Text -- Romans 10:19 (NET)

10:19 But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 10:19

Did Israel not know? ( mē Israel ouk egnō̇ ).

"Did Israel fail to know?"See above.

Robertson: Rom 10:19

First ( prōtos ).

Moses first before any one else. lxx quotation Deuteronomy 32:21. See note on 1Co 10:22 for parazēlōsō (I will provoke you to jealousy).

Robertson: Rom 10:19

With that which is no nation ( ep' ouk ethnei ).

The Jews had worshipped "no-gods"and now God shows favours to a "no-nation"(people).

Robertson: Rom 10:19

Will I anger you ( parorgiō humas ).

Future active (Attic future) of parorgizō , rare word, to rouse to wrath.

Vincent: Rom 10:19

Did Israel not know?

As in Rom 10:18, a negative answer is implied. " It is surely not true that Israel did not know." Did not know what? That the Gospel should go forth into all the earth. Moses and Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles, and Isaiah the opposition of the Jews thereto.

Vincent: Rom 10:19

First Moses

First in order; the first who wrote.

Vincent: Rom 10:19

I will provoke you to jealousy ( ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς )

From Deu 32:21. See Rom 11:11, Rom 11:14; 1Co 10:22. Used only by Paul. The Septuagint has them instead of you .

Vincent: Rom 10:19

By them that are no people ( ἐπ ' οὐκ ἔθνει )

Lit., upon a no-people . The relation expressed by the preposition is that of the no-people as forming the basis of the jealousy. The prediction is that Israel shall be conquered by an apparently inferior people. No-people as related to God's heritage, not that the Gentiles were inferior or insignificant in themselves. For people render nation , as Rev. See on 1Pe 2:9.

Vincent: Rom 10:19

By a foolish nation ( ἐπὶ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ )

Lit., upon a foolish nation as the basis of the exasperation. For foolish , see on Rom 1:21.

Vincent: Rom 10:19

I will anger ( παροργιὦ )

Or provoke to anger . The force of the compounded preposition παρά in this verb and in παραζηλώσω provoke to jealousy , seems to be driving to the side of something which by contact or comparison excites jealousy or anger.

Wesley: Rom 10:19

They might have known, even from Moses and Isaiah, that many of the gentiles would be received, and many of the Jews rejected.

Wesley: Rom 10:19

As they followed gods that were not gods, so he accepted in their stead a nation that was not a nation; that is, a nation that was not in covenant with God.

Wesley: Rom 10:19

Such are all which know not God. Deu 32:21

JFB: Rom 10:19

Know, from their own Scriptures, of God's intention to bring in the Gentiles?

JFB: Rom 10:19

That is First in the prophetic line [DE WETTE].

JFB: Rom 10:19

"I will provoke you to jealousy ('against') [them that are] not a nation, and against a nation without understanding will I anger you" (Deu 32:21). In this verse God warns His ancient people that because they had (that is, in aftertimes would) moved Him to jealousy with their "no-gods," and provoked Him to anger with their vanities, He in requital would move them to jealousy by receiving into His favor a "no-people," and provoke them to anger by adopting a nation void of understanding.

Clarke: Rom 10:19

But I say, Did not Israel know? - You object to this preaching among the Gentiles; but is not this according to the positive declaration of God? He, foreseeing your unbelief and rebellion, said by Moses, Deu 32:21, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. As you have provoked me to jealousy with worshipping those that are no gods, I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are no people. This most evidently refers to the calling or inviting of the Gentiles to partake of the benefits of the Gospel; and plainly predicts the envy and rage which would be excited in the Jews, in consequence of those offers of mercy made to the Gentiles.

Calvin: Rom 10:19

19.But I say, has not Israel known? This objection of an opponent is taken from the comparison of the less with the greater. Paul had argued, that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the knowledge of God, since he had from the beginning manifested himself to them, though only obscurely and through shadows, or had at least given them some knowledge of his truth. What then is to be said of Israel, who had been illuminated by a far different light of truth? for how comes it that aliens and the profane should run to the light manifested to them afar off, and that the holy race of Abraham should reject it when familiarly seen by them? For this distinction must be ever borne in mind, “What nation is so renowned, that it has gods coming nigh to it, as thy God at this day descends to thee?” It was not then without reason asked, why knowledge had not followed the doctrine of the law, with which Israel was favored.

First, Moses saith, etc He proves by the testimony of Moses, that there was nothing inconsistent in God in preferring the Gentiles to the Jews. The passage is taken from that celebrated song, in which God, upbraiding the Jews with their perfidiousness, declares, that he would execute vengeance on them, and provoke them to jealousy by taking the Gentiles into covenant with himself, because they had departed to fictitious gods. “Ye have,” he says, “by despising and rejecting me, transferred my right and honor to idols: to avenge this wrong, I will also substitute the Gentiles in your place, and I will transfer to them what I have hitherto given to you.” Now this could not have been without repudiating the Jewish nation: for the emulation, which Moses mentions, arose from this, — that God formed for himself a nation from that which was not a nation, and raised up from nothing a new people, who were to occupy the place from which the Jews had been driven away, inasmuch as they had forsaken the true God and prostituted themselves to idols. For though, at the coming of Christ, the Jews were not gone astray to gross and external idolatry, they had yet no excuse, since they had profaned the whole worship of God by their inventions; yea, they at length denied God the Father, as revealed in Christ, his only-begotten Son, which was an extreme kind of impiety.

Observe, that a foolish nation, and no nation, are the same; for without the hope of eternal life men have properly no existence. Besides, the beginning or origin of life is from the light of faith: hence spiritual existence flows from the new creation; and in this sense Paul calls the faithful the work of God, as they are regenerated by his Spirit, and renewed after his image. Now from the word foolish, we learn that all the wisdom of men, apart from the word of God, is mere vanity. ³³⁵

Defender: Rom 10:19

Because Israel had rejected God, in Christ, for "no gods," God would replace His chosen people with "no people" (Deu 32:21). That is, the Gentiles in general, not another chosen nation, would displace Israel in God's economy, at least for a time."

TSK: Rom 10:19

I say : Rom 10:18, Rom 3:26; 1Co 1:12, 1Co 7:29, 1Co 10:19, 1Co 11:22, 1Co 15:50

First : Rom 11:11; Deu 32:21; Hos 2:23; 1Pe 2:10

foolish : Rom 1:21, Rom 1:22; Psa 115:5-8; Isa 44:18-20; Jer 10:8, Jer 10:14; 1Co 12:2; Tit 3:3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 10:19

But I say ... - Still further to meet the objection, he shows that the doctrine which he was maintaining was actually taught in the Old Testament.

Did not Israel know? - Did not the Jews understand. Is it not recorded in their books, etc. that they had full opportunity to be acquainted with this truth? This question is an emphatic way of affirming that they did know. But Paul does not here state what it was that they knew. That is to be gathered from what he proceeds to say. From that it appears that he referred to the fact that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, and that the Jews were to be cast off. This doctrine followed from what he had already maintained in Rom 10:12-13, that there was no difference in regard to the terms of salvation, and that the Jew had no particular privileges. If so, then the barrier was broken down; and if the Jews did not believe in Jesus Christ, they must be rejected. Against this was the objection in Rom 10:14-15, that they could not believe; that they had not heard; and that a preacher had not been sent to them. If, now, the apostle could show that it was an ancient doctrine of the Jewish prophets that the Gentiles should believe, and that the Jews would not believe, the whole force of the objection would vanish. Accordingly he proceeds to show that this doctrine was distinctly taught in the Old Testament.

First - First in order; as we say, in the first place.

I will provoke you - These words are taken from Deu 32:21. In that place the declaration refers to the idolatrous and wicked conduct of the Jews. God says that they had provoked him, or excited his indignation, by worshipping what was not God, that is, by idols; and he, in turn, would excite their envy and indignation by showing favors to those who were not regarded as a people; that is, to the Gentiles. They had shown favor, or affection, for what was not God, and by so doing had provoked him to anger; and he also would show favor to those whom they regarded as no people, and would thus excite their anger. Thus, he would illustrate the great principle of his government in 2Sa 22:26-27, "With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful; with the pure, thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory,"that is, froward. Psa 18:26. In this passage the great doctrine which Paul was defending is abundantly established - that the Gentiles were to be brought into the favor of God; and the cause also is suggested to be the obstinacy and rebellion of the Jews. It is not clear that Moses had particularly in view the times of the gospel; but he affirms a great principle which is applicable to those times - that if the Jews should be rebellious, and prove themselves unworthy of his favor, that favor would be withdrawn, and conferred on other nations. The effect of this would be, of course, to excite their indignation. This principle the apostle applies to his own times; and affirms that it ought to have been understood by the Jews themselves.

That are no people - That is, those whom you regard as unworthy the name of a people. Those who have no government, laws, or regular organization; who wander in tribes and clans, and who are under no settled form of society. This was the case with most barbarians; and the Jews, evidently regarded all ancient nations in this light, as unworthy the name of a people.

A foolish nation - The word "fool"means one void of understanding. But it also means one who is wicked, or idolatrous; one who contemns God. Psa 14:1, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."Pro 1:7, "fools despise wisdom and instruction."Here it means a nation who had no understanding of the true God ἀσυνέτῳ asunetō .

I will anger - My bestowing favors on them will excite your anger. We may remark here,

(1)    That God is a sovereign, and has a right to bestow his favors on whom he pleases.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat when people abuse his mercies, become proud, or cold, or dead in his service, he often takes away their privileges, and bestows them on others.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the effect of his sovereignty is to excite people to anger.

Proud and wicked people are always enraged that he bestows his favors on others; and the effect of his sovereign dealings is, to provoke to anger the very people who by their sins have rejected his mercy. Hence, there is no doctrine that proud man hates so cordially as he does the doctrine of divine sovereignty; and none that will so much test the character of the wicked.

Poole: Rom 10:19

Here he proves by three testimonies out of the Old Testament, that the Jews must needs have heard the sound of the gospel, together with the Gentiles; only they rejected it, when the other embraced it. And so he layeth the ground of what he was purposed to handle in the following chapter, concerning the receiving of the Gentiles, and the casting off, and after calling, of the Jews.

Did not Israel know here something must be supplied to make up the sense neither God, or the gospel, or the righteousness of faith, or the conversion of the Gentiles. The Israelites could not well pretend ignorance, considering what Moses and Isaiah had said, in whom, or in whose writings, they were conversant.

Moses saith viz. in Deu 32:21 . Still he follows the translation of the Seventy.

I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you here God threateneth the Jews, that he would punish them with jealousy and anger, by preferring the Gentiles before them; at the sight whereof, their hearts should be sore vexed; to behold all their privileges taken from them, and given to a people whom they accounted most vile and despicable, to be no people in regard of them, to be dogs and beasts rather than men: see Act 13:45 . Read the cited place in Deuteronomy Deu 32:21 and you will find that God speaks of this as a fit punishment upon the Jews for their idolatry. They had chosen to themselves such as were no gods; and therefore, to requite them, God would take to him such as were no people: they had chosen to themselves (as it were) another husband; and God, to be even with them, had chosen another wife.

PBC: Rom 10:19

Ro 10:19 states a rhetorical question to which the answer is of course " yes." They all knew. The Apostle then proceeds to describe the bringing in of the Gentiles to the gospel kingdom. He shows that one design in this was to provoke Israel to jealousy and to emulation of the Gentiles that they also might in the end be brought back into the receipt of the gospel kingdom.

352

Haydock: Rom 10:19

A people whom you have always despised, as not being worthy to be numbered amongst mankind, I will make my beloved people. I will enrich with my graces those whom you have contemned; I will give them the grace of adoption, thus to stir you up to jealousy and rage. And in effect, what greater rage ever was there, than that of the Jews against the converted Gentiles? In persecution, the Jews were always most busy. Thus were the Jews plainly informed of the truth of the gospel, by the Gentiles converted before their face. (Calmet)

Gill: Rom 10:19

But I say, did not Israel know? Some supply the word "God", did not Israel know God? verily, they did; they knew the being and perfections of God, the unity of God, and the trinity of persons in the divine essence; they knew the will of God, and the right way of worshipping him; for they were favoured with a divine revelation; to them were committed the oracles of God, and to them belonged the giving of the "Gospel", did not Israel know the Gospel? yes, they did; they not only heard it, but knew it; not spiritually and experimentally, but nationally and speculatively, and, against the light and conviction of their own minds, obstinately rejected it with contempt: but I rather think this question refers to the calling of the Gentiles, and their own rejection; and the sense is, did not Israel know, that the Gentiles were to be called by the grace of God, and that they themselves were to be cast off? they did know this, at least something of it, though not so clearly as it is now revealed to the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; but in some measure they could not but know it, since there were such strong hints of it in the writings of the Old Testament, some of which are hereafter produced:

first Moses saith; not "Moses the first", as if there was another, or a second Moses, but either Moses, who is the first of the inspired writers, and chief of the prophets; or rather this regards order of time, Moses in the first place says so and so, for other testimonies are after cited; the passage in Moses referred to, is Deu 32:21.

I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. The Gentiles are here designed by "them that are no people": who before God, and in his sight, as all nations are, were as a drop of the bucket, as the small dust of the balance: nay, even as nothing, yea, less than nothing and vanity: likewise they were no people of any account, of any name; they were mean and contemptible, neglected and overlooked by God himself, and treated with contempt by the Jews, his professing people: and besides, they were not as yet openly and visibly the people of God; they neither called upon his name, nor were they called by his name; he had not as yet taken from among them a people for his name: these are also meant by "the foolish nation"; Jarchi ^m says, the Cuthites, or Samaritans, are intended; who were neighbours to the Jews, and greatly hated by them: but it may more rightly be applied to all the Gentiles in general, who notwithstanding their large pretensions to natural, civil, and moral wisdom, yet being without a true knowledge of God, Christ, and the Gospel, were a foolish people; and in nothing more did their folly appear, than in their idolatry and superstition. Now the Lord threatened by these people to provoke the Jews to jealousy, and to anger them; and this was but just, and by way of retaliation; for since they provoked him to jealousy and anger, by worshipping strange gods, which plainly declared their want of faith in him, affection for him, and their departure from him; it was a righteous thing in him to provoke them to jealousy of him, as if he had no affection for them, who had been so long, in some sense, an husband to them all; and as about to cast them off; and to anger them, by sending his Gospel among the Gentiles, and calling them by his grace, and making them partakers of his special favours; whereby this prophecy had its full accomplishment: for though the Jews rejected and despised the Gospel themselves, yet nothing more provoked them than that it should be carried among the Gentiles; see Act 22:21. Now from these words of Moses, the Israelites must needs know, they could not but know that it was the will of God to call the Gentiles, and reject them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 10:19

¹ tn Grk “Israel did not ‘not know,’ did he?” The double negative in Greek has been translated as a positive affirmation for clarity (see v. 18 above for a similar situation).

² sn A quotation from Deut 32:21.

Geneva Bible: Rom 10:19

^{( 13 )} But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by ^{( n )} [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

^{( 13 )} The defender and maintainer of the Jew's cause goes on still to ask whether the Jews also did not know God, the one who called them. Isaiah, says the apostle, denies it: and witnesses that the Gospel was taken from them and given to the Gentiles, because the Jews rejected it. In addition the apostle teaches that the outward and universal calling, which is set forth by the creation of the world, is not sufficient for the knowledge of God: indeed, and that the particular calling also which is by the preaching of the word of God, is of itself of little or no efficacy, unless it is apprehended or laid hold of by faith, which is the gift of God: otherwise by unbelief it is made unprofitable, and that by the only fault of man, who can pretend no ignorance.

^{( n )} He calls all profane people "[them that are] no people", as they are not said to live but to die, who are appointed for everlasting condemnation.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 10:1-21

1 The Scripture shows the difference between the righteousness of the law, and that of faith;

11 and that all, both Jew and Gentile, that believe, shall not be confounded;

18 and that the Gentiles shall receive the word and believe.

19 Israel was not ignorant of these things.

MHCC: Rom 10:18-21

Did not the Jews know that the Gentiles were to be called in? They might have known it from Moses and Isaiah. Isaiah speaks plainly of the grace and favour of God, as going before in the receiving of the Gentiles. Was not this our own case? Did not God begin in love, and make himself known to us when we did not ask after him? The patience of God towards provoking sinners is wonderful. The time of God's patience is called a day, light as day, and fit for work and business; but limited as a day, and there is a night at the end of it. God's patience makes man's disobedience worse, and renders that the more sinful. We may wonder at the mercy of God, that his goodness is not overcome by man's badness; we may wonder at the wickedness of man, that his badness is not overcome by God's goodness. And it is a matter of joy to think that God has sent the message of grace to so many millions, by the wide spread of his gospel.

