Text -- Romans 5:17 (NET)

5:17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 5:17

Much more ( pollōi mallon ).

Argument a fortiori again. Condition of first class assumed to be true. Note balanced words in the contrast (transgression paraptōmati , grace charitos ; death thanatos , life zōēi ; the one or Adam tou henos , the one Jesus Christ ; reign basileuō in both).

Vincent: Rom 5:17

Reigned

The emphatic point of the comparison. The effect of the second Adam cannot fall behind that of the first. If death reigned, there must be a reign of life .

Vincent: Rom 5:17

They which receive ( οἱ λαμβάνοντες )

Not believingly accept , but simply the recipients .

Vincent: Rom 5:17

Abundance of grace

Note the articles, the abundance of the grace.

Wesley: Rom 5:17

There is a difference between grace and the gift. Grace is opposed to the offence; the gift, to death, being the gift of life.

JFB: Rom 5:17

"the"

JFB: Rom 5:17

"through the one."

JFB: Rom 5:17

"the"

JFB: Rom 5:17

Justifying

JFB: Rom 5:17

"through the one." We have here the two ideas of Rom 5:15 and Rom 5:16 sublimely combined into one, as if the subject had grown upon the apostle as he advanced in his comparison of the two cases. Here, for the first time in this section, he speaks of that LIFE which springs out of justification, in contrast with the death which springs from sin and follows condemnation. The proper idea of it therefore is, "Right to live"--"Righteous life"--life possessed and enjoyed with the good will, and in conformity with the eternal law, of "Him that sitteth on the Throne"; life therefore in its widest sense--life in the whole man and throughout the whole duration of human existence, the life of blissful and loving relationship to God in soul and body, for ever and ever. It is worthy of note, too, that while he says death "reigned over" us through Adam, he does not say Life "reigns over us" through Christ; lest he should seem to invest this new life with the very attribute of death--that of fell and malignant tyranny, of which we were the hapless victims. Nor does he say Life reigns in us, which would have been a scriptural enough idea; but, which is much more pregnant, "We shall reign in life." While freedom and might are implied in the figure of "reigning," "life" is represented as the glorious territory or atmosphere of that reign. And by recurring to the idea of Rom 5:16, as to the "many offenses" whose complete pardon shows "the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness," the whole statement is to this effect: "If one man's one offense let loose against us the tyrant power of Death, to hold us as its victims in helpless bondage, 'much more,' when we stand forth enriched with God's 'abounding grace' and in the beauty of a complete absolution from countless offenses, shall we expatiate in a life divinely owned and legally secured, 'reigning' in exultant freedom and unchallenged might, through that other matchless 'One,' Jesus Christ!" (On the import of the future tense in this last clause, see on Rom 5:19, and Rom 6:5).

Clarke: Rom 5:17

Death reigned by one - Death is here personified, and is represented as reigning over the human race; and death, of course, reigns unto death; he is known as reigning, by the destruction of his subjects

Clarke: Rom 5:17

Shall reign in life - Those who receive, retain, and improve the abundant grace offered by Jesus Christ, shall be redeemed from the empire of death, and exalted to the throne of God, to live and reign with him ever, world without end. See Rev 1:5, Rev 1:6; Rev 2:7, Rev 2:10, Rev 2:11; Rev 3:21

If we carefully compare Rom 5:15 with Rom 5:17, we shall find that there is a correspondence between περισσειαν, the abounding, Rom 5:17, and επερισευσε hath abounded, Rom 5:15; between της δωρεας της δικαιοσυνης, the gift of righteousness, i.e. justification, Rom 5:17, and ἡ δωρεα εν χαριτι, the gift by grace, Rom 5:15; therefore, if we understand the abounding of grace, and the gift of justification, Rom 5:17, we shall understand the grace of God, and the gift by grace which hath abounded unto the many, Rom 5:15. But the abounding of grace, and the gift of justification, Rom 5:17, is that grace and gift which is Received by those who shall reign in eternal life. Reigning in life is the consequence of receiving the grace and gift. Therefore, receiving the grace is a necessary qualification on our part for reigning in life; and this necessarily implies our believing in Christ Jesus, as having died for our offenses, receiving the grace so freely offered us; using the means in order to get more grace, and bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit. Receive must here have the same sense as in Mat 13:20 : He heareth the word, and anon with joy Receiveth it. Joh 1:12 : But as many as Received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Joh 3:11 : Ye Receive not our witness. - See also Joh 3:32, Joh 3:33. Joh 5:43 : I am come in my Father’ s name, and ye Receive me not. Joh 12:48 : He that Receiveth not my words. Joh 13:20 : He that receiveth whomsoever I send, Receiveth me. Joh 14:17 : The Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot Receive. Joh 17:8 : I have given them the words which thou gavest me; and they have Received them. In all these passages it is evident that receiving and not receiving imply improving or not improving.

Calvin: Rom 5:17

17.For if the offense of one, etc. He again subjoins a general explanation, on which he dwells still further; for it was by no means his purpose to explain every part of the subject, but to state the main points. He had before declared, that the power of grace had surpassed that of sin: and by this he consoles and strengthens the faithful, and, at the same time, stimulates and encourages them to meditate on the benignity of God. Indeed the design of so studious a repetition was, — that the grace of God might be worthily set forth, that men might be led from self-confidence to trust in Christ, that having obtained his grace they might enjoy full assurance; and hence at length arises gratitude. The sum of the whole is this — that Christ surpasses Adam; the sin of one is overcome by the righteousness of the other; the curse of one is effaced by the grace of the other; from one, death has proceeded, which is absorbed by the life which the other bestows.

But the parts of this comparison do not correspond; instead of adding, “the gift of life shall more fully reign and flourish through the exuberance of grace,” he says, that “the faithful shall reign;” which amounts to the same thing; for the reign of the faithful is in life, and the reign of life is in the faithful.

It may further be useful to notice here the difference between Christ and Adam, which the Apostle omitted, not because he deemed it of no importance, but unconnected with his present subject.

The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation; for it is not said to be accepted for us, because it is in us, but because we possess Christ himself with all his blessings, as given to us through the bountiful kindness of the Father. Hence the gift of righteousness is not a quality with which God endows us, as some absurdly explain it, but a gratuitous imputation of righteousness; for the Apostle plainly declares what he understood by the word grace. The other difference is, that the benefit of Christ does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in whim by faith. Hence, in order to partake of the miserable inheritance of sin, it is enough for thee to be man, for it dwells in flesh and blood; but in order to enjoy the righteousness of Christ it is necessary for thee to be a believer; for a participation of him is attained only by faith. He is communicated to infants in a peculiar way; for they have by covenant the right of adoption, by which they pass over unto a participation of Christ. ¹⁷² Of the children of the godly I speak, to whom the promise of grace is addressed; for others are by no means exempted from the common lot.

TSK: Rom 5:17

For if : Rom 5:12; Gen 3:6, Gen 3:19; 1Co 15:21, 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:49

by one man’ s offence : or, by one offence

abundance : Rom 5:20; Joh 10:10; 1Ti 1:14

gift : Rom 6:23; Isa 61:10; Phi 3:9

shall reign : Rom 8:39; Mat 25:34; 1Co 4:8; 2Ti 2:12; Jam 2:5; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6, Rev 3:21; Rev 5:9, Rev 5:10, Rev 20:4, Rev 20:6, Rev 22:5

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 5:12-21

Rom 5:12-21 has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man’ s sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this, to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown,

(1)    That that doctrine produced peace, Rom 5:1.

(2)    That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Rom 5:2.

(3)    That it sustained the soul in afflictions;

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)\caps1     b\caps0 y the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, Rom 5:3-4; and,

(b)\caps1     b\caps0 y the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the believer.

(4)    That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Rom 5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Rom 5:7-8; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Rom 5:9-10.

(5)    That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes.

He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. "The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this, so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded."(Prof. Stuart.) In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact:

1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom 5:12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom 5:13-14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom 5:14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these.

\tx720 \tx1080 (1)    The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Rom 5:15.

(2)    The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, Rom 5:16.

(3)    The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and further. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom 5:17.

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all people to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was suited to affect all people, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favor of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just suited to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom 5:18-21.

(The learned author denies the doctrine of imputed sin, and labors to prove that it is not contained in Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19. The following introductory note is intended to exhibit the orthodox view of the subject, and meet the objections which the reader will find in the Commentary. The very first question that demands our attention is, What character did Adam sustain under the covenant of works, that of a single and independent individual. or that of the representative of the human kind?

This is one of the most important questions in Theology, and according to the answer we may be prepared to give, in the affirmative or negative, will be almost the entire complexion of our religious views. If the question be resolved in the affirmative, then what Adam did must be held as done by us, and the imputation of his guilt would seem to follow as a necessary consequence.

1. That Adam sustained the character of representative of the human race; in other words, that he was the federal as well as natural head of his descendants, is obvious from the circumstances of the history in the book of Genesis. It has been said indeed, that in the record of the threatening no mention is made of the posterity of Adam, and that on this account, all idea of federal headship or representation must be abandoned, as a mere theological figment, having no foundation in Scripture. But if God regarded Adam only in his individual capacity, when be said unto him "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,"then, the other addresses of God to Adam, which form part of the same history, must be construed in the same way. And was it to Adam only, and not to the human kind at large, viewed in him, that God said, "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth?"Was it to Adam in his individual capacity, that God gave the grant of the earth, with all its rich and varied productions? Or was it to mankind at large? Was it to Adam alone that God said, "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground,"etc.? The universal infliction of the penalty shows, that the threatening was addressed to Adam as the federal head of the race. All toil, and sweat, and die. Indeed, the entire history favors the conclusion, that God was dealing with Adam, not in his individual, but representative capacity; nor can its consistency be preserved on any other principle.

2. Moreover, there are certain facts connected with the moral history of mankind, which present insuperable difficulties, if we deny the doctrines of representation and imputed sin. "How shall we on any other principle account for the universality of death, or rather of penal evil?"It can be traced back beyond all personal guilt. Its origin is higher. Antecedent to all actual transgression, man is visited with penal evil. He comes into the world under a necessity of dying. His whole constitution is disordered. His body and his mind bear on them the marks of a blighting curse. It is impossible on any theory to deny this. And why is man thus visited? Can the righteous God punish where there is no guilt? We muss take one side or other of the alternative, that God inflicts punishment without guilt, or that Adam’ s sin is imputed to his posterity. If we take the latter branch of the alternative, we are furnished with the ground of the divine procedure, and freed from many difficulties that press upon the opposite view.

It may be noticed in this place also, that the death of infants is a striking proof of the infliction of penal evil, prior to personal or actual sin. Their tender bodies are assailed in a multitude of instances by acute and violent diseases, that call for our sympathy the more that the sufferers cannot disclose or communicate the source of their agony. They labor with death and struggle hard in his hands, until they resign the gift of life they had retained for so short a while. It is said, indeed, that the case of infants is not introduced in Scripture in connection with this subject, and our author tells us, that they are not at all referred to in any part of this disputed passage, nor included in the clause, "death reigned, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’ s transgression."On this, some observations will be found in the proper place. Meanwhile, there is the fact itself, and with it we are concerned now. "Why do infants die?"Perhaps it will be said that though they have committed no actual sin, yet they have a depraved nature; but this cedes the whole question, for that depraved nature is just a part of the penal evil, formerly noticed. Why are innocent infants visited with what entails death on them? One answer only can be given, and no ingenuity can evade the conclusion, "in Adam all die."The wonder is, that this doctrine should ever have been denied. On the human family at large, on man and woman, on infant child, and hoary sire, on earth and sky, are traced the dismal effects of the first sin.

3. The parallelism between Adam and Christ is another branch of evidence on this subject. That they bear a striking resemblance to each other is allowed on all hands. Hence, Christ is styled, in 1 Cor. 15, "the last Adam,"and "the second man,"and in this very passage, Adam is expressly called a type, or "figure of him that was to come."Now in what does this resemblance consist? Between these two persons there are very many points Of dissimilarity, or contrast. The first man is earthy, the second is the Lord from heaven. From the one come guilt, and condemnation, and death; and from the other. righteousness, justification, and life. Where then is the similarity? "They are alike,"says Beza, "in this, that each of them shares what he has with has."Both are covenant or representative heads, and communicate their respective influences to those whom they represent. Here then, is one great leading point of similarity, nor is it possible in any other view to preserve the parallel.

For suppose we disturb the parallel as now adjusted, and argue that Adam was not a federal head, that we are therefore neither held guilty of Adam’ s sin, nor condemned and punished on account of it; where shall we find the counterpart of this in Christ? Must we also maintain that he does not represent his people, that they are neither esteemed righteous on account of his work, nor justified and saved by it? Such is the legitimate consequence of the opposite views. If we hold that from Adam we receive only a corrupt nature, in consequence of which we sin personally, and then become guilty, and are in consequence condemned; we must also argue that we receive from Christ only a pure or renewed nature, in consequence of which we become personally righteous, and are then and therefore justified and saved. But such a scheme would undermine the whole gospel. Though the derivation of holiness from Christ be a true and valuable doctrine, we are not justified on account of that derived holiness. On the contrary, we are justified on account of something without us - something that has no dependence whatever on our personal holiness, namely, the righteousness of Christ. Nay, according to the doctrine of Paul, justification in order of nature, is before sanctification, and the cause of it.

It is but justice to state, that the commentator maintains that a resemblance between Adam and Christ lies not at all in the mode in which sin and righteousness, life and death have been respectively introduced by them; but is found in the simple fact that "the effect of their doings did not terminate on themselves, but extended to numberless other persons."pp. 117, 118, 128. Indeed, he repeatedly affirms, that in regard to the introduction of sin by Adam, nothing whatever is said in this passage in regard to the mode of it. The fact alone is announced. If this were true, it is allowed that the arguments we have now employed would be much weakened. But the assertion cannot be substantiated. If the analogy do not lie in the mode, but in the simple fact, that the effects of their doings do not terminate on themselves; what greater resemblance is there between Adam and Christ, than between any two persons that might be named? David and Ahab might be compared in the same way; the good deeds of the one, and the evil deeds of the other, not terminating with themselves. Besides, Paul certainly does state in the previous chapter, the mode in which the righteousness of Christ becomes available for salvation. He states plainly that "God imputeth it without works."When then in the 5th chapter he looks back upon this subject, and introduces his parallel with "Wherefore as by one man,"etc. are we to believe that he intends no similarity in the mode? Shall we make the apostle explain the manner in which the righteousness becomes available, and say nothing of the way in which its opposite is introduced, at the very time he is professedly comparing the two?

Such is a brief outline of the evidence on which the doctrine of imputed sin is based. The principal arguments are those derived from the universality of penal evil, and the parallel between Adam and Christ. And these are the very topics handled by the apostle in this much vexed passage. Our author, indeed, in his opening remarks maintains, that nothing is said by the apostle of original sin in this place. "The apostle here is not discussing the doctrine of original sin;"and "his design is to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification."But the design of Paul is to illustrate the doctrine of justification, and not simply to show one of its benefits. For in the former part of this chapter Rom 5:1-11, the apostle had fully enlarged on these benefits, and there is no evidence that Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19, are a continuation of the same theme. On the contrary, there is obviously a break in the discourse at Rom 5:12, where the apostle, recalling the discussion, introduces a new illustration of his principal point, namely, justification through the righteousness of Christ. On this the apostle had discouraged largely in Rom. 3; 4.

And lest any should think it anomalous and irrational to justify people, on account of a work they themselves had no hand in accomplishing, he now appeals to the "great analogous fact in the history of the world. This seems the most natural construction. No wonder,"says President Edwards, "when the apostle is treating so fully and largely of our restoration, righteousness, and life by Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, sin, death, and ruin by Adam."- Orig. Sin. p. 303. The following analysis will assist the reader in understanding the whole passage: "As the point to be illustrated is the justification of sinners, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam; the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth. ‘ As on account of one man death has passed upon all people; so on account of one,’ etc. Rom 5:12. Before, however, carrying out the comparison, the apostle stops to establish his position, that all people are regarded, and treated as sinners on account of Adam. His proof is this. The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, Rom 5:13. All mankind are subject to death or penal evils, therefore all people are regarded as transgressors of a law, Rom 5:13. The Law or covenant which brings death on all people, is not the Law of Moses, because multitudes died before that Law was given, Rom 5:14.

Nor is it the law of nature, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, Rom 5:14. Therefore, we must conclude, that people are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offence of one that many die, Rom 5:13-14. Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. Yet the cases are not completely parallel. There are certain points of dissimilarity, Rom 5:15, Rom 5:17. Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy, the apostle resumes, and carries the comparison fully out in Rom 5:18-19. "Therefore as on account of one man."etc. Prof. Hodge.)

Rom 5:12

Wherefore, - διὰ τοῦτο dia touto . On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but I a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, "The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much wo and death. "On this account"also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man."Thus understood, the connection and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not what is usually given to this place, but it is what seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle’ s reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense.

As - ὥσπερ hōsper . This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison’ s deferred to Rom 5:18. The connection evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations Rom 5:13-17. "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils."The passage in Rom 5:13-17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other.

By one man ... - By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well known historical fact Gen 3:6-7, without any explanation of the mode or cause, of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind.

Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle’ s argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a special theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas, nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification "meets well understood and acknowledged universal evils."Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All people see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong especially to Christianity any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it The existence of sin and we belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false.

The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just "one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and desolating evils;"just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases ‘ which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested.

By one man - By Adam; see Rom 5:14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was first in the transgression; Gen 3:6; 1Ti 2:14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned rather than the woman as the cause of the introduction of sin:

(1) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he name Adam in Scripture was given to the created pair, the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin; Gen 5:1-2, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam."The name Adam, therefore, used in this connection Rom 5:14, would suggest the united parentage of the human family.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 n transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he comparison on the one side, in the apostle’ s argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the previous transaction.

\caps1 (5) t\caps0 he sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence, the man is especially mentioned as having reordered the offence what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with him, but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world.

"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,"Gen 2:17. This is an account of the first great covenant transaction between God and man. It carries us back to the origin of mankind, and discloses the source of evil, about which so much has been written and spoken in vain. That God entered into covenant with Adam in innocence, is a doctrine, with which the Shorter Catechism has made us familiar from our infant years. Nor is it without higher authority. It would be improper, indeed, to apply to this transaction everything that may be supposed essential to a human compact or bargain. Whenever divine things are represented by things analogous among men, care must be taken to exclude every idea that is inconsistent with the dignity of the subject. If the analogy be pressed beyond due bounds, the subject is not illustrated, but degraded. For example, in the present case, we must not suppose that because in human covenants, the consent of parties is essential, and both are at full liberty to receive or reject the proposed terms as they shall see fit; the same thing holds true in the case of Adam. He indeed freely gave his consent to the terms of the covenant, as a holy being could not fail to do, but he was not at liberty to withhold that consent. He was a creature entirely at the divine disposal, whose duty from the moment of his being was implicit obedience. He had no power either to dictate or reject terms, The relation of parties in this covenant, renders the idea of power to withhold consent, inadmissible.

But, because the analogy cannot be pressed beyond certain limits, must we therefore entirely abandon it? Proceeding on this principle, we should speedily find it impossible to retain any term or figure, that had ever been employed about religious subjects. The leading essentials of a covenant are found in this great transaction, and no more is necessary to justify the appellation which orthodox divines have applied to it. "A covenant is a contract, or agreement, between two or more parties, on certain terms."It is commonly supposed to imply the existence of parties, a promise, and a condition. All these constituent parts of a covenant meet in the case under review. The parties are God and man, God and the first parent of the human race; the promise is life, which though not expressly stated, is yet distinctly implied in the penalty; and the condition is obedience to the supreme will of God. In human covenants no greater penalty is incurred than the forfeiture of the promised blessing, and therefore the idea of penalty is not supposed essential to a covenant. In every case of forfeited promise, however, there is the infliction of penalty, to the exact amount of the value of the blessing lost. We cannot think of Adam losing life without the corresponding idea of suffering death. So that, in fact, the loss of the promise, and the infliction of the penalty, are nearly the same thing.

It is no valid objection to this view, that the word "covenant,"as our author tells us, (p. 137,) "is not applied in the transaction in the Bible,"for there are many terms, the accuracy of which is never disputed, that are no more to be found in the Scriptures than this. Where do we find such terms as "the fall,"and "the Trinity,"and many others that might be mentioned? The mere name, in, deed, is not a matter of very great importance, and if we allow that in the transaction itself, there were parties, and a promise, and a condition, (which cannot easily he denied,) it is of less moment whether we call it a covenant, or with our author and others, "a divine constitution."It is obvious to remark, however, that this latter title is just as little to be found "applied in the transaction in the Bible,"as the former, and besides is more "liable to be misunderstood;"being vague and indefinite, intimating only, that Adam was under a divine law, or constitution; whereas the word "covenant"distinctly expresses the kind or form of law, and gives definite character to the whole transaction.

But although the doctrine of the covenant of works is independent of the occurrence of the name in the Scriptures, even this narrow ground of objection is not so easily maintained as some imagine. In Hos 6:7, it is said (according to the marginal reading, which is in strict accordance with the original Hebrew,) they like Adam: כאדם k' -’ Aadam have transgressed the covenant. And in that celebrated passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, Gal 4:24, when Paul speaks of "the two covenants,"he alludes, in the opinion of some of the highest authorities, to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This opinion is espoused, and defended with great ability by the late Mr. Bell of Glasgow, one of the most distinguished theologians of his times, in a learned dissertation on the subject: Bell on the Covenants p. 85. Scripture authority, then, would seem not to be entirely lacking, even for the name.

This doctrine of the covenant is intimately connected with that of imputed sin, for if there were no covenant, there could be no covenant or representative head; and if there were no covenant head, there could be no imputation of sin. Hence, the dislike to the name.)

Sin entered into the world - He was the first sinner of the race. The word "sin"here evidently means the violation of the Law of God He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings. He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.

Into the world - Among mankind; Joh 1:10; Joh 3:16-17. The term "world"is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin, but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: "The first man violated the Law of God, and, in this way, sin was introduced among human beings."In this fact - this general, simple declaration - there is no mystery.

And death by sin - Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in Gen 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."The threatening was Gen 2:17, "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand this; I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed, there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it.

For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the Law was violated; in God’ s own interpretation of it, in Gen 3:19, there is still no reference to anything further. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."Now it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called "spiritual death,"and to"eternal death,"when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. People have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modern theologian. They have deemed him qualified in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions, which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this, is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that people should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which four thousand years afterward it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate!

The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve, what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we, yet know not half the results of violating the Law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man’ s life. He breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it.

We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have east on the character and result of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word "death."The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his argument it stands opposed to "the grace of God, and the gift by grace,"Rom 5:15; to "justification,"by the forgiveness of "many offences,"Rom 5:16; to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, Rom 5:17; and to"justification of life,"Rom 5:18. To all these, the words "death’ Rom 5:12, Rom 5:17 and "judgment"Rom 5:16, Rom 5:18 stand opposed.

These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words "death,""judgment,"etc., relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word "death,"as used here by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word "death,"and "to die,"in this wide sense, Rom 1:32; Rom 6:16, Rom 6:23; Rom 7:5, Rom 7:10, Rom 7:13, Rom 7:24; Rom 8:2, Rom 8:6,Rom 8:13; 2Co 2:16; 2Co 7:10; Heb 2:14. In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, Joh 8:51; Joh 11:26; 1Jo 5:16-17; Rev 2:11; Rev 20:6, etc. etc.

In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death, Eze 18:4; Rom 2:8-9, Rom 2:12. Though therefore Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression.

And so - Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all people, to wit, because all people have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connection between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin. And as all have sinned, so death has passed upon all people.

Death passed upon - διῆλθεν diēlthen . Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus, death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.

Upon all men - Upon the race; all die.

For that - ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō . This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom."Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned."The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom (Adam) all have sinned."The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

\caps1 (1) i\caps0 f ῳ ō be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 f this had been its meaning, the preposition ἐν en would have been used; see the note of Erasmus on the place.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t comports with the apostle’ s argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that people sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account or that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

\caps1 (4) a\caps0 s his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the Law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned"meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned."This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

(The following note on Rom 5:12, is intended to exhibit its just connection and force. It is the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ, which is completed in Rom 5:18-19. "As by one man,"etc. The first point which demands our attention, is the meaning of the words, "By one man sin entered into the world."Our author has rendered them, "He was the first sinner;"and in this he follows Prof. Stewart and Dr. Taylor; the former of whom gives this explanation of the clause; that Adam "began transgression,"and the latter interprrets it by the word "commence."It is, however, no great discovery, that sin commenced with one man, or that Adam was the first sinner. If sin commenced at all, it must have commenced with some one. And If Adam sinned at all, while yet he stood alone in the world, he must have been the first sinner of the race! President Edwards, in his reply to Dr. Taylor of Norwich, has the following animadversions on this view: "That the world was full of sin, and full of death, were too great and notorious, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful facts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind everywhere, who often asked this question, ‘ whence comes this evil,’ moral and natural evil? (the latter chiefly visible in death.) It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us how these came into the world, and prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr Tay or’ s interpretation, is ‘ he began transgression,’ as if all the apostle meant, was to tell us who happened to sin first, not how such a malady came upon the world, or how anyone in the world, besides Adam himself, came by such a distemper."- Orig. Sin, p. 270.

