Text -- Romans 2:22 (NET)

2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 2:22

That abhorrest ( ho bdelussomenos ).

Old word to make foul, to stink, to have abhorrence for. In lxx, in N.T. only here and Rev 21:8. The very word used by Jesus to express their horror of idols (eidōla , see note on Act 7:41 and note on 1Co 12:2). See note on Mat 24:15 for "abomination."

Robertson: Rom 2:22

Dost thou rob temples? ( hierosuleiṡ ).

Old verb from hierosulos (Act 19:37) and that from hieron , temple, and sulaō , to rob. The town clerk (Act 19:37) said that these Jews (Paul and his companions) were "not robbers of temples,"proof that the charge was sometimes made against Jews, though expressly forbidden the Jews (Josephus, Ant. IV. 8, 10). Paul refers to the crime of robbing idol temples in spite of the defilement of contact with idolatry.

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Sayest ( λέγων )

The denunciation is not so pronounced. The Talmud charges the crime of adultery upon the three most illustrious Rabbins.

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Abhorrest ( βδελυσσόμενος )

The verb means originally to turn away from a thing on account of the stench . See on abomination , Mat 24:15.

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Commit sacrilege ( ἱεροσυλεῖς )

Rev. renders according to the etymology, ἱερόν temple , συλάω to despoil ; hence rob temples . Some explain, the pillage of idol temples; others, robbing the Jewish temple by embezzlement, withholding the temple tribute, etc. The robbery of temples as practiced by the Jews is inferred from Act 19:37. Compare Josephus, Antiq ., 4:8, 10, where he lays down the law not to plunder Gentile temples, nor to seize treasure stored up there in honor of any God.

JFB: Rom 2:17-24

"But if" is, beyond doubt, the true reading here. (It differs but in a single letter from the received reading, and the sense is the same).

JFB: Rom 2:22

As the Jews did ever after their captivity, though bent on them before.

JFB: Rom 2:22

Not, as some excellent interpreters, "dost thou rob idol temples?" but more generally, as we take it, "dost thou profane holy things?" (as in Mat 21:12-13, and in other ways).

Calvin: Rom 2:22

22.=== Thou who abhorrest idols, === etc. He fitly compares sacrilege to idolatry, as it is a thing of the same kind; for sacrilege is simply a profanation of the Divine Majesty, a sin not unknown to heathen poets. On this account Ovid (Metamor. 3,) calls Lycurgus sacrilegious for despising the rites of Bacchus; and in his Fasti he calls those sacrilegious hands which violated the majesty of Venus. But as the Gentiles ascribed the majesty of their gods to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege when any one plundered what was dedicated to their temples, in which, as they believed, the whole of religion centered. So at this day, where superstition reigns, and not the word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege than the stealing of what belongs to churches, as there is no God but in idols, no religion but in pomp and magnificence. ⁸³

Now we are here warned, first, not to flatter ourselves and to despise others, when we have performed only some portions of the law, — and, secondly, not to glory in having outward idolatry removed, while we care not to drive away and to eradicate the impiety that lieth hid in our hearts.

TSK: Rom 2:22

adultery : Jer 5:7, Jer 7:9, Jer 7:10, Jer 9:2; Eze 22:11; Mat 12:39, Mat 16:4; Jam 4:4

sacrilege : Mal 1:8, Mal 1:14, Mal 3:8; Mar 11:17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 2:22

Dost thou commit adultery? - There is no doubt that this was a crime very common among the Jews; see the Mat 12:39 note; Joh 8:1-11 notes. The Jewish Talmud accuses some of the most celebrated of their Rabbies, by name, of this vice. (Grotius.) Josephus also gives the same account of the nation.

Thou that abhorrest idols - It was one of the doctrines of their religion to abhor idolatry. This they were everywhere taught in the Old Testament; and this they doubtless inculcated in their teaching. It was impossible that they could recommend idolatry.

Dost thou commit sacrilege? - Sacrilege is the crime of violating or profaning sacred things; or of appropriating to common purposes what has been devoted to the service of religion. In this question, the apostle shows remarkable tact and skill. He could not accuse them of idolatry, for the Jews, after the Babylonish captivity, had never fallen into it. But then, though they had not the form, they might have the spirit of idolatry. That spirit consisted in withholding from the true God what was his due, and bestowing the affections upon something else. This the Jews did by perverting from their proper use the offerings which were designed for his honor; by withholding what he demanded of tithes and offerings; and by devoting to other uses what was devoted to him, and which properly belonged to his service. That this was a common crime among them is apparent from Mal 1:8, Mal 1:12-14; Mal 3:8-9. It is also evident from the New Testament that the temple was in many ways desecrated and profaned in the time of our Saviour; notes, Mat 21:12-13.

Poole: Rom 2:22

Dost thou commit adultery? to this sin also the Jews were greatly addicted: see Psa 50:18 Jer 5:8 .

Dost thou commit sacrilege? Here he varies the crime; he does not say: Dost thou commit idolatry, but sacrilege. The Jews, after their return out of captivity, kept themselves free from idolatry; but it seems they were guilty of a sin that was near akin to it. Here it may be questioned, what the sacrilege was that the Jews were guilty of. Some think, their covetousness is here taxed, which is a kind of idolatry. The Jews took those things which were consecrated to idols, and which, by the law of God, should have been destroyed, and turned them to their private advantage. Others think, that their sacrilege consisted in withholding from God that which they should have consecrated and offered up to him; see 1Sa 2:13 Mal 3:8,9 : they converted to their own use such things as were dedicated to God. Much to the same purpose is their opinion, that think it consisted in robbing God of his due. By the imperial law in the code, it is declared sacrilege to take from the emperor any thing that is his; it ought to be much more accounted sacrilege to deal so with God. Some think their sacrilege lay in polluting the worship of God, and making his commands of no effect, through their corrupt additions and traditions.

Haydock: Rom 2:22

Idols, &c. The Jews, at the time of our Saviour, were free from idolatry, to which their ancestors had been so prone for so long a time. But to this evil had succeeded another, scarcely less heinous, viz. sacrilege, and a profanation of holy things. The greater part of the high priests bought their office. The priests permitted in the temple itself a kind of traffic, which caused our Saviour to declare to them, that hey had made the house of his Father a den of thieves. And to favour their own avarice, they taught that it was lawful to defraud their creditors, and refuse to their parents the necessary succour, in the case of vows to give to the temple. St. Paul does not here reproach them for the profanations of the temple which they committed in the last siege of Jerusalem, for it had not then take place; but he knew full will the dispositions of their hearts, and the little regard they had for the most sacred things. (Calmet)

Gill: Rom 2:22

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery,.... Adultery here is to be taken not figuratively for adulterating the word of God, and mixing it with their own inventions; but literally for the sin of adultery, and that not in heart only, but in act:

dost thou commit adultery? an iniquity which greatly prevailed among the Jews at this time of day; hence Christ calls them "an adulterous generation", Mat 12:39; and that to such a degree, that by the advice of their great Rabbi, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, they left off the trial of the suspected woman, cases of this nature being so very numerous: and this sin prevailed not only among the common people, but among their principal doctors; as may be learnt from their own writings, and from that conviction of this iniquity which the Scribes and Pharisees were brought under by Christ, when the woman, taken in adultery, was had before him by them, Joh 8:9.

Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? for though at this time they abhorred idolatry, to which their forefathers were so much inclined, and so often fell into, yet they were guilty of sacrilege; by violating the worship of God, and polluting it with their own inventions; by pillaging or withholding, or not offering the sacrifices they ought; and by plundering the temple, and converting the sacred things of it to their own use.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 2:22

¹ tn Or “detest.”

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 2:1-29

1 No excuse for sin.

6 No escape from judgment.

14 Gentiles cannot;

17 nor Jews.

MHCC: Rom 2:17-24

The apostle directs his discourse to the Jews, and shows of what sins they were guilty, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions. A believing, humble, thankful glorying in God, is the root and sum of all religion. But proud, vain-glorious boasting in God, and in the outward profession of his name, is the root and sum of all hypocrisy. Spiritual pride is the most dangerous of all kinds of pride. A great evil of the sins professors is, the dishonour done to God and religion, by their not living according to their profession. Many despise their more ignorant neighbours who rest in a dead form of godliness; yet themselves trust in a form of knowledge, equally void of life and power, while some glory in the gospel, whose unholy lives dishonour God, and cause his name to be blasphemed.

Matthew Henry: Rom 2:17-29

In the latter part of the chapter the apostle directs his discourse more closely to the Jews, and shows what sins they were guilty of, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions. He had said (Rom 2:13) that not the hearers but the doers of the law are justified; and he here applies that great truth to the Jews. Observe,

I. He allows their profession (Rom 2:17-20) and specifies their particular pretensions and privileges in which they prided themselves, that they might see he did not condemn them out of ignorance of what they had to say for themselves; no, he knew the best of their cause.

1. They were a peculiar people, separated and distinguished from all others by their having the written law and the special presence of God among them. (1.) Thou art called a Jew; not so much in parentage as profession. It was a very honourable title. Salvation was of the Jews; and this they were very proud of, to be a people by themselves; and yet many that were so called were the vilest of men. It is no new thing for the worst practices to be shrouded under the best names, for many of the synagogue of Satan to say they are Jews (Rev 2:9), for a generation of vipers to boast they have Abraham to their father, Mat 3:7-9. (2.) And restest in the law; that is, they took a pride in this, that they had the law among them, had it in their books, read it in their synagogues. They were mightily puffed up with this privilege, and thought this enough to bring them to heaven, though they did not live, up to the law. To rest in the law, with a rest of complacency and acquiescence, is good; but to rest in it with a rest of pride, and slothfulness, and carnal security, is the ruin of souls. The temple of the Lord, Jer 7:4. Bethel their confidence, Jer 48:13. Haughty because of the holy mountain, Zep 3:11. It is a dangerous thing to rest in external privileges, and not to improve them. (3.) And makest thy boast of God. See how the best things may be perverted and abused. A believing, humble, thankful glorying in God, is the root and summary of all religion, Psa 34:2; Isa 45:15; 1Co 1:31. But a proud vainglorious boasting in God, and in the outward profession of his name, is the root and summary of all hypocrisy. Spiritual pride is of all kinds of pride the most dangerous.

2. They were a knowing to people (Rom 2:18): and knowest his will, thelēma - the will. God's will is the will, the sovereign, absolute, irresistible will. The world will then, and not till then, be set to rights, when God's will is the only will, and all other wills are melted into it. They did not only know the truth of God, but the will of God, that which he would have them to do. It is possible for a hypocrite to have a great deal of knowledge in the will of God. - And approvest the things that are more excellent - dokimazeis ta diapheronta . Paul prays for it for his friends as a very great attainment, Phi 1:10. Eis to dokemazein humas ta diapheronta . Understand it, (1.) Of a good apprehension in the things of God, reading it thus, Thou discernest things that differ, knowest how to distinguish between good and evil, to separate between the precious and the vile (Jer 15:19), to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, Lev 11:47. Good and bad lie sometimes so near together that it is not easy to distinguish them; but the Jews, having the touchstone of the law ready at hand, were, or at least thought they were, able to distinguish, to cleave the hair in doubtful cases. A man may be a good casuist and yet a bad Christian - accurate in the notion, but loose and careless in the application. Or, we may, with De Dieu , understand controversies by the ta diapheronta . A man may be well skilled in the controversies of religion, and yet a stranger to the power of godliness. (2.) Of a warm affection to the things of God, as we read it, Approvest the things that are excellent. There are excellences in religion which a hypocrite may approve of: there may be a consent of the practical judgment to the law, that it is good, and yet that consent overpowerd by the lusts of the flesh, and of the mind: -

- Video meliora proboque

Deteriora sequor .

I see the better, but pursue the worse.

and it is common for sinners to make that approbation an excuse which is really a very great aggravation of a sinful course. They got this acquaintance with, and affection to, that which is good, but being instructed out of the law, katēchoumenos - being catechised. The word signifies an early instruction in childhood. It is a great privilege and advantage to be well catechised betimes. It was the custom of the Jews to take a great deal of pains in teaching their children when they were young, and all their lessons were out of the law; it were well if Christians were but as industrious to teach their children out of the gospel. Now this is called (Rom 2:20), The form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law, that is, the show and appearance of it. Those whose knowledge rests in an empty notion, and does not make an impression on their hearts, have only the form of it, like a picture well drawn and in good colours, but which wants life. A form of knowledge produces but a form of godliness, 2Ti 3:5. A form of knowledge may deceive men, but cannot impose upon the piercing eye of the heart-searching God. A form may be the vehicle of the power; but he that takes up with that only is like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

3. They were a teaching people, or at least thought themselves so (Rom 2:19, Rom 2:20): And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind. Apply it, (1.) To the Jews in general. They thought themselves guides to the poor blind Gentiles that sat in darkness, were very proud of this, that whoever would have the knowledge of God must be beholden to them for it. All other nations must come to school to them, to learn what is good, and what the Lord requires; for they had the lively oracles. (2.) To their rabbis, and doctors, and leading men among them, who were especially those that judged others, Rom 2:1. These prided themselves much in the possession they had got of Moses's chair, and the deference which the vulgar paid to their dictates; and the apostle expresses this in several terms, a guide of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, the better to set forth their proud conceit of themselves, and contempt of others. This was a string they loved to be harping upon, heaping up titles of honour upon themselves. The best work, when it is prided in, is unacceptable to God. It is good to instruct the foolish, and to teach the babes: but considering our own ignorance, and folly, and inability to make these teachings successful without God, there is nothing in it to be proud of.

II. He aggravates their provocations (Rom 2:21-24) from two things: -

1. That they sinned against their knowledge and profession, did that themselves which they taught others to avoid: Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Teaching is a piece of that charity which begins at home, though it must not end there. It was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that they did not do as they taught (Mat 23:3), but pulled down with their lives what they built up with their preaching; for who will believe those who do not believe themselves? Examples will govern more than rules. The greatest obstructors of the success of the word are those whose bad lives contradict their good doctrine, who in the pulpit preach so well that it is a pity they should ever come out, and out of the pulpit live so ill that it is a pity they should ever come in. He specifies three particular sins that abound among the Jews: - (1.) Stealing. This is charged upon some that declared God's statutes (Psa 50:16, Psa 50:18), When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him. The Pharisees are charged with devouring widows' houses (Mat 23:14), and that is the worst of robberies. (2.) Adultery, Rom 2:22. This is likewise charged upon that sinner (Psa 50:18), Thou hast been partaker with adulterers. Many of the Jewish rabbin are said to have been notorious for this sin. (3.) Sacrilege - robbing in holy things, which were then by special laws dedicated and devoted to God; and this is charged upon those that professed to abhor idols. So the Jews did remarkably, after their captivity in Babylon; that furnace separated them for ever from the dross of their idolatry, but they dealt very treacherously in the worship of God. It was in the latter days of the Old Testament church that they were charged with robbing God in tithes and offerings (Mal 3:8, Mal 3:9), converting that to their own use, and to the service of their lusts, which was, in a special manner, set apart for God. And this is almost equivalent to idolatry, though this sacrilege was cloaked with the abhorrence of idols. Those will be severely reckoned with another day who, while they condemn sin in others, do the same, or as bad, or worse, themselves.

2. That they dishonoured God by their sin, Rom 2:23, Rom 2:24. While God and his law were an honour to them, which they boasted of and prided themselves in, they were a dishonour to God and his law, by giving occasion to those that were without to reflect upon their religion, as if that did countenance and allow of such things, which, as it is their sin who draw such inferences (for the faults of professors are not to be laid upon professions), so it is their sin who give occasion for those inferences, and will greatly aggravate their miscarriages. This was the condemnation in David's case, that he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, 2Sa 12:14. And the apostle here refers to the same charge against their forefathers: As it is written, Rom 2:24. He does not mention the place, because he wrote this to those that were instructed in the law (in labouring to convince, it is some advantage to deal with those that have knowledge and are acquainted with the scripture), but he seems to point at Isa 52:5; Eze 36:22, Eze 36:23; and 2Sa 12:14. It is a lamentation that those who were made to be to God for a name and for a praise should be to him a shame and dishonour. The great evil of the sins of professors is the dishonour done to God and religion by their profession. " Blasphemed through you; that is, you give the occasion for it, it is through your folly and carelessness. The reproaches you bring upon yourselves reflect upon your God, and religion is wounded through your sides."A good caution to professors to walk circumspectly. See 1Ti 6:1.

III. He asserts the utter insufficiency of their profession to clear them from the guilt of these provocations (Rom 2:25-29): Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; that is, obedient Jews shall not lose the reward of their obedience, but will gain this by their being Jews, that they have a clearer rule of obedience than the Gentiles have. God did not give the law nor appoint circumcision in vain. This must be referred to the state of the Jews before the ceremonial polity was abolished, otherwise circumcision to one that professed faith in Christ was forbidden, Gal 5:1. But he is here speaking to the Jews, whose Judaism would benefit them, if they would but live up to the rules and laws of it; but if not " thy circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, thy profession will do thee no good; thou wilt be no more justified than the uncircumcised Gentiles, but more condemned for sinning against greater light."The uncircumcised are in scripture branded as unclean (Isa 52:1), as out of the covenant, (Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12) and wicked Jews will be dealt with as such. See Jer 9:25, Jer 9:26. Further to illustrate this,

1. He shows that the uncircumcised Gentiles, if they live up to the light they have, stand upon the same level with the Jews; if they keep the righteousness of the law (Rom 2:26), fulfil the law (Rom 2:27); that is, by submitting sincerely to the conduct of natural light, perform the matter of the law. Some understand it as putting the case of a perfect obedience to the law: "If the Gentiles could perfectly keep the law, they would be justified by it as well as the Jews."But it seems rather to be meant of such an obedience as some of the Gentiles did attain to. The case of Cornelius will clear it. Though he was a Gentile, and uncircumcised, yet, being a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house (Act 10:2), he was accepted, Rom 2:4. Doubtless, there were many such instances: and they were the uncircumcision, that kept the righteousness of the law; and of such he says, (1.) That they were accepted with God, as if they had been circumcised. Their uncircumcision was counted for circumcision. Circumcision was indeed to the Jews a commanded duty, but it was not to all the world a necessary condition of justification and salvation. (2.) That their obedience was a great aggravation of the disobedience of the Jews, who had the letter of the law, Rom 2:27. Judge thee, that is, help to add to thy condemnation, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress. Observe, To carnal professors the law is but the letter; they read it as a bare writing, but are not ruled by it as a law. They did transgress, not only notwithstanding the letter and circumcision, but by it, that is, they thereby hardened themselves in sin. External privileges, if they do not do us good, do us hurt. The obedience of those that enjoy less means, and make a less profession, will help to condemn those that enjoy greater means, and make a greater profession, but do not live up to it.

2. He describes the true circumcision, Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29. (1.) It is not that which is outward in the flesh and in the letter. This is not to drive us off from the observance of external institutions (they are good in their place), but from trusting to them and resting in them as sufficient to bring us to heaven, taking up with a name to live, without being alive indeed. He is not a Jew, that is, shall not be accepted of God as the seed of believing Abraham, nor owned as having answered the intention of the law. To be Abraham's children is to do the works of Abraham, Joh 8:39, Joh 8:40. (2.) It is that which is inward, of the heart, and in the spirit. It is the heart that God looks at, the circumcising of the heart that renders us acceptable to him. See Deu 30:6. This is the circumcision that is not made with hands, Col 2:11, Col 2:12. Casting away the body of sin. So it is in the spirit, in our spirit as the subject, and wrought by God's Spirit as the author of it. (3.) The praise thereof, though it be not of men, who judge according to outward appearance, yet it is of God, that is, God himself will own and accept and crown this sincerity; for he seeth not as man seeth. Fair pretences and a plausible profession may deceive men: but God cannot be so deceived; he sees through shows to realities. This is alike true of Christianity. He is not a Christian that is one outwardly, nor is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian that is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.

Barclay: Rom 2:17-29

To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. Jewishness, he insists, is not a matter of race at all; it has nothing to do with circumcision. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a Gentile who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, is a Jew in the real sense of the term. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.

The last verse of this passage, (Rom 2:29), contains a pun which is completely untranslatable. "The praise of such a man comes not from men but from God." The Greek word for praise is epainos (1868). When we turn back to the Old Testament (Gen 29:35; Gen 49:8), we find that the original and traditional meaning of the word Judah is praise (epainos, 1868). Therefore this phrase means two things. (a) It means the praise of such a man comes not from men but from God. (b) It means the Jewishness of such a man comes not from men but from God. The sense of the passage is that God's promises are not to people of a certain race and to people who bear a certain mark on their bodies. They are to people who live a certain kind of life irrespective of their race. To be a real Jew is not a matter of pedigree but of character; and often the man who is not racially a Jew may be a better Jew than the man who is.

In this passage Paul says that there are Jews whose conduct makes the name of God ill-spoken of among the Gentiles. It is a simple fact of history that the Jews were, and often still are, the most unpopular people in the world. Let us see just how the Gentiles did regard the Jews in New Testament times.

They regarded Judaism as a "barbarous superstition" and the Jews as "the most disgusting of races," and as "a most contemptible company of slaves." The origins of Jewish religion were twisted with a malicious ignorance. It was said that Jews had originally been a company of lepers who had been sent by the king of Egypt to work in the sand quarries; and that Moses had rallied this band of leprous slaves and led them through the desert to Palestine. It was said that they worshipped an ass' head, because in the wilderness a herd of wild asses had led them to water when they were perishing with thirst. It was said that they abstained from swine's flesh because the pig is specially liable to a skin disease called the itch, and it was that skin disease that the Jews had suffered from in Egypt.

Certain of the Jewish customs were mocked at by the Gentiles. Their abstinence from swine's flesh provided many a jest. Plutarch thought that the reason for it might well be that the Jews worshipped the pig as a god. Juvenal declares that Jewish clemency has accorded to the pig the privilege of living to a good old age, and that swine's flesh is more valuable to them than the flesh of man. The custom of observing the Sabbath was regarded as pure laziness.

Certain things which the Jews enjoyed infuriated the Gentiles. It was the odd fact that, unpopular as they were, the Jews had nonetheless received extraordinary privileges from the Roman government.

(a) They were allowed to transmit the temple tax every year to Jerusalem. This became so serious in Asia about the year 60 B.C. that the export of currency was forbidden and, according to the historians, no less than twenty tons of contraband gold was seized which the Jews had been about to despatch to Jerusalem.

(b) They were allowed, at least to some extent, to have their own courts and live according to their own laws. There is a decree issued by a governor called Lucius Antonius in Asia about the year 50 B.C. in which he wrote: "Our Jewish citizens came to me and informed me that they had their own private gathering, carried out according to their ancestral laws, and their own private place, where they settle their own affairs and deal with cases between each other. When they asked that this custom should be continued, I gave judgment that they should be allowed to retain this privilege." The Gentiles detested the spectacle of a race of people living as a kind of separate and specially privileged group.

© The Roman government respected the Jewish observance of the Sabbath. It was laid down that the Jew could not be called to give evidence in a law court on the Sabbath. It was laid down that if special doles were being distributed to the populace and the distribution fell on the Sabbath, the Jews could claim their share on the following day. And--a specially sore point with the Gentiles--the Jews enjoyed astrateia, that is, exemption from conscription to the Roman army. This exemption was directly due to the fact that the Jewish strict observance of the Sabbath obviously made it impossible for him to carry out military duties on the Sabbath. It can easily be imagined with what resentment the rest of the world would look on this special exemption from a burdensome duty.

There were two special things of which the Jews were accused.

(a) They were accused of atheism (atheotes, compare 112). The ancient world had great difficulty in conceiving of the possibility of a religion without any visible images of worship. Pliny called them, "a race distinguished by their contempt for all deities." Tacitus said, "The Jews conceive of their deity as one, by the mind alone.... Hence no images are erected in their cities or even in their temples. This reverence is not paid to kings, nor this honour to the Caesars." Juvenal said, "They venerate nothing but the clouds and the deity of the sky." But the truth is that what really moved the Gentile to such dislike, was not so much the imageless worship of the Jews, as the cold contempt in which they held all other religions. No man whose main attitude to his fellows is contempt can ever be a missionary. This contempt for others was one of the things which Paul was thinking of when he said that the Jews brought the name of God into disrepute.

(b) They were accused of hatred of their fellow-men (misanthropia, compare 3404 and 444) and complete unsociability (amixia). Tacitus said of them: "Among themselves their honesty is inflexible, their compassion quick to move, but to all other persons they show the hatred of antagonism." In Alexandria the story was that the Jews had taken an oath never to show kindness to a Gentile, and that they even offered a Greek in sacrifice to their God every year. Tacitus said that the first thing Gentiles converted to Judaism were taught to do was "to despise the gods, to repudiate their nationality, and to disparage parents, children and brothers." Juvenal declared that if a Jew was asked the way to any place, he refused to give any information except to another Jew, and that if anyone was looking for a well from which to drink, he would not lead him to it unless he was circumcised. Here we have the same thing again. The basic Jewish attitude to other men was contempt and this must ever invite hatred in answer.

It was all too true that the Jews did bring the name of God into disrepute, because they shut themselves into a rigid little community from which all others were shut out and because they showed to the heathen an attitude of contempt for their worship and complete lack of charity for their needs. Real religion is a thing of the open heart and the open door; Judaism was a thing of the shut heart and the shut door.

Constable: Rom 1:18--3:21

II. THE NEED FOR GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS 1:18--3:20

Paul began his explanation of the gospel by demonstrating that there is a universal need for it. Every human being needs to trust in Jesus Christ because everyone lacks the righteousness that God requires before He will accept us.

"Paul implicitly acknowledges that 1:18-3:20 is an interruption in his exposition of the righteousness of God by reprising 1:17 in 3:21 . . . Some think that the revelation of God's wrath' is a product of the preaching of the gospel, so that 1:18-3:20 is as much gospel' as is 3:21-4:25 . . . But, although Paul clearly considers warning about judgment to come to be related to his preaching of the gospel (2:16), his generally positive use of gospel' language forbids us from considering God's wrath and judgment to be part of the gospel.

"We must consider 1:18-3:20 as a preparation for, rather than as part of, Paul's exposition of the gospel of God's righteousness."³⁸

Constable: Rom 2:1--3:9

B. The need of good people 2:1-3:8

In the previous section (1:18-32), Paul showed mankind condemned for its refusal to respond appropriately to general revelation. In this one (2:1-3:8), His subject is more man's failure to respond to special revelation. Since the Jews had more knowledge of this revelation than the Gentiles, they are primarily in view. As in the previous section, specific accusations follow general terms for sin (cf. 1:18 with 1:23, 26-32; and 2:1-16 with 2:17-29).

Paul addressed those people who considered themselves exceptions to humankind's general sinfulness in this section of the epistle. Obviously many people could say in his day, and still more say in ours, that they are not as bad as the people Paul described in chapter 1. The writer dealt with this objection more generally in verses 1-16 and more specifically about Jewish objectors in verses 17-29.

"Paul has still his statement in view, that the Gospel is the only power of God for salvation, and nothing to be ashamed of. If Judaism can save men, the Gospel is an impertinence; hence the radical failure of the Jew must be shown."⁶⁰

"In chap. 2 . . . it is the second person singular, you,' that Paul uses in making his accusation (2:1-5, 17-29). This does not mean that Paul is now accusing his readers of these things; were he to do that, the second person plural would have been needed. Rather, Paul utilizes here, and sporadically throughout the letter, a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or opponent. Elements of this style include frequent questions, posed by the author to his conversation partner or by the conversation partner, emphatic rejections of possible objections to a line of argument using me genoito (May it never be!'), and the direct address of one's conversation partner or opponent."⁶¹

Constable: Rom 2:17-29

2. The guilt of the Jews 2:17-29

Even though the Jews had the advantages of the Mosaic Law and circumcision, their boasting and fruitlessness offset these advantages. Divinely revealed religion is no substitute for trust and obedience toward God. Verses 17-29 are similar to 1:18-32. In 2:17-29, Paul showed that Jews are guilty before God just as he formerly proved all humanity guilty. In both sections he pointed out that man knew the truth but rejected it and consequently became guilty of idolatry, sensuality, and immorality.

"In the previous section Paul addressed his Jewish readers in a relatively restrained manner. But here the mood changed. Once again he employed the diatribe style that he used in the opening verses of chap. 2. His tone became quite severe as he laid out before them the absolute necessity of bringing their conduct into line with their profession. From this point on to the end of the second major division (Rom 3:20), we hear Paul the preacher convincing his listeners of their need for a different kind of righteousness. Although in another letter he claimed that his preaching was not eloquent (1 Cor 2:1-5), it is hard to deny that here in Romans we are dealing with the dynamic rhetoric of an evangelist bent on persuasion."⁷¹

"Paul here claims for the Jew nothing more than what the Jews of his day were claiming for themselves; every item on the list in vv. 17-20 is paralleled in Jewish literature of the time."⁷²

2:17-20 Paul had been speaking of Jews in verses 1-16, but now he identified them by name. The Jews were very self-righteous. Paul explained the basis of their boasting in these verses.

The name "Jew" contrasts with "Greek" and calls attention to nationality.⁷³ The Jews gloried in being members of God's chosen nation (cf. Exod. 19:5-6). They relied on the Mosaic Law because God Himself had given it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. They boasted in their knowledge of God that they obtained through that covenant. They had a relatively precise understanding of what is more and less important to God (cf. Phil. 1:10). They looked down on non-Jews as those whom they guided even though, as Paul pointed out earlier, the Gentiles have some light and law themselves.

In these verses Paul first referred to God's gifts to the Jews (v. 17) and then to the superior capabilities these gifts conferred on them (v. 18). Finally he mentioned the role the Jews somewhat pretentiously gloried in playing. God had called them to enlighten the Gentiles with these gifts and capabilities (vv. 19-20).⁷⁴

2:21-24 With a series of rapier-like interrogations (rhetorical questions) Paul poked holes in the Jews' hypocritical facade. Evidently it was not uncommon for Jews to rob the temples of the pagan Gentiles (v. 22; cf. Acts 19:37). They may have done this by using the precious metals from idolatrous articles stolen from pagan temples (cf. Deut. 7:26).⁷⁵ By doing so, they betrayed their own idolatry, which was love of wealth. Furthermore rather than staying away from what they professed to abhor they went after pagan idols. The Jews' Gentile neighbors saw their inconsistency and despised Yahweh because of it (v. 24). The Jews did not apply their own teaching to themselves. Paul backed up his claim with a quotation from Isaiah 52:5.

Undoubtedly Paul did not mean that all Jews practiced these sins, but these sins represented the contradiction between claim and conduct that marked Judaism.

2:25-27 Next to the Mosaic Law the Jews boasted almost equally in their circumcision. Some of them believed that God would not permit any circumcised male to enter perdition.⁷⁶ They felt this rite guaranteed their acceptance by God (as some Christians believe baptism guarantees salvation). Paul reminded such people that reality is more important than profession and obedience more vital than testimony. Circumcision would not shield them from God's wrath if they failed to do all He commanded.

". . . in contrast to Jewish teachers, who held that only a radical decision to renounce the covenant invalidated one's circumcision, Paul argues that simple transgression of the law can have the same effect."⁷⁷

In our day cans and bottles have labels on them to indicate what is inside. Circumcision was a label and implied that the Jew was obedient to God. However if he was not completely obedient the label was not only worthless but deceptive. The contents of the can are more important than the label. Similarly if a Gentile was completely obedient to God the absence of the label of circumcision was not of major consequence. The Jews had put more emphasis on the presence of the label than on the contents of the can. Paul's point was that disobedience brings condemnation and perfect obedience theoretically brings salvation, regardless of whether one is a Jew or a Gentile.

The reference to the "letter" (v. 27) probably means that the Jews had the Law written down.

2:28-29 We now discover why Paul chose to address his fellow Israelites as Jews in this section (vv. 17-29). The word "Jew" comes from the name "Judah," which means praise. Paul was saying the person who really praises God is not one who merely wears the label of circumcision but one whose obedience to God is genuine. Such a person has a circumcized heart (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:9). Heart circumcision is a spiritual operation that the Holy Spirit performs, not a physical operation that conforms to the letter of the Mosaic Law. The truly obedient person will not only praise God, but God will also praise him. He will not just receive the praise of men for his professed obedience to God.

"These verses [vv. 25-29] must be kept in their context, which is that Paul is dealing with Jews and making a distinction between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. He is not teaching that every Gentile Christian is a spiritual Jew. Rather, he is teaching that every Jew is not a full Jew. A completed Jew is one who has had both circumcisions, the circumcision of the flesh, which is outward in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant, and an inward circumcision of the heart as an act of obedience to the new covenant."⁷⁸

In verses 17-29 Paul's point was that perfect obedience is more important that religious privilege. Even though the Jews boasted in outward matters, the law and circumcision, they were guilty of failing God inwardly as were the Gentiles. Really a god-fearing Gentile was more pleasing to God than a disobedient Jew because God delights in obedience.

College: Rom 2:1-29

II. 2:1-3:8 - THE SINFULNESS OF THE JEWS

INTRODUCTION

The overall subject of the first main section of Romans is the impotence of law as a way of salvation. No one can be right with God in terms of the system of law; there is no hope for salvation as long as one remains in a law-relationship with God. This is not inherently the case; a person can be right with God through law, as long as he does not break the law at any point. The problem, though, is that all have sinned ; thus by works of law no one will in fact be justified before God (3:20). As a consequence the only possible way for anyone to be saved is through the alternative God has provided: the way of grace, the gift of righteousness made possible through the death of his Son.

Thus the main theme of this section is law - not just the Law of Moses, but the Creator's will and commandments in whatever form they have been made available to his creatures. In this subsection of Romans (2:1-3:8), the term "law" does primarily refer to the Law of Moses, but not exclusively so.

We should remember also that the bulk of the material in this section is Paul's response to the notion that there must be some exceptions to the otherwise universal fact that all stand condemned by the law. These exceptions are alleged to be the Gentiles on the one hand, and the Jews on the other.

The problem regarding the Gentiles is, how can they be condemned by the law if indeed they do not have the law? Paul discusses this in 1:18-32 and shows that they do have access to God's law through general revelation, and thus are without excuse. But what is the question with regard to the Jews? That is the subject of 2:1-3:8. The problem is the Jews' own belief that they surely cannot stand condemned by the law, because as a nation they have their own very special relationship with God that will shield them from the divine wrath in the day of judgment.

In this subsection, then, Paul has the objective of showing that this is a false idea, thus "deflating Jewish presumption" (Dunn, I:77). With reference to wrath and condemnation, salvation and eternal life, the Jews are not special; within the context of law God treats everyone alike.

1. Who Is Being Addressed in 1:1-16?

Two general questions must be discussed before we get into the text itself. The first has to do with the person or persons who are being addressed and discussed in the first half of chapter 2. All agree that the Jews are the subject of the last part of the chapter (see 2:17), but there is some disagreement about vv. 1-16. Some believe that Paul is addressing a category of people that would probably include most Jews but which also must include the more pious Gentiles, those such as Seneca and Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, men whose superior moral character would surely separate them from the depraved degenerates of whom 1:18-32 speaks. Thus this section is about "the moralist" (Bruce, 86), or "critical moralizers" (Stott, 80). Boice believes Paul is dealing here "chiefly with the virtuous pagan" (I:235); MacArthur says he is "speaking primarily to Jews" (I:113).

The other major view on this issue, which I support, is that chapter 2 is specifically dealing with the Jews from the very beginning. Murray (I:55) and Cranfield (I:138) give the reasons why this view is preferred. For one thing, the attitudes condemned in 1:1-16 (hypocritical judgmentalism toward the Gentiles; belief in divine partiality) were "peculiarly characteristic of the Jew," as Murray puts it. Also, the Jews were uniquely the objects of God's "kindness, tolerance and patience" (v. 4). Most significantly, throughout this section Paul refers consistently to only two categories of people as constituting the whole of mankind: Jews and Greeks (i.e., Gentiles). It is true that Jews are not addressed by name until v. 17, but this is a matter of tactics on Paul's part. By not explicitly naming the Jews as his target in the first several verses, he can possibly avoid putting them on the defensive and perhaps secure their agreement before they realize he is talking about them.

In the section on the Gentiles (1:18-32), we saw that the most significant distinction between Gentiles and Jews in this context is that the former are those who have been exposed to general revelation only, while the latter have knowledge of special revelation also. With regard to applicability to the present time, the Gentiles are equivalent to anyone today who has no knowledge of biblical revelation, and the Jews are equivalent to anyone who does have such knowledge.

It is important to keep this in mind as we go through this subsection, so that we will not miss its timeliness and relevance for the church in the Christian era. What is said in this passage applies to all who have access to special revelation, whether it be the OT or the NT or both. It applies to anyone who expects divine partiality or any kind of special privilege because of his external relationship to this revelation. This is true especially of those within the general context of Christendom who consider their knowledge of the Bible, their knowledge about Jesus Christ, their membership in a local church, their baptism, or their Christian heritage in general to be their sure ticket to heaven.

Exactly what is Paul's main point here regarding the Jews? It is well known, of course, that God had chosen the Jews from among all the peoples of the earth and had placed them in a special covenant relationship with himself ever since the time of Abraham. This special relationship is a major theme of the entire OT; it is not a matter of dispute. The problem is that the Jews had drawn some false and fatal conclusions from these facts. They developed the idea that somehow they, the Jews, would be in a special category and would receive special treatment on Judgment Day. From their covenant privileges they concluded that they would not be judged by the same criteria as the Gentiles. Thus they "counted on God's partiality" (Lard, 74). They relied on their national status as God's chosen people (symbolized by the Law and by circumcision) to save them on the day of judgment. Dunn calls this "Jewish overconfidence in God's favor for and obligation to Israel," and an "assurance of a favored status based on and protected by God's election" (I:90).

Rabbinic writings reflect this attitude. These include quotes such as the following: "Circumcised men do not descend into Gehenna." "At the last Abraham will sit at the entrance to Gehenna and will not let any circumcised man of Israel go down there." "Circumcision will deliver Israel from Gehenna." "All Israelites have a share in the world to come." As Lard sums it up, the Jew of Paul's time "seems to have thought that the mere circumstance of being a Jew protected him against condemnation" (72).

Paul's main point regarding the Jews, then, is to show that they will not be treated in any special way in the final judgment. They will have no special privileges, no advantages, just from the fact that they are Jews. God will show them no partiality. As Lard says, "The aim of the Apostle is to extirpate from the mind of the Jew all thought of security based on the naked ground of being a Jew" (78). "Like John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7-10) and Jesus (cf. Matt. 21:28-32) before him, Paul denies that belonging to the covenant people per se ensures acceptance with God" (Moo, I:125; see I:89).

The reason this is so is that the Jews are sinners, too , no less than the Gentiles; and under God's law all sinners are treated alike. That is, under the law system every Gentile who has sinned and every Jew who has sinned will be condemned to hell. And since all Jews are sinners, the law condemns them all. The bottom line, then, is that Jews no less than Gentiles stand in need of the gospel of grace; they need the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. They are not an exception.

2. Does Romans 2 Teach Justification by Works?

The second general question with which we must deal before turning to the text has to do with the very nature of salvation. The issue in brief is whether or not Romans 2 teaches that a sinner can be justified by his own works. Unfortunately many interpreters have wrongly drawn this conclusion from certain statements in the text, and this conclusion has the effect of derailing the proper understanding of Romans and of the concept of grace from the very beginning. Thus it is extremely important to grasp the overall perspective from which Paul is speaking in this chapter. (The commentaries I especially recommend on this point are Lard and Moo.)

The problem arises when we attempt to interpret vv. 6-10, 13, and 26. Verse 6 says God will repay every man according to his works. Verses 7 and 10 say God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing good. Verse 13 says that the doers of the law will be justified. Verse 26 suggests that Gentiles who keep the law will be saved. Do these passages somehow teach salvation or justification by works? It certainly seems that way. Citing v. 13 especially, Boers declares that "all of chapter 2 stands out as an admirable apology for justification through works" ( Justification , 8).

The reason this is such a problem is that this seems to contradict the whole point of Romans and the whole concept of grace, namely, that we are justified by faith apart from works of law (3:28). In fact, it apparently contradicts the very point Paul wants to make in this first main section itself, namely, that by works of law no human being will be justified in God's sight (3:20). Someone with a low view of Scripture might feel comfortable affirming that Paul simply contradicts himself, but even apart from inspiration it is inconceivable that a man of Paul's obvious intelligence would have failed to recognize an outright inconsistency within a single section of an essay that is so tightly reasoned. Thus there must be another explanation.

Some take the view that in Romans 2 Paul is simply teaching the reality of justification by a conscientious response to God's law. Through hard work and serious effort, even without perfect obedience, anyone can achieve eternal life. This seems to be Boers' point. He says 2:13 "refers to the due reward for doing good in obedience to the Law" ( Justification , 105). He says that in Rom 2 Paul "argued for a positive meaning of the Law, and justification for works done in obedience to it" (107).

Thinking specifically of vv. 7-10 DeWelt says, "There is no indication here that sinless perfection is the requirement for receiving eternal life, but rather a constant, unwavering and honest effort to attain 'glory and honor and incorruption' by doing that which they know is right-right according to God's law" (36-37). This applies even to Gentiles: "The Gentile will be judged according to his conscientiousness in keeping the law of nature and the Jew according to his conscientiousness in keeping the law of Moses." This implies "a certain element of mercy extended to those who never heard the gospel" (40). Commenting on 2:13 Godet says we must distinguish between our initial justification, based on the imputed gift of God's own righteousness (1:17) when we first become Christians; and our final justification on Judgment Day, based on our " actual possession of righteousness" through the fulfillment of the law. Thus there are "two justifications, the one initial, founded exclusively on faith, the other final, founded on faith and its fruits ," i.e., the doing of the law (122).

In my opinion this view is false, not only because it misses Paul's point in Rom 2 but also because it is inconsistent with the overall biblical teaching on faith and works as they relate to justification. As expressed by Godet, especially, it sounds very much like Galatianism, or the false view of the Galatian Christians as they were being influenced by the Judaizers (Gal 3:3; 5:4).

A second interpretation of Romans 2 has been adopted by quite a few Evangelical interpreters. Basically this view says that in these passages Paul is speaking of the experience of Christians who are under the grace of God. As Christians we are indeed justified by faith and not by works of law, but on the day of judgment our works (our obedience to God's law) will be on display as evidence of the faith that secures our salvation. Speaking of vv. 7 and 10, Cranfield says the "good work" to which God gives eternal life is probably Christians' "conduct as the expression of their faith" (I:151-152). Verse 13, he says, refers to "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" (I:155).

In my opinion this is not the correct way to interpret Rom 2, and doing so imports unnecessary confusion into our thinking. It is true that in some sense every person, including Christians, will be judged by works in the final judgment. This is a biblical teaching, one that is thoroughly grounded in both the OT and the NT. Also, it is true that our works will be cited in the judgment as evidence of the presence (or absence) of saving faith. But this simply does not seem to be the point that Paul is making here. He is not speaking of Christian good works nor of the Christian life as such. He is not speaking of the principles of judgment and salvation as they exist under grace; his perspective is very different, as the following point explains.

The final and, I believe, correct interpretation of Rom 2 in relation to the nature of salvation is as follows. In the texts in question (vv. 6-10, 13, 26) Paul is not talking about the judgment of Christians under grace, but about the conditions that prevail within the sphere or system of law , or about how a person is judged for either justification or condemnation under the provisions of God's law. As already explained, the subject of this whole section is law, and especially its inability to save sinners.

As we also saw earlier, the principles of law are this: "Keep the commandments, and therefore escape the penalty; break the commandments, and therefore suffer the penalty." Within the context of law, anyone who does not keep its commandments will be condemned. Likewise, anyone who perseveres in good works, who is a doer of the law, who keeps its commandments, will be justified . This is a statement of fact. Any Jew or Gentile who completely obeys the law available to him will be justified.

But as a matter of fact - and this is Paul's whole point in this section - there is no one at all in this category; everyone has sinned. As a formal principle it is true that the doers of the law will be justified. But in view of the universality of sin, it is only theoretically or hypothetically true. Not one single Jew and not one single Gentile will in fact be accepted by God in the final judgment because of his good works or his obedience to law. Thus vv. 7, 10, 13, 26 should not be taken as referring to any actual state of affairs.

The actual state of things is given in 3:20, that by works of law no one will be justified, since the law judges everyone to be a sinner. Speaking of v. 13, Lard sums it up very well: "By doers of law we must not understand persons who keep its requirements in part, and in part fail. We must understand perfect obedience, or obedience to every precept without even one failure. But since there is no such obedience, there is of course no justification based on it. The justification of the clause, therefore, is merely potential, not actual" (86; see also 97).

Moo explains these verses basically the same way I have explained them here. Paul "upholds faithful obedience to God, or the law, as a theoretical means of attaining justification," he says, "but he goes on to show that no one meets the conditions necessary for this principle to become a reality" (I:141; see I:167). This paragraph by Moo (I:141) is especially on target:

We think, therefore, that vv. 7 and 10 set forth what is called in traditional theological (especially Lutheran) language "the law." Paul sets forth the biblical conditions for attaining eternal life apart from Christ. Understood this way, Paul is not speaking hypothetically. But once his doctrine of universal human powerlessness under sin has been developed (cf. 3:9 especially), it becomes clear that the promise can, in fact, never become operative, because the condition for its fulfillment - consistent, earnest seeking after good - can never be realized.

(See also Thielman, Paul , 141, 291-292; Erdman, 40.)

It is important to remember that, under law , there is no way to be saved other than perfect obedience. This is contrary to the Jews' false confidence in their special status within God's great historical plan of salvation. They confused their election for service with election for salvation . They did not understand that their personal sins negated the value of law as a way of salvation. They could claim salvation by law only if they obeyed it perfectly, which they did not: "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (3:9).

A corollary of this is that once actual sin enters the picture, whether in the life of an individual or in the history of mankind, the only way to be accepted by God is through his plan of grace, i.e., through trusting God's promise to forgive our sins based upon his righteousness and not our own. Anyone who is ever saved - Jew or Gentile, in OT times or NT times, under the Law of Moses or in the Christian Church - will be saved in this manner, because the only alternatives are nonexistent perfect obedience (law) and the gospel reality of righteousness through faith (grace). See Moo, I:177.

3. The Outline of This Section

In this subsection Paul's thought flows as follows.

2:1-5. First, the Jews are under the wrath of God, no less than the Gentiles. Thus they have no basis for passing judgment on the Gentiles and gloating over their fate.

2:6-11. Second, God will be partial to no one in the judgment. He will treat all alike, whether Jews or Gentiles. The principles of judgment as required by law will be applied to both in exactly the same way.

2:12-16. Third, under law, the criterion of judgment is obedience alone, not whether or how one possesses the law or knows the law. It is especially important for the Jews to know that mere possession of the law is no indication of special treatment in the judgment.

2:17-24. Fourth, Jews who look to the law for salvation are in fact condemned by their disobedience to that law. They have broken the very law they glory in and rely upon.

2:25-29. Fifth, true Jewishness is identified not by circumcision but by the inward state of the heart. Thus the Jews' reliance upon physical circumcision as the sure measure of salvation is futile.

3:1-8. Finally, such equal treatment of Jews and Gentiles does not nullify but rather magnifies God's righteousness. Those who rail at God because of this equal treatment before the law have misunderstood God's purpose for Israel and deserve to be condemned for their blasphemy.

4. The Style of Writing

A final word here has to do with Paul's writing style in certain parts of this subsection, a style known as diatribe . This was a common method of teaching used by writers and instructors in Paul's time. To write in this style the author engages in a dialogue with an imaginary opponent or questioner, and the writing is addressed directly to this questioner (second person instead of third person).

Sometimes the "dialogue" is one-sided, and the questions flow only from the pen of the writer. This is the case in 2:1-5 and 2:17-27, where Paul bombards the Jews with questions specifically designed to undermine their false confidence wrongly based on their special role in God's plan. At other times there is a true dialogue, as in 3:1-8. Here the questions come from the imagined Jewish partner, and Paul provides his emphatic answers.

This diatribe style surfaces in a few other places, but it is especially prominent here.

A. JEWS ARE UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD,

NO LESS THAN THE GENTILES (2:1-5)

2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else . . . . Using the second person ("you") of the diatribe style, Paul specifically addresses the Jews in the person of an anonymous representative, "O man" (not translated in the NIV). One can imagine this typical Jew, standing slightly behind and to one side of Paul, looking over the Apostle's shoulder as the latter continues to heap the blazing coals of God's wrath upon the heads of the Gentiles in 1:18-32. Under his breath he excitedly roots Paul on against these Gentile scum: "Go get 'em, Paul! Lay it on 'em! That's right! Amen!"

Then abruptly Paul stops speaking of the Gentiles, slowly turns toward his fellow Israelite, gets right up in his face, and says, in effect, "You like that, don't you? 'Get those Gentiles,' right? They really are wicked, aren't they? They deserve the wrath of God, don't they? Well, my brother, have I got news for you! You are no better than the Gentiles! When you point your finger at them, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. As Nathan said to David, 'You are the man!'" (2 Sam 12:7).

The word "therefore" is a bit difficult here, since it is not clear how the previous context in itself logically produces this (2:1) as a conclusion. When Paul begins thus, he must be assuming not only the content of 1:18-32, but also the attitude of judgment in the hearts of the Jews whom he is addressing. "Therefore - on the assumption that you agree with what I'm saying about the Gentiles, and on the assumption that in your hearts you are singing the 'Hell-to-you-all Chorus' - then you yourselves have no excuse, because you are guilty of the same things."

The word translated "no excuse" is the same one applied to the Gentiles in 1:20. As there, it means "without excuse, without defense" in the face of accusation. Since both Jews and Greeks are without excuse before the law, every mouth is thus silenced, and the whole world stands guilty before God (3:19).

In the words "you who pass judgment," the NIV smooths out an awkward Greek phrase that reads more literally, "O man - you judging man - every single one of you." The word for "pass judgment" (krivnw , krinô ) can refer to the act of judging as such, but it often has the stronger negative meaning of "condemn." The context shows the latter is intended here; it is no different in meaning from the intensified word (katakrivnw , katakrinô ) translated "condemning" that follows: for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself . . . . "The other" refers to the Gentiles.

How can it be said that the "judging man" condemns himself? . . . because you who pass judgment do the same things . This assumes the principle, "Like sins deserve like condemnation" (Lard, 72), something the Jews seem to have forgotten. To say the Jews do "the same things" as the Gentiles does not mean that all Jews committed all the sins named in 1:18-32. By Paul's day idolatry was quite uncommon among the Jews, and homosexuality was always an abomination. Some think Paul is referring mostly to the fairly general and hard-to-avoid sins named in 1:29-31. In any case, the Jews are clearly guilty of the very sorts of things for which they condemned the Gentiles; thus they condemn themselves.

The problem is not just that the Jews were passing judgment as such, but they were doing so hypocritically . Even if there is some sense in which condemning someone else is legitimate (e.g., such as condemning his "fruit" [Matt 7:16], or deeds, in the light of the Word of God), it is never right to do so when we are guilty of the very same sins. See Matt 7:1-5.

2:2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth . Here Paul sets forth a general principle acceptable to both himself and the judging Jew: "we know," you and I, about the judging business, that the only judge whose judgment really counts is God , because his judgment is based on truth.

The word for "judgment" is krivma ( krima ), which refers not to the act of judging as such but to the verdict of a judge in the context of a court of law. More specifically, it connotes a negative judgment, a sentence of condemnation. God is a judge who will not hesitate to condemn those who practice "such things," i.e., the kind of sins named in chapter 1.

The point is that it does not matter who is committing these sins. God is an equal opportunity judge. His judgment is not based on race, sex, education, marriage status, or any other such incidental. It is "based on truth" or objective facts, not on subjective feelings, personal preferences, or favoritism.

Judgment involves three things: deeds to be judged, a standard by which to judge them, and a judge. Judgment based on truth involves a full, complete, objective knowledge of the relevant deeds; an objective, achievable standard known by or knowable to all; and a completely informed, totally fair judge. The final judgment includes all of these. (1) The judge will be God, specifically God the Son, Jesus Christ (2:16). He can and will judge according to truth because he knows all things, including the very thoughts of our hearts (2:16), and because he is righteous and thus meticulously fair (2:5). (2) The standard by which he will judge is his own law, which is known to all through either general or special revelation (2:12-15). (3) The deeds to be judged are our own, as exhaustively observed and infallibly remembered by the omniscient God, who will compare them objectively with the righteous standard and then reward us accordingly (2:6).

This point was intended especially to awaken the Jews to the reality of their situation. They literally expected God on Judgment Day to suspend this "judgment based on truth" and to usher them into heaven simply because they were Jews. So Paul wanted them to know that "in judgment it is not nationality or privilege that matters, but deeds" (Morris, 111).

Ideally it should be a comfort to anyone to know that on the Judgment Day we are going to receive a "fair trial." The ultimate stated goal of human judicial systems is a fair, objective trial based on the facts. The only problem with this, though, is that those who are guilty do not really want a verdict "based on truth." They know they are without excuse, thus they always seek to invoke some sort of special status or special circumstances that will allow them to escape their just judgment.

In God's judicial system, though, as long as we are going by the rules of law , there is no special status; there are no exceptions. Every deed is compared with the objective law by the righteous judge. Those who have broken the law at any point are condemned, be they Gentiles or Jews, those under general revelation only or those under special revelation also, church members or non-members.

The whole point of the gospel, of course, is that God himself has provided another, totally different system of judgment, one that is based not on the truth of the law but rather on the truth of grace . God has provided his own "exception" to judgment and condemnation according to law. One receives this exception-status not through Gentileness or Jewishness as such, but only through repentant faith in God's promise of forgiveness.

2:3 In v. 1 Paul affirmed that the judging Jew condemns himself; now in v. 3 he can repeat this point with emphasis, based on the principle enunciated in v. 2. The NIV changes the word order a bit. The verse actually begins as the NASB puts it, "And do you suppose this, O man." But the NIV begins it thus: So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things . . . . The NIV translates the vocative, "O man," as "a mere man," as if Paul's purpose were to compare the judging Jew's fallible humanity with God's omniscience and infallibility. This is probably not the point, though. The same vocative expression is used in 2:1; it is part of the diatribe style of writing.

"Pass judgment" is again krinô , as in v. 1, and means "condemn." The verse literally says, "When you condemn the ones who practice such things and (then) do the same things (yourself)." The repetition of these thoughts, already set forth in v. 1, is meant to help the Jews honestly see the naked truth about themselves: you are condemning the Gentiles, and you are doing the same things for which you condemn them.

The punch line is this: you who are doing these things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? "Do you think" is logivzomai ( logizomai ), actually the first word in the verse. It means "to suppose, to reckon, to consider, to conclude, to draw a conclusion based on a careful consideration of the facts." Actually, the Jews had drawn a conclusion that was not based on truth or facts, for this is exactly what they thought: that they were going to escape God's wrath and condemnation ( krima ). Ignoring their sins, they trusted in their special status as God's chosen people to deliver them from wrath on the day of judgment.

Thus by asking this question Paul challenges them to rethink their status before God. He challenges them to rethink this presumptuous conclusion that they will escape God's judgment, that God will be partial to them just because they are Jews. The wording is emphatic: "Do you think that you - you of all people, you who commit these same damning sins - will escape God's wrath?" Yes, they did think it; but no, it would not happen.

2:4. One might think that the Jews through their presumptuousness were showing contempt only for God's wrath and judgment. But Paul says it is much worse than this: Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience . . . ? They not only refused to take God's sternness and severity seriously; they also took for granted his kindness (11:22).

The attitude they were displaying toward God is described as "showing contempt" (katafronevw , kataphroneô ). This word can have the strong meaning of the NIV, "to show contempt, despise, disdain"; or it can have a slightly weaker meaning (as in the NASB), "to think lightly of, to take for granted." Either way such an attitude is obviously unworthy to be shown toward God and is worthy of his wrath.

Exactly what were the Jews taking for granted? The "kindness" or goodness of God, represented here by two related words, crhstothv" (chrçstotçs ) (11:22) and crhstov" (chrçstos ). This kindness of God is expressed especially in his "tolerance" (ajnochv , anochç ) and "patience" (makroqumiva , makrothumia ), concepts not significantly different in this context. The essence of God's patience is delay and restraint in the execution of his wrath, the holding back of his righteous judgment. OT history is full of examples of divine kindness and patience toward Israel as a nation. Thus they were thinking lightly not just of one or two isolated cases, but of the "riches," the wealth of God's kindness.

Israel seems thus to have missed the point of God's efforts: not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance[.] The purpose of such patience, of course, "is not to excuse sin but to stimulate repentance" (Moo, I:133). See 2 Pet 3:9. The Jews, however, continued to misinterpret it as God's indifference toward their sin. What was in fact intended to lead them to repentance was taken as proof that they would not be punished for their sin.

"Repentance" (metavnoia , metanoia ) is a change of mind toward God and especially toward one's own sin. It is the sinner's admission of the awfulness of his rebellion against God and of the heinousness of his sin. Repentance comes when one opens his eyes to the seriousness of sin in general, and begins to despise his own sin in particular. God's patience is designed to lead to this, and thus confronts the sinner with a choice: either despise your sin, or despise God's patience. Israel chose the latter.

Verse 4 implies and v. 5 declares the unrepentant state of the Jews' hearts. This refusal to repent can be explained in only two ways. Either they believed they did not need to repent (because they believed God would show them partiality); or they were guilty of just plain rejecting God, like the Gentiles. The former is certainly true, but there is also an element of truth in the latter. Paul says they were "not realizing" that God's kindness was trying to lead them to repent. The word used here can mean "not knowing" in the sense of ignorance, but it can also mean "not acknowledging," or refusing to acknowledge, and thus a "wilful refusal to recognize," a "thoroughly blameworthy not-knowing" (Cranfield, I:144).

Thus the Jews were guilty of suppressing true knowledge of God, just as the Gentiles were (1:18). But whereas the Gentiles were suppressing only general revelation, the Jews were suppressing God's special revelation. Also, whereas the Gentiles were suppressing only a knowledge of God as Creator and the Creator's law, the Jews were suppressing the overtures of his specially-revealed forgiving grace (Isa 65:1-2). This is why God said his wrath would be poured out on the Jew first (2:9).

2:5 This verse is directly related to v. 4; the paragraph break should come after v. 5 and not before it as in the NIV. The only issue is whether v. 5 is a continuation of the question in v. 4 (so Phillips; see Lard, 76), or whether it is a statement following up on v. 4 (as in the NIV and elsewhere). Either way the point is the same: "Your sinful heart is hardened, and you will experience God's wrath." But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself . . . .

The Jews' sinfulness is described as "stubbornness," an attitude within Israel that had tried God's patience from the beginning (Exod 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:13, 27; Ezek 3:7). Such a condition may not be as openly odious as some of the sins attributed to the Gentiles in chapter 1, but in God's sight it is no less abominable. "Stubbornness," or hardness, refers to an unyielding will that refuses to respond to God's offers of kindness and grace. Related compound words mean "hardness of heart" (Matt 19:8; Mark 16:14) and "stiff-necked" (Acts 7:51). Such hardness suppresses all feelings of guilt and sorrow for sin, and results in an "unrepentant heart."

As a direct result of ("because of") this sinfulness of heart, the Jews are described as "storing up wrath against yourself." The word for "storing up" is qhsaurivzw (thçsaurizô ), which means "to treasure, to heap up, to lay up treasure." Since we usually associate treasure and laying up treasure with something very valuable and desirable (see Matt 6:19-20), it is a note of tragic irony that some choose to lay up the "treasure" of God's wrath. Perhaps by using this word Paul intends to highlight the foolishness of repudiating the riches of God's kindness (v. 4) and opting instead for the treasure of his wrath.

Paul says this "treasure" is being stored up for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. "The day of God's wrath" is the general eschatological day of judgment, not the intermediate judgment of A.D. 70, when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. This is seen in the fact that in this context the "day of wrath" involves the Gentiles as well as the Jews (vv. 8-9, 12, 16). Rev 6:17 describes it as "the great day of their wrath."

This "day of wrath" is also called a "day of revelation" (ajpokavluyi" , apokalypsis ). This word is often associated with the end times and Christ's second coming (8:19; 1 Cor 1:7; 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13; 4:13). Many things will be revealed or totally uncovered on that day, but here Paul specifies that the thing to be revealed is God's "righteous judgment." This is a judgment that will be entirely fair and just, one that is "based on truth" (v. 2).

In this paragraph Paul has not pulled any punches; he has said some very harsh things about his countrymen, the Jews. He is not motivated by unkindness, however (see 9:1-3; 10:1), and he is not gloating. Rather, as Lard (73) says, his desire and purpose for his fellow Jew are to "cut him loose from Abraham, from circumcision, from the law, and send him in despair to Christ."

B. GOD WILL BE PARTIAL TO NO ONE

IN THE JUDGMENT (2:6-11)

The transition from v. 5 to v. 6, from the first paragraph to the second paragraph of this section, seems to be this. In the first paragraph Paul declares that the Jews are under the wrath of God no less than the Gentiles. Now he is assuming that the Jews will respond to that point something like this: "Now wait a minute! How can we be under the same judgment as the Gentiles? You say we have sinned like the Gentiles. But even if that is so, remember: we are Jews . We are in a special category. God will not treat us as he treats others in the final judgment." In this paragraph Paul responds thus: "Yes, you will be treated just like all others. No, you will not be given a special dispensation on Judgment Day, and here's why!"

In this paragraph Paul directly addresses the root of Jewish arrogance, i.e., their assumption that they would be shown partiality on the last day. As mentioned in the introduction to this section, they confused their election to service with election to salvation . With regard to the former, God did show partiality toward Israel as a nation when he chose them, through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. As means to this end God did bestow upon Israel as a nation many special blessings, including access to his special revelation (3:2), which included the knowledge of his grace.

Beginning with these facts the Jews then made an unwarranted step to a false conclusion, namely, that God would be partial to each individual Jew with regard to personal salvation. Paul attacks this false reasoning. Israel's election for service, with its attendant temporal blessings (3:2; 9:4-5), will have no direct effect on how God will treat individual Jews on the Judgment Day. On that day they will be treated in the same way as the Gentiles, with no exceptions, no concessions, no partiality. The same principles of judgment will be applied equally to all. The very nature of God demands it. God is righteous and fair, and it is contrary to his nature to show partiality. Thus God will be partial to no one in the judgment.

It is especially important to remember that in this section the main point is how individuals will be judged under law , not under grace. Thus - this is very important - we must not read this paragraph as including those who have put their trust in God's mercy or in the blood of Christ. What Paul says here applies only to those who are trusting the law (i.e., their obedience to law) to save them. His point is that in the final judgment, all those who are living within the sphere of law will be treated in the same way. For the purpose of deciding between salvation and condemnation, the rules of law will be applied in the very same way to both Gentiles and Jews.

2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." This is a principle of judgment that God has always followed in handing out earthly blessings and punishments, and it will also be applied in the final judgment. It even applies in a qualified way to believers who are saved solely by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ. For them, judgment according to works will provide evidence of the presence of their faith and thus will demonstrate God's impartiality even within the sphere of grace. Also, judgment according to works will determine the degree of rewards given to individual believers.

But under the system of law this principle applies in an unqualified way. Regarding the verdict for salvation or condemnation, this is the only thing to be considered. The righteous judge will compare each person's works with the law-standard available to him. Any deviation from the standard will result in condemnation. There is nothing else to be taken into account. There will be no balance-scale judgment to see if one's good works outweigh his sins (Jas 2:10). There will be no appeal to alleviating circumstances, nor casting of oneself upon the "mercy of the court." There will be no speculation about what a person would or might have done if only he could have heard the gospel. There will be no appeal to the blood of Christ; that is available only under the system of grace. Here the only consideration is law .

For some questionable reason the NIV has decided not to translate the word e[rgon ( ergon ; pl., erga ) as "work" or "works" here or anywhere else in Romans 1-3 (see 2:7, 15; 3:20, 27-28). "According to what he has done" should read "according to his works." "Works" are whatever a person does in response to God's law, whether in obedience or in disobedience. Acts of righteousness are works; acts of unrighteousness (sins) are works. "Works" also includes outward deeds as well as inward attitudes, desires, and decisions (which only God can see, 2:16).

As Paul uses the terms, one thing that "works" does not include is faith (3:27-28; 4:5; 11:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). Thus it is a mistake to try to interpret "works" in 2:6 as including Christian faith and the works that grow out of faith, and thus to think that in vv. 7 and 10 Paul is referring to Christians. In this section Paul is not talking about Christians, or even about OT believers. This is contrary to the view of many, including Cranfield (I:151-152). Paul's point in 2:6 is that on Judgment Day, when God renders his verdict upon an individual according to the rules of law, the only thing he will take into account is that person's works.

The word "give" is too weak as a translation for the verb in this verse, which is ajpodivdwmi , (apodidômi ). "Render" is also ambiguous. The word means "to pay; to repay; to give someone his due; to give someone what he deserves, whether a reward or a punishment." Thus it is an appropriate word to use for the principle of strict retribution. Under law God will give to each person whatever his works have earned.

When this principle is applied according to the terms of law, theoretically there are two outcomes: for those who have not broken the law, eternal life; for those who have broken it, eternal punishment. As we saw in the introduction to this section, there is in reality no one in the first category, which is Paul's main point (3:20). Everyone in fact falls into the second category, that of lawbreakers. Now, some object to such a "theoretical" or "hypothetical" understanding of this verse and of other verses in Romans 2, on the basis that Paul does not use hypothetical or conditional language in 2:6. He uses the simple, straightforward future indicative: God will repay each one according to his works. "The plain future indicative," says Cranfield, "is no encouragement to take these verses as merely hypothetical" (I:146). As Morris says, "Paul says God 'will render', not 'would render'. His words point to a fact, not a hypothesis" (148).

This objection misses the point. The principle is not hypothetical. This is how God will actually render judgment, namely, according to works. Paul is not saying, " If God judges according to works," but that he will so judge. The only thing that is hypothetical is the outcome, i.e., whether anyone will be in the specific categories. This does not affect the certainty and the actuality of the judgment according to the principle, as stated in the plain, simple future indicative.

The future tense does refer to the final judgment, not to any temporal or intermediate ones. The emphasis on "each person" pointedly includes both Gentiles and Jews. Wherever law is the applicable system of judgment, it will be applied to all who are under law, with no special deals for anyone.

2:7 The next four verses are a concise statement of the law system, or the principles by which God judges those who are under law rather than under grace. I have summarized these principles thus: "Keep the commandments, and therefore escape the penalty; break the commandments, and therefore suffer the penalty." Here they are stated in slightly more detail. In fact, they are stated twice, first in vv. 7-8, and then in vv. 9-10 with the main points being reversed (in an a-b-b-a, or chiastic, arrangement).

The purpose in these verses is to explain exactly how God will repay each person according to his works (v. 6), as dictated by the rules of law. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. This is equivalent to "Keep the commandments, and therefore escape the penalty" in my summary above. "Persistence in doing good" is literally "persistence in good work." "Work" is singular; the expression means "good conduct, good behavior, commandment keeping." This refers not just to an "honest effort" to do good, but to actual sinless perfection (contra DeWelt, 36). This includes right inner attitudes as well as right external acts. It is the equivalent of "doing good" in v. 10.

Under law, such good work is the means of seeking "glory, honor and immortality." These are the rewards of heaven. "Glory" refers to living in the light and reflection of God's own glory, as the result of dwelling in the very personal presence of God (Rev 21:3; 22:4-5). "Honor" refers to God's own blessing and commendation for faithfulness, similar to Jesus' words, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matt 25:21). "Immortality" is the state of incorruption, in which our bodies and spirits will never again be ravaged and destroyed by sin, disease, and death (Matt 221:4). (For creatures this immortality is acquired as a gift of God, and is not inherent as it is with God; see 1:23.)

To the one who seeks these things through his blameless conduct, God "will give eternal life." Actually there is no word in v. 7 for "will give"; this verb is rightly carried over from v. 6. As we have seen, this word refers not to the giving of a free and unearned gift of grace, but to the payment of what is due. This is the basis on which rewards are bestowed in the law system. To the person who persists in good work without breaking any of God's commandments, eternal life in heaven is what is due; it is the deserved reward.

This is the "hypothetical" element in this section. I.e., this is how it would happen if there were anyone who has persisted in good work to the point of perfection; but in fact no one has done so or will do so. Thus eternal life will in fact not be awarded to anyone on the basis of his good work.

2:8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. This is equivalent to the second half of my summary of the law system, "Break the commandments, and therefore suffer the penalty."

Commandment-breakers are described with three expressions. First, they are "self-seeking." This word is rendered "contentious" by the KJV and "factious" by the ASV, because of a supposed relation between it and e[ri" , ( eris , "strife," 1:29). Recent studies trace the word to other roots and conclude that it has to do with selfishness or selfish ambition; hence "self-seeking" in the NIV seems to be on target. (See Gal 5:20; Phil 1:17; 2:3; Jas 3:14, 16 in recent translations.) To be selfish or self-seeking means to pursue our own desires and agendas rather than those God has planned for us. It means laying up treasures on earth - seeking earthly fulfilment (Matt 6:19), rather than seeking the heavenly treasures of glory, honor, and immortality (2:7; Matt 6:20).

Commandment-breakers are also described as those who "reject the truth and follow evil." "Evil" is ajdikiva , ( adikia ), "wickedness, unrighteousness" (1:18, 29). More literally the expression reads "those who disobey truth and obey evil." These are simply two sides of the same coin; to do one is to do the other. The language is practically the same as that used to describe the Gentiles in 1:18, "men who suppress the truth by their wickedness [ adikia ]."

It does not matter whether this truth is known through general revelation or special revelation (2:12); those who suppress and disobey it will receive "wrath and anger." These two words are objects of "will give" in v. 6. In this context both terms refer to the eschatological pouring out of God's wrath after the final judgment. The word translated "wrath" (ojrghv , orgç ) refers more to God's constant and controlled indignation toward sin, while the word for "anger" (qumov" , thymos ) refers more to a passionate and destructive outburst of rage. Except for here (which is clearly eschatological in reference) this latter word is used for God's wrath only in Revelation (Rev 114:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; 19:15). At all times God is like a smoldering volcano, but in the end the volcano will erupt. "Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29).

This is the second of the two alternatives or the two potential outcomes when judgment is according to law. In reality it will be the only outcome, since all are commandment-breakers, but that is not Paul's point here. In this paragraph he is simply describing for us how judgment according to law will be conducted.

2:9 In the next two verses Paul repeats the essence of the law system, with the parts reversed. The beginning of v. 9 is equivalent to v. 8: There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil . . . . When God pours out his wrath and anger in the final judgment, the result for the condemned will be "trouble" (qlivyi" , thlipsis ) and "distress" (stenocwriva , stenochôria ). This is what they will experience for eternity. Some think the former refers to the outward or bodily sufferings, afflictions, and tribulations of hell; while the latter refers to the accompanying inward or mental anguish, distress, and torment.

This will be the result of God's judgment upon "every human being who does evil." Literally it says "upon every soul of man." The word "soul" is used here not in the metaphysical sense of the heart or spirit or inner man, as if only the soul (and not the body) suffers. Here "soul" means "person, individual," thus "every human being" (NIV), every single person among humankind "who does evil," who produces or brings about evil.

One new idea is added in this repetition of the thought of v. 8, namely, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . . . . Here for the first time in this chapter Paul actually mentions the Jews, and he does so in a way that drives home his main point: the righteous judgment of God falls equally on both Jews and Gentiles. This is enough to expose the fallacy of the myth of divine partiality toward the Jews, but Paul goes even further. Not only does God apply the principle of judgment equally to the two groups; he will actually pour out his wrath on the "Jew first." This is an application of Jesus' principle, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked" (Luke 12:48).

2:10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good . . . . This much of the verse is not different in substance from v. 7; it again sets forth the first principle of law-judgment, "Keep the commandments and therefore escape the penalty." The aspects of the heavenly reward are slightly different. Glory and honor are the same as v. 7, but here "peace" is substituted for "immortality." This is not significant; neither list is a complete menu of the blessings of eternal life. Each is no more than representative of the riches to be bestowed on "everyone who does good."

This last phrase can be rendered "everyone who works good or produces good." Again, since we are working here within the law system, this means "everyone who does good all the time and never produces evil." It is the same as "persistence in doing good" in v. 7.

Again the phrase is added, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . The blessings of eternal life are given "first or chiefly to the Jew" because he, "through his superior advantages, hath made greater progress in virtue" (DeWelt, 34). This is not at all the same as favoritism with regard to the terms of judgment. The Jew has no "priority of privilege" (Dunn, I:93).

The point of these last four verses is to explain how the law system is completely impartial and favors neither the Jew nor the Gentile. "First for the Jew" does not mean "for the Jew on a different and more favorable basis." The basis for both is their works (v. 6), considered equally. "Paul's whole point here is that the terms of judgment are precisely the same for everyone ." This undermines the Jews' belief "that God's judgment of Israel will be on different terms from his judgment of the nations as a whole" (Dunn, I:88).

2:11 For God does not show favoritism. Other familiar translations of this verse are "There is no respect of persons with God" (KJV), and "There is no partiality with God" (NASB). This is the main point of the paragraph. The justice of the law is truly blindfolded; who the person is makes no difference. Only his works will be examined. This is simply a negative restatement of the principle set forth in v. 6.

The term translated "favoritism, partiality, respect of persons" is found only in the NT and in subsequent Christian writers. The same idea represented by similar terms appears in the OT. Men are exhorted not to show partiality in judgment (Lev 19:15; Ps 82:2; Prov 18:5). God is declared to be without partiality in Deut 10:17 and 2 Chr 19:7. The term and all its cognates involve a combination of two Greek words, provswpon (prosôpon ), "face," and lambavnw (lambanô ), "receive." "Receiving someone's face" originally meant to accept and welcome them, but it came to be used in the negative sense of partiality (see Dunn, I:89).

While the principle applies to everyone, in this context it is a message Paul directs especially toward the Jews. God cannot be partial because his judgment is based on truth (v. 2), and because it is righteous (v. 5). A judgment that shows partiality would not be righteous. Therefore you, O Jew, cannot expect special treatment on Judgment Day. You will be no exception to the conclusion stated in 3:20.

C. UNDER LAW, THE CRITERION OF JUDGMENT

IS OBEDIENCE ALONE (2:12-16)

The next three paragraphs address two specific reasons why the Jews believed God would be partial to them in the last judgment: their possession of the Law of Moses, and the fact that they were circumcised. This paragraph (vv. 12-16) makes a very specific point about the former, namely, that the criterion of judgment within the law system is obedience to the law, not just possession of it or knowledge of it. Mere possession of the Law of Moses was no indication that the Jews would receive special consideration. As Cranfield sums it up, "Knowledge of the law does not in itself constitute any defence against the judgment of God" (I:139, 153).

This paragraph not only dissolves this basis for false confidence on the part of the Jews, but also defuses all possible complaints from the Gentiles that they are at a disadvantage in relation to the law since the Law of Moses was given only to the Jews. As Moo states the point, "This paragraph defends the equality of all people before God's judgment seat against the charge that the Jews' possession of the law gives to them a decisive advantage" (I:142).

In other words, the fact that the Jews had a specially-revealed form of God's law does not negate the general principle of judgment stated in v. 11, "God does not show favoritism."

2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Two things in this verse are quite clear. First, "law" means the Law of Moses, given to the Jews by special revelation. Second, those who are "apart from the law" are the Gentiles, and those "under the law" are the Jews.

But how do we know these things? There is no definite article ("the" law) in the original, but this is irrelevant. The presence or absence of the article is unrelated to whether "law" means the Law of Moses or the law in a more general sense. This can and must be determined by context alone; there is no other indicator. The clue in this context is the reference to people who "sin apart from the law."

What does this mean? How is it possible for a person to sin if there is no law to be broken (1 John 3:4)? Does not 4:15 say, "Where there is no law there is no transgression"? Yes, and that is the main reason why "law" in this verse must refer to the Law of Moses, and by inference to the moral law of God in any other specially-revealed form, unwritten (as to Adam, Noah, and Abraham) or written (as in the NT). Thus in this reference Paul must be talking about people who have no access to specially-revealed law, but do in fact have knowledge of God's law through general revelation, i.e., the Gentiles. The Gentiles do not need the Law of Moses in order to be judged according to law (as 1:18-32 has already shown).

In this context the main point is that the possession of or knowledge of the Law of Moses will make no difference as far as judgment according to law is concerned. As the NEB puts it, "Those who have sinned outside the pale of the Law of Moses will perish outside its pale, and all who have sinned under that law will be judged by the law."

Either way, "all who sin" will be condemned. The verb here is actually a past tense (aorist), "all who sinned or who have sinned." It is past tense from the perspective of Judgment Day, when one's past life will be considered as a whole. It means "all who have sinned, period , will perish," even if there has been just one sin (Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10). This is the rule when judgment is conducted according to law, and it will be applied to Jew and Gentile alike.

When judged even apart from the Law of Moses, the Gentiles "will perish." This is the verb ajpovllumi ( apollumi ), which in the middle voice means "to perish, to die, to be ruined, to be destroyed, to be lost." It is often used to refer to the eternal condemnation of the wicked, as it does here.

The second part of the verse refers specifically to the Jews, who sin under (within) the Law of Moses, with full knowledge of the specially-revealed law of God. Thus they will be "judged by the law" of Moses. The word "judged" is too weak to translate krivnw (krinô ), which here means "condemned" and is no different in meaning from "will perish." (See 2:1, 3; 3:7; 2 Thess 2:12.) Thus whether in possession of the Law of Moses or not, anyone who sins will receive the verdict of condemnation. (This is in contrast with the verdict of justification in v. 13.)

Here again is the tragic irony of the Jews' situation. The very law in which they trusted as a kind of charm guaranteeing their salvation (Morris, 122) will be the instrument of their condemnation because they have sinned against it. (The charge that they have sinned against it is made in detail in the next paragraph, vv. 17-24.)

2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. As this verse is examined we must remember two things. First, it relates only to the law system; it is a principle of judgment according to law. It is basically equivalent to vv. 7 and 10. "Keep the commandments, and therefore escape the penalty."

Second, whether there is anyone in this category is beside the point at this stage of Paul's argument. There does not need to be anyone in it for the principle to be true. As the statement of a principle it is like the sign that warns, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" - if anyone dares. Or it is like Jonah's message to Nineveh, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be destroyed" - unless they repent (Jonah 3:4). Such statements are straightforward, but they contain unspoken conditions (see Jer 18:7-10). That is the case here: those who obey the law will be declared righteous - if anyone does. Thus those are wrong who say this principle cannot be hypothetical because the verb is a simple future indicative.

The use of the concept of righteousness here focuses our attention squarely upon the thematic statement in 1:17. There Paul sums up the grace system of salvation, that a righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, and that those who receive that righteousness by faith will live eternally. But here in 2:13 Paul is explaining the law system of being accepted as righteous by God, namely, by works rather than by faith. An understanding of this aspect of the law system is crucial for an understanding of Paul's main point in this section and in Romans as a whole. Under law the only way to be accepted as righteous is through obedience - perfect obedience - to the law's commandments. But all have sinned; therefore no one will in fact be saved by law. Thus the gospel alternative is our only hope.

Thus far we have seen several words relating to righteousness, but this is the first time the key term dikaiovw (dikaioô ) has appeared. This is a legal term that refers to a judge's decision in a courtroom trial. It is the opposite of "condemned" (see v. 12) and is usually translated "justified," although some recent translations think this word is too theological and render it instead as "acquitted," "counted righteous," "put right," or "declared righteous" (NIV). The issue is this: if our relationship with God is based on law alone, then when we think of ourselves as standing before God as judge (whether now or at the second coming), how is it possible for him to regard us as righteous? How is it possible to hear the judge say, "Not guilty!" or "No penalty for you!"?

Paul's answer is stated in both negative and positive terms. First, contrary to the Jews' assumption, one cannot be accepted as righteous before God merely by hearing the law. By this he means "not those who only hear the law," as if having the law in one's possession or even in one's mind would be enough to be counted righteous. This applies not only to the Jews but to anyone who has access to special revelation of the Creator's will for his creatures. The word "hear" in this context means "hear" in the barest sense of the term, i.e., in the sense of having some knowledge content register in the consciousness and possibly retained in the memory, but without ever acting upon that content.

Paul next states the principle in a positive way: "It is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." As vv. 14-15 show, he means "law" in whatever form it is available to anyone; for the Jews this would be the Law of Moses. "Those who obey the law" is literally "the doers of the law" (see Jas 1:22-25). "Doing" the law, doing God's will, doing sin, doing righteousness, doing the truth, doing good, doing evil - these are common ways of speaking in Scripture. Here "doing the law" is equivalent to obedience or good works.

The key point is that under law, the only way to be justified, or accepted as righteous by God, is to obey the law, i.e., by one's own personal righteousness or works. This is quite contrary to the way one is justified under grace, which is through one's own personal faith in the works of Jesus Christ. But that contrast comes later; here Paul is simply establishing how one may possibly be saved under law. The contrast for this purpose is between merely hearing the law, which will not justify, and doing the law, which will justify. Moreover, "doers of the law" is unqualified; it means "those who obey the law perfectly ." Under law such will be justified, by their own righteousness.

2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law . . . .) Like the NIV, many take vv. 14-15 to be a parenthesis, with the main flow of Paul's thought being resumed again in v. 16, which will conclude the paragraph. The thought developed in the parenthesis is called for by the apparent implications for the Gentiles of the principles stated in vv. 12-13. It is easy to see how these verses apply to the Jews, but when applied to the Gentiles, one might question the fairness of God's judgment. Is it fair to condemn the Gentiles for breaking the law if they do not even have the law (v.12)? This question has already been answered in 1:18-32, but Paul answers it again here with more detail.

What the apostle is doing in these two verses is explaining the meaning of anomôs ("apart from the law") in v. 12. This is the category of the "Gentiles," he says, a word he has not used since 1:13. In between he has used "Greek" as its equivalent (1:16; 2:9-10), which the NIV translates as "Gentiles" anyway. These Gentiles, he says, are the ones "who do not have the law," namely, the Law of Moses, or by extension any specially-revealed form of God's law. He repeats this fact later in the verse.

Nevertheless these very same Gentiles, who do not have the Law of Moses, sometimes "do by nature things required by the law." Literally Paul says "when" the Gentiles do these things. Thus he does not mean they do things of the law perfectly, or that they do all of the things required by the law. He means there are times when the Gentiles acknowledge the moral duties revealed in Moses' law, and there are times when they even live up to them (see Dunn, I:98; Hendriksen, I:97; Moo, I:145-146).

Paul says the Gentiles do these things "by nature," i.e., through some kind of built-in, created instinct. That is, men's nature as created includes an innate awareness of the moral law of God. This is not the same as the knowledge of God himself, which registers upon our consciousness from observing created things outside ourselves (1:18-21). It is something that is already inside us as a universal moral consciousness, in the form of "natural, in-born capacities" (Moo, I:146). There will be more on this in the next verse.

As a result of this "innate or natural knowledge of God's law" (Moo, I:147), there is a sense in which they [the Gentiles] are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law . . . in a specially-revealed form. This means that their innate knowledge of God's law has basically the same content as the moral law revealed in the Law of Moses. That they are a "law for themselves" does not mean that the Gentiles are free to make up whatever law code they fancy, with God accepting that as the standard by which he will judge them. This is a quite common idea, but it is a serious mistake (Stott, 86). Rather, they are a law in themselves in that their inner being bears at least the remnants of God's moral law as it was imprinted upon human nature in the very beginning. See v. 15.

Thus Paul makes it very clear that anomôs in v. 12 does not mean the Gentiles are without law altogether. They do not have access to special revelation, to be sure, but the essence of God's moral law is available to them in another form. Thus God's righteousness is not impugned when he condemns them for their sin.

2:15 This verse is a further explanation of how the Gentiles, while not having access to the Law of Moses, still have a form of God's law. Specifically, it expands on the concept that the Gentiles are a law for themselves, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts . . . . They show or demonstrate this in their general agreement on basic moral principles, in their occasional obedience to these principles, and in their sense of guilt and hostility toward God when they disobey them.

"The requirements of the law" literally reads "the work of the law." This is an unusual expression because "work" is singular; in other places Paul speaks of the works of the law (3:20, 28; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). He generally uses the plural when he is making the point that law is impotent to save (see also 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6). Here his point is different. He is simply talking about the contents of the law's commandments. Dunn says the singular "work" means "the business of the law, what it is the law's business to produce" (I:105). A better rendering is "conduct," or "the conduct that the law demands" (Moo, I:148). Actually this "work of the law" or "conduct required by the law" is no different from the "things of the law" in v. 14.

The work of the law is "written on their hearts." This is the bottom line as to how the Gentiles have access to the law of God and how they can be justly condemned for breaking it. But what does it mean?

Some, perhaps out of an aversion to the very thought of innate knowledge of any kind, equate "written on the heart" with the generation-to-generation transmission of the moral knowledge revealed by God to Adam in the beginning. In Lard's words, it is the "unperished traditions of the divine will, communicated to the early fathers of mankind" (89). DeWelt grants this as a possibility (39). We can rule this out, however, since the language here - "by nature," "written on the heart" - seems calculated specifically to exclude the mechanics of tradition. It points unequivocally to something innate in each individual, to something "inwardly revealed" in the form of "inward, natural promptings" (MP, 312).

Some see this expression as a deliberate reference to the messianic promise of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34. Whereas the Old Covenant was written on stone (2 Cor 3:3), under the New Covenant, says God, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jer 31:33). If this is Paul's point in 2:15, then he is talking not about Gentiles in general, but only about Gentile Christians who have heard and accepted the gospel and whose hearts have been softened to obey God's law with "a sincere and earnest desire" (Cranfield, I:159).

This view is appealing but must be rejected on the grounds that it does not fit the context. Specifically, it does not fit the description of the Gentiles in v. 14, which says twice for emphasis that the Gentiles "do not have the law," i.e., in a specially-revealed form. Gentiles who have become Christians have been exposed to law in such a form, however; thus this view is inadequate.

The best understanding of how the required conduct of the law is "written on their hearts" is derived from the NT teaching on the image of God . Parallel passages in Eph 4:23-24 and Col 3:9-10 speak about Christian sanctification as the process that renews the image of God within us. In the context the contrast is between the Gentiles' pre-Christian moral depravity and the new way of life required of Christians. The latter is described as putting on a new self, "which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Col 3:10), language that clearly alludes to the original creation in God's image (Gen 1:26-27).

Analyzing these parallel texts gives us this scenario: 1) The original creation in God's image involved knowledge (Col 3:10), specifically a knowledge of "true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). Since the image of God is part of our very nature as human beings, we may conclude that this moral knowledge was part of mankind's original, created nature. 2) The Fall into sin resulted in a corruption of the image of God in an unspecified manner and degree. The innate moral consciousness remains intact enough to render everyone "without excuse," but it is corrupted to the point that it cannot be completely trusted and needs to be "recreated." 3) Part of Christian salvation consists in this very thing, i.e., the recreation of the inner image of God and thus the reconstruction of the inner moral compass. This is done not from within but from the outside, through the inspired teaching of apostles and prophets (2 Tim 3:16-17), such as Paul is providing to the Ephesians and Colossians in these very letters. This is the fulfilment of Jer 31:33: the law is re written on the minds and hearts of willing Christians through the Spirit-inspired words of the New Covenant revelation.

The error of Cranfield and others, who hold the second view described above, is that they equate "written on their hearts" in 2:15 with the third step in the scenario above, whereas it should be equated with the first step. Knowledge of the basic content of God's moral law was implanted in human nature at creation, and enough of it remains in every individual to make him responsible for breaking the law. This is true of the most isolated Gentile, and also of the most rehabilitated Christian. This explains how the items on Paul's vice list in 1:29-31 are known by Gentiles to be wrong. This inward knowledge of God's law is part of God's general revelation since it is available to all people without exception.

Now we turn to the next part of v. 15, which focuses on another innate aspect of human nature, the conscience: their consciences also bearing witness . . . . The most important thing to know about the conscience is that it is not the same as "the work of the law written on the heart." The conscience itself has no content; it is not in itself a source of knowledge about right and wrong. It is rather an ability, a function (Murray, I:75). Specifically, conscience is the function of comparing our deeds with an accepted standard of morality, and of prodding us with a sense of guilt when a deed does not conform to the standard. It "examines and passes judgment on a man's conduct" (Bruce, 91). As Lard says, "Conscience originates no truth. It merely approves conformity to truth, or to what is held as truth, and condemns violations of it" (48-49). See Moo, I:148.

Whether the conscience functions properly or not depends on the accuracy of the standard with which it compares our deeds. To the degree to which the image of God remains intact within any individual, the conscience will work as intended by God. To the degree that the law-content written on the heart has been corrupted, the conscience will malfunction. It is similar to a spelling-check computer program. The function of the program is to compare the user's word entries with a pre-established database. Even if the program is functioning perfectly, it will not produce the right results if there are misspelled words in the database. If the words in the original database are correct, then the results can be trusted.

The only thing needed to make such a program more analogous to the conscience is the addition of a small handle the user can grip while the check is being made. If the word being checked is incorrect, the errant speller would receive a mild electrical shock. This would be equivalent to the "pangs" of conscience felt after doing wrong. This is how the conscience "bears witness" to the individual concerning the rightness of God's moral law, in addition to the witness of the internally-written law itself.

It is extremely important to remember this: wherever the knowledge of God's law has been corrupted, suppressed, exchanged, or in any way violated, the conscience will continue to function but will not produce trustworthy results. Until one has submitted to the saving work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and has allowed the truth of biblical revelation to reinform his original moral database, the conscience will at times, perhaps most of the time, yield false results. "Always let your conscience be your guide" is bad theology. Actually, the conscience itself needs a guide or standard, and the only sure guide for sinners is the objective Word of God, the Bible.

The last part of v. 15, (. . . and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) , in my opinion is not different from the working of the conscience but is a clarification of how it works (so Moo, I:149; and Cranfield, I:162; contra Dunn, I:102). The functioning conscience results in an inner dialogue, forcing the mind to verbalize thoughts such as "This must be OK," or "You know that's wrong, don't you?" Our thoughts either accuse us or defend us in reference to our deeds. These are technical legal terms that suggest a courtroom trial where the individual is the defendant and his own conscience-driven thoughts are both the prosecuting attorney and the defense lawyer.

This inner witness or testimony occurs day by day, and not just at the final judgment (contra Cranfield, I:162). Also, the accusing or defending happens with reference to individual deeds, and not to anyone's life as a whole. Thus Paul is not saying that on the day of judgment there may be some Gentile whose conscience will excuse him altogether so that he is saved. This is definitely not Paul's point. He is saying only that sometimes in this life, when a Gentile does by nature what the law requires in a certain situation, his conscience will excuse him regarding that one decision. Paul hints that this is the exception rather than the rule, however, since he says their thoughts will accuse them or even defend them, as if the latter is unexpected.

When this inner moral consciousness (the inwardly-written law plus the conscience) is combined with the knowledge of God learned through the created universe (1:18-21), the result is that even the Gentiles know that this law is the law of the Creator-God and that they are guilty before God when they break it and are worthy of the wrath God has ordained for such lawbreakers (see 1:32).

2:16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. It is clear that this verse concludes the paragraph, but its exact connection with the preceding text is uncertain. The words "this will take place" are not in the original, where the beginning words are "on which day God will judge." The idea is that some action mentioned in the preceding verse or verses will take place on the day of judgment. What action does Paul have in mind?

Some connect this verse directly with v. 15 and say that it specifies when the "accusing" and "defending" will take place as an act of final, climactic self-judgment (Moo, I:150; Morris, 128). Others see vv. 14-15 as a parenthesis, as in the NIV, and thus connect v. 16 with v. 13. The action that will take place "on the day" is the condemning and justifying of vv. 12-13. Finally, some think v. 16 is an inclusive reference to all the main verbs pointing to Judgment Day in vv. 1-15: "will be revealed," v. 5; "will be judged," v. 12; "will be declared righteous" v. 13; and maybe "accusing" and "defending," v. 15 (see Hendriksen, I:96).

The first of these views seems much too limited to do justice to the dramatic thought of v. 16. The second view is possible. The last view is probably the best, and we should think of v. 15 as ending in a dash - with v. 16 bringing the preceding thoughts to a climax and wrapping them up in a neat package. This effect is achieved when we add the word "all" to the NIV's added phrase, thus: "All this will take place . . . ."

This "day when God will judge" is the same as "the day of God's wrath" (v. 5). In v. 16 the word "judge" (krinô ) seems to have its more general meaning of "pass judgment on." God will judge not just external and public deeds but also "men's secrets" - the hidden things of men's hearts as well as deeds done in private. The omniscience of God makes this possible (1 Sam 16:7; 1 John 3:20). Jesus stressed this point especially in reference to the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders (Matt 6:4, 6, 18; 23:25-28), an application that is relevant to the thought in the next paragraph (2:17-24).

Paul adds a Christological note at this point: the judgment will take place "through Jesus Christ" (see 1:3-4). This means that Jesus is involved not only in the gospel of salvation through grace, but also in the process of judgment according to law. For other references to Jesus as judge, see Matt 25:31-33; John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 22:12.

The words "as my gospel declares" (literally, "according to my gospel") are a bit of a problem for exegetes. Exactly what does this phrase modify? Dunn (I:103) says it means Christ will judge according to the gospel, i.e., that the gospel will be the measure of judgment. There is a sense in which this is so (see Rev 20:15), but that is not the point here. In this entire context Paul is explaining what it means to be judged according to law, not according to the gospel.

Others say it means, "My gospel declares that God will judge the world." It is true that God will judge the world, but is this piece of information good news (gospel)? Certainly it sets the stage for the good news, since the reality of the judgment is what makes the gospel all the more meaningful and welcome (see Morris, 129).

Probably the best understanding is this: "My gospel declares that the judge will be Christ Jesus" (see Cranfield, I:163). "This last alternative does most justice to the somewhat unexpected reference to the gospel," says Moo (I:151). That Jesus will be the judge is good news because it points to the fact that there is a judgment beyond that of law, a judgment according to the grace established by the judge himself in his atoning death and victorious resurrection.

D. JEWS WHO LOOK TO THE LAW FOR SALVATION ARE CONDEMNED BY THEIR OWN DISOBEDIENCE (2:17-24)

No one will be saved by his relationship to the law of God. Gentiles will not be saved by their ignorance of the law, because in fact they have knowledge of it. Jews will not be saved by their possession of the Law of Moses , because the only way to be saved by any law is through perfect obedience to it. There are no exceptions. God does not show favoritism, even to the Jews, when it comes to the final judgment.

In the previous paragraph Paul made the point that only doers of the law, not merely hearers or possessers, can be saved by the law system. Where does this leave the Jew? If he can no longer count on his privileged position as possessor of the law to secure his salvation, then his only hope (under law) is to obey it perfectly.

It seems that some Jews believed they were actually sinless before the law (Luke 18:9-14), including Paul (Saul) when he was a Pharisee (Phil 3:5-6). But Paul's point in this paragraph is that this is a lie. The Jews in fact are not "doers of the law," but are guilty of breaking the very law they glory in. The law they regard as a ticket to heaven shines like a spotlight upon their sin (3:20), thus dissolving their final hope before the law.

The first thing Paul does in this paragraph is dissect the nature of the Jews' hope in the law, the grounds for their law-based confidence as the specially-chosen stewards of the Mosaic revelation (vv. 17-20). Then in the second half of the paragraph he rips off their mask of hypocrisy and exposes their own sinfulness (vv. 21-24). This latter segment is to the Jews what 1:29-31 was to the Gentiles.

2:17 Paul returns now to the diatribe style, which he suspended in vv. 6-16, and speaks directly to the Jews in the person of their anonymous representative: Now you, if you call yourself a Jew . . . . The Jews have been Paul's main target all along in chapter 2, but this is the first time he addresses them specifically as Jews.

The name "Jew" comes from the name "Judah," which is related to the Hebrew verb hdy ( yadah ), "to praise" (see Gen 29:35; 49:8). It was originally used for those who occupied Judah's allotment in the Promised Land. But after the Babylonian exile this was just about all that remained of the original Israel anyway; so all Israelites came to be called Jews. By Paul's time this had been their own favored self-designation for several generations, replacing "Israelite" and "Hebrew." It was "a name accepted with pride" (Dunn, I:109).

Paul is not saying it is wrong for the Jews to call themselves Jews. In fact, most of the things he ascribes to the Jews in vv. 17-20 are not wrong in themselves. Almost all the claims and roles described here are things the Jews were supposed to do and be. The irony is that all these genuine privileges and prerogatives were trivialized by the Jews' false self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

Verse 17 includes two further descriptions of the Jewish self-confidence: if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God . . . . The first of these is the only inappropriate one in the whole list, and it skews all the rest. Relying on (resting upon, resting their hopes upon) the law was the Jew's root problem. "The Jew rested upon . . . the mere fact of having the law, as a ground of safety. In his estimation its bare bestowment on him proved him to be favored of God above all others. Confident of this favor, he had no fear" (Lard, 90). Instead of relying upon their role as recipients of the Mosaic Law, they should have relied upon the mercy of God (2:4).

The Jews also bragged or boasted about their relationship to God. The Greek expression says simply "you are boasting in God." The verb is kaucavomai ( kauchaomai ), "to boast, to glory, to exult." The fact is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "boasting in God," when done with the right spirit. It means to praise him and rejoice in him. Jer 9:23-24 exhorts, "Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD." Paul twice refers to this text (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17). See also 5:2, 11; Gal 6:14; Phil 3:3. The problem with the Jews was that their boasting in God was selfish and exclusive, as if they alone had a claim upon God (3:27, 29). It was a kind of name-dropping, a "self-centred boasting in him as a basis for one's own self-importance" (Cranfield, I:164).

2:18 if you know his will . . . . Even those who have only general revelation know God's will to a degree, but possessing his special revelation makes this knowledge more explicit and more complete. Certainly as possessors of the Law of Moses, the Jews knew God's will more thoroughly than anyone else up to the time of the New Covenant revelation. This is something they could rightly rejoice in.

