Contents

Introduction

I. Introduction (1:1–17)

II. The Unrighteousness of All Humankind (1:18–3:20)

III. The Righteousness Only God Can Provide (3:21–5:21)

IV. The Righteousness in Which We Are to Grow (6:1–8:39)

V. God’s Righteousness Vindicated (9:1–11:36)

VI. How Righteousness Manifests Itself (12:1–15:13)

VII. Conclusion (15:14–16:27)

Selected Bibliography

Romans

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION OUTLINE

1. Authorship

2. Destination

3. Date and Place of Origin

4. Occasion and Purpose

5. The Original Form of Romans

6. A Thematic Overview of Romans

(1) Natural Revelation (1:18–20)

(2) The Wrath of God (1:21–32)

(3) A Righteousness from God (3:21–26)

(4) Abraham, Man of Faith (4:1–25)

(5) The Benefits of Believing (5:1–11)

(6) Does Justification by Faith Promote Sin? (6:1–23)

(7) Life in the Spirit (8:1–17)

(8) The Triumph of Believing (8:18–39)

(9) What about the Jews? (9:1–11:36)

(10) Practical Christianity (12:1–2, 9–13)

(11) The Obligations of Love (13:1–14)

(12) Getting Along for the Glory of God (14:1–15:13)

1. Authorship

As was the common practice in ancient letter writing, Romans opens with a statement identifying the author. The letter says that it was written by “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (1:1). It is rarely questioned today that the Paul who wrote the Epistle to the Romans was the apostle of that name whose conversion to Christ is told in Acts 9 and whose missionary activities dominate the latter half of that book. The style and language of the letter is consistent with that of Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians, the other unquestioned letters of the apostle.

The only legitimate question about authorship relates to the role of Tertius, who in 16:22 writes, “I Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.” We know that at that time in history an amanuensis, that is, one hired to write from dictation, could serve at several levels. In some cases he would receive dictation and write it down immediately in longhand. At other times he might use a form of shorthand (tachygraphy) to take down a letter and then later write it out in longhand. In some cases an amanuensis would simply get the gist of what a person wanted to say and then be left on his own to formulate the ideas into a letter. Unless Tertius was the amanuensis for all of Paul’s unquestioned letters, it would be hard to agree to this third option. The stylistic and semantic similarities with Paul’s other letters calls for a tighter control on what was actually written down. Beyond that, it is highly questionable that Paul would have turned over such an important task to another. A. M. Hunter is undoubtedly right, “No one outside Bedlam seriously doubts that Romans was written by St. Paul.”

2. Destination

In the opening chapter Paul indicated that he was writing his letter to believers “in Rome” (1:7). That would seem to put the issue of destination beyond question except that several manuscripts omit en Rōmē. This omission has led some scholars to conjecture that the letter was originally intended to go elsewhere. The most reasonable suggestion of those who hold to an alternate destination is that it was a circular letter intended for a number of congregations throughout the Christian world. Each letter would be accompanied by a special section for the church to which it was written. For example, T. W. Manson thought that the manuscript 𝔓46 (which places the doxology of 16:25–27 at the close of chap. 15) was the letter sent to Rome while at the same time another copy without “in Rome” and including chap. 16 went to Ephesus. Although there are legitimate literary questions regarding the last two chapters of Romans, internal evidence strongly supports the view that Paul was writing specifically to Christian converts in the capital city of Rome. Since he intended to go there in the near future (Rom 15:23–24; cf. Acts 19:21), and especially in view of the role he was hoping the Romans would play in his missionary activities to the West, it is reasonable that he would write ahead of time.

That Paul had nothing to do with the founding of the church at Rome is quite certain. In 1:13 he said that he had often planned to visit them but up until that time had been prevented from coming to them. Likewise there is no evidence that Peter had been in Rome prior to his martyrdom several years later. Only later tradition refers to Peter as the founder and first bishop of the Roman church. If Peter had founded the church at Rome, certainly Paul would have referred to him in some way in his letter. Assuming that chap. 16 belongs to the original letter, Paul’s “failure” to include Peter among those greeted is unexplainable if in fact Peter served as a bishop in the Roman church at that time. Paul’s determination not to build on someone else’s foundation (15:20) also makes it highly unlikely that Peter had anything to do with the founding of the church at Rome.

Some have suggested that Christianity was carried to Rome by Jewish visitors present in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:10, 14). The assumption is that many of them were converted and were among the three thousand who were baptized that day (Acts 2:41). It is generally acknowledged that the Jews in Rome had a close connection with those in Jerusalem. For example, Marcus Julius Agrippa (the “Herod” of Acts 12) had lived in the imperial court in Rome for the first twelve or so years of his life. Although some of the “visitors from Rome” may well have been among those converted at Pentecost, the text does not specifically say so.

Another suggestion is that Rome was evangelized by the missionary outreach of Antioch, but there is no evidence of this. A more reasonable suggestion is that the church at Rome was founded by believers, both Jewish and Gentile, who for a variety of reasons traveled back and forth to the capital city or who had taken up residence there.

By whatever means the Christian faith was brought to Rome, it clearly took root and grew within the Jewish community. It has been estimated that by the first century B.C. there were some fifty thousand Jews in Rome grouped in several synagogues. From Suetonius (private secretary to the emperor Hadrian) we learn that in A.D. 49 Claudius had “expelled from Rome Jews who were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Life of Claudius 25.2). This was the edict that caused Aquila and Priscilla to leave Rome and go to Corinth (Acts 18:2). Although Chrestus could have been the name of some Jewish agitator, it is more likely a corruption of the Greek Christos (“Christ”). Apparently there were serious disputes in the Jewish community over the claim of some who had converted to the Christian faith. Their belief that Jesus was Christos, the Messiah, had led to a mass expulsion of the Jewish population from Rome. From that point forward the church became predominantly Gentile. Part of Romans is directed to a Jewish minority (e.g., 2:17–24), but specific references and the overall tone of the letter argue a Gentile majority (see 9:3–5; 11:13–32).

D. G. Miller finds three general groups in the church at Rome: the legalists, who thought that righteousness was a human achievement; the libertines, who abandoned the law even as a guide for the response of faith; and the spiritualists, whose pride destroyed the true sense of community and made them indifferent to the demands of civic order. From the greetings in 16:3–16 we may garner some interesting details about the membership in the church at Rome. For example, some had been Christians longer than Paul (v. 7), others had houses large enough to serve as meeting places (v. 5), and although many undoubtedly were slaves, some probably came from the higher echelons of society. One example would be Pomponia Graecina, the wife of the Roman general who commanded the British expedition in A.D. 43, who was tried and acquitted on the charge of having embraced a “foreign superstition,” most likely Christianity.

3. Date and Place of Origin

In Romans 15 Paul described his current situation and laid out his plans for the future. He had completed his work in the eastern regions (v. 23), “from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum” (v. 19). Since it had always been his ambition “to preach the gospel where Christ was not known” (v. 20), he planned to go west to Spain and visit the church in Rome as he passed through (v. 24). There he would enjoy their company and receive from them some help for his journey. First, however, he had the responsibility of taking the contribution from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor saints in Jerusalem (vv. 25–26). When that task was over, he would go to Spain and visit there on the way (v. 28).

Broad agreement exists that this corresponds to the period near the close of Paul’s third missionary journey. We know that Paul had ministered in Ephesus for two to three years (Acts 19:8, 10). From there he traveled through Macedonia and Achaia (19:21; 20:1), arriving in Greece, “where he stayed three months” (20:3). It was at this time that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans.

Also quite certain is that Paul’s time in Greece was spent either at Corinth or its port city of Cenchrea. In a letter to the church at Corinth written toward the end of his stay in Ephesus (and less than a year before; cf. 1 Cor 16:8), Paul wrote: “After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you.… Perhaps I will stay with you awhile, or even spend the winter” (1 Cor 16:5–6). Also supporting Corinth as the place of origin for Paul’s letter to the church in Rome are several indications in the greetings of chap. 16. In v. 23 Paul passed along the greetings of Gaius, his host. This could well have been the Gaius Paul baptized in Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). Erastus, whom Paul called the “city’s director of public works” (Rom 16:23), probably is the same Erastus mentioned in a Corinthian inscription as “procurator of public buildings.” The identity is strengthened by Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy that “Erastus stayed in Corinth” (2 Tim 4:20). And Phoebe, whom Paul commended to the church at Rome, is called “a servant of the church in Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1). These considerations have led the vast majority of scholars to accept Corinth as the city from which Paul wrote to the believers in Rome.