Matthew Henry: Rom 10:12-21

The first words express the design of the apostle through these verses, that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, but they stand upon the same level in point of acceptance with God. In Jesus Christ there is neither Greek nor Jews, Col 3:11. God doth not save any nor reject any because they are Jews, nor because they are Greeks, but doth equally accept both upon gospel terms: There is no difference. For the proof of this he urges two arguments: -

I. That God is the same to all: The same Lord over all is rich unto all. There is not one God to the Jews who is more kind, and another to the Gentiles who is less kind; but he is the same to all, a common father to all mankind. When he proclaimed his name, The Lord, the Lord god, gracious and merciful, he thereby signified not only what he was to the Jews, but what he is and will be to all his creatures that seek unto him: not only good, but rich, plenteous in goodness: he hath wherewith to supply them all, and he is free and ready to give out to them; he is both able and willing: not only rich, but rich unto us, liberal and bountiful in dispensing his favours to all that call upon him. Something must be done by us, that we may reap of this bounty; and it is as little as can be, we must call upon him. He will for this be enquired of (Eze 36:37), and surely that which is not worth the asking is not worth the having. We have nothing to do but to draw out by prayer, as there is occasion.

II. That the promise is the same to all (Rom 10:13): Whoever shall call - one as well as another, without exception. This extent, this undifferencing extent, of the promise both to Jews and Gentiles he thinks should not be surprising, for it was foretold by the prophet, Joe 2:32. Calling upon the name of the Lord is here put for all practical religion. What is the life of a Christian but a life of prayer? It implies a sense of our dependence on him, an entire dedication of ourselves to him, and a believing expectation of our all from him. He that thus calls upon him shall be saved. It is but ask and have; what would we have more? for the further illustration of this he observes,

1. How necessary it was that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, Rom 10:14, Rom 10:15. This was what the Jews were so angry with Paul for, that he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and preached the gospel to them. Now he shows how needful it was to bring them within the reach of the forementioned promise, an interest in which they should not envy to any of their fellow-creatures. (1.) They cannot call on him in whom they have not believed. Except they believe that he is God, they will not call upon him by prayer; to what purpose should they? The grace of faith is absolutely necessary to the duty of prayer; we cannot pray aright, nor pray to acceptation, without it. He that comes to God by prayer must believe, Heb 11:6. Till they believed the true God, they were calling upon idols, O Baal, hear us. (2.) They cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard. some way or other the divine revelation must be made known to us, before we can receive it and assent to it; it is not born with us. In hearing is included reading, which is tantamount, and by which many are brought to believe (Joh 20:31): These things are written that you may believe. But hearing only is mentioned, as the more ordinary and natural way of receiving information. (3.) They cannot hear without a preacher; how should they? Somebody must tell them what they are to believe. Preachers and hearers are correlates; it is a blessed thing when they mutually rejoice in each other - the hearers in the skill and faithfulness of the preacher, and the preacher in the willingness and obedience of the hearers. (4.) They cannot preach except they be sent, except they be both commissioned and in some measure qualified for their preaching work. How shall a man act as an ambassador, unless he have both his credentials and his instructions from the prince that sends him? This proves that to the regular ministry there must be a regular mission and ordination. It is God's prerogative to send ministers; he is the Lord of the harvest, and therefore to him we must pray that he would send forth labourers, Mat 9:38. He only can qualify men for, and incline them to, the work of the ministry. But the competency of that qualification, and the sincerity of that inclination, must not be left to the judgment of every man for himself: the nature of the thing will by no means admit this; but, for the preservation of due order in the church, this must needs be referred and submitted to the judgment of a competent number of those who are themselves in that office and of approved wisdom and experience in it, who, as in all other callings, are presumed the most able judges, and who are empowered to set apart such as they find so qualified and inclined to this work of the ministry, that by this preservation of the succession the name of Christ may endure for ever and his throne as the days of heaven. And those that are thus set apart, not only may, but must preach, as those that are sent.

2. How welcome the gospel ought to be to those to whom it was preached, because it showed the way to salvation, Rom 10:15. For this he quotes Isa 52:7. The like passage we have, Nah 1:15, which, if it point at the glad tidings of the deliverance of Israel out of Babylon in the type, yet looks further to the gospel, the good news of our salvation by Jesus Christ. Observe, (1.) What the gospel is: It is the gospel of peace; it is the word of reconciliation between God and man. On earth peace, Luk 2:14. Or, peace is put in general for all good; so it is explained here; it is glad tidings of good things. The things of the gospel are good things indeed, the best things; tidings concerning them are the most joyful tidings, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth. (2.) What the work of ministers is: To preach this gospel, to bring these glad tidings; to evangelize peace (so the original is), to evangelize good things. Every good preacher is in this sense an evangelist: he is not only a messenger to carry the news, but an ambassador to treat; and the first gospel preachers were angels, Luk 2:13, etc. (3.) How acceptable they should therefore be to the children of men for their work's sake: How beautiful are the feet, that is, how welcome are they! Mary Magdalene expressed her love to Christ by kissing his feet, and afterwards by holding him by the feet, Mat 28:9. And, when Christ was sending forth his disciples, he washed their feet. Those that preach the gospel of peace should see to it that their feet (their life and conversation) be beautiful: the holiness of ministers' lives is the beauty of their feet. How beautiful! namely, in the eyes of those that hear them. Those that welcome the message cannot but love the messengers. See 1Th 5:12, 1Th 5:13.

3. He answers an objection against all this, which might be taken from the little success which the gospel had in many places (Rom 10:16): But they have not all obeyed the gospel. All the Jews have not, all the Gentiles have not; far the greater part of both remain in unbelief and disobedience. Observe, The gospel is given us not only to be known and believed, but to be obeyed. It is not a system of notions, but a rule of practice. This little success of the word was likewise foretold by the prophet (Isa 53:1): Who hath believed our report? Very few have, few to what one would think should have believed it, considering how faithful a report it is and how well worthy of all acceptation, - very few to the many that persist in unbelief. It is no strange thing, but it is a very sad and uncomfortable thing, for the ministers of Christ to bring the report of the gospel, and not to be believed in it. Under such a melancholy consideration it is good for us to go to God and make our complaint to him. Lord, who hath believed, etc. In answer to this,

(1.) He shows that the word preached is the ordinary means of working faith (Rom 10:17): So then, ara - however; though many that hear do not believe, yet those that believe have first heard. Faith cometh by hearing. It is the summary of what he had said before, Rom 10:14. The beginning, progress, and strength of faith, are by hearing. The word of God is therefore called the word of faith: it begets and nourishes faith. God gives faith, but it is by the word as the instrument. Hearing (that hearing which works faith) is by the word of God. It is not hearing the enticing words of man's wisdom, but hearing the word of God, that will befriend faith, and hearing it as the word of God. See 1Th 2:13.

(2.) That those who would not believe the report of the gospel, yet, having heard it, were thereby left inexcusable, and may thank themselves for their own ruin, Rom 10:18, to the end.

[1.] The Gentiles have heard it (Rom 10:18): Have they not heard? Yes, more or less, they have either heard the gospel, or at least heard of it. Their sound went into all the earth; not only a confused sound, but their words (more distinct and intelligible notices of these things) are gone unto the ends of the world. The commission which the apostles received runs thus: Go you into all the world - preach to every creature - disciple all nations; and they did with indefatigable industry and wonderful success pursue that commission. See the extent of Paul's province, Rom 15:19. To this remote island of Britain, one of the utmost corners of the world, not only the sound, but the words, of the gospel came within a few years after Christ's ascension. It was in order to this that the gift of tongues was at the very first poured so plentifully upon the apostles, Acts 2. In the expression here he plainly alludes to Psa 19:4, which speaks of the notices which the visible works of God in the creation give to all the world of the power and Godhead of the Creator. As under the Old Testament God provided for the publishing of the work of creation by the sun, moon, and stars, so now for the publishing of the work of redemption to all the world by the preaching of gospel ministers, who are therefore called stars.

[2.] The Jews have heard it too, Rom 10:19-21. For this he appeals to two passages of the Old Testament, to show how inexcusable they are too. Did not Israel know that the Gentiles were to be called in? They might have known it from Moses and Isaiah.

First, One is taken from Deu 32:21, I will provoke you to jealousy. The Jews not only had the offer, but saw the Gentiles accepting it and benefitted by that acceptance, witness their vexation at the event. They had the refusal: To you first, Act 3:26. In all places where the apostles came still the Jews had the first offer, and the Gentiles had but their leavings. If one would not, another would. Now this provoked them to jealousy. They, as the elder brother in the parable (Lu. 15) envied the reception and entertainment of the prodigal Gentiles upon their repentance. The Gentiles are here called no people, and a foolish nation, that is, not the professing people of God. How much soever there be of the wit and wisdom of the world, those that are not the people of God are, and in the end will be found to be, a foolish people. Such was the state of the Gentile world, who yet were made the people of God, and Christ to them the wisdom of God. What a provocation it was to the Jews to see the Gentiles taken into favour we may see, Act 13:45; Act 17:5, Act 17:13, and especially Act 22:22. It was an instance of the great wickedness of the Jews that they were thus enraged; and this in Deuteronomy is the matter of a threatening. God often makes people's sin their punishment. A man needs no greater plague than to be left to the impetuous rage of his own lusts.

Secondly, Another is taken from Isa 65:1, Isa 65:2, which is very full, and in it Esaias is very bold - bold indeed, to speak so plainly of the rejection of his own countrymen. Those that will be found faithful have need to be very bold. Those that are resolved to please God must not be afraid to displease any man. Now Esaias speaks boldly and plainly,

a. Of the preventing grace and favour of God in the reception and entertainment of the Gentiles (Rom 10:20): I was found of those that sought me not. The prescribed method is, Seek and find; this is a rule for us, not a rule for God, who is often found of those that do not seek. His grace is his own, distinguishing grace his own, and he dispenses it in a way of sovereignty, gives of withholds it at pleasure - anticipates us with the blessings, the riches choicest blessings, of his goodness. Thus he manifested himself to the Gentiles, by sending the light of the gospel among them, when they were so far from seeking him and asking after him that they were following after lying vanities, and serving dumb idols. Was not this our own particular case? Did not God begin in love, and manifest himself to us when we did not ask after him? And was not that a time of love indeed, to be often remembered with a great deal of thankfulness?

b. Of the obstinacy and perverseness of Israel, notwithstanding the fair offers and affectionate invitations they had, Rom 10:21. Observe,

( a. ) God's great goodness to them: All day long I have stretched forth my hands. [ a. ] His offers: I have stretched forth my hands, offering them life and salvation with the greatest sincerity and seriousness that can be, with all possible expressions of earnestness and importunity, showing them the happiness tendered, setting it before them with the greatest evidence, reasoning the case with them. Stretching forth the hands is the gesture of those that require audience (Act 26:1), or desire acceptance, Pro 1:24. Christ was crucified with his hands stretched out. Stretched forth my hands as offering reconciliation - come let us shake hands and be friends; and our duty is to give the hand to him, 2Ch 30:8. [ b. ] His patience in making these offers: All day long. The patience of God towards provoking sinners is admirable. He waits to be gracious. The time of God's patience is here called a day, lightsome as a day and fit for work and business, but limited as a day, and a night at the end of it. he bears long, but he will not bear always.

( b. ) Their great badness to him. They were a disobedient gainsaying people. One word in the Hebrew, in Isaiah, is here well explained by two; not only disobedient to the call, not yielding to it, but gainsaying, and quarrelling with it, which is much worse. Many that will not accept of a good proposal will yet acknowledge that they have nothing to say against it: but the Jews who believed not rested not there, but contradicted and blasphemed. God's patience with them was a very great aggravation of their disobedience, and rendered it the more exceedingly sinful; as their disobedience advanced the honour of God's patience and rendered it the more exceedingly gracious. It is a wonder of mercy in God that his goodness is not overcome by man's badness; and it is a wonder of wickedness in man that his badness is not overcome by God's goodness.

Barclay: Rom 10:14-21

It is agreed by all commentators that this is one of the most difficult and obscure passages in the letter to the Romans. It seems to us that what we have here is not so much a finished passage as summary notes. There is a kind of telegraphic quality about the writing. It may well be that what we have here is the notes of some address which Paul was in the habit of making to the Jews to convince them of their error.

Basically the scheme is this--in the previous passage Paul has been saying that the way to God is not that of works and of legalism, but of faith and trust. The objection is: But what if the Jews never heard of that? It is with that objection Paul deals; and, as he deals with it in its various forms, on each occasion he clinches his answer with a text from scripture.

Let us take the objections and the answering scripture texts one by one.

(i) The first objection is: "You cannot call on God unless you believe in him. You cannot believe in him unless you hear about him. You cannot hear about him unless there is someone to proclaim the good news. There can be no one to proclaim the good news unless God commissions someone to do so." Paul deals with that objection by quoting Isa 52:7. There the prophet points out how welcome those are who bring the good news of good things. So Paul's first answer is: "You cannot say there was no messenger; Isaiah describes these very messengers; and Isaiah lived long ago."

(ii) The second objection is: "But, in point of fact, Israel did not obey the good news, even if your argument is true. What have you to say to that?" Paul's answer is: "Israel's disbelief was only to be expected, for, long ago, Isaiah was moved to say in despair: 'Lord, who has believed what we have heard?' " (Isa 53:1.) It is true that Israel did not accept the good news from God, and in their refusal they were simply running true to form; history was repeating itself.

(iii) The third objection is a restatement of the first: But, what if I insist that they never got the chance to hear? This time Paul quotes Psa 19:4: "Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." His answer is: "You cannot say that Israel never got the chance to hear; for scripture plainly says that God's message has gone out to all the world."

(iv) The fourth objection is: "But what if Israel did not understand?" Apparently the meaning is: "What if the message was so difficult to grasp that even when Israel did hear it they were unable to grasp its significance?" Here is where the passage becomes really difficult. But Paul's answer is: "Israel may have failed to understand; but the Gentiles did not. They grasped the meaning of this offer all right, when it came to them unexpectedly and unsought." To prove this point Paul quotes two passages. One is from Deu 32:21where God says that, because of Israel's disobedience and rebellion, he will transfer his favour to another people, and they will be forced to become jealous of a nation which has no nation. The second passage is from Isa 65:1where God says that, in a strange way, he has been found by a people who were not looking for him at all.

Finally, Paul insists that, all through history, God has been stretching out hands of appeal to Israel, and Israel has always been disobedient and perverse.

A passage like this may seem strange to us and unconvincing; and it may seem that some at least of the texts Paul quotes have been wrenched out of their context and made to mean what they were never intended to mean. Nevertheless there is in this passage something of permanent value. Beneath it there runs the conviction that there are certain kinds of ignorance which are inexcusable.

(i) There is the ignorance which comes from neglect of knowledge. There is a legal maxim which says that genuine ignorance may be a defence, but neglect of knowledge never is. A man cannot be blamed for not knowing what he never had a chance to know; but he can be blamed for neglecting to know that which was always open to him. For instance, if a man signs a contract without having read the conditions, he cannot complain if afterwards he finds out that the conditions are very different from what he thought they were. If we fail to equip ourselves for a task when every chance is given to us to equip ourselves adequately for it, we must stand condemned. A man is responsible for failing to know what he might have known.

(ii) There is the ignorance which comes from wilful blindness. Men have an infinite and fatal capacity for shutting their minds to what they do not wish to see, and stopping their ears to what they do not wish to hear. A man may be well aware that some habit, some indulgence, some way of life, some friendship, some association must have disastrous results; but he may simply refuse to look at the facts. To turn a blind eye may be in some few cases a virtue; in most cases it is folly.

(iii) There is the ignorance which is in essence a lie. The things about which we are in doubt are far fewer than we would like to think. There are in reality very few times when we can honestly say: "I never knew that things would turn out like this." God gave us conscience and the guidance of his Holy Spirit; and often we plead ignorance, when, if we were honest, we would have to admit that in our heart of hearts we knew the truth.

One thing remains to be said of this passage. In the argument so far as it has gone there is a paradox. All through this section Paul has been driving home the personal responsibility of the Jews. They ought to have known better: they had every chance to know better; but they rejected the appeal of God. Now he began the argument by saying that everything was of God and that men had no more to do with it than the clay had to do with the work of the potter. He has set two things side by side; everything is of God, and everything is of human choice. Paul makes no attempt to resolve this dilemma; and the fact is that there is no resolution of it. It is a dilemma of human experience. We know that God is behind everything; and yet, at the same time, we know that we have free will and can accept or reject God's offer. It is the paradox of the human situation that God is in control and yet the human will is free.

Constable: Rom 9:1--11:36

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Rom 10:1-21

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

The chapter division signals a shift in Paul's emphasis from God's dealings with Israel in the past, namely before Christ's death, to His dealings with them in the present.

Constable: Rom 10:16-21

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

Even though the door of salvation is open to Jews as well as to Gentiles (vv. 8-15), the majority within Israel still refuse to believe in Jesus Christ.

10:16 In spite of the good news of Israel's restoration and the promises of Messiah's coming and deliverance, most of the Jews did not believe (cf. Isa. 53:1).

10:17 This verse summarizes the thought of verses 14-16. The word "of" Christ could mean the word from Him, namely the message that He has sent us to proclaim (v. 15).³²² It could also refer to the message concerning Christ (v. 9). Both meanings could have been in Paul's mind. In either case the gospel is in view.

"What faith really is, in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true. That--and that alone--is saving faith."³²³

10:18 This rhetorical question suggests the possibility that Israel's rejection of her Messiah may have been due to a failure to get the message to the Jews (v. 14). However, Paul's quotation of Psalm 19:4 clarifies that they had heard. Every human being hears the testimony of nature, and all Israel had heard the special revelation of God concerning His Son from the prophets. They could not plead ignorance as a nation.

"But perhaps it would be simpler to think that Paul engages in hyperbole, using the language of the Psalm to assert that very many people by the time Paul writes Romans have had opportunity to hear. It cannot be lack of opportunity, then, that explains why so few Jews have come to experience the salvation God offers in Christ."³²⁴

10:19 Might there be a second possible reason for Israel's rejection of the gospel? Even though the Jews heard the message perhaps they did not understand it.

The quotation from Deuteronomy 32:21 comes from Moses' criticism of Israel for forsaking the Lord. God said that He would give Israel a desire to return to Himself (provoke her to jealousy) by blessing another people. This is what had happened since Jesus Christ had died. God had opened the door of the church to the Gentiles. This should have made Israel more desirous of returning to God, accepting His Messiah, and experiencing God's blessing. However this had not happened, as the record of the church's growth in Acts proves. As time went by, fewer and fewer Jews responded to the gospel whereas ever more Gentiles accepted it. This response was not due to ignorance but to deliberate rejection.

10:20 Isaiah 65:1-2 supports Deuteronomy 32:21 with emphasis on the fact that the Gentiles came to God.

10:21 The Jews on the other hand refused to come to Him even when He reached out to draw them to Himself. The reason God has temporarily set them aside is their stubborn rebelliousness. Moses and the prophets warned Israel of this attitude repeatedly, but the Chosen People persisted in it even after God had provided their Messiah.

Chapter 10 deals with Israel's present rejection of Jesus Christ that has resulted in God's temporary rejection of her. Both rejections will change in the future as the next chapter explains.

College: Rom 10:1-21

3. The Jews' Rejection of God's Righteousness (10:1-3)

These three verses expand further the reason for the Jews' lostness, namely, they rejected the gift of God's own righteousness, preferring to stake their claim to heaven on the worthiness of their own works.

10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. Paul addresses his "brothers" (ajdelphoiv , adelphoi ), which are his fellow Christians (not just Jewish Christians, contra MP, 418). In general Greek usage adelphoi was often inclusive of men and women and thus could be translated "brothers and sisters" (AG, 15).

Paul's sentiment here is directed toward his fellow Jews: his prayer is "for the Israelites." It reminds us of 9:1-3, where the Apostle expressed his grief over Israel's lostness and declared his willingness to take their place if only they could be saved. Here he echoes that desire for their salvation.

"Desire" is eujdokiva ( eudokia ), which is basically a feeling of good will toward others out of which a desire for their well-being naturally arises. Morris (378) calls it "warm affection" and favors Goodspeed's translation, "My heart is full of good will toward them." Paul's reference to his "heart" (the spirit, the inner man) expresses the depth and sincerity of his desire. Phillips' translation says, "From the bottom of my heart I long . . . that Israel may be saved."

"Prayer" is devhsi" (deçsis ), which is a petitionary prayer, an entreaty, a supplication, a request. Here Paul is following his own instruction in Phil 4:6, "In everything, by prayer and petition, . . . present your requests to God." He lays his request before God on behalf of Israel "unto [eij" , eis ] salvation," i.e., for the purpose of their salvation.

Here is the situation: the Jews as a whole were lost, and Paul says he prays for them to be saved. What are the implications of such a prayer? Cranfield says it is "clear proof that he did not think of their present rejection as final and closed" (2:513). But how can this be, since he has already declared on the basis of divine prophecy that only a remnant will be saved (9:27-29)? On the basis of the remnant reference I believe Cranfield is wrong; Paul knows that no more than a remnant will be saved. Yet at the same time he does not know the exact number of this remnant, so he can pray for all Israel in the hope that as many as possible will be included in that number.

How to justify praying for the lost is an enigma for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. For the former, if God's eternal decree has already inviolably fixed the number and identity of the elect, what is the use of praying? The prayer will surely change nothing. At this point Calvinists usually appeal to their concept of the two wills of God: the number of the elect is indeed fixed according to God's secret will, but his revealed will still enjoins us to pray for all and to seek the salvation of all (see Murray, 2:47; MacArthur, 2:58).

On the other hand, non-Calvinists believe that human beings have free will and that God does not coerce anyone into salvation. So in what way do we expect God to answer our prayers for the salvation of the lost? What do we expect him to do? In another place (GRu, 199-208) I have explained how God may seek to influence human decisions through his providential control of external circumstances and his intervention in our mental processes, but such influences are resistible (Amos 4:6-11; Hag 1:1-11). In any case, because God surely loves all men infinitely more than we are even capable of, surely he is already doing all he can to influence all men to salvation. So what possible difference can it make when we pray for the lost? Lard's comment on Paul's prayer is relevant for such prayer in general (322):

. . . From the scope of prophecy and the obstinacy of the Jews, the Apostle must have felt sure that they would be lost. Yet he prayed for their salvation. Did he pray for what he felt certain would not be? He might very consistently have done so. The loss of the Jews was not fixed by irrevocable decree. It was determined by their own wilful rejection of Christ, and although morally certain, it was not unalterably so. Hence the Apostle could very properly ask God to avert it. No one knows, not even Paul, the resources of the infinite Father.

10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. This is a partial explanation of why Paul earnestly desires and prays for Israel's salvation, i.e., because they did seem to be genuinely sincere in their efforts to honor God. Literally Paul says "I bear witness" or "I do solemnly testify" that they have such zeal. How did Paul know this? Because this was his own state of mind prior to his conversion. He was truly zealous for God even while he was opposing Christ and his church in ignorant unbelief (Acts 22:3; Gal 1:13-14; 1 Tim 1:13).

To be zealous for a cause is certainly in itself an admirable trait, indicating sincerity and enthusiasm and passion. To be zealous "for God" is surely the most virtuous form of zeal. Thus this part of Paul's statement is probably a compliment: "I'll say this for them; I'll give them credit for this." As Dunn puts it, "Paul does honor to his fellow Jews for the fervor of their devotion to God and his law" (2:594). The problem is that one can be zealous, sincere, and enthusiastic and at the same time be deadly wrong. This was true of the Jews, whose zeal, says Paul, "is not based on knowledge" (see Prov 19:2). Unfortunately, where zeal serves the cause of error and ignorance, it is not a virtue but a vice. As Lenski says, "The greater the intensity of zeal devoid of true knowledge, the more damage it does to itself and to others" (643).

Paul's testimony concerning the Jews' uninformed zeal is a good corrective for those who think that sincerity is the deciding factor in one's relationship with God. If that were true, then the Jews would surely have been saved. But Paul makes it crystal clear that they are lost in spite of their sincerity. They are lost not because of their lack of knowledge as such, but because they refused to accept the knowledge that was available to them (see 10:16-21; see 1:18-25, about the Gentiles). One is not held responsible for knowledge that is actually unaccessible to him (4:15), but willful ignorance is inexcusable.

The Jews' zeal was blameworthy not because of its ultimate object, which was God, but because of the way they sought to honor him. This is explained in the next verse.

10:3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. As we saw in our discussion of 1:17 (JC, 1:115-121), "the righteousness that comes from God" is the very heart of the gospel of grace. It is the same as "the righteousness that is by faith" in 9:30. The Greek uses the simple genitive construction, "the righteousness of God ," but it is clear from the context and from the message of Romans in general that the NIV translation is correct. The righteousness of which Paul speaks is not God's righteous nature as such (contra Fitzmyer, 583), but the gift of a right standing before him which he offers to bestow on believing, penitent sinners. See 1:17; 3:21-22; 4:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9.

This is the righteousness by which God has always saved sinners, even before its basis was not specifically known. The actual basis for it is the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ; the righteousness of God is literally Christ's satisfaction of the penalty of the law (eternal punishment in hell) in our place (JC, 1:119). This is the gift of righteousness which God offered to all of Israel throughout OT history, through their humble acceptance of the gospel provisions of the law. This is also the gift he offered to them in the very person of their Messiah, Jesus.

But, says Paul, the Jews did not know this righteousness. They did not know it when it was initially offered to them in God's promises in OT history, and especially they did not know it when it was offered to them in Jesus himself. This is the climax of their not-knowing: the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah and Savior (DeWelt, 164). Their "chief ignorance" was their "failure to see that there is no other way to justification and salvation save by faith in Christ Jesus" (MP, 419). "The basic error of Israel was misconception respecting the righteousness unto justification" (Murray, 2:48).

To say that the Jews did not know this righteousness of God does not mean that they had never been exposed to it and were somehow ignorant of the very existence of the promises of God and the reality of the gospel facts. Rather, it means that they did not acknowledge the good news of God's righteousness; they did not accept it and welcome it and submit to it (Hendriksen, 2:342).

Instead, they continued to seek acceptance with God on the basis of their own righteousness, i.e., "as if it were by works" (9:32). They sought to use their law code as if it were a law system; they sought to achieve a level of personal obedience that would make them deserving of heaven. Rejecting the gift of the "robe of righteousness" (Isa 61:10), they relied on their own "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6). Or as one writer says, "Refusing to 'put on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), they clothed themselves with a garment of their own spinning, which they, like all other worms, spun from their own filthy inwards. . . . Refusing to accept Christ as the Rock for life-building, they reared their crumbling structure on their own sandy, unstable nature . . . (MP, 420)."

"Their own" righteousness means the personal self-righteousness achieved by each individual, not the national or corporate righteousness of the Jewish nation as compared with other nations. (See Moo, 634-635, contra Dunn, 2:587, 595.) Only if we take this in the former sense does it have universal application. I.e., every one of us, not just Jews living under the Mosaic Law, must fight the temptation to plead our case before God based upon our own moral and spiritual accomplishments rather than upon the blood of Christ.

The last part of the verse, "they did not submit to God's righteousness," is the main clause; the two verbs in the first part of the verse ("not knowing" and "seeking") are participles that modify or explain the main clause. That is, the Jews did not submit to God's righteousness in the sense that they ignored it and set forth their own as a substitute for it.

The word for "submit" is uJpotavssw ( hypotassô ), which is commonly used for submission to law or persons in authority (8:7; 13:1, 5). In what sense is a rejection of grace a refusal to submit to authority? It is so in the sense that grace is the way of salvation established by God himself and declared by him to be the only possible and acceptable way; thus to reject God's way by refusing his gift of righteousness is an act of rebellion against God. It is so also in the sense that accepting the gift of God's righteousness requires a humble and submissive attitude along with a repudiation of personal worthiness, to which human pride stubbornly clings. As Cranfield says, the Jews' rejection of God's righteousness involved "their refusal to humble themselves to accept it as an undeserved gift," and "the refusal to let grace be grace, the refusal to give God alone the glory" (2:515).

How, then, does one submit to the righteousness of God? By accepting God's way as the only way, thereby abandoning all claims to salvation based on self-righteousness. The only way to do this in the Christian era is to accept Jesus as the only Messiah and Savior, and to do so by fulfilling the gracious conditions for receiving God's righteousness as spelled out in the Word of God (JC, 1:108-115, 268-271). Chief among these conditions is faith (9:32a,33b; 10:4-17), the very essence of which is in part the act of submitting or surrendering oneself into the hands of God (JC, 1:108).

B. CHRIST ALONE IS THE SOURCE OF

SAVING RIGHTEOUSNESS (10:4-13)

The main point of chs. 9-11 is to explain why God must still be regarded as faithful even though most Jews are lost (while many Gentiles are saved!). One key consideration is the distinction between ethnic or national Israel, and spiritual Israel, the remnant who along with many Gentiles are "vessels of mercy" (9:6, 23-29). Another key factor is the distinction between being chosen for service and being chosen for salvation .

In 9:1-29 Paul has shown that God is faithful to his promises to ethnic Israel, even though most of them are lost, because these promises had to do with the nation's service, not salvation. In 9:30-10:21 he is giving another reason why the Jews' lostness does not violate God's faithfulness, namely, it is the result of their own choice, not God's. The saved remnant does not owe its existence to a secret, unconditional choice on God's part; their salvation is the result of their free acceptance of God's free offer of grace, a grace that is now known to be possible only because of Jesus Christ. Anyone can choose to accept this grace - certainly the Jews, and Gentiles as well.

In other words, ch. 9 shows that ethnic Israel was unconditionally elected to service, and ch. 10 shows that spiritual Israel is conditionally elected to salvation.

The point Paul is making in this section presupposes the law/grace distinction spelled out in 1-8, especially the nature and role of the righteousness of God in justification (JC, 1:115-120; 250-265). Here Paul is simply applying what he has already taught on the subject to the question at hand, i.e., the question of God's faithfulness in view of the Jews' lostness. The bottom line is that the law/grace distinction, and more specifically the distinction between God's righteousness and personal righteousness, is the key to why God saves some (even Gentiles) and rejects others (even Jews).

In 9:30-10:3 Paul has shown that the Jews are lost because they deliberately chose to trust their own personal righteousness rather than God's righteousness (10:3). Many Gentiles, on the other hand, have chosen to accept the gift of God's righteousness through faith (9:30), and thus are saved.

Now in 10:4-13 Paul goes into more detail about the distinction between the two kinds of righteousness. Speaking especially about the present era, he gets specific about "the righteousness that comes from God." How can it be said that the Jews have rejected God's righteousness? Have they not cherished God's law and been zealous in their attempts to obey it? Yes, but the point is that righteousness according to law is not God's righteousness, the righteousness that saves. God's saving righteousness is to be found in Jesus Christ alone. So when the Jews rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah, they were rejecting the only source and basis for saving righteousness.

The content of this section unfolds thus. First Paul simply states the choice that anyone must make regarding his salvation: either law-righteousness, or faith in Jesus (10:4). The typical Jew chose the former, using his relationship with the Law of Moses as the basis for his claim to salvation. But Moses himself said that the only way to be saved by law is to obey it completely, which is a futile pursuit (10:5).

But the grace of Jesus Christ can set anyone free from the futility of this universal tendency to pursue righteousness via law-keeping. The gospel of grace is readily available to all. The key to receiving it is to trust in the mighty works of Jesus Christ, not in our own works (10:6-10). Saving faith understands that Christ's works alone are the basis for salvation.

This way of trust is open to all, to Jews and Gentiles alike. When it comes to salvation, God makes no distinction between these groups. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (10:11-13).

1. An Either-Or Choice: Works-Righteousness,

or Faith in Christ (10:4)

10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Most writers do not see a break between v. 3 and v. 4. They either see v. 4 as concluding the previous section beginning with 9:30, or see 10:1-13 as a unit.

I believe, though, that v. 4 begins a new paragraph. How then does this verse relate to the preceding paragraph? Verses 2, 3, 4, and 5 all begin with the particle gar , a word that usually introduces an explanation, a confirmation, or a reason for what precedes. (The NIV translates it only in v. 2). Thus the point is that something in the previous verse or context is true, because v. 4 is true. The key is the reference to the Jews' ignorance of true righteousness in v. 3 ("not based on knowledge") and v. 4 ("they did not know"). Their pursuit of righteousness via law was zealous, but it was ignorant and futile because ( gar ) Christ has shown once for all that law-keeping cannot make one acceptable before God.

The distinction between law and grace as contrasting ways of salvation is central to this paragraph (Moo, 644). This distinction has existed from the very moment sin entered the world, but it has now come into sharpest focus with the coming of Jesus the Christ. It is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that the choice between works-righteousness and faith in Christ is an either-or choice. Jesus is the definitive end to all attempts to use the law as a way of being accepted by God.

This verse is without question "one of the fundamental theses of Pauline theology as a whole," as Cranfield says (2:515), and thus its interpretation is crucial. But how shall we interpret it? Exegetes are sharply divided over this question, and it cannot be answered easily. Four issues must be resolved: (1) What is the meaning of "end" (tevlo" , telos )? (2) To what "law" is Paul referring? (3) What is the meaning of the connecting word (eij" , eis ) between "the end of the law" and "righteousness"? And finally, (4) is this a statement about an event in the overall history of redemption, or about each individual's experience of salvation?

As we analyze these questions, two principal interpretations will emerge. The first can be summarized thus: "Christ is the goal and fulfillment (and thus the termination) of the Law of Moses, so that now, in the NT era, there is righteousness for all who believe." The second is this: "Christ is the termination of the law-system as a way of righteousness for each individual who puts his trust in God's gracious promises." Here I will defend the latter view.

Regarding the first issue, what does it mean to say that Christ is the "end" of the law? The Greek word telos has many meanings, but only two or three are relevant here. One possibility is that it means "goal." That is, Christ is the very goal or purpose for the law's existence, or "that at which it was aimed or for which it was intended" (Fitzmyer, 584; see Hendriksen, 2:342). See Gal 3:24. Another possibility is that telos means "fulfillment," that Christ came to fulfill the law in the sense of Matt 5:17. Cranfield (2:519) rightly points out that these two nuances (goal and fulfillment) are not really distinct but are correlative: since Christ was the goal of the law, when he came he fulfilled the purpose for which it was given. Cranfield defends this view and shows that it has been held by many writers throughout Christian history (2:516-519). As Calvin says, this "remarkable passage . . . proves that the law in all its parts had a reference to Christ" (385). Lard agrees, declaring that Christ is not the "extinction" of the law, but its "ultimate object" and "final purpose" (325).

The other relevant meaning of telos is "termination." Christ is the end of the law in the sense that he terminated it or brought it to an end. Dunn argues for this meaning as primary here (2:597), as does Lenski (645). Moo says this is the better option, though the nuance of "goal" is also present (641). Achtemeier argues for both goal and termination (168).

In my judgment "termination" is the correct view, as the following discussion will show.

The second issue, closely intertwined with the above, is the meaning of "law." Christ is the telos of the law - but which law? One main view is that this means the Law of Moses (see 9:31). "The Torah is clearly in view," says Dunn (2:591). Others agree; see Cranfield, 2:516; Fitzmyer, 584-585; Moo, 636. If this is what Paul means by "law," then either or both meanings of telos could apply. I.e., Christ was the goal and fulfillment of the OT law, and he also brought it to an end.

The other main view is that Christ is the end of all forms of law or law in general, as a way of attaining righteousness before God. This would apply certainly to the Law of Moses, but also to the law written on the heart as well as to the law-commandments of the NT. In other words, Christ is the end not just of this or that or all law codes ; he is the end of any form of law as a system of salvation. Sanday and Headlam argue thus (284-285), as does Lenski (645). If this is the meaning of "law," then telos must mean "termination," since it does not make sense to say that Christ is the aim or purpose or fulfillment of all law.

I accept the latter view of "law" in this verse, and thus take Paul as saying that Christ is the termination of any form of law as a way of righteousness or acceptance with God. It is certainly true that Christ is the telos of the Law of Moses. He both fulfills it, and brings it to an end; thus what Paul says is surely intended to apply to the Jews and to their law. But his point is not restricted to this. Indeed, Paul says Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every person who believes. This reference to "every person" (pantiv , panti ) shows that Paul is thinking not only of those to whom the Law of Moses applied but to those who have other forms of law as well (see SH, 284). The following conclusion concerning eis also confirms this view.

The third issue in exegeting 10:4 is the connection between "the end of the law" and "righteousness." In the Greek text the connecting word is the preposition eis , and there are two main views as to its meaning here. One view takes "Christ is the end of the law" as being a complete thought in itself, with the rest of the verse (introduced by eis ) expressing the goal or result of that fact. Eis would thus be translated "so that" or "therefore." This is what it means, says Moo: "Christ is the telos of the law, with the result that there is (or with the purpose that there might be) righteousness for everyone who believes" (636-637). The NIV follows this view.

According to the other interpretation, eis should be connected only with the word "law," introducing a simple prepositional phrase (eij" dikaiosuvnhn , eis dikaiosynçn ) that modifies that word alone. Thus the verse would be saying that Christ is the end of "law for righteousness" or law "as a means toward righteousness" (Dunn, 2:596). This is how the NASB translates it: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

In my judgment the former view, represented by the NIV, is wrong; and the latter view is correct. This latter view is acceptable grammatically and is theologically consistent with the theme of Romans in general and with Paul's point in this context (9:30- 10:21). Also, there are two problems with the alternative. One is that the second part of the verse does not logically follow from the first part, as this interpretation of eis requires. To say "Christ is the telos of the law; therefore righteousness is there for all who believe" is a non sequitur : it does not follow. This is true whether telos be taken as "termination" or as "goal." Regarding the former, to say that doing away with the law (whether Mosaic or general) somehow leads to a righteousness-by-faith situation implies that before this happened, the law itself was somehow a proper means to righteousness - a conclusion few will accept. Regarding the latter, there is no clear causal connection between the two parts of the verse, contrary to Fitzmyer's statement: "Because Christ is the goal of the law, a status of uprightness is available to all who believe in him" (587). Both these clauses are true, to be sure, but they are not logically connected as cause and effect.

The second problem with interpreting eis as "so that" (as in the NIV) is that this makes the first part of the verse say that Christ is the end of the law in an absolute, unqualified way. If "law" here means the Law of Moses, there is surely a sense in which Christ brought it to an end (see Hebrews), but not absolutely. Christ himself said he did not come to abolish the law (Matt 5:17). But as we have seen, "law" here does not refer to the Law of Moses anyway, but to law in general. And certainly Christ has not brought an end to law in general. Though we are not under law as a way of salvation, we are still under full obligation to obey its relevant commandments (6:14-15). Thus Paul must be saying that Christ has brought an end to law only in a qualified sense, and that qualification is spelled out in 10:4b. Christ has terminated the law "unto righteousness," or as a means of achieving a status of righteousness before God.

One final issue must be discussed, namely, what sort of event is this tevlo" novmou ( telos nomou , "end of law")? Is it a one-time event accomplished by Christ in the process of salvation history? Or is it an ever-recurring event that takes place in each individual's experience when he comes to trust in God's saving grace? Those who take "law" as referring to the Law of Moses say the former. For example, Dunn declares that 10:4 "refers to the once-for-all transition in God's saving purpose effected by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It does not denote a timeless sequence which subsequent generations may expect to find constantly repeated in their own lives - as though everyone had to go through a 'law' phase before coming to Christ" (2:597; see 2:611). See also Moo, 641; MP, 421; and Bruce, 203.

I totally disagree with this view, and defend instead the very view that Dunn describes (above) only to reject. Jesus Christ is the termination of the law-system as a way of righteousness, as a way of acquiring God's favor, for everyone who comes to believe in him. Even before Christ came, and not just in this new era, his planned and foreknown atonement was the basis for God's offer of righteousness to those who accepted his loving promises. As Lenski says, this verse "does not mark a date in history as though from that date forward all law was ended while before that date law was the means for righteousness . . . . Christ was 'an end of law for righteousness' from the beginning, for Abraham as much as for us" (645). Moses himself implies this in the statement from Lev 18:5 quoted in the very next verse (10:5). I.e., Moses taught for his own time the very truth that underlies what Paul is saying in 10:4.

It is important to see that ever since sin entered the world there has never been a time when law was an actual way of righteousness before God. Thus to say that Christ is the end of law for righteousness means that he is the end of all false and futile attempts to base righteousness on law-keeping. When we understand the work of Jesus Christ as the embodiment and source of grace, we understand that our righteousness is in him alone (2 Cor 5:21).

2. The Futility of Law-Righteousness (10:5)

10:5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." This and the next five verses set forth in more detail the contrast between law-righteousness and God's righteousness, explaining why Christ has ended the former and established the latter. Verse 5 explains the way law-righteousness works, with the implied conclusion that it is futile for anyone to attempt to actually achieve a right status before God by this method. This is in essence the same message as 1:18-3:20.

To make his point Paul cites a statement by Moses from Lev 18:5, which reads, "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." Paul paraphrases it thus: "The man who does [the righteousness of the law] will live by it." See also Luke 10:28 and Gal 3:12.

This statement has two levels of application. Its immediate application in Lev 18:5 was to the covenant responsibilities God imposed on the Jews as his special people. Contrary to the evil behavior of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, Israel was commanded to keep God's laws and decrees (Lev 18:1-4). Their relative righteousness was a condition for their continued enjoyment of the blessings of the promised land. The words "will live" thus referred to peaceful and prosperous longevity in the land of Canaan. Unfortunately, most of the time Israel was not able to fulfill even this requirement of relative righteousness, and thus ultimately forfeited its claim on the promised land. See Ezek 20:11,13,21.

But Paul, guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, sees a deeper level of application in these words of Moses, one that is not limited to the Jews and to the Mosaic Law and to relative righteousness as a covenant condition. He sees therein a reference to law in general, and to the necessity of absolute obedience as a condition for eternal life. Thus the statement by Moses is presented as a terse summary of law as a way of salvation. When one chooses the law-system as his way of gaining acceptance by God, the only way to gain such acceptance is to obey the requirements of the law without exception. Thus Paul takes the statement from Moses to read, " Only the man who does these things perfectly will live eternally by them."

In the background, however, lies the fact that "all have sinned" (3:23; see 1:18-3:20). Thus law as a way of righteousness is tragically futile; this is why it is so important to see that Christ has brought an end to all attempts to establish righteousness by law (v. 4).

3. Saving Righteousness Comes through Trusting Christ's Works, Not Our Own (10:6-10)

10:6a But the righteousness that is by faith says . . . . The next five verses set forth a contrast between law-righteousness and faith-righteousness, a contrast indicated by the word "but" (Greek, de ). The main point seems to be that whereas law-righteousness depends on human works and accomplishments (which can never be adequate), faith-righteousness depends on the all-sufficient works of Christ. What is left for us to do is to humbly acknowledge these works and rest our hope of heaven on them.

Much of the content of vv. 6-8 consists of statements drawn from the words of Moses in Deut 30:12-14. Since these verses are in contrast with v. 5, which also cites Moses, it might at first seem that Moses is inconsistent. Stott opines that Paul "thus sets Moses against Moses, that is, Moses in Leviticus against Moses in Deuteronomy" (282). This is a faulty understanding of Paul's use of Deut 30, however.

Some declare that Paul in vv. 6-8 is quoting the Deuteronomy text. Bruce says that Paul "quotes verses 11-14" (201). Moo says that certain features in the text "imply that Paul is here applying a text he is quoting" (652). "Paul almost certainly does intend to cite Deut 30:12-13, or more precisely, to explain and expand it," says Dunn (2:603).

This assumption that Paul is quoting Moses raises some serious questions, though, since in v. 6 Paul specifically applies the words of Moses to "the righteousness that is by faith," while in Deuteronomy Moses is clearly talking about the law and obedience to it. This leads to some rather strained interpretations of Paul's use of the words of Moses. One of the most common is the idea that law as Moses refers to it in Deut 30 actually includes the message of Christ and his grace; thus Paul is only stating what is implicit in the Deuteronomy text. As Cranfield says, "it is in the law itself, in Deuteronomy, that Paul hears the message of justification by faith" (2:522). Thus 10:6-8 is Paul's "true interpretation in depth" of Deuteronomy (2:524). Paul's purpose, says Godet, is "to bring out the element of grace contained in the passage" in Deuteronomy. This "element of grace . . . is here disentangled by Paul from its temporary wrapping" (379). Moo's view is similar (645, 653-654).

This approach, I believe, is incorrect. It is true that the Law of Moses taken as a whole has an element of grace (see 9:32), but that is not the subject of Deut 30:11-14. In this text Moses speaks of the law as law, as commandments that must be obeyed. His main point is that the Jews had no need to mount a heroic search for God's law, since it was conveniently revealed to them in Moses' own words. Thus "Moses assures the Israelites that God's law is truly accessible to them" (Achtemeier, 169). His point was "to prevent the Israelites from evading their responsibility for doing the will of God by pleading that they do not know it" (Moo, 651).

What is Paul doing, then? He is simply taking the form of Moses' statements about the law, including some of the same wording, and applying it to grace instead. He is not attempting to quote Moses or interpret Moses. He simply wants to say the same thing about grace that Moses said about the law: we do not have to do something heroic to know about it and receive it; it has already been made available to us, namely, through Jesus Christ. As DeWelt says, "What Moses said of 'the commandment' . . . can be applied to justification by faith" (166). "St. Paul uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with a completely different application" (SH, 287).

We should note that in this verse, unlike in v. 5, Paul does not say " Moses says" or " Moses writes." This shows that it is not his intention simply to repeat Deut 30:12-14. Instead, Paul says that "the righteousness that is by faith" is the one who speaks the words that follow. He thus personifies faith-righteousness. That faith-righteousness says these things means simply that it is characterized by them.

The first words of the personified faith-righteousness are in the form of an exhortation, "'Do not say in your heart . . . .'" "Heart" refers to the entire spiritual side of man's nature, including the intellect and the will as well as the emotions. According to Lenski, "'To say in the heart' is a Hebraism for 'to think secretly' and is used especially regarding some unworthy thought which one fears to utter aloud" (650). See especially Deut 8:17; 9:4, where this expression is used to warn against "presumptuous boasting in one's own merit" (Cranfield, 2:523).

10:6b-7 What does Paul warn us not to say? Do not say ". . . 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). This is certainly an allusion to Deut 30:12-13, where Moses says this concerning God's law: "It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?'"

Moses' emphasis is clearly on the accessibility and understandability of God's law. It is not an esoteric message hidden in some secret place or located at some far corner of the universe. Possession of it is not dependent on some act of Herculean proportions, such as ascending into the heavens or crossing the sea. As Moses explains in v. 11, "What I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." You already have it; all you have to do is obey it.

By wording his questions in much the same way as Moses, Paul makes the same point about grace that Moses does about law, except he refers not just to the knowledge of saving righteousness, but to the actual possession of it. How can one be accepted as righteous before God? Not by personal obedience or "doing" ("the man who does these things," v. 5), but only by the works of Jesus Christ! So do not ask yourself, what great work must I do to be justified before God? Do not ask, "Must I ascend into heaven?" - as if you could! and as if Christ has not already been there and has not already come down to us, bringing salvation with him. Do not ask, "Must I invade the empire of death and Satan himself?" - as if you could! and as if Christ has not already done that and returned from the dead in triumph. Do you think you can match what Christ has done, or somehow participate in his work or improve upon it?

Paul's reference to ascending into heaven is the same idea and has the same force as Deut 30:12. As Moo points out, in the OT this act was "almost proverbial for a task impossible for human beings to perform" (654). The reference to descending into the deep makes the same point, using the figure of extreme depth rather than extreme height. In the second question Paul does not follow Deut 30:13; Moses speaks of crossing the sea while Paul speaks of descending into "the deep" (a[busso" , abyssos , "the abyss"). In the Greek OT this word was often used for the depths of the sea, and the concept is sometimes paired with the heavens (Ps 107:26; see Ps 139:8, which has hades instead of abyssos ). In either case, crossing the sea or descending to its depths, along with ascending to the heavens, to the Jews represented the most extreme effort imaginable.

Paul's reference to the abyss, though, probably has significance beyond the fact that it is simply the opposite vertical extreme compared with the heavens. In the OT the abyss is sometimes comparable to sheol ( hades ), the abode of the dead (Ps 71:20), and in the NT it is elsewhere depicted exclusively as the proper abode of Satan and his demonic angels (e.g., Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1,2,11). Thus descending into the abyss means coming face to face with man's greatest enemies, death and Satan. Fitzmyer is probably correct to say that Paul switches to this figure because this allows him to refer specifically to the resurrection of Christ (590).

What is the significance of Paul's christological comments appended to these questions? They are not meant to be a commentary on or an interpretation of Moses' questions in Deut 30:12-13. They are meant rather to point out that the only one who is capable of performing mighty works of salvation is Jesus Christ, and he in fact has already done them. There is no need to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven?" as if such an act on man's part would merit his salvation. In the first place, no human being can do this by his own effort. In the second place, even if he could, the only purpose for doing so would be to come before God and beg for a Savior. But this is unnecessary, because the Savior has already by his own initiative come down out of heaven for us, in the incarnation.

At the same time there is no need to ask, "Who will descend into the deep (the abyss)?" as if by this act we could in some way forge our own deliverance from sin. In the first place it would be futile, since the lords of the abyss, death and Satan, are both stronger than we are. In the second place, the Christ who came down from heaven has already through his death invaded the abyss, and he has defeated its inhabitants and been victoriously raised from the dead. He has done this by his own glorious power; he needs no help from us.

These questions are not meant to represent an attitude of denial and disbelief with respect to Christ's incarnation and resurrection (contra Godet, 381; Lard, 327-328; and Hendriksen, 2:344). Rather, they represent either an attitude of self-righteousness, as if a man could actually do works great enough to save himself - in which case the references to Christ are a rebuke; or (more likely) they are a cry of despair at the impossibility of saving ourselves - in which case the references to Christ are a comfort and a relief. Morris sums it up thus: "'The righteousness of faith' does not demand that we be supermen; it does not set some impossible task before us. God has done all that is necessary, and we receive his gift of righteousness by faith" (383-384). See MP, 424; Lenski, 650-651.

10:8 But what does it say? The subject of the verb "say" is the same as in v. 6, "the righteousness that is by faith." What does faith-righteousness say to us? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart". . . . This statement closely follows part of Deut 30:14, "No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." This completes the thought begun in Deut 30:11, where Moses tells his people that God's commands are not beyond their grasp, as if they could find them only by ascending to heaven or crossing the sea (30:12-13). On the contrary, his word is as close to you as your own mouth and heart. You already have God's law; all that remains is for you to obey it.

Though Paul in 10:8 is obviously echoing key elements of this verse in Deuteronomy, he is not just repeating it but is adapting it to his own purposes. When Moses said, "The word is very near you," he meant the word of command. Deut 30:11 speaks literally of "[this command which] I am commanding you today"; v. 14 says this word (of command) must be obeyed . But to show that he is not speaking of the same word, Paul adds this specific qualification: . . . that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming . . . . Moses spoke a word that must be obeyed; Paul proclaimed a word that must be believed.

The term for "word" is rJh'ma (rhçma ), not logos , probably because the LXX uses rhçma in Deut 30:14. It refers to the message Paul proclaimed or preached, the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why is it called "the word of faith"? One reason is that the proper and natural response to the word (message) of the gospel is to believe it (as contrasted with the proper and natural response to the word of law, which is to obey it). Another reason is that this word is what stimulates and evokes faith (10:17). Finally and primarily, as is often the case for Paul, the term "faith" stands in contrast with "works" (9:32) and with the "doing" required by law (10:5). Thus "the word of faith" is another shorthand expression for the entire way of grace.

The main point is that the word of faith is near you. This simply reinforces what was said in vv. 6-7, that the source of our salvation is not works that we do but the saving work of Jesus, which is made known to us through the word of the gospel. This means, as Lard says (329), "that what justification by belief requires is easy," as compared with the impossible requirements of salvation by law.

Just how near is this "word of faith"? It is so close that it is "in your mouth" and "in your heart." Deut 30:14 says the same thing about the word of law. The Israelites had heard the word of the law spoken by Moses; thus they were fully able to repeat it with their own mouths and understand it in their hearts. Likewise, through the proclamation of the word of faith, the saving righteousness of God is immediately present to the hearing sinner, so near and familiar to him that he can talk about it and mull it over in his mind.

10:9 It may be that in the original reference (Deut 30:14) the mouth and heart were mentioned simply because they are the epitome of nearness. I.e., what could be closer to the center of a person's being than something in his mouth or in the deep recesses of his heart? But Paul is not content to let these figures stand as simple symbols for nearness. In the next two verses he gives them a spiritual or theological application, showing that the mouth and the heart are both involved in receiving for oneself what the close-at-hand "word of faith" promises.

Moses declared that the word of command was very near to the Israelites, but it still had to be obeyed: "The word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it ." Paul likewise tells us that the word of faith demands a response. The gospel may be in someone's mouth in the sense that he can repeat it, and it may be in his heart in the sense that he knows about it and understands it. But such a person is not actually saved unless he believes the gospel message to be true and both internally and externally surrenders himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Paul sums up this response in v. 9: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. This verse begins with the Greek word o{ti ( hoti ), which the NIV and others translate as "that." Taken thus, v. 9 would be the content of the word of faith that Paul proclaimed. Others take hoti as meaning "because" (e.g., Moo, 657; NRSV). I.e., the word of faith is as near as your mouth and heart, because the simple hearing of the word puts one in the position of immediately being able to use his mouth and heart to receive salvation.

The Greek for "confess" is oJmologevw (homologeô ), which literally means "to say the same thing, to agree," and thus to acknowledge the truth of something. Of course such a confession could be hypocritical, but the very sense of the word implies sincerity, and in this context Paul ties it to sincere heart-belief.

Paul says that this confession is "with your mouth," which shows that he is referring to an oral, public confession of one's faith. In 1 Tim 6:12-13 Paul reminds Timothy that he confessed the "good confession in the presence of many witnesses," and notes that even Jesus "made the good confession" before Pontius Pilate (see John 18:37).

The essential content of our confession is specified: "Jesus is Lord." The Greek is kuvrion =Iesou'n (kyrion Içsoun ), literally "Lord Jesus." The KJV speaks of confessing "the Lord Jesus." It is generally accepted, though, that this double object of the verb "confess" has the sense of confessing "Jesus [to be] Lord." The NASB puts it "Jesus as Lord." The NIV gives the correct sense of the statement. (See 1 Cor 12:3, where the same formula, kyrios Içsous , obviously means "Jesus is Lord.")

The confession of Jesus as Lord early became the standard way of acknowledging oneself to be a Christian. It was "the earliest . . . Christian creed" (Bruce, 202), "an established confessional formula" (Cranfield, 2:527), the "slogan of identification" that marked one as a believer (Dunn, 2:607). See John 20:28; Acts 2:36; 10:36; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11.

What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord ? It ascribes to him two things: ownership and deity (see Cranfield, 2:529). The basic connotation of the word is that of the owner or master of something (cf. the English "landlord"). To confess Jesus to be our Lord is thus to confess that he is our owner and we are his slaves. It is the external expression of an internal spirit of complete submission to every aspect of his word and will.

In accord with the religious significance attached to the title kyrios in biblical times, it is clear also that confessing Jesus as Lord is to confess that he is deity, that he is fully divine, that he is God the Son, equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in essence and power and honor. "Lord" is the name above every name (Phil 2:9-11); it is Paul's trinitarian title for Jesus (1 Cor 8:6; 12:4-6; Eph 4:4-6). It is also the Greek word used by Greek-speaking people to represent the holy name of God - Yahweh - in the OT, orally at first and then ultimately in copies of the Septuagint (see Moo, 660, n. 77; see GRe, 121).

There is still no greater and no more significant confession than "Jesus is Lord." To confess him as "the Christ" and "the Son of the Living God" (Matt 16:16) is accurate and appropriate, but to omit the central confession of his Lordship is to ignore the fundamental pattern of NT Christianity. MacArthur points out (2:74), "In the book of Acts, Jesus is twice referred to as Savior but ninety-two times as Lord. In the entire New Testament, He is referred to some ten times as Savior and some seven hundred times as Lord. When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior ."

The other necessary response to the word of faith mentioned by Paul in this verse is to "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead." To "believe that" (pisteuvw o{ti , pisteuô hoti ) is to acknowledge or assent to the truth of some statement. This is a necessary aspect of saving faith, but must be accompanied also by "believing in/on" Jesus, which is the element of trust. (See JC, 1:107-108.) Here the element of trust is not specifically mentioned but is implied in the confession of Lordship, by the phrase "in your heart," and by association with "trusts in" (pisteuvw ejpiv , pisteuô epi ) in v. 11.

To "believe in the heart" means not only to accept the bare facts about something but also to accept its full meaning and significance and to be committed to applying its implications to one's own life. It is comparable to being "obedient from the heart" (6:17, NASB).

It is significant that believing and confessing are linked together; it shows that in the Christian life they cannot be separated. "Inward belief and outward expression of the word [are] inextricably linked, the two sides of one coin" (Dunn, 2:609). Confession without faith is of no value for salvation (Matt 7:21-23), and faith without confession is simply unthinkable: "True faith is never silent; it always confesses" (Lenski, 655).

It may seem strange that Paul mentions confession before faith, since the logical order would seem to be the reverse. The order in v. 9 is dictated, however, by the order of "mouth" and "heart" in Deut 30:14 as reflected in v. 8. In v. 10 Paul recapitulates v. 9, using the reverse (expected) order.

Exactly what must be believed in the heart about Jesus as a means to salvation? We must believe "that God raised him from the dead." In view of the centrality of the atonement in God's provision for our justification (JC, 1:118-120), it may seem strange that Paul should here omit any reference to the cross and mention only the resurrection. The resurrection is not unrelated to our justification, however (see 4:24-25). Also, we should not jump to the conclusion that Paul's list here in 10:9 is meant to be exhaustive (see below). Also, he focuses specifically on faith in the resurrection because in the NT the resurrection of Christ is directly related to his Lordship (see below).

That Jesus actually died and came back from the dead are two of the most firmly attested facts in the NT, and are completely indispensable to the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). Faith in the resurrection is the keystone (the top wedge of an arch) that gives legitimacy to all the other elements of our belief about Jesus. We cannot believe in his incarnation, virgin birth, deity, propitiatory sacrifice, and Second Coming if we deny his resurrection.

We must believe not just that he came back from the dead, but more specifically that God raised him from the dead. As such we acknowledge that his resurrection is not just some isolated and unexplained accident of nature, nor a part of some sinister hoax by an unidentified but malevolent power. No, his resurrection was an act of God , the God of the Bible, the God of the Jews, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Thus the resurrection establishes the entire biblical worldview, especially its claim that our justification before God is not by our own righteousness but by his righteousness alone.

Belief in Christ's resurrection is naturally linked with confession of his Lordship, since in the NT his resurrection and Lordship are inseparable. As the final and victorious stage in his battle against death and Satan, the resurrection is the supreme and conclusive expression and validation of the Lordship of God the Son in his incarnate form as Jesus of Nazareth. Because of the resurrection there can be no doubt that this man is, in Thomas' words, "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28). There are many others for whom deity and lordship are claimed (1 Cor 8:5), but the claims of Christ and Christ alone are vindicated once for all by his resurrection. See Matt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4; Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:9-11; Rev 1:17-18.

This brings us to Paul's main point. Grace as a way of salvation is simple and relatively easy (compared with law), because the message has already been proclaimed to you, and the reality of which it speaks can be appropriated without delay by the activity of your own mouth and heart. You must respond as instructed, to be sure; but if you do respond, you can be assured that "you will be saved." This salvation includes the present down-payment of the "double cure" for sin (JC, 1:248), followed by the full inheritance of eternal life (8:17-25).

This verse clearly states that salvation is conditional: " If you do these things, you will be saved." This is in keeping with Paul's main point in this chapter, namely, that the Jews' lostness is not the result of some action (or lack of action) by an unfaithful God, but is the result of their own refusal to meet the gracious conditions for receiving salvation.

Regarding the specific conditions named here, v. 9 presents a dilemma for those committed to a faith-only view of salvation. On the one hand, the verse omits any reference to baptism, and thus seems to refute the claim that baptism is somehow a condition for salvation. On the other hand, it does speak of deliberate oral confession as a condition for salvation, and thus seems to go against the common view of justification by faith alone.

At the same time, this verse presents a problem for those who do believe that baptism is a condition for salvation. Paul seems to be saying that the only conditions for salvation are faith and confession; he makes no specific mention of baptism.

Regarding the former dilemma, some faith-only advocates simply ignore the implications of this verse for their view; others openly deny the parallel significance given by Paul to confession and faith. Moo (657) says it is surprising, "in light of Paul's stress on faith in this context," that he should list two conditions as our expected response to the word of faith. Moo's explanation is that Paul did this just for rhetorical purposes, i.e., to maintain a parallelism with the references to both mouth and heart in Deut 30:14. He then discounts the reference to confession thus:

. . . Paul's rhetorical purpose at this point should make us cautious about finding great significance in the reference to confession here, as if Paul were making oral confession a second requirement for salvation. Belief in the heart is clearly the crucial requirement, as Paul makes clear even in this context (9:30; 10:4, 11). Confession is the outward manifestation of this critical inner response.

Murray's explanation is similar: "We are not to regard confession and faith as having the same efficacy unto salvation," he says (2:55). Like any other good work, confession "is the evidence of the genuineness of faith" (2:56). Lenski says the same thing: "The instant a sinner believes, righteousness results . . . . This is justification by faith alone. . . . One who believes and is thereby justified confesses and shows that his faith is genuine" (657).

Such attempts to discount the significance of confession in order to preserve a concept of "faith only" that has been around only since Zwingli (16th century) are unfair to Paul's teaching, however. The references to confession and faith are grammatically parallel; the two verbs are identical in form and are related to "if" in exactly the same way, i.e., as equal conditions for salvation. If faith is a condition for salvation, then so must confession be. This is not to say that these two acts are related to salvation in the same way. I.e., both are conditions for salvation, but they do not play the same role in bringing the sinner to that point.

This verse shows the folly of taking any passage regarding the way of salvation in isolation from others that address the same subject. It especially shows the fallacy of drawing faith-only conclusions from texts such as John 3:16; Acts 16:31; and Rom 3:28. I have commented several times that when Paul uses expressions such as "righteousness by faith" (9:30; 10:6) and "word of faith" (10:8), these are shorthand expressions that stand for the entire grace system as contrasted with the law system. (See JC, 1:266-271, on 3:27-28.) Just as works are the central element in the law system, so is faith the central element in the grace system. The frequent reference only to faith is due to this centrality, and the absence of a reference to other acts (such as repentance and baptism) cannot be taken as ruling them out as conditions, as this verse shows.

Lard notes that Hodge says, "The two requisites for salvation mentioned in this verse, are confession and faith." Lard then comments, "But the reader may ask, Do you regard this condition [confession] as indispensable? I will answer the reader by asking, Are you ready to assume the responsibility of dispensing with it? I at least am not" (330).

The bottom line is that Paul's teaching about faith and confession is inconsistent with the prevalent Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone. (See v. 14 below for a further problem with this view.)

But what about the absence of any reference to baptism here? Even if we grant that faith is not the only condition for salvation, the only other one mentioned here is confession, not baptism. How can we explain this?

The same cautions explained above apply to this concern as well. We cannot assume that any one NT passage includes the entire list of conditions for salvaiton - not even this one. In fact, this very verse contains something that shows us that it was not intended to include all the conditions necessary for salvation, namely, the limited nature of the content of the faith specified here. Paul says if you believe "that God raised him from the dead," you will be saved. But virtually all Christians agree that the content of faith must include more than this; it must especially include "faith in his blood" (3:25). Thus the abbreviated content of the faith described here shows this verse is not intended to be a comprehensive, exclusive list of conditions.

Compiling such a list requires looking at all that Scripture has to say about the way of salvation. (See JC, 1:112-115.) In Romans, Paul has already explained the saving significance of baptism (6:3-4); he need not repeat it here. Many other texts do the same. (See Cottrell, Baptism .)

One thing about this verse suggests that baptism may not have been absent from Paul's thinking after all, even though it is not specifically mentioned. That is the fact that the verbs "confess" and "believe" are aorist tense, which suggests that Paul had in mind a specific past act that was associated with the sinner's initial and decisive confession of faith. In early Christian practice, this act was baptism. Bruce says, "If we are to think of one outstanding occasion for such a confession to be made, we should more probably think of that first confession - 'the answer of a good conscience' (I Pet. iii.21) - made in Christian baptism" (205). Also, Cranfield (2:527) notes that the confessional formula "Jesus is Lord" was probably "used in connexion with baptism (the present verse - perhaps also the fact that baptism was in, or into, the name of Jesus - would seem to point in that direction)." This confession, says Dunn, was "a public confession of a solemn nature," and "would no doubt be used at baptism" (2:607). The confession of Jesus as Lord is also referred to as "calling on the name of the Lord" in 10:13; and this is something associated with Christian baptism as a saving event (Acts 22:16; see Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21).

10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Literally this reads, "For with the heart one believes unto [eij" , eis ] righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto [ eis ] salvation." The NIV equates "unto righteousness" with being justified, which is probably accurate.

Do "justified" and "saved" refer to two different things in v. 10? MacArthur (2:72) says the former is the positive side of grace, i.e., what we become and receive (eternal life), while the latter is the negative side, i.e., what we escape (sin, eternal punishment). This distinction is completely artificial, however, and has no basis in the text. Godet makes a more reasonable distinction. He says justification is specific and depends only on faith, while salvation is more general, including sanctification and glory, and thus requires "persevering fidelity in the profession of the faith" (383; see MP, 427). But this is not Paul's point either, as the aorist tense for both verbs suggests. In other contexts such distinctions may be appropriate, but not in this verse. As Dunn says, here the words "could be reversed without loss of meaning" (2:609). "There is no substantive difference here," says Stott (283). Hendriksen (2:345) and Moo (659) also see them as synonyms in this verse.

The two parts of the verse are strictly parallel in form. In each case Paul is talking about how a sinner initially receives the gift of God's righteousness, which is the same as entering into the state of salvation. Thus this verse does not add anything to v. 9, in which being saved (the only term used there) is conditioned on both confession and faith.

One problem with the NIV is that it obscures the precise relation shown in the Greek text between believing and righteousness, and between confession and salvation. Paul says the sinner believes "unto ( eis ) righteousness" and confesses "unto ( eis ) salvation." Eis expresses purpose (and therefore result). I.e., the sinner believes for the purpose of receiving the gift of righteousness, and that is indeed the result of his faith. The sinner likewise confesses for the purpose of receiving the gift of salvation, and that is indeed the result of his confession.

When we understand that the two parts of this verse are parallel in form and that "righteousness" and "salvation" here have the same connotation, we can see why the faith-only approach to salvation cannot be true. This view assumes that righteousness or justification by faith means that one is justified as soon as he has faith, in the instant he has faith. Such simultaneity, however, is not inherent in the preposition "by" in the phrase "justified by faith," and this verse is evidence of it. The fact that another, separate act besides faith (i.e., confession) is also a condition for receiving salvation shows that one does not receive it as soon as the faith is present. This same logic also shows that justification by faith does not exclude from the salvation package the act of baptism, which in other texts is shown to be the precise time when the salvation is received (e.g., Col 2:12, "in baptism").

4. God's Righteousness Is Available Equally

to Jews and Gentiles (10:11-13)

Why are so many Jews lost, while so many Gentiles are being saved? It all comes back to the question of righteousness, and how a person seeks to be accepted as righteous by God. The question has always been, "In whose righteousness do you trust?" Anyone who trusts in his own righteousness will come short of the glory of God and be put to shame on Judgment Day; but anyone who humbly, by faith, accepts the gift of God's own righteousness will be saved. This applies to Jews, covenant service notwithstanding; it also applies equally to Gentiles. In this New Covenant age, the focus of this trust must be Jesus Christ, whose saving work is the very source and essence of this gift of righteousness.

This brief section speaks of the universality of God's righteousness, and how it is intended for and available to every human being.

10:11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Unlike v. 6, this is specifically identified as a quote from Scripture, namely, Isa 28:16b. This was quoted earlier in 9:33; see the comments there for its basic meaning.

"Will never be put to shame" means that those who meet God on the day of judgment wearing the free gift of the robe of Christ's righteousness (Isa 61:10; 2 Cor 5:21) will not be ashamed; those who refuse the gift (i.e., refuse to put their trust in Christ) will show up for the judgment wearing only their own filthy rags (Isa 64:6) and will be eternally ashamed. See Phil 3:9.

The "him" who is the object of trust is without question Jesus. In 9:33 this was implicit, but the context of 10:11 makes it explicit. He is the Lord of whom this whole passage speaks (vv. 9,12,13).

Paul cites Isaiah to once again provide OT confirmation for his teaching. His main point is righteousness by faith, and in vv. 8-10 Jesus Christ is the specific object of this faith. This is what Isa 28:16b means, he says.

Isaiah is quoted exactly the same in 9:33 and 10:11, except for the addition of one word in the latter. In each case the subject is a participle, "the one who believes/trusts" (oJ pisteuvwn , ho pisteuôn ). Universality is implicit here, but in 10:11 Paul makes it explicit by adding the word pa'" ( pas ), "all, everyone, anyone." Thus he emphatically affirms that God's offer of righteousness by faith is open to everyone. It is open to all Jews; those who refuse to accept it do so by their own choice. It is also open to all Gentiles, many of whom have accepted it (9:30). Those who exercise their freedom to trust in him constitute the true Israel, spiritual Israel, the remnant.

10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile . . . where the true Israel is concerned. Paul has already declared, in 3:22b, that "there is no difference" between these groups. In that verse his point was that there is no difference between them with regard to sin , "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23); "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (3:9). In this verse, though, the statement sounds the joyful note that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles with regard to salvation . The promise in v. 11 applies equally to all. As Peter learned through his encounter with Cornelius, "God does not show favoritism" when it comes to salvation (Acts 10:34). The Old Covenant distinction between Jews and Gentiles was a matter of the formers' election to service; faith-righteousness as the only way of salvation is offered to all. See 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.

The all-inclusiveness of the gospel is grounded in the universality of the Lordship of the one Lord, Jesus Christ: . . . the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who will call on him . . . . In 3:29-30 Paul affirmed the unity of Jews and Gentiles by declaring that there is only one God who is the God of them both. The idea here is the same, with attention focusing specifically on Jesus as the one Lord who is over all. That "Lord" here refers to Jesus is clear from v. 9 (see 1 Cor 12:5; Eph 4:5; Phil 2:9-11). He is elsewhere declared to be "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36; see Rom 9:5; Eph 1:22).

"All" refers specifically to all people , Jews and Gentiles; but the reference to riches means he is also Lord over all things , especially the spiritual bounty of salvation. God is "rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4) and supplies all our needs "according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" (Phil 4:19). This reminder that our Lord is rich assures us that there is an inexhaustible supply of grace; it will never run out, no matter how many heirs there may be. He is fully able to richly bless "all." Thus there was no need for the Jews to jealously seek an exclusive saving relationship with God. "The Jew had no reason to envy or begrudge the Gentiles their call, since it in no way impoverished him" (MP, 429).

Paul says that God richly blesses "all who call on him." We might have expected the Apostle to say, "all who believe in him," since his main emphasis thus far has been on faith (10:11). Why does he now change to "call on him"? Probably for two reasons. First, "calling upon the Lord" is a way of confessing him with our mouths; thus by using this language Paul reinforces the essentiality of confession as explained in 10:9-10. "Calling upon him" unites faith with the act of confessing. Second, Paul uses this word here to set up the quotation from Joel 2:32 in the next verse. To "call upon" (ejpikalevw , epikaleô ) was a word widely used in biblical times in both secular and religious senses. In the middle voice (as here) it meant "to appeal to someone" for a favor or a blessing. It is the word Paul used when he "appealed" to Caesar (Acts 25:11-12,21,25; 26:32; 28:19). When used in reference to God it often had the sense of petitionary prayer (1 Kgs 1Kings 118:24; Acts 7:59). To call upon the name of God was the same as calling upon God, as vv. 12 and 13 show.

Calling upon (the name of) the Lord - confessing his Lordship - has always been a distinguishing characteristic of God's people. Calling on the name of Yahweh set Israel apart from all the nations: "Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms what do not call on your name" (Ps 79:6; see v. 4). In the NT Christians are identified as the ones who call on the name of the Lord (Acts 9:14,21; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Tim 2:22). To call upon the Lord is in essence a humble confession of his absolute, universal Lordship. As MacArthur (2:83) says, "To call upon the name of Jesus as Lord is to recognize and submit to His deity, His authority, His sovereignty, His power, His majesty, His word, and His grace."

10:13 Most important, calling upon the Lord is specifically related to salvation: for, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." In some contexts this may refer to praying for deliverance from temporal troubles, as in Ps 116:4, "Then I called on the name of the LORD: 'O LORD, save me!'" In other contexts, as here, it is an appeal to God for salvation from sin.

This verse (except for "for") is an exact quotation of Joel 2:32 (LXX, 3:5). In Acts 2:21 the Apostle Peter cites this as part of a Messianic prophecy that refers to calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation (Acts 2:36-38; see 4:12; 8:12). Here we see again how "calling on the name of the Lord" is equivalent to "confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" (10:9), and how confessing with the mouth results in salvation (10:10).

The relation between calling on the Lord and salvation from sin also helps us to understand how baptism is related to the initial reception of salvation. In Acts 22:16, God's messenger Ananias tells the penitent but as-yet-unsaved Saul to do what Joel 2:32 says and call on the name of the Lord, i.e., for salvation. Do this, he says, while you are being baptized and washing away your sins. The very act of baptism is both a humble acknowledgment (confession) of the Lordship of Christ, and a prayer for him to save by washing away sins through his blood. The baptismal act should also be accompanied by a verbal prayer that "calls on his name," i.e., calls upon the Lord to keep his promises and wash away all sins. This is the sense of 1 Pet 3:21, which says that baptism saves us because it is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (NASB; the NIV's "pledge" is incorrect). See Cottrell, Baptism , chs. 6 and 13.

One last point about 10:13 is that it is a clear affirmation of the deity of Jesus. There can be no question that "the Lord" here refers to Jesus, especially in view of the content of our saving confession in v. 9. Also, there can be no question that Paul is here quoting Joel 2:32 and applying it to Jesus. But in the original Hebrew of Joel 2:32, "Lord" is actually the tetragram, the name Yahweh . Thus Paul is identifying Jesus of Nazareth with Yahweh, the God of the OT. (This is not to say that Yahweh and Jesus are identical. Yahweh as known in the OT is actually all three persons of the trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - as known in the NT. See GRe, 127-128.)

The main point of this paragraph (10:4-13) is that Jesus Christ alone is the source of saving righteousness. The emphasis throughout has been upon him. Now, by climactically applying Joel's prophecy to Jesus, Paul shows why we can have such utter confidence in him: he is no less than God himself.

C. THE JEWS HAVE NOT BELIEVED IN CHRIST,

AND THEIR UNBELIEF IS INEXCUSABLE (10:14-21)

How may we reconcile God's faithfulness with the Jews' lostness? In the first place, God's covenant with Israel never guaranteed that every Jew would be saved; it guaranteed only that the nation would serve God's redemptive purposes (9:1-29). In the second place, the lost condition of individual Jews is the result of their own choice of law rather than grace (9:30-10:21).

Regarding the latter point, the Jews have chosen to rest their case for salvation on their own righteousness, and not on the righteousness of God (9:30-10:3). But the only way anyone can be accepted by God is through the gift of God's own righteousness; the only basis for this gift is the work of Jesus Christ; and the only way to receive it is by faith in Christ (10:4-13).

This leads to the specific question now being discussed in this paragraph (10:14-21): it is true that the great majority of Jews have not believed in Jesus, but is their unbelief really their fault? Maybe they have not believed simply because they have never had the opportunity! "Perhaps the Jews have not had a fair deal? Perhaps the way has never been made clear to them?" (Morris, 389).

In response to such an idea, Paul makes it clear that the Jews have had every opportunity to believe, but have simply refused to do so. Thus they are without excuse and are personally responsible for their own lost state. As Fitzmyer says, "Paul stresses in this passage that God has done all that he could to bring Israel to faith. . . . Hence its 'ignorance' (10:3) is its own responsibility" (595, 596). Moo agrees: "Paul removes any possible excuse that the Jews might have for their failure to respond to God's offer of righteousness in Christ"; he shows that "Israel cannot plead ignorance" (662-663).

The flow of Paul's thought here is as follows. He has just asserted that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (v. 13). But Israel has not called on his name (v. 16). Why not? Maybe it has something to do with the chain of contingencies that must precede the act of calling on the Lord's name, i.e., calling-on is contingent upon faith, which is contingent upon hearing, which is contingent upon preaching, which is contingent upon being sent (vv. 14-15a).

So maybe Israel's unbelief can be traced to one of these other contingencies, one over which they have no control. Faith can come only from hearing the message, which can come only through the word of Christ. So maybe the message has never been brought to them - which would not be their fault (v. 17). As Achtemeier says, the "logic of the passage" is that "perhaps the reason Israel had not responded properly was due to the fact that she had never heard the apostolic message" (174), at least in a way she could understand it.

In response to this idea Paul specifically affirms (in vv. 18-21) that the Jews have both heard and understood the gospel. In fact, their own Scriptures - including both the Law and the Prophets - should have prepared them for it. Therefore they have no excuse; their problem is not ignorance but stubborn, willful unbelief. See Smith, 2:27.

1. The Necessary Prerequisites to Saving Faith (10:14-15)

Even though their immediate application was to Paul's Jewish contemporaries, these two verses (along with v. 17) are general doctrinal principles with many other applications. For example, they have long been regarded - and rightly so - as crucial for such theological issues as the salvation status of the unevangelized, the necessity of missions, and the nature of conversion as such.

10:14-15a The four main verbs in this passage are third person plural with no subject specified; thus the general translation, "they." Though its scope is ultimately universal (see vv. 12-13), "they" refers specifically to the Jews. Though they are not expressly mentioned until v. 19, they are the implicit subject all along.

These four rhetorical questions are similar in form, beginning with "how" (pw'" , pôs ) and a subjunctive verb. The sense is "How is it possible . . . ?" and the expected answer is, "It is impossible!"

The issue is, why have the Jews not called on the name of their Lord and Messiah, and thus received salvation? The question being explored is whether they may possibly have some excuse for not doing so. After all, a number of prerequisites must be in place before one can call on the Lord's name and be saved. These are listed here, in a kind of reverse order, as a chain of effects and causes. If any one of the links in the chain is missing, then it would be impossible for one to call on the Lord's name and be saved. This chain is summed up by Stott thus: "Christ sends heralds; heralds preach; people hear; hearers believe; believers call; and those who call are saved" (286).

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? A genuine appeal for help presupposes a belief that the one to whom the appeal is made is able to comply. It is also a confession of need and dependence. Dunn rightly says (2:628), "To appeal to another is to put oneself in that other's power; and who would do that unless one believed in that other - believed that he could help, trusted oneself to him for that help?" As in vv. 9-10, mouth and heart are inseparably linked.

"Believed" is aorist and probably refers to the initial birth of faith in the heart. Believed " in" is eij" ( eis ), which is equivalent to ejpiv ( epi ) in v. 11. These expressions refer primarily to that element of faith usually called trust, which is a heartfelt surrender and commitment of the self to Christ. This involves a sense of dependence upon him, and a total confidence in his ability and willingness to keep his promises and to meet our needs.

In the discussion of 10:9 above, it was pointed out that the listing of both faith and confession as conditions for salvation disproves the common faith-only doctrine of salvation, which alleges that a person is saved the instant he believes. The question Paul asks here in v. 14a has the same effect. Paul's point is that these three things occur in a cause-effect sequence: believing, calling on the Lord's name, and being saved. One cannot contend that these events are only logically sequential while being in fact temporally simultaneous. The act of calling upon the Lord, as a public confession of one's faith, will almost never occur at the instant faith begins. The fact that Paul lists it here as an intermediary link between faith and salvation shows that salvation is not given at the moment one begins to believe. Faith is a prerequisite for calling upon the Lord, and calling upon him is a prerequisite for salvation.

And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? This is not a literal translation, because the Greek says neither "believe in" nor " of whom." It says literally, "How can they believe whom they have not heard?" As the next questions show, the one who is heard is actually the preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But the previous question (indeed, the entire context) implies that the object of faith is Jesus himself. This has led many exegetes to suggest that "Christ is present in the preachers; to hear them is to hear him" (Morris, 389-390). This may well be true in the sense that the inspired message is the words of Jesus (John 16:12-15; see Luke 10:16), but the main point is surely as the NIV translates it.

Just as calling-on and faith are necessarily linked, so are faith and hearing. Hearing does not always produce faith; indeed, the main point of this paragraph is that the Jews have heard (v. 18), but have not believed. But on the other hand, there can be no faith without hearing (see v. 17). In other words, hearing is a necessary condition for faith, but not a sufficient one.

The hearing of which Paul speaks is more than mere sense perception; it is also an act of the mind. It involves at least a minimal level of understanding of the message heard, i.e., enough understanding to create culpability for failure to believe (see v. 19).

We must not underestimate the importance of hearing in the salvation process. On several occasions Jesus gave this exhortation: "He who has ears, let him hear" (Matt 11:15. See Matt 13:9,43; Mark 4:23; Luke 14:35; Rev 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22). This hearing is the responsibility not just of the messenger, but even more so of the listener, who is the one addressed in the exhortation. I.e., the listener is responsible for paying attention to the message, and for studying it and searching out its proper meaning.

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? A proper hearing of the message of Jesus Christ presupposes and requires the work of a third party. God of course could speak his message directly to each individual, but instead he has chosen to use intermediaries to act as his messengers and ambassadors; and without their faithful preaching there will be no hearing.

"Someone preaching" is a form of the verb khruvssw (kçryssô ), which means "to announce, to proclaim aloud, to preach, to herald abroad." Its noun form is khvrux (kçryx ), a " herald , whose duty it is to make public proclamations" (AG, 432). We should remember that Paul wrote this long before the invention of the printing press and electronic media, in a time when the role of the herald was indispensable for spreading news. For our time we may properly assume that this "preaching" can be done via such media as printed material, television, and the internet.

This question shows how important is the whole enterprise of evangelism, and specifically the office of evangelist (Eph 4:11) and the work of preaching the gospel. Murray says this verse refers to "the institution which is the ordinary and most effectual means of propagating the gospel, namely, the official preaching of the Word by those appointed to this task" (2:58-59). This includes both local evangelists and ministers, as well as missionaries engaged in worldwide evangelism.

Paul's point is not just that this heralding work is important ; it is actually necessary . It is a prerequisite to the hearing that must precede faith. "Hence arises the necessity of proclaiming the gospel world-wide" (Bruce, 205). Some think that general revelation alone provides enough knowledge of God to enable pagans to believe and call upon God and be saved, but this text shows otherwise. The hearing that leads to salvation comes only through a personal, human messenger.

Since the hearing involves not just receiving but also understanding the message (as noted above), the heralding must include not just a bare speaking of the message but an earnest attempt to explain it as well. Hence the importance of sound exegetical and doctrinal training for those who proclaim the gospel.

And how can they preach unless they are sent? With this question Paul has traced the chain of prerequisites back to its beginning point: the sending of the heralds or preachers. At first glance this may seem to be out of place in a list of such obviously significant and interconnected events as preaching, hearing, believing, calling-on, and being saved. It may not appear to be on the same level with these other factors. Nevertheless, Paul through the Spirit has included it here. Therefore we must not weaken the connection between preaching and being sent; sending is just as necessary as the other elements in the chain.

The obvious question is, sent by whom? The first answer is, sent by God . This certainly applies to Paul himself, and to the other apostles, all of whom were commissioned and sent directly by Christ, who is God the Son. After his resurrection Jesus said to the Eleven, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you" (John 20:21). Paul's commission came directly through Jesus and God the Father (Gal 1:1,15-16). In fact, the very word "apostle" is from ajpostevllw (apostellô ), "to send," and means "one who is sent."

But God has sent more than these who are the "official" apostles. Jesus, God the Son, gave us his "great commission" (Matt 28:18-20), which most take to apply to all Christians. Even though it was spoken directly only to the apostles (28:16), Jesus told them to teach the rest of us to obey everything he commanded them to do (28:20). In the early church all Christians who were scattered abroad via persecution "preached the word wherever they went" (Acts 8:4). By the very fact that we possess the message, the word of the gospel, we have been inducted into the army of heralds who have been commissioned to take that word to the world. God himself has sent us.

The second answer to this question (sent by whom?) is, sent by the church , through the act of ordination. By ordaining an individual Christian to a specific ministry, the leadership of a local church acknowledges that servant's spiritual gift, puts an unofficial "stamp of approval" upon him (e.g., on his doctrinal soundness and his readiness for ministry), recommends him to the brotherhood at large, and establishes a relationship of encouragement and accountability. Various NT men and women were "apostles" - "ones who were sent" - in this generic sense, e.g., as missionaries (see Acts 13:1-3; Rom 16:7; 2 Cor 8:23). When we apply this verse to the sending of missionaries, we should think more in terms of ordination than financial support.

Such ordination does not create a "clergy class" that has a special access to God and an exclusive authority to interpret Scripture and "administer the sacraments." The key word is accountability . Via ordination an individual accepts his accountability to the ordaining body, and the ordaining body declares its accountability to the brotherhood for that individual's faithfulness in ministry. The goal and end result should be to see that the work of the ministry - in particular the preaching of the gospel - is imbued with the respect and importance warranted for it by its inclusion in this list of salvation prerequisites. See 11:13.

10:15b As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" This quote is from Isa 52:7, which was first of all a prophecy relating to the end of Israel's Babylonian captivity c. 536 B.C. It speaks of the herald "who brings good news as he runs on mountain ridges and announces to Jews left in ruined Jerusalem that deliverance from Babylonian captivity has come" (Fitzmyer, 597). But since that great event was itself an historical type of the Messiah's work of delivering his people from captivity to sin, Paul appropriately applies the prophecy to the work of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why are the feet singled out? The implication is that the original messenger traveled from Babylon to Jerusalem on foot to bring his message of deliverance. His feet were responsible for bringing him and his beautiful message to those set free from Babylon's oppression; therefore his feet were looked upon as sharing in the beauty of the message. Also, after such a long, hot, dusty journey, the messenger's feet would be the least attractive part of his appearance. But the messenger's news was so good that even his feet looked beautiful to those receiving his word!

Why exactly does Paul quote this text from Isaiah at this point? Some answer that it shows "the need for heralds"; it is "Paul's case for evangelism" (Stott, 286; see Moo, 664). This is at best a secondary point, however. The main reason for quoting Isa 52:7 is to affirm through OT testimony "that the 'gospel' has indeed been preached to Israel" (Fitzmyer, 597). Thus "the last condition for salvation listed by Paul in vv. 14-15a has been met: God has sent preachers" (Moo, 664). Paul knew this was true, because he himself was such a preacher.

2. Most Jews Have Not Believed the Gospel Message (10:16)

10:16 This verse states the obvious: But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. Literally this reads, "But not all obeyed the gospel." The context shows that the "Israelites" are indeed the subject, but this word is not in the original. "Not all" is rhetorical understatement, and simply highlights the fact that "only a few" Jews - a remnant - obeyed the gospel (9:6b, 27b).

"Accepted" is too mild a translation of uJpakouvw (hypakouô ). Its root is ajkouvw (akouô , "to hear"; see vv. 14,18), but with the prefix uJpov ( hypo ) it has the connotation "to heed, to submit, to be subject to, to obey." It means "to submit and yield to what is heard" (Lenski, 665).

To "obey the gospel" is a significant NT concept (2 Thess 1:8; 1 Pet 4:17), similar to "obeying the faith" (Acts 6:7; see JC, 1:81, on 1:5). It means submitting to God's instructions (meeting the conditions) for receiving the saving grace promised in the gospel. The primary (and representative) condition for salvation is faith, as v. 16b shows; that other conditions are also required has already been made clear in vv. 9-10 (confession) and vv. 13-14 (calling on his name).

To show that the Jews' rejection of the gospel was just part of a longstanding pattern of chronic unbelief, Paul quotes Isa 53:1 from the LXX: For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" This was true in Isaiah's own day, when apostate Jews rejected God's words spoken through his prophets (see Acts 7:51-52). It was true of the Jews whom Jesus confronted during his earthly ministry. See John 12:37-38, where John quotes this same passage and declares that Israel's unbelief is the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy. And alas, much to Paul's dismay (9:1-3; 10:1-3), the prophecy was still being fulfilled in his own time.

That most Jews have not obeyed the gospel is just a restatement of v. 3b, which says "they did not submit to God's righteousness." In terms of the prerequisites for salvation listed in vv. 14-15a, they have not believed and have not called upon the Lord's name. The issue at hand is how to account for this, which is addressed in the next few verses.

3. The Jews' Problem Is Not Ignorance but

Stubbornness of Will (10:17-21)

10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. How this verse fits into the logical progression of Paul's argument is a bit puzzling. It is often taken as a summary of the salvation prerequisites listed in vv. 14-15a (Dunn, 2:623; Morris, 391; Hendriksen, 2:351). But it is not just a summary, since it focuses only on the middle of the chain (believing, hearing, preaching) and ignores its ends (calling-on, sending). Also, would not a summary have appeared immediately after v. 15? Why the awkward intrusion of v. 16?

Part of the problem is the transitional word, "consequently," at the beginning of the sentence.Romans 1How is v. 17 a result or consequence of v. 16? The truth stated in v. 16 is that Israel has not believed. But in order to respond to the charge that this unbelief represents some sort of failure on God's part, it is necessary to pursue the question of the cause of the Jews' unbelief. But to know the cause of unbelief, we need to inquire as to the cause of belief itself, and at least a part of the answer to the latter question is found in the chain of prerequisites in vv. 14-15a.

The logic, then, is something like this: "Most Jews have not believed, even as Isaiah says. Consequently, in view of the chain of prerequisites listed earlier, some will say that Israel's unbelief must have something to do with that chain. There must be a breakdown in it somewhere. I.e., one of the necessary prerequisites for faith must be missing. Did we not say that faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes through the preaching of the gospel? Thus there must not have been any preaching or hearing, since if there had been, surely the Jews would have believed."

The NASB is literal and to the point: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." The NIV is somewhat bulky in its attempt to account for the two different meanings of the word akoç in vv. 16 and 17. In v. 16 it means "the message that is heard," but in v. 17 it means "the act of hearing the message." Thus in v. 17 akoç is equivalent to the "hearing" in vv. 14 and 18.

We know that akoç means "hearing" and not "message" in v. 17, since it is distinguished from the "message" (rJh'ma , rhçma ) of Christ in 17b. It would not make sense to say that "the message comes through the message."

"The word of Christ" is the better textual reading, though some manuscripts have "the word of God." Grammatically "the word of Christ" could mean either "the word Christ speaks" or "the word spoken about Christ." The latter is probably Paul's intent, since it is no doubt the same as "the word of faith" that he proclaimed (v. 8), i.e., the message about Christ's saving work.

The verse restates the important principle given in v. 14b, "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" It also restates and expands v. 14c - "And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" - i.e., preaching the word of Christ. It is exceedingly important that we acknowledge these necessary cause-and-effect connections. Faith must be preceded by hearing the word of Christ; it cannot arise under any other circumstances. The role of the word is indispensable. Also, this "word" must be the word or message about Jesus Christ . Saving faith cannot arise in a context of general revelation only, which tells us nothing about Jesus.

We must not conclude, however, that wherever the word of Christ is present, faith will automatically follow. As said earlier, the word is a necessary condition for faith, but not a sufficient condition. Thus I cannot agree with Lard, who declares that this verse "settles the question as to how belief is produced" (340). True, it shows us an essential part of the picture, but it does not tell the whole story. We must be careful to avoid the fallacy of taking the part for the whole.

In fact, this very fallacy seems to be at the root of the attempt to excuse Jewish unbelief that Paul discusses in vv. 18-21. I.e., someone may try to say the following: "We grant that the Jews have not believed. But if it is true, as you say, that faith comes from hearing , then they must not have heard the gospel; because if they had heard it, they would have to believe it."

Paul's point is that this is fallacious thinking. The Jews have indeed heard the gospel, and have understood it. But hearing it is not the same as believing it, and does not automatically lead to saving faith. Such faith is a decision the individual must make, and a stubborn will may refuse to believe even in the face of clearly attested facts. Herein lies the real cause of the Jews' unbelief: they are simply "a disobedient and obstinate people" (v. 21).

Paul now discusses this point in detail.

10:18 So why has Israel not believed? Is it possible that they never really heard the word of Christ? Here is Paul's question, and his answer: But I ask , on behalf of all who may want to raise this question: Did they not hear? And I answer: Of course they did. It is true that no one can believe in someone of whom they have never heard (v. 14), but the Jews cannot use this excuse. In fact, the words of David in Ps 19:4 apply here: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (This is a verbatim quote from the LXX.)

Paul is not implying that these words from the Psalms are an actual prophecy of first-century evangelism. Thus he is not citing this passage to prove that the Jews have heard the gospel; the authority of his own words as an apostle is sufficient for this purpose.

In its original context this quote refers to the universal availability of general revelation (see also 1:18-20). The personified natural world is pictured as declaring the glory of its Creator to all people on earth. Paul's citation of the verse is by way of analogy: "The dissemination of the gospel is becoming as world-wide as the light of the heavenly bodies" (Bruce, 209). There is a "parallel between the universality of general revelation and the universalism of the gospel" (Murray, 2:61). See Moo, 667.

Lenski is right to take the two parts of the quote as synonymous (671). They are an example of Hebrew poetry's tendency to say the same thing twice in different words. Lard is wrong to identify "the earth" as the land of the Jews as distinct from "the world" as the Gentile countries (341). In NT times the Jews were scattered over most of the Roman Empire anyway.

When Paul said that the gospel had gone out into "all the earth" and "to the ends of the world," did he mean that this had already happened? Lard says, "At the time Paul wrote, the passage was literally true. . . . There is not the slightest exaggeration in the statement" (341). Others disagree and take this as an hyperbole (Dunn, 2:624, 630; Moo, 667; Stott, 288), limiting it at least to the lands included in the Roman Empire, variously called "the known world" and "the inhabited earth." As Godet says, "The voice of the preachers of the gospel has sounded in all countries and in all the cities of the known world" (388). When we remember that Paul is speaking here specifically of the Jews, we need not press his words beyond the scope of their scattered colonies. As Bruce says, Paul is affirming that "to every place where there is a Jewish community the gospel has been carried" (206).

The main point is that "the Jews had, indeed, gotten to hear!" (Lenski, 671). Thus ignorance cannot be cited as an explanation for their unbelief.

10:19 Paul now deals with one last attempt to excuse the Jews for their failure to obey the gospel: maybe they heard the message, but just did not understand it. He says, Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? As we saw above (v. 14), the concept of "hearing" in itself includes a basic understanding of the message received. Thus to distinguish here between hearing (v. 18) and understanding (v. 19) is grasping at straws, and Paul does not even consider the objection worthy of a direct answer.

The way Paul deals with this question shows that the Jews' "not knowing" in 10:3 was a willful ignorance (Stott, 289). As was the case with the Gentiles and general revelation in 1:18-25, knowledge of the gospel was there for the Jews but was willfully ignored or suppressed, the result being that there was no excuse.

Paul makes his point by quoting three passages from the Jews' own Scriptures (the OT). He implies that they should have understood from these texts that the Gentiles were ultimately going to be included within God's people, and the Jews excluded. But they also should have understood that in the final analysis God did not do the excluding; the Jews excluded themselves (v. 21). As Hendriksen says, the content of these prophecies, "though not a direct answer to this question [in 19a], implies the answer. It shows that not ignorance but unwillingness was the cause of Israel's lack of faith" (2:352).

Paul quotes first from Moses and then from Isaiah. First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." This comes from Deut 32:21. Paul follows the LXX text closely, except he changes third person to second person so that the Jews are being addressed directly. The words are actually spoken by God; "Moses says" them in the sense that he is God's spokesman or prophet. (Paul here seems to assume the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.)

The words are from Moses' final benediction to Israel just before his death. They are part of a warning that God will punish the Jews for their unfaithfulness. The whole verse says, "'They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.'" As Moo sums it up, "Because Israel has made God jealous with 'what is no god' (v. 21a), God will make Israel 'jealous' with what is 'no people'" (668).

As quoted by Paul, "those who are not a nation" and "a nation that has no understanding" refer to the Gentiles in general. They are "not a nation" because God did not call them into a special covenant relationship with himself, the way he called Israel. Also, in contrast with Israel, they had "no understanding" (ajsuvneto" , asynetos ) of God's redemptive purposes and plans. Paul uses this same word to describe the Gentiles in 1:21 ("foolish") and 1:31 ("senseless").

There may be a sense in which this prophecy was fulfilled in OT history in the various occasions when God used heathen nations to punish Israel (e.g., the Babylonian captivity), but its ultimate fulfillment lies in the NT era, in the continuing influx of Gentiles into the church in the face of Jewish unbelief. Thus Deut 32:21 is "a prophecy of the mission to the Gentiles," as Moo says (668).

The irony and the tragedy of these words in relation to Israel is this, that the nation that took such great pride in being God's chosen people and in being entrusted with God's special revelation would some day be humiliated by a "no-people" with "no understanding"! That is, the messianic blessings that were intended first of all for the Jews (1:16b) are being lavished upon the Gentiles, who are turning to Jesus the Messiah, calling upon his name, and being saved (10:11-13).

What are the implications of this for the Jews? First, Paul seems to be suggesting that Israel should have understood from this text that Gentile evangelism and conversion were part of God's plan. "Israel ought to have seen in the positive response of the Gentiles to the gospel of Messiah Jesus a fulfillment of Deut 32:21" (Dunn, 2:631). "From their own Scriptures, then, Israel should have recognized that God was at work in the gospel" (Moo, 668).

Second, the Deuteronomy text says that the conversion of the Gentiles would have the effect of arousing envy and anger in the hearts of the Jews. How so? "By letting Israel see the blessings which fall upon the Gentiles when they embrace Christ by faith." Israel then "asks why these same blessings should not even more rightfully be hers, and is assured that they will indeed be hers on the same basis - faith in Christ" (Bruce, 207).

Certainly God did not embrace the Gentiles just to make Israel jealous. He wanted to save the Gentiles for their own sake; Israel's jealous anger would be an indirect result of this (Lard, 341-342). Paul's earnest hope was that this jealous anger would then lead to Israel's own conversion (see 11:11-14).

10:20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." After quoting from the Law, Paul now quotes from the prophets to make the same basic point. This verse is from Isa 65:1a, with the clauses being transposed. As in v. 19, the words of the prophecy are actually spoken by God. Isaiah, like Moses, is the prophet through whom he speaks.

One problem here is that Paul clearly applies this prophecy to the Gentiles (see v. 21), but in Isaiah it seems to have been originally spoken about Israel (9:25-26). Some disagree with the latter point. Lenski says Isa 65:1 refers to Gentiles, and 65:2-7 to Jews (676). Some think that 65:1b must be referring to Gentiles since it speaks of "a nation that did not call on my name" (Calvin, 405-406; MP, 440; see Moo, 669, n. 49).

It seems more likely, though, that when Isaiah wrote 65:1, he had the Jews in mind. Moo says, "This is the majority view among OT commentators," and he agrees (669), as do Bruce (211) and Cranfield (2:540). Paul sees in Isaiah's words "a principle which in the situation of his day is applicable to Gentiles" (Bruce, 211). "As he did with Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in 9:25-26, Paul takes OT texts that speak of Israel and applies them, on the principle of analogy, to the Gentiles" (Moo, 669). See 10:18b.

Thus Paul takes Isa 65:1 as having the same general impact as Deut 32:21. Even if this were not Isaiah's original point, in view of the reality of widespread Gentile conversions, Israel should have been struck by the way these words precisely described what was happening among them. Thus, "as used by [Paul], the quotation from Isa 65:1 is parallel to the quotation in v. 19, and serves to confirm that Israel must have known, since God has actually been found by Gentiles who were not seeking Him" (Cranfield, 2:540-541). It is an argument from the lesser to the greater: if the Gentiles (who had no prior understanding based on special revelation) could understand the gospel and accept the Messiah through apostolic preaching, surely the Jews (with their long history of divine preparation) should be able to understand and obey the same gospel.

It is easy to see how these words apply to Gentiles. Paul's description of them in 1:18-32 shows emphatically that they do not seek God and do not ask for him. Nevertheless God "revealed" himself or "became manifest" to them through the word of Christ. This is the very nature of evangelism. In preaching the gospel we do not passively wait for people to come to us, but actively seek them where they are.

10:21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." There is neither doubt nor disagreement that these words from Isaiah 65:2 apply to Israel; Paul expressly says so. His point goes back to 10:19: "Did Israel not understand?" He implies that the Jews of his day should have seen and understood how Isa 65:2 applied to their situation. They should have understood that the inclusion of the Gentiles in the messianic kingdom was not meant to exclude them. They should have learned from this text that they too were being invited into the kingdom, and that the only reason they were not included in it was their own stubborn refusal to believe in their Messiah, Jesus.

This image of God as one who constantly stands with welcoming arms outstretched toward rebellious sinners is one of the Bible's most graphic pictures of God as a God of grace. "All day long" indicates God's persistence and patience in his desire to save sinners. Stretched-out hands are a gesture of invitation, as God pleads with sinners and implores them to return to him. They are also "a gesture of appealing welcome and friendship" (Cranfield, 2:541). Thus it is clear that "God has never stopped reaching out to Israel, even in all its resistance" (Fitzmyer, 600).

Just as important is the verse's description of Israel as "a disobedient and obstinate people." Paul has already emphasized the Jews' refusal to obey the gospel (v. 16), and here he suggests the reason for it. Their failure to believe cannot be blamed on ignorance, as if no one had ever been sent to preach the gospel to them. No, their unbelief is due to their own obstinate will.

Cranfield (2:541) recalls vv. 9-10 and takes "disobedience" as the very opposite of believing, and "obstinate" as the very opposite of confession. "Obstinate" is a form of the verb ajntilevgw (antilegô ), which means "to speak against, to contradict, to oppose, to refuse" (AG, 74). Instead of using their mouths to confess Jesus as Lord and to call upon his name, the Jews chose to speak against him, to oppose him, to deny him. Instead of welcoming their Messiah, "their response is negative, resistant, recalcitrant, dismissive," says Stott (289). "It is simply stubborn" (ibid., 288).

This is how this main section ends. Is Israel's lost state a reflection on God, evidence of his unfaithfulness, an indication that his word has failed (9:6)? No, God has faithfully kept his word to Israel in every way. He kept every promise he made to the nation relating to their covenant purposes and privileges (9:1-29). He has sent the Messiah and given them every opportunity to trust in him for personal salvation (9:30-10:21). Their refusal to accept him is their own fault. In summary, "The Apostle demonstrates the inexcusableness of Israel and does so by appeal to their own Scriptures" (Murray, 2:64).

Calvinists and others who take ch. 9 as teaching the sovereign, unconditional election of individuals to salvation find it difficult to reconcile this with the emphasis on Israel's willful unbelief in ch. 10. Stott's view is typical (289-290):

So Paul concludes his second exploration into the unbelief of Israel. In chapter 9 he attributed it to God's purpose of election, on account of which many were passed by, and only a remnant was left, an Israel within Israel. In chapter 10, however, he attributes it to Israel's own disobedience. Their fall was their fault. The antinomy between divine sovereignty and human responsibility remains.

Morris likewise calls attention to the sharp contrast between this "predestinarian" understanding of ch. 9 and the emphasis in ch. 10 on "Israel's responsibility." He simply concludes, "If we are to understand what Paul is saying in Romans we must hold both truths at the same time, no matter how hard we find it to reconcile them to one another" (395).

This "antinomy" disappears, however, when we rightly see ch. 9 as discussing the unconditional election of Israel as a nation to a role of service, and ch. 10 as an explanation of how individual Jews are either saved or lost. There is no conflict between these chapters because they are discussing two different things, with the vindication of God's faithfulness being the main point in each case.

It is obvious that ch. 10 ends on a very negative, pessimistic note. Where does this leave the question of the Jews and their salvation? Murray puts it this way: "Verse 21 brings us to the terminus of the condemnation. We may well ask: what then? Is this the terminus of God's lovingkindness to Israel? Is verse 21 the last word?" (2:64). The answer, of course, is no. There is much more to be said - in ch. 11.

McGarvey: Rom 10:19

But I say [Again I ask a question to give my Jewish objector the benefit of every loophole of escape. See Rom 10:18], Did Israel not know? [This question also requires a negative answer, and thus, being like the preceding question, the negative of a negative, it amounts to a strong affirmative. Assuredly Israel knew. But knew what? Why, the fact just asserted, to wit, that the gospel should sound out to all, both Jew and Gentile, as freely as light and sunshine, according to the world-wide commission or command of Christ. Did this fact take Israel by surprise? Was the issuing of a world-wide commission a thing untaught in their Scriptures, allowing them to plead ignorance of it? Had Paul cited the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:3), then the Jew would have claimed that this promise must be fulfilled by their all becoming Jews (Act 15:1). But he begins with Moses, the first writer of Scripture, and cites a passage which precludes the idea of blessing by absorption or amalgamation, for it is plainly blessing in rivalry and opposition.] First Moses saith ["First in the prophetic line" (De Wette). First in point of time and place, as Isaiah was near the last. His two citations therefore suggest the entire trend of Scripture, from beginning to end. Compare the "said before" of Rom 9:29], I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you . [The passage cited is Deu 32:21 . The Jews had moved God to jealousy by their "no-gods" (idols), and had provoked his to anger by their vanities; he therefore prophetically announces that he will provoke them to like jealousy and anger by adopting in their stead a "no-people," a foolish nation. A "no-people" describes a nation which has no covenant relation with God, and hence is not recognized as his people. A "foolish nation" describes one made wise by no revelation. The weight of the citation was greatly increased by the name of Moses attached to it, and by the remoteness of the period when uttered. Many utterances of the prophets sounded harsh and hostile, but no one had ever doubted the loyal friendship of Moses to Israel; yet Moses said this even in his day.]

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 10 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 10:1, The Scripture shows the difference between the righteousness of the law, and that of faith; Rom 10:11, and that all, both Jew and Gentile, that believe, shall not be confounded; Rom 10:18, and that the Gentiles shall receive the word and believe; Rom 10:19, Israel was not ignorant of these things.

Poole: Romans 10 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 10

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 10 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 10:1-4) The apostle's earnest desire for the salvation of the Jews.

(Rom 10:5-11) The difference between the righteousness of the law, and the righteousness of faith.

(Rom 10:12-17) The Gentiles stand on a level with the Jews, in justification and salvation.

(Rom 10:18-21) The Jews might know this from Old Testament prophecies.

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 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The dissolving of the peculiar church-state of the Jews, and the rejection of that polity by the repealing of their ceremonial law, the vacating of all the institutions of it, the abolishing of their priesthood, the burning of their temple, and the taking away of their place and nation, and in their room the substituting and erecting of a catholic church-state among the Gentile nations, though to us, now that these things have long since been done and completed, they may seem no great matter, yet to those who lived when they were doing, who knew how high the Jews had stood in God's favour, and how deplorable the condition of the Gentile world had been for many ages, it appeared very great and marvellous, and a mystery hard to be understood. The apostle, in this chapter, as in the foregoing and that which follows, is explaining and proving it; but with several very useful digressions, which a little interrupt the thread of his discourse. To two great truths I would reduce this chapter: - I. That there is a great difference between the righteousness of the law, which the unbelieving Jews were wedded to, and the righteousness of faith offered in the gospel (Rom 10:1-11). II. That there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; but, in point of justification and acceptance with God, the gospel sets them both upon the same level (Rom 10:12 to the end).

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

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

The Difficulty Of Letters

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

The Ancient Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

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

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Immediate Situation

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

The Spoken Word

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

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

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

Testamentary And Prophylactic

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

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

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

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

The Object Of PaulWriting

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Layout Of The Letter

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

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

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

people.

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

living.

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

and a list of final personal greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

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

but after his passion revealed.

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

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

FURTHER READING

Romans

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

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

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

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The Mistaken Zeal (Rom_10:1-13)

The Destruction Of Excuses (Rom_10:14-21)

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 10 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 10

In this chapter are contained an account of the two righteousnesses of faith and works, a summary of the Gospel of Christ, a description of the grace of faith, in the nature, use, and means of it, and several testimonies concerning the calling of the Gentiles; and whereas the apostle knew that this, as well as what he had said in the latter part of the preceding chapter, that the Jews had not attained to the law of righteousness, but stumbled at the stumbling stone, would be offensive to his countrymen the Jews; wherefore that it might appear that he said this not out of disaffection and ill will to them, he declares his sincere regard unto them, and the great respect he had for them, by calling them "brethren", by expressing his good will to them, by praying for the salvation of them, Rom 10:1, by bearing testimony of their zeal for God, Rom 10:2, though he faithfully observes to them, that it was an ignorant zeal, of which ignorance he gives an instance, Rom 10:3, particularly in the attribute of God's righteousness; from which ignorance arose all their misconduct in religious things, especially in the article of justification; hence they sought to be justified by their own righteousness, and rejected the righteousness of Christ, and then points out to them the true end of the law, for righteousness which is Christ, Rom 10:4, which if they had known would have set them right, and which is another instance of their ignorant and misguided zeal: this leads him on to what he had in view, which was to give an account of the two righteousnesses he had suggested in the latter part of the former chapter, the righteousness of the law, which the Jews sought for and found not, and the righteousness of faith, which the Gentiles without seeking for enjoyed; and this account he gives in the words of Moses, for whom they had the greatest regard: the description of the former is given in his words, in Rom 10:5, which suggest the impossibility of keeping the law, and obtaining life by it, and therefore it is a vain thing to seek for righteousness by the works of it; the latter is described, Rom 10:6, by the certainty of it, being wrought out by Christ, who came down from heaven, fulfilled the law, and died, and rose again from the dead; and by the plainness and evidence of it, as revealed in the Gospel, Rom 10:8, the sum of which Gospel is, that whoever believes in Christ and confesses him shall be saved, Rom 10:9, which faith and confession, when genuine, are with the heart and mouth agreeing together; the consequences of which are righteousness and salvation, comfortably apprehended and enjoyed, Rom 10:10, and that the above is the sum of the Gospel, and that there is such a connection between faith and righteousness, and between confession and salvation, is confirmed, Rom 10:11, by a testimony from the prophet, Isa 28:16, which being expressed in such a general manner, as to extend to every believer, whether Jew or Gentile, reasons are given, Rom 10:12, in support of such an explanation of that passage, taken from the equal condition of all, there being no difference between them naturally, from the universal dominion of God over them, and from his liberal communication of grace and goodness to all that call upon him; which last reason is confirmed, Rom 10:13, by a passage of Scripture in Joe 2:32, on occasion of which, the apostle proceeds to treat of the calling of the Gentiles, and of the means of it, the preaching of the Gospel, which was necessary to it, which is made out by a train of reasoning after this manner; that seeing salvation is only of such that call upon the name of the Lord, and there could be no calling upon him without believing in him, and no believing without hearing, and no hearing without preaching, and no preaching without mission, which is proved by a citation out of Isa 52:7, and no success in preaching, when sent, without the exertions of efficacious grace, as appears from the case of the Jews, who had the ministration of the Gospel to them by Isaiah, and yet all did not believe it; as is evident from Isa 53:1, and seeing the conclusion of which is, that faith comes by preaching, and preaching by the order and command of God, Rom 10:14, it follows, that it was proper that ministers should be sent, and the Gospel preached to the Gentiles, and that attended with power, in order that they should believe in the Lord, and call upon his name and be saved; and which method God had taken, and which he had foretold he would take, in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and which were now fulfilling: that the Gospel was preached to them, and they heard it, were matters of fact, and were no other than what should be, or might be concluded, from Psa 19:4, cited, Rom 10:18, and that the Jews could not be ignorant of the calling of the Gentiles is clear, first from the words of Moses, Deu 32:21, which the apostle produces, Rom 10:19, and from a passage in the prophecy of Isa 65:1. So that this was no other than what Moses and the prophets said should be, Rom 10:20, and the chapter is closed, Rom 10:21, with another passage out of the same prophet in the next verse, showing the rejection of Christ and his Gospel by the Jews, and which justifies their being cast off by him, of which the apostle treats largely in the next chapter.

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