The next clause, and approve of what is superior , also appears in Phil 1:10. Each of the two key words has two nuances, which leads to differences in interpretation. The word for "approve" (dokimavzw , dokimazô ) can also mean "to distinguish, to discern." The word for "superior" (diafevrw , diapherô ) can also mean "to differ." Thus one view is that the clause means, "You know how to discern what differs from God's will, you know how to tell right from wrong." This is the basis for the NEB's "You are aware of moral distinctions." Another view is that it means, "You know how to discern the superior elements within God's will, the things that matter, the essentials" (Cranfield, I:166; Phil 1:10, NIV). The last view is the one the NIV gives here in 2:18, "You approve of what is superior" (see also KJV, NASB). Either of the last two meanings is acceptable.

Both of these things - knowing God's will and discerning the essentials - are possible because you are instructed by the law . . . . This is the law's proper function, and the Jews would have been much better off if they had left it at that. Also, both of these things are commendable, as long as they are not considered to be a replacement for obedience. The error "lies not in knowing God's will, but in regarding this knowledge, by itself, as a mark of superiority, and ground of acceptance with God" (Lard, 91).

2:19 In this verse and the next Paul lists four basically similar things the Jews considered themselves to be. Because you know the Law of Moses so well, he says, . . . you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark . . . . In Scripture both blindness and darkness are used figuratively to represent ignorance, especially ignorance of spiritual things. Both are dispelled by knowledge of the truth, which comes from the Word of God (Ps 119:105; John 17:17; Rom 2:20).

It was Israel's great privilege and responsibility to be "a light for the Gentiles" and "to open eyes that are blind" (Isa 42:6-7; 49:6). They were not commissioned to do this through worldwide missionary activity, but were meant to accomplish this indirectly through their faithful preparation for the coming Messiah, who himself would be the direct source of light and sight to the world (Luke 2:32; 4:18). The problem was that the Jews refused to accept their secondary role in this plan, and regarded themselves as the ultimate and final source of truth.

2:20 . The Jew also considered himself to be an instructor of the foolish , a teacher of infants . . . . These are slightly different ways of saying the same thing, and, like the two roles in 2:19, are in themselves commendable. An "instructor" is an educator, a teacher; the verb form often refers to correction and chastisement. "The foolish strictly are the unintelligent (NEB, 'stupid'), those lacking the ability to think things out," says Morris. This is not talking about IQ as such, but "perception in spiritual things" (133). Someone can be MENSA material or a scientific genius, and still be foolish in his thinking about God and morality.

The word for "infants" means literally just that: infants, babies. It is often used figuratively for the spiritually immature, as in the case of new converts or those who have lagged behind in spiritual growth. The NT uses it of immature Christians (1 Cor 3:1; Eph 4:4; Heb 5:13). The Jews of course regarded all Gentiles as foolish, and as spiritual infants or simple-minded children. Thus it is probable that Paul means in both these expressions that the Jews considered themselves to be proper teachers of the Gentiles, especially those who might be new converts to Judaism.

All of these elements of Jewish self-confidence were grounded in one thing: the law. You are convinced you can do these things, says Paul, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth . . . . Indeed, the law possessed by the Jews - not just the Pentateuch but the entire OT - was an embodiment or repository of inspired knowledge and truth, and was therefore "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). The Jews' mistake was the arrogant assumption that their Scriptures were the only source of knowledge and truth (contra 1:18-25, 28, 32) as well as the final source (rejecting the Christian revelation).

2:21 Verse 17 begins with the conditional word, "if," with all of vv. 17-20 depending on it. The expected matching "then" is not explicit at the beginning v. 21 but is only implied: "If this is how you see yourself as a Jew, then why don't you act as a real Jew should act?" . . . you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? This is the beginning of a series of "accusatory rhetorical questions" (Cranfield, I:167), dropped like bombshells into the midst of the smug Jewish complacency. They are based on the moral law as represented by the Ten Commandments.

Phillips renders this first question thus: "But, prepared as you are to instruct others, do you ever teach yourself anything?" The implied answer is "No, you are not teaching yourself." You are not "practicing what you preach." The Psalmist leveled the same accusation against wicked Israelites (Ps 50:16-20), and Jesus accused the Jewish leaders of the same thing (Matt 23:3). In Gal 6:13 Paul declares, "Not even those who are circumcised obey the law." All these references, especially the present text, emphasize the terrible danger of using expertise in the law and ability to teach the law as a cloak or an excuse for breaking it.

From here to the end of v. 22 Paul gives several examples of "practicing what you preach against." None of these accusations implies that all Jews do all of these things all of the time. They are simply meant to drive home the point that every Jew has broken the law at some point, thus erasing all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in reference to the judgment. Jews who break their law are sinners, no less than the Gentiles who break their law. "The argument is that the transgression of any individual Jew is enough to call in question the Jewish assumption that as a Jew he stands in a position of privilege and superiority before God as compared with the Gentile" (Dunn, I:116).

You who preach against stealing, do you steal? We usually associate preaching (khruvssw , kçrussô ) with preaching the gospel, and this is indeed how the word is used most of the time in the NT. On a few occasions, though, it means simply "proclaiming a message" (see Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 3:19; Rev 5:2). To a Jew who gloried in the law (2:23), what greater message could there be than the law? This question, like the others in this series, is meant to stimulate the Jew's slumbering conscience.

2:22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? Again this is a straightforward question meant to stir the conscience and call for self-examination. As Jesus showed in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17-48), the Jews tended to look at a commandment with a very narrow tunnel vision, seeing it as prohibiting a single act. One obeys "Do not murder," for example, as long as he avoids actually killing someone. But Jesus says that rash anger and demeaning words also violate this commandment (Matt 5:21-22). The same is true of the seventh commandment, "Do not commit adultery." To the Jews this commandment was obeyed as long as one avoided physical sexual contact with someone else's spouse. But Jesus says adultery can be committed in the heart, through lusting after someone who is not your spouse (Matt 5:27-30). In that light Paul's question may not be so easily answered, and few could really answer "Of course not!"

The next question is the most difficult to understand: You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? The first part is easy; the monotheistic Jews took the first two of the ten commandments seriously and in principle hated idolatry. The noun form of the word "abhor" is equivalent to the Hebrew word for "abomination," which was commonly used for idols and idolatry.

But what does Paul mean when he accuses the Jews of robbing temples (iJerosulevw , hierosuleô )? Several views have been suggested, and it is difficult to be dogmatic about any one of them. Some see this word as referring to the literal theft of idols from pagan temples (see Acts 19:37), especially those made of precious metals, which could be melted down and sold for gain. This practice is specifically forbidden in Deut 7:25. Also, throughout OT history the Jews were constantly being seduced by the idolatrous practices of their pagan neighbors, so Paul could also be referring to the theft of idols for personal worship. If the robbing of pagan temples is Paul's point, the latter purpose would seem to be what he has in mind, since stealing as such has already been mentioned, and since it would contrast better with "abhorring idols."

Another suggestion is that Paul is talking about some kind of practice that robs the temple of the true God rather than temples of pagan gods. One such possibility is the misappropriation of tithes brought to the temple for the service of God and used instead for personal purposes (see Stott, 91), or perhaps the withholding of one's own tithes, which Mal 3:8 describes as stealing from God. One problem with this view is how this could be parallel to idolatry, but perhaps the equation of greed with idolatry in Col 3:5 answers this.

A third view takes the word to mean "commit sacrilege" against the true God in some general, unspecified sense, without any literal temple theft being involved (Cranfield, I:169-170). In this sense it could be a reference to the next two verses, which accuse the Jews of bringing dishonor upon God by their hypocritical disobedience. The contrast then would be something like this: "You make a big deal of defending God's honor by attacking the reality of all false pagan gods, then turn around and bring shame upon his name by your sin."

The three sins of stealing, adultery, and sacrilege are only a few examples of Jewish hypocrisy; others could no doubt have been cited. Paul's purpose in mentioning these three was to lead the Jews to examine their lives on all matters of the law, and ultimately to realize that they were sinners no less than the Gentiles.

2:23 Some take this verse as a statement: "While you take pride in the law, you dishonour God by breaking it" (NEB). Others (like the NIV) take it as a question, the last in the series beginning in v. 21: You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? Either way, along with the proof text cited in v. 24, it sums up the point of this paragraph and exposes the tragic contradiction in the Jews' relationship with the law.

Just as the Jews boasted (bragged) about their relation to God (v. 17), so they boasted about their relation to his law. Again, the law of God no less than God himself is something believers ought to boast about, in the sense of giving it honor and taking pride in it and rejoicing in its truth and guidance. The whole of Ps 119 is a testimony to this, e.g., "Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long" ( v. 97). The Jews' boasting, however, was self-centered. In Cranfield's words, they sought to use the law as a means of putting God in their debt, and regarded their knowledge of it as making them better than their fellow men (I:170).

In any case all their positive claims regarding the law were negated by their transgression of it. Their sin brought disrepute not only to the law but also to God himself, since the law cannot be separated from the Lawgiver. To show contempt for the law by breaking it is to show contempt for God as well ( GRe , 270-271). This is made even worse when the lawbreaker makes such a big display of the law and his privileged relation to it.

2:24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." This verse begins with the Greek particle gar , "for, because," not translated by the NIV, and thus explains how lawbreaking dishonors God. Not only is it a personal insult against God on the part of the sinner himself, but it also causes others to blaspheme God and make fun of him. Specifically, the sins of the Jews caused the Gentiles to blaspheme God's name.

In ancient cultures one's name was the embodiment of the whole person; in Scripture the name of God stands for everything that God is. Thus to blaspheme God's name is to blaspheme God himself. "Blaspheme" means to speak against or say something bad about; to blaspheme God is to speak against him, to mock or ridicule him, to curse him or rail against him.

"As it is written" indicates Paul is referring to OT Scripture. He seems to be thinking of two texts, Isa 52:5 and Ezek 36:20-23. In each case Israel is enduring the shame of exile, and their Gentile conquerors are pictured as mocking the allegedly great and powerful God whom the Jews bragged about and trusted in, but who could not deliver them from this humiliation. "Some God!" they sneered. "All day long my name is constantly blasphemed," says the Lord (Isa 52:5).

The kind of thing to which Paul is referring is not quite this dramatic, but it is just as damaging to God's "reputation." The Jews portrayed themselves as "the people of the law." Being the recipients and guardians of God's law gave them a bad case of spiritual pride and a sense of superiority over the Gentiles. This also made them and their law and their God very vulnerable to criticism and ridicule when they sinned against the very law they gloried in. "If you think your law is so hot, how come you don't obey it? If you think so much of your God, why do you break his law? They don't really mean all that much to you, do they? Ha! Some law! Some God!"

The bottom line of this paragraph is that the Jews can forget about appealing to the law in any way as the basis for their hope on the day of judgment. Under law nothing but obedience counts, and in this department the Jews' record is no better than that of the Gentiles.

E. TRUE JEWISHNESS IS IDENTIFIED NOT BY CIRCUMCISION BUT BY THE INWARD STATE

OF THE HEART (2:25-29)

The Jews considered themselves to be safe from wrath and condemnation because they saw themselves as encircled with the protective shield of the law. But thus far in chapter 2 the Apostle Paul has thoroughly dismantled this defense, showing that the Jews' own sin renders it ineffective. Now in vv. 25-29 he pictures the Jews as regrouping and retreating within their final stronghold, behind their final line of defense: circumcision. Circumcision was their concrete, physical evidence that they were children of Abraham and were thus protected by the covenant that God had made with Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:1-14). Moo well sums up the attitude Paul is addressing here: "How can we be treated the same as Gentiles (vv. 6-11), even to the point of being in danger of the wrath of God (cf. v. 5), when our circumcision marks us as belonging to God's chosen people, heirs of the Abrahamic promises?" (I:163). (See page 173 above for quotations from rabbinic literature regarding the saving efficacy of circumcision.)

Paul's purpose in this paragraph, then, is to do with circumcision what he has already done with the law, namely, show that it is no basis for special treatment on Judgment Day. I.e., the Apostle "turns his fire so as to dislodge the Jew from this deceptive stronghold. He drives him from his hope and trust in circumcision" (MP, 315).

Paul accomplishes this in two steps. First (vv. 25-27), continuing in the diatribe style, he shows that circumcision does not take precedence over the law's more fundamental requirement, obedience itself. As he has done throughout the chapter thus far, here he continues to speak of judgment according to the rules of law. When God renders his final judgment for those under law (not under grace), he will divide them into two groups. But, contrary to the Jews' expectation, those two groups will not be the circumcised and the uncircumcised (equivalent to the Jews and the Gentiles). Rather, God will say, "All those who have obeyed the law as you have known it - circumcised or not - come over here. All who have disobeyed the law - circumcised or not - go over there." Thus under law uncircumcised persons could conceivably be saved and circumcised persons lost.

Second (vv. 28-29), Paul abandons the diatribe style and brings all of chapter 2 to a climax. For the first and only time in this first main section of Romans (1:18-3:20), he steps outside the sphere of law and sets forth a basic principle of grace salvation, i.e., true Jewishness is identified not by circumcision but by the inward state of the heart. Physical Jewishness, marked by physical circumcision, is not the measure of salvation; spiritual circumcision is.

2:25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law . . . . To his anonymous Jewish dialogue partner Paul succinctly sums up the circumstances under which physical circumcision will profit or be of value on Judgment Day. He says in effect, "To be sure, your circumcision does identify you with the family of Abraham, the chosen people, which gives you certain advantages and reasons to rejoice on an earthly level (3:1-2; 9:4-5). And there is even a sense in which your physical circumcision can help to usher you into heaven. You will remember that circumcision was incorporated into Moses' Law; therefore your reception of circumcision identifies you with that law and obligates you to keep the whole law (Gal 5:3). Because of this, circumcision viewed as a saving act cannot be separated from obedience to the entire law as the ground of your salvation. Thus we are back to the principle set forth in 2:13 - the doer of the (whole) law will be justified. Thus circumcision can save you 'if you observe the law,' i.e., if it is part of a life of complete and total obedience to the law."

We must be very careful not to read into v. 25a any reference to Christian faith or salvation by grace. The false covenant theology created in Reformed circles in the sixteenth century has caused some interpreters to transform "observe the law" into "believe in and live by the gospel" (e.g., Murray, I:85-86). But this misses the whole point. In vv. 25-27 Paul is still talking about the conditions of salvation under law, not grace; and the saving efficacy of law is clearly conditional upon perfect obedience: " if you observe the law." As in the earlier parts of this chapter, though, such an accomplishment is treated only as hypothetical. (See Moo, I:164.)

The other side of this coin, which represents reality, is then given: but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. "If you break the law" must be seen in light of Gal 3:10 and Gal 5:3, and thus understood as meaning "if you break the law even once" (see Jas 2:10). As a lawtruster, if you break just a single commandment, you will be under the curse of God's wrath. Your circumcision will be irrelevant; you will be in exactly the same boat as an uncircumcised person (a Gentile) when he breaks his law.

2:26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? Here Paul continues to show the irrelevance of circumcision by showing how it affects the uncircumcised person, the Gentile. In what sense might such a person "keep the law's requirements"? Some say Paul is talking about Gentile Christians and their humble faith and faithful obedience to God under grace (Cranfield, I:173; Murray; I:86). This is a serious mistake, however. As in the previous verse Paul is still talking about final salvation or condemnation on the day of judgment, as determined by the principles of law. If a Gentile keeps all the righteous ordinances of the law, he will be saved even though he has not been circumcised. This is a conditional statement which never becomes actualized, though, because of the universality of sin.

Paul does not make this statement in order to give the Gentile hope under the law. He says it to the Jews, in order to doubly emphasize the irrelevance of circumcision under the judgment of the law. Not only is circumcision impotent as "a certain passport to heaven" (Barrett, 58) for any Jew who has sinned (v. 25), but its absence will not prevent the salvation of any Gentile who obeys every law of which he is aware by means of general revelation (v. 26). This of course would not include circumcision, since the circumcision requirement was known only through special revelation.

The whole point is to show the Jews that, as sinners, it is futile to trust their physical Jewishness as their key to salvation. Physical descent from Abraham, membership in the Abrahamic covenant, physical circumcision, possession of the specially-revealed Mosaic Law - all will be of no avail under law without a perfect record of personal righteousness, which they did not have.

2:27 In the beginning of this verse Paul mentions again the hypothetical Gentile who keeps the law: The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law . . . . That the category is empty is shown by 1:18-32; 3:9. This does not affect Paul's point, though, since the mere possibility that a Gentile could ever sit in judgment on a Jew was an abomination to the Jewish mind. Yet this is exactly what Paul says could happen, in principle: that the obedient Gentile will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

The Gentile here is called uncircumcised "by nature" (translated "physically"). This does not mean simply uncircumcised at birth , since this is true of everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. The term for "not circumcised" is simply a shorthand for "Gentile," who is indeed born a Gentile, while the Israelite is physically a Jew by birth.

The verb krivnw (krinô ) probably does have its stronger meaning of "condemn" in this verse, as the NIV says. The obedient Gentile will condemn the disobedient Jews not as a judge as such, but "as a witness for the prosecution" (Cranfield, I:174). It is "probably the indirect judging of comparison. On the day of judgment, the Gentile, with his poor advantages, will condemn, by his superior conduct the lawlessness of the Jew" (MP, 316). In fact, as Lard notes (97-98), this will be true even when a Gentile is not perfectly righteous and therefore not saved, but at the same time is relatively more righteous than certain Jews. This may be hinted at in Matt 11:21-22; 12:41-42. "Their obedience to the law itself will stand as accusatory evidence against the disobedient Jew" (Moo, I:168).

Paul says the Jews are transgressors of the law in spite of the fact that they had "the written code and circumcision." These are the two great advantages the Jews had over the Gentiles: the law of God in its objectively written form, not just as subjectively written on the heart (v. 15); and circumcision as the symbol of the great covenant God made with Abraham. Yet in spite of these advantages the Jews sinned against God. In fact, these two great blessings were major instruments of their sin, since the Jews used them and presumed upon them as artificial bases for their hope, thus opening the floodgates of hypocrisy and bringing dishonor upon God. No wonder Paul says the Gentiles will condemn them!

2:28 The point of this main section of Romans is that no one can be saved when judged according to the rules of law. The Jews were willing to accept this as true for everyone except themselves. "This does not apply to us," they thought. Why not? "Because we are Jews . We are special. We are Abraham's children. We are circumcised. We have, not just any law, but the Law of Moses. God does not treat us as he treats other people."

In one sense, and on one level, all of this is true. On the physical level God used this one nation of mankind for the greatest mission imaginable: He used them to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, and even to supply his human nature (9:5). Just to be a Jew was to be involved in this mission, however marginally.

As I have indicated earlier, the Jews' critical error was to assume that this privileged status with regard to service also gave them a privileged status with regard to salvation. They assumed that their mere physical identity as Jews, marked by circumcision, was all they needed to be right with God. Romans 2 specifically refutes this idea. The picture here is of the Jew, sitting in stunned silence, contemplating the force of what Paul has just said, feeling the confidence he has had in his physical identity as a Jew melting away. We may picture him crying out in desperation, "If Jews are not special, who is? If my circumcision doesn't please God, what does?"

Even though Paul is not quite ready to get into this sort of question in detail, he does pause in these two verses to give us a foretaste of the message of grace. The person who is truly accepted by God, he says, is right with him on a different level - not the flesh, but the spirit. The things that make him special to God are not on the outside, such as physical birth as a Jew, physical circumcision, and mere outward obedience to the law's commands. Rather, they are on the inside, where God alone can see them.

This has always been true, in OT times as well as now in NT times. Paul states this truth specifically for NT times in Phil 3:3, "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh . . . ." But since in 2:28-29 Paul is still basically addressing Jews, he makes this point using the terminology of Jewishness. In these verses the word Jew is a metaphor for saved persons of all ages. Not all Jews (by birth) are real Jews (9:6). Not all circumcised people have had the circumcision that really counts.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. This verse is the negative side of Paul's point; it states what true Jewishness is not. It is not based on external circumstances, such as physical birth to Jewish parents. Likewise, the circumcision that counts for eternity is not the outward circumcision of the male genitals.

2:29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly . . . . Here is the positive description of true Jewishness. "Inwardly" is literally "in secret," which is a way of describing either actions or states of the heart which only God can see (Matt 6:4, 6; Mark 4:22; 1 Cor 14:25; 1 Pet 3:4). In this case it refers to the latter, as the following statement explains: and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

"The heart" refers to the soul or spirit, the inner man. "By the Spirit" probably refers to the Holy Spirit (as in the NIV), not the human spirit. There is no reason for Paul to mention the human spirit as the locus of this spiritual circumcision since he has already specified this as the heart, which is the same as the human spirit. Circumcision "by the written code" (literally, "by the letter") means physical circumcision in obedience to the commands of the law.

The distinction between external circumcision as the sign of membership in the covenant people, and inward circumcision as that which makes the individual acceptable to God, is found both in the Law of Moses and in the prophets (Deut 10:16; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7; see Acts 7:51). There was no inherent connection between the outward and the inward forms of circumcision. Physical circumcision was a prominent and familiar phenomenon in Jewish experience; thus Moses and the prophets found it to be a convenient and appropriate analogy for the inward change God required for acceptance by him. The relation between the two is purely illustrative, and referring to this inward change as "circumcision" is situational and incidental.

In pre-Messianic times the inner circumcision was limited to the individual's own spiritual heart-cleansing, his turning from sin and his surrender to God's will through faith and repentance. A person whose heart was hardened toward God and set on sin was "uncircumcised of heart and ears" (Lev 26:41; Jer 6:10; 9:26; Acts 7:51). God's prophetic word exhorted such people to circumcise their hearts (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4). In OT times the Holy Spirit was not directly involved in this act of spiritual circumcision; a spiritual circumcision performed by God himself was prophesied as a blessing associated with the Messianic age (Deut 30:6; see Ezek 36:26-27; John 7:37-39).

True circumcision in the Messianic age, in fulfilment of Deut 30:6, includes the working of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts. Since Paul is speaking from the perspective of the Messianic age, he describes this inner circumcision as it takes place now, not as it occurred in the OT era. How does the working of the Spirit make the inner circumcision different in the NT age? On the one hand, it does not change the requirement for the individual to circumcise his own heart (as in Jer 4:4) by surrendering his own will to God in faith and repentance. The Holy Spirit has always been indirectly involved in this human decision as he prods the heart through the inspired Word of God, but the individual must still make the decision for himself. This is nothing new for our time.

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit does add a new element to this spiritual circumcision, a work of salvation unique to the Messianic age. We call it the new birth (John 3:3, 5), regeneration (Titus 3:5), and resurrection from spiritual death (Col 2:12-13). This is an inward change worked directly upon our hearts (see Col 2:11), helping us to cut our ties with sin and to obey God's will from the heart out. (This will be discussed further under chapter 6 below.)

Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. The true Jew's praise is not from men, because other human beings cannot see the heart, where the true circumcision occurs. Sometimes in our fallible evaluations of others based on externals, we praise or think highly of some individuals whose hearts warrant otherwise. Also, sometimes we ignore or think little of someone whose heart makes him a force for God. It is a comfort to know that the infallible God, who is greater than our hearts and knows all things (1 John 3:20), is able to discern and praise the true Jew, both now and in the final judgment (2:16).

An issue that requires comment is the supposed relevance of this paragraph, especially vv. 28-29, to the question of baptism. The suggestion is that the word "Christian" can be substituted there for "Jew," and the word "baptism" for "circumcision." This suggestion is sometimes based on the supposed equivalence of circumcision and baptism, especially as taught in Reformed theology. Sometimes it comes from the assumption that what Paul says in these verses applies to all externals as such. As Morris says, "Many commentators point out that Christian readers should remember that what is said here of circumcision applies with equal force to baptism" (140). Stott is an example: "What Paul writes here about circumcision and being a Jew could also be said about baptism and being a Christian. The real Christian, like the real Jew, is one inwardly; and the true baptism, like the true circumcision, is in the heart and by the Spirit" (94).

Now, it is true that some church members rest their hope of heaven on the fact that they have been physically baptized, even though their hearts and lives are far from God. In this sense there is a parallel with what Paul says about nominal Jews. Not all those who are physically circumcised/baptized are spiritually circumcised/baptized.

But here is where the parallel stops. The reason it cannot be pressed further is that, contrary to the widely-held assumption, Christian baptism is not the New Covenant equivalent of or successor to Old Covenant circumcision. Concerning the latter, we can say (indeed, it is Paul's point) that physical circumcision can exist without spiritual circumcision, and vice versa. The NT does not warrant our saying the same thing about baptism, though. We definitely should say that physical baptism can occur without spiritual baptism (contrary to the view called "baptismal regeneration"). But we cannot be true to NT teaching and say that in ordinary Christian experience spiritual baptism can occur without physical baptism.

We must remember the context in which Paul's remarks are made. He is speaking of true salvation, whether in the OT age or in the NT age; and he is speaking of it as it relates to the Jews' false trust in their physical heritage, especially circumcision. It is a serious mistake to try to draw a general principle from this that would go against every NT comment as to the meaning of baptism. (See my book, Baptism: A Biblical Study .)

But what about Col 2:11-12? Does this not show a connection between baptism and circumcision? Actually, no. The only connection here is between the spiritual circumcision performed on the repentant believer by the Holy Spirit (v. 11) in the NT era, and the time God has appointed for this spiritual circumcision to take place, namely, "in baptism" (v. 12). There is no connection at all between baptism and Old Covenant physical circumcision. In the OT the latter is merely a handy analogy of the spiritual circumcision individuals were exhorted to perform on themselves; and even this self-accomplished OT spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to the Holy Spirit-produced spiritual circumcision of the Messianic age. Christian baptism was established by God (for one thing) to be the appointed time when this new kind of spiritual circumcision would take place.

McGarvey: Rom 2:22

thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans

Spring of a.d. 57

By Way of Introduction

Integrity of the Epistle

The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Rom_16:2) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul’s long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Rom_16:3-5) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan’s theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Co_1:20, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul’s remarks about going to Rome (Rom_1:9-16) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added Rom_16:25-27 some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves Rom_15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

The Time and Place

The place is settled if we accept Rom_16:1. The time of the year is in the spring if we combine statements in the Acts and the Epistle. He says: " I am now going to Jerusalem ministering to the saints" (Rom_15:25). In Act_20:3 we read that Paul spent three months in Corinth. In II Corinthians we have a full account of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The account of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is given in Acts 20:3-21:17. It was in the spring between passover at Philippi (Act_20:6) and pentecost in Jerusalem (Act_20:16; Act_21:17). The precise year is not quite so certain, but we may suggest a.d. 57 or 58 with reasonable confidence.

The Purpose

Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Act_19:21) and had often made his plans to do so (Rom_1:13) which were interrupted (Rom_15:22), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Rom_15:26), to Rome and then on to Spain (Rom_15:24, Rom_15:28). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul’s gospel really is (Rom_1:15; Rom_2:16). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. So in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Rom_1:17) of both Gentile (Rom_1:18-32) and Jew (Romans 2:1-3:20) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans 3:21-5:21). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters Romans 6-8). This is Paul’s gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world’s life. Nowhere does Paul’s Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul’s ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Rom_15:20), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.

JFB: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE GENUINENESS of the Epistle to the Romans has never been questioned. It has the unbroken testimony of all antiquity, up to CLEMENT OF ROME, the apostle's "fellow laborer in the Gospel, whose name was in the Book of Life" (Phi 4:3), and who quotes from it in his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians, written before the close of the first century. The most searching investigations of modern criticism have left it untouched.

WHEN and WHERE this Epistle was written we have the means of determining with great precision, from the Epistle itself compared with the Acts of the Apostles. Up to the date of it the apostle had never been at Rome (Rom 1:11, Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15). He was then on the eve of visiting Jerusalem with a pecuniary contribution for its Christian poor from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, after which his purpose was to pay a visit to Rome on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23-28). Now this contribution we know that he carried with him from Corinth, at the close of his third visit to that city, which lasted three months (Act 20:2-3; Act 24:17). On this occasion there accompanied him from Corinth certain persons whose names are given by the historian of the Acts (Act 20:4), and four of these are expressly mentioned in our Epistle as being with the apostle when he wrote it--Timotheus, Sosipater, Gaius, and Erastus (Rom 16:21, Rom 16:23). Of these four, the third, Gaius, was an inhabitant of Corinth (1Co 1:14), and the fourth, Erastus, was "chamberlain of the city" (Rom 16:23), which can hardly be supposed to be other than Corinth. Finally, Phœbebe, the bearer, as appears, of this Epistle, was a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth (Rom 16:1). Putting these facts together, it is impossible to resist the conviction, in which all critics agree, that Corinth was the place from which the Epistle was written, and that it was despatched about the close of the visit above mentioned, probably in the early spring of the year 58.FOUNDER of this celebrated church is unknown. That it owed its origin to the apostle Peter, and that he was its first bishop, though an ancient tradition and taught in the Church of Rome as a fact not to be doubted, is refuted by the clearest evidence, and is given up even by candid Romanists. On that supposition, how are we to account for so important a circumstance being passed by in silence by the historian of the Acts, not only in the narrative of Peter's labors, but in that of Paul's approach to the metropolis, of the deputations of Roman "brethren" that came as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet him, and of his two years' labors there (Act 28:15, Act 28:30)? And how, consistently with his declared principle--not to build on another man's foundation (Rom 15:20) --could he express his anxious desire to come to them that he might have some fruit among them also, even as among other Gentiles (Rom 1:13), if all the while he knew that they had the apostle of the circumcision for their spiritual father? And how, if so, is there no salutation to Peter among the many in this Epistle? or, if it may be thought that he was known to be elsewhere at that particular time, how does there occur in all the Epistles which our apostle afterwards wrote from Rome not one allusion to such an origin of the church at Rome? The same considerations would seem to prove that this church owed its origin to no prominent Christian laborer; and this brings us to the much-litigated question.

For WHAT CLASS of Christians was this Epistle principally designed--Jewish or Gentile? That a large number of Jews and Jewish proselytes resided at this time at Rome is known to all who are familiar with the classical and Jewish writers of that and the immediately subsequent periods; and that those of them who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:10), and formed probably part of the three thousand converts of that day, would on their return to Rome carry the glad tidings with them, there can be no doubt. Nor are indications wanting that some of those embraced in the salutations of this Epistle were Christians already of long standing, if not among the earliest converts to the Christian faith. Others of them who had made the apostle's acquaintance elsewhere, and who, if not indebted to him for their first knowledge of Christ, probably owed much to his ministrations, seemed to have charged themselves with the duty of cherishing and consolidating the work of the Lord in the capital. And thus it is not improbable that up to the time of the apostle's arrival the Christian community at Rome had been dependent upon subordinate agency for the increase of its numbers, aided by occasional visits of stated preachers from the provinces; and perhaps it may be gathered from the salutations of the last chapter that it was up to that time in a less organized, though far from less flourishing state, than some other churches to whom the apostle had already addressed Epistles. Certain it is, that the apostle writes to them expressly as a Gentile Church (Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15; Rom 15:15-16); and though it is plain that there were Jewish Christians among them, and the whole argument presupposes an intimate acquaintance on the part of his readers with the leading principles of the Old Testament, this will be sufficiently explained by supposing that the bulk of them, having before they knew the Lord been Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith, had entered the pale of the Christian Church through the gate of the ancient economy.

It remains only to speak briefly of the PLAN and CHARACTER Of this Epistle. Of all the undoubted Epistles of our apostle, this is the most elaborate, and at the same time the most glowing. It has just as much in common with a theological treatise as is consistent with the freedom and warmth of a real letter. Referring to the headings which we have prefixed to its successive sections, as best exhibiting the progress of the argument and the connection of its points, we here merely note that its first great topic is what may be termed the legal relation of man to God as a violator of His holy law, whether as merely written on the heart, as in the case of the heathen, or, as in the case of the Chosen People, as further known by external revelation; that it next treats of that legal relation as wholly reversed through believing connection with the Lord Jesus Christ; and that its third and last great topic is the new life which accompanies this change of relation, embracing at once a blessedness and a consecration to God which, rudimentally complete already, will open, in the future world, into the bliss of immediate and stainless fellowship with God. The bearing of these wonderful truths upon the condition and destiny of the Chosen People, to which the apostle next comes, though it seem but the practical application of them to his kinsmen according to the flesh, is in some respects the deepest and most difficult part of the whole Epistle, carrying us directly to the eternal springs of Grace to the guilty in the sovereign love and inscrutable purposes of God; after which, however, we are brought back to the historical platform of the visible Church, in the calling of the Gentiles, the preservation of a faithful Israelitish remnant amidst the general unbelief and fall of the nation, and the ultimate recovery of all Israel to constitute, with the Gentiles in the latter day, one catholic Church of God upon earth. The remainder of the Epistle is devoted to sundry practical topics, winding up with salutations and outpourings of heart delightfully suggestive.

JFB: Romans (Outline)

• INTRODUCTION. (Rom. 1:1-17)
• THE JEW UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE. (Rom. 2:1-29)
• JEWISH OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. (Rom 3:1-8)
• THAT THE JEW IS SHUT UP UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE IS PROVED BY HIS OWN SCRIPTURE. (Rom 3:9-20)
• GOD'S JUSTIFYING RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, ALIKE ADAPTED TO OUR NECESSITIES AND WORTHY OF HIMSELF. (Rom 3:21-26)
• INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING DOCTRINES AND AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. (Rom 3:27-31)
• THE FOREGOING DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ILLUSTRATED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Rom. 4:1-25)
• THE BLESSED EFFECTS OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Rom 5:1-11)
• COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ADAM AND CHRIST IN THEIR RELATION TO THE HUMAN FAMILY. (Rom 5:12-21)
• THE BEARING OF JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE UPON A HOLY LIFE. (Rom 6:1-11)
• WHAT PRACTICAL USE BELIEVERS SHOULD MAKE OF THEIR DEATH TO SIN AND LIFE TO GOD THROUGH UNION TO THE CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR. (Rom 6:12-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Rom. 7:1-25)
• CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT--THE GLORIOUS COMPLETENESS OF THEM THAT ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. (Rom. 8:1-39)
• THE BEARING OF THE FOREGOING TRUTHS UPON THE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE--ELECTION--THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES. (Rom. 9:1-33)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--HOW ISRAEL CAME TO MISS SALVATION, AND THE GENTILES TO FIND IT. (Rom. 10:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED--THE ULTIMATE INBRINGING OF ALL ISRAEL, TO BE, WITH THE GENTILES, ONE KINGDOM OF GOD ON THE EARTH. (Rom. 11:1-36)
• DUTIES OF BELIEVERS, GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. (Rom. 12:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONS--MOTIVES. (Rom 13:1-14)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE. (Rom. 14:1-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED. (Rom 15:1-13)
• CONCLUSION: IN WHICH THE APOSTLE APOLOGIZES FOR THUS WRITING TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS, EXPLAINS WHY HE HAD NOT YET VISITED THEM, ANNOUNCES HIS FUTURE PLANS, AND ASKS THEIR PRAYERS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THEM. (Rom. 15:14-33)
• CONCLUSION, EMBRACING SUNDRY SALUTATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, AND A CLOSING PRAYER. (Rom. 16:1-27)
• WHY THIS DIVINELY PROVIDED RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NEEDED BY ALL MEN. (Rom 1:18)
• THIS WRATH OF GOD, REVEALED AGAINST ALL INIQUITY, OVERHANGS THE WHOLE HEATHEN WORLD. (Rom 1:18-32)

TSK: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans is " a writing," says Dr. Macknight, " which, for sublimity and truth of sentiment, for brevity and strength of expression, for regularity in its structure, but above all, for the unspeakable importance of the discoveries which it contains, stands unrivalled by any mere human composition, and as far exceeds the most celebrated productions of the learned Greeks and Romans, as the shining of the sun exceeds the twinkling of the stars." " The plan of it is very extensive; and it is surprising to see what a spacious field of knowledge is comprised, and how many various designs, arguments, explications, instructions, and exhortations, are executed in so small a compass....The whole Epistle is to be taken in connection, or considered as one continued discourse; and the sense of every part must be taken from the drift of the whole. Every sentence, or verse, is not to be regarded as a distinct mathematical proposition, or theorem, or as a sentence in the book of Proverbs, whose sense is absolute, and independent of what goes before, or comes after, but we must remember, that every sentence, especially in the argumentative part, bears relation to, and is dependent upon, the whole discourse, and cannot be rightly understood unless we understand the scope and drift of the whole; and therefore, the whole Epistle, or at least the eleven first chapters of it, ought to be read over at once, without stopping. As to the use and excellency of this Epistle, I shall leave it to speak for itself, when the reader has studied and well digested its contents....This Epistle will not be difficult to understand, if our minds are unprejudiced, and at liberty to attend to the subject, and to the current scriptural sense of the words used. Great care is taken to guard and explain every part of the subject; no part of it is left unexplained or unguarded. Sometimes notes are written upon a sentence, liable to exception and wanting explanation, as Rom 2:12-16. Here Rom 2:13 and Rom 2:15 are a comment upon the former part of it. Sometimes are found comments upon a single word; as Rom 10:11-13. Rom 10:12 and Rom 10:13 are a comment upon πας [Strong’s 3956]

TSK: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 2:1, No excuse for sin; Rom 2:6, No escape from judgment; Rom 2:14, Gentiles cannot; Rom 2:17, nor Jews.

Poole: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

MHCC: Romans (Book Introduction)

The scope or design of the apostle in writing to the Romans appears to have been, to answer the unbelieving, and to teach the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian and to convert the idolatrous Gentile; and to show the Gentile convert as equal with the Jewish, in respect of his religious condition, and his rank in the Divine favour. These several designs are brought into on view, by opposing or arguing with the infidel or unbelieving Jew, in favour of the Christian or believing Gentile. The way of a sinner's acceptance with God, or justification in his sight, merely by grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ, without distinction of nations, is plainly stated. This doctrine is cleared from the objections raised by Judaizing Christians, who were for making terms of acceptance with God by a mixture of the law and the gospel, and for shutting out the Gentiles from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah. In the conclusion, holiness is further enforced by practical exhortations.

MHCC: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(v. 1-16) The Jews could not be justified by the law of Moses, any more than the Gentiles by the law of nature.

(Rom 2:17-29) The sins of the Jews confuted all their vain confidence in their outward privileges.

Matthew Henry: Romans (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans

If we may compare scripture with scripture, and take the opinion of some devout and pious persons, in the Old Testament David's Psalms, and in the New Testament Paul's Epistles, are stars of the first magnitude, that differ from the other stars in glory. The whole scripture is indeed an epistle from heaven to earth: but in it we have upon record several particular epistles, more of Paul's than of any other, for he was the chief of the apostles, and laboured more abundantly than they all. His natural parts, I doubt not, were very pregnant; his apprehension was quick and piercing; his expressions were fluent and copious; his affections, wherever he took, very warm and zealous, and his resolutions no less bold and daring: this made him, before his conversion, a very keen and bitter persecutor; but when the strong man armed was dispossessed, and the stronger than he came to divide the spoil and to sanctify these qualifications, he became the most skilful zealous preacher; never any better fitted to win souls, nor more successful. Fourteen of his epistles we have in the canon of scripture; many more, it is probable, he wrote in the course of his ministry, which might be profitable enough for doctrine, for reproof, etc., but, not being given by inspiration of God, they were not received as canonical scripture, nor handed down to us. Six epistles, said to be Paul's, written to Seneca, and eight of Seneca's to him, are spoken of by some of the ancients [ Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2] and are extant; but, upon the first view, they appear spurious and counterfeit.

This epistle to the Romans is placed first, not because of the priority of its date, but because of the superlative excellency of the epistle, it being one of the longest and fullest of all, and perhaps because of the dignity of the place to which it is written. Chrysostom would have this epistle read over to him twice a week. It is gathered from some passages in the epistle that it was written Anno Christi 56, from Corinth, while Paul made a short stay there in his way to Troas, Act 20:5, Act 20:6. He commendeth to the Romans Phebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea (ch. 16), which was a place belonging to Corinth. He calls Gaius his host, or the man with whom he lodged (Rom 16:23), and he was a Corinthian, not the same with Gaius of Derbe, mentioned Acts 20. Paul was now going up to Jerusalem, with the money that was given to the poor saints there; and of that he speaks, Rom 15:26. The great mysteries treated of in this epistle must needs produce in this, as in other writings of Paul, many things dark and hard to be understood, 2Pe 3:16. The method of this (as of several other of the epistles) is observable; the former part of it doctrinal, in the first eleven chapters; the latter part practical, in the last five: to inform the judgment and to reform the life. And the best way to understand the truths explained in the former part is to abide and abound in the practice of the duties prescribed in the latter part; for, if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, Joh 7:17.

I. The doctrinal part of the epistles instructs us,

1. Concerning the way of salvation (1.) The foundation of it laid in justification, and that not by the Gentiles' works of nature (ch. 1), nor by the Jews' works of the law (ch. 2, 3), for both Jews and Gentiles were liable to the curse; but only by faith in Jesus Christ, Rom 3:21, etc.; ch. 4. (2.) The steps of this salvation are, [1.] Peace with God, ch. 5. [2.] Sanctification, ch. 6, 7. [3.] Glorification, ch. 8.

2. Concerning the persons saved, such as belong to the election of grace (ch. 9), Gentiles and Jews, ch. 10, 11. By this is appears that the subject he discourses of were such as were then the present truths, as the apostle speaks, 2Pe 1:12. Two things the Jews then stumbled at - justification by faith without the works of the law, and the admission of the Gentiles into the church; and therefore both these he studied to clear and vindicate.

II. The practical part follows, wherein we find, 1. Several general exhortations proper for all Christians, ch. 12. 2. Directions for our behaviour, as members of civil society, Rom 13:1-14. 3. Rules for the conduct of Christians to one another, as members of the Christian church, ch. 14 and Rom 15:1-14.

III. As he draws towards a conclusion, he makes an apology for writing to them (Rom 15:14-16), gives them an account of himself and his own affairs (Rom 15:17-21), promises them a visit (Rom 15:22-29), begs their prayers (Rom 15:30-32), sends particular salutations to many friends there (ch. 16:1-16), warns them against those who caused divisions (Rom 16:17-20), adds the salutations of his friends with him (Rom 16:21-23), and ends with a benediction to them and a doxology to God (Rom 16:24-27).

Matthew Henry: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The scope of the first two chapters of this epistle may be gathered from Rom 3:9, " We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin." This we have proved upon the Gentiles (ch. 1), now in this chapter he proves it upon the Jews, as appears by Rom 2:17, " thou art called a Jew." I. He proves in general that Jews and Gentiles stand upon the same level before the justice of God, to Rom 2:11. II. He shows more particularly what sins the Jews were guilty of, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions (Rom 2:17 to the end).

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and, in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last for ever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my

brother. I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe

when I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got

my journey money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things

are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a

line, first to let me know how you are, and then about my

brothers, and thirdly, that I may kiss your hand, because you

brought me up well, and because of that I hope, God willing, soon

to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest greetings, and my

brothers and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

(G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col_1:1-2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

There is an obvious difference between PaulLetter to the Romans and any other of his letters. Anyone coming from, say, a reading of the Letters to the Corinthians, will immediately feel that difference, both of atmosphere and of method. A very great part of it is due to one basic fact--when Paul wrote to the Church at Rome he was writing to a Church with whose founding he had had nothing whatever to do and with which he had had no personal contact at all. That explains why in Romans there are so few of the details of practical problems which fill the other letters. That is why Romans, at first sight, seems so much more impersonal. As Dibelius put it, "It is of all Paulletters the least conditioned by the momentary situation."

We may put that in another way. Romans, of all Paulletters, comes nearest to being a theological treatise. In almost all his other letters he is dealing with some immediate trouble, some pressing situation, some current error, some threatening danger, which was menacing the Church to which he was writing. Romans is the nearest approach to a systematic exposition of Paulown theological position, independent of any immediate set of circumstances.

Testamentary And Prophylactic

Because of that, two great scholars have applied two very illuminating adjectives to Romans. Sanday called Romans "testamentary." It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament, as if into Romans he was distilling the very essence of his faith and belief. Rome was the greatest city in the world, the capital of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Paul had never been there, and he did not know if he ever would be there. But, in writing to such a Church in such a city, it was fitting that he should set down the very centre and core of his belief. Burton called Romans "prophylactic." A prophylactic is something which guards against infection. Paul had seen too often what harm and trouble could be caused by wrong ideas, twisted notions, misguided conceptions of Christian faith and belief. He therefore wished to send to the Church in the city which was the centre of the world a letter which would so build up the structure of their faith that, if infections should ever come to them, they might have in the true word of Christian doctrine a powerful and effective defence. He felt that the best protection against the infection of false teaching was the antiseptic of the truth.

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

All his life Paul had been haunted by the thought of Rome. It had always been one of his dreams to preach there. When he is in Ephesus, he is planning to go through Achaea and Macedonia again, and then comes a sentence obviously dropped straight from the heart, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome" (Act_19:21 ). When he was up against things in Jerusalem, and the situation looked threatening and the end seemed near, he had one of those visions which always lifted up his heart. In that vision the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, Paul. For as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome" (Act_23:11 ). In the very first chapter of this letter Pauldesire to see Rome breathes out. "I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you" (Rom_1:11 ). "So, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom_1:15 ). It might well be said that the name Rome was written on Paulheart.

When he actually wrote the Letter to the Romans, the date was sometime in the year A.D. 58, and he was in Corinth. He was just about to bring to its completion a scheme that was very dear to his heart. The Church at Jerusalem was the mother Church of them all, but it was poor, and Paul had organized a collection throughout the younger churches for it (1Co_16:1 ; 2Co_9:1 ). That collection was two things. It was an opportunity for his younger converts to put Christian charity into Christian action, and it was a most practical way of impressing on all Christians the unity of the Christian Church, of teaching them that they were not members of isolated and independent congregations, but of one great Church, each part of which had a responsibility to all the rest. When Paul wrote Romans he was just about to set out with that gift for the Jerusalem Church. "At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints" (Rom_15:25 ).

The Object Of PaulWriting

Why, then, at such a moment should he write?

(a) Paul knew that the journey to Jerusalem was not without its peril. He knew that he had enemies there, and that to go to Jerusalem was to take his life and liberty in his hands. He desired the prayers of the Roman Church before he set out on this expedition. "Now I appeal to you brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judaea" (Rom_15:30-31 ). He was mobilizing the prayers of the Church before he embarked on this perilous undertaking.

(b) Paul had great schemes simmering in his mind. It has been said of him that he was "always haunted by the regions beyond." He never saw a ship at anchor but he wished to board her and to carry the good news to men across the sea. He never saw a range of mountains, blue in the distance, but he wished to cross them, and to bring the story of the Cross to men who had never heard it. At this time Paul was haunted by the thought of Spain. "I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain" (Rom_15:24 ). "When I have completed this [that is, when he had delivered the collection to the Church in Jerusalem] I shall go on by way of you to Spain" (Rom_15:28 ).

Why this great desire to go to Spain? Rome had opened up that land. Some of the great Roman roads and buildings still stand there to this day. And it so happened that, just at this time, there was a blaze of greatness in Spain. Many of the great figures who were writing their names on Roman history and literature were Spaniards. There was Martial, the master of the epigram. There was Lucan, the epic poet. There were Columella and Pomponius Mela, great figures in Roman literature. There was Quintilian, the master of Roman oratory. And, above all, there was Seneca, the greatest of the Roman Stoic philosophers, the tutor of the Emperor Nero, and the Prime Minister of the Roman Empire. It was most natural that Paulthoughts should go out to this land which was producing such a scintillating galaxy of greatness. What might happen if men like that could be touched for Christ? As far as we know Paul never got to Spain. On that visit to Jerusalem he was arrested and he was never freed again. But, when he was writing Romans, that was his dream.

Paul was a master strategist. He had an eye for the layout of territory like a great commander. He felt that by this time he could move on from Asia Minor and for the time being leave Greece behind. He saw the whole west lying in front of him, virgin territory to be won for Christ. But, if he was to launch a campaign in the west, he needed a base of operations. There was only one such base possible--and that was Rome.

That was why Paul wrote this letter to Rome. He had this great dream in his heart and this great plan in his mind. He needed Rome for a base for this new campaign. He was aware that the Church in Rome must know his name. But he was also aware, for he was a realist, that the reports which reached Rome would be mixed. His opponents were not above spreading slanders and false accusation against him. So he wrote this letter to set out for the Church at Rome an account of the very essence of his belief, in order that, when the time came for action, he might find in Rome a sympathetic Church from which the lines of communication might go out to Spain and the west. It was with such a plan and such an intention, that in A.D. 58 Paul sat down in Corinth to write his letter to the Church at Rome.

The Layout Of The Letter

Romans is at once a very complicated and a very carefully constructed letter. It will therefore help us to find our way through it, if we have in our minds an idea of its framework. It falls into four definite divisions.

(i) Rom 1-8, which deal with the problem of righteousness.

(ii) Rom 9-11, which deal with problem of the Jews, the chosen

people.

(iii) Rom 12-15, which deal with practical questions of life and

living.

(iv) Rom 16 , which is a letter of introduction for Phoebe,

and a list of final personal greetings.

(i) When Paul uses the word "righteousness," he means a right relationship with God The man who is righteous is the man who is in a right relationship with God, and whose life shows it.

Paul begins with a survey of the Gentile world. We have only to look at its decadence and corruption to know that it had not solved the problem of righteousness. He looks at the Jewish world. The Jews had sought to solve the problem of righteousness by meticulous obedience to the law. Paul had tried that way himself, and it had issued in frustration and defeat, because no man on earth can ever fully obey the law, and, therefore, every man must have the continual consciousness of being in debt to God and under his condemnation.

So Paul finds the way to righteousness in the way of utter trust and utter yieldedness. The only way to a right relationship with God is to take him at his word, and to cast oneself, just as one is, on his mercy and love. It is the way of faith. It is to know that the important thing is, not what we can do for God, but what he has done for us. For Paul the centre of the Christian faith was that we can never earn or deserve the favour of God, nor do we need to. The whole matter is one of grace, and all that we can do is to accept in wondering love and gratitude and trust what God has done for us.

That does not free us, however, from obligations or entitle us to do as we like; it means that for ever and for ever we must try to be worthy of the love which does so much for us. But we are no longer trying to fulfil the demands of stern and austere and condemnatory law; we are no longer like criminals before a judge; we are lovers who have given all life in love to the one who first loved us.

(ii) The problem of the Jews was a torturing one. In a real sense they were Godchosen people, and yet, when his Son had come into the world, they had rejected him. What possible explanation could there be for this heart-breaking fact?

The only one Paul could find was that, in the end, it was all Goddoing. Somehow the hearts of the Jews had been hardened; but it was not all failure, for there had always been a faithful remnant. Nor was it for nothing, for the very fact that the Jews had rejected Christ opened the door so the Gentiles would bring in the Jews and all men would be saved.

Paul goes further. The Jew had always claimed that he was a member of the chosen people in virtue of the fact that he was a Jew. It was solely a matter of pure racial descent from Abraham. But Paul insists that the real Jew is not the man whose flesh and blood descent can be traced to Abraham. He is the man who has made the same decision of utter yieldedness to God in loving faith which Abraham made. Therefore, Paul argues, there are many pure-blooded Jews who are not Jews in the real sense of the term at all; and there are many people of other nations who are really Jews in the true meaning of that word. The new Israel was not a racial thing at all; it was composed of those who had the same faith as Abraham had had.

(iii) Rom 12 is so great an ethical statement that it must always be set alongside the Sermon on the Mount. In it Paul lays down the ethical character of the Christian faith. The fourteenth and fifteenth chapters deal with an ever-recurring problem. In the Church there was a narrower party who believed that they must abstain from certain foods and drinks, and who counted special days and ceremonies as of great importance. Paul thinks of them as the weaker brethren because their faith was dependent on these external things. There was a more liberal party, who had liberated themselves from these external rules and observances. He thinks of them as the brethren who are stronger in the faith. He makes it quite clear that his sympathies are with the more liberal party; but he lays down the great principle that no man must ever do anything to hurt the conscience of a weaker brother or to put a stumbling block in his way. His whole point of view is that we must never do anything which makes it harder for someone else to be a Christian; and that that may well mean the giving up of something, which is right and safe for us, for the sake of the weaker brother. Christian liberty must never be used in such a way that it injures anotherlife or conscience.

(iv) The fourth section is a recommendation on behalf of Phoebe, a member of the Church at Cenchreae, who is coming to Rome. The letter ends with a list of greetings and a final benediction.

Two Problems

Rom 16 has always presented scholars with a problem. Many have felt that it does not really form part of the Letter to the Romans at all; and that it is really a letter to some other Church which became attached to Romans when Paulletters were collected. What are their grounds? First and foremost, in this chapter Paul sends greetings to twenty-six different people, twenty-four of whom he mentions by name and all of whom he seems to know very intimately. He can, for instance, say that the mother of Rufus has also been a mother to him. Is it likely that Paul knew intimately twenty-six people in a Church which he had never visited? He, in fact, greets far more people in this chapter than he does in any other letter, and yet he had never set foot in Rome. Here is something that needs explanation.

If Rom 16 was not written to Rome, what was its original destination? It is here that Prisca and Aquila come into the argument. We know that they left Rome in A.D. 52 when Claudius issued his edict banishing the Jews (Act_18:2 ). We know that they went with Paul to Ephesus (Act_18:18 ). We know that they were in Ephesus when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth, less than two years before he wrote Romans (1Co_16:19 ). And we know that they were still in Ephesus when the Pastoral Epistles were written (2Ti_4:19 ). It is certain that if we had come across a letter sending greeting to Prisca and Aquila we should have assumed that it was sent to Ephesus, if no other address was given.

Is there any other evidence to make us think that chapter sixteen may have been sent to Ephesus in the first place? There is the perfectly general reason that Paul spent longer in Ephesus than anywhere else, and it would be very natural for him to send greetings to many people there. Paul speaks of Epaenetus, the first-fruits of Asia. Ephesus is in Asia, and such a reference, too, would be very natural in a letter to Ephesus, but not so natural in a letter to Rome. Rom_16:17 speaks about difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught, which sounds as if Paul was speaking about possible disobedience to his own teaching, and he had never taught in Rome.

It can be argued that the sixteenth chapter was originally addressed to Ephesus, but the argument is not so strong as it looks. For one thing, there is no evidence that the chapter was ever attached anywhere except to the Letter to the Romans. For another thing, the odd fact is that Paul does not send personal greetings to churches which he knew well. There are no personal greetings in Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, all of them letters to churches he knew well; whereas there are personal greetings in Colossians, although Paul had never set foot in Colosse.

The reason is really quite simple. If Paul had sent personal greetings to churches he knew well, jealousies might well have arisen; on the other hand, when he was writing to churches he had never visited, he liked to establish as many personal links as possible. The very fact that Paul had never been in Rome makes it likely that he would try to establish as many personal connections as possible. Again, it is to be remembered that Prisca and Aquila were banished by edict from Rome. What is more likely than that, after the trouble was over, six or seven years later, they would return to Rome and pick up the threads of their business after their stay in other towns? And is it not most likely that many of the other names are names of people who shared in this banishment, who took up temporary residence in other cities, who met Paul there, and who, when the coast was clear, returned to Rome and their old homes? Paul would be delighted to have so many personal contacts in Rome and to seize hold of them.

Further, as we shall see, when we come to study chapter 16 in detail, many of the names--the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus, Amplias, Nereus and others--well suit Rome. In spite of the arguments for Ephesus, we may take it that there is no necessity to detach chapter sixteen from the Letter to the Romans.

But there is a more interesting, and a much more important, problem. The early manuscripts show some very curious things with regard to Rom 14-16. The only natural place for a doxology is at the very end. Rom_16:25-27 is a doxology, and in most good manuscripts it comes at the end. But in a number of manuscripts it comes at the end of Rom 14 ; two good manuscripts have it in both places; one ancient manuscript has it at the end of Rom 15 ; two manuscripts have it in neither place, but leave an empty space for it. One ancient Latin manuscript has a series of section summaries. The last two are as follows:

50: On the peril of him who grieves his brother by meat.

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

51: On the mystery of the Lord, kept secret before his passion

but after his passion revealed.

That is equally clearly Rom_16:25-27 , the doxology. Clearly, these summaries were made from a manuscript which did not contain chapters fifteen and sixteen. Now there is one thing which sheds a flood of light on this. In one manuscript the mention of Rome in Rom_1:7 and Rom_1:15 is entirely omitted. There is no mention of any destination.

All this goes to show that Romans circulated in two forms--one form as we have it with sixteen chapters, and one with fourteen chapters; and perhaps also one with fifteen chapters. The explanation must be this. As Paul wrote it to Rome, it had sixteen chapters; but Rom 15-16 are private and personal to Rome. Now no other letter gives such a compendium of Pauldoctrine. What must have happened was that Romans began to circulate among all the churches, with the last two local chapters omitted, except for the doxology. It must have been felt that Romans was too fundamental to stop at Rome and so the purely local references were removed and it was sent out to the Church at large. From very early times the Church felt that Romans was so great an expression of the mind of Paul that it must become the possession not of one congregation, but of the whole Church. We must remember, as we study it, that men have always looked on Romans as the quintessence of Paulgospel.

FURTHER READING

Romans

C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MC; E)

A. M. Hunter, The Epistle to the Romans: The Law of Love (Tch; E)

W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, Romans (Sixth edition, in two volumes, revised by C. E. B. Cranfield) (ICC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The Responsibility Of Privilege (Rom_2:1-11)

The Unwritten Law (Rom_2:12-16)

The Real Jew (Rom_2:17-29)

Constable: Romans (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Throughout the history of the church, from postapostolic times to the present, Christians have regarded Romans as having been one of the Apostle Paul's epistles.¹ Not only does the letter claim that he wrote it (1:1), but it develops many of the same ideas and uses the same terminology that appear in Paul's earlier writings (e.g., Gal. 2; 1 Cor. 12; 2 Cor. 8-9).

Following his conversion on the Damascus Road (34 A.D.), Paul preached in Damascus, spent some time in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus. Next he travelled to Jerusalem where he met briefly with Peter and James. He then moved on to Tarsus, which was evidently his base of operations and from which he ministered for about six years (37-43 A.D.). In response to an invitation from Barnabas he moved to Antioch of Syria where he served for about five years (43-48 A.D.). He and Barnabas then set out on their so-called first missionary journey into Asia Minor (48-49 A.D.). Returning to Antioch Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to strengthen the churches that he and Barnabas had just planted in Asia Minor (49 A.D.). After the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul took Silas and began his second missionary journey (50-52 A.D.) through Asia Minor and on westward into the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. From Corinth, Paul wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians (51 A.D.). He proceeded to Ephesus by ship and then on to Syrian Antioch. From there he set out on his third missionary journey (53-57 A.D.). Passing through Asia Minor he arrived in Ephesus where he labored for three years (53-56 A.D.). During this time he wrote 1 Corinthians (56 A.D.). Finally Paul left Ephesus and travelled by land to Macedonia where he wrote 2 Corinthians (56 A.D.). He continued south and spent the winter of 56-57 A.D. in Corinth. There he wrote the Epistle to the Romans and sent it by Phoebe (16:1-2) to the Roman church.

The apostle then proceeded from Corinth by land clockwise around the Aegean Sea back to Troas in Asia where he boarded a ship and eventually reached Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, the Jews arrested Paul and imprisoned him (57 A.D.). He arrived in Rome as a prisoner and ministered there for two years (60-62 A.D.). During this time he wrote the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). The Romans freed Paul, and he returned to the Aegean area. There he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, experienced arrest again, suffered imprisonment in Rome a second time, wrote 2 Timothy, and died as a martyr under Nero in A.D. 68.²

We know very little about the founding of the church in Rome. According to Ambrosiaster, a church father who lived in the fourth century, an apostle did not found it (thus discrediting the Roman Catholic claim that Peter founded the church). A group of Jewish Christians did.³ It is possible that these Jews became believers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) or at some other time quite early in the church's history. By the time Paul wrote Romans the church in Rome was famous throughout the Roman Empire for its faith (1:18).

Purpose

Paul wrote this epistle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for several reasons.⁴ He wanted to prepare the way for his intended visit to the church (15:22-24). He evidently hoped that Rome would become a base of operations and support for his pioneer missionary work in Spain and the western portions of the empire that he had not yet evangelized. His full exposition of the gospel in this letter would have provided a solid foundation for their participation in this mission.

As Paul looked forward to returning to Jerusalem between his departure from Corinth and his arrival in Rome, he was aware of the danger he faced (15:31). He may have written the exhaustive exposition of the gospel that we have in Romans to set forth his teaching in case he did not reach Rome. From Rome his doctrine could then go out to the rest of the empire as others preached it. Paul may have viewed Romans as his legacy to the church, his last will and testament.

Another reason for writing Romans was undoubtedly Paul's desire to minister to the spiritual needs of the Christians in Rome even though they were in good spiritual condition (15:14-16). The common problems of all the early churches were dangers to the Roman church as well. These difficulties included internal conflicts, mainly between Jewish and Gentile believers, and external threats from false teachers. Paul gave both of these potential problems attention in this epistle (15:1-8; 16:17-20).

Paul also wrote Romans as he did because he was at a transition point in his ministry, as he mentioned at the end of chapter 15. His ministry in the Aegean region was solid enough that he planned to leave it and move farther west into new virgin missionary territory. Before he did that, he planned to visit Jerusalem where he realized he would be in danger. Probably therefore Paul wrote Romans as he did to leave a full exposition of the gospel in good hands if his ministry ended prematurely in Jerusalem.

"The peculiar position of the apostle at the time of writing, as he reviews the past and anticipates the future, enables us to understand the absence of controversy in this epistle, the conciliatory attitude, and the didactic and apologetic elements which are all found combined herein."⁵

The great contribution of this letter to the body of New Testament inspired revelation is its reasoned explanation of how God's righteousness can become man's possession.

The Book of Romans is distinctive among Paul's inspired writings in several respects. It was one of the few letters he wrote to churches with which he had had no personal dealings. The only other epistle of this kind was Colossians. It is also a formal treatise within a personal letter.⁶ Paul expounded on the gospel in this treatise. He probably did so in this epistle rather than in another because the church in Rome was at the heart of the Roman Empire. As such it was able to exert great influence in the dissemination of the gospel. For these two reasons Romans is more formal and less personal than most of Paul's other epistles.

The Epistle to the Romans is, by popular consent, the greatest of Paul's writings. William Tyndale, the great English reformer and translator, referred to Romans as "the principle and most excellent part of the New Testament." He went on to say the following in his prologue to Romans that he wrote in the 1534 edition of his English New Testament.

"No man verily can read it too oft or study it too well; for the more it is studied the easier it is, the more it is chewed the pleasanter it is, and the more groundly [sic] it is searched the preciouser [sic] things are found in it, so great treasures of spiritual things lieth hid therein."⁷

Martin Luther wrote the following commendation of this epistle.

"[Romans] is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes."⁸

Message⁹

Throughout the history of the church Christians have recognized this epistle as the most important book in the New Testament. The reason for this conviction is that it is an exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Luther called Romans "the chief part of the New Testament and the perfect gospel." Coleridge, the English poet, declared it to be "the most profound work in existence." Frederick Godet, the French commentator, described it as "the cathedral of the Christian faith."¹⁰

To appreciate the message of this book it will be helpful first to consider Paul's presuppositions. He based these, of course, on Old Testament revelation concerning cosmology and history.

First, Paul assumed the God of the Old Testament. He assumed God's existence and full deity. He believed that God is holy and just. He also held that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign ruler of the universe.

Second, Paul's view of man is that he is subject to God's government of the universe. Man has received a measure of freedom from God, so he can choose to pursue sin. However, if he does so, he is still in the sovereign hand of God. God can allow the consequences of his sins to have their effects on him both now and forever. Man is also in authority over the rest of the material creation (Gen. 1:28). What man has experienced, the material creation also has experienced and reflects as a result of man's action.

Third, Paul's view of history was that of Old Testament revelation. The important historical events for Paul were those in his Scriptures.

Adam was the first man. He rebelled against God's authority. The result was threefold: the practical dethronement of God in the minds of Adam's descendents, the degradation of humanity, and the defilement of creation. This is a very different view of history from what evolutionists and humanists take. Man has lost his scepter because he rebelled against God's scepter.

Two other individuals were specially significant in history for Paul as we see in Romans: Abraham and Jesus Christ. God called Abraham to be a channel of blessing to the world. Christ is the greatest blessing. Through Him people and creation can experience restoration to God's original intention for them.

These are Paul's basic presuppositions on which all his reasoning in Romans rests. Romans is not the best book to put in the hands of an unsaved person to lead him or her to salvation. John is better for that purpose. However, Romans is the best book to put in the hands of a saved person to lead him or her to understand and appreciate our salvation.

We turn now to the major revelations in this book. These are its central teachings, the emphases that distinguish Romans from other books of the Bible.

First, Romans reveals the tragic helplessness of the human race. No other book of the Bible looks so fearlessly into the abysmal degradation that has resulted from human sin. If you read only 1:18-3:20, you will become depressed by its pessimism. If you keep reading, you will conclude from 3:21 on that we have the best, most optimistic news you have ever heard. This book is all about ruin and redemption. Its first great revelation is the absolute ruin and helplessness of the human race.

Paul divides the ruined race into two parts. The first of these is the Gentiles who have the light of nature. God has given everyone, Gentiles and Jews, the opportunity of observing and concluding two things about Himself: His wisdom and power. The average person as well as the scientist concludes that Someone wise must have put the natural world together, and He must be very powerful. Nevertheless having come to that conclusion he turns from God to vain reasonings, vile passions, unrighteous behavior, envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, pride, and perverted conduct. Just read today's newspaper and you will find confirmation of Paul's analysis of the human race.

The other part of the ruined race is the Jews who, in addition to the light of nature, also had the light of Scripture. Paul observed that in spite of his greater revelation and privilege the Jew behaves the same way as the Gentile. Yet he is a worse sinner. Having professed devotion to God and having claimed to be a teacher of the Gentiles because of his greater light he disobeys God and causes the Gentiles to blaspheme His name. Paul concluded, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (3:10). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23).

The second major revelation of Romans is the magnificence of the divine plan of salvation. This plan centers on Jesus Christ whom Paul introduced on the very first page of his letter (1:3-4). God declared to everyone that the Jesus of the Gospels is His Son by resurrecting Him.

Two words describe Christ's relation to the divine plan of salvation: manifestation and propitiation. The righteousness manifested in Him is available to people through His propitiation. God's righteousness is available to everyone because Jesus died as the perfect offering for sin. The righteousness we see in Jesus in the Gospel records is available to those who believe that His sacrifice satisfied God (3:21, 25).

We can also describe God's relation to the plan of salvation with two words: holiness and love. The plan of salvation that Romans expounds resulted from a holy God reaching out to sinful humanity lovingly (3:22, 24). This plan vindicates the holiness of God as it unveils God's gracious love (chs. 9-11).

Man's relation to the plan of salvation is threefold. It involves justification, the imputation of God's righteousness to the believing sinner. It also involves sanctification, the impartation of God's righteousness to the redeemed sinner. Third, it involves glorification, the perfection of God's righteousness in the sanctified sinner. In justification God lifts the sinner into a relationship with Himself that is more intimate than we would have enjoyed if we had never sinned. In sanctification God progressively transforms the sinner into the Savior's image by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In glorification God finally restores the sinner to the place God intended for us to occupy in creation.

The creation's relation to the plan of salvation is twofold. God restores creation's king, man, to his intended position. Second, creation realizes all of its intended possibilities that sin has denied it.

Let us note next some of the lessons of this book. What did God want us to learn from it?

First, Romans calls us to measure ourselves by divine rather than human standards. We sometimes evaluate ourselves and one another by using the criteria that our age sets or that we set. However to know our true condition we must use the criteria that God sets. This standard reveals that we are all guilty before God. This is one of the great lessons that Romans teaches us.

Second, Romans calls us to live by faith rather than by sight. God did not come any closer to mankind in the incarnation of Christ than He ever had been. Yet in the incarnation the nearness of God became more obvious to people. In the resurrection the Son of God became observable as the Son of God to human beings. All the glories of salvation come to us as we believe God. Romans contrasts the folly of trying to obtain salvation by working for it with trusting God, simply believing what He has revealed as true.

Third, Romans calls us to dedicate ourselves to God rather than living self-centered lives (12:1). This is the reasonable response to having received salvation. We should give ourselves to God. God's grace puts us in His debt. Paul did not say that if we fail to dedicate ourselves to God we are unsaved. Rather he appeals to us as saved people to do for God what He has done for us, namely giving ourselves out of love. When we do this, we show that we truly appreciate what God has done for us.

On the basis of these observations I would summarize the message of Romans in these words. Since God has lovingly provided salvation for helpless sinners through His Son, we should accept that sacrifice by faith and express our gratitude to God by dedicating our lives to Him.

In conclusion let me suggest an application of the message of Romans.

In view of the greatness of the salvation that God has provided as Romans reveals, we, as Paul, have a duty to communicate this good news to the world (1:14-17; Matt. 28:19). We do this both by lip and life, by explanation and by example (8:29). Our living example will reflect death to self as well as life to God (6:13).

Constable: Romans (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-17

A. Salutation 1:1-7

1. The writer 1:1

2. The subject of the epistle 1:2-5

3. The original recipients 1:6-7

B. Purpose 1:8-15

C. Theme 1:16-17

II. The need for God's righteousness 1:18-3:20

A. The need of all people 1:18-32

1. The reason for human guilt 1:18

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

3. The wickedness of mankind 1:28-32

B. The need of good people 2:1-3:8

1. God's principles of judgment 2:1-16

2. The guilt of the Jews 2:17-29

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

C. The guilt of all humanity 3:9-20

III. The imputation of God's righteousness 3:21-5:21

A. The description of justification 3:21-26

B. The defense of justification by faith alone 3:27-31

C. The proof of justification by faith from the law ch. 4

1. Abraham's justification by faith 4:1-5

2. David's testimony to justification by faith 4:6-8

3. The priority of faith to circumcision 4:9-12

4. The priority of faith to the promise concerning headship of many nations 4:13-17

5. The exemplary value of Abraham's faith 4:18-22

6. Conclusions from Abraham's example 4:23-25

D. The benefits of justification 5:1-11

E. The universal applicability of justification 5:12-21

IV. The impartation of God's righteousness chs. 6-8

A. The believer's relationship to sin ch. 6

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

2. Slavery to righteousness 6:15-23

B. The believer's relationship to the law ch. 7

1. The law's authority 7:1-6

2. The law's activity 7:7-12

3. The law's inability 7:13-25

C. The believer's relationship to God ch. 8

1. Our deliverance from the flesh by the power of the Spirit 8:1-11

2. Our new relationship to God 8:12-17

3. Our present sufferings and future glory 8:18-25

4. Our place in God's sovereign plan 8:26-30

5. Our eternal security 8:31-39

V. The vindication of God's righteousness chs. 9-11

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

1. God's blessings on Israel 9:1-5

2. God's election of Israel 9:6-13

3. God's freedom to elect 9:14-18

4. God's mercy toward Israel 9:19-29

5. God's mercy toward the Gentiles 9:30-33

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

1. The reason God has set Israel aside 10:1-7

2. The remedy for rejection 10:8-15

3. The continuing unbelief of Israel 10:16-21

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

1. Israel's rejection not total 11:1-10

2. Israel's rejection not final 11:11-24

3. Israel's restoration assured 11:25-32

4. Praise for God's wise plans 11:33-36

VI. The practice of God's righteousness 12:1-15:13

A. Dedication to God 12:1-2

B. Conduct within the church 12:3-21

1. The diversity of gifts 12:3-8

2. The necessity of love 12:9-21

C. Conduct within the state ch. 13

1. Conduct towards the government 13:1-7

2. Conduct toward unbelievers 13:8-10

3. Conduct in view of our hope 13:11-14

D. Conduct within Christian liberty 14:1-15:13

1. The folly of judging one another 14:1-12

2. The evil of offending one another 14:13-23

3. The importance of pleasing one another 15:1-6

4. the importance of accepting one another 15:7-13

VII. Conclusion 15:14-16:27

A. Paul's ministry 15:14-33

1. Past labors 15:14-21

2. Present program 15:22-29

3. Future plans 15:30-33

B. Personal matters ch. 16

1. A commendation 16:1-2

2. Various greetings to Christians in Rome 16:3-16

3. A warning 16:17-20

4. Greetings from Paul's companions 16:21-24

5. A doxology 16:25-27

Constable: Romans

Romans

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1881.

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Auden, W. H. For the Time Being. London: Faber and Faber, 1958.

Baker, Bruce A. "Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional Apologetics." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):280-98.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Harper's New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957.

Battle, John A., Jr. "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26." Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981):115-29.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Robert H. Romans: a letter to non-conformists. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):37-45.

Blue, J. Ronald. "Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):338-50.

Bock, Darrell L. "The Reign of the Lord Christ." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 37-67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Bruce, Frederick F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Revised ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Burns, J. Lanier. "The Future of Ethnic Israel in Romans 11." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 188-229. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):310-26. Reprinted from January 1948 issue.

_____. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Coates, C. A. An Outline of the Epistle to the Romans. Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n. d..

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Cook, W. Robert. "Biblical Light on the Christian's Civil Responsibility." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):44-57.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Doctrine of Prayer." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Crain, C. Readings on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1998.

Culver, Robert Duncan. "Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):131-43.

Daane, James. The Freedom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Acts of the Apostles--St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Fourth ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by C. W. Emmet.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings, 1902 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Archibald Robertson.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary series. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Dunnett, Walter M. The Secret of Life, Victory and Service. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1961.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Fort, John. God's Salvation. New ed. revised. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Premillennial View of Law and Government." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):250-66.

_____. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Glenny, W. Edward. "The Israel Imagery of 1 Peter 2." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 156-87. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "The People of God' in Romans 9:25-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):42-59.

Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin. Revised and edited by Talbot W. Chambers. Classic Commentary Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. Salvation is Forever. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. Second ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hannah, John D. "The Doctrine of Original Sin in Postrevolutionary America." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):238-56.

_____. "The Meaning of Saving Faith: Luther's Interpretation of Romans 3:28." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):322-34.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Henry, Carl F. H. "Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):57-65.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Presentation and Transformation: An Exposition of Romans 12:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):309-24.

_____. "Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):170-83.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Death/Life Option." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:11 (November 1991):

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Hopkins, Evan H. The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life. Revised ed. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1952.

Howe, Frederic R. "A Review of Birthright, by David C. Needham." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):68-78.

Howell, Don N., Jr. "The Center of Pauline Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):50-70.

Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans. Torch Bible Commentaries series. London: SCM, 1955.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Handley Dunelm.

Ironside, Harry A. Sailing With Paul. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1965.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Behold the Lamb: The Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement." In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 119-38. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

_____. "Evidence from Romans 9-11." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 199-223. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:528 (October-December 1975):316-26.

_____. "Studies in Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):120-34; 512 (October-December 1971):327-40; 129:513 (January-March 1972):61-74; 514 (April-June 1972):124-33; 130:517 (January-March 1973):24-34; 518 (April-June 1973):151-63; 519 (July-September 1973):235-49; 520 (October-December 1973):329-37; 131:522 (April-June 1974):163-72.

Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Kaye, B. The Argument of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin: Scholars Press, 1979.

Ketcham, Robert T. God's Provision for Normal Christian Living. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Klein, W. W. "Paul's Use of Kalein: A Proposal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):53-64.

Knight, George W., III. "The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):3-13.

Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12-16." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):37-51.

Lampe, P. "The Roman Christians in Romans 16." In The Romans Debate, pp. 216-230. Revised and expanded ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans-Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fry, and C. F. Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Li, Ping-Kuen Eric. "The Relationship of the Christian to the Law as Expressed in Romans 10:4." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.

Liddon, Henry Parry. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n. d..

Longacre, Robert E., and Wallis, Wilber B. "Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):367-82.

Lowe, Chuck. "There Is No Condemnation' (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):231-50.

Lowery, David K. "Christ, the End of the Law in Romans 10:4." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 230-47. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lyall, Francis. "Roman Law in the Writings of Paul--Adoption." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (December 1969):458-66.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

MacDonald, William. The Epistle to the Romans. Oak Park, Il: Emmaus Bible School, 1953.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):327-40.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

Maurier, Henri. The Other Covenant. New York: Newman Press, 1968.

McBeth, J. P. Exegetical and Practical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1937.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

McGee, J. Vernon. Reasoning through Romans. 2 vols. Los Angeles: Church of the Open Door, n. d..

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. "The Epistle to the Romans." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1179-1226. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Mitchell, Curtis C. "The Holy Spirit's Intercessory Ministry." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:555 (July-September 1982):230-42.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

_____. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.

Nee, Watchman. The Normal Christian Life. Second British ed. London: Witness and Testimony Publishers, 1958.

Needham, David C. Birthright. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1979.

Newell, William R. Romans Verse by Verse. 1938. Chicago: Moody Press, 1970.

Packer, J. I. "The Way of Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):195-205; 516 (October-December 1972):291-306; 130:517 (January-March 1973):3-11; 518 (April-June 1973):110-16.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Phillips, J. B. The New Testament in Modern English. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pyne, Robert A. "Antinomianism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):141-54.

_____. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Radmacher, Earl. "First Response to Faith According to the Apostle James' by John F. MacArthur, Jr." Journal of the Evangelical Society 33:1 (March 1990):35-41.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Ramm, Bernard. The Witness of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Reid, Marty L. "A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):181-91.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Ridenour, Fritz. How To Be a Christian Without Being Religious. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1967.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Russell, Walter B., III. "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):174-84.

_____. "Insights from Postmodernism's Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):511-27.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153-62.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. What You Should Know about Social Responsibility. Current Christian Issues series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

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

Sarles, Ken. L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145-577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Death in the City. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

_____. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):25-40.

Stifler, James M. The Epistle to the Romans. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Stott, John R. W. Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8. London: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swindoll, Charles R. "Is the Holy Spirit Transforming You?" Kindred Spirit 18:1 (January-April 1994):4-7.

Taylor, Clyde W. "Christian Citizens." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):200-14.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S. v. "opsonion," by Hans Wolfgang Heidland, 5 (1967):591-92.

_____. S. v. "soma," by Edward Schweizer, 7 (1971):1024-94.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith, Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

_____. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Contrast Between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Ninth ed. London: James Clarke & Co., 1961.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Van den Doel, Anthonie. "Submission in the New Testament." Brethren Life and Thought 31:2 (Spring 1986):121-25.

Vine, W. E. The Epistle to the Romans. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

Vos, Gerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton: By the author, 1930.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d..

Way, Arthur S. The Letters of St. Paul and Hebrews. Reprint. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ'." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton, Il.: Victor Books, Scripture Press, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance by Inner Witness?" Grace Evangelical Society News 8:2 (March-April 1993):2-3.

_____. "Obedience to the Faith: Romans 1:5." Grace in Focus 10:6 (November-December 1995):2-4.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):62-67.

Witmer, John A. "The Man with Two Countries." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):338-49.

_____. "Romans." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 435-503. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Wood, Leon. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

_____. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Zuck, Roy B. "Cheap Grace?" Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):4-7.

_____. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but an humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal. We shall learn there that faith is essentially necessary to please God; that this faith is but one, as God is but one; and that faith which shews itself not by good works, is dead. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of works that are incapable of justifying us, he speaks not of the works of moral righteousness, but of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic law, on which the Jews laid such great stress as necessary to salvation. --- St. Peter (in his 2nd Epistle, chap. iii.) assures us that there were some in his time, as there are found some now in our days, who misconstrue St. Paul's epistles, as if he required no good works any more after baptism than before baptism, and maintaining that faith alone would justify and save a man. Hence the other apostles wrote their epistles, as St. Augustine remarks in these words; "therefore because this opinion, that faith only was necessary to salvation, was started, the other apostolical epistles do most pointedly refute it, forcibly contending that faith without works profiteth nothing." Indeed St. Paul himself, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (Chap. xiii. 2.) positively asserts: if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. --- This epistle, like most of the following, is divided into two parts: the first treats of points of doctrine, and extends to the eleventh chapter inclusively; the second treats of morality, and is contained in the last five chapters: but to be able to understand the former, and to practise the latter, humble prayer and a firm adherence to the Catholic Church, which St. Paul (1 Timothy chap. iii.) styles, the pillar and ground of truth, are undoubtedly necessary. Nor should we ever forget what St. Peter affirms, that in St. Paul's epistles there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter chap. iii. ver. 16.) (Haydock) --- St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem; and after he had preached in almost all places from Jerusalem even to Illyris, Illyrium, or Illyricum. See this Epistle, chap. xv. It was written in Greek. It is not the first in order of time, though placed first, either because of the dignity of the chief Christian Church, or of its sublime contents. --- The apostle's chief design was not only to unite all the new Christian converts, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, in the same faith, but also to bring them to a union in charity, love, and peace; to put an end to those disputes and contentions among them, which were particularly occasioned by those zealous Jewish converts, who were for obliging all Christians to the observance of the Mosaic precepts and ceremonies. They who had been Jews, boasted that they were the elect people of God, preferred before all other nations, to whom he had given this written law, precepts, and ceremonies by Moses, to whom he had sent his prophets, and had performed so many miracles in their favour, while the Gentiles were left in their ignorance and idolatry. The Gentiles, now converted, were apt to brag of the learning of their great philosophers, and that sciences had flourished among them: they reproached the Jews with the disobedience of their forefathers to God, and the laws he had given them; that they had frequently returned to idolatry; that they had persecuted and put to death the prophets, and even their Messias, the true Son of God. St. Paul shews that neither the Jew nor the Gentile had reason to boast, but to humble themselves under the hand of God, the author of their salvation. He puts the Jews in mind, that they could not expect to be justified and saved merely by the ceremonies and works of their law, thought good in themselves; that the Gentiles, as well as they, were now called by the pure mercy of God: that they were all to be saved by believing in Christ, and complying with his doctrine; that sanctification and salvation can only be had by the Christian faith. He does not mean by faith only, as it is one particular virtue, different from charity, hope, and other Christian virtues; but he means by faith, the Christian religion, and worship, taken in opposition to the law of Moses and to the moral virtues of heathens. The design of the Epistle to the Galatians is much the same. From the 12th chapter he exhorts them to the practice of Christian virtues. (Witham)

====================

Gill: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS

Though this epistle is in order placed the first of the epistles, yet it was not first written: there were several epistles written before it, as the two epistles to the Thessalonians, the two to the Corinthians, the first epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus: the reason why this epistle stands first, is either the excellency of it, of which Chrysostom had so great an esteem that he caused it to be read over to him twice a week; or else the dignity of the place, where the persons lived to whom it is written, being Rome, the imperial city: so the books of the prophets are not placed in the same order in which they were written: Hosea prophesied as early as Isaiah, if not earlier; and before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and yet stands after them. This epistle was written from Corinth, as the subscription of it testifies; and which may be confirmed from the apostle's commendation of Phoebe, by whom he sent it, who was of Cenchrea, a place near Corinth; by his calling Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, who abode at Corinth, 2Ti 4:20, and Gaius his host, who was a Corinthian, Rom 16:23, 1Co 1:14, though at what time it was written from hence, is not so evident: some think it was written in the time of his three months' travel through Greece, Act 20:2, a little before the death of the Emperor Claudius, in the year of Christ 55; others, that it was written by him in the short stay he made at Corinth, when he came thither, as is supposed, from Philippi, in his way to Troas, where some of his company went before, and had been there five days before him: and this is placed in the second year of Nero, and in the year of Christ 56; however, it was not written by him during his long stay at Corinth, when he was first there, but afterwards, even after he had preached from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum: and when he was about to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions of the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, to the poor saints there, Rom 15:19. The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church; See Gill on Act 28:14; Act 28:15; by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome, and who were the means of forming the church there, is not very evident Irenaeus, an ancient writer, says ^a, that Peter and Paul preached the Gospel at Rome, and founded the church; and Gaius, an ecclesiastical man, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, asserts the same; and Dionysius; bishop of the Corinthians, calls the Romans the plantation of Peter and Paul ^b: whether Peter was ever at Rome is not a clear point with many; and certain it is, that the Apostle Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, at least it seems very probable he had not, by several expressions in Rom 1:10; and yet here was a church to which he writes, and had been a considerable time; for their faith was spoken of throughout the world, Rom 1:8; and when the apostle was on the road to this city, the brethren in it met him, Act 28:15. The chief design of this epistle is to set in a clear light the doctrine of justification: showing against the Gentiles, that it is not by the light of nature, and works done in obedience to that, and against the Jews, that it was not by the law of Moses, and the deeds of that; which he clearly evinces, by observing the sinful and wretched estate both of Jews and Gentiles: but that it is by the righteousness of Christ imputed through the grace of God, and received by faith; the effects of which are peace and joy in the soul, and holiness in the life and conversation: he gives an account of the justified ones, as that they are not without sin, which he illustrates by his own experience and case; and yet are possessed of various privileges, as freedom from condemnation, the blessing of adoption, and a right to the heavenly inheritance; he treats in it concerning predestination, the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews; and exhorts to the various duties incumbent on the saints, with respect to one another, and to the world, to duties of a moral and civil nature, and the use of things indifferent; and closes it with the salutations of divers persons.

Gill: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 2

This chapter contains, in general, a vindication of the justice and equity of the divine procedure against men, such as are described in the preceding chapter; and a refutation of the several pleas that might be made by the Gentiles, who had not the law, and by the Jews who had it; and concludes with exposing the wickedness of the latter, and with showing who they are that are properly Jews, and circumcised persons, in the account of God. It begins, in Rom 2:1, with an inference deduced from what had been said in the latter part of the foregoing chapter; concluding that such, be they who they will, Jews or Gentiles, are inexcusable, who do the things they condemn others for: but though the judgment of such persons is wrong, the apostle observes, Rom 2:2, that the judgment of God, in the condemnation of them, is right, of which he, and others, were fully assured; and which judgment is commended, by the rule of it, being according to truth; by the objects of it, criminals, who are left without excuse, and by the inevitableness of it, Rom 2:3, being such as cannot possibly be escaped: and though some men might hope to escape it, because not immediately punished, but loaded with the blessings of Providence, and peculiar benefits of divine goodness; yet this was to be ascribed to the forbearance of God for the present; and that if these favours were despised, and they had not a good effect upon them to bring to repentance, but instead thereof were more and more hardened under them, as their guilt would be increased, so wrath would be secretly laying up for them, which will be revealed in the day of judgment, Rom 2:4, at which time justice will be done to every man as his works will be found to be, Rom 2:6, then follows a description of the several sorts of persons that will be judged, and of the different things that will be their portion: as that eternal life will be given to good men, Rom 2:7, and the wrath of God poured down on bad men, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, Rom 2:8. The happiness of good men is repeated again, and explained, and promised to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile, Rom 2:10, and a reason given of this just and equal distribution, taken from the nature of God, who is no respecter of persons, Rom 2:11, an instance of which is produced in both Jews and Gentiles, that sin; the one perishing with, the other without the law, Rom 2:12, since it is not barely having and hearing the law, but acting up to it, which only can justify before God, Rom 2:13, upon which the apostle proceeds to refute the plea that might be made by the Gentiles, in favour of themselves, why they should not be condemned, taken from their not having the written law; for though they had not the law written on tables of stone, as the Jews had, yet they had, as he observes, the law of nature written on their hearts, against which they sinned: this he proves by the effects of it, discernible in many of them by their outward lives and conversations, in conformity to the law; and by the inward testimony of their consciences, approving of good deeds, and reproaching for bad ones, Rom 2:14, which two verses being put into a parenthesis, Rom 2:16, is connected with Rom 2:13, and points at the time when the doers of the law shall be justified, even at the day of judgment: which judgment is described by the author of it, God; by the subject of it, the secrets of men's hearts; by the person employed in the divine procedure, Jesus Christ; and by the evidence and certainty of it, the Gospel preached by the apostle, and then follow a description of the Jews, an account of their profession of religion, and an ironical concession of the several characters they assumed to themselves: they are described by their name, a Jew; by their religion, which lay in trusting in the law of Moses, and in boasting of their interest in God, as the God of Israel, Rom 2:17, by their knowledge of the will of God, and approbation of the excellent things of his law, Rom 2:18, and by the characters they took to themselves, Rom 2:19, from which the apostle takes an occasion to expose the wickedness of some of their principal men, even their teachers, Rom 2:21, by whose wicked lives and conversations God was dishonoured, and his name blasphemed among the Gentiles, Rom 2:23, hence it appears, that their name, profession, and character, would not justify them before God; wherefore the apostle goes on, to remove their plea taken from circumcision, showing that could be of no use to them, but became void through their breach of the law, Rom 2:25, and that, on the other hand, an uncircumcised Gentile, by keeping the law from right principles, and to a right end, appeared to be the true circumcision, Rom 2:26, wherefore the circumcised Jew that broke the law, stood condemned by the uncircumcised Gentile that fulfilled it; so far was circumcision from being any part of his justification, or a plea in favour of it, Rom 2:27. Then the apostle concludes the chapter, by giving a definition of a real Jew, and of true circumcision; which he does first negatively, that it is not anything external that makes him a Jew, or anything in the flesh that is right circumcision; but secondly, positively, that it is an inward work of grace that denominates a man a Jew, in a spiritual sense, or an Israelite indeed; and that it is the circumcision of the heart, which is wrought by the Spirit of God, that is true and genuine: and such a Jew, and such a circumcision, are approved of by God, and commended by him, when the other have only praise of men, Rom 2:28, and therefore, however such persons may be justified before men, they cannot be justified in the sight of God; which is the drift and design of the apostle in the whole.

College: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

I. ROMANS: ITS INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE

God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path (Ps 119:105), and no part of it shines more brilliantly than the book of Romans. The truth of God's Word sets us free (John 8:32), and Romans teaches us the most liberating of all truths. God's Word is sharp and piercing like a sword (Heb 4:12), and no blade penetrates more deeply into our hearts than Romans. Overall the book of Romans may be the most read and most influential book of the Bible, but sometimes it is the most neglected and most misunderstood book. The Restoration Movement has tended to concentrate especially on the book of Acts, which is truly foundational and indispensable. But Romans is to Acts what meat is to milk. We need to mature; we need to graduate from Acts to Romans.

In 1 Cor 15:3-4 Paul sums up the gospel as these three truths: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised up again on the third day. The reality of the historical facts of the Savior's death and resurrection is stressed over and over in the book of Acts. Romans, however, is an exposition of the meaning of these facts. In the language of 1 Cor 15:3, Romans focuses not on "Christ died," but on the next three words: " for our sins ." Acts explains what salvation consists of and how we may receive it. Romans does the same, but carries the explanation to heights and depths that thrill and satisfy the soul, providing it with an experience that is at the same time intellectual, spiritual, and esthetic.

The unparalleled ability of Romans to convict sinners and to motivate Christians is well attested. The comment of Sanday and Headlam (v) has often been noted: "If it is a historical fact that the spiritual revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans." Leon Morris (1) concurs: "It is commonly agreed that the Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest Christian writings. Its power has been demonstrated again and again at critical points in the history of the Christian church."

The role of Romans in Augustine's conversion is well known. In his Confessions he tells how a discussion of Christian commitment with two of his friends brought him under strong conviction, filling him with remorse for his sins of sexual immorality and a sense of helplessness to overcome them. Later he and his friend Alypius went into the garden, taking along a copy of Paul's writings. Augustine went off by himself to weep over his sins. While doing so, he reports, "I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating, 'Take up and read; take up and read.'" He took this as a sign from God to open the book of Paul's writings and read the first passage that met his eyes. He quickly returned to where Alypius was sitting and the book was lying. When he opened it, the first words he saw were these from Rom 13:13-14: "Not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." This experience and these words gave him what he needed to turn completely to Christ. He says, "No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended, - by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart, - all the gloom of doubt vanished away."

Godet (1) declares that "the Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans." Morris (1) agrees: "The Reformation may be regarded as the unleashing of new spiritual life as a result of a renewed understanding of the teaching of Romans."

Insofar as the Reformation depends on the work of Martin Luther, this is surely the case. Luther confesses how in 1519 he had an ardent desire to understand the epistle to the Romans. His problem was the way he had been taught to understand the expression "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17. To him it meant the divine justice and wrath by which God punishes sin, which did not sound very much like gospel . "Nevertheless," he says, "I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted." Finally, by the mercy of God, he began to understand this expression in a totally different way, i.e., as the righteousness of Christ that God bestows upon the sinner and on the basis of which the sinner is justified. The effect on Luther was electrifying: "I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates." This new understanding of this one verse - Rom 1:17 - changed everything; it became in a real sense the doorway to the Reformation. "Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise," says Luther ("Latin Writings," 336-337).

Luther's regard for Romans is clearly seen in this well-known paragraph from his famous preface to this epistle:

This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes ("Preface," 365).

These words, first published in 1522, were echoed almost verbatim by the English reformer William Tyndale, in his prologue to his 1534 English translation of the New Testament. He says, "This epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most pure . . . gospel, and also a light and a way in unto the whole Scripture." He also recommends learning it by heart and studying it daily, because "so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein."

The Swiss reformer John Calvin echoes some of Tyndale's thoughts in his own commentary on Romans (xxix): "When any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture."

Working indirectly through Luther's preface, the book of Romans had an effect on John Wesley similar to the way it influenced Augustine and Luther. In his journal Wesley recounts his own search for personal victory over sin and assurance of salvation based on trust in the blood of Christ alone. He tells what happened to him on May 24, 1738:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurace was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine , and saved me from the law of sin and death ( Works , I:103).

Modern scholars and expositors seem unable to praise the letter to the Romans highly enough. Philip Schaff has said, "The Epistle to the Romans is the Epistle of the Epistles, as the Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Gospels" ("Preface," v). "This is in every sense the greatest of the Epistles of Paul, if not the greatest book in the New Testament," declares Thiessen ( Introduction , 219). Newell (375) says Romans is "probably the greatest book in the Bible." "If the apostle Paul had written nothing else, he would still be recognized as one of the outstanding Christian thinkers of all time on the basis of this letter alone," say Newman and Nida (1). This familiar praise comes from Godet (x):

The pious Sailer used to say, "O Christianity, had thy one work been to produce a St. Paul, that alone would have rendered thee dear to the coldest reason." May we not be permitted to add: And thou, O St. Paul, had thy one work been to compose an Epistle to the Romans, that alone would have rendered thee dear to every sound reason.

Godet adds, "The Epistle to the Romans is the cathedral of the Christian faith" (1).

Others add even higher praise. Batey (7) says, "Paul's epistle to the Romans stands among the most important pieces of literature in the intellectual history of Western man." "It is safe to say that Romans is probably the most powerful human document ever written," declares Stedman. Some might think this honor should go to the U.S. Constitution or to the Declaration of Independence. "But even they cannot hold a candle to the impact the Epistle to the Romans has had upon human history" (I:1-2). Boice avows: "Christianity has been the most powerful, transforming force in human history - and the book of Romans is the most basic, most comprehensive statement of true Christianity" (I:13).

Commentators often quote this statement from Coleridge: "I think St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans the most profound work in existence" ( Table Talk , 245). Many will certainly agree, but to Coleridge such profundity was not altogether a virtue. For him it meant that Romans "undoubtedly . . . is, and must be, very obscure to ordinary readers" (ibid., 245-246). Indeed, some think that the Apostle Peter may have been referring to Romans in 2 Pet 3:16. But at the same time, perhaps paradoxically, Newell is correct when he says (vii), "There is no more simple book in the Bible than Romans, when one comes to know the book, its contents, its message, its power."

Scholars praise Romans as the clearest statement of the gospel of salvation. As noted above, Luther called it "the purest gospel." Nygren agrees (3): "What the gospel is, what the content of the Christian faith is, one learns to know in the Epistle to the Romans as in no other place in the New Testament." Cranfield says Romans is "the most systematic and complete exposition of the gospel that the NT contains" (I:31). The Restoration scholar Moses Lard (xx) concurs: "It is the whole gospel compressed into the short space of a single letter - a generalization of Christianity up to the hight [sic] of the marvelous, and a detail down to exhaustion." In Stott's words (19), Romans is "the fullest, plainest and grandest statement of the gospel in the New Testament."

Scholars also praise Romans for its unparalleled presentation of the essence of Christian doctrine . In his preface to Romans (380) Luther says that in Romans we "find most abundantly the things that a Christian ought to know, namely, what is law, gospel, sin, punishment, grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope, and the cross; and also how we are to conduct ourselves toward everyone." Thus it seems that Paul "wanted in this one epistle to sum up briefly the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine." Schaff declares it to be "the heart of the doctrinal portion of the New Testament. It presents in systematic order the fundamental truths of Christianity in their primitive purity, inexhaustible depth, all-conquering force, and never-failing comfort. It is the bulwark of the evangelical doctrines of sin and grace" ("Preface," v).

Modern writers agree. "The truth laid down in Romans forms the Gibraltar basis of doctrine, teaching, and confession in the true evangelical church," says Lenski (8). Moo says the Puritan writer Thomas Draxe described Romans as "the quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine." Moo agrees: "When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine" (I:1). Lard (xx) calls Romans Paul's "great doctrinal chart for the future." Newman and Nida (1) declare that "above all else, the appeal of Romans is its theology ."

Concerning its doctrinal content, MacArthur lists 49 significant questions about God and man that are answered by Romans, e.g., How can a person who has never heard the gospel be held spiritually responsible? How can a sinner be forgiven and justified by God? How are God's grace and God's law related? Why is there suffering? MacArthur points out that these key words are used repeatedly in the epistle: God (154 times), law (77), Christ (66), sin (45), Lord (44), and faith (40).

Which of these assessments is correct? Is Romans the crowning presentation of the Christian gospel ? Or is it the grandest statement of Christian doctrine ? Actually, it is both. Romans is the theology of the New Testament; it is also the definitive statement of the gospel. In this epistle doctrine and gospel merge, and the result is a spiritual feast for Christians.

Boice (I:10) advises that "it is time to rediscover Romans." Actually, it is always time to "rediscover" Romans, and down through the history of Christianity individuals have been doing just this. The results have been earth-shaking. It can and does happen over and over, in the lives of individuals, in congregations, in the Church at large. F.F. Bruce (60) has well said, "There is no telling what may happen when people begin to study the Epistle to the Romans."

II. THE AUTHOR OF ROMANS

The epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul (1:1). In the past a few critics challenged this, but without any real basis in fact. Today, as Cranfield says, "no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin" (I:2). Romans was quoted by the earliest Christian writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin), and was attributed to Paul by name by Marcion in the mid-second century. Since the time of Irenaeus (late second century) writers have explicitly and regularly viewed it as Pauline.

Though composed and dictated by Paul, the letter was actually written down by a Christian scribe named Tertius, who inserted his own greeting in 16:22.

A. PAUL'S JEWISH BACKGROUND

It is not necessary to go into the details of Paul's life, except for a few facts that are important in view of the content of the epistle, which relates especially to the distinction between law and grace. One relevant fact is Paul's Jewish background, which he proudly avowed: "I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin," a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (11:1; Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22). Though born in Tarsus, he was reared in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), the capital of Judaism.

Paul's education included strict and thorough religious training in the contents of the Old Testament - especially the Law (Torah) - at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most famous and most revered of all rabbis. His knowledge of the Law was so great that he was practically identified with it, being given the title "the Beauty of the Law." A saying recorded in the Talmud declares, "Since Rabban Gamaliel died the glory of the Law has ceased." "Under Gamaliel," says Paul, "I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Acts 22:3). "Thoroughly" translates kataÉ ajkrivbeian ( kata akribeian ), "according to exactness, strictness, precision."

Paul's zeal for God and commitment to his Law was total (Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14). He was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5), which he properly identified as "the strictest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). The glory of the Pharisees was the Law; they were devoted to akribeia in its interpretation and observance (Dunn, I:xl). Thus Paul not only knew the Law but also devoted himself to scrupulous obedience to its commandments (Acts 26:4-5; Phil 3:6).

This probably means that he was a legalist in the proper sense of that word, i.e., one who sought acceptance by God on the basis of his obedience to the Law. This is implied in the way he contrasted his pre-Christian life (Phil 3:6) and his Christian life (Phil 3:9). This is also the way Pharisees are generally pictured in the Gospels.

Paul's zeal for the Law was expressed perhaps most vehemently in his fanatical persecution of the earliest Christians, all converted Jews whom he no doubt regarded as traitors to God and his Law (Phil 3:6). See Acts 7:58; 8:3; 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 1:13.

B. PAUL'S CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY

The second relevant fact about the Apostle Paul is his conversion. The details need not be recounted here. What is important is that the one who converted him to Christianity was no human preacher, but was Jesus himself (Gal 1:15-16). Also, the gospel he preached was not taught to him by a human teacher; he received it by direct revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). The result was that Paul's conversion, his change, his turnaround, was complete. Whereas before he was totally committed to the Mosaic Law as a way of life and salvation, once converted he was just as totally committed to the gospel of grace.

As a Christian Paul set himself in complete opposition to everything he had stood for as a Pharisee. He now understood the way of law to be futile (10:3). He saw that his former legalistic approach to salvation was, as Murray says, "the antithesis of grace and of justification by faith" (I:xiii). Thus when Paul presents the classic contrast between law and grace in Romans, he speaks as one who knew both sides of the issue from personal experience and from the best teachers available. As Murray says, he is describing "the contrast between the two periods in his own life history, periods divided by the experience of the Damascus road" (I:xiv).

It is no surprise that Paul's preaching of the gospel and his condemnation of law-righteousness turned the Jews completely against him, even to the point that they tried to kill him (Acts 9:29; 13:45; 14:2, 19; 17:5-8; 18:12; 2 Cor 11:24-26). His opponents included "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26), the Judaizers, or Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah but still clung to the Law of Moses.

In spite of all of this upheaval, Paul did not turn against the Jews as such. He still regarded them as his beloved brothers according to the flesh (9:1-3; 10:1), and as blessed by God in an incomparable way (3:1-2; 9:4-5). In fact, a major aspect of the teaching in Romans is an explanation and a defense of God's purpose for his Old Covenant people, the Jews (see especially chs. 9-11).

C. PAUL'S COMMISSION AS

THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

The last detail about Paul's life that is relevant here is his call and commission to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17). His appointment as an apostle (1:1) invested him with the full authority of Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that his teachings are truly the Word of God (1 Cor 2:6-13; 1 Thess 2:13). When we read the book of Romans, we must understand it to be nothing less than this.

Also, Paul's appointment as the apostle to the Gentiles (1:5) completely governed his thoughts and deeds from that point on. As a Jew and a Pharisee, he had no doubt shared the typical Hebrew aversion to anything Gentile; and he had no doubt gloried in the Jews' exclusive position as God's chosen people. Thus when God revealed to him the mystery of the Gentiles - that it had been his plan all along to include Gentiles in the people of the Messiah (Eph 3:1-10), Paul was overwhelmed with awe and joy. He unhesitatingly opened his heart to the very people he had once despised. This was another complete turnaround in his life, and he devoted himself totally to his new mission.

Paul's role as apostle to the Gentiles had a direct bearing on his relationship with the Roman church and his letter to them. Paul tells us that he had often desired to visit Rome, in order to preach the gospel and have some converts there, "just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13). But since there was already a church in Rome, God's Spirit directed him into other Gentile areas in Asia Minor and the Greek peninsula first (15:17-22). But now he has covered this territory with three lengthy tours of missionary service (15:19). Thus he is ready to launch out into a totally new area, namely, Spain; and his journey there will take him through Rome, as he announces in this epistle (15:23-24).

Throughout the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes with the full conciousness of his mission to the Gentiles and of the Gentiles in his audience. One point that he clarifies in the letter is the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews with respect to salvation.

III. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Immediately after his baptism Paul began to preach Christ in Damascus (Acts 9:19-20), but soon went away into Arabia (Gal 1:17), which may have been the time he received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He went from there back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17-18) and elsewhere, and ultimately to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26).

From Antioch Paul launched his first missionary trip among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3), which was followed by two more. While in Ephesus on his third journey, "Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also'" (Acts 19:21). He shortly departed for Achaia (Greece) and arrived in Corinth, where he stayed for three months (Acts 20:1-3). This was approximately twenty years after his conversion, and ten years after the beginning of his first journey.

Corinth was the farthest point of his third trip, whence he retraced his steps back toward Ephesus. He stopped at Miletus instead, and traveled from there on to Jerusalem, with the goal of arriving by Pentecost (Acts 20:16-17). One main reason for the trip to Jerusalem was to deliver the money he had collected from the (mostly Gentile) churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Greece, to help the poor (mostly Jewish) saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-26). Though "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem, he was apprehensive about what might happen to him there (Acts 20:22-23).

It was in the midst of this final journey, during the three months Paul spent at Corinth, that he most likely wrote the letter to the Romans. He was apparently staying at the house of Gaius (16:23), one of his converts at Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). The letter was carried to Rome by Phoebe, a Christian from the church in nearby Cenchrea (16:1).

The exact date of the writing of Romans is calculated in relation to the overall chronology of Paul's life and work. There is no unanimity on this chronology, though the differences of opinion are minor. Everyone agrees that the Apostle's stay in Corinth must have been in late winter and/or early spring, since he planned to set out from there and arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost. Most agree also that this would have been in the middle or late 50s. Thus Romans was probably written early in A.D. 56, 57, or 58.

IV. RECIPIENTS OF ROMANS:

THE CHURCH IN ROME

Rome was the largest and most important city in the Roman Empire in Paul's day. Its population was probably over one million. Of this number, it is estimated that forty to fifty thousand were Jews, with as many as fifteen identifiable synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvi; Edwards, 9).

How the church in Rome originated is not known. There is no real evidence that Peter founded it, contrary to a common tradition. Some say that Rom 15:20 shows this could not have been the case. Here Paul says that he does not intend to "be building on someone else's foundation." The fact that he did plan to visit Rome and work there implies that no apostle had been there yet (MacArthur, I:xviii; Moo, I:4).

One very common speculation is that the Roman church was probably started by Jews and proselytes from Rome who were in the audience that heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and who were among the converts baptized that day. Upon returning to Rome, they would have established the church there. If so, and this seems very likely, then the first Christians in Rome were converts from Judaism.

Another likely speculation is that Christians from other churches, perhaps some of Paul's own converts from his earlier work in Tarsus and Antioch and Asia Minor, were among those who started the Roman church and helped it to grow. Perhaps some of Paul's acquaintances named in Romans 16 were among this group. Such a scenario is highly probable, given the importance of Rome and the constant travel to and from that city.

Thus the church in Rome would have begun not as the result of some formal missionary effort, but by residents converted while traveling (e.g., Acts 2:10) and by Christians moving there from other places. Their own evangelistic efforts would certainly have focused on the synagogues of Rome, following the pattern of evangelism reflected in the book of Acts. This would have resulted in converts not only from Judaism but also from among Gentile "God-fearers" who were commonly attached to the synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvii-xlviii).

The epistle to the Romans is addressed "to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (1:7). The main question about these saints is the relative number of Jews and Gentiles among them. In answering this question, scholars usually begin with one solid historical fact, and then draw conclusions based on inferences and a bit of speculation. This has led to the following scenario, for which there is considerable consensus among commentators today.

The one fact is that the Roman emperor Claudius issued a decree that expelled all Jews from Rome. This is recorded in Acts 18:2, and is also mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius. The exact date of the decree is somewhat unclear, but the best calculation is A.D. 49. The reason for the decree is stated thus by Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, (Emperor Claudius) expelled them from the city" (cited in Fiensy, Introduction , 224). Though we cannot be certain about this, most scholars agree that "Chrestus" is just a mistaken spelling of "Christus," and that the decree had to do with Jesus Christ.

In what way would Christ be instigating disturbances among the Jews in Rome? It is inferred that this refers to conflicts among the Jews stemming from Christian evangelism in the various synagogues. Because there was a wide diversity among the Jews and synagogues in Rome, it is concluded that some were more receptive to Christianity than others, and that this must have led to disputes among them. The resulting unrest was apparently unpleasant enough for Claudius to order all Jews to leave the city. It is also assumed that his decree did not make a distinction between unbelieving and believing Jews; thus even the Jewish Christians had to leave, e.g., Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). After the decree the Roman church thus would be composed almost entirely of Gentiles. (See Donfried, "Presuppositions," 104-105.)

When Claudius died around A.D. 54, the decree was no longer enforced, and Jews and Jewish Christians were free to return to Rome. Some think, however, that they were still forbidden to assemble publicly (Wiefel, "Community," 92-94). The results for the church would have been twofold. First, the problem with public assembly may have forced the Christians to set up a number of "house churches," a possibility that seems to be confirmed in Rom 16:5, 14, 15. Second, the returning Jewish Christians would find the Roman church dominated by the Gentile Christians, if not in number then certainly in power and influence (Wiefel, "Community," 94-96).

Thus the saints in Rome, to whom the letter is addressed, were almost certainly a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians, though there is no way to tell which group had the larger number. If the circumstances outlined in the above scenario are correct, however, it is safe to assume that there was tension if not conflict among the two groups. Wiefel refers to "quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Bruce says, "It is implied in Romans 11:13-24 that the Gentile Christians tended to look down on their Jewish brethren as poor relations" ("Debate," 180). Dunn speaks of "at least some friction between Gentile and Jew" within the house churches, with the Jews being in a minority and feeling themselves vulnerable (I:liii).

What is obvious is that in the epistle Paul addresses both groups, with some passages being specifically directed toward the Jewish Christians and some toward the Gentile Christians (see Moo, I:10-11; Murray, I:xviii-xix). Some say the letter as a whole is directed mainly to the Jewish saints; others say it was mainly intended for the Gentiles.

Hendriksen is surely right, though, when he says that regarding the main point of Romans this whole question is really irrelevant, since it applies equally to both groups (I:23). All are sinners (3:9, 23), no one will be saved by law (3:19-20), and all are equal recipients of the grace that is in Christ Jesus (3:24; 4:11-12). Hendriksen stresses Rom 10:12-13, "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

V. THE OCCASION OF THE WRITING

What were the circumstances that prompted Paul to write his epistle to the Romans? We have already noted that he wrote the letter during his three-month stay in Corinth on his final mission trip. What sorts of things were going through his mind that led him to write it at that particular time?

We are fortunate that Paul reveals his mind to us in certain statements of his desires and plans in chapters 1 and 15. These statements show us what occasioned the writing of Romans.

One main consideration was Paul's immediate travel plans, as they related to his all-determining calling as apostle to the Gentiles (15:15-24). He refers to his "priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God" (15:16). For twenty years he had been preaching in the eastern and northeastern sections of the Mediterranean area, and had covered it well. "So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum," he says, "I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ"; so now "there is no more place for me to work in these regions" (15:19, 23). Thus he decided to change his focus to the northwestern section, Spain in particular (15:24, 28). In his mind he was already planning his trip to Spain.

But first he had to go to Jerusalem (15:25-31). His purpose for doing this was to deliver the funds he had been collecting from the Gentile churches "for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" (15:26). He wanted to do this personally, to make sure that the funds were properly received (15:28). To this end he asked the Roman Christians to offer two specific prayers for him (15:30-31).

First, he knew that he still had many enemies in Jerusalem among the Jews especially. He knew that some of these enemies had already tried to kill him. Thus he really was not sure what dangers he might be facing in Jerusalem. Nevertheless he was determined to go (Acts 20:22-23), so he requested that the Roman Christians "pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea" (15:31). He was not afraid of losing his life; he just did not want his newly-formed missionary plans to be aborted (Acts 20:24; Rom 15:32).

Second, Paul was not really sure how the offering from the Gentile churches would be received by the Jewish saints in Jerusalem. There were still a lot of suspicions and misunderstandings between the two groups, mostly about the relation between the Old and New Covenants and the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the Christian. Thus the money he was bringing to the poor in Jerusalem was not just an act of charity, but was also a symbol of unity between the two main factions in the church. Thus Paul was anxious that it might be received in the proper spirit, so he asked the Romans to pray "that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there" (15:31).

Thus Paul was ultimately bound for Spain, after an initial trip to Jerusalem. But there was a third item in his itinerary: an intermediate stop in Rome itself (Acts 19:21; 23:11), a place he had never been. So he announced to the Christians in Rome that on his way to Spain he would stop and visit them (15:23, 24, 28). This was something he had longed to do for many years and had even made plans to do (1:11, 13; 15:23), but had "often been hindered from coming to you" (15:22; cf. 1:13).

Paul had many reasons for wanting to visit the church in Rome. For one thing, he wanted to enlist their help for his mission to Spain. "I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there," he says (15:24). But he had other reasons that predated his plans for Spain. For example, he seems simply to have desired to visit with the Christians there: to have fellowship with them, to enjoy their company, to be spiritually refreshed by them (15:24, 32), and to be encouraged by them (1:12). After all, he knew quite a few of them personally (16:3-15).

Paul's principal longstanding reason for wanting to visit Rome, though, was his desire to preach the gospel there. "I am obligated," he says, "both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:14-15). By this means or by some accompanying means he would be able to "impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong" (1:11). This would also enable him to "have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13).

No wonder that Paul says he was praying "that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you" (1:10).

These are the immediate circumstances that prompted Paul to write the epistle to the Romans. But a simple presentation of these facts does not in itself answer the question of exactly why he wrote the letter. What was his purpose for writing? What did he hope to accomplish by writing this particular letter? This is the subject of the next section.

VI. THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

The question of Paul's purpose for writing the epistle to the Romans is very controversial; there is much disagreement about it. Everyone agrees on the facts described above relating to the occasion for the writing. The problem is that these facts have to be assessed in view of the contents of the main body of the letter, 1:18-15:13. The question is not just why he wrote a letter to the Roman church, but why he wrote this specific letter with this particular content. Why does he write "such a lengthy and involved discussion to a largely unknown congregation"? (Dunn, I:lv).

There are two basic approaches to this question. The older and more traditional approach is that the historical circumstances as described in the previous section were not particularly relevant with regard to Paul's decision to write the letter. Neither Paul's own plans nor the state of the Roman church presented him with a pressing need or occasion that required him to write. Thus unlike his other letters, Romans is more or less non-occasional. It is regarded rather as a kind of timeless theological essay on the essence of Christianity. As Sanday and Headlam describe this view, "the main object of the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than a letter; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the circumstances of the moment" (xl).

The more recent approaches to the purpose of Romans take the opposite view, that it is "a situational letter rather than a doctrinal treatise" (Jewett, "Argument," 265). Paul was not simply writing an essay detached from his circumstances, but was specifically addressing a particular situation that needed his attention at that time. Thus Romans is just as much an occasional letter as 1 Corinthians or Galatians.

Those who take the latter approach usually go in one of two directions. Some emphasize that Paul wrote the letter to fulfill certain needs of his own, relating to his trip either to Jerusalem or to Spain. Others say that Paul wrote mainly to meet the needs of the Roman church at that particular time.

It is possible, of course, that Paul had more than one purpose for writing Romans, as Cranfield says: "It is surely quite clear that Paul did not have just one single purpose in mind but rather a complex of purposes and hopes" (II:815). Dunn (I:lx) and Moo (I:20) agree.

A. ROMANS IS A DOCTRINAL ESSAY

Now we shall go into a bit more detail concerning the possibilities outlined above. The first view is that Paul was not addressing a specific situation but was writing a timeless doctrinal essay. In its most extreme form this view says that Romans is a complete systematic theology, a compendium of Christian doctrine. Shedd (viii) calls it " an inspired system of theology , . . . a complete statement of religious truth." Romans is so "encyclopædic in its structure" that one "need not go outside of this Epistle, in order to know all religious truth."

More recently Bornkamm has taken a similar view, describing Romans as Paul's "last will and testament" - "a summary of his theology in light of the impending danger in Jerusalem" (Donfried, "Presuppositions," 103). Bornkamm says ("Letter," 27-28), "This great document . . . summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and . . . elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid."

Many writers agree that Romans was not occasioned by some immediate need or crisis but was a kind of doctrinal essay. Nygren says (4), "The characteristic and peculiar thing about Romans, differentiating it from the rest of Paul's epistles, is just the fact that it was not, or was only in slight degree aimed at circumstances within a certain congregation." Lenski (10-12) agrees.

Most who take this non-occasional view, however, say that it is an exaggeration to call Romans a full-blown systematic theology. "If Romans is a compendium of theology," says Morris (8), "there are some curious gaps." (See also Moo, I:1; Hendriksen, I:25; W. Williams, 19-20.) It is a doctrinal essay, to be sure, but one that is more focused and limited in its scope.

Just what is the focus of this doctrinal essay? The most common view is that it has to do with the doctrines of salvation, i.e., that Romans is a summary or synopsis of Paul's gospel . Morris says that Paul probably thought his three-month, pressure-free sojourn in Corinth was a good time to bring together the timeless teachings that had crystallized in his thinking during his twenty years as a preacher. Thus he sets forth "a summary of the gospel and its consequences as he understood them" (pp. 18-19). Cranfield likewise says it is likely that Paul "was conscious of having reached a certain maturity of experience, reflection and understanding, which made the time ripe for him to attempt, with God's help, such an orderly presentation of the gospel" (II:817).

Vincent summarizes this whole approach quite well when he says that Romans "is distinguished among the epistles by its systematic character. Its object is to present a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of salvation through Christ, not a complete system of christian doctrine" ( Word Studies , III:x). As Hendriksen says (I:25), "Romans is not really 'a complete compendium of Christian Doctrine.' If it had been Paul's intention to draw up such a document, he would surely have included far more material." The specific doctrine he deals with is one needed not just in Rome but by all people in all times: " the manner in which sinners are saved ." (See Edwards, 3.)

The idea that Romans is a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the general doctrine of salvation is correct, in my opinion. However, I do not think it is wise to separate it too sharply from the occasion or circumstances discussed in the last section. I question W. Williams' approach, for example, when he says (19), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation," and in the next sentence says, "This discussion was incidental to the apostle's circumstances." In my opinion this is a false choice. It is an essay on salvation, but its purpose was definitely related to the circumstances at that time, as we shall see below.

B. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED

BY PAUL'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS

The second major approach to the purpose of Romans is that it was occasioned by the various circumstances relating to Paul's immediate plans in relation to his mission. In other words, it was designed to meet needs that Paul felt in his own life at the time. As Jervell says, "Its raison d'être does not stem from the situation of the Roman congregation, but is to be found in Paul himself at the time of writing" ("Letter," 54).

The main idea here resembles the modern practice of churches requesting that prospective ministers send a tape recording of one of their sermons. In this case Paul takes the initiative and sets forth in writing a "sermon" or a lengthy presentation of his gospel. He does this because he needs to introduce himself to people who are not familiar with him or with what he preaches. Or, he does this because his enemies are spreading false rumors about what he preaches, and are misrepresenting his gospel especially as to what he says about Jew-Gentile relations. Thus Romans is not just a presentation but also a defense of Paul's gospel.

This is how Moo explains the purpose of Romans. The various circumstances that he faced "forced Paul to write a letter in which he carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation" (I:20). Bruce agrees that it was "expedient that Paul should communicate to the Roman Christians an outline of the message which he proclaimed. Misrepresentations of his preaching and his apostolic procedure were current and must have found their way to Rome" ("Debate," 182). (See Stuhlmacher, "Purpose," 236.)

Why was it crucial for Paul at this particular time to write such a presentation and defense of his gospel? The answer is that it was necessary in order to facilitate his immediate plans. For one thing, he was on his way to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor saints, and was apprehensive about how this would turn out. Thus some contend that in this letter Paul was rehearsing what he was going to say in Jerusalem in defense of himself and in an effort to seal Jew-Gentile unity. He sent the product to the Roman church in a letter, asking them to pray for him and the upcoming Jerusalem episode (15:30-32). Thus, says Jervell, Romans is Paul's "'collection speech,' or more precisely, the defense which Paul plans to give before the church in Jerusalem." He sends it to Rome "to ask the Roman congregation for solidarity, support, and intercession on his behalf" ("Letter," 56). Dunn calls this Paul's "apologetic purpose" (I:lvi; see I:xlii-xliii).

Though this is a fairly common view today, some object to it or at least doubt that it could be the only purpose for Romans (Moo, I:18). Thus other aspects of Paul's immediate plans must have elicited the letter. One of the most obvious is Paul's plan to visit Rome itself. Though he knew some of the Roman Christians, he had never been in Rome and would not know most of the people there. It must have seemed expedient, then, for him to write a kind of "letter of introduction" to himself, especially in view of the false rumors that were probably afoot.

This is how Morris understands it (16-17). Paul used his three-month interlude in Corinth "to write to the Roman Christians to let them know of his plan to visit them and to set down in order something of what the gospel meant." He wanted to give them "a clear but profound statement of the essential message of Christianity as he proclaimed it. This will show the Romans where he stands." MacArthur's view is similar: "Paul's letter to the church at Rome was, among other things, an introduction to himself as an apostle. He clearly set forth the gospel he preached and taught, so that believers in Rome would have complete confidence in his authority" (I:xix). (See also Stott, 34.)

Those who hold this view usually take it a step further, and say that Paul laid out and defended his gospel to the Romans as a means of enlisting their support for his Spanish mission. In a real sense Rome was just a means to an end, both in Paul's itinerary and in his missionary strategy. He needed them as a kind of "base of operations" for what he hoped to accomplish in Spain (Stott, 33). Thus "if Rome was to be his base, the Romans would need to be assured of his message and theological position" (Morris, 17). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "missionary purpose" for Romans (I:lv). This is a fairly common view. (See Cranfield, II:817-818; Jewett, "Argument," 266, 277.)

C. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED BY NEEDS AT ROME ITSELF

As we have just seen, those who believe the writing of Romans was motivated by the immediate circumstances sometimes locate those circumstances in Paul's own personal needs. Others who take the occasional approach, however, believe that the situation in Rome itself is what Paul is specifically addressing in this epistle. Though he had not been there, he still would have been acquainted with the state of the Roman church. It was, after all, a famous church (1:8). Besides, Paul's Roman friends, such as Aquila and Priscilla (16:3), would probably have kept him informed especially of any problems that existed there (Sanday and Headlam, xl-xli).

Whatever the nature of those problems or needs, Paul wrote to resolve them. Since all of Paul's other letters were "addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved," says Donfried, we must begin with the assumption that Romans "was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome" ("Presuppositions," 103). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "pastoral purpose" (I:lvi-lviii).

1. The Need for Jew-Gentile Unity

What sorts of needs existed at Rome that would call forth from Paul's pen the most magnificent gospel tract ever written? Several possibilities are suggested, but the one most commonly held begins with the assumption that there was considerable tension in the Roman church between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Thus the purpose of Paul's letter was to resolve this tension.

This view usually grows out of the speculations (discussed above) concerning the development of the Roman church following Claudius' decree expelling the Jews from Rome. With Jewish Christians being forced to leave Rome, the Gentile Christians became the dominant force; and this situation prevailed even after the former returned to Rome. This led to conflict between the two factions. This scenario is supported by the various references to Jews and Gentiles (Greeks) in Romans, by the discussion of the weak (Jews?) and the strong (Gentiles?) in 14:1-15:13, and by several references to unity and division within the church (12:16; 15:5; 16:17-18). Such texts seem to be evidence of a "basic division existing between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians at Rome" (P. Williams, "Purpose," 64).

This view has been argued by Marxsen and more recently by Wiefel, who concludes that Romans "was written to assist the Gentile Christian majority, who are the primary addressees of the letter, to live together with the Jewish Christians in one congregation, thereby putting an end to their quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Here is Edwards' summary (15-16):

Romans is addressed to the problems which inevitably resulted when Jewish Christians began returning to Rome following the edict of Claudius. We can imagine their trials of readjusting to churches which had become increasingly Gentile in their absence. Would Gentile believers who had established their supremacy during the Jewish absence, and for whom the law was now largely irrelevant, continue to find a place within their fellowship for a Jewish Christian minority which still embraced the law? Paul cannot have been unaware of such concerns.

In Dunn's words, "Paul wrote to counter (potential) divisions within Rome among the Christian house churches, particularly the danger of gentile believers despising less liberated Jewish believers" (I:lvii). (See also Stott, 34-36.)

2. The Need for an Apostolic Foundation

Another possible need being addressed by Paul is related to the circumstances of the origin of the church in Rome. It is inferred from 15:20 that no apostle was involved in its founding, nor as yet had even visited Rome. Thus Paul was concerned that the church did not have a solid apostolic foundation (see Eph 2:20), and he writes this epistle in order to provide that foundation. This is the view of Günter Klein ("Purpose," 39, 42), but Morris (11-12) gives reasons for doubting it.

3. The Need for Paul's Gospel

Another possibility (to which I subscribe) is that Paul did indeed recognize the need of the Roman church to hear his apostolic preaching and teaching, but not necessarily in a foundational sense. This view begins with Paul's sense of duty, based upon his special calling, to preach the gospel to everyone in the Gentile world (1:14), including those in Rome: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:15).

But these people are already Christians. Why would Paul want to "preach the gospel" to believers ? Here is a point that is often missed: the gospel is more than just the initial evangelistic witness given to unbelievers with a view to their conversion. It also includes the deeper meaning and implications of the basic facts of salvation, which are things about which even mature believers can never hear enough. That Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Christians in Rome means that he wanted to go deeper into the meaning of Christ's saving work "for our sins," unfolding for them the full power of the gospel in the Christian life and at the same time clearing up common misunderstandings that may arise through incomplete knowledge.

Paul's desire, of course, was to do this in person, and he had often planned to travel to Rome for this very reason. Up to this point, however, God's providence had prevented it (1:13; 15:22). Now he is once again planning to go to Rome, after his trip to Jerusalem with the offering. But based on his past experience and the uncertainty about what would happen to him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-24), at this point he could not be certain that he would ever reach Rome in person.

This led Paul to the conclusion that if he was ever going to preach the gospel in Rome, perhaps the only way he would be able to do so was in writing . Thus he takes the time, while staying in Corinth just before traveling to Jerusalem, to prepare a well-thought-out essay on the gospel as every Christian needs to hear it; and he sends it on to Rome in advance of his intended trip there. Thus it seems likely, says Campbell, that "the letter is the written equivalent of the oral presentation which Paul would have delivered to the congregation had he himself been present" ("Key," 258).

According to this view, then, Romans is not just a basic presentation of the gospel, written in order to provide the Roman Christians with a missing apostolic foundation. And as Nygren (7) rightly notes, "it is a misunderstanding of Romans to see in it a typical example of Paul's missionary preaching." This is contrary to those who think Paul was just introducing himself to the Roman church, hoping to win their support for his mission to Spain by rehearsing the gospel as he usually preached it. Stuhlmacher rightly notes that how Paul "preached and taught as a missionary cannot be simply inferred from the outline of Romans" ("Purpose," 242).

According to this view, then, the primary purpose for Romans is not related to some need within Paul himself (e.g., his concern for defending himself; his missionary plans); nor is it related to some negative situation in the Roman church (e.g., Jew-Gentile disunity). It is motivated rather by Paul's loving concern for his fellow-Christians at Rome, and his desire to bless their hearts and lives with this written version of the deeper aspects of the gospel of grace. This point is brought out very well by Hendriksen (I:24):

Paul, being an intensely warm and loving person, desires to go to Rome in order to be a blessing to his friends (Rom. 1:10, 11) and to be refreshed by them (15:32). Moreover, it is for this same reason that he, now that it is impossible for him to go to Rome immediately , communicates with the Roman church by means of this letter. He writes to the Romans because he loves them. They are his friends "in Christ," and by means of this letter he imparts his love to them . . . .

It is strange that this deeply personal reason . . . , a reason clearly brought out by the apostle himself, is often overlooked. At times the emphasis is placed entirely on theological motivation or on mission incentive: Paul wants to correct errors of the antinomians and/or wants to make Rome the headquarters for the evangelization of Spain. To be sure, these matters are important, but we should begin with the reason first stated by Paul himself in this very epistle.

D. CONCLUSION

We have surveyed the main reasons why Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans. It should be obvious that some of these reasons may overlap or be combined; so we need not focus narrowly upon just one of them. Jewett, for example, says the immediate reason was to resolve the Jew-Gentile tensions, but this was sought in order to gain a strong and unified backing for the mission to Spain ("Argument," 266). After summarizing the missionary, apologetic, and pastoral purposes, Dunn concludes that "all three of these main emphases and purposes hang together and indeed reinforce each other when taken as a whole" (I:lviii).

In my opinion, though, the dominant reason is the last one discussed above: Paul's desire to preach the gospel to the Romans, and his decision to do so in the form of an epistle. This is the factor that Paul stresses in the introductory section of the letter, where we would expect him to say what is closest to his heart. It seems inappropriate to give priority to ch. 15 on this matter, and to pass over what Paul himself chooses to mention first of all. Just because he tells the Romans about his plans in ch. 15 is no reason to assume that his purpose for writing to Rome is specifically or directly related to these plans.

We may conclude, then, that Romans is indeed an occasional letter, that it was occasioned by the need of the Roman Christians to hear Paul's gospel and by the circumstances that made it expedient for him to send it to them in written form at this particular time. Thus Romans is by design a clear presentation of the deeper implications of the gospel, written not for Paul's sake but for the sake of the church at Rome. The references to Paul's own plans and needs in ch. 15 are secondary.

At the same time, just because of the nature of the situation that caused Paul to write this epistle, the purpose for Romans includes the first view discussed above, namely, that it was intended to be a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the meaning of salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. As noted above, it is a systematic presentation of the gospel : not necessarily the gospel as proclaimed in an evangelistic situation, but the gospel as unfolded to mature Christians.

When this point is understood, we can see that the epistle to the Romans is intended not just for the saints in Rome in the middle of the first century A.D., but for all Christians in all ages. It is relevant for all since it deals with salvation from sin through God's grace. As Moo rightly says (I:21),

That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately the issues of the church - and the world - of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, security in the face of suffering and death.

The circumstances contributing to the writing of this letter were far broader than the immediate situation in Rome and Paul's own immediate travel plans. They included Paul's own pre-Christian life as a Jew who sought acceptance with God on the basis of his own righteousness. They included Paul's twenty years of preaching to sinners of all types, Jews and Gentiles. They included his dealings with new Christians and new churches with all their weaknesses and problems. His experience and knowledge of human nature and human need were personal and comprehensive; thus the gospel of Romans is generic and timeless.

In most of the discussions of the purpose of Romans, a forgotten factor is the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. It is Paul himself who tells us that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Whatever circumstances led Paul to compose his letter to the Romans, the choice to write and the message he wrote were not his alone. The Holy Spirit worked through Paul to produce this letter (see 2 Pet 1:20-21), and the Holy Spirit knows more than any man what is needed by every sinner and by every Christian seeking peace and power. In the final analysis it is the Spirit of God, and not just the Apostle Paul, who speaks to our hearts in the epistle to the Romans.

VII. THE THEME OF ROMANS

Almost everyone today rejects the idea that Romans is a compendium or summary of Christian theology as such. It is nevertheless generally recognized that the content of the epistle is doctrinal in nature. Its main body is an essay or treatise with a strong doctrinal emphasis and seems to be built around a particular theme. The question now is, exactly what is the theme of Romans? Several answers have been proposed.

A. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

The Reformation established a way of looking at Romans that still has considerable support among Protestants, namely, that the main theme of the epistle is stated in 1:16-17. It can be summed up in the familiar phrase, "justification by faith," i.e., justification or righteousness before God comes through faith alone. John Calvin (xxix) states succinctly that "the main subject of the whole Epistle" is "justification by faith."

Boers says this is the theme that "currently almost universally controls the interpretation of the letter" ( Justification , 77). This is surely an exaggeration, but the justification view is still very popular. Concerning the principal content of Romans, Nygren says (16), "From the beginning evangelical Christianity has spoken clearly on that point: justification by faith. That answer is correct." Defining "theme" as "central topic" rather than as exclusive topic, Hendriksen agrees that justification by faith, "spread out into 'justification by grace through faith'. . . , is clearly the theme of Romans" (I:29). Edwards (3) says that "the driving concern throughout is salvation - that righteousness comes as a free gift of God and is received by faith alone." Stott (35) says two themes are woven together in the epistle. "The first is the justification of guilty sinners by God's grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, irrespective of either status or works."

Many scholars today have rejected this traditional approach. Though justification by faith is a main topic in Romans, says Boers (88), it "never becomes thematic." Too much of its subject matter simply does not relate to this subject, he says (78). Moo agrees (I:26-27). (See Stott, 24-31.)

B. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

Those who are not satisfied with justification by faith as the theme for Romans sometimes opt for one that is very similar, namely, the righteousness of God (1:17). Beker says this is "the key term for the letter as a whole" ("Faithfulness," 331). Jewett says the thesis of Romans is that the gospel is "the 'power of God' to achieve the triumph of divine righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17)" ("Argument," 266).

Since the righteousness of God is integrally related to justification by faith, the two themes are sometimes confused. This is because one aspect of the theme of divine righteousness is that the righteousness of God is the basis for the personal justification of individual sinners. This is the sense in which Nygren says that the righteousness of God - in the sense of righteousness from God - is "the fundamental concept" and "the very foundation thought" of the epistle (9, 14-15), even though he says the "principal content" of the letter is justification by faith (16).

But most of those today who say that the righteousness of God is the theme of Romans are using the expression in a broader, more comprehensive sense. For them it includes the idea of the divine righteousness as the basis for individual justification, to be sure. For example, Stuhlmacher says the theme of Romans is "the gospel of the divine righteousness in Christ for those who believe from among the Jews and Gentiles" ("Theme," 334, 337). But in Romans, they say, the theme is more inclusive than this. It includes God's righteousness as the basis not only of his dealings with individual believers, but also of his dealings with mankind in general and especially with the Jewish nation in the context of redemptive history.

The question raised by the indiscriminate offer of justification by faith to both Jews and Gentiles is whether God is being fair with the Jews, in view of all the special treatment he has already bestowed upon them and the special promises he has given them. Does the gospel's "no partiality" principle bring God's justice or righteousness into question? "What is at stake is nothing less than the faithfulness of God," says Beker ("Faithfulness," 330); and this is what Paul is dealing with especially in Rom 9-11. Stuhlmacher explains that the "righteousness of God" refers to "the entire redemptive activity of God in Christ from creation to redemption" ("Theme," 341).

Thus according to this view the theme of Romans is not just the salvation of man but the defense of God, with perhaps the greater emphasis falling on the latter. As Fiensy says (227), "Romans is then a theodicy or defense of God in light of the Jewish-Gentile problem in the church." Gaertner says that the kinds of questions Paul raises in Romans (e.g., 3:3; 3:5; 3:29; 9:14) inquire into the nature of God's dealings with sinners, especially with his fairness and faithfulness. Thus Gaertner labels Romans "the gospel of God's fairness" ("Fairness," 1:14).

C. THE EQUALITY OF JEWS AND GENTILES

A third view is that the theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in God's plan of salvation. This is currently a popular view. It stems mainly from the reconstruction of the origin and development of the Roman church as described earlier in this introduction. It goes hand in hand with the idea that the letter is intended to deal with certain specific circumstances existing in Rome, especially the apparent disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It recognizes that "the entire letter to the Romans is . . . permeated with Jew-Gentile issues" (Fiensy, Introduction , 230).

In its most general form this view says that the main emphasis of Romans is the universality of the gospel: there is just one way of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. The transcendent gospel goes beyond the Jew-Gentile distinction. God's salvation is given to both groups equally, favoring neither and offering favor to both.

Boers is an example of this view. He says the consistent theme of the main body of Romans is "salvation of Jews and gentiles, and the relationship between them" ( Justification , 80). This theme is stated in Rom 1:16, "that the gospel is the power of God for all who believe, to the Jews first, and to the Hellenes" (80). That salvation is offered to the Jews first is important, but so is the idea that "there is no difference between Jews and gentiles" (81-82).

Dunn says, "It is precisely the tension between 'Jew first but also Greek' (1:16), which . . . provides an integrating motif for the whole letter." Paul's "repeated emphasis on 'all'" underscores the theme of universality. Even the emphasis on the righteousness of God "is primarily an exposition of the same Jew/Gentile theme," i.e., it is Paul's way of arguing that Gentiles are full recipients of the saving grace of God as much as Jews are (I:lxii-lxiii).

As noted earlier, Stott says two themes are woven together in Romans, the first being justification by faith. But since this applies equally to all people, it is the "fundamental basis of Christian unity." This provides the second theme of Romans, that "'there is no difference' now between Jews and Gentiles. . . . Indeed, 'the single most important theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles'" (35-36).

Interpreters differ as to the nature of the circumstances that led Paul to emphasize the theme of equality. Some say the Gentile Christians at Rome did not want to fully accept the Jewish Christians, so Romans is basically defending the right of the latter to full status in the Kingdom of God. This is how Boers understands the "Jews first" theme, as noted above. Jewett says, "Nowhere else in Paul's writings are the concerns of Jewish Christians taken up in so systematic and friendly a manner, thus counterbalancing the prejudices of the Gentile majority of Roman Christians" ("Argument," 276). The development of this theme in Rom 9-11 "is relevant to the situation in Rome," says Bruce. Here Paul "warns the Gentiles among his readers not to despise the Jews, . . . because God has not written them off" ("Debate," 183-184).

On the other hand, some say the problem in Rome was the status of the Gentile Christians. W. Williams says (19-20), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation." More specifically, Romans is Paul's "defense of the rights of the Gentiles against the Jewish assumption that excluded them from the Church, and from the chance of salvation." Thus "the sole intent of the apostle was to maintain the equality of the Gentiles against the assumption of the Jews." Stendahl agrees that Paul's concern is the salvation of the Gentiles. Even the subject of justification serves the purpose of "defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel" ( Paul , 2-4).

Either way the subject is approached, the main point is the same: the principal theme of Romans is to demonstrate the equality of Jews and Gentiles with regard to the saving grace of God.

D. SINNERS ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT LAW

All of the themes discussed above are certainly present in Romans, and all are important. All of them contribute significantly to the main theme. But I believe none of them as such is the main point Paul is communicating to us in the epistle. Rather than seeing 1:16-17 as the thesis statement for Paul's treatise, I see it more or less as the starting point leading up to the thesis, which is 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

In the most general sense Paul's thesis relates to the gospel , since his desire to preach the gospel in Rome (1:15) is what led him to compose the epistle as a written version of his gospel. In this sense Moo is correct: "What, then, is the theme of the letter? If we have to choose one - and perhaps it would be better not to - we would choose 'the gospel.'" Romans is simply "Paul's statement of 'his' gospel" (I:28).

But since the gospel is the good news about salvation, also in a general sense the theme of Romans is salvation . As Harrison says (7), "Salvation is the basic theme of Romans (cf. 1:16) - a salvation presented in terms of the righteousness of God, which, when received by faith, issues in life (1:17)." Or as Hendriksen says, the basic doctrine at stake (especially in 1:16-8:39) is " the manner in which sinners are saved" (I:25). And the manner in which sinners are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, is the same: justification by faith.

But the theme of Romans is more precise than this. Yes, sinners are justified by faith, but this means they are not justified by works of law, which is the only alternative. It is just as important to include the negative statement in the theme as the positive one.

In actuality, then, the basic theme of Romans is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation. This contrast is seen especially in 3:28, which (literally translated) says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." The contrast is stated succinctly in 6:14, "You are not under law, but under grace." This is the gospel, the good news of salvation. Certainly it is good news to know that God justifies us by faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. But in a real sense it is also good news to know that we are not justified by law-keeping: a way of salvation which is not only futile but which sinners in their hearts know is futile, and which thus leads only to self-deception or to despair.

Commenting on Romans, Grubbs says, "The Gospel versus the Law is the one theme of which he [Paul] never loses sight in the elaboration of the details of this wonderful production" (9). Though this is a very common way of speaking - "gospel versus law" - it is not altogether accurate. The real contrast is grace versus law, and this message as a whole is the gospel.

Thus Paul's theme is indeed that we are saved by grace, not by law. Law is not a viable option as a means of salvation; the only way for sinners to be counted righteous before God is by grace. Yes, we are justified by faith, but not by works of law. Yes, the righteousness of God figures prominently in our justification, but in contrast to the righteousness of man. Yes, Romans does emphasize full equality regarding this way of salvation; Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. Both are saved by grace and justified by faith as provided by the righteousness of God, but in contrast with every false way.

This contrast between law and grace as competing ways of salvation is not a matter of OT versus NT nor Old Covenant versus New Covenant, as if law were the way to be saved prior to Christ and grace is the way to be saved now that Christ has come. Also, the contrast between law and grace - THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - is not simply the Law of Moses versus the grace of Jesus Christ. No sinner has ever been saved nor can be saved by the law that applies to him, whether it be the Law of Moses for Jews under the Old Covenant, or some other comparable set of God's commandments for anyone else in any other time. Every sinner who has been saved since the time of Adam has been saved by grace and not by law, and this will always be the case.

The problem that Paul addresses in the book of Romans is not one that confronts Jews only, nor Gentiles only. It is not a problem faced only by those who are under the Mosaic Law, nor only by those to whom the Mosaic Law does not apply. The problem being addressed is this: As a sinner, how can I be saved? It is a problem faced by Jews and Gentiles alike, and the solution is the same for both.

Perhaps even more significantly, the problem addressed in Romans is not one confronted only by unbelieving sinners. It is a problem that believers often wrestle with as well (e.g., the Judaizers). When we state the problem thus - "As a sinner, how can I be saved?" - we can break it down into two separate problems. First is the unbeliever's problem: "How can I become saved?" The answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law. Second is the believer's continuing problem: "How can I stay saved?" And the answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law.

This is why the epistle to the Romans has always been and always will be in a class by itself with regard to its impact on individuals and upon the church as a whole. Its basic theme is one that is always needed and always applicable, and one that will result in the highest praise to God the Redeemer once it is understood.

PREFACE TO VOLUME 2

The introductory issues regarding the book of Romans have been discussed in Vol. 1 of this work (pp. 21-55). Also, the outline for chs. 1-8 of Romans is included in that volume (pp. 55-58).

References to passages in the book of Romans itself are usually limited to chapter and verse data only. For my policy regarding quotations from other sources, see the note at the beginning of the bibliography.

I wish to express my thanks to my wife, Barbara, for her patience in accepting my writing schedule while this work has been in production. My thanks go also to College Press for inaugurating this project, and especially to College Press editor John Hunter for adjusting to a writer who suffers from incurable prolixity. Another special word of thanks is due to my employers at the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary who encourage my writing in many ways, especially through their regular sabbatical policy.

Above all, thanks be to God for his saving grace, for his Holy Word, and especially for the letter to the Romans with its incomparable beauty and power.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given.

I. COMMENTARIES

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans , 2 ed. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Bartlett, C. Norman. Right in Romans: Studies in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Batey, Richard A. The Letter of Paul to the Romans . Austin: R.B. Sweet, 1969.

Black, Matthew. Romans , 2 ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Boice, James Montgomery. Romans , 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991ff.

Brokke, Harold J. Saved by His Life . Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1964.

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

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Tr. by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, new series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans. 2 vols. Volume 38 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle to the Romans: An Exposition . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1925.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Tr. by A. Cusin. Ed. by Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Greathouse, William M. Romans . Vol. 6 of Beacon Bible Expositions. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1975.

Grubbs, Isaiah Boone. An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Ed. by George A. Kingman. 6th ed. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, n.d.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary . Volume 10. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Pp. 1-171.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lipscomb, David. Romans . Vol. I in A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles. 2nd ed. Ed. by J. W. Shepherd. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25-Atonement and Justification . London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6-The New Man . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4-The Law: Its Functions and Limits . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & tr. by Wilhelm Pauck. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. XV. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace . Ed. by Herman A. Hoyt. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Mitchell, John G., with Dick Bohrer. Right with God: A Devotional Study of the Epistle to the Romans . Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990.

Moo, Douglas. Romans . 2 vols. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moser, K.C. The Gist of Romans , revised ed. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1958.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newell, William R. Lessons on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . No publisher given, 1925.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Press, 1987.

Robertson, A.T. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. IV in Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1931.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, old series. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God . Tr. by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Shields, Bruce. Romans . Standard Bible Studies. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1988.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979); and Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stedman, Ray C. From Guilt to Glory, Volume I: Romans 1-8 . Waco: Word Books, 1978.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

Williams, William G. An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1902.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine . Vol. XIV in The Works of Aurelius Augustine. Ed. by Marcus Dods. Tr. by J.G. Pilkington. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Balz, Horst. "ajpokaradokiva." Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament . Ed. by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. I:132-133.

Bartchy, S. Scott. MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, #11. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

Beker, J.C. "The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul's Letter to the Romans." RomDeb , 327-332.

Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Bornkamm, Günther. "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament." RomDeb , 16-28.

Boswell, John. Christianity , Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Bruce, F.F. "The Romans Debate -Continued." RomDeb , 177-194.

Campbell, William S. "Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter." RomDeb , 251-264.

Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Table Talk and Omniana of Samuel Taylor Coleridge . London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Cooper, John W. Body , Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Corson, John. " Faith Alone Involves Obedience, Too!" Christian Standard . (10/2/77), pp. 5-6.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 39-81.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 17-38.

. " Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1971.

. " Faith , History, and the Resurrection Body of Jesus," The Seminary Review (Dec. 1982): 28:143-160.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

. His Truth . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. Thirteen Lessons on Grace . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1988.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, G. "lambavnw, etc." TDNT, IV:5-15.

DeYoung, James B. "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , 31 (December 1988): 429-441.

Donfried, Karl P. "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans." RomDeb , 102-125.

, ed. The Romans Debate . Revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Erickson, Millard J. The Evangelical Mind and Heart . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Fiensy, David A. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Foerster, Werner. "swvzw, etc." TDNT, VII:965-1024.

Friedrich, Gerhard. "eujaggelivzomai, etc." TDNT, II:707-737.

Fuller, Daniel P. The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Gaertner, Dennis. "Romans: Gospel of God's Fairness ." Christian Standard , part 1 (12/20/87), pp. 14-16; and part 2 (12/27/87), pp. 4-6.

Graber, Friedrich. "All, Many." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. I:94-97.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth : Doctrine of Deity . Nashville: Nelson, 1974.

Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Harris, M.J. " Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament." Appendix. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. III:1171-1213.

Hobbs, A. I. " Conversion : What Is It, and How Produced?" In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 254-274.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Jervell, Jacob. "The Letter to Jerusalem." RomDeb , 53-64.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Jewett, Robert. "Following the Argument of Romans." RomDeb , 265-277.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Tr. & ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Klein, Günter. "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans." RomDeb , 29-43.

Lamar, J.S. "The Ground of Man's Need of Salvation." In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 98-119.

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man . New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin. "Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings ." In Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by Lewis W. Spitz and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 327-338.

. " Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans." In Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by E. Theodore Bachmann and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 365-380.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, "Follow Me"? Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Maurer, Christian. " ." TDNT, VIII:557-558.

. "pravssw, etc." TDNT, VI:632-644.

Milligan, Robert. Exposition and Defense of the Scheme of Redemption . St. Louis: Bethany Press, n.d.

Moreland, J.P., and David Ciocchi, eds. Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross . 3 ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam's Sin . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "kaqivsthmi, etc." TDNT, III:444-447.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1976.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "dou'lo", etc." TDNT, II:261-280.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul : An Outline of His Theology . Tr. by John R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Rueda, Enrique. The Homosexual Network : Private Lives and Public Policy . Old Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair, 1982.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation : What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ . Wheaton: Scripture Press/Victor Books, 1989.

Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism . London: SCM, 1977.

Schaff, Philip. " Preface ." In John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans . Tr. by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan reprint, n.d.

Schneider, Johannes. "parabaivnw, paravbasi", etc." TDNT, V:736-744.

Schrenk, Gottlob. "iJerov", etc." TDNT, III:221-283.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . Tr. by James D. Ernest. 3 volumes. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." RomDeb , 231-242.

. "The Theme of Romans." RomDeb , 333-345.

Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Thiessen, Henry. Introduction to the New Testament . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Tyndale, William. "A Prologe to the Epistle of Paule to the Romayns." In The New Testament, Translated by William Tyndale, 1534 . Ed. by N. Hardy Wallis. Cambridge: University Press, 1938. Pp. 293-318.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary . 3rd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vincent, Marvin R. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. III in Word Studies in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint of 1887 edition.

Watson, Francis. "The Two Roman Congregations : Romans 14:1-15:13." RomDeb , 203-215.

Wesley, John. Journal from October 14, 1735, to November 29, 1745 . Vol. I in The Works of John Wesley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint of 1872 ed.

Wedderburn, A.J.M. "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again," RomDeb , 195-202.

Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." RomDeb , 85-101.

Wiens, Delbert. "An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21." Journal of Church and Society (Fall 1969): 5:42-54.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March 1971): 128:62-67.

Young, Richard. Intermediate N.T. Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach . Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO VOLUME 2

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given. Some sources are cited with an even more abbreviated reference (see list of abbreviations).

I. COMMENTARIES

Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans . Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Black, Matthew. Romans . 2nd ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

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

Brunner, Emil. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Trans. H.A. Kennedy. London: Lutterworth Press, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Trans. John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans , Vol. 1. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, n.s. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Expositor's Greek Testament , ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, II:555-725. New York: George H. Doran, n.d.

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

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

Earle, Ralph. Romans . Vol. 3 of Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Trans. A. Cusin. Ed. Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Griffith Thomas, W.H. Romans: A Devotional Commentary . 3 vols. London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.

Haldane, Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans . MacDill AFB: MacDonald Publishing, 1958.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 10, pp. 1-171. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness from Heaven . Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 9 - God's Sovereign Purpose . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & Trans. Wilhelm Pauck. Vol. XV of The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McGuiggan, Jim. The Book of Romans . Lubbock, TX: Montex Publishing Company, 1982.

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

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, o.s. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979). Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Vanderlip, George. Paul and Romans . Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1967.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "krivnw [etc.]." TDNT . III:921-954.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 39-81. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 17-38. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

. " 1 Timothy 2:12 and the Role of Women." Four parts. Christian Standard , January 10, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 17, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 24, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 31, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. " Priscilla , Phoebe, and Company." Christian Standard , December 12, 1993, pp. 4-5.

. " Response to My Critics." Three parts. Christian Standard , November 21, 1993, pp. 5-6; November 28, 1993, pp. 4-6; December 5, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. Tough Questions , Biblical Answers. Part Two. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1986.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, Gerhard. " , ." TDNT . VIII:523-524.

. "tavssw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:27-32.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate , revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Forster, Roger T., and V. Paul Marston. God's Strategy in Human History . Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974.

Fürst, Dieter. " Confess ." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , ed. Colin Brown, I:344-348. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Gaertner, Dennis. Acts . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Hübner, Hans. "a[timo"." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testamen t, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, I:177. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. The Pentateuch . Trans. by James Martin. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Köster, Helmut. "tevmnw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:106-112.

Lampe, Peter. "The Roman Christians of Romans 16 ." RomDeb , 216-230.

Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves . London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.

Michaelis, W. "mavcaira." TDNT . IV:524-527.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "zevw, zestov"." TDNT . II:875-877.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come . Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958.

Pinnock, Clark H. "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology." In The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism , ed. Clark H. Pinnock, pp. 15-30. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Reicke, Bo. "proi?sthmi." TDNT . VI:700-703.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?" In vol. 1 of The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will , ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, pp. 89-106. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins . New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election . Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1970.

Sherlock, William. A Discourse Concerning the Divine Providence . Pittsburgh: J.L. Read, 1848.

Spencer, Aida B. Beyond the Curse : Women Called to Ministry . Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . 3 vol. Trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stählin, Gustav. " [etc.]." TDNT . IX:113-171.

. "skavndalon, skandalivzw." TDNT . VII:339-358.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Walters, James. "' Phoebe ' and 'Junia(s)' - Rom. 16:1-2, 7." In Vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , ed. Carroll D. Osburn, pp. 167-190. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Weiss, K. "fevrw [etc.]." TDNT . IX:56-87.

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

. "The Messiah and the People of God." Oxford University: D.Phil. dissertation, 1980.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AG Arndt and Gingrich, Greek lexicon

ASV American Standard Version

GC God the Creator, by Jack Cottrell

GRe God the Redeemer, by Jack Cottrell

GRu God the Ruler, by Jack Cottrell

KJV King James Version

LB Living Bible

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT)

MP McGarvey-Pendleton Romans commentary

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

RomDeb The Romans Debate, by Karl Donfried

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the NT, ed. Kittel

TEV Today's English Version

For fuller titles and publishing information on books, see the Bibliography.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Romans (Outline)

VIII. OUTLINE

PROLOGUE - 1:1-17

I. EPISTOLARY GREETING - 1:1-7

A. The Author Introduces Himself - 1:1

1. A Slave of Christ Jesus

2. Called to Be an Apostle

3. Set Apart for the Gospel of God

B. The Gospel and the Old Testament - 1:2

C. The Subject of the Gospel Is Jesus - 1:3-4

1. The Two Natures of Jesus

2. The Incarnation

3. Messiahship

4. The Two States of Jesus

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

6. The Son's Full Identity

D. Paul's Apostleship - 1:5

1. The Origin of Paul's Apostleship

2. The Character of Paul's Apostleship

3. The Focus of Paul's Apostleship

4. The Purpose of Paul's Apostleship

5. The Goal of Paul's Apostleship

E. The Recipients of Paul's Letter - 1:6-7a

F. The Blessing - 1:7b

II. PERSONAL REMARKS - 1:8-15

A. Paul's Prayers for the Romans - 1:8-10

B. Paul's Desires Regarding Rome - 1:11-13

C. Paul's Debt to the Romans - 1:14-15

III. TRANSITIONAL STATEMENT - 1:16-17

A. The Glory of the Gospel - 1:16a

B. The Power of the Gospel - 1:16b

C. The Scope of the Gospel - 1:16c

D. Faith and the Gospel - 1:16c

1. Faith Is a Condition for Salvation

2. Faith Is Not the Only Condition

E. The Heart of the Gospel - 1:17a

F. The Golden Text of the Gospel - 1:17b

PART ONE:

THE IMPOTENCE OF LAW AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 1:18-3:20

I. THE SINFULNESS OF THE GENTILES - 1:18-32

A. Universal Knowledge of God and His Law - 1:18-20

B. Universal Rejection of the True God - 1:21-25

C. The Utter Depths of Gentile Depravity - 1:26-32

II. THE SINFULNESS OF THE JEWS - 2:1-3:8

A. Jews Are Under the Wrath of God, No Less Than the Gentiles - 2:1-5

B. God Will Be Partial to No One in the Judgment - 2:6-11

C. Under Law, the Criterion of Judgment Is Obedience Alone- 2:12-16

D. Jews Who Look to the Law for Salvation Are Condemned by Their Own Disobedience - 2:17-24

E. True Jewishness Is Identified Not by Circumcision but by the Inward State of the Heart - 2:25-29

F. Such Equal Treatment of Jews and Gentiles Does Not Nullify But Rather Magnifies God's Righteousness - 3:1-8

III. UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS AND HOPELESSNESS UNDER LAW - 3:9-20

PART TWO:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 3:21-5:21

I. GRACE AS JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S BLOOD THROUGH FAITH - 3:21-31

A. Righteousness Through Faith Is Now Fully Revealed - 3:21-23

B. Sinners Are Justified by the Blood of Christ - 3:24-26

C. Sinners Are Justified by Faith Apart from Works of Law - 3:27-28

D. The Way of Grace Is Available to All - 3:29-30

E. Grace Lets Law Do Its Proper Work - 3:31

II. ABRAHAM: PARADIGM OF GRACE - 4:1-25

A. Abraham Was Justified by Faith Apart from Works - 4:1-5

B. David Explains and Confirms Justification by Faith Apart from Works - 4:6-8

C. Membership in Abraham's Family Is by Faith, Not by Circumcision - 4:9-12

D. The Inheritance Promised to Abraham Comes by Faith, Not by Law - 4:13-17a

E. Faith Means Giving Glory to God and Believing His Promises - 4:17b-22

F. Those Who Believe Like Abraham Are Justified Like Abraham - 4:23-25

III. GRACE AND ASSURANCE - 5:1-21

A. Assurance of Personal Salvation - 5:1-11

1. Justification by Faith Is the Key to Assurance - 5:1-2

2. Tribulations of Believers Do Not Nullify Assurance - 5:3-5

3. Christ Died for Us While We Were Still Sinners - 5:6-8

4. Our Hope Is Even More Secure Now That We Are His Friends - 5:9-11

B. The All-Sufficiency of the Death of Christ - 5:12-21

1. One Sin of One Man (Adam) Brought Sin and Death to All - 5:12-14

2. Christ and His Sacrifice Are Greater Than Adam and His Sin - 5:15-17

3. Christ's Cross Completely Cancels the Results of Adam's Sin - 5:18-19

4. Grace Triumphs over Sin and Death - 5:20-21

PART THREE:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 6:1-8:39

I. OBJECTIONS TO GRACE BASED ON A FEAR OF ANTINOMIANISM - 6:1-7:13

A. Does Grace Make Sin Irrelevant? NO! - 6:1-14

B. Does Freedom from Law Mean We Are Free to Sin? NO!- 6:15-7:6

1. We Are Slaves to God - 6:15-23

2. We Obey God from Our Hearts - 7:1-6

C. Does Grace Mean That Law Is Bad? NO! - 7:7-13

II. GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 7:14-8:13

A. The Christian Continues to Struggle Against Sin - 7:14-25

1. The Nature of the Struggle - 7:14-20

2. The Source of the Struggle - 7:21-25

B. Victory over Sin Comes Through the Holy Spirit - 8:1-13

1. God Frees Us from Sin's Penalty and Power - 8:1-4

2. Sin and Death Are Defeated in Us Through the Holy Spirit - 8:5-13

III. THE ASSURANCE OF FINAL AND TOTAL VICTORY OVER THE FALLEN WORLD - 8:14-39

A. The Holy Spirit Marks Us as Sons and Heirs - 8:14-17

B. The Redeemed Cosmos Is Our Inheritance - 8:18-25

C. God Promises to Bring His Family Through Earthly Trials - 8:26-30

D. God's Gracious Love Gives Us Unshakable Assurance - 8:31-39

PART FOUR:

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS - 9:1-11:36

I. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF THE JEWISH NATION - 9:1-5

A. Israel's Agony: They Are Accursed - 9:1-3

B. Israel's Ecstasy: They Are Recipients of Unspeakably Glorious Privileges - 9:4-5

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL - 9:6-29

A. Israel's Situation and God's Faithfulness - 9:6-13

1. God's Word Concerning Israel Has Not Failed - 9:6a

2. The Key to the Puzzle: the Existence of Two Israels - 9:6b

3. Ethnic Israel Exists by God's Sovereign Choice - 9:7-13

a. The Choice of Isaac - 9:7-9

b. The Choice of Jacob - 9:10-13

B. God's Right to Choose and Use People without Saving Them - 9:14-18

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged - 9:14

2. God's Sovereignty in Election for Service - 9:15-16

3. God's Purposes Can Be Served by the Unsaved - 9:17-18

C. God Used Ethnic Israel to Produce Spiritual Israel - 9:19-29

1. The Objection - 9:19

2. Paul's Initial Rebuke of the Objector's Attitude - 9:20-21

3. Beyond Ethnic Israel to Spiritual Israel - 9:22-24

a. The Calvinist View

b. Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

4. Prophetic Confirmation of God's Purpose - 9:25-29

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW RATHER THAN GRACE 9:30-10:21

A. Personal Righteousness Versus the Righteousness of God- 9:30-10:3

1. The Reason for the Gentiles' Acceptance - 9:30

2. The Reason for the Jews' Lostness - 9:31-33

3. The Jews' Rejection of God's Righteousness - 10:1-3

B. Christ Alone Is the Source of Saving Righteousness - 10:4-13

1. An Either-Or Choice: Works-Righteousness, or Faith in Christ - 10:4

2. The Futility of Law-Righteousness - 10:5

3. Saving Righteousness Comes through Trusting Christ's Works, Not Our Own - 10:6-10

4. God's Righteousness Is Available Equally to Jews and Gentiles - 10:11-13

C. The Jews Have Not Believed in Christ, and Their Unbelief Is Inexcusable - 10:14-21

1. The Necessary Prerequisites to Saving Faith - 10:14-15

2. Most Jews Have Not Believed the Gospel Message - 10:16

3. The Jews' Problem Is Not Ignorance but Stubbornness of Will - 10:17-21

IV. THE SALVATION OF GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL - 11:1-32

A. God's True Israel Is the Remnant Chosen by Grace - 11:1-6

1. God Has Not Rejected His People - 11:1-2a

2. God Had a Remnant of Believers in the OT - 11:2b-4

3. Those under Grace Are God's New Covenant Israel - 11:5-6

B. Unbelieving Israel Has Been Hardened - 11:7-10

C. The Hardening of Unbelieving Israel Becomes a Blessing

for Both the Gentiles and the Jews - 11:11-16

D. The Olive Tree: A Metaphor of Judgment and Hope - 11:17-24

1. Words of Warning to Gentile Christians - 11:17-22

2. Words of Hope for Hardened Jews - 11:23-24

E. God's Plan for Israel's Salvation - 11:25-32

1. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation - 11:25-27

2. God's Continuing Love for Israel - 11:28-29

3. God's Ultimate Purpose Is Mercy - 11:30-32

V. DOXOLOGY: GOD'S WAY IS RIGHT - 11:33-36

PART FIVE:

LIVING THE SANCTIFIED LIFE - 12:1-15:13

I. A CATALOGUE OF VIRTUES - 12:1-13:14

A. Grace Demands a Transformed Life - 12:1-2

B. Using the Gifts of Grace for Unselfish Service - 12:3-8

C. Miscellaneous Moral Teaching - 12:9-16

D. Personal Vengeance Is Forbidden - 12:17-21

E. The Relation between Citizens and Government - 13:1-7

F. The Relation between Love and Law - 13:8-10

G. Walking in the Light - 13:11-14

II. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY IN MATTERS OF OPINION - 14:1-15:13

A. Do Not Judge Others in Matters of Opinion - 14:1-12

1. We Should Accept All Whom God Has Accepted - 14:1-3

2. We Answer to Our Lord and Not to Each Other - 14:4-9

3. Each of Us Will Be Judged by God - 14:10-12

B. The Stewardship of Christian Liberty 14:13-23

1. We Must Sacrifice Our Liberty for the Sake of the Weak - 14:13-15

2. Do Not Allow What You Consider Good to Be Spoken of as Evil - 14:16-18

3. We Must Do Only Those Things Which Build Others Up - 14:19-21

4. Each Christian Must Be True to His Own Convictions - 14:22-23

C. Living in Unity and Hope - 15:1-13

1. Selfless Service Produces a Unified Witness - 15:1-6

2. Through Christ's Selfless Service, Jews and Gentiles Glorify God Together - 15:7-12

3. A Prayer That All Believers May Abound in Hope - 15:13

PART SIX:

PERSONAL MESSAGES FROM PAUL - 15:14-16:27

I. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES - 15:14-33

A. Reflections on His Past Service - 15:14-22

B. His Plans for the Future - 15:23-29

C. His Request for Prayer - 15:30-33

II. PAUL AND HIS FELLOW WORKERS - 16:1-24

A. Commendation of Phoebe - 16:1-2

B. Greetings to Individual Acquaintances - 16:3-16

C. Warnings against False Teachers - 16:17-20

D. Greetings from Paul's Companions - 16:21-24

III. CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY - 16:25-27

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV