119:6 Then I would not be ashamed,
if 1 I were focused on 2 all your commands.
119:80 May I be fully committed to your statutes, 3
so that I might not be ashamed.
25:2 My God, I trust in you.
Please do not let me be humiliated;
do not let my enemies triumphantly rejoice over me!
25:20 Protect me 4 and deliver me!
Please do not let me be humiliated,
for I have taken shelter in you!
45:17 Israel will be delivered once and for all by the Lord; 5
you will never again be ashamed or humiliated. 6
49:23 Kings will be your children’s 7 guardians;
their princesses will nurse your children. 8
With their faces to the ground they will bow down to you
and they will lick the dirt on 9 your feet.
Then you will recognize that I am the Lord;
those who wait patiently for me are not put to shame.
17:18 May those who persecute me be disgraced.
Do not let me be disgraced.
May they be dismayed.
Do not let me be dismayed.
Bring days of disaster on them.
Bring on them the destruction they deserve.” 10
5:1 13 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have 14 peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 tn Or “when.”
2 tn Heb “I gaze at.”
3 tn Heb “may my heart be complete in your statutes.”
4 tn Or “my life.”
5 tn Heb “Israel will be delivered by the Lord [with] a permanent deliverance.”
6 tn Heb “you will not be ashamed and you will not be humiliated for ages of future time.”
7 tn Heb “your,” but Zion here stands by metonymy for her children (see v. 22b).
8 tn Heb “you.” See the preceding note.
9 tn Or “at your feet” (NAB, NIV); NLT “from your feet.”
10 tn Or “complete destruction.” See the translator’s note on 16:18.
11 tn The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (Jh agaph tou qeou, “the love of God”) could be interpreted as either an objective genitive (“our love for God”), subjective genitive (“God’s love for us”), or both (M. Zerwick’s “general” genitive [Biblical Greek, §§36-39]; D. B. Wallace’s “plenary” genitive [ExSyn 119-21]). The immediate context, which discusses what God has done for believers, favors a subjective genitive, but the fact that this love is poured out within the hearts of believers implies that it may be the source for believers’ love for God; consequently an objective genitive cannot be ruled out. It is possible that both these ideas are meant in the text and that this is a plenary genitive: “The love that comes from God and that produces our love for God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (ExSyn 121).
12 sn On the OT background of the Spirit being poured out, see Isa 32:15; Joel 2:28-29.
13 sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.
14 tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א1 B2 F G P Ψ 0220vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS4 appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א1 might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220vid, probably א1 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA27 as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.