The next thing that calls for remark in this verse, is the force of the connecting words "and so" καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs . They are justly rendered "in this way,.""in this manner,""in consequence of which."And therefore, the meaning of the first three clauses of the first verse is, that by one man sin entered into the world. and death by sin, in consequence of which sin of this one man, death passed upon all people.

It will not do to render "and so"by "in like manner,"as Prof. Stewart does, and then explain with our author, "there is a connection between death and sin. which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin."This is quite contrary to the acknowledged force of καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs , and besides, entirely destroys the connection which the apostle wishes to establish between the sin of the one man, and the penal evil, or death, that is in the world. It, in effect, says there is no connection whatever between those things although the language may seem to imply it and so large a portion of Christian readers in every age have understood it in this way. Adam sinned and he died, other people have sinned and they died! And yet this verse is allowed to be the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ! Shall we supply then the other branch of the comparison, thus: Christ was righteous and lived, other people are righteous and they live? If we destroy the connection in the one case, how do we maintain it in the other? See the supplementary note.

The last clause "for that all have sinned,"is to be regarded as explanatory of the sentiment, that death passed on all, in consequence of the sin of the one man. Some have translated ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō , in whom; and this, indeed, would assign the only just reason, why all are visited with penal evil on account of Adam’ s sin. All die through him, because in him all have sinned. But the translation is objectionable, on account of the distance of the antecedent. However, the common rendering gives precisely the same sense, "for that,"or "because that"all have sinned, that is, according to an explanation in Bloomfield’ s Greek Testament, "are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adam’ s fall. Thus, the expression may be considered equivalent to ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν hamartōloi katestathēsan at Rom 5:19."There can be no doubt that ἡμαρτον hēmarton does bear this sense, Gen 44:32; Gen 43:9. Moreover, the other rendering "because all have sinned personally,"is inconsistent with fact. Infants have not sinned in this way, therefore, according to this view, their death is left unaccounted for, and so is all that evil comprehended in the term "death,"that comes upon us antecedent to actual sin. See the supplementary note.

Lastly, this interpretation would render the reasoning of the apostle inconclusive. "If,"observes Witsius, "we must understand this of some personal sin of each, the reasoning would not have been just, or worthy of the apostle. For his argument would be thus: that by the one sin of one, all were become guilty of death, because each in particular had besides this one and first sin, his own personal sin, which is inconsequential."That people are punished for personal or actual transgression is true. But it is not the particular truth Paul seeks here to establish, any more than he seeks to prove in the previous part of his epistle, that people are justified on account of personal holiness, which is clearly no part of his design.)

Rom 5:13

For until the law ... - This verse, with the following verses to the 17th, is usually regarded as a parenthesis. The Law here evidently means the Law given by Moses. "Until the commencement of that administration, or state of things under the law."To see the reason why he referred to this period between Adam and the Law, we should recall the design of the apostle, which is, to show the exceeding grace of God in the gospel, abounding, and superabounding, as a complete remedy for all the evils introduced by sin. For this purpose he introduces three leading conditions, or states, where people sinned, and where the effects of sin were seen; in regard to each and all of which the grace of the gospel superabounded. The first was that of Adam, with its attendant train of ills Rom 5:12, which ills were all met by the death of Christ, Rom 5:15-18. The second period or condition was that long interval in which men had only the light of nature, that period occurring between Adam and Moses. This was a fair representation of the condition of the world without revelation, and without law, Rom 5:13-14. Sin then reigned - reigned everywhere where there was no law. But the grace of the gospel abounded over the evils of this state of man. The third was under the Law, Rom 5:20. The Law entered, and sin was increased, and its evils abounded. But the gospel of Christ abounded even over this, and grace triumphantly reigned. So that the plan of justification met all the evils of sin, and was adapted to remove them; sin and its consequences as flowing from Adam; sin and its consequences when there was no written revelation; and sin and its consequences under the light and terrors of the Law.

Sin was in the world - People sinned. They did what was evil.

But sin is not imputed - Is not charged against people, or they are not held guilty of it where there is no law. This is a self-evident proposition, for sin is a violation of law; and if there is no law, there can be no wrong. Assuming this as a self-evident proposition, the connection is, that there must have been a law of some kind; a "law written on their hearts,"since sin was in the world, and people could not be charged with sin, or treated as sinners, unless there was some law. The passage here states a great and important principle, that people will not be held to be guilty unless there is a law which binds them of which they are apprized, and which they voluntarily transgress; see the note at Rom 4:15. This verse, therefore, meets an objection that might be started from what had been said in Rom 4:15. The apostle had affirmed that "where no law is there is no transgression."He here stated that all were sinners. It might be objected, that as during this long period of time they had no law, they could not be stoners. To meet this, he says that people were then in fact sinners, and were treated as such, which showed that there must have been a law.

Barnes: Rom 5:17

For if - This verse contains the same idea as before presented, but in a varied form. It is condensing the whole subject, and presenting it in a single view.

By one man’ s offence - Or, by one offence. Margin. The reading of the text is the more correct. "If, under the administration of a just and merciful Being, it has occurred, that by the offence of one, death hath exerted so wide a dominion; we have reason much more to expect under that administration, that they who are brought under his plan of saving mercy shall be brought under a dispensation of life."

Death reigned - Note, Rom 5:14.

By one - By means of one man.

Much more - We have much more reason to expect it. It evidently accords much more with the administration of a Being of infinite goodness.

They which receive abundance of grace - The abundant favor; the mercy that shall counterbalance and surpass the evils introduced by the sin of Adam. That favor shall be more than sufficient to counterbalance all those evils. This is particularly true of the redeemed, of whom the apostle in this verse is speaking. The evils which they suffer in consequence of the sin of Adam bear no comparison with the mercies of eternal life that shall flow to them from the work of the Saviour.

The gift of righteousness - This stands opposed to the evils introduced by Adam. As the effect of his sin was to produce condemnation, so here the gift of righteousness refers to the opposite, to pardon, to justification, to acceptance with God. To show that people were thus justified by the gospel, was the leading design of the apostle; and the argument here is, that if by one man’ s sin, death reigned over those who were under condemnation in consequence of it, we have much more reason to suppose that they who are delivered from sin by the death of Christ, and accepted of God, shall reign with him in life.

Shall reign - The word "reign"is often applied to the condition of saints in heaven, 2Ti 2:12, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him;"Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6; Rev 22:5. It means that they shall be exalted to a glorious state of happiness in heaven; that they shall be triumphant over all their enemies; shall gain an ultimate victory; and shall partake with the Captain of their salvation in the splendors of his dominion above, Rev 3:21; Luk 22:30.

In life - This stands opposed to the death that reigned as the consequence of the sin of Adam. It denotes complete freedom from condemnation; from temporal death; from sickness, pain, and sin. It is the usual expression to denote the complete bliss of the saints in glory; Note, Joh 3:36.

By one, Jesus Christ - As the consequence of his work. The apostle here does not state the mode or manner in which this was done; nor does he say that it was perfectly parallel in the mode with the effects of the sin of Adam. He is comparing the results or consequences of the sin of the one and of the work of the other. There is a similarity in the consequences. The way in which the work of Christ had contributed to this he had stated in Rom 3:24, Rom 3:28.

Poole: Rom 5:17

Here he shows the difference in respect of the effects and consequents of their acts. If by means of one man and his one offence death had power over all mankind, then much more shall the grace and gift of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ alone, obtain eternal life for all that have received abundant grace and mercy from him.

PBC: Rom 5:17

See PB: Ps 77:1

Gill: Rom 5:17

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one,.... It may be rendered, "by one offence death reigned by one"; for it was the single sin of Adam, the first sin that was committed by him, which gave death its reigning power over the sons of men:

"Adam, say ^f the Jewish doctors, transgressed, על פקודא חד דאורייתא, one commandment of the law,''

and was the cause of death to himself, and to all the world. These words are a repetition, with a further explanation, of Rom 5:15; there it is said, "through the offence of one many be dead"; here "by one man's offence", or "by one offence, death reigned by one"; in which death is represented as a mighty monarch, a powerful king; and designs not only corporeal death, which has mounted the throne by sin, and is supported in its dominion by an ordinance of heaven; but also a moral or spiritual death, which has seized on all mankind, and reigns in every power and faculty of the soul of man; and likewise an eternal one, which will have power over all those, who have no part in the first resurrection: in Rom 5:15, "the grace of God, and the gift by grace", are said to "abound unto many"; here they are said to

receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness: by abundance of grace is designed, either something distinct from the justifying righteousness of Christ; such as the abundant grace and mercy of God, in regeneration and conversion; the various graces of the Spirit then implanted; the many things then wrought in the heart; the large discoveries! of pardoning grace, and the abundance of the love of God shed abroad in the soul by the Spirit: or rather the same with "the gift of righteousness", because of the large display of the grace of God in it; by which "righteousness" is meant, not righteousness or holiness infused into us; but the righteousness of Christ, which is a free grace gift, and is enjoyed in a way of receiving; which denotes the act of faith, and supposes giving; and hence there is no room for boasting, but great reason for thankfulness: now such persons who have received this abundant grace and free gift,

shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ; in corporeal life, they are not now subject to death as a penal evil, as other persons are, and though they die this death, they will triumph over it in the resurrection morn, they will rise again to everlasting life; they reign now in spiritual life over sin, Satan, and the world; and they will reign in eternal life, they will sit on thrones, wear crowns, and possess a kingdom of glory for ever and ever; and all by and through one, Jesus Christ, and not on account of any works, or merits of theirs.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 5:17

¹ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

Geneva Bible: Rom 5:17

^{( 16 )} For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall ^{( u )} reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

^{( 16 )} The third difference is that the righteousness of Christ, being imputed to us by grace, is of greater power to bring life, than the offence of Adam is to condemn his posterity to death.

^{( u )} Be partakers of true and everlasting life.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 5:1-21

1 Being justified by faith, we have peace with God;

2 and joy in our hope;

8 that since we were reconciled by his blood, when we were enemies;

10 we shall much more be saved, being reconciled.

12 As sin and death came by Adam;

17 so much more righteousness and life by Jesus Christ.

20 Where sin abounded, grace did superabound.

MHCC: Rom 5:15-19

Through one man's offence, all mankind are exposed to eternal condemnation. But the grace and mercy of God, and the free gift of righteousness and salvation, are through Jesus Christ, as man: yet the Lord from heaven has brought the multitude of believers into a more safe and exalted state than that from which they fell in Adam. This free gift did not place them anew in a state of trial, but fixed them in a state of justification, as Adam would have been placed, had he stood. Notwithstanding the differences, there is a striking similarity. As by the offence of one, sin and death prevailed to the condemnation of all men, so by the righteousness of one, grace prevailed to the justification of all related to Christ by faith. Through the grace of God, the gift by grace has abounded to many through Christ; yet multitudes choose to remain under the dominion of sin and death, rather than to apply for the blessings of the reign of grace. But Christ will in nowise cast out any who are willing to come to him.

Matthew Henry: Rom 5:6-21

The apostle here describes the fountain and foundation of justification, laid in the death of the Lord Jesus. The streams are very sweet, but, if you run them up to the spring-head, you will find it to be Christ's dying for us; it is in the precious stream of Christ's blood that all these privileges come flowing to us: and therefore he enlarges upon this instance of the love of God which is shed abroad. Three things he takes notice of for the explication and illustration of this doctrine: - 1. The persons he died for, Rom 5:6-8. 2. The precious fruits of his death, Rom 5:9-11. 3. The parallel he runs between the communication of sin and death by the first Adam and of righteousness and life by the second Adam, Rom 5:12, to the end.

I. The character we were under when Christ died for us.

1. We were without strength (Rom 5:6), in a sad condition; and, which is worse, altogether unable to help ourselves out of that condition - lost, and no visible way open for our recovery - our condition deplorable, and in a manner desperate; and, therefore our salvation is here said to come in due time. God's time to help and save is when those that are to be saved are without strength, that his own power and grace may be the more magnified, Deu 32:36. It is the manner of God to help at a dead lift,

2. He died for the ungodly; not only helpless creatures, and therefore likely to perish, but guilty sinful creatures, and therefore deserving to perish; not only mean and worthless, but vile and obnoxious, unworthy of such favour with the holy God. Being ungodly, they had need of one to die for them, to satisfy for guilt, and to bring in a righteousness. This he illustrates (Rom 5:7, Rom 5:8) as an unparalleled instance of love; herein God's thoughts and ways were above ours. Compare Joh 15:13, Joh 15:14, Greater love has no man. (1.) One would hardly die for a righteous man, that is, an innocent man, one that is unjustly condemned; every body will pity such a one, but few will put such a value upon his life as either to hazard, or much less to deposit, their own in his stead. (2.) It may be, one might perhaps be persuaded to die for a good man, that is, a useful man, who is more than barely a righteous man. Many that are good themselves yet do but little good to others; but those that are useful commonly get themselves well beloved, and meet with some that in a case of necessity would venture to be their antipsuchoi - would engage life for life, would be their bail, body for body. Paul was, in this sense, a very good man, one that was very useful, and he met with some that for his life laid down their own necks, Rom 16:4. And yet observe how he qualifies this: it is but some that would do so, and it is a daring act if they do it, it must be some bold venturing soul; and, after all, it is but a peradventure. (3.) But Christ died for sinners (Rom 5:8), neither righteous nor good; not only such as were useless, but such as were guilty and obnoxious; not only such as there would be no loss of should they perish, but such whose destruction would greatly redound to the glory of God's justice, being malefactors and criminals that ought to die. Some think he alludes to a common distinction the Jews had of their people into tsaddim - righteous, chesedim - merciful (compare Isa 57:1), and rashim - wicked. Now herein God commended his love, not only proved or evidenced his love (he might have done that at a cheaper rate), but magnified it and made it illustrious. This circumstance did greatly magnify and advance his love, not only put it past dispute, but rendered it the object of the greatest wonder and admiration: "Now my creatures shall see that I love them, I will give them such an instance of it as shall be without parallel." Commendeth his love, as merchants commend their goods when they would put them off. This commending of his love was in order to the shedding abroad of his love in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. He evinces his love in the most winning, affecting, endearing way imaginable. While we were yet sinners, implying that we were not to be always sinners, there should be a change wrought; for he died to save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; but we were yet sinners when he died for us. (4.) Nay, which is more, we were enemies (Rom 5:10), not only malefactors, but traitors and rebels, in arms against the government; the worst kind of malefactors and of all malefactors the most obnoxious. The carnal mind is not only an enemy to God, but enmity itself, Rom 8:7; Col 1:21. This enmity is a mutual enmity, God loathing the sinner, and the sinner loathing God, Zec 11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die is such a mystery, such a paradox, such an unprecedented instance of love, that it may well be our business to eternity to adore and wonder at it. This is a commendation of love indeed. Justly might he who had thus loved us make it one of the laws of his kingdom that we should love our enemies.

II. The precious fruits of his death.

1. Justification and reconciliation are the first and primary fruit of the death of Christ: We are justified by his blood (Rom 5:9), reconciled by his death, Rom 5:10. Sin is pardoned, the sinner accepted as righteous, the quarrel taken up, the enmity slain, an end made of iniquity, and an everlasting righteousness brought in. This is done, that is, Christ has done all that was requisite on his part to be done in order hereunto, and, immediately upon our believing, we are actually put into a state of justification and reconciliation. Justified by his blood. Our justification is ascribed to the blood of Christ because without blood there is no remission Heb 9:22. The blood is the life, and that must go to make atonement. In all the propitiatory sacrifices, the sprinkling of the blood was of the essence of the sacrifice. It was the blood that made an atonement for the soul, Lev 17:11.

2. Hence results salvation from wrath: Saved from wrath (Rom 5:9), saved by his life, Rom 5:10 When that which hinders our salvation is taken away, the salvation must needs follow. Nay, the argument holds very strongly; if God justified and reconciled us when we were enemies, and put himself to so much charge to do it, much more will he save us when we are justified and reconciled. He that has done the greater, which is of enemies to make us friends, will certainly the less, which is when we are friends to use us friendly and to be kind to us. And therefore the apostle, once and again, speaks of it with a much more. He that hath digged so deep to lay the foundation will no doubt build upon that foundation. - We shall be saved from wrath, from hell and damnation. It is the wrath of God that is the fire of hell; the wrath to come, so it is called, 1Th 1:10. The final justification and absolution of believers at the great day, together with the fitting and preparing of them for it, are the salvation from wrath here spoken of; it is the perfecting of the work of grace. - Reconciled by his death, saved by his life. His life here spoken of is not to be understood of his life in the flesh, but his life in heaven, that life which ensued after his death. Compare Rom 14:9. He was dead, and is alive, Rev 1:18. We are reconciled by Christ humbled, we are saved by Christ exalted. The dying Jesus laid the foundation, in satisfying for sin, and slaying the enmity, and so making us salvable; thus is the partition-wall broken down, atonement made, and the attainder reversed; but it is the living Jesus that perfects the work: he lives to make intercession, Heb 7:25. It is Christ, in his exaltation, that by his word and Spirit effectually calls, and changes, and reconciles us to God, is our Advocate with the Father, and so completes and consummates our salvation. Compare Rom 4:25 and Rom 8:34. Christ dying was the testator, who bequeathed us the legacy; but Christ living is the executor, who pays it. Now the arguing is very strong. He that puts himself to the charge of purchasing our salvation will not decline the trouble of applying it.

3. All this produces, as a further privilege, our joy in God, Rom 5:11. God is now so far from being a terror to us that he is our joy, and our hope in the day of evil, Jer 17:17. We are reconciled and saved from wrath. Iniquity, blessed be God, shall not be our ruin. And not only so, there is more in it yet, a constant stream of favours; we not only go to heaven, but go to heaven triumphantly; not only get into the harbour, but come in with full sail: We joy in God, not only saved from his wrath, but solacing ourselves in his love, and this through Jesus Christ, who is the Alpha and the Omega, the foundation-stone and the top-stone of all our comforts and hopes - not only our salvation, but our strength and our song; and all this (which he repeats as a string he loved to be harping upon) by virtue of the atonement, for by him we Christians, we believers, have now, now in gospel times, or now in this life, received the atonement, which was typified by the sacrifices under thee law, and is an earnest of our happiness in heaven. True believers do by Jesus Christ receive the atonement. Receiving the atonement is our actual reconciliation to God in justification, grounded upon Christ's satisfaction. To receive the atonement is, (1.) To give our consent to the atonement, approving of, and agreeing to, those methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken of saving a guilty world by the blood of a crucified Jesus, being willing and glad to be saved in a gospel way and upon gospel terms. (2.) To take the comfort of the atonement, which is the fountain and the foundation of our joy in God. Now we joy in God, now we do indeed receive the atonement, Kauchōmenoi - glorying in it. God hath received the atonement (Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5; Mat 28:2): if we but receive it, the work is done.

III. The parallel that the apostle runs between the communication of sin and death by the first Adam and of righteousness and life by the second Adam (Rom 5:12, to the end), which not only illustrates the truth he is discoursing of, but tends very much to the commending of the love of God and the comforting of the hearts of true believers, in showing a correspondence between our fall and our recovery, and not only a like, but a much greater power in the second Adam to make us happy, than there was in the first to make us miserable. Now, for the opening of this, observe,

1. A general truth laid down as the foundation of his discourse - that Adam was a type of Christ (Rom 5:14): Who is the figure of him that was to come. Christ is therefore called the last Adam, 1Co 15:45. Compare 1Co 15:22. In this Adam was a type of Christ, that in the covenant-transactions that were between God and him, and in the consequent events of those transactions, Adam was a public person. God dealt with Adam and Adam acted as such a one, as a common father and factor, root and representative, of and for all his posterity; so that what he did in that station, as agent for us, we may be said to have done in him, and what was done to him may be said to have been done to us in him. Thus Jesus Christ, the Mediator, acted as a public person, the head of all the elect, dealt with God for them, as their father, factor, root, and representative - died for them, rose for them, entered within the veil for them, did all for them. When Adam failed, we failed with him; when Christ performed, he performed for us. Thus was Adam tupos tou mellontos - the figure of him that was to come, to come to repair that breach which Adam had made.

2. A more particular explication of the parallel, in which observe,

(1.) How Adam, as a public person, communicated sin and death to all his posterity (Rom 5:12): By one man sin entered. We see the world under a deluge of sin and death, full of iniquities and full of calamities. Now, it is worth while to enquire what is the spring that feeds it, and you will find it to be the general corruption of nature; and at what gap it entered, and you will find it to have been Adam's first sin. It was by one man, and he the first man (for if any had been before him they would have been free), that one man from whom, as from the root, we all spring. [1.] By him sin entered. When God pronounced all very good (Gen 1:31) there was no sin in the world; it was when Adam ate forbidden fruit that sin made its entry. Sin had before entered into the world of angels, when many of them revolted from their allegiance and left their first estate; but it never entered into the world of mankind till Adam sinned. Then it entered as an enemy, to kill and destroy, as a thief, to rob and despoil; and a dismal entry it was. Then entered the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to posterity, and a general corruption and depravedness of nature. Eph' hō - for that (so we read it), rather in whom, all have sinned. Sin entered into the world by Adam, for in him we all sinned. As, 1Co 15:22, in Adam all die; so here, in him all have sinned; for it is agreeable to the law of all nations that the acts of a public person be accounted theirs whom they represent; and what a whole body does every member of the same body may be said to do. Now Adam acted thus as a public person, by the sovereign ordination and appointment of God, and yet that founded upon a natural necessity; for God, as the author of nature, had made this the law of nature, that man should beget in his own likeness, and so the other creatures. In Adam therefore, as in a common receptacle, the whole nature of man was reposited, from him to flow down in a channel to his posterity; for all mankind are made of one blood (Act 17:26), so that according as this nature proves through his standing or falling, before he puts it out of his hands, accordingly it is propagated from him. Adam therefore sinning and falling, the nature became guilty and corrupt, and is so derived. Thus in him all have sinned. [2.] Death by sin, for death is the wages of sin. Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. When sin came, of course death came with it. Death is here put for all that misery which is the due desert of sin, temporal, spiritual, eternal death. If Adam had not sinned, he had not died; the threatening was, In the day thou eatest thou shall surely die, Gen 2:17. [3.] So death passed, that is, a sentence of death was passed, as upon a criminal, diēlthen - passed through all men, as an infectious disease passes through a town, so that none escape it. It is the universal fate, without exception: death passes upon all. There are common calamities incident to human life which do abundantly prove this. Death reigned, Rom 5:14. He speaks of death as a mighty prince, and his monarchy the most absolute, universal, and lasting monarchy. None are exempted from its sceptre; it is a monarchy that will survive all other earthly rule, authority, and power, for it is the last enemy, 1Co 15:26. Those sons of Belial that will be subject to no other rule cannot avoid being subject to this. Now all this we may thank Adam for; from him sin and death descend. Well may we say, as that good man, observing the change that a fit of sickness had made in his countenance, O Adam! what hast thou done?

Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the world before the law; witness Cain's murder, the apostasy of the old world, the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God: therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, Rom 5:14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did - which is to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom, which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not chargeable with guilt.

(2.) How, in correspondence to this, Christ, as a public person, communicates righteousness and life to all true believers, who are his spiritual seed. And in this he shows not only wherein the resemblance holds, but, ex abundanti , wherein the communication of grace and love by Christ goes beyond the communication of guilt and wrath by Adam. Observe,

[1.] Wherein the resemblance holds. This is laid down most fully, Rom 5:18, Rom 5:19.

First, By the offence and disobedience of one many were made sinners, and judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Here observe, 1. That Adam's sin was disobedience, disobedience to a plain and express command: and it was a command of trial. The thing he did was therefore evil because it was forbidden, and not otherwise; but this opened the door to other sins, though itself seemingly small. 2. That the malignity and poison of sin are very strong and spreading, else the guilt of Adam's sin would not have reached so far, nor have been so deep and long a stream. Who would think there should be so much evil in sin? 3. That by Adam's sin many are made sinners: many, that is, all his posterity; said to be many, in opposition to the one that offended, Made sinners, katestathēsan . It denotes the making of us such by a judicial act: we were cast as sinners by due course of law. 4. That judgment is come to condemnation upon all those that by Adam's disobedience were made sinners. Being convicted, we are condemned. All the race of mankind lie under a sentence, like an attainder upon a family. There is judgment given and recorded against us in the court of heaven; and, if the judgment be not reversed, we are likely to sink under it to eternity.

Secondly, In like manner, by the righteousness and obedience of one (and that one is Jesus Christ, the second Adam), are many made righteous, and so the free gift comes upon all. It is observable how the apostle inculcates this truth, and repeats it again and again, as a truth of very great consequence. Here observe, 1. The nature of Christ's righteousness, how it is brought in; it is by his obedience. The disobedience of the first Adam ruined us, the obedience of the second Adam saves us, - his obedience to the law of mediation, which was that he should fulfil all righteousness, and then make his soul an offering for sin. By his obedience to this law he wrought out a righteousness for us, satisfied God's justice, and so made way for us into his favour. 2. The fruit of it. (1.) There is a free gift come upon all men, that is, it is made and offered promiscuously to all. The salvation wrought is a common salvation; the proposals are general, the tender free; whoever will may come, and take of these waters of life. This free gift is to all believers, upon their believing, unto justification of life. It is not only a justification that frees from death, but that entitles to life. (2.) Many shall be made righteous - many compared with one, or as many as belong to the election of grace, which, though but a few as they are scattered up and down in the world, yet will be a great many when they come all together. Katastathēsontai - they shall be constituted righteous, as by letters patent. Now the antithesis between these two, our ruin by Adam and our recovery by Christ, is obvious enough.

[2.] Wherein the communication of grace and love by Christ goes beyond the communication of guilt and wrath by Adam; and this he shows, Rom 5:15-17. It is designed for the magnifying of the riches of Christ's love, and for the comfort and encouragement of believers, who, considering what a wound Adam's sin has made, might begin to despair of a proportionable remedy. His expressions are a little intricate, but this he seems to intend: - First, If guilt and wrath be communicated, much more shall grace and love; for it is agreeable to the idea we have of the divine goodness to suppose that he should be more ready to save upon an imputed righteousness than to condemn upon an imputed guilt: Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace. God's goodness is, of all his attributes, in a special manner his glory, and it is that grace that is the root (his favour to us in Christ), and the gift is by grace. We know that God is rather inclined to show mercy; punishing is his strange work. Secondly, If there was so much power and efficacy, as it seems there was, in the sin of a man, who was of the earth, earthy, to condemn us, much more are there power and efficacy in the righteousness and grace of Christ, who is the Lord from heaven, to justify and save us. The one man that saves us is Jesus Christ. Surely Adam could not propagate so strong a poison but Jesus Christ could propagate as strong an antidote, and much stronger. 3. It is but the guilt of one single offence of Adam's that is laid to our charge: The judgment was ex henos eis katakrima , by one, that is, by one offence, Rom 5:16, Rom 5:17. Margin. But from Jesus Christ we receive and derive an abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness. The stream of grace and righteousness is deeper and broader than the stream of guilt; for this righteousness does not only take away the guilt of that one offence, but of many other offences, even of all. God in Christ forgives all trespasses, Col 2:13. 4. By Adam's sin death reigned; but by Christ's righteousness there is not only a period put to the reign of death, but believers are preferred to reign of life, Rom 5:17. In and by the righteousness of Christ we have not only a charter of pardon, but a patent of honour, are not only freed from our chains, but, like Joseph, advanced to the second chariot, and made unto our God kings and priests - not only pardoned, but preferred. See this observed, Rev 1:5, Rev 1:6; Rev 5:9, Rev 5:10. We are by Christ and his righteousness entitled to, and instated in, more and greater privileges than we lost by the offence of Adam. The plaster is wider than the wound, and more healing than the wound is killing.

IV. In the last two verses the apostle seems to anticipate an objection which is expressed, Gal 3:19, Wherefore then serveth the law? Answer, 1. The law entered that the offence might abound. Not to make sin to abound the more in itself, otherwise than as sin takes occasion by the commandment, but to discover the abounding sinfulness of it. The glass discovers the spots, but does not cause them. When the commandment came into the world sin revived, as the letting of a clearer light into a room discovers the dust and filth which were there before, but were not seen. It was like the searching of a wound, which is necessary to to the cure. The offence, paraptōma - that offence, the sin of Adam, the extending of the guilt of it to us, and the effect of the corruption in us, are the abounding of that offence which appeared upon the entry of the law. 2. That grace might much more abound - that the terrors of the law might make gospel-comforts so much the sweeter. Sin abounded among the Jews; and, to those of them that were converted to the faith of Christ, did not grace much more abound in the remitting of so much guilt and the subduing of so much corruption? The greater the strength of the enemy, the greater the honour of the conqueror. This abounding of grace he illustrates, Rom 5:21. As the reign of a tyrant and oppressor is a foil to set off the succeeding reign of a just and gentle prince and to make it the more illustrious, so doth the reign of sin set off the reign of grace. Sin reigned unto death; it was a cruel bloody reign. But grace reigns to life, eternal life, and this through righteousness, righteousness imputed to us for justification, implanted in us for sanctification; and both by Jesus Christ our Lord, through the power and efficacy of Christ, the great prophet, priest, and king, of his church.

Barclay: Rom 5:12-21

No passage of the New Testament has had such an influence on theology as this; and no passage is more difficult for a modern mind to understand. It is difficult because Paul expresses himself in a difficult way. We can see, for instance, that the first sentence never ends, but breaks off in mid-air, while Paul pursues another idea down a sideline. Still more, it is thinking and speaking in terms which were familiar to Jews and perfectly understandable to them, but which are unfamiliar to us.

If we were to put the thought of this passage into one sentence, which, indeed, was the sentence which Paul set out to write at the very beginning, and which got sidetracked, it would be this: "By the sin of Adam all men became sinners and were alienated from God; by the righteousness of Jesus Christ all men became righteous and are restored to a right relationship with God." Paul, in fact, said this very much more clearly in 1Co 15:21: "As by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

There are two basic Jewish ideas in the light of which this passage must be read.

(i) There is the idea of solidarity. The Jew never really thought of himself as an individual but always thought as part of a clan, a family, or a nation apart from which he had no real existence. To this day it is said that if an Australian aboriginal is asked his name, he gives the name of his tribe or clan. He does not think of himself as a person, but as a member of a society. One of the clearest instances of this kind of thing in recognizable action is the blood feud amongst primitive people. Suppose a man from one tribe murders a man from another tribe. It becomes the duty of the first tribe to take vengeance on the second; it is the tribe that has been hurt, and the tribe which takes vengeance.

In the Old Testament there is one vivid instance of this. It is the case of Achan as related in Josh 7 . At the siege of Jericho, Achan kept to himself certain spoils in direct defiance of the commandment of God that all should be destroyed. The next item in the campaign was the siege of Ai, which should have fallen without trouble. The assaults against it, however, failed disastrously. Why? Because Achan had sinned, and, as a result, the whole nation was branded as sinner and punished by God. Achan's sin was not one man's sin but the nation's. The nation was not a collection of individuals; it was a solid mass. What the individual did, the nation did. When Achan's sin was admitted, it was not he alone who was executed but his whole family. Again, Achan was not a solitary, self-responsible individual; he was one of a solid mass of people from whom he could not be separated.

That is how Paul sees Adam. Adam was not an individual. He was one of mankind, and because he was one of mankind, his sin was the sin of all men.

Paul says that all men sinned in Adam. If we are ever to understand Paul's thought here, we must be quite sure what he means, and we must be equally sure that he was serious. All through the history of Christian thinking there have been efforts to interpret in different ways this conception of the connection between Adam's sin and that of mankind.

(a) The passage has been taken to mean that "each man is his own Adam." This really means that, just as Adam sinned, all men have sinned, but that there is no real connection between the sin of Adam and the sin of mankind, other than that it could be said that Adam's sin is typical of the sin of all mankind.

(b) There is what has been called the legal interpretation. This would hold that Adam was the representative of mankind and the human race shares in the deed of its representative. But a representative must be chosen by the people he represents; and in no sense can we say that of Adam.

© There is the interpretation that what we inherit from Adam is the tendency to sin. That is true enough, but that is not what Paul meant. It would not, in fact, suit his argument at all.

(d) The passage ought to be given what is called the realistic interpretation, namely that, because of the solidarity of the human race, all mankind actually sinned in Adam. This idea was not strange to a Jew; it was the actual belief of the Jewish thinkers. The writer of 2 Esdras is quite clear about it. "A grain of evil was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning and how much wickedness has it brought forth unto this time; and how much shall it yet bring forth till the time of the threshing come" (2Esdr 4:30). "For the first Adam, bearing a wicked heart, transgressed and was overcome; and not only he but all they also who are born of him" (2Esdr 3:21).

(ii) The second basic idea is intimately connected with this in Paul's argument. Death is the direct consequence of sin. It was the Jewish belief that, if Adam had not sinned, man would have been immortal. Sirach (Sir 2:23) writes, "A woman was the beginning of sin and through her all die." The Book of Wisdom has it, "God created man for immortality and made him the image of his own proper nature; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world." In Jewish thought, sin and death are integrally connected. This is what Paul is getting at in the involved and difficult line of thought in Rom 5:12-14. We may trace his thought there in a series of ideas.

(a) Adam sinned because he broke a direct commandment of God not to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree--and because he sinned, he died, although he was meant to be immortal.

(b) The law did not come until the time of Moses. Now, if there is no law, there can be no breach of the law; that is to say, there can be no sin. Therefore, the men who lived between Adam and Moses did in fact commit sinful actions, but they could not be counted sinners, for the law did not yet exist.

© In spite of the fact that sin could not be reckoned to them, they still died. Death reigned over them, although they could not be accused of breaking a non-existent law.

(d) Why, then, did they die? It was because they had sinned in Adam. Their involvement in his sin caused their deaths, although there was no law for them to break. That, in fact, is Paul's proof that all men did sin in Adam.

So, then, we have extracted the essence of one side of Paul's thought. Because of this idea of the complete solidarity of mankind, all men literally sinned in Adam; and because it is the consequence of sin, death reigned over all men.

But this very same conception, which can be used to produce so desperate a view of the human situation, can be used in reverse to fill it with a blaze of glory. Into this situation comes Jesus. To God Jesus offered perfect goodness. And, just as all men were involved in Adam's sin, all men are involved in Jesus' perfect goodness; and, just as Adam's sin was the cause of death, so Jesus' perfect goodness conquers death and gives men life eternal. Paul's triumphant argument is that, as mankind was solid with Adam and was therefore condemned to death, so mankind is solid with Christ and is therefore acquitted to life. Even although the law has come and made sin much more terrible, the grace of Christ overcomes the condemnation which the law must bring.

That is Paul's argument, and on Jewish grounds it is unassailable. But it has one great flaw, as it has one great truth.

(i) The flaw is this. Suppose we assume the literal truth of the Adam story, our connection with Adam is purely physical. We have no choice whatever in the matter, any more than a child chooses his father. On the other hand our connection with Christ is voluntary. Union with Christ is something a man can accept or reject. The connection is in reality quite different. That is a serious flaw in Paul's argument.

(ii) The great virtue is this. Paul conserves the truth that mankind was involved in a situation from which there was no escape; sin had man in its power and there was no hope. Into this situation came Jesus Christ, and he brought with him something that broke the old deadlock. By what he did, by what he is, by what he gives, he enabled man to escape from a situation in which he was hopelessly dominated by sin. Whatever else we may say about Paul's argument, it is completely true that man was ruined by sin and rescued by Christ.

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 5:12-21

E. The universal applicability of justification 5:12-21

Paul's final argument in support of justification by faith was a development of his previous emphasis on the solidarity that the saved experience with their Savior (5:1-2, 9-10). In this section (5:12-21) he expanded that idea by showing that just as Adam's sin has affected all people, so Jesus Christ's obedience has affected all believers.

"As Adam's one sin never fails to bring death, so Christ's one righteous act in behalf of sinners never fails to being the opposite award to those who are in Him."¹⁵⁹

The apostle viewed Adam and Christ as federal heads of two groups of people. A federal head is a person who acts as the representative of many others and whose actions result in consequences that the individuals he represents inevitably experience. Examples of federal heads include a king, a president, a member of congress, and a parent, among others. In this section Paul was not looking at what individual sinners have done, which had been his interest previously. Rather he looked at the one trespass of Adam, namely the Fall, and the one righteous act of Jesus Christ, namely His death, and their consequences for those affected by their acts. Adam's act made all of his descendants sinners. We are sinners not only because we commit acts of sin but also because Adam's sin corrupted the human race and made sinning inevitable for his descendants. Christ's act made all who trust in Him righteous apart from their own works.

"The power of Christ's act of obedience to overcome Adam's act of disobedience is the great theme of this paragraph. . . .

"The main connection is with the teaching of assurance of final salvation in the immediately preceding paragraph (vv. 2b, 9-10). The passage shows why those who have been justified and reconciled can be so certain that they will be saved from wrath and share in the glory of God': it is because Christ's act of obedience ensures eternal life for all those who are in Christ.'"¹⁶⁰

5:12 Paul did not call Adam and Christ by name when he first spoke of them but referred to each as "one man."¹⁶¹ He thereby stressed the unity of the federal head with those under his authority who are also "men" (i.e., people).

We might interpret this verse as meaning that Adam only set a bad example for mankind that everyone has followed if we did not continue reading. Adam's sin had a more direct and powerful effect than that of a bad example (v. 15).

Paul personified sin presenting it as an evil power. He probably meant both physical and spiritual death.

Why did Paul and God hold Adam responsible for the sinfulness of the race when it was really Eve who sinned first? They did so because Adam was the person in authority over and therefore responsible for Eve (Gen. 2:18-23).

Paul compared the manner in which death entered the world, through sin, and the manner in which it spread to everyone, also through sin. Death is universal because sin is universal. Paul's concern was more with original death than with original sin.

"Death, then, is due immediately to the sinning of each individual but ultimately to the sin of Adam; for it was Adam's sin that corrupted human nature and made individual sinning an inevitability."¹⁶²

5:13-14 Paul did not carry through the comparison begun in verse 12 here. If he had it would have been "so righteousness entered the world by one man and life through righteousness." Evidently Paul broke off his statement because he wanted to develop the case of Adam. Verses 13-14 explain verse 12. He returned to the thought begun in verse 12 in verse 18.

The point of these verses is that people died physically before God gave the Mosaic Law. If there is no law, there can be no transgression (cf. 3:20). Since death is the penalty for sin, why did those people die? The answer is they died because of Adam's sin. The corporate sinning of all people "in" Adam accounts for the universality of death.

The idea that people should involuntarily suffer punishment because of the sins of another is repugnant to us. Nevertheless as the head of the human race, Adam's actions resulted in consequences that his descendants had to bear. Likewise any representative leader's decisions result in consequences his followers must bear. For example, when our president decides to sign into law some piece of legislation it becomes binding on everyone under his authority. Similarly we all bear physical characteristics that are the product of our parents' action of producing a child. It is just one of the facts of life that we all suffer the consequences of the decisions of those who have preceded us and are over us (cf. Heb. 7:9-10). Some of those consequences are good for us and others are bad for us. We have all been born sinners because of Adam's sin. Some people rebel against God because of this. However, God has promised not to reckon our sins to us if we will trust in His Son (2 Cor. 5:19). He has provided a way to secure pardon.

"Romans Five does not talk of a nature of sin received by us from Adam, but of our being made guilty by his act. We were so connected with the first Adam that we did not have to wait to be born, or to have a sinful nature; but when Adam, our representative, acted, we acted. . . .

"Every little white coffin,--yea, every coffin, should remind us of the universal effect of that sin of Adam, for it was thus and thus only that death passed to all men.'"¹⁶³

Adam was a "type" or "pattern" (Gr. tupos) of one who would follow him, namely Jesus Christ. Adam's act had universal impact and prefigured Christ's act, which also has universal impact. The point of similarity between Adam and Christ is that what each did affected many others. Each communicated what belonged to him to those he represented.

"Adam came from the earth, but Jesus is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). Adam was tested in a Garden, surrounded by beauty and love; Jesus was tempted in a wilderness, and He died on a cruel cross surrounded by hatred and ugliness. Adam was a thief, and was cast out of Paradise; but Jesus Christ turned to a thief and said, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' (Luke 23:43). The Old Testament is the book of the generations of Adam' (Gen. 5:1) and it ends with a curse' (Mal. 4:6). The New Testament is The book of the generation of Jesus Christ' (Matt. 1:1) and it ends with no more curse' (Rev. 22:3)."¹⁶⁴

5:15-17 The effect of Jesus Christ's act on people was totally different from that of Adam's and vastly superior to it, as "much more" indicates. "Much more" here shows that Jesus Christ did not just cancel the effects of Adam's sin, but he provided more than Adam lost or even possessed, namely the righteousness of God! Paul probably used the phrase "the many" to highlight the importance of Adam and Christ who were individuals (cf. Isa. 53:11-12; Mark 10:45). In the case of Adam, "the many" means all people, but in the case of Christ, "the many" means all who receive the benefit of His act, all believers.

In Adam's case a single sin by a single individual was sufficient to bring condemnation to the whole human race. In Christ's case one act of obedience, which the transgressions of many people made necessary, was sufficient to bring justification to all those who believe in Him (v. 16).

The consequence of Adam's sin was death reigning over mankind. The consequence of Christ's obedience was mankind reigning over death (v. 17). This implies the believer's resurrection and participation in Jesus Christ's reign as well as our reigning in this life.

5:18-19 These verses summarize Paul's point, as indicated by "So then" or "Consequently." They also complete the thought that Paul broke off at the end of verse 12. "Transgression" or "trespass" (cf. vv. 15, 16, 17) highlights the deliberate disobedience of Adam (v. 19; cf. Gen. 2:17). Many will become righteous (v. 19) both forensically (justified), as they believe, and practically (glorified). "The many" here, of course, means the justified.¹⁶⁵ The obedience of Christ is a reference to His death as the ultimate act of obedience rather than to His life of obedience since it is His death that saves us.

"There is no more direct statement in Scripture concerning justification than we find in verse 19 . . ."¹⁶⁶

5:20-21 One of the purposes of the Mosaic Law was to increase the sinfulness of people. It did so at least by exposing behavior that was until then not obviously contrary to God's will. God did this to prove man's sinfulness to him.

"The fact and power of sin' introduced into the world by Adam has not been decreased by the law, but given a new dimension as rebellion against the revealed, detailed will of God; sin has become transgression' . . . [cf. 7:13; Gal. 3:19]"¹⁶⁷

However when God provided Jesus Christ, He provided grace (favor) that far exceeded the sin that He exposed when He provided the Law. We could translate "abounded" or "increased" (v. 20) "superabounded."

"The apostle waxes almost ecstatic as he revels in the superlative excellence of the divine overruling that makes sin serve a gracious purpose."¹⁶⁸

Verse 21 is the grand conclusion of the argument in this pericope (5:12-21). It brings together the main concepts of sin and death, and righteousness and life. Effectively Paul played down Adam and exalted Jesus Christ.

"Paul often thinks in terms of spheres' or dominions,' and the language of reigning' is particularly well suited to this idea. Death has its own dominion: humanity as determined, and dominated, by Adam. And in this dominion, sin is in control. But those who receive the gift' (v. 17) enjoy a transfer from this domain to another, the domain of righteousness, in which grace reigns and where life is the eventual outcome."¹⁶⁹

Contrasts in Romans 5:12-21170
Two men	Adam (v. 14)	Christ (v. 14)
Two acts	One trespass in the garden (vv. 12, 15, 17, 18, 19)	One righteous act on the cross (v. 18)
Two results	Condemnation, guilt, and death (vv. 15, 16, 18, 19)	Justification, life, and kingship (vv. 17, 18, 19)
Two differences
In degree (v. 15)	Sin abounds	Grace superabounds
In operation (v. 16)	One sin by Adam resulting in condemnation and the reign of death for everyone	Many sins on Christ resulting in justification and reigning in life for believers
Two kings	Sin reigning through death (v. 17)	Grace reigning through righteousness (v. 21)
Two abundances		Of grace (v. 17)
		Of the gift of righteousness (v. 17)
Two contrasting states	Condemned people slaves of sin by Adam	Justified people reigning in life by Christ

This section (5:12-21) shows that mankind is guilty before God because all of Adam's descendants are sinners by virtue of Adam's sin. Earlier Paul wrote that we are all guilty because we have all committed acts of sin (chs. 3-4). Jesus Christ's death has removed both causes for condemnation righteously, guilt for personal sins and guilt for original sin. This section helps us understand our union with Christ that Paul explained further in chapter 6.

College: Rom 5:1-21

III. 5:1-21 - GRACE AND ASSURANCE

How does Romans 5 relate to the overall development of Paul's argument in this epistle? In my opinion it should be regarded as the conclusion of the discussion that began at 3:21. The main subject continues to be the presentation of grace as the only effective way of salvation. In 3:21-31 Paul explains the essence of grace as the free gift of God's righteousness to sinners, a righteousness established by the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ and received by faith apart from works of law. In ch. 4 he shows that being counted righteous (i.e., being justified) by faith has always been God's way of saving sinners, citing especially the example of Abraham. Now in ch. 5 the Apostle sets forth one of the most important immediate results of justification by faith, namely, assurance of salvation.

In one way or another almost all commentators describe ch. 5 this way. They use a variety of terms but say the same thing, i.e., that this chapter presents the results, fruits, benefits, blessings, effects, or consequences of justification by faith. Though these benefits may be enumerated in various ways (e.g., peace, hope, joy), they all may be summed up in one word: assurance .

A. ASSURANCE OF PERSONAL SALVATION (5:1-11)

The first half of Romans 5 shows how justification by faith yields a genuine sense of assurance of personal salvation, a conviction of being at peace with God and accepted by God. The main point of the passage is "the certainty of Christian hope" (Moo, I:317), or the "certainty of salvation" (Erdman, 61). Its theme is that "those who have been justified by God have peace with God" (Cranfield, I:257-258). "Such peace with God, such access to a loving Father, such unclouded hope of glory, are the sure and inevitable blessings of all who are justified by faith" (Erdman, 64). This is what these verses teach.

A sense of personal assurance is the privilege of every Christian, and we cannot overemphasize the blessedness of it. Unfortunately, many Christians do not have this sense of assurance, mainly because they do not understand its proper basis. What is that proper basis? It is the knowledge that we are justified by our faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. That is the point of 5:1-11.

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

5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . . "Therefore" introduces the practical conclusion to be drawn from the presentation of grace in 3:21-4:25. "Since we have been justified through faith" sums up the main point of that passage and states the heart of grace. The verb is aorist (past) tense, indicating that justification is an event that has already occurred in the experience of Paul's Christian readers. This past act, however, produces a continuing state of being justified, so that the Christian is a justified person, a forgiven person. "Through faith" indicates the means by which we first became justified, and also the means by which we remain justified.

The main point here is the cause-and-effect relationship between justification and peace: because we have been justified, "we have peace with God." This refers to an objective state of peace, a cessation of hostilities and an end of enmity between God and the sinner. The relation between God and unbelievers is a kind of warfare; each is the enemy of the other. The unbeliever fights against God in rebellion, lawlessness, and fear; God's righteous holiness is turned against the sinner in wrath and hatred (Ps 5:5-6). But God's righteous love initiates a process of reconciliation (5:10-11), leading to this state of peace in which we are no longer God's enemies but are his friends. The key element in this process of reconciliation, of course, is "the death of his Son" (5:10); thus Paul says our peace with God comes "through our Lord Jesus Christ."

This peace is an objective state, not a subjective feeling; but we may rightly infer that peace as a subjective state of mind is the natural consequence of being at peace with God and knowing it.

This latter point - knowing it - is crucial for attaining subjective peace. The fact is that Christians truly are justified and truly are at peace with God; but often because of confusion concerning how faith, works, and justification are related, they do not understand their own status before God and do not have true inner peace. This is why it is so important to understand what Paul is teaching about law and grace in Romans 1-4. Only when we understand that we are justified by faith apart from works of law (3:28) can we have this inner peace, which is a basic element of assurance of salvation.

Beginning with the state of enmity, the following sequence of events thus takes place: God's love sent Jesus to die in our place, removing God's own enmity toward us. We accepted God's offer of reconciliation in faith, giving up our enmity toward him. God then bestowed his gift of righteousness upon us, i.e., he justified us. This was the beginning of our objective state of peace with God. Because we understand the meaning of these events, we have a feeling of inner peace. In other words, because we know that we are in a right relationship with God, we have assurance of our salvation. We know that if we were to die now, or if Christ were to come at this moment, we would be saved, because we will meet him as friends and not as enemies.

Verse 1 contains a textual variation for the verb translated "we have." In some ancient manuscripts this verb is indicative, a statement of fact: "we have peace with God" (NIV, NASB, KJV, RSV, NRSV). In other manuscripts it is subjunctive, an exhortation: " let us have peace with God" (see Goodspeed, Moffatt, NEB, Phillips). Though the latter has better textual support, the former makes more sense in the context and is preferred by most commentators, including myself. As Lard says, "Peace is a fact which results from justification, not something which the justified are merely exhorted to have, but may not have" (153).

5:2 Verse 2 continues the thought by speaking of Jesus as the one through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. The work of Jesus is always the cause of our salvation, the meritorious ground or basis which makes it possible. "By faith" is simply the means by which we personally receive the gift of grace made available through his work.

Because of the demonstrative pronoun, "this grace" must refer specifically to something named in the preceding verse. Paul is most certainly referring to the state of justification (Murray, I:160; Cranfield, I:259), though he may also mean the state of peace with God. Most likely "this grace" includes both, since they are inseparable.

In any case Paul describes "this grace" as a state or sphere that is entered and in which one stands . The idea of entering grace is seen in the phrase "we have gained access." This is not the best translation; the language suggests personal accomplishment ("gained") rather than a free gift. Also, "access" suggests the continuing availability of grace as needed, which is not the idea here (Mounce, 134; Moo, I:308). The word for "access" is better rendered "entry" or "introduction" (NASB); this is consistent with the preposition "into" ( eis ) before "grace" (Lard, 154; Moo, I:308). The idea is that at a certain point of time we entered into the state of grace; we were introduced into it by Jesus Christ.

Paul also says grace is a state "in which we now stand," within which we securely rest. " We stand translates a perfect tense, used in the sense of the present," says Morris (219). The idea seems to be that of a continuing, abiding existence within the state of grace, rather than a sporadic, revolving-door, "now you're in, now you're out" condition. The word "to stand" suggests that our position in grace is firm and secure, rather than tentative and precarious (see Stott, 140). We are standing on a firm foundation, rather than clinging by our fingertips to some weak and tattered cord.

The point is that grace is like a room into which we enter by the door of Jesus Christ, a room which becomes our refuge and in which we continue to dwell. It is the sphere of our Christian existence, "the sphere of God's grace" (NEB) as opposed to the sphere of law.

Verse 2 concludes with these words: And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. This affirmation is parallel to "we have peace with God" in v. 1. "Peace" is our present relationship with God; "hope of glory" (Col 1:27) points to our future heavenly inheritance.

"The glory of God" (see 3:23) in this verse is surely a reference to the final, eschatological revelation of God's majesty and splendor (Lard, 155; Cranfield, I:260). Our hope is not only that we will one day behold his glory (DeWelt, 73), but that in a limited sense we will actually participate in it (Murray, I:162) or partake of it (MacArthur, I:280). The latter will be true in the sense that we will have a glorified body like the glorified human body of Christ (8:29-30; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2), and in the sense that we will actually dwell in the beneficent radiance of God's glorious presence (Rev 21:3-4, 23; 22:4-5).

Paul says that we who are justified by faith and have peace with God have hope of this glory. As noted earlier (4:18), in the Bible the Christian's hope is not an uncertain wish or an unfounded longing, but a confident expectation of our future possession of all the elements of salvation not yet received (Cranfield, I:260; Stott, 140). Its object is not simply what we want to happen, but what God has promised will happen (see 2 Tim 1:12). See Newman and Nida, 93.

As such, biblical hope is the heart and core of the Christian's assurance of salvation. As we saw under 5:1, assurance includes first of all the subjective peace of mind that comes from knowing we are at peace with God now that we are justified by faith. We are sure of our present relationship with God. But here we see that our assurance also includes a blessed confidence about the future . We have neither anxiety nor terror as we look ahead to the day of judgment, because we know that the same justifying blood of Christ that brought us into this present relationship with God will continue to cover us and will be our passage into future glory.

No wonder "we rejoice"! The same or similar words are translated "brag" or "boast" in earlier texts (2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2), but "rejoice" is proper and preferred in this context (as in 5:3, 11). It is a stronger concept than ordinary rejoicing. Murray calls it "exultant rejoicing and confident glorying" (I:161); Cranfield adds "jubiliation" (I:259). This "exceeding great joy" rests upon the hope described above; it is the natural product and companion of assurance.

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

In this fallen world everyone suffers the general ravages of sin, sickness, and death; but Christians often suffer even more in the form of persecution from Satan and from the unbelieving world. When this happens we are strongly tempted to doubt our salvation and to question the very love of God. Thoughts like these form in our hearts: "If God really loves me, why does he let these things happen to me? It seems as if God has abandoned me; he must be punishing me for my sin. Maybe there is no God, and heaven is a myth."

This seems to be the kind of potential situation Paul is addressing in these verses. He has stressed the reality of our peace and hope that are based on the knowledge that we are justified by faith in Christ's blood. But he knows that the hope of future glory is sometimes hidden by the dark clouds of present suffering. So he reminds us that within the broad scope of God's sovereignty and love, not even tribulations can nullify our assurance of salvation. In fact, they actually strengthen it.

5:3-4 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings . . . . "Sufferings" (afflictions, hardships) is a strong term and refers to the experiences of life that press down upon us and crush us both physically and mentally. Here they include the kinds of suffering shared by all people (e.g., hunger, war, disease, death), as well as persecutions directed specifically toward Christians. The latter are not just end-time tribulations, but include the constant hostility and ongoing opposition of the unbelieving world.

Here Paul makes the unlikely assertion that we rejoice in such suffering. In v. 2 he says we rejoice in our hope, which makes perfectly good sense. But now he says we also rejoice in the very things that would seem to negate and bedim that hope. In fact, he says that in an indirect way, such sufferings even increase our hope!

This does not mean that we should deliberately seek such suffering, like masochists; nor does it necessarily mean that God is purposefully causing us to suffer, contrary to a popular idea. It is rather a recognition of the fact that, now that suffering is present in the world and is inevitable for Christians, God is able to use it in such a way that it actually adds to our assurance (8:28). Thus the Bible consistently describes the afflictions of Christians as positive experiences that produce joy and blessing. See Matt 5:4, 11-12; Acts 5:41; 2 Cor 4:17; 12:9-10; 2 Thess 1:4-5; Jas 1:2-4; 1 Pet 4:12-14.

Paul does not go into great detail in explaining how tribulations produce hope. He mentions only three steps: because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. First, suffering produces perseverance. This is uJpomonhv (hypomonç ), often translated "patience." It means patient endurance, steadfastness, the ability to bear and to bear up under whatever comes along. The assumption is that the Christian is facing his sufferings in faith, with full confidence that God will work all things for good (8:28) and that he will provide the strength necessary for such perseverance. In other words, sufferings do not in and of themselves automatically produce endurance. Rather, when we enter into such sufferings while holding onto the hand of God, he himself works endurance within us through them and for them.

Second, perseverance works character. This is dokimhv (dokimç ), which belongs to a word group that refers to the process of testing or trying or proving something, and also to the state of having been tested or proved and thus of being approved. Here it means "the quality of provedness which is possessed by faith when it has stood up to testing, like the precious metal which is left when the base metals have been refined away" (Cranfield, I:261). The NASB more appropriately translates it here as "proven character." The idea is that sufferings are like a test which, when endured by the strength which God supplies, results in a quality of life and character that has been tempered and purified and demonstrated to be pleasing to God. (See Zech 13:9.)

Finally, proven character produces hope. This assumes that we as Christians are consciously aware that we have stood up under the trial of our sufferings, and that God has been with us and has not allowed us to be defeated by them. This gives us even more confidence in God, and the sense that nothing, not even the worst tribulations, can separate us from the grace of God and prevent us from entering eternal life. Thus our hope is strengthened and confirmed. As Morris says (221), "The Christian who has been tested has proved God's faithfulness and will surely hope the more confidently."

5:5 Assurance of salvation is ultimately based on the assurance that God really does love us, that he is truly on our side, that he is for us and not against us. The various trials and sufferings of this life can very easily cause us to lose sight of this crucial and basic truth of God's love. Thus here Paul stresses that no matter how severe our present trials may be, our hope is still secure because we know for a fact that God loves us.

And hope does not disappoint us . . . . The word for "disappoint" is more properly translated "does not cause us to be ashamed." The tense is present, but it points also to the future, especially to the end time when our hope will be fulfilled and we will be vindicated for continuing to hope "against all hope" (4:18). We will not be personally disappointed, nor will we have to feel humilation and shame in the face of mocking and ridicule from the enemies of Christ. Our hope is solidly based; it will not let us down now and will not prove vain in the future.

. . . because God has poured out his love into our hearts . . . . Our hope is certain because it is grounded upon the reality of the love of God. The original text is passive; it reads, "the love of God has been poured out." The NIV rightly identifies "the love of God" as "God's love toward us" ("his love") rather than "our love toward God." Only the former fits the context. "Into our hearts" refers to the soul or spirit (as distinct from the body), which includes the "conscious inner life" of the person (Schlatter, 122). Thus Paul is talking about how the love of God becomes present within our inner life and in a sense present to our consciousness. It becomes present within us by being "poured out" into our hearts. The imagery of "pouring out" represents the concept of abundance . God's love comes to us as a brimming and overflowing river (Bartlett, 61), in "immeasurable torrents" (MacArthur, I:283), in "unstinting lavishness" (Cranfield, I:263).

God's love is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. This refers to the gift consisting of the Holy Spirit, who himself was poured out from heaven on Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18, 33) and who is poured out into the heart of each individual believer in the act of baptism (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5-6). Here "given us" refers to the latter event.

The main question now is, how does the Holy Spirit pour God's love into our hearts? We must pay close attention to the wording. For one thing, Paul specifically says that the love of God itself is poured out, not the consciousness or awareness of it. Thus we must be careful not to limit the outpouring of love to the latter. Also, Paul does not specifically say that the pouring out occurs when the Spirit is given to us; the expression "whom he has given us" is simply a phrase describing the Spirit. Thus the outpouring need not be limited to the time when the Spirit is given. With these cautions in mind, we may identify three ways in which the Holy Spirit pours out God's love into our hearts.

First, as the divine author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit does pour out the knowledge of God's love into our hearts through the biblical testimony to the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which is the greatest possible demonstration of God's love (John 3:16; 15:13; Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:8-10). The fact that God loves us is objectively revealed in the very events of redemption; and the knowledge of this love is objectively recorded for us in the words of Scripture, which were given through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Our subjective knowledge or awareness of this love is thus poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit primarily through his inspired Word. We must be on guard here against unwarranted subjectivism.

Second, the Holy Spirit pours the love of God into our hearts as the agent by which the blessings of redemption are applied to us in the initial moment of our salvation. That God's love is poured out into our hearts somehow means that we now possess it. Exactly what do we possess? Not the love of God as the inner attribute of his nature, nor as the subjective attitude of his heart toward us. Rather, we possess the love of God in the concrete form of the gifts and blessings produced for us by and because of his inner affection toward us. In fact, the Holy Spirit himself is one of the primary gifts of God's love to us; when God pours out the Spirit into us (Titus 3:6), he is in that very event pouring out his love into us. The Holy Spirit in turn lavishly pours out further gifts of God's love, i.e., the renewing and regeneration of the new birth (Titus 3:5; John 3:5) and his ongoing, ever-present sanctifying power (8:13; Eph 3:16). This is why our hope does not disappoint us, because the Holy Spirit as the initial gift of God's love has already been poured out in us and is already present within us as the first-fruits of the fullness of eschatological glory (8:23), and as the earnest or down payment guaranteeing our full and final salvation (Eph 1:13-14). This is Paul's primary point.

Third, the Holy Spirit pours the love of God into our hearts by strengthening our inner conviction of the certainty of God's love for us personally. Most commentators tend to ignore the first two points above and to focus entirely upon this subjective experience. Dunn says Paul is referring here to "deep emotional experiences" common to Christians, especially the "awareness of being loved" (I:265). Moo says it means "the inner, subjective certainty that God does love us," as an "internal, subjective, yes, even emotional sensation" (I:312-313). The Spirit gives us a "fresh awareness" and "the assurance" of God's love (Mounce, 135; Murray, I:165).

Certainly we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit strengthens and sharpens our awareness of and faith in God's love as a part of his sanctifying work in our hearts. But we must be careful not to separate this from the first two points above, as if some purely subjective experience of God's love were the basis for our hope. However important this inward strengthening of the Spirit may be, our hope is not based on this subjective experience as such. The fact is that this subjective experience presupposes and supplements several prior objective realities: the atoning death of Christ, the Spirit's inspiration of Scripture, our hearing and obeying of the gospel, and our reception of the Holy Spirit himself in Christian baptism. All of these things together constitute the outpouring of the love of God into our hearts, and together they assure us that our hope will not make us ashamed.

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

The next six verses are an exposition of the point stated above, that assurance of salvation is ultimately based on the assurance that God really loves us. Here Paul explains how we can know for sure that God loves us, and he explains how this knowledge is the way to assurance.

One key element in Paul's argument is the distinction or contrast between what we were before we turned to God for salvation, and what we are now , in the present state of grace. The main point is this: if, while we were God's enemies , he loved us so much that he was willing to die for us, how can we think that he loves us any less now that we are his friends ?

The other key element in the argument is the comparison between the first and second transitions in the process of our salvation. The first one, already accomplished, is the transition from wrath to grace . The second, which is yet to come, is the transition from grace to glory . Which of these transitions is the more difficult, the more radical, the less likely and less expected? The first one, by far. Yet, because of his love and by the power of the cross, God has brought us through this first transition, through faith. The main point now is this: if we have already experienced the first transition, which was infinitely unlikely and even impossible from the standpoint of human expectation, how much more can we confidently expect God to bring us through the second transition as well? We came through the first one by faith apart from works of law; are we now trying to make the second one somehow more difficult than the first?

In this present section (5:6-8) Paul focuses on what we were , prior to the first transition. His point is that no matter how miserable and hopeless our condition was then, God still loved us so much that Christ died for us.

5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Manuscripts differ slightly as to the transitional words at the beginning of v. 6. Some have ei[ ge ( ei ge ), "if indeed"; others have e[ti gavr ( eti gar ), "for nevertheless." The latter is preferred; gar provides an explanatory link with vv. 3-5. The love of God has been poured out into our hearts, and we have hope, because we have heard the gospel of the cross.

As Godet says (191), this verse "describes the miserable condition in which we were at the time when divine love was extended to us." First, we were ajsqenhv" (asthençs ), "powerless, weak, helpless, without strength." Here this means not the finiteness of the creature, but the helplessness of the sinner. It refers to that state of "moral sickness" in which we were mired (Godet, 192), "that helpless weakness of sin which so incapacitated us as to render us incapable of goodness" (MP, 332). Also, we were totally helpless to do anything about it; we were unable to save ourselves.

Second, we were ajsebhv" (asebçs ), "wicked, ungodly" (see 1:18; 4:5). This means that we were in a state of opposition to God and his law, and were totally undeserving of his loving forgiveness. It means that we were standing in his wrath, since the wrath of God is against all the wickedness ( asebeia ) of men (1:18).

These adjectives describe the condition of the whole fallen human race, and the plight of each individual in our unsaved state as God viewed us in his foreknowledge from the perspective of eternity past. ("We" refers to all human beings.) Even then he loved us so much that he planned the atonement (Rev 13:8); and "at just the right time" in history (see Gal 4:4), Christ came and died for us. This explains how God is able to justify the wicked (asebçs ), as 4:5 declares. As the saying goes, "Love will find a way."

In the expression "Christ died for the ungodly," the word "for" is uJpevr ( hyper , v. 8 also). It means "for" in the sense of "on behalf of, for the sake of." Though some question this, it can also mean more precisely "in the place of, instead of." In other words, it can have the connotation of substitution; and when used here for the death of Christ it connotes the substitutionary atonement. Harris ("Prepositions," 1196) explains that the word originally meant "over" or "above." Thus the meaning "on behalf of" seems "to have arisen from the image of one person standing or bending over another in order to protect or shield him, or of a shield lifted over the head which suffers the blow instead of the person." It is easy to see how it would also come to mean "in the place of."

5:7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. This verse raises a number of exegetical questions. One is whether the adjectives "righteous" and "good" are meant to be neuter or masculine (in the genitive they have the same form). If the former, Paul is saying it is difficult to find anyone who will die for a just and good cause . If the latter, "a righteous man" and "a good man" are correct. The latter seems the better choice, since the comparison is with Christ dying for people rather than a cause.

Another issue is whether the "righteous man" and the "good man" are basically the same, or whether there is a significant distinction between them. Those who take the latter view usually say the "good man" is somehow better and more likeable than the other, and that Paul is thus presenting a progression of thought: "It's really hard to find anyone who would give his life for a pedantic, holier-than-thou legalist, but you might find some who would die for a nice, generous, neighborly sort of guy."

I agree with Hendriksen, though, that such efforts to distinguish these words in this text amount to "over-interpretation." The distinction, he says, "should not be pressed" (I:172-173). The two clauses are best understood as saying the same thing in different ways. The first says it negatively: scarcely ever will anyone die for a righteous man. The second says it positively: well, maybe - possibly, perhaps - someone could be found who would do this. And if this is such a rarity, it goes without saying that we might as well give up trying to find anyone willing to die for a wicked and unjust person!

But is this not the very point Paul is making? There is indeed someone who was willing to die for the weak and the wicked, namely, Jesus our Lord! Thus the contrast here is not between the righteous man and the good man, but between the (hypothetical) good and righteous man of v. 7, and the weak and ungodly persons of v. 6. The latter are the very ones for whom Christ died! And if it is so difficult to find someone who is willing to die for a good man, then how much more amazing it is that he died for weak and ungodly sinners! In view of this contrast, the love of God is magnified even more, as Paul now states:

5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. He died "for" us ( hyper , see v. 6) while we were weak, ungodly sinners. This was our condition in the mind of God when he determined to give his only-begotten Son to be the propitiation for our sins. What more could he do to show us that he really and truly loves us? This actually proves it, says Paul. The word for "demonstrates" has the connotation of proof. That Christ died for our sins, while we were sinners, is proof of his love.

This is why Paul can say that God has "poured out" his love into our hearts (v. 5). Whenever we hear and meditate upon the message of the cross, it floods our consciousness with the awareness of just how much God loved us and still loves us.

This is why we know our hope will not disappoint us. The reality of the cross is set over against whatever sufferings may come upon us. When suffering afflicts us and tempts us to doubt God's love for us and thus challenges our assurance, we must remember the cross. The worst suffering this world can inflict cannot silence the resounding voice crying out from the cross, "God loves you! God loves you!"

4. Our Hope Is Even More Secure

Now That We Are His Friends (5:9-11)

In this paragraph Paul brings into full view the contrast between what we were and what we are, and the relative ease of the remaining transition from grace to glory as compared with the already-accomplished transition from wrath to grace. Actually Paul's point here is that there are three stages in the Christian's spiritual journey, marked by the two transitions. In these verses they are named thus: (1) enemies; (2) justified and reconciled; (3) saved. The point is that if God's love has brought us from the first to the second stage, it will all the more surely bring us from the second to the third.

A more complete chart of these stages and transitions, based on this entire section (5:1-11) follows:

PAST PRESENT FUTURE Powerless (v. 6) Justified (vv. 1, 9) Glory of God (v. 2) Ungodly (6) Peace with God (1) Saved from Sinners (8) Standing in grace (2) wrath (9) Enemies of Rejoicing in hope (2, 11) (Fully) saved (10) God (10) Rejoicing in suffering (3) God's love in our hearts (5) Holy Spirit within us (5) Under Christ's blood (9) Reconciled to God (10, 11) The key words in this paragraph are "much more." We may think of this passage as teaching us the "much more" of Christian assurance. We know that God has already brought us from wrath to grace through the greatest possible demonstration of his love, even though we were his enemies at the time. Therefore, now that we are his friends, we can have much more confidence that his love and Christ's blood will suffice to take us on to glory.

Verses 9 and 10 are parallel in form, both making this same point in different ways. Verse 9 emphasizes justification and thus our changed legal standing before God; verse 10 focuses on reconciliation and thus our changed personal relationship with God (Hendriksen, I:174). Each is an argument from the greater to the lesser, thus: "If God has already done the most difficult thing, reconcile and justify unworthy sinners, how much more can he be depended on to accomplish the 'easier' thing, save from eschatological wrath those who have been brought into such relationship with him" (Moo, I:318). As Godet puts it, "When one has done the most for his enemies , he does not refuse to do the least for his friends" (194).

5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! The opening words of this verse in the Greek are "Therefore much more." The word "therefore" shows that Paul is drawing a conclusion from the fact stated in v. 8, which is the "greater" element in his argument, v. 9 being the "lesser." The words "much more" are put here for emphasis.

The word "now" points to the present stage of our spiritual odyssey, as compared both with the past stage ("sinners," v. 8) and the future stage ("saved," v. 9b). Where are we, now ? In 5:2 Paul says we are "standing in grace," which he here says includes being "justified." This is an aorist participle, referring to the past act in which God declared us righteous, resulting in the continuing state of being justified (see 5:1).

"By his blood" refers of course to the blood poured out on Calvary when Christ put himself in our place and suffered the eternal wrath of God for us. It is the efficacious basis for our justification. God counts us as righteous because he accepts Christ's payment of our penalty in our place. We stand in justification because we are now standing under his blood, which is over us as a shield from God's wrath. Standing in grace thus includes standing under the blood. See 3:24-26.

Our future state is described as being saved from God's wrath. Here "saved" is future tense and refers to our final salvation on the day of judgment (see 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5). "God's wrath" is the sentence of condemnation at the final judgment and eternal consignment to the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15). This is the ultimate outpouring of divine wrath (1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; 2 Thess 1:7-9; Rev 6:16-17; 11:18). As Christians justified by Christ's blood, we know that this is not our destiny; "no wrath is reserved for the justified at the judgment seat" (Murray, I:171).

Paul continues to remind us that this is all because of Jesus Christ. We became and remain justified "by his blood," and we shall be saved from wrath "through him!" "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (8:1), i.e., under his blood.

5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Here the form of the argument is exactly the same as v. 9, with the focus being on reconciliation rather than justification. The past-present-future theme is clearly stated: enemies, reconciled, saved. That the greater transition gives us assurance of the yet-to-come lesser one is emphasized by the repeated words, "much more."

The transition from being God's enemy to being in a state of reconciliation with him is as radical a transition as can be imagined. The worst possible situation a creature can be in is to be an enemy of God. This relationship of enmity includes, of course, the sinner's hostility toward and hatred of God (8:7; Col 1:21), which must be removed in the process of reconciliation. But it also includes God's hostility toward and hatred of the sinner (11:28), which must also be removed in this process.

It is a myth that God hates the sin but does not hate the sinner also. "You hate all who do wrong," says Ps 5:5. "The Lord detests men of perverse heart" (Prov 11:20). See also Deut 25:16; Ps 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; 16:5; 17:15; Jer 12:8; Mal 1:3; Rom 9:13. In the state of enmity, not only are we against God; he is also against us. "The face of the Lord is against those who do evil" (Ps 34:16; 1 Pet 3:12). "I am against you," are the words God hurls in the faces of sinners (Jer 21:13; 50:31; Ezek 13:8; 21:3; 26:3). This is the whole point of the wrath of God. It is his righteous judicial enmity toward those who are against him (1:18-32).

Paul's point is that, even while we were in this state of mutual hostility, God took the initiative to eliminate the enmity and bring about reconciliation between the warring parties. This means that the infinite and all-conquering love of God co-existed within his nature alongside his own enmity toward us in a kind of tension. But in accordance with his eternal wisdom, his love was able to find a way for him to give full expression to his righteous wrath and enmity, while at the same time offering reconciliation to repentant sinners. This "way" of course was "through the death of his Son," which was a propitiatory sacrifice that allowed God to pour out his wrath upon Jesus instead of upon us. Thus through the death of Jesus God's wrath is satisfied and his own enmity is set aside. This is the first step to reconciliation.

The second step is to confront sinners with the reality of what God has done, and to persuade them to give up their own enmity toward him and allow him to cancel his enmity toward them personally (5:11; 2 Cor 5:20). Only when this takes place does the reconciled state actually begin. At that point the "peace with God" of which 5:1 speaks begins to exist.

Now comes the argument from the greater to the lesser: "If God has done so much for his enemies, what will he not do for his friends?" (Erdman, 63-64). Being his friends, how much more can we now count on him to take us on to the final state of glory! God is no longer against us; he is for us (8:31), imperfect though we are. He surely will not abandon us now.

Again Paul refers to this future stage as "being saved," i.e., receiving the full and final salvation of heaven. "Through his life" refers to Christ's risen and glorified life as he exists at the right hand of the Father in his ongoing intercessory ministry (Mounce, 138). See 4:25; 8:34. This will come to a climax on the day of judgment, when Christ the Judge will himself intercede for us and continue to cover our sins with his blood and usher us into eternal life.

Paul's greater-to-lesser argument for assurance of salvation, based on the much more radical nature of the first transition as compared with the second, may be illustrated thus. The gap or chasm separating our former state (wrath) from our present state (grace) was like the Grand Canyon in its vastness; but the love of God and the cross of Christ were able to bridge that chasm, and we crossed the bridge through faith. Now, the gap separating our present state (grace) from the future one (glory) is like a small drainage ditch by comparison. Surely the same means that brought us across the first gap are more than sufficient to get us across the second one.

The three key factors mentioned by Paul as the means of bridging these gaps are first and most important, the love of God (vv. 5, 8); second, the cross of Christ as the product of that love (vv. 1-2, 6, 8-11); and finally, our faith as that which clings to the cross (vv. 1, 2). We must be especially aware of this third one. We must not think that from the standpoint of our own participation in this process of salvation, God is somehow making it harder for us to cross the second and smaller gap than it was for us to cross the first and greater one. If we made the first transition by faith apart from works, so shall we make the second. We were justified by faith in the beginning, we are justified by faith now, and we shall be justified by faith in the end.

5:11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. "This" refers to "shall be saved" in vv. 9 and 10, namely, our future salvation. Paul is reminding us that our salvation is not just future; it has already begun. We have already received the reconciliation and possess it now as the result of being justified now (5:9).

Thus even now our lives are filled with rejoicing in God . This is the same word used in vv. 2 and 3, where the NIV also translates it "rejoice." In 2:17, where the word probably has the connotation of bragging or boasting in God, Paul reproves the Jews for joyfully boasting in God in reference to his Law, or more specifically in reference to their own prideful use of that Law. Here in 5:11 Paul shows us how to rightfully boast or rejoice in God, namely, in reference to his grace . We are constantly overwhelmed with "jubilant exultation" (Cranfield, I:268) as we think about what God has done for us through Jesus Christ. And why should God's people not rejoice, asks Bruce, when they know that "the end to which they confidently look forward is no longer the outpouring of divine wrath but the unveiling of divine glory" (121)!

Finally we must call attention to the way Paul has exalted Jesus Christ throughout this passage as the one who has made grace and assurance possible. Ten times in these 11 verses the saving role of Jesus is thrust before our consciousness: "through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . through whom . . . Christ died . . . Christ died . . . by his blood . . . through him . . . through the death of his Son . . . through his life . . . through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . through whom." He, and not ourselves - what he has done, not what we have done or are doing - is the source and basis for our assurance of salvation.

B. THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF

THE DEATH OF CHRIST (5:12-21)

This section, which serves as the conclusion to the second main section of Romans (3:21-5:21), has a reputation for difficulty. No passage in the New Testament, says Barclay, "is more difficult for a modern mind to understand" (77). Long ago Lard (162-163) acknowledged these difficulties, but regarded them as "exaggerated." In a real sense Lard is right. There are some genuine exegetical problems here; but once four key questions are answered, the overall meaning of the passage becomes quite clear.

The first question is this: What is the purpose of this passage in relation to the epistle as a whole? This passage is best understood as continuing the theme of assurance that began with 5:1. In 5:1-11 Paul assures us that we can put all our hope and confidence in one saving act (the cross) of one man (Jesus Christ). We have pointed out how in those 11 verses the apostle makes 10 references to the saving efficacy of Christ and his cross. In light of this someone might begin to wonder, "Isn't this expecting an awfully lot from just one man?" This is indeed what the gospel asks us to believe, that essentially one act of just one man has the power to save the whole world from all its sins. It calls upon us to "put all our eggs in one basket," so to speak. But how can this be? Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, Stott (148-149) asks how can "so many owe so much to only one person"? As MacArthur words it (I:291), "How could what one man did at one time in history have such an absolute effect on mankind?"

In order to show that this is not as far-fetched as we might at first think, Paul calls attention to the man whose one act has already been demonstrated to have a universal effect upon the human race, namely, Adam. Then he uses this by way of comparison and contrast to show that the "one righteous act" of the one man, Jesus, will surely be just as efficacious and universal as the "one sinful act" of the one man, Adam - and even "much more" (5:15, 17). His argument moves from the lesser to the greater. If we can accept the fact that the one sin of a mere man has brought sin and death upon the whole world, then we can surely believe that the atoning death of the Son of God has brought salvation upon the whole world. The purpose of the passage, then, is to increase our confidence in the all-sufficiency of the death of Christ.

The second preliminary question is this: Does this paragraph teach the doctrine of original sin? It is not wrong to raise this question. Indeed, we cannot read Paul's many references to Adam and to the universal consequences of his one sin without wondering about it. Adam's sin brought death, judgment, and condemnation upon all; by his one sin all were made sinners. Does this mean that every child is conceived and born sinful, and born condemned to death and eternal punishment? Is this the main doctrine Paul wants to establish in this passage?

The fact is that at least since the time of Augustine (early fifth century), many in Christendom have used these verses to construct this very doctrine. Because the concept of original sin has had such a profound and far-reaching impact upon Christian thought as a whole, Barclay has rightly said that no passage in the NT "has had such an influence on theology as this passage" (77). The doctrine of original sin basically teaches that, in addition to physical death, Adam's first sin brought severe spiritual consequences upon all his natural descendants. The term itself refers not to that first sin but to the spiritual state in which children are conceived and born as the result of it.

Now the question is this: does 5:12-21 actually teach some form of original sin? Without doubt Paul is here affirming that Adam's sin did bring serious consequences upon all his offspring. Our understanding of the exact nature of these consequences depends upon how we interpret the terms "death," "judgment," "condemnation," and "made sinners" as used in the text. Many have tried to limit them all to physical death only, thus denying that 5:12-21 teaches any sort of original sin. Others believe that these terms, both in themselves and as compared with the blessings received from Christ, must refer to something much more serious than physical death by itself. Thus they conclude that this text does indeed teach original sin.

The biggest problem with this whole approach is that it implicitly assumes that Paul's main subject here is Adam and his sin and its consequences. But that is not the case. Paul did not write this passage just to teach a doctrine of original sin. Yes, he does declare that Adam's sin brought all these terrible things upon the human race, but that is not his main point. His main subject is Jesus and his cross and the universal, all-sufficient consequences of that saving event. His purpose is not to emphasize what happened to the race as the result of Adam's sin, but to emphasize what has happened to it as the result of Christ's saving work.

The fact is that it really does not matter which view of "original sin" one holds. Did Adam's sin bring only physical death upon us? Or did it also bring spiritual depravity - partial or total? Did it also make us guilty sinners, condemned to eternal punishment in hell? In the final analysis it does not matter what content anyone feels compelled to pour into the concept of "original sin," because Paul's main point is this: whatever the whole human race got (or would have got) from Adam has been completely canceled out for the whole human race by the gracious atoning work of Jesus Christ . Make the Adamic legacy as dire as you want: physical death, total depravity, genuine guilt and condemnation to hell. The whole point of the passage is that Christ's "one act of righteousness" (5:18) has completely intercepted, nullified, negated, canceled, and counteracted whatever was destined to be ours because of Adam. All the potential spiritual consequences of Adam's sin are intercepted even before they can be applied. The only consequence that actually takes effect is physical death, and it is countered with the promise of resurrection to eternal life.

This understanding of 5:12-21 and original sin has been clearly understood at least since the Reformation, when it was taught by Anabaptist writers, and is widely accepted within the Wesleyan tradition. Also, this principle has been most clearly stated in earlier Restoration Movement writings. As A.I. Hobbs succinctly puts it,

It should be emphasized that, under the reign of grace, whatever death was brought upon our race through Adamic sin by reason of his federal headship was annulled by reason of the federal headship of the second Adam. . . . What, without our will or consent, we lost in the first Adam, we have regained or shall regain in the second Adam, without our will or consent ("Conversion," 269).

Robert Milligan repeats this principle and concludes that "no man need, therefore, feel any concern or anxiety about the sin of Adam and its effects on his posterity" ( Scheme , 60). See also J.S. Lamar ("Ground," 105); McGarvey and Pendleton (336-337); and Lard (174).

What does this mean? It means that there is no doctrine of original sin taught in 5:12-21. No child is actually conceived and born under the curse of Adam's sin. If anything, this passage teaches a doctrine of original grace : every child is born under the grace of God, born saved, "born free" from all spiritual effects of Adam's sin, and born with the guarantee of ultimate freedom from all physical effects of that sin by means of the resurrection unto glory. God began to apply this "original grace" to the first generation of Adam's own children, in the same way that the results of the cross were applied retrospectively to believing adults in the pre-Christian era (3:25).

We are now ready for the third question: What is the scope of the words MANY and ALL as they are used in 5:12-21? These terms appear at crucial points in the text. "Death came to all men" (5:12). By Adam's trespass "many died," but Christ's grace overflowed "to the many" (5:15). Through Adam came "condemnation for all men," but through Christ came justification of life "for all men" (5:18). In Adam "the many were made sinners," but in Christ "the many will be made righteous" (5:19). Exactly who are meant to be included in these terms?

What is at stake here is this: if the answer given to the second question above is correct, as it so obviously seems to be, why do so many still believe and teach a doctrine of original sin? The answer lies in how they interpret "many" and "all" in the verses cited above.

Most interpreters, even those who hold to original sin, generally agree that there is no difference in scope between the two terms themselves. I.e., "many" and "all" refer to the same group of people. The term "many" is not intended to be set in contrast with "all," but rather in contrast with "one." Even though Adam is just one man, his one sin had consequences that extend to the many (i.e., more than one). Even though Christ is just one man, his one act likewise applies to the many . The term "all" is then used to convey the connotation of totality, but is not meant to be broader in scope than "the many." I am in total agreement with this.

Wherein lies the problem, then? It lies in the way these two terms are applied to Adam on the one hand and to Christ on the other hand. The most commonly-held idea seems to be that when these terms are used in relation to Adam's sin, they are completely universal in scope; but when they are used in relation to the work of Christ, they are more limited and restricted in scope and do not really mean "all." In Stott's words, "The 'all men' who are affected by the work of Christ cannot refer to absolutely everybody," as it does for Adam (159). Adam did indeed inflict the entire race with the consequences of his sin, but the atoning work of Christ canceled out these consequences only for the smaller group of those who are actually saved. "Original sin," however understood, thus remains intact for the rest of mankind.

One way of saying this is that Christ's one righteous act is able to cancel original sin for everyone, that it has the power or potential to do so; but in fact it does so only for those who consciously receive the gift of grace through faith (5:17). E.g., MacArthur says the passage teaches that "all can be made righteous in Christ," that "Christ's one sacrifice made salvation available to all mankind" (I:297, 302). Mounce says, "Just as condemnation spread to all, so also is the divine acquittal offered to all" (144).

More often, however, especially for those who hold to the classical Augustinian doctrine of original sin, the distinction between Adam's "all" and Christ's "all" is stated thus: the consequences of Adam's act extended to all who were in him or belonged to him when he sinned-which includes the whole race; but the consequences of Christ's act extended only to "all" who were in him or belonged to him when he died-which includes only the elect. "Both Adam and Christ would then be viewed as inclusive representatives whose actions can be considered as the actions also of those who belong to them" (Moo, I:340). In v. 18, says Mounce, the contrast is between "all who are in Adam" and "all who are in Christ" (145).

What I want to emphasize, however, is that all such approaches to 5:12-21 are false; all attempts to reduce the "many" and "all" when used of Christ to anything less than their scope when used of Adam must be rejected. The reason should be obvious: such a discrepancy in the numbers would negate the whole purpose of the Adam-Christ comparison! The question of assurance is this: can I have confidence that Christ's work is sufficient for taking away all my sins - and those of the whole world as well? Paul's answer is "Yes! You can have such assurance! Look at what has already been done as the result of his work: his one righteous act has already counteracted everything brought upon everyone by Adam. This is the stepping stone for our confidence that his work is capable of 'much more' (5:15, 17), i.e., it is capable of taking away all the consequences of our personal sins as well."

Thus to maintain the basic theme of assurance, we must insist that the terms "many" and "all" when used of Christ are at least as broad in scope as when used of Adam. Adam's sin brought sin, death, judgment, and condemnation upon every member of the human race; likewise Christ's atoning act brought righteousness, justification, and life upon every member of the human race. Schlatter (126) asks, "How is the work of the one through whom all are what they are canceled? Through the one who acts as effectively for all as the first one did" (italics added). The failure to acknowledge this is the greatest hindrance to a proper understanding of this passage; it is also the single most influential reason why many still believe this passage teaches a doctrine of original sin.

This leads to the fourth and final preliminary question: Does this passage teach universal salvation, then? Some believe that Paul's use of "all" and the inclusive "many" do indeed suggest universalism. Käsemann (157) asks, "Does not the hope of general restoration . . . come to expression here" if we take these terms seriously? Surely "all-powerful grace is unthinkable without eschatological universalism." Reflecting on 5:18 Dunn opines that we should not "exclude the possibility that Paul . . . cherished the hope of such a universal salvation . . . . How, after all, can grace be 'so much more' in its effect if it is less universal than the effect of death?" (I:297).

Many of those who limit the "all" to whom Christ's work applies in 5:12-21 do so because they think that to do otherwise is to embrace such universalism. For example, Stott very clearly implies that taking "all" to mean "everybody without exception" is "to believe in universal salvation" (159). Many have uncritically assumed this to be so.

The answer to the question, however, is NO! Romans 5:12-21 does not teach universal salvation, and taking the "all" and "many" who receive Christ's grace to refer to the whole human race does not entail such universalism. Why not? Because the primary focus of the passage as a whole and of these words specifically is how the work of Christ counteracts and cancels in their entirety the consequences of the one sin of Adam for every single individual. This is not a matter of possibility or potentiality; it is not just something Christ is able to do, or something that is offered to all and accepted by some. No, this is a reality; it is an accomplished fact; it has been done and will be done for the entire race; it is a sure thing.

However, Paul here absolutely does not say the same thing about the consequences for all our own personal sins . This is another matter altogether. As Romans has already made perfectly clear, the guilt and penalty for our personal sins are removed only through personal faith. The language of possibility and potentiality and "offered" applies to our personal sins, and 5:12-21 certainly implies that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to take care of these also; indeed, this is the ultimate conclusion to which Paul's argument leads. But the universal language in the text applies only to what we have all received from Adam's sin.

In other words, from a practical point of view, this passage addresses the question of the spiritual state of infants when they are conceived and born. Do infants "inherit" anything from Adam, or is anything imposed upon them as the result of Adam's sin alone? Quite obviously so, particularly physical death. Paul affirms in 5:12 that death comes to all men as the result of sin, but this cannot mean personal sins since even infants sometimes die. Therefore death must come upon all because of Adam's sin. This is Paul's point in 5:13-14, where "those who did not sin by breaking a commandment" must refer to infants. (This is the force of the word kaiv [ kai ], "even," in v. 14.) It is likely that the language used in other verses (judgment, condemnation, made sinners) means that Adam's sin brought serious spiritual consequences upon infants as well.

The point of the passage, though, is that Christ's one atoning act cancels out all of these consequences for all infants. Because of Jesus Christ no infant is born sinful, depraved, or condemned. All do face the inevitability of physical death, but insofar as such death derives from Adam's sin, it too will one day be canceled out in the final resurrection from the dead. Every single baby is thus conceived and born in a redeemed or saved state (original grace!). The gifts of righteousness and justification and life are received universally and automatically by every infant as the means of salvation from Adam's sin. This is the only "universalism" in 5:12-21.

At the same time in this passage Paul alludes to the fact that babies grow up and reach the age of accountability and commit personal sins ("many trespasses," v. 17). Commenting on the "much more" in 5:15 McGarvey and Pendleton (336-337) say,

If we had only Adam's sin to answer for, then the teaching of this passage would establish the doctrine of universal salvation, for Christ's act completely counteracted Adam's act. But there are other sins beside that first one committed by Adam, and other punishments beside natural death. It is in its dealings with those that the range of Christ's act exceeds that of Adam, and it is here also that salvation becomes limited.

When a child reaches the age of accountability and begins to become responsible for his personal sins, he forfeits the original grace under which he has been living since conception. He comes under the wrath of God and bears the full consequences of the sins that he is now committing by his own choice. He has even forfeited the redemptive resurrection gained through the cancellation of the death derived from Adam. If he dies in his own sins, he will be raised from the dead, but not redemptively in a glorified body like that of Christ.

The only way to escape the consequences of one's personal sins is by conscious choice and personal faith. Since everyone does not so choose and believe, there is no universal salvation.

Thus the spiritual odyssey of the individual has four possible stages: (1) " Original sin ," even if this is understood to involve only the penalty of physical death as the result of Adam's sin. Many understand it to include much more, of course. The main point about this stage is that (except for physical death) it is theoretical or potential only; it is never actually experienced because it is intercepted and canceled for everyone by the all-sufficient work of Christ. Thus no one ever actually passes through this stage, and children are certainly not born in it.

(2) " Original grace ," which is the stage we enter when we first come into existence and under which we stay until we reach the age of accountability, thanks to the work of the Second Adam. All infants and young children are here, as are those whose mental abilities never develop beyond those of young children. This is a state of salvation and it is universal; thus the concept of "universal salvation" applies here.

(3) " Personal sin ," the stage all enter when they reach the age of accountability and lose the original grace under which they were born. Those in this stage are the lost, the unsaved. If they die here they will be condemned forever to hell.

(4) " Personal grace ," a term we might use for the position occupied by all believers, or those who have personally repented and believed God's gracious promises. This is a state of salvation, but it is not universal. It is available to all, but is entered only through personal choice.

This concludes our discussion of the four preliminary questions. In answering them I have tried to present the gist of Paul's teaching in 5:12-21 in a summary form. We are now ready to begin our verse-by-verse study of the passage, proceeding according to the following outline: a) Verses 12-14 show how the sin of one man (Adam) brought sin and death upon the whole world. In v. 12 Paul begins a thought that is not immediately completed. It is put on hold while he pursues some related ideas; then in v. 18 he picks it up again. b) In vv. 15-17 Paul presents a negative contrast between Christ and Adam, showing that Christ and his sacrifice are greater than Adam and his sin. c) In vv. 18-19 Paul completes the thought of v. 12 by declaring that Christ's cross completely cancels the consequences of Adam's sin. d) The final section, vv. 20-21, asserts the triumph of grace over sin and death.

1. One Sin of One Man (Adam) Brought

Sin and Death to All (5:12-14)

5:12 Therefore . . . . This first word in the verse indicates that Paul is about to draw a conclusion from something that serves as a premise or basis for it. Opinions vary widely as to what this premise is. Most find it in the preceding context. For some it is the reference to the death of Jesus in v. 10 (Lard, 164). Others say the premise is the entire section, 5:1-11 (Cranfield, I:271). Still others say it includes everything from 1:18 to 5:11 (Dunn, I:272). On the other hand, some actually find the premise in v. 12 itself (Williams, 172-173).

This is a difficult question, but the connection is probably both backward and forward. As stated above, at the end of v. 12 Paul seems to break off his main argument until he can lay down some related truths; then he picks it up again in v. 18, with 18a reiterating v. 12 and 18b stating the long-awaited conclusion. The progression of the main thought, then, is this: "Therefore, in view of what has just been said about the saving power of the death of Christ (5:1-11), and also because we know that an example of such vicarious power already exists in the person of Adam (5:12-14), we may safely conclude that the one righteous act of the one man Jesus Christ is definitely sufficient to bring salvation to all people."

. . . just as sin entered the world through one man . . . . The "one man," of course is Adam (v. 14), who along with Eve was responsible for introducing sin into the world (Gen 3:1-7). Since Adam was the head of his wife and in a real sense the head of the whole human family, he alone is singled out as the responsible party and also as a kind of pattern for Jesus (v. 14). The word for "sin" is aJmartiva ( hamartia ), which in this case refers not to a specific act but to the very principle or power of evil and lawlessness that enters like an invading force and takes root in the hearts of its willing victims (Godet, 204; Moo, I:331). "The world" (as in John 3:16) is the world of mankind, the sphere of human beings; sin had already entered the world of angels through the sin of Satan (1 John 3:8).

The main point of this statement is the phrase, "through one man," which is in the emphatic position in the Greek. To make his point that just one man (Jesus) is the source of all salvation, Paul is reminding us that just one man (and a lesser one at that) is the source of all sin.

. . . and death through sin . . . . This statement is highly condensed. Several words carry over from the first clause, so that the entire thought is thus: "And (just as) death (entered the world [of human beings]) through sin." In this case "sin" ( hamartia again) seems to refer to the first specific sinful act of Adam, his disobedience to the command about the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17). Just as this one man was the channel through which sin entered, his one sin was the channel through which death entered. Again we understand the entry to be limited to the world of human beings; we can draw no conclusions from this verse about death among animals (Schlatter, 127; Stott, 165-166).

To what specific kind of death is Paul referring here? Many rightly understand the Bible to distinguish three kinds of death: physical, spiritual, and eternal (Godet, 205). Physical death of course is the death of the body; spiritual death is equivalent to the soul's condition of sinfulness and depravity (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13); eternal death is condemnation to hell or the lake of fire (Rev 20:6, 14). Some believe Paul is referring to all three kinds here (Hendriksen, I:185; MacArthur, I:295). Sometimes those who hold this view lump the last two kinds (spiritual and eternal) into the single category of spiritual death, and declare that Adam's sin resulted in both physical death and this inclusive spiritual death, or "total death" (Moo, I:332; Shields, 65; Mounce 141; Stott, 150). On the other hand, some contend that in this verse Paul means physical death only (Lard, 165-166; MP, 340; Murray, I:181-182). Morris (230) agrees that physical death is in mind, but believes that spiritual death is indirectly in view in that physical death is the sign and symbol of it.

In my judgment, Paul's primary concern in 5:12 is with physical death; this is clear from 5:13-14, where physical death is obviously in view (Godet, 205; Smith, I:85). Whether Paul considers anything else to be imposed upon the human race as a result of Adam's one sin must be determined by a consideration of 5:15-19. But at this point, to focus on spiritual death misses the main point of 5:13-14, where physical death even among babies is cited as evidence for the point about the "one man" in v. 12.

Paul is not just saying that death is the result of sin in general, and he is especially not saying that each individual's death is the result of his own sin. No, his whole point in 5:12-21 rests on the fact that the deaths of all individual human beings are the penal consequence of one sin of one man , Adam: "The many died by the trespass of the one man" (5:15a; Smith, I:85).

. . . and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned . . . . Up to this point, based on 5:12a alone, there is no reason to extend the sin of Adam and the resulting death beyond their entry point, namely, Adam himself. But 5:12b shows that there is more to it than this - much more. This part of the verse reveals the universal consequences of Adam's one sin. "In this way," i.e., through the one sin of the one man, "death came to all men." The word for "came" means "went through," "spread," or "permeated." Paul is saying that death "made its way to each individual member of the race . . . like a father's inheritance divided among his children" (Sanday and Headlam, 133).

If Paul had ended his thought here and gone directly to v. 13, the task of exegetes and theologians would no doubt have been considerably lighter. But this was not to be. Led by the Spirit, Paul added these four words: ejf= w/| pavnte" h{marton (eph' hô pantes hçmarton ). The last two words are not difficult to translate; they simply state, "all sinned," or "all have sinned" (as in 3:23). Thus sin, like death, is universalized: all die; likewise all sinned. Adam sinned, but everyone else sinned as well.

This leaves two major problems to be resolved. First, what is the meaning of eph' hô ? And second, in what sense have all sinned? Regarding the former question, some have taken the hô in eph' hô to be a relative pronoun referring back to the "one man" in 5:12a. Thus it has been translated "in whom," namely, "in Adam," the whole clause then meaning "in Adam all sinned." Augustine, who was following the common Latin translation in quo , accepted this view and used it as a significant part of the basis for his doctrine of original sin.

Modern interpreters agree that this is a poor translation of eph' hô . The antecedent is too far removed from hô , and "in" is not a common meaning for epi ( eph' ). By general agreement today eph' hô is taken as a conjunction introducing a dependent clause, and is usually translated "because." Thus the NIV translation, "because all sinned." I see no reason to disagree.

But this does not really help a lot, because it still leaves us asking in what sense "all sinned." I.e., how is the sin of all somehow the cause of the death of all, especially since the death of all has already been stated to be the result of the one sin of the one man, Adam?

Proposed answers fall into two categories. One approach is that the statement "all sinned" must be taken as referring to each individual's personal sins, as in 3:23. In this case each person dies because of his own sins. But how is Adam's sin involved? One view is that when we sin personally we are imitating Adam's sin; thus Adam's sin is still indirectly responsible for every person's death (Shields, 66; Barrett, 111). Another view is that Adam's sin imposes a corrupt nature on all his descendants, which causes them all to sin and thus incur death (Dunn, I:290; Cranfield, I:278-279; Batey, 73-74). Again, the relation between Adam's sin and our death is indirect.

In my judgment neither version of this view is acceptable. Once Adam is made only the indirect cause of death, rather than the direct cause, the main point of the passage - the analogy between Adam and Christ - breaks down. The "one man Adam vs. one man Jesus" theme (5:15-19) loses its punch (Morris, 232). Also, neither form of this approach can explain the death of infants, who have not sinned personally. (See Murray, I:183-184, for these and other arguments against this view.)

The other approach to "all sinned" is to posit some kind of union between Adam and his descendants, the result being that when he sinned, we all somehow sinned in or with him. Thus "all sinned" does not refer to the subsequent personal sins of each individual, but to a kind of collective sinning of all in Adam's one act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. (Practically speaking, this view has the same effect as translating eph' hô as "in Adam.")

One version of this latter approach is to see all mankind as existing within Adam when he sinned, so that his sin literally was the sin of us all; thus we all are equally accountable for it and are punished for it (MacArthur, I:293, 296). An analogy is the relation between Abraham and Levi in Heb 7:9-10. When Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-2), Levi also "paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father" when Abraham tithed. In this same sense we were all in Adam's loins when he sinned; thus we also sinned.

The other version of this second approach is to treat Adam as acting as a representative for the whole race in his test regarding the tree (Lard, 167-168; Smith, 87). Thus Adam is called the "federal head" of all mankind (MP, 334). The analogy here is the relation between Christ on the cross and the whole human race. We were not in him when he died; but he died representatively for all (2 Cor 5:14), and the consequences of his death are imputed to others.

In my judgment this second approach is the better one, either according to its second version or as a combination of the two. (See Stott, 151-154.) "All sinned" does not refer to our personal sins, but to the one sin of Adam in which we all participated in some form, and for which we all suffer the penal consequences. We can offer no explanation for such an arrangement other than divine appointment. "All sinned in Adam as being in him. By divine appointment, Adam . . . stood for and represented the whole of his posterity" (Lard, 167). "When Adam sinned he was not just a man, he was mankind" (Smith, 84). "In Adam all sinned; in Adam all died" (Hendriksen, I:178). Thus, as Moo points out, "all die because all sinned" and "all die because Adam sinned" are both true, "because the sin of Adam is the sin of all" (I:338).

It is wrong, though, to conclude (as many do) that this understanding of "because all sinned" leads to the doctrine of original sin. I have explained in the introduction to this section why this is not the case.

5:13 Verse 12 introduces an intended comparison between Adam and Christ that is not completed. Only the "just as" portion (the protasis ) is given; the "so also" part (the apodosis ) is not stated. In 5:18-19 Paul will come back to the comparison and present it in two different ways. But before then, in 5:13-17 (sometimes treated as a parenthesis, as in the KJV), he pauses in order to verify and clarify what he says in 5:12.

In v. 12 two crucial points are made: one, that death is the result of sin; and two, that the death of all is the result of the sin of one man, Adam. Paul does not try to prove the first point, but 5:13-14 seems designed to prove the second point (Godet, 209; MP, 334; Murray, I:187). The proof lies in the fact that some people die even though they have never sinned personally, including babies, young children, and some with mental handicaps. Thus if sin is indeed the cause of death, the fact that such people sometimes die proves that the one representative sin of Adam must be that cause.

. . . for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. This and v. 14 are very difficult, and in my opinion can be understood only as an extremely condensed argument, some parts of which are assumed. We may wonder why Paul even brings up the Adam-to-Moses period, if his main proof is going to be infants. The answer seems to be that in the minds of his Jewish audience especially, the general nature of this period as a whole ought to prove Paul's point. This would seem to be the case based upon the combination of two factors: first, "where there is no law there is no transgression" (4:15); and second, the Law was not given until the time of Moses. Thus even though in the pre-Mosaic period people did things that were sinful, they could not be held accountable for them because there was no law. But the whole population in this period died anyway; therefore they must have died because of Adam's sin.

This train of thought would seem perfectly valid to many, especially to those who put such strong emphasis on the Law of Moses. So this is where Paul begins his argument, even though it is not where he ends it.

That "sin was in the world" before Moses' Law was given is indisputable (Gen 6:5, 11; 8:21; 18:20; Exod 9:27). It is also indisputable that "sin is not taken into account when there is no law," as Paul had already said in 4:15. The word for "taken into account" (used here and in Phlm 18) is an accounting term and means "to enter into the ledger or into the account of someone." This is the concept of imputation, though in this case Paul is talking about imputing one's own sins to one's own account. He says this does not occur when no law exists by which sins can be identified as violations of God's will. In such a case God does not impute sinful acts to a person's account and therefore does not punish him. But since people between Adam and Moses did suffer the penalty of death (v. 14a), they could only have died because of Adam's sin.

This reasoning would be sound except for one thing: there was law between Adam and Moses! True, the Law of Moses was not yet given, but Paul has already argued that law is revealed and known through general revelation (1:18-32; 2:14-15); and he has already declared that Gentiles or pagans are "without excuse" (1:20) when they go against this general revelation. Indeed, Paul named a whole list of specific sins (1:24-31) committed by pagans; and he specifically said that those who commit these sins know God's decree, that those who do so are worthy of death (1:32)! Also, we have every reason to believe that God instructed Adam and Eve regarding his moral law; it is ludicrous to assume that the only law they were given was the one about the trees (Gen 2:16-17). What they knew of God's moral law would thus have been handed down from generation to generation, supplemented by occasional special revelation (e.g., Gen 4:9; 6:13; 7:1; 9:1-7). Otherwise, how could Noah have functioned as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet 2:5)? The fact that God destroyed the human race (except for Noah's family) because of their wickedness shows that they had law and were being held accountable for it. The same is true of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus the idea that "there was no positive commandment" in the pre-Mosaic period except for Gen 2:16-17 is quite false (contra Bruce, 130; Trench, Synonyms , 244; Schneider, "parabaivnw ," 5:740; and Schlatter, 128-129).

But if this reasoning is not sound, why does Paul bring it up? Because the argument would no doubt have occurred especially to Paul's Jewish audience, and he brings it up to get it out of the way. Thus I am suggesting that between v. 13 and v. 14 Paul is assuming that his readers will remember what he has already said very plainly in 1:18-32 and 2:14-15, and will draw their own conclusions as to the invalidity of the argument. This unspoken caveat then sets the stage for Paul's own argument in v. 14.

The thought of 5:13-14a may be paraphrased thus: "We have said that all die because of Adam's sin. But what gives us any reason to think this? Let's consider first of all a common assumption. Some who agree that Adam must be the source of human death base this conclusion on the fact that people died between Adam and Moses, before the Law was given; and we know God does not hold people accountable for their sins where is no law. Thus (so this argument goes) since people died then, they must have died because of Adam's sin.

"Now, at first glance this argument seems sound, but I'm sorry to say that it does not hold together. Why not? Mainly because it assumes that there was no law in this period between Adam and Moses; but this is not true. You will remember my clear teaching that there was law during this period, and people knew that by breaking this law they deserved God's wrath. So if we are going to show that all die because of Adam's sin, we must find another argument."

5:14 "Let's stay with the period between Adam and Moses. In this era (as in all other times, of course), death came to all human beings, even over those not old enough to commit personal sins like the sin of Adam. The fact that infants sometimes die is all the proof we need for the truth that all die because of Adam's sins."

Nevertheless introduces Paul's own valid argument, in contrast with the abbreviated invalid argument from v. 13.

. . . death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses . . . . This is clearly a reference to physical death, which is personified as a tyrant having everyone under its power in the period in question (and in all other times as well; see v. 17). To depict death as a reigning monarch emphasizes its universal scope, its oppressive domination, and its inescapable certainty.

. . . even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam . . . . This is the key point of the whole argument in vv. 13-14; this is what proves the fact that Adam's sin brought death upon us all: death reigned, even over this group. The word "even" ( kai ) is important, because it focuses the argument on a group that is more narrow than the general population of the earth (contra Godet, 212; Moo, I:345-346). This group is described as "those who did not sin by breaking a command."

Who are in this group? It depends on what Paul means by the expression, "did not sin by breaking a command." The word "command" is not in the original; this participial phrase literally reads "the ones who did not sin after the likeness of Adam's transgression." The word for "transgression," paravbasi" ( parabasis ), is used in the NT here and in 2:23; 4:15; Gal 3:19; 1 Tim 2:14; Heb 2:2; 9:15. Its meaning is important, since many believe it is the key to identifying the group introduced by "even."

Parabasis literally means "stepping over a boundary, a deviation from the prescribed path or norm, a trespass, a transgression." In the NT it refers to breaking God's law, a transgression of his law. Here in 5:14, the group singled out by Paul did not sin according to the likeness of the parabasis of Adam. I.e., they did not transgress God's law in the same way that Adam did.

Most interpreters take this statement to mean that the law which Adam transgressed was crucially different from the law transgressed by those who lived between Adam and Moses. I.e., it was of such a nature that he could be held responsible for breaking it, whereas the latter group could not. The law Adam transgressed (Gen 2:16-17) is variously described as a direct command, an express command, an explicit command, an expressly revealed ordinance, a positive prohibition, a clear and definite divine commandment, a prohibition known to be a commandment of God. It is implied that no other command of this nature was given by God until the Law of Moses. Some add that the command to Adam was accompanied by a death sentence, and in this way was different from any laws between Adam and Moses (MP, 334-335; Moo, I:343). Thus it is concluded (by most interpreters) that the expression "those who did not sin by breaking a command" refers to everyone who lived between Adam and Moses, and not just to a special group such as infants.

The reasons I cannot accept this view are as follows. First, there were explicit commands and prohibitions (other than the command regarding the trees) between Adam and Moses, available in the beginning and sporadically thereafter by means of special revelation, and passed along as tradition to future generations. Also, the definitions usually given to parabasis in this context are much too narrow. It means transgression of the law, to be sure; but limiting such law only to that given through special revelation is indefensible. For example, in light of the emphasis Paul gives to general revelation in 1:18-32 and 2:14-15, the principle set forth in 4:15 (using parabasis ) surely cannot be limited to specially-revealed law. We should also remember that the laws known through general revelation also carry the death sentence and that this is known by those who break them (1:32).

Finally, the main difference between Adam's sin and the sins committed by the specific group in 5:14 was not a difference in the kind of law they transgressed, but rather in the way the law was transgressed. Adam's sin was indeed a voluntary, conscious, deliberate decision to disobey a command of God. But so were most sins committed by most people even before the Law of Moses came. It does not matter whether the law being transgressed was specially revealed or written on the heart; anyone deliberately breaking either kind of law was guilty of parabasis and thus was "without excuse" (1:20; 2:1). I.e., all lawbreakers during this period committed personal sins worthy of death.

But there is one way of sinning that is "not like the transgression of Adam" (NASB), i.e., not a voluntary, deliberate, personal sin. What is it? None other than the sin which everyone committed representatively in Adam in the Garden of Eden (5:12). This is the only kind of sin some people have committed, and even they sometimes die. Who are in this group? Infants, small children, and some with mental handicaps. These are the ones to whom Paul refers here in the "even" clause.

I am aware that many declare that Paul cannot be talking about infants here, but rather must be talking about adult sinners only (e.g., Cranfield, I:279; Dunn, I:276; Moo, I:345-346); or at least that he cannot be talking about infants only (Lard, 172). But it seems to me that this misses the whole point of Paul's argument, and severely weakens his case that Adam's sin is the cause of the death of all. Paul has made it clear that even sinners against general revelation are worthy of death and know it (1:32). Genesis makes it clear that the bulk of those who died in the Flood and in the cities of the plain deserved to die because of their own sin. Thus only a group (such as infants) who have committed no personal sins and who sometimes die anyway can truly prove Paul's point that the real cause of human death is the one representative sin of Adam.

Having established his point about Adam, Paul briefly points us back in the direction his original thought was beginning to take in v. 12, i.e., a comparison between Adam and Christ. He does this by stating that Adam was . . . a pattern of the one to come. "The one to come" refers to Christ, who was yet to come from Adam's perspective. The word "pattern" is tuvpo" ( typos ) or "type." Moo (I:346) explains that this word originally meant "the impression made by striking something," and that it came to mean "a form, pattern, or example." In the NT it refers to "those OT persons, institutions, or events that are seen to have a divinely intended function of prefiguring the eschatological age inaugurated by Christ." See Cranfield, I:283.

In what sense does Adam prefigure Christ? Only in this one point, namely, that just as Adam was only one man yet performed a single act that affected the entire world, so also was Jesus Christ just one man whose one act likewise affected the whole human race.

2. Christ and His Sacrifice Are Greater

than Adam and His Sin (5:15-17)

The main point in 5:12-21 is the one positive comparison between Adam and Christ, as just described. In this sense Adam is a type of Christ. But before Paul actually states this comparison (5:18-19), he pauses once again, this time to make it clear that in most ways Adam and Christ are very different . Even though the positive comparison he is about to draw is very important, so are the contrasts between Adam's one sinful act and Christ's one saving act.

5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass . . . . This statement is a heading over 5:15-17, telling us that the subject is the contrast between the negative results of Adam's sin and the positive results of Christ's cross. The word for "trespass" is paravptwma (paraptôma ), "a false step, straying from the path, departing from the norm." There is little difference between this and parabasis as used in 5:14. The word for "gift" is cavrisma ( charisma , closely related to cavri" [ charis ], "grace"). It refers to the gracious result that flows unto all from the one saving act of Christ, in contrast with the devastating result that comes upon all from Adam's trespass. What is this gift, this gracious result? Most likely it is the "gift of righteousness" (5:17), the imputed righteousness of Christ that results in justification (5:16, 18) and life (5:17-18).

The rest of this verse is the first of three different ways Paul expresses this contrast. Adam's side of it is stated thus: For if the many died by the trespass of the one man . . . . As Murray sums it up, "The one sin of Adam is the judicial ground or reason for the death of the many" (I:192). This point has already been made in 5:12 and proved in 5:13-14. The word "many" (see 5:19) is equivalent in scope to "all men" in 5:12 and 5:18. Here it is used in contrast with "one," i.e., even though Adam was only one man, what he did had consequences for many men (denoting all others as a totality). The word "died" is aorist (past) tense, pointing back to the first sin of Adam as the time when all came under the sentence of death (Lard, 177).

The other side of the contrast is stated thus: how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! The words "much more" indicate that this is an argument from the lesser (Adam) to the greater (Christ). Some say this expression has a quantitative meaning, indicating the superiority of the power and effects of Christ's cross as contrasted with the power and effects of Adam's sin. It describes "the infinitely superior effectiveness" of Christ's act (Cranfield, I:284; see Mounce, 143; Stott, 161).

The quantitative superiority of Christ's cross is suggested by the word translated "overflow." God's grace and the gift that comes by it overflowed or abounded to the many (see v. 17). This means first of all that God's gracious gift reached out to embrace all who have been affected by Adam's sin, and has completely canceled and nullified the total consequences of Adam's sin for the entire human race. If it has not done at least this, then Christ's act is not even as powerful as Adam's sin, much less more powerful. This is the "original grace" explained in the introduction, above.

Second, the overflowing "much more" of Christ's cross means that the saved state into which it brings us is a state far better than what was lost in Adam. It includes "a better body than Adam ever had, a better life than he ever lived, a better world than he ever lived in, a world where Satan, and sin, and death can never come" (Lard, 178).

But most importantly, the overflowing "much more" means that the one saving act of Christ not only saves the entire race from whatever consequences have come upon us because of Adam's sin; it also is able to save the entire race from the consequences of their own personal sins, and does in fact cancel all such consequences for those who personally accept the free gift of grace through faith (MP, 336-337; DeWelt, 82). (We will see this point made in 5:16, where Paul refers to "many trespasses.") The saving work of Christ does not actually and in fact set the whole human race free from the effects of their personal sins; this would be universalism. Its application to personal sins is conditional and therefore limited. But the point is that the ability of Christ's cross to counteract mankind's personal sins means that its effectiveness extends far beyond the scope of Adam's sin. McGarvey and Pendleton (336) sum up this point very well: "We are here informed that the result of the sacrificial act of Christ fully reversed and nullified the effects of the act of Adam, and that it did even much more. The effect, in other words, had in all points as wide a range, and in some points a much wider range, than that of Adam's act." If not for this "wider range," most human beings would still be without hope, for "in addition to their sin in Adam," they have "other sins of their own for which to answer. The hope of the world lies, therefore, in the 'much more.'"

But some see another sense to the words "much more," called the logical sense, where the point is not the quantitative contrast between the two acts of the two men, but rather the superior degree of certainty we can have with regard to the efficacy of Christ's act, once we understand the nature and efficacy of the one act of Adam. This approach to "much more" presupposes the quantitative superiority of Christ over Adam. As Godet put it (216), "If a slight cause could bring sentence of death on all mankind, this same mankind will experience in its entirety the salutary effect of a much more powerful cause." He states the logic of Paul's argument thus: "Adam's offence has reached down to me, having had the power of subjecting me to death; how much more certainly will the grace of God and the grace of Christ combined have the power of reaching to me to save me!" Wiens says, "If such a little act has had a great and universal effect, how much more certain is it that a greater act will also extend to all men!" ("Exegesis," 48). See also Moo, I:349.

My inclination is to see both meanings, the quantitative and the logical, in Paul's reference to "much more." The former is surely emphasized as part of the contrast between Adam and Christ in 5:15-17, especially in the references to overflowing (v. 15), "many trespasses" (v. 16), and abundance (v. 17). The latter is even more appropriate, given the assurance theme that permeates this whole chapter. In view of what we know about Adam, we have all the more reason to put our total trust in the all-sufficiency of Christ's one saving act.

"God's grace" here probably refers to grace as an attribute of his nature. His loving grace overflowed to us in his decision to come to us in the person of "the one man, Jesus Christ," whose death provided for us the gift of righteousness and life.

Because of the widespread resistance to this fact, it is necessary to repeat here that "the many" to whom God's gracious gift has come are the same as "the many" who died from Adam's sin, and the same as the "all men" in 5:12 and 5:18. I.e., the term includes the whole human race, and it refers primarily to the complete cancellation of the effects of Adam's sin for all men. Any limitations we may place on "the many" (e.g., believers only, those who are "in Christ" only) begin to apply only when we get past this universal application to Adam's sin and are talking about individuals' personal sins.

5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin . . . . This repeats the heading of v. 15 and introduces the second version of the contrast between Adam and Christ. Again the emphasis is on the infinite superiority of Christ's work. His saving act is much more efficacious than Adam's sin since it not only nullifies the universal results of that one sin but also is able to cancel the consequences of the personal sins of the many. It takes away the former unconditionally for all; it takes away the latter conditionally for believers.

"The one man's sin" is better translated "the one who sinned" (NASB). The gift again seems to be the gift of Christ's righteousness, on which our justification is based.

The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. One contrast here is between "one sin" and "many trespasses." The judgment unto condemnation results from the single sin of one man; but the gift unto justification applies not only to this one sin but to many personal sins as well (and thus is quantitatively superior).

Another contrast is between the results of each man's act. On the one hand, Adam's sin brought "judgment" unto "condemnation." The word for "judgment" is krivma ( krima ), which is a judge's decision or verdict, usually an unfavorable one (see 2:2-3; 3:8; 13:2). Leaving no doubt that he is talking about a negative judgment, Paul says it is unto "condemnation" (katavkrima , katakrima ), a term used in the NT only here and in 5:18; 8:1. It refers to the sentence of punishment, not only as pronounced but also as carried out.

On the other hand, the free gift that comes from Christ, the gift of imputed righteousness (v. 17b), is unto "justification" (dikaivwma , dikaiôma ). This Greek word is used ten times in the NT, but it means "justification" only here. (In 5:18 it means "righteous act.") The only other noun translated "justification" is dikaivwsi" (dikaiôsis ), which is used only twice in the NT (4:25; 5:18). Exegetes think Paul used dikaiôma here because its ending matches the other -ma words in the verse: dwvrhma (dôrçma , "gift"), krivma ( krima , "judgment"), katavkrima ( katakrima , "condemnation"), cavrisma ( charisma , "gift"), and paravptwma (paraptôma , "trespass").

The key question concerning this verse is, what does Paul mean by "condemnation" and "justification"? He says Adam's sin brought condemnation, and Christ's cross cancelled the condemnation by bringing justification. Up to this point the apostle has mentioned only death as the result of Adam's sin, and contextually there has been no reason to think that he means anything more than physical death. But the language of this verse raises the question of whether something more serious must be added to the Adamic legacy.

Some are quick to answer no , nothing more than physical death is in view, even with these new terms. The "condemnation" means only the sentence of physical death, they say; and the "justification" means only the temporary suspension of this sentence allowing some time to live on the earth, then in the end resurrection from the dead (DeWelt, 78). We can agree that physical death is a judicial penalty and can rightly be called "condemnation." When katakrima is used in 8:1, however, it hardly seems limited to physical death, and is usually taken to refer to eternal punishment. Even the word krima ("judgment") is often used in this sense. Thus we are persuaded to think that by using the word "condemnation" Paul is telling us here that the death imposed upon all men because of Adam's sin is not just physical death, but includes eternal death also (see 6:23).

This conclusion seems all the more warranted when we realize that this condemnation received from Adam is counteracted with the "justification" received from Christ. In other contexts justification involves so much more than resurrection from the dead. Thus I believe we are wrong to limit it to that in this context. Here we should give it the meaning it has in other places, especially here in Romans, namely, the cancellation of eternal punishment in hell.

Indeed, this is exactly how almost everyone understands these two terms when they are applied to the "many trespasses" (personal sins) in this verse. Thus how can we give them a more limited meaning when applying them to Adam's sin and its consequences?

But when we interpret condemnation as eternal death in hell and justifiction as the cancellation of this eternal punishment, are we not opening the door to the doctrine of original sin? Not at all. But is this not the Augustinian view? No, it is not. True, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin says the condemnation of eternal death in hell comes upon all as the result of Adam's sin; but it omits the most important part of Paul's teaching, namely, that the original grace of Jesus Christ justifies all men insofar as Adam's sin is concerned. I.e., it completely cancels out this condemnation, so that in its eternal element it is never even applied.

5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man . . . . These words begin a third way of expressing the contrast between Adam and Christ, another way of explaining how the gift is not like the trespass. They add nothing to what has already been expressed in vv. 12-16. To say that death reigns emphasizes "the powerful and destructive sway it exercises over the affairs of human beings" (Hendriksen, I:181). The aorist tense again indicates the past point in time when death began to reign, i.e., when Adam sinned.

. . . how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. The word translated "abundant provision" (the noun form of the verb "overflow" in v. 15) points again to the fact that the benefits of Christ's cross extend far beyond the scope of Adam's sin and are able to offset the "many trespasses" (personal sins) of v. 16. This suggests that the phrase "much more" may again be emphasizing the quantitative superiority of Christ's work. There is no doubt, though, that "much more" has a logical force here and is stressing the glorious certainty or assurance we can have with regard to Christ's gift of grace. As Godet explains it, it has already been established that the weaker cause (Adam's sin) has had serious universal effects; therefore how much more certain it is that the more powerful cause (Christ's cross) will have an even greater effect and an even wider extension (220-223). See also Lard (182) and MP (339).

Many interpreters seriously misunderstand the identity of "those who receive" here in v. 17b. They say that this expression refers only to adults or those old enough to personally make a conscious decision to accept the promise of grace. They see this as parallel to "many trespasses" in v. 16b. Since that phrase means personal sin, "those who receive" is taken to mean those who personally believe. Some see another dimension of death being introduced at this point, too. In addition to the physical death (only) which came to all through Adam's sin, they see these verses as referring to spiritual death, which comes only as the result of personal sins (DeWelt, 82-83; Smith, I:85-86).

A principal reason why many take this view is their understanding of the verb lambavnw (lambanô , "receive"). Again and again we hear that this verb "is active, and not passive," and therefore that it must refer to a personal, conscious decision (MP, 339; see Godet, 217, 221). "The reception is voluntary and active, not passive. It is the act of him who believes in Christ and obeys him, and of no other" (Lard, 182; see DeWelt, 83). The word indicates "choice and personal decision," says Moo; it refers only to "those who respond" (I:353). "The lambanontes are undoubtedly believers," says Käsemann (155). The grace of Christ is for all and sufficient for all and offered to all, but only believers will receive it (see Dunn, I:295, 297).

Now, we can agree that personal, conscious, voluntary, active choice is a condition for receiving grace for those who have committed personal sins. We can also agree that such persons are included in the discussion at least in vv. 16-17. But I believe it is a serious mistake to think that these are the only ones Paul has in view in these verses, and I believe it is contrary to fact to say that lambanô must refer only to the active, voluntary reception of grace.

Throughout these verses (15-17) where Adam and Christ are set in contrast to one another, the scope of those affected by both men is the same in all three verses. Adam's sin affected all , and so does the cross insofar as it cancels the results of Adam's sin for all . To deny this jeopardizes the main point of this whole passage, the all -sufficiency of Christ's cross. The reference to personal sins in this immediate text is in addition to the Adamic sin, but not instead of it. Also, as v. 16 indicates, it is likely that spiritual death (including eternal death) has been brought into the picture here, but there is no textual basis for regarding it as the result of personal sins only.

The key question, though, is whether lambanô necessarily means an active, conscious act. This seems to be a myth. Interestingly, in his TDNT article on this word, Delling (5-6) says this verb developed both active and passive meanings, and that the latter is predominant in the NT, especially in theological contexts. A survey of the many NT verses using this word shows that it can indeed refer to the passive reception of something, apart from a deliberate act of acceptance by the recipient. See, e.g., Luke 20:47; Acts 1:8; Rom 13:2; 1 Cor 4:7; 2 Cor 11:24; Jas 3:1; 1 Pet 4:10. The bottom line is that there is nothing in the word lambanô that requires us to limit "those who receive" to conscious, willing adults; the word is no less able to describe the passive reception of "original grace" by all those affected by Adam's sin, even in infancy or before. (See Murray, I:198.)

We conclude, then, that the primary reference in v. 17b (as in 15b and 16b) is to the universal application of grace to all mankind to counteract the results of Adam's sin, with the added assurance that this grace is abundant enough to erase the effects of our personal sins as well.

In vv. 15-16 Paul has spoken of the "gift" that comes to all through Christ; here he identifies its content as "righteousness." This is the "righteousness of God" (1:17; 3:21) established by Christ's atoning death and received by sinners through grace. Thus it is not something different from the "abundant provision of grace," but explains what this grace consists of. Receiving this gift of righteousness is the event of justification.

Those who receive the gift will "reign in life" through the power of this one man, Jesus. Rather than being slaves of the tyrant death, they themselves will reign in abundant life. "Reign" is future tense and refers to the yet-to-come resurrection of the body at the end time and to the gift of eternal life to be lived in the very presence of God. As Christians we are already partaking of the abundance of grace, especially justification, and we are already reigning in a spiritual way over sin (Rev 20:4, 6); but in the life to come we shall surely reign as kings in an unprecedented way! See Rev 1:6; 5:10; 22:5. (This is true of all children who die before reaching the age of accountability, and of all accountable persons who have personally accepted Christ's saving grace.)

3. Christ's Cross Completely Cancels the

Results of Adam's Sin (5:18-19)

Having established the fact that Christ's one act is different from Adam's sin in many ways, Paul returns to the main point he began with in v. 12. He now focuses on the one respect in which the two are equal, namely, the breadth or scope of the effects of the one act of each. Just as Adam's sin had a universal effect, so also did the cross of Christ. This point is intended to reinforce our assurance that the cross is worthy of our trust. We need not doubt its all-encompassing and all-sufficient power.

Actually this truth has been implicit throughout 5:15-17, even while Paul was emphasizing the contrasts between Adam and Christ (MP, 340). But it is necessary now to make explicit the one positive comparison Paul had in mind when he said that Adam was a type or pattern for Christ. Thus he now presents this comparison in a symmetrical, no-frills manner, stating it in two distinct ways.

5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men . . . . This begins the first version of the comparison and basically sums up the content of v. 12, where Paul began to make this very argument before breaking it off for the parenthesis of vv. 13-17. No new concepts are introduced here.

The language is extremely condensed. A verb must be supplied ("the result was," NIV; "there resulted," NASB; "led to," NRSV). Also, some think the "one" refers to the one man , Adam, and read it thus: "through the trespass of the one man." This makes it parallel with 17a and 19a, they say (Cranfield, I:289; Dunn, I:283; Moo, I:354, 357). I believe it is best to stay with the NIV, though (Lard, 183; Hendriksen, I:182). Murray rightly says that "this rendering is more natural than 'through the trespass of one'" (I:199). Also, it makes explicit what is implicit throughout, that what is at stake is not just what one man can do, but what one act of one man can do.

The word for "condemnation" is katakrima again (see v. 16). Some limit this to physical death only (Lard, 185; MP, 339; DeWelt, 78, 83). But while physical death is no doubt included in the condemnation that comes from Adam, I believe that such a strong word as katakrima cannot be limited to that alone but must also include eternal condemnation (see 6:23; 8:1). This is all the more likely when we see that its opposite is justification (v. 18b). See the discussion under 5:16, above.

Through Adam's one sin this condemnation came upon "all men," the whole human race. Whether it was physical death only or both physical and spiritual/eternal death is largely irrelevant, since it has been totally nullified for "all men" by the cross, as the rest of the verse shows.

. . . so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. This is the long-delayed completion of the thought begun in v. 12. Again some say the "one" refers to the one man , Jesus (Moo, I:354; Dunn, I:283), but I disagree and concur with the NIV. The word for "act of righteousness" is dikaivwma ( dikaiôma ), the same word used for "justification" in 5:16. Sometimes it means "ordinance" of the law (2:26; 8:4), but "righteous act" is also a valid meaning (Rev 15:4; 19:8). The latter is appropriate here, since it is being contrasted with the one (sinful) act of Adam (Murray, I:200; contra Morris, 239).

What is this "one act of righteousness"? No doubt it means the atoning death of Jesus on the cross (Lard, 185; MP, 340; Schlatter, 131). Many who agree that the cross is in view are not satisfied with limiting it to just this one act, though. They take it as embracing Jesus' whole sinless life also. As Hendriksen says, "We should not interpret this concept too narrowly: Christ's voluntary death represents his entire sacrificial earthly ministry of which that death was the climax" (I:182). Cranfield says that "Paul means not just his atoning death but the obedience of his life as a whole" (I:289). Murray apparently agrees, saying that the term represents Christ's life as a "compact unity" (I:201).

I strenuously object to this, however. The "one act of righteousness" is one act , the cross. We must not lump Christ's life and death together as if they had equal significance and are equally imputed to sinners as the basis for our justification (see under 1:17 above). The comparison here is between one sinful act and one righteous act. To broaden the scope of the latter to include the whole life of Christ compromises the comparison and forfeits the whole point of this passage (Dunn, I:283).

The result of this one righteous act is to offset the condemnation that came through Adam's sin. This result is called "justification that brings life," or literally "justification of life." "Justification" is dikaivwsi" (dikaiôsis ), used also in 4:25. What does this include? Those who see the condemnation as physical death only must and do limit this justification to the gift of physical life only. Lard specifically denies that it includes remission of sins here; he limits it to temporary postponement of the death sentence and eventual bodily resurrection (186). See also DeWelt (78) and MP (340).

As I have said in the discussion of 5:16 above, this is an unacceptable limitation to the concept of justification. Although seldom represented by a noun (4:25, 5:16, and here), the event and the state of justification are very often represented by the verb dikaioô (e.g., 2:13; 3:20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 8:33). In these other contexts it implicitly involves the cancellation of the full penalty of sin, especially condemnation to hell. In my opinion limiting it to the cancellation of physical death alone gives it an unnatural sense. Thus I take it here to imply that Adam's sin brought full condemnation upon the entire race, but that Christ's cross brought full justification upon all men in that it releases all (in infancy) from Adamic condemnation.

The "life" brought by this justification is therefore not just physical, bodily life, but eternal life in the sense of release from the penalty of hell and entrance into heaven.

When Paul says the one righteous act of Christ results in justification of life for all men , he means exactly that and nothing less. In the introduction to this section I have discussed the common view that this "all" is somehow less than the "all" affected by Adam's sin. This view must be emphatically rejected. Christ's original grace cancels any potential state of original sin for all men . If this is not the case, then the point and purpose of 5:12-21 as a whole are completely negated.

5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners . . . . This verse affirms the parallel between Adam and Christ in a different way, keeping the symmetrical form of v. 18. The word "for" may mean that Paul is here explaining why it is possible or appropriate for all to receive condemnation as the result of one man's sin. The reason is that, by this one man's sin, the many were "made sinners." This recalls the point at the end of 5:12, "because all sinned" in Adam. His sin was the sin of all; when he disobeyed God's command, all became sinners. Thus it is appropriate that all should be condemned for that one sin. ("The many" is universal in scope and equivalent to "all men" in v. 18a.)

The difficult question here is the meaning of "made." The Greek word is kaqivsthmi (kathistçmi ). It means "to appoint, ordain, make, constitute, render, place in a particular class or category." The issue is whether it means merely "counted as" or "declared to be something," or whether it means "actually made to be something."

How one understands it here depends largely upon what is regarded to be the subject of the action. Exactly who or what is it that "makes" us sinners? Those who take the subject to be God (Lard, 187; Shedd, 139) usually prefer the former meaning. Adam's sin is what caused all to be sinners; consequently God merely declares us to be sinners or places us in the category of sinners. "He pronounced them to be what they had already become by their own act in Adam" (Shedd, 139-140). On the other hand, if the subject of kathistçmi is Adam or Adam's sin, then this word could itself be taken in a causative sense. The point would then be that Adam through his one act made us all sinners. (Actually, even if God is the subject of the action, it could still be taken in a causative sense, since God is the one who decreed this connection - whatever it entails - between Adam's sin and his posterity in the first place.)

Whether the subject is God or Adam, in my opinion the second meaning given above is preferred, i.e., made and not just declared. This seems to be how the word is used in other contexts, even in classical Greek (see Godet, 225-226). In the NT it is most commonly used for appointing or ordaining someone to a particular position or office. Someone is "made to be" a judge, a ruler, a governor, an elder, a high priest. For example, when Pharaoh "made" Joseph governor over Egypt (Acts 7:10), he was not just announcing an already-existing reality, but was actually causing Joseph to become the governor. Likewise, as the result of Adam's sin, the many actually became sinners; they were placed in the position of being sinners. This does not mean simply that "they all in their turn lived sinful lives" (contra Cranfield, I:291), or "were made liable to sin" (contra DeWelt, 78). Rather, it means that in their solidarity with Adam all men actually became sinners; that's why it was appropriate to treat them as sinners by condemning them (5:18).

One point must be kept in mind, namely, that whatever nuance we give to "made sinners," it must be parallel to the meaning we give to "made righteous" in 19b.

. . . so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The obedience of Jesus is set over against the disobedience of Adam. Some err again by expanding this obedience so that it "covers his whole life, not just his passion and death" (Cranfield, I:290; see also Godet, 226; Murray, 205). But again this destroys the parallel with the one act of Adam's disobedience. The obedience here is the one act of righteousness, the one supreme act of obedience, the cross (Phil 2:8; Heb 5:8). See Lard, 189; and especially Dunn, I:284-285.

The key question here is the meaning of "made righteous." The issue is whether it refers to a simple forensic declaration equivalent to justification, or whether it refers to a change in the sinner's nature or status by which he is actually made righteous. Our answer must take into account the parallel with "made sinners" in v. 19a, as well as the meaning of kathistçmi as discussed there.

Many take "made righteous" in the former sense alone. Stott says, "The expressions 'made sinners' and 'made righteous' cannot mean that these people actually became morally good or evil, but rather that they were 'constituted' legally righteous or unrighteous in God's sight" (156). The expression "basically means ' to be declared righteous," says Hendriksen (I:183). Murray equates it with the justification of v. 18b (I:205). Mounce says it is an imputed "right standing before God" (145). See also Cranfield, I:291.

Others, however, see something of the latter sense in the expression. Godet says it includes eschatological sanctification (226). MacArthur says it means "to be made righteous by nature and constitution." When a person is made righteous, "he not only is declared righteous forensically but is . . . given an inward rightousness that must and will bear fruit" (I:307). In my opinion, even if forensic righteousness is involved, the meaning of kathistçmi and the meaning of "made sinners," as discussed above, seem to require something of this second sense. I.e., as the result of Christ's one act of obedience, all are actually made righteous and become righteous.

The fact that this is future tense (" will be made righteous") may simply reflect the fact that this is an ongoing process and will continue to apply to people in the future (Murray, I:206). Or it may mean that this "making righteous" is something that will be consummated at the final judgment, when the redeemed will finally be completely sanctified (Godet, 226).

As we have already determined, "the many" who are made righteous is no less a number than the "all men" who are justified in v. 18b. More importantly, they are no less than "the many" who are made sinners by Adam. Again we deplore all efforts to reduce the number of those affected by Christ's cross to anything less than those affected by Adam's sin. That the making righteous is universal does not result in universal salvation, of course, since it applies to all men only in reference to the sense in which they were made sinners by the one sin of Adam. In whatever sense the latter would have been the case, it does not in fact happen because of the cross. Thus no baby is born a depraved sinner, a spiritually-weak sinner, a guilty sinner, a condemned sinner, a sinner by declaration, or a sinner in any other sense of the term. All are made righteous by the obedience of the one man, Jesus Christ.

4. Grace Triumphs Over Sin and Death (5:20-21)

This brief paragraph makes a fitting conclusion not just to this section (5:12-21) but to Part Two as a whole. Indeed, it draws together the main elements of the entire letter thus far: law, sin, and death versus grace, righteousness, and life.

5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. This is most likely a reference to the Mosaic Law. Why does Paul bring it up at this point? He is probably answering a question that must have been in the minds of his Jewish audience, i.e., how does the Law relate to all of this? To the devout Jew the Law was regarded as the solution to everything. Surely it must have some part in the resolution of the problem that began with Adam. But Paul has for all practical purposes jumped directly from Adam to Christ. Where is the place for Moses? (See Moo, I:360.)

Paul's answer to such questions is not what the Jews wanted to hear. He says "the law was added." The word for "added" is not at all complimentary; the concept is closer to "temporarily tacked on." In its other NT use (Gal 2:4) it has a negative connotation ("sneaked in," NASB). That idea is somewhat harsh for this context, but the word is still unfavorable enough to suggest that the Law was definitely a secondary part of God's plan, and not an end in itself. It implies that the Law came in through the servants' door, as opposed to making a grand entrance. See Morris, 241; Moo, I:360.

But that's not all. The Law was added, says Paul, "so that the trespass might increase." Thus in a sense the Law, rather than being a part of the solution, is a part of the problem! But this is not meant to be altogether negative. We must remember that it was God himself who added the Law (see Gal 3:19), and the increase of sin was at least part of the very reason why he added it in the first place. ("So that" is i{na [ hina ], indicating purpose.) And God would not have done this unless he had some ultimately good purpose in mind.

The Law certainly was not given to prevent sin; it was too late for that. Nor was it intended to save anyone from sin; it was too weak for that (Morris, 241). But it could cause sin to increase. Certainly sins were already present in abundance, because law in other forms was already present, including the law written on the heart. And certainly the giving of the Law of Moses added to the already-present ocean of sins. It did so by increasing the very number of laws that could be broken, and by provoking specific sins (7:7-8).

But this is not exactly the point here. The Law (indeed, any law) does make sins more numerous, but that is not what Paul names here as God's purpose for adding the Law. He says the Law was added so that the trespass (singular) might increase. "Trespass" is paravptwma (paraptôma ), a word used several times in the previous verses for the one sin of Adam (vv. 15, 17, 18). Thus it seems likely that Paul is not talking here about the quantitative increase of sins in general, but some kind of increase in the sin of Adam.

In what sense could the Law cause "the trespass" to increase, and why would God purposely cause this to happen? The best answer is that the Law served to increase man's awareness of the power and seriousness of sin and of the sinful condition brought upon the world by Adam's trespass. By objectively embodying God's standard for righteousness, and by unmistakably identifying sinful behavior, the Law served to magnify the reality of sin and to intensify man's sense of hopelessness as he struggles against it. "The law causes sin to stand out in all its heinousness and ramifications."

But why did God want to thus increase the trespass? What possible good could come from this? The answer lies in the rest of the verse: But where sin increased, grace increased all the more . . . . God is always ready to bestow the gift of his grace; but (apart from the cancellation of the Adamic sin) this gift must be willingly accepted. Thus the only thing that prevents the increase of grace is man's denial of his need for it and his refusal to accept it. But when confronted with the law in any form, man can no longer deny that he is a sinner. So by increasing man's sense or consciousness of sin, the Law increases his sense of need for God's grace, thereby causing grace to be more readily received and thus to increase.

Actually this applies to any law from God, not just the Mosaic Law. But here Paul seems to be speaking especially of the latter. In what special sense has the Law of Moses caused sin and therefore grace to increase? The answer relates to God's messianic purpose for Israel as a whole. The Law of Moses magnified the reality and seriousness of sin within Israel as such. The chosen people's manifold violations of the law aspect of the covenant are recorded in detail in the OT. Thus the consciousness of sin increased not only for the Israelites themselves, but it increases also for all who read about them (1 Cor 10:6-11). Indeed, one of the clearest lessons we learn from the OT is the sinfulness of mankind and how we deserve to be condemned for our sins. Reading about Israel is like looking at ourselves in a mirror, and we do not like what we see.

But at the very place "where sin increased," namely, in Israel, God caused grace to increase all the more . Among the very people where the Law caused the trespass of Adam to explode like an atomic bomb, the grace of God exploded like the more powerful hydrogen bomb. This explosion of grace came in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah, which was the reason for Israel's existence in the first place. Thus the Law itself had a large part in Israel's purpose of preparation for the coming of the Savior. By increasing the consciousness of sin, it increased the sense of need for grace, and thereby caused at least some Israelites to welcome the Messiah all the more. This is one way the law, even the Law of Moses, should still function today.

5:21 so that, just as sin reigned in death . . . . "So that" introduces another purpose statement. It tells the reason why God wanted grace to increase, i.e., to be accepted by more and more sinners. The train of thought in vv. 20-21 is this: God added the Law so that the awareness of sin might increase (20a). He wants the awareness of sin to increase so that grace may be all the more accepted and increased (20b). And he wants grace to increase so that it might defeat sin and death and reign triumphantly in the end (21).

This thought is stated in the form of one last comparison. "Just as sin reigned in death" sums up the point about Adam in 5:12-19. Paul has said twice (vv. 14, 17) that death reigned through Adam's sin. But here he identifies the true tyrant, sin itself. Sin not only rules the sinner's heart in a state of spiritual death (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13); it also tyrannizes man's physical existence by causing it to be permeated with the inescapable canker of bodily death. The aorist (past) tense is used in reference to the sin of Adam, at which time sin "established its reign" (Dunn, I:287).

. . . so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The reign of sin and death is not the final word. Adam is not the victor; Jesus is. Sin reigned in death, and still does to some degree; but grace will ultimately reign in life, and already does to some degree. Grace reigns through righteousness, the righteousness of God which is the content of the gospel (1:17) and which was established by Christ's incomparable atoning sacrifice wherein he paid the penalty for our sins. When this gift of imputed righteousness is bestowed upon the believing sinner, sin and death become defeated enemies and grace reigns triumphant unto eternal life, all because of the all-sufficient redemptive work of Jesus Christ our Lord.

This statement appropriately brings the second main section of Romans to an end. In the first section Paul showed how law cannot succeed as a way to heaven, since that could happen only if one kept the law perfectly, which no one has done. Then here in the second section the Apostle has shown how God provided an alternative way into heaven, the way of salvation known as grace . This he has done only through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, on the basis of which a believing sinner is justified or declared righteous before God. Knowing that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ gives us a sure foundation for hope. The sin and death which once ruled over us have been forever vanquished by the power of his blood. Grace reigns!

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Rom 5:17

For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ . [The apostle now undertakes to show wherein the results of Christ's act are more certain than those of Adam's act. By the use of "receive," which is active, and not passive, Paul makes it plain that the results of Christ's act, of which he now speaks, are conditioned upon an acceptance of the act on the part of mankind. For if, says he, by the trespass of one man, death reigned upon all, through the sin of one, much more surely (because of the nature of God the Father, and the august personality of his Son) shall they that accept and receive to themselves the abundance of grace offered through Christ, and the abundance of the gift of righteousness (or justification), reign in that ineffable future of life through one, even through Jesus Christ. The Son of God is a greater personage than Adam, and the positive power of his righteousness is greater than the negative power of Adam's sin; therefore, if Adam's act has insured, and still insures, the reign of death in the world, much more does Christ's act insure the reign of life in the future world. The word "abundance," found in this verse, is very significant. All shall have the ordinary grace and righteousness in Christ which result in the resurrection -- gracious result, which equals and nullifies the ungracious workings of the sin of Adam; but only those who "receive" it by faith shall have that surplus or "abundance" of the act of Christ which exceeds the act of Adam, and results in a reign of life, not a mere resurrection.]

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 5:1, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God; Rom 5:2, and joy in our hope; Rom 5:8, that since we were reconciled by his blood, when we were enemies; Rom 5:10, we shall much more be saved, being reconciled; Rom 5:12, As sin and death came by Adam; Rom 5:17, so much more righteousness and life by Jesus Christ; Rom 5:20, Where sin abounded, grace did superabound.

Poole: Romans 5 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 5

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 5:1-5) The happy effects of justification through faith in the righteousness of Christ.

(Rom 5:6-11) That we are reconciled by his blood.

(Rom 5:12-14) The fall of Adam brought all mankind into sin and death.

(Rom 5:15-19) The grace of God, through the righteousness of Christ, has more power to bring salvation, than Adam's sin had to bring misery.

(Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21) As grace did superabound.

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having made good his point, and fully proved justification by faith, in this chapter proceeds in the explication, illustration, and application of that truth. I. He shows the fruits of justification (Rom 5:1-5). II. He shows the fountain and foundation of justification in the death of Jesus Christ, which he discourses of at large in the rest of the chapter.

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

At Home With God (Rom_5:1-5)

The Final Proof Of Love (Rom_5:6-11)

Ruin And Rescue (Rom_5:12-21)

Constable: Romans (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Throughout the history of the church, from postapostolic times to the present, Christians have regarded Romans as having been one of the Apostle Paul's epistles.¹ Not only does the letter claim that he wrote it (1:1), but it develops many of the same ideas and uses the same terminology that appear in Paul's earlier writings (e.g., Gal. 2; 1 Cor. 12; 2 Cor. 8-9).

Following his conversion on the Damascus Road (34 A.D.), Paul preached in Damascus, spent some time in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus. Next he travelled to Jerusalem where he met briefly with Peter and James. He then moved on to Tarsus, which was evidently his base of operations and from which he ministered for about six years (37-43 A.D.). In response to an invitation from Barnabas he moved to Antioch of Syria where he served for about five years (43-48 A.D.). He and Barnabas then set out on their so-called first missionary journey into Asia Minor (48-49 A.D.). Returning to Antioch Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to strengthen the churches that he and Barnabas had just planted in Asia Minor (49 A.D.). After the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul took Silas and began his second missionary journey (50-52 A.D.) through Asia Minor and on westward into the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. From Corinth, Paul wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians (51 A.D.). He proceeded to Ephesus by ship and then on to Syrian Antioch. From there he set out on his third missionary journey (53-57 A.D.). Passing through Asia Minor he arrived in Ephesus where he labored for three years (53-56 A.D.). During this time he wrote 1 Corinthians (56 A.D.). Finally Paul left Ephesus and travelled by land to Macedonia where he wrote 2 Corinthians (56 A.D.). He continued south and spent the winter of 56-57 A.D. in Corinth. There he wrote the Epistle to the Romans and sent it by Phoebe (16:1-2) to the Roman church.

The apostle then proceeded from Corinth by land clockwise around the Aegean Sea back to Troas in Asia where he boarded a ship and eventually reached Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, the Jews arrested Paul and imprisoned him (57 A.D.). He arrived in Rome as a prisoner and ministered there for two years (60-62 A.D.). During this time he wrote the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). The Romans freed Paul, and he returned to the Aegean area. There he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, experienced arrest again, suffered imprisonment in Rome a second time, wrote 2 Timothy, and died as a martyr under Nero in A.D. 68.²

We know very little about the founding of the church in Rome. According to Ambrosiaster, a church father who lived in the fourth century, an apostle did not found it (thus discrediting the Roman Catholic claim that Peter founded the church). A group of Jewish Christians did.³ It is possible that these Jews became believers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) or at some other time quite early in the church's history. By the time Paul wrote Romans the church in Rome was famous throughout the Roman Empire for its faith (1:18).

Purpose

Paul wrote this epistle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for several reasons.⁴ He wanted to prepare the way for his intended visit to the church (15:22-24). He evidently hoped that Rome would become a base of operations and support for his pioneer missionary work in Spain and the western portions of the empire that he had not yet evangelized. His full exposition of the gospel in this letter would have provided a solid foundation for their participation in this mission.

As Paul looked forward to returning to Jerusalem between his departure from Corinth and his arrival in Rome, he was aware of the danger he faced (15:31). He may have written the exhaustive exposition of the gospel that we have in Romans to set forth his teaching in case he did not reach Rome. From Rome his doctrine could then go out to the rest of the empire as others preached it. Paul may have viewed Romans as his legacy to the church, his last will and testament.

Another reason for writing Romans was undoubtedly Paul's desire to minister to the spiritual needs of the Christians in Rome even though they were in good spiritual condition (15:14-16). The common problems of all the early churches were dangers to the Roman church as well. These difficulties included internal conflicts, mainly between Jewish and Gentile believers, and external threats from false teachers. Paul gave both of these potential problems attention in this epistle (15:1-8; 16:17-20).

Paul also wrote Romans as he did because he was at a transition point in his ministry, as he mentioned at the end of chapter 15. His ministry in the Aegean region was solid enough that he planned to leave it and move farther west into new virgin missionary territory. Before he did that, he planned to visit Jerusalem where he realized he would be in danger. Probably therefore Paul wrote Romans as he did to leave a full exposition of the gospel in good hands if his ministry ended prematurely in Jerusalem.

"The peculiar position of the apostle at the time of writing, as he reviews the past and anticipates the future, enables us to understand the absence of controversy in this epistle, the conciliatory attitude, and the didactic and apologetic elements which are all found combined herein."⁵

The great contribution of this letter to the body of New Testament inspired revelation is its reasoned explanation of how God's righteousness can become man's possession.

The Book of Romans is distinctive among Paul's inspired writings in several respects. It was one of the few letters he wrote to churches with which he had had no personal dealings. The only other epistle of this kind was Colossians. It is also a formal treatise within a personal letter.⁶ Paul expounded on the gospel in this treatise. He probably did so in this epistle rather than in another because the church in Rome was at the heart of the Roman Empire. As such it was able to exert great influence in the dissemination of the gospel. For these two reasons Romans is more formal and less personal than most of Paul's other epistles.

The Epistle to the Romans is, by popular consent, the greatest of Paul's writings. William Tyndale, the great English reformer and translator, referred to Romans as "the principle and most excellent part of the New Testament." He went on to say the following in his prologue to Romans that he wrote in the 1534 edition of his English New Testament.

"No man verily can read it too oft or study it too well; for the more it is studied the easier it is, the more it is chewed the pleasanter it is, and the more groundly [sic] it is searched the preciouser [sic] things are found in it, so great treasures of spiritual things lieth hid therein."⁷

Martin Luther wrote the following commendation of this epistle.

"[Romans] is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes."⁸

Message⁹

Throughout the history of the church Christians have recognized this epistle as the most important book in the New Testament. The reason for this conviction is that it is an exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Luther called Romans "the chief part of the New Testament and the perfect gospel." Coleridge, the English poet, declared it to be "the most profound work in existence." Frederick Godet, the French commentator, described it as "the cathedral of the Christian faith."¹⁰

To appreciate the message of this book it will be helpful first to consider Paul's presuppositions. He based these, of course, on Old Testament revelation concerning cosmology and history.

First, Paul assumed the God of the Old Testament. He assumed God's existence and full deity. He believed that God is holy and just. He also held that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign ruler of the universe.

Second, Paul's view of man is that he is subject to God's government of the universe. Man has received a measure of freedom from God, so he can choose to pursue sin. However, if he does so, he is still in the sovereign hand of God. God can allow the consequences of his sins to have their effects on him both now and forever. Man is also in authority over the rest of the material creation (Gen. 1:28). What man has experienced, the material creation also has experienced and reflects as a result of man's action.

Third, Paul's view of history was that of Old Testament revelation. The important historical events for Paul were those in his Scriptures.

Adam was the first man. He rebelled against God's authority. The result was threefold: the practical dethronement of God in the minds of Adam's descendents, the degradation of humanity, and the defilement of creation. This is a very different view of history from what evolutionists and humanists take. Man has lost his scepter because he rebelled against God's scepter.

Two other individuals were specially significant in history for Paul as we see in Romans: Abraham and Jesus Christ. God called Abraham to be a channel of blessing to the world. Christ is the greatest blessing. Through Him people and creation can experience restoration to God's original intention for them.

These are Paul's basic presuppositions on which all his reasoning in Romans rests. Romans is not the best book to put in the hands of an unsaved person to lead him or her to salvation. John is better for that purpose. However, Romans is the best book to put in the hands of a saved person to lead him or her to understand and appreciate our salvation.

We turn now to the major revelations in this book. These are its central teachings, the emphases that distinguish Romans from other books of the Bible.

First, Romans reveals the tragic helplessness of the human race. No other book of the Bible looks so fearlessly into the abysmal degradation that has resulted from human sin. If you read only 1:18-3:20, you will become depressed by its pessimism. If you keep reading, you will conclude from 3:21 on that we have the best, most optimistic news you have ever heard. This book is all about ruin and redemption. Its first great revelation is the absolute ruin and helplessness of the human race.

Paul divides the ruined race into two parts. The first of these is the Gentiles who have the light of nature. God has given everyone, Gentiles and Jews, the opportunity of observing and concluding two things about Himself: His wisdom and power. The average person as well as the scientist concludes that Someone wise must have put the natural world together, and He must be very powerful. Nevertheless having come to that conclusion he turns from God to vain reasonings, vile passions, unrighteous behavior, envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, pride, and perverted conduct. Just read today's newspaper and you will find confirmation of Paul's analysis of the human race.

The other part of the ruined race is the Jews who, in addition to the light of nature, also had the light of Scripture. Paul observed that in spite of his greater revelation and privilege the Jew behaves the same way as the Gentile. Yet he is a worse sinner. Having professed devotion to God and having claimed to be a teacher of the Gentiles because of his greater light he disobeys God and causes the Gentiles to blaspheme His name. Paul concluded, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (3:10). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23).

The second major revelation of Romans is the magnificence of the divine plan of salvation. This plan centers on Jesus Christ whom Paul introduced on the very first page of his letter (1:3-4). God declared to everyone that the Jesus of the Gospels is His Son by resurrecting Him.

Two words describe Christ's relation to the divine plan of salvation: manifestation and propitiation. The righteousness manifested in Him is available to people through His propitiation. God's righteousness is available to everyone because Jesus died as the perfect offering for sin. The righteousness we see in Jesus in the Gospel records is available to those who believe that His sacrifice satisfied God (3:21, 25).

We can also describe God's relation to the plan of salvation with two words: holiness and love. The plan of salvation that Romans expounds resulted from a holy God reaching out to sinful humanity lovingly (3:22, 24). This plan vindicates the holiness of God as it unveils God's gracious love (chs. 9-11).

Man's relation to the plan of salvation is threefold. It involves justification, the imputation of God's righteousness to the believing sinner. It also involves sanctification, the impartation of God's righteousness to the redeemed sinner. Third, it involves glorification, the perfection of God's righteousness in the sanctified sinner. In justification God lifts the sinner into a relationship with Himself that is more intimate than we would have enjoyed if we had never sinned. In sanctification God progressively transforms the sinner into the Savior's image by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In glorification God finally restores the sinner to the place God intended for us to occupy in creation.

The creation's relation to the plan of salvation is twofold. God restores creation's king, man, to his intended position. Second, creation realizes all of its intended possibilities that sin has denied it.

Let us note next some of the lessons of this book. What did God want us to learn from it?

First, Romans calls us to measure ourselves by divine rather than human standards. We sometimes evaluate ourselves and one another by using the criteria that our age sets or that we set. However to know our true condition we must use the criteria that God sets. This standard reveals that we are all guilty before God. This is one of the great lessons that Romans teaches us.

Second, Romans calls us to live by faith rather than by sight. God did not come any closer to mankind in the incarnation of Christ than He ever had been. Yet in the incarnation the nearness of God became more obvious to people. In the resurrection the Son of God became observable as the Son of God to human beings. All the glories of salvation come to us as we believe God. Romans contrasts the folly of trying to obtain salvation by working for it with trusting God, simply believing what He has revealed as true.

Third, Romans calls us to dedicate ourselves to God rather than living self-centered lives (12:1). This is the reasonable response to having received salvation. We should give ourselves to God. God's grace puts us in His debt. Paul did not say that if we fail to dedicate ourselves to God we are unsaved. Rather he appeals to us as saved people to do for God what He has done for us, namely giving ourselves out of love. When we do this, we show that we truly appreciate what God has done for us.

On the basis of these observations I would summarize the message of Romans in these words. Since God has lovingly provided salvation for helpless sinners through His Son, we should accept that sacrifice by faith and express our gratitude to God by dedicating our lives to Him.

In conclusion let me suggest an application of the message of Romans.

In view of the greatness of the salvation that God has provided as Romans reveals, we, as Paul, have a duty to communicate this good news to the world (1:14-17; Matt. 28:19). We do this both by lip and life, by explanation and by example (8:29). Our living example will reflect death to self as well as life to God (6:13).

Constable: Romans (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-17

A. Salutation 1:1-7

1. The writer 1:1

2. The subject of the epistle 1:2-5

3. The original recipients 1:6-7

B. Purpose 1:8-15

C. Theme 1:16-17

II. The need for God's righteousness 1:18-3:20

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

1. The reason for human guilt 1:18

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

3. The wickedness of mankind 1:28-32

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

1. God's principles of judgment 2:1-16

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

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

C. The guilt of all humanity 3:9-20

III. The imputation of God's righteousness 3:21-5:21

A. The description of justification 3:21-26

B. The defense of justification by faith alone 3:27-31

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

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

2. David's testimony to justification by faith 4:6-8

3. The priority of faith to circumcision 4:9-12

4. The priority of faith to the promise concerning headship of many nations 4:13-17

5. The exemplary value of Abraham's faith 4:18-22

6. Conclusions from Abraham's example 4:23-25

D. The benefits of justification 5:1-11

E. The universal applicability of justification 5:12-21

IV. The impartation of God's righteousness chs. 6-8

A. The believer's relationship to sin ch. 6

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

2. Slavery to righteousness 6:15-23

B. The believer's relationship to the law ch. 7

1. The law's authority 7:1-6

2. The law's activity 7:7-12

3. The law's inability 7:13-25

C. The believer's relationship to God ch. 8

1. Our deliverance from the flesh by the power of the Spirit 8:1-11

2. Our new relationship to God 8:12-17

3. Our present sufferings and future glory 8:18-25

4. Our place in God's sovereign plan 8:26-30

5. Our eternal security 8:31-39

V. The vindication of God's righteousness chs. 9-11

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

1. God's blessings on Israel 9:1-5

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

3. God's freedom to elect 9:14-18

4. God's mercy toward Israel 9:19-29

5. God's mercy toward the Gentiles 9:30-33

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

1. The reason God has set Israel aside 10:1-7

2. The remedy for rejection 10:8-15

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

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

1. Israel's rejection not total 11:1-10

2. Israel's rejection not final 11:11-24

3. Israel's restoration assured 11:25-32

4. Praise for God's wise plans 11:33-36

VI. The practice of God's righteousness 12:1-15:13

A. Dedication to God 12:1-2

B. Conduct within the church 12:3-21

1. The diversity of gifts 12:3-8

2. The necessity of love 12:9-21

C. Conduct within the state ch. 13

1. Conduct towards the government 13:1-7

2. Conduct toward unbelievers 13:8-10

3. Conduct in view of our hope 13:11-14

D. Conduct within Christian liberty 14:1-15:13

1. The folly of judging one another 14:1-12

2. The evil of offending one another 14:13-23

3. The importance of pleasing one another 15:1-6

4. the importance of accepting one another 15:7-13

VII. Conclusion 15:14-16:27

A. Paul's ministry 15:14-33

1. Past labors 15:14-21

2. Present program 15:22-29

3. Future plans 15:30-33

B. Personal matters ch. 16

1. A commendation 16:1-2

2. Various greetings to Christians in Rome 16:3-16

3. A warning 16:17-20

4. Greetings from Paul's companions 16:21-24

5. A doxology 16:25-27

Constable: Romans

Romans

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1881.

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Auden, W. H. For the Time Being. London: Faber and Faber, 1958.

Baker, Bruce A. "Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional Apologetics." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):280-98.

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

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Harper's New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957.

Battle, John A., Jr. "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26." Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981):115-29.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Robert H. Romans: a letter to non-conformists. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):37-45.

Blue, J. Ronald. "Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):338-50.

Bock, Darrell L. "The Reign of the Lord Christ." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 37-67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Bruce, Frederick F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Revised ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Burns, J. Lanier. "The Future of Ethnic Israel in Romans 11." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 188-229. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):310-26. Reprinted from January 1948 issue.

_____. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Coates, C. A. An Outline of the Epistle to the Romans. Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n. d..

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Cook, W. Robert. "Biblical Light on the Christian's Civil Responsibility." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):44-57.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Doctrine of Prayer." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Crain, C. Readings on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1998.

Culver, Robert Duncan. "Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):131-43.

Daane, James. The Freedom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Acts of the Apostles--St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Fourth ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by C. W. Emmet.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings, 1902 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Archibald Robertson.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary series. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Dunnett, Walter M. The Secret of Life, Victory and Service. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1961.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Fort, John. God's Salvation. New ed. revised. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Premillennial View of Law and Government." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):250-66.

_____. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Glenny, W. Edward. "The Israel Imagery of 1 Peter 2." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 156-87. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "The People of God' in Romans 9:25-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):42-59.

Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin. Revised and edited by Talbot W. Chambers. Classic Commentary Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. Salvation is Forever. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. Second ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hannah, John D. "The Doctrine of Original Sin in Postrevolutionary America." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):238-56.

_____. "The Meaning of Saving Faith: Luther's Interpretation of Romans 3:28." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):322-34.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Henry, Carl F. H. "Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):57-65.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Presentation and Transformation: An Exposition of Romans 12:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):309-24.

_____. "Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):170-83.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Death/Life Option." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:11 (November 1991):

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Hopkins, Evan H. The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life. Revised ed. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1952.

Howe, Frederic R. "A Review of Birthright, by David C. Needham." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):68-78.

Howell, Don N., Jr. "The Center of Pauline Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):50-70.

Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans. Torch Bible Commentaries series. London: SCM, 1955.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Handley Dunelm.

Ironside, Harry A. Sailing With Paul. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1965.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Behold the Lamb: The Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement." In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 119-38. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

_____. "Evidence from Romans 9-11." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 199-223. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:528 (October-December 1975):316-26.

_____. "Studies in Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):120-34; 512 (October-December 1971):327-40; 129:513 (January-March 1972):61-74; 514 (April-June 1972):124-33; 130:517 (January-March 1973):24-34; 518 (April-June 1973):151-63; 519 (July-September 1973):235-49; 520 (October-December 1973):329-37; 131:522 (April-June 1974):163-72.

Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Kaye, B. The Argument of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin: Scholars Press, 1979.

Ketcham, Robert T. God's Provision for Normal Christian Living. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Klein, W. W. "Paul's Use of Kalein: A Proposal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):53-64.

Knight, George W., III. "The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):3-13.

Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12-16." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):37-51.

Lampe, P. "The Roman Christians in Romans 16." In The Romans Debate, pp. 216-230. Revised and expanded ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans-Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fry, and C. F. Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Li, Ping-Kuen Eric. "The Relationship of the Christian to the Law as Expressed in Romans 10:4." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.

Liddon, Henry Parry. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n. d..

Longacre, Robert E., and Wallis, Wilber B. "Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):367-82.

Lowe, Chuck. "There Is No Condemnation' (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):231-50.

Lowery, David K. "Christ, the End of the Law in Romans 10:4." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 230-47. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lyall, Francis. "Roman Law in the Writings of Paul--Adoption." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (December 1969):458-66.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

MacDonald, William. The Epistle to the Romans. Oak Park, Il: Emmaus Bible School, 1953.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):327-40.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

Maurier, Henri. The Other Covenant. New York: Newman Press, 1968.

McBeth, J. P. Exegetical and Practical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1937.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

McGee, J. Vernon. Reasoning through Romans. 2 vols. Los Angeles: Church of the Open Door, n. d..

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. "The Epistle to the Romans." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1179-1226. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Mitchell, Curtis C. "The Holy Spirit's Intercessory Ministry." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:555 (July-September 1982):230-42.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

_____. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.

Nee, Watchman. The Normal Christian Life. Second British ed. London: Witness and Testimony Publishers, 1958.

Needham, David C. Birthright. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1979.

Newell, William R. Romans Verse by Verse. 1938. Chicago: Moody Press, 1970.

Packer, J. I. "The Way of Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):195-205; 516 (October-December 1972):291-306; 130:517 (January-March 1973):3-11; 518 (April-June 1973):110-16.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Phillips, J. B. The New Testament in Modern English. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pyne, Robert A. "Antinomianism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):141-54.

_____. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Radmacher, Earl. "First Response to Faith According to the Apostle James' by John F. MacArthur, Jr." Journal of the Evangelical Society 33:1 (March 1990):35-41.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Ramm, Bernard. The Witness of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Reid, Marty L. "A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):181-91.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Ridenour, Fritz. How To Be a Christian Without Being Religious. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1967.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Russell, Walter B., III. "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):174-84.

_____. "Insights from Postmodernism's Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):511-27.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153-62.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. What You Should Know about Social Responsibility. Current Christian Issues series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur, C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Sarles, Ken. L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145-577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Death in the City. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

_____. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):25-40.

Stifler, James M. The Epistle to the Romans. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Stott, John R. W. Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8. London: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swindoll, Charles R. "Is the Holy Spirit Transforming You?" Kindred Spirit 18:1 (January-April 1994):4-7.

Taylor, Clyde W. "Christian Citizens." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):200-14.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S. v. "opsonion," by Hans Wolfgang Heidland, 5 (1967):591-92.

_____. S. v. "soma," by Edward Schweizer, 7 (1971):1024-94.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith, Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

_____. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Contrast Between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Ninth ed. London: James Clarke & Co., 1961.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Van den Doel, Anthonie. "Submission in the New Testament." Brethren Life and Thought 31:2 (Spring 1986):121-25.

Vine, W. E. The Epistle to the Romans. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

Vos, Gerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton: By the author, 1930.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d..

Way, Arthur S. The Letters of St. Paul and Hebrews. Reprint. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ'." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton, Il.: Victor Books, Scripture Press, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance by Inner Witness?" Grace Evangelical Society News 8:2 (March-April 1993):2-3.

_____. "Obedience to the Faith: Romans 1:5." Grace in Focus 10:6 (November-December 1995):2-4.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):62-67.

Witmer, John A. "The Man with Two Countries." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):338-49.

_____. "Romans." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 435-503. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Wood, Leon. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.

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

_____. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Zuck, Roy B. "Cheap Grace?" Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):4-7.

_____. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but an humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal. We shall learn there that faith is essentially necessary to please God; that this faith is but one, as God is but one; and that faith which shews itself not by good works, is dead. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of works that are incapable of justifying us, he speaks not of the works of moral righteousness, but of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic law, on which the Jews laid such great stress as necessary to salvation. --- St. Peter (in his 2nd Epistle, chap. iii.) assures us that there were some in his time, as there are found some now in our days, who misconstrue St. Paul's epistles, as if he required no good works any more after baptism than before baptism, and maintaining that faith alone would justify and save a man. Hence the other apostles wrote their epistles, as St. Augustine remarks in these words; "therefore because this opinion, that faith only was necessary to salvation, was started, the other apostolical epistles do most pointedly refute it, forcibly contending that faith without works profiteth nothing." Indeed St. Paul himself, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (Chap. xiii. 2.) positively asserts: if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. --- This epistle, like most of the following, is divided into two parts: the first treats of points of doctrine, and extends to the eleventh chapter inclusively; the second treats of morality, and is contained in the last five chapters: but to be able to understand the former, and to practise the latter, humble prayer and a firm adherence to the Catholic Church, which St. Paul (1 Timothy chap. iii.) styles, the pillar and ground of truth, are undoubtedly necessary. Nor should we ever forget what St. Peter affirms, that in St. Paul's epistles there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter chap. iii. ver. 16.) (Haydock) --- St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem; and after he had preached in almost all places from Jerusalem even to Illyris, Illyrium, or Illyricum. See this Epistle, chap. xv. It was written in Greek. It is not the first in order of time, though placed first, either because of the dignity of the chief Christian Church, or of its sublime contents. --- The apostle's chief design was not only to unite all the new Christian converts, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, in the same faith, but also to bring them to a union in charity, love, and peace; to put an end to those disputes and contentions among them, which were particularly occasioned by those zealous Jewish converts, who were for obliging all Christians to the observance of the Mosaic precepts and ceremonies. They who had been Jews, boasted that they were the elect people of God, preferred before all other nations, to whom he had given this written law, precepts, and ceremonies by Moses, to whom he had sent his prophets, and had performed so many miracles in their favour, while the Gentiles were left in their ignorance and idolatry. The Gentiles, now converted, were apt to brag of the learning of their great philosophers, and that sciences had flourished among them: they reproached the Jews with the disobedience of their forefathers to God, and the laws he had given them; that they had frequently returned to idolatry; that they had persecuted and put to death the prophets, and even their Messias, the true Son of God. St. Paul shews that neither the Jew nor the Gentile had reason to boast, but to humble themselves under the hand of God, the author of their salvation. He puts the Jews in mind, that they could not expect to be justified and saved merely by the ceremonies and works of their law, thought good in themselves; that the Gentiles, as well as they, were now called by the pure mercy of God: that they were all to be saved by believing in Christ, and complying with his doctrine; that sanctification and salvation can only be had by the Christian faith. He does not mean by faith only, as it is one particular virtue, different from charity, hope, and other Christian virtues; but he means by faith, the Christian religion, and worship, taken in opposition to the law of Moses and to the moral virtues of heathens. The design of the Epistle to the Galatians is much the same. From the 12th chapter he exhorts them to the practice of Christian virtues. (Witham)

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

Gill: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS

Though this epistle is in order placed the first of the epistles, yet it was not first written: there were several epistles written before it, as the two epistles to the Thessalonians, the two to the Corinthians, the first epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus: the reason why this epistle stands first, is either the excellency of it, of which Chrysostom had so great an esteem that he caused it to be read over to him twice a week; or else the dignity of the place, where the persons lived to whom it is written, being Rome, the imperial city: so the books of the prophets are not placed in the same order in which they were written: Hosea prophesied as early as Isaiah, if not earlier; and before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and yet stands after them. This epistle was written from Corinth, as the subscription of it testifies; and which may be confirmed from the apostle's commendation of Phoebe, by whom he sent it, who was of Cenchrea, a place near Corinth; by his calling Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, who abode at Corinth, 2Ti 4:20, and Gaius his host, who was a Corinthian, Rom 16:23, 1Co 1:14, though at what time it was written from hence, is not so evident: some think it was written in the time of his three months' travel through Greece, Act 20:2, a little before the death of the Emperor Claudius, in the year of Christ 55; others, that it was written by him in the short stay he made at Corinth, when he came thither, as is supposed, from Philippi, in his way to Troas, where some of his company went before, and had been there five days before him: and this is placed in the second year of Nero, and in the year of Christ 56; however, it was not written by him during his long stay at Corinth, when he was first there, but afterwards, even after he had preached from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum: and when he was about to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions of the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, to the poor saints there, Rom 15:19. The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church; See Gill on Act 28:14; Act 28:15; by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome, and who were the means of forming the church there, is not very evident Irenaeus, an ancient writer, says ^a, that Peter and Paul preached the Gospel at Rome, and founded the church; and Gaius, an ecclesiastical man, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, asserts the same; and Dionysius; bishop of the Corinthians, calls the Romans the plantation of Peter and Paul ^b: whether Peter was ever at Rome is not a clear point with many; and certain it is, that the Apostle Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, at least it seems very probable he had not, by several expressions in Rom 1:10; and yet here was a church to which he writes, and had been a considerable time; for their faith was spoken of throughout the world, Rom 1:8; and when the apostle was on the road to this city, the brethren in it met him, Act 28:15. The chief design of this epistle is to set in a clear light the doctrine of justification: showing against the Gentiles, that it is not by the light of nature, and works done in obedience to that, and against the Jews, that it was not by the law of Moses, and the deeds of that; which he clearly evinces, by observing the sinful and wretched estate both of Jews and Gentiles: but that it is by the righteousness of Christ imputed through the grace of God, and received by faith; the effects of which are peace and joy in the soul, and holiness in the life and conversation: he gives an account of the justified ones, as that they are not without sin, which he illustrates by his own experience and case; and yet are possessed of various privileges, as freedom from condemnation, the blessing of adoption, and a right to the heavenly inheritance; he treats in it concerning predestination, the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews; and exhorts to the various duties incumbent on the saints, with respect to one another, and to the world, to duties of a moral and civil nature, and the use of things indifferent; and closes it with the salutations of divers persons.

Gill: Romans 5 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 5

The Apostle having clearly stated, and fully proved the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of faith, proceeds to observe the comfortable fruits and effects of this great blessing, known and enjoyed by the believer; as also the source and spring of it, the love of God, which appears in the death of Christ, in the room and stead of his people, which is the foundation on which it stands; and likewise gives an illustration of this benefit, by comparing the two heads, Adam and Christ, together. The first fruit and effect of justification, as a benefit perceived and enjoyed by faith, is peace with God through Christ, Rom 5:1. The next is access through the Mediator to the throne of grace, where justified ones stand with a holy boldness and confidence, and the third is a cheerful hope of eternal glory, Rom 5:2, yea, such not only have joy in the hope of what is to come, but glory even in present afflictions; which prevents an objection that might be made to the above mentioned fruits and effects of justification, taken from the tribulations which saints are exercised with: and what occasions glorying even in these, is the sanctified use, or happy produce of afflictions, these being the means of exercising and increasing patience; by means of which a larger experience of divine things is gained; and through that, hope is confirmed, and all influenced by a plenteous discovery of the love of God to the soul, by the Spirit, Rom 5:4, an instance of which love is given, Rom 5:6, in Christ's dying for men; which love is enhanced by the character and condition of the persons for whom Christ died, being ungodly, and without strength; and by the time of it, being due time: then follows a further illustration of this love, by comparing it with what instances of love are to be found among men, Rom 5:7, by which it appears to be unparalleled; since scarcely for a righteous man, peradventure for a good man, one would die, yet no man dies for the ungodly, as Christ did: hence as his, so his Father's love is highly commended, by giving him up to death for persons while in such a state and condition, and under such a character, Rom 5:8, and justification now springing from this love, and being founded on the death of Christ, hence follow a security from wrath to come, Rom 5:9, a certainty of salvation, Rom 5:10, which is strongly argued from the different characters those Christ died for bear, before and after reconciliation, and from the death to the life of Christ, Rom 5:10, and also a rejoicing and glorying: in God through Christ, full expiation being made by his blood for sin, and this received by faith, Rom 5:11, and then the apostle proceeds to compare the two heads, Adam and Christ, together; the design of which is to show the largeness and freeness of the love and grace of God; how righteousness for justification comes by Christ; and how the persons, before described as sinners and ungodly, came to be in such a condition; and that is through the sin of the first man, in whom they all were, and in whom they all sinned and died, Rom 5:12, wherefore there must be a law before the law of Moses, or there could have been no sin, Rom 5:13, but that sin was in being, and was reckoned and imputed to the posterity of Adam, is clear from this single instance, death's power even over infants, from the times of Adam to Moses, Rom 5:14 who therefore must be a public head, representing all his posterity; so that they were involved in the guilt of his sin, which brought death upon them; and in this he was a type of Christ, as is asserted in the same verse; that so as Adam was but one, and by one sin of his conveyed death to all his seed; so Christ, the Mediator, is but one, and by his one obedience conveys righteousness and, life to all his seed: and yet in some things there is a dissimilitude; sin and death, through the first man, are conveyed in a natural way to his offspring, but righteousness and life from Christ in a way of grace, Rom 5:15, It was one offence of Adam's, which brought condemnation and death upon all his posterity; but the righteousness of Christ is not only a justification of his seed from that one offence, but from all others, Rom 5:16, the one is unto death, the other unto life; and greater is the efficacy in the one to quicken, than in the other to kill, Rom 5:17, where a repetition is made of what is said in Rom 5:15, with an explanation, and the similitude between the two heads is clearly expressed, Rom 5:18, where condemnation on account of the sin of Adam, and justification through the righteousness of Christ, are opposed to each other; and both as extending to the whole of their several respective offspring, condemnation through Adam's offence to all his natural seed, and justification of life through Christ's righteousness to all his spiritual seed; which is still more fitly and clearly expressed in Rom 5:19, where the way and manner in which the one become sinners, and the other righteous, is plainly directed to; that it is, by the imputation of Adam's disobedience to the one, and by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the other: in Rom 5:20, an objection is obviated, which might be formed thus; if justification is by the grace of God, and through the obedience and righteousness of Christ, then the law is of no use; what purpose does that serve? what occasion was there for its entrance? The apostle replies, that though justification is not by it, yet a good end is answered by its entrance; for hereby sin is more known to be what it is, both original and actual; and the grace of God appears more abundant in justification from it, and in the pardon of it; and this grace is further illustrated in Rom 5:21, by comparing sin and grace together, and the different effects of their empire over the sons of men; the one reigning unto death, the other reigning through righteousness to eternal life by Christ.

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