Text -- Romans 1:23 (NET)

1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Vincent: Rom 1:23

Image made like ( ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος )

Rev ., more literally, the likeness of an image . See on Rev 13:14. Equivalent to what was shaped like an image . Likeness indicates the conformity with the object of comparison in appearance; image , the type in the artist's mind; the typical human form. See, further, on Phi 2:7.

Vincent: Rom 1:23

Birds and beasts and creeping things

Deities of human form prevailed in Greece; those of the bestial form in Egypt; and both methods of worship were practiced in Rome. See on Act 7:41. Serpent-worship was common in Chaldaea, and also in Egypt. The asp was sacred throughout the latter country. The worship of Isis was domesticated at Rome, and Juvenal relates how the priests of Isis contrived that the silver images of serpents kept in her temple should move their heads to a suppliant (" Satire" vi., 537). Many of the subjects of paintings in the tombs of the kings at Thebes show the importance which the serpent was thought to enjoy in the future state. Dollinger says that the vestal virgins were intrusted with the attendance upon a holy serpent, and were charged with supplying his table with meats on festival days.

Wesley: Rom 1:23

With the utmost folly. Here are three degrees of ungodliness and of punishment: the first is described, Rom 1:21-24; the second, Rom 1:25-27; the third, in Rom 1:28, and following verses. The punishment in each case is expressed by God gave them up. If a man will not worship God as God, he is so left to himself that he throws away his very manhood.

Wesley: Rom 1:23

Or creeping things; as beetles, and various kinds of serpents.

JFB: Rom 1:22-23

"boasting," or "pretending to be"

JFB: Rom 1:22-23

"It is the invariable property of error in morals and religion, that men take credit to themselves for it and extol it as wisdom. So the heathen" (1Co 1:21) [THOLUCK].

JFB: Rom 1:23

Or "exchanged."

JFB: Rom 1:23

Or "for"

JFB: Rom 1:23

The allusion here is doubtless to the Greek worship, and the apostle may have had in his mind those exquisite chisellings of the human form which lay so profusely beneath and around him as he stood on Mars' Hill; and "beheld their devotions." (See on Act 17:29). But as if that had not been a deep enough degradation of the living God, there was found "a lower deep" still.

JFB: Rom 1:23

Referring now to the Egyptian and Oriental worship. In the face of these plain declarations of the descent of man's religious belief from loftier to ever lower and more debasing conceptions of the Supreme Being, there are expositors of this very Epistle (as REICHE and JOWETT), who, believing neither in any fall from primeval innocence, nor in the noble traces of that innocence which lingered even after the fall and were only by degrees obliterated by wilful violence to the dictates of conscience, maintain that man's religious history has been all along a struggle to rise, from the lowest forms of nature worship, suited to the childhood of our race, into that which is more rational and spiritual.

Clarke: Rom 1:23

They changed the glory, etc. - The finest representation of their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the Hercules of Farnese, the Venus of Medicis, and the Apollo of Belvidere. And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape, they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, etc., not having the true principles of morality, they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited powers of sensual gratification

Clarke: Rom 1:23

And to birds - As the eagle of Jupiter among the Romans, and the ibis and hawk among the Egyptians; which were all sacred animals

Clarke: Rom 1:23

Four-footed beasts - As the apis or white ox among the Egyptians; from which the idolatrous Israelites took their golden calf. The goat, the monkey, and the dog, were also sacred animals among the same people

Clarke: Rom 1:23

Creeping things - Such as the crocodile and scarabeus, or beetle, among the Egyptians.

Calvin: Rom 1:23

23.And changed, etc. Having feigned such a God as they could comprehend according to their carnal reason, they were very far from acknowledging the true God: but devised a fictitious and a new god, or rather a phantom. And what he says is, that they changed the glory of God; for as though one substituted a strange child, so they departed from the true God. Nor are they to be excused for this pretense, that they believe that God dwells in heaven, and that they count not the wood to be God, but his image; for it is a high indignity to God, to form so gross an idea of his majesty as to dare to make an image of him. But from the wickedness of such a presumption none were exempt, neither priests, nor statesmen, nor philosophers, of whom the most sound-minded, even Plato himself, sought to find out some likeness of God.

The madness then here noticed, is, that all attempted to make for themselves an image of God; which was a certain proof that their notions of God were gross and absurd. And, first, they befouled the majesty of God by forming him in the likeness of a corruptible man: for I prefer this rendering to that of mortal man, which is adopted by [Erasmus] ; for Paul sets not the immortality of God in opposition to the mortality of man, but that glory, which is subject to no defects, to the most wretched condition of man. And then, being not satisfied with so great a crime, they descended even to beasts and to those of the most filthy kind; by which their stupidity appeared still more evident. You may see an account of these abominations in Lactantius, in [Eusebius] , and in [Augustine] in his book on the city of God.

TSK: Rom 1:23

changed : Rom 1:25; Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11

an image : Deu 4:15-18, Deu 5:8; Psa 115:5-8, Psa 135:15-18; Isa 40:18, Isa 40:26, Isa 44:13; Eze 8:10; Act 17:29; 1Co 12:2; 1Pe 4:3; Rev 9:20

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 1:23

And changed - This does not mean that they literally "transmuted"God himself; but that in their views they exchanged him; or they changed him "as an object of worship"for idols. They produced, of course, no real change in the glory of the infinite God, but the change was in themselves. They forsook him of whom they had knowledge Rom 1:21, and offered the homage which was due to him, to idols.

The glory - The majesty, the honor, etc. This word stands opposed here to the "degrading"nature of their worship. Instead of adoring a Being clothed with majesty and honor, they bowed down to reptiles, etc. They exchanged a glorious object of worship for what was degrading and humiliating. The glory of God, in such places as this, means his essential honor, his majesty, the concentration and expression of his perfections, as the glory of the sun, 1Co 15:41 means his shining, or his splendor; compare Jer 2:11; Psa 106:20.

The uncorruptible God - The word "uncorruptible"is here applied to God in opposition to "man."God is unchanging, indestructible, immortal. The word conveys also the idea that God is eternal. As he is incorruptible, he is the proper object of worship. In all the changes of life, man may come to him, assured that he is the same. When man decays by age or infirmities, he may come to God, assured that he undergoes no such change, but is the same yesterday, today, and forever; compare 1Ti 1:17.

Into an image - An image is a representation or likeness of anything, whether made by painting, or from wood, stone, etc. Thus, the word is applied to "idols,"as being "images"or "representations"of heavenly objects; 2Ch 33:7; Dan 3:1; Rev 11:4, etc. See instances of this among the Jews described in Isa 40:18-26, and Eze 8:10.

To corruptible man - This stands opposed to the "incorruptible"God. Many of the images or idols of the ancients were in the forms of men and women. Many of their gods were heroes and benefactors, who were deified, and to whom temples, altars, and statues were erected. Such were Jupiter, and Hercules, and Romulus, etc. The worship of these heroes thus constituted no small part of their idolatry, and their images would be of course representations of them in human form. It was proof of great degradation, that they thus adored human beings with like passions as themselves; and attempted to displace the true God from the throne, and to substitute in his place an idol in the likeness of men.

And to birds - The "ibis"was adored with special reverence among the Egyptians, on account of the great benefits resulting from its destroying the serpents which, but for this, would have overrun the country. The hawk was also adored in Egypt, and the eagle at Rome. As one great principle of pagan idolatry was to adore all objects from which important benefits were derived, it is probable that all birds would come in for a share of pagan worship, that rendered service in the destruction of noxious animals.

And fourfooted beasts - Thus, the ox, under the name "apis,"was adored in Egypt; and even the dog and the monkey. In imitation of the Egyptian ox, the children of Israel made their golden calf, Exo 22:4. At this day, two of the most sacred objects of worship in Hindostan are the cow and the "monkey."

And creeping things - Reptiles. "Animals that have no feet, or such short ones that they seem to creep or crawl on the ground.""(Calmet.)"Lizards, serpents, etc. come under this description. The "crocodile"in Egypt was an object of adoration, and even the serpent so late as the second century of the Christian era, there was a sect in Egypt, called "Ophites"from their worshipping a serpent, and who ever claimed to be Christians, (Murdock’ s Mosheim, vol. i. p. 180, 181). There was scarcely an object, animal or vegetable, which the Egyptians did not adore. Thus, the leek, the onion, etc. were objects of worship, and people bowed down and paid adoration to the sun and moon, to animals, to vegetables, and to reptiles. Egypt was the source of the views of religion that pervaded other nations, and hence, their worship partook of the same wretched and degrading character. (See "Leland’ s""Advantage and Necessity of Revelation.")

Poole: Rom 1:23

Changed the glory of the uncorruptible God you have the same phrase, Psa 106:20 Jer 2:11 ; and from thence it is borrowed.

Into an image made like to corruptible man, &c.: the apostle proeeedeth from the more worthy to the less worthy creatures, that the grossness of their idolatry might the better appear; and these four are put for all other kinds. This gross idolatry of the heathen in worshipping such images as are here spoken of, was practised by the Israelites; see Eze 8:10,11 : and so it is by the Romanists to this day; nor doth it avail them to say, they do not worship images, but the true God in or before those images; for the same plea was made by the idolaters of old. Symmachus, in a learned oration, wherein he craved of the emperors Valentinian and Theodosius the restitution of the Roman gods, affirms, that they had respect only to one God; but they had divers ways to bring them to that God: they did not hold such things as they worshipped to be God, but in them they said they worshipped the true God. That worship which is intended to God by an image, is not the worship of God, but of the image. Compare Psa 106:19,20 , with Exo 32:4,5 .

Gill: Rom 1:23

And changed the glory of the incorruptible God,.... God is incorruptible and immortal in his nature, and so is opposed to all corruptible creatures and things: he has a glory which is essential to him, and a manifestative one in the creatures, and which is relative, and of right belongs to him: his absolute essential glory cannot be changed, cannot be taken away from him, nor given to another; but his relative glory may be said to be changed, when another is worshipped in his stead, and called by his name. So Philo the Jew ^g speaks of

"some, who, leaving the true God, make to themselves false ones, and impose the name of the eternal and incorruptible upon created and corruptible beings.''

Into an image made like to corruptible man; which was worshipped in different forms by the several nations of the world:

and to birds; as the dove by the Samaritans, the hawk, the ibis, and others by the Egyptians:

and fourfooted beasts; as the ox, and other creatures:

and creeping things; such as beetles, serpents, and others, by the same.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 1:23

¹ tn Grk “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God in likeness of an image of corruptible man.” Here there is a wordplay on the Greek terms ἄφθαρτος (afqarto", “immortal, imperishable, incorruptible”) and φθαρτός (fqarto", “mortal, corruptible, subject to decay”).

² sn Possibly an allusion to Ps 106:19-20.

Geneva Bible: Rom 1:23

And changed the glory of the ^{( h )} uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

^{( h )} For the true God they substituted another.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 1:1-32

1 Paul commends his calling to the Romans;

9 and his desire to come to them.

16 What his gospel is.

18 God is angry with sin.

21 What were the sins of the gentiles.

MHCC: Rom 1:18-25

The apostle begins to show that all mankind need the salvation of the gospel, because none could obtain the favour of God, or escape his wrath by their own works. For no man can plead that he has fulfilled all his obligations to God and to his neighbour; nor can any truly say that he has fully acted up to the light afforded him. The sinfulness of man is described as ungodliness against the laws of the first table, and unrighteousness against those of the second. The cause of that sinfulness is holding the truth in unrighteousness. All, more or less, do what they know to be wrong, and omit what they know to be right, so that the plea of ignorance cannot be allowed from any. Our Creator's invisible power and Godhead are so clearly shown in the works he has made, that even idolaters and wicked Gentiles are left without excuse. They foolishly followed idolatry; and rational creatures changed the worship of the glorious Creator, for that of brutes, reptiles, and senseless images. They wandered from God, till all traces of true religion must have been lost, had not the revelation of the gospel prevented it. For whatever may be pretended, as to the sufficiency of man's reason to discover Divine truth and moral obligation, or to govern the practice aright, facts cannot be denied. And these plainly show that men have dishonoured God by the most absurd idolatries and superstitions; and have degraded themselves by the vilest affections and most abominable deeds.

Matthew Henry: Rom 1:19-32

In this last part of the chapter the apostle applies what he had said particularly to the Gentile world, in which we may observe,

I. The means and helps they had to come to the knowledge of God. Though they had not such a knowledge of his law as Jacob and Israel had (Psa 147:20), yet among them he left not himself without witness (Act 14:17): For that which may be known, etc., Rom 1:19, Rom 1:20. Observe,

1. What discoveries they had: That which may be known of God is manifest, en autois - among them; that is, there were some even among them that had the knowledge of God, were convinced of the existence of one supreme Numen. The philosophy of Pythagoras, Plato, and the Stoics, discovered a great deal of the knowledge of God, as appears by abundance of testimonies. That which may be known, which implies that there is a great deal which may not be known. The being of God may be apprehended, but cannot be comprehended. We cannot by searching find him out, Job 11:7-9. Finite understandings cannot perfectly know an infinite being; but, blessed be God, there is that which may be known, enough to lead us to our chief end, the glorifying and enjoying of him; and these things revealed belong to us and to our children, while secret things are not to be pried into, Deu 29:29.

2. Whence they had these discoveries: God hath shown it to them. Those common natural notions which they had of God were imprinted upon their hearts by the God of nature himself, who is the Father of lights. This sense of a Deity, and a regard to that Deity, are so connate with the human nature that some think we are to distinguish men from brutes by these rather than by reason.

3. By what way and means these discoveries and notices which they had were confirmed and improved, namely, by the work of creation (Rom 1:20); For the invisible things of God, etc.

(1.) Observe what they knew: The invisible things of him, even his eternal power and Godhead. Though God be not the object of sense, yet he hath discovered and made known himself by those things that are sensible. The power and Godhead of God are invisible things, and yet are clearly seen in their products. He works in secret (Job 23:8, Job 23:9; Psa 139:15; Ecc 11:5), but manifests what he has wrought, and therein makes known his power and Godhead, and others of his attributes which natural light apprehends in the idea of a God. They could not come by natural light to the knowledge of the three persons in the Godhead (though some fancy they have found footsteps of this in Plato's writings), but they did come to the knowledge of the Godhead, at least so much knowledge as was sufficient to have kept them from idolatry. This was that truth which they held in unrighteousness.

(2.) How they knew it: By the things that are made, which could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Psa 19:1; Isa 40:26; Act 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead. Thus did the light shine in the darkness. And this from the creation of the world. Understand it either, [1.] As the topic from which the knowledge of them is drawn. To evince this truth, we have recourse to the great work of creation. And some think this ktisis kosmou , this creature of the world (as it may be read), is to be understood of man, the ktisis kat' exochēn - the most remarkable creature of the lower world, called ktisis , Mar 16:15. The frame and structure of human bodies, and especially the most excellent powers, faculties, and capacities of human souls, do abundantly prove that there is a Creator, and that he is God. Or, [2.] As the date of the discovery. It as old as the creation of the world. In this sense apo ktiseōs is most frequently used in scripture. These notices concerning God are not any modern discoveries, hit upon of late, but ancient truths, which were from the beginning. The way of the acknowledgement of God is a good old way; it was from the beginning. Truth got the start of error.

II. Their gross idolatry, notwithstanding these discoveries that God made to them of himself; described here, Rom 1:21-23, Rom 1:25. We shall the less wonder at the inefficacy of these natural discoveries to prevent the idolatry of the Gentiles if we remember how prone even the Jews, who had scripture light to guide them, were to idolatry; so miserably are the degenerate sons of men plunged in the mire of sense. Observe,

1. The inward cause of their idolatry, Rom 1:21, Rom 1:22. They are therefore without excuse, in that they did know God, and from what they knew might easily infer that it was their duty to worship him, and him only. Though some have greater light and means of knowledge than others, yet all have enough to leave them inexcusable. But the mischief of it was that, (1.) They glorified him not as God. Their affections towards him, and their awe and adoration of him, did not keep pace with their knowledge. To glorify him as God is to glorify him only; for there can be but one infinite: but they did not so glorify him, for they set up a multitude of other deities. To glorify him as God is to worship him with spiritual worship; but they made images of him. Not to glorify God as God is in effect not to glorify him at all; to respect him as a creature is not to glorify him, but to dishonour him. (2.) Neither were they thankful; not thankful for the favours in general they received from God (insensibleness of God's mercies is at the bottom of our sinful departures from him); not thankful in particular for the discoveries God was pleased to make of himself to them. Those that do not improve the means of knowledge and grace are justly reckoned unthankful for them. (3.) But they became vain in their imaginations, en tois dialogismois - in their reasonings, in their practical inferences. They had a great deal of knowledge of general truths (Rom 1:19), but no prudence to apply them to particular cases. Or, in their notions of God, and the creation of the world, and the origination of mankind, and the chief good; in these things, when they quitted the plain truth, they soon disputed themselves into a thousand vain and foolish fancies. The several opinions and hypotheses of the various sects of philosophers concerning these things were so many vain imaginations. When truth is forsaken, errors multiply in infinitum - infinitely. (4.) And their foolish heart was darkened. The foolishness and practical wickedness of the heart cloud and darken the intellectual powers and faculties. Nothing tends more to the blinding and perverting of the understanding than the corruption and depravedness of the will and affections. (5.) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:22. This looks black upon the philosophers, the pretenders to wisdom and professors of it. Those that had the most luxuriant fancy, in framing to themselves the idea of a God, fell into the most gross and absurd conceits: and it was the just punishment of their pride and self-conceitedness. It has been observed that the most refined nations, that made the greatest show of wisdom, were the arrantest fools in religion. The barbarians adored the sun and moon, which of all others was the most specious idolatry; while the learned Egyptians worshipped an ox and an onion. The Grecians, who excelled them in wisdom, adored diseases and human passions. The Romans, the wisest of all, worshipped the furies. And at this day the poor Americans worship the thunder; while the ingenious Chinese adore the devil. Thus the world by wisdom knew not God, 1Co 1:21. As a profession of wisdom is an aggravation of folly, so a proud conceit of wisdom is the cause of a great deal of folly. Hence we read of few philosophers who were converted to Christianity; and Paul's preaching was no where so laughed at and ridiculed as among the learned Athenians, Act 17:18-32. Phaskontes einai - conceiting themselves to be wise. The plain truth of the being of God would not content them; they thought themselves above that, and so fell into the greatest errors.

2. The outward acts of their idolatry, Rom 1:23-25. (1.) Making images of God (Rom 1:23), by which, as much as in them lay, they changed the glory of the incorruptible God. Compare Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11. They ascribed a deity to the most contemptible creatures, and by them represented God. It was the greatest honour God did to man that he made man in the image of God; but it is the greatest dishonour man has done to God that he has made God in the image of man. This was what God so strictly warned the Jews against, Deu 4:15, etc. This the apostle shows the folly of in his sermon at Athens, Act 17:29. See Isa 40:18, etc.; Isa 44:10, etc. This is called (Rom 1:25) changing the truth of God into a lie. As it did dishonour his glory, so it did misrepresent his being. Idols are called lies, for they belie God, as if he had a body, whereas he is a Spirit, Jer 23:14; Hos 7:1. Teachers of lies, Hab 2:18. (2.) Giving divine honour to the creature: Worshipped and served the creature, para ton ktisanta - besides the Creator. They did own a supreme Numen in their profession, but they did in effect disown him by the worship they paid to the creature; for God will be all or none. Or, above the Creator, paying more devout respect to their inferior deities, stars, heroes, demons, thinking the supreme God inaccessible, or above their worship. The sin itself was their worshipping the creature at all; but this is mentioned as an aggravation of the sin, that they worshipped the creature more than the Creator. This was the general wickedness of the Gentile world, and became twisted in with their laws and government; in compliance with which even the wise men among them, who knew and owned a supreme God and were convinced of the nonsense and absurdity of their polytheism and idolatry, yet did as the rest of their neighbours did. Seneca, in his book De Superstitione, as it is quoted by Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 6, cap. 10 (for the book itself is lost), after he had largely shown the great folly and impiety of the vulgar religion, in divers instances of it, yet concludes, Quae omnia sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam diis grata - All which a wise man will observe as established by law, not imagining them grateful to the gods. And afterwards, Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum ejus magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere - All this ignoble rout of gods, which ancient superstition has amassed together by long prescription, we will so adore as to remember that the worship of them is rather a compliance with custom than material in itself. Upon which Augustine observes, Colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat - He worshipped that which he censured, he did that which he had proved wrong, and he adored what he found fault with. I mention this thus largely because methinks it doth fully explain that of the apostle here (Rom 1:18): Who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It is observable that upon the mention of the dishonour done to God by the idolatry of the Gentiles the apostle, in the midst of his discourse, expresses himself in an awful adoration of God: Who is blessed for ever. Amen. When we see or hear of any contempt cast upon God or his name, we should thence take occasion to think and speak highly and honourably of him. In this, as in other things, the worse others are, the better we should be. Blessed for ever, notwithstanding these dishonours done to his name: though there are those that do not glorify him, yet he is glorified, and will be glorified to eternity.

III. The judgments of God upon them for this idolatry; not many temporal judgments (the idolatrous nations were the conquering ruling nations of the world), but spiritual judgments, giving them up to the most brutish and unnatural lusts. Paredōken autous - He gave them up; it is thrice repeated here, Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28. Spiritual judgments are of all judgments the sorest, and to be most dreaded. Observe,

1. By whom they were given up. God gave them up, in a way of righteous judgment, as the just punishment of their idolatry - taking off the bridle of restraining grace - leaving them to themselves - letting them alone; for his grace is his own, he is debtor to no man, he may give or withhold his grace at pleasure. Whether this giving up be a positive act of God or only privative we leave to the schools to dispute: but this we are sure of that it is no new thing for God to give men up to their own hearts' lusts, to send them strong delusions, to let Satan loose upon them, nay, to lay stumbling-blocks before them. And yet God is not the author of sin, but herein infinitely just and holy; for, though the greatest wickedness follow upon this giving up, the fault of that is to be laid upon the sinner's wicked heart. If the patient be obstinate, and will not submit to the methods prescribed, but wilfully takes and does that which is prejudicial to him, the physician is not to be blamed if he give him up as in a desperate condition; and all the fatal symptoms that follow are not to be imputed to the physician, but to the disease itself and to the folly and wilfulness of the patient.

2. To what they were given up.

(1.) To uncleanness and vile affections, Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:27. Those that would not entertain the more pure and refined notices of natural light, which tend to preserve the honour of God, justly forfeited those more gross and palpable sentiments which preserve the honour of human nature. Man being in honour, and refusing to understand the God that made him, thus becomes worse than the beasts that perish, Psa 49:20. Thus one, by the divine permission, becomes the punishment of another; but it is (as it said here) through the lusts of their own hearts - there all the fault is to be laid. Those who dishonoured God were given up to dishonour themselves. A man cannot be delivered up to a greater slavery than to be given up to his own lusts. Such are given over, like the Egyptians (Isa 19:4), into the hand of a cruel lord. The particular instances of their uncleanness and vile affections are their unnatural lusts, for which many of the heathen, even of those among them who passed for wise men, as Solon and Zeno, were infamous, against the plainest and most obvious dictates of natural light. The crying iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah, for which God rained hell from heaven upon them, became not only commonly practised, but avowed, in the pagan nations. Perhaps the apostle especially refers to the abominations that were committed in the worship of their idol-gods, in which the worst of uncleannesses were prescribed for the honour of their gods; dunghill service for dunghill gods: the unclean spirits delight in such ministrations. In the church of Rome, where the pagan idolatries are revived, images worshipped, and saints only substituted in the room of demons, we hear of these same abominations going barefaced, licensed by the pope ( Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. 1, p. 808), and not only commonly perpetrated, but justified and pleaded for by some of their cardinals: the same spiritual plagues for the same spiritual wickednesses. See what wickedness there is in the nature of man. How abominable and filthy is man! Lord, what is man? says David; what a vile creature is he when left to himself! How much are we beholden to the restraining grace of God for the preserving any thing of the honour and decency of the human nature! For, were it not for this, man, who was made but little lower than the angels, would make himself a great deal lower than the devils. This is said to be that recompence of their error which was meet. The Judge of all the earth does right, and observes a meetness between the sin and the punishment of it.

(2.) To a reprobate mind in these abominations, Rom 1:28.

[1.] They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. The blindness of their understandings was caused by the wilful aversion of their wills and affections. They did not retain God in their knowledge, because they did not like it. They would neither know nor do any thing but just what pleased themselves. It is just the temper of carnal hearts; the pleasing of themselves is their highest end. There are many that have God in their knowledge, they cannot help it, the light shines so fully in their faces; but they do not retain him there. They say to the Almighty, Depart (Job 21:14), and they therefore do not retain God in their knowledge because it thwarts and contradicts their lusts; they do not like it. In their knowledge - en epignōsei . There is a difference between gnōsis and epignōsis , the knowledge and the acknowledgement of God; the pagans knew God, but did not, would not, acknowledge him.

[2.] Answerable to this wilfulness of theirs, in gainsaying the truth, God gave them over to a wilfulness in the grossest sins, here called a reprobate mind - eis adokimon noun , a mind void of all sense and judgment to discern things that differ, so that they could not distinguish their right hand from their left in spiritual things. See whither a course of sin leads, and into what a gulf it plunges the sinner at last; hither fleshly lusts have a direct tendency. Eyes full of adultery cannot cease from sin, 2Pe 2:14. This reprobate mind was a blind scared conscience, past feeling, Eph 4:19. When the judgment is once reconciled to sin, the man is in the suburbs of hell. At first Pharaoh hardened his heart, but afterwards God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Thus wilful hardness is justly punished with judicial hardness. - To do those things which are not convenient. This phrase may seem to bespeak a diminutive evil, but here it is expressive of the grossest enormities; things that are not agreeable to men, but contradict the very light and law of nature. And here he subjoins a black list of those unbecoming things which the Gentiles were guilty of, being delivered up to a reprobate mind. No wickedness so heinous, so contrary to the light of nature, to the law of nations, and to all the interests of mankind, but a reprobate mind will comply with it. By the histories of those times, especially the accounts we have of the then prevailing dispositions and practices of the Romans when the ancient virtue of that commonwealth was so degenerated, it appears that these sins here mentioned were then and there reigning national sins. No fewer than twenty-three several sorts of sins and sinners are here specified, Rom 1:29-31. Here the devil's seat is; his name is legion, for they are many. It was time to have the gospel preached among them, for the world had need of reformation.

First, Sins against the first table: Haters of God. Here is the devil in his own colours, sin appearing sin. Could it be imagined that rational creatures should hate the chief good, and depending creatures abhor the fountain of their being? And yet so it is. Every sin has in it a hatred of God; but some sinners are more open and avowed enemies to him than others, Zec 11:8. Proud men and boasters cope with God himself, and put those crowns upon their own heads which must be cast before his throne.

Secondly, Sins against the second table. These are especially mentioned, because in these things they had a clearer light. In general here is a charge of unrighteousness. This is put first, for every sin is unrighteousness; it is withholding that which is due, perverting that which is right; it is especially put for second-table sins, doing as we would not be done by. Against the fifth commandment: Disobedient to parents, and without natural affection - astorgous , that is parents unkind and cruel to their children. Thus, when duty fails on one side, it commonly fails on the other. Disobedient children are justly punished with unnatural parents; and, on the contrary, unnatural parents with disobedient children. Against the sixth commandment: Wickedness (doing mischief for mischief's sake), maliciousness, envy, murder, debate ( eridos - contention ), malignity, despiteful, implacable, unmerciful; all expressions of that hatred of our brother which is heart-murder. Against the seventh commandment: Fornication; he mentions no more, having spoken before of other uncleannesses. Against the eighth commandment: Unrighteousness, covetousness. Against the ninth commandment: Deceit, whisperers, back-biters, covenant-breakers, lying and slandering. Here are two generals not before mentioned - inventors of evil things, and without understanding; wise to do evil, and yet having no knowledge to do good. The more deliberate and politic sinners are in inventing evil things, the greater is their sin: so quick of invention in sin, and yet without understanding (stark fools) in the thoughts of God. Here is enough to humble us all, in the sense of our original corruption; for every heart by nature has in it the seed and spawn of all these sins. In the close he mentions the aggravations of the sins, Rom 1:32. 1. They knew the judgment of God; that is, (1.) They knew the law. The judgment of God is that which his justice requires, which, because he is just, he judgeth meet to be done. (2.) They knew the penalty; so it is explained here: They knew that those who commit such things were worthy of death, eternal death; their own consciences could not but suggest this to them, and yet they ventured upon it. It is a great aggravation of sin when it is committed against knowledge (Jam 4:17), especially against the knowledge of the judgment of God. It is daring presumption to run upon the sword's point. It argues the heart much hardened, and very resolutely set upon sin. 2. They not only do the same, but have pleasure in those that do them. The violence of some present temptation may hurry a man into the commission of such sins himself in which the vitiated appetite may take a pleasure; but to be pleased with other people's sins is to love sin for sin's sake: it is joining in a confederacy for the devil's kingdom and interest. Suneudokousi : they do not only commit sin, but they defend and justify it, and encourage others to do the like. Our own sins are much aggravated by our concurrence with, and complacency in, the sins of others.

Now lay all this together, and then say whether the Gentile world, lying under so much guilt and corruption, could be justified before God by any works of their own.

Barclay: Rom 1:18-23

In the previous passage Paul was thinking about the relationship with God into which a man can enter through the faith which is utter yieldedness and trust. In contrast with that he sets the wrath of God which a man must incur, if he is deliberately blind to God and worships his own thoughts and idols instead of him.

This is difficult and must give us seriously to think, for here we meet the conception of the wrath of God, an alarming and a terrifying phrase. What is its meaning? What was in Paul's mind when he used it?

In the early parts of the Old Testament the wrath of God is specially connected with the idea of the covenant people. The people of Israel were in a special relationship with God. He had chosen them and offered them this special relationship, which would obtain so long as they kept his law (Exo 24:3-8). That meant two things.

(a) It meant that within the nation any breach of the law provoked the wrath of God for it broke the relationship. Num 16 tells of the rebelliousness of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and at the end of it Moses bade Aaron make special atonement for the sin of the people "for wrath has gone forth from the Lord" (Num 16:46). When the Israelites were led away into Baal worship, "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel" (Num 25:3).

(b) Further, because Israel stood in a unique relationship to God, any other nation which treated her with cruelty and injustice incurred the wrath of God. The Babylonians had ill-treated Israel, and because of the wrath of the Lord she shall not be inhabited (Jer 50:13).

