26 Ibid., p. 12.
1 The continuing relevance of Romans is illustrated by the articles in the January 1980 issue of Interpretation. This whole number is given over to Romans. The articles cover a wide range and leave no doubt about the fact that this epistle still plays a vital role in the life of the church.
2 The statistics in this section are taken from Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (New York, 1958), pp. 346–47.
3 For a discussion of types of letters in antiquity see especially William G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature”, CBQ, XXXI (1969), pp. 183–99; Martin Luther Stirewalt, Jr., “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay”, Donfried, pp. 175–206. Doty discerns eight classes with up to seven subclasses grouped under his headings, and he does not claim to be exhaustive. He points out that the Hellenistic school handbooks included 21 and later 41 specific types (pp. 196–97).
4 E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas argue that there was no church in Rome when Paul wrote, nor indeed right up to the time when he came to Rome as a prisoner. That was when he formed the individual Christians in that city into a church (“The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?” RThR, XXV [1966], pp. 81–94). They point to the lack of reference to an ἐχχλησία at Rome, or to officials like bishops, priests, and deacons, or to ordinances like baptism (though cf. Rom. 6:3–4) and the Lord’s Supper. But Paul rarely refers to these anywhere. He has general references to churches, but the only specific groups to which he applies the term are house churches (including Rom. 16:5) and those at Corinth, Cenchraea, Philippi, Laodicea, and Thessalonica. This despite the fact that his use of the plural (e.g., Gal. 1:2; 1 Thess. 2:14) shows that he saw the term as widely applicable. Apart from Rom. 6:4 the only occurrences of βάπτισμα in the Pauline corpus are in Eph. 4:5 and Col. 2:12, while the corresponding verb is used a number of times in 1 Corinthians and is found in Gal. 3:27 but occurs nowhere else in the corpus except Romans. The discussion of the reference in Suetonius (see below, p. 4) I do not find convincing, while the failure of the Jews Paul met when he eventually came to Rome to mention a local church (Acts 28:22) does not mean that there was not one there. It may have been politic on their part to be silent on the matter, as William Neil thinks (The Acts of the Apostles [London, 1973], pp. 257–58). And Godet held that Roman Christianity was of Gentile origin; there had been no Christian preaching in the synagogues and thus no way the Jewish leaders would mention it (Godet, pp. 60–70). The article is a warning not to be overconfident and it reminds us that the small amount of evidence can be understood in more ways than one. But the best explanation of the evidence still seems to be that there was a church in Rome (Rom. 1:8). SH, of course, long ago suggested that Peter and Paul may have “founded” the church in Rome in the sense that they organized scattered groups into one whole (SH, p. xxxv).
5 The words in question are lacking in 1:7 in the MSS designated G 1739mg 1908mg itg Orlat. In 1:15 they are not found in G itg Orlat. The case against the words can, however, be made a little stronger. The reading in G itg in v. 7 may be translated “to all who are in the love of God”. Now the reading of some MSS, “to all who are in Rome in the love of God”, seems to be an adaptation of this reading to the more usual text (so, e.g., Bruce, pp. 25–26). If so, the scribes must have had both readings before them. We should also notice that the commentaries of Ambrosiaster and apparently also of Pelagius lacked the reference to Rome (see Gamble, p. 32). This is an interesting list, but even the combined testimony of these witnesses is scarcely enough to prove the point. They show that at some time the reference to Rome was missing. But the evidence of the overwhelming bulk of the MSS must be accepted as giving us the true reading.
6 See his article “The Letter to the Romans—and Others”, BJRL, 31 (1948), pp. 224–40, reprinted in Manson’s book Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 225–41. Quotations are from this reprint. Cf. also Manson, p. 941.
7 Any ten adult male Jews could form a synagogue (Mishnah, Meg. 4:3; Sanh. 1:6; Ab. 3:6). There were many synagogues in Rome (W. Wiefel gives the names of 13 of them [Donfried, p. 106]). In Rome the term “synagogue” seems to have signified the community, the place of worship being called a proseucha (see R. Penna, NTS, 28 [1982], p. 327). It would be strange if Jewish Christians did not form synagogues of their own. The term is, of course, used of a Christian assembly (Jas. 2:2).
8 For the relations between the Romans and the Jews see the note by Vincent M. Scramuzza, “The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism” (F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, V [Grand Rapids, 1966], pp. 277–97).
9 Life of Claudius xxv.4 (Loeb translation). Dio Cassius denies that Claudius expelled the Jews, saying that there were too many of them (lx.6.6). But he mentions the danger of rioting and speaks of the repressive measures adopted by Claudius. Clearly there was trouble, and this is the main point. Our interest is in “Chrestus” rather than in the precise action Claudius took. W. Wiefel understands Dio Cassius to mean that the Jews lost their right to assemble. He thinks that this refers not to the initial trouble but to the situation when the Jews were permitted to return. As a first step they were allowed to come back to Rome, but “synagogue assemblies were prohibited for some time since they were seen as seedbeds of dispute” (Donfried, p. 111). Judge and Thomas argue that “Chrestus” cannot refer to Jesus Christ (RThR, XXV, pp. 84ff.). Rather, it signifies “some religious star whose appearance at Rome caused an upheaval among the Jews, but whose fame was sufficiently ephemeral for his precise identity to have been lost” (ibid., p. 87). This is certainly possible. But riots instigated by Jews on account of Christian claims (like that at Ephesus, Acts 19:23ff.) seem more probable.
10 J. Juster estimated that there were 50-60,000 Jews in Rome in the time of Tiberius (Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain, I [Paris, 1914], p. 209). Penna thinks this number too high, as also the 30-40,000 of S. Collon, but regards Encyclopedia Judaica’s estimate of 10,000 as too low. Reasoning from the 8,000 Jews mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xvii.299–303) and the 4,000 men of military age deported in A.D. 19 (Ant. xviii.81–84), he estimates the number as 20,000 in Nero’s day (NTS, 28, p. 328 and p. 341 nn.51–53).
11 It is sometimes urged that the Roman church was predominantly Jewish-Christian, as by Theodor Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, I [Edinburgh, 1909], pp. 421ff.). So, more recently, William Manson (The Epistle to the Hebrews [London, 1951], pp. 172–84). But not many have been persuaded. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (11:13). Why would he have written such a considerable letter to a predominantly Jewish church?
12 Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), p. 219.
13 Cf. A. F. J. Klijn, “It is impossible to determine which group formed the majority” (An Introduction to the New Testament [Leiden, 1967], p. 76); Martin Dibelius, “it appears to me to be useless to look for an answer in Romans to the much-discussed question whether the Roman Christians were Jewish or Gentile” (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature [London, 1936], p. 162; he goes on to suggest that “the character of the church in the Capital was continually changing”).
14 Though perhaps we should notice the view of Robert M. Grant, who, on the basis of the names mentioned in ch. 16, judges it “likely that Romans was written not from Greece but from Macedonia, perhaps specifically from Philippi—or perhaps across the Aegean Sea, from Troas” (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1963], p. 188). But the evidence is inadequate.
15 See Beginnings, V, pp. 460–61; C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (London, 1956), pp. 48–49. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth (Wilmington, DE, 1983), pp. 141–52, 173–76.
16 Cf. Kümmel, “Paul’s encounter with Gallio perhaps took place in May or June of 51” (Introduction, p. 180).
17 Cf. Günther Bornkamm, “in the winter of A.D. 55/56” (ABR, XI [1963], p. 2). Bruce thinks that Acts 20:2 covers more than a year, “say from the summer of A.D. 55 to the late part of A.D. 56” (Commentary on the Book of the Acts [London, 1954], p. 405). This would place Romans in early 57, a date which J. A. T. Robinson accepts “confidently” (Redating the New Testament [London, 1976], p. 55). Cranfield regards the winter-spring of A.D. 55–56 or a year later as the most likely time (pp. 14, 16).
18 See Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1971), pp. 661–63; Beginnings, V, pp. 464–67, 471 n.1.
19 Knox, IB, IX, p. 358. J. R. Richards argues for A.D. 54 (NTS, XIII [1966–67], p. 27).
20 Despite the fact that J. A. T. Robinson says cheerfully that the occasion, as well as the author and date of the epistle, “are fortunately all beyond serious dispute” (Robinson, p. 1).
21 In addition to this point Kümmel notes the references to “dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught” (16:17–18); “Jewish errors and criticism of the gospel” (2:17; 3:1–31; 4:1; 7:13; 9:31–32; 11:11); “libertine-antinomian deductions from the message of the freedom of the Christians from the Law” (3:8, 31; 6:1, 15; 7:7ff.); and “Gentile-Christian arrogance” (11:13ff.). He does not see this as the account of a situation frequently encountered and thus a statement drawn up in the first place for general use, then adapted for Rome (Introduction, p. 221).
22 Brevard S. Childs examines “The Problem of the Addressee” in this letter (The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction [London, 1984], pp. 260–63). He can say, “regardless of the concrete character of Paul’s original addressee, in their present literary form, the chapters serve to denote a genuine ambiguity. The occasional addressee recedes within the larger context and a universal referent emerges which far transcends local Roman party rivalries in order to speak a word for all” (p. 262).
23 Cf. W. G. T. Shedd, “The object of the writer was to give to the Roman congregation, and ultimately to Christendom, a complete statement of religious truth” (Shedd, p. viii).
24 He sees the epistle as addressed to “the great problem of all Christendom. What is the new that entered with Christ? What is it that the congregation has by faith in Him? And what is the relation between the new way of salvation, the way of faith, and the way in which the people of God had hitherto walked, the way of works?” (Nygren, p. 8).
25 “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament”, ABR, XI (1963), pp. 2–14.
26 Ibid., p. 12.
27 Ibid., p. 14. Barclay reminds us that Sanday called Romans “testamentary” and he comments, “It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament” (Barclay, p. xxi). Gore quotes approvingly Hort’s view that the writing has the character of “last words” (Gore, p. 5).
28 Leenhardt, p. 15.
29 Ibid., p. 16. Later he asks, “Ought we to be surprised that the theme of the church, in spite of the absence of the word, should be as it were the horizon towards which all the main lines of the thought expounded in the letter tend?” (ibid., p. 20). In all honesty I can answer only, “Yes, we ought.”
30 See above, p. 3 n.6†.
31 Studies, p. 240.
32 Ibid., p. 241.
33 Interestingly, John Knox finds this section a principal argument for a circular letter (NTS, II [1955–56], pp. 191–93). He points to the fact that Paul does not indicate his destination anywhere in ch. 1; he says only that he “longs to see” the Romans (and similar expressions). He may accordingly be “leaving as it stood a letter which was originally composed for a type of Gentile church with which Paul is seeking to establish contact” (ibid., p. 192). But Knox pays no attention to the warmth of the personal tone of this section. Could Paul say of every Gentile church with which he sought to establish contact, “your faith is being reported all over the world” (1:8)? Or “I long to see you” (1:11)? Or that he had often tried to come to them (1:13)? This is particular, not general language.
34 Cf. Bornkamm, “it seems to me very inadequate to understand Romans as a mere report and record of former controversies. In that case one would have to expect some concrete references to Paul’s opponents in the East; and those are completely lacking in our letter” (ABR, XI, p. 9).
35 Donfried, pp. 61–74.
36 Ibid., p. 62. James Moffatt from a different point of view sees Paul’s own circumstances as primary, not anything in Rome: the aim is “to state, for the primary benefit of the Roman Christians, the χάρισμα πνευματιχόν which Paul was conscious of possessing in his knowledge of the gospel” (An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament [Edinburgh, 1927], p. 145).
37 A. J. M. Wedderburn stresses the importance of the collection. It was not only a matter of money, but had symbolic significance. It was too late for the Romans to contribute, but they could at least support it and thus “endorse the Gentile mission and its gospel, whose fruits were being offered in the collection and in the persons of its bearers” (ET, XC [1978–79], p. 141).
38 Jervell, in Donfried, p. 64.
39 Ibid., p. 74.
40 Käsemann, p. 20.
41 Donfried, p. 46.
42 “Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans”, ibid., pp. 32–49.
43 Ibid., p. 44.
44 Ibid., p. 48.
45 Ibid., p. 49.
46 The church at Antioch is a fairly clear example. Luke appears to connect its founding with the preaching of Christians scattered by the persecution that arose in connection with the death of Stephen (Acts 11:19ff.). But he expressly says that the apostles were not scattered with the rest (Acts 8:1).
47 Cited in John Knox, NTS, II, p. 191.
48 See above, p. 2 n.4†.
49 See Karris’s list in CBQ, XXXV (1933), p. 155 n.6. Paul S. Minear gives an extended treatment of this theme in his book The Obedience of Faith (London, 1971). He distinguishes “at least five distinct factions, or, if faction be too strong a word, five different positions” (ibid., p. 8), namely “The ‘weak in faith’ who condemned the ‘strong in faith’ ”, “The strong in faith who scorned and despised the weak in faith”, “The doubters”, “The weak in faith who did not condemn the strong”, “The strong in faith who did not despise the weak” (ibid., pp. 8–14). There is nothing improbable about such groups’ coming into existence, but the evidence for them is not convincing. Minear’s distinctions have not won wide acceptance, nor has his view that a number of passages in Romans are addressed primarily to one or another of these groups. Minear’s treatment is stimulating, but comes short of being an acceptable solution.
50 This view is argued by, e.g., Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 95–104. Marxsen is supported by Karl Paul Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16” (JBL, LXXXIX [1970], pp. 441–49). Donfried is basically concerned to argue that ch. 16 is an integral part of Romans, and he maintains that this accords with the position of Marxsen.
51 Raymond E. Brown has difficulty with the idea of “Jewish Christian” and “Gentile Christian” as early as this (though he allows that the distinction may be acceptable in the second century). Hebrew Christians were of more than one type and differed from one another more than they differed from the Gentiles whom they converted. He finds four groups: (1) Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts who held to the full observance of the law of Moses; (2) Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision for Gentiles but required the keeping of some Jewish purity laws; (3) Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision or food laws for Gentiles; and (4) Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision or food laws for Gentiles and saw no abiding significance in the cult of the temple (CBQ, 45 [1983], pp. 74–79). Whatever be thought of his four groups, a good deal can be said for the view that Gentile converts would tend to agree with the Jews who had converted them and that a hard division that lumps all Jewish Christians together as distinct from all Gentile Christians is most unlikely. Brown sees Roman Christianity as essentially his group 2 (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome [New York, 1983], p. 184).
52 Donfried, pp. 100–119.
53 According to Josephus, in Alexandria “a great part of the city has been allocated to this nation. And an ethnarch of their own has been installed, who governs the people and adjudicates suits and supervises contracts and ordinances, just as if he were the head of a sovereign state” (Ant. xiv.117; Loeb translation).
54 W. S. Campbell does not particularly stress chs. 14 and 15, but he holds that “A division had apparently arisen because the liberal-minded Gentile Christian majority (the strong in faith) were unwilling to have fellowship with the conservative Jewish Christian minority (the weak in faith).” Since the fault lay with the Gentile Christians, “Paul undertakes an exposition of the righteous purpose of God both for Jew and Gentile as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and revealed in the Gospel” (ET, LXXXV [1973–74], p. 268). Stephen Neill argues for three groups with different attitudes to Jewish observances, but uncertain how “to co-exist without friction”. “Paul is the recognized authority on all such questions; the perplexed Christians have sent a message to him asking for guidance, and the Epistle to the Romans is the result” (Jesus through Many Eyes [Philadelphia, 1976], p. 63).
55 Cf. Karris, CBQ, XXXV, p. 172 n.73 where a number of writers are cited as raising objections to the hypothesis that the weak and the strong are Jews and Gentiles. Even if this be accepted, there are still problems: “Are the Jewish Christians legalists, liberals, apocalyptically-oriented or what? Are the Gentile Christians legalists, antinomians, Gnostic-influenced or what? What is the specific nature of the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians which Paul is supposed to have heard about and is trying to settle by writing Rom?” (CBQ, XXXVI [1974], p. 356; the words occur in a short article entitled “The Occasion of Romans: A Response to Professor Donfried”, ibid., pp. 356–358).
56 “Rom 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans” (CBQ, XXXV [1973], pp. 155–78).
57 Ibid., p. 177.
58 Raymond E. Brown at one point says, “I would insist parenthetically that it is quite implausible that all Christian Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius—only those zealous enough to be involved in disturbances (wherefore evangelists like Prisca and Aquila)” (Antioch and Rome, p. 109).
59 Black, pp. 22, 23.
60 See above, p. 2 n.4†.
61 CBQ, XXXVIII (1976), pp. 330–51.
62 Ibid., p. 330.
63 Ibid., pp. 342–43.
64 Ibid., p. 343.
65 Cf. Brevard S. Childs, “One is amazed by the formalistic quality of the argument which has virtually removed the interpretation from its historical and theological content” (The New Testament as Canon, p. 249).
66 “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter”, Interpretation, XXXVI (1982), pp. 5–20.
67 Ibid., p. 9.
68 Ibid., p. 19.
69 Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh, 1980), pp. 77, 86.
70 Ibid., p. 79.
71 Cf. Kümmel, “we need not doubt that Paul himself with this extensive, argumentative, and transcending representation gives an account of his gospel which he previously preached and which he is now bringing to the far West” (Introduction, p. 222); “Romans is the theological self-confession of Paul, which arose out of a concrete necessity of his missionary work” (ibid., p. 221). Cf. James P. Martin, “Missionary vision for the whole world dominates Paul’s description of his situation and hope at the time he wrote Romans” (Interpretation, XXV [1971], p. 303).
72 It is objected that Romans is too great for such a purpose. A much more modest missive would have sufficed to introduce Paul. So it would. But perhaps the objection minimizes Paul’s missionary passion. His deep concern to preach in Rome and Spain meant that he spared no pains in preparing the way and perhaps said more than was strictly necessary. And if he had doubts about his capacity to survive Jerusalem (cf. Acts 20:25; 21:13), he may have wanted to make sure that his essential message was on record and would be read in Rome.
73 W. S. Campbell objects that Paul would not submit his gospel for approval and cites Gal. 1:8ff. (ET, LXXV, p. 264). But he overlooks the fact that, while Paul would not vary his gospel to secure human acceptance, he could and did submit it for approval (Gal. 2:2).
74 It is curious that the Jerusalem poor might raise difficulties about receiving a gift from the Gentile churches. But some conservatives there had opposed Paul at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–2), and they may have grown stronger through the years. Conversions in Jerusalem would have been from among Jews. At the same time the Gentile churches had grown stronger and stronger. Under the leadership of men like Paul they would not have been willing to conform to Jewish attitudes to the law. Conservative Jews may well have been unwilling to countenance a Gentile-dominated church, or even a church that admitted Gentiles on equal terms. There were thousands of Jewish believers “all … zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20; cf. the request put to Paul, v. 24). They might well see acceptance of the money as countenancing an idea of unity which they did not accept. Cf. Günther Bornkamm, “Paul had to be prepared for reluctance on the part of the church in Jerusalem. They might be unwilling to go along with his demonstration of the solidarity of Jews and Gentiles. They might refuse to accept the collection” (The New Testament: A Guide to Its Writings [London, 1974], p. 109).
75 By contrast, “In Jewish tradition, Abraham, by his constancy in trial, had become the model of justification by works” (Wilfrid J. Harrington, Record of the Fulfillment: The New Testament [London, 1968], p. 265). Paul’s example cut at the heart of the Jewish opposition to his central doctrine.
76 Bornkamm lists 16 points in which Romans is related to the earlier Pauline writings (ABR, XI [1963], pp. 9–11).
77 Cf. A. M. Hunter, “in Romans we have the answer to the question, ‘What is Christianity?’ by the strongest thinker in the early Church” (Introducing the New Testament [London, 1945], p. 75).
78 Ralph P. Martin, discussing the plan of Romans, makes the point that “Much of Paul’s thought is shaped along trinitarian lines. The Father purposes both to condemn and to save; the Son’s obedience and righteousness lay the foundation of justification; and the Spirit’s new life imparts a dynamic for victory over sin and death and a new social life-style in the church and society” (New Testament Foundations, II [Exeter, 1978], p. 194).
79 The only words which occur more frequently in Romans than θεός are the definite article (1,105 times), χαί 274 times, ἐν 172 times, and αὐτός 156 times. Even common words like δέ and the verb εἶναι (“to be”) occur less frequently (147 and 113 times respectively).
80 See further my essay “The Theme of Romans” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Exeter, 1970), pp. 249–63.
81 For Manson, see above, p. 3, and the references given there. Throughout this section I am, of course, referring to our way of dividing the epistle. In the original there would have been no chapter divisions. In time students of the epistle produced a number of ways of dividing it. The modern chapter divisions in the New Testament appear to have been drawn up by Stephen Langton during the thirteenth century (see The Cambridge History of the Bible, II, ed. G. W. H. Lampe [Cambridge, 1969], pp. 147–48).
82 UBS cites the following as having the doxology here only: L Ψ 0209vid 181 326 330 451 614 1175 1241 1877 1881 1984 1985 2492 2495 Byz Lect itdem syrh mssacc. to Origen lat Chrysostom (Theodore) Cyril Theodoret John-Damascus. It is read both here and at 16:25 by A P 5 33 88 104 460lat arm; it is read only at 15:33 by P46; it is omitted entirely by Fgr G (this MS leaves a space) 629 itdc(?)[g] Marcionacc. to Origen lat mssacc. to Jerome [vid]; it is read only at 16:25 by a large number of MSS led by P61 א B C D Dabs [1] 81 436 itmss vg syrp copsa.bo eth Clement Origenlat mssacc. to Origen lat Ambrosiaster.
83 Tertullian refers to Rom. 14:10 as in clausula epistolae, “in the conclusion of the letter” (Adv. Marc. v.14). This need not mean that these were the very last words, but it is difficult to think that more than two chapters followed. Barrett, however, refuses to press this point on the ground that in later Latin clausula could be used for any division of a document (Barrett, p. 11; here, however, it is clausula epistolae, which does not look like a division). Tertullian repeats that Marcion has made serious omissions from Romans (Adv. Marc. v.13, 14).
84 Rufinus’s Latin version of Origen’s commentary on Romans tells us that “from that place where it is written ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ ” (i.e., Rom. 14:23) Marcion “cut it away up to the end (usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit)” (cited from Gamble, p. 22). There is a tiny doubt here, for dissecuit strictly means “cut in pieces”. But most take it here in the sense desecuit, “cut off”. This appears to be what Origen is saying. We have evidence of a text lacking chs. 15 and 16, but not of one with a mutilated version of these two chapters. T. Zahn, however, took the word strictly and found it unthinkable that Marcion should have discarded all of chs. 15 and 16 (Introduction, pp. 396ff.).
85 I have cited these breves from Gamble, p. 16.
86 F. F. Bruce adduces an argument from silence. “The Book of Testimonies ascribed to Cyprian (died AD 258) includes a collection of biblical texts which enjoin withdrawal from heretics; this collection does not include Romans 16:17, which might have been thought an apt text for his purpose. This argument from silence, which would have little weight if it stood alone, must be taken along with other pieces of evidence” (Bruce, p. 27). Gamble also draws attention to this (p. 20).
87 Gamble, p. 17.
88 Ibid., pp. 18–19.
89 This is significant but its importance should not be exaggerated. None of the three quotes from 1 Cor. 16 either, but this is not usually seen as an argument that that chapter is unauthentic.
90 Gamble, p. 21. The only exception he can find is the Muratorian fragment, and even here there is dispute.
91 Cited from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London, 1935), p. 206. There is, of course, doubt as to whether the prologues really are Marcionite, but it is usual to cite them under this name.
92 E.g., Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings (New York and London, 1938), pp. 266ff.
93 Gamble, however, links the two. He is impressed by “the testimony of the Pauline bilinguals, which, properly evaluated, attest the phenomena together” (Gamble, p. 33).
94 Gamble sums up: “The evidence is geographically widespread, representing Europe (the Amiatine capitula, the Concordia epistularum, Irenaeus, the bilingual and other Old Latin witnesses), Africa (Tertullian and Cyprian), and the East (the Byzantine text and Origen), and this form of the letter can be traced back with confidence at least as far as the second century in the testimonies of Tertullian and Origen” (Gamble, p. 33).
95 “It is to us inconceivable that St. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argument by cutting off the conclusion of it” (SH, p. xcv).
96 Gamble, pp. 115–24.
97 Dodd has a suggestion: “there is perhaps no answer but the illimitable stupidity of editors” (Dodd, p. xvi).
98 The Anglican Book of Common Prayer provides that Rom. 15:4–13 be read on the second Sunday in Advent (as in a number of other churches). An Australian Prayer Book (Anglican) has Rom. 16:25–27 as a reading for the fourth Sunday in Advent.
99 “Such a concentration of material offensive to Marcion can scarcely be paralleled in the Pauline writings” (Bruce, p. 29).
100 Dodd, p. xvii.
101 Cranfield makes the point against Ephesus that Paul had ministered extensively in that city and that it is inconceivable that he would have had no more to say to his friends than we read in Rom. 16. They would look for “some pastoral message specially appropriate to them” and “its absence is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that Paul had time to include so many greetings to individuals” (Cranfield, p. 11).
102 The Latin names are not a problem. Donfried draws attention to Harry Leon’s study of 551 names of Jews in Rome which shows that there were more Latin names among them than Semitic and Greek names combined. “Leon’s conclusion establishes the probability that the names in Romans 16 could easily belong to Roman Jews” (Donfried, p. 56). Roman Christianity, however, was predominantly Greek speaking until well into the second century, so that it is idle to look for too many Latin names in this church.
103 Bruce regards this as “Perhaps the strongest case” of identification with names known at Rome, for we know of a “ ‘family of Narcissus’ in Rome at this very time” (Bruce, p. 256).
104 In support of the view that considerable travel took place in the Roman Empire of the time and that it was feasible among Paul’s correspondents, Barrett cites Lietzmann for information about a migration from Asia Minor to Tusculum of a household of 500 persons, “a ‘house-church’ of initiates of Dionysius” (Barrett, p. 282).
105 1 Corinthians is usually held to have been written from Ephesus (cf. Kümmel, p. 205); Timothy’s knowledge of what was going on in Asia (2 Tim. 1:15; cf. 1 Tim. 1:3) seems to locate him in Ephesus.
106 Some argue that the names point to Ephesus. But the only names which can be linked with that city are Aquila and Prisca, and perhaps Epaenetus. But the first two are connected also with Rome, as are Rufus, Narcissus, Ampliatus, and possibly Nereus and Aristobulus (Dodd, p. xxiii). The argument has little weight.
107 It is even possible that they went back to Rome as advance agents of Paul. Thus Zahn thought it not impossible that “when Paul turned his attention toward Rome and prepared to give up his work in Ephesus, this couple left Ephesus, very soon after the sending of 1 Corinthians, at about the same time that Paul did, and returned to Rome, where they had resided earlier, in order to prepare quarters for the apostle there as they had done previously in Ephesus” (Introduction, p. 390). He thinks that Epaenetus may have accompanied them. Parry comments, “It is reasonable to conclude that when, at Ephesus, the plan of a visit to Rome was definitely formed (Acts xix.21), it was also decided that these two faithful companions and fellow workers should return to that city, to which at any rate Prisca probably belonged, prepare the way for S. Paul’s own visit, and send him information as to the state of the church there” (CGT, p. xiii). As a possible link of Prisca with Rome Dodd points out that both Acilius (or Aquillius) and Prisca are names connected with the consul Acilius Glabrio, who “was a Christian in the time of Domitian.” It is possible that Aquila and Prisca were freed slaves of the Acilii (Dodd, pp. xxi-xxii). It is not a strong link, but it is possible.
108 Cf. Dodd, p. xxiii.
109 Raymond E. Brown discusses the evidence and, after considering the names, writes, “Thus, overall the 16-chapter form of Romans has every reason to be considered as original” (Antioch and Rome, p. 108).
110 Cf. Donald Guthrie, “if Paul has no authority to commend anyone to a church where he is unknown he would equally have no authority to write to them as he has done in chapters i-xv” (“The Pauline Epistles,” New Testament Introduction [London, 1961], p. 30). The very existence of the epistle is the refutation of the objection.
111 Gamble, p. 52. The introductory words are παραχαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί.
112 This is supported by the fact that the oldest MS of Romans, P46, has the doxology after 15:33. This is taken (e.g., by T. W. Manson) to indicate that at one time the text on which this MS is based ended with ch. 15. But it is not to be overlooked that this MS does not in fact end at ch. 15 and that there may have been some other reason than the original end of the epistle for the appearance of the doxology at this place.
113 Cited from Dodd, p. xix. Gamble does not regard this as a strong objection; he points out that the comment is found only in the first edition (Gamble, p. 47 n.51). He further points out that those who see ch. 16 as a whole letter are able to rationalize the greetings in some way.
114 Cf. Guthrie, “some reasonable explanation must be given for the strange preservation of the greetings and the loss of the Epistle. Common sense would suggest the reverse” (Introduction, pp. 31–32).
115 Gamble notes some; P.Oxy. 1296, e.g., has 12 lines of greetings in a letter of 20 lines (Gamble, p. 91 n.156). It is not the number of greetings in itself that is the problem but the number of greetings in a letter of this character. It should also be borne in mind that Paul has nothing like it elsewhere. There must be some reason for such a lengthy list of greetings in a Pauline letter.
116 This point is overlooked by many who note the existence of letters of recommendation in antiquity, e.g., A. Deissmann, LAE, pp. 170–71; J. I. H. McDonald, NTS, XVI (1969–70), pp. 369–72.
117 Gamble, p. 87 n.137.
118 Gamble cites a number of examples, e.g., Plato, Ep. 13, which he describes as “a lengthy letter” and which ends: “Iatrocles, who along with Myronides was set free by me, is now about to embark with those sent by me. Therefore give him some paid employment since he is well-disposed toward you; and use him for whatever you wish” (ibid., p. 86).
119 Ibid., p. 87.
120 Donfried, p. 164. Wuellner has earlier said, “The peroration has been specified in Hellenistic rhetoric ‘as the proper place for pathos,’ i.e., the rousing of emotions for the purpose of stimulating the audience to action” (ibid., p. 163).
121 Gamble, p. 83. Not all these elements are invariably present, but some of them always are and the sequence does not vary. Gordon J. Bahr has also given attention to the endings of Paul’s letters (“The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters”, JBL, LXXXVII [1968], pp. 27–41). Of Romans he says, “As far as the form of ch. 16 is concerned, there is no reason to deny its authenticity” (ibid., p. 39).
122 “Ch.16 has all the earmarks of an epistolary conclusion, as can be seen by comparing it with other conclusions. The same comparison, however, reveals the distinctiveness of Rom 16, a distinctiveness which can be accounted for only on the basis of the situation presupposed in the Roman letter” (Gamble, p. 91).
123 Gamble sums up in these words: “Thus, even though many have found considerations of content to be prohibitive of a Roman destination for ch. 16, in terms of letter-form and style everything speaks in favor of the integrity of the letter. That Paul had some acquaintances in Rome—and only a limited number of firsthand acquaintances need be supposed—is a smaller and more reasonable assumption than that ch. 16 was no original part of the Roman letter. If judgments based on content are inevitably somewhat subjective and inconclusive, the evidence of epistolary style is a much more demonstrable and reliable index for deciding literary-critical issues. In the case of Romans it provides as much certainty as can be had that Rom 1-16 preserves the original extent of Paul’s letter to the Romans” (Gamble, pp. 94–95).
124 In an article entitled “Greetings as a New Testament Form” (JBL, LXXXVII [1968], pp. 418–26), Terence Y. Mullins looks at the usage in greetings both outside and inside the New Testament. He sees Romans as different from the other letters. As befits the longest letter, both the opening and the closing are longer than any others in the New Testament. On the basis of the greetings he thinks that the relationship between Paul and the Roman congregation “seems to be other than scholars have assumed, and no simple readjustment of our old notions is likely to bring it into focus. We can not, for example, simply lop off the last chapter or two and say that they are not part of the letter. The opening and closing are too obviously supplementary for such a solution to hold” (ibid., p. 426). He thinks that problems remain, but for our present purpose the point is that the greetings agree with other evidence that ch. 16 is part of the original letter.
125 Gamble, p. 92.
126 Donfried emphasizes this strongly in his “Methodological Principles II” (Donfried, pp. 122–23).
1 The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Part III, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur P. Hunt (London, 1903), p. 264.
2 Thus a letter would begin with the names of the sender (in the nominative) and the recipient (dative) and a greeting, all in one short sentence. Paul expands this and adds a sentence invoking God’s blessing or giving thanks or both. Strictly, Greek letters have their introduction in the third person, but Paul can use the first person (e.g., Gal. 1:1–2). In his differences from the Greek model Paul often conforms to Middle Eastern and specifically Jewish customs. For a study of Paul’s opening thanksgivings see Peter Thomas O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (Leiden, 1977).
a 4 Or who as to his spirit of holiness
3 Others are linked with Paul in every letter except Ephesians and the Pastorals.
4 שָׁאוּל.
5 According to tradition Paul was “small of stature” (Acts of Paul and Thecla 3). There is, of course, no way of knowing how reliable this tradition is.
6 A. Deissmann argues from Σαῦλος ὁ χαὶ Παῦλος (Acts 13:9) that Paul had the two names before the incident in which we first learn of them and thus that he did not adopt the second name in connection with Sergius Paulus (Bible Studies [Edinburgh, 1901], pp. 313–17). We should not see “Paul” as a new name adopted to help in his missionary work (though it was suitable, being a Roman name for the Roman world), nor as symbolizing his new nature or the like.
7 δοῦλος. This is a very striking thought in a Greek writing. Among the Easterners it was not uncommon for people to speak of themselves as the “slaves” of their god or king, but this was not the case among the Greeks. Proud in their freedom, they eschewed the language of slavery. On this word, cf. BAGD, “ ‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times … in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished.”
8 K. H. Rengstorf speaks of the word as pointing to “unconditional commitment”; he comments, “the goal of redemption … is obedience rather than autonomy” (TDNT, II, p. 275).
9 Cf. T. W. Manson, “ ‘Slave’ gives the wrong emphasis: in religious usage in both OT and NT the stress is not on one person’s rights of property but on the total loyalty and unstinted service given of right to God by his prophets or to Christ by his apostles.” Many share this point of view, but it is not easy to maintain. The word does mean “slave” (see n. 7†). And it is applied not only to great people like apostles, but to ordinary Christians as well (cf. 6:22; 1 Cor. 7:22; Col. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:24).
10 H. Moule comments, “To be a bondservant is terrible in the abstract. To be ‘Jesus Christ’s bondservant’ is Paradise, in the concrete” (p. 11).
11 Käsemann denies that the title expresses humility or a placing of oneself on a level with other Christians. “Rather, he is using the honorific title of the OT men of God…. This title expresses (as in Revelation) election as well as the submission of an instrument to the will of God.” But this overlooks its use for lowly Christians (see above, nn. 7†, 9†).
12 Deissmann calls attention to the use of the term in the Emperor cult. He cites an inscription from Phrygia in the imperial period which reads, “Agathopus, slave of the lord Emperor” (LAE, p. 376).
13 Cranfield accepts this order with P10 B pc c e vgcodd Ir Ambst Aug. He sees it as “quite probable that he adopted this order here with the intention of giving special emphasis right at the beginning of the epistle to the fact that the One, whose slave he was, was the fulfilment of God’s promises and of Israel’s age-old hope.”
14 Cranfield does this, and he cites Cullmann and Bornkamm in support (p. 51 n. 3).
15 The Names of Jesus (London, 1953), pp. 18–23. He points out, inter alia, that in the Gentile world the title was meaningless: “If Jesus was to be invoked, venerated, and worshipped, He must be called ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’. The name ‘Christ’ could survive only by becoming a personal designation, charged with deep religious meaning by reason of its association with these titles” (ibid., p. 23).
NIV New International Version
16 χλητός. If the word is read in Matt. 20:16, it occurs 11 times. The present passage is noteworthy for the idea of a personal call (as in 1 Cor. 1:1). In its other occurrences the word is plural and refers to groups. The idea that God calls individuals is found in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:17, 20ff.; Heb. 11:8). But it is interesting that so often the common Christian calling is in mind.
17 Paul’s terminology differs from that in the Synoptic Gospels. There we read that “many are called, but few chosen”. Paul’s idea is not essentially different, but he does not use the term “called” in the same way. For him the call and the response go together.
18 MM find it “not easy to point to an adequate parallel for the NT usage of this important word” (ἀπόστολος). Etymologically it should signify “messenger”, a meaning attested in two passages in Herodotus, one in LXX, and one in Symmachus. But its common use is for naval matters (see LSJ). All this makes it surprising that it is so common in the New Testament (79 times). F. Agnew cites some eighth-century secular papyri which have the word in the sense “messenger” and argues that the meaning we see in Herodotus persisted though it is not attested in the literature (CBQ, XXXVIII [1976], pp. 49–53). Perhaps the New Testament writers used an uncommon word because ἄγγελος was preempted for the sense “angel”, and thus another term was needed. A surprising number of commentators see the background as the Jewish שָׁלִיחַ; they often appeal to Rengstorf, TDNT, I, pp. 413ff. But this official is not attested for the New Testament period, not earlier in fact than the third and fourth centuries. G. W. H. Lampe can say, “The institution which we know in the fourth century almost certainly came into existence later than the time of the New Testament, and the ‘shaliachate’ in this sense is not likely to have contributed anything to the development of the Christian apostolate” (Some Aspects of the New Testament Ministry [London, 1949], pp. 15–16). In a Foreword to E. R. Fairweather and R. F. Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion (London, 1953), A. M. Ramsey commends Dr. Fairweather because he “discards the shaliach argument used by the authors of The Apostolic Ministry.”
The term ἀπόστολος is found 34 times in Paul out of the New Testament total of 79; the highest elsewhere is Acts with 28. The Gospels use the word rarely: Matthew, Mark, and John once each, Luke six times. In Romans it is found only here and in 11:13; 16:7. Paul uses the term in the following ways:
20 For apostles see further my Ministers of God (London, 1964), ch. III and the literature there cited.
21 The verb is ἀφορίζω. But it is not clear from whom or what they were separated. They may have been separated from uncleanness in their devotion to the law, or the Hasidim may have used the term of their separation from the Maccabees. Some have seen a separation from priestly interpreters of the law. Others hold that the name really means “Persian” and was a nickname given on account of what their critics saw as Persian innovations. Cf. Matthew Black, IDB, III, p. 776, and for the literature, Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1969), p. 246. Whatever the truth of the origin of the name, there is no doubt that in the first century the Pharisees firmly believed that they were in a special sense God’s “separated ones”.
22 Normally the word εὐαγγέλιον has the article. It is without it in the New Testament only here, in 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6 (both of which refer to “another” gospel), and in Rev. 14:6. Käsemann points out that the article is sometimes omitted in technical expressions (cf. BAGD in n. 31† below). But it is not easy to see why it should be omitted on this occasion.
23 There are some unsolved problems about the word. The combination of εὐ and ἄγγελος points to “good news”, though the word seems often to have been used simply of “news”, or “message” (it was also used of the reward given the bearer of good news). But there is no doubt that in the New Testament good news is in mind (though cf. Rev. 14:6). The absolute use, so frequent in Paul, is new. Paul finds the content so central that he can assume that his readers know what it is.
24 In the Roman Empire εὐαγγέλιον was linked with the Emperor cult. It was “good news” when an heir was born or came to the throne. Deissmann quotes from an inscription dated 9 B.C. concerning the birthday of the Emperor Augustus: “But the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of tidings of joy on his account” (LAE, p. 366). Cf. also G. Friedrich, TDNT, II, pp. 724–25.
25 The genitive θεοῦ might conceivably mean that the gospel is good news about God. But while there is truth in this, the expression more naturally refers to origin (BDF 163). The gospel is from God. Cranfield sees Barrett’s the Good News “God is now setting forth” as “an unwarranted limitation of the sense”.
26 See Introduction, p. 20.
27 E.g., in Matthew, Mark, and John “Jesus” is referred to more often than is “God”. In Luke “God” is used more often than “Jesus” (122 times and 89 times respectively), but here the words for “man” occur as often as “God” (ἄνθρωπος 95, ἀνήρ 27), and this total is exceeded by those for verbs like εἰπεῖν (294) and εἶναι (361). There are no comparable phenomena in Romans.
28 The verb προεπαγγέλλομαι is not common in the New Testament; it is found elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 9:5.
29 So Lagrange, etc.
30 γραφή is found 14 times in the Pauline writings. It most commonly occurs in the singular with the article, “the scripture” (Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal. 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18), while once we find “all scripture” (or “every scripture”, 2 Tim. 3:16). Sometimes we have the plural with the article (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4). It is unusual to have scripture characterized as “holy” (though cf. 7:12; 2 Tim. 3:15), and G. Schrenk can say: “We may thus conclude that the phrase αἱ ἱεραὶ γραφαί perpetuates in the Church a Jewish and Hellenistic rather than a specifically early Christian usage” (TDNT, I, p. 751).
31 “The absence of the article with γραφαῖς ἁγίαις emphasises the peculiar holiness of the Old Testament Scriptures”(Boylan; Schrenk, however, sees the absence of the article as “of no significance” [TDNT, I, p. 751 n. 7]). BAGD comment on ἱερὰ γράμματα, (2 Tim. 3:15), “because of the technical character of the expression no article is needed” (sub γράμμα 2.c).
32 Paul uses υἱός 12 times in Romans, of which seven refer to Christ. They are all qualified (“his”, “God’s”, etc.) and the absolute use, “the Son”, which is so common in John, is not found at all. Another difference from John is that Paul does not hesitate to use the term to denote the sonship to God that people may have. John prefers to speak of τέχνα θεοῦ, and he brings out some of the uniqueness of Christ by reserving the term υἱός for him alone. Perhaps Paul’s use of the term points to the divine condescension in admitting the saved into membership in his family.
33 Cf. Käsemann, “Provisionally one might state that no NT author understood the unique divine sonship of Jesus otherwise than in a metaphysical sense”; he finds Son of God “as rare in Judaism as it is common in Hellenism”. Robinson notices that Paul is the only one said in Acts to preach Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 9:20; 13:33; cf. Gal. 1:16). He asks, “Is this presentation peculiarly remembered as having been associated with Paul?” See also Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, pp. 11–19; Abba, pp. 15–33.
34 It is attested in the Qumran literature, as in the commentary on Isa. 11:1–3: “(Interpreted this concerns the Branch) of David who shall arise at the end” (G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Penguin, 1972], p. 227; cf. pp. 224, 246). So also in the Psalms of Solomon, “Behold, O Lord, and raise up to them their king, the Son of David … and let Him reign over Israel thy servant” (17:23; J. Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon [Cambridge, 1911], p. 155).
35 γενομένου. The verb γίνομαι is an exceedingly common verb (Paul uses it 35 times in Romans and 141 times in all). It has no necessary connection with descent, apparently being concerned rather with “transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another” (T. S. Evans, Speaker’s Commentary on 1 Cor. 1:30). But this transition may be from the womb to the world and the verb may thus be used of being born, though it is not the usual way of denoting birth. It is used in this way of Abraham (John 8:58), as well as of Christ (Gal. 4:4). This may well be the way we should understand it here (as ARV, Moffatt, Way, etc.), though some suggest it means from a previous mode of existence (in heaven) to “coming to be” in human form. But this may be too subtle.
36 Matt. 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15 (a total of eight); Mark 10:47, 48 (bis); Luke 18:38, 39 (bis). This is probably implied in another three cases, Matt. 1:20; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41. I have not noted the term in parallel passages.
37 Jesus’ descent from David is mentioned now and then without being emphasized (Acts 2:29ff.; 13:22–23, 34; Rev. 5:5; 22:16).
38 Black comments, “Jesus himself appears to have found difficulty with this popular belief, and to have taken exception to it; he never used the term ‘son of David’ of himself”. But Bruce can say that Jesus’ “question about the scribal exegesis of Psalm 110.1 (Mk. 12.35-37) should not be construed as a repudiation of Davidic descent.”
39 James D. G. Dunn has a good deal to say about this text in an important article, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1:3–4” (JTS, N.S. XXIV [1973], pp. 40–68). He argues that we should not take χατὰ σάρχα here or elsewhere in a neutral sense, for Paul uses it pejoratively. He says, “it must be judged highly probable that for Paul χατὰ σάρχα in Rom. i.3 carries its normal note of depreciation” (p. 49). He holds that “Paul does not affirm the Davidic sonship of Jesus without qualification. He does not deny it either, but he makes it clear that to describe Jesus as ‘born of the seed of David’ is a dangerously defective and misleading half-truth” (p. 51). He sees the χατὰ σάρχα, χατὰ πνεῦμα antithesis as important here and remarks that these two expressions “denote not successive and mutually exclusive spheres of power, but modes of existence and relationships which overlap and coincide in the earthly Jesus” (p. 54). I am not sure that Dr. Dunn has allowed sufficiently for the possibility of neutrality in some of the examples of χατὰ σάρχα, but his article is thought-provoking. The idea that the earthly Jesus knew what it was during his time in the flesh to live χατὰ πνεῦμα, thus setting us an example, is very valuable.
40 Notably the verb ὁρίζω, which Paul uses nowhere else (Luke and Hebrews have it once each, Acts five times), and the expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (not found elsewhere in the New Testament). Other features, such as “Son” and χατὰ σάρχα, are quite Pauline, however. See a concise summary of the evidence for the use of “an earlier statement” in Dunn, JTS, XXIV, p. 40.
41 Thus it is suggested that the formula expresses a pre-Pauline, adoptionist christology. Paul, it is said, does not refer to Christ’s Davidic descent elsewhere (2 Tim. 2:8 is regarded as credal), nor does he connect Christ’s status as Son of God with his exaltation. But (a) the words do not necessarily point to adoptionism, and (b) Paul certainly did not understand them in that way. In any case we should be very cautious about labelling anything in the New Testament “pre-Pauline”. The date of Paul’s conversion is estimated by competent authorities as c. A.D. 32, so there cannot have been much Christianity before him.
42 Käsemann has a good discussion of the issues; see also R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I (London, 1952), p. 49. See also Paul Beasley-Murray, “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus”, Tyndale Bulletin, 31 (1980), pp. 147–54 and the article by Dunn noted earlier.
43 Cf. V. S. Poythress, “Is Romans 1 3–4 a Pauline Confession After All?” (ET, LXXXVII [1975–76], pp. 180–83).
44 Dunn rejects the idea that we can go back to an earlier form of the formula to determine Paul’s meaning: “the primary object must be to discover what Paul understood by the saying. Only then can we begin to ask whether and how he has adapted and moulded the earlier formula” (JTS, XXIV, p. 43).
45 Cited from an unpublished thesis by Elmer Leroy Birney, An Annotated Translation of Theodoret’s Commentary on Romans 1–5 (in the library of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois), May 1968.
46 ὅρος = “boundary”; ὁρίζω = “to separate, mark off by boundaries” (AS). BAGD give the meaning here as “declared to be the powerful Son of God”. Some of the Fathers, whose language was Greek, take the word in this sense. Thus Chrysostom, “What then is the being ‘declared’? being shown, being manifested, being judged, being confessed, by the feeling and suffrage of all” (p. 340).
RSV The Revised Standard Version
NASB The New American Standard Bible
NEB The New English Bible
GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
Nygren Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)
47 In Acts 2:36 Jesus is “made” both Lord and Christ at the resurrection, although he has already been approved by signs, etc. (2:22).
48 Some take the words in the sense “appointed” and hold that they express an adoptionist christology, the view that Jesus was at first no more than a man, but that at the resurrection God “adopted” him into the heavenly family or “installed” or “appointed” him as a member. Thus Käsemann holds that the formula is pre-Pauline and that unlike Paul “the formula does not presuppose the preexistence and divine sonship of the earthly Jesus…. Jesus receives the dignity of divine sonship only with his exaltation and enthronement” (p. 12); “The reference here is to the enthronement of Christ as Son of God, and the Spirit of holiness was the power which accomplished this” (p. 11). If the words are understood in this way, they express without much precision the thought that it was the resurrection that showed Christ to be God’s Son. Dodd speaks of it as “pre-theological”. It is difficult to find evidence that any New Testament thinker really held an adoptionist position, and certainly in quoting these words Paul did not understand them in such a sense.
49 NTS, XVII (1970–71), pp. 104–8.
50 TDNT, V, p. 453. He goes on, “But behind the dispute there is an important point, for in the christological passages adduced, Ac. 10:42 and 17:31 as well as R. 1:4, the appointment of Jesus (Christ) as what He is to be must be equated with what He already is from the very beginning of the world, from all eternity in God’s decree.” Godet, however, rejects “declared” as insufficient: “For the resurrection of Jesus not only manifested or demonstrated what He was; it wrought a real transformation in His mode of being.” He argues for “establishing”. Moule uses the illustration of a coronation: one who is king by right of birth is yet “made” king by being crowned (p. 17). Geerhardus Vos has an important note on this passage (The Pauline Eschatology [Grand Rapids, 1953], p. 155 n.10). He says, “The resurrection (both of Jesus and of believers) is therefore according to Paul the entering upon a new phase of sonship characterized by the possession and exercise of unique supernatural power.”
51 Murray rejects the meaning “declared” for the verb in favor of “appointed”. But he avoids an adoptionist view by taking “with power” closely with “Son of God”: “The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was instated in a position of sovereignty and invested with power.” He sees Acts 2:36 as analogous.
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
JB The Jerusalem Bible
Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)
52 δύναμις. We might have expected that it would be primarily a Gospel word. But the greatest number of occurrences in any of the Gospels is 15 in Luke, whereas Paul uses it 48 times (eight in Romans).
53 ἁγιωσύνη is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Thess. 3:13.
54 Cf. Earle, “it seems best to take it as referring to Jesus’ human spirit, which was completely holy”; so SH.
55 So Haldane, Hodge, etc. Cf. GNB, “as to his divine holiness”. Murray notices and rejects the view that the expression refers to “the divine nature” of Christ. He sees it rather as characterizing “the phase which came to be through the resurrection”; “the lordship in which he was instated by the resurrection is one all-pervasively conditioned by pneumatic powers.”
56 “The Spirit of holiness is the regular Hebrew way of saying ‘the Holy Spirit’; Paul here reproduces the Hebrew idiom in Greek”(Bruce); “We should not try to be too subtle about the phrase ‘Spirit of holiness’ … Πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is the exact replica of ‘Holy Spirit’ ” (Leenhardt).
57 Black holds that “According to common Jewish belief, the resurrection of the dead was to be the work of the Holy Spirit.” He cites I. Hermann in support. He sees the meaning here as “Christ was divinely decreed Son of God ‘in power’, i.e. miraculously, by a mighty act of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit effecting his Resurrection”.
58 ἁγιωσύνη might refer to spirit as holy (Cranfield cites Ps. 51:11 [12]; Isa. 63:10–11; Test. Levi 18:7; Qumran scrolls, etc.), or if the latter view be held (as Cranfield suggests), to the work of sanctification the Spirit accomplishes in believers.
59 The expression is ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεχρῶν and the point at issue the meaning to be attached to ἐχ. It certainly can have a time reference, as we see from John 9:1, 32; Acts 24:10, etc. But since this is not its normal meaning, NIV is to be preferred. Only if the preceding words refer to the exaltation is the time reference to be accepted.
60 S. H. Hooke objects to translations which concentrate on Jesus’ own resurrection and argues that Paul is saying “that it is the ἀνάστασις νεχρῶν, the resurrection of the dead, now made possible by the resurrection of Christ, that marks him out as Son of God” (NTS, IX [1962–63], pp. 371–72).
61 Sometimes 1 Pet. 1:3 is also cited, but the expression there is slightly different: διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐχ νεχρῶν.
62 Cf. Bengel, “it is intimated, that the resurrection of all is intimately connected with the resurrection of Christ”. Cf. Acts 4:2; 23:6; 26:23.
63 Cf. an invitation to dinner in the Oxyrhyncus Papyri, “Antonius son of Ptolemaeus invites you to dine with him at the table of the lord Sarapis…” (The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Part III, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt [London, 1903], p. 260).
64 “When, as here, a personal pronoun in the genitive is combined with it, the sense of personal commitment and allegiance is brought out”(Cranfield).
CGT Cambridge Greek Testament
65 διά.
66 It is possible, however, to reason from the fact that “grace” applies to all Christians: “ἀποστολήν evidently applies to Paul himself, but the addressees and all Christians (4 τοῦ χυρίου ἡμῶν) are included in χάρις, so that he could not have written ἔλαβον χάριν” (BDF 280).
67 Cf. Barth, “Grace is the incomprehensible fact that God is well pleased with a man, and that a man can rejoice in God. Only when grace is recognized to be incomprehensible is it grace.”
68 Cf. Cranfield, grace “characteristically denotes … God’s undeserved love revealed in Christ and so may be said to sum up the whole gospel in a single word” (on v. 7).
69 Moule brings out these two aspects: “grace is God for us, grace is God in us” (p. 22).
70 ἀποστολή is a rather rare word, found only four times in the New Testament, three being in Paul.
71 ὑπαχοή. AS notes that “The word is not found except in LXX, NT and eccl.”. In the New Testament it occurs 15 times, 11 of which are in Paul, seven in Romans. Thus unusual attention is given to it in this letter.
72 πίστις is another Pauline word, for the apostle uses it 142 times out of the New Testament total of 243. Romans with 40 occurrences has it more than any other book (next is Hebrews with 32). Paul has a similar preponderance with πιστός, which might be translated “faithful” or “believing” (33 times out of 67; it is not used at all in Romans). Curiously this is not the case with the verb “to believe”, which Paul uses but 54 times out of 241.
73 εἰς ὑπαχοὴν πίστεως. Cf. 10:3; 16:26; Gal. 3:2; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:22.
BAGD Walter Bauer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)
74 Cf. Black, “The words define the purpose and sphere of Paul’s special apostleship: it was to bring the Gentile world to an obedience which springs from faith, in contradistinction to an obedience based on the external observance of the Law.” JB has a note, “Subjective genitive: the obedience implicit in the virtue of faith”.
75 Cf. G. Kittel, “the message of πίστις which consists or works itself out in ὑπαχοή” (TDNT, I, p. 224). But these are not quite the same; “consists” is (c), but “works itself out” is (b).
76 Cf. Käsemann, “the obedience of faith means acceptance of the message of salvation … the characteristic linking of faith and obedience in Paul has a meaning which is not primarily ethical but, as is especially clear in 2 Cor 10:4–6, eschatological: When the revelation of Christ is accepted, the rebellious world submits again to its Lord”. Cf. 15:18; 16:19; 2 Cor. 10:5, 6; 9:13; 1 Thess. 1:8–10.
77 The preposition ὑπέρ is characteristically Pauline, being found in the Pauline corpus 99 times out of its 149 New Testament occurrences (17 in Romans; the most in one book is 33 in 2 Corinthians, while the most in any non-Pauline writing is 13 in John). Paul often uses it to express the truth that Christ’s death was substitutionary (see my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 [London and Grand Rapids, 1965], pp. 62–64). In the present passage, however, the more general sense, “on behalf of”, is required.
78 Cf. Kertelge, “ ‘his name’ here means his ‘person’ ”. On the similar expression in 3 John 7 Westcott comments, “it is evident that ‘the Name’ is ‘Jesus Christ’ ” (The Epistles of St John [London], 1892], p. 238). A little later he says, “This ‘Name’ is in essence the sum of the Christian Creed (comp. 1 Cor. xii.3; Rom. x.9).”
79 Michel takes the name to be that of God.
80 Paul uses πᾶς 460 times out of the New Testament total of 1,226. It is found 152 times in Luke, 170 times in Acts, and 128 times in Matthew, these being the only books which have more than 100.
81 Minear holds that the word “all” in this letter “carries a strong polemical thrust. He was fighting with his partisan readers and trying to persuade them to draw a much wider circle in their conception of the boundaries of the community of faith. As Paul saw it, that community embraced the two most hostile factions” (Minear, p. 45 n.4). But this depends on accepting Minear’s view of the faction-ridden state of the Roman church (which is improbable), and it overlooks the fact that πᾶς is frequent throughout the Pauline writings, not only in Romans.
82 ἔθνος is found 162 times in the New Testament, of which 54 occurrences are in Paul (29 in Romans) and 43 in Acts. The highest number elsewhere is 23 in Revelation. This points to the truth that in Acts we see the Gentile mission at work and in Romans the theology that underlay that mission.
83 Notice how the thought of this verse recurs in 15:15–16.
Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)
Bruce F. F. Bruce: The Letter of Paul to the Romans2 (Leicester, 1985)
Cranfield C. E. B. Cranfield: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, I [1975]; II [1979])
84 Some understand the expression χλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to mean “called by Jesus Christ”; they point out that the verbal adjective may take the genitive of agent (as in 1 Kings 1:49 [LXX], where this very word, χλητός, is used). Cranfield sees the refusal to accept this as “doctrinaire”. Alford also accepts it, but most reject it (as SH, Lagrange, Barrett, NEB, etc.). The point is that normally Paul sees the Father rather than the Son as calling people (4:17; 8:30; 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Tim. 1:9). BDF 183 expressly differentiate this passage from those where the verbal adjective takes the genitive of agent because “the one calling is God”. “Called to belong to Jesus Christ” is the meaning. Deissmann notes the use of the simple genitive Καίσαρος, “belonging to the Emperor” (LAE, p. 377), which may be part of the background against which the expression is to be understood (cf. 1 Cor. 1:12; 2 Cor. 10:7; Gal. 3:29; 5:24, etc.).
85 The words ἐν Ῥώμῃ are omitted in G 1739mg 1908mg itg Or. Most of these authorities are late, and the words should certainly be read. See above, p. 3, for the support this reading lends to the theory of a circular letter. The reading ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ for ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ (G itcodd Ambstr Pel) is probably an attempt to smooth the text after ἐν Ῥώμῃ was omitted. The words are preceded by the participle οὖσιν, for which there seems no particular reason. But Paul uses this participle more than anyone else in the New Testament (61 times out of 152, 18 in Romans). He does not use the verb εἶναι as a whole in this way (560 times out of 2,450). We should take the presence of the participle accordingly as a mark of Paul’s style rather than as having some profound meaning.
86 The construction is like that with χλητοί in v. 6. “God’s beloved” seems to be the meaning. But NIV’s loved by God is possible if we see this as an example of the verbal adjective taking the genitive to denote the agent as in, say, Luke 7:28 (cf. M, III, p. 234). ἀγαπητός is another word of which Paul is fond (27 times out of 61 in the New Testament).
87 ἅγιος is of course used of things as well as people. Thus it is used of scripture (v. 2), of the law and the commandment (7:12), of the firstfruits and the root (11:16), of the kiss with which Christians should greet one another (16:16). Its most notable uses are for the holy people (the saints) and for the Holy Spirit.
88 “When Paul writes to ‘all God’s beloved in Rome who are called to be saints’, he is writing, not to people likely to figure in stained-glass windows, but to a somewhat motley collection of shop-keepers, minor civil servants, converted prostitutes, prize-fighters and slaves. These are the people called to be God’s ‘holy ones’ ”(S. Clive Thexton, ET, LXXXVIII [1976–77], p. 26).
89 χαίρειν is used in this way in Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas. 1:1.
90 Käsemann, however, regards this view as “outmoded”: “Paul is, rather, modifying an oriental-Jewish formula which remains intact in 2 Apoc. Bar. 78:2 and Gal 6:16: ‘Mercy and peace be with you.’ ” But Käsemann’s two examples both have “mercy” and not “grace”; they lack the critical word. We need not doubt that Paul’s starting point was “an oriental-Jewish formula”. But he modified it in a way which inevitably reminded readers of the Greek salutation.
91 Though we should notice that in LXX we have ἐλεήσαι, “have mercy”, rather than “grace”.
92 Paul has 43 examples of εἰρήνη out of 91 in the New Testament. Gamble points out that the word tends to occur mostly in “the epistolary framework, that is, in the opening salutations and the concluding peace-wishes”. He does not see it as frequent in “the primary vocabulary of Pauline preaching” (Gamble, p. 68). But we should not overlook Paul’s frequent designation of God as “the God of peace” (15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor. 14:33; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23; cf. 2 Thess. 3:16). Peace was an important concept for him. He finds the making of peace a most important aspect of the work of Christ. He made peace through the blood of the cross (Col. 1:20) and, indeed, he himself is “our peace” (Eph. 2:14; the whole section Eph. 2:11–18 is important for this concept).
93 Cf. Hunter, peace “was the normal Jewish greeting, but on Paul’s lips it must mean that inner serenity which belongs to those who, through Christ, have made their peace with God.”
94 Turner points out that normally when there is apposition a proper noun is anarthrous, while the apposition has the article (M, III, p. 206). He cites this passage as an example of the omission of the article “because a formula” (p. 174).
95 It is also Paul’s normal practice not to have the article with either term. Colossians is an exception, for there most MSS omit any reference to Christ. 1 and 2 Timothy differ only in that the words “our Lord” are put after “Christ Jesus”, while Titus reads instead, “Christ Jesus our Savior”. In 1 Thessalonians the greeting ends at εἰρήνη. Paul’s practice is thus not uniform, though reasonably consistent. Since the expression here is the standard form, perhaps it should not be pressed. There may be a glance at the quality of the two as Father and Lord rather than a stress on their individuality, but we can scarcely say more.
96 Cf. Black, “here is the germ of Trinitarian doctrine.”
97 George Milligan gives the text of an early third-century letter which begins: “Serapias to her children Ptolemaeus and Apolinaria and Ptolemaeus, heartiest greeting. Above all I pray that you may be in health, which is for me the most necessary of all things. I make my obeisance to the lord Serapis, praying that I may receive word that you are in health, even as I pray for your general welfare” (Here and There among the Papyri [London, 1922], p. 35).
98 P. T. O’Brien has a detailed examination of this thanksgiving in his Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (Leiden, 1977), pp. 197–230.
99 BDF see the omission as “excusable or even good classical usage”, perhaps “from the very outset” (447 [4]). Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18 and for a similar construction with τὰ μέν 2 Cor. 12:12. Some hold that we should see the meaning here as “first of all” or “before all” (as Boylan), but others think the corresponding second idea is found in v. 10 (as Godet). Lagrange rejects this solution.
100 It is uncertain how a secretary was used in antiquity. Many scholars hold that a trusted secretary took a rough copy on a wax tablet, wrote out the letter on papyrus with some freedom in the way the thought was expressed, then brought it to the author for correction, final approval, and the addition of a personal greeting. See, e.g., E. Earle Ellis, NTS, 26 (1979–80), pp. 498–99. Gamble cites a number of authorities on modes of dictation, all of whom “wish to allow for a considerable compositional role on the part of the amanuensis.” While agreeing that there is room for “a fresh investigation” of the possible uses of amanuenses, he says, “the vigor, individuality, and consistency of style in the undisputed letters, which often bears the marks of oral speech, favor the view that these were dictated in the verbatim mode” (Gamble, p. 76 n. 94). It is not easy to dispute this verdict.
101 εὐχαριστέω is yet another characteristically Pauline word, being found in the Pauline writings no less than 24 times out of its 38 occurrences in the New Testament (five in Romans).
102 Cf. Chrysostom, “with how much feeling he gives thanks: for he saith not ‘to God,’ but ‘to my God’ ”; he adds “which also the Prophets do, so making that which is common to all their own.”
103 O’Brien points out that this is the only occurrence of this formula in Paul’s thanksgivings. He sees it as meaning that “Christ is, in some sense, the Mediator of the thanksgiving” (Introductory Thanksgivings, p. 204). Cf. Bruce, “As it is through Christ that God’s grace is conveyed to human beings (verse 5), so it is through Christ that their gratitude is conveyed to God.”
104 χαταγγέλλεται. The word is used of proclaiming Christ (Phil. 1:18; Acts 17:3), the resurrection (Acts 4:2), the word of God (Acts 13:5), the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14), the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26), the mystery of God (1 Cor. 2:1), forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38), and the way of salvation (Acts 16:17). It is thus the right verb to use of a serious and important proclamation. Shedd sees in the use of the verb “a proof that the Roman church had been in existence for some time.”
105 περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν but ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ χόσμῳ. For πᾶς see on v. 5. ὅλος is not such a favorite word of Paul’s (14 times out of 108 in the New Testament; four times in Romans).
106 Cf. O’Neill, “the opening thanksgiving for their faith is a sign that he can assume agreement about the fundamentals: the saints in Rome, as everywhere, live by faith.”
107 Paul is, of course, referring to what was known among believers. As for non-Christians we have the verdict of the Jewish leaders in Rome at a slightly later date, “people everywhere are talking against this sect” (Acts 28:22).
108 χόσμος occurs 185 times in the New Testament, of which 78 are in John, 24 in the Johannine epistles, and 47 in Paul (nine in Romans). Outside these two writers the most in any one book is eight in Matthew.
109 Paul uses γάρ 454 times out of a New Testament total of 1,036. It occurs 143 times in Romans, while the most in any non-Pauline writing is 124 in the much longer Gospel of Matthew. γάρ never stands first in its clause, its usual position being second. But it may come third (v. 19) or even fourth (2 Cor. 1:19). LSJ note examples of its occurring fifth, sixth, or even seventh. Modern translations for some reason often omit the term. Thus in Romans NIV omits it 58 times (more than 40% of the whole), and RSV 43 times. This tendency often obscures the connections in Paul’s thought and prevents the reader from appreciating a Pauline distinctive. It is true that sometimes γάρ may legitimately be omitted in translation (BAGD, “oft. in questions, where the English idiom leaves the word untransl.”). But these translations go too far and obscure the connections in Paul’s argument.
110 “Paul appeals to God, as to a witness in court, since God is the one who can testify or prove that Paul always thinks of the Romans when he prays”(TH).
111 Paul’s word for serve, λατρεύω, may mean “serve for hire” in secular writings (cf. λάτρον, “hire”; λάτρις, “hired servant”), but in the Bible it is nearly always used of the service of God or a god or gods (Deut. 28:48 in an exception). In LXX it is narrower than λειτουργέω in this respect, for the latter may be used when men receive the service (1 Kings 1:4; 19:21, etc.). But it is broader in that it is more often used of the service rendered by laypeople as well as priests (λειτουργέω usually, though not invariably, refers to the service of priests and Levites).
112 ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου.
113 Michel sees prayer and preaching as particular forms of priestly service for Paul. Other suggestions are that his whole person is involved, that the reference is to the Holy Spirit, that his spirit (as opposed to the rest of him) accomplishes the service, and that Christians’ service is spiritual whereas in other religions it is carnal. Hodge’s view seems the best.
114 ἀδιαλείπτως does not mean “without intermission”. MM cite its use of a cough. Paul uses it elsewhere of constant prayer (1 Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 5:17).
115 “Make”is ποιοῦμαι. The middle of this verb is used “mostly as a periphrasis of the simple verbal idea” (BAGD; cf. Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:2; Phlm. 4).
116 μνεία.
117 πάντοτε is another Pauline word. It is used by Paul 27 times out of 41 in the New Testament.
118 The noun is προσευχή. It occurs 36 times in the New Testament, of which Paul can claim the respectable total of 14 (he uses the corresponding verb only 19 times out of 86). He does not use the verb rendered pray in v. 10 (δέομαι) very often, but it yields another noun for prayer (δέησις) which he uses 12 times out of its 18 New Testament occurrences. Clearly Paul is more than a little interested in prayer. Perhaps we should notice that he says ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου, which SH point out means “at my prayers”; it is not “in my prayers”, but “when I pray”, “at the time of” or “on the occasion of” (cf. Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:2; Phlm. 4).
Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation
ASV The American Standard Version
119 δέομαι.
120 εἴ πως ἤδη ποτέ. εἰ = if; enclitic πως = somehow, perhaps; ἤδη = already; enclitic ποτε = at some time (Cranfield thinks this term “expresses the feeling that there has been enough time of waiting”). This is a formidable list, and it conveys an eager desire to come to Rome at any time God wills. Murray cites Meyer for the rendering, “if perhaps at length on some occasion.” Harrisville sees “a cluster of conjunctions and adverbs here which yield the picture of a man champing at the bit”. This accords with Käsemann’s view that there is a suggestion of impatience. O’Brien similarly finds uncertainty and perhaps impatience (Introductory Thanksgivings, p. 217). Robertson includes the expression among those that show “the witchery of the old Greek particles” and thinks that ἤδη ποτέ has “more the notion of culmination (‘now at last’) than of time” (Robertson, pp. 1145, 1147). SH hold that “ἤδη = ‘now, after all this waiting’: ποτέ makes the moment more indefinite”; they render, “some near day at last.” Clearly the complex expression brings out Paul’s eagerness to get to Rome.
121 Paul is greatly concerned with God’s will, and he uses θέλημα 24 times, somewhat curiously only four times in Romans, a book which is full of God. εὐοδόω means literally “make a good way”, “be led along a good road”, but in the New Testament the literal sense does not occur. It means rather “to prosper, be prospered, be successful” (AS). NIV brings out something of the original flavor with the way may be opened.
122 O’Brien comments, “Because of the uncertainty of journeys in ancient times, frequent and intensive prayers were offered to the gods for safe travel. Yet these requests were accompanied with very little assurance on the part of the person praying, so in order to account for any unforeseen circumstances, the rider ἐὰν θεοὶ θέλωσι was added.” The difference in the case of Paul was that for him “God’s will was not capricious, for it was through the will of God that he had been called to be an apostle…. Paul might therefore commend specific details of that apostolic calling (such as a journey to Rome) to God’s will with true confidence” (Introductory Thanksgivings, p. 220).
123 This verse is full of characteristic Pauline language. Paul uses ἐπιποθέω seven out of its nine times in the New Testament, πνευματιχός 24 out of 26, and χάρισμα 16 out of 17. This last mentioned is, of course, connected with χάρις, “a concrete instance of God’s χάρις, a gift of God” (CGT). The combination χάρισμα πνευματιχόν is found here only. Perhaps we should add ἵνα to the list of Pauline words. It is, of course, a common word and might be found anywhere. But Paul uses it more than anyone, 249 times out of 673; John is next with 147, a long way behind Paul’s total.
124 ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα. On the position of τί BDF comments, “Unemphatic (enclitic) pronouns and the like are placed as near the beginning of the sentence as possible … (they are not, however, placed first)” (473 [1]).
125 For εἰς with the accusative of the infinitive see the note on v. 20.
126 Paul uses the various forms of οὗτος quite often (268 times). He is far and away the greatest user of τοῦτο, which he has 114 times out of a New Testament total of 315, more than a third of the whole. We should thus add this to the characteristic Pauline language of this part of the epistle. The expression τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν is found here only in the New Testament. Leenhardt says that it “has not the meaning of τοῦτʼ ἔστιν (that is to say) (cf. 7:18). It introduces not an explanation but a complement” (Cranfield accepts this, though Robertson, p. 705, finds no difference).
127 Cf. Calvin, “Note how modestly he expresses what he feels by not refusing to seek strengthening from inexperienced beginners. He means what he says, too, for there is none so void of gifts in the Church of Christ who cannot in some measure contribute to our spiritual progress.” So also Cragg, “It may have been a wise approach, but it was an attitude dictated more by the nature of the gifts of which he writes than by the strategy which governed his mission. Benefit is never one-sided…. It is impossible to bless without being blessed.”
128 συμπαραχαλέω may have the meaning “comfort” (as KJV) or “encourage”; it “is used of the inner strengthening of mind and spirit imparted by God” (Black). Hodge thinks that the word “expresses all that excitement and strengthening of faith and pious feeling, as well as consolation, which is wont to flow from the communion of saints.”
129 Paul “piles up phrases to emphasise the reciprocity of benefit (συν., ἐν, ἀλλ., ὑ.χ.ἐ.) ” (CGT).
130 “Emphatic ἐμοῦ does not appear in NT except in combination with another gen.”(BDF 284[2]). The meaning will be, “each through the faith of the other.”
131 Käsemann, who sees “uncertainty and embarrassment” here, discerns a “sudden change from the stylized certainty of the prescript and the dignity of the thanksgiving”; “The planned visit is … definitely divested of any official character, in obvious contradiction of the real plans of the apostle and of the claims raised in v. 5” (p. 19). He rejects explanations like Paul’s modesty, humility, tact and sensitivity, or caution induced by opposition. Instead he finds this to be Paul’s reaction to widespread rejection of his apostolic claim. But this reads a good deal into the passage and is a far from obvious explanation of the words. Certainly some of the explanations Käsemann rejects are more convincing than the one he accepts. What evidence is there that Paul’s claims were rejected at Rome?
132 Paul makes a good deal of use of the negative. He uses οὐ, οὐχ 121 times in Romans and 483 times in all (1,619 in the New Testament); next is John with 286. He is also far and away the largest user of μή, 77 times in Romans and 354 times in all (1,055 in the New Testament); next is Luke with 142. Paul has some resounding negatives, the reverse side of his positive message.
133 For οὐ θέλω some MSS, such as D* G d e g Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, read οὐχ οἴομαι. Tasker, explaining the rejection of the latter, says that the majority of his committee “thought that it was out of place for Paul to say that he believed the Roman church to be well informed about his movements; the required sense being that he wishes now to give such information to a church to which he was a stranger” (Tasker, p. 434).
134 Paul uses ἀγνοέω 15 times out of 21 in the New Testament, six being in Romans. Paul may also complain, “You do not know” (2:4; 6:3, etc.), while his “we know” assumes knowledge shared with his readers (2:2; 3:19, etc.). Now and then he has “I know” (14:14; 15:29).
135 ἀδελφός is another Pauline word, for Paul uses it in 133 of its 343 New Testament occurrences. Käsemann sees it as “a primitive Christian term for a member of the community which has both Jewish and pagan analogies (Lietzmann)” (p. 20).
136 πολλάχις shows that the Roman church had been in existence for quite some time.
137 Cranfield thinks προεθέμην is “stronger than βούλεσθαι or θέλειν”; the implication “is that on a number of occasions Paul’s wish to see them has actually been transformed into a more or less definite plan to visit them.”
138 χωλύω is a strong term (GT, “cut off”). MM cite its use in senses like “stop” and “forbidden by law”. In 1 Thess. 2:18 Paul speaks of having been hindered by Satan, but that is not said here. Indeed, he seems to mean that it was God who had stopped him because it was not yet time (cf. v. 10). In Acts 16:6 the apostle’s movements were prevented by the Holy Spirit. A number of students hold that 15:22ff. may point us to the answer (e.g., Hunter, Hendriksen).
139 τινὰ χαρπὸν σχῶ. CGT comments, “σχῶ, ‘get,’ as always.” The metaphor of harvest is often used of the eschatological judgment (e.g, Isa. 27:12; Joel 3:13; Matt. 3:12; 13:30, 39; Mark 4:29), but also of the evangelistic activities of Christ’s servants (Matt. 9:37–38; John 4:35–38).
140 ὀφειλέτης εἰμί.
141 Minear, p. 104. He later says, “To the extent that Paul was indebted to God for this call, to that very extent he was indebted to those Gentiles for whose sake God had called him.” On the same page he cites A. Schlatter’s suggestion “that the principle which Jesus had made binding on his disciples had become binding on Paul—that his purpose in giving a gift to one disciple was that he might give it to another. This is why Paul was indebted to all.”
142 He adds, “His debt to them is constituted by the fact that God had appointed him ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. ”
143 Parry rejects Ramsay’s view of a general benefit which Paul repays by preaching the gospel or a reference to 1 Cor. 9:16: “It is best taken in close connexion with χαρπὸν σχῶ; cf. Phil. iv.17. He has already ‘got fruit’ from these classes: he pays the debt by sowing the seed more widely among such” (CGT). But the relevance of Phil. 4:17 is not obvious; it refers to credit the Philippians might claim for their service, not to any obligation resting on them.
144 Paul uses Ἕλλην in exactly half its New Testament occurrences (13 out of 26). An interesting feature of his use is that he never employs it with the article: it is always “Greeks”, never “the Greeks”. This puts an emphasis on the quality (“people like Greeks”). His use is “because the emphasis is always on the distinctive quality (‘people like the Greeks‘…) and not on the existing group as a collective whole, while in classical the arthrous form is the rule” (BDF 262[2]).
145 TH renders, “to the civilized and to the savage, to the educated and to the ignorant”, and comments, “In the first two expressions, civilized … savage (literally ‘Greeks … barbarians’), the distinction is not racial or national, but cultural…. The next two terms, educated … ignorant, do not refer to innate intellectual capacities, but rather to degrees of learning.” But this is surely going beyond the evidence.
146 βάρβαρος seems to have been an onomatopoeic term, meaning someone whose language is unintelligible; it sounds like “bar bar.” Cf. 1 Cor. 14:11. But the barbarians on Malta (Acts 28:2, 4) seem to have spoken Greek, so the linguistic significance was perhaps not strictly applied.
147 H. Windisch thinks that Paul “perhaps groups the Spaniards to whom he plans to journey from Rome” along with others under this heading (TDNT, I, p. 552). Leenhardt sees it as “certainly an allusion to Spain and the missionary plans of the apostle.”
148 Does Paul class the Romans as “Greeks” or “barbarians”? It is perhaps relevant that the church of Rome was Greek-speaking, as the very existence of this letter shows. It was not until the third century that it seems to have become genuinely Latin. But Haldane’s comment is relevant: “He does not inquire or decide whether they ought to be reckoned among the Barbarians or the Greeks, the wise or unwise; he was ready to preach the Gospel to them all.”
149 σοφός is another of Paul’s characteristic words, being found in his writings in 16 of its 20 New Testament occurrences. He has ἀνόητος five times out of six.
GT A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, trans. and rev. J. H. Thayer (Edinburgh, 1888)
150 “If σοφία includes the striving after the best ends as well as the using of the best means, is mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense (cf. Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. vi.7.3), there can be no wisdom disjoined from goodness, even as Plato had said long ago (Menex. 19)”(Synonyms, p. 283). He sees the use of ἀνόητος as significant, “for, while the ἀσύνετος need not be more than intellectually deficient, in the ἀνόητος there is always a moral fault lying behind the intellectual” (ibid.).
Hodge Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864 edn.)
151 BDF notes χατά + accusative as “a circumlocution for the possessive or subjective gen. … it is virtually limited to pronouns in the NT”; “τὸ χατʼ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον = ἡ ἐμὴ προθυμία (τὸ πρόθυμον = ἡ προθυμία) ” (224 [1]). Cranfield sees three possibilities: (i) τὸ χατʼ ἐμέ is subject and πρόθυμον is predicate; (ii) ἐγώ (understood) is subject and πὸ χατʼ ἐμέ is adverbial, “so far as it rests with me”; (iii) all four words are subject and (ἐστιν)... εὐαγγελίσασθαι is predicate, “my eager desire is….” He accepts (iii).
152 Robert Jewett sees this as “a well-established bureaucratic formula for being prompt in following orders” (Interpretation, XXXVI [1982], p. 15).
153 Paul does not use the verb εὐαγγελίζω in the overwhelming majority of cases as he does the noun “gospel” (for which see on v. 1), but he still uses it appreciably often, namely 21 times out of 54 in the New Testament (next is Acts with 15).
154 The words ἐν Ῥώμῃ are omitted here by fewer MSS than in v. 7, namely G itg Orlat. It seems that the words should be accepted.
155 Turner disposes of the problem by understanding the verb as “tell”; he takes the text in the sense, “I am anxious to tell you in Rome also my own point of view” (Grammatical Insights, p. 92). But this is an unnatural meaning for the verb as Paul uses it, and it does not fit the context where εὐαγγέλιον in the sense “gospel” occurs five words later.
a 17 Or is from faith to faith
b 17 Hab. 2:4
NIV New International Version
156 This γάρ is important because it links what follows with what precedes and gives a reason. Cf. Chamberlain, in vv. 16 and 17 γάρ “occurs three times: the first instance introduces the reason for Paul’s eagerness to preach the gospel in Rome; the second, his reason for not being ashamed of the gospel; the third, the reason for the dynamic of the gospel” (Chamberlain, p. 154). Harrisville holds that the construction “for … not” reflects a pattern in this epistle. Except in 6:14, he says, it introduces an argument; it is often preceded or followed by another clause with “for”, “indeed”, or “but”; often there is a “whoever” and usually the copula (one or more of these characteristics is sometimes absent) (Harrisville, p. 254 n.1).
157 Jesus recognized the possibility that some would be ashamed of him: “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38); cf. also, “do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord”; “I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed…” (2 Tim. 1:8, 12). The natural man is repelled by “the offence of the cross” (Gal. 5:11), and such scriptural warnings are much to the point.
158 “The gospel of a crucified carpenter in the streets of Imperial Rome—is not the idea so incongruous as to make one ashamed at the prospect? No, he is not ashamed, for the gospel is a divine POWER…”(Hunter). Chrysostom comments, “Paul was going to preach Jesus, who was thought to be the carpenter’s son, who was brought up in Judea, and that in the house of a mean woman, who had no body guards, who was not encircled in wealth, but even died as a culprit with robbers, and endured many other inglorious things”.
Barclay William Barclay: The Letter to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1957)
159 Cited in Nygren.
160 Luther comments, “ ‘power of God’ does not mean that power by which he is powerful in himself but that power by which he makes powerful and strong”; for examples he cites Luke 1:35; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 4:23.
161 The word for power is δύναμις (from which we derive words like “dynamic”). Knox comments that Paul “thinks of the message, the preaching, as he calls it in 1 Cor. 1:21ff., as being itself a part of the continuing dynamic event.”
162 Theodoret remarked that “many things have their own operation hidden from the senses.” He chooses pepper as an illustration, for “pepper outwardly seems to be cold, and to those who are unaware it gives no outward appearance of heat. But the person who crunches it between his teeth experiences the sensation of burning fire” (Commentary, pp. 29–30). The illustration might not strike us all as obvious, but it certainly makes the point.
163 Cf. Moule, “The word is here probably used in its largest meaning, including the whole process of mercy from the time of belief onwards; deliverance from doom, sin, and death” (CBSC; he goes on to notice future and present positive aspects and notes that the meaning is concerned with rescue rather than amelioration).
164 πρῶτον assigns priority to the Jew, but this is balanced with τε χαί, which coordinates the two. Curiously Lenski takes πρῶτον to apply to both, “in the first place for both Jew and Greek” (understanding “Greek” in terms of culture, he reasons that the gospel goes first to the combination of religious Jews and cultured Greeks; if even they needed it, so did “the lower classes”). This is unconvincing. The word πρῶτον is missing from some MSS, namely B G g sah Tertullian Ephraem. The best suggestion is that it was omitted by Marcion, who would have found it quite unacceptable (so, e.g., Metzger). It is interesting that Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, writing to a group made up largely of Gentiles (v. 13), should not hesitate to speak of the priority of the Jew. Cf. Matt. 15:24; Luke 24:47; John 4:22; Acts 1:8; 13:46. John H. Stek examines the priority of the Jew, mostly in material from the Gospels, in “To the Jew First”, Calvin Theological Journal, 7 (1972), pp. 15–52.
165 Ἰουδαῖος occurs 11 times in Romans, the most in any Pauline writing. The apostle is greatly concerned with the Jews in this letter. But the term is much more frequent in other writers (Acts has it 79 times and John 71).
166 χαί. GT notes that χαί “is conjunctive, τέ adjunctive…. χαί introduces something new under the same aspect yet as an external addition, whereas τέ marks it as having an inner connection with what precedes” (sub τέ). Cranfield comments, “The word τε (though its presence is simply ignored by RV, RSV, NEB and JB) is suggestive of the fundamental equality of Jew and Gentile in the face of the gospel (the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for believing Jew and believing Gentile alike)”. BDF (444 [2]) draw attention to χαὶ... χαί in 1 Cor. 10:32, “where the distinction between the members is retained, whereas with τε χαί the distinction is rather set aside.”
Nygren Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)
167 Cf. Cranfield, “it is of the very essence of faith as Paul understands it, that it is opposed to human deserving, all human establishing of claims on God…. For Paul man’s salvation is altogether—not almost altogether—God’s work; and the faith spoken of here is the openness to the gospel which God Himself creates.” He later says, “And yet this faith, as God’s work in a man, is in a real sense more truly and fully the man’s own personal decision than anything which he himself does of himself; for it is the expression of the freedom which God has restored to him—the freedom to obey God.”
168 O’Neill seems to countenance such views by saying things like “the men who live by faith live righteously in God’s sight”; “To the objection that Paul wants to speak only of God’s action and not at all of man, I answer that this context is about faith, what man has to do if he would live before God.”
169 Cf. Lenski, “Διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ is the status of righteousness into which faith and the believer are placed by the judicial verdict of God” (Lenski’s italics).
170 Hodge sees righteousness as both ἐχ θεοῦ (Phil. 3:9) and παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (2:13; 3:20; Gal. 3:11). Here he sees both “a righteousness, which God gives, and which he approves”. But this seems tautological. How could God give a righteousness of which he did not approve?
171 NEB renders, “God’s way of righting wrong”. Black sees it as “the triumph of God (over Satan, sin and death)”. But this perhaps relies too much on connecting these words with certain Old Testament passages such as Judg. 5:11; Ps. 103:6, which link righteousness and deliverance. From another point of view Käsemann speaks of “the fact that the διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ appears in Rom. 1:17; 10:3ff. in personified form as Power” (New Testament Questions of Today [London, 1969], p. 169). But his “fact” goes beyond the evidence. Paul does not say that God’s righteousness is power, but that the gospel is power.
172 The present tense ἀποχαλύπτεται points to an ongoing process. We proclaim the gospel, but the revelation is something God does. The verb is found in Paul in exactly half its New Testament occurrences (13 out of 26).
173 Murray, e.g., finds it “more natural … to couple ‘from faith to faith’ with the word ‘revealed’.” He is not arguing that revelation depends on faith, but that it is made known only through faith.
174 ἐχ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. Similar constructions are ἐχ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν (Ps. 83:8 [85:7]); ἐχ θανάτου εἰς θανάτον... ἐχ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν (2 Cor. 2:16); cf. ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν (2 Cor. 3:18).
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
175 χαθὼς (or χαθάπερ) γέγραπται occurs 14 times in Romans and simple γέγραπται twice. In 10:5 Paul has Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει.
176 The passage was clearly regarded as important in some later circles in Judaism. Thus we are told that R. Simlai saw the 613 commandments in the law as reduced to 11 by David (Ps. 15), to six by Isaiah (Isa. 33:15–16), to three by Micah (Mic. 6:8), to two by Isaiah again (Isa. 56:1), and to one by Amos (Amos 5:4). But R. Naḥman demurred and saw the reduction to one as effected by Habakkuk, citing our text (Makk. 24a). But these are third- and fourth-century rabbis, and we have no way of knowing how far back this kind of exegesis goes.
177 The Greek is Ὁ δὲ δίχαιος ἐχ πίστεως ζήσεται. Strictly, if the sense “he that is just by faith” were required, ἐχ πίστεως should be between the article and δίχαιος or else have an article of its own. But such an article is not invariable in the New Testament and the point cannot be insisted upon. Lightfoot summarizes the reasons in favor of taking the words in the sense of KJV as follows: “(1) the original seems certainly so to intend it; and in the LXX … it appears so to be taken. This is also the construction in the Targum Jonathan. (2) Ἐχ πίστεως here corresponds to ἐχ πίστεως in the former part of the verse, where it belongs, not to the predicate, but to the subject. It is here separated from ὁ δίχαιος, as it is there separated from διχαιοσύνη. (3) Ὁ δίχαιος ἐχ πίστεως is not a natural phrase, and, I think, has no parallel in St Paul. (4) The other construction takes the emphasis off ‘faith,’ which the context shows to be the really emphatic word, and lays it on the verb ‘live.’ ” The reading has eminent support; see, e.g., ASV, Moffatt, Hendriksen, Leenhardt, Michel, Murray, SH. R. M. Moody has a strong defence of this understanding of the text (ET, 92 [1980–81], pp. 205–8).
178 It is not certain exactly what text Paul had. The Hebrew means “the righteous will live because of his faith (or faithfulness)” and appears to signify that the servant of God must await God’s time for deliverance. Till then his trust in God must sustain him. In our text of LXX μου is attached to πίστεως, which might mean (with God as the speaker) “because of my faithfulness” or “because of his faith in me”. Paul lacks the μου both here and in Gal. 3:11. It is not clear whether he had a different text or whether he understood the passage in a different way.
I am not sure whence Nygren derives his statistics (except that he tells us that he does not include the life words in “the thematic verse”). But the words occur as follows:
Chs. 1–4: πίστις is found in 1:5, 8, 12, 17 (ter); 3:3, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 (bis), 31; 4:5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (bis), 19, 20, a total of 25. πιστεύω is found in 1:16; 3:2, 22; 4:3, 5, 11, 17, 18, 24, nine times in all. The total of the faith words is thus 34. ζωή occurs in 2:7, ζάω in 1:17, and ζοῳποιέω in 4:17, a total of three.
Chs. 5–8: πίστις is found in 5:1, 2 and πιστεύω in 6:8, a total of three. ζωή occurs in 5:10, 17, 18, 21; 6:4, 22, 23; 7:10; 8:2, 6, 20, 38, a total of 12. ζάω is found in 6:2, 10 (bis), 11, 13; 7:1, 2, 3, 9; 8:12, 13 (bis), which totals 12, while ζῳοποιέω is found in 8:11, which makes the total of the life words in these chapters 25.
The figures then appear to be
chs. 1–4 faith words, 34; life words, 3
chs. 5–8 faith words, 3; life words, 25
Some allowance must be made for textually doubtful passages (I have simply cited Moulton and Geden). But when this is done, it is plain that the figures favor Nygren’s position somewhat more strongly than he says, even if there is not an exact reversal.
180 Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1902), p. 155.
181 Contrast the interpretation of the Qumran sect. The commentary on Habakkuk explains the words “The righteous shall live by his faith” in this way: “this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness” (Vermes, p. 239). It is the Law that matters, specifically in the way the Teacher expounded it.
182 So RSV, GNB, Black, Bruce, Feuillet (NTS, 6 [1959–60], pp. 52ff.), Hunter, Lagrange, Nygren, Harrison, Robinson, Wuest, TH, etc. JB renders, “The upright man finds life through faith.”
183 The verb ζάω is used 23 times in Romans, the most in any one book (140 times in the New Testament; 17 in John). It can refer to physical life, but it is also used “of the supernatural life of the child of God” (BAGD; they class this passage under “have eternal life”).
184 O’Neill maintains that Paul was not the author of 1:18–2:29. If the argument were that all Gentiles are sinners he thinks there would perhaps be a connection, “but the writer is not arguing that all Gentiles are sinners. The argument is that idolaters are prone to immorality, not that all Gentiles are immoral.” But this ignores the fact that the section is introduced with the revelation of God’s wrath “against all the godlessness and wickedness of men” (v. 18). Idolaters are certainly castigated, but the language includes other sinners as well (cf. vv. 28–32). O’Neill is isolated in his view. Barrett is much more representative when he says, “Paul’s argument is developed in a clear and consistent way. The Gospel rests upon a manifestation of righteousness; to those who believe, it proves to be the power of God unto salvation (cf. 1 Cor. i.18); to those who do not believe, but are disobedient and rebellious, it means God’s wrath (cf. 2 Cor. ii.16).”
185 Cf. Shedd, γάρ “introduces the reason why God has revealed the διχαιοσύνη spoken of: namely, because he had previously revealed his ὀργὴ. This shows that mercy is meaningless except in relation to justice, and that the attempt, in theology, to retain the doctrine of the divine love, without the doctrine of the divine wrath, is illogical.” This may be getting a bit much out of the conjunction, but the point is worth pondering.
186 Curiously Moffatt translates γάρ with “But”, and even more curiously Dodd bases his comment on the mistranslation: “The adversative conjunction ‘but’ in i.18 shows that the revelation of God’s ‘anger’ is contrasted, and not identified, with the revelation of His righteousness.” It is true that γάρ can very occasionally have some adversative force. Thus when in a response a “No” is omitted, γάρ may supply the reason for the omitted negative (see examples in LSJ). Clearly there is nothing of the sort here. This is rather a typical case of giving a reason for the foregoing. Barrett renders, “A clear signal of the revealing of God’s righteousness is the fact that his wrath….” This may be something of an overtranslation, but it indicates the force of the word.
187 A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans8 (London, 1892), in loc. Cf. G. Bornkamm, in Rom. 1:18–3:20 “the keyword is the ‘revelation of God’s wrath’ ” (Paul [London, 1971], p. 122).
188 Cf. Barrett, “When Paul speaks of wrath, it is in general quite clear from the context that the wrath is God’s; so, for example, iii.5; ix.22. Wrath is God’s personal (though never malicious or, in a bad sense, emotional) reaction against sin.”
189 Paul uses ὀργή in 21 of its 36 New Testament occurrences, of which 12 come in Romans; all 12 appear to refer to the divine wrath.
190 Cf. Manson, “The ‘wrath’ is the obverse of the ‘righteousness of God’: his creative goodness is matched by his inflexible opposition to evil.”
Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation
191 Käsemann categorically rejects such views: “Our starting point should be that the manifestation of this wrath is described in vv. 24ff…. The thrice-repeated παρέδωχεν αὐτούς shows incontestably … that in the apparently purely immanent causal connection God himself is at work…” (p. 37).