Text -- Romans 9:10 (NET)

9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac–

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 9:10

Having conceived of one ( ex henos koitēn echousa ).

By metonymy with cause for the effect we have this peculiar idiom (koitē being bed, marriage bed), "having a marriage bed from one"husband. One father and twins.

Vincent: Rom 9:10

And not only so

The thought to be supplied is: Not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and a rejection of his son by another, but also of the election and rejection of the children of the same woman.

Vincent: Rom 9:10

By one

Though of one father, a different destiny was divinely appointed for each of the twins. Hence only the divine disposal constitutes the true and valid succession, and not the bodily descent.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

And that God's blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, who was chosen to inherit the blessing, before either of them had done good or evil. The apostle mentions this to show, that neither were their ancestors accepted through any merit of their own.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Whose purpose was, to elect or choose the promised seed.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Not for any preceding merit in him he chose.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Of his own good pleasure who called to that privilege whom he saw good.

JFB: Rom 9:10-13

It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac's only wife; for the choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother and of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God--"not of works, but of Him that calleth."

Clarke: Rom 9:10

And not only this - A Jew might object: "Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed; but observe, this was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard to inheriting the promise, for when Rebecca was with child by that one person of Abraham’ s issue to whom the promise was made, namely, our father Isaac, she went to inquire of the Lord, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23 : And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of People shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one People shall be stronger than the other People; and the elder shall serve the younger. That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder.

Calvin: Rom 9:10

10.And not only, etc There are in this chapter some broken sentences, such as this is, — But Rebecca also, who had conceived by one, our father Isaac; for he leaves off in the middle, before he comes to the principal verb. The meaning, however, is, that the difference as to the possession of the promise may not only be seen in the children of Abraham, but that there is a much more evident example in Jacob and Esau: for in the former instance some might allege that their condition was unequal, the one being the son of an handmaid; but these were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the other was chosen by the Lord. It is hence clear, that the fulfilment of the promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh indiscriminately.

And as Paul refers to the persons to whom God made known his purpose, I prefer to regard a masculine pronoun to be understood, rather than a neuter, as [Erasmus] has done: for the meaning is, that God’s special election had not been revealed only to Abraham, but also to Rebecca, when she brought forth her twins. ²⁹²

TSK: Rom 9:10

not only : Rom 5:3, Rom 5:11; Luk 16:26

but when : Gen 25:21-23, Rebekah

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 9:10

And not only this - Not only is the principle of making a distinction among the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was recognised in the original promise, thus proving that all the descendants of Abraham were not of course to be saved; and he now proceeds to show that the principle was recognised in the case of his posterity in the family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to any natural principles that the selection was made; that he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing the younger to be the object of his favor, and rejecting the older, who, according to the custom of the times, was supposed to be entitled to special honor and rights. And in order to prove that this was done according to his own pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made before they were born; before they had formed any character; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be pretended that it was in consequence of any works which they had performed.

But when Rebecca - The wife of Isaac; see Gen 25:21, Gen 25:23.

Poole: Rom 9:10

And not only this some read it, And not only she; the particle this is not in the Greek.

When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac: this instance is added, because there might be some objection against the former; as if there were some reason why God chose Isaac, and refused Ishmael. Isaac was born of a free-woman, and when Abraham was uncircumcised: besides, Ishmael no sooner came to years, but he showed some tokens of perverseness, and of a wicked spirit. Therefore, in this and the three following verses, he gives another, which was beyond all exception; and that is in Esau and Jacob, betwixt whom there was no disparity, either in birth or in works: they had both one and the same mother; Rebecca conceived with them at one and the same time, and that by no other person than our father Isaac; and yet the one of these is chosen, and the other refused. Tills now was an undeniable proof, that the promise belongs not to all the children of Abraham, or of Isaac, according to the flesh; all the seed of neither are the children of the promise.

Haydock: Rom 9:10

and not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham) ---

Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is not one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) ---

Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. ---

That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God's elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)

Gill: Rom 9:10

And not only this,.... This instance of Ishmael and Isaac, is not the only one, proving that Abraham's natural seed, the children of the flesh, are not all children, the children of God:

but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, "it was said unto her", Rom 9:12, being in a parenthesis, "the elder shall serve the younger". The apostle was aware, that the Jews would be ready to say, that the instance of Ishmael and Isaac was not a pertinent one; since Ishmael was not born of Sarah, the lawful wife of Abraham, but of a bondwoman, which was the reason his rejection, when Isaac was the son of promise, by the lawful wife, and that they were children of Abraham in the line of Isaac, and so children of the promise, as he was: wherefore he proceeds to mention the case of Jacob and Esau, which was not liable to any such exception; seeing they not only had the same father, but the same mother, Isaac's lawful wife; they were conceived by Rebecca at once, were in the same womb together, were twins, and if any had the preference and advantage, Esau had it, being born first; and yet a difference was made between these two by God himself, and which was notified by him to the mother of them, before either were born.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 9:10

¹ tn Or possibly “by one act of sexual intercourse.” See D. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 579.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:10

^{( 7 )} And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;

^{( 7 )} Another strong and persuasive proof taken from the example of Esau and Jacob, who were both born of the same Isaac, who was the son of promise of one mother, and were born at the same time, and not at different times as Ishmael and Isaac were: and yet nonetheless, as Esau was cast off, only Jacob was chosen: and that before their birth, that neither any goodness of Jacob's might be thought to be the cause of his election, neither any wickedness of Esau to be the cause of his casting away.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 9:1-33

1 Paul is sorry for the Jews.

7 All of Abraham not of the promise.

18 God's sovereignty.

25 The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews, foretold.

32 The cause of the Jews' stumbling.

MHCC: Rom 9:6-13

The rejection of the Jews by the gospel dispensation, did not break God's promise to the patriarchs. The promises and threatenings shall be fulfilled. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits always found with outward church privileges. Not only some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will. God foresaw both Esau and Jacob as born in sin, by nature children of wrath even as others. If left to themselves they would have continued in sin through life; but for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, he purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness. This instance of Esau and Jacob throws light upon the Divine conduct to the fallen race of man. The whole Scripture shows the difference between the professed Christian and the real believer. Outward privileges are bestowed on many who are not the children of God. There is, however, full encouragement to diligent use of the means of grace which God has appointed.

Matthew Henry: Rom 9:6-13

The apostle, having made his way to that which he had to say, concerning the rejection of the body of his countrymen, with a protestation of his own affection for them and a concession of their undoubted privileges, comes in these verses, and the following part of the chapter, to prove that the rejection of the Jews, by the establishment of the gospel dispensation, did not at all invalidate the word of God's promise to the patriarchs: Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect (Rom 9:6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (Rom 9:2), might be suspected. We are not to ascribe inefficacy to any word of God: nothing that he has spoken does or can fall to the ground; see Isa 55:10, Isa 55:11. The promises and threatenings shall have their accomplishment; and, one way or other, he will magnify the law and make it honourable. This is to be understood especially of the promise of God, which by subsequent providences may be to a wavering faith very doubtful; but it is not, it cannot be, made of no effect; at the end it will speak and not lie.

Now the difficulty is to reconcile the rejection of the unbelieving Jews with the word of God's promise, and the external tokens of the divine favour, which had been conferred upon them. This he does in four ways: - 1. By explaining the true meaning and intention of the promise, Rom 9:6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, Rom 9:14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, Rom 9:25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews' rejection, Rom 9:30, to the end.

In this paragraph the apostle explains the true meaning and intention of the promise. When we mistake the word, and misunderstand the promise, no marvel if we are ready to quarrel with God about the accomplishment; and therefore the sense of this must first be duly stated. Now he here makes it out that, when God said he would be a God to Abraham, and to his seed (which was the famous promise made unto the fathers), he did not mean it of all his seed according to the flesh, as if it were a necessary concomitant of the blood of Abraham; but that he intended it with a limitation only to such and such. And as from the beginning it was appropriated to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau, and yet for all this the word of God was not made of no effect; so now the same promise is appropriated to believing Jews that embrace Christ and Christianity, and, though it throws off multitudes that refuse Christ, yet the promise is not therefore defeated and invalidated, any more than it was by the typical rejection of Ishmael and Esau.

I. He lays down this proposition - that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9:6), neither because they are, etc., Rom 9:7. Many that descended from the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and were of that people who were surnamed by the name of Israel, yet were very far from being Israelites indeed, interested in the saving benefits of the new covenant. They are not all really Israel that are so in name and profession. It does not follow that, because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they must needs be the children of God, though they themselves fancied so, boasted much of, and built much upon, their relation to Abraham, Mat 3:9; Joh 8:38, Joh 8:39. But it does not follow. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges, though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God's promise, to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.

II. He proves this by instances; and therein shows not only that some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but that God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will; and not with regard to that law of commandments to which the present unbelieving Jews were so strangely wedded.

1. He specifies the case of Isaac and Ishmael, both of them the seed of Abraham; and yet Isaac only taken into covenant with God, and Ishmael rejected and cast out. For this he quotes Gen 21:12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, which comes in there as a reason why Abraham must be willing to cast out the bond-woman and her son, because the covenant was to be established with Isaac, Gen 17:19. And yet the word which God had spoken, that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, did not therefore fall to the ground; for the blessings wrapt up in that great word, being communicated by God as a benefactor, he was free to determine on what head they should rest, and accordingly entailed them upon Isaac, and rejected Ishmael. This he explains further (Rom 9:8, Rom 9:9), and shows what God intended to teach us by this dispensation. (1.) That the children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the children of God, for then Ishmael had put in a good claim. This remark comes home to the unbelieving Jews, who boasted of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, Phi 3:3. Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac's; he was born after the flesh (Gal 4:29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness. (2.) That the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Those that have the honour and happiness of being counted for the seed have it not for the sake of any merit or desert of their own, but purely by virtue of the promise, in which God hath obliged himself of his own good pleasure to grant the promised favour. Isaac was a child of promise; this his proves, Rom 9:9, quoted from Gen 18:10. he was a child promised (so were many others), and he was also conceived and born by force and virtue of the promise, and so a proper type and figure of those who are now counted for the seed, even true believers, who are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God - of the incorruptible seed, even the word of promise, by virtue of the special promise of a new heart: see Gal 4:28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb 11:11. Thus were the great mysteries of salvation taught under the Old Testament, not in express words, but by significant types and dispensations of providence, which to them then were not so clear as they are to us now, when the veil is taken away, and the types are expounded by the antitypes.

2. The case of Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10-13), which is much stronger, to show that the carnal seed of Abraham were not, as such, interested in the promise, but only such of them as God in sovereignty had appointed. There was a previous difference between Ishmael and Isaac, before Ishmael was cast out: Ishmael was the son of the bond-woman, born long before Isaac, was of a fierce and rugged disposition, and had mocked or persecuted Isaac, to all which it might be supposed God had regard when he appointed Abraham to cast him out. But, in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was neither so nor so, they were both the sons of Isaac by one mother; they were conceived hex henos - by one conception; hex henos koitou , so some copies read it. The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay struggling alike in their mother's womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand - that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases. This difference that was put between Jacob and Esau he further illustrates by a quotation from Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the person, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protections, supplies, and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, had no temple, altar, priests, nor prophets - no such particular care taken of them nor kindness shown to them. Such a difference did God put between those two nations, that both descended from the loins of Abraham and Isaac, as at first there was a difference put between Jacob and Esau, the distinguishing heads of those two nations. So that all this choosing and refusing was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection. (1.) Some understand it of the election and rejection of conditions or qualifications. As God chose Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau, so he might and did choose faith to be the condition of salvation and reject the works of the law. Thus Arminius understands it, De rejectis et assumptis talibus, certa qualitate notatis - Concerning such as are rejected and such as are chosen, being distinguished by appropriate qualities; so John Goodwin. But this very much strains the scripture; for the apostle speaks all along of persons, he has mercy on whom (he does not say on what kind of people) he will have mercy, besides that against this sense those two objections (Rom 9:14, Rom 9:19) do not at all arise, and his answer to them concerning God's absolute sovereignty over the children of men is not at all pertinent if no more be meant than his appointing the conditions of salvation. (2.) Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular person - some loved, and others hated, from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors - Jacob the people, and Esau the people; nor does God condemn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts. (3.) Others therefore understand it of the election and rejection of people considered complexly. His design is to justify God, and his mercy and truth, in calling the Gentiles, and taking them into the church, and into covenant with himself, while he suffered the obstinate part of the Jews to persist in unbelief, and so to unchurch themselves - thus hiding from their eyes the things that belonged to their peace. The apostle's reasoning for the explication and proof of this is, however, very applicable to, and, no doubt (as is usual in scripture) was intended for the clearing of the methods of God's grace towards particular person, for the communication of saving benefits bears some analogy to the communication of church-privileges. The choosing of Jacob the younger, and preferring him before Esau the elder (so crossing hands), were to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first-born of the church, should be laid aside; and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing. The Jews, considered as a body politic, a nation and people, knit together by the bond and cement of the ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood, the centre of their unity, had for many ages been the darlings and favourites of heaven, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, dignified and distinguished by God's miraculous appearances among them and for them. Now that the gospel was preached, and Christian churches were planted, this national body was thereby abandoned, their church-polity dissolved; and Christian churches (and in process of time Christian nations), embodied in like manner, become their successors in the divine favour, and those special privileges and protections which were the products of that favour. To clear up the justice of God in this great dispensation is the scope of the apostle here.

Barclay: Rom 9:7-13

If the Jews have rejected and crucified Jesus, the Son of God, is that to say that God's purposes were frustrated and his plan defeated? Paul produces a strange argument to prove that it is not so. In point of fact not all the Jews did reject Jesus; some of them accepted him, for, of course, all the early followers were Jews, as was Paul himself. Now, he says, if we go back through the history of Israel, we will see again and again a process of selection at work. Again and again we see that it was not all Jews who were within the design of God. Some were and some were not. The line of the nation through which God worked, and in which he carried out his plan, was not at any time composed of all those who could claim physical descent from Abraham. At the back of the whole plan there is not merely physical descent; there is the selection, the election of God.

To prove his case, Paul cites two instances from Jewish history and buttresses them with proof texts. Abraham had two sons. There was Ishmael, who was the son of the bondwoman Hagar, and there was Isaac, who was the son of his wife Sarah. Both were true blood descendants of Abraham. It was late in life when Sarah had a son, so late that it was, humanly speaking, an impossibility. As he grew up, there came a day when Ishmael mocked at Isaac. Sarah resented it, and demanded that Hagar and Ishmael should be ejected and that Isaac alone should inherit. Abraham was very unwilling to eject them, but God told him to do so, for it was in Isaac that his descendants would preserve his name (Gen 21:12). Now Ishmael had been the son of natural human desire; but Isaac had been the son of God's promise (Gen 18:10-14). It was to the child of the promise that the real descent was given. Here is the first proof that not all physical descendants of Abraham are to be ranked as the chosen ones. Within the nation, God's selection and election have gone on.

Paul proceeds to cite another instance. When Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, was with child, she was told by God that in her womb there were two children who would be the fathers of two nations; but that in the days to come the elder would serve and be subject to the younger (Gen 25:23). So the twins Esau and Jacob were born. Esau was the elder twin, and yet the choice of God fell on Jacob, and it was through the line of Jacob that God's will was to be done. To clinch the argument Paul cites Mal 1:2-3, where God is represented as saying to the prophet: "I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau."

Paul argues that there is more to Jewishness than descent from Abraham, that the chosen people were not simply the entire sum of all the physical descendants of Abraham, that within that family there was a process of election all through history. A Jew would thoroughly understand and accept the argument so far. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood son of Abraham, but the Jews would never have dreamed of saying that the Arabs belonged to the chosen people. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau--that in fact is what Malachi means--and Esau was a true son of Isaac, even the twin brother of Jacob, but no Jew would ever have said that the Edomites had any share in the chosen people. From the Jewish point of view Paul has made his point; there was election within the family of Abraham's physical descendants.

He makes the further point that that selection had nothing to do with deeds and merit. The proof is that Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected, before either of them was born. The choice was made while they were still in their mother's womb.

Our minds stagger at this argument. It presents us with the picture of a God who apparently quite arbitrarily chooses one and rejects the other. To us it is not a valid argument, because it makes God responsible for an action which does not seem to be ethically justified. But the fact remains that it would strike home to a Jew. And even to us, at the heart of this argument one great truth remains. Everything is of God; behind everything is his action; even the things which seem arbitrary and haphazard go back to him. Nothing in this world moves with aimless feet.

Constable: Rom 9:1--11:36

V. THE VINDICATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS chs. 9--11

A major problem concerning God's righteousness arises out of what Paul just claimed for God. It is this. If God is for His elect and will never remove His love from them, why has He set aside His chosen people, the Jews? It certainly looks as though something separated them from His love. If God has turned away from Israel, are Christians really that secure? The problem focuses on God's righteous dealings with humankind and therefore was one that Paul needed to deal with in this epistle.

In chapters 9-11 the apostle defended the righteousness of God in His dealings with Israel. Having explained how God justifies sinners Paul now found it necessary to justify God Himself, to prove and declare Him righteous.²⁸⁸ The apostle to the Gentiles proceeded to show that God had not removed His love from the Jews. Nothing had separated them from His love. God's present dealings with Israel do not indicate that He has abandoned them but need viewing in the light of His future plans for the nation. In the future God will also glorify Israel.

In chapter 9 Paul dealt primarily with God's dealings with Israel in the past, in chapter 10 with their present situation, and in chapter 11 with His future plans for the nation.

We note in these chapters that God's dealings with Israel as a nation are similar to His dealings with individual Christians whom Paul had been speaking of in recent chapters. God elected both Israel and each Christian.²⁸⁹ Unsaved Israel, as many unsaved individuals, tried to establish its own righteousness by obeying the law instead of by believing God's promise. A mass conversion of Israel will occur in the future (11:25-32). It is similar to the grand picture of the climax of salvation that we have in chapter 8. God will prove faithful to Israel as well as to individual Christians. The whole section dealing with Israel culminates in rapturous praise to God (11:33-36) as the section dealing with individual salvation did (8:31-39). While these parallels do exist, Paul did not stress them.

Constable: Rom 9:1-33

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

Paul began by tracing God's dealings with Israel in the past.

"No conjunction or particle connects the two chapters, and the tone shifts dramatically from celebration (8:31-39) to lamentation (9:1-3)."²⁹⁰

Constable: Rom 9:6-13

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

Paul's train of thought unfolds as follows in these verses. Because God's election of Israel did not depend on natural descent (vv. 6-10) or human merit (vv. 11-14), Israel's disobedience cannot nullify God's sovereign purpose for the nation.

9:6 The word of God that was in Paul's mind was evidently God's revelation of His plans for Israel in the Old Testament. God revealed that He had chosen Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:5-6). The Israelites were to function as priests in the world by bringing the nations to God (cf. Isa. 42:6). They were to do this by demonstrating through their life in the Holy Land how glorious it can be to live under the government of God. Israel had failed to carry out God's purpose for her thus far and consequently had suffered His discipline. It looked as though the word that God had spoken concerning Israel's purpose had failed. The Greek word translated "failed" (ekpeptoken) means "gone off its course" as a ship. Paul proceeded to show that God would accomplish His purpose for Israel in the rest of chapters 9-11.

". . . Romans 9-11 contains 11 occurrences of the term Israel,' and in every case it refers to ethnic, or national, Israel. Never does the term include Gentiles within its meaning. The NT use of the term is identical with the Pauline sense in this section."²⁹³

"Premillennialists deny that the NT authors spiritualize, or reinterpret, OT texts. That is really the focus, it seems to me. Does the NT, for example, apply OT promises made to ethnic believing Israel to the NT church (cf. Acts 15:13-18; Gal. 6:16)?"²⁹⁴

Even though all the descendants of Israel (Jacob) constitute the nation of Israel as Scripture speaks of Israel, God spoke of Israel in a more restricted sense as well. Paul had previously pointed out this distinction between the outward Jew and the inward Jew (2:28-29).²⁹⁵

9:7 Even though God promised to bless Abraham's descendants it was only one branch of his family that He singled out for special blessing. God's special elective purpose applied only to Isaac and his line of descendants.

9:8 It was not all the natural children of Abraham that God had in mind when He spoke of blessing Abraham's seed uniquely. It was only the children born supernaturally in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham about seed that He was speaking, namely Isaac's descendants.

"What counts is grace, not race."²⁹⁶

9:9 God did not choose to bless Isaac after his birth only because he was Abraham's son. Rather He promised Abraham before Isaac's birth that He would provide and bless a son for the patriarch supernaturally. His unusual birth confirmed God's choice of Isaac, as the channel of special blessing, to his parents.

9:10-12 God's special election of one portion of Abraham's descendants for special blessing is further evident in His choice of Jacob rather than Esau. Someone might say that Isaac was obviously the natural son through whom blessing would come since he was the first son born to Abraham and Sarah. That was not true of Jacob. Furthermore Esau and Jacob both had the same mother as well as father, so that was not a factor as an objector might claim it was in Isaac and Ishmael's case. Jacob and Esau might have shared the firstborn privilege since they were twins. One conception produced both of them. However, God chose Jacob even though Rebekah bore Esau before Jacob. As in the case of Isaac, God made a choice between them before their birth. Their birth was also supernatural since their mother was barren. God chose Jacob before he had done any deeds or manifested a character worthy of God's special blessing. The fact that Jacob became a less admirable person in some respects than Esau shows that God's choice was not due to Jacob but to Himself.

"Surely, if Paul had assumed that faith was the basis for God's election, he would have pointed this out when he raised the question in v. 14 about the fairness of God's election. All he would have needed to say at that point was of course God is not unjust in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, for his choosing took into account the faith of one and the unbelief of the other.'"²⁹⁷

9:13 By quoting Malachi 1:2-3 Paul raised his discussion from the level of personal election to national election. Malachi was speaking of nations, as the context of this Malachi quotation shows. Paul's point was that God does not wait until He sees how individuals or nations develop and what choices they make before He elects them. God chose Jacob and the nation of Israel for reasons that lay within Himself, not because they merited election (cf. Deut 7:6-8). This is a powerful refutation of the idea that election results from prior knowledge, that God chooses a person for salvation having foreseen that he or she will believe the gospel.

"The connection of this quotation with v. 12 suggests that God's love is the same as his election: God chose Jacob to inherit the blessings promised first to Abraham. . . . If God's love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the seed' who would inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, then God's hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God's decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated reject.' "Love' and hate' are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out."²⁹⁸

"As to Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' a woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.' That,' Spurgeon replied, is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob!"²⁹⁹

"The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms."³⁰⁰

In verses 6-13 Paul established that Israel was the object of God's choice for special blessing because of His own gracious will. He did not choose Israel because of the Israelites' natural descent from Abraham or because of their superior qualities.

College: Rom 9:1-33

9:1-11:36 - PART FOUR

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS

We now begin our consideration of one of the most difficult sections of the Bible, Romans 9-11. As N.T. Wright says, "It is as full of problems as a hedgehog is of prickles" ( Climax , 231). It is a premiere example of the common hermeneutical challenge: how can we know the meaning of the parts until we first know the meaning of the whole? But how can we know the meaning of the whole until we first know the meaning of the parts?

We begin by examining the question of the meaning of the whole. The reader may correctly assume, however, that the conclusions set forth here have been preceded by a great deal of dialectical (back-and-forth) analysis of the parts and the whole together.

A. THE PRINCIPAL THEME OF THIS SECTION

As we read through these three chapters, a number of prominent themes leap to our attention. They are as follows, listed in the order of their initial appearance in the text.

a) The Nation of Israel . From beginning to end this section is dominated by references to ethnic or physical Israel, the Jews as a nation, those whom Paul calls "my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel" (9:3-4). Paul makes several points about their role in God's plan (9:4-5,22-23; 11:11-15,25-32), their historical destiny (11:1,11-15,25-32), and their salvation (9:30-10:3; 10:16-21; 11:7-32).

b) God's Faithfulness . Another subject introduced near the beginning of this section is the faithfulness of God, specifically, whether God has been faithful to his word concerning his people Israel (9:6a). Has he kept his promises to them? Has he been and is he being fair in his dealings with them? "Is God unjust?" (9:14). See also 9:19; 11:29.

c) The Remnant . Another key subject is the distinction between Israel as a whole and remnant Israel: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (9:6b). Membership in the former is determined by physical birth, but the latter is defined in spiritual terms as determined by God. See 9:23-29; 11:2-7. A key idea is stated in 9:27: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved." This is the "remnant chosen by grace" (11:5).

d) God's Sovereignty in Election . "God's purpose in election" is another important theme (9:11), especially his sovereignty in making the choices that he does. "For who resists his will?" (9:19). He has the same sort of sovereign authority that a potter has over his clay (9:21). See also 9:15-23; 11:5-10,28-29.

e) The Gentiles . Paul also raises the question of the relation between the Jews and the Gentiles. God's elect, he says, are drawn "not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles" (9:24). See 9:24-31. How the two are related dominates chapter 11 (vv. 11-32).

f) Law and Grace . We are not surprised that the main subject in chs. 1-8, law and grace, comes to the surface again in 9:30-31 as the key to the question of why God saves some and rejects others. A major part of ch. 10 (vv. 3-17) is the point that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by law or works of law. See also 11:6,20,23.

g) The Church . A final theme, discussed in 11:17-24, is the church. Though the word "church" itself is not used, this is clearly the point. The specific issue in this section is the relation between the church and Israel.

Having surveyed the various topics that arise in this section, we may now ask which of them is the main point of 9-11. What is Paul's purpose in writing this section? What is the underlying and unifying theme that ties it all together? What overall point is the author trying to establish?

1. Inadequate Answers

Several possibilities have been suggested as the main theme of these chapters, most of which are inadequate or off the mark. Three of these will now be briefly discussed.

God's Sovereignty in Election

A common idea is that Paul's main point here is the sovereignty of God in his election of individuals to salvation. Some see 9-11 as the locus classicus (main proof text) for the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. As Moo notes, Augustine taught that "Paul added these chapters to illustrate and expand on his teaching of predestination" (547, n. 1; see 548, n. 2).

In 1839 Robert Haldane said the same thing in his commentary on Romans. In earlier chapters, he said, Paul dealt mostly with justification and sanctification, but "now he proceeds to treat particularly of the doctrine of predestination, and to exhibit the sovereignty of God in his dealings both towards Jews and Gentiles." God's treatment especially of the Jews "furnishes the most ample opportunity for the illustration of this highly important subject" (438). "So," says Lloyd-Jones ( Chapter 9 , 2), "according to Haldane, the main object of this section is to deal with the doctrine of predestination and to illustrate it in that way."

William G.T. Shedd is another example of this view. Chs. 1-8, he says, show that the proximate cause of salvation is faith; but 9-11 are added to show that God is the ultimate and efficient cause. Here Paul "teaches that the ultimate reason why the individual believes, is that God elects him to faith, and produces it within him." Redemption thus rests upon "the divine sovereignty in the bestowment of regenerating grace." After touching on election in 8:28-33, Paul "now enters upon the full examination of it, together with the correlated doctrine of reprobation" (271-272).

This view must be rejected, however; neither election (predestination) as such nor God's sovereignty in election is the main point of 9-11. This conclusion has nothing to do with one's particular view of predestination, since scholars on both sides of this issue generally agree on this. Lloyd-Jones, a Calvinist, specifically rejects this view, saying that the subject matter here is "altogether bigger than predestination." Indeed, "for anyone to exalt predestination as the main theme in this section is almost to be guilty of blasphemy" ( Chapter 9 , 2,7). Godet, a non-Calvinist, agrees and declares that this view is refuted by "the entire course of this great exposition" (336). Nygren agrees: "If one uses chapters 9-11 as his point of departure in studying Paul's view of predestination, he ends with a false picture of it" (354). See also Moo, 548.

It is certainly true that the subject of God's sovereignty in election is present in these chapters, especially in ch. 9. It is not the main point, however.

Justification by Faith

Another view is that in 9-11 Paul is just continuing the theme of 1-8, that justification before God is by faith in the work of Jesus Christ, with a special emphasis on how this relates to Israel. For example, Fitzmyer sees Rom 1:16-11:36 as one unit in which the gospel is set forth. Part one (1:16-4:25) explains how the gospel reveals that the uprightness (or righteousness) of God justifies people by faith (253). Part two (5:1-8:39) explains that God's love further assures salvation to those justified by faith (393). Then part three (9:1-11:36), says Fitzmyer, discusses "the relationship of Israel to this mode of justification or salvation." He gives the following title to this section: "This justification and salvation through faith do not contradict God's promises to Israel of old" (539). Paul's main point is "to explain how the Jewish people fit into the new plan of God" (541).

Certainly the themes of law and grace are prominent in this section, especially in 9:30-10:21. Here Paul shows why God has rejected the Jews and accepted the Gentiles: the former have vainly sought justification by works of law, while the latter have accepted the free grace of Jesus Christ through faith. This theme appears also in ch. 11 (vv. 5-6,20-23). Thus there is a clear connection between this section of Romans and the first eight chapters. As Morris says, "Paul is not here proceeding to a new and unrelated subject. These three chapters are part of the way he makes plain how God in fact saves people" (344).

Nevertheless we must conclude that justification by faith is not the main point of 9-11. To be sure, the way the law-grace theme is presented in 1-8 indirectly leads to the question being dealt with here, as we shall presently see. But the main point is something else.

The Role of Israel in God's Plan

One other view, one that is quite common but still inadequate, is that Paul's purpose in writing 9-11 was to explain the role of the nation of Israel in God's redemptive plan. "God's Purpose for Israel" is the heading given to this section by Matthew Black (122). "Chapters 9-11 are concerned with the place of Israel within the framework of God's redemptive purpose," say Newman and Nida (196). According to W.H. Griffith Thomas, this section "deals with the relation of the Jew to the Gospel of Righteousness treated of in chs. i.-viii." (2:112). "Chapters nine through eleven of Romans have as their theme the destiny of Israel in the plan of God ," says Vanderlip (70). The subject here is "Israel herself," says Moo (548).

Many interpreters think this section is mainly concerned with the question of Israel's salvation. For example, MacArthur declares that "the major theme of chapters 9-11 is God's dealing with His elect nation" (2:17). In discussing this theme, he says, Paul addresses several basic questions. Has God forsaken his ancient people Israel, or does the gospel of grace apply to them, too? If it does apply, why have most Jews rejected it? Also, is there any hope for the nation of Israel (2:3-5)? The answer, of course, is in 11:26,29: "And so all Israel will be saved," since "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Others believe that Paul's main point is to explain the relation between Israel and the Gentiles, or as Murray puts it, to "delineate for us the worldwide design in reference to Jew and Gentile." This is necessary in view of the fact that the gospel of grace is God's gift "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (1:16, NASB; Murray, 2:xiii). The practical purpose of such an explanation would be to unite the squabbling Jewish and Gentile factions within the Roman church (see Moo, 553). It was especially crucial that they be united in their support of Paul's plan to preach the gospel in a new area, according to Wright ( Climax , 252-253).

These chapters are obviously quite heavily focused on the nation of Israel. The Jews are involved in Paul's argument throughout the whole section. However, I disagree that Israel is the main point here, whether it be Israel and salvation, Israel and the Gentiles, Israel and the church, or national Israel and remnant Israel. Thus I would not entitle this section "The Problem of Israel," as Moo does (547).

2. The Faithfulness of God

The real focus of these chapters is not upon predestination as such, justification as such, or Israel as such. The focus is rather upon God himself (see Wright, Climax , 235). Specifically, the theme is the faithfulness of God . True, Israel figures heavily in this discussion. In fact, it is God's dealings with Israel that give rise to the question of his faithfulness. Has God been faithful to his chosen people? Has he kept his promises to them (9:6a)? Has he been fair to them? Because of Israel's involvement here one could probably say, as does Dunn, that "the true theme of chaps. 9-11 is God and Israel" (2:520). More specifically, though, it is God himself; and more specifically still, his faithfulness. As Piper says ( Justification , 19), "What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel . . . . Ultimately God's own trustworthiness is at stake." Cranfield entitles this section, "The Unbelief of Men and the Faithfulness of God" (2:445).

What, specifically, has raised this issue? Two things: The Jews' rejection of the gospel, and God's consequent rejection of the Jews. First, it was a simple historical fact that most of the nation of Israel did not accept Jesus as the expected Messiah; they rejected the gospel of grace. Stott declares that in 9-11 "the dominant theme is Jewish unbelief, together with the problems which it raised" (262). I disagree that it is the dominant theme, but I agree that it helped to raise the problem that does dominate this section.

Second, it was also a fact that God rejected his people (9:3), the nation of Israel as a whole, when they rejected him. That is, he rejected them with respect to salvation. This fact in particular raised the issue of God's faithfulness. After all, God himself had chosen the Jews and showered them with covenant promises and covenant blessings. Is he now going back on his word? Piper speaks of "the tension between God's word and the fate of Israel" ( Justification , 19). This indeed is a "key tension" (Moo, 548), and it raises what Godet calls "the greatest enigma in history: the rejection of the elect people" (336). "How, at a given point in time, can God reject those whom He has elected?" (337).

