Text -- Romans 6:2 (NET)

6:2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 6:2

Died to sin ( apethanomen tēi hamartiāi ).

Second aorist active of apothnēskō and the dative case. When we surrendered to Christ and took him as Lord and Saviour. Qualitative relative (hoitines , we the very ones who).

Robertson: Rom 6:2

How ( pōs ).

Rhetorical question.

Wesley: Rom 6:2

Freed both from the guilt and from the power of it.

JFB: Rom 6:2

"That be far from us"; the instincts of the new creature revolting at the thought.

JFB: Rom 6:2

Literally, and more forcibly, "We who died to sin (as presently to be explained), how shall we live any longer therein?"

Clarke: Rom 6:2

God forbid - Μη γενοιτο, Let it not be; by no means; far from it; let not such a thing be mentioned! - Any of these is the meaning of the Greek phrase, which is a strong expression of surprise and disapprobation: and is not properly rendered by our God forbid! for, though this may express the same thing, yet it is not proper to make the sacred Name So familiar on such occasions

Clarke: Rom 6:2

How shall we, that are dead to sin - The phraseology of this verse is common among Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. To Die to a thing or person, is to have nothing to do with it or him; to be totally separated from them: and to live to a thing or person is to be wholly given up to them; to have the most intimate connection with them. So Plautus, Clitell. iii. 1, 16: Nihil mecum tibi, Mortuus Tibi Sum . I have nothing to do with thee; I am Dead to thee. Persa, i. 1, 20: Mihi quidem tu jam Mortuus Eras, quia te non visitavi . Thou wast Dead to me because I visited thee not. So Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 13: Ὁτι φιλοινοτατον εθνος το των Ταπυρων, τοσουτον, ὡστε ζῃν αυτους εν οινῳ, και το πλειστον του βιου εν τῃ προς αυτον ὁμιλιᾳ καταναλισκειν· "The Tapyrians are such lovers of wine, that they Live in wine; and the principal part of their Life is Devoted to it."They live to wine; they are insatiable drunkards. See more examples in Wetstein and Rosenmuller.

Calvin: Rom 6:2

2.By no means To some the Apostle seems to have only intended indignantly to reprove a madness so outrageous; but it appears from other places that he commonly used an answer of this kind, even while carrying on a long argument; as indeed he does here, for he proceeds carefully to disprove the propounded slander. He, however, first rejects it by an indignant negative, in order to impress it on the minds of his readers, that nothing can be more inconsistent than that the grace of Christ, the repairer of our righteousness, should nourish our vices.

===Who have died to sin, === etc. An argument derived from what is of an opposite character. “He who sins certainly lives to sin; we have died to sin through the grace of Christ; then it is false, that what abolishes sin gives vigor to it.” The state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life. Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a most strange inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength on account of the grace which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine is not a feeder of the disease, which it destroys. ¹⁸³ We must further bear in mind, what I have already referred to — that Paul does not state here what God finds us to be, when he calls us to an union with his Son, but what it behoves us to be, after he has had mercy on us, and has freely adopted us; for by an adverb, denoting a future time, he shows what kind of change ought to follow righteousness.

Defender: Rom 6:2

This should be read "have died to sin." There are eight references to the believer's death in Christ in Rom 6:1-11, and all are stated in a tense that speaks of action completed in the past. That is, since our sins were placed on Christ, and He paid the price of redemption by His death for those sins, we died with Him. We also live with Him in His resurrection, and our daily lives should reflect these great truths.

Defender: Rom 6:2

One who has truly been redeemed by faith in Christ's death for his sins may occasionally slip into a sin, but he cannot live therein."

TSK: Rom 6:2

God : Rom. 3:1-4:25

How : Gen 39:9; Psa 119:104; 1Jo 3:9

dead : Rom 6:5-11, Rom 5:11, Rom 7:4; Gal 2:19, Gal 6:14; Col 3:3; 1Pe 2:24

live : 2Co 5:14-17; 1Pe 1:14, 1Pe 4:1-3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 6:2

God forbid - By no means. Greek, It may not be; Note, Rom 3:4. The expression is a strong denial of what is implied in the objection in Rom 6:1.

How shall we? ... - This contains a reason of the implied statement of the apostle, that we should not continue in sin. The reason is drawn from the fact that we are dead in fact to sin. It is impossible for these who are dead to act as if they were alive. It is just as absurd to suppose that a Christian should desire to live in sin as that a dead man should put forth the actions of life.

That are dead to sin - That is, all Christians. To be dead to a thing is a strong expression denoting that it has no influence over us. A man that is dead is uninfluenced and unaffected by the affairs of this life. He is insensible to sounds, and tastes, and pleasures; to the hum of business, to the voice of friendship, and to all the scenes of commerce, gaiety, and ambition. When it is said, therefore, that a Christian is dead to sin, the sense is, that it has lost its influence ever him; he is not subject to it; he is in regard to that, as the man in the grave is to the busy scenes and cares of this life. The expression is not infrequent in the New Testament; Gal 2:19, "For I ...am dead to the law;"Col 3:3, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;"1Pe 2:24, "Who ...bare our sins ...that we, being dead to sin,"etc. The apostle does not here attempt to prove that Christians are thus dead, nor to state in what way they become so. He assumes the fact without argument. All Christians are thus in fact dead to sin. They do not live to sin; nor has sin dominion over them. The expression used here by the apostle is common in all languages. We familiarly speak of a man’ s being dead to sensual pleasures, to ambition, etc., to denote that they have lost their influence over him.

Live any longer therein - How shall we, who have become sensible of the evil of sin, and who have renounced it by solemn profession, continue to practice it? It is therefore abhorrent to the very nature of the Christian profession. It is remarkable that the apostle did not attempt to argue the question on metaphysical principles. He did not attempt to show by abstruse argument that this consequence did not follow; but he appeals at once to Christian feeling, and shows that the supposition is abhorrent to that. To convince the great mass of people, such an appeal is far better than labored metaphysical argumentation. All Christians can understand that; but few would comprehend an abstruse speculation. The best way to silence objections is, sometimes, to show that they violate the feelings of all Christians, and that therefore the objection must be wrong.

(Considerable difficulty exists in regard to the meaning of the expression "dead to sin? Certainly the most obvious interpretation is that given above in the Commentary, namely, that Christians are insensible to sin, as dead persons to the charms and pleasures of life. It has, however, been objected to this view, that it is inconsistent with fact, since Christians, so far from being insensible to sin, are represented in the next chapter as carrying on a perpetual struggle with it. The corrupt nature, though weakened, is not eradicated, and too frequently occasions such mournful falls, as leave little doubt concerning its existence and power. Mr. Scott seems to have felt this difficulty, for, having explained the phrase of "separation from iniquity, as a dead man ceases from the actions of life,"he immediately adds, "not only ought this to be the believer’ s character, but in a measure it actually is so."It is not probable. however, that the apostle meant by the strong expression under discussion, that believers were not altogether "dead to sin,"but only in a measure.

Perhaps we shall arrive at a more satisfactory meaning of the words by looking at the analogous expression in the context, used in reference to Christ himself. He also, in the 10th verse, is said to have "died unto sin,"and the believer, in virtue of union with Christ, is regarded as"dead with him,"Rom 6:8; and, in consequence of this death with Christ, is moreover freed, or rather justified, δεδίκαιωται dedikaiōtai from sin, Rom 6:7. Now it cannot be said of Christ that he died unto sin, in the sense of becoming dead to its charms. for it was never otherwise with him. The believer, therefore, cannot be dead with Christ in this way; nor on this ground, can he be justified from sin, since justification proceeds upon something very different from our insensibility to sinful pleasures. What then is the meaning of the language when applied to Christ? Sin is here supposed to be possessed of certain power. That power or strength the apostle tells us elsewhere is derived from the Law. "The strength of sin is the law,"which demands satisfaction to its injured honor, and insists on the infliction of its penalty. Though then Jesus had no sin of his own, yet when he voluntarily stood in the room of sinners, sin, or its strength, namely, the Law, had power over him, until he died, and thus paid the penalty. His death cancelled every obligation. Henceforth, sin had no more power to exact anything at his hands.

Now Christians are one with Christ. When he died unto sin, they are regarded as having died unto it also, and are therefore, equally with their covenant head, justified from it. Sin, or its strength, the Law, has from the moment of the saint’ s union with Christ, no more power to condemn him, than human laws have to condemn one over again who had already died to answer the demands of justice. "The law has dominion over a man so long only as he liveth."On the whole, then, the expression "dead to sin,"is to be regarded as entirely parallel with that other expression in the seventh chapter, "dead to the law,"that is, completely delivered from its authority as a covenant of works, and more especially from its power to condemn.

This view exercises a decided influence an the believer’ s sanctification. "How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"The two things are incompatible. If in virtue of union with Christ, we are dead with him, and freed from the penalty of sin, shall not the same union secure our deliverance from its dominion? "If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him."

The whole argument, from the 1st to the 11th verse, proceeds upon the fact of the saint’ s union with Christ.)

Poole: Rom 6:2

God forbid be it not, or far be it; he rejects any such inference or consequence, as unworthy of an answer: q.d. Away with all such doctrines, as, under pretence of advancing grace, do promote sin, or obstruct a godly life. This phrase is frequent with the apostle, when he is speaking of any absurdity: see Rom 3:4,6,31 .

How: by this particle he shows the impossibility, or the incongruity, of the thing: see Mat 6:28 Gal 4:9 . The following argument is very convincing, and may be thus formed: They whose property it is to be dead to sin, cannot any longer live therein; but the justified by faith are

dead to sin They are said to be dead to sin, who do not live under the power and dominion of it; who mortify sin, and suffer it (so far as they can) to have no life or power in it. Fall into it they may, but live and lie in it they cannot. It is not falling into the water that drowns a man, but it is his lying in it; so it is not falling into sin that damns a man, but it is his living in it.

PBC: Rom 6:2

To restate the doctrine of Perseverance, we say that this means that all of the saints shall persevere in faith and holiness. They will never permanently and fundamentally repudiate their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. While troubled by their sinful natures, they will nevertheless show evidences of their being alive in Christ. Grace in one’s heart does not lead to a life of careless, licentious living. We believers in grace have been accused of believing it is okay to " continue in sin, that grace may abound." But we say, along with the Apostle Paul, " God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"     28

See PB: Ps 77:1

Haydock: Rom 6:2

Dead to sin, &c. We are then dead to sin when we neither live in sin by serving it, nor sin lives in us by reigning; in this case, how can we still live in it by yielding to its desires? St. Augustine (chap. vi. de spiritu et litera) thus explains the passage: when grace has caused us to die to sin; if we live again in it, we must be exceedingly ungrateful to grace. (Estius)

Gill: Rom 6:2

God forbid,.... By which he expresses his abhorrence of such a practice, and that this was a consequence which did not follow from the premises, and was far enough from his thoughts, and which he had in the greatest detestation: and he further argues against it by asking,

how shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? There is a death for sin, a death in sin, and a death to sin; the latter is here mentioned, and persons may be said to be "dead to sin", both as justified and sanctified: justified persons are dead to sin, inasmuch as that is not imputed to them to condemnation and death; they are discharged from it; it cannot hurt them, or exert its damning power over them; it is crucified, abolished, and made an end of by Christ: sanctified persons are dead to sin; sin is not made their business, it is not their course of life; it is no longer a pleasure to them, but is loathsome and abominable; it is looked upon, not as a friend, but an enemy; it does not reign, it has not the dominion over them; it is subdued in them, and its power weakened; and as to the members of the flesh, and deeds of the body, it is mortified: to live in sin, is to live after the dictates of corrupt nature; and persons may be said to live in it, when they give up themselves to it, are bent upon it; when sin is their life, they delight in it, make it their work and business, and the whole course of their life is sinful: now those who are dead to sin, cannot thus live in it, though sin may live in them; they may fall into sin, and lie in it some time, yet they cannot live in it: living in sin, is not only unbecoming the grace of God revealed in the Gospel, but is contrary to it; it is detestable to gracious minds, yea, it seems impossible they should live in it; which is suggested by this question, "how shall we?" &c. The thing is impracticable: for, for a gracious soul to live in sin, would be to die again, to become dead in sin, which cannot be; he that lives and believes in Christ shall never die, spiritually or eternally.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

Geneva Bible: Rom 6:2

God forbid. ^{( 2 )} How shall we, that are ^{( b )} dead to sin, live any longer therein?

^{( 2 )} The benefits of justification and sanctification are always inseparable joined together, and both of them proceed from Christ by the grace of God: now sanctification is the abolishing of sin, that is, of our natural corruption, whose place is taken by the cleanness and pureness of a reformed nature.

^{( b )} They are said by Paul to be dead to sin, who are made partakers of the power of Christ, so that the natural corruption is dead in them, that is, the power of it is removed, and it does not bring forth its bitter fruits: and on the other hand, they are said to live to sin, who are in the flesh, that is, whom the Spirit of God has not delivered from the slavery of the corruption of nature.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 6:1-23

1 We may not live in sin;

2 for we are dead unto it;

3 as appears by our baptism.

12 Let not sin reign any more;

18 because we have yielded ourselves to the service of righteousness;

23 and for that death is the wages of sin.

MHCC: Rom 6:1-2

The apostle is very full in pressing the necessity of holiness. He does not explain away the free grace of the gospel, but he shows that connexion between justification and holiness are inseparable. Let the thought be abhorred, of continuing in sin that grace may abound. True believers are dead to sin, therefore they ought not to follow it. No man can at the same time be both dead and alive. He is a fool who, desiring to be dead unto sin, thinks he may live in it.

Matthew Henry: Rom 6:1-23

The apostle's transition, which joins this discourse with the former, is observable: " What shall we say then? Rom 6:1. What use shall we make of this sweet and comfortable doctrine? Shall we do evil that good may come, as some say we do? Rom 3:8. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Shall we hence take encouragement to sin with so much the more boldness, because the more sin we commit the more will the grace of God be magnified in our pardon? Is this a use to be made of it?"No, it is an abuse, and the apostle startles at the thought of it (Rom 6:2): " God forbid; far be it from us to think such a thought."He entertains the objection as Christ did the devil's blackest temptation (Mat 4:10): Get thee hence, Satan. Those opinions that give any countenance to sin, or open a door to practical immoralities, how specious and plausible soever they be rendered, by the pretension of advancing free grace, are to be rejected with the greatest abhorrence; for the truth as it is in Jesus is a truth according to godliness, Tit 1:1. The apostle is very full in pressing the necessity of holiness in this chapter, which may be reduced to two heads: - His exhortations to holiness, which show the nature of it; and his motives or arguments to enforce those exhortations, which show the necessity of it.

I. For the first, we may hence observe the nature of sanctification, what it is, and wherein it consists. In general it has two things in it, mortification and vivification - dying to sin and living to righteousness, elsewhere expressed by putting off the old man and putting on the new, ceasing to do evil and learning to do well.

1. Mortification, putting off the old man; several ways this is expressed. (1.) We must live no longer in sin (Rom 6:2), we must not be as we have been nor do as we have done. The time past of our life must suffice, 1Pe 4:3. Though there are none that live without sin, yet, blessed be God, there are those that do not live in sin, do not live in it as their element, do not make a trade of it: this is to be sanctified. (2.) The body of sin must be destroyed, Rom 6:6. The corruption that dwelleth in us is the body of sin, consisting of many parts and members, as a body. This is the root to which the axe must be laid. We must not only cease from the acts of sin (this may be done through the influence of outward restraints, or other inducements), but we must get the vicious habits and inclinations weakened and destroyed; not only cast away the idols of iniquity out of the heart. - That henceforth we should not serve sin. The actual transgression is certainly in a great measure prevented by the crucifying and killing of the original corruption. Destroy the body of sin, and then, though there should be Canaanites remaining in the land, yet the Israelites will not be slaves to them. It is the body of sin that sways the sceptre, wields the iron rod; destroy this, and the yoke is broken. The destruction of Eglon the tyrant is the deliverance of oppressed Israel from the Moabites. (3.) We must be dead indeed unto sin, Rom 6:11. As the death of the oppressor is a release, so much more is the death of the oppressed, Job 3:17, Job 3:18. Death brings a writ of ease to the weary. Thus must we be dead to sin, obey it, observe it, regard it, fulfil its will no more than he that is dead doth his quandam task-masters - be as indifference to the pleasures and delights of sin as a man that is dying is to his former diversions. He that is dead is separated from his former company, converse, business, enjoyments, employments, is not what he was, does not what he did, has not what he had. Death makes a mighty change; such a change doth sanctification make in the soul, it cuts off all correspondence with sin. (4.) Sin must not reign in our mortal bodies that we should obey it, Rom 6:12. Though sin may remain as an outlaw, though it may oppress as a tyrant, yet let it not reign as a king. Let it not make laws, nor preside in councils, nor command the militia; let it not be uppermost in the soul, so that we should obey it. Though we may be sometimes overtaken and overcome by it, yet let us never be obedient to it in the lusts thereof; let not sinful lusts be a law to you, to which you would yield a consenting obedience. In the lusts thereof - en tais epithumiais autou . It refers to the body, not to sin. Sin lies very much in the gratifying of the body, and humouring that. And there is a reason implied in the phrase your mortal body; because it is a mortal body, and hastening apace to the dust, therefore let not sin reign in it. It was sin that made our bodies mortal, and therefore do not yield obedience to such an enemy. (5.) We must not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness, Rom 6:13. The members of the body are made use of by the corrupt nature as tools, by which the wills of the flesh are fulfilled; but we must not consent to that abuse. The members of the body are fearfully and wonderfully made; it is a pity they should be the devil's tools of unrighteousness unto sin, instruments of the sinful actions, according to the sinful dispositions. Unrighteousness is unto sin; the sinful acts confirm and strengthen the sinful habits; one sin begets another; it is like the letting forth of water, therefore leave it before it be meddled with. The members of the body may perhaps, through the prevalency of temptation, be forced to be instruments of sin; but do not yield them to be so, do not consent to it. This is one branch of sanctification, the mortification of sin.

