), Jesus
pays the price to purchase our manumission (see also Gal 4:5; Titus 2:14).
If one were to ask God if he took sin seriously, he might answer: “Seriously enough to kill my own Son.”
Who can say “God, that’s not enough?” If one were to cry out to God for mercy, the Son might say:
“Take my life for yours.” Who can say “Lord, that’s not enough?”
We are invited to trust in or believe God as well—that forgiveness and eternal life are available through
the Son’s propitiation. God responds to our faith by justifying us—a legal term for not being condemned
by a judge.312 This leads to redemption or deliverance from the slavery of sin and ultimately death (3:9;
6:23). We are freed from its power, a theme Paul will unpack further in the letter.
S: Every expression of divine mercy, from the beginning of God’s dealings with humankind to the
present, is set in equipoise by the cross. God did overlook a lot of sin, which introduced great suffering
into the world; and this caused a tension in Scripture between promise and reality, between order and
chaos. This solution allows God to extend mercy without compromising justice. God’s justice and love are
reconciled in the cross. Great is this mystery, but the moral universe rests upon it.
EXCURSUS: FAITH OF CHRIST
Paul employs the Greek phrase ek pisteōs Christou (ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), which may be translated “by
faith in Christ,” an objective genitive, or “by (the) faith of Christ,” which could be interpreted several
ways (e.g., subjective genitive, possession):313
εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόµου ἐὰν µὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ
ἡµεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαµεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶµεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων
νόµου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. (Gal 2:16)
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,
[or (the) faith of Jesus Christ] so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by
faith in Christ [(the) faith of Christ) and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no
one will be justified. (ESV)
ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐµοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ
τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός µε καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ. (Gal 2:20)
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the
life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God [or by faith, the (faith) of the son of
God], who loved me and gave himself for me. (ESV)
312
Righteousness here indicates a status God will confer on people they could not gain by observing the Torah (Marshall 2004,
309).
313
There is also the possibility of a “full” or “Plenary” genitive, which would convey both and objective and subjective sense:
Wallace 1996, 119-21; Reasoner 2005, 31. All of the pistis Christou texts are imbedded in prepositional phrases (Wallace 1996,
115). Virtually all the English translations adopt the objective reading throughout. The same ambiguity persists in the Fathers
(Ignatius, To The Romans Greeting; Clement of Rome, 1 Clem. 27.3).
46
ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁµαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. (Gal 3:22 BGT)
But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ [or
by (the) faith of Jesus Christ] might be given to those who believe. (ESV)
δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν
διαστολή . . . ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ,
εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. (Rom 3:22, 26)
The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ [or through (the) faith of Jesus Christ] for
all who believe. For there is no distinction . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present
time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus [or the one who is
of (the) faith of Jesus] (ESV)
καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, µὴ ἔχων ἐµὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόµου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν
ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (Phi 3:9)
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that
which comes through faith in Christ [or through (the) faith of Christ], the righteousness from God
that depends on faith (ESV)
We also find Eph 3:12:
ἐν ᾧ ἔχοµεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. (Eph 3:12)
in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him [or through his
faith]. (ESV)
Although virtually all of the modern translations prefer the objective genitive reading, we find the
subjective in earlier translations:
Wycliffe Bible314
Knowen that a man is not iustified of the werkis of lawe, but bi the feith of Jhesu Crist; and we
bileuen in Jhesu Crist, that we ben iustified of the feith of Crist, and not of the werkis of lawe.
Wherfor of the werkis of lawe ech fleisch schal not be iustified. (Gal 2:16)
And now lyue not Y, but Crist lyueth in me. But that Y lyue now in fleisch, Y lyue in the feith of
Goddis sone, that louede me, and yaf hym silf for me. (Gal 2:20)
And the riytwisnesse of God is bi the feith of Jhesu Crist in to alle men and on alle men that
bileuen in hym; for ther is no departyng. (Rom 3:22)
Whom God ordeynede foryyuer, bi feith in his blood, to the schewyng of his riytwisnesse, for
remyssioun of biforgoynge synnes, 26 in the beryng up of God, to the schewyng of his
314
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wycliffe/. I am grateful to Hunter Combs for looking up these references.
47
riytwisnesse in this tyme, that he be iust, and iustifyynge hym that is of the feith of Jhesu Crist.
(Rom 3:25-26)
Tyndale’s NT315
We which are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the gentiles, know that a man is not justified by
the deeds of the law: but by the faith of Iesus Christ: and we have believed on Iesus Christ, that
we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the deeds of the law: because that no flesh
shall be justified by the deeds of the law. (Gal 2:16)
I am crucified with Christ. I live verily, yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me. The life which I
now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the son of God, which loved me, and gave himself for
me. (Gal 2:20)
The righteousness no doubt which is good before God cometh by the faith of Iesus Christ unto all,
and upon all them that believe. (Rom 3:22)
But are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Iesu, whom God hath
made a seat of mercy thorow faith in his blood, to shew the righteousness which before him is of
valour, in that he forgiveth the sins that are passed, which God did suffer to shew at this time: the
righteousness that is allowed of him, that he might be counted just, and a justifier of him which
believeth on Iesus. (Rom 3:24-26)
KJV (AD 1611)316
Knowing that a man is not iustified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ, euen
we haue beleeued in Iesus Christ, that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
workes of the Law: for by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified. (Gal 2:16)
I am crucified with Christ. Neuertheles, I liue, yet not I, but Christ liueth in me, and the life which
I now liue in the flesh, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who loued mee, and gaue himselfe
for me. (Gal 2:20)
Euen the righteousnesse of God, which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all, and vpon all them that
beleeue: for there is no difference (Rom 3:22)
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousnesse: that hee might bee iust, and the iustifier of him
which beleeueth in Iesus. (Rom 3:26)
Webster’s Bible (AD 1833)317
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even
we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16)
315
http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/.
316
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
317
http://www.biblestudytools.com/wbt/
48
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life
which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me. (Gal 2:20)
Even the righteousness of God, [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all them that
believe; (Rom 3:22)
Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: 25 Whom God
hath set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, [I say], at this time
his righteousness: that he may be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:24-
26)
The Greek noun pistis is rarely followed by a personal genitive; when this happens, the genitive is usually
non-objective.318 Mark 11:22 is most relevant: καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ.
“And answering, Jesus says to them, ‘Have faith in God.’” But we do not find any clear examples of
exceptions in Paul’s letters. Instead, the apostle refers in this letter to the πίστεως Ἀβραάµ, which clearly
means “faith of Abraham” (4:16).
The subjective reading goes back at least to Origen (Reasoner 2005, 24). Richard Hays (2002 [orig. pub.
1983]) stirred up the present debate. He claims Paul presents Jesus as the subject of our salvation—
specifically, his pistis, “the power or quality which enables him to carry out his mandate” (115). He
summarizes his position: “God is the sender whose purpose to convey blessing to humanity is carried out
through the action of a single ‘Subject,’ Jesus Christ” (160). The faithful obedience of Christians
continues the story of Jesus’s faithfulness, although faith itself is not a human work (120).
The basis for the objective reading—faith in Christ—may be traced to Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274),
who claims Jesus did not have faith because faith involves divine reality beyond human sight and Jesus
could see everything.319
But this does not account for his own admission of ignorance (Mark 13:32) and final cry in Luke: “into
your hand, I entrust (paratithemai) my Spirit” (25:46).320 The two Psalms that Jesus cites on the cross are
full of personal expressions of faith in YHWH:
You made me trust you at my mother’s breasts (22:9)
I trust in YHWH (31:6, 14)
Fundamental to the subjective reading is the disposition we should acquire before God while facing trial,
even death. Jesus went ahead of us, in mind and body. In my opinion, this interpretation is also more
conducive for developing a personal relationship with Jesus as a person, not an object.
Concerning the immediate context, we already encountered πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ (“faithfulness of God” 3:3)
and will soon read πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν Ἀβραάµ (“faith of our father Abraham,” 4:12; see also v.
318
Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 116. There are exceptions (Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13).
319
Summa Theologiae 3a.7.3.
320
Paul uses the verb negatively, in reference to Israel failing to obey the “oracles of God” (3:2-3).
49
16). If we take διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as an objective Genitive (“through faith in Jesus Christ,” we
are left with a redundancy. The subjective reading, however, suggests a common faith between Christ and
believer. It also seems to be a more fitting demonstration of God’s righteousness.321 Richard Longenecker
translates our verse: “This righteousness of God is through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and given to all
those who believe. There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”322 (p.
388
3:27-31—NOMOS OF FAITH
[27] So where is [your]323 boasting? It was excluded—through which nomos?—the nomos of works?324
No! Instead, (it was excluded) through the nomos of faith. [28] For we argue (that) a human being is
justified by faith, apart from works of nomos.325 [29] Or is God (the God) of Jews only? No! (God is) also
(the God) of the peoples. Yes, also of the peoples! [30] For God is one who will justify the Circumcision
(Jew) by faith and the Foreskin (Gentile) through this faith. [Deut 6:4]326
P: Although one may boast in the works of nomos, there is no boasting in faith, especially if we begin
with the Messiah’s faithfulness. At one time the Mosaic Law mediated between God and Israel, but now
the faithfulness of Christ is the bridge. The means of justification at the final Judgment for Jew and
Gentile is the same—faith.327
R: Paul evokes the Shema, a Jewish confession of faith (Deut 6:4).
D: When Jews declare their faith in one God, they necessarily acknowledge that YHWH is the God of all
people. In the first century, some rabbis acknowledged this and placed the Noahide Laws over them.328
The earliest written form is in the Tosefta:
Seven commandments were the sons of Noah commanded: (1) concerning adjudication (dinim),
(2) concerning idolatry (avodah zarah), (3) and concerning blasphemy (qilehat Ha-Shem), and (4)
concerning sexual immorality (giluy arayot), (5) and concerning bloodshed (Shefikhut damim),
(6) and concerning robbery (ha-gezel), and concerning a limb torn from a living animal (ever min
ha-hy).329
The list is moderate or impossible depending on the meaning of idolatry and blasphemy. Paul’s
indictment of Gentiles seems to anticipate some of the language, although he is more dependant on the
Wisdom of Solomon. But the development of the Noahide Laws is a different approach to the covenant
relationship, a path not taken.
321
Schreiner lists most of this evidence, but does not find it to be persuasive (Romans, 182-83).
322
The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Wm B.Eerdmans, 2016),
388.
323
F, G, and a few Latin witnesses.
324
Paul knew a Torah of works could produce boasting (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:6).
325
Repeated from 3:21.
326
Allusion to 1:17.
327
Often left untranslated, the final occurrence of pistis in the verse is arthrous: ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.
328
David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism (2nd ed.; Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011), 11-
35.
329
T. AZ 8.4; cited in Novak, The Image, 11.
50
Martin Luther added “alone” to faith in this verse (sola fide). While a bad translation, the reformer
underscores the point that justification is only by faith. Although faith is never alone—it gives birth to
love and the other fruit of the Spirit—faith alone brings a person into a right relationship with God. Faith
“leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ” (Calvin, Inst. 3.11.20).
[31] So do we make nomos powerless through faith? Never! Rather, we establish330 nomos.
P: The Pharisees and Paul agreed that nomos was the key to healing the tear between God and his elect,
but they held to different groundings: works or the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah.331 Jesus perfected the
nomos, directing all thought and behavior towards love.
4:1-25—FATHER ABRAHAM
This unit is bound by topic—the faith of Abraham. Therefore (οὖν) is inferential, unpacking the claim in
the previous verse.
[4:1] Therefore, what shall we say (about what) Abraham, our patriarch, has found according to the
flesh?332 [2] For if Abraham was justified from works,333 he has a boast, but not before God.334 [3] For
what does the Scripture say? Now Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for
righteousness. [Gen 15:6 LXX]
P: Like Galatians (3:2, 6), a discussion of faith naturally leads to Abraham.
R: Paul begins with the first occurrence of believe (pisteuō) in Scripture,335 and offers a literal exegesis:
Abraham’s faith is the basis for God reckoning righteousness to him. This justification did not take place
after the patriarch’s death, but near the beginning of his journey. The apostle cites at least a part of the
verse nine more times in the section, establishing it as a motif.336
[4] Now for the one who labors the wage337 is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. [5]
But for the one who does not labor, but believes in the One who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
reckoned for righteousness, [6] as also David speaks the Beatitude of a human being for whom God
himself reckons righteousness apart from works:338 [7] Blessed are those whose acts of lawlessness339 are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. [8] Blessed is the man who by no means the Lord reckons sin. [Ps
31:1 OG = 32:1 MT]
P: God justified Abraham in response to his faith, not mere devotion or sacrifice. Otherwise, Paul
claims, God would be paying a wage.
330
Or “confirm”: see 10:3; Heb 10:9.
331
See Kaminsky 2007, 169-171. He speaks more broadly of Judaism and Christianity.
332
Or “in the way of flesh.”
333
I.e., “works of nomos.”
334
James may have this idea of justification in mind in his letter (see 2:24).
335
Habakkuk 2:4, cited at 1:17, is the last occurrence of the noun pistis in the LXX.
336
4:3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24; 5:13.
337
The word misthos may also be translated “reward.”
338
See 3:21.
339
Lawlessness plays off of works of the Torah.
51
R: This Davidic Psalm of Thanksgiving, probably read in the synagogue, encourages honest confession
(v. 5).340 The Scripture functions like the earlier citation of the king (3:4 = Ps 51:4). David embodies the
penitential sinner, who is now overjoyed by grace. The citation brings sin into the discussion. Not only
are human beings undeserving of justification, they have rebelled against God as Paul demonstrated. To
reckon for righteousness, in part, is not to reckon one’s sin. To use a modern analogy, God, the judge,
decides our sins are inadmissible in court.
4:9-12—FORGIVENESS FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE
[9] So is this Beatitude for the Circumcision (Jew) or also for the Foreskin (Gentile)? For we say: this
faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. [10] How then is it reckoned—while being (in the state
of) circumcision or foreskin? Not while circumcision, but while foreskin. [11] And he received a sign
(characterized by) circumcision, a seal of righteousness (which comes from) faith, a (faith) while a
Foreskin, that he might be a father of all who believe during (the state of being a) Foreskin, that
righteousness might be reckoned also to them, [12] and [in order for him to be] a father of circumcision to
those who are not only of circumcision, but also to those who walk in the footsteps of faith in the foreskin
of our father Abraham.
P: The exchange between “our father Abraham” and God—that is, the man’s faith and God’s willingness
to reckon it as righteousness—preceded circumcision and therefore cannot be based on the ritual. So the
medium of faith allows the blessing of forgiveness and justification to be for both Jews and Gentiles. So
Abraham is the father of any believer.
R: Paul may play off circumcision being later commanded as “a sign of the covenant” (Gen 17:11). But
God had given Abraham the sign of a “smoking fire pot and a flaming torch” to validate his earlier
promise to make him “the father of a multitude of nations [= Gentiles]” (16:17; 17:4).
4:13-15—THE PROMISE REALIZED THROUGH FAITH
[13] For the promise to Abraham or to his seed—(that) he is the inheritor of the world—is not through
Torah, but through a righteousness from faith. [Gen 15:5] [14] For if the inheritors are such by nomos,
then faith is weakened and the promise is nullified.341 [15] For the nomos produces wrath. But where there
is no nomos, neither is there overstepping.342
P: The Abrahamic Covenant—specifically God’s promise—preceded the giving of the Mosaic Law. To
begin with the nomos, then, is to supplant God’s own temporal prioritization. When people base their
salvation on the performance of nomos, the human side of salvation is overemphasized.
R: God promised “land” to Abraham, which is understood by Paul as referring to the world. This
escalation may be seen through the development of the covenant idea throughout Scripture.
4:16-22—TESTING OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH
340
Paul links Psalm 32 [31] with Genesis 15:6 through the repetition of the verb reckoned (gezerah shawah; Basta 2007).
341
See 3:31.
342
The boundaries = disobedience.
52
[16] For this (reason), it is by faith that [it would be] according to grace, that the promise may be firm to
every seed—not only to the one by the nomos, but even to the one by the faith of Abraham, who is the
father of us all, [17] as it stands written: I have made you a father of many peoples [Gen 17:5 LXX]
before whom he believed—God, who makes alive those who are dead and calls the things that are not as
[if] they are—[18] who in hope against hope believed that he would become a father of many peoples
according to what has been said: So your seed will be. [Gen 15:5 LXX] [19] And after not growing weak
in faith, he considered his own body, which already has been dead—being about a hundred (years old)—
and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. [20] But in the promise of God he did not waver in unbelief, but was
strengthened in faith, having given glory to God, [21] after being convinced that the one who promised is
powerful (enough) to realize [his promise]. [22] So it was also reckoned to him for righteousness. [Gen
15:6 LXX]
P: Paul recapitulates his main point: God justifies in response to faith based on grace, so that Jews and
Gentiles might benefit from his promises to Abraham. But the apostle now stresses the subjective
appropriation of the promises of God, the testing of Abraham’s faith—something not explored in
Galatians but consistent with the presentations of Hebrews and James.
R: Paul alludes to Abraham’s two questions, which evidence a faith crisis: “Can a child be born to a man
who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” (Gen 17:17). In the
subsequent narrative, when the “Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre,” it is Sarah’s turn to
laugh (18:12). Abraham remains silent, perhaps having made peace with God (21:1-7).
The deadness of Sarah’s womb anticipates God’s power over death, definitively expressed at the
resurrection.
D: Abraham’s faith, like that of his seed, Jesus Messiah, chose hope over despair. This hope was not in
his circumstances, which were bleak, if not impossible, but in God. An element of faith is waiting for the
right time, as Habakkuk learned (1:17). Another element is giving glory to God, the opposite of Adam’s
descendants.
S: God brings life out of barrenness.
4:23-25—APPLICATION OF THE PROMISE TO ALL BELIEVERS
[23] But it was not written for him only—that it was reckoned to him, [24] but also for us for whom it is
about to be reckoned, for those who believe on the one who raised Jesus our Lord from those who are
dead, [25] who was delivered over (to death) because of our wrongful actions and was raised because of
our justification.
P: As Abraham believed in God’s promises, and God responded to that faith by reckoning it as
righteousness, he will do the same for all who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus our Lord
(see 1 Cor 15:1-3).
Paul offers a summation of our union with Christ as it relates to death and life: who was delivered over
because of our wrongful actions and was raised because of our justification. The language has a
confessional ring: the relative pronoun who (ὅς), parallelism (palellelismus membrorum), and
53
Christocentric focus (cf. Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20).343 There is also participationist emphasis, as Hans
Burger notes: “as Christ participates in our unrighteousness, we now participate in his vindication and
become justified. Our justification is a gracious participation of the ungodly in the vindication of
Christ.”344 Confessing Jesus as Lord, for Paul, unites the believer with the crucified yet resurrected Son
of God. Yet, as Burger and others note, participationist and substitutionary models of atonement are not
mutually exclusive.345 They are united in this confession.
R: Paul reads Scripture (what is written) typologically, so that Abraham is a fitting model for future
generations.
D: We believe and it is about to be reckoned as righteousness. Paul links justification to resurrection

