Text -- Romans 8:3 (NET)

8:3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 8:3

That the law could not do ( to adunaton tou nomou ).

Literally, "the impossibility of the law"as shown in 7:7-24, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence.

Robertson: Rom 8:3

In that ( en hōi ).

"Wherein."

Robertson: Rom 8:3

It was weak ( ēsthenei ).

Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown.

Robertson: Rom 8:3

In the likeness of sinful flesh ( en homoiōmati sarkos hamartias ).

For "likeness"see note on Phi 2:7, a real man, but more than man for God’ s "own Son."Two genitives "of flesh of sin"(marked by sin), that is the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Jesus.

Robertson: Rom 8:3

And for sin ( kai peri hamartias ).

Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin).

Robertson: Rom 8:3

Condemned sin in the flesh ( katekrine tēn hamartian en tēi sarki ).

First aorist active indicative of katakrinō . He condemned the sin of men and the condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus. If the article tēn had been repeated before en tēi sarki Paul would have affirmed sin in the flesh of Jesus, but he carefully avoided that (Robertson, Grammar , p. 784).

Vincent: Rom 8:3

What the law could not do ( τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου )

Lit., the impossible ( thing ) of the law . An absolute nominative in apposition with the divine act - condemned sin . God condemned sin which condemnation was an impossible thing on the part of the law. The words stand first in the Greek order for emphasis.

Vincent: Rom 8:3

In the likeness of sinful flesh

Lit., of the flesh of sin . The choice of words is especially noteworthy. Paul does not say simply, " He came in flesh " (1Jo 4:2; 1Ti 3:16), for this would not have expressed the bond between Christ's manhood and sin. Not in the flesh of sin , which would have represented Him as partaking of sin. Not in the likeness of flesh , since He was really and entirely human; but, in the likeness of the flesh of sin : really human, conformed in appearance to the flesh whose characteristic is sin, yet sinless. " Christ appeared in a body which was like that of other men in so far as it consisted of flesh, and was unlike in so far as the flesh was not flesh of sin " (Dickson).

Vincent: Rom 8:3

For sin ( περὶ ἁμαρτίας )

The preposition expresses the whole relation of the mission of Christ to sin. The special relation is stated in condemned . For sin - to atone, to destroy, to save and sanctify its victims.

Vincent: Rom 8:3

Condemned

Deposed from its dominion, a thing impossible to the law, which could pronounce judgment and inflict penalty, but not dethrone. Christ's holy character was a condemnation of unholiness. Construe in the flesh with condemned .

Wesley: Rom 8:3

Of Moses. Could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh - Incapable of conquering our evil nature. If it could, God needed not to have sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh - We with our sinful flesh were devoted to death. But God sending his own Son, in the likeness of that flesh, though pure from sin, condemned that sin which was in our flesh; gave sentence, that sin should be destroyed, and the believer wholly delivered from it.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

A difficult and much controverted verse. But it is clearly, we think, the law's inability to free us from the dominion of sin that the apostle has in view; as has partly appeared already (see on Rom 8:2), and will more fully appear presently. The law could irritate our sinful nature into more virulent action, as we have seen in Rom 7:5, but it could not secure its own fulfilment. How that is accomplished comes now to be shown.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

That is, having to address itself to us through a corrupt nature, too strong to be influenced by mere commands and threatenings.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

The sentence is somewhat imperfect in its structure, which occasions a certain obscurity. The meaning is, that whereas the law was powerless to secure its own fulfilment for the reason given, God took the method now to be described for attaining that end.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

"having sent"

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

This and similar expressions plainly imply that Christ was God's "OWN SON" before He was sent--that is, in His own proper Person, and independently of His mission and appearance in the flesh (see on Rom 8:32 and Gal 4:4); and if so, He not only has the very nature of God, even as a son of his father, but is essentially of the Father, though in a sense too mysterious for any language of ours properly to define (see on the first through fourth chapters). And this peculiar relationship is put forward here to enhance the greatness and define the nature of the relief provided, as coming from beyond the precincts of sinful humanity altogether, yea, immediately from the Godhead itself.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

Literally, "of the flesh of sin"; a very remarkable and pregnant expression. He was made in the reality of our flesh, but only in the likeness of its sinful condition. He took our nature as it is in us, compassed with infirmities, with nothing to distinguish Him as man from sinful men, save that He was without sin. Nor does this mean that He took our nature with all its properties save one; for sin is no property of humanity at all, but only the disordered state of our souls, as the fallen family of Adam; a disorder affecting, indeed, and overspreading our entire nature, but still purely our own.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

Literally, "and about sin"; that is, "on the business of sin." The expression is purposely a general one, because the design was not to speak of Christ's mission to atone for sin, but in virtue of that atonement to destroy its dominion and extirpate it altogether from believers. We think it wrong, therefore, to render the words (as in the Margin) "by a sacrifice for sin" (suggested by the language of the Septuagint and approved by CALVIN, &c.); for this sense is too definite, and makes the idea of expiation more prominent than it is.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

"condemned it to lose its power over men" [BEZA, BENGEL, FRASER, MEYER, THOLUCK, PHILIPPI, ALFORD]. In this glorious sense our Lord says of His approaching death (Joh 12:31), "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out," and again (see on Joh 16:11), "When He (the Spirit) shall come, He shall convince the world of . . . judgment, because the prince of this world is judged," that is, condemned to let go his hold of men, who, through the Cross, shall be emancipated into the liberty and power to be holy.

JFB: Rom 8:3-4

That is, in human nature, henceforth set free from the grasp of sin.

Clarke: Rom 8:3

For what the law could not do - The law could not pardon; the law could not sanctify; the law could not dispense with its own requisitions; it is the rule of righteousness, and therefore must condemn unrighteousness. This is its unalterable nature. Had there been perfect obedience to its dictates, instead of condemning, it would have applauded and rewarded; but as the flesh, the carnal and rebellious principle, had prevailed, and transgression had taken place, it was rendered weak, inefficient to undo this word of the flesh, and bring the sinner into a state of pardon and acceptance with God

Clarke: Rom 8:3

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh - Did that which the law could not do; i.e. purchased pardon for the sinner, and brought every believer into the favor of God. And this is effected by the incarnation of Christ: He, in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, a human body like ours, but not sinful as ours; and for sin, και περι ἁμαρτιας, and as a Sacrifice for Sin, (this is the sense of the word in a multitude of places), condemned sin in the flesh - condemned that to death and destruction which had condemned us to both

Clarke: Rom 8:3

Condemned sin in the flesh - The design and object of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ was to condemn sin, to have it executed and destroyed; not to tolerate it as some think, or to render it subservient to the purposes of his grace, as others; but to annihilate its power, guilt, and being in the soul of a believer.

Calvin: Rom 8:3

3.For what was impossible for the law, etc. Now follows the polishing or the adorning of his proof, that the Lord has by his gratuitous mercy justified us in Christ; the very thing which it was impossible for the law to do. But as this is a very remarkable sentence, let us examine every part of it.

That he treats here of free justification or of the pardon by which God reconciles us to himself, we may infer from the last clause, when he adds, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit For if Paul intended to teach us, that we are prepared by the spirit of regeneration to overcome sin, why was this addition made? But it was very proper for him, after having promised gratuitous remission to the faithful, to confine this doctrine to those who join penitence to faith, and turn not the mercy of God so as to promote the licentiousness of the flesh. And then the state of the case must be noticed; for the Apostle teaches us here how the grace of Christ absolves us from guilt.

Now as to the expression, τὸ ἀδύνατον, the impossibility of the law, it is no doubt to be taken for defect or impotency; as though it had been said, that a remedy had been found by God, by which that which was an impossibility to the law is removed. The particle, ἐν ᾧ, [Erasmus] has rendered “ ea parte qua — in that part in which;” but as I think it to be causal, I prefer rendering it, “ eo quod — because:” and though perhaps such a phrase does not occur among good authors in the Greek language, yet as the Apostles everywhere adopt Hebrew modes of expression, this interpretation ought not to be deemed improper. ²³⁹ No doubt intelligent readers will allow, that the cause of defect is what is here expressed, as we shall shortly prove again. Now though [Erasmus] supplies the principal verb, yet the text seems to me to flow better without it. The copulative καὶ, and, has led [Erasmus] astray, so as to insert the verb prœstitit — hath performed; but I think that it is used for the sake of emphasis; except it may be, that some will approve of the conjecture of a Grecian scholiast, who connects the clause thus with the preceding words, “God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and on account of sin,” etc. I have however followed what I have thought to be the real meaning of Paul. I come now to the subject itself. ²⁴⁰

Paul clearly declares that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ, because it was impossible for the law to confer righteousness upon us. It hence follows, that more is required by the law than what we can perform; for if we were capable of fulfilling the law there would have been no need to seek a remedy elsewhere. It is therefore absurd to measure human strength by the precepts of the law; as though God in requiring what is justly due, had regarded what and how much we are able to do.

Because it was weak === etc. That no one might think that the law was irreverently charged with weakness, or confine it to ceremonies, Paul has distinctly expressed that this defect was not owing to any fault in the law, but to the corruption of our flesh; for it must be allowed that if any one really satisfies the divine law, he will be deemed just before God. He does not then deny that the law is sufficient to justify us as to doctrine, inasmuch as it contains a perfect rule of righteousness: but as our flesh does not attain that righteousness, the whole power of the law fails and vanishes away. Thus condemned is the error or rather the delirious notion of those who imagine that the power of justifying is only taken away from ceremonies; for Paul, by laying the blame expressly on us, clearly shows that he found no fault with the doctrine of the law.

But further, understand the weakness of the law according to the sense in which the Apostle usually takes the word ασθενεια, weakness, not only as meaning a small imbecility but impotency; for he means that the law has no power whatever to justify. ²⁴¹ You then see that we are wholly excluded from the righteousness of works, and must therefore flee to Christ for righteousness, for in us there can be none, and to know this is especially necessary; for we shall never be clothed with the righteousness of Christ except we first know assuredly that we have no righteousness of our own. The word flesh is to be taken still in the same sense, as meaning ourselves. The corruption then of our nature renders the law of God in this respect useless to us; for while it shows the way of life, it does not bring us back who are running headlong into death.

===God having sent his own Son, === etc. He now points out the way in which our heavenly Father has restored righteousness to us by his Son, even by condemning sin in the very flesh of Christ; who by cancelling as it were the handwriting, abolished sin, which held us bound before God; for the condemnation of sin made us free and brought us righteousness, for sin being blotted out we are absolved, so that God counts us as just. But he declares first that Christ was sent, in order to remind us that righteousness by no means dwells in us, for it is to be sought from him, and that men in vain confide in their own merits, who become not just but at the pleasure of another, or who borrow righteousness from that expiation which Christ accomplished in his own flesh. But he says, that he came in the likeness of the flesh of sin; for though the flesh of Christ was polluted by no stains, yet it seemed apparently to be sinful, inasmuch as it sustained the punishment due to our sins, and doubtless death exercised all its power over it as though it was subject to itself. And as it behoved our High-priest to learn by his own experience how to aid the weak, Christ underwent our infirmities, that he might be more inclined to sympathy, and in this respect also there appeared some resemblance of a sinful nature.

===Even for sin, etc. I have already said that this is explained by some as the cause or the end for which God sent his own Son, that is, to give satisfaction for sin. [Chrysostom] and many after him understood it in a still harsher sense, even that sin was condemned for sin, and for this reason, because it assailed Christ unjustly and beyond what was right. I indeed allow that though he was just and innocent, he yet underwent punishment for sinners, and that the price of redemption was thus paid; but I cannot be brought to think that the word sin is put here in any other sense than that of an expiatory sacrifice, which is called אשם , ashem, in Hebrew, ²⁴² and so the Greeks call a sacrifice to which a curse is annexed κάθαρμα, catharma. The same thing is declared by Paul in 2Co 5:21, when he says, that

“Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

But the preposition περὶ peri, is to be taken here in a causative sense, as though he had said, “On account of that sacrifice, or through the burden of sin being laid on Christ, sin was cast down from its power, so that it does not hold us now subject to itself.” For using a metaphor, he says that it was condemned, like those who fail in their cause; for God no longer deals with those as guilty who have obtained absolution through the sacrifice of Christ. If we say that the kingdom of sin, in which it held us, was demolished, the meaning would be the same. And thus what was ours Christ took as his own, that he might transfer his own to us; for he took our curse, and has freely granted us his blessing.

Paul adds here, In the flesh, and for this end, — that by seeing sin conquered and abolished in our very nature, our confidence might be more certain: for it thus follows, that our nature is really become a partaker of his victory; and this is what he presently declares.

Defender: Rom 8:3

Jesus Christ truly came "in the flesh" (Joh 1:14; 1Jo 4:2), but only in the "likeness" of "sinful" flesh. Outwardly the flesh of His human body was exactly like that of other human bodies, but it had been preserved free from inherent sin by His miraculous conception and virgin birth, then kept free from actual sin by His sinless life. Thus His flesh was sinless flesh."

TSK: Rom 8:3

For what : Rom 3:20, Rom 7:5-11; Act 13:39; Gal 3:21; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19, Heb 10:1-10,Heb 10:14

God : Rom 8:32; Joh 3:14-17; Gal 4:4, Gal 4:5; 1Jo 4:10-14

in the : Rom 9:3; Mar 15:27, Mar 15:28; Joh 9:24

for sin : or, by a sacrifice for sin, 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13

condemned : Rom 6:6; 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 4:1, 1Pe 4:2

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 8:3

For what the law could not do - The Law of God, the moral law. It could not free from sin and condemnation. This the apostle had fully shown in Rom. 7.

In that - Because.

It was weak - It was feeble and inefficacious. It could not accomplish it.

Through the flesh - In consequence of the strength of sin, and of the evil and corrupt desires of the unrenewed heart. The fault was not in the Law, which was good Rom 7:12, but it was owing to the strength of the natural passions and the sinfulness of the unrenewed heart; see Rom 7:7-11, where this influence is fully explained.

God, sending his own Son - That is, God did, or accomplished, that, by sending his Son, which the Law could not do. The word did, or accomplished, it is necessary to understand here, in order to complete the sense. In the likeness of sinful flesh - That is, he so far resembled sinful flesh that he partook of flesh, or the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires. It was not human nature; not, as the Docetae taught, human nature in appearance only; but it was human nature Without any of its corruptions.

And for sin - Margin, "By a sacrifice for sin."The expression evidently means, by an Offering for sin, or that he was given as a Sacrifice on account of sin. His being given had respect to sin. Condemned sin in the flesh - The flesh is regarded as the source of sin; Note, Rom 7:18. The flesh being the seat and origin of transgression, the atoning sacrifice was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that thus he might meet sin, as it were, on its own ground, and destroy it. He may be said to have condemned sin in this manner,

(1) Because the fact that he was given for it, and died on its account, was a condemnation of it. If sin had been approved by God he would not have made an atonement to secure its destruction. The depth and intensity of the woes of Christ on its account show the degree of abhorrence with which it is regarded by God.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he word "condemn"may be used in the sense of destroying, overcoming, or subduing; 2Pe 2:6, "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow."In this sense the sacrifice of Christ has no; only condemned sin as being evil, but has weakened its power and destroyed its influence, and will finally annihilate its existence in all who are saved by that death.

(By the sacrifice of Christ, God indeed showed his abhorrence of sin, and secured its final overthrow. It is not, however, of the sanctifying influence of this sacrifice, that the apostle seems here to speak, but of its justifying power. The sense, therefore, is that God passed a judicial sentence on sin, in the person of Christ, on account of which, that has been effected which the Law could not effect, (justification namely). Sin being condemned in the human nature of Christ, cannot be condemned and punished in the persons of those represented by him. They must be justified.

This view gives consistency to the whole passage, from the first verse to the fourth inclusive. The apostle clearly begins with the subject of justification, when, in the first verse, he affirms, that to them who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. If the question be put, Why is this? the second verse gives for answer, that believers are delivered from the Law as a covenant of works. (See the foregoing supplementary note). If the question again be put, Whence this deliverance? the third verse points to the sacrifice of Christ, which, the fourth verse assures us, was offered with the very design "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us."This clause, according to the principle of interpretation laid down above, does not relate to the believer’ s obedience to the righteous requirements of the Law. The apostle has in view a more immediate design of the sacrifice of Christ. The right or demand of the Law δικαίωμα dikaiōma was satisfaction to its injured honor. Its penalty must be borne, as well as its precept obeyed. The sacrifice of Christ answered every claim. And as believers are one with him, the righteousness of the Law has been "fulfilled in them."

The whole passage is thus consistently explained of justification.)

Poole: Rom 8:3

In this verse is a further proof of the main proposition in Rom 8:1 . There are two things in sin that may endanger us as to condemnation, the power and the guilt of it. As to the freeing us from the former, viz. the power of sin, of that he had spoken in the foregoing verse; as to taking away the guilt of sin, of that he speaks in this verse.

For what the law could not do: by the law here he means the moral law, the righteousness whereof is to be fulfilled in us, Rom 8:4 . What is it the law cannot do? There are several answers; but this is principally meant, it cannot justify us before God. It can condemn us, but it cannot exempt us from condemnation: see Act 13:38,39 Ga 3:21 Heb 7:18,19 .

In that it was weak through the flesh: by flesh, as before, we must understand the corrupt nature; that is, every man since the fall. This is that which puts a weakness and inability upon the law. The impotency of the law is not from itself, but from the condition of the subject with whom it hath to do. The law is weak to us, because we are weak to it: the sun cannot give light to a blind eye, not from any impotency in itself, but merely from the incapacity of the subject it shines upon.

God sending his own Son: to justify and save fallen man, was impossible for the law to do; therefore God will find out another way, that shall do it effectually. What his own law cannot do, his own Son can; and therefore him he will send.

In the likeness of sinful flesh i.e. such flesh as sin hath made now to be subject to many infirmities and weaknesses. Flesh in this clause carries quite another sense than it did in the first verse; and in the former part of this verse, than it doth in the following verse; there it is taken morally for the corrupt nature of man, here physically for the human nature of Christ. The word likeness is to be linked, not with flesh, but with sinful flesh; he had true and real flesh, but he had only the appearance and likeness of sinful flesh: see 2Co 5:21 Heb 4:15 7:26 1Pe 1:19 .

And for sin; either this clause is to be joined to what goes before, and then the sense is, that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he might take away sin. Or else it is joined to what follows, and then there is an ellipsis in it; something is cut off, or left out, which must be understood. The margin of our common Bibles insert the word sacrifice: q.d. By a sacrifice for sin, or by a sin-offering, he condemned sin. &c. This ellipsis is usual in Scripture. Isa 53:10 , When thou shalt make his soul sin; that is, (as our translation renders it), an offering for sin.

Eze 45:19 , The priest shall take of the blood of the sin; we read it, of the sin-offering. See the like in Hos 4:8 2Co 5:21 Heb 10:6 .

Condemned sin in the flesh; the Syriac reads it, in his flesh. The meaning is, that God severely punished sin, and inflicted the curse and penalty of it, that was due to us, in and upon the person of his own Son; God laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he bore them in his body upon a tree: see Gal 3:13 1Pe 2:24 .

Haydock: Rom 8:3

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh, (because the Son of God could not sin) hath now done; even of sin hath condemned sin in the flesh. That is, in or by his flesh, which was offered on the cross, hath condemned the tyrant sin, as guilty of so many sins, and hath destroyed his tyranny, where the apostle speaks of sin, as it were of a certain person or tyrant. (Witham)

Gill: Rom 8:3

For what the law could not do,.... This is not to be understood of "the law of the mind", in opposition to "the law of sin", which indeed is very feeble and impotent; man had a power originally of obeying the divine commands, but through sin he has lost his strength and power; and even a renewed mind cannot perform what it would, which is owing to the flesh, or corrupt nature; it has strong desires after holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but these desires cannot be fulfilled by it, and indeed without Christ it can do no good thing: nor is the ceremonial law intended, though this is weak, and there are many things it could not do; it could not expiate and atone for sin; nor remove the guilt of it, nor cleanse from the filth of it: But the moral law is here designed; this, though it can, and does accuse of sin, can convince of it, can curse, condemn, and condemn to death for it; yet it could not condemn sin itself, which is only abolished by Christ; it cannot restrain from sin, nor change a sinful nature, nor sanctify an impure heart; nor free from the guilt of sin, nor comfort a distressed mind under a sense of it, it cannot subject persons, or bring them to before God, or give life, or save from death; the reason is,

in that, or because

it was weak through the flesh. The weakness of the law is total and universal, it has no strength at all; though not original and natural, but accidental; it is owing to the flesh, or the corrupt nature of man: or rather the weakness is in sinful men, and not in the law; and the sense is this, that human nature is so weakened by sin, that it is incapable of fulfilling the law; the weakness of the law is not from itself, but from man: to this agrees what the Jewish writers ^u say,

"there is not a word in the law "weak", or broken; wherefore when thou considerest and observest it, that thou dost not find it strong, as an hammer that breaks the rocks, ואי חלשא מינך הוא, "but if weak, it is of thyself".''

To which may be added that usual saying of theirs, אין עוז אלה תורה, "there is no strength but the law" ^w; unless the apostle can be thought to oppose this notion of theirs. Wherefore because of the weakness of the law, or of human nature to fulfil it,

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The person sending is God, who gave the law weakened by the flesh, against whom we have sinned: and who is righteous, pure, and holy: which considerations enhance his grace and goodness, in the mission of Christ. This must be understood of God the Father, who is here manifestly distinguished from the Son; and who is God, but not solely, or to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit; and who sent Christ, though not singly, for the "Lord God and his Spirit sent" him, Isa 48:16; though as it is most agreeable for a father to send his son, this is generally ascribed to him; and he being the first person in the Godhead, is the first in order of working, and so in redemption. The person sent is his own Son; not by creation, as angels and men are; nor by adoption, as saints are; nor is he called so, on account of his incarnation, resurrection, or mediatorship, for he was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him, and his Son in that nature in which he is God. The act of sending, does not suppose inequality of nature; for though he that is sent is not greater, yet as great as he that sends; two equals, by agreement, may send each other; a divine person may assume an office, and under that consideration be sent, without supposing inferiority of nature, as in the case of the Holy Spirit; and an inferiority as to office, is allowed in the case of the Son; God sent his Son under the character of a servant, to do work: nor does this act imply change of place; there is indeed a "terminus a quo", from whence he was sent, from heaven, from his Father there; and there is a "terminus ad quem", to which he was sent into this world; but then this coming of his from heaven to earth, was not by local motion, but by assumption of nature; nor was it out of any disrespect to his Son, but out of love to us, that he sent him; nor was he sent against his will; he showed no reluctance at the proposal to him in the council of peace, but the utmost willingness; nor any at his coming into the world: nor at the work itself, which he entered upon, and went through with the greatest eagerness and cheerfulness: nor does it suppose him whilst sent, and here on earth, to be in a state of absence and separation from his Father; he was still in his bosom, yet in heaven, and his Father always with him: but it supposes that he existed before he was sent; that he was a person, and distinct from the Father, or he could not be sent by him; that he had authority from him, considered in his office capacity: in a word, this sending of the Son, designs the manifestation of him in human nature; as appears from the form and manner in which he was sent, "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; which expresses the reality of his incarnation, of his having a true real human nature; for flesh is not to be taken strictly for a part of the body, nor for the whole body only, but for the whole human nature, soul and body; which though it looked like a sinful nature, yet was not sinful: the likeness of it denotes the outward appearance of Christ in it; who was born of a sinful woman; was subject to the infirmities of human nature, which though not sinful, are the effects of sin; was reckoned among transgressors, was traduced as one himself by men, and treated as such by the justice of God; he having all the sins of his people on him, for which he was answerable: "and" hence God, "for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"; not the law, which was weak through the flesh; nor sinners, who broke the law; but sin itself, the transgression of the law, all kind of sin, and all that is in it the act of condemning it, does not design God's disapproving of it, and judging it to be evil; this he could not but do, as being contrary to his nature, an act of hostility against him, a breach of his law, and what brings ruin upon his creatures; and this he would have done, if Christ had never suffered in the flesh; and he has taken other methods, both among his own people and the world, to show his dislike of sin: nor does this act intend the destruction of the power and dominion of sin, in regeneration; this is the work of the Spirit, and is done in our flesh, and not in the flesh of Christ; but it is to be understood of the condemnation and punishment of sin, in the person of Christ: sin was laid on him by the Father, and he voluntarily took it upon himself; justice finding it there, charges him with it, demands satisfaction, and condemns him for it; and hereby sin was expiated, the pardon of it procured, and it was, entirely done away: now this is said to be done "for sin"; some join the phrase with the former part of the text, either with the word "sending", and take the sense to be, that God sent his Son for, or on the account of sin, to take it away, and save his people from it; or "with sinful flesh", which was taken from a sinful person; but it stands best as it does in our version, and may be rendered "of sin"; for God condemned sin of sin in Christ, that is, by the vengeance he took of it, in the strictness of his justice, through the sufferings of his Son, he showed sin to be exceeding sinful indeed; or rather "by sin"; that is, by an offering for sin, so the word is used in Heb 10:6; and answers to חטאה, in Psa 40:6, by being made which, sin was condemned "in the flesh" of Christ, who was put to death in the flesh, "for" the sins of his people, and bore all the punishment due unto them: from hence we learn the evil of sin, the strictness of justice, and the grace of the Redeemer.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 8:3

¹ tn Grk “in that.”

Geneva Bible: Rom 8:3

^{( 4 )} For what the law ^{( f )} could not do, in that it was weak through the ^{( g )} flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of ^{( h )} sinful flesh, and for ^{( i )} sin, ^{( k )} condemned sin in the flesh:

^{( 4 )} He does not use an argument here, but expounds the mystery of sanctification, which is imputed to us: because, he says, the power of the law was not such (and that by reason of the corruption of our nature) that it could make man pure and perfect, and because it rather kindled the flame of sin than put it out and extinguish it, therefore God clothed his Son with flesh just like our sinful flesh, in which he utterly abolished our corruption, that being accounted thoroughly pure and without fault in him, apprehended and laid hold of by faith, we might be found to fully have the singular perfection which the law requires, and therefore that there might be no condemnation in us.

^{( f )} Which is not the fault of the law, but is due to our fault.

^{( g )} In man when he is not born again, whose disease the law could point out, but it could not heal it.

^{( h )} Of man's nature which is corrupt through sin, until Christ sanctified it.

^{( i )} To abolish sin in our flesh.

^{( k )} Showed that sin has no right to be in us.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 8:1-39

1 They that are in Christ, are free from condemnation.

5 What harm comes of the flesh;

13 and what good of the Spirit.

19 The glorious deliverance all things long for,

29 was beforehand decreed from God.

38 Nothing can sever us from his love.

Maclaren: Rom 8:3

Christ Condemning Sin

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.'--Romans 8:3.

IN the first verse of this chapter we read that' There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' The reason of that is, that they are set free from the terrible sequence of cause and effect which constitutes the law of sin and death'; and the reason why they are freed from that awful sequence by the power of Christ is, because He has condemned sin in the flesh.' The occurrence of the two words condemnation' (ver. 1) and' condemned' (ver. 3) should be noted. Sin is personified as dwelling in the flesh, which expression here means, not merely the body, but unregenerate human nature. He has made his fortress there, and rules over it all. The strong man keeps his house and his goods are in peace. He laughs to scorn the attempts of laws and moralities of all sorts to cast him out. His dominion is death to the human nature over which he tyrannises. Condemnation is inevitable to the men over whom he rules. They or he must perish. If he escape they die. If he could be slain they might live. Christ comes, condemns the tyrant, and casts him out. So, he being condemned, we are acquitted; and he being slain there is no death for us. Let us try to elucidate a little further this great metaphor by just pondering the two points prominent in it--Sin tyrannising over human nature and resisting all attempts to overcome it, and Christ's condemnation and casting out of the tyrant.

I. Sin Tyrannising Over Human Nature, And Resisting All Attempts To Overcome It.

Paul is generalising his own experience when he speaks of the condemnation of an intrusive alien force that holds unregenerate human nature in bondage. He is writing a page of his own autobiography, and he is sure that all the rest of us have like pages in ours. Heart answereth unto heart as in a mirror. If each man is a unity, the poison must run through all his veins and affect his whole nature. Will, understanding, heart, must all be affected and each in its own way by the intruder; and if men are a collective whole, each man's experience is repeated in his brother's.

The Apostle is equally transcribing his own experience when in the text he sadly admits the futility of all efforts to shake the dominion of sin. He has found in his own case that even the loftiest revelation in the Mosaic law utterly fails in the attempt to condemn sin. This is true not only in regard to the Mosaic law but in regard to the law of conscience, and to moral teachings of any kind. It is obvious that all such laws do condemn sin in the sense that they solemnly declare God's judgment about it, and His sentence on it; but in the sense of real condemnation, or casting out, and depriving sin of its power, they all are impotent. The law may deter from overt acts or lead to isolated acts of obedience; it may stir up antagonism to sin's tyranny, but after that it has no more that it can do. It cannot give the purity which it proclaims to be necessary, nor create the obedience which it enjoins. Its thunders roll terrors, and no fruitful rain follows them to soften the barren soil. There always remains an unbridged gulf between the man and the law.

And this is what Paul points to in saying that it was weak through the flesh.' It is good in itself, but it has to work through the sinful nature. The only powers to which it can appeal are those which are already in rebellion. A discrowned king whose only forces to conquer his rebellious subjects are the rebels themselves, is not likely to regain his crown. Because law brings no new element into our humanity, its appeal to our humanity has little more effect than that of the wind whistling through an archway. It appeals to conscience and reason by a plain declaration of what is right; to will and understanding by an exhibition of authority; to fears and prudence by plainly setting forth consequences. But what is to be done with men who know what is right but have no wish to do it, who believe that they ought but will not, who know the consequences but choose rather the pleasures of sin for a season,' and shuffle the future out of their minds altogether? This is the essential weakness of all law. The tyrant is not afraid so long as there is no one threatening his reign, but the unarmed herald of a discrowned king. His citadel will not surrender to the blast of the trumpet blown from Sinai.

II. Christ's Condemnation And Casting Out Of The Tyrant.

The Apostle points to a triple condemnation.

In the likeness of sinful flesh,' Jesus condemns sin by His own perfect life. That phrase, the likeness of the flesh of sin,' implies the real humanity of Jesus, and His perfect sinlessness; and suggests the first way in which He condemns sin in the flesh. In His life He repeats the law in a higher fashion. What the one spoke in words the other realised in loveliness of perfect deeds'; and all men own that example is the mightiest preacher of righteousness, and that active goodness draws to itself reverence and sways men to imitate. But that life lived in human nature gives a new hope of the possibilities of that nature even in us. The dream of perfect beauty in the flesh' has been realised. What the Man Christ Jesus was, He was that we may become. In the very flesh in which the tyrant rules, Jesus shows the possibility and the loveliness of a holy life.

But this, much as it is, is not all. There is another way in which Christ condemns sin in the flesh, and that is by His perfect sacrifice. To this also Paul points in the phrase, the flesh of sin.' The example of which we have been speaking is much, but it is weak for the very same reason for which law is weak--that it operates only through our nature as it is; and that is not enough. Sin's hold on man is twofold--one that it has perverted his relation to God, and another that it has corrupted his nature. Hence there is in him a sense of separation from God and a sense of guilt. Both of these not only lead to misery, but positively tend to strengthen the dominion of sin. The leader of the mutineers keeps them true to him by reminding them that the mutiny laws decree death without mercy. Guilt felt may drive to desperation and hopeless continuance in wrong. The cry, I am so bad that it is useless to try to be better,' is often heard. Guilt stifled leads to hardening of heart, and sometimes to desire and riot. Guilt slurred over by some easy process of absolution may lead to further sin. Similarly separation from God is the root of all evil, and thoughts of Him as hard and an enemy, always lead to sin. So if the power of sin in the past must be cancelled, the sense of guilt must be removed, and the wall of partition between man and God thrown down. What can law answer to such a demand? It is silent; it can only say, What is written is written.' It has no word to speak that promises the blotting out of the handwriting that is against us'; and through its silence one can hear the mocking laugh of the tyrant that keeps his castle.

But Christ has come for sin'; that is to say His Incarnation and Death had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin. He comes to blot out the evil, to bring God's pardon. The recognition of His sacrifice supplies the adequate motive to copy His example, and they who see in His death God's sacrifice for man's sin, cannot but yield themselves to Him, and find in obedience a delight. Love kindled at His love makes likeness and transmutes the outward law into an inward spirit of life in Christ Jesus.'

Still another way by which God condemns sin in the flesh' is pointed to by the remaining phrase of our text, sending His own Son.' In the beginning of this epistle Jesus is spoken of as being declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness'; and we must connect that saying with our text, and so think of Christ's bestowal of His perfect gift to humanity of the Spirit which sanctifies as being part of His condemnation of sin in the flesh. Into the very region where the tyrant rules, the Son of God communicates a new nature which constitutes a real new power. The Spirit operates on all our faculties, and redeems them from the bondage of corruption. All the springs in the land are poisoned; but a new one, limpid and pure, is opened. By the entrance of the Spirit of holiness into a human spirit, the usurper is driven from the central fortress: and though he may linger in the outworks and keep up a guerilla warfare, that is all that he can do. We never truly apprehend Christ's gift to man until we recognise that He not merely died for our sins,' but lives to impart the principle of holiness in the gift of His Spirit. The dominion of that imparted Spirit is gradual and progressive. The Canaanite may still be in the land, but a growing power, working in and through us, is warring against all in us that still owns allegiance to that alien power, and there can be no end to the victorious struggle until the whole body, soul, and spirit, be wholly under the influence of the Spirit that dwelleth in us, and nothing shall hurt or destroy in what shall then be all God's holy mountain.

Such is, in the most general terms, the statement of what Christ does for us'; and the question comes to be the all-important one for each, Do I let Him do it for me? Remember the alternative. There must either be condemnation for us, or for the sin that dwelleth in us. There is no condemnation for them who are in Christ Jesus, because there is condemnation for the sin that dwells in them. It must be slain, or it will slay us. It must be cast out, or it will cast us out from God. It must be separated from us, or it will separate us from Him. We need not be condemned, but if it be not condemned, then we shall be.

MHCC: Rom 8:1-9

Believers may be chastened of the Lord, but will not be condemned with the world. By their union with Christ through faith, they are thus secured. What is the principle of their walk; the flesh or the Spirit, the old or the new nature, corruption or grace? For which of these do we make provision, by which are we governed? The unrenewed will is unable to keep any commandment fully. And the law, besides outward duties, requires inward obedience. God showed abhorrence of sin by the sufferings of his Son in the flesh, that the believer's person might be pardoned and justified. Thus satisfaction was made to Divine justice, and the way of salvation opened for the sinner. By the Spirit the law of love is written upon the heart, and though the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled by us, yet, blessed be God, it is fulfilled in us; there is that in all true believers, which answers the intention of the law. The favour of God, the welfare of the soul, the concerns of eternity, are the things of the Spirit, which those that are after the Spirit do mind. Which way do our thoughts move with most pleasure? Which way go our plans and contrivances? Are we most wise for the world, or for our souls? Those that live in pleasure are dead, 1Ti 5:6. A sanctified soul is a living soul; and that life is peace. The carnal mind is not only an enemy to God, but enmity itself. The carnal man may, by the power of Divine grace, be made subject to the law of God, but the carnal mind never can; that must be broken and driven out. We may know our real state and character by inquiring whether we have the Spirit of God and Christ, or not, 1Ti 5:9. Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Having the Spirit of Christ, means having a turn of mind in some degree like the mind that was in Christ Jesus, and is to be shown by a life and conversation suitable to his precepts and example.

Matthew Henry: Rom 8:1-9

I. The apostle here beings with one signal privilege of true Christians, and describes the character of those to whom it belongs: There is therefore now no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, Rom 8:1. This is his triumph after that melancholy complaint and conflict in the foregoing chapter - sin remaining, disturbing, vexing, but, blessed be God, not ruining. The complaint he takes to himself, but humbly transfers the comfort with himself to all true believers, who are all interested in it. 1. It is the unspeakable privilege and comfort of all those that are in Christ Jesus that there is therefore now no condemnation to them. He does not say, "There is no accusation against them,"for this there is; but the accusation is thrown out, and the indictment quashed. He does not say, "There is nothing in them that deserves condemnation,"for this there is, and they see it, and own it, and mourn over it, and condemn themselves for it; but it shall not be their ruin. He does not say, "There is no cross, no affliction to them or no displeasure in the affliction,"for this there may be; but no condemnation. They may be chastened of the Lord, but not condemned with the world. Now this arises from their being in Christ Jesus; by virtue of their union with him through faith they are thus secured. They are in Christ Jesus, as in their city of refuge, and so are protected from the avenger of blood. He is their advocate, and brings them off. There is therefore no condemnation, because they are interested in the satisfaction that Christ by dying made to the law. In Christ, God does not only not condemn them, but is well pleased with them, Mat 17:5. 2. It is the undoubted character of all those who are so in Christ Jesus as to be freed from condemnation that they walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Observe, The character is given from their walk, not from any one particular act, but from their course and way. And the great question is, What is the principle of the walk, the flesh or the spirit, the old or the new nature, corruption or grace? Which of these do we mind, for which of these doe we make provision, by which of these are we governed, which of these do we take part with?

II. This great truth, thus laid down, he illustrates in the following verses; and shows how we come by this great privilege, and how we may answer this character.

1. How we come by these privileges - the privilege of justification, that there is no condemnation to us - the privilege of sanctification, that we walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, which is no less our privilege than it is our duty. How comes it about?

(1.) The law could not do it, Rom 8:3. It could neither justify nor sanctify, neither free us from the guilt nor from the power of sin, having not the promises either of pardon or grace. The law made nothing perfect: It was weak. Some attempt the law made towards these blessed ends, but, alas! it was weak, it could not accomplish them: yet that weakness was not through any defect in the law, but through the flesh, through the corruption of human nature, by which we became incapable either of being justified or sanctified by the law. We had become unable to keep the law, and, in case of failure, the law, as a covenant of works, made no provision, and so left us as it found us. Or understand it of the ceremonial law; that was a plaster not wide enough for the wound, it could never take away sin, Heb 10:4.

(2.) The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus does it, Rom 8:2. The covenant of grace made with us in Christ is a treasury of merit and grace, and thence we receive pardon and a new nature, are freed from the law of sin and death, that is, both from the guilt and power of sin - from the course of the law, and the dominion of the flesh. We are under another covenant, another master, another husband, under the law of the Spirit, the law that gives the Spirit, spiritual life to qualify us for eternal. The foundation of this freedom is laid in Christ's undertaking for us, of which he speaks Rom 8:3, God sending his own Son. Observe, When the law failed, God provided another method. Christ comes to do that which the law could not do. Moses brought the children of Israel to the borders of Canaan, and then died, and left them there; but Joshua did that which Moses could not do, and put them in possession of Canaan. Thus what the law could not do Christ did. The best exposition of this verse we have Heb 10:1-10. To make the sense of the words clear, which in our translation is a little intricate, we may read it thus, with a little transposition: - God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and a sacrifice for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, etc., Rom 8:4. Observe, [1.] How Christ appeared: In the likeness of sinful flesh. Not sinful, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled; but in the likeness of that flesh which was sinful. He took upon him that nature which was corrupt, though perfectly abstracted from the corruptions of it. His being circumcised, redeemed, baptized with John's baptism, bespeaks the likeness of sinful flesh. The bitings of the fiery serpents were cured by a serpent of brass, which had the shape, through free from the venom, of the serpents that bit them. It was great condescension that he who was God should be made in the likeness of flesh; but much greater that he who was holy should be made in the likeness of sinful flesh. And for sin, - here the best Greek copies place the comma. God sent him, en homoiōmati sarkos hamartias , kai peri hamartias - in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sacrifice for sin. The Septuagint call a sacrifice for sin no more than peri hamartias - for sin; so Christ was a sacrifice; he was sent to be so, Heb 9:26. [2.] What was done by this appearance of his: Sin was condemned, that is, God did therein more than ever manifest his hatred of sin; and not only so, but for all that are Christ's both the damning and the domineering power of sin is broken and taken out of the way. He that is condemned can neither accuse nor rule; his testimony is null, and his authority null. Thus by Christ is sin condemned; though it live and remain, its life in the saints is still but like that of a condemned malefactor. it was by the condemning of sin that death was disarmed, and the devil, who had the power of death, destroyed. The condemning of sin saved the sinner from condemnation. Christ was made sin for us (2Co 5:21), and, being so made, when he was condemned sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, condemned in the human nature: So was sanctification made to divine justice, and way made for the salvation of the sinner. [3.] The happy effect of this upon us (Rom 8:4): That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Both in our justification and in our sanctification, the righteousness of the law if fulfilled. A righteousness of satisfaction for the breach of the law is fulfilled by the imputation of Christ's complete and perfect righteousness, which answers the utmost demands of the law, as the mercy-seat was as long and as broad as the ark. A righteousness of obedience to the commands of the law is fulfilled in us, when by the Spirit the law of love is written upon the heart, and that love is the fulfilling of the law, Rom 13:10. Though the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled by us, yet, blessed be God, it is fulfilled in us; there is that to be found upon and in all true believers which answers the intention of the law. Us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This is the description of all those that are interested in this privilege - they act from spiritual and not from carnal principles; as for others, the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled upon them in their ruin. Now,

2. Observe how we may answer to this character, Rom 8:5, etc.

(1.) By looking to our minds. How may we know whether we are after the flesh or after the Spirit? By examining what we mind, the things of the flesh or the things of the spirit. Carnal pleasure, worldly profit and honour, the things of sense and time, are the things of the flesh, which unregenerate people mind. The favour of God, the welfare of the soul, the concerns of eternity, are the things of the Spirit, which those that are after the Spirit do mind. The man is as the mind is. The mind is the forge of thoughts. As he thinketh in his heart, so is he, Pro 23:7. Which way do the thoughts move with most pleasure? On what do they dwell with most satisfaction? The mind is the seat of wisdom. Which way go the projects and contrivances? whether are we more wise for the world or for our souls? phronousi ta tēs sarkos - they savour the things of the flesh; so the word is rendered, Mat 16:23. It is a great matter what our savour is, what truths, what tidings, what comforts, we do most relish, and are most agreeable to us. Now, to caution us against this carnal-mindedness, he shows the great misery and malignity of it, and compares it with the unspeakable excellency and comfort of spiritual-mindedness. [1.] It is death, Rom 8:6. It is spiritual death, the certain way to eternal death. It is the death of the soul; for it is its alienation from God, in union and communion with whom the life of the soul consists. A carnal soul is a dead soul, dead as a soul can die. She that liveth in pleasure is dead (1Ti 5:6), not only dead in law as guilty, but dead in state as carnal. Death includes all misery; carnal souls are miserable souls. But to be spiritually minded, phronēma tou pneumatos - a spiritual savour (the wisdom that is from above, a principle of grace) is life and peace; it is the felicity and happiness of the soul. The life of the soul consists in its union with spiritual things by the mind. A sanctified soul is a living soul, and that life is peace; it is a very comfortable life. All the paths of spiritual wisdom are paths of peace. It is life and peace in the other world, as well as in this. Spiritual-mindedness is eternal life and peace begun, and an assuring earnest of the perfection of it. [2.] It is enmity to God (Rom 8:7), and this is worse than the former. The former speaks the carnal sinner a dead man, which is bad; but this speaks him a devil of a man. It is not only an enemy, but enmity itself. It is not only the alienation of the soul from God, but the opposition of the soul against God; it rebels against his authority, thwarts his design, opposes his interest, spits in his face, spurns at his bowels. Can there be a greater enmity? An enemy may be reconciled, but enmity cannot. How should this humble us for and warn us against, carnal-mindedness! Shall we harbour and indulge that which is enmity to God our creator, owner, ruler, and benefactor? To prove this, he urges that it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. The holiness of the law of God, and the unholiness of the carnal mind, are as irreconcilable as light and darkness. The carnal man may, by the power of divine grace, be made subject to the law of God, but the carnal mind never can; this must be broken and expelled. See how wretchedly the corrupt will of man is enslaved to sin; as far as the carnal mind prevails, there is no inclination to the law of God; therefore wherever there is a change wrought it is by the power of God's grace, not by the freedom of man's will. Hence he infers (Rom 8:8), Those that are in the flesh cannot please God. Those that are in a carnal unregenerate state, under the reigning power of sin, cannot do the things that please God, wanting grace, the pleasing principle, and an interest in Christ, the pleasing Mediator. The very sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, Pro 15:8. Pleasing God is our highest end, of which those that are in the flesh cannot but fall short; they cannot please him, nay, they cannot but displease him. We may know our state and character,

(2.) By enquiring whether we have the Spirit of God and Christ, or not (Rom 8:9): You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. This expresses states and conditions of the soul vastly different. All the saints have flesh and spirit in them; but to be in the flesh and to be in the Spirit are contrary. It denotes our being overcome and subdued by one of these principles. As we say, A man is in love, or in drink, that is, overcome by it. Now the great question is whether we are in the flesh or in the Spirit; and how may we come to know it? Why, by enquiring whether the Spirit of God dwell in us. The Spirit dwelling in us is the best evidence of our being in the Spirit, for the indwelling is mutual (1Jo 4:16): Dwelleth in God, and God in him. The Spirit visits many that are unregenerate with his motions, which they resist and quench; but in all that are sanctified he dwells; there he resides and rules. He is there as a man at his own house, where he is constant and welcome, and has the dominion. Shall we put this question to our own hearts, Who dwells, who rules, who keeps house, here? Which interest has the ascendant? To this he subjoins a general rule of trial: If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. To be Christ's (that is, to be a Christian indeed, one of his children, his servants, his friends, in union with him) is a privilege and honour which many pretend to that have no part nor lot in the matter. None are his but those that have his Spirit; that is, [1.] That are spirited as he was spirited-are meek, and lowly, and humble, and peaceable, and patient, and charitable, as he was. We cannot tread in his steps unless we have his spirit; the frame and disposition of our souls must be conformable to Christ's pattern. [2.] That are actuated and guided by the Holy Spirit of God, as a sanctifier, teacher, and comforter. Having the Spirit of Christ is the same with having the Spirit of God to dwell in us. But those two come much to one; for all that are actuated by the Spirit of God as their rule are conformable to the spirit of Christ as their pattern. Now this description of the character of those to whom belongs this first privilege of freedom from condemnation is to be applied to all the other privileges that follow.

Barclay: Rom 8:1-4

This is a very difficult passage because it is so highly compressed, and because, all through it, Paul is making allusions to things which he has already said.

Two words keep occurring again and again in this chapter, flesh (sarx, 4561) and spirit (pneuma, 4151). We will not understand the passage at all unless we understand the way in which Paul is using these words.

(i) Sarx (4561) literally means flesh. The most cursory reading of Paul's letters will show how often he uses the word, and how he uses it in a sense that is all his own. Broadly speaking, he uses it in three different ways.

(a) He uses it quite literally. He speaks of physical circumcision, literally "in the flesh" (Rom 2:28). (b) Over and over again he uses the phrase kata (2596) sarka (4561), literally according to the flesh, which most often means looking at things from the human point of view. For instance, he says that Abraham is our forefather kata (2596) sarka (4561), from the human point of view. He says that Jesus is the son of David kata (2596) sarka (4561) (Rom 1:3), that is to say, on the human side of his descent. He speaks of the Jews being his kinsmen kata (2596) sarka (4561) (Rom 9:3), that is to say, speaking of human relationships. When Paul uses the phrase kata (2596) sarka (4561), it always implies that he is looking at things from the human point of view.

© But he has a use of this word sarx (4561) which is all his own. When he is talking of the Christians, he talks of the days when we were in the flesh (en (1722) sarki, 4561) (Rom 7:5). He speaks of those who walk according to the flesh in contradistinction to those who live the Christian life (Rom 8:4-5). He says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8). He says that the mind of the flesh is death, and that it is hostile to God (Rom 8:6, Rom 8:8). He talks about living according to the flesh (Rom 8:12). He says to his Christian friends, "You are not in the flesh" (Rom 8:9).

It is quite clear, especially from the last instance, that Paul is not using flesh simply in the sense of the body, as we say flesh and blood. How, then, is he using it? He really means human nature in all its weakness and he means human in its vulnerability to sin. He means that part of man which gives sin its bridgehead. He means sinful human nature, apart from Christ, everything that attaches a man to the world instead of to God. To live according to the flesh is to live a life dominated by the dictates and desires of sinful human nature instead of a life dominated by the dictates and the love of God. The flesh is the lower side of man's nature.

It is to be carefully noted that when Paul thinks of the kind of life that a man dominated by the sarx (4561) lives he is not by any means thinking exclusively of sexual and bodily sins. When he gives a list of the works of the flesh in Gal 5:19-21, he includes the bodily and the sexual sins; but he also includes idolatry, hatred, wrath, strife, heresies, envy, murder. The flesh to him was not a physical thing but spiritual. It was human nature in all its sin and weakness; it was all that man is without God and without Christ.

(ii) There is the word Spirit; in Rom 8 it occurs no fewer than twenty times. This word has a very definite Old Testament background. In Hebrew it is ruach (07307), and it has two basic thoughts. (a) It is not only the word for Spirit; it is also the word for wind. It has always the idea of power about it, power as of a mighty rushing wind. (b) In the Old Testament, it always has the idea of something that is more than human. Spirit, to Paul, represented a power which was divine.

So Paul says in this passage that there was a time when the Christian was at the mercy of his own sinful human nature. In that state the law simply became something that moved him to sin and he went from bad to worse, a defeated and frustrated man. But, when he became a Christian, into his life there came the surging power of the Spirit of God, and, as a result, he entered into victorious living.

In the second part of the passage Paul speaks of the effect of the work of Jesus on us. It is complicated and difficult, but what Paul is getting at is this. Let us remember that he began all this by saying that every man sinned in Adam. We saw how the Jewish conception of solidarity made it possible for him to argue that, quite literally, all men were involved in Adam's sin and in its consequence--death. But there is another side to this picture. Into this world came Jesus; with a completely human nature; and he brought to God a life of perfect obedience, of perfect fulfilment of God's law. Now, because Jesus was fully a man, just as we were one with Adam, we are now one with him; and, just as we were involved in Adam's sin, we are now involved in Jesus' perfection. In him mankind brought to God the perfect obedience, just as in Adam mankind brought to God the fatal disobedience. Men are saved because they were once involved in Adam's sin but are now involved in Jesus' goodness. That is Paul's argument, and, to him and to those who heard it, it was completely convincing, however hard it is for us to grasp it. Because of what Jesus did, there opens out to the Christian a life no longer dominated by the flesh but by that Spirit of God, which fills a man with a power not his own. The penalty of the past is removed and strength for his future is assured.

Constable: Rom 6:1--8:39

IV. THE IMPARTATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS chs. 6--8

The apostle moved on from questions about why people need salvation (1:18-3:20), what God has done to provide it, and how we can appropriate it (3:21-5:21). He next explained that salvation involves more than a right standing before God, which justification affords. God also provides salvation from the present power of sin in the redeemed sinner's daily experience. This is progressive sanctification (chs. 6-8).

When a sinner experiences redemption--"converted" is the subjective term--he or she simultaneously experiences justification. Justification imparts God's righteousness to him or her. Justification is the same thing as "positional sanctification." This term means that God views the believer as completely holy in his or her standing before God. That person is no longer guilty because of his or her sins (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11).

However when a sinner experiences redemption, he or she also begins a process of sanctification. This process of becoming progressively more righteous (holy) in his or her experience is not automatic. It involves growth and requires the believer to cooperate with God to produce holiness in daily life. God leads the believer and provides the enablement for him or her to follow, but the believer must choose to follow and make use of the resources for sanctification that God provides.¹⁷¹ This progressive sanctification will end at death or the Rapture, whichever occurs first. Then the believer will experience glorification. Then his experiential condition will finally conform to his legal standing before God. He or she will then be completely righteous as well as having been declared righteous. God will remove our sinful nature and will conform our lives fully to His will (8:29).

In chapters 6-8 Paul explained how justified sinners can become more holy (godly, righteous) in daily living before our glorification. We need to understand our relationship as believers to sin (i.e., victory, ch. 6), to the Law (i.e., liberty, ch. 7), and to God (i.e., security, ch. 8) to attain that worthy goal.

Constable: Rom 8:1-39

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

"Spener is reported to have said that if holy Scripture was a ring, and the Epistle to the Romans its precious stone, chap. viii would be the sparkling point of the jewel."²³⁶

"It is undoubtedly the chapter of chapters for the life of the believer . . ."²³⁷

As the fifth chapter climaxed Paul's revelation concerning the justification of the sinner, so the eighth culminates the truth concerning the sanctification of the saint. Both chapters end by affirming the eternal security of the believer. In chapter 5 our security depends on the Son's life and in chapter 8 on the Spirit's power, both of which rest on the Father's love.²³⁸

This chapter explains the benefits of sanctification made available through the presence and power of God's Holy Spirit who indwells every believer.²³⁹

"It is altogether too narrow a view to see in this portion simply the antidote to the wretched state pictured in chapter 7. Actually the chapter gathers up various strands of thought from the entire discussion of both justification and sanctification and ties them together with the crowning knot of glorification."²⁴⁰

Constable: Rom 8:1-4

The statement of the believer's condition 8:1-4

8:1 "Therefore" introduces a conclusion based on everything that Paul wrote from chapter 3 on, not just chapter 7. He reaffirmed justification as the indispensable basis for sanctification.²⁴¹ A Christian must believe that he or she has permanent acceptance with God before that one will grow much in grace and godliness.

"Romans 3:20 shows the therefore' of condemnation; but Romans 8:1 gives the therefore' of no condemnation . . ."²⁴²

No condemnation is different from freedom from judgment (2 Cor. 5:10). No condemnation means that God will never condemn us to an eternity separate from Himself for our sins. The reason is that the believer is in Christ Jesus. The Savior has suffered the consequences of our sins as our substitute. He will experience no condemnation, and we as those He represents will not either. Note the absolute force of this great promise. We are eternally secure!

"The Law condemns; but the believer has a new relationship to the Law, and therefore he cannot be condemned."²⁴³

8:2 Paul used "law" here figuratively for "principle" (v. 23). He was not referring to the Mosaic Law (cf. 7:21). These laws refer to the certainty and regularity that characterize the operations of the Spirit and sin. The Spirit's work that comes to us because of faith in Jesus Christ leads to fullness of life, and sin leads to death. Ultimate ends are again in view.

"The subject here is no longer Christ's work for us, but the Spirit's work within us. Without the Spirit within as a law of life, there would be nothing but condemnation: for the new creature has no power within himself apart from the blessed Spirit,--as against a life of perpetual bondage to the flesh,--'the end of which things is death' (6.21)."²⁴⁴

8:3 The Mosaic Law cannot set us free from sin and death (v. 2; cf. ch. 7) because its only appeal is to the basic nature of man. It urges us intellectually to obey God, but it does not provide sufficient power for obedience. Fortunately God sent His own Son out of the depths of His love to deal effectively with sin.

Paul referred to both the person and work of Christ in this verse. Jesus Christ came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (cf. Phil. 2:7), not "in sinful flesh" or "in the likeness of flesh." He was both sinless and a real person.

"For sin," the literal Greek rendering, has a wider connotation than "as an offering for sin" or "a sin offering" and is the better translation. The Law could not deal with sin. Consequently God sent His own Son to do so. That is the point of the verse.

"The battle was joined and the triumph secured in that same flesh which in us is the seat and agent of sin."²⁴⁵

"The law of double jeopardy' states that a man cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Since Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins, and since you are in Christ,' God will not condemn you."²⁴⁶

8:4 Here the purpose of the Incarnation appears in the context of the struggle of chapter 7. God fulfills the Law's requirements in us by His Spirit who indwells and empowers us. However this is not automatic because He indwells us. He fulfills them if and as we walk by the Spirit rather than walking according to the flesh. Walking by the Spirit means walking in submission to and dependence on the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16). Walking according to the flesh means behaving as the flesh dictates and allowing our sinful nature to govern our lives.

"To walk according to the flesh,' then, is to have one's life determined and directed by the values of this world,' of the world in rebellion against God. It is a lifestyle that is purely human' in its orientation. To walk according to the Spirit,' on the other hand, is to live under the control, and according to the values, of the new age,' created and dominated by God's Spirit as his eschatological gift."²⁴⁷

College: Rom 8:1-39

B. VICTORY OVER SIN COMES THROUGH

THE HOLY SPIRIT (8:1-13)

For many people Romans 8 is the high point of the Bible, especially because of its emphasis on the Christian's assurance of victory over all opposing forces. Godet (295) remarks that this chapter begins with no condemnation and ends with no separation . It is truly the logical climax of the gospel of grace.

Many commentaries treat Romans 8 as one unit under a single heading. For most, the unifying theme is the Holy Spirit. My approach is slightly different. I agree that the main theme of vv. 1-13 is the sanctifying work of the Spirit, but I think the emphasis shifts in v. 14 to the general subject of glorification, or the Christian's assurance of eternal glory. Thus I see vv. 14-39 as a separate unit.

This helps us to see more clearly how 8:1-13 relates to what precedes it. The opening word of ch. 8, "therefore," indicates a conclusion drawn from something in the earlier context. In 7:7-25 Paul describes the Christian's continuing battle against sin, especially as it indwells the body. In 8:1-13 he shows us that Christ has provided us with what it takes to win this battle, especially the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

1. God Frees Us from Sin's Penalty and Power (8:1-4)

Paul's heart-cry in 7:24, "Who will rescue me from this body of death?", was immediately answered in brief: "Thanks be to God [because he has rescued me] through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25a). While the main concern of this question and its answer is freedom from the power of indwelling sin, we need to be reminded again of the main point already established in 3:21-5:21, that the penalty for our sin has been paid in full by Jesus. In the midst of our intense spiritual struggle against sin, in which we are sometimes on the losing end, we need not fear that our forgiveness is in jeopardy. Christ has already secured this for us on the cross.

The decision to interpret 8:1-4 as including a reference to justification (the absence of penalty) is not difficult in view of such phrases as "no condemnation" (v. 1), "a sin-offering" (v. 3), and "he condemned sin" (v. 3). These expressions have a decidedly judicial or forensic connotation. However, other parts of the paragraph seem to refer to sanctification, or overcoming sin's power and living a holy life through the Spirit (vv. 2, 4b). These verses thus include freedom from both sin's penalty and sin's power.

8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . . "Therefore" shows that a conclusion is being drawn, most likely from the reference to the saving work of Christ in 7:25a. "Now" points to the same event: "Now, in view of what Christ has done." "Condemnation" is katavkrima ( katakrima ), used only here and in 5:16, 18. This is a judicial or forensic term. It refers to a judge's sentence upon a guilty person, not only as pronounced but also as carried out. I.e., it means "penalty, punishment, doom." The word for "no" (oujdevn , ouden ) is emphatic and means "not a single one" of any kind (Lenski, 494). "In Christ Jesus" identifies those to whom this wonderful blessing applies, namely, those who have entered into the saving union with Christ described in 6:1-11.

The point of the verse is this: even though sin still lives in our bodies, causing us at times to do sinful things that we hate, we can be assured that these sins will not condemn us because Christ has already died for them and we belong to Christ. Though we may still sin, we are "justified by his blood" (5:9); there is "no penalty" for us, none of any kind. No disaster or tribulation suffered in this life should now be interpreted as a punishment sent by God. No damnation to eternal hell awaits us after death, and even the sting of physical death has been blunted by the promise of resurrection from the dead (1 Cor 15:53-57).

Some interpreters, especially those who believe 8:1-4 refers equally or solely to the overcoming of sin's power , expand the meaning of "condemnation" to include sin's enslavement of the flesh. Thus they interpret "no condemnation" as including freedom from sin itself, i.e., freedom from its enslaving power. There is little basis for this expanded meaning of katakrima , however. In 5:16, 18 it is clearly opposed to justification (which itself is a forensic concept). There is no good reason or basis for extending its meaning beyond that connotation here. Thus "no condemnation" is the equivalent of "justification" (Stott, 217).

In the KJV 8:1 ends thus: "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." However, these words are not found in 8:1 in the earlier and better manuscripts and are omitted from most modern translations (such as the NIV). The same words appear in 8:4b, though, and will be discussed there.

8:2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. "Because" (gavr , gar ) implies that this verse gives the reason for the statement in v. 1: "There is no condemnation because we have been freed from it by the law of the Spirit of life." At first glance it seems that v. 2 is talking only about the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. This is why many expand the meaning of "condemnation" in v. 1 to include the indwelling power of sin; otherwise Paul would appear to be saying that we are justified (v. 1) because we are sanctified (v. 2), which would be equivalent to justification by works.

But if we do limit "condemnation" to the penalty for sin, and "no condemnation" to justification (as I have done above), how do we avoid this conclusion? By seeing that v. 2 itself is not limited to the sanctifying work of the Spirit. It speaks rather of freedom from "the law of sin and death" in every respect, including death as the penalty for sin.

Through Christ Jesus we are set free from the law of sin and death. This in itself points to the comprehensive nature of this liberation. By applying to us the full scope of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of life sets us free from every aspect of sin and death, including its penalty.

It is difficult to decide exactly what the two uses of "law" (novmo" , nomos ) mean here. We know that it does not mean law in the sense of a set of commandments, whether it be the Mosaic law or God's law in general. The latter connotation appears in vv. 3-4, and the context shows it has a different sense in v. 2.

Also because of the context, I conclude that nomos here has the general sense of "order, rule, pattern, system," as applied on a cosmic scale. The two "laws" named here are the two competing world orders, the two rival life paradigms. The first is the life system in which the Spirit of life operates and dominates; the second is the life system controlled by sin and death. They are related to the contrasting spheres of flesh and Spirit as discussed in vv. 4b-13.

As understood in this general sense, the nomos of v. 2 includes both the conceptual and the concrete, or the connotations of both "governing principle" and "controlling power." It cannot be limited to power alone; this would limit the liberating activity of v. 2 to sanctification, and raise problems regarding the relation between v. 1 and v. 2 (see above). Thus we conclude that nomos also includes the governing principles according to which this power operates (see Bruce, 160; MacArthur, I:403).

Thus in 8:2 Paul is referring to two exclusive and competing world orders. One is the order of the flesh, in which sin is the dominant power and death the inevitable outcome. It is governed by the principle that sin and death are inseparable: wherever sin rules, it always brings death in all its ruinous varieties. The other world or life system is the order of the Spirit, in which the Holy Spirit is the dominating power and life is the inevitable outcome. It is governed by the principle that the Holy Spirit and life are inseparable: wherever the Spirit enters, he always brings life in all its abundance (John 6:63; Rom 8:11; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 6:8).

Paul's point in this section is that, through Jesus Christ, the governing principle and the controlling power of sin and death have been driven out of our lives by and replaced by the governing principle and the controlling power of the Spirit of life. In 8:1-4 the main point is that the regulating principle that sin always brings death has been shattered by Christ's propitiatory atonement, allowing for the justification of the wicked (4:5). In 8:5-13 the point is that the dominating power of the Spirit overcomes the dominating power of the flesh (the body of sin and death - 6:6; 7:24) in the lives of Christians.

How does v. 2 relate, then, to v. 1? Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus? Because, through Christ and the world order that he has made possible, my life is no longer governed by the rules of sin and death. Yes, my sin deserves the penalty of death, but Christ's death has paid that penalty for me, and the Spirit has applied that redemptive act to my life. This breaks the connection between sin and death! It has set me free from the principle that sin always brings death, and has restored me - a sinner - to the role of a child of God and heir of eternal life (8:15-17). Thus the liberation of 8:2 is the basis for the justification of 8:1.

But it is also the basis for the sanctification of which 8:5-13 speaks. The indwelling Spirit has broken the power of the indwelling sin which seeks to drag me back down into the pits of spiritual death. When Christ gave me his Spirit, the principle and power of life took over, thus ending the illegitimate reign of those usurping tyrants, sin and death.

We should note that the verb "set free" is aorist (past) tense. The act of liberation that set us free from sin's penalty and power (the "double cure") is a past event for any Christian. Specifically, it happened in our Christian baptism, in which we received not only forgiveness of sins (justification) through Christ's blood, but also the indwelling presence of the Spirit of life (Acts 2:38). In that event the course of our lives as well as our ultimate destiny were totally recast or reprogrammed; the sin-brings-death system was replaced by the Spirit-gives-life paradigm.

In this verse some translations read "set me free" (KJV, NIV), and some read "set you free" (NASB, NRSV). The former fits better with the first person singular in 7:7-25 (especially 7:24), but the latter has better manuscript support, according to Cranfield (I:377).

8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did . . . . The Greek speaks literally of "the impossible thing of the law." What is this "impossible thing"? The answer is in v. 2: the law (God's commandments as such) cannot set a sinner free from the tyranny of sin and death. The law was "intended to bring life" (7:10), and it can do so when followed completely. But once a person has sinned, the law cannot set him free from sin's penalty and power; it cannot restore him to the sphere of life.

That the law cannot give life to sinners is not due to some inherent flaw or failure in the law itself, since it was not designed for this purpose. This weakness is due rather to "the sinful nature"; literally, "it was weak through the flesh." This may refer to the flesh as incapacitated by sin (cf. the NIV), or it could refer to the inherent limitations of human beings simply as finite creatures. I.e., in the hands of mere men, the law can never deliver us from the consequences of our sins.

But what the law cannot do, God can; and he can do it without violating the integrity of his law. As we have seen (1:17), God cannot disregard his own righteousness in his dealings with men; he must always be true to himself and to the requirements of his law. But once sinners have broken the law's commandments , the only way God can be righteous is to satisfy his law's requirement for punishment . And this is exactly what Jesus came to do - in our place.

The substitutionary atonement of Jesus is the point of vv. 3-4a. Though sin still lives in our bodies, we are not condemned thereby (8:1), because we have been set free from the "sin brings death" principle (8:2). How is this possible? Because God sent his divine Son to suffer the penalty of death in our place (8:3), thereby satisfying the law's requirement (for penalty) and maintaining his own righteousness (8:4a).

God did this by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering . This simple statement contains deep Christological concepts. To say that God "sent" his Son does not in itself imply the Son's pre-existence with the Father in heaven, since the OT often speaks of God's "sending" the prophets. But as Godet suggests (298), when this is combined with the description of Jesus as God's "own Son" (see 8:32), it indicates not only the pre-existence of Christ but his divine nature as well.

On the other hand, "in the likeness of sinful man" refers to the incarnation and human nature of Jesus. "Sinful man" is literally "sinful flesh" or "the flesh of sin." Paul is not saying that flesh is inherently sinful or evil, as dualistic philosophies such as Gnosticism taught. Rather, he is alluding to his consistent teaching in this context that the human body has come under the power of sin and remains so to some extent even for Christians. It is "sinful flesh" because it harbors sin.

But what does it mean to say that Jesus came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh (likeness implying "similar but different")? He came in real flesh, but only in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. His body was fully human in the truest sense. It had everything a human body is supposed to have, but it did not have the corruption caused by sin. It was not necessary for him to assume a sinful human nature in order to be able to redeem us; he only had to have a genuine and complete human nature, which he did.

The purpose of the incarnation is then stated: "to be a sin offering." In the Greek this is a simple prepositional phrase, "concerning sin." Many give it a very general sense, i.e., Jesus came "to deal with sin" (NRSV). The reason for the NIV translation is that the Septuagint regularly uses this very phrase to translate Hebrew terms meaning "as a sin offering" (see Dunn, I:422; Moo, I:512). The following context suggests it is reasonable to think this is how Paul is using it here.

And so he condemned sin in sinful man, or more accurately, "in the flesh." Some take "condemned" in the general sense of "destroyed" or "destroyed the power of." They say Jesus destroyed sin's power by living a sinless life, thereby showing that sin can be resisted and setting a precedent for our sanctification. But this fits neither the context nor the meaning of the word "condemned" (katakrivnw , katakrinô ), which is the verb form of the word "condemnation" in 8:1. This term refers to a judicial act (Moo, I:513). It means that God's judicial sentence against sin "was passed and executed" (Bruce, 161), that "the full weight of God's wrath against sin" was poured out (Cranfield, I:383).

What does the phrase "in the flesh" modify? Some say it goes with "sin," i.e., God condemned the sin that dwells in our flesh, or the sins committed by "sinful man" (NIV). The context, however, favors the view that "in the flesh" modifies the verb, and that it refers to the flesh (human nature) of Jesus Christ. I.e., the very thing the law could not do because of "the flesh" of sinners (v. 3a), God himself has done in "the flesh" of Jesus. The only way we human beings can gain eternal life through the law is to obey its commandments completely, but in our weakness we have all sinned. But Jesus came to earth in our very same flesh, though untainted by sin; and in his flesh he restored us to the sphere of life by allowing sin to be condemned in himself instead of us.

The nuance of the last sentence is significant. It does not say that God condemned Jesus Christ himself, as if he were a sinner. Nor does it say that God condemned us in Jesus Christ. Rather, it says simply that God "condemned sin in the flesh," i.e., he condemned our sin in the flesh of Jesus . This is how God has set us free from the law of sin and death (8:2) in reference to its penalty, namely, through the substitutionary (vicarious) atonement of Jesus.

8:4 This substitutionary atonement was necessary in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us . . . . The word i{na ( hina ), "in order that," shows that this is the intended result or purpose of God's condemning sin in the flesh. The main question is whether this intended result is our justification (8:1) or our sanctification (holy living).

The key to this question is the meaning of dikaivwma (dikaiôma ), translated "righteous requirements" by the NIV. Basically it means "an ordinance, a decree, or a requirement that expresses or upholds righteousness." In 2:26 it is used for "requirements" of the law in the sense of commandments; that is how many take it here. God condemned sin in the flesh in order that the law's requirements for holy living might be fulfilled in us. He set us free from the power of sin, enabling us to live in obedience to his law. A variation of this is that Christ is the one who fulfilled these requirements vicariously for us; his perfect obedience was then imputed to us.

I believe this whole approach to be wrong, however. The first clue is that, unlike 2:26, dikaiôma here is singular ( not plural, contra the NIV). The second clue is the connection between the dikaiôma and the act of condemnation in v. 3b. I.e., that which fulfills the righteous requirement of the law is a judicial act, an act of condemnation. The third clue is that this act of condemnation enables this righteous requirement to be be fulfilled completely, or "fully met" - something we can never personally do with the law's commandments.

These considerations together show that the dikaiôma of the law is not its various commandments, but its decree that sin must be punished. This is how it is used in 1:32 ("righteous decree"). And as we have already seen (1:17), the very essence of the "righteousness of God" which is the content of the gospel is that Jesus came to satisfy the law's requirement for penalty in our place. Here the words "in us" do not mean "by us personally," but as accomplished by Jesus Christ and imputed to us, as the basis for our justification.

Thus far the main emphasis of this paragraph has been on the first part of the double cure, or justification. We have been reminded that, in the face of sin's vicious opposition to us and in the process of our fighting against it, we must not forget that Christ has broken the connection between sin and death; we have been set free from condemnation. In our effort to implement the second part of the double cure (sanctification), we must not allow ourselves to be distracted by doubts about the first part.

But Paul is now ready to leave this subject, and at the end of v. 4 he makes a transition to the main subject of this section on victory (8:1-13), namely, the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. "The law of the Spirit of life" not only sets us free from sin's penalty of death; it also delivers us from the condition of death as it exists in our souls and bodies. This latter aspect of grace has been prominent in chs. 6-7, and will now become the main point in 8:5-13. In ch. 6 Paul shows that our "inner man" or soul has already been set free from sinful corruption. In ch. 7 he laments the fact that our as-yet-unredeemed bodies are still indwelt by sin and are a beachhead for sin's continuing war against our souls. Now he is ready to show us how God himself intervenes in this battle and rescues us from "this body of death" (7:24), namely, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The words at the end of v. 4 are not intended to present a condition for justification; rather, they simply identify those to whom the vicarious suffering of Jesus applies. It does not apply to everyone, but only to those who do not live according to the sinful nature [ sarx ] but according to the Spirit.

The word for "live" is "walk," a term often used in Scripture for conduct or behavior regarded from a moral point of view. As MacArthur well says, one's "walk" is his lifestyle or his "habitual way or bent of life" (I:410). There are only two kinds of people: those whose lifestyle is based on the sarx , and those whose lifestyle is based on the Spirit.

Most people walk according to the sarx . Here sarx refers not to some nebulous "sinful nature" (contra the NIV), but to the flesh or material body which in its fallen state is indwelt by and enslaved to sin, and thus is the source of sinful lusts and inclinations. Those who are "in Christ Jesus," however, walk according to the Spirit. Though some take pneuma here to mean the human spirit, it much more likely means the Holy Spirit (as in 8:2). What it means to walk according to the flesh or Spirit is explained in the introduction to the following section.

2. Sin and Death Are Defeated in Us

Through the Holy Spirit (8:5-13)

Fighting against sin is an intense struggle (7:7-25), but Jesus has provided us with the means for victory through his gift of the indwelling Spirit. Our deliverance comes through Jesus Christ (7:24-25a), because through his redeeming work the energizing power of the Spirit of life enables us to overcome the insidious power of sin and death that remains in our bodies (8:2).

This is what Paul now explains in detail. First he describes the difference between the two "laws" or world orders (8:2) as a contrast between flesh and Spirit (8:5-8). Then he affirms the reality and the nature of the Spirit's victory over the flesh in the life of a Christian (8:9-11). Finally he reminds us that we have a personal responsibility to resist the flesh and to surrender ourselves to the Spirit's power (8:12-13).

Two translation notes are in order. First, where the NIV has "sinful nature" (also "sinful men" and "sinful mind"), the Greek word is savrx ( sarx ) and should be translated "flesh." Also, the Greek uses several expressions to describe the two ways of life as lived within the two world orders: walking according to flesh/Spirit, v. 4; existing according to flesh/Spirit, v. 5; existing in flesh/Spirit, vv. 8-9; and living according to flesh/(Spirit), vv. 12-13. The NIV translates vv. 4, 5, 12-13 the same, i.e., as "live." This may be misleading, especially in v. 5, since there seems to be a difference between being/existing in (according to) flesh or Spirit, and walking/living according to the flesh or Spirit. See v. 12.

Existing in (according to) the flesh or the Spirit refers not to certain specific acts as such, but to a person's life orientation or state of being. On the one hand, a person existing in or according to the flesh is someone whose life is determined by all the things that relate to bodily life in this world. It is someone whose whole being, both body and soul, is basically controlled by the sinful lusts and inclinations of the flesh, e.g., for food, comfort, sex, and pleasure in general. On the other hand, a person existing in or according to the Spirit is someone whose life is oriented around and determined by "the law of the Spirit of life." It is someone who is committed to Spirit-inspired Scripture as his authoritative moral and spiritual compass, and who is committed to using the Spirit's power to live the holy lifestyle prescribed therein.

Walking or living by the flesh or Spirit is different in that it refers to the way a person actually lives. It refers to the lifestyle or conduct that a person chooses to actualize (v. 12). While a person who exists according to the flesh cannot live according to the Spirit (vv. 7-8), a person who exists according to the Spirit can choose to continue to live according to the flesh, to his eternal peril (vv. 12-13).

8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The literal NASB translation is better: "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." "To set the mind on" (fronevw , phroneô ) means "to think," "to have a specific opinion or attitude" about something. It also means "to focus the mind or attention upon, to be preoccupied with." As MacArthur says, it refers to "the basic orientation, bent, and thought patterns of the mind" (I:416).

Thus a major difference between those existing under the two world orders is the content of their minds. This includes one's daydreams, conscious goals, interests, desires, attitudes, and points of view. One whose life orientation is the flesh is constantly preoccupied with the things of the flesh, i.e., things having to do with one's bodily nature as it exists in this physical world. The one whose life orientation is the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is preoccupied with the things of the Spirit. His desires, goals, and points of view are determined by the truth revealed in Scripture by the Spirit of God.

8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace . . . . Literally, "For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace." "Mind" (frovnhma , phronçma ) is the noun form of phroneô (v. 5) and conveys the same idea. It thus means the content of the mind in terms of one's worldview, mindset, and thought patterns.

This verse names a second major characteristic of those who are of the flesh or of the Spirit. On the one hand, the mind of the flesh is death . This refers both to one's present state and to his eternal destiny. The person controlled by his flesh is in a state of spiritual death; he exists according to "the law [world order] of sin and death" (8:2). This is the state of spiritual depravity (not total depravity), which is the second half of the sinner's "double trouble." It is death in the most serious sense, i.e., separation from God (Isa 59:2). Also, to be controlled by the flesh means that one's final destiny is eternal death in the lake of fire (6:23; 7:5; Rev 20:14-15), where separation from God is eternal.

On the other hand, the mind of the Spirit is life and peace . This also refers to one's present state and to his eternal destiny. At conversion we were raised from spiritual death to spiritual life (6:4, 11; 8:10; John 5:24), and we began to exist in a state of objective peace with God and internal peace of mind (5:1-2). This peace with God is in contrast with the mind of the flesh, which exists in a state of enmity toward God (8:7). We should note that it is a state of peace with God , not peace with sin . Thus such peace is consistent with the state of battle against sin described in 7:14-25.

Also, "life and peace" are the final blessings of eternal life and of eternal peace in heaven. To have the mind of the Spirit is to exist according to "the law [world order] of the Spirit of life," and the Spirit's final gift of life is a new body designed for glory (8:11, 23).

8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. "Sinful mind" is literally "the mind of the flesh," exactly as in v. 6. This statement is preceded in the Greek by diovti ( dioti ), "because" (untranslated by the NIV). This connects with the first part of v. 6. I.e., the mind of the flesh is death, because it is hostile toward God. "Hostile" is a noun, e[cqra ( echthra ), that means "hostility, hatred, enmity." It is the state that exists between enemies, in contrast with the state of peace in v. 6.

The mind devoted to the flesh is enmity against God because it is committed to everything that God is against. The "carnal mind" (KJV) may not consciously sense itself as being an enemy of God, and may deny that it is so. But the fact remains that "friendship with the world is hatred [ echthra ] toward God" (Jas 4:4). As the maxim says, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy."

The nature of this enmity is explained in the rest of the verse: It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. This is connected to v. 7a by gar , "for, because" (untranslated in the NIV). This shows a causal relation between 7a and 7b. The mind focused on the flesh is an enemy of God because it does not and cannot submit to God's law.

"Law" in this context is the general law of God in any and all of its applicable forms. That peace with God and enmity against God are measured by one's attitude toward his law is significant. It shows that God and his law cannot be separated. To reject God's law is to reject God himself.

The choice between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the Spirit is the choice between the attitude of lawlessness, which is the essence of sin (1 John 3:4), and the attitude of submission to God's law (see 7:22). "Submit" is uJpotavssw (hypotassô ), which in the passive voice means to surrender oneself to the authority of someone or something. To submit to the law of God means to acknowledge its authority and to make a conscious effort to obey it. This is precisely what the mind of the flesh does not do. More significantly, it cannot do so. This theme of inability is continued in the next verse.

8:8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Literally, "And those who are in the flesh cannot please God." On the phrase "in the flesh," see 7:5. The translation "controlled by" gives the proper sense of it.

This verse is simply reinforcing the point of v. 7b. "Cannot please God" is directly related to "cannot submit to God's law." This shows that what pleases God is inner submission to and external obedience to his law. On the subject of pleasing God, see 12:1-2; 1 Cor 7:32; 2 Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Tim 2:4; Heb 11:5-6; 13:21; 1 John 3:22.

Paul says that the one whose mind is set on the flesh cannot submit to God's law (v. 7) and cannot please God. What is the nature of this inability? Calvinists and others use these verses as proof-texts for the idea of total inability, which is the core of the doctrine of total depravity (see Murray, I:287; Moo, I:521). These verses are taken to mean that sinners are unable to repent and believe the gospel without the sovereign and irresistible grace of God, which he gives to those whom he unconditionally chooses.

It is important to see, though, that these verses do not teach this kind of inability. They obviously teach that the person controlled by his flesh is unable to do something, but his inability is clearly related to the law, not to the gospel. This is the key to understanding this text.

Basically, such a person is unable to obey any command of the law as God wants it done and as the law requires. He may obey it outwardly; but as long as he exists according to the flesh, he cannot submit to God's law in his heart (Gal 5:6; Heb 11:6). One simply cannot do both at the same time: he cannot set his mind on the flesh and submit to God's law simultaneously (Morris, 306). Thus as long as he is in the flesh, he cannot please God with respect to his law.

The key words are "as long as." A person cannot be pleasing to God in obedience to his law as long as his mind remains set on the flesh. But here is the crucial point: there is no indication whatsoever in this text that a sinner is unable to respond to the gospel, or unable through the power of the gospel to redirect the set of his mind from flesh to Spirit. The context shows that "cannot please God" refers only to an inability to be subject to the law, and does not imply an inability to respond to the gospel. The failure to make this distinction is the main error of Calvinists' interpretation of these verses. In other passages it is clear that sinners are able and expected to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance (John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev 22:17; see Matt 23:37).

8:9 In vv. 5-8 Paul gives an objective description of the two orders of flesh and Spirit. Now he begins a personal application to the Roman Christians and Christians everywhere. His point is this: despite the law of sin and death that continues to work in and through your as-yet-unredeemed bodies, and despite the reality of your continuing struggle against its enslaving power, you need not despair, for God has given you a gift of grace second only to the gift of justification through Christ's blood. This second gift of grace is the indwelling Holy Spirit himself. His very presence within you gives you all the resources you need for victory over your flesh now, and for ultimate victory over death in every sense.

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. Literally, "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit." The "you" is emphatic and draws the Christian reader personally into the sphere of the truth enunciated in the text. Paul flatly states that you (Christians) are not "in the flesh," or "controlled by the flesh." Your life is not oriented to this world; your mind is not set upon the things of this earth. Rather, you are "in the Spirit." Some take this to mean the human spirit. I.e., you are not governed by the desires of your bodies but by the higher inclinations of your spirits. As in the preceding verses, however, it is best to take this as referring to the Holy Spirit. That is, your life now falls within the sphere of the Spirit's influence and power.

This is true, of course, only if the Spirit of God indeed dwells in you. The word "if" is ei[per ( eiper ), which sometimes means "since" (3:30; 2 Thess 1:6). Some take it thus here, in order to eliminate all uncertainty as to the status of Paul's readers. "If" or "if indeed" is probably the intended meaning, though, as in 8:17 (see 1 Cor 15:15). It simply states the condition for being in the Spirit. The point is not to create uncertainty as to one's status, but rather to eliminate other conditions, especially those having to do with human achievement. The fact that we are "in the Spirit" depends not upon what we have accomplished in ourselves, but upon what God has accomplished in us through his Spirit.

The word for "lives" is oijkevw (oikeô ), and is related to the word for "house, dwelling place." The word implies not a temporary, transient visit, but a permanent settling down. When the Holy Spirit is given to us in baptism (Acts 2:38), he takes up permanent residence and makes himself at home within us. He comes to dwell in our very bodies (1 Cor 6:19), which continue also to be indwelt by sin (7:17, 23). Thus he is in position to do battle for us in the very place where we need him most.

And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. This makes the same point in a negative way. Those who do not have the Spirit are outside the sphere of the redeemed. This is not applied personally to Paul's readers, but is stated of the impersonal "anyone." That the Spirit is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ suggests that Christ as God the Son is on the same level as God the Father; it implies his deity.

How can we know whether or not the Holy Spirit is dwelling in us? First we must ask whether we have done that which God has specified as the condition for receiving the Spirit: Acts 2:38; 5:32; 19:1-7. Then we must look for the signs of his continuing presence. These signs do not necessarily include the possession of miraculous powers, since these can be present even where Christ and his Spirit are absent (see Matt 7:21-23). The best sign is the presence of the fruit of the Spirit in our character and conduct (Gal 5:22-26), though even this is not an infallible indicator. What we can say is this, that where such fruit is absent, the Spirit is also absent.

This verse clearly ties our relationship to the Spirit with our relationship to Christ. When the Spirit lives in us and we thus "live in the Spirit," we belong to Christ. (This is the implication from the negative statement that one who does not have the Spirit does not belong to Christ.) This same connection is made in 1 Cor 6:19-20.

8:10 But if Christ is in you . . . . Here Paul returns to second person, indicating his confidence that this condition is indeed the condition that applies to his Roman readers. Verse 9 says the Holy Spirit dwells in us; now Paul describes our saved state by saying that Christ dwells in us. This does not equate Christ with the Spirit, but shows the intimate interrelation between them. It also indicates how difficult it is to give an exact or literal description of the Christian's own intimate relation with both Christ and the Spirit. The Spirit is in us; we are in the Spirit. Christ is in us; we are in Christ. Some say the Holy Spirit dwells in us personally and directly, while Christ dwells in us only indirectly through the Spirit (Lard, 258). This is not necessarily the case, however. Both may certainly dwell in us, each for his own purpose.

If Christ is in you, here is where you now stand. First, your body is dead because of sin . . . . The body here no doubt is the physical body, as in v. 11. In what sense does Paul say that "the body is dead" (present tense)? The primary and most obvious reference is to physical death (see v. 11), the idea being that the body is subject to death, under the curse of death, "irrevocably smitten with death" (Godet, 305). It is doomed to die. "Because of sin" must then refer to the sin of Adam (5:12-17), since even sinless infants and young children sometimes die.

But it is also true that the Christian's body is even now still permeated with the spiritual effects of his own sin and thus with a kind of spiritual death (see Romans 7:24). I.e., the physical body is spiritually dead because of the sin that indwells it (7:17-18, 23). Because the Christian's body has not yet been delivered from the power of this spiritual death, it is thus the source of constant struggle.

That we still have "this body of death" is the bad news, but there is also some very good news: yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. The most difficult question here is whether pneuma ("spirit") means the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. Many say the latter, the strongest argument being that the Greek does not say "the spirit is alive" but rather "is life ." In view of the close connection between the Holy Spirit and life (8:2), the affirmation that "the Spirit is life" makes very good sense. On the other hand, to say "the redeemed human spirit is life" is somewhat problematic. (See Cranfield, I:390; Hendriksen, I:252-253.)

Nevertheless many do believe pneuma refers here to the human spirit, the strongest argument being the apparent parallel between "body" and "spirit." I believe the case for this view is stronger, and that the NIV translation is appropriate: "your spirit is alive." Either way the phrasing is a bit awkward.

Whichever view was intended, the other is still true and is actually present by implication. If Paul is saying "the Spirit is life," since this is in contrast with "the body is dead," then we must understand that the Spirit's first and best gift of life was the life he gave to our spirits in the act of regeneration. If Paul is saying "the spirit is alive," then we must understand that the source of this life is the Holy Spirit. (See Titus 3:5.) Either way, the Holy Spirit is the source of our power over sin and our ability to stand against its attacks. This is the main point.

The spirit is alive "because of righteousness." Many take this to mean the imputed righteousness that is the basis for justification. This would mean that in some sense our regeneration is grounded in our justification through the blood of Christ. This is not at all unlikely since "the law of the Spirit of life" is able to operate only "through Jesus Christ" (8:2). Others take it to mean a kind of imparted righteousness. This is not as likely, since it is difficult to separate imparted righteousness from our own righteous living, and since our spirit's being alive seems in no way attributable to our righteous living. It is rather the opposite: we can live righteously because we have been made alive by the Spirit.

8:11 The Christian is a combination of "a dying body and a living spirit," as Stott says (226). But this is not the whole story. Just as our spirits have already been raised from the dead, so also will our bodies one day be rescued from the grip of sin and death and restored once more to a state of pure life. This "body of sin" (6:6), "this body of death" (7:24), is appointed to undergo physical death (Heb 9:27); but after that we shall be raised in new bodies that are no longer susceptible to such death and are no longer infected with sin and spiritual death. While the resurrection of Christ has certainly paved the way for this bodily resurrection and has made it possible, its immediate agent is the Holy Spirit.

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you . . . . Paul has already established that the Spirit of God dwells in all who exist according to the Spirit (v. 9). The word "if" (eij , ei ) does not suggest uncertainty but is simply establishing the basis for our hope regarding the resurrection of our bodies. Some would translate it "since."

We may note that this clause reflects the Trinitarian nature of God. "Him who raised Jesus" is God the Father; "the Spirit" of the Father is God the Holy Spirit; Jesus is God the Son.

. . . he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies . . . . If God raised Jesus from the dead, he can also raise up our bodies as well (see 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:14). The resurrection of Jesus is thus a basis for our assurance that we too will be raised up in the day when Christ returns. "Mortal bodies" refers to the physical body; it is mortal in the sense that it is subject to death and pervaded by death both physically and spiritually (6:12; 8:10). But no matter how strong a grip death has on our bodies, its power will be completely broken through his Spirit, who lives in you. The present indwelling of the Spirit is a further assurance of our future resurrection. See 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13-14.

It is significant that our promised rescue from this body of sin and death (7:24) does not consist merely of physical death and freedom from bodily existence as such, as many pagan religions teach. According to the Bible physical death itself is something to be rescued from, and the human spirit was not designed to exist apart from a body. Thus our rescue comes only through "the redemption of our bodies" (8:23) in the form of resurrection.

8:12 The approach here is similar to 6:1-13, where a description of the fact of regeneration (1-11) was followed by exhortations to Christians to live consistently with their new inner life (12-13). Here, vv. 5-11 are likewise descriptive. They describe the difference between existing for the flesh and for the Spirit, and affirm that Christians do indeed exist according to the Spirit. Now vv. 12-13 set forth the personal responsibility resting upon those who are in the Spirit.

The facts that we have been regenerated, and that we have received the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, do not in themselves guarantee holy living. They make holy living possible; this is one of the great gifts of grace celebrated in the gospel. But they do not make it automatic and inevitable. Grace does not make us robots; we are still freewill creatures who must personally seize the opportunity and actualize the possibility created by grace.

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation . . . . This is directed specifically and personally to Christians (brothers). It is not a formal exhortation, but it has the force of one. Literally it says "we are debtors" (see 1:14). We owe it to God to live a holy life. It is an absolute obligation based on the fact that he is our Creator, and it is a debt of gratitude based on the fact that he is our Redeemer.

. . . but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. Literally, we are debtors "not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh." We owe nothing to the flesh, to our as-yet-unredeemed bodies. We do not "owe it to ourselves" to experience as much physical and earthly pleasure as possible (Phil 3:19).

Actually Paul does not finish his sentence. He tells us we are not debtors to the flesh, but he stops before stating the obvious, namely, that we are debtors to the Spirit, to live according to the Spirit. Without hesitation we can assume that this is his point, in view of the contrast between flesh and Spirit pervading this context. I.e., we owe it to God to take full advantage of the power and the potential existing within us through the Spirit - the power to overcome the sinful cravings of the flesh and the potential to obey God's commandments to the fullest.

Contrary to the NIV, this is the first use in 8:1-13 of the terminology " living according to the flesh" and (by implication) " living according to the Spirit." In 8:4 "walking" is basically the same as "living." But vv. 5, 8-9 speak of being in the flesh or Spirit. Unbelievers are in the flesh, just as Christians are in the Spirit. This is our status, our position, our nature. "Are" describes a reality that exists. But now, given this reality, it is our responsibility to live in accordance with it. Now that we exist in the Spirit, we owe it to him to live up to the potential he provides. (See 6:2.)

8:13 The reason Paul breaks off his sentence is so that he can pursue the theme of living according to the flesh. He issues a solemn warning, stressing the danger of continuing to live the lifestyle of the flesh now that we are in the Spirit. For if you live according to the sinful nature [literally, "flesh"], you will die . . . . "Die" cannot mean die physically, for that will happen regardless. Thus it means die spiritually by reverting to an unsaved condition; or die eternally in hell. Actually these cannot be separated; those who are spiritually dead will die the eternal death. This is the "law of sin and death" (8:2).

This verse is a strong affirmation of the real possibility that a Christian can fall from grace and lose his salvation. Those who cling to the dogma of "once saved, always saved" deny this, of course. Moo (I:528) says he favors the "Calvinist" interpretation, i.e., that "the truly regenerate believer, while often committing 'fleshly' acts, will be infallibly prevented from living a fleshly life-style by the Spirit within." This view, he says, "in no way mitigates the seriousness of the warning Paul gives here." MacArthur (I:422) agrees: "The apostle is not warning genuine believers that they may lose their salvation and be condemned to death if they fall back into some of the ways of the flesh. . . . He is rather saying that a person whose life is characterized by the things of the flesh is not a true Christian and is spiritually dead."

Such comments are incredible in view of the fact that Paul here directs this warning specifically to his "brothers" (v. 12). He is not speaking of an anonymous "anyone" (v. 9) who is not a true Christian, but is speaking directly to these brothers in second person plural: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die." To say that it cannot really happen "in no way mitigates the seriousness of the warning," and to say that the Spirit will "infallibly prevent" the very thing he warns against, approaches the limits of spiritual confusion. Of course it mitigates the seriousness of the warning! If living according to the flesh is impossible for Christians, then this "warning" is meaningless to the very ones to whom it is addressed, and it can be totally ignored.

The warning is serious and relevant: if believers continue to live according to the flesh, they will die. But the warning is balanced by a glorious promise: . . . but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live . . . . This is the Christian's other possibility. He can continue to live the fleshly lifestyle, yes (and die!); or he can put to death the sins of the body (and live!). "Misdeeds" is the word praxis . It means "acts, deeds" or "evil deeds," depending on the context. The latter is the connotation here; hence "misdeeds" (see Acts 19:18; Col 3:9). The misdeeds "of the body" are the sinful deeds that result from the law of sin that resides in the flesh, i.e., the as-yet-unredeemed body (6:6; 7:18, 23-25).

These and any other sins are to be "put to death," mortified (KJV), killed. This is the opposite of living according to the flesh. We can either let these sins continue to live in us and kill us, or we can kill them (see Col 3:5). The latter must be our choice. The sins of the body must be attacked at their very root, where they are imbedded in our flesh on the level of our inclinations and desires. Like Paul, we must beat or buffet our bodies and make them our slaves (1 Cor 9:27), gaining control of our passions. We must train ourselves not only on the level of acting but also on the level of willing or desiring (Phil 2:13).

The point of this is not to punish the body as such, as an end in itself, but to do what is necessary to squelch the sins of the body. This requires spiritual discipline, not necessarily asceticism.

We must note here again the Christian's personal responsibility for this discipline: "if . . . you put to death." Again, this is not automatic and inevitable; we must personally will it and do it. As Lard says (263), "The will is to be your will, the effort your effort, and the result your deed." After all, our spirits have been regenerated and in principle set free from the enslaving power of sin that remains in our bodies, and thus we should be able to bring our bodies under control in the service of righteousness (6:6-7, 12-14).

But this is not the whole story; it is not even the main point of the story. Yes, we have been renewed in our spirits, but we still find ourselves locked in a discouraging struggle with our indwelling sin (7:14-25). So what is the key to victory in this struggle? Whence comes our rescue from this body of death (7:24)? The key to victory lies in these three words: " by the Spirit"! The Spirit's power alone ensures victory in our battle against sin; this is why he lives within us. He gives us the power to put sin to death. "The Spirit of God - and only the Spirit of God - is to be the means of the destruction of the flesh and its activities" (Cranfield, I:394). On a conscious level we are aggressively putting sin to death, but below the level of our consciousness the Spirit is empowering us for this victory. See Lard, 263; MP, 360.

The promise to those who succeed, by the Spirit, is eternal life: "You will live." This can be nothing less than the glory of heaven. This promise is a fitting conclusion to the section on our struggle with and victory over sin (7:14-8:13); and it is also a fitting transition to the next section, which emphasizes our assurance of ultimate victory in the end (8:14-39).

One last question must be raised concerning v. 13. If Paul is here warning Christians that they will lose their salvation if they persist in living according to the flesh, and if he is promising eternal life to those who overcome sin, does this not compromise the basic gospel truth that we become, are, and remain justified by faith ? Does this not make remaining justified dependent on works? No, but it does show the very close connection between faith and works (obedience). Justification is always by faith; but this faith must produce the "obedience of faith" (1:5). Otherwise the faith itself will die, and so will the individual. Faith produces works; but good works also strengthen and nourish faith, while sinful deeds poison and strangle it (see Matt 13:20-22). A Christian who continues to live according to the flesh is like a person who deliberately drinks poison. His faith will die, then he will die. But the Christian who puts sin to death and lives obediently is keeping his faith robust and strong. He will surely live.

Grace is a double cure, and it is all or nothing. One cannot accept the justification that comes by faith, and then refuse the sanctification made possible by the Holy Spirit. That is one of Paul's main points in this whole section (chs. 6-8).

III. 8:14-39 - THE ASSURANCE OF FINAL AND TOTAL VICTORY OVER THE FALLEN WORLD

The theme of this third main part of Romans (chs. 6-8) is that the all-sufficiency of grace gives us victory over sin. The focus is on the second aspect of the double cure: regeneration and sanctification through the Holy Spirit. In sections I and II of Part Three, it has become clear that sanctification cannot be completed until our bodies have been brought within the scope of Christ's redemptive work.

This leads to the subject of glorification, which is the final step of sanctification and the climax of the entire salvation process. When Jesus returns in the last day, the state of glory begins. It will include first of all and primarily the resurrection of believers' bodies into a glorified state (8:23), but will also include the renovation of the universe to be an appropriate home adapted to the eternal needs of glorified human beings (8:20-21; Rev 21:1-7). This is the unifying theme of this present section.

Paul approaches the subject in terms of inheritance . In 4:11-18, where believers are identified as Abraham's heirs (see Gal 3:1-4:7), the emphasis is upon the means of receiving the inheritance, namely, faith in the promises of God. Here the emphasis is upon the full content of this inheritance (a glorified body in a glorified universe), and the assurance that it will indeed be ours, based on our status as God's adopted children.

A. THE HOLY SPIRIT MARKS US

AS SONS AND HEIRS (8:14-17)

The inheritance of glory will be ours because we are sons or children of God. If we have the Spirit of God, we are his children; and if we are his children, we are his heirs. That is the point of this paragraph in a nutshell.

The Spirit plays a key role in this picture, but it is important to define this role carefully. In general, the Spirit provides God's people with two kinds of benefits: those relating to knowledge (e.g., the inspiration of Scripture), and those relating to power (e.g., sanctification). Most interpreters approach vv. 14-17 in terms of knowledge. They think this passage teaches that the Holy Spirit affects us cognitively, directly implanting knowledge in our minds concerning our status as children of God. I believe Paul's main point is quite different, namely, that the Spirit gives us the power to live the kind of life indicative of a child of God, and the power to confidently claim our filial relationship with the Father.

Thus the point is not that the Spirit makes us children of God as such, nor that he makes us aware that we are children of God through some mysterious inner revelation. The idea rather is that the Spirit marks us as God's children indirectly through what he enables us to do. By objectively observing his mark upon our lives, we ourselves as well as others can have assurance that we belong to God's family and are heirs of his glory.

8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. This section expands on the promise at the end of v. 13, "You will live" in eternal glory. You will live, that is, if by the Spirit you put to death the sins of the body. But how does putting sin to death lead to eternal glory? Because those who do this "are sons of God," which makes them heirs of eternal life.

The key is to see that putting sins to death by the Spirit in v. 13 is the same general idea as being led by the Spirit in v. 14 (Cranfield, I:395, 401). Those who ignore this connection tend to give "led by the Spirit" a cognitive meaning; i.e., the Spirit leads us by enlightening our minds in some subjective and mystical way. He "guides" us by inwardly showing us the right thing to do or by helping us to know God's will in specific circumstances.

But this is not the point. The Spirit leads us not by subjective enlightenment of our minds, but by inward empowerment of our wills. He "strengthens the human spirit, to enable it to control the flesh" (Lard, 264), i.e., to "put to death the misdeeds of the body." He leads not by overriding our wills and driving or dragging us along. Rather, his leading is an inward prodding of the conscience, an influence upon the heart, an empowerment of the will to do what we already know is right based on the teaching of Scripture. Our problem after all is not ignorance as such but moral weakness. The Spirit leads us by taking our hand and giving us inner strength to walk in the paths of righteousness.

Being led by the Spirit is another term for walking or living according to the Spirit (8:4, 12-13), and includes producing the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:18, 22-25). It refers to one's lifestyle, and means "to have the direction of one's life as a whole determined by the Spirit" (Moo, I:534).

The main point of the verse is this: those led by the Spirit are "sons of God," and that is why they can be sure they will live in eternal glory. The Spirit-led lifestyle is a sign of sonship, and in this way the Spirit's influence upon our lives marks us as God's sons. By enabling us to live the distinctive lifestyle of the redeemed, the Spirit becomes our seal (Eph 1:13-14), our distinguishing mark, our "family crest." Being led by the Spirit is not what makes us children of God; we "are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). But by allowing the Spirit to lead us, we show ourselves to be sons of God; we demonstrate that it is so (see Morris, 313; Moo, I:534). We demonstrate it not just to others but to ourselves, and thus we become strengthened in our confidence and assurance of our acceptance with God.

8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship [literally, "Spirit of adoption"]. (See 1 Cor 2:12; Gal 4:6; 2 Tim 1:7.) The first question here is whether pneu'ma , ( pneuma , "spirit") refers to the Holy Spirit or to a disposition or attitude of the human heart. The NASB says, "a spirit of slavery" and "a spirit of adoption," meaning the attitudes of a slave and of a son respectively. Most expositors reject this interpretation and rightly see this word as a reference to the Holy Spirit. The verb "received" is aorist (past) tense, indicating a single past event when the Spirit was received, namely, baptism (Acts 2:38). See Cranfield, I:396; Lard, 264.

The idea is this: the Holy Spirit, whom we received in our baptism, is not a spirit who marks us as slaves and thus engenders a slave's servile and cringing approach to God: obedience motivated by fear of punishment. Rather, the Holy Spirit is one who enables us to see ourselves as true sons of God, whose obedience is motivated by loving gratitude and a genuine desire to please him. Just as the Spirit empowers us to put sin to death and obey God's law, so also does he enable us to change our deepest desires and motives and dispositions, and to adjust them from those of a slave to those of a son. As Phil 2:13 says, God (the Holy Spirit) works in us to empower not just our doing but our very willing itself.

The word "again" refers to our pre-Christian lives, where our basic identity was indeed that of a slave to sin and lawlessness (6:17-20) and to the law (7:6). Though the sense of enslavement to sin is still present in us to some degree because of the influence exerted upon us by the sin that still indwells our bodies (7:14-25), we have been set free from sin's inevitability (6:17-22; 8:2), and our basic identity now is that of a son . The Spirit does not rescue us from one kind of slavery just to entangle us in another. True, our present relationship to God is that of slave to master (6:22; Eph 6:6). This imagery is still appropriate as a reminder of our absolute obligation to obey God's will. But regarding our motivation , we now have the freedom of sons. We no longer obey because we feel the yoke on our necks and the whip on our backs. We no longer fear death (Heb 2:14-15); we have no fear of judgment and condemnation. God's fatherly love for us, and our reciprocal love toward him, combine to cast out such fear (1 John 4:18).

The reference to adoption distinguishes our sonship from the unique Sonship of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God (John 3:16), but it does not suggest that ours is a mere pseudo-sonship. In the Greek and Roman cultures of Paul's day, those adopted into a family became sons in every sense of the word, and possessed the same rights as natural sons (see Dunn, I:460; Moo, I:536), especially with regard to inheritance. In fact, one of the main reasons for adopting a son was to appoint an heir for an otherwise sonless father. Now of course, God is not Sonless, and he does not need more heirs in the normal sense of that word (since he is not going to die!), but he wants to add as many as possible to his family so that he can share his unlimited "estate" with them, as an earthly father bestows his goods on his children through his will.

As the Spirit of adoption, the Holy Spirit does not cause the adoption and make us sons of God. Again, his coming into our lives marks us as sons by engendering within us the attitude of sons rather than slaves.

And by him - by the Spirit - we cry, " Abba , Father." "Cry" is kravzw (krazô ), a term used often in the LXX for sincere and urgent prayer, and for heartfelt praise to God (e.g., Isa 6:4). Here likewise it indicates a deeply-felt and emotional acknowledgement of our sonship, poured forth from the heart as a positive counterpart to the mournful outcry of 7:24.

The word abba is Aramaic, which was the Hebrew-like language spoken by Jews in NT times. Abba was the intimate term used by a child to address his male parent, similar to "Dada" or "Daddy" in English. By the time of Jesus it was not limited to the speech of children (Cranfield, I:400); but it was still a term of intimacy and endearment, not one the Jews would presume to use in addressing God. But Jesus used it (Mark 14:36), and from Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6 it is apparent that Christians were taught to do the same in imitation of their Lord.

Use of this term in addressing God has several implications. First, it is "a family word, expressive of family familiarity and intimacy" (Dunn, I:461). When we use it, we are acknowledging that God is our Father and we are his children. Second, it indicates that our relationship to our Father is one of closeness, tenderness, and childlike confidence. It shows that even the transcendent God is not distant and alien from his children (see 1:8). Third, it expresses our family solidarity with Christ, since our "Abba" is his "Abba." He is "the firstborn among many brothers" (8:29). In a real (though not complete) sense we have a shared sonship and joint heirship with Christ (8:17).

In all three NT passages where the term is used, the full expression is ajbbav oJ pathvr (abba ho patçr ); that is, the Aramaic word is followed by the Greek equivalent. Some think the biblical writers added ho patçr in order to translate abba to those unfamiliar with Aramaic. Others think the entire phrase was "an established formula in the churches," a "single dual-form ejaculatory cry" (Dunn, I:453, 461). Today we would say "Abba! Father!"

To be able to address God as "Abba! Father!" is an indication of our assurance that we are truly his children. By doing so we bear witness to both God and man that we are sons and daughters of God. That we do so by the Spirit reflects the Spirit's role in empowering us to live the kind of life expected of a member of God's family and in enabling us to do so in the spirit of sons and not slaves. In this way the Spirit empowers us to declare our sonship and to claim all the rights and privileges related to it: "Abba! Father!" Again, the Spirit's role is not to add content to our knowledge, but strength to our wills.

8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Most agree that this verse speaks of the Holy Spirit bearing witness in relation to our personal spirit (the soul or inner man). But exactly what does this mean? The verb is summarturevw (symmartyreô ), which combines martyreô , "to testify, to bear witness," and syn , "with." Does this mean the Spirit "bears witness with" our spirit, or "bears witness to" our spirit? Most agree that the former is the literal meaning of the word, but they treat it as if it means the latter. In truth, the crucial question is this: to whom is the Spirit's witness addressed? Most commentators say this verse refers to the inward, experiential, subjective testimony of the Spirit directly to our spirit, a testimony that gives us assurance that we are indeed children of God. It is "a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on our spirit," says Morris (317).

Whether the Spirit's testimony is distinct from our testimony is a matter of dispute. Some say v. 15 ("Abba! Father!") is our testimony, while v. 16 is a separate witness altogether. Others combine the two more or less into a single witness. Our cry of "Abba! Father!" is itself the Spirit's testimony, they say, since we could not utter this cry apart from the Spirit. Some versions translate vv. 15b-16 to reflect this idea: "When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (NRSV, endorsed by Stott, 232).

I strongly disagree with this view. For one thing, v. 16 does not begin with the common particle indicating a causal connection with the previous verse (gavr , gar , "for, because"). Paul uses gar thirteen times with this meaning in 8:1-26. Why would he omit it here if he wants us to see a causal relationship between the Spirit's testimony (v. 16) and our cry of "Abba! Father!" (v. 15)?

Also, a main point of Romans, especially in 3:21-5:21, is that assurance of salvation is not only possible but is the expected result of a right objective understanding of grace and of what it means to be justified by faith in the atoning blood of Christ. (See the "much more" theme in 5:1-11.) In addition, through his sanctifying power as it affects both our outward lives (v. 14) and our inward consciousness (v. 15), the Spirit has already given us reason to cry "Abba! Father!"

In what way, then, does the Spirit testify along with our spirit, that we are children of God? The natural understanding of the word is that his testimony is directed toward the same audience as our own, namely, to the Father. When we cry "Abba! Father!" we bear witness to him that we are his children. Then the Spirit adds his own testimony to ours, likewise bearing witness to the Father that we are his children. See Smith, II:5.

We have assurance that someone besides ourselves is confirming our testimony to the Father. The fact that Paul is here telling us that the Spirit likewise testifies to the Father that we are his true sons and daughters makes our assurance even more firm. This is similar to the Spirit's intercession between us and the Father in 8:26-27. This is not necessary for the Father's sake, but knowing that it happens gives us a sense of calmness and assurance.

The content of the Spirit's testimony is that we are "children of God" (see 8:21; 9:8; Phil 2:15). This is probably not meant to imply anything different from "sons of God" in v. 14. The point is that we are part of his family (see 2 Cor 6:18).

8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ . . . . Here we come to the main point of this paragraph, that we are God's heirs . The argument is very simple: if we are led by God's Spirit, then we are God's children; and if we are God's children, then we are his heirs. This builds upon the prominent OT theme that the Jews were heirs of the "promised land." We now see this as pointing to the higher reality of all believers' ultimate inheritance of all the glories of heaven (1 Pet 1:4).

Our identity as heirs of God involves three emphases. The first is the sheer amount or content of the inheritance, which includes all the riches and wealth of the entire creation. The second point is that our possession of this wealth is still future . We are heirs, but we do not yet possess the full inheritance; we have only a foretaste of it (see v. 23). The third emphasis is the certainty of our ultimate possession of it all. This seems to be the main idea in the concept of "co-heirs with Christ." Our right to be heirs of God is based on our relationship to Jesus, the one true Son and heir (Gal 3:16-29); and our assurance of ultimately receiving the inheritance is as firm and secure as that of Jesus himself. "Whatever inheritance . . . awaits him as Son, also awaits you as children" (Lard, 267; see Cranfield, 1:407).

We are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. As in 8:9, ei[per ( eiper ) means "if, if indeed." This specifies a particular condition for heirship, namely, the same one that applied to Jesus: first suffering, then glory. Jesus necessarily followed this path (Luke 24:26; Phil 2:6-11; Heb 2:10; 12:2). If we want to be co-heirs with him, we must be willing to accept this same sequence, since "participation in Christ's glory can come only through participation in his sufferings" (Moo, I:543).

What kind of sufferings are indicated here? The text says simply "if we suffer with, in order that we may also be glorified with." Neither verb has an object ("him"); but both have the prefix syn ("with"), which implies an object. This object is no doubt Christ: "if we suffer with Christ." The concepts of suffering for righteousness' sake and suffering for Christ's sake are found in many passages. The main point, though, is not that being a Christian guarantees suffering. It is rather this, that faithful suffering with Christ guarantees that we will share in his glory (2:3-4; 2 Cor 4:17). On "glory," see 2:7, 10; 3:2. As MacArthur has well said (I:448), "The more a believer suffers in this life for the sake of the Lord, the greater will be his capacity for glory in heaven."

B. THE REDEEMED COSMOS IS OUR INHERITANCE (8:18-25)

This paragraph is a brief explanation of at least part of the "glory" that constitutes our inheritance. The main focus is the promise of redeemed bodies (v. 23). This is appropriate and expected in view of the fact that thus far only our spirits have been regenerated, and the fact that our as-yet-unredeemed bodies are a major source of the sin against which we still struggle. The redemption of our bodies will mean that our entire being has finally been redeemed, and that our victory over sin is complete. Moreover, the redemption of our bodies will be accompanied by the redemption of the entire universe.

8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The point here is the contrast between our present suffering and our future glory. The former includes everything we suffer specifically as Christians, and possibly (in this verse) all the other suffering that we must endure just because we live in a fallen world. The latter includes such things as natural disasters, disease, frustration, and death (see Moo, I:548; Morris, 319). These sufferings are said to belong specifically to the "now time," which refers not to any one period in earth's history but to the whole era of fallenness, from the sin of the first Adam to the return of the second Adam (12:2; Gal 1:4). This is what Scripture calls "this age" in contrast with "that age" (Luke 20:34-35) or "the age to come" (Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30; Eph 1:21). The bad news is that such sufferings exist; the good news is that they will end when we pass into the age to come. Just knowing they are temporary helps us endure them.

Just as this age is marked by suffering, so (for believers) the coming age is the age of glory (see v. 17). This glory will be "revealed in us," or more accurately, "revealed to us." This act of revealing is not a "manifestation of that which already exists" (contra Moo, I:549), since in this context the reference is mainly to our new bodies and the new universe. These exist now only in the mind and plan of God (Murray, I:301), and will be unveiled to us upon completion at the time of the second coming. Even though we are already sons and heirs, we do not yet have our full inheritance. There is still plenty to hope for (8:24-25).

The Greek describes this glory as "coming" or "about to come" (mevllw , mellô , not translated in the NIV). Some take this as an indication that Paul expected this eschatological revelation to happen very soon ("about to be" revealed, NRSV). Others take it as emphasizing the certainty of this future revelation, but not necessarily its imminence. The latter view is probably correct (see v. 13), and the translation should read "the glory that will surely be revealed to us" in the age to come.

The main point is the contrast between the present suffering and the coming glory. While the former may seem serious and odious while we are in the midst of it, we should try to "step back" and view it from the perspective of eternal glory. In terms of weight, the sufferings hardly show up on the scale at all, while the coming glory presses it all the way down. See 2 Cor 4:17.

8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. The focus here seems to shift abruptly to "the creation." Though some have included more, the most common and most likely view is that this refers to the physical or natural world, or all of creation except human beings and angels.

This verse depicts the physical universe as earnestly, breathlessly expecting something. This is emphatically stated in rather unusual wording, literally: "the eager expectation of the creation is eagerly awaiting." The noun translated "eager expectation" is usually identified as a compound word that means "to stretch out the head, to crane the neck forward" in an attempt to see something. Phillips translates, "Creation is on tiptoe." Whatever the etymology, the word represents an especially strong sense of expectation. This is compounded by the verb, which itself means "to await eagerly."

What is striking here is that the impersonal creation is pictured as having a personal sense of deep longing and earnest expectation. It is also described as being filled with frustration (v. 20) and groaning (v. 22). In each case nature is being personified , or treated as a personal entity for rhetorical purposes. The OT precedent for this is abundant; see, e.g., Ps 96:12; 98:8; Isa 35:1; 55:12; 65:12-13; Jer 4:28.

Exactly what is the object of the creation's "earnest expectation"? Literally, it is "the revelation of the sons of God." A common explanation of this is that believers are already sons of God, but this sonship is now veiled. At the second coming it will be revealed and will become a matter of public knowledge. (See Cranfield, I:412-413; Dunn, I:470.) This is not the point, however. We are already sons, yes; but until we get our new bodies, our sonship is not complete. Not even we know all the glory that our sonship entails (1 John 3:1-2). Thus not only we, but the whole of creation is eagerly awaiting the unveiling of the "new model" of the human body.

8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration . . . . This carries the connection between mankind and the creation back to the Fall. The reason the creation's ultimate deliverance is linked to that of mankind is because its fallenness was caused by man's sin. When God placed the human race in charge of the rest of the material creation (Gen 1:26-28), from that point on the fate of the latter was tied to that of the former. When Adam sinned, God declared, "Cursed is the ground because of you" (Gen 3:17). Instead of man's servant, the earth became his antagonist. Instead of perpetuating man's life indefinitely, it is forced to engorge man's dead body into its dusty maw (Gen 3:18-19).

Through this curse the creation was subjected to frustration. "Subjected" is uJpotavssw ( hypotassô ), "to place under the power or authority of." Figuratively, the creation was placed under the power of "frustration." This is the word mataiovth" (mataiotçs ), which is used 37 times in the LXX version of Ecclesiastes ("Vanity of vanities; all is vanity," 1:2, KJV). It conveys the idea of futility, emptiness, purposelessness, and meaninglessness.

The main idea is that the physical universe was originally created to play the role of servant under the lordship of man (Gen 1:26-28). Under this benevolent dictatorship it was intended to serve man's needs and in so doing to glorify God. Man's first sin, however, included an attempt to manipulate the creation and to misuse it for vainglorious purposes. As a result of this sin and its subsequent curse, man became the creation's slave instead of its master. Thus the creation itself was wrested from its original role in the intended order of things and can no longer fulfill its intended function or purpose. Thus the concept of mataiotçs : "lacking the purpose for which it was designed, it has no purpose" (Morris, 321; see Dunn, I:470).

"Frustration" presumes the personal ability to understand this condition of meaninglessness and to feel a sense of helplessness to do anything about it. The NIV translation thus continues the personification of nature, as in v. 19. Understanding it thus, Cranfield (I:413) says, "The sub-human creation has been subjected to the frustration of not being able properly to fulfill the purpose of its existence." This is why it is eagerly awaiting the revelation of the sons of God. When man's redemption fully comes, the creation will then be able to fulfill its own original purpose.

Exactly who subjected the creation to this state of futility? Paul says it occurred not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope . . . . Its state of meaninglessness is not its own fault; it did not choose to rebel against its Maker and abandon its intended role. Its present state is the result of someone else's choice. Indirectly it came from Adam and Eve's decision to sin. Thus some say "the one who subjected it" is Adam. Others rightly see this as referring to God, however. "Subjected" (uJpotavssw , hypotassô ) is an authoritative action, a judicial decision, and thus something only God could rightfully have done (Cranfield, I:414). Man committed the sin, but God pronounced the curse and brought it about. Also, attaching the element of hope to the curse is something only God could have done (Murray, I:303).

The phrase "in hope" more likely modifies "subjected," whether one begins v. 21 with "that" or "because," and whether or not we include a comma after "subjected it." At the very beginning of this age of the curse and of suffering and frustration, God saw fit to include the promise of redemption through the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). This provided a basis for hope, and this hope in turn became the basis for the creation's eager anticipation (v. 19).

The NIV says the creation was subjected "by the will of the one who subjected it." The Greek says it was subjected "because of" or "for the sake of" the one who subjected it. In what sense was God's action of subjecting the creation to meaninglessness and frustration for his own sake ? It was necessary in order to uphold the integrity of his holiness in the face of sin; he did it to glorify his holy character (see Lard, 272).

8:21 What is the content of this hope that causes the creation to eagerly await the revelation of God's sons? It is the hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

The universe is not only "subjected to frustration"; it is also in a state of "bondage to decay." "Decay" (fqorav , phthora ) can mean moral corruption (2 Pet 1:4; 2:19); or, as here, it can mean breakdown and decay in the physical world (2 Pet 2:12). Some decay is natural and was no doubt a part of the good creation from the beginning. For example, the growth and seasonal cycles of plants and trees, and their production of edible fruit, vegetables, seeds, and leaves, will necessarily leave a residue that is reabsorbed by the earth through the process of decay.

The cosmic Fall, however, resulted in a bondage to decay. This means that death and decay overran their intended boundaries and engulfed what was never meant to die and dissolve - especially the bodies of human beings (Gen 3:19b; 1 Cor 15:42). It also means that the entire universe is undergoing an inexorable process of cosmic decay, which is sometimes called the law of entropy. This "refers to the constant and irreversible degradation of matter and energy in the universe to increasing disorder," says MacArthur. Indeed, "the natural bent of the universe - whether of humans, animals, plants, or the inanimate elements of the earth and heavens - is obviously and demonstrably downward, not upward" (I:455-456). I would hardly call it "natural," though. Rather, it is quite unnatural, being the result of God's curse and the source of the frustration noted in v. 20.

The bad news is that the entire cosmos has fallen with Adam; the good news is that the whole thing "will be liberated" from the consequences brought upon it by sin. The final glory that will be revealed to God's children will include not just new and glorified bodies, but also a completely renewed universe to serve as our eternal home. "Creation itself must be redeemed in order that redeemed man may have a fitting environment" (Dunn, I:471). Thus the second coming of Christ will be the time of "the renewal of all things" (Matt 19:28), or the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21, NASB). Out of the cleansing cosmic fire will come new heavens and a new earth, completely purged of sin's effects and fully indwelt by righteousness (2 Pet 3:10-13; see Isa 65:17; 66:22; Rev 21:1). In that day the meek will inherit the new earth, in which there will no longer be any curse (Matt 5:5; Rev 22:3).

No wonder the entire universe is eagerly waiting "for the sons of God to be revealed" (v. 19). That will be the day of its own redemption, a cosmic redemption through which it participates in "the glorious freedom of the children of God." The latter phrase is better translated literally, "the freedom of the glory of the children of God," where glory stands in stark and utter contrast with decay . The glorified universe will be the inheritance of every believer. It is in a sense God's gift to Christ and his new bride (Rev 21:1-2), the ultimate wedding gift of a new universe!

8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. This verse adds one more description of the (personified) universe's present fallen state. The frustration resulting from being in bondage to decay is depicted as expressing itself in groaning and suffering as if in pain. Two parallel verbs describe this idea: "to groan with" and "to suffer agony with." The prefix "with" (suvn , syn ), attached to both verbs, signifies that all parts of the creation are jointly participating in the pain of purposelessness.

Without its prefix the first verb means to sigh or groan or even complain because of undesirable circumstances from which one longs to be free (see v. 23). The second verb means especially to be in travail or to suffer the pains of childbirth. This is appropriate in view of the fact that pain in childbirth is part of the very curse which is the source of the creation's pain (Gen 3:16). The main point in referring to "the pains of childbirth" is to emphasize the seriousness of the curse under which the creation groans. "Right up to the present time" indicates that the pain of the curse was constant from Eden up to the very moment of Paul's writing. As the context shows, it will continue without relief until the day of our resurrection.

8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Not only does the whole creation groan out of frustration at not being able to fulfill its intended purpose, but so do we also ourselves. "We also ourselves" (the literal Greek wording) is stated twice in this verse for emphasis. We Christians - yes, even we Christians - groan inwardly. That is, we also have an inward sense of pain and frustration growing out of our own inability to conform to God's will for us. Having the firstfruits of the Spirit gives us the desire and the ability to live holy lives, but we are still locked in mortal combat with the law of sin that dwells in our unredeemed bodies. To use Stott's term (242-243), as yet we are only "half-saved." Thus we groan because of our own fallenness and sin, and we groan especially out of longing for the completion of our redemption, the gift of a new body. (See 2 Cor 5:2, 4).

The contrast between the "already" and the "not yet" is strong here. The main verb is "we groan," but it is modified by two parallel participles, "having" and "eagerly awaiting." In other words, we already have part of our salvation, part of our inheritance as God's sons; but part of it is still in the future, and we can only look forward to it in earnest hope.

What we already have is called "the firstfruits of the Spirit." The idea of firstfruits was common in Bible times. As the choice part of the harvest, it constituted an appropriate sacrifice or offering to God (Exod 23:19; Lev 23:10-11; Deut 18:4; 26:1-4). The first converts to Christ in a particular area were called "firstfruits" (16:5; 1 Cor 16:15). Christ himself is the firstfruits in reference to the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, 23).

To say that we have the firstfruits of the Spirit means that even though we do not yet have our complete inheritance as God's children, we have already received a significant portion of it in terms of the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, along with all he has already accomplished for us in the way of regeneration and sanctification. This is the sense in which the Spirit is the " earnest of our inheritance" (Eph 1:13), i.e., the down payment, the first installment, the deposit, the pledge of the fullness of glory (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). In this sense the "firstfruits" are not simply the beginning of the harvest, but are also the guarantee that much more will follow. And as this context shows, the complete inheritance includes the redemption of our bodies and a liberated, glorified universe.

On the other side of this picture, what does Paul say we do not yet have but are eagerly expecting? Our "adoption as sons." This raises a minor problem of interpretation. In vv. 14-16 Paul seems to be saying that we have already been adopted as sons; we are sons and children of God. So how can we be "waiting eagerly" for this adoption? Again, some say our sonship is real but not yet manifested; all we are waiting for is a public announcement of it (e.g., Bruce, 171; Cranfield, I:419). This does not do justice to the intensity of the expectation described in this paragraph, however. The idea is rather that we already have the status of adopted sons, but we do not yet have the full inheritance that goes with our adoption (Moo, I:537, 557). See 8:29. Even though our spirits have already been redeemed by the regenerating power of the Spirit, we will not be fully redeemed until we are clothed with our new bodies. Until then we are only half-saved.

The phrase "redemption of our bodies" has two important implications. First, physical bodies are a natural and necessary part of human existence. We are not complete human beings without them; our spirits are naked without their bodies (2 Cor 5:1-5). Contrary to most religions, we are not redeemed from our bodies; our bodies themselves are redeemed. Second, what will happen to our bodies in that event called "the resurrection" will truly be an act of redemption . This means that (just as in the physical universe as a whole) all the effects of sin will be gone; all defects and imperfections will be corrected: the blind will see, the deaf will hear, the lame will run, the mentally handicapped will understand, and amputees will be made whole.

But the redemption of the body means much more than this. In the context of Rom 6-8, the true glory of the resurrection body is that it will be totally cleansed not just from the effects of sin but from sin itself , i.e., from its evil desires (6:12), its sinful passions (7:5), its indwelling sin (7:17-18), and the law of sin (7:23). It will no longer be a "body of sin" (6:6), a "body of death" (7:24), and "sinful flesh" (8:3). Thus the resurrection of the body is not just the issuing of a new and updated model to replace one that is old and worn out. It is a true act of redemption , an act of deliverance from sin itself. No wonder Paul depicts us and the entire universe as eagerly awaiting this final inheritance. It will be God's final answer to the question of 7:24.

8:24 For in this hope we were saved. "Were saved" is aorist (past) tense; it refers to the conversion event when we entered the sphere of grace. (For similar language see Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5.) At that time we were saved, but not completely so. That is why Paul says that we were saved "in hope." This should not be rendered "saved by hope" (contra KJV and Schlatter, 189). The point is that at first our salvation was only partial, but even then we knew that one day it would be made complete. Thus the element of hope has been present in our minds and hearts from the beginning, and we groan and hope at the same time. We groan because part of our salvation is still lacking, but we have the confident expectation that the missing part will one day be ours. (The distinctive element in hope is not uncertainty but futurity .)

But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? Here "hope" refers to the object of our hope. If we already see it, or have it in our possession, it can no longer be the object of hope. That would be a contradiction of terms. We only hope for things that are still in the future, things we know we will have one day but do not have yet.

The main point of this explanation of the futurity of hope is to remind us that a major aspect of our salvation is still in the future. This is meant to give us encouragement in the midst of our present sufferings (v. 18) and our present struggles against sin. Yes, we have been saved, but not completely so; so do not expect perfection and paradise yet. It will come, but in the meantime do not be discouraged and do not give up.

8:25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. The latter part of the verse literally reads, "Through patient endurance (uJpomonhv , hypomonç ) we are eagerly expecting." (The latter word is the same one translated "wait eagerly" in v. 23.) These two aspects of our present attitude correspond to the two elements of hope.

First, since hope involves futurity , it is always for something we do not yet have. Thus hope requires patient endurance. On the meaning of hypomone see 5:3-4; it can also be translated "steadfastness" or "perseverance." As Moo says (I:559), it is basically the ability to bear up under pressures in order to attain desired goals. Thus it is not just a passive waiting as if in a vacuum, but an active confrontation with all that would derail our hope. See 1 Thess 1:3; Heb 10:36; Jas 1:3-4; Rev 13:10; 14:12.

Also, since hope involves certainty , it is always a matter of eager expectation. We can endure the delay, and we can endure the interim struggles and pressures, because we are sure the day of final glory is coming! As Dunn says (I:476), "The Christian perspective is determined not by the frustrations of the present, but by its future hope." To have redeemed bodies, to live forever in God's presence in the redeemed universe - what joyous expectations!

C. GOD PROMISES TO BRING HIS FAMILY

THROUGH EARTHLY TRIALS (8:26-30)

Overall this main section (8:14-39) assures us of ultimate victory over the fallen world. The key to this assurance is our membership in the family of God. The Holy Spirit working in us marks us as God's sons and heirs (8:14-17). Our inheritance is the fullness of glory, including redeemed bodies and a redeemed cosmos (8:18-25). But what about the present, with all its sufferings (8:17-18)? If we are truly God's family - his sons and daughters, why does he let us endure them? And how do we know that they will not overwhelm us and rob us of our victory over sin and the fallen world in general?

This brief paragraph addresses these questions. Paul reassures us that our heavenly Father does not expect us to cope on the basis of our own weakness; he has given us his Spirit to help us. He assures us that it has always been God's purpose to have a large family with many children; he will not allow any amount of earthly obstacles to thwart this purpose. In his omnipotence and wisdom he is able not only to help us overcome such obstacles, but also to use them for our ultimate benefit. He has been from the beginning, is now, and always will be in control of this family-building project. He will see us through it until its intended goal is accomplished.

8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. "In the same way" indicates a comparison with something just preceding. Many think Paul is comparing the Spirit's groaning for us with the groaning of the creation and of ourselves (vv. 22-23). While the idea of a threefold groaning is very interesting, this is probably not the point. More likely the comparison is between the way hope sustains us in the midst of present sufferings (vv. 18-25), and the way the Spirit sustains us by personally aiding us in our weakness. The idea is that we have more than enough resources to keep us going in the midst of earthly trials.

What is the nature of "our weakness"? The word refers, as MacArthur says, to "our human condition in general" (I:466). This includes not only our natural finiteness, but also especially our spiritual weakness or sin-sickness, the second part of our "double trouble." This includes weaknesses related to living in a not-yet-redeemed body and in a sin-corrupted world.

While acknowledging that such weakness exists, Paul's main point is that the Holy Spirit comes to our aid and gives us inward spiritual power at exactly those points where this weakness puts us in danger of doubt and sin. He shoulders the burdens of our suffering and fills in the breaches in our defenses against our spiritual enemies. This is his ongoing work of sanctification, and the very reason for his indwelling. See 8:13; Eph 3:16; Phil 2:13.

One weakness is that we are not even aware of all our weaknesses. Thus we do not always know exactly what to pray for in the prayer aspect of our spiritual warfare (Eph 6:18). The NASB says that "we do not know how to pray," but this is too ambiguous. Paul is not talking about the manner of prayer, but its content (not the "how," but the "what"). Also, he is not talking about all prayer, for surely we know to pray for such things as our daily bread and workers for the harvest, and we know to intercede for the sick. Even in our spiritual warfare, we may know in general what to pray for, but in this and other things we may not know exactly what to pray, or how to word our prayers. In such matters there is a proper kind of petition, one that is within God's will ("what we ought"), but we simply may not know what it is or may not be able to articulate it.

Here is one of the ways the Spirit comes to our aid. In our feeble attempts at heartfelt prayer, he intercedes for us, standing between us and the Father. "Intercede" means to make an appeal to someone on another person's behalf. The same combination of words is used in v. 27, "the Spirit intercedes for the saints"; and in v. 34, "Christ Jesus . . . is also interceding for us." Thus we have two divine intercessors between us and the Father: Jesus intercedes for us in heaven at God's right hand (v. 34), and the Spirit intercedes for us from within our hearts.

This does not negate Christ's role as a unique intercessor or mediator (1 Tim 2:5-6), because he is the only one who stands between us and the Father's wrath, the only one who secures for us the decree of justification. The Spirit's intercession is in the realm of our sanctification and is specifically related to our prayer life. By his divine power he looks upon the deepest levels of our hearts and gives content to our unspoken and uncertain prayers, then he lays these prayers before the Father's throne. Knowing that this happens alleviates the frustration and despair that might otherwise arise out of our uncertainty concerning God's will and our inability to know what to pray for.

The Spirit's intercession takes the form of "groans that words cannot express." "Groans" is the noun form of the verb used in vv. 22-23. It refers to the nonverbal vocalizing of deep inward feelings, as in a sigh or groan. Some think these are our own groanings, as stirred up and enabled by the Spirit, but this does not fit the concept of intercession. Others rightly see them as the Spirit's own groanings, as he extracts the deepest unformed prayers from our hearts and presents them to the Father in a kind of intradivine communication that does not need words. This communication is described as "groans" because it conveys to the Father not only our thoughts but also the deep feelings associated with them.

Exegetes debate whether ajlavlhto" (alalçtos ; "that words cannot express") means "unutterable, inexpressible, unable to be spoken"; or simply "unspoken, unexpressed, wordless." In the final analysis this does not matter, since the reference is to the Spirit's communication and not ours. We assume that whatever is in our hearts could be expressed in words if we knew exactly what to pray for. What the Spirit carries to the Father may or may not be adaptable to human speech; the point is that this communication is not on that level in the first place.

8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. This continues the thought of the Spirit's intercession for us in our prayers. Just as the Spirit reads our hearts and translates our uncertain petitions into meaningful prayer (v. 26), so does the Father know the mind of the Spirit and thus receives these prayers into his own bosom (v. 27).

"He who searches our hearts" refers to an aspect of God's omniscience or universal knowledge, namely, the fact that he knows the contents of the hearts of all human beings. The "heart" is equivalent to the soul or spirit or inner man, which includes the mind. The Bible often states that God knows what is in our hearts. The argument here is from the greater to the lesser, or from the less likely to the more likely. If God knows what is in the minds of created beings who are qualitatively different from him and relatively independent of him, then surely he knows what is in the mind of the Spirit himself, who is qualitatively equal with God and one in nature with him. What he sees in the mind of the Spirit are the nonverbal groans that convey the contents of the saints' uncertain and unspoken prayers.

If God the Father can directly search our hearts, why is it necessary for the Spirit to intercede for us? It is not a matter of necessity but of choice. In relation to our redemption the triune God has chosen to divide the various aspects of his redemptive activity among the various persons of the Trinity (see GRe , 159-161). Since the Spirit is specifically responsible for our sanctification, and since this weakness in our prayer life is a matter of sanctification, this intercession is part of his distinctive work; i.e., it is "in accordance with God's will" that the Holy Spirit should intercede for the saints. (On "saints," see 1:7.)

8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. The verb here is sunergevw (synergeô ), "work together"; but how to translate the verse is complicated by a significant textual variation regarding its subject. Some manuscripts include oJ qeov" ( ho theos ), "God," as the obvious subject of the verb; this accounts for the NIV and NASB translations. But many believe that ho theos was not in Paul's original text.

This leaves three alternatives. (1) The subject of synergeô is the Holy Spirit, carried over from vv. 26-27. Most reject this view because it interrupts the flow of thought into v. 29, where the unnamed subject seems clearly to be God. (2) The subject is panta , "all things." This is grammatically possible, and is the view found in the KJV, the NRSV, and the NIV margin. Some object that this seems to leave the fate of Christians in the hands of some sort of positive karmic force rather than the hands of God. (3) The subject of synergeô is "he," i.e., God, carried over from the phrase "to the ones who love God," which precedes the verb in the original. Panta , "all things," would then be the object of the verb, and the meaning would be exactly the same as the NIV. The main objection to this view is that this verb is usually intransitive; it does not take an object.

Despite this objection (3) seems to be the best choice. The only one that is not an option is (1), which makes the Holy Spirit the subject of the verb. Even if we accept (2), "all things work together for good," it is certainly implied that they do so only because God is in control of history and providentially directs all things toward a good end. As the NASB says, "God causes all things to work together for good." Whether or not this is the best translation, it is surely Paul's thought.

How much is included in "all things"? This must be determined by the context, which specifically deals with the ills and adversities of our present earthly life, "our present sufferings" (v. 18; see vv. 33-39). This includes trials and miseries suffered as the consequence of others' sins, but not necessarily our own (Godet, 322).

The promise is that God will bring good consequences out of all adverse circumstances, including persecution and death itself. This is important: Paul does not say that God causes all these circumstances, but that he causes good to come out of them ( GRu , 407-409). This is a function of his special providential control of all things. Also, this promise does not guarantee that each individual adversity will have an "immediate good result" (Smith, II:10). All things working together will ultimately produce good, but not necessarily for us personally or even in our own lifetimes.

What is the "good" toward which God directs all things? It is surely not the shallow materialism of the "health and wealth" gospel, as Moo rightly points out (I:566). On the other hand, we should not limit it only to the ultimate good of "our completed salvation" (contra Stott, 247). It certainly includes this, and some adversities may produce their benefits only at this final stage. But we should include also a whole host of present or intermediate goods (Moo, I:566), spiritual in nature, that contribute toward our sanctification and our ability to serve God and others more effectively (see 5:3-4; 2 Cor 1:3-6; Jas 1:2-4). See GRu , 143-153.

This wonderful promise is not made to all human beings, but only to "the saints" (v. 27), i.e., the adopted children of God (vv. 14-16). Here they are described as "those who love God." This is not intended to make a distinction among Christians, as if some love God and some do not. Rather, it is simply a way of distinguishing Christians from unbelievers. Christians are "those who love God," while non-Christians are those who do not.

The persons to whom this promise applies are also described as those "who have been called according to his purpose." On the concept of calling, see 1:6. Calvinist commentators see this as a reference not to the gospel call that goes out to all, but to an inward, selective, irresistible enabling that inevitably produces saving faith in its chosen recipients. As such it is part of what is called "irresistible grace." Scripture is clear, however, that sinners are called not by a secret, inward operation of the Spirit but by the gospel itself (2 Thess 2:14), and that faith comes by hearing the word of this gospel (10:17). Whether or not this outward call is accompanied by an inward operation of the Spirit, both on the outward and inward levels the call is universal (John 12:32) and resistible (Matt 23:37). See Godet, 323-324.

But why are Christians distinctively described as "the called ones," if others have also received the same call but have just refused to accept it? The answer is that it reminds us of who actually took the initiative in our salvation. Even though we believe the gospel and love God, God loved us first (1 John 4:19) and called us unto himself while we were still in our sins. We did not go looking for God and persuade him to love and accept us. He came looking for us, calling us into his family and inviting us to come to him for salvation (10:13).

Paul declares that we have been called "according to purpose." Many early church fathers took this as a reference to human purpose, i.e., to man's free choice to answer God's call. Today it is almost universally, and rightly, understood as referring to God's purpose, and most versions insert "his." Calvinists usually interpret this as a reference to God's eternal decree to save only the elect (e.g., MacArthur, I:487), but that is not the point.

What does it mean to be called "according to (God's) purpose"? The purpose includes both the ultimate end or goal God has in mind in issuing his call, and the means he has devised for achieving this end. These are explained in vv. 29-30. The goal (v. 29) is that some will "be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." In other words, God has purposed to gather together a family of believers who will love him as their heavenly Father and glorify him forever, and whom he can love and bless as his own children. This is not just God's eternal purpose of redemption , but was originally his eternal purpose of creation itself. But because mankind has fallen into sin, this purpose can now be accomplished only through Jesus Christ as the firstborn of this family, and only through the process of redemption as summed up in the fivefold process of foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification (vv. 29-30). See 2 Tim 1:9.

Thus again v. 28 is meant to give us comfort and assurance in the midst of earthly trials. No matter what adversities may befall us, God's providential power will cause good to come from them for his called ones. We can be sure of this because God's whole purpose for creation and redemption is a glorified family of loving children. The fact is that God wants us saved into his family even more than we do. This is why we know that he will work all things together for our good, and for the ultimate accomplishment of his purpose - because these are the same thing.

8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Here Paul gives more detail about God's purpose. He states exactly what this purpose is (v. 29b), and sums up the means by which God will accomplish it: the act of foreknowledge and the decree of predestination. The relation between this act and this decree may well be the most controversial as well as the most crucial exegetical question in the book of Romans.

The word for "predestined" combines oJrivzw (horizô ), "to determine" (see 1:4), and prov ( pro ), "before," yielding proorivzw (proorizô ). This means "to determine beforehand, to predetermine, to foreordain." The translation "to predestine" suggests the nuance "to predetermine the destiny of." When used of persons with reference to salvation it is closely related to the concept of election (v. 33). The prefix pro indicates that the determination in view took place before the world was created (see Eph 1:4; Rev 17:8).

In this verse the predetermination of an individual's destiny is the point. God predetermined that those whom he foreknew would one day "be conformed to the likeness of his Son." This is often taken as referring to our spiritual re-creation in the moral image of God as perfectly embodied in Jesus Christ. As such it would include our present and continuing sanctification. But this is not the point. In this context the emphasis is on our final inheritance, the eschatological glory of the redeemed body (vv. 11, 23). "The likeness of his Son" refers to the fact that our resurrection bodies will be like that of Christ. It is the same thought and language as Phil 3:21, which says (literally) that our body "will be conformed to the body of his glory." See also 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18.

This interpretation is confirmed by the reference to Christ as "the firstborn among many brethren." In Col 1:15 "firstborn" signifies the unique preeminence of Christ, but the point here is that he is "the firstborn from among the dead" (Col 1:18; see Rev 1:5), i.e., the first to be raised from the dead in a glorified body. (See Acts 13:34; 26:23; Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:20.) As such he is the first "among many brethren," i.e., among many others who will also be raised in glorified bodies to constitute God's eternal family. This will be, as Dunn says, "a new race of eschatological people in whom God's design from the beginning of creation is at last fulfilled" (I:484).

This is what is predestined: our final salvation, our conformity to Christ's resurrection body, our inheritance of glory. In other words, even before the world was created, God had already predestined that some individuals would go to heaven, and that the rest would go to hell. It is important to see that such predestination applies to specific individuals and not just to an impersonal plan or group. (See GRu , 338-343.) Thus far we can agree with Calvinism.

But now comes the crucial question: on what basis did God so predestine us? Here is where non-Calvinists part company with Calvinists and other Augustinians. For the latter, God's predestination of certain individuals to salvation is an unconditional election . Prior to creation, they say, in one all-encompassing, efficacious decree, God laid out in detail everything that would take place within the created universe. He decided that he would create X number of human beings, and he unilaterally and unconditionally determined that some of these would ultimately be part of his heavenly family, and that the rest would not.

The key word here is unconditional . That is, for Calvinists, when God was predetermining which individuals would go to heaven, his decision was not contingent upon whether or not these individuals would meet certain conditions, such as faith and repentance. God never responds to human contingencies; this would be contrary to his sovereignty (see GRu , 217-228). This does not mean that he will save anyone apart from faith and repentance. It means rather that when God predestined some to salvation, he not only determined their heavenly destiny but also determined that he would sovereignly bestow upon them the faith and repentance that are prerequisites for heaven. He predestined not only the end but also the means.

This is where Calvinism goes wrong. It is biblical to say that God predestines certain individuals to salvation's end result, heaven; but it is contrary to Scripture to say that these individuals will meet the conditions for going to heaven only because God has predestined them to do so. God predestines the end, but not the means. He predestines all believers to heaven, but he does not predestine anyone to become a believer. Salvation is conditional (see 1:16), and individuals must meet these conditions by their own free-will choice. Therefore predestination itself is conditional; God predestined to heaven those whom he foreknew would meet the required conditions. (See GRu , 343-345.)

Here we come to the crucial point in this verse, i.e., the relation between foreknowledge and predestination. "Those God foreknew he also predestined." We should note that v. 29 says only that God foreknew certain persons ; it does not say specifically what he foreknew about them. In view of the Bible's teaching about salvation in general, many assume that God foreknew "that they would comply with the conditions of justification" (Lard, 282). As Godet puts it (325), they are "foreknown as sure to fulfil the condition of salvation, viz. faith ; so: foreknown as his by faith ."

This answer is not at all unreasonable, but I suggest that v. 28 has already revealed the object of God's foreknowledge. We must not overlook the connection between these two verses, as if v. 29 exists apart from any context. Verse 29 begins (after the conjunction) with the relative pronoun "whom" (translated "those" in the NIV). Ordinarily we would expect an antecedent for this pronoun, and here we find it in v. 28, namely, "those who love God." God foreknew those who would love him. He foreknew that at some point in their lives they would come to love him and would continue to love him unto the end. See the parallel in 1 Cor 8:3, "But if anyone loves God, he is known by him" (NASB). This is exactly the same idea as Rom 8:29a, the former referring to knowledge and the latter to foreknowledge.

We should also note that v. 29 begins with the causative conjunction o{ti ( hoti ), "for, because." This most likely goes with "we know" in v. 28. Thus the thought is quite simple: We know that God works all things for the good of those who love him and are called into his eternal family according to his purpose. How do we know this? Because, having foreknown from eternity that they would love him, he has already predestined them to this state of eternal glory! Thus we can be sure that the temporary trials of this life are not able to nullify what the Almighty God himself has already predestined will occur! Rather, he uses them in ways that prepare us to enjoy eternity even more.

Calvinists reject this simple explanation, of course. At issue, they say, is the meaning of the word "foreknow" (proginwvskw , proginôskô ). Since ginôskô means "to know," and pro means "before," it would seem obvious that proginôskô means "to know beforehand" in the sense of prior cognitive or mental awareness. God certainly has such precognition. Because of his unique relation to time, his knowledge is not limited to the now; he knows the past and the future as well as he knows the present ( GC , 255-259, 279-289). The verb "foreknow" is used here and in four other places in the NT: Acts 26:5; Rom 11:2; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:17. (The noun is used twice: Acts 2:23; 1 Pet 1:2.) Everyone agrees that in Acts 26:5 and 2 Pet 3:17, where it refers to human foreknowledge, it has this simple meaning of precognition or prescience.

But Calvinists argue that in all the other passages, in which God is the subject, both the verb and the noun have another connotation altogether, namely, distinguishing love . Included here are two concepts: loving and choosing. Since the word "know" itself at times is "practically synonymous with 'love,' to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action," foreknowledge in 8:29 must mean "whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight," or "whom he foreloved" (Murray, I:317).

The key word, though, is "distinguishing." For Calvinists the foreknowledge of 8:29 is an act by which God (unconditionally) chooses some people out of the mass of future mankind to be the sole recipients of his saving grace. This says "foreknowledge" is the same as "election." As Moo sums it up, "The difference between 'know or love beforehand' and 'choose beforehand' virtually ceases to exist" (I:569). For 8:29 Arndt and Gingrich (710) give the definition of "choose beforehand." Newman and Nida (167) translate it "Those whom God had already chosen." It has the "connotation of electing grace," says Bruce (177).

On what do Calvinists base this peculiar definition of foreknowledge? Mainly they base it upon a few selected biblical uses of the verbs for "to know," in which they find the connotations of "choose" and/or "love." These include the places where "know" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and they include a few other OT uses of udy ( yada' - Hebrew for "know"), usually Gen 18:19; Exod 2:25; Jer 1:5; Hos 13:5; and Amos 3:2. Also cited are these NT texts: Matt 7:23; John 10:14; 1 Cor 8:3; 13:12; Gal 4:9; and 2 Tim 2:19. Since "know" in all these passages allegedly means much more than simple cognition, we may conclude that " fore know" in 8:29 and elsewhere also means much more, namely, "distinguishing love bestowed beforehand." Thus, "whom He chose beforehand, he also predestined."

How may we respond to this? By a thorough study of the way the Bible uses the words for "know" and "foreknow." Such a project is outside the scope of this commentary, but we may offer a summary analysis.

First, noncognitive connotations for ginôskô are virtually non-existent in secular Greek. Moo admits that the Calvinist definition of foreknowledge sounds "somewhat strange against the background of broad Greek usage" (I:569).

Second, the use of "know" as a euphemism for sexual relations contributes nothing toward this Calvinist view, since it refers specifically to the sexual act and not to any love that might be associated with it. Also, the act of sexual "knowing" in no way includes the connotation of choosing, but rather presupposes that a distinguishing choice has already been made (via marriage). Finally, the use of "know" for this act is much closer to cognition than either loving or choosing; it connotes cognitive knowing at the most intimate level.

Third, biblical texts where "know" and "foreknow" seem to have a connotation of love or affection (e.g., Exod 2:25; Hos 13:5) prove nothing, because they usually do not specify the reason for God's love-knowledge, and they certainly do not suggest that it was unconditional. In fact, 1 Cor 8:3 seems to say it is conditional: "The man who loves God is known by God."

Fourth, an analysis of the NT texts where the words for "know" have persons as their objects, i.e., where the action of knowing is specifically directed toward persons and not facts as such, shows that in such cases these words never have the connotation of "choosing" or "imposing a distinction." This applies to ginôskô (used c. 52 times in this way), epiginôskô (c. 15 times), and oida (c. 43 times).

Such an analysis yields very helpful insights into the meaning of God's foreknowledge. In order of increasing specificity, the three basic connotations of "know a person" are as follows. (1) Recognition . In this case "to know" means to recognize someone, to know who he is, to know his identity or his true identity, to be able to identify him for who he is, to be acquainted with him, to be familiar with him, to understand him, to know his true nature. This is by far the most common connotation. It is a purely cognitive act. It does not impose an identity upon someone, but perceives that identity. This includes the idea of recognizing someone as belonging to a particular group, as distinct from those who do not. This is the sense in which Jesus "knows" his sheep (John 10:14, 27), even as his sheep know him (John 10:14; see 2 Tim 2:19). This is the connotation of "know" that applies to "foreknow" in 8:29.

(2) Acknowledgment . Here "to know" means not only to have a cognitive knowledge of someone's identity, but also to admit or acknowledge that identity. As such it is an act of will, though it presupposes an act of cognition. The most important thing is that this acknowledging does not impose a particular identity upon anyone, but simply confesses it.

(3) Experience . The third and most intense connotation of "to know" when a person or persons are its object is to know experientially, to experience a relationship with someone. Again, it presupposes cognition but goes beyond it. Most significantly, such knowing is not an act that initiates a relationship but simply experiences it. This connotation is found especially in 1 John. Matt 7:23; 1 Cor 8:3; and Heb 8:11 could be either (1) or (3).

In each case the act of knowing does not create a person's identity or his distinction from other people. It rather presupposes an already-existing identity or distinction; the act of knowing perceives and in some cases acknowledges that identity or distinction. These connotations for knowing fit the term "foreknowledge" very well as it is used in 8:29 and elsewhere. Those whom God from the beginning recognized and acknowledged as his own, he predestined to be members of his glorified family in heaven. (The connotation of experiencing a relationship does not transfer well to the concept of fore knowledge, since foreknowledge as such precedes the existence of its object, precluding an experienced relationship.)

In any case, an analysis of all the uses of "know" with persons as the object undermines the notion that it means "choose," and thus does not support the Calvinist idea that foreknowledge is the same as election or choosing beforehand.

The four other NT uses of "foreknow" and the two uses of "foreknowledge" do not comfortably bear the connotations of "forelove" and "choose beforehand." Acts 26:5 and 2 Pet 3:17 do not refer to God's foreknowledge, but they clearly refer to precognition. Rom 11:2 refers to God's foreknowledge of Israel as a nation and not to any individuals within it. The context suggests that Paul is referring to God's precognition of Israel's rebellion and idolatry. Despite the fact that he foreknew all of this (see 9:22, 27-29; 10:16-21), it was never his plan to reject his people altogether.

In 1 Pet 1:20 Christ is the one foreknown from the foundation of the world; and in the context precognition, not choosing, is the preferred meaning. The contrast is between the hidden and the revealed. Even though the Father knew from the foundation of the world that Christ the Son would be our Redeemer, he did not reveal it until the last days.

The two uses of the noun "foreknowledge" are likewise consistent with the non-Calvinist understanding of "foreknow" in 8:29. First Peter 1:1-2 says that the chosen (are chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Thus a clear distinction is made between foreknowledge and choosing, and there is no reason to see in foreknowledge anything other than its basic meaning of precognition. Thus the relationship between foreknowledge and election here is exactly the same as that between foreknowledge and predestination in 8:29.

Acts 2:23 refers to the foreknowledge of God the Father; its object is Jesus Christ and the circumstances of his death. Jesus was delivered up "by God's set purpose and foreknowledge." "Set purpose" is equivalent to predestination; the NASB translates it "predetermined plan." I.e., God had already determined from eternity that Christ would die for our sins. That he was delivered up "according to foreknowledge" means that God foreknew all the human acts of participation in Christ's betrayal and death, such as those of Judas and Herod. God did not predetermine these acts, but he knew them in advance and therefore could work his plan along with them and through them.

Sometimes Calvinist exegetes try to equate the foreknowledge and predetermined plan in Acts 2:23 by invoking a rule of Greek grammar. Here is how MacArthur (I:496) argues:

According to what Greek scholars refer to as Granville Sharp's rule, if two nouns of the same case (in this instance, "plan" and "foreknowledge") are connected by kai ("and") and have the definite article (the) before the first noun but not before the second, the nouns refer to the same thing . . . . In other words, Peter equates God's predetermined plan, or foreordination, and His foreknowledge.

Wuest (143-144) puts it almost exactly the same way, that in such a case the second noun "refers to the same thing" as the first; therefore Acts 2:23 shows that predestination and foreknowledge "refer to the same thing."

This argument, however, is seriously flawed. Both MacArthur and Wuest misquote Sharp's rule. The rule does not say that the two nouns in the construction described above "refer to the same thing." It says only that in such a case the second noun "always relates to the same person that is expressed or described in the first noun." There is a huge difference between relating to the same person (or thing) and referring to the same person (or thing). Carson says it is an exegetical fallacy to assume that the latter or strict form of Sharp's rule has universal validity. He says, "If one article governs two substantives joined by kai , it does not necessarily follow that the two substantives refer to the same thing, but only that the two substantives are grouped together to function in some respects as a single entity" ( Fallacies , 84-85). Also, Sharp states his rule as applying only to persons, not to things. As one Greek scholar says, "Non-personal nouns disqualify the construction"; he cites Acts 2:23 as a specific example of this (Young, Greek , 62).

In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence shows that "foreknowledge" is not equivalent to election or choosing, and that in 8:29 it refers to nothing more than the cognitive act by which God knew or identified the members of his family (as distinct from all others) even before the foundation of the world. He identified them by the fact that they were (would be) the ones who loved (would love) him, and who met (would meet) the required conditions for salvation. Knowing through his divine omniscience who these individuals would be, even at that point he predestined them to be part of his glorified heavenly family through resurrection from the dead after the pattern established by the firstborn brother, Jesus Christ.

8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Exegetes speak of a "golden chain" or "unbreakable chain" of divine acts in vv. 29-30: God foreknows, predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies. Each of these is a distinct act, and in the redemptive process they do follow one another in this sequence. However, we must resist the temptation to bind them together into too neat a package.

For one thing, these five acts do not give a complete picture of salvation. There are no overt references to man's part in the process, which is of course consistent with Paul's purpose here; but not even all of God's redemptive acts are named. Notably missing are regeneration and sanctification.

For another thing, the progression of thought in vv. 29 and 30 is not that of one linear chain. Verse 29 is the main point in itself; grammatically and doctrinally it is a complete thought. It refers to two divine acts, foreknowledge and predestination. The latter is primary and is linked directly to one of the chief elements of glorification, specifically, the resurrection. It could be shortened thus: whom he foreknew, he predestined to be glorified.

Verse 30, instead of simply lengthening a chain begun in v. 29, is intended to expand v. 29b by adding a couple of details: the redemptive process does not go directly from predestination to glory; there happen to be a few other steps in between! This verse does not name them all, but mentions two that are representative of the entire process.

Thus the first and the last redemptive acts of v. 30 are carried over from v. 29. "Predestined" has already been explained. "Glorified" refers to the final stage of salvation, eternal life in heaven. This has been a prominent theme in this whole context, and is the point of v. 29b. "Conformed to the likeness of his son" refers to our resurrection in a glorified body.

Why "glorified" is in past tense is a matter of debate, since it has not happened yet. Some say it actually has been accomplished, in the person of Jesus as our representative (see Cranfield, I:433; Godet, 327). But most agree that the past tense refers to the fact that God has already predestined it; therefore it is as certain as if it had already occurred (e.g., Bruce, 178; Moo, I:573).

This verse adds two steps between predestination and glorification, probably to show us that God's predestining believers to glory does not make a mockery of the intervening process. Some have wondered why, in the Calvinist view, the intervening steps are necessary. But when the biblical concept of free will is retained, we see that what comes between the beginning and the end is what makes it possible for God to predestine some to glory in the first place.

The two divine acts given as links between predestination and glorification are calling and justifying . We have already examined the meaning of these concepts; the question now is, why specifically are they inserted here? One reason, as indicated, is to show that intermediate steps such as calling and justifying are necessary. Another reason, possibly, is to indicate that human decisions are not totally absent from this process but are implicitly present as the objects of the divine foreknowledge in v. 29. As we have already seen, the connection with v. 28 shows that the most likely object of God's foreknowledge is believers' love for God. Now, in v. 30, calling and justification are mentioned. Both of these divine acts are necessarily linked to human decisions: God's call must be answered, and justification is given only to faith. These human decisions may thus implicitly be included here as other objects of the divine foreknowledge by which God predestines us to glory.

The primary reference, of course, is to calling and justification as acts of God himself. Calling (see 1:6; 8:28) is the act by which God initiates personal contact with those whom he foreknew and predestined before even the earth existed. As we have seen, this is not some special, irresistible call that goes out only to the chosen few, but the general call of the gospel (contra Dunn, I:485; MacArthur, I:498). Those whom God foreknew and predestined are those who not only hear the call but also accept it (Lard, 283; Godet, 327). "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14, NASB). Lenski comments (562-563),

If it be asked why God did not foreknow, foreordain, call, justify the rest, the biblical answer is found in Matt. 23:37 and similar passages: God did not exclude them, but despite all that God could do they excluded themselves. "These he called" includes the acceptance of the call; and it in no way excludes the extension of the same call with the same power of grace to the rest.

This raises the question of whether "these five links in the chain of God's saving work are unbreakable," as MacArthur avers they are (I:494). According to this understanding, all five of these divine works are applied to the elect and only to the elect as an inseparable package. Only the predestined are called; all those called will be glorified; no one is ever justified except those who are foreknown and predestined to glory. "All five elements are co-extensive," says Murray; "there cannot be one element without the others" (I:320). For example, says Moo, there is an "exact correspondence between those who are the objects of predestining and those who experience this calling" (I:572).

The language of vv. 29-30 does not require such a view, however. Indeed, this chain is unbreakable and its elements co-extensive only if the Calvinist system of unconditional election, irresistible grace, and "once saved, always saved" is true. Once we break away from this system, we can see that some are called but do not respond; thus only one of the five elements applies to them. Since it is possible for someone to become a true believer and become justified, and then to fall away, only two of the elements apply to this group. In the latter case one may be called and temporarily justified, but never foreknown and predestined to be glorified. Such situations are not contrary to 8:29-30. Paul does not say that only those who are predestined are called, but that those who are predestined will without fail be called. Nor does he say that only those who are predestined to glory are justified; those who are so predestined will without fail be justified, though.

In a similar way, Paul does not imply that everyone who is called will be justified - since some refuse the call; nor does he explicitly state that all who have ever been justified (by faith) will without fail be glorified - since some will lose their faith. Here the key to certainty about glorification is predestination, not the intervening links. The point is that all those who are predestined will without fail be glorified, and that they will without fail be called and justified prior to glorification.

Paul has in view here only an audience of sincere believers ("us all," v. 32) who need assurance that God will never fail them or forsake them, and that he can and will see them through to the end. Unlike in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is not warning wavering believers who are seriously considering apostasy. His purpose here is to assure those who have no intention of abandoning Christ that Christ will not abandon them.

D. GOD'S GRACIOUS LOVE GIVES US

UNSHAKABLE ASSURANCE (8:31-39)

This paragraph is considered by many to be the most blessed and glorious in the entire Bible. In a way that is both spiritually satisfying and poetically pleasing, it sets forth the believer's unshakable assurance and its unassailable foundation in the love of God.

This theme was developed earlier in 5:1-11, where the Apostle tied personal assurance to three items: God's love, Christ's cross, and our faith. At that point Paul's main polemical purpose was to show that we are justified by faith apart from works of law (3:28), therefore he was emphasizing the necessity of a right understanding of justification by faith as the key to a sense of assurance. Here the polemical theme has faded into the background, and the emphasis falls simply on God's love as expressed in the cross as the actual foundation upon which our faith and hope can rest.

Not surprisingly, we find many commentators attempting to use this passage as a basis for the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. Since the theme here is that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, this supposedly means that not even anything we ourselves can do will cause us to lose our salvation (see v. 39 below).

However, this view ignores the element of personal responsibility implicit in the very theme of justification by faith . God's love gives us justification through the blood of Christ, and keeps us justified in the same way, but not apart from our continuing active trust in his blood. In 5:1-11 the role of faith was explicit (5:1-2); here it is implicitly assumed that those whom nothing can separate from the love of God are believers who want to stay within the family of God.

Whether a believer can or cannot lose his faith is not the point in this section. The point is simply this: not even the worst earthly disaster, and not even the strongest spiritual enemy can place us into a circumstance that is so negative that it nullifies and overwhelms the reality of God's love for us as infallibly demonstrated in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ Jesus our Lord. Not even the worst suffering can outweigh the intrinsic power of the cross to assure us that God loves us and is for us and wants us in his eternal family.

8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to this [literally, "to these things"] ? What are "these things"? In a real sense they include the argument of the entire epistle thus far (Cranfield, I:434-435). Thus this paragraph is a fitting climax to everything that has been presented about the central facts of the gospel, such as grace, the cross, and justification. I think, though, that "these things" refers especially to the subjects of sonship, heirship, and predestination in 8:14-30. In view of the facts about these things, what conclusion can we draw?

If God is for us, who can be against us? "If" does not imply some sort of uncertainty, but is stating an unassailable argument: "If A, then B." And, based on everything we have just said, we know A is a fact; therefore B is also a fact.

"God is for us" is an excellent way to draw together everything Paul has been teaching about the plan of redemption, all the way from God's precreation purpose to our final glorification. It summarizes perfectly God's attitude toward us, his work on our behalf, and our relationship to him. As Cranfield says (I:435), it is "a concise summary of the gospel."

Basically this brief statement means that God is on our side . He is not only "with us," in the sense that he is present alongside us (Ps 23:4; see Isa 7:14, "Immanuel"); he is also "for us" in the sense that he wants "our side" to win. In our conflict with all the personal and personified enemies who desire to drive us back into unbelief, God is on our side and will protect us and defend us from these enemies (Ps 56:9). In the following verses this conflict is presented in the image of a courtroom where we are on trial. That "God is for us" means that he is our Defender, or more specifically he is the Judge who has already decided the case in our favor (8:1).

"Who can be against us" does not mean that we will never have any opposition in our Christian life. It means only that none of our adversaries stands a chance against the one who is our Champion, the one who is defending us. Certainly, we do have enemies, but they are nothing compared with God. Therefore it really does not matter who is against us, since none can prevail against God. "There is no one whose hostility we need fear" (Cranfield, I:435), especially in light of 8:28. See Ps 27:1.

8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all . . . . This recounts the lengths to which God was willing to go to ensure our ultimate victory and our presence in heaven with him, and thereby it establishes the infinite depths of his love for us (John 3:16). Even though his Son, prostrate, cried out for some alternative to the mission that was about to lead him through the very agonies of hell itself (Matt 26:39), God did not spare him so that he might spare us !

God "gave him up for us all" (see 4:25) describes the substitutionary atonement of Christ, his propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary (see 3:24-26). Paul's purpose for bringing this up is to highlight the divine love embodied therein (1 John 4:9-10), so that we might be assured that God is indeed on our side.

"His own Son" means God's unique Son (see 8:3; John 5:18), as distinct from his adopted sons (8:14-16). "Us all" in this context refers to the believers who will constitute the completed family of God. By using first person plural Paul applies this truth especially to the readers of his epistle. This does not support the Calvinist idea of limited atonement; it does not deny that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Paul does not say God gave Jesus up for "us only ." Since Christians are his audience, he simply speaks directly to and about them at this point.

. . . how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? The argument here is from the greater to the lesser (see 5:9-10). God has already given us the greatest possible gift when he gave up his Son for us. Why should we think he will now for some reason withhold the rest of our inheritance, or allow anything to prevent us from receiving it? Along with Jesus will surely come all the gifts of glory promised in the previous context, including a glorified body and a redeemed universe. These are immeasurably precious, but still they are nothing alongside God's gift of his own Son. Since he has already given the latter, how can we doubt that he will give us the former also?

8:33a Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? In vv. 33-34 Paul uses explicit courtroom imagery to undergird our assurance of final victory. He continues to press the contrast of v. 31b, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Christians are pictured as defendants in a judgment scene, with the possibility that witnesses may appear who will bring charges against us and accuse us of being unworthy of salvation. "Bring a charge against" (ejgkalevw , engkaleô ) is a technical legal term referring to such a scenario (see Acts 18:38; 23:29). The primary reference is probably to the final judgment, but in a figurative sense we may think of ourselves as being in this circumstance throughout our Christian life.

Who will dare to bring a charge against God's elect? Actually there are any number of accusers who are eager to rise up against us and magnify our sins and destroy our assurance. Chief among them is Satan, whose name means "adversary," and who is also called "the devil," he who will "bring charges with hostile intent" (AG, 180). Thus "the devil" is the slanderer, the accuser, especially "the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night" (Rev 12:10; see Job 1-2; Zech 3:1-2; Luke 22:31). Others eager to accuse us include unbelievers in general (1 Pet 2:12), and certainly anyone we may have harmed at any time during our lives. We may fear that the law of God itself will rise up to accuse us on Judgment Day. And by no means least, our own conscience accuses us with reference to our sinful deeds (2:15).

So what is the point of Paul's question? Not that accusations will never come, but that they will never hold up under the scrutiny of the Judge who will decide our case. None of the charges brought against us will be valid; we need not fear them. Why not? Because we are God's elect, his chosen ones, the ones whom he foreknew and has already predestined to glory (8:29).

"The elect" or "the chosen ones" is a common way of describing believers in the NT. What was said about predestination in 8:29 applies to this concept as well.

8:33b-34a It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? (See Isa 50:8-9.) Here the courtroom analogy is most intense. The subject of justification comes to the forefront again. Earlier (3:24) we said that justification is a legal or forensic term that refers to a verdict pronounced by a judge. Specifically as an act, justification is the judge's declaration that a defendant is innocent, or more precisely, that no penalty or condemnation will fall upon him. When God justifies us, as the Judge of all he is declaring, "No penalty for you!" (8:1). This has already occurred for us as believers; it is an ongoing reality; and it will take place formally with eternal finality on Judgment Day.

One disturbing thing about the various accusations brought against us by Satan, by unbelievers, even by our own consciences, is that they are so often true! We have sinned; we have done terrible things. But what the accusers do not take into account is that God has already justified us in relation to our sins, i.e., he has taken away their guilt; he has taken their penalty upon himself; he has broken the connection between our sin and its deserved condemnation; he as Judge has already declared, "No penalty for you!"

Thus the accusers can accuse, but they cannot condemn ! This is our "blessed assurance."

On the forensic connotation of "condemn" (katakrivnw , katakrinô ), see 8:3. The fact that "justify" is used here as the opposite of "condemn" shows that it too is a forensic or legal concept. See 3:24.

8:34b Christ Jesus, who died - more than that, who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. This lays out once more the only basis for our justification, namely, the work of Jesus. Four specific phases of his work are mentioned: his death, his resurrection, his enthronement, and his intercession for us.

The first two are past events that are fundamental to our justification and therefore to our assurance (see 3:24; 4:25). The last two are interrelated and together describe Christ's present and ongoing role in our justification, a role that began with his ascension.

That Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father is primarily indicative of his exalted status and honor. The "right hand" of God is a symbol of his almighty power; that Christ is seated at God's right hand means he shares in this power (Ps 110; Matt 28:18).

In this context, though, the emphasis is not on the right hand or power as such, but simply on the close proximity of the crucified and risen Christ to the Father, for the purpose of intercession. This is not the same as the intercession of the Spirit in our prayer life (vv. 26-27). Christ intercedes for us in the sense that he interposes his blood between us and the Father's wrath. As our high priest he presents himself as the sacrifice that has borne this deserved wrath in our place, thus making it possible for us to come to God, to be accepted by him, and to be a part of his intimate family. See Isa 53:12; Luke 23:34; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 4:14-16; 7:25; 1 John 2:1.

8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? This rhetorical question begins Paul's final celebration of assurance, a crescendo of certainty that finally erupts in a triumphant confession of the all-sufficiency of God's infinite and faithful love. The question is framed in terms of separation: who will separate us from the love of Christ? The rest of the paragraph develops this emphatic answer: NO ONE!

The "love of Christ" is not our love for him but his love for us (v. 37). This is not different from "the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (v. 39). This love is not only the subjective love for us within the heart of Jesus, but also all the objective benefits of that love as already bestowed upon us and as promised to us in eternity. Nothing is able to separate us from any of this.

Many persons and many things will try to separate us from his love, i.e., to shake our confidence in his love and tempt us to doubt it and forsake it. Paul has already mentioned sufferings in general (vv. 17-18); here he mentions several specific forms of suffering. None of them, he says, is stronger than Christ's love for us. None of them succeeds as an argument for the proposition that Christ does not really love us after all.

Who shall separate us? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? This is not an exhaustive list. These seven things are "a representative few of the countless ominous circumstances that believers may encounter" in this world (MacArthur, I:510).

"Trouble and hardship" are the same two Greek words used in 2:9 for eschatological penalties. Here they refer to general categories of earthly suffering. "Trouble" (qlivyi" , thlipsis ) refers to pressure, or being pressed and pressured by circumstances. Some think it refers to end-time tribulation, but it should not be limited to this. As MacArthur says, it is "severe adversity in general" (I:511). "Hardship" (stenocwriva , stenochôria ) is not much different. It refers to narrowness, or feeling confined and restricted and hemmed in by circumstances. It is probable that the former refers to the external situations that produce suffering, while the latter is the inner mental state of distress resulting from them.

"Persecution" is a more specific form of trouble and hardship. Probably it refers to persecution suffered because of one's belief (Matt 5:10-12; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 2 Thess 1:4). "Famine" can also mean hunger experienced for any reason, especially because of persecution (1 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 11:27). The same applies to "nakedness," which can mean destitution in general, being "reduced to rags" (1 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 11:27). "Danger" refers to being in peril or at risk in general, either from natural or personal threats (2 Cor 11:26). "Sword" is symbolic of violence, especially violent death as in war or judicial penalty (AG, 497). To Christians it represents martyrdom (Acts 12:2; see Heb 11:34-37).

8:36 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." This quote from Ps 44:22 is naturally called to mind from the list of sufferings detailed in v. 35, all of which could result in death. This, along with Matt 5:12 and Heb 11:34-37, shows that such suffering is nothing new in the Christian era but has always been the lot of God's people. The death in view is not so-called "natural" death, but the death of martyrdom.

The NIV translation, "face death," is too weak. The word means "being put to death, being killed." This is happening "all day long." Somewhere, every day, at all times of the day, Christians are being killed because of their belief. We are like sheep for slaughter. This is not a reference to the use of sheep as sacrifices, but to the killing of sheep for food. This is how unbelievers often view believers: we are assigned no real value in society and are fit only for slaughter.

All of these things (vv. 35-36) certainly do not happen to all Christians all the time, but they are always a potential danger. If and when they do happen, certain questions will naturally press themselves upon our consciousness: Where is God? Why is he letting this happen to me? Has he abandoned me? Is he real? Does he really love me? Paul's point is that none of these circumstances and no thoughts such as these are able to eclipse or extinguish the glorious light of God's love that shines forth from the cross.

8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Here is Paul's answer to the question in v. 35. Shall any of these things separate us from Christ's love? No! The word is alla , the strong adversative often translated "but." Here it means "rather." I.e., rather than these things separating us from Christ's love, we overcome them all. Literally, "in all these things we are more than conquerors!" In the midst of them all and in spite of them all, we emerge victorious.

The word for "to be more than conquerors" is uJpernikavw (hypernikaô ). The usual word for "to conquer, to be the victor" is nikavw , (nikaô ). Here uJpevr ( hyper ) is added to magnify the certainty and decisiveness of our victory. We not only defeat every enemy and conquer in every adverse circumstance; we over conquer! We do not just survive; we do not just endure. Rather, we win a glorious, overwhelming victory; we prevail completely. To use Hendriksen's word, we are "superconquerors" (I:292). This megavictory occurs not just because we have the inherent strength of conquering heroes. No, it happens because the Holy Spirit empowers us to overcome all spiritual foes (8:13), because God's providence brings good out of all adversities (8:28), and because the knowledge of God's grace through the cross of Christ inspires in us a passion for faithfulness that simply will not be denied.

We overconquer "through him who loved us." This is Jesus (v. 35), and the reference is to his cross. This is shown by the fact that "loved" is an aorist participle, referring to a specific act of love. If in our hearts and minds we keep a firm grip on the meaning and reality of this event, nothing can shake us in our faith, assurance, and hope.

8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. In these verses Paul completes his answer to the question in v. 35a. He declares that nothing will be able to separate us from Christ's love. He switches from first person plural to first person singular, indicating that this testimony is not only truth inspired by the Holy Spirit but also his own unshakable personal conviction arising from the depths of his heart. "I am convinced!" he says. Godet (329) calls this Paul's "shout of victory on the battle-field now abandoned by the enemy."

To make his answer more concrete, Paul reels off a list of ten representative things that cannot separate us from the love of Christ. Eight of these are combined into four pairs. Not every item mentioned is necessarily hostile to Christians, though most have the potential for harm. The main point of the listing is to be as comprehensive and inclusive as possible, to cover the whole range of potential sources of "trouble and hardship." This is accomplished especially by the general pairs, life/death, present/future, and height/depth.

Listed first as not having the power to separate us from Christ's love is the related pair, "neither death nor life." It is natural that death should be listed first, since it has just been in the forefront of concern (vv. 35-36), and since it has "loomed throughout chaps. 5-8 as the great hostile power" (Dunn, I:506). Death, the "Great Separator," scares us because it can come in so many fearsome forms. It is especially threatening in the context of martyrdom.

It may seem strange that "life" is also mentioned as something that cannot separate us from Christ's love. The point seems to be to make these potential threats as comprehensive as possible. Thus "life" includes every possible circumstance that might come upon us before we die, including the things mentioned in v. 35. Thus pairing life and death together "is simply a way of embracing every conceivable condition of humankind" (Dunn, I:507).

The next two items also seem to be a pair, "neither angels nor demons." The second term is not actually "demons," but "rulers" (ajrchv , archç ). It could refer to earthly rulers (Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1), but it is also one of Paul's favorite words for angelic beings. As such the KJV usually translates it "principalities." It does not necessarily refer to fallen angels (Col 1:16), but sometimes it does (Eph 6:12; Col 2:15). Though we cannot be sure, that seems to be the connotation here; this is why the NIV translates it "demons."

Though the term "angels" is sometimes used of fallen angels or demons (Matt 25:41; 2 Cor 12:7; 2 Pet 2:4; see 1 Cor 6:3; 11:10), most often it refers to good angels. Thus the NIV translation "angels and demons" seems proper, since pairing these terms in this listing seems intended to cover the whole range of spiritual beings, good and bad.

How good angels can be considered a possible means of separation from Christ's love is somewhat of a puzzle. Men sometimes worship angels (Col 2:18), but good angels always refuse such attempts (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9). Paul poses an hypothetical situation in which "an angel from heaven" preaches a false gospel (Gal 1:8), but if that should happen the angel would no longer be good. We conclude that good angels are included here just to provide a complete spectrum.

The more obvious danger is from demons, who are very active even today in their efforts to thwart God's purposes and to cause believers to stumble (Matt 24:24; Eph 6:10-18; 2 Thess 2:9-10). But Paul's point is that no angel, good or bad, has the power to move us away from the love of Christ. Not even Satan himself, and not even Satan's "best shot," can break the grip of the cross upon our hearts.

The next pair, "neither the present nor the future," does not seem to refer to anything in particular but is included to add to the theme of comprehensiveness. Just as with "death and life," so also "present and future" are all-inclusive with respect to those things that might try to separate us from Christ's love. We are tempted to worry about the future because we do not know what it will bring. But this is irrelevant, since we know that it can bring nothing that is able to nullify the power of Christ's love for us.

The next item, "nor any powers," is not in a pair. Since the word can be used for angelic beings (Eph 1:21; 1 Pet 3:22), some think that is its meaning here. But that raises the question as to why it should be listed separately from "angels and demons." A more likely possibility is that here the term is used in its common meaning of "miracles." The NT has several references to demonic, false miracles (Matt 7:22; 2 Thess 2:9; see Matt 24:24; Rev 13:13; 16:14; 19:20). The point then seems to be that no matter how great a miracle someone might perform, if it is related to a false gospel (Gal 1:8), its power is immediately diminished and negated by the greater power of the cross.

Some see "neither height nor depth" as references to pagan concepts of spiritual beings that rule the regions above the heavens and beneath the earth (or below the horizon), but this is unlikely (see Cranfield, I:443). Probably Paul just adds all-inclusive spatial references here, to go with his all-inclusive temporal references to the present and future. "Neither the highest height nor the deepest depth" can separate us from Christ's love (Cranfield, I:443).

The final item is a catch-all category that includes any other possibility that anyone can imagine: "nor anything else in all creation." The love of God as embodied in the cross of Christ looms so infinitely large that no finite, creaturely contingency can hope to overthrow it.

We should note Paul's language very carefully. He says that none of these things in themselves will ever be able to separate us from the love of God. None will have the power to do so. This is God's promise to us, and it is the basis for our confidence and hope and assurance of final victory. But Paul does not guarantee us that none of these things will ever become the occasion for our separating ourselves from God's love. As is the case with salvation in general, and justification and predestination in particular, so also is our assurance of salvation conditional. It is conditioned upon our own continued trust in the promises of God, which is something that lies within the power of our own free choice.

Some try to avoid this conclusion by pointing out that Paul says no created thing can separate us from Christ's love. Since we ourselves are creatures, that must mean that not even we can do anything to separate ourselves from God's saving love (e.g., Moo, I:589). However, the believer's abilities and decisions are not at issue here. It is assumed that we want to stay within the love of Christ, and that we are going to make every effort to do so. The point and the comfort of this passage is that no third party, no outside circumstance can destroy the saving relationship between us and God, or separate us from his love. That relationship is between us and God alone. Our ultimate salvation is God's loving will and purpose for us, and it will surely come to pass as long as our faith continues to cling to its one and only hope, the cross of Christ.

It is important to see that the love that is the basis for our unshakable assurance is "the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." God's love is expressed toward human beings in many different ways, especially in his gifts of creation and providence (Matt 5:43-48). But in the experience of many, these expressions of love are often overshadowed by such things as disease, poverty, and natural disasters. But the love of God embodied in the cross of Christ (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10) is different. It is not affected by contrary circumstances. It alone endures as the solid rock upon which our hope and assurance can safely rest.

As a final note, given the crucial role of the cross not only as the basis for our salvation itself but also as the basis for our assurance of salvation, it is all the more important to have a right understanding of the meaning of the cross, and all the more imperative to preach and teach and meditate upon what God has done for us through this precious instrument of his love.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Rom 8:3

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh :

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Rom 8:3

ROMANS 8:3 —Was Jesus actually in human flesh or only in its likeness?

PROBLEM: Paul asserts that Jesus was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” but he does not assert that Jesus is human flesh. Yet the Bible speaks repeatedly of Jesus being incarnated in human flesh, that is, of being truly human, not just like a human.

SOLUTION: Jesus was not just similar to humans—He was human. He did not come simply in something like of human flesh. He came in real human flesh. On this the Scriptures are clear. John declared, “The Word [Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us” ( John 1:14 ). Later, he warned that anyone who “does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” ( 1 John 4:3 ; cf. 2 John 7 ). Likewise, Paul insisted that “God was manifested in the flesh” ( 1 Tim. 3:16 ).

Elsewhere in the same book Paul uses the phrase “likeness” to mean being actually like, not just similar ( Rom. 1:23 ; 5:14 ; 6:5 ). So, it may be that Paul intended no difference between “likeness” and “the same as.” Or, perhaps when Paul affirmed (in Rom. 8:3 ) that Jesus was only in the “likeness” of it, he was not speaking of human flesh as such, but of “ sinful human flesh.” Jesus was exactly like human flesh but only similar to sinful human flesh, since He had no sin ( Heb. 4:15 ; 1 Peter 3:18 ; 1 John 3:3 ).

In any event, in Philippians 2 Paul speaks of Christ being “in the likeness of men” as meaning the same as being human (v. 7 ). So even without the qualifier “sinful,” Paul speaks of Jesus’ “likeness” to humans as meaning the same as “being human.”   

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 8 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 8:1, They that are in Christ, are free from condemnation; Rom 8:5, What harm comes of the flesh; Rom 8:13, and what good of the Spirit; Rom 8:19, The glorious deliverance all things long for, Rom 8:29. was beforehand decreed from God; Rom 8:38, Nothing can sever us from his love.

Poole: Romans 8 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 8

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 8 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 8:1-9) The freedom of believers from condemnation.

(Rom 8:10-17) Their privileges as being the children of God.

(Rom 8:18-25) Their hopeful prospects under tribulations.

(Rom 8:26, Rom 8:27) Their assistance from the Spirit in prayer.

(Rom 8:28-31) Their interest in the love of God.

(Rom 8:32-39) Their final triumph, through Christ.

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 8 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having fully explained the doctrine of justification, and pressed the necessity of sanctification, in this chapter applies himself to the consolation of the Lord's people. Ministers are helpers of the joy of the saints. " Comfort ye, comfort ye my people," so runs our commission, Isa 40:1. It is the will of God that his people should be a comforted people. And we have here such a draught of the gospel charter, such a display of the unspeakable privileges of true believers, as may furnish us with abundant matter for joy and peace in believing, that by all these immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation. Many of the people of God have, accordingly, found this chapter a well-spring of comfort to their souls, living and dying, and have sucked and been satisfied from these breasts of consolation, and with joy drawn water out of these wells of salvation. There are three things in this chapter: I. The particular instances of Christians' privileges (v. 1-28). II. The ground thereof laid in predestination (Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30). III. The apostle's triumph herein, in the name of all the saints (Rom 8:31 to the end).

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

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

The Difficulty Of Letters

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

The Ancient Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

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

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Immediate Situation

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

The Spoken Word

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

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

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

Testamentary And Prophylactic

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

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

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

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

The Object Of PaulWriting

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Layout Of The Letter

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

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

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

people.

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

living.

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

and a list of final personal greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

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

but after his passion revealed.

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

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

FURTHER READING

Romans

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

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

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

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 8 (Chapter Introduction)

The Liberation Of Our Human Nature (Rom_8:1-4)

The Two Principles Of Life (Rom_8:5-11)

Entry Into The Family Of God (Rom_8:12-17)

The Glorious Hope (Rom_8:18-25)

All Is Of God (Rom_8:26-30)

The Love From Which Nothing Can Separate Us (Rom_8:31-39)

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 8 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 8

As the former chapter shows that sanctified ones are not free from the being of sin in them, which is a ground of general complaint and uneasiness; this chapter shows, that justified ones are freed from the guilt of sin, and secure from punishment for it; and have the utmost reason to rejoice and be glad, and even to triumph in a plerophory and full assurance of faith, on account of the various privileges they enjoy, through the grace of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit; and which are distinctly, largely, and severally mentioned: it begins, Rom 8:1, with taking notice of a particular privilege saints have in Christ, and, by virtue of union to him, security from all condemnation; and which is inferred from their sure and certain deliverance from sin by Christ, Rom 8:25, the persons sharing in this privilege are described by their being in Christ, and by their walking after the Spirit of Christ, in consequence of it: a reason confirming this privilege is given, Rom 8:2, taken either from the Gospel, declaring the saints' freedom from the law; or from the power and efficacy of the Spirit, delivering them from the tyranny and dominion of sin; or rather from the holiness of Christ's human nature, as a branch of their justification: this privilege is made more fully to appear, and the saints' interest in it by the mission of Christ, to bring in everlasting righteousness for them, which is the foundation of it, Rom 8:3, the occasion of which was the weakness of the law, or rather the impotency of man, through the corruption of nature, to fulfil the law: the sender, or the efficient cause of this mission, is God the Father; the person sent, his own Son; the manner in which he was sent, in human nature, which had the appearance of being sinful; what God did in it, he condemned sin in it; which is a reason, why there is no condemnation to them, that are in him; and the end of all this, Rom 8:4, was, that the law of righteousness might be perfectly fulfilled by Christ for them, or by them in him; who are described in part, as in Rom 8:1, upon the repetition of which part of the description, the apostle proceeds to show the difference between unregenerate and regenerate persons, Rom 8:5, partly by their characters; the one being carnal, or after the flesh, the other being spiritual, or after the Spirit; and by their different affections, the one minding the things of the flesh, the other the things of the Spirit; the different issue and effect of which, namely, a carnal and a spiritual mind are observed, Rom 8:6, death following upon the one, life and peace upon the other; the reasons of which, with respect to the former, are given, Rom 8:7, taken from the enmity of the carnal mind to God, and the non-subjection of it to the law of God, and the impossibility of its being subject to it; and therefore nothing but death can be expected; from whence this conclusion is made, Rom 8:8, that unregenerate men are not in a state, nor in a capacity to please God, or do what is acceptable to him, the above being the disposition and temper of their minds: and then in Rom 8:9, the apostle returns to the argument from whence be had digressed, and suggests, that though he had said the above things of unregenerate men, he had other thoughts of those to whom he writes; they were not in the flesh, nor minded the things of the flesh, and so were not liable to condemnation and death; and which he proves by the inhabitation of the Spirit of God in them; for such who have him not, have no proof nor evidence of their being Christ's, and so consequently have no proof of their security from condemnation; and partly by Christ's being in them, and which is the evidence of their being in Christ, and so of the above privilege, Rom 8:10, the consequence of which is, that though by reason of sin the body is mortal, and does die, yet the soul lives not only naturally, but spiritually, by faith in Christ now, and in glory hereafter, by virtue of Christ's righteousness imputed to it, and so is free from condemnation and death; besides, by virtue of the Spirit's dwelling in them, their mortal bodies will be quickened in the general resurrection, Rom 8:11, and from all these blessings of divine goodness, both in soul and body, the apostle infers, that the saints are under obligation, not to live in a carnal, but in a spiritual manner, Rom 8:12, and to which he exhorts, Rom 8:13, and presses by motives, taken from the different consequences of those things; death following by living after the flesh, and life through the mortification of sin, by the Spirit of God: and whereas the walking after the Spirit, by which he had described those that are safe from condemnation, is owing to their being led by him; and their being led by him, being an evidence of their divine sonship, Rom 8:14, from hence he passes to consider the privilege of adoption: and that these saints were interested in this privilege, he proves Rom 8:15, partly by their not having the spirit of bondage which belongs to servants; and partly by their having the spirit of adoption, who had made known this grace unto them, and their interest in it: and that they had received him as a spirit of adoption, was evident by their calling God their Father under his influence; and also by the witness he bore to their spirits, that they were the children of God, Rom 8:16, of which they were conscious: and from this privilege of adoption, the apostle concludes heirship, Rom 8:17, and which is of such a nature, that there is none like it; both with respect to the subject of it, God himself; with respect to him with whom they are heirs, Christ Jesus; and the way in which they come to share the glorious inheritance with him, is through suffering with him, and for him; and this they need not grudge to do, since there is no comparison between their sufferings, and the glory they shall enjoy, Rom 8:18, which both Jews and Gentiles were in the expectation of; the latter of which are described in Rom 8:19, by their name, the creature, the whole creation; and by their present condition, the Gospel being come among them to the conversion of many, which raised an expectation of many sons and daughters being born to God among them, Rom 8:19, and by their former state and condition, Rom 8:20, which is mentioned, to illustrate the grace of God in the present blessing bestowed upon them, in sending the Gospel to them; which state was a subjection to vanity, through the god of this world, who led them captive at his will, Rom 8:21, and then by the deliverance of them, they were in hope and expectation of, from bondage to liberty, Rom 8:21, and this groaning and travailing: in birth in a spiritual sense, for the bringing forth of many sons to God among the Gentiles, the apostle, and other ministers of the word, who had preached the Gospel among them, were witnesses of, Rom 8:22, yea, not only the Gentiles, but the Jews also, who are described as having the first fruits of the Spirit, Rom 8:23, were waiting for the manifestation of the children of God among the Gentiles, with them to complete at last the mystical body, who shall share together the glory before spoken of, which their sonship and heirship entitle them to; and for which there is encouragement to wait with patience and in hope, from the connection of salvation with the grace of hope; and from, the nature of the thing hoped for, which is unseen, but certain, Rom 8:24. From hence the apostle proceeds to consider another privilege which the saints have, who are in the Spirit, and walk after the Spirit, the Spirit helps their infirmities; particularly in prayer, the matter of which, in some cases, they are at a loss about, Rom 8:26, and this he does, by making intercession for them; the manner in which this is done in them, is with unutterable groans; and the rule according to which it is made, is the will of God, the mind of the Spirit being known by the searcher of hearts, Rom 8:27, in a word, such are the privileges of believers in Christ, that every thing in the whole world, in heaven, and in earth, in themselves and others, whether good or bad, prosperous or adverse, work together for their good, so that nothing can go wrong with them in the issue, Rom 8:28, who are described by their love to God, and by their effectual calling, according to his purpose; which being mentioned, leads the apostle to the source and spring of all these and other privileges, the everlasting love of God; signified by his foreknowledge of his people, Rom 8:29, which is the cause of their predestination to a conformity to the image of Christ, the firstborn among many brethren; with which predestination, calling, justification, and glorification, are inseparably connected, Rom 8:30, from all which blessings of grace it may be concluded, that God is on the side of such persons, who are interested in these favours; and nothing is to be feared, but every good thing is to be expected by them, Rom 8:31, which is confirmed by an argument from the greater to the lesser, that if God has given his Son for them, he will freely give all things to them, Rom 8:32, in a view of which, the apostle rises up in a triumph of faith, and challenges all the enemies of the saints, and denies that any charge can be brought against them of any avail, since God is the justifier of them, Rom 8:33, or that they shall ever enter into condemnation, being secured from it by the death of Christ; and which security is yet more strengthened by his resurrection, session at the right hand of God, and intercession for them, Rom 8:34, and then asks, since Christ has shown such love to them, by these instances of it, what can separate from it, Rom 8:35, and enumerates several things which befall the saints in this life, which, however mean and abject they may render them in the esteem of men, do not at all abate the love of Christ to them: that such is their case, that they are exposed to afflictions and sufferings, and even death itself, for the sake of Christ, is proved Rom 8:36, by a testimony out of Psa 44:22, and then an answer is returned to the above question in the negative, that none of the things mentioned could separate them from the love of Christ; so far from it, that by virtue of Christ who had loved them, they were conquerors, and more than conquerors in all these things, and over all their enemies, Rom 8:37, and the chapter is concluded in Rom 8:38, with the full and firm persuasion of the apostle, that nothing in the whole universe, in the whole compass of created beings, be they what they will, good or bad, or which are or shall be, an enumeration of many of which is made, should ever separate him, or any of the people of God from his love, which is in Christ Jesus: so that upon the whole, notwithstanding indwelling sin, notwithstanding the various afflictions which attend them in this world, yet in consideration of the many privileges they enjoy, and the glory they are heirs of, they have great reason to rejoice, and look upon themselves to be in the most safe and happy condition.

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