When it comes to the question of a specific date for the writing of Romans, there is less certainty. We know that it falls between the time when Gallio was proconsul at Corinth (Acts 18:12, 14, 17) and the replacement of Felix by Festus as procurator in Palestine (24:27). The first date is established by an inscription at Delphi that shows that Gallio became proconsul in A.D. 51 or 52. Since senatorial proconsuls held office for one or two years and because we do not know whether the inscription was made early or late in his term of office, the best we can judge is that he served sometime during the period of A.D. 50–54. Since a period of some four years separates the two visits to Corinth (18:1–18; 20:3), Romans apparently was written between A.D. 54 and 58. Numismatic evidence indicates that Felix became procurator of Judea in A.D. 59, at which time Paul was in custody in Caesarea (23:33–27:2). Allowing time for the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem and the subsequent activity prior to his appearance before Festus, a date somewhere around A.D. 56 would be most likely for the composition of Romans.

4. Occasion and Purpose

When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he had completed his evangelism of Asia Minor and the Aegean world. It was now time to look further west to regions where Christ was not known (Rom 15:20). Spain was the Roman province farthest west and was an important center of Roman civilization. So it was to Rome that Paul decided to go. That had been his intention for some time, but always before something had hindered him from carrying through his plan (Rom 15:22). One thing remained—taking the contribution given by believers in Macedonia and Achaia to the needy at Jerusalem. Then it was off to Spain with a stop in Rome.

Paul wrote Romans by way of preparation for his projected visit there in the capital city. He was hopeful that Rome would serve as a base for his mission to Spain somewhat as Syrian Antioch had for his first two missionary journeys. It also would have been helpful for them to provide him material support as well (“assist me on my journey there,” Rom 15:24). Beyond that, it is true that Paul’s opponents had misrepresented his message and vilified his character (Acts 15:1–2; 2 Cor 10:10; Gal 4:17). It was important that he lay before the church at Rome the message that he proclaimed. They needed to have a systematic statement of the gospel as Paul understood it as well as his position on the relationship between the Gentiles and the Jewish community. Paul’s emphasis on faith apart from the works of the law seemed to degrade God’s ancient people Israel, and this concern needed careful qualification. His aim in chaps. 9–11 was to reconcile the righteousness of God with what appeared to be his rejection of Israel, his ancient people, an issue of great importance to Jewish Christians everywhere. These concerns explain the general nature of the letter. Although written to a specific church, it would prove to serve the broad interests of the Christian faith everywhere.

Immediately after Paul presented his plans to go to Spain following his mission of taking the collection for the poor to Jerusalem, he requested prayer for his safety, specifically that he might “be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea” (Rom 15:30–31). At Miletus he shared with the Ephesian elders his concern about going to Jerusalem. He told them, “In every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me” (Acts 20:23). Perhaps he would not come through the Jerusalem trip alive. Then would it not have been appropriate for him to write down a relatively comprehensive statement of the gospel he proclaimed so that those in Rome might carry out his plan to evangelize Spain?

5. The Original Form of Romans

Although every extant Greek manuscript of Romans contains the full text (chaps. 1–16), it appears that in the second and third centuries the letter also circulated in a shorter form that lacked the two final chapters (except for the doxology in 16:25–27). The question is whether Paul wrote a short version as a kind of circular letter he later expanded for Rome by adding chaps. 15 and 16 or whether he wrote the long version as we know it and then he or someone else for reasons not clear dropped the two final chapters. The problem is complicated by several other considerations: the location of the doxology, the omission of “in Rome” at 1:7, 15 in certain manuscripts, and the question of the “grace” in 16:20, 24.

Although the doxology is traditionally printed at the close of chap. 16, a number of manuscripts place it at the end of chap. 14. In 𝔓46 (the oldest text of Romans, ca. A.D. 200) it is at the end of chap. 15. A few manuscripts place it at the end of both chaps. 14 and 15, and two or three omit it altogether (however G leaves a space for it at the end of chap. 14). A further complication is the omission of en Rōmē in 1:7 and tois en Rōmē in 1:15 in certain manuscripts. Only two verses in the epistle specifically indicate the destination of the letter. The omission is found in the manuscript tradition that closes the letter at 14:23. Another consideration is the “grace” that in the Byzantine text occurs at both 16:20 and 16:24. In some manuscripts it is omitted in v. 20 (where it forms part of the verse) and in others in v. 24 (where it comprises the entire verse). A few manuscripts place v. 24 after v. 27.

Our task is to work through these various considerations and arrive at the most reasonable solution to the question of the original form of Romans. Since the question has been dealt with at such length in numerous more technical discussions, we will be content to summarize the arguments with no attempt to include every minor issue that can be raised.

The short form is thought to have been written by Paul for circulation among churches he had not founded. It did not include the references to Rome in 1:7, 15. At a later date Paul adapted it for the church in Rome by adding the material found in chaps. 15–16. While all extant manuscripts include chaps. 15–16, the evidence is fairly strong that the shorter form did exist. (1) Early Latin chapter headings designate 14:22–23 as chap. 50 followed by the doxology as chap. 51. Our chaps. 15 and 16 (up to the doxology at vv. 25–26) are not represented. (2) In his commentary on Romans, Origen mentioned that Marcion dropped not only the doxology but everything after chap. 14. (3) Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Tertullian never quote from chaps. 15 and 16. Such evidence argues the possibility of a fourteen-chapter form of Romans that with or without the doxology was in circulation in the early centuries of the Christian era.

The shorter recension, however, does have problems. (1) Romans 14:23 is a most unlikely ending for a letter by Paul. Even when a doxology is added, it fails to bring the argument of chap. 14 to a satisfactory conclusion. (2) Romans 1:8–13 contains statements so personal and direct as to be highly unlikely in a general letter to a number of churches. (3) Paul’s discussion of the weak and the strong runs right on into chap. 15 and ends with v. 6.

How then did the shorter version originate? (1) It is very improbable that Paul would have mutilated his own work, although some think he may have shortened it to make a more general copy available for a wider audience. (2) It could have been the work of Marcion, the second-century eccentric, who dropped the two final chapters because of the many Old Testament quotations used there. The omission of “in Rome” in most of the shorter recensions would then be Marcion’s rebuttal to the church at Rome, who considered his views unacceptable. (3) The end of a papyrus roll is easily damaged, and the final two chapters could have been torn off or mutilated by accident.

A variation of the shorter-version theory is that Paul wrote chaps. 1–15 to Rome but at a later time sent a copy of it to Ephesus along with chap. 16, a letter of commendation for Phoebe. This relatively popular view is given credence by the Chester Beatty Papyrus (𝔓46), an important manuscript discovered in this century. It includes chap. 16, but it places the doxology after 15:33. The implication is that there were in circulation at that time manuscripts that ended with chap. 15. Since there are no extant manuscripts that end at that point, the theory must remain speculative.

The question of the nature and destination of chap. 16 has been discussed at great length. Many arguments have been raised in support of an Ephesian rather than Roman destination. (1) Paul would not have been able to send so many greetings to a church he had never visited. Since his ministry in Ephesus was longer than in any other city, it is more likely that is where he would have so many friends. (2) In 16:3–5 Paul spoke of the church that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. The last we heard of them they were living in Ephesus, and a church was meeting “at their house” (1 Cor 16:19). We also know from Acts 18 that en route from Corinth to Syria, Paul left them in Ephesus (vv. 18–19) and that later they invited Apollos “to their home” to explain to him the way of God more adequately (v. 26). Later, when writing to Timothy in Ephesus (cf. 1 Tim 1:3), Paul asked him to greet Priscilla and Aquila (2 Tim 4:19). Unless they had homes in both Rome and Ephesus, these references support an Ephesian destination for Romans 16. (3) Paul referred to Epaenetus in 16:5 as “the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia,” which seems to favor Ephesus since it is the capital of that Roman province. (4) The harsh tone of 16:17–18 is more in keeping with the situation in Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:28–30).

Over against these arguments may be raised a series of counterarguments. (1) Chapter 16 by itself would be a strange letter, to say the least. The suggestion that it is a mere fragment of a larger letter to Ephesus is strictly conjecture. (2) For Paul to have sent such a long list of greetings to friends in a church he knew would have been out of character for the apostle. In his other letters he did not send individual greetings (except in Colossians, a church to which he was a stranger). On the other hand, Paul had reason to establish as many individual contacts as possible in the church in Rome. (3) The statement that “all the churches of Christ send greetings” (16:16b) is more natural if addressed to Rome than to Ephesus. Writing to the church in the prestigious capital of the Roman Empire, it would have been highly appropriate to send greetings from all the Christian congregations where Paul had ministered. (4) We do not actually know enough about Priscilla and Aquila to disallow their having a home in Rome in between their two journeys east. In that they were expelled from Rome by the edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2), it is not impossible that they left a home there when they settled in Ephesus. (5) It is far easier to explain how chap. 16 could be omitted in some copies sent at a later time to other congregations than to explain how it could have originated elsewhere and attached to a shorter form of Romans. (6) A number of names in the list inferentially connect it with Rome (Rufus, the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus, Ampliatus, and Nereus).

We conclude that chap. 16 was an original part of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome and that the several related problems are explained most convincingly from this point of view.