In the prophets, the idea of the wrath of God occurs, but the emphasis has changed. Jewish religious thought from the prophets onwards was dominated by the idea of the two ages. There was this age which was altogether bad, and there was the golden age which was altogether good, the present age and the age to come. These two ages were separated by the Day of the Lord. That was to be a day of terrible retribution and judgment, when the world would be shattered, the sinner destroyed and the universe remade before God's Kingdom came. It was then that the wrath of the Lord would go into terrible action. "Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation" (Isa 13:9). "Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts" (Isa 9:19). Eze 7:19speaks of "the day of the wrath of the Lord." God will pour out upon the nations "his indignation and all the heat of his anger" (Zep 3:8).

But the prophets did not regard the wrath of God as being postponed until that terrible day of judgment. They saw it continuously in action. When Israel strayed away from God, when she was rebellious and unfaithful, then the wrath of God operated against her and involved her in ruin, disaster, captivity and defeat.

To the prophets the wrath of God was continually operating, and would reach its peak of terror and destruction on the coming Day of the Lord.

A modern scholar has put it this way. Because he is God, because he is characteristically holy, God cannot tolerate sin, and the wrath of God is his "annihilating reaction" against sin.

That is hard for us to grasp and to accept. It is in fact the kind of religion that we associate with the Old Testament rather than with the New. Even Luther found it hard. He spoke of God's love as Gods own work, and he spoke of his wrath as Gods strange work. It is for the Christian mind a baffling thing.

Let us try to see how Paul understood this conception. Dr C. H. Dodd writes very wisely and profoundly on this matter. Paul speaks frequently of this idea of wrath. But the strange thing is that although he speaks of the wrath of God, he never speaks of God being angry. He speaks of God's love, and he speaks of God loving. He speaks of God's grace, and of God graciously giving. He speaks of God's fidelity, and of God being faithful to his people. But, very strangely, although he speaks of the wrath of God, he never speaks about God being angry. So then there is some difference in the connection with God of love and wrath.

Further, Paul speaks of the wrath of God only three times. He does so here, and in Eph 5:6and Col 3:6where, in both passages, he speaks of the wrath of God coming upon the children of disobedience. But quite frequently Paul speaks about the wrath, without saying it is the wrath of God, as if it ought to be spelled with capital letters--The Wrath--and was a kind of impersonal force at work in the world. In Rom 3:5the literal translation is, "God who brings on men The Wrath." In Rom 5:9he speaks about being saved from the wrath. In Rom 12:19he advises men not to take vengeance but to leave evil-doers to the wrath. In Rom 13:5he speaks about the wrath as being a powerful motive to keep men obedient. In Rom 4:15he says that the law produces wrath. And in 1Th 1:10he says that Jesus delivered us from The Wrath to come. Now there is something very strange here. Paul speaks about the wrath, and yet from that very wrath Jesus saves men.

Let us go back to the prophets. Very often their message amounted to this, "If you are not obedient to God, the wrath of God will involve you in ruin and disaster." Ezekiel put this in another vivid way--"The soul that sins shall die" (Eze 18:4). If we were to put this into modern language we would say, "There is a moral order in this world, and the man who transgresses it soon or late is bound to suffer." That is exactly what J. A. Froude the great historian said: "One lesson, and one lesson only, history may be said to repeat with distinctness, that the world is built somehow on moral foundations, that, in the long run, it is well with the good, and, in the long run, it will be ill with the wicked."

The whole message of the Hebrew prophets was that there is a moral order in this world. The conclusion is clear--that moral order is the wrath of God at work. God made this world in such a way that we break his laws at our peril. Now if we were left solely at the mercy of that inexorable moral order, there could be nothing for us but death and destruction. The world is made in such a way that the soul that sins must die--if the moral order is to act alone. But into this dilemma of man there comes the love of God, and that love of God, by an act of unbelievable free grace, lifts man out of the consequences of sin and saves him from the wrath he should have incurred.

Paul goes on to insist that men cannot plead ignorance of God. They could have seen what he is like from his world. It is always possible to tell something of a man from his handiwork; and it is possible to tell something about God from the world he made. The Old Testament writers knew that. Job 38-41, is based on that very idea. Paul knew it. It is from the world that he starts when he is speaking to the pagans at Lystra (Act 14:17). Tertullian, the great early Christian Father, has much about this conviction that God can be seen in his world. "It was not the pen of Moses that initiated the knowledge of the Creator. The vast majority of mankind, though they had never heard the name of Moses--to say nothing of his book--know the God of Moses none the less." "Nature," he said, "is the teacher; the soul is the pupil." "One flower of the hedgerow by itself, I think--I do not say a flower of the meadows; one shell of any sea you like--I do not say a pearl from the Red Sea; one feather of a moor fowl--to say nothing of a peacock--will they speak to you of a mean Creator?" "If I offer you a rose, you will not scorn its Creator."

In the world we can see God. It is Paul's argument--and it is completely valid--that if we look at the world we see that suffering follows sin. Break the laws of agriculture--your harvest fails. Break the laws of architecture--your building collapses. Break the laws of health--your body suffers. Paul was saying "Look at the world! See how it is constructed! From a world like that you know what God is like." The sinner is left without excuse.

Paul goes on another step. What did the sinner do? Instead of looking out to God, he looked into himself. He involved himself in vain speculations and thought he was wise, while all the time he was a fool. Why? He was a fool because he made his ideas, his opinions, his speculations the standard and the law of life, instead of the will of God. The sinner's folly consisted in making "man the master of things." He found his standards in his own opinions and not in the laws of God. He lived in a self-centred instead of a God-centred universe. Instead of walking looking out to God he walked looking into himself, and, like any man who does not look where he is going, he fell.

The result of this was idolatry. The glory of God was exchanged for images of human and animal forms. The root sin of idolatry is that it is selfish. A man makes an idol. He brings it offerings and addresses prayers to it. Why? So that his own schemes and dreams may be furthered. His worship is for his own sake and not for God's.

In this passage we are face to face with the fact that the essence of sin is to put self in the place of God.

Constable: Rom 1:18--3:21

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

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

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

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

Constable: Rom 1:18-32

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

Perhaps Paul began by showing all people's need for God's righteousness first because he was the apostle to the Gentiles and his Roman readers were primarily Gentiles. His argument in 1:18-3:20 moves inward through a series of concentric circles of humanity.

Constable: Rom 1:19-27

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

1:19-20 These verses begin a discussion of "natural revelation." Natural revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. What He has revealed about Himself in Scripture is "special revelation." The creation bears testimony to its Maker, and every human being "hears" this witness (cf. Ps. 19).⁴³

"Napoleon, on a warship in the Mediterranean on a star-lit night, passed a group of his officers who were mocking at the idea of a God. He stopped, and sweeping his hand toward the stars, said, Gentlemen, you must get rid of those first!'"⁴⁴

Four things characterize this revelation. First, it is a clear testimony; everyone is aware of it ("it is evident [plain]"). Second, everyone can understand it. We can draw conclusions about the Creator from His creation.⁴⁵ Third, it has gone out since the creation of the world in every generation. Fourth, it is a limited revelation in that it does not reveal everything about God (e.g., His love and grace) but only some things (i.e., His power and deity). Natural revelation makes man responsible to respond to his Creator in worship and submission. However it does not give sufficient information for him to experience salvation. That is why everyone needs to hear the gospel.

"Utter uncompromising, abandonment of hope in man is the first preliminary to understanding or preaching the gospel."⁴⁶

1:21-23 Honoring God as God and giving Him thanks (v. 21) are our primary duties to God in view of who He is. Mythology and idolatry have resulted from man's need to identify some power greater than himself and his refusal to acknowledge God as that power. Men and women have elevated themselves to God's position (cf. Dan. 2:38; 3:1; 5:23). In our day, humanism has replaced the worship of individual human leaders in most western countries. Man has descended to the worship of animals as well (cf. Ps. 106:20). This is perhaps more characteristic of third world countries.

"This tragic process of human god-making' continues apace in our own day, and Paul's words have as much relevance for people who have made money or sex or fame their gods as for those who carved idols out of wood and stone."⁴⁷

Note the allusions to the creation story in the threefold division of the animal kingdom in verse 23.

1:24-25 The false religions that man has devised and to which Paul just referred constitute some of God's judgment on mankind for turning from Him. False religion is not in any sense good for mankind. It is a judgment from God, and it tends to keep people so distracted that they rarely deal with the true God.

"God's wrath mentioned in Romans 1 is not an active outpouring of divine displeasure but the removal of restraint that allows sinners to reap the just fruits of their rebellion."⁴⁸

It is active in another sense, however. God gave man over (v. 24; cf. vv. 26, 28) by turning him over to the punishment his crime earned, as a judge does a prisoner. The third characteristic of man in rebellion against God that Paul identified after ignorance (v. 21) and idolatry (v. 23) is impurity (v. 24). Here Paul evidently had natural forms of moral uncleanness in view such as adultery and harlotry. He went on in verses 26-27 to describe even worse immorality, namely unnatural acts such as homosexuality.⁴⁹

Mankind exchanged the truth of God (v. 25; cf. v. 18) for "the lie" (literally). The lie in view is the contention that we should venerate someone or something in place of the true God (cf. Gen. 3:1-5; Matt. 4:3-10). Paul's concluding doxology underlined this folly.

1:26-27 Because mankind "exchanged" the truth for the lie God allowed him to degrade himself through his passions. The result was that he "exchanged" natural human functions for what is unnatural. In the Greek text the words translated "women" (thelus; v. 26) and "men" (arsen, v. 27) mean "females" and "males." Ironically the homosexuality described in these verses does not characterize females and males of other animal species, only human beings. Homosexuality is a perversion because it uses sex for a purpose contrary to those for which God created and intended it (Gen. 1:28).

"This need not demand the conclusion that every homosexual follows the practice in deliberate rebellion against God's prescribed order. What is true historically and theologically is in measure true, however, experientially."⁵⁰

AIDS, for example, is probably the consequence of man's rebellion against God rather than a special judgment from God. The "due penalty" is what man experiences as a result of God giving him over and letting him indulge his sinful desires (cf. 6:23).⁵¹

"Sin comes from the mind, which perverts the judgment. The effect of retribution is to abandon the mind to that depravity."⁵²

"A contextual and exegetical examination of Romans 1:26-27 reveals that attempts by some contemporary writers to do away with Paul's prohibitions against present-day same-sex relations are false Paul did not impose Jewish customs and rules on his readers; instead he addressed same-sex relations from the trans-cultural perspective of God's created order. God's punishment for sin is rooted in a sinful reversal of the created order. Nor was homosexuality simply a sin practiced by idolaters in Paul's day; it was a distorting consequence of the fall of the human race in the Garden of Eden. Neither did Paul describe homosexual acts by heterosexuals. Instead he wrote that homosexual activity was an exchange of the created order (heterosexuality) for a talionic perversion (homosexuality), which is never presented in Scripture as an acceptable norm for sexuality. Also Hellenistic pederasty does not fully account for the terms and logic of Romans 1:26-27 which refers to adult-adult mutuality. Therefore it is clear that in Romans 1:26-27 Paul condemned homosexuality as a perversion of God's design for human sexual relations."⁵³

College: Rom 1:1-32

1:1-17 - PROLOGUE

Jump to: New Testament Introduction

Jump to: Book Introduction

I. 1:1-7 - EPISTOLARY GREETING

In the Greek this section is one long sentence. It has the same general form as a standard epistolary greeting of the time, but is much longer. A normal greeting would have been something like this: "From Paul, to the saints in Rome, greetings." (See Jas 1:1 for something close to this.) It is lengthy even for Paul, and is the longest greeting of all his epistles. This is a great blessing to us, since it contains a wealth of doctrinal content that must be carefully unpacked.

A. THE AUTHOR INTRODUCES HIMSELF (1:1)

1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God . . . . Here (see v. 5 also) Paul succinctly introduces himself to the Roman Christians by describing himself in three important ways. Perhaps he felt the need for this careful introduction because he had not yet been to Rome and was not known personally to many of the Christians there.

1. A Slave of Christ Jesus

Paul describes himself first of all as a slave of Christ Jesus. The NIV term "servant" is too weak. The Greek word, doulos , was almost always used of a true slave. The NASB term "bond-servant" is very close to this idea. "Bondslave" (e.g., 1 Pet 2:16, NASB) is redundant.

In the Greek world a slave was basically the property of an owner and had no say with regard to his circumstances. He was "in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will altogether swallowed up in the will of the other" (Trench, Synonyms , 30). The slave had no choice regarding his service, "which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner." The term thus refers to "a state of affairs which one cannot escape and the consequences of which one must accept if one is not to incur punishment" (Rengstorf, 261, 270).

At the same time the OT Law presents the possibility of a person's entering such a state voluntarily. When the time came for a temporary slave to be set free, he could willingly choose to surrender himself back to his owner in a state of permanent servitude. Such a decision was usually based on love for the owner, or for family members that might be left behind if freedom were chosen (Exod 21:5-6; Deut 15:12-17).

Paul applies this term to himself here and elsewhere (Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:1). The NT applies it to other individuals also (Phil 1:1; Col 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 1). Some are called suvndoulo" ( syndoulos ), or "fellow-slave" (Col 1:7; 4:7). Sometimes Christians in general are described by the term dou'lo" ( doulos ) (6:16; 1 Cor 7:22; 1 Pet 2:16).

Paul was not a slave to any human master; in fact, he was a free-born Roman citizen (Acts 22:24-29). He tells us that he was rather a slave "of Christ Jesus." This is how he thought of his Christian existence first of all; this was the key to his self-identity.

This is true of Christians in general: being a Christian means being a slave of Jesus. This is a main implication of our confession that "Jesus is Lord" (10:9). His Lordship is his ownership and authority over his property, his slaves. Thus in our confession we acknowledge that Jesus is our owner and that we are his property. We voluntarily surrender our wills to his and put ourselves at his disposal. We accept this as our natural state and commit ourselves to unconditional service solely for the glory of God (Phil 2:11).

Such acceptance of the role of a slave is of course the very antithesis of the sinful world's ideal of autonomy or total freedom from authority. This was true in the ancient Greek world, where such freedom was prized as the basis of personal dignity. "Hence the Greek can only reject and scorn the type of service which in inner or outer structure bears even the slightest resemblance to that of the slave" (Rengstorf, 261-262). The same is no less true in the modern world, which is characterized by the spirit of autonomy, lawlessness, and rebellion against authority. Thus when we accept the basic role of "slave of Christ Jesus," we are no longer conforming ourselves to the pattern of this world (12:2).

All of this is involved in Paul's identification of himself as a slave of Christ Jesus; he thought of himself as Jesus' property. He felt himself to be under compulsion to obey Jesus and to live out his calling. In a sense he had no choice; he was totally under the authority of Jesus Christ. In this sense he calls himself a "debtor" (1:14, KJV) in reference to preaching the gospel. "I am compelled to preach," he says. "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16).

Yet at the same time, Paul the slave served Christ Jesus willingly, from his heart. His compulsion was grounded in love, not fear (2 Cor 5:14). Not only did he say, "I am debtor" or "I am obligated" to preach (1:14), but he also declared "I am ready" or "I am eager" to preach the gospel (1:15). His heart was in it, and he would not have had it any other way. We may note that Paul also calls himself a "servant" (diavkono" , diakonos ) of the gospel (Eph 3:7), and a "minister" (leitourgov" , leitourgos ) of Christ (15:16). These terms do not have the connotation of compulsion or servitude, but focus on the fact that the servant is doing a specific work on behalf of someone else. The exact nature of Paul's work as a servant is given in the two other ways he describes himself in this verse.

2. Called to Be an Apostle

The second thing Paul says about himself is that he has been "called to be an apostle" (klhtoΙ" ajpovstolo" , klçtos apostolos ). In this phrase "called" (klçtos ) is an adjective form of kalevw (kaleô ), and the verb "to be" has been supplied by the translator. The same is true in 1 Cor 1:1; and the same phrasing is used in Rom 1:7 for Christians ("called to be saints"; see 1 Cor 1:2). Hendriksen (I:39-40) and MacArthur (I:6) say this should be translated "a called apostle." We reject this on the grounds that there is no such thing as an uncalled apostle; thus such a phrase would be redundant and misleading.

In 1 Cor 15:9 Paul says he does not "deserve to be called an apostle" (because he had persecuted the church). But there the word "called" is being used in a different sense, i.e., "being named or given the title of" an apostle. Here "called" refers to Paul's Damascus road experience, the occasion when he was confronted by Jesus Christ and commissioned into his service (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; 26:12-18).

The calling to which Paul refers here is similar to the way God called men to serve him in OT times, e.g., Abraham (Gen 12:1); Moses (Exod 3:1-10); and Isaiah (Isa 6:1-13). It was a call to service , not a call to salvation . The latter concept is in view in 1:6-7, but not here in 1:1. It is very important to understand this distinction, as we shall see in our discussion of Rom 9-11.

The fact that Paul was called by Jesus Christ was the basis for his self-understanding as a slave of Jesus. The call placed upon him the inescapable obligation to do what his Lord commanded him. Also, this call was important to Paul as a basis for the divine authority of his ministry. He did not choose on his own to try to be an apostle; he was called ! He was not appointed an apostle by any human agent; he was called directly by Jesus Christ! See Gal 1:1.

Paul says he was called to be "an apostle." This word comes from the very common verb ajpostevllw (apostellô ), which means "to send (on a mission)." In the NT it often refers to sending someone on a spiritual mission; see Matt 10:5; John 17:18. The noun itself (ajpovstolo" , apostolos ) is sometimes used in the NT in a generic sense and means simply "someone sent on a mission," i.e., an ambassador, a messenger, a representative, or even a missionary. See Acts 14:14 (Barnabas and Paul); Rom 16:7 (Andronicus and Junias); Phil 2:25 (Epaphroditus); Heb 3:1 (Jesus himself); and 2 Cor 8:23 (unnamed "apostles of the churches").

Most often, though, apostolos refers to those who were specially qualified and specially appointed to the highest human office of service to the church. Apostleship is named as the preeminent spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11). It is applied to the original group of twelve men chosen by Jesus (Matt 10:2) and to the post-resurrection group of twelve in which Matthias replaced Judas (Acts 1:26). This group is often referred to simply as "the twelve" (e.g., John 6:70-71) or as "the apostles" (e.g., 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:17).

Paul often refers to himself as an apostle. He does so in all of his epistles except Philippians, Philemon, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. See especially 1 Cor 9:1-2; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11.

What was special about those who were chosen for the office of apostle? First, they were chosen personally by Jesus Christ (John 6:70). This applies to Paul, too (Gal 1:1). Second, they had to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, especially of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul stresses that he qualifies in this respect: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1; see 15:8). Third, they were endowed with the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15; 20:22). Paul was conscious of his own special guidance by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:7-13; 7:40). Fourth, the apostles were given teaching and ruling authority over the whole church (John 20:23; Acts 2:42; 6:6; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 2 Pet 3:2). The Apostle Paul shared this authority (1 Thess 2:6; 1 Tim 2:7). Finally, apostles were given special miraculous powers as signs of their authority (Matt 10:1; Acts 2:43; 5:12; 8:18). The same was true of Paul (15:19; 2 Cor 12:12).

While Paul shared the basic apostolic qualifications with the twelve, in some ways his apostleship was unique. As far as we know, he was not an eyewitness of Jesus' entire ministry, from his baptism by John to his ascension (Acts 1:21-22), though he saw the risen Christ: "Last of all he appeared to me also" (1 Cor 15:8). Because of the unusual circumstances of his call, he refers to himself as "abnormally born" into the office of apostle (1 Cor 15:8). Also, Paul's ministry was unique in that he was specifically appointed to be the apostle to the Gentiles (see v. 5 below).

In no case, however, were Paul's office and apostleship inferior to that of the twelve (2 Cor 11:5; 12:11). As an apostle of Christ Jesus, he spoke with the full authority of Jesus himself. We need to keep this in mind as we read the book of Romans. It is part of "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42); it is Scripture (2 Pet 3:16); it is "the word of God" (1 Thess 2:13).

3. Set Apart for the Gospel of God

Paul's three descriptions of himself move from the general to the specific: from "servant of Christ Jesus"; to "an apostle," as the more specific form of servanthood; to "set apart for the gospel of God" as the specific focus of his apostleship.

The Greek term for "set apart" (ajforivzw , aphorizô ) means "to separate, to set apart for a distinct destiny or role" (see Matt 25:32). Paul is saying that God singled him out and separated him from all other men and even from all the other apostles, giving him a special role. He uses the same word in Gal 1:15, saying that God set him apart even from his mother's womb (see Jer 1:5). In his omniscience God foreknew even before Paul was born that he would respond positively to his call on the Damascus road. The special role for which Paul was set apart was to preach "the gospel of God," the "good news" of God. (Even more specifically, he was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; but he does not mention this until v. 5.)

In what sense is it the gospel of God ? Possibly in the sense that the gospel message is about God, i.e., about what he has done to save us, especially in contrast with what we try to do to save ourselves. This sense would be appropriate in view of 1:16-17, where Paul says the gospel reveals "the righteousness of God" as the source of our salvation, as opposed to our own righteousness (see 10:3). More often, though, when the content of the gospel is in view, it is referred to as the gospel of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mark 1:1; Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Thess 1:8). That is the case in this very context, which speaks of "the gospel . . . regarding his Son" (vv. 2-3), and "the gospel of his Son" (v. 9).

Thus when Paul says in v. 1 that the gospel is "the gospel of God," he probably means that it is from God, that God is its source. In saying this he is emphasizing the divine authority of his gospel message. It is not something he made up, nor did he receive it from any other man. It came from God himself (Gal 1:11-17).

The text does not specifically say that Paul was set apart to preach the gospel; it says he was set apart "for" (eij" , eis ) the gospel. This certainly includes preaching (see v. 15), but it also includes the very living of the gospel. As Morris well says, to be set apart for the gospel "means to be a gospel man, to live the gospel. Preaching is important, but then so is living. Paul's call was to a way of life as well as to a task of preaching" (40). In this general sense, every Christian is "set apart for the gospel of God."

By declaring that he has been set apart for the gospel, Paul is establishing the very theme of the book of Romans from the beginning. As we saw in the introduction, the main theme of the epistle is the good news that we are saved by grace apart from works of law. Thus in view of the content of Romans we can say that Paul was set apart not only to preach and to live the gospel, but also to write it.

B. THE GOSPEL AND THE OLD TESTAMENT (1:2)

1:2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures . . . . Here Paul's subject continues to be the gospel. His specific point is that the gospel concerning the saving work of Jesus is not some new and unexpected development in God's plan. Rather, it is something that God had already "promised beforehand" in the OT. After the initial promise in Gen 3:15, God's promises focus specifically on the role of Abraham and his descendants (see Gen 12:1-3; Gal 3:8). Indeed, the entire history of Israel was God's preparation for the coming of Christ (9:3-5), and part of this preparation was to announce ahead of time what he planned to do to save the world. Thus the gospel is simply "what God promised our fathers" (Acts 13:32).

God gave his promises "through his prophets" (see 16:25-26). A prophet is basically a spokesman for someone else, one who speaks on behalf of another. God's prophets are those whom he chooses to speak for him, to deliver his own words (3:2) to others. In this sense all biblical authors are prophets since their writings are God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). In this functional sense, men such as Moses and David and Samuel are prophets no less than Isaiah and Amos. Sometimes the writings of Moses are distinguished from the rest of the OT since their main content is God's Law for Israel (3:21), but Moses writes as a prophet of God (Num 12:6-8; Deut 18:15; Acts 3:21-22).

In the early years of the church, before the NT writings were generally available, the OT prophets were a main source of the gospel. Jesus cited Isa 61:1-2 to validate his ministry (Luke 4:16-21). He quoted Isa 53:12 as referring to his death (Luke 22:37). After his resurrection he twice gave a crash course on the OT prophecies concerning his death and resurrection (Luke 24:25-26, 44-46). In his Pentecost sermon Peter quoted the prophet David (see Acts 2:30) concerning Jesus' resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:25-28, 34-35). Philip used Isa 53:7-8 to preach the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:32-35).

Paul himself frequently cited OT prophecy to establish his gospel message (see Acts 13:32-35; 17:2-3). The theme for Romans itself comes from Hab 2:4 (1:17), and is undergirded with the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:6 and the promises of David in Ps 32:1-2 (Rom 4:3, 6-8).

Paul says the prophetic promises are recorded "in the Holy Scriptures." The OT is often called "the Scripture" (see 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2) or "the Scriptures" (see 15:4). In the NT the Greek word (grafhv , graphç ) is always used for biblical writings as a category distinct from all other writings. Thus it has a kind of technical sense and is properly capitalized by the NIV.

Paul's point is that the prophetic promises concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ come to us through writings that are "the very words of God" (3:2), and thus are inspired and completely trustworthy. That Jesus died and was raised from the dead can be established by examining the NT records and other early testimony through purely scientific historical method. But the fact that "Christ died for our sins" and that "he was raised on the third day" according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4) undergirds the gospel with fully divine authority.

Why does Paul emphasize the OT origin of his gospel at this point? As the book of Acts shows, the OT was often cited by the early Christians for apologetical purposes. I.e., fulfilled prophecy is a means of proving the divine origin both of the prophecy itself and of the work that fulfils it. Paul may have had this in mind here in 1:2.

It is more likely, though, that his purpose is polemical. There is no question that many Jews and even Jewish Christians had serious difficulty with the idea that anyone could be saved "apart from observing the law" (3:28), in particular the Law of Moses. However, the gospel of Jesus Christ, as known and preached by Paul in Romans, is that we are justified through faith apart from law-keeping of any kind. Thus it is important for him to show that this message is not some innovative heresy that he himself has concocted, but that it stands in continuity with what God has always taught through his inspired prophets. God has always had just one way of saving sinners, and Paul's presentation of that way is in perfect harmony with the Holy Scriptures of the OT. By stressing this point at the very beginning of the epistle, Paul seeks to deflect any criticism and skepticism that might be directed toward his teaching by Jewish readers.

Paul says that the gospel was promised in the OT. Does this mean that the gospel itself did not exist in OT times, and that salvation in those days came through some other means? No, not at all. God has always saved sinners by graciously forgiving their sins on the conditions of repentance and humble, believing acceptance of his forgiveness. The OT is filled with teaching concerning God's gracious nature and his promise of pardon (e.g., Exod 34:6; Ps 32:1-2; Isa 65:1-2; Hos 11:8-9; 14:1-3). Also, this forgiveness has always been based on the saving work of Jesus Christ, even when that work was only foreknown by God and not yet known by believing sinners (see 3:25).

OT saints knew and believed in God's saving grace, but they did not know specifically about Jesus of Nazareth and his role in the provision of the very grace that saved them. They had the gospel of Jesus Christ himself, but only in the form of promises to be fulfilled in the future (see Acts 13:32-35; Gal 3:18; Heb 11:8-13). They did not know who Jesus was, nor did they know exactly what he would be doing to save them. The prophets themselves - and even the angels - did not know these things (1 Pet 1:10-12). Our blessing is that we know not only the promises, but also the fulfilment. We know Jesus himself. We know the gospel in its fullness.

C. THE SUBJECT OF THE GOSPEL IS JESUS (1:3-4)

1:3-4 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. As we have noted above, the subject or substance of the gospel is Jesus. It is God's gospel "regarding his Son." These two verses are about the identity of his Son, or what is usually called the person of Christ. The main focus here is not on his work, which is brought out more fully in the body of the epistle.

1. The Two Natures of Jesus

Though this is not necessarily its main emphasis, this passage definitely affirms the two natures of Jesus, his humanity and his divinity. The latter is seen in the naming of Jesus as "his Son," i.e., the Son of God.

When applied to Jesus this title has several connotations. Most significantly it refers to the unique relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Because of the supernatural circumstances of his virgin conception and birth, God himself designated Jesus as "the Son of the Most High" (Luke 1:31-32) and "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Twice the Father spoke from heaven and declared of Jesus, "This is my Son" (Matt 3:17; 17:5). In accordance with the Father's revelation, Peter confessed Jesus as "the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16). When Jesus affirmed that he was the Son of God (Matt 26:63-66) and referred to God as "my Father" (John 5:17; 10:29), his Jewish enemies interpreted this as a claim to be equal with God (John 5:18), or a claim to actually be God (John 10:31-33). What is important is that Jesus did not attempt to refute this inference. Thus both the Jews' reaction to Jesus' claim to be God's Son, and Jesus' own response to this reaction (see the contexts), show that it is a title of deity. The title of Son places Jesus squarely within the Trinity (Matt 28:19).

"Son of God" is a title regularly applied to Jesus by Paul. Immediately after his conversion "he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). Many references occur in his other epistles, and in Romans itself. Besides here in 1:3-4, Paul refers to Jesus as God's Son in 1:9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32. That he uses it as a title of deity is consistent with his direct affirmation of Jesus as God in 9:5.

This text also emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" (literally, "from the seed of David"). The reference to the seed of David indicates that Jesus had not only divine but also human parentage. Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David; Jesus was "from the seed of David" through his mother.

The Greek text says that Jesus was from the seed of David "according to the flesh." The NIV translation ("as to his human nature") is not literal but captures the meaning of the expression quite well. Paul's use of the term flesh (savrx , sarx ) is notoriously complex. Sometimes in Paul and in the rest of the NT it refers to the physical body as distinguished from the spirit (e.g., Matt 26:41; Rom 2:28; Phil 1:22, 24; 1 John 4:2). Sometimes it refers to the as-yet-unredeemed physical body as still ruled by sin (e.g., 7:5, 18, 25; 8:3; Gal 5:19). Sometimes it refers to human nature in its earthly or pre-glorified state (e.g., 1 Cor 15:50; Heb 5:7; 1 Pet 4:1). This third meaning seems to be included here, as our discussion of v. 4 will show.

Quite often, though, the term flesh stands for human nature as such, in its entirety (e.g., 4:1; Eph 6:5; Phil 3:3-4; Heb 12:9). "Flesh and blood" is a fuller expression for the same thing (e.g., Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14). "All flesh" and "no flesh" refer to the human race in general (e.g., Mark 13:20; Luke 3:6; Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16). This last option seems to be the primary meaning in v. 3, just as the NIV understands it. The same expression and the same idea are found in 9:5, which says that Jesus came from Israel "according to the flesh." First Timothy 3:16 affirms that Jesus "was revealed in the flesh" (NASB). John 1:14 sums up this idea perfectly: "The Word became flesh"; the divine Logos became a human being.

The entire content of v. 3 is foreshadowed by Jesus' debate with the Pharisees during his final week (Matt 22:41-45). He asked them about the Christ: "Whose son is he?" They replied, "The son of David." While not denying this, Jesus went on to show that the Christ must be more than the son of David , since David confesses him as his Lord (Ps 110:1). The clear implication is that the Christ is also the Son of God. He is not only human, but also divine.

