Text -- Romans 4:1-5 (NET)

The Illustration of Justification

4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? 4:2 For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast about– but not before God. 4:3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4:4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 4:1

What then shall we say? ( ti oun eroumeṅ ).

Paul is fond of this rhetorical question (Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, Rom 9:30).

Robertson: Rom 4:1

Forefather ( propatora ).

Old word, only here in N.T. Accusative case in apposition with Abraam (accusative of general reference with the infinitive).

Robertson: Rom 4:1

Hath found ( heurēkenai ).

Westcott and Hort put heurēkenai in the margin because B omits it, a needless precaution. It is the perfect active infinitive of heuriskō in indirect discourse after eroumen . The MSS. differ in the position of kata sarka .

Robertson: Rom 4:2

The Scripture ( hē graphē ).

Gen 15:6.

Robertson: Rom 4:2

Was justified by works ( ex ergōn edikaiōthē ).

Condition of first class, assumed as true for the sake of argument, though untrue in fact. The rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews (Luk 3:8).

Robertson: Rom 4:2

But not towards God ( all' ou pros theon ).

Abraham deserved all the respect from men that came to him, but his relation to God was a different matter. He had there no ground of boasting at all.

Robertson: Rom 4:3

It was reckoned unto him for righteousness ( elogisthē eis dikaiosunēn ).

First aorist passive indicative of logizomai , old and common verb to set down accounts (literally or metaphorically). It was set down on the credit side of the ledger "for"(eis as often) righteousness. What was set down? His believing God (episteusen tōi theōi ).

Robertson: Rom 4:4

But as of debt ( alla kata opheilēma ).

An illustration of the workman (ergazomenōi ) who gets his wages due him, "not as of grace"(ou kata charin ).

Robertson: Rom 4:5

That justifieth the ungodly ( ton dikaiounta ton asebē ).

The impious, irreverent man. See Rom 1:25. A forensic figure (Shedd). The man is taken as he is and pardoned. "The whole Pauline gospel could be summed up in this one word - God who justifies the ungodly"(Denney).

Vincent: Rom 4:1

What shall we say? ( τι ἐροῦμεν )

See Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, Rom 9:30. The phrase anticipates an objection or proposes an inference. It is used by Paul only, and by him only in this Epistle and in its argumentative portions. It is not found in the last five chapters, which are hortatory.

Vincent: Rom 4:1

Our Father

The best texts read προπάτορα forefather .

Vincent: Rom 4:1

Hath found

Westcott and Hort omit. Then the reading would be " what shall we say of Abraham," etc. Found signifies, attained by his own efforts apart from grace.

Vincent: Rom 4:1

As pertaining to the flesh ( κατὰ σάρκα )

Construe with found . The question is, Was Abraham justified by anything which pertained to the flesh? Some construe with Abraham: our father humanly speaking .

Vincent: Rom 4:2

For

Supply , Abraham found nothing according to the flesh ; for , if he did, he has something to boast of.

Vincent: Rom 4:2

By works ( ἐξ ἔργων )

Lit., out of works. In speaking of the relation of works to justification, Paul never uses διά by or through , but ἐκ out of ; works being regarded by the Jew as the meritorious source of salvation.

Vincent: Rom 4:3

The Scripture ( ἡ γραφὴ )

The scripture passage. See on Joh 2:22; and footnote on Joh 5:47.

Vincent: Rom 4:3

It was counted for righteousness ( ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην )

For the phrase λογίζεσθαι εἰς to reckon unto , compare Rom 2:26; Rom 9:8, where εἰς is rendered for . The verb is also used with ὡς as . So Rom 8:36; 1Co 4:1. So in Sept., εἰς , Psa 56:1-13 :31; Isa 29:17; Isa 32:15; Isa 40:17 : ὡς . Gen 31:15; Job 41:20; Psa 44:22; Isa 5:28; Isa 29:16. The phrases ἐλογίσθη εἰς and ἐλ. ὡς are thus shown to be substantially equivalent. See further on Rom 4:5.

Vincent: Rom 4:4

The reward ( ὁ μισθὸς )

See on 2Pe 2:13.

Vincent: Rom 4:4

Not of grace but of debt ( οὐ κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα )

Lit., according to grace, etc. Not grace but debt is the regulative standard according to which his compensation is awarded. The workman for hire represents the legal method of salvation; he who does not work for hire, the gospel method; wages cannot be tendered as a gift . Grace is out of the question when wages is in question.

Vincent: Rom 4:5

Believeth on Him ( πιστεύοντι ἐπὶ τὸν )

The verb πιστεύω to believe is used in the New Testament as follows:

1. Transitively , with the accusative and dative: to entrust something to one , Luk 16:11; Joh 2:24. In the passive, to be entrusted with something , Rom 3:2; 1Co 9:17; Gal 2:7. With the simple accusative, to believe a thing , Joh 11:26; 1Jo 4:16.

2. With the infinitive , Act 15:11.

3. With ὅτι that , Mat 9:28; Mar 11:24; Jam 2:19. Especially frequent in John: Joh 4:21; Joh 11:27, Joh 11:42; Joh 13:19; Joh 14:10, Joh 14:11; Joh 16:27, Joh 16:30, etc.

4. With the simple dative , meaning to believe a person or thing, that they are true or speak the truth, Joh 2:22; Joh 4:21; Joh 5:46. See on Joh 1:12; see on Joh 2:22, Joh 2:23; see on Joh 8:31; see on Joh 10:37.

5. With the preposition ἐν in . Not frequent, and questioned in some of the passages cited for illustration. In Joh 3:15, ἐν αὐτῷ in Him , is probably to be construed with have eternal life . The formula occurs nowhere else in John. In Mar 1:15 we find πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ believe in the gospel . The kindred noun πίστις faith , occurs in this combination. Thus Gal 3:26, though some join in Christ Jesus with sons . See also Eph 1:15; Col 1:4; 1Ti 3:13; 2Ti 3:15; Rom 3:25. This preposition indicates the sphere in which faith moves, rather than the object to which it is directed, though instances occur in the Septuagint where it plainly indicates the direction of faith, Psa 78:22; Jer 12:6.

6. With the preposition ἐπί upon , on to , unto . a . With the accusative, Rom 4:5; Act 9:42; Act 11:17; Act 16:31; Act 22:19. The preposition carries the idea of mental direction with a view to resting upon , which latter idea is conveyed by the same preposition. b . With the dative, 1Ti 1:16; Luk 24:25; compare Rom 9:33; Rom 10:11; 1Pe 2:6. The dative expresses absolute superposition . Christ as the object of faith, is the basis on which faith rests.

7. With the preposition εἰς into , Mat 18:6; Joh 2:11; Act 19:4; Rom 10:14; Gal 2:16; Phi 1:29, etc. The preposition conveys the idea of the absolute transference of trust from one's self to another . Literally the phrase means to believe into . See on Joh 1:12; see on Joh 2:23; see on Joh 9:35; see on Joh 12:44.

Vincent: Rom 4:5

Is counted for righteousness ( λογίζεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην )

Rev., is reckoned . See on Rom 4:3. The preposition εἰς has the force of as , not the telic meaning with a view to , or in order that he may be (righteous); nor strictly, in the place of righteousness. Faith is not a substitute for righteousness , since righteousness is involved in faith. When a man is reckoned righteous through faith, it is not a legal fiction. He is not indeed a perfect man, but God does not reckon something which has no real existence. Faith is the germ of righteousness, of life in God. God recognizes no true life apart from holiness, and " he that believeth on the Son hath life." He is not merely regarded in the law's eye as living. God accepts the germ, not in place of the fruit, but as containing the fruit. " Abraham believed God.... No soul comes into such a relation of trust without having God's investment upon it; and whatever there may be in God's righteousness - love, truth, sacrifice - will be rightfully imputed or counted to be in it, because, being united to Him, it will have them coming over derivatively from Him" (Bushnell). The idea of logical sequence is inherent in λογίζεται is reckoned - the sequence of character upon faith. Where there is faith there is, logically, righteousness, and the righteousness is from faith unto faith (Rom 1:17). Nevertheless, in the highest development of the righteousness of faith, it will remain true that the man is justified, not by the works of righteousness, which are the fruit of faith, but by the faith which, in making him a partaker of the life and righteousness of God, generates and inspires the works.

Observe that the believer's own faith is reckoned as righteousness. " In no passage in Paul's writings or in other parts of the New Testament, where the phrase to reckon for or the verb to reckon alone is used, is there a declaration that anything belonging to one person is imputed, accounted, or reckoned to another, or a formal statement that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers" (President Dwight, " Notes on Meyer" ).

Wesley: Rom 4:1

Acceptance with God.

Wesley: Rom 4:1

That is, by works.

Wesley: Rom 4:2

The meaning is, If Abraham had been justified by works, he would have had room to glory. But he had not room to glory. Therefore he was not justified by works.

Wesley: Rom 4:3

That promise of God concerning the numerousness of his seed, Gen 15:5, Gen 15:7; but especially the promise concerning Christ, Gen 12:3, through whom all nations should be blessed.

Wesley: Rom 4:3

God accepted him as if he had been altogether righteous. Gen 15:6.

Wesley: Rom 4:4

All that the law requires, the reward is no favour, but an absolute debt. These two examples are selected and applied with the utmost judgment and propriety. Abraham was the most illustrious pattern of piety among the Jewish patriarchs. David was the most eminent of their kings. If then neither of these was justified by his own obedience, if they both obtained acceptance with God, not as upright beings who might claim it, but as sinful creatures who must implore it, the consequence is glaring It is such as must strike every attentive understanding, and must affect every individual person.

Wesley: Rom 4:5

It being impossible he should without faith. But believeth, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness - Therefore God's affirming of Abraham, that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, plainly shows that he worked not; or, in other words, that he was not justified by works, but by faith only. Hence we see plainly how groundless that opinion is, that holiness or sanctification is previous to our justification. For the sinner, being first convinced of his sin and danger by the Spirit of God, stands trembling before the awful tribunal of divine justice ; and has nothing to plead, but his own guilt, and the merits of a Mediator. Christ here interposes; justice is satisfied; the sin is remitted, and pardon is applied to the soul, by a divine faith wrought by the Holy Ghost, who then begins the great work of inward sanctification. Thus God justifies the ungodly, and yet remains just, and true to all his attributes! But let none hence presume to "continue in sin;" for to the impenitent, God "is a consuming fire." On him that justifieth the ungodly - If a man could possibly be made holy before he was justified, it would entirely set his justification aside; seeing he could not, in the very nature of the thing, be justified if he were not, at that very time, ungodly.

JFB: Rom 4:1-3

That is, (as the order in the original shows), "hath found, as pertaining to ('according to,' or 'through') the flesh"; meaning, "by all his natural efforts or legal obedience."

JFB: Rom 4:2

"If works were the ground of Abraham's justification, he would have matter for boasting; but as it is perfectly certain that he hath none in the sight of God, it follows that Abraham could not have been justified by works." And to this agree the words of Scripture.

JFB: Rom 4:3

His faith.

JFB: Rom 4:3

(Gen 15:6). Romish expositors and Arminian Protestants make this to mean that God accepted Abraham's act of believing as a substitute for complete obedience. But this is at variance with the whole spirit and letter of the apostle's teaching. Throughout this whole argument, faith is set in direct opposition to works, in the matter of justification--and even in Rom 4:4-5. The meaning, therefore, cannot possibly be that the mere act of believing--which is as much a work as any other piece of commanded duty (Joh 6:29; 1Jo 3:23) --was counted to Abraham for all obedience. The meaning plainly is that Abraham believed in the promises which embraced Christ (Gen 12:3; Gen 15:5, &c.), as we believe in Christ Himself; and in both cases, faith is merely the instrument that puts us in possession of the blessing gratuitously bestowed.

JFB: Rom 4:4-5

As a servant for wages.

JFB: Rom 4:4-5

As a matter of favor.

JFB: Rom 4:4-5

As a matter of right.

JFB: Rom 4:5

Who, despairing of acceptance with God by "working" for it the work of obedience, does not attempt it.

JFB: Rom 4:5

Casts himself upon the mercy of Him that justifieth those who deserve only condemnation.

JFB: Rom 4:5

(See on Rom 4:3).

Second: David sings of the same justification.

Clarke: Rom 4:1

Jew. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? - The κατα σαρκα, pertaining to the flesh, must here refer to the sign in Abraham’ s flesh, viz. his circumcision; on which the Jew would found his right to peculiar blessings. That this is the meaning of κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, Dr. Taylor has proved by a collation of several parallel scriptures, which it is not necessary to produce here. We may, therefore, suppose the Jew arguing thus: But you set your argument on a wrong footing, viz. the corrupt state of our nation; whereas we hold our prerogative above the rest of mankind from Abraham, who is our father; and we have a right to the blessings of God’ s peculiar kingdom, in virtue of the promise made to him; his justification is the ground of ours. Now what shall we make of his case, on your principles? Of what use was his obedience to the law of circumcision, if it did not give him a right to the blessing of God? And if, by his obedience to that law, he obtained a grant of extraordinary blessings, then, according to your own concession, Rom 3:27, he might ascribe his justification to something in himself; and, consequently, so may we too, in his right; and if so, this will exclude all those who are not circumcised as we are.

Clarke: Rom 4:2

For if Abraham were justified by works - The Jew proceeds: - I conclude, therefore, that Abraham was justified by works, or by his obedience to this law of circumcision; and, consequently, he has cause for glorying, καυχημα, to exult in something which he has done to entitle him to these blessings. Now, it is evident that he has this glorying, and consequently that he was justified by works

Clarke: Rom 4:2

Apostle. But not before God - These seem to be the apostle’ s words, and contain the beginning of his answer to the arguments of the Jew, as if he had said: - Allowing that Abraham might glory in being called from heathenish darkness into such marvellous light, and exult in the privileges which God had granted to him; yet this glorying was not before God as a reason why those privileges should be granted; the glorying itself being a consequence of these very privileges.

Clarke: Rom 4:3

For, what saith the Scripture? - The Scriptural account of this transaction, Gen 15:6, is decisive; for there it is said, Abraham believed God, and it was counted, ελογισθη, it was reckoned to him for righteousness, εις δικαιοσυνην, for justification.

Clarke: Rom 4:4

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt - Therefore, if Abraham had been justified by works, the blessings he received would have been given to him as a reward for those works, and consequently his believing could have had no part in his justification, and his faith would have been useless.

Clarke: Rom 4:5

But to him that worketh not - Which was the case with Abraham, for he was called when he was ungodly, i.e. an idolater; and, on his believing, was freely justified: and, as all men have sinned, none can be justified by works; and, therefore, justification, if it take place at all, must take place in behalf of the ungodly, forasmuch as all mankind are such. Now, as Abraham’ s state and mode in which he was justified, are the plan and rule according to which God purposes to save men; and as his state was ungodly, and the mode of his justification was by faith in the goodness and mercy of God; and this is precisely the state of Jews and Gentiles at present; there can be no other mode of justification than by faith in that Christ who is Abraham’ s seed, and in whom, according to the promise, all the nations of the earth are to be blessed

It is necessary to observe here, in order to prevent confusion and misapprehension, that although the verb δικαιοω has a variety of senses in the New Testament, yet here it is to be taken as implying the pardon of sin; receiving a person into the favor of God. See these different acceptations cited in the note on Rom 1:17 (note), and particularly under No. 7. It is also necessary to observe, that our translators render the verb λογιζομαι differently in different parts of this chapter. It is rendered counted, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:5; reckoned, Rom 4:4, Rom 4:9, Rom 4:10; imputed, Rom 4:6, Rom 4:8, Rom 4:11, Rom 4:22-24. Reckoned is probably the best sense in all these places.

Calvin: Rom 4:1

1.=== What then, === etc. This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through shame.

===According to the flesh, === etc. Between this clause and the word father there is put in Paul’s text the verb ἑυρηκέναι, in this order — “What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?” On this account, some interpreters think that the question is — “What has Abraham obtained according to the flesh?” If this exposition be approved, the words according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however, probable that they are to be connected with the word father. ¹³⁰ Besides, as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end — that he might more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the example of their father.

Calvin: Rom 4:2

2.=== For if Abraham, === etc. This is an incomplete argument, ¹³¹ which may be made in this form — “If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works.” Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God’s tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit?

Calvin: Rom 4:3

3.For what saith the Scripture? This is a proof of the minor proposition, or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground for glorying: for if Abraham was justified, because he embraced, by faith, the bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner, who is destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the law or by works, it must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from another what is wanting in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called imputative.

The passage, which is quoted, is taken from Gen 15:6; in which the word believe is not to be confined to any particular expression, but it refers to the whole covenant of salvation, and the grace of adoption, which Abraham apprehended by faith. There is, indeed, mentioned there the promise of a future seed; but it was grounded on gratuitous adoption: ¹³² and it ought to be observed, that salvation without the grace of God is not promised, nor God’s grace without salvation; and again, that we are not called to the grace of God nor to the hope of salvation, without having righteousness offered to us.

Taking this view, we cannot but see that those understand not the principles of theology, who think that this testimony recorded by Moses, is drawn aside from its obvious meaning by Paul: for as there is a particular promise there stated, they understand that he acted rightly and faithfully in believing it, and was so far approved by God. But they are in this mistaken; first, because they have not considered that believing extends to the whole context, and ought not to be confined to one clause. But the principal mistake is, that they begin not with the testimony of God’s favor. But God gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and paternal favor; and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ. Hence Abraham, by believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being persuaded that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for righteousness, it follows, that he was not otherwise just, than as one trusting in God’s goodness, and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses does not, indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted before the tribunal of God. Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God offered to him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness was communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith; for there is in this respect the same connection between God and us, as there is, according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom any thing is given, ( datorem et donatarium — the donor and the donee:) for we can no otherwise attain righteousness, than as it is brought to us, as it were, by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith. ¹³³

How to reconcile what James says, which seems somewhat contrary to this view I have already explained, and intend to explain more fully, when I come, if the Lord will permit, to expound that Epistle.

Only let us remember this, — that those to whom righteousness is imputed, are justified; since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are in themselves, but how God regards them; not that purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own righteousness.

Calvin: Rom 4:4

4.=== To him indeed who works, === etc. It is not he, whom he calls a worker, who is given to good works, to which all the children of God ought to attend, but the person who seeks to merit something by his works: and in a similar way he calls him no worker who depends not on the merit of what he does. He would not, indeed, have the faithful to be idle; but he only forbids them to be mercenaries, so as to demand any thing from God, as though it were justly their due.

We have before reminded you, that the question is not here how we are to regulate our life, but how we are to be saved: and he argues from what is contrary, — that God confers not righteousness on us because it is due, but bestows it as a gift. And indeed I agree with Bucer, who proves that the argument is not made to depend on one expression, but on the whole passage, and formed in this manner, “If one merits any thing by his work, what is merited is not freely imputed to him, but rendered to him as his due. Faith is counted for righteousness, not that it procures any merit for us, but because it lays hold on the goodness of God: hence righteousness is not due to us, but freely bestowed.” For as Christ of his own good-will justifies us through faith, Paul always regards this as an evidence of our emptiness; for what do we believe, except that Christ is an expiation to reconcile us to God? The same truth is found in other words in Gal 3:11, where it is said, “That no man is justified by the law, it is evident, for the just shall by faith live: but the law is not by faith; but he who doeth these things shall live in them.” Inasmuch, then, as the law promises reward to works, he hence concludes, that the righteousness of faith, which is free, accords not with that which is operative: this could not be were faith to justify by means of works. — We ought carefully to observe these comparisons, by which every merit is entirely done away.

Calvin: Rom 4:5

5.===. But believes on him, === etc. This is a very important sentence, in which he expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shews that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God. ¹³⁴ Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to aid our necessity: in short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith except he who feels that he is ungodly; for this sentence is to be applied to what is said in this passage, — that faith adorns us with the righteousness of another, which it seeks as a gift from God. And here again, God is said to justify us when he freely forgives sinners, and favors those, with whom he might justly be angry, with his love, that is, when his mercy obliterates our unrighteousness.

Defender: Rom 4:2

The supposed contradiction between Paul and James has been widely noted. Paul says Abraham was not justified by works; James says he was (Jam 2:21). The point is that Abraham was justified by faith in God's Word, but he then was asked to demonstrate that his faith was genuine by his works. He was justified before God by faith but was justified before men by his works (Jam 2:21-24)."

Defender: Rom 4:3

The Scripture cited is Gen 15:6. As Paul notes later (Rom 4:9-15), Abraham was justified by faith before he was given the sign of circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and before the law was given, so justification by faith is God's original and basic standard (a genuine faith in God and His Word, a faith which then causes one to obey God's Word)."

TSK: Rom 4:1

what : Rom 6:1, Rom 7:7, Rom 8:31

Abraham : Isa 51:2; Mat 3:9; Luk 3:8, Luk 16:24, Luk 16:25, Luk 16:29-31; Joh 8:33, Joh 8:37-41, Joh 8:53, Joh 8:56; Act 13:26; 2Co 11:22

as pertaining : Rom 4:16; Heb 12:9

TSK: Rom 4:2

Abraham : Rom 3:20-28; Phi 3:9

he hath : Rom 3:27, Rom 15:17; Eze 8:9; Jer 9:23, Jer 9:24; 1Co 9:16; 2Co 5:12, 2Co 11:12, 2Co 11:30; 2Co 12:1-9; Gal 6:13, Gal 6:14; Eph 2:9

but : Gen 12:12, Gen 12:13, Gen 12:18, Gen 12:20, Gen 20:9-13; Jos 24:2; 1Co 1:29, 1Co 4:7; Gal 3:22

TSK: Rom 4:3

what : Rom 9:17, Rom 10:11, Rom 11:2; Isa 8:20; Mar 12:10; Jam 4:5; 2Pe 1:20,2Pe 1:21

Abraham : Gen 15:6; Gal 3:6-8; Jam 2:23

counted : Rom 4:5, Rom 4:9, Rom 4:11, Rom 4:22-25; Psa 106:31

TSK: Rom 4:4

Rom 9:32, Rom 11:6, Rom 11:35; Matt. 20:1-16

TSK: Rom 4:5

But to : Rom 4:24, Rom 4:25, Rom 3:22, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2, Rom 10:3, Rom 10:9, Rom 10:10; Act 13:38, Act 13:39; Gal 2:16, Gal 2:17, Gal 3:9-14; Phi 3:9

believeth : Rom 4:24, Rom 3:26-30, Rom 8:30-34; Joh 5:24; Gal 3:8

ungodly : Rom 1:17, Rom 1:18, Rom 5:6-8; Jos 24:2; Zec 3:3, Zec 3:4; 1Co 6:9-11; 1Ti 1:13-15; Tit 3:3-7

his faith : Rom 4:3; Hab 2:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 4:1

What shall we say then? - See Rom 3:1. This is rather the objection of a Jew. "How does your doctrine of justification by faith agree with what the Scriptures say of Abraham? Was the Law set aside in his case? Did he derive no advantage in justification from the rite of circumcision, and from the covenant which God made with him?"The object of the apostle now is to answer this inquiry.

That Abraham our father - Our ancestor; the father and founder of the nation; see the note at Mat 3:9 The Jews valued themselves much on the fact that he was their father; and an argument, drawn from his example or conduct, therefore, would be especially forcible.

As pertaining to the flesh - This expression is one that has been much controverted. In the original, it may refer either to Abraham as their father "according to the flesh,"that is, their natural father, or from whom they were descended; or it may be connected with "hath found.""What shall we say that Abraham our father hath found in respect to the flesh?" κατὰ σάρκα kata sarka . The latter is doubtless the proper connection. Some refer the word "flesh"to external privileges and advantages; others to his own strength or power (Calvin and Grotius); and others make it refer to circumcision. This latter I take to be the correct interpretation. It agrees best with the connection, and equally well with the usual meaning of the word. The idea is, "If people are justified by faith; if works are to have no place; if, therefore, all rites and ceremonies, all legal observances, are useless in justification; what is the advantage of circumcision? What benefit did Abraham derive from it? Why was it appointed? And why is such an importance attached to it in the history of his life."A similar question was asked in Rom 3:1.

Hath found - Hath obtained. What advantage has he derived from it?

Barnes: Rom 4:2

For if Abraham ... - This is the answer of the apostle. If Abraham was justified on the ground of his own merits, he would have reason to boast, or to claim praise. He might regard himself as the author of it, and take the praise to himself; see Rom 4:4. The inquiry, therefore, was, whether in the account of the justification of Abraham, there was to be found any such statement of a reason for self-confidence and boasting.

But not before God - In the sight of God. That is, in his recorded judgment, he had no ground of boasting on account of works. To show this, the apostle appeals at once to the Scriptures, to show that there was no such record as that Abraham could boast that he was justified by his works. As God judges right in all cases, so it follows that Abraham had no just ground of boasting, and of course that he was not justified by his own works. The sense of this verse is well expressed by Calvin. "If Abraham was justified by his works, he might boast of his own merits. But he has no ground of boasting before God. Therefore he was not justified by works."

Barnes: Rom 4:3

For what saith the Scripture? - The inspired account of Abraham’ s justification. This account was final, and was to settle the question. This account is found in Gen 15:6.

Abraham believed God - In the Hebrew, "Abraham believed Yahweh."The sense is substantially the same, as the argument turns on the act of believing. The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of such a posterity. See the strength and nature of this faith further illustrated in Rom 4:16-21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct, and unwavering act of confidence in the promise of God.

And it - The word "it"here evidently refers to the act of believing It does not refer to the righteousness of another - of God, or of the Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham’ s faith. which in some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God had promised he would perform, was reckoned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully expressed in Rom 4:18-22. When therefore it is said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by "this"passage of Scripture.

Faith is uniformly an act of the mind. It is not a created essence which is placed within the mind. It is not a substance created independently of the soul, and placed within it by almighty power. It is not a principle, for the expression a principle of faith, is as unmeaningful as a principle of joy, or a principle of sorrow, or a principle of remorse. God promises; the man believes; and this is the whole of it.

(A principle is the "element or original cause,"out of which certain consequences arise, and to which they may be traced. And if faith be the root of all acceptable obedience, then certainly, in this sense, it is a principle. But whatever faith be, it is not here asserted that it is imputed for, or instead of, righteousness. See the note above.)

While the word "faith"is sometimes used to denote religious doctrine, or the system that is to be believed (Act 6:7; Act 15:9; Rom 1:5; Rom 10:8; Rom 16:26; Eph 3:17; Eph 4:5; 1Ti 2:7, etc.); yet, when it is used to denote that which is required of people, it always denotes an acting of the mind exercised in relation to some object, or some promise, or threatening, or declaration of some other being; see the note at Mar 16:16.

Was counted - ἐλογίσθη elogigisthē . The same word in Rom 4:22, is is rendered "it was imputed."The word occurs frequently in the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, the verb חשׁב chaashab , which which is translated by the word λογίζομαι logizomai , means literally, "to think, to intend,"or "purpose; to imagine, invent,"or "devise; to reckon,"or "account; to esteem; to impute,"that is, to impute to a man what belongs to himself, or what "ought"to be imputed to him. It occurs only in the following places: Psa 32:2; Psa 35:4; Isa 10:7; Job 19:11; Job 33:10; Gen 16:6; Gen 38:15; 1Sa 1:13; Psa 52:4; Jer 18:18; Zec 7:10; Job 6:26; Job 19:16; Isa 13:17; 1Ki 10:21; Num 18:27, Num 18:30; Psa 88:4; Isa 40:17; Lam 4:2; Isa 40:15; Gen 31:16. I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man what does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him what ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times (see "Schmidius’ Concord),"and, in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word. Whatever is meant by it here, it evidently is declared that the act of believing is what is intended, both by Moses and by Paul.

For righteousness - In order to justification; or to regard and treat him in connection with this as a righteous man; as one who was admitted to the favor and friendship of God. In reference to this we may remark,

(1) That it is evidently not intended that the act of believing, on the part of Abraham, was the meritorious ground of acceptance; for then it would have been a work. Faith was as much his own act, as any act of obedience to the Law.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he design of the apostle was to show that by the Law, or by works, man could not be justified; Rom 3:28; Rom 4:2.

\caps1 (3) f\caps0 aith was not what the Law required. It demanded complete and perfect obedience; and if a man was justified by faith, it was in some other way than by the Law.

\caps1 (4) a\caps0 s the Law did not demand this; and as faith was something different from the demand of the Law; so if a man were justified by that, it was on a principle altogether different from justification by works. It was not by personal merit. It was not by complying with the Law. It was in a mode entirely different.

\caps1 (5) i\caps0 n being justified by faith, it is meant, therefore, that we are treated as righteous; that we are forgiven; that we are admitted to the favor of God, and treated as his friends.

\caps1 (6) i\caps0 n this act, faith, is a mere instrument, an antecedent, a "sine qua non,"what God has been pleased to appoint as a condition on which men may be treated as righteous. It expresses a state of mind which is demonstrative of love to God; of affection for his cause and character; of reconciliation and friendship; and is therefore that state to which he has been graciously pleased to promise pardon and acceptance.

\caps1 (7) s\caps0 ince this is not a matter of law; since the Law could not be said to demand it; as it is on a different principle; and as the acceptance of faith, or of a believer, cannot be a matter of merit or claim, so justification is of grace, or mere favor. It is in no sense a matter of merit on our part, and thus stands distinguished entirely from justification by works, or by conformity to the Law. From beginning to end, it is, so far as we are concerned, a matter of grace. The merit by which all this is obtained, is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom this plan is proposed, and by whose atonement alone God can consistently pardon and treat as righteous those who are in themselves ungodly; see Rom 4:5. In this place we have also evidence that faith is always substantially of the same character. In the case of Abraham it was confidence in God and his promises. All faith has the same nature, whether it be confidence in the Messiah, or in any of the divine promises or truths. As this confidence evinces the same state of mind, so it was as consistent to justify Abraham by it, as it is to justify him who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ under the gospel; see Heb. 11.

Barnes: Rom 4:4

Now to him that worketh ... - This passage is not to be understood as affirming that any actually have worked out their salvation by conformity to the Law so as to be saved by their own merits; but it expresses a general truth in regard to works. On that plan, if a man were justified by his works, it would be a matter due to him. It is a general principle in regard to contracts and obligations, that where a man fulfils them he is entitled to the reward as what is due to him, and which he can claim. This is well understood in all the transactions among people. Where a man has fulfilled the terms of a contract, to pay him is not a matter of favor; he has earned it; and we are bound to pay him. So says the apostle, it would be, if a man were justified by his works. He would have a claim on God. It would be wrong not to justify him. And this is an additional reason why the doctrine cannot be true; compare Rom 11:6.

The reward - The pay, or wages. The word is commonly applied to the pay of soldiers, day-laborers, etc.; Mat 20:8; Luk 10:7; 1Ti 5:18; Jam 5:4. It has a similar meaning here.

Reckoned - Greek, Imputed. The same word which, in Rom 4:3, is rendered "counted,"and in Rom 4:22, imputed. It is used here in its strict and proper sense, to reckon that as belonging to a man which is his own, or which is due to him; see the note at Rom 4:3.

Of grace - Of favor; as a gift.

Of debt - As due; as a claim; as a fair compensation according to the contract.

Barnes: Rom 4:5

But to him that worketh not - Who does not rely on his conformity to the Law for his justification; who does not depend on his works; who seeks to be justified in some other way. The reference here is to the Christian plan of justification.

But believeth - Note, Rom 3:26.

On him - On God. Thus, the connection requires; for the discussion has immediate reference to Abraham, whose faith was in the promise of God.

That justifieth the ungodly - This is a very important expression. It implies,

(1) That people are sinners, or are ungodly.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat God regards them as such when they are justified. He does not justify them because he sees them to be, or regards them to be righteous; but knowing that they are in fact polluted. He does not first esteem them, contrary to fact, to be pure; but knowing that they are polluted, and that they deserve no favor, he resolves to forgive them, and to treat them as his friends.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 n themselves they are equally undeserving, whether they are justified or not. Their souls have been defiled by sin; and that is known when they are pardoned. God judges things as they are; and sinners who are justified, he judges not as if they were pure, or as if they had a claim; but he regards them as united by faith to the Lord Jesus; and in this relation he judges that they should be treated as his friends, though they have been, are, and always will be, personally undeserving. It is not meant that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to them, so as to become personally theirs - for moral character cannot be transferred; nor that it is infused into them, making them personally meritorious - for then they could not be spoken of as ungodly; but that Christ died in their stead, to atone for their sins, and is regarded and esteemed by God to have died; and that the results or benefits of his death are so reckoned or imputed to believers as to make it proper for God to regard and treat them as if they had themselves obeyed the Law; that is, as righteous in his sight; see the note at Rom 4:3.

Poole: Rom 4:1

Rom 4:1-8 Abraham himself was justified by faith,

Rom 4:9-12 which was imputed to him for righteousness before

circumcision, that he might be the common father of

believers, whether circumcised or not.

Rom 4:13-17 The promise was not given him through the law, else

had it been void from the very nature of the law; but

being of faith by grace is sure to all the destined

seed, and not to those of the law only.

Rom 4:18-22 The acceptableness of Abraham’ s faith,

Rom 4:23-25 which stands recorded not for his sake only, but for

the sake of all who shall profess a like faith in God

through Christ.

The apostle proceeds to prove his main conclusion, Rom 3:28 , which is, that a sinner is justified by faith without works, from the example of Abraham. He was a man that had faith and works both, yet he was justified by faith, and not by works; and who doubts but the children are justified after the same manner that their father was: there is but one way of justification; this is the connexion.

As pertaining to the flesh: these words may either be referred to father and then they import no more but that Abraham was their father according to the flesh, Rom 9:5 . Or else they may be referred to the following word found and then the question is, What hath Abraham found, i.e. got or attained, according to the flesh? The sense is, What hath he got by his righteousness, which stands in works, and are done in the flesh? Abraham obtained not righteousness by any works, ceremonial or moral. So the word flesh is taken, see Phi 3:3,4when under the word flesh came circumcision, our own righteousness, which is by the law, or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ.

Poole: Rom 4:2

He hath whereof to glory he hath cause or matter of glorying and boasting; he hath something from whence he may take occasion of so doing.

But not before God something must be supplied to fill up the sense, i.e. he hath nothing whereof to glory before God. The argument of the apostle might be thus formed: If Abraham had obtained justification by works, he should have had somewhat whereof he might glory before God: but he had nothing whereof to glory before God; therefore he was not justified by works. God’ s way of justifying sinners is such, as shuts out all glorying and boasting, as he had before laid down, Rom 3:27 .

Poole: Rom 4:3

The scripture referred to is in Gen 15:6 . The apostle a little varies the words; in Genesis it is he believed in God, but here he believed God: again, in Genesis it is expressed actively, he counted it to him for righteousness; but here passively, it was counted to him for righteousness The answer is, That the apostle in both followed the Septuagint, which was then more in use than the Hebrew text; and both are capable of an easy reconciliation, the difference being more in sound than in sense.

Abraham believed God i.e. the promises of God: that he would be his shield and exceeding great reward, Gen 15:1 ; that he would give him an heir of his body, Gen 15:4 ; that he would multiply his seed, Gen 15:5 , whereby he understood not only his fleshly seed, but also the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, which was come of his loins; He took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb 2:16 . And besides these promises in Gen 15:1-21 , he believed that promise which was made him, Gen 12:3 , That in him and his seed all families of the earth should be blessed. That in these promises the Messiah is understood, is evident from Gal 3:8,16 ; and that Abraham had an eye to him is evident, without exception, from Joh 8:56 .

It was counted unto him for righteousness i.e. he was justified thereby: to have faith imputed for righteousness, and to be justified by faith, is the same thing. Faith is not our righteousness materially, but objectively and organically, as it apprehends and implies the righteousness of Christ, which is the matter of our justification. Our adversaries the papists oppose the imputation of Christ’ s righteousness to us; they cavil at the very word, and call it putative righteousness: and yet the apostle useth the word ten times in this chapter, and in the same sense that word ten times in this chapter, and in the same sense that we take it. But how shall we reconcile our apostle with St. James, about the manner of Abraham’ s justification: he says expressly, Jam 2:21 , that Abraham our father was justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac; and thence he infers, Rom 4:24 , that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. They are easily reconciled, forasmuch as the one discourseth of the cause of our justification before God; the other, of the signs of justification before men. The one speaks of the imputation of righteousness; the other, of the declaration of righteousness. The one speaks of the office of faith; the other, of the quality of faith. The one speaks of the justification of the person; the other, of the faith of that person. The one speaks of Abraham to be justified; the other, of Abraham already justified.

Poole: Rom 4:4

He proceeds to prove, that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith, and free grace, and so had no cause of boasting. This he illustrates by a comparison betwixt one that worketh, and one that worketh not, but believeth. To him that worketh; i.e. to him that worketh with a design or intent to obtain or merit justification by his works, for else he that believeth also worketh; only he is said not to work, secundum quid, after a sort, to the end or intent that he might merit by it.

Is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt he speaks this by way of supposition, in case he should have fulfilled the condition of perfect obedience: and yet, to speak properly, there is no reward, as a due debt from God to him that worketh, Rom 11:35 ; only he speaks after the manner of men, and useth a civil maxim, taken from human affairs.

Poole: Rom 4:5

To him that worketh not i.e. to him that worketh not to the end or intent before mentioned, or with respect to justification, but takes the other way to be justified and saved, and that is, the way of believing.

That justifieth the ungodly that makes him, who is wicked in himself, just and righteous in Christ; or justifies him that was ungodly, but after justification is made godly. By ungodly, some would understand such as want that perfection of godliness, as they may build the hopes of justification upon; because the proposition is drawn from the instance of Abraham, a man not void of godliness.

His faith is counted for righteousness not considered in itself as a work, but in relation to Christ, the object of it, and as an act of receiving and applying him; as eating nourisheth, though it be the meat that doth it.

PBC: Rom 4:3

God-Measured FAITH {Ro 12:3} in the New Birth is the ROOT of the tree of belief. The SAME with Daniel in Da 6:23. His belief was not the first cause. The SAME with Abraham in Ge 15:6 and repeated in Ro 4:3 -In these last two verses we find the word COUNTED. Ro 4:3 -" For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Further in this chapter two other words are used which mean the same as " Counted" -IMPUTED and RECKONED. These are all " accounting" terms, meaning " displayed or manifested." An Accountant does NOT CAUSE the value of your estate, but does do the counting, imputing and reckoning, which displays and manifests your estate’s value.

We continue to study Ro 4:1-25 and getting further into the chapter we finally find the ROOT or SEED of the " counting." Ro 4:11 finally mentions FAITH which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that BELIEVE. Ro 4:12 -we are to also WALK in steps OF THAT FAITH (not belief) of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

The chapter goes on in unbroken dialogue concerning FAITH. Ro 4:16 " Therefore it is OF FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is OF THE FAITH of Abraham; who is the father of us all." Ro 4:19 continues in this vein -" And being NOT WEAK IN FAITH..." Ro 4:20 tells us that he staggered not in UNBELIEF, but was STRONG IN FAITH.

It is clear that FAITH is the ROOT and BELIEF becomes its offspring, by-product or spin-off, and not the FIRST CAUSE. James further teaches this same lesson- Jas 2:17-24 -FAITH is the subject and the criteria herein. So, FAITH, then belief, then works, and like links in a chain, Faith causes belief and belief is manifested or displayed by works. They will always be in that order.

296

PBC: Rom 4:5

"but"

If a person does not work but believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is not a work. If it were a work then it would have to be reckoned that it was a debt that God owed (Ro 4:4). The word "but" indicates a contrast. Therefore believing is not a work.

297

Haydock: Rom 4:1

The apostle proves what he had advanced in the last chapter, that the Jews cannot be justified by the works of the written law, nor by any works, unless joined with faith in the Messias, their Redeemer. This he shews by the example of Abraham, who is said to have been justified by believing; 2. and this was before he was circumcised; 3. and long before the law of Moses. Justification was then given without the works of that law. ---

What advantage shall we say, then, that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh? This seems the true construction and sense: rather than what did he find according to the flesh, as some expound it. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 4:2

If Abraham were justified by works, or by his own works, he might have glory, and be commended by men, who judge only according to outward appearances; but not with God: that is, he could not be truly justified, so as to deserve a reward in heaven, without faith and the grace of God. (Witham) ---

Not with God. Whatever glory or applause such works might procure from men, they would be of no value in the sight of God. (Challoner)

Haydock: Rom 4:3

For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [1] The Scripture, therefore, teacheth us that he became just by his faith. And as he had this faith by the grace of God, grace was the cause of his justification, and not any works without grace. And when it is said, it was reputed to him, we must not understand an imputation of being just without a true and interior justice: for to be reputed just in the sight of God, who sees the heart, and sanctifies the soul by his interior grace, is the only true justice that can make a man acceptable to God. As not to have our sins imputed in the sight of God, is to have them forgiven, and to be free from our sins. (Witham) ---

Reputed, &c. By God, who reputeth nothing otherwise than it is. However, we may gather from this word, that when we are justified, our justification preceedeth from God's free grace and bounty; and not from any efficacy which any act of ours could have of its own nature, abstracting from God's grace. (Challoner)

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, Greek: kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen. The Greek word is sometimes translated in the Vulgate Latin, by imputare, or accepto ferre.

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

Haydock: Rom 4:4

Now to him that worketh, &c. a reward may be looked upon as due for his works, and not bestowed upon him as a free gift; but when it is said he believed and was justified, (this belief or faith was always a liberal gift of God) and when no mention is made of his works, it appears that such a justification and sanctification are not from the works of the written law, nor from any works he could do of himself, but that they are according to the purpose, or decree of grace. (Witham) ---

Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt, due to his own performance; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength; but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God's grace. (Challoner)

Haydock: Rom 4:5

Abraham, before his vocation, was an idolater, according to Josephus; (Jewish Antiquities, lib. i. chap. viii.) according to some of the Rabbins, and as the Scripture itself seems to insinuate, Josue chap. xxiv; Isaias xliii; Wisdom x; Judith v. He did not then merit his vocation to the faith by his works. But when God had called him, and made him depart from his country, when he promised to him an innumerable posterity, Abraham believed in his promises, and it was reputed to him unto justice, that his faith and his justice were the pure gift of God. His faith was not a dead and speculative faith only, but an active faith, a faith animated by charity, as appears from the sequel of his life. (Calmet)

Gill: Rom 4:1

What shall we say then,.... The apostle having proved that there is no justification by the works of the law; to make this appear more clear and evident to the Jews, he instances in the greatest person of their nation, and for whom they had the greatest value and esteem,

Abraham, our father; who was not a righteous and good man, but the head of the Jewish nation; and, as the Syriac version here styles him, רישא דאבהתא, "the head", or "chief of the fathers"; and so the Alexandrian copy, "our forefather": and was the first of the circumcision, and is described here by his relation to the Jews, "our father"; that is,

as pertaining to the flesh; or according to carnal descent, or natural generation and relation; for in a spiritual sense, or with respect to faith and grace, he was the father of others, even of all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles: now the question put concerning him is, "what he, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" for the phrase, "as pertaining to the flesh", may be connected with the word

found; and to find anything is by seeking to obtain, and enjoy it: and the sense of the whole is, did he find out the way of life, righteousness, and salvation by the mere hint of carnal reason? and did he obtain these things by his own strength? or were these acquired by his circumcision in the flesh, or by any other fleshly privilege he enjoyed? or was he justified before God by any services and performances of his, of whatsoever kind? There is indeed no express answer returned; but it is evident from what follows, that the meaning of the apostle is, that it should be understood in the negative.

Gill: Rom 4:2

For if Abraham were justified by works,.... That Abraham was not, and could not be justified by works, is clear from hence, that if this was his case,

he hath whereof to glory; which will be allowed him before men, on account of his pious life and conversation:

but not before God; who saw all the iniquity of his heart, and was privy to all his failings and infirmities: besides, glorying before God in a man's own works, is contrary to the scheme and method of God's grace; is excluded by the doctrine of faith; nor is there any place for glorying before God but in Christ, and his righteousness: if therefore Abraham had not that of which he could glory before God, he could not be justified by works in his sight: but does not the Apostle James say that he was justified by works, Jam 2:21? To this it may be replied, that the two apostles, Paul and James, are not speaking of the same thing: Paul speaks of justification before God, James of justification before men; Paul speaks of the justification of the person, James of the justification of a man's cause, as the truth of his faith, or the uprightness of his conduct; Paul speaks of works, as the causes of justification, James of them as the effects and evidences of faith; Paul had to do with the self-righteous, who trusted in their own works for justification, James with Gnostics, who slighted and neglected the performance of them. These things considered, they will be found to agree.

Gill: Rom 4:3

For what saith the Scripture?.... This answers to דכתיב מאי, "what is that which is written" ^c? or what does the Scripture say? which is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when anything is proposed, which seems contrary to Scripture, as here justification by works does. A testimony from Scripture is here produced, proving that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by works: the place referred to is Gen 15:6;

Abraham believed God; the object of his faith and trust were not his riches, nor his righteousness, but Jehovah, the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, styled in Gen 15:1, "the Word of the Lord", the essential Word of God, and called his "shield", and "exceeding great reward"; characters which are very applicable to Christ: and this faith of his in the Lord was not a mere assent to the promise of God, but a fiducial act of faith in him; and was not merely concerned with temporal, but with spiritual things, and particularly about Christ the promised seed:

and it was counted to him for righteousness, the meaning of which is not, that Abraham imputed righteousness to God, or celebrated his righteousness and faithfulness, as some; or that the world reckoned Abraham a righteous person, as others; but that God reckoned him righteous, or imputed it to him for righteousness: and the question is, what the it is which was counted to him for righteousness? and that this is to be understood, על האמנה, "concerning faith", as R. Solomon Jarchi says, is out of question; for this is expressly said by the apostle, Rom 4:9. The only one is, whether it means the grace of faith by which he believed; or the object of faith on which he believed, and with which his faith was conversant: not the former, for that is not righteousness, nor accounted so; but is distinguished from it, and is that by which a person receives and lays hold on righteousness; besides, whatever may be alleged in favour of the imputation of Abraham's faith to himself for righteousness, it can never be thought to be imputed to others on that account; whereas the very selfsame it is imputed to others also; see Rom 4:24; it remains then that it was the promised seed, the Messiah, and his righteousness, which Abraham, by faith, looked unto, and believed in, that was made unto him righteousness by imputation. Now since so great and good a man as Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith in the righteousness of the Messiah, it follows, that none of his sons, nor any other person whatever, ought to seek for, or expect to be justified in any other way.

Gill: Rom 4:4

Now to him that worketh,.... The apostle illustrates the former case by two sorts of persons in this and the next verse, who have different things accounted to them, and in a different manner. The one is represented as working, the other not. By the worker is meant, not one that works from, and upon principles of grace. The regenerate man is disposed to work for God; the man that has the Spirit of God is capable of working; he that has the grace of Christ, and strength from him, can work well; he that believes in Christ, works in a right way; he that loves Christ, works freely, and from a right principle; and he that has Christ's glory in view, works to a right end: but the worker here, is one that works upon nature's principles, and with selfish views; one that works in the strength of nature, trusting to, and glorying in what he does; seeking righteousness by his work, and working for eternal life and salvation. Now let it be supposed, that such a worker not only thinks he does, but if it could be, really does all the works of the law, yields a perfect obedience to it; what

is the reward that is, and will be

reckoned to him? There is no reward due to the creature's work, though ever so perfect, arising front any desert or dignity in itself: there may be a reward by promise and compact; God may promise a reward to encourage to obedience, as he does in the law, which is not eternal life; for that is the free gift of God, and is only brought to light in the Gospel; and though heaven is called a reward, yet not of man's obedience, but Christ's; but admitting heaven itself to be the reward promised to the worker, in what manner must that be reckoned to him?

not of grace: for grace and works can never agree together; for if the reward is reckoned for the man's works, then it is not of grace, "otherwise work is no more work", Rom 11:6; and if it is of grace, then not for his works, "otherwise grace is no more grace", Rom 11:6; it remains therefore, that if it is reckoned for his works, it must be

of debt: it must be his due, as wages are to an hireling. Now this was not Abraham's case, which must have been, had he been justified by works; he had a reward reckoned to him, and accounted his, which was God himself, "I am thy shield, and exceeding, great reward", Gen 15:1; which must be reckoned to him, not of debt, but of grace; wherefore it follows, that he was justified, not by works, but by the grace of God imputed to him; that which his faith believed in for righteousness. The distinction of a reward of grace, and of debt, was known to the Jews; a the one they called פרס, the other שכר: the former ^d they say is הגמול, "a benefit", which is freely of grace bestowed on an undeserving person, or one he is not obliged to; the other is what is given, בדין, "of debt", in strict justice.

Gill: Rom 4:5

But to him that worketh not,.... Not that the believer does not work at all, but not from such principles, and with such views as the other; he does not work in order to obtain life and salvation; he does not seek for justification by his doings:

but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly: or that ungodly one: particular reference is had to Abraham, who in his state of unregeneracy was an ungodly person; as all God's elect are in a state of nature, and are such when God justifies them, being without a righteousness of their own; wherefore he imputes the righteousness of another, even that of his own Son, unto them: and though he justifies the ungodly, he does not justify their ungodliness, but them from it; nor will he, nor does he leave them to live and die in it; now to him that worketh not, that is perfect righteousness; or has no opportunity of working at all; or what he does, he does not do, that he might be justified by it; but exercises faith on God as justifying persons, who, like himself, are sinners, ungodly and destitute of a righteousness:

his faith is counted for righteousness; not the act, but the object of it; which was Abraham's case, and therefore was not justified by works. The Vulgate Latin version here adds, "according to the purpose of the grace of God".

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 4:1

¹ tn Or “according to natural descent” (BDAG 916 s.v. σάρξ 4).

² tn Grk “has found?”

NET Notes: Rom 4:2

¹ tn Or “was justified.”

NET Notes: Rom 4:3

¹ tn The term λογίζομαι (logizomai) occurs 11 times in this chapter (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24). In secular usage it could (a) refer to deliberations of some sort, or (b) in commercial dealings (as virtually a technical term) to “reckoning” or “charging up a debt.” See H. W. Heidland, TDNT 4:284, 290-92.

² sn A quotation from Gen 15:6.

NET Notes: Rom 4:4

¹ tn Grk “not according to grace but according to obligation.”

NET Notes: Rom 4:5

¹ tn Or “who justifies the ungodly.”

Geneva Bible: Rom 4:1

What ^{( 1 )} shall we then say that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the ^{( a )} flesh, hath found?

^{( 1 )} A new argument of great weight, taken from the example of Abraham the father of all believers: and this is the proposition: if Abraham is considered in himself by his works, he has deserved nothing with which to rejoice with God.

^{( a )} By works, as is evident from the next verse.

Geneva Bible: Rom 4:2

^{( 2 )} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

^{( 2 )} A preventing of an objection. Abraham may well rejoice and extol himself among men, but not with God.

Geneva Bible: Rom 4:3

^{( 3 )} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

^{( 3 )} A confirmation of the proposition: Abraham was justified by imputation of faith, and therefore freely, without any regard being give to his works.

Geneva Bible: Rom 4:4

^{( 4 )} Now to him that ^{( b )} worketh is the reward not ^{( c )} reckoned of grace, but of debt.

^{( 4 )} The first proof of the confirmation, taken from opposites: to him who deserves anything by his labour, the wages are not counted as favour, but as debt: but to him that has done nothing but believe in him who freely promises, faith is imputed.

^{( b )} To him that has deserved anything from his work.

^{( c )} Is not reckoned or given to him.

Geneva Bible: Rom 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that ^{( d )} justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

^{( d )} That makes him who is wicked in himself to be just in Christ.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 4:1-25

1 Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness;

10 before he was circumcised.

13 By faith only he and his seed received the promise.

16 Abraham is the father of all that believe.

24 Our faith also shall be imputed to us for righteousness.

MHCC: Rom 4:1-12

To meet the views of the Jews, the apostle first refers to the example of Abraham, in whom the Jews gloried as their most renowned forefather. However exalted in various respects, he had nothing to boast in the presence of God, being saved by grace, through faith, even as others. Without noticing the years which passed before his call, and the failures at times in his obedience, and even in his faith, it was expressly stated in Scripture that " he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," Gen 15:6. From this example it is observed, that if any man could work the full measure required by the law, the reward must be reckoned as a debt, which evidently was not the case even of Abraham, seeing faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. When believers are justified by faith, " their faith being counted for righteousness," their faith does not justify them as a part, small or great, of their righteousness; but as the appointed means of uniting them to Him who has chosen as the name whereby he shall be called, " the Lord our Righteousness." Pardoned people are the only blessed people. It clearly appears from the Scripture, that Abraham was justified several years before his circumcision. It is, therefore, plain that this rite was not necessary in order to justification. It was a sign of the original corruption of human nature. And it was such a sign as was also an outward seal, appointed not only to confirm God's promises to him and to his seed, and their obligation to be the Lord's, but likewise to assure him of his being already a real partaker of the righteousness of faith. Thus Abraham was the spiritual forefather of all believers, who walked after the example of his obedient faith. The seal of the Holy Spirit in our sanctification, making us new creatures, is the inward evidence of the righteousness of faith.