6. A Thematic Overview of Romans

Paul wrote his letter to the church at Rome while he was in Corinth (or perhaps the nearby seaport of Cenchrea) toward the end of his third missionary journey. We know from the opening paragraphs of his letter that he was very desirous of going to Rome and spending some time with the Christians there. He wrote that he longed to see them so that they might be “mutually encouraged by each other’s faith” (1:12). He also was “eager to preach” the gospel to those who lived in the capital city (1:15). But Paul had another agenda in mind as well. Toward the close of the letter he wrote about his plan to visit them on his way to Spain (15:28). In addition to enjoying their company, he hoped they would assist him on his journey. As he looked forward to evangelizing Spain, he trusted that Rome would be for him in the west what Antioch had been in the east.

From previous experience Paul knew that his enemies were skilled in twisting his message. Galatians is proof of that. So important were his plans for taking the gospel to the far reaches of the western empire that he could not afford to have his message jeopardized in the very place that he intended to use as a base of operations. So he wrote a rather full and complete presentation of the message he had been preaching. The result is the Book of Romans—a magnificent presentation of the gospel, the good news that God has provided a righteousness based not on what we can do for ourselves but on what God has already done for us in sending his Son as a sacrifice for sin. Paul’s purpose was to set forth in a systematic fashion the doctrine of justification by faith and its implications for Christian living. The gospel had to be kept free from legalism; equally important was that it did not fall into the opposite error of antinomianism.

It is not our intention in this section to treat every topic touched on by the apostle. Nor is it our plan to provide the reader with a condensed biblical theology of Romans. The topics to be discussed have been selected on the basis of the emphasis Paul gave to each as he wrote to the church in Rome. The sequence has been determined by the order in which the apostle himself treated each subject as he wrote about how people are set right with God and what that implies about a whole series of issues related to faith and conduct. Each of the topics plays an important role in Paul’s overall understanding of God’s redemptive self-revelation. Each is discussed primarily in terms of the context in which it is first found.13 For textual matters related to the various themes and an understanding of their historical contexts, the reader will want to consult the commentary itself at the appropriate places.

(1) Natural Revelation (1:18–20)

The Bible never bothers to prove the existence of God; that is everywhere taken for granted. Anthropologists confess that they are unable to find a tribe of people anywhere in the world who do not worship some sort of divine being. Atheism is not a natural state. People find it next to impossible to accept the presence of design in the world without assuming the prior existence of a Designer. If there were no creator, the only other option would be to admit candidly that what is—that is, matter itself—has always been. But the very idea of the eternality of matter boggles the mind.

But what can we know about the Creator God? Are his actions, and beyond that his essential being, unknowable? Or has he revealed himself in some way? In Rom 1:19–20 Paul clearly stated that “what may be known about God is plain to them [i.e., to “men who suppress the truth,” 1:18], because God has made it plain to them.” God has not left the created order without the slightest idea of who he is. Obviously our knowledge is partial. Human beings in their finiteness could no more grasp all that God is than a child could understand the intricacies of the molecular theory. Such knowledge lies beyond human ken. But the fact that people cannot know everything about God does not imply that they cannot know anything or that what they do know is necessarily distorted and unreliable. What natural man can know about God “lies plain before their eyes” (1:19, NEB).

To guarantee the process God himself took the initiative. He is the one who has “made it plain to them.” It was important to God that there be a moral basis for judgment. Had he not revealed himself, he could hardly hold his creation responsible for not knowing who he is or what he requires. God does not judge people for failing to respond to what they never had a chance to know. In the second chapter Paul taught that those who sin apart from the law will not be judged by the law (2:12). The demands of God are that people respond on the basis of the degree of knowledge and insight available to them in their own cultural and historical setting. Obviously Paul was not talking about some sort of universal salvation. He was stressing that people are judged in terms of the light they have received. However, all are responsible because all have been exposed to God’s self-revelation in creation.

In Rom 1:20 Paul set forth two of God’s “invisible qualities” that are clearly seen by all—his “eternal power and divine nature.” By this Paul meant that the evidence of creation moves a person persuasively toward the conclusion that the Creator is a powerful being and that this power is not in any sense limited in time. Rational observation of the universe in which we live provides all the proof necessary that creation does not furnish the key to its own existence. What it does reveal is the existence of a power great enough to bring it into existence. Such a power cannot be impersonal. Design calls for intelligence, and intelligence speaks of personality. So the “power” is not some inanimate force but a personal being. It is God. Creation also reveals that the Creator belongs to a higher sphere of existence. Our imperfect concepts of justice, love, and wisdom demand someone who is perfectly just, perfectly loving, and perfectly wise. In the world that God created we see evidence of a perfect God. There is no rational option but to confess his deity and commit ourselves to obey the ethical implications that flow from that postulate.

Since God is by definition spirit (John 4:24), he must be “observed” in what he has made and what he has done. Elsewhere Paul spoke of God as “the King eternal, immortal, invisible” (1 Tim 1:17, italics added). It is Christ Jesus the Son who “has made him known” (John 1:18). He is the visible imprint of the nature of God (cf. Heb 1:3). As trees bent by the wind give evidence of an invisible force (i.e., the wind), so does nature bear the unmistakable signs of an invisible Creator. But this Creator was not satisfied with such a minimal revelation of himself, so in time he entered his own creation through the incarnation of his Son and explained to all who would listen exactly what he is like. It is not on the basis of this fuller knowledge, however, that God holds people responsible. People are “without excuse” because they reject the basic knowledge of God that is available to everyone (1:20).

(2) The Wrath of God (1:21–32)

In Rom 1:18–20 Paul clearly established the responsibility of all people everywhere to acknowledge the existence and basic character of God. There is no excuse for the rebellious who turn from the light of revelation. Their headlong pursuit into “godlessness and wickedness” (1:18) calls down upon them the wrath of God. The section that follows (1:21–32) describes in detail the reasons for and results of this wrath. It is not a pretty picture. It depicts in graphic detail the downward course of human conduct as God withdraws his presence and restraining influence. Obviously not everyone is as grossly sinful as the section portrays. Culture at times makes at least an outward difference. Social taboos sometimes prevent a society from degenerating as rapidly as it would in a totally nonrestrictive situation. The passage is, however, an accurate account of the human penchant for sin and willful rebellion. When people turn from God, the path leads inevitably downward into degeneracy.

Paul was not at all skittish when it came to discussing the wrath of God. In eight of the sixteen chapters in Romans he had something to say about it. Although many of these references speak of the wrath of God as an eschatological event, this first mention considers it as God’s displeasure that is being worked out in the present against all those who “suppress the truth by their wickedness” (1:18–32).

Running throughout the passage is the constant reminder that all people have knowledge of God (1:21, 25, 28). But having knowledge does not necessarily mean acting accordingly. The basic problem of the human race is not ignorance of the truth but rebellion against the one who is the truth. From the very first, humans have been rebels. Adam and Eve chose to believe Satan’s lie that God was withholding something from them by not allowing them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). So our first parents rebelled, and the entire human race has suffered the effects of that rebellion.

The rebellion continues in that although people by nature know God, they neither glorify him as God nor give thanks to him (1:21). They exchange the glory of the immortal God for idols (1:23), the truth of God for a lie (1:25), and natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (1:26). As a result they incur the wrath of God. This wrath, however, is not some violent expression of divine displeasure but the rather quiet withdrawal of the divine presence. The ominous phrase “God gave them over” is three times repeated in vv. 24–28. Paul stated that God gave them over to “sexual impurity” (v. 24), “shameful lusts” (v. 26), and a “depraved mind” (v. 28). His wrath is revealed in his decision to allow people to pursue what they think they want. Unfortunately we cannot get enough of what we really do not want. Although God is the father of prodigal children and waits with forgiveness for the return of the wayward, he does not force people against their will to do what is ultimately in their best interests. Human freedom carries with it an awesome responsibility. To be free means to be able to determine one’s own destiny. God has never bullied a person into accepting his love.

But what happens if a person refuses to believe? Then a process of hardening sets in that gradually develops a resistance to divine favor from which the rebel cannot escape. In Hosea’s charge against Israel the prophet said, “Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone!” (Hos 4:17). People become hopelessly entrapped by their own decisions. They forge their own chains. By repeatedly deciding to disregard truth, they determine their own fate. From a human perspective it is the normal result of continuing rebellion against God. Yet it is more than the inevitable process of cause and effect. God actively decides to withdraw. His wrath is seen in his reluctant willingness to allow people to reap the just rewards of their folly.

The passage under consideration condemns a number of vices that call down the wrath of God—among them the failure to glorify God (Rom 1:21), thanklessness (v. 21), intellectual pride (v. 22), idolatry (vv. 23, 25), and lack of integrity (v. 25). The one receiving the greatest attention, however, is sexual impurity (vv. 4–27). The Living Bible translates v. 24, “So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted.” Paul’s emphasis on sexual sin makes clear that in that day (and certainly in ours) sexual promiscuity was a major factor in the moral degeneration of society. Homosexuality is singled out as the prime example of “disgraceful passions” (Phillips). Paul wrote that it is degrading (v. 24), it is contrary to nature (v. 26), it results from an inflamed and indecent lust (v. 27), and it involves a penalty (v. 27). At the moment Paul was not speaking of final judgment but the natural penalty that accompanies the flouting of God’s moral requirements. The wrath of God is at work in the present sinful world.

