Text -- Romans 2:17--3:8 (NET)

The Condemnation of the Jew

2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God 2:18 and know his will and approve the superior things because you receive instruction from the law, 2:19 and if you are convinced that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 2:20 an educator of the senseless, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth– 2:21 therefore you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God. 3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3:3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.” 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”?– as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is deserved!)

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 2:17

Bearest the name ( eponomazēi ).

Present passive indicative in condition of first class of eponomazō , old word, to put a name upon (epi ), only here in N.T. "Thou art surnamed Jew"(Lightfoot). Jew as opposed to Greek denoted nationality while Hebrew accented the idea of language.

Robertson: Rom 2:17

Restest upon the law ( epanapauēi nomōi ).

Late and rare double compound, in lxx and once in the Didache. In N.T. only here and Luk 10:6 which see. It means to lean upon, to refresh oneself back upon anything, here with locative case (nomōi ). It is the picture of blind and mechanical reliance on the Mosaic law.

Robertson: Rom 2:17

Gloriest in God ( kauchāsai en theōi ).

Koiné[28928]š vernacular form for kauchāi (kauchaesai , kauchāsai ) of kauchaomai as in Rom 2:23; 1Co 4:7 and katakauchāsai in Rom 11:18. The Jew gloried in God as a national asset and private prerogative (2Co 10:15; Gal 6:13).

Robertson: Rom 2:17

Approvest the things that are excellent ( dokimazeis ta diapheronta ).

Originally, "Thou testest the things that differ,"and then as a result comes the approval for the excellent things. As in Phi 1:10 it is difficult to tell which stage of the process Paul has in mind.

Robertson: Rom 2:17

Instructed out of the law ( katēchoumenos ek tou nomou ).

Present passive participle of katēcheō , a rare verb to instruct, though occurring in the papyri for legal instruction. See note on Luk 1:4 and note on 1Co 14:19. The Jew’ s "ethical discernment was the fruit of catechetical and synagogical instruction in the Old Testament"(Shedd).

Robertson: Rom 2:19

A guide of the blind ( hodēgon tuphlōn ).

Accusative hodēgon in predicate with einai to agree with seauton , accusative of general reference with infinitive einai in indirect discourse after pepoithas . Late word (Polybius, Plutarch) from hodos , way, and hēgeomai , to lead, one who leads the way. Tuphlōn is objective genitive plural. The Jews were meant by God to be guides for the Gentiles, for salvation is of the Jews (Joh 4:22).

Robertson: Rom 2:19

A light ( phōs ).

"A light for those in darkness"(tōn en skotei , objective genitive again). But this intention of God about the Jews had resulted in conceited arrogance on their part.

Robertson: Rom 2:20

A corrector of the foolish ( paideutēn aphronōn ).

Old word (from paideuō ) for instructor, in Plato, and probably so here, though corrector or chastiser in Heb 12:9 (the only N.T. instances). See note on Luk 23:16. Late inscriptions give it as instructor (Preisigke). Aphronōn is a hard word for Gentiles, but it is the Jewish standpoint that Paul gives. Each termed the other "dogs."

Robertson: Rom 2:20

Of babes ( nēpiōn ).

Novitiates or proselytes to Judaism just as in Gal 4:1. Paul used it of those not of legal age.

Robertson: Rom 2:20

The form ( tēn morphōsin ).

Rare word only in Theophrastus and Paul (here and 2Ti 3:5). Pallis regards it as a Stoical term for education. Lightfoot considers the morphōsis as "the rough-sketch, the pencilling of the morphē ,"the outline or framework, and in 2Ti 3:5 "the outline without the substance."This is Paul’ s picture of the Jew as he sees himself drawn with consummate skill and subtle irony.

Robertson: Rom 2:21

Thou therefore that teachest another ( ho oun didaskōn heteron ).

Paul suddenly breaks off (anacoluthon ) the long sentence that began in Rom 2:17 and starts over again with a phrase that gathers it all up in small compass (teachest) and drives it home (therefore) on the Jew (thyself).

Robertson: Rom 2:21

Not to steal ( mē kleptein ).

Infinitive with mē in indirect command (indirect discourse) after kerussōn .

Robertson: Rom 2:21

Dost thou steal? ( klepteiṡ ).

The preaching (kerussōn ) was fine, but the practice? A home-thrust.

Robertson: Rom 2:21

Should not commit adultery ( mē moicheuein ).

Infinitive in direct command again after legōn . "The Talmud charges the crime of adultery upon the three most illustrious Rabbins"(Vincent).

Robertson: Rom 2:22

That abhorrest ( ho bdelussomenos ).

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

Robertson: Rom 2:22

Dost thou rob temples? ( hierosuleiṡ ).

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

Robertson: Rom 2:23

Through thy transgression of the law ( dia tēs parabaseōs tou nomou ).

Old word for stepping across a line. Trench calls attention to "the mournfully numerous group of words"for the varieties of sin like agnoēma , ignorance, anomia , violation of law, hamartia , missing the mark, hettēma , falling short, parabasis , passing over the line, parakoē , disobedience to a voice, paranomia , putting the law aside, paraptōma , falling down, plēmmeleia , discord.

Robertson: Rom 2:24

Because of you ( di' humas ).

Free quotation from the lxx of Isa 52:5. The Jews were jealous for the Name of God and would not pronounce the Tetragrammaton and yet acted so that the Gentiles blasphemed that Name.

Robertson: Rom 2:25

If thou be a doer of the law ( ean nomon prasseis ).

Condition of third class and the present (continued action) subjunctive of prassō , a verb meaning to do as a habit.

Robertson: Rom 2:25

Is become uncircumcision ( akrobustia gegonen ).

The Jew is then like the Gentile, with no privilege at all. Circumcision was simply the seal of the covenant relation of Israel with God.

Robertson: Rom 2:26

Keep ( phulassēi ).

Present subjunctive with ean , condition of third class, mere supposition like that in Rom 2:25, "keep on keeping"perfectly, Paul means.

Robertson: Rom 2:26

For ( eis ).

As often in N.T.

Robertson: Rom 2:27

If it fulfill the law ( ton nomon telousa ).

Present active participle (conditional use of the participle) of teleō , to finish, continually fulfilling to the end (as would be necessary).

Robertson: Rom 2:27

Judge thee ( krinei̇̇se ).

Unusual position of se (thee) so far from the verb krinei .

Robertson: Rom 2:27

With the letter and circumcision ( dia grammatos kai peritomēs ).

Dia means here accompanied by, with the advantage of.

Robertson: Rom 2:28

Which is one outwardly ( ho en tōi phanerōi ).

Ioudaios (Jew) has to be repeated (ellipse) with the article, "the in the open Jew"(circumcision, phylacteries, tithes, etc.). Likewise repeat peritomē (circumcision).

Robertson: Rom 2:29

Who is one inwardly ( ho en tōi kruptōi ).

Repeat Ioudaios (Jew) here also, "the in the inward part Jew"(circumcision of the heart peritomē kardias and not a mere surgical operation as in Col 2:11, in the spirit en pneumati , with which compare 2Co 3:3, 2Co 3:6). This inward or inside Jew who lives up to his covenant relation with God is the high standard that Paul puts before the merely professional Jew described above.

Robertson: Rom 2:29

Whose praise ( hou ho epainos ).

The antecedent of the relative hou is Ioudaios (Jew). Probably (Gifford) a reference to the etymology of Judah (praise) as seen in Gal 4:28.

Robertson: Rom 3:1

What advantage then hath the Jew? ( ti oun to perisson tou Ioudaiou̇ ).

Literally, "What then is the overplus of the Jew?"What does the Jew have over and above the Gentile? It is a pertinent question after the stinging indictment of the Jew in chapter 2.

Robertson: Rom 3:1

The profit ( hē ōphelia ).

The help. Old word, only here in N.T. See Mar 8:36 for ōphelei , the verb to profit.

Robertson: Rom 3:2

Much every way ( polu kata panta ).

Polu points back to to perisson . So it means the overplus of the Jew is much from every angle.

Robertson: Rom 3:2

First of all ( prōton men ).

As in Rom 1:8; 1Co 11:18 Paul does not add to his "first."He singles out one privilege of the many possessed by the Jew.

Robertson: Rom 3:2

They were intrusted with ( episteuthēsan ).

First aorist passive indicative of pisteuō , to intrust, with accusative of the thing and dative of the person in the active. In the passive as here the accusative of the thing is retained as in 1Th 2:4.

Robertson: Rom 3:2

The oracles of God ( ta logia tou theou ).

In the accusative case, therefore, the object of episteuthēsan . Logion is probably a diminutive of logos , word, though the adjective logios also occurs (Act 18:24). The word was early used for "oracles"from Delphi and is common in the lxx for the oracles of the Lord. But from Philo on it was used of any sacred writing including narrative. It occurs four times in the N.T. (Act 7:38, which see; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11). It is possible that here and in Act 7:38 the idea may include all the Old Testament, though the commands and promises of God may be all.

Robertson: Rom 3:3

For what if? ( ti gar ei̇ ).

But Westcott and Hort print it, Timothy gaṙ ei . See note on Phi 1:18 for this exclamatory use of ti gar (for how? How stands the case?).

Robertson: Rom 3:3

Some were without faith ( ēpistēsan ).

First aorist active indicative of apisteō , old verb, to disbelieve. This is the common N.T. meaning (Luk 24:11, Luk 24:41; Act 28:24; Rom 4:20). Some of them "disbelieved,"these "depositaries and guardians of revelation"(Denney). But the word also means to be unfaithful to one’ s trust and Lightfoot argues for that idea here and in 2Ti 2:13. The Revised Version renders it "faithless"there. Either makes sense here and both ideas are true of some of the Jews, especially concerning the Messianic promises and Jesus.

Robertson: Rom 3:3

The faithfulness of God ( tēn pistin tou theou ).

Undoubtedly pistis has this sense here and not "faith."God has been faithful (2Ti 2:13) whether the Jews (some of them) were simply disbelievers or untrue to their trust. Paul can use the words in two senses in Rom 3:3, but there is no real objection to taking ēpistēsan , apistian , pistin , all to refer to faithfulness rather than just faith.

Robertson: Rom 3:4

Let God be found true ( ginesthō ho theos alēthēs ).

"Let God continue to be true"(present middle imperative).

Robertson: Rom 3:4

But every man a liar ( pās de anthrōpos pseustēs ).

The contrast in de really means, "though every man be found a liar."Cf. Psa 116:12.

Robertson: Rom 3:4

As it is written ( kathōs gegraptai ).

Psa 51:6.

Robertson: Rom 3:4

That thou mightest be justified ( hopōs an dikaiōthēis ).

Hopōs rather than the common hina for purpose and an with the first aorist passive subjunctive of dikaioō . Used of God this verb here has to mean "declared righteous,"not "made righteous."

Robertson: Rom 3:4

Mightest prevail ( nikēseis ).

Future active indicative with hopōs of nikaō , to win a victory, though B L have nikēsēis (first aorist active subjunctive, the usual construction).

Robertson: Rom 3:4

When thou comest into judgement ( en tōi krinesthai se ).

"In the being judged as to thee"(present passive infinitive or, if taken as middle, "in the entering upon trial as to thee"). Common construction in the lxx from the Hebrew infinitive construct.

Robertson: Rom 3:5

What shall we say? ( ti eroumeṅ ).

Rhetorical question, common with Paul as he surveys the argument.

Robertson: Rom 3:5

Commendeth ( sunistēsin ).

This common verb sunistēmi , to send together, occurs in the N.T. in two senses, either to introduce, to commend (2Co 3:1; 2Co 4:2) or to prove, to establish (2Co 7:11; Gal 2:18; Rom 5:8). Either makes good sense here.

Robertson: Rom 3:5

Who visiteth the wrath ( ho epipherōn tēn orgēn ).

"Who brings on the wrath,""the inflicter of the anger"(Vaughan).

Robertson: Rom 3:5

I speak as a man ( kata anthrōpon ).

See note on Gal 3:15 for same phrase. As if to say, "pardon me for this line of argument."Tholuck says that the rabbis often used kata anthrōpon and ti eroumen . Paul had not forgotten his rabbinical training.

Robertson: Rom 3:6

For then how ( epei pōs ).

There is a suppressed condition between epei and pōs , an idiom occurring several times in the N.T. (1Co 15:29; Rom 11:6, Rom 11:22). "Since, if that were true, how."

Robertson: Rom 3:7

Through my lie ( en tōi emōi pseusmati ).

] Old word from pseudomai , to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in Rom 3:5. The MSS. differ sharply here between ei de (but if) and ei gar (for if). Paul "uses the first person from motives of delicacy"(Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument’ s sake as in 1Co 4:6. So here he "transfers by a fiction"(Field) to himself the objection.

Robertson: Rom 3:8

And why not ( kai mē ).

We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply genētai after mē and repeat ti (kai ti mē genētai , deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take mē with poiēsōmen and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because hoti also (recitative hoti ) comes just before poiēsōmen . The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive hēmās legein after phasin and then the direct quotation with recitative hoti after legein , a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation.

Robertson: Rom 3:8

Let us do evil that good may come ( poiēsōmen ta kaka hina elthēi ta agatha ).

The volitive aorist subjunctive (poiēsōmen ) and the clause of purpose (hina and the aorist subjunctive elthēi ). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.

Vincent: Rom 2:17

Behold ( ἴδε )

But the correct reading is εἰ δὲ but if .

Vincent: Rom 2:17

Thou art called ( ἐπονομάζῃ )

Rev., much better, bearest the name of , bringing out the value which attached to the name Jew, the theocratic title of honor. See on Hebrews , Act 6:1.

Vincent: Rom 2:17

Restest in ( ἐπαναπαύῃ )

Rev., better, upon , giving the force of ἐπί in the verb. The radical conception of the verb ἀναπαύω is relief . See Mat 11:28. Thou restest with a blind trust in God as thy Father and protector exclusively.

Vincent: Rom 2:18

The things that are more excellent ( τὰ διαφέροντα )

This may be the meaning, and it is adopted by Rev. with the proper omission of more . But it may also mean the things which differ ; in which case we shall render provest instead of approvest . The sense will then be: thou dost test with nice discrimination questions of casuistry. Compare Phi 1:10. The latter interpretation seems preferable, being borne out by the succeeding being instructed .

Vincent: Rom 2:18

Being instructed ( κατηχούμενος )

Systematically through catechetical and synagoguic instruction. See on Luk 1:4. This formal instruction is the basis of the critical discrimination.

Vincent: Rom 2:20

Instructor ( παιδευτὴν )

Rev., corrector . Better, because emphasizing the element of discipline or training . See on chastise , Luk 23:16.

Vincent: Rom 2:20

Of babes ( νηπίων )

The term used by the Jews to designate proselytes or novices. Paul uses it of one not come of legal age, Gal 4:1.

Vincent: Rom 2:20

The form - in the law ( μόρφωσιν )

Not mere appearance , but the scheme , the correct embodiment of the lineaments of truth and knowledge in the law.

Vincent: Rom 2:21

Thou that preachest ( ὁ κηρύσσων )

See on Mat 4:17. Stealing is so gross a vice that one may openly denounce it.

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Sayest ( λέγων )

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

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Abhorrest ( βδελυσσόμενος )

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

Vincent: Rom 2:22

Commit sacrilege ( ἱεροσυλεῖς )

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

Vincent: Rom 2:23

Transgression ( παραβάσεως )

Trench remarks upon " the mournfully numerous group of words" which express the different aspects of sin. It is ἁμαρτια the missing of a mark ; παράβασις the overpassing of a line ; παρακοή the disobedience to a voice ; παράπτωμα a falling when one should have stood ; ἀγνόημα ignorance of what one should know ; ἥττημα a diminishing of what should be rendered in full measure ; ἀνομία or παρανομία non-observance of law ; πλημμέλεια discord.

The primary sense of the preposition παρά is beside or by , with reference to a line or extended surface. Hence it indicates that which is not on its true line but beside it, either in the way of falling short or of going beyond. Thus, in the sense of going beyond , Rom 12:3, to think more highly than he ought (παρ ' ὃ δεῖ ), where the sense of beyond is fixed by ὑπερφρονεῖν to think beyond or over ." So Luk 13:2. In the sense of falling short , Thucydides, 3, 49: " Mitylene came near such peril" (παρὰ τοσοῦτο κινδύνου ), as if parallel to the danger but not touching it. Hence παραβάσις differs from the Homeric ὑπερβασία transgression , in that the latter carries only the idea of going beyond or over . A mark or line as a standard is thus implied. Transgression implies something to transgress. With the law came in the possibility off transgressing the law. " Where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15). Hence Adam's sin is called a transgression (Rom 5:14), because it was the violation of a definite command. Paul habitually uses the word and its kindred παραβάτης transgressor , of the transgression of a commandment distinctly given (Gal 3:19; 1Ti 2:14, Rom 2:25, Rom 2:27). Hence it is peculiarly appropriate here of one who boasts in the law . It thus differs from ἁμαρτία sin (see on sins , Mat 1:21), in that one may sin without being under express law. See Romans 5. Sin (ἁμαρτία ) was in the world until the law ; i.e. during the period prior to the law. Death reigned from Adam to Moses over those who had not sinned (ἁμαρτήσαντας ) after the similitude of Adam's transgression (παραβάσεως ). The sin is implicit , the transgression explicit .

Vincent: Rom 2:25

Breaker of the law ( παραβάτης )

Rev., transgressor . See on Jam 2:11.

Vincent: Rom 2:25

Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision

" But if any citizen be found guilty of any great or unmentionable wrong, either in relation to the gods, or his parents, or the state, let the judge deem him to be incurable, remembering what an education and training he has had from youth upward, and yet has not abstained from the greatest of crimes" (Plato, " Laws," 854).

Vincent: Rom 2:29

Praise

Possibly in allusion to the etymological meaning of Jew , the praised one . Compare Gen 49:8. The word here means the holy satisfaction of God as opposed to Jewish vain-glory.

Vincent: Rom 3:1

Advantage ( περισσὸν )

Lit., surplus . Hence prerogative or pre-eminence .

Vincent: Rom 3:1

Profit ( ὠφέλεια )

Compare profiteth , Rom 2:25.

Vincent: Rom 3:2

Chiefly ( πρῶτον )

Rev., first of all ; i.e., first in order. Paul, however, does not enumerate further, being led away by another thought.

Vincent: Rom 3:2

The oracles ( τὰ λόγια )

Diminutive. Strictly, brief utterances. Both in classical and biblical Greek, of divine utterances. In classical Greek, of prose oracles. See Act 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11. Not especially Messianic passages, but the Old Testament scriptures with the law and the promises.

Vincent: Rom 3:3

Did not believe ( ἠπίστησαν )

Rev., were without faith . Not, as some, were unfaithful , which is contrary to New Testament usage. See Mar 16:11, Mar 16:16; Luk 24:11, Luk 24:41; Act 28:24; Rom 4:20, etc. The Rev. rendering is preferable, as bringing out the paronomasia between the Greek words: were without faith ; their want of faith ; the faithfulness of God.

Vincent: Rom 3:3

Faith of God

Better, as Rev., faithfulness ; the good faith of God; His fidelity to His promises. For this sense see on Mat 23:23. Compare Tit 2:10, and see on faithful , 1Jo 1:9; see on Rev 1:5; see on Rev 3:14. Compare 1Co 1:9; 1Co 10:13; 2Co 1:18.

Vincent: Rom 3:3

Make without effect ( καταργήσει )

See on Luk 13:7. The word occurs twenty-five times in Paul, and is variously rendered in A.V. make void , destroy , loose , bring to nought , fail , vanish away , put away , put down , abolish , cease . The radical meaning is to make inert or idle . Dr. Morison acutely observes that it negatives the idea of agency or operation , rather than of result or effect . It is rather to make inefficient than to make without effect . So in Luk 13:7, why should the tree be allowed to make the ground idle ? 1Co 13:8, prophecies shall fail, or have no more work to do. 2Ti 1:10 Christ abolished death. There is no more work for it. Rom 6:6, the body of sin is rendered inactive. Rom 3:31, Do we deprive the law of its work - render it a dead letter?

Vincent: Rom 3:4

God forbid ( μὴ γένοιτο )

Lit., may it not have come to pass . Used by Paul fourteen times. It introduces the rebuttal of an inference drawn from Paul's arguments by an opponent. Luther renders das sey ferne that be far . Wyc. fer be it . It corresponds to the Hebrew chalilah . profane , which in the Septuagint is sometimes rendered by it, sometimes by μηδαμῶς by no means , sometimes by μὴ εἴη may it not be , and again by ἵλεως God be merciful to us (see on Mat 16:22). It indicates a feeling of strong aversion: " Away with the thought."

Vincent: Rom 3:4

Let God be true ( γινέσθω ὁ Θεὸς ἀληθής )

Rev., better, " let God be found true;" thus giving the force of γίνομαι to become . See on was , I am , Joh 8:58. The phrase is used with reference to men's apprehension. Let God turn out to be or be found to be by His creatures.

Vincent: Rom 3:4

Be justified

Acknowledged righteous. The figure is forensic. God's justice is put on trial.

Vincent: Rom 3:4

Overcome ( νικήσῃς )

Rev., prevail . Gain the case. The word occurs only three times outside of John's writings.

Vincent: Rom 3:4

When thou art judged ( ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε )

Rev., when thou comest into judgment .

Vincent: Rom 3:5

Commend ( συνίστησιν )

Only twice outside of Paul's writings, Luk 9:32; 2Pe 3:5, both in the physical sense. Lit., to place together . Hence of setting one person with another by way of introducing or presenting him, and hence to commend . Also to put together with a vein of showing, proving, or establishing. Expositors render here differently: commend , establish , prove . Commend is the prevailing sense in the New Testament, though in some instances the two ideas blend, as Rom 5:8; 2Co 7:11; Gal 2:18. See Rom 16:1; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 6:4; 2Co 10:18.

Vincent: Rom 3:5

Who taketh vengeance ( ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν )

Rev., much better, who visiteth with wrath . Lit., bringeth the anger to bear . The force of the article it is difficult to render. It may be the wrath, definitely conceived as judicial, or, more probably, as in Mat 3:7, referring to something recognized - the wrath to come, the well-understood need of unrighteousness. See on Rom 12:19.

Vincent: Rom 3:5

As a man ( κατὰ ἄνθρωπον )

Rev., after the manner of men ; i.e., I use a mode of speech drawn from human affairs. The phrase is thrown in apologetically, under a sense that the mode of speech is unworthy of the subject. Morison aptly paraphrases: " When I ask the question, 'Is God unjust who inflicteth wrath?' I am deeply conscious that I am using language which is intrinsically improper when applied to God. But in condescension to human weakness I transfer to Him language which it is customary for men to employ when referring to human relationships." Compare 1Co 9:8; Rom 6:19.

Vincent: Rom 3:7

Lie ( ψεύσματι )

Only here in the New Testament. The expression carries us back to Rom 3:4, and is general for moral falsehood , unfaithfulness to the claims of conscience and of God, especially with reference to the proffer of salvation through Christ.

Wesley: Rom 2:17

This highest point of Jewish glorying, after a farther description of it interposed, Rom 2:17-20, and refuted, Rom 2:21-24, is itself refuted, Rom 2:25, &c. The description consists of twice five articles; of which the former five, Rom 2:17-18, show what he boasts of in himself; the other five, Rom 2:19-20, what he glories in with respect to others. The first particular of the former five answers to the first of the latter; the second, to the second, and so on.

Wesley: Rom 2:17

Dependest on it, though it can only condemn thee.

Wesley: Rom 2:17

As thy God; and that, too, to the exclusion of others.

Wesley: Rom 2:19

These were the titles which the Jews generally gave the gentiles.

Wesley: Rom 2:20

That is, the most accurate knowledge of the truth.

Wesley: Rom 2:21

He does not teach himself who does not practise what he teaches. Dost thou steal, commit adultery, commit sacrilege - Sin grievously against thy neighbour, thyself, God. St. Paul had shown the gentiles, first their sins against God, then against themselves, then against their neighbours. He now inverts the order: for sins against God are the most glaring in an heathen, but not in a Jew.

Wesley: Rom 2:21

Which all the Jews did, from the time of the Babylonish captivity.

Wesley: Rom 2:21

Doest what is worse, robbing Him "who is God over all" of the glory which is due to him. None of these charges were rashly advanced against the Jews of that age; for, as their own historian relates, some even of the priests lived by rapine, and others in gross uncleanness. And as for sacrilegiously robbing God and his altar, it had been complained of ever since Malachi; so that the instances are given with great propriety and judgment.

Wesley: Rom 2:24

Isa 52:5

Wesley: Rom 2:25

He does not say, justifies. How far it profited is shown in the third and fourth chapters.

Wesley: Rom 2:25

is so already in effect. Thou wilt have no more benefit by it than if thou hadst never received it. The very same observation holds with regard to baptism.

Wesley: Rom 2:26

That is, a person uncircumcised.

Wesley: Rom 2:26

Walk agreeably to it.

Wesley: Rom 2:26

In the sight of God?

Wesley: Rom 2:27

Those who are, literally speaking, uncircumcised.

Wesley: Rom 2:27

As to the substance of it.

Wesley: Rom 2:27

Shall condemn thee in that day.

Wesley: Rom 2:27

Who having the bare, literal, external circumcision, transgressest the law.

Wesley: Rom 2:28

In the most important sense, that is, one of God's beloved people. Who is one in outward show only; neither is that the true, acceptable circumcision, which is apparent in the flesh.

Wesley: Rom 2:29

That is, one of God's people.

Wesley: Rom 2:29

In the secret recesses of his soul.

Wesley: Rom 2:29

Referring to Deu 30:6; the putting away all inward impurity. This is seated in the spirit, the inmost soul, renewed by the Spirit of God.

Wesley: Rom 2:29

Not in the external ceremony. Whose praise is not from men, but from God - The only searcher of the heart.

Wesley: Rom 3:1

That is, those that are circumcised, above the gentiles?

Wesley: Rom 3:2

The scriptures, in which are so great and precious promises. Other prerogatives will follow, Rom 9:4-5. St. Paul here singles out this by which, after removing the objection, he will convict them so much the more.

Wesley: Rom 3:3

Will he not still make good his promises to them that do believe?

Wesley: Rom 3:4

Psa 2:4.

Wesley: Rom 3:5

As human weakness would be apt to speak.

Wesley: Rom 3:6

By no means. If it were unjust in God to punish that unrighteousness which is subservient to his own glory, how should God judge the world - Since all the unrighteousness in the world will then commend the righteousness of God.

Wesley: Rom 3:7

Has been more abundantly shown.

Wesley: Rom 3:7

If my lie, that is, practice contrary to truth, conduces to the glory of God, by making his truth shine with superior advantage.

Wesley: Rom 3:7

Can this be said to be any sin at all? Ought I not to do what would otherwise be evil, that so much "good may come?" To this the apostle does not deign to give a direct answer, but cuts the objector short with a severe reproof.

Wesley: Rom 3:8

The condemnation of all who either speak or act in this manner. So the apostle absolutely denies the lawfulness of " doing evil," any evil, "that good may come."

JFB: Rom 2:17-24

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

JFB: Rom 2:18

"triest the things that differ" (Margin). Both senses are good, and indeed the former is but the result of the latter action. (See on Phi 1:10).

JFB: Rom 2:20

Not being left, as the heathen are, to vague conjecture on divine things, but favored with definite and precise information from heaven.

JFB: Rom 2:22

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

JFB: Rom 2:22

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

JFB: Rom 2:24

(See Isa 52:5, Marginal reference).

JFB: Rom 2:25-29

That is, One's being within the covenant of which circumcision was the outward sign and seal.

JFB: Rom 2:25-29

If the inward reality correspond to the outward sign.

JFB: Rom 2:25-29

That is, "Otherwise, thou art no better than the uncircumcised heathen."

JFB: Rom 2:26

Two mistaken interpretations, we think, are given of these words: First, that the case here supposed is an impossible one, and put merely for illustration [HALDANE, CHALMERS, HODGE]; second that it is the case of the heathen who may and do please God when they act, as has been and is done, up to the light of nature [GROTIUS, OLSHAUSEN, &c.]. The first interpretation is, in our judgment, unnatural; the second, opposed to the apostle's own teaching. But the case here put is, we think, such as that of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), who, though outside the external pale of God's covenant, yet having come to the knowledge of the truths contained in it, do manifest the grace of the covenant without the seal of it, and exemplify the character and walk of Abraham's children, though not called by the name of Abraham. Thus, this is but another way of announcing that God was about to show the insufficiency of the mere badge of the Abrahamic covenant, by calling from among the Gentiles a seed of Abraham that had never received the seal of circumcision (see on Gal 5:6); and this interpretation is confirmed by all that follows.

JFB: Rom 2:28

In other words, the name of "Jew" and the rite of "circumcision" were designed but as outward symbols of a separation from the irreligious and ungodly world unto holy devotedness in heart and life to the God of salvation. Where this is realized, the signs are full of significance; but where it is not, they are worse than useless.

JFB: Rom 2:28

Or the Ethics of Natural Theology--may be said to be the one deep foundation on which all revealed religion reposes; and see on Rom 1:19-20, where we have what we may call its other foundation--the Physics and Metaphysics of Natural Theology. The testimony of these two passages is to the theologian invaluable, while in the breast of every teachable Christian it wakens such deep echoes as are inexpressibly solemn and precious. (4) High religious professions are a fearful aggravation of the inconsistencies of such as make them (Rom 2:17-24). See 2Sa 12:14. (5) As no external privileges, or badge of discipleship, will shield the unholy from the wrath of God, so neither will the want of them shut out from the kingdom of heaven such as have experienced without them that change of heart which the seals of God's covenant were designed to mark. In the sight of the great Searcher of hearts, the Judge of quick and dead, the renovation of the character in heart and life is all in all. In view of this, have not all baptized, sacramented disciples of the Lord Jesus, who "profess that they know God, but in works deny Him," need to tremble--who, under the guise of friends, are "the enemies of the cross of Christ?"

JFB: Rom 3:1-2

That is, "If the final judgment will turn solely on the state of the heart, and this may be as good in the Gentile without, as in the Jew within, the sacred enclosure of God's covenant, what better are we Jews for all our advantages?"

Answer:

JFB: Rom 3:2

Rather, "first, that."

JFB: Rom 3:2

This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.

JFB: Rom 3:3-4

It is the unbelief of the great body of the nation which the apostle points at; but as it sufficed for his argument to put the supposition thus gently, he uses this word "some" to soften prejudice.

JFB: Rom 3:3-4

Or, "faithfulness of God."

JFB: Rom 3:3-4

"nullify," "invalidate" it.

JFB: Rom 3:4

Literally, "Let it not be," that is, "Away with such a thought"--a favorite expression of our apostle, when he would not only repudiate a supposed consequence of his doctrine, but express his abhorrence of it. "The Scriptures do not authorize such a use of God's name as must have been common among the English translators of the Bible" [HODGE].

JFB: Rom 3:4

Held

JFB: Rom 3:4

That is, even though it should follow from this that every man is a liar.

JFB: Rom 3:4

So in Psa 51:4, according to the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew and in our version, "when thou judgest." The general sentiment, however, is the same in both--that we are to vindicate the righteousness of God, at whatever expense to ourselves.

JFB: Rom 3:5-6

Another objection: "It would appear, then, that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear; and in that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God."

Answer:

JFB: Rom 3:6

That is, "Far from us be such a thought; for that would strike down all future judgment.

JFB: Rom 3:7-8

A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this--which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching--that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a damnable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense).

On this brief section, Note (1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to the question, "What advantage hath the Jew?" or, "What profit is there of circumcision?" (Rom 3:1) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid the stress upon the priesthood, as the glory of the Jewish economy. But in the apostle's esteem, "the oracles of God" were the jewel of the ancient Church (Rom 3:1-2). (2) God's eternal purposes and man's free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation by grace and the unchanging obligations of God's law, have ever been subjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to no truth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the clouds and darkness which in this present state envelop the divine administration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad and deep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their own luster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, "Let us do evil that good may come," "their damnation is just" (Rom 3:8).

Clarke: Rom 2:17

Behold, thou art called a Jew - What the apostle had said in the preceding verses being sufficient to enforce conviction on the conscience of the Jew, he now throws off the cover, and openly argues with him in the most plain and nervous manner; asserting that his superior knowledge, privileges, and profession, served only to aggravate his condemnation. And that, in fact, he who, under all his greater advantages, transgressed the law of God, stood condemned by the honest Gentile, who, to the best of his knowledge obeyed it. Dr. Taylor

Clarke: Rom 2:17

And restest in the law - Thou trustest in it for thy endless salvation. The word επαναπαυη, implies the strongest confidence of safety and security. Thou reposest thy whole trust and confidence in this law

Clarke: Rom 2:17

And makest thy boast of God - That thou knowest his nature and attributes, which are not known to the Gentiles. The word, καυχασαι, implies the idea of exulting in any thing, as being a proper object of hope and dependence: and, when referred to God, it points out that He is the sure cause of hope, dependence, joy, and happiness; and that it is the highest honor to be called to know his name, and be employed in his service. As if the apostle had said: You rejoice in God as the object of your hope and dependence; you praise and magnify him; you account it your greatest honor that He is your God, and that you worship him.

Clarke: Rom 2:18

Knowest his will - Hast been favored with a revelation of his own will, immediately from himself

Clarke: Rom 2:18

The things that are more excellent - τα δισφεροντα, The things that differ - that revelation which God has given of himself makes the nicest distinctions between right and wrong; between vice and virtue; showing how you should walk so as to please God, and, consequently, acquire the most excellent portion that human spirits can have on this side heaven: for all these blessings ye acknowledge to receive from your law, being instructed, κατηχουμενος, being catechized, from your infancy, in the knowledge of Divine things.

Clarke: Rom 2:19

And art confident, etc. - In consequence of all these religious advantages, ye believe that ye are able to teach others, and to be guides and lights to the bewildered, darkened Gentiles, who may become proselytes to your religion.

Clarke: Rom 2:20

An instructer of the foolish, etc. - Ye believe the Gentiles to be babes and fools when compared with yourselves; that ye alone possess the only true knowledge; that ye are the only favourites of Heaven; and that all nations must look up to you as possessing the only form of knowledge, μορφωσιν της γνωσεως, the grand scheme and draught of all true science, of every thing that is worthy to be learned: the system of eternal truth, derived from the law. If, therefore, ye act not as becomes those who have such eminent advantages, it must be to your endless disgrace and infamy.

Clarke: Rom 2:21

Thou therefore - Dr. Taylor has paraphrased this and the three following verses thus: "What signify your pretensions to knowledge, and the office of teaching others, if you have no regard to your own doctrine? What are you the better for preaching against theft, if you are a thief yourself? Or for declaring adultery unlawful, if you live in the practice of it? Or for representing idolatry abominable, if you are guilty of sacrilege? What honors or singular favors do you deserve, if, while you glory in the law and your religious privileges, you dishonor God, and discredit his religion, by transgressing his law, and living in open contradiction to your profession? And this is more than supposition; notorious instances might be produced of the forementioned crimes, whereby the Jews of the present age have brought a reproach upon religion among the Gentiles; as well as those Jews of former times, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, Eze 36:23 : And I will sanctify my great name, which was Profaned among the Heathen, which ye have Profaned in the midst of them.

That the Jewish priesthood was exceedingly corrupt in the time of the apostle, and that they were so long before, is fully evident from the sacred writings and from Josephus. The high-priesthood was a matter of commerce, and was bought and sold like other commodities. Of this Josephus gives many instances. The rapine of Eli’ s sons descended to several generations. Dr. Whitby well observes that of all these things mentioned by the apostle the Jewish doctors were notoriously guilty; and of most of them they were accused by our Lord

1.    They said and did not; and laid heavy burdens upon others, which they would not touch with their own fingers, Mat 23:3, Mat 23:4

2.    They made the house of God a den of thieves, Mat 21:13; Joh 2:16

3.    They were guilty of adultery by unjust divorces, Mat 19:9

4.    Their polygamy was scandalous: even their rabbins, when they came to any place, would exclaim, Who will be my wife for a day

As to idolatry, they were perfectly saved from it ever since the Babylonish captivity but to this succeeded sacrilege, as is most evident in the profanation of the temple, by their commerce transacted even within its courts; and their teaching the people that even their aged parents might be left to starve, provided the children made a present to the temple of that which should have gone for their support. According to Josephus, Bell. Jud. l. vi. c. 26, They were guilty of theft, treachery, adultery, sacrilege, rapine, and murder. And he adds, that new ways of wickedness were invented by them; and that of all their abominations the temple was the receptacle. In his Antiquities of the Jews, lib. xx. c. 8, he says: The servants of the high priests took away, by violence, the tithes of the priests, so that many of them perished for want of food. Even their own writers acknowledge that there were great irregularities and abominations among the rabbins

So Bereshith rabba, sect. 55, fol. 54

"Rabbi Abun proposed a parable concerning a master who taught his disciples not to pervert justice, and yet did it himself; not to show respect of persons, and yet did it himself; not to receive bribes, and yet received them himself; not to take usury, and yet took it himself. The disciple replied: - Rabbi, thou teachest me not to take usury, and yet thou takest it thyself! Can that be lawful to thee which is forbidden to me?"

Clarke: Rom 2:24

For the name of God is blasphemed, etc. - In Debarim rabba, sect. 2, fol. 251, it is said: - "The rulers destroy the influence of their own words among the people; and this is done when a rabbin, sitting and teaching in the academy, says, Do not take usury, and himself takes it; do not commit rapine, and himself commits it; do not steal, and himself steals."That they were exceedingly lax in their morals, the following fact proves: - "Rabbi Ilai said, If a man see that his evil propensities are likely to prevail against him, let him go to some place where he is not known, and let him put on black clothes, and cover his head with a black veil; and then let him do whatsoever he pleases, lest the name of God should be publicly profaned."Moed katon, fol. 17. 1. In Sohar Levit. fol. 31, col. 122, it is said: - "On three accounts the Jews are obliged to remain in captivity -

1.    Because they openly reproach the Shechinah -

2.    Because they profane themselves before the Shechinah -

3.    Because they turn away their faces from the Shechinah.

But it would be endless to collect from their history the proofs of the charges brought here against them by the apostle. See Whitby, Schoettgen, and others.

Clarke: Rom 2:25

For circumcision verily profiteth - It is a blessing to belong to the Church of God and wear the sign of the covenant, provided the terms of the covenant are complied with

Clarke: Rom 2:25

But if thou be a breaker of the law - If thou do not observe the conditions of the covenant, the outward sign is both without meaning and without effect. This was a maxim of the rabbins themselves; for they allowed that an apostate or ungodly Israelite must go to hell, notwithstanding his circumcision.

Clarke: Rom 2:26

Therefore if the uncircumcision, etc. - If the Gentile be found to act according to the spirit and design of the law, his acting thus uprightly, according to the light which God has afforded him, will be reckoned to him as if he were circumcised and walked agreeably to the law.

Clarke: Rom 2:27

And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature - And shall not the Gentile, who is εκ φυσεως, according to the custom of his country - who is, by birth, not obliged to be circumcised

Clarke: Rom 2:27

If it fulfill the law - If such a person act according to the spirit and design of the law; judge κρινει condemn thee, who, whilst thou dost enjoy the letter, the written law, and bearest in thy body the proof of the circumcision which it requires, dost transgress that law?

Clarke: Rom 2:28

For he is not a Jew - A genuine member of the Church of God, who has only an outward profession

Clarke: Rom 2:28

Neither is that circumcision - Circumcision is a rite which represents a spiritual thing, viz. the change and purification of the heart, as may be seen, Jer 4:4, Jer 4:6, Jer 4:10; Jer 9:26; Eze 44:7, Eze 44:9.

Clarke: Rom 2:29

But he is a Jew - A true member of the Church of God

Clarke: Rom 2:29

Which is one inwardly - Who has his heart purified, according to what God has uniformly prescribed by his prophets; see above: for circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, εν πνευματι by the Spirit of God, who is the author of all spiritual affections and holy purposes: or, every thing here is to be understood spiritually, and not literally; for without holiness none can please God, and without holiness none can see him

Clarke: Rom 2:29

Whose praise is not of men - It has, with great probability, been conjectured that the apostle may here refer to the signification of the name Jew, or Judah, יהודה Yehudah , Praise, from ידה Yadah , he Praised. Such a one is a true Israelite, who walks in a conformity to the spirit of his religion: his countrymen may praise him because he is a steady professor of the Jewish faith; but God praises him, because he has entered into the spirit and design of the covenant made with Abraham, and has got the end of his faith, the salvation of his soul. Sentiments like these, on the same subject, may be found in the ancient Jewish writers. Rabbi Lipman gives the opinion of their most ancient and pure writers in these words: - "A certain Christian mocked us, saying, ‘ Women, who cannot be circumcised, cannot be reckoned among Jews.’ Such persons are ignorant that faith does not consist in circumcision, but in the heart. He who has not genuine faith is not a partaker of the Jewish circumcision; but he who has genuine faith is a Jew, although not circumcised."Nizzachon, Num. 21, p. 19. It is a curious maxim of the Talmudists, That the Jews sit in the inmost recesses of the heart. Nidda, fol. 20, 2. This is exactly the sentiment of St. Paul: Circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit. In short, common sense, as well as their law and their prophets, taught every considerate man among them that God could be pleased with their rites and external performances no farther than they led to holiness of heart and righteousness of life

1.    What the apostle says, in the preceding chapter, concerning the Gentiles doing by nature the things contained in the law, if properly considered, would lead certain persons from forming erroneous judgments concerning the Divine dispensations. We are not to suppose that God is not to be found where his written word does not appear; nor that the salvation of the nations yet unblessed with the light of the Gospel is impossible. God has never confined himself to any one particular way of communicating his salvation, any more than he has confined his saving grace to one people. His word is an indescribable blessing; but that word becomes effectual to salvation when accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit. It was that Spirit which gave the word originally; and that same Spirit can speak without this word. It is through his influence alone that the Gentiles do the things contained in his own law; and it is not to be wondered at that the work is the same, both in the law and in the heart, when it has proceeded from the same Spirit

2.    God therefore will judge all nations according to the use and abuse they have made of this word, whether it was written in the heart, or written on tables of stone

3.    As he is no respecter of persons, all nations are equally dear to him; and he has granted and will grant to them such discoveries of himself as have been and will be sufficient for their salvation

4.    His Word is an infinite blessing; and he has given it to one people that they may be the means of conveying it to another. Europe, and especially Christian Europe, has got the Bible; and God requires Europe to send the Bible throughout the earth. If this be not done, through their neglect, the Gentile nations will not be destroyed by a merciful God; yet the Europeans will have a most solemn and awful account to render to their Judge, that they have hidden the heavenly light under their own bushel. Britain is shaking herself from the dust, and, by means of the British and Foreign Bible Society, is sending the holy Scriptures to every kingdom, and nation, and people, and tongue. The Gentiles are now learning from the written law more fully and savingly what the Spirit of God had before written on their hearts; and it seems as if the kingdom of God were now about to come with all-conquering power.

Clarke: Rom 3:1

Jew. What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? - As if he had said: You lately allowed, (Rom 2:25), that circumcision verily profited; but if circumcision, or our being in covenant with God, raises us no higher in the Divine favor than the Gentiles; if the virtuous among them are as acceptable as any of us; nay, and condemn our nation too, as no longer deserving the Divine regards; pray tell me, wherein lies the superior honor of the Jew; and what benefit can arise to him from his circumcision, and being vested in the privileges of God’ s peculiar people?

Clarke: Rom 3:2

Apostle. Much every way - The Jews, in reference to the means and motives of obedience, enjoy many advantages beyond the Gentiles; and, principally, because to them were committed the oracles of God - that revelation of his will to Moses and the prophets, containing a treasure of excellencies, with which no other part of the world has been favored; though they have most grievously abused these privileges.

Clarke: Rom 3:3

Jew. For what - τι γαρ, What then, if some did not believe, etc. If some of the Jewish nation have abused their privileges, and acted contrary to their obligations, shall their wickedness annul the Promise which God made to Abraham, that he would, by an everlasting covenant, be a God to him and to his seed after him? Gen 17:7. Shall God, therefore, by stripping the Jews of their peculiar honor, as you intimate he will, falsify his promise to the nation, because some of the Jews are bad men?

Clarke: Rom 3:4

Apostle. God forbid - μη γενοιτο, Let it not be, far from it, by no means. Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar, etc. We must ever maintain that God is true, and that if, in any case, his promise appear to fail, it is because the condition on which it was given has not been complied with; which is the sense of what is written, Psa 51:4 : I acknowledge my sin, and condemn myself that the truth of thy promise (2Sa 7:15, 2Sa 7:16) to establish my house and throne for ever, may be vindicated when thou shalt execute that dreadful threatening, (2Sa 12:10), that the sword shall never depart from my house, which I own I have brought upon myself by my own iniquity. Should any man say that the promise of God had failed toward him, let him examine his heart and his ways, and he will find that he has departed out of that way in which alone God could, consistently with his holiness and truth, fulfill the promise.

Clarke: Rom 3:5

Jew. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God - May we not suppose that our unrighteousness may serve to commend and illustrate the mercy of God in keeping and fulfilling to us the promise which he made to our forefathers? The more wicked we are, the more his faithfulness to his ancient promise is to be admired. And if so, would not God appear unjust in taking vengeance and casting us off

Clarke: Rom 3:5

I speak as a man - I feel for the situation both of myself and my countrymen, and it is natural for one to speak as I do.

Clarke: Rom 3:6

Apostle. God forbid - μη γενοιτο, by no means. God cannot be unjust; were he unjust, he could not be qualified to judge the world, nor inflict that punishment on the unfaithful Jews, to which I refer.

Clarke: Rom 3:7

Jew. For if the truth of God, etc. - But to resume my reasoning (Rom 3:5): If the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise made to our fathers is, through our unfaithfulness, made far more glorious than it otherwise would have been, why should we then be blamed for that which must redound so much to the honor of God?

Clarke: Rom 3:8

Apostle. And not rather, etc. - And why do you not say, seeing you assume this ground, that in all cases we should do wickedly, because God, by freely pardoning, can so glorify his own grace? This is a most impious sentiment, but it follows from your reasoning; it has, indeed, been most injuriously laid to the charge of us apostles, who preach the doctrine of free pardon, through faith, without the merit of works; but this is so manifest a perversion of the truth that a just punishment may be expected to fall on the propagators of such a slander.

Calvin: Rom 2:17

17.=== Behold, thou art named a Jew, === etc. Some old copies read εἰ δὲ, though indeed; which, were it generally received, would meet my approbation; but as the greater part of the manuscripts is opposed to it, and the sense is not unsuitable, I retain the old reading, especially as it is only a small difference of one letter. ⁷⁷

Having now completed what he meant to say of the Gentiles, he returns to the Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat down their great vanity, he allows them all those privileges, by which they were beyond measure transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they were for the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach. Under the name Jew he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly pretended were derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends all the Israelites, all of whom were then, without any difference, called Jews.

But at what time this name first originated it is uncertain, except that it arose, no doubt, after the dispersion. ⁷⁸ [Josephus] , in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, thinks that it was taken from Judas Maccabæus, under whose auspices the liberty and honor of the people, after having for some time fallen, and been almost buried, revived again. Though I allow this opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to whom it is not satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It seems, indeed, very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered through so many disasters, they were not able to retain any certain distinction as to their tribes; for a census could not have been made at that time, nor did there exist a regular government, which was necessary to preserve an order of this kind; and they dwelt scattered and in disorder; and having been worn out by adversities, they were no doubt less attentive to the records of their kindred. But though you may not grant these things to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger of this kind was connected with such disturbed state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide for the future, or to remedy an evil already received, they all, I think assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of religion remained the longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from it the Redeemer was expected to come; for it was their refuge in all extremities, to console themselves with the expectation of the Messiah. However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the heirs of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed.

===And restest in the law, and gloriest in God, === etc. He means not that they rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its observance, and were inflated on this account only, — because they were persuaded that the oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his Prophet, — to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jer 9:24,) — but being without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made him, of whom they were inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This, then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.

Calvin: Rom 2:18

18.And knowest his will, and approvest things excellent, etc He now concedes to them the knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of things useful; and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But there is a twofold approval, — one of choice, when we embrace the good we approve; the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the law that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others, but were not careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But as Paul reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that excellent things are then only rightly approved (provided our judgment proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended to; for his will, as it is revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is to be justly approved. ⁷⁹

Calvin: Rom 2:19

19.=== And believest thyself, === etc. More is still granted to them; as though they had not only what was sufficient for themselves, but also that by which they could enrich others. He grants, indeed, that they had such abundance of learning, as that others might have been supplied. ⁸⁰

Calvin: Rom 2:20

20. I take what follows,having the form of knowledge, as a reason for the preceding; and it may be thus explained, — “because thou hast the form of knowledge.” For they professed to be the teachers of others, because they seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The word form is put for model ( exemplar — pattern); ⁸¹ for Paul has adopted μόρφωσιν and not τύπον : but he intended, I think, to point out the conspicuous pomp of their teaching, and what is commonly called display; and it certainly appears that they were destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But Paul, by indirectly ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on the other hand, that right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order that the truth may have a solid basis.

Calvin: Rom 2:21

21.=== Thou, who then teachest another, teachest not thyself, === etc. ⁸² Though the excellencies ( encomia — commendations) which he has hitherto stated respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned them, provided the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included qualifications of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly and corrupted by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true glory. And hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting their arrogance in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the purpose of enhancing their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no ordinary measure of reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God, which are otherwise valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates and contaminates them. And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for his own good, and is wise only for the benefit of others. He shows then that the praise which they appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own disgrace.

===Thou who preachest, steal not, === etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage in Psa 50:16, where God says to the wicked,

“Why dost thou declare my statutes, and takest my covenant in thy mouth? And thou hatest reform, and hast cast my words behind thee: when thou seest a thief, thou joinest him, and with adulterers is thy portion.”

And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews in old time, who, relying on the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us at this day: and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of judgment impends over such prattlers, ( logodœdalis — word-artificers,) who make a show of God’s word by mere garrulity.

Calvin: Rom 2:22

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

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

Calvin: Rom 2:23

23.=== Thou who gloriest in the law, === etc. Though every transgressor dishonors God, (for we are all born for this end — to serve him in righteousness and holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special fault to the Jews; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care to form their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty of their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under foot by their unbridled and licentious mode of living.

Calvin: Rom 2:24

24.For the name of God, etc I think this quotation is taken from Eze 36:20, rather than from Isa 52:5; for in Isaiah there are no reproofs given to the people, but that chapter in Ezekiel is full of reproofs. But some think that it is a proof from the less to the greater, according to this import, “Since the Prophet upbraided, not without cause, the Jews of his time, that on account of their captivity, the glory and power of God were ridiculed among the Gentiles, as though he could not have preserved the people, whom he had taken under his protection, much more are ye a disgrace and dishonor to God, whose religion, being judged of by your wicked life, is blasphemed.” This view I do not reject, but I prefer a simpler one, such as the following, — “We see that all the reproaches cast on the people of Israel do fall on the name of God; for as they are counted, and are said to be the people of God, his name is as it were engraven on their foreheads: it must hence be, that God, whose name they assume, is in a manner defamed by men, through their wicked conduct.” It was then a monstrous thing, that they who derived their glory from God should have disgraced his holy name; for it behoved them surely to requite him in a different manner. ⁸⁴

Calvin: Rom 2:25

25.For circumcision indeed profits, etc He dissipates by anticipation what the Jews might have objected in opposition to him in the defense of their own cause: for since circumcision was a symbol of the Lord’s covenant, by which he had chosen Abraham and his seed as his peculiar people, they seemed not to have gloried in vain; but as they neglected what the sign signified, and regarded only the outward form, he gives this answer — That they had no reason to lay claim to any thing on account of the bare sign. The true character of circumcision was a spiritual promise, which required faith: the Jews neglected both, the promise as well as faith. Then foolish was their confidence. Hence it is, that he omits to state here the main use of circumcision, and proceeds to expose their gross error, as he does in his Epistle to the Galatians. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for if he were explaining the whole character and design of circumcision, it would have been inconsistent in him not to have made mention of grace and free promise: but in both instances he spoke according to what the subject he had in hand required, and therefore he only discussed that part which was controverted.

They thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion, he gives this reply — That if this benefit be expected from circumcision, it is on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must serve God wholly and perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may be also said of our baptism: when any one confidently relies on the water of baptism alone, and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained holiness by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an objection; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the grace and promise, which baptism testifies ( testificatur ) and seals, ( obsignat ,) need not in this case to be mentioned; for our business is with those who, being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for nor consider what is material ( solidum — substantial) in it. And this very thing you may observe in Paul — that when he speaks to the faithful of signs, apart from controversy, he connects them with the efficacy and fulfillment of the promises which belong to them; but when he contends with the absurd and unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the proper and true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against their perverted interpretation.

Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward circumcision rather than any other part of the law, suppose that he takes away justification only from ceremonies: but the matter is far otherwise; for it always happens, that those who dare to set up their own merits against the righteousness of God, glory more in outward observances than in real goodness; for no one, who is seriously touched and moved by the fear of God, will ever dare to raise up his eyes to heaven, since the more he strives after true righteousness, the clearer he sees how far he is from it. But as to the Pharisees, who were satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it is no wonder that they so easily deluded themselves. Hence Paul, after having left the Jews nothing, but this poor subterfuge of being justified by circumcision, does now also take from them even this empty pretense.

Calvin: Rom 2:26

26.=== If then the uncircumcision, === etc. This is a very strong argument. Every thing is below its end and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks to the law, and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to keep the law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence follows, that the uncircumcised, provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew with his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor of the law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so sanctified by keeping the law, that uncircumcision shall be imputed to him for circumcision. The word uncircumcision, is to be taken in its proper sense in the second clause; but in the first, figuratively, for the Gentiles, the thing for the persons.

It must be added — that no one ought anxiously to inquire what observers of the law are those of which Paul speaks here, inasmuch no such can be found; for he simply intended to lay down a supposed case — that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value without circumcision, than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness. And hence I refer what follows, And what is by nature uncircumcision shall judge thee, etc., not to persons, but to the case that is supposed, according to what is said of the Queen of the south, that she shall come, etc., (Mat 12:42,) and of the men of Nineveh, that they shall rise up in judgment, etc., (Luk 11:32) For the very words of Paul lead us to this view — “The Gentile,” he says, “being a keeper of the law, shall judge thee who art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and thou hast the literal circumcision.”

Calvin: Rom 2:27

27.=== By the letter and circumcision, === etc. A construction ⁸⁵ which means a literal circumcision. He does not mean that they violated the law, because they had the literal circumcision; but because they continued, though they had the outward rite, to neglect the spiritual worship of God, even piety, justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law. ⁸⁶

Calvin: Rom 2:28

28.=== For a Jew is not he, === etc. The meaning is, that a real Jew is not to be ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an external symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist in an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he subjoins with regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture, and even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded to circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The fore-skin was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but as that of the whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification of the whole flesh.

Calvin: Rom 2:29

29. What he then adds, in the spirit, not in the letter, understand thus: He calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter, and the spiritual design of this rite, the spirit; for the whole importance of signs and rites depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not regarded, the letter alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason for this mode of speaking is this, — where the voice of God sounds, all that he commands, except it be received by men in sincerity of heart, will remain in the letter, that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into the heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit. And there is an allusion to the difference between the old and the new covenant, which Jeremiah points out in Jer 31:33; where the Lord declares that his covenant would be firm and permanent when engraven on the inward parts. Paul had also the same thing in view in another place, (2Co 3:6,) where he compares the law with the gospel, and calls the former “the letter,” which is not only dead but killeth; and the latter he signalizes with the title of “spirit.” But extremly gross has been the folly of those who have deduced a double meaning from the “letter,” and allegories from the “spirit.”

===Whose praise is not from men, === etc. As men fix their eyes only on those things which are visible, he denies that we ought to be satisfied with what is commendable in the estimation of men, who are often deceived by outward splendor; but that we ought to be satisfied with the all-seeing eyes of God, from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hid. He thus again summons hypocrites, who soothe themselves with false opinions, to the tribunal of God.

Calvin: Rom 3:1

1. Though Paul has clearly proved that bare circumcision brought nothing to the Jews, yet since he could not deny but that there was some difference between the Gentiles and the Jews, which by that symbol was sealed to them by the Lord, and since it was inconsistent to make a distinction, of which God was the author, void and of no moment, it remained for him to remove also this objection. It was indeed evident, that it was a foolish glorying in which the Jews on this account indulged; yet still a doubt remained as to the design of circumcision; for the Lord would not have appointed it had not some benefit been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks, what it was that made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he subjoins a reason for this by another question, What is the benefit of circumcision? For this separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition-wall, as Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties asunder.

Calvin: Rom 3:2

2.=== Much in every way, === etc.; that is, very much. He begins here to give the sacrament its own praise; but he concedes not, that on this account the Jews ought to have been proud; for when he teaches that they were sealed by the symbol of circumcision, by which they were counted the children of God, he does not allow that they became superior to others through any merit or worthiness of their own, but through the free mercy of God. If then regard be had to them as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but if the favors of God be taken to the account, he admits that they possessed what made them more eminent than other men.

===First indeed, because, intrusted to them, === etc. Some think there is here an unfinished period, for he sets down what he does not afterwards complete. But the word first seems not to me to be a note of number, but means chiefly” or especially, ⁸⁸ and is to be taken in this sense — “Though it were but this one thing, that they have the oracles ⁸⁹ of God committed to them, it might be deemed sufficient to prove their superiority.” And it is worthy of being noticed, that the advantage of circumcision is not made to consist in the naked sign, but its value is derived from the word; for Paul asks here what benefit the sacrament conferred on the Jews, and he answers, that God had deposited with them the treasure of celestial wisdom. It hence follows, that, apart from the word, no excellency remained. By oracles he means the covenant which God revealed first to Abraham and to his posterity, and afterwards sealed and unfolded by the law and the Prophets.

Now the oracles were committed to them, for the purpose of preserving them as long as it pleased the Lord to continue his glory among them, and then of publishing them during the time of their stewardship through the whole world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers. But if this benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored one nation only with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently reprobate our ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much carelessness, not to say disdain.

Calvin: Rom 3:3

3.=== What indeed if some, === etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of glory; so now, while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its virtue ( virtutem , efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their inconstancy. As then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.

===Shall their unbelief, === etc. Καταργεῖν is properly to render void and ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this passage. For Paul’s inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The meaning then is, “Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so abrogated by their perfidiousness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the blessing of the Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant.

Calvin: Rom 3:4

4.But let God be true, etc Whatever may be the opinion of others, I regard this as an argument taken from the necessary consequence of what is opposed to it, by which Paul invalidates the preceding objection. For since these two things stand together, yea, necessarily accord, that God is true and that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition, the one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute what was absurd, and show how God is just, though he manifests his justice by our unjustice. Hence the meaning is by no means ambiguous, — that the faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the perfidy and apostasy of men that it thereby becomes more evident. “ God, ” he says, “ is true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully to his promises, but because he also really fulfills whatever he declares; for he so speaks, that his command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is false, not only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he naturally seeks falsehood and shuns the truth.”

The first clause contains the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy; the latter is taken from Psa 116:11, where David confesses that there is nothing certain from man or in man.

Now this is a remarkable passage, and contains a consolation that is much needed; for such is the perversity of men in rejecting and despising God’s word, that its truth would be often doubted were not this to come to our minds, that God’s verity depends not on man’s verity. But how does this agree with what has been said previously — that in order to make the divine promise effectual, faith, which receives it, is on the part of men necessary? for faith stands opposed to falsehood. This seems, indeed, to be a difficult question; but it may with no great difficulty be answered, and in this way — the Lord, notwithstanding the lies of men, and though these are hinderances to his truth, does yet find a way for it through a pathless track, that he may come forth a conqueror, and that is, by correcting in his elect the inbred unbelief of our nature, and by subjecting to his service those who seem to be unconquerable. It must be added, that the discourse here is concerning the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which is the remedy for that corruption.

===That thou mightest be justified, === etc. The sense is, So far is it that the truth of God is destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness, that it thereby shines forth and appears more evident, according to the testimony of David, who says, that as he was sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge in whatever he determined respecting him, and that he would overcome all the calumnies of the ungodly who murmured against his righteousness. By the words of God, David means the judgments which he pronounces upon us; for the common application of these to promises is too strained: and so the particle that, is not so much final, nor refers to a far-fetched consequence, but implies an inference according to this purport, “Against thee have I sinned; justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness. The second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in thy judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.

The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word κρίνεσθαι, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet. ⁹¹

Calvin: Rom 3:5

5.=== But if our unrighteousness, === etc. Though this is a digression from the main subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, lest he should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they were watching for every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the testimony of David, what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a calumny, — “If God seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men, why does he punish them, when they offend, since by offending they glorify him? Without cause then surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his displeasure from that by which he is glorified.” There is, indeed, no doubt, but that this was an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will presently appear. Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that no one should think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he premises that he assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he sharply, touches, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not, “according to the ungodly,” but “according to man,” or as man. And thus indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh: and at the same tine it possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to oppose them and insolently to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labor to become freed from our own reason, ( proprio sensu ) and to give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to his word. — The word wrath, taken here for judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said, “Is God unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?”

Calvin: Rom 3:6

6.=== By no means, === etc. In checking this blasphemy he gives not a direct reply to the objection, but begins with expressing his abhorrence of it, lest the Christian religion should even appear to include absurdities so great. And this is more weighty than if he adopted a simple denial; for he implies, that this impious expression deserved to be regarded with horror, and not to be heard. He presently subjoins what may be called an indirect refutation; for he does not distinctly refute the calumny, but gives only this reply, — that the objection was absurd. Moreover, he takes an argument from an office which belongs to God, by which he proves it to be impossible, — God shall judge the world; he cannot then be unjust.

This argument is not derived, so to speak, from the mere power of God, but from his exercised power, which shines forth in the whole arrangement and order of his works; as though he said, — “It is God’s work to judge the world, that is, to rectify it by his own righteousness, and to reduce to the best order whatever there is in it out of order: he cannot then determine any thing unjustly.” And he seems to allude to a passage recorded by Moses, in Gen 18:25, where it is said, that when Abraham prayed God not to deliver Sodom wholly to destruction, he spoke to this purpose, —

“It is not meet, that thou who art to judge the earth, shouldest destroy the just with the ungodly: for this is not thy work nor can it be done by thee.”

A similar declaration is found in Job 34:17, —

“Should he who hates judgment exercise power?”

For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens, because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they degenerate from themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since, then, he is by nature judge, it must be that he is just, for he cannot deny himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is absurdly accused of unrighteousness; for to him peculiarly and naturally belongs the work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference to the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will take place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things of this kind may be checked, take this, and say, “That it comes not through what unrighteousness is, that God’s righteousness becomes more illustrious, but that our wickedness is so surpassed by God’s goodness, that it is turned to serve an end different from that to which it tends.”

Calvin: Rom 3:7

7.If indeed ⁹² the truth of God, etc. This objection, I have no doubt, is adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not the Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The meaning of the objection is — “If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.” ⁹³

Calvin: Rom 3:8

8.And not, === etc. This is an elliptical sentence, in which a word is to be understood. It will be complete, if you read it thus, — “and why is it not rather said, (as we are reproached, etc.) that we are to do evils, that good things may come?” But the Apostle deigns not to answer the slander; which yet we may check by the most solid reason. The pretense, indeed, is this, — “If God is by our iniquity glorified, and if nothing can be done by man in this life more befitting than to promote the glory of God, then let us sin to advance his glory!” Now the answer to this is evident, — “That evil cannot of itself produce anything but evil; and that God’s glory is through our sin illustrated, is not the work of man, but the work of God; who, as a wonderful worker, knows how to overcome our wickedness, and to convert it to another end, so as to turn it contrary to what we intend, to the promotion of his own glory.” God has prescribed to us the way, by which he would have himself to be glorified by us, even by true piety, which consists in obedience to his word. He who leaps over this boundary, strives not to honor God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out otherwise, is to be ascribed to the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man; through which it comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay, wholly overthrown ⁹⁴

===(As we are reproached,) === etc. Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has never been so much reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants as to be sufficient to check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new thing, that adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and render odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account, constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the same time, according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can, all malicious subtilties, ( technis — crafts, wiles,) that the base and the abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our Creator.

===Whose judgment is just Some take this in an active sense, as signifying that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd, in order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would not have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness, which, on the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what Paul seems to me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts, to be condemned, — first, because this impiety had gained the assent of their minds; and secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to draw from it their calumny.

Defender: Rom 2:17

Even though the epistle was addressed specifically to the Christian believers at Rome (Rom 1:7), Paul has constructed it as a long doctrinal and apologetic tract, which could be used both to convert unbelievers (whether Jew or Gentile) and also to instruct believers in the basic doctrinal truths and practical consequences of their faith. In this particular section, he is primarily addressing non-Christians, especially Jews, while keeping in mind that both God-fearing Gentiles and pagan Gentiles, as well as Christian believers, might well be reading it or hearing it. However, he is immediately showing the self-righteous Jews, boasting in their status as God's chosen people, that just being a Jew is not sufficient for salvation."

Defender: Rom 2:25

Circumcision was the original sign of God's covenant as given to Abraham (Gen 17:9-14) and confirmed again through Moses, specifically to the children of Israel (Lev 12:1-3). As a seal and symbol of the covenant, circumcision was profitable, reminding all Israelite men that they and their sons were supposed to be separated unto God, keeping and obeying His law, as given to them through Moses on Mount Sinai. But if they broke the law (and thus the covenant - Exo 19:3-8), then the mere fact that they had been circumcised would count for nothing. They would be the same as the uncircumcised Gentiles. In fact, it is "circumcision ... of the heart" (Rom 2:29) that really counts with God, indicating the separation of the whole person to God."

Defender: Rom 3:2

This is a striking synonym for the Holy Scriptures, a term used only four times in the New Testament (Act 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11), stressing the fact that they actually constituted the very utterances of God. These were given to and through the Jews and are preserved for us now in the Old Testament."

Defender: Rom 3:3

The fact that many people reject the Scriptures, even alleging that the Bible has been disproved by modern science and reason, means nothing. God's Word has been forever settled in Heaven and will endure forever (Psa 119:89, Psa 119:160), even after this present earth has passed away (Mat 24:35). God's revealed Word is absolute truth, and will judge all its detractors in the last day (see Rev 20:12, note; Rev 22:18, Rev 22:19, note)."

Defender: Rom 3:4

This phrase is quoted and applied from Psa 51:4."

Defender: Rom 3:8

Paul was being unjustly slandered. He was accused of teaching that salvation by grace encouraged sinfulness. Any such teaching that would distort God's Word for the sake of expediency, even for the ostensibly good purpose of winning converts, would be anathema to Paul. This is a sober warning of judgment against compromising the Scriptures."

TSK: Rom 2:17

thou art : Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29, Rom 9:4-7; Psa 135:4; Isa 48:1, Isa 48:2; Mat 3:9, Mat 8:11, Mat 8:12; Joh 8:33; 2Co 11:22; Gal 2:15; Eph 2:11; Phi 3:3-7; Rev 2:9, Rev 3:1, Rev 3:9

restest : Rom 2:23, Rom 9:4, Rom 9:32; Jer 7:4-10; Zep 3:11; Luk 10:28; Joh 5:45, Joh 7:19, Joh 9:28, Joh 9:29

makest : Isa 45:25, Isa 48:2; Mic 3:11; Joh 8:41

TSK: Rom 2:18

knowest : Deu 4:8; Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14; Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20; Luk 12:47; Joh 13:17; 1Co 8:1, 1Co 8:2; Jam 4:17

approvest the things that are more excellent : or, triest the things that differ, Phi 1:10 *marg. 1Th 5:21; Heb 5:14

being instructed : Rom 15:4; Psa 19:8, Psa 119:98-100,Psa 119:104, Psa 119:105, Psa 119:130; Pro 6:23; 2Ti 3:15-17

TSK: Rom 2:19

art confident : Pro 26:12; Isa 5:21, Isa 56:10; Mat 6:23, Mat 15:14, Mat 23:16-26; Mar 10:15; Joh 7:46-49, Joh 9:34, Joh 9:40,Joh 9:41; 1Co 3:18, 1Co 4:10, 1Co 8:1, 1Co 8:2; Rev 3:17, Rev 3:18

a light : Isa 49:6, Isa 49:9, Isa 49:10; Mat 4:16, Mat 5:14; Luk 1:79; Act 26:18; Phi 2:15

TSK: Rom 2:20

a teacher : Mat 11:25; 1Co 3:1; Heb 5:13; 1Pe 2:2

the form : Rom 6:17; 2Ti 1:13, 2Ti 3:5; Tit 1:16

TSK: Rom 2:21

therefore : Psa 50:16-21; Mat 23:3-12; Luk 4:23, Luk 11:46, Luk 12:47, Luk 19:22; 1Co 9:27; Gal 6:13; Tit 2:1-7

dost thou steal : Isa 56:11; Eze 22:12, Eze 22:13, Eze 22:27; Amo 8:4-6; Mic 3:11; Mat 21:13, Mat 23:14

TSK: Rom 2:22

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

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

TSK: Rom 2:23

that makest : Rom 2:17, Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4; Jer 8:8, Jer 8:9; Mat 19:17-20; Luk 10:26-29, Luk 18:11; Joh 5:45; Joh 9:28, Joh 9:29; Jam 1:22-27, Jam 4:16, Jam 4:17

TSK: Rom 2:24

the name : Isa 52:5; Lam 2:15, Lam 2:16; Eze 36:20-23; Mat 18:7; 1Ti 5:14, 1Ti 6:1; Tit 2:5, Tit 2:8

as it is written : 2Sa 12:14

TSK: Rom 2:25

circumcision : Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29, Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2, Rom 4:11, Rom 4:12; Deu 30:6; Jer 4:4; Gal 5:3-6, Gal 6:15; Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12

but if : Rom 2:23; Jer 9:25, Jer 9:26; Act 7:51

TSK: Rom 2:26

Isa 56:6, Isa 56:7; Mat 8:11, Mat 8:12, Mat 15:28; Act 10:2-4, Act 10:34, Act 10:35, 11:3-18; 1Co 7:18, 1Co 7:19; Phi 3:3; Col 2:11

TSK: Rom 2:27

if it fulfil : Rom 8:4, Rom 13:10; Mat 3:15, Mat 5:17-20; Act 13:22; Gal 5:14

judge : Eze 16:48-52; Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42; Heb 11:3

by the : Rom 2:20,Rom 2:29, Rom 7:6-8; 2Co 3:6

TSK: Rom 2:28

For he : Rom 9:6-8; Psa 73:1; Isa 1:9-15, Isa 48:1, Isa 48:2; Hos 1:6-9; Mat 3:9; Joh 1:47; Joh 8:37-39; Gal 6:15; Rev 2:9

neither : Jer 9:26; Rom 4:10-12; 1Pe 3:21

TSK: Rom 2:29

which : 1Sa 16:7; 1Ch 29:17; Psa 45:13; Jer 4:14; Mat 23:25-28; Luk 11:39; Luk 17:21; Joh 4:23; 1Pe 3:4

circumcision : Deu 10:16, Deu 30:6; Jer 4:4; Col 2:11, Col 2:12

spirit : Rom 2:27, Rom 7:6, Rom 14:17; Joh 3:5-8; 2Co 3:6; Phi 3:3

whose : Joh 5:44, Joh 12:43; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 10:18; 1Th 2:4; 1Pe 3:4

TSK: Rom 3:1

advantage : Rom 2:25-29; Gen 25:32; Ecc 6:8, Ecc 6:11; Isa 1:11-15; Mal 3:14; 1Co 15:32; Heb 13:9

TSK: Rom 3:2

Much : Rom 3:3, Rom 11:1, Rom 11:2, Rom 11:15-23, Rom 11:28, Rom 11:29

because : Rom 2:18, Rom 9:4; Deu 4:7, Deu 4:8; Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14; Psa 78:4-7, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20; Isa 8:20; Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12; Luk 16:29-31; Joh 5:39; 2Ti 3:15-17; 2Pe 1:19-21; Rev 19:10

committed : 1Co 9:17; 2Co 5:19; Gal 2:7; 1Ti 6:20

the oracles : Rom 1:2; Psa 119:140; Dan 10:21; Act 7:38; 2Ti 3:15, 2Ti 3:16; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11; 2Pe 1:20,2Pe 1:21; Rev 22:6

TSK: Rom 3:3

if some : Rom 9:6, Rom 10:16, Rom 11:1-7; Heb 4:2

shall : Rom 11:29; Num 23:19; 1Sa 15:29; Isa 54:9, Isa 54:10, Isa 55:11, Isa 65:15, Isa 65:16; Jer 33:24-26; Mat 24:35; 2Ti 2:13; Heb 6:13-18

faith : Psa 84:7; Joh 1:16; 2Co 3:18; 2Th 1:3; Tit 1:1, Tit 1:2

TSK: Rom 3:4

God forbid : Rom 3:6, Rom 3:31, Rom 6:2, Rom 6:15, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:13, Rom 9:14, Rom 11:1, Rom 11:11; Luk 20:16; 1Co 6:15; Gal 2:17, Gal 2:21; Gal 6:14

let God : Deu 32:4; Job 40:8; Psa 100:5, Psa 119:160, Psa 138:2; Mic 7:20; Joh 3:33; 2Co 1:18; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1Jo 5:10,1Jo 5:20; Rev 3:7

but every : Psa 62:9, Psa 116:11

That thou : Job 36:3; Psa 51:4; Mat 11:19

TSK: Rom 3:5

But if : Rom 3:7, Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, Rom 8:20,Rom 8:21

what shall : Rom 4:1, Rom 6:1, Rom 7:7, Rom 9:13, Rom 9:14

Is God : Rom 2:5, Rom 3:19, Rom 9:18-20, Rom 12:19; Deu 32:39-43; Psa 58:10,Psa 58:11, Psa 94:1, Psa 94:2; Nah 1:2, Nah 1:6-8; 2Th 1:6-9; Rev 15:3, Rev 16:5-7, Rev 18:20

I speak : Rom 6:19; 1Co 9:8; Gal 3:15

TSK: Rom 3:6

God forbid : Rom 3:4

for then : Gen 18:25; Job 8:3, Job 34:17-19; Psa 9:8, Psa 11:5-7, Psa 50:6, Psa 96:13, Psa 98:9; Act 17:31

TSK: Rom 3:7

if the truth : Gen 37:8, Gen 37:9, Gen 37:20, Gen 44:1-14, Gen 50:18-20; Exo 3:19, Exo 14:5, Exo 14:30; 1Ki 13:17, 1Ki 13:18, 1Ki 13:26-32; 2Ki 8:10-15; Mat 26:34, Mat 26:69-75

why yet : Rom 9:19, Rom 9:20; Isa 10:6, Isa 10:7; Act 2:23, Act 13:27-29

TSK: Rom 3:8

we be : Mat 5:11; 1Pe 3:16, 1Pe 3:17

Let us : Rom 5:20, Rom 6:1, Rom 6:15, Rom 7:7; Jud 1:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 2:17

Behold - Having thus stated the general principles on which God would judge the world; having shown how they condemned the Gentiles; and having removed all objections to them, he now proceeds to another part of his argument, to show how they applied to the Jews. By the use of the word "behold,"he calls their attention to it, as to an important subject; and with great skill and address, he states their privileges, before he shows them how those privileges might enhance their condemnation. He admits all their claims to pre-eminence in privileges, and then with great faithfulness proceeds to show how, if abused, these might deepen their final destruction. It should be observed, however, that the word rendered "behold"is in many manuscripts written in two words, ἔι δὲ ei de , instead of ἴδε ide . If this, as is probable, is the correct reading there, it should be rendered, "if now thou art,"etc. Thus, the Syriac, Latin, and Arabic read it.