Matthew Henry: Rom 4:1-8

Here the apostle proves that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith. Those that of all men contended most vigorously for a share in righteousness by the privileges they enjoyed, and the works they performed, were the Jews, and therefore he appeals to the case of Abraham their father, and puts his own name to the relation, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews: Abraham our father. Now surely his prerogative must needs be as great as theirs who claim it as his seed according to the flesh. Now what has he found? All the world is seeking; but, while the most are wearying themselves for very vanity, none can be truly reckoned to have found, but those who are justified before God; and thus Abraham, like a wise merchant, seeking goodly pearls, found this one pearl of great price. What has he found, kata sarka - as pertaining to the flesh, that is, by circumcision and his external privileges and performances? These the apostle calls flesh, Phi 3:3. Now what did he get by these? Was he justified by them? Was it the merit of his works that recommended him to God's acceptance? No, by no means, which he proves by several arguments.

I. If he had been justified by works, room would have been left for boasting, which must for ever be excluded. If so, he hath whereof to glory (Rom 4:2), which is not to be allowed. "But,"might the Jews say, "was not his name made great (Gen 12:2), and then might not he glory?"Yes, but not before God; he might deserve well of men, but he could never merit of God. Paul himself had whereof to glory before men, and we have him sometimes glorying in it, yet with humility; but nothing to glory in before God, 1Co 4:4; Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9. So Abraham. Observe, He takes it for granted that man must not pretend to glory in any thing before God; no, not Abraham, as great and as good a man as he was; and therefore he fetches an argument from it: it would be absurd for him that glorieth to glory in any but the Lord.

II. It is expressly said that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness. What saith the scripture? Rom 4:3. In all controversies in religion this must be our question, What saith the scripture? It is not what this great man, and the other good man, say, but What saith the scripture? Ask counsel at this Abel, and so end the matter, 2Sa 2:18. To the law, and to the testimony (Isa 8:20), thither is the last appeal. Now the scripture saith that Abraham believed, and this was counted to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6); therefore he had not whereof to glory before God, it being purely of free grace that it was so imputed, and having not in itself any of the formal nature of a righteousness, further than as God himself was graciously pleased so to count it to him. It is mentioned in Genesis, upon occasion of a very signal and remarkable act of faith concerning the promised seed, and is the more observable in that it followed upon a grievous conflict he had had with unbelief; his faith was now a victorious faith, newly returned from the battle. It is not the perfect faith that is required to justification (there may be acceptable faith where there are remainders of unbelief), but the prevailing faith, the faith that has the upper hand of unbelief.

III. If he had been justified by faith, the reward would have been of debt, and not of grace, which is not to be imagined. This is his argument (Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5): Abraham's reward was God himself; so he had told him but just before (Gen 15:1), I am thy exceeding great reward. Now, if Abraham had merited this by the perfection of his obedience, it had not been an act of grace in God, but Abraham might have demanded it with as much confidence as ever any labourer in the vineyard demanded the penny he had earned. But this cannot be; it is impossible for man, much more guilty man, to make God a debtor to him, Rom 11:35. No, God will have free grace to have all the glory, grace for grace's sake, Joh 1:16. And therefore to him that worketh not - that can pretend to no such merit, nor show any worth or value in his work, which may answer such a reward, but disclaiming any such pretension casts himself wholly upon the free grace of God in Christ, by a lively, active, obedient faith - to such a one faith is counted for righteousness, is accepted of God as the qualification required in all those that shall be pardoned and saved. Him that justifieth the ungodly, that is, him that was before ungodly. His former ungodliness was no bar to his justification upon his believing: ton asebē - that ungodly one, that is, Abraham, who, before his conversion, it should seem, was carried down the stream of the Chaldean idolatry, Jos 24:2. No room therefore is left for despair; though God clears not the impenitent guilty, yet through Christ he justifies the ungodly.

IV. He further illustrates this by a passage out of the Psalms, where David speaks of the remission of sins, the prime branch of justification, as constituting the happiness and blessedness of a man, pronouncing blessed, not the man who has no sin, or none which deserved death (for then, while man is so sinful, and God so righteous, where would be the blessed man?) but the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, who though he cannot plead, Not guilty, pleads the act of indemnity, and his plea is allowed. It is quoted from Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2, where observe, 1. The nature of forgiveness. It is the remission of a debt or a crime; it is the covering of sin, as a filthy thing, as the nakedness and shame of the soul. God is said to cast sin behind his back, to hide his face from it, which, and the like expressions, imply that the ground of our blessedness is not our innocency, or our not having sinned (a thing is, and is filthy, though covered; justification does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin), but God's not laying it to our charge, as it follows here: it is God's not imputing sin (Rom 4:8), which makes it wholly a gracious act of God, not dealing with us in strict justice as we have deserved, not entering into judgment, not marking iniquities, all which being purely acts of grace, the acceptance and the reward cannot be expected as debts; and therefore Paul infers (Rom 4:6) that it is the imputing of righteousness without works. 2. The blessedness of it: Blessed are they. When it is said, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, etc., the design is to show the characters of those that are blessed; but when it is said, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, the design is to show what that blessedness is, and what the ground and foundation of it. Pardoned people are the only blessed people. The sentiments of the world are, Those are happy that have a clear estate, and are out of debt to man; but the sentence of the word is, Those are happy that have their debts to God discharged. O how much therefore is it our interest to make it sure to ourselves that our sins are pardoned! For this is the foundation of all other benefits. So and so I will do for them; for I will be merciful, Heb 8:12.

Barclay: Rom 4:1-8

Paul moves on to speak of Abraham for three reasons.

(i) The Jews regarded Abraham as the great founder of the race and the pattern of all that a man should be. Very naturally they ask, "If all that you say is true, what was the special thing that was given to Abraham when God picked him out to be the ancestor of his special people? What makes him different from other people?" That is the question which Paul is going on to answer.

(ii) Paul has just been seeking to prove that what makes a man right with God is not the performance of the works that the law lays down, but the simple trust of complete yieldedness which takes God at his word and believes that he still loves us even when we have done nothing to deserve that love. The immediate reaction of the Jews was, "This is something entirely new and a contradiction of all that we have been taught to believe. This doctrine is completely incredible." Paul's answer is, "So far from being new, this doctrine is as old as the Jewish faith. So far from being an heretical novelty, it is the very basis of Jewish religion." That is what he is going on to prove.

(iii) Paul begins to speak about Abraham because he was a wise teacher who knew the human mind and the way it works. He has been talking about faith. Now faith is an abstract idea. The ordinary human mind finds abstract ideas very hard to grasp. The wise teacher knows that every idea must become a person, for the only way in which an ordinary person can grasp an abstract idea is to see it in action, embodied in a person. So Paul, in effect, says, "I have been talking about faith. If you want to see what faith is, look at Abraham."

When Paul began to speak about Abraham, he was on ground that every Jew knew and understood. In their thoughts Abraham held a unique position. He was the founder of the nation. He was the man to whom God had first spoken. He was the man who had in a unique way had been chosen by God and who had heard and obeyed him. The Rabbis had their own discussions about Abraham. To Paul the essence of his greatness was this. God had come to Abraham and bidden him leave home and friends and kindred and livelihood, and had said to him, "If you make this great venture of faith, you will become the father of a great nation." Thereupon Abraham had taken God at his word. He had not argued; he had not hesitated; he went out not knowing where he was to go (Heb 11:8). It was not the fact that Abraham had meticulously performed the demands of the law that put him into his special relationship with God, it was his complete trust in God and his complete willingness to abandon his life to him. That for Paul was faith, and it was Abraham's faith which made God regard him as a good man.

Some few, some very few, of the more advanced Rabbis believed that. There was a rabbinic commentary which said, "Abraham, our father, inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord; for it is said, 'And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.' "

But the great majority of the Rabbis turned the Abraham story to suit their own beliefs. They held that because he was the only righteous man of his generation, therefore he was chosen to be the ancestor of God's special people. The immediate answer is, "But how could Abraham keep the law when he lived hundreds of years before it was given?" The Rabbis advanced the odd theory that he kept it by intuition or anticipation. "At that time," says the Apocalypse of Baruch (Bar 57:2), "the unwritten law was named among them, and the works of the commandment were then fulfilled." "He kept the law of the Most High," says Ecclesiasticus (Sir 44:20-21), "and was taken into covenant with God.... Therefore God assured him by an oath that the nations should be blessed in his seed." The Rabbis were so in love with their theory of works that they insisted that it was because of his works that Abraham was chosen, although it meant that they had to argue that he knew the law by anticipation, since it had not yet come.

Here, again, we have the root cleavage between Jewish legalism and Christian faith. The basic thought of the Jews was that a man must earn God's favour. The basic thought of Christianity is that all a man can do is to take God at his word and stake everything on the faith that his promises are true. Paul's argument was--and he was unanswerably right--that Abraham entered into a right relationship with God, not because he did all kinds of legal works, but because he cast himself, just as he was, on God's promise.

"If our love were but more simple,

We should take him at his word;

And our lives would be all sunshine,

In the sweetness of our Lord."

It is the supreme discovery of the Christian life that we do not need to torture ourselves with a losing battle to earn God's love but rather need to accept in perfect trust the love which God offers to us. True, after that, any man of honour is under the life-long obligation to show himself worthy of that love. But he is no longer a criminal seeking to obey an impossible law; he is a lover offering his all to one who loved him when he did not deserve it.

Sir James Barrie once told a story about Robert Louis Stevenson. "When Stevenson went to Samoa he built a small hut, and afterwards went into a large house. The first night he went into the large house he was feeling very tired and sorrowful that he had not had the forethought to ask his servant to bring him coffee and, cigarettes. Just as he was thinking that, the door opened, and the native boy came in with a tray carrying cigarettes and coffee. And Mr Stevenson said to him, in the native language, 'Great is your forethought'; and the boy corrected him, and said, 'Great is the love.' " The service was rendered, not because of the coercion of servitude, but because of the compulsion of love. That also is the motive of Christian goodness.

Constable: Rom 3:21--6:1

III. THE IMPUTATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS 3:21--5:21

In beginning the next section of his argument Paul returned to the major subject of this epistle, the righteousness of God (v. 21; cf. 1:17). He also repeated the need for faith (v. 22; cf. 1:16) and summarized his point that everyone is guilty before God (v. 22; cf. 1:18-3:20). This brief recapitulation introduces his explanation of the salvation that God provides for guilty sinners that follows.

"The first main division of the epistle forms a powerful negative argument for the second, and was evidently so intended. Since man is a sinner with no help in himself and none in the law, what is left to him but to look to the mercy of God? . . . In a court of justice it is only after every defense has failed and the law itself has been shown to be broken, it is only at this point that the appeal is made to the judge for his clemency. The epistle has brought us to such a point."⁹¹

Constable: Rom 4:1-25

C. The proof of justification by faith from the law ch. 4

Paul's readers could have understood faith as being a new method of salvation since he contrasted faith with the law. He began this epistle by saying that the gospel reveals a righteousness from God implying something new (1:17). Was justification by faith a uniquely Christian revelation as contrasted with Jewish doctrine? No. In this chapter the apostle showed that God has always justified people by faith alone. In particular, he emphasized that God declared Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, righteous because of his faith. One of the present values of the Old Testament is that it shows that God justified people by faith in the past. If Paul could show from the Old Testament that Abraham received justification by faith, he could convince his Jewish readers that there is only one method of salvation (3:29-30).

". . . as in 3:27-31, Paul's purpose is not only to establish the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but also, indeed especially, to draw out the implications of this sola fide [faith alone]. To accomplish these purposes, Paul exposits' Gen. 15:6 . . . This text is quoted in v. 3 after Paul sets up his problem in terms of Abraham's right' to boast (vv. 1-2). Thereafter, Paul quotes or alludes to this text in every paragraph of the chapter, using a series of antitheses to draw out its meaning and implications."¹¹⁸

Constable: Rom 4:1-5

1. Abraham's justification by faith 4:1-5

Paul began this chapter by showing that God declared Abraham righteous because of the patriarch's faith.

4:1 By referring to Abraham as "our forefather after the flesh" (v. 1) Paul revealed that he was aiming these comments at his Jewish readers primarily. Abraham's case is significant for Gentiles as well, however, because in another sense, as the father of the faithful, he is the father of "us all" (v. 16). "All" refers to all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike.

4:2 This verse applies Paul's earlier statement about boasting (3:27) to Abraham's case for the sake of contrast. Abraham had no ground for boasting before God because he received justification by faith, not by works.

4:3 In Paul's day many of the rabbis taught that Abraham experienced justification because of his obedience rather than because of his faith.¹¹⁹ Consequently the apostle went back to Genesis 15:6 for his authority.

Exactly what Abraham believed is not clear in Genesis 15. The Hebrew conjunction waw used with a perfect tense verb, as in Genesis 15:6, indicates a break in the action. A good translation is, "Now Abraham had believed . . ." Abraham had obviously believed God previously (cf. Gen. 12:1-4, 7; 14:22-24). However now Abraham learned that he would receive an heir from his own body and innumerable descendants (Gen. 15:4). He believed this too. Exactly what Abraham believed is incidental to Paul's point, which was that he trusted God and specifically believed God's promise.

". . . Abraham just believed God: gave Him the honor of being a God of truth."¹²⁰

Trust in God's promise is what constitutes faith and results in justification. The promises of God vary. These promises constitute the content of faith. The object of faith does not vary, however. It is always the person of God. For us God's promise is that Jesus Christ died as our substitute and satisfied all of God's demands against sinners (3:24-25).

Note that God credited Abraham's faith to him as righteousness (v. 3). Faith itself is not righteousness. Faith is not meritorious in itself. It is only the vehicle by which God's righteousness reaches us. However, it is the only vehicle by which it reaches us.

4:4-5 Verses 4-5 contrast faith and works. Work yields wages that the person working deserves. Faith receives a gift (v. 4; lit. grace, Gr. charin) that the person believing does not deserve. Incredibly God justifies those who not only fail to deserve justification but deserve condemnation because they are "ungodly" (NASB) or "wicked" (NIV; v. 5; cf. 3:24). This is how far God's grace goes (cf. Deut. 25:1)!

In our day there are many subtile as well as obvious perversions of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Advocates of lordship salvation effectively add works to faith when they make commitment to Jesus Christ necessary for salvation. One astute writer has observed that this "front loading" of the gospel with works is "paving the road back to Rome."¹²¹ Some lordship salvation advocates believe that an unbeliever only has to be willing to submit to Christ's lordship. However this is only changing the human work from submitting to being willing to submit.

One lordship salvation advocate wrote that to exclude submission to Christ's lordship from the gospel message amounts to antinomianism.¹²² Later he defined antinomianism as follows.

"antinomianism: the idea that behavior is unrelated to faith, or that Christians are not bound by any moral law. Antinomianism radically separates justification and sanctification, making practical holiness elective."¹²³

Clearly this is not the position of most Christians who believe that faith alone is what God requires instead of faith plus commitment.¹²⁴

Another subtile modern form of works salvation often accompanies an incorrect interpretation of the biblical doctrine of perseverance. This view says that if a professing Christian does not continue in the faith and in holiness all his or her life, allowing for occasional lapses, he or she was not a true believer. This view "back loads" the gospel with works. Faithfulness to the Lord thus becomes a condition for salvation. This incorrect interpretation of perseverance usually goes hand in hand with lordship salvation.

Some who hold these views try to get away from their connection with works by saying that it is God who produces submission and or sanctification in the believer, not the believer himself.¹²⁵ Nonetheless it is the professing Christian whom God holds responsible for his or her choices, not Himself.

"Indeed, every command to the believer implies the necessity of his involvement as part of the process [of sanctification]."¹²⁶

Another answer that some who hold these views give is that what the Bible affirms is that man cannot merit eternal life.¹²⁷ This is not the same, they say, as doing something necessary to obtain it such as submitting or remaining faithful. Yet the Bible uses the word "works," not just merit (vv. 2, 4, 5; Eph. 2:8-9).¹²⁸

College: Rom 4:1-25

II. 4:1-25 - ABRAHAM: PARADIGM OF GRACE

This next section of Romans (the entire fourth chapter) is a presentation of Abraham as a paradigm or pattern for grace. Throughout this discussion of the great patriarch, Paul seems to have several purposes in mind. Most generally he uses Abraham's example to explain what it means to be justified by faith apart from works of law (3:28). Thus by studying this chapter all Christians may better understand grace as the only way of salvation, as contrasted with the way of law.

More specifically, this appeal to Abraham provides OT confirmation for Paul's teaching. This does not mean that Paul is citing the OT merely to give "scriptural proof" for what he is saying, since his own writing is Scripture and is fully authoritative in itself (2 Pet 3:16). However, Paul feels it is important to show the continuity between his teaching and the OT in general (1:2; 3:21). This is surely accomplished here, especially with the added citation of Ps 32:1-2 in 4:6-8.

Perhaps Paul's most specific purpose in this section is to make it easier for the Jews to accept the gospel of grace. In their minds Old Covenant circumcision and the Mosaic Law added up not only to legalism but also to Jewish exclusivism where salvation is concerned. However, one of Paul's main points in Romans is that salvation by grace through faith makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. A proper understanding of Abraham would help the Jews to understand this.

An appeal to the life of Abraham is ideally suited for these purposes. He is indeed an object lesson of the main truth that Paul is explaining in these chapters, i.e., that God's way of saving sinners is by grace, which means that we are justified by faith apart from works of law. Paul sees Gen 15:6 as a summary statement of this truth, and Romans 4 is basically an exposition of this verse.

With regard to the Jews, their supremely high regard for Abraham makes an appeal to his life a perfect means for correcting their legalism and exclusivism. Showing that Abraham was in fact accepted by God on the basis of grace, i.e., that he was justified by faith apart from works of law, will be a major step for Paul in breaking down Jewish resistance to the gospel.

In keeping with the thesis statement in 3:28, the major theme throughout this section is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation. The categories of law and grace are represented by the following concepts:

LAW GRACE

works (vv. 2, 4, 6) faith (vv. 3, 5, 9, 11-14, 16-20, 24)

boasting (v. 2) glorifying God (v. 20)

wages (v. 4) imputation (vv. 3-6, 8-11, 22-24)

obligation/debt (v. 4) gift/grace (vv. 4, 16)

sin (vv. 5, 7, 8, 15) imputed righteousness (vv. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 22)

law (vv. 13-16) promise (vv. 13, 14, 16, 20, 21)

wrath (v. 15) forgiveness (vv. 7-8)

While the contrast between the corresponding items is not as precise in every case as this chart might suggest, viewing the two lists together makes it clear that Rom 4 is indeed showing us the difference between these two possible ways of relating to God.

The law-grace distinction can be seen in the way faith is set over against a series of opposite concepts as Paul's argument progresses through 4:22. He first contrasts faith and works (4:1-8), then faith and circumcision (4:9-12), then faith and law (4:13-22).

Sometimes Rom 4 is seen as addressing primarily or even exclusively the false rabbinic beliefs of Paul's day with regard to the role of the Jews and the place of the Law of Moses in God's plan of salvation. References to "law" (4:13-16) are taken to mean the Mosaic Law only, and the chapter as a whole is seen as having little or no relevance for Christians living today. This is a serious mistake. With the exception of v. 16, "law" seems to refer to God's law in general and especially to law as a way of salvation. Trusting in one's own obedience (works of law) as the means of being right with God is far from being an exclusively Jewish problem. Thus the teaching of this section is relevant for us all, especially for Christians who are still plagued by legalistic tendencies.

The content of this section seems to fall into six paragraphs, thus: Abraham was justified by faith apart from works (4:1-5). This is explained and confirmed by David in Ps 32:1-2 (4:6-8). Membership in Abraham's family is by faith, not by circumcision; thus Abraham is the spiritual father of both believing Gentiles and believing Jews (4:9-12). The inheritance promised to Abraham comes by faith, not by law or works of law (4:13-17a). Abraham shows us what this justifying faith is like: it means giving glory to God and believing his promises (4:17b-22). Finally, all this is relevant for Christians today because anyone who believes like Abraham will be justified like Abraham (4:23-25).

A. ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH

APART FROM WORKS (4:1-5)

4:1 Paul begins this section on Abraham with a question: What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? How does he fit into this picture? Regarding this matter of justification, what did he find to be the case?

A major exegetical issue in this verse has to do with a phrase not even translated by the NIV, namely, kataΙ savrka ( kata sarka ), "according to the flesh." This phrase occurs at the end of the verse. The question is whether it modifies the verb "discovered," or the noun "forefather."

Some take it to modify the verb. In this case "flesh" would refer to human nature as such. The question then would be, "What was Abraham able to accomplish (regarding justification) by his own unaided human effort, by his own works apart from grace?" Jewish tradition in Paul's day viewed Abraham as justified by his own works. A writing called Jubilees says, "Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well-pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life" (23:10; cited in Moo, I:260). The apocryphal writing "Prayer of Manasseh" declares that Abraham (along with Isaac and Jacob) never sinned and thus needed no repentance (v. 8). Abraham "kept the law of the most High" (Ecclesiasticus 44:20); he "performed the whole Law before it was given" ( Mishnah Qiddusin 4:14; cited in Morris, 195).

However, if this question is indeed asking what Abraham found according to the flesh, Paul's answer is - nothing! "Surely, he obtained nothing whatever in this manner" (MP, 324). Even Abraham was justified by faith, apart from works of law. This is the main point of the whole chapter.

This way of interpreting "according to the flesh" makes good sense and is true to Paul's point. Others take it a different way, however. They see this phrase as modifying "forefather." The question would then be, "What was the case regarding Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, our physical ancestor?" (See 1:3; 9:3, 5.) The word order makes this the preferred interpretation.

Why would Paul describe Abraham thus? Along with the possessive pronoun "our," this suggests that he is referring to Abraham as the "forefather of us Jews." The "our" is natural because of Paul's own identity as a Jew and thus as a physical descendant of Abraham. The main reason for referring to Abraham this way here in v. 1 is that it helps to set up a contrast that is important later in the chapter, namely, the contrast between Abraham's role as the physical ancestor of the Jews only, and his role as the spiritual ancestor of all believers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles (4:11-12, 16). Paul's question thus means, "What shall we say with regard to Abraham, the illustrious ancestor of us Jewish people? How was he justified? By works, or by faith?"

4:2 In response to the question in v. 1, Paul considers the possibility that Abraham may have been justified by his works. If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about . . . . This assumes that if any person were justified by his works, then he would have reason to boast - a principle suggested also by Eph 2:9. In the Jews' opinion, Abraham was such a person. 1 Maccabees 2:52 asks the question, "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?" One of the Dead Sea Scrolls says that Abraham "was accounted a friend of God because he kept the commandments of God" (Cairo Damascus Document, 3:2; cited in Dunn, I:200). If this was the case, then Paul's main thesis in 3:28 would be false; and boasting would not be excluded after all, contrary to 3:27.

Well, says Paul, in the eyes of some this may be the case, but not before God. The reader must be careful not to misunderstand this very terse statement. One might think Paul is setting up a contrast between "justified before men" and "justified before God." If so, he would be saying that Abraham, if justified by works, could boast before men, but not before God. But this is not the point. If Abraham were in fact justified by his works, he would have to be perfect, and would thus have a right to boast before both men and God.

What, then, is the point? "But not before God" is a denial of the whole hypothesis that Abraham was justified by works. Regardless of what the Jews may think, this is not how God looks at it. From God's point of view, this is simply not the case. The way God sees it, Abraham did not find or discover justification by works. (See Cranfield, I:228; Hendriksen, I:146; Moo, I:261, 264.)

4:3 What, then, is the answer to the question in v. 1? What did Abraham find to be the case with regard to justification? Paul passes by all human opinions and goes straight to "the very words of God" (3:2): What does the Scripture say? The testimony of Scripture is the basis for his denial of the hypothesis in 4:2a. Was Abraham justified by works? No! How do we know? Because of what "the Scripture" (hJ grafhv , hç graphç ) says. The words of Scripture are the final authority for this and every other question.

Here is what the Scripture says: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." This statement, taken directly from Gen 15:6, is equivalent to saying that Abraham was justified by faith; this verse is quoted with the same meaning in Gal 3:6 and Jas 2:23.

The nature of Abraham's faith is explained later in the chapter (4:17-22), with an emphasis on the way he believed God's promises (4:21). Obviously the promises given to Abraham could not refer specifically to his future seed, Jesus Christ, and to his saving work. Nonetheless God gave him several promises of staggering import, all of which ultimately culminated in Christ's redeeming activity (Acts 13:32-33; Heb 11:8-13). First, God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a "great nation" with numberless offspring. Second, he promised him and his offspring possession of the land of Canaan. Third and most significantly, God promised Abraham that "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" - a reference, of course, to the messianic purpose for which God called Abraham in the first place.

The point is that with regard to all these promises, Abraham humbly believed that God could and would keep his word. Consequently he surrendered himself to God and rendered to him the obedience of faith (1:5).

The statement quoted by Paul from Gen 15:6 occurs specifically upon one of the occasions when God promised Abraham numberless offspring (Gen 15:5). We must not conclude, however, that this was the only time when Abraham believed, nor that it was the only or even first time when "it was credited to him as righteousness." Jas 2:23 also quotes Gen 15:6, but applies it to the occasion when Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice, an event which occurred much later (Gen 22:1-18). This implies that Abraham's faith and the resulting justification were present from the day he was first called (Gen 12:1) and to the end of his life.

The word translated "it was credited" is a very important word that stands for an even more important concept, often called the doctrine of imputation. The term is logivzomai ( logizomai ), and it is used a total of 11 times in this chapter. Its meaning here seems to be rooted in the way it was used by Greeks in the field of business or commerce. It was a technical term used to describe the procedure of entering a credit or a debit to someone's account. It is properly translated "to credit [NIV], to set down to one's account, to impute, to reckon, to count as, to regard as."

It was credited or counted to Abraham "as righteousness." The righteous character of God and thus the righteous requirements of his law must be fully satisfied before a person can be saved (3:26). In this sense righteousness, or the satisfaction of the requirements of God's law (see 1:17), is the very basis for salvation. Theoretically one may satisfy the law's commandments through perfect obedience and thereby be saved on the basis of his own personal righteousness, but universal sin makes this impossible. This is why God must credit or impute something else to sinners as the righteousness by which they are saved.