On the other hand, the wrath of God as an eschatological reality is strongly emphasized throughout the Book of Romans. In 2:5 Paul spoke of the stubborn and unrepentant “storing up wrath” against themselves for “the day of God’s wrath” when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. A few verses later Paul said that for the self-seeking who reject the truth and follow evil “there will be wrath and anger” (2:8). They are “objects of [God’s] wrath—prepared for destruction” (9:22). Those who are right with God, however, will be “saved from God’s wrath” through the redemptive work of Christ (5:9). They are not to take revenge on others but “leave room for God’s wrath”—he will repay (12:19).

The idea of divine wrath is distasteful to some. It seems to assign to God an emotion that runs contrary to what we know of him as a God of love. The problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the anthropomorphic nature of all language used in reference to God. For example, God is a “jealous God” (Exod 20:5; Deut 4:24; etc.), but no informed reader understands that to mean that he is caught up in a frenzy of resentment toward some supposed rival. God’s “wrath” is his attitude of permanent opposition to all that is contrary to his holy and just nature. Without wrath he could not be holy. By definition virtue denounces its moral antithesis. Righteousness must of necessity oppose all that stands over against it. If God could compromise with wickedness, he would not be God. His wrath is proof of his unyielding commitment to holiness. Were he incapable of wrath, his love would be little more than sentimentality.

Dodd is most certainly wrong when he writes that Paul “retains the concept of ‘the Wrath of God’ [which Dodd claims to be absent from the teaching of Jesus] … not to describe the attitude of God to man, but to describe an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe.” God’s wrath is personal and active. It stems from the reality of the nature of God as a holy being. But the personal nature of God’s wrath does not mean that he is vindictive or cruel. Such an interpretation reads into God’s character qualities that unfortunately are all too true of much of human wrath.

Strange as it may seem to the unregenerate mind, love and wrath are not mutually exclusive in God. He does not display love in certain situations and wrath in others. Rather, when his love is resisted by ungodliness, it expresses itself as wrath. God is not victimized by conflicting emotions. His nature is unchanging. His love would not be love if it were able to accommodate itself to that which violates its very essence. The Book of Revelation portrays most vividly the final outpouring of the wrath of God on Satan and his demons. Those who find their place with those nefarious beings will share in the eschatological wrath of a holy God (Rev 14:9–10).

(3) A Righteousness from God (3:21–26)

In the first chapter of Romans, Paul established the pivotal importance of the gospel. He was not ashamed of the gospel because it is the instrument of God’s power leading to the salvation of all who believe (1:16). But on what basis can the gospel accomplish this remarkable feat? It is because the gospel reveals “a righteousness that comes from God” (Weymouth; italics added). From the dawn of history people have struggled in many different ways somehow to merit acceptance by God. Later (in Rom 10:3) Paul acknowledged that his own people tried but failed to establish their own righteousness. But to stand before God as righteous cannot be achieved by meritorious activity. Righteousness is a gift from God. It is a gift given by him to those who live by faith. As the prophet Habakkuk declared, “The righteous will live by faith” (Hab 2:4).

But what exactly is intended by the expression “a righteousness from God?” Is it an activity of God or a status of humans resulting from that activity? C. E. B. Cranfield provides an excellent summary of the various aspects of the question. He argues that justification is the bestowal of a righteous status and does not in itself involve any reference to moral transformation. Justification is followed by sanctification, but the latter is not an integral part of the former. He concludes that “the righteousness of God” refers to humans’ righteous status, which results from God’s redemptive action rather than to that action itself. This is what the gospel reveals—that God has provided a right standing for people that has nothing to do with their ethical achievements or religious activity. The righteousness of God is a right standing that God bestows upon people of faith.

A tremendous amount of theology is compressed into the six verses of Rom 3:21–26. In these verses Paul laid the foundation for his theology. Everything else flows from this theological center. The two previous verses (3:19–20) sum up an extended section (that began with 1:18) on the hopeless condition of people apart from God. Paul’s conclusion was that “no one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law.” People of every nation have always tried to gain favor with their gods by doing what they believed would please them. Hindus have prayer wheels, and Muslims bow down five times daily toward Mecca. Demon worshipers cut themselves in a frenzy of religious excitement, and Christians all too often count on regular attendance at church and deeds of kindness to their neighbors. According to the vast majority of people who inhabit the globe, righteousness is something we must earn.

Not so, said Paul. It cannot be earned; it can only be received. No one will ever stand before God on the basis of what that person has done. The righteousness that comes from God is “apart from the law.” That is, it has nothing to do with our moral earnestness or religious fervor. It is absolutely unearned. It comes as a gift, and a gift is not a gift if it can be earned. That is why God’s way of setting people right with him had to be revealed (1:17). It is so radically opposed to our normal way of thinking that it would never have entered the human mind. The gospel is the “good news” that no matter how helplessly mired in our own self-centeredness we are, there is a way to gain a right standing before God. The gospel is for those who have come to the end of themselves and, laying aside their pride, receive God’s gracious gift by faith.

In vv. 24–25 Paul provided some profound insights into the redemptive work of God. His metaphors were taken from the practice of law (acquittal of the guilty), the custom of buying slaves (redemption), and the ritual practices of sacrifice (atonement). First, to be “justified” (v. 24) means to be “acquitted,” to be “given a right standing.” Justification frees guilty people from paying the just penalty for their sins. It declares them totally exonerated. All charges are dropped. When God decided to free us from the guilt of our sin, he devised a plan whereby he could justify us and still remain a moral being. Christ died for our sin, and the value of that death becomes effective for us the moment we accept him by faith. Our only option is to accept or reject. There is no other way (cf. John 14:6).

One would think that the sinner would love to be forgiven at no cost. Unfortunately that is not the case. After all, sinners have their pride. They desperately want to claim some role in their own redemption. Unacceptable, says God. Sin is a quicksand that increases its hold the more one struggles. Why is God so insistent on doing it all? Because in heaven all glory and honor and praise belong to him. There will be no swapping of stories about how we helped him out.

Second, justification is ours “through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (3:24). The basic meaning of the Greek word apolutrōsis is “freed by ransom” or “redemption” (of prisoners or slaves). “To redeem” means “to buy back.” “You are not your own,” said Paul; “you were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:19–20). To be redeemed means to have been freed from the marketplace of sin by the payment of a ransom. That price was paid by the one who came not to be served but “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

The third image is drawn from temple practice. “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement” (3:25). The term hilastērion (translated “sacrifice of atonement”) has been understood either in the sense of “propitiation” (in which the righteous anger of God is satisfied) or “expiation” (a covering of the sins of humans). In the Greek Old Testament it translates a Hebrew term for the lid of the ark (the mercy seat). In Jewish practice the high priest entered the holy of holies once a year and sprinkled blood above the ark for the atonement of Israel’s sins. Paul was saying that Jesus is that “mercy seat”—that meeting place between God and humans where the great and final sacrifice has been made. The death of Christ expiates or covers the sins of the human race and at the same time propitiates the righteous anger of God against sin. What we are called upon to believe is that by that death forgiveness of sin is available through faith. It is by faith in this eternal act that those who believe may gain a right standing before God.

(4) Abraham, Man of Faith (4:1–25)

Although Paul had written of the essential role of faith in justification, he knew the advantage of moving the discussion from the conceptual to the concrete. Truth becomes more clear and persuasive when it is seen embodied in real life. So he turned to Abraham, that stalwart patriarch and exemplar of faith and obedience. He was, as James put it, “God’s friend” (Jas 2:23). So when Paul quoted Gen 15:6 (“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”) in support of his view that people are declared righteous on the basis of faith and not works, his Jewish contemporaries saw him playing into their hands. Did not the Lord also say that the promise to Abraham would be fulfilled “because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements” (Gen 26:5, italics added)? Does this not prove that Abraham was declared righteous because of something he did?

Not so, said Paul. By quoting this basic proof text of Judaism he showed that when properly interpreted it supports the exact opposite of what they understood it to mean. Genesis 15:6 says nothing more than that Abraham “believed God,” and it was credited to him as righteousness. God had taken Abraham outside the tent and had shown him the innumerable stars of heaven. Count them if you can, God challenged. “So shall your offspring be” (Gen 15:5). Then follows immediately the crucial statement that “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” If something beyond believing were required, it would have been mentioned. Scripture is perfectly clear—it is not by doing but by believing that people are declared righteous.

It follows that since justification depends upon faith, Abraham must be the father of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul’s argument hinges on the fact that Abraham was circumcised after he had been declared righteous (cf. Gen 15:6 with Gen 17:11, 24–26). In other words, he was still a Gentile when God pronounced him righteous. This was an unanswerable argument, a decisive blow against the cherished idea that God’s blessings came automatically to the Jew and that circumcision was the essential proof that one belonged to the favored few. It jolted Paul’s Jewish protagonists into the realization that the very first Jew, the venerable Abraham, father of the Jewish race, was indeed a Gentile when God pronounced him righteous. The Jewish point of view was that Gentiles could enter their company only if they would undergo circumcision, be baptized, and accept the ceremonial obligations of Judaism. Now the tables are turned. The Gentiles are accepted on the basis of faith alone, and if the Jews want to join the company of Abraham, they too will have to come by the way of faith. The promise that Abraham received was not contingent upon keeping the law. It was based on faith. Otherwise it would not be applicable to those outside the law. Since Abraham was “the father of many nations” (4:17), the promise of righteousness must rest upon faith so as to be available to all.

From a human standpoint the idea that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, could bear him a child even though she was ninety years of age was preposterous. And Abraham himself was a hundred years old. When he was told the news, he fell down laughing (Gen 17:17). And Sarah thought, “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?” (Gen 18:12). Yet Abraham chose to believe “the impossible.” He remained confident that God was able to do what he had promised. He believed that the promise of God was absolutely certain regardless of any apparent obstacle that life might place in the way.

Note, however, that Abraham’s faith was not irrational. It was not a leap into the dark. Certainly it is not unreasonable to believe that the Creator of all is able to do something out of the ordinary. God is not a prisoner of the “laws of nature” he established. When God enters the equation, anything is possible. Abraham believed God, and this confidence was “credited to him as righteousness” (4:22). People of faith live with the complete assurance that what God has promised he will always accomplish. What he has promised in the gospel is that those who place their faith in what he did in and through Jesus Christ will be declared righteous.

(5) The Benefits of Believing (5:1–11)

The theme of chaps. 1–4 has been justification by faith. We enter now into a second stage in Paul’s presentation. In the next four chapters Paul clarified the relationship between theology and conduct. At a later point (chaps. 12–15) he would deal more specifically with the practical implications of the new life in Christ, but first he must show the logical connection between justification and sanctification. He began by pointing out the benefits that accrue to those who believe.

Pride of place goes to “peace with God” (5:1). The first human who sinned and rebelled against God became an enemy of God. But Christ died for the ungodly, and reconciliation is now possible. When people turn back to God in faith, they find that the hostility has been removed. They find themselves at peace with God. In Scripture peace is not tranquillity but, as the Hebrew word shalom suggests, a state of well-being. To be at peace with God means that the hostility caused by sin has been removed.

Another benefit is access into his presence (5:2a). The image is that of being ushered into the presence of royalty. Remember that by basic temperament we are enemies of God. But he has paid the price for our rebellion and now freely offers us access. The door is open. The King is on his throne. The heralds have sounded their trumpets, and we may step into his presence to enjoy forever the inheritance of eternal joy.

Along with access comes hope (5:2b). In the culture of ancient Greece hope was little more than subjective projections about the future. It had no basis in reality. It might provide comfort in distress, but even then it was deceptive and uncertain. Hope in the New Testament is radically different. It is not a fragile expectation about an uncertain future but the confident anticipation of that which will most certainly come to pass. It is not based on human expectation but on divine declaration. Christian hope is based squarely on the character of God himself. Paul said that our hope is that of “actually becoming all that God has had in mind for us to be” (TLB).

Paul mentioned other specific benefits (such as God’s love, his death on our behalf, justification, and freedom from wrath), but they are all integral parts of the more inclusive benefit of reconciliation (5:10–11). “To be reconciled” means to be brought back into a friendly relationship with someone. It assumes a prior separation, a state of previous hostility. Reconciliation is a personal matter. For that reason it was not part of other first-century religions. Humans and their gods were not related in any intimate way. At the heart of the Christian faith lies a personal relationship. To believe in Christ is not to subscribe to a set of theological affirmations; it is to trust in a person—Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for my sins, rose again from the grave, and now lives in a real and personal way in my heart. By his redemptive death on the cross Christ opened the way for sinners to return to God’s favor and friendship. Reconciliation is complete when we take this crucial step of faith. With hostility a thing of the past we may now live in a state of continuing fellowship with God our Father and Jesus Christ our elder brother.

(6) Does Justification by Faith Promote Sin? (6:1–23)

The argument of chap. 6 is structured around two basic questions that an opponent of the doctrine of justification by faith would be sure to raise. The questions are intended to point out the unacceptable implications that, from the detractor’s point of view, must necessarily follow from the idea that a person can be considered righteous on the basis of faith alone.

Paul had just written that “where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (5:20). If that be so, would it not be reasonable to ask, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase” (6:1)? Certainly the more God’s grace increases the better. Paul’s antagonists, however, weren’t posing the question in order to learn the truth. Their purpose was to undermine his basic teaching by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions to which they felt it would lead.

Paul’s immediate response was, “By no means!” (6:2). Choosing to sin is not a viable option for believers because those who have been justified by faith have “died to sin.” To be baptized into Christ means to become one with him in his death. His death for sin becomes the believer’s death to sin. Although Paul said the believer died to sin, he did not say that sin died to the believer. The seductive lure of sin remains operative throughout life. Devotional literature over the years bears ample evidence that even (perhaps especially) the great Christian saints struggled against the dark sides of their human natures. What Paul was saying is that in Christ we have received forgiveness for sin and are no longer at its mercy. It need not control our lives. We need to remember that we are dealing with an analogy, and all analogies break down when pressed beyond certain limits. Paul was pointing out a relationship between the actual death of Christ for sin and our “death” to sin as that power that has held us captive.

But our union with Christ in his death is only part of the story. As he was raised from the dead in a glorious manifestation of the power of God, so also do we share his resurrection in the sense that we are raised to an entirely new kind of life. This “life after death” has no obligations to sin. The “man we once were” (NEB) was put to death with Christ. The “man we are to be” has become a reality because as Christ was raised from the dead so also have we been raised to a new life in which the power of sin has been forever broken. Christianity is a new way of life. It is eminently practical. We are no longer to let sin control our lives but are to turn all our human faculties over to God as instruments of righteousness (6:12–13). In short, we need live no longer under the control of sin. Justification by faith does not lead to the absurd conclusion that we ought to sin as much as possible so that God’s grace can be magnified.

Since believers are under grace rather than law, argues the detractor, does it not follow that it no longer matters whether or not we sin (6:15)? If sin is the transgression of law and believers are no longer under law, then what difference does it make if we decide to sin? Once again Paul’s resounding response was, “By no means!” (6:15). The idea that freedom from the law provides a license to sin is central to the ancient heresy called antinomianism. To be under grace does not mean to be free from all obligation. What the believer is free from is the enslaving power of the law. The law itself is holy (7:12), but its role is to underscore and make specific the sinfulness of humans. It prepares the way for salvation by grace.

The idea of arbitrary freedom is a myth. Paul drew upon the general principle that all people are slaves to the one they obey. They have the option of serving either sin or righteousness, but they do not have the option of serving neither. What the believer has done is to change masters. Paul wrote, “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (6:18). To be under grace means to be responsible to God, to live that kind of life that is consistent with all it means to have been freely forgiven and adopted into the family of God. Sin is no more an option for the believer than treason is for the patriot. Rather than sinning, Paul called on believers to “put themselves at the service of righteousness, with holiness as [their] goal” (6:19, Weymouth).

So both of the detractor’s arguments fall by the way. It is spurious to think of sinning as a laudable practice because it magnifies the grace of God. Sin is not even an option because the believer by definition has died to sin. Nor does the fact that believers are no longer under law make sin a matter of no consequence. Salvation is not getting rid of all restraint but exchanging one master (sin) for another (God).

(7) Life in the Spirit (8:1–17)

The Greek word for “spirit” (pneuma) occurs twenty-one times in chap. 8, and in only two of the references does it clearly refer to anything but the Holy Spirit. Paul’s concern in this chapter was not so much to provide his readers a theology of the Holy Spirit as to show how the Spirit is meant to function in the life of the believer. To get a good grasp on Paul’s teaching on the Spirit is to have the secret of how to live victoriously while surrounded by sin and impaired by human frailty. It is the single most important lesson the Christian can learn.

Romans 8 begins with the joyous declaration, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The “therefore” refers back to 7:6 and continues its line of thought: “We have been released from the law … therefore, there is now no condemnation.” Because we have been set free from the demands of the law, we are no longer under the condemnation it imposes. Since Christ has fulfilled the righteous demands of the law, those who are in Christ are no longer under its condemnation. In Christ we have been set free (cf. John 8:36).

It is helpful to distinguish between condemnation as an objective fact and condemnation as a sense of guilt because of past sins and the apparent inability to live the Christian life more successfully. Although believers are freed from objective condemnation (the necessary consequence of sin), many unfortunately continue to be plagued by psychological guilt. They find themselves in the Romans 7 predicament—wanting to do what is right but unable to do it; not wanting to do what is wrong but continuing to do it (7:18–19). The good news Paul declared is that not only has the condemnation of the law (objective guilt) been removed but also that all our subjective guilt has no further basis in reality. We need not go through life carrying the heavy burden of sorrow for sins that already have been forgiven.

In v. 2 Paul spoke of two different laws (or principles)—the “law of sin and death” and “the law of the Spirit of life.” Phillips calls the first law “the old vicious circle of sin and death,” and A. M. Hunter understands the second as “the law of the Spirit, that is, life in Christ Jesus.”21 Verses 3 and 4 explain how the law of the Spirit sets the believer free from the law of sin. The Mosaic law was unable to accomplish its goal because sinful human nature robbed it of its power. But what the law could not do, God did by sending his Son “in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering” (v. 3). That is, Christ took upon himself the flawed nature of humans with all its propensity to sin. Yet he lived a sinless life and thus fulfilled the demands of the law. His redemptive mission was brought to completion when he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin. The power of sin was broken by Christ’s perfect obedience, and all who are in Christ share in that victory. We have been given the Spirit and empowered to live in such a way that the quality of life prescribed by the law is fulfilled in our daily experience. By walking in the Spirit, we become what in fact we already are in Christ.

In the final analysis there are only two ways to live. People can follow the dictates of their fallen nature or obey the promptings of the Spirit. Apart from Christ people are controlled by their human nature. They think and act in a way that is consistent with what they are. But those who belong to Christ are controlled by a new nature. They are led by the Spirit and give their attention to those things that are spiritual. The problem for believers is that although the Spirit has taken up residence in their lives, the old nature is not removed. Thus a conflict is set up between the old person (what we were when dominated by our sinful nature) and the new person (what we are becoming as we live under the control of the Spirit). It is the complete dissimilarity between unredeemed human nature and the Spirit of God that accounts for the intensity of the struggle against sin.

What then is the answer to the disturbing fact that the believer is, as it were, morally schizophrenic? While both natures compete for control, they are not equally powerful. The old nature is deceitful. It tries to gain control through subterfuge and illicit appeal. The new nature draws its strength from the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. Sin was defeated once for all on the cross. Consequently it may now be defeated on a daily basis in the life of the believer. Our responsibility is not to struggle against sin (a recipe for disaster) but to call upon the Spirit to provide the victory. It is “by the Spirit” that we “put to death the misdeeds of the body” (8:13). Our role is to say no to the intrigues of the old nature and yes to the promise of the new. Freedom from the law of sin and death comes when we live “according to the Spirit.” The only real question is whether or not we will allow him the opportunity to rid our lives of sin.

The best definition of what it means to be a child of God is found in v. 14, “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (NRSV). The verb is present tense and may be translated “are being led.” To be a child of God one must be continually led by God’s Spirit. Our status as God’s children is expressed by the way we live. If we are God’s children, we will allow God’s Spirit to lead us. If we continue to resist the Spirit’s leading, we show that we are not members of his family. A true child inevitably bears a family resemblance to the parent. The person who continues in sin reveals a filial relationship to Satan; a life of obedience to the Spirit is proof positive that we belong to God.

(8) The Triumph of Believing (8:18–39)

Paul would be the last person in the world to say that once you become a Christian all your problems will be over. In his lifetime he had several times been thrown into prison. He had been flogged and exposed to death. He had been stoned, shipwrecked, and placed in all sorts of dangers (cf. 2 Cor 11:23–29). Paul certainly could attest that the life of faith is no bed of roses. Yet, said Paul, all such suffering in the present time is not worthy of comparison with the glory that awaits the child of God. The problems of this life are trivial when compared with the glory that is about to “burst upon us” (Goodspeed). This glory Paul spoke about is the glory of the coming age. In that burst of glory the divine radiance lost in the fall will be restored to all who believe.

The day is almost here when we will discard the rags of our mortality and don the robes of immortality. Darkness will turn to day, and we will become in fact what God intended us to be—his glorious creation, children of God reflecting the perfection and love of our Heavenly Father. And we are not the only ones who await this day of transformation. The creation as well “waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed” (8:19). The created universe is personified as frustrated by human sin and involved in the death and decay that sin brought about. It too awaits that great day when it will share in the glorious freedom of the children of God (8:19–21).

Clearly, living as a Christian in a world dominated and controlled by sin will inevitably involve suffering (cf. 2 Tim 3:12). Yet we are not left alone in our trials. Romans 8:26–30 points out two major sources of help. First is the intercessory prayer of the Holy Spirit. Caught up in the trials of life, we often do not know what we ought to pray for. So the Spirit intercedes on our behalf “with groans that words cannot express” (8:26). The expression depicts the intensity and earnestness of the Spirit’s prayer. Although the intercessory work of Christ, the great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, is well known to most (Heb 7:17, 25), we sometimes forget that the Holy Spirit also pleads our case. In our perplexity about what we ought to pray for, the Spirit joins us in prayer and intercedes on our behalf with a level of fervor that far surpasses our own. We are strengthened in our suffering by realizing that not only does the Spirit pray for us but that God understands his prayers completely and can answer them because they are always in accordance with his will (Rom 8:27).

Our second source of help is the realization that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (8:28). This translation is preferable to those that read “all things work together for good,” although even in that case the Christian would understand that it was God, not “things” (impersonal by definition and unable to do anything), who would “work for the good.” Paul was not subscribing to the secular hope that goodness will somehow prevail over evil. He would not agree with the rabbi who claimed that “for the godly man all things, even though for others they are evils, are beneficial.” God is the one in control of all that takes place, and he is fully able to work out the “present sufferings” so that the end result is for the good of those who love him.

God’s ultimate control is seen in the five-step sequence of vv. 29–30. What Paul wrote is not a rigid and deterministic theology but a “lyrical expression of Christian experience.” To read it with the mind alone is to miss its major import. The foreknowledge of which the apostle spoke was not prior information but the necessary result of the decrees of the God, who exists outside of time. Predestination is not to salvation but to conformity to the likeness of Christ. With God’s call we enter historical time. God’s call is effectual; that is, it achieves its purpose. The called are justified, set right with God; and the justified are glorified—an event so certain that it can be spoken of as if it has already taken place.

The chapter ends with a series of rhetorical questions that rise from the apostle’s existential involvement in the wonder of God’s provision for those he allows to go through suffering. “What, then, shall we say in response to this?” With God on our side it could not matter less who might be against us. He is the one who gave us his Son. Will he not with him lavish upon us every good thing as well? Who can successfully lodge a charge against someone chosen by God? With the penalty for sin paid in full, who can possibly condemn? Certainly not Christ Jesus because he is the one who died for us. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from the love of God—not trouble, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, the sword, death, life, angels, demons, things present or future (the list is endless). Nothing can separate us from the love of God revealed in Christ Jesus, our Lord!

(9) What About the Jews? (9:1–11:36)

Earlier in the epistle Paul asked what advantage there is in being a member of the Jewish race or undergoing the rite of circumcision (3:1) since “a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly” (2:28), and circumcision is of no benefit to the Jew who breaks the law (2:25). After citing one advantage (see 3:2) Paul put the issue aside until he arrived at chap. 9. Even there the issue is not so much the advantage of being a Jew as it is the character of God in his relationship to his ancient people and the promises he gave them. The gospel has opened the way of righteousness to all people everywhere. How are we to understand this in respect to God’s age-long involvement with the people of Israel? Has God failed to keep his promises? Has he acted in a capricious and arbitrary fashion? If so, what kind of a God is he?

Paul opened his discussion by revealing his great distress over the plight of his kinsmen by race. Although commissioned an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8), he carried in his heart an unceasing anguish for his Jewish brethren. God’s blessings to them had been great beyond comparison. Yet they had failed. Israel’s rejection of God, however, does not mean that God has failed to keep his promise. He has not severed his ties with the true Israel. It should be clear that not everyone who is descended from Israel is a true Israelite (9:6). Abraham’s line of descent ran through Isaac, the son of promise, not through Ishmael, although both were natural children of Abraham. The same is true of Isaac’s line of descent. Even before they were born, God chose Jacob over his twin brother, Esau (9:13). God’s selection rests not on what a person has done but on God’s sovereign will.

But the question arises, Doesn’t such a highly arbitrary procedure imply injustice on God’s part? Is God unfair? Not at all, replied Paul. Citing Exod 33:19, he reminded his readers that in his sovereignty God is free to show mercy on whomever he will. He owes no one anything. Whatever God does for anyone, he does out of mercy and compassion. His selection of some does not make him unjust to others.

A second question follows: But if God does whatever he wants, then why does he still blame us? After all, no one can resist his will (9:19). Paul’s straightforward answer, “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (9:19), has offended many contemporary writers. But the point is that God is the potter, and he alone has the responsibility to determine what he will make out of the clay. We have no right to quibble, since we forfeited everything by our sin. Only by the mercy of God are any selected for divine favor.

The gospel is the proclamation that God himself has done everything required to provide a right standing for humans. Our responsibility is to accept it by faith. Israel had confidence in their own ability to gain God’s favor by meritorious actions. Their determination to establish their own righteousness blinded them to the righteousness that God offers as a free gift to those who will accept it by faith. Disregarding God’s way, they plunged ahead in a vain attempt to establish their own. They did not realize that “Christ is the end of the law” (10:4). Of course Moses had said that anyone who did all the law commanded would live by it (10:5), but the obvious problem is that no one can meet that standard. By contrast, the righteousness of faith is within the reach of all. All that is required is a faith that accepts the resurrection of Christ and acknowledges him to be Lord (10:9–10). Since righteousness comes by faith, it matters not whether the believer is Jew or Gentile.

Then came Israel’s excuse, “We did not have a chance to hear.” “Oh yes you did,” said Paul. “Your own prophet Isaiah described the messengers who came bearing the good news. You all heard but not everyone responded” (10:16). “But what if they did not understand?” “Unlikely,” said Paul. “If a nation that was ‘not a nation’ understood the concept of righteousness by faith, how can you possibly argue that it was too difficult? The real problem, as Isaiah said, was that Israel was a “disobedient and obstinate people” (10:21).

Does all this mean that for all practical purposes God has rejected his people Israel? “By no means!” answered Paul. “I myself am an Israelite, and God has not rejected me” (11:1, author’s paraphrase). Historically there has always been a believing remnant. Without question the Jews have stumbled, but by no means are they beyond recovery. Quite the opposite. It is because of their disobedience that salvation has come to the Gentiles.

In 11:25 Paul referred to God’s plan for Israel as a “mystery”—a truth once hidden but now disclosed to all who will hear. It involves three stages. The first was the hardening of a part of Israel. That took place when the nation rejected God’s way to attain righteousness. The second stage has been the bringing in of the Gentiles. When that number is complete, then “all Israel will be saved” (11:26). This crucial passage is best understood to mean that it is only in this way—by turning to the Gentiles and inciting their envy as recipients of the divine favor—that the nation of Israel as a whole (not necessarily every individual) will be saved.

The argument of chaps. 9–11 is complete. God did elect Israel and blessed them in many ways. But their insistence on seeking righteousness by works led to a rejection of all but a remnant. In turning to the Gentiles, God not only fulfilled Old Testament promises but provided the motivation for Israel’s return. In the end they will respond in faith and be saved. Small wonder that the chapter ends in a rhapsody of praise (11:33–36). “To him be glory forever! Amen.”

(10) Practical Christianity (12:1–2, 9–13)

With chap. 12 Paul shifted his attention from the broader sweep of theology to the more specific and practical concerns of daily living. Obviously this is not to be understood as a retreat from “justification by faith” back into a new legalism. The obedience expected is not intended as a way of gaining God’s favor but is, as Paul later called it, an “obedience inspired by faith” (16:26, Williams). It is not what we must do in order to be justified but what we are unable not to do because we are justified.

Verses 1 and 2 are among the best known and most often quoted passages of the New Testament. The “therefore” that begins the chapter ties together all that Paul had said (the theological base) with all he was about to say (the ethical consequences). The “mercies of God” (AV) are his redemptive activity (3:25), “peace with God” (5:1), reconciliation (5:10–11), freedom from the power of sin (6:18), the abiding presence of the Spirit (8:11), adoption into his family (8:15–16), a love from which we can never be separated (8:38–39), and the assurance that God never goes back on his word (chaps. 9–11), to name some of the more prominent ones. These “mercies” provide not only the basis but also the incentive for all moral effort on the part of the Christian.

Because of these acts of divine compassion Paul could now urge the believers at Rome to offer themselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. The tense of the infinitive (aorist) calls for decisive action. Our dedication to God should not rest in the lofty realm of theory and ideal but must be carried out on the practical plane of where we actually live. This kind of sacrifice fulfills our reasonable and spiritual obligation to love and serve the one who brought us into newness of life.

Unfortunately, the power of contemporary culture to “squeeze [us] into its mold” (Phillips) is greater than we are apt to realize.23 Paul called on his readers no longer to conform to the “pattern of this world” (its practices, fashions, priorities, and goals). We have been rescued from “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4) and should therefore no longer conform to its pattern for living. Instead, we should allow God to transform us by giving us a totally new way of looking at things. Our moral consciousness is to be reoriented by the power of the indwelling Spirit.

The final purpose of this wholehearted surrender to God is that we may discover that what God has willed for us is “good” (of intrinsic value and moral worth), “pleasing” (acceptable to God, meeting all his requirements), and “perfect” (completely attaining its appropriate end). God’s will for us is not designed for our discomfort. The mean-spirited deity who inhabits the heavens of much ill-informed popular thought is not the God of love revealed by Christ Jesus.

Verses 9–13 are representative of the “rules” by which we are to live. Incomplete as they are, they still provide a general idea of the kind of life God would have us live. Although rules are normally seen as legalistic limitations on life, these “rules” are gracious indications of that which brings pleasure to God and the greatest amount of satisfaction to us if we follow them.

“Love must be sincere” (12:9). Up until this point agapē has been used only of God’s love for us (cf. 5:5, 8; 8:35). But now it is used to describe the relationship the believer is to sustain to others. In the context of biblical revelation agapē love is best defined as “the voluntary giving of oneself for the welfare of others.” This kind of love is “sincere,” that is, free from all hypocrisy or pretense. Thus we are to “hate what is evil [and] cling to what is good.” Weymouth says we are to “regard evil with horror.” The best defense for the Christian against wickedness is never to get over being shocked by it.

To “be devoted to one another in brotherly love” (12:10) is to create within the community a bond of tender affection. Paul called on his readers to “honor one another above yourselves.” He was not telling them to pretend that everyone they met was intrinsically superior. What he was saying was that they were to consider others as worthy of preferential treatment. Put their welfare ahead of our own. Give them top priority.

“Never be lacking in zeal” (12:11). The new life in Christ Jesus has no place for laziness. It calls for an intensity appropriate to the urgency of the issues involved. Since the church holds the only answer for the human predicament, now is not the time to sit by and watch while the world hastens on toward self-destruction. But zeal alone cannot accomplish the task. “Be aglow with the Spirit” (RSV), said Paul. Our “spiritual life” is simply the presence and life of God’s Spirit within us. We are to allow ourselves to be set on fire by the Spirit. The church at Laodicea had permitted the fires of devotion to dwindle, and the resulting lukewarmness made the risen Lord feel nauseated (Rev 3:14–18). Paul’s dictum in 1 Thessalonians is relevant, “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire” (1 Thess 5:19). Our job is not to stir ourselves into a blaze but rather to allow the Spirit’s fire to maintain in our lives a spiritual glow. Lest someone think that Paul was placing an overly high premium on spiritual excitement, he added, “Serve the Lord.” While buoyed along by the presence of the Spirit, Christians are called to carry out in practical ways the will of the Lord.

“Be joyful in hope” (12:12). The source of Christian joy is the hope (the firm conviction of what will certainly come to pass) that finds its fulfillment in the return of Christ, the vindication of the righteous, and the establishment of God’s eternal reign. Since that time is still future, we are to be “patient in affliction.” One of Jesus’ last words to his disciples was, “In this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33). Stay the course and be “faithful in prayer.” Prayer is not a way to secure release from adversity but a way to draw upon the divine strength necessary to let it fulfill its purpose in our lives. It allows us to see behind the problem of the moment and discern in every adverse situation the hand of God.

“Share with God’s people who are in need” (12:13). The true measure of people is demonstrated by their relationship to those who are less fortunate. The essence of love is giving. When we actually share what we have with others who are in need, we are reflecting the love of God and his compassion for them. Finally, to “practice hospitality” is more than to entertain friends on festive occasions. The Greek participle means “to pursue.” Not only are we to bring in the stranger at the door, but we also are to go out and actively pursue those who would benefit from our kindness and concern.

(11) The Obligations of Love (13:1–14)

Although some scholars hold that the first seven verses of chap. 13 are an independent fragment that somehow got into Paul’s letter, it is preferable to see them as an integral part of the apostle’s line of thought. In the preceding chapter Paul discussed the believers’ relationships first with one another (12:9–13) and then with those outside the church (12:14–21). In the subsequent chapter he discussed the relationship between the stronger and the weaker brother. That Paul should also at this point include a section on the relationship between the Christian and governing authorities is not at all surprising. You will remember that a major problem for the early church—lasting until the Roman edict of toleration in A.D. 312—was the hostility of the Roman Empire toward Christianity. Taking v. 8 as the central theme of the chapter (“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another”), vv. 1–7 represent one of the “debts” incurred by our relationship to those in positions of authority. Tertullian, the third-century Roman apologist, wrote that the Christian is to look up to the emperor because he “is called by our Lord to his office.” Obedience to duly constituted rules of society is an obligation of love.

In this section Paul taught that all authority has been established by God (13:1), that to rebel against existing authority is to rebel against God (13:2), that rulers are servants of God and authorized to punish the wrongdoer (13:4), and that those in authority are due proper respect and honor (13:7). The problem is that while all this would be fine in an ideal society, history has demonstrated with regularity that the wrong people frequently become the governing authorities. In Paul’s day a crazed Nero set fire to Rome and laid the blame on Christians. In our day it was a Nazi führer who ordered the mass execution of six million Jews (and many others of different ethnic and religious backgrounds). How can it be said that such authorities are servants of God to do his will?

The obvious answer is that at some point a leader may become such a despot that he forfeits his authority to rule. Paul was laying down a relationship to governing authorities that operates within acceptable boundaries. At what point rulers step outside their duly established role is a question that must be decided by each individual. “Civil disobedience” is assumed throughout Scripture. For example, Peter and John boldly declared to a hostile Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). When the demands of governing authorities run counter to our understanding of the will of God and what is morally right, we have no option but to disobey. The war crimes trials at Nuremberg show that in contemporary jurisprudence it is, under certain circumstances, wrong to obey the demands of the state.

Our continuing debt, said Paul, is to love one another (13:8). Unlike other debts, the debt of love requires constant payment yet can never be paid in full. Love is the consummate moral responsibility in that it fulfills everything required by the law (13:8–10). For example, sincere love for another will preclude adultery. It makes murder impossible. Love rules out all stealing and coveting. Love establishes a relationship in which all the Commandments of the second table of the Decalogue are unnecessary. To love is to bring to completion the deepest intent of the Old Testament moral legislation. Love fulfills the law.

An important point in v. 8 often slips by unnoticed. The NIV’s “he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law” leaves the impression that love for others is a general obligation. The Greek text, however, has a definite article and reads “the other.” The love that fulfills the law is a love that goes out to the specific person who at that particular moment confronts us in need, the one whom God has brought across our path and who therefore has a claim on our service. A good case can be made for the proposition that love exists only in actual deeds of love. Abstractions are convenient for philosophical discourse but are without substance and have no value for those in need. We are to love the other, the neighbor who is there—whose need has a claim on our time and energy because God brought that person across our path at that particular moment in time.

It is the brevity of each person’s time on earth that gives life both its urgency and its grandeur. The widely known psychoanalyst Professor R. May teaches that by accepting the limits of human mortality people are set free to live. Paul brought another kind of limitation on time into the picture. He wrote that “the night [this present age] is nearly over; the day [the coming age of God’s universal and eternal reign] is almost here” (13:12). The time for compassionate concern will not continue indefinitely. Opportunities for kindness are running out. Those who would love must love while there is still time. In vv. 12–14 Paul counseled his readers to “put aside the deeds of darkness” (a form of self-love) and “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (which cannot help but issue in genuine love for others). The “obligations of love” will be fulfilled when we so completely identify ourselves with him that he who is pure love is allowed freely to express that love in practical ways through those who bear his name.

(12) Getting Along for the Glory of God (14:1–15:13)

No matter who you are or where you live, you will always have to put up with two kinds of people: those who are more conservative than you and those who are more liberal. In every church there are those who are able to do with a free conscience what would cause us pangs of guilt. And there are others who do not have the freedom of conscience to do what we do. Although for everyone many things are clearly wrong (e.g., selfishness, cruelty, hatred) and many other things are always right (e.g., kindness, helpfulness, love), a number of things are morally neutral, neither right nor wrong. The Stoics used the term adiaphoron for that middle sphere between virtue and vice, that which is ethically indifferent.

In this closing section of his letter Paul dealt with some first-century Christian adiaphora. He wrote, “One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (14:2). In the congregation at Rome were some who had come from a Jewish background with its strict dietary laws. Although they had become Christians, they would quite naturally bring along from their background a certain abhorrence of ceremonially unclean foods. Paul referred to them as “weak” in faith, not meaning that they were unsure about their faith in God but that they did not have the inner assurance that certain relatively unimportant things (e.g., eating with ceremonially unwashed hands) were now permissible. Others were “strong” in that they had grasped the fact that since Christ is the fulfillment of the law they were no longer obliged to keep its ceremonial prescriptions. How are these two types to get along together in the same Christian fellowship?

The natural tendency of the weak is to judge the conduct of the strong. But just because the mind-set of the weak kept them from eating meat they thought was still in some way unclean, they had no right to judge others who no longer shared their qualms of conscience. The important thing for the weak is that they not violate their own conscience. It is not their responsibility to judge the conduct of others.

The tendency of the strong is to run roughshod over the sensitivities of the weak. To them Paul urged restraint. They are not to allow their own freedom in Christ to carry them to the place where they are unable to understand and accept their brethren who find it impossible to shake off the feeling that the former restrictions may still be in force. The strong should accept the weak for the same reason the weak should not judge the strong, “Each of us will give an account of himself to God” (14:12). The primary obligation of the strong is never to do anything that would cause a brother to stumble or fall (14:13). Love, not freedom, is the rule of Christian conduct. What we do must always be considered in light of its effect on others. Even that which is morally neutral and acceptable before God must be set aside if it would cause another to act against his conscience and so undermine his personal integrity.

The first verses of chap. 15 highlight several responsibilities of the strong. (Note that Paul spent much more time speaking to the strong than to the weak!) First, he said, the strong are to “put up with the weakness of those who are immature” (15:1, Goodspeed). Love demands patience and understanding. Second (and Paul identified himself with the strong), we are “not to insist on having our own way” (15:1, Knox). Our lives are to be governed by the needs and welfare of others, not by an intense desire to focus on what’s in it for me. And third, “Every one of us must try to please his neighbor, to do him good, and help in his development” (15:2, Goodspeed). Our lives are to serve the best interests of the other person. This goal cannot be reached if we go through life insisting on “Christian freedom” as a rule of conduct.

In the closing verses of this section Paul addressed both the weak and the strong: May God “give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus” (15:5). Jesus did not please himself but bore the insults of human hostility toward God. If he was willing to go that far in not pleasing himself, surely we ought to be able to lay aside our personal preferences in insignificant matters and have patience with one another. Paul wrote, “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you” (15:7). He welcomed you into the family of God with all your imperfections, and you must be willing to accept one another even though you may understand the implications of the faith somewhat differently. Then the God of hope will fill you with all joy and peace so that “your whole life and outlook may be radiant with hope” (Phillips).

OUTLINE OF ROMANS

I. Introduction (1:1–17)

1. Salutation (1:1–7)

2. Paul’s Desire to Visit Rome (1:8–15)

3. Theme: Righteousness from God (1:16–17)

II. The Unrighteousness of All Humankind (1:18–3:20)

1. The Gentiles (1:18–32)

2. The Jews (2:1–3:8)

(1) God’s Righteous Judgment (2:1–16)

(2) Authentic Jewishness Is Inward (2:17–29)

(3) The Faithfulness of God (3:1–7)

3. All People (3:9–20)

III. The Righteousness Only God Can Provide (3:21–5:21)

1. Received through Faith in Christ (3:21–31)

2. Abraham, the Great Example of Faith (4:1–25)

3. The Results of Faith (5:1–21)

(1) Peace and Hope (5:1–8)

(2) Reconciliation (5:9–11)

(3) The Gift of Righteousness (5:12–21)

IV. The Righteousness in Which We Are to Grow (6:1–8:39)

1. No Longer Slaves to Sin (6:1–23)

(1) Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ (6:1–14)

(2) Slaves to Righteousness (6:15–23)

2. No Longer Condemned by Law (7:1–25)

3. Living in the Spirit (8:1–39)

V. God’s Righteousness Vindicated (9–11)

1. The Justice of Rejection (9:1–29)

2. The Cause of Israel’s Rejection (9:30–10:21)

3. Some Alleviating Factors (11:1–36)

(1) The Rejection Is Not Total (11:1–10)

(2) The Rejection Is Not Final (11:11–24)

(3) The Salvation of All Israel (11:25–36)

VI. How Righteousness Manifests Itself (12:1–15:13)

1. Among Believers (12:1–21)

2. In the Word (13:1–14)

3. Among the Weak and the Strong (14:1–15:13)

VII. Conclusion (15:14–16:27)

1. Paul and His Plans (15:14–33)

(1) Paul’s Ministry to the Gentiles (15:14–22)

(2) Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome (15:23–33)

2. Some Final Items (16:1–27)

(1) Commendation for Phoebe (16:1–2)

(2) Greeting (16:3–16)

(3) Warnings against False Teachers (16:17–20)

(4) Greetings from Paul’s Companions (16:21–23)

(5) Doxology (16:25–27)