Thou art called - Thou art named Jew, implying that this name was one of very high honor. This is the first thing mentioned on which the Jew would be likely to pride himself.

A Jew - This was the name by which the Hebrews were at that time generally known; and it is clear that they regarded it as a name of honor, and valued themselves much on it; see Gal 2:15; Rev 2:9. Its origin is not certainly known. They were called the children of Israel until the time of Rehoboam. When the ten tribes were carried into captivity, but two remained, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The name Jews was evidently given to denote those of the tribe of Judah. The reasons why the name of Benjamin was lost in that of Judah, were probably,

(1)\caps1     b\caps0 ecause the tribe of Benjamin was small, and comparatively without influence or importance.

(2)    The Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah Gen 49:10; and that tribe would therefore possess a consequence proportioned to their expectation of that event.

The name of Jews would therefore be one that would suggest the facts that they were preserved from captivity, that they had received remarkably the protection of God, and that the Messiah was to be sent to that people. Hence, it is not wonderful that they should regard it as a special favor to be a Jew, and particularly when they added to this the idea of all the other favors connected with their being the special people of God. The name "Jew"came thus to denote all the peculiarities and special favors of their religion.

And restest in the law - The word "rest"here is evidently used in the sense of trusting to, or leaning upon. The Jew leaned on, or relied on the Law for acceptance or favor; on the fact that he had the Law, and on his obedience to it. It does not mean that he relied on his own works, though that was true, but that he leaned on the fact that he had the Law, and was thus distinguished above others. The Law here means the entire Mosaic economy; or all the rules and regulations which Moses had given. Perhaps also it includes, as it sometimes does, the whole of the Old Testament.

Makest thy boast in God - Thou dost boast, or glory, that thou hast the knowledge of the true God, while other nations are in darkness. On this account the Jew felt himself far elevated above all other people, and despised them. It was true that they only had the true knowledge of God, and that he had declared himself to be their God, Deu 4:7; Psa 147:19-20; but this was not a ground for boasting, but for gratitude. This passage shows us that it is much more common to boast of privileges than to be thankful for them, and that it is no evidence of piety for a man to boast of his knowledge of God. An humble, ardent thankfulness that we have that knowledge a thankfulness which leads us not to despise others, but to desire that they may have the same privilege - is an evidence of piety.

Barnes: Rom 2:18

And knowest his will - The will or commands of God. This knowledge they obtained from the Scriptures; and of course in this they were distinguished from other nations.

And approvest - The word used here is capable of two interpretations. It may mean either to distinguish, or to approve. The word is properly and usually applied to the process of testing or trying metals by fire. Hence, it comes to be used in a general sense to try or to distinguish anything; to ascertain its nature, quality, etc.; Luk 12:56. This is probably its meaning here, referring rather to the intellectual process of discriminating, than to the moral process of approving. It could not, perhaps, be said with propriety, at least the scope of the passage does not properly suppose this, that the Jew approved or loved the things of God: but the scope of the passage is, that the Jew valued himself on his knowledge of what was conformable to the will of God; see the notes at Rom. 14.

The things that are more excellent - The word translated here "more excellent"denotes properly the things that differ from others, and then also the things that excel. It has an ambiguity similar to the word translated "approved."If the interpretation of that word above given is correct, then this word here means those things that differ from others. The reference is to the rites and customs, to the distinctions of meats and days, etc., prescribed by the Law of Moses. The Jew would pride himself on the fact that he had been taught by the Law to make these distinctions, while all the pagan world had been left in ignorance of them. This was one of the advantages on which he valued himself and his religion.

Being instructed ... - That is, in regard to the one God, his will, and the distinguishing rites of his worship.

Barnes: Rom 2:19

And art confident - This expression denotes the full assurance of the Jew that he was superior in knowledge to all other people. It is a remarkable fact that the Jews put the fullest confidence in their religion. Though proud, wicked, and hypocritical, yet they were not speculative infidels. It was one of their characteristics, evinced through all their history, that they had the fullest assurance that God was the author of their institutions, and that their religion was his appointment.

A guide of the blind - A guide of the blind is a figurative expression to denote an instructor of the ignorant. The blind here properly refers to the Gentiles, who were thus regarded by the Jews. The meaning is, that they esteemed themselves qualified to instruct the pagan world; Mat 15:14; Mat 23:15.

A light - Another figurative expression to denote a teacher; compare Isa 49:6; Joh 1:4-5, Joh 1:8-9.

In darkness - A common expression to denote the ignorance of the Gentile world; see the note at Mat 4:16.

Barnes: Rom 2:20

Of the foolish - The word "foolish"is used in the Scriptures in two significations: to denote those who are void of understanding, and to denote the wicked. Here it is clearly used in the former sense, signifying that the Jew esteemed himself qualified to instruct those without knowledge.

Of babes - This is the literal meaning of the original word. The expression is figurative, and denotes those who were as ignorant as children - an expression which they would be likely to apply to all the Gentiles. It is evident that the character bare given by Paul to the Jews is one which they claimed, and of which they were proud. They are often mentioned as arrogating this prerogative to themselves, of being qualified to be guides and teachers of others; Mat 15:14; Mat 23:2, Mat 23:16, Mat 23:24. It will be remembered, also, that the Jews considered themselves to be qualified to teach all the world, and hence evinced great zeal to make proselytes. And it is not improbable (Tholuck) that their Rabbies were accustomed to give the names "foolish"and "babes"to the ignorant proselytes which they had made from the pagan.

Which hast the form of knowledge - The word translated here as "form"properly denotes a delineations or picturing of a thing. It is commonly used to denote also the appearance of any object; what we see, without reference to its internal character; the external figure. It sometimes denotes the external appearance as distinguished from what is internal; or a hypocritical profession of religion without its reality; 2Ti 3:5. "Having the form of godliness, but denying its power."It is sometimes used in a good, and sometimes in a bad sense. Here it denotes that in their teaching they retained the semblance, sketch, or outline of the true doctrines of the Old Testament. They had in the Scriptures a correct delineation of the truth. Truth is the representation of things as they are; and the doctrines which the Jews had in the Old Testament were a correct representation or delineation of the objects of knowledge; compare 2Ti 1:13.

In the law - In the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these verses the apostle concedes to the Jews all that they would claim. Having made this concession of their superior knowledge, he is prepared with the more fidelity and force to convict them of their deep and dreadful depravity in sinning against the superior light and privileges which God had conferred on them.

Barnes: Rom 2:21

Thou therefore ... - He who is a teacher of others may be expected to be learned himself. They ought to be found to be possessed of superior knowledge; and by this question the apostle impliedly reproves them for their ignorance. The form of a question is chosen because it conveys the truth with greater force. He puts the question as if it were undeniable that they were grossly ignorant; compare Mat 23:3, "They say, and do not,"etc.

That preachest - This word means to proclaim in any manner, whether in the synagogue, or in any place of public teaching.

Dost thou steal? - It cannot be proved, perhaps, that the Jews were extensively guilty of this crime. It is introduced partly, no doubt, to make the inconsistency of their conduct mere apparent. We expect a man to set an example of what he means by his public instruction.

Barnes: Rom 2:22

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

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

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

Barnes: Rom 2:23

Makest thy boast ... - To boast in the Law implied their conviction of its excellence and obligation, as a man does not boast of what he esteems to be of no value.

Dishonourest thou God - By boasting of the Law, they proclaimed their conviction that it was from God. By breaking it, they denied it. And as actions are a true test of man’ s real opinions, their breaking the Law did it more dishonor than their boasting of it did it honor. This is always the case. It matters little what a man’ s speculative opinions may be; his practice may do far more to disgrace religion than his profession does to honor it. It is the life and conduct, and not merely the profession of the lips, that does real honor to the true religion. Alas, with what pertinency and force may this question be put to many who call themselves Christians!

Barnes: Rom 2:24

The name of God - The name and character of the true God.

Is blasphemed - Note, Mat 9:3. That is, your conduct is such as to lead the pagan world to blaspheme and reproach both your religion and its Author. By your hypocrisy and crimes the pagan world is led to despise a religion which is observed to have no effect in purifying and restraining its professors; and of course the reproach will terminate on the Author of your religion - that is, the true God. A life of purity would tend to honor religion and its Author; a life of impurity does the reverse. There is no doubt that this was actually the effect of the deportment of the Jews. They were scattered everywhere; everywhere they were corrupt and wicked; and everywhere they and their religion were despised.

Among the Gentiles - In the midst of whom many Jews lived.

Through you - By means of you, or as the result of your conduct. It may mean, that you Jews do it, or profane the name of God; but the connection seems rather to require the former sense.

As it is written - To what place the apostle has reference, cannot be certainly determined. There are two passages in the Old Testament; which will bear on the case, and perhaps he had them both in his view; Isa 52:5; Eze 36:22-23. The meaning is not that the passages in the Old Testament, referred to by the phrase, "as it is written,"had any particular reference to the conduct of the Jews in the time of Paul, but that this had been the character of the people, and the effect of their conduct as a nation, instances of which had been before observed and recorded by the prophets. The same thing has occurred to a most melancholy extentin regard to professed Christian nations. For purposes of commerce, and science, and war, and traffic, people from nations that are nominally Christian have gone into almost every part of the pagan world. But they have not often been real Christians. They have been intent on gain; and have to a melancholy extent been profane, and unprincipled, and profligate people. Yet the pagan have regarded them as Christians; as fair specimens of the effect of the religion of Christ. They have learned therefore, to abuse the name of Christian, and the Author of the Christian religion, as encouraging and promoting profligacy of life. Hence, one reason, among thousands, of the importance of Christian missions to the pagan. It is well to disabuse the pagan world of their erroneous opinions of the tendency of Christianity. It is well to teach them that we do not regard these people as Christians. As we have sent to them the worst part of our population, it is well to send them holy men, who shall exhibit to them the true nature of Christianity, and raise our character in their eyes as a Christian people. And were there no other result of Christian missions, it would be worth all the expense and toil attending them, to raise the national character in the view of the pagan world.

Barnes: Rom 2:25

For circumcision - Joh 7:22 note; Act 7:8 note. This was the special rite by which the relation to the covenant of Abraham was recognised; or by which the right to all the privileges of a member of the Jewish commonwealth was acknowledged. The Jews of course affixed a high importance to the rite.

Verily profiteth - Is truly a benefit; or is an advantage. The meaning is, that their being recognised as members of the Jewish commonwealth, and introduced to the privileges of the Jew, was an advantage; see Rom 3:1-2. The apostle was not disposed to deny that they possessed this advantage, but he tells them why it was a benefit, and how it might fail of conferring any favor.

If thou keep the law - The mere sign can be of no value, The mere fact of being a Jew is not what God requires. It may be a favor to have his Law, but the mere possession of the Law cannot entitle to the favor of God. So it is a privilege to be born in a Christian land; to have had pious parents; to be amidst the ordinances of religion; to be trained in Sundayschools; and to be devoted to God in baptism: for all these are favorable circumstances for salvation. But none of them entitle to the favor of God; and unless they are improved as they should be, they may be only the means of increasing our condemnation; 2Co 2:16.

Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision - Thy circumcision, or thy being called a Jew, is of no value. It will not distinguish you from those who are not circumcised. You will be treated as a pagan. No external advantages, no name, or rite, or ceremony will save you. God requires the obedience of the heart and of the life. Where there is a disposition to render that, there is an advantage in possessing the external means of grace. Where that is missing, no rite or profession can save. This applies with as much force to those who have been baptized in infancy, and to those who have made a profession of religion in a Christian church, as to the Jew.

Barnes: Rom 2:26

Therefore, if the uncircumcision - If those who are not circumcised, that is, the pagan.

Keep the righteousness of the law - Keep what the Law of Moses commands. It could not be supposed that a pagan would understand the requirements of the ceremonial law; but reference is had here to the moral law. The apostle does not expressly affirm that this was ever done; but he supposes the case, to show the true nature and value of the rites of the Jews.

Shall not his uncircumcision - Or, shall the fact that he is uncircumcised stand in the way of the acceptance of his services? Or, shall he not as certainly and as readily be accepted by God as if he were a Jew? Or in other words, the apostle teaches the doctrine that acceptance with God does not depend on a man’ s external privileges, but on the state of the heart and life.

Be counted for circumcision - Shall he not be treated as if he were circumcised? Shall his being uncircumcised be any barrier in the way of his acceptance with God? The word rendered "be counted,"is what is commonly rendered "to reckon, to impute"; and its use here shows that the Scripture use of the word is not to transfer, or to charge with what is not deserved, or not true. It means simply that a man shall be treated as if it were so; that this lack of circumcision shall be no bar to acceptance. There is nothing set over to his account; nothing transferred; nothing reckoned different from what it is. God judges things as they are; and as the man, though uncircumcised, who keeps the Law, ought to be treated as if he had been circumcised, so he who believes in Christ agreeably to the divine promise, and trusts to his merits alone for salvation, ought to be treated as if he were himself righteous, God judges the thing as it is, and treats people as it is proper to treat them, as being pardoned and accepted through his Son.

Barnes: Rom 2:27

Which is by nature - Which is the natural state of man; his condition before he is admitted to any of the unique rites of the Jewish religion.

If it fulfil the law - If they who are uncircumcised keep the Law.

Judge thee - Condemn thee as guilty. As we say, the conduct of such a man condemns us. He acts so much more consistently and uprightly than we do, that we see our guilt. For a similar mode of expression, see Mat 12:41-42.

Who by the letter ... - The translation here is certainly not happily expressed. It is difficult to ascertain its meaning. The evident meaning of the original is, "Shall not a pagan man who has none of your external privileges, if he keeps the law, condemn you who are Jews; who, although you have the letter and circumcision, are nevertheless transgressors of the law? ‘

The letter - The word "letter"properly means the mark or character from which syllables and words are formed. It is also used in the sense of writing of any kind Luk 16:6-7; Act 28:21; Gal 6:11, particularly the writings of Moses, denoting, by way of eminence, the letter, or the writing; Rom 7:6; 2Ti 3:15.

Barnes: Rom 2:28

For he is not a Jew ... - He who is merely descended from Abraham, and is circumcised, and externally conforms to the Law only, does not possess the true character, and manifest the true spirit, contemplated by the separation of the Jewish people. Their separation required much more.

Neither is that circumcision ... - Neither does it meet the full design of the rite of circumcision, that it is externally performed. It contemplated much more; see Rom 2:29.

Barnes: Rom 2:29

But he is a Jew - He comes up to the design of the Jewish institution; he manifests truly what it is to be a Jew.

Which is one inwardly - Who is "in heart"a Jew. Who has the true spirit, and fulfils the design of their being separated as a special people. This passage proves that the design of separating them was not merely to perform certain external rites, or to conform to external observances, but to be a people holy in heart and in life. It cannot be denied that this design was not generally understood in the time of the apostles; but it was abundantly declared in the Old Testament: Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12-13, Deu 10:20; Deu 30:14; Isa 1:11-20; Mic 6:8; Psa 51:16-17; 50:7-23.

And circumcision is that of the heart - That is, that circumcision which is acceptable to God. and which meets the design of the institution, is what is attended with holiness of heart; with the cutting off of sins; and with a pure life. The design of circumcision was to be a sign of separation from the pagan world, and of consecration to the holy God. And this design implied the renunciation and forsaking of all sins; or the cutting off of everything that was offensive to God. This was a work especially of the heart. This design was often stated and enforced in the writings of the Old Testament; Deu 10:16, "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked;"Jer 4:4; Deu 30:6.

In the spirit - This is an expression explaining further what he had just said. It does not mean by the Holy Spirit, but that the work was to take place in the soul, and not in the body only. It was to be an internal, spiritual work, and not merely an external service.

And not in the letter - That is, not only according to the literal, external command,

Whose praise ... - Whose object is not to secure the praise of human beings. One of the main characteristics of the Jews in the time of Christ was, a desire to secure honor among men, as being exactly scrupulous in the performance of all the duties of their religion. They prided themselves on their descent from Abraham, and on their regular conformity to the precepts of the Law of Moses; Mat 3:9; Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5; Luk 18:10-12; Mat 23:23.

But of God - "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart;"1Sa 16:7. The praise of God can be bestowed only on those who conform really, and not externally only, to his requirements.

The remarks which are made here respecting the Jews, are also strictly applicable to professing Christians, and we may learn,

1.    That the external rites of religion are of much less importance than the state of the heart.

2.    That the only value of those rites is to promote holiness of heart and life.

3.    That the mere fact that we are born of pious ancestors will not save us.

4.    That the fact that we were dedicated to God in baptism will not save us.

5.    That a mere profession of religion, however orthodox may be our creed, will not save us.

6.    That the estimate which people may put on our piety is not the proper measure of our true character and standing.

7.    It is an inexpressible privilege to be in possession of the Word of God, and to know our duty. It may, if improved, conduce to our elevation in holiness and happiness here, and to our eternal felicity hereafter.

8.    It is also a fearful thing to neglect the privileges which we enjoy. We shall be judged according to the light which we have; and it will be an awful event to go to eternity from a Christian land unprepared.

9.    Whatever may be the destiny of the pagan, it is our duty to make preparation to meet God. The most wicked of the pagan may meet a far milder doom than many who are externally moral, or who profess religion in Christian lands. Instead, therefore, of speculating on what may be their destiny, it is the duty of every individual to be at peace himself with God, and to flee from the wrath to come.

Barnes: Rom 3:1

What advantage ... - The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask, if the view which the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced Rom 2:25-26, that if a pagan should do the things required by the Law, he would be treated as "if"he had been circumcised. Hence, the question, "what profit is there of circumcision?"

Barnes: Rom 3:2

Much every way - Or, in every respect. This is the answer of the apostle to the objection in Rom 3:1.

Chiefly - That is, this is the principal advantage, and one including all others. The main benefit of being a Jew is, to possess the sacred Scriptures and their instructions.

Unto them were committed - Or were intrusted, were confided. The word translated "were committed,"is what is commonly employed to express "faith"or "confidence,"and it implied "confidence"in them on the part of God in intrusting his oracles to them; a confidence which was not misplaced, for no people ever guarded a sacred trust or deposit with more fidelity, than the Jews did the Sacred Scriptures.

The oracles - The word "oracle"among the pagan meant properly the answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief sententious way, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc. These oracles were frequent among the pagan, and affairs of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered "oracles"occurs in the New Testament but four times, Act 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11; Rom 3:2. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the divine promises. To possess these was of course an eminent privilege, and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favor can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of the sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and lead us to endeavor to extend them also to other nations; compare Deu 4:7-8; Psa 147:19-20.

Barnes: Rom 3:3

For what if some did not believe? - This is to be regarded as another objection of a Jew. "What then? or what follows? if it be admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in his promises will fail?"The points of the objection are these:

(1)    The apostle had maintained that the nation was sinful Rom. 2; that is, that they had not obeyed or believed God.

(2)    This, the objector for the time admits or supposes in relation to some of them. But,

(3)\caps1     h\caps0 e asks whether this does not involve a consequence which is not admissible, that God is unfaithful.

Did not the fact that God chose them as his people, and entered into covenant with them, imply that the Jews should be kept from perdition? It was evidently their belief that all Jews would be saved, and this belief they grounded on his covenant with their fathers. The doctrine of the apostle Rom. 2 would seem to imply that in certain respects they were on a level with the Gentile nations; that if they sinned, they would be treated just like the pagan; and hence, they asked of what value was the promise of God? Had it not become vain and nugatory?

Make the faith - The word "faith"here evidently means the "faithfulness"or "fidelity of God to his promises."Compare Mat 13:23; 2Ti 3:10; Hos 2:20.

Of none effect - Destroy it; or prevent him from fulfilling his promises. The meaning of the objection is, that the fact supposed, that the Jews would become unfaithful and be lost, would imply that God had failed to keep his promises to the nation; or that he had made promises which the result showed he was not able to perform.

Barnes: Rom 3:4

God forbid - Greek. Let not this be. The sense is, "let not this by any means be supposed."This is the answer of the apostle, showing that no such consequence followed from his doctrines; and that "if"any such consequence should follow, the doctrine should be at once abandoned, and that every man, no matter who, should be rather esteemed false than God. The veracity of God was a great first principle, which was to be held, whatever might be the consequence. This implies that the apostle believed that the fidelity of God could be maintained in strict consistency with the fact that any number of the Jews might be found to be unfaithful, and be cast off. The apostle has not entered into an explanation of this, or shown how it could be, but it is not difficult to understand how it was. The promise made to Abraham, and the fathers, was not unconditional and absolute, that all the Jews should be saved. It was implied that they were to be obedient; and that if they were not, they would be cast off; Gen 18:19. Though the apostle has not stated it here, yet he has considered it at length in another part of this Epistle, and showed that it was not only consistent with the original promise that a part of the Jews should be found unfaithful, and be east off, but that it had actually occurred according to the prophets; Rom 10:16-21; 11. Thus, the fidelity of God was preserved; at the same time that it was a matter of fact that no small part of the nation was rejected and lost.

Let God be true - Let God be esteemed true and faithful, whatever consequence may follow. This was a first principle, and should be now, that God should be believed to be a God of truth, whatever consequence it might involve. How happy would it be, if all people would regard this as a fixed principle, a matter not to be questioned in their hearts, or debated about, that God is true to his word! How much doubt and anxiety would it save professing Christians; and how much error would it save among sinners! Amidst all the agitations of the world, all conflicts, debates, and trials, it would be a fixed position where every man might find rest, and which would do more than all other things to allay the tempests and smooth the agitated waves of human life.

But every man a liar - Though every man and every other opinion should be found to be false. Of course this included the apostle and his reasoning; and the expression is one of those which show his magnanimity and greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which he and all others held; every doctrine which had been defended; should be at once abandoned, if it implied that God was false. It was to be assumed as a first principle in all religion and all reasoning, that if a doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was of course a false doctrine. This showed his firm conviction that the doctrine which he advanced was strictly in accordance with the veracity of the divine promise. What a noble principle is this! How strikingly illustrative of the humility of true piety, and of the confidence which true piety places in God above all the deductions of human reason! And if all people were willing to sacrifice their opinions when they appeared to impinge on the veracity of God; if they started back with instinctive shuddering at the very supposition of such a lack of fidelity in him; how soon would it put an end to the boastings of error, to the pride of philosophy, to lofty dictation in religion! No man with this feeling could be for a moment a universalist; and none could be an infidel.

As it is written - Psa 51:4. To confirm the sentiment which he had just advanced and to show that it accorded with the spirit of religion as expressed in the Jewish writings, the apostle appeals to the language of David, uttered in a state of deep penitence for past transgressions. Of all quotations ever made, this is one of the most beautiful and most happy. David was overwhelmed with grief; he saw his crime to be awful; he feared the displeasure of God, and trembled before him. Yet "he held it as a fixed, indisputable principle that"God was right. This he never once thought of calling in question. He had sinned against God, God only; and he did not once think of calling in question the fact that God was just altogether in reproving him for his sin, and in pronouncing against him the sentence of condemnation.

That thou mightest be justified - That thou mightest be regarded as just or right, or, that it may appear that God is not unjust. This does not mean that David had sinned against God for the purpose of justifying him, but that he now clearly saw that his sin had been so directly against him, and so aggravated, that God was right in his sentence of condemnation.

In thy sayings - In what thou hast spoken; that is, in thy sentence of condemnation; in thy words in relation to this offence. It may help us to understand this, to remember that the psalm was written immediately after Nathan, at the command of God, had gone to reprove David for his crime; (see the title of the psalm.) God, by the mouth of Nathan, had expressly condemned David for his crime. To this expression of condemnation David doubtless refers by the expression "in thy sayings;"see 2Sa 12:7-13.

And mightest overcome - In the Hebrew, "mightest be pure,"or mightest be esteemed pure, or just. The word which the Septuagint and the apostle have used, "mightest overcome,"is sometimes used with reference to litigations or trials in a court of justice. He that was accused and acquitted, or who was adjudged to be innocent, might be said to overcome, or to gain the cause. The expression is thus used here. As if there were a trial between David and God, God would overcome; that is, would be esteemed pure and righteous in his sentence condemning the crime of David.

When thou art judged - The Hebrew is, "when thou judgest;"that is, in thy judgment pronounced on this crime. The Greek may also be in the middle voice as well as the passive, and may correspond, therefore, in meaning precisely with the Hebrew. So the Arabic renders it. The Syriac renders it, "when they (that is, people) shall judge thee."The meaning, as expressed by David, is, that God is to be esteemed right and just in condemning people for their sins, and that a true penitent, that is, a man placed in the best circumstances to form a proper estimate of God, will see this, though it should condemn himself. The meaning of the expression in the connection in which Paul uses it, is, that it is to be held as a fixed, unwavering principle, that God is right and true, whatever consequences it may involve; whatever doctrine it may overthrow; or whatever man it may prove to be a liar.

Barnes: Rom 3:5

But if our unrighteousness - If our sin. The particular sin which had been specified Rom 3:3 was "unbelief."But the apostle here gives the objection a general form. This is to be regarded as an objection which a Jew might make. The force of it is this:

(1)    It had been conceded that some had not believed; that is, had sinned.

(2)\caps1     b\caps0 ut God was true to his promises. Notwithstanding their sin, God’ s character was the same. Nay,

(3)    In the very midst of sin, and as one of the results of it, the character of God, as a just Being, shone out illustriously. The question then was,

(4)    If his glory resulted from it; if the effect of all was to show that his character was pure; how could he punish that sin from which his own glory resulted? And this is a question which is often asked by sinners.

Commend - Recommend; show forth; render illustrious.

The righteousness of God - His just and holy character. This was the effect on David’ s mind, that he saw more clearly the justice of God in his threatenings against sin, in consequence of his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honor was thus done to God, the question was, how he could consistently punish what tended to promote his own glory?

What shall we say? - What follows? or, what is the inference? This is a mode of speech as if the objector hesitated about expressing an inference which would seem to follow, but which was horrible in its character.

Is God unrighteous? - The meaning of this would be better expressed thus: "Is "not"God unrighteous in punishing? Does it not follow that if God is honored by sin, that it would be wrong for him to inflict punishment?"

Who taketh vengeance - The meaning of this is simply, "who inflicts punishment."The idea of vengeance is not necessarily in the original ὀργήν orgēn . It is commonly rendered "wrath,"but it often means simply "punishment,"without any reference to the state of the mind of him who inflicts it, Mat 3:7; Luk 3:7; Luk 21:23; Joh 3:36. Notes, Rom 1:18; Rom 4:15.

I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said. This I regard as the language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the character of God, and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection which seemed to be dishonorable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strong on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.

Barnes: Rom 3:6

God forbid - Note, Rom 3:4.

For then - If it be admitted that it would be unjust for God to inflict punishment.

How shall God ... - How will it be right or consistent for him to judge the world.

Judge - To "judge"implies the possibility and the correctness of "condemning"the guilty; for if it were not right to condemn them, judgment would be a farce. This does not mean that God would condemn all the world; but that the fact of judging people implied the possibility and propriety of condemning those who were guilty. It is remarkable that the apostle does not attempt to explain how it could be that God could take occasion from the sins of people to promote his glory; nor does he even admit the fact; but he meets directly the objection. To understand the force of his answer, it must be remembered that it was an admitted fact, a fact which no one among the Jews would call in question, that God would judge the world. This fact was fully taught in their own writings, Gen 18:25; Ecc 12:14; Ecc 11:9. It was besides an admitted point with them that God would condemn the pagan I world; and perhaps the term "world"here refers particularly to them.

But how could this be if it were not right for God to inflict punishment at all? The inference of the objector, therefore, could not be true; though the apostle does not tell us how it was consistent to inflict punishment for offences from which God took occasion to promote his glory. It may be remarked, however, that God will judge offences, not from what he may do in overruling them, but from the nature of the crime itself. The question is not, what good God may bring out of it, but what does the crime itself deserve? what is the character of the offender? what was his intention? It is not what God may do to overrule the offence when it is committed. The just punishment of the murderer is to be determined by the Law, and by his own desert; and not from any reputation for integrity and uprightness which the judge may manifest on his trial; or from any honor which may accrue to the police for detecting him; or any security which may result to the commonwealth from his execution; or from any honor which the Law may gain as a just law by his condemnation. Nor should any of these facts and advantages which may result from his execution, be pleaded in bar of his condemnation. So it is with the sinner under the divine administration. It is indeed a truth Psa 76:10 that the wrath of man shall praise God, and that he will take occasion from people’ s wickedness to glorify himself as a just judge and moral governor; but this will be no ground of acquittal for the sinner.

Barnes: Rom 3:7

For if ... - This is an objection similar to the former. It is indeed but another form of the same.

The truth of God - His truth or faithfulness in adhering to his threatenings. God threatened to punish the guilty. By their guilt he will take occasion to show his own truth; or their crime will furnish occasion for such an exhibition.

Hath more abounded - Has been more striking, or more manifest. His "truth"will be shown by the fulfillment of all his promises to his people, and of all his predictions. But it will also be shown by fulfilling his threatenings on the guilty. It will, therefore, more abound by their condemnation; that is, their condemnation will furnish new and striking instances or his truth. Every lost sinner will be, therefore, an eternal monument of the truth of God.

Through my lie - By means of my lie, or as one of the results of my falsehood. The word "lie"here means falsehood, deceitfulness, "unfaithfulness."If by the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people to the covenant, occasion should be given to God to glorify himself, how could they be condemned for it?

Unto his glory - To his praise, or so as to show his character in such a way as to excite the praise and admiration of his intelligent creation.

Why yet am I ... - How can that act be regarded as evil, which tends to promote the glory of God? The fault in the reasoning of the objector is this, that he takes for granted that the direct tendency of his conduct is to promote God’ s glory, whereas it is just the reverse; and it is by God’ s reversing that tendency, or overruling it, that he obtains his glory. The tendency of murder is not to honor the Law, or to promote the security of society, but just the reverse. Still, his execution shall avert the direct tendency of his crime, and do honor to the law and the judge, and promote the peace and security of the community by restraining others.

Barnes: Rom 3:8

And not rather - This is the answer of the apostle. He meets the objection by showing its tendency if carried out, and if it were made a principle of conduct. The meaning is, "If the glory of God is to be promoted by sin, and if a man is not therefore to be condemned, or held guilty for it; if this fact absolves man from crime, "why not carry the doctrine out, and make it a principle of conduct, and do all the evil we can, in order to promote his glory."This was the fair consequence of the objection. And yet this was a result so shocking and monstrous, that all that was necessary in order to answer the objection was merely to state this consequence. Every man’ s moral feelings would revolt at the doctrine; everyman would know that it could not be true; and every man, therefore, could see that the objection was not valid.

As we - This refers, doubtless, to the apostles, and to Christians generally. It is unquestionable, that this accusation was often brought against them.

Slanderously reported - Greek, As we are "blasphemed."This is the legitimate and proper use of the word "blaspheme,"to speak of one in a reproachful and calumnious manner.

As some affirm ... - Doubtless Jews. Why they should affirm this, is not known. It was doubtless, however, some perversion of the doctrines that the apostles preached. The doctrines which were thus misrepresented and abused, were probably these: the apostles taught that the sins of people were the occasion of promoting God’ s glory in the plan of salvation. That "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound;"Rom 5:20. That God, in the salvation of people, would be glorified just in proportion to the depth and pollution of the guilt which was forgiven. This was true; but how easy was it to misrepresent this as teaching that people ought to sin in order to promote God’ s glory! and instead of stating it as an inference which they drew from the doctrine, to state it as what the apostles actually taught. This is the common mode in which charges are brought against others. People draw an inference themselves, or suppose that the doctrine leads to such an inference, and then charge it on others as what they actually hold and teach. There is one maxim which should never be departed from: "That a man is not to be held responsible for the inferences which we may draw from his doctrine; and that he is never to be represented as holding and teaching what we suppose follows from his doctrine."He is answerable only for what he avows.

Let us do evil - That is, since sin is to promote the glory of God, let us commit as much as possible.

That good may come - That God may take occasion by it to promote his glory.

Whose damnation is just - Whose "condemnation;"see the note at Rom 14:23. This does not necessarily refer to future punishment, but it means that the conduct of those who thus slanderously perverted the doctrines of the Christian religion, and accused the apostles of teaching this doctrine, was deserving of condemnation or punishment. Thus, he expressly disavows, in strong language, the doctrine charged on Christians. Thus, he silences the objection. And thus he teaches, as a great fundamental law, "that evil is not to be done that good may come."This is a universal rule. And this is in no case to be departed from. Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed. Strict, uncompromising integrity and honesty is to be the maxim of our lives; and in such a life only can we hope for success, or for the blessing of God.

Poole: Rom 2:17

He now comes to deal more particularly and expressly with the Jews, reciting their privileges, in which they trusted, and of which they boasted; and shows, that notwithstanding them, they stood in as much need of the righteousness of God as the Gentiles did.

Thou he speaks in the singular number, that every one might make the readier application of what he said.

Art called a Jew so called from Judah; as of old, Hebrews from Heber, and Israelites from Israel: the title was honourable in those days, and imported a confessor or worshipper of one God. Thou art so called, but art not so indeed: see Rom 2:28 , and Rev 2:9 .

Restest in the law puttest thy trust in it.

