Romans

Romans

INTRODUCTION

The letter to the Romans is arguably the most important document for the standard evangelical story, more important than, say, any of the Gospels.  The reason is not hard to find; the Gospels, for example, simply do not support the standard evangelical story at all.  Also, the forefathers of Evangelical theology, such as Luther and even back to Augustine, were particularly beholden to Paul and bequeathed their misinterpretation of Paul to their followers.  However, one can read Paul, and especially Romans, in a way that does seems to support the standard evangelical story.  It is my task here to show that his is an illusion, and that Romans ought to be read in a manner supportive of the Gospel Beyond Belief. 

LETTER INTRODUCTION 1:1-17

PRESCRIPT 1:1-7

1:1 Paul, a slave of Messiah Jesus, a called apostle having been set apart for the gospel of God,

On the name “Paul” see my comment on Galatians 1:1.  With the term “slave,” Paul may have had Isaiah 49 in mind here since the theme of God calling (49:1) his slave/servant (49:3) for services to the nations (49:6) appears there.  Also, Isaiah 49 probably influenced Paul elsewhere: 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 (49:8), Philippians 2:16 (49:4), and Galatians 1:15 (49:1).  The importance of being a slave should not be understated for Paul often defines his activity in terms of ‘work’-words; the Hebrew word for ‘slave’ has the same root as the word for work. 

1:2 which he promised before through his prophets in holy scriptures,

That Paul says just the “prophets” and not the “law and the prophets” (so 3:21), may indicate that the law is something he will discuss in the letter.  The theme of ‘promise’ and how it relates to Gentiles is adumbrated here.  The inclusion of Gentiles as God’s people was always in God’s plans.  Comparison with Galatians 3:8 indicated that Paul felt it important to ground his theology in scripture.

1:3 concerning his son, having come from the seed of David according to the flesh,

Confirmation of the Gentile connection could be the use of the word “flesh.”  For Paul, especially when used in antithesis to Spirit as here (see next verse on Spirit), ‘flesh’ has negative connotations.  It could be that the flesh/spirit antithesis is meant to indicate that the Gentiles are not children of the flesh but children of the promise.  In Galatians 4:28-29, Paul equates children of promise with children of Spirit, both of which are contrasted with children of the flesh.

The gospel concerns God’s son.  Since God’s son in the Old Testament could refer to the king of Israel, the mentioning of David reinforces the identification of Jesus as the king of Israel.  This verse is emphasizes Jesus; relation to the Jewish people.

1:4 having been designated son of God in power according to a Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of dead ones, Jesus the Messiah our Lord.

This verse should be taken in parallel with the previous verse as indicated in the flesh/Spirit antithesis.  The resurrection of Jesus is a pivotal event for Paul’s Christology for because of the resurrection Jesus’ sonship is enhanced with power and characterized by holy Spirit.  As the last verse emphasized Jesus relation to the Jewish people, this verse probably emphasizes Jesus’ role as Lord for all people, Gentiles included.  Also, Paul refers to “the resurrection” which signals that Jesus’ resurrection was the beginning of resurrection for all people, Gentiles included.

1:5 Through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faithfulness among all the nations on behalf of his name,

This verse tells us how Paul was given his mission (by grace) through Jesus and what that mission entailed.  The mission is to bring about the “obedience of faithfulness” (upakohn pistewV) among the Gentiles.  I take the “obedience of faithfulness” to have an epexegetical construction in which the two nouns are basically identified.  This phrase is crucial—note that it is repeated in 16:26—because it is Jesus’ obedient faithfulness that saves.  The mission is on behalf of the name of Jesus precisely because Jesus enacted the very obedience and it was Jesus’ mission to bring about obedient faithfulness.

1:6 including yourselves, who are called to belong to Jesus the Messiah,

The Romans are to be Jesus’, which adumbrates the idea of incorporation.

1:7 to all the ones in Rome, loved of God, called ones, saints, grace to you and peace from God our Father and Lord Jesus the Messiah.

Paul calls the Romans terms which would have applied to Israel (“loved by God,” see 11:28, and “saints,” see, for example, Leviticus: “Be holy for I am holy”).  Just as Israel was to by holy by obedient faithfulness (Lev. 20:22-26), so too the Romans are to be saints by obedient faithfulness.

THANKSGIVING 1:8-15

1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus the Messiah concerning all of you because your faithfulness is being proclaimed in all the world.

I have again translated pistiV as “faithfulness” because that word also covers actions and not just belief.  In the thanksgiving section in 1 Thessalonians, Paul describes their pistewV as a “work of faith” and their love as a “labor of love” (1:3).  Later in Romans, Paul will flesh out the obedience of the Gentiles, which he alluded to as his mission in 1:5 using the term pistewV, in terms of both ‘word’ and ‘work’ (15:18).  Again, this highlights Paul’s fondness of ‘work’-words when describing the Christian life of ‘faith.’

1:9-13 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his son, how unceasingly I make mention of you, asking that by God’s will I may somehow at last succeed in coming to you.  For I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—or rather so that we may mutually encouraged by each other’s faithfulness, both yours and mine.  I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles. 

Paul wants the Romans to know that he mentions them in his prayers, the content of which include his request to visit them for their mutual betterment.  Paul is confident that his visit will produce fruit, as he has in other Gentile communities.  Again, we note the Gentile theme.

1:14-15 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish—hence my eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Paul’s mission is not to be exclusive and his mission drives him to want to see the Romans.  He even divides the world up as a Greek would (Greek/Barbarian; wise/foolish).

LETTER’S THEME 1:16-17

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone being faithful, to the Jew first and to the Greek,

Paul is not ashamed of the gospel.  In Isaiah, we read that there is no room for shame because God will vindicate; if things are bad now, God will turn the tables (see for example Isa. 28:16, which Paul quotes in Rom. 9:33, and Isa. 50:7 from one of the servant songs).

The gospel is the power of God.  One of Paul’s major themes is expressed here.  The law by itself did not have the power to make people righteous/faithful (Gal. 3:21), instead it only had the power to condemn because people were unfaithful (the letter kills, see 2 Cor. 3:6).  However, thanks to Jesus’ faithfulness, the Spirit gives the power to obey (Rom. 8:1-7). 

The salvation Paul discusses here is the eschatological vindication that God promises.  It is found in the very same passages that mention not being ashamed (see, for example, Isa. 51:4-5 and 52:10).  The salvation, however, is for everyone being faithful (pisteounti, on my use of the word “faithful,” see next verse).  Paul says everyone to mean both Jew and Gentile.  Paul’s categories here are groups of people and not solitary individuals.

1:17 for the righteousness of God of in it is revealed, from faithfulness to faithfulness, as it has been written, ‘the righteous one by faithfulness will live.’

The righteousness of God is best understood as God’s fulfillment of his covenantal obligations, specifically those made to the patriarchs and Israel.  God is righteous when he rescues Israel and offers her salvation.  In this way, God’s righteousness is basically the same as salvation.  The gift of his son Jesus is how God went about to set things right.

The phrase ek pistewV eiV pistin (“from faithfulness to faithfulness”) is what I would call the gospel in a nutshell.  As my commentaries on Galatians and Philippians have shown, I have interpreted this phrase as “from [Jesus’] faithfulness to [our]faithfulness.”  It is true that the next pistiV-word is in 3:3 and concerns God’s righteousness, but it is also true that the righteousness of God is through the faithfulness of Jesus (3:22).  So, I grant that we ought not to be dogmatic here and perhaps should include God’s faithfulness as part of the meaning of the first “faithfulness.”  If Paul did mean solely God’s faithfulness in the first “faithfulness,” then he would have probably linked Jesus’ faithfulness with our faithfulness in the second “faithfulness.”  Either way, this is little reason to interpret the Greek to mean “belief” which it is either compared to God’s faithfulness, which is not about belief, or it is compared to Jesus’ faithfulness, which is also not about belief.  Jesus’ obedient death on the cross is for Paul Jesus’ faithfulness in a nutshell.  Paul is not much concerned about Jesus’ beliefs, he takes all of that for granted.  Likewise, if I am correct about the first “faithfulness,” then it is only logical that the second one would concern our faithfulness—the obedience of faithfulness of 1:5.  This is further justification of my interpretation that Paul derived his pistiV-language from Habakkuk 2:4.

I have already discussed Habakkuk 2:4 in my commentary on Galatians 3:11.  I argued there that the verse ought to be interpreted messianically: the righteous one [Jesus] by faithfulness [death on a cross] will live [resurrect and be exalted].  What is true for Jesus is true for those incorporated into him, faithfulness leads to life.

The context of Habakkuk 2:4 also reinforces the meaning of “faithfulness” as fidelity and not belief.  The prophet questions God why the wicked prevail over the righteous (1:4, 13).  Now, the righteous are contrasted with descriptions that do not have much to do with belief but with actions: wicked, wrongdoing, trouble, evil, treacherous, proud (same verse – 2:4), arrogant, violence, lawless, unjust, insatiable.  Also, a case could be made that a contrast is meant between those who live on account of faithfulness, and those whose “not enduring” on account of pride/arrogance (Hab. 2:5).  The point is the faithful will endure as opposed to die, not that the righteous will live as a lifestyle in a mode of faith.  This is bolstered too by the context in Romans, for in the section that immediately follows, the faithful are contrasted with the unfaithful, that is the ungodly and unrighteous (1:18, see the litany of actions (1:29-31).  Also, the faithful are promised life and the wicked death (2:6-11).

JEWISH AND GENTILE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN RELATION TO LAW 1:18-5:21

INTRODUCTION

Paul begins his presentation with an argument regarding God’s impartiality and specifically that God’s impartiality is independent from the Mosaic law.  Paul wants to show that the absence or the presence of the Mosaic law does not make a decisive difference whether one is truly faithful or righteous.  This will serve his purpose of showing that faithfulness and not works of law is what saves.

GENTILES NOT UNRIGHTEOUS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE LAW 1:18-32

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The connection to verse 17, perhaps signaled by the word “for” and the use of “being revealed,” yields the following parallelism:

1:17 Righteousness of God to (eiV) faithfulness (pistin)

1:18 Wrath of God against (epi) unrighteousness (adikian)

This would put faithfulness in parallel with unrighteousness which would make most sense if pistin is translated as ‘faithfulness,’ the opposite of unrighteousness.  Otherwise, a belief would contrast with a set of actions which would not make much sense.  The idea here is that God is righteous and must punish unrighteousness.  So God must do something if wrath is not going to get in the way of his plans for humanity.  Note should also be made that the repressing of truth is a willful act.

1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Knowledge of God, for Paul, effects actions.  To know what is knowable about God is to act in a certain way.  Paul advances a sort of natural theology that what is knowable about God has been given by God and that humanity is responsible for that knowledge, that is, they are expected to behave in a manner consistent with the knowledge about God that is to be had.

1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things has made.  So they are without excuse;

Creation itself, Paul claims, points to a knowledge of God.  Creation is not so corrupt as not to still evidence God’s power and deity.  The comment about being without excuse is meant to show that the Gentiles ought to have acted in a way consistent with a knowledge of God, which they ought to have had.  They cannot use the excuse of Adam and Eve.  I also think that what is lurking in Paul’s thought is that the Gentiles do not need the law to act rightly (see 2:12a).

1:21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and there senseless minds were darkened.

Paul reiterates that the people in question knew God.  The fall had not corrupted humanity to where they could not know God.  The knowledge of God ought at least to evoke glorification and gratitude.  The consequence of not giving God his due is a diminished humanity.  The mind is vain and empty and the heart is darkened.  One could object and claim that Paul is describing Adam and Eve, but their interactions with God after the fall in Genesis 4-5 would not be described thus.  Paul’s descriptions in 1:18-32 do not fit Adam and Eve well at all.  Adam and Eve are not presented as invoking natural theology to deduce knowledge of God.  They did not make idols.  They are not recorded as being sexually deviant.

1:22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish,

Wisdom was especially prized in Greco-Roman culture, so this could be evidence that he is talking about Gentiles (see also 1:14).

1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible humanity and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles.

This verse is evidence that Paul has Gentiles in mind, and specifically, Gentile idolatry.  (Even if there is an allusion to the Golden Calf incident in Psalm 106:20, there is little reason to think that idolatry was a wholesale Jewish problem.)  It also begins a three-fold repetition of “changed” (vss. 23, 25 and 26), followed by a handing over by God (vss. 24, 26 and 28).  In all three cases, the people in question willfully changed and the blame is place upon them and not on Adam and Eve.

1:24 Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,

God punishes humanity by allowing the consequences of their willful choice to flow.  When humanity turns from God, they turn to a lower, degrading lifestyle.

1:25 who exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, amen.

Since Humanity believed lies about God’s nature, they sank into idolatry.

1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.  Their woman exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Again, God punishes by allowing the logical progression from idolatry to deviant sexual behavior.  The link between idolatry and unnatural sexual behavior is definitely linked in Pagan culture.  The punishment for the behavior is the logical consequence of the behavior.

1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to do things not being proper.

The final punishment for not giving God his due is a debased mind bent on bad behavior, which will be itemized in the following verses.

1:29-31 They were filled with every kind of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

That “unrighteousness” is at the head of the list is not an accident, given how Paul opened this section (see 1:18).  The sins that are chosen are probably meant to be general practices that all people would find improper.

1:32 They know God’s just requirements, that the one practicing such things deserves to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Notice that the problem is not that humanity is so depraved that they cannot know God’s just requirements.  Paul, I think, uses the word dikaiwma (“just requirement”) as a sort of stand-in for what the law requires.  Paul uses dikaiwma in relation to the law in 2:26 (and specifically in relation to Gentiles), and in 8:4.  I think this bolsters my contention that Paul is grinding an axe and that he wants to show that the lack of the Mosaic law is not an excuse for the Gentiles being depraved.  God does not judge on whether one is of the law, but he only judges according to faithfulness.

JEWS NOT RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE LAW 2:1-5:21

GOD’S IMPARTIALITY APPLIES TO THE JEWS 2:1-11

INTRODUCTION

This section follows 1:18-32 in a similar fashion as Nathan’s parable to David.  Paul wants his imaginary interlocutor—who represents the Judaizing faction—to agree that Gentile sins are worthy of judgment and that God is an impartial judge.  If Paul can make that case, then he can argue that the Jews—who possess the law and do the woks of the law such as circumcision and food laws—will also be judged for their unfaithfulness.  This again will highlight that Paul’s indictment against his fellow Jews is not that they were trying to work their way to salvation but that they were not obeying the law despite their ‘works of law.’

2:1 Therefore, you are inexcusable, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

A conclusion is clearing being drawn for the preceding section by the “therefore” and by the repetition of the word “excuse.”  The principle that Paul exploits is that God is an impartial judge and that he judges works and not whether one is circumcised (Jewish) or not (Gentile).  The Judaizing interlocutor has been lulled into judging against the Gentile not realizing that the same principle can be used against him/her (compare Mt. 7:1-2).  Paul probably has in mind the more general sins in 1:29-31, as the repetition of the word “practice” confirms.  The key is that the Jews who do the ‘works of law’ do not do the law.  This distinction is key for interpreting Paul.

2:2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon such ones practicing such things.

The point is hammered home that the works themselves are what is judged, irrespective of whether one is a Jew or Gentile.

2:3 And do you reckon this, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, will you escape the judgment of God?

This rhetorical question is of course meant to be answered in the negative.  It does not matter that Paul’s Judaizing interlocutor is circumcised or adheres to other Jewish-separating laws.  God judges works and the Judaizing interlocutor is no exception.  There is an interesting parallel between the Psalms of Solomon 15:8 and this verse:

Psalms of Solomon:  And those who do lawlessness (poiouteV anomian) shall not escape the judgment of the Lord.

As with Romans 2:3, this verse condemns those who do not do the law, not that they do the law to be saved.

2:4 Or do you scorn the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance.

This verse provides some evidence that Paul’s interlocutor represents a Jewish perspective.  He uses terms that occur in chapters 9-11, which concerns Jews:

·         Riches → 9:23; 10:12; 11:12, 33

·         Kindness (as opposed to the more Christian ‘grace’) → 11:22 (x3)

·         Patience → 9:22

Also, Paul uses the word “repentance” which he seldom does (2 Cor. 7:9-10; 12:21).  (The gospel of John and the epistles of John never use the term.)  This may be explained because for Paul, repentance is a Jewish concept, translating the Hebrew bwv, and therefore not as fitting for a Gentile audience.  The thought here is that God withholds his wrath for a time in order for repentance to occur, not that God does not require repentance or does not punish those who do not repent at all.

2:5 But according to your hard and unrepentant heart, you store up wrath in a day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

Because of the unfaithfulness of the interlocutor, the interlocutor is storing up wrath.  This shows that God judges works and that he keeps track of human behavior and the conditions that evince that behavior.

2:6 Who will recompense to each according to their works.

Echoing Old Testament verses such as Psalms 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12, Paul could not present more simply that God judges according to works.  This is true regardless if one is circumcised or not.

2:7 In the one hand, to the ones who by endurance in good work seeking glory and honor and immortality, life eternal.

Paul is now going to set out the alternatives.  Eternal life is the reward for good works.

2:8 On the other hand, to the ones being selfish and disobeying the truth but being obedient to unrighteousness, wrath and anger.

God’s wrath and anger is the reward for bad works.

2:9 Affliction and distress on every soul of the person working the evil, both Jew first and also the Greek.

In chiastic fashion, Paul now repeats himself by first telling what is in store for those who work evil.  Note also that the categories Paul is dealing with concerns groups, namely, Jews and Greek, that is, non-Jews.  The point is that God is impartial between Jews and non-Jews.

2:10 But glory and honor and peace to everyone working the good, the Jew first and to the Greek.

This verse repeats verse 7 and again shows that a favorable eternal destiny (salvation) depends on good works.  Again, Paul’s categories are Jews and non-Jews and not the solitary individual.  Of course, Paul does not say here what the conditions are that make for good works but he is clear that God judges according to works.

2:11 For God shows no partiality.

God is not partial.  He will treat the Jew and the Gentile according to the same standard.

THE LAW IS INDIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO FAITHFULNESS 2:12-29

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this section is to show that possession of the law makes no decisive difference with respect to faithfulness.  Gentiles, who do not have the law, can be faithful, and Jews, who have the law, can be unfaithful.  The problem of Jewish unfaithfulness will then be addressed in 3:1-8.

2:12 For as many as without the law sinned, without law will perish, and as many as under law sinned, through law will be judged.

This sentence summarizes and is evidence that my reading is on the right track.  The first part refers to Gentiles and echoes 1:18-32, while the second part refers to Jews and echoes 2:1ff.  The “law” is now explicitly mentioned, though it has been lurking behind the scenes.  Possession of the law makes no decisive difference to how one is judged.  Note, however, that the law is viewed positively as the criterion by which one is judged.  The phrase ‘through law’ echoes Galatians 2:19 and refers to the law’s condemnation of unfaithfulness, which is ultimately death (perishing).  In this way, the consequences of the two phrases are the same.

2:13 For not the hearers of law are just with God, but the doers will be justified.

By “hearers of law’ Paul has in mind Jews.  Again, he is stating that the Jew who only bears the works of the law is not justified but only the doers of the law.  This verse says the same thing as Paul says more famously, justification is not by works of law but by faithfulness.  That some final judgment is in view is noted by the future tense (see also 3:21; 3:30).

2:14 For when Gentiles—not having the law—by nature practice the things of the law, these a law not having, to themselves are a law,

First, Paul probably does not have Gentile Christian in mind here, for he says they do the law by nature and Christians do the law by walking in the Spirit (8:4).  Since Paul already stated that the Gentiles have a knowledge of God (1:19, 21), they would have a “natural” sense of right and wrong.  Paul’s point here is that the Gentiles can do the law without having the law of Moses, that is, without being Jewish.  He does not say whether these Gentiles do the law to a degree to reach a level of life/salvation/justification (see 2:7. 10), but it certainly seems that Paul thinks it could given what he says in 2:27, where Gentiles who fulfill the law will judge Jews who break the law.  Also, his argument would not have much bite if the Gentiles here were either hypothetical or that their obedience was rather minimal.

2:15 who demonstrate the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing joint-witness and their thoughts accusing or even defending between one another,

Paul begins to explain why Gentiles do not need to have the law to do the law.  The first thing Paul says is that Gentiles can have the work (singular, so should not be confused with ‘works of law’) of law written in their hearts.  Jews would understand this concept for a similar idea is in the prophets such as Jeremiah 31:33 and Isaiah 51:7.  Paul also says that Gentiles have consciences.  The last clause either fleshes out how a conscience works or it stands on its own and offers a third proof that Gentiles can do the law without ‘having’ the law.  Either way the idea is that there is a natural moral conflict that attests to a true standard of behavior.

2:16 in a day when, according to my gospel, God judges the hidden things of humanity, through Messiah Jesus.

In verse 12 it was the law that was the standard of judgment; here it is the gospel, which proves that the law and the gospel are not opposites.

2:17 But if you a Jew are called and rely upon the law and boast in God,

We are finally explicitly told that Paul’s interlocutor represents a Jew.  This Jew, for Paul, as also a Judaizer who demands that Gentiles get circumcised and come under the law of Moses.  Paul points out that that being a Jew does not guarantee some special privilege, if it is accompanied by unfaithfulness.  God is not the God of the Jews only (3:29).  The “boast” in question is precisely the Jewish confidence in their covenantal relationship with God.  This will become important later.

2:18 and know the will [of God] and approve the things excelling, being instructed from the law,

Again, the law is a good thing for Paul.  In it is God’s will and outlines what is best.

2:19-20 and having confidence that you are a guide to the blind, a light of the ones in darkness, an instructor of foolish ones, a teacher of babes, having the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

The good that ought to have followed from having the law is enumerated.  Paul does not deny that the law could have had a role in accomplishing these things, especially as these things relate to Gentiles and the Jewish relationship to them.  The Jews ought to have had a positive influence on the Gentiles.

2:21-22 Therefore, the one teaching another yourself you do not teach?  The one proclaiming not to steal do you steal?  The one saying not to commit adultery do you commit adultery?  The ones abhorring the idols do you plunder the temples?

The problem is not the law, the problem is not obeying the law.  Paul does not argue that the law ought not have been used to accomplish those things in 2:19-20, rather, he argues that the Jews ought to have been faithful, a guide to the blind (Mt. 15:14).

2:23 You who in the law boast, through transgression of the law you dishonor God.

Notice that the boast in the law is not criticized, as the boast in God was not criticized; what is criticized is not obeying the law.  Also, we have another use of the word “boast” that is related to the Jewish position vis-à-vis Gentiles.

2:24 For the name of God because of you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, it has been written,

Quoting Isaiah 52:5 (see also Ezek. 36:20-23), Paul adds scriptural confirmation of what he said previously.  In Isaiah, Israel is oppressed by Gentiles and God’s name is blasphemed (because Israel is his people), but Israel is oppressed because of her unfaithfulness.  So here too, the Jews’ unfaithfulness to their call ultimately dishonors God who has a plan for both Jews and Gentiles.

2:25 For indeed circumcision profits if the law you practice; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Here is a superb example of the distinction between “works of law,” of which circumcision is the epitome, and the law as a whole.  Paul criticizes the interlocutor for not obeying the law even though the interlocutor may be circumcised.  The manner in which Paul uses the word “circumcision” here basically identifies the word with “being Jewish.”  Circumcision, for Jews, was a sign of the covenant with God (Gen. 17:9-14).  However, Paul thinks that circumcision lulled the Jews into thinking that they were automatically members of God’s people.  Paul does not disparage circumcision, he only says that being circumcised is consistent with being unfaithful and is for that reason rather superfluous for Gentiles who can be faithful without it.  Paul does not say how circumcision (being Jewish) profits, but the point is taken.

2:26 If therefore, the uncircumcised keeps the just requirement of the law, will not their uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision?

The logic here is straight-forward.  If circumcision does not guarantee justification for the Jew, then it is not needed for the Gentile.  Of course, asserting that circumcision is not a sufficient condition is not the same as claiming that it is not necessary; but faithfulness is what matters.

2:27 And the naturally uncircumcised who keep the law will judge you have the letter and circumcision but transgress the law.

As I noted above, this verse hints that the Gentiles who keep the law can do so in a manner that reaches life/salvation/justification, because the idea of judgment points to the eschatological judgment and this would imply the Gentiles in question mad it that far.

2:28-29 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical.  Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal.  Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

The real issue has to do with who is a member of God’s people, that is, who is a true Jew.  It involves having a circumcised heart (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26; Ezek. 4:4-9).  Paul here is not simply pitting legalism or ritualism versus morality, but is claiming that the Jew has put too much confidence in their physical circumcision as a sign of a relationship with God that is really predicated on faithfulness that goes beyond the physical.

The dichotomy between Spirit and letter probably has to do with the difference between the old and new covenants.  The new covenant is powered by the Holy Spirit, whereas the old covenant is one of the written code.  In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul also contrasts Spirit and letter in the context of recommendations.  Paul’s recommendation is a spiritual matter, and does not rely on physical letters of recommendation.

GOD’S FAITHFULNESS AND JEWISH UNFAITHFULNESS 3:1-20

WHAT IS THE JEWISH ADVANTAGE THEN? 3:1-9

INTRODUCTION

 The major difficulty in interpreting this section is determining when Paul is speaking and when the interlocutor is speaking, since the section takes the form of a dialogue.  I tend to think that Paul asks leading questions in order to control the dialogue.  At points it would be hard to imagine why the interlocutor would ask certain questions as follow-ups to what Paul supposedly says.  Also, it would be more convincing if Paul led his interlocutor to draw conclusions Paul desires.  Therefore, I take the flow of the conversation as follows:

·         Verse 1 = Interlocutor

·         Verses 2-3 = Paul

·         Verse 4 = Interlocutor

·         Verse 5 = Paul

·         Verse 6 = Interlocutor

·         Verses 7-8 = Paul

·         Verse 9a = Interlocutor

·         Verse 9bff. = Paul

Alternatively, the last part of the dialogue could be thus:

·         Verse 8b = Interlocutor

·         Verse 9ff. = Paul

On this scheme, sense can be made of the chiastic nature of the dialogue.  The interlocutor addresses the two issues at hand, God’s faithfulness in 4a and God’s justice in being faithful in 4b.  Paul addresses 4b in 5 and 4a in 7.

It is revealing to compare the antithesis between human and Godly attributes:

The meanings in the columns are nearly the same, so since 3:3 and 3:7 are subjective genitives, it is reasonable to conclude that the righteousness in 3:5 is God’s, that is, God is attributed with righteousness.

3:1 What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?

Paul has so called into question the distinction between Jew and Gentile that his Judaizing interlocutor has to ask what advantage there is then in being Jewish.

3:2 Much in every way.  For first, they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Paul answers the interlocutor with an affirmative.  He begins with “first,” but he does not complete the list.  It is unclear what exactly Paul means by logia tou qeou (oracles of God).  The word ‘oracles’ could imply a mysterious pronouncement meant to be unlocked by the key of Jesus (11:25-27; 16:25-26).  I take the word to be related to the promises of God, which would definitely involve an advantage of the Jew (Ps. 147:19-20; Deut. 4:7-8).

3:3 For what?  If some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Since I take this to be Paul’s leading question, I take it that Paul is leading the interlocutor to a statement that would imply a real advantage for the Jew.  He does so by asking whether Jewish unfaithfulness nullifies God’s faithfulness.  (Note the word “some” (see also 11:17); Paul is not saying all Jews were unfaithful, for the concept of a faithful remnant will factor in later chapters.)  The advantage of the Jew is that God will remain faithful even when they are not.

3:4 May it never be; but let God be true and every human a liar, as it has been written, ‘so that you may be justified in your words and prevail in your judgments.’

The interlocutor insists that God will remain faithful to the Jew.  God’s truthfulness is related to his faithfulness to Israel, that is, he is true to his promises to Israel.  In fact, hnwma is translated in the LXX by pistiV but in the Psalms it is usually translated as alhqeia (truth) and there usually pertains to God’s covenantal loyalty to Israel.  There also may be a play on words: if the oracles (logia) of god pertain to his promises, then when God is justified in his words (logoiV), he will be faithful to his promises.  Therefore, the theme of judgment need not necessarily be in the interlocutor’s mind.  The statement that God is true while every human is a liar may echo Psalm 116:11 where the Psalmist praises God for his faithfulness to him, and clearly does not include himself in the category of liar. Of course, Paul intends the interlocutor’s comment about “all” being liars to pertain also to the Jews.

The interlocutor also quotes Psalm 51:4, written by David after his sin with Bathsheba and confrontation with Nathan.  I think the interlocutor quotes these words in order to absolve God of any injustice about being true to Israel, the prime advantage of the Jews.  In the Psalm (LXX), David confesses his anomia (lawlessness, literally “against the law), which is the same as unfaithfulness.

3:5 But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what will we say?  That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us?  (I speak in human terms.)

In chiastic fashion, Paul points out a problem with the chief advantage of the Jews.  He probably has in mind the Jew described in 2:17 who relies on the law and boasts in God.  If God is faithful to them regardless of their faithfulness, and if that unfaithfulness actually brings out God’s faithfulness more clearly and powerfully, then why would God punish the Jews, for their unfaithfulness led to a better situation?

3:6 May it not be; otherwise how will God judge the world?

The interlocutor has to admit that God is right to judge.  God can always use evil for good, so if that is the criterion of what God can judge, then God would not judge at all.  But God is judge (see for example Gen. 18:25).

3:7 But if the truth of God by my lie abounded to his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?

Paul basically restates verse 5, which pertains to God’s justice in inflicting wrath.  As verse 8 will demonstrate, Paul’s strategy is to show what bad consequences would flow if God would not judge Jewish unfaithfulness.

3:8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?  Their condemnation is deserved.

Paul seems to be turning the tables on his adversaries who claim that his law free gospel leads to bad consequences.  Paul claims that it is the idea that Jews cannot be punished that leads to the very same bad consequences that are falsely claimed to follow from Paul’s ideas.

3:9 What then do we plead in our defense?  For we have before charged that both Jew and Greek are all under sin.

This verse is very important and brings up some textual issues.  The Greek has been rendered thus:

Ti oun proecomeqa ou pantwV

What then? Are we any better off (or: worse off)?  No, not at all.

There are three basic ways to interpret this phrase which depends on how proecomeqa is interpreted and who is the referent.

1.       Passive “are we surpassed,” are we worse off, with the referent being “we Jews.”  The problem with this interpretation is that it does not fit the context.  It is unmotivated by what has gone before and Paul will go on to argue in the catena of scripture (3:10-18) that the Jew is not any better off.

2.       Middle, used as an active “do we surpass,” are we better off , usually with “we Jews” as the referent.  The problem with this interpretation is twofold, (i) middle used as an active is not attested, and (ii) asks the same basic question as 3:1 but with the opposite answer.  One problem with both (1) and (2) is that the referent is supposed to be “we Jews.”  However, the referents to the plural verbs in 3:8 and 3:9b are probably Paul and his Christian companions.  Therefore, the conclusion that the referent must be “we Jews” is not forced upon us.

3.       Genuine middle “What then do we plead in our defense” with the referent free from being “we Jews.”  This is the interpretation adopted here.  This question would best be seen as rhetorical, demanding a “nothing” answer, which would fit the context (see verses 3:9b; 3:19; 9:20).  Also, ou pantwV is omitted in some manuscripts, which would probably bolster this interpretation, but even if it is retained, sense would still be maintained: “what then do we plead?  Not at all, for…”

The conclusion that Paul wants to draw is that the whole world, including Jews as a whole. Is under sin and liable to God’s judgment and wrath.  This is a premise in his larger argument to be enfolded in the rest of the letter.  Notice that being “under sin” does not make humanity helpless, because then it would be an excusing factor.  But one point that Paul wants to get across is that humanity is without excuse.  The use of the word “all” is meant to pertain to both Jews and Gentiles and not that all means each and every individual.

CATENA 3:10-18

INTRODUCTION

This series of scriptural quotations is meant to substantiate the claim that Jews too are under sin, and in this way substantiate 3:9.  The point is not that every single individual is under sin, but that Jews too (though not every single one) are under sin.  It should be noted that in the passages that Paul quotes there is usually a distinction between the righteous and the wicked.  Now, if Paul thought that every single individual is unrighteous, then he selectively quotes scripture and would be contradicted by the very same passages from which he quotes as we will see.  Another point to be made is that the passages in the contexts themselves do not rule out Jews as the intended referent.  Paul wants to point out that scripture itself attests that many Jews are unfaithful (see 3:20).  I think Paul quoted passages that used language that would be as broad as possible in order to make his point.  It should also not be forgotten that language is often hyperbolic and this is especially true in the contexts of literary types of which the Psalms are included.  For example, even in factual narrative (Acts 17:21) we read that “all Athenians and foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.”  This is clearly hyperbolic and is not meant to include every single Athenian and foreigner living there.

3:10-12 As it has been written, ‘There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.  All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, there is not even one.’

This passage, from Psalm 14:1-3 (though 10:6 may be from Eccl. 7:20), picks up on the word ‘righteous’ (see 1:18; 2:8, 13).  From the context, there is no reason to think that the Psalmist is not including Jews in his lament.  If the Psalmist can paint an ugly picture of his contemporaries, then Paul can use this in his indictment of Jewish boasting.  Also important for Paul’s theology as a whole, is the mentioning in this very Psalm of “my people” (v. 4) and more importantly “the righteous” (v. 5).  Paul no doubt knew the rest of the Psalm and this gives us a very strong incentive in not interpreting his use of this Psalm in an argument that every single individual is unrighteous.  The fourfold repetition of “there is no” forms an inclusion with 3:18 (“there is no fear of God before their eyes”).

3:13 ‘Their throats are open graves; they use their tongue to deceive.’  ‘The venom of vipers is under their lips.’

Paul quotes Psalm 5:9 (13a) and 140:3 (13b).  Both make the point I made in the previous Psalm.  First, both do not rule out Jews as the referent of those who are unrighteous and both contrast the unrighteous with the righteous.  In Psalm 5, there are those who take refuge in God (v. 11) and it is said God will bless the righteous (v. 12).  In Psalm 140, it is said that “the righteous shall give thanks to your name; the upright shall live in your presence” (v. 13).

3:14 ‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’

This quote is from Psalm 10:7.  The context of that Psalm makes the same two points.  First, there is indication that Jews are excluded; and second, mention is made of those who are contrasted with the righteous (vss. 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18).

3:15-17 ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known.’

These verses come from Isaiah 59:7-8.  What is important is that this passage no doubt describes Israel’s sins.  Paul had earlier applied Isaiah 52:5 to the Jews in 2:24.

3:18 ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’

As I mentioned above, this verse forms an inclusion with the beginning of this catena.  It also evidences my two points: Jews can be included in the indictment and mention is made of those who know God and those who are upright (v. 10).

CONCLUSION 3:19-20

3:19 But we know that whatever that law says, it speaks to the ones under the law, that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be accountable to God.

This verse telegraphs what the purpose of the catena was.  Scripture itself is witness that being Jewish is not enough to be righteous and justified.  There is nothing to be pleaded in defense (3:9).  The fact of overall Jewish unfaithfulness is a key premise in an unfolding argument Paul is developing.

3:20 Because by works of law ‘all flesh will not be justified before him,’ for through law comes the full recognition of sin.

If my reading of this section is correct, we have further reason to take “works of law” as a phrase that is basically equivalent to those acts which distinguish the Jew from the Gentile, of which circumcision is the supreme distinguisher.  Paul’s argument is that these works of law are not enough for justification/salvation.  The law itself witnesses that those under the law can be unrighteous (vss. 10-18), and those under law should fully recognize that the law itself describes unfaithful Jews and that this unfaithfulness leads to death.

The language her echoes Psalm 143:2:

Because no living person will be justified before you (LXX).

Paul changes “living person” to “flesh” perhaps as an allusion to circumcision (see Gen. 2:28, and Gen. 17).  Psalm 143 provides a transition to the next section with its mention of God’s righteousness and faithfulness (vss. 1, 11).  The Psalmist pleads for God’s salvation in spite of human unfaithfulness.  Note also the future sense of this verse.  As we will see in 3:30, justification is not a one-off phenomenon.

RIGHTEOUSNESS APART FROM LAW 3:21-31

INTRODUCTION

If justification is not solely dependent upon being Jewish, then what does it depend upon?  The answer is Jesus’ faithfulness.  This section will set up the example of Abraham in chapter 4, especially verses 27-31, which really functions as the conclusion of the whole dialogue with the Jewish interlocutor that began at 2:1:

3:21 But now apart from law, a righteousness of God has been manifested, being attested to by the law and the prophets.

The “but now” signals a turning point in Paul’s discussion.  I take “apart from law” to mean that God’s saving activity (his righteousness) is not solely in terms of Israel, that is, those who wear the badges of membership in God’s covenantal community.  Paul is not speaking about the law in the sense of working one’s way to salvation.  Paul’s contrast is still in terms of Jewish and Gentile, not works verses faith.  It is clear that the righteousness of God is related to the actions of Jesus, which in itself shows that the righteousness of God includes his saving activity.  This is clear from what follows but also by Paul’s link between God’s righteousness and the ‘law and prophets,’ which act as witnesses in a law court.  In 1:2, the gospel of God was also linked to the prophets, but this gospel concerns Jesus (vv. 3-4):

1:2 Gospel of God (concerns son) → prophets

3:21 Righteousness of God → law and prophets

3:22a A righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, to all the ones being faithful.

This verse is a prime piece of evidence for my interpretation of 1:17:

This verse also evidences one of the arguments for the subjective genitive reading of pistiV Cristou, for there would be needless repetition otherwise (see my earlier discussion).  The word “all” is meant to mean “both Jews and Gentiles.”

3:22b-23 For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Again, the “all” here means “Jew and Gentile” and not every single individual.  Paul has just argued that being a Jew does not guarantee salvation and he puts it just this way in 3:9 (“for we have charged both Jews and Gentiles are under sin”).  Paul is not arguing that each and every individual is under sin, but that (some or most) Jews as a whole are under sin, just as (most) Gentiles.  As I mentioned above, the premise that both Jew and Gentile are under sin is a key premise in Paul’s developing argument.

The fact that humanity falls short of the glory of God may have Psalm 8:6 in mind where God crowns humanity with glory and honor.  It is in that Psalm where humanity is referred to as the ‘son of man’ (Hebrew = ‘ben adam’).  Paul’s would then be along the lines of Adamic Christology.

3:24 They are now justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Messiah Jesus,

The idea of justification (being righteous-ed) is basically the result of God’s righteousness, that is, the result of his saving activity.  In short, justification is on par with salvation.  Paul has already given some conditions for salvation in chapter 2.  These include:

·         2:7 patiently working good

·         2:10 working the good

·         2:13 doers of law

·         2:25 the law you practice

·         2:26 keep the just requirements of the law

Therefore, I submit, justification has to be associated with these conditions.  A person who is righteous-ed will satisfy those conditions, not as a legal fiction, but in reality.  The rub is that it is thought that this process is inconsistent with God’s grace.  However, I will argue that this is not so.

‘Redemption’ is an economic term.  It refers to the ransom of a captive or the purchasing or freeing a slave.  This fits well with Paul’s idea that the power of sin acts as a master or conqueror.  This in turn fits well with my contention that being righteous-ed has to do with meeting the conditions as found in chapter 2.  When a person is freed or bought back from slavery or captivity, in this case sin, then they ought to be free from sin and ought to be obedient and in this way fulfill the conditions of chapter 2.

2:25 whom God displayed as an act of propitiation, through faithfulness, in his blood, for a display of his righteousness because in his divine forbearance, he had passed by the sins previously committed.

I claim that this verse is best interpreted in light of Paul’s discussion in 1:17-18

If I am right about the correlations with 1:17-18, then we have confirmation that ilasthrion is to be interpreted as “propitiation” (so KJV).  After all, in secular Greek, the word refers to the way the wrath of the gods could be turned away.  This is how Paul’s audience would have understood the term. 

Jesus’ faithfulness/obedience is the means God’s wrath is turned away.  I take “in his blood” to be metonymic for Jesus’ obedience unto death.  As I pointed out in my comments on Galatians, Paul was probably influenced by the Maccabean martyr traditions.  In 2 Maccabees 7:38, the martyr’s death is hoped to bring about the end of God’s wrath on the whole nation.  In 4 Maccabees 6:28-29, the martyr’s punishment is hoped to be a satisfaction on the peoples’ behalf and the martyr’s blood a purification for them.  Also, in 17:22, it is thought the death of the martyrs is the ilasthrion through which Israel was saved.  There probably are some sacrificial metaphors employed by both the Maccabean traditions and by Paul.

The last phrase also hints at God’s wrath, since it was put on hold because of his patience (see next verse).  God demands obedience because he is righteous and so Jesus offered the obedience God demanded.  Not only that, but as we will see, Jesus will also make righteous those incorporated with him.

3:26 It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who shares the faithfulness of Jesus.

God has to deal with sin/disobedience.  He did this by gracefully sending Jesus.  Those who share I Jesus obedience are then declared righteous.

3:27 Where therefore, is the boasting?  It was excluded.  Through what law?  Of works? No, but through the law of faithfulness.

Paul is again driving a point home to his Judaizing interlocutor.  Salvation/justification is conditioned on obedience/faithfulness. And not solely on being Jewish.  Paul’s language (boasting) picks up his earlier discussion (see 2:17, 23) which had the Jews in mind:

2:23 boast; through transgression of the law; (2:26) keeps just requirements of the law

3:27 boast; through…law…of works; law of faithfulness

These correlations once again argue for the interpretation of pistiV as faithfulness and this again shows that Paul is not railing against works, but against obedience.

The NIV translated “works” here as “observing the law,” which is exactly the opposite of what Paul intends.  For Paul, ‘works of law’ is associated with not observing the law.

3:28 For we reckon a person to be justified by faithfulness apart from works of the law.

This verse is similar to Galatians 2:16 that parallel would argue that the pistei here is Jesus’ faithfulness.  The issue here is that justification is not for Jews only (see next verse) but is open to Gentiles too.

3:29-30a Or is he the God of Jews only?  Not also the Gentiles?  Yes, also the Gentiles, since God is one,

That “works of law” encompass the idea of being a Jew is proved by the way Paul sums up the issue here.  Paul exploits the Jewish belief in monotheism to argue that God is also the God of Gentiles.

3:30b and he will justify the circumcision by faithfulness and the uncircumcision through faithfulness.

The underlying premise behind Paul’s thought is that faithfulness is open to both Jews and Gentiles.  One question is whose faithfulness does Paul have in mind, Jesus’ or his followers’?  Probably the ambiguity is the same as Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 (hence the ek here).  Jesus’ faithfulness has made the Gentiles faithful.  Notice also the future-looking act of justification.  Justification is more than a one-off act of God.

3:31 Therefore, do we annul the law through faithfulness?  May it not be; rather, we confirm the law.

If the law is thought of only as “works of law,” only as that which separated Jews from Gentiles, then the law is annulled.  However, the law is really about faithfulness (see 3:27, and the Abraham example in chapter 4) and so when Paul claims justification is by faithfulness, he can rightly claim that he is confirming the law (see 8:4).

ABRAHAM AS FATHER OF JEWS AND GENTILES 4:1-25

INTRODUCTION

This section goes to prove that justification is by faithfulness (3:28).  Abraham is the father of the Jews.  Paul’s argument so far has been that mere physical descent is not enough to be justified before God.  Paul’s argument now is that relationship to Abraham, even for the Jews, is based on faithfulness.  Therefore, when Gentiles also share Abraham’s faithfulness, they too are his children.  Ultimately, Gentiles share Abraham’s faithfulness by incorporation into the faithful seed of Abraham, namely, Jesus.

The standard evangelical story claims that Paul invokes Abraham because he is the paradigm of how we get saved and that is by faith/belief.  However, even on this scheme, Abraham believed God and not Jesus.  One can retort that he believed in Jesus via some sort of link to the promise, but the text in Genesis (15:6) explicitly states that he believed “God.”  The other major problem that the case of Abraham poses for the standard evangelical story is that Abraham is described as righteous, but this contradicts how advocates of the standard evangelical story read Paul when they claim he says that every single individual is unrighteous before God. Much of the fuel that drives the standard evangelical story’s engine derives from this section, so a careful reading is in order.

Chapter 4 can be seen as a commentary on Genesis 15:6 where the word for “faithfulness” is fleshed out in 9-21 and the word for “reckoned” (accounted) is fleshed out in 4-8.  Paul confirms the law because the law itself teaches that justification is by faithfulness.

4:1 What then will we say, have we discovered Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?

The gist of this question can be paraphrased as follows: “What then will we say, is Abraham our father only in terms of physical descent?  The rhetorical question deserves a “no” and Paul will flesh it out in what follows.  The law will be confirmed if it can be shown that relationship to Abraham was always based on sharing his characteristic of faithfulness.

4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, then he has a boast, but not before God.

What Paul means by “works” is not good deeds but ‘works of law’ (3:20), such as circumcision.  Paul is stating that Abraham was not justified by “being a Jew.”  The boast of Abraham would be the same boast as Paul’s Judaizing interlocutor in 2:17, 23.  But God does not care about that; what God cares about is faithfulness.

4:3 For what does scripture say?  ‘Abraham was faithful to God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’

The standard evangelical story would translate Paul’s quotation of Genesis 15:6 as “Abraham believed God.”  But that Genesis 15:6 had Abraham’s faithfulness in mind is bolstered by how others understood Abraham and especially in regard to Genesis 15:6.  As far as Abraham in general, Sirach 44:19-21 says that Abraham kept the law and proved faithful when tested and it was on account of that that God gave him the oath that the nations would be blessed through his offspring.  In Hebrews 11, Abraham’s “faith” is cashed out in terms of faithfulness (“By faith Abraham being called obeyed,” v. 8; “By faith Abraham, when tested, offered Isaac,” v. 17).  With regard to Genesis 15:6, we have 1 Maccabees 2:52: “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?”  This is key, because I contend that Paul was influenced by the Maccabean traditions.  Then we have the New Testament witness of James 2:21-23 that Abraham was justified by faithfulness by offering up Isaac and so it was reckoned to him as righteousness and he was a friend of God (see 2 Chron. 20:7; Isaiah 41:8).  This may indicate that James was correcting a very early misreading of Paul!

I claim that Paul is not using Abraham as a paradigm of how one gets saved.  Paul’s main point is that Abraham’s faithfulness is meritorious for others (see 4:11, 23-24).  Here is where grace enters the picture.  Abraham’s posterity reaps the benefits of Abraham’s faithfulness by sheer grace (see 4:16, where grace and faithfulness are correlated).  It is not what they did but what Abraham did.  This idea is often called the “merits of the fathers” and finds expression in the Old Testament and in Paul:

Genesis 22:16-18 Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.  And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.

Genesis 26:4-5 I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Romans11:28 …but according to the election, they are beloved, because of the fathers.

As a side note, Psalm 106:30-31 reads: 

Then Phinehas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped.  And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation.      

In all likelihood it is because of Phinehas’ righteous deed that his descendants will receive God’s righteousness in the form of a perpetual priesthood (Num. 25:12-13).  If I am right, then we have an example of someone’s faithfulness being meritorious and earning righteousness for others.  That righteousness would then be had by grace.

4:4 Now to the one working the reward is not accounted according to grace but according to debt.

Notice first that what is said here and in verse 5 is stated in terms whose application goes beyond Abraham.  Abraham is a paradigm, but not because of his belief but because of his faithfulness.  If just being circumcised (being a Jew) was enough to be righteous, then having this work of law would put God into debt.  Abraham would have a boast (see 2:17, 23; 3:27-31) if circumcision put God into debt.   Paul is arguing here that the meaning of “accounted” in Genesis 15:6 is not like an economic transaction because when one is faithful, one is reaping the benefits Abraham accrued and therefore it is by grace (Abraham’s meritorious faithfulness).  But did not Abraham’s meritorious faithfulness put God into debt?  No, because God did not have to reward Abraham’s faithfulness, that too was by grace.

4:5 But to the one not working but being faithful to the one justifying the ungodly, the faithfulness of him is accounted for righteousness.

The ‘one not working’ is referring to those who do not have the ‘works of law,’ that is, it is referring to those who are not circumcised etc.  Paul is referring to Gentiles here and this is bolstered by the word “ungodly,” which would be a common Jewish designation of Gentiles.  Also, in 5:6, 8, 10, Jesus dies for the ungodly and sinners and enemies—designations no doubt including Gentiles.

Again, I take what Paul states here to be about Gentiles.  This applies to Abraham because he was at one time a Gentile.  This fact will have some play later in the chapter.

4:6 So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteous apart from works:

The focus here and in the quote from David to follow is meant to refer to Gentiles and that they too can be blessed without works of the law.

4:7-8 Blessed are those whose lawlessness is forgiven and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one whom the Lord will not reckon sin.

This verse depends on Psalm 32:1-2 and is probably chosen because of its use of the word “reckon.”  The word anomiai (lawlessness) is often associated with Gentiles (see 2:12), just as no doubt the word “sin,” since the Gentiles were famously called “sinners.”  Paul is pointing out that God’s grace can forgive the Gentiles without having works of law and even coming from a bad past.

4:9 Is the blessing therefore upon the circumcision or also upon the uncircumcision?  For we say faithfulness was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.

That Paul’s concern has been on the Gentile-Jewish divide comes to the surface here.  He repeats Genesis 15:6 to set up his following discussion.

4:10 How then was it accounted?  Was Abraham circumcised or uncircumcised when it was accounted?  Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision.

Abraham received the blessing while he was uncircumcised and therefore the Gentiles too can be blessed without being circumcised.

4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of his faithfulness while he was uncircumcised, for him to be a father of all the ones being faithful without being circumcised, for righteousness to be also accounted to him.

Paul contends that Abraham’s circumcision itself was a symbolic sign of his faithfulness and of the righteousness that faithfulness merited.  This shows that it is faithfulness and not works of law that justifies.  The reason Abraham received his blessing while uncircumcised was so that he would be the father of faithful Gentiles too.  This indicates that Genesis 15:6 is really about the righteousness of Abraham’s posterity and predicated on his merit-accruing faithfulness.

4:12 And a father of circumcision to the ones who are not only circumcised but also are in step with the faithfulness of our father Abraham which he had before he was circumcised.

This verse, though it seems to mention two groups, probably refers only to one group, Jewish Christians.  This verse lays out the characteristic that makes one a descendent of Abraham  and that characteristic is his faithfulness.  It lays out nicely the distinction Paul has been advocating.  One needs more than a work of the law (circumcision) to be related to Abraham; one needs faithfulness.  Abraham was faithful while he was uncircumcised, therefore Gentiles can be faithful without becoming circumcised.

Also, special attention ought to be paid to the phrase “in step with the faithfulness (pistewV) of our father Abraham.”  The wording virtually dictates that pistewV be translated as “faithfulness” and not as faith/belief (see 1:5).  It also highlights the subjective genitive involved is on par with the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (see also 4:16).

4:13 For not through law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faithfulness.

Abraham did not receive the promises or blessing through law, that is, he was not circumcised when he received the promises.  He received the promise because of his faithfulness.

4:14 For if the heirs are of law, faithfulness has been made void and the promise has been nullified.

Those “of law” (ek nomou) are clearly the Jews and Paul is contrasting that description with those “of faithfulness” (ek pistewV, see Hab. 2:4 quoted in 1:17 and 4:16 below).  The reason the promise is nullified is that it was given to uncircumcised Abraham (a Gentile at the time), and the reason faithfulness has been mad void is the being “of law” is perfectly consistent with egregious violation of the law, that is, unfaithfulness.

4:15 For the law works wrath, but where there is not a law, neither is their transgression.

Again, the law rewards disobedience with wrath, but obedience merits blessing.  One of the roles of law was to make the Jews conscious of their sin and their need t be faithful to God, just as in the case of the Gentiles.  The meaning of transgression here perhaps has to do with the greater severity that attaches to a declared commandment or law.  Paul is just highlighting the wrath aspect of the law.

4:16 It is of faithfulness, that according to grace it may be, for the promise to be sure of all the seed, not to the seed of the law only, but also to the seed of the faithfulness of Abraham, who is father of us all.

The “it” refers most likely to the promise.  Again, the grace is on account of Abraham’s faithfulness.  His faithfulness is meritorious for others who do not deserve to be under the umbrella of his righteousness. 

If pistewV were to be translated as “faith” in the sense of belief, then it is unclear why a belief would make it a thing of grace, for then, belief is a condition of reward.  In verse 15 there is the following development:

Law → Transgression → Wrath

This corresponds the following development in this verse:

Promise → Faithfulness → Grace

This correlation nicely sets in opposition transgression (disobedience) with faithfulness (obedience), and is further evidence that “faithfulness” is preferred to “faith/belief.”  The correlation also highlights that grace is on par with blessing; Abraham’s descendents are blessed because of his faithfulness.

The faithfulness in question can be shared by Gentiles and in that way they become related to Abraham.  Abraham is not just father to the Jews.  This is the point Paul wants to hammer home.  Note again the subjective genitive in conjunction with Abraham and its similarity with the faithfulness of Jesus.

4:17 As it has been written, ’a father of many nations I have appointed you,’ before God, to whom he was faithful, the one who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

The merit of Abraham’s faithfulness extends to “many nations” (Gentiles included).  Paul quotes Genesis 17:5 to bolster his contention that Abraham is the father of us all as stated in the previous verse.  God has the power to resurrect (Jesus) and to give life to the deadness of Abraham’s body and Sarah’s womb.  Also, lurking in the background is the probable idea that God can call Gentiles to faithfulness.

4:18 Hoping against hope, he trusted that he should become a father of many nations according to what was said, ‘So numerous shall your descendents be.’

The following has been read as evidence that Abraham was justified by belief and not faithfulness, since he is not described as doing anything, but simply trusting.  It should be kept in mind that verses 16-22 is one sentence in the Greek and Paul is still associating the merit of Abraham’s faithfulness with the Gentiles.  It is the content of the promise, which pertains to Abraham’s fatherhood as much as his trusting that promise which is in view.  If the beginning (18a) alludes to Genesis 17:5, the end (18b) alludes to Genesis 15:5, which is the verse right before 15:6.  In both 15:5 and 17:5, the focus is exclusively on Abraham’s descendents.  Besides, Paul picks one of the verses in the LXX which connects a dik-word with pistiV and it just so happened that in Genesis 15:6 the pistiV-word is more on the cognitive side of faithfulness.  Trust is not opposed to faithfulness, for part of what it means to be faithful is to trust.

I also question the assumption that Abraham did “nothing” but believe.  To state the obvious, Abraham and Sarah had to do something for Abraham to become a father.  I am not sure what Paul would have expected the sexual behavior of a 99 or 100 year old man and a 90 year old woman to be, but there is evidence that Abraham and Sarah were not having intercourse at the time of the promise.  In Genesis 18:12, Sarah is quoted to have said to herself after having hearing that she would give birth: “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”  The most likely meaning of this verse pertains to sexual pleasure.  The Hebrew word for pleasure here (hnde) suggests as much, since it literally has to do with moisture.  Contributing factors of course comes from their advanced age and Sarah’s post menopausal condition, all made explicit on the text.  There is no reason to think that Abraham did nothing in light of God’s promise.

Furthermore, Abraham’s faithfulness is documented even before Genesis 15:6.  Already in 12:4, after being told by God to go to the promised land, it is stated: “So Abram went, as the Lord told him.”  What is important for Paul is the Abraham was faithful to God before he was circumcised, not that his belief is contrasted with his faithfulness.  This explains why he does not mention the more paradigmatic act of faithfulness of the binding of Isaac, for he was already circumcised by then.

4:19 He did not weaken in trust when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for we was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.

Abraham was faithful by trusting in God’s promise despite the hostile conditions.  The nuance of the word “weaken” implies that the trust in question is meant to do something (see next verse).

4:20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his trust as he gave glory to God,

The nuance of the word “grew strong” again implies action.  Trust matters to behavior and therefore trust is not a do-nothing concept.

4:21 being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.

Giving god glory is realizing that he can do what he promised.  Abraham was faithful to God by trusting to God.

4:22 Therefore, his faithfulness ‘was reckoned to him as righteousness.’

Genesis 15:6 is repeated.  It is inferred from what is said earlier.

4:23 Now the words, ‘it was reckoned to him,’ were not written for his sake alone,

Paul’s main concern is the effect of Abraham’s faithfulness on his posterity.

4:24 but for ours also.  It will be reckoned to us who are faithful to the one raising Jesus our Lord from the dead,

The “it will be reckoned” seems to pertain to the future and therefore Abraham’s righteousness is reckoned to his descendents as well, provided that they are also faithful to God.  Now, God is identified as having the power to raise Jesus from the dead just as he gave life to Sarah’s dead womb.

4:25 who was handed over for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

This verse coincides nicely with the hymn of Philippians 2:6-11.  The first line probably ultimately owes its genesis to Isaiah 53.  Jesus was handed over (by God?) to offer the obedience that humanity (Adam and Israel) failed to offer because of their “trespasses.”  This corresponds to Philippians 2:6-8.  The second line associates Jesus’ resurrection with our justification.  Jesus was raised to life in order that those incorporated with him would be raised to life.  Justification is of a piece with salvation in general and life in particular.  This corresponds to Philippians 2:9-11.  I argued there (and in connection with Phil. 3:20-21) that Paul intends to apply Jesus’ exaltation to our exaltation.

HORTATORY CONCLUSION TO ARGUMENT 5:1-11

INTRODUCTION

This section may have begun in 4:22 or 23 but I take at least this part to be the conclusion to the argument so far.  Since justification is through faithfulness and not through law, the playing field is open to Gentiles; hence the language Jews would apply to Gentiles: ungodly, sinners, enemies.  Also, the theme of boasting (vss. 2, 3, 11) is highlighted which harkens back to Jewish pride.  Paul is arguing here not to boast in the law but boast in the faithfulness of Jesus.

5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faithfulness, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah,

I take “having been justified” to be the result of Jesus’ faithfulness and not our faith.  First, I have already argued that ek pistiV in 1:17 refers to Jesus’ faithfulness.  Second, this verse follows 4:25 which had just recounted Jesus’ faithfulness—given over for our trespasses, or so I argue.  Third, there is a parallelism with the second phrase in this verse which also refers to Jesus:

If this parallelism is intended, then we have another strong argument for interpreting ek pistewV as referring to Jesus’ faithfulness.

5:2 through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God,

“This grace” probably refers to the grace mentioned in 4:16 and pertains to the grace that is won through Abraham’s merit, for it is through Jesus and his faithfulness that the faithful are incorporated into the family of Abraham.  In 3:23, the lack of God’s glory is related to disobedience or unfaithfulness; here, the glory of God is related to faithfulness.

5:3-5 And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.

If we boast in the faithfulness of Jesus, then we should boast in suffering because Jesus suffered on account of his obedience.  The chain represented here involves the process of faithfulness.  For example, endurance describes the martyrs in 4 Maccabees.  The word for character (dokimhn) is related to testing and probably refers to the process of testing metal with fire.  Abraham’s testing in the binding of Isaac may have been in Paul’s mind and if so, Abraham’s faithfulness would have been in mind too.  The hope is the state of being found faithful at the last judgment.  The faithful are not to be out to shame; shame is related to bad fortune which is related to the consequences of disobedience.

The basis for the righteousness needed for hope is God’s love, expressed by the pouring out of the Spirit into our hearts.  In the Old Testament prophets, the gift of the Holy Spirit was meant to make us righteous or faithful (circumcised heart).  This fits perfectly in the context here.  We have confidence in being faithful because the gift of the Spirit was for that very purpose.

5:6 For the Messiah, when we were still weak, in due time, died on behalf of the ungodly.

Again, Jesus died to offer the obedience that the ungodly did not.  There is a relation between Jesus’ activity and the giving of the Holy Spirit.  I take this relation to involve the new covenant idea with its eschatological tones.

When Paul says that Jesus died for the ungodly, I take him to be primarily referring to martyrdom:

·         2 Maccabees 7:9 …but the king of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.

·         2 Maccabees 8:21 …and made them ready to die for their laws and their country…

·         4 Maccabees 1:8 …those who died for the sake of virtue…

·         4 Maccabees 1:10 …those who, with their mother, died for nobility and goodness…

The Maccabean martyrs died for good things, but Jesus died for the ungodly (primarily Gentiles).  This is the contrast that Paul will spell out in the next two verses.  My point is that Jesus’ death can be seen more as a martyr’s death in the Maccabean tradition, than as an animal-like sacrifice of the Jewish cult.

5:7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die.

The sense of “righteous” here is probably meant to refer to Jews since that is how they would have perceived themselves vis-à-vis the ungodly and sinner Gentile.  Paul is here highlighting the strong character of the love God and Jesus.  That love transcends what can be expected from humans.  Paul seems to posit the existence of good people; this again shows that the argument in 1:18-32 and 2:1ff. is not meant to include every single person.

What exactly the distinction is between righteous and good is unclear; perhaps it has to do with the distinction between Paul as zealous Jew (Phil. 3:6; Rom. 10:2), a person who can be respected, and Paul as a Christian Jew, a person who is beloved.

5:8 But God demonstrates his own love to us in that while we were still sinners, the Messiah died on behalf of us.

The point is that Jesus died on behalf of Gentiles (“sinners”).  He died to make sinners righteous, but when he died, they were sinners.  The verse does not say that those involved remain sinners, which is how many evangelicals would read the passage.

5:9 Much more surely, then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.

Verses 9 and 10 are similar to 4:25 in that they both put in parallel acts of Jesus and their consequences (though 9b is not really an act per se).  It is most likely that the parallelism is not meant to strictly demarcate what happens when and how.  For example, in 4:25, justification was applied to Jesus’ resurrection; here it is applied to his death.  Paul’s point seems to be that Jesus’ obedient death was in the past but has consequences for the future.  If the past event was the hard work, then the future event will be no sweat.  That there is something more than just initial justification should make evangelicals pause.  Note also the word “now.”  Jesus’ faithful death makes people faithful and not sinners. 

5:10 For while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

The contrast in this verse echoes more strongly 4:25:

10a: death → reconciled (because of sin—see 2 Cor. 5:19)

10b: life → salvation

The point is the same as 5:9, if Jesus dies for sinners (Gentiles), then they will be cared for now that they are in the fold.  What is also true of 4:25 and 5:9-10, is the importance of the resurrection.  Paul never diminishes the resurrection in the scheme of things.

5:11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.

We boast in what God has done and not in our (from the perspective of the Gentile) possible status as Jews (the Judaizer’s goal for Gentiles).  We boast in Jesus’ (and Abraham’s) faithfulness and not in the unfaithfulness that has characterized the Jews under the law.

THE MERIT OF JESUS’ FAITHFULNESS 5:12-21

INTRODUCTION

This section concludes the whole argument starting at 1:18.  This section views what Paul has said from the larger perspective of salvation-history.  This section highlights the merit of Jesus’ faithfulness, just as chapter 4 highlights the merit of Abraham’s faithfulness.  If I am right that this section is a conclusion to 1:18ff., then this is strong evidence that Paul’s central Christological idea is Jesus’ faithfulness, since that theme is beyond doubt paramount in this section.

5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

The “therefore” is meant to draw a conclusion from what has gone before.  Paul has been arguing that justification is through the faithfulness of the merit earning characters of Abraham and Jesus.  Here, Paul goes back beyond Abraham to Adam to show the universality of Jesus’ merit-earning faithfulness.  If faith/belief is what was in Paul’s mind, then it is difficult to determine how this section concludes anything Paul has said so far.  The verse itself is chiastic: 

Sin into the world entered and through sin death,

So also to all humans death came, in as much as all sinned.

The one man is Adam and his sin brought death (see Gen. 1:17).  But Adam’s sin brought death to all.  Adam’s sin merited bad things for all peoples.  But notice the last phrase, ‘in as much as all sinned.”  Human responsibility is preserved.  Paul does not say that all die simply because Adam sinned.  Paul does not say that all humans are “sinners” (as opposed to “righteous”), but he says that all humans sin and that sin deserves death; this is Adam’s universal legacy.

5:13 For before the law sin was in the world, but sin is not accounted when there is no law.

Paul wants to say that sin and death reigned even before there was a law which turned sin into a transgression.

5:14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses even over the ones who did not sin in the manner of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one coming.

Paul denies any wiggle room for an excuse against the reign of sin and death.  Even if one sins in a manner that is not a transgression from a specific divine command, death still follows sin.  The last clause refers to Jesus as will become clear from what follows.

5:15 But the grace is not like the trespass; for if by the trespass of one man, the many died, much more surely will the grace of God and the gift in grace of the one man Jesus the Messiah abound to the many.

The grace is on my scheme Jesus’ faithfulness and the righteousness it merited.  If humanity is adversely affected by Adam’s disobedience (the many = the all in verse 12), it will all the more be benefited by Jesus’ obedience.  All of this is evidence that the importance of Abraham was his faithfulness benefitting humanity as does Jesus’ faithfulness.  Also, to mimic the last clause of verse 12, we could say that the condition for coming under the merit of Jesus is faithfulness: “to all persons life was made available, in as much as any were faithful.”  As an aside, Paul’s Adamic Christology may touch a saying of Jesus in Mark 10:45 where Jesus mentions the ‘Son of Man’ and ‘the many.’

5:16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin.  For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.

This verse is really about the grace involved in Jesus’ activity.  If condemnation results from one trespass, then much more grace results for many trespasses.  Jesus’ obedience covers everyone’s disobedience.

5:17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus the Messiah.

If death followed Adam’s disobedience, then more surely will life follow Jesus’ obedience.

5:18 Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

Adam’s disobedience and its results are clearly set in opposition to Jesus’ obedience and its results.  Jesus’ faithfulness merits righteousness and life for those who do not deserve it.  The one act of righteousness probably is meant to refer to Jesus’ death on the cross, which proves that for Paul, Jesus’ death ought to be understood primarily in terms of obedience.

5:19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

The crux of this verse is the meaning given to “were made” and “will be made.”  What is the relation between Adam’s trespass and subsequent freely chosen trespasses and what is the relation between Jesus’ righteous faithful act and subsequent freely chosen righteous acts?  I insist on the description “freely chosen,” because Paul’s language of being without excuse implies as much.  In the case of Jesus, it could be said his righteous act led to the gift of the Spirit.  But then the same question rears its head because in the Old Testament prophets the Spirit “makes” people righteous.  The answers to these questions about the interplay between what God does and what is expected on the human side is played out in what Paul says in the following, but I think it is clear that the condition of the people involved is real.  The sinners are really sinners and the righteous are really righteous.  This means that the righteousness in question is not imputed as some legal fiction.

5:20 But the law entered that the trespass should increase, but where sin increased, grace increased more,

The effect of Jesus’ obedience (the grace in question) is to counter much disobedience (see 5:16 above).  Paul says more than just that the law makes one recognize their sinfulness (3:20) in that the law brings with it transgression (4:15), but he says that the law increases the trespass and the implication is that it was meant to do so.  This does not necessarily mean it was the law’s sole purpose, but only that once the law increased sin it was used by God in his ultimate plans.  How does the law increase the trespass?  It is interesting that ‘trespass’ is here singular and is used concerning Adam’s sin (5:15, 16, 18), and this may be a clue as to how to interpret the “increase.”  Perhaps all Paul is saying is that the trespass is increased by becoming a transgression and therefore comes under a harsher does of wrath.  The law makes the situation introduced by Adam even worse, which is Paul’s overall point anyway.  The law did not answer Adam’s curse but made it worse.  But, Paul also seems to tell a story how the law increases sin in the sense of amount in chapter 7.

5:21 so that , just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus the Messiah our Lord.

Note the following parallelism:

Sin → death

Grace → life.

This verse virtually proves that when Paul mentions grace he has in mind Jesus’ merit-earning faithfulness.  In this way, “grace” is teased out in terms of righteousness, which is “through [the faithfulness] of Jesus the Messiah.”

CONSEQUENCES OF PAUL’S LAW-FREE GOSPEL 6:1-8:39

PAUL’S GOSPEL AND SIN 6:1-23

INTRODUCTION

In 5:16, Paul says the gift followed many trespasses, and in 5:20 that where sin increased, grace increased more.  This naturally leads to the observation noted in chapter 3 that if sin increases grace, then why not sin so grace can increase?  Above, I noted that Paul does not complete the contrast in 5:12 and I offered one in my comment on verse 5:15:

5:12: so also to all persons death came, in as much as all sinned

My contrast: so also to all persons life is made available, in as much as any are faithful

I contend that chapter 6 is meant to add the final clause “in as much as any are faithful.”  One must sin to come under the umbrella of Adam’s sin; one must be faithful to come under the umbrella of Jesus’ faithfulness.

6:1 What then are we to say?  Should we sin that grace may increase?

Humanity’s disobedience led to God’s gift of Jesus’ obedience.  Something bad led to something good.  The question whether we ought to sin (a bad) in order to lead to more grace (a good) is probably related to 3:8; Paul’s law-free gospel was being interpreted to entail moral laxity.  This is exactly the charge I level on how Paul is interpreted according to the standard evangelical story!

6:2 May it never be!  We who died to sin, how can we still live in it?

The answer is an emphatic “no.”  Paul claims we have already died.  Sin led to death, but when someone dies the penalty has been paid and the rule of sin is at an end (see chapter 7 below).  Of course, Paul will spell out what he means by our dying.

6:3 Or are you ignorant that as many as were baptized into the Messiah Jesus, into his death you were baptized?

The idea of incorporation becomes explicit here.  When we were baptized into (eiV) Jesus, we were incorporated into him and we partake in his character and destiny.  Therefore, since Jesus has died, those incorporated into him also die.

6:4 Therefore, we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as the Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

If Jesus’ death meant that we are dead to sin, then his resurrection means that we are alive to obedience.  That is why Paul uses the verb “might walk” (peripathswmen), which has to do with conduct (see Jn. 8:12; 11:9-10; 12:35 and Paul elsewhere in Romans 8:4; 13:13, 14, 15—which highlights another commonality between Paul and John).  This also shows that the righteousness of a Christian is not imputed as a legal fiction sine it involves real conduct.

6:5 For if we have been united in the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of his resurrection.

The future tense of “we shall be” indicates that Paul has in mind the eschatological resurrection.  Even so, I think Paul is applying that future resurrection to present reality (see verse 11).

6:6 Knowing that our old humanity was crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, that we should no longer serve sin.

Our old humanity refers to the Adamic epoch ruled by sin and death.  Though the body of sin has been ‘destroyed,’ there is still a possibility of sin.  Paul is really making an ethical point here: “do not serve sin.”

6:7 For whoever has died has been declared free from sin.

Again, Paul is stating that sin’s rule has ended once there is death.  The meaning of “declared free” may mean that one does not have to answer to the consequences of sin.  Since death is the penalty of sin, once death occurs, sin is irrelevant.

6:8 But if we died with the Messiah, we believe that we will also live with him.

Again, incorporation is at play.  Paul takes death as a given but reminds his audience that Jesus also rose to life.  Therefore, our behavior should be such that we are alive to obedience, that is, we ought to live to God.

6:9 We know that the Messiah, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Paul often personifies sin, or treats it as an outside force, and he does the same with death here.  Death has lost it power, because God intended humans to have dominion and Jesus is taking that rightful position.

6:10 The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Jesus died to sin in that it was sin that was the reason he died.  He is no longer answerable to sin, but enters the dominion of God.  The dominion of God involves obedience and life, not disobedience and death.  Jesus’ mission goes beyond death, but intrinsically involves the resurrection.

6:11 So you must also reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in the Messiah Jesus.

Paul now sums up the ethical lesson to be had from the life of Jesus.  Since you are incorporated with Jesus--note the phrase “in the Messiah Jesus,” you must live obediently, as he lived obediently.  The verb “reckon” no doubt harkens back to chapter 4 and Genesis 15:6.  This reckoning is not a fiction but is a determination to live obediently.  Also of importance is the “living to God.”  The Maccabean martyrs are said to “live to God”:

4 Maccabees 7:19 …since they believe that they, like our patriarchs Abraham , Isaac and Jacob, do not die to God, but live to God.

4 Maccabees 16:25 ...they know also that those who die for the sake of God live to God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs.

To live to God is to be obedient and to be rewarded with life on account of that obedience.

6:12 Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body, so as to obey its lusts.

The implication is that it is in our responsibility to not let sin have dominion.  Dominion belongs to obedient humanity, not to sin and death.

6:13 No longer present your members to sin as instruments [or “weapons”] of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments or “weapons”] of righteousness.

Humanity has in its power the choice to fight on either side, either on the side of unrighteousness and sin, or on the side of righteousness and God.

6:14 For sin will not Lord it over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

It is wise to pay attention to the verbs’ tenses in this verse.  The first is future and implies that the situation in mind is eschatological.  However, the eschatological future is made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus, hence the present tense of the second verb.  “Under law” portends death since the law holds out death for disobedience and disobedience has characterized the Jews as a whole.  However, Jesus redeems those under law.  It is Jesus’ obedience that ends sin’s reign.

Jesus’ activity is related to the gift of the Spirit (see Gal. 3:13-14 and 4:5-6) and here we have further proof if we compare this verse with Galatians 5:18:

Romans 6:14 not under law → but under grace

Galatians 5:18 not under law → but if by the Spirit you are led

The parallel of grace and Spirit makes sense if Jesus’ activity is associated with grace as I have argued it is.

6:15 What then?  Should we sin, because we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be!

Paul repeats the question asked in 6:1, probably because of the word “grace” in the previous verse; after all, 6:1 was asked after the discussion of grace in 5:20-21.  Again, the thought is that Paul’s law-free gospel leads to moral laxity.

6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?

Paul repeats his basic theological doctrine that was elucidated in chapter 2:

Obedience (to God) → righteousness (life—see vss. 22-23)

(obedience to) sin → death

If you sin, you obey the master sin, and sin has dominion.  Notice that righteousness requires obedience and is not just a legal fiction that is merely imputed for just believing.

6:17 But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves to sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted,

The key phrase in this verse is “from the heart.”  The interlocutor that Paul rails against has works of the law but is not obedient to the law from the heart (see 2:5, 29).  Paul does not say that his audience “believed from the heart,” but that they obeyed from the heart.  This is significant because in 10:10 he will say that “with the heart one pisteuetai [usually translated as “believes”] resulting in (eiV) righteousness;” recall in the previous verse he says obedience leads to (eiV) righteousness.  This is a subtle argument that pistiV for Paul is best interpreted as faithfulness.

There is some question as to the meaning of “the pattern of teaching.”  The word for pattern (tupoV) is used by Paul to refer to someone who is a model or type (see especially Phil. 3:17, since Jesus in that letter is viewed as a model or example; 1 Thess. 1:7).  I would argue that the pattern of teaching is the obedience of Jesus, that is, the faithfulness of the Messiah.

The pattern is something to whom/which his audience is handed over.  Further evidence that the pattern is Jesus is that it would be odd to say that the Romans were handed over to a pattern of doctrine, since the topic still seems to be that of slavery.  Perhaps part of how Jesus makes righteous is to be an example of the righteous path, the way, as John would say.

6:18 and having been freed from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness.

In Exodus, Israel was freed from Egypt in order to serve God, that is, in order to be God’s slaves.  The concept is the same here (see v. 22, where God takes the place of righteousness).  Another way Jesus makes righteous is by freeing slaves.  The aorist “having been freed” no doubt refers to Jesus’ activity in the past.

6:19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh.  For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and greater and greater lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.

Paul speaks in terms of slavery so his audience can understand by analogy.  The imperative returns as Paul indicates that it is the Romans’ responsibility to present themselves as slaves to righteousness (see 6:13).  The choice facing the Romans is clear, as Bob Dylan would say, you’ve got to serve somebody.

1.       Slaves to impurity and lawlessness.  Both these words are very Jewish.  Note the word lawless (anomia), which proves the law itself is a good thing.

2.       Slaves to righteousness.  The word for sanctification is also very Jewish (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Num. 15:40; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9).  See my comment on Galatians 1:1 where I argued that sanctification includes ethical behavior.

6:20 For when you were slaves to sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Paul’s point is that the choice facing the Romans is between alternatives which are mutually exclusive.

6:21 Therefore, what advantage did you have then from the things of which you are now ashamed?  For the end of those thins is death.

The end of disobedience is death, just as the end to righteousness is life.

6:22 But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification.  The end is eternal life.

The goal of the Christian mission is life.  Paul is always thinking past forgiveness of sin to the advantages which accrue as a consequence of forgiveness.

6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is life eternal in the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

 Jesus’ faithfulness is a gift.  Jesus did not have to die.  Again, Paul’s target is life, and it is this life that Jesus makes possible.

PAUL’S GOSPEL AND THE LAW 7:1-25

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the role of the law.  The main thesis is that the real problem is not the law but sin.  In other words, the problem is not trying to obey the law, the problem is not trying to obey the law.  The law did not have the power to make itself be obeyed.  Instead, the law held out punishment (death) for disobedience.  Hence, the law turned out to be a negative because of sin.  In fact, sin used the law’s threat of punishment for its own ends.

I believe the misinterpretation of this chapter has gone a long way in securing the overall misinterpretation of Paul’s theology.  It may be true that the current Christian life is a spiritual battle, but that is not what Paul is describing here.  Also, once one thinks that Paul is describing a Christian here, then one is going to conclude that sin is inevitable and so moral laxity follows.

7:1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law lords it over a person only during that person’s lifetime?

Through the verb “lords it over,” Paul now links the law to death (6:9) and sin (6:14).  This is an adumbration that the real culprit is not the law, but sin and death.  The law does not help in the fight against sin and death but is instead used by them.  This is done because the law punishes sin with death.  Paul wants to ultimately show that the law is no longer binding on someone who has died. 

7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning her husband.

Notice that in this verse the analogue to the woman is the one who is released from the law, that is us.

7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.  But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.

The law has authority as long as the husband lives, but if he dies, the woman is free from the authority of the law.  Now, the authority of the law is tangible.  An adulteress will suffer everything that comes with that, and once the husband dies the wife will no longer be liable to be charged with adultery if she marries that very same other man.

7:4 So that, my brothers and sisters, you also were put to death to the law through the body of the Messiah, for you to be joined to a different one, to the one having been raised from the dead, that we may bear fruit to God.

The upshot is that if a person is incorporated with Jesus, than they will share in Jesus’ destiny, and since Jesus died, then the “old humanity” of a person also dies.  In this way, we are both the husband that dies and the woman who is freed to be joined to another.  Our old humanity dies in order that we are free to be joined to Jesus.  Note that the purpose of our change of “marital status” is that we may bear fruit to God.  “Bearing fruit” harkens back to 6:21-22 where fruit is clearly related to ethical behavior.

7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions through the law were working in our members, so as to bear fruit to death.

The description of being in the flesh no doubt pertains to our old humanity (6:6) with a tinge of reference to the Jewish rite of circumcision, a work of law (see Phil. 3:3-4 and Gal. 6:13).   The sinful passions operate “through the law.”  How the sinful passions operate by manipulating the law is further elucidated in verses 7-13, but the main point is that sin is the culprit not the law.  However, a clue is already indicated by the result here in this verse.  Sin was operating through the law to produce death and this may indicate that sin manipulated the law’s death penalty to its own advantage (see Gal. 2:19).  The mention of fruit implies that though sin is a force it is humanity’s sinful acts that lead to death.

7:6 But now we were released from the law, having died to that in which we were being held, so as to serve in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter.

 We died to the law through the body of Jesus (7:4) in order that we may serve in the Spirit (bear fruit).

We were released from the law to serve.  The Greek word for “serve” (douleuein) is related to the word for slave (see 6:16, 22) and that makes sense given that in verse 4 we were released from the law to bear fruit to God.  On the Spirit/letter dichotomy see 2:28-29; the following contrast helps define this dichotomy:

1.       Outwardly 2:28 →  inwardly 2:29

2.       In the flesh 2:28; 7:5 → heart 2:29

3.       Spirit 2:29; 7:6 → letter 2:29; 7:6

I take “letter” to be the mere physical sign of covenantal membership which is directed by the written law.  This kills (see 2 cor. 3:6--because of the law’s death sentence on unfaithfulness), but the Spirit gives life.  The Spirit is what the New Covenant promises, which makes for obedience to undo the Old Covenant which brought disobedience/death.

7:7 What then will we say? That the law is sin?  By no means!  I would not have experienced sin except through law.  I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Since Paul put sin and law together, this begs the question whether the law is sin.  In the following he will exonerate law and blame sin.  What does Paul mean when he says that he came to experience sin through the law?  This question is premised on the meaning of the word “experienced”, which is also translated as “to know.”  However, the English “know” does not tend to convey the experiential dimension of the Greek; for example, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, we are told Jesus did not know sin, which probably means he did not experience sin.  The law brought about the circumstances for the “I” in this verse to sin.  I will have more to say about the “I” in this verse, but suffice it to say that I do not think Paul uses it to refer (only) to himself.

Paul then gives an illustration no doubt echoing the tenth commandment—he refers to that commandment at 13:9.  He probably is using this commandment as a summary of all the law as was done in Philo and 4 Maccabees (!) 2:6, see also James 1:15.  I think the meaning is that the law makes the “I” aware that coveting is a sin, but that the very idea of a prohibition begs a rebellious response, especially for a prideful and self-centered individual.  It comes down to authority and what authority people want to serve.

7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment produced in me every kind of covetousness.  For apart from the law sin is dead.

A very intriguing way to interpret this verse is to liken personified sin as the serpent and the “I” as Adam.  The serpent used the commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to get Adam and Eve to do just that.  The serpent begins his talk with Eve by (mis)stating the commandment God gave: “Even though God told you not to eat of any tree in the garden…”  The serpent uses the commandment to prick at Eve’s pride and accuses God of being protective of his turf.  Interesting too is the words used to describe Eve’s relationship to the forbidden tree: it was a “lust to the eyes” and lovely (literally: “that which is desired).

The probable echo of the Genesis story also serves to bring out the representative character of this whole section.  Paul is really not speaking about himself but the “I” is really referring to Israel who received the law and mirrored the story of Adam (every person) who received the commandment.  Paul’s point is then that the Jews are just as part of the Adamic epoch as Gentiles.

Before the commandment was given the Serpent apparently did not harass Adam and Eve.  Therefore, Paul adds that without the law, sin is dead.

7:9-10a And I was living without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died,

This could very much apply to Adam, since he was without the commandment concerning the tree and supposedly was to live forever.  But with the commandment, sin took advantage and killed Adam for his disobedience.  The commandment gave a death sentence—a sentence the serpent flat out lied about (see Gen. 2:17; 3:4).  This surely gives a representative flavor to the “I” used here.  Paul is really not speaking of himself but is making a broad historical sweep to say something about the law, and that it is manipulated by sin.  After all, Paul himself was never living without law since he was born under the law and he himself did not die when the commandment entered the picture, for the commandment was always there for Paul.  For the use of “I” in relation to Israel as a whole see Mic. 7:7-10.

7:10b and I discovered that the commandment, which was meant for life, was death to me.

I think Paul means what he says here: the law was meant for life.  Two Old Testament passages bring this out (one Paul quotes, the other he quotes from the chapter it is in):

1.       Leviticus 18:5 (quoted in Gal. 3:12 and Rom. 10:5): “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.”

2.       Deuteronomy 30:16 (Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 30 in Rom. 10, the same chapter he quotes Lev. 18:5): “If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees and ordinances, then you shall live…” (see also Deut. 6:24).

However, the flipside is that the law promises death for disobedience and that is what happened, Israel as a whole disobeyed God.

7:11 For sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

It is hard not to hear the echo of the Genesis story, for in Genesis 3:13 it says “the serpent deceived me and I ate.”  Again, this points to Paul’s “I” to be really about Israel who are living out the Adamic epoch just as much as the Gentiles.  Also, we ought to note carefully that the law does not kill, but it is sin that deceives and sin that kills.

7:12 So, the law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good.

The law is God’s law; therefore, it is exactly how Paul describes it here.  Therefore, it cannot be that trying to fulfill the law is undesirable.

7:13 Then the good brought death to me?  May it never be!  But sin, that it may be shown as sin, through the good, working death to me, that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

Once again Paul repeats that the commandment is good, but that the culprit is sin.  Sin tries to deceive by breaking the connection of itself with death (Gen. 3:4: “you will not die”), but the law is forceful in its testimony that sin leads to death.  Since the law is good, the stark contrast with sin, makes sin all the more recognizable.

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual but I am of the flesh having been sold under sin.

The law is further exonerated by being labeled spiritual.  But was not the law on the letter side of the letter/Spiritual divide of verse 6?  Notice that now the problem is not the law but the “I”.  When the law is viewed as letter, Paul has the ‘works of law’ in mind, especially the fleshy rite of circumcision.  When the law is viewed as that which ought to be obeyed, it leads to life (= spiritual).  This reinforces my suggestion that when Paul speaks of the “I” he does not mean himself but the Jews/Israel who are under the law and sold under sin.  The present tense makes no difference because that is the current state of the Jews/Israel at the time.  For Paul, the Christian is not under sin but under grace.  I think we go totally astray when we read chapter 7 as Paul’s autobiography. 

7:15 For what I work I do not know, for I do what I want, but I do what I hate.

The “for” indicates that this verse will explain the meaning of the clause in verse 14 (“sold under sin”).  As a start, the phrase “under sin” is a sister or at least a cousin to the phrase “under sin” and since Jesus redeemed (bought back slaves) those under law (Gal. 4:5), makes sense that Jesus rescues those “under sin” (Rom. 6:18, 22).  I take this as strong evidence that Paul in not referring to Christians in this verse/section.  He is describing the typical Jew before the activity of Jesus, and this would of course include Paul himself.  What the Jew does not do what they want to do is the law!  They want the good but they do the opposite; they sin.

7:16 Now if what I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.

That the paradigmatic Jew does not do the law, does not mean that the law is not good, it just means that the paradigmatic Jew does not do what they want to do.

7:17 But it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

It seems that not only is the law exonerated but the “I” too.  I think that Paul is putting his finger on a psychological truth that there is often a conflict in one’s moral life, especially when long-term desires and goals collide with short-term temptations.  However, Paul does not say that the “I” escapes responsibility.  The two “I”s are still the same “I.”  The interpreter who wrongly thinks that Paul is describing the Christian is right about one thing and that is the person so described is not totally unregenerate.  The “I” still knows the good and that is saying a lot.

7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh, for the will to do good is there, but to work the good is not.

Notice the qualification “that is;” this again proves that that Paul is not claiming that the “I” is totally unregenerate but that there is a part that wills the good—that part he will call the “inner being” (v. 22) or the “mind’ (v. 23).  The inner being is contrasted with the flesh which again alludes to the fleshy rite of circumcision. 

I have also translated the word katergazesqai as work—most translate it as “do”—to highlight that what Paul is lamenting is not being able to “work the law” (remember the law is good) and this again

7:19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do is what I do.

The “I” or the paradigmatic Jew does not do the law and this proves the law is good and that is Paul’s point: verse 15 corresponds to verse 19 and 16 to 20.  Paul does not have the “I” lament that “it is impossible for me to do the good” or “I cannot do the good,” for this would imply that the “I” is not morally responsible, which is what Paul does not believe.

7:20 But if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who works it, but sin that dwells within me.

Again, as with verse 16, Paul exonerates the law and blames sin, which has been Paul’s goal all along.  Again, I think Paul is using personification to make a psychological point that there is often a spiritual battle within our being.  Paul nowhere states that humans are not responsible for their own behavior.

7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do good, evil lies close at hand.

The verse echoes verse 10b:

The evil that is present does not mean that the “I” is not morally responsible.

7:22 For I delight in the law of God with respect to the inner being.

Paul sums up his argument by noting how the paradigmatic Jew delights in the law because he knows that it is God given.  The inner being is not unregenerate and that is why Paul can say all are without excuse.  Sin-as-force or sin-as-power does not exonerate the “I” because there is an inner being who knows the good.

7:23 But I see a different law in my members warring against the law of my mind and capturing me by the law of sin that dwells in my members.

The Jews as a whole were captured by their own sin.  The “law of sin” is probably the Mosaic law as it is used by sin (see 7:7-12).  The “law of my mind” is the law as God’s law (vss. 22, 25).  We could schematize this as follows:

Law of sin: the Mosaic law when it is not obeyed (death sentence)

Law of the mind: the Mosaic law when it is obeyed (life)

The reference to “my members” probably is meant to point back to verse 18 and forward to verse 25 and in that case it refers to the flesh.

7:24 A miserable person I am, who will rescue me from this body of death?

This “I” laments and cries out to be rescued.  That Paul refers to Jews as a whole is bolstered by the simple observation that Jesus has already redeemed Christians from the law:

Galatians 3:13: The Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the law…

Galatians 4:5: …that the ones under the law he might redeem.

The ‘body of death’ is surely the same as ‘my flesh’ (7:18) and my members (7:23).  This identification will come into play in interpreting the next verse.

7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus the Messiah our Lord!  So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

Verse 25a thanks God for rescuing from the situation described in verses 14-24; he then sums up the whole section in 25b and therefore the sequence does not prove that he is describing the Christian life.  Jesus rescues from the body of death (flesh, members); it would not be very decisive rescue if the thing Jesus was suppose to rescue the “I” from, is left as it were.

PAUL’S GOSPEL AND THE SPIRIT 8:1-39

INTRODUCTION

I take chapter 8 to expand on 7:25a as an answer to the plight described in 7:14-14, 25b.  However, the conclusion of the argument is stated in 8:1 and then argued for in verses 2-11.  Note the series of “for”s in these verses which indicates that they are meant to prove the assertion in 8:1; this consideration should make us pause and reconsider interpreting 8:1 as a free-standing standing verse—it does not stand alone because it was established with blood, sweat and tears, and comes with a context that needs to be kept in mind.

8:1 There is now then no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Jesus.

The “now” highlights that what is discussed presently is the consequence of what Jesus accomplished by rescuing from the plight of chapter 7. The key to the verse is to understand “in Messiah Jesus” to refer to incorporation.  The word ‘condemnation’ harkens back to 5:16 and 5:18, where it is the result of disobedience.  It would be logical if “In Messiah Jesus” has something to do with the condition that negates condemnation and that is obedience.

8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Jesus freed you from the law of sin and death.

This explains why those in Jesus are not condemned.  The implication is that the situation in chapter 7 is over.  Jesus freed the “I” from condemnation.  The two laws echo 7:23:

Law of the Spirit of life = law of mind (law of God)

Law of sin and death = law of sin = condemnation

The law-as-obeyed (established through faithfulness, 3:31) brings life.  The law-as-disobeyed brings death.  There is no reason to doubt the laws here are one and the same Mosaic law.  The Mosaic law lacked the power to make for obedience (see next verse).  But the Spirit is the power that will make for obedience and therefore for life.  The Spirit is of course associated with life via the breath of life (Gen. 6:17; Ps. 104:29-30; Ezek. 37:5).  The “in Messiah Jesus” goes with ‘freed’ and explains how the freedom was accomplished.

8:3 For what the law had no power to do, in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sin offering, he condemned sin in the flesh,

This verse and the next explains how Jesus has freed from the law of sin and death, and the “for” indicates.  The Mosaic law did not have the power to make people faithful because it was hijacked by sin (sinful flesh), that is, it was met with unfaithfulness.

Jesus is humanity’s representative and he is human to accomplish what God had intended for humanity.  His being in the ‘likeness’ of sinful flesh might refer to his lack of sin or it could just mean that he was in the form of sinful flesh.  Jesus’ faithful obedience, which ends in death, breaks the hold of sin and death.  Sin’s death sentence on unfaithfulness is exhausted by Jesus’ sin offering (in the LXX peri amartiaV often translates “sin offering”).  There is no reason why Paul is not using “sin offering” in a metaphorical manner.  A sin offering is related to sin and Jesus’ activity is related to sin, hence the fuel for the metaphor.

8:4 that the righteous requirements of the law may be fulfilled in us the ones not walking according to flesh but according to spirit.

The purpose of Jesus’ activity is to make people righteous/faithful.  Since God’s final verdict depends on faithfulness, to make someone righteous is to “make” them be faithful.  The righteous requirement (singular) of the law represents just that faithfulness which God requires.  This is the law-as-obedience.  That this righteousness is not imputed is brought out by the verb for “walking” which implies real actions (not fiction).

Note that once again the Spirit is the counter to the impotent law.  The Spirit makes righteous (see 2 Cor. 3:3, 6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26-27).  The Spirit allows one to fulfill the law as it was meant to be.  But allowing the Spirit to do the work is still a human responsibility and humans are responsible for walking with the Spirit or not.

8:5 for those who live according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on things of the Spirit.

This verse is very similar to Galatians 5:19-23, where the contrast is between the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit,” and as the “for” indicates, the following (5-11) will expand on verse 4.  Paul want to explain why those who walk according to the flesh will not obey the law and are therefore condemned and why those who walk according to the Spirit do obey the law and are therefore not condemned.

1.       Those who walk according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh.

2.       Those who walk according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

8:6 For the mindset of the flesh is death, but the mindset of the Spirit is life and peace,

There is no reason to assume that Paul does not mean to include eschatological destinies here.

8:7-8 because the mindset of the flesh is enmity against God, for to the law of God it is not subject, for neither can it be, and those in the flesh cannot please God.

This is clear evidence that the problem with humanity is the lack of obedience to the law.  They will not obey it because their mindset is against God.

8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you.  But anyone who does not have the Spirit of Messiah does not belong to him.

Those with the Spirit have the resources to obey the law and are therefore able to offer the obedience God requires.

It is clear that the essence of being a Christian is to have the Spirit of God/Messiah because that life-giving power overcomes sin and provides the resources to fulfill God’s law and therefore to be reckoned righteous.

8:10 And if the Messiah is in you, on the one hand the body is dead because of sin, on the other hand the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The body of sin (6:6) and the body of this death (7:24) have been crucified with the body of the Messiah.  The Spirit is life because it enables the obedience required for life.  All of this is predicated on God’s righteousness (see 1:17).  The Christian is not to be identified as a sinner, contra the standard evangelical story.

8:11 And if the Spirit of the one having raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one having raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit in you.

The importance of resurrection reverberates through this entire verse.  Again, God is identified with the resurrection, not the crucifixion.  For Paul, Jesus’ resurrection not only has eschatological implications but effects the current situation.

8:12 So then brothers and sisters, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—

Paul states as facts what he really means as imperatives; human obligation to cooperate with the Spirit to overcome sin is implied.

 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you are destined to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live.

The criteria for eschatological destiny are elucidated.  It is not ‘belief in Jesus’ that matters but faithfulness; it is all in how you live, whether according to the flesh or by the Spirit.  It is the individual who “puts to death” their own bad practices.

8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit, these are sons of God.

Having and being led by the Spirit not only defines who belongs to Jesus (v. 9), but also who are sons of God.  It would make sense that those incorporated with the Son of God would also be sons of God, whether Jew or Gentile.

8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba Father.

The slavery in view here is probably slavery to the law’s death sentence, hence the fear.  The Judaizing issue is seeping through at this point.  Also, the “Abba” could very well be influenced by Jesus (Mk. 14:36; Gal. 4:6).  The Spirit empowers the obedience which defines a son of God.

8:16 The Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

The purpose of this verse is perhaps related to the importance in Judaism of having two witnesses (Deut. 19:15).  This would hint that there is still human cooperation involved with the work of the Spirit.

8:17 and if children, also heirs; heirs on the one hand of God, and on the other co-heirs with the Messiah, if indeed we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him.

The purpose of adoption is inheritance.  The Gentiles are probably in mind; they too will receive the promises.  Gentiles are heirs via their incorporation with Jesus.  But Paul fleshes out a bit what incorporation entails.  There is a condition attached.  I take that condition to be that of obedience/faithfulness, since I take the reference to Jesus’ sufferings to be on par with his obedience and especially his obedience unto death.  The theme of faithful suffering is of course prominent in the Maccabean literature and in the teachings of Jesus (Mt. 5:10-12; 21:33-46; 23:29-37).  We would have then have a nice parallel with the two parts of the Philippian hymn (see also 2 Cor. 1:5):

Philippians 2:6-8 Jesus’ obedience unto death = suffering

Philippians 2:9-11 Jesus’ exaltation = glorification

The implication is that glorification is the reward for obedience.  God is not mocked, what one reaps is what ones sows.

8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worth to be compared with the coming glory to be revealed to us.

Paul strikes a note of hope here.  The suffering that accompanies obedience to God will be swallowed up in the glory that is to come.  Even the word for revealed (apokalufqhnai), hints that the events are eschatological). 

8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God.

The mention of creation echoes the Genesis story since creation itself was effected by Adam’s sin.  Creation comes under humanity’s dominion and that dominion was drastically curtailed because of the fall.  So, creation longs for the rightful dominion that will be characterized by obedient humanity.

8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one having subjected it in hope.

“Futility” implies that creation is not what it should be.  God seems to have wanted to match creation with humanity’s fallen state (see 1:21 where the same word “futility” occurs).  This would make perfect sense since creation is under humanity’s dominion.

8:21 That even creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Again, creation is freed from corruption because it will be finally ruled by an obedient master.  It was Jesus’ prime mission to be this obedient master (= lord).

8:22 For we know that all the creation groans together and travails together, until now;

The language used here could be that of childbirth--a common metaphor for a period of suffering (see Mk. 13:8; Jn. 16:21 etc.).   The “until now” refers to the epoch that the true ruler of creation inaugurated, that is, Jesus the new Adam. 

8:23 and not only so, but also ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan inwardly, eagerly awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.

The “first fruits of the Spirit” echo the events at Pentecost (Acts 2) which itself is a Jewish festival commemorating the first fruits of the harvest.  The rest of the harvest is on the way, when all of creation will be redeemed.

8:24 For this hope we were saved; but hope being seen is not hope, for who hopes for what one sees?

The purpose of God’s saving activity is the glorified humanity as it should have been.  The decisive event in this process has been accomplished (hence the aorist verb), but the rest of the results await the future.

8:25 But if what we do not see we hope for, through patience we eagerly await for it.

Paul now gives encouragement probably in response to the sufferings mentioned in verse 18.

8:26 Likewise, the Spirit joins to help us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray, but the Spirit intercedes on our behalf with unexpressed groaning;

As creation groans (v. 22) and as we groan (v. 23), so the Spirit in us groans.  As hope is a cure for suffering, so the Spirit is a cure for our weakness; the Spirit knows what we need.

8:27 but the one search the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because according to God he intercedes on behalf of the saints.

God knows a person’s heart (see for example Ps. 44:21, Paul quotes Ps. 44:22 in verse 39).  It is interesting that Paul again refers to Christians as saints and not as sinners.

8:28 And we know that to the ones loving God, all thing work together for good, to the ones being called according to his purpose.

This verse has been too much individualized and therefore it has been taken out of its eschatological context and has been made to back-up a deterministic world-view where everything, including pain and evil, is God’s will.  This verse does not say that all things are good or are God’s will.  This need only mean that to those who love God, God works all things for the good, given the other constraints he may be under.

The first thing to notice about the verse is the condition “to those who love God.”  Paul was no doubt familiar with the link between loving God and obedience in scripture (Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 6:5-6; 7:9; Josh. 22:5; 1 Kings 3:3; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4).  Loving God implies obedience.  Only to those who love God is it said all things work for good.  This is in keeping with Habakkuk 2:4 in which the righteous are rewarded with life (the ultimate good thing). 

The final clause adds another condition on par with those who love God: those called according to God’s purposes.  I take Paul to be touching on the Jew/Gentile theme.  He uses language traditionally applied to Israel and applies it to Gentiles.  The issue of being called is taken up in 9:24-26 where the Gentile/Jew theme is explicit.  As will be seen, in 9:23, Paul uses a pro-word “he prepared beforehand” to indicate that the inclusion of the Gentiles was always in view.  I think the same is true here in chapter 8 (note the pro-words in 8:28 [even the word “purpose” is a pro-word] and 8:29-30).  Paul is just echoing what he said in 1:2 and Galatians 3:8:

Romans 1:2 the gospel was promised beforehand (proephggeilato) through his prophets in holy scripture

Galatians 3:8 the scripture having foreseen (proidousa) that by faithfulness God would justify the nations, pre-preached the good news (proeunggelisato) to Abraham

The main point is the global issue that things worked out for the inclusion of the Gentiles, not that things work out for each individual.  After all, the issue in chapter 11 will concern how God can work the good for Gentiles using Jewish unfaithfulness, a definite evil for Paul. Note also the similarity between this verse and 9:11, which also uses a pro-word.

8:29 Because whom he foreknew, also he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order for him to be the first born among many siblings.

The Jew/Gentile theme is evident here.  Since Israel is called God’s first born (Ex. 4:22), so now Gentiles can be in God’s family via incorporation into the Son of God (see comment on Gal. 4:5).  That Paul is speaking in terms of groups of people, and not on the level of the individual, is a key in interpreting the thrust of this verse, as well as the whole letter.  The two pro-words pick-up from the previous verse.

The pro-word “foreknew” (proegnw) pertains to God’s decision to enter into relationship with his people (including Gentiles).  That the word has this meaning in the Bible, see Genesis 18:19, Jeremiah 1:5, Hosea 13:5, Amos 3:2 and in Paul see 1 Corinthians 8:3, 13:12 and Galatians 4:9 and my comments on that verse.  The other pro-word, “predestined” (prowrisen), just means that God directs his people to a certain goal.  How God does this and how this interacts with the freedom of individuals is not discussed in this verse, but suffice it to say that what is true of groups is not true of every individual in that group.

The goal in this case is to be conformed to the image of Jesus (see Phil. 3:21).  Paul’s use of the word “image” is probably meant to evoke the Genesis account of Adam and so we have here evidence of Adamic Christology.  The meaning would then be that to be conformed to the image of Jesus is to be obedient and he was obedient and Adam was not.

8:30 And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified, and those who he justified he also glorified.

The “calling” of this verse picks-up from the calling in verse 28.  The next two words are familiar and finalize the process of salvation.  Justification is related to obedience (see especially 2:13) and glorification is the end result (8:17).  This corresponds with both Habakkuk 2:4 and the two parts of the hymn in Philippians.

8:31 What then will we say to these things?  If God is for us who is against us?

In line with my interpretation of the preceding, I take Paul’s point here to be that the Gentiles (and Jews of course) ought to feel secure in their standing with God.  Those “against us” would then likely include the Judaizers.

8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything?

That Paul has the Gentiles in view is evidenced by his use of the word “all” (Gentile as well as Jew).  The first clause seems to allude to Genesis 22:16 where God comments on Abraham’s faithfulness.  It is significant that Paul would compare God’s faithfulness with Abraham’s.  This would be strong evidence that when Paul mentions Abraham elsewhere he has his faithfulness in mind.  Those who would disagree would read the evidence differently and would argue that Paul does not refer to the Isaac incident elsewhere, especially in chapter 4.  However, I pointed out that the reason Paul does not mention the Isaac incident in chapter 4 is that by the time of that incident, Abraham was already circumcised (see my comment on 4:18), and that would not have fit Paul’s over-all argument in which Abraham was faithful even before his circumcision.  Nevertheless, Paul is wanting to assure that God will deliver on what he has done so far, especially when what he has done was so expensive (see 5:9-10).

8:33 Who will then bring a charge against the chosen of God?  God is the one justifying.

Again, I think that Paul here wants to assure the Gentiles that they too are chosen of God.  It is God, not the Judaizers, who justifies.

8:34 Who is the one condemning?  Messiah Jesus is the one having died, but who was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

The prosecutor does not have the last say (see Isa. 50:9).  The Gentiles can rest assure because Jesus is the defense attorney.  Those incorporated with Jesus will share his verdict of vindication (see Heb. 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:1-2).  As a side note, Paul’s idea here echoes a saying of Jesus (Mt. 10:32/Lk. 12:8), which would add evidence that Paul viewed Jesus as the new Adam (see ‘Son of Man’ in Lk. 12:8). 

8:35 Who will separate us from the love of the Messiah--tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword?

Paul wants to comfort the Romans in face of their faithfulness to God and not just from the arrows that life throws at anybody.   When Paul speaks of such things elsewhere, they are in the context of his faithfulness:

·         1 Corinthians 4:10 “because of the Messiah” followed by a list of hardships

·         2 Corinthians 4:11 “because of Jesus” preceded by a list of hardships

·         2 Corinthians 6:4 “God’s servants” followed by a list of hardships

·         2 Corinthians 11:23 “ministers of the Messiah” followed by a list of hardships

8:36 As it has been written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.”

Paul next quotes Psalm 44:22.  There, the Psalmist is complaining to god because faithfulness is not rewarded.  This verse heightens the drama to be addressed in the following last three verses in the chapter.

8:37 But in all things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

The past tense of “love” probably refers to Jesus’ obedient death which merited good things for those incorporated with him.  Jesus conquered death and sin and so do those incorporated into him.

8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Paul is convinced that nothing will get in the way of God’s promises, especially his promises to the Gentiles.  This would then provide a nice segue into chapters 9-11.

PAUL’S GOSPEL AND ISRAEL 9:1-11:36

INTRODUCTION

Paul’s basic argument is that God has used Jewish unfaithfulness to save not only Gentiles as a group but paradoxically Jews as a group.  It is in this way that God will be faithful to his promises to Abraham.  It is important to keep in mind that Paul’s categories are groups of people and not individuals.

GRIEF AND PAIN OVER JEWISH UNFAITHFULNESS 9:1-5

9:1 I am speaking the truth in the Messiah—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit.

Paul is giving emphasis to what he will state, but the implication is that his gospel, especially the law-free gospel for Gentiles, is accused of turning its back on the Jews/Israel.

9:2 There is great grief and unceasing pain in my heart.

Paul again signals that what he is to relate is a big deal.

9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from the Messiah for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh.

Paul’s love for his fellow Jews comes out crystal clear.  His sentiment mirror Moses’ sentiments when he intercedes for Israel after the golden calf incident (Ex. 32:32).  The phrase ‘according to the flesh’ refers to Paul’s fellow Jews.  The implication is that Israel as a whole has been unfaithful and is now under a curse.  This sets up the problem of chapters 9-11 because in the next verses Israel’s privileges are recounted and chief among them is God’s promise to bless them. 

9:4 They are the Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;

Paul’s grief concerns the Israelites, the covenant people, so named after their forefather Jacob=Israel (Gen. 32:28; 35:10-12), hence the Jews of this time may have preferred to be called “Israelites” or “children of Israel” rather than “Jews.”  Paul then lists six privileges (more if you count relationship to the patriarchs and to the Messiah in the next verse) that have made the Israelites special (I have noted next to the privilege examples where Paul talks about that privilege as extended to Jesus and those incorporated into him:

1.       Adoption (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5)

2.       Glory (Rom. 5:2; 8:18, 21)

3.       Covenants (Gal. 3:15-18)

4.       The law (true of Jesus, Gal. 4:4, but see Rom. 7:23; 8:2)

5.       Temple service (Rom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3)

6.       Promises (includes blessing to Gentiles, Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8)

That all these privileges extend to the Gentiles adds gravity to the issue Paul is presently discussing.

9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.

Paul adds to the list began in the previous verse:

7.       Patriarchs (Rom. 4:11-12; 16-17, where Abraham is father of both Jews and Gentiles)

8.       Messiah (Rom. 1:4, where I noted that the title “Son of God’ may have been meant to include all people, which is probably the reason for the clause “who is over all” here—the “all” again referring to both Jews and Gentiles—see 10:12).

Again, the privileges now apply to the Gentiles which add to the problem Paul is addressing.

GOD’S FAITHFULNESS TO THE COVENANT WITH ISRAEL 9:6-29

INTRODUCTION

There is a clash between Israel’s unfaithfulness and subsequent curse and God’s promise to bless her.  The structure of Paul’s thought here is very similar to chapter 3:

If this structure holds, then 9:14 and following corresponds to the issue raised in 3:5.  Paul will discuss those not chosen and their relation to his overall plan.

9:6 However, it is not as though the word of God has failed.  For not all the ones of Israel are Israel.

Paul is now going to address God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel given Israel’s unfaithfulness.  Paul will show that in the scriptures Israel’s unfaithfulness was not unexpected and that there always was a faithful remnant and this proves that it is faithfulness which defines “Israel.”

9:7 Nor is it as though all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants.  But ‘in Isaac will your descendants be reckoned.’

Paul’s point here is that the covenant promise was not valid for all of Abraham’s physical children, for that would have included Ishmael, therefore, it cannot be just a matter of physical descent.  Paul backs up his argument with a verse from Genesis (21:12).  The terms in this verse are repeated in 9:25-29, and since those verses concern Gentiles, we can be confident that Paul has Gentiles in mind here too.

9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

In this case, the children of the promise are only the line from Isaac and not the line from Ishmael who are the children of the flesh (see 4:13-21).  Of course, Paul’s real aim is to show that being a physical descendant of Abraham does not automatically make one a child of God, and likewise, not being a physical descendant of Abraham (Gentiles) does not disqualify either.  That Paul is ultimately thinking of Gentiles when he says ‘children of the promise’ is proved by Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

9:9 For this word is of promise: ‘About this time I will come and there will be to Sarah a son.’

The Israelites own existence as children of God is predicated on the promise and choice (see Gen. 18:10, 14) of God (Isaac) and not on physical descent (Ishmael).

9:10 Nor is that all, but also Rebecca, conceiving at one time by one man; Isaac our father.

The point here is that not only did Jacob and Esau have the same father, but they were fathered at the same time in one act.  Paul will now show that that not only is physical descent not decisive of true descent from Abraham but so is “works of law.”

9:11 For not yet having been born, nor practicing anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose in election might continue,

This verse and the following are certainly fuel for the standard evangelical story and its misinterpretation of Paul, so we must take care to understand what Paul is arguing and how he argues for it.

God’s choice of Jacob (Israel) over Esau was certainly not based on physical descent of any kind, nor on anything had Jacob or Esau done.  Paul’s overarching point is that Israel’s election was not dependant on what they did, that is, on ‘works of law.’  Likewise, God’s choice of the Gentiles did not depend whether they had done any ‘works of law,’ that is, whether they were circumcised.  That Gentiles are in view is evidenced by another pro-word (purpose) in this verse (see 8:28-30).

Why Paul is misinterpreted at this juncture is understandable.  Paul is comparing the case of Jacob and Esau to the case of Jews and Gentiles.  It is true that the good or bad actions of Jacob and Esau correspond to the ‘works of law’ in the Gentile/Jew case, but this does not prove that they are the same.  The two cases are analogous because in both cases it is actions which matter.  Paul did not have recourse to the language of ‘works of law’ for the simple reasons that the law had not been given yet and that both Esau and Jacob had been circumcised (we assume), and so ‘works of law’ was a non-issue.

It is a mistake, I believe, to interpret Paul here to be claiming that God chose Jacob t be saved and Esau to be damned.  This is precisely where the analogy breaks down.  Paul is interested in groups of people and even if God chooses the group of Gentiles for no reason other than his free-choice, that does not mean that individual Gentiles are exempt from meeting the conditions of salvation that Paul outlines in numerous other places.  Jacob is also not chosen because of his faith/belief either.  That there is a connection between election and salvation makes sense but this can be true of groups without trampling on the free-will of individuals (see the case of Achan and his relation to Israel).

Besides, the individuals Jacob and Esau can be seen as representative of groups of people anyway.  Paul will quote Malachi 1:2-3 in verse 13 and there Jacob and Esau represent Israel and Edom respectively.

9:12 not of works but of the one calling, it was said to her, ‘the greater will serve the younger.’

Here again, interpreters are thrown off course by the analogy between works and good/bad deeds.  As I mentioned in the previous verse, Paul’s analogy only involves what is done, and certainly “works of law” in the Gentile/Jew case are something done.  Paul’s point is that God’s choice did not consider what was done, for the simple reason that Jacob and Esau had not yet been born.

Also, Paul quotes from Genesis 25:23, where the full verse reads as follows:

Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born to you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.

As with the quote in the next verse, this verse is about groups of people.  Paul was no doubt aware of the collective role Jacob and Esau played.  Those roles are the focus of the election, not their respective salvation or damnation.

That Paul’s interest is ultimately with the Jew/Gentile application is hinted at in the text.  The Gentiles may be later in the salvation scheme but that does not mean they are any less for that.  This is evidence that he is portraying Israel as Esau just as he portrayed Israel as Ishmael.  The identification of Israel with Esau explains the use of “not of works” as a reference to Jews, and that God’s acceptance of Gentiles does not depend on their “works of law” (= circumcision).

9:13 As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’

I already mentioned that the context of this quote is about groups of people (Mal. 1:2-3).  I would take the ‘love” and the “hate” here to be related to God’s choice.  Jacob was chosen, but Esau was rejected.  Again, we are not told how God’s election or rejection relates to individual eschatological destinies and how their free-will is or is not involved.  Paul is simply not interested in that issue here.

9:14 What then will we say?  Is there injustice with God?  May it never be!

This question, which concerns God’s justice/truth/righteousness, is motivated by something before, but what exactly?  Is it that God is arbitrary?  I take the question to be related to the questions at 3:5 and 7.  Is God faithful in regards to his promise to Israel if he has chosen only a remnant within Israel and has treated the rest as Israel’s enemies (Ishmael and Esau)?

9:15 For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’

Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 as an answer to the question in verse 14, hence the ‘for.”  Paul is wanting something about God’s character to come to the fore.  The formula “I will have X on whomever I will have X” is similar to “I am who I am” in Exodus 3:14.  The context of both Exodus 33:19 and 3:14 involves Moses requesting something about God’s nature and intention.  God’s answer in 3:14 is related to his name (hyha; hwhy) and answers Moses’ reluctance in his role.  I take God’s answer to be akin to when we say “what will be will be” as a sort of acquiesce to a power out of our control.  However, Exodus 33:19 is also related by way of story-line and content to 34:6, where God’s nature is addressed directly in one of the most quoted verses in the Old Testament: Numbers 14:18; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:15; 103:8; 116:5; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3, 2 Chronicles 30:9 etc.  There, God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.  But the verse also says that God does not overlook guilt or iniquity.  That Paul states that this is said to Moses is significant because it was Moses who was graced to be specially related to God, and since Moses will be contrasted with Pharaoh, Moses is on the Gentile side of the overall application Paul intends.  This is perhaps hinted at by the Golden Calf context where Moses intercedes for Israel who is as undeserving of God’s grace at this point as the Gentiles.  Also significant is the grounds on which Moses intercedes, namely, that God should “hallow his name.”

I think Paul’s overarching point is that God can choose the Gentiles and not some Jews and that scripture adumbrates this reality, because the very nature of God involves grace, compassion, pity, in short, love.

9:16 So then, it does not depend on the one desiring nor on the one running, but on God, the one having mercy.

God’s election of Gentiles does not depend on their “works of law.”  This verse basically repeats the thought in 9:11-12.  This is just the same as Israel’s election.  From the Jewish perspective, when the Gentiles were chosen, they were not running nor desiring—they were not pursuing righteousness as 9:30 will put it—they were sinners and enemies.

9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’

Paul’s ultimate point is that the Jews are now playing the role which Pharaoh played in God’s redemptive scheme.  That the Jews are in the role of Pharaoh will come out in the next verse.  That Gentiles are in view is shown by the emphasis on God’s mercy, which is definitely applied to Gentiles in 11:30.

Paul quotes Exodus 9:16 to show that Pharaoh’s role was used by God to advance his redemptive scheme.  How Pharaoh’s evil (not letting the people go) benefited God’s scheme may be that God’s power would not have been known to the nations to such a degree were it not for the Exodus and pharaoh’s role in that (see Joshua 2:10).  The Jews will play a similar (positive) role in chapter 11, and it is that role which will elicit the question in 9:19.

9:18 So then, he has mercy on whom he wills and he hardens whom he wills.

The addition of “hardening” signals that Paul has the Jews, who are now unfaithful, in view, since he will apply that word to their condition in 11:7 and 25.  Again, God’s electing and rejecting do not depend on “works of law” or any other factor.

The emphasis also should not distract one from reading into Paul’s discussion issues of predestination as that is commonly understood.  First, as applied to the Jews, their hardening is only temporary.  Paul is simply not interested in whether Pharaoh was destined by God to be damned.

I would handle the issues involved here by making a distinction between God’s allowing something to happen—an act of omission, and God making something happen—an act of commission.  I would argue that when God “raised Pharaoh up” or “hardened his heart,” it was an act of omission.  God allowed Pharaoh to keep disobeying by refusing to let the Israelites go (to serve God).  Now, an act of omission can be described using the language of commission.  For example, image a man who passes by a child who is wounded and does not stop to help; suppose that the child dies due to that lack of help.  Now, the parents, when told of this, may legitimately say to the man, “You killed our child,” even though the man did not cause the death to happen in any way whatsoever.    The point is that acts of omission can be described as acts of commission.  I argue that Paul makes this very slide from language of omission to language of commission, when he quotes Deuteronomy 29:4 in 11:8.  The slide is especially facilitated when the act of omission is one where we would expect the agent in question to have acted differently.  It might have been expected that God would have intervened and forced Pharaoh to let his people go.

Therefore, when we are told that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, or raised him up, it may only mean that God allowed it to happen.  It should be noted that we are told Pharaoh hardened his own heart and it was only until the sixth plague that it is God who hardened the heart.  That the account is prefaced with statements that God does the hardening does not detract from Pharaoh’s initially hardening his own heart because the author could have been only recapitulating the whole account before the narrative begins.

9:19 You say to me therefore, “why then does he still find fault?  For who can resist his will?

I take the objection here to be on par with the objection of 3:5, 7.  If Pharaoh’s obduracy leads to God’s glory, a good thing, then why is Pharaoh blamed?  Paul has his application in mind: if the Jews’ unfaithfulness leads to God’s grace and faithfulness (righteousness), then why are they still judged?

That the real issue is Jewish unfaithfulness is proved by 11:20 where Paul says that the Jews were broken off because of unfaithfulness (apistia).  They did not strive for righteousness in the right way (9:32).  The implication is that the Jews are morally responsible for their unfaithfulness and not pursuing righteousness in the correct manner (see also 11:30-32, where the emphasis is on disobedience).

The question “who can resist his will?” is said in response to the “raising up” in verse 17 and the “hardening” in verse 18.  I take the logic to be as follows.  Since Jewish unfaithfulness serves God’s purposes, and those purposes cannot be resisted, then it appears that the Jews are of the moral hook.  I take Paul’s answer to this question to be in line with what I take to be the reality of the situation.  I offer two theses which I take to be true:

1.       God could have accomplished his purposes without (Jewish or) Pharaoh’s unfaithfulness.  If (1) were true, this would obviate the need for God to cause evil that good may come.

2.       It was God’s will for Israel to be faithful and for Pharaoh to let is people go.  If (2) were true, then God’s purposes would also have been fulfilled and so God’s purposes changed given the choices that Pharaoh made (see Jer. 18:8, 10!).

The reason God still finds fault is precisely because it was expected that Pharaoh and the Jews do as God wished.  They did not, so God, in his providence, used the evil for his purposes anyway (see 8:28).

9:20 But who are you, a human being, to argue with God?  Will what is molded say to the one who molds it “why did you make me so?”

Paul introduces a potter metaphor here which is a famous Biblical metaphor (Jer. 18:1-12, Job 10:8-9; Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8).  This verse is more evidence that God has the prerogative to use Jewish unfaithfulness for whatever purposes he wants.  Again, I take the question to be more about why God let the Jews lapse for far into disobedience and so accuses him of “making” them like what they are.

That Paul has ultimately the Jews in mind and not just Pharaoh is brought out in the Potter passage from Jeremiah where we read that the clay in the potter’s wheel was spoiled.  Now, in the LXX the word for spoiled is “fell” which is the word Paul uses to describe the Jews in 11:11 and 11:22.  The passage is more concerned with God refashioning an already spoiled piece of clay into some better vessel.  This is just what will happen to the Jews in chapter 11.  The whole context of Jeremiah 18 is a judgment but also a call to repentance.

9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump, this vessel for special use and that vessel for menial use?

Paul is again showing how God can fashion peoples for certain roles in his redemptive scheme.  The wording of this verse makes it unlikely that Paul has in mind eternal destinies of salvation and damnation.

9:22 But what if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath that have been prepared for destruction.

God wanting to demonstrate his wrath is a harsh dose of reality.  God’s power is also brought out by his wrath.  God hates unfaithfulness and wants to deal with it immediately.  However, God is patient and gives time to repent.  The connection to 2:4 evidences that Paul is referring to Jews.  It is interesting that 2:4 is then related to hardness in 2:5 and in this case there is absolutely no reason to think that this is God’s doing.  Paul does not say that the vessels are prepared for destruction by God.

9:23 So that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory.

God’s patience seems related to his wanting to show his mercy.  This may signal that the broken branch leaves room (and time!) for the grafting in of Gentiles too (11:17).  That the vessels are prepared beforehand (a pro-word = prohtoimasen) does not mean predestination since this applies to the group of Gentiles and not individuals.  The “beforehand” signals that the inclusion of Gentiles was always in God’s plans and announced in scripture.

9:24 Including us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.

The vessels of mercy are called also from the Gentiles.  Again, that Paul can refer to the Gentiles as a group does not imply that all Gentiles are in view and so he is not operating at the level of the individual.

9:25 As he also says in Hosea, ‘I will call a people who were not my people, “my people,” and the one not beloved I will call, “beloved.”’

Paul quotes Hosea 2:23 as scriptural proof of the “beforehand” in the previous verse.  Though the Gentiles were once rejected, they too can be included in God’s people.  However, that the original context of the Hosea quote had the Northern Kingdom of Israel in view, also shows that rejected Jews can also come back and be re-grafted in (11:23).

9:26 ‘And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” there they shall be called sons of the living God.’

This verse quotes from Hosea 1:10 and again shows that Gentiles can now be “sons of God” (see 1:3).  This is of course made possible by the Son of God, which is why I retained “son” in the translation over “children.”

9:27-28 And Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel, ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his judgment on the earth quickly and decisively.’

Paul is now addressing evidence that Jews too are called.  He quotes from Hosea 1:10 and Isaiah 10:22-23 to make his point.  A remnant will be saved.  Notice that the Israel passage echoes the founding promises to the Patriarchs “as the sand of the sea” and that the point is that the promise is consistent with only a remnant being saved.

9:29 And as Isaiah predicted, ‘Except the Lord of Hosts left to us a seed, as Sodom we would have become and as Gomorrah we would have been made like.’

The “predicted” (a pro-word = proeirhken) again proves that the current situation is in God’s plans.  The quoted text is Isaiah 1:9 and in the LXX includes the word sperma (seed) and echoes 9:7-8.

THE RIDDLE OF JEWISH REJECTION AND GENTILE INCLUSION 9:30-10:21

INTRODUCTION

Paul will discuss how the situation came about that there is a reversal with the bulk of Jews being rejected and some Gentiles being accepted.  Some of the weaknesses of the standard evangelical story come to the fore here.  I want to mention two differences between my interpretation and the standard evangelical story:

1.       I interpret 10:4 to mean that the Messiah is the goal of the law and not the end.

2.       I interpret 10:5, with its reference to Leviticus 18:5, to be complementary to Deuteronomy 30:12-14.

9:30-31 What then will we say?  That Gentiles not pursuing righteousness attained righteousness, that is, a righteousness by faithfulness?  But Israel pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive.

Paul uses in this whole section the metaphor of an athletic race to describe the situation and this will have some consequence when we come to 10:4:

·         9:30,31 diwkwn = pursuing of a goal

·         9:30 katelaben = attaining a goal

·         9:31 ouk efqasen = did not arrive

·         9:32 prosekoyan = stumbling

·         9:33 kataiscunw  = shame of defeat

·         10:4 teloV  = finishing line

Paul is setting up a contrast between Jews and Gentiles, and this again proves that he is mainly concerned with groups of people, which may explain the choice of “Israel” over “Jews,” and that is saying quite a bit:

Note that the goal in each case is not the same (righteousness versus law of righteousness).  Israel pursued the “law of righteousness” (nomon dikaiosunhV).  This phrase is best interpreted to mean that the law is a goal to be pursued because it is a standard of righteousness.  That the law is a positive goal is brought out by a few factors:

1.       In 9:4, the law is one of Israel’s privileges, and the next mention of the law is our phrase, the law of righteousness.

2.       Elsewhere in the section the law is associated with righteousness and not in opposition (see 10:4 and 10:5).

3.       Israel did not arrive at the law (it was defeated in the race).  As will be seen, it was not pursued the pursuit of the goal that was the problem, but that Israel pursued that goal in the wrong manner.  It took the wrong course.

The Gentiles attained righteousness because they took the right course.  It pursued righteousness by faithfulness (note that the law of righteousness is parallel with the righteousness by faithfulness).  As I have argued though, Paul means primarily Jesus’ faithfulness and this is precisely why he will say that Jesus is the goal of the law.

9:32 Why?  Because it was not by faithfulness but by works; they stumbled over the “stone of stumbling.”

The reason Israel did not attain the righteousness that the law delineates is that they did not pursue it in the right manner.  They did not pursue it by the faithfulness of Jesus.  One more argument that ek piotewV ought to be translated as “By faithfulness [of Jesus]” is that Jesus is the most likely referent to the “stone of stumbling” in the second half of the verse.  The stone of stumbling is not Israel’s belief or lack thereof.  Also, I have argued that the real contrast is between the “faithfulness of the Messiah” and the “works of law” throughout Paul’s letters (see Gal. 2:16).

9:33 As it has been written, ‘Behold, I place in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the one trusting in him will not be put to shame.’

Paul quotes two passages in Isaiah (8:14, 28:16) to explain what he means by the stone in the previous verse.  Most certainly the stone is Jesus (see 1 Pet. 2:6-8).  I have translated pisteuwn ep= autw as “trusting him” but I could have also said “being faithful to him” for I take that to be the primary meaning of the Isaiah passage.  The LXX word in Isaiah 28:16 is the same here which translates the Hebrew ,ymamh.  That Hebrew word in the context of 28:16 (see 28:17) and in a similar passage in Isaiah (1:21 and 1:27 [see 1:26]) primarily means “faithful.”  A faithful or trusting city is characterized by justice and righteousness.  It is a bit of a stretch to say in English that a “believing city” is characterized by justice and righteousness, if believing is nothing but a mental act.  Also, for Paul, “believing” and obeying will be equated in an upcoming passage in this section (see 10:16).

That the stone of stumbling is seemingly placed there on purpose is another example of an act of omission described as an act of commission.

10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer on their behalf is for their salvation.

This verse is very similar to 9:1-5, and so highlights again Israel’s failure.  That failure is directly related to their need for salvation.

10:2 I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge;

“Zeal” in this context is certainly a positive.  Zeal itself corresponds to God’s zeal (Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh. 24:19; Nah. 1:2).  Examples of zeal in the Old Testament are Simeon and Levi (Gen. 34) and Phinehas (Num. 25).  Paul was no doubt familiar with the Maccabean zeal and it is this attitude that Paul shared in his zeal in persecuting the church (Phil. 3:6).

The “but” is that the zeal is not according to knowledge/discernment.  Knowledge for is more than just belief but implies a full relationship.  Israel lacked the relationship with God needed to discern his will.  Being in relationship with God also means obeying his will.  This full sense of knowledge will help us interpret the following.

10:3 For being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.

The contrast here is often misunderstood.  The “righteousness of their own” refers not to Jews trying to earn their way to salvation by good works but rather their confidence in their covenantal relationship with God which is expressed in “works of law” such as circumcision.  On the other side is the righteousness of God which is expressed in the faithfulness of Jesus.  This contrast is stated clearly in Galatians 2:16 and Philippians 3:9.

The statement that Israel did not submit to God’s righteousness is therefore a statement that they did not submit to the faithfulness that Jesus exhibited.  They failed to incorporate with Jesus and therefore failed to share in his obedience which leads to life (see quote of Lev. 18:5 in 10:5.  The identification of God’s righteousness with the faithfulness of Jesus will help us interpret the enigmatic next verse.

10:4 For the Messiah is the goal of the law, resulting in righteousness to everyone being faithful.

The “for” at the beginning of four consecutive verses (10:2, 3, 4, 5) indicate that the verses belong together and help interpret each other.  The Jews did not submit to the righteousness of God.  Why?  Because they did not submit to Jesus, whose obedience exemplifies God’s righteousness.

Paul puts the phrase “goal of the law” at the beginning for emphasis.  Of course the crux of the passage is the meaning of teloV.  Is the Messiah the goal of the law or does he terminate the law?  Various considerations support the meaning as ‘goal’:

1.       In keeping with the athletic imagery, ‘goal’ would make perfect sense.

2.       As already noted, elsewhere in the vicinity, the law is positively associated with righteousness and not in opposition (see 9:31 and 10:5 where I will argue, as I did for the sister passage in Galatians, that Paul quotes Lev. 18:5 approvingly).

3.       If Paul had wanted to show that the word of God has not failed (9:6), it would be strange logic then to claim that Jesus terminated the law (which qualifies as the word of God).  This logic is the same for 10:5 and the quote of Leviticus 18:5.

The last phrase discusses the consequences of Jesus’ faithfulness.  He brought about the righteousness which was the goal of the law all along.  Those who want to partake in the benefits that Jesus brought must be incorporated with him and partake in his faithful obedience.  This I take to be the meaning of “to everyone pisteounti.”

10:5 For Moses writes concerning the righteousness of the law that ‘the one having done these things will live by them.’

The standard evangelical story misinterprets this verse similarly to Habakkuk 2:4; according to the standard reading, the claim is that Paul is saying that those who live by the law, that is, those who live their lives by the law, are to be contrasted with those who just believe.  One of the weaknesses of this standard reading is that it is forces to pit scripture (Lev. 18:5) against scripture (Deut. 30).

However, the verse offers a reason why Jesus is the goal of the law.  The law’s goal was to offer life (see 7:10 and my comments on Ga. 3:21, which is often take to be contrary evidence).  Jesus offers the life that the law was suppose to offer, but could not because it was too weak.  In my comments on Galatians 3:12, I argued along similar lines the Paul treats Leviticus 18:5 positively.

I take Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30 to be the two witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 18:15) to the fact that Jesus is the goal of the law.  After all, it is common for Paul to quote two scriptures to back up a point:

·         9:25-26

·         9:27-29

·         9:33

·         10:11-13

·         10:19-21

·         11:8-10

·         11:26-27

Also, both verse come from Moses, and since the Jews ought to have followed Moses, they are without excuse.  Finally, the content of Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy is similar.  Both tie together the law and the life that follows as a consequence (Deut. 30: 6, 15-17, 20).  Here is an example where the English translation gets in the way of the correct reading.

10:6-8 And the righteousness of faithfulness speaks thus, ‘Do not say in your heart, who will ascend into heaven?’  That is to bring the Messiah down; or, ‘who will descend into the abyss?’  That is to bring up the Messiah from the dead.  But what does it say?  ‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart.’  That is the word of faithfulness which we preach.

It has been argued that Paul intends a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy by the word de, which is translated as “but”.  However, de need not signal a contrast but may instead be simply a conjunctive that means ‘and’.  In 10:10, Paul uses the same set of participles as he uses here (gar and de), and there the de clearly means ‘and’:  “for with the heart…and with the mouth.”

Paul begins his quotation from Deuteronomy 30 with a phrase found in Deuteronomy 9:4 (see also 8:17): “do not say in your heart.”  The context is very important.  In Deuteronomy, the quote continues:  ‘…it is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to occupy this land’; rather it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you.’  This text is a stern warning not to rely on one’s own righteousness of privileged standing before God.  That is a lesson Paul has been hammer home.

Paul parallels Moses’ writing with the righteousness of faithfulness speaking.  Those who see a contrast here think there is a contrast between ‘writing’ and ‘speaking’ akin to the contrast between letter and spirit.  However, I take the difference to be merely rhetorical.  It could signal that what is spoken is the word and the word will be mentioned in the quote from Deuteronomy.

The other question is the meaning of the personified ‘righteousness of faithfulness’.  This expression most likely means the righteousness that comes from faithfulness, which mirrors Leviticus 18:5 well:

1.       The ‘having done these things’ corresponds to faithfulness.

2.       The ‘will live’ corresponds to righteousness.

The text Paul quotes is Deuteronomy 30:12-14.  That text is about doing the commandments of God (30:11).  The point is that the keeping of the law is neither too difficult nor beyond reach—a statement that cuts right through the heart of the standard evangelical story.  Paul’s application is since the Messiah is the goal of the law, one does not have to ascend into heaven to find the law (= Jesus), because Jesus already came down from heaven (incarnation) from where he is now (ascension); and one does not need to descend into the abyss because Jesus was already there—but was resurrected.  Jesus represents the keeping of the law since it is his faithfulness/obedience that is the pivot point of salvation history.

The question arises why Paul omits the introductory phrase about the commandment not being too hard or far away (30:11) and why he omits the very important phrase “so that you can do it” from Deuteronomy 30:14.  If one interprets teloV nomou as Jesus if the end of the law, then Paul’s quotation of Deuteronomy can be seen as an alternative to the “doing” of the law and that is why Paul omits references to doing.

However, I think the evidence points in the opposite direction.  First of all, on my interpretation, the opening pistewV in the “faithfulness of righteousness” already implies doing since faithfulness entails doing God’s will.  Second, Since Paul’s interest is really in showing that Jesus is the goal of the law he wants to show that both Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:12-14 point to Jesus; the focus is not on how individuals are saved per se.  Therefore, it would be odd to say that one has to “do” Jesus.  What matters is incorporation with Jesus, reception of the Spirit resulting in a circumcised heart, resulting in faithfulness and righteousness.  This is the process that Paul alludes to in 10:9-10.  What one does in this process is to be faithful (see my interpretation of pisteushV in 10:9 and pisteuwn in 10:10; so doing is not eliminated).  Furthermore, what Jesus has done is alluded to in Paul’s glosses on Deuteronomy 30:12-14.

A familiar pattern develops:

1.       The descent into the abyss corresponds to Jesus’ obedience unto death which corresponds to Philippians 2:6-8.

2.       The ascent into heaven corresponds to Jesus’ exaltation as vindication of his obedience, which corresponds to Philippians 2:9-11 (see Phil. 2:11 and 10:9 below).

This pattern is “the word of [Jesus’] faithfulness which we preach” (10:8).  The point of verse 8 is that Jesus brought near the obedience that the law demanded.  This faithfulness is in the mouth and heart because the prophets predicted a circumcised heart where the law was written.

10:9-10 Because if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and trust in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one is faithful resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation.

Paul now correlates the human response to the Jesus event.  The ‘Jesus is Lord’ corresponds to the ascent into Heaven and the raising from the dead corresponds to the descending into the abyss, which is of course followed by the resurrection.  ‘Confessing’ and ‘trusting’ are both related to faithfulness.  Confessing identifies to whom you owe your faithful allegiance and trusting (pisteushV) just means faithfulness. 

10:11 For the scripture says, ‘Everyone trusting on him will not be put to shame.’

Isaiah 28:16 is quoted but Paul adds the word “everyone” and this is no doubt related to the Jew/Gentile theme.  Again, the word “trust” is more on par with faithfulness than with belief.

10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all the ones calling on him.

That the Jew/Gentile theme is still on Paul’s mind is proven here.  The link between faithfulness and “calling on” is also strengthened by comparing this verse with 3:22.

10:13 For everyone who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Joel 2:32 is quoted and as with Isaiah 28:16, the emphasis is on the word “everyone” and on the fact that Gentiles too are included.  The context of Joel 2:32 indicates that “calling on the name of the Lord” implies faithfulness.  Also, the context in Joel contains both ‘Zion’ and ‘good news’ (see comment on 10:15).

10:14-15 How then can they call on one in whom they have not trusted?  And how may they trust in whom they have never heard?  And how may they hear without one preaching?  And how may they preach if they are not sent?  As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of the one bringing good news.’

Joel’s ‘calling of the Lord’ leads Paul to ask a series of rhetorical questions.  Paul seeks an explanation as to why the majority of Jews have failed to call on the name of the Lord to be saved.  At what point in the series is the explanation of where the Jews went wrong?  As we will see, Paul’s answer is in chapter 11, but he wants to clear the way of some other possible explanations.

Paul outlines the steps to salvation in reverse order.  In order to be saved as Joel states it is to call on the Lord.  But to call on someone, one must have a relationship of mutual faithfulness with the person on whom one calls. The word Paul uses for the needed

10:14-15 How then can they call on one in whom they have not trusted?  And how may they trust in whom they have never heard?  And how may they hear without one preaching?  And how may they preach if they are not sent?  As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of the one bringing good news.’

Joel’s ‘calling of the Lord’ leads Paul to ask a series of rhetorical questions.  Paul seeks an explanation as to why the majority of Jews have failed to call on the name of the Lord to be saved.  At what point in the series is the explanation of where the Jews went wrong?  As we will see, Paul’s answer is in chapter 11, but he wants to clear the way of some other possible explanations.

Paul outlines the steps to salvation in reverse order.  In order to be saved as Joel states it is to call on the Lord.  But to call on someone, one must have a relationship of mutual faithfulness with the person on whom one calls. The word Paul uses for the needed mutual faithfulness is episteusen but the proposition he uses is eiV (‘into’) and suggests the idea of incorporation, which implies an intimate relationship.  Paul proof-texts the commissioning idea with Isaiah 52:7.  The context of Isaiah 52:7 is important for Paul’s purposes because the good news is for Zion and signals that Paul is speaking of the Jews.  But, the Isaiah passage also mentions Gentiles with its reference to “the ends of the earth” (52:10).

10:16 But not all obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’

This verse indicates that the process outlined in verses 14-15 did not work for all Jews.  Somewhere in the chain there was a faulty link.  Of special not is the pairing of ‘obedience’ and ‘believing’, which proves that for Paul believing involves more than just mental assent (see 1:5; 16:26).  The failure of the Jews was their disobedience.  Paul lays the responsibility solely at the feet of the Jews.

Paul quotes from Isaiah 53:1 as proof-text that scripture foretold of Jewish disobedience.  Of course, Isaiah 53 is a very popular text for early Christianity.

10:17 Then faithfulness comes from hearing and hearing through the word of the Messiah.

The chain of verses 14-15 is summarized here.  The word of the Messiah is the message concerning Jesus’ faithfulness (see 10:8).

10:18 But I say, did they not hear?  Indeed they did, ‘The voice has gone out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the earth.’

The process of salvation did not fail because the Jews did not hear.  Paul quotes or alludes to Psalms 19:4 to show that the Jews did hear the gospel message.  For one thing, the message is contained in scripture; for another, there has been individuals such as Paul who have proclaimed.

10:19 But I say, did Israel not know?  First Moses says, ‘I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation; by a nation without understanding I will anger you.’

Moses is quoted as a positive witness to an idea that will become important in chapter 11.  That Moses is quoted positively is also evidence that I have interpreted 10:5 correctly.  In fact, since Paul will quote from the prophets in the next verses, the ‘law and the prophets’ will act as the two witnesses, a tactic I claim is involved in the two quotes at 10:5 and 10:6-8.

The ‘no nation’ is the Gentiles and Paul uses this verse as a key to the present situation which will be developed in chapter 11.  That it is Israel’s unfaithfulness (and not just their unbelief) is in view is proved by the context of Deuteronomy 32:21, which is about Israel’s unfaithfulness (see especially 32:20).

10:20 And Israel is so bold as to say, ‘I was found by the ones not seeking me, I revealed myself to the ones not asking for me.’

Again, Paul uses the two witnesses theme and highlights that the reversal involves Jews and Gentiles by quoting Isaiah 65:1.  Even if the verse was originally about Israel, Paul applies the principle to the Gentiles (see 9:25-26).  The idea echoes what Paul says to the Gentiles in 9:30.

10:21 But to Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hand to a disobedient and contrary people.’

Interestingly, Paul follows Isaiah 65:1 about the Gentiles with Isaiah 65:2 about the Jews.  It is highly significant that Paul describes the Jews’ failure as one of disobedience (see context of Isaiah and Rom. 11:30-32, 2:8).

THE MYSTERY OF GOD’S SALVATION 11:1-36

INTRODUCTION

In this section, Paul outlines the plans of God that takes into account Jewish unfaithfulness.  In the end, Jewish unfaithfulness will set off a chain of events that will lead to their own reversal.

11:1 I ask then, has God rejected his people?  May it never be!  For, I am also an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

The question Paul is asking still involves God’s faithfulness to his covenant partner.  The crux has been Israel’s unfaithfulness.  Paul’s point seems to be that he is a Jew and God has not rejected him.  This interpretation will find backing in what he will say about the remnant in 11:5.  Paul himself is a member of the remnant.

11:2a God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

On the meaning of ‘foreknew’ see my comments on 8:29.  Paul’s straight up denial has the force of scripture behind it:  1 Samuel 12:22 and Psalm 94:14.  It is interesting that the 1 Samuel passage bases God’s non-rejection of his people on his reputation, which is exactly the tact that Moses took when he interceded for Israel after the Golden Calf incident.

11:2b-3 Do you not know what the scripture said of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?  ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your alters, and I was left behind alone and they seek my life.’

Of supreme significance is how Israel’s failure is described in this passage with its quote of 1 Kings 19:10, 14.  Elijah does not say that Israel has tried to earn its salvation by doing the law or good deeds.  Rather, Elijah points out that Israel has been unfaithful.

11:4 But what is the divine answer to him?  ‘I have kept for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

God’s reply is that he has kept for himself seven thousand faithful Israelites—seven perhaps being symbolic of completeness as in the seven days of creation.  Paul’s point is that God can remain faithful to his covenant with his people as a whole by keeping for himself a faithful remnant (see Rom. 9:27-29).  That God “keeps for himself” a remnant implies that God has a role in regards to the remnant—hence the “grace” in the next verse.

11:5 So then, also at the present time there is such a remnant chosen by grace.

As God has dealt with Israel in the past, so he deals in like manner at present.  The “chosen by grace” refers primarily to the fact that God’s choice was not based on factors such as physical descent (see next verse).

11:6 But if by grace, no more of works, otherwise grace would not be grace.

If God’s choice was based on physical descent (works of law—Paul is not talking about good deeds), then it would be by race not by grace.  God’s choice of a remnant did not depend on anything the remnant did.  As with the case of the Gentiles as a whole, so too with the Jewish remnant, just because God had a group of in mind does not mean that he predestines individuals to be a part of that group.

11:7 What then?  Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking, but the elect obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

This proves that when Paul uses the term such as “Israel” he does not necessarily mean every individual.  God can predestine “Israel” without predestining each individual.  In this case, Israel as a whole failed to obtain what it was seeking.  This is similar to 9:31, where Israel failed to arrive at the law of righteousness.  However, the elect obtained it and this echoes 9:30, where the Gentiles did obtain righteousness.  Since ‘the elect’ is paired with ‘the rest’ who were hardened, Paul probably means primarily Jewish Christians, but we cannot rule out Gentiles as being included either.  Again, even if ‘were hardened’ is a divine passive, this indicates an act of omission.  As I argued in connection with Pharaoh, God might have been expected to intervene and correct Israel’s disobedience and it is that expectation that facilitates the slide from talk of omission to talk of commission.

11:8 As it has been written, ‘God gave to them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that would not see, and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’

Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 29:4 with a phrase from Isaiah 29:10 (“spirit of deep sleep”).  The slide from language of omission to commission is evidenced here.  In Deuteronomy, we read that the “Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.”  This verse is about what God omitted.   Paul uses language of commission; probably because God will use Israel’s obtuseness for his purposes.

11:9-10 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a net, a trap and a retribution for them.  Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs continually.’

The context of this quote, from Psalm 69:22-23 and possibly 35:8, is David asking God to punish his enemies.  Two things are to be noted: (1) God does not cause the misdeeds of the enemies as the requested retribution is in response to their behavior, and (2) even the language is passive, God is to “let” things happen.

11:11 I ask then, have they stumbled so as to fall?  May it never be!  But by their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them jealous.

Paul begins to enfold the mystery of the present situation.  He probably resorts to the athletic imagery he has been developing.  By the Jews trespass (a word that for Paul implies responsibility and in connection with its use at 5:15-18 implies unfaithfulness, not so much unbelief), Gentiles are now being saved.  The thought is similar to Galatians 3:22 (see also Rom. 11:32).  Since Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing because of their bondage to sin, they can now be saved on equal footing.  Also, the historical sequence of Jewish rejection did lead to the Gentile mission.  Once the Jews see that the Gentiles are in the race and perhaps even in the lead, they will become jealous and pick up the pace.

11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness mean.

This verse nicely structures with three words which end in –ma (trespass, failure, fullness).  What exactly “fullness” means is not exactly clear considering it may have been chosen for stylistic reasons, but it probably is meant to coincide with “the rest” (11:7) in contrast to the remnant (see 11:26).  Paul is hinting of his conviction that Israel is still in the race.

11:13-14 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles; in as much then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them.

Paul wants his fellow Jews to be provoked to jealousy by Gentile faithfulness.  It is not clear why Paul says only “some” but it may prove that what he says in 11:26 does not mean ‘all’ if all is understood as meaning no exceptions.

11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead.

A similar idea is expressed as in 11:12; note the similarities:

11:12 their trespass/failure → riches for the world

11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world

I take Israel’s rejection to be a consequence of their failure and not as a case of predestination where the trespass is a consequence of the rejection (see 11:20).  The main point is that the Gentiles ought not to be arrogant and that the Jews are not out of the race.  In fact, their faithfulness means life from the dead.  In this way, the Jews would be fulfilling Leviticus 18:5 and Habakkuk 2:4 as Jesus did.  This is suggested by the similarities with 5:10: enemies, reconciled, life/salvation.  But the thought seems also to imply that the fulness of the Jews causes eschatological blessings and blessing beyond themselves.

11:16 Now if the firstfruits are holy, also the whole batch, and if the root is holy, also the branches.

This seems to be offered in support of verse 15.  This would mean that the whole batch of dough (see Num. 15:17-21 for the likely reference) and the branches refer to the present Israel, most of whom are still hardened.  The root is either the patriarchs (see 11:28) or the present Jewish Christians.  However, the point is that Gentiles ought not be arrogant because the Jews are related to what is holy.

11:17-18 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them and share in the riches of the root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches; but if you boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.

Some, in this case meaning ‘most’, of the Jews have been broken off due to their unfaithfulness, but the Gentiles are not to be arrogant because they are still the wild olive tree and are not naturally partakers of Israel’s rich spiritual heritage ( see 9:1-5).  Israel has not been replaced by the Gentile church, but ultimately supports the Gentiles.

11:19 You will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’

Paul’s (now) Gentile interlocutor says the Jews were broken off so that the Gentiles will be included.  The implication is that the Gentiles are worthy and the Jews are not.  However, Paul will reject this conclusion.

11:20 That is true, they were broken off because of their unfaithfulness, but you stand only by faithfulness.  So, do not be proud but stand in awe.

The Jews were rejected because of their unfaithfulness; they were not unfaithful because they were rejected.  Paul drives home a lesson that the Gentiles better continue to stand in faithfulness or they too will be rejected.  Relying on God’s faithfulness is exactly the mistake the Jews made!

11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps neither will he spare you.

Another reason the Gentiles ought not to boast is that they might share the same fate as the Jews.  This verse has rightly been seen as a challenge to the doctrine of eternal security/perseverance of the saints.  The warning would lack if it had no sting. (note the singular ‘you’).  It is the very real possibility of being broken off that ought to put the fear of God into the Gentiles to remain faithful.

11:22 Witness then the kindness and severity of God; severity on the fallen ones, but the kindness of God if you remain in his kindness, otherwise you will be cut off.

The Gentiles better learn from the events of salvation history.  God’s grace is not cheap.  One must continue in that grace, which involves the free-will decision to remain faithful (see 11:20).

11:23 And those ones also if they do not continue in unfaithfulness, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft then in again.

It is significant that Paul is no longer speaking in terms of election and rejection but in terms of the human side of the coin and that side of the coin involves human responsibility to be faithful.  If the Jews repent, then God will graft them in; their unfaithfulness here is not due to God’s hardening.  This verse cut right at the heart of the doctrine of predestination because it speaks of reversals as real possibilities.

11:24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Paul again hammers home why Gentiles ought not to be proud and that the possibility still exists for Jews to come back into the fold.  It will be easier for the Jews to come back then it was to include the Gentiles.  Note that the tree is still Israel.

11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, of this mystery, lest you become wiser than you are; a hardening has come upon part of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in,

Paul sets up his ultimate answer to the interlocutor’s comment at 11:19 by acknowledging that the hardening of part of Israel has occurred, the purpose being the inclusion of Gentiles.

11:26-27 and so all Israel will be saved; as it has been written, ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob, and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’

The purpose of Gentile inclusion is ultimately for the salvation of all Israel.  This ought to banish Gentile pride.  Paul quotes from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9.  These verses describe Israel’s ultimate salvation.  The deliverer is probably Jesus and refers to his second coming.  The coming ‘out of Zion’ could refer to the heavenly Zion (Heb. 12:22).  I take “all Israel” to mean all ethnic Israel admitting (perhaps many) exceptions.  Given that the reference to Israel throughout this section has been ethnic Israel, it would be odd for Paul to change midstream and change the referent.

11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their ancestors.

Paul begins now to sum up his gospel.  He repeats the overall salvation scheme: Israelite unfaithfulness leads to Gentile faithfulness which leads to Israelite faithfulness.  The Jews are beloved for the sake of their ancestors means that they stand on the merit of the faithfulness of Abraham (and Jesus).  It is by grace because it is by Abraham’s (and Jesus’) faithfulness and not their own.  God remains faithful to his promises to Abraham and his seed.

11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

The “gifts” probably recall those Jewish privileges from 9:4-5.  The “calling” echoes the discussion in 9:6-29.  The Jews still matter to God.

11:30-31 For just as you once disobeyed God, but now you received mercy by their disobedience, so also they now were disobedient to what was for you mercy, that also they may receive mercy.

Once again Paul repeats his scheme of salvation history.  As usual, his horizons are solidly on the Jew/Gentile theme:

It is important to note that Paul’s language is entirely in terms of faithfulness (obedience) and not on belief.  No matter how God uses a situation, Paul lays ultimate responsibility on humanity.

11:32 for God consigned all in disobedience that to all he may show mercy.

God consigned all in disobedience as an act of omission.  This parallels Galatians 3:22.  The point is about justice.  Jews and Gentiles are now in the same relationship to God via sin and faithfulness.  God now treats both on the same footing. 

11:33-36 O the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable are his ways!  ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord?  Or who has been his counselor?’  ‘Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?’  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be the glory forever, Amen.

The good news leads Paul into praise.  God’s righteousness is vindicated.  It is fitting then that Paul quotes from Job 41:11 in verse 35, since God’s righteousness is at issue in that book.  There is also echoes of Job (15:8) in Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 40:13 in verse 34.  Paul celebrates God’s mysterious ways.  Humanity is not in a position to question God (9:20).  With this, Paul concludes his overall argument: he will go on to practical matters, for from Jesus’ faithfulness we are led to humanity’s faithfulness.

HUMANITIY’S FAITHFULNESS IN ACTION 12:1-15:13

INTRODUCTION

Since I claimed that faithfulness is a key concept in Paul’s main argument (1:18-11:36), chapters concerning faithfulness are fitting.  The righteousness of God is characterized as “from faithfulness to faithfulness” (1:17).  If the main argument concerns Jesus’ faithfulness, then these chapters cover human faithfulness.  According to the standard evangelical story, these chapters are a bit of a tag-on, as they have to do with good works.

FAITHFULNESS IN A NUTSHELL 12:1-2

12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, which is your rational service.

The ‘therefore’ indicates that Paul’s exhortation is a consequence of his previous argument.  I take the implication to be that unless one presents one’s body as a sacrifice, then one is in real danger of being cut off (11:21-22). Also of interest is Paul’s use of sacrificial language as a metaphor to characterize faithfulness, which is exactly what he does in the case of Jesus!  Paul’s use of the imperative ‘to present’ implies that this is in the power of his audience and so implies responsibility.  The addition of ‘living’ is probably meant to convey an ongoing process as opposed to the one-off event of an animal sacrifice.

12:2 And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so you may prove what is the will of God, the good and acceptable and perfect.

This verse is all about faithfulness.  Again, note the imperatives ‘do not be conformed’ and ‘be transformed.’  We are not to be conformed to this age because this age is characterized by disobedience.  We are to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus’ faithfulness (see Phil. 3:10, 2 Cor. 3:18).  How this transformation is accomplished is through the renewal of the mind.  A renewed mind allows one to discern God’s will and to do God’s will is what it means to be faithful.

This transformation is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, but for all that, Paul implies that we must cooperate with the Spirit; there is always a balance between divine enabling and human cooperation.

FAITHFULNESS IN THE BODY OF THE MESSIAH 12:3-8

INTRODUCTION

Since the Christian life is one lived in community, Paul discusses how a life of faithfulness is lived in community.

12:3 For I say, by the grace given to me, to everyone among you, not to think more highly than you ought to think but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faithfulness God has appointed.

Paul says what he does ‘by the grace’ given to him, which is the gift of divine commissioning and enabling (see 1:5; Gal. 2:9).  The imperative not “to think more highly” means not to be haughty or proud.  The contrast is with “to be sober minded” which then means to think with a reasonable humility.

The phrase “each according to the measure of faithfulness God has appointed” probably conveys the idea that God has a set of activities and services to each person measured to the level of faithfulness they evidence.  That a trusting relationship with God can be one of degree, see 4:19-20 and 14:1.  I have once again translated pistewV as faithfulness; this is bolstered by the analogue in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 (gifts, services, activities), which uses language that have more to do with faithfulness than belief, and in the next verse which talks about different functions.

12:4-5 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in the Messiah and individually we are members one of another.

Paul develops the analogy of the church as a body—the body of Jesus.  His point is that different persons serve different function but they all serve the common good.

12:6-8 We have gifts differing according to the grace having been given us, whether prophecy according to the proportion of faithfulness; ministry, in ministering; teacher, in teaching; the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader, in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness.

Paul mentions seven gifts which are meant to be used in faithful service to God.  He begins with prophecy which can be either “forth-telling” (simply telling what god says) or “fore-telling” (predicting what will happen).  The function of prophecy is to edify, encourage and console (1 Cor. 14:3).  Prophecy is in proportion to pistewV.  Again, I have translated this as faithfulness.  The word “proportion” echoes verse 3 and that was cashed out in terms of functions in verse 4.  The dangers of not prophesying within it proper sphere dictated by God is ‘false prophecy’, a clear and present danger (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21).

The rest of the gifts are just more examples of functions that make up the body of Jesus.

FAITHFULNESS IS EXPRESSED IN LOVE 12:9-21

12:9-13 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.  Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit; serve the Lord.  Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer.  Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.

Paul now issues commands in rapid fashion. I take 9a to act as a heading: this is what genuine love looks like.  Some of the keys to faithfulness are now described in 9b-13.  These speak mainly to the relationship within the body of Jesus, whereas 14-21 speak more to the wider community and thus leads into chapter 13.  Verse 9b (hate evil, hold fast to good), implies that the Christian still needs to make judgments and act accordingly. 

12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

The echoes of Jesus’ teaching are obvious (Mt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27-28).

12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

Love pays attention to the circumstances of others and acts accordingly.

12:16 Live in harmony with one another, do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.

Love treats all with respect and humility.  This also echoes the teachings of Jesus (Mk. 10:44; Mt. 5:3-5; 18:4; 23:12).

12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take into consideration what is noble for all.

Again, this echoes Jesus (Mt. 5:38-48; Lk. 6:27-36).

12:18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone.

The qualifications are important but should not excuse the general command to live in peace.

12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord.”

Paul quotes from the law (Deut. 32:35) to show that the reason why we ought not to take vengeance is that is the Lord’s job.  Vengeance is rarely about justice but about making the avenger feel better.

12:20 But, if your enemy is hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them a drink; for by doing this you will heap coals upon their head.

Paul quotes Proverbs 25:21-22.  The first thing to determine is the meaning of “heap coals upon their heads.”  Some take this to be about making the enemy’s punishment from God even worse by acting thus.  However, ill-will seems to be out of context here.  The ‘but’ signals an active response (meet evil with good) as opposed to a passive response (‘leave it to God’ as in verse 19).  Therefore, heaping coals on someone’s head would be seen as a beneficial act for the person in question, either as making them “burn” with shame in order for them to repent or as a reference to an Egyptian ritual in which the act in question was symbolic of genuine repentance.

12:21 Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.

This verse summarizes the gist of the section beginning at verse 14.  Just as God loved enemies and saved them, so we should overcome evil with good intent.

FAITHFUL CITIZENS 13:1-7

INTRODUCTION

This section links up with the preceding one; both deal with good and evil, wrath and vengeance.  This is so because governing authorities are ministers of God, established by God, ordained by God and servants of God.  Therefore, many of their activities are ones that belong to God.  This is all a part of the theme of human dominion.

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is not authority except by God, and those existing have been appointed by God.

There is a tradition in the Old Testament that God sets up and overthrows kingdoms (Prov. 8:15-16; Dan. 2:21; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21).  This is the theological reason for submitting to the governing authorities.  Of course, on may abject and wonder if Nazi Germany was appointed by God.  I think Paul’s point is general and he was not interested in exceptions.  I think exceptions would be true even for the Roman authority in Paul’s day.  I do not think Paul would have condoned everything the Romans did in the name of their God-given authority.  After all, there are examples of disobedience to authorities in scripture (see Daniel (!) 3:18; 6:10; Acts 4:19-20).

13:2 Therefore, the one opposing the authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and those opposing will receive judgment.

The logic is rather straightforward.  Since governing authority is appointed by God, those who oppose that authority will be punished.

13:3 For the rulers are not a terror to good work but to evil.  Do you want not to fear authority, then do the good and you will receive its praise.

The second reason to submit to authority is that otherwise you will face terror and fear.  It is telling that the phrase Paul uses is to do “good work” (agaqw ergw); this virtually proves that Paul is not against work as in good deeds, because that is the way he is using the term here.

13:4 For he is a servant of God for your good.  But if you do evil, be afraid, for authority does not bear the sword in vain, for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one doing evil.

The reason authority’s actions are in tune with God’s will is that they are God’s servants.  Authority rewards obedience and punishes disobedience.

13:5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

This verse in chiastic fashion repeats the two reasons to submit to authority (1) because lack of submission will bring wrath and (2) lack of submission is against God’s will, as will be evidenced in a bad conscience.

13:6-7 For because of this, pay your taxes, for they are servants of God, busy with this very thing.  Pay to all what is due them; taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue for whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Submission and obedience needs to be cash-out—pun intended—in tangible ways.

LOVE AND THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW 13:8-10

INTRODUCTION

This section is tied to the last one by the linking word for ‘owe.’  This section also shows that the law is ultimately positive, because the law commands love (Lev. 19:8, see also Gal. 5:14).  That love = fulfilling the law proves that love is about faithfulness because the law was given by God as part of a covenant that requires faithfulness.

13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Notice that Paul has a very positive attitude toward the law.  This justifies especially my reading of 10:5 where the law is quoted in a positive manner.  This is especially poignant because the portion of law Paul quotes in this section is Leviticus 19:18 (see next verse) and in 10:5 it was Leviticus 18:5.  Not only that, but the last time Paul mentioned the law previously to this was at 10:5.

13:9 For you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment is summed up in this word, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

It is interesting that Paul mentions commandments 7, 6, 8, 10 all of which are in the second five which is usually seen as applying to neighbor whereas the first five are seen as applying to God (father and mother share God’s qualities in that they create life).  These are summed up in a passage from the law (Lev. 19:18), which Jesus also uses in summary fashion (Mk. 12:31; Mt. 19:19).

13:10 Love to neighbor does not work evil; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This wording could be the negative form of the golden rule.  Paul then repeats what he said in verses 8 by noting that love fulfills the law.

THE TIME FOR FAITHFULNESS IS NOW 13:11-14

INTRODUCTION

The lateness of the hour in the eschatological sense ought to add a sense of urgency to Paul’s imperatives.

13:11 Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep.  For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first were faithful.

Paul thought the end was near, echoing the teaching of Jesus (Mk. 1:15).  It also echoes Jesus’ emphasis on being ready (awake) and not to ‘sleep’ (Mk. 13:35-36; Mt. 24:43//Lk. 12:39; Mt. 25:5; Lk. 12:37).  Jesus probably meant to be found faithful (see especially Lk. 12:37 which is followed by 12:43, which is clearly about faithfulness (“doing”)—this would show that the standard interpretation of Romans 10:5, with its reference to ‘doing’ is way off the mark.

13:12 The night has advanced and the day has drawn near.  Let us put away, therefore, the works of darkness and put on the weapons of light.

Paul is clearly thinking in eschatological terms.  Even the mention of ‘weapons of light’ points to the final struggle between good and evil.  That he fleshes things out in terms of behavior shows that he has faithfulness in mind.

13:13 Let us live decently, as in the day, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in strife and jealousy.

Again, Paul cashes out what is required and that is faithfulness.

13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus the Messiah and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

To put on Jesus is to be conformed to his image (see 8:29) and has to do with incorporation with Jesus.  That entails faithfulness which entails love because Jesus loves (see 8:35).  Paul’s language here puts this within the realm of human responsibility.  One actively puts on Jesus.

THE WEAK AND STRONG 14:1-15:6

INTRODUCTION

The section is probably meant to address the situation in Rome.  The core issue involves the observance or nonobservance of “works of law.”

14:1 Now welcome the one being weak in the faithfulness, but not with a view in passing judgment.

Who exactly are the weak in faithfulness and what is meant by weakness in “the faithfulness” (th pistei)? Most agree the weak are mainly the Judaizers who continue to rely on ‘works of law’ or their ethnic identity.  A clue for this is the use of the word “flesh” in 13:14 and its association with circumcision.

A clue to the meaning of weakness in the faithfulness is found in 4:19-20 where Abraham did not weaken in faithfulness, that is, in his trusting relationship with God.  Paul’s use of pistei characterizes the whole relationship between humanity and God.  That relationship is based on covenantal faithfulness where both sides have obligations and benefits.  The Judaizers are weak in understanding that the basis of salvation is in faithfulness and not in ethnic identity.  However, a tinge of moral failing is included.  A hint of this comes in 14:17, where he says that the kingdom of God is not a matter of ‘eating and drinking’ but of righteousness, peace and joy.  After all, Paul’s main beef with Israel as a whole is their moral failings.

14:2 Some believe in eating anything, while the weak only eat vegetables.

The person who is strong eats all things.  Jews of course were not limited to vegetables, but the danger of eating meat sacrificed to idols may have led to the practice (see Dan. 1:16; 2 Macc. 5:17; 4 Macc. 5:2; 1 Cor. 8-10).

14:3 The one eating must not despise the one not eating, and the one who abstains should not judge the one eating for God has welcomed them.

Paul identifies two common phenomena: (1) the liberal despising the conservative and (2) the conservative judging the liberal.  Paul goes on to focus on the conservative and advises them that God has accepted the liberal.  Then, starting at verse 13, he will focus on the strong not despising the weak.

14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another?  It is before their own master that they stand or fall.

By critiquing the conservative by using the word “judging”, Paul may be echoing his critique of Jews in general at 2:1, 3, where again he points to their moral failings.  Be that as it may, his point is that the liberal are slaves to God and ought not to be answerable to others.  Standing or falling has to do with faithfulness of unfaithfulness.

14:5 Some esteem one day as better than another, while others esteem all days.  Let all be fully convinced in their own mind.

Again, Paul probably has in mind the dispute between the conservative Jewish Christians viewpoint and the law-free viewpoint.  The issue is most likely the observance or non-observance of the Jewish feast days including Sabbath.

Paul’s advice is for everyone to be fully convinced in their own mind.  Since God is the ultimate master, the slave ought to determine God’s will, which can be best figured out when one is in a trusting , faithful relationship with God.  This is why Paul will speak of faithfulness in a similar context in 14:22-23.

14:6 Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord, and the one eating, eat in honor of the Lord, for they give thanks to God, and the one not eating, do not eat in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

Paul reiterates his advice that action ought to flow from one’s relationship with their master.

14:7-8 For no one lives for themselves and no one dies for themselves.  For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.

Paul reminds us that our master is the Lord and we as slaves are answerable only to him.  If we live and die to the Lord, surely we eat and drink and observe special days to the Lord.

14:9 For the Messiah died and lived for this, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

The Paul means Jesus by “Lord” is brought out here.  Jesus’ mission was to die and live and be exalted.  Paul does not confine Jesus’ mission to his death.  This verse is very telling evidence in the debate between the Gospel Beyond Belief and the standard evangelical story.  Jesus died to live.

14:10 Why do you judge your brother and sister?  Or why do you despise your brother and sister?  For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

We will all answer to God and not each other.  Paul calls this the judgment seat of God.  Elsewhere, he calls it the judgment seat of the Messiah (2 Cor. 5:10), which is the same thing.  Many evangelicals separate these judgments and turn judgment seat of the Messiah in to a sort of rubber stamp sham on the backing of Romans 8:1.  This verse strikes at the heart of this gambit.

14:11 For it has been written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess [or: give praise] to God.

Paul cites Isaiah 45:23 to show that God is judge.

14:12 So then, each one of us will be accountable to God.

Again, God, not anyone else, is judge.

14:13 Therefore, let us no longer judge one another; but resolve instead not to put a stumbling block or a trap in the way of another.

Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching against judging (Mt. 7:1; Lk. 6:37).  Athletic imagery seems to return here. 

14:14 I know and have been persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Paul, while arguing with the strong position (see 15:1), which he may have felt had the backing of Jesus (see Mk. 7:15, 19 [but see Mt. 15:21]), understand the viewpoint of the weak.

14:15 For if because of food your brother or sister is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love.  Do not let your food be the ruin of the one whom the Messiah died.

The strong must take into account the settled convictions of the weak.  The principle is that settled convictions are cherished and damage can be done when they are trampled.  Jesus too loved the weak and acted accordingly (see 5:6; 8:3).  Jesus valued life more than the strong value their food.

14:16 Therefore, let not your good be spoken against.

The good is the position that all food is clean, but it will be spoken against if it makes the weak stumble.

14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink buy righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For, the kingdom of God is not “works of law” but faithfulness (on righteousness as faithfulness here see 6:16, 18, 19).  Paul’s association of the kingdom of God with righteousness may derive from Jesus, for he associated them (see Mt. 5:20; 6:33).  This verse is also very telling in substantiating my overall reading, for I claim that Paul makes the same distinction he has made throughout his letters:

Works of law = food and drink (those things which separated Jews from Gentiles

pistiV (faithfulness) = righteousness

14:18 The one who serves the Messiah in this is well-pleasing to God and has human approval.

The one who serves in “this” probably refers to serving in righteousness, peace and joy.  Note that the word for ‘service’ (douleuwn) is related to the word for slave and is about faithfulness not just belief.

14:19 So then, the things of peace let us pursue and the things that build up one another.

With the admonition to build peace, Paul has in mind those conditions which benefit the whole and not just the strong.  The growth of the whole is not advanced when the weak stumble.

14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  Indeed, all things are clean, but wicked for you to make others fall by what you eat.

Once again we have a positive use of the word for “work”.  Again, the work of God may be hampered by the wonton use of freedom.

14:21 It is not good to eat meat, nor drink wine, nor anything which results in a brother or sister stumbling.

Paul continues to hammer home his basic point.  The strong ought to take into account the weak and act accordingly.

14:22a The faithfulness you have, have by yourself before God.

The stronger the relationship to God, the more one will discern the truth of things.  But a strong relationship is one’s own and ought not to cause the stumbling of others.

14:22b Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by what they approve.

I take Paul to mean that the strong will condemn themselves if they cause the weak to stumble.

14:23 But those who doubt are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faithfulness; for whatever does not proceed from faithfulness is sin.

The verse is a strong statement of the truth of the maxim “relationship over religion”.  Nothing is more important than one’s relationship with God; God is the rock, all else is sinking sand.

15:1 We who are strong ought to bear the weakness of the week, and not to please ourselves.

The strong must support the weak precisely because of their lack of strength.  Freedom comes with responsibility.

15:2 Each of us must please our neighbor for the good, with a view to building up.

All must love neighbor (13:8-10; 14:15) and by doing so the whole is built up (14:19).

15:3 For even the Messiah did not please himself; but, as it is written, ‘The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.’

We should be faithful and the example Paul uses is Jesus, which goes a long way in proving that for Paul Jesus’ faithfulness is of supreme importance.  Paul quotes Psalm 69:9 to highlight the sacrifice of Jesus.  Many New Testament allusions to Psalm 69 involve Jesus’ faithfulness in suffering (Mt. 27:34; Jn. 2:17; 15:25; Acts. 1:20).

15:4 For whatever was written before, was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of scripture we may have hope.

Paul wants us to gain comfort from past events, which teach us that we should remain faithful in spite of possible negative consequences.  Jesus suffered but was later exalted.

15:5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with each other, in accordance with Jesus the Messiah.

The example of scripture is of course rooted in God.  The addition of ‘in accordance with Jesus the Messiah’ could refer to Jesus’ will or his obedient example.

15:6 So that in one accord with one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.

The goal is to glorify God.  God wants his praise to from a united people, his people.

CONCLUSION 15:7-13

15:7 Therefore, welcome one another as also the Messiah welcomed you to the glory of God.

Jesus’ faithfulness is once again a model.  Just as he died for the weak (5:6) by humbling himself, those in Rome ought to think of others too.

15:8 For I say the Messiah has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truthfulness of God in order that he may confirm the promises given to the patriarchs.

Jesus came as a servant (Mk. 10:43-45) to the circumcised (see Mt. 10:6; 15:24; what Paul says here support’s Matthew).  Jesus’ mission was to fulfill what ought to have been fulfilled by Israel (see Gal. 4:4-5).  This highlights Paul’s statement to the Jews first (1:16).  God’s covenant faithfulness to the patriarchs (in this verse called his “truthfulness”) has been assured because of Jesus’ obedience as Israel’s representative (new Israel/Adam).  As will become clear, God’s promises included the Gentiles.  Also, this verse proves that Jesus had a mission to which he could be faithful.

15:9 And in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.  As it is written, ‘Therefore, I will give praise to you among the Gentiles, and to your name I will sing praise.’

This now pertains to the latter half or the “Jew first and also Gentile.”  Divine mercy leads to the Gentiles praising God.  Paul backs this up by quoting Psalm 18:49 = 2 Samuel 22:50.  The outreach of God’s plans includes the Gentiles.

15:10 And again he says, ‘Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people.’

This is from Deuteronomy 32:43 and calls all people to rejoice in unity.  Notice again how Paul’s categories are on the level of Jew and Gentile and not on the individual.

15:11 And again, ‘Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him.’

As with the preceding verse, this quotation from Psalm 117:1 calls on all people to unite with the purpose to praise the Lord.

15:12 And again Isaiah says, ‘The root of Jesse shall come, the one rising up to rule Gentiles, in him the Gentiles will hope.’

Isaiah 11:10 rounds off Paul’s scriptural witness.  This again ties Jesus (root of Jesse) to the Gentiles.  This verse also hints at God’s overall plan to use Israel as the new Adam who will have dominion over creation.  It is not surprising that when Paul is in summary mode, he would echo the themes of the Gospel Beyond Belief.

15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in faithfulness so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This verse echoes 14:17 as both pertain to the fruit of the Spirit (joy and peace).  The ‘in faithfulness’ highlights that the hope of God can only be given to those who are in relationship with him.

LETTER’S CONCLUSION 15:14-16:27

PAUL’S MINISTRY 15:14-21

15:14-21 I myself feel confident about you, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.  Nevertheless on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given to me by God to be a minster of Messiah Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.  In Messiah Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of my work for God.  For I will not venture to speak of anything except what the Messiah has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and work, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news, not where the Messiah has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation, but as it is written, ‘Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.’

In this section Paul gives some valuable insight into his mission and reason for writing the letter.  He first compliments the Romans for their goodness (moral goodness = faithfulness) and their knowledge.

Paul’s role is as a priest preparing the offering of the Gentiles, which is either the Gentiles themselves or refers to the offering the Gentiles give, but either way, it refers to the Gentiles faithfulness.  Note, that Paul uses a sacrificial metaphor for obedience.  Again, this is exactly what he does in the case of Jesus.  Paul once again uses the word work in a positive manner.  Paul has already tied together grace and his mission for Gentile obedience in 1:5.

Since he has been called to be a servant of Jesus for the Gentiles, he feels obligated to do the best he knows to serve that mission.  His boast is in Messiah Jesus because it is Jesus who works through Paul’s word and work. 

Just as in the Old Testament, God’s word here is accomplished by ‘signs and wonders’.  The purpose is to reach as many people who have not heard of the name of Jesus as possible.

Paul quote of Isaiah 52:15 is particularly fitting because in the context of that verse we read about the Servant in connection with the nations and kings.

PAUL’S PLAN 15:22-33

15:22-27 This is the reason that I have so often been hindered from coming to you.  But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain.  For I do hope to see you on my journey and to be sent by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while.  At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints; for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.  They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things.

Because Paul was busy spreading the gospel, he was unable to visit the Romans.  However, now that his mission in the east is wrapping up, he turns west.  One of Paul’s ministries was to support the Jerusalem church—whose members he calls ‘saints’ and not ‘sinners’.  Gentiles have benefited from the Jewish blessing and so now they should benefit these same Jews.  Not only was helping the poor a Biblical imperative, but Paul may have viewed the matter in eschatological terms as the Old Testament foresaw that the wealth of the nations would stream into Jerusalem (Isa. 45:14; 60:5-17; 61:6; Mic. 4:13).  He may have also viewed the collection as a means to make the Jews jealous.

15:28-29 So, when I have completed this, and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will set out by way of you to Spain; and I know that when I have come to you, I will come in fullness of the blessing of the Messiah.

Paul reiterates his plan to go to Spain and use Rome as his launching point for his mission.

15:30 I urge you brothers and sisters, through our Lord Jesus the Messiah and through the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf.

Not only is Paul a believer in prayer, but he believes that prayer must be undertaken with discipline for the results are not guaranteed (see next verse).

15:31 That I may be rescued from the ones disobeying in Judea and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints.

The reason for the prayer is given here.  Not that Paul describes his opposition as “disobedient” (see 2:8; 10:21; 11:30-31), no doubt referring to Jews (“in Judea”).  For Paul the issue is not about belief but about faithfulness.  Paul also seemed to fear that his collection would be rejected and that his mission discounted by his fellow Jewish Christians.

15:32 So that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.

Paul’s joy is contingent upon his success in Jerusalem.

15:33 The God of peace be with all of you, Amen.

The choice of “peace” may be an indication of the possible conflict Paul envisioned in Jerusalem.

COMMENDATION AND GREETINGS 16:1-23

COMMENDATION OF PHOEBE 16:1-2

16:1 I commend to you our sister Poebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae.

Paul sends a recommendation for Phoebe who may have been the one who delivered the letter.  She was a recognized servant of the church at Cenchreae, the eastern seaport of Corinth.  Paul uses the word “church” for the first time in the letter.

16:2 So that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require form you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

Phoebe ought to be supported, especially given that she has served so many, including Paul himself.

GREETINGS 16:3-16

16:3-4 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-workers in Jesus the Messiah, who risked their necks for my life, to whom I not only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

We read about Prisca and Aquila in Acts.  Aquila there is described as a Jew from Pontus who had come from Italy because of Claudius’ expulsion of Jews in AD 49 (Acts 18:2).  Paul stayed with them in Corinth on account they shared the same trade (Acts 18:3).  They traveled with Paul to Ephesus where they stayed for some time (Acts 18:18-19).  Note once again the positive use of the word ‘work’ as Prisca and Aquila are called “co-workers”.

16:5 Greet also the church in their house.  Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first fruit in Asia into the Messiah.

Epaenetus is described as the first convert in Asia.  The phrase “into the Messiah” again points to incorporation.

16:6 Greet Mary, who has greatly labored for you.

It is remarkable that of the first four persons mentioned by Paul, three of them are women.

16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and fellow-prisoners; they are notable among the apostles, and they were in the Messiah before me.

Andronicus and Junia were probably married and were Jewish.  Not again that Paul defines Christians as those incorporated in Jesus.

16:8-9 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.  Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in the Messiah and Stachys my beloved.

The names here may have been of slaves and not the twin themes of incorporation and the positive use of the word “work.”

16:10 Greet Apelles, the approved on in the Messiah.  Greet the ones of the household of Aristobulus.

The Aristobulus mentioned here may be the grandson of Herod the Great and the brother of Agrippa I, who had been in Rome according to Josephus.

16:11 Greet Herodion, my compatriot.  Greet the ones of the household of Narcissus, the ones being in the Lord.

Herodion, a Jew, was probably a slave for the Herod family.  Narcissus may have been a slave or freedman.

16:12 Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, the ones laboring in the Lord.  Greet Persis the beloved, who greatly labored in the Lord.

These three are women and note that they are described as laboring.

16:13 Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also.

This Rufus could very well have been the son of Simon of Cyrene, the man compelled to carry the cross of Jesus (Mk. 15:21).  This connection may have facilitated the remembrance of Simon, which in turn may have been the result of Simon’s witness to the Jesus event.

16:14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters who are with them.

This may have been a household church and given their names, it was probably made up of mostly slaves and freed slaves.

16:15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints with them.

Again, this list may refer to a household and that household may have been imperial.

16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.  All the churches of the Messiah greet you.

Greeting with a kiss was common at this time; see Mark 14:45 for an infamous example!

FINAL ADMONITION 16:17-20

16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch those who cause dissentions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching you have learned; avoid them.

Exactly who these false teachers are or what they taught is not clear.  Probably Paul has those who abuse their freedom, libertines, in mind (see Gal. 5:13 and Phil. 3:19, on which see next verse).

16:18 For such persons do not serve our Lord the Messiah, but their own belly and through smooth speech and praise deceive the hearts of the simple.

Note that the criterion by which Paul measures the false teachers is that they do not serve Jesus, instead they serve their own desires (see Phil 3:19 on “belly”).

16:19 For while your obedience is known to all, in that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise to the good and innocent to what is evil.

Again, Paul teaches on a basic theme of his message and that is obedience or faithfulness (see 1:5).  The wise/innocent pairing may echo the teachings of Jesus (see Mt. 10:16).

16:20 Now, the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.  The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

The influence of Genesis 3:15 is probably felt in what Paul says here.  He ends with another grace which some witnesses transfer right after verse 23 and denote it as verse 24.

MORE GREETINGS 16:21-23

16:21 Timothy my co-worker greets you, and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater my compatriots.

Timothy is a well-known college of Paul.  At least Jason and Sosipater are Jewish.  Lucius could be Luke the author Of Luke/Acts.  Jason could be the person referred to in Acts 17 as host of Paul in Thessalonica.  Sosipater could be the person mentioned in Acts 20:4 who traveled with Paul to deliver the collection for Jerusalem.

16:22 I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.

Paul’s secretary adds his own greeting.

16:23 Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you.  Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.

Gaius is most likely the man mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14 whom Paul baptized and was probably a leading figure in Corinth.  Erastus probably is not the same as the one mentioned in Acts 19:22.  ‘Quartus’, as with many other names in Paul’s greetings, was a popular slave name.

16:24 [See comment on 16:20.]

DOXOLOGY 16:25-27

16:25 Now to the one being able to establish you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret,

Paul’s gospel is none other than the proclamation of Jesus, which is meant his obedience and vindication that merits righteousness for so many, including Gentiles.  The mystery is of course God’s plan of salvation as described in chapter 11.

16:26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic scriptures is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faithfulness.

The letter comes full circle by repeating the theme of faithfulness (see the exact wording in 1:5).  The mention of scripture also repeats what is said in 1:2.

16:27 To the only wise God, through Jesus the Messiah, to whom be the glory forever, Amen.

The thought started in verse 25 is finally completed.  To God be the glory.  Amen!