because that is when the faith of every believer is evaluated.
5—8—FREEDOM IN GOD
Many have delimited chapters five through eight as a major unit.346 The long unit has two parts: an
eschatological reflection that forms inclusio (5:1-11 // 8:14-39) around an ethical one (5:12—8:130.347
The skopos is freedom—from God’s wrath, the Law, the power of sin, and death. The forensic discussion
of justification moves to the participationist blessing of being “in Christ.”348
5:1-11—APPLICATION OF ABRAHAMIC AND MESSIANIC FAITH
[5:1] Therefore, after being justified349 by faith, let us have peace350 before God through our Lord Jesus
Christ [2] through whom we also are having access [by faith]351 into this grace by which we are standing;
and we boast352 in the hope of the glory of God, [3] and not only [this]353, but we also boast in sufferings
knowing that this suffering is producing endurance, [4] and this endurance—character, and this
character—hope. [Ps 34:2]
343
A common observation: see, for example, Longenecker, Romans, 535.
344
Being in Christ: a Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 248.
345
Craig Keener notes: “a forced choice between forensic and participationist categories is not necessary”: The Mind of the
Spirit, 50.
346
For references, see Hultgren, Romans, 197. Douglas Campbell finds a summation of Paul’s gospel and “missionary praxis”:
“Christ and The Church in Paul: A ‘Post-New Perspective’ Account,” in Four Views on The Apostle Paul (ed., Michael F. Bird;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012), 113-143, 117.
347
Nils Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology of the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg: 1977), 88-90
(“Appendix I: Synopsis of Romans 5:1-11 and 8:1-39”); followed by Campbell, “Post-New Perspective,” 118.
348
See Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, eds., ‘In Christ’: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of
Union and Participation (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 384 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
349
I.e., “declared righteous.”
350
Or “we have.” Our earliest witnesses spell the verb as being in the subjunctive mood (so also Schaff, 56). For the opposite
choice, see Comfort, New Testament Text, 443-444.
351
Nestle-Aland encloses τῇ πίστει with brackets. The article and substantive do not occur in B and D. The wording was
probably added to harmonize with Eph 3:12. The shorter reading is preferred (so also RSV, NRSV, NEB). The clause makes
sense without it.
352
The four previous occurrences of to boast (2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:22) have been negative. But Paul promised an alternative to
shame (1:16). He can boast in his salvation because he had nothing to do with it. As he says in 1 Cor 1:31: “Let the one who
boasts, boast in the Lord.” Such boasting therefore is actually an expression of humility.
353
D may supply a demonstrative pronoun for clarity.
54
P: Entrusting ourselves to Jesus Christ, we are no longer under divine wrath, but enjoy direct access to
God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The textual witnesses offer two different readings: either Paul
writes “let us have peace” (subjunctive” or “we have peace” (indicative).
Now comes the subjective appropriation of this objective reality: let us have peace. Karl Barth notes:
“when this righteous decision of God becomes known to us and effective for us through our
acknowledgment and grasp of it in faith . . ., we have peace with God.”354
In any case, there is an already and not yet (partially realized eschatology) to the unit. We are standing
before God, a vision of resurrection, but at least some of this life remains. The secured, glorious future of
Paul and his readers allows them also to boast in sufferings. Introducing suffering into the argument is
not accidental because it’s a sign of union with Christ.
Paul employs a sorites or virtue chain in which each is the “daughter” of the previous: endurance births
character that delivers hope.355 Character (dokimē, δοκιµή) signifies “the experience of going through a
test.”356 The opening inferential therefore (οὖν) relates the argument to Abraham, who trusted God to
keep his promises and hoped despite seemingly impossible circumstances (esp. 4:18-19).357
D: Hope, a firm conviction about the future, is a kind of reward, but also recognizes the trauma of the
journey. Hope flourishes in broken dreams and weariness of life. A child can be hopeful, but not like her
grandparents for whom hope has moved into the center of their being.
5:5-8—GOD’S LOVE IN CHRIST
[5] Now this hope358 does not put to shame because the love of God is poured out in our hearts through
the Holy Spirit, who was given to us.359 [6] For while we were yet still helpless, at the right time Christ
died for ungodly (people).360 [Mark 2:17] [7] For rarely361 will one allow himself to die for a righteous
person. For perhaps one is brave enough even to die for a good person. [8] But God demonstrates his own
love toward us—namely, that while we were sinners Christ died for us. [Mark 10:45]
P: This is the first occurrence of love (agapē, ἀγάπη) in Romans.362 In context, it signifies true giving
(“charity”). Paul will emphasize salvation as gift in a subsequent unit (5:15-21).
354
Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5 (tr. T.A. Smail; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2004 [orig. pub. 1956]), 8-
9.
355
See, for example, Gal 5:22-23; Jas 1:3-4; m. Sot. 8:15; Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.64 [1.19/56]; Sacrif. Abel. 27; Wisd. 8:7; 1QS 4:2-
6. Not the anaphoric articles: ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑποµονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἡ δὲ ὑποµονὴ δοκιµήν, ἡ δὲ δοκιµὴ
ἐλπίδα (vv. 3-4).
356
BDAG s.v. δοκιµή.
357
There is debate over whether ch. 5 belongs to what goes before or after in the argument (Reasoner 2005). We should avoid the
false dichotomy: as nearly always, inference goes in both directions, but with an emphasis on what follows.
358
Anaphoric article (ἡ . . . ἐλπὶς). Hope latches the subunits together.
359
I. H. Marshall speaks of “an inward experience conveyed to them by the Holy Spirit” (2004, 314).
360
The preposition ὑπέρ may express proxyship (“in the place of”), especially in the context of someone dying in a way that
benefits others (Xenophon, Anab. 7.4.9; Euripides, Alc. 700-701). Murray Harris suggests the preposition here may “bear the dual
sense of representation/advantage and substitution” (Prepositions and Theology, 216).
361
Or “with difficulty.”
362
But see the related form at 1:7.
55
Jesus said: “For also the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give up his life (as) a
ransom in exchange for many” (Mark 10:45); “The healthy do not need a physician, but those who are
sick. I did not come to call righteous, but sinful (people)” (Mark 2:17).
Paul contrasts the gospel with the notion of a good death (ars moriendi), the performance of actions for
the sake of others that transcends selfishness into the realm of nobility (Theon, Prosgymnata 9.25).
Seneca the Younger writes: “There’s nothing so very great about living—all your slaves and all the
animals do it. What is, however, a great thing is to die in a manner that is honorable, enlightened and
courageous” (LXXVI, 5).363 There are examples in Judaism and Greco-Roman literature of someone
dying to save their community. Athenian soldiers died well protecting their city: “They gave their lives in
exchange for (Gr. huper) the freedom of the Greeks” (Hyperides, Funeral Speech 9, 16). The author of 4
Maccabees (AD 19-72) has Eleazar say: “You have known, God, [that] while being able to save myself I
am dying with burning tortures because of the Law. Be merciful to your people. Let our punishment
suffice on behalf of them. Make my blood their purification [katharsion], and take my life in exchange [or
as a ransom]364 for theirs” (16:27-29). On Eleazar and other martyrs, the author adds: “They have become,
as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death
as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated” (17:21-
22). A hero may choose to die for his own, but not for the enemy!
Three perfect tense verbs—have, stand, poured—express the state of the believer. Through our union
with Christ, we already live justified in God’s presence, enjoying love and other fruit of the Spirit. This
assures us that our hope will not lead to shame, but glory (honor).
R: The real test of Abraham’s faith takes place with the binding of Isaac (22:1-19). James (2:21-23) and
the author of Hebrews (11:17-19) emphasize this. Although Paul offers no direct allusion, the re-
introduction of Christ as substitute offering parallels the Akeda (“Binding of Isaac):
Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by
his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his
son. So Abraham called the name of that place, “YHWH will provide”; as it is said to this day,
“On the mount of YHWH it will be provided.” (Gen 22:13-14)
D: Augustine sees this as our love for God, an objective genitive: “the love that turns us toward God and
draws us close to God is the gift of the Holy Spirit.”365 This reorients our desire toward the one true, good,
and beautiful God.
But the context (v. 8) suggests God’s own love fills our hearts.366
Perhaps we have a “plenary genitive,” which conveys both ideas: God is the object and agent of our
love.367 The Christian life, then, is giving back the love God gives us.368 This love “sets us on fire” and
“lifts us” to God (Con. 13.9.10).
363
I slightly adapted the translation for Amerian usage.
364
Exchange: “Giving one’s life in recompense for another” (L&S).
365
The Latin allows the same ambiguity. Stewart, Prayer and Community, 29.
366
Origen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Calvin, and most modern scholars: see, for example, Barth, Christ and Adam, 10;
Cranfield, Romans, 262.
367
Wallace 1996, 119-20.
56
This passage encouraged the development of the sacramental approach to salvation. “Poured” may be
rendered “infused” in the Latin tradition.
Jesus models the cardinal virtue of courage (Lat. andreia). Manliness is the courage to love others with
our life.
S: The unit is Trinitarian: God’s love involves Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
5:9-11—RECONCILIATION
[9] Much more, [then369], because we are now justified by his blood, we will be saved through him apart
from the wrath. [10] For if, while being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son
how much more,370 after being reconciled, will we be saved by his life! [11] But [we do] not [boast in this
glory] only, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ—through whom now we received the
reconciliation.371 [Ps 34:2]
P: The apostle closes the unit with a “double boast” inclusio (see v. 3). We are now (Gr. nun) justified:
wrath has given way to reconciliation.372
This is the first occurrence of reconciliation (katallagē, καταλλαγή) in the letter.373 The signified marks
the reestablishment of an interrupted or broken relationship.374 By this point, Paul’s we is inclusive of
Jews like himself and Gentiless—all of whom faced God’s wrath. He has alluded to the creation story, but
now focuses on the consequence of the fall.
5:12-21—ADAM VS. CHRIST
The unit is delimited by inclusio with two subunits: the fall of Adam (vv. 12-14) and the rise of Christ
(vv. 15-21).
5:12-14—THE FALL OF ADAM
[12] For this (reason),375 as through one person Sin376 came into377 the world, and through Sin Death,
likewise also [Death]378 came through all people379 because all sinned.380
368
Homily Five on the First Epistle of John.
369
οὖν is not present in D and other Western mss.
370
A qal vahomer (a fortiori) argument.
371
The prose is elliptical. Usually, the ellipsis follows ἀλλά. Instead of a conjugated verb, the earlier mss. have a participle.
However, the sense is not especially difficult.
372
The article may be anaphoric referring to the previous reference (4:15) or possibly earlier occurrences.
373
The article is therefore surprising. It may particularize an abstraction, but Paul may also intend a specific reconciliation, which
fits the context.
374
2 Macc. 5:20; BDAG s.v. καταλλαγή.
375
For this [reason]: This unit unpacks the need for reconciliation in Jesus Christ.
376
The arthrous substantive may be anaphoric, but Sin is also personified in the argument.
377
εἰσέρχοµαι, “enter into.”
378
Absent in D and other Western mss.
379
διέρχοµαι, “enter through.”
57
[13] For until the nomos sin381 was in the world, but sin is not imputed382 when there is no nomos. [14]
But Death reigned from Adam until Moses—even over the ones who did not sin in the likeness of the
overstepping of Adam, who is a type of the one to come.383
P: The apostle moves from the positive foreshadowing of Jesus’s faithfulness in Abraham to the negative
type (typos, τύπος) of Adam. The jump is not considerable: Genesis presents Abraham’s call as the
ultimate solution to the Fall (not the Flood).
R: The purpose of an origin story is to explain why things are the way they are. Why do we seek life, but
all die? Why do we desire freedom, but violate our conscience? Paul does not retell the story—it was
known to his intended readers—but seizes upon the existential answer: we die as slaves because of “our
father” Adam whose name in Hebrew means “humanity” (1 Clem. 6.3).384
How did this happen? A personified Sin (what encourages us to violate our conscience) invades the
world, bringing Death.385 At the end of the letter, Paul associates Satan with the Serpent (16:20; see also
Rev 12:9). Earlier, he emphasized human responsibility for sin (1:18-32); now Satan is given his share.
But neither Genesis nor Paul allows one variable to swallow the other. Unlike Eve, who was “deceived,”
Adam willfully sins.386 As a consequence, Adam is alienated from God and dies, as do all his descendants
except Enoch (Gen 5).
Adam is prominent in Scripture by virtue of being at the beginning. So he and Eve inform the rest of the
story. But after Genesis, he is only mentioned by name in one (1 Chron 1:1) or two places. Hosea writes,
‫ְאָדם ָעב ְ֣רוּ ב ִ ְ֑רית ָ ֖שׁם בָּ ֥ גְדוּ בִ ֽי‬

֖ ָ ‫ְו ֵ֕המָּה כּ‬
The ESV translates: “like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me”
(6:7). This reading is amenable to covenant theology because it presumes YWHW made a covenant with
Adam. But the KJV reads: “they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt
treacherously against me”—in part because of the ambiguity of the Hebrew discussed above.
Paul offers a read on the biblical creation story, but is also a member of an interpreting community, so
that retellings may be part of his presentation. Jews remembered Adam’s sin as part of their national
story. In The Life of Adam and Eve,387 probably a first-century midrash (a retelling of Scripture) and
380
The phrase eph hō (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) has a causal force in other occurences of the Pauline corpus (2 Cor 5:4; Phil 3:12; see Moyise,
Philippians, 26. J. Fitzmyer (1993, 413-17) translates “with the result that,” citing Plutarch, Cimon 8.6.4 and Aratus, 44.4.1.
Augustine reads “in whom”—“in Adam all sinned” (Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians 4.4.7 [PL 44, col. 614]). He inherited
this interpretation from Origen (Moyise, Philippians, 26). Concerning this verse, G. E. Ladd notes: “Grammatically, this can
mean that all died because they have personally sinned, or it can mean that in Adam, all sinned” (1997, 443).
381
This and the subsequent occurrence of “sin” are anarthrous. I employ lowercase to reflect what is probably an overlapping yet
distinct signified.
382
I.e., “charged to one’s account” (BDAG).
383
Even those who did not sin like Adam—a sin of the “upper hand”—they still suffer from their mortality.
384
HALOT s.v. ‫אָדָ ם‬. Eve is therefore not mentioned.
385
See BDAG s.v. ἁµαρτία 3a., which cites this verse in that context along with Sirach 27.10.
386
Paul does not discuss Eve here, but see 2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:13.
387
Or The Apocalypse of Moses (ed. Charles).
58
possibly known to Paul,388 Adam asks Eve to relate the story to all their children, which she elaborately
does (15—30).389 Adam then recounts the Fall:
And immediately the LORD God was angry with us and the LORD said to me, “Because you have
forsaken my commandment and have not kept my word which I set for you, behold, I will bring
upon your body seventy plagues; you shall be racked with various pains, from the top of the head
and the eyes down to the nails of the feet, and in each separate limb.” These things he considered
to be the scourge of pain from one of the trees. Moreover, the LORD sent all these to me and to all
our generations.390
Yet God promises to resurrect Adam “with every human being who is your seed”; (41.1-3) his original
glory will return (39.1-3).391
Paul does not read the opening of Genesis in a woodenly literal way: Adam is a type of Christ; Eve, the
Church (see Eph 5:22-33). His contemporary Philo also interprets Adam symbolically—as representing
“mind / rationality” (Alleg. Interp. 1-3). He and Eve are types of the husband / wife relationship (Alleg.
Interp. 3.222-45). Many of the Church Fathers, like Augustine, interpreted Genesis allegorically.392
Paul is the first, to our knowledge, to use the Greek word “type (τύπος, typos) “as a term for the
prefiguring of the future in prior history.”393 This way of interpreting history is at home in the biblical,
Jewish worldview that time is meaningful and moving towards a climax before God.
Jesus does not mention Adam, but his followers saw the connection. Luke presents his temptation in the
wilderness as a recapitulation of the fall scene, but with the right outcome: Jesus overcomes by keeping
God’s “commandment” and “word” set before him.394 The Gospels present Jesus as like and unlike us: he
is tempted like the rest of us, but his body (sōma) was created by the Holy Spirit, not through sexual
intercourse (Matt 1:16, 18-25; Luke 1:31, 34-35; see also Heb 10:5). Jesus is also God and therefore
existed prior to the creation of his body (John 1:1-2; see also Phil 2:6; Heb 10:5-7). He is the ultimate
image of God (Col 1:15; see also John 12:41), the archetype. Meditation on this mystery led to the
conviction that the resurrection of Christ’s body, a metamorphosis, marked the beginning of new creation
(2 Cor 5:17), but also for human beings a special union with God through Christ (theosis). Adam is
therefore a type of the archetype, Christ, who delimits the present age and inaugurates the age to come.
388
I share the common opinion that Life of Adam is Pharisaic. The original is probably Hebrew, which presumes a Judean-
Galilean context. At death, body and soul separate. Full life, however, will return at their reunion in the resurrection (ApMos 37,
40). Satan is presented as an “angel of light” (Vita 9.1, 3; 12:1; ApMos 17.1). Before the Fall, Adam received the worship of
angels (Vita 13-14). See Charlesworth 1985, 252-53.
389
This material is not present in the Latin version (Charlesworth 1985, 2:249).
390
34.1-3, Latin; tr. Johnson, emphasis added.
391
We find a theme in Jewish literature of returning to Eden via reversal: Peter Thacher Lanfer, Remembering Eden: The
Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (Oxford: University Press, 2012) ch. 4.
392
The final portion of his Confessions is an allegorical interpretation of the Creation Story. In his magnum opus, we find swipes
at literalism: “As for these ‘days,’ it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone to explain in words—what they mean”
(City of God XI.6). “The statement that God rested from all His works on the seventh day and sanctified it should not be
interpreted in a childish way” (XI.8). We should note that Augustine valued the literal interpretation of clear claims in Scripture
(see, for example, his critique of Origen in City of God XI.23).
393
Goppelt, Typos, 4. Adam helps “explain the event of the resurrection as the new creation and the last aeon already inaugurated
by Christ, which for the believer still lies in the future”: Felipe de Jesús Legarreta-Castillo,The Figure of Adam in Romans 5 and
1 Corinthians 15: The New Creation and Its Ethical and Social Reconfiguration (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2014), 4.
394
See The Fourfold Gospel.
59
D: John Milton (1608 – 1674) uses this passage to launch Paradise Lost:
Of Man’s First Disobedience, and the Fruit

Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat . . .
5:15-21—SALVATION IN CHRIST
[15] But not like the trespass is the gift (charisma). For if many died by the trespass of one, how much
more395 the grace of God and the gift (dōrea) by grace abounded by the one person Jesus Christ to the
many? [16] And the gift (dōrēma) is not as through the one who sinned, for the judgment from one
(leads) to condemnation. But grace (comes) from many trespasses to justification. [17] For if death
reigned by the trespass of one, how much more will the ones who are receiving the abundance of grace
and the gift (dōrea) of righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus Christ?
P: Salvation as gift receives the emphasis in this passage. Paul uses three synonyms: charisma (χάρισµα)
signifies that which is freely and graciously given; dōrea (δωρεά), that which is given or transferred
freely by one person to another; and dōrēma (δώρηµα), a present.396
D: Developing the thought of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, Karl Barth claims God’s mercy is unlimited
and therefore all will be saved as long as they do not finally reject God’s offer of eternal life.397 But Paul
has been insisting on the “obedience of faith,” the repentance of Israel and the Nations (1:5; 3:22; 4:24).
Here, he qualifies the universalism: the ones who are receiving the abundance of grace and the gift of
righteousness. I see no reason to take this reception into the resurrection, which, for Paul, leads to
judgment (justification or condemnation). But God is free to be God and do as God does. My critique is
hermeneutical: I do not believe Paul teaches “soteriological inclusivism.” He presents a God who is
compassionate, loving, and merciful, but also a God who determined to judge wickedness and purify
creation.
S: The gift of salvation is from the three persons of the Trinity. The Father intended the gift; the Son have
himself in our place; the Spirit gives the gift.
[18] So therefore, as through the wrongful action of one398 [led] to condemnation for all (people), in the
same way also through the righteous action of one399 [leads] to a righteous life for all (people).
Paul reaches a major point in his argument (ara oun, Ἄρα οὖν). The righteous action of one alludes to
the faithfulness of Christ (3:22, 26) whose Spirit begins new creation.400
395
Qal vahomer (a fortiori) argument.
396
BDAG s.v. χάρισµα, δωρεά, δώρηµα.
397
See Ward, God, 84.
398
Or “one wrongful action.”
399
Or “through one just action.”
400
Richard Hays notes: “A clearer articulation of representative Christology could hardly be demanded” (The Faith of Jesus
Christ, 152).
60
R: This fills out the Habakkuk citation at 1:17: Jesus expressed his faith through the righteous act of
obeying God’s will, in contrast to Adam, leading to eternal life.
[19] For as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, in the same way also
through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.
P: As the disobedience of Adam led to death and enslavement to sin for all, the obedience of Christ will
lead to resurrection and justification—will be made righteous—for all (who repent and believe).
[20] Now nomos came to increase the trespass. But where sin increased, grace flourished all the more,
[21] so that as sin reigned by death, in the same way also grace might reign through righteousness
[leading] to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
P: The reference to nomos marks inclusio around the discussision (// 5:12-21).
EXCURSUS: ORIGINAL SIN
This passage informed Augustine’s mature conviction on original sin (lat. peccatum originale): through
sin Adam fell from grace and by propagation with his wife passed this state to all descendants.401 We are
therefore a massa peccati (“mess of sin”) and spiritually dead, so that God must regenerate us before we
can cooperate with the Spirit (grace) in our sanctification. Fallen human beings retain free will (liberium
arbitrium), but not moral libery (libertas).402 We have choices, but do not choose our desires, which
Augustine saw as inevitably disordered because of our alienation from God. This proclivity for unhealthy,
evil practices may be called concupiscence.403 In the City of God, he notes: “everyone, however,
exemplary, yields to some promptings of concupiscence” (1.1.9). Contemporay philosophers spoke of
akrasia (ἀκρασία, Lat. incontinentia “incontinence,” lack of self-control, self-indulgence), the inability to
put into practice at the appropriate time a decision known to be the right one (Aristotle, Nichomachaean
Ethics).404 Paul will enter into this dilemma in the argument (ch. 7).
For a time, Zwingli preferred Erbprest (“original weakness”) over Erbsünd (“original sin”), but was
challenged by Balthasar Hubmaier because it did not explain condemnation.405
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who is more dependent on biblical thought than often recognized,
approaches the problem by arguing that inclinations (motivations) originate from unconscious wishes (the
id).406 With the rise of modern psychology, the conviction of “free will” has become increasingly
401
The concept also goes by προγονικὸν ἁµάρτηµα (“ancestral sin”).
402
Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will (ed., Thomas Williams; Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993). This
conviction was formed in conflict with the Manicheans.
403
See Timo Nisula, Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies
of Early Christian Life and Language 116; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Augustine claims the body no longer listens to the spirit as a
consequence of the fall.
404
See Christopher Bobonich abd Pierre Destrée, eds., Akrasia in Greek Philosophy: from Socrates to Plotinus (Leiden: Brill,
2007).
405
Blocher, Illuminating the Riddle, 15 (note 2).
406
In Human Nature and Conduct, John Dewey (1859-1952) suggests that the dialectic has a positive function since reflection
upon conduct has as its objective the satisfying resolution of a problem arising from the incompatibility of various impulses.
61
problematic in the popular mindset.407 It is now a given that everyone has some dark secret, an addiction,
which is constantly threatening to overtake the pursuit of the good life.
Pelagius (c. 350 - 418), Augustine’s interlocutor, emphasized the human ability to repent and be saved by
following Jesus’s example.408 God creates each human at conception, so that sin is not inherited from
Adam.409 Mortality has always been part of human nature, until the gift of eternal life.
Pelagius was excommunicated in 417, and Augustine became the most influential theologian in the
Western church. But this did not resolve the tension. Luther, an Augustinian monk, revolted against what
he saw as widespread Pelagianism in the Church, especially the humanism championed by Erasmus.410
The Bondage of the Will (1525) contributed to Protestant identity.411 Calvin claims we are born under
God’s wrath with a “heridatary depravity” that ineveitably leads to sin (Inst. II.1.8). Despite a heavy debt
to Augustine, some claims Evangelicalism is largely semi-Pelagian.412
Pastorally, Augustine’s view of original sin is difficult because it means that all human beings are born
under God’s wrath, even infants (the unborn?) and the severely mentally handicapped. Would Paul
consider someone who was unable to know the reality of God (1:19-21) or the difference between right
and wrong condemned? They are “without excuse” (2:1)? Every minister faces the question: “My baby
died. Is she with God?”
Augustine answered the question with baptism, which washed away the sin they inherited from Adam (gr.
et pecc. or. 2.17).413 He attacked Pelagius for rejecting this practice, and would presumably do same with
Baptists today (The Roman Catholic Church eventually saw the blood of Christ as a kind of baptism that
God may apply to infants and the severely mentally handicapped, an extension of the expiation model of
the atonement).
While maintaining infant baptism, Calvin answered the question with election. The Westminster
Confession of Faith (1648) states: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ,
through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases; so also are all other elect persons
who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”414 How might parents know if
their child is elect?
I agree with the language of the Confession: “Christ . . . works when and where and how He pleases.” In
the Gospels we read:
407
William James (1842-1910) is probably right to conclude that one cannot prove finally whether human action is free or
determined, but there are good reasons, especially moral ones, for believing that human action involves freedom. Bertrand
Russell (1872-1970) acknowledges that determinism is probably true, but it does not follow from this that human beings are not
responsible for what they do.
408
Our knowledge of Pelagius is limited, as was Augustine’s who never met the heretic but attacked his writings. No lives were
written of him. We have seven primary sources—a commentary on Paul’s letters, a confession, and five letters. See B. R. Rees,
Pelagius: Life and Letters (New York: The Boydell Press, 1991). Jerome knew Pelagius in Palestine, and had a low view of him.
409
2 Esdras presumes heredity; 2 Baruch claims: “each of us has been the Adam of his own soul” (54.15).
410
Erasmus and Luther, Discourse on Free Will (tr. Ernst F. Winter; New York: Continuum, 2000).
411
Luther believed it was his most important theological work.
412
See R. C. Sproul, “The Pelagian Captivity of the Church,” Modern Reformation 10 (May/June 2001): 22-29.
413
For more discussion, see Augustine Through the Ages, 89.
414
Chapter 10; translation taken from Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1980), 129.
62
And they were trying to bring him children (παιδία), that he might touch them, but the disciples
rebuked them.415 Now seeing, Jesus became indignant416 and said to them: “Allow the children to
come to me! Do not prevent them! For the Kingdom of God is possessed by those like them.
Amen, I say you: Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter into
it.” And hugging them, he was blessing them, placing his hands upon them. (Mark 10:13-16)
Jesus has the right to break our systems as he pleases.
Finally, many reject the claim of original sin because they believe it is wrong to suffer the consequences
of another’s sin. This was one of Pelagius’s concerns. Indeed, YHWH claims through Ezekiel (18; see
also Jer 31:29) that people are held accountable for their actions, not those of a parent or child.
But this should be balanced with the Decalogue’s warning of parental sin passed on “to the fourth
generation” (Exod 20:5). North American Evangelicals tend to be individualistic, so that a presupposition
of corporate solidarity, like we find here in Paul’s argument, is especially foreign. We forget our common
humanity, which is inherited.
The issue is not exclusive to the West. Mencius (or Men Tzu, c. 371-c. 289 BC) argues that every human
being is born good; if people maintain their original nature they will remain good. This stands behind
Taoism. Xunzi (c. 300 – c. 215) responds that human nature is evil, but can become good through the
civilizing work of teachers and rulers. This is Confucianism. The gospel rejects both views: we are all
sinners in continual need of grace. Ultimate human nature can only be found in Christ.
EXCURSUS: DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
Christians divide over the relationship between the biblical creation story and the Darwinian theory of
evolution. Evolutionary biology sees a longer, more complex origin to the human race than what is
described in Genesis and Paul’s retelling.417
If scientists are correct, Homo Sapiens emerge around 195,000 years ago with all human beings
descending from a group of about 10,000, who lived between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago
(polygenism) on the continent of Africa.418 Some find hints in Scripture of this larger group: Why is Cain
afraid of someone killing him (4:14)?419 Genesis places Adam where historically civilization began—
around the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14). But others resist harmonizing the stories, believing it
denigrates both, so that we are left with bad science and bad exegesis.
The biblical creation story is not an empirical study, but an inspired (revelatory) retelling of a more
ancient tradition. Scholars have found echoes of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the cradle of
415
Several mss. read οἱ δὲ µαθηταὶ ἐπετίµων τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, “But the disciples were rebuking those who were bringing
(them).” The later wording is probably a clarifying gloss.
416
Gnomic aorist. The verb ἀγανακτέω describes focused anger, arising from a violation of what one knows to be right.
417
Genesis presents Adam’s first sons, Abel and Cain, as a “keeper of sheep” and “tiller of the ground,” respectively. Yet
anthropologists maintain that our earliest ancestors were gatherers.
418
Collins, The Language of God, 96, 126.
419
Of course, if centuries separate his murder of Abel from the fall, there would be more than enough time for several
generations to produce cities. Either way, though, we are reading scenarios into the text.
63
civilization.420 The Enuma Elish (“When above”) explains how Marduk became king of the Gods. Tiamat,
a dragonlike goddess of the seawaters, is the first to emerge from chaos with her husband, Apsu, the god
of groundwater. After a couple of generations, Anu, the god of the heavens is born. The younger gods
awaken the elders, and a war ensues. Marduk makes an agreement with the adolescents to be made king if
he ends the conflict. He kills Tiamat and captures Kingu, her lover.
In the Genesis creation story, after the opening claims that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the
earth, we read:
And the land was chaotic and void. And darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of
Elohim was hovering over the face of the waters (Heb. tehom). (Gen 1:2)
Some detect an allusion to Tiamat behind the Hebrew tehom. “Right at the beginning,” Hans Schwarz
opines, “God fearlessly towers over Tiamat, the life-threatening goddess of the seawater . . . [he] simply
commanded her to recede to the depth so that dry land might appear.”421 But Wolfram von Soden is
probably correct: “Direct influences of the Babylonian creation epic on the biblical account of creation
cannot be discerned.”422 Rather, the stories emerge from a shared culture.
In the Babylonian epic of Atraḫasis, lesser gods (Igigi) tired of their agricultural labor and went on strike;
the greater deities, Enki and the mother goddess, resolved the crisis by creating the first human from a
mixture of clay and the blood of a god.423 The Enuma Elish has Marduk fashion the heavens and earth
from the halves of Tiamat’s body and then the stars, plants, and other living things. He creates human
beings from the blood of the rebel god Kingu to be slaves for all time.424 On the one hand, the creation
story accepts dirt as part of the human constitution, but also claims that we are uniquely created in God’s
image. Elohim did not create human beings to be slaves, but to represent his authority on earth.
As is often noted, the Bible did not fall from the sky. Understanding is dependent on the capacity of the
reader. If Scripture were entirely foreign to the worldview of the original authors and hearers, it would
have been indecipherable. But if Scripture appropriates earlier tradition, it is not doing so uncritically but
in light of God’s self-revelation. Elohim has no rivals. In other accounts, human beings were made by
gods to be their slaves. Scripture presents human beings as the capstone of creation with the cosmos
functioning on their behalf as a temple for God’s presence.
Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 50), a Jewish contemporary of Christ, notes that the Genesis is not a collection of
mythical fictions, “but modes of making ideas visible.”425 Some objects, particularly sub-nuclear physics,
are said to exist because of their effects on objects that are observable.426 But no one has seen a quark.
Similarly, the creation story makes the otherwise invisible will and person of God, the one true, living and
holy God, visible. The contemplative monk Thomas Merton (1915 – 1968) contemporizes Philo’s
argument:
420
See John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, In.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 23-24.
421
Creation, 170-71.
422
Ancient East, 213.
423
Wolfram von Soden, The Ancient East: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East (tr. Donald G. Schley; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), 211.
424
Soden, Ancient East, 212.
425
Op. 157 [LC 1:124-34]; cited in McGinn 1991, 38.
426
Sobosan 1999, 33.
64
The early chapters of Genesis (far from being a pseudo-scientific account of the way the world
was supposed to have come into being) are precisely a poetic and symbolic revelation, a
completely true, though not literal, revelation of God’s view of the universe and of His intentions
for man. The point of these beautiful chapters is that God made the world as a garden in which He
himself took delight. He made man and gave to man the task of sharing in His own divine care for
created things. He made man in his own image and likeness, as an artist, a worker, homo faber, as
the gardener of paradise. He let man decide for himself how created things were to be interpreted,
understood and used: for Adam gave the animals their names (God gave them no names at all)
and what names Adam gave them, that they were. Thus in his intelligence man, by the act of
knowing, imitated something of the creative love of God for creatures. While the love of God,
looking upon things, brought them into being, the love of man, looking upon things, reproduced
the divine idea, the divine truth, in man’s own spirit.427
Not everyone will be pleased with Merton’s phrasing or exegesis. Is “poetic” the most appropriate genre
classification? Is this “the point” of the creation story? I imagine arguments will continue until the return
of Christ. But many scholars from multiple traditions recommend hearing Genesis in medias res (“in the
middle of a story”)—firstly, as a critique of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology and secondly as the opening
telling of the biblical creation story. It’s a story we take along our journey because it’s a type of our
ultimate home.
Towards the end of his life, Karl Barth (1965) wrote a letter to his niece who asked about the relationship
between creation and evolution. The body opens with
Has no one explained to you in your seminar that one can as little compare the biblical creation
story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and
a vacuum-cleaner—that there can be as little question of harmony between as of contradiction?
He goes on:
The creation story is a witness to the beginning or becoming of all reality distinct from God in the
light of God’s later acts and words relating to his people Israel—naturally in the form of a saga or
poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality in its inner nexus—
naturally in the form of a scientific hypothesis.
The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of
God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has
become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation.
Thus one’s attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an
either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely from faith in God’s revelation or from the mind
(or opportunity) for scientific understanding.
Without necessarily endorsing Barth’s exegesis, he makes a point: the books of nature and Scripture
complement one another—a view expressed by Paul earlier in Romans—acknowledging the limits of
both. To claim that Paul or the author of Genesis was “wrong” is gross anachronism and a confusion of
427
New Seeds of Contemplation (New York: New Directions Publishing, 1962), 290-91.
65
genre—like criticizing a love poem for transcending a merely biological drive.428 Scripture reveals what
evolution cannot—the meaning of life and death. As Paul argued, it was God’s Praeparatio evangelica.
Scripture itself witnesses to the mystery of creation by casting light on the event as we go along. Proverbs
notes that Wisdom participated in creation (8:1-36), although there is no mention of this in Genesis. More
insight into the mechanics of creation was given. This prepared the way for the revelation of the Logos
Jesus Christ.
If one chooses to read the biblical creation story literally in every detail and as the complete depiction of
what happened, it may not be possible to integrate these two interpretations of reality. This led to the
modernist / fundamentalist divide in the early twentieth century. But Augustine recommends epistemic
humility in light of this mystery.429
Biological ancestry is not especially important because human beings and animals share much DNA.430 If
there are transitional species, perhaps like animals they were incapable of sinning—with knowledge and
intent. Calvin notes: “it is worship of God alone that renders men higher than the brutes” (Inst. I.iii.3). He
acknowledges that humans are embodied, but localizes the imago Dei in the soul, the “nobler part”
(I.xv.1). Genesis describes the first thuman beings responsible to reflect the image of the Creator.
Adam is the perfect type because he is a shadow. Christ, the antitype, is known to history and must be
treated historically. I believe Adam was a historical person, but also symbolic. Jesus is not a symbol, but
the full reality of what Adam represents.
On this matter, with Augsutine, I recommend charity. I have encountered would-be followers of Jesus that
were told if they held to Darwinian evolution they could not be saved. But there are many disciples of
Christ who are sympathetic, if not proponents, of the theory. But the faith of many Christians has been
formed in opposition to the theory, and they too need love and respect.
6:1-11—BAPTISM
The subunit is bracketed by subjunctive verbs with mutually exclusive spheres of being (let us remain in
Sin, we might walk in newness of life).
[6:1] What then shall we say: “let us remain431 in Sin, that grace may increase”? [2] Never! For those who
died to Sin, how shall we still live in it? [3] Or do you not know that when we were baptized into Christ
[Jesus]432, we were baptized into his death? [Mark 10:38-39] [4] So we were buried together with him
through this baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from those who are dead through the glory of
the Father, in the same way also we might walk in newness of life.
428
Paul would have no reason to qualify his presentation in light of evolution because he reasons within a pre-scientific
worldview. Such a digression would be meaningless.
429
“As for these ‘days,’ it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone to explain in words—what they mean” (City of God
ch. 6).
430
It is not surprising that human beings and chimpanzees have similar DNA in light of the similairities between their bodies.
431
Or “continue”: BDAG s.v. ἐπιµένω.
432
Absent in B.
66
P: The apostle addresses the earlier slander mentioned (3:8; 5:20): “let us remain in sin, so that grace
may increase.”433 He follows with two rhetorical questions that emphasize our participation in the death
and resurrection of Christ, which he relates to baptism. Do you not know is intended to evoke basic
instruction in the faith (catechesis). “I have been crucified together with Christ,” Paul writes in an earlier
letter (Gal 2:20) and below (v. 6), echoing the Jesus Tradition that places victims at the right and left of
Jesus on the cross. Now he claims we were buried together with him. Judeans were often entombed in
family caves; Jesus was placed in a “new”—unused—tomb with plenty of space for others (Matt 27:60).
But Paul employs asymmetry: we are not yet raised from the dead, but enter a new mode of shared
being—newness of life (kainotēti zōēs, καινότητι ζωῆς), which is caused by the Holy Spirit (7:6).
R: Jesus describes his death as a baptism:
And Jacob and John, the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying to him, “Teacher, we want that
whatever we ask you, you do for us.” Now he said to them: “What would you want me to do for
you?” Now they said to him, “Give to us [the authority] that we might sit in your glory—one at
your right and one at your left.” But Jesus said to them: “You do not know what you are asking
for yourselves. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptized [by] the baptism that I
am baptized?” But they said to him, “We are able.” But Jesus said to them: “The cup that I drink
you will drink. And (by) the baptism that I am baptized, you will be baptized. But to sit at my
right (hand) or the opposite is not mine to give, but to whom it has been prepared.” (Mark 10:35-
40)
In context, Jesus predicts his suffering and death, but also resurrection (v. 34). For Jesus and Paul, the
resurrection is intended to bring glory to the Father, not ourselves.
D: There is a consensus among scholars that “Paul is describing a participation of the believer with Christ
that goes far beyond the symbolic.”434 He describes a real union and shared destiny. The Christian life is
not lapsing into moralism, but deepening our relationship with Christ.
Sadly, because of arguments over the nature of baptism and the ignorance of their pastors (priests), many
Christians lack this basic understanding of their faith.
S: As the Son was resurrected through the glory of the Father, an expression of God’s magnificence, so
he will return (Luke 9:26). This twofold movement glorifies God (Phil 2:11).
[5] For if we have become united in the likeness of his death, indeed we also will be of the resurrection,
[6] knowing this: that our old person was crucified together [with Christ], so that the body of sin may
become powerless. We no longer serve Sin. [7] For the one [Christ] who died has been justified away
from Sin.435 [8] But if we died with Christ, we believe that we also will live with him, [9] knowing that
Christ, raised from those who are dead, faces Death no more. Death reigns over him no more.436 [10] For
what he died, he died to Sin once and for all. For what he lives, he lives to God. [11] Likewise, you also
must reckon yourselves dead to Sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus.
433
Luther, Commentary, 99.
434
Gifford, Perichoretic Salvation, 63. He interacts with many of the authorities I cite.
435
Christ is the subject: Robin Scroggs, “ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁµαρτίας,” NTS 10 (1963): 104-8.
436
Or “his death reigns no more.”
67
P: The adjective united (symphutos, σύµφυτος) is a cognate of the verb συµφύω, which describes the
process of growing together, being “co-natured.”437
Since we have not yet been resurrected, we must believe—“live in the anticipation of the fulfillment.”438
Paul may play with the verb logizomai, “to reckon.” As Abraham believed, and God reckoned it as
righteousness (4:3, etc.), we must do the same—despite looming physical death and possibly a continuing
battle with sin, we must reckon ourselves alive and free in Christ.
R: Adam’s sin is no longer an excuse. Since our old person died with Christ, we are no longer enslaved
to Sin.
D: Luther wants to emphasize the enduring power of sin in this passage, but this cuts against Paul’s
argument.439
In the previous citation, Jacob (James) and John exemplify the mindset of Adam: they are seeking their
own interests ahead of others. However, both were transfigured by the Spirit before their deaths. Indeed,
it’s hart to relate the John of Christian memory before and after the cross (like Peter).
S: The Son lives for the Father.
6:12-23—NEWNESS OF LIFE
The subunit is framed by inclusio—“be king…reign.”
[12] So do not allow Sin to be king in your mortal bodies, so that (you) obey its lusts, [13] nor be
presenting your body parts to Sin as weapons for unrighteousness.440 Instead, present yourselves to God
as living from those who are dead and your body parts to God as weapons of righteousness. [14] For Sin
will not reign over you because you are not under nomos, but under grace.
P: Acknowledging the mortality (= weakness) of our bodies, Paul rejects a low view of our physicality.
The human body may become a weapon or “tool” for righteousness. Body parts echo the earlier
observation about the sexual complementarity of male and female (1:24-27).
[15] What then? Should we sin because we are not under nomos but under grace? Never! [16] Do you not
know that to whomever you present yourselves as slaves for obedience you are slaves to whomever you
are obeying—either sin unto death or an obedience unto righteousness?
P: For a third time, Paul addresses the slander (seems to have touched a nerve). The “obedience of faith”
should deepen. What other proof of freedom from sin? The free gift of eternal life does not mean freedom
from our new master. Slaves presented themselves every morning to their Lord for the day’s instructions.
437
L&S s.v. συµφύω. Sarah Ahbel-Rappe, Damascius’ Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010), 506.
438
Sampley, Between the Times, 8.
439
Commentary, 100.
440
Notice the progressions from temptation to action.
68
[17] But grace be to God: You were slaves of sin, but you became obedient441 from the heart to the type
of teaching that was handed over. [18] And having been freed from the slavery of Sin, you were enslaved
to righteousness.
P: Slaves had a reputation for inward rebellion. They may obey in fear, but secretly worked for their own
advantage or disadvantage of their lord (see Eph 6:5-8).
Paul refers to Jesus Tradition: the type of teaching that was handed over. Here is a possible nexus of
soteriology and discipleship (catechesis). Jesus offers a different way of righteousness in the Sermon on
the Mount (Matt 6:1).442 Origen and other teachers describe this first of three stages as purgative—
learning to turn away from evil and embracing the good.
R: Through the Law and Prophets, YHWH expresses a preference for inward, feart-felt worship over
mere religious observance.
D: The Christian life is paradox of freedom and responsibility. Luther famously expressed this in The
Freedom of a Christian:
A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.
A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.443
Slaves of Christ are free in the world because they no longer worship Pleasure, Possessions, and Power.
Yet they also love the world as God loves all things, even sinners.
[19] I speak humanly because of the weakness of your flesh.444 For just as you presented your body parts
as slaves to uncleanness and lawlessness unto lawlessness,445 in the same way now present your body
parts as slaves to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when you were slaves of sin, you were free to
righteousness. [21] So what fruit were you having then from the things (that) you are now ashamed? For
the end of those things is death. [22] But now, freed from sin and enslaved to God, the fruit of yours
(leads) to holiness, and the end, eternal life. [23] For the wages of sin is death, but the gift-of-grace of
God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
P: Like Aristotle, Paul invites the recipients of the letter to meditate on ends—the telos of their lives. Sin
leads to death; righteousness, life. Slaves would report every morning to their Lord.
7:1-6—THE LIMIT OF THE MOSAIC LAW
[7:1] Or do you not know, brothers—for I speak to those who know nomos—that this nomos reigns over a
person as long as he lives?
441
Ingressive aorist.
442
Codex Alexandrinus (A) may emphasize the connection with the Sermon by adding “from a pure heart.”
443
Faith and Freedom, 3. The italics are original to the translation.
444
There is a mental component to the flesh. Our physicality affects our perception.
445
See 1:17.
69
P: Those who know nomos are presumably Jewish believers but perhaps also converts. A skillful rhetor
can address multiple audiences, like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (apostrophe).446 In the unit, Paul
describes their shared experience of life leading to death under nomos. Not all Jews read the nomos this
way (as is the case today). So Paul begins with a shared value to develop a broader analogy.
D: Jesus employs the same rhetorical device with Nicodemus: “You are the teacher of Israel, and you do
not know these things!” (John 3:10). Someone who “knows” should “know” this.
[2] For the under-a-husband wife (lives) bound by the nomos to (her) living husband. But if this husband
dies, she (lives) released from the nomos of this husband.
P: This is both illustration and proof. If a marriage is bound to Torah only while the spouses are alive, a
fortiori (Heb. qal vahomer) the Torah as a whole was given by God to govern the present life of a Jew.
R: The Sadducees challenge Jesus with a scenario of a woman with multiple husbands—seven brothers
via levirate marriage (Mark 12:18-27 par.). Part of Jesus’s response is the denial that marriage continues
into the resurrection (v. 25).
[3] So, then, while this husband is living, if she becomes (one flesh) with another husband, she will bear
the name447 of an adulteress. But if the (first) husband dies, she is free from the nomos—she is not an
adulteress becoming (one flesh) with another husband.
P: He constructs a simple analogy: a person is bound to the nomos as a wife is to her husband. The link
is covenant. If a woman becomes the wife of another while her original husband lives, she is an
adulteress. (For Paul’s views divorce and remarriage, review 1 Corinthians 7). But a widow bears no
stigma.
[4] So, my brothers, you also died to the nomos through the body of Christ, that you might become (a
bride) to another—to the one raised from those who are dead, that we might bear fruit to God.
P: The analogy is completed: Believers are like a widow who remarries. Jesus Messiah (Christ) was born
under the Mosaic Law and was executed as a law-breaker, bearing the curse on the cross though innocent
(Gal 4:4). Freed from the Law, God raised him from the dead, so that the Messiah now lives in freedom.
Through union with the body of Christ in marriage (Eph 5:25-33), Jewish believers are no longer bound
to their first husband, the nomos. They are dead to it. Bearing fruit presumably refers to spiritual
progeny.
D: This radical view is incommensurable with most expressions of Judaism. The Rabbis made the Law
(Torah) co-eternal with God—a possible reaction to Christology. (But some presumed that a new heavens
and earth would necessarily bring changes to Scripture.) The early Church went in this direction,
reserving co-eternality for the Triune God.
[5] For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions that were (revealed) through the nomos were active
in our body parts to bear fruit (leading) to death.448 [6] But now we are released from the nomos, having
446
See Notes at Matt 5:1-2.
447
BDAG allows a passive sense in English: “will be called.”
448
In contrast to bearing fruit for God (v. 4).
70
died to that by which we were bound, that we might serve by the newness of Spirit and not the oldness of
the letter.
P: The recipient of the new covenant is no longer under the curse of the Torah, which came through
exposing sin. With a new husband comes a new opportunity for fidelity.
R: The apostle evokes the New Covenant language of Jeremiah (ch. 31).
7:7-13—PERSONIFICATION OF SIN
[7] So what shall we say?: “The nomos is sin?” Never! Rather, I did not know sin except through nomos.
For I did not know lust except when the nomos began to say: You shall not lust. [Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21]
P: Rhetorically, Paul speaks on behalf of those who, like himself, know the nomos (7:1). The problem is
not with the nomos itself, but its inability to overcome sin. Lust, a misdirected passion, has an especially
strong grip on people and is apropos to the context.
R: The original commandment addressed material and sexual lust, “your neighbor’s wife” (Deut 5:21; see
also Exod 20:17).
[8] But Sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me every [kind of] lust.449 For
apart from the nomos sin is dead. [9] Now I was at one time living apart from the nomos. But after the
commandment came, Sin came to life. [10] But I died. And the commandment, which is for life, was
discovered by me (leading) to death. [11] For Sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment,
deceived me and through it killed (me).
R: The apostle may play with an irony in Deuteronomy: God gave the Torah for life (30:15), claiming:
“this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you” (v. 11). Paul recognizes the
tension in the literal sense and will re-interpret the passage at a later time (10:5-13). Here, he personifies
Sin as a deceptive, overwhelming power (see 5:12). This added variable makes obedience impossible.
The language of deception and death evokes the earlier discussion of the Fall.
[12] So the nomos is holy and the commandment (you shall not lust) is holy and just and good. [13] So
did that which was good450 become the death of me? Never! Rather Sin, in order that sin may be brought
to light, through what is good451 was producing in me death, so that Sin might become extremely sinful
through the commandment (you shall not lust).452
R: Like the Serpent, personified Sin manipulates God’s promises. The oracles of God are holy and not the
problem.
7:14-25—DESCRIPTION OF CONCUPISCENCE
449
Sex and Materialism (see above).
450
I.e. the Torah.
451
I.e. the Torah.
452
See vv. 9, 11.
71
[14] For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under (the authority of) sin.
P: The apostle is speaking for those who know the Torah (7:1). In context, he describes those who
followed Adam’s example and became enslaved to sin.453 He is not describing his present life in the new
covenant, but life under the nomos.454 This was the general interpretation of the passage before Augustine.
Origen claims Paul adopts the persona of someone not fully transformed by conversion.455
Augustine saw the language as a fitting rebuttal to Pelagius.456 Luther followed suit:
[Paul] shows how spirit and flesh struggle with each other in a man. He uses himself as an
example, in order that we may learn how properly to understand the work of slaying sin within
us…. This tension lasts in us as long as we live; though in one person it is greater, in another less,
according to the spirit or the flesh is stronger. (Preface to Romans)
But some Pietists, who were part of a Lutheran renewal movement, rejected this interpretation because
they believed it fostered complacency. 457 They influenced John Wesley (1703 - 1791), the father of
Methodism and in many ways Pentecostalism.458
Evangelical scholarship is reverting back to the pre-Augustinian consensus. Douglas Moo concludes:
“Paul is looking back, from his Christian understanding, to the situation of himself, and other Jews like
him, living under the law of Moses.”459 Craig Keener speaks of a “strong majority of scholars.”460 This
fits his discussion of a time when he first heard the Torah, but could not obey it and died (7:7-12).
I. Howard Marshall writes: “anybody may experience the captivity described here, but only the believer
has the key to freedom” (2004, 320). Experientially, this rings true and is a noble attempt at uniting the
competing readings. Most Christians have seasons in which obedience is especially difficult. However, as
Christians mature, they should experience greater victory over sin because their union with Christ is
deepening. The real gains of strenuous training is presumed in the Greco-Roman world and applied by
Paul and other New Testament writers to the Christian life (e.g., Heb 12:1-2).461
R: The Torah is not a human product, but comes from God, who is spirit (John 4:24; 2 Tim 3:16).
453
A potential weakness in this reading is that Paul was not engaged in a moral crisis before his encounter with the resurrected
Lord. Vis-à-vis the Torah, he was “blameless” (see Phil 3:6). Apparently, his crisis began when the greater righteousness of
Christ was revealed to him. But this enlightenment may have opened his eyes to the depths of his earlier disobedience to the
Torah, negating whatever claim of blamelessness he enjoyed.
454
D. Moo rightly observes: the interpretation of few passages has been more influenced by one’s broad theological perspective,
experience, and sheer a priori assumptions” (443).
455
Comm. Rom. 6.9-10 (PL 14:1085-91).
456
Retractions 1.23.1 and 2.1.1
457
The Lutheran scholar, E. Käsemann, broke with Luther and argued that “I” in this unit should be interpreted as “mankind
under the shadow of Adam” (200).
458
B. Witherington, who is in the Wesleyan tradition, believes Paul is describing the moral crisis of a non-believer (193-96).
459
Romans, 447-48; see also Schreiner, Romans, 379.
460
The Mind of the Spirit, 55-56.
461
Appius Claudius (c. 355-c. 275 BC), one of our earliest Latin writers, notes: “Be master of your soul, lest your untamed
nature bring forth deceit or disgrace” (Guterman 1966, 3). Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – AD 65) writes: “Only my vices and
their accessories have decayed: the spirit is full of life, and delighted to be having only limited dealings with the body. It has
thrown a great part of its burden” (XXVI, 1). He adds: “That is why a man of noble and enlightened character separates body
from spirit and has just as much to do with the former, the frail and complaining part of our nature, as is necessary and no more,
and a lot to do with the better, the divine element” (LXXVIII, 2).
72
[15] For I do not understand what I am producing. For I do not practice that which I do want, but do that
which I hate.
P: As a Jew bound to the Torah, he was not producing fruit to God.
[16] Now if I do that which I do not want, I agree with the Torah that (it is) good. [17] But now I no
longer produce it, but Sin residing in me. [18] For I know that nothing resides in me—that is, in my
flesh—(that is) good.
P: Paul has been consistently using flesh to encapsulate terrestrial life apart from the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit. The apostle qualifies his language—that is, in my flesh—because he does not take a low
view of the body and whatever spiritual capacity we retain as image bearers of God.
For the desiring is present in me, but the producing of good is not. [19] For the good which I desire I do
not do. But evil which I do not desire—this I practice. [20] But if I do that which I do not want, I am no
longer producing it but Sin resides in me. [21] So I discover this nomos: while the desiring to do good is
in me, that Evil resides in me. [22] For I delight in the nomos of God according to the inner person,462
[23] but I see a different nomos in my body parts, going to war with the law of my mind and making me
captive in the nomos of sin, which is in my body parts. [24] O miserable person that I am! Who will
deliver me from this body of death? [25] But grace be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So therefore
I serve the nomos of God with (my) mind, but the nomos of sin with (my) flesh.
P: The apostle exposes the dilemma of the Jew who reveres the Torah and desires to be completely
obedient to it and produce fruit to God, but finds an evil impulse that often overpowers this desire,
leading to the enslavement of sin.
D: Again, Paul taps into a universal problem: people construct ethical systems that overextend their
moral capacity. This is the trap: the less rigorous an ethical system is, the less attractive it becomes as a
solution to the human condition. While Aristotle’s golden mean is perhaps more manageable than Jesus’s
golden rule, it is less inspiring. Furthermore, the more a person takes “balance” seriously in his or her life,
the more allusive it becomes. Being a perfect Aristotelian is at least as impossible as complete submission
under Torah.
A person’s intention is established by a teleological vision for living, which is then frustrated by
transitory, irrational desires. So people feel trapped by their compulsions. They may be successful at
business, but cannot stop overeating. They may be happily married, but cannot stop viewing pornography
(or soliciting prostitutes). They may be church leaders, but cannot stop drinking.
Despite the promises of gurus, self-help programs, some fields of psychology, and even religion, there is
no earthly solution to this problem.
Unfortunately, many Christians are in the same trap. From priests molesting boys to the financial scams
of televangelists, the church has lost a lot of moral ground as a beacon of light in the darkness. Non-
462
Paul uses this expression “inner person” elsewhere only at 2 Cor 4:16 and Eph 3:16 where it is the place of spiritual insight
and empowerment. Here, he parallels the expressions with “the law of his mind.” For Paul the mind is not a morally neutral, free
center of thought (see Rom 1:28). It too must be renewed (see Rom 12:2).
73
Christians bristle at our worldliness. What happened to living in newness of life, being led by the Spirit,
not the flesh?
8:1-39—LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
[8:1] So there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the nomos of the Spirit
of life freed you463 in Christ Jesus from the nomos of Sin and of death.
P: The apostle gives the solution to the quandary of the previous unit. Paul uses the technical expression
for manumission, being freed from slavery, which plays off of “I serve (doulouō) the nomos of God with
(my) mind, but the nomos of sin with (my) flesh” (7:25). Christ inaugurated a new era of salvation, a new
covenant, which brings a new constitution or nomos.464 Spirit and Sin, which has been personified, are
juxtaposed, along with life and death.
[3] For that which the nomos could not do because it was weak through the flesh, God [did] having sent
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. And concerning Sin, he condemned this Sin in the flesh, [4]
that the requirement of the nomos might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit.
P: The condemnation of the first part of the letter falls on Jesus, who stands in our place. God expresses
his wrath against all sin by condemning it to death with his Son on the cross (1:18; 3:21-26). Yet Jesus
“slid out” from under the power of sin and death, following the condemnation, and was glorified. In the
same way, our flesh is condemned with Christ on the cross, while our new person in Christ will be
glorified with him. We may now walk—that is, “live” according to the Spirit in union with Christ.
R: Paul uses the two words—likeness here and “image” at v. 29—that describe our relationship to God in
the creation story (see Gen 1:26-27). Jesus took our fallen nature, suffering like the rest of us into death,
but was raised into a new nature to which those who are in Christ are being transformed. So Jesus, the last
Adam, redefines what it means to be human.
D: Arguments over the degree of corruption of the imago Dei are mute for believers.
8:5-7—MEDITATING ON FLESH VS. SPIRIT
[5] For those who live according to the flesh meditate on the things of the flesh; but those according to the
Spirit, the things of the Spirit. [6] For the meditation465 of the flesh (leads to) death; but the meditation of
the Spirit, life and peace. [7] For meditation of the flesh (leads to) hatred for God because it does not
submit itself to the nomos of God. For neither is it able.
P: The apostle contrasts a fleshly mindset with a spiritual one. This resolves the earlier tragedy: “God
gave them over to a corrupted mind—to do what is improper” (1:28). We are now free to think and act
with God.
D: Right thought leads to right action.

463
Or “me.”
464
Fitzmyer, Romans, 481; Schreiner, Romans, 398.
465
Or “mind-set.”
74
8:8-11—THE INDWELLING GOD
[8] Now those who live in the flesh are not able to please God. [9] But you are not fleshly466 but
spiritual467, if indeed God’s Spirit dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ’s Spirit, this (one) is
not his. [10] But if Christ is in you, on the one hand, the body is dead because of Sin, but on the other
(your) spirit468 is alive through righteousness. [11] But if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from
those who are dead dwells in you, the One who raised Christ from those who are dead will also make
your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit, who dwells in you.
S: The language echoes the Upper Room Discourse, which speaks of mutual indwelling (John 14:16, 23).
Paul relates pneuma (πνεῦµα, “spirit,” “Spirit”) to the Father, Son, and believer. He is the Spirit of
Christ and of the One who raised Jesus from those who are dead. He does not identify our spirit with
the Holy Spirit, but pneuma is pneuma—there is a personal difference but an ontological sameness, which
makes indwelling possible. The Holy Spirit’s being is such that the Spirit may indwell the Father, Son,
and human being, without being absorbed or lost in the Other (perichoresis).469
God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is central mystery of salvation (Karl Rahner). God the Father and the
Son are present in the Holy Spirit, who has a unique role in our salvation as well (8:16, 26-27; see John
14:18-24).
8:12-13—HEIRS WITH CHRIST
[12] So therefore, brothers, we are debtors not to the flesh—to live according to the flesh. [13] For if you
live according to the flesh, you are about to die. But if by the Spirit you are putting to death the practices
of the body, you will live.
P: The unit begins with a a strong inference (Ἄρα οὖν).
The apostle does not deny physical death for believers: you will live, a reference to the resurrection.
D: We are no longer obligated to serve the flesh. Through the leading of the Spirit, we are able to
overcome the power of sin.
Putting to death the practices of the body suggests a process, the acquisition of humble, God-glorifying
habituations.
8:14-30—SUFFERING IN PERSPECTIVE
466
Or “in flesh.”
467
Or “in Spirit.”
468
There is no personal pronoun “your” in the Greek text, but the parallelism suggests he is referring to the human spirit (see
1:9). So also NIV. See v. 16.
469
See John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Exdosis Akribas tas Orthodoxou Piesteos = Lat. De Fides
Orthodoxou); James D. Gifford, Perichoretic Salvtion: The Believer’s Union with Christ as a Third Type of Perichoresis
(Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2011).
75
[14] For whoever are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.470 [15] For you did not receive
the spirit of slavery again into fear. But you received the Spirit of the making-of-a-son [adoption] by
which we cry out: “Abba, Father.” [Mark 14:36] [16] The Spirit itself witnesses with our spirit that we are
children of God. [17] But if we are children, we are also heirs471—heirs of God, and coheirs with Christ, if
indeed we are co-suffering, that we might also be co-glorified.
P: The Father adopts us into his family through the life-giving Spirit, who unites us to the body of Christ.
R: We are placed in the Garden of Gethsemane with Christ, who cries out “Abba, Father” in the face of
his own suffering (Mark 14:36; see also Gal 4:6). But he yields to the Father’s will and the leading of the
Spirit. At the core of his suffering is divine love: “while we were sinners Christ died in our place” (5:8).
D: We may be called to suffer like Christ, but the greatest demand on our life is to love with the
Trinitarian God.
[18] For I consider that the sufferings of the present season are no comparison to the coming glory to be
revealed to us.472 [19] For the eagerly awaiting creation awaits eagerly for the revelation of the sons of
God.473 [20] For the creation was subjected to futility474—not willingly, but because of the one who
subjected (it) on the basis of hope.
P: The apostle models healthy meditation (8:6-7). He picks up the motif of suffering (5:3-4). The verb
consider (logizomai) suggests bringing reason (wisdom) to bear on life’s problems. He offers a
worldview to contextualize all suffering: the enslavement of creation to futility.
R: Paul evokes the consequence of Adam’s sin: “Cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen 3:17). God
subjects creation to futility (mataiotēs), a state of being without use or value. Futility (mataiotēs) is a
dominate motif in Ecclesiastes: “Futility of futilities, said the Preacher, futility of futilities, all things are
futility” (1:2 OG).
D: We do not presently live in the best of all worlds. Things are not the way they should be. This rings
true for most, and it is a bitter reality. My maternal grandfather lost his farm to drought and had to do hard
labor the rest of his life. His father suffered from a lobotomy, living somewhere between fantasy and
reality. We are plundered from both directions.
8:21-25—HOPE
[21] For the creation itself also will be set free from the slavery of decay into the freedom of the glory of
the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation is groaning and is co-suffering until now—
[23] but not only (creation), but also we ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit—we ourselves
470
Sons of God is Semitic expression for “godly person.”
471
Heirs: Whereas sons waited for the death of the father for their inheritance, we await the final homecoming for our
inheritance (see John 14:2-3).
472
Paul’s claim directly contradicts Epicurus (c. 341-c. 270 BC), who rejected the concept of eternal life and taught that the goal
of life is the avoidance of pain. Liezi (c. AD 300) goes further, arguing that because life is short its true meaning is found in
hedonistic self-indulgence.
473
I.e., believers (v. 14).
474
Subjected to futility is a realistic interpretation of the ways things presently are, especially from the standpoint of biology.
The earth is personified in apocalyptic literature: “the earth brought an accusation against the oppressors” (1 En. 7.6).
76
also are groaning within ourselves, eagerly awaiting475 our Sonship,476 the redemption of our body.477 [24]
For we will be saved by this hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes in what he sees? [25]
But if we hope in what we do not see, we eagerly await through endurance.
P: The apostle has been building up the basis for hope. Surrounded by death, Abraham nevertheless
hoped in the promises of God (4:18). Sharing his faith, we also hope in God’s better future (5:4, 15). But
our hope is also based in the past and present, making it more robust: God’s Spirit already raised Jesus
from the dead and is dwelling within us. Still, our joy is a first-fruits, a mere taste of what is to come.
D: We may meditate on new creation by multiplying all goodness, beauty, and truth in the present one.
When I am moved by a sunset, I imagine a redder, brighter light.
8:26-27—INTERCESSION OF THE SPIRIT
[26] Now in the same way the Spirit also comes to help because of our weakness. For we do not know
how to pray according to what is necessary. But the Spirit itself intercedes for us with groans too deep for
words. [Exod 2:24] [27] For the one who searches the hearts [of people] knows what is the meditation of
Spirit because he is interceding according to God on behalf of the holy ones.
P: We often do not know how to pray because we cannot see the full reality of a situation—the likely
meaning of weakness in context.478 This is especially the case with tragedy. But the Holy Spirit sees and
intercedes for us. He translates our groans (stenagmos) before God. The noun signifies an involuntary
expression of great concern, such as a mournful sigh.
The Holy Spirit probably offers inaudible intercession before the Father (Moo 1991, 562), although
otherse see a reference to glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”).
R: Paul may allude to Exodus: “And God heard their groaning [stenagmos], and God remembered his
covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob” (2:24 LXX).479 Just as God the Father felt compassion for
the Israelites in bondage to Egypt, the Holy Spirit hears and feels our pain in a futile creation.
S: The experiential dimension of union with Christ goes both ways: just as we feel empowered by the
Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ and the Father, so God feels our pain. God reveals himself in the gospel as
one who acts from compassion. This is not caring from a comfortable distance, but an immanent sharing
in the sufferings of the human condition.
8:28-30—TELOS
475
Repetition of the verb at v. 19.
476
I.e., adoption. The key word, though, is “son” (huios) = “sons of God.”
477
The redemption of our body: Death is here viewed as a slave master, but God will tear us free from his mortal enslavement.
478
Thomas Schreiner notes: “God searches the hearts of believers and finds unutterable longings to conform their lives to the will
of God. The Holy Spirit takes these groanings and presents them before God in an articulate form. Even though believers cannot
specify their requests to God adequately since they do not know his will sufficiently, the Holy Spirit translates these groanings
and conforms them to God’s will” (1998, 446).
479
καὶ εἰσήκουσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν στεναγµὸν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐµνήσθη ὁ θεὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ τῆς πρὸς Αβρααµ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ.
77
[28] But we know that all things are working together for good for those who love God, for those who are
called according to (his) purpose. [29] For concerning whom he foreknew, he also480 predestined (to be)
conformed to the image of his Son, in order for him to be the first-born among many brothers. [30] But
concerning whom he predestined, these he also called. And concerning whom he called—these he also
justified. But concerning whom he justified, these he also glorified.481
P: We already see the beauty of his purpose in the gradual changes of our lives and the lives of believers
around us. We have already seen the beautiful, perfect life of Jesus Christ, and so conformity to his image
is a concrete goal. Based upon these assurances, we know from God’s perspective that he foreknew,
predestined, called, justified, and even glorified us.
R: We know probably refers to those who know the Mosaic Law, which contains the Exodus story (7:1).
Paul uses the election language of Israel and the typology of being redeemed from Egypt to look forward
to a universal reconciliation between creation and Creator.
EXCURSUS: PREDESTINATION
The Christian tradition inherited the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Both are
biblical. The rabbis resolved the problem by claiming human beings are predestined in their material
lives, but free in their spiritual life.482 Joseph could not control his adverse circumstances, but could trust
God and allow the trials to shape his character. Rabbi Hanina bar Papa is remembered to have said:
The angel in charge of conception is called Lailah (Heb. “night”). When conception occurs, the
angel takes the drop of semen and places it before the Holy One, praised be He, and says:
“Sovereign of the Universe, what is going to be the fate of this drop? Will it develop into a strong
or weak person? An intelligent or a dense person? A wealthy or a poor person?” And God decides
all of that. But one question is not asked by the angel, nor is it decided by God: “Will it be a good
or bad person?” (b. Niddah 16b)
But there is no place for original sin in the Rabbinic system. Paul argues from a less optimistic view of
human nature. He may, in fact, be reacting to the school of Hillel, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism.
Instead of beginning with notions of “good” or “bad,” the apostle makes a universal judgment that
everyone is enslaved to sin. Yet he never separates this from human responsibility: bad choices lead to
compulsions. But it’s probably fair to say that Paul emphasizes powers beyond human determination—
either demonic or divine.
But he may not fully embrace the alternative view: a person’s character was fixed at birth.483 Charles
Raith claims Paul describes “a cooperative relationship between God’s work and human working, in
which Christian activity is at the same time understood as God’s activity.”484
480
Both verbs are aorists and are connected with an adverbial kai: “also.” The most natural way to relate the two actions is
simultaneity.
481
Glorified: The use of the aorist is surprising, but welcomed for those who feel as if they are falling between God’s fingers
(contrast with 8:17). Our homecoming is already settled within the heart of God.
482
Cf. Birnbaum’s introduction to Rambam 1967, LXXIV.
483
Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleŝe, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford / New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011), 6.
78
When Paul speaks of predestination is he referring to individuals (Calvin), God’s people (Brunner), or
Christ (Barth)?
The North American reader may presume individual election because of our bent, but perhaps also
because of the specific persons under discussion: God elected Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the exclusion
of Ishmael and Esau.
Yet all are progenitors of different people groups (nations). Many Northern Arabs look to Ishmael as their
progenitor, who is received as a prophet in the Quran. The Hebrew Bible claims Esau is the progenitor of
the Edomites. This creates the possibility that Paul, like the Prophet Malachi he cites, has nations or
people groups in mind. He intends a corporate sense in Ephesians (chs. 1—2).
This unit was especially influential in the speculations about predestination we find in the Fathers
(Fitzgerald 1999, 677). Origen emphasizes piety as a variable in foreknowledge:
Those whom God foreknew would become the kind to conform themselves to Christ by their
sufferings, he even predestined them to be conformed and similar to his image and glory.
Therefore there precedes a foreknowledge of them, through which is known what effort and
virtue they will possess in themselves, and thus predestination follows, yet foreknowledge should
not be considered the cause of predestination. For while men requite merit to each individual
based upon past accomplishments, for God this is determined from future ones.485
But Augustine maintains God elects some for salvation from the massa damnata by his own decree
(ench. 100; civ. Dei 15.1).
On the one hand, Augustine may have been pushed to an extreme position because of his opposition to
Pelagius. On the other, Origen presupposes a human nature that does not appear to integrate Paul’s
contribution to the gospel.
Some follow Augustine and John Calvin (1509-1564), holding to a form of double predestination—
that God elects some individuals for salvation out of the massa damnata (those born into sin and
damnation).486 In the final edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin writes:
We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed
to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is
foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. (3.21.5)
Note the emphasis on “each man.” Calvin is concerned about humility, not taking anything away from
God’s merciful decree and action.
Double predestination was condemned at the Council of Orange (AD 529), but the documents were lost
until the 16th century. Erasmus rejected it.487 In contrast, the Arminian tradition emphasizes
484
Aquinas and Calvin on Romans, 1.
485
Tr. Scheck, 65-66.
486
Augustine, On The Gift of Perseverance. We find a similar claim in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but as a “double-edged decree”
(Tolbert 2007, 46). 1QH Col. 5 reads: “[You determined] all your works before You created them, together with the host of Your
Spirits and the assembly of [Your holy ones]” (tr. Wise et al.). The Qumran community held to a form of Double Predestination:
“the wicked You created for [the time of] Your [w]rath, and from the womb You set them apart for the day of slaughter.”
79
foreknowledge—God elects those who would believe the gospel. Both views are tied to presuppositions
about human nature. Like the Essenes, Augustine and Calvin are pessimistic about our potential to turn to
God in freedom. (Remember, in their system, we are born in sin and our nature is completely sinful—
what Calvinism calls total depravity). Like the rabbis, Roman Catholic and Arminian theologians
emphasize the capacity for people to soften their hearts toward God—to repent and believe.
Deciding between individual and corporate predestination may be a false dichotomy: A nation (or people
group) is comprised of individuals. God elected Abraham as an individual before he became a nation
through his elected sons. Yet I believe Paul emphasizes corporate election in this unit (chs. 9—11). The
final unit of ch. 9 (vv. 9:30-33) is explicit. This fits the “big idea” of Romans—the gathering of all
nations under the Messiah, son of David, to worship the one true God (1:5 = 15:12). In Jesus Christ, all
the nations of the world have access to the covenant with Abraham, becoming sons through faith. God
predestined all the people groups of the world to be saved in Jesus Christ (Gen 12). Yet Paul does not
lapse into universalism, in part, because he still finds a place for human responsibility: individuals within
those nations must repent and believe in the gospel.
Predestined for what?
The Old Testament does not—as far as I can tell—relate election to eternal life. An honest reading of
Genesis suggests that Ishmael and Esau, while not a part of the genealogical line leading to salvation in
Jesus Messiah, were nevertheless blessed and cared for by God. We do not get the impression they went
to Hell. That all who are elect will be given eternal life or that the so-called non-elect will only face hell is
a theological conviction that must be tested against Scripture. It seems that when Scripture talks about
election the focus is on calling or mission to save the rest of the world who is willing to repent and be
saved.
Psalm 78
Karl Barth resignified predestination in a Christological direction. God elected everyone in Christ for
salvation (Eph 1:3-4). After the resurrection, Jesus replaced Adam as the head of all humanity. This view
has antecedents in Zwingli.488
Emil Brunner notes:
The free eternal election of God and the responsible decision of man is a problem we cannot
understand…. We should leave the Scripture as it is, unsystematic, in all its parts; otherwise we
pervert its message…. The life of the Christian, like a door hung upon two hinges, must swing
upon this promise—and this warning.489
Brunner insists Scripture focuses on the outcome, not the origin of reprobation.
487
See Jeong Koo Jeon, Calvin and the Federal Vision: Calvin’s Covenant Theology in Light of Contemporary Discussion
(Eugene, Ore.: Resource Publications, 2009), 72.
William Stacy Johnson, John Calvin: Reformer for the 21st Century (Louisville, Ky.: Westminister John Knox Press, 2009),
488
49.
489
Our Faith (tr. John W. Rilling; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n.d.), 32-33.
80
He criticizes Barth’s position as eliminating personal decision.490
Of course, the difficulty of this issue requires Christian charity towards those who see differently.
S: God will achieve his purpose for all things. If we align our will to his, ultimate victory is assured. But
God’s will makes the direction of our own possible.
8:31-39—GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE
[31] What, then, shall we say about these things? If God (acts) on behalf of us, who is against us? [32]
Indeed, he who did not spare his own Son, but gave him over [to death] on behalf of all of us, how will he
not give to us all things with him?
[33] Who will bring an accusation against God’s elect? God is the One who justifies. [34] Who is the one
who condemns? Christ [Jesus] is the one who died—but more so was raised—who is also at the right
hand of God, who also491 intercedes on behalf of us.
R: John also presents the Son and Holy Spirit as advocates on our behalf (John 14:16; 1 John 2:2).
S: The Holy Spirit (v. 26) and the Son intercede before the Father on our behalf.
8:35-39—THE INSEPARABLE LOVE OF GOD 492
[35] Who will separate us from the love of Christ493—suffering or distress or persecution or famine or
nakedness or danger or sword? [36] Just as it stands written that Because of you we are being killed all
day long. We are regarded as sheep for the slaughter. [Ps 43:23 OG (44:22 MT)]
R: Paul cites a remarkable Psalm. After rehearsing God’s saving work in a previous generation (vv. 1-8),
the Psalmist complains about a present abandonment: “You have rejected us and disgraced us” (v. 9 MT).
He questions God’s justice: “All this has come upon us, though we have not forgotten you, and we have
not been false to your covenant” (v. 17 MT). It is the inverse of the apostle’s argument in chapter 3—God
is just even if every human being is not (Moyise and Clark 2004, 150). Yet in Christ God demonstrates
his presence in suffering and apparent chaos. The Suffering Servant was led like sheep to the slaughter
(Isa 53:7).
[37] But in all these things we are more than conquerors494 through the One who loved us.
P: Christ is presented like a triumphant gladiator. Through our union with him, we too are more than
conquerors. Epictetus calls the fighter “unconquerable” whom neither “glory” nor “abuse,” neither
“praise” nor “death” can cause to deviate from the right path (cited in TDNT 4:942). Paul lists the
otherwise terrifying opponents who would stand between us and God.
490
Harry Buis, Historic Protestantism and Predestination (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 110-113.
491
ESV translates “indeed.”
492
The sub-unit is delimited by inclusio—“separate us from the love of [God in] Christ [Jesus our Lord]” (35, 39).
493
Probably a Subjective Genitive: the love Christ expresses—who can separate us from that?”
494
The Nike-word group often depicted a victorious soldier standing over the vanquished.
81
[38] For I live persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor things present nor things to
come nor powers [39] nor height nor depth nor any other thing [that is] created will be able to separate us
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
P: Since God is both the One who justifies and condemns, if we have received his love, expressed in the
sacrifice of his Son, than nothing can separate us from his love. The creation has no power over the
Creator, and God’s friend has no enemies.
S: God alone is the final agent of salvation (v. 33).
A Jewish community lives on in the city. The Roman Catholic Church segregated them into a “Getto” in
1555, in part, as a reaction to the Reformation.
9:1—11:36—THE PROBLEM WITH ISRAEL
This central section begins and ends with amen (9:5, 11:36).495 So we may approach these words as
disciplined prayer. The rejection of Jesus Christ by many Jews, who, according to Paul, were seeking
their own righteousness according to the Torah instead of submitting to the life-imparting righteousness
of their Messiah (3:21-26), must be contextualized, so that God is shown to be righteous and consistent
(does not change).
The apology also extends to Scripture: “it not as though the word of God has failed” (9:6). This is
probably the thesis (propositio) for the argument. He illustrates God’s surprising election of the younger
brothers in the patriarchal narratives and even Pharaoh and God’s preservation of a remnant, despite
Israel’s general disobedience. This explains what John Barclay calls “the strange success of the Gentile
mission.”496
But the apostle also introduces a mystery, a deeper exegesis of Scripture requiring further revelation. In
short, the mystery of the Kingdom is that Gentiles and other “sinners” would precede most of the Jews
into the Temple. This is part of God’s inscrutable purpose, and it makes an ironic twist on the order of
salvation history—to the Jews first, then the Greek (1:16).
Paul also defends the Jewish people, who numbered 40,000-50,000 in the city.497 Although he includes
Gentiles in the Israel of God (Gal 5:16), they do not replace the first recipients of the promises.498 God has
not abandoned the Jews, the “firstborn,” maintaining a remnant, like Paul, who see Jesus as their Messiah.
Like the veil imagery in 2 Corinthians, many Jews suffer from a “partial hardening” (11:25). This unique
expression drips hope. In the meantime, Gentile believers are to make Jews jealous in the best sense of the
word. Unfortunately, this layer of the argument was often misunderstood or ignored in the history of the
church.
Some classify this unit as parenthesis, but, as we noted, Paul is defending God’s righteousness, a central
concern and addressing the covenant promises at the bookends of the letter.
495
We find this structuring device at the beginning and end of this letter, as well as Galatians.
496
John M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 561.
497
Brown, Introduction, 561.
498
11:1, 11.
82
According to rhetorical convention, emotion (pathos) should be displayed at the beginning and
conclusion of a speech.499 Yet there is no reason to suggest that Paul’s sorrow is manufactured. We sense
that he was troubled by the accusation that he had betrayed his own people. Paul divides the argument
with rhetorical questions, which are intended to invite reflection,500 and direct addresses to his readers
(hearers).501
9:1-5—PAUL’S SADNESS 502
[9:1] I speak truthfully in Christ. I am not lying. My conscience is witnessing with me by the Holy Spirit:
[2] there is a great sadness in me and unceasing sorrow in my heart. [3] For I myself would pray to be
cursed—away from Christ on behalf of503 my kindred brothers according to the flesh,504 [4] who are
Israelites from whom are the making-of-sons505 and the glory and the covenants and the giving-of-nomos
and the temple-service and the promises, [5] from whom are the fathers and from whom is the Christ506
according to the flesh, the one who is above all (people507), God blessed forever. Amen.
P: Paul witnesses for the defense—God and Israel—by beginning with an oath. This list is more
expansive than the earlier advantage accorded to the Jews then seemingly revoked (3:1-2, 9). He
rehearses the language of election and response.
R: The Septuagint generally translates cherem with anthema, which gave birth to the English anathema
(to anathematize).508 The biblical concept is to put something (e.g., cities—Num 21:2f.) or someone (Josh
8:26) “under the ban” or curse. Whatever is banned cannot be redeemed (Lev 27:28; Deut 13:17; see Heb
6). Paul may appropriate a Pharisaic-Rabbinic expression for banning a person from the local synagogue.
But for him the excommunication is from Christ, the head of the new temple.
D: The Quran rebukes Jews and Christians for fighting with one another (S.2 A.113).
For Paul, joy and sadness are not incompatible.
The apostle’s compassion is like the Buddha-to-be (Bodhisattva), who puts off his salvation to help others
and is not happy until all living beings find liberation. Paul is sharing the compassions and sadness of
Christ:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem—She who keeps killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her! How
often I wanted to gather together your children, as a hen who gathers together her chicks under
her wings. But you were unwilling. (Matt 23:37-39)
499
9:1-5 // 11:33-36; see Witherington 2004, 237.
500
9:14, 19, 30; 10:14, 18, 19; 11:1, 7, 11.
501
10:1; 11:13, 25.
502
The subsequent argument extends through ch. 11, and is the “climax of the theological portion of the letter” (Witherington,
237). It consists of three parts: (1) 9:6-29; (2) 9:30-10:21; and (3) 11:1-32.
503
Or “in the place of” = Substitution (Wallace 1996, 383).
504
Paul also has brothers “according to the spirit” = Gentile believers.
505
I.e., adoption.
506
The article emphasizes the messianic significance of Christ.
507
Or “things.”
508
The Classical spelling is anthēma–Judith 16:19.
83
Obedience to God is first and “tribalism” has negative connotations, but Scripture validates affection for
ancestry, community.
S: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας may be translated as we
have it (with most translations) or, if one inserts a period: “the Christ according to the flesh, the one who
is above all (people509). Blessed (be) God forever!” But the former is better Greek. So Paul calls Jesus
God.510
God makes a covenant with a people (Israel, the making-of-sons (adoption), the covenants, the
promises, the giving-of-Torah) and resides among them (the glory and the temple-service). This
pattern is a type for the New Covenant.
9:6-13—THE ELECTION OF ISAAC & JACOB
God’s word has not failed. Not all who descend from Abraham are “Israel,” a status based on
election, not ancestry. Paul just mentioned “the fathers and from whom is the Christ” and will now
unpack their election. God’s rejection of Esau, Abraham’s first-born, establishes a precedent.
9:6-9—ISAAC, THE SEED OF ABRAHAM (NOT ISHMAEL)
[6] But it not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are from Israel are Israel. [7] Nor are
all children of Abraham because they are his seed. Rather, in Isaac will your seed be named. [Gen 21:12
LXX] [The meaning of the Scripture] is this: the children of the flesh—these are not the children of God.
But the children of the promise are reckoned as seed. [9] For this is the word of promise: After this season
I will return, and there will be a son for Sarah. [Gen 18:10]
P: Echoing an earlier claim (2:29), the Baptist, and probably his Pharisaic background, Paul is unwilling
to connect what we may call ethnicity and faith. As Gentiles are not saved merely for being Gentiles, so
also Judeans (Jews).
R: In Isaac will your seed be named is the first of twenty-eight biblical citations in this section—all
emphasizing divine sovereignty.511 We saw a thematic grouping, a florilegium, which highlighted human
depravity (3:9-20). In this case, he spreads the Scriptures out with more commentary. Presumably, he is
still focusing on those who know Torah (7:1), and this may have been a more controversial topic.
The citation occurs in the context of God protecting Hagar and Ishmael, Abraham’s child of the flesh
(Gen 21:8-21). Paul uses gezerah sheva, citing Genesis 18:10: God had earlier promised Sarah would
have a son. This links with the earlier discussion of Abraham’s faith (4:1—5:4).
This decision made the older brother jealous of the younger: “the one who was begotten according to the
flesh persecuted the one who was begotten according to the Spirit” (Gal 4:29). Although implicit here,
Paul will exhort the Gentile believers to make the Jews jealous.
509
Or “things.”
510
Brown, Introduction, 581. See now George Carraway Christ Is God over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans 9–11
Library of New Testament Studies 489 London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
511
They prove, as B. Witherington observes, “that God is faithful to his Word and that God has historical purposes that have
always taken into account Israel’s faith and unfaithfulness, promises made to Israel, and Israel’s apostasy” (246).
84
S: It is strange that some interpret this passage as God predestining some to hell (see below). God sent
angels for both brothers. Hagar and Ishmael, part of the Nations, would be ultimately blessed because of
God’s fidelity to his promises.
9:10-13—JACOB IS THE SEED OF ISAAC (NOT ESAU)
[10] But not only [is this true concerning Sarah], but also Rebecca, who has sexual intercourse with one
man, Isaac, our father. [11] For although not yet being begotten nor practicing what is good or bad,512 so
that God’s purpose according to (his) election might remain, [12] not by works but by (his) calling, it was
told to her: The older will serve the younger, [Gen 25:23] [13] as it stands written: Jacob I loved, but
Esau I hated. [Mal 1:2]
R: Isaac also had biological son in addition to the one who received the blessing of the covenant. In both
cases, God chose the younger over the older in contrast to human expectations. Their election was not
based in their superiority of character or obedience—as Scripture makes clear—but God’s free decision.
Physical (biological) ancestry is not a sufficient condition for enjoying the blessing of God’s covenant
with Abraham. (John the Baptist makes the same point in the Gospels—Matt 3:8-9 par.). This is not an
“anti-Jewish” claim, but shared by many Jews in the first century. Apostate Jews were called “sinners.”
Those who read the Law of Moses should know this.
Paul again employs gezerah sheva, linking a citation from Malachi (1:2), who refers to the Nations of
Israel and Edom, respectively. The Edomites are Israel’s enemy. (Matthew relates this conflict in the
narrative between Jesus, a descendant of Jacob, and Herod, a descendant of Esau (an Edomite).)
D: Origen interprets this verse as evidence for the pre-mundane fall of preexistent souls (Simpl. 1.2), later
refuted by Augustine (Fitzgerald 1999, 604).
S: God does not emotionally hate Esau. Theologians refer to this as anthropopathism. Rather, the Semitic
(biblical) expression emphasizes singular commitment (see Luke 14:26). Again, with all Nations, the
descendants of Esau would be included in God’s plan of salvation through their Messiah.
9:14-16—THE ELECTION OF PHARAOH
[14] So what will we say? Is there injustice (unrighteousness) before God? Never! [15] For to Moses he
says: I will have mercy for whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion for whom I have compassion.
[Exod 33:19] [16] So, then, it is not through the one who wills or the one who labors, but it is through
God who shows mercy.
P: The apostle refers to Moses as a transition to the exodus story, but also looks back on God’s election
of Isaac and Jacob. God’s unilateral election may not seem fair, but Paul has been arguing that God does
not base his election on human performance, like an employer paying a laborer. If this were the case, it
may also seem unfair because all fall short of God’s glory. No one deserves God’s preference. Election is
entirely an expression of God’s mercy and compassion.
512
The expression neither practicing what is good or bad frees God of any human obligation for election. Were they born
sinful before practicing what is bad or with the proclivity to sinful behavior (see 5:12)?
85
[17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: For this very reason I raised you up—that I might demonstrate for
myself in you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. [Exod 9:16] [18] So, then,
he has mercy for whomever he wills, but hardens whomever he wills.
P: A defiant Pharaoh is actually God’s instrument. He too is elected for God’s mission, despite his
resistance. (Judas Iscariot takes this role in the Gospels.) The word power evokes the opening summation
(1:16).
Paul may presume Pharaoh is a type of those who are hostile towards the church. The older brothers of
the patriarchs anticipate attacks from the local synagogues; Pharaoh, Caesar and hostile Romans.
R: Paul alludes to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (Exod 8:15, 32) before
it was hardened by God (9:12). Election and judgment are different: God’s election is based on his
compassion and mercy, but he judges according to deeds. Pharaoh was a cruel, evil person. This implies
humans choose a path that is secured by God (1:24-27).
S: Evil cannot ultimately frustrate or impede God’s mission to restore creation. God uses human rebellion
as preamble to dawn.
9:19-29—REBUTTAL OF FATALISM
[19] So you will say to me, “Why [then] does he still find fault? For who is able to resist his will?” [20] O
man, on the contrary, who are you to answer back to God?513 What is molded will not say to the molder,
“Why did you make me this way?” [Isa 29:16] [21] Or does not the potter have authority over the clay—
to make out of the same lump a vessel for special [occasions], but another for everyday [occasions]?
P: The fate of Pharaoh raises the paradox of human responsibility and divine sovereignty. The
interlocutor sounds like a Sadducee, who embraced human responsibility over the determinism of the
Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 2.164; Ant. 13.173). The Pharisees took a mediating position. But Greeks and
Romans asked the same question of fate. So Paul takes up another universal problem.
R: The image goes back to the creation story: “the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground”
(Gen 2:7). God as potter is a prophetic motif (Isa 29:16; 45:9; Jer 18:1-11) that also occurs in the wisdom
tradition. Sirach notes:
All human beings come from the ground, and humankind was created out of the dust. In the
fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them and appointed their different ways. Some
he blessed and exalted, and some he made holy and brought near to himself; but some he cursed
and brought low, and turned them out of their place. Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be
molded as he pleases, so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be given whatever he decides.
(33.10-13)
Wisdom of Solomon, which Paul appropriated earlier, claims:
513
See Rom 2:1.
86
A potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, fashioning out of
the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all alike;
but which shall be the use of each of them the worker in clay decides. (15:7)
D: Despite humanistic claims to the contrary, God, the Creator, has authority over creation. We may
either submit to or rebel against this will. The latter is futile because even our rebellion is ultimately
conformed to the divine will.
9:22-23—GOD’S PATIENCE
[22] But what if God, while desiring to demonstrate wrath and to make known his power, endured with
much patience vessels of wrath that have been prepared for destruction, [23] to make known the riches of
his glory toward vessels of mercy that he prepared beforehand for glory?
P: The apostle recapitulates an earlier point directed at the hardened, Jewish moralist (2:1-5). In context,
he is referring to hostile Jews and Romans in the city (vessels of wrath) and those who share Abraham’s
faith, Jews and Gentiles (vessels of mercy).
S: God, who is love, is also long-suffering (patient).
9:24-26—ELECTION OF JEWS AND THE NATIONS (GENTILES)
[24] Concerning which he even called us—not only from Jews but also from (the) Nations, [25] as it also
says in the (scroll of) Hosea:
I will call who are not my people, “my people,”

and she who is not beloved, “beloved.”
[26] And it will happen in the place where it was said to them,
“You are not my people,” there they will be called
“sons of the living God.” [Hosea 1:10; 2:23]
R: This is the only mention of Hosea in the Bible outside of the Prophet’s own book. Paul employs
gezerah sheva, but quotes from the same book. The linking words are my people. The citations refer to
the restoration of Israel at the literal level. But Paul extends the sense to include non-Jews. This may be
partially due to the prophet’s canonical placement. Hosea was one of twelve prophets in a single scroll. In
this larger unit, we find promises of Gentile inclusion. Micah writes:
Many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the
house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” (4:2
ESV)
Malachi, the last prophet historically to contribute to The Twelve, has the Lord say:
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every
place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among
the nations. (1:11 ESV)
9:27-29—REMNANT
87
[27] But Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel:
If the number of the sons of Israel is like the sand of the sea,
the remnant will be saved. [Isa 10:22; Hosea 2:1]514
[28] For the Lord, who acts completely and quickly,
will realize (his) word upon the earth. [Isa 28:22; Dan 5:28]
[29] And as Isaiah predicted:
If the Lord Sabaoth did not leave behind seed for us,
we would be like Sodom and would resemble Gomorrah. [Isa 1:9]
R: The apostle introduces the prophetic motif of a remnant (repeated at 11:5), offering a chain of
citations from Isaiah, who is mentioned by name twice. This prophet was especially popular in the
synagogue because of his hopeful vision of restoration.
S: God preserves hope for the future by never fully eradicating the present. God has not thrown the
Jewish people away. They are the recipients of God’s promises, along now with the rest of the Nations.
Although Paul rejects salvation through ethnicity, pious Jews who hear the oracles of God may be
touched by the Spirit to repent. Despite a general disobedience to the Messiah, God maintains a remnant
of Jewish believers.
Paul now diagnoses the problem—enslavement to a false gospel.
9:30-33—MISPLACED CONFIDENCE IN THE TORAH
[30] So what will we say?—that Nations, who are not pursuing righteousness, obtained righteousness,
that is, a righteousness through faith. [31] But Israel, who pursues a torah of righteousness according to
the Torah, did not attain [it]. [32] Why?—because [she pursues a righteousness] not through faith, but as
through works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33] as it stands written: Behold, I place in Zion
a stumbling stone and a rock of offense. And the one who believes in it will not be ashamed. [Isa 28:16]515
P: According to Paul, the Pharisees sold Israel a bill of goods: justification is possible through personal
righteousness or obedience to Torah, the Law of Moses and post-biblical tradition.
R: Jewish leaders rejected the idea of a Messiah dying in the place of his people, seeking alternative
explanations of Isaiah 53.
10:1-13—SADNESS RECAPITULATED
[10:1] Brothers, my heart’s desire and supplication to God on behalf of them is for (their) salvation. [2]
For I witness for them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.516 [3] For being
ignorant about the righteousness of God and seeking to stand upon their own, they did not submit to the
514
The MT reads: “a remnant will return.” In my view, the readings are complementary.
515
The stumbling stone could be Jesus, human pride, or the Law. The first option matches other Scriptures (Matt 21:42; Acts
4:11; 1 Pet 2:6-8).
516
Knowledge for him was experiencing the crucified yet resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus. The Messiah perfects the
righteousness of the Torah, being born and dying faithfully under it.
88
righteousness of God. [4] For Christ is the end (perfection, completetion)517 of the Torah concerning
righteousness for everyone who believes.
P: As a persecutor of the church, Pual knew firsthand this misguided zeal (Gal 1:14). He attacked the
church because he believed they were undermining God’s call as Jews to be holy—separate from the
Nations (Dunn 2008, 12).
But Israel’s ignorance allows hope for the future. Paul himself was shown mercy because he acted with
zeal without knowledge (1 Tim 1:13). God judges in response to knowledge.
R: Zeal evokes the examples of Phinehas (Num 25:10-13), Elijah (1 Kings 19:10), and Matathias (1
Macc. 2:26-27), who chose violence to defend the purity of Israel’s faith.
D: In hope, there is no contradiction in resting in God’s sovereignty and praying for a particular result.
[5] For concerning righteousness—the (righteousness) by the Torah, Moses writes: The man who
practices these things must live by them. [Lev 18:5]
R: The citation from Leviticus (18:5) was understood at the time as referring to present and eternal life.
The Damascus Document, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, reads:
The desires of His will, “which a man should do and so have life in them.” … Those who hold
firm to it shall receive everlasting life and all the glory of Adam will be theirs.” (3.15-16, 20)
This reading continues in Rabbinic literature.518 This is probably in the background when a certain legal
scholar (posek) asks Jesus: “Rabbi, what must I practice to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25). Jesus asks
what is written in the Torah. In response to the summation love God and neighbor, he replies: “You
answered correctly. Practice this, and you will live.” (v. 28)
[6] But the righteousness by faith likewise says: Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend to heaven?”
[Deut 30:12] This is to bring down Christ. [7] Or “Who will descend into the abyss?” [Ps 107:26] This is
to bring up Christ from those who are dead.
P: As Messiah, Christ went ahead of us—into death and resurrection. He descended and ascended on our
behalf. To pursue a righteousness by Torah is to repudiate and separate oneself from Christ. Sinful human
beings cannot initiate this path themselves, contrary to Pharisaic teaching.
R: Paul employs gezerah sheva. The two citations (Deut 30:12; Ps 107:26) are linked by the contrasting
verbs ascend and descend. They typologically refer to resurrection (glorification) and death of Christ.
10:8-13—FAITH LEADS TO SALVATION
517
End (telos) in the sense of “termination” or “goal.” The latter better fits the argument (see, e.g., 8:3-4).
518
Targum Onqelos paraphrases the verse as “He shall live by them in eternal life.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathon: “he shall live by
them in eternal life and shall be assigned a portion with the righteous” (see also Tg. Ezek 20:11, 13, 21). Sipra Lev. §193 [on Lev
18:1-30] provides the following commentary: “‘…shall live’—in the world to come. And should you wish to claim that the
reference is to this world, is not the fact that in the end one dies? Lo, how am I to explain, ‘…shall live’? It is with reference to
the world to come.” (For discussion of these references, see C. Evans’ introduction to An Aramaic Approach to The Gospels, 3rd
ed., xv-xvii.).
89
[8] But what does [righteousness by faith] say? The message is near you—in your mouth and in your
heart. [Deut 30:14] This is the message of faith519 that we preach:
[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus (as) Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from
(those who are) dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart he believes, (which leads) to
righteousness. Now with the mouth he confesses, (which leads) to salvation.
P: The unit is chiastic:520
A confess with your moth
B believe in your heart
C you will be saved
B’ with the heart, one believed
A’ with the mouth one confesses
Saved, the most emphatic part of the chiasm, refers to the resurrection. Confession and belief overlap in
meaning, but the latter may extend the sense into a deeper place.521 Faith has been the motif of the letter.
D: Muslims have a similar “entrance confession,” the Shahāda (“I bear witness that ‘There is no God but
God’; I bear witness that ‘Mohammad is the messenger of God’”).
[11] For the Scripture says: Everyone who believes in it will not be ashamed. [Isa 28:16]522 [12] For there
is no distinction between Jew and Greek for the same Lord is (Lord) of all, who is generous toward all
who call upon him. [13] For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. [Joel 3:5]
P: Human beings are saved by believing (trusting) the message of faith, the preaching of Jesus’s death
and resurrection. Righteousness and salvation overlap in meaning: for Paul, salvation at the resurrection
is being found with Christ’s righteousness. Here, Luther’s understanding of God’s righteousness fits the
context. In fact, the language—will not be ashamed—evokes the primary claim of the letter (1:16-17).
Jesus is the name of the Lord. Peter cites the same line from Joel at Pentecost (Acts 2:21).
R: Paul employs gezerah sheva with the linking word being everyone.
10:14-17—PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR THE WORD OF FAITH
[14] So how will they call on whom they have not believed? But how will they believe whom they have
not heard? [Joel 3:5; Isa 28:16] But how will they hear without preaching? [15] But how will they preach,
if they have not been sent? As it stands written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good
things! [Isa 52:7]
519
Either subjective or objective, referring to Christ’s faithfulness.
520
David P. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction to His World, Letters and
Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2007), 65.
521
Synonymous parallelism is falling out of fashion.
522
The citation is repeated from 9:33.
90
P: The apostle communicates the basis for mission, the preaching of the gospel to give others the
opportunity to believe and be saved.
R: The citation from Isaiah (52:7) immediately precedes Isaiah’s announcement of the Suffering Servant,
which becomes the subject of the next unit.
[16] Nevertheless, not all obeyed the gospel.523 For Isaiah says: Lord, who believed our message? [53:1]
[17] So this faith (comes) through hearing, but this hearing through the message of Christ. [Deut 30:14]
10:18—ISRAEL HEARD
[18] But I say: “Did they not hear?” On the contrary: Into all the land their words have gone out, and to
the ends of the earth their words (are heard). [Ps 18:5 OG]
P: The Greek (mē) suggests a negative answer to the rhetorical question.
10:19-21—ISRAEL UNDERSTOOD
[19] But I say, “Did Israel not understand?” First, Moses says: I will make you jealous by those who are
not a nation. By a nation without understanding I will make you angry. [Deut 32:21] [20] But Isaiah is
bold and says: I was found by those not seeking me. I was seen by those not asking for me. [65:1] [21] But
to Israel he says: The whole day I extended my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people. [65:2]
P: Like the previous rhetorical question, the Greek (mē) anticipates a negative answer. The claim is
surprising because Paul depicts the unbelief of the Jewish people as a veil over the eyes. However, like
Pharaoh, they contribute to their blindness as the prophets claim. Jesus similarly appropriated Isaiah (6:9)
to explain the general rejection of his gospel:
To you the mystery of God’s kingdom is entrusted. But for those outside, all things come in
parables, in order that watching, they might watch and not see; and hearing, they might hear and
not understand, so that that they do not turn and it be forgiven them. (Mark 4:11-12)
In context Paul is noting the biblical precedent for God’s acceptance of the Nations (Gentiles). This
should have been obvious.
He also employs gezerah sheva, linked by theme—the nations (Gentiles) seeking God—and possibly the
repetition of not. The reference to jealousy (zeal) repeats Paul’s witness concerning Israel’s zeal but
without knowledge (10:2). Israel is like the older brothers of the patriarchs (9:6-13).
11:1-6—A REMNANT
[11:1] So, I say: “Did God reject his people?” Never! For I am also an Israelite—from the seed of
Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin.524 [2] God did not reject his people, concerning whom he foreknew. [1
Sam 12:22; Ps 94:14]
523
I.e., the “obedience of faith” (1:5).
524
Paul, as part of the remnant, claims his own Israelite ancestry.
91
11:2B-5—EXAMPLE OF ELIJAH
Or do you not know what the Scripture says in [reference to] Elijah as he pleads with God against Israel?
“Lord, they killed your prophets. They tore down your altars, and I alone am left; and they seek my life!”
[1 Kg 19:10] [4] But what does the oracle say to him? “I kept for myself seven thousand men who did not
bend their knee525 to Baal.” [19:18]
P: This unit recapitulates the remnant theology (9:27-29). Not only does Paul relate to Elijah as a fellow
Israelite, but as a prophet despised. (He implies a similar relationship to Jeremiah in Galatians.)
[5] So in the same way in the present season there has also been a remnant according to the election of
grace. [6] But if by grace, no longer by works because this “grace” is no longer grace.
D: Calvin emphasized this passage for his defense of double predestination.526
11:7-10—HARDENING OF MANY ISRAELITES
[7] What then? What Israel seeks, this it did not obtain. But the elect obtained [it]. But the rest were
hardened [8] as it stands written: God gave to them a spirit of sleep, eyes which do not see and ears which
do not hear until this very day. [Deut 29:3; Isa 29:10]
P: The apostle invokes the earlier discussion of Pharaoh whose heart God hardens (9:17-18). God does
the same here, but tragically towards his own people. In both cases, the hardening is not arbitrary but an
expression of God’s justice.
R: Paul offers a mixed citation (Deut 29:3; a spirit of sleep—Isa 29:10). The context of the citation from
Deuteronomy (29:2—30:20) is Moses’ prediction of Israel’s exile until God circumcises their heart
(30:6). The apostle believes this has yet to happen. He cites Isaiah’s judgment oracle, originally directed
at the false prophets (29:9-16) against blinded Jews (1 Cor 1:19).527
11:9-10—DAVID’S REBUKE
[9] And David says: Let their table become a snare and a trap and an offense and a retribution for
them.[10] Let their eyes be darkened (that) they cannot see and bend their backs forever! [Ps 68:23]
P: This citation of David is a reversal of the earlier one (4:7-8, citing Ps 32:1-2). David loved his
children—perhaps to a fault. And yet Israel’s refusal to repent and trust his ultimate son led to this rebuke
from the grave (1:3).
11:11-12—STUMBLED, BUT NOT FALLEN
525
Expression for worship (Eph 3:14).
526
Jeong, Calvin and the Federal Vision, 73.
527
Tom Schreiner notes that the subsequent unit “looks forward to a new day in Israel in which shame will be removed from
Jacob and understanding will be granted to them” (Romans, 588). So both citations look forward to better times.
92
[11] So I say: “Have they [Israel] stumbled, that they have fallen?” Never! But their stumbling is
salvation for the Nations to make them jealous. [12] But if their stumbling is riches for the world and their
failure riches for the Nations, how much greater is their full [inclusion]!528
P: God intended to make the Jews jealous as they watch other people groups turn to their God and begin
to receive the promised, eschatological blessings.
11:13-24—GENTILES GRAFTED IN
[13] But I speak to you, peoples. So while I am an apostle of peoples I magnify my ministry [14] if
somehow I will make [those according to] my flesh jealous and save some of them.
P: The apostle focuses on the Gentile wing of his audience. Earlier, he focused on those who knew the
Torah (7:1). Such vacillation is the rhetorical value of apostrophe. Despite being an apostle of peoples,
Paul hopes to participate in the gathering of the lost sheep of Israel by making them jealous.
[15] For if their rejection529 is the reconciliation of the world, what will be (their) acceptance except life
from [those who are] dead!
11:16—ILLUSTRATION OF FIRST FRUITS
[16] But if the first fruits are holy, also is the lump of dough [from which the first-fruits were separated].
P: The lump of dough may refer to all Israel or the remnant, like Paul.
R: When Israel entered the Promised Land they were to give the Lord first fruits, a loaf of bread from
their first batch of dough (Num 15:17-21).
11:16B-18—ILLUSTRATION OF THE BRANCHES
And if the root is holy, also are the branches. [17] But if some of the branches were broken off, but you, a
wild olive shoot, while being grafted in among them, is (now) a sharer in the fatness of the olive tree’s
root, [18] do not boast over the branches! But if you boast, [remember that] it is not you, who supports the
root, but instead the root [supports] you.
P: The motif of boasting in the wrong thing—whatever might stand in the place of the gospel of Jesus
Christ—surfaces again (3:27-31). In this case, Paul rebukes the Nations, who might despise some Jews
because of their present alienation from their Messiah. The way of salvation began with them, and God
has not forgotten his first people.
R: Paul may allude to the root of Jesse, the Messiah (Isa 11:10). Jesus describes himself as the vine and
his disciples as branches (John 15:1). The image, often synecdoche for “vineyard,” symbolizes Israel
throughout Scripture (Hos 10:1; Ps 80:9-12, 15-16; Isa 5:1-7; 27:2-6; Jer 2:21; 6:9; 8:13; 12:10) and
contemporary Jewish writing (e.g., 4 Ezra 5:23). As Messiah, Jesus embodies Israel, the vine.
528
A fortiori (“lesser to greater”) is employed: If Israel’s sin brings salvation to Nations, their restoration will bring even greater
blessing.
529
Or “loss.”
93
D: We steward a beautiful pomegranate tree in our front yard. During Rosh Hashanah, we get to share its
fruit with our Jewish neighbors.
11:19-22—INTERLOCUTOR
[19] So you530 will say: “The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” [20] Very well.
Because of unbelief, they were broken off. But you stand because of faith. Do not meditate on arrogant
(things), but be afraid! [Ps 2:1] [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, nor will he spare
you.531 [22] Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but
the kindness of God532 toward you, if you remain in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
P: As the vine, Jesus commands his disciples, the branches, to remain in him (John 15:4-6). Paul makes a
similar exhortation here.
R: Paul alludes to Psalm 2 where the Nations are rebuked for arrogance.
D: Students of church history may be forgiven for contemplating that the church has been cut off, in part,
for our treatment of the Jewish people. Others exploit the sins of our past to create a “new, purified”
church, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or some reconstructionist churches of Christ.
Instead, Paul envisions a partial, not a complete, apostasy of the church (1 Tim 4:1). From my study, it
seems that, like the history of Israel, there never has been a golden age of the church, but a persistent
remnant. There will be remnant from all Nations at the parousia. From this perspective, Christendom is
bound to fail, but the gospel will never perish. Presumably, the church will continue to lose influence in
the West while people continue to be saved throughout the world. Then love for God will cool in those
areas as well.
[23] Now they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in
again. [24] For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, against nature, into a
cultivated olive tree, how much more will those [branches] by nature be grafted back into their own olive
tree?
D: Despite the present rejection of Christ as Messiah, we might still learn a lot from the Jewish people
because we share the same worldview. Indeed, dialogue should continue until God moves.
11:25-33—ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED
[25] For I do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, (about) this mystery, that you might not be wise in
yourselves—that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the peoples has come in.
[26] And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it stands written: The deliverer will come from [Mount]
Zion. He will banish ungodliness from Jacob. [27] And this [will be] my covenant for them [Isa 59:20]
when I take away their sins. [Jer 31:33; Isa 27:9]
530
I.e., a Gentile.
531
As throughout the section, Paul is speaking of Christian assemblies.
532
The Majority text and a few other witnesses omit of God.
94
P: The disclosure formula—I do not want you to be uninformed —suggests new information is being
given to the readers (hearers). God mysteriously reverses the order of salvation: Gentiles (the Nations)
would precede the majority of Jews into the new covenant. This is not clearly taught in earlier Scripture.
The Nations would have a place, but not pride of place in God’s economy of salvation.
There has been considerable debate over the meaning of all Israel. Paul just used the name in reference to
non-believing Jews (v. 25). Perhaps, then, all Israel refers to a larger gathering than a remnant—those
Jews whose hearts are “partially hardened” are able to see Jesus as their Messiah. Yet Paul does not write
“every Israelite,” but all who are Israel.533 This would include Gentiles who trust in the Messiah, the
descendant of Abraham, as Paul makes clear at the beginning of the unit: “not all who are from Israel are
Israel” (9:6).
Many link Paul’s hope to the Parousia (e.g., Cranfield, Dunn). When Jesus returns, the hardening will be
lifted and all Israel, a large portion of the Jewish population, will see him as their Messiah. Yet the
context emphasizes the mission of the peoples to make the Jewish people jealous (Kirk, “Why Does the
Deliverer Come ἐκ Σιών (Romans 11.26)? JSNT 33 (2010): 81-99, 89). The dichotomy is similar to the
premillennial and postmillennial positions. An already / not yet continuum would not be foreign to Paul’s
reasoning.
R: Isaiah envisioned a restoration of Israel, followed by the gathering of Gentiles at Zion (2:2-4; 60:1-16;
66:18-19; Hays 1996, 416). Paul reverses the order (Kirk 2010, 82).
[28] Concerning the gospel, (they are) enemies because of you. But concerning election, (they are) loved
because of the fathers.534 [29] For the gifts-of-grace and the calling of God are irrevocable.535 [30] For just
as you formerly disobeyed God, but now received mercy because of their disobedience, [31] in the same
way also they now have disobeyed because of your mercy, so that they [now] will receive mercy. [32] For
God imprisoned all (people) to disobedience, so that all (people) might have mercy.
P: God allowed all people to experience the suffering of sin, their akrasia, to witness injustice, death, and
decay throughout the world, so that they might see the need for his mercy—a mercy he was more than
happy to offer at the cross (1:18-28).536 God desires all people to turn from their disobedience and find
salvation in Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9).
R: Jesus commands us to love our enemies (Matt 5:43-48).
D: Barth reads this as the definitive statement on predestination.537 The reprobation of all is defeated by
the mercy of all.
11:33-36 [// 9:1-5]—THE MYSTERY OF GOD
533
Moo 1996, 722; Hays 1996, 416.
534
Fathers was a common expression for ancestors, specifically the patriarchs of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is cited
above).
535
Irrevocable may also convey the sense of having no regret about a previous decision (2 Cor 7:10; 1 Clement 54:4; BDAG).
536
J. Fitzmyer notes: “For Paul, God himself will bring everything to a good and proper conclusion through Christ Jesus” (629).
537
Shao Kai Tseng, Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology: Origins and Development: 1920 – 1953 (Downers Grove, Mich.:
IVP, 2016), 105.
95
[33] O the depth of the wealth and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments,
and inscrutable are his ways! [34] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his
counselor? [Isa 40:13] [35] Or who first gave to him, (that) it might also be paid back to him? [Job 41:11]
[36] For all things are from him and through him and to him.538 To him (be) the glory forever! Amen.
P: Like the beginning of the unit, Paul expresses emotion (pathos) and ends with a liturgical amen (9:1-
5).
R: Paul employs gezerah sheva with the link being God as subject. He also cites this verse in 1
Corinthians (2:16), in reference to possessing the mind of Christ. In that case, Lord referred to Jesus
Christ. The citation from Job occurs in God’s rebuke for a human being trying to understand his ways.
Job eventually confesses: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be
thwarted” (42:2). The language also reinforces that salvation is by grace, not a wage.
D: This is an important reminder not to speak on God’s behalf concerning anything that has not been
revealed. At root, the gospel is a partial revelation of a much greater mystery.
S: This unit sums of the theological exploration of the unit. In God there is wisdom and mystery. God is
not stopped by human rebellion. He can fold evil into his purpose, which is to extend mercy to all people.
God elected all people to glorify him, willingly or kicking and screaming. Those who hear, understand,
believe, and confess are given the awesome privilege and responsibility of participating in God’s mission
to save the world.
12:1—13:14—UNION WITH CHRIST
This section of the body grounds the gospel in every-day life—the Christian as a member of God’s now
eclectic people (Jews and ultimately all the other Nations of the world) and its relationship to culture (in
this case, the Pax Romana). With a new citizenship in heaven, our placement in Christ, how shall we live?
The apostle moves from the “is” to the “ought”: our new identity and being in Christ must take priority
over everything else. We may be proud of our culture, country, or whatever else shaped our identity as
children, but not to the point that it distorts the mind of Christ, appropriated in personal discipleship and
communal worship.
Nevertheless, being in Christ relates us immediately to other believers who are quite different culturally—
in Paul’s case, those with traditionally Greco-Roman and Jewish values and lifestyles—and the
governments overseeing the focus of our mission. We should be humbly mindful that God has already
been working through other cultures and governments to achieve his purposes.
12:1—SACRIFICIAL BODY 539
[12:1] Therefore, I exhort you, brothers [and sisters],540 by the compassions541 of God: present542 your
bodies543 as a sacrifice544—living,545 holy,546 pleasing to God547—as your spiritual service of worship.
538
A typical Stoic formulation (e.g., Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23).
539
Paul offers a summation at the head of the section, highlighting the significance of living a new Spirit-led life of self-
emptying love.
96
P: Therefore (oun) probably assumes the entire argument, beginning at 1:18 (Moo 748; Wallace 1996,
673). After explaining the downward spiral of human beings (chs. 1—8), the apostle claims God will
ultimately fulfill his promises to Israel (chs. 9—11). In both cases, God’s mercies are profound.
Paul unpacks the earlier exhortation to present our bodies as “instruments for justice” (6:12-14; Moo
748). The gospel—the faith of Jesus becoming our own—reverses the earlier claim: “Therefore, by the
lusts of their hearts God gave them over to impurity, so that their bodies would be treated shamefully
among themselves” (1:24).
As Jesus gave his body, we must do the same. Being in the immediate presence of God makes all believers
priests, but without the mediation of sacrifice and physical (altar) temple.548 As a Pharisee, Paul had
sought to bring the Temple into everyday life through traditional amplifications of the priestly holiness
code (Dunn 1998, 544-45). Those united to Christ have immediate access to Yahweh’s assembly (5:1-2).
Like Jesus, we have been purified to bring holiness into an unclean world. Jesus used his holy body to
touch lepers, embrace the hurting, and raise the dead, all the while preaching the gospel. God wants to
mediate grace through our bodies. We may offer God’s presence with our bodies. While there is
something to spiritual presence, there is nothing like physical presence.
12:2—RENEWED MIND
[2] And do not be conformed549 by this age. Instead, be transformed by the renewal of (your) mind, so
that you may discern what the will of God is—what is good and acceptable and perfect.
P: This unit is a reversal of the corrupt way of thinking that led to human suffering:
540
I exhort you: Exhortation is the substance of a sermon (Heb 13:22), which often takes on the form of deliberative rhetoric.
The pronouncement occurs for the first time in the letter, and will be repeated twice (15:30; 16:17). In an earlier letter, Paul gives
the exhortation at the beginning (1 Cor 1:10).
541
By the compassions of God: The preposition dia conveys “means” (Wallace 1996, 368-369). It was typical to pronounce the
divine means or authority of one’s exhortation (see 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 10:1). The substantive oiktirmos signifies a display of
concern over another’s misfortune (BDAG; cf. 2 Cor 1:3; Phil 2:1; Sir. 5:6). The expression is common in the LXX (e.g., Exod
34:6; Deut 4:31; Ps 85:15). In context, Paul has been celebrating God’s present mysterious work that will surface in the salvation
of “all Israel” (11:25) and the dispensing of mercy to “all people” (v. 32; see Dunn 543). Through conveys the means of the
exhortation. In other words, the following prescriptive behavior is our proper response to such compassion.
542
To present or “offer” sacrifice, a stock phrase in the Jewish and Pagan cult (Dunn 1998, 544; e.g., Num 16:9 LXX). The
author of Hebrews (9:6) uses the same word in reference to the duties of priests in the Tabernacle. It involves offering our whole
life to God (Heb 13:15-16). Syntactically, the infinitive conveys indirect discourse (Wallace 1996, 603). The direct discourse
would be imperatival: “present your bodies!”
543
Bodies emphasizes the individual Christian. Paul also describes the local and universal church as the “body” of Christ.
544
The singular sacrifice presumes a communal offering to God. Several priests were necessary for a single offering in the
Temple.
545
Living signifies the renewed life of the Spirit (6:4). Syntactically, the adjective may function either attributively (“living
sacrifice”) or predicatively. Since the following two adjectives function predicatively, the latter is more likely (Wallace 1996,
618-619).
546
Holy signifies moral and ceremonial purity.
547
Sirach notes: “The offering of a righteous man anoints the altar, and its pleasing odor rises before the Most High” (35:5).
548
Dunn notes: “he takes the language of the cult, in its characteristic abstraction from daily living, and reverses the relationship”
(544).
549
Conformed is to be formed or molded after something (BDAG). The verb may also be in the middle voice: “Do not conform
yourselves.” In either case, the “age/world” is the instrument. The Passive voice may emphasize the agency of Satan, who is the
“god of this world [age]” (2 Cor 4:4); the Middle voice, our own determinations. As the context makes clear, Paul is concerned
that the church will imitate the pride and jockeying for power we find in the world.
97
For since the creation of the world, his invisible (attributes)—his eternal power and deity—being
understood, are clearly seen in what are made, so that they are without excuse, because after
knowing God, they did not glorify (him) as God or offer thanksgiving. Instead, they became futile
in their speculations, and their senseless heart became darkened. (1:20-21)
The renewal is the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration (Titus 3:5). God has drawn near again, so that we
can see his hand. But there is more: United to Christ we may now think with him (1 Cor 2:16).550 We are
able to process reality from his perspective. In the ancient world, ideas were seen as happening to
people.551 They come from the outside and have an objective existence in an ideal world.
We see within the limits of our human nature: the horizon has expanded and our focus has narrowed. We
may now come to tasks aware of God’s will and infinite power. We act with faith and hope. We aim
beyond the impossible. But we also notice the little things, forgotten by the world. We see the beggar, the
lost child, the anxious mother, the tired laborer.
Aristotle claims men are unique from animals (and women) because they can think rationally. This is
their form and telos. This led to theoria—the contemplation of Truth. Jesus restored the demoniac to his
reason.
However, the mind (nous) is more than intellect or the exercise of reason; it directs the body in ways that
may bypass conscious, logical deliberation.552 Thomas Aquinas reinterpreted Aristotle for the Christian
tradition. He too sees the telos of humanity as focusing our intellectus, but understands it as the capacity
to receive from and respond to God.553 God’s love animates and directs this cycle.
D: If ever, most people change their worldview once in their lifetime.554 How are we to respond to God’s
mercies? A new way of thinking leads to a fresh way of being in the world, without being of the world.
We are all priests.555 We all mediate the Presence of God. Living is worship. When non-Christians think
of us their first thought should be that we are a community of God-worshippers. Worship incorporates
hymns, spiritual songs, hearing Scripture and its interpretation, sharing in the Eucharist, and other
corporate actions taken on the Lord’s Day. But worship is also self-sacrifice in our everyday
relationships. Worship is love. We worship God by loving our neighbor (as the subsequent unit makes
clear).
The imperative to love often creates questions about practice. How do I love Christians of other traditions
while remaining faithful to my own? How do I love those my religious community despises? How do I
love sinful Christians while not enabling their behavior? How do I love the enemies of my government
while remaining a good citizen? We will not find answers to these questions by pretending to be priests in
pretend temples, but by following God out into the Temple of the world. Instead of relying upon priests at
550
Munzinger describes our union with Christ, a new creation, as “an epistemological revolution” (2007, 164).
551
Karen Armstrong, The Case for God (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), 67.
552
See Armstrong, The Case for God, xii.
553
Rowan Williams, The Wound of Knowledge (Cambridge, Mass.: Cowley Publications, 1990), 133.
554
Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson, The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World (New York:
Harmony Books, 2000), 17.
555
Absent in Paul’s letters is any reference to priests as a distinct group within the church. This was a later development around
the mass.
98
a particular place and time (e.g., Jerusalem Temple at the daily afternoon sacrifice or the weekly sermon
from a pastor), we serve God everywhere and always.
Reading Paul’s letters is a delight to the Christian mind because they model how a renewed mind thinks.
Even those who might struggle with some of his conclusions, if they have read closely, cannot but have
affection for this cerebral apostle.
12:3—21—CHRIST IN COMMUNITY
[3] For I say through the grace which was given to me to all who are among you: do not think more
highly (of yourself) than what is necessary to think, but think556 in order to be of sound thinking, to each
as God divided a measure of faith. [4] For just as in one body we have many parts but not all the parts
have the same function, [5] likewise, we, the many, are one body in Christ but individual members
according to one another—[6] that is, having different graces557 according to the grace which was given to
us: if prophecy, according to the proportion of faith; [7] or serving, in serving; or the one who teaches, in
teaching, [8] [or]558 the one who exhorts in exhortation; the one who shares, with sincerity; the one who
leads559 with earnestness; the one who gives alms,560 with cheerfulness.
P: Humility is the first effect of union with Christ and the fundamental mindset of the Christian life (Matt
11:28-30; Phil 2:1-11). Paul essentially says: think, think, think, think like Christ!561 He uses the human
body to explain union with Christ.562 We are one body, with many members. Each has a specific function
for the well-being of the whole. He appeals to civic duty. Wealthy citizens were expected to engage in
benefaction—to build up (edify) the material and cultural infrastructure of the city. The apostle lists
seven graces: 1) prophecy, 2) serving, 3) teaching, 4) exhorting [preaching], 5) sharing, 6) leading, 7)
being merciful [giving alms]. Apparently, the Roman churches had wealthy (or relatively wealthy)
members—ones who share, lead, and give alms.563 There are also those, like Paul, who engage in public
service through prophecy, teaching, and exhortation (preaching), thereby, to extend the civic metaphor,
contributing to the cultural enrichment of the population. These two kinds of wealthy people complement
one another. For example, a materially wealthy patron constructs a beautiful theater in which gifted
musicians perform.
D: We are both one and diverse. While debated, Paul implies God gives different amounts of faith to
people. Instead of becoming arrogant—particularly those going into “fulltime ministry”—this should
humble us. Our devotion is largely a grace from God.
S: God is both one and diverse.
12:9-13—MARKS OF UNION
556
Or “meditate.”
557
Gr. charismata.
558
Absent in some manuscripts
559
Rule or be concerned about.
560
He who has mercy refers to giving alms to the poor (see Matt 6:2).
561
He repeats φρονέω twice, with the compound verb ὑπερφρονέω and σωφρονέω, creating a motif.
562
The illustration was common (e.g., Stoicism).
563
The apostle does not claim only the wealthy are to give, but it is an explicit grace (gift) in their life that must be shared.
99
[9] Love (must be) without hypocrisy—hating what is evil, clinging to what is good: [10] with brotherly
love, (be) devoted to one another; with honor, outdoing one another; [11] with zeal, (do) not (become)
lazy, burning with the Spirit,564 serving the Lord; [12] with hope, rejoicing; with affliction, persevering;
with prayer, continuing; [13] with the needs of the holy ones, sharing,565 pursuing hospitality.566
P: Faith works itself out in love (Gal 5:5-6), which, as the structure of the unit implies, is at the root of all
these virtues. The love of God, which has been poured out into our hearts, through the Holy Spirit (5:5),
leads to brotherly love and so forth. Now Paul will allude to Jesus’s own teaching on the matter.
12:14-21—JESUS ON VENGEANCE
[14] Bless those who pursue [you].567 Bless, and do not curse—[15] rejoicing with those who rejoice
[Matt 5:10-12 par.], weeping with those who weep [Luke 6:21], [16] being in harmonious thought with
one another568—not thinking prideful [thoughts], but associating with the humble [Matt 5:5; 11:28-30].
Do not be wise in your own estimation, [17] repaying no one evil for evil, having in mind good things
before all people. [18]—if possible, what [is possible] from you, being at peace with all people [Matt 5:9].
P: The apostle moves from the inner dynamic of the church to external relationships, beginning with
those who persecute.
R: Paul makes several allusions to the teachings of Jesus, which formed new believers into the faith.
(Their rhetorical placement—towards the end of the argument—is like the exhortation in 1
Thessalonians.) He appropriates Jesus’s famous call to love one’s enemies and to find joy in persecution:
Blessed are those who are persecuted (pursued, Gr. diōkō) for the sake of righteousness, because
theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. [11] Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute
(pursue, diōkō) (you), and say all kinds of evil against you [falsely] for my sake. [12] Rejoice
(chairō) and be glad, because your reward is great in the heavens. For in the same way they
persecuted the Prophets before you. (Matt 5:10-12 // Luke 6:22-23)
The apostle repeats two of the key verbs (diōkō, persecute [pursue] and chairō, rejoice) and echoes some
of the other beatitudes. Followers of Jesus are to make peace, but know they will be hated. This was
elementary discipleship in the early church (see the Didache, James).
12:19—13:14—WAIT FOR THE WRATH OF GOD 569
[19] Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but give a place to the wrath [of God]. For it stands written:
Vengeance is mine, I myself will repay, says the Lord [Deut 32:35]. [20] But if your enemy is hungry, give
him a portion [of your food]. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For by practicing this [way of life], you
564
Luke presents Apollos this way (Acts 18:25).
565
Or sharing with.
566
The chain is marked by inclusio: brotherly love = the needs of the holy ones.
567
I.e., persecute. Paul repeats the same Greek verb from the previous verb, making a pun.
568
Literally, “thinking the same thing toward one another.”
569
Paul intends a transition with the vocative Beloved.
100
will heap burning coals on his head [Prov 25:21-22]. [21] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil
with good.
P: This unit functions as a hinge for Jesus’s teaching on not taking personal vengeance, probably in
response to local persecution from the synagogue, and the threat of governmental sanction (13:1-7).
R: Paul employs gezerah sheva, citing from the Mosaic Torah (Law), specifically the Song of Moses
(Deut 32:35), and Proverbs (25:21-22). The Song predicts the disobedience of God’s people. At this
point, most of the persecution of the church was coming from certain Jews.570 Together, the citations
support the common theme of the divine prerogative of vengeance.
D: Harm-doers often experience the passive wrath of God by suffering the consequences of their sin. If
they receive mercy in this life and foolishly refuse to repent, there is the promise of judgment in the next.
13:1-14—CHRIST IN GOVERNMENT
[13:1] Every life must submit itself571 to governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God.
Now the (authorities) who exist are appointed by God, [2] so that the one who opposes such authority has
resisted the decree of God.
P: Many find the discussion of government jarring. But Paul has been discussing the church’s
relationship to outsiders, beginning at 12:14. Jewish persecution and governmental intervention were in
the recent past of the Roman church. Priscilla and Aquila were a part of this expulsion.572 It was
obviously in the best interest of the church and the gospel to repair, if possible, relations with governing
authorities.
The apostle recapitulates a Jewish conviction. Jesus b. Sirach notes: “The government of the earth is in
the hand of the Lord, and over it he will raise up the right leader for the time” (10.4). The Wisdom of
Solomon reminds kings: “your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the
Most High” (6.3). This was not freedom but responsibility.
R: Scripture has an ambivalent story of government. On the one hand, God recognizes the authority of
Pharaoh by sending Moses to negotiate the release of Israel (9:14-16). In the broader context of Paul’s
argument (chs. 9—11), God sovereignly placed Pharaoh to accomplish his purpose and glorify his
character. Yet God exercises authority over Pharaoh, even punishing his rebellion. It is not a stretch to see
the Roman Empire in this role. God indeed placed Caesar in authority, but he too is subject to the divine
will.
God had redeemed Israel out of Egypt and eventually brought them to their own land to be governed by a
theocracy. This was the first Kingdom of God. But the people demanded a human king. Samuel warned
that such a king would take, along with their children, “the best of your fields and vineyards and olive
orchards” (1 Sam 8:14). Yet, like Pharaoh, God appropriated human rebellion for his purpose: from David
came the Messiah and the fulfillment of all God’s promises (Gen 49:10).
570
The Song’s theme is communicated in vv. 4-6: The righteousness and faithfulness of God toward his corrupt and faithless
people.
571
Or “be submissive.”
572
Acts 18:2. They had returned following Claudius’ death (16:3-5).
101
D: At one stage of these notes (April 2011), many Christians were being arrested in China for “open-air”
meetings.573 Their primary defense was that their worship was not political.
[3] For rulers574 are not a cause of fear for a good work, but for a bad (work). Now do you want to have
no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from [them]. [4] For (a ruler) is a minister
of God to you for good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid. For (a ruler) does not wear the sword in vain.
For (a ruler) is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
P: Rabbi Chanina is remembered to have said: “Pray for the integrity of the government; for were it not
for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbor alive” (m. Abot 3:2). The apostle makes a
similar claim before Nero (37 – 68, r. 54-68) began to persecute Christians in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 15).
He was the first to do so. There was nothing on the books making it illegal to be a Christ follower, the
meaning of “Christian.” In such a climate, one could seek first the Kingdom while respecting the God-
given authority of government (13:1-7; Kim 2008, 16-21). The apostle did not want to create any
unnecessary stumbling block to the Nations’ obedience of faith. Nero had recently acceded to the throne
(AD 54), and, for the first five years of his reign, was heavily influenced by his mother, Agrippina,
Seneca, and Burrus, the praetorian prefect. According to Tacitus, helpful legislation was enacted and
competent governors (rulers) were appointed (Ann. 13.51).
The in-between reality of Paul and his intended readers is intellectually messy because our self-
understanding is built on a paradox: Jesus is King, but has yet to enforce his reign. The resurrected Jesus
claims “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (by the Father), yet the disciple faces a
world often hostile to God’s will. Furthermore, these Nations have their own leaders and kingdoms
(governments).575 Nero blamed the Christians for starting a devastating fire, in A.D. 64. Tacitus claims
the Christians, a “pernicious superstition,” were “hated for their abominations”—infanticide, cannibalism,
incest, and so forth.576 This created a poignant typology with Israel in Egypt.
Paul writes to those who had entrusted themselves to the true Son of God. This created another difficulty:
The early church could not accept apotheosis (“godmaking”) of Caesar. Like the Jews, they would not
worship Caesar as divi filius. Many expressed their loyalty to Jesus by giving up their lives. They also
expressed their loyalty by living like Jesus. Christians abstained from the idolatries and immoralities of
Paganism. Following Jesus was a decision to be counter-cultural, if necessary. All the ‘gods’ but the one
true God were rejected. Jesus was God’s son, not Caesar, and he demanded a particular way of life.
But it does not necessarily follow that the apostle would have changed his mind about government after
Caesar went insane. Peter (1 Pet 2:13-17) and Clement, a church leader in Rome at the end of the first
century and part of a persecuted church, reaffirm the principle (1 Clem. 1.1; 60.4-61). Still, Nero’s demise
was ultimately an act of God as was the fall of the Roman Empire.
R: Scripture remembers good kings and bad kings. The former often brought blessing to their kingdom;
the latter, curse.
573
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/shouwang-church-arrests-bejing-china.
574
I.e., city Magistrates: see Acts 16:16-24.
575
Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Tertullian, cited in Eusebius, Church History 2.25.4.
576
See Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis, iii.
102
D: Government may be an instrument of divine wrath. But they do not have the authority to do evil. It is
in the best interest of any government to pursue justice. Christians should seek the good of their city,
promoting stability. But God typically uses people to judge evil governments. Many Christians have
found themselves in this paradox. God is judge.
[5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit yourselves,577 not only because of wrath, but also because of
conscience. [6] For because of this (reason), you also pay taxes.578 For they are servants of God, devoting
themselves to this very thing. [7] Pay back debts to all: to the tax-collector, tax; to the revenue-collector,
revenue; to the feared, fear; to the honored, honor.
R: Paul appears to assume Jesus’s response to the question of paying tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17
and par.; see also Letter to Diognetus 5.5).579
D: We can relate to Paul’s first readers (hearers). We presently live in the most powerful nation, in both
military and economic might. The global village now speaks of the Pax Americana, “peace imposed by
America.” In my opinion, the label is unfair. Would other Nations act differently, given the opportunity?
In any case, we must reject the pervasive idolatry of our culture.
We are struggling over the relationship between God and country, beginning with the problematic
“and,” a coordinating conjunction that puts the two loves on equal footing. The gospel does not require
the rejection of country or cultural identity, but God must come first. “God bless America.” But in the
same breath we should sing, “God bless everyone.” To love absolutely is the Law above all laws, the
Torah of Christ.
13:8-10—THE LAW OF CHRIST
[8] Owe580 nothing to anyone, except to love one another. For the one who loves the other has fulfilled the
Torah [Mosaic Law and Law of Christ]. [9] For this—You shall not commit adultery. You shall not
murder. You shall not steal. You shall not lust [Exod 20:13-17; Deut 5:17-21]—and if there is any other
commandment, is summed up with this teaching [with the (commandment)]: You shall love your neighbor
as yourself [Lev 19:18].581 [10] This love does not work evil against a neighbor. So love is the fullness582
of the Torah.
R: Paul transitions to the law of laws, the final good, the fulfillment of the Torah (law)—love. In
Galatians, Paul refers to the love commandment as the Torah (or Law) of Christ (5:14; 6:2). Jesus was
asked to sum up the Mosaic Torah (Law), which he did by citing the first line of the Shema and Leviticus
19:18 (Mark 12:31 pars.). A lawyer asks him to define neighbor, and he offers the Parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). The Samaritans were literal neighbors of the Jews, but were not seen as such.
With this definition, Jesus pushes the meaning of neighbor in a universal direction. Who is my
577
Or “to be submissive.”
578
Taxes or tribute.
579
Niclas Förster, Jesus und die Steuerfrage: Die Zinsgroschenperikope auf dem religiösen und politischen Hintergrund ihrer
Zeit mit einer Edition von Pseudo-Hieronymus, “De haeresibus Judaeorum” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 294 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 227–47.
580
Owe is the same root as “debts” in the previous verse.
581
Paul appears to assume Jesus’s response to the question of how one might inherit eternal life (see Mark 12:28-34).
582
Fullness, “fulfillment,” or “sum total” (see Gal 5:14).
103
neighbor?—whoever is in front of me, needing my love. What is love? A willingness to sacrifice for the
other, to share the grace offered to me.
13:11-14—IMMINENCE OF JUDGMENT
[11] And (do) this, knowing the season—that (it is) already the hour for you to wake from sleep. For now
our salvation is nearer than when we believed. [12] The night is far gone, and the day has drawn near. So
let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. [13] As in the day, let us walk
becomingly—not in gluttonous feasts and drinking parties, not in improper acts of sexual intercourse and
sensualities, not in strife and jealousy. [14] Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision
for the flesh to (do its) lusts.
P: The apostle offers another rhetorical flourish (see the end of ch. 8). It is a fitting inclusio to 12:1-3.
14:1-15:13—RECONCILIATION OF THE PEOPLES
This is the final section (argument) of the letter’s body. Paul moves from external concerns to internal
division. He attempts a conciliatory position between the Jewish and Gentile wings of the Roman church.
Those who observe dietary laws (kashrut) and the Sabbath should be free to do so, but those who do not
are free as well. Both cultures must love each other according to the Lord’s example. Ambrosiaster claims
the Romans “received the faith although with a Jewish bent” [ritu licet Judaico].583
14:1-4—EATING MEAT (THAT MAY HAVE BEEN) SACRIFICED TO IDOLS
[14:1] Now receive584 the one who is weak in faith, not for the judgment of opinions. [2] On the one hand,
(there is one) who believes in eating all things. On the other, the one who is weak eats garden produce.585
[3] The one who eats must not despise the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat must not
judge the one who eats, because God received him.586 [4] Who are you, the one who judges the house-
servant of another? Before his own Lord587 he stands or falls. Now he will stand because the Lord can
make him stand.
P: By the one who is weak Paul means a Jewish believer whose conscience is easily offended.588 They
have not yet reached the confident faith of Abraham (see ch. 4; Schreiner 1998, 714) or, more likely,
Jesus himself (14:14). They are especially concerned about meat sacrificed to idols and have therefore
adopted a (largely) vegetarian diet.589 The apostle broached this issue in his earlier letter to the
Corinthians (1 Cor 8; 10:23-31). There, he claims there are no gods but the one God. So with this
knowledge a believer can eat meat purchased from the marketplace without fear. Yet he makes two broad
583
Cited by Brown 1997, 562 [PL 17:46A].
584
Or “accept,” “welcome.”
585
I.e., herbs and vegetables.
586
Note the repetition of accept: We accept those God has accepted.
587
The pater familias was called Lord by the house-servants.
588
See, e.g., Schreiner 1998, 712. Mark Nanos claims they are non-Christian Jews in Rome. But this alternative reading has not
gained acceptance: Kevin W. McFadden, Judgment According to Works in Romans: the Meaning and Function of Divine
Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) , 104-105.
589
They may not have been strict vegetarians. They did not eat meat because it could not be verified as kosher. Presumably, if
this could be done, they would partake.
104
concessions: 1) not every believer sees the issue this way, and 2) there are demonic associations in
Paganism that must be avoided. He re-applies the first here, keeping his advice within the parameters of
the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
This issue would be relevant whenever Gentile and Jewish believers (as well as those attracted to the
Jewish way of life) ate with one another around the Lord’s Table.
R: Jesus offers parables that portray God as a Lord who evaluates the work of his slaves: The Talents
(Matt 25:14-30 / Mark 13:34) and Pounds (Luke 19:11-27).
S: Paul is confident that the Lord Jesus is able to make a believer stand at the judgment. Lord Jesus
Christ, son of God, we give thanks for your mercy and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. May we not
judge others, but meditate on the extraordinary grace that will keep us standing before your holy face!
14:5-6—SABBATH OBSERVANCE
[5] On the one hand, (there is one) who judges a day as more important than another day. On the other,
(there is one) who judges every day (the same way). Each must be fully convinced in one’s own mind. [6]
The one who considers the day (as more important than another day) considers (the day) in reference to
the Lord. And the one who eats (meat) eats in reference to the Lord. For the one gives thanks to God. And
the one who does not eat (meat) does not eat in reference to the Lord. And this one gives thanks to God.590
P: The apostle addresses the related issue of Sabbath observance.591 Following the Torah and Prophets
many (if not most) Jews observed a day of rest.592 The Sabbath was the only day Jews had named. Others
were given numbers from the Sabbath. “Sunday,” for instance, was “the first day”; “Monday”; “the
second day”; and so forth. All the other days were for labor. Although Jews prayed throughout the week,
Sabbath was a special time for extended prayer, worship, and preaching in the local synagogue and a
generous meal with family and friends. (The Pharisees created legislation for neighbors to treat their
homes as one, so that they could eat with one another.)
Paul claims the Sabbath is a shadow of the substance, which is Christ (Col 2:16-17). The Apostolic
Fathers develop this claim: believers do not keep the Sabbath but the Lord’s Day.593 However, there was
extensive overlap between the practices of the Jews and Christians (Did.). Although following a different
liturgical calendar, Christians worshipped and ate together. Christian slaves, unless their lords made
special provision, did not have the option of observing Sabbath, but had to work seven days a week.
Perhaps for this reason, some churches met before dawn (Pliny the Younger). But some may have rested
like the Jews. Paul did not reject the Sabbath in principle, but the Pharisaic legislation over it, which was
part of Torah. Like Passover, Jesus had fulfilled the holiday bringing a fresh set of practices, beginning
with its incorporation into the worship service. Yet Jewish believers may have wanted to keep a foot in
both worlds, for personal reasons and perhaps also for the sake of mission. Some Jewish believers may
still have been members of the local synagogue.
590
See 1 Tim 4:1-5.
591
Others make the reference to fast days. But that is now how Paul’s readers would have first heard the word “day.” He may
presume the entire Jewish festival calendar, but not in place of the Sabbath.
592
Of course, it is not possible to quantify how many Jews observed Sabbath and to what degree. But our literature suggests
participation was high. The Jewish community had insisted upon the practice until Rome sanctioned it.
593
Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 9.1; Epistle of Barnabas 15.1–9; see Schreiner 1998, 716.
105
Paul looks at the heart of both groups. If one observes the Sabbath or does not observe, it is all out of
faithful obedience to Jesus Christ who is Lord of the Sabbath. Furthermore, if one is able to give thanks
to God before any behavior that behavior is pure (1 Tim 4:1-5).
D: In parts of the Muslim world, Christians do not meet to worship on Sunday to avoid drawing attention.
They often meet on a weeknight. Many American churches offer services throughout the week. I try to
keep Sunday special. There is something beautiful about Christians all over the world worshipping God
on the same day. But I will not judge others with my preference. The global church essentially worships
God over two days anyway.
[7] For none of us lives for himself, and none of us dies for himself. [8] For indeed if we live, we live for
the Lord. And if we die, we die for the Lord. So, indeed, if we live or if we die, we belong to the Lord. [9]
For this (reason), Christ died and lived, so that he might also reign as Lord over the dead and the living.
14:10-12—LET GOD JUDGE
[10] But why do you594 judge your brother? Or also, why do you despise595 your brother? For we all will
present ourselves596 before the bema of [God].597 [11] For it stands written: (As) I live, says (the) Lord,
that to me every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess to God [Isa 49:18; Jer 22:24; Ezek 5:11;
etc.]. [12] So [then]598 each one of us will give an account of himself [to the Lord].
P: Paul transitions with an adversative particle (δέ) and two rhetorical questions. The first juxtaposes
brother with judge—two words that should never go together. Family should not condemn one another,
but, when necessary, allow arbitration (Deut 1:16). We find the same truism in James (4:11).
The second rhetorical question sharpens the action of the first: κρίνω has positive connotations (e.g., Rom
14:5), but ἐξουθενέω is entirely negative. The action describes treating someone as worthless (BDAG).
Herod and his soldiers express this by dressing Jesus up like a king (Luke 23:11). Again, Paul presumes
paradox: How are we superior to brothers?
In addition to the paradoxical language, Paul grounds the rebuke (γὰρ, for) with a promise of future
evaluation.
Presumably, this takes place at the general resurrection from the dead when “he will render to each
according to his or her works” (2:6).
R: The citation provides an insider’s viewpoint of the Kenosis Hymn (Phil 2:6-11). The apostle probably
identifies the Lord with the “Lord Jesus Christ” (13:14) who is God (9:5). If so, the Son speaks through
594
The subject is emphatic in Greek.
595
Despise in the sense of look down upon.
596
The verb παραστησόµεθα (παρίστηµι) a future middle, which allows a reflexive telos to the action.
597
Following the original hand of Sinaiticus and the reading of Vaticanus, which also has Western (D) and Byzantine
representation (630, 1506, 1739). The majority of Byzantine witnesses read “Christ” (see KJV, NKJV). Polycarp’s Letter to the
Philippians (6.2) also has this reading. The more difficult reading is preferred. A copiest probably wanted to conform the
wording to 2 Cor 5:10. See Comfort, Commentary, 310. Since Paul refers to Christ as God (9:5), there is no contradiction.
598
Our earliest witnesses split on this reading. If the particle is original, it emphasizes the inference. The sense, however, is stable
either way.
106
Isaiah about a dual judgment. What began its life as parallelism is heard as the Son speaking for the
Father.599
D: Such bigotry destroys community.
To speak with God is either the greatest blessing or judgment.
14:13-23—DO NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK
[13] So we must judge one another no longer. Instead, rather judge this—not to put an obstacle600 or
stumbling block601 against (your) brother [or sister].
P: The inferential particle oun (So) marks the conclusion of the earlier argument—let God be judge. Paul
switches to another consideration: do not cause another brother or sister to stumble on the path of
salvation.
R: Jesus offered his strongest threat to those who might become a stumbling block to his babies (Matt
18:5-6). Presumably, Paul intends this background as part of the Bema Seat Judgment.
D: Legalism and premature judgment hurt and may even de-stabilize those who are new to the path.
While preaching and practicing the truth, we must be gentle and long-suffering.
14:14—JESUS ON PURITY
[14] I know and am firmly persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common by means of itself, except
for someone who considers something to be common. [Mark 7:14-15] For that (person) it is common.
R: Jesus said: “Everyone, listen to me and understand! [15] There is nothing outside of a person [that is]
going into him, which is able to make him common, but it is the things coming out of a person, which
make a person common” (Mark 7:14-15). According to Mark, Jesus announces the purification of all
foods, which is relevant to the present context.
Jesus and Paul use the same word translated “common.” Jesus’s point is that purity, the prerequisite for
being encountered by a holy God, is determined by the direction of the heart. Paul has been using the
related term “conscience.” If a person feels that something is common (unclean), then it is in that case.
The person would be sinning against conscience and therefore against what the person knows to be true.
[15] For if because of food your brother [or sister] is grieved [or offended], you are no longer walking
according to love. Because of food, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died! [16] Therefore, your
good must not be blasphemed.
599
Polycarp reads the passage accordingly (Phil. 6.2-3). McFadden notes the distinction earlier in the letter (2:13), but finds this
section to be ambiguous: Judgment According to Works, 105. This may be explained by perichorēsis we find throughout the
Pauline corpus and the Jewish conviction that God would judge everything through a Messiah (Stuhlmacher, Romans, 45).
600
Obstacle refers to an opportunity to experience inward pain (take offense) or make a misstep, cause for offense, cause for
making a misstep (BDAG).
601
Stumbling block refers to an action or circumstance that leads one to act contrary to a proper course of action or set of
beliefs, temptation to sin, enticement (BDAG).
107
P: The hypocrisy of certain Jews led to the blaspheming of God’s name among the Gentiles (2:24). The
warning is now applied to the church.
14:17—THE KINGDOM OF GOD
[17] For the Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Spirit.
P: The Holy Spirit is the ground of the Kingdom. Righteousness is a fruit of the Spirit. We are declared
righteous by the Father (justification) and made so by the Spirit.
R: The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels is probably equivalent to the pneumatology in John.
Paul offers a unity of these depictions.
[18] For the one who serves Christ in this (way) is pleasing to God and righteous (just) to people. [19] So
then we must pursue the things of peace and the building up of one another. [20] Do not, because of food,
tear down the work of God. Indeed, all things are clean [Mark 7:19], but it is evil for the person, who
through an offense, eats. [21] It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or (anything) by which your
brother [or sister] stumbles.602 [22] The faith which you have, have by yourself before God. Blessed is the
one who does not judge himself in what he approves. [23] But the one who vacillates is condemned if he
eats, because (he eats) not from faith. Now whatever is not from faith is sin.
R: Paul echoes Jesus’s teaching a final time (Mark 7:19). If one loves God and Neighbor, there is no law
which can lawfully condemn.
D: Are we able to tear down God’s work? My first response is NO. Who can withstand God’s will?
Why, then, the warning? Perhaps it is because God has chosen to work through human beings. A
generation lifts a wall; the next tears it down. The wall will eventually stand because of the sure
foundation, but when?
15:1-4 [// 14:1]—THE HUMILITY OF CHRIST
[15:1] Now we who are powerful ought to bear the weaknesses of the powerless and not to please
ourselves. [2] Each of us must please (his) neighbor concerning the good for edification. [Lev 19:18] [3]
For not even Christ pleased himself, but just as it stands written: The abuses603 of those who abused you
fell on me. [Ps 68:10 OG (69:9 MT)] [4] For whatever was written beforehand was written for our
instruction, so that through the endurance and through the encouragement from the Scriptures we might
have hope.
P: The apostle includes himself among those who are powerful, in contrast to those weak in faith (14:1).
Essentially, the powerful one lives like Jesus Christ—one who momentarily lays aside glory to empower
others.
602
Wine was also used in Pagan sacrifice. For a similar abstention, see Daniel 1:8.
603
Abuses has a broad referential background: reproach, insult, disgrace, shame.
108
R: This unit is a clear example of Christological exegesis: Jesus speaks through and fulfills Scripture,
which is then recapitulated in his body, the church. The disciples applied the first part of this verse to
Jesus, specifically his demonstration in the Temple (John 2:17). The Psalm is traditionally attributed to
David, although Paul does not state this. Matthew Bates notes: “Paul quite simply believed that the divine
author was placing an in-character speech on the lips of the psalmist.… The specific, unique human agent
who serves as the vehicle for the divine oracle is largely irrelevant for Paul. It is the Spirit moving the
prophet that is of paramount significance.”604
D: We must imitate the humility of Christ, and study Scripture together to be of one mind in our worship.
S: The preincarnate Christ in heaven is speaking through the Spirit to the Father about his future
passion.605
15:5-6—FIRST BENEDICTION
[5] Now may the God of this endurance and this encouragement give to you the same way of thinking
among one another according to Christ Jesus, [6] so that with one accord, with one voice, you might
glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
15:7-12 [= 1:2-5]—PERORATIO, A RECAPITULATION OF THE OPENING 606
[7] Therefore, welcome607 one another, as Christ also welcomed you into the glory of God. [8] For I say:
Christ became a minister over the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises of
the fathers, [9] and concerning the peoples on behalf of mercy to glorify God, as it stands written: For this
(reason), I will confess you among the peoples. And I will sing to your name. [Ps 17:50 OG; 2 Sam 22:50]
[10] And again it says: Rejoice, o peoples, with his people. [Deut 32:43 LXX] [11] And again: Praise the
Lord, o all peoples, and let all peoples praise him. [Ps 117:1] [12] And again Isaiah says: The root of
Jesse will come, even the one who rises to rule the peoples. Upon him the peoples hope. [Isa 11:10 OG]
P: This unit, forming inclusio with the beginning of the letter (1:2-5), emphasizes the Messiah’s role in
saving the Jews, his people, and the peoples according to the Law and Prophets (1:2). It is the letter’s big
idea.
The apostle set up the conclusion in previous unit, advocating a hermeneutic of humility The Scriptures
looked forward to all people—Israel and the rest of the Nations—worshipping the one, true God. There is
to be unity in diversity. Not all worship God the same way, but the same God is worshipped, listened to,
and obeyed.
15:13 [// 15:5-6]—SECOND BENEDICTION
[13] [May] the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace while believing, so that you might abound in
the hope and power of the Holy Spirit.
604
The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation, 252.
605
The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation, 253; see also 287–89, 303.
606
Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 206.
607
Welcome can also refer to eating food together (Acts 17:5).
109
S: The first benediction focuses on Christ Jesus; the second, forming an inclusio, the Holy Spirit.
Together, we have a Trinitarian worship.
15:14-33—PURPOSE FOR WRITING & ITINERARY
[14] Now I stand persuaded, my brothers—that is, I myself concerning you, that you yourselves are full of
goodness, filled with all knowledge and being able to admonish one another. [15] Now I wrote rather
boldly to you in part as a way of reminding you because of the grace given to me by God [16], that I
might be a minister of Christ Jesus to the peoples, serving as a priest the gospel of God, that (my) offering
of the peoples may become acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit.
P: The apostle acknowledges his boldness to exhort a community beyond his immediate jurisdiction—
rhetorically called frank speech. This partially explains why the tone differs from Galatians and the letters
to Corinth. He applies the priestly language of his exhortation (12:1-2) to himself.
D: We should be careful in giving advice to churches outside of our authority.
15:17-19—RECAPITULATION OF THEME
[17] Therefore, I have a boast in Christ Jesus—the things pertaining to God. [18] For I will not dare to
speak of anything except what Christ accomplished through me for the obedience of the peoples by word
and deed, [19] by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit [of God], so that from
Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum608 I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
P: Paul recapitulates the letter’s theme: the power of the gospel (demonstrated through signs and
wonders by the Holy Spirit) to save all people (1:16-17). Not ashamed of the gospel, he has a boast in
Christ (1:16).
15:20-21—NEW FOUNDATIONS
[20] Now in the same way (I am) aiming to preach the gospel not where Christ was named, so that I might
not build on the foundation of another, [21] but as it stands written: Those who have not heard about him
will see, and those who have not heard will understand. [Isa 52:15 LXX]
P: Jesus called Paul to lay foundations with the gospel (1 Cor 3:8-11); it was the duty of others, like
Apollos, to build up the walls. He acknowledges the foundational work of other leaders—perhaps apostles
or evangelists—in the region. He did not found the church in Rome.
D: Paul reads Isaiah as being optimistic about the Nations receiving the gospel. He has been quoting from
this section (ch. 52) throughout the letter (2:24; 10:15).
15:22-29—VISION FOR SPAIN
[22] Therefore, many times I was prevented from coming to you. [23] But now [I am not], having no
further place for me in these regions, but having a longing for many years to come to you [24] whenever I
608
Illyricum: The region stretching from Italy to Epirus, along the N.E. of the Adriatic.
110
should go to Spain. For I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I
have first enjoyed your company for a while.
15:25-27—RETURN TO JERUSALEM WITH GIFT FROM THE PEOPLES
[25] But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the holy ones. [26] For Macedonia and Achaia were
pleased to practice some sharing for the destitute who are part of the holy ones in Jerusalem. [27] For they
were pleased [to do this], and they are their debtors. For if the peoples shared in their spiritual things, they
are also indebted to serve for their benefit in fleshly things.
[28] So when I have finished this and put my seal on this fruit for their benefit, I will go through you to
Spain. [29] Now I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ.
P: This unit embodies the theology of the entire letter—Jewish and Gentile believers loving and caring
for one another. This debt evokes the earlier discussion about being grafted into the wild olive tree,
representing Israel (ch. 11). Gentile believers have been given the oracles of God and our worship through
Israel. We should be grateful. Jacob (James) had laid a single obligation on Paul—to remember the
destitute (Gal 2:10; see Luke 4:16-30; 6:20b-26 par.). The apostle faithfully carried out this charge, but it
was the Nations, the Gentiles, who gave generously of their physical resources.
D: Every Christian community has something to offer the rest.
15:30-32—FIRST EXHORTATION
[30] Now I exhort you, [brothers]609, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to
strive together with me in your prayers to God on behalf of me, [31] that I might be delivered from those
who are disobedient610 in Judea, and (that) my service, the one for Jerusalem, may be acceptable to the
holy ones, [32] so that, having come to you in joy through the will of God, (I will be able) to find rest
among you.
P: The apostle exhorts (a common expression for preaching) the Romans to enter the fray. The verb
strive together (synasgōnizomai, συναγωνίζοµαι) has notes of ascetic training and warfare.
The holy ones refer to the Jerusalem church, which was lead by Jacob (James), the brother of Jesus.
Somewhat mysteriously, Luke does not record their response to the gift from the Gentile churches.
S: This exhortation is for focused prayer to God (the Father) through the Son and Spirit, which also
unites the Romans to Paul. Love is the binding ingredient; it brings us into the Trinitarian community.
15:33—FIRST DOXOLOGY
[33] Now (may) the God of peace be with you all. [Amen.]611
609
The inclusio with 12:1 suggests the originality of the vocative.
610
I.e., to the gospel / faith.
611
The amen is absent in P46, but occurs at the end of the doxology.
111
P: The Hebrew word shalom was (and is) a common greeting and farewell: “peace (be) upon you” ( ‫שׁלוֹם‬
ָ
‫) ֲעלֵיכֶם‬. The prayer for peace follows the exhortation to spiritual warfare.
D: Satan uses fear and anxiety to paralyze God’s people.
16:1-16—GREETINGS
Paul greets twenty-six people—more than any other letter. This was probably intended to ingratiate him
to the Roman church. The chapter may have begun its life as a separate (cover) letter.612
[16:1] Now I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is [also] a deacon of the church which is in
Cenchrea, [2] that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the holy ones, and that you help her
in whatever matter she may have need of you. For she has also been a benefactor613 of many, and of
myself as well.
P: Phoebe may be presented as a deacon or “minister” of the church meeting in the port city of
Cenchrea. Presumably, she sailed from there to Rome as Paul’s letter carrier. She may also have read the
letter. It was common for the writer to rehearse with the carrier the intended tone and emphasis. Her role
as benefactor suggests wealth.
[3] Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, [4] who for my life risked their own
necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. [5] Also [greet] the
church that is in their house.
P: Prisca and Aquila are Paul’s friends. Following Claudius’ death, they would have been able to return
to their home in Rome, after living in Corinth and Ephesus. Presumably, the couple hosted a church. Paul
greets the couple first, which suggests to me that Prisca and Aquila may have encouraged the apostle to
write the letter. They were his staunch supporters and, no doubt, wanted his interpretation of the gospel to
make an impact in the Roman churches. The apostle mentions Prisca first.
Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia [Minor]. [6] Greet Mary,614
who has worked hard for you. [7] Greet Andronicus and Junias [or Junia], my kinsmen and my fellow
prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
P: Andronicus and Junia were followers of Jesus, who, while not a part of the Twelve, were probably
very influential in the Roman churches.615 They may have followed Jesus before his departure or shortly
thereafter. Depending upon the accentuation, the Greek of the second name could refer to a man “Junias”
or woman “Junia.” The coupling of the two names suggests they are married like Prisca and Aquila (v. 3).
[8] Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. [9] Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys
my beloved. [10] Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the [household] of
612
Comfort, Commentary, 311.
613
Benefactor describes a woman in a supportive role (BDAG), and may unpack the sense of “deacon” in the previous verse.
614
Mary was a common Jewish name.
615
For an argument that Junia was an apostle, see Epp (2005); for an opposing view, see Grudem (2006, 133-135).
112
Aristobulus.616 [11] Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the [household] of Narcissus,617 who are
in the Lord.
P: Slaves from the household of Aristobulus and Narcissus are greeted.
[12] Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard
in the Lord. [13] Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine. [14] Greet Asyncritus,
Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them. [15] Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus
and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. [16] Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the churches of Christ greet you.
16:17-20A—SECOND EXHORTATION
[17] Now I exhort you, brothers, to watch out for those who make dissensions and stumbling blocks
contrary to the teaching that you learned—that is, turn away from them. [18] For such [people] do not
serve our Lord Christ, but their own stomach. And through smooth words and [promise] of blessing they
deceive the hearts of the innocent. [19] For your obedience became known to all people. So I rejoice over
you. Now I want you to be wise concerning the good, but pure concerning evil. [Matt 10:16] [20] Now
the God of peace will quickly crush618 Satan under your feet. [Gen 3:15]
P: In the first exhortation, Paul expresses concern about opposition in Judea. In the second, forming an
inclusio, he probably focuses on the Pharisaic Christians, who travel from the region to hinder the
apostle’s mission. We find the same accusation leveled against the Pharisees by the writers of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, who refer to them as “Seekers of Smooth Things” in the sense that they provide easy
interpretations of the Law! (Rhetorically, this was a brilliant move: Paul unites himself with his readers—
some of whom may have had misgivings about his reputation—against common enemies. Some had
leveled tha same accusations against him!)
Paul echoes Jesus: “Look, I am sending you as sheep amidst wolves. So be shrewd like serpents and pure
like doves” (Matt 10:16). Presumably, the saying was part of the teaching the Romans learned. The
contexts overlap, including a link between Satan and serpents.
R: Paul appears to allude to the promise in Genesis (3:15) that the offspring of Eve would “strike” the
head of the Serpent. This would also correlate with Roman hopes. Vergil (70 – 19 BC) in the fourth of his
Eclogues predicted the breaking in of a “new order of the ages”: “now the virgin is returning [jam redit et
virgo],” and “a new human race is descending from the heights of heaven,” which would be brought
about by “the birth of a child [nascenti puero], with whom the iron age of humanity will end and the
golden age begin.” The child would transform human nature: “Under your guidance, whatever vestiges
remain of our ancient wickedness, / Once done away with, shall free the earth form its incessant fear.”
“Your very cradle shall pour forth for you / Caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die.” The Roman
616
The [household] of Aristobulus—a reference to slaves.
617
The [household] of Narcissus—a reference to slaves.
618
Crush here means to overcome by subduing completely (BDAG).
113
Christian emperor Constantine would claim this as prophecy.619 How ironic since the poem was written
for Augustus!
16:20B—SECOND DOXOLOGY
[20b] May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you!
P: This short, second doxology is absent in a few later manuscripts, but present in our earliest witnesses.
This prayer focuses on the Lord Jesus, whereas the other two begin with the Father.
16:21-23—GREETINGS FROM THOSE WITH PAUL
[21] Timothy, my co-worker, greets you. Also Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my fellow countrymen.
[22] I, Tertius, who wrote the letter, greet you in the Lord.620
P: Even people who could write often relied upon the expertise of a scribe (notarius) for spelling, form,
and expression.
[23] Gaius,621 my host [and] also for the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets
you;622 also Quartus, the brother.
[24]623
P: God will destroy Satan through the church.
16:25-27—THIRD DOXOLOGY
[25] Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ
according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been silent forever, [26] but is now being disclosed
through the writings of the Prophets624 according to the command of the eternal God for the obedience of
faith after making [it] known to all peoples. [27] To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be glory
forever. Amen.
P: P46, our earliest witness, ends at the end of v. 23, but has the doxology before the Greetings.
619
See Pelikan 1985, 35-36.
620
In the Lord could also modify wrote the Letter, thereby granting some of its inspiration to Tertius. But it is more in keeping
with regular use to connect the phrase with the Greeting. Furthermore, he is not mentioned at the outset of the letter, suggesting
he is a scribe writing for Paul. The scribe used a reed pen (kalamos), which was made by drying the reed, sharpening the end to a
point, then splitting the point into two parts. Ink (melas = “black”) was made from carbon in the form of soot, which was mixed
with gum and water (see 2 John 12; 3 John 13). Cicero either dictated to Tiro or wrote with his own hand (Hadas 1999, 15).
Caesar dictated in his carriage (Caesar 17.3).
621
Gaius was a wealthy Christian in Corinth, who exercised hospitality (1 Cor 1:14).
622
For other references to Erastus, see Acts 19:22 and 2 Tim 4:20. A Latin inscription remains in Corinth, which reads: “Erastus,
in return for his aedilship laid [the foundation] at his own expense.” An aedile was an elected official partly overseeing a city’s
finances.
623
Our best MSS omit v. 24: “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
624
See 1:2.
114
In Ephesians, Paul explicates the mystery as the inclusion of Jews and the peoples into God’s family and
Kingdom.
D: Trusting the gospel brings us into a right relationship with God, who strengthens us, the promise
given through the Prophets of a new covenant.
S: God is eternal and wise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
See the footnotes for more references.
COMMENTARIES
Barth, Karl. The Epistle To The Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford
University Press, 1968. [Reformed]
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. [Evangelical]
Burns, J. Patout. Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. The Church’s Bible; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. [compendium of Patristic interpretation]
Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC. Waco, TX.: Word, 1988. [Evangelical]
Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. Romans. Garden City, N.Y.: ABC, 1993. [Roman Catholic]
Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Min: Fortress, 2007.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Reading Romans: a literary and theological commentary. Macon, Ga: Smyth &
Helwys, 2001. [Roman Catholic]
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary On Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.

Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1980. [Lutheran]
Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia. Grand Rapids, Min.: Baker Academic, 2010.
Moo, Douglas. J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1996.
[Evangelical]
Witherington, Ben and Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio Rhetorical
Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2004. [Evangelical]
Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. [Evangelical]
SECONDARY SOURCES
Basta, Pasquale. Abramo in Romani 4: L’analogia dell’agire divino nella ricerca esegetica di
paolo. Analecta biblica 168. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2007.
115
Clayton, Paul B. The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus. Oxford: University Press, 2007.
Epp, E. J. Junia. The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Consequent Meaning of eph’ hō in Romans 5.12.” NTS 39 (1993): 413-17.
_______. Spiritual Exercises based on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Gathercole, Simon J. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2:14-15 Revisited.” JSNT
85 (2002): 27-49.
_______. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans
1—5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002.
Hauerwas, Stanley and John Berkman. “A Trinitarian Theology of the ‘Chief End’ of ‘All Flesh.’”
Pages 62-74 in Good news for animals?: Christian approaches to animal well-being. Edited by
Charles Robert Pinches and Jay B. McDaniel. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993.
Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and The Justification of God. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008.
_______. “Why Does the Deliverer Come ἐκ Σιών (Romans 11.26)? JSNT 33 (2010): 81-99.
McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: a history of the Christian doctrine of Justification. Cambridge:
University Press, 1986.
Moyise Steve and M. J. J. Menken. The Psalms in the New Testament. London / New York: T&T
Clark, 2004.
Ochsenmeier, Erwin. Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1–3: Étude exégétique et
théologique. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der
älteren Kirche, 155. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.
Onwuka, Peter Chidolue. The Law, Redemption and Freedom in Christ: An Exegetical Theological
Study of Galatians 3,10-14 and Romans 7,1-6. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 2007.
Reasoner, Mark. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2005.
Sumney, Jerry L., ed. Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Resources for Biblical Study 73; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the good news: Isaiah and Paul in concert in the letter to the
Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Westerholm, Stephen. Understanding Matthew: The Early Christian Worldview of the First
Gospel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
116

Roma 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roma 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roma 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMANS

Translation with Study and Meditation

Phoenix Seminary Press

GENRE AND STRUCTURE OF PAUL’S LETTERS

The basic Greco-Roman epistolary greeting is

This can be embellished in many ways.4

Letter of Shimeon bar Kosiba to Yehonathan, son of Be'ayan:

Paul often signals a transition to the body with a disclosure formula:

I make known to you (Gal 1:11)

I do not want you to be uninformed (Rom 1:13).

but also a part of the Greeting:

UNIQUE GENRE ELEMENTS

1) The Way of Salvation (chs. 1—8)

Martin Luther’s preface to Romans greatly impressed me:

2 Peter mentions Paul’s letters:

Romans was dear to Marcion, a heretic, and Irenaeus, a framer of orthodoxy.

Origen seems to have had the effect of stabilizing the tradition.

Jerome appropriates Origen’s reading as does Pelagius, but also Augustine!30

WHO WAS BORN43

SPIRIT OF HOLINESS (πνεῦµα ἁγιωσύνης). THERE IS NO ARTICLE IN GREEK, DESPITE

1:8-12—PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING AND REQUEST

1:13-17—TRAVEL PLANS, CALLING & SUMMATION

1) “from [initial] faith to a [deeper] faith;117

2) “faith from beginning to end” = sola fide;118

3) “from [God’s] faithfulness to [a person’s] faith;119

4) from the faithful one [Christ] to those who have faith120

Now the righteous lives by his faith (Hebrew)

Now the righteous will live by my faith (Greek)123

Now the righteous will live by faith (Paul).

1:18-23—THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE PEOPLES

1:24-27—GOD REVEALS HIS WRATH THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR

1:28-32—THE CORRUPTED MIND

2:1-29—THE HYPOCRITE AND GENTILE BELIEVER

P: A portion of this unit is chiastic:

A: 2:6, divine judgment is according to deeds

B: 2:7, doing good/seeking glory leads to eternal life

C’: 2:9, doing evil leads to affliction and distress

B’: 2:10, doing good leads to glory, honor, and peace

A’: 2:11, there is no partiality with God216

B 2:12-16—THE GENTILE BELIEVER

R: Paul cites Jeremiah (LXX):

B’ 2:25-29—THE GENTILE BELIEVER

S: The Holy Spirit circumcises the heart.

3:1-20—THE ORACLES OF GOD

3:1-8—THE JEWISH “ADVANTAGE”

D: We must anticipate rebuttals in our presentation of the gospel.

S: There is a human perspective and a divine perspective.

3:9-20—ALL ARE UNRIGHTEOUS

S: The root cause of sin is not fearing and honoring God.

3:21-26—GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE DEATH OF JESUS

Redemption (apolutrōsis, ἀπολύτρωσις) echoes Israel’s exodus (= journey) from Egypt.

EXCURSUS: FAITH OF CHRIST

We also find Eph 3:12:

KJV (AD 1611)316

Webster’s Bible (AD 1833)317

You made me trust you at my mother’s breasts (22:9)

I trust in YHWH (31:6, 14)

R: Paul evokes the Shema, a Jewish confession of faith (Deut 6:4).