Makest thy boast of God that he is thy God, and in covenant with thee; and that thou hast a peculiar interest in him: see Joh 8:41 . The phrase seems to be borrowed from Isa 45:25 .

Poole: Rom 2:18-19

Ver. 18,19. Art confident thou dost proudly arrogate all that follows to thyself, and conceitest that thou hast all the points of the law in thy breast, and full knowledge of all the secrets thereof.

Poole: Rom 2:20

Babes such as have little or no knowledge.

The form of knowledge a scheme or system of notions, a compendious model or method, which is artificially composed; such as tutors and professors of arts and sciences, do read over again and again to their pupils and auditors.

Poole: Rom 2:21

Teachest thou not thyself? q.d. Dost not thou thyself do what thou pressest upon others? see Mat 23:3 .

Dost thou steal? the Jews were infamous of old for this sin, Psa 50:18 Mat 23:14 .

Poole: Rom 2:22

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

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

Poole: Rom 2:23

Dost thou bring a reproach upon religion, and give occasion to the Gentiles to blaspheme his name? So it follows in the next words. See Rom 2:24 .

Poole: Rom 2:24

Through you because of your and your forefathers’ sins.

As it is written: the apostle doth not tell them where it was written; he supposeth they were not ignorant of it: see Isa 52:5 Eze 36:20,23 .

Poole: Rom 2:25

The Jews might object: If the former privileges availed not to righteousness and salvation, yet circumcision at least might stand them in some stead. In answer whereunto you have,

1. A concession; circumcision indeed is profitable.

2. A limitation; if thou keep the law; which is illustrated by a large antithesis, Rom 2:26,27 .

3. A distinction; circumcision is of two sorts, outward and literal; inward and spiritual; the latter stands in force, and hath acceptation with God, Rom 2:28,29 .

If thou keep the law if thou keep it perfectly, to which circumcision obligeth, Gal 5:3 ; or if thou use thy utmost care and endeavour so to do.

But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision i.e. if otherwise thou transgress the law, thy circumcision avails thee nothing, it gives thee no privilege above the uncircumcised. A wicked Jew is to God as an Ethiopian, Amo 9:7 . The apostle corrects the carnal confidence and hypocrisy of the Jews, who valued themselves upon the account of this outward ceremony, and thought it sufficient to be circumcised in the flesh. Some think the apostle hath respect in these words to the time of the law, whilst circumcision was an ordinary sacrament of the covenant; then indeed it was profitable and available; but now, in the times of the gospel, it is abrogated: see Gal 5:2,6 .

Poole: Rom 2:26

The uncircumcision i.e. the uncircumcised; a figurative and frequent way of speaking: see Rom 3:30 4:9 .

Keep the righteousness of the law which none of them ever did; but admit they could, or else, which some of them have done, in sincerity, though with manifold imperfections; such as the two centurions, one of which is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, the other in the Acts: if in this sense the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall they not be all one in the account of God as if they were circumcised? See Rom 4:10 .

Poole: Rom 2:27

Uncircumcision which is by nature a periphrasis of the Gentiles, who want circumcision, or are by nature without it.

Fulfil the law here is another word; before it was keep, but now it is fulfil the law: though the word be varied, yet the sense is the same: see Jam 2:8 .

Judge thee i.e. rise up in judgment against thee; or else, shall he not do it by his example? as in Mat 12:41,42 , the men of Nineveh, and the queen of Sheba, shall judge the Israelites. The meaning is, the obedient Gentile shall condemn the disobedient Jew.

By the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law i.e. the outward literal circumcision; or, by the letter understand the law; see 2Co 3:6 . The sense is, by means of the law and circumcision, and resting in them, as pledges of the love of God, so Rom 2:17they are the more secure and bold in sinning against God; it is to them an occasion of transgression.

Poole: Rom 2:28

He is not a Jew a right or true Jew, who is heir of the promises made to the fathers.

That is one outwardly the word only is to be understood: see 1Co 1:17 .

Neither is that circumcision the right and true circumcision, which God principally requires, and is available unto salvation: that circumcision is not much to be accounted of which is only the cutting off an outward skin.

Poole: Rom 2:29

He is a right and true Jew, an Israelite indeed, that hath taken away the foreskin of his heart, Jer 4:4 ; that is cleansed from all corrupt affections, and hath laid aside all superfluity of naughtiness; that worshippeth God in the Spirit, rejoiceth in Christ Jesus, and hath no confidence in the flesh. Such are the circumcision and Jews indeed: see Phi 3:3 .

Poole: Rom 3:1

Rom 3:1,2 The Jew’ s prerogative,

Rom 3:3,4 which is not vacated by the unbelief of some,

Rom 3:5-8 nor is God’ s justice impeached in punishing their sinfulness.

Rom 3:9-19 The law itself convinceth the Jews also universally of sin,

Rom 3:20 so that no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law,

Rom 3:21-30 but all indiscriminately by God’ s grace through faith in Christ,

Rom 3:31 yet without annulling the obligations of the law.

What advantage then hath the Jew? An elegant prolepsis or anticipation of what might be objected against the apostle’ s assertion in the foregoing words. If the Jews (might some object) lie equally exposed to condemnation with the Gentiles, then they have no excellency above them. Or thus, If external things do not commend us to God, (as it is affirmed, Rom 2:28,29 ), but the Gentiles are brought into the church without them, then the Jews have no prerogative above the Gentiles, though God hath owned them so long for his peculiar people.

What profit is there of circumcision? i.e. what is the use of it, or for what end was it instituted, seeing the uncircumcised are brought in and accepted, as being circumcised notwithstanding, and clean in heart?

Poole: Rom 3:2

He answers the before mentioned objection by a liberal and free concession. The answer doth particularly relate to the first member of the objection, though comprehending the other.

Chiefly this word is not to be referred to the order of speech, as Rom 1:8 , for he doth not begin any discourse here; nor to the number of privileges and advantages, for he names but one in all; but to the quality, and so the excellency, of this privilege here spoken of; q.d. It is the chief of all.

Unto them were committed the oracles of God: profane writers make this word to signify the answer that was given by the demons, or heathen gods; and yet the Holy Ghost doth not disdain to make use of this word, (as well as divers others), though abused to heathenish superstition. The sense is, To the Jews were credited, or given in custody, the Holy Scriptures, containing all the books of the Old Testament, in particular the legal covenant, or law of God, given on Mount Sinai, which Stephen calls the lively oracles, Act 7:38 ; more especially yet the fundamental articles of religion, and doctrines of grace, and salvation by the Messias, called the oracles of God, Heb 5:12 , though more hid, it is true, in types, promises, and predictions.

Poole: Rom 3:3

If some did not believe if some did remain in infidelity, Act 28:24 , if they would give no credit to the oracle, and to the promise of a Messiah.

The faith of God i.e. the truth and faithfulness of God, Psa 33:4 . The whole verse is another prolepsis. The implied objection is this, That the Jews are nothing the better for these oracles, or have no advantage by them, if by unbelief they have rendered themselves unworthy or incapable of benefit by them. The answer to this is anticipated by propounding another question; Can the infidelity of some be any hinderance of God’ s performing his promise to others, to his chosen ones? The interrogation is a negation, q.d. It cannot be, as the following words show: see 2Ti 2:13 .

Poole: Rom 3:4

God forbid the negation that was closely couched in the former verse, is in this expressed by a note of indignation, and of the greatest detestation.

Let God be true let him remain or appear faithful to his promises and covenant; or, let him be acknowledged to be so, according to the frequent testimonies of Scripture: see Num 23:19 Tit 1:2 Heb 6:17,18 .

But every man a liar or, although every man should be a liar; or, whatsoever we say of men, who are all mutable creatures, who are liable to mistakes in their own natures, and so may easily deceive others: see Psa 116:11 .

That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings that thou tnightest be acknowledged just in thy promises and threatenings; in which sense the word is used in divers places, Mat 11:19 Luk 7:29,35 Lu 10:29 .

Mightest overcome that thou mightest be clear or pure, so it is in the Psalm. The apostle honours the Seventy, which was the common translation, and minds the sense rather than the words. He that is clear, is like to overcome in a just judgment.

When thou art judged or, when thou judgest: the word may be taken actively or passively; i.e. when thou dost execute judgment upon any, or, when any do presume to censure you.

Poole: Rom 3:5

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God an anticipation of another objection, which might be lnade upon the preceding words: that if the faithfulness of God, in keeping his promises, doth appear in and notwithstanding the unfaithfulness of men, then we gather thus much, that the fidelity of God is rendered a great deal more commendable by the perfidiousness of man.

What shall we say? Thus we object, or this will be the inconvenience.

Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? i.e. then God is unjust in punishing the Jews, or any other wicked men, for that which tends to his own glory, and the commendations of his veracity.

I speak as a man this is the language of carnal men, and such blasphemy they speak; I recite the objection of some men, and speak after their carnal manner.

Poole: Rom 3:6

God forbid he rejects the cavil with his usual note of detestation, as not thinking it worthy of answer.

For then how shall God judge the world? q.d. If God were in the least unrighteous, how could he govern the world at present, and judge it at last in righteousness? Which is affirmed, Psa 96:13 98:9 . Or, how could he be God and supreme, if he were not just by his nature and essence, and his will the very rule of righteousness: see Gen 18:25 Job 34:12 .

Poole: Rom 3:7

By truth he means the faithfulness and veracity of God; as by lie, the perfidiousness and inconstancy of man; ut supra et alibi.

Why yet am I also judged as a sinner? q.d. If more glory accrues to the name of God by my wickedness, what reason is there that I should be punished, and proceeded against as an offender, who have occasioned this further glory to God? The apostle doth plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent among all authors; and it is found sometimes with the penmen of the Holy Scriptures: see Ecc 3:19-22 1Co 15:32 . The apostle tells the Corinthians, 1Co 4:6 , that in a figure he transferred some things to himself and to Apollos for their sakes, that they might not be puffed up; he, counted such schemes and figures as these to be most profitable and efficacious to the reader.

Poole: Rom 3:8

The placing of these words makes them sound harshly, and consequently causeth obscurity. Critics make a great stir about them, some including them in a parenthesis, others affirming there is a transposition in them. They seem to be a refutation to the former cavil, and must be accommodated to that sense. It is as if the apostle should have said, If sinners deserve no punishment, because God reaps glory to himself by their sins; then that is a good proverb, or saying, which is in some men’ s mouths, and we ourselves are slandered with it, as if it were our opinion and doctrine, That we may do evil, that good may come of it. But this saying is generally exploded; none dare to vouch it, and therefore the former cavil is of no force.

Whose damnation is just i.e. their damnation is just, who teach such doctrine, and practise accordingly; who

do evil, that good may come of it. The apostle doth not vouchsafe to refute this absurd saying, but simply condemns it, and those that put it in practice. Or else his meaning in these words is this, that they justly deserve damnation, who calumniate the apostles and publishers of the gospel, and raise false reports and slanders of them: their damnation is just, who affirm we say or hold, That evil may be done, that good may come thereof.

PBC: Rom 3:3

See PBtop: FAITH & FAITH OF GOD

" shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect"

Their unbelief did not make the faith of God without effect FOR the faith of God (meaning the faith that God bestows upon His elect) was not without effect at that time for at that present time there was still a remnant according to the election of grace {Ro 11:5} -God’s elect have faith therefore the faith of God was with effect even though it was without effect to the Jews of Ro 3:1-31.

293

The overall theme of Romans is " the Gospel of God," which Gospel certainly declares " the righteousness of God in Christ," which righteousness is revealed from faith to faith; for Ro 1:17 says that, in the Gospel, " the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith" .

" The faith of God," which Paul speaks of in Ro 3:3, is " the whole body of truth" which is said to be " revealed from faith to faith" by (through) the Gospel. That is, the truth of God is revealed (through the preaching of the Gospel) to the imputed faith of the regenerated child of God. This Gospel (good news) is the proclamation of the " Righteousness of God" in His Son, Jesus Christ, which righteousness is imputed to the elect in regeneration. The phrase in Ro 3:3 " faith of God," in context, is actually speaking of " the Gospel of God," or " the Gospel of Christ," or " the whole body of God’s truth," or " the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." {Jude 1:3}

In other words, the phrase, " the faith of God," as stated in Ro 3:3, is the declaration of God’s revelation of His righteousness in Jesus Christ. Paul confirms this principle in Ro 1:17 by saying, " as it is written, the just shall live by faith;" that is to say, " the just" (or regenerate) shall " live by [His -God’s] faith." In my mind, Paul is saying, that the regenerate, who has the essence of God imputed unto him (faith), shall live by the body of God’s revealed truth. Jude tells us that we are to earnestly contend for this (the) faith [this body of truth] that was once delivered unto the saints.

I believe this principle is carried forward into Ro 10:1-21, where Paul is praying for his Israelite brethren who were abiding in unbelief concerning the " righteousness of God" .

He writes these words:

1)   Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2)   For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3)   For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4)   For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Thus, we note that, as concerning the Gospel of God and the righteousness of Christ, these Jews were in unbelief; however, (as previously asked in Ro 3:1), what effect will the Jew’s unbelief have on the Faith of God? {His revealed truth} " For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith (truth) of God without effect?" He answers this question, " God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." In other words, if they do not believe that Jesus Christ is " the end of the law for righteousness," their unbelief will not change the truth, which has been once delivered to His saints (sanctified ones).

Paul continues to say in Ro 10:16-17 " But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." In my mind, he is saying here that faith (confidence or trust in Christ) comes by hearing (and believing) the gospel and this hearing is by the (faith of God) or in accordance with the revealed word of truth.

294

Does the sinner’s eternal destiny depend upon his belief in Jesus Christ? If so, what if his faith is shaken by false teachers? What if he is deceived? Does he then lose the eternal life he once possessed? Thanks be to God that the eternal destiny of the elect does not depend upon man’s faith, but on God’s sovereign covenant decrees: " What if some do not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid...[ Hymaneus and Philetus] have erred concerning the truth saying that the resurrection is past already, and have overthrown the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His..."{ 2Ti 2:13,19} Belief in Jesus Christ comes after, not before, regeneration. Faith cannot be both the cause and the effect of life. It cannot be both the " root" from which the Spirit grows in one’s heart, and the " fruit" that the Spirit generates in the heart. The Spirit of God is the cause of regeneration. Faith is the effect, the " fruit of the Spirit." {Ga 5:22} An understanding of total depravity makes belief in the doctrine of immediate regeneration a necessity, for the dead sinner does not have the ability to exercise faith until he is born again.

295

Haydock: Rom 2:17

But if thou art called a Jew. In the common Greek copies, we read, behold, thou art a Jew, &c. St. Paul here turns his discourse particularly to the Jews, who valued themselves so much upon their law, their temple, and their ceremonies; and therefore are said to rest on the law, as if it were enough to be by profession a Jew. (Witham) ---

But many manuscripts, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Ambrose, Sedul., Theophylactus, &c. read it as in the Vulgate, Greek: ei su Ioudaios. (Calmet)

Haydock: Rom 2:21

Thou, therefore, that teachest another, teachest not thyself, &c. St. John Chrysostom (hom. vi.) takes these sentences as so many interrogations; dost thou teach thyself? dost thou not steal? dost thou not commit adultery? &c. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 2:22

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

Haydock: Rom 2:24

The apostle here only repeats the reproaches which the prophets had repeated so often before, that the Jews, by the contrast between their lives and the sanctity of their religion, had been the cause of that religion and worship being the ridicule and laughing-stock of the Gentile world. (Calmet) ---

A reproach this, which also bears very heavy upon many Christians of the present day; who by their profession believe the truth of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic faith, and by their conduct belie the same, leading lives unworthy of pagans. (Haydock)

Haydock: Rom 2:25

Circumcision profiteth indeed, inasmuch as it was ordained by Almighty God, as were also the precepts of the law, which were to be observed before the publishing of the new law of Christ. See Galatians v. 6. But it was never profitable to the transgressors of the law. Nay, the uncircumcised Gentiles, who have complied with those natural precepts, which are also commanded by the law of Moses, shall judge and condemn those, who received the written law, and at the same time were transgressors of it. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 2:26

Shall not his uncircumcision (Literally, his præputium [foreskin]) be reputed for circumcision? Nonne præputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur? Greek: e peritome sou akrobustia gegonen. A translation may adhere to the letter too much; this seems literal enough. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 2:28

Nor is that circumcision, which is outwardly in the flesh. St. Paul distinguisheth two sorts of circumcision; that which is made in the flesh, according to the letter of the law, which is an outward circumcision; and a more necessary circumcision of the heart, and of the spirit, by which a man's interior is reformed, and by which his vices and disorders are cut off. The first circumcision would never avail a man any thing without the second. (Witham)

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

Haydock: Rom 3:1

What advantage then? &c. The apostle, not to offend the Jews, by insisting too long in reprehending them, turns his discourse to the advantages they have hitherto had above other nations. As first, that the words of God, those divine oracles, revelations, promises in the Scriptures, were credited or intrusted to them. And though some, or many of them have not believed God's promises, especially concerning their Messias; this hath not hindered God from being faithful to his word, in sending the Messias, and those blessings that were promised with him. For God is always true, or faithful in his promises, and therefore must needs be justified, or found just, when his proceedings are judged, that is, considered and examined. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 3:4

God only is essentially true. All men in their own capacity are liable to lies and errors: nevertheless God, who is the truth, will make good his promise of keeping his Church in all truth. See St. John, xvi. 13. (Challoner) ---

The Greek text has, "may God be true;" that is, may all men acknowledge him as such; let the whole world know, that he neither can be unfaithful to his word, nor his promises; and that, on the contrary, all men of themselves have but lies and vanity for their portion. ---

That thou mayest be justified, &c. The particle that, is not casual in this place, but only marks the event. Thy conduct shews that thou art faithful and true to thy promises, and that, notwithstanding the judgments of men, thou art always unchangeable and infallible. Thou art victorious, when judged by them; thou shewest them the falsity and injustice of their judgments. (Calmet) ---

And that the infidelity of man, so far from affecting the fidelity of God, will only serve to set it off in a more striking and clearer light. (Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Rom 3:5-6

But if our injustice, &c. St. Paul here puts this objection, that if men's sins and iniquities, make the justice of God commendable, that is, make his justice more apparent and known; if the truth of God, as to his promises, be more discovered, praised, and glorified by our lies, that is, by our sins, how then can God blame, or punish men for sins, which contribute more to his honour? May we not say, (as some falsely pretend St. Paul said) let us do evil things, that good things may come of them? The apostle answers in short both this objection, and the calumny against him. As to the first; that though men's sins give an occasion to God to shew his justice, and make known his divine perfections, yet this will not excuse them from being justly condemned, and punished, when God shall judge the wicked world; for if that were a sufficient plea, God could not judge and condemn the wicked: so that as St. John Chrysostom [1] observes, that apostle resolves their question, by asking another, and shews their reasoning absurd, by taking notice of another absurdity that follows from it. 2ndly. He tells them, they slander him, and his doctrine, by only telling them, they deserve to be condemned who say, let us do evil that good may come of it: the damnation, he says, of such men is just. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 3:6

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom on the words: how shall God judge the world? Greek: atopon atopo luei.

Gill: Rom 2:17

Behold, thou art called a Jew,.... From hence to the end of the chapter the Jews are particularly addressed; their several privileges and characters are commemorated, which by an ironical concession are allowed them; several charges are brought against them, even against their principal men; and the plea in favour of them, from their circumcision, is considered; and the apostle's view in the whole, is to show that they could not be justified before God by their obedience to the law of Moses: "behold"; take notice, observe it, this will be granted: "thou art called a Jew"; thou art one by name, by nation, and by religion; but no name, nor outward religion, nor a mere profession, will justify before God:

and restest in the law; which may be understood of their having the law and the knowledge of it, what is to be done and avoided easily, without any fatigue and labour; of their pleasing and applauding themselves with the bare having and hearing of it; of their trust and confidence in it; and of their inactivity and security in it, as persons asleep; and so of their coming short of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of Christ the end of the law for righteousness, their whole confidence being placed in that: so the Targumist in Jer 8:8 paraphrases the words,

"we are wise, "and in the law of the Lord", אנחגא רחיצון, do we trust;''

and makest thy boast of God. There is a right boasting of God in opposition to boasting in the creature, when men ascribe all the blessings of nature and grace to the Lord alone, and praise him for all their enjoyments, temporal and spiritual; and when they trust in, and glory, and make their boast of Christ as the Lord their righteousness, in whom alone they are, and can be justified. But the boasting here spoken of, was such that was not right; these men boasted of their bare external knowledge of the one God, when the Gentiles around them were ignorant of him; of their being the covenant people of God, when others were aliens and strangers; and of their having the word and worship of the true God, which other nations were unacquainted with; and, on these external things they depended, which was their fault.

Gill: Rom 2:18

And knowest his will,.... Not the secret will or purpose of God; nor his revealed will in the Gospel, for of this they were ignorant; but his declared will in the law, showing what is to be done, and what is not to be done: to know which in express terms was a privilege, that other people had not; but then the bare knowledge of this will be of no avail: for persons may know their Lord's will, as the Jews did, and not do it, and so be worthy to be beaten with many stripes:

and approvest the things that are more excellent: or "triest the things that differ"; from one another, and from the will and law of God; or as the Syriac, "discernest" וליתא, "things that are convenient"; agreeable, which are fit and ought to be done: and having tried and discerned them, they approved of them in their judgment as the things more excellent; but then they did not put these excellent things in practice which they approved of; and the knowledge and approbation they had of these things, arose from their

being instructed out of the law, and not the Gospel; for the excellent things of the Gospel, they had no discerning, knowledge and approbation of; see Phi 1:10.

Gill: Rom 2:19

And art confident that thou thyself,.... Being vainly puffed up in, their fleshly minds, they were strongly persuaded that they were very fit persons to be

a guide to the blind: all men are by nature blind, as to the knowledge of divine and spiritual things; the meaner sort of the people among the Jews seem to be intended here; or else the ignorant Gentiles, whom the Jews were very fond of making proselytes to their religion and laws; but miserable guides were they, whether to their own people, or others; blind guides of the blind. Gospel ministers best deserve this title:

a light of them that are in darkness; so Christ, John the Baptist, the disciples of Christ, and all Gospel ministers are; but these men, who arrogated such characters to themselves, were dim lights, and dark lanterns. The apostle seems to have respect to those very high and exalted characters the Jews give of their doctors, as when they call one, בוצינא דנהורא, "the lamp of light" ^w; another, קדישא בוצינא, "the holy lamps" ^x; and a third, נר ישראל, "the lamp of Israel" ^y; with many others of the same kind; See Gill on Mat 5:14 and See Gill on Joh 5:35.

Gill: Rom 2:20

An instructor of the foolish,.... All men in a state of unregeneracy are foolish, and need instruction; here the common people among the Jews, who knew not the law, are meant; it was very usual to call anyone of their doctors and masters מורה, "an instructor": it follows,

a teacher of babes; either in age or in understanding; such who taught either of them were called by the Jews מלמדי תינוקות, "teachers of babes". Thus they paraphrase the text in Dan 12:3,

"they that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament. This is the Judge who judges, the judgment of truth truly, and the collectors of alms: and they that turn, many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever; these are, מלמדי תנוקות, "the teachers of babes" ^z.''

Though these are said ^a to be inferior to the wise men, or doctors:

which hast the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law: they had not a true knowledge of the law; only a draught and scheme, the outward form of the law, and a mere shadow and appearance of the knowledge of the truth of it. From hence the apostle would have it concluded, that though the Jews had the law, and in some sense knew it, yet inasmuch as they did not perform it, they could not be justified by it; and that even their teachers, their greatest masters and doctors, were very deficient, as appears from what follows; and since they could not be instilled by it, who taught others the knowledge of it, the hearers of it could not expect justification from it.

Gill: Rom 2:21

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?.... Several charges are here brought against the Jews, even against their teachers; for though they are put by way of question, they are to be considered as so many assertions and matters of fact; thus, though they taught others, they did not teach themselves; they were blind leaders of the blind; they were ignorant of the law, of the spirituality of it; they were desirous to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed: they were ignorant of the righteousness of God, of whom they boasted; and of the more excellent things of Moses, and the prophets, they pretended to explain; and of the Messiah, of whom their prophecies so much spoke: and besides, what they did understand and teach, they did not practise themselves; than which nothing is more shameful, or more betrays stupidity and ignorance; for as they themselves ^b say,

"he that teaches men, בדבר שהוא לא יעשה, "that which he himself does not do", is like a blind man who has a lamp in his hand, and enlightens others, but he, himself walks in darkness.''

And such teachers they own were among them.

"Beautiful (say they ^c) are the words which come out of the mouths of them that do, them: Ben Assai was a beautiful preacher, but did not well observe;''

i.e., to do what he said.

Thou that preach at a man should not steal, dost thou steal? some understand this figuratively, of stealing, or taking away the true sense of the law, and putting a false one upon it; of which these men were notoriously guilty: but rather, it is to be understood literally, not only of the inward desires and motions of their minds after this sin, and of their consenting to, and conniving at theft and robbery, but of their doing it themselves; who, under pretence of long prayers, "devoured widows' houses", Mat 23:14, plundered and robbed them of their substance: no wonder that these men preferred Barabbas, a thief and a robber, to Jesus Christ.

Gill: Rom 2:22

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

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

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

Gill: Rom 2:23

Thou that makest thy boast of the law,.... Of their having it, which other nations had not; of their knowledge of it, which many of their own people were without, or had but a small share of; and of their keeping of it even to perfection:

through breaking of the law dishonourest thou God? sin sometimes is expressed by a word which signifies a "fall"; sometimes by another, which signifies missing of the mark, or straying from it; sometimes by another, which signifies a "contrariety to the law" of God; and here, by one which signifies a "passing over it", and the bounds which it has set, as the rule of man's obedience; and hereby God, the lawgiver, is dishonoured: for as God is glorified by good works, when rightly performed, he is dishonoured by evil ones; for his authority, as a lawgiver, is trampled upon and despised. Now persons guilty of such iniquities as here mentioned, could not be justified before God, or accepted by him on account of any works of righteousness done by them.

Gill: Rom 2:24

For the name of God is blasphemed,.... The being and perfections of God, such as his holiness, omniscience, and omnipotence, are denied, or evil spoken of; and also the law of God, and the forms of worship instituted by him:

among the Gentiles through you: through their iniquities, who when they observe them, conclude that the God of Israel is not omniscient, or he would know, and take notice of these things; and that he is not holy, or he could not bear them; nor omnipotent, or he would revenge them:

as it is written; the passage or passages referred to are not mentioned, but are perhaps Isa 52:5. In the former of these texts the words are, "they that rule over them make them to howl; saith the Lord, and my name continually every day is blasphemed"; which are spoken of the rulers of the people, either of their ecclesiastical or political rulers, or both; and so Aben Ezra interprets them of גדולי ישראל, "the great men of Israel"; and here by the apostle are applied to their doctors and wise men: and in the latter are these words, "thus saith the Lord God, I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the Heathen"; that is, by their unbecoming walk and conversation, and especially by the disagreeable conduct of their principal men: and the Jews own the same things, and complain of them in much the "same language the apostle here does, saying, "they disgrace the law before the people of the earth, (the common people, or else the Gentiles,) how? a wise man sits and expounds in the congregation, saying, thou shalt not lend upon usury, and he lends upon usury; he says, thou shalt not commit a robbery, and he commits a robbery; he says, לא תגנוב, "thou shalt not steal, and he steals": says R. Berechiah, it happened to one man that his cloak was stolen from him, and he went before the judge about it, and he found it spread upon his bed or couch: and, says the same Rabbi, it happened to a certain man that his pot was stolen from him, and he went before the judge about it, and he found it upon his hearth: hence it is said, "as they were increased they sinned against me, therefore will I change their glory into shame", Hos 4:7 ^d.

Gill: Rom 2:25

For circumcision verily profiteth,.... The plea from circumcision in favour of the Jews, and their acceptance with God, and justification before him, is here, and in the following verses, considered. The apostle allows that circumcision was profitable; which must be understood whilst it was in force, before the abrogation of it, for since, it is not profitable but pernicious; and then it was only profitable, in case the law was kept:

if thou keepest the law; that is, perfectly; for circumcision obliged persons to keep the whole law. Now the circumcised Jews did not keep it in such sense; wherefore circumcision was of no use to them, but, on the contrary, was an handwriting against them.

But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, it is not accounted circumcision; it is of no avail; such a man was all one as an uncircumcised Gentile, and appeared to be uncircumcised in a spiritual sense: the apostle perhaps alludes to a practice among some of the Jews, to bring on and draw over the foreskin, after they had been circumcised; See Gill on 1Co 7:18.

Gill: Rom 2:26

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep,.... These words are spoken hypothetically; if any such persons could be found among the Gentiles who keep the whole law of God; and can only be absolutely understood of such, who from a principle of grace act in obedience to the law; as in the hands of Christ, and who look to Christ as the fulfilling end of it, for righteousness; in whom they keep

the righteousness of the law perfectly:

shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? by this question it is suggested, that an uncircumcised Gentile, who keeps the law as in the hands of Christ, and under the influences of his Spirit and grace, and keeps it in Christ, is reckoned a circumcised person in a spiritual sense, and must be preferable to a circumcised Jew that breaks it.

Gill: Rom 2:27

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature,.... That is, the Gentiles, who are by nature uncircumcised; for as circumcision was by the command of God, and performed by the art of men, uncircumcision is by nature, and what men naturally have. Now

if it, such persons,

fulfil the law in Christ, they will

judge thee, the circumcision: and condemn, as Noah condemned the old world, Heb 11:7, and the men of Nineveh and the queen of the south will condemn the men of that generation, in which Christ lived, Mat 12:41.

Who by the letter and circumcision transgress the law; that is, either by the law, which is "the letter", and "by circumcision", or "by circumcision which is in the letter", Rom 2:29, sin being increased by the prohibitions of the moral law, and the rituals of the ceremonial law, and the more so by a dependence upon an obedience to either of them, or both, for justification.

Gill: Rom 2:28

For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly,.... The apostle removes the plea in favour of the Jews, taken from their name and privilege, by distinguishing between a Jew and a Jew, and between circumcision and circumcision: "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly"; by mere name, nature, nation, religion, and profession:

neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; which takes away the flesh of the foreskin, but not the carnality of the heart; leaves a mark upon the flesh, but no impression on the mind. This is nothing, is not the true, solid, substantial, spiritual circumcision, which only avails in the sight of God.

Gill: Rom 2:29

But he is a Jew which is one inwardly,.... Who has an internal work of grace upon his soul: who has not only an outward name, but an inward nature; not the law of God in the hand, but in the heart; not an external righteousness only, but internal holiness; and who is not a mere outward court worshipper, but a worshipper of God in Spirit and in truth. The Jews have a ^e saying themselves,

"that whosoever denies idolatry, נקרא יהודי, "is called a Jew":''

so that, according to them, this is a name that is not confined to themselves, but belongs to all such who truly fear and worship God; and they say, in the same place, that Pharaoh's daughter was called יהודית, "a Jewess", because she denied idolatry, and went down to wash herself from the idols of her father's house. And elsewhere ^f,

"that faith does not depend upon circumcision, but upon the heart: he that believes not as he should, circumcision does not make him a Jew; and he that believes as he ought, he indeed is a Jew, though he is not circumcised.''

And circumcision is that of the heart; which God requires, and he himself promises to give, Deu 10:16, upon which last passage, a very noted Jew ^g has this observation, זאת היא מלת הלב, "this is the circumcision of the heart"; the very phrase the apostle here uses: circumcision of the flesh was typical of this, which lies in a godly sorrow for sin, in a putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and in renouncing a man's own righteousness in the business of justification. The ancient Jews had some notion of this typical use of circumcision. So Philo the Jew says ^h, that circumcision taught ηδονων και παθων παντων εκτομην, "the cutting off of all pleasures and affections": and elsewhere he says ⁱ: it is a symbol of two things particularly; the one is the cutting off of pleasures, as before; and the other is the removal of arrogancy, that grievous disease of the soul: and in another place ^k he calls purity, or chastity, περιτομης περιτομην, "the circumcision of circumcision". Now this our apostle says is

in the spirit; meaning either the spirit or soul of man, which is the seat and subject of it; or the Spirit of God, who is the author of it: the Ethiopic version reads it, "by the Holy Ghost":

and not in the letter; or "by the letter" of the law; but the Holy Ghost produces this spiritual work instrumentally, by the preaching of the Gospel. To which the apostle adds,

whose praise is not of men, but of God; referring not to circumcision immediately spoken of before, but to the Jew who is one inwardly: and alludes to the name Judah, from whence the Jews are called, which comes from the word ידה, which signifies to "praise"; and intimates here, that such persons must not expect praise from men, who are only taken, with outward things, but from God, who searches and knows the heart.

Gill: Rom 3:1

What advantage then hath the Jew?.... If he is not properly a Jew, who is born of Jewish parents, and brought up in the customs, rites, and religion of the Jewish nation, but anyone of whatsoever nation, that is born again of water, and of the Spirit; where is the superior excellency of the Jew to the Gentile? A man may as well be born and brought up a Heathen as a Jew; the one has no more advantages than the other by his birth and education: it may be rendered, "what hath the Jew more?" or "what has he superfluous" or "abundant?" the phrase answers to the Hebrew מה יתרון לאדם in Ecc 1:3, which is rendered, "what profit hath a man?" and in Ecc 6:8, מה יותר לחכם, "what hath a wise man more", &c. and in Rom 3:11, מה יתר לאדם, "what is a man better?" the first of these passages the Septuagint render by τις περισσεια, "what abundance?" and the last by τι περισσον, "what more", or "superfluous", or "abundant?" the phrase used by the apostle here:

or what profit is there of circumcision? since that which is outward in the flesh profits not unless the law is kept, otherwise circumcision is no circumcision; and if an uncircumcised Gentile keeps the law, he is a better man than a circumcised Jew; yea, he judges and condemns him; for the only true circumcision is internal, spiritual, and in the heart. To this the apostle answers in the Rom 3:2.

Gill: Rom 3:2

Much every way,.... The circumcised Jew has greatly the advantage of the uncircumcised Gentile, מכל פנים, "in all respects", על כל צד, "on every side", as the Rabbins speak; phrases to which this in the text answers:

chiefly; more especially, particularly, and in the first place;

because that unto them were committed the oracles of God; by which are meant the law of Moses, and the writings of the prophets, the institutions of the ceremonial law, and the prophecies of the Messiah and the Gospel church state; and in a word, all the books of the Old Testament, and whatsoever is contained in them; which are called so, because they are of divine inspiration, contain the mind and will of God, and are infallible and authoritative: and it was the privilege and profit of the Jews that they were intrusted with them, when other nations were not, and so had the advantage of them; they had them for their own use; for hereby they had a more clear and distinct knowledge of God than the Gentiles could have by the light of nature; and besides, became acquainted with the doctrines of a trinity of persons in the Godhead, of the sonship and deity of the Messiah, of the sacrifice, satisfaction, and righteousness of the Redeemer, and of salvation by him; and also with the manner of worshipping of God according to his will; all which the Gentiles were ignorant of. Moreover, they had the honour of being the keepers of these sacred books, these divine oracles, and of transmitting them to posterity, for the use of others.

Gill: Rom 3:3

For what if some did not believe?.... It is suggested, that though the Jews enjoyed such a privilege, some of them did not believe; which is an aggravation of their sin, that they should have such means of light, knowledge, and faith, such clear and full evidences of things, and yet be incredulous: though it should be observed that this was the case only of some, not of all; and must be understood, not of their disbelief of the Scriptures being the word of God, for these were always received as such by them all, and were constantly read, heard, and attended to; but either of their disobedience to the commands of God required in the law, or of their disregard to the promises of God, and prophecies of the Messiah, and of their disbelief in the Messiah himself when he came; but now this was no objection to the advantage they had of the Gentiles, since this was not owing to want of evidence in the word of God, but to the darkness and unbelief of their minds: and,

shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? no, their unbelief could not, and did not make void the veracity and faithfulness of God in his promises concerning the Messiah, recorded in the oracles of God, which they had committed to them; for notwithstanding this, God raised up the Messiah from among them, which is another advantage the Jews had of, the Gentiles; inasmuch as "of" them, "as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore", Rom 9:5, and he sent him to them, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as a prophet and minister; he sent his Gospel to them first, and called out by it from among them his elect, nor did he take it from them until he had done this: and he took it away only; until "the fulness of the Gentiles", Rom 11:25, is brought in; and then the Gospel shall come to them again with power, and "all Israel shall be saved" Rom 11:26.

Gill: Rom 3:4

God forbid, yea, let God be true, but every man a liar,.... Let no such thing ever enter into the minds of any, that the truth of God can be, or will be made of none effect by the want of faith in man; let it be always asserted and abode by; that God is true, faithful to his word, constant in his promises, and will always fulfil his purposes; though "every man is a liar", vain, fallacious, and inconstant: referring to Psa 116:11;

as it is written, Psa 51:4;

that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. This is a proof that God is true, and stands to his word, though men are fallacious, inconstant, and wicked. God made a promise to David, that of the fruit of his body he would set upon his throne; that the Messiah should spring from him; that he would of his seed raise up unto Israel a Saviour. Now David sinned greatly in the case of Bathsheba, 2Sa 11:3 (title), but his sin did not make of no effect the truth and faithfulness of God: though David showed himself to be a weak sinful man, yet God appeared true and faithful to every word of promise which he had sworn in truth to him; and therefore when he was brought to a sense of his evil, and at the same time to observe the invariable truth and faithfulness of God, said, "I acknowledge my transgression, &c. against thee, thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight", Psa 51:3, which confession of sin I make, "that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings"; or "when thou speakest", Psa 51:4, which is all one; that is, that thou mightest appear to be just, and faithful, and true in all thy promises, in every word that is gone out of thy mouth, which shall not be recalled and made void, on account of my sins; for though I have sinned, thou abidest faithful; and this also I declare with shame to myself, and with adoring views of thine unchangeable truth and goodness: "that thou mightest overcome"; that is, put to silence all such cavils and charges, as if the faith of God could be made void by the unfaithfulness of men: "when thou art judged"; when men will be so bold and daring to arraign thy truth and faithfulness, and contend with thee about them. This now is brought as a full proof, and is a full proof of this truth, that God is always true to his word, though men fail in theirs, and fall into sin. God kept his word with David concerning the stability of his kingdom, his successor, and the Messiah that should spring from him, though he acted a bad part against God. There is some little difference between these words as they stand in the Hebrew text of Psa 51:4; and as they are cited and rendered by the apostle, in the last clause of them; in the former it is, "that thou mightest be clear"; in the latter, "that thou mightest overcome". Now to vindicate the apostle's version, let it be observed, that the Hebrew word זכה signifies to "overcome", as well as to "be clear"; of which instances may be given out of the Jewish writings. Says ^l Rabba; concerning an argument used by R. Chanina, in a controversy with other Rabbins, by this R. Chanina ben Antigonus, זכנהו, "hath overcome" them: and in another place ^m, whosoever דזכי, "overcomes" a king, they cast him into an empty ditch; where the gloss upon it is, נוצח, he that overcomes a king by words, that is, by disputing with him, which is a disgrace to a king. So the word is used in the Syriac language in Joh 16:33. Moreover, the sense is the same, be it rendered either way; for as a man, when he overcomes his adversary, and carries his point against him, is clear of his charges and cavils, so God, when he overcomes in judgment, is clear of the imputations of wicked men. Another difference in the citation is, that what in the psalm is rendered "when thou judgest", is by the apostle, "when thou art judged", Psa 51:4, the word, which is used by the Psalmist, בשפטך, may be rendered either way; either "when thou judgest", as a word of the same form is rendered, when "thou speakest", in Psa 51:4; or "when anyone judges of thee", or "when thou art judged": a like instance is in Psa 46:2; and so it is rendered by the Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, though the word he uses may be considered in the middle voice, and may have an active signification in it; and the phrase, εν τω κρινεσθαι σε, may be rendered, "when thou judgest", and then both agree.

Gill: Rom 3:5

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,.... Hence it appears, that the unrighteousness of men commends the righteousness, or faithfulness of God; and yet all unrighteousness is sin; the wrath of God is revealed against it; and would exclude from heaven, were it not for pardon through the blood of Christ; and besides, the one is contrary to the other, and of itself, of its own nature, cannot influence and affect the other: wherefore this can only be understood of the manifestation and illustration of, the righteousness of God by it; which is covered and commended, in punishing the unrighteousness of men; in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for sin; and in fulfilling his promises, notwithstanding the failings of his people, of which the case of David is a pregnant proof; just as the love of God is illustrated and commended, by the consideration of the sins of men, for whom Christ died, and his grace and mercy in the conversion of them: but if this be true,

what shall we say? shall we allow the following question to be put? this answers to מאי איכא למימר, "what is there to say", or "to be said?" a way of speaking, often used by the Talmudists ⁿ:

is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? if the premises are true, this is a just consequence of them; whereas God does take vengeance on men for their unrighteousness, both here and hereafter, it must be a piece of unrighteousness in him so to do; since that for which he takes vengeance on them commends his own righteousness; but that you may know as well by what follows, that this is not an inference of his own, but another's, he adds,

I speak as a man; כלשון בני אדם, "according to the language of the children of men", a phrase often used by the Jewish doctors ^o. The apostle did not speak the sentiments of his own mind, he represented another man, and spoke in the language of an adversary.

Gill: Rom 3:6

God forbid, for then how shall God judge the world? חלילה, "far be it"; such a notion is detestable and abominable, nor can it be fairly deduced from what is asserted; for it is the unrighteousness of his own people, on whom he takes no vengeance personally, and not the unrighteousness of others, on whom he does take vengeance, which commends his righteousness; and supposing it was that of others, God cannot be unrighteous in performing his threatenings, in a way of righteousness: moreover, unrighteousness is sin, and does not of itself but by accident, illustrate the righteousness of God; wherefore God is not unjust in punishing it; for how should God "judge the world?" whereas nothing is more certain than that he will do it, and that this will be done in righteousness; which could not be, was he unrighteous in taking vengeance; which will be one considerable part of that righteous judgment.

Gill: Rom 3:7

For if the truth of God,.... The "truth of God" is the same with "the righteousness of God", Rom 3:5, and means his faithfulness; of which it is hypothetically said, it

hath more abounded; or has been more illustrated,

through my lie to his glory: nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, "for every man is a liar", Rom 3:4, as he says, "I speak as a man", Rom 3:5; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle's sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; "let God be true, and every man a liar", Rom 3:4, moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore "no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner"; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question:

why yet am I also judged as a sinner? if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by "the truth of God" should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle's "lie", as the Jews might call his ministration of it, "abounded to" the "glory" of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, "why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so "the sinner" in Ecc 7:26 is thus interpreted ^p, אלו המינים "these are the heretics": and elsewhere it ^q is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, Pro 10:7, "the name of the wicked shall rot": and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in Joh 9:24, "we know that this man is a sinner"; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in Joh 9:31; "now we know that God heareth not sinners"; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel.

Gill: Rom 3:8

And not rather, as we be slanderously reported,.... These are the apostle's own words, in answer to the objector he represented; and it is as if he should say, why do not you go on? why do you stop here? "and not rather" say, as we are evil spoken of, and our doctrine is blasphemed:

and as some affirm; ignorantly and audaciously enough:

that we say; and teach:

let us do evil that good may come; a slander cast upon the apostle's doctrine of unconditional election, free justification, and of God's overruling the sins of men for good; and is the same which is cast on ours now, and is no small proof of the likeness and sameness of doctrines:

whose damnation is just; whose judgment would have been right, and their censure of our doctrines just, had it been true that we held such a principle, taught such a doctrine, or encouraged such a practice: or their condemnation is just, for aspersing our principles and practices in so vile a manner; and all such persons are deserving of damnation, who teach such things, or practise after this sort.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 2:17

¹ sn The law refers to the Mosaic law, described mainly in the OT books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

² tn Grk “boast in God.” This may be an allusion to Jer 9:24.

NET Notes: Rom 2:18

¹ tn Grk “the will.”

² tn Grk “because of being instructed out of the law.”

NET Notes: Rom 2:19

¹ tn This verb is parallel to the verbs in vv. 17-18a, so it shares the conditional meaning even though the word “if” is not repeated.

NET Notes: Rom 2:21

¹ tn The structure of vv. 21-24 is difficult. Some take these verses as the apodosis of the conditional clauses (protases) in vv. 17-20; others see vv. 17-20 as an instance of anacoluthon (a broken off or incomplete construction).

NET Notes: Rom 2:22

¹ tn Or “detest.”

NET Notes: Rom 2:24

¹ sn A quotation from Isa 52:5.

NET Notes: Rom 2:25

¹ sn Circumcision refers to male circumcision as prescribed in the OT, which was given as a covenant to Abraham in Gen 17:10-14. Its importance for Judaism can hardly be overstated: According to J. D. G. Dunn (Romans [WBC], 1:120) it was the “single clearest distinguishing feature of the covenant people.” J. Marcus has suggested that the terms used for circumcision (περιτομή, peritomh) and uncircumcision (ἀκροβυστία, akrobustia) were probably derogatory slogans used by Jews and Gentiles to describe their opponents (“The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35 [1989]: 77-80).

² tn This contrast is clearer and stronger in Greek than can be easily expressed in English.

³ tn Grk “if you should be a transgressor of the law.”

NET Notes: Rom 2:26

¹ tn The Greek word φυλάσσω (fulassw, traditionally translated “keep”) in this context connotes preservation of and devotion to an object as well as obedience.

NET Notes: Rom 2:27

¹ tn Grk “the uncircumcision by nature.” The word “man” is supplied here to make clear that male circumcision (or uncircumcision) is in view.

² tn Grk “through,” but here the preposition seems to mean “(along) with,” “though provided with,” as BDAG 224 s.v. διά A.3.c indicates.

³ tn Grk “letter.”

NET Notes: Rom 2:29

¹ sn On circumcision is of the heart see Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:9.

² tn Some have taken the phrase ἐν πνεύματι (en pneumati, “by/in [the] S/spirit”) not as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but referring to circumcision as “spiritual and not literal” (RSV).

³ tn Grk “letter.”

⁴ tn Grk “whose.” The relative pronoun has been replaced by the phrase “this person’s” and, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started in the translation.

NET Notes: Rom 3:2

¹ tn Grk “much in every way.”

² tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D² 33 Ï) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few mss have γάρ, but not μέν (6 1739 1881). γάρ was frequently added by scribes as a clarifying conjunction, making it suspect here. NA²⁷ has the γάρ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

tn Grk “first indeed that.”

³ tn Grk “they were.”

⁴ tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.

NET Notes: Rom 3:4

¹ tn Grk “every man”; but ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used in a generic sense here to stress humanity rather than masculinity.

² tn Grk “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” The words “proven” and “shown up” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning.

³ tn Grk “might be justified,” a subjunctive verb, but in this type of clause it carries the same sense as the future indicative verb in the latter part. “Will” is more idiomatic in contemporary English.

⁴ tn Or “prevail when you judge.” A quotation from Ps 51:4.

NET Notes: Rom 3:5

¹ tn Or “shows clearly.”

² tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”

³ sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.

NET Notes: Rom 3:7

¹ tn Grk “abounded unto.”

NET Notes: Rom 3:8

¹ tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”

² tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:17

^{( 8 )} Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

^{( 8 )} He proves by the testimony of David, and the other prophets, that God bestows greatest benefits upon the Jews, in giving them also the law, but that they are the most unthankful and unkind of all men.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:18

And knowest [his] will, and ^{( n )} approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

^{( n )} Can test and discern what things swerve from God's will.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:20

An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the ^{( o )} form of knowledge and of the truth in the ^{( p )} law.

^{( o )} The way to teach and to form others in the knowledge of the truth.

^{( p )} As though he said that the Jews under a pretence of an outward serving of God, attributed all to themselves, when in reality they did nothing less than observe the Law.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:25

^{( 9 )} For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

^{( 9 )} He precisely prevents their objection, who set a holiness in circumcision, and the outward observation of the law: so that he shows that the outward circumcision, if it is separated from the inward, does not justify, and also condemns those who are indeed circumcised, of whom it is required that they fulfil that which circumcision signifies, that is to say, cleanness of the heart and the whole life according to the commandment of the law, so that if there is a man uncircumcised according to the flesh, who is circumcised in heart, he is far better and to be more regarded than any Jew that is circumcised according to the flesh only.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:26

Therefore if the ^{( q )} uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his ^{( r )} uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

^{( q )} This is the figure of speech metonymy, and means "uncircumcised".

^{( r )} The state and condition of the uncircumcised.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:27

And shall not ^{( s )} uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the ^{( t )} letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

^{( s )} He who is uncircumcised by nature and race.

^{( t )} Paul often contrasts the letter against the Spirit: but in this place, the circumcision which is according to the letter is the cutting off of the foreskin, but the circumcision of the Spirit is the circumcision of the heart, that is to say, the spiritual result of the ceremony is true holiness and righteousness, by which the people of God are known from profane and heathen men.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:28

For he is not a Jew, which is one ^{( u )} outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

^{( u )} By the outward ceremony only.

Geneva Bible: Rom 2:29

But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the ^{( x )} spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

^{( x )} Whose power is inward, and in the heart.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:1

What ^{( 1 )} advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?

^{( 1 )} The first address to the Jews, or the first anticipating of an objection by the Jews: what then, are the Jews preferred no more than the Gentiles? Indeed, they are, says the apostle, by the doing of God, for he committed the tables of the covenant to them, so that the unbelief of a few cannot cause the whole nation without exception to be cast away by God, who is true, and who also uses their unworthiness to commend and set forth his goodness.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:2

Much every way: ^{( a )} chiefly, because that unto them were committed the ^{( b )} oracles of God.

^{( a )} The Jews' state and condition was of principal importance.

^{( b )} Words.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:3

For what if some did not ^{( c )} believe? shall their unbelief make the ^{( d )} faith of God without effect?

^{( c )} Break the covenant.

^{( d )} The faith that God gave.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:4

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be ^{( e )} justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome ^{( f )} when thou art judged.

^{( e )} That your justice might be plainly seen.

^{( f )} Seeing that you showed forth an true token of your righteousness, steadfastness and faith, by preserving him who had broken his covenant.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:5

^{( 2 )} But if our ^{( g )} unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as ^{( h )} a man)

^{( 2 )} Another objection resulting from the former answer: that the justice of God is commended and set forth by our unrighteousness in such a way that God does not therefore forget that he is the judge of the world, and therefore a most severe avenger of unrighteousness.

^{( g )} Treachery, and all the fruits of it.

^{( h )} Therefore I do not speak these words of my own accord, as though this is what I thought, but this is the talk of man's wisdom, which is not subject to the will of God.

Geneva Bible: Rom 3:7

^{( 3 )} For if the ^{( i )} truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

^{( 3 )} A third objection, which adds somewhat to the former: if sins turn out to the glory of God, they are not only not to be punished, but we ought rather to give ourselves to them: and this blasphemy Paul, as he fights to curse and detest it, pronounces it to be a just punishment against such blasphemers.

^{( i )} The truth and unchangingness.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 2:1-29

1 No excuse for sin.

6 No escape from judgment.

14 Gentiles cannot;

17 nor Jews.

TSK Synopsis: Rom 3:1-31

1 The Jews' prerogative;

3 which they have not lost;

9 howbeit the law convinces them also of sin;

20 therefore no flesh is justified by the law;

28 but all, without difference, by faith, only;

31 and yet the law is not abolished.

MHCC: Rom 2:17-24

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

MHCC: Rom 2:25-29

No forms, ordinances, or notions can profit, without regenerating grace, which will always lead to seeking an interest in the righteousness of God by faith. For he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly: neither is that baptism, which is outward in the flesh: but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith. And the true baptism is that of the heart, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; bringing a spiritual frame of mind, and a willing following of truth in its holy ways. Let us pray that we may be made real Christians, not outwardly, but inwardly; in the heart and spirit, not in the letter; baptized, not with water only, but with the Holy Ghost; and let our praise be, not of men, but of God.

MHCC: Rom 3:1-8

The law could not save in or from sins, yet it gave the Jews advantages for obtaining salvation. Their stated ordinances, education in the knowledge of the true God and his service, and many favours shown to the children of Abraham, all were means of grace, and doubtless were made useful to the conversion of many. But especially the Scriptures were committed to them. Enjoyment of God's word and ordinances, is the chief happiness of a people. But God's promises are made only to believers; therefore the unbelief of some, or of many professors, cannot make this faithfulness of no effect. He will fulfil his promises to his people, and bring his threatened vengeance upon unbelievers. God's judging the world, should for ever silence all doubtings and reflections upon his justice. The wickedness and obstinate unbelief of the Jews, proved man's need of the righteousness of God by faith, and also his justice in punishing for sin. Let us do evil, that good may come, is oftener in the heart than in the mouth of sinners; for few thus justify themselves in their wicked ways. The believer knows that duty belongs to him, and events to God; and that he must not commit any sin, or speak one falsehood, upon the hope, or even assurance, that God may thereby glorify himself. If any speak and act thus, their condemnation is just.

Matthew Henry: Rom 2:17-29

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

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

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

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

- Video meliora proboque

Deteriora sequor .

I see the better, but pursue the worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry: Rom 3:1-18

I. Here the apostle answers several objections, which might be made, to clear his way. No truth so plain and evident but wicked wits and corrupt carnal hearts will have something to say against it; but divine truths must be cleared from cavil.

Object. 1. If Jew and Gentile stand so much upon the same level before God, what advantage then hath the Jew? Hath not God often spoken with a great deal of respect for the Jews, as a non-such people (Deu 33:29), a holy nation, a peculiar treasure, the seed of Abraham his friend: Did not he institute circumcision as a badge of their church-membership, and a seal of their covenant-relation to God? Now does not this levelling doctrine deny them all such prerogatives, and reflect dishonour upon the ordinance of circumcision, as a fruitless insignificant thing.

Answer. The Jews are, notwithstanding this, a people greatly privileged and honoured, have great means and helps, though these be not infallibly saving (Rom 3:2): Much every way. The door is open to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but the Jews have a fairer way up to this door, by reason of their church-privileges, which are not to be undervalued, though many that have them perish eternally for not improving them. He reckons up many of the Jews' privileges Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5; here he mentions but one (which is indeed instar omnium - equivalent to all ), that unto them were committed the oracles of God, that is, the scriptures of the Old Testament, especially the law of Moses, which is called the lively oracles (Act 7:38), and those types, promises, and prophecies, which relate to Christ and the gospel. The scriptures are the oracles of God: they are a divine revelation, they come from heaven, are of infallible truth, and of eternal consequence as oracles. The Septuagint call the Urim and Thummim the logia - the oracles. The scripture is our breast-plate of judgment. We must have recourse to the law and to the testimony, as to an oracle. The gospel is called the oracles of God, Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11. Now these oracles were committed to the Jews; the Old Testament was written in their language; Moses and the prophets were of their nation, lived among them, preached and wrote primarily to and for the Jews. They were committed to them as trustees for succeeding ages and churches. The Old Testament was deposited in their hands, to be carefully preserved pure and uncorrupt, and so transmitted down to posterity. The Jews were the Christians' library-keepers, were entrusted with that sacred treasure for their own use and benefit in the first place, and then for the advantage of the world; and, in preserving the letter of the scripture, they were very faithful to their trust, did not lose one iota or tittle, in which we are to acknowledge God's gracious care and providence. The Jews had the means of salvation, but they had not the monopoly of salvation. Now this he mentions with a chiefly, prōton men gar - this was their prime and principal privilege. The enjoyment of God's word and ordinances is the chief happiness of a people, is to be put in the imprimis of their advantages, Deu 4:8; Deu 33:3; Psa 147:20.

Object. 2. Against what he had said of the advantages the Jews had in the lively oracles, some might object the unbelief of many of them. To what purpose were the oracles of God committed to them, when so many of them, notwithstanding these oracles, continued strangers to Christ, and enemies to his gospel? Some did not believe, Rom 3:3.

Answer. It is very true that some, nay most of the present Jews, do not believe in Christ; but shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? The apostle startles at such a thought: God forbid! The infidelity and obstinacy of the Jews could not invalidate and overthrow those prophecies of the Messiah which were contained in the oracles committed to them. Christ will be glorious, though Israel be not gathered, Isa 49:5. God's words shall be accomplished, his purposes performed, and all his ends answered, though there be a generation that by their unbelief go about to make God a liar. Let God be true but every man a liar; let us abide by this principle, that God is true to every word which he has spoken, and will let none of his oracles fall to the ground, though thereby we give the lie to man; better question and overthrow the credit of all the men in the world than doubt of the faithfulness of God. What David said in his haste (Psa 116:11), that all men are liars, Paul here asserts deliberately. Lying is a limb of that old man which we every one of us come into the world clothed with. All men are fickle, and mutable, and given to change, vanity and a lie (Psa 62:9), altogether vanity, Psa 39:5. All men are liars, compared with God. It is very comfortable, when we find every man a liar (no faith in man), that God is faithful. When they speak vanity every one with his neighbour, it is very comfortable to think that the words of the Lord are pure words, Psa 12:2, Psa 12:6. For the further proof of this he quotes Psa 51:4, That thou mightest be justified, the design of which is to show, 1. That God does and will preserve his own honour in the world, notwithstanding the sins of men. 2. That it is our duty, in all our conclusions concerning ourselves and others, to justify God and to assert and maintain his justice, truth, and goodness, however it goes. David lays a load upon himself in his confession, that he might justify God, and acquit him from any injustice. So here, Let the credit or reputation of man shift for itself, the matter is not great whether it sink or swim; let us hold fast this conclusion, how specious soever the premises may be to the contrary, that the Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. Thus is God justified in his sayings, and cleared when he judges (as it is Psa 51:4), or when he is judged, as it is here rendered. When men presume to quarrel with God and his proceedings, we may be sure the sentence will go on God's side.

Object. 3. Carnal hearts might hence take occasion to encourage themselves in sin. He had said that the universal guilt and corruption of mankind gave occasion to the manifestation of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ. Now it may be suggested, If all our sin be so far from overthrowing God's honour that it commends it, and his ends are secured, so that there is no harm done, is it not unjust for God to punish our sin and unbelief so severely? If the unrighteousness of the Jews gave occasion to the calling in of the Gentiles, and so to God's greater glory, why are the Jews so much censured? If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Rom 3:5. What inference may be drawn from this? Is God unrighteous, mē adikos ho Theos - Is not God unrighteous (so it may be read, more in the form of an objection), who taketh vengeance? Unbelieving hearts will gladly take any occasion to quarrel with equity of God's proceedings, and to condemn him that is most just, Job 34:17. I speak as a man, that is, I object this as the of carnal hearts; it is suggested like a man, a vain, foolish, proud creature.

Answer. God forbid; far be it from us to imagine such a thing. Suggestions that reflect dishonour upon God and his justice and holiness are rather to be startled at than parleyed with. Get thee behind me, Satan; never entertain such a thought. For then how shall God judge the world? Rom 3:6. The argument is much the same with that of Abraham (Gen 18:25): Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? No doubt, he shall. If he were not infinitely just and righteous, he would be unfit to be the judge of all the earth. Shall even he that hateth right govern? Job 34:17. Compare Job 34:18, Job 34:19. The sin has never the less of malignity and demerit in it though God bring glory to himself out of it. It is only accidentally that sin commends God's righteousness. No thanks to the sinner for that, who intends no such thing. The consideration of God's judging the world should for ever silence all our doubtings of, and reflections upon, his justice and equity. It is not for us to arraign the proceedings of such an absolute Sovereign. The sentence of the supreme court, whence lies no appeal, is not to be called in question.

Object. 4. The former objection is repeated and prosecuted (Rom 3:7, Rom 3:8), for proud hearts will hardly be beaten out of their refuge of lies, but will hold fast the deceit. But his setting off the objection in its own colours is sufficient to answer it: If the truth of God has more abounded through my lie. He supposes the sophisters to follow their objection thus: "If my lie, that is, my sin"(for there is something of a lie in every sin, especially in the sins of professors) "have occasioned the glorifying of God's truth and faithfulness, why should I be judged and condemned as a sinner, and not rather thence take encouragement to go on in my sin, that grace may abound?"an inference which at first sight appears too black to be argued, and fit to be cast out with abhorrence. Daring sinners take occasion to boast in mischief, because the goodness of God endures continually, Psa 52:1. Let us do evil that good may come is oftener in the heart than in the mouth of sinners, so justifying themselves in their wicked ways. Mentioning this wicked thought, he observes, in a parenthesis, that there were those who charged such doctrines as this upon Paul and his fellow-ministers: Some affirm that we say so. It is no new thing for the best of God's people and ministers to be charged with holding and teaching such things as they do most detest and abhor; and it is not to be thought strange, when our Master himself was said to be in league with Beelzebub. Many have been reproached as if they had said that the contrary of which they maintain: it is an old artifice of Satan thus to cast dirt upon Christ's ministers, Fortiter calumniari, aliquid adhaerebit - Lay slander thickly on, for some will be sure to stick. The best men and the best truths are subject to slander. Bishop Sanderson makes a further remark upon this, as we are slanderously reported - blasphēmoumetha . Blasphemy in scripture usually signifies the highest degree of slander, speaking ill of God. The slander of a minister and his regular doctrine is a more than ordinary slander, it is a kind of blasphemy, not for his person's sake, but for his calling's sake and his work's sake, 1Th 5:13.

Answer. He says no more by way of confutation but that, whatever they themselves may argue, the damnation of those is just. Some understand it of the slanderers; God will justly condemn those who unjustly condemn his truth. Or, rather, it is to be applied to those who embolden themselves in sin under a pretence of God's getting glory to himself out of it. Those who deliberately do evil that good may come of it will be so far from escaping, under the shelter of that excuse, that it will rather justify their damnation, and render them the more inexcusable; for sinning upon such a surmise, and in such a confidence, argues a great deal both of the wit and of the will in the sin - a wicked will deliberately to choose the evil, and a wicked wit to palliate it with the pretence of good arising from it. Therefore their damnation is just; and, whatever excuses of this kind they may now please themselves with, they will none of them stand good in the great day, but God will be justified in his proceedings, and all flesh, even the proud flesh that now lifts up itself against him, shall be silent before him. Some think Paul herein refers to the approaching ruin of the Jewish church and nation, which their obstinacy and self-justification in their unbelief hastened upon them apace.

II. Paul, having removed these objections, next revives his assertion of the general guilt and corruption of mankind in common, both of Jews and Gentiles, Rom 3:9-18. " Are we better than they, we Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God? Does this recommend us to God, or will this justify us? No, by no means."Or, "Are we Christians (Jews and Gentiles) so much better antecedently than the unbelieving part as to have merited God's grace? Alas! no: before free grace made the difference, those of us that had been Jews and those that had been Gentiles were all alike corrupted."They are all under sin. Under the guilt of sin: under it as under a sentence; - under it as under a bond, by which they are bound over to eternal ruin and damnation; - under it as under a burden (Psa 38:4) that will sink them to the lowest hell: we are guilty before God, Rom 3:19. Under the government and dominion of sin: under it as under a tyrant and cruel task-master, enslaved to it; - under it as under a yoke; - under the power of it, sold to work wickedness. And this he had proved, proētiasametha . It is a law term: We have charged them with it, and have made good our charge; we have proved the indictment, we have convicted them by the notorious evidence of the fact. This charge and conviction he here further illustrates by several scriptures out of the Old Testament, which describe the corrupt depraved state of all men, till grave restrain or change them; so that herein as in a glass we may all of us behold our natural face. The Rom 3:10, Rom 3:11, and Rom 3:12 verses are taken from Psa 14:1-3, which are repeated as containing a very weighty truth, Psa 53:1-3. The rest that follows here is found in the Septuagint translation of the 14th Psalm, which some think the apostle chooses to follow as better known; but I rather think that Paul took these passages from other places of scripture here referred to, but in later copies of the Septuagint they were all added in Psa 14:1-7 from this discourse of Paul. It is observable that, to prove the general corruption of nature, he quotes some scriptures which speak of the particular corruptions of particular persons, as of Doeg (Psa 140:3), of the Jews (Isa 59:7, Isa 59:8), which shows that the same sins that are committed by one are in the nature of all. The times of David and Isaiah were some of the better times, and yet to their days he refers. What is said Psa 14:1-7 is expressly spoken of all the children of men, and that upon a particular view and inspection made by God himself. The Lord looked down, as upon the old world, Gen 6:5. And this judgment of God was according to truth. He who, when he himself had made all, looked upon every thing that he had made, and behold all was very good, now that man had marred all, looked, and behold all was very bad. Let us take a view of the particulars. Observe,

1. That which is habitual, which is two-fold: -

(1.) An habitual defect of every thing that is good. [1.] There is none righteous, none that has an honest good principle of virtue, or is governed by such a principle, none that retains any thing of that image of God, consisting in righteousness, wherein man was created; no, not one; implying that, if there had been but one, God would have found him out. When all the world was corrupt, God had his eye upon one righteous Noah. Even those who through grace are justified and sanctified were none of them righteous by nature. No righteousness is born with us. The man after God's own heart owns himself conceived in sin. [2.] There is none that understandeth, Rom 3:11. The fault lies in the corruption of the understanding; that is blinded, depraved, perverted. Religion and righteousness have so much reason on their side that if people had but any understanding they would be better and do better. But they do not understand. Sinners are fools. [3.] None that seeketh after God, that is, none that has any regard to God, any desire after him. Those may justly be reckoned to have no understanding that do not seek after God. The carnal mind is so far from seeking after God that really it is enmity against him. [4.] They are together become unprofitable, Rom 3:12. Those that have forsaken God soon grow good for nothing, useless burdens of the earth. Those that are in a state of sin are the most unprofitable creatures under the sun; for it follows, [5.] There is none that doeth good; no, not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, Ecc 7:23. Even in those actions of sinners that have some goodness in them there is a fundamental error in the principle and end; so that it may be said, There is none that doeth good. Malum oritur ex quolibet defectu - Every defect is the source of evil.

(2.) An habitual defection to every thing that is evil: They are all gone out of the way. No wonder that those miss the right way who do not seek after God, the highest end. God made man in the way, set him in right, but he hath forsaken it. The corruption of mankind is an apostasy.

2. That which is actual. And what good can be expected from such a degenerate race? He instances,

(1.) In their words (Rom 3:13, Rom 3:14), in three things particularly: - [1.] Cruelty: Their throat is an open sepulchre, ready to swallow up the poor and innocent, waiting an opportunity to do mischief, like the old serpent seeking to devour, whose name is Abaddon and Apollyon, the destroyer. And when they do not openly avow this cruelty, and vent it publicly, yet they are underhand intending mischief: the poison of asps is under their lips (Jam 3:8), the most venomous and incurable poison, with which they blast the good name of their neighbour by reproaches, and aim at his life by false witness. These passages are borrowed from Psa 5:9 and Psa 140:3. [2.] Cheating: With their tongues they have used deceit. Herein they show themselves the devil's children, for he is a liar, and the father of lies. They have used it: it intimates that they make a trade of lying; it is their constant practice, especially belying the ways and people of God. [3.] Cursing: reflecting upon God, and blaspheming his holy name; wishing evil to their brethren: Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. This is mentioned as one of the great sins of the tongue, Jam 3:9. But those that thus love cursing shall have enough of it, Psa 109:17-19. How many, who are called Christians, do by these sin evince that they are still under the reign and dominion of sin, still in the condition that they were born in.

(2.) In their ways (Rom 3:15-17): Their feet are swift to shed blood; that is, they are very industrious to compass any cruel design, ready to lay hold of all such opportunities. Wherever they go, destruction and misery go along with them; these are their companions-destruction and misery to the people of God, to the country and neighbourhood where they live, to the land and nation, and to themselves at last. Besides the destruction and misery that are at the end of their ways (death is the end of these things), destruction and misery are in their ways; their sin is its own punishment: a man needs no more to make him miserable than to be a slave to his sins. - And the way of peace have they not known; that is, they know not how to preserve peace with others, nor how to obtain peace for themselves. They may talk of peace, such a peace as is in the devil's palace, while he keeps it, but they are strangers to all true peace; they know not the things that belong to their peace. These are quoted from Pro 1:16; Isa 59:7, Isa 59:8.

(3.) The root of all this we have: There is no fear of God before their eyes, Rom 3:18. The fear of God is here put for all practical religion, which consists in an awful and serious regard to the word and will of God as our rule, to the honour and glory of God as our end. Wicked people have not this before their eyes; that is, they do not steer by it; they are governed by other rules, aim at other ends. This is quoted from Psa 36:1. Where no fear of God is, no good is to be expected. The fear of God is would lay a restraint upon our spirits, and keep them right, Neh 5:15. When once fear is cast off, prayer is restrained (Job 15:4), and then all goes to wreck and ruin quickly. So that we have here a short account of the general depravity and corruption of mankind; and may say, O Adam! what hast thou done? God made man upright, but thus he hath sought out many inventions.

Barclay: Rom 2:17-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Rom 3:1-8

Here Paul is arguing in the closest and the most difficult way. It will make it easier to understand if we remember that he is carrying on an argument with an imaginary objector. The argument stated in full would run something like this.

The objector: The result of all that you have been saying is that there is no difference between Gentile and Jew and that they are in exactly the same position. Do you really mean that?

Paul: By no means.

The objector: What, then, is the difference?

Paul: For one thing, the Jew possesses what the Gentile never so directly possessed--the commandments of God.

The objector: Granted! But what if some of the Jews disobeyed these commandments and were unfaithful to God and came under his condemnation? You have just said that God gave the Jews a special position and a special promise. Now you go on to say that at least some of them are under the condemnation of God. Does that mean that God has broken his promise and shown himself to be unjust and unreliable?

Paul: Far from it! What it does show is that there is no favouritism with God and that he punishes sin wherever he sees it. The very fact that he condemns the unfaithful Jews is the best possible proof of his absolute justice. He might have been expected to overlook the sins of this special people of his but he does not.

The objector: Very well then! All you have done is to succeed in showing that my disobedience has given God an opportunity to demonstrate his righteousness. My infidelity has given God a marvellous opportunity to demonstrate his fidelity. My sin is, therefore, an excellent thing! It has given God a chance to show how good he is! I may have done evil, but good has come of it! You can't surely condemn a man for giving God a chance to show his justice!

Paul: An argument like that is beneath contempt! You have only to state it to see how intolerable it is!

When we disentangle this passage in this way, we see that there are in it certain basic thoughts of Paul in regard to the Jews.

(i) To the end of the day he believed the Jews to be in a special position in regard to God. That, in fact, is what they believed themselves. The difference was that Paul believed that their special position was one of special responsibility; the Jew believed it to be one of special privilege. What did Paul say that the Jew had been specially entrusted with? The oracles of God. What does he mean by that? The word he uses is logia (3048), the regular word in the Greek Old Testament for a special statement or pronouncement of God. Here it means The Ten Commandments. God entrusted the Jews with commandments, not privileges. He said to them, "You are a special people; therefore you must live a special life." He did not say, "You are a special people; therefore you can do what you like." He did say, "You are a special people; therefore you must do what I like." When Lord Dunsany came in safety through the 1914-18 war he tells us that he said to himself, "In some strange way I am still alive. I wonder what God means me to do with a life so specially spared?" That thought never struck the Jews. They never could grasp the fact that God's special choice was for special duty.

(ii) All through his writings there are three basic facts in Paul's mind about the Jews. They occur in embryo here; and they are in fact the three thoughts that it takes this whole letter to work out. We must note that he does not place all the Jews under the one condemnation. He puts it in this way: "What if some of them were unfaithful?"

(a) He was quite sure that God was justified in condemning the Jews. They had their special place and their special promises; and that very fact made their condemnation all the greater. Responsibility is always the obverse of privilege. The more opportunity a man has to do right, the greater his condemnation if he does wrong.

(b) But not all of them were unfaithful. Paul never forgot the faithful remnant; and he was quite sure that that faithful remnant--however small it was in numbers--was the true Jewish race. The others had lost their privileges and were under condemnation. They were no longer Jews at all. The remnant was the real nation.

© Paul was always sure that God's rejection of Israel was not final. Because of this rejection, a door was opened to the Gentiles; and, in the end, the Gentiles would bring the Jews back within the fold, and Gentile and Jew would be one in Christ. The tragedy of the Jew was that the great task of world evangelization that he might have had, and was designed to have, was refused by him. It was therefore given to the Gentiles, and God's plan was, as it were, reversed, and it was not, as it should have been, the Jew who evangelized the Gentile, but the Gentile who evangelized the Jew--a process which is still going on.

Further, this passage contains two great universal human truths.

(i) The root of all sin is disobedience. The root of the Jew's sin was disobedience to the known law of God. As Milton wrote, it was "man's first disobedience" which was responsible for paradise lost. When pride sets tip the will of man against the will of God, there is sin. If there were no disobedience, there would be no sin.