Exactly what is reckoned to Abraham, or credited to his account? In this verse (as in vv. 22-24) the passive verb has no specific subject, and is simply translated "it was credited." What is the "it"? Verses 5 and 9 specifically say that Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness. "In God's judgment, his faith is righteousness" (Schlatter, 110). Faith is thus presented as a form of righteousness that stands over against perfectly righteous character and behavior, i.e., works (vv. 4-5). This does not mean, however, that faith itself is a meritorious act that is equal to a life of perfect obedience, thus making a person worthy of salvation. Again, in vv. 4-5 Paul makes it clear that when God credits faith as righteousness, this is a gift of grace and is something quite distinct from a merited or deserved reward for works.

In fact, strictly speaking, it is not faith itself that is credited to a sinner's account, but the ultimate object of his faith, namely, the atoning blood of Jesus Christ that satisfies the law's requirement for penalty in our place (see above, 1:17; 3:21-26). This and this alone is the righteousness that saves, and this is the righteousness that is credited to us. This is the significance of the language of 4:6 and 4:11, which says that righteousness itself is credited to believers. I.e., what is credited to us is not something we do , but something we receive as a gift. To say that Abraham's or anybody else's faith is credited as righteousness is shorthand for this basic gospel truth.

Of course, since Abraham lived about 2000 years before Christ, his faith in the Redeemer's blood was only indirect and not direct. Nevertheless God credited the full effects of the atonement to Abraham's account, since the cross and the resurrection of Jesus were the ultimate outcome of the promises that were the object of his faith.

The result of God's crediting Abraham's faith - or the ultimate object of it - to his account was that he was fully justified. "Faith credited as righteousness" is the same as justification by faith , or full forgiveness of sins. The idea that OT saints received only an "IOU" instead of full forgiveness, and that they were held in a limbo-like state instead of being taken directly to paradise when they died, is without foundation of the Bible. All of Romans 4, especially vv. 3-8, shows that Abraham and other OT saints were justified in the fullest sense of the word. Their sins were not just "rolled back" until Christ actually died, but were fully forgiven in view of the certainty of that future event.

4:4 The next two verses clarify the nature of justification by faith as it applies to Abraham specifically and to all believers in general. They set forth a main difference between salvation by law (v. 4) and salvation by grace (v. 5), namely, the former is by works and the latter by faith. More precisely, these verses declare that these two ways of salvation are opposite to one another and thus are mutually exclusive. As such they are an elaboration of 3:28.

Verse 4 describes what it would be like to be justified by works of law, as some thought Abraham was (4:2a). It does so by setting forth a basic principle of economics, namely, the relation between work and wages: Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. When anyone contracts to do a certain job and then completes that job, on what basis does he request his wages? Does he ask his employer to give it to him as a gift ? Of course not! The wage is something that is owed to him; he has worked for it and he deserves it. From the employer's point of view he is obligated to pay the wage; it is a debt that he owes to the worker.

The implied parallel is clear. "When a man works" refers to anyone who is seeking to relate to God under the system of law. This is like working for wages, says Paul. Under law a person will receive from God exactly what he deserves or what he has earned by his works. The wages or reward, whatever that may be, is bestowed by God as a matter of debt or obligation, not as a gift. The word for "gift" is cavri" ( charis ), or grace . Thus when a man approaches God on the basis of law, he shuts himself off from grace. What is credited to his account, to be received on the day of judgment, is credited not according to grace but according to debt.

This has two serious implications. First, since only sinless obedience deserves heaven, and since all have sinned, neither Abraham nor anyone else will actually receive salvation as a reward for his works (contrary to the hypothesis suggested in 4:2a). Under law the only wage that can be expected by sinners is death (6:23), including the second death in the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15).

Second, those who expect to receive their reward according to the terms of grace ("gift") cannot make their plea on the basis of their works. Works receive wages, and wages exclude grace. The only way to avoid receiving the wages we deserve is to lay hold of the gift of justification by faith apart from works (3:28). If it is by grace, it must be by faith (4:16) and not by works. As Moo says (I:267), "The faith that gained righteousness for Abraham was a faith that excluded works." This point is explained and emphasized in the next verse.

4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. Whereas in v. 4 Paul stated a basic economic principle with an implied theological application, here he skips the illustrative principle and goes straight to the theological point. Just as justification by works excludes grace, so does justification by grace exclude works. Who will be justified? "The man who does not work but trusts God."

What is meant by the provocative phrase, "the man who does not work"? Does it mean "the man who never obeys"? Is Paul saying that works are completely irrelevant for salvation, even to the extent that a person can be saved by bare faith even if he has no acts of obedience whatsoever? This cannot be his meaning, as chapter 6 shows. Does it mean, then, "the man who does not obey perfectly," as some suggest? This would make good sense if v. 5 could be taken in isolation from v. 4, but it is not consistent with the obvious contrast between the two verses. Specifically, the "man who works" in v. 4 is not necessarily "the man who obeys perfectly."

"The man who does not work" is best understood as "the man who does not look upon his works as a means of laying hold of justification," or "the man who does not trust his works or depend upon them for his standing before God" (see MacArthur, I:239; Moo, I:267). It means "the man who has renounced the law system, in which works are rewarded in terms of wages earned." As Morris (198) says, the contrast between v. 4 and v. 5 is not between one who works and one who does not work at all, but between one who trusts in his works and one who trusts in God.

The most striking part of this verse is the description of God as one "who justifies the wicked." Such a description, says Bruce (115), "is so paradoxical as to be startling - not to say shocking." The word for wicked (ajsebhv" , asebçs ) and its cognates (see 1:18) are strong terms describing a state of ungodliness and lawlessness. In the OT God demanded that human judges in human courts of law should always condemn and never acquit (justify) such wicked persons (Deut 25:1; Prov 17:15; 24:24; Isa 5:23). God himself declares, "I will not justify the wicked" (Exod 23:7, KJV). Rom 1:18 pictures him as directing his wrath toward all human wickedness. But here in 4:5, he is pictured as the one who justifies the wicked!

How can this be? How can the righteous God justify the wicked? He cannot, within the parameters and constraints of law . Human courts are ordained to operate according to the principles of law, and God's own holy nature is bound by these principles. But here in 4:5 the perspective is not law but grace , and the principles of grace are the very opposite of law! Thus whereas the holy God who is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29) must condemn the wicked, the same God who is also loving and gracious can also justify the wicked! Because of his grace Christ died for all the wicked (5:6), and the wicked who put their faith in his saving death will be justified. This description of God thus epitomizes the very essence of grace.

In this context "the wicked" of course includes Abraham along with everyone else. All are sinners, and when we ask God to justify or forgive us, we must believe that he is a God who justifies the wicked, since that is exactly what we are asking and expecting him to do! Also, when we approach God and ask him to justify us, we are in effect asking him to justify us apart from our works - our sinful works. That is to say, the God who justifies the wicked is a God who justifies by faith apart from works. Paul explains this in vv. 6-8 by citing the testimony of David.

B. DAVID EXPLAINS AND CONFIRMS JUSTIFICATION

BY FAITH APART FROM WORKS (4:6-8)

In the midst of his discussion of Abraham as a paradigm of salvation by grace, Paul inserts another relevant biblical quotation, this one from Ps 32:1-2a. This citation from the writing of David serves as further evidence of the unity between OT Scripture and Paul's teaching. It also provides crucial insight into the meaning of Paul's basic theme, that we are justified by faith apart from works of law (3:28). Also, in case there is any doubt, the quotation from David serves to generalize the assertion made concerning Abraham in 15:6 as quoted Rom in 4:3, showing that it applies to all believers.

4:6 Paul introduces David's prophetic word thus: David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessednesss of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works . . . . "Says the same thing" is the NIV's translation of the conjunctive phrase kaqavper kaiv ( kathaper kai ), "just as also." This links the two OT quotes (Gen 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2a) closely together in meaning.

We must never try to understand "justification by faith apart from works" without a consideration of the meaning of these words of David. This is evident from the very way Paul describes David's testimony. Of whom is the Psalmist speaking? Of "the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." This language is directly tied in with the "righteousness of God" of which Paul speaks in his thematic statement in 1:17, and of which "the Law and the Prophets testify" (3:21). It refers to the gift of God's righteousness established by Jesus in his atoning sacrifice and received by sinners through faith (3:22-25). It echoes 4:3. "Credits righteousness" is the same as "justifies." "Apart from works" (cwriΙ" e[rgwn , chôris ergôn ) is the same as "apart from works of law" (chôris ergôn nomou ) in 3:28.

What does it mean to say that God credits righteousness apart from works, and why is this a blessing? Before answering these questions we must examine the content of the quotation from David.

4:7-8 Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. This is an almost exact quotation from Ps 32:1-2a (LXX), a Psalm attributed to David both by the OT text and by Paul (4:6). Each segment of the quote begins with the adjective makavrio" ( makarios ), just as the beatitudes do (Matt 5:3-11). It means "happy, fortunate, content"; in a theistic context it is properly translated "blessed, favored." It is "the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity" (Sanday and Headlam, 102).

The blessing of which David speaks is attributed to a general category of people in v. 7, "they" or "those." Verse 8 applies the blessing to a specific representative of this category, "the man," in the sense of "any man." In the latter verse the Greek term is ajnhvr (ançr ), which means "a male human being" and is properly translated as "man." This does not exclude women from the blessing, of course. The singular ançr simply stands for all who belong to this group, whether male or female.

What is the nature of the blessing of which David speaks? Three separate expressions are used, all of which basically refer to the same thing: the way a person's sins are regarded by God under the grace system. Under grace, our "transgressions are forgiven"; our "sins are covered" and will never be counted against us. Two different words are used for sin. One (v. 7a) is ajnomiva ( anomia ), from nomos ("law") with a negating alpha, thus "lawlessness, transgression of the law" (see 6:19; 1 John 3:4). The other term (vv. 7b-8) is the common aJmartiva ( hamartia , used 48 times in Romans), which refers to missing the mark or falling short of the standard (see 3:23). The connotations are similar if not the same.

The blessing of grace is that the engraced person's sins are forgiven . This is the common word ajfivhmi (aphiçmi ). This word and its noun form, a[fesi" ( aphesis , "forgiveness, remission") are used in this theological sense quite frequently in the NT, though very seldom by Paul. In secular Greek it meant (among other things) "to release someone from an obligation, from a debt, or from punishment; to pardon; to leave behind." Thus when used in the religious sense of forgiveness, aphiçmi means "to release from the debt of punishment owed to God because of sin." A person whose sins are forgiven is a person for whom the debt of eternal punishment has been left behind.

Another way of saying this is that our sins have been covered . See Ps 85:2 for the parallel use of forgiveness and covering with respect to sin. To say that our sins are covered means that God himself has blotted them out of his own sight (Heb 8:12). When he looks at us in Jesus Christ, our sins are hidden from him in the sense that he does not hold them against us.

This is indeed the third way of expressing this blessing: for the man who is under grace, the Lord will never count his sins against him (v. 8). We are sinners, without question; but the gracious God will not make us pay for our sins. The term is logivzomai ( logizomai ) again, i.e., God will not reckon our sins against us; he will not enter them into our own personal accounts as debts for which we must render payment to God in the form of eternal punishment in hell. The emphatic certainty of this blessing is underscored by the use of a double negative, ouj mhv (ou mç ): the Lord will by no means, he will not ever, he "will never" (NIV) hold our sins against us.

To say that such a person is blessed implies that he knows that his sins are forgiven and covered. Who can deny that this is indeed the greatest blessing we could ever desire or imagine? The knowledge that the gracious God has released us from the debt of punishment and will not hold our sins against us should fill us with eternal awe and amazement, with the greatest heights and depths of gratitude and love, and with "inexpressible and glorious joy" (1 Pet 1:8).

These two verses specifically assert the second half of the grace formula or grace principle (see page 248 above): "Break the commandments, but escape the penalty." But we should never forget that the reason why God is able to bestow such an immeasurable blessing upon us, of course, is because of what Jesus has done for us through his work of propitiation on the cross. Instead of reckoning our sins to our account, God has reckoned or imputed them to Jesus Christ; he has put them down to Jesus' account, and Jesus has paid the deserved debt of punishment in full, in our place. This righteous payment of sin's punishment, rather than the sin itself, is then credited to our account; this is the righteousness of which v. 4:6b speaks. This is what it means to say that "God credits righteousness apart from works."

In a real sense this section (4:6-8) is the culmination of the explanation of justification by grace that was begun in 3:21. It casts vital and crucial light on the whole discussion and especially on the thesis statement in 3:28. It helps us to understand the meaning of justification as such, and it is crucial for our understanding of "justification by faith apart from works of law."

Throughout this whole section (3:21-4:8), the following expressions are basically equivalent: "righteousness from God . . . through faith" (3:22); "justified freely by his grace" (3:24); "justified by faith apart from works of law" (3:28, RSV); "it was credited to him as righteousness" (4:3); "justifies the wicked" (4:5); "faith is credited as righteousness" (4:5); "credits righteousness apart from works" (4:6); "transgressions are forgiven . . . sins are covered" (4:7); and "whose sin the Lord will never count against him" (4:8). Because of the basic equivalence of these expressions, we should never draw our conclusions as to the meaning of any one of them without considering them all together.

There are several implications from this. First, justification of the wicked is the same as forgiveness of sins . There is no basis for saying that "forgiveness is a very important part of justification," or that it is "a basic component of justification." For sinners, this is it: justification is forgiveness (see Reese, 141). This is the implication of Paul's citation of Ps 32:1-2a. What David says is "the same thing" as justifying the wicked. God justifies sinners by forgiving them, by not holding their sins against them.

A second and closely related implication, is the equivalence of justification (the non-imputation of sins) with the imputation or crediting of righteousness (4:6). As we have already seen, the righteousness imputed to the sinner's account is the righteousness established by Jesus when he paid the penalty for sins in our place. There is no reason to include in this imputed righteousness anything more than Christ's payment of sin's penalty.

A final implication of the parallelism of the expressions in 3:21-4:8 has to do with the meaning of "apart from works of law" in 3:28. It is commonly assumed that this expression refers only to good works, or to positive responses to God's law, or to obedience to the law in some form. But this is a serious error, as 4:7-8 clearly shows. The language in 4:6, "credits righteousness apart from works," shows that Paul is expanding on the expression in 3:28, "justified by faith apart from works of law." To what works does he specifically refer? Sinful works! To be justified apart from works of law means to have our acts of disobedience to law ( anomia , 4:7) forgiven. To be justified apart from works means that God does not hold our sinful works against us. To be justified by faith apart from works of law means that God counts us righteous because of our faith (4:3), apart from a consideration of how we have responded to his law. Our good responses to law (i.e., obedience) do not warrant our justification, nor do our bad responses (i.e., sins) prevent it.

C. MEMBERSHIP IN ABRAHAM'S FAMILY IS BY FAITH,

NOT BY CIRCUMCISION (4:9-12)

Having established that Abraham is the OT paradigm for justification by faith by citing Gen 15:6, and having clarified what this means in a general way by citing Ps 32:1-2a, Paul now applies this specifically to the Jew-Gentile debate. In vv. 1-8 he shows that we are justified by faith alone, apart from a consideration of works. Now in vv. 9-12 he establishes from the Abrahamic paradigm that a person is justified by faith, apart from a consideration of whether he has been circumcised or not.

This is the second time Paul has discussed circumcision. In 2:25-29 he showed that the Jews who were attempting to be saved by law would be judged by their obedience or disobedience to the entire law, not just by their possession of circumcision. Here he shows that under grace those who share the Abrahamic blessing of justification are those who share his faith, not his circumcision. This is a direct attack on Jewish exclusivism, which linked circumcision to salvation and limited salvation to those who were circumcised (Acts 15:1).

Paul makes his point by observing that the announcement of Abraham's justification by faith (Gen 15:6) occurred many years before circumcision was introduced (Gen 17:9-14). Thus, as Bruce says, there was no way that the Jews could argue that the faith principle was valid only for Abraham's circumcised offspring. "The case of Abraham shows that circumcision or uncircumcision is irrelevant to a man's status before God" (111-112).

4:9 Is this blessedness (the forgiveness of which David speaks) only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? I.e., is it available only to the Jews, or is it for the Gentiles also? Cranfield says that the rabbis of Paul's day generally assumed that Israelites alone were forgiven (I:234-235). But Paul here uses the example of Abraham to show that this assumption is false. His argument continues to be based on the parallel between Gen 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2a. In 4:6-8 he uses the latter text to explain the meaning of the former; here he cites Gen 15:6 again to establish the scope of the Psalms passage. We have been saying (4:3) that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. More specifically, as noted above, the implicit object of his faith (the righteousness of God in Christ) was credited to his account and counted as his own.

4:10 How is this relevant to the Jew-Gentile issue? Paul gets to this point by asking two questions: Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? If Abraham had already been circumcised when his faith was taken for righteousness, then the Jews might try to argue that the blessing of forgiveness is only for them. But if this happened prior to the introduction of circumcision, then there is no way that this blessing can be limited only to those who are circumcised. The OT record is very clear. It was not after, but before! Thus as far as the conditions for justification are concerned, "circumcision was no factor at all" (Murray, I:137).

4:11 This does not mean that there was no relation at all between Abraham's faith and his circumcision. In the first part of v. 11 Paul comments on the introduction of circumcision into the covenant relationship thus: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Abraham received this sign about 14 years or more after the specific recognition of his faith (cf. Gen 16:16 and 17:1). This shows that the circumcision was not a condition for his justification.

Why then was circumcision given? Paul uses two words that relate to its purpose or function: sign and seal . The former term comes directly from Gen 17:11, where God said to Abraham that circumcision "will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." This is no doubt the only reason why Paul here calls it "the sign [consisting] of circumcision." This was its commonly-known purpose; it was "the sign of the covenant," or the sign of belonging to the covenant family consisting of Abraham's earthly descendants through Isaac and Jacob. It had this meaning not only for Abraham but for all who received it. Paul does not mean that circumcision was given as a sign of Abraham's faith (contra Murray, I:137) or of his justification (contra Hendriksen, I:150; Stott, 129). Nor could it have served such a purpose for anyone else, since it was applied in infancy before faith could be present, and was applied to every male infant whether he grew up to become a believer or not (Gen 17:12).

But Paul does say that Abraham's own circumcision functioned as "a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith" even before he was circumcised. A seal (such as a signet ring or its impression) serves as a mark of ownership or identification. Thus by extension it can mean "a confirmation, an attestation, an authentication, a guarantee" (see 1 Cor 9:2). This latter meaning is the point here. By giving Abraham the sign of circumcision, God was providing him with an "outward and visible authentication, ratification and guarantee, of the righteousness by faith which was already his while he was still uncircumcised" (Cranfield, I:236). As such it served as a source of assurance to Abraham that God had truly accepted him and counted him righteous because of his faith. Thus "to Abraham it was a guarantee of the trustworthiness of God's promise" (Hendriksen, I:150-151).

The point that Paul makes from this is that it shows that Abraham was already justified before he received circumcision, since a seal does not confer that which it ratifies, but assumes that it already exists. " This proves that circumcision has nothing to do with being declared righteous ," in the sense of being a necessary condition for it (Hendriksen, I:150).

It is commonly taught that what is said here of circumcision applies equally to Christian baptism, and to the "sacraments" in general. Indeed, in Christian literature baptism is constantly called "a sign and a seal." The NT itself never uses this language for baptism, though; calling it such is purely an inference from the supposed parallel between baptism and circumcision. Assuming such a parallel, commentators and theologians constantly use this passage as a foundation for their doctrine of the "sacraments" in general. They use it especially in an attempt to establish that a person must already be justified (forgiven) before he is baptized, and more generally to argue that there can be no connection between salvation and "externals" of any kind.

Two comments are pertinent. First, as far as its general meaning was concerned, not even circumcision was "a sign and a seal" pertaining to salvation. It was indeed a sign of covenant membership for all who received it, but there was no necessary relationship between covenant membership and salvation. Also, it was a seal of "righteousness by faith" only for Abraham. It was never intended to have this latter meaning for anyone else. Thus even if there were a parallel between baptism and circumcision in general, the concept of the seal would not be a part of it.

Second, the idea that baptism is the NT counterpart to OT circumcision must itself be rejected as a false doctrine (see under 2:29 above). It has neither a sound exegetical basis nor a solid theological rationale. It is an inference drawn from the faulty concept of covenant unity, which itself was created by Huldreich Zwingli in 1525 in the midst of his controversy with the Anabaptists regarding infant baptism. The bottom line is that Romans 4:11 has nothing whatsoever to say about the meaning of Christian baptism. Nor does it warrant any general conclusion about the relation between salvation and "externals" as such.

In this text the main question is this: is the blessing of forgiveness for Jews only, or for Gentiles also (v. 9a)? Paul sets the stage for his answer in vv. 9b-11a by showing that Abraham received forgiveness "by faith while he was still uncircumcised" (v. 11a). The answer is given in vv. 11b-12, where the Apostle affirms that Abraham is the spiritual father of all believers, whether they are circumcised or not. The NIV begins this answer with So then , indicating simple result. The Greek is better rendered in terms of purpose, however. See the NASB, "that he might be"; or the NRSV, "The purpose was." I.e., Abraham was credited as righteous prior to his circumcision so that he might be . . . the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. This of course refers to the Gentiles, and it clearly shows that Gentiles may receive justification through faith no less than Jews.

There is no question that Abraham was the father or founder of the Jewish nation (4:1), and that being able to claim him as one's ancestor was a great privilege. Here, however, Paul is speaking of Abraham's spiritual fatherhood, which is determined not by physical descent but by imitation of Abraham's faith (Gal 3:7, 29). He is "the father of all who believe," which was God's ultimate purpose for him from the beginning (Gen 12:3). All Christians have the privilege of calling Abraham "our father" and of inheriting the salvation promised through him (4:13-17; Gal 3).

4:12 This applies to the Jews also, both the true believers under the Old Covenant and Jewish Christians under the New Covenant. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Jews have the privilege of being children of Abraham in two senses. First, all are descended from him physically, an involuntary circumstance marked by circumcision. No promise of eternal salvation is attached to this relationship. Second, any individual Jew may choose to "walk in the footsteps of the faith" of Abraham. This choice is unrelated to circumcision as such; and this choice alone is the way of salvation, even for Jews.

The bottom line is that membership in Abraham's larger and permanent spiritual family is by faith in the blood of the Redeemer, not by blood relationship as marked by circumcision.

D. THE INHERITANCE PROMISED TO ABRAHAM COMES

BY FAITH, NOT BY LAW (4:13-17a)

The salvation of sinners comes not in accordance with works done in response to law, but on the condition of faith in God's grace. This contrast between law and grace, between works and faith, has been Paul's overriding theme thus far (3:20-22, 28; 4:2-5), and it continues to be so in this section. In chapter 4 the theme develops thus: we are justified by faith: apart from works (vv. 1-8); apart from circumcision (vv. 9-12); and apart from law (vv. 13-17a). These are not different points, but different aspects of the same point.

4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. The NIV fails to translate the connecting particle gar , "for," which connects this section with the previous one. The flow of thought is this: Abraham is "the father of all who believe" (4:11), because the blessing that God promised to give through him comes "not through law" but through faith.

The promise did not come "through law." To what law does this refer? Some say it must refer to the Mosaic Law, since "law" in vv. 14-16 seems to refer to this (Cranfield, I:239; Moo, I:279). This would certainly make sense, given the fact that the Mosaic Law did not even exist until over four centuries later (Gal 3:17-18). The form of this argument would thus be the same as the argument about circumcision in 4:9-12. Since the promise preceded circumcision by 14+ years, it cannot be dependent on circumcision; and since the promise preceded the Mosaic Law by 400+ years, it cannot be dependent upon the Law, either.

Others say the "law" in v. 13 refers to any and every form of law, including the Law of Moses but not limited thereto (DeWelt, 85; Sanday and Headlam, 110; Murray, I:141). This is not contrary to the context, since novmo" ( nomos ) in vv. 14-15 is better understood in this same general sense, and since this has been Paul's main connotation for it in the preceding context. The promise did not and does not come through obedience to whatever form of law one possesses, i.e., through law-keeping.

The focus here is on the concept of promise, which is a natural corollary of grace and faith. Grace focuses not on what man can do (i.e., works), but on what God has done and promises to do, and on what he promises to give to sinners as a result. All the sinner can do - and must do - is believe God's promises and accept his gifts.

The full scope of God's promises to Abraham was laid out under 4:3 above. He was promised possession of the land, numberless offspring, and the role of being a source of blessing for all nations. The OT text does not use the exact terminology used here - that Abraham "would be the heir of the world." This is probably a summary of the three main promises as they are now understood in the light of NT revelation. "The world" is first of all Abraham's innumerable family of spiritual children, drawn from "all peoples on earth" (Gen 12:3; see 18:18; 22:18). It probably also includes the new earth inherited by them (Matt 5:5; 2 Pet 3:13), of which the gift of Canaan (later Israel) was a symbolic type. To say that "he" (Abraham) would be the heir of the world means that he would inherit this spiritual family, and through them would inherit the (new) world itself.

The "offspring" (spevrma , sperma , "seed") of Abraham here refers to all believers, as v. 16 shows. In Gal 3:16 Paul says that technically the one seed and heir of Abraham is Jesus Christ, but all who put their trust in Christ are joined to him and thereby become Abraham's seed and heirs as well (Gal 3:26-29).

The NIV says that Abraham and his offspring "received" this promise. The Greek text actually has no verb. The thought is probably that the promise will be fulfilled to Abraham and his offspring. How? By faith, not by law. This contrast is Paul's main point. "Not through law" stands first in the verse for emphasis, and the connecting adversative ajllav ( alla , "but") expresses a very strong contrast. Abraham's family is still growing today; and any individual can have a share of their abundant inheritance "through the righteousness that comes by faith," not by works of law.

4:14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless . . . . This and v. 15 explain why the inheritance comes "not through law." Gen 15:6 is taken as the foundational principle, as establishing that justification is by faith. Once we accept this truth, we must grant that it cannot be by law, because the law principle (law as a way of salvation) is incompatible with the grace-faith system (see Morris, 205-206).

The NIV translation "those who live by law" is unfortunate. The Greek phrase is oiJ ejk novmou ( hoi ek nomou ), "those of law." Everyone, even those who are saved by grace through faith, should live by law. That is, we should always obey the precepts of God's law. But those who are "of law" in this verse are those who are depending or relying on their law-keeping as the basis for their claim to the Abrahamic inheritance. This includes law-depending Jews, but is not limited thereto. "Law" is not just the Mosaic law, but the code of commandments available to and applicable to any given person at any given time. (See Morris, 206; and Murray, I:142; contra Moo, I:280-282.)