2. The Incarnation

The NIV incorrectly translates an important word in v. 3, namely, givnomai ( ginomai ). The NASB renders it as "born," or "born of a descendant of David." This is a possible meaning (see John 8:58; Gal 4:4), but not a common one. The KJV translates it as "made," i.e., "made of the seed of David." This is closer to the correct meaning; see John 1:3, where this word occurs three times and where the NIV translates it "made" each time.

It is best to understand ginomai here as "came into being" or "came into existence" (see John 1:3, NASB). The idea is that the Son of God came into existence from the seed of David as to his human nature. This is a reference to the incarnation, in which the eternal Logos "became flesh" (John 1:14, also ginomai ), or became a human being. Prior to the incarnation, his human nature did not exist. The human person, Jesus of Nazareth, had a beginning. Jesus of Nazareth, indeed, Jesus the Christ, did not exist prior to his miraculous conception in the womb of Mary.

However, the divine person called the Logos did exist before the incarnation; indeed, he existed eternally along with God because he was God (John 1:1). But at a specific point in time the eternal Logos "made himself nothing" (Phil 2:7) and entered into an incomprehensible kind of unity with a real human being who began to exist at this same point in time, namely, Jesus of Nazareth.

3. Messiahship

Verse 3 says Jesus "was a descendant of David." Why David in particular? If the point is simply Jesus' human nature, why not "from the seed of Abraham"? Why not "born of Mary"? What is distinctive about his being from the seed of David ? One thing at stake here is the uniqueness of Jesus. All Jews were known as sons of Abraham (John 8:33, 37; Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22). All Christians are Abraham's spiritual seed (4:13, 16, 18; Gal 3:29). But Jesus alone is the son or seed of David as the Bible uses that expression.

More specifically, what is at stake is Jesus' identity as the Messiah or Christ. The OT promised and the Jews universally believed that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. To say that Jesus was from the seed of David is to confess him to be the Messiah, the one promised and expected as the Savior of his people. As Jesus' contemporaries expressed it in John 7:42, "Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family?" (literally, "from David's seed"). See 2 Tim 2:8.

This is one of the aspects of the gospel "promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (v. 2). The OT states very clearly that God would raise up a descendant of David to sit on his throne and rule his people in righteousness and wisdom and power. The NT from beginning (Matt 1:1) to end (Rev 22:16) refers to Jesus as the seed and son of David.

Jesus' messianic role as the son of David includes his taking care of his people as David the shepherd tended his sheep (Ezek 34:23; 37:24). The main emphasis, though, is on his kingship and lordship. Most of the promises concerning David's seed echo 2 Sam 7:13, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (see Ps 132:11; Jer 23:5; Ezek 37:24). The angel who announced Christ's birth to Mary told her, "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32). Peter reminded his listeners on the Day of Pentecost that God promised David that he "would place one of his descendants on his throne" (Acts 2:30). David was to the Jews their "great king" (Matt 5:35), but God promised that the Messiah's kingdom would be even more glorious and that it would never end. Jesus as the Messiah is "great David's greater son."

4. The Two States of Jesus

When we get into the content of v. 4, a whole new perspective on Jesus Christ is opened up. Here we see that Paul is showing us not only the two natures of Christ, but also his two states , namely, the two stages of his messianic career. The first is his state of humiliation, which is the period of his earthly ministry from the point of his incarnation up to and including his death on the cross. It is likely that v. 3 is referring to this state, and that the term flesh connotes not only Jesus' humanity as such, but his human nature in its weak and not-yet-glorified state. These were truly "the days of his flesh" (Heb 5:7, NASB). This was the time when his "equality with God" was veiled by his humanness and his servanthood and his shameful death on a despicable cross (Phil 2:6-8). See 2 Cor 8:9.

But this is only his state "according to the flesh," and was followed by a state of the highest exaltation, to which v. 4 refers. The period of nothingness (Phil 2:7-8) is replaced by one of infinite and eternal glory (Phil 2:9-11): "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (NASB). In the state of his exaltation Jesus is not just the Son of God, but is the Son of God with power .

We have two options regarding the phrase "with power." Some take it as modifying the verb, as in the NIV: Jesus was "declared with power to be the Son of God." Here the power lies in the means by which Jesus was designated Son of God, namely, the mighty display of power in his resurrection from the dead. The other option is to take "with power" as modifying the title "Son of God," as in the NASB [1977 ed.]: Jesus "was declared the Son of God with power." (See also the KJV and the NRSV.) I.e., in his state of exaltation Jesus is not just the Son of God, but is the Son of God with power . This is the better understanding. It follows the word order in the original text more closely. Also, v. 3 indicates that Jesus was already the Son of God in his state of humiliation; thus v. 4 must be pointing us to a new phase of his existence in which he is invested with unprecedented power.

What we are told, then, is that the one who came into existence from the seed of David, and who was already the Son of God in a real sense has now become the Son of God with power. That is, he has entered a new state or stage of his messianic career. In his unglorified state, "the days of his flesh," Jesus of Nazareth was the divine Son of God by virtue of the incarnation. But now as the result of his messianic work he has been exalted to a new state of power and glory. This comes specifically as the result of his work of death and resurrection, in which he confronted the archenemies death and Satan (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14-15; Rev 1:18) and decisively defeated them. Thus what was his by nature (because he was the incarnation of deity) has now become his by right . He has earned it; he has achieved it by his work.

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

Paul says that the transition point where Jesus crossed the line from humiliation to glory was his resurrection from the dead. By this specific act he was declared to be the Son of God with power. The word translated "by" is ejk ( ek ). Sometimes this is taken in a temporal sense, i.e., "from the time of" his resurrection he was so declared (Cranfield, I:62). This is certainly true in fact, but it is not the best understanding of the preposition in this text. It is no doubt intended here to have the stronger causal meaning, "by means of, as the result of." As the result of his resurrection, Jesus is declared to be the Son of God with power.

A more serious issue is the meaning of the Greek word oJrivzw (horizô ), which is the one translated "declared" in the NIV. According to this understanding the resurrection is the act which reveals and affirms the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. By this act he is "seen to be" the Son of God (Morris, 47). This view emphasizes the apologetical function of the resurrection, which it certainly has. This miraculous event is proof or evidence of Jesus' true identity as deity (John 20:28). It is proof to all men that Jesus will judge the world (Acts 17:31). It shows that Jesus is more than a merely human person such as David himself, who is still dead and in his tomb (Acts 2:29; 13:36). Thus acceptance of the fact of the resurrection is an essential foundation for saving faith (10:9).

In all of these ways Jesus' resurrection certainly declares him to be the divine Son of God. But the question is, is this the best meaning of the word horizô ? Many believe this meaning is too weak, and suggest that the word actually bears something close to a causal connotation. (See Cranfield, I:61; Moo, I:40.) The idea is that by his resurrection Jesus is appointed or constituted the Son of God with power; he is ordained or installed as the Son of God with power.

This latter understanding is the better one. It is closer to the actual meaning of the term (see Moo, I:40). Also, it is more in keeping with the two-states understanding of vv. 3 and 4. It is similar to the concept in Acts 2:36, which says that God made the crucified and risen Jesus to be both Lord and Christ. The same word (horizô ) is used in Acts 10:42 and Acts 17:31 to say that Jesus has been appointed judge of the world.

The point is that the resurrection of Jesus is the crucial transition point in his work as Messiah. It is the deathblow to his enemies, it gives him universal authority and dominion, and it enables him to perform his continuing work of priestly intercession (4:25; Heb 7:16).

Another thought in v. 4 is that Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God with power "through the Spirit of holiness." This is sometimes taken to mean Jesus' spirit: either his human soul, in contrast with his physical nature ("flesh," v. 3), or his divine nature, in contrast with his human nature. It is much more likely, though, that it refers to the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned often in Romans, especially in chapter 8. (See also 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19.) Since he is usually called "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God," we may ask why this unusual wording, "the Spirit of holiness," is used here. The probable answer is that Paul is using the Hebrew idiom, found in Ps 51:11 and Isa 63:10, thus reminding his readers again of his dependence on the OT (v. 2).

The main reason for taking this as a reference to the Holy Spirit is that the Spirit is often elsewhere described as the Spirit of life and the giver of life (e.g., John 6:63; Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:6), and especially as the one who raised Jesus' body from the dead: 8:11; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18. Understanding v. 4 as a reference to the Holy Spirit fits this picture very consistently, since "the Spirit of holiness" is here said to be the agent of Christ's resurrection. The preposition "through" is katav ( kata ); it is often translated simply "according to." It can be used in a causal sense, though, as seems to be the case here (Hendriksen, I:41).

6. The Son's Full Identity

As if to summarize his theological description of God's Son in vv. 3-4, Paul ends v. 4 with this full yet succinct identification: He is "Jesus Christ our Lord." These three appellations pull together all that has already been said.

"Jesus" is the proper name of the incarnate Son of God and calls attention to his human nature as one born in the line of David. It also points to his work as the Messiah, since it means "Yahweh is salvation" ( GRe , 25-26).

The title "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah." It means "the anointed one," i.e., the one appointed and anointed by God to perform the work of salvation, as promised in the OT Scriptures (v. 2). In the OT, anointing with oil was often a ceremony of ordination to an office of leadership, especially the office of king (1 Sam 16:3, 12-13), high priest (Exod 29:7, 29), and prophet (1 Kgs 19:16). As the Christ - the anointed one - Jesus performs especially the work of the great High Priest (offering himself as the atoning sacrifice) and the work of the King of Kings (in his resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at God's right hand). In relation to the latter, this title points to all that Jesus has done as the son of David.

Jesus is also called "Lord" (kuvrio" , kurios ), a term applied to him often in Romans. Its literal meaning is "owner," which applies in the most absolute sense to God's Son since in his divine nature he created all things (John 1:3). It is also a title that connotes the deity of Jesus, especially as used by an OT scholar such as Paul. Because he used the LXX extensively Paul must have seen that kurios was the Greek word used there to represent the Hebrew sacred name, Yahweh, over 6,150 times. Paul could not have used this word as his almost-exclusive title for Jesus without in his mind identifying Jesus as Yahweh. This is something he does explicitly in 10:9-13.

It is significant that Paul refers to Jesus as " our Lord," not just " the Lord." It makes all that he has said about Jesus much more personal. In particular it corresponds exactly to our own role as his slaves (see v. 1). Confessing him as "our Lord" is acknowledging him as our owner in every sense.

D. PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP (1:5)

1:5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. In v. 1 Paul begins to introduce himself, especially as an apostle set apart to preach the gospel. His mention of the gospel leads him to describe it as being promised in the OT (v. 2) and as being about God's Son (v. 3a). His mention of God's Son leads him to speak in more detail of his glorious nature (vv. 3b-4). Now in v. 5 he returns to his self-introduction by further elaborating on his call to apostleship.

1. The Origin of Paul's Apostleship

He speaks first of the origin of his apostleship: it came "through him," namely, through Jesus Christ. This is a reference again to the call that was extended to him by the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-10; 26:13-18).

2. The Character of Paul's Apostleship

Next Paul speaks of the character of his apostleship: it came to him as a gift. This is the point of his statement, "we received grace and apostleship." (He says "we" only in the editorial sense, since he is talking only of himself.) The Greek word for "apostleship" is ajpostolhv (apostolç ); it is used only here and in Acts 1:25; 1 Cor 9:2; Gal 2:8.

Why does he say that he received grace and apostleship? Here is where the concept of gift appears. The Greek word for "grace" (cavri" , charis ) in its most general sense means "a gift that brings joy or gladness." It almost always includes the connotation of a gift; sometimes it is used even for the act of thanksgiving for a gift. Usually when we hear the English word "grace," the first thing we think of is the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. In the Bible, though, it is often used to refer to gifts of service, i.e., gifts that enable individuals to work for and serve God in special ways. See especially 1 Pet 4:10-11.

What does it mean in this verse? Some take it as a reference to the saving grace that Paul allegedly received on the Damascus road, along with but as distinct from his call to apostleship (e.g., Murray, I:13). In this sense v. 4 would be saying that Paul received from Jesus both saving grace and his apostolic calling. The more common view, and the one preferred here, is that the word grace refers to the apostleship itself. "Grace and apostleship" here means "the grace of apostleship" or "the gracious gift of apostleship."

This latter view is preferred for several reasons. For one thing, Paul's personal call by Jesus on the road to Damascus was specifically a call to the apostleship only. Jesus did not actually speak to him about salvation; he left that up to Ananias. Second, the gifts of service to which the word grace applies include the gift of apostleship (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:7, 11; see Rom 12:3, 6). Finally and most significantly, in many other places Paul speaks of his call to apostleship as an act of grace (15:15-16; 1 Cor 3:10; 15:10; Gal 1:15; 2:9; Eph 3:7-8).

3. The Focus of Paul's Apostleship

As an apostle Paul was told to work specifically "among all the Gentiles." The Greek word is e[qno" ( ethnos , most often used in the plural). Sometimes it refers to a nation or nations in general, without any particular distinctions. Often, though, as in this context, it refers only to the Gentile nations, i.e., the nations that are distinct from the Jews. The focus of Paul's ministry was the Gentiles (the uncircumcised) as distinguished from the Jews (the circumcised). See Gal 2:7, NASB.

We must emphasize that Paul was not meant to preach exclusively to Gentiles. Indeed, Jesus told him that he should declare his name "before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel" (Acts 9:15). Paul was very aware that the gospel was for "the Jew first" (1:16). Nevertheless it is clear that the primary focus of Paul's ministry was intended to be the Gentiles (Acts 22:21; 26:17). He emphasizes this fact in his epistles (Gal 1:16; Eph 3:1, 6-8; 1 Thess 2:16; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 4:17), and especially here in Romans (1:13-14; 11:13; 15:15-16, 18).

4. The Purpose of Paul's Apostleship

In this verse Paul tells us the specific purpose of his apostleship, namely, "to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith." The words "to call" are not in the original, though the idea is certainly present (see 2 Thess 2:14). The concept of purpose is actually found in the Greek preposition eij" ( eis ), which can mean "unto" in the sense of "for the purpose of" (Cranfield, I:66). Paul says he was given grace and apostleship unto - for the purpose of bringing about - "the obedience that comes from faith."

This is an extremely important idea, one that should give every Christian worker insight into the purpose of his or her ministry. The purpose or the immediate "goal of the gospel" is to produce the obedience that comes from faith. Paul elsewhere rejoices that through his ministry Christ has been able to produce "the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed" (15:18, NASB). In 16:25-26 he declares that the mystery revealed in the gospel "has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith" (NASB). In 1:5 and 16:26 the Greek expression is exactly the same (though the NIV without good reason translates it differently in the two verses). It is eij" uJpakohΙn pivstew" (eis hypakoçn pisteôs ), without any definite articles. It literally means "unto obedience of faith." Exactly what it means is a matter of much debate.

Four things must be kept in mind when interpreting this expression. First, one must decide whether the "faith" is subjective or objective. I.e., is it the act of believing; or is it the content of our faith, the doctrine to be believed? Second, the extent of the obedience must be determined. Is it a special kind of obedience, or is it obedience in general? Third and most crucially, the exact relation between the faith and the obedience must be understood. Finally, our interpretation of this expression must be consistent with the overall message of Romans.

Some Bible translations render the expression quite literally, "obedience of faith" (NASB, NRSV). But it still has to be interpreted. Here we will briefly present five suggested interpretations, as reflected by various translations and exegetes.

The first suggestion is "obedience and faith." This appears in several variations in a number of translations: "obedience and faith" (Goodspeed), "faith and obedience" (NEB), "believe and obey" (LB; TEV; NIV, 16:26 only). In this view faith appears to be subjective, and the obedience seems to be general.

This view is unsatisfactory for three reasons. For one thing, it is incomplete. After translating it thus, one must still go on and explain how the faith and the obedience are related (e.g., as in Newman and Nida, 12). Also, it is not grammatically sound. Joining faith and obedience with the conjunction "and" suggests they are somehow parallel, but the Greek genitive form of pisteôs ("faith") indicates a non-parallel relationship. Finally, in the context of Romans it is doctrinally misleading to place faith and obedience in such a parallel relationship, since one of the main points of Romans is that faith and obedience (good works) are not related to salvation in the same way.

The second suggestion is "the obedience which is included in faith." This is the view of Gareth Reese ( Acts , 598-610), as summed up in Corson ("Faith," 5-6). According to this view faith includes, as part of its very essence, obedience or good works. Obedience is part of the content or definition of faith, and in terms of scope it embraces at least the further acts required by the "plan of salvation": repentance, confession, and baptism. In the Restoration Movement it is very common to hear that these acts are simply part of the content of saving faith.

This view is also unsatisfactory, however. Even though the Bible does connect faith and obedience very closely (as in the fifth view, below), it is always careful to distinguish them, especially in contexts dealing with salvation (Eph 2:8-10). Except insofar as faith itself may be considered an act of obedience (as in the next view), the two must be kept distinct. Once we go beyond this, it is difficult if not impossible to limit the scope of the obedience that would have to be included in such "faith." It may be possible to talk about (subjective) faith, repentance, confession, and baptism as "obedience to the (objective) faith" (as in the fourth view, below); but such a limitation cannot be made in this view, where the comprehensive or inclusive faith is itself subjective. Thus if this view were correct, the faith that justifies (3:28; 5:1) would have to include the entire obedience of the Christian life. This would simply be another version of works-righteousness or salvation by works - the very view Paul is attacking in the epistle to the Romans as a whole. Thus it must be rejected as inconsistent with the gospel of grace.

The third suggestion is that "the obedience of faith" means "the obedience that consists of faith." That is, the obedience sought by preaching is the one specific act of subjectively believing the gospel. This is the view of Cranfield (I:66-67), Murray (I:13-14), and Godet (82). Now, it is certainly correct to think of faith as an act of obedience, but it is incorrect to think that it is the only act of obedience God seeks to bring about through the preaching of the gospel. In Romans Paul puts great emphasis on faith, but he also stresses the obedience that must follow faith as the ultimate result of gospel preaching (see the fifth view, below). Thus this view is inconsistent with the overall message of Romans.

The fourth suggestion is "obedience to the faith" (e.g., KJV, Weymouth, Moffatt, and Phillips translations). What is distinctive about this view is that it understands "faith" in the objective sense, namely, as the body of doctrine that we believe and to which we must respond in obedience. Such a view of faith is found in the Bible (Jude 3), and so is the concept of "obeying the faith" (Acts 6:7). Also, "obedience to the faith" is a grammatically possible way of translating the genitive case of pisteôs (see 2 Cor 10:5; 1 Pet 1:22).

Is this a valid understanding of "the obedience of faith"? Perhaps. On the positive side, "obedience to the faith" or "obeying the faith" seems to be equivalent to "obeying the gospel," a concept that occurs several times in the NT: 10:16; 2 Thess 1:8; 1 Pet 4:17. What does this mean? Obedience to the gospel faith would seem to be different from obedience to the law or commandments governing the Christian life. The latter is everyday obedience, but the former would seem to be more limited in scope. How should it be understood? Most succinctly, it probably refers to what is required as conditions for receiving the saving grace promised in the gospel. This includes particularly faith, repentance, and baptism (Mark 1:15; 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 5:32; 16:31; Rom 10:16-17). This required response to the gospel may be regarded as obedience, since the conditions are often presented grammatically as imperatives or commands (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 16:31).

On the negative side, though, is the fact that in Romans the central concept of faith occurs overwhelmingly in the subjective sense. Since this statement in 1:5 seems to be so closely connected with the overall theme of Romans, the faith of which it speaks should probably be understood in the subjective sense also. Thus we find this view unacceptable as the intended meaning in this verse.

This leads to the fifth and final suggestion, "the obedience which results from faith." In my opinion, this is Paul's intended meaning; a wide range of commentators agree. Though it is not a strict translation, the NIV rendering is on target exegetically: "the obedience that comes from faith." According to this understanding "faith" is the subjective act of believing, and "obedience" is the whole scope of Christian good works.

This view is preferred mainly because of its contextual harmony with Romans as a whole. While faith in Jesus is stressed as the natural and necessary response to his saving work, the epistle makes it clear that this faith cannot stand alone. Paul shows in chs. 6-8 and 12-15 that the end result of the gospel is obedience or good works or sanctification. His point here in 1:5 is that he was called to be an apostle not just to lead the Gentiles to faith as an end in itself, but to lead them to the kind of faith that produces obedience .

Still, the emphasis in the expression "obedience of faith" is not on obedience as such but on faith. God wants obedience, yes; but he wants the obedience of faith , i.e., the obedience that comes from, results from, or is motivated by faith in Jesus Christ. Continuing daily obedience to God's commandments is expected and even necessary in some respects, but the only kind of obedience that satisfies God is the obedience that is the expression of faith. This is the intended outcome of Paul's gospel, just as it should be for us. The purpose of preaching the gospel is to bring about obedience, but only an obedience that springs from faith rather than from legalistic requirements. God wants obedience, but he wants the obedience of faith . See Rom 6-8; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:8-10; 1 Thess 1:3.

In reality, true faith and heartfelt obedience (6:17) are inseparable. Abraham's example sums it up: "By faith Abraham . . . obeyed" (Heb 11:8). We cannot truly "accept Christ" without accepting him as both Savior and Lord. We accept him as Savior by trusting in his redeeming work; we accept him as Lord by committing ourselves to obey his will (see MacArthur, I:24-25).

5. The Goal of Paul's Apostleship

In the Greek the last phrase of v. 5 is "for his name's sake." While the immediate purpose or goal of Paul's gospel was to bring about obedience of faith among the Gentiles, its ultimate goal was to bring honor and glory to the name of Christ. This is a general principle of the Christian life: everything we do should be done to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31) and in the name of Jesus Christ (Col 3:17). It is true that in the end every knee will bow to Christ, and every tongue will confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10-11), but our goal must be to bring the world as close to this end as we can now , through our life's work. Stott (53) has said it very well: "The highest of all missionary motives is neither obedience to the Great Commission . . . , nor love for sinners who are alienated and perishing . . . , but rather zeal - burning and passionate zeal - for the glory of Jesus Christ."

E. THE RECIPIENTS OF PAUL'S LETTER (1:6-7a)

1:6-7a And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints . . . . The first six verses are an expanded version of the first segment of an ordinary epistolary greeting, identifying the author. The seventh verse contains the other two segments, identifying the recipients and offering a blessing. But even before Paul gets to his formal acknowledgment of the recipients (v. 7a), he begins to address them as an add-on to his reference to the Gentiles in v. 5: "And you also are among those" Gentiles who have been called to the obedience of faith. A relative pronoun in the first part of v. 6 links the subject of this verse to the Gentiles in v. 5.

Verses 6 and 7 probably reflect the ethnic identity of the Roman church. Verse 6 definitely addresses Gentiles, but v. 7 seems to be more inclusive: "To all in Rome," i.e., all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. The way the Gentiles are addressed in v. 6, though, seems to indicate that they made up a large part if not the main part of the church in Rome (see 1:13).

The recipients of the letter - and by extension all Christians of all times - are described in three ways in these verses. Verse 6 says that we are "called to belong to Jesus Christ." The word "called" is the same as in v. 1, "called to be an apostle," and the same as in v. 7, "called to be saints." The calling itself is not the same, though. In v. 1 the call is to a specific role of service, while vv. 6-7 speak about the calling of sinners to salvation.

That God calls sinners to salvation is a Bible teaching on which all agree (e.g., 8:30; 1 Thess 2:12; 5:24; 1 Pet 2:9; Jude 1). The disagreement comes as to the nature of the call. Some say the call is selective and efficacious. I.e., God gives it only to the elect, and it irresistibly causes the recipient to believe and to accept God's grace. This is the Calvinist doctrine of the "effectual call," and commentators of that persuasion read this idea into vv. 6 and 7 (e.g., Moo, I:46; Murray, I:15; Morris, 38; MacArthur, I:28).

Others say that while God's call to sinners is gracious and powerful and necessary, it is nevertheless universal and resistible. This is the biblical view. God calls sinners through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14), which is his power unto salvation (1:16). The message of the cross draws all men to the Christ (John 12:32). Faith comes through the written Word (John 20:31) when that Word is faithfully preached (10:13-17). Sinners' hearts are hardened, and without the powerful message of the gospel none would turn to God (John 6:44-45; Heb 4:12). In this sense the gospel call is a necessary condition for salvation. The Calvinist error is to make it also a sufficient condition, which it is not. The sinner still has the free will either to answer the call or to resist it (Isa 65:1-7; Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51; Rev 22:17).

To say that we have been called to belong to Jesus and to be saints emphasizes God's gracious desire for our salvation (2 Pet 3:9) and his initiative and persistence in the whole salvation process. Because he cares, he calls - and calls, and calls, and calls.

We are called "to belong to Jesus Christ." The words "to belong to" are not in the original text; they represent the NIV's interpretion of the simple expression, "called of Jesus Christ" (a genitive connection; see the NASB). This could possibly mean "those who are called by Jesus Christ" (Cranfield, I:68), or it could be a possessive genitive, as the NIV has concluded (also Murray, I:15; Moo, I:46; Morris, 52). Either way is grammatically and theologically correct. The latter possibility is consistent with the Lord-slave relationship (vv. 1, 4). The gospel call is a call to yield ourselves to Christ's Lordship (ownership) and to become his loving and willing life-slaves.

The recipients of the letter (and thus all of us by extension) are also "loved by God." (For other texts that speak of Christians as "loved by God," see Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13; Jude 1.) It is true that God loves all human beings both as his creatures and as sinners who need his salvation (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; Eph 2:4-5; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-10). This is contrary to many who are of a Calvinist persuasion who say that God's love is selective and directed only toward the elect (see GRe , 329-332, 381-383). On the other hand, God does have a special love for those who answer his call and open their hearts to receive it (John 14:21; Rom 5:5; 8:35). Because we belong to him in a special way, he loves us as a father loves his own children, as a husband loves his own wife, and as a shepherd loves his own sheep ( GRe , 343-344).

The last description of those in Rome (and the rest of us) is that we are "called to be saints" (see 1 Cor 1:2). The words "to be" are not in the original text but express the idea accurately (see "called to be an apostle" in v. 1). The word "saints" means simply "holy ones," and the word "holy" means simply "separated" or "set apart" in a special relation to God. When used in the sense of saints it does not describe a distinctively high level of Christian maturity achieved by only a few. Rather, it describes the status of every Christian: we have been separated from the "dominion of darkness" (Col 1:13; 1 Pet 2:9) and from "the present evil age" (Gal 1:4), and we have been placed by God's grace within his kingdom (Col 1:13) and family (2 Cor 6:17-18). We are saints, and therefore we should live like saints (12:1-2).

F. THE BLESSING (1:7b)

1:7b We finally come to the third and last segment of the letter's greeting, namely, the blessing: Grace and peace to you . This is Paul's standard epistolary blessing. It is exactly the same in four of his other letters (Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Phlm 3) and very similar in the rest (1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4). As Bruce (75) points out, this blessing modifies and combines the standard Greek greeting, cai're ( Chaire! "Rejoice!") and the standard Jewish greeting, Shalom! ("Peace!"). Paul changed chaire to the "similarly-sounding and more distinctively Christian word cavri" ( charis ), 'grace.'" These two words together sum up the essence of the gospel and thus the essence of the message of Romans: "grace, therefore peace" (see 5:1). Because we are under his grace, we have peace with him and peace within.

The source of this grace and peace is specified; it is from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ . Though the Father's loving and gracious heart desired from eternity past to bestow grace and peace upon his sinful creatures, it could not be done without the saving work performed by the incarnate Logos in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the Father and the Son together are the source of our grace and peace. Such a close linking of the Father and the Son is typical of Paul and is indicative of the deity of the Son (see Gal 1:1; Phil 2:11; 1 Thess 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; see also Rev 5:13; 6:16).

Paul usually reserves the term God (qeov" , theos ) for God the Father, just as he ordinarily uses Lord (kuvrio" , kyrios ) for God the Son, and Spirit (pneu'ma , pneuma ) for God the Holy Spirit (e.g., Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 12:4-6). This does not mean, though, that he considers only the Father to be truly God, truly divine. In 9:5, for instance, Jesus is referred to as "God over all." On the threefold name for the Son, "Lord Jesus Christ," see on v. 4 above.

This brings Paul's lengthy epistolary greeting to an end. Our commentary on it is also lengthy, not just because the greeting itself is so long but also because it is so filled with doctrinal content. As MacArthur correctly notes, "The entire thrust of the sixteen chapters of Romans is distilled in the first seven verses" (I:3). Its content thrills our souls and whets our appetites for the rest of the letter.

II. 1:8-15 - PERSONAL REMARKS

In this section Paul briefly lays aside his apostolic persona (but not his apostolic authority), and addresses the saints in Rome on a personal level. He comes down from the pulpit, walks among the people, shakes their hands, and shows them his heart. He speaks not just as Paul the Apostle, but as Paul the man, Paul the fellow-Christian.

The main thing he reveals in this section is his earnest desire to visit the church in Rome, something he had prayed about and planned to do for a long time. This would be for their mutual benefit, but Paul wanted to visit especially so that he could preach the gospel in the world's capital city. The gospel was his life and passion, and he wanted to share it on a deeper level with the Roman Christians.

Thus far, every time he had planned to go to Rome, something had come up to prevent it. But now he had a new plan that he hoped would include this long-awaited trip (15:23-24). Still, he had no assurance at this point that this plan would be any more successful than his previous ones (15:30-32). But it seems that his desire to preach the gospel in Rome was so strong (1:15) that he just could not wait any longer. If he could not preach it there in person, he could do the next best thing, i.e., write the gospel to the Romans in the form of a long and well-thought-out letter-essay. This seems to be the implication of these personal remarks, and thus we are given some insight into the purpose for which Romans was written.

A. PAUL'S PRAYERS FOR THE ROMANS (1:8-10)

1:8 First , says Paul, I want to tell you what I have been praying for. (This is not the first in a series of things, since he does not go on to a "second" and "third." It is "first" in the sense of "before I go any further, before I get into the meat of this letter or into its formal teaching.") I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you.

This first prayer is a prayer of thanksgiving. Some take it as a diplomatic gesture. I.e., by starting with this positive personal comment the author intends to "get on the good side" of the readers. As Barclay says, Paul "began with a compliment" in order to "disarm their suspicions," especially since he had never been to Rome and was a stranger to most of the Christians there (5). This is probably reading too much into it, however. Such a statement of personal thanksgiving or blessing or concern normally followed the epistolary greeting in all letters of that time and culture. This was Paul's own standard practice; similar remarks appear after the greetings in all his other letters except Galatians.

By referring to God as " my God" Paul reveals the close, intimate relationship he has with the Father. For him God was not just an academic subject but one whom he knew personally. He knew what it meant to speak to God as "Abba! Father!" and he says that we may do the same (8:15). Many say that "Abba" is the equivalent of "Daddy" in English. Such intimacy is present when we begin our prayers with "dear," as in "Dear God" or "Dear Father." (See also 2 Cor 12:21; Phil 1:3; 4:19; Phlm 4.)

Paul offers his prayer "through Jesus Christ," who is the one and only mediator between our sinful selves and the holy God (John 14:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:16). This is not just a formality, but a sincere acknowledgment that the atoning work of Jesus makes it possible for us to be accepted by God and allowed into his presence.

Paul says he thanks God "for all of you." This includes all the saints at Rome, from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds (see v. 7). This means he was praying not only for the few that he knew personally, but also even for those whom he did not know. We are following Paul's example when we pray for people whom we have never met, whether it be friends' relatives or Christian workers in all parts of the world. "The bond of Christian fellowship is not limited to the circle described by personal acquaintance" (Murray, I:19).

Paul says he thanks God because your faith is being reported all over the world . The specific reason for his thanksgiving has to do with the faith (pivsti" , pistis ) of the Christians at Rome. Why was this so? Was there something special about their faith? Bruce speaks of "the high and renowned quality of their faith" (75). Perhaps Paul means not just their faith, but their faithfulness (which is a valid connotation of pistis ). This may be inferred from the fact that all people knew not only of the Romans' faith but also of their obedience (16:19). This is an indication of the principle that true faith always produces obedience (see 1:5).

On the other hand, many commentators deny that there was any special quality to the Romans' faith. It was just ordinary faith, like anyone else's. As Moo says, "It is the very fact of their faith that is sufficient reason for giving thanks to God" (I:52). See also Cranfield, I:75; Morris, 56-57.

If it was not an especially deep and strong faith, why would Paul give thanks for it? Some say it was appropriate to thank God for their faith since he was the author of it (Moo, I:52), a suggestion motivated more by Calvinist beliefs than by the text. Actually Paul specifies exactly why he is thankful. He thanks God not for their faith as such, but for the fact that their faith "is being reported all over the world," i.e., the known world (and still perhaps an hyperbole). Paul had traveled a lot, and everywhere he went people talked about the fact that there was a Christian church even in Rome .

The second part of Paul's prayers for the Roman church is a prayer of petition. The next two verses (9-10) do not themselves constitute this petition, but are Paul's affirmation that he does pray for the Roman saints on a regular basis. He prays especially that he may be permitted to travel to Rome and visit with them personally.

1:9-10a God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times . . . . "God is my witness" is a kind of oath, in which he calls upon God to bear witness to the truth of his statement. This is a frequent practice of Paul; see 9:1; 2 Cor 1:23; 11:31; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5, 10. He calls upon God to be his witness especially when he is affirming things that others cannot establish for themselves, especially (as in this case) revelations of his own inner thoughts and feelings (Cranfield, I:75; Morris, 57). God is a true witness to these things because he knows all things, even the thoughts of our hearts, and he cannot lie (1 John 3:20; Titus 1:2).

Paul uses this oath so that he can communicate how serious he is about his concern and prayers for Rome. He wants them to have no doubt about this, especially in view of the fact that he had not yet been there, and also in view of the fact that his immediate plans are to go to Jerusalem, not Rome (15:25). The oath will help the cynics not to doubt his sincerity.

Paul cannot refrain from a parenthetical description of God as the one "whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son." The word for "serve" is latreuvw (latreuô ), which in secular use meant "to work for pay." In the NT it always has a religious sense, meaning either "worship" (either of the true God or of false gods), or "service rendered to God" (Matt 4:10; Phil 3:3; 2 Tim 1:3). The noun form is similar (9:4; 12:1).

"With my whole heart" translates ejn tw/' pneuvmativ mou (en tô pneumati mou ), "in or with my spirit." The NIV captures the meaning of this phrase, since both "heart" and "spirit" are words referring to the inner part of our being, in contrast with the outward or physical part. To serve God in one's spirit is to serve him with deep, sincere motivation (see 6:17, lit. "you obeyed from the heart"). Paul is saying that his service to God is completely sincere and internally motivated. Though he served from a deep sense of duty ("I am debtor," 1:14, KJV), his ministry was not just a job, not just an obligation. His heart was in it. Some do God's work from selfish or legalistic motives (Phil 1:15, 17; 3 John 9), but not Paul. Such a testimony should cause Christians everywhere to examine their own hearts and weigh their own motives for serving God.

Paul also reminds us that he serves God "in preaching the gospel of his Son." This says literally "in the gospel of his Son"; the NIV has added the word "preaching." This is probably the right understanding. As we have seen, the whole focus of Paul's life and ministry is the gospel. His entire service to God is directed toward the end of proclaiming the gospel. The words "of his Son" echo vv. 1, 3 and refer to the content of the gospel.

Paul calls upon God to bear witness to this fact in particular, "how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times." "Constantly" in this case does not mean "without interruption," but regularly . He says that he always remembers or mentions the Roman church when he prays. "In my prayers" means more specifically "upon the occasion of my prayers, whenever I pray." He uses similar language in Eph 1:16, 1 Thess 1:2-3, and Phlm 4. Paul must have had an extensive prayer list, at least in his mind.

1:10b The words at the beginning of v. 10 do seem to belong with the sentence in v. 9, as the NIV translates (Hendriksen, I:51). Some think they should go with the thought in the rest of v. 10 (see the NASB), in order to avoid having two words meaning approximately the same thing in one clause, i.e., "constantly" and "at all times" (Moo, I:53; Murray, I:20-21). This is not a problem, however; it is just repetition for emphasis.

In the latter part of v. 10 Paul gets to his main point, mentioning the specific prayer that is on his mind: and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you . That is, he prays that God will allow him to travel to Rome for a personal visit with the saints there. In view of v. 13, we can surely infer that he had no doubt prayed this prayer for many years.

Whereas v. 8 is a prayer of thanksgiving, this is a prayer of petition. The Greek word is devomai ( deomai ), which means "desire, ask, beg, beseech," and is often used in the NT in that sense. The use of such a word shows that it is acceptable and appropriate for us to present our requests to God (Phil 4:6), contrary to the occasional suggestion that such an act is either futile or very arrogant and presumptuous. (See GRu , 361-367.)

Since Paul had planned and no doubt prayed to visit Rome for quite some time, he was obviously feeling a bit frustrated and maybe just a little bit impatient because this prayer had not yet been answered (1:13; 15:22). This seems to be indicated in the string of short Greek words that follow: ei[ pw" (ei pôs ) - "if in any way, if by any means, if somehow, if possibly" (the NIV does not translate these words); h[dh (çdç ) - "now," after waiting all this time, after being denied so often; and potev ( pote ) - "at some time, at last." I.e., "I pray that - somehow, sometime, NOW! - God may permit me to come to you." Here we see a touch of frustration, and a sense of urgency and eagerness, and perhaps even some uncertainty as to whether his present plan will be fulfilled (15:23-33; see Moo, I:53; Murray, I:21).

Balancing this outburst of restlessness is an acknowledgment of God's wisdom and control over the situation. He prays that he may visit Rome "by God's will." He knows it is not wrong for him to make specific plans, but he also knows that God in his sovereign providence will either permit him to carry out his plans or else will somehow intervene and prevent it (1:13). This is the nature of God's permissive will (see GRu , 313-317). See Acts 18:21; Rom 15:32; 1 Cor 4:19; 16:7; Heb 6:3; Jas 4:15.

Paul also knows that God can sovereignly intervene and providentially cause his trip to come about, overcoming all obstacles and circumstances, specifically in answer to his prayer. Thus he prays that by God's will "the way may be opened" for his visit. The word used here literally means "to lead along a good road" (Moo, I:53-54). In the passive voice it is used figuratively to mean "to prosper, to succeed" (see the NASB), and that is probably the meaning here. Still it is a very appropriate word to use here, since he knows that if God wills he can open up the road and grant him a successful journey to Rome.

The fact is that God did answer this prayer (Acts 23:11), but certainly not in a manner that Paul would have preferred. Having been falsely accused by the Jews, he exercised his right as a Roman citizen and appealed his case to Caesar (Acts 25:10-12). Thus he went to Rome as a prisoner of the state. But since his accusers failed to show up (Acts 28:21), he was ultimately set free again. In the meantime he was held under house arrest for two years but was still able to fulfill his dream of preaching the gospel in Rome (Acts 28:15-31).

B. PAUL'S DESIRES REGARDING ROME (1:11-13)

1:11 In this section Paul explains the reason for his persistent and heartfelt prayer to visit Rome. I long to see you , he says (15:23). This is a very intensive word and indicates very deep desire (see 2 Cor 5:2; Phil 1:8; 2:26; 1 Thess 3:6; 2 Tim 1:4). Of course Paul already knows many of the Roman Christians (16:3-15), but his desire is not limited to them.

Why is Paul so eager to see the Romans? He explains, so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong . . . . Whatever the nature of this gift, it was something within Paul's power to pass along to the church, something that he himself could impart or share. Paul saw himself as the source of this gift, or at least the agent by whose action it could be imparted.

The word for "gift" is cavrisma ( charisma ). In the NT this noun is used always for gifts that come ultimately from God. We may discern two main categories of gifts: the gift of salvation itself (5:15-16; 6:23); and gifts of ministry or service, i.e., gifts that endow the recipient with the right and ability to render special service to the church. This is the more frequent usage. These latter gifts may be miraculous or nonmiraculous.

The word for "spiritual" is pneumatikov" ( pneumatikos ). This is the only text where it is specifically used with "gift" for the phrase "spiritual gifts"; but see 1 Cor 12:1 and 14:1, where the word "gift" seems to be understood. In what sense is a gift spiritual ? On the one hand something may be called spiritual if empowered by or derived from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:13; 15:44, 46), just as a person may be called spiritual if led by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:15; 14:37; Gal 6:1). Thus a "spiritual gift" would be a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand something may be called spiritual because it is related to the spirit of man or to the spirit world, in contrast with the physical (Rom 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; Eph 1:3; 6:12; 1 Pet 2:5). In this sense a "spiritual gift" would be something relating to the spiritual life of Christians.

Can we be sure of the exact nature of the gift Paul wished to bestow upon the Romans? Probably not. He himself does not specify what it was; he says only some gift (ti , ti , an indefinite Greek particle). Some think he spoke only in generalities because he was not certain what gift would be needed until he actually arrived in Rome. Whatever it was, it would be "a blessing or benefit to be bestowed on the Christians in Rome by God through Paul's presence" (Cranfield, I:79).

Others believe that Paul wanted to bestow gifts of service upon the Romans, i.e., miraculous gifts such as prophecy and tongues (Lard, 35). Others say this cannot be the case, since Paul said he would impart the gifts and since miraculous gifts come only through the Holy Spirit according to his choosing, not through a human instrument (MacArthur, I:42-43; Morris, 60; Stott, 56). Those who object thus are obviously overlooking the records in Acts 8:14-19 and 19:6, where the laying on of apostles' hands bestowed the Holy Spirit's miracle-working power. (1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6 are also relevant.) Perhaps since no apostle had yet been to Rome (as far as we know), Paul felt the Roman church had the same need as the Samaritan church prior to the visit of Peter and John (Acts 8:14-19). If indeed gifts of ministry were what Paul had in mind here, he would have been thinking of miraculous gifts, since there is no indication that the laying on of apostles' hands was needed for the bestowing of nonmiraculous gifts.

The other main possibility is that Paul was referring to the general spiritual benefit that he could bestow upon the Romans as the result of his own work of "preaching, teaching, exhorting, comforting, praying, guiding, and disciplining" (MacArthur, I:43). This would be "spiritual strengthening in general" (Hendriksen, I:52). I.e., it would not have to come directly from the Holy Spirit, but would be "anything that builds up the spiritual life" of the Romans (Morris, 60).

Though I do not rule out the view that miraculous gifts are what Paul has in mind, I think this last suggestion is most likely the case. We need not state it in vague and general terms, however. I believe we can be quite specific about what Paul meant, namely, the gift he wanted to bestow upon the Romans was the gospel itself (1:15). In 1 Thess 2:8, using the same verb as here (metadivdwmi , metadidômi ), Paul says, "We were delighted to share with you . . . the gospel of God" (see v. 9). In 1 Cor 9:11 he refers to his preaching of the gospel as sowing "spiritual" things (see 1 Cor 9:14). The gospel is a spiritual gift in that it comes ultimately through the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but Paul also calls it " my gospel" (2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8) since it was entrusted to him for preaching. It is also a spiritual gift in the sense that it builds up the spirit, as compared with a material gift such as the money he was taking to Jerusalem (15:27). Paul's preference was to bestow this gift of the gospel upon the Romans in person (1:13-15); but it was also possible, as a second choice, to do it by means of this epistle.

The reason why Paul wanted to give the Romans this gift was "to make you strong" (sthrivzw , stçrizô ), i.e., to strengthen you, to establish you upon a firm foundation, to confirm you in your faith. (See Luke 22:32; 1 Thess 3:2, 13; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Pet 5:10.) Of course, the purpose of miraculous spiritual gifts was to confirm faith and build up the church (1 Cor 14:3-5, 26-33; Eph 4:11-14; Heb 2:4), so this would be consistent with the view that this was the nature of the gift. But it should be noted that the word stçrizô is also used in Romans 16:25 to describe the effect of preaching the gospel: "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel." Using the same word, Peter says we are "firmly established in the truth" (2 Pet 1:12). See also 2 Thess 2:17. Thus in v. 11 Paul says he wants to go to Rome in order to bestow upon the Roman Christians a spiritual gift that will strengthen them, namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1:12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. This verse presents an interesting addendum to the thought of v. 11. The expression translated "that is" suggests an amendment or modification of what Paul has just said. While not retracting his point about wanting to bestow some gift upon the Romans, he now graciously acknowledges that they would actually be able to give him encouragement as well: I can help you, but you can also help me.

This was not just a statement of formal courtesy or false piety or tactful diplomacy, as if he really did not mean it. No, Paul genuinely felt that he would be blessed by his visit to Rome. In 15:24 he speaks of going to Rome "to enjoy your company for a while." "Enjoy your company" is a loose way of translating a verb that means "to be filled full." He knew that his visit would fill empty places in his own life. Paul says this mutual encouragement would take place while he was "among you" (ejn uJmi'n , en hymin ) - a phrase not translated by the NIV. Of course, he was encouraged by the report of their faith (v. 8), and he could preach the gospel to them in the epistle; but nothing could truly take the place of a face-to-face encounter.

Such mutual encouragement made possible by Paul's visit would come, says Paul, "by each other's faith." The Romans would be able to know Paul in person, not just by reputation. They not only would be able to hear about Paul's faith through this letter or from others, but would be able to hear about it from Paul's own lips and, even better, to see firsthand how he lived his faith in his everyday life. Also, Paul would be able to observe firsthand how the Romans would mature in their faith through his own gospel preaching. He thus could receive "comfort from their settled belief" (Lard, 35).

Verse 12 closes with an expression not translated by the NIV. It is a phrase that modifies "faith," namely, the faith "of both you and me." It is simply a repetition of the phrase translated "each other's." The NASB includes them both: "each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine." Such repetition puts even greater emphasis on the blessing of mutuality between Christian leaders and those whom they lead.

1:13 At this point some of the Romans might have been tempted to think, "Well, if Paul is really sincere, if he really wants to see us so badly, why has he not come before now?" Here Paul addresses this possible suspicion: I do not want you to be unaware, brothers . . . . He uses this double negative for emphasis. Such an introduction means, "This is a really important point. Listen carefully. I want to make sure you understand this." He wanted no misunderstanding on this point about his desire to come to Rome.

He calls them "brothers," a term he used often to refer to his fellow Christians. Though he was a physical or racial brother only to the Jews (see 9:3), as a Christian he regarded all men of whatever background as his brothers if they were fellow Christians. Thus even the members of the (mainly) Gentile church at Rome are addressed as "brothers." He thereby expresses his close relationship with them, even though he has never met most of them.

What was he so eager to have his brethren know? . . . that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) . . . . He is not speaking here of simple desire to visit them, but of actual, concrete plans: not just once or twice, but often. That he had made such plans many times indicates the longstanding nature of his concern for Rome, contrary to any who might have doubted it. Lard (36-37) points out that these plans must not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit, else at some point they would have been carried out.

So far, however, they had not been carried out, but it was not Paul's fault; he had "been prevented from doing so." (See 15:22.) In this parenthetical statement he does not say what prevented him from coming to Rome. The demands of preaching to the unchurched eastern Mediterranean area no doubt were a main factor (15:20-22). At times God intervened to change Paul's plans (Acts 16:6-9), and sometimes Satan put up roadblocks (1 Thess 2:18).

After this parenthesis about being hindered, Paul continues his thought about his plans by stating what he hoped to accomplish by coming to Rome. In v. 11 he said he wanted to impart some spiritual gift to the Romans in order to strengthen them. Here he says he had planned to come in order that I might have a harvest among you . . . . The NASB is more literal: "obtain some fruit."

The question here is the nature of the fruit Paul hoped to reap from among the Romans by his presence there. One possibility is that he is referring to converts he would win to Christ through his preaching (Stott, 57). Jesus calls the lost world a harvest field where fruit may be gathered (Matt 9:36-38; John 4:35-36). Paul refers to the first converts in an area as the "firstfruit" (16:5; 1 Cor 16:15).

The term fruit is also used in the NT in the sense of bearing or producing the fruit of mature character and holy conduct. This concept appears in the gospels (Matt 3:8, 10; 7:16-20; 12:33) and in the concept of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23). See also Eph 5:9; Phil 1:11; Heb 12:11; 13:15; Jas 3:17-18.

The terminology of obtaining or producing fruit may also refer to the more general concept of cause and effect. I.e., whenever anything produces something as its effect, that is its fruit . For example, whenever our lips produce praise, that is their fruit (Heb 13:15). If discipline causes righteousness, that is its fruit (Heb 12:11). The fruit or effect of slavery to sin is shame and death, but the fruit of slavery to God is sanctification and eternal life (6:21-22).

This is the sense in which we talk about the "fruit of our labor," i.e., the good results of our labor, whatever those results may be. This is precisely Paul's point in Phil 1:22, when he says in effect that the advantage of continuing to live is that his work can produce more fruit for God. He says when the Philippian church sent him material support for his missionary work, the fruit produced thereby was really to be credited to them (Phil 4:16-17). He calls the offering he collected for the poor saints in Jerusalem the "fruit" of his fund-raising efforts (15:28).

It is probable that here in 1:13 Paul is using the term fruit in this general sense of results . Thus he is saying that his desire and plans to go to Rome are for the purpose of winning converts as well as building up and strengthening the existing saints (Cranfield, I:82). He hopes first of all to preach the gospel "among you" in an evangelistic sense, thus directly reaping fruit and adding more Christians to the body there. But he also hopes to preach the deeper gospel truths that will lead to stronger faith and more mature character for the entire church, just as he has said in v. 11. In this way Paul's preaching will "get fruit" in Rome indirectly, by causing the Christians there to achieve greater depths of holiness.

In these ways Paul will have fruit in Rome just as I have had among the other Gentiles . By the time Paul wrote Romans he had preached the gospel to a large portion of the Gentile world (15:19, 23), with much fruit being produced. See Phil 1:5-6, 10, where he says that the preaching of the gospel continues to produce the fruit of good works and maturity in the lives of Christians in Philippi. But somehow it would just not be fitting if he obtained fruit from all over the Gentile world but passed by its very capital and nerve center, Rome itself.

C. PAUL'S DEBT TO THE ROMANS (1:14-15)

1:14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. Paul has spoken frankly to the Romans about his prayers and desires for them; now in these two verses he reveals another aspect of his heart. Specifically, he unveils for us all the strong sense of obligation that drove him to burn himself out in service to Christ. For "I am obligated," the text says literally, "I am a debtor." A debtor is someone who owes somebody something. It can be a debt of money (Matt 18:24) or a moral obligation of some other kind. In the latter sense we speak of a debt of gratitude (15:29), or of paying one's debt to society.

Every human being is a debtor to God in two ways. First, we owe him our absolute obedience (8:12) because he is our Creator. Second, because all have sinned (sins are debts: Matt 6:12), we owe him (or he owes us) a debt of punishment. Now, as Christians whose debt has been paid by the Redeemer, we also owe God a debt of eternal gratitude. All of these ways of being a debtor applied to Paul, but these are not specifically what he is speaking of in v. 13. Here he refers to a debt that applied to him alone, i.e., his moral obligation to preach the gospel to the Gentiles of the world, based on his calling as God's apostle to the Gentiles (1:1, 5). Because of this, he says, "I am compelled to preach" (1 Cor 9:16). He was entrusted with the gospel as an inescapable stewardship. Preaching the gospel was a debt he owed to God, because God appointed him to do it.

Actually, though, in this text Paul says he is a debtor not to God but to the Gentiles themselves. His commission put him in debt to the latter as well. He owed it to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them. How was this the case? Consider this scenario: a very wealthy man dies and bequeaths his estate to a distant relative. His lawyer is entrusted with the task of tracking down this relative and transferring the estate to him. In a real sense the lawyer owes it to the relative to make sure he receives the inheritance (see Stott, 59).

With reference to his debt, Paul says he is obligated "both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish." There are two issues here. One, how extensive are these expressions? Do they encompass the whole world, or just the Gentiles? Second, is the second pair equivalent to or different from the first?

Some regard the first pair of terms as including the whole world, describing it as viewed by Greeks themselves. Just as Jews divided the whole world into Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles), so the Greeks divided the whole world into "Greeks and non-Greeks," as the NIV puts it. According to this view, Paul's debt is owed to the whole world.

Though Paul no doubt saw his debt as universal, this is not the best understanding of this pair of terms. There is no reason for Paul to describe the world from the perspective of Greeks. Also, in the prior context he has emphasized his apostleship to the Gentiles (vv. 5, 13). Thus we conclude that these terms are meant to be "the sum of Gentile mankind," as Cranfield says (I:83). It is true that Paul sometimes uses "Greeks" as a synonym for Gentiles (1:16; 2:9-10; 3:9; 10:12), but this is when he is contrasting them with Jews. Here the term has the more limited reference of the sophisticated, civilized, cultured Gentiles, those who were "Greek" by language and culture, whether they were born of Greek parentage or not (Barclay, 8). The word for "non-Greeks" is actually bavrbaro" ( barbaros ) or "barbarians," or the less civilized peoples who spoke strange languages that sounded like "bar-bar-bar" gibberish to sophisticated "Greek" ears.

"The wise and the foolish" also refers to Gentiles. Some see these categories as distinct from the previous ones (Cranfield, I:83-84; Morris, 65). It is more probable, though, that they are equivalent to the first pair and are just one way of explaining the difference between them (Hendriksen, I:54). Greeks are wise and learned, at least in their own eyes and with a worldly wisdom (1 Cor 1:19-20, 26-27); barbarians are foolish and uneducated and without understanding.

1:15 In this verse Paul takes the general principle stated in v. 14 and applies it specifically to the Christians in Rome. Just because he has this overwhelming obligation to the Gentile world, "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome." The expression that begins this verse can be translated either "that is why," as in the NIV, or "as far as I am concerned, as for me, for my part," as in the NASB. Paul's point is that whether his circumstances or God's providence allows him to come to Rome or not, in his own heart and mind he is ready and eager to be there and to preach the gospel.

This shows that Paul is constrained not just by a barren sense of obligation which he was resentfully determined to fulfill against his own preferences and desires. He was obligated, yes (v. 14); but he was eagerly willing to meet that obligation. His heart was intertwined with the will of God.

Since Paul was a debtor to all Gentiles everywhere, Rome was certainly included in this debt. Thus he wanted to preach the gospel "to you (uJmi'n , hymin ) who are at Rome." A question that arises here is whether hymin means " to you" or " among you." Some say the latter, because they think preaching the gospel is always an evangelistic effort. Thus they say Paul could not really preach the gospel to the Roman Christians; they had already heard it and accepted it. What he meant was that he was ready to preach the gospel to the unsaved in their midst or in their city (Godet, 90; Moo, I:57-58; Watson, "Congregations," 213).

This limitation on eujaggelivzomai ( euangelizomai ) is not justified, however. Its primary connotation is preaching the gospel to the lost, and Paul certainly did a lot of this (15:20) and no doubt planned to do it in Rome. But it also has the connotation of explaining the fuller content of the gospel to the church, "the on-going work of teaching and discipleship that follows initial evangelization." Cranfield sees this use here (I:86), as does Dunn (I:34). The latter says that for Paul the word "can embrace the whole range of his ministry, including his explication of the gospel, as in this very letter." As Friedrich says, "The Gospel is not just missionary proclamation . . . . It does not merely found the community; it also edifies it" ("eujaggelivzomai ," 734; see 719-720, 733).

This idea is clearly seen in a comparison of 1:11 and 16:25. In 1:11, as we have seen, Paul says he wants to give the Roman Christians some spiritual gift in order to establish them (sthrivzw , stçrizô ). In 16:25 he describes God as the one "who is able to establish (stçrizô ) you by my gospel." There is no doubt that he means the Roman Christians in this latter verse, and that the gospel is an instrument for edifying and strengthening them. See also Gal 1:8-9; 1 Thess 2:8-9; 3:2.

One thing that seems clear from the content of this epistle is that the gospel of grace is often misunderstood and often requires a lot of follow-up clarification and explanation. This was no doubt true of the Roman Christians, and Paul "needs to correct the understanding of the gospel held by at least some of them," as Wedderburn says ("Purpose," 199). Possibly under the influence of the Judaizers, they were struggling with the role of works in relation to grace and faith. This explains the emphasis on justification by faith apart from works of law (3:28). God intends the gospel to produce obedience, but it must be the obedience of faith (1:5).

It is clear from this verse and from earlier statements by Paul that he wanted to preach the gospel to the believers in Rome in order to clarify and establish their faith in Christ's redeeming work. This gives us our best clue as to Paul's purpose for writing his epistle to the Romans. He is under divine obligation to preach the gospel to them. He wants to do so in person; but in case his present plans to go there do not work out, he decides to preach the gospel in the form of a letter. He cannot wait any longer to pay his debt to them.

III. 1:16-17 - TRANSITIONAL STATEMENT

Most Bible students regard this section as a statement of the theme of Romans. Dunn says it "is clearly the thematic statement for the entire letter" (I:37). It is "the statement of the theological theme which is going to be worked out in the main body of the epistle," says Cranfield (I:87). These verses do not constitute a full statement of the theme of Romans, but are more of a preliminary or introductory statement, or (as Dunn says) a "launching pad" providing "the primary thrust and direction for the rest of the letter" (I:46). As such it is the transitional statement tying the prologue to the main body of Romans.

As has been the case throughout the prologue, the main point of this section is the gospel . These verses deal with its glory, its power, its scope, its relation to faith, its heart, and its golden text.

A. THE GLORY OF THE GOSPEL (1:16a)

1:16 This verse opens with a transitional word, gavr ( gar ), meaning "for, because" (omitted by the NIV). In v. 15 Paul has declared his eagerness to preach the gospel in Rome, and v. 16 gives the reason for this: I am eager to do this, because I am not ashamed of the gospel . . . . (Some manuscripts add "of Christ"; those followed by most modern translations, including the NIV, do not.)

Dunn points out that "shame" is "the consequence of being shown to have acted on a false assumption or misplaced confidence" (I:38). Thus Paul is saying that he will never have to worry about having devoted his life to a false cause. He is confident that the gospel is everything it claims to be, and that he will never have to apologize or be sorry for believing it and preaching it.

Some (e.g., Bruce, 79) say the expression "I am not ashamed" is a literary device used for the purpose of emphasizing a positive point (like "I do not want you to be unaware" in v. 13). Thus Paul's real point would be that he considers it a great honor to preach the gospel; it is his pride and glory. There could hardly be any shame attached to something as glorious as the gospel.

Others doubt that this is the point, though (Cranfield, I:86; Moo, I:60; Stott, 60). They say that Paul no doubt meant this very literally, i.e., that he is not ashamed to preach a message which on the surface has all the appearances of a losing cause. In addition to the sinful world's basic prejudice against the true God and any religious service to him at all (1:18-32), the gospel has the added liability of focusing on an alleged "savior" who got in trouble with the authorities and did not have enough power to prevent his being executed in the most shameful way. Thus, according to Cranfield, this statement by Paul is his "sober recognition of the fact that the gospel is something of which, by the very nature of the case, Christians will in this world constantly be tempted to be ashamed" (I:86). Jesus himself warned us against yielding to this temptation (Mark 8:38), as did Paul (2 Tim 1:8). Paul points out that the message of the cross will always be ridiculed as foolishness and weakness by those whose eyes are blinded by worldly wisdom (1 Cor 1:18-31).

Nevertheless, Paul says he is not ashamed of this gospel. He is ready to preach it anywhere, even and especially in Rome itself, the very center of human power and pomp and presumptuousness, the crossroads of worldly wealth and wisdom and sophistication. Though he had no confidence in his own powers (1 Cor 2:1-3), he had every confidence in the gospel itself, or rather in the One of whom it speaks: "I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day" (2 Tim 1:12).

B. THE POWER OF THE GOSPEL (1:16b)

Paul's next statement gives the reason why he is not ashamed of the gospel: because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes . . . . "Because" translates the particle gar , used for the second time in the verse. Why is Paul not ashamed of the gospel? Because it is not foolish and weak as the world thinks, but is rather the instrument of omnipotence, the almighty power by which God saves sinners. In some cases weakness may indeed be a proper reason for shame, but not power , and certainly not the power of God .

"Power" translates duvnami" ( dynamis ), from which come English words such as "dynamic" and "dynamo" and "dynamite." It means power in the sense of the ability and competence to accomplish something. Erdman rightly says, "The gospel is thus defined in terms of 'power'; it can do something . . . . It is 'the power of God'; it can therefore do anything" (27). The perception that it is weak and foolish is totally false and could not be further from the truth.

Specifically what is the power of the gospel able to accomplish? It is able to save those who believe. It is the power of God unto ( eis ) salvation. This recalls 1:4, which declares that the risen Jesus is now the Son of God with power . He is fully able to save us.

In what sense is the "gospel" God's power unto salvation? How does it save us? Here we must distinguish between the gospel as a verbal message proclaimed by a preacher, and the gospel as the actual reality of which that verbal message speaks. Strictly speaking it is not the message itself that saves, but the saving work of Christ of which the message informs us. The gospel is not just words that impact our minds, but works that impact our sinful situation and deliver us from it (see Nygren, 77).

In the Greek world the words relating to salvation were used "in the sense of an acutely dynamic act in which gods or men snatch others by force from serious peril" (Foerster, "swvzw ," 966). These words could be used of rescue from a purely physical, temporal danger (Matt 8:25; Acts 27:34), but in his epistles Paul always uses them in the spiritual sense of salvation from sin by the grace of God. (In v. 16 "salvation" is the same as "will live" in v. 17.)

Salvation can be described both negatively and positively, in terms of what it saves us from and what it saves us to . It delivers us from all the perils and consequences of sin (Morris, 68), e.g., "from God's wrath" (5:9). It saves us to the blessed states of grace and glory (5:2). The salvation brought by the gospel is a process. With reference to the past, we have already been delivered from the penalty of sin into the state of justification. Regarding the present, we are being delivered from the power of sin by the process of sanctification. As to the future, we will be delivered from the presence of sin in the final glorification.

C. THE SCOPE OF THE GOSPEL (1:16c)

Another point Paul addresses in this text is the scope of the gospel. He says it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . In terms of its intention and potential, the gospel's power is universal. God wants everyone to receive the salvation embodied in it (John 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9). The gospel is for anyone and everyone (3:22; 4:11; 10:4, 11).

This is not a concept of universal ism , though, as if every human being will be fully, finally, and unconditionally saved. The actual reception and application of the gospel is limited only to those who believe in it. The world is divided into two categories: those who believe in the gospel, and those who do not. The former are saved; the latter are not.

The Jews also divided the world into two categories: themselves, and everyone else (the Gentiles). They regarded themselves as saved and all others as lost. In OT times, under the Old Covenant, there was some basis for thinking this way; but under the New Covenant this is no longer possible. The Jew-Gentile distinction is no longer relevant where salvation is concerned (10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28). The gospel is intended equally for everyone alike, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul's use of the expression "both . . . and" (tev . . . kai , te . . . kai , not translated by the NIV) indicates this equality. Literally he says, "Both for the Jew (first) and for the Greek."

Although Jews and Gentiles receive the same salvation in the same way, Paul says a certain priority applies to the Jews. God's gospel of salvation is for the Jew first (see 2:9-10). Some think this is indicative of a permanent priority and perpetual preference to be enjoyed by the Jews as God's chosen people. Cranfield accepts this idea and sees it as a paradox in view of Gal 3:28 (I:91). Murray (I:28) has a similar view.

Others more properly see the "Jew first" principle as a temporary though significant result of God's choice of the Israelite nation as the primary agent by which the Messiah was brought into the world. The Jews enjoyed a place of priority in the historical process by which God has accomplished his plan of redemption (Godet, 92; Hendriksen, I:61). Paul's specific point is that, as a natural result of their unique role in preparing for the Messiah (3:2; 9:4-5), the Jews were the first to hear the gospel message and the first to have the opportunity to accept it in faith (see Acts 2-9). Paul reflects this "Jew first" concept in the "we" section of Eph 1 ( vv. 3-12), and the "Gentiles also" concept in the "you" section ( vv. 13-19). He practiced this principle in his own ministry (Acts 13:46; 18:5-6; 19:8-9). In view of the outstanding service rendered to God by Israel as a nation, it was only proper that this opportunity for believing the gospel be extended to them first.

This fits into Paul's overall message in Romans in two ways. First, this emphasis on the divine courtesy extended to the Jews provides balance to Paul's frequent references to the Gentiles (e.g., 1:5, 13-14). Second, it would help to plant respect for the Jewish Christians in the minds of the (probable) Gentile majority in the Roman church.

It is important to remember that this historical priority enjoyed by national Israel, with respect to the preparation for and proclamation of the gospel, was not the basis for any kind of preferential treatment of individual Jews with regard to salvation and the final judgment. In these matters equality prevails, as Paul will emphasize in chapter 2 especially.

D. FAITH AND THE GOSPEL (1:16c)

The gospel is the power of God for salvation to "everyone who believes." The references to faith in these two verses are crucial for the theme of the letter as a whole and for the very nature of salvation by grace. (Paul has already referred to faith in vv. 5, 8, 12.) The Greek words for faith (noun, pivsti" [ pistis ]; verb, pisteuvw [ pisteuô ]) mean "to rely on, to believe, to trust, to have confidence in."

Saving faith in Jesus, of which this verse speaks, has two main components. First, faith includes assent : acknowledging the truth of a statement, or granting the fact that a particular statement is true. This is a cognitive act, a judgment of the intellect based on sufficient evidence. In the Bible this aspect appears most clearly when the verb is used with the conjunction o{ti ( hoti ), a combination translated "to believe that" (something is true). See especially John 8:24; 11:27, 42; 13:19; 14:10; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 20:31; Rom 6:8; 10:9; 1 Thess 4:14; Heb 11:6; Jas 2:19; 1 John 5:1, 5.

The second component of saving faith is trust : acknowledging the trustworthiness of a person, entrusting yourself or something you value into another person's care, or surrendering yourself in some sense to that person. This is a volitional act, a decision of the will based on a combination of personal need and a confidence that the other person can meet that need. It is directed toward the person himself and not just toward statements about him. In biblical terminology this aspect of faith appears most clearly in the expressions "to believe in" and "to believe on." For the former, see especially John 3:16, 18, 36; 6:29, 40; 7:38; 9:35; 11:25-26; 14:1; Acts 10:43; Rom 10:14; Gal 2:16. For the latter, see Matt 27:42; John 3:15 (some manuscripts have pisteuô en ); Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31. This concept is expressed well in 2 Timothy 1:12.

The faith of which Paul speaks here is not just a general faith in God (Heb 11:6) or a general trust in the beneficence of his providence. It is specifically faith in the gospel , faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, faith in his blood (3:25), faith in his resurrection (10:9). As Godet says, it is "nothing else than the simple acceptance of the salvation offered in preaching" (92).

1. Faith Is a Condition for Salvation

Two main points must be made concerning the relation between faith and the gospel as stated here. First, faith is presented as a condition for receiving the salvation provided by the gospel. This shows that salvation and grace itself are conditional.

This is contrary to the Augustinian idea that salvation is given unconditionally only to those whom God unconditionally chooses to save. According to this view, rather than being a condition of salvation, faith is itself one of the gifts bestowed upon selected sinners, who in themselves and without the gift would be totally unable to believe because of their inborn condition of total depravity.

Many Calvinist commentators use v. 16 as the occasion for introducing their belief that faith is a gift. For example, Cranfield denies that faith is "a condition imposed by God" by which a man responds to the gospel. "The faith spoken of here is the openness to the gospel which God himself creates"; it is "God's work in a man" (I:90). Hendriksen says that faith "is, from start to finish, God's gift ." Also, "The gift of faith is from God but so is also the power to exercise it" (I:61-63). "Paul has in mind here a supernatural faith, produced by God," says MacArthur (I:55). As Murray explains, "regeneration is causally prior to faith." That is, one must be born again before it is possible for him to believe; and God's regenerating act always produces faith, "even in the case of infants, for in regeneration the germ of faith is implanted" (I:27, n. 21).

Nygren, a Swedish Lutheran, makes the same point. He cites several interpreters who declare that faith is "a necessary condition for salvation," but then asserts that "nothing was further from Paul's mind than this" in 1:16-17 (67-69). Rather, the gospel itself "creates faith and awakens it in us" (78). Thus "one's faith is evidence that the gospel has exercised its power on him. . . . It is the power of the gospel that makes it possible for one to believe" (71).

Now, it is true that the preaching of the gospel induces and produces faith in the hearts of some of those who hear it. As Paul clearly says in 10:17, "Faith comes from hearing the message." The word of God is sharper than a sword and can penetrate even the hardest of hearts (Heb 4:12). The written word is able to produce saving faith in Jesus (John 20:31). Calvinists and other Augustinians, however, do not really believe this . They do not really believe the word of the gospel is able to produce faith in the sinner's heart. Hearing the word may be a necessary occasion for faith to arise; but they believe that what really produces the faith is a distinct and selective act of God, not the power of the gospel as such.

But gospel preaching does have the power to produce faith (10:17). It is not a raw, coercive, irresistible power that violates our God-given wills, but rather a drawing, persuasive, convicting power; and this power is not selective but is exerted equally on all who hear it (John 12:32). Still, the message is almost always initially met by resistance. Some eventually cease to resist, and thus allow their hearts to be moved to a state of surrender to Jesus, i.e., to faith. Others by their own choice harden their wills and continue to resist, contrary to the desire of God's own heart (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Pet 3:9). In other words, whereas a Calvinist says God's grace draws sinners selectively and irresistibly, Scripture teaches that the drawing is universal and resistible.

After having said all of this, I must point out that v. 16 is not talking about how gospel preaching produces faith at all, but rather how the gospel events produce salvation . That gospel preaching produces faith is true, as Scripture teaches elsewhere, but this is not the point here. The "gospel" to which Paul refers here is not the message of the gospel as preached, but the reality of the saving events of which the gospel speaks, i.e., the death and resurrection of Christ. The "power of God" lies in these mighty works of the Son of God. And Paul's point is that these mighty works produce salvation itself, not that they produce faith.

How does Paul relate faith to the gospel in this verse? He says simply that the gospel produces salvation for "everyone who believes." I.e., the saving works of Jesus do not save all sinners; they save only those who accept them in faith. In other words, Paul is most decisively asserting that faith is a necessary condition for being saved. Salvation is conditional . This is not by any means contrary to the concept of salvation by grace. Grace is by its very nature unmerited, but this is not the same as unconditional. We should never speak of "unconditional grace." Some conditions for salvation would definitely be meritorious and would thus contradict grace; but some conditions are not meritorious and are not "works" in the Pauline sense. Faith is certainly a condition, but it is not a work in any meritorious sense (Eph 2:8-9).

As a condition for salvation nothing could be more natural than faith, and more compatible with the nature of grace as a gift (4:16; 11:6). Since our salvation is accomplished by the work of someone else (Jesus), and since it is offered to us as a free gift, the only thing we can do is accept God's word that this is so, and hold out an empty hand to receive the gift. Faith is often identified with this empty hand.

In summary the gospel is both the saving events or redemptive works of Jesus, and the message that proclaims these saving works to us. The gospel events are the power of God that works salvation in our hearts, and the gospel message is the power of the word that produces faith in those events. The former cannot take place until the latter has occurred.

2. Faith Is Not the Only Condition

Now we turn to the second main point concerning the relation between faith and the gospel. We have seen that salvation is conditional, but now we must affirm that faith is not the only condition . We could say that faith is a necessary condition for salvation, but it is not a sufficient condition.

A large portion of Christendom, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist, will immediately reject this statement. After all, has not Protestantism always been identified with the principle of sola fidei , "by faith alone"? Nygren (68) cites several scholars who declare that "nothing but faith" is required for man to be saved. For example, Althaus says, "Faith is the indispensable and only condition for salvation." As Nygren says, the issue is "the sufficiency of faith for salvation."

More recently this position has been argued by those who reject what they call "lordship salvation." This view, represented notably by Zane C. Hodges and Charles C. Ryrie, asserts the following: "Faith is the one and only condition requisite for receiving eternal life. . . . There is no mention of repentance, of good works, of commitment to lordship. It is faith, and faith alone" (Erickson, Mind , 109).

This idea that faith is the only condition for salvation is incorrect and is based on false assumptions and faulty hermeneutics. Several things must be remembered. First, these two verses - Romans 1:16-17 - do not exhaust the content of the gospel but are a kind of introductory summary of its main points, a transitional statement leading into the fuller exposition of the gospel.

Second, as we saw under 1:5 above, we must not only believe the gospel but also obey it. "Obeying the gospel" is not the same as obeying the law, i.e., "works of law" (3:20, 28). It is rather doing those things we are instructed to do in order to receive God's saving grace. When we examine the evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, we see that the gospel as preached to sinners included not only the good news of salvation as such, but also the necessary instructions for receiving this salvation. The latter is also part of the good news and should never be thought of as incompatible with it, since God would never tell us to do something as a condition for receiving salvation that is in any way a violation of its gracious character.

Third, we must remember that all the conditions related to salvation do not have an identical relation to salvation. They are all necessary, by God's decree; but they are not necessary in the same sense. As an analogy, food or nourishment is a necessary condition for maintaining physical life, but the process of eating the food is also necessary as the occasion for receiving the food into our bodies. Or, to get light from the electricity flowing through the wiring in one's house, a light bulb is a necessary condition; but so are a lamp and a plug. In order to see a baseball game in person, it is necessary to have a ticket; but it is also necessary to go to the place where the game is played at the time it is played. In these illustrations the food, the bulb, and the ticket are the primary conditions for achieving the desired goals (life, light, game). However, the other considerations are no less necessary; as auxiliary conditions they simply play different roles in the process of achieving the goals.

In spite of their historical commitment to the sola fidei principle, most Protestants actually acknowledge that this is so. For example, except for those who are radically committed to the "faith and nothing else" view, such as those who oppose "lordship salvation," almost all Protestants realize that repentance is a necessary condition for salvation. They appeal to a universally-accepted principle of hermeneutics, namely, that all the Bible says about a given subject must be considered before we can draw final conclusions about that subject. That is, we must not take texts such as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, Rom 1:16-17, and Eph 2:8-9 in isolation from other texts that speak of the essentiality of repentance and submission to Christ's lordship (e.g., Luke 6:46-49; Acts 2:38; Rom 10:9-10).

A good example of this approach is Millard Erickson ( Mind , 120). He asks why such men as Zane Hodges ("faith and nothing else," anti-lordship salvation) and John MacArthur (faith plus repentance and submission to Christ's lordship as conditions) can come to such different views. The problem, says Erickson, stems in part from the fact that "the Bible gives different formulas for conversion, different responses to the query, 'What must I do to be saved?'" Hodges emphasizes only those that specify faith. But how are we to regard those texts that specify repentance, and do not even mention faith?

The best answer, says Erickson, is that the two sets of passages must be combined and integrated in order to have the complete picture of the conditions for salvation. I.e., "both faith and repentance are necessary to salvation. In those biblical passages where only one is mentioned explicitly, the other is implicit. Repentance and faith would then be complementary aspects of a whole - conversion."

If Erickson is right, and I believe he is, then this shows that faith is not the only condition for salvation; and Rom 1:16-17 cannot be used to defend a radical "faith and nothing else" view of salvation. But I and many others will insist that Erickson has not gone far enough. He is methodologically correct to insist that we must apply the proper hermeneutical principle to this question, but he errs in limiting its application only to repentance. In view of the many passages that also include baptism as part of the gospel instructions on how to be saved (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:36; 22:16; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21), we cannot honestly exclude it from the list of conditions for salvation. There is no valid reason why Erickson should not treat baptism in exactly the same way he has treated repentance. The hermeneutical principle that requires us to include repentance in the list also requires us to include baptism. To criticize the likes of Zane Hodges for excluding repentance from the list of conditions and then to exclude baptism is seriously inconsistent.

It is likewise incorrect to cite the Reformation principle of sola fidei and to appeal to the great reformer Martin Luther in an effort to limit the conditions for salvation to faith alone. Luther was certainly committed to sola fidei , but this in no way prevented him from acknowledging repentance and baptism as part of the salvation process. In fact, no one has affirmed more forcefully than Luther that the act of baptism is the time when and place where God bestows saving grace upon the sinner.

Since the main content of the gospel is the saving work of Jesus Christ, it is understandable that the primary condition for receiving salvation is faith in the Savior and his saving work (3:25; 10:9). We can accept Jesus as Savior only through faith; thus faith is the only means by which the gift of saving grace can be received. But faith in Jesus as Savior cannot be separated from a specific attitude toward the sins from which he saves us and a determination to avoid sin in the future. This necessarily involves repentance and submission to Christ as Lord. What faith is to Christ as Savior , repentance is to Christ as Lord . And for reasons known for sure only to God, he has specified that baptism is the time/place where he chooses initially to bestow the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; see below on 6:1-4).

Following the analogy of the ball game as mentioned above, faith is the ticket that secures admittance to the game. At least, faith is the front side of the ticket; a ticket always has two sides, and the other side of this one is repentance. But the ticket will do the baseball fan no good unless he goes to the place where the game is to be played. Baptism is equivalent to going to the stadium, since this is where God says the action will take place.

We do agree, though, that faith is the only means and the key condition for salvation. It is not only necessary in the beginning for the very reception of salvation (Col 2:12), but is also necessary as an ongoing state of mind that continues to cling to and rest upon the gospel promises throughout the Christian life. This may be why Paul says the gospel is God's power unto salvation for "everyone who believes " (present tense). The present tense of the verb implies ongoing action, "a continuing orientation and motivation for life" (Dunn, I:40). Salvation is given "to all who believe and go on believing," that is, "to all who not only come to a decision of faith, but whose whole life is characterized as a trustful acceptance of and commitment to the gospel which is God's power to salvation" (Dunn, I:47).

E. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL (1:17a)

1:17 In v. 16 Paul says the gospel is God's power unto salvation. In v. 17 he answers the question as to why this is so. For the third time in this section he uses the particle gavr ( gar ), meaning "for" or "because." The gospel is God's power unto salvation, For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last . . . . That is, the source of the gospel's saving power is "the righteousness of God." This is the heart of the gospel.

The Greek text does not literally say, "in the gospel." The text says "in it." But since the antecedent of "it" (v. 17) is "the gospel" in v. 16, the NIV just spells it out: "in the gospel." In any case the gospel is what reveals the righteousness of God, and this is why it has the power to save sinners.

This righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, says Paul. The word reveal refers here to divine activity; it means "to disclose, to uncover, to unveil, to make known." Interpreters agree that this righteousness of God is revealed not just in the gospel as it is preached, but primarily in the gospel as it is enacted by Jesus Christ on the stage of history itself. That is, the very deeds of which the gospel speaks are the revelation of this divine righteousness that brings salvation. The revelation is not just a verbal disclosure to the mind, but is accomplished "in action and operation" in the historical arena (Murray, I:29). It is "the 'uncovering' of God's redemptive plan, as it unfolds on the plane of human history" (Moo, I:64). Of course, the gospel message also reveals this righteousness of God to all those who hear it; thus the present tense is used: the righteousness of God "is revealed"; it is and continues to be revealed through the ongoing preaching of the gospel (Moo, I:65).

Certainly, whatever gives the gospel its power should be considered the heart of the gospel, and that is identified here as "the righteousness of God." To understand what this means, we must define the term righteousness . First of all it is a mistake to translate this Greek word (dikaiosuvnh , dikaiosynç ) as "justification" in the sense of acquittal or forgiveness, as do Lard (39-45) and Moo (I:70). Righteousness and justification are very closely related, and the justification of sinners may well be regarded either as being included in the righteousness of God (as the term is used here) or as being the direct result of it. As used here, though, the righteousness of God is a broader and richer term than simply his act of justifying sinners, as is shown in 3:25-26 especially.

Also, contrary to Dunn (I:40-41), it is a mistake to define righteousness as merely "a concept of relation ," or specifically as faithfulness to the demands and obligations of a relationship (see GRe , 192-193). This may be one aspect of righteousness, but is much too narrow and limited to be the definition of it.

Though many today try to deny it, the biblical usage of this term demonstrates its meaning to be "conformity to the proper and relevant standard or norm" ( GRe , 191-196; Cranfield, I:93-94). The proper norm for human righteousness is the law of God; thus when applied to human beings righteousness means conforming to God's law or satisfying the requirements of his law ( GRe , 196-201).

What, then, is the righteousness of God ? And in what sense is it revealed in the gospel? This latter point is important, since whatever our understanding of the righteousness of God, it must strike the sinner as good news . It is after all the heart of the gospel. In this connection it is important also to identify the intended contrast. The gospel reveals the righteousness of God, as opposed to - what? The answer is, as opposed to the righteousness of man, or human righteousness achieved through conformity to the law of God. This contrast is the main point of Romans. It is the contrast between law and grace as ways or methods of being accepted by God. Paul's point is that we are not under law (as a way of salvation), but under grace (6:14). We are justified by faith in God's righteousness, not by works of law or personal conformity to God's law (3:28). The choice is between personal righteousness and God's righteousness (10:3). Those who have any hope of heaven are trusting in God's righteousness and not their own (Phil 3:9). Since most of us are aware of the fact that our own personal righteousness falls far short of the required norm (Isa 64:6; Rom 3:23), the revelation of the righteousness of God as an alternative way of salvation is surely gospel - good news.

But if righteousness means conformity to a norm, how can this apply to God? What is the "norm" to which he must conform? Certainly there is no law or standard apart from God with which his actions must be compared. That is true; thus the norm to which his actions must conform is his own nature . In the most basic sense, to say that God is righteous means that his actions are always true to his nature. Contrary to the idea that righteousness is always a relational term, i.e., faithfulness to a relationship, the ultimate essence of divine righteousness is God's faithfulness to himself , to his own nature and to his own word. That God is righteous means he will never act in a way that is contrary to his nature and his word. In this sense righteousness is an attribute of God's nature, and the term is used in this sense quite often in the Bible, especially in the OT ( GRe , 210-215).

Is this the "righteousness of God" of which Paul speaks here in v. 17? One thing that makes this a problem is the fact that such righteousness includes the idea that God must be true to his holy nature, which means that he must encounter sin with wrath and retribution. This concept of wrath and vengeance and retributive justice is already amply revealed in God's law ; in what sense could it now be revealed in the gospel ? Indeed, how could it be revealed in the gospel at all, if the gospel is supposed to be good news? How can the prospect of being righteously punished with God's eternal wrath be considered "good news" to the sinner?

As we saw earlier in the introduction, this is exactly how Martin Luther as a Catholic monk had been taught to understand this phrase, "the righteousness of God," as used in 1:17. As a result he was angry with God and was completely unable to understand either the gospel or the book of Romans. Then he began to see that in this and other NT contexts this phrase refers not to righteousness as an attribute of God's nature as such, but to righteousness as something established by God and bestowed upon sinners as a saving gift. This new understanding transformed Luther's whole approach to the gospel and led to the Reformation ("Latin Writings," 336-337).

Luther was right, and most Protestants have followed his thinking on this subject. The righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is the gift of righteousness that God gives to sinners, on the basis of which he accepts them as righteous, i.e., as conforming to the norm of his law, or as having satisfied the requirements of his law. It is given to us in the form of a "robe of righteousness" (Isa 61:10), and we wear it as a covering that hides our own "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6). Paul speaks of this as "the righteousness that comes from God" (Phil 3:9), and as something that becomes ours in the same sense that our sins became Christ's as he was dying for us (2 Cor 5:21). The NIV translation of 1:17, "righteousness from God," reflects this idea.

Specifically what is this righteousness of God, this gift of God's grace that is revealed in the gospel? We know that God imparts a righteous character to us through the gift of the Holy Spirit received in Christian baptism, so that we actually become more and more righteous, more and more holy as we mature in our faith. But it is generally agreed that "the righteousness of God" in 1:17 is not this imparted righteousness, but is rather an imputed righteousness, i.e., a righteousness established by someone else (Jesus Christ) and set down to our account and counted as our own. It results not in a righteous character ; this comes from the Holy Spirit's working in us. It results rather in a righteous status . This righteous status is the state of being justified. Justification is thus not equivalent to the righteousness of God, but is the result of it.

But again, specifically what is this righteousness of God that is imputed to our account, on the basis of which we are justified? It begins with the righteousness of God in the first sense above, i.e., righteousness as the attribute of God that requires him to be true to his nature in everything he does. Thus even in the salvation of sinners he must be righteous, that is, he must be true to his nature as a just and holy God. He must be true to his law; he must be sure that the requirements of his law are satisfied. But how can God save sinners and at the same time uphold the integrity of the very law they have sinned against?

This is the heart of the reason why the Logos became flesh; this is the centerpiece of the work of Christ; this is the heart of the gospel. Jesus came as our substitute in reference to the law; he came to uphold the integrity of the divine law by satisfying the requirements of the law in our place . To most Protestants this means that Jesus kept all the law's commandments on our behalf; then this "active righteousness" is imputed to us so that we may be counted righteous, i.e., counted as having never sinned. But this is a serious error. Jesus did keep all the law's commandments (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15), but this was something required of him just as it is of any other human being. It was something he had to do for himself; it provided no "extra merit" that can be shared with others. It was also a necessary prerequisite for his atoning sacrifice.

In what sense, then, did Jesus satisfy the requirements of the law in our place, so that God can save us and at the same time be true to his nature as a holy God (i.e., be righteous)? We must remember that law has two components: commandments we are obligated to obey, and penalties we must pay if we disobey. If we do not satisfy its requirements for obedience, we must satisfy its requirements for penalty. Either way righteousness is preserved and the integrity of the law is upheld. Here, then, is the key to understanding "the righteousness of God" in v. 17: Jesus came to establish God's righteousness by satisfying the law's requirement for penalty in our place. His suffering and death (his "passive righteousness") were not necessary for his own sake; thus they constitute a kind of "extra merit" that can be shared with those who need it. This is how God can "justify the wicked" (4:5), or count him as righteous: he transfers Christ's payment of the law's penalty to the sinner's account. This is how the sinner is justified, or counted righteous: he is counted as having already paid the penalty for his sins. In other words, I am justified not because God treats me "just if I'd" never sinned, but because he treats me "just if I'd" already paid my penalty.

No wonder "the righteousness of God" is the heart of the gospel! It is no less than the substitutionary atonement provided by the Son of God through his death on the cross. This is the sense in which the cross is the greatest demonstration of the righteousness of God that can ever be made (3:25-26). The "robe of righteousness" bestowed upon sinners is in reality the very blood of Christ that has paid the debt of penalty for our sins (1 Pet 1:18-19). "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and [Jesus'] righteousness."

Though the good news of the righteousness of God is its central concept, it is not the sole content of the gospel. The gospel speaks also of the resurrection of Jesus, and of the saving gifts of justification and the Spirit's indwelling, and of the gracious conditions for receiving these gifts - especially faith. Verse 17 reaffirms the conditional nature of salvation and the essentiality of faith. This gift of God's righteousness, says Paul, "is by faith from first to last." The NIV paraphrases considerably here. The first part of v. 17 is translated more literally by the NASB: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith." This last expression, "from faith to faith," is notoriously difficult. Does it modify righteousness (as in the NIV), or revealed (as in the NASB and as the order of the Greek words suggests)?

There are several possibilities (see Cranfield, I:99-100). Some take it as saying that the revelation of God's righteousness is given to a faith that begins in weakness but grows ever stronger, like going "from strength to strength" in Ps 84:7 (Luther, 19). Others take it to mean "from God's faithfulness to our faith" (Dunn, I:44, 48). Another very common view is that "faith" is simply repeated for the sake of emphasis, as if underlining the word sola in the notion of sola fidei. This is the view reflected in the NIV translation, "by faith from first to last." Similar suggestions are "faith through and through" (Morris, 70); "to faith and faith alone" (Nygren, 79); "faith and 'nothing but faith'" (Moo, I:71); "faith, first and last and wholly" (Erdman, 28). See also Cranfield, I:100.

A fourth possibility is that "from faith" modifies "righteousness," and "unto faith" modifies "revealed." The meaning would then be something like this: "In the gospel a righteousness of God that is ours by faith alone is revealed to our faith." This is similar in meaning to 3:22, "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." See Godet, 97; Murray, I:31-2. A variation of this view takes the latter part of the expression, "unto faith," as indicating the result of the gospel revelation: "in order to produce faith" (DeWelt, 25; see Lard, 45; Grubbs, 36). Whatever the exact meaning of this phrase, it does not add anything significant to the phrase "everyone who believes" in v. 16.

F. THE GOLDEN TEXT OF THE GOSPEL (1:17b)

Having given his preliminary and very condensed statement of his thesis, i.e., that the gospel of the righteousness of God is able to save everyone who believes it, Paul then cites a passage from the OT as a kind of proof text: just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." This is a quotation from Hab 2:4 (quoted also in Gal 3:11 and Heb 10:38). By citing this verse Paul again shows the continuity between his gospel and the OT (see v. 2). The strong connecting word kaqwv" (kathôs ), "just as," emphasizes this sameness; and the formula "it is written" reminds his readers that he is quoting authoritative Scripture.

By citing this passage here in the transitional statement of his theme, Paul shows us that it contains the kernel or essence of the gospel. We may call it the "golden text" of the gospel. Nygren says, "The whole message of this epistle is contained in 1:17, particularly in the prophetic quotation" from Habakkuk. "On that scriptural text the apostle constructs his letter" (81).

In its original context this statement refers to the necessity for God's people to trust his purposes and his providence regarding the temporal fate of the nation of Israel. Habakkuk the prophet begins by complaining to God about the injustice being suffered by some Israelites at the hands of their own countrymen (1:2-4). God replies that he is already planning to rectify the situation by having the cruel Babylonian hordes overrun and plunder the land (1:5-11). Habakkuk swallows hard and presses on, saying, in effect, "Lord, are you sure you know what you are doing? If this happens, won't the 'cure' be worse than the disease? Please explain" (1:12-2:1). Part of God's reply is to this effect: I know you don't understand, Habakkuk; but you will just have to trust me: "the righteous will live by his faith" (2:4).

It is not clear whether "will live" by faith here means "will conduct his life" by faith, or whether it means "will be preserved alive" by faith when the enemy comes. If the former, it is an admonition on how to live; if the latter, it is a promise to the faithful. In any case it is the promise of earthly deliverance in the face of an earthly threat.

When Paul cites this passage, however, he lifts it to a higher plane. There is little doubt that he reads it as a promise and not an admonition. He is not telling us that we ought live (i.e., to conduct our lives) according to faith. This is a basic summary of the gospel, and thus must be taken as a promise : the righteous person will be preserved alive by faith. But in the context of the NT gospel, "preserved alive" means much more than it did for the trembling Habakkuk in the face of the Babylonian threat. It refers to spiritual or eternal life: the righteous will receive eternal life by faith.

This is in accord with a general biblical practice. God's New Covenant teachings and promises are often lifted to a higher plane as compared with his dealings with OT Israel ( GRu , 143-153). For example, OT promises regarding protection from enemies usually refer to earthly enemies such as the Philistines and the Moabites (e.g., Ps 37:39-40; 41:1-2). Similar NT promises focus on spiritual enemies, however (e.g., 1 Cor 10:13; Eph 6:10-18). In the same way, whereas Hab 2:4 originally referred to physical life, in Rom 1:17 it refers to the gift of eternal life. "Will live" means "will be saved"; it is the same as the salvation mentioned in v. 16 (see Bruce, 81).

The main hermeneutical problem for this quotation is whether "by faith" is intended to modify the subject ("the righteous one") or the verb ("will live"). The word order in the Greek text favors the former: the one who is righteous by faith will live. (This is also the word order in the text of Hab 2:4.) Several English translations render it thus, e.g., the NEB, the RSV, and TEV. This seems to be most consistent with the immediate context and with the constant emphasis of the epistle (Nygren, 86; Cranfield, I:102). When understood thus, it is clear that "will live" means "will be saved." It also makes the implied contrast more clear: the one who is righteous by faith will live, not the one who tries to be righteous through his own works (3:28; 10:3). This view is defended by Lard (45-46) and Morris (71-72).

Many take it the other way, though: the righteous will live by faith (thus the NASB and the NIV). This view is defended by Murray (I:33) and Hendriksen (I:64-65, n. 31). Now, if Paul's main point is that the righteous should conduct their lives by faith, then this translation would be the more natural. But if he means (and I think he does) that the righteous will live eternally - be saved - by faith, then the former way is better.

CONCLUSION

The focus of Paul's apostleship and the focus of the epistle to the Romans is the gospel, the good news of God. Why is the good news so good ? Surely if we are told that we can be saved rather than lost, this is good. But the news is even better than this. It involves not just a contrast between sin and damnation on the one hand, and salvation on the other. It is also a contrast between two entirely different ways of salvation, two ways of being right with God or of entering heaven. One is the true way that will really save us; the other is a false way that actually leads to despair and death. These two ways are law and grace . The good news - the very best news of all - is that we can be saved by grace through faith, apart from works of law (3:28). This is the gospel.

Cranfield (I:88) denies that this contrast is implicit here in Paul's transitional statement (1:16-17), but I think this is because he does not understand the true nature of this contrast. Nygren's view (66) is more perceptive: "To grasp the full meaning of the word [gospel], one ought to note how for Paul the gospel always stands in inescapable relation to the law. Wherever the gospel is, the law always stands in the background." Lard (39-40) defends a similar view, as does Grubbs (33-38). Grubbs sees Paul's thematic statement in v. 16 as standing "in opposition to the legalistic system of his opponents" at every point (33-34).

Here I want to call attention to one of the most serious errors committed by many Christians in their attempt to understand the gospel of grace. Like Grubbs, they correctly see that the gospel can be understood only as contrasted with law. But also like Grubbs, they limit "law" to the Law of Moses , and thus see the gospel as standing in contrast only with the Law of Moses. As I see it, there is no greater hindrance to a proper understanding of the gospel of grace than this . The actual contrast is not just between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Moses, but between grace as a method or system of salvation (on the one hand) and law as a method or system of salvation (on the other hand). The law system does not depend on the Law of Moses; it is pursued wherever human beings have any awareness at all of God's moral law, whether this be through a special revelation such as the Law of Moses or the Pauline epistles, or whether it be only through the general revelation written on the heart (2:14-15).

This contrast between grace and law as ways of salvation has been present ever since God began presenting the good news of forgiveness of sins, as far back as Eden (Gen 3:15). Everyone who has had access to God's special revelation has had the choice between law and grace. Those who lived under the Law of Moses knew the grace of God (3:21), though certainly not as fully as those who know Jesus himself. Anyone under the Law of Moses who was saved - indeed, any sinner anywhere, anytime who has been saved - was saved by grace through faith in God's promises, not by law-keeping of any sort.

As we shall see in the next section, every person who lives and has a mature rational awareness of himself and of the world knows God's law to some extent. Unless such a person comes into contact with God's special (biblical) revelation, law is the only system of relating to God that he will ever know. Also, many of those who do have special revelation and its message of grace (many Christians!) do not really understand it, and they still labor under the misconception that their ability to obey God's commandments is the determiner of their salvation or damnation. But Paul makes it very clear that "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law" in any form (3:20). This is why the good news is so good! It tells us, even those of us who want to be saved and are already struggling to be saved by our works, that the one true, effective, conscience-clearing, peace-giving, fear-banishing way of salvation is grace , which means putting your complete trust in the work of Jesus Christ rather than in your own works as the way of being accepted as righteous by God.

No wonder it is the gospel ( good news), and no wonder Paul was so excited about it! No wonder it is dynamite! God has given us an alternative to law as a way of salvation - an alternative to law, which is a way of human power, or rather, human weakness ; a way in which it is theoretically possible to be right with God, but which in fact will never work because it is nullified by the presence of even a single sin; a way which in fact leads only to despair or else to self-deception and false confidence.

But the gospel gives us an alternative to this, a way of salvation that depends not on man's weakness but on God's power, a way that depends not on human righteousness but on God's righteousness, a way that depends not on our ability to keep God's commandments but on Christ's ability to pay our penalty for us, a way that will lead to salvation for everyone who believes. Is this not good news?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

1:18-3:20 - PART ONE

THE IMPOTENCE OF LAW

AS A WAY OF SALVATION

We come now to the main body of the book of Romans. The general flow of thought from this point on is as follows:

1. Salvation (justification, righteousness, acceptance by God) by means of law (works, personal righteousness) is impossible, because all have sinned. 1:18-3:20.

2. But God has provided an alternative to law: righteousness by faith, justification by faith, salvation by grace through faith. 3:21-5:21.

3. Justification by grace through faith does not encourage sin. Rather, the grace of God gives us victory over sin through regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. 6:1-8:39.

4. The objection that this way of salvation somehow means that God is being unfair to the Jews is without foundation. 9:1-11:36.

5. Living under grace has certain specific implications for daily living. 12:1-15:14.

6. Personal remarks addressed specifically to Rome close out the letter. 15:15-16:27.

At this point we are dealing with the first main section, 1:18 through 3:20. When we move from the transitional statement in 1:16-17 to the first verse of this section, we certainly must be surprised if not shocked. After building up our excitement and expectation with a reference to God's good news , the Apostle immediately drops us into the black abyss of the wrath of God! This is surely a surprising way to begin to talk about the gospel ! Why does Paul do it this way?

First, it is a general principle that one must understand the seriousness of his predicament before he can appreciate the need and availability of its solution. In this case, we must know that we are sinners under the righteous wrath of God before we can know and appreciate God's saving grace.

Thus before Paul explains the gospel of grace in more detail, he focuses on the sinfulness and helplessness of the entire human race. But this is secondary to and supportive of the main point, which is the impotence of law as a way of salvation . We must not forget that the main theme of Romans involves the contrast between grace and law as ways of salvation: sinners can be saved only by grace, not by works of law. Paul will establish the reality and the glory of salvation by grace in the second main section (3:21-5:21), but first he must show that there is absolutely no possibility that anyone may be saved by the alternative, law. Thus in this first main section everything is designed to establish this point, that by works of law no flesh will be justified in his sight (3:20). Black's heading is on target: "The Failure of Law" (39).

One point must be clearly understood: strictly speaking, it is possible to be right with God by means of law, works of law, or the law system. The universe as originally created was a law system through and through; everything existed within the general framework of God's laws, both physical and moral. Man as created was "right with God" in terms of the system of law. How does this system work? How may one be right with God in terms of law? The rules are very simple. They are stated in terms of the two aspects of law as explained earlier: commandments and penalty. Here is how the law system operates:

KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS, AND (THEREFORE)

ESCAPE THE PENALTY.

BREAK THE COMMANDMENTS, AND (THEREFORE)

SUFFER THE PENALTY.

So why is 3:20 true? Why is the law impotent to save? Because no one has kept the commandments - all have sinned (3:9-18). A person is counted as "keeping the commandments" only if he does so perfectly; even one sin makes him liable to the penalty (Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10). In 1:18-3:20 Paul does show that all have sinned, but he does this in order to show that no one can ever be right with God by means of the law system. Thus the only way anyone will ever be saved is by the alternative provided by God, which is grace.

The main subject of this first main section, then, is law as such (not just the Law of Moses). Since the very essence of sin is transgression of the law, or lawlessness (1 John 3:4), we cannot even know what sin is, nor can we understand ourselves as sinners, until we see ourselves in our true relation to God's law. This is the reason why the preaching of the law must precede the preaching of the gospel. This has strong implications for our methodology of evangelism in general, and our concept of child nurture in particular. Before a person (such as a child) is ready to accept Christ as Savior, he must understand that he has broken God's commandments and stands under the penalty of God's law.

Even more important is the fact that we must see that the law system cannot make us as sinners right with God, so that we will know that "grace through faith" is the only possible way of salvation. We must see the impotence of law for salvation before grace as such can mean anything to us.

In this section and elsewhere, Paul uses the term law (novmo" , nomos ) in several distinct ways. Sometimes it does mean specifically the Law of Moses, e.g., 2:12-14, 17-18, 20, 23, 25-27; 3:21b; 4:16b; 5:13, 20. But at other times it means the universal moral law or the general will of God for all people, e.g., 2:14d-15; 3:19-21a, 28, 31; 4:13-15. Sometimes it means law as a principle or as a system of relating to God, in contrast with grace, e.g., 3:27; 6:14-15.

This section presupposes that God's law as the basic framework for existence is a reality with which everyone must deal. God's universal moral law, his righteous commandments, are everywhere and demand a response from everyone who is conceptually mature enough to understand what this means. Within the framework of law we face an inescapable choice or set of options. When confronted by God's law we must either keep it perfectly and thus receive the blessings it promises, or we must break it and incur the penalty it prescribes.

Obviously any rational person should choose the first option. The awful reality, though, is that everyone has chosen the second option. No one has kept God's law perfectly; all are lawbreakers and thus have incurred the penalty of eternal death in the lake of fire. Here within the framework of law the first choice is no longer an option, and payment of the penalty is no longer avoidable. Thus anyone who is still counting on his record as a law-keeper (i.e., his own righteousness) for salvation is either deceiving himself with a false self-righteousness or is heading into hopeless despair.

Consistent with his holy and righteous wrath, God could send every human being to hell. We have all broken the commandments and all deserve the penalty. But here is where the gospel comes into the picture. Consistent with his loving and righteous grace, God has given us another choice or another set of options. Since payment of sin's penalty is now inescapable, this second set of options has to do with how this penalty will be paid. Now, because of grace, we may choose either to stay within the framework of law and pay the penalty ourselves, or we may trust someone else to pay this penalty on our behalf. This latter choice is the grace option, and it requires us to renounce the impotent and damning law system and to place ourselves under the shelter of the grace system, which is the same as accepting the gift of God's righteousness, which is believing that the blood of Christ has already paid the penalty for our sins.

The message of Romans is simply this. Within the law system ("Keep the commandments and escape the penalty, or break the commandments and suffer the penalty"), the first option is closed. All have broken the commandments and are under its penalty; thus no one can be right with God in terms of law. This is the message of 1:18-3:20. However, in his boundless love God has provided another choice for us, the choice of grace itself. This is the point of 3:21-5:21: our only hope is grace.

This first main section of Romans is thus necessary to show us that there is no hope for salvation as long as we remain in a law-relationship with God. Paul makes this point by showing us that all have sinned, which renders law impotent as a way of salvation.

Why is it necessary for Paul to take so long to make this point? Why can't he just say, as he does in 3:23, that "all have sinned"? The reason is because not everyone is willing to accept this statement at face value. Many insist that at least a few people, or a few groups of people, have not really sinned in the technical sense of that word, or at least will not be held responsible for their sins, or perhaps will be treated as exceptions to the general rule. This section is necessary because some are sure to lobby for such exceptions. Paul takes the time to show that there are no exceptions to the rule that all have sinned, and therefore law cannot save anyone but can only condemn. We can imagine this conversation between Paul and such a lobbyist: "Sure, Paul, we agree. No one will be saved by law since all have sinned. But surely there are some exceptions to this rule." "All right," says Paul. "Just what exceptions did you have in mind?" The objector smiles and replies, "Why, just two small groups: the Gentiles and the Jews !"

These are serious suggestions, and the content of this section of Romans is designed to show why the Gentiles and the Jews are not exceptions to the rule that law cannot save because all have sinned. First Paul addresses the possibility that the Gentiles might be exempt from judgment according to God's law (1:18-32). Then he addresses the belief that the Jews are a special case and thus will not be judged according to the rules that apply to everyone else (2:1-3:8). Finally he draws it all together and affirms the universal application of his point, with no exceptions (3:9-20).

I. 1:18-32 - THE SINFULNESS OF THE GENTILES

Paul's first point in this section is to show that the Gentiles have no basis for claiming to be exempt from the law's penalty. That the main subject of this passage is the Gentiles can hardly be denied. Most commentators prefer to say that the passage refers to the Gentiles primarily or mainly, but not exclusively. There is good reason for this, as we shall see.

The main problem raised about the Gentiles is this: why should they need grace, if they have never had access to law? The Jews, not the Gentiles, were chosen by God to receive the revelation of his great Law through Moses. If the Gentiles do not have this Law, how can they be considered as sinners? Surely God must excuse them on the basis of their ignorance. After all, does not God himself say that "where there is no law there is no transgression" (4:15)?

This is exactly the view that many people still have today about the so-called "heathen," or pagans who have never heard the gospel. Surely God has no basis for condemning them, if they have never seen or heard of the Bible. Surely God will not hold them accountable for what they have had no opportunity to know. So surely these modern-day Gentiles will not be lost. Some even question the need for missionary activity on such grounds.

This is the very issue Paul is addressing in this passage. From our perspective it does not matter whether we call these people "Gentiles" or "the heathen" or "the unevangelized." Paul calls them Gentiles (2:14) and Greeks (2:9-10; 3:9), as distinct from the Jews. But as the passage shows, what really makes them distinct is the fact that they have had no access to special revelation; their knowledge of God has been derived from general revelation only .

These two basic kinds of revelation are usually distinguished. Special revelation is that which God gives to specific people in specific times and places, either through deeds or words. All word revelation falls into this category; when God speaks to mankind in human language, he speaks into a particular place and time, usually through a spokesman or prophet. Much of such revelation has been written down for us in the Bible; all biblical revelation is special revelation. General revelation, on the other hand, is revelation that is given to all human beings in general, via means that make it universally available, such as the phenomena of creation and providence (Ps 19:1-6; Acts 14:17; Rom 1:19-20).

Paul's point in this passage is that even though the Gentiles may not have access to the special revelation of God's law, they know enough about God and his law through general revelation to be held accountable. They have broken the law they have, and are therefore without excuse and thus are under the wrath of God.

What is said in this passage actually does apply to all people, since general revelation by its very nature is known to all - even to Jews and others who have access to special revelation. But the specific issue with which Paul is dealing is the status of those who have been exposed to general revelation only . This would include most of the people who lived in pre-Christian times, and it would include anyone living today who has not yet come into contact with biblical revelation.

From the standpoint of Jews in Bible times, such people would be called Gentiles. Today they are often called "the heathen"; but this term has negative cultural connotations that do not necessarily apply, and it is offensive to a great many people. Thus many call them "the unevangelized," though this is not strictly the point. Because it is the biblical term and because of its familiarity we shall continue to use the term Gentiles .

In commenting on this text we will divide it thus: (1) Universal Knowledge of God and his Law, 1:18-20. (2) Universal Rejection of the True God, 1:21-25. (3) The Utter Depths of Gentile Depravity, 1:26-32. We should note that 2:14-15 also refers specifically to the Gentiles and adds to what will be said in this section.

A. UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND HIS LAW (1:18-20)

In order to show that the Gentiles, individually and as a group, will be justly judged and condemned within the framework of law, Paul must first show that they do indeed know God and his law, and have indeed broken it. This is the point of 1:18-32, and the universal knowledge of God and his law are the subject of vv. 18-20.

The NIV fails to translate the connecting gavr , gar , "for, because," at the beginning of v. 18. This word shows that Paul is introducing the reason why only the righteous by faith will live, namely, because there is no other viable option. The only other way to eternal life is through perfect obedience to God's law, and no one will qualify on this basis. Even the Gentiles have sinned and are under God's wrath, so even the Gentiles need to hear the gospel of righteousness by faith.

In other words, this section shows the universal need, not just for salvation as such, but for the specific way of salvation that is the heart of the gospel (1:16-17). As Sanday and Headlam say, "St. Paul has just stated what the Gospel is; he now goes on to show the necessity for such a Gospel. The world is lost without it" (40). In Hendriksen's words, "No other way to be saved is available than that of accepting the gospel by faith, for since the wrath of God rests by nature upon man, the latter is completely unable to save himself, whether by performing the works of the law or by any other means" (I:67).

1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness . . . . Paul gets right to the point: The Gentiles are under the wrath of God. God's wrath is a fearsome reality. We must never weaken its force by separating it from the nature and will of God, as some try to do. C.H. Dodd (21-24), for example, followed by Barclay (17-19), misrepresents divine wrath as an impersonal, karma-like law of nature. I.e., certain kinds of actions inevitably produce disastrous consequences. "Wrath" is not a personal attitude of God, but merely a way of describing "an inevitable process of cause and effect" in "the structure of the universe." Such a view, however, is a serious departure from the teaching of Scripture, where wrath is not an impersonal process but the deliberate penal judgment of the personal God. To say that this wrath is being revealed "from heaven" is a way of repeating for emphasis the fact that it is the wrath of the personal and holy God.

God's wrath should not be compared with frivolous, impetuous, capricious human anger. It is rather the inevitable retributive response of the eternally holy God against anything that violates his own being. It is the "consuming fire" aspect of his nature (Heb 12:29). "Wrath is the holy revulsion of God's being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness" (Murray, 35).

Paul says the wrath of God "is being revealed" (present tense). This is the same word as was used in v. 17 for the righteousness of God. As in that case, the revelation is given not necessarily in the form of a verbally-communicated message but in the reality of the punitive events themselves. Exactly what are these events that reveal to us the wrath of God?

Whenever we think of the wrath of God, it is natural to think of the end times, the judgment day, and the wrath of eternal punishment to which the damned are consigned (2:5, 8; 5:9; Rev 6:16; 16:1). Although the present tense may sometimes be used for a future event, and although eschatological wrath may be a part of this picture, the main focus of v. 18 is still on the present.

Karl Barth and others have set forth the view that the wrath of God no less than his righteousness is revealed in the gospel , i.e., in the death of Christ as our atoning sacrifice. This seems to be Morris' view (76-77). He says Paul declares in 1:18 "that it is the cross that shows us the measure of God's wrath. It is in the events of the gospel that the revelation occurs." Now, it is true, especially in light of 3:24-26, that "the reality of the wrath of God is only truly known when it is seen in its revelation in Gethsemane and on Golgotha" (Cranfield, I:110). But the context that follows 1:18 points in an entirely different direction.

How, then, is the wrath of God being revealed throughout history, especially upon the Gentile or pagan world? It is being done "in the events of history" (Moo, I:96), "in the facts of human experience" (Bruce, 83). This includes the retributive penalties imposed by human governments (12:19; 13:4), the accusations of conscience (2:15), the pain of childbirth (Gen 3:16), the necessity for toil as the result of a sin-cursed environment (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8:20-22), and the inescapable penalty of death itself (Gen 2:17; 3:19; Rom 1:32; 5:12; 8:10). Most significantly, the context itself suggests that the most obvious revelation of God's wrath is his judicial action of "giving over" the Gentiles to the bitter consequences of their sinful desires and depraved lifestyles (1:24, 26, 28).

Paul says this wrath of God is being revealed "against all the godlessness and wickedness of men." The word "all" makes the reference universal; there are no exceptions. God's wrath is against all the sins of all people, even those of the Gentiles. That which draws the wrath of God "is repeated in every generation, by every individual" (Moo, I:93).

The word translated "godlessness" is ajsevbeia ( asebeia ). Words from this word group that do not have the negating alpha (our letter a ) refer to the worship that is due to the one true God (see Acts 16:14; 18:7, 13; Rom 1:25). With the negating alpha (similar to our prefix un- ), as in this case, such words refer to ungodliness: opposition to and rejection of God. The other word, "wickedness," translates ajdikiva ( adikia ). This is from the word group having to do with righteousness or justice, which as we saw earlier means conformity to the appropriate norm. Human righteousness thus means conformity to God's law. With the negating alpha (as here) the meaning would be un righteousness, wickedness, or actions that are contrary to God's law.

Do these two terms refer to two different kinds of sin? Many have taken this view. They suggest that "godlessness" is sin against God himself, as proscribed by the first four commandments, and that "wickedness" is sin against our fellow human beings, as forbidden by the last six commandments. In accordance with the verses that follow, the latter is seen as the evil spawn of the former. On the other hand, many deny that two distinct categories of sin are intended. The two words are just two names for the same thing, says Cranfield, who rightly notes that all sin is an attack on the majesty of God (I:112). They are synonyms, says MacArthur (I:66). "All ungodliness is also unrighteousness, and vice versa," says Lenski (92). As Moo notes, the second term certainly "cannot be confined to sins against others" but is often used very comprehensively, as in the latter part of this very verse (I:97).

The latter view is the correct one, though the terms are not completely synonymous. Asebeia refers to sin as a direct attack on or rejection of God himself; adikia refers to sin as a violation of God's law (1 John 3:4). As Hendriksen well says, "Both represent sin, rebellion against God. The first views sin as want of reverence for God; the second, as want of reverence for his ordinances, his holy law" (I:68).

Nevertheless, the distinction on which the former view is based is real, even though the reality is not reflected clearly in these two terms. The verses that follow depict the abandonment of the true God as one kind of sin, as distinct from all the immoral and evil deeds that sinners commit among and against one another. And it seems clear that Paul is saying that the former does indeed in some way lead to the latter. It is a rule or principle that "impiety is the precursor of immorality," as Murray states it (I:36). Just as succinctly, Bruce (82) says, "Idolatry is the source of immorality."

The last part of v. 18 says that God's wrath is directed against "men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." What truth? The verses that follow show conclusively that Paul is referring to truth about God himself (see vv. 19-20, 25) and about his law or will for all mankind.

The verb translated "suppress" is katevcw (katechô ), which the KJV translates as "hold," yielding the concept of "holding to the truth in unrighteousness." Not only does this concept go against the very point of the next few verses; it also does not take sufficient account of the prefix kat- ( kata ) attached to the ordinary verb, e[cw (echô ), which by itself means "to have, to hold (to)." The prefix adds an emphasis which can be interpreted variously, but which in this case obviously means "to hold down , to suppress." God's wrath is directed against those who suppress his truth.

To say that the Gentiles suppress the truth means that they do have the truth and even know that it is true. In other words, the very act of suppressing the truth is evidence that they know it and are therefore without excuse and are no exception to the need for grace. The problem is that they deliberately reject it; they refuse to accept it and acknowledge it as truth. To some this may appear to be a genuine ignorance of the things of God, but Paul is saying it is only an apparent ignorance and not a real one. The knowledge is there, but suppressed. Eph 4:18 confirms this teaching when it refers to the "ignorance that is in them [the Gentiles] due to the hardening of their hearts." As Bruce (83) says, "It is a deliberate ignorance." See also v. 28.

They suppress the truth "by their wickedness." This is the word adikia again, as used earlier in the verse and translated "unrighteousness" in the NASB. At issue is whether the preposition ejn ( en ) should be translated "in" or "by." If the former, then the point is that the Gentiles are comfortably ensconced in their wicked lifestyle and want to preserve it and therefore suppress all thoughts of God so as not to feel guilty. If the latter, then the point is that they suppress the truth by means of their wicked living; by their evil deeds they openly renounce the validity of God's claims on their lives. Both ideas are true, but it is difficult to tell which one Paul specifically had in mind when he wrote. Perhaps he was thinking of both.

1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them . . . . This verse begins with "since" or "because," giving the reason for the preceding statement. God's wrath is being revealed because all people do know God (19-20) but have deliberately rejected him (21-25). Verses 19-20 are mainly establishing the fact that the Gentiles do have the truth (as v. 18 implies). Specifically, they have it through the general revelation that comes to all people through their awareness of the created universe.

Paul refers to "what may be known about God" in this way. The proper translation of the Greek word for "known" is a matter of debate. Some take it as the NIV has it, i.e., "what may be known," or what is knowable , whether it is actually known or not. Thus Cranfield (I:113), Moo (I:99), and Morris (79-80). Others take it as the NASB has it, "that which is known." This is its meaning in all other NT occurrences, and its most common meaning elsewhere. Thus Lard (49), Lenski (95-96), and Murray (I:37). The latter is no doubt Paul's intention, contrary to the NIV. In this context his point is not about what may be known, but about what is known (vv. 20-21).

The object of this knowledge is God himself. This explains the content of "the truth" of which v. 18 speaks. What the Gentiles know about God "is plain to them," says Paul. The word for "plain" is fanerov" ( phaneros ), which means "manifest, evident, clear, plain, open, visible, easily seen." This is why this truth is known: it cannot be missed.

Another point of debate is the phrase ejn aujtoi'" ( en autois ), translated "to them" in the NIV. This is possible, since the preposition en can mean "to" (see Murray, I:38; Morris, 80). However, autois without any preposition also means "to them," and it is used thus and translated thus in the latter part of this same verse. I take it as unlikely that Paul would use the two different expressions to mean the same thing so close together, contrary to the NIV. Another possibility is that en autois means "within them," as in the NASB (see Sanday and Headlam, 42). The connotation here is a revelation planted within the heart and known from within. Paul refers to something like this later (2:14-15), but the context is against this connotation here. The best translation of this phrase is "among them, in their midst" (see Barrett, 35; Cranfield, I:113; Moo, I:99). This is most consistent with v. 20. The first part of v. 19 thus says, "Because that which is known about God is plain to be seen in the very midst of them." ("Them," of course, refers especially to the Gentiles.)

Why is it so plain? . . . because God has made it plain to them . It is a matter of God's "deliberate self-disclosure," as Cranfield says (I:114). I.e., the Gentiles know this truth about God because he chose to make himself known. Their knowledge is neither an accidental discovery nor a cleverly devised speculation.

1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Verse 20 begins with Paul's favorite explanatory word, "for" ( gar ). How can we say that God has made truth about himself plain even to the Gentiles? Because, "since the creation of the world" certain truths about God have been clearly known through created things themselves. This has been the case ever since God originally created the world as recorded in Gen 1. From that time to the very present God has been revealing himself, and thus something about him has been and is known.

What is the content of this knowledge? Verse 19 is very general, but now v. 20 gets more specific: "God's invisible qualities" are known. This does not mean that God also has visible qualities; everything about the nature of God is invisible to his creatures. He cannot be perceived by our sight or senses (John 1:18; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27; see GC , 229-233). Why is this fact about God mentioned here? It is a way of emphasizing the reality of the knowledge, expressed in the term "clearly seen" later in the verse. It is a play on words, as well as a conceptual paradox: how can "invisible things" be "clearly seen"? Cranfield (I:114) calls this an intentional oxymoron.

What specific qualities are known? "His eternal power and divine nature." It is not surprising that power should be mentioned, since God's omnipotence is the divine attribute most clearly expressed in the act and product of creation (see GC , 292-305). This is the same word used in v. 16 to describe the gospel, but that is a different kind of manifestation of God's power (see GRe , 455-458).

Paul speaks not just of power, but of eternal power. The word for "eternal" (aji?dio" , aidios ) is rare, occurring only here and in Jude 6. There is no question that God is eternal, probably in more than one sense (see GC , 250-264). This includes the idea that he is everlasting, along with all his attributes. The question arises here, though, as to how God's eternity or everlastingness can be "clearly seen" by means of created things. Lard (52) suggests that Paul may not be saying that the eternal nature of God's power can be thus known; only the power itself can be known, but Paul as an inspired apostle characterizes it as eternal based on special revelation. Another possibility is that Paul is assuming here a basic form of what is called the cosmological argument for the existence of God (see GC , 424-433). The created universe consists only of contingent things, i.e., things that have a beginning and are perishable. From their existence we infer that their cause must be a Creator who is not contingent, and who is therefore eternal and imperishable. Paul later refers to this basic distinction between the immortal, imperishable Creator and mortal, perishable creatures (vv. 22, 24) as part of the knowledge for which all men are responsible.

The invisible qualities of God known through created things also include his "divine nature." The Greek word is qeiovth" (theiotçs ). This is not exactly the same as the qeovthto" (theotçtos ) that indwells Jesus of Nazareth (Col 2:9). The latter is deity or divinity itself in his very person, the very divine essence. The former, spoken of here by Paul, is the sum of all the characteristics or perfections of deity, in other words, all the attributes we usually associate with God: "the sum of all God's glorious attributes" (Hendriksen, I:70). In reality there is not much difference between these words, since God's essence is the sum of all his attributes.

The point is, though, that other qualities of God's nature besides his power are clearly seen from the created world. These include his glory (Ps 19:1) and his goodness (Acts 14:17), as well as his righteous judgment (1:32). See GC , 339.

Having spoken of the content of the Gentiles' knowledge, the text then emphasizes the reality of it. These things, Paul says, "have been clearly seen." The tense of the verb is actually present: " are clearly seen." Herein lies the paradox, that the invisible things of God are nevertheless seen by all. How is this the case?

The base verb, oJravw ( horaô ), is the ordinary word for seeing with the physical eyes (see John 1:18). The addition of the prefix katav ( kata ), which occurs only here in the NT, makes the verb intensive, thus, " clearly seen." This emphatic word leaves no doubt as to the reality of the knowledge in question.

In this verse, though, it is appropriate to take the word in a figurative or non-physical sense. That is, the invisible things of God "are clearly seen by the eye of man's mind" (DeWelt, 28), or what Eph 1:18 calls "the eyes of your heart." The idea is that what we physically see in the created universe leads the eyes of our hearts to see these invisible divine qualities. In this way all people, including the Gentiles, have true knowledge of the true God.

Next Paul identifies the source of this knowledge: God's invisible qualities are "being understood from what has been made." "Being understood" is the verb noevw (noeô ), which specifically refers to mental seeing, the activity of the mind. To say that these things "are understood" just reinforces the fact that the knowledge is real. "Are clearly seen" is the main verb; "being understood" is a participle modifying it, explaining how these things are clearly seen. The answer is: "from what has been made," that is, the things made by God in the activity of creation, the created visible universe.

How are the phenomena of creation a source of true knowledge of God? On a common-sense level, when we view the wonders of nature we just instinctively infer a powerful Creator as their source. The Psalmist chastises idolaters thus: "Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?" (Ps 94:9). That is, whoever made the eye and the ear can himself surely see and hear perfectly. When such data are formally analyzed by the mind, the results are what are called the cosmological and the teleological arguments for the existence of God (on the latter see GC , 433-440). These arguments assume some basic reasoning power, which all human beings have by virtue of being created in God's image. Such use of the mind "is not abstract speculation but sane and sober thought on the things made by God" (Lenski, 97).

Some would call this a kind of "natural theology" (Lenski, 99), a term and concept held in high favor by Roman Catholics but not usually by Protestants. But as long as we recognize its limitations and are not expecting to build a whole system of theology thus, we surely must admit on the basis of what Paul is saying here that we can draw some true conclusions about God based on general revelation only (see Dunn, I:56-57). Such natural theology is not a product of speculative reason, but rather of God's own revelation as thought through by analytical reason.

We agree with Moo, though, that "this knowledge is both limited and impure" (I:122). It is impure because some things present in nature (such as human disease and death) are the result of sin and do not reflect the glory of God (8:18-23). It is limited in scope because some truths about God are not revealed in natural phenomena (e.g., the fact of the Trinity). Even the cosmological and teleological arguments are limited as to what kind of Creator can be inferred from the creation (see GC , 430-432, 438). Most significantly, general revelation does not give any information about the gospel , i.e., about salvation and about God as Redeemer. This information comes only through special or biblical revelation and thus is not available to the Gentiles unless someone takes it to them (10:13-17).

This leads to the last point Paul makes about the Gentiles' knowledge in v. 20, namely, its result . Their knowledge of God is sufficient "so that men are without excuse." "Men" is not in the text, which has only the pronoun "they," whose antecedent is the men who suppress the truth in v. 18. The main reference is to the Gentiles, but the state of being without excuse applies to all sinners, as 3:19-20 shows: "every mouth . . . the whole world . . . no one."

"Without excuse" translates ajnapolovghto" (anapologçtos ), used only here and in 2:1. It is from the same root as the word that means "apology" in the sense of "apologetics, defense." As 1 Pet 3:15 says, the Christian can and should have an apology or defense for his hope, but Paul declares that the sinner has no defense or excuse for his sin. Why not? Because general revelation gives every person enough knowledge to be judged by (see vv. 21, 32). No one, not even the most remote Gentile, will be able to plead ignorance on the judgment day (see 3:19; Matt 22:12). To be without excuse assumes each individual's free will and personal responsibility for his actions. It also assumes adequate knowledge of the standard by which our actions will be measured, which is Paul's point here.

The Greek construction used here is sometimes taken as referring to God's purpose in giving creation knowledge, i.e., " in order that they may be without excuse." That is, God gave this knowledge just so no one will have an excuse if he sins. Thus the very purpose of general revelation is to condemn. See the ASV; Morris, 82-83; Murray, 40. This seems awfully harsh to some, who say instead that the Greek construction refers to the result of the general revelation and the knowledge it produces: "so that as a result they are without excuse." The NIV translation follows this view, which I believe is correct. I agree with Lenski (100), that to understand this in terms of purpose "would be monstrous."

Either way the outcome for the Gentiles is the same: they are, as a matter of fact, without excuse. Their godless and wicked behavior (v. 18) is inexcusable in view of what they know about God (vv. 19-20), and God is justified in pouring out his wrath upon them. The next section, vv. 21-25, will make this even more clear.

B. UNIVERSAL REJECTION OF THE TRUE GOD (1:21-25)

To answer the objection that the Gentiles are an exception to the need for grace, Paul is showing that they stand condemned under the law. First he shows that they do have true knowledge of the true God (vv. 19-20). Now he is showing that they have refused to accept this truth and have rejected the God who gave it to them (vv. 21-25). Verses 21-23 are an explanation of how they have suppressed the truth (v. 18), as are vv. 25 and 28.

1:21 This verse begins the explanation of why "men are without excuse": For although they knew God , they did not respond as such knowledge requires. This participial phrase sums up the point of vv. 19-20 and reaffirms the reality of the Gentiles' knowledge of God. Such knowledge in itself is not equivalent to salvation, as many mistakenly think. Even true knowledge of the true God (e.g., Acts 17:27) is not necessarily the intimate, personal, saving knowledge of which Jesus speaks in John 17:3. The sense here may be better conveyed thus: "For although they knew about God."

Despite their knowledge, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him . . . . These two responses - to glorify God and give him thanks - are the most basic of all human obligations toward the Creator. They are the fundamental precepts of God's law for mankind, and Paul's implication is that they are known to all people through general revelation alone.

What does it mean to glorify God as God? The Bible often speaks of the "glory" of God ( GC , 446-452), a term that is meant to sum up his collective greatness. God's glory is his infinite significance, the totality of his perfections, the fullness of his deity compressed into a single concept. Most specifically, his glory is his greatness as it is manifested and as it shines forth for all to see. To "glorify" God means simply to recognize, acknowledge, and bow down before this displayed glory in the spirit of worship, and to live the kind of life that causes others to do the same. As MacArthur (I:83) says, "We glorify him by praising his glory!"

It is often observed that to glorify God is man's highest good (his summum bonum ) and his highest obligation. It combines into one concept the requirements of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exod 20:3); the greatest commandment, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37); and the highest goal of life, "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness" (Matt 6:33). In this last passage "kingdom" should be understood in its basic sense of kingship or lordship ; our highest goal must be to honor God's lordship over all things. If glorifying God is man's highest obligation, then refusing to glorify God is man's worst sin.

The second response required by the knowledge of God received through the creation is to give him thanks. This is the only reasonable result of recognizing that this world is the product of an Almighty Creator, and that he stands behind all its bounty (Matt 5:45; Acts 14:17). Giving him thanks is simply acknowledging that he, rather than blind fortune or human merit, is the source of all life and blessings and happiness. By giving him thanks we renounce self-sufficiency and confess our dependence upon and indebtedness to him. This is the point of the simplest thanksgiving preceding a meal.

Taken together, these two basic obligations mirror God's twofold purpose for creating the universe in the first place, namely, to glorify himself and to share his goodness. See GC , 120-128.

Paul's main point, of course, is that even the Gentiles are responsible for obeying these two fundamental laws; but they have not done so. Instead of acting righteously upon the knowledge of God available to them, . . . their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened . The point is that they set their minds against God, and thus removed from the master plan or master program of all possible human knowledge the key element that makes sense of everything else. Their thinking is no longer the proper use of reason and logic, but is dialogismov" ( dialogismos ), a term that is used often in the NT and almost always in the negative sense of evil, devious, useless thinking. Instead of true thinking it is mere speculation and self-serving rationalization.

Paul calls such thinking "futile," vain, empty, worthless, pointless. The Greek word here is from the same word group which in the LXX is sometimes used for idols (e.g., Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15), i.e., they are empty nothings. The same is true of all godless thinking: it amounts to nothing; it reaches no valid conclusions. This is how the Gentiles think. Instead of building their worldviews on the reality of God, they build them on the sands of their own speculations.

Paul also says "their foolish hearts were darkened." In biblical language the heart is not just the emotional side of man, but the whole inner being encompassing all inner, spiritual activity such as thinking and willing. The "heart" is the source of thinking, and when the heart becomes "foolish" its thinking becomes futile. The word for "foolish" is also one of the sins listed in v. 31, where the NIV translates it as "senseless." It means void of understanding, or as Lard says, just plain stupid (55).

Their foolish hearts were "darkened." Since God is light (1 John 1:5), any heart that excludes God is literally in the dark. The light of God is purity, glory, and truth; when God is rejected there is only the darkness of ignorance and evil and eventually the outer darkness of hell (Matt 8:12; 22:13; Jude 13). See the parallel thought in Eph 4:17-18, which says the Gentiles live "in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."

1:22 This and the next verse continue the indictment of the Gentiles. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . . . Wisdom is knowing how to make the right choices and decisions based on available knowledge. Basically, it is knowing how to live. Those who reject God always think they are wise, and that their rejection of God is the highest evidence of it. They always think they are wiser than believers. They consider believers to be naive, gullible, foolish, illogical, and full of wishful thinking. They consider themselves to be sophisticated, unbiased, very intelligent, and guided by critical thinking. It is the nature of worldly wisdom to confuse real foolishness with real wisdom, and vice versa (1 Cor 1:18-2:8).

"They became fools" translates a verb from the Greek word family from which our word "moron" is derived. Thus they became foolish and moronic; they became "silly," says Lenski (104). They "made fools of themselves" (NEB). This applies especially to their moral reasoning, which can never be separated from how one thinks of God.

There could hardly be a more accurate and more damning description of the godless in any age, but especially of today's self-appointed scientific "experts" and arbiters of "culture." If these people were really wise, i.e., if they really knew how to live, they would glorify God and give him thanks.

1:23 This verse explains more specifically how the Gentiles became fools. They did it when they . . . exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles . Paul calls this an "exchange" (see vv. 25-26). People often measure their wisdom by the kind of deals or trades they make. Paul says the Gentiles have made a swap or an exchange, but it is not a very clever one. In fact, it is the worst possible exchange anyone could possibly make.

What have the Gentiles done? They have traded the real thing for the phony and useless. They have traded the true God for impotent idols. "The glory of the immortal God" is what they know through general revelation. The heavens declare his glory (Ps 19:1); the wonders of the earth display his power and majesty. As the true God he is immortal, which means he is eternal (see v. 20) because his nature is incorruptible and imperishable. He has always been and he always will be who he is, and therefore we can put absolute trust and confidence in him and his promises. Nothing is more valuable and precious than this. It is like the "pearl of great price": it is worth everything else to acquire and it must never be surrendered at any cost.

Yet this is what the Gentiles have exchanged - and for what? For images of men and birds and animals and reptiles! Not even actual men and birds and animals and reptiles, but just images of them. The Greek phrase is "the likeness of an image," or a likeness patterned after the form of these things. This refers to the grossest form of idolatry, the worship of manufactured statues of mere creatures.

Four kinds of idols are mentioned. Some are patterned after the human form, a common characteristic of pagan religions. The Greek gods of Olympus were pictured thus, as were some of the Egyptian deities. Rulers such as the Pharaohs and the Caesars were often given divine status. The other idols Paul mentions are patterned after three kinds of animals (see Acts 10:12): birds , such as the Egyptian gods Horus (a falcon) and Thoth (an ibis); animals (specifically quadrupeds), such as the bull (which was widely worshiped) and Egyptian deities such as Anubis (a jackal), Bastet (a cat), and Khnum (a ram); and reptiles . This last category is general enough to include the serpent (also widely worshiped) and the crocodile (Sobek in Egypt).

The characteristic shared by all these categories is mortality ; they are all corruptible and perishable. This is true not just of the idols or statues, but of the things themselves after which the idols are patterned. Man himself is mortal or perishable; only God has inherent immortality (1 Tim 6:16; see GC , 245-250). If God so willed, he could annihilate every human being, body and spirit. To reject the one true and immortal God and to worship any mortal thing is the epitome of stupidity. Isa 44:9-20 underscores the irony of such idolatry, in which a man cuts down a tree, burns part of it to cook his food and keep himself warm, then makes an idol out of the rest of it and falls down and worships it. (See Isa 46:6-7.) No wonder Paul says, "They became fools."

It would seem that Paul has already made his case by this time. He has declared that the Gentiles know truth about God, but they have suppressed and rejected it and have freely chosen to serve idols instead. Thus God is completely justified in pouring out his wrath upon them; judgment according to law shows them to be without excuse.

1:24 But Paul wants to make it perfectly clear; so now he returns to his point about the wrath of God (v. 18), and speaks of how this wrath is being revealed from heaven against the ungodly and unrighteous Gentiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts . . . . "Therefore" means that what has just been described in vv. 21-23 is why God has acted in wrath toward them.

Exactly what has befallen the Gentiles as the result of their rejection of God? Paul says "God gave them over" to the sinful lifestyle they were intent on pursuing (see vv. 26, 28). The Greek word (paradivdwmi , paradidômi ) is quite common and is used for all sorts of activities, including some works of God. In the LXX it is used for God's providential act of delivering Israel's enemies into their hands (Exod 23:31; Deut 7:23), and also for God's handing Israel over to these same enemies (Lev 26:25). God delivered Jesus over to his death (4:25; 8:32). Rom 6:17 says God hands believers over to a form of teaching. In Acts 7:42 Stephen says God gave idolatrous Israel over to her idolatry.

How does God "give someone over" to do evil? The basic answer is that in the working of his providence "he ceases to restrain them from evil or protect them against it." In other words, "he lets them alone to do as they please without hindrance from him in the matter of sin" (Lard, 57). In his permissive will he allows them to plunge headlong into what their evil hearts desire. This clearly implies, says Lard (57), "that till God gives a people up, they are always under his protecting care." He does providentially restrain individuals and even nations from going as far into sin as they would and could. We who honor him are probably not even aware of how often God has restrained us from destroying ourselves with our own folly.

But there comes a time when God withdraws his restraint, in whatever way he judges appropriate. This is probably the concept present in 2 Thess 2:6-7, which speaks of the mystery of lawlessness being restrained until that restraint is withdrawn for one last time at the end. It is reflected in Ps 78:29 and Ps 106:14-15, and in Hos 4:17, "Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone!" This is God's answer to the defiant sinners who mock him and challenge him to strike them dead if he is really there. God just turns his back on them. What could be more frightening than this?

Most commentators agree, though, that this "giving over" is not just a shrug of indifference by God; he is not just adopting a passive attitude while ceasing to do anything at all. In Murray's words, God's giving over "cannot be reduced to the notion of non-interference with the natural consequences of sin" (I:44). It is rather a deliberate, purposeful act by God.

On the other hand, we must not go to the opposite extreme and think that somehow God is causing the Gentiles to fall deeper into their sin. God does not cause anyone to do evil. Thus it is, as Lenski says (108), more than permission but less than causation.

Why does God do this at all? Some say the purpose of this "giving over" is ultimately redemptive, the assumption being that when men reach the depths of sin's degradation they will see the error of their way and seek for God's mercy (Morris, 88; Cranfield, I:121). There is no indication of this in the text, though. The giving over is presented as a purely punitive act, an act of divine retribution, a penalty that is deserved (see v. 27, "the due penalty"). Cranfield is right to insist that this does not mean that "God washed His hands of them," or that he "gave these men up for ever" (I:121). It is a judicial act, but it is not the final judgment. It does not cancel the missionary imperative, but rather intensifies it.

Paul continues his thought by saying that God gave the Gentiles over "in the sinful desires of their hearts." This is not what he gave them over to ; this is what was already existing in their hearts. "Finding them living in lust," God ceased to restrain them (MP, 304). In Eph 4:19 Paul uses the very same word (paradidômi ) that he uses here for God's act, but he uses it of the Gentiles themselves: already in their own hearts "they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more."

The word translated "sinful desires" basically means "strong desire," whether for something good (Luke 22:15; Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 2:17), or for something evil. It can be used for evil desire of any kind (1 Tim 6:9), but often connotes sexual lust in particular (e.g., 1 Thess 4:5; 2 Tim 3:6; 1 Pet 4:3). Using the word in its verbal form, this is what Jesus equates with committing adultery in the heart (Matt 5:28). The context of 1:24 shows that Paul is using the word here in the sense of sexual lust.

What, then, did God give the Gentiles over to ? Because of their idolatry, and in their lustful condition, God gave them over to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another . The desires are already there; the punitive action is that God withdraws his restraints and lets them act out their fantasies in a sexually impure lifestyle. The word is ajkaqarsiva ( akatharsia ), which means impurity or uncleanness, and which is often used with the specific connotation of sexual impurity (see 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Col 3:5). This is probably the case here, given the references to lust, to the misuse of the body, and to homosexuality. Thus the NIV properly translates it as "sexual impurity." This is not a condemnation of sex as such, but of sex out of control, outside the restraints of God's law.

Such unbridled, unrestrained sex is a degradation of the body, says Paul (see 1 Cor 6:18). The word translated "degrading" is ajtimavzw (atimazô ), meaning "to dishonor, to debase, to disgrace, to degrade." It is the opposite of timavw (timaô ), which means "to honor, to give honor to." When God is not honored as Creator (vv. 21, 23), there is no longer any reason to respect and honor one's body as a creation of God and as a gift from God. There is no need for a sense of stewardship of the body, no acknowledgment of God's purposes for it in all its parts, including the genitals (see 6:19). Thus we see all manner of abuse of the body among those who reject God, especially all manner of sexual abuse and degradation.

We may recall here that this "handing over" to sexual impurity is a punitive act. Some may wonder how allowing someone to do what his heart desires is a penalty. But let us not forget that God hands the Gentiles over not just to their sins but also to the consequences of their sins (see vv. 24b, 27b), to which degraded and abused bodies are a witness. As Dunn says, God did not "give them their desires, rather he gave them to what they desired and the consequences of what they desired" (I:73). As MacArthur (I:100) points out, these consequences range from the grossly physical, such as venereal disease, to spiritual ones such as "loneliness, frustration, meaninglessness, anxiety, and despair." Sinners usually do not think much about such consequences until it is too late.

The entire process described here illustrates the principle briefly mentioned earlier, that idolatry is the precursor of immorality in the sense of cause and effect (Bruce, 82). When men reject the true God, this leads to more and more excesses of immorality. "The more base the perception of God, the more base the worship and corresponding conduct appropriate to it" (Dunn, I:63). "Religious degeneration is penalized by abandonment to immorality; sin in the religious realm is punished by sin in the moral sphere" (Murray, I:43).

This is obviously true, but it is not the whole story. Paul says the lust is already in the Gentiles' hearts when God gives them over to a full expression of it. Thus it is just as true to say that immorality leads to idolatry. Why are people so anxious to exchange the truth of God for idols and false gods? Because they have evil lusts they want to act out and justify, with no sense of guilt and fear of punishment. But they cannot do this under the eye of the true God! What is the solution? Get a new god. I once asked a campus minister why Eastern (oriental) religions are so popular among college students. His reply was that, for the most part, these religions make no moral demands. As Dunn (I:73) suggests, the desire to be free from the true God is really just the desire for "freedom to indulge in immorality."

In either case MacArthur (I:86) is right on target: "Spiritual darkness and moral perversity are inseparable. When man forfeits God, he forfeits virtue. The godless philosophy of the world inescapably leads to moral perversion, because unbelief and immorality are inextricably intertwined."

1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Before Paul continues his emphasis on the depths of sin to which God has delivered the Gentiles, he again returns to their rejection of the true God. At this point the reader might be wondering, are these people really so bad that they deserve being rejected by God as v. 24 describes? Paul stops to remind us that, yes, they really are this bad; they do deserve to be rejected by God, because they first rejected him.

Verse 25 begins with a relative pronoun, "who," or "the ones who." Yes, these very ones whom God gave over are the same ones who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie," as described in vv. 21-23. Here the author repeats the indictment brought against them in those verses, especially v. 23.

"The truth of God" is variously interpreted as "the true God" (NEB), truth from God (Lard, 58), and truth about God (NRSV). All of these concepts fit the context, but Paul probably had the last one in mind specifically. The Gentiles exchanged the truth about God they knew from general revelation, the truth "that God was the creator and thus the natural object of worship" (DeWelt, 30).

This truth was exchanged for a lie. Some note that the Greek has the definite article, " the lie" (Morris, 90). All sin is a lie, but idolatry is the supreme lie, the basic lie that leads to all other lies. In Isa 44:20 an idol itself is called a lie. On the other hand, the existence of the true God is the supreme truth (see Heb 11:6). In the title of his book The God Who Is There Francis Schaeffer reminds us that the very reality of God is the starting point for all thinking, the elemental framework for the only valid worldview.

In the end the Gentiles not only suppress the truth (v. 18), but exchange it for a lie. Actually one is not possible without the other. The rejection of truth leaves a vacuum which will inevitably be filled by the most convenient lie.

Paul then summarizes the practical nature of this exchange, saying the Gentiles "worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." This repeats the idea of v. 23. The word for "worshiped" (sebavzomai , sebazomai ) is used only here in the NT, but it and other words in the same word family (see asebeia in v. 18) all refer to the worship and adoration of God, which of course should be reserved for the true God. The word for "served" (see 1:9) refers to external religious service and worship practices.

According to God's original plan for man and the rest of creation, man was supposed to worship and serve God alone while ruling over and subduing the whole world (Gen 1:26-28). Idolatry constitutes an upheaval and reversal of this creation order. Man, the intended lord of creation, deliberately makes himself religiously subservient to some created thing and thereby becomes a slave to the material world in general.

To worship and serve any created thing rather than the Creator is again the epitome of stupidity (see Isa 44:9-20 again). The importance of acknowledging God as the transcendent Creator cannot be overemphasized. It is absolutely fundamental to everything else; it is the primary truth in the biblical worldview. To realize the distinction between the creature (including oneself) and the Creator is the basis of all piety and morality. By denying the Creator his rightful place, idolatry strikes at the very root and foundation of truth.

In the face of such impiety Paul cannot suppress words of worship for the Creator, "who is forever praised." In other places he offers doxologies directly to God (11:36; 16:25-27; 2 Cor 9:15; Eph 3:20-21). Sometimes he simply pauses to remind us of the blessed nature of God; this is called a benediction (9:5; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3). The latter is what he is doing here. The word "praised" is literally "blessed," in the sense that he is worthy of praise, or worthy of having good things said about him. As we sometimes sing, "Blessed be the name of the Lord." God is thus worthy to be praised forever , says Paul, in spite of man's attempts to deny him.

To this he adds an "amen" for emphasis. The English "amen" is a transliteration of the Greek word, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word signifying solemn agreement or confirmation. Its basic meaning has to do with truth. As Paul uses it here, it is equivalent to "It's the truth!"

It is important that we pause here and remind ourselves that although Paul is primarily concerned with the Gentiles in this passage, everything he says applies just as validly to those who know God and his law through special revelation also.

C. THE UTTER DEPTHS OF GENTILE DEPRAVITY (1:26-32)

In this section Paul continues to show why the Gentiles are without excuse. He catalogs the horrible depths to which sinners sink when God abandons them to their wicked lifestyles. He stresses that even as they do these things, they know in their hearts that they are doing wrong and that they deserve the final penalty of death (v. 32).

Paul is not affirming that every individual Gentile is guilty of all the sins cataloged here. He is rather showing just how far darkened hearts can and often do go when they reject the light available to them. Not all cultures and not all individuals will fall this far, but many have and many will (Gen 6:5; 18:20; Ps 2:1-3). Tragically, as we read our newspapers and newsmagazines, and as we watch the daily news broadcasts, we cannot avoid the conclusion that many segments of our own modern culture are frighteningly close to the ugly picture Paul draws for us here.

1:26 Here the cause-and-effect relation between idolatry and God's punitive response is affirmed again. Because of this , i.e., because of their rejection of the Creator (v. 25), God gave them over to shameful lusts . This sums up v. 24. "Lusts" here is equivalent to "sinful desires" there. In other Greek literature this word (pavqo" , pathos ) does not always refer to lustful sexual passion, but it does in its three NT occurrences (here; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:5). The use of the modifier "shameful" makes this clear here. This word, actually a noun (ajtimiva , atimia ) is equivalent to the verb translated "degrading" in v. 24. It means "dishonor, contempt, shame, disgrace." Thus Paul is saying God gave them over to act out their dark passions in the most shameful and dishonorable ways.

As a prime example of these "shameful lusts" Paul specifically names homosexuality. The fact that he singles this out for condemnation, and the fact that he spells it out so thoroughly, indicate that this is the most shameful of the sexual lusts that run wild when God is rejected. MacArthur calls it "the most degrading and repulsive of all passions" (I:104). (We should note that what Paul is describing here are homosexual acts and practices, not necessarily homosexual inclination or the homosexual condition in itself. A person may exist with recognized homosexual tendencies, but not be guilty of sin unless he allows this condition to lead him into homosexual lusts and practices.)

Paul includes both female and male homosexuality in these "shameful lusts." Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones . This is the only specific biblical reference to lesbianism. Paul says " Even their women" are guilty of this sin. The Greek particles linking vv. 26 and 27 (te . . . te , te . . . te ) mean "not only . . . but also" or "both . . . and." This puts the females and the males on the same base level, says Lenski (113).

Contrary to the NIV, neither here nor in v. 27 does Paul use the Greek words for "women" and "men," since these words can also mean "wives" and "husbands." Instead he chooses the terms "females" and "males." This is probably because the kind of sex he is talking about has no relation to what God intended for human beings in the husband-wife relationship; indeed it is the very antithesis of it. Also, the terms "women" and "men" have a distinctively human connotation, but those who engage in homosexual acts have succumbed to raw animal passion.

The exchanging of natural for unnatural sex echoes the earlier references to exchanging truth about God for false deities (vv. 23, 25). Except for the omission of the prefix meta in v. 23, the same verb is used in all three verses. This shows that homosexuality is as unnatural and as worthy of condemnation as idolatry. It also illustrates the principle stressed earlier, that substitute gods and degenerate morality go together.

The term crh'si" (chrçsis ), translated "relations" in the NIV, is used in the NT only here and in v. 27. Its general meaning is "use" or "function" (as the NASB has it). But in secular Greek it was often a euphemism for sexual intercourse (see the NRSV). This is no doubt how Paul uses it here, as the NIV implies in rendering it "relations." The references to sexual sin in vv. 24, 26a, and the clear reference to the equivalent male homosexuality in v. 27, make this conclusive. In straightforward terms, v. 26b reads, "Their females exchanged natural sex for unnatural sex."

The term "natural" (fusikov" , physikos ) must be understood here and in v. 27 as meaning "according to God's created order" (see Stott, 78). "Unnatural" is literally "against nature" (paraΙ fuvsi" , para physis ) and means what is contrary to the natural order of things as God intended them and created them in the beginning. This is the only meaning consistent with the present context. The main subject of this whole section is the Gentiles' knowledge of God as Creator and the knowledge of his basic ordinances for his human creatures. Thus the context requires us to understand natural sex as sex according to "God's creative intent" (Moo, I:109; see Cranfield, I:125-126). When one gives up the Creator (v. 25), he likewise gives up the creation ordinances, which include the husband-wife relationship as the intended context for sex. Also, we must remember that this verse says that lesbian sex is unnatural sex, and unnatural sex is the essence of the "shameful lusts" to which God has delivered the Gentiles in his punitive wrath. "When these factors are considered, it is clear that Paul depicts homosexual activity as a violation of God's created order, another indication of the departure from true knowledge and worship of God" (Moo, I:110).

It is very important to emphasize these connotations for "natural" and "unnatural," because contemporary pro-homosexual interpreters attempt to give these terms entirely different meanings here. They insist that Paul uses these words to refer to what is natural and unnatural for particular individuals , not for human beings in general. They say that heterosexual sex is what is natural for most human beings, i.e., it is their felt inclination. For these and these alone, homosexual sex is unnatural and therefore wrong. However, for some human beings homosexual sex is their felt inclination; therefore it is natural for them and is not wrong. Paul is not talking about this "natural" homosexuality at all. As Boswell claims, "Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" ( Christianity , 109; see 107-114).

As we have emphasized, the context of 1:26-27 simply will not allow this interpretation. Also, Paul does not say the women exchanged what was natural for them for what was against their own nature. The terms "natural" and "unnatural" are not limited or qualified in any way. See the discussion and refutation of Boswell's view in Stott (77-78) and in DeYoung, "Meaning."

1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. This verse is an impassioned denunciation of male homosexuality. This sin is clearly named and condemned in other places in the Bible, but in none as emphatically as here. The word oJmoivw" (homoiôs ) at the beginning of the verse, translated "in the same way," indicates an equivalence between female and male homosexuality; before God one is as bad as the other.

Expanding on his description of homosexual males ("gays"), Paul says they "were inflamed with lust for one another." They "burned in their desire" (NASB); they "were consumed with passion" (NRSV). Both Greek words in this expression are used only here in the NT. "Lust" is a specific form of the "sinful desires" of v. 24, and is equivalent to the "shameful lusts" in v. 26. To be inflamed with such lust is to be dominated and driven by an uncontrolled and all-consuming desire for homosexual contact. MacArthur correctly remarks (I:105), "There is a burning level of lust among homosexuals that beggars description and is rarely known among heterosexuals." Anyone who can stand to read descriptions of sexual practices in the homosexual subculture will readily agree with this statement. This does not mean that everyone with homosexual tendencies gives way to them; but when this does occur, it is like a forest fire out of control. As Lenski observes (115), "The moment God is taken out of the control of men's life the stench of sex aberration is bound to arise. . . . Without God sex runs wild."

Men committed indecent acts with other men . . . ; literally, "males . . . with males." The catalog of "indecent acts" engaged in by male homosexuals is shocking and disgusting; they need not be named here. The Greek word for this expression is used in the NT only here and in Rev 16:15; cognates are found in 1 Cor 7:36; 12:23; 13:5. These words are often used to refer to the indecent and shameful exposure of the genitals (Dunn 1:65).

As a result of these indecent acts, they . . . received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion . This is a difficult clause, but its point is that homosexuals who indulge their wild passions get what they deserve; they reap what they sow; they suffer the deserved consequences of their perversion. This is not a reference to the final judgment, but to the infliction of divine wrath that comes in the form of historical circumstances.

The word "received" is an emphatic form of a common word and often means, as here, "to receive back, to receive in return," i.e., to receive as the fitting result of their actions. Cranfield says it "emphasizes the deservedness of the punishment" (I:127). This verb's object, "the due penalty," also clearly refers to deserved punishment. Gays deservedly receive the recompense due to them as specified by the Creator's law.

How may we understand this "due penalty" or recompense? Some think the sexual perversion itself is its own penalty, or at least is the just penalty for their rejection of God (Cranfield, I:126-127; Morris, 93). It seems more likely, though, that Paul is referring to some punitive consequences distinct from the homosexual acts as such, consequences they experience "in themselves" or "in their own persons" (NASB) as a form of the very wrath of God (v. 18).

There is scarcely any sin that subjects its perpetrators to more severe "deserved penalties" than male homosexuality. Is AIDS an example of this? Assuredly so. MacArthur is correct (I:107): "The appalling physical consequences of homosexuality are visible evidence of God's righteous condemnation. Unnatural vice brings its own perverted reward. AIDS is frightening evidence of that fatal promise." This is not to say that God deliberately created the HIV virus as a specific penalty for male homosexuals. As it exists under the curse (8:18-22), the world is full of all sorts of bacteria, viruses, and ailments that are a threat to all of us under certain conditions. The fact is, though, that certain practices, especially sinful practices, openly invite these maladies to strike us down. Licentious, promiscuous sex has always reaped the deserved harvest of sexually transmitted diseases; AIDS is just the latest version of this and male homosexuals are especially vulnerable to it.

We should understand, then, that AIDS is just one - albeit a fatal one - of many serious health consequences homosexuals have always received back as a due penalty for their perversion. Long before AIDS entered the picture, homosexual practices focusing on the anus and excrement have kept gay men in a constant state of health crisis. Lenski correctly comments (116-117) that the homosexuals' "recompense is the vicious effect of the unnatural sexual vices upon men's own bodies and their minds, corrupting, destroying, disintegrating. . . . It is noteworthy that in the Scriptures as in human experience sexual sins, and not only the worst form of these, carry a special curse; they not only disgrace, they wreck; their punishment is direct, wretched, severe." This is why Paul treats this sin separately and does not just include it in the listing in vv. 29-31.

Paul speaks of the due penalty for their "perversion." The word used here is sometimes translated "error" (NASB, NRSV), but Bruce (85) is right; this is "too weak a noun" for what Paul has in mind. The word refers to wandering or roaming; figuratively it refers to wandering from the path of truth and morality. "Perversion" or "deviancy" captures the meaning very well in this context.

Except for his use of "error," Dunn's paraphrase of 27b is clearly on target: "receiving in return in themselves the penalty which matches the deed and which is proper to their error" (74). He also well sums up the thrust of this whole section: "The divinely ordered punishment for sin is to be handed over to the power of that sin, to be left to its consequences" (65).

1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. "Furthermore" translates the simple word kaiv ( kai ), "and." This verse does not add anything new but just reiterates what has been said thus far in vv. 18-27. It repeats the cause-and-effect principle resulting in God's giving the Gentiles over to unrestrained sin. As vv. 18, 21, 23 and 25 have already stressed, they have dismissed the true God from their worldview. This is portrayed as a deliberate decision to the effect that the whole idea of a transcendent Creator-God is not "worthwhile," or is worthless. The word is dokimavzw (dokimazô ), which means "to test, to examine, to judge, to approve, to deem worthy, to see fit." This is stated as a negative: they did not approve of the truth about God; they did not think it worthy or fit to hold on to; they weighed the idea of God in the balances and found it wanting. Remember: "They became fools" (v. 22).

God's response to such presumptuous folly is that he gave them over "to a depraved mind" in return. The word for "depraved" is ajdovkimo" ( adokimos ), which means "useless, failing the test, disqualified, worthless" (see 1 Cor 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5-7). This is a play on words and a matter of extreme irony (compare dokimazô and adokimos ). They judged God to be a worthless idea, so God gave them over to their own worthless speculations. The mind that judges God to be worthless is itself worthless.

The last part of the verse, "to do what ought not to be done," again shows that faulty speculations about God directly affect moral theory and behavior. As Cranfield says, "The adokimos nous is a mind so debilitated and corrupted as to be a quite untrustworthy guide in moral decisions" (I:128). The fact is that the reality of the transcendent Creator-God is the starting point and the sine qua non of all valid ethics. Without him, there is no basis either for absolute ethical obligation or for absolute ethical norms ( GC , 163-171). Without God, the only consistent ethic is some version of "might makes right."

"Ought (not) to be done" is from a word group which in the Greek philosophy of Paul's day referred to conduct proper for human beings, or "what is fitting, what is one's duty, what is in harmony with nature" (Dunn, I:66). I.e., this is how human beings act according to their nature as human beings. Not to do these things regarded as proper is to contradict one's own humanity. Thus the depraved mind that "banishes God not only loses godliness; he loses manhood too" (Barclay, 26).

1:29-31 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. In establishing the utter depravity of the Gentiles Paul has already given specific attention to the practice of homosexuality. Now in v. 29 he begins a long list of other sins that are characteristic of those who reject God. The list is not meant to be complete, nor is every sinner guilty of all the vices listed. Those listed are not meticulously chosen and organized so as to form the basis for a handbook on ethics. The terms sometimes overlap. They are not meant to offer any new teaching about right and wrong, but are representative of what Dunn calls the "conventional morality" already widely recognized (I:67). In this context the list is meant to make an overall impression regarding the sinfulness and guilt of the Gentile world, as much as it is intended to give us moral instruction. Such a list - a "catalog of vices" - was not uncommon even in the secular literature of the time; and several such lists appear elsewhere in the NT, though none is as extensive as this one. (See references in Dunn, I:67; Hendriksen, I:80.)

Paul's list falls into three main groups in terms of grammatical form, as follows. The first four sins are the objects of the participle translated "They have been filled with" (v. 29). The next five are in a sense objects of the adjective translated "They are full of" (mestov" , mestos ) in the same verse. (These sins do not occur just once in a while; the Gentile world is filled with them. This double reference to "filled" indicates the prevalence and depth of the lawlessness that permeates the world.) The remaining sins are formally parallel; they are all accusative plural forms in grammatical agreement with "them" in v. 28. The final four sins in this part of the list all share the negating alpha. What follows here are brief comments setting forth the essence of each sin.

Wickedness (ajdikiva , adikia ). The list begins with a very general term that may be like a heading over the rest, as the modifier "every kind of" may suggest. This is the term used twice in v. 18. It is a general term for unrighteousness or transgression of God's law.

Evil (ponhriva , ponçria ). This is another general term, often occurring in contrast with "good." It is used often of Satan and his demons. It describes the inner nature of a person who delights in acting in ways that oppose God and goodness, and who puts his evil desires into practice.

Greed (pleonexiva , pleonexia). This word is more specific than the first two, but is not as specific as "covetousness," which is often how it is translated. Covetousness is usually directed toward something specific (Exod 20:17), but greed is the insatiable desire to accumulate more and more things in general, without regard for the rights and needs of others. Col 3:5 says that this sin is idolatry, because acquisition of things becomes one's god.

Depravity (kakiva , kakia ). This is another very general term, difficult to distinguish from wickedness and evil. Barclay says it is "the most general Greek word for badness. . . . It is the degeneracy out of which all sins grow and in which all sins flourish" (27-28).

Envy (fqovno" , phthonos ). As covetousness is directed toward a specific object, so envy is directed toward a specific person. It means not just wanting what another person has, but also resenting that person for having it. It is an attitude of ill-will and jealousy that leads to division and strife and even murder. (See the next few sins.)

Murder (fovno" , phonos ), killing, the unlawful taking of someone's life. We should remember the NT teaching that hate and groundless anger are also forms of murder (Matt 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15).

Strife (e[ri" , eris ), contention, rivalry, wrangling. This refers to someone who has a quarrelsome disposition, someone who is always looking for an argument or a fight.

Deceit (dovlo" , dolos ), guile, treachery, cunning, hypocrisy. Its absence in Nathaniel was so remarkable that Jesus commented on it (John 1:47), which indicates how difficult it must be to avoid this sin.

Malice (kakohqeiva , kakoçtheia ). This is another general term, translated variously as malignity, malevolence, spite, meanness, evil-naturedness. Barclay (29) cites Aristotle's specific definition, i.e., "the spirit which always supposes the worst about other people." Cranfield doubts Paul would use it in this special sense, though (I:130). Hendriksen says it indicates "the desire to harm people" (I:81).

The next ten Greek words are usually taken as referring to eight different sins, the first six words all referring to six separate sins, and the last four words referring to two sins in two-word combinations. Lenski (120-122) follows an interpretation that sees all ten words as forming five two-word combinations, yielding only five sins instead of eight: slanderous whisperers, God-hated insolents, arrogant boasters, inventors of evil, and disobeyers of parents. This suggestion has merit, but most interpreters follow the former approach.

Gossips (yiquristhv" , psithuristçs ), literally, "whisperers," or those who whisper gossip into someone's ear behind another's back. They are talebearers, rumormongers, "whisperers-behind-doors" (Phillips) who spread their slanders secretly.

Slanderers (katavlalo" , katalalos ), literally, those who speak against others. Phillips translates it "stabbers-in-the-back." This is the same idea as the previous word, except the gossip or slander is open and public, not secret.

God-haters (qeostughv" , theostugçs ). This word usually means "hateful to God" and thus does not seem to fit in a list of sins. This is one reason Lenski and others say the sins in this section are all two-word combinations, thus, "God-hated insolents." Most interpreters just assume that Paul gives the word a new twist here, hence, "God-haters." This certainly fits the context as a whole.

Insolent (uJbristhv" , hybristçs ). The person guilty of this sin is one who has a very high and arrogant opinion of himself, coupled with a very low and contemptuous opinion of others. It is "a lofty sense of superiority out of which the insolent person treats all others as beneath him" (Morris, 97-98). It is the attitude of a bully that leads him to use and abuse others, and run roughshod over the weak.

Arrogant (uJperhvfano" , hyperçphanos ), proud, haughty. This is the opposite of humble. It refers to a person who in his own mind sees himself as being far above others and as having no need of God. This is similar to the previous vice, but without the mean spirit toward others.

Boastful (ajlazwvn , alazôn ). This refers to a person who brags about himself, often going beyond the truth in an effort to impress others. It is someone who vaunts "himself in the possession of skill . . . or knowledge, or courage, or virtue, or riches, or whatever else it might be, which were not truly his" (Trench, Synonyms , 99).

They invent ways of doing evil , literally, "inventors of evil." Barclay says, "This phrase describes the man who . . . is not content with the usual, ordinary ways of sinning, but . . . seeks some new thrill in some new sin" (31).

They disobey their parents . In view of biblical teaching, (e.g., Exod 20:12; Eph 6:2) we should not be surprised to see Paul include this in a list of vices. It shows how important family integrity and submission to authority are in God's plan for mankind.

The last four words in the list are rhetorically linked by the negating alpha; all are adjectives used as nouns. They lend themselves to clever translations, e.g., "without brains, honor, love, or pity" (New Jerusalem Bible); "foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (RSV, NRSV).

Senseless (ajsuvneto" , asunetos ), foolish (see v. 21). This refers not to one who lacks intelligence, but to one who refuses to use his God-given mind in a common-sense, God-honoring way. "It refers to those who act stupidly" in reference to God and morality (Morris, 98), or those who cannot "put two and two together in the moral life" (Lenski, 122).

Faithless (ajsuvnqeto" , asunthetos ), unreliable, disloyal, dishonest, untrustworthy, treacherous. This is a person who will not keep his word or meet his obligations, a covenant breaker.

Heartless (a[storgo" , astorgos ). This is an unfortunate translation, a much too general term for a specific vice. A person who is astorgos is one who lacks storgç , which means "natural family affection, love for family members," especially the love that ties parents and children together. When it is absent the results are such things as abortion, infanticide, child abuse, fratricide, and matricide.

Ruthless (ajnelehvmwn , aneleçmôn ), merciless, pitiless, callous, unfeeling toward others. This is a person who simply does not care when others are in need or are suffering. Morris perceptively remarks, "It is significant that, in an epistle that will stress God's mercy throughout, the list of vices should be rounded off with 'merciless'. This is the very depth of evil" (99).

1:32 This brings us back to the main point of this section, and it carries the description of Gentile depravity to its final depths. First, Paul specifically affirms the fact that the Gentiles have enough knowledge of God's law to be judged and condemned by: Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death . . . . The subject of this clause is the relative pronoun oi{tine" ( hoitines ), "the ones who," i.e., "These sinners I have just been naming are the very ones who know these things are contrary to God's law." This is a participial clause and is rightly introduced by "although" in the NIV.

The knowledge Paul attributes to the Gentiles here is twofold. First, they know that such things as he has just mentioned are wrong. Second, they know that those who do such things "deserve death." In other words, they know not only the commandments of the moral law, but also its penalty . They are indeed without excuse.

The "righteous decree" of God refers specifically to the part about the penalty. God has ordained that those who commit these sins deserve to die. The word is dikaivwma (dikaiôma , from the dik- word family, denoting righteousness), which means a decree or ordinance that is righteous and just. It is a righteous decree because those who sin are worthy of death; they deserve it. Also, the Gentiles' knowledge of this decree is not just abstract; they know it as God's righteous ordinance.

What kind of death is known to be ordained by this decree? The Gentiles definitely have the conviction that certain crimes are worthy of capital punishment, or physical death. This was a prominent feature of Roman law (see Luke 23:15, 41; Acts 23:29; 25:11, 25; 26:31). Could this be what Paul is referring to? The problem with this is that most of the sins in this vice list are not considered worthy of death in secular law codes. Thus the death of which Paul speaks must be more than judicially-imposed capital punishment.

Another possibility is that this knowledge is an inherent awareness that physical death as such is a righteous divine penalty for such sins, a fact affirmed in the Bible (5:12; 8:10). But Murray is right (I:51) that it must be more than this. This knowledge must also include a similar awareness that there will be a final judgment before the Creator and Law-giver, where all will have to answer for these sins and be justly condemned to eternal death for committing them. The concept of such a final judgment and divine retribution is widespread in pagan religions. See Cranfield, I:134.

The question is, whence comes all this knowledge in the Gentile mind? The Gentiles (by definition) have had no access to some specially-revealed form of God's moral law, such as the Law of Moses. Nor can we suppose that Paul is talking about an "unperished tradition" kept intact in every heart in every generation since Adam and Noah (contra Lard, 67). The only revelation Paul is assuming in this section is the general revelation that is available to the consciousness from the phenomena of creation. Can such revelation yield the kind of knowledge of which v. 32 speaks?

No, not by itself. But there is another aspect of general revelation not mentioned in this section but brought out later in 2:14-15. In these verses Paul speaks of the work of the law written in the heart, and of the conscience. From these two internal sources (inherent in every person by virtue of our being created in God's image), combined with the knowledge of the Creator derived from external general revelation, comes the knowledge to which 1:32 refers. The very sense of right and wrong, and the conviction that wrong deserves a penalty, "is ineradicably embedded in the human conscience" (Lenski, 124). The content of the moral law, i.e., the knowledge that specific acts are wrong, also comes from within. The knowledge that these things are wrong before God and will be judged by him comes from the knowledge of the Creator known from his visible creation.

Thus Paul makes his case that the Gentiles are without excuse, and are no exception to the general rule that no one will be accepted by God according to the terms of law. Verse 32 just adds the capstone to his argument. As Thielman says, "The Gentile world deserves the condemnation that God's just requirement pronounces on those who sin: Gentiles are ignorant neither of God's requirements nor of the penalty for transgressing those requirements. The Gentile world, then, is without excuse" ( Paul , 169).

Paul ends this verse and this section about the Gentiles by adding one more comment on the depth of their depravity: they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . Here Paul indicates that there is something worse than committing the sins named here. Some have said that Paul means this: that approving of and applauding such sins is at least as bad as, if not worse than, actually doing them. This is because the latter may be the result of circumstantial pressures and spur-of-the-moment passions, while the former comes from a deep-seated and dispassionate commitment to evil. (See Cranfield, I:133-135; Moo, 1:116.) The other approach, reflected in most translations and favored here, is that what is worse than just committing these sins is both committing them and encouraging others to commit them as well. (See Hendriksen, I:82; Morris, 100.)

Either way Paul makes it clear that applauding and encouraging indulgence in sin is a serious aspect of the depravity of the Gentile world. The word means "to be pleased along with, to consent with, to give approval to, to applaud." Paul uses this very word to describe his participation in Stephen's death, though he did not throw any stones (Acts 22:20; see Acts 8:1). What makes this so evil is well described by Cranfield: "Those who condone and applaud the vicious actions of others are actually making a deliberate contribution to the setting up of a public opinion favourable to vice, and so to the corruption of an indefinite number of other people" (I:135). The best modern example of this is the plethora of movies, TV programs, books, musicians, and entertainers in general who openly and brazenly promote all the forms of ungodliness and wickedness described here, and more.

CONCLUSION

Another way to present the material in 1:18-32 is this: ONE: General Revelation from the Creator to the Gentiles (1:18-20; 2:14-15). TWO: General Rebellion by the Gentiles against the Creator (1:21-32). THREE: General Rejection of the Gentiles by the Creator (1:24, 26, 28).

Though 1:18-32 applies particularly to the Gentiles (or those who have general revelation only), the fact is that every point made in this passage applies even more emphatically to those who have special revelation also. As far as the rejection of God and abandonment to wickedness are concerned, those in the latter group can reject both the general and the special revelation, and can be given over to depravity the same as the Gentiles. This has happened to many individuals in this group, but not to the group as a whole as in the case of the Gentiles.

Insofar as 1:18-32 is a description of the Gentile world as such, it is not just a description of the Greco-Roman world as Paul observed it in his time. It is a Holy Spirit-inspired description of the condition of the pagan world from the Fall up until now. It has just as much application today as it had in Paul's day, and the bottom line is still the same: they are without excuse.

The implications of this are extremely relevant for missions. Still today, many people try to find some way to excuse the many pagan idolaters (the "heathen," the unevangelized) remaining in the world. One view is that they do not know God so they cannot be held responsible. Paul specifically refutes this view. A second approach is that pagans do know God, and at least some have honored and served him well enough to be saved. Paul specifically refutes this false idea also. A third view grants that all pagans are condemned by the law of general revelation, but says that God will save them anyway if (and because) they have never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus and the way of grace.

This last view in effect misses the whole point of this passage. Whether individuals have or have not heard the gospel is not the issue. Whether they will be saved or lost depends not on what they have not heard, but on what they have heard. They will be judged according to the light they have, not the light they do not have. Paul's whole point is that they do have the light of God's moral law through general revelation; therefore they are without excuse if they do not keep it. The fact is, they have not kept it but have rejected God and have become thoroughly sinful. Thus they are under God's wrath (v. 18), not his grace. As Morris says, "Our condemnation in each case lies in the fact that we have sinned against the light we have, not against the light we have never received" (79).

The missionary imperative could not be made more plain than it is in Romans 1:18-32. We deceive ourselves if we hold out false hope for the unevangelized based on their non-hearing of the gospel. Listen to Moo (I:93):

Every person is "without excuse" because every person - whether a first-century pagan or a twentieth-century materialist - has been given a knowledge of God and has spurned that knowledge in favor of idolatry, in all its varied manifestations. All therefore stand under the awful reality of the wrath of God, and all are in desperate need of the justifying power of the gospel of Christ. We will never come to grips with the importance of the gospel, or be motivated as we should be to proclaim it, until this sad truth has been made part and parcel of our world view.

McGarvey: Rom 1:23

and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things . [Vaunting their wisdom, these wicked ones made fools of themselves, so that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man, or even images of baser things, as birds, beasts and reptiles. The audacity of the attempt to reason God out of existence has invariably turned the brain of man (Psa 53:1), and the excess of self-conceit and vanity developed by such an undertaking has uniformly resulted in pitiable folly. In the case of the ancients it led to idolatry. Reiche contended that idolatry preceded monotheism, and that the better was developed out of the worse; but history sustains Paul in presenting idolatry as a decline from a purer form of worship "For," says Meyer, "heathenism is not the primeval religion from which man might gradually have risen to the true knowledge of the wisdom of God, but is, on the contrary, the result of a falling away from the known original revelation of the true God in his works." Paul does not say that they exchanged the "form" of God for that of an idol, for God is sensuously perceived as glory, or shekinah, rather than as form. Hence, Moses asked to see, not the form, but the glory of God (Exo 33:18-22). The Greeks and Romans preferred the human form as the model for their idols, but the Egyptians chose the baser, doubtless because, having been longer engaged in the practice of idolatry, their system was more fully developed in degradation. The ibis, the bull, the serpent and the crocodile of the Egyptians give us the complements of Paul's catalogue. Schaff sees in the phrase "likeness of an image" a double meaning, and interprets it thus: "The expression refers both to the grosser and the more refined forms of idolatry; common people saw in the idols the gods themselves; the cultivated heathen regarded them as symbolical representations."]

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 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 1:1, Paul commends his calling to the Romans; Rom 1:9, and his desire to come to them; Rom 1:16, What his gospel is; Rom 1:18, God is angry with sin; Rom 1:21, What were the sins of the gentiles.

Poole: Romans 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

The penman of this Epistle, viz. Paul, was so called (as some think) because he was little or low of stature. Others suppose he had this name first given him upon the converting of Sergius Paulus the deputy; of which see Act 12:1-25 , and Hierom. Com. in Ep. ad Philem. But others are of opinion, that his name was not changed at all, and that he had two names, as all those Jews had who were freemen of Rome. The text in Act 13:9 doth favour this opinion; there you read of Saul, who was also called Paul. (So John was surnamed, or also called, Mark, Act 12:12,25 .) And because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and his work lay mostly amongst them, he was called at last altogether by his surname, or Roman title.

As to the order of it: all are agreed, that it was not written as it is placed in our Bibles: that the Epistles to the Thessalonians, to the Corinthians, and other of his Epistles, were written before this; and the reason why it is placed before the other Epistles is, because of the dignity of the Romans, to whom it was directed; Rome being, at that time, the imperial city: or, because of the prolixity and largeness of it, this being the longest of all the Epistles: or, because of the excellency and fulness of it; so full and excellent is this Epistle, that some have called it "the marrow of divinity". Chrysostom had such an esteem of it, that he caused it to be read to him twice every week. Melancthon called it "the confession of the churches"; he is reported to have gone over it ten several times in his ordinary lectures. Mr. Perkins adviseth, in the reading of the Scriptures, to begin with the Gospel of John, and this Epistle to the Romans, as being the keys of the New Testament.

The subject matter of it seems to be much the same with the Epistle to the Galatians. The body of this Epistle (not to speak any thing of the preface, or conclusion) is partly doctrinal, and partly practical. In the doctrinal part, the apostle handles (and that purposely, and at large) that fundamental article of a sinner’ s justification in the sight of God: so that this Epistle (as one saith) is the proper seat of that doctrine; and from hence it is principally to be learned. Here we are taught the way and manner of our justification before God, that we are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, by a righteousness which is imputed to us, and not by any righteousness inherent in us. This is proved in the first four chapters, by many irrefragable arguments, and vindicated from all objections. And then it is amplified in the seven following chapters. The amplification is first from the glorious effects and sweetest privileges of justification by faith, viz. peace with God, which no tribulation can hinder or interrupt, Rom 5:1-10 . Then there is rejoicing with God, as reconciled through Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, who doth abundantly transcend the first Adam in many particulars, Rom 5:11-21 . Then there is sanctification, in both the parts of it, as mortification and death to sin; and vivification, or newness of life, Rom 6:1-23 throughout. The next is freedom from the law, as the first husband, now dead, Rom 7:1-25 . And in the Rom 8:1-39 you have divers other privileges closely couched, as noncondemnation, adoption, the indwelling of the Spirit, the co-operations of all things for good, the certainty of the love of God, together with the triumph we have over all our enemies upon that account. Further, this doctrine of justification is amplified from the remote cause of it; and that is, God’ s predestination or eternal counsel. This is brought in to obviate an objection against this doctrine, as not true, because the Jewish nation (God’ s ancient people) received it not. Thereupon the apostle shows, that justification belonged not to the whole nation of the Jews, but only to the elect amongst them; the rest being rejected of God till the fulness of the Gentiles was come in; and then the Jews should more generally believe and be converted. This you have at large in Rom 9:1-11:36 . The practical part of this Epistle follows, in which you have many useful exhortations, from Rom 12:1-15:14 . These are either more general, or more particular, showing Christians how they should behave themselves with respect to the church of Christ, and the fellowship thereof, every one attending upon the calling and ministry wherein God hath placed him, Rom 12:1-21 ; with respect to the civil society, and the government which God had set over them in the world, yielding all subjection thereunto, Rom 13:1-14 ; and with respect to their brethren and neighbours, exercising Christian charity towards all, avoiding censoriousness on the one hand and offences on the other, Rom 14:1-15:33 . These duties he largely presseth, interweaving now and then many ethical and theological aphorisms, of which in their proper place.

ROMANS CHAPTER 1

Rom 1:1-7 Paul, commending to the Romans his calling, greets them,

Rom 1:8-15 and professes his concern for, and desire of coming to

see them.

Rom 1:16,17 He shows that the gospel is for the justification of

all mankind through faith.

Rom 1:18-32 And having premised that sinners in general are

obnoxious to God’ s wrath, he describes at large the

corruption of the Gentile world.

A servant of Jesus Christ is a higher title than monarch of the world: several great emperors styled themselves Christ’ s vassals. He so calls himself, either in respect of his condition, which was common with him to all true Christians; or else in respect of his office. Of old, they who were in great offices were called the servants of God: see Jos 1:1 Neh 1:6 Psa 132:10 . Or else in respect of his singular and miraculous conversion: by reason of which, he thought himself so obliged to Christ, that he wholly addicted or devoted himself to his service.

Called to be an apostle appointed to that high office by the immediate call of Christ himself: see Gal 1:1 Tit 1:3 . The history of this call you have in Act 9:15 .

Two things are couched in this phrase:

1. That he did not take this honour to himself, but was thereunto appointed and called of God.

2. That this apostolical dignity was not by any desert of his, but by grace only, and the free gift of him that calleth.

It was formerly matter of admiration, and so it became a proverb in Israel: Is Saul also among the prophets? And we may say, with great astonishment, Is Saul also among the apostles? He that a little before had seen him doing what he is recorded to have done, Act 26:10,11 , would never have dreamed of any such thing.

Separated either from his mother’ s womb, in the purpose of God, Gal 1:15 ; so Jeremiah of old, Jer 1:5 . Or else it may have respect to Act 13:2 , where the Holy Ghost did actually order he should be separated for the work to which he had called him. The Greek word, in both places, is the same. Or else it may respect the more immediate commission he had from Christ himself, Act 9:15 26:16-18 . Some think he alludes to the name of Pharisee, which is from separating: when he was a Pharisee, he was separated to the law of God; and now, being a Christian, he was separated to the gospel of God.

Unto the gospel of God that is, to the preaching and publishing of it. The gospel is sometimes called the gospel of God, as in this place; and sometimes the gospel of Christ, as in Rom 1:16 : it is said to be the gospel of God, because he is the author of it, it is not a human invention; and it is said to be the gospel of Christ, because he is the matter and subject of it.

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 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 1:1-7) The apostle's commission.

(Rom 1:8-15) Prays for the saints at Rome, and expresses his desire to see them.

(Rom 1:16, Rom 1:17) The gospel way of justification by faith, for Jews and Gentiles.

(Rom 1:18-32) The sins of the Gentiles set forth.

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 1 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we may observe, I. The preface and introduction to the whole epistle, to Rom 1:16. II. A description of the deplorable condition of the Gentile world, which begins the proof of the doctrine of justification by faith, here laid down at Rom 1:17. The first is according to the then usual formality of a letter, but intermixed with very excellent and savoury expressions.

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 1 (Chapter Introduction)

A Call, A Gospel And A Task (Rom_1:1-7)

The Courtesy Of Greatness (Rom_1:8-15)

Good News Of Which To Be Proud (Rom_1:16-17)

The Wrath Of God (Rom_1:18-23)

Men With Whom God Can Do Nothing (Rom_1:24-25)

An Age Of Shame (Rom_1:26-27)

The Life Which Has Left God Out Of The Reckoning (Rom_1:28-32)

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 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 1

This chapter contains the inscription of the epistle, and salutation, the preface to it, and the grand proposition of justification by faith, so much enlarged on afterwards; and that this could not be by the law of nature, and the works of it among the Gentiles, is demonstrated by a detail of their horrible wickedness, impiety, and unrighteousness. In the inscription an account is given of the author of the epistle, who is described in Rom 1:1 by his name Paul: by his relation to Christ, a servant of his; and by his office, an apostle, whose business and concern were with the Gospel; to which he was separated. This Gospel is commended from the author of it, who is God himself; and from the antiquity of it, Rom 1:2, being as ancient as the writings of the prophets; and from the subject of it, being the Lord Jesus Christ; who is described by his relation to God, his Son, by his dominion over the saints, their Lord, by both his natures, human and divine; his human nature, as being of the seed of David, his divine nature, being the Son of God, Rom 1:4, which is declared by the power he is possessed of, by the Spirit of holiness that is in him, by his resurrection from the dead, and by the apostles receiving from him grace to fit them for their office, and by the office itself: the end of which was to make some among all nations obedient to him, Rom 1:5, among whom were the saints at Rome, who were called by him, and after his name, Rom 1:6, which introduces the account of the persons to whom this epistle is written, who are described, Rom 1:7, by the place of their abode, Rome; by their interest in the love of God; and by the effect, fruit, and evidence of it, their effectual calling; and then follows the apostle's usual salutation, as in all his epistles, in which he wishes grace and peace for them, from God the Father, and from Christ. The preface begins Rom 1:8, in which are a thanksgiving to God, through Christ, for all the saints at Rome, particularly on account of their faith, for which they were everywhere so famous; an appeal to God, Rom 1:9, for the truth of his incessant prayers for them, and particularly, Rom 1:10, that this was a request he made, that if it was the will of God, he might have a speedy and prosperous journey to, them; an expression of strong affection to them, and of his great desire to see them, Rom 1:11, his end in which was partly for their sakes, to communicate spiritual things to them for their establishment, and partly for his own comfort, and the increase of the mutual faith of both, Rom 1:12, also a vindication of himself, Rom 1:13, showing, that it was not any fault of his, or any neglect of them by him, that he had not been with them as yet, but some things hindered him, in the execution of his purpose to come to them; to which he was moved, partly by the hope of having fruit among them, as among others, and partly through the obligation that lay upon him by virtue of his office, to preach the Gospel to all sorts of men, Rom 1:14, he expresses his willingness and readiness to preach the Gospel to them at Rome, as soon as an opportunity would offer, Rom 1:15, which was his work and office, what he delighted in, was closely attached to, and by no means ashamed of, Rom 1:16, partly because of the nature of it, it was the Gospel, good news and true: and partly because of the author and subject of it, Christ; as also because of the efficacy of it in the salvation of Jews and Gentiles; and likewise because of a principal doctrine revealed in it, Rom 1:17, the doctrine of justification by faith, in the righteousness of Christ, confirmed and illustrated by a passage out of Hab 2:4, and which he particularly mentions, because he intended to dwell upon it in this epistle: and in order to show that the Gentiles could not be justified in the sight of God by their obedience to the law, and the light of nature, he observes, that they were the objects of the wrath of God, Rom 1:18, and that very justly, because they sinned knowingly; they had some knowledge of the truth, but they would not profess it: and that they had such knowledge of it, he proves from the author of it, God, who showed it to them, Rom 1:19, and from the means of it, by which they must, and did arrive to some degree of it, namely, the works of creation, Rom 1:20. The apostle goes on to expose the ingratitude of them, the vanity of their minds, the pride and folly of their hearts, Rom 1:21, the gross idolatry they were guilty of, Rom 1:23, for which idolatry they were given up to their own hearts' lusts, to commit the foulest and most scandalous iniquities, even to commit sodomitical practices, and unnatural lusts, both men and women, Rom 1:24. And so far were they from having a righteousness to justify them before God, that they were titled with all unrighteousness; and a large list of the vilest sins, being committed by them, is given; and a catalogue of the worst of sinners, as among them, Rom 1:29. All which are aggravated by their knowledge of the will of God, through the light of nature, that these things were contrary to it, and were deserving of death; and yet they both did them, and were delighted with those that committed them also: the inference which he leaves to be deduced from hence, and which may easily be deduced, is, that therefore there can be no justification of such persons in the sight of God by their own works.

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