(ii) Once a man has sinned, he displays an amazing ingenuity in justifying his sin. Here we come across an argument that reappears again and again in religious thought, the argument that sin gives God a chance to show at once his justice and his mercy and is therefore a good thing. It is a twisted argument. One might as well argue--it would, in fact, be the same argument--that it is a good thing to break a person's heart, because it gives him a chance to show how much he loves you. When a man sins, the need is not for ingenuity to justify his sin, but for humility to confess it in penitence and in shame.

Constable: Rom 1:18--3:21

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

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

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

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

Constable: Rom 2:1--3:9

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Rom 2:17-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Rom 3:1-8

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

In chapter 2 Paul showed that God's judgment of all people rests on character rather than ceremony. He put the Jew on the same level as the Gentile regarding standing before God. Still God Himself made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In 3:1-8, Paul dealt with that apparent inconsistency. He did this so there would be no question in the minds of his Jewish audience that they were guilty before God and needed to trust in Jesus Christ. The passage affirms the continuing faithfulness of God to His covenant people but clarifies that His faithfulness in no way precludes His judging sinful Jews.

"In thus allowing the Roman Christians to listen in' on this dialogue, Paul warns his mainly Gentile audience that they should not interpret the leveling of distinctions between Jew and Gentile in terms of God's judgment and salvation as the canceling of all the privileges of Israel."⁷⁹

3:1-2 Paul asked four rhetorical questions in this section (vv. 1-8), questions that could have been in the mind of a Jewish objector. Probably Paul was simple posing these questions and objections to himself to clarify his view for his readers. "Then what" (Gr. ti oun) appears in Romans to raise questions about what Paul has taught to advance his argument (cf. 3:9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 19, 30; 11:7).

We could paraphrase the first question as follows. If Jews and Gentiles are both guilty before God, what advantage is there in being a Jew? Particularly what advantage is there in being circumcised? The Old Testament regarded being a Jew and circumcision as privileges.

There are many advantages to being a circumcised Jew. Paul only gave the most important one here (v. 2), but later he referred to others (9:4-5). The phrase "oracles of God" refers to special revelation. The word "oracles" (Gr. logia) stresses the fact that the Old Testament, and the Mosaic Law in particular, was the very utterance of God preserved and handed down by earlier generations (cf. Acts. 7:38; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11).⁸⁰ "Entrusted" highlights Israel's responsibility to guard and to propagate what she had received as a treasure.

3:3-4 Paul's second question was this. God will not forsake His promises to bless the nation since some of the Israelites proved unfaithful will He? The objection Paul voiced calls attention to the promises God had given Israel in the Old Testament covenants. These too constituted an advantage for the Jews.

By referring to the unbelief of the Jews (v. 3) Paul was looking at the root of their unfaithfulness to God. Of the generation that received the law at Sinai, for example, only two adults proved faithful, Caleb and Joshua. Still God brought the whole nation into Canaan as He had promised, though the unbelieving generation died in the wilderness.

Paul agreed. God would remain "true" (true to His word, reliable, trustworthy) to bless Israel as He had promised (v. 4). God would even be faithful if everyone else proved unfaithful, not just if some proved unfaithful. Paul cited David's testimony to God's faithfulness after David's own unfaithfulness as historic support.

3:5-6 The third question connects with David's situation (v. 4). Since the Jews' failings set off God's righteousness more sharply by contrast, might not God deal more graciously with the Jews in His judgment of them? Surely He would not be unrighteous in failing to take that into consideration, would He?

Evidently Paul felt constrained to explain that he was "speaking in human terms" or "using a human argument" because he, representing an objector, had suggested that God was unjust. Paul did not want his readers to conclude that he really thought God was unfaithful to His own person and word. He was just saying that for the sake of the argument.

"It [the technical term I am speaking in human terms'] constitutes an apology for a statement which, but for the apology, would be too bold, almost blasphemous."⁸¹

Paul's answer was this. God will not show favoritism to the Jews even though by their unfaithfulness they glorify the faithfulness of God. If He did so, He would be partial and not qualified to sit in judgment on humankind.

3:7-8 The fourth question is very similar to the third. Perhaps Paul raised it as a response to his immediately preceding answer (v. 6). It clarifies the folly of the idea expressed in the third question. What an objector might really be saying in question three comes out in question four. If my lying, for example, glorifies God by showing Him to be the only perfectly truthful person, why does God punish me for lying? Paul had been stressing reality and priorities in chapter 2. This objection gets down to that level. If circumcision is of secondary importance compared to perfect obedience to God, is not sinning of secondary importance to glorifying God?

Paul's reply was that in spite of accusations to the contrary he had not taught that the end justifies the means. Circumcision was secondary, but it was not sinful. God will not overlook sin, though He will overlook uncircumcision (2:26-29). If anyone thinks that God should overlook his sinning because in a sense it glorifies God, that person deserves condemnation (v. 8). Paul implied that this objection is so absurd that it is not worth entertaining.

In verses 1-8 Paul raised and answered four objections that a Jew might have offered to squirm out from under the guilty verdict Paul had pronounced on him in chapter 2. The essential objections are as follows.

1. The Jews are a privileged people (vv. 1-2).

2. God will remain faithful to the Jews despite their unfaithfulness to Him (vv. 3-4).

3. God will be merciful since the Jews' failings have magnified God's righteousness.

4. God will overlook the Jews' sins since they contribute to the glory of God.

Self-righteous people still raise these objections. Some people assume that because God has blessed them He will not condemn them. Some believe the character of God prohibits His condemning them. Some think that even though they have sinned God will be merciful and not condemn them. Some feel that since everything we do glorifies God in some way God would be unjust to condemn them.

"Thousands of so-called church-members' not only have never been brought under real conviction of sin and guilt and personal danger, but rise in anger like the Jews of Paul's day when one preaches their danger directly to them!"⁸²

College: Rom 2:1-29

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Does Romans 2 Teach Justification by Works?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A second interpretation of Romans 2 has been adopted by quite a few Evangelical interpreters. Basically this view says that in these passages Paul is speaking of the experience of Christians who are under the grace of God. As Christians we are indeed justified by faith and not by works of law, but on the day of judgment our works (our obedience to God's law) will be on display as evidence of the faith that secures our salvation. Speaking of vv. 7 and 10, Cranfield says the "good work" to which God gives eternal life is probably Christians' "conduct as the expression of their faith" (I:151-152). Verse 13, he says, refers to "that beginning of grateful obedience to be found in those who believe in Christ, which though very weak and faltering and in no way deserving God's favour, is, as the expression of humble trust in God, well-pleasing in His sight" (I:155).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Outline of This Section

In this subsection Paul's thought flows as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Style of Writing

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

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

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

A. JEWS ARE UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. GOD WILL BE PARTIAL TO NO ONE

IN THE JUDGMENT (2:6-11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. UNDER LAW, THE CRITERION OF JUDGMENT

IS OBEDIENCE ALONE (2:12-16)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF THE HEART (2:25-29)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

College: Rom 3:1-31

F. SUCH EQUAL TREATMENT OF JEWS AND GENTILES DOES NOT NULLIFY BUT RATHER MAGNIFIES

GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS (3:1-8)

This paragraph answers anticipated misunderstandings and objections especially from Jewish readers, objections growing out of the things said about the Jews in chapter 2, especially in vv. 25-29. Here Paul returns to a modified diatribe style, posing questions and disposing of them with answers that are emphatic and to the point. They are questions Paul (a former Pharisee) knows are bound to arise, or which perhaps have already been "flung at him" in earlier face-to-face discussions with his former brethren (Stott, 95).

The discussion begins with a question about the role of the Jews in God's plan (vv. 1-2), then quickly moves on to the issue of the character of God himself (vv. 3-4). The thought is that what Paul says about the Jews in chapter 2 seems to nullify the apparent Jewish privilege and exclusiveness enjoyed since Abraham's day, and this in turn calls into question the truthfulness and faithfulness of God. Paul's response leads to a series of somewhat frivolous questions which may be interpreted as one last desperate attempt at Jewish self-justification (vv. 5-8).

Paul deals with these issues very briefly, knowing that he will return to them in more detail in chapters 9-11.

3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Here, as Dunn says (I:138), "The slightly agonized cry of Jewish self-identity responds in bewildered protest" to the teaching of chapter 2. The protester's thought is this: "If being a Jew gives us no advantage over the Gentiles on Judgment Day, then what's the big deal about being a Jew at all? Have we just been spinning our wheels for the last 2,000 years? Are the covenant and its special sign - circumcision - God's idea of a practical joke? Or is he just now changing his mind about the Jews? Is he going back on his word? What's the use of being a Jew, then?"

3:2 Paul's answer is brief: Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. The Jews' basic problem was the assumption that their election to God's service gave them a kind of automatic pass to heaven. Chapter 2 shows that this was false. But here Paul explains that even though this was not the case, there were many great and glorious privileges shared by every person born into Abraham's covenant family, whether he will ultimately be saved or not. The Jews' advantage is "much in many a way" (Lard, 101).

How are we to understand "first of all"? Ordinarily the word "first" (prw'ton , prôton ) indicates the first of a series of events or the first item in a longer list, leading us to expect other items to follow. However, Paul mentions only this one advantage. This has caused some to interpret prôton to mean "first in importance, chiefly" (KJV; Calvin, 113). This seems inappropriate, though, since even what Paul mentions here could hardly exceed in importance the Jews' ultimate privilege of bringing the Messiah into the world (9:5). We conclude that Paul does intend to present a longer series of advantages, but decides not to list them at this point. He waits instead until 9:4-5.

The one advantage mentioned here is that the Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God." It is important in this context to stress this point, even if reference to the others can be delayed until later. This is because of what Paul has just said about the Law of Moses in chapter 2, namely, that mere possession of this specially-revealed law was no basis for any Jew's personal salvation. Does this mean that the Jews' possession of God's special revelation was a trivial and inconsequential thing? No! On the contrary, it is a unique and glorious privilege, and one that is appropriately emphasized at this juncture.

What are the "very words of God" with which the Jews were entrusted? The Greek term is lovgion , ( logion ), used here in the plural with the definite article. (See also Acts 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1 Pet 4:11.) In classical Greek this term was used for divine utterances, or oracles supposedly spoken by the gods through their inspired messengers. This is surely the sense in which Paul is using it here to represent the inspired utterances of the true God. It is variously translated as "the oracles of God" (KJV, NEB, NASB, NRSV), "the words of God" (NAB), and "God's messages" (Phillips). It is basically equivalent to ho logos tou theou , "the word of God," and occurs in this sense often in the LXX, especially in Ps 119. The NIV translation is excellent. It is proper to understand it as referring to the entire written OT, the "Holy Scriptures" (1:2) as possessed by the Jews.

That ta logia tou theou is referring to the written OT is shown by Paul's assertion that these oracles were "entrusted" into the care of the Jews. Murray rightly says, "It is as Scripture that these oracles were committed to the Jews; only in this form could the Jews be said to have been entrusted with them" (I:93). To be entrusted with something means to be given possession of it in order to see that it is protected and put to proper use. That the Jews were "entrusted" with the OT means that God chose them to receive his special revelation in written form, and he charged them with being its guardians or custodians. They were God's chosen stewards of this exceedingly precious gift to mankind; they were "entrusted with the stewardship of safeguarding and preserving" it until the time for its fulfillment should come (Dunn, I:138).

To be entrusted with the oracles of God gave the Jews a privilege and an advantage that far surpassed anything enjoyed by the Gentiles, who knew the Creator and his law through general revelation only. (See Deut 4:8; Ps 147:19-20.) Because they had his special revelation also, the Jews knew God not just as Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge, but also as a loving Savior. They knew not only his law, but also his grace; and they had the blessed opportunity to believe in his promise of forgiveness.

Of special importance is the fact that the Jews knew God's intention to send a Messiah, a Redeemer. They possessed the many predictive prophecies of his coming, and they nurtured the hope for his appearing. Thus those who happened to be living at the time of his coming would be the first to know him and to have the opportunity to believe in him and receive his salvation (1:16). Who could ask for greater advantages than these?

3:3 But [w]hat if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? These questions reflect the fact that many if not most Jews did not in fact put their saving faith in God's gracious promises in Old Covenant times, and did not believe in their Messiah when he came. Some did have faith (and thus were true Jews in terms of 2:29), but most did not.

The words translated "did not have faith" and "lack of faith" can also mean "were unfaithful" and "unfaithfulness." Some (e.g., Dunn, I:131-132; Hendriksen, I:110) think the context favors the latter meaning. This would mean that (some) Jews were unfaithful to their covenant obligations; they were unfaithful to their duties as stewards of the oracles of God. However, others take these words in their more usual sense of "disbelieve" and "unbelief" (e.g., Cranfield, I:180; Murray, I:94). This latter view is preferred, since belief and unbelief are key themes in Romans.

The point is that the Jews through their stewardship of the logia of God had God's covenant promises all along, but many of them habitually, generation after generation, refused to put their heart's trust in these promises. Then when the prophecies and promises of the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, many of Paul's Jewish contemporaries refused to believe in him.

This reality of Jewish unbelief raises the question or possible objection concerning God's faithfulness. Does the unbelief of some Jews mean that God's covenant purposes have failed? Does God's condemnation of the Jews who do not believe (strongly implied in the preceding chapters, especially in 1:5, 16; 2:28-29) mean that he is breaking his promise to them and thus proving to be unfaithful? As Morris (152) words the objection, "Since God has promised to bless his people, he must do this irrespective of what the Jews do"; otherwise he is not being faithful to his promise.

The word for God's "faithfulness" is pivsti" ( pistis ), which in reference to human beings can mean either faith or faithfulness. Since there is no legitimate sense in which God can be said to have faith, it is properly understood here as faithfulness. The word for "nullify" is katargevw , ( katargeô ), which has a strong meaning ("abolish, destroy"; see 1 Cor 6:13; 15:26; Eph 2:15), and a weaker meaning ("nullify, make ineffective, render powerless"; see 3:31; 4:14; 6:6). The latter is intended here, as the NIV has it.

The fact that Paul includes in this question the Greek particle mhv (mç ) shows that he expects a negative answer: "The unbelief of some Jews does not mean that God is unfaithful, does it?" Thus even before he gives his strong negative reply in v. 4, he shows what the answer will be. The sense of the verse as a whole, as Cranfield says (I:181), "is that it is unthinkable that God's faithfulness to his covenant with Israel should be rendered ineffective even by the Jews' unbelief."

3:4 Is God unfaithful? Not at all! This is Paul's first use of the strong negative expression, mhΙ gevnoito , (mç genoito ), literally, "May it not be!" It is usually translated with a strong English colloquialism, as in the NIV. This is an emphatic "No!" answer to the preceding question.

Let God be true, and every man a liar. The verb "be" is givnomai ( ginomai ), which usually means "to become." Since God's nature does not undergo change, we take this to mean, "Let it become evident or obvious that God is always true" (Lard, 102), or "Let God be recognized as true." God is always reliable, faithful and true to his word. He always keeps his promises, both for blessing and condemnation. Because of his very nature he cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

The NIV connects this clause to the next with the simple copulative, "and." This does not properly reflect the stated contrast. Instead it should read "though" (NASB), "although" (NRSV), "even though," or "even if." The idea is that we should always acknowledge that God is true, even if every human being turns out to be a liar (see Ps 116:11). This does not refer to some specific lie, such as the Jews' denial of Jesus' messiahship. It is rather a general principle about the susceptibility of all men to lying and unfaithfulness.

Paul then quotes the second half of Ps 51:4, following the Septuagint: As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." In the Psalm this statement follows David's confession of his sin with Bathsheba, "Against you, you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight . . . ." Why does the second half of the verse (quoted by Paul) begin with "so that"? Is David saying that the very purpose of his sin is to prove God to be true and just (Stott, 96)? Hardly. Rather, he is saying that the purpose of his confession is to prove that the sentence of condemnation God pronounced upon him (2 Sam 12:9-14) is justified (Hendriksen, I:111-112; Moo, I:198-199).

The word for "proved true" is dikaiovw (dikaioô ), usually translated "justified" (NASB) and a key word in the doctrine of salvation. Its use in this verse helps establish its precise meaning as "declared righteous" rather than "made righteous," since we cannot make God righteous though we can acknowledge and declare him to be righteous (see the parallel in Luke 7:29). "When you speak" is literally "in your words." In the Psalm David is saying that God cannot be faulted for his words of condemnation against him. Paul gives the statement a more general application, saying that whenever God speaks, he will be proved right and his words will be found true.

The last line in the verse is difficult, since the Hebrew for "judge" is active voice, while the LXX and Romans 3:4 appear to be passive. Thus the NIV (incorrectly) says, "when you judge," while the NASB says, "when Thou art judged." It is likely that neither is exactly correct, and that the verb (krivnesqai , krinesthai ) should be taken as being in the middle voice: "When you go to law" (Moo, I:187), "When you contend in a law-suit" (Cranfield, I:182). Thus the statement can apply both ways: God always prevails when he brings suit against another, as in the case of David; and he always prevails when someone brings suit against him, as his Jewish accusers are doing in this paragraph. As Bruce says (96), God always wins his case when he enters into judgment.

This verse has two main applications. First, we must not ignore its implications for the nature of God's word in general, and especially for the nature of the Bible. Because it is the Word of God, the Bible will always prove to be true. Critics are constantly taking God to court, as it were, accusing his word of containing errors. But they will always be proved wrong, and God's word will always be vindicated.

The more specific application is Paul's main point, that God's promises to Israel will be fulfilled even if every individual Jew is unfaithful to God. Even if every Jew rejects God and is condemned to hell, God will still be faithful and his covenant will be fulfilled. This is so because God's covenant purpose for Israel did not guarantee the salvation of individual Jews. The basic covenant promise was not to individuals as such, but to Israel as a nation . The promise was not that all Jews would be saved, but that through the nation the Messiah would come. God promised to bless and preserve the nation as a nation until the Messiah came, but not beyond that. (See GRe , 391-395.) This is exactly what he did, and thus he was true to his word and covenant in every way.

3:5 Beginning in this verse Paul sets forth and replies to several anticipated objections to (misunderstandings of, false inferences from) his point in 3:3-4, speaking from the standpoint of the Jewish objectors. Here is the first objection: But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? "Our unrighteousness" is the Jews' unbelief (v. 3), though the point would apply in principle to the sin and unbelief of all men (see 1:18). "God's righteousness" in this case is not the gift of righteousness of which 1:17 speaks, but God's own righteous character in contrast with the unrighteous character of sinners. To say that God is righteous means that his deeds are always consistent with his nature and his words ( GRe , 194-196). This includes much more than his faithfulness to his covenant promises, and is not limited to his promises to bless and deliver his people. It also means God is true to his holy nature and to the ensuing necessity for punishing unbelievers.

The objector suggests that our unrighteousness "brings out more clearly" God's righteousness. This is an implication from v. 4a, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." The idea is that every sin of man forms a dark background upon which the corresponding divine virtue shines forth in contrasting brilliance and glory. This is definitely true, but "what shall we say" about it? That is, what conclusions might we draw from this? The false inference suggested by the Jewish objector is this: "If our sin magnifies God's righteousness, this is to his advantage and glory, and thus he really ought to reward us rather than condemn us. And if this is so, then God's condemnation of us is really unjust."

This question seems to reflect the Jews' refusal to come to grips with the point Paul made in chapter 2, that sinful Jews cannot be saved simply by being Jews, contrary to their misguided assumptions. It is another futile effort to avoid God's judgment, and one that has no merit whatsoever. This is shown by the way Paul words the question. He again uses the particle mç , anticipating a negative answer: "We really can't say that God is unrighteous when he inflicts wrath, can we?" This reflects the fact that all sinners know in their hearts that they really do deserve God's wrath.

(I am using a human argument.) Paul is here making it clear that he is not speaking for himself or for the Holy Spirit, and that he regards the question as the product of faulty human thinking. His statement is "a parenthetic apology for having presented . . . a thought which is all too human in its weakness and folly," and it underlines his own repudiation of the thought (Cranfield, I:184).

3:6 Paul then gives his standard emphatic reply, Certainly not! (mç genoito ), and words a brief reason for this answer: If that were so, how could God judge the world? What is his point here? One possibility is that he is stating a reductio ad absurdum argument. That is, if we grant the objection in the case of the Jews, we would have to grant it in the case of everybody ("the world"), since everyone else's sins also cause God's righteousness to stand out all the more. But this is absurd, because we know there will be a judgment, and that the wicked will be condemned. (See Lard, 104.)

A better understanding is that Paul is saying the question is absurd simply because "to impugn God's justice is to undercut his competence to judge" (Stott, 97). An unjust God is simply not worthy of judging the world. This is why the fact "that God who shall judge the world is just is a fundamental certainty of all theological thinking" (Cranfield, I:185). Abraham sums up this intuition: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen 18:25; see Job 34:17). Indeed, if God were not just and righteous, why would he even want to judge the world? Thus the objection is worthless.

3:7 But the objector persists: Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" This is basically a restatement of the objection in v. 5, as if the debater just refuses to give up on this point. The contrast between God's truthfulness and man's lies (see v. 4) is representative of the general contrast between the holy God and sinful man. The argument is still the same as before: "How can it be fair for a man to be blamed for his falsehood, when it has actually redounded to God's glory?" (Cranfield, I:185). Morris' comment is to the point: "We sinners display incredible ingenuity when we try to justify ourselves" (161).

3:8 Verse 8 asks another question: Why not say . . . "Let us do evil that good may result"? This can be taken two ways. Some see it as the Jewish objector's continuation of the point he tries to make in v. 7, as he presses it to its logical and general conclusion. This, says Moo (I:194-195), is the best understanding of the word "and" (kaiΙ , kai ), which begins the verse, though untranslated by the NIV. One problem with this view is that it leaves the objection basically unanswered, unless v. 6 serves as a reply to both v. 5 and vv. 7-8a (Murray, I:99). This would be somewhat obscure, though. Moo says the very absurdity of the suggestion shows it does not deserve a reply (I:195).

It is better to take this question in another way, namely, as Paul's own question, in which he states the logical yet absurd outcome of both v. 5 and v. 7. Thus the objection in v. 7 does have a response, and this is it (Cranfield, I:187). The force of the question is this: "Well, if that [v. 7] is the case, then we might just as well say, 'Let us do evil that good may result' - which we all know is absolutely ridiculous." Again, the question begins with the particle mç , which implies a negative answer.

This question is basically a statement of the principle that "the end justifies the means." This verse is a repudiation of that principle.

Paul notes parenthetically that he himself was being accused of teaching this lie: as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say . . . . A clear presentation of the gospel of grace sounds so radical to most people that they may indeed assume it implies a kind of indifference to obedience. As far as Paul himself was concerned, "experience had shown that his proclamation of the gospel could be perverted in an antinomian direction" (Thielman, Paul , 176). Here Paul calls this accusation slander or blasphemy. In chapter 6 he discusses this inference in more detail and clearly shows it is not validly derived from the gospel.

Their condemnation is deserved. Of whom is Paul speaking? Perhaps those (the "some") who are slandering him, but more likely those who are pressing the absurd objection voiced in vv. 5 and 7 (Murray, I:98). It is not enough that Paul ridicules their view by showing its logical yet absurd end; now he turns his indignation upon the objectors themselves.

This is a fitting conclusion to this subsection (2:1-3:8). In chapter 2 Paul declares that the Jews are without excuse before God. They assumed their possession and knowledge of the Law of Moses, plus their physical descent from Abraham marked by circumcision, would be sufficient to save them in the final judgment. Paul says no: God will not be partial to the Jews. Anyone counting on law as his mode of salvation can be saved only by perfect obedience, and the Jews are sinners like everyone else. Therefore under law they stand condemned like everyone else. Their convoluted arguments (3:1-7) do nothing to alter this judgment. If anything, such twisted thinking only serves to demonstrate the fact that their condemnation is quite deserved. As Dunn paraphrases this last statement, "They deserve what's coming to them" (I:137).

III. 3:9-20 - UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS AND

HOPELESSNESS UNDER LAW

Paul's main point in the first main section of Romans is to show that no one can be saved by law or law-keeping. Only a perfect person can hope to be accepted by God under the law system. The sad fact is that no such person exists. Every person is a law-breaker and is thus without hope under law.

In the first two main points of this section Paul has dealt with the two alleged exceptions to this rule: the Gentiles, or those without special revelation (1:18-32); and the Jews, or those who do have special revelation (2:1-3:8). Now in this final point (3:9-20) he pulls all of this together and draws his intended conclusion. He reaffirms the reality of universal sinfulness (v. 9), provides OT confirmation of it (vv. 10-18), and stresses the impotence of law as the result of it (vv. 19-20).

3:9 What shall we conclude then? Literally, "What then?" The NIV rightly takes this short phrase as introducing the conclusion of this section. Are we any better? Not at all! This brief passage of three Greek words is very difficult and is open to several interpretations. Three questions must be answered. First, whom is Paul including in the "we"? Does he mean "we Jews"? This is the most common understanding, and is based on the probability that the whole previous section (2:1-3:8) refers particularly to the Jews. Several interpreters believe Paul means "we Christians," however. Cranfield says it means "we human beings in general" (I:147).

Second, what does the verb (proecovmeqa , proechometha ) mean? In the active voice it means "surpass, excel, be superior to, have an advantage, have a head start." But here it is either middle or passive voice. Seen as passive, it would mean, "Are we surpassed? Are we at a disadvantage?" Seen as middle, it would mean, "Are we trying to excuse ourselves? Are we trying to put forward a defense?" Another possibility is that it has a middle form but an active meaning: "Do we excel? Are we any better (off)? Do we have any advantage?"

Third, how should we interpret the negative phrase, ouj pavntw" (ou pantôs )? Some say it is an emphatic negative: "Not at all! Certainly not! By no means!" But the word order lends itself to another interpretation: "Not entirely," or "Not in every respect."

It is obvious that the above variables could be combined in many ways. E.g., "Do we human beings have any defense? None whatsoever!" "Are we Christians any better off than the Jews and Gentiles? Not at all!" "Are we Jews at a disadvantage, then, in light of 3:4-8? No, you are still no worse off than the Gentiles." "Do we Jews have an advantage, then? In light of 3:1-2, you have an advantage in one way, but not in every way." "Do we Jews have an advantage, then? None at all!"

The fact is that any of these views is compatible with Paul's main point; but in light of the context and the flow of his argument, either of the last two views is preferred. As the next sentence shows, in this whole section Paul has been using the two categories of Jews and Gentiles as inclusive of the entire human race. Of these two groups, Paul naturally identifies himself with the former. Also, a comparison seems to be in view, i.e., between the two groups. Thus: "Are we Jews any better off than the Gentiles?"

This query is stimulated by 3:1-2, where Paul affirms that the Jews have a great advantage over the Gentiles, especially in their possession of the oracles of God. Just so no one will misunderstand, Paul asks this question in v. 9 so that he can reemphasize the point made in chapter 2. That is, no matter what privileges the Jews may have enjoyed in relation to their unique role as the people through whom the Messiah would come, in reference to sin and judgment and their standing before God, they have no advantage whatsoever.

Paul's next sentence shows that this is the main point: We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. Thus the Jews have no "superior standing of righteousness" in the eyes of God (Hendriksen, I:120). With reference to sin and guilt the Jews are on the same level as the Gentiles. Paul has already made this charge against the Gentiles in 1:18-32 and against the Jews in 2:1-29.

"Made the charge" is a legal term that refers to the act of filing charges against someone, or accusing them before a court of law. He has charged both Jews and Greeks (used in the sense of non-Jews, or Gentiles) of being "under sin." To be "under sin" is more than just committing sins; it is more than just being a sinner. It means to be under the power and dominion of sin. Sin is thus represented as a slave master, "a power controlling man" (Cranfield, I:191); and sinners are seen as "helpless slaves to the power of sin" (Moo, I:204). See 6:16-22 for further reflection on this idea.

The main point of this summary statement is the emphasis on universality . Paul says " both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin," with no exceptions. As Dunn says, this "sums up the overall conclusion of 1:18-3:8" (I:148). Thus we have "Paul's own comment on his purpose in this section of his letter" (Moo, I:203). He will draw his final conclusion from this universality of sin in vv. 19-20.

3:10 In v. 9 Paul says he has "made the charge" that all are under sin. Now in vv. 10-18 he offers proof of this charge in the form of citations from Scripture: As it is written . These words introduce a "quotation-chain" (Hendriksen, I:121) of fourteen short and sharp statements from several places in the OT. The first six (vv. 10-12) are general affirmations of the sinfulness of all men. The next four (vv. 13-14) reinforce these general statements by emphasizing sins of the tongue, or the spoken word. The next three (vv. 15-17) zero in on sins of violent acts. The last one (v. 18) gives the root cause of all such sins.

The quotations are not verbatim but are usually quite close to the LXX and give the general meaning of the texts cited. In their original OT contexts some of these statements had a limited application, but Paul applies them to all people in general. It is especially significant that he applies them to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, since a major "object of these citations is to prove the undoubted guilt of the Jews" (Lard, 108).

"There is no one righteous, not even one . . . ." (From Eccl 7:20; see Ps 14:1.) Here the word "righteous" (divkaio" , dikaios ) is used in its basic sense of "conforming to a norm." The norm to which every human being must conform is the law of God, in whatever form it is available and relevant to him. This text says that no one is righteous; no one has conformed to this norm; everyone has broken God's law; everyone has sinned (3:23). That is, no one is righteous in an absolute sense, in the sense of sinless perfection, which is the only way we could be accepted by God on the basis of our own righteousness. Thus the need for the gift of righteousness revealed and offered in the gospel (1:17).

3:11 "there is no one who understands . . . ." (From Ps 14:2; 53:2.) No creature can have infinite knowledge and know all possible truth about God. However, God gives every human being sufficient knowledge of himself and his law, even through general revelation (1:18-21; 2:14-15). This is the kind of understanding to which this texts refers. The problem is that no one receives this knowledge with a pure and open heart (Jer 17:9); hardness of heart leads to darkened understanding and willful ignorance (Eph 4:18). We tend to suppress the truth in favor of foolish and futile speculations (1:18, 21), and exchange truth for lies (1:25). This is a universal problem; everyone is guilty of it to some degree.

There is "no one who seeks God." (From Ps 14:2; 53:2.) Since "seeking for God" presupposes a state of separation from God, it is something only sinners need to do. But the sinner's guilt causes him to run away from God (v. 12) and attempt to hide from him (Gen 3:8; Rev 6:15-17). In the light of 1:21-25, we understand that even the many false religions of the world are not efforts to seek God, but efforts to escape from him (MacArthur, I:184). Thus if any are to be saved, God must take the initiative and seek sinners, which he does through special providence, special revelation, and the redeeming work of Jesus Christ (Luke 19:10).

3:12 "All have turned away" from God. (From Ps 14:3; 53:3.) As previously mentioned, it is characteristic of sinners to turn from God rather than toward him. The verb (ejkklivnw , ekklinô ) means to avoid or to deliberately turn away, not just to accidentally lose one's way (Morris, 167). See 16:17; 1 Pet 3:11. "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way" (Isa 53:6).

"they have together become worthless . . . ." (From Ps 14:3; 53:3.) As sinners, all have become unprofitable or useless. The Greek word translates a Hebrew word used to describe milk that has turned sour and thus cannot be used for its intended purpose. Likewise sinners have lost their usefulness and cannot fulfill their intended purpose of bringing glory to God. They are like milk that has turned sour, fruit that has rotted, or meat than has gone bad.

"there is no one who does good, not even one . . . ." (From Ps 14:1, 3; 53:1, 3.) "Good" here refers to acts of obedience to God and acts of kindness toward one's fellow men. This does not mean that no one ever does acts of goodness; it means that no one always does them. There is no one who does good, and only good. The universality of this indictment is underscored by the addition of "not even one." This is an appropriate way to end the series of six quotations that emphasize this universality.

3:13 "Their throats are open graves . . . ." (From Ps 5:9.) After a series of statements about the general sinfulness of mankind, Paul now begins to cite OT verses that refer to specific representative sins as illustrations of the general point. This citation is the first of four that focus on "the sinfulness of human speech" (Moo, I:206). A grave contains the rotting and putrid remains of a corpse; when it is opened, it emits a horrible stench. The sinner's throat (lavrugx , larynx ) is like this grave. When he opens it to speak, all sorts of ugly, rotten, obscene words pour forth. (See Eph 4:29.) This follows Jesus' specific teaching in Matt 12:34: "Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" (see Matt 12:35; 15:18-20). Nothing reveals the state of the heart more consistently than how a person talks. A rotten heart produces rotten speech.

"their tongues practice deceit." (From Ps 5:9.) This reads "They smoothed their tongues" in the Hebrew, says Robertson (345). That is, their speech is filled with smooth, oily talk, "the deceptive flatteries of those who intend evil" (Moo, I:206). In Scripture the tongue is commonly linked with speech and especially with lying and evil talk (see Prov 6:17; 12:19; Micah 6:12; Jas 1:26; 3:1-12).

"The poison of vipers is on their lips." (From Ps 140:3.) Understanding this to refer to the Egyptian cobra, Robertson says, "The poison of the asp lies in a bag under the lips" (345). This vivid analogy refers to those who use their words to destroy others, e.g., through lies, false accusations, slander, or gossip. Such words are like the poisonous venom of a snake.

3:14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." (From Ps 10:7.) To curse someone is to verbally call for harm to befall him. It usually springs from a heart that is full of bitterness or hostility or anger toward that person. The sinner's heart is "full of" such bitter curses, i.e., it is not just an exception but is typical of his lifestyle in general.

Some have suggested that v. 13 refers to evil speech directed against mankind, while this verse refers to evil speech directed against God. There is no real basis for such limitations, though. The "cursing" mentioned here is likely directed toward both, though the context of Ps 10:7 particularly refers to harm done to others.

3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood . . . ." (From Isa 59:7.) This and the next two citations stress sinners' evil deeds, even to the point of shedding blood in violent assault and murder. Here the focus shifts from the organs of speech to the feet, the means of mobility by which a person is able to put his purposes into action. Being "swift" to shed blood suggests that such evil is carried out with eagerness and perverse delight.

3:16 "ruin and misery mark their ways . . . ." (From Isa 59:7.) This highlights the depravity of the sinner's heart by describing the wreckage he leaves in his wake. He pursues his selfish desires and purposes with no concern for others and without caring how he may be harming them. The picture is that of a village devastated by a killer hurricane that has passed through. "Ruin" describes the shattered wreckage itself; "misery" refers to the pain and suffering experienced by those over whom the sinner has run roughshod. "Wherever they go, they leave behind them a trail of destruction and misery" (Cranfield, I:195).

3:17 "and the way of peace they do not know." (From Isa 59:8.) "Peace" here is not primarily a state of inner peace, or peace with God. In line with the previous citations, it seems to be talking about peace and harmony among men, or human beings getting along with each other. Living in peace is something sinners do not know how to do, says Paul. Their way is "discord and strife" (Lard, 110).

3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (From Ps 36:1.) The "fear of God" in the sense of reverence and awe toward the Creator should be the most fundamental attitude of the human heart. The "fear of God" in the sense of terror and dread before the Lawgiver and Judge should be the most immediate effect of sin upon the sinner's heart. But this citation says the sinner is characteristically devoid of both.

"Before their eyes" probably means the eyes of the heart (see Eph 1:18), or the spiritual consciousness. The analogy is appropriate, because as Cranfield says, by his eyes "a man directs his steps. So to say that there is no fear of God before his eyes is a figurative way of saying that the fear of God has no part in directing his life, that God is left out of his reckoning, that he is a practical, whether or not he is a theoretical, atheist" (I:195). "To be destitute of the fear of God is to be godless, and no indictment could be more inclusive and decisive," says Murray (I:104-105). It is "the very essence of their sinfulness" (Cranfield, I:195), "the root error that gives rise to the manifold sins of humanity" (Moo, I:207). Thus this indictment is appropriate as the conclusion of the list of quotations used by Paul to prove the universal sinfulness of man.

The total picture of mankind drawn here is very dark and somber indeed. But while it shows that every knowing person is definitely under the power of sin (v. 9), it does not mean that all individuals are equally guilty of all the vices here named (the same as for the Gentiles in 1:18-32). Nor does it provide support for the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity contrary to the claims of Stott (101). This passage demonstrates the reality of depraved behavior and depraved hearts, to be sure, but there is nothing here to suggest that even the worst of sinners cannot be convicted by the gospel and respond to it in repentant faith (1:17; 10:17). That and that alone would be the essence of total depravity.

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law. . . . This verse and the next are crucial, since they draw the conclusion toward which the whole first section has been pointing. Also, a right understanding of this first half of v. 19 is crucial for a proper understanding of the two verses as a whole.

"We know" does not specify a particular group; it is simply a way of introducing an item of common knowledge, a generally-accepted principle. It is equivalent to "everybody knows." In this context it means "Everyone who is spiritually informed knows."

What is it that everybody knows? That whatever "the law" says is relevant only to those who are subject to that law. This is a general principle and applies to every sort of jurisdiction, large or small. The ordinances of one local township apply only to those who live or visit there. The building codes of one county do not apply in other counties. The laws of the U.S.A. apply to everyone who is within its borders.

What law or jurisdiction does Paul have in mind here? Many will immediately think of the Law of Moses, since Paul is especially concerned to demonstrate the sinfulness of the Jews. But most commentators take him to mean the OT in general, since he has just quoted from the wisdom literature and the prophets. Indeed, the same phrase (without the definite article) is used in 2:12 to refer to the special revelation given to the Jews.

In my opinion, though, the term "law" in this verse and the next has an even broader scope than this. Because of the absolute, universal language used in these two verses, I believe it refers to God's law in a very general sense, including (1) the demands and judgments of the OT as it speaks to the Jews; (2) the requirements of the "work of the law" written on the hearts of all, including the Gentiles; and (3) the requirements for holy living revealed in the NT Scriptures. This view is supported by the contrasting phrase in 3:21, "apart from law." There "law" cannot be equated with either the Mosaic Law or the OT as such, since it is distinguished from "the Law and the Prophets" (i.e., the OT).

What, then, does it mean to be "under the law"? The phrase is actually ejn novmw/ , (en nomô , see 2:12), which means "in the law, within the law, within the sphere of the law" (see Moo, I:200). A similar phrase is uJpo novmon , ( hypo nomon ), literally "under the law" (6:14-15; 1 Cor 9:20; Gal 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18). Only the context of each passage can determine if nomos means the OT law specifically or God's law more generally. Here, as we have seen, it means the latter. To be "within the sphere of God's law" in 3:19 basically means first of all to be subject to its commands and penalties. But more significantly it means to be under the system of law as a standard of judgment and a means of being right with God.

What group of people is meant, then, by "those who are under the law"? Since most interpreters say "law" here means the OT, they say Paul is referring only to the Jews. Murray (I:106-107) and Hendriksen (I:124) agree that "law" means the OT, but they declare that it applies to both Jews and Gentiles. This application is correct, but "law" here is God's law in any form (in the heart, in the OT, in the NT). Thus "those who are under the law" are indeed both Jews and Gentiles, or all people in general.

Thus "whatever the law says" is addressed to all. Exactly what does the law say to us? It is taken for granted that it speaks God's will in the form of commandments. It has been established that the law also says that commandment-breakers are worthy of death (1:32). Those who break the commandments will suffer the penalty of the law; those who keep the commandments will escape that penalty (2:7-10). In this immediate context Paul refers to the point made by the series of quotations in vv. 10-18, i.e., the law of God says that everyone - EVERYONE - is a sinner.

This is relevant to the Jews, to be sure, since they considered themselves as exceptions to the rule that no one can be saved by law. But they are not the only ones who need convincing on this point. The whole world has the tendency to view salvation in terms of making oneself acceptable to God by one's own efforts ( GRe , ch. 3). Thus this passage speaks out "against every attempt at self-salvation" (Stott, 104).

. . . so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. The word for "so that" is i{na ( hina ), which expresses purpose but also result. The reason why God's law stresses the reality of universal sinfulness is "so that every mouth may be silenced." The word for "silenced" evokes a courtroom scene in which the accused defendant is unable to respond to the charges brought against him (Cranfield I:196-197). See Ps 63:11; 107:42. When confronted by the evidence every person is "silenced by the indictment of being absolutely guilty and unable to make even the least defense" (Lenski, 241).

" Every mouth" means every individual, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul has already shown that the Gentiles (those with general revelation only) are "without excuse" (1:20), and that the Jews (those with special revelation also) are also "without excuse" (2:1). This is the sense in which every mouth is silenced. The same universal language is used in the next clause: the "whole world," without exception.

"Held accountable" translates uJpovdiko" , ( hypodikos ), used only here in the NT. "Accountable" is really too weak a translation, since it does not necessarily imply guilt. We are all accountable for our deeds, whether we actually do anything wrong or not. But hypodikos refers to someone who has done something wrong and has been brought before the court to answer for it. The picture, says Cranfield, is "of men standing at God's bar, their guilt proven beyond all possibility of doubt, awaiting God's sentence of condemnation" (I:197).

The law reveals that all are accountable "to God" or guilty "before God" (dative case). In secular Greek the dative is used after hypodikos "for the court one comes before or more commonly the person to whom the right of complaint belongs" (Maurer, "uJpovdiko" ," 557). In God's court, he is both the accuser (the One wronged) and the judge (Moo, I:208).

All in all, Paul represents all humanity as sinners under the law who are standing in a hopelessly terrifying situation. Why does he make this point? In order to show the universal need for grace, for the gift of God's righteousness.

3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law . . . . Here Paul draws the conclusion toward which this whole section has been pointing: the impotence of the law as a way of being right with God. This is "the grand conclusion for which the Apostle has been preparing the mind of his readers" (Lard, 112). The word "therefore" (diovti , dioti ) refers back not just to v. 19 but to the whole section, 1:18-3:19. "Therefore," given what has been established in this section as a whole, it is plain that "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law." The only way to be saved by law-keeping is through perfect obedience, but all have sinned. Thus, as Bruce well puts it, "Because of the universal fact of sin, the way of acceptance with God by reason of our works of righteousness is closed - the notice is clearly worded: 'No Road This Way'" (98).

This part of v. 20 echoes Ps 143:2b, "For no one living is righteous before you." The universal language in v. 19 is continued; "no one" leaves room for no exceptions. The Greek actually says "no flesh," a Hebraic way of saying "no human being."

"Declared righteous" is from dikaiovw (dikaioô ), which is the word usually translated "justified" (see 2:13; 3:4). It is a courtroom term and thus follows naturally upon the previous verse. It refers to the judge's decision to drop the charges, and his declaration that the accused person may go free without suffering any penalty. In other words, it means to be declared righteous before the law. It does not mean "to make righteous," nor does it necessarily imply that the person is righteous. It simply means that the person is considered and declared to be right with the law.

"Observing the law" is a poor translation of the important expression "works of law" (e[rgwn novmou , ergôn nomou ). The word "law" should not be capitalized here, as if it means the Mosaic Law. As in the previous verse it means God's law in general, in all its forms. "Works of law" is also used in 3:28, another key verse in Romans. There is no article before either "works" or "law" in either verse. This expression refers to all responses to whatever commandments of God's law apply to any given person. Efforts to limit this phrase to the works required by the Law of Moses only, or to OT commandments only (as in Dunn, I:154-9), are seriously misguided and are a grave hindrance to a right understanding of Paul's main point in Romans and of grace in general. The same is true of efforts to limit this phrase to works done from wrong motives (as in Barrett, 70).

Paul's point is that no one will be declared right with God on the basis of his obedience to God's commands. This would require absolute perfection, which no one has achieved or will achieve. (See Moo, I:213; Cranfield, I:198.) The universal fact of sin absolutely rules out the law system as a way of justification. In theory such justification is possible, as 2:13 declares; but in reality it never occurs, as this verse affirms.

"Will be declared righteous [justified]" is future tense but does not refer just to some specific future event such as the final judgment. It is stated rather as a general principle. Because of sin no one will ever be justified before God on the basis of his own righteousness or works. Once sin enters a person's life, henceforward that door will be closed forever. See Murray, I:107.

. . . rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. "Rather" is not a good translation of the transitional word gavr ( gar ), which means "for" or "because." The latter well suits Paul's meaning here. No one will be justified by works of law because the law reveals all of us to be sinners. As Phillips translates, "Indeed it is the straight-edge of the Law that shows us how crooked we are." (See 5:20; 7:7.) The very law by which many assume they will be vindicated will actually be the instrument of their condemnation.

The point is that we need to use God's law for something that it can do rather than try to use it for something it can never do, which is to make any sinner right with God. It has other proper functions, to be sure, but one thing the law can do is show us how sinful we are and thus how much we need God's gift of righteousness through grace.

All in all the contents of this first main section of Romans are anything but gospel . From beginning (1:18) to end (3:20), the message is one long dirge of sin, wrath, and judgment. The essence of this section is as Hendriksen sums it up: "Man is doomed, doomed, doomed. His condition is one of thorough hopelessness and despair. And the law, with its demand of nothing less than moral and spiritual perfection . . . creates in him a dreadful, mortifying sense of sin; hence, a presentiment of doom, total and everlasting" (I:125).

"Good news"? Hardly. But the fact is that self-righteous, complacent people must be convinced of their desperate and hopeless plight under law before they can acknowledge their need for grace. Thus this section is a necessary prelude to the one that follows, which presents us with the way of grace as God's marvelous and powerful alternative to the impotent and futile way of law.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

3:21-5:21 - PART TWO

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE

AS A WAY OF SALVATION

The first main section of Romans demonstrates the seriousness of the human predicament under law. A person could be saved under the law system if he obeyed God's law perfectly. But 1:18-3:20 shows conclusively that all have sinned; therefore no one can be justified by obedience to law. Under law there is only condemnation. For those who remain under law the holy side of God's nature, the "consuming fire" of his wrath (Heb 12:29), will prevail in the end. Indeed, "it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31).

But God is not only a consuming fire; he is also love (1 John 4:8); and out of his boundless love he has provided another way or system of salvation, the way of grace . Whereas the rules of the law system allow for the justification only of the sinless, the grace system allows God to justify the wicked (4:5). Indeed, it is the only way a sinner can be justified.

The purpose of this second main section of Romans (3:21-5:21) is thus to set forth the essence of grace as a way of salvation, a way provided by the love of God as an alternative to law. Saving grace is the free, unmerited gift of salvation to sinners who have no claim on it and who in fact deserve its opposite. It is "favor bestowed when wrath is owed" ( GRe , 375-377).

In reference to salvation from sin the term "grace" is used in several ways. First, grace is an attribute of the divine nature. It is the way God's love responds to sin. It is his willingness and desire to accept us in spite of our sin. It is his readiness to forgive (Ps 86:5) and his desire to "graciously give us all things" (8:32) - the very things we have forfeited through our sin. In his love he wants us back, even though we have sinned against him. This is the heart of God's nature as a gracious God.

Second, the term "grace" is used for the gift of salvation itself. The content of this gift of grace is actually a "double cure," which is God's remedy for the "double trouble" caused by sin. Sin affects the sinner externally or objectively, causing the legal problem of guilt and subjecting him to the penalty of the law. It also affects the sinner internally or subjectively, causing the heart to become evil, weak, depraved, and spiritually sick. The gift of grace includes justification or forgiveness of sins to resolve the former; it includes regeneration and sanctification to overcome the latter. The former is accomplished through the power of the redeeming blood of Christ; the latter is effected through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In general this section of Romans deals with the former, while the next section (6:1-8:39) deals with the latter.

Finally the term "grace" is used for the system of salvation given by God as the alternative to law. "You are not under law [as a way of salvation], but under grace [as a way of salvation]" (6:14). The contrast between law and grace is striking; they are in fact opposites. In the introduction to 1:18-3:20 the rules of the law system were stated thus:

KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS, AND (THEREFORE)

ESCAPE THE PENALTY.

BREAK THE COMMANDMENTS, AND (THEREFORE)

SUFFER THE PENALTY.

But the rules of the grace system, i.e., the way to be "right with God" in terms of grace, may be stated as follows:

KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS, BUT SUFFER THE PENALTY.

BREAK THE COMMANDMENTS, BUT ESCAPE THE PENALTY.

Whereas the rules of the law system are set forth in 2:7-10, the rules of the grace system are stated succinctly in 2 Cor 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Under the law system a person is treated with utter fairness; he gets exactly what he deserves. But the grace system is just the opposite. It is neither fair nor just; under grace a person gets the very opposite of what he deserves. The first half of the grace formula, of course, applies only to Jesus Christ, since he is the only one who will ever keep the commandments with sinless perfection. He "had no sin." But at the same time he suffered the penalty; it was God's plan for him "to be sin for us," and in our place to suffer the divine wrath we deserve because of our sin. This was the exact opposite of what he deserved.

This is what makes the second half of the grace formula possible, namely, the part that applies to us. Under the grace system we who have broken the commandments also receive the very opposite of what we deserve. Through our faith in Jesus "the righteousness of God" - Jesus' payment of the penalty for sin in our place - is counted as our own, enabling us to escape the penalty we deserve.

This grace system, God's wonderful alternative to law, is the main focus of this section of Romans, with special attention being given to the first part of the double cure, or justification. The rest of chapter 3 (vv. 21-31) is the actual explanation of grace as a way of salvation. Chapter 4 provides OT confirmation, with Abraham being set forth as a paradigm of grace. Chapter 5 deals with the most immediate practical result of a right understanding of grace, namely, assurance of salvation. The first part (vv. 1-11) explains the relation between justification by faith and assurance; the latter part (vv. 12-21) emphasizes the all-sufficiency of the death of Christ as the source of saving grace.

I. 3:21-31 - GRACE AS JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S BLOOD THROUGH FAITH

Paul has just declared that the whole world has sinned and stands guilty before God (3:19). The fact of guilt raises the problem of justification. How can sinners be justified, or brought back into a right relationship with God and his law? Can a person work himself back into a proper relation with this law? Perhaps with a little extra effort, we can go "above and beyond the call of duty" and do enough good works to make up for our sins. Is this possible? No! In the parable of the unprofitable servant (Luke 17:7-10) Jesus teaches that every good work we can possibly do is already owed to God (required by his law) and therefore cannot be used to pay the debt incurred by our sin. There is no such thing as extra merit; this is why works of law cannot justify sinners.

What, then, can we do? How can we be justified, be counted righteous, be accepted by God, escape the wrath and condemnation we deserve? Does any provision of the law allow a sinner to go unpunished? Can we remain under law and still be justified? No! If we are to be justified, we must leave the framework of law and enter the sphere of grace. This subsection of Romans shows us what this means by explaining that sinners can be justified by the blood of Jesus Christ through their faith in him. We can be justified only by faith apart from works of law (3:28).

In establishing this point the Apostle Paul produces what Morris declares to be "possibly the most important single paragraph ever written" (173). He is referring to 3:21-26. This is, indeed, the "centre and heart" of the letter, as Cranfield says (I:199). In one compact manifesto Paul brings together the heavy theological concepts of the righteousness of God, faith, sin, justification, grace, redemption, propitiation, and the blood of Christ. By emphasizing the righteousness of God and faith, he elaborates on 1:17, the key verse in the epistle's introduction.

A. RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH

IS NOW FULLY REVEALED (3:21-23)

3:21 Paul's first words in this section emphasize the contrast between the two ways of salvation: But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known . . . . Under law, salvation is based on perfect human righteousness. Herein lies the impotence of the law system; 1:18-3:20 has shown man's righteousness indeed to be "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6) and futile for justification. But under grace, salvation is based on the righteousness of God , the meaning of which was discussed fully under 1:17 above. Here, as in 1:17, it does not mean God's own personal righteousness, the attribute of his nature that requires him always to be faithful to himself. It is rather the gift of righteousness that God gives to sinners, on the basis of which he accepts them as righteous. Specifically, it is Christ's satisfaction of the law's requirement that sinners be punished, which he accomplished in our place, as our substitute. This righteousness is bestowed upon us as a gift. The NIV reflects this interpretation when it translates the simple genitive "of God" as "from God."

The gift of God's righteousness is directly related to justification. These words have the same Greek root ( dikai -). "Righteousness" is dikaiosuvnh (dikaiosunç ), and "justification" is dikaivwsi" (dikaiôsis ). "To justify" means to count righteous or declare righteous (see 2:13, and 3:24 below). To say that the righteousness of God has been made known is to say that the means by which God justifies sinners has been manifested.

In what way has this righteousness been "made known"? This is the same idea as 1:17, namely, that the righteousness of God has now been revealed in the gospel. This refers not just to the spoken message of the gospel, but primarily to the saving events upon which that message is based. "Made known" is perfect tense, referring to the decisive past events of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See 3:26.

A key part of this sentence is the phrase "apart from law." "Apart from" is cwriv" (chôris ), a preposition indicating distinct separation from something. "Law" is the law system or the law of God in general, not specifically the Law of Moses. Thus the phrase means "without relation to the law system, without any connection to law." See 3:28.

Exactly what does this prepositional phrase modify? Some say it modifies the verb, "made known." I.e., while law can manifest God's righteousness in the sense of his personal purity and integrity, only the gospel can make known his righteousness in the sense of his gift to sinners. Thus it is revealed "apart from law." The other possibility is that it modifies "righteousness of God." I.e., the kind of divine righteousness on the basis of which sinners are justified is not a righteousness measured by law but one that is defined and established outside the law system. It can be understood only in relation to a totally different way of salvation, the way of grace. While both views are possible, the latter is preferred. This righteousness that is apart from law is God's gracious alternative to the unattainable righteousness that comes by works of law (3:20).

Paul says this righteousness of God that is apart from law has been made known "now." The main question here is whether this "now" has a logical or a temporal, chronological sense. If the former, it is just a rhetorical device meaning something like "on the other hand." If the latter, it is setting up a contrast between what was known in the OT era and what has been manifested "now," in this NT age, through the work of the Messiah. The divine grace-righteousness has been revealed here and now, in our time, in our day. See 3:26; Gal 4:4. This latter meaning seems to be the intended sense.

This does not mean that this way of salvation is only now just beginning, and is only now for the first time being applied. It does not mean that people were saved only by law up to this point, and that Christ introduced grace as a new and different way of salvation. Salvation through grace, by means of the gift of the righteousness of Christ, has always been the only possible way sinners could be saved and have been saved. If Adam was saved, he was saved thus, "apart from law." Paul's primary example of this way of salvation is Abraham (ch. 4), who predated even Moses. What has happened "now" is that this grace-righteousness has been manifested as never before in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. This is not the first knowledge of grace itself, but the first clear knowledge of the basis for it in the blood of Christ. (See Murray, I:108-109; Morris, 173.)

This does not mean that there was no knowledge of this at all prior to Christ's coming. Thus to preclude a possible misunderstanding Paul says this was something to which the Law and the prophets testify . See 1:2; 4:1-25. "Law" here means the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch; "the Law and the prophets" together represent the entire OT (see Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23). They testify to justification by faith (cf. Gen 15:6 [Rom 4:3]; Hab 2:4 [Rom 1:17]) and to the taking away of sins through the sacrifice of a substitutionary sin-bearer (cf. the Mosaic sacrificial system and Isa 53). But now through the cross this way of grace has been laid open for all to see.

3:22 Here Paul further clarifies the nature of the righteousness that is apart from law: This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. Here again the implied contrast is between law and grace as systems of salvation. Grace-righteousness is not given to sinners by works of law (v. 20), but "through faith in Jesus Christ." This is the same thought expressed in v. 28, that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (NASB). For a discussion of the nature of faith, see 1:16.

Because the words "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive case, some have argued that Paul is speaking of "the faith of Jesus Christ," or more specifically, the faithfulness of Jesus in fulfilling his saving mission on our behalf (Shields, 40-41). Most agree, though, that this is an objective genitive, i.e., that Jesus Christ is the object of the faith which receives the gift of God's righteousness.

As noted under 1:16, the faith by which sinners receive the gift of righteousness is not just a general faith in God's existence and providential care, but is a specific faith in the person and work of the Savior, Jesus Christ. In OT times, since Jesus was not yet known, the object of saving faith was God's gracious promise to forgive sins. Now that the Redeemer himself has come and has purchased us with his own blood (Acts 20:28), we cannot be saved unless our faith is specifically directed toward him.

The role of faith is asserted twice: "through faith . . . to all who believe." When Paul says "through [diav , dia ] faith," he is designating faith as the necessary means by which the gift of God's righteousness is received by sinners. As such, faith is never to be understood as a meritorious act, or as something we do that in some way deserves to be rewarded by God. The source and basis of grace-righteousness is not our faith but the one toward whom it is directed, namely, Jesus Christ.

"To all who believe" is not just a repetition for emphasis. The stress here is not on the word "believe" but on "all." Perhaps the point once again is to erase all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and to show that they have equal access to the gospel (1:16). In any case the "all" serves "to highlight the universal availability of God's righteousness," which is "available to anyone who has faith in Christ" (Moo, I:225).

The rest of v. 22, There is no difference , goes better with v. 23 and along with that verse forms a parenthesis that sums up a main conclusion of 1:18-3:20. The NIV does not translate the particle gavr ( gar ), meaning "for" or "because." This little word introduces the reason why the righteousness of God is available to everyone on the same terms, namely, because "there is no difference" in their starting point or their status before God: all have sinned.

3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . . This verse also begins with gavr ( gar ), "for," explaining why there is no difference among human beings as to the manner of their salvation. None can be saved by law through works; all must be saved by grace through faith - because all have sinned, and grace through faith is the only possible way for sinners to be saved. Once a person has sinned even once, he has forfeited all possibility of salvation by law-righteousness (Jas 2:10).

Because the language is the same as 5:12, some say this is a reference to Adam's sin and to the idea that all sinned in Adam (e.g., Shedd, 76-77). Whether this is so or not, the main emphasis must be upon the personal sins of all people of accountable age. Following this closely upon the first main section (1:18-3:20), this verse surely refers to the "all" described in 3:9-20. To say that all "have sinned" (aorist tense) means that all who have ever lived up to this point have sinned, and by implication the same will be true from any vantage point all the way up to the final judgment (see Dunn, I:167).

"Fall short" is a good translation of the second verb (uJsterevw , hystereô ). It means "to lack, to be deficient in, to come short of, to be wanting, to fall behind." It is present tense, which suggests that it refers to a condition and not to action (Murray, I:112). I.e., once a person has sinned, he is in the condition or state of being destitute of the glory of God.

The difficult part of this verse is determining what is meant by "the glory of God" in this context. Both Murray (I:112-113) and Hendriksen (I:128-129) set forth four possible understandings. (1) It means the honor and glory due unto God through our perfect obedience (Lard, 115). By sinning we fail to glorify him as we should. See 1:21; 4:20; 1 Cor 10:31. (2) It means the honor and praise God would give us if we lived perfectly before him (DeWelt, 55; Calvin, 140). By sinning we become unworthy of such praise. See 2:7, 10; John 5:44; 12:43. (3) It means the glory of God's presence in the future eschatological kingdom, from which sinners are excluded. See 5:2; 8:18, 21; Phil 3:21; Rev 21:23. (4) It means the reflected glory of God that creatures made in his image are supposed to display by imitating his perfect moral character (Moo, I:226-227; Murray, I:113). See Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15-16. This glory is bedimmed by sin, as a light bulb controlled by a rheostat becomes dimmer and dimmer when turned down. Salvation reverses this process and in the last day completely restores us to this image and glory of God. See 1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 3:18; 2 Pet 1:4.

All of these are possible meanings. The weakest is the third one, since the present tense suggests the falling short is a present condition and not just a future one. I have a slight preference for the fourth view, where the "glory of God" is "his image or glory in which all were made but which all fail to live up to" (Stott, 109). This goes well with the context. Paul's point is that the fact of sin disqualifies us from being acceptable to God on the basis of our own personal righteousness; thus we stand in dire need of the righteousness that comes from God through faith.

B. SINNERS ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (3:24-26)

These three verses, says Godet (149), form "the most important passage in the whole Epistle." Arguably, it is the most important in the whole Bible. It is like the Hope Diamond in a setting of gold. From its depths shine forth the most glorious and most welcome truths of God's revelation.

3:24 and are justified freely by his grace . . . . The verb "justified" is actually a participle and is translated literally by the NASB: "being justified." This presents a difficulty because a participle usually relates to and modifies a word or phrase in the adjacent context. Thus grammatically it would seem to relate to "all have sinned" in v. 23, as the NIV translation suggests. (See the NRSV also.) But this makes the "all" in v. 23 the subject of "justified," and suggests universal salvation unless some awkward paraphrasing is done, e.g., "All have sinned and will not be saved unless they are justified freely by his grace."

Because of this difficulty many take vv. 22b-23 as a parenthesis and connect the participle back to "all who believe" in v. 22a (e.g., Murray, I:114; Hendriksen, I:129). This yields the quite valid thought that all who believe are thus justified freely by his grace. This is probably the way it should be understood. Because of the intervening parenthesis the participle can be translated as a main verb, thus: "Those who believe are justified freely by his grace."

Thus in this unusual way v. 24 introduces one of the most important of all doctrines, justification by grace. The verb has appeared already three times in Romans (2:13; 3:4, 20), but this is its first use for the act of God by which sinners are saved through Christ's blood.

As stated under 3:21 above, justification and righteousness are closely related. "To justify" means "to declare righteous." It does not mean "to make righteous," contrary to the traditional Roman Catholic view. These two distinct definitions of justification are one of the key differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Justification is a legal or judicial term; it has to do with one's relation to the law (see 2:13). It is best understood as the declaration made by a judge once his final decision as to guilt or innocence has been made. When he justifies a defendant, the judge declares that he is in a right standing with the law. Some say it is equivalent to the judge declaring the defendant "not guilty"; I prefer to say it means that the judge declares "No penalty for you!"

That this is the true meaning of justification is seen by the way the Bible uses it in legal contexts, and especially in contrast with condemnation. See Deut 25:1; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23; Matt 12:37; Rom 5:16; 8:33-34. When a judge condemns someone, that does not make the latter unrighteous or guilty; it is simply a pronouncement that he is guilty. Likewise when a judge justifies someone, this does not make him righteous; it only declares his righteousness. This is also illustrated by the way the term is used in Luke 7:29, which literally says that the people justified God. This cannot mean that they made him righteous; they were only acknowledging his righteousness.

All of this shows that justification is not strictly a salvation concept; whether it is or not depends solely on the basis upon which a person is declared to be righteous. When God is "justified," this obviously has nothing to do with his salvation; he is declared righteous because he is righteous. When a person who is truly innocent stands trial and his innocence is demonstrated, the law requires the judge to justify that person on the basis of his actual righteousness. If anyone could live a perfect life before God, God would justify him on the basis of his own works of personal righteousness (2:13). Such a person would merit or deserve to be justified.

However, because all have sinned, this will never happen (3:20). Thus God has provided an alternative to justification by law; he offers to justify sinners "freely by his grace." That it is done "freely" means it is a free gift, totally undeserved, unmerited, and unearned. (See the use of this word in Matt 10:8; 2 Cor 11:7; 2 Thess 3:8; Rev 21:6; 22:17.) That it is "by his grace" is the very same idea repeated for emphasis. It is the very opposite of justification in accordance with law.

We are talking now about justification as a salvation concept, because it is the justification of sinners . The God who saves sinners is, indeed he must be, a God who "justifies the wicked" (4:5). Perhaps we have read this verse so often that we forget what a shocking concept this is. "No expression in Romans is more startling," says Stott (112). Think about it: God the all-knowing and all-holy Judge looks the wicked sinner square in the eye and justifies him, declares him righteous, acquits him, pardons him, sets him free, cries "No penalty for you"!

This raises the question of the basis for the justification of sinners. How is it possible for the truly righteous God to declare sinners to be righteous? Here is the grace element: only on the basis of the gift of righteousness which he freely gives to those who put their faith in Jesus. As we saw under 1:17 above, the specific content of this gift of righteousness is Jesus' satisfaction of God's law's requirement for penalty in our place. Jesus paid the penalty of eternal condemnation for us - a point that is elaborated in vv. 24b-26; and on this basis God releases us from this penalty and sets us free.

This is the heart of the concept of imputation. "To impute" (logivzomai , logizomai and ejllogevw , ellogeô ) is basically a word used in the context of commerce and bookkeeping. It means to apply an amount of money or something equivalent to someone's account (see Phlm 18), either as a charge or as a credit. Our situation as sinners is that we owe God the debt of eternal punishment; but God applies Christ's righteousness (his payment of the penalty in our place) to our account. This is "the righteousness of God" that comes to us as a gift (1:17; 3:21-22); on the basis of this imputed righteousness he justifies us, declaring "No penalty for you!"

Because such justification is a free gift, it must be received by faith rather than by works (1:16-17; 3:21, 28). When God asks us if we want Jesus' payment of God's righteous penalty for our sin applied to our account, all we can do is humbly and gratefully say yes. This is the essence of saving faith.

For all practical purposes justification is the same as forgiveness or remission of sins. A justified person is a forgiven person. In 4:6-8, the imputation of righteousness is equated with forgiveness. Forgiveness in and of itself bestows a righteous status upon the sinner, and reinstates him in the favor and fellowship of God (see Stott, 110); nothing more is needed.

The second half of v. 24 begins Paul's detailed explanation of the death of Jesus as the basis for the sinner's justification: we are justified through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. This and the next two verses tell us more about the basic meaning of the death of Jesus than any other NT passage. They are absolutely fundamental for a proper understanding of the cross.

That which "came by Christ Jesus," and specifically by his cross, is called "redemption." The Greek word is ajpoluvtrwsi" (apolytrôsis ), which comes from luvw , which means "to loose, to set free, to ransom." Related words are lutrovw (lytroô ), which means "to ransom, to rescue, to redeem, to liberate"; and luvtron ( lytron ), which is "a ransom, a ransom price." The basic idea of redemption is to set something or someone free from some kind of bondage, slavery, captivity, or obligation. Under the OT law consecrated property, the firstborn, and slaves could be redeemed or "bought back" (see Exod 13:11-13; Lev 25:47-49; 27:11-19; Num 18:14-16). In NT times the terms were used for the act of ransoming slaves, prisoners of war, and condemned criminals.

What is the price by which sinners are redeemed from their sin? It is stated most vividly in 1 Pet 1:18-19, "It was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed . . . , but with the precious blood of Christ." Because the Son of Man came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28), "we have redemption through his blood" (Eph 1:7). See Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20; Rev 5:9.

To whom is this ransom price paid? The answer depends on the kind of captivity from which we are redeemed. Certainly we are set free from slavery to sin (6:16-18; 2 Tim 2:26), but this is not the main point of redemption. As sinners we owe to God the debt of eternal punishment, and thus are captive to that obligation as surely as if we were in a kind of debtors' prison (Matt 18:30). Hell itself will be the ultimate debtors' prison (Matt 18:34). Thus the ransom price paid by Jesus was paid to God himself, the one to whom we owe this debt of eternal punishment ( GRe , 439-440). This is how Christ's act of redemption is the basis of our justification or forgiveness. Our debt of eternal penalty is forgiven or set aside because Jesus has paid it in our place. Thus from our point of view justification comes to us "freely," but from God's side it is anything but free. God the Son paid the ultimate price, the equivalent of eternity in hell for the whole human race.

3:25 Paul states this same truth in v. 25, where he uses another word parallel in significance to redemption: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement . . . . The word translated "sacrifice of atonement" is iJlasthvrion (hilastçrion ), which is also used in Heb 9:5. This term and its equivalent, iJlasmov" ( hilasmos ) (1 John 2:2; 4:10) stand for one of the most important concepts in the Bible.

Unfortunately, there is no unanimity as to the meaning of hilasterion . Because it is used often in the LXX and in Heb 9:5 to refer to the lid of the ark of the covenant, i.e., the "mercy-seat," many find that meaning figuratively here in 3:25. Just as the mercy-seat was the place where the atoning blood of sin-offerings was sprinkled in OT times, so also is Jesus in a sense the place where the final atonement has been made for all times (Bruce, 105-107; Nygren, 156-158; Weymouth).

While this view presents no doctrinal problems and is very close to Paul's meaning here, it does not seem to capture the full significance of the term (Moo, I:232-235). Consistent with its use in non-biblical Greek, Paul more likely intends it to mean the atoning sacrifice itself, in the sense of a propitiation .

The key element in the concept of propitiation is the averting of wrath. To say that Jesus is a propitiation means that he offered himself as a sacrifice that turns God's wrath away from deserving sinners by accepting that wrath upon himself in our place. Thus he is a "wrath-removing sacrifice" (Hendriksen, I:132), a "wrath-averting sacrifice" (Moo, I:237). Any interpretation of this concept that excludes the removal of the divine wrath from the purpose of the cross has missed its point and must be rejected. The substitution of the ambiguous "sacrifice of atonement" for "propitiation" in the NIV and elsewhere is to be regretted.

Some interpreters reject the concept of propitiation because they deny that any true wrath exists in God; thus the atonement can have nothing to do with averting wrath. The idea of propitiation, they say, reduces God to the level of pagan deities whose fickle wrath is appeased and whose mind is changed by the offering. Instead of "propitiation" they translate hilastçrion as "expiation" (NEB, RSV), which connotes the removal or covering of sins themselves rather than wrath.

This view is totally mistaken. The Bible clearly presents the wrath of God as an undeniable reality (see 1:18; 2:5; GRe , 275-319). When the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ turns God's wrath away from sinners, it does not do so after the pattern of pagan sacrifices that are intended to placate, appease, or bribe God, or in any sense change his mind. Verse 25 makes this clear when it says that "God presented him" as a propitiation. God's own initiative provided the sacrifice that satisfied his wrath; his already-existing love for sinners both planned and executed the propitiation (1 John 4:10). Rather than being unworthy of the love of God, propitiation is its most glorious manifestation. (See Moo, I:235-237.)

The word translated "presented" has two distinct connotations. It can mean "to plan, to purpose," as it does in 1:13 and Eph 1:9 (its only other NT uses). Some see that meaning here: God purposed or designed Jesus to be a propitiation; it was part of his eternal purpose of grace. This is acceptable, but the context favors the other meaning, "to set forth, to display publicly" (Dunn, I:170; Moo, I:232; Murray, I:118). Verse 21 asserts that the righteousness of God has been "made known"; vv. 25b-26 say the cross is God's public demonstration of his righteousness. "Presented" in 25a fits this pattern, and refers to the openly historical event of the cross as explained by the gospel.

God presented Jesus as a propitiation through faith in his blood. As in v. 22, faith is a necessary condition for the actual application of the results of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice to the individual sinner. These results are not automatically and unconditionally applied to all sinners with a resulting universal salvation. But neither are the conditions meritorious in nature and thus inconsistent with grace (4:16; 11:6).

A point of dispute is the placement of "in [ejn , en ] his blood." Some take it as modifying propitiation. It would then read that Christ is "a propitiation in his blood through faith" (NASB). However, the word order favors the view that this phrase modifies faith, i.e., "through faith in his blood" (NIV). One reason Dunn and Moo reject this latter view is their claim that Paul does not anywhere else link "faith" (pivsti" , pistis ) with the preposition "in" ( en ). This is simply wrong, since Paul does this very thing in Gal 3:26; Eph 1:15; Col 1:4; and 2 Tim 3:15 (a fact that Moo himself notes in another context, I:223).

The fact that Jesus is a propitiation through faith in his blood implies that his blood, i.e., his substitutionary death on the cross, is what actually accomplishes the propitiation. It does so in the same way that it accomplishes redemption: it satisfies the penal wrath of God in the place of the sinners who actually deserve it. To have saving faith means we specifically believe that Christ's death on the cross is the basis for our forgiveness, even if we do not understand all the details about how this is so.

He did this to demonstrate his justice . . . . I.e., God presented Jesus as a propitiation for this purpose, to "demonstrate his justice." Some take the word "demonstrate" in the sense of "show forth, set forth, reveal publicly." This would make it similar to "presented" in 25a. Others say it means to demonstrate in the sense of "prove." Either view is possible; in fact, it is difficult to separate them in this context.

The cross as a propitiation specifically demonstrates God's "justice." The Greek term (dikaiosuvnh , dikaiosynç ) is the same one used in 1:17; 3:5; and 3:21-22. In each of these instances it is translated "righteousness." The reason the NIV translates it "justice" in 3:25 is that its connotation here is different from 3:21-22. In the latter passage (and in 1:17) it refers to God's gift of justifying righteousness; here (as in 3:5) it means God's own righteous character, his inner integrity that requires him to be completely true to himself in all ways.

In this context it is clear that the aspect of his nature to which his righteousness requires him to be true is his perfect holiness. God's holiness in turn requires him to uphold the full integrity of his law, and this requires him to punish those who violate that law by their sin. This specific attribute of God is often called his retributive justice . Thus the translation "justice."

Why is such a demonstration needed? Because it would seem that God, in justifying sinners, is not being true to his law's requirement that sin must be punished. (See especially Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; Prov 17:15.) But when Jesus is set forth as a propitiation , it is clear that God is punishing sins after all, albeit in the person of his only-begotten Son, who suffers the penalty in our place.

Such a demonstration was especially important because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished . . . . God's "forbearance" is his patience and longsuffering, which in essence means "delay and restraint in the execution of wrath." (See GRe , 357-361.) Paul's point is that God's failure to consistently punish sin throughout the OT era may have raised questions about his integrity. How could he claim to be a righteous and holy God, and at the same time forgive sins and leave them unpunished?

"Sins committed beforehand" does not refer to the sins an individual commits prior to his baptism, but to sins committed and forgiven prior to the cross. The only basis upon which sins may be forgiven is the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and it was upon this basis that God forgave sins even in the OT era, even before the historical event of the atonement had occurred. It was absolutely certain that the cross would occur (Acts 2:23); thus God freely dispensed its benefits before the fact. An analogy is a person who knows his paycheck is going to be deposited tomorrow, so he writes checks on it today, knowing the funds will be there when the checks reach the bank.

The problem was not God's ability to forgive pre-cross sins as such, but the appearance this gave as to God's violating his own righteousness or justice in doing so. But, says Paul, any doubts concerning the integrity of God's justice that were thus raised are completely dispelled by the actual event of the cross, which was a public event presented before the whole world.

There is considerable debate about the meaning of the term pavresi" ( paresis ), used only here in the NT and translated "left unpunished" in the NIV. The question is whether it means remission or forgiveness of sins in the full sense of the word (KJV, NAB), or whether it means merely passing sins over or passing them by in the sense of leaving them unpunished (NASB, NRSV, NIV). Lard (120) says it is the same as remission, but most modern interpreters take the latter view (e.g., Murray, I:119; Cranfield, I:211; Moo, I:240-242). The point would be that God did indeed leave sins unpunished prior to the cross, but this was not because of a breakdown in his justice. Rather, it was because he knew these sins would be punished later, in the person of Jesus Christ on the cross.

One point must be carefully noted here. Even if we take paresis to mean only the "passing over" of sins in the sense of delaying their punishment, this in itself does not imply that God was not truly forgiving the sins of OT believers. We know that he did so forgive them because other biblical texts declare that forgiveness was a fact in OT times. Paul's main paradigm for justification (i.e., forgiveness) here in Romans is Abraham (ch. 4). See also the quote from David in 4:7-8. There is no basis for the idea of a "limbo" for OT saints until Christ came, or for the idea that the sins of OT saints were just "rolled back" until the time of the cross.

3:26 Whereas v. 25 relates the demonstration of propitiation to sins committed prior to the cross, v. 26 makes the same point as a general principle that applies especially to the Christian era. He did it , i.e., he set Jesus forth as a propitiation, to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. What has God done in this "present time"? He "sent his Son" (Gal 4:4) to establish and demonstrate the basis for the forgiveness he freely bestows in every era.

The latter part of v. 26 is a purpose statement, and expresses in no uncertain terms the ultimate purpose of the death of Jesus, i.e., so that God can be both just and justifier . This shows that the cross was not merely a demonstration of the fact that the forgiving God is just (as the RSV and NRSV imply), but was necessary in order that God might be just, even while he is justifying sinners (see Lard, 121). Because the cross in its nature and meaning was an act of redemption and propitiation, God is able to forgive righteously. Because Jesus on the cross was paying our debt of eternal punishment and bearing the full force of the wrath of God in our place, God is able to fully cancel our punishment and declare "No penalty for you!" without compromising his nature as a holy God who must punish sin. (See GRe , 450-455.) Such justification "at the present time" is offered only to those "who have faith in Jesus" (see 3:22).

Such is the nature of the righteousness of God that is "apart from law" (3:21). Even though from God's perspective both his law and his love are satisfied by the cross, this is not something that could have been done within the framework of the law system as such. Law alone requires that the person who sins suffer his own penalty (Ezek 18:4). Only grace, which is the opposite of law, can turn this principle upside down and provide for us one who for himself kept the law's commandments, but who for us suffered the law's penalty.

C. SINNERS ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH

APART FROM WORKS OF LAW (3:27-28)

In the rest of this chapter Paul returns to the question-and-answer format used in 3:1-9. This does not mean he is once again counteracting an exclusively Jewish viewpoint, contrary to Moo (I:247-248). Nor does it mean that the "law" of which he speaks here is exclusively the Jewish Law. Paul moved beyond that limited perspective in 3:9. What he has been saying since then, and what he says here, is certainly applicable to Jews and to the Mosaic Law, but it is also intended to apply to all people and to the law of God as such.

In 3:21 Paul begins to explain a way of justification that is "apart from law," i.e., the way of grace. In vv. 24-26 he sets forth the basis or ground of justification by grace, namely, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. From 3:27 through the end of ch. 4, the main theme is faith as the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice. From the human side this is the key difference between law and grace: the means of justification is faith , not works of law (3:28). This antithesis is not intended to set faith apart from every other human act, but rather to set it apart from works as the means of justification within the law system.

3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. The word "then" (ou , oun ) introduces a conclusion drawn from vv. 24-26, namely, that the grace system excludes boasting. Those under law, whether Jews or Gentiles, are given to boasting since both the ground and means of justification in that system are human works (1:30; 2:17, 23). But the way of grace is not consistent with boasting since the total package of salvation from beginning to end was conceived in the mind of God and made possible only through the work of Jesus, and is offered to sinners in the form of a free gift. (See Eph 2:8-10.)

"Excluded" is aorist tense: "it has been excluded" once for all. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. The exclusion of boasting is not just an arbitrary divine decree, but is true from the very nature of the human predicament and its resolution by grace. Justification through the law system would permit boasting, but such justification is not possible since all have sinned. The grace alternative excludes boasting since the only meritorious works that produce salvation within this system are done by God himself through Jesus Christ. The only thing sinners can do is react to and respond to these divine works, and passively receive the benefits generated by them. The defining element in this completely unmeritorious response is faith. Even the greatest OT saints - Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah - were sinners whose relative righteousness fell short of the divine standard and who were saved only by God's grace. Even they had no room for boasting (4:2).

The latter part of v. 27 reads literally, "Through what law [novmo" , nomos ]? of works? No, but through a law [ nomos ] of faith." The exact sense of nomos here is debated. Some say it means the Torah, or Law of Moses (Cranfield, I:220; Dunn, I:186). But this requires a strained interpretation of "a law of faith" (see Moo, I:251) and is very unlikely. For similar reasons it cannot mean the law system as such. This means that Paul here is using nomos in a still more general sense, with a connotation that has not yet appeared in the epistle. The NIV translation, "principle," adequately reflects this understanding. Related suggestions are "method, norm, arrangement, order, system, rule, set of rules" (Murray, I:122-123; Moo, I:259; Reese, 126). The word seems to be used in a similar way in 7:21; 8:2. Moo gives examples to show that "this general use of nomos was very much a live meaning in first-century Greek" (I:259; see 252).

It seems, then, that Paul is using nomos in 3:27 the way I have been using "system of salvation." His words "of works" (NIV, "observing the law") refer to the law system as such, and his words "a law of faith" refer to the grace system as such. We may paraphrase v. 27 thus: "Where, then, is boasting? It has been excluded. Through what system of salvation? The law system, in which one is justified by works? No, on the contrary, through the grace system, in which one is justified by faith."

3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. It is tempting to translate logivzomai ( logizomai ) as "conclude" here (KJV; Lipscomb, 78; Wuest, 63), but "maintain, hold, deem" is probably better. It is the same word that is translated "reckon, count, impute" throughout ch. 4. The word "for" ( gar ) shows this statement is not a conclusion from v. 27, but is rather the basis for it (Lard, 123). The plural "we" probably refers to Paul and his Christian readers, and thus by implication to all believers: "we Christians" (Moo, I:253; Morris, 187; Cranfield, I:220-221). "A man" refers to any man or any person, i.e., anybody who is actually justified. "Observing the law" is literally "works of law" and should be translated such, contrary to the NIV's unacceptable paraphrase (see 3:20).

This verse says nothing that has not already been said, especially in 1:16-17; 3:21-22; but it says it more succinctly and thus sums up the main thesis of the epistle. Anybody who is actually justified is justified only under the grace system, not under the law system. "Faith" is a kind of shorthand for the grace system as a whole, and "works of law" (like "works" in v. 27) is shorthand for the law system as a whole.

It is extremely important that we understand this verse aright since it is one of the main passages used to support the widely-held "faith only" doctrine of salvation. It is recognized that this contrast between "faith" and "works of law" creates two categories. Then it is assumed that the only thing in the first category is faith, and faith alone. Everything else - every other possible human act, thought, attitude, or state of mind - goes into the second category as a "work of law." Thus under the grace system the sole condition for justification is faith. (See 1:16 above.)

The consistent result of this view is to exclude even repentance as a condition for justification, a position held by those who oppose what is called "Lordship salvation." Many who hold the "faith-only" view object to such an exclusion and argue that both faith and repentance are necessary conditions for justification, contrary to their "faith-only" interpretation of 3:28. Both groups then proceed to exclude baptism as a condition for justification. To avoid antinomianism it is usually added that the faith which, alone, justifies us is not completely alone, in the sense that it will naturally produce good works, even if these works are not directly involved in justification (Bruce, 109).

How may we respond to this view? The key point is a right understanding of the expression "works of law." It should be carefully noted that in this verse the only things specifically set apart from faith are whatever is meant by "works of law." But does this verse imply that everything that is not faith is automatically included in this category? The answer is no, as will now be explained.

At this point we must note that there are some things that the expression "works of law" does not mean. First, it does not mean works of obedience to the Law of Moses only, contrary to Dunn (I:172), and Newman and Nida (70). The use of the example of Abraham in ch. 4 is clearly against this. The "law" in the expression "works of law" is any law or commandment given by the Creator through either general or special revelation. Thus "works of law" are "law works of any kind" (Morris, 187; Murray, I:126).

Second, the expression "works of law" is not strictly equivalent to "perfect obedience to all the law requires," contrary to Reese (110). It is true that the only way to be saved under the law system is by "sinless (perfect) obedience." And since all have sinned, it is also true that anyone who is actually saved will be justified "without perfect obedience to any law" (Reese, 128, 136). But "works of law" here in 3:28 (like "works" in 4:6) means something different, as will be explained below.

Third, "works of law" does not refer to acts of obedience done from legalistic motives, or the motive of meriting God's favor thereby. This view excludes all "meritorious" works, or "acts of human obedience viewed as satisfactory, or meritorious, in regard of salvation" (Moule, 85). According to this popular understanding the real problem with "works of law" is the wrong motive with which they are done. This view is unacceptable, however, because it implies that the very same works done from right motives would justify, which undermines Paul's very point.

What, then, is meant by "works of law"? Law itself, as said above, means God's commandments or law in general, and not just one limited version of it (such as the Law of Moses). It is composed especially of the moral law, which applies equally to all people in all ages, even though it is revealed in different forms and under different covenants. "Works of law," then, must mean any response to any such law, without restriction in terms of dispensation, form, or motive.

The preposition "apart from" is cwvri" (chôris ), a term which emphasizes separation: "apart from, without, separated from, without relation to, without regard to." "Apart from works of law" thus means "without regard to one's response to the law, apart from a consideration of how one responds to the law." But one may respond to law either positively or negatively, either in obedience or in disobedience. In 3:28 Paul has in mind both kinds of response: "Apart from a consideration of one's obedience and disobedience to law."

We know that "works of law" is intended to have this all-inclusive meaning here because of the parallel with "apart from works" in 4:6. In the latter passage Paul cites David in Ps 32:1-2 as evidence that a man is justified (reckoned righteous) "apart from works." But what "works" does David mention in these verses? Only transgressions and sins! To be justified apart from works thus includes the idea of being justified apart from a consideration of our sinful deeds. The similarity of meaning between 3:28 and 4:6 thus requires us to include sinful works in our understanding of "works of law" in 3:28. (This is why we cannot simply equate "works of law" with "perfect obedience to all the law requires." This is also why the NIV translation, "observing the law," is wrong; it refers only to a positive response to the law.)

On the other hand "works of law" cannot be expanded to mean "anything a person does." Even if faith is excepted, this is too broad because not everything a sinner does is a response to law. God gives his human creatures law in his role as Creator and Lord, and we as creatures respond to this law either by obeying it or disobeying it (i.e., in "works of law"). But once we have disobeyed it, God then begins to relate to sinful mankind in a wholly new role: that of Redeemer. As Redeemer he works out our salvation; as Redeemer he offers it to sinners with instructions on how to receive it. Such redemptive instruction is not "law," and our response to this instruction cannot be called "works of law."

Thus "works of law" cannot be broadened to include "anything a person does" besides faith. We cannot posit two categories of human acts, where faith alone is one category, with everything else constituting a second category called "works of law." Sinners are instructed, yea, required to do other things that cannot be labeled "works of law," because they are not responses to the law given by God as Creator to man as creature. The most obvious example of this is repentance, and an equally clear example is baptism. Both repentance and baptism are the sinner's response to God as Redeemer, not the creature's response to God as Creator. They are neither "works" nor "works of law," any more than saving faith is.

This does not mean that we are justified by repentance and baptism, in the way that we are justified by faith. As discussed above, faith alone is the sole means by which justification is received. It does mean, though, that "faith" in 3:28 (as in 3:27) is an abbreviated way of referring to the grace system as a whole, and that repentance and baptism are legitimately understood within the grace system as conditions for receiving justification that are fully compatible with faith. They are not "works of law" any more than faith is.

D. THE WAY OF GRACE IS AVAILABLE TO ALL (3:29-30)

3:29 In vv. 29-30 Paul returns to a continuing theme of the epistle, that God's grace makes no distinctions among sinners; it is equally needed by all and equally available to all on the same conditions (see 1:16; 3:22). No one group has an advantage over any other; especially, the Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles. Is God the God of Jews only? This is the question Paul addressed at length in ch. 2. It reflects the mistaken Jewish attitude that their privilege of service implied a unique access to God and his salvation. But has not Paul clearly shown that the Jews do not have a monopoly on God? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too . . . .

The general principle of v. 28 is given a specific application here. Under grace sinners are justified apart from their response to any given version of God's law, and this applies especially to the Law of Moses. God did not give the Law of Moses as an exclusive means by which Jews alone could be justified. That was not its purpose. If it had been, then he could have simply left that law in place and continued to ignore the Gentiles (Acts 17:30). But God is God of all men, including the Gentiles; and now in the fulness of time (Gal 4:4) he has made it clear that he has always intended to include the Gentiles as full partners in salvation by grace (Eph 2:11-3:12).

3:30 Indeed, he must be the God of both Jews and Gentiles, since there is only one God . . . . The existence of only one God was a basic OT revelation (Exod 20:3; Deut 6:4), and a basic Jewish belief. Moo's comment (I:254) is appropriate: "Paul's contention is that the oneness of God requires that God be God of the Gentiles as much as of the Jews; otherwise, the Gentiles would be left with no God. In arguing in this manner, Paul takes one of the most basic Jewish beliefs, monotheism, and turns it against Judaism." I.e., he turns it against their false exclusivism.

. . . who [the one God] will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Here Paul calls attention to the other main symbol of Jewish exclusivism, circumcision, and declares that within the grace system it makes no difference whatever (see 2:25-29). Both the circumcised (the Jews) and the uncircumcised (the Gentiles) are justified in the same way, i.e., by a common faith in a common Redeemer. Now that Christ has come, the Gentiles are specifically said to have the (same) faith as the Jews (pivsti" [ pistis ] with the definite article). Stott (120) reminds us that "this identical truth applies to all other distinctions, whether of race, nationality, class, sex or age. . . . At the foot of Christ's cross and through faith in him, we are all on exactly the same level."

The future tense of "will justify" denotes the change in circumstances reflected by the Great Commission. From that point onward the gospel will be preached to Jews and Gentiles alike to the end of the age, and throughout this time God will continue to justify Jews and Gentiles alike. Though two different prepositions are used for "by (ejk , ek ) faith" and "through (diav , dia ) faith," no significant difference in meaning is intended (Lard, 125; Cranfield, I:222; Dunn, I:189; Moo, I:255).

E. GRACE LETS LAW DO ITS PROPER WORK (3:31)

3:31 Some readers (especially Jewish) may by this time be thinking thoughts similar to those voiced in 3:1. There, following Paul's long attack on the Jews' false concept of their own exclusiveness in God's plan (2:1-29), the question of the very meaning of Jewishness and the futility of their very existence is raised. Likewise, after Paul has emphatically rejected the ability of law to justify (3:20), and has declared that justification can be received only apart from law (3:21, 27-28), some are no doubt thinking that law must be rather obsolete. Paul voices this concern in the question, Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?

This is not just a reference to the Mosaic Law or to the OT as a whole, contrary to Cranfield (I:223). The contrast throughout this section has been between grace on the one hand and law in general on the other hand, and it is no different here. As Morris says (189), "What Paul says has reference to the Jewish law, but also to law in general."

The question is, does grace abolish law, or render it ineffective and purposeless? Does it set the law aside so that it has no relevance to the Christian? Does faith "nullify the law"? (On the word "nullify" [katargevw , katargeô ], see 3:3.) Not at all! Rather, by it we uphold the law. A right understanding of grace and justification by faith actually establishes and confirms the law. How does it do this? By setting law free from a burden it is not able to bear and was never intended to bear, namely, function as a means of justifying sinners. When we stop trying to use the law and its commandments in such an impossible way, we can then let it perform its proper functions.

One such function is that it serves to show us our sin (3:20) and thus shows us our need for justification by faith (MP, 324; Hendriksen, I:137-138). Also, it properly functions as a norm or standard for holy living. As DeWelt says (59), under grace we can "preach and teach the real value of the law which is to point out right and wrong." As Lard says (126), "Law may be wholly useless for one purpose, and yet indispensable for others."

Here is a point we must not forget: as a revelation of God's will to us, his law is absolutely binding upon us and we have an absolute obligation to obey it. Grace does not change this fact. We are not under law as a way of salvation (6:14), but we are always under law as a way of life . To put it another way, law is not involved in the first part of the double cure, which is justification; but it is absolutely necessary for the second part of the double cure, which includes sanctification.

McGarvey: Rom 2:17

But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God ,

McGarvey: Rom 2:18

and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law ,

McGarvey: Rom 2:19

and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness ,

McGarvey: Rom 2:20

a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge of the truth ;

McGarvey: Rom 2:21

thou therefore that teacheth another, teachest thou not thyself? [But if doers, and not hearers, are not justified, why do you put your confidence in mere hearing, and such things as are analogous to it? Since only the doers of the law are justified, why do you vainly trust that you will be acceptable because you bear the proud name of Jew (Gal 2:15 ; Phi 3:5 ; Rev 2:9), rather than the humble one of Gentile? Why do you rest confidently merely because you possess a better law than the Gentiles, because you glory in the worship of the true God (Deu 4:7), and in knowing his will (Psa 147:19-20), and in being instructed so as to approve the more excellent things of the Jewish religion above the debauchery of idolatry? Of what avail are these things when God demands doing and not mere knowing? And of what profit is it to you if the law does give you such a correct knowledge of the truth that you are to the Gentiles, yea, even to their chief philosophers, as a guide to the blind, a light to the benighted, a wise man among fools, a skilled teacher among children? Of what avail or profit is it all if, with all this ability, you teach only others and fail to teach yourself? The apostle next shows, in detail, how truly the Jew had failed to profit by his knowledge, so as to become a doer of the law.] thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

McGarvey: Rom 2:22

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

McGarvey: Rom 2:23

thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou god? [These questions bring out the flagrant inconsistencies between Jewish preaching and practice. Teaching others not to steal, the Jew, though probably not often guilty of technical theft, was continually practically guilty of it in his business dealings, wherein, by the use of false weights, extortion, cheating, etc., he gathered money for which he had returned no just equivalent. Unchastity was also a besetting sin of the Jews, showing itself in the corrupt practice of permitting divorces without reasonable or righteous cause (Mat 19:8-9). Some of the most celebrated Rabbis are, in the Talmud, charged with adultery. Paul's accusation, that the Jews robbed temples, has been a puzzle to many. This robbing of the temple, according to the context of his argument, must have been a species of idolatry, for he is charging the Jews with doing the very things which they condemned. They condemned stealing, and stole; they denounced adultery, and committed it; they abhorred idols, yet robbed the temples of them that they might worship them. Such is the clear meaning, according to the context. But we have no evidence that the Jews of Paul's day did such a thing. The charge is doubtless historic. The Jewish history, in which they gloried, showed that the fathers, in whom they had taken so much pride, had done this thing over and over again, and the same spirit was in their children, though more covertly concealed (comp. Mat 23:29-32). The last question sums up the Jewish misconduct: glorying in the law, as is shown in Rom 2:17-20; they yet dishonored the God of the law by transgressing it, as is shown in this paragraph.]

McGarvey: Rom 2:24

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written . [Isa 52:5 ; Eze 36:20-23 . By their conduct the Jews had fulfilled the words of Isaiah and the meaning of Ezekiel. The Gentiles, judging by the principle that a god may be known by his worshipers, had, by reason of the Jews, judged Jehovah to be of such a character that their judgment became a blasphemy. (See also Eze 16:51-59) Thus Paul took from the Jew a confidence of divine favor, which he had because he possessed the law. But the law was not the sole confidence of the Jew, for he had circumcision also, and he regarded this rite as a seal or conclusive evidence that he belonged to the people of God, being thereby separated by an infinite distance from all other people. He looked with scorn and contempt on the uncircumcised, even using the term as an odious epithet (Gen 34:14 ; Exo 12:48 ; 1Sa 17:26 ; 2Sa 1:20 ; Isa 52:1 ; Eze 28:10) The apostle, therefore, turns his fire so as to dislodge the Jew from this deceptive stronghold. He drives him from his hope and trust in circumcision.]

McGarvey: Rom 2:25

For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision .

McGarvey: Rom 2:26

If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? [In verse 25 the apostle takes up the case of the Jew; in verse 26 that of the Gentile. By circumcision the former entered into a covenant with God, and part of the terms of his covenant was an agreement to obey the law. Thus the law was superior to circumcision, so much so that it, as it were, disfranchised or expatriated an Israelite for disobedience, despite his circumcision. On the contrary, if an uncircumcised Gentile obeyed the law, then the law naturalized and received him into the spiritual theocracy, notwithstanding his lack of circumcision. The verses are not an argument, but a plain statement of the great truth that circumcision, though beneficial to the law-abiding, has no power to withstand the law when condemning the lawless. In short, the Jew and Gentile stood on equal footing, for, though the Jew had a better covenant (circumcision) and a better law, yet neither attained to salvation, for neither kept the law.]

McGarvey: Rom 2:27

and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? [The Gentile, remaining as he was by nature, uncircumcised, if he fulfilled the law, shall, in his turn, judge the Jew, who was so ready to judge him (Rom 2:1), who, with a written law and circumcision, was yet a transgressor. The judging referred to is probably the indirect judging of comparison. On the day of judgment, the Gentile, with his poor advantages, will condemn, by his superior conduct, the lawlessness of the Jew. Comp. Mat 11:21-22 ; Luk 11:31-32]

McGarvey: Rom 2:28

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh :

McGarvey: Rom 2:29

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God . [He is not a Jew in God's sight (though he is, of course, such in the sight of the world) who is simply one without; i. e., by being properly born of Jewish parents, nor is that a circumcision in God's sight (though it is in the sight of the world) which is merely fleshly. But he is the real, divinely accepted Jew who is one within; i. e., who has in him the spirit of Abraham and the fathers in whom God delighted (Joh 1:47). His life may be hid from men, so that they may see nothing in him to praise, but it is praiseworthy in the sight of God, and circumcision is not that outward compliance with the letter of the law -- literal circumcision -- but that inward spiritual compliance with the true meaning of circumcision, the cutting off of all things that are impure and unholy, and that make the heart unworthy of an acceptance into the household of God.]

McGarvey: Rom 3:1

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? [Paul's argument was well calculated to astonish the Jews. If some notable Christian should argue conclusively that the Christian and the infidel stood on an equal footing before God, his argument would not be more startling to the church than was that of Paul to the Jews of his day. They naturally asked the two questions found in this first verse, so Paul places the questions before his readers that he may answer them.]

McGarvey: Rom 3:2

Much every way: first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God . [To the circumcised Jew God had given the Scriptures. The law, the Psalms, the prophets were his, with all the revelations and promises therein contained. They revealed man's origin, his fall and his promised redemption; they also described the Redeemer who should come, and prepared men to receive him and to believe him. How unspeakable the advantage of the Jew in possessing such a record. But the Jew had not improved this advantage, and so we may regard him as asking the apostle this further question, "But, after all, the greatest part of us have not believed on this Jesus, and so what advantage were our oracles to us in reality?" The apostle now answers this objection.]

McGarvey: Rom 3:3

For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?

McGarvey: Rom 3:4

God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written [Psa 51:4], That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment . [True, the Jew, by unbelief, had failed to improve his advantage in possessing the Scriptures; but that did not alter the fact that he had had the advantage. He had failed, but God had not failed. Had the unbelief of the Jew caused God to break his promises, then indeed might the advantage of the Jew have been questioned, for in that case it would have proven a vanishing quantity. But, on the contrary, God had kept faith, and so the advantage, though unimproved, had been an abiding quantity. And this accords with the holiness and sinlessness of God. He is ever blameless, and because he is so, he must ever be assumed to be so, even though such an assumption should involve the presumption that all men are false and untrue, as, indeed, they are in comparison with him: for David testified to the incomparable righteousness of God, that it was a righteousness which acquitted God of all unfaithfulness to his words, and which causes him to prevail whenever men call him to account or pass judgment upon him.]

McGarvey: Rom 3:5

But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) [I am not expressing my own views, but those of the man who objects to the truth I am presenting.]

McGarvey: Rom 3:6

God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

McGarvey: Rom 3:7

But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?

McGarvey: Rom 3:8

and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just . [But some of you Jews, objecting to my argument, will say, "According to your statements, the unbelief and disobedience of us Jews, with reference to God's Scripture, drew out, displayed and magnified the faithfulness and goodness of God in fulfilling his Scripture. Therefore, since our unbelief, etc., added to the glory of God by commending his righteousness, is not God unjust to punish us for that unbelief, etc., since it works such praiseworthy results? "My answer is, God forbid that sin should become righteousness, for if sin ceases to be sinful, how shall God judge the world, since then there shall be no sin to be condemned or punished? You see, then, the absurdity of your question, since it is a practical denial of the divinely established fact that there is to be a day of judgment. Sin, though it may, by its contrast, display the righteousness of God, is nevertheless utterly without merit. As an illustration, my case is analogous to yours. You arraign me before the bar of Jewish opinion, even as you yourselves are arraigned before the bar of God; yet you would not permit me to use before you the very same argument which you are seeking to use before God. You Jews regard me as a sinner, and charge me with being untrue to the Jewish religion, and with being a false representative of it, in that I declare it to be fulfilled in the gospel. Now, my lie (as you consider it), in this respect, redounds to the glory of God by being a contrast to his truthfulness. But would you Jews acquit me of the sin of heresy if I should make use of this your argument? And, again, if your reasoning is correct, why should I not, as certain, meaning to slander me, report that I do, and affirm that I say, Let us do evil that good may come? But those who avow such principles are justly condemned. Thus Paul showed that, in condemning him (though falsely), they condemn the very argument which they were seeking to affirm in Rom 3:5]

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Rom 2:21

USING THE LAW IN EVANGELISM

Here Paul uses the Law to bring the knowledge of sin.

Dr. J Gresham Machen said, " A new and more powerful proclamation of [the] Law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the Law." See Jam 2:8 footnote.

Evidence: Rom 2:29

How did the apostles die? See Act 17:55 .

Evidence: Rom 3:1

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" How should I witness to a Jew?"

Sadly, many of today’s Jews profess godliness but don’t embrace the Scriptures as we presume they do. Therefore, it is often difficult to reason with them about Jesus being the Messiah. This is why it is imperative to ask a Jew if he has kept the Law of Moses—to " shut" him up under the Law ( Gal 3:23 ) and strip him of his self-righteousness. The Law will show him his need of a Savior and become a " schoolmaster" to bring him to Christ ( Gal 3:24 ), as happened to Paul, Nicodemus, and Nathaniel. It was the Law that brought 3,000 Jews to the foot of the cross on the Day of Pentecost. Without it they would not have known that they had sinned ( Rom 7:7 ), and therefore would not have seen their need of the Savior. See Luk 18:20 footnote for how to use the Law in evangelism.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans

Spring of a.d. 57

By Way of Introduction

Integrity of the Epistle

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

The Time and Place

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

The Purpose

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

JFB: Romans (Book Introduction)

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

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

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

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

JFB: Romans (Outline)

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

TSK: Romans (Book Introduction)

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

TSK: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

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

TSK: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 3:1, The Jews’ prerogative; Rom 3:3, which they have not lost; Rom 3:9, howbeit the law convinces them also of sin; Rom 3:20, therefore no flesh is justified by the law; Rom 3:28, but all, without difference, by faith, only; Rom 3:31, and yet the law is not abolished.

Poole: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

Poole: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 3

MHCC: Romans (Book Introduction)

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

MHCC: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

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

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

MHCC: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 3:1-8) Objections answered.

(Rom 3:9-18) All mankind are sinners.

(Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20) Both Jews and Gentiles cannot be justified by their own deeds.

(Rom 3:21-31) It is owing to the free grace of God, through faith in the righteousness of Christ, yet the law is not done away.

Matthew Henry: Romans (Book Introduction)

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

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

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

I. The doctrinal part of the epistles instructs us,

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

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

Matthew Henry: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, in this chapter, carries on his discourse concerning justification. He had already proved the guilt both of Gentiles and Jews. Now in this chapter, I. He answers some objections that might be made against what he had said about the Jews (Rom 3:1-8). II. He asserts the guilt and corruption of mankind in common, both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:9-18). III. He argues thence that justification must needs be by faith, and not by the law, which he gives several reasons for (Rom 3:19 to the end). The many digressions in his writings render his discourse sometimes a little difficult, but his scope is evident.

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

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

The Difficulty Of Letters

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

The Ancient Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

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

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Immediate Situation

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

The Spoken Word

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

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

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

Testamentary And Prophylactic

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

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

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

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

The Object Of PaulWriting

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Layout Of The Letter

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

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

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

people.

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

living.

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

and a list of final personal greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

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

but after his passion revealed.

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

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

FURTHER READING

Romans

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

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

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

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The Responsibility Of Privilege (Rom_2:1-11)

The Unwritten Law (Rom_2:12-16)

The Real Jew (Rom_2:17-29)

Barclay: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

God's Fidelity And Man's Infidelity (Rom_3:1-8)

The Christless World (Rom_3:9-18)

The Only Way To Be Right With God (Rom_3:19-26)

The End Of The Way Of Human Achievement (Rom_3:27-31)

Constable: Romans (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

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

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

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

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

Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Luther wrote the following commendation of this epistle.

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

Message⁹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Romans (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-17

A. Salutation 1:1-7

1. The writer 1:1

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

3. The original recipients 1:6-7

B. Purpose 1:8-15

C. Theme 1:16-17

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

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

1. The reason for human guilt 1:18

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

3. The wickedness of mankind 1:28-32

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

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

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

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

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

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

A. The description of justification 3:21-26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. The benefits of justification 5:1-11

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

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

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

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

2. Slavery to righteousness 6:15-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Our eternal security 8:31-39

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

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

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

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

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

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

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

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

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

2. The remedy for rejection 10:8-15

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

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

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

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

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

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

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

A. Dedication to God 12:1-2

B. Conduct within the church 12:3-21

1. The diversity of gifts 12:3-8

2. The necessity of love 12:9-21

C. Conduct within the state ch. 13

1. Conduct towards the government 13:1-7

2. Conduct toward unbelievers 13:8-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Conclusion 15:14-16:27

A. Paul's ministry 15:14-33

1. Past labors 15:14-21

2. Present program 15:22-29

3. Future plans 15:30-33

B. Personal matters ch. 16

1. A commendation 16:1-2

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

3. A warning 16:17-20

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

5. A doxology 16:25-27

Constable: Romans

Romans

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

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

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

Gill: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS

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

Gill: Romans 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 2

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

Gill: Romans 3 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 3

In this chapter are an answer to several objections which follow one upon another, relating to what the apostle had said concerning the equality of the Gentiles with the Jews; and various proofs out of the Psalms and Prophets, showing the general depravity and corruption of mankind, of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles; and the conclusion from all this, that there is no justification by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of God received by faith, of which a large and clear account is given. The first objection is in Rom 3:1, and is taken from the unprofitableness of being a Jew and a circumcised person, if that is true which is asserted in the preceding chapter; to which an answer is given, Rom 3:2, showing that though many things might be instanced in, in which the Jew had the advantage of the Gentile in external things; this might be mentioned as one for all, and taken sufficient answer, that the Jews had the oracles or word of God committed to their trust, by which they became acquainted with the will of God. The apostle foreseeing that another objection would arise upon this; what signifies their having the oracles of God, when these are not believed by them? prevents it by observing, Rom 3:3, that though some did not believe, some did, and as for the unbelief of others, the truth and faithfulness of God in his word were not made void by it; however false and deceitful men are, God is always true to his word, Rom 3:4, and which is confirmed by a passage of Scripture, cited out of Psa 51:4, hence arises another objection, that if the righteousness of God is commended and illustrated by the unrighteousness of man, then it would be unjust in God to take vengeance on men for their sins, Rom 3:5, which is removed with abhorrence, and answered by observing, that if there was any truth in it, the world could not be judged by God, as it certainly will, Rom 3:6, but still the objection is continued and strengthened, Rom 3:7, that if God is glorified through the sins of men, not only men ought not to be punished for them, but they should not be reckoned sinners, or as doers of evil things, but of good things, and be indulged in them; to which is replied, that this was the common calumny cast upon the doctrine of the apostle, and persons of such principles and practices are deserving of damnation, Rom 3:8. Having removed these objections, the apostle reassumes his former assertion, and supports it, that a carnal circumcised Jew is no better than a carnal uncircumcised Gentile; it being already sufficiently made to appear, that they are both under the power and guilt of sin; and as a further evidence of it, he produces several passages out of the book of Psalms, and out of the prophecies of Isaiah, which fully express the sad corruption of human nature, and especially of the Jews; and this account begins in Rom 3:10, and ends in Rom 3:18, and which account he suggests, Rom 3:19, carries in it such a full conviction of the truth of what he had said, that all men are under sin, that no one would be able to open his mouth in his own defence, but all must acknowledge themselves guilty before God: and then he proceeds to the conclusion he meant to draw from all this, that there is no justification of any before God by the deeds of the law; giving this as a reason for it, because the law discovered sin, but not a justifying righteousness, Rom 3:20, that is revealed in another way, by the Gospel, and not the law, though both law and prophets bear a testimony to it, Rom 3:21, which righteousness is described by the author of it, God; by the means through which it comes to the use and comfort of men, the faith of Christ; and by the subjects of it, them that believe; in the justification of which there is no difference, Rom 3:22, of which a reason is given, Rom 3:23, taken from the general state of men, as sinners, and bereaved of the image of God: the several causes, ways, means, and end of the justification of such persons are suggested; the moving cause is the free grace of God, the meritorious or procuring cause the redemption that is in Christ, Rom 3:24, and his propitiatory sacrifice, Rom 3:25, which is owing to the eternal purpose of God, whose end in it was to declare his purity, holiness, and justice; which end is repeated and enlarged on, in Rom 3:26, upon which the apostle asks, Rom 3:27, what is become of boasting in the creature? and answers himself by saying, it was excluded, not by the doctrine of works, but by the doctrine of faith, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in the righteousness of Christ; wherefore the conclusion stands firm and just, from the premises, that justification is by faith without the works of the law, Rom 3:28, and it is further confirmed, that Jews and Gentiles, with respect to their state and condition God-ward, are on a level; he is the God of the one, as well as of the other, Rom 3:29, and this appears by his justifying both in one and the same way, through faith in the righteousness of this Son, Rom 3:30, and the chapter is concluded by obviating an objection that might be made, that through this doctrine of justification by faith the law is made void, and is of no use, Rom 3:31, to which the apostle answers, that this is so far from being fact, that the law is established by it.

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