The two ways of salvation are incompatible, says Paul. If the inheritance comes "by law," i.e., by works, then faith would have no valid role in the process. The verb is kenovw (kenoô ), "to empty." Faith would be emptied of its value; it would be irrelevant and ineffective (see 1 Cor 15:14). Also, the promise would be worthless; it would be nullified. Those who choose law as their way of relating to God thereby cancel his promise, since the two cannot coexist (Gal 3:18). Faith and promise go together, and they belong to an order that is distinct from law and works, namely, the order of grace. (See Stott, 131.)

4:15 because law brings wrath. The problem is not just the basic incompatibility of law on the one hand, and faith and promise on the other. The more immediate problem is the fact that all are sinners (3:23), and under law sinners have forfeited the promise and are "heirs" only of wrath (see 6:23). When sinners remain under law, the only outcome is wrath.

How does law produce wrath? By definition law includes both commandments to obey and penalties for those who disobey. The commandments of the law are the very measure of sin (1 John 3:4). And where there is no law there is no transgression because there would be no standard by which any particular act could be judged right or wrong. But since there is law, there is also such a thing as sin. And since there is sin, the penalties of the law (i.e., wrath) must be applied. In this sense law cannot help but inflict wrath upon sinners; it is its very nature to do so.

"Where there is no law there is no transgression" is a general principle that may be applied either universally or particularly. Its universal application is theoretical only, i.e., if there were no law at all, then there would be no such thing as transgression or sin. But law does exist; therefore transgression also exists. The only practical application of this principle is in reference to particular cases, individuals, and laws. In cases where God has given us no commandments regarding a particular activity or behavior, either specifically or in terms of general principles, then that behavior cannot be called sinful. This is the category we call "matters of opinion."

Also, though law does exist, some individuals are unable (by reason of immaturity or mental handicap) to understand its true origin and nature as commandments of God bearing the penalty of eternal wrath. In this case "where there is no law" means "where there is no ability to know the law." This applies to those who have not reached what we call "the age of accountability." Furthermore, this principle may apply in the case of mature individuals who are involuntarily ignorant of a particular law of God. For example, those who are exposed to general revelation only will not be held responsible for obeying commandments that can be known only through special revelation. Thus this principle warrants the conclusion that God will finally judge all people in terms of their conscientious response to available light.

4:16 Paul now draws his general conclusion from the preceding discussion: Therefore, the promise comes by faith . . . . Literally it reads, "on account of this - of faith." I.e., in light of what we have just seen, the promised inheritance can be received only through faith, not by law. jEk pivstew" (Ek pisteôs ), "of faith," is set in contrast with ejk novmou ( ek nomou ), "of law" (v. 14).

It is "of faith" so that it may be by grace . . . . Given the reality of sin, law can only enforce the penalty of God's wrath; it cannot deliver us from it. Deliverance can come only in the form of forgiveness; forgiveness is possible only as a free gift of grace; and grace can be received only through faith in God's promise. Grace and faith are naturally compatible. Faith is the key that fits the lock that opens the treasure-house of grace.

Because the promise comes by grace through faith, it . . . may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring . . . i.e., to his spiritual children, or those who follow his example of faith. God's concern is to make the promise firm or secure to them all. The issue is not the objective believability of the promise, since God's power and truthfulness are a firm basis for this. The point rather is the subjective apprehension of the promise, the inner assurance that we are indeed safe and secure in "the bosom of Abraham," that "our transgressions are forgiven" and our "sins are covered" (4:7). Such assurance is possible only when we understand that the promised forgiveness is received by grace through faith. (See 5:1-11.)

This assurance comes not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham - i.e., not only to Jews, but also to Gentiles. These descriptions of the two groups are quite condensed compared with vv. 11b-12, and present some difficulties. Ek tou nomou , "of the law," refers here to the Law of Moses, whereas the other references to law in this section seem to refer to law in general. Taken thus, the first part of this statement refers to the Jews, but by implication only to Jews who are believers. Then the second part of the statement refers specifically to those who are not of the Jewish law but who are only of the faith of Abraham, i.e., Gentile believers. The way of grace thus makes it possible for both categories to be included in the one redeemed family of Abraham: He is the father of us all. See 4:11b-12; Gal 3:29.

4:17a As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." This is taken by many to be a parenthesis (NASB; Cranfield, I:243; Murray, I:145). The quote is from Gen 17:5, and serves to reinforce the references in v. 16 to " all Abraham's offspring" and "father of us all ."

E. FAITH MEANS GIVING GLORY TO GOD AND

BELIEVING HIS PROMISES (4:17b-22)

In this section the focus changes from the fact of Abraham's justifying faith to its nature . Though Abraham's circumstances were different from ours, we can learn important lessons from him as to the kind of faith God expects from us today. He shows us "what it means to believe" (Schlatter, 114).

4:17b He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed . . . . If the first part of this verse is a parenthesis, then this clause connects directly with "the father of us all" at the end of v. 16. The NIV makes this connection simply by repeating the thought, "He is our father," though these words do not occur in the Greek text of v. 17. The idea is that in the sight of God Abraham the believer is the spiritual father of all subsequent believers; this is how God sees him (Cranfield, I:243).

Though Paul's wording here may seem a bit awkward, he puts it the way he does in order to focus our attention upon the object of Abraham's faith, namely, God himself. Having then named God as the one "in whom he believed," Paul then utters one of the most basic yet most profound descriptions of God in Scripture: He is the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. This refers to resurrection from the dead and creation from nothing: the two masterworks in the repertoire of divine omnipotence. By his "incomparably great power" God raised Jesus from the dead (Eph 1:19-20).

That God is the one who gives life to the dead was "a general designation of God in Jewish devotion," says Bruce (118; see Cranfield, I:244). As the focus of his faith, Abraham believed that God could miraculously restore both his and Sarah's reproductive powers, a kind of figurative "resurrection from the dead" (4:19; Heb 11:11-12). He also believed that God had the power to raise Isaac from the dead if necessary, had the commanded sacrifice been completed (Heb 11:19). This sets the example for us, who are called on to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (4:24), and to believe that he raises us from spiritual death in baptism (6:4; Col 2:12) and will raise us up from physical death on the last day (8:11, 23).

The second part of the description is more difficult. Literally it says God calls the not-being-things as being-things. Or, he addresses things that do not exist as though they exist. Many take this to be a reference to God's unique power to create ex nihilo , "from nothing" (see GC , 97-117). "Paul is speaking of God as creating something out of nothing by his call. This applies to the physical creation," says Morris, though Paul may not have had this specifically in mind here (209). Cranfield (I:244) and Hendriksen (I:158) agree that the expression at least includes the original creation of Gen 1:1. The word for "calls" is kalevw (kaleô ), which is often used "to denote God's creative call," says Cranfield. It can "signify to call into existence, and this is the meaning we find here" (Morris, 208; see Moo, I:286-287). See Isa 48:13.

Some deny that the original creation is intended to be included here, mainly because of the wording " as though they were." The Greek word is wJ" (hôs ), "as." The argument is that if creation ex nihilo were intended, Paul would have said eis ("into"), not hôs . I.e., God calls the not-being things into being. (See Moo, I:286-287.) However, although this might certainly be a clearer reference to creation ex nihilo , the wording as it stands cannot be said to exclude it. "The idea would then be that God, in calling into being what does not exist, addresses His creating word to it, thus in a sense treating it as though it already existed" (Cranfield, I:244).

The more general language is probably used so that the concept of God's omnipotent, creative call can be applied specifically to Abraham's situation. As the object of Abraham's faith, God is surely the one who names or speaks "of things in the remotest futurity . . . , with as much certainty as if they existed" (DeWelt, 66). When God said to Abraham, "I have made you a father of many nations" (Gen 17:5), he spoke of the future, as-yet-unborn legions of believers as though they already existed (MP, 328). Thus Abraham's faith required him to believe that God controlled the future, and that he could and would bring into existence things which then existed for him only in the form of promises (Heb 11:10, 13-16). This is an example for us today, since we also must believe that God can and will one day call into being our not-yet-existing redeemed bodies and their eternal home in the new heavens and new earth.

Thus this verse declares God to be sovereign over the two things that baffle human beings most: death and nothingness (Stott, 133). To believe that God is the master of these mysteries is to believe he can do anything. Abraham so believed, and thus rested his hope in God's promises.

4:18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." This is Paul's first reference to hope (ejlpiv" , elpis ) in Romans. Hope is closely related to faith. Indeed, it overlaps that part of our faith that is directed toward the future (8:24-25). In the same way it is closely related to assurance of salvation. Hope as such is the "expectation of something desirable" (Hendriksen, I:159). The biblical connotation does not involve the element of uncertainty or "wishful thinking" often attached to it in American vernacular. In Scripture, hope is the confident expectation of our future possession of all that God has promised us.

Abraham's hope was focused especially on the promise of countless descendants as recorded in Gen 15:5. After calling his attention to the multitude of stars in the heavens, God said to him, "So shall your offspring be." At this time Abraham was between 75 and 86 years old (Gen 12:4; 16:16), and was already very conscious of the fact that he was still childless (Gen 15:2-3). But God reassured him, and Abraham believed (Gen 15:6). At least thirteen years later, when he was 99 and Sarah was around 90 (Gen 17:1, 17), God again promised that he would be "the father of many nations" (Gen 17:4); and he instituted circumcision as the sign of this covenant (Gen 17:10-14). Abraham demonstrated his faith in the promise by immediately ordering circumcision for himself and every male in his household (Gen 17:23-27).

Under such circumstances Abraham's hope surely transcended all expectation based on natural processes (his own "works"); it was surely grounded in his faith that God could raise the dead and bring something out of nothing. Paul says it thus, that Abraham believed "against all hope," yet "in hope." The word for "against" (parav , para ) can also mean "beyond." This difficult statement may thus be understood in two ways (see Cranfield, I:245-246). If para means "against," this says that Abraham from the beginning had been filled with true hope even though all along it meant going against all natural expectations. If para means "beyond," the idea is that in the beginning (Gen 12:1-3) Abraham's hope involved his and Sarah's natural ability to have children; but God delayed the birth of Isaac so long that they simply went beyond that point. Either way, Abraham continued to have hope, but ultimately he knew that its fulfillment rested completely in the hands of the omnipotent and faithful God. He knew that without God, he would be without hope (Eph 2:12); but he knew that God's promise is always a sufficient basis for hope.

4:19 Without weakening in his faith . . . . What makes this difficult to understand are the episodes recorded in Genesis that seem to reflect a weak faith on Abraham's part. To avoid an imagined danger in Egypt, he lied about his relationship with Sarah instead of trusting God (12:10-20). When Sarah appeared barren, he followed her suggestion and sought to beget offspring through her maidservant Hagar instead of waiting on the Lord(16:1-5). When God promised him a son by Sarah at ages 100 and 90 respectively, he laughed (17:17).

These episodes do not contradict Paul's statement, though. These are relatively minor incidents compared with Abraham's overall record of strong faith. Some people have a weak faith as such (14:1), but Abraham had only momentary lapses from which he always recovered. The Egypt event was early in his covenant relationship with God. Prior to the Hagar event God had not specifically named Sarah as the mother of his heir. Fuller says Abraham's laughter was "a laughter of faith and not mockery" ( Unity , 307). When the greatest test of all came - the command to sacrifice Isaac, he did not hesitate (Gen 22:1-10). Certainly no one's faith, not even Abraham's, is perfect. But "despite his spiritual imperfection, Abraham always came back to the Lord in faith, and the Lord honored that faith and continued to renew his promises to Abraham" (MacArthur, I:237).

. . . he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead - since he was about a hundred years old - and that Sarah's womb was also dead. "Faced the fact" is katanoevw (katanoeô ), "to consider, to contemplate." Some ancient manuscripts include the word "not" at this point, which makes it read "he did not consider the fact" (see KJV). Interestingly the point is the same with or without the negative. With it the idea would be that his faith was so strong that he did not pay any attention to the fact that he and Sarah appeared to be past the age of natural childbearing. He did not regard that as the deciding factor, and he did not allow it to weaken his faith (Lard, 147). All that mattered was God's promise. On the other hand, without the negative (the preference of most modern critics and translations), the idea is that he was fully aware of his and Sarah's inability to have children; he took this into account but still continued to believe. (See Cranfield, I:247.)

Describing the lack of childbearing ability in terms of death highlights God's role in the birth of Isaac as a kind of resurrection from the dead (4:17, 24). In this regard Abraham's body was "as good as dead" (see Heb 11:12), and Sarah's womb was dead. Even before they left Haran Sarah was declared barren (Gen 11:30). When the promise included her specifically she was 90 years old (Gen 17:17) and definitely "past the age of childbearing" (Gen 18:11; Heb 11:11).

Because of these factors the conception and birth of Isaac were undoubtedly the working of God's supernatural power. In view of the fact that he later fathered six sons by another wife, Keturah (Gen 25:1-2), we can assume that "the procreative power granted by God to Abraham was not confined to the birth of Isaac alone but remained with him afterward" (Moo, I:293).

4:20 In spite of the state of procreative "deadness," [y]et he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith . . . . This helps explain the fact that Abraham did not "weaken" in his faith, i.e., he did not waver to the point of unbelief. Calvin (179) points out that expressions of wonder and astonishment can be expected in the face of such remarkable promises as Abraham received (Gen 17:17). No less than the virgin Mary asked, "How will this be?" (Luke 1:34). But where true faith is present, the wonder itself generates an even stronger faith.

The word "waver" (diakrivnomai , diakrinomai ) means "to decide, contend, be divided within oneself, be at odds with oneself, stagger, waver, doubt." Lard (148) takes it in the most neutral sense, that Abraham simply did not "decide" for unbelief. Moo gives the word a very negative connotation here, saying it "is not a passing hesitation but a more deep-seated and permanent attitude of distrust" (I:290). Either way, Abraham's faith never gave way to unbelief. This is not to deny that he sometimes had to struggle with his faith, but a struggling faith is not the same as unbelief.

That Abraham "was strengthened in his faith" does not mean that he was strengthened in his body by his faith (contra Sanday and Headlam, 115). It simply means he was strengthened with reference to his faith; his faith itself was strengthened. How was it strengthened? Up to the time of Sarah's actual pregnancy and Isaac's birth (Gen 21:1-2), the only thing he had as a basis for his faith was the bare promise of God, which the Lord kept graciously renewing to him. But the repetition of the promise was enough; he continued to walk by faith, not by sight. "Abraham had nothing going for him except the promise of God. But for the man of faith that was enough" (Morris, 212).

What follows in the rest of v. 20 and in v. 21 is an excellent two-part summary of the essence of Abraham's justifying faith, and it presents a pattern that all believers can and must follow. The first aspect of Abraham's faith was that he gave glory to God . . . . The "glory" of God is his collective greatness, his total perfection, his manifested majesty (see 1:21). It cannot be increased; it can only be acknowledged and honored. We "give" glory to God by honoring him and by calling attention to everything that makes him great. The very essence of justifying faith is that it gives glory to God, since it is faith in God and in what he has done and promises to do, rather than a reliance upon ourselves and what we are able to achieve. Faith by its very nature puts ourselves in the background and turns the spotlight upon God.

4:21 This verse sets forth the second aspect of Abraham's faith: being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. The verb means "to be fully persuaded, fully convinced, fully assured." Toward what was this total confidence directed? Nothing less than the promises of God . Everything rested on whether or not God could keep his promises; Abraham believed that he could. He believed in the promises because he believed in the power, the "wonder-working power" of God, the power that is able to raise the dead and create from nothing (4:17).

Stott rightly points out that trusting in a person's promises requires believing he has not only the power to keep them, but also the will to do so. I.e., "behind all promises lies the character of the person who makes them" (134). Though it is not explicitly stated in this verse, it is implied that Abraham was fully persuaded not only that God could keep his promises because of his power, but also that he would keep them because of his faithfulness.

The essence of justifying faith still follows the pattern of Abraham. God promises to save us by his grace through the work of Jesus Christ. We are called on to trust completely in this promise, believing in the loving intention of God and the forgiving power of the cross. This is not easy to do, just as it is not easy for a drowning person to relax and let a lifeguard hold on to him and pull him to shore. Instinctively the drowning person wants to grab and hold on, while thrashing and kicking and straining; but this only hinders and may even thwart the attempt to save him. If he really wants to be saved, he must relax and trust himself to the expertise and ability of the lifeguard. Likewise if we want to be saved, we must truly believe in God's saving grace, which requires us to let go of our works and to rest in the certainty of his promises. Such faith enables us to stop anxiously examining our personal "workometer" in order to make guesses as to our salvation status. It enables us instead simply to fix our eyes upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2).

4:22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." Most of the verses in this section have explored the meaning of Gen 15:6a, "Abraham believed God." Having shown us in stunning fashion the main aspects of the patriarch's faith, Paul here closes this section by simply quoting Gen 15:6b again: "It was credited to him as righteousness."

The words "This is why" indicate that there is a cause-and-effect relation between the two parts of Gen 15:6. Because Abraham's faith was this kind of faith, he was fully justified before God. As Murray says, "The grandeur of Abraham's faith makes all the more apparent why it was imputed for righteousness" (I:152).

F. THOSE WHO BELIEVE LIKE ABRAHAM

ARE JUSTIFIED LIKE ABRAHAM (4:23-25)

4:23-24 The heading over this main section (ch. 4) calls Abraham the "paradigm of grace." Throughout the entire chapter we have been applying his example to all believers who follow him and especially to Christians today. In this last brief section of the chapter we see that such a parallel is intended. God wants us to know that those who believe like Abraham are justified like Abraham. In fact, says Paul, the key words in Gen 15:6 were included in the Bible specifically for our sakes. The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us . . . . The whole account of Abraham and the record of his strong faith were written not just to honor him but to benefit us believers today.

"Not for him alone" suggests that it is appropriate for such a great man to be honored. It is fitting that he should live on in the memories of his children, both physical and spiritual, and that his life of faith should be held up as an example worthy of praise.

But we must not forget its intended application to our lives today. Indeed, the NT tells us that everything recorded in the OT, including good and bad behavior, has been recorded for our sakes, for us to learn both what pleases God and what angers him. (See 15:4; 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16.) The example of Abraham is special, though, because it illuminates so clearly the essence of grace, the heart of which is justification by faith. The key words of Gen 15:6, "it was credited to him as righteousness," mean simply that he was justified - by his faith. This sets the pattern for those today to whom God will credit righteousness , i.e., whom God will justify. And of whom is this blessed category comprised? . . . us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead . . . .

The reference to crediting righteousness (i.e., justifying) has a future ring to it. Paul says literally that believers are "about to be" credited as righteous. Some see this as pointing ahead to the final judgment (Morris, 214; Schlatter, 117), where God will once and for all declare us righteous through the blood of Christ. Another possibility is that "about to be" points to what was in the future from the perspective of Abraham himself. In any case there is no reason to take this as implying that believers are not yet justified. Paul in other places makes it clear that our justification is a past event (4:7; 5:1; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:7) and a present reality (3:24; 5:9). Indeed, the very example of Abraham confirms this: "it was credited" is past tense (4:3, 9-10, 22).

The act of faith is here called believing "upon" (ejpiv , epi ), which is not just bare intellectual assent to facts but also a surrender of the will and a commitment of the self to the person who is the object of faith, in this case God the Father. In the context of salvation Jesus is usually named as the object of faith (e.g., John 3:16; Acts 11:17; 16:31; Rom 3:22; Gal 2:16; 3:26), but not exclusively so (see Acts 16:34; Rom 4:5; Col 2:12). Here the focus is on faith in God the Father because of the prominence of the theme of resurrection from the dead (4:17, 19), and because Scripture predominantly describes the resurrection of Jesus as the work of the Father.

It is clear that justifying faith must include faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (10:9), in addition to faith in the atoning power of his death (3:25). Abraham's faith is most appropriately paradigmatic for the former, since it was truly a faith that God is able to raise the dead (4:17, 19). Our faith is no different, except we now know that this holy resurrection power is ultimately displayed in the raising of Jesus (Eph 1:18-20; Col 2:12). In this light it is significant that the final fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham was when he raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 13:32-34).

4:25 Paul fittingly closes this chapter with a brief summary of the gospel facts that make salvation by grace possible and that are at the very heart of justifying faith: the death and resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Cor 15:1-4): He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. The words "to death" are not in the Greek text, but this is no doubt the meaning. The term for "delivered over" is paradivdwmi (paradidômi ), the same word used for God's act of delivering rebellious sinners over to the consequences of their sins in 1:24, 26, 28. Here the reference is to the One who was delivered over to the cross in their place, and ours. The One who so delivered him is the Father (Acts 2:23; Rom 8:32; see Rom 3:25).

He was "raised to life" refers to the resurrection of Jesus ("to life" is not in the original). The word for justification is the noun dikaivwsi" (dikaiôsis ), used only here and in 5:18. Usually the verb dikaiovw (dikaioô , "to justify") is used. Either way the concept is equivalent both to the expression "crediting of righteousness" (used throughout the chapter) and to the terminology of forgiveness (4:7-8).

The most difficult problem of interpretation in this verse comes from the double use of the preposition "for" (diav , dia ). The concept is causal: "on account of, because of" (see NASB). The problem is whether the object of each of these two uses of dia is the cause or the effect of the action it modifies. If it is the cause, the phrase is said to be retrospective, or looking to the past. This seems to be the most natural way to understand the first clause: he was delivered up as the result of our sins. Our sins are the cause, and his death is the effect. But if the object of dia is the effect, the phrase is said to be prospective, or looking to the future. This seems most natural for the second clause: he was raised up in order to bring about our justification. His resurrection is the cause; our justification is the effect.

The reason this is problematic is that it seems Paul would not use dia here in parallel clauses in such different senses. Though some interpret him thus (Moo, I:297; Hendriksen, I:161), other commentators argue for consistency and interpret both uses of dia in the same way. Moule (98) and Schlatter (118) say both uses are retrospective. This would require us to say that in some way the resurrection was the result of our justification, as the cross was the result of our sins. On the other hand Murray (I:155) says both are prospective. This would require us to say that Jesus' death was the cause of something relating to our sins, such as their covering or atonement.

In considering all these possibilities, the weakest concept is the idea that somehow Jesus was raised because we had already been justified, or that his resurrection was somehow the result of our justification. When we rule this idea out, that leaves us with just two options: either dia means different things in the two clauses, or both clauses have a prospective reference.

Though it is most natural to say that Jesus was delivered up on account of the fact of our sins (retrospective), it also makes sense to say that he was delivered up because of the need to atone for our sins (prospective). I do not know how to choose between these two meanings here; perhaps both are intended.

Regarding the second clause, to say that it is prospective is the better choice; but this still leaves us with the question, in what way does the resurrection of Jesus bring about our justification? It is much easier to see how Jesus died for our justification, but here Paul says he was raised for it. What does this mean?

Bruce (119) says Jesus was raised "to guarantee" our justification. But in what sense would this be the case? One possibility is that his resurrection demonstrates the validity of his claims and proves that the apostolic teaching about the meaning of the cross is true. Anyone could make lofty claims about his impending death (see Mark 10:45; John 12:32); but if his dead body turned to dust in his grave, we would be inclined to disregard his claims. But in the case of Jesus his resurrection confirms his claims and guarantees the justifying power of his blood; thus we know that our faith in his blood is not in vain. This is the faith that justifies, and because of his resurrection we have a firm basis for it. As Murray says, "Only as the living Lord can he be the object of faith" (I:156).

This is similar to Hendriksen's suggestion (I:161) that Jesus was raised in order to assure us that in God's sight we are indeed justified. "The Father, by raising Jesus from the dead, assures us that the atoning sacrifice has been accepted; hence, our sins are forgiven."

One other possibility is that Jesus' resurrection brings about our justification by enabling him to complete the full process of atonement. According to the OT pattern, the High Priest not only offered the sacrifice but also sprinkled its blood on the altar in the Most Holy Place (Lev 16). Likewise, to accomplish our justification, Jesus our Great High Priest not only had to offer himself as a sacrifice by shedding his blood on the cross; he also had to enter heaven itself "once for all by his own blood," and "appear for us in God's presence" (Heb 9:12, 24; see Heb 6:19-20; 10:19-22). Therefore it was necessary for him to be raised from the dead so that he could ascend bodily into heaven and complete the work of atonement on which our justification is based. (See Lard, 151; MP, 330.)

McGarvey: Rom 4:1

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? [The word "found" means "obtained" (Heb 9:12) or "got" (Luk 9:12) Knowing that the Jew would resist and controvert his conclusion that the Jew would have to be justified by faith, just as the Gentile, Paul further confirms his conclusion by a test case. For the test he selects Abraham, the father of the race, and the earthly head of the theocracy. No more fitting individual could be chosen, for the nation had never claimed that it had risen higher than its head; therefore, whatever could be proved as to Abraham must be conceded to be true as to all. What, says Paul, in the light of our proposition, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath obtained, by his fleshly nature, apart from the grace of God; i. e., as a doer of the law (Gal 3:2-3)? Surely, he obtained nothing whatever in this manner.]

McGarvey: Rom 4:2

For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God .

McGarvey: Rom 4:3

For what saith the scripture? [Gen 15:6] And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness . [Now, of course, Abraham was some way justified. If he was justified by works, as you Jews suppose, he has ground for glorying toward God, for he can claim his justification from God as a debt due to him; but we hear of no such glorying toward God, and hence he was not justified by works. On the contrary, we hear that he was justified by faith, for the Scripture says that he believed God and his belief was counted unto him for righteousness.]

McGarvey: Rom 4:4

Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt .

McGarvey: Rom 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness . [Let us illustrate our point by the case of a workman. If the workman does all he agreed to do, then his reward or hire is due him, not as a matter of grace or favor, but as a just debt. But if, on the contrary, the workman does not fulfill his agreement at all, but merely believes the promise of his employer that he shall nevertheless be paid, then the hire is not hire at all; it is a mere gift of grace and favor, and not a debt. Now, this latter is the position occupied by Abraham, and by every one that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, for their faith is reckoned unto them for the works of the law -- those works of righteousness which they promised to do, but never performed. The sentence is very elliptical, the apostle mingling the illustration with its application, in the on-rushing of his thought.]

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 4:1, Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for righteousness; Rom 4:10, before he was circumcised; Rom 4:13, By faith only he and his seed received the promise; Rom 4:16, Abraham is the father of all that believe; Rom 4:24, Our faith also shall be imputed to us for righteousness.