2. Vivification, or living to righteousness; and what is that? (1.) It is to walk in newness of life, Rom 6:4. Newness of life supposes newness of heart, for out of the heart are the issues of life, and there is not way to make the stream sweet but by making the spring so. Walking, in scripture, is put for the course and tenour of the conversation, which must be new. Walk by new rules, towards new ends, from new principles. Make a new choice of the way. Choose new paths to walk in, new leaders to walk after, new companions to walk with. Old things should pass away, and all things become new. The man is what he was not, does what he did not. (2.) It is to be alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom 6:11. To converse with God, to have a regard to him, a delight in him, a concern for him, the soul upon all occasions carried out towards him as towards an agreeable object, in which it takes a complacency: this is to be alive to God. The love of God reigning in the heart is the life of the soul towards God. Anima est ubi amat, non ubi animat - The soul is where it loves, rather than where it lives. It is to have the affections and desires alive towards God. Or, living (our live in the flesh) unto God, to his honour and glory as our end, by his word and will as our rule - in all our ways to acknowledge him, and to have our eyes ever towards him; this is to live unto God. - Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Christ is our spiritual life; there is no living to God but through him. He is the Mediator; there can be no comfortable receivings from God, nor acceptable regards to God, but in and through Jesus Christ; no intercourse between sinful souls and a holy God, but by the mediation of the Lord Jesus. Through Christ as the author and maintainer of this life; through Christ as the head from whom we receive vital influence; through Christ as the root by which we derive sap and nourishment, and so live. In living to God, Christ is all in all. (3.) It is to yield ourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, Rom 6:13. The very life and being of holiness lie in the dedication of ourselves to the Lord, giving our own selves to the Lord, 2Co 8:5. "Yield yourselves to him, not only as the conquered yields to the conqueror, because he can stand it out no longer; but as the wife yields herself to her husband, to whom her desire is, as the scholar yields himself to the teacher, the apprentice to his master, to be taught and ruled by him. Not yield your estates to him, but yield yourselves; nothing less than your whole selves;" parastēsate eautous - accommodate vos ipsos Deo - accommodate yourselves to God; so Tremellius, from the Syriac. "Not only submit to him, but comply with him; not only present yourselves to him once for all, but be always ready to serve him. Yield yourselves to him as wax to the seal, to take any impression, to be, and have, and do, what he pleases."When Paul said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? (Act 9:6) he was then yielded to God. As those that are alive from the dead. To yield a dead carcase to a living God is not to please him, but to mock him: "Yield yourselves as those that are alive and good for something, a living sacrifice, "Rom 12:1. The surest evidence of our spiritual life is the dedication of ourselves to God. It becomes those that are alive from the dead (it may be understood of a death in law), that are justified and delivered from death, to give themselves to him that hath so redeemed them. (4.) It is to yield our members as instruments of righteousness to God. The members of our bodies, when withdrawn from the service of sin, are not to lie idle, but to be made use of in the service of God. When the strong man armed is dispossessed, let him whose right it is divide the spoils. Though the powers and faculties of the soul be the immediate subjects of holiness and righteousness, yet the members of the body are to be instruments; the body must be always ready to serve the soul in the service of God. Thus (Rom 6:19), " Yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Let them be under the conduct and at the command of the righteous law of God, and that principle of inherent righteousness which the Spirit, as sanctifier, plants in the soul." Righteousness unto holiness, which intimates growth, and progress, and ground obtained. As every sinful act confirms the sinful habit, and makes the nature more and more prone to sin (hence the members of a natural man are here said to be servants to iniquity unto iniquity - one sin makes the heart more disposed for another), so every gracious act confirms the gracious habit: serving righteousness is unto holiness; one duty fits us for another; and the more we do the more we may do for God. Or serving righteousness, eis hagiasmon - as an evidence of sanctification.

II. The motives or arguments here used to show the necessity of sanctification. There is such an antipathy in our hearts by nature to holiness that it is no easy matter to bring them to submit to it: it is the Spirit's work, who persuades by such inducements as these set home upon the soul.

1. He argues from our sacramental conformity to Jesus Christ. Our baptism, with the design and intention of it, carried in it a great reason why we should die to sin, and live to righteousness. Thus we must improve our baptism as a bridle of restraint to keep us in from sin, as a spur of constraint to quicken us to duty. Observe this reasoning.

(1.) In general, we are dead to sin, that is, in profession and in obligation. Our baptism signifies our cutting off from the kingdom of sin. We profess to have no more to do with sin. We are dead to sin by a participation of virtue and power for the killing of it, and by our union with Christ and interest in him, in and by whom it is killed. All this is in vain if we persist in sin; we contradict a profession, violate an obligation, return to that to which we were dead, like walking ghosts, than which nothing is more unbecoming and absurd. For (Rom 6:7) he that is dead is freed from sin; that is, he that is dead to it is freed from the rule and dominion of it, as the servant that is dead is freed from his master, Job 3:19. Now shall we be such fools as to return to that slavery from which we are discharged? When we are delivered out of Egypt, shall we talk of going back to it again?

(2.) In particular, being baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his death, Rom 6:3. We were baptized eis Christon - unto Christ, as 1Co 10:2, eis Mōsēn - unto Moses. Baptism binds us to Christ, it binds us apprentice to Christ as our teacher, it is our allegiance to Christ as our sovereign. Baptism is externa ansa Christi - the external handle of Christ, by which Christ lays hold on men, and men offer themselves to Christ. Particularly, we were baptized into his death, into a participation of the privileges purchased by his death, and into an obligation both to comply with the design of his death, which was to redeem us from all iniquity, and to conform to the pattern of his death, that, as Christ died for sin, so we should die to sin. This was the profession and promise of our baptism, and we do not do well if we do not answer this profession, and make good this promise.

[1.] Our conformity to the death of Christ obliges us to die unto sin; thereby we know the fellowship of his sufferings, Phi 3:10. Thus we are here said to be planted together in the likeness of is death (Rom 6:5), tō homoiōmati , not only a conformity, but a conformation, as the engrafted stock is planted together into the likeness of the shoot, of the nature of which it doth participate. Planting is in order to life and fruitfulness: we are planted in the vineyard in a likeness to Christ, which likeness we should evidence in sanctification. Our creed concerning Jesus Christ is, among other things, that he was crucified, dead, and buried; now baptism is a sacramental conformity to him in each of these, as the apostle here takes notice. First, Our old man is crucified with him, Rom 6:6. The death of the cross was a slow death; the body, after it was nailed to the cross, gave many a throe and many a struggle: but it was a sure death, long in expiring, but expired at last; such is the mortification of sin in believers. It was a cursed death, Gal 3:13. Sin dies as a malefactor, devoted to destruction; it is an accursed thing. Though it be a slow death, yet this must needs hasten it that it is an old man that is crucified; not in the prime of its strength, but decaying: that which waxeth old is ready to vanish away, Heb 8:13. Crucified with him - sunestaurōthē , not in respect of time, but in respect of causality. The crucifying of Christ for us has an influence upon the crucifying of sin in us. Secondly, We are dead with Christ, Rom 6:8. Christ was obedient to death: when he died, we might be said to die with him, as our dying to sin is an act of conformity both to the design and to the example of Christ's dying for sin. Baptism signifies and seals our union with Christ, our engrafting into Christ; so that we are dead with him, and engaged to have no more to do with sin than he had. Thirdly, We are buried with him by baptism, Rom 6:4. Our conformity is complete. We are in profession quite cut off from all commerce and communion with sin, as those that are buried are quite cut off from all the world; not only not of the living, but no more among the living, have nothing more to do with them. Thus must we be, as Christ was, separate from sin and sinners. We are buried, namely, in profession and obligation: we profess to be so, and we are bound to be so: it was our covenant and engagement in baptism; we are sealed to be the Lord's, therefore to be cut off from sin. Why this burying in baptism should so much as allude to any custom of dipping under water in baptism, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death should have any such references, I confess I cannot see. It is plain that it is not the sign, but the thing signified, in baptism, that the apostle here calls being buried with Christ, and the expression of burying alludes to Christ's burial. As Christ was buried, that he might rise again to a new and more heavenly life, so we are in baptism buried, that is, cut off from the life of sin, that we may rise again to a new life of faith and love.

[2.] Our conformity to the resurrection of Christ obliges us to rise again to newness of life. This is the power of his resurrection which Paul was so desirous to know, Phi 3:10. Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, that is, by the power of the Father. The power of God is his glory; it is glorious power, Col 1:11. Now in baptism we are obliged to conform to that pattern, to be planted in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom 6:5), to live with him, Rom 6:8. See Col 2:12. Conversion is the first resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness; and this resurrection is conformable to Christ's resurrection. This conformity of the saints to the resurrection of Christ seems to be intimated in the rising of so many of the bodies of the saints, which, though mentioned before by anticipation, is supposed to have been concomitant with Christ's resurrection, Mat 27:52. We have all risen with Christ. In two things we must conform to the resurrection of Christ: - First, He rose to die no more, Rom 6:9. We read of many others that were raised from the dead, but they rose to die again. But, when Christ rose, he rose to die no more; therefore he left his grave-clothes behind him, whereas Lazarus, who was to die again, brought them out with him, as one that should have occasion to use them again: but over Christ death has no more dominion; he was dead indeed, but he is alive, and so alive that he lives for evermore, Rev 1:18. Thus we must rise from the grave of sin never again to return to it, nor to have any more fellowship with the works of darkness, having quitted that grave, that land of darkness as darkness itself. Secondly, He rose to live unto God (Rom 6:10), to live a heavenly life, to receive that glory which was set before him. Others that were raised from the dead returned to the same life in every respect which they had before lived; but so did not Christ: he rose again to leave the world. Now I am no more in the world, Joh 13:1; Joh 17:11. He rose to live to God, that is, to intercede and rule, and all to the glory of the Father. Thus must we rise to live to God: this is what he calls newness of life (Rom 6:4), to live from other principles, by other rules, with other aims, than we have done. A life devoted to God is a new life; before, self was the chief and highest end, but now God. To live indeed is to live to God, with our eyes ever towards him, making him the centre of all our actions.

2. He argues from the precious promises and privileges of the new covenant, Rom 6:14. It might be objected that we cannot conquer and subdue sin, it is unavoidably too hard for us: "No,"says he, "you wrestle with an enemy that may be dealt with and subdued, if you will but keep your ground and stand to your arms; it is an enemy that is already foiled and baffled; there is strength laid up in the covenant of grace for your assistance, if you will but use it. Sin shall not have dominion. "God's promises to us are more powerful and effectual for the mortifying of sin than our promises to God. Sin may struggle in a believer, and may create him a great deal of trouble, but it shall not have dominion; it may vex him, but shall not rule over him. For we are not under the law, but under grace, not under the law of sin and death, but under the law of the spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus: we are actuated by other principles than we have been: new lords, new laws. Or, not under the covenant of works, which requires brick, and gives no straw, which condemns upon the least failure, which runs thus, "Do this, and live; do it not, and die;"but under the covenant of grace, which accepts sincerity as our gospel perfection, which requires nothing but what it promises strength to perform, which is herein well ordered, that every transgression in the covenant does not put us out of covenant, and especially that it does not leave our salvation in our own keeping, but lays it up in the hands of the Mediator, who undertakes for us that sin shall not have dominion over us, who hath himself condemned it, and will destroy it; so that, if we pursue the victory, we shall come off more than conquerors. Christ rules by the golden sceptre of grace, and he will not let sin have dominion over those that are willing subjects to that rule. This is a very comfortable word to all true believers. If we were under the law, we were undone, for the law curses every one that continues not in every thing; but we are under grace, grace which accepts the willing mind, which is not extreme to mark what we do amiss, which leaves room for repentance, which promises pardon upon repentance; and what can be to an ingenuous mind a stronger motive than this to have nothing to do with sin? Shall we sin against so much goodness, abuse such love? Some perhaps might suck poison out of this flower, and disingenuously use this as an encouragement to sin. See how the apostle starts at such a thought (Rom 6:15): Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. What can be more black and ill-natured than from a friend's extraordinary expressions of kindness and good-will to take occasion to affront and offend him? To spurn at such bowels, to spit in the face of such love, is that which, between man and man, all the world would cry out shame on.

3. He argues from the evidence that this will be of our state, making for us, or against us (Rom 6:16): To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are. All the children of men are either the servants of God, or the servants of sin; these are the two families. Now, if we would know to which of these families we belong, we must enquire to which of these masters we yield obedience. Our obeying the laws of sin will be an evidence against us that we belong to that family on which death is entailed. As, on the contrary, our obeying the laws of Christ will evidence our relation to Christ's family.

4. He argues from their former sinfulness, Rom 6:17-21, where we may observe,

(1.) What they had been and done formerly. We have need to be often reminded of our former state. Paul frequently remembers it concerning himself, and those to whom he writes. [1.] You were the servants of sin. Those that are now the servants of God would do well to remember the time when they were the servants of sin, to keep them humble, penitent, and watchful, and to quicken them in the service of God. It is a reproach to the service of sin that so many thousands have quitted the service, and shaken off the yoke; and never any that sincerely deserted it, and gave themselves to the service of God, have returned to the former drudgery. " God be thanked that you were so, that is, that though you were so, yet you have obeyed. You were so; God be thanked that we can speak of it as a thing past: you were so, but you are not now so. Nay, your having been so formerly tends much to the magnifying of divine mercy and grace in the happy change. God be thanked that the former sinfulness is such a foil and such a spur to your present holiness."[2.] You have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, Rom 6:19. It is the misery of a sinful state that the body is made a drudge to sin, than which there could not be a baser or a harder slavery, like that of the prodigal that was sent into the fields to feed swine. You have yielded. Sinners are voluntary in the service of sin. The devil could not force them into the service, if they did not yield themselves to it. This will justify God in the ruin of sinners, that they sold themselves to work wickedness: it was their own act and deed. To iniquity unto iniquity. Every sinful act strengthens and confirms the sinful habit: to iniquity as the work unto iniquity as the wages. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind; growing worse and worse, more and more hardened. This he speaks after the manner of men, that is, he fetches a similitude from that which is common among men, even the change of services and subjections. [3.] You were free from righteousness (Rom 6:20); not free by any liberty given, but by a liberty taken, which is licentiousness: " You were altogether void of that which is good, - void of any good principles, motions, or inclinations, - void of all subjection to the law and will of God, of all conformity to his image; and this you were highly pleased with, as a freedom and a liberty; but a freedom from righteousness is the worst kind of slavery."

(2.) How the blessed change was made, and wherein it did consist.

[1.] You have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you, Rom 6:17. This describes conversion, what it is; it is our conformity to, and compliance with, the gospel which was delivered to us by Christ and his ministers. - Margin. Whereto you were delivered; eis hon paredothēte - into which you were delivered. And so observe, First, The rule of grace, that form of doctrine - tupon didachēs . The gospel is the great rule both of truth and holiness; it is the stamp, grace is the impression of that stamp; it is the form of healing words, 2Ti 1:13. Secondly, The nature of grace, as it is our conformity to that rule. 1. It is to obey from the heart. The gospel is a doctrine not only to be believed, but to be obeyed, and that from the heart, which denotes the sincerity and reality of that obedience; not in profession only, but in power - from the heart, the innermost part, the commanding part of us. 2. It is to be delivered into it, as into a mould, as the wax is cast into the impression of the seal, answering it line for line, stroke for stroke, and wholly representing the shape and figure of it. To be a Christian indeed is to be transformed into the likeness and similitude of the gospel, our souls answering to it, complying with it, conformed to it - understanding, will, affections, aims, principles, actions, all according to that form of doctrine.

[2.] Being made free from sin, you became servants of righteousness (Rom 6:18), servants to God, Rom 6:22. Conversion is, First, A freedom from the service of sin; it is the shaking off of that yoke, resolving to have no more to do with it. Secondly, A resignation of ourselves to the service of God and righteousness, to God as our master, to righteousness as our work. When we are made free from sin, it is not that we may live as we list, and be our own masters; no: when we are delivered out of Egypt, we are, as Israel, led to the holy mountain, to receive the law, and are there brought into the bond of the covenant. Observe, We cannot be made the servants of God till we are freed from the power and dominion of sin; we cannot serve two masters so directly opposite one to another as God and sin are. We must, with the prodigal, quit the drudgery of the citizen of the country, before we can come to our Father's house.

(3.) What apprehensions they now had of their former work and way. He appeals to themselves (Rom 6:21), whether they had not found the service of sin, [1.] An unfruitful service: " What fruit had you then? Did you ever get any thing by it? Sit down, and cast up the account, reckon your gains, what fruit had you then?"Besides the future losses, which are infinitely great, the very present gains of sin are not worth mentioning. What fruit? Nothing that deserves the name of fruit. The present pleasure and profit of sin do not deserve to be called fruit; they are but chaff, ploughing iniquity, sowing vanity, and reaping the same. [2.] It is an unbecoming service; it is that of which we are now ashamed - ashamed of the folly, ashamed of the filth, of it. Shame came into the world with sin, and is still the certain product of it - either the shame of repentance, or, if not that, eternal shame and contempt. Who would wilfully do that which sooner or later he is sure to be ashamed of?

5. He argues from the end of all these things. it is the prerogative of rational creatures that they are endued with a power of prospect, are capable of looking forward, considering the latter end of things. To persuade us from sin to holiness here are blessing and cursing, good and evil, life and death, set before us; and we are put to our choice. (1.) The end of sin is death (Rom 6:21): The end of those things is death. Though the way may seem pleasant and inviting, yet the end is dismal: at the last it bites; it will be bitterness in the latter end. The wages of sin is death, Rom 6:23. Death is as due to a sinner when he hath sinned as wages are to a servant when he hath done his work. This is true of every sin. There is no sin in its own nature venial. Death is the wages of the least sin. Sin is here represented either as the work for which the wages are given, or as the master by whom the wages are given; all that are sin's servants and do sin's work must expect to be thus paid. (2.) If the fruit be unto holiness, if there be an active principle of true and growing grace, the end will be everlasting life - a very happy end! - Though the way be up-hill, though it be narrow, and thorny, and beset, yet everlasting life at the end of it is sure. So, Rom 6:23, The gift of God is eternal life. Heaven is life, consisting in the vision and fruition of God; and it is eternal life, no infirmities attending it, no death to put a period to it. This is the gift of God. The death is the wages of sin, it comes by desert; but the life is a gift, it comes by favour. Sinners merit hell, but saints do not merit heaven. There is no proportion between the glory of heaven and our obedience; we must thank God, and not ourselves, if ever we get to heaven. And this gift is through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is Christ that purchased it, prepared it, prepares us for it, preserves us to it; he is the Alpha and Omega, All in all in our salvation.

Barclay: Rom 6:1-11

As he has so often done in this letter, Paul is once again carrying on an argument against a kind of imaginary opponent. The argument springs from the great saying at the end of the last chapter: "Where sin abounded, grace superabounded." It runs something like this.

The Objector: You have just said that God's grace is great enough to find forgiveness for every sin.

Paul: That is so.

The Objector: You are, in fact, saying that God's grace is the most wonderful thing in all this world.

Paul: That is so.

The Objector: Well, if that is so, let us go on sinning. The more we sin, the more grace will abound. Sin does not matter, for God will forgive anyway. In fact we can go further than that and say that sin is an excellent thing, because it gives the grace of God a chance to operate. The conclusion of your argument is that sin produces grace; therefore sin is bound to be a good thing if it produces the greatest thing in the world.

Paul's first reaction is to recoil from that argument in sheer horror. "Do you suggest," he demands, "that we should go on sinning in order to give grace more chance to operate? God forbid that we should pursue so incredible a course as that."

Then, having recoiled like that, he goes on to something else.

"Have you never thought," he demands, "what happened to you when you were baptized?" Now, when we try to understand what Paul goes on to say, we must remember that baptism in his time was different from what it commonly is today.

(a) It was adult baptism. That is not to say that the New Testament is opposed to infant baptism, but infant baptism is the result of the Christian family, and the Christian family could hardly be said to have come into being as early as the time of Paul. A man came to Christ as an individual in the early Church, often leaving his family behind.

(b) Baptism in the early Church was intimately connected with confession of faith. A man was baptized when he entered the Church; and he was entering the Church direct from paganism. In baptism a man came to a decision which cut his life in two, a decision which often meant that he had to tear himself up by the roots, a decision which was so definite that it often meant nothing less than beginning life all over again.

© Commonly baptism was by total immersion and that practice lent itself to a symbolism to which sprinkling does not so readily lend itself. When a man descended into the water and the water closed over his head, it was like being buried. When he emerged from the water, it was like rising from the grave. Baptism was symbolically like dying and rising again. The man died to one kind of life and rose to another; he died to the old life of sin and rose to the new life of grace.

Again, if we are fully to understand this, we must remember that Paul was using language and pictures that almost anyone of his day and generation would understand, It may seem strange to us, but it was not at all strange to his contemporaries.

The Jews would understand it. When a man entered the Jewish religion from heathenism, it involved three things--sacrifice, circumcision and baptism. The Gentile entered the Jewish faith by baptism. The ritual was as follows. The person to be baptized cut his nails and hair; he undressed completely; the baptismal bath must contain at least forty seahs, that is two hogsheads, of water; every part of his body must be touched by the water. As he was in the water, he made confession of his faith before three fathers of baptism and certain exhortations and benedictions were addressed to him. The effect of this baptism was held to be complete regeneration; he was called a little child just born, the child of one day. All his sins were remitted because God could not punish sins committed before he was born. The completeness of the change was seen in the fact that certain Rabbis held that a man's child born after baptism was his first-born, even if he had older children. Theoretically it was held--although the belief was never put into practice--that a man was so completely new that he might marry his own sister or his own mother. He was not only a changed man, he was a different man. Any Jew would fully understand Paul's words about the necessity of a baptized man being completely new.

The Greek would understand. At this time the only real Greek religion was found in the mystery religions. They were wonderful things. They offered men release from the cares and sorrows and fears of this earth; and the release was by union with some god. All the mysteries were passion plays. They were based on the story of some god who suffered and died and rose again. The story was played out as a drama. Before a man could see the drama he had to be initiated. He had to undergo a long course of instruction on the inner meaning of the drama. He had to undergo a course of ascetic discipline. He was carefully prepared. The drama was played out with all the resources of music and lighting, and incense and mystery. As it was played out, the man underwent an emotional experience of identification with the god. Before he entered on this he was initiated. Initiation was always regarded as a death followed by a new birth, by which the man was renatus in aeternum, reborn for eternity. One who went through the initiation tells us that he underwent "a voluntary death." We know that in one of the mysteries the man to be initiated was called moriturus, the one who is to die, and that he was buried up to the head in a trench. When he had been initiated, he was addressed as a little child and fed with milk, as one newly born. In another of the mysteries the person to be initiated prayed: "Enter thou into my spirit, my thought, my whole life; for thou art I and I am thou." Any Greek who had been through this would have no difficulty in understanding what Paul meant by dying and rising again in baptism, and, in so doing, becoming one with Christ.

We are not for one moment saying that Paul borrowed either his ideas or his words from such Jewish or pagan practices; what we do say is that he was using words and pictures that both Jew and Gentile would recognize and understand.

In this passage lie three great permanent truths.

(i) It is a terrible thing to seek to trade on the mercy of God and to make it an excuse for sinning. Think of it in human terms. How despicable it would be for a son to consider himself free to sin, because he knew that his father would forgive. That would be taking advantage of love to break love's heart.

(ii) The man who enters upon the Christian way is committed to a different kind of life. He has died to one kind of life and been born to another. In modern times we may have tended to stress the fact that acceptance of the Christian way need not make so very much difference in a man's life. Paul would have said that it ought to make all the difference in the world.

(iii) But there is more than a mere ethical change in a man's life when he accepts Christ. There is a real identification with Christ. It is, in fact, the simple truth that the ethical change is not possible without that union. A man is in Christ. A great scholar has suggested this analogy for that phrase. We cannot live our physical life unless we are in the air and the air is in us; unless we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, we cannot live the life of God.

Constable: Rom 6:1--8:39

IV. THE IMPARTATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS chs. 6--8

The apostle moved on from questions about why people need salvation (1:18-3:20), what God has done to provide it, and how we can appropriate it (3:21-5:21). He next explained that salvation involves more than a right standing before God, which justification affords. God also provides salvation from the present power of sin in the redeemed sinner's daily experience. This is progressive sanctification (chs. 6-8).

When a sinner experiences redemption--"converted" is the subjective term--he or she simultaneously experiences justification. Justification imparts God's righteousness to him or her. Justification is the same thing as "positional sanctification." This term means that God views the believer as completely holy in his or her standing before God. That person is no longer guilty because of his or her sins (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11).

However when a sinner experiences redemption, he or she also begins a process of sanctification. This process of becoming progressively more righteous (holy) in his or her experience is not automatic. It involves growth and requires the believer to cooperate with God to produce holiness in daily life. God leads the believer and provides the enablement for him or her to follow, but the believer must choose to follow and make use of the resources for sanctification that God provides.¹⁷¹ This progressive sanctification will end at death or the Rapture, whichever occurs first. Then the believer will experience glorification. Then his experiential condition will finally conform to his legal standing before God. He or she will then be completely righteous as well as having been declared righteous. God will remove our sinful nature and will conform our lives fully to His will (8:29).

In chapters 6-8 Paul explained how justified sinners can become more holy (godly, righteous) in daily living before our glorification. We need to understand our relationship as believers to sin (i.e., victory, ch. 6), to the Law (i.e., liberty, ch. 7), and to God (i.e., security, ch. 8) to attain that worthy goal.

Constable: Rom 6:1-23

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

"Subduing the power of sin is the topic of Rom. 6."¹⁷²

Constable: Rom 6:1-14

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

Paul began his explanation of the believer's relationship to sin by expounding the implications of our union with Christ (6:1-14). He had already spoken of this in 5:12-21 regarding justification, but now he showed how that union affects our progressive sanctification.

"The focus of his discussion, particularly in chapter 6, is not on how to obey God and avoid sinning, but on why we should obey God."¹⁷³

The apostle referred to Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in this section. Seen from the viewpoint of His substitute sacrifice these events did not involve the believer's participation. Jesus Christ alone endured the cross, experienced burial, and rose from the grave. Nevertheless His work of redemption was not only substitutionary but also representative (5:12-21; 2 Cor. 5:14). It is in this respect that Paul described believers as identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection in the following verses. (Paul had already introduced the idea of Christ as our representative in 5:12-21.) Sin has no further claim on Christ because He paid the penalty for sin. Sin no longer has a claim on us because He died as our representative. We are free from sin's domination because of our union with Him. This was Paul's line of thought.

6:1 Paul had just said that grace super-abounded where sin increased (5:20). Perhaps then believers should not worry about practicing sin since it results in the manifestation of more of God's grace and His greater glory.¹⁷⁴ One expression of this is Voltaire's famous statement, "God will forgive; that is his business.'"¹⁷⁵ W. H. Auden voiced similar sentiments.

"I like committing crimes. God likes forgiving them. Really the world is admirably arranged."¹⁷⁶

Paul probably posed the question to draw out the implications of God's grace.

". . . justification by faith is not simply a legal matter between me and God; it is a living relationship."¹⁷⁷

6:2 This is definitely not a proper conclusion (cf. 3:8). It is illogical that those who have died in relation to sin should continue to live in sin. Paul personified sin and described it as have a ruling power or realm. We died to sin when we experienced conversion.

"How despicable it would be for a son or a daughter to consider himself or herself free to sin, because he or she knew that a father or a mother would forgive."¹⁷⁸

Note that Paul did not say that it is impossible to live in sin or that sin is dead to the Christian (i.e., that it no longer appeals to us). He meant it is unnecessary and undesirable to live in sin, to habitually practice it.

For example, if a man's wife died it would be unrealistic for him to continue living as though she were alive. Her death changed his relationship to her. He could, of course, continue to live as though she were alive, but such a man no longer must do so.

It is incredible that one advocate of lordship salvation wrote the following.

"What is no-lordship theology but the teaching that those who have died to sin can indeed live in it?"¹⁷⁹

Romans 6:13 and 12:1-2 are three of the clearest verses in the Bible that submission to the lordship of Christ is the duty of every Christian. It is not optional or unimportant, but it is a command addressed to Christians, not unbelievers.

6:3-4 Our baptism into Jesus Christ resulted in our death to sin.

"It appears that Paul had both the literal and figurative in mind in this paragraph, for he used the readers' experience of water baptism to remind them of their identification with Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit."¹⁸⁰

"Baptism . . . functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole."¹⁸¹

Water baptism for the early Christians was an initiation into Christian existence. Baptism joins the believer with Jesus Christ in public profession which includes joining him or her with Christ in His death. Union with Christ in baptism then necessitates our burial and resurrection with Him.

". . . there is no evidence in Rom. 6, or in the NT elsewhere, that the actual physical movements--immersion and emersion--involved in baptism were accorded symbolical significance. The focus in Rom. 6, certainly, is not on the ritual of baptism, but the simple event of baptism. . . .

"Burial with Christ' is a description of the participation of the believer in Christ's own burial, a participation that is mediated by baptism."¹⁸²

"It is not that the believer in baptism is laid in his own grave, but that through that action he is set alongside Christ Jesus in his."¹⁸³

". . . baptism is introduced not to explain how we were buried with Christ but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ."¹⁸⁴

Jesus' burial was not part of His saving work. It simply proved that He had died (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Similarly His resurrection was not part of His saving work. It proved that death could not hold Him because He was sinless (cf. Acts 2:24).

God not only raised Jesus Christ but also imparts new life to believers. Walking in newness of life shows that the believer has received new life (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).

"Glory" in verse 4 has power in view (cf. John 11:40).

6:5 In view of what follows Paul apparently meant physical resurrection. He was speaking of the resurrection of the body at a future date rather than the believer's resurrection to a new type of life with Christ (cf. Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:12; 3:1). This is parallel to what he said about our death in the context.

We could paraphrase "united" as "fused together." The Greek word (sumphytoi) means "grown together." Our union with Christ in His death and resurrection is the basis for our future resurrection.

6:6 As we sinned in Adam, so we died with Christ (cf. Gal. 2:20). Paul said it is important that we "know" this because it is crucial to understanding our relationship to sin as believers.

"Christian living depends on Christian learning; duty is always founded on doctrine. If Satan can keep a Christian ignorant, he can keep him impotent."¹⁸⁵

"Satan's great device is to drive earnest souls back to beseeching God for what God says has already been done!"¹⁸⁶

Our old "man" or "self" refers to the person we were before we experienced justification. That person was crucified with Christ (cf. Col. 3:9). That person is now dead. Nevertheless we can adopt his or her old characteristics if we choose to do so (cf. Eph. 4:22). The believer is not the same person he or she used to be before justification (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).

The old man (old self) is not the same as the old nature.¹⁸⁷ The old nature refers to our sinful human nature that every human being possesses as long as he or she lives. The old nature is the same as the flesh (cf. 7:5).

"The flesh,' which is sin entrenched in the body, is unchangeably evil, and will war against us till Christ comes. Only the Holy Spirit has power over the flesh' (Chapter 8.1)."¹⁸⁸

Even though the old man has died, the old nature lives on. I am not the same person I was before justification because sin no longer can dominate me, but I still have a sinful human nature.¹⁸⁹

"What we were in Adam' is no more; but, until heaven, the temptation to live in Adam always remains."¹⁹⁰

Our "body of sin" is not the same as a sinful body since the body itself is not sinful (cf. Mark 7:21-23). Probably the body in this expression represents the whole person (cf. vv. 12-13). We express our sinfulness through our bodies. The result of our crucifixion with Christ was that the body no longer needs to be an instrument that we use to sin since we are no longer slaves to sin.

6:7 Death ends all claims. Paul illustrated his point in verse 6 by referring to this general truth. Once a person has died he or she has no more earthly obligations. Because of our death with Christ we have no obligation to respond to the dictates of our sinful nature. We may choose to do so, but we do not have to do so, and we should not do so (cf. Eph. 4:22-32).

This verse does not mean that the power of sinful habits or the effects of sinful influences will cease to bother a person when he or she becomes a Christian. It does mean that the Christian is no longer under the slavery of sin that he or she used to live under. Our senses create a problem for us here. The unsaved person may think he is not a slave to sin when he really is. Conversely the Christian may think he is a slave to sin though he is not. The fact remains: God has broken the chain that once bound us to sin, and happily we are free of its domination. Unfortunately we will not be free of its enticement until our glorification.

The translation "acquitted from sin" is legitimate but perhaps misleading. It implies a forensic relationship to sin, but Paul was speaking of our relationship to sin in daily living in this section (practical sanctification, not justification).

6:8 "If" could be "Since" (first class condition in Greek that in this case represents a condition genuinely true to reality). Believers have died with Christ. Paul now turned from discussing the effect that our union with Christ has on our problem with sin (vv. 6-7). He proceeded to explain the effect that our union with Him has on our problem with death. Death is the result of sin. Here physical resurrection is in view as is clear from the future tense (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54-57).¹⁹¹

6:9 Death could not hold Jesus Christ, our representative. It cannot hold the believer either. Furthermore neither He nor we will die a second time. We will never again come under the enslaving spiritual death-dealing power of sin.

6:10 Jesus Christ will never have to die again because when He died for sin He died to sin. This means that when He died His relationship to sin changed. It was never the same again. Sin now has no power over Him. After He paid for our sins, He was free to resume His intimate relationship with God forever.

6:11 Since God has united us with Christ we should "consider," "count," or "reckon" ourselves as those who are not under the dominating influence of sin any longer.¹⁹² The verb is a present imperative in the Greek text indicating that we should definitely and constantly view ourselves this way. We must realize that we are free to enjoy our new relationship with God forever.¹⁹³

Paul previously stressed the importance of knowing certain facts (vv. 3, 6, 9). Now he said that we should count on their being true. We must not just understand them but believe them. He used the same Greek word (logisthesetai) here as he did in his explanation of justification (2:26; 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24). God puts righteousness down on the believer's account. Similarly we should put it down as true that our relationship to sin and death has changed. Only as we do so will we relate to temptation, sin, and death realistically. If we fail to believe that sin no longer dominates us, we will be much more vulnerable to yield to temptation, to practice sin, and to fear death. However if we believe sin does not have that power, we will be more apt to resist temptation, to stay clear of sin, and to anticipate death less fearfully. "Consider" is in the present tense in the Greek text indicating that we need to maintain a realistic view of our relationship to sin (i.e., to "keep on considering").

"The word reckon is a word for faith--in the face of appearances."¹⁹⁴

6:12 Paul had expounded the reality and implications of the believer's union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (vv. 1-10). He had also urged his readers, therefore, to consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God (v. 11). He now proceeded to call on them to present themselves to God in a decisive act of self-dedication (vv. 12-23).

"Therefore" draws a conclusion on the basis of what has preceded. Since believers know that we are no longer subject to sin's domination, and since we believe that is true, we should not let sin reign in our bodies (selves) any longer. Sin is no longer our master so we should stop carrying out its orders.¹⁹⁵ When temptation comes, we do not have to yield.

". . . passions' would include not only the physical lusts and appetites but also those desires that reside in the mind and will: the desire to have our own way, the desire to possess what other people have (cf. 7:7-8), the desire to have dominance over others."¹⁹⁶

6:13 In particular, we should not use our natural capacities to commit sin. Positively we should "present" or "offer" ourselves to God and ourselves as His tools to fulfill His will (cf. 12:1). The believer has a choice. We can present ourselves to sin or to God (cf. Eph. 4:17-32). The unbeliever only has this choice to a limited extent since he is the slave of sin.

"Some commentators think that Paul . . . pictures this presenting' as a once-for-all' action, or as ingressive (start presenting'), or as urgent. But the aorist tense in itself does not indicate such nuances and nothing in the context here clearly suggests any of them. In fact, the aorist imperative often lacks any special force, being used simply to command that an action take place--without regard for the duration, urgency, or frequency of the action. This is probably the case here. However, we may surmise that, as the negative not presenting ourselves to sin is constantly necessary, so is the positive giving ourselves in service to God, our rightful ruler."¹⁹⁷

"The moment we come to exhortation, we have to do with the will; whereas believing is a matter of the heart: With the heart man believeth.'"¹⁹⁸

"Paul's first instruction (know') centered in the mind, and this second instruction (reckon') focuses on the heart. His third instruction touches the will."¹⁹⁹

The Christian's Three-Fold Enemy
Problem	Solution
The World (1 John 2:15-17) Lust of the flesh Lust of the eyesPride of life	Flee(1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22)
The flesh(Rom. 7:18-24)	Deny(Rom. 6:12-13; 8:13)
The devil(1 Peter 5:8)	Resist(1 Peter 5:9)

Some Reformed interpreters believe that progressive sanctification is automatic. They believe that God automatically transforms every true Christian into the image of Christ during his or her present lifetime. If this transformation is not obvious, then the person professing to be a Christian must not be one. I would respond that he or she may not be, but there is another possibility.

"Is the Holy Spirit being allowed to transform your life?

"There are only two possible answers: yes or no. If your answer is no, there are two possible reasons. Either you do not have the Spirit within you (i.e., you're not a Christian), or He is there but you prefer to live life on your own."²⁰⁰

"Why does the Lord want your body? To begin with, the believer's body is God's temple, and He wants to use it for His glory (1 Cor. 6:19-20; Phil. 1:20-21). But Paul wrote that the body is also God's tool and God's weapon (Rom. 6:13). God wants to use the members of the body as tools for building His kingdom and weapons for fighting His enemies."²⁰¹

6:14 The apostle concluded this section of his argument with a word of encouragement. Sin will no longer master the believer. The basic reason for this is that we are not under the Mosaic Law as the authority under which we live but under grace. Satan can no longer use the Law to hinder the believer's progress (cf. 3:23). God has redeemed us, not by the Law but by grace. We now live under that authority. Paul dealt with the tension this situation creates for the believer in chapter 7.

Usually grace refers to the principle by which God operates. Yet it also describes the sphere in which the believer lives, as here (cf. 5:2), as the Law describes the old realm. Under grace is not, however, a condition in which we are free from any responsibility (cf. Matt. 11:28-30; Titus 2:11-12), as Paul proceeded to clarify in verses 15-23.

"Romans 6 is the classic biblical text on the importance of relating the indicative' of what God has done for us with the imperative' of what we are to do. Paul stresses that we must actualize in daily experience the freedom from sin's lordship (cf. v. 14a) that is ours in Christ Jesus.'"²⁰²

College: Rom 6:1-23

6:1-8:39 - PART THREE

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE

GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN

Though some divide Paul's argument between chs. 4 and 5, with 5-8 forming a single unit, I believe ch. 6 begins the new unit, with chs. 6-8 being the next major section of Paul's presentation of the gospel. It would be possible to take 3:21-8:39 as one main unified section (as does Stott, 37), with 3:21-5:21 and 6:1-8:39 forming its two major subsections. However, I believe this obscures the close relation between 1:18-3:20 and 3:21-5:21 as presenting the contrasting ways of salvation, law and grace. Thus it is better to see 6-8 as a new and self-contained section that continues the theme of grace from a different perspective.

INTRODUCTION

A. THE MAJOR THEME OF THIS SECTION

The gospel addresses the question of how to be saved, or how to be accepted by God. Parts one and two of Romans are a negative and a positive response to this question. The negative response is that it is impossible to be accepted by God according to the terms of law , since this requires impeccable personal righteousness, and all have sinned (1:18-3:20). The positive response is that God accepts sinners according to the terms of grace , wherein he counts them righteous (i.e., justifies them) on the basis of the gift of his own righteousness. This gracious gift is made possible through the death of Jesus on the cross, and is given to those who accept it through faith apart from works of law (3:21-5:21).

Paul's explanation of grace as justification by faith raises some further questions, however. If we are justified by grace through faith apart from works (3:28), then what about law? What about sin? What about obedience? Is God's law irrelevant under grace? Are good works optional? Does it no longer matter whether we sin or not?

In answer to such questions Paul in effect reminds us that grace is a double cure . It not only takes away the guilt of sin through the imputed righteousness established by the blood of Christ; it also takes away the power of sin by healing the spiritual sickness that permeates both our souls and our bodies. In other words, grace includes not only justification but also sanctification , which begins with the decisive act called regeneration or the new birth and continues through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In the present section Paul's focus is on this "other side" of grace, which brings not an external change in our legal status but an internal change in our nature and character. Now that the penalty of sin has been removed through justification, we are free to focus on being rid of sin itself: serving God, keeping his law, and doing good works. Unless and until we have done the latter, we have not realized the fullness of grace.

B. THE DOCTRINAL CONTENT OF THIS SECTION

The main theme of these chapters is how the grace of God gives us victory over sin. At this point it will be helpful to summarize their basic doctrinal content before setting forth the verse-by-verse exegesis upon which it is based.

1. Key Concepts

Several key concepts form the backbone of this section. The first is law (novmo" , nomos ), which is used in three major ways. Primarily it refers to the preceptive will of God, the law-code that defines right and wrong conduct, the totality of commandments and prohibitions that apply to human beings in any given time or place. At times the Law of Moses may be specifically in view, but the main point is not the distinction between the Law of Moses and the moral law in general nor even the distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Law of Moses as a law code is simply representative of God's laws as such, in whatever form it is available and known. The main point is still the distinction between law and grace (6:14-15), and the main concern in this section is the distinction between proper and improper uses of law by those who are under God's grace.

Second, sometimes in this section "law" means "order, pattern, system, governing principle, rule of life," especially in the sense of an all-encompassing world order or life paradigm (7:21; 8:2; see 3:27). Finally, the term law sometimes refers to an indwelling, compelling force, or a dominating power that seeks to control the individual, either for good or for evil (7:23, 25).

The second key concept is sin (aJmartiva , hamartia ). This word is used over three dozen times in these three chapters, almost always in the singular in the sense of an active, alien force that seduces us, draws us to itself as into a black hole, permeates us, and makes us its captive. As such sin is not our actions nor the inert product of our actions, but a personified power that acts upon us. The key point of this whole section is that this enemy has been defeated, and thus "sin shall not be your master" (6:14).

Our relation to sin progresses through four stages. (1) At first sin is only potential (7:9). Because of original grace (5:12-19) we come into the world in a state of purity and innocence, but sin is still a possibility because of our free will. (2) Then, when we fall into disobedience, sin becomes imperial; it rules over us (6:6, 14). (3) In conversion sin is conquered but is still residual and must be consciously resisted (6:12-13; 7:17, 20). (4) In the end when we are free from this corrupted body (6:6; 7:24-25; 8:23), sin will finally be nil to us. We will be in the blessed state where all the effects of sin are completely removed from our being and our environment.

A third key concept is death , which appears in these chapters in a number of terms and forms, as follows: (1) Physical death as such, considered as an event (7:2, 3; 8:10, 36, 38) or as an enemy to be conquered (6:9; see 5:14, 17). (2) The physical death of Jesus Christ, considered as an event (6:10; 8:34), as an instrument of salvation (6:3, 5), or as the state from which he was raised (6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11). (3) The spiritual death of the sinner, considered as the event of his first "fall" into sin, or as the state in which he subsequently exists (7:9-13; see Eph 2:1, 5). (4) The soteriological death of the sinner's "old [spiritually-dead] self" (6:6), his death "to sin" (6:2, 11) and "to law" (7:4, 6). This is a constitutive part of the event of regeneration or new birth and is an extremely important concept. It is an event that takes place in our own history, not in the first century and not in some transhistorical sphere. (5) The death of sins (8:13), which is a constitutive part of the ongoing sanctification process. (6) Eternal death, the ultimate penalty for sin (6:16, 21, 23; 7:5, 24; 8:2, 6, 13).

A correlative concept is resurrection , which is threefold. First is Christ's resurrection from the dead, the event by which he conquered death and in whose saving power we participate. Second is the sinner's spiritual resurrection to new life. This follows upon his death to sin and is the climactic conclusion of the regeneration event. Third is the resurrection of the body in the end-time, which is the final stage in our victory over sin. Closely related, of course, is the concept of life . Those who have been raised from the dead are alive; they have "newness of life" (6:4, NASB) or "eternal life" (6:23) in two stages, spiritual and physical.

A final set of concepts that permeate this section are slavery and freedom . The sinner is pictured as a slave to law (7:1-5), sin (6:17, 19-20; 7:14, 23, 25), and death (7:24; 8:2). Redemption is described as being set free from these (6:6, 14, 18, 22; 7:6; 8:2), but also as becoming enslaved to a new set of masters: God (6:22), obedience (6:16), and righteousness (6:18-19).

2. Anthropological Dualism: Body and Spirit

Scripture in general and Paul especially describe the individual human being as a twofold creature composed of a physical body or flesh, and a spiritual entity known variously as the spirit, the soul, the heart, and the inner man. Both body and spirit are created by God and are inherently good (Gen 1:31). They are designed to complement one another and to function holistically; there is no natural antithesis or antagonism between body and spirit. Both together form the whole human being; an individual is not complete without both. The body without the spirit is dead (Jas 2:26), and the spirit without the body is naked (2 Cor 5:3).

This view of man, known as anthropological dualism, is presupposed and asserted throughout this section of Romans. The spiritual side of man is specifically mentioned in 6:17 ("heart"), 7:22 ("inner man"), 7:23, 25 ("mind"), and 8:10 ("spirit"). It is quite possible that the "old man" in 6:6 also refers to the inner man. Likewise, the physical side of man is often referred to in this passage as both "body" and "flesh."

This dualistic view of man is a key for understanding these chapters. It is crucial for a proper view of what sin has done to us and how we are saved from its effects. It is crucial for understanding both the nature of our present struggle against sin, and the content and significance of our hope. In brief, we are saved in two stages. In conversion only the spirit or inner man is changed, through the act of dying and rising again in baptism. The body is still under the curse of death and remains a stronghold from which sin continues to assault the spirit. The result is a serious struggle between the renewed spirit and the sin-weakened flesh. Victory is ours to win, however, because of the new life bestowed upon our spirits and because of the assisting power of the Holy Spirit. We are able to control our resisting bodies even as we look forward in hope to the time when these bodies also will be set free from sin in the day of resurrection and cosmic renewal.

In my exegesis of this passage I have found it necessary to go against the conventional understanding of the term "flesh." The common explanation is that this term, here and in other places in Paul, refers to the whole man (body and spirit) as controlled by sin in its preconversion, sinful state. It is seen as the "old man" that dies in conversion but still exerts a drawing power upon us from its grave. I have had to conclude, however, that the "flesh" is the physical body, not the entire person. It is true that the flesh is described in very negative terms both here and in other places in the NT. But that is not because the body is inherently sinful and antagonistic to the spirit, but only because it has not yet been redeemed and is still under the influence of sin and death.

3. The Stages of the Spiritual Life

Here I will briefly describe the main stages through which a believer passes on his way to eternal life, as set forth in Romans 6-8.

Conception to Accountability

In 5:12-19 we saw that Christ's atoning death redeemed us all from the consequences of Adam's sin. Even though a child is still subject to physical death with all its mortal preliminaries (such as defects and disease), he has the guarantee of redemptive resurrection in the last day. More importantly, no spiritual consequences actually reach the child directly from Adam. Every infant is conceived and born free from guilt, condemnation, and depravity. This is the time when one is spiritually alive (7:9). Sin is only potentially present as a possible choice of the free will.

The Sinner's Life Under Law

When a young person becomes aware of God's law as God's law, and breaks it, he experiences his own personal fall and becomes a sinner (7:7-11). Both soul and body come under the power of sin. From this point on, he is living "under law" (6:14) and "in the flesh" (7:5).

Though the law in itself is good (7:12), to the sinner it becomes an occasion for sin (7:7-13). Because of the weakness of his spirit and the power of sin working in his flesh, the sinner looks upon the law as his enemy and is unable to obey it (8:7-8). Yet, paradoxically, he becomes a slave to law because he regards it as his only means of salvation. He is in an impossible situation: seeking salvation through flawed obedience to a law which cannot save him (8:3). Such is the futility of works-righteousness, or life "under law" (6:14).

Personified as an enslaving tyrant, sin as a dominating power invades the life of the fallen sinner and rules with an imperial presence over both spirit and body. The person literally becomes a slave to sin (6:12-20; 8:15). The same is true of death, which also takes control of the entire person (7:9-13). In the grip of sin the spirit dies in its ability to respond positively to the law. The body, already subject to physical death, becomes permeated by the seeds of spiritual death (7:5) and thus becomes "flesh" in the negative sense.

The second aspect of the sinner's "double trouble" is now in full bloom. He is "in the flesh" (7:5; 8:8), or controlled by its evil desires (6:12). He is existing and conducting his life "according to the flesh" (8:4-9, 12-13).

The Conversion Event: Saving Grace Applied

When the spiritually-dead person hears the gospel, accepts it as true, and puts his trust in the saving work of Jesus, he then submits to Christian baptism (6:3). At this specific point in time (baptism) he comes under the grace of God, not just for justification but also for regeneration or renewal.

The latter involves two distinct acts of God. The first is the death of the sinner's "old self" (6:6-8). This is a death to law (7:4, 6) and a death to sin (6:2, 4, 11). The second is a resurrection of the believer into a state of new life (6:4-5, 11).

The conversion event is also described in terms of slavery. The submissive believer is set free from slavery to sin (6:17-18, 22). He is also set free from slavery to law, both as a way of salvation (6:14) and as an occasion for sin (7:3-6). Grace does not free us from slavery altogether, though; it simply provides us with new masters: God, obedience, and righteousness (6:17-18, 22; 7:6).

A crucial point is how conversion affects the two aspects of our dual nature. At this point the whole person in principle dies and rises again, but in reality the spiritual death-to-sin and the resurrection to new life affect only the spirit. The body itself continues to be permeated with the power of sin and death (7:17-25; 8:10). Nevertheless the conversion experience includes God's promise that the body also will one day be redeemed through resurrection (6:5-8; 8:10-11).

The Believer's Life Under Grace

The believer's life under grace is summed up in three words: power, struggle, and victory. As already suggested, the regeneration event (death-resurrection) gives the believer the power to conquer sin and to submit to God's law. Though the body is as yet unredeemed, we can reign over it (6:12-13; 8:12-13). This God-restored ability is the basis for strong exhortations to stop sinning (6:12-13, 19). A desire to obey the law from the heart is also present (6:17; 7:15, 22, 25).

However, the presence of the "flesh" is the source of continuing conflict and struggle. The unredeemed body is still under the power, not just of physical death, but of spiritual death as well. "The law of sin and death" which once pervaded our entire nature is still residual in the believer's body (7:17-21, 23, 25). As such it exerts a drawing power upon the soul, pulling it back toward sin and spiritual bondage (7:23-24). Struggling against the "flesh" is the most basic form of spiritual warfare: the redeemed inner man versus the unredeemed body (7:23-25). The "flesh" is the body itself as inhabited by and controlled by this "law of sin and death," and as it exerts its drawing and seducing power over the inner man. Left alone, the redeemed believer would still be in a state of constant struggle, with the distinct possibility that the flesh might once more overcome the spirit (8:13).

Even in the presence of struggle we are assured of victory, however. We have already experienced victory over the guilt of our sin, through the blood of Jesus Christ (8:1, 3, 30, 33-34). And now we are promised victory over sin itself , through the power of the Holy Spirit (8:2). In baptism (Acts 2:38) the Spirit of the Living God enters and indwells us (8:9, 11). The purpose of his presence is to ensure our victory in this present struggle (8:4-9, 14). He enables us to "put to death the misdeeds of the body" (8:13).

The Believer's Final and Total Victory over the Fallen World

The assurance of our final victory is our adoption into the family of God (8:14, 16). The Holy Spirit is the mark of our sonship to God the Father (8:15-16). The risen Christ is the firstborn Son in this family, and our brother and fellow heir (8:17, 29).

As of now we have only a small portion of our inheritance (8:23), but one day we will inherit a new cosmos (8:19-21) as the eternal home of our new, glorified bodies (8:11, 23). Then our sonship will be complete (8:19), and the tyrant sin will be conquered forever and completely nil in our person and in our environment. This is our hope (8:24-25).

This hope is firm. Nothing outside ourselves can prevent us from receiving this inheritance. The Holy Spirit helps us in our struggles (8:13, 26-27), and God's providence is completely in control (8:28). In accordance with his foreknowledge God has already predestined us to glory (8:18, 29-30). Our assurance rests on nothing less than the power of the blood of Jesus Christ (8:31-34) and the security of his love (8:35-39).

C. THE OUTLINE OF THIS SECTION

The material in these three chapters falls into three major parts. In the first part (6:1-7:13), Paul names three objections to grace based on a fear of antinomianism, and responds decisively to each. (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). (c) Does grace mean that law is sinful or bad? NO! (7:7-13).

In the second part (7:14-8:13), Paul makes it clear that, rather than encouraging sin, grace provides the means for victory over sin. He candidly describes the Christian's inner tension between flesh and spirit, his struggle against the power of sin that lingers in his body (7:14-25). He assures us, though, that we may achieve victory over sin through the power of the indwelling Spirit (8:1-13).

In the final part (8:14-39), Paul lays down the basis for our assurance of final salvation, despite our involvement in the continuing outward tension between the old creation and the new creation. He assures us that the Holy Spirit has marked us as God's sons and heirs (8:14-17), and that the redeemed cosmos is our inheritance (8:18-25). Until we receive it, God promises to bring us through earthly trials (8:26-30). In the meantime, the knowledge of grace gives us an unshakable assurance of our ultimate victory over the fallen world (8:31-39).

I. 6:1-7:13 - OBJECTIONS TO GRACE

BASED ON A FEAR OF ANTINOMIANISM

The rejection of law as a means of righteousness and salvation, and the presentation of grace as the only way of salvation, are bound to cause people to wonder whether law and obedience have any relevance at all in the Christian life. I.e., does grace lead to antinomianism? This word comes from the Greek words ajntiv ( anti ), the basic meaning of which is "against"; and novmo" ( nomos ), "law." In its most general sense an antinomian is one who believes that we are not bound by law and have no obligation to obey it; hence there is no reason not to sin. In the Christian context the radical nature of grace - especially justification by faith apart from works of law (3:28) - may cause it to be mistaken for antinomianism by those whose knowledge of it is incomplete or perverted.

Such people existed in NT times. Jude 4 refers to "godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality." Paul tells us in 3:8 that some were falsely attributing such teaching to himself. Down through Christian history, this view "has been commoner than is often realized," says Bruce (134). He and others cite especially the example of the Russian monk Rasputin (see MacArthur, I:314).

A problem perhaps even more serious than antinomianism, though, is the fear that grace will lead to antinomianism if it is as radical as Paul seems to make it and if it is preached and embraced in this full radicalness. Thus the legalistic mind tends to resist grace and to raise this specter of antinomianism as a way of blocking its progress. Paul alludes to this fear in 3:31 when he raises the question of whether justification by faith nullifies the law. In 5:20 he makes the provocative statement that "where sin increased, grace increased all the more." He knows that this is likely to be twisted into an antinomian doctrine; thus in this section he takes the initiative and refutes such a charge as part of his continuing presentation of grace.

How grace affects our relation to law, and the continuing role of the law in the Christian life, are main questions answered in this section. It is true that grace sets us free from law (not just the Mosaic Law, but all law) in some crucial ways. Mainly it sets us free from law as a way of salvation, something it cannot accomplish anyway. As corollaries grace sets us free from the condemnation of the law, and it frees us from legalistic motives for obedience. But - and here is the main point - it does not release us from our obligation to obey God's laws, in whatever form they are available to us and apply to us. Under grace we are all the more slaves to God and owe him our complete obedience, with the goal of achieving full personal righteousness and holiness (6:15-22).

But some, especially Jews, may argue that law is our only sure safeguard and weapon against sin. If we set aside the law, are we not opening the floodgates of sin? No, says Paul, we are not; anyone who thinks this has not yet grasped the full scope of grace. The fact is that grace is not just the only way to be justified and accepted by God; it is also the only source of victory over sin itself. Grace is what enables us to obey God's commandments. The first part of the double cure of grace is indeed justification through imputed righteousness (3:21-5:21), but the second part is regeneration and sanctification through imparted righteousness. Grace sets us free not only from sin's penalty, but also from its power. Because of law, we still ought to obey; but because of grace, we can obey.

A. DOES GRACE MAKE SIN IRRELEVANT? NO! (6:1-14)

The question with which this section begins suggests that grace must somehow negate our obligation to obey God's commandments. In responding to the question Paul unequivocally denies that this is the case - "By no means!" But then he shifts the discussion in a different and more relevant direction. Not only does grace not negate our obligation to obey God's laws; in fact it specifically gives us the ability to obey. This is the main point of this section. The first part (1-11) is mainly indicative, asserting the fact that grace has changed us and given us the power not to sin; the last part (12-14) is mainly imperative, commanding us not to sin.

In interpreting this passage we must avoid the temptation to engage in microexegesis, or to find some new and different idea in each successive phrase or statement. In these verses are three major points, each of which is stated in a variety of ways: we died to sin; we were raised up from spiritual death and are now alive unto God; therefore we can and should stop being slaves to sin.

6:1 What shall we say, then? Each of the three objections discussed in this section begins with the same form. First is a general interrogative: "What shall we say, then?" (6:1; 7:7) or "What then?" (6:15). Then comes the specific objection in the form of a question, followed by the emphatic denial, mhΙ gevnoito ( me genoito ; see 3:4 above).

In each case the general question links the objection to the preceding context. Based on what has just been said about grace and justification by faith as such, what conclusions can be drawn about law, obedience, and sin? Paul knows that some even in good conscience will be tempted to draw false inferences from the radical nature of grace. Thus he takes it upon himself to raise these questions and dispose of these potential distortions from the beginning.

Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? This particular objection reflects the language of 5:20b especially. In some better manuscripts the verb is subjunctive, meaning more precisely " should we continue" (NRSV), as if the fact asserted in 5:20b obligates us to keep on sinning so that God may show more grace. In the phrase "go on sinning" the word for sin is a noun; literally it reads "remain in sin," i.e., in the sphere of sin. This expression is stronger than merely "continue to commit sins"; it means "continue in the state of sin or under the control of sin" (Moo, I:372; Dunn, I:306). Thus, given the nature of grace, should we not just remain where we are without making any changes in our sinful lifestyles and sinful habits? Or to use the language of 6:2, should we not just continue to "live in" sin?

6:2 By no means! This is Paul's usual emphatic negative, "the strongest idiom of repudiation in New Testament Greek" (MacArthur, I:316; see 3:4). We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? This is the answer to the objection in a nutshell; it sums up the entire answer of vv. 3-14. MacArthur calls it "the fundamental premise" of the entire chapter (I:319).

The subject of the verb, "we" (oiJtine" , hoitines ) is emphatic: "we who died, those of us who died." It refers to all Christians and has this force: "We, of all people! We Christians, who died to sin! How could we choose to live in it any longer?"

In "died to sin" the verb is a simple aorist (past) tense, indicating a specific past event in our personal history. Speaking as Christians, at some point in the past we actually died to sin. Prior to that point we were dead in our sins (Eph 2:1), but at that point we died to sin. Here "sin" is singular and does not refer to the ongoing death of specific sins that is part of our spiritual growth (8:13). Rather it refers to sin as a controlling power and as an enslaving tyrant. In relation to the power of sin, we died. See Col 2:20; 3:3.

This does not mean that something within us died, such as sin itself or the seed of sin or the power of sin. No, we ourselves died. I.e., the person we used to be, the one who was dominated by sin and the flesh - this "old man" (6:6) died. Something happened to us that was so radical that it can only be called an act of dying. It was an act of saving grace, performed upon us by the power of God. It was part of the event called regeneration; along with the immediately-following act of resurrection it transformed us into new beings. This means that as Christians we have passed from under the control of sin and into the control of righteousness.

As Stott (170) points out, this does not mean that the Christian is in a state of death as far as sin's temptations and allurements are concerned, as if he were immune to them in the same sense that a corpse is totally beyond the ability to respond to physical stimuli (contra Lenski, 389-390). In this whole section it is clear that sin's drawing power still plagues Christians and must be consciously resisted. But because we have died to sin we are now resisting it from the outside rather than being overwhelmed by it within its own domain.

Our death to sin is a fact, and Paul uses this fact as the crux of his reponse to the objection in v. 1. Shall we as Christians continue to live in sin? How could we, since we have died to sin and have left its sphere? If you think otherwise, says Paul, you just don't get it. You don't yet understand what grace is all about. Grace is a double cure-not just forgiveness, but also a change in your very nature and character. For one who has died to sin to continue to live in it is a true contradiction of terms.

It is not a physical (metaphysical) contradiction, because it is actually possible for a believer to yield himself up again to sin's power; otherwise the exhortations not to do so (6:12-13) would be unnecessary and empty. It is rather a "moral contradiction" (Bruce, 136), a "moral incongruity" (Stott, 169). Literally Paul does not ask "How can we" (contra the NIV), but "How shall we" (future tense, NASB). Perhaps the sense of it is best expressed as "How could we?" (Phillips).

Paul does not ask how we could continue to sin , as if regeneration immediately makes us completely perfect and beyond sinning. He asks how we could continue to live in sin as a lifestyle, sinning habitually and perpetually (MacArthur, I:317). As Morris says, "Paul is not setting forth a doctrine of sinless perfection, but of freedom from sin's domination. The Christian may sin, but sinning is out of character. It is a declension from his norm, not his habitual practice" (245). "We die to sin in so far that righteousness becomes the rule of life, and sin the painful, mortifying, humiliating, heart-breaking exception" (MP, 342).

6:3 Or don't you know what happened to you in your baptism? Literally Paul says "or are you ignorant" of this. He asks this sort of question quite often. It has the tone of a mild rebuke, implying that you should know this, but just in case you do not I will explain it. In this instance his question has to do with baptism. Without a doubt all of Paul's Christian readers would have remembered the time and event of their immersion, since this was a part of the basic presentation of the gospel and of becoming a Christian. However, they may not have understood the deeper spiritual significance of this act; this is what Paul now explains.

Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? "All of us who were baptized" means all Christians; in the NT there is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian. "Baptized" refers to water baptism and everything the NT includes in it. It is fairly common for expositors to claim that the baptism to which Paul refers in Romans 6 is a "spiritual" or "dry" baptism only, as distinct from water baptism. For example, Lloyd-Jones concludes "that baptism by water is not in the mind of the Apostle at all in these two verses [6:3-4]; instead it is the baptism that is wrought by the Spirit" (36). Those who hold to such a view are almost always from Protestant traditions that have adopted Zwingli's innovative separation of baptism from the time of salvation. Stott's view is surely the more reasonable, namely, that in the NT "baptism means water baptism unless in the context it is stated to the contrary" (173).

On the other hand, even though Moo agrees that water baptism is in view (I:376), he wrongly concludes that baptism here "functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole" (I:371). Certainly what Paul has already written (and the NT writings as a whole) make it obvious that faith and repentance are presupposed here as precursors of baptism. But what happens in the initial moment of faith and repentance, and in the conversion experience as a whole, are not Paul's point here. He specifically refers to what happens in baptism .

The Apostle refers to baptism as being "baptism into Christ Jesus." That he does not dwell on this point shows that it was a basic truth that any Christian would already know. To be baptized into Christ means to be baptized for the purpose of entering into a specific relationship with him, or into a living union with him. As Moo says (I:377), the preposition "into" ( eis ) has the connotation of movement from one space to another, as well as the connotation of purpose. Thus as Moo puts it, "baptized into Christ" means "baptized with a view to being united with Christ." See Gal 3:27.

This union with Christ is not effected by the ritual itself, either by the water or by the act. It is accomplished by the grace and power of the living God alone. That it happens in the act of baptism is simply a matter of God's free and sovereign choice; he has appropriately designated this event as the occasion for the beginning of this saving union with the Redeemer. It is not wrong to say that the external ritual of water baptism symbolizes or has a metaphorical connection with this saving union. What is wrong is to separate the symbol from the reality as if the temporal connection between them is irrelevant.

All of the above is part of what Paul assumes his Christian audience already knows. In the latter part of the verse he begins to talk about the point of which they may be ignorant, the point that he wants to stress in reply to the question in v. 1. Don't you know, he asks, that you were baptized into the death of Christ? If you were baptized "into Christ" as such, don't you realize that this means you were baptized into a union with Christ in his death ? Ordinarily when we think about coming into contact with the death of Christ and its benefits, we think of the atoning and justifying power of his blood, and we think of the fact that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), or justification. But here Paul primarily has something else in mind. He is letting us know that our union with Christ's death in our baptism had a result that is crucial for our victory over sin itself. This result is explained in the next verse.

6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death . . . . Here Paul continues to make his point by drawing a conclusion from his preceding statement, as indicated by "therefore." The main point of this conclusion is the phrase "into death." First of all, whose death does Paul mean? He has already said we are baptized into Christ's death (6:3). The phrase "buried with him" basically repeats this. Therefore we must conclude that "into death" means something else, namely, our own death to sin. When we were baptized into Christ's death (or buried with him through baptism), we were actually baptized/buried into our own death as well. According to v. 2, "we died to sin." This is the main point of this whole section and the main reason why grace does not imply antinomianism. The rest of this section (vv. 3-14) is meant to explain this death to sin. The introduction of the subject of baptism ("or don't you know") leads us to expect some specific reference to this death in connection with baptism. But if the phrase "into death" here in v. 4 does not refer to our personal death to sin, then this passage does not connect it with baptism at all, and there would seem to be no good reason even to bring up the subject of baptism. Also, everything in the following context presupposes such a reference to our own death to sin. Therefore I vigorously disagree with those who see "into death" as referring to Christ's death only. It may include that, but the main reference is to our own personal death to sin.

The implication is that in some true and significant sense, the death of Jesus has a death-dealing power in reference to sin. When we became united with Christ's death in baptism, our old sinful self was put to death - not by our own will power, but by the power of his holy cross. It is as if, in his death, Jesus became a flame that is capable of extinguishing everything having to do with sin and death. When we are baptized into his death (buried with him in baptism), we touch this flame; and it consumes the "old man" of sin, and sets us ablaze with a holy fire that continues to purge the residual sin from our lives.

I take the phrase "into death" as modifying the verb, "we were buried," though many take it as modifying "baptism." Some have trouble with the former view because "the idea of burial into death seems a forced one" (Käsemann, 166; see Cranfield, I:304). However, Dunn agrees that the phrase goes with the verb, and argues that the ancients would have seen nothing strange about "burial unto death" (I:314). Indeed, burial is one of the most effective methods of putting someone to death.

Why does Paul say that "we were buried with him"? Obviously in the experience of most people, including Christ, death precedes burial and is distinct from it. Burial is simply the natural sequel to death. It is assumed that this same distinction and sequence apply to the sinner's death to sin and his burial with Christ. It is assumed that the actual death to sin occurs prior to baptism, usually when faith and/or repentance begins. This is followed by baptism as a ritual burial of the corpse. The baptismal burial "sets the seal on death" (Bruce, 139) or establishes its finality (Moo, I:382) and certifies its reality (Mounce, 149).

I see an entirely different picture here, however. Paul says nothing about dying first , and then being buried in baptism. Rather, he says very clearly and pointedly that were were buried with him through baptism , into death . The death and the burial are not separated by time. The only sequential relationship here is that the burial precedes the death as cause precedes effect. Also, both the death and the burial occur through baptism . There is no significant difference between the burial and the death. To be "buried with him through baptism" is just another way of saying "baptized into his death."

Then why does Paul adjust the image in v. 4a and speak of burial at all, rather than just death as such? For two reasons. First, his main point is that by being baptized into Christ's death, we have been baptized into our own death; and it would be awkward and ambiguous to repeat "baptized into his death" in v. 4. By switching to the image of burial he can make this point in a much more smooth and unambiguous way. Second, the image of burial is naturally suggested by the reference to baptism, which as an act of immersion into water is a perfect physical symbol of the deaths and resurrections (Christ's and ours) that are represented and occurring there. It is tragic that so many would rob baptism of this, its most central symbolism. I agree with all those who understand that baptism is immersion, and who declare that only in this form can its connection with the realities of death, burial, and resurrection - both Christ's and ours - have any meaning at all.

It is necessary at this point to raise the question as to exactly when the sinner's death to sin occurs. Paul says very clearly that we were "buried with him through baptism into (our) death." However, it seems that most interpreters are determined to locate it at some other point in time, anywhere but in baptism itself. Cranfield's view is typical. He denies that baptism "actually relates the person concerned to Christ's death, since this relationship is already an objective reality before baptism takes place." Baptism is just a pledge of "that death which the person concerned has already died" (I:303). Restoration writers often hold this view. Lard declares that "we . . . died to sin before our baptism" (195). Our death to sin was brought about "preceding our baptism," says DeWelt (90).

If not in baptism, then when does our death to sin occur? There are two main views. Some say we died with Christ on his cross, and thus at a particular point in his history, not ours. We "died with him on the cross," says Mounce (151). "When Christ died on the cross, his true followers all died there with him," says Hendriksen (I:198). But if this is true, then there is no point of time in the sinner's own history when this death to sin occurs. If it occurs on the cross itself, then it has been infallibly accomplished once for all for those who were in Christ at that time. The result is either universal salvation or limited atonement.

The second main non-baptismal view says that the sinner's death to sin occurs at the moment of faith and/or repentance. This is a common Restoration view. Lard says, "We die to sin when we believe in Christ and repent of our sins"; baptism is just the burial of the dead man (195-196). DeWelt's view is the same (90-91); see also Moser (65) and Lipscomb (114). Of course this view is common outside the Restoration Movement. Godet's statement is typical, that "the death to sin" is "implicitly included in faith." Baptism is a burial, and "people do not bury the living" (238-239). "When we believe we die to sin, and when we are baptized the burial is carried out," declares Morris (248). Baptism just symbolizes what has already occurred.

At least this second view places our death to sin at a point within our own lifetime. The problem, though, is that Paul himself says nothing in this passage about either faith or repentance. If either or both of these are the time when death to sin occurs, why did he not just say that? Why didn't he just say, "Don't you know that all of us who believed and repented were united with Christ's death when we believed and repented? Don't you know that we believed and repented into death?" But he says nothing of the kind; he says it happens "through baptism." Nor does he say anything about baptism being only a symbol of an already-existing reality.

Paul's language is clear. He says we were baptized into Christ's death, and that we were buried with him into death through baptism . The words "through baptism" belie all notions of post-reality symbolism. They connect our baptism and our death to sin together as cause and effect. This does not mean that the water or the physical act as such produces this spiritual effect. Only the spiritual working of God himself, which he graciously performs in conjunction with the physical act, can cause us to die to sin and rise again.

Paul says that we are baptized into Christ's death, and that through baptism we are buried with him into our own death to sin. This means that God has so worked it that in some manner the death of Jesus Christ with all its saving benefits is literally present to the believing sinner and actually touches him in the act of baptism; and this union produces our death to sin. Käsemann well says, "Christ alone died on the cross." Baptism is "our reception of his act and participation in his fate" (166). In baptism the event of the cross "lays hold of him who submits to this act and it does so in a documentary, visible, existence-changing fashion. . . . The cross is actualized in the act of baptism" (168).

Are we saying, then, that baptism is both the occasion and the means by which the believing sinner is regenerated? In reality, it is impossible to separate occasion and means. We can say that baptism is both if we remember one thing, namely, that the one act of baptism (Eph 4:5) is a dual event in which physical and spiritual acts are taking place simultaneously. While the believing sinner's body is being immersed into water by a human agent, God himself is working the works of salvation upon the sinner's spirit, including justification and regeneration. Physical immersion is the occasion , and the simultaneous working of God is the means of producing these effects. Thus in a general way we can say yes, baptism is a means of salvation in the sense that the total event includes not just the physical immersion but also the efficacious works of God.

In what sense, then, is faith itself (and perhaps repentance also) a means of salvation? Col 2:12 (NASB only ) brings all these elements together: "Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." "Buried with him" and "raised up with him" are saving acts that effect justification and regeneration. "In baptism" (physical immersion) indicates the time, place, or occasion when these saving acts take place. "The working of God" is the active means that brings about these saving acts, and "through faith" is the passive means by which we receive their results.

Without a doubt our death to sin is one of the most important events in our lives, and Paul here makes it the keystone of his reply to the first antinomian objection to grace (6:2). Yet in a real sense this death is not the main event but is itself a means to an even greater end: resurrection. This is seen in the rest of v. 4, which is introduced by the word i{na ( hina ), indicating purpose and translated in order that. We were buried with Christ through baptism into our death to sin so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. The death of our old man simply prepares the way for our new life.

The resurrection of Jesus is introduced here not just as an analogy of our own spiritual resurrection, but, like his death, as an essential part of his saving work with which we come into contact in baptism. The resurrection of Jesus Christ represents and generates infinite life-giving power (Eph 1:18-23; Heb 7:16), a power that produces in us the ability to walk in newness of life. "From the dead" is literally "from among the dead," but the sense is "from the state of death." That Jesus was raised "through the glory of the Father" probably means "through the Father's gloriously displayed power." (See under 1:21.) Glory and power are often closely related (Cranfield, I:304-305).

The main idea here is "in order that . . . we too may live a new life." This is a very condensed statement. Paul does not specifically say that we were "raised from the dead" just as Christ was raised. It is definitely assumed, however, since he mentions it later (6:11, 13) and elsewhere (Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13). The word "too" connects his resurrection and ours.

That this resurrection also occurs in baptism, as the counterpart to burial, is implied in this verse and specifically stated in Col 2:12 (NASB only). We emphatically reject, as the tragic legacy of Zwingli's revisionist baptismal theology, such statements as this by Mounce (150): "We do not believe . . . that rebirth is in any real sense connected to water baptism." As we will see below, there is a future aspect of our resurrection with Christ, but that must not be allowed to obscure the all-important spiritual resurrection that occurs in our baptism.

The ultimate purpose and goal of both our death to sin and our resurrection with Christ is the actual living of a new life. The NIV translation "may live a new life" is too sanitized. The Greek literally reads "might walk in newness of life" (NASB). The emphasis is on life . Prior to our conversion we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1, 5), and our whole existence was under the pall of death. But in baptism all this was changed. Now the power that controls us is life, not death. Our existence is characterized by life rather than death.

This is indeed a newness of life - a new kind of life that transcends even that innocent state of life in which we were born and in which we existed until we sinned (7:9). It is life derived from Christ's own glorified existence, life transmitted to us by the Spirit of life (8:2), life that is in continuity with our ultimate eschatological and eternal life (6:23).

We do not just "live" this life; we walk in it. This word (peripatevw , peripateô ) is one of Paul's favorite expressions for one's behavior or daily conduct, good or bad. He uses it over 30 times in this sense, no doubt under the influence of a similar idiom in the OT (Dunn, I:315-316).

To "walk in newness of life" means to live a holy life, a life of obedience to God's laws. This is the whole purpose of our death to sin and resurrection with Christ. Rather than the antinomian inference that grace encourages sinning, it does just the opposite. By design and in effect it separates us from sin and sets us on the road of righteousness. The verb "to walk" is subjunctive, hence the translation "might walk." Death to sin and resurrection to life create the possibility and ability of walking in the new, holy life; but we must take the responsibility of applying this new life-power to our daily conduct. "Shall we remain in sin?" is the objection. Paul replies, "How could you? You have died to sin and been made alive in Jesus Christ! So walk in the possibilities and the power of your new life! Just do it!"

6:5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. This verse basically restates the point of vv. 3-4, namely, that we died with Christ so that we might be raised up with him into a new life. If we have done the former, we must do the latter. We cannot die to sin and live in it at the same time (v. 2).

It is generally agreed that "united with" (from sumfuvw [symphyô ]) is a better reading than "planted together" (from sumfuteuvw [symphyteuô ]; see KJV). The word is commonly used for the joining of two things that proceed to grow together as a unity, as in the fusing together of a broken bone or in the grafting of a branch into a tree. The latter image is especially appropriate in view of John 15:1-8 and Rom 11:17-24. When we are "grafted into" Christ, his life flows into us and we continue to grow with him into spiritual maturity.

The phrase "like this" in the NIV is a poor translation of "in the likeness of." Since there is no word for "him" in the Greek text, some take "likeness" as the object of "united with," i.e., "we are united with the likeness of his death." It is difficult to know what this would mean, however. It is better to supply "him" as the understood object, just as in v. 6 "him" is understood to be the object of "crucified with." Thus "we are united with him in the likeness of his death."

What is the meaning of "the likeness of his death"? It is not the cross itself, nor the death of Christ itself. In view of the context it most probably is the act of baptism (Lard, 202; MP, 344), considered as the place where we become united with Christ in his death. On the spiritual side of the baptismal event, of course, we did not become united merely with the likeness of Christ's death, but with his death itself. But on the physical level, baptism (immersion) is indeed a symbolic likeness of that death.

The latter part of the verse is strictly parallel with the former part, as the words "certainly also" indicate. It is necessary to supply some words here, since the original says only "certainly also we shall be . . . of the resurrection." The NIV rightly adds "united with him." The parallelism suggests that we should also add "in the likeness of." Thus the thought is, "We will certainly also be united with him in the likeness of his resurrection."

Why is this a future tense? Some take it as a promise of the eschatological resurrection, when we will receive a body like Christ's glorified body (Phil 3:21). Others take it to be a statement of moral obligation (Lard, 203), and others see it as a logical future: "If a has happened, then b will also surely happen." The last two views go together and are the main idea here: "If we have joined Christ in his death, we shall certainly find ourselves also participating in his resurrection and shall without fail devote ourselves to living a new life free from sin's control." (See Cranfield, I:308).

The main point is that in our relation to Christ we cannot separate death and resurrection. If we have become united with Christ's death in the baptismal event that is the likeness of his death, then we also have become united with Christ's resurrection in that same event, which is also the likeness of his resurrection. In union with Christ there can be no death without resurrection. Thus how could we continue to live the old life of sin?

6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him . . . . "We know" can refer to what already is or should be known by all believers, or it can refer to something new that is about to be told. Here it is probably the latter. Following his general statements that we have been united with Christ's death, Paul is about to explain in more detail how this frees us from sin.

First of all, when we died with Christ, "our old self was crucified with him." What is "our old self"? Literally it says "our old man (a[nqrwpo" , anthrôpos )"; see also Eph 4:22; Col 3:9. This phrase is generally taken to mean the person we used to be in our fallen, unbelieving state - not a part of our being, but our whole being under the influence of sin. It means "our former self, the self that sinned before we died to sin" (Lard, 203). It is "the whole of our fallen human nature, the whole self in its fallenness" (Cranfield, I:308-309). It is "the person we once were, our human nature considered apart from grace" (Hendriksen, I:197). In Eph 4:22, 24 the "old man" is contrasted with the "new man." The same contrast appears here, as this crucified "old man" gives way to "newness of life" (v. 4). The "old man" is old in the sense of worn out and useless (MacArthur, I:323), and in dire need of replacement.

I agree with this explanation for the most part, with the following qualification. I believe that here the "old man" refers only to the soul or spirit, which is the center and seat of selfhood or personhood in the human being. Thus the "old self" that has been crucified with Christ is our fallen spirit that was dead in its trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). In other words, in terms of the anthropological dualism discussed in the introduction to this main section, in baptism the inner man, or spirit, experiences death and resurrection with Christ; but the outer man, or body, does not. Elsewhere Paul speaks of this "inner man" (e[sw a[nqrwpo" , esô anthrôpos ) - 7:22; Eph 3:16; see 1 Pet 3:4, "the hidden person [anthrôpos ] of the heart" (NASB). He also speaks of the "outer man" (e[xw a[nqrwpo" , exô anthrôpos ) or body, as contrasted with the "inner" (esô ) - 2 Cor 4:16.

Thus here in 6:6 the "old man" is the "inner man" as it once existed under the control of sin. But it no longer exists as the "old man." That old man died; indeed, it was crucified with Christ . What does this mean? This is not a new idea; it is the same as our death to sin (6:2) that happened when we were baptized into Christ's death (6:3), and the same as our burial with him into death (6:4). Thus our crucifixion with Christ did not take place on Golgotha's cross, as if we were somehow literally yet mystically present there. We were not transported back in history; rather, the living Christ has become present in our history, specifically in the event of our baptism. The power of the cross was there applied to our fallen soul, putting it to death as to its sin-ridden existence. The old man dies "causatively and effectively by baptism," because "in baptism" Christ has "caught up all Christians into his death" (Käsemann, 165). "In the act of baptism we came into his crucifixion" (DeWelt, 90), or more precisely, his crucifixion came into us.

Lenski reminds us that crucifixion is "a violent, accursed death." Thus when our old man died, he "was literally murdered in our baptism, he did not die willingly but was slain as one cursed of God, the passive implying God as the agent" (400). That this should occur in baptism is appropriate, since, as Morris reminds us (246-247), in the first century the Greek word for "baptize" itself "evoked associations of violence." In its basic meaning of "immerse," the word was used of "people being drowned, or of ships being sunk." Thus it makes sense for Jesus to call his crucifixion a baptism (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50), and for Paul to call our baptism a crucifixion. Thus the baptismal ceremony is not just "gentleness and inspiration; it means death, death to a whole way of life," as Morris says.

Why was our old self crucified? . . . so that the body of sin might be done away with . . . . What is this "body of sin"? A common view equates it with the "old man" in the first part of the verse; and since the "old man" is usually taken to mean "the whole man, as controlled by sin," that is how the "body of sin" is understood as well (Cranfield, I:309). The NEB translates it simply "the sinful self." It is "the person in his entirety, viewed as controlled by sin," says Hendriksen (I:198), or "man under the rule of sin and death," says Dunn (I:320). Many interpret Paul's use of the term "flesh" in the same way; thus all three expressions are taken as equivalent.

I think, however, that they cannot be the same, since the reason for the crucifixion of the "old man" is the destruction of the "body of sin." These are two different things. Stott rightly says, "The two expressions cannot mean the same thing, or the sentence makes nonsense" (176; see Godet, 245). Thus I have concluded, based on the way Paul uses the terms "body" and "flesh" in the entire passage, that the "body of sin" here in 6:6 refers only to the physical body. It does not denote the body as such, as if it were inherently sinful. Rather, it is the body of sin , the body as it has become infected by and controlled by sin. As Gundry says, "Paul writes of the body only as the victim of sin, not as the origin of sin" (Sôma , 204).

Thus I agree with those who say the "body of sin" means "the body so far as it serves as an instrument of sin in human life" (Godet, 245). DeWelt calls it "the body . . . which sin has seized" (88). It is "the body as the instrument, or outward organ of sin," or "the body as the place where sin materially manifests itself," or "the body which sin . . . dominates" (Gundry, Sôma , 39). It is "the physical body which so easily responds to sinful impulses" (Morris, 252).

The old man is crucified so that this body of sin "might be done away with ." What does this mean? The Greek word is katargevw (katargeô , see 3:3). It can have the strong sense of "abolish, destroy." Those who equate "body of sin" with "old man" may easily give it this sense here. If the "old man" is crucified, it dies and is "destroyed" (as in the KJV, RSV, NRSV). It is "done away with" (as in the NASB and later editions of the NIV). But if "body of sin" means the physical body, how would this apply? It is literally destroyed only when it dies. This may possibly be what Paul means, but this would not be very relevant to our baptismal death to sin and would do little to quench the fears of antinomianism.

It is much better to take katargeô here in its weaker sense of "put out of action, make ineffective, render powerless." The object of the action is not destroyed or done away with, but is defeated and disabled so that it loses its power. In this sense Satan himself was "rendered powerless" by the death of Christ (Heb 2:14). This is the sense that applies in 6:6. In fact, older editions of the NIV translated it "rendered powerless" here.

This is how MacArthur understands it: "to make something ineffective by removing its power of control" (I:325). That is the whole point. The "old man" (the soul as corrupted by sin) is crucified with Christ, and by his resurrection is transformed into a new man, so that the lusts and temptations and weaknesses that still characterize our sin-ridden body can be resisted and suppressed and controlled, rather than being allowed to control. Thus in baptism not only does the soul itself undergo healing from the sin that has infected it, but also by that very fact it gains power over the not-yet-redeemed "body of sin."

It is true that the "body of sin" continues to be a beachhead or staging point for temptations and lusts of all kinds. However, it no longer has the willing partner of a fallen spirit, and it cannot dominate and rule the "new man" raised up in the latter's place. A tension remains between the redeemed spirit and the unredeemed body, to be sure (7:14-25), but we have all that is needed for a sure victory over sin.

That is the point of the rest of the verse, which is another purpose clause. The old man was crucified with the purpose that the body of sin should be rendered powerless; the body of sin is rendered powerless with the purpose that we should no longer be slaves to sin . . . . Sin (through our bodies especially) continues to assault and attack us, but we are no longer its slaves. "No longer" implies that we once were slaves of sin, but that has changed - we have changed, or have been changed.

This does not mean that we will never again sin. The power of sin that remains in our bodies still seeks to enslave us, and our raised-to-new-life spirits are not yet restored to full strength. Thus the threat of sin still lurks, and sometimes sin becomes the "heart-breaking exception" (MP, 342). But as Hendriksen says, "There is a vast difference between (a) committing a sin and (b) constantly living and delighting in sin" (I:198). Being delivered from slavery to sin means being set free from the latter.

6:7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. The first question here is whether this is a proverb or "old saying" that Paul adapts to his point, or whether it is a truth that applies only to the specific kind of dying that is his subject here. The former is probably the case. It is a general maxim used to illustrate v. 6: a dead person is free from sin's power over him and its claims upon him. The specific application, of course, is to the sinner's death to sin.

The second question has to do with the meaning of "freed." This is a problem because the word is not literally "freed, set free" (as in 6:18), but rather the word regularly translated "justified" (dikaiovw , dikaioô ) elsewhere. For this reason many say that justification is Paul's point here: the believing sinner who has died to sin has been set free from the penalty or condemnation of sin; sin no longer has any legal claims upon him. The problem with this is that justification is not Paul's subject in this paragraph. He is dealing not with the guilt of sin but with the power of sin (Käsemann, 170). So why does he use dikaioô ? Perhaps the answer lies in the preposition attached to it, ajpov ( apo ), "justified from" (see also Acts 13:38-39). This is a "strange expression" (Käsemann, 170), certainly unusual. It may be that the combination of dikaioô and apo - "justified from" - is a broader concept that includes both justification and sanctification: freed from both the guilt and power of sin. Also, if this statement is indeed a maxim from public life, in that context dikaioô might not have had the usual Pauline meaning, says Godet (246-247).

In any case freedom from the power of sin seems to be the main point. Dying with Christ sets us free from that power; "death marks the end of sin's rule" (Dunn, I:321).

6:8 This verse basically repeats the point of 6:5, that union with Christ in his death necessarily involves union with him in his resurrection. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. "Died with Christ" is the same as "baptized into his death" (v. 3), "buried with him" (v. 4), "united with him in his death" (v. 5), and "crucified with him" (v. 6). It happened in baptism.

"We believe" expresses not just Paul's faith but the faith of all Christians. This does not mean that everyone understands and consciously believes this truth; it means rather that it is a necessary part of the content of the Christian faith. If we believe that we died with Christ in baptism - and we do, then we should also believe that we shall live with him as well. The one implies the other.

"Believe that" expresses the assent aspect of faith (see 1:16), or the acceptance of the truth of the content of God's inspired word. See Cranfield, I:312.

We believe that "we will also live with him." Because the death and resurrection of Jesus are inseparable, with the same certainty our death with him implies our resurrection with him. But what does the future tense imply? Some see a reference to our bodily resurrection at Christ's return, "an actually glorified existence in the future" (MP, 345). While this is our ultimate hope and faith, and while it is implicitly included in the baptismal symbolism, the main reference here is to our present renewed spiritual life (6:11) that began with our resurrection with Christ in baptism (Morris, 254; Cranfield, I:312-313).

Lard (204-205) calls this "the future of duty or obligation" and translates it "we should also live like him" (see v. 14). It is better, though, to take the future tense as emphasizing the certainty of our newness of life (6:5). As Murray says, it "points to the certainty of participation in the resurrection life of Christ here and now" (I:223). At this present time, our resurrection life is our holy living and obedience to God's laws. So how can the Christian "go on sinning" (6:1)?

6:9 To undergird the reality of the new life we now enjoy, Paul here goes into a bit more detail about its parallel and source, the resurrection existence of Jesus Christ. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again . . . . "We know" reflects the common Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection. If we already know this is true about Jesus, then we can have the same confidence regarding ourselves. I.e., what happened to Jesus is the basis for what has happened to us and therefore for our assurance that it has happened. We have confidence that God has raised us from the dead, because we know he raised up Jesus (Col 2:12).

"He cannot die again" distinguishes Christ's resurrection from all miraculous resurrections that brought other people back to life, such as Lazarus and Dorcas. Christ's resurrection was in a category by itself. It was not just a partial and temporary victory over death, but one that was total, decisive, and permanent. In his raised and glorified human nature he is the first-fruits of the eschatological resurrection itself and the first representative of the redeemed world of the new heavens and new earth. He is living a new kind of life , one that is beyond the reach of sin and death. . . . death no longer has mastery over him. It did once, for that brief time when he took our sins upon himself and allowed himself to be overwhelmed by death in our place. But in his resurrection Jesus won the decisive victory over sin and death, and we are even now sharing in that victory.

6:10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all . . . . This reinforces the point about Jesus' complete victory over death and the endless power of his new life. "Died to sin" means that he died in relation to sin; his death had something to do with sin. The wording is the same as 6:2 and similar to 6:11, which affirm that we "died to sin." This does not mean that Jesus died to sin in the same way that we did (contra Dunn, I:323). His death was the cause, ours the effect.

In what sense did Jesus die in relation to sin? Paul has already affirmed that he died to bear the guilt and penalty of our sin (3:24-26). But here he seems to refer to something else, i.e., that in some way Christ died to deliver a death-blow to sin and to destroy its power (Murray, I:224-225). See Eph 4:8; Heb 2:14-15. Sin the usurper (5:21) has been dethroned by the instrument of the cross. This is why our union with Christ in his death is the death of our own sin (6:4). The blood he shed in his victorious battle with sin is the instrument of our sanctification (Heb 10:10; 13:12); it sweeps aside "acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God" (Heb 9:14).

Jesus' death to sin was "once for all." This idea is emphasized in the book of Hebrews, where the point is the true efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, as opposed to the non-efficacy of the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. The latter had to be repeated often; but Christ's one act of death (5:18) was infinite in power and does not need to be repeated. In 6:10, though, the contrast is different. Here Christ's death is compared with his own resurrection. His encounter with sin was a one-time event, not an ongoing, never-ending mission. Sin has no power where Christ is concerned. It is a usurper in his universe. Jesus entered this fallen world where sin rules, fought sin on its own turf (so to speak), won the battle through the unlikely weapon of the cross, then arose and ascended into heaven (Eph 4:8). That's it; that's the end of it; he did it once and it was over. The descent so eloquently described in Phil 2:7-8 will never be repeated. "It is finished," he said as he died (John 19:30).

. . . but the life he lives, he lives to God. Here is the contrast: a one-time encounter with sin and death, but an ongoing and eternal reign in life through the power of God and in the presence of God the Father (Phil 2:9-11). "I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!" (Rev 1:18). The state of his earthly humiliation "was conditioned by the sin with which he was vicariously identified"; but in his death "he destroyed the power of sin, and in his resurrection he entered upon a state that was not conditioned by sin" (Murray, I:225). It is the state characterized rather by life , the eternal life that comes only from God, in whom life is everlastingly inherent (John 5:26).

That Jesus lives "to God" must mean more than "for the benefit of, to the glory of, God" (Moo, I:397). Everything Jesus did, including and especially his death, was for God's benefit and glory. This is why the main idea in living "to God" must refer to the new kind of life that he lives in his resurrected and glorified state at the very right hand of God the Father.

6:11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. This verse is closely associated with v. 10, contrary to the paragraph division in the NIV. It is important to understand the nature of Christ's death and resurrection, because we too have been put to death and raised again with him. Our death to sin and resurrection to newness of life draw their meaning and power from his own. Thus "in the same way" refers to what has just been said in vv. 9-10 especially, though it also sums up the entire didactic section in vv. 2-10.

"Count yourselves" is an imperative, an exhortation - the first in the epistle, as Morris notes (256). Nevertheless it is not parallel to the imperatives in vv. 12-13, which form the behavioral application of the factual data laid down in vv. 2-11. Verse 11 is an exhortation to accept these data as true. The verb is logivzomai ( logizomai ), which was used throughout ch. 4 in the sense of "declared, reckoned, imputed." This verse (6:11) is not talking about God's imputing something to us, though. We ourselves are the subject of the verb; Paul says emphatically, " You count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God." In other words, "I have been stating this as a fact over and over (vv. 2-10); now it is time for you to put yourselves into the picture. You must not only accept this death and resurrection as true in an abstract sense; you must consider it to be true of yourselves personally ."

We are "dead to sin," in some ways just like Jesus. His encounter with sin was a once-for-all victory; when it was over, it was over . He left it behind him. Likewise we must realize that we too have died to our old life; we have left it behind us. We have moved on to something better; we are "alive to God" (Col 3:1-4). Just as the risen Christ now has a new kind of existence based upon and enveloped by the glory and power of God, so we also have a new existence, a newness of life in which everything is from God and for God. In this new life we look upon sin as our hated and defeated enemy, we look upon God's law with loving reverence, and we regard obedience to his law not only as our duty but also as our delight. All this is true only "in Christ Jesus," only because he too has died to sin and for our sins and has been raised again, and only because we have been crucified and raised up with him in our baptism.

With all this being true, why should we even want to remain in sin, much less think that it is somehow our obligation under grace (6:1)? The very thought is ridiculous. "For the Christian to choose to sin is the spiritual equivalent of digging up a corpse for fellowship," says Mounce (153).

6:12 Therefore. Here is the significant transition from the didactic or indicative to the imperative part of this section. The former (vv. 2-11) sets forth the facts of our death and resurrection with Christ; the latter (vv. 12-13) exhorts us to live lives that are consistent with these facts. "This connection between the indicative of our incorporation into Christ and the imperative of Christian living is the real heart of Romans 6," says Moo (I:383).

. . . do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. The focal point of these exhortations has to do with the body . Many see the "mortal body" here as equivalent to their interpretation of "old self" and "body of sin" in v. 6, i.e., as the entire fallen self. It is "the whole man in his fallenness" (Cranfield, I:317), "man as a whole in his belongingness to this world" (Dunn, I:336), "the whole person" (Moo, I:400). I disagree with this view and see "mortal body" as referring specifically to the physical body, just as I do "the body of sin" in v. 6. It is called the mortal body because it has not yet been redeemed (8:23) and thus is still under the curse of death (8:10; see 1 Cor 15:53-54).

We all have two choices. We can reign over sin, or we can let sin reign over us (v. 14). Here Paul speaks of this choice in terms of the body-spirit dualism. In the unregenerate sinner, sin reigns over the whole person, body and spirit. Through regeneration (dying and rising with Christ) the spirit is set free from the corruption and power of sin, but the body remains unredeemed. The exhortation "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body" implies that sin is still present there. Our unredeemed bodies are thus a kind of weak point, a vantage point from which sin still opposes us and fights against us and tries to conquer us (Godet, 250; Hendriksen, I:201). As DeWelt (93) says, sin "is personified as a tyrant reigning in and through the body" - or at least trying to so reign. Stott (180) says, "Sin can use our body as a bridgehead through which to govern us." MacArthur says the mortal body is a "beachhead where sin can attack a Christian" (I:337).

Sin launches its attack in the form of "evil desires" that press upon us, demanding us to fulfill them and obey them. The word for "evil desires" (ejpiqumiva , epithymia ) can mean strong desire of any kind, good or bad (see 1:24). Here the context justifies the translation "evil desires" or "lusts" (NASB). Most bodily desires are not evil in themselves, but only become so when they are not kept within the boundaries of God's laws. The very point of sin is to let these desires flow unchecked and unrestrained, as if we were no more than animals.

The very fact that we are exhorted to prevent this shows that if we do not take charge of ourselves and our bodies, and if we do not make a deliberate effort to resist sin, then it is possible for sin to regain dominion over us and reign in our bodies. If it were not possible, this exhortation would be a sham.

At the same time, the very fact that we are exhorted not to let sin reign shows that we can do this. Unlike animals, we are spirit as well as body and thus are more than bodily desires. And unlike unregenerate sinners, our spirits have been infused with new life and new power by which we can and must rule over these bodily desires and keep them within their God-imposed boundaries. Thus we are not helpless; we are able to prevent sin from reigning in and through our bodies. This is the point of this exhortation.

The central truth stated in 6:6 is the basis for this ability and this responsibility. Our "old man" (the fallen "inner man" or spirit) was crucified with Christ in baptism for this very purpose - that the body of sin (mortal body) might be rendered powerless to rule over us, so that we should no longer be slaves to sin. Thus contrary to all antinomian hopes and fears, grace does not give us an excuse to go on sinning, but instead makes it possible, even morally necessary to stop sinning.

6:13 The first part of this verse goes with v. 12; it continues the negative exhortation begun there concerning the body: Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness . . . . "Of your body" is not in the Greek text, but this is the correct sense. The word for "parts" (mevlo" , melos ) means "limb, organ, body part, member." Some try to broaden it here to include spiritual "members" such as the mind and will, or "any natural capacity" (Cranfield, I:317). It surely is true that we should offer no part or faculty of our being into the service of sin, but that is not the point here. Paul is speaking of the physical body, in continuity with v. 12.

The image here is of someone presenting the assets under his control into the service of a monarch. "Offer" means "to place at the disposal of, to present for use in the service of." The word for "instruments" often means "weapons," and many take that as the meaning here (see Hendriksen, I:202-203). "Sin" is pictured as a tyrant or dictator who wants to use our own bodily members as instruments or weapons by which it can rule over us. "Wickedness," or unrighteousness, is the use to which our members are put when we let sin control us.

The rest of the verse contains a two-part positive exhortation about presenting everything in our control into the service of God the true King rather than sin the usurper. . . . but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. In the first part of the verse "offer" is present tense: "do not go on offering your members into the service of sin," in answer to the question in 6:1. Here in the latter part of the verse "offer" is aorist tense, reflecting "deliberate and decisive commitment" (Dunn, I:338). I.e., make up your mind and begin to do it now !

In my judgment these two positive imperatives reflect the spirit-body dualism. "Offer yourselves" refers to the spirit or inner man, the seat of selfhood, the "command center" for the whole person. This inner self is the part of us that has already "been brought from death to life" (vv. 2-11). Therefore we can and must present our whole inner being for service unto God - mind, will, emotions, desires, motives, passions, love. Only a person still dead in his transgressions and sins will continue to place these faculties into the service of sin and self.

The two parts of the positive exhortation are joined with the simple conjunction kaiv , ( kai , "and"), indicating two separate ideas. The second part, "offer the parts of your body ," refers to the physical body as distinct from the soul or spirit. The verb is not repeated in the Greek; it occurs once and has two objects: offer yourselves and your parts . "Of your body" is properly inferred from the word for "parts, members" ( melos ). Here the contrast with v. 13a is precise. Instead of presenting your bodily members to King Sin for unrighteous purposes, present them to God as instruments or weapons to be used for the cause of righteousness in daily obedience to his will.

That we have been brought from death to life is a fact; that we must now present ourselves and our bodies to God is an exhortation. That it is an exhortation means that it is possible for us to choose not to do it - but how could we, and why should we? (See v. 2.) It also means that it is possible for us to choose to do it. We can present our selves and bodies to God for righteousness!

We must understand exactly what is involved in this latter choice. Yes, our regenerated spirits have the power to take charge of our bodies and to direct ourselves, body and spirit, into God's service. But this is not the same as saying that we as made-alive Christians have full power in ourselves to suppress the "evil desires" of the body (v. 12) and to walk unassisted in the path of righteousness. The actual overcoming of sin and walking in righteousness are possible only through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (8:13-14), as chs. 7 and 8 show. But what we made-alive Christians can do is present ourselves and our bodies to God and allow him, in the person of his Spirit within us, to empower us for righteous living. We can lay ourselves before him and trust him for strength to overcome temptation and to grow in holy virtue. Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking we are supposed to do it all by ourselves, and the prospect of imminent defeat leads us to despair (see 7:14-25).

In other words we must not underestimate what we as made-alive Christians can do; we can take charge of ourselves and our bodies, and place them in God's hands and point ourselves in the direction of righteousness. But on the other hand we must not overestimate what we can do. Even as we continue to work out all the possibilities and responsibilities of our salvation, we must remember that it is God the Holy Spirit who works in us and gives us the power to do it (Phil 2:12-13).

6:14 For sin shall not be your master . . . . Some take this future tense as having an imperative force: "Sin must not be your master" (TEV). Others take it as an eschatological promise: "Sin will not finally be the victor" (DeWelt, 94). I.e., it states "a future fact made sure to a believer as a glorious promise" (Godet, 252). Murray says it is neither of these, but rather simply "expresses the certainty of that which is affirmed"; it is "a statement of assured fact" (I:228).

Murray is probably closest to the truth. It is no doubt a promise; and since it is a divine promise, it is no doubt certain. More importantly, this promise cannot be limited to the final state; it is meant to apply to Christians now . Christians already, even now, have been set free from sin's dominion (6:18), and this freedom will continue until it is culminated and finalized in the end. This does not mean that Christians will never commit any sins; it means that sin will not be their controlling power. Nor is the promise unconditional; it assumes that we will fulfill the imperatives of vv. 12-13.

. . . because you are not under law, but under grace. This seems to give the reason why sin shall not be our master. If we were under law, sin would definitely lord it over us in every way. But because we are under grace, sin will not be our master in any sense.

The contrast between law and grace is a bit surprising, since law has not been mentioned anywhere up to this point in this section. We must not forget, though, that the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation is the controlling idea at least in the first half of Romans. In 1:18-3:20 Paul explains the nature and futility of law (law-keeping) as a way of salvation; in 3:21-5:21 he explains the alternative to law, namely, grace. In the latter section he focuses on justification as the first and primary benefit of grace, i.e., freedom from sin's penalty ; in this present section (6:1-8:39) he is developing the second benefit of grace, i.e., regeneration and sanctification as the victory over the power of sin.

His point here is that law cannot set us free from sin in either sense. It cannot justify a person once even a single sin has been committed, nor can it give sinners the strength necessary to obey its own commands. Thus as a way of salvation, law is a total failure. It leaves the sinner's life under the power of sin, and it cannot divert him from the inevitable destiny of (eternal) death. Indeed, it is "the law of sin and death" (8:2).

But the blessed grace of God does what the law cannot. Its double cure sets us free from both the penalty and power of sin. This is why sin shall not be the master of those under grace. Living under the prospect of the penalty of eternal condemnation is itself a form of bondage to sin, but the grace of Jesus Christ has set us free from that (8:1; Heb 2:14-15). Living under the tyranny of sin considered as an enslaving power is also a form of bondage, but the grace of Jesus Christ has set us free from that also, as this whole chapter shows.

Here the word "law" is not limited to the Law of Moses, contrary to the assumption of many (e.g., Dunn, I:339; Moo, I:405). It refers to law in any form: the Mosaic Law as it applied to Jews under the Old Covenant; the total body of commandments that make up the prescriptive will of God for all of us in the New Covenant era, including Christians; and the law written on the heart, for those who have general revelation only. The point is that Christians, or believers in any age, are not under law (whatever its applicable form) as a way of salvation.

A person has only two choices. He is either under law, or under grace. The pre-accountable child is automatically under the original grace of Jesus Christ (5:12-19). The accountable sinner is under law, with its guaranteed failure in reference to salvation. Among accountable persons today only believers in Jesus Christ are under grace, which is the only possible way to be free from the terrible tyranny of King Sin.

Limiting nomos here to the Mosaic Law makes the verse meaningless to most people, since most have never been under the Law of Moses and do not even know what it is. In fact most sinners are neither under the Law of Moses nor under grace, and the choice between the Mosaic Law and grace is unintelligible to them. But if "law" here means law in general, when properly explained this choice will be clear to anyone.

B. DOES FREEDOM FROM LAW MEAN

WE ARE FREE TO SIN? NO! (6:15-7:6)

The reference to freedom from law in v. 14 again raises the specter of antinomianism. If we are not under law, then are we not free from all obligation to obey any commands of God? This is basically the same question raised in v. 1, but at that point Paul did not deal with the issue of obligation as such. Instead in 6:2-14 he established the even more basic point of our ability to obey. Now he turns specifically to the question of obligation .

The spirit of antinomianism says we have two choices. We can choose autonomy and be a law unto ourselves, thus having the absolute freedom of self-determination. Or we can choose to submit ourselves as slaves to the authority of another. Only a fool would choose the latter. Why make yourself someone else's slave, when you can be your own boss?

Over against this fiction, Paul makes it clear that this choice between autonomy and authority does not really exist. We are slaves and always will be, whether we are under law or grace. The only choice we have is which master we will serve: God or sin. When we accept God's offer of grace, we are no longer slaves to law and sin; but we are still slaves: "slaves to God" (6:22). Grace does not diminish our obligation to obey his commands a single iota.

We must resist the continuing temptation to limit "law" to the Law of Moses. This view is quite prevalent, and it is easy to understand why. The concept of a transition from law to grace corresponds very nicely with the transition from the Old Covenant age to the New Covenant age, and with the replacement of the Law of Moses by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But this is not the point of "we are not under law but under grace." The transition to which Paul refers in 6:14-15 is not this general turning point in salvation history, but rather each specific individual's personal conversion experience. Prior to accepting God's gracious promise of salvation, every individual is under law . But upon receiving salvation he comes under grace , whether he be Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Augustine, Luther, or Campbell. Thus we conclude that "law" in this section refers to whatever form of law is available and applicable to any given individual in any given time.

The main point, though, is that our personal transition from law to grace changes our relationship to law in significant ways, but not in every way. Because of grace we are no longer under law as a way of salvation, but we are still under law as a way of life. Even though by grace we are not under the law's penalties, we are still under its commands. Though saved by grace we are still creatures and must still obey the Creator, but grace changes our motives for obedience. Our sinful impulses are no longer held in check merely by external restraints such as the threat of eternal punishment. Rather, we are impelled to obey by our internal desire to please God and to show him our loving gratitude for his grace.

The content of this section falls into two main paragraphs. The first (6:15-23) shows what freedom from law does not mean. I.e., it does not mean autonomy or antinomianism. We who were slaves to sin have willfully submitted ourselves to a new master, God; and in so doing we have joyfully acknowledged our obligation to obey his law. Freedom from law is not freedom from obedience. The second paragraph (7:1-6) shows what freedom from law does mean, i.e., freedom from external, legalistic motives and freedom to serve God from the heart. Like a woman with a new husband, we are free to serve God in a new way with a new spirit.

1. We Are Slaves to God (6:15-23)

6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! This verse has the same form as 6:1: a brief opening question, an objection worded as a question, and an emphatic denial. While the objection is basically the same as 6:1 in that it voices the fear that grace will lead to antinomianism, there is a slight difference. In 6:1 the problem is that the availability and abundance of forgiveness would seem to make converts indifferent toward the abandonment of sin. Why not just sin all the more, since grace will surely cover it all? In 6:15 the problem is that the absence of law as a moral restraint would seem to leave the convert with no reason not to sin. Without law to restrain behavior, won't we just keep right on sinning? In fact, without law how can any specific act even be called a sin?

So, "shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Paul's answer is the emphatic and decisive mhΙ gevnoito ( me genoito ), "By no means!" Anyone who thinks this does not yet understand the meaning of freedom from law. The transition from law to grace does not leave us free to sin, as if there were no longer any law at all by which sin is defined and restrained. Accepting grace means the abandonment of the law system as a way of salvation, but it does not separate us from law altogether. Under grace the commands of the law are still operative as a binding norm, identifying the limits and requirements of accepted behavior.

I stress again that "law" must not be limited here to the Law of Moses. The point is not the end of the era of the Mosaic Law and the beginning of the era of grace. Trying to be saved by law was not just a problem for Jews under the Old Covenant; it is a danger faced by all people, no matter what form of law they possess. All sinners are "under law" even where the Law of Moses is totally unknown. Countless people today who have only an intellectual acquaintance with Jesus Christ and the NT Scriptures are "under law" because they believe that living according to NT ethical principles (such as the Sermon on the Mount) will save them.

On the other hand, coming under grace is a possibility for anyone who hears the promise of God's forgiveness known through special revelation. The Law of Moses was binding upon all Jews who lived under the Old Covenant dispensation, yet some were "under law" and some were "under grace." The former were those who believed their obedience to the Law of Moses was their ticket to heaven. The latter were those who trusted in God's promises rather than in their own goodness, but who nevertheless continued to obey the statutes of the Mosaic Law as the norm God had assigned to them. Anyone today who ceases to trust in his own righteousness as the basis for his acceptance by God, and who receives Christ as his Savior according to the terms specified in the NT, is no longer under law but under grace. But he is still bound to obey the moral statutes of the entire Bible and the religious statutes of the NT.

6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey . . . ? Slavery was commonplace in the Roman Empire of the first century. In large urban areas nearly half of the population were either slaves or freed slaves, therefore the first recipients of Paul's letter would have been very much at home with this metaphor. They would have readily understood ("Don't you know . . . ?") the principle the Apostle is enunciating here. It is based on the fact that in that culture many people entered into slavery voluntarily, often to pay off a debt. The principle is this: when you make a decision to obey someone, you become that person's slave.

Paul applies this principle to the individual's spiritual life. We are all slaves who serve a master, but we do have a choice as to whom we will serve. The concept of choice is seen in the expression, "offer yourselves" (see 6:13). This shows that the individual's free will is involved in both his sin and his conversion.

According to Paul your free-will choice determines whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness[.] These are the only two alternatives. We cannot serve both at the same time (Luke 16:13), and we cannot decline to choose (see Josh 24:15).

One choice is to be a slave of sin. Here Paul continues the image of sin as a personified power or tyrant that wants to reign over us (5:21; 6:12-14). When we decide to live a life of sin, we become its slave, for "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). The result of serving as sin's slave is death . This is not the redemptive death of the "old self" (6:6), the death to sin discussed in 6:1-14. It is rather the death that comes from sin, the devastating effect of sinning and the divine curse upon sin. This includes spiritual death (Eph 2:1), or the present state of moral corruption that hardens the sinner toward God. It includes physical death, which is a triumph for sin since the sinner has no promise of redemptive resurrection. It includes especially the final curse of eternal death (6:23; Rev 20:14). Indeed, "sin is deathly and death in every respect follows in its wake" (Murray, I:231).

The other choice is to be a slave of obedience itself. Later Paul speaks of being slaves to righteousness (v. 18) and slaves to God (v. 22). These are not three choices, but are three ways of describing the same choice. Obedience is the means by which we live as slaves to God, and righteousness is its outcome.

Being a "slave to obedience" is an unusual expression. In effect it says that as Christians we are obeying obedience . Some say this refers to the initial act of faith in the gospel (Godet, 255), or "obedience to the gospel call" (Morris, 262). But this initial obedience to the gospel (see 1:5) is what we do when we "offer ourselves" to become slaves of obedience. "Obeying obedience" is what we do throughout our Christian lives. But why this awkward expression? For one thing, it emphasizes the fact that we still have the obligation to obey God's law, even under grace. We are still slaves (to God), and this is "a dramatic way of emphasizing that obedience is the very essence of slavery" (Stott, 183). For another thing, it shows us that slavery to sin does not deserve to be called obedience; service to God is the only true obedience.

This true obedience does lead to righteousness. But is this righteousness forensic (the pronouncement of a judge), or moral (personal ethical living)? Some take it to mean or at least include the former: being declared righteous in the sense of justification. They reason that this has been the meaning of "righteousness" throughout most of Romans thus far; that this makes a better contrast with "death" in the other choice; and that obedience and moral righteousness are the same thing, so how could one lead to the other?

I think it is better, however, to take righteousness here in the moral sense. It is true that the concept of forensic or imputed righteousness (justification) dominated in chapters 1-5, but in chapter 6 the focus has shifted to sanctification or personal righteousness. This is clear in 6:13, where righteousness is contrasted with wickedness; see also 6:18-20. Also, when we see that "leads to death" probably includes the sinner's present state of spiritual death or moral corruption, moral righteousness corresponds very well with it. Also, a serious problem with taking righteousness here in the forensic sense (justification) is that it makes justification the result of obedience, which is works-righteousness, contrary to Paul's whole point in 3:21-5:21. This can be avoided only if "obedience" here is the initial obedience to the gospel, but we have seen that is not the case. Being slaves of obedience is not a one-time act but a lifelong state.

But if righteousness here does mean moral or personal righteousness, how is this different from obedience? In what sense does obedience lead to such righteousness? (A similar question arises in 6:19, where Paul says slavery to righteousness leads to holiness.) We must remember that the basic meaning of righteousness is "conformity to the relevant norm" (see 1:17), and for human beings the norm or standard is the law of God. A righteous person is one who conforms to God's law or satisfies the requirements of his law. This is in fact not very different from obedience, and the two terms could be used as synonyms. Here the distinction is probably that "obedience" refers to specific acts of obedience and "righteousness" to the spiritual state of our souls that is being brought about by such acts. This reference to righteousness (as conformity to God's law) helps Paul make his point that being under grace does not make obedience to the law irrelevant.

Paul's main point here is not to warn Christians against forsaking obedience and choosing to serve sin again (contra Moo, I:414-415), though this could happen. His main concern in these verses is to remind us that we have already made our choice as to whom we will serve. We have offered ourselves as slaves to God, "and slavery demands a total, radical, exclusive obedience. . . . Having chosen our master, we have no further choice but to obey him" (Stott, 183). Rather than being free from moral restraint, contrary to the objection in 6:15, we have placed ourselves even more firmly under it.

6:17 Now, given the two alternatives in v. 16b, where do we as Christians stand? Here is Paul's answer: But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin in your pre-Christian life, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. This refers to our conversion experience, when we made the choice to stop being slaves of sin and to surrender ourselves to God instead. "You obeyed" is aorist tense and refers to our initial obedience to the gospel when we offered ourselves (v. 16) as lifelong slaves to Jesus as Lord.

This initial obedience (which involved faith, repentance, and baptism) was done "wholeheartedly," or literally, "from the heart." This shows that our decision to surrender to God was our own choice and was not coerced or irresistibly imposed upon us. It also means that we gave ourselves to God "sincerely and earnestly" (Lard, 213); the decision was "deeply felt and deeply motivated" (Dunn, I:343). A slave's service is usually outward only, with the heart being in rebellion; but when we entered God's service the very first thing we surrendered to him was our heart. See 1 Pet 1:22.

The rest of this verse is extremely difficult. What is "the form of teaching," and in what sense were we "entrusted" or delivered to it? Many possibilities have been suggested, and it is difficult to discern a clearly preferable answer. "Form" is tuvpo" ( typos ), which "properly refers to a mold for producing a shape, or a wooden stamp for making an imprint in clay"; it is an outline or a model after which something else is meant to be patterned (Spicq, Lexicon , III:384-385). "Teaching" is didachv (didachç ), the ordinary word for doctrine or what is taught.

This refers to the whole scope of biblical and apostolic teaching (Acts 2:42). It includes all biblical truth, and is therefore the "sound doctrine" of the biblical worldview. To say that Christians have "wholeheartedly obeyed" this form of teaching means that we have begun to allow it to mold our beliefs and our behavior. Such is the essence of our slavery to God, and it is a lifelong process.

Why does Paul say we were "entrusted" to this form of doctrine? Would it not make more sense to say it was entrusted to us? The word is paradivdwmi (paradidômi ), which in other places is used for the handing over or passing on of divinely revealed truth (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3). But here the thought is different: we were handed over to this form of teaching. Some believe the concept comes from the world of slavery, the specific image being the occasion when a slave changes ownership and is "delivered over" to a new master (Cranfield, I:324; Dunn, I:343-344). This thought is appropriate in the context, but it should be supplemented by the following idea as well. When we became God's slaves, he delivered us over to the body of doctrine which he has revealed through his apostles and prophets, and instructed us to conform ourselves to it. This is our job as his slaves, and is in accord with the references to "righteousness" in vv. 16 and 18. By shaping our minds and deeds to the pattern or mold of sound doctrine, we achieve the righteousness that is characteristic of slaves to God.

6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. This completes the thought begun in v. 17. We were once slaves to sin, but in conversion we were set free from it. This is the same event as dying to sin (6:2, 11), but here it is described in terms of slavery. Under both images the action is something done to us: "our old self was crucified" (6:6, passive), and we "have been set free" (passive). This shows that, even though we have the freedom to choose the one to whom we offer ourselves as slaves (v. 16), we cannot be delivered from slavery to sin without the liberating power of God. As sinners we make the decision that we want to change masters, but God alone gives us the power to do so when he kills our old self and gives new life to our spirits in baptism. This breaks sin's power over us.

As regenerated Christians we are now "slaves to righteousness." This is the same as the second option named in v. 16, "slaves to obedience, which leads to righteousness." It is similar to v. 17b, that we have committed ourselves to obeying the form of teaching to which the Liberator has delivered us. We have acknowledged our obligation to conform our thoughts and deeds to the Lord's teaching, i.e., to become righteous. Conforming our lives to God's will has become our goal and our passion, and our feet have been set upon that road by the power of God. This is a slavery to which we willingly and joyfully submit.

6:19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Here Paul explains that, when he uses the metaphor of slavery, he is using (what was then) a common, everyday human relationship to help us understand our spiritual condition. Why is this necessary? In literal translation, "Because of the weakness of your flesh."

What does this mean? One possibility is that "the weakness of our flesh" makes it difficult for us to understand spiritual things; thus an analogy from daily life, even if the parallel is not always exact, will help us to grasp their meaning. This weakness could be just creaturely finitude, in which case "flesh" would mean our (morally neutral) human nature (4:1; 9:3, 5; see 1:3). Or, it could be a spiritual dullness, in which case "flesh" would mean our unredeemed bodily natures which still exert a negative influence upon our thinking processes. In either case the weakness is a difficulty of understanding.

Another possibility is that "the weakness of our flesh" refers to our sinful desires (6:12) and impulses toward autonomy; thus it is necessary to use this harsh and graphic slave analogy as a way of helping us curb these lusts and impulses (Käsemann, 182). By describing us as slaves Paul is able to stress our "total obligation and total accountability" to God, even under grace (Cranfield, I:321). In this way he accomplishes his contextual purpose of addressing antinomian fears and tendencies.

In any case Paul continues to use the slave analogy in the next few verses: Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. This is a "before and after" description of our lives, as indicated by the word "now." I.e., both before and after that point of time in which we died to sin, when our old man was crucified with Jesus (6:2, 6), our status was and is that of a slave. In our role as a slave we offer the parts of our body to a master (see 6:13, 16). "The parts of your body" is literally "your parts" or "your members," but as in 6:13 the phrase "of your body" is implied. As in that verse and in 6:16, the implication is that each individual has the responsible freedom to choose the master to whom he will submit himself as a slave.

Before our conversion it was simply a fact that we offered our bodies to impurity (or uncleanness) and wickedness (literally, "lawlessness"). What is the difference between these? Lard (215) says the former is sins against ourselves, and the latter is sins against others. MacArthur (I:350) says one is inward sin, the other outward sin. Such distinctions have little basis. Actually these words are just two ways of describing all sins. All sins are impure in that they contradict the purity of the holy character of God, and all sins are lawlessness in that they are disobedience to the law of God. This is just a more intense way of saying we were "slaves to sin" (6:16, 20).

"Ever-increasing wickedness" is literally "lawlessness unto lawlessness." The idea is that when we yield our bodies to sin, this simply leads to more and more sin, specifically to a state characterized by lawlessness. This expression, which brings to mind the scenario of depravity described in 1:18-32, helps to make Paul's main point, that living under grace does not lead to lawlessness. Contrary to the objection in 6:15, and paradoxically, living under law leads to lawlessness, while living under grace honors God's law by leading to righteousness and holiness. This latter point is made in the last part of the verse.

The end of the verse is the only imperative in this section; everything else is stated as a matter of fact: we were once slaves to sin, but we have changed masters and are now slaves to righteousness. Given these facts, we are exhorted to live lives that are consistent with this new master-slave relationship, by presenting the parts of our bodies in slavery to righteousness. The words of comparison, "just as," encourage us to be as diligent in our slavery to righteousness as we once were in our slavery to impurity.

The imagery in this verse (slavery) is different, but the point is the same as 6:13. The implication is that our as-yet-unredeemed bodies will not easily give up their slavery to impurity; we must make a deliberate effort to conform them to the demands of righteousness. Thus this imperative is "a summons to battle and resistance" (Käsemann, 184).

Slavery to lawlessness and slavery to righteousness are exact opposites. As we have seen, righteousness as such means conformity to the relevant norm; the norm to which human beings must conform is the law of God. Thus the essence of moral righteousness is "satisfying the requirements of the law." Before conversion we fought the law; now we are committed to conforming our entire lives to it. Jesus has already satisfied the law's requirement for penalty , in our place; this is our justification. Now it is our responsibility to satisfy the law's requirement for obedience , which is our (progressive) sanctification.

Slavery to righteousness leads to holiness, says Paul. The latter word is aJgiosmov" ( hagiosmos ), and there is some debate as to whether it means holiness (sanctification) as a process or as a state. It is probably the latter. The process of (progressive) sanctification, which simply means becoming more and more holy, is the same as obedience (v. 16) and the same as offering our bodies in slavery to righteousness. The final result of this process will be a state of complete sanctification or perfect holiness, which will occur when our bodies themselves are redeemed in the last day (8:23). See 6:22.

6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. This statement continues to emphasize the before-and-after contrast of v. 19. The NIV does not translate the initial particle, gar , "for, because"; and thus the connection with v. 19 is obscured. Also, this statement is very condensed; it must be supplemented by an unstated conclusion. The entire thought seems to be this: "Just as you were once fully devoted to sinning, so must you now live as slaves to righteousness instead. For when you were slaves to sin, you were free with respect to righteousness; but now that you are slaves of righteousness, you must keep yourselves free from sin."

"Free with respect to righteousness" does not mean that as sinners we were free from the obligation to be righteous. It means we were free from the desire and from an inner sense of responsibility to be such. We were "deaf to God's righteous demands and incapable of responding to them" even if we had heard (Moo, I:422). This is not a happy freedom, but one that is insidious and deadly.

6:21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! The NIV omits the word "therefore," which actually begins the thought contained in vv. 21-22. This shows that these verses are drawing a conclusion from something in the preceding context. They seem to be expanding the thought concerning the respective consequences of slavery to sin and slavery to righteousness stated in v. 19. There it was said that slavery to impurity and lawlessness results in further lawlessness (see the NASB, not the NIV), while slavery to righteousness leads to holiness or sanctification. Now, says v. 21, in view of that, what are the relative benefits of these two forms of slavery?

The word translated "benefit" in vv. 21-22 is karpov" ( karpos ), or "fruit." This could be intended in the neutral sense of "result" or "consequence"; but more likely it is intended in the positive sense of "benefit, advantage, profit." I.e., what good and beneficial result is produced by these respective forms of slavery?

There is some disagreement as to how v. 21 should be punctuated. Some take it like this: "What was the result of your former life of slavery to sin? Actually the result at the time was just more and more lawlessness, things of which you are now ashamed! And the final end of such things is death." Others, including the NIV, take it like this: "What positive benefit did you receive from your former slavery to the sorts of things of which you are now ashamed? Actually, none at all, for the only end result of those things is death." The latter is probably the better way to read the verse.

The acts and habits of impurity and lawlessness, which characterized our life of slavery to sin, are things of which we are now ashamed. Shame is not the same as the feeling of guilt or the sense of regret with respect to sin. It is more a feeling of inner pain and humiliation and disgrace that causes us to wonder how we could ever have done those things which seem so repulsive and hateful to us now. Such a feeling of shame with reference to our former sins is a necessary aspect of repentance and sanctification. To be without shame is to be under sin's dominion.

The question is, what good fruit did we reap from such a life of sin? The implied answer is, none! Its only immediate result was more and more sin, as v. 19 says; and its final result (tevlo" , telos ) is death. Sin produces death in every form, but especially it results in the eternal death that follows the final judgment (see 6:16).

6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. The verbs in the first part of this verse are aorist participles, referring to the decisive past event of conversion when we as slaves were transferred from one master to another. The thought is the same as that of v. 18, with one variation. Verse 18 says we became slaves to righteousness; here we "have become slaves to God." The difference is not significant; in truth these are two ways of saying the same thing. In this context it has been appropriate to speak of slavery to obedience (v. 16) and to righteousness because the alternative is stated as slavery to sin, impurity, and lawlessness. This verse is simply indicating that the ultimate source of the standards of obedience and righteousness to which we have become slaves is God himself. True slavery to righteousness is not blind obedience to some impersonal legal code; it is loving obedience to the personal God (see 7:6).

Being "set free from sin" is not just freedom from its penalty, which is justification, but also freedom from its power over us. The latter is the point here.

The latter part of the verse states the contrast with v. 21. Whereas our slavery to sin gave us no benefits at all, as slaves to God we have fruit unto holiness or sanctification. This is the same idea as v. 19b. The fruit that we reap from being slaves of righteousness is first of all a life of obedience and virtuous character, which Paul calls the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23; see Matt 5:17). This ultimately results in the complete sanctification or perfect holiness of which v. 19b speaks, and finally culminates in eternal life. The life of holiness which we have now begun will by God's Spirit progress to a state of moral perfection that will never end.

The point of the contrast between slavery to sin and slavery to God in vv. 21-22 is to show us that the latter is infinitely preferable to the former, and to encourage us to be diligent and faithful in presenting our members as slaves to righteousness.

6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life . . . . This often-quoted verse concludes this section on the Christian's slavery to God, adding little that is new. In general v. 23a corresponds to 6:21, and v. 23b corresponds to 6:22. As in those two verses, the final results of the two kinds of slavery are contrasted: (eternal) death and eternal life, hell and heaven.

Death is described as the "wages of sin." In NT times the term here translated "wages" often meant "a soldier's pay," and some see that special meaning here. They believe it corresponds well with the word for "instruments" in v. 13, which often meant weapons of warfare. On the other hand, the term was also used for the allowance or pocket money given a slave by his master. Either of these special meanings could be intended, but more likely the word simply means wages in the general sense of compensation justly earned and deserved for labor performed.

Many agree that "the wages of sin" means that sin is the one who is paying the wages, and not the labor for which the wages are paid. If so then sin is personified as the general paying his soldiers, or the slave-owner paying his slaves (v. 17), or as an employer of a less specific sort. This is possible in view of the sustained imagery of slavery, but it is by no means certain. Whatever view one takes must not be allowed to cloud the fact that on Judgment Day God himself is the one who will give to the sinner the righteous judgment that is his due (2:5-6). Strictly speaking God is the one who will pay the sinner the wages he deserves for the sins he has committed.

In any case the main point here is not the one who pays the wages, but rather the sharp contrast between the nature of the rewards bestowed respectively upon the slave of sin and the slave of God. The former receives wages , the latter a gift . These two terms characterize the two distinct ways a person can relate to God, and also the two systems of salvation, law and grace. Under law a person relates to God in terms of wages; i.e., he receives what he actually deserves for his works. But every man has sinned (3:23), and what a sinner deserves is death. Under grace, however, a person relates to God in terms of a gift; i.e., his reward is not what he deserves but what God desires to give him. And even though we have all sinned and deserve death, God desires to give us eternal life.

Thus our choice between slavery to sin and slavery to God is in the end a choice between being paid the deserved wages of death, and receiving the free gift of eternal life from God's heart of grace.

Paul makes it clear that this free gift is possible only in Christ Jesus our Lord. Though eternal life is free to us, it is not free to God. It was paid for through the blood of Jesus. Thus this chapter ends with the same praise to the Redeemer with which chapter 5 began and ended (5:1, 21).

McGarvey: Rom 6:2

God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? [Macknight says, truly, that the thought of this and the next chapter reverts to Rom 3:3 ; and is intended to refute the thought of that verse, as reintroduced by Rom 5:20-21 ; viz.: that justification by faith renders the law useless, and encourages sin, that grace may abound. Paul refutes these thoughts, and asserts the contrary principle, that justification by faith establishes the law. What, says he, shall be inferred from what we have taught? It is true that God's favor abounds in proportion to sin, so as to always exceed it; but are the friends of Christ therefore justified in thinking they can live sinfully (Gal 5:13)? or are the Lord's enemies justified in asserting that we teach that men should do evil that good may come (Rom 3:9)? or that we teach that Christians should continue to commit sin, as they did before their conversion, in order that they may increase the grace by increasing the sin (Rom 5:20)? Not at all. Our gospel destroys sin: can it, therefore, give encouragement and vigor to it? We who, by baptism, have put away sin, so that we died to it, can we, nevertheless, accomplish the impossible by still living in it? The apostle, in asserting that baptism is a death to sin, does not speak literally, but uses a bold and appropriate figure, suggested by the inherent symbolism of the ordinance. Baptism is the consummation of repentance; and were repentance perfect, the immersion would result in such an abhorrence of sin, such a complete cessation of it, and such a love of righteousness as would bring about an actual death toward, or abolition of, sin, and the Lord designed and desires such a full transformation; but truth compels us to acknowledge that repentance, like all other human operations, is imperfect, and, therefore, in baptism we only die to sin in so far that righteousness becomes the rule of life, and sin the painful, mortifying, humiliating, heart-breaking exception.]

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 6 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 6:1, We may not live in sin; Rom 6:2, for we are dead unto it; Rom 6:3, as appears by our baptism; Rom 6:12, Let not sin reign any more; Rom 6:18, because we have yielded ourselves to the service of righteousness; Rom 6:23, and for that death is the wages of sin.

Poole: Romans 6 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 6

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 6 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2) Believers must die to sin, and live to God.

(Rom 6:3-10) This is urged by their Christian baptism and union with Christ.

(Rom 6:11-15) They are made alive to God.

(Rom 6:16-20) And are freed from the dominion of sin.

(Rom 6:21-23) The end of sin is death, and of holiness everlasting life.

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 6 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle having at large asserted, opened, and proved, the great doctrine of justification by faith, for fear lest any should suck poison out of that sweet flower, and turn that grace of God into wantonness and licentiousness, he, with a like zeal, copiousness of expression, and cogency of argument, presses the absolute necessity of sanctification and a holy life, as the inseparable fruit and companion of justification; for, wherever Jesus Christ is made of God unto any soul righteousness, he is made of God unto that soul sanctification, 1Co 1:30. The water and the blood came streaming together out of the pierced side of the dying Jesus. And what God hath thus joined together let not us dare to put asunder.

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 6 (Chapter Introduction)

Dying To Live (Rom_6:1-11)

The Practice Of The Faith (Rom_6:12-14)

The Exclusive Possession (Rom_6:15-23)

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 6 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 6

The Apostle having finished his design concerning the doctrine of justification, refutes the charge brought against it as a licentious doctrine, and prevents any ill use that might be made of it by men of evil minds, justified persons by the strongest arguments, and with the best of motives to holiness of life and conversation: he saw, that whereas he had affirmed in the preceding chapter, that sin being made to abound by the law, in the condemnation of sinners, the grace of God the more abounded in their justification and pardon; that some would rise up and object, that this doctrine countenances men's continuance in sin, and opens a door to all manner of iniquity; and that others would abuse this doctrine, and encourage themselves in a vicious course of life, upon this mistaken notion, that the grace of God would be the more illustrious by it; all which is suggested in Rom 6:1, to which an answer is returned in Rom 6:2, with an abhorrence of everything of this kind; and by an argument, showing the absurdity and inconsistency of it, seeing persons dead to sin, as justified ones are, cannot live in it: and that they are dead to sin, and under obligation to live unto righteousness, he argues from their baptism into Christ's death, which represents their being dead with Christ, and buried with him, Rom 6:3, and likewise the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and theirs by him, whereby they are both fitted and obliged to walk in newness of life; since they are, and should be like him, as in his death, so in his resurrection from the dead: and the rather, as they are implanted in him, as the branches in the vine, Rom 6:4, and especially as it was the great end of his death, that by the crucifixion of sin with him, it might so be destroyed, that his people should be no more servants to it, Rom 6:6, this being proved, that justified ones are dead to sin, the apostle argues upon it, that such are freed from sin, Rom 6:7, and therefore ought not, and cannot live in it; for this must be given into as an article of faith, that such as are dead with Christ live, and shall live a life of communion with him, Rom 6:8, which is inconsistent with living in sin: he further argues from the resurrection of Christ, which was not to die more, Rom 6:9, and suggests, that in like manner, those who have been dead and buried, and risen with him, which their baptism signifies, should not live in sin, which is no other than dying again; and to strengthen this, directs to the ends of Christ's death and resurrection, Rom 6:10, the end of the one being unto sin, to finish, make an end of that, and be the death of it, and the end of the other, being living unto God; wherefore in like manner, such who profess to be Christ's, to be justified by his righteousness, to be baptized into his death, and to be risen with him, should account themselves dead unto sin, and so not live in it, and alive to God through the righteousness of Christ, and so live to his honour and glory, Rom 6:11, and having thus answered the objection, and removed the calumny, and set this matter in a clear light, the apostle proceeds to dehort from sinning, and to exhort to holiness of life, Rom 6:12, in which he compares sin to a tyrant, the lusts of it to the laws of such an one, and which therefore should not be obeyed; and the rather, as the wages of them are death, and have made the body already mortal; wherefore the members of it should not be employed in such service, but in the service of God: and whereas it might be objected, that sin is too strong and prevalent, and has got the mastery, and will keep its power, the apostle declares it as a promise of grace, that sin shall not have the dominion, Rom 6:14, giving this as a reason, because such as are justified and sanctified, are not under the law, as a covenant of works, but under the covenant of grace, of which this promise is a part; and in order to prevent an ill use of this doctrine, and remove an objection that might be made, that if not under the law, men are under no restraints, but may go on in sin without control, he answers it with his usual detestation, Rom 6:15, and argues the folly and absurdity of living in sin upon such an account, because it would make them servants of sin unto death, Rom 6:16, and so they were before conversion, but now were otherwise, for, which they had reason to be thankful, Rom 6:17, since through the grace of God they had yielded an hearty obedience to the Gospel; wherefore to obey sin would be to return to their former state of bondage; whereas being freed from the power and dominion of sin, they were now the servants of righteousness, and ought to act becoming such a character, Rom 6:18, wherefore it was but acting the part of reasonable men, it was but their reasonable service, to yield themselves servants, not to sin and uncleanness, but to righteousness and holiness, Rom 6:19, in order to engage to which, the apostle puts them in mind of their former state; how that when they were in subjection to sin, they had nothing to do with the exercise of righteousness, Rom 6:20, and therefore as there was an alteration made in them, they ought to be just the reverse in their conduct and conversation; for he appeals to them, that they had no pleasure nor profit in their former course of life; which had brought upon them shame and confusion, and must have ended in death, had it not been for the grace of God, Rom 6:21, but now as they were delivered from the slavery and dominion of sin, they were under a better master, were servants to God; and the fruit of their service was holiness, and the issue of all would be everlasting life, Rom 6:22, which is illustrated by the contrary, Rom 6:23, the wages due from the service of sin, and which only could be expected from it, being death; whereas grace and holiness, the gift of God, issue in eternal life by Christ Jesus; in whose hands it is, and through whom it comes, and is enjoyed.

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