Galatians 4:19

4:19 My children – I am again undergoing birth pains until Christ is formed in you! ¹ 

Romans 9:3

9:3 For I could wish ²  that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, ³  my fellow countrymen, ⁴ 

Romans 9:1

Israel’s Rejection Considered

9:1 ⁵ I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me ⁶  in the Holy Spirit –

Romans 2:8

2:8 but ⁷  wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition ⁸  and do not obey the truth but follow ⁹  unrighteousness.

Romans 5:13

5:13 for before the law was given, ¹⁰  sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin ¹¹  when there is no law.

Romans 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ¹² Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ¹³  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 3:16-18

3:16 ruin and misery are in their paths,

3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.” ¹⁴ 

3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” ¹⁵ 

[4:19]  ¹ tn Grk “My children, for whom I am again undergoing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.” The relative clauses in English do not pick up the emotional force of Paul’s language here (note “tone of voice” in v. 20, indicating that he is passionately concerned for them); hence, the translation has been altered slightly to capture the connotative power of Paul’s plea.

[9:3]  ² tn Or “For I would pray.” The implied condition is “if this could save my fellow Jews.”

[9:3]  ³ tn Grk “brothers.” See BDAG 18-19 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.b.

[9:3]  ⁴ tn Grk “my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

[9:1]  ⁵ sn Rom 9:1–11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9–11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.

[9:1]  ⁶ tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”

[2:8]  ⁷ tn This contrast is clearer and stronger in Greek than can be easily expressed in English.

[2:8]  ⁸ tn Grk “those who [are] from selfish ambition.”

[2:8]  ⁹ tn Grk “are persuaded by, obey.”

[5:13]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “for before the law.”

[5:13]  ¹¹ tn Or “sin is not reckoned.”

[5:1]  ¹² sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ¹³ 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 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 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 (0220^vid, 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 0220^vid, 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.

[3:17]  ¹⁴ sn Rom 3:15-17 is a quotation from Isa 59:7-8.

[3:18]  ¹⁵ sn A quotation from Ps 36:1.