Poole: Romans 4 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 4

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 4:1-12) The doctrine of justification by faith is shown by the case of Abraham.

(Rom 4:13-22) He received the promise through the righteousness of faith.

(Rom 4:23-25) And we are justified in the same way of believing.

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

The great gospel doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law was so very contrary to the notions the Jews had learnt from those that sat in Moses' chair, that it would hardly go down with them; and therefore the apostle insists very largely upon it, and labours much in the confirmation and illustration of it. He had before proved it by reason and argument, now in this chapter he proves it by example, which in some places serves for confirmation as well as illustration. The example he pitches upon is that of Abraham, whom he chooses to mention because the Jews gloried much in their relation to Abraham, put it in the first rank of their external privileges that they were Abraham's seed, and truly they had Abraham for their father. Therefore this instance was likely to be more taking and convincing to the Jews than any other. His argument stands thus: " All that are saved are justified in the same way as Abraham was; but Abraham was justified by faith, and not by works; therefore all that are saved are so justified;" for it would easily be acknowledged that Abraham was the father of the faithful. Now this is an argument, not only à pari - from an equal case, as they say, but à fortiori - from a stronger case. If Abraham, a man so famous for works, so eminent in holiness and obedience, was nevertheless justified by faith only, and not by those works, how much less can any other, especially any of those that spring from him, and come so far short of him in works, set up for a justification by their own works? And it proves likewise, ex abundanti - the more abundantly, as some observe, that we are not justified, no not by those good works which flow from faith, as the matter of our righteousness; for such were Abraham's works, and are we better than he? The whole chapter is taken up with his discourse upon this instance, and there is this in it, which hath a particular reference to the close of the foregoing chapter, where he has asserted that, in the business of justification, Jews and Gentiles stand upon the same level. Now in this chapter, with a great deal of cogency of argument, I. He proves that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith (Rom 4:1-8). II. He observes when and why he was so justified (Rom 4:9-17). III. He describes and commends that faith of his (Rom 4:17-22). IV. He applies all this to us (Rom 4:22-25). And, if he had now been in the school of Tyrannus, he could not have disputed more argumentatively.

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

The Faith Which Takes God At His Word (Rom_4:1-8)

The Father Of The Faithful (Rom_4:9-12)

All Is Of Grace (Rom_4:13-17)

Believing In The God Who Makes The Impossible Possible (Rom_4:18-25)

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 4

The apostle having, in the preceding chapters, proved that there is no justification before God by the works of the law, partly from the depraved state and condition that all men are in by nature, both Jews and Gentiles; and partly from the nature of the law itself, which discovers sin, arraigns men for it, and convicts of it, and pronounces guilty before God for it; as also by showing, that it is by another righteousness, which he describes, that men are justified in the sight of God; proceeds in this to confirm the same by an example; and that which he pitches upon is the most appropriate and pertinent he could have thought of, namely, that of Abraham, the father of the Jews, Rom 4:1, for in whatsoever way he was justified, his sons surely could not imagine but it must be the right way, nor should they seek another: now that Abraham was not justified by works, he proves Rom 4:2, from an absurdity following upon it, that he would have just reason to glory; whereas no man ought to glory before God, but only in the Lord: and by a passage of Scripture, Rom 4:3, to which he appeals, he makes it clearly appear that he was justified by faith, for that says, his faith was counted for righteousness. This case of accounting anything to another for righteousness, is illustrated by two sorts of persons, who have different things accounted to them, and in a different manner; to the worker, the reward is reckoned of debt, and not of grace, Rom 4:4, but to the believer that works not, his faith, as Abraham's was, is counted for righteousness; whence it follows, that not the worker is justified by his works, but the believer by the righteousness of faith; and this is confirmed by a testimony of David in Psa 32:1, by which the apostle proves the imputation of righteousness without works, in which the happiness of men consists, Rom 4:6, and shows, that this happiness does not belong to circumcised persons only, but to the uncircumcised also; and therefore is not by circumcision, but by faith, Rom 4:9, and which he proves by observing the time when faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness; not when he was circumcised, but before, Rom 4:10, the use of which circumcision to him was to assure him, that he should be the father of uncircumcised Gentiles that believed, to whom righteousness should be imputed, as to him when he was uncircumcised, Rom 4:11, who are described by their imitation of his faith, which he had, and exercised before his circumcision, Rom 4:12. And this leads on to a fresh argument, proving justification to be by faith, and not by the works of the law, since the promise made to Abraham, and his seed, was not through the law, but the righteousness of faith; and consequently both his and their justification were not by the one, but by the other, Rom 4:13, or, if otherwise, both the faithfulness of God, and the faith of his people, would be void, and the promise of grace of no effect, Rom 4:14. And this is still further argued from the effect of the law working wrath, which, if justification was by it, it would never do, Rom 4:15. The wisdom and goodness of God in giving faith, and not works, a concern in justification, are observed, Rom 4:16, whereby it appears to be of free grace, faith only being a recipient, and what gives all the glory to God; and also the promise of eternal life through justification by free grace becomes sure to all the spiritual seed; who are distributed into two sorts, the believing Jews under the legal dispensation, and the believing Gentiles, under the Gospel dispensation; of both which Abraham was father; which is confirmed by a testimony out of Gen 17:4, whose faith is described by the object of it, the omnipotent God that quickens the dead, and calls things that are not, as though they were, Rom 4:17, and by the nature of it, Rom 4:18, believing in hope against hope, resting on the promise of God; and by the strength of it, being not at all weakened by considering, either his own case, or that of his wife's, Rom 4:19, and was so far from being staggered through unbelief at these things, that it was strong in exercise, thereby glorifying God, the object of it, Rom 4:20, nay, it rose up to a plerophory, a full assurance, Rom 4:21, being built upon the power of a promising God; hence, as before observed, his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness, Rom 4:22, And now in the same way that he was justified, all his children, his spiritual seed, are justified, whether they be Jews or Gentiles; for what is said concerning the imputation of the righteousness of faith to him, does not concern him only, Rom 4:23, but all true believers also; whose faith is described by the object of it, him that raised up Christ from the dead, that is, God the Father, Rom 4:24, who is supposed hereby to have been dead, and is represented as the Lord and Saviour of his people; and of whom a further account is given, Rom 4:25, as being delivered into the hands of men, of justice, and of death, for the sins of his people, which he took upon him, and bore, and made satisfaction for, and as being raised again for their justification; so that this is a benefit owing not to the works of men, but to what Christ has done and suffered in the room and stead of his people; which is what the apostle meant to bring this point unto; the blessed effects and consequences of which he relates in the next chapter.

College: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

I. ROMANS: ITS INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE

God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path (Ps 119:105), and no part of it shines more brilliantly than the book of Romans. The truth of God's Word sets us free (John 8:32), and Romans teaches us the most liberating of all truths. God's Word is sharp and piercing like a sword (Heb 4:12), and no blade penetrates more deeply into our hearts than Romans. Overall the book of Romans may be the most read and most influential book of the Bible, but sometimes it is the most neglected and most misunderstood book. The Restoration Movement has tended to concentrate especially on the book of Acts, which is truly foundational and indispensable. But Romans is to Acts what meat is to milk. We need to mature; we need to graduate from Acts to Romans.

In 1 Cor 15:3-4 Paul sums up the gospel as these three truths: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised up again on the third day. The reality of the historical facts of the Savior's death and resurrection is stressed over and over in the book of Acts. Romans, however, is an exposition of the meaning of these facts. In the language of 1 Cor 15:3, Romans focuses not on "Christ died," but on the next three words: " for our sins ." Acts explains what salvation consists of and how we may receive it. Romans does the same, but carries the explanation to heights and depths that thrill and satisfy the soul, providing it with an experience that is at the same time intellectual, spiritual, and esthetic.

The unparalleled ability of Romans to convict sinners and to motivate Christians is well attested. The comment of Sanday and Headlam (v) has often been noted: "If it is a historical fact that the spiritual revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans." Leon Morris (1) concurs: "It is commonly agreed that the Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest Christian writings. Its power has been demonstrated again and again at critical points in the history of the Christian church."

The role of Romans in Augustine's conversion is well known. In his Confessions he tells how a discussion of Christian commitment with two of his friends brought him under strong conviction, filling him with remorse for his sins of sexual immorality and a sense of helplessness to overcome them. Later he and his friend Alypius went into the garden, taking along a copy of Paul's writings. Augustine went off by himself to weep over his sins. While doing so, he reports, "I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating, 'Take up and read; take up and read.'" He took this as a sign from God to open the book of Paul's writings and read the first passage that met his eyes. He quickly returned to where Alypius was sitting and the book was lying. When he opened it, the first words he saw were these from Rom 13:13-14: "Not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." This experience and these words gave him what he needed to turn completely to Christ. He says, "No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended, - by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart, - all the gloom of doubt vanished away."

Godet (1) declares that "the Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans." Morris (1) agrees: "The Reformation may be regarded as the unleashing of new spiritual life as a result of a renewed understanding of the teaching of Romans."

Insofar as the Reformation depends on the work of Martin Luther, this is surely the case. Luther confesses how in 1519 he had an ardent desire to understand the epistle to the Romans. His problem was the way he had been taught to understand the expression "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17. To him it meant the divine justice and wrath by which God punishes sin, which did not sound very much like gospel . "Nevertheless," he says, "I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted." Finally, by the mercy of God, he began to understand this expression in a totally different way, i.e., as the righteousness of Christ that God bestows upon the sinner and on the basis of which the sinner is justified. The effect on Luther was electrifying: "I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates." This new understanding of this one verse - Rom 1:17 - changed everything; it became in a real sense the doorway to the Reformation. "Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise," says Luther ("Latin Writings," 336-337).

Luther's regard for Romans is clearly seen in this well-known paragraph from his famous preface to this epistle:

This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes ("Preface," 365).

These words, first published in 1522, were echoed almost verbatim by the English reformer William Tyndale, in his prologue to his 1534 English translation of the New Testament. He says, "This epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most pure . . . gospel, and also a light and a way in unto the whole Scripture." He also recommends learning it by heart and studying it daily, because "so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein."

The Swiss reformer John Calvin echoes some of Tyndale's thoughts in his own commentary on Romans (xxix): "When any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture."

Working indirectly through Luther's preface, the book of Romans had an effect on John Wesley similar to the way it influenced Augustine and Luther. In his journal Wesley recounts his own search for personal victory over sin and assurance of salvation based on trust in the blood of Christ alone. He tells what happened to him on May 24, 1738:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurace was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine , and saved me from the law of sin and death ( Works , I:103).

Modern scholars and expositors seem unable to praise the letter to the Romans highly enough. Philip Schaff has said, "The Epistle to the Romans is the Epistle of the Epistles, as the Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Gospels" ("Preface," v). "This is in every sense the greatest of the Epistles of Paul, if not the greatest book in the New Testament," declares Thiessen ( Introduction , 219). Newell (375) says Romans is "probably the greatest book in the Bible." "If the apostle Paul had written nothing else, he would still be recognized as one of the outstanding Christian thinkers of all time on the basis of this letter alone," say Newman and Nida (1). This familiar praise comes from Godet (x):

The pious Sailer used to say, "O Christianity, had thy one work been to produce a St. Paul, that alone would have rendered thee dear to the coldest reason." May we not be permitted to add: And thou, O St. Paul, had thy one work been to compose an Epistle to the Romans, that alone would have rendered thee dear to every sound reason.

Godet adds, "The Epistle to the Romans is the cathedral of the Christian faith" (1).

Others add even higher praise. Batey (7) says, "Paul's epistle to the Romans stands among the most important pieces of literature in the intellectual history of Western man." "It is safe to say that Romans is probably the most powerful human document ever written," declares Stedman. Some might think this honor should go to the U.S. Constitution or to the Declaration of Independence. "But even they cannot hold a candle to the impact the Epistle to the Romans has had upon human history" (I:1-2). Boice avows: "Christianity has been the most powerful, transforming force in human history - and the book of Romans is the most basic, most comprehensive statement of true Christianity" (I:13).

Commentators often quote this statement from Coleridge: "I think St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans the most profound work in existence" ( Table Talk , 245). Many will certainly agree, but to Coleridge such profundity was not altogether a virtue. For him it meant that Romans "undoubtedly . . . is, and must be, very obscure to ordinary readers" (ibid., 245-246). Indeed, some think that the Apostle Peter may have been referring to Romans in 2 Pet 3:16. But at the same time, perhaps paradoxically, Newell is correct when he says (vii), "There is no more simple book in the Bible than Romans, when one comes to know the book, its contents, its message, its power."

Scholars praise Romans as the clearest statement of the gospel of salvation. As noted above, Luther called it "the purest gospel." Nygren agrees (3): "What the gospel is, what the content of the Christian faith is, one learns to know in the Epistle to the Romans as in no other place in the New Testament." Cranfield says Romans is "the most systematic and complete exposition of the gospel that the NT contains" (I:31). The Restoration scholar Moses Lard (xx) concurs: "It is the whole gospel compressed into the short space of a single letter - a generalization of Christianity up to the hight [sic] of the marvelous, and a detail down to exhaustion." In Stott's words (19), Romans is "the fullest, plainest and grandest statement of the gospel in the New Testament."

Scholars also praise Romans for its unparalleled presentation of the essence of Christian doctrine . In his preface to Romans (380) Luther says that in Romans we "find most abundantly the things that a Christian ought to know, namely, what is law, gospel, sin, punishment, grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope, and the cross; and also how we are to conduct ourselves toward everyone." Thus it seems that Paul "wanted in this one epistle to sum up briefly the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine." Schaff declares it to be "the heart of the doctrinal portion of the New Testament. It presents in systematic order the fundamental truths of Christianity in their primitive purity, inexhaustible depth, all-conquering force, and never-failing comfort. It is the bulwark of the evangelical doctrines of sin and grace" ("Preface," v).

Modern writers agree. "The truth laid down in Romans forms the Gibraltar basis of doctrine, teaching, and confession in the true evangelical church," says Lenski (8). Moo says the Puritan writer Thomas Draxe described Romans as "the quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine." Moo agrees: "When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine" (I:1). Lard (xx) calls Romans Paul's "great doctrinal chart for the future." Newman and Nida (1) declare that "above all else, the appeal of Romans is its theology ."

Concerning its doctrinal content, MacArthur lists 49 significant questions about God and man that are answered by Romans, e.g., How can a person who has never heard the gospel be held spiritually responsible? How can a sinner be forgiven and justified by God? How are God's grace and God's law related? Why is there suffering? MacArthur points out that these key words are used repeatedly in the epistle: God (154 times), law (77), Christ (66), sin (45), Lord (44), and faith (40).

Which of these assessments is correct? Is Romans the crowning presentation of the Christian gospel ? Or is it the grandest statement of Christian doctrine ? Actually, it is both. Romans is the theology of the New Testament; it is also the definitive statement of the gospel. In this epistle doctrine and gospel merge, and the result is a spiritual feast for Christians.

Boice (I:10) advises that "it is time to rediscover Romans." Actually, it is always time to "rediscover" Romans, and down through the history of Christianity individuals have been doing just this. The results have been earth-shaking. It can and does happen over and over, in the lives of individuals, in congregations, in the Church at large. F.F. Bruce (60) has well said, "There is no telling what may happen when people begin to study the Epistle to the Romans."

II. THE AUTHOR OF ROMANS

The epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul (1:1). In the past a few critics challenged this, but without any real basis in fact. Today, as Cranfield says, "no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin" (I:2). Romans was quoted by the earliest Christian writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin), and was attributed to Paul by name by Marcion in the mid-second century. Since the time of Irenaeus (late second century) writers have explicitly and regularly viewed it as Pauline.

Though composed and dictated by Paul, the letter was actually written down by a Christian scribe named Tertius, who inserted his own greeting in 16:22.

A. PAUL'S JEWISH BACKGROUND

It is not necessary to go into the details of Paul's life, except for a few facts that are important in view of the content of the epistle, which relates especially to the distinction between law and grace. One relevant fact is Paul's Jewish background, which he proudly avowed: "I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin," a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (11:1; Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22). Though born in Tarsus, he was reared in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), the capital of Judaism.

Paul's education included strict and thorough religious training in the contents of the Old Testament - especially the Law (Torah) - at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most famous and most revered of all rabbis. His knowledge of the Law was so great that he was practically identified with it, being given the title "the Beauty of the Law." A saying recorded in the Talmud declares, "Since Rabban Gamaliel died the glory of the Law has ceased." "Under Gamaliel," says Paul, "I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Acts 22:3). "Thoroughly" translates kataÉ ajkrivbeian ( kata akribeian ), "according to exactness, strictness, precision."

Paul's zeal for God and commitment to his Law was total (Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14). He was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5), which he properly identified as "the strictest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). The glory of the Pharisees was the Law; they were devoted to akribeia in its interpretation and observance (Dunn, I:xl). Thus Paul not only knew the Law but also devoted himself to scrupulous obedience to its commandments (Acts 26:4-5; Phil 3:6).

This probably means that he was a legalist in the proper sense of that word, i.e., one who sought acceptance by God on the basis of his obedience to the Law. This is implied in the way he contrasted his pre-Christian life (Phil 3:6) and his Christian life (Phil 3:9). This is also the way Pharisees are generally pictured in the Gospels.

Paul's zeal for the Law was expressed perhaps most vehemently in his fanatical persecution of the earliest Christians, all converted Jews whom he no doubt regarded as traitors to God and his Law (Phil 3:6). See Acts 7:58; 8:3; 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 1:13.

B. PAUL'S CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY

The second relevant fact about the Apostle Paul is his conversion. The details need not be recounted here. What is important is that the one who converted him to Christianity was no human preacher, but was Jesus himself (Gal 1:15-16). Also, the gospel he preached was not taught to him by a human teacher; he received it by direct revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). The result was that Paul's conversion, his change, his turnaround, was complete. Whereas before he was totally committed to the Mosaic Law as a way of life and salvation, once converted he was just as totally committed to the gospel of grace.

As a Christian Paul set himself in complete opposition to everything he had stood for as a Pharisee. He now understood the way of law to be futile (10:3). He saw that his former legalistic approach to salvation was, as Murray says, "the antithesis of grace and of justification by faith" (I:xiii). Thus when Paul presents the classic contrast between law and grace in Romans, he speaks as one who knew both sides of the issue from personal experience and from the best teachers available. As Murray says, he is describing "the contrast between the two periods in his own life history, periods divided by the experience of the Damascus road" (I:xiv).

It is no surprise that Paul's preaching of the gospel and his condemnation of law-righteousness turned the Jews completely against him, even to the point that they tried to kill him (Acts 9:29; 13:45; 14:2, 19; 17:5-8; 18:12; 2 Cor 11:24-26). His opponents included "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26), the Judaizers, or Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah but still clung to the Law of Moses.

In spite of all of this upheaval, Paul did not turn against the Jews as such. He still regarded them as his beloved brothers according to the flesh (9:1-3; 10:1), and as blessed by God in an incomparable way (3:1-2; 9:4-5). In fact, a major aspect of the teaching in Romans is an explanation and a defense of God's purpose for his Old Covenant people, the Jews (see especially chs. 9-11).

C. PAUL'S COMMISSION AS

THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

The last detail about Paul's life that is relevant here is his call and commission to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17). His appointment as an apostle (1:1) invested him with the full authority of Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that his teachings are truly the Word of God (1 Cor 2:6-13; 1 Thess 2:13). When we read the book of Romans, we must understand it to be nothing less than this.

Also, Paul's appointment as the apostle to the Gentiles (1:5) completely governed his thoughts and deeds from that point on. As a Jew and a Pharisee, he had no doubt shared the typical Hebrew aversion to anything Gentile; and he had no doubt gloried in the Jews' exclusive position as God's chosen people. Thus when God revealed to him the mystery of the Gentiles - that it had been his plan all along to include Gentiles in the people of the Messiah (Eph 3:1-10), Paul was overwhelmed with awe and joy. He unhesitatingly opened his heart to the very people he had once despised. This was another complete turnaround in his life, and he devoted himself totally to his new mission.

Paul's role as apostle to the Gentiles had a direct bearing on his relationship with the Roman church and his letter to them. Paul tells us that he had often desired to visit Rome, in order to preach the gospel and have some converts there, "just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13). But since there was already a church in Rome, God's Spirit directed him into other Gentile areas in Asia Minor and the Greek peninsula first (15:17-22). But now he has covered this territory with three lengthy tours of missionary service (15:19). Thus he is ready to launch out into a totally new area, namely, Spain; and his journey there will take him through Rome, as he announces in this epistle (15:23-24).

Throughout the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes with the full conciousness of his mission to the Gentiles and of the Gentiles in his audience. One point that he clarifies in the letter is the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews with respect to salvation.

III. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Immediately after his baptism Paul began to preach Christ in Damascus (Acts 9:19-20), but soon went away into Arabia (Gal 1:17), which may have been the time he received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He went from there back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17-18) and elsewhere, and ultimately to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26).

From Antioch Paul launched his first missionary trip among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3), which was followed by two more. While in Ephesus on his third journey, "Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also'" (Acts 19:21). He shortly departed for Achaia (Greece) and arrived in Corinth, where he stayed for three months (Acts 20:1-3). This was approximately twenty years after his conversion, and ten years after the beginning of his first journey.

Corinth was the farthest point of his third trip, whence he retraced his steps back toward Ephesus. He stopped at Miletus instead, and traveled from there on to Jerusalem, with the goal of arriving by Pentecost (Acts 20:16-17). One main reason for the trip to Jerusalem was to deliver the money he had collected from the (mostly Gentile) churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Greece, to help the poor (mostly Jewish) saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-26). Though "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem, he was apprehensive about what might happen to him there (Acts 20:22-23).

It was in the midst of this final journey, during the three months Paul spent at Corinth, that he most likely wrote the letter to the Romans. He was apparently staying at the house of Gaius (16:23), one of his converts at Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). The letter was carried to Rome by Phoebe, a Christian from the church in nearby Cenchrea (16:1).

The exact date of the writing of Romans is calculated in relation to the overall chronology of Paul's life and work. There is no unanimity on this chronology, though the differences of opinion are minor. Everyone agrees that the Apostle's stay in Corinth must have been in late winter and/or early spring, since he planned to set out from there and arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost. Most agree also that this would have been in the middle or late 50s. Thus Romans was probably written early in A.D. 56, 57, or 58.

IV. RECIPIENTS OF ROMANS:

THE CHURCH IN ROME

Rome was the largest and most important city in the Roman Empire in Paul's day. Its population was probably over one million. Of this number, it is estimated that forty to fifty thousand were Jews, with as many as fifteen identifiable synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvi; Edwards, 9).

How the church in Rome originated is not known. There is no real evidence that Peter founded it, contrary to a common tradition. Some say that Rom 15:20 shows this could not have been the case. Here Paul says that he does not intend to "be building on someone else's foundation." The fact that he did plan to visit Rome and work there implies that no apostle had been there yet (MacArthur, I:xviii; Moo, I:4).

One very common speculation is that the Roman church was probably started by Jews and proselytes from Rome who were in the audience that heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and who were among the converts baptized that day. Upon returning to Rome, they would have established the church there. If so, and this seems very likely, then the first Christians in Rome were converts from Judaism.

Another likely speculation is that Christians from other churches, perhaps some of Paul's own converts from his earlier work in Tarsus and Antioch and Asia Minor, were among those who started the Roman church and helped it to grow. Perhaps some of Paul's acquaintances named in Romans 16 were among this group. Such a scenario is highly probable, given the importance of Rome and the constant travel to and from that city.

Thus the church in Rome would have begun not as the result of some formal missionary effort, but by residents converted while traveling (e.g., Acts 2:10) and by Christians moving there from other places. Their own evangelistic efforts would certainly have focused on the synagogues of Rome, following the pattern of evangelism reflected in the book of Acts. This would have resulted in converts not only from Judaism but also from among Gentile "God-fearers" who were commonly attached to the synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvii-xlviii).

The epistle to the Romans is addressed "to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (1:7). The main question about these saints is the relative number of Jews and Gentiles among them. In answering this question, scholars usually begin with one solid historical fact, and then draw conclusions based on inferences and a bit of speculation. This has led to the following scenario, for which there is considerable consensus among commentators today.

The one fact is that the Roman emperor Claudius issued a decree that expelled all Jews from Rome. This is recorded in Acts 18:2, and is also mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius. The exact date of the decree is somewhat unclear, but the best calculation is A.D. 49. The reason for the decree is stated thus by Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, (Emperor Claudius) expelled them from the city" (cited in Fiensy, Introduction , 224). Though we cannot be certain about this, most scholars agree that "Chrestus" is just a mistaken spelling of "Christus," and that the decree had to do with Jesus Christ.

In what way would Christ be instigating disturbances among the Jews in Rome? It is inferred that this refers to conflicts among the Jews stemming from Christian evangelism in the various synagogues. Because there was a wide diversity among the Jews and synagogues in Rome, it is concluded that some were more receptive to Christianity than others, and that this must have led to disputes among them. The resulting unrest was apparently unpleasant enough for Claudius to order all Jews to leave the city. It is also assumed that his decree did not make a distinction between unbelieving and believing Jews; thus even the Jewish Christians had to leave, e.g., Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). After the decree the Roman church thus would be composed almost entirely of Gentiles. (See Donfried, "Presuppositions," 104-105.)

When Claudius died around A.D. 54, the decree was no longer enforced, and Jews and Jewish Christians were free to return to Rome. Some think, however, that they were still forbidden to assemble publicly (Wiefel, "Community," 92-94). The results for the church would have been twofold. First, the problem with public assembly may have forced the Christians to set up a number of "house churches," a possibility that seems to be confirmed in Rom 16:5, 14, 15. Second, the returning Jewish Christians would find the Roman church dominated by the Gentile Christians, if not in number then certainly in power and influence (Wiefel, "Community," 94-96).

Thus the saints in Rome, to whom the letter is addressed, were almost certainly a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians, though there is no way to tell which group had the larger number. If the circumstances outlined in the above scenario are correct, however, it is safe to assume that there was tension if not conflict among the two groups. Wiefel refers to "quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Bruce says, "It is implied in Romans 11:13-24 that the Gentile Christians tended to look down on their Jewish brethren as poor relations" ("Debate," 180). Dunn speaks of "at least some friction between Gentile and Jew" within the house churches, with the Jews being in a minority and feeling themselves vulnerable (I:liii).

What is obvious is that in the epistle Paul addresses both groups, with some passages being specifically directed toward the Jewish Christians and some toward the Gentile Christians (see Moo, I:10-11; Murray, I:xviii-xix). Some say the letter as a whole is directed mainly to the Jewish saints; others say it was mainly intended for the Gentiles.

Hendriksen is surely right, though, when he says that regarding the main point of Romans this whole question is really irrelevant, since it applies equally to both groups (I:23). All are sinners (3:9, 23), no one will be saved by law (3:19-20), and all are equal recipients of the grace that is in Christ Jesus (3:24; 4:11-12). Hendriksen stresses Rom 10:12-13, "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

V. THE OCCASION OF THE WRITING

What were the circumstances that prompted Paul to write his epistle to the Romans? We have already noted that he wrote the letter during his three-month stay in Corinth on his final mission trip. What sorts of things were going through his mind that led him to write it at that particular time?

We are fortunate that Paul reveals his mind to us in certain statements of his desires and plans in chapters 1 and 15. These statements show us what occasioned the writing of Romans.

One main consideration was Paul's immediate travel plans, as they related to his all-determining calling as apostle to the Gentiles (15:15-24). He refers to his "priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God" (15:16). For twenty years he had been preaching in the eastern and northeastern sections of the Mediterranean area, and had covered it well. "So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum," he says, "I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ"; so now "there is no more place for me to work in these regions" (15:19, 23). Thus he decided to change his focus to the northwestern section, Spain in particular (15:24, 28). In his mind he was already planning his trip to Spain.

But first he had to go to Jerusalem (15:25-31). His purpose for doing this was to deliver the funds he had been collecting from the Gentile churches "for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" (15:26). He wanted to do this personally, to make sure that the funds were properly received (15:28). To this end he asked the Roman Christians to offer two specific prayers for him (15:30-31).

First, he knew that he still had many enemies in Jerusalem among the Jews especially. He knew that some of these enemies had already tried to kill him. Thus he really was not sure what dangers he might be facing in Jerusalem. Nevertheless he was determined to go (Acts 20:22-23), so he requested that the Roman Christians "pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea" (15:31). He was not afraid of losing his life; he just did not want his newly-formed missionary plans to be aborted (Acts 20:24; Rom 15:32).

Second, Paul was not really sure how the offering from the Gentile churches would be received by the Jewish saints in Jerusalem. There were still a lot of suspicions and misunderstandings between the two groups, mostly about the relation between the Old and New Covenants and the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the Christian. Thus the money he was bringing to the poor in Jerusalem was not just an act of charity, but was also a symbol of unity between the two main factions in the church. Thus Paul was anxious that it might be received in the proper spirit, so he asked the Romans to pray "that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there" (15:31).

Thus Paul was ultimately bound for Spain, after an initial trip to Jerusalem. But there was a third item in his itinerary: an intermediate stop in Rome itself (Acts 19:21; 23:11), a place he had never been. So he announced to the Christians in Rome that on his way to Spain he would stop and visit them (15:23, 24, 28). This was something he had longed to do for many years and had even made plans to do (1:11, 13; 15:23), but had "often been hindered from coming to you" (15:22; cf. 1:13).

Paul had many reasons for wanting to visit the church in Rome. For one thing, he wanted to enlist their help for his mission to Spain. "I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there," he says (15:24). But he had other reasons that predated his plans for Spain. For example, he seems simply to have desired to visit with the Christians there: to have fellowship with them, to enjoy their company, to be spiritually refreshed by them (15:24, 32), and to be encouraged by them (1:12). After all, he knew quite a few of them personally (16:3-15).

Paul's principal longstanding reason for wanting to visit Rome, though, was his desire to preach the gospel there. "I am obligated," he says, "both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:14-15). By this means or by some accompanying means he would be able to "impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong" (1:11). This would also enable him to "have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13).

No wonder that Paul says he was praying "that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you" (1:10).

These are the immediate circumstances that prompted Paul to write the epistle to the Romans. But a simple presentation of these facts does not in itself answer the question of exactly why he wrote the letter. What was his purpose for writing? What did he hope to accomplish by writing this particular letter? This is the subject of the next section.

VI. THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

The question of Paul's purpose for writing the epistle to the Romans is very controversial; there is much disagreement about it. Everyone agrees on the facts described above relating to the occasion for the writing. The problem is that these facts have to be assessed in view of the contents of the main body of the letter, 1:18-15:13. The question is not just why he wrote a letter to the Roman church, but why he wrote this specific letter with this particular content. Why does he write "such a lengthy and involved discussion to a largely unknown congregation"? (Dunn, I:lv).

There are two basic approaches to this question. The older and more traditional approach is that the historical circumstances as described in the previous section were not particularly relevant with regard to Paul's decision to write the letter. Neither Paul's own plans nor the state of the Roman church presented him with a pressing need or occasion that required him to write. Thus unlike his other letters, Romans is more or less non-occasional. It is regarded rather as a kind of timeless theological essay on the essence of Christianity. As Sanday and Headlam describe this view, "the main object of the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than a letter; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the circumstances of the moment" (xl).

The more recent approaches to the purpose of Romans take the opposite view, that it is "a situational letter rather than a doctrinal treatise" (Jewett, "Argument," 265). Paul was not simply writing an essay detached from his circumstances, but was specifically addressing a particular situation that needed his attention at that time. Thus Romans is just as much an occasional letter as 1 Corinthians or Galatians.

Those who take the latter approach usually go in one of two directions. Some emphasize that Paul wrote the letter to fulfill certain needs of his own, relating to his trip either to Jerusalem or to Spain. Others say that Paul wrote mainly to meet the needs of the Roman church at that particular time.

It is possible, of course, that Paul had more than one purpose for writing Romans, as Cranfield says: "It is surely quite clear that Paul did not have just one single purpose in mind but rather a complex of purposes and hopes" (II:815). Dunn (I:lx) and Moo (I:20) agree.

A. ROMANS IS A DOCTRINAL ESSAY

Now we shall go into a bit more detail concerning the possibilities outlined above. The first view is that Paul was not addressing a specific situation but was writing a timeless doctrinal essay. In its most extreme form this view says that Romans is a complete systematic theology, a compendium of Christian doctrine. Shedd (viii) calls it " an inspired system of theology , . . . a complete statement of religious truth." Romans is so "encyclopædic in its structure" that one "need not go outside of this Epistle, in order to know all religious truth."

More recently Bornkamm has taken a similar view, describing Romans as Paul's "last will and testament" - "a summary of his theology in light of the impending danger in Jerusalem" (Donfried, "Presuppositions," 103). Bornkamm says ("Letter," 27-28), "This great document . . . summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and . . . elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid."

Many writers agree that Romans was not occasioned by some immediate need or crisis but was a kind of doctrinal essay. Nygren says (4), "The characteristic and peculiar thing about Romans, differentiating it from the rest of Paul's epistles, is just the fact that it was not, or was only in slight degree aimed at circumstances within a certain congregation." Lenski (10-12) agrees.

Most who take this non-occasional view, however, say that it is an exaggeration to call Romans a full-blown systematic theology. "If Romans is a compendium of theology," says Morris (8), "there are some curious gaps." (See also Moo, I:1; Hendriksen, I:25; W. Williams, 19-20.) It is a doctrinal essay, to be sure, but one that is more focused and limited in its scope.

Just what is the focus of this doctrinal essay? The most common view is that it has to do with the doctrines of salvation, i.e., that Romans is a summary or synopsis of Paul's gospel . Morris says that Paul probably thought his three-month, pressure-free sojourn in Corinth was a good time to bring together the timeless teachings that had crystallized in his thinking during his twenty years as a preacher. Thus he sets forth "a summary of the gospel and its consequences as he understood them" (pp. 18-19). Cranfield likewise says it is likely that Paul "was conscious of having reached a certain maturity of experience, reflection and understanding, which made the time ripe for him to attempt, with God's help, such an orderly presentation of the gospel" (II:817).

Vincent summarizes this whole approach quite well when he says that Romans "is distinguished among the epistles by its systematic character. Its object is to present a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of salvation through Christ, not a complete system of christian doctrine" ( Word Studies , III:x). As Hendriksen says (I:25), "Romans is not really 'a complete compendium of Christian Doctrine.' If it had been Paul's intention to draw up such a document, he would surely have included far more material." The specific doctrine he deals with is one needed not just in Rome but by all people in all times: " the manner in which sinners are saved ." (See Edwards, 3.)

The idea that Romans is a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the general doctrine of salvation is correct, in my opinion. However, I do not think it is wise to separate it too sharply from the occasion or circumstances discussed in the last section. I question W. Williams' approach, for example, when he says (19), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation," and in the next sentence says, "This discussion was incidental to the apostle's circumstances." In my opinion this is a false choice. It is an essay on salvation, but its purpose was definitely related to the circumstances at that time, as we shall see below.

B. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED

BY PAUL'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS

The second major approach to the purpose of Romans is that it was occasioned by the various circumstances relating to Paul's immediate plans in relation to his mission. In other words, it was designed to meet needs that Paul felt in his own life at the time. As Jervell says, "Its raison d'être does not stem from the situation of the Roman congregation, but is to be found in Paul himself at the time of writing" ("Letter," 54).

The main idea here resembles the modern practice of churches requesting that prospective ministers send a tape recording of one of their sermons. In this case Paul takes the initiative and sets forth in writing a "sermon" or a lengthy presentation of his gospel. He does this because he needs to introduce himself to people who are not familiar with him or with what he preaches. Or, he does this because his enemies are spreading false rumors about what he preaches, and are misrepresenting his gospel especially as to what he says about Jew-Gentile relations. Thus Romans is not just a presentation but also a defense of Paul's gospel.

This is how Moo explains the purpose of Romans. The various circumstances that he faced "forced Paul to write a letter in which he carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation" (I:20). Bruce agrees that it was "expedient that Paul should communicate to the Roman Christians an outline of the message which he proclaimed. Misrepresentations of his preaching and his apostolic procedure were current and must have found their way to Rome" ("Debate," 182). (See Stuhlmacher, "Purpose," 236.)

Why was it crucial for Paul at this particular time to write such a presentation and defense of his gospel? The answer is that it was necessary in order to facilitate his immediate plans. For one thing, he was on his way to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor saints, and was apprehensive about how this would turn out. Thus some contend that in this letter Paul was rehearsing what he was going to say in Jerusalem in defense of himself and in an effort to seal Jew-Gentile unity. He sent the product to the Roman church in a letter, asking them to pray for him and the upcoming Jerusalem episode (15:30-32). Thus, says Jervell, Romans is Paul's "'collection speech,' or more precisely, the defense which Paul plans to give before the church in Jerusalem." He sends it to Rome "to ask the Roman congregation for solidarity, support, and intercession on his behalf" ("Letter," 56). Dunn calls this Paul's "apologetic purpose" (I:lvi; see I:xlii-xliii).

Though this is a fairly common view today, some object to it or at least doubt that it could be the only purpose for Romans (Moo, I:18). Thus other aspects of Paul's immediate plans must have elicited the letter. One of the most obvious is Paul's plan to visit Rome itself. Though he knew some of the Roman Christians, he had never been in Rome and would not know most of the people there. It must have seemed expedient, then, for him to write a kind of "letter of introduction" to himself, especially in view of the false rumors that were probably afoot.

This is how Morris understands it (16-17). Paul used his three-month interlude in Corinth "to write to the Roman Christians to let them know of his plan to visit them and to set down in order something of what the gospel meant." He wanted to give them "a clear but profound statement of the essential message of Christianity as he proclaimed it. This will show the Romans where he stands." MacArthur's view is similar: "Paul's letter to the church at Rome was, among other things, an introduction to himself as an apostle. He clearly set forth the gospel he preached and taught, so that believers in Rome would have complete confidence in his authority" (I:xix). (See also Stott, 34.)

Those who hold this view usually take it a step further, and say that Paul laid out and defended his gospel to the Romans as a means of enlisting their support for his Spanish mission. In a real sense Rome was just a means to an end, both in Paul's itinerary and in his missionary strategy. He needed them as a kind of "base of operations" for what he hoped to accomplish in Spain (Stott, 33). Thus "if Rome was to be his base, the Romans would need to be assured of his message and theological position" (Morris, 17). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "missionary purpose" for Romans (I:lv). This is a fairly common view. (See Cranfield, II:817-818; Jewett, "Argument," 266, 277.)

C. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED BY NEEDS AT ROME ITSELF

As we have just seen, those who believe the writing of Romans was motivated by the immediate circumstances sometimes locate those circumstances in Paul's own personal needs. Others who take the occasional approach, however, believe that the situation in Rome itself is what Paul is specifically addressing in this epistle. Though he had not been there, he still would have been acquainted with the state of the Roman church. It was, after all, a famous church (1:8). Besides, Paul's Roman friends, such as Aquila and Priscilla (16:3), would probably have kept him informed especially of any problems that existed there (Sanday and Headlam, xl-xli).

Whatever the nature of those problems or needs, Paul wrote to resolve them. Since all of Paul's other letters were "addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved," says Donfried, we must begin with the assumption that Romans "was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome" ("Presuppositions," 103). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "pastoral purpose" (I:lvi-lviii).

1. The Need for Jew-Gentile Unity

What sorts of needs existed at Rome that would call forth from Paul's pen the most magnificent gospel tract ever written? Several possibilities are suggested, but the one most commonly held begins with the assumption that there was considerable tension in the Roman church between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Thus the purpose of Paul's letter was to resolve this tension.

This view usually grows out of the speculations (discussed above) concerning the development of the Roman church following Claudius' decree expelling the Jews from Rome. With Jewish Christians being forced to leave Rome, the Gentile Christians became the dominant force; and this situation prevailed even after the former returned to Rome. This led to conflict between the two factions. This scenario is supported by the various references to Jews and Gentiles (Greeks) in Romans, by the discussion of the weak (Jews?) and the strong (Gentiles?) in 14:1-15:13, and by several references to unity and division within the church (12:16; 15:5; 16:17-18). Such texts seem to be evidence of a "basic division existing between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians at Rome" (P. Williams, "Purpose," 64).

This view has been argued by Marxsen and more recently by Wiefel, who concludes that Romans "was written to assist the Gentile Christian majority, who are the primary addressees of the letter, to live together with the Jewish Christians in one congregation, thereby putting an end to their quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Here is Edwards' summary (15-16):

Romans is addressed to the problems which inevitably resulted when Jewish Christians began returning to Rome following the edict of Claudius. We can imagine their trials of readjusting to churches which had become increasingly Gentile in their absence. Would Gentile believers who had established their supremacy during the Jewish absence, and for whom the law was now largely irrelevant, continue to find a place within their fellowship for a Jewish Christian minority which still embraced the law? Paul cannot have been unaware of such concerns.

In Dunn's words, "Paul wrote to counter (potential) divisions within Rome among the Christian house churches, particularly the danger of gentile believers despising less liberated Jewish believers" (I:lvii). (See also Stott, 34-36.)

2. The Need for an Apostolic Foundation

Another possible need being addressed by Paul is related to the circumstances of the origin of the church in Rome. It is inferred from 15:20 that no apostle was involved in its founding, nor as yet had even visited Rome. Thus Paul was concerned that the church did not have a solid apostolic foundation (see Eph 2:20), and he writes this epistle in order to provide that foundation. This is the view of Günter Klein ("Purpose," 39, 42), but Morris (11-12) gives reasons for doubting it.

3. The Need for Paul's Gospel

Another possibility (to which I subscribe) is that Paul did indeed recognize the need of the Roman church to hear his apostolic preaching and teaching, but not necessarily in a foundational sense. This view begins with Paul's sense of duty, based upon his special calling, to preach the gospel to everyone in the Gentile world (1:14), including those in Rome: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:15).

But these people are already Christians. Why would Paul want to "preach the gospel" to believers ? Here is a point that is often missed: the gospel is more than just the initial evangelistic witness given to unbelievers with a view to their conversion. It also includes the deeper meaning and implications of the basic facts of salvation, which are things about which even mature believers can never hear enough. That Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Christians in Rome means that he wanted to go deeper into the meaning of Christ's saving work "for our sins," unfolding for them the full power of the gospel in the Christian life and at the same time clearing up common misunderstandings that may arise through incomplete knowledge.

Paul's desire, of course, was to do this in person, and he had often planned to travel to Rome for this very reason. Up to this point, however, God's providence had prevented it (1:13; 15:22). Now he is once again planning to go to Rome, after his trip to Jerusalem with the offering. But based on his past experience and the uncertainty about what would happen to him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-24), at this point he could not be certain that he would ever reach Rome in person.

This led Paul to the conclusion that if he was ever going to preach the gospel in Rome, perhaps the only way he would be able to do so was in writing . Thus he takes the time, while staying in Corinth just before traveling to Jerusalem, to prepare a well-thought-out essay on the gospel as every Christian needs to hear it; and he sends it on to Rome in advance of his intended trip there. Thus it seems likely, says Campbell, that "the letter is the written equivalent of the oral presentation which Paul would have delivered to the congregation had he himself been present" ("Key," 258).

According to this view, then, Romans is not just a basic presentation of the gospel, written in order to provide the Roman Christians with a missing apostolic foundation. And as Nygren (7) rightly notes, "it is a misunderstanding of Romans to see in it a typical example of Paul's missionary preaching." This is contrary to those who think Paul was just introducing himself to the Roman church, hoping to win their support for his mission to Spain by rehearsing the gospel as he usually preached it. Stuhlmacher rightly notes that how Paul "preached and taught as a missionary cannot be simply inferred from the outline of Romans" ("Purpose," 242).

According to this view, then, the primary purpose for Romans is not related to some need within Paul himself (e.g., his concern for defending himself; his missionary plans); nor is it related to some negative situation in the Roman church (e.g., Jew-Gentile disunity). It is motivated rather by Paul's loving concern for his fellow-Christians at Rome, and his desire to bless their hearts and lives with this written version of the deeper aspects of the gospel of grace. This point is brought out very well by Hendriksen (I:24):

Paul, being an intensely warm and loving person, desires to go to Rome in order to be a blessing to his friends (Rom. 1:10, 11) and to be refreshed by them (15:32). Moreover, it is for this same reason that he, now that it is impossible for him to go to Rome immediately , communicates with the Roman church by means of this letter. He writes to the Romans because he loves them. They are his friends "in Christ," and by means of this letter he imparts his love to them . . . .

It is strange that this deeply personal reason . . . , a reason clearly brought out by the apostle himself, is often overlooked. At times the emphasis is placed entirely on theological motivation or on mission incentive: Paul wants to correct errors of the antinomians and/or wants to make Rome the headquarters for the evangelization of Spain. To be sure, these matters are important, but we should begin with the reason first stated by Paul himself in this very epistle.

D. CONCLUSION

We have surveyed the main reasons why Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans. It should be obvious that some of these reasons may overlap or be combined; so we need not focus narrowly upon just one of them. Jewett, for example, says the immediate reason was to resolve the Jew-Gentile tensions, but this was sought in order to gain a strong and unified backing for the mission to Spain ("Argument," 266). After summarizing the missionary, apologetic, and pastoral purposes, Dunn concludes that "all three of these main emphases and purposes hang together and indeed reinforce each other when taken as a whole" (I:lviii).

In my opinion, though, the dominant reason is the last one discussed above: Paul's desire to preach the gospel to the Romans, and his decision to do so in the form of an epistle. This is the factor that Paul stresses in the introductory section of the letter, where we would expect him to say what is closest to his heart. It seems inappropriate to give priority to ch. 15 on this matter, and to pass over what Paul himself chooses to mention first of all. Just because he tells the Romans about his plans in ch. 15 is no reason to assume that his purpose for writing to Rome is specifically or directly related to these plans.

We may conclude, then, that Romans is indeed an occasional letter, that it was occasioned by the need of the Roman Christians to hear Paul's gospel and by the circumstances that made it expedient for him to send it to them in written form at this particular time. Thus Romans is by design a clear presentation of the deeper implications of the gospel, written not for Paul's sake but for the sake of the church at Rome. The references to Paul's own plans and needs in ch. 15 are secondary.

At the same time, just because of the nature of the situation that caused Paul to write this epistle, the purpose for Romans includes the first view discussed above, namely, that it was intended to be a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the meaning of salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. As noted above, it is a systematic presentation of the gospel : not necessarily the gospel as proclaimed in an evangelistic situation, but the gospel as unfolded to mature Christians.

When this point is understood, we can see that the epistle to the Romans is intended not just for the saints in Rome in the middle of the first century A.D., but for all Christians in all ages. It is relevant for all since it deals with salvation from sin through God's grace. As Moo rightly says (I:21),

That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately the issues of the church - and the world - of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, security in the face of suffering and death.

The circumstances contributing to the writing of this letter were far broader than the immediate situation in Rome and Paul's own immediate travel plans. They included Paul's own pre-Christian life as a Jew who sought acceptance with God on the basis of his own righteousness. They included Paul's twenty years of preaching to sinners of all types, Jews and Gentiles. They included his dealings with new Christians and new churches with all their weaknesses and problems. His experience and knowledge of human nature and human need were personal and comprehensive; thus the gospel of Romans is generic and timeless.

In most of the discussions of the purpose of Romans, a forgotten factor is the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. It is Paul himself who tells us that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Whatever circumstances led Paul to compose his letter to the Romans, the choice to write and the message he wrote were not his alone. The Holy Spirit worked through Paul to produce this letter (see 2 Pet 1:20-21), and the Holy Spirit knows more than any man what is needed by every sinner and by every Christian seeking peace and power. In the final analysis it is the Spirit of God, and not just the Apostle Paul, who speaks to our hearts in the epistle to the Romans.

VII. THE THEME OF ROMANS

Almost everyone today rejects the idea that Romans is a compendium or summary of Christian theology as such. It is nevertheless generally recognized that the content of the epistle is doctrinal in nature. Its main body is an essay or treatise with a strong doctrinal emphasis and seems to be built around a particular theme. The question now is, exactly what is the theme of Romans? Several answers have been proposed.

A. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

The Reformation established a way of looking at Romans that still has considerable support among Protestants, namely, that the main theme of the epistle is stated in 1:16-17. It can be summed up in the familiar phrase, "justification by faith," i.e., justification or righteousness before God comes through faith alone. John Calvin (xxix) states succinctly that "the main subject of the whole Epistle" is "justification by faith."

Boers says this is the theme that "currently almost universally controls the interpretation of the letter" ( Justification , 77). This is surely an exaggeration, but the justification view is still very popular. Concerning the principal content of Romans, Nygren says (16), "From the beginning evangelical Christianity has spoken clearly on that point: justification by faith. That answer is correct." Defining "theme" as "central topic" rather than as exclusive topic, Hendriksen agrees that justification by faith, "spread out into 'justification by grace through faith'. . . , is clearly the theme of Romans" (I:29). Edwards (3) says that "the driving concern throughout is salvation - that righteousness comes as a free gift of God and is received by faith alone." Stott (35) says two themes are woven together in the epistle. "The first is the justification of guilty sinners by God's grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, irrespective of either status or works."

Many scholars today have rejected this traditional approach. Though justification by faith is a main topic in Romans, says Boers (88), it "never becomes thematic." Too much of its subject matter simply does not relate to this subject, he says (78). Moo agrees (I:26-27). (See Stott, 24-31.)

B. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

Those who are not satisfied with justification by faith as the theme for Romans sometimes opt for one that is very similar, namely, the righteousness of God (1:17). Beker says this is "the key term for the letter as a whole" ("Faithfulness," 331). Jewett says the thesis of Romans is that the gospel is "the 'power of God' to achieve the triumph of divine righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17)" ("Argument," 266).

Since the righteousness of God is integrally related to justification by faith, the two themes are sometimes confused. This is because one aspect of the theme of divine righteousness is that the righteousness of God is the basis for the personal justification of individual sinners. This is the sense in which Nygren says that the righteousness of God - in the sense of righteousness from God - is "the fundamental concept" and "the very foundation thought" of the epistle (9, 14-15), even though he says the "principal content" of the letter is justification by faith (16).

But most of those today who say that the righteousness of God is the theme of Romans are using the expression in a broader, more comprehensive sense. For them it includes the idea of the divine righteousness as the basis for individual justification, to be sure. For example, Stuhlmacher says the theme of Romans is "the gospel of the divine righteousness in Christ for those who believe from among the Jews and Gentiles" ("Theme," 334, 337). But in Romans, they say, the theme is more inclusive than this. It includes God's righteousness as the basis not only of his dealings with individual believers, but also of his dealings with mankind in general and especially with the Jewish nation in the context of redemptive history.

The question raised by the indiscriminate offer of justification by faith to both Jews and Gentiles is whether God is being fair with the Jews, in view of all the special treatment he has already bestowed upon them and the special promises he has given them. Does the gospel's "no partiality" principle bring God's justice or righteousness into question? "What is at stake is nothing less than the faithfulness of God," says Beker ("Faithfulness," 330); and this is what Paul is dealing with especially in Rom 9-11. Stuhlmacher explains that the "righteousness of God" refers to "the entire redemptive activity of God in Christ from creation to redemption" ("Theme," 341).

Thus according to this view the theme of Romans is not just the salvation of man but the defense of God, with perhaps the greater emphasis falling on the latter. As Fiensy says (227), "Romans is then a theodicy or defense of God in light of the Jewish-Gentile problem in the church." Gaertner says that the kinds of questions Paul raises in Romans (e.g., 3:3; 3:5; 3:29; 9:14) inquire into the nature of God's dealings with sinners, especially with his fairness and faithfulness. Thus Gaertner labels Romans "the gospel of God's fairness" ("Fairness," 1:14).

C. THE EQUALITY OF JEWS AND GENTILES

A third view is that the theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in God's plan of salvation. This is currently a popular view. It stems mainly from the reconstruction of the origin and development of the Roman church as described earlier in this introduction. It goes hand in hand with the idea that the letter is intended to deal with certain specific circumstances existing in Rome, especially the apparent disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It recognizes that "the entire letter to the Romans is . . . permeated with Jew-Gentile issues" (Fiensy, Introduction , 230).

In its most general form this view says that the main emphasis of Romans is the universality of the gospel: there is just one way of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. The transcendent gospel goes beyond the Jew-Gentile distinction. God's salvation is given to both groups equally, favoring neither and offering favor to both.

Boers is an example of this view. He says the consistent theme of the main body of Romans is "salvation of Jews and gentiles, and the relationship between them" ( Justification , 80). This theme is stated in Rom 1:16, "that the gospel is the power of God for all who believe, to the Jews first, and to the Hellenes" (80). That salvation is offered to the Jews first is important, but so is the idea that "there is no difference between Jews and gentiles" (81-82).

Dunn says, "It is precisely the tension between 'Jew first but also Greek' (1:16), which . . . provides an integrating motif for the whole letter." Paul's "repeated emphasis on 'all'" underscores the theme of universality. Even the emphasis on the righteousness of God "is primarily an exposition of the same Jew/Gentile theme," i.e., it is Paul's way of arguing that Gentiles are full recipients of the saving grace of God as much as Jews are (I:lxii-lxiii).

As noted earlier, Stott says two themes are woven together in Romans, the first being justification by faith. But since this applies equally to all people, it is the "fundamental basis of Christian unity." This provides the second theme of Romans, that "'there is no difference' now between Jews and Gentiles. . . . Indeed, 'the single most important theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles'" (35-36).

Interpreters differ as to the nature of the circumstances that led Paul to emphasize the theme of equality. Some say the Gentile Christians at Rome did not want to fully accept the Jewish Christians, so Romans is basically defending the right of the latter to full status in the Kingdom of God. This is how Boers understands the "Jews first" theme, as noted above. Jewett says, "Nowhere else in Paul's writings are the concerns of Jewish Christians taken up in so systematic and friendly a manner, thus counterbalancing the prejudices of the Gentile majority of Roman Christians" ("Argument," 276). The development of this theme in Rom 9-11 "is relevant to the situation in Rome," says Bruce. Here Paul "warns the Gentiles among his readers not to despise the Jews, . . . because God has not written them off" ("Debate," 183-184).

On the other hand, some say the problem in Rome was the status of the Gentile Christians. W. Williams says (19-20), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation." More specifically, Romans is Paul's "defense of the rights of the Gentiles against the Jewish assumption that excluded them from the Church, and from the chance of salvation." Thus "the sole intent of the apostle was to maintain the equality of the Gentiles against the assumption of the Jews." Stendahl agrees that Paul's concern is the salvation of the Gentiles. Even the subject of justification serves the purpose of "defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel" ( Paul , 2-4).

Either way the subject is approached, the main point is the same: the principal theme of Romans is to demonstrate the equality of Jews and Gentiles with regard to the saving grace of God.

D. SINNERS ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT LAW

All of the themes discussed above are certainly present in Romans, and all are important. All of them contribute significantly to the main theme. But I believe none of them as such is the main point Paul is communicating to us in the epistle. Rather than seeing 1:16-17 as the thesis statement for Paul's treatise, I see it more or less as the starting point leading up to the thesis, which is 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

In the most general sense Paul's thesis relates to the gospel , since his desire to preach the gospel in Rome (1:15) is what led him to compose the epistle as a written version of his gospel. In this sense Moo is correct: "What, then, is the theme of the letter? If we have to choose one - and perhaps it would be better not to - we would choose 'the gospel.'" Romans is simply "Paul's statement of 'his' gospel" (I:28).

But since the gospel is the good news about salvation, also in a general sense the theme of Romans is salvation . As Harrison says (7), "Salvation is the basic theme of Romans (cf. 1:16) - a salvation presented in terms of the righteousness of God, which, when received by faith, issues in life (1:17)." Or as Hendriksen says, the basic doctrine at stake (especially in 1:16-8:39) is " the manner in which sinners are saved" (I:25). And the manner in which sinners are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, is the same: justification by faith.

But the theme of Romans is more precise than this. Yes, sinners are justified by faith, but this means they are not justified by works of law, which is the only alternative. It is just as important to include the negative statement in the theme as the positive one.

In actuality, then, the basic theme of Romans is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation. This contrast is seen especially in 3:28, which (literally translated) says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." The contrast is stated succinctly in 6:14, "You are not under law, but under grace." This is the gospel, the good news of salvation. Certainly it is good news to know that God justifies us by faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. But in a real sense it is also good news to know that we are not justified by law-keeping: a way of salvation which is not only futile but which sinners in their hearts know is futile, and which thus leads only to self-deception or to despair.

Commenting on Romans, Grubbs says, "The Gospel versus the Law is the one theme of which he [Paul] never loses sight in the elaboration of the details of this wonderful production" (9). Though this is a very common way of speaking - "gospel versus law" - it is not altogether accurate. The real contrast is grace versus law, and this message as a whole is the gospel.

Thus Paul's theme is indeed that we are saved by grace, not by law. Law is not a viable option as a means of salvation; the only way for sinners to be counted righteous before God is by grace. Yes, we are justified by faith, but not by works of law. Yes, the righteousness of God figures prominently in our justification, but in contrast to the righteousness of man. Yes, Romans does emphasize full equality regarding this way of salvation; Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. Both are saved by grace and justified by faith as provided by the righteousness of God, but in contrast with every false way.

This contrast between law and grace as competing ways of salvation is not a matter of OT versus NT nor Old Covenant versus New Covenant, as if law were the way to be saved prior to Christ and grace is the way to be saved now that Christ has come. Also, the contrast between law and grace - THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - is not simply the Law of Moses versus the grace of Jesus Christ. No sinner has ever been saved nor can be saved by the law that applies to him, whether it be the Law of Moses for Jews under the Old Covenant, or some other comparable set of God's commandments for anyone else in any other time. Every sinner who has been saved since the time of Adam has been saved by grace and not by law, and this will always be the case.

The problem that Paul addresses in the book of Romans is not one that confronts Jews only, nor Gentiles only. It is not a problem faced only by those who are under the Mosaic Law, nor only by those to whom the Mosaic Law does not apply. The problem being addressed is this: As a sinner, how can I be saved? It is a problem faced by Jews and Gentiles alike, and the solution is the same for both.

Perhaps even more significantly, the problem addressed in Romans is not one confronted only by unbelieving sinners. It is a problem that believers often wrestle with as well (e.g., the Judaizers). When we state the problem thus - "As a sinner, how can I be saved?" - we can break it down into two separate problems. First is the unbeliever's problem: "How can I become saved?" The answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law. Second is the believer's continuing problem: "How can I stay saved?" And the answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law.

This is why the epistle to the Romans has always been and always will be in a class by itself with regard to its impact on individuals and upon the church as a whole. Its basic theme is one that is always needed and always applicable, and one that will result in the highest praise to God the Redeemer once it is understood.

PREFACE TO VOLUME 2

The introductory issues regarding the book of Romans have been discussed in Vol. 1 of this work (pp. 21-55). Also, the outline for chs. 1-8 of Romans is included in that volume (pp. 55-58).

References to passages in the book of Romans itself are usually limited to chapter and verse data only. For my policy regarding quotations from other sources, see the note at the beginning of the bibliography.

I wish to express my thanks to my wife, Barbara, for her patience in accepting my writing schedule while this work has been in production. My thanks go also to College Press for inaugurating this project, and especially to College Press editor John Hunter for adjusting to a writer who suffers from incurable prolixity. Another special word of thanks is due to my employers at the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary who encourage my writing in many ways, especially through their regular sabbatical policy.

Above all, thanks be to God for his saving grace, for his Holy Word, and especially for the letter to the Romans with its incomparable beauty and power.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given.

I. COMMENTARIES

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans , 2 ed. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Bartlett, C. Norman. Right in Romans: Studies in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Batey, Richard A. The Letter of Paul to the Romans . Austin: R.B. Sweet, 1969.

Black, Matthew. Romans , 2 ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Boice, James Montgomery. Romans , 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991ff.

Brokke, Harold J. Saved by His Life . Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1964.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Tr. by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, new series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans. 2 vols. Volume 38 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle to the Romans: An Exposition . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1925.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Tr. by A. Cusin. Ed. by Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Greathouse, William M. Romans . Vol. 6 of Beacon Bible Expositions. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1975.

Grubbs, Isaiah Boone. An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Ed. by George A. Kingman. 6th ed. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, n.d.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary . Volume 10. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Pp. 1-171.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lipscomb, David. Romans . Vol. I in A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles. 2nd ed. Ed. by J. W. Shepherd. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25-Atonement and Justification . London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6-The New Man . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4-The Law: Its Functions and Limits . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & tr. by Wilhelm Pauck. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. XV. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace . Ed. by Herman A. Hoyt. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Mitchell, John G., with Dick Bohrer. Right with God: A Devotional Study of the Epistle to the Romans . Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990.

Moo, Douglas. Romans . 2 vols. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moser, K.C. The Gist of Romans , revised ed. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1958.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newell, William R. Lessons on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . No publisher given, 1925.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Press, 1987.

Robertson, A.T. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. IV in Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1931.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, old series. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God . Tr. by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Shields, Bruce. Romans . Standard Bible Studies. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1988.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979); and Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stedman, Ray C. From Guilt to Glory, Volume I: Romans 1-8 . Waco: Word Books, 1978.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

Williams, William G. An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1902.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine . Vol. XIV in The Works of Aurelius Augustine. Ed. by Marcus Dods. Tr. by J.G. Pilkington. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Balz, Horst. "ajpokaradokiva." Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament . Ed. by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. I:132-133.

Bartchy, S. Scott. MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, #11. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

Beker, J.C. "The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul's Letter to the Romans." RomDeb , 327-332.

Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Bornkamm, Günther. "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament." RomDeb , 16-28.

Boswell, John. Christianity , Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Bruce, F.F. "The Romans Debate -Continued." RomDeb , 177-194.

Campbell, William S. "Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter." RomDeb , 251-264.

Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Table Talk and Omniana of Samuel Taylor Coleridge . London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Cooper, John W. Body , Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Corson, John. " Faith Alone Involves Obedience, Too!" Christian Standard . (10/2/77), pp. 5-6.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 39-81.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 17-38.

. " Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1971.

. " Faith , History, and the Resurrection Body of Jesus," The Seminary Review (Dec. 1982): 28:143-160.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

. His Truth . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. Thirteen Lessons on Grace . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1988.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, G. "lambavnw, etc." TDNT, IV:5-15.

DeYoung, James B. "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , 31 (December 1988): 429-441.

Donfried, Karl P. "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans." RomDeb , 102-125.

, ed. The Romans Debate . Revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Erickson, Millard J. The Evangelical Mind and Heart . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Fiensy, David A. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Foerster, Werner. "swvzw, etc." TDNT, VII:965-1024.

Friedrich, Gerhard. "eujaggelivzomai, etc." TDNT, II:707-737.

Fuller, Daniel P. The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Gaertner, Dennis. "Romans: Gospel of God's Fairness ." Christian Standard , part 1 (12/20/87), pp. 14-16; and part 2 (12/27/87), pp. 4-6.

Graber, Friedrich. "All, Many." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. I:94-97.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth : Doctrine of Deity . Nashville: Nelson, 1974.

Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Harris, M.J. " Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament." Appendix. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. III:1171-1213.

Hobbs, A. I. " Conversion : What Is It, and How Produced?" In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 254-274.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Jervell, Jacob. "The Letter to Jerusalem." RomDeb , 53-64.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Jewett, Robert. "Following the Argument of Romans." RomDeb , 265-277.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Tr. & ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Klein, Günter. "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans." RomDeb , 29-43.

Lamar, J.S. "The Ground of Man's Need of Salvation." In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 98-119.

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man . New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin. "Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings ." In Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by Lewis W. Spitz and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 327-338.

. " Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans." In Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by E. Theodore Bachmann and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 365-380.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, "Follow Me"? Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Maurer, Christian. " ." TDNT, VIII:557-558.

. "pravssw, etc." TDNT, VI:632-644.

Milligan, Robert. Exposition and Defense of the Scheme of Redemption . St. Louis: Bethany Press, n.d.

Moreland, J.P., and David Ciocchi, eds. Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross . 3 ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam's Sin . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "kaqivsthmi, etc." TDNT, III:444-447.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1976.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "dou'lo", etc." TDNT, II:261-280.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul : An Outline of His Theology . Tr. by John R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Rueda, Enrique. The Homosexual Network : Private Lives and Public Policy . Old Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair, 1982.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation : What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ . Wheaton: Scripture Press/Victor Books, 1989.

Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism . London: SCM, 1977.

Schaff, Philip. " Preface ." In John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans . Tr. by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan reprint, n.d.

Schneider, Johannes. "parabaivnw, paravbasi", etc." TDNT, V:736-744.

Schrenk, Gottlob. "iJerov", etc." TDNT, III:221-283.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . Tr. by James D. Ernest. 3 volumes. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." RomDeb , 231-242.

. "The Theme of Romans." RomDeb , 333-345.

Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Thiessen, Henry. Introduction to the New Testament . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Tyndale, William. "A Prologe to the Epistle of Paule to the Romayns." In The New Testament, Translated by William Tyndale, 1534 . Ed. by N. Hardy Wallis. Cambridge: University Press, 1938. Pp. 293-318.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary . 3rd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vincent, Marvin R. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. III in Word Studies in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint of 1887 edition.

Watson, Francis. "The Two Roman Congregations : Romans 14:1-15:13." RomDeb , 203-215.

Wesley, John. Journal from October 14, 1735, to November 29, 1745 . Vol. I in The Works of John Wesley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint of 1872 ed.

Wedderburn, A.J.M. "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again," RomDeb , 195-202.

Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." RomDeb , 85-101.

Wiens, Delbert. "An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21." Journal of Church and Society (Fall 1969): 5:42-54.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March 1971): 128:62-67.

Young, Richard. Intermediate N.T. Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach . Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO VOLUME 2

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given. Some sources are cited with an even more abbreviated reference (see list of abbreviations).

I. COMMENTARIES

Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans . Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Black, Matthew. Romans . 2nd ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Brunner, Emil. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Trans. H.A. Kennedy. London: Lutterworth Press, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Trans. John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans , Vol. 1. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, n.s. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Expositor's Greek Testament , ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, II:555-725. New York: George H. Doran, n.d.

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans . 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Earle, Ralph. Romans . Vol. 3 of Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Trans. A. Cusin. Ed. Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Griffith Thomas, W.H. Romans: A Devotional Commentary . 3 vols. London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.

Haldane, Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans . MacDill AFB: MacDonald Publishing, 1958.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 10, pp. 1-171. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness from Heaven . Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 9 - God's Sovereign Purpose . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & Trans. Wilhelm Pauck. Vol. XV of The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McGuiggan, Jim. The Book of Romans . Lubbock, TX: Montex Publishing Company, 1982.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, o.s. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979). Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Vanderlip, George. Paul and Romans . Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1967.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "krivnw [etc.]." TDNT . III:921-954.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 39-81. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 17-38. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

. " 1 Timothy 2:12 and the Role of Women." Four parts. Christian Standard , January 10, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 17, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 24, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 31, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. " Priscilla , Phoebe, and Company." Christian Standard , December 12, 1993, pp. 4-5.

. " Response to My Critics." Three parts. Christian Standard , November 21, 1993, pp. 5-6; November 28, 1993, pp. 4-6; December 5, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. Tough Questions , Biblical Answers. Part Two. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1986.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, Gerhard. " , ." TDNT . VIII:523-524.

. "tavssw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:27-32.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate , revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Forster, Roger T., and V. Paul Marston. God's Strategy in Human History . Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974.

Fürst, Dieter. " Confess ." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , ed. Colin Brown, I:344-348. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Gaertner, Dennis. Acts . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Hübner, Hans. "a[timo"." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testamen t, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, I:177. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. The Pentateuch . Trans. by James Martin. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Köster, Helmut. "tevmnw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:106-112.

Lampe, Peter. "The Roman Christians of Romans 16 ." RomDeb , 216-230.

Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves . London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.

Michaelis, W. "mavcaira." TDNT . IV:524-527.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "zevw, zestov"." TDNT . II:875-877.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come . Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958.

Pinnock, Clark H. "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology." In The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism , ed. Clark H. Pinnock, pp. 15-30. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Reicke, Bo. "proi?sthmi." TDNT . VI:700-703.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?" In vol. 1 of The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will , ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, pp. 89-106. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins . New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election . Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1970.

Sherlock, William. A Discourse Concerning the Divine Providence . Pittsburgh: J.L. Read, 1848.

Spencer, Aida B. Beyond the Curse : Women Called to Ministry . Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . 3 vol. Trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stählin, Gustav. " [etc.]." TDNT . IX:113-171.

. "skavndalon, skandalivzw." TDNT . VII:339-358.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Walters, James. "' Phoebe ' and 'Junia(s)' - Rom. 16:1-2, 7." In Vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , ed. Carroll D. Osburn, pp. 167-190. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Weiss, K. "fevrw [etc.]." TDNT . IX:56-87.

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

. "The Messiah and the People of God." Oxford University: D.Phil. dissertation, 1980.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AG Arndt and Gingrich, Greek lexicon

ASV American Standard Version

GC God the Creator, by Jack Cottrell

GRe God the Redeemer, by Jack Cottrell

GRu God the Ruler, by Jack Cottrell

KJV King James Version

LB Living Bible

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT)

MP McGarvey-Pendleton Romans commentary

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

RomDeb The Romans Debate, by Karl Donfried

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the NT, ed. Kittel

TEV Today's English Version

For fuller titles and publishing information on books, see the Bibliography.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Romans (Outline)

VIII. OUTLINE

PROLOGUE - 1:1-17

I. EPISTOLARY GREETING - 1:1-7

A. The Author Introduces Himself - 1:1

1. A Slave of Christ Jesus

2. Called to Be an Apostle

3. Set Apart for the Gospel of God

B. The Gospel and the Old Testament - 1:2

C. The Subject of the Gospel Is Jesus - 1:3-4

1. The Two Natures of Jesus

2. The Incarnation

3. Messiahship

4. The Two States of Jesus

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

6. The Son's Full Identity

D. Paul's Apostleship - 1:5

1. The Origin of Paul's Apostleship

2. The Character of Paul's Apostleship

3. The Focus of Paul's Apostleship

4. The Purpose of Paul's Apostleship

5. The Goal of Paul's Apostleship

E. The Recipients of Paul's Letter - 1:6-7a

F. The Blessing - 1:7b

II. PERSONAL REMARKS - 1:8-15

A. Paul's Prayers for the Romans - 1:8-10

B. Paul's Desires Regarding Rome - 1:11-13

C. Paul's Debt to the Romans - 1:14-15

III. TRANSITIONAL STATEMENT - 1:16-17

A. The Glory of the Gospel - 1:16a

B. The Power of the Gospel - 1:16b

C. The Scope of the Gospel - 1:16c

D. Faith and the Gospel - 1:16c

1. Faith Is a Condition for Salvation

2. Faith Is Not the Only Condition

E. The Heart of the Gospel - 1:17a

F. The Golden Text of the Gospel - 1:17b

PART ONE:

THE IMPOTENCE OF LAW AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 1:18-3:20

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

A. Universal Knowledge of God and His Law - 1:18-20

B. Universal Rejection of the True God - 1:21-25

C. The Utter Depths of Gentile Depravity - 1:26-32

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

A. Jews Are Under the Wrath of God, No Less Than the Gentiles - 2:1-5

B. God Will Be Partial to No One in the Judgment - 2:6-11

C. Under Law, the Criterion of Judgment Is Obedience Alone- 2:12-16

D. Jews Who Look to the Law for Salvation Are Condemned by Their Own Disobedience - 2:17-24

E. True Jewishness Is Identified Not by Circumcision but by the Inward State of the Heart - 2:25-29

F. Such Equal Treatment of Jews and Gentiles Does Not Nullify But Rather Magnifies God's Righteousness - 3:1-8

III. UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS AND HOPELESSNESS UNDER LAW - 3:9-20

PART TWO:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 3:21-5:21

I. GRACE AS JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S BLOOD THROUGH FAITH - 3:21-31

A. Righteousness Through Faith Is Now Fully Revealed - 3:21-23

B. Sinners Are Justified by the Blood of Christ - 3:24-26

C. Sinners Are Justified by Faith Apart from Works of Law - 3:27-28

D. The Way of Grace Is Available to All - 3:29-30

E. Grace Lets Law Do Its Proper Work - 3:31

II. ABRAHAM: PARADIGM OF GRACE - 4:1-25

A. Abraham Was Justified by Faith Apart from Works - 4:1-5

B. David Explains and Confirms Justification by Faith Apart from Works - 4:6-8

C. Membership in Abraham's Family Is by Faith, Not by Circumcision - 4:9-12

D. The Inheritance Promised to Abraham Comes by Faith, Not by Law - 4:13-17a

E. Faith Means Giving Glory to God and Believing His Promises - 4:17b-22

F. Those Who Believe Like Abraham Are Justified Like Abraham - 4:23-25

III. GRACE AND ASSURANCE - 5:1-21

A. Assurance of Personal Salvation - 5:1-11

1. Justification by Faith Is the Key to Assurance - 5:1-2

2. Tribulations of Believers Do Not Nullify Assurance - 5:3-5

3. Christ Died for Us While We Were Still Sinners - 5:6-8

4. Our Hope Is Even More Secure Now That We Are His Friends - 5:9-11

B. The All-Sufficiency of the Death of Christ - 5:12-21

1. One Sin of One Man (Adam) Brought Sin and Death to All - 5:12-14

2. Christ and His Sacrifice Are Greater Than Adam and His Sin - 5:15-17

3. Christ's Cross Completely Cancels the Results of Adam's Sin - 5:18-19

4. Grace Triumphs over Sin and Death - 5:20-21

PART THREE:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 6:1-8:39

I. OBJECTIONS TO GRACE BASED ON A FEAR OF ANTINOMIANISM - 6:1-7:13

A. Does Grace Make Sin Irrelevant? NO! - 6:1-14

B. Does Freedom from Law Mean We Are Free to Sin? NO!- 6:15-7:6

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

2. We Obey God from Our Hearts - 7:1-6

C. Does Grace Mean That Law Is Bad? NO! - 7:7-13

II. GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 7:14-8:13

A. The Christian Continues to Struggle Against Sin - 7:14-25

1. The Nature of the Struggle - 7:14-20

2. The Source of the Struggle - 7:21-25

B. Victory over Sin Comes Through the Holy Spirit - 8:1-13

1. God Frees Us from Sin's Penalty and Power - 8:1-4

2. Sin and Death Are Defeated in Us Through the Holy Spirit - 8:5-13

III. THE ASSURANCE OF FINAL AND TOTAL VICTORY OVER THE FALLEN WORLD - 8:14-39

A. The Holy Spirit Marks Us as Sons and Heirs - 8:14-17

B. The Redeemed Cosmos Is Our Inheritance - 8:18-25

C. God Promises to Bring His Family Through Earthly Trials - 8:26-30

D. God's Gracious Love Gives Us Unshakable Assurance - 8:31-39

PART FOUR:

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS - 9:1-11:36

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

A. Israel's Agony: They Are Accursed - 9:1-3

B. Israel's Ecstasy: They Are Recipients of Unspeakably Glorious Privileges - 9:4-5

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL - 9:6-29

A. Israel's Situation and God's Faithfulness - 9:6-13

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

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

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

a. The Choice of Isaac - 9:7-9

b. The Choice of Jacob - 9:10-13

B. God's Right to Choose and Use People without Saving Them - 9:14-18

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged - 9:14

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

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

C. God Used Ethnic Israel to Produce Spiritual Israel - 9:19-29

1. The Objection - 9:19

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

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

a. The Calvinist View

b. Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

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

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW RATHER THAN GRACE 9:30-10:21

A. Personal Righteousness Versus the Righteousness of God- 9:30-10:3

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

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

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

B. Christ Alone Is the Source of Saving Righteousness - 10:4-13

1. An Either-Or Choice: Works-Righteousness, or Faith in Christ - 10:4

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

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

4. God's Righteousness Is Available Equally to Jews and Gentiles - 10:11-13

C. The Jews Have Not Believed in Christ, and Their Unbelief Is Inexcusable - 10:14-21

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

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

3. The Jews' Problem Is Not Ignorance but Stubbornness of Will - 10:17-21

IV. THE SALVATION OF GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL - 11:1-32

A. God's True Israel Is the Remnant Chosen by Grace - 11:1-6

1. God Has Not Rejected His People - 11:1-2a

2. God Had a Remnant of Believers in the OT - 11:2b-4

3. Those under Grace Are God's New Covenant Israel - 11:5-6

B. Unbelieving Israel Has Been Hardened - 11:7-10

C. The Hardening of Unbelieving Israel Becomes a Blessing

for Both the Gentiles and the Jews - 11:11-16

D. The Olive Tree: A Metaphor of Judgment and Hope - 11:17-24

1. Words of Warning to Gentile Christians - 11:17-22

2. Words of Hope for Hardened Jews - 11:23-24

E. God's Plan for Israel's Salvation - 11:25-32

1. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation - 11:25-27

2. God's Continuing Love for Israel - 11:28-29

3. God's Ultimate Purpose Is Mercy - 11:30-32

V. DOXOLOGY: GOD'S WAY IS RIGHT - 11:33-36

PART FIVE:

LIVING THE SANCTIFIED LIFE - 12:1-15:13

I. A CATALOGUE OF VIRTUES - 12:1-13:14

A. Grace Demands a Transformed Life - 12:1-2

B. Using the Gifts of Grace for Unselfish Service - 12:3-8

C. Miscellaneous Moral Teaching - 12:9-16

D. Personal Vengeance Is Forbidden - 12:17-21

E. The Relation between Citizens and Government - 13:1-7

F. The Relation between Love and Law - 13:8-10

G. Walking in the Light - 13:11-14

II. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY IN MATTERS OF OPINION - 14:1-15:13

A. Do Not Judge Others in Matters of Opinion - 14:1-12

1. We Should Accept All Whom God Has Accepted - 14:1-3

2. We Answer to Our Lord and Not to Each Other - 14:4-9

3. Each of Us Will Be Judged by God - 14:10-12

B. The Stewardship of Christian Liberty 14:13-23

1. We Must Sacrifice Our Liberty for the Sake of the Weak - 14:13-15

2. Do Not Allow What You Consider Good to Be Spoken of as Evil - 14:16-18

3. We Must Do Only Those Things Which Build Others Up - 14:19-21

4. Each Christian Must Be True to His Own Convictions - 14:22-23

C. Living in Unity and Hope - 15:1-13

1. Selfless Service Produces a Unified Witness - 15:1-6

2. Through Christ's Selfless Service, Jews and Gentiles Glorify God Together - 15:7-12

3. A Prayer That All Believers May Abound in Hope - 15:13

PART SIX:

PERSONAL MESSAGES FROM PAUL - 15:14-16:27

I. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES - 15:14-33

A. Reflections on His Past Service - 15:14-22

B. His Plans for the Future - 15:23-29

C. His Request for Prayer - 15:30-33

II. PAUL AND HIS FELLOW WORKERS - 16:1-24

A. Commendation of Phoebe - 16:1-2

B. Greetings to Individual Acquaintances - 16:3-16

C. Warnings against False Teachers - 16:17-20

D. Greetings from Paul's Companions - 16:21-24

III. CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY - 16:25-27

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV