Bowen Roger Bowen: A Guide to Romans (London, 1975)
Bowen Roger Bowen: A Guide to Romans (London, 1975)
192 Cf. Hunter, “The truth is that we dislike the phrase because we have sentimentalized our conception of God in a quite un-biblical way. Wrath—the strong and continuous reaction of the holy God against evil in every shape and form—a wrath operative now and not only at the Last Judgment, is an essential part of any truly biblical idea of God.”
193 Cf. Trench, God “would not love good, unless He hated evil, the two being so inseparable, that He must do both or neither” (Synonyms, p. 134).
194 Cf. BAGD, wrath is “the divine reaction toward evil; it is thought of not so much as an emotion as in terms of the outcome of an angry frame of mind (judgment).” The lexicon goes on to point out that this is “a legitimate feeling on the part of a judge”. God is doing something in opposition to sin, not leaving sin to work out its consequences. Cf. Nygren, “wrath is also God’s own work, which He himself discloses from heaven. It is God and not some alien powers, who has laid the old aeon under condemnation.”
195 See further my Apostolic Preaching, chs. V and VI; R. V. G. Tasker, The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God (London, 1951); NIDNTT, I, pp. 105–13; TDNT, V, pp. 382–447; H. Ridderbos, Paul, pp. 108–14.
196 Boylan, however, denies that this revelation is made in the gospel: “The revelation of God’s anger is made in the moral degradation of the Gentiles depicted in vv. 24ff.”
197 Cf. Robinson, “the full laying bare of the fearful truth and final consequences of the alienation of human society from God is but the other side of the very same revelation which is God’s way of righting wrong.”
198 G. Dalman examines “Evasive or Precautionary Modes of Referring to God” and gives attention to the use of “heaven” (The Words of Jesus [Edinburgh, 1902], pp. 206–20). Specifically he sees “from heaven” in its usage in the Gospels as signifying “derivation from God” (ibid., pp. 219–20). It will not differ here.
199 ἀσέβεια is strictly “impiety” or “lack of reverence for God”, and ἀδιχία “lawlessness” or “wickedness”. Some commentators see them used strictly here to give such meanings as “impiety against God and injustice against man. Thus humanity is at once a religious and a moral failure” (Griffith-Thomas). But most see them here as pointing to much the same thing; e.g., Hendriksen, both mean “sin, rebellion against God”.
200 χατέχω has a number of meanings. (1) The χατά may have perfective force, giving the meaning “possess” (as in 2 Cor. 6:10) or “hold fast” (in a good sense, Luke 8:15; in a bad sense, Rom. 7:6). (2) This may lead to the thought of occupying a place (Luke 14:9). (3) The χατά may signify “down”, giving the meaning “hold down” or “hold back” (2 Thess. 2:6, 7), “restrain”, “hinder” (Luke 4:42).
Hodge Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864 edn.)
201 Parry notes that χατέχω means (1) to possess, and (2) less frequently to restrain. He comments, “Here the sequence of thought is decisive in favour of the first meaning; it is essential to the argument that the primary condition which makes an act or state sinful, should be set down here; namely, that the sinner knows what he is doing” (CGT). But this is not convincing. Translations like “suppress” or “hinder” also presuppose that the suppressor or hinderer knows what he is suppressing or hindering.
RSV The Revised Standard Version
Hendriksen William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, I [1980]; II [1981])
202 ἀλήθεια occurs 109 times in the New Testament, of which Paul accounts for 47, John’s Gospel 25, and John’s epistles 20. Paul does not use the word very often in any one writing, but it occurs in all his epistles except 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. See further Additional Note B.
203 Cf. Lenski, “Ἀλήθεια is ‘truth’ in the sense of ‘reality,’ that which is actually so”; Calvin, “The truth of God means the true knowledge of God”.
204 Richard N. Longenecker examines the question of whether Paul is indebted to Hellenism for his approach. He points to coincidences of language and thought but decides that such parallels are secondary. Basically what Paul says comes from Hebraic sources (Paul, Apostle of Liberty [New York, 1964], pp. 54–58).
205 Some see a contradiction with the report of Paul’s speech at Athens (Acts 17:22–31). But this is surely overreaction. There he is appealing to pagans for a hearing; here he is writing to believers. A difference in emphasis is inevitable. The point in the Athenian address is that God has given sufficient revelation for people to “seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” (v. 27). This had led to their altar “to an unknown god”, whom Paul proceeds to proclaim to them (v. 23). Here he is saying that God has revealed himself to all people clearly enough for them to be guilty when they make their idols. It is like the approach to the people of Lystra: God “has not left himself without testimony” (Acts 14:17).
206 διότι is equivalent to διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι, “on this account”, “for”. Other possibilities have been pointed out (“wherefore” or “that”), but in the New Testament it seems always to mean “because”. It is found 24 times, of which ten are in Paul, five being in Romans. “Because” may refer back to the earlier part of v. 18 and give the reason for saying the wrath is revealed. Or it may refer to the immediately preceding words and give the reason for affirming that people hinder the truth in unrighteousness. Either is grammatically possible and both give good sense, but the second seems more probable.
207 The verbal adjective γνωστός. Cf. W. Gunion Rutherford, “The verbal adjective in -τός normally denotes that the action expressed by the verb is possible”; he contrasts it with that in -τέος, which marks obligation. He gives as examples a form ending in -τός, yielding the meaning “the river may be crossed”; the corresponding form in -τέος means “the river must be crossed” (First Greek Grammar Syntax [London, 1935], p. 153). Neither form is very common in the New Testament. When γνωστός is used in other New Testament passages it means “known”. This is the one place where Paul uses it, and thus we do not know whether he employs it in the same way as do other writers or not. Bultmann thinks that “the meaning is perhaps ‘clearly recognisable’ ” (TDNT, I, p. 719). BDF have a note on another aspect of the use here: “Peculiar to Paul (Heb) is the use of a neuter sing. adjective like an abstract mostly with a dependent gen.” They cite Origen, “what is known (knowable) of (or about) God is manifest to them” (263 [2]). Turner notes that the construction is characteristic of Paul and Luke, infrequent in the Gospels, and not attested in the papyri (M, III, p. 13).
208 Barth insists on the reality of the knowledge: “When we rebel, we are in rebellion not against what is foreign to us but against that which is most intimately ours…. Our memory of God accompanies us always as problem and as warning.”
209 Note that the adjective φανερόν and the verb ἐφανέρωσεν are from the same root.
210 For γάρ see on v. 9. Its position after ὁ θεός puts a little more emphasis on θεός than if the more normal order had been followed.
211 ἐν αὐτοῖς.
212 Cf. BDF, “Occasionally ἐν appears also to stand for the customary dat. proper”. They see this passage as “probably” an example (220 [1]). BAGD hold that ἐν with the dative stands for the ordinary dative and cite Aesop here, τ. φανερὸν ἐν πᾶσιν = “evident to all” (ἐν IV.4a).
213 Moule, IBNTG, p. 73. The problem is the meaning of ἀπό. It can be used in a causal or instrumental sense, but most take it here of time.
214 Nouns in -σις denote activity, while nouns in -μα (χτίσμα) properly point to the result of the action. But the distinction is often blurred, and usage, not formation, is decisive. χτίσις is used of (1) the act of creating (Mark 10:6), (2) the totality of what was created (Col. 1:15), or (3) an individual created thing (Rom. 8:39).
215 χόσμος originally meant “ornament” and was used of the universe as the greatest jewel. Since for people the most important part of the universe is this world, the same term came to denote “the world”. But here the wider meaning is required.
216 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. For verbal adjectives see on v. 19; ἀόρατος strictly means “that cannot be seen”, “invisible”, though it may be used loosely in the sense, “that is not seen”. Most understand it here in some such sense as “his invisible attributes” (NEB, Phillips); RSV has “his invisible nature”. Bultmann sees the meaning as “He the Invisible” (TDNT, I, p. 719), which Turner quotes approvingly (Grammatical Insights, p. 132).
217 ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις χαὶ θειότης. For τέ see on v. 16. Hodge points out that ἥ τε is explanatory; it does not add a new idea.
218 ἀΐδιος. It is derived from ἀεί, “always”, and occurs in the New Testament again only in Jude 6. In LXX it occurs only in Wis. 7:26 and as a variant in 4 Macc. 10:15. In Greek generally it is found from early times (LSJ). According to MM it is frequent in inscriptions but rare in the papyri.
219 αἰώνιος.
220 SH see θειότης as denoting “Divine nature and properties”, whereas θεότης (Col. 2:9) is “Divine Personality”. Earle supports the distinction, but the two words are translated by the same English term in KJV and RSV. They seem to differ only as much as “divinity” and “deity”.
221 The Greek is νοούμενα χαθορᾶται. χαθοράω is found here only in the New Testament, νοέω 14 times (five times in Paul). It is not easy to bring out in English the play on words, ἀόρατα... χαθορᾶται; it is something like “his unseeable things … are clearly seen”.
AS G. Abbott-Smith: A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1954)
222 Cf. Boylan, “By looking on the visible world they can see the invisible” (on v. 19). Cranfield, however, points out that the action of the participle is naturally understood as prior to or contemporaneous with that of the verb in the indicative; he rejects the idea that it is subsequent. Thus νοούμενα and χαθορᾶται both point to physical sight, though noting that usage favors mental perception in νοούμενα. NEB prefers mental perception, rendering “visible … to the eye of reason”; cf. Murray, “it is the seeing of understanding, of intelligent conception”.
223 τοῖς ποιήμασιν is dative of means or instrument. The visible is the means of our perception of the invisible.
224 Wisdom 13 is often adduced as a parallel, but there the thought is slightly different. The writer says, “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (v. 5). But he is referring to man’s search after God (“as they live among his works they keep searching”, v. 7), Paul to God’s revelation of himself. In Wisdom if man does not come to know God that is simply a mistake, in Paul it is the rejection of what God has made known.
225 εἰς τό + infinitive. Moulton finds this construction three times in Matthew, once each in Mark, Luke, and Acts, twice each in James and 1 Peter, eight times in Hebrews, and 43 times in Paul. It is thus very much a Pauline construction. And Paul almost always uses it to express purpose. This is not invariable (cf. 12:3), but we need a reason if we are to see consequence. Specifically in the present passage Moulton says we must see purpose, “for this belongs to the category of passages dealing with Divine action, in which contemplated and actual results, final and consecutive clauses, necessarily lose their differentia” (M, I, p. 219; earlier he has quoted Westcott, “ἵνα appears to mark in each case the direct and immediate end, while εἰς τό indicates the more remote result aimed at or reached” [ibid., p. 218]). It would be expected that if ἵνα can lose its telic force even more so could εἰς τό, but on the whole this does not appear to be the case. SH see here “not direct and primary purpose but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not design that man should sin; but He did design that if they sinned they should be without excuse.” Lenski argues strongly for result: if it were purpose, “the purpose would be monstrous”; if it be regarded as conditional, then “Paul left out an essential point—a thing he never does.” But this is not the way it appears to quite a few commentators. Thus Nygren says, “according to Paul it is actually the will of God that he who turns away from God be without excuse”. Cf. Turner, here “it is better to retain the usual near-final meaning of εἰς τό, whatever theologians may say: i.e. RV text is correct against RSV and NEB” (M, III, p. 143; in Grammatical Insights, pp. 12–13 he argues that the construction does not always express “the result of strict causality” in Romans). Cranfield, MT, Lagrange, Hendriksen, etc., however, favor result.
226 Cf. Barclay, “In the world we can see God. It is Paul’s argument—and it is completely valid—that if we look at the world suffering follows sin. Break the laws of agriculture—the harvest fails. Break the laws of architecture—your building collapses. Break the laws of health—your body suffers. Paul was saying ‘Look at the world! See how it is constructed! From a world like that you know what God is like.’ The sinner is left without excuse.”
227 The tenses in this section are mostly aorist, but GNB consistently uses the present: “The force of the Greek aorist in this context is to indicate that these actions are typical of what men have done at all times throughout history; for the English reader the present tense is more natural in expressing such events” (TH). I doubt whether this is justified.
228 διότι = because. It explains the previous statement (and covers vv. 21–23).
229 The aorist participle γνόντες means “having come to know”. This preceded their failure and made it more blameworthy. The knowledge of God in the sense of v. 20 is in mind, not a knowledge like that of John 17:3. Paul makes a good deal of the concept of knowledge. He uses γινώσχω a total of 50 times. John uses it 56 times, while another 26 occurrences are in the Johannine epistles. It is thus very much a Pauline and Johannine word (221 times in the New Testament).
230 δοξάζω is another word Paul shares with John: Paul has it 12 times, John 23 times; next is Luke with nine. Paul uses the corresponding noun, δόξα, 77 times, so it is clear that he is quite interested in glory.
231 ὡς θεόν receives emphasis both from its position and from coming so soon after τὸν θεόν.
Leenhardt Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)
232 He uses εὐχαριστέω 24 times out of its 38 New Testament occurrences, and the corresponding noun 12 times out of 15.
233 Cf. Dodd, “their attitude to life and the world is an irreligious one, though the impulse to religion was present in the very data of life and the world.”
234 The strong adversative ἀλλʼ (in Paul 311 times out of 635 times in the New Testament; Romans has it 69 times).
235 διαλογισμός. Cf. G. Schrenk, “The sense of ‘evil thoughts’ is predominant in the NT…. In view of the more flexible LXX usage, it is striking that the NT uses διαλογισμός only in the negative sense for evil thoughts or anxious reflection” (TDNT, II, p. 97). W. F. Howard cites H. A. A. Kennedy for the view that ἐν here is causal; he cites this verse among passages meaning “because of, by reason of, for the sake of” (M, II, p. 463).
236 The verb is ματαιόω (used of turning to idolatry in LXX of Jer. 2:5). The μάταιος word group is especially characteristic of Paul. For its meaning cf. O. Bauernfeind, who notes that it is “what is against the norm, unexpected, offending what ought to be. χενός means worthless, because without content, μάταιος worthless because deceptive or ineffectual” (TDNT, IV, p. 519). μάταιος is used of idols in Acts 14:15 (cf. 2 Kings 17:15; Amos 2:4, LXX).
237 Cf. Shedd, “The relation between sin and mental blindness is that of action and re-action. Each is alternately cause and effect.” Parry comments, “missing the true aim, they lost the true light.” Salvation means rescue from darkness (cf. Col. 1:13).
238 ἀσύνετος is from alpha-privative and σύνετος, and σύνετος from συνιέναι, “bring or set together” (LSJ).
RV The Revised Version
ARV The American Revised Version
239 χαρδία. The singular is used here in a distributive sense. “Contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice, the NT sometimes follows the Aram. and Heb. preference for a distributive sing.” (M, III, p. 23). Paul has the singular here, but he prefers the plural of χαρδία in such constructions (20 times including a quotation from LXX; he has the singular eight times; also in some MSS of Col. 3:16). In Romans the only other passage Turner includes with the singular in this construction is that with σῶμα in 8:23.
240 Cf. Godet, “all the labour of the sages did not prevent the most civilized nations, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans from being at the same time the most idolatrous of antiquity.”
NEB The New English Bible
241 φάσχω, which Paul uses only here (its only other New Testament occurrences are in Acts 24:9; 25:19). It is cognate with φήμι. The construction is an example of the omission of the subject with a dependent infinitive when it is identical with that of the main verb. We should also notice that the predicate σοφοί is nominative even though it goes with the infinitive, since it refers to the main subject (cf. Turner, M, III, p. 146; BDF 405).
242 ἐμωράνθησαν. In the classics the word signifies “to be foolish” (LSJ); in the New Testament it means “to make foolish” (or “flat” or “tasteless”).
243 ἀλλάσσω = “to other”, either by exchanging (as here) or by transforming. The construction is normally ἀ. τί τινος or ἀ. τί ἀντί τινος. ἐν is unusual. It may be instrumental (“they ‘othered’ God by means of images”) or an imitation of the Hebrew הֵימִיר בְּ (as in Ps. 106:20). A number of scholars agree that the construction is Hebraic but point to the same thing in Sophocles (e.g., BDF 179[2]).
244 In the manner of Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20 the author of Wisdom ridicules the idolater. He speaks of the woodcutter as making something useful from the wood of a tree: “But a castoff piece from among them, useful for nothing, a stick crooked and full of knots” he shapes in his leisure time into the likeness of a man or animal, “giving it a coat of red paint and coloring its surface red and covering every blemish in it with paint”. He makes a niche for it: “So he takes thought for it, that it may not fall, because he knows that it cannot help itself…. For health he appeals to a thing that is weak; for life he prays to a thing that is dead; for aid he entreats a thing that is utterly inexperienced; for a prosperous journey, a thing that cannot take a step; for money-making and work and success with his hands he asks strength of a thing whose hands have no strength” (Wis. 13:11–14). Such polemic effectively illustrates the point Paul is making—the folly of idol worship.
245 ἄφθαρτος. It occurs four times in Paul and three times in 1 Peter.
246 ὁμοιώματι εἰχόνος. The former word is Pauline in five of its six New Testament occurrences, four being in Romans; the latter is Pauline nine times, while Revelation has it 20 times and no other New Testament writing more than once. εἰχών can be used of the “likeness” of the Emperor on a coin, but it is also used often of an image, as here. G. Kittel sees ὁμοίωμα as the copy and εἰχών what is copied, to give the meaning “the copy of the figure of men and animals” (TDNT, II, p. 395). Käsemann, however, sees the distinction as pedantic (p. 45). Boylan sees perhaps an identity, “a likeness which is an idol”. Better is Barrett’s view, “the mere shadowy image”. He comments, “Perhaps he uses the two words but means no more than either would have suggested separately; perhaps (as the translation suggests) the reduplication emphasizes the inferior, shadowy character of that which is substituted for God.” Morna Hooker has an article, “Adam in Romans 1” (NTS, VI [1959–60], pp. 297–306), in which she draws attention to a number of links between Paul’s language in this chapter and the Adam story. Specifically she says, “our examination has lent additional weight to C. K. Barrett’s point that the words convey the impression of the shadowy nature of that which is substituted for God” (ibid., p. 303). She has a further note (NTS, XIII [1966–67], pp. 181–83) in which she argues that Ps. 106 is behind the present passage and the following verses. Harold Roberts also argues that we must see the Genesis reference to “image” as the background to this passage (ET, LXI [1949–50], pp. 74–77).
247 φθαρτός, “perishable, corruptible” (AS). Cf. also D. J. W. Milne, “Genesis 3 in the Letter to the Romans”, RThR, XXXIX (1980), pp. 10–18.
248 William Baird sums it up this way: “The act of God which ought to be most meaningful to the pagan, then, is creation, for this has to do with the very nature of man himself. Here perceptive man should see that he is creature, that his very existence is dependent upon the Creator. Yet man has sinned; he has rejected this revelation; he has turned from the Creator to the creature” (Paul’s Message and Mission [New York, 1960], p. 35).
249 In Wis. 14:27 the worship of idols is “the beginning and cause and end of every evil.” Like Paul, the writer has a long list of specific sins associated with idolatry.
250 διό is another word of which Paul is fond; he uses it 27 times out of its 53 New Testament occurrences.
251 παραδίδωμι means “to give or hand over”. It is used for a number of ways of viewing the giving of Jesus over to his death. See the note on 8:32.
252 Turner comments, “There may be a causal ἐν in Ro 1 24 (because of the lusts of their hearts)” (M, III, p. 262). Or the meaning may be, “immersed in their lusts”; cf. Lenski, “God finds them in these lusts and so hands them over to uncleanness.”
253 ἐπιθυμία is Pauline in exactly half its New Testament occurrences (19 out of 38). It denotes strong desire, occasionally for good (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:17), but usually for evil, so that it frequently means “lust”.
254 εἰς ἀχαθαρσίαν. Paul uses the noun in no less than nine of its ten New Testament occurrences. It is linked with πορνεία in 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5. Paul is probably not unmindful of the sexual immorality that was such a common accompaniment of idol worship. But the term is a wide one and will not be limited to this.
255 τοῦ + infinitive probably expresses result here. The construction is found 23 times in Luke, 21 times in Acts, and 13 times in Paul. Elsewhere Matthew has it six times, Hebrews twice, and James, 1 Peter, and Revelation once each. It is thus Lukan and to a less extent Pauline. In Greek writers generally it denotes purpose, but Moulton finds no certain example of purpose in Paul (though purpose is possible in some passages; M, I, pp. 216ff.). “So as to” will usually express Paul’s meaning. Some take it here as purpose (Lagrange, Godet), and others see it as epexegetic (Moulton, Shedd, Murray), but we should probably see it as result (as BDF 400[2]; BAGD [sub ὁ II.4.b.γ]; Turner [M, III, p. 141]).
256 The form ἀτιμάζεσθαι could be either middle or passive. Cranfield points out that the use of this verb in the middle is not found in ancient Greek and prefers to see it as passive, a view which should probably be accepted. But Lenski asks, “Who does this dishonoring?” It cannot be God; it must be the people themselves. He reasons, then, that if we take the verb as passive, it must be in the sense of the middle. Murray sees it as passive, “that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves”.
257 NIV’s with one another is based on accepting ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (with Dc E F G K L P etc.), a view supported by RSV, GNB, and others. Hodge sees the possibility of accepting this reading and taking it as equivalent to ἐν ἀλλήλοις (cf. v. 27), i.e., “they dishonored one another, as to their bodies”. However, there seems good reason for accepting ἐν αὐτοῖς (with א A B C D* etc.), which gives the sense “among them” (so SH, Cranfield, UBS, etc.).
258 Cf. Num. 25:1–2. We see the idea also in the Wisdom of Solomon: “the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication” (Wis. 14:12).
259 There is a dispute about connections here. Cranfield starts a new paragraph with v. 25 (though noting that SH, Lagrange, and Michel connect it with v. 24), since v. 24 already has been given a reason by its διό, which looks back to vv. 22–23. Further, διὰ τοῦτο (v. 26) connects with vv. 25 and 26. He renders οἵτινες “They actually” (with the other division it would mean “seeing that they”). The reasons he gives for separating v. 25 from v. 24, however, scarcely seem adequate. It is better to retain the more usual division. The relative of quality is frequent in Paul (44 times), almost always in the nominative. BAGD class it here under the heading “to emphasize a characteristic quality, by which a preceding statement is to be confirmed” and translate “since indeed they had exchanged”.
260 “Exchanged” here renders μετήλλαξαν (in the New Testament only here and in v. 26), which scarcely differs from ἤλλαξαν in v. 23. The same construction with ἐν is found there as here.
261 Käsemann comments, “ἀλήθεια again means the self-disclosing reality of God, not an attribute of God nor his ‘true nature.’ Hence τὸ ψεῦδος is not the false conduct of man, nor abstractedly the false god, but the deception which objectively conceals the truth, especially in Gentile religion” (p. 48). Parry sees the expression as comprehensive, “the truth about God and themselves and their relation to Him”.
262 For idolatry as ψεῦδος cf. Isa. 44:20; Jer. 13:25; as ψευδής cf. Jer. 10:14; 16:19.
263 ἐσεβάσθησαν. The usual word is σέβομαι, but no difference of meaning is apparent.
264 λατρεύω meant originally “serve for hire” (λάτρον) and then generally “to serve” either gods or people. It was used alike of the service of slaves and free people.
265 παρά in the sense “rather than”, “instead of” (BAGD III.3; Cranfield doubts whether all the instances cited are acceptable, but agrees for this passage). Cf. Luke 18:14. Phillips has “instead of” the Creator.
266 Barth sees something like this still, for “In their general view of the world scientists and historians are in far closer agreement with philosophers and theologians than is normally recognized. It is not merely that the world exists side by side with God: it has taken His place, and has itself become God, and demands ‘the same devotion which the old-fashioned believer offered to his God’ (Dr. F. Strauss).”
267 εὐλογητός. The form of the verbal adjective might give the meaning “capable of being blessed”, but the usage of the verb shows that it means simply “blessed”. In the Old Testament it may be used of blessing people (e.g., Gen. 12:2; 1 Sam. 15:13), but in the New it always refers to God or Christ (μαχάριος is the word for people, 4:7, 8; 14:22). As to its meaning, H. W. Beyer says, “We best bring out its religious significance along the lines of Luther that God is praised in Himself but that we pray here that He may be praised among us” (TDNT, II, p. 764).
268 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, “into the ages”. Paul uses the noun 38 times, so it is a congenial term. Sometimes he uses the singular “into the age” (1 Cor. 8:13; 2 Cor. 9:9), but he prefers the plural (9:5; 11:36; 2 Cor. 11:31), while he uses the more sonorous εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (16:27, vl.; Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18; all these are doxologies). Behind all these forms is the idea that the present age is to be followed by a final age or ages. Anything that lasts from now into that age (or ages) lasts “forever”.
269 ἀμήν is the transliteration of a Hebrew expression of which A. Jepsen says, “The form of this word is qaṭil, which could suggest an adjectival meaning. However, the use of this word in certain passages suggests that it is to be interpreted as a particle, so that no certain conclusion can be drawn about the meaning of ’amen from its form” (TDNT, I, p. 320). It was used to give assent to what someone else had said, and specifically it was used liturgically as the assent of the congregation to a prayer uttered by the leader of worship.
Murray John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and 1965)
270 διὰ τοῦτο.
271 πάθη ἀτιμίας, where the genitive is a genitive of quality. πάθος is found three times in the New Testament, all in Paul. BAGD define the word as “1. that which is endured or experienced, suffering … 2. passion … esp. of a sexual nature”, here “disgraceful passions”. GT sees it as the passive side of a vice, whereas ἐπιθυμία is the active: “ἐπ. is (evil) desire, π. ungovernable desire”. See further my NICNT commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, pp. 124–25.
272 For χρῆσις used of sexual relations see BAGD 3. It occurs only in vv. 26 and 27 in the New Testament.
273 For παρά in the sense “instead of” see n. 265† above.
274 Paul uses both φυσιχός, “natural”, and φύσις, “nature”, more than anyone else in the New Testament (the former two out of three times; the latter 11 out of 12). φύσις is connected with φύω, “grow”, and indicates “what things grow into”, “essential nature”.
275 τε... τε “places the elements so connected in a parallel relationship (often = ‘as … so’)” (BDF 444[1]; here they prefer the variant δέ, perhaps wrongly).
276 ἀφίημι.
277 ἐχχαίω and ὄρεξις (cf. ὀρέγω, “to stretch out” [AS]).
278 Barclay makes the point that what Paul says is all documented in Roman writers: “There is nothing that Paul said about the heathen world that the heathen moralists (sic) had not themselves already said. And vice did not stop with the crude and natural vices. Society from top to bottom was riddled with unnatural vice.” He adds, “Fourteen out of the first fifteen Roman Emperors were homosexuals.”
279 The verb χατεργάζομαι is frequent in Romans (11 times; in Paul 20 out of 22 times in the New Testament). In form it is stronger than ἐργάζομαι (having χατά perfective prefixed), giving meanings like “carry out”, “accomplish”. But in practice the two verbs are often synonymous.
280 ἀσχημοσύνη is a strong word. Elsewhere in the New Testament it occurs only in Rev. 16:15; there it refers to the private parts.
281 ἀντιμισθία is found only in the New Testament and Christian authors. The preposition stresses the idea of requital.
282 ἔδει. Paul and Luke are the great users of this verb. It occurs 102 times in the New Testament—18 in Luke, 22 in Acts, and 25 in Paul. But it is not prominent in Romans (three times).
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)
283 χαθώς, a frequent word in Paul (84 times out of 178 in the New Testament). It means “just as” = “since” (BDF 453[2]).
284 δοχιμάζω is found in Paul 17 times out of 22 in the New Testament.
285 The noun is ἐπίγνωσις (in Paul 15 times out of 20 in the New Testament). It may denote knowledge directed towards (ἐπί) a particular object but in usage does not differ significantly from γνῶσις. It is the combination ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει that is striking and significant.
286 It is not easy to bring out in English the wordplay ἐδοχίμασαν... ἀδόχιμον. The effect is to indicate that there was nothing arbitrary about their punishment. Cf. Denney, “As they did not think fit, after trial made … to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a mind which cannot stand trial”. Paul took care that he himself should not be ἀδόχιμος (1 Cor. 9:27).
287 Cf. C. S. Lewis, “In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man ‘wishes’ to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved” (The Problem of Pain [London, 1943], pp. 115–16). Both God’s activity and man’s are involved, and either can receive the stress in a given passage. Here God’s act is emphasized.
288 Cf. Foreman, “The worst penalty for sin is to love sin”.
289 The Stoic moralists used τὸ χαθῆχον as a technical term for what is seemly. H. Schlier points out that Paul is not using the exact technical term, for “what is contrary to χαθῆχον is always τὸ παρὰ τὸ χαθῆχον” (TDNT, III, p. 440). He gives Paul’s meaning as “that which is offensive to man even according to the popular moral sense of the Gentiles, i.e., what even natural human judgment regards as vicious and wrong.” Paul’s expression is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but there are similar words in Acts 22:22.
290 For Paul’s use of negatives see on v. 13. This is his first use of μή.
291 He has lists of vices in 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 4:19, 31; 5:3–5; Col. 3:5–8; 1 Tim. 1:9–10; 6:4–5; 2 Tim. 3:2–5; Tit. 3:3.
292 The way to group the vices in the list is a matter of dispute. Some even hold that there is no order; Paul has simply put down unconnected vices as they occurred to him. Minor variations in word order in the MSS only compound the problem. Thus some MSS read πορνεία in v. 29 (cf. KJV), but this should be rejected; the attestation is insufficient and the vice has already been covered. Paul begins with πεπληρωμένοις, and attaches four vices to it (each is in the dative, giving the meaning “filled with”). Then comes μεστούς, followed by five more (each in the genitive, “full of”). Next is a group of 12 (in the accusative in apposition to αὐτούς). Some take the last four as a subgroup or a group of their own (each begins with alpha-privative). It is possible to see further groupings, e.g., by taking some consecutive terms together, such as “god-hated insolents” (v. 30). What is clear is that Paul has constructed his list with some care. He may have meant such refinements as the last-mentioned, but we cannot be sure. Of the 4–5-12 division we can be certain, but it is difficult to go beyond that. There are no references to sexual sin in the list, but these have been dealt with earlier.
293 πεπληρωμένοις may go with αὐτούς, “He gave them up, filled with all unrighteousness”, or with ποιεῖν, “so that, filled with all unrighteousness, they should do….” There is not a great deal of difference.
294 ἀδιχία is here “put first in the list of offences as ‘violation of the divine law and its norm’ ” (G. Schrenk, TDNT, I, p. 155).
295 πονηρία and χαχία. It is perhaps worth noting that πονηρός, the adjective corresponding to the first term, is commonly used of Satan, who is “the evil one”, and that it occurs in the Lord’s Prayer, “deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13).
296 G. Harder notices a number of suggested distinctions between the two words and rejects them all. He points out that both terms occur in LXX as translations for the same Hebrew words. “The translators of the various books show preferences for the one term or the other but no fundamental distinction is made between πονηρία and χαχία” (TDNT, VI, p. 564). BAGD class χαχία here under the heading, “a special kind of moral inferiority … someth. like malice, ill-will, malignity”.
297 πλεονεξία, from πλέον + ἔχω, means, in the first instance, “having more” (i.e., than one’s fair share), “receiving more”, then “the desire to have more”. In the New Testament this word and its two cognates are basically Pauline (15 out of 19 occurrences). G. Delling holds that here it is “one of the basic facts in which the total abandonment of the human race by God works itself out. It occurs in a group of four nouns which comprehensively describe the power of sin in the ravaging of human relationships” (TDNT, VI, p. 272). Covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5), and the covetous person an idolater (Eph. 5:5; cf. 1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:9–10). All this is to be seen in the context of Jesus’ words about the impossibility of serving God and mammon (Luke 16:13). MM cite examples of the word, including one in an “illiterate” papyrus, and speak of it as “a true vernacular word”.
298 μεστός, “full”, may refer to material objects (John 19:29; 21:11), but it is also used metaphorically (Matt. 23:28; Rom. 15:14, etc.).
299 φθόνου and φόνου are apparently placed beside one another because of the similarity in sound. But we should not overlook the fact that envy can lead to murder; there is a connection.
300 ἔρις signifies “strife, wrangling, contention” (AS). MM cite it in a papyrus of the second century B.C. They translate, “know that I have a heart unconquerable when hate takes hold upon me”, an interesting example of that glorying in sin which Paul is deploring. In the New Testament the word is confined to Paul (nine times).
301 δόλος is used of craftiness or deceit in LXX as in the New Testament.
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)
302 W. Grundmann, TDNT, III, p. 485. The term is χαχοήθεια. SH, Michel, and others, following Aristotle, see it as “the tendency to put the worst construction on everything”. Cranfield, however, rejects this as “clearly as special connotation” and favors “its ordinary general sense of ‘malice’, ‘malignity’, ‘spite’ ”.
303 ψιθυριστής. Theodoret, the fifth-century commentator, takes the term to mean “those who whisper in the ear and speak ill of some who are present”, while he sees χαταλάλους as “those who unscrupulously make false accusations against those who are absent”.
304 χαταλάλους. Both this word and the preceding ψιθυριστάς are found only here in the New Testament.
305 θεοστυγεῖς.
JB The Jerusalem Bible
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)
306 Cf. Calvin, “The word θεοστυγεῖς undoubtedly means haters of God, for there is no reason to take it in its passive sense (hated by God), since Paul is here proving men’s guilt by their obvious wickedness.” Turner argues that “we should take the word passively in a subjective, not an objective sense: out of favour with God” (M, III, p. 234). But he appears to be arguing simply from the form of the word and taking no account of context. Some solve the problem by taking the term closely with the following words to give the sense, “god-hated insolents” (e.g., Lenski). Others appeal to its use in 1 Clement, but that passage is not very helpful, as Kirsopp Lake’s translation shows. Clement speaks of casting away “evil-speaking, hatred of God (θεοστυγίαν), pride…. For those who do these things are hateful to God (στυγητοὶ τῷ θεῷ)” (1 Clem. xxv.5–6).
307 Cranfield points to its use in classical Greek tragedy for the insolent pride that brings νέμεσις, “the retribution of the gods”, upon the person who exercises it. According to G. Bertram, ὑβριστής “denotes a man who, sinfully overestimating his own powers and exaggerating his own claims, is insolent in word and deed in relation to gods and men” (TDNT, VIII, p. 296). Here he takes it closely with θεοστυγεῖς and says, “The expression θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστάς presupposes rebellion against God, for the reference is to the disruption of human fellowship as a result of ungodliness” (ibid., p. 306). Paul had formerly been ὑβριστής (1 Tim. 1:13).
308 ὑπερήφανος may be used in a good sense, “pre-eminent, splendid” (AS). But in Scripture it is always used in the sense “arrogant”.
309 ἀλαζών is connected with ἄλη, “wandering or roaming without home or hope of rest” (LSJ). The transition from wanderer to vagrant to charlatan to boaster is a series of easy steps.
310 ἐφευρετὰς χαχῶν (Moffatt, “inventive in evil”). Cf. the address to Antiochus Epiphanes, “you who have contrived all sorts of evil (πάσης χαχίας εὑρετής) against the Hebrews” (2 Macc. 7:31).
311 ἀσύνετος means “senseless, foolish, implying also a lack of high moral quality” (BAGD); cf. Manson, “ ‘Foolish’ implies lack of conscience even more than of common sense”.
312 ἀσύνθετος, here only in the New Testament, means not keeping συνθῆχαι, “covenant-breaking”. The term is used of faithless Judah in Jer. 3:7 (LXX).
313 ἀστόργους. It means “people lacking στοργή”, a term for love which does not occur in the New Testament (for its meaning see my Testaments of Love [Grand Rapids, 1981], pp. 114–17). But this passage, along with 2 Tim. 3:3, shows that the virtue it denotes was prized. It is the love that binds people in a natural grouping, notably the family. Many draw attention to the fact that in the pagan world it was an accepted practice to expose babies whom the parents did not wish to keep. Such killing forms an exellent illustration of the meaning of Paul’s word. The Christians repudiated all such practices.
314 οἵτινες denotes the class. Cf. Parry, “οἵτινες χ.τ.λ. define once more the root of the evil—rejection of known truth—here as to the fixed judgment of God on such acts and persons” (CGT).
315 διχαίωμα, which Paul uses five times in Romans (ten times in the New Testament). AS says that it means “a concrete expression of righteousness, the expression and result of the act of διχαίωσις, ‘a declaration that a thing is δίχαιον, or that a person is δίχαιος’ ”. From this he derives the meanings “ordinance” and “sentence” (of acquittal or condemnation).
316 Cf. G. Schrenk, “In Paul’s eyes it is important to emphasise that there is for the Gentiles a recognisable divine order which is to be embraced, not as a sum of commands, but (in the sing.) as the one divine will” (TDNT, II, p. 221).
317 The word is linked with sin in 1:32; 5:12 (bis), 14, 17, 21; 6:9, 16, 21, 23; 7:5, 10, 13 (bis), 24; 8:2, 6, 38; with the death of Christ in 5:10; 6:3, 5, 9; and with baptism in 6:4.
318 μόνον is found in Paul in 36 of its 66 New Testament occurrences. It is not easy to see why a word like “only” should be used more by Paul than by others, but we should notice that he uses “not only” often when he is adding another point to the preceding.
319 Most of the verbs from v. 24 on are in the aorist, but Paul finishes the section with two present tenses, ποιοῦσιν and συνευδοχοῦσιν. There is some emphasis on the habitual attitude.
Paul uses two words which do not greatly differ in meaning and which NIV here translates as do (ποιέω) and practice (πράσσω). It is often said that the latter means “to do habitually” and the former simply “to do”, but this is not easy to establish from the usage of the two terms. It may perhaps be more relevant that πράσσω is often used of actions that are blameworthy. C. Maurer points out that the verb is never used of God’s actions: “This colourless word is used only with reference to man’s action, and a predominantly negative judgment is implied.” Here he comments, “the οἱ πράσσοντες of v. 32 refers to the mass of those who are rotting in the general swamp of pagan vices. On the other hand, the action of those who know God’s righteous demands involves wilful transgression, and ποιεῖν is used for this” (TDNT,
VI, pp. 635, 636).
321 O’Neill is an example of a recent scholar who sees a problem. He regards the statement as “a gloss that has crept into the text from the margin”. There is, of course, no evidence for this, and it has every appearance of a desperate determination to get rid of it.
322 Cf. Murray, who says that when we do these things, “To put it bluntly, we are not only bent on damning ourselves but we congratulate others in the doing of those things that we know have their issue in damnation. We hate others as we hate ourselves….”
323 Interpretation, XXV (1971), pp. 308–9 n.15. This footnote gives an excellent summary of much in recent discussions.
324 Cf. Käsemann, “in biblical usage righteousness, which is essentially forensic, denotes a relation in which one is set, namely, the ‘recognition’ in which one, for example, is acknowledged to be innocent.” He adds, “In Jewish apocalyptic this understanding is applied to the verdict of justification at the last judgment” (p. 24), and he finds the eschatological approach very important. I find it difficult to go along with Käsemann’s emphasis on apocalyptic. Granted that Paul (in common with the men of Qumran) is interested in apocalyptic, it does not follow that this permeates his view of “the righteousness of God”. Closer to the facts is Günther Bornkamm’s view that, while Paul “sounds the note of apocalyptic”, the truth that the gospel is God’s power for salvation “does not fit into any apocalyptic pattern” (Paul [London, 1971], pp. 114, 115; see also T. W. Wright in Themelios, 7 [1981–82], p. 10).
ASV The American Standard Version
NIV New International Version
325 See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), ch. VIII. It is perhaps worth adding that the Qumran sect on occasion produced profound sayings expressive of the grace of God in salvation. Thus in the Hymns we read, “I know (that) righteousness is Thine, that in Thy mercies there is (hope for me), but without Thy grace (destruction) without end” (Vermes, p. 186); “By Thy goodness alone is man righteous” (Vermes, p. 192); “I lean on Thy grace and on the multitude of thy mercies, for Thou wilt pardon iniquity, and through Thy righteousness (Thou wilt purify man) of his sin” (Vermes, p. 164). Unfortunately this standpoint is not uniformly maintained; cf. the note on 1:17. H. Conzelmann has an interesting comment after quoting passages from Qumran, “Here the pious admits his sinfulness in radical fashion and knows himself to be fully dependent on God’s ‘righteousness.’ But Qumran knows no ‘from faith alone’; here justification means radical submission to the law and not liberation from it” (Interpretation, XXII [1968], p. 182).
326 New Testament Questions of Today (London, 1969), pp. 181–82. The link between righteousness and power runs right through this discussion.
327 The Doctrine of Reconciliation (London, 1918), p. 151.
328 BDF 163 see God as the originator. Cf. BAGD, “the righteousness bestowed by God…. In this area it closely approximates salvation”. Bruce cites H. K. Moulton’s comment on the Pidgin translation of the New Testament for New Guinea, “We salute strokes of genius such as the translation of ‘justification’: ‘God ’e spik em olrite’ ” (p. 74 n.2).
329 ἐχ θεοῦ.
330 On 1:17 Luther remarks, “Here, too, ‘the righteousness of God’ must not be understood as that righteousness by which he is righteous in himself, but as that righteousness by which we are made righteous (justified) by Him”. Parry, however, comments, “ ‘God’s righteousness’ i.e. righteousness as belonging to the character of God and consequently required by Him in the character of men” (CGT). SH argue strongly that we should understand both senses. Denney draws attention to an important consideration favoring the position of Luther: “The righteousness of God, conceived as a Divine attribute, may have appeared to Paul the great difficulty in the way of the justification of sinful men. God’s righteousness in this sense is the sinner’s condemnation…. What is wanted (always in consistency with God’s righteousness as one of His inviolable attributes—the great point elaborated in iii.24–26) is a righteousness which, as man cannot produce it, must be from God….” The divine attribute of righteousness means oppostion to all unrighteousness and is bad news for sinful man. The passage requires the sense “that righteousness by which we are made righteous.”
331 So, e.g., the commentaries by D. Guthrie, M. Dibelius, J. N. D. Kelly, in loc. That it means the Old Testament is less likely.
Foreman K. J. Foreman: Romans, I & II Corinthians (London, 1962)
1 Foreman sees the Jews as in mind in 2:17–3:20; Paul, he says, “does not fully explain his argument, nor logically prove it. He just tosses out the hand grenade and lets the splinters hit where they will.” The Reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, view the words as applying generally (they do not refer specifically to the Jews); in modern times such views are shared by scholars like Barrett, Leenhardt, Lenski, and Harrisville. O’Neill calls in a glossator to account for some of the words, leaving the remainder to follow on logically from ch. 1.
Leenhardt Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)
2 That the passage refers to the Jews is held by Barclay, Cranfield, Dodd, Käsemann, Lagrange, and others.
3 Many are impressed with this. They find it incredible that a Jew should so consistently reproduce points of superiority claimed for his nation in Wisdom 11–15 and not have Jews in mind.
Nygren Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)
4 Cf. Justin, “they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God” (Trypho 140; ANF, I, p. 269).
5 Paul is “thinking—especially, yet not exclusively—of the Jews” (Brunner). A similar position is taken by Bruce, Murray, Parry, Knox, and others.
6 But see the note on 3:1–4.
7 But cf. Nygren: “Precisely ‘therefore,’ because that which has been said about the Gentiles is also true as to the Jews, ‘therefore’ the Jew is himself without excuse, when he judges.”
8 Others suggest that διό has lost its force (Michel), or that it anticipates the following (Haldane; perhaps “proleptic”, Knox; Murray sees this as possible, but Cranfield asks for evidence that διό is used in this manner). SH, Lenski, and others see it as referring, not to the immediately preceding, but to the whole of 1:18–32. Barrett views 1:32b as a parenthesis, so that the connection is with 1:32a. Käsemann and others think it may be part of “an early marginal gloss” (p. 54).
9 Cf. 2:17ff.; 8:2; 9:19–20; 11:17ff.; 13:3–4; 14:4, 10, 15, 20–22.
BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)
10 BDF 281. The first person singular may also be used in this way.
RSV The Revised Standard Version
GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
11 BAGD see it as “mostly expressing emotion (at the beginning of a clause)”; Turner sees “no great emotion” here (M, III, p. 33), and BDF 146[1b] is similar.
12 ἐν ὧ may mean ἐν τούτῳ ἐν ὧ, “in that in which” (Denney); or ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, “thereby”. Or it may have a temporal meaning, “while” (as in Mark 2:19; John 5:7). BDF 219[2] see ἐν as instrumental and the meaning as “while, because”; Turner also sees it as meaning “because” (M, III, p. 253).
13 Lenski insists that it is the passing of judgment that matters, whether the judgment is favorable or unfavorable. To pass judgment is to take up a position of superiority, whatever the verdict. It implies that the judge is in the clear. Cf. also Barrett, “Behind all the sins of 1:29ff. lies the sin of idolatry, which reveals man’s ambition to put himself in the place of God and so to be his own Lord. But this is precisely what the judge does when he assumes the right to condemn his fellow-creatures.”
14 Strictly ἕτερος means the other of two and is used to contrast one definite person with another; here the contrast is with αὐτός, and the meaning “one’s neighbor” or “one’s fellow” (BAGD).
Denney James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)
15 Cranfield points out that there are more ways than one of breaking the seventh commandment (cf. Matt. 5:27–28). Of course, the same is true of the other commandments.
16 Strictly χρίμα denotes the sentence rather than the process of judging (χρίσις). But the two are not sharply distinguished.
17 E.g., Moffatt. Barrett also does this, and comments, “it is perhaps not wrong to say, the Jew in Paul himself”.
JB The Jerusalem Bible
18 χατὰ ἀλήθειαν. Knox comments, “The impressive ‘according to truth’ (KJV) is to be preferred to the more casual ‘rightly’ of the RSV…. Paul’s point is that God’s judgment is not according to race or nationality (cf. vss. 10–11), but is based on the moral facts.”
19 λογίζομαι occurs 40 times in the New Testament, of which 34 are in Paul, 19 in Romans. It is thus a word that is very much a part of the argument of this epistle.
20 “The knowledge of the good is not the good itself” (Brunner). There is one article with the two participles—the same person both judges and does the things in question. NIV is not correct with the same things, which would be τὰ αὐτά; the Greek is simply αὐτά.
21 He uses the pronoun σύ only 24 times out of 173 in the New Testament. Its use here is thus not due to a stylistic preference of the apostle, and his sparing use of the term means that when he does employ it, it is with full meaning. He wants to emphasize it.
22 This is one of the sections that lead many to think that Paul was referring to Jews. Granted that God is rich in mercy to all people, could any Jew use language like this without recalling God’s mercy and longsuffering towards his people throughout the Old Testament?
23 BAGD class this with passages “to introduce a question which is parallel to a preceding one or supplements it”. Cf. Murray, “The purpose of this ‘or’ is not that of proposing alternatives; it is rhetorical like the questions themselves. And the effect is to press home upon the Jew in crescendo fashion the impiety of which he is guilty. In other words, these are not alternative ways of interpreting his attitude but different ways of stating what his attitude is.”
24 χρηστότης is “not the attribute by which God is good (holiness), but by which he does good (benevolence)” (Shedd). K. Weiss says that in the Pauline corpus it “denotes God’s gracious attitude and acts toward sinners”, and that its meaning is the same as that of the corresponding adjective later in the verse (TDNT, IX, p. 490). In the New Testament it is used only by Paul (ten times, five in Romans).
25 Trench differentiates χρηστότης from ἀγαθωσύνη and sees Christ as showing the latter when he drove the traders out of the temple or denounced the scribes and Pharisees. We see his χρἡστότης in his reception of the sinful woman (Luke 7:37–50) (Synonyms, pp. 234–35). Barclay makes the same distinction.
26 ἀνοχή (again in 3:26) “is the forbearance which suspends punishment” (Denney). It is not forgiveness but the suspension of penalty; the penalty may be imposed later. Cf. Trench, it “by no means implies that the wrath will not be executed at the last; nay, involves that it certainly will, unless he be found under new conditions of repentance and obedience” (Synonyms, p. 200).
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)
27 μαχροθυμία, a comparatively late word and one that is rare outside the Bible (in the New Testament it occurs 14 times, ten in Paul). J. Horst says that it “takes on a distinctive depth in biblical usage” (TDNT, IV, p. 376). As in 9:22, it is here related to wrath. God’s is angry with all evil indeed, but his anger must be understood in conjunction with his longsuffering which gives people ample opportunity to repent.
28 Cf. Lenski, “Is it too much to say that ἀγνοῶν means, ‘will not see’?” The person in question does not want to be shaken out of his self-satisfied, sinful state.
29 The word is χρηστόν, the neuter of the adjective used as a noun. Perhaps we should notice that both this word and μαχρόθυμος are used of God’s attitude to the Jews in Wis. 15:1. “Peculiar to Paul (Heb) is the use of a neuter sing. adjective like an abstract, mostly with a dependent gen.” (BDF 263[2]). They further say, “χρηστότης is used in the same vs. in a different sense”, but do not say what the sense is. Others hold that the sense is much the same (e.g., Turner, M, III, p. 14).
30 The present tense of the Greek is the basis of NIV leads (cf. KJV, “leadeth”). But increasingly people are understanding the verb in some such sense as RSV, “is meant to lead you”. This takes the present as conative, which Moule sees used “of action attempted, but not accomplished”; he understands the meaning here as “is trying or tending to lead” (IBNTG, p. 8). For the thought of God leading people to repent cf. Wis. 11:23; 12:10, 19. Repentance is God’s gift (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).
31 In the New Testament μετάνοια is basically Lukan (Luke five times, Acts six times); Paul has it four times. The change it denotes does not come easily. As Käsemann says, “The danger of the pious person is that of isolating God’s gifts from the claim which is given with them, and of forgetting to relate forbearance and patience to the Judge of the last day” (p. 55).
32 Hendriksen, who understands the word to mean “conversion” here, says, “Conversion indicates a complete turnabout”. So it does, but μετάνοια is concerned with that aspect of the “turnabout” which means forsaking sin. By “repentance” Hendriksen appears to understand what is better termed “remorse”.