The issue, then, is whether or not God has been faithful with respect to his promises to the Jews. Has his word failed (9:6a)? When he rejected his people, " God's word of promise seems to have lost its validity . . . . Does not that mean that God has revoked the promises He made to the fathers?" (Nygren, 356-357). "How stands his faithfulness in the face of Israel's unfaithfulness?" (Dunn, 2:530). As Wright puts it ( Climax , 236), "The main subject-matter of Romans 9-11 . . . is the covenant faithfulness of God, seen in its outworking in the history of the people of God." This is the point. See Piper, Justification , 46.

Paul's intent in these chapters is to show that, in spite of the nation's unbelief and God's subsequent rejection of them, God has nevertheless been completely faithful to the Jews and has kept all his promises to them (9:6a). "All of Rom 9-11 is written with a view to showing that God has not been and will not be unfaithful to his word" (Piper, Justification , 217-218). See Moo, 550-551.

This section, then, is in effect an exercise in theodicy , or an attempt to justify before men the ways of God. It is not, as some have thought, Paul's attempt to defend himself and his Gentile mission. "No, it is not his mission, and still less his person, which Paul means to defend when he traces this vast scheme of the ways of God; it is God Himself and His work in mankind by the gospel. He labors to dissipate the shadow which might be thrown on the character of God or the truth of the gospel by the unbelief of the elect people" (Godet, 337).

One final point should be made in this connection. We are saying here that the theme of 9-11 is the faithfulness of God. Some interpreters identify it instead as the righteousness of God. "God's Righteousness Vindicated" is Mounce's heading for these chapters (193). "Chapters 9-11 discuss the subject of God's righteousness in view of his apparent rejection of the Jewish nation" (195). See also Harrison, 100; and Edwards, 228.

It is true that the concept of the righteousness of God appears in 9-11. It is also true that there is a close relation between righteousness and faithfulness. Also, the theme of divine righteousness figures prominently in 1-8. Nevertheless it is best not to speak of the righteousness of God as the main point of 9-11. The main reason is that the righteousness of God that may also be called his faithfulness is not the kind of righteousness that is at the heart of the gospel as explained in 1-8 (see 1:17; 3:21-22; 4:6,9,11; 5:17). In these first eight chapters the divine righteousness is primarily God's gift of righteousness to believing sinners, on the basis of which he justifies them. This kind of divine righteousness does appear in 9-11 (see 9:30-31; 10:3-6), but it is not the main point. The righteousness of God that is equivalent to his own internal integrity and self-consistency and faithfulness is also found in 1-8 (see 3:25-26), but there the issue is whether God can be righteous (i.e., true to himself) when he saves sinners. The answer is yes, he can, because of the cross. But here in 9-11, though this kind of righteousness is alluded to in 9:14, the issue is very different, namely, whether or not God is un righteousness when he does not save the Jews.

Thus, in order to avoid any confusion that might arise because of these different connotations of divine righteousness, and to avoid the misconception that the main point here is the same kind of divine righteousness that is prominent in 1-8, I believe it is better to speak here of the faithfulness of God.

B. PAUL'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

OF GOD'S FAITHFULNESS

How then does Paul answer the question about God's faithfulness? The key to his answer is the distinction between service and salvation, with a corresponding distinction between utilitarian promises and redemptive promises. Being chosen for service is not the same as being chosen for salvation, and promises concerning the former do not necessarily entail promises concerning the latter. Thus it was concerning Israel: when God chose the Jewish nation to play a part in his great drama of redemption, he did not thereby guarantee the salvation of every individual Jew.

1. Chosen for Service

God did indeed choose Israel for a special role of unmatched service, which Paul spells out in detail in 9:4-5 (see 3:1-2). Their mission was filled with wonder and glory, leading up to the grand climax of bringing into the world the Messiah, the Savior of mankind. One cannot imagine a greater privilege.

The fact is, despite all her shortcomings, Israel did indeed accomplish this mission. Nursed along by God's patient and chastising hand, Israel at last yielded the Messiah. This is something in which every individual Jew can take pride: "Through us , through our nation, God brought the Savior into the world! What a wonder!" This, along with all the preparatory glories mentioned in 9:4-5, are privileges that will always belong to Israel and to Israel alone. These unique blessings have not been taken away from the elect nation, nor are they shared with anyone else, not even the church.

Thus Israel rendered to God and to the rest of the world the greatest possible service. But it was service nonetheless, and service is the only thing for which the Jews as a nation were elected or chosen. That God chose them to serve in even this exalted way did not include and was not even directly related to their salvation. Personal salvation - justification by faith - was never intended for nor guaranteed to any individual Jew just because he was a Jew (see Piper, Justification , 218).

Thus Schreiner is wrong when he declares that the crucial statement in 9:6a " refers to God's promises to save his people Israel ," and when he links the list of privileges in 9:4-5 to "the salvation of Israel" ("Election," 91). Schreiner infers this conclusion from the fact that in 9:1-3 Paul does refer to Israel's salvation, or the lack of it. But to say that 9:6a, and the rest of ch. 9, must then be speaking of salvation promises is a non sequitur . In fact, it misses Paul's whole point, which is actually just the opposite: the nonsalvation of individual Jews does not negate God's promises to the Israelite nation, because those promises did not have to do with individual salvation in the first place.

Thus Israel's rejection of salvation in no way implies that God's plan for the Jews as a nation was a failure. The problem or challenge concerning God's faithfulness arises only when one misunderstands God's intended role for the Jews in the first place. This was in fact a major mistake that the Jews themselves had made. They assumed that their election for service automatically involved salvation; but this was never the point, as Paul has already shown in 2:1-3:8. In ch. 2 Paul addressed the Jews' assumption that their very Jewishness, symbolized by their possession of the Law and circumcision, guaranteed their personal salvation. Paul very clearly showed that this is false, and that the way of salvation for individual Jews, despite the privileges of the nation as a whole (3:1-2), was no different from the way Gentiles themselves are saved, i.e., not through law but through grace alone.

Paul's discussion in ch. 9 (vv. 1-29) presupposes that God has the perfect right to make this distinction between service and salvation. One might think (as did the Jews) that God surely cannot deny salvation to the people whom he loved and whom he chose and whom he used in such a marvelous way. Somehow this would just not seem fair! But that is the very point: it is fair; it is righteous for God to do this. He has the perfect right to make such a distinction, and to keep his choice for service completely separate from his choice for salvation. The fact that God used Pharaoh for his redemptive purposes did not require the latter to be saved (9:17-18). The same is true of Israel. If God wants to use the Jews in his service yet deny them salvation because of their unbelief, that is perfectly consistent with his nature and his promises. God is completely within his rights when he does this (9:19-21).

2. Chosen for Salvation

But what about the salvation of the Jews? If they are not necessarily saved, are they then necessarily condemned? Are they totally cut off from Jesus and from his saving grace? No, they are neither automatically included, nor are they automatically excluded from grace. The point is simply that the salvation of any individual Jew - and salvation is open to them all - is an issue that is separate from the nation's election to service. God in his sovereignty has set up a way of salvation according to his own choosing, and he has sovereignly established the conditions under which anyone may receive this salvation, whether Jew or Gentile. Any individual Jew is free to meet these conditions and to accept this salvation.

This way of salvation, of course, is the same that Paul has expounded throughout 1-8: grace, not law; and the means by which any Jew may receive it is just as Paul has explained in these earlier chapters: faith in God's promises concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. See 9:30-10:21.

It is true that most Jews are not saved (9:1-3), but the reason is that they are trying to be saved by a way of their own choosing rather than the way of God's choosing, i.e., by law and not by grace (9:30-10:3). When the Jews thus reject God's saving promises and are then themselves rejected, this is not a "defeat" for God's "redemptive word" (contra Achtemeier, 154), because this is completely consistent with what has always been God's way of redemption. Nor is it a defeat for God's utilitarian word, i.e., his promises to use Israel to bring salvation into the world, because these promises have been completely fulfilled apart from the salvation of any or all Jews.

Have any Jews actually believed and been saved? Of course they have! These are the "remnant" (9:27; 11:5) and the "descendants" (9:29, lit. "seed") of which Isaiah spoke. They are the seven thousand who did not bow to Baal (11:4). Though they be relatively few compared with the total number of ethnic Jews, they were the true Israel (9:6b) in OT times; and they along with believing Gentiles are in NT times the new Israel, the church (9:23-29). This way of salvation is still open to any and all Jews (11:17-24).

Paul emphasizes the point that it is possible for all Jews to be saved, but it will happen only "thus" or "so" (ou{tw" , houtos , 11:26), i.e., only "in this way." The way of salvation for individual Jews is the same as for anyone else: grace, not law. Contrary to the speculations of many, God will not at some point in the future establish some totally different and special way of salvation for Jews (see Wright, Climax , 233). When we understand that God's utilitarian promises to Israel as a nation did not include salvation, and when we see that all these utilitarian promises have already been fulfilled, then we are able to see how God has been faithful in his promises to Israel without having to save every Jew. This also sets us free from an interpretation of ch. 11 that requires all physical Israelites to be saved in order for God to be true to his redemptive word.

C. THE RELATION BETWEEN 1-8 AND 9-11

Another introductory issue is the relation between 9-11 and the first eight chapters of Romans. How is this section related to Paul's overall argument thus far? What is the flow of his thought here? Is there a logical connection between 9-11 and 1-8?

1. Avoiding Extremes

In answering this question two extremes must be avoided. One is the view that there is no inherent connection, i.e., that chs. 9-11 are a kind of digression or parenthesis, or an appendix only loosely related to what has gone before. For example, C.H. Dodd sees this section as "a compact and continuous whole, which can be read quite satisfactorily without reference to the rest of the epistle" (148). He suggests that it may have been a sermon that Paul had written earlier and carried with him, which he would use when called upon to explain the role of the Jews, and which he decided to insert in his Roman letter at this point. Though its contents are not irrelevant to the material in 1-8, still, if he had omitted it, we would have had no sense of a gap between ch. 8 and ch. 12 (149-150).

At the other extreme is the view that 9-11 is not just inherently related to 1-8 but is the logical climax to the argument being developed there. Viewed this way, 9-11 is then regarded as the heart and essence of the entire letter. Krister Stendahl, for instance, calls these chapters "the climax of Romans," the section to which everything else is leading ( Paul , 4, 85). N.T. Wright also argues that 9-11 functions "as the climax of the theological argument. . . . The whole of Romans 1-11 is, in one sense, an exposition of how the one God has been faithful, in Jesus Christ, to the promises he made to Abraham." Rom 9-11 is the "climactic section" to the whole ( Climax , 234, 255).

Neither of these extremes is acceptable. On the one hand, chs. 1-8 do form a logically complete unit, to which 8:31-39 is a natural climax. These chapters deal with the question of personal salvation, affirming it to be by grace and not by law. But on the other hand, looking at it this way does not require us to regard 9-11 as a mere "aside or appendix, dealing with a different problem." A more moderate view will now be explained.

2. The Nature of the Connection

What has happened in the writing of Romans is this. Throughout Paul's explanation of how we are saved by grace and not by law (1-8), a question comes repeatedly to the surface but is not dealt with in detail lest the flow of the argument be too greatly interrupted. But once the main argument has been completed, it becomes possible, even necessary, to return to this question and to address it more specifically and completely, which is what Paul does in 9-11. Thus 9-11 definitely has a thematic connection with 1-8, though it is not a part of the logical flow of the latter. It is a separate unit. The point of 1-8 would stand without 9-11, and we could understand the main point of 9-11 without 1-8. But we would not know why Paul wrote these three chapters without referring back to 1-8.

To be specific, the very point of the first eight chapters - that salvation is by grace and not by law - seems in itself to render the Jews irrelevant, to render God's 2000 years of dealing with them futile and pointless, and definitely to raise the question of God's faithfulness to them.

The argument of 1-8 is that one is saved not by his response to any law code, including the Law of Moses, but only by the grace of God made available to all through the saving work of Jesus Christ (see 3:28; 6:14). But since the Jews are so closely identified with law (in the form of the Law of Moses), and since the way of grace appears to some to disparage or even dismiss the law, the gospel thus appears to be dismissing the Jews from God's plan as well. What then has become of God's promises to the Jews and of God's faithfulness to his promises?

This problem is compounded by the many positive references to the Jews and to the OT in 1-8. Paul begins the letter by declaring that the gospel was promised by the OT prophets (1:2). He then declares that the gospel is actually intended for the Jews first (1:16). He says the Jews were given many advantages, especially their stewardship of the OT Scriptures (3:1-2). These very Scriptures testify to grace as the way of salvation (3:21). In fact, the gospel of grace actually upholds the law (3:31). The law is holy, and righteous, and good (7:12); and the believer agrees with it (7:16) and obeys it with his whole heart (7:25).

But all of these positive things about the Jews and about law seem to be overshadowed and negated by statements of another kind and by the general contrast with grace. This is especially true in the thematic statements, that we are justified by faith not by works of law (3:28), and that we are not under law but under grace (6:14). In addition, the entire second chapter is extremely critical of the Jews and their law. In the final analysis there seems to be no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (2:9-12,25-29; 3:9). The law is of no value for justifying sinners; such justification must occur "apart from law" (3:20-21). Anyone who believes is a child of Abraham, whether he be Jew or Gentile (4:9-16). We who are alive to Christ are dead to the law (7:4) and released from it (7:6).

The fact that the Jews and the law seem to be cast in such a negative light is what raises the question with which 9-11 deals. The message of grace in effect seems to make the 2000 years of Jewish history superfluous. Why did God focus his loving attention upon the Jews, and shower so many privileges upon them, if in the final analysis we are saved by grace, not by law? Has God changed his mind? Has he gone back on his promises to the Jews? Has he reversed his plan, and arbitrarily abandoned his people? As Moo (553) expresses it, "Does the gospel presented in the NT genuinely 'fulfill' the OT and stand, thus, as its natural completion [as the positive statements cited above would suggest]? Or is the gospel a betrayal of the OT, with no claim therefore to come from the same God who elected and made promises to Israel [as the negative statements would seem to suggest]?"

Thus "Paul's whole argument" in 1-8 "demands an examination of the Jewish question" (Morris, 343). There must be a "harmonizing" of the OT with the NT, says Lloyd-Jones ( Chapter 9 , 6).

Especially troublesome is the simple fact that most Jews rejected the grace of God and even their Messiah when he came. But if the gospel is so rooted in the OT, why did the Jews refuse it? As Calvin put it, "If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets [3:21], how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?" (333). If it all began with Abraham and was even patterned after Abraham's faith-relation to God, "how came it, then, that it was pre-eminently Abraham's descendants who refused to believe the gospel?" (Bruce, 183).

These are the sorts of questions that are left hanging in 1-8, and which Paul's discussion of God's faithfulness to the Jews in 9-11 is intended to answer. In the earlier part of the epistle they are closest to the surface in 2:1-3:8. See especially 3:1, where Paul asks, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?" But at this point he gives only one positive answer to the question (3:2). Then in 3:3-8 the very issue of Israel's unbelief and God's faithfulness is raised, with Paul simply confirming the latter and quickly moving on in his argument. But now in 9-11 he comes back to these very questions and deals with them in more detail.

It is noteworthy also that Paul's basic answer to these questions has already been suggested in 2:1-3:8, where he addresses the Jews' assumption that the very fact that they were the "chosen people" guaranteed their salvation. In ch. 2 Paul explicitly denies that this is the case. No one, not even a Jew, is saved by his relation to God's law, and especially not by his mere possession of that law (as the Jews possessed the Law of Moses). In this earlier section, however, he makes only an abbreviated reference to the distinction between election to salvation and election to service (3:1-2). Now in 9-11 he presents this in detail as the solution to the problem.

3. The Immediate Contextual Connection: 8:31-39

The theme of 9-11 is God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. We have seen that this discussion is necessary because the gospel of grace-not-law seems to be inconsistent with God's covenant promises to Israel. It looks as if he is relegating his chosen nation to the trash pile with a dismissive "Never mind!" To prevent such erroneous thoughts from taking root and becoming a stumbling block to many, Paul shows why this is not the case.

But there is another reason why it is appropriate if not necessary for Paul to defend God's faithfulness at this point in his letter to the Romans. He has just concluded his explanation of the gospel of grace with one of the greatest hymns of hope in the human language, 8:31-39. In this paragraph the Apostle sets forth the precious promises that are the essence of God's new covenant through Jesus Christ.

After reading these promises, however, some may be tempted to ask whether they are as wonderful as they seem to be at first glance. Certainly their content cannot be surpassed: God is on our side; he gave up his Son for us; he will give us all things; Christ even now is interceding for us at God's right hand; nothing shall separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus. What, then, is the problem? As some may see it, the problem is whether or not we can truly count on God to keep all these promises! In other words, will he be faithful ?

Why should anyone raise such a question? Why should anyone dare to challenge the faithfulness of God? Here is where the question of Israel may possibly be raised. Someone may well ask, Did not God make equally great promises to the Jews under the Old Covenant? Did he not choose Israel as his special people and make them the special objects of his love and attention? But where are the Jews now? God seems to have abandoned them, and has even set aside the magnificent Law with which he entrusted them. So why should we count on him to keep all these high-sounding promises to us under the New Covenant? If his word has failed for the Jews, will it also fail for us Christians? The promises of 8:31-39 presuppose a faithful God. But if his faithfulness can be called into question concerning his promises to the Jews, how can we depend on him to keep his promises to us now?

Even if this is not the main reason why Paul wrote 9-11, it surely cannot have been absent from his mind as he constructed his careful argument concerning God's faithfulness in these chapters. Most interpreters see such a connection, and conclude that 9-11 serves to reinforce the Christian's confidence in God's promises. God did not in fact go back on his promises to the Jews; neither will he fail to keep his promises to us.

D. THE QUESTION OF GOD'S SOVEREIGN ELECTION

A final issue that must be briefly discussed in this introduction is the question of God's sovereign election as it relates to human responsibility and free will. As we have noted above, some have drawn the conclusion that predestination is the main point of this whole section of Romans. Though this is not the case, this subject does figure prominently here, especially in ch. 9. Thus some preliminary remarks are in order before we turn to a detailed examination of the text.

Key affirmations of God's sovereignty are as follows. Even before Isaac was born, God chose him for his purposes (9:7), and he chose Jacob and rejected Esau in the same manner (9:11-13). God told Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (9:15). God's choice does not depend on man's efforts but on God's mercy (9:16). He chose Pharaoh for his purposes (9:17). "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (9:18). God is like a potter who has complete control over his clay (9:19-21). Some are prepared for destruction and some for glory (9:22-23). He calls individuals from among Jews and Gentiles (9:24). He has a remnant chosen by grace (11:5). The chosen obtained God's righteousness; the rest were hardened (11:7-8). God loves the Jews in accord with his purpose of election (11:28). His gifts and call are irrevocable (11:29).

These affirmations of God's sovereign election seem to be overwhelming, but at the same time there is considerable emphasis on human freedom and man's responsibility for his own fate. E.g., the Gentiles obtained righteousness because they pursued it by faith, whereas the Jews did not attain it because they pursued it by works (9:30-32). The key is personal faith (9:33; 10:4,10). The Jews did not submit themselves to God's righteousness (10:3). The conditions for salvation are faith and confession (10:9-10). God saves all who call upon the name of the Lord (10:12-13). Faith comes through hearing Christ's word (10:17). Some whom God calls do not answer (10:21). Paul hopes his evangelism of the Gentiles will move some Jews to accept salvation (11:14). Jews are rejected because of their unbelief, and Gentiles are accepted because of their belief (11:20). God will save those believing Gentiles who continue in their belief, and reject those who do not (11:22). He will also restore those unbelieving Jews who do not continue in their unbelief (11:23).

How are we to assess these data? How may we harmonize the references to divine sovereignty on the one hand, with the references to human beings' responsibility for their own fate on the other hand? Some see the answer in the distinction between the election of groups and the election of individuals. It is often argued (by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike) that the main point in ch. 9 is corporate election, especially the election of Israel as a nation. This is the view of Forster and Marston: "People often fail to understand that in this whole section the apostle is talking about nations and not about individuals." Even in 9:14-18, "the bearing of Moses and Pharaoh on the earthly function and destiny of the nation of Israel" is the issue ( Strategy , 59, 75). See also Achtemeier: "Paul is addressing the problem of Israel as chosen people"; he "is not addressing the fate of some individual." In ch. 9 God is choosing the destiny "of peoples, not of individuals" (154-155). Fitzmyer also cautions us to remember that Paul's "emphasis is on corporate Israel despite the examples of individuals that he uses" (542). Cranfield agrees: "It is, in fact, with the election of the community that Paul is concerned in Romans 9 to 11" (2:450). See Morris: "We should bear in mind that Paul is here dealing with the community rather than with individuals" (345).

On the other hand, many deny that the main point is corporate election. In his book The Justification of God Piper believes he has shown that Rom 9 teaches "the predestination of individuals to their respective eternal destinies." At the same time he finds "the view that sees only national election in these verses" to be exegetically untenable ( Justification , 218). Schreiner agrees, as he defends the typical Calvinist view "that Romans 9 teaches that God unconditionally elects individuals to be saved" ("Election," 89). He argues against the view that Rom 9 "relates to the salvation of groups, of corporate entities, and not of individuals" (90; see 98-105).

What should we say about this? Surely, in our exegesis of 9-11 it is important to ask whether Paul is dealing with groups or with individuals. But actually this is not the key issue, and to approach this passage as if it were may cause us to miss its whole point. The key issue is the distinction between election for salvation and election for service . Also significant is the distinction between physical or ethnic Jews - the nation of Israel, and those who are Jews spiritually - those described as the remnant (9:27; 11:5). Paul's main point, though, is the difference between service and salvation, and whether these refer to individuals or groups in the final analysis will not affect the main point.

One point on which almost everyone agrees is that, somewhere in Rom 9, Paul deals at least in part with God's election of Israel as a nation for a role of service, or what Moo calls "this general (and nonsalvific) corporate election of Israel" (559, n. 24). But the problem, the point at issue, is this: exactly with what is this corporate election for service being compared or contrasted? Some say the contrast is with election of individuals to salvation, and that this is really the main point of Rom 9. This is the view of Piper, Schreiner, and Moo, as cited above. Others say the contrast is with salvific corporate election, with the election of a group , not individuals, to salvation. Forster and Marston say, "The prime point is that the election of the church [which is comparable to the remnant in Israel] is a corporate rather than an individual thing" ( Strategy , 136). "The election of grace is corporate rather than particular," says Shank ( Elect , 157; see 114, 122).

Which of these approaches is correct? In my judgment, neither of them. Does this mean that Paul is not concerned here with election to salvation at all? On the contrary, he is very much concerned with it as a fact , but especially in ch. 9 he is not concerned with any details relating to it. Again, the main point is the simple distinction between salvation and service. This is a distinction which the Jews themselves failed to make, and this very failure was the basis for questioning the faithfulness of God. "If God has chosen us, why is he now rejecting us and not saving us?" Because, says Paul, he did not choose you for salvation, but for service.

Election to service applies to the entire nation of Israel, and to every individual within it. Election to salvation applies only to the "Israel within Israel" - the remnant - and to every individual within it. Whether it be nations (groups) or individuals is not the point. This is contrary to the common Calvinist view, which tries to find individual election to salvation in this passage; it is also contrary to the view that salvific election is of groups, not individuals. The simple fact is that in Rom 9 it is not Paul's purpose to explain election to salvation at all.

Paul's discussion of Israel in Rom 9 in fact shows that God has the sovereign right to distinguish between salvation and service. The emphasis is on God's sovereign authority to choose unconditionally any group or any individual to fill any given role in the working out of his purposes, without being bound at the same time to guarantee their salvation. In this way God selected Israel from all the nations of the earth to perform the greatest act of service possible for an earthly agent.

At the same time God is sovereignly free to choose individuals for salvation in a way that is completely different from the way he chooses anyone for service. The fact is that he chooses to bestow salvation on the basis of grace and upon the primary condition of faith. This conditional election to salvation is established in 9:30-10:21. Certainly those unconditionally chosen for service can also be saved, but 9:30-10:21 shows that salvation is given only to those who through faith choose to relate to God in terms of grace instead of law. Those who put their trust in God's way of grace form another group within and distinct from ethnic Israel, namely, spiritual Israel, the remnant of believers.

This resolves the seeming paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in 9-11. Many interpreters, especially Calvinists, are content to regard the presence of these two themes as a paradox, but this is totally unnecessary. God's sovereignty is exercised in his unconditional election of individuals and groups, Israel in particular, to roles of service in the working out of his redemptive plan. His sovereignty is also seen in the way he chooses to distinguish service from salvation, which allows him to choose and use Israel without guaranteeing the salvation of all individual Jews as part of the same package. Another expression of his sovereignty is his right to establish the system of salvation according to a way of his own choosing, in a way independent of works, namely, by grace. Those who accept this way to salvation become part of "the elect."

But it is made very clear from 9:30 onward that becoming a part of this grace category is the result of one's responsible choice to believe God's promises. In other words, salvation is conditional . This in no way contradicts the sovereignty of God, but rather upholds it, since it is perfectly consistent with the way God made human beings and configured his way of salvation in the first place.

E. AN OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS 9-11

Romans 9-11 is divided into three main sections. After a prologue (9:1-5) that sets up the problem to be discussed, the first main section (9:1-29) discusses the fact that God has made a distinction within the nation of Israel so that there are in fact two Israels: (1) physical, ethnic, or national Israel, i.e., Israel according to flesh; and (2) remnant or spiritual Israel, i.e., Israel according to faith. The former was chosen for service, the latter for salvation. The second main section (9:30-10:21) explains the criterion for distinguishing between the two Israels, i.e., the choice between law and grace. The third section (11:1-32) shows that there is still hope for the salvation of all ethnic Jews. The passage closes with a doxology of praise to God (11:33-36).

I. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF THE JEWISH NATION (9:1-5)

The transition from ch. 8 to ch. 9 is quite abrupt. No connecting word (e.g., "therefore," "however") links 9:1 closely with 8:39. There is an obvious shift in subject matter. Also, the tone changes dramatically. The spirit of joy and confidence characterizing the end of ch. 8 is replaced by a spirit of tension and sorrow.

The reason for this new direction in Paul's thought is the problem of his own kinsmen, the Jewish people. In view of the Jews' privileged role in God's plan, the logical expectation would be that they above all others should have been rejoicing in the hope Paul describes in 8:31-39. The shocking and tragic fact, though, was that most Israelites were rejecting the Messiah whose coming was their very reason for being. As a result, rather than celebrating their salvation, they were under God's curse.

Paul's reaction to the plight of the Jews took two forms. On a subjective, personal level his heart was filled with grief because of their lost state. On a more objective, theological level he was concerned that some might take Israel's rejection as an indication that God's word had failed. Though his personal grief was genuine, his greater concern was to show that the tragedy of the Jews in no way violated God's original promises and plans for them as a nation.

The main point of this section (9:1-5) is to set forth the contrast between the plight of Israel (1-3) and her privileges (4-5). How can these be reconciled? Has God's word somehow failed to come true? By raising these questions Paul thus prepares the way for his defense of the faithfulness of God in his dealings with his people.

A. ISRAEL'S AGONY: THEY ARE ACCURSED (9:1-3)

9:1 I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - With these introductory words Paul affirms in several ways the truthfulness of what he is about to say in vv. 2-3. In the Greek text of his positive statement, the word "truth" stands first, in the place of emphasis: " Truth I speak in Christ!" This point is reemphasized by saying the same thing negatively, "I am not lying."

To further confirm the veracity of his words, Paul invokes three distinct witnesses. One is his own conscience (see 2:15), which, he says, testifies or bears witness along with him. ("Testifies along with me" or "bears witness along with me" is a literal translation and is to be preferred over the NIV's "confirms it.") In other words Paul has no inward reservations at all about what he is saying.

The other two witnesses are Christ and the Holy Spirit. Paul says he speaks the truth "in Christ." This could mean simply that he speaks as one who is conscious of being in union with Jesus Christ, and who thus as a Christian is always bound to speak the truth (see Moo, 555; Cranfield, 2:452). I believe, though, in view of the parallel idea in 1 Tim 2:7, that he is referring to his appointment by Christ to be an apostle; and thus "in Christ" is an invocation of his apostolic authority (see Dunn, 2:523).

Similarly "in the Holy Spirit" could be referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit, through whose moral power every Christian can resist the temptation to lie (see 8:13). More likely, though, Paul is here referring to his consciousness of the fact that he is writing under the inspiration of the Spirit and is thus divinely prevented from speaking falsehood (see 1 Cor 7:40).

Seldom does Paul go to such lengths to reinforce the truthfulness of his assertions. Sometimes he declares that he is telling the truth (2 Cor 11:10; Titus 1:13) and sometimes he denies that he is lying (2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20). In 1 Tim 2:7, as here, he does both. Such attestations do not mean that on other occasions he is not telling the truth. They are simply his way of underscoring the seriousness of what he is saying.

Paul's appeal to Christ and the Holy Spirit in addition to his conscience is an important lesson for us. We must remember that the conscience itself is not an infallible guide. Rather, it operates on the basis of a standard of truth and right that must be established on other grounds (see 2:15). Unlike Paul, we do not have personal apostolic authority and divine inspiration, but we do have the Spirit-inspired Bible to serve as the reference point for guiding our consciences. Thus what we believe and teach to be truth must pass not only the test of conscience but the test of biblical teaching as well.

9:2 Exactly what is the momentous truth solemnly introduced in v. 1? Strictly speaking, it is the fact that Paul is personally filled with tremendous grief and anguish: I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. The cause of his grief is not actually stated in this verse, but is made clear in v. 3. It is the fact that his own natural kinsmen, the Jewish people, were under God's curse because of their unbelief.

That the Israelites were truly accursed will be established in the next verse, but Paul here certainly implies it by revealing the agony of his soul. The words "sorrow" and "anguish" refer to the emotional state of his heart, and their intensity is magnified by the adjectives "great" and "unceasing." Would Paul's spirit be filled with such deep suffering if he thought for a moment that the Jews as such were saved?

Just as Samuel "mourned for" the fallen King Saul (1 Sam 15:35), and Jeremiah wept for fallen Israel of old (Jer 4:19; 9:1; 13:15-17; 14:17), so was Paul in a state of constant grief because his own people would not accept the gospel and thus were not saved.

Why did Paul think it was so important to establish this fact in such an emphatic way? For one thing, he had already exposed the shallowness of the Jews (ch. 2) and consigned them to sin and condemnation (3:8-9). Also, in the discussion that is about to follow he is going to declare again that the Jews as such are lost, and that God is under no obligation to save them just because they are Jews. Thus Paul wants everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, to know that he is not indifferent to Israel's plight nor does he take delight in it. This establishes his authenticity; it shows that his negative judgment against his countrymen is not just the result of some personal spite against them, but is the true word of God, a word that afflicted him so deeply that he would give anything if it were not true.

9:3 Just how deep are Paul's feelings for his fellow Jews? Just how far would he go to save them? This verse tells us: For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, . . .

Exactly what was Paul willing to endure on behalf of his brethren? To be "cursed and cut off from Christ." The word "cursed" translates ajnavqema ( anathema ), used in other places for eternal condemnation (1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:8-9). Literally this word refers to something delivered over to or consecrated to God, possibly for service but more often for destruction (see Deut 7:26; Josh 7:11-12, LXX). That the latter is its meaning here is made clear by the addition of the words "from Christ." There is no word for "cut off" in the Greek text. Literally it reads "accursed from Christ" (see 2 Thess 1:7-10). Most agree that this is a strong and clear reference to condemnation in hell (Lard, 294; MP, 377; Moo, 557).

The verb translated "I could wish" is difficult, not in itself but in view of what Paul was wishing. This word (eu[coma i, euchomai ) can mean either "to pray" or "to wish"; either meaning conveys the notion of a sincere desire. The content of Paul's desire is that he himself might be sent to hell in the place of his fellow Jews.

What makes this difficult to translate is that although this is no doubt a continuing wish in Paul's heart, the verb form is a kind of past tense (i.e., imperfect). The straightforward meaning is "I was praying (wishing)," or "I used to pray (wish)"; but a past tense does not fit the context. Thus most agree that it should be treated as hypothetical, i.e., as a "potential imperfect" (Nash, "Critique," 31) or "the imperfect of wishes" (Lenski, 583). In other words, "I would pray or wish this if it could be done, but I know it cannot."

But why is such a thing impossible? The Calvinist answer is that this would contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or "once saved, always saved." The more obvious answer, though, is that Paul knew that he as a sinful human being could not be an adequate substitute for even one other sinner, much less for the whole nation of Israel. Paul's words, "for the sake of my brothers," are the language of substitution (compare 6:6,8; see Moo, 559). But only the divine and sinless Messiah could be and was such a substitute (Gal 3:13).

What is unequivocally demonstrated by this statement is the reality of Paul's concern for his people, and the depth of his grief at their lost condition. "Paul felt such love that he was willing to relinquish his own salvation and spend eternity in hell if somehow that could bring his fellow Jews to faith in Christ!" (MacArthur, 2:11). This seems to go beyond even John 15:13 and Rom 5:7. Maybe this is why Paul felt he had to multiply his assurances and witnesses in v. 1, "because it seems unbelievable that a man should want to be damned in order that the damned might be saved" (Luther, 261).

Another thing that is demonstrated by this statement is that Israel as a nation, i.e., the majority of the Jews, were in fact lost. The language "accursed from Christ" certainly refers to eternal lostness, and Paul's willingness to endure this state in Israel's place without a doubt implies that Israel herself was under such a curse (see Moo, 557-558; Piper, Justification , 45). The Jews "are really in this state," as Godet says (340). Though Dunn doubts this (2:525), he is on the wrong track. The whole discussion in 9-11 is predicated on the fact that God's chosen covenant people are in fact lost; anything less than this would negate the seriousness of the problem with which Paul is dealing here.

There is no question that Paul's concern is directed toward the nation of Israel. He calls them "my brothers, those of my own race." Paul often speaks of his fellow Christians as his "brothers" - 130 times, according to Moo (559, n. 24). Some conclude from this that Paul's calling his fellow Jews "brothers" implies that they are in fact saved. "That is, he recognizes them still, in spite of their unbelief, as fellow-members of the people of God." Indeed, "unbelieving Israel is within the elect community, not outside it" (Cranfield, 2:458-459). See Fitzmyer (545) for a similar view.

This notion must be rejected, however. Sometimes in the NT Jews spoke of their fellow Jews as "brothers." This is true often in the Book of Acts (e.g., 2:29,37; 3:17,22; 7:2; 9:17; 13:26). Even Paul addressed unbelieving Jews as his "brothers" (Acts 13:26,38; 22:1,5; 23:1,5,6; 28:17). Thus no connotation of salvation is implied here by the term "brothers." In fact, one of Paul's main points in this very chapter is that membership in physical Israel is not equivalent to membership in the true spiritual people of God (9:6; see ch. 2).

In order to make it clear that he is talking here only about physical kinship, Paul adds "those of my own race," literally, "my kinsmen (relatives) according to the flesh." See 1:3 and 9:5 for uses of "according to the flesh" in the sense of physical lineage. Compare 11:14.

Despite the fact that Paul was "the apostle to the Gentiles," he never forgot his roots, his identity as a Jew. He never lost his sincere love for his original family, and his earnest desire for their salvation.

B. ISRAEL'S ECSTASY: THEY ARE RECIPIENTS OF

UNSPEAKABLY GLORIOUS PRIVILEGES (9:4-5)

Paul now turns to the other side of the paradox called Israel. The same nation which is the object of God's curse is the one that he chose to receive some of the greatest blessings imaginable. These next two verses give a list of these privileges, a project begun in 3:1-2 and now continued in detail.

These verses also give us more insight into why Paul was willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of Israel's salvation. They were more than his relatives; they were the people who were next to God's own heart and who were at the very center of God's redemptive plan (Murray, 2:4).

One very important question regarding these privileges is whether they were related only to pre-Christian Israel, or whether they continue to apply to Jews in the Christian era and beyond. Some take the latter approach. Murray declares that the privileges enumerated here "have abiding relevance because 'the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of' (11:29)"; thus he sees them as applying to a future, restored Israel (2:xiv). Following Barth, Cranfield thinks this list of privileges indicates the "continuing fact" of Israel's election (2:459-460). Moo (560) argues that these blessings "relate not only to Israel's glorious past that she has forever forfeited; some of them, at least, relate also to Israel's present state and are pregnant with potential future significance (especially, 'adoption,' 'promises,' and 'patriarchs')." Piper agrees that these blessings will always apply, not to every individual Jew, but to the elect remnant at the end of the ages ( Justification , 30). "In some sense," he says, they are "still the prerogative of historical Israel," and even have "saving implications" (40). That is, "the privileges taken as a whole are redemptive and eschatological" (46). Dunn even argues that the privileges are "the blessings brought to all believers, Jew and Gentile, through the gospel" (2:534).

I strongly disagree with this approach. It is true that everything in this list of blessings pointed beyond the OT era to this age and beyond, as did Israel's very existence. The single purpose of Israel's election, and of all the preliminary privileges listed in 3:2 and 9:4-5a, is the climactic privilege named in 9:5b, i.e., the first coming of Christ. By serving God's purpose of bringing the Christ into the world, all of these prerogatives have played a preparatory role in the eternal salvation of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. And every ethnic Jew who ever lived and will live, whether saved or not, has a right to look at this list and take humble and grateful pride in the fact that God chose his nation to be the recipients of these blessings and thereby to prepare for the Christ and his saving work.

But this does not mean that these blessings in themselves are still actually being applied to and enjoyed by anyone today, whether Jew or Gentile. In fact, they are not. It is one thing to receive the intended result of these privileges, as does every saved person; it is quite another to receive the privileges themselves, which was true only of the nation of Israel (including every individual within it) up to the time of Christ's first coming. Here Paul is talking only about the latter circumstance. He is referring only to the privileges God bestowed upon the Jewish nation in the OT era, privileges that applied in that day to every Jew whether he was part of the saved remnant or not. But they no longer apply in any direct sense to anyone : not to Jews as Jews, whether individually or collectively; not to Gentiles as such; and not to Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles.

Herein lies the nature of the tragic irony of Israel's existence. They were so absorbed with the privileges themselves (and continued to be, in Paul's day), that they neglected and even rejected the intended result of these privileges, God's gracious salvation through Christ. They glorified the means, and ignored the end. The very people who were, by God's gracious choice, responsible for bringing the Redeemer into the world were themselves the object of his wrath.

9:4 At the beginning of v. 4 Paul refers to his brothers and kinsmen (v. 3) as the people of Israel . This can be taken in two possible ways. On the one hand, it may be in apposition to "brothers" and "kinsmen," bringing the thought of v. 3 to an end (as in the NIV). On the other hand, it may be the first item in the list of the privileges themselves, as the verse division suggests. I prefer the latter view, though this is not a serious issue.

Taking these words as the first blessing, we find a total of nine privileges bestowed upon the chosen people. They are presented in four relative clauses relating back to the masculine plural nouns at the end of v. 3, "brothers" and "kinsmen." The first relative clause is this one, "who are Israelites" (NASB). This is a better translation than the NIV. The second relative clause begins with "of whom," and has six predicates: adoption as sons, divine glory, covenants, receiving of the law, temple worship, and promises (the verb "are" is understood). The third relative clause is "of whom [are] the fathers." The last relative clause is "from whom [is] the Christ according to the flesh." Schematically the list looks like this:

. . . my brothers and kinsmen -

- who are Israelites;

- of whom [are] adoption, glory, covenants, law, worship, and promises;

- of whom [are] the fathers; and

- from whom [is] the Christ.

The first privilege of the Jews, says Paul, is that they are Israelites . Most interpreters see this name as more than just a synonym for "Jews," and as signifying more than just ethnic identity. It seems to point back to the time of Israel's calling, to the period of their very formation as a people from the loins of Jacob, whom God renamed "Israel" (Gen 32:28). Thus "Israelites" calls attention to the Jews' origin and to their unique covenant relationship with God. It is in itself a title of honor that embodies the totality of their God-given privileges.

Some think the present tense ("who are Israelites") is significant (Fitzmyer, 545). It shows that "this title has not been revoked," says Moo (561). This may be true in the sense described above, namely, that Jews may still take pride in the fact that theirs was the nation God used in a special way. However, this does not mean he is still using them thus, nor that he will ever do so again. Nor does being an "Israelite" today guarantee one's personal salvation, any more than it did in OT times.

Theirs is the adoption as sons . . . . Literally it says, "of whom is the adoption." This term, uiJoqesiva ( huiothesia ), is used in the NT to represent the individual Christian's relationship with God (8:15,23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). As Christians we are his family, his adopted sons and daughters. Some see the term as applying here to the Jews in the very same way, with the "fullest saving significance" (Piper, Justification , 32). This saving sonship would then be a blessing possessed by present and future Israel.

I believe this view is quite mistaken. Here Paul is not talking primarily about individual Jews but about the nation as a whole. The term refers to God's sovereign choice of Israel collectively to be his son: "Israel is my firstborn son" (Exod 4:22). "I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son" (Jer 31:9). "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 11:1). In a derivative sense each individual born as a Jew enjoyed this status of adoptive sonship: "You are the children [sons] of the LORD your God" (Deut 14:1; see Deut 32:19; Isa 1:2; 43:6).

This concept of Israel's adoption emphasizes God's initiative and deliberate choice in establishing this relationship with Israel. It "helps bring out the sense of election more clearly" (Dunn, 2:526). Also, it indicates that God's relation with his people was one of fatherly affection (Deut 1:31; 8:5; Isa 46:3-4; Jer 3:19).

Though this adoption was extremely significant, its limitations must still be recognized. For one thing, it did not in itself entail the salvation (spiritual sonship) of any individual Jew. (See Lard, 294-295; Moo, 562; MacArthur, 2:13.) Also, this father-son relation with Israel as a nation ended with the beginning of the New Covenant, under which adoption is now a saving relationship with all willing individuals, including both Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:26-4:7).

[T]heirs is the divine glory . . . (literally, "and the glory"). Again some project this into the future history of Israel. They say that Paul is here guaranteeing that the Jews as Jews will participate in the messianic eschatological glory of Christ's second coming (Piper, Justification , 33-34; Dunn, 2:526-527, 534). In my opinion this is again a misreading of this text and of the whole section (9-11). "The glory" refers to the fact that God manifested himself to OT Israel and even dwelt among them in a glorious visible form (a theophany).

From the beginning of their exodus journey the people of Israel were blessed with the visible presence of God in their midst in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exod 13:21-22; 40:36-38). At least on some occasions "there was the glory of the LORD appearing in the cloud" (Exod 16:10). "The glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai" when God revealed the law to Moses (Exod 24:15-18). When the tabernacle was consecrated, "the glory of the LORD filled" it (Exod 40:34-35). "The glory of the LORD appeared to all the people" at times of sacrifice (Lev 9:23) and at times of judgment (Num 14:10; 16:19, 42). When Solomon's temple was dedicated, "the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD" (1 Kgs 8:11, NASB; see 2 Chr 7:1-3).

Later Judaism began to use the Hebrew term shekinah to refer to this glorious manifestation of God's presence. Shekinah means "dwelling" or "presence" (Cranfield, 2:462) and was thus a kind of shorthand for "the presence of God's glory." As a brightly shining radiance this visible entity marked the splendor of God's very presence among his people Israel. No wonder Paul included this in the list of Israel's privileges! Of course God is everywhere in the sense of his omnipresence, but to no other nation on the face of the earth has God displayed his special presence in glory as he did to his people Israel.

Today God is present in a special way within his church (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:22) and within individual Christians (1 Cor 6:19). Though this presence is not one of visible glory, it is even greater than the shekinah because it is part of our salvation.

The next privilege is the covenants . A major question is, why is this plural? There are several possibilities. One is that Paul is speaking of the several ratifications of the Mosaic covenant - Exod 19:5-6, at Sinai; Deut 29:1, at Moab; and Josh 8:30-35, at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Barrett, 177-178). Another is that he is talking about all biblical covenants, including the New Covenant (Piper, Justification , 35; Dunn, 2:534; Bruce, 185). To include the New Covenant, however, violates the intent of this list, which is to name those privileges which are exclusive to Israel.

The third and most likely possibility is that "covenants" refers to all OT covenants specifically involving Israel. This would not include the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:9), since this was not with Israel per se . It would include the covenant with Abraham and the other patriarchs (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 26:3-5,24; 28:13-15); the covenant at Sinai (Exod 19:1-6; 24:8), as ratified at Moab and at Gerizim-Ebal; and the covenant with David (2 Sam 23:5). See Eph 2:12 for a similar use of the plural. In Gal 3:15-19 Paul treats the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant as two parts of a single covenant, with the promise aspect given first to Abraham and the law aspect added later (v. 19) through Moses.

The main point is that Israel is the only nation on earth with whom God chose to enter a special covenant relationship. This is just one more indication of their status of exalted privilege.

The next blessing named by Paul is the receiving of the law. This refers to the Law of Moses, and to the fact that being chosen to be the recipients of this law was an honor granted only to Israel. "He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD" (Ps 147:20). In ch. 2 Paul has shown that mere possession of this law did not guarantee salvation for any Jew, but still it was a unique privilege to receive it and to be granted stewardship of it (see 3:1-2).

In this and in the next two items we see examples of how these privileges overlap with one another at certain points. The law, the temple worship, and the promises are all included in the covenants to a certain degree.

Israel was also granted the privilege of the temple worship . This is the word latreiva ( latreia ), which means "service," usually in the sense of worshiping the true and living God (see 12:1). This could mean Israel's general privilege of being able to serve the true God in a world of idolatry, but the NIV is probably correct to take it in the more narrow sense of the temple services. This would include "the entire ceremonial system" of the Law of Moses (MacArthur, 2:15), and especially the system of sacrifices that dealt with sin and foreshadowed the Messiah's atoning work. See Moo, 564.

The last privilege listed in v. 4 is the promises. This refers to all the promises included in God's covenants, as well as all the other promises made to Israel. This includes the promises given to the Jewish people generally, and the promises given to individuals such as Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Gal 3:16,21), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Jacob (Gen 28:13-14), Moses (Deut 18:18-19), and David (2 Sam 7:11-16; Acts 13:22-23). See Rom 15:8, "the promises made to the patriarchs."

All such promises ultimately pointed toward a single goal, the coming of the Messiah. Their fulfilment was the means to this one end. They are like individual notes that lead into the great symphony of messianic promises and prophecies themselves, e.g., Isa 7:14; 9:6-7; Jer 23:5; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28; Micah 5:2; Zech 9:9-10; Mal 3:1. What is important to see is that all these promises made to Israel were fulfilled when Jesus came the first time; see Acts 13:32-34. Rom 9:5b is the goal and climax of them all. The promises made to Abraham and to the rest were fulfilled through Israel, in Christ, to us. These promises no longer apply to Israel today nor to Christians as such. We are not under these promises, but rather under their fulfilment. The promises of the New Covenant are different, and better (Heb 8:6).

9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, . . . (literally, "the fathers"; see 11:28; 15:8). This refers especially to the "founding fathers" of the Jewish people: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see 9:6-13; Exod 3:15). From the perspective of the Jews, the fact that God chose these men to be the foundation of his chosen people made them not only national heroes but also the greatest figures in the history of the world (Deut 7:6-8). It was certainly a great privilege to be able to claim them as ancestors.

This leads to the climactic and most wonderful privilege of all: and from them [the Jews] is traced the human ancestry of Christ . . . . This is the blessing for which all the others were only means to an end, the one purpose for which the others existed in the first place, namely, to bring the Messiah, the Christ, into the world.

The emphasis here is on the human nature of Christ. The Greek text may be translated literally thus: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." Christ's saving work required that he have not only a divine nature but also a true and complete human nature. "Flesh" refers to the human origin of this human nature (body and spirit), in contrast with the divine origin of his divine nature. It was Israel's incomparable privilege to provide the former (see 1:3).

The blessings mentioned earlier in the list are described as belonging to Israel: "theirs" (vv. 4a,5a), literally, " of whom." Here the expression changes to " from them." This shows that the relation between the Messiah and national Israel was one of origin or ancestry only. Jesus did not "belong" to Israel; he was not their Messiah in the sense of their personal Savior, since most Jews remained unbelievers. Although this did not contradict God's purpose for the nation, since their election was not meant to guarantee the salvation of individual Israelites (see 9:6-7), it was nevertheless a great irony and a greater tragedy. The very people granted the prerogative of bringing the Christ into the world rejected him when he came. Their greatest privilege was the very obstacle over which they stumbled.

What compounds the tragedy is the fact that by rejecting this climactic and teleological blessing, the Jews in effect repudiated the significance of all the others! As pointed out above, Paul is not here portraying Christian-era Jews as having a continuing and perpetual claim to the blessings listed here; these were privileges that belonged strictly speaking to pre-Christian Israel. But the tragedy is that whenever ethnic Jews hear the gospel of Christ and reject it, they are rejecting everything that has ever made their nation special from its very beginning.

This simple fact that from Israel came the Christ was the ultimate fulfilment of all God's promises to and covenants with the Jews as a nation. God's word thus did not fail, and his purpose for physical Israel was thus achieved.

The next clause - . . . who is God over all, forever praised! Amen - has been interpreted in two main ways. The basic question is whether the term qeov" ( theos , "God") refers to Christ or not. If it does, this verse is one of the strongest NT affirmations of the divine nature of Jesus.

Since the original Greek text has no punctuation, every translation of this verse is actually an interpretation by virtue of the way the translators choose to divide and punctuate it. Those who deny that theos refers to Christ insert a period somewhere in the middle of the verse, usually after the word "Christ." Verse 5b then becomes a statement of praise to God, a doxology that is separate from the statement about Christ. The following are examples: From the Jews "according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever" (RSV). "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" (TEV). The NEB is similar.

The other main possibility is to take the entire verse (after "the patriarchs") as a single statement about the Christ, which thus would be affirming that he is theos , or God. The NIV is an example of this view, as are the following: From the Jews "is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever" (NASB). "From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever" (NRSV).

The evidence favors the latter interpretation. The first three arguments have to do with the wording in v. 5b. (1) The Greek words at the beginning of the clause (oJ w[n , ho ôn ) most naturally introduce a relative clause that refers to something in the immediately preceding context, i.e., "Christ." (2) Paul's doxologies of praise in other places do not stand alone but are attached to a word in the preceding context (1:25; 11:36; 2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:5; 2 Tim 4:18). (3) In independent statements of blessing, the word "blessed" almost always precedes the word or words for God (e.g., 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). These first three arguments can be summed up together thus: if v. 5b were referring to God the Father and not to Jesus Christ, to be consistent with other biblical usage, the wording would have been different, as follows: "Blessed be God, who is over all forever."

Other arguments have to do with the context. (4) The reference to Christ's human nature in v. 5a calls for a complementary reference to his divine nature. (5) Taking the latter part of the verse as a doxology seems out of place in a paragraph "otherwise expressing sorrow and regret" (Fitzmyer, 549). (6) Taking v. 5b as affirming Christ's deity is compatible with the climactic nature of this last and highest privilege bestowed upon Israel. "Without some predication expressive of Jesus' transcendent dignity there would be a falling short of what we should expect in this climactic conclusion" (Murray, 2:247).

Over against these arguments from wording and context it is argued that Paul nowhere else refers to Christ as theos ("God"). It is true that Paul's usual title for Jesus is kuvrio" ( kyrios , "Lord"), and that theos is usually reserved for God the Father (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3-6; Eph 4:5-6; Phil 2:11). But Paul certainly attributes deity to Christ elsewhere (see Gal 1:1; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9), and a strong case can be made that he calls Jesus theos in Titus 2:13 and 2 Thess 1:12 (see Murray, 2:247-248). The title kyrios is itself a title of deity (see 1:4; 10:9-13).

Moo is therefore correct in concluding that Paul is calling Jesus theos in this verse, thus "attributing to him full divine status." This view, he says, is "exegetically preferable, theologically unobjectionable, and contextually appropriate" (568).

The other descriptions of Christ in v. 5b are also indicative of his divine nature. He is the one who is "over all," an expression of his universal Lordship (Acts 10:36), which belongs only to God. He is the "blessed" one (NIV, "praised"), a term which elsewhere in the NT refers only to God (Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). He is blessed "forever," indicating his eternality.

This concludes our discussion of 9:1-5, where Israel's "ecstasy" (4-5) stands in sharp contrast with her "agony" (1-3). This paragraph certainly reveals Paul's own deep love and concern for his kinsmen, as he contemplates their lost state. But an even deeper consideration is his love for God and his concern for the integrity of God's faithfulness to his words of promise. How can Israel's accursedness be reconciled with all these glorious privileges? This is the question he begins to address in 9:6.

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC

AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL (9:6-29)

The main theme of 9-11 is God's faithfulness in his dealings with Israel. The issue is summarized in 9:1-5 thus: in view of the privileges for which Israel was chosen (vv. 4-5), how is it possible for a faithful God to reject them and curse them (vv. 1-3)? Does this mean that God's purpose for Israel has in fact failed? "Have not God's promises to Israel ended in nothing as far as the Jews are concerned?" (Fitzmyer, 558).

Paul's answer, of course, is that God's purposes and promises have not failed (9:6a; see 3:4). The apparent paradox of 9:1-5 is easily resolved by seeing that there is not just one Israel, but two (9:6b), and by discerning the proper nature and purpose of each. National, ethnic, physical Israel was chosen by God to play a primary role in his plan of redemption. This entitled them to all the blessings of 9:4-5, but these blessings did not include the guarantee of personal salvation. Every covenant promise God made to Israel as a nation was completely fulfilled, irrespective of the salvation status of any individual Jew. God has the sovereign right to choose and use any individual or group in this manner. This is the point of 9:6-18.

Is it true, then, that every individual Israelite is actually lost? In 9:3 Paul implies that physical Israel, his "kinsmen according to the flesh," are indeed "accursed" (NASB). But he does not say this applies to every Jew without exception. Yes, some (most) Jews are lost, but some are saved! Those who are saved are still part of national Israel and participate in all the covenant blessings bestowed upon the nation as a whole, but they constitute an "Israel" of a different sort, an "Israel within Israel," one that is defined not just in terms of physical descent from Jacob but also in terms of a saving relationship with God. This is the point of Paul's key statement in 9:6b, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." God's sovereign right to make this distinction within the larger body of ethnic Israel is the point of 9:19-29. He can use the entire nation for his redemptive purposes, while limiting salvation only to spiritual Israel, the remnant. "It is the remnant that will be saved" (9:27b, NASB).

It is extremely important to understand how the issue of salvation figures into the discussion in 9:6-29. Some points are accepted by almost everyone. It is agreed that election (choosing, making distinctions) is a key theme in this section. It is agreed that Paul is stressing God's sovereign freedom to make distinctions and choices in whatever way he pleases. It is also agreed that belonging to physical Israel was not in itself a guarantee of personal salvation.

But there is sharp disagreement, usually (but not always) along Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist lines, as to which parts of vv. 6-29 refer to God's election to service , and which refer to his election to salvation . This disagreement occurs in view of the fact that Calvinism generally teaches unconditional election to salvation, and because (especially) vv. 7-23 seem to be affirming unconditional election. Thus it is quite common to see Calvinists use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of the unconditional election of individuals to salvation (and usually, the unconditional reprobation of all others to hell). Examples are Murray (2:15-24), Schreiner ("Election," 89-106), Moo (584-588), and Piper ( Justification , 50-73).

Non-Calvinists of course disagree, and usually take one of two approaches to this passage. Some say the election described therein does have to do with individual salvation, but it is conditional rather than unconditional. Even though the conditions (such as faith) are not specifically named in the text itself, they are taken to be implicit in view of other biblical teaching. A common form of this view is that God made his choices, e.g., of Jacob over Esau, based on divine foreknowledge of the lives and character of each. Examples of this view are cited in Piper (52, n. 13). Many are from ancient writers such as Philo and Chrysostom. A later example is Godet, who speaks of "God's prevision of the power of faith" in the case of Jacob (350). Foreseen faith is not at all the same as foreseen works, he says (348). See also Smith, 2:16-17.

Since the text itself does not mention foreknowledge and seems to exclude human conditions as such, others have taken the approach that Paul is here talking about unconditional election to service , not salvation. Piper (57) cites several examples. Speaking of 9:12, Morris declares, "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation" (356). In my judgment this is the correct view.

Piper (58) argues that this view does not fit the context, that it "cannot successfully explain the thread of Paul's argument as it begins in Rom 9:1-5 and continues through the chapter." Especially, it does not address the problem of Israel's unbelief and rejection, and it is not a logical follow-up to Paul's statement about the two Israels (9:6b).

One reason Piper says this, is his erroneous view of 9:4-5, in which he takes these benefits as having saving implications for Israel (49). Thus, he says, since these blessings "imply the eschatological, eternal salvation" of the people of Israel, the line of thought developed in the following context " must address the issue of individual, eternal salvation" (65).

But Piper is wrong to include saving content in 9:4-5 (see above), and he is wrong to say that the concept of election for service is inconsistent with the problem as set forth in 9:1-5 and the solution as summed up in 9:6b. The following summary of the argument in 9:1-29 shows this to be the case.

First, Paul expresses his grief over the fact that most Jews are accursed - the very Jews who were chosen to receive the greatest of privileges (9:1-5). But how is this possible? Is this some kind of contradiction? Has God's word failed? No! God's purposes and promises have not failed (9:6a), basically because there are two different kinds of "Israel" (9:6b). One is national Israel, which was unconditionally chosen by God to be a party to the covenant made with the fathers, and thus to receive the blessings of 9:4-5. This was an election and a call to service only, and it was a matter of God's sovereign and unconditional choice with no requirement for saving faith on the part of any individual Israelite. Israel's founders were chosen apart from any decisions, qualifications, faith, or works on their part; and God kept his promises to the nation and carried out his purposes for them not because of their belief but in spite of their frequent unbelief (9:7-13).

The other Israel is composed of those individuals within the ethnic body which do in fact have a saving faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Salvation is promised and given not to the nation as a whole, but only to this spiritual Israel, which is in a sense the "true" Israel (see 2:28-29), the redeemed remnant. The fact that God has withheld salvation from the majority of Jews is not a violation of his covenant with them, for that covenant as such did not include a promise of automatic salvation based on ethnic heritage alone.

Paul's key point in v. 6b is in effect that God has made a distinction within the nation of Israel, using all Jews to serve his saving purpose but giving salvation only to some. This is his solution to the problem raised in vv. 1-5. But his following discussion shows that he anticipates that this solution to the original problem will itself be seen as a problem, namely, its fairness will be questioned (see v. 14). Does God have the right to make this kind of distinction within his chosen people, a distinction resulting in two kinds of Israel?

In defense of his statement in 9:6b and in anticipation of such an objection, in 9:7-13 Paul makes a point that no Jew can deny, namely, that in the very events that gave rise to the nation of Israel, God had already made some unconditional distinctions within the progeny of Abraham. These verses are not talking about the distinction within Israel as affirmed in v. 6b, which is a distinction between service and salvation. Rather they describe divine choices whereby some were chosen for service and others were passed by, choices by which Israel as a nation was created in the first place.

This has two applications. The first refers to the distinction specified in v. 6b. To those who might suggest that such a distinction is unfair, Paul is simply pointing out that making such distinctions is nothing new for God; he did this sort of thing in the very beginning when he brought Israel into existence. Granted, that was a matter of selecting certain individuals and a certain people for service rather than for salvation, but it set a precedent showing that God was not acting out of character or contrary to established patterns when he made the distinction between the two Israels as such.

The second application of 9:7-13 relates directly to the problem of Israel's lostness raised in vv. 1-5. The point is that this lostness does not negate God's promises because his original choice of the founders of Israel had nothing to do with their works, character, merits, faith, or salvation status in general. It was simply his sovereign will to use these individuals (Isaac and Jacob) rather than the alternatives (Ishmael and Esau), and the purpose for which he chose them was such that they did not have to be personally saved to carry it out. God could and did choose to use them just as they were. The same is true for the entire nation of Israel that sprang from their loins. God intended to use them for his service whether or not they believed and were saved. Thus there is no conflict between vv. 1-3 and vv. 4-5.

In 9:14-18 Paul specifically raises the problem of fairness that some are bound to see in such divine distinguishing. Doesn't it seem unjust for God to choose people for service in this way? Shouldn't individuals have the right to volunteer, or at least consent to being thus used? And if they are going to be conscripted into service, as it were, shouldn't they at least be rewarded with salvation?

In response Paul simply declares that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to use for his purposes, whether they be saved or not. The subject is election for service, not salvation. The mercy and compassion of which Moses spoke is not saving grace, but God's selection and appointment of a person (or a nation) to have the privilege of serving him (see below). That such a person does not have to be saved to serve God's redemptive purposes is perfectly illustrated by Pharaoh, upon whom God had mercy by choosing him for a vital role in his plan, but who at the same time was hardened in order that he might fulfill that role. In like manner God chose the nation of Israel for his grand redemptive purpose, and he used them for it even though most individual Jews (like Pharaoh) were hardened.

In 9:19-29 Paul turns specifically to the original distinction set forth in 9:6b, the distinction between national Israel as a whole (used for service) and the spiritual Israel existing within it (blessed with salvation). Does God have a right to make this distinction? The objection is put into the mouths of those Israelites who are lost, as they try to blame God for their lost state (9:19). They say, if God is orchestrating this whole thing, how can he hold us responsible and condemn us for our unbelief? Hasn't God made us the way we are?

Paul's primary answer at this point is that the lost person (specifically, the unbelieving Jew) has no right to complain to God at all, since God is indeed the sovereign Lord who has by decree created this single "lump of clay" known as Israel (9:21). It is his plan and his clay, and he (like a potter) can do with it what he wills. Since it is his to begin with by right of creation (9:7-13), it is also his right to divide it as he chooses and to make different kinds of vessels from it. Some are vessels of wrath and are under the curse of v. 3; others are vessels of mercy and will be saved. These vessels of mercy are the remnant of which the prophets spoke, i.e., the true believers, or spiritual Israel, to which in this church age are added all true believers from among the Gentiles.

This main section comes to a close with this point, but in itself it does not resolve the issue of divine faithfulness raised in 9:1-5. It simply establishes the fact that God has made a distinction between the two Israels, only one of which is saved. It shows clearly that ethnic Israel's role of service had no essential connection with personal salvation. It also asserts God's sovereign right to make this distinction between the serving and the saved (9:19-29), but it does not go into detail as to the nature of such a distinction. In particular, this section does not raise the question as to the basis, or conditions, upon which God distinguishes the remnant from the larger group of Israelites according to the flesh.

Those of a Calvinist bent will insist that this is an improper question to begin with, since they are convinced that election to salvation is unconditional. But this conclusion is invalid in view of the fact that the language of unconditionality in 9:7-18 applies only to election to service. Election to salvation is a completely different issue. The divine distinguishing that separates the saved from the lost is conditioned upon the free human choice either to accept or to reject the saving promises of God. This is the point of the next main section, 9:30-10:21. Only when this point has been made is the issue of divine faithfulness regarding Israel completely resolved.

A. ISRAEL'S SITUATION AND GOD'S FAITHFULNESS (9:6-13)

The relationship of this section to Paul's overall argument has been discussed just above. It is clear that these verses deal with divine election. Morris's title for this paragraph is, appropriately, "God Works by Election" (351). But the question is, election to what ? There are, as Cranfield says (2:471), "different levels or forms of election." The relevant choices are election to service and election to salvation . This distinction relates to the two Israels named in 9:6b: ethnic Israel, chosen for service; and spiritual Israel, chosen for salvation. But which of these two is the main subject of 9:6-13?

Many simply assume that spiritual Israel is the main subject, and that God's choice of Isaac and his choice of Jacob are prime examples of how God distinguishes the true spiritual Israel (the saved) from ethnic Israel as a whole. They argue that the terminology used in these verses can only be salvation language: seed or children of Abraham, children of God, children of promise, God's purpose, God's call as opposed to human works, God's love.

A brief reflection upon the individuals and incidents being discussed in these verses will show, however, that Paul is not talking about how God makes distinctions within Israel (between the ethnic and the spiritual, as in v. 6b), but how he established ethnic Israel in the first place. Ishmael and Isaac as a pair were not the original "ethnic Israel" from which God elected only Isaac to be the first member of "spiritual Israel." Ishmael was never a part of Israel in either sense; he was chosen neither for service nor for salvation (as far as we know). The same is true of the twins Esau and Jacob.

The point of these verses is that Isaac and Jacob were chosen to be the first representatives of ethnic Israel (after Abraham himself). Whether they were saved or not, i.e., whether they were also part of spiritual Israel, is not relevant. In fact, the nonrelevance of their salvation status is the key to Paul's argument: Isaac and Jacob, like ethnic Israel as a whole, could be chosen and used for God's service whether they were saved or not. This is the key to v. 9:6a, "It is not as though God's word had failed." God's promises to physical Israel have not failed, even though most Jews are unbelievers, because these promises did not include salvation as such.

But what about the language used in this section? Is it not the language of salvation? This depends solely upon the context. In other NT contexts the terminology does refer to salvation and the saved, but it is not inherently limited to this. It is covenant language, to be sure, but covenant language is not always salvation language. A common error in modern theology is to erase the proper distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, and to project the salvation content of the latter back into the former. This is common among Calvinists, and it is why someone such as Murray or Piper cannot separate the covenant realities of 9:4-5 from salvation, and why they cannot see anything but salvation in the language of 9:7-13.

The point of the Abrahamic covenant, though, was not the salvation of its recipients. Its point was rather that through Abraham and his (physical) seed the means by which all peoples could be saved would be brought into the world. This was a covenant of service; and the recipients of this covenant, i.e., ethnic Israel, were chosen to render this service and to experience its accompanying temporal privileges and rewards (vv. 4-5). Fitzmyer is simply wrong to say that "the OT promises were not made to the ethnic or historical-empirical Israel, those of physical descent or of flesh and blood, but to the Israel of faith" (559-560).

The language of 9:7-13 is perfectly consistent with the role played by ethnic Israel in God's plan. God had a definite purpose for choosing this nation (9:11), which he did by choosing its forefathers, Isaac and Jacob. He called them into his service without regard for any meritorious qualifications on their part and without even asking for their own conscious participation in the choice (9:11-12). It was all a matter of God's choice and promise, i.e., his covenant promise to bless and to use these individuals and their physical descendants for the purpose of bringing the Savior into the world. In this context "children of Abraham," "children of God," and "children of promise" (9:7-8) are perfectly consistent with God's purpose for ethnic Israel, and perfectly applicable to Isaac and Jacob and their natural descendants in contrast with Ishmael and Esau and their descendants. Isaac and Jacob were the progenitors not just of spiritual Israel, but of ethnic Israel as a whole.

Thus I agree with Lenski (597-598), that Isaac and Jacob are not types of election to salvation: "Paul's two illustrations have nothing to do with an eternal election or predestination of Isaac and of Jacob to salvation and with a reprobation of Ishmael and of Esau to damnation."

Shall we say, then, that 9:6-13 has no bearing at all upon the election of individuals to eternal salvation? Not necessarily. The error is to take the references to Isaac and Jacob as examples of election to salvation and therefore as exact models for the way God saves any individual. In other words, according to this erroneous view, just as God unconditionally chose Jacob and rejected Esau, so he unconditionally predestines some to heaven and some to hell. But this is not Paul's point. At the most, we may possibly say that God's choosing Isaac and Jacob for service is analogous at some points with his electing of individuals to salvation. For one thing, members of spiritual Israel are "children of promise" and not "children of the flesh," even though the promises that apply in this case are not the same promises that set ethnic Israel apart from the rest of the world. Members of spiritual Israel are also chosen and called, though not in the same way that God chose and called ethnic Israel. "Not by works" (9:12) is likewise a key ingredient in being chosen for membership in spiritual Israel, though such membership does require the precondition of faith, as Paul goes on to show in 9:30-10:21 and 11:20-23.

In other words, there are some similarities between election to service and election to salvation, but they are not the same in every detail. To assume that they are would defeat Paul's whole purpose in this section (9:6-13), which is to answer the charge that God is somehow being untrue to his word unless all ethnic Israel is saved. The very essence of his answer is that being chosen for service is different from being chosen for salvation. The two Israels are constituted differently, or are established on different bases. The process by which God established ethnic Israel, i.e., through the unconditional choosing of Isaac and Jacob, did not in itself involve their personal salvation, which requires a specific decision of faith.

Thus we must strongly disagree with Piper when he says that this sort of distinction between election to service and election to salvation goes against the point of chapter 9. Referring to the unconditional election of Isaac and Jacob "apart from all human distinctives," he says it is "an unwarranted leap to infer against the context of Rom 9 that this principle applies when the promised blessing at stake is 'theocratic blessing' or a 'historical role' but does not apply when the promised blessing is personal, eternal salvation" ( Justification , 64). On the contrary, the fact is that the context demands this very distinction, the distinction between unconditional election to service and conditional election to salvation. The one thing that Piper wants to find in this paragraph - the " ongoing principle ," "the principle of unconditional election" to salvation (66, 69) - is the one thing that would undermine Paul's whole argument.

1. God's Word Concerning Israel Has Not Failed (9:6a)

9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. This statement presupposes an unstated implication that someone might try to draw from vv. 1-5. In spite of the impressive list of covenant blessings bestowed upon the people of Israel (vv. 4-5), the majority apparently are "cursed and cut off from Christ" (v. 3). Has something thus gone wrong with God's plan for Israel? Has he failed to keep his word to his people?

Paul immediately rejects these unspoken suggestions. His response begins with a strong negative expression, "But it is not as if" or "But this does not mean." He is saying that the seemingly conflicting circumstances described in vv. 1-5 do not mean that "God's word has failed."

The word "failed" is ejkpivptw (ekpiptô ), literally, "to fall from" or "to fall off of" (see Acts 12:7; Jas 1:11; 1 Pet 1:24). In Gal 5:4 and 2 Pet 3:17 it is used metaphorically for "falling from" grace. Here it has the more general meaning of "fail, come to nothing, be annulled." This is parallel to its meaning in (some manuscripts of) 1 Cor 13:8, "Love never fails."

Paul declares that "God's word" (oJ lovgo" tou' qeou' , ho logos tou theou ) does not fall away or fail. What is meant by "God's word"? Certainly what the Apostle says here is true of "the Word of God" in the most general and inclusive sense. Every word of God, including the entire Bible, is true, passes every test, will accomplish its purpose, will be fulfilled, cannot be broken. (See Ps 12:6; Prov 30:5; Isa 55:11; Matt 5:17-18; John 10:35; 17:17; Rom 3:4.) It is "the living and enduring word of God," says Peter; "the grass withers and the flowers fall [ekpiptô ], but the word of the Lord stands forever" (1 Pet 1:23-25).

In this text, though, "God's word" means something more specific. "The declared purpose of God" (SH, 240) is still too broad. So is Barrett's suggestion that it refers to "the whole plan and intention of God in salvation," including messianic promises and "the gospel" as preached by Paul (126-127). The context shows rather that "God's word" here refers specifically to his words of promise , i.e., the promises he made to and about OT Israel (Dunn, 2:539). These "promises made to Israel and its patriarchs" (Fitzmyer, 559) are the word of God that has not failed.

2. The Key to the Puzzle: the Existence of Two Israels (9:6b)

But in view of Israel's lostness and the apparent inconsistency between vv. 1-3 and vv. 4-5, how can it be said that God's promises to Israel have never failed? The answer, says Paul, lies in the fact that there is not just one Israel, but two. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. This statement clearly affirms the existence of two groups, both called "Israel" but in two different senses: ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. The former includes all those who bear Abraham's genes through physical descent from Isaac and Jacob, i.e., the Jews; the latter is composed only of those Jews who also share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation.

The literal sense of the Greek sentence is thus: "For all the ones who are from Israel - these are not Israel" (see Moo, 573, n. 19). The first group is called "the ones of [or from] Israel." This expression may mean simply "the ones who belong to the nation of Israel," or it may mean (as the NIV suggests) "the ones who can trace their physical lineage back to the man Israel," i.e., to Jacob whom God renamed Israel. The second group is simply called "Israel," but it is usually (and rightly) referred to as spiritual Israel or even as the true Israel, to distinguish it from the former.

These two Israels are not two totally distinct groups, with some Jews belonging to one and some to the other. In fact, all Jews belong to the first group, and only some to the second. I.e., those in the latter group actually belong to both. The relationship between the two Israels may be depicted not by two side-by-side circles, but by two concentric circles, thus:

We should note that this passage has in view Jewish people only, and thus the "spiritual Israel" in this verse includes only Jewish believers (as the concentric circles indicate). Other NT teaching warrants the conclusion that in this dispensation the church as a whole, including believing Jews and believing Gentiles, may be called the true Israel or spiritual Israel. See Rom 9:23-30 and 11:17-24, where Jews and Gentiles together constitute the remnant and the one olive tree. Together they are called "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). This may be depicted thus:

This is not the point of 9:6b, however. See Moo, 573-574.

A key word in this second sentence in 9:6b is gavr ( gar ), "for" or "because." This word indicates that 6a is explained by 6b, i.e., the latter is the reason why the former is true. God's promises concerning Israel have not failed, because there are really two Israels.

Everyone seems to agree that this is how the two parts of the verse are meant to be connected. There is a serious disagreement, though, as to the nature and recipients of the promises included in the phrase "God's word." Some take God's word (of promise) to be referring specifically to his promises of salvation , or "all his promises relative to the salvation of Israel" (Lard, 298). How can one say, then, that this promise of salvation has not failed, in view of the lostness of most Jews (v. 3)? Here is how the point about the two Israels enters in, according to this view: the promises of salvation were made not to ethnic Israel as a whole, but only to spiritual Israel, the remnant (Lard, 298). As Murray puts it, "The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God's covenant purpose and promise" (2:10). See also Hendriksen (2:317), Nygren (361-362), and Fitzmyer (559-560).

In my judgment this misses Paul's point completely. "God's word" does indeed refer to "the promises made to Israel and its patriarchs" (Fitzmyer, 559), but the main reference is to the promises made to ethnic Israel as a whole, especially the covenant promises made to the patriarchs regarding God's messianic purpose for the nation collectively and including the accompanying privileges that served as a means to this end. In other words, God's promises to ethnic Israel included everything named in vv. 4-5, and every one of these promises was kept.

But did not God's OT promises include forgiveness and eternal life? Certainly, but here is where the distinction between the two Israels is crucial. Personal salvation was not among the unconditionally guaranteed promises enjoyed by the entire nation of Israel. This blessing was promised only to spiritual Israel, the believing remnant. The existence of the two Israels thus resolves the dilemma of vv. 1-5. "All who are descended from Israel" experience the covenant blessings of vv. 4-5, but only the true Israel escapes the curse of eternal damnation. The promises of salvation applied only to the latter. This had always been God's plan; this is the way it happened; thus his word did not fail.

3. Ethnic Israel Exists by God's Sovereign Choice (9:7-13)

The subject of these next seven verses - this is very important - is not spiritual Israel but ethnic Israel. In them Paul is responding to a possible objection that might be raised by what he has just said in v. 6. There he affirmed, contrary to the beliefs of practically every Jew at that time, that just because a person was a Jew did not necessarily mean that God would save him. In other words, Paul has said that God could use the nation of Israel for service without giving them salvation.

This paragraph responds to expected resistance to this idea. Paul simply points out that this has been God's modus operandi from the very beginning. That is, Israel's existence as a nation is the result of God's sovereign, unconditional choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. God elected them (and the entire nation through them) for service - apart from any salvation promises on his part or any salvation responses on their part - just because that was the way he wanted it. Because of God's sovereign "purpose in election" (v. 11) Israel would fulfill God's plan for the Messiah and God would thus fulfill his promises toward them, whether they as individuals entered into a saving relationship with him or not.

Thus we must not interpret vv. 7-13 as further elaboration upon the distinction between the two Israels in v. 6, as if these verses are describing how or why God made that distinction. Nor are these verses somehow meant to justify this distinction, contrary to Moo's view (570-571). They are in fact making a point that is separate from 9:6b. The progression of thought from 6b to 7a is thus: Not all members of physical Israel are also members of spiritual Israel; neither are they called the children of Abraham just because they are physically descended from Abraham. Thus v. 7 begins a separate thought. The paragraph through v. 13 focuses on the origin and role of ethnic Israel as such, explaining the manner in which God called them into his service. The main point is that this is different from the way he calls individuals to salvation. Only when the two are confused do questions about God's faithfulness to Israel arise.

The Choice of Isaac (9:7-9)

9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. This verse begins with the negative particle oujdev ( oude ), which joins concepts that are related but not identical. Thus it introduces another consideration in answer to the charge that God has treated Israel unfairly. The erroneous assumption to which Paul is responding is the Jews' mistaken idea that just because they were descendants of Abraham, God was obligated to treat them in a certain way. Paul's point is that this is not true even with regard to Israel's role of service in God's historical plan of redemption, much less their participation in eternal life.

There has been much debate as to the respective meanings of "descendants" (lit., spevrma , sperma , "seed") and "children" (tevkna , tekna ). This debate is usually waged with the assumption that Paul is simply repeating his distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel (9:6b). Assuming this, a few proceed to identify the former with Abraham's "children" and the latter with his "seed" or "descendants." Most, however, take the reverse approach, equating "seed" with physical Israel and "children" with spiritual Israel.

The fact is that the terms "seed" and "children" seem to be used interchangeably in vv. 7-8, as they are in John 8:33-39 ( vv. 33, 37, "seed of Abraham"; v. 39, "children of Abraham").

The most common error here is the assumption that v. 7 is parallel to v. 6b, which it is not. Spiritual Israel is not in view in v. 7, thus neither term ("seed," "children") applies to it in this context. The distinction rather is between all the physical descendants of Abraham, including those born to Hagar (Gen 16:15) and Keturah (Gen 25:1-5) as well as to Sarah, and only those physical descendants of Abraham born through Sarah and Isaac (Gen 21:1-3). Only the latter may be called Abraham's true seed or children. Just being physically descended from Abraham did not establish someone as the "seed of Abraham" named in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:5, 18; 17:6-8; 22:17-18). Something more than physical descent is required, as v. 8 specifies.

On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." This is an exact quotation from the LXX translation of Gen 21:12. God made this promise to Abraham as he was explaining to him why the patriarch should not hesitate to sever his connections with his son Ishmael (Gen 21:8-21). The sense of it is, "Through Isaac alone , not through Ishmael or any other possible progeny, will come the seed specified in my covenant with you."

The word translated "reckoned" literally means "called." Here it does not have the theological connotation of "called unto salvation," as it does in 8:28-29; 9:24-26. At most it may refer to God's call to service , i.e., only children born to Isaac will be called upon to continue the covenant responsibilities and receive the covenant blessings given to Abraham. Only those connected with Isaac will be called (named, counted as, recognized as, acknowledged as, reckoned to be) Abraham's true covenant seed. Dunn is correct: "God had told Abraham that his promise of seed and land applied only to the line of descent through Isaac, that so far as his covenant with Abraham was concerned only Isaac and his offspring would be recognized as Abraham's seed" (2:547). The only thing to remember is that this covenant did not include the promise of salvation as such; "Abraham's seed" in this context is not the same as spiritual Israel.

As the next two verses will show, Paul's main point in bringing up the "divine distinguishing" between Isaac and Ishmael is to emphasize the sovereign, unilateral way in which God established the nation of Israel and enlisted it into his service.

9:8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. "In other words" ("this is to say," "this means") introduces the basis upon which God chose Isaac. Though this may well be a general principle that God applies in the context of salvation, that is not how the statement functions here. In this case it relates to the choice of Isaac and thus to the manner in which Israel came into existence.

"The natural children" is literally "the children of the flesh," or children born by purely natural means. It is similar to the expression in 1:3 and 4:1 (kataΙ savrka , kata sarka , "according to the flesh"), where "flesh" is used in a morally neutral sense. "The children of the promise" refers to God's promise to Abraham and Sarah concerning the birth of Isaac, as v. 9 shows. They are "children of promise" because they owe their existence to this promise; they are "born as a result of a promise" (Morris, 354). These children of the promise are identified as "God's children" and as "Abraham's offspring." The latter expression is a loose but accurate paraphrase for one word, "seed" ( sperma ). "Regarded" is logivzomai ( logizomai ), the same word used for the concept of imputation almost a dozen times in Rom 4. Here it simply means "considered to be, counted as, looked upon as." It is equivalent to "reckoned" ("called") in v. 7.

It is easy to see why many take this verse to refer to the distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel, and thus take it as referring to the way God elects some to salvation while rejecting others. "God's children" and "children of the promise," as well as the verb logizomai , all have salvation connotations in other contexts. (See Moo, 577.) Indeed, we may agree that there is a significant analogy between the way God chose Isaac for service and the way he chooses individuals for salvation. The concept of promise is the main similarity. See Gal 3:14, 16-22, 29; 4:23.

We must remember, though, that such terminology does not always connote the eternal salvation of individuals. The covenant made with Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob) was primarily a series of promises, culminating in the promised coming of the Messiah (Acts 13:23,32; 26:6; Rom 15:8; Heb 8:6; 11:9). Thus it is appropriate to think of Israel as a whole as "children of the promise." The expression "children of God" is surprisingly rare in Scripture. Sometimes it refers to those in a saving relationship with God (Rom 8:16,21; Phil 2:15); at least once it refers to the Jews as a nation (John 11:52; see also Deut 14:1 and Ps 82:6, "sons" of God). It is not inappropriate to see the latter sense here.

We conclude, then, in accord with the present context, that it is ethnic Israel that is here identified as "God's children" and "children of the promise," and that these terms describe Israel's role as the special family through whom God brought the Messiah into the world. This is consistent with 9:4, which says that the Israelites received "the adoption as sons" and "the promises."

What is Paul's point? He is simply reminding Israel that their status as God's children and Abraham's seed was not something they possessed by an accident of nature, by inherent right, or by meritorious acquisition. It was theirs only by God's gracious choice and promise. God alone controls the selection process and the terms of selection. In this case God demonstrated his sovereign control by specifying that Abraham's covenant family would come into existence through one whose own existence was dependent upon nothing except the promise and power of God.

9:9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." Paul's statement of the promise concerning Isaac is a combination of thoughts from Gen 18:10 and 18:14. God spoke these words during a glorious visitation (a theophany) to Abraham and Sarah (Gen 18:1-15). "At the appointed time" is usually taken to mean "about this time next year." "I will return" is literally "I will come." This does not necessarily mean that God was promising another visible manifestation of himself to Abraham and Sarah a year later; no such theophany is recorded in Genesis. It means only that God would come upon Abraham and Sarah in his providential power, opening Sarah's barren and "dead" womb (Gen 11:30; 18:11; Rom 4:19; Heb 11:11-12) and causing her to conceive contrary to all natural means.

This verse is important because it shows us that Paul's main concern here is not the general promise of salvation made to all who will believe in God's mercy, but rather the specific event of the choice of Isaac rather than Ishmael as the one who would carry on the covenant line of his father Abraham - which was a call to service, not to salvation. In fact, v. 8 says that the Israelites were "the children of the promise," meaning the specific promise identified in v. 9.

The first part of this verse specifically reads, "For the word [lovgo" , logos ] of promise is this." The term logos ties this in with 9:6a, where Paul says, "It is not as though God's word [ logos ] has failed." This shows that he is mainly concerned here with the charge that somehow God's words of promise to the nation of Israel had failed. The promises are those which establish Israel as the covenant nation, and as words of promise they establish God as the one who is in complete control of Israel's tenure as the covenant people.

Thus there is no reason for anyone to think that God has lost control of the situation with respect to Israel. Though most individual Israelites are accursed, God has still kept every promise he ever made to them as a people, as is evidenced by the way he kept one of the very first promises that brought them into existence in the first place.

The Choice of Jacob (9:10-13)

These next four verses show how God chose a particular son of Isaac to be the one who would carry on his covenant purposes. The debate continues, of course, as to whether this incident is intended to describe the way God chooses individuals for salvation. Does God's choice of Jacob demonstrate the way he distinguishes true spiritual Israel from ethnic Israel as a whole, or does it tell us how he chooses those who will serve him in the carrying out of his redemptive purposes? In my judgment only the latter point is being made here . The focus is exactly the same as in vv. 7-9, namely, the sovereignty of God in establishing the nation of Israel.

9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. This truth does more than simply repeat the lesson from Isaac and Ishmael; it strengthens it and clarifies it. Regarding the earlier example, someone might try to argue that the natural circumstances surrounding the births of Abraham's (first) two sons were so different that the choice of Isaac was no surprise. After all, the boys had different mothers, and Ishmael's mother was not even Abraham's true wife. But this cannot be said of Jacob and Esau. As twins, they were the product not only of the same mother, but of the same pregnancy. In addition, Esau was the first-born twin. Thus according to every natural expectation, Esau should have been selected as the covenant seed. The fact that God chose Jacob for this role shows unequivocally that his election of those who will serve his purposes need not be conditioned upon any human circumstance or qualification.

The grammar and syntax of this section are notoriously difficult, but the NIV generally sorts it out quite well. Literally v. 10 does not speak of Rebekah's children but of Rebekah herself. It says that she conceived "from one." The use of the Greek word koivth (koitç ) leads to some rather graphic interpretations. The word basically means "bed," but was also used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse and even the emission of semen. Thus some say the verse means that Rebekah conceived "by the one act of sexual intercourse" (Dunn, 2:542) or even "from one seminal emission" (Hendriksen, 2:319). Thus "from one" is given a dual force: not only were Jacob and Esau conceived from one father , namely, "our father Isaac," but also from just one act of intercourse . The point is to minimize any natural distinctions between Esau and Jacob.

9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad . . . . This is a participial phrase. The subject ("the twins") is not in the Greek but is properly supplied by the NIV. The whole phrase modifies the main verb in v. 12b, "she was told." The participles themselves may be expressing simple temporal priority in relation to the main verb (" Before the twins were born . . . , she was told," NIV), or they may express a contrary or unlikely circumstance (" Even though the twins were not yet born" - see the NASB). The NRSV captures the meaning very succinctly: "Even before they had been born."

The point is that God had already made his decision as to his choice between Jacob and Esau, and had already announced it to Rebekah (v. 12), before anything had happened from the human side that might have any possible bearing upon that choice. "Before the twins were born" indicates that the birth order would be irrelevant. Before they "had done anything good or bad" shows that their future conduct was not a factor in the selection.

To introduce divine foreknowledge into the picture here, as some non-Calvinists do, misses the point. Certainly the omniscient God had a complete foreknowledge of the entire lives of both the twins, including which would be born first (v. 12b). But that is not only irrelevant; it tends also to obscure the very point Paul is making, namely, that the choice had nothing to do with either the works or the faith of either twin, whether foreknown or not. God wanted Jacob and not Esau, and that's that.

But someone will say that this sounds a lot like unconditional election, which is a main doctrine of Calvinism, and that we need the concept of foreknowledge here in order to avoid it. I will reply that the choice of Jacob over Esau was a case of unconditional election. But this is not a concession to Calvinism, because Paul is not talking about election to salvation , but to service .

Calvinists themselves usually fail to understand this point. They assume that God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau had to do with the twins' eternal destinies, thus seeing this passage as biblical proof of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. Murray says it indicates "the pure sovereignty of the discrimination which the covenant promise implies" (2:13). Cranfield says it shows that a key characteristic of the "divine distinguishing" is "its independence of all human merit" (2:477). Moo says it implies "that it was God's will alone, and not natural capacity, religious devotion, or even faith that determined their respective destinies" (578).

Such statements are true as they apply to God's selection of Jacob for covenant service, and they may be true of election to service in general; but the context does not warrant applying them to election to salvation, as these writers do.

- in order that God's purpose in election might stand. This is the first part of a parenthetical comment (vv. 11b-12a), separated from the rest of the sentence in the NIV by dashes. In this comment Paul is explaining why ("in order that") God's choice of Jacob (and thus of the nation of Israel) was unconditional (v. 11a), namely, so that his purpose according to election might not fail. What was God's purpose for choosing one or the other of these twins? It was the same purpose he had for choosing Abraham in the first place, then Isaac. It was the purpose expressed when God first made his covenant with Abraham: "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). This purpose was fulfilled with the birth of the Messiah (9:5b; Acts 13:32-33).

This redemptive purpose was too important to be allowed to depend on the vicissitudes of human behavior. Thus God made it clear from the very beginning that he was going to accomplish his purpose through this particular family regardless of their individual decisions and the direction of their personal piety. He showed this by the very way in which he chose Jacob over Esau, i.e., unconditionally. This means that even if he had chosen Esau over Jacob, he would still have accomplished his purpose.

How this applies to the issue under discussion should be clear. At stake is God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. How could he shower them with the covenant blessings of 9:4-5 and allow them to be lost at the same time? The answer is that the covenant did not include a promise of individual salvation for all Jews; it was limited to God's special use of the nation of Israel as the conduit for bringing Christ into the world. From the beginning God determined that he was going to do this, regardless of whether any individual Jews were saved. Just as "God's purpose in election" did not depend upon the spiritual status of the twin he chose from Rebekah's womb, so it did not depend upon the salvation status of the Jews in Paul's day.

Again it is an error to see in this expression, "God's purpose in election," any reference to God's general method of saving individuals. "God's purpose in election" is roughly parallel to "God's word" in 9:6a, i.e., to his covenant promises to the nation as a whole. In 9:6 Paul says these covenant promises have not failed; here in 9:11 he says that God's purpose for choosing Israel will "stand" or remain firm. These are basically the same idea stated first negatively then positively.

9:12 . . . not by works but by him who calls. Like many others, Schreiner says that the phrase "not by works" always is used in the context of individual salvation; thus that must be the subject here ("Election," 93). But the present context is different. It is clear that "not by works" simply explains or restates "before the twins . . . had done anything good or bad" (9:11), and (as we have seen) this refers to Jacob's unconditional election for service, not salvation. God's choice of Jacob had nothing to do with any superior qualifications he might have possessed, and it was in spite of any of his potential weaknesses or character flaws. It was simply God's sovereign decision to choose him and use him, and this was a paradigm representing his choice of the nation of Israel as such.

This entire phrase modifies 9:11b; it tells us why it is that God's purpose in election will stand, namely, not by virtue of the accomplishments, faith, or faithfulness of the ones called to fulfill that purpose, but solely by the invincible power of the God who called them.

Many of a Calvinist bent insist that the concept of calling must mean "the effectual call to salvation" (Murray, 2:19), or "the call to faith and obedience" (Cranfield, 2:478-479). Others rightly see it as a call that has "exclusive reference to time, and with no reference to eternity" (Lard, 301-302). "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation," as Morris says (356). The terminology of calling is not used exclusively for calling to salvation in the NT, but on several occasions refers to calling to service. Abraham was called to inaugurate God's covenant plan (Heb 11:8), and Aaron was called to the high priesthood (Heb 5:4). Jesus called James and John to apostleship (Matt 4:21). Paul was called to be an apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:15).

In Jesus' statement, "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14, NASB), the "many" who are called are probably the nation of Israel as a whole, which was called into God's service; and the "few" who are chosen are probably the spiritual Israel of Rom 9:6b. This verse from Matthew, especially in its context of the parable of the wedding feast, definitely helps us to understand the nature of the calling to which Paul refers here in 9:12.

- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." This picks up the thought from v. 11a: before the twins were even born or had done anything good or wrong, God had already told Rebekah which one he was choosing for his covenant purposes. The quote is directly from Gen 25:23 (LXX). The "older" is Esau, who was born first; "the younger" is Jacob.

Commentators argue over whether this divine decree refers to Jacob and Esau as individuals or to the two nations established by each. From Jacob, of course, came Israel; and from Esau came the Edomites. God's full statement to Rebekah, recorded in Gen 25:23, shows that he originally had the two nations in mind: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger." That is probably the main point here. The OT does not record any instance where Esau personally assumed the role of a servant to Jacob, but it does refer to times when the Edomites were in a kind of servitude to Israel or Judah (see Num 24:18-19; 2 Sam 8:14; 1 Kgs 11:15-16; 2 Kgs 14:7).

This is not a serious issue except for those who want to read election of individuals to salvation into this context; they may be inclined to limit Paul's reference to Jacob and Esau to these men as individuals. Even if this is the case, though, election to service (not salvation) is Paul's point. The language of servanthood is simply a way of indicating which of the twins would be favored by God and chosen to be the covenant son, and which would not.

9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This quotation, from Mal 1:2, continues the thought already elaborated in vv. 10-12 and carries it a step further. By introducing it with the formulaic "it is written," Paul presents it as a proof text for the point he is making. The main idea is that God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau were based not on something within these men but upon something within God himself, i.e., his own love and hate.

Two main issues arise here. One is the common question of whether God's love and hate relate to Jacob's and Esau's temporal fortunes or to their eternal destinies. Consistent with their approach to the passage as a whole, many see God's love as the basis for his unconditional election of Jacob to salvation, and God's hatred as the basis for his unconditional reprobation of Esau to hell. This is then generalized into the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election as such (see Moo, 585-586).

As we have already seen, however, the subject here is not individual salvation but election to service. This election is unconditional to be sure, but it is election to service nonetheless. In reference to this verse we can see this is the case by examining the context of the quotation as it appears originally in Malachi. There it is clear that the main point is not God's attitude toward and treatment of the two brothers themselves, but of the two nations springing from them. Even more significantly, the consequences of these contrasting attitudes are not eternal destinies but different earthly fortunes.

The other main issue is the meaning of "Esau I hated." In what sense did God "hate" Esau? Some say Paul is merely employing a semitic hyperbole, in which the strong term "hate," when used in comparative conjunction with "love," sometimes simply means "to love less"; see Gen 29:33 (cf. v. 30); Deut 21:15; Luke 14:26 (cf. Matt 10:37); John 12:25 (MP, 389; Fitzmyer, 563). Others agree this is a valid meaning of "hate," but say that it does not apply here. They equate love with election, and see "hatred" as God's nonemotional decision to reject Esau (decline to choose him) and just set him aside (Moo, 587; Morris, 357; Dunn, 2:544-545). Still others believe, and I agree, that neither of these explanations is strong enough. Murray correctly observes that the treatment of Esau (Edom) in Mal 1:1-5 can hardly be called just a less intense love or even nonselection. It is "a positive judgment, not merely the absence of blessing." It is "disfavour, disapprobation, displeasure," a true "holy hate" (2:22-23).

It is difficult to think of this "holy hate," even in the form of temporal destruction as described in Mal 1:1-5, as unconditional and in no sense related to Edom's conduct - or as Dunn puts it (2:544), "without any reference to Esau's (Edom's) deeds." Here is where I believe the thought of 9:13 goes a step beyond the basic point of 9:10-12. The main point throughout is God's sovereignty in his selection of those who will carry out his purposes. His initial choice of Jacob over Esau stresses this sovereignty, even to the point of unconditionality. This quotation seems to show, though, that God's subsequent historical treatment of their respective nations was conditioned to some extent upon their conduct.

This can be seen in other OT references to God's wrath upon Esau's people, Edom (Isa 34:5-15; Jer 49:7-22; Ezek 35:1-15; Obad 1-21). In these and other texts it is made clear that this wrath is divine vengeance against Edom because of its wicked treatment of Israel (Ps 137:7; Isa 5:8; Jer 49:12; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:5,11-15; Obad 10-16). Thus even if God's original choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau were totally unconditional, his subsequent treatment of them did have respect to their conduct. This does not contradict Paul's basic premise regarding the manner of God's original choice of Jacob (and the people of Israel); it simply adds another dimension to his continuing historical relationship with this nation.

The overall main point of this section (vv. 7-13) is still the sovereign freedom of God to set up his plan of redemption as he chooses. He can choose whomever he pleases, whether individuals or nations, to carry out his redemptive purposes, apart from their own choice or cooperation if necessary. His chosen servants do not have to be a part of "spiritual Israel" to be of service to him, and he is not obligated to reward them with eternal life just because they have played their intended part in the messianic drama. There is no inherent connection between service and salvation.

Such is Paul's reply (in part) to those who would accuse God of unfaithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. He appeals, as Godet says, to "the great truth of God's liberty." Godet (351) makes these perceptive comments:

The two examples of exclusion, given in the persons of Ishmael and Esau, have served to prove a fact which Israel embraced with their whole heart: God's right to endow them with privilege at the expense of the Arab (Ishmael) and Edomite (Esau) nations, by assigning to them in the history of redemption the preponderating part to which the right of primogeniture seemed to call those excluded. Now, if Israel approved the principle of divine liberty when it was followed in a way so strikingly in their favor, how could they repudiate it when it was turned against them!

B. GOD'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND USE PEOPLE

WITHOUT SAVING THEM (9:14-18)

As we have said earlier, Paul's main purpose in Rom 9 is to affirm God's sovereign right to choose any individual or group for service without at the same time choosing them for salvation . The emphasis is not simply upon God's right to choose some while rejecting others; it is also upon the manner in which God makes his choices.

The bottom line is that God's distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel is based upon his freedom to choose in whatever way he wishes. There is indeed a spiritual Israel which enjoys the blessings of salvation, and God has determined to bestow these blessings on the condition of faith (9:30-10:21). But at the same time he has reserved the right to choose and use people for service with no strings attached, as in the case of physical Israel. If it suits his purposes, he can choose them unconditionally, and use them without saving them or rewarding them in any way.

This present paragraph lies at the heart of this argument. In the previous paragraph Paul demonstrates that this is the way God works by citing the concrete examples of Isaac and Jacob. Now in vv. 14-18 he affirms the general principle of divine sovereignty that underlies all such specific examples: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (v. 15).

This is not an argument in the sense that Paul is attempting to justify God's actions before the bar of reason. He is not trying to defend God by appealing to some cosmic code of conduct that is independent of God and to which God himself is bound. Rather, by citing the general principle as stated in OT Scripture, Paul is simply showing that God's choices of Isaac and Jacob - and therefore of the nation of Israel - were consistent with his own nature and with his own plainly stated principles of action. This is the only sense in which this paragraph may be called a theodicy.

Throughout this study of Rom 9 we must keep in mind that the main issue is the status of physical Israel . I.e., if they have been chosen for covenant service, why are they not saved? Thus in 9:14 the question ("Is God unjust?") is not about those whom God has not chosen (such as Ishmael and Esau), but about those whom he has chosen, i.e., Isaac and Jacob - as forerunners of the nation of Israel. Like Isaac and Jacob, physical Israel did not receive its role in God's plan through personal achievement but solely through God's unconditional choice (vv. 15-16). Therefore it does not have any claim on God's saving grace, and can be chosen and hardened at the same time, like Pharaoh (vv. 17-18).

Again we must insist that the issue here is not how God chooses individuals for salvation, contrary to the common Calvinist effort to use this text as a proof for unconditional election. Achtemeier (163) is correct: "Paul is dealing in this passage with the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation. He is not dealing with the fate of individuals." Dunn (2:562) warns against "generalizing too quickly from this passage. . . . Paul is thinking solely in terms of salvation-history, of God's purpose for Israel. . . . A more extensive doctrine of election is not to be found here."

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged (9:14)

9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! Paul dialogues thus with himself when he knows he has just said something that is likely to be misunderstood or to raise objections or false conclusions in the minds of his hearers. "What then shall we say?" is parallel to 3:5; 6:1,15; 7:7. "Not at all!" is mhΙ gevnoito (mç genoito ), the very strong negative expression frequently used by Paul; see 3:4 above. The question itself, "Is God unjust?" is stated in such a way in the Greek (using the negative particle mç ) that a negative answer is implied and expected. Also, "unjust" is actually a noun, ajdikiva ( adikia ). The NASB has a literal translation: "There is no injustice with God, is there?"

The term adikia has been used several times already, always for human unrighteousness or wickedness (1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13). It is the opposite of righteousness, the essence of which is conformity to the proper norm or standard (JC, 1:116-117). That God is righteous does not mean that he conforms to some norm outside himself, since such a norm does not exist. God's essence is itself the highest and ultimate norm, even for his own actions. To say, then, that God is righteous means that his actions always conform to his own essence. He never goes against himself and never acts in a way that is inconsistent with or contradictory to his own nature. He is always faithful to himself.

Thus to say that God is unrighteous or unjust is to accuse him of doing something that violates his very nature - which is impossible. Since it is his nature to be true (3:4) and never to lie (Titus 1:2), his righteousness thus requires that he always be faithful and true to his word. In the context of Rom 9, to suggest that God may be unrighteous or unjust is simply to raise the question again as to whether or not God's word of promise to Israel has failed (9:6a). "The question is - Is God righteous ? - i.e., has he been true to his covenanted word?"

We must remember that the issue here is the status of national Israel. Thus the objection stated in 9:14 is one that would most likely be raised by the Jews regarding God's treatment of them as a nation. It is a mistake to see this question as something that relates only to the immediately preceding section, and especially to limit it to the rejection of Ishmael and Esau. It relates rather to everything Paul has said in vv. 1-13. "What then shall we say - about the way God chose and has been using Israel? Has his treatment of the nation been unjust? Has his word failed, as some seem to think? No! Absolutely not!" Paul's answer has the intensity and the content of Abraham's conviction in Gen 18:25, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Why is God's treatment of Israel not unjust? Because, as 9:6b says, there really are two Israels, and God is not obliged to treat them in the same way. Specifically, he is free to use the nation as a whole for his covenant purposes, while limiting salvation only to those who trust his saving promises. The unconditional nature of God's choice of the larger group is illustrated in vv. 7-13. These verses in themselves show that God's use of Israel has not been unjust. The question in v. 14 is not so much an objection to the content of vv. 7-13 as it is a statement of the implied objection that underlies the whole chapter. And Paul's answer to the question in vv. 15-18 is not different from what he has already said in vv. 7-13, but is a generalized restatement of it. He simply shows, as Lard says (304), "that God acted according to his own avowed principles of conduct."

2. God's Sovereignty in Election for Service (9:15-16)

9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." The connecting word "for" ( gar ) has several possible meanings. Ordinarily it introduces the cause or reason for the preceding statement. In this case the idea would be, "No, God is not unjust, because . . . ." This would then raise the question as to how God's statement to Moses shows that God is not unjust. The best answer is that Paul believes that the quoting of OT Scripture is sufficient to establish his point. (See also v. 17.) Since the main source of the objection in v. 14 would be the Jews, refuting it from their own Scripture would be especially effective. This would also be indicative of Paul's high view of the authority of Scripture. See Murray, 2:25.

Gar suggests, then, that in these verses Paul is confirming his affirmation of God's justice or faithfulness. He confirms it by quoting Scripture, and especially by citing the general principle or general divine prerogative that embraces all the specific cases at issue. No, God has not acted unjustly in his choice of Isaac, in his choice of Jacob, and especially in his choice of the nation of Israel, because Scripture itself records his sovereign right to choose anyone he pleases according to his own terms. He has simply acted in accord with his established word.

The divine statement cited by Paul was spoken "to Moses." It is an exact quote from the Greek version (the LXX) of Exod 33:19b and is very close to the Hebrew. The general occasion for the statement was Moses' intercession for Israel following their unfaithfulness with the golden calf. Specifically it was part of God's reply when Moses requested to see the very essence of God: "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory'" (Exod 33:18).

Paul's citation of this statement by God raises several questions. First, does it apply to the eternal salvation of individuals, or to temporal election for service? Second, how does it relate to the overall argument of ch. 9? Third, why is the statement only positive , with no corresponding negative reference to exclusion from God's mercy?

The most crucial (and by now, most familiar) issue, of course, is whether the statement applies to God's choice for salvation or for service. Many, such as Murray, argue for the former: "In this context we may not tone down the soteric import" (2:26). Others declare that salvation is not the point here. For instance, DeWelt states that the choices of which this text speaks "never involve salvation of a man's soul" (148).

Either way we must show that our view fits into the overall context. But since this statement in 9:15 is a quotation from the OT (Exod 33:19b), this raises the question as to which context should be used to determine whether Paul is referring to salvation or service: Exod 33 or Rom 9? Lenski (611) says it is best to stay with the NT context, to take the words as Paul quotes them, "and not to consider the whole episode with regard to Moses, his prayer to see God's face, etc." DeWelt, on the other hand, declares that it is imperative to see "that this free reign of God's mercy and compassion is all related as occurring in the Old Testament and must not be carried over into the New Testament dispensation" (148). Such extremes are inadequate, however; both contexts are important, and in the end they yield the same result regarding the issue of salvation or service.

The OT context is important here and definitely must be considered. Why did God originally make this statement? It was addressed to Moses, but for what purpose? What was its intended application? To ask the question another way, to whom was the statement originally intended to apply: to Moses himself, or to the nation of Israel? Many have concluded the former, i.e., that God was telling Moses that he would be the recipient of God's blessing. This would happen not because of any meritorious accomplishment on Moses' part, however, but solely because of God's sovereign choice.

Fitzmyer says it refers to "how God called Moses" (565). This hardly fits the context, however. Others say it refers to God's decision to answer Moses' request, "Now show me your glory" (Exod 33:18). In response to this request, God says first of all that he will grant it: "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence" (33:19a). Then he says immediately, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (33:19b).

Why did God make the latter statement immediately after declaring that he would answer Moses' request? Piper tries to make the case that it is a paraphrase of God's name as later revealed in the theophany in 34:6-7 ( Justification , 84-89). Verse 19b is just "a brief, preliminary declaration of the verbal theophany," he says (88). This understanding does not fit the flow of the conversation between Moses and God, however. Verse 18 states Moses' request, "Now show me your glory." God's reply is threefold: the statement of his intention to grant the request (19a); the reason for his decision (19b); and the one qualification (20a), "'But,' he said, 'you cannot see my face.'"

This latter view is most consistent with the context and is held by many. Keil and Delitzsch ( Pentateuch , 237) say v. 19b expresses "the reason why Moses' request was granted, viz. that it was an act of unconditional grace and compassion on the part of God." It definitely refers to Moses' request, according to Godet (352): in Exod 33:19 God, "when condescending to grant the bold request of Moses that he might behold His glory with his bodily eyes, gives him to understand that nothing in him . . . merited such a favor." See also DeWelt, 148; GRe, 364.

In my judgment the view just described is correct, being true to the context and to the terminology used (as will be explained shortly). But I have concluded that this is not the whole picture, and that the statement in 33:19b must be taken also in the broader context of the immediate crisis concerning Israel, and thus also applies to the nation as a whole. Only then is it relevant to Paul's argument in Rom 9.

Israel's episode with the golden calf, as an act of great sin and even apostasy, certainly raised the question of the salvation of those who were involved (Exod 32:25-35). But it also raised the question of Israel's preservation as the people chosen to serve God's covenant purposes. Moses was very concerned with the latter, especially when God told the people that from that point on he would not be personally present among them on their journey (33:3-5). The visible presence of God had up to that time been a crucial factor in their lives (33:7-11), and Moses argued before God that without his continuing visible presence among them they would not really know if they were still God's unique people, nor would anyone else know (33:12-16).

At this point in the narrative the issue is not the eternal salvation of individual Jews, but Israel's preservation as a nation and her continuing role in God's plan. In reference to God's threat to withdraw his presence, Moses reminds him, "Remember that this nation is your people" (33:13). Certainly it is true that Moses' prayer is "for the salvation of the whole people," to use Calvin's words (356), but the point is not the eternal salvation of individual Jews but the temporal preservation of the nation as such. See Fitzmyer, 566.

In the face of Moses' intercessory prayer God relents and tells Moses that he will indeed once more bestow his personal presence upon them (33:15,17). This is the point at which Moses makes his bold request, "Now show me your glory" (33:18), i.e., as an assurance that he and Israel had been restored to God's favor. What follows is the marvelous event of God's unique revelation to Moses, both visibly and audibly (33:19-34:7). Moses' response is a final and humble plea for the nation's reinstatement as God's "inheritance" (34:8-9), though they obviously did not deserve it. God concludes the matter by reestablishing his covenant with Moses and with Israel (34:10-28).

The point is that the critical statement in 33:19b refers not only to God's sovereignty in his choice of which prayers to answer (according to which he granted Moses' request), but also to his sovereignty in his choice of those who will serve him in the accomplishment of his plan of redemption. That God answered Moses' prayer and showed himself to Moses in a unique way was symbolic of his intention to relent and once more to grace the nation with his presence. His ultimate answer to Moses' prayer was in "His sparing the people and continuing to guide and protect them" (MacArthur, 2:32).

In this light we can see why Paul chose to quote Exod 33:19b in support of his own argument that God's word toward Israel has not failed and therefore that he cannot be accused of injustice in his treatment of them. The issue in Exod 33 and Rom 9 is very much the same: not the salvation of individuals, but the role of the nation in God's plan. The point is that God is free to choose whomever he will, according to whatever conditions he pleases.

One main problem that many will have with this interpetation is the meaning of the terms "have mercy" and "have compassion." Do not these terms refer to eternal salvation? Not necessarily. These terms and their Hebrew counterparts have a variety of uses, depending upon context.

The second word in God's statement is "have compassion": racham ) in Exod 33:19b and oijkteivrw (oikteirô ) here. This verb and its cognates (words with the same root) refer to the attitude of compassion, mercy, or pity upon someone in any kind of need. It can refer to God's compassion upon the lost, leading to salvation (see Isa 55:7; Rom 12:1), but it can also refer to divine or human compassion expressed in temporal ways (see Luke 6:36; Heb 10:28). In the OT, racham is frequently used for God's temporal blessings upon his people, either as bestowed or as withheld (see Isa 14:1; Jer 13:14; 21:7; 33:26; 42:12; Zech 10:6). As Ezek 39:25 says, "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will now bring Jacob back from captivity and will have compassion [ racham ] on all the people of Israel."

The first word in God's statement, "have mercy," is used much more often in both testaments. The Hebrew word in Exod 33:19b is /nj ( chanan ). Because it is sometimes translated "be gracious" (as in the NASB in Exod 33:19b), and because its noun form (/j, chçn ) is often translated "grace," some just assume that it refers to saving grace in this text. The word does have that meaning in some contexts; but saving grace is actually one of its lesser meanings. Basically it means to do someone a favor, to show favor, to be merciful and kind, or to bestow a blessing. Human beings are said to be merciful (gracious) to other people, and God is said to be merciful (gracious) to various people.

The word is often used as a preface to prayer, as in Ps 27:7: "Hear my voice when I call, O LORD; be merciful to me and answer me." Thus in Exod 33:19b, when God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," he could very well be simply saying to Moses, "All right, Moses; I will answer your prayer this time; but remember that it is my sovereign prerogative to determine which prayers I will answer and which I will deny."

God's mercy (grace, favor) is sometimes the grace of forgiveness and salvation for individuals (Ps 51:1), but more often it refers to some temporal blessing (Gen 33:5,11; 2 Sam 12:22). The nation of Israel as such is often the recipient of such temporal mercy (favor, grace). For example, Ps 102:13 says, "You will arise and have compassion on Zion, for it is time to show favor to her." See also 2 Kgs 13:23; Isa 30:18-19; Amos 5:15. Thus it is completely consistent with the meaning of the word chanan to interpret Exod 33:19b as referring to God's sovereign choice to spare the people of Israel and to continue to use them as his servant nation.

In Rom 9:15 the Greek word used to translate chanan is ejleevw ( eleëô ), and it, too, has a range of meanings other than saving mercy (as does its noun form, e[leo" , eleos ). A few times it does refer to salvation (1 Tim 1:13,16; 1 Pet 2:10). More often, though, it refers to showing compassion to the poor, sick, or needy (Rom 12:8; Phil 2:27). Thus it is used as a prelude to a request for such mercy: "Have mercy on me, and help me" (e.g., Matt 9:27; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30-31; Luke 16:24). Most significantly, it is sometimes used to refer to God's choosing or calling someone for service, specifically, Paul's call to apostleship: 1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1. This last meaning is the one Paul intends in 9:15, I believe; and it has special reference to God's choice of the nation of Israel to play a crucial role in his covenant purposes. In other words, when God chooses anyone for service, it is the bestowal of a great favor upon that person (or nation), whether that person (or nation) is saved or not.

The next question is how Paul's citation of Exod 33:19b relates to his overall argument in Rom 9. The answer should be obvious. At stake is the righteousness or faithfulness of God in relation to Israel. Does not his choosing of Israel for covenant service imply that all Jewish people should be saved? No, says Paul; as in his choice of Isaac and Jacob, God chooses as it pleases him. He is free to choose whomever he likes. He can choose and use people, including the whole nation of Israel, whether they are saved or not. Salvation is neither a prerequisite for nor a necessary result of such a choice. The quote from Exod 33:19b states this as a general principle; the example of Pharaoh in 9:17-18 is a specific example.

The last question about v. 15 is, why does the statement refer only to a positive choice, i.e., one grounded in mercy and compassion? Why is there no reference to God's sovereign rejection of others? This question is meaningful only when one concludes that the passage is talking about the eternal salvation of individuals rather than election to service. For those who hold the former view, the issue is whether or not there is such a thing as double predestination, i.e., both election to salvation and reprobation to damnation.

Some see such a double predestination in vv. 7-13,18,21-24; thus they accept it as an inference in v. 15. Others see v. 15 as softening the negative side of predestination elsewhere in the chapter. It "shows that God is out to secure mercy, not condemnation," says Morris (359). A "symmetry between grace and wrath . . . is missing here," says Achtemeier, since Paul "speaks exclusively of God's decision to be merciful." Indeed, "the whole discussion is marked rather by the asymmetry of a dominating grace" (162). See Cranfield, 2:483-484.

This whole discussion is meaningful, however, only if this chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals. If it is, the double-predestination folks are correct. To say that God is free to show saving mercy unconditionally on whomever he chooses definitely implies that he is free to withhold saving mercy unconditionally from whomever he chooses, and his decision to do the former necessarily entails his decision to do the latter. Such a decision to withhold mercy is in effect a decision to send these nonrecipients to hell, with all the resulting negative implications for the nature of God.

This is why it is so important to see that the issue is not a kind of sovereignty by which God chooses some for salvation and condemns others to hell. Rather, the issue in vv. 7-13 is his sovereignty in choosing one (Isaac, Jacob) rather than another (Ishmael, Esau) for a role of service, and the issue in the chapter as a whole is his sovereignty in choosing and using the nation of Israel apart from the promise of individual salvation. Such choosing of Isaac, Jacob and national Israel was a matter of (temporal) mercy and favor, but the nonchoosing of Ishmael and Esau was not ipso facto an act of eternal condemnation. Those who were not so chosen are just no longer relevant to the discussion. Thus to have added, "I will condemn whomever I will condemn" would have been irrelevant and beside the point, not to mention untrue. Even the references to Pharaoh and hardening in 9:17-18 are not about condemnation as such.

9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Since the issue in this context is not the eternal salvation of individuals, the considerable amount of rhetoric that attempts to extract Calvinist unconditional election from this verse is wasted. Since the subject is the election of individuals and groups for service, all conclusions concerning divine sovereignty and unconditionality in election must instead be applied thereto. Further argument on this point is unnecessary.

The main point is that God's final decision to select someone for his covenant service is based not upon anything in the person himself, but entirely and only upon the divine purpose. If it is God's purpose to choose someone, he will do so, whether that person is willing or unwilling, or whether he is prepared or not. Of course, God would rather use a willing person who will devote his entire strength to God's cause. Also, for those tasks that require someone who is especially gifted and trained, God will prepare such a person through his providential control of life circumstances. Examples are Moses and Paul. But for other tasks he can use those who are unwilling and even hostile toward him. Examples are Balaam (Num 22-24) and, of course, Pharaoh (9:17-18). Many in Israel were in this last category.

The thought of this verse is not different from that of v. 15, and is set forth as a logical conclusion ("therefore") from it. The subject of v. 16 ("it") is not stated but must be supplied from the context. "Mercy" is the choice of many (e.g., SH, 254; Cranfield, 2:484; Moo, 593), and those who interpret the entire passage in terms of election to salvation naturally take this to be saving mercy, eternal life, or being a child of God (e.g., Hendriksen, 2:325; MacArthur, 2:32; Stott, 269). It is best not to take "mercy" as the subject, however, since whatever the subject is, it depends "on God's mercy." In keeping with our overall interpretation, I believe the subject is simply "being chosen for God's service."

Being thus chosen does not depend upon human desire or willing. Jacob is a perfect example; he was chosen before he was born and contrary to the will of his father Isaac (Gen 27). Nor does it depend on human effort. "Effort" is literally "the running one" or "the one who runs." This refers to "moral attainment" (Piper, Justification , 153), or vigorous, purposeful striving as in the running of a race. Paul uses this metaphor often, sometimes for the work of his apostolic ministry. These two terms together "sum up the totality of man's capacity," his motivation and his action (Dunn, 2:553; see Phil 2:13). Sometimes this motivation and this action are good, sometimes bad. Either way, as Dunn says, "they are not factors in election, neither in the initial choice nor in its maintenance" (2:553). This applies, of course, to election to service in general, and specifically to God's purpose for Israel. As Dunn says, "God's purpose is not conditioned on Israel's good will and effort" (2:562).

Such election for service is a matter of "the one who shows mercy, namely, God," as the text literally says. This simply repeats v. 15, where we saw that "showing mercy" refers to the mercy God bestows in choosing someone to serve his covenant purposes.

3. God's Purposes Can Be Served by the Unsaved (9:17-18)

9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Paul takes this quote directly from Exod 9:16. Obviously "the Scripture" did not say this to Pharaoh. God himself, through Moses, spoke these words to him. By thus personifying Scripture and thinking of it as interchangeable with God himself, Paul shows us his very high view of the nature of the Bible. This phenomenon is "a graphic illustration that Paul thinks of scripture as the word of God," says Dunn (2:553). "The Scripture says" is essentially the same as "God says." A similar equation is seen in Gal 3:8.

How are vv. 17-18 related to the preceding verses? This depends on how we understand the word "for" ( gar ) at the beginning of v. 17. Some say that gar ties this verse sequentially to v. 16, making vv. 17-18 an example of the principle in v. 16 (Achtemeier, 162), or "a development of v 16" (Dunn, 2:553). This is possible, but I believe it is more likely that the gar in v. 17 is parallel to the gar in v. 15, each relating equally to v. 14. Thus vv. 15-16 and vv. 17-18 are two distinct points, each confirming that God's treatment of the Jews is not unjust (v. 14) by citing data from the OT. See Lenski, 613; Cranfield, 2:485; Moo, 593-594.

What, then, is the progression of Paul's argument? First, God's treatment of the Jews is not unjust because he has complete sovereignty in the way he chooses those who will serve his purposes. The way he chose Isaac and Jacob demonstrates this by example (vv. 7-13), and this is further confirmed by the citation of the general principle from Exod 33:19b (vv. 14-16). All of this together shows that God is free to choose whomever he pleases for roles of service.

But this by itself does not fully address the issue of the Jews. The question specifically is whether God is unjust because he called the nation of Israel into his service while at the same time condemning many if not most individual Jews to hell. If God is going to use them, is he not thereby obligated to save them? This is the point addressed in vv. 17-18. Here Paul shows from the OT that God's sovereignty in election for service includes the prerogative of choosing and using someone without saving them. His premiere example is Pharaoh. Not only was he chosen ("shown mercy"), but he was also hardened (confirmed in his unbelief).

A very common approach to this text is to take Pharaoh as an example of reprobation (condemnation to hell), in contrast with Moses, who is an example of election to salvation . Verses 15-18 are taken as parallel to the two parts of v. 13. "Jacob I loved" is equivalent to the positive example of Moses in vv. 15-16, while "Esau I hated" corresponds to the negative example of Pharaoh in vv. 17-18 (Moo, 593; Morris, 360). According to Pendleton (MP, 398), Moses and Pharaoh are a pair between whom God chooses, just as he chose between Isaac and Ishmael, and between Jacob and Esau. And in this "third case he granted favor to Moses, and meted out punishment to Pharaoh."

I believe this approach is a very serious error, not only because the context is not dealing with the question of eternal destinies, but also because it is not warranted by what the text specifically says about Pharaoh and the others. For one thing, Moses is not introduced here as the object of election, whether for service or for salvation. He is simply the one to whom God spoke the statement in 9:15 and is not being used as an example of anything. Thus it is not proper to speak of a "contrast between Moses and Pharaoh." For another thing, there is no parallel between Esau and Pharaoh. Esau was not chosen for anything; but Pharaoh was chosen for a significant role, a fact that is crucial for Paul's point. (This is contrary to Dunn's assertion that Pharaoh "filled the same sort of antithetical role" toward Israel that Esau did [2:563].)

God's rejection and punishment of Pharaoh are indeed significant, but not as a parallel with Ishmael and Esau, and not even as a contrast with Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. They are significant only insofar as they make Pharaoh an exact parallel of the nation of Israel itself. God chose both Israel and Pharaoh for a role of service, and he used both of them not only despite their hardness of heart, but even because of it. Pharaoh is not an example of God's freedom to reject whom he will, contrary to Godet (352-353). Rather, he is an example of God's freedom to elect some for service while at the same time withholding salvation from them. Thus Pharaoh is a special kind of example of "God's freedom and sovereignty in the choice of instruments to achieve his end" (Fitzmyer, 568). The pagan King Cyrus is another such example (Isa 44:28-45:7).

In Exod 9:16 the LXX translates the Hebrew word for "raised up" with diathrevw (diatçreô ), "to keep, to preserve." Thus some, following the LXX, interpret God to be saying in Exod 9:16 that he has preserved Pharaoh alive or spared his life, in contrast with Exod 9:15. The NASB translates v. 16, "But, indeed, for this cause I have allowed you to remain." Hendriksen (2:325) says it means "spared you" both in Exodus and here in 9:17. The majority of interpreters, however, rightly take the Hebrew verb (literally, "I have caused you to stand") in a more general sense, as referring to God's causing Pharaoh to appear on the stage of history at this particular time for this particular purpose. See Cranfield, 2:486; Godet, 353; Moo, 595; Morris, 360; Murray, 2:27.

Thus in the affirmation "I raised you up," God is saying that he exercised his sovereign prerogative to choose Pharaoh for a very specific role in his redemptive plan. "For this very purpose" stresses the fact that Pharaoh was being used by God, even when it seemed that he was most emphatically opposing God. He was carrying out the divine purpose in and through his hardened heart.

God's purpose for Pharaoh was twofold: to be an instrument for displaying God's power and for proclaiming God's name in all the earth. The power to which God refers is not the power to save individuals from their sins (1:16), but the power to overthrow opposing earthly rulers and their so-called deities, and thereby the power to deliver his people from Egyptian slavery and oppression. How did God display this power "in" or "through" Pharaoh? By hardening his heart so that he continued to refuse to let the people go, thereby giving God the opportunity to add plague upon plague all the way to the climactic death of the Egyptian firstborn. What God needed from Pharaoh was not his immediate acquiescence but his continuing resistance. This he achieved by his providential power to harden the Egyptian's heart (GRu, 203), thus providing the occasion for the public and overwhelming display of his might.

The second part of God's purpose for Pharaoh (a direct consequence of the first) was the proclamation of the name of the true God in all the inhabited earth. "My name" does not have to refer to any one particular name, such as Exod 3:14, or Exod 33:19 or 34:6-7. The point is simply that God intended his utter defeat of Pharaoh's gods (via the plagues) and Pharaoh's forces (in the Red Sea) to be trumpeted abroad, so that everyone would know that Israel's God was the one true God, and that all other so-called "gods" are nothings.

In fact, thanks to the way God used Pharaoh through the whole episode of the Exodus, God's name and power were magnified in all the nations. The Song of Moses included these words: "The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away" (Exod 15:14-15; see vv. 16-17). See Joshua 2:9-11; 9:9; 11:1-4 for the fulfillment of these words.

The display of power in Egypt was a continuing testimony to God's omnipotence for the Israelites themselves (Deut 6:22; 7:18-19; 11:1-4), and it continued to be celebrated throughout their history (Ps 78:12-13; 105:26-38; 106:9-11; 135:9; 136:10-15; Acts 7:36).

The main point is that God is free to use as his instruments even hardened unbelievers; this is not contrary to his justice (v. 14). That God was justified in using Pharaoh thus was something any Jew would have granted. Paul simply wanted the Jews to see that the same principle applied to them as a nation. They could serve God's purposes, whether as individuals they were believers or not.

9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. "Therefore" indicates this is the logical conclusion or summarized result, not just from vv. 15-17, but from the whole discussion in vv. 6-17.

Two errors must be avoided from the outset. One error is the common assumption that this statement applies to eternal destinies, and that it therefore confirms the Calvinist concept of unconditional election (see, e.g., Moo, 596-599). But as we have stressed repeatedly, the subject of this section is not eternal salvation but election to service. That is true of this verse also. Cranfield (2:489) is correct: "The assumption that Paul is here thinking of the ultimate destiny of the individual, of his final salvation or final ruin, is not justified by the text."

The other error is the assumption that the objects of the two verbs, "have mercy on" and "harden," are exclusive and cannot refer to the same individual or group. This error naturally follows from the first, and is accepted without question by those who think the subject is eternal destinies.

Once these two errors are accepted, it is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion of double predestination. The parallelism between the two sides of Paul's statement would seem to make the condemnation as unconditional as the salvation. Yet sometimes even the most ardent Calvinists interject qualifications. Moo, for example, while acknowledging the "strict parallelism" here (597), nevertheless declares that the showing of mercy and the hardening "are not equivalent acts" (599-600). Likewise Murray, who says the divine sovereignty is "as ultimate in the negative as in the positive" (2:27), softens the negative by saying that the hardening was "judicial," or "presupposes ill-desert" (2:29). However, such qualifications are inconsistent with the parallelism of this verse and with the references to the irrelevance of works in other verses (9:11-12,16). They are introduced in order to avoid the harsh conclusion that unconditional reprobation is equally ultimate with unconditional salvation.

Both of the errors mentioned above, along with their necessary implication of double predestination, are easily avoided by understanding that the sovereign choices to which Paul refers in 9:18 are for historical roles of service, not eternal destinies. As Achtemeier says, "Paul is dealing in this passage with the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation. He is not dealing with the fate of individuals" (162-163).

The divine sovereignty in this matter is the main emphasis: "on whom he wants." This verb is qevlw (thelô ), "to wish, to will." God's choice of the one to receive mercy and the one to harden is purely a matter of his own will. He does not have to justify his choices; his sovereignty is grounded in the very fact that he is, after all, God . Just because he is God, he "is free to choose whom he will for what he will" (MP, 400).

The common approach to this verse, whether seen as dealing with salvation or service, is that 18a refers to Moses and 18b to Pharaoh. Murray's statement is typical: "As Moses, in this context, exemplifies mercy, so Pharaoh hardening" (2:28). The verse means that "Moses was redeemed and Pharaoh was not," says MacArthur (2:35). Cranfield generalizes the disjunction as it refers to service: God gives some a positive role in which they serve consciously and voluntarily; he gives others a negative role in which they serve unconsciously and involuntarily (2:488).

In my judgment, though, this is not the point of v. 18. The mercy and the hardening are not exclusive, but may be bestowed upon the same person (or group). We have already seen that "having mercy" in this context refers not to saving mercy but to the favor of being chosen by God to play some role in the working out of his redemptive purposes (see v. 15). Whether one is conscious of being chosen and used is irrelevant; even whether one is saved or not is irrelevant (see Isa 45:4-5, concerning Cyrus). "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy" refers thus to God's sovereign choosing of whomever he pleases to serve his purposes. It is an all-inclusive statement, embracing all who are selected for whatever roles they will play in his plan - even Pharaoh.

The second half of v. 18 thus does not refer to individuals or a group of individuals that are separate and distinct from those in 18a. It refers rather to certain individuals within the first, inclusive category. God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, i.e., he calls into his service whom he wants to call into his service; but some of these can serve his purposes only by being hardened. Thus it was with Pharaoh. God bestowed favor upon him by selecting him for a key role, but he could fill that role only by being hardened.

Only when we understand v. 18 thus can we see how this discussion really speaks to the issue raised in 9:1-5: how can God use Israel for his covenant purposes and at the same time condemn them? Is he being untrue to his word? No, because his original covenant with the nation did not guarantee salvation for individual Jews; and there is no inherent connection between service and salvation, as the example of Pharaoh shows. Thus the obvious and intended application of this whole section, 9:14-18, is to the nation of Israel. God bestowed a temporal mercy upon them when he chose to use them in his redemptive plan, but he also hardened at least some of them (11:7,25) in reference to the role he wanted them to play. There is no inconsistency or contradiction here, either with Pharaoh or with Israel.

What is the nature of the hardening of which Paul speaks? This is obviously a reference to the OT teaching about Pharaoh, and to the fact that God used him in his service specifically by hardening his heart. The Greek word is sklhruvnw (sklçrynô ), which means "to make firm, to harden." It can refer to something physical but is more often used figuratively for a hardened attitude or state of mind. In Scripture it usually refers to a hardened attitude toward God, an attitude of resistance and rebellion toward God's will. Also, in Scripture it is something that a person does to himself; hence the warnings in Hebrews to "not harden your hearts" (Heb 3:8,15; 4:7, quoting Ps 95:8). In the OT the Israelites are often accused of being stiff-necked, i.e., hardened in their hearts; and they are considered responsible for being in this state. See Deut 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17,29; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15.

The Exodus narrative refers to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in various ways: (a) his heart "became hard" or "was hardened" (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:35; 13:15); (b) he hardened his own heart (8:15, 32; 9:34); (c) God promises to harden his heart (4:21; 7:3; 14:4); (d) God did harden his heart (9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:8). God also hardened the hearts of other Egyptian officials and soldiers (9:34; 10:1; 14:17).

Much is made of these different ways of speaking. It is assumed from them that the occasions when Pharaoh hardened his own heart are somehow distinct from those occasions when God hardened it. Then it is usually declared that Pharaoh's self-hardening preceded God's action. For example, Lenski says, "Ten times Exodus reports that Pharaoh hardened himself; then, only in consequence of this self-hardening, we read ten times that God hardened this self-hardened man" (617). Morris says that nowhere in Scripture "is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself" (361). "Harden your heart against God, and He will harden your heart," says Smith (2:19).

I believe this analysis is unnecessary and misleading. Throughout the series of encounters between Moses and Pharaoh, from beginning to end, God was working providentially to harden Pharaoh's heart. On every occasion where his heart was hardened, the hardening was accomplished by both God and Pharaoh. On each occasion it was Pharaoh who made the conscious and deliberate decision to not let the people go. But prior to this moment I suggest that God was working within Pharaoh's mental processes, causing such thoughts to enter his consciousness that he could not bear to grant or follow through with permission to let the people go. The following observation by Sherlock is relevant:

Let a man be never so much bent upon any project, yet hope or fear, some present great advantage or great inconvenience, the powerful intercession of friends, a sudden change of circumstances, the improbability of success, the irreparable mischief of a defeat, and a thousand other considerations, will divert him from it; and how easy it is for God to imprint such thoughts upon men's minds with an irresistible vigour and brightness, that it shall be no more in their power to do what they had a mind to, than to resist all the charms of riches and honours, than to leap into the fire, and to choose misery and ruin ( Providence , 51).

How did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Perhaps by flooding his mind with the kinds of thoughts to which Sherlock refers, i.e., what a great loss of free labor it will be to lose these Israelites! or what a laughing-stock the king of Egypt will be when other nations hear how a bunch of slaves had their way with him! Such thoughts would have great validity in the mind of Pharaoh, and God could have pressed them upon his consciousness at just the right time, i.e., when he was weakening and about to let the people go (GRu, 203).

While it is true that Pharaoh's heart was already self-hardened toward God in a general way before God hardened his heart, this was not in fact the reason why God worked this specific hardness upon him. Many emphasize such a cause/effect connection, though, because they think God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart had something to do with his salvation . But the two are not causally related. Like any pagan unbeliever, Pharaoh had a heart that was self-hardened toward the true God (1:18-32), and God may already have confirmed him in that unbelief according to the principle implied in 1:24,26,28. But the divine hardening of Pharaoh in 9:18 is of a different kind. It is not about salvation as such; it is about how someone whose heart is already self-hardened by sin can in fact be fitted into God's cast of characters for working out his redemptive plan.

Thus we do not have to think of God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart as some kind of punishment for his sins. Such a view is very common, though. Morris says, "God's hardening follows on what Pharaoh himself did. His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin" (361). Murray says divine hardening always "presupposes ill-desert," i.e., a person so hardened deserves it because of his prior sin. "Hardening may never be abstracted from the guilt of which it is the wages" (2:29-30). Godet calls it "retribution" and "punishment" (355). See also Stott, 269; Lenski, 616.

This sort of thinking, however, is a serious misunderstanding of Paul's concept of hardening. It confuses the general self-hardening of rebellious unbelief with God's providential hardening in order to accomplish a specific temporal purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh, both in Exod 4:14 and here in 9:18, is of the latter type, not the former. It in fact had only one specific goal: to cause Pharaoh to oppose God's demand that he set the Israelites free. God expressed his purpose clearly: "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go" (Exod 4:21).

This particular hardening was not a natural consequence of Pharaoh's already rebellious heart, nor an act of divine retribution against him because of this rebellion. It did not cause him to be lost, nor did it somehow intensify his lostness. It simply brought him to a state of mind that resulted in his decision to forbid the Israelites to leave. This occurred over and over, which in turn allowed God to send plague after plague, which in turn accomplished the purposes stated by Paul: "that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (9:17).

What this shows, in reference to Paul's overall point in Rom 9, is that God can call into his service someone who is lost (by his own choice), and can use him in a significant way even if that person's heart must be divinely hardened in some special manner. The ultimate application of this truth is to the nation of Israel. It demonstrates how God could take Israel, a nation comprised mostly of self-hardened sinners, and use them in their lost state to carry out his purposes. Paul's point is not to explain why such people are lost, but simply to affirm that God can use them even though they are lost.

The hardening of Pharaoh in 9:18 must not be equated with the general self-hardening that characterizes the lost state of every sinner. Nor is the hardening of Pharaoh necessarily the same as the hardening of Israel mentioned later (11:7,25), though they are of the same general type (i.e., a providential hardening that helps God carry out his purposes, rather than a hardening that causes them to be lost). That God has hardened Pharaoh, and even Israel, as part of his use of them, does not imply in any way that he has a hand in the hardening of sinners unto condemnation.

C. GOD USED ETHNIC ISRAEL TO PRODUCE

SPIRITUAL ISRAEL (9:19-29)

We must remember that the main point in Rom 9-11 is the issue of God's faithfulness in his dealings with the nation of Israel. Despite their covenant privileges (9:4-5), the nation as a whole stands "cursed and cut off from Christ" (9:3). What does this imply, then, concerning God's commitment to Israel, and concerning his faithfulness to his word? Has he failed to keep his promises (9:6a)?

The reason why first-century Jews saw this as a problem was that they assumed that God's calling them into his covenant service guaranteed their final salvation. Paul is in the process of pointing out that this is a false assumption. Godet declares (373) that the Apostle's main concern in ch. 9 "is to destroy the false conclusion drawn by Israel from their special election, their law, their circumcision, their ceremonial works, their monotheism, their moral superiority. These were in their eyes so many bonds by which God was pledged to them beyond recall." But such was not the point of God's relation to Israel, says Paul.

But is not God the God of salvation ? And is not salvation the inherent and ultimate purpose of the covenant with Israel? So how can God be true to his word and at the same time cut Israel off from this very salvation? The basic answer is that there are two Israels (9:6b). Israel the physical nation was God's main historical instrument or means for making salvation a reality (9:5); the Israel whose origin and essence is spiritual is the actual recipient of the salvation.

Paul develops this thought in two stages. First, in 9:7-18 the subject is physical Israel, Israel the nation. The Apostle sets forth the manner in which God elected this nation, and separated them from all the other nations of the world. By reminding them of the free and sovereign choices used to bring them into existence, he establishes God's sovereign right to choose and use them as he pleases. I.e., their election to covenant service was unconditional. God can use even the unbelieving and the hardened, as the example of Pharaoh shows.

But now in the second stage of this explanation, of which 9:19-29 is a part, the focus of attention is spiritual Israel, the group which is the recipient of God's saving mercy. A major point of this section is the fact that the calling and saving of spiritual Israel was all along a part of the very purpose for the existence of ethnic Israel. In other words, it has always been God's sovereign purpose to distinguish between the two Israels, as the remnant prophecies show (9:27-29). The means by which God distinguishes between them is explained in 9:30-10:21.

In summary, just as 9:7-18 explains how God separated physical Israel from the rest of the world, so does 9:19-10:21 explain how God separates spiritual Israel from physical Israel.

Here is how the present section (9:19-29) unfolds. First, by way of transition, Paul words an objection he anticipates from his Jewish readers (v. 19). His immediate response (vv. 20-21) is to issue a stern generic warning about how presumptuous it is for the creature (the clay) to challenge the ways of the Creator (the potter).

Applying the potter-clay analogy to the particular issue at hand, Paul then begins his specific reply to the objection in v. 19 by succinctly summing up God's purpose and intention for the two Israels (vv. 22-24). Like a potter, God has the right to take one lump of clay (the original nation of Israel) and make two completely different kinds of vases from it. One consists of those individuals who are Israelites by physical birth only. Like Pharaoh, they are unbelievers and will ultimately suffer the wrath of God. This is actually the bulk of Israel. So why does God put up with these "vessels of wrath"? Because only through them can he bring into existence the "vessels of mercy," i.e., spiritual Israel, which is the church - a group composed not only of believing Jews but of believing Gentiles as well.

In these three verses (22-24) is summed up one whole major aspect of the history and purpose of Israel. It is a supplement, as it were, to vv. 4-5.

To show that this is not some new and alien concept that he has hatched out of his own brain, Paul then cites prophecies from Hosea and Isaiah. These biblical texts show that this has been God's intention for Israel - and the Gentiles - all along (vv. 25-29). Dunn (2:575) points out that these verses turn on its head "Israel's belief that others were rejected in order that Israel might be chosen and redeemed." As the quotes from the prophets show, God's ultimate purpose was never physical Israel as such.

This does not end Paul's reply to the objection in v. 19, "Why does God still blame us?" Actually it only prepares the way for the main response to this question, which is given in 9:30-10:21. The curse upon physical Israel (9:3), and upon the individual Jews of which it is composed, is not unconditional , as if God were arbitrarily assigning some to eternal wrath. Nor are the individuals within spiritual Israel unconditionally elected to salvation. As 9:30-10:21 shows, the difference between the two Israels is justification by faith . Physical Israel, the vessels of wrath, are those who seek to be justified by their own righteousness, while spiritual Israel, the vessels of mercy, accept Christ's salvation through faith. This connection between 9:19 and 9:30-10:21 must not be missed.

This point is missed, of course, by those who think ch. 9 is a fundamental proof text for unconditional election. They find this doctrine especially in vv. 19-23, which they see as simply repeating the point of vv. 7-18. For example, speaking of vv. 14-23, Moo declares that "this text . . . gives further support (see Rom. 8:28-30) to the doctrine of unconditional election," and to some extent to the doctrine of reprobation as well (609). As Piper sees it, 9:14-23 deals specifically with unconditional election ( Justification , 184). However, this approach hopelessly confuses two entirely distinct acts of God: one, his dealing with physical Israel in terms of unconditional election to service; and two, his way of distinguishing between physical Israel and spiritual Israel by the condition of faith.

It is important to see that in this present section (9:19-29), unlike in vv. 7-18, eternal destinies are now an important part of the picture, since the distinction between the two Israels has eternal consequences. But we must be careful not to apply the affirmations of God's sovereign, unconditional choice of the nation as such (vv. 7-18) to the respective eternal destinies of the individuals within the two groups.

In this paragraph, for the first time in this major section (chs. 9-11), Paul introduces the issue of the Gentiles. For some, the incorporation of the Gentiles into spiritual Israel is the key point of the paragraph. For example, Achtemeier (165) says, "The passage is therefore about the enlargement of God's mercy to include gentiles, not about the narrow and predetermined fate of each individual. We gentiles can now be part of his gracious purpose, we can be part of his people, chosen by grace through Christ Jesus. That is the point of this passage." Morris (363) says that this passage shows that God's work of showing mercy and hardening (v. 18) has been done "to extend his mercy to the Gentiles."

It is true that believing Gentiles are here identified as being included within the new Israel. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this is not a major point of the paragraph. The main emphasis here is still God's faithfulness in his dealings with physical Israel. I.e., his use of them has been in every way consistent with his stated purposes.

1. The Objection (9:19)

9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" At this point Paul anticipates an objection and directly addresses a representative of his audience, literally, "You [singular] will say to me therefore, 'Why does he still find fault?'" We immediately ask, find fault with whom? To whom is the objector referring? To Pharaoh? Piper calls the objector Pharaoh's "advocate" ( Justification , 186; see Lenski, 618). But this application seems too narrow. But Pharaoh might be seen as a representative of sinners in general, especially those who are thought to be unconditionally condemned to eternal hell. MacArthur applies it thus: "How can human beings . . . be blamed for their unbelief and sin, when their destiny has already been divinely determined?" (2:36; see Murray, 2:31). But this application is probably more inclusive than the questioner intends.

Who, then, is the objector? He is probably a typical first-century Jew. Forster and Marston say he is "obviously Hebrew" and call him "Paul's Pharisee critic" ( Strategy , 80-81). These questions come from "the prejudiced mind of the Jew," says DeWelt (155). "It is an in-house Jewish argument," says Dunn (2:555). See also Fitzmyer, 568; Moo, 600.

The context supports this conclusion. In v. 20 Paul addresses the objector as "O man," using exactly the same Greek phrase with which he addressed the Jewish objector in 2:1 (see JC, 1:180). Also, the Greek word ou ( oun , "then, therefore") shows that the objection grows out of the preceding discussion, especially what was said in vv. 15-18. But these verses cannot be isolated from the total context, where the issue is the status of the Jewish nation as such. In 9:3 Paul clearly implies that the bulk of his physical brethren were under eternal condemnation, "cursed and cut off from Christ." He recognizes that the intervening references to God's unconditional decisions regarding mercy and hardening may cause some Jews to conclude that this explains why they were lost, even though this is not his point. This in turn generates their objection, which "runs thus: But, Paul, if God shows mercy to whom he will, and if he hardens whom he will, then it is he who has hardened us Jews in unbelief against the gospel. Why, then, does he still find fault with us, since he himself, according to your argument, has excluded us from blessedness, and made us unfit for mercy?" (MP, 402).

The word for "blame" (mevmfomai , memphomai ) includes the idea of "finding fault with" or "holding responsible for." I.e., how can God hold us responsible for our unbelief and therefore condemn us to hell (v. 3), if our hardening and therefore our unbelief are his own doing? Does this not all the more suggest that he is unjust (v. 14)?

In his second question - literally, "For who has resisted his will?" - the objector seeks to justify his first question by appealing to what seems to be an unassailable theological axiom: no one can resist the will of the sovereign God. Has not Paul himself appealed to this very axiom in vv. 15 and 18? The word for "resist" is ajnqivsthmi (anthistçmi ), which in the middle sense means "to resist, to oppose, to withstand, to go against, to set oneself against" (AG, 66). His "will" is bouvlhma (boulçma ), a word which means "counsel, intention, will, purpose."

But is it not possible for a free-will creature to resist or oppose God's will? Is this not the very essence of sin? Yes, if by "will" we mean God's preceptive will, i.e., his laws, his commandments, and even his desires. God's preceptive will can be rejected and thwarted by human beings. (See Matt 7:21; 23:37; Luke 7:30; Rom 2:18; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9.) But if we are talking about God's purposive will, i.e., his deliberate purposes and determinative decisions, then the answer is no, it is not possible for any human being to oppose, violate, or resist his will in this sense (Ps 33:11; Prov 19:21; Isa 14:27; John 6:40; Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph 1:11).

In 9:19 the objector's questions seem to have the latter aspect of God's will in mind, and so the objection does involve a valid theological truth, i.e., no one has ever truly resisted God's purposive will. But if this is the case, then why is God blaming us for our sin and rebellion against him? If "he hardens whom he wants to harden" (9:18), then our sin and rebellion are actually his will, are they not? So why is he punishing us as if we were resisting his will, when in reality we are not - since no one can? (See Cranfield, 2:489; Piper, Justification , 186).

A crucial issue at this point is whether or not the objection is valid in the sense that it correctly and accurately represents the meaning of Paul's teaching in the previous verses. Is this a legitimate conclusion to draw from vv. 15-18? Many say that it is. Piper declares, "I have assumed with most commentators that the objection in Rom 9:19 is based on a sound interpretation of 9:18. That is, Paul agrees with the objector that no one can resist God's will and that nevertheless God still finds fault" ( Justification , 189). Certainly if the objection was based on a misunderstanding, then "Paul would very simply have set the objector straight and removed the bogus stumbling block" (190). But as it is Paul "does not give the slightest trace of disagreement with the objector's interpretation of Rom 9:18" (191). Dunn agrees: "The question is a legitimate one, and Paul's response indicates that he does not dispute its logic: the objector has not misunderstood the thrust of vv. 17-18 . . . , and Paul does not attempt to deny its force" (2:555-556).

I have concluded that this approach is incorrect. As Lard says, "God does not do what is here ascribed to him" (309). I agree with Forster and Marston that "the question of Paul's critic . . . is based on a flagrant misrepresentation of Paul's teaching" ( Strategy , 80).

Wherein lies the error? First, we should emphasize that it does not lie in the objector's second question, "For who has resisted [resists, can resist] his will?" As noted above, there is such a thing as God's purposive will, his eternal purpose which is irresistible and immutable, and which therefore cannot be opposed by mere creatures. This is God's "deliberate purpose" (SH, 259), his "determinate purpose" and "irresistible decree" (Murray, 2:31), his "effectual will" or "will of decree" (Piper, Justification , 192).

Wherein, then, is the error? The objector's misunderstanding was in assuming that this purposive will of God applied to Israel's salvation status (9:3) as well as to the nation's historical role in accomplishing God's redemptive plan. To say it another way, the objector took Paul's statements in vv. 15-18 as explaining why most Israelites were hardened to the point of rejecting their Messiah and thus being cursed. However, as we have seen, this is not Paul's point. In these verses he is affirming God's right to sovereignly choose and use anyone, even sinners, to serve his covenant purposes, and even to harden them with regard to certain decisions if this is necessary.

Calvinist interpreters and theologians commit the same sort of error. While correctly distinguishing between God's preceptive and purposive wills, they err in assuming that the latter is all-inclusive . I.e., they conclude that everything that ever happens, period , has been decreed to happen by God's purposive (secret, determinative, decretive, efficacious) will. This especially includes every individual's choice to believe or not to believe in God's saving promises. See my explanation and critique of this in GRu, 169-173, 301-310, especially the section on Eph 1:11 (306-309). This concept of an eternal, comprehensive, efficacious, unconditional, irresistible decree is simply not a biblical teaching; it finds no support in Rom 9.

One reason why interpreters assume that the objector must have understood Paul correctly is that they conclude that the Apostle does not try to refute the objection; he simply rebukes the objector for his presumptuous attitude. But this is simply not true, as I have explained in the introduction to this section. Paul does rebuke the questioner (20-21), and he does reaffirm and explain God's inviolable purposive will for Israel the nation (22-29). But then (9:30-10:21) he sets forth a lengthy reply to the objector's first question, "Then why does God still blame us?" The reply, in effect, is simply this: "Because you refused to believe in your own Messiah." The attempt to excuse such unbelief by illegitimately applying God's purposive will to this circumstance is thereby repudiated.

2. Paul's Initial Rebuke of the Objector's Attitude (9:20-21)

These two verses are not a specific response to the objection worded in v. 19, nor are they meant to preclude such a response. They are only a preface to the more detailed response which follows. As a rebuke, they are directed more toward the tone of the objection than its content. The rebuke is actually generic and may be applied to many a presumptuous and misguided complaint against God's purposes and providence.

9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? In the NIV, "but" translates a much stronger Greek expression better rendered "on the contrary," as in the NASB. This indicates that Paul is about to correct the erroneous thinking by which the objector seeks to justify himself: "Hey, it's not my fault! God made me do it. So why should I be blamed?" "On the contrary," says Paul; "you have missed the whole point. Let me explain it to you."

In view of this expression - "on the contrary" - it is strange that Dunn should say that Paul does not dispute the objector's logic (2:555), and that Piper should say that Paul "does not give the slightest trace of disagreement with the objector's interpretation of Rom 9:18" ( Justification , 191). If 9:19 embodied a misunderstanding, says Piper, then "Paul would very simply have set the objector straight" (190). Well, the fact is that this is exactly what Paul is doing in the rest of ch. 9 and in all of ch. 10!

The first part of Paul's correction (vv. 20-21) is directed toward the objector's presumptuous attitude; the Apostle rebukes him for arguing with God. We must realize that the objector is not portrayed as simply raising a sincere question concerning God's ways as does Habakkuk (1:1-4,12-13), and as 9:14 seems to do. Rather, the man is described as arrogantly taking a debater's stance against God; he is "talking back" to God, says Paul. The word for "talk back" has strongly negative connotations, including "to make unjustified accusations," "to dispute" (Büchsel, "krivnw ," 945). It has a "nuance of contention," as Moo says (602). Compare 3:1-8.

The objector is addressed as "O man." This seems to be a way of emphasizing his mere creaturehood, in contrast with the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator. "Who are you, a mere human being , a 'feeble morsel of sinful dust' (MP, 403), to argue against God ?" "By thus setting man over against God, Paul is certainly putting man in his place" (Cranfield, 2:490).

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" The NIV puts this question in quotation marks because it represents the thought of Isa 29:16 and Isa 45:9, where the clay and the vessel made from it are likewise depicted as sitting in judgment on the potter. As Paul uses the metaphor in v. 20b, the complaint comes not from the clay as such but from the piece of pottery formed from it. The scene is almost comical: a finished pot is lifted from the potter's wheel and, personified, looks upon itself with disappointment. It then glares accusingly at the potter and reprimands him thus: "Why did you make me to look like this? I'm a mess! Is this the best you could do? Haven't you made some sort of mistake?"

The potter-clay analogy can be used to teach many lessons (see Job 10:8-9; Isa 64:8; Jer 18:1-12), and we are rightly warned to stick to the point Paul is making here and not to try to apply all the details indiscriminately (Cranfield, 2:491). What is Paul's point? Just this: in a potter-clay relationship it is obviously the potter who decides how the clay will be used. Once his decision is made and the vessel has been formed, it is the height of absurdity and arrogance for the vessel to criticize the potter.

Why does Paul use this metaphor here? To what or whom does it specifically apply? Not to the original creation event (contra Achtemeier, 161; Dunn, 2:564-565); not just to individuals such as Pharaoh; and especially not to "the destinies of individual men" (contra Piper, Justification , 193). Its specific application is to the nation of Israel. This is how the analogy is used in Jeremiah: "Then the word of the LORD came to me: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the Lord. 'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel'" (Jer 18:5-6). Even the thought in Isa 29:16 and 45:9-10 is "that God formed Israel into a nation," says Morris (365).

Thus Paul is rebuking the objector of v. 19 not in the latter's role as a creature nor as a condemned sinner as such, but in his role as a representative of Israel who is complaining that God's treatment of the nation is basically unfair. To such an objection Paul simply says, "Whoa! Let's not forget who we are, shall we? Remember: God is the potter; you (Israel) are just clay in his hands. Who do you think you are, to challenge the one who formed you in the first place?"

9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? While Paul's reference to the potter and the clay in v. 20 was somewhat general, here he gets more specific. He refers to the potter's right and authority to do with the clay (Israel) whatever he chooses, particularly to his right to make from the same lump the two Israels of 9:6b.

This verse begins with the word "or" (h[ [ç ], untranslated in the NIV). Here it has the force of "to put it another way." Whereas the question in v. 20b has the Greek particle that shows a negative answer is expected ("Shall what is formed say . . . ? Of course not!"), v. 21 has the particle indicating that the answer is "Yes!" Thus it is the same as an affirmation.

The basic affirmation is the potter's authority over the clay. He, not the clay, has the right to decide how the latter will be used. And since this is where the authority lies, the clay itself has no basis for uttering a complaint such as "Why did you make me like this?" (v. 20b). And if a mere potter has this right, how much more does the sovereign God!

It is obvious that the potter here represents God, but to whom does the "same lump" refer? A common assumption is that it refers to the human race in general (Lard, 310; MP, 404), the "mass of humanity" (Moo, 603), "the same mass of human beings" (Hendriksen, 2:327), the "same human clay" (Lenski, 621; Dunn, 2:565). Understood thus, this verse is often taken as confirming the Calvinist concept of predestination, especially the twofold predestination of some sinners to heaven (election) and others to hell (reprobation). As Lenski says (620), "Calvinism assumes that the whole story as to why some are saved and others are lost is figuratively described in this verse." An example is this statement by Hendriksen (2:327):

The main idea Paul is putting across is this: If even a potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then certainly God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness.

Thus this "same lump" would refer not to the dust from which God made the two kinds of human beings, but to the mass of "fallen humanity" (Stott, 271), some of whom God chooses to save and others he chooses to condemn.

In my judgment this approach is a serious error. In keeping with the overall context, the "same lump" here refers not to the mass of human individuals as such but to the totality of Israel, from which God makes the two derivative groups, physical Israel and spiritual Israel. As Smith rightly says (2:20), "Israel as a nation, is in the hand of God as a potter holds clay." Smith reminds us of Jer 18:1-12, where the clay in the potter's hand is the people of Israel.

From the same lump of clay, says Paul, the potter has the right to make pieces of pottery that are very different in their nature and disposition. On the one hand he can make from it a vessel eij" timhvn (eis timçn ), "unto honor"; on the other hand he can make from it a vessel eij" ajtimivan ( eis atimian ), "unto dishonor."

This statement raises some key issues. First, how are these terms - honor and dishonor - related to each other? One approach is to take them in a comparative sense: one vessel is given more honor, the other less honor. This is the point of the NIV: some "for noble purposes and some for common use." It is the difference between exalted use and menial use, says Fitzmyer (569). As Lenski says (620), one vessel might be a beautiful ornamental vase, and the other "a slop jar" (a chamber pot). Both are useful, but for very different purposes (see 2 Tim 2:20).

The other approach is to take the terms timç and atimia in their more natural sense as opposites rather than as comparatives. Though the latter sense for these terms is possible (as in 2 Tim 2:20), such a relationship would more naturally be expressed with the comparative adjectival form, as in 1 Cor 12:23 (ajtimovtera , atimotera , "less honorable"). Also, if the vessels unto honor and unto dishonor in v. 21 are equivalent to the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath in vv. 22-23, then they must be taken in an opposite and not just a comparative sense. This is also more in keeping with the actual meaning of the words. Timç means "honor, value, respect, worthiness"; atimia means "dishonor, contempt, shame, disgrace" (On the latter see Hübner, "a[timo" ," 177.)

In my opinion the terms should be regarded as opposites, and the NIV is thus misleading.

This leads to the second and more overriding issue, namely, do these terms refer to God's creation of all individuals for the specific purpose of saving some ("for noble purposes") and sending the rest to hell ("for common use")? Or do they refer to God's preparation of some individuals and even some nations for specific uses in the accomplishment of his historical plan of salvation? Those taking the former view naturally see the terms timç and atimia as opposites; advocates of the latter view see them as comparative.

Calvinists argue for the former view. The terms refer to "the eternal destinies of individuals," says Moo. "Honor" means the eternal glory of the saved; "dishonor" means the eternal wrath suffered by the lost (603). God deliberately designs and forms individuals for these purposes. The evidence shows that v. 21 is "a reference to the predestining of individuals to their respective eternal destinies," says Piper ( Justification , 202; see 200-204). The emphasis of the verse is upon God's sovereign right (as a potter) to do this.

Others, especially non-Calvinists, argue for the latter view, i.e., that God like a potter has prepared various vessels to be used in comparatively more honorable and less honorable ways for his covenant purposes. The emphasis is on God's sovereign right to form and use individuals and nations - particularly the latter - in this way. According to Dunn, "the more natural sense of the metaphor is of vessels put to differing uses within history" (2:557). "The vessels are nations" (MP, 404).

Those who take this latter view especially insist that eternal destinies are not in view, and that "dishonor" does not mean destruction or damnation (Fitzmyer, 569; Lard, 310; DeWelt, 156). Vessels "unto dishonor" are simply those chosen or appointed by God to carry out certain lesser tasks involved in salvation history. Just as a potter "never makes pots simply in order to destroy them" says Morris, so also "it would not be right for God to create sinners simply in order to punish them." But with regard to "the working out of the divine purpose," God certainly has the right to make certain vessels, such as Pharaoh and unbelieving Jews, for menial or "dishonorable" uses (366).

Cranfield agrees that the proper conclusion to be drawn from this verse is that God is free "to appoint men to various functions in the on-going course of salvation-history for the sake of the fulfilment of His over-all purpose" (2:492). See Moo, 602-603.

I cannot accept either of these two views. I do agree that the main reference here is to the nation of Israel, and not to the human race as such. But at the same time I believe Paul is referring not to how God used this nation in his historical plan, but to the eternal destinies of individuals within it.

It is unlikely that the point here is simply God's right to prepare and use individuals and nations - especially Israel - for his covenant purposes, because Paul has already made this point in vv. 7-18. An even more convincing reason, though, is the use of the word atimia , or "dishonor." The source and nature of the objection worded in v. 19 indicates that Paul is addressing here in vv. 20-21 the status of unbelieving Jews; thus the terms "honor" and "dishonor" must apply in some way to this group. Most who take the latter view outlined above would see unfaithful Israel as an example of a "vessel of dishonor" (e.g., Morris, 366).

My contention, though, is this: if this verse applies only to the way God uses nations, especially Israel, for his historical redemptive plan, there is no way that the role of Israel - believing or unbelieving - can be described as dishonorable or even menial. The term atimia , however interpreted, simply does not fit the use God made of the nation of Israel. Theirs was indeed the most exalted and honorable role imaginable, apart from that of the Messiah himself (9:4-5). Thus this interpretation of v. 21 cannot stand.

What, then, is the alternative? I believe Calvinists are right to see "honor" and "dishonor" as referring to eternal destinies, heaven and hell. But I believe they are wrong on two counts. First, they are wrong to assume that the "clay" refers to the human race in general. The clay is not the mass of humanity, but the nation of Israel only. Second, Calvinists are wrong to think that God made two separate vessels from this clay for the express purpose of sending one to heaven and the other to hell. "Unto honor" and "unto dishonor" do indeed refer to the eternal destinies of individuals within Israel, but these respective destinies are not determined by God himself. The next main section, 9:30-10:21, shows that individuals determine their own eternal destinies according to whether or not they put their trust in God's saving promises.

This distinction applies even to the people of Israel. God used the nation in its totality to accomplish his exalted redemptive purposes, and this honor belongs to believing and unbelieving Jews alike. But with regard to eternal destinies, God has exercised his sovereign right, like a potter, to make an internal separation among the individuals of whom this nation is composed. He makes from the one lump a vessel of honor, spiritual Israel , whose distinguishing characteristic is faith in God's gracious promises. Also from this same lump he makes a vessel of dishonor, the majority of the original nation, whose distinguishing characteristic is that, even though they are Jews physically, they have never given their hearts to God. As Forster and Marston say, "God obviously has the right to make from the nation of Israel two vessels rather than one, just as a potter can divide one lump and make two pots. This is, in fact, what God has done. The unrepentant portion of Israel has become a vessel unto dishonor , and the faithful part a vessel unto honor" ( Strategy , 82).

A key point here is that this distinction between the vessel of honor and the vessel of dishonor, though decreed by God, is ultimately the responsibility of the individuals placed within each group. As Forster and Marston say, "The basic lump that forms a nation will either be built up or broken down by the Lord, depending on their own moral response" (ibid.). This view is supported by Jer 18:1-12, where God compares his relationship with Israel as that of potter to clay. "'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel'" (18:6b). But God makes it clear that this potter-clay relationship does not mean that he arbitrarily determines the destiny of the nation. He declares that he tailors his final decision regarding any nation or kingdom to the way it responds to his warnings (18:7-12; see Smith, 2:20). In his role as a potter, God's method of dealing with nations must surely also apply to his dealing with individuals.

We should remember that the main point of vv. 20-21 is to rebuke the objector in v. 19 for his presumptuousness in talking back to God. The metaphor of the potter and his clay is a generic warning applicable to anyone who presumes to do the same in any sort of circumstance. We know that Paul intends that it be applied to Israel in the way explained above because of the way he himself continues the metaphor in vv. 22-24.

3. Beyond Ethnic Israel to Spiritual Israel (9:22-24)

In these next three verses Paul begins his specific response to the objection in v. 19. Basically he grants the objector's second point, that no one truly resists God's purposive will. This is surely true regarding Israel. Undeterred by massive unbelief, yea, even enduring it, God used this nation to accomplish his intended purpose for them.

That purpose first and foremost was to bring the Messiah himself into the world (9:5). But that is not the whole story. In these three verses Paul reveals another purpose for which God was using the nation of Israel: through them he brought into existence the other Israel, the true Israel, spiritual Israel, the remnant (9:6b). And here he mentions for the first time in this chapter the fact that believing Gentiles are also included within this spiritual Israel, the entity for which it was the glorious purpose of physical Israel to prepare.

In its fulness, then, spiritual Israel is no less than the church of Jesus Christ, which is composed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, i.e., of anyone who accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord. It was God's purposive will to use ethnic Israel as an instrument for bringing forth the church. In this respect the objector is correct: no one could have resisted God's purpose to do this.

But the objector erred in thinking that this same principle ("Who resists his will?") was the explanation for Israel's state of accursedness (9:3). As Paul will explain in the next section (9:30- 10:21), the reason for their condemnation was their resistance to God's preceptive will, i.e., that believing submission to Jesus Christ is a requirement for salvation.

The tragic irony of this, of course, is that most Israelites were lost because they refused to become a part of the very group whose origin was a major reason for their own existence.

As the following discussion will show, the Calvinist attempt to use these verses in their effort to find unconditional election in Rom 9 is futile. These verses are not, contrary to Piper, "Paul's final insight into the whys and wherefores of unconditional election" ( Justification , 187).

This section is difficult to understand and translate because, even though the syntax is quite extended and complicated, it does not form a complete sentence. Verse 22 begins with the word "if," seemingly introducing a protasis, or first part of a conditional sentence. The problem is that the expected second part of such a sentence, the "then" part (apodosis), never appears. This sort of construction does occur occasionally in classical Greek and in a few other places in the NT, and it requires that the overall sense of the sentence be discerned from the context. (See Cranfield, 2:492-493.)

There is a fairly general agreement that the NIV captures the intended sense very well: "What if . . . ?" (See KJV; NASB; NRSV; Dunn, 2:558, 566; Moo, 604; Morris, 367.) The main clause following the "what if" is "God . . . endured" (v. 22; NIV, "bore"), which is then followed by a purpose clause, "in order that" ( v. 23; NIV, "to"). I.e., Paul asks, "What if God endured this, in order that he might accomplish that?" Specifically, "What if God endured the vessels of wrath, in order that he might bring forth vessels of mercy?"

In any case the "if" does not mean that Paul is expressing an uncertain hypothesis here; he is stating a fact (Cranfield, 2:493). How does this relate to the objection in v. 19? The thought seems to be this: "What if it is so, in accordance with his role as a potter, that God sovereignly forms the nation of Israel and bears with their unfaithfulness in order to accomplish his purpose for them? So what if it is true, as you say, that no one can resist his will in this matter? Does this explain and excuse your sin? Does this shift responsibility for your condemnation to God? No!"

9:22-23 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory . . . ?

Verse 22 begins with a particle, dev ( de ), which the NIV does not translate. Here it introduces not a contrast but rather a more specific explanation and application of the potter-clay illustration (Moo, 604). It can be rendered "Now," in the sense of "Now, what does this mean?"

These verses form a single unit of thought, a thought which can be discerned only by working through a series of very difficult exegetical questions: Who are the "objects of his wrath"? In what sense are they "prepared for destruction"? In what sense does God choose to show his wrath? The word for "choosing" is a participle; what is its sense? What are the nature and purpose of God's patience? Who are the "objects of his mercy"? How are they "prepared in advance for glory"?

The Calvinist View

As is the case with most of chapter 9, there is a way of interpreting these verses and answering these questions that can only be called the Calvinist view. Unfortunately this Calvinist approach, though widely represented in the commentaries, is at odds with Paul's meaning at every step of the way. I will show this by first setting forth the Calvinist view in some detail, and then by explaining what I believe is the correct understanding of these verses. The exegetical issues will be discussed in detail in the latter part of this process.

The Calvinist interpretation is as follows. As to the scope of Paul's remarks, it is assumed that he is dealing here with the human race in general. The "objects of wrath" are the reprobate, the total number of lost human beings (Calvin, 367; Hendriksen, 2:328), the "world of sinners" (MacArthur, 2:40). Pharaoh may be particularly in mind, "yet he serves as the type of all other vessels of wrath" (Piper, Justification , 187).

The reprobate are lost because they were from the beginning "prepared for destruction" by God himself; they were "made and formed for this end" (Calvin, 368). "Before they are born they are destined to their lot" (Calvin, 370), and so destined by "the divine agency" (Piper, Justification , 213). Moo agrees: "Paul considers the 'vessels on whom God's wrath rests' as prepared by God himself for eternal condemnation"; those who reject God's mercy "do so ultimately because God himself hardens them" (607-608).

God determines to create a certain amount of human beings as objects of wrath simply as a decision of his secret, purposive will (which is the implication of the word "choosing" in the NIV). Calvinists usually speak of two types or levels of God's will: his revealed, expressed will and his secret, ultimate will. Things do not always happen according to the former, but the latter is all-inclusive and all-determinative (see GRu, 301-310). That some are "prepared for destruction" is simply the result of "the secret and inexplorable counsel of God" (Calvin, 369).

This determinative counsel by which God fixes "the perdition of the reprobate" is "secret" and "incomprehensible," says Calvin (367). God is simply "silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction"; "the reason is hid" in his secret counsel (368-369). But it seems that it is not hidden very well, because Calvin and others believe that in v. 22 Paul is telling us the reason why God prepares some for destruction, i.e., "to show his wrath and make his power known." Because he wants to display his wrath and power in punishing the wicked, God assigns some to eternal condemnation in hell. These unfortunate ones are "vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God's vengeance and displeasure" (Calvin, 368; see Murray, 2:33; Cranfield, 2:494). This is why God "determined to allow sin," says MacArthur, "because it gave Him the opportunity to display His wrath" (2:39).

Even God's patience , i.e., his delay in exercising his wrath, is designed to make the ultimate expression of that wrath all the more powerful and glorious. Calvin says that "the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples" (368). That is, the very reason for this "patience" is to magnify his wrath. Moo favors this interpretation: "In the case both of Pharaoh and of the vessels of wrath, God withholds his final judgment so that he can more spectacularly display his glory" (605). As Stott says, "His forebearance in delaying the hour of judgment" is designed to "make the ultimate outpouring of his wrath the more dreadful" (272). In Piper's words, "God sustains and tolerates vessels of wrath" so that his "sovereign power and terrible wrath can be demonstrated even more vividly" ( Justification , 187).

But this is not the whole story. Verse 23 adds another reason why God "bore with great patience the objects of his wrath." He did it in order "to make the riches of his glory known" to the elect, which are chosen unconditionally for salvation. As Calvin interprets it, this means that God delays punishing the reprobate, thus increasing their punishment, because the greater the punishment poured out upon the reprobate, the greater will appear the mercy bestowed upon the elect. God wants his wrath to appear dreadful so "that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth" (368). "The glory of God" is manifest "in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known" (369). "The infinite mercy of God toward the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath" (369). See Hendriksen, 2:329; and Piper, Justification , 188-189, for variations of this view.

Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

Since Calvinists tend to see this entire chapter in terms of the unconditional predestination of individuals to their eternal destinies, it is not unexpected that they interpret these two verses as outlined above. But as we have seen, unconditional individual election and reprobation are not the point of this chapter. It deals rather with God's faithfulness in all his dealings with the nation of Israel. That is the subject of these two verses as well.

One point that Paul has stressed throughout this chapter is that God has the sovereign right to choose and use both individuals and nations in whatever ways he pleases for the accomplishment of his covenant purposes. No one "resists his will" in such matters (v. 19). These verses are simply reaffirming God's right, like a potter, to manipulate his clay in any way he chooses.

The "objects of his wrath" in v. 22 are not the total mass of lost human beings, but rather the nation of Israel, specifically the ethnic Jews who rejected God's promises of grace and were thus accursed (9:3). (The word translated "objects" is actually the word "vessels," as in v. 21, where the NIV translates it "pottery".) I.e., these unbelieving Israelites, viewed collectively as a nation, in spite of their indispensable role in God's plan, are nevertheless indeed the objects of his wrath (see Godet, 360). While allowing that pagans such as Pharaoh may be included, Dunn declares "that the 'objects of wrath' are the covenant people themselves, or more precisely, the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the continuity/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel" (2:567).

What is the "destruction" for which Israel has been prepared? It is possible that Paul is thinking about some sort of temporal destruction, such as the termination of Israel's special role in the plan of God as signified by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Godet, 360). This may be the case, but it is also likely that Paul is referring to the final, eternal destruction of sinners in hell, since its counterpart of "glory" in v. 23 also likely includes eternal life (see Dunn, 2:560; Moo, 607, n. 96; Godet, 362, 372; MP, 406). "Clearly it stands for the ultimate loss," says Morris (368).

Who, then, is the agent by which these vessels of wrath, these unbelieving Jews, are "prepared" for such destruction, whether temporal or eternal? The difference between the term used here in v. 22 and the comparable term in v. 23 ("he prepared in advance") makes it very likely (contrary to Calvinism) that they prepared themselves for such destruction (Godet, 361; MP, 406). The verb in v. 23 is active and has the prefix pro -, and clearly means that God himself prepared in advance the vessels of mercy for glory. But in v. 22 the verb seems to be deliberately different. It is either passive voice: "they were prepared," or (more likely) middle voice: "they prepared themselves" (AG, 419). I.e., they are responsible for their own destruction; by their sin and unbelief and refusal to repent, they sealed their own doom. Even if the agent of preparation were God himself, the lack of the prefix pro - ("in advance, beforehand"), unlike the verb in v. 23, would suggest that God prepared them for destruction only after they manifested their adamant unbelief. The more likely meaning, though, is that they prepared themselves.

The "objects [vessels] of his wrath," then, are ethnic Israel, viewed in terms of its unbelief. Like a potter God made the nation as such for his glorious purposes, which they did indeed fulfill. But in reference to their individual eternal destiny, the Jews' personal unbelief makes them the objects of divine wrath. Thus they ultimately become vessels of dishonor and shame (v. 21).

Exactly what is Paul saying about these vessels of wrath prepared for ultimate destruction? He says that God "bore" or "endured" them "with great patience." This refers to God's relationship with his chosen people throughout OT history, especially to the fact that he refrained from completely destroying them despite their blatant and repeated idolatry. As Dunn says (2:558), "God's patience with his chosen people was one of Israel's most common refrains." See Exod 34:6; Num 14:18-20; 2 Kgs 13:23; Neh 9:16-19,29-31; Ps 86:15; 102:8.

This next point is crucial to our understanding of this whole section. The question is, what is meant by the expression, "choosing to show his wrath and make his power known"? As we have seen, Calvinists usually take this as referring to God's infallible, purposive will: because God has determined (chosen) to display his wrath and power upon the objects of wrath whom he has prepared for destruction, he patiently withholds this wrath until the time comes when it can be exhibited in its most spectacular intensity. I.e., he exercises patience in the interests of greater wrath. In my judgment this interpetation is atrociously inaccurate and is an insult to the mercy and grace of God. What does the expression mean, then?

First of all, "choosing" is an unacceptable translation for the verb qevlw (thelô ), used here by Paul. Basically it means "to will, to be willing, to want, to desire, to wish." The object of the desire may become a reality (9:18), or it may not (7:15-21; Matt 23:37a). It certainly does not have the inherent connotation of the purposive will of God, contrary to many Calvinists. Also, Lard's "determining" is too strong a meaning (313). At this point Paul is simply saying that God was willing or wanted to show his wrath and power against Israel.

A second point is that the form of thelô is a present participle, indicating that this "wanting" is simultaneous with the action of the main verb, "bore." But the very nature of a participle requires that we determine from the context just how it relates to the main verb. Here it appears that the participle has either a causal or a concessive relationship with "bore." I.e., it means either, (1) " Because he was willing to show his wrath and make his power known, therefore he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath"; or, (2) " Although he wanted to show his wrath and make his power known, nevertheless he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath." For the latter, see the NASB.

In general, Calvinists accept the causal view; see Cranfield, 2:493-494; Murray, 2:34-35; Piper, Justification , 187; Moo, 605 (see also Dunn, 2:558). I.e., because God wants to display his wrath as impressively as possible, he patiently withholds it until he can do this. Likewise in general, non-Calvinists accept the concessive view; see Godet, 359-360; Lard, 312; Fitzmyer, 569 (see also SH, 261). I.e., even though God actually wanted to go ahead and abolish the nation of Israel and send unbelieving Israelites to hell, still he bore with them in order to achieve his ultimate saving purposes.

Is it possible to tell from Scripture itself which of these two views is correct? Yes. The key to the right understanding here is the reference to "patience" ("forebearance, longsuffering"; Greek, makroqumiva [ makrothymia ]). Paul says that God bore (endured, put up with) the vessels of wrath - not with just a little patience, but with great patience. Why? According to the causal interpretation of thelô , accepted by Calvinists, God exercises his patience toward the vessels of wrath for the express purpose of being able to heap even greater wrath upon them. On the contrary, however, I must insist that such a purpose is contrary to the very nature of patience. At the very heart of patience is the desire to decrease or even eliminate wrath, and to increase salvation. The Calvinist (causal) view thus violates the very essence of divine patience. The concessive view does not, as will be explained below.

This theological weakness of the Calvinist view was pointed out long ago by Godet. He says (359), "The connection expressed by because . . . would signify that God's long-suffering had no other end than to bring about an accumulation of wrath; but would such long-suffering deserve the name?" Sanday and Headlam (261) likewise point out that God's "great patience" is simply not consistent with the causal view. (See also Fitzmyer, 569.) Romans 2:4 expressly says that God's kindness and patience are designed to lead to repentance. Second Peter 3:9 says that God is patient because he does not want anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance. The Calvinist view of 9:22 makes a travesty of such texts.

Thus the cause of God's great patience cannot be found in v. 22. This verse simply asserts the reality of this patience: even though God many times wanted to pour out his wrath upon idolatrous and unbelieving Israel, and bring upon them the destruction they deserved, he bore with them with great patience. Why he did so is stated only in v. 23.

The terse syntax in vv. 22-23 causes most translators to add a few words at the beginning of v. 23 in order to clarify the connection between the two verses: "And He did so . . ." (NASB); "What if he did this . . ." (NIV); "And what if he has done so . . ." (NRSV). These words are added to show that, while v. 22 states God's action (he "bore with great patience"), v. 23 sets forth the purpose for this action, as indicated by the Greek word i{na ( hina ; "in order that," NASB; "to," NIV).

What is this purpose? "To make the riches of his glory known to the objects [vessels] of his mercy." In continuity with everything we have seen in ch. 9 thus far, we take these vessels of mercy to be the spiritual Israel alluded to in 9:6b; and in view of the reference to the Gentiles in v. 24, we take this specifically to refer to the NT church. For hundreds of years God endured with great patience the unbelieving multitudes of ethnic Israel because it was his purpose to produce through them, in the fullness of time, the true Israel.

It was certainly the case that any of these unbelieving Israelites along the way could have "circumcised their hearts" (Jer 4:4) and turned in pentitent faith toward the gracious God; and many did so. But strictly speaking God did not exercise his great patience toward OT Israel just for the purpose of allowing time for individual Jews to repent. The fact is, according to v. 22, he actually wanted to wipe them all out. What prevented him from doing so, and what caused him to be patient, was his determination to accomplish his final historical purpose for them as a nation: the establishment of the church of Jesus the Messiah.

The vessels of mercy are thus the individuals (Jews and Gentiles, v. 24) who respond in faith to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and receive within themselves the outpouring of God's saving mercy, the double cure of forgiveness through the blood of Christ and regeneration through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Collectively they form the church, which is the new and true Israel, or the Israel which is identified by spiritual rather than physical criteria.

How shall we understand "the riches of his glory" which he makes known to these vessels of mercy? Some take this to mean that God's purpose is to display his own glory by bestowing salvation upon the elect (Murray, 2:35). The NIV might be taken in this sense in that it refers to making the riches of God's glory " known to the objects of his mercy." I believe it is better, though, to interpret "the riches of his glory" to mean the riches of salvation as bestowed " upon vessels of mercy" (NASB, emphasis added). The preposition epi is better translated "upon" than "to." Thus it is God's purpose to manifest the glorious riches of his salvation by lavishly bestowing them upon the new Israel.

Does this "glory" refer to eschatological glorification, the final blessings of heaven itself? It certainly must include this, since "glory" most often has this specific reference (e.g., 2:7,10; 5:2; 8:18,21,30; Col 1:27). But it must not be limited to the glory of the end times; from the very beginning of the Christian life God pours "the riches of his glory" into the vessels of his mercy. This exact phrase is used in Eph 3:16 to refer to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us. See also 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 3:13; Phil 4:19; Col 1:11; 1 Thess 2:12.

In what sense are the vessels of mercy "prepared in advance for glory"? Here the verb "prepared in advance" (proetoimavzw , proetoimazô ) is different from the verb translated "prepared" (katartivzw , katartizô ) in v. 22. Because the latter is middle or passive voice, we may conclude that the vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction. But in v. 23 the word is active voice and no doubt means that God is the one who has prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. Also, unlike v. 22, the verb in v. 23 has the prefix pro -, which means that God prepared them "in advance" or "beforehand."

If "prepared in advance for glory" refers to the final glory of heaven, then this statement is no different from 8:28-30. I.e., whom he foreknew would respond favorably to his gracious promises, he predestined to be in heaven (see JC, 1:502-514).

But it is possible that "prepared in advance" refers to the plan that God had begun to work out from the time he called Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the plan whereby he would use the ethnic people of Israel to lay the groundwork for the establishment of the church. That he prepared them "for glory" would then mean that he had already determined that he would pour out the riches of salvation upon all who accepted the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile. See Eph 2:10; 1 Pet 1:2.

The reference to Gentiles in v. 24 makes it likely that the latter is the main point, since one fact that caused Paul to offer frequent praise to God was God's "mystery plan" to include the Gentiles as well as the Jews in his new covenant people, the church. See 16:25-26; Eph 2:11-3:11. "This mystery," he says in Ephesians, "is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body" (3:6). Even though this was God's "eternal purpose" (3:11), it "was not made known to men in other generations," but is now revealed through prophets and apostles, like Paul (3:5), who was given the privilege of preaching "to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (3:8). This mystery, long kept hidden, is now revealed "through the church" (3:9-10), which is spiritual Israel.

In other words, the church is the ultimate objective of God's advance preparation; its members are the vessels of mercy God "prepared in advance for glory." Every time a sinner is converted, God "make[s] the riches of his glory known" by pouring them out upon the convert.

We must not lose sight of Paul's main point, which is to declare God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. As he has insisted all along, the members of ethnic Israel did not have to be personal believers as a prerequisite for being used to carry out the divine plan. Even as vessels of wrath, they were used collectively as an instrument for bringing the church into existence. This was God's purpose, and as the objector in v. 19 rightly observes, no one can resist his purposive will.

It is important to see that the ultimate purpose of God is not wrath, but mercy. He used vessels of wrath (unbelieving Israel) to accomplish this purpose, but the purpose itself is to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy. And here is the most glorious truth of all: no unbelieving Jew - no individual vessel of wrath - needs to remain as such. Though the nation in general remains under God's curse because of unbelief, any individual Jew can respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ and become a vessel of mercy! After all, the gospel is "first for the Jew" (1:16).

9:24 . . . even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? The main point of this verse has already been set forth in the above discussion, namely, that the vessels of mercy for which God had long been preparing would include not only Jews but Gentiles as well. The two together constitute "an expanded chosen people" (Achtemeier, 160).

Once the advance preparation through ethnic Israel was completed, God "called" (kalevw , kaleô ) from the larger masses of Jews and Gentiles those who would receive his mercy. This is not the Calvinist "effectual call," which is identical with the doctrine of irresistible grace; it is rather the call that is extended to all sinners through the preaching of the gospel, though it is accepted by only a few (see 1:6-7; 8:28, 30; see JC, 1:83-84, 500-501, 512-513).

The word "from" is ejk ( ek ), which can be more forcefully translated "out of." Thus Paul is here identifying the vessels of mercy as "called-out ones," which is etymologically related to the NT word for "church," which is ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia ). This comes from the same two words used here in v. 24, ek and kaleô . This is completely consistent with what was said above, that Paul's whole point in this chapter is the way God used ethnic Israel to produce spiritual Israel, the church.

In view of this glorious and merciful purpose of God, how can anyone seriously complain against God and accuse him of unfaithfulness? As Lard says, he calls both Jews and Gentiles alike, and is willing to make them all into vessels of honor and mercy. Those who accept the call will be treated with equal mercy, but "on all the rest he will one day pour out his wrath" (312).

4. Prophetic Confirmation of God's Purpose (9:25-29)

This section does not add any new content to Paul's argument. It is a series of quotations from Hosea and Isaiah, cited to provide prophetic confirmation of God's purpose for Israel as it culminates in the birth of the NT church. The citations from Hosea (vv. 25-26) include the prophet's original application to exiled Israelites but are here also applied to the calling of the Gentiles into the people of God. The verses from Isaiah (vv. 27-29) show that God all along knew that only a small number, a remnant, of the Jews would accept the gospel and be saved.

This latter point speaks directly to the issue with which this chapter began, namely, the seeming paradox of Israel's position and privileges as the chosen people of God on the one hand, and her general condition of unbelief and accursedness on the other hand. To the Jewish mind, this appeared to be a contradiction. Especially, it seemed as if God's word and plan and promises had failed. Did not God's purpose for and use of the Israelite nation guarantee their personal salvation? Did God change his mind and go back on his word?

The answer, of course, is no; and this chapter shows why this is the case. God's use of Israel to work out his plan neither required nor guaranteed that every individual Jew would be saved. Any and all Jews could have been saved; if they were not, the cause was their own failure and refusal to believe and repent. In any case God's covenant purpose was not contingent upon it.

These OT quotations, especially those from Isaiah, show that the present state of Israel's unbelief and accursedness was no surprise to God, and that his original purpose had not failed. The quotations show, as Dunn says, "that God's purpose never had Israel as a people solely in view and never Israel as a whole or Israel the nation as such" (2:575). The nation itself was always intended to be a means to an end; the end itself is spiritual Israel, which consists of both the believing remnant from old Israel and all believers from among the Gentiles. This end, and therefore God's purpose for Israel, have been accomplished, in fulfillment of these prophecies.

9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" A major question is whether or not Paul really intends to apply these quotes from Hosea to the calling of the Gentiles. This is problematic because Hosea's prophecy was originally addressed to Jews, specifically to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom. Because of their persistent unbelief God rejected them and caused them to be overrun and taken into permanent exile by the Assyrian forces. But Hosea's words gave them hope: though God rejected them as "not loved" and "not my people," a day would come when they would once again be God's loved ones and God's people (Hos 1:6-10; 2:21-23). The question now is this: how can Paul apply these prophecies to the Gentiles, when they obviously originally referred to the Jews?

One answer is that Paul does not apply them to the Gentiles, but is thinking only of the Jews in all the quotes from both Isaiah and Hosea. Lenski is an example of this view. He asks, "But why quote passages such as this [from Hosea] to establish the admission of the Gentiles when many passages speak of Gentiles directly? The passages quoted from Hosea show how God's word was fulfilled even in the case of the ten Israelite tribes" (627).

Most interpreters disagree with Lenski, however, and believe that Paul is indeed applying the Hosea texts to the evangelization of the Gentiles. One reason for saying this is that v. 24 ends with a reference to the Gentiles, and v. 25 begins with "as he says in Hosea." The word "as" seems to tie the quote to the Gentiles. Also, following the Hosea references Paul turns to Isaiah (v. 27), and he specifically mentions Israel: "Isaiah cries out concerning Israel." This suggests he was not referring to Israel in the previous quotes, says Moo (613).

But how could Paul justify applying the Hosea prophecies to the Gentiles? The consensus seems to be that the ten "lost" tribes' permanent exile has so intermingled them with the Gentiles that the evangelization of the one group will necessarily involve the evangelization of the other (Godet, 365). These Jews had become "not loved" and "not my people" through the judgment of the exile; the Gentiles were "not loved" and "not my people" by nature, so to speak. Thus in the NT age, when the church goes into all the world, the gospel appeal reaches Jew and Gentile alike, and the words of Hosea take on a new and expanded meaning. Hosea's prophecy specifically promises the restoration of the Jews, but because of their scattered status "Paul takes this promise as a proof of God's purpose to include the Gentiles in His salvation" (Cranfield, 2:500; see Morris, 370). Bruce's analysis is a fair one (196):

What Paul does here is to take this promise . . . and extract from it a principle of divine action which in his day was reproducing itself on a world-wide scale. In large measure through Paul's own apostolic ministry, great numbers of Gentiles, who had never been "the people of God" and had no claim on His covenant mercy, were coming to be enrolled among His people and to be the recipients of His mercy. The scale of the divine action was far wider than in Hosea's day, but the same pattern and principle were recognizable.

First Peter 2:10 seems to apply Hosea 2:23 in a similar way.

In view of these considerations, in my judgment it is proper to apply the Hosea prophecies to both Jews and Gentiles.

In v. 25 Paul introduces the quotation from Hosea 2:23 thus: "As he says in Hosea." The "he" is God; this is Paul's testimony to the divine origin of these "oracles" (see 3:2). The quotation itself is more of a paraphrase than an exact quote; the two main clauses are reversed.

For God to punish Israelites by stripping them of their status as "my people" was a severe blow; being the people of God was their greatest treasure. Thus the messianic promise that God would one day bestow this title upon them again would have special meaning for Jews. Gentiles who have never had this status to begin with may not at first realize what a great promise this is. To be "God's people" means to come into a special family relationship with him (see 8:14-17). God loves all human beings (John 3:16), but his most special love is reserved for those whose hearts and lives are surrendered to him (John 14:21). Through unbelief and idolatry Israel forfeited this special love and became like Gentiles to God, but the gospel of Jesus Christ makes this love-relationship available once more to fallen Jews and fallen Gentiles alike.

The word "call" in both v. 25 and v. 26 does not refer to the gospel call but to the giving of a new name or title. "I will call them" means "I will name them" or "I will give them this name" (Lard, 314; Murray, 2:39).

Verse 26 is a citation of Hosea 1:10; its main point is the same as v. 25 and Hos 2:23. In this verse the "not my people" are renamed "sons of the living God." To a once-fallen but now-converted Jew, this is the restoration of a name once proudly worn by all Israelites. That it is now a name applied not just to believing Jews but also to believing Gentiles shows that mere physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not suffice for true sonship. Today we are all - men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free men - sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:26-29).

Paul says, citing Hosea, that this calling (naming) will happen "in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people.'" This probably refers to the Gentile world. As applied to exiled and scattered Jews it means that they do not have to return to their "homeland" in order to become God's sons once again. Through the preaching of the gospel adoption into God's family takes place in whatever nation one is found, whether one be Jew or Gentile.

9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." Paul takes this quote from Isa 10:22-23 and specifically applies it to Israel. He says that Isaiah "cries out" this prophecy, indicating that the words were spoken with fervent emotion.

Though his message surely applies to the whole of Israel, Isaiah's ministry, unlike that of Hosea, was to the southern kingdom. The tenth chapter of Isaiah is mainly an oracle about Assyria, whom God used to punish unbelieving Israel and who then received God's punishment in return. The prophet is assuring Israel that even though they must suffer conquest and captivity, at least a remnant will survive and return to the Lord. But at the same time, the fact that only a remnant will be saved means that the rest will be destroyed.

Isaiah 10:21 says, "A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God." This does not mean that this remnant of the exiled northern tribes would return to their homeland, in the way that a remnant of the southern kingdom returned from Babylonian captivity to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Isaiah speaks rather of a spiritual return - a returning to the Lord. This is the way Paul understands it; thus in v. 27b he words the promise, "The remnant will be saved ." He sees Isaiah's prophecy as being fulfilled through the preaching of the gospel and the entry of many Jews into spiritual Israel, the church, through their conversion to Christ. As Fitzmyer says, "Paul applies the words to Jews called to accept Christ, and the remnant becomes those who actually did accept him, viz., Paul and fellow Jewish Christians" (574).

That the prophet Isaiah himself declares that only a remnant would thus be saved is a primary vindication of Paul's main point, "that the covenant promise did not contemplate or guarantee the salvation of all ethnic Israel" (Murray, 2:39). Everything that God promised to Israel as a nation was fulfilled, including the assurance that the number of Israelites would "be like the sand of the sea" - a promise spoken to Abraham in Gen 22:17 (see Gen 32:12). But the remnant prophecy shows that this great nation was chosen only for service, not for salvation; and the fact that only a small proportion were saved was in no way contrary to God's promises and God's faithfulness. See Dunn, 2:575.

Paul's use of the remnant concept in this way sheds important light on two other texts. One is 9:6b, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Ethnic Israel is the numerous-as-sand nation physically descended from Jacob; but only the remnant, those who accept salvation through Jesus Christ, are the true Israel, the true "sons of the living God." The other text is 11:26, "And so all Israel will be saved." The remnant doctrine, along with 9:6b, shows that "all Israel" does not have to refer to the nation as a whole.

The remnant doctrine is both a promise and a judgment. As a promise, it is an assurance that at least a remnant of Israel will be saved. There will always be an Israel, at least a spiritual Israel. But as a judgment, it is a solemn recognition that only a remnant will be saved. The NIV emphasizes this latter sense by translating ean as "though" and by adding the word "only" (both here and in Isa 10:22). Cranfield (2:502) says that the word translated "remnant" in itself implies "only a remnant." This necessarily means that the great majority of Israel will not be saved.

This note of judgment is emphasized in v. 28. It has the particle gavr ( gar , "for, because"); thus it "explains how it will come about that only a remnant of Israel will be saved" (Cranfield, 2:502). The verse seems to be a summary of Isa 10:22b-23, "Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous. The Lord, the LORD Almighty, will carry out the destruction decreed upon the whole land." In 9:28 the word lovgo" ( logos ), translated "sentence" in the NIV, probably refers to the decree of destruction of which Isaiah speaks. This is the sentence of judgment or destruction upon the nation of Israel as a whole, which is implicit in the promise that only a remnant of them will be saved.

The Lord himself will carry out this decree of judgment upon the nation "with speed and finality." These last words are an attempt to translate two participles, forms of the Greek words suntelevw (synteleô , "to complete, to carry out, to accomplish, to fulfill completely") and suntevmnw (syntemnô , "to cut short, to cut off, to end, to shorten"). These words indicate that God carries out this sentence with thoroughness and completeness and finality. The former word (synteleô ) looks to the past and means that in carrying out this sentence God is accomplishing an existing purpose, bringing it to completion, and fulfilling it completely. The latter word (syntemnô ) looks to the future and means that in carrying out this sentence God is cutting something off and bringing it to an end; it will not continue to exist in the future. In my opinion this means that the establishment of the remnant (spiritual Israel) marks the end of God's dealing with Israel as a nation; his purpose for ethnic Israel is now completed, and they are cut off as his special people. From this point on his focus is upon spiritual Israel.

The words translated "on earth" probably should be translated "upon the land," i.e., upon the land of Israel. In Isa 10:23 "upon the whole land" no doubt has this connotation, as it refers to "the devastation wrought by the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser" (Lenski, 631). A similar devastation of "the land" was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; Lenski thinks this is the sense of it for Paul's time (631). This may be so, but in any case we should understand "upon the land" as referring to the land of Israel, with the word "land" standing for ethnic Israel or physical Israelites as such.

9:29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah." This last quotation, from Isaiah 1:9, reemphasizes both the seriousness of God's judgment upon unbelieving Israel and the divine provision for preserving at least a remnant of his people. In Scripture the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a type of final and decisive judgment. Thus without the remnant, Israel would have become like these two cities: extinct. By preserving only the remnant, God brought a judgment just short of this upon Israel.

But he did leave a remnant, as Isa 1:9 says and as Paul emphasizes. "The Lord Almighty" preserved this remnant. Both Isaiah and Paul actually say "the Lord of Hosts," but for some reason the NIV changes "hosts" to "Almighty." As "Lord of Hosts" God is the ruler of all the heavenly or angelic hosts; he is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

The word "descendants" definitely connotes the remnant idea in this text. Isa 1:9 says the Lord left "some survivors" (NIV), or "a few survivors" (NASB, NRSV), or "a very small remnant" (KJV). The LXX uses spevrma ( sperma , "seed") instead of survivors. Since he quotes the LXX verbatim, Paul also uses sperma , which the NIV translates "descendants." This is not a good translation, since "seed" here connotes not a relationship to what is past (i.e., to one's ancestors), but a preparation for the future, or (as Morris says) "the potential for new growth" (373; see Cranfield, 2:503). The purpose for leaving behind a few survivors is to reseed and replant for the future. The "new growth" that springs forth from this seed is the new spiritual Israel, the church.

The Lord "left us" this remnant. The verb used here can mean "to leave behind" in the sense of "to forsake, to abandon"; but it can also mean, as here, "to allow to remain" (AG, 214-215). Though the Lord carried out his sentence of destruction upon the nation in general, he allowed this seed-remnant to remain. This is definitely a note of promise and hope, or as Dunn says, "a gasp of gratitude" (2:576).

In what sense did the Lord leave this remnant? He left it in the sense that he "bore with great patience the objects of his wrath" (v. 22) until the time that he was ready for the spiritual Israel to come into existence. As Lenski says (632),

If God had made his final reckoning with the Jews in Isaiah's time or even prior to this, no godly remnant could have been obtained from them at any future time, certainly not at Paul's time. Judaism would have become a second Sodom, would have been made like to Gomorrah, not a soul would have been left after the cataclysm of punishment. But God restrained his wrath so that seed was left.

This brings the first main section of Rom 9-11 to a conclusion. Paul has shown that God has not been unfaithful to Israel nor treated them unfairly. He has kept every promise he made to them, and fulfilled every purpose he had for them as a nation.

The one question raised in this section that has yet to be addressed is the lost state of the great majority of the Jews, or more specifically, who is responsible for their lostness? The objector raised the question in v. 19a, "Then why does God still blame us?" The implication is that somehow God is responsible for the Jews' rejection of their Messiah; therefore they should not be blamed and punished. This is the issue that Paul will address in the next section.

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW

RATHER THAN GRACE (9:30-10:21)

There is considerable agreement that 9:30-10:21 forms the next major section of 9-11, but how it relates to the previous section is a matter of dispute. A common view is that ch. 9 explains Israel's lostness in terms of God's sovereign decision, while ch. 10 explains it as the result of Israel's own unbelief. For Calvinists especially, ch. 9 presents the picture of a sovereign God who unilaterally and unconditionally chooses which individuals he will save and which he will send to hell, while ch. 10 presents him as giving human beings the choice of whether to believe or not to believe, with salvation being conditioned on this choice. This seeming contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is a paradox with no ready explanation.

For example, Moo says that according to Paul in ch. 9, Israel's plight "is due to the sovereign determination of God. But in 9:30-10:21, he argues that it is also the result of human response." Though Paul simply presents both sides without attempting to reconcile them, it is likely that Israel's unbelief "is simply the result of God's prior decision" (617).

In my judgment the point of these two sections is something quite different. Paul's main purpose in 9-11, as discussed earlier, is to vindicate God's faithfulness in view of (a) his promises to Israel and (b) Israel's lostness. Chs. 9 and 10 present two separate but related reasons why this situation does not violate God's faithfulness. First (ch. 9), his faithfulness is not violated because his promises to the nation as a whole involved only their role of service and not their salvation. God elected them to serve a special purpose in his redemptive plan, and he patiently accomplished this purpose through them. With reference to salvation, however, God has distinguished between two Israels: the physical nation and the spiritual remnant. This distinction explains the apparently contradictory way God has treated Israel according to the flesh. His sovereign election for covenant service, including his covenant promises, applies only to the former; salvation belongs only to those Jews who are also a part of the latter. Thus God's promises to ethnic Israel - all of which were kept - are consistent with their lostness.

The second reason (ch. 10) why God's faithfulness is not violated by this situation is because Israel's lostness (their exclusion from spiritual Israel) is the result of their own free choice of law rather than grace as the way of salvation. This is the main point of this present section, which stresses very clearly the fact that Israel is responsible for its own fate. As Fitzmyer rightly says, "The cause of Israel's failure is not to be found in God, but in Israel itself. . . . Its situation is derived from its own misstep" (576). Paul makes it clear that any and all Jews could have been saved if they had accepted God's gift of righteousness on his gracious terms instead of trying to attain salvation through their own works or personal righteousness. Such saving grace had always been available to individual Jews, based on God's loving offer of forgiveness of sins; but the offer was usually spurned, as the gospel of Christ itself came to be. In other words, it is the Jews themselves, not God, who have been unfaithful.

Herein lies the connection between 9-11 and 1-8, as well as between this section and the overall theme of the letter, which is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation (JC, 1:53). In 1-8 Paul has explained why it is impossible for anyone to be saved by the law system, and how God has therefore provided the alternative system of grace. Now he shows that the only reason most Jews were lost is that they persisted in trying to be accepted by God on the basis of their own righteousness, i.e., by the impotent system of law (see 1:18-3:20). Thus the responsibility for being accursed must be laid at their own feet, not God's.

Spiritual Israel, on the other hand, consists of those who have accepted the way of grace, in which God offers a divinely-established righteousness based on the death of Jesus Christ to all who put their trust in him (see 3:21-5:21). The reason some Gentiles are included in this new Israel is that they have trusted God's righteousness rather than their own, and the only reason the remnant of the Jews are included is that they do the same.

A. PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS VERSUS

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (9:30-10:3)

This paragraph presents the essence of this section in terms of the concept of righteousness, i.e., the righteousness on the basis of which one is accepted by God. The Jews were lost, says Paul, because they sought acceptance by God through their own personal righteousness or law-keeping, which can never be good enough. They rejected the gift of God's righteousness, which is the only hope for salvation.

"God's righteousness" (10:3) in this context is the same as the "righteousness from God" that is revealed in the gospel (1:17). It is not the attribute of God by which he is personally righteous, but rather a gift of righteousness that God offers to sinners, thus allowing him to accept them as righteous even though in reality they are not. Specifically, it is Jesus Christ's payment of the penalty of the law in our place (JC, 1:116-120).

Though the Jews are the main focus of this section, the Gentiles are mentioned here by way of contrast. The very thing the Jews were seeking but failed to attain, the Gentiles attained even though they were not seeking it (9:30-31). DeWelt paraphrases Paul thus: "It is strange, isn't it, that the Gentiles who were not looking or searching for justification, found it, and you Jews who were diligently seeking for a means of justification failed in your search?" (159). This is certainly tragic but also extremely ironic; indeed, it is "the most poignant irony in the whole of history" (Godet, 367).

1. The Reason for the Gentiles' Acceptance (9:30)

9:30 What then shall we say? Sometimes when Paul asks this question, he does so to introduce a false inference or idea, which he then proceeds to refute (e.g., 6:1; 7:7; 9:14). But here it serves simply to introduce the new section. What follows is not an objector's question but Paul's own teaching (as in 8:31; 11:7).

"What then shall we say" - about what? What has triggered this question? No doubt it is the whole of the previous section that is in view. I.e., what shall we say about the lostness of most Jews (9:3,22, 28), especially in view of the fact that even some Gentiles (!) are being saved (9:25-26)?

This is Paul's answer, That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, . . . This refers not to all Gentiles, but only to those who accept the gospel. What is the righteousness they have obtained? Most agree that Paul is not speaking of moral righteousness or righteous character, but rather a "righteous status in God's sight" (Cranfield, 2:506), or a right standing with God (e.g., Hendriksen, 2:333; Morris, 374). It is not the same as justification (contra Lard, 317; DeWelt, 159), but is rather the result of it. On the basis of his gracious act of justifying (declaring or counting righteous), believing Gentiles obtain their right standing before God.

Whether righteousness be taken as right moral character or as a right standing before God, it was characteristic of the Gentiles that they sought for neither. Regarding the former, there were no doubt some exceptions, but in general the pagan world was noted for its wickedness (1:18-32; Acts 14:16; 17:30; Eph 4:17-19). But this very fact shows that the Gentiles were not striving for the latter, either. This is true because without special revelation the only known means of being right with God is earnest moral striving; but as just noted, this was not typical of the Gentile world.

But even though they were not pursuing a right standing before God, they obtained it anyway! The words "pursue" and "obtain" go together. Literally they can refer to pursuing a quarry and catching it, or running after a prize in a race and winning it. Figuratively they refer to seeking after or pursuing a goal, and attaining it. What is so unusual is that the Gentiles attained this goal or prize without even seeking it. This refers to the fact that under the New Covenant God is actively seeking Gentiles to be his people through the worldwide preaching of the gospel. By accepting the gospel when it is presented to them, Gentiles obtain this right standing before God.

Specifically, Paul says, the Gentiles obtained a righteousness that is by faith . . . . That is, they obtained a right standing with God based on the free gift of God's own righteousness, a gift which they received by putting their trust in Christ's saving work (1:17; 3:21-22; Phil 3:9). "Righteousness by faith" is a shorthand expression for the grace system as a whole and is similar to "justified by faith" in 3:28 (JC, 1:267-268).

2. The Reason for the Jews' Lostness (9:31-33)

9:31 [B]ut Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Here is the tragic irony. The Gentiles did not pursue righteousness but obtained it anyway; Israel pursued it but did not attain it. "Israel" refers to the physical nation in general. "Pursued" is a present participle (literally, "pursuing"), to which both the NASB and the NIV give a purely descriptive meaning. Grammatically it could be causative (" because they pursued"), but this does not fit the context, as the following discussion shows. Another possibility, which I favor, is that the participle is concessive: " although they pursued." Although Israel, unlike the Gentiles, vigorously pursued a law of righteousness, they did not attain it.

The difficult part of this verse is the expression, "a law of righteousness" (novmon dikaiosuvnh" , nomon dikaiosynçs ). Why didn't Paul just say "righteousness," making the language parallel with v. 30? Why did he say " law of righteousness"? Some say "law of righteousness" is equivalent to "righteousness of law," and just turn it around: Israel "pursued the righteousness which is based on law: (NRSV; see Lard, 318; Fitzmyer, 578). This would suggest that the object of their pursuit was in itself a false goal, since righteousness based on law-keeping is impossible for sinners to attain.

This view is unacceptable, however, because v. 32 suggests that the Jews' problem was not the goal they were seeking but the manner in which they sought it: they pursued it by works rather than by faith. Thus we should take Paul's expression at face value. The Jews were pursuing a law of righteousness, which in itself is a proper pursuit.

What, then, is this "law of righteousness"? Murray (2:43) says the word "law" ( nomos ) here is not used in the sense of a law code, i.e., the Law of Moses. Rather, it "means principle or rule or order," as in 3:27 (see JC, 1:267). I.e., Israel was pursuing the principle of righteousness. If so, then Paul is not really adding anything to the concept of righteousness as such. This, however, is just the problem with this view. To use the loaded term nomos in this context in such an inconsequential way would be very confusing, especially in light of the way it is used in 10:4. I deem this approach unacceptable.

The best understanding is that "law" here refers to the Law of Moses, which the Jews obviously pursued and after which they hastened with the greatest of zeal (2:17-20; 10:2). Moo agrees that the nomos here is the Mosaic Law, and that in principle it was not wrong for Israel to seek it; yet he says that in the final analysis it was the wrong goal, since they should have sought Christ instead (625-627). I disagree with this last point. It is true that once Christ has come, it is wrong to continue to pursue the Law of Moses in even the best sense, since the law itself points everyone to Jesus Christ (Gal 3:24) and is obsolete now that he has come (as Hebrews teaches). But Paul's lament in 9:31 applies not just to the Jews who were contemporary with Christ and the birth of Christianity (cf. 9:32b-33), but also to preceding generations of Israelites who would not have known Christ as such. Hence throughout the OT era it was proper for the Jews to pursue the Law of Moses as a "law of righteousness."

In what sense is the Law of Moses a law of righteousness ? We should remember that righteousness as such means "conformity to the proper and relevant standard or norm" (see JC, 1:116). Thus any form of God's law for mankind (heart-engraved [2:15], Mosaic, New Covenant) is a law of righteousness in the sense that it is the norm or standard to which all human beings in their respective contexts are obligated to conform. The Law of Moses was the norm by which the righteousness of the Jews was to be measured, or as Dunn says, "a standard which defines what God requires of his covenant people" (2:581). As such it was meant to be meticulously and sincerely obeyed, which was the professed goal of every Israelite (see Ps 119).

Paul's lament is that, although the Jews pursued their law of righteousness, they did not attain it. "Attain" here is not the same Greek word as "obtain" in v. 30, but the concept is similar. Contrary to the Gentiles, who did obtain righteousness, the Jew did not arrive at their goal. They did not "catch up with" it; it "always left them far behind" (Lenski, 636).

Exactly what did the Jews hope to gain by pursuing the law of righteousness, i.e., by conforming their lives and conduct to the Law of Moses? Not just righteousness in the sense of perfect moral character, but righteousness in the sense of right standing before God - the very thing the Gentiles attained without seeking it. But why did the Jews not attain it?

9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. Here is a point that must not be overlooked: it was possible for the Jews to obtain a right standing with God by pursuing the Law of Moses, their "law of righteousness," as long as they pursued it in the right manner. Of course, if anyone had obeyed it perfectly, he would have been justified before God for that very reason; but Paul has already shown that no Jew ever accomplished this (2:1-3:20), and he is not just repeating that point here. Rather, Paul says the reason the Jews did not succeed was that they did not pursue their law "by faith." This implies that they could have pursued it by faith; and if they had done so, they would have obtained the same righteous standing with God that the Gentiles did. In fact, we must assume that a large number of Jews throughout OT history did in fact follow after the law by faith and attain righteousness thereby (11:4), though most did not.

But how is it possible for the Jews to follow after the Law of Moses by faith ? The most obvious way is that the Jews living in the Christian era can put their trust in the very one to whom their law points, namely, Jesus. But what of those who lived in pre-Christian generations? How could they pursue the law of righteousness by faith ? Doesn't this sound like a contradiction?

It is not a contradiction. The Law of Moses as a law code was unique, in that it contained not just moral and legal precepts to be obeyed, but also religious provisions that embodied the very essence of grace (i.e., forgiveness of sins). Pre-Christian Jews did not know Jesus as such, but they knew that they were sinners and law-breakers as measured by all the moral and legal requirements of their law, and they knew from the laws of sacrifice the principle of atonement via substitution. Thus they knew that their sin and idolatry could be forgiven when God's promises of mercy displayed in the sacrifices were embraced by faith (see 3:21). Those Jews who trusted in the gospel aspects of the Law of Moses rather than its legal aspects are the ones who obtained a righteous status before God.

In this sense the Jews' law was not an enemy of faith, but was in fact designed to engender faith. As Achtemeier says, that law was intended to uphold a righteous relationship with God based on trust in him; its very purpose was to help the Jews achieve such trust (167). Cranfield (2:508) says it thus:

. . . The law is the law of righteousness because it was intended and designed to show the people of Israel how they could be righteous before God, to show them that the way to this righteousness is - faith. In the law which they were pursuing so zealously they had that which was all the time pointing out the way to the possession of a status of righteousness in God's sight.

How then was it possible to pursue the law by faith? Again Cranfield's answer (2:510) is on target:

. . . The answer must be, surely, that it is to respond to the claim to faith which God makes through the law, and must include accepting, without evasion or resentment, the law's criticism of one's life, recognizing that one can never so adequately fulfil its righteous requirements as to put God in one's debt, accepting God's proffered mercy and forgiveness and in return giving oneself to Him in love and gratitude and so beginning to be released from one's self-centredness and turned in the direction of a humble obedience that is free from self-righteousness; that it is to allow oneself to be turned again and again by the forgiving mercy of God in the direction of loving Him with all one's heart and soul and mind and strength and of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

A biblical example of one who pursued the law by faith is the publican or tax collector in Jesus' parable in Luke 18:9-14. In the temple as he prayed for acceptance by God, he was overwhelmed by his unworthiness and cried simply, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Jesus declared that this man went home "justified before God." Though this story may have been fictional, it shows how any Jew at any time in OT history was able to attain by faith a righteous standing with God, as guided by the law. As Hendriksen says, "The law, with its uncompromising demand of perfect love and obedience, should have driven each Israelite to God with the fervent prayer, 'Oh, God, be thou merciful to me, the sinner'" (2:334).

Many were thus driven, but most were not. Indeed, most were like the Pharisee in the same parable. Instead of pursuing the law of righteousness by faith, Israel as a whole pursued it "by works." Instead of simply trusting the law's manifested grace as the source of their righteous standing before God, they trusted that their own ability to obey its precepts would make them worthy of acceptance by God. "They thought that the law pointed to the contribution they had to make" toward that acceptance, "and hence lost the point of the law, which was to engender trust in the God who had chosen them" (Achtemeier, 167). Instead of depending on God's forgiving grace, they trusted that they had achieved a satisfactory degree of personal righteousness, "as if the accumulation of works-righteousness were God's way of salvation" (Stott, 276).

What Israel did, in effect, was to transform their law code into a law system . As a law code, the Law of Moses was a simple set of commands to which the Israelites were obligated to conform their lives and conduct. To use it as such was to use it properly (3:31). But the moment they began to regard such obedience as the means or basis for gaining acceptance by God, their law code became the centerpiece in the law system as a way of salvation (JC, 1:128). But this is exactly why Israel was lost: the law system cannot save sinners (1:18-3:20).

They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." This is a reference to Yahweh's warning to Israel in Isa 8:13-15. "The LORD Almighty," he said, "is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread." Though he will be a sanctuary or place of safety, at the same time "for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." Many of the Jews "will stumble; they will fall and be broken."

Though 9:33 as well as other NT references show that the "stumbling stone" ultimately applies to Jesus Christ, originally the stone was Yahweh as such. To Jews in Old Covenant times, God presented himself as a sanctuary, i.e., as the holy place where one could find refuge from all his enemies (see 1 Kgs 1:50-51; 2:28-29). As such he placed himself squarely in the path of his people (Isa 65:1-2). Thus if they refused to take shelter in his grace, they ran headlong into him and crashed against him and fell. As Lenski says, "This is not a stone over which one may merely stumble and recover oneself but one against which one runs with his entire body and smashes it entirely; it is like knocking one's brains out" (637). Thus it was with all Jews throughout OT history who pursued the law of righteousness by works instead of by faith.

Thus it is no surprise that when Yahweh came in the flesh, the Jews of that generation stumbled against him as well. As Dunn says, their confusion regarding the law and righteousness "came to eschatological expression and climax in their refusal to recognize Christ as Messiah" (2:577). They were conditioned to do so by the chronic misuse of the law by their ancestors, which, in Achtemeier's words, "had as its inevitable outcome the result that when Christ came as the one who personified the call contained in the law to trust in God, the chosen people rejected him" (167).

9:33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." This verse expands the "stumbling stone" concept and implicitly applies it to Christ. I say "implicitly" because Christ is not specifically mentioned in the verse, yet these same OT quotes are applied to him elsewhere in the NT. In fact, the second part of this verse, a quote from Isa 28:16b, is explicitly applied to Christ in 10:11.

"Stone" and "rock" are two different Greek words. The "stone" of stumbling (also in v. 32) is livqo" ( lithos ), which refers to a loose stone of any kind, large or small. The "rock" of falling is pevtra ( petra ), which generally refers to firm, immovable bedrock or rock-mass, whether underground or protruding from the ground (such as a cliff).

"As it is written" is a common NT way of introducing material from the OT, which in this case is a composite of two passages from Isaiah. "See, I lay in Zion a stone" is from Isa 28:16; "a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" is from Isa 8:14; and the rest of the verse is from Isa 28:16 again. The way Paul combines them is an ingenious blending of the two texts. Isa 8:14 presents Yahweh as both a refuge (sanctuary) and a stone of judgment, with the emphasis being on the latter. Isa 28:16 concentrates on the stone as a place of refuge and safety. Paul simply combines the two and presents the one stone as the source of both judgment and promise.

One reason for saying v. 33 refers to Jesus is that, while in Isa 8:14 Yahweh himself is the stone, in Isa 28:16 Yahweh is the one who lays the stone. That the latter is a messianic prophecy is indicated by the fact that Matt 16:16-18 is clearly based on Isa 28:14-19. Christ's person and work as summed up in Peter's confession are the foundation stone on which the church is built, and all the forces of Hades (=Sheol in Isa 28:15, 18) cannot overpower it. Thus most scholars agree that the stone of stumbling in 9:32-33 is Jesus, especially in his role as the crucified Messiah (see 1 Cor 1:23).

But how can Paul apply both Isaiah texts to Jesus? In Isaiah 28:16, to be sure, the stone does appear to be the Messiah, but in 8:14 the stone is Yahweh himself. So how can they both refer to Jesus? The answer is simple: "Christ is God!" (Hendriksen, 2:335). The Messiah-Stone "is therefore Jehovah in His final manifestation" (Godet, 369; see Rom 10:9,13). This does not mean that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same person; it means only that Yahweh in the OT revelation is the entire Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus is "a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." This does not mean that God wants anyone to stumble over him or that he intended the Jews to fall because of him (Lard, 319). Based on Paul's use of the Isaiah verses where Yahweh says that he is laying "in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble," Dunn draws the conclusion that "Israel's fall was intended by God" (2:584). But the stumbling is a result , not a purpose. The stone is intended as a refuge; but because he has been rejected, "what was meant to be a basis of security has become a stumbling block" (Fitzmyer, 580). We can agree with Moo, however, that "Israel's stumbling over Christ was predicted in the OT" (630).

In what sense does anyone stumble or fall over Jesus? The verb for "stumble" (v. 32) is proskovptw (proskoptô ); it means literally "to strike or bump against, to stumble against or over"; figuratively it means "to give offense, to take offense at, to reject." The noun, provskomma ( proskomma ), is used in this verse. It can refer to the object over which someone stumbles, but here refers to the act of stumbling as such. The word for "fall" is the noun skavndalon ( skandalon ), which can be defined as "that which gives offense or causes revulsion, that which arouses opposition" (AG, 760). This definition does not capture the entire meaning, though. In the LXX the word often means "cause of ruin," and is often used in the sense of a snare or trap or temptation, i.e., a cause for sin and punishment. In Paul the gospel about Jesus is a skandalon in a similar sense; it is an "occasion of guilt" and a "cause of destruction" (Stählin, "skavndalon ," 342, 353). Thus a skandalon is something which one opposes or to which one takes offense only to his ruin and destruction. In this light it is easy to see how Jesus is a stumbling stone. Those who oppose him or who take offense at the gospel of the cross fall into eternal ruin and death. This is what happened to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23), and it can happen to anyone else.

But this is not the whole story. God lays in Zion a stone; some fall over him, but "the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." This part of v. 33 is based on Isa 28:16b, where the Hebrew verb in the latter clause seems to be "will not be in haste," or "will not be in a hurry" (NASB margin). Other interpretations of the word are "will not panic" (NRSV), "will not fuss and rush around but trust in God" (Bruce, 200), will not be "fleeing away in confusion" (MP, 416). The passive verb used by Paul means "to be disgraced, to be put to shame," and speaks more of the reason for such panic or hasty flight than the fleeing itself. The idea is that those who take refuge upon the Rock by trusting in him will never have to slink away in shame for having made a humiliating decision. As Bruce says, "Those who trust in God need never fear that their trust in Him will prove to be ill-founded. God vindicates His people's faith" (200). Those who do not believe will exist in "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2).

In these three verses (31-33), then, Paul vindicates the faithfulness of God by declaring that Israel as a whole is responsible for its own lost condition. The essence of their failure was that they trusted in themselves rather than in God's promises and in their own Messiah; they pursued acceptance with God by works rather than by faith; they chose law rather than grace.

Such a path to perdition is not limited to the Jews, of course. Anyone living in the New Covenant era can respond to the New Covenant revelation in exactly the same way, i.e., by zealously pursuing its commands in an effort to win God's approval on the basis of such works. The fate of those who do so will be the same as Israel's.

McGarvey: Rom 9:10

And not only so [Not only is Ishmael rejected for the promised Isaac, but even Isaac's seed, his two sons Esau and Jacob, are made the subject of choice by God, showing that even the seed of the children of promise may be so sifted that part may be received and part rejected, for God indeed did this, accepting Jacob and rejecting Esau]; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac [Now, it might be objected by the Jew (unjustly in view of the fact that four of the tribes of Israel were descended from bondwomen) that his case was not parallel to that of Ishmael, for Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman (an Egyptian), and was of a mocking, spiteful disposition (Gen 21:9). Ishmael's rejection, therefore, was justifiable, while the exclusion of the Jew by Paul's so-called gospel was utterly unwarranted. To this Paul makes answer by citing the cases of Jacob and Esau. They had one father, Isaac the child of promise; and one mother, Rebecca the well beloved, approved of God; they were begotten at one conception, and were twins of one birth, yet God exercised his right to choose between them, and no Jew had ever questioned this, his right of choice. Yea, the unbounded freedom of choice was even more clearly manifest in other details which Paul enumerates] --

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 9 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 9:1, Paul is sorry for the Jews; Rom 9:7, All of Abraham not of the promise; Rom 9:18, God’s sovereignty; Rom 9:25, The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews, foretold; Rom 9:32, The cause of the Jews’ stumbling.

Poole: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 9

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 9 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 9:1-5) The apostle's concern that his countrymen were strangers to the gospel.

(Rom 9:6-13) The promises are made good to the spiritual seed of Abraham.

(Rom 9:14-24) Answers to objections against God's sovereign conduct, in exercising mercy and justice.

(Rom 9:25-29) This sovereignty is in God's dealing both with Jews and Gentiles.

(Rom 9:30-33) The falling short of the Jews is owing to their seeking justification, not by faith, but by the works of the law.

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 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having plainly asserted and largely proved that justification and salvation are to had by faith only, and not by the works of the law, by Christ and not by Moses, comes in this and the following chapters to anticipate an objection which might be made against this. If this be so, then what becomes of the Jews, of them all as a complex body, especially those of them that do not embrace Christ, nor believe the gospel? By this rule they must needs come short of happiness; and then what becomes of the promise made to the fathers, which entailed salvation upon the Jews? Is not that promise nullified and made of none effect? Which is not a thing to be imagined concerning any word of God. That doctrine therefore, might they say, is not to be embraced, from which flows such a consequence as this. That the consequence of the rejection of the unbelieving Jews follows from Paul's doctrine he grants, but endeavours to soften and mollify (Rom 9:1-5). But that from this it follows that the word of God takes no effect he denies (Rom 9:6), and proves the denial in the rest of the chapter, which serves likewise to illustrate the great doctrine of predestination, which he had spoken of (Rom 8:28) as the first wheel which in the business of salvation sets all the other wheels a-going.

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 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The Problem Of The Jews (Rom_9:1-6)

In Rom 9-11 Paul tries to deal with one of the most bewildering problems that the Church has to solve--the problem of the Jews. They were God's chosen people; they had had a unique place in God's purposes; and yet when God's Son had come into the world they had rejected him and crucified him. How is this tragic paradox to be explained? That is the problem with which Paul seeks to deal in these chapters. They are complicated and difficult, and, before we begin to study them in detail, it will be well to set out the broad lines of the solution which Paul presented. One thing we must note before we begin to disentangle Paul's thought--the chapters were written not in anger but in heartbreak. He could never forget that he was a Jew and he would gladly have laid down his own life if, by so doing, he could have brought his brethren to Jesus Christ. Paul never denies that the Jews were the chosen people. God adopted them as his own; he gave them the covenants and the service of the Temple and the law; he gave them the presence of his own glory; he gave them the patriarchs. Above all Jesus was a Jew. The special place of the Jews in God's economy of salvation Paul accepts as an axiom and as the starting-point of the whole problem. The first point which he makes is this--it is true that the Jews as a nation rejected and crucified Jesus, but it is also true, that not all the Jews rejected him; some received him and believed in him, for all the early followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul then looks back on history and insists that racial descent from Abraham does not make a Jew. Over and over again in Jewish history there was in God's ways a process of selection--Paul calls it election--whereby some of those who were racial descendants of Abraham were chosen and some rejected. In the case of Abraham, Isaac, the son born according to the promise of God, was chosen, but Ishmael, the son born of purely natural desire, was not. In the case of Isaac, his son Jacob was chosen, but Esau, Jacob's twin, was not. This selection had nothing to do with merit; it was the work entirely of God's electing wisdom and power. Further, the real chosen people never lay in the whole nation; it always lay in the righteous remnant, the few who were true to God when all others denied him. It was so in the days of Elijah, when seven thousand remained faithful to God after the rest of the nation had gone after Baal. It was an essential part of the teaching of Isaiah, who said: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant Of them will be saved" (Isa_10:22; Rom_9:27). Paul's first point is that at no time were the whole people the chosen people. There was always selection, election, on the part of God. Is it fair of God to elect some and to reject others? And, if some men are elected and others are rejected through no virtue or fault of their own, how can you blame them if they reject Christ, and how can you praise them if they accept him? Here Paul uses an argument at which the mind staggers, and from which we quite properly recoil. Bluntly, it is that God can do what he likes and that man has no right whatever to question his decisions, however inscrutable they may be. The clay cannot talk back to the potter. A craftsman may make two vessels, one for an honourable purpose and another for a menial purpose; the vessels have nothing whatever to do with it. That, said Paul, is what God has a right to do with men. He quotes the instance of Pharaoh (Rom_9:17) and says that he was brought on to the stage of history simply to be the instrument through which God's avenging power was demonstrated. In any event, the people of Israel had been forewarned of the election of the Gentiles and of their own rejection, for, did not the prophet Hosea write: "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people', and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved'" (Hos_1:10; Rom_9:25). However, this rejection of Israel was not callous and haphazard. The door was shut to the Jews that it might be opened to the Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of the Jews and blinded their eyes with the ultimate purpose of opening a way for the Gentiles into the faith. Here is a strange and terrible argument. Stripped of all its non-essentials, it is that God can do what he likes with any man or nation. and that he deliberately darkened the minds and shut the eyes of the Jews in order that the Gentiles might come in. What was the fundamental mistake of the Jews? This may seem a curious question to ask in view of what we have just said. But, paradoxically, Paul holds that though the rejection of the Jews was the work of God, it need never have happened. He cannot get rid of the eternal paradox--nor does he desire to--that at one and the same time all is of God and man has free-will. The fundamental mistake of the Jews was that they tried to get into a right relationship with God through their own efforts. They tried to earn salvation; whereas the Gentiles simply accepted the offer of God in perfect trust. The Jews should have known that the only way to God was the way of faith and that human achievement led nowhere. Did not Isaiah say: "No one who believes in him will be put to shame"? (Isa_28:16; Rom_10:11 .) Did not Joel say: "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved"? (Joe_2:32; Rom_10:13 .) True, no man can have faith until he hears the offer of God; but to the Jews that offer was made. They clung to the way of human achievement through obedience to the law; they staked everything on works, but they should have known that the way to God was the way of faith, for the prophets had told them so. Once again it is to be stressed that all this was God's arrangement; and that it was so arranged to allow the Gentiles to come in. Paul therefore turns to the Gentiles. He orders them to have no pride. They are in the position of wild olive shoots which have been grafted into a garden olive tree. They did not achieve their own salvation any more than the Jews did; in point of fact they are dependent on the Jews; they are only engrafted branches; the root and the stem are still the chosen people. The fact of their own election and the fact of the rejection of the Jews are not to produce pride in Gentile hearts. If that happens, rejection can and will happen to them. Is this the end? Far from it. It is God's purpose that the Jews will be moved to envy at the relationship of the Gentiles to him and that they will ask to be admitted to it themselves. Did not Moses say: "I make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry"? (Deu_32:21; Rom_10:19 .) In the end the Gentiles will be the very instrument by which the Jews will be saved. "And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom_11:26). So Paul comes to the end of the argument. We may summarily set out its steps. (i) Israel is the chosen people. (ii) To be a member of Israel means more than racial descent. There has always been election within the nation; and the best of the nation has always been the remnant who were faithful. (iii) This selection by God is not unfair, for he has the right to do what he likes. (iv) God did harden the hearts of the Jews, but only to open the door to the Gentiles. (v) Israel's mistake was dependence on human achievement founded on the law; the necessary approach to God is that of the totally trusting heart. (vi) The Gentiles must have no pride for they are only wild olives grafted into the true olive stock. They must remember that. (vii) This is not the end; the Jews will be so moved to wondering envy at the privilege that the Gentiles have received that in the end they will be brought in by them. (viii) So in the very end all, Jew and Gentile, will be saved. The glory is in the end of Paul's argument. He began by saying that some were elected to reception and some to rejection. In the end he comes to say that it is God's will that all men should be saved.

The Tragic Failure (Rom_9:1-6)

The Choice Of God (Rom_9:7-13)

The Sovereign Will Of God (Rom_9:14-18)

The Potter And The Clay (Rom_9:19-29)

The Jewish Mistake (Rom_9:30-33)

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 9 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 9

The apostle having discoursed of justification and sanctification, and of the privileges of justified and sanctified ones, proceeds to treat of predestination, the source and spring of all the blessings of grace; and to observe how this distinguishing act of God's sovereign will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles; in treating of which, he knew he should go contrary to the sense of his countrymen the Jews, who have a notion that all Israel shall have a part in, or inherit the world to come ^q: and that the Gentiles will be for ever miserable; and nothing was more disagreeable to them, than to talk of their rejection of God, and the calling of the Gentiles; wherefore that it might be manifest, that it was not out of pique and ill will to them, that the apostle said the things hereafter related; he expresses the most cordial affection to them imaginable, and which he introduces in Rom 9:1, by way of appeal to Christ, who knew the truth of what he was about to say, and who could, together with the Spirit of God and his own conscience, testify for him that it was no lie: the thing he appeals for the truth of, is in Rom 9:2, that the salvation of the Jews lay near his heart; that it was no pleasure to him to think or speak of their rejection, but was what gave him continual pain and uneasiness: and his great desire for their good is expressed in a very strong and uncommon manner, Rom 9:3, the reasons of it are partly the relation they stood in to him, being his brethren and kinsmen; and partly the many privileges they had been favoured with of God; an enumeration of which is given, Rom 9:4, and foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made, that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect; to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not; wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former, Rom 9:6, and that there was such a distinction, he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who were both Abraham's seed; yet one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh, and were emblematical of the children of the promise, and the children of the flesh among that people; Rom 9:7, and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not; and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign will of God in election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Rom 9:11, and that this was notified to Rebekah before, Rom 9:12, as appears from a passage in Gen 25:23, and by another passage in Mal 1:2, which is cited, Rom 9:13, then an objection is started, Rom 9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness; which he answers and removes, first by a detestation of such a charge against God, and then by producing testimonies out of the books of Moses, proving both election and reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the will of God; the former of these he proves, Rom 9:15, from Exo 33:19, by which it appears, that the choice of men to salvation is not according to the will of man, but according to the grace and love of God, Rom 9:16, the latter he proves by the case of Pharaoh, Rom 9:17, and the Scripture relating to that, Exo 9:16, and from both testimonies concludes, Rom 9:18, that God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Rom 9:19, to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made; and by observing the folly and madness of replying against God, and the absurdity of such a procedure, taken from the consideration of the one being a creature, and the other the Creator, Rom 9:20, and by instancing in the case of the potter, who has power over his clay, to form it in what shape, and for what use he pleases, Rom 9:21, and accommodates this, both to the affair of election and reprobation, and to the business of the latter first, Rom 9:22, where he observes the end of God in it to show forth his power and wrath, and describes the subjects of it, which clears him from injustice, and points at the patience of God towards them, which frees him from the charge of cruelty, Rom 9:22, and then proceeds to apply the metaphor before used, to the objects of election styled vessels of mercy, and the end of the Lord to manifest the riches of his glory in them, and the method he takes to bring them to eternal happiness, by preparing them for it by grace, Rom 9:23, which is done in the effectual calling, the objects of which are both Jews and Gentiles, Rom 9:24, That it is the will of God that the Gentiles should be called, he proves, Rom 9:25, from some passages in Hosea, Hos 2:23, and that God had chosen, and so would call some among the Jews, he clearly makes appear, Rom 9:27, from some prophecies of Isaiah, Isa 10:22, and then he concludes the chapter by observing the free and distinguishing grace of God, in the calling of the Gentiles, and the justification of them by the righteousness of Christ; that such who were far off from it, and sought not after it, should enjoy it, Rom 9:30, when the Israelites, who were diligent and zealous in seeking after a righteousness to justify them before God, yet did not arrive to one, Rom 9:31, the reasons of which are given, Rom 9:32, because it was not the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of Christ received by faith they sought; but a legal one, and by works which can never be attained by sinful men: they sought after a wrong righteousness, and in a wrong way, because they stumbled at Christ, and rejected him and his righteousness; and this removes an objection which is suggested in the two preceding verses, that God is unrighteous in calling the Gentiles, who never sought after righteousness, and in rejecting the Jews that followed after one: and that they did stumble at Christ and his righteousness, is no other than what was foretold in Isa 8:14, and that whoever believes in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be saved, he suggests is a doctrine agreeably to Isa 28:16, which passages are referred to, Rom 9:33

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