33 Behm points out that for the Stoic “the wise man is above a μετάνοια. This … would represent him as the victim of error, which as the opposite of the virtue of wisdom is beneath the dignity of the sage” (TDNT, IV, p. 980). Repentance is a biblical distinctive, not a commonplace.
a 6 Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12
34 χατά may be used of the norm, “according to, in accordance with”, but it may also mean simply “because of, as a result of, on the basis of” (BAGD, who see this meaning here).
35 The word is σχληρότης; it is applied to Israel in LXX of Deut. 9:27; cf. 31:27.
36 Earle reminds us that “arteriosclerosis” (“hardening of the arteries”) derives from this word, and he speaks of “spiritual sclerosis”, the “hardening of the spiritual arteries”.
37 Stählin refers to the Jewish idea of a person’s accumulation of capital in heaven by his deeds: “While the interest on this capital (קרז), acc. to the Jewish view, is already enjoyed on earth in the form of merit and reward, and only the capital will be paid back at the end, the capital of wrath grows until the Last Judgment and will then be paid with compound interest; hence this day is the ἡμέρα ὀργῆς, R. 2:5” (TDNT, V, p. 438). The word is used in LXX of Prov. 1:18 of people who store up evil for themselves.
38 Barth, however, takes the words closely with “store up”. The meaning then will be that at this present time when the gospel is being preached, these people, by rejecting God’s offer, keep storing up wrath. Cranfield sees this as a serious option and one which does no violence to the Greek, but he opts for the eschatological meaning.
39 Paul uses ἀποχάλυψις 13 times out of its 18 New Testament occurrences; no book has it more often than Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Peter, each with three occurrences.
40 διχαιοχρισία is found in Hos. 6:5 in the Quinta of Origen’s Hexapla (see Hatch and Redpath), and in Test. Levi 3:2; 15:2. MM say, “The emphasis which this compound lays on the character of the Judge rather than on the character of the judgment in Rom 2 5 … receives support from two passages in the Oxyrhyncus papyri” (the passages are dated A.D. 303 and fifth century A.D.).
41 SH see a difference. They think that the compound denotes “not so much the character of the judgement as the character of the Judge.” This would agree with the context and may be right, but the word formation looks rather to the act of judgment. Cranfield disagrees with SH and sees no difference of meaning from 2 Thess. 1:5.
42 Cf. Bruce, “Paul is not teaching salvation by works here, but emphasizing God’s impartiality as between Jew and Gentile.”
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)
43 The word is ὑπομονή; cf. BDF 163; M, III, p. 212.
44 ἀγαθός is found 104 times in the New Testament, 47 being in Paul. He has it 21 times in Romans, though no more than four times in any other epistle. Clearly in this letter he is taking a marked interest in what is and what is not good.
45 δόξα occurs 77 times in the Pauline writings (16 in Romans), out of a New Testament total of 165 (next is John with 18); clearly it is an important concept for Paul. In Greek generally it has a meaning like “opinion”, but in the New Testament “the word is used for the most part in a sense for which there is no Greek analogy whatever … it denotes ‘divine and heavenly radiance,’ the ‘loftiness and majesty’ of God, and even the ‘being of God’ and His world” (G. Kittel, TDNT, II, p. 237). This seems to arise because in LXX it so often translates כבוד and picks up some of its meaning. When it is used of people in the New Testament, Kittel finds participation important: “Participation in δόξα, whether here in hope or one day in consummation, is participation in Christ” (ibid., p. 250). Cf. G. Henton Davies, “the glory in Christians is Christ in them, and this in turn is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27)” (IDB, II, p. 402). Paul often uses “glory” to denote the final blessedness of the believer, but rarely uses terms like “heaven” (though cf. 2 Cor. 5:1).
46 ἀφθαρσία = “incorruption” (used in 1 Cor. 15:42 of the resurrection body). The word denotes “the state of not being subject to corruption” and thus immortality.
47 JB has “renown” in place of “glory”. TH, however, says that this “would seem to suggest a wrong emphasis, since ‘renown’ is the praise which men give, whereas ‘glory’ is the gift of God.”
48 αἰώνιος is found 70 times in the New Testament, of which 21 occurrences are in Paul and 17 in John. The word is the adjective of αἰών, “an age”.
49 Cf. Nigel Turner, ζωὴ αἰώνιος “is the life to come, though we may have the promise and foretaste of it now. The expression stands primarily for a quality of life” (Christian Words, p. 456). See also the note in my The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), pp. 226–27.
50 Paul uses it 37 times and John 36 times; the New Testament total is 135.
51 The word is ἐριθεία. This word looks as though it might be derived from ἔρις, “strife”, which would lead to a meaning like “factious”. But many contend that the word is derived from ἔριθος, “a hired laborer”, from which we get the verb ἐριθεύομαι, “to work for hire”. Politicians sometimes hired people to promote their cause; thus the verb came to be used for doing things for the sake of money (and thus for self-interest) or for the sake of the man who pays. This means the promotion of a cause without regard to principle, and leads to party spirit or factiousness. The correct derivation is not known for certain, but that from ἔριθος is favored in recent times. Barrett takes this as correct and argues that the word means “those who are out for quick and selfish profit on their own account” (cf. GNB, “selfish”). Büchsel understands it as “ ‘base self-seeking,’ or simply as ‘baseness’, the nature of those who cannot lift their gaze to higher things” (TDNT, II, p. 661). Käsemann recognizes that “selfishness” or “selfish ambition” is widely held to be the meaning, but “baseness” (Büchsel) and “striving for recognition” (Schlier) “also call for consideration” (p. 59). We cannot be sure of the derivation, but the way the word is used in the New Testament favors something like “factiousness” (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:17; 2:3; Jas. 3:14, 16).
52 ἐχ here denotes origin; these people have their root in factiousness. Contrast ἐχ πίστεως in 3:26, and cf. 4:12, 14; Gal. 3:7.
53 The verb is ἀπειθέω, “disobey”. BAGD say, “in our lit. the disobedience is always toward God or his ordinances”; “since in the view of the early Christians, the supreme disobedience was a refusal to believe their gospel, ἀ. may be restricted in some passages to the mng. disbelieve, be an unbeliever. This sense, though greatly disputed (it is not found outside our lit.) seems most probable” in certain passages, “and only slightly less prob. in Ro 2:8….” MM do not cite this meaning from the papyri.
54 Or ἀποδώσεται. We might also, with Godet, regard it as “better still, an exclamation: ‘for them, wrath!’ ” Turner sees it as “Nom. for accus. (a slip)” (M, III, p. 317).
55 Hodge comments, “God gives eternal life; indignation and wrath come as earned by man, so to speak, Deo nolente. God wills all men to be saved. Comp. Rom. vi.23.”
56 Paul uses θυμός five times, once in each of five epistles. It occurs ten times in Revelation, the only New Testament book to have it more than once. This is the only place in the New Testament outside Revelation where it refers to the wrath of God.
57 So Büchsel, “There is no material difference between them” (TDNT, III, p. 168). Stählin, however, sees at least a different nuance: “one might very well say that θυμός, to which there clings the concept of passionate outburst, was well adapted for describing the visions of the seer, but not for delineating Paul’s concept of the wrath of God” (TDNT, V, p. 422).
58 See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), chs. V and VI.
59 θλίβω in the literal sense means “press”, “squash” (as in the treading of grapes), so that θλῖψις denotes not minor discomfort, but acute suffering. In the New Testament it (and the corresponding verb) is almost invariably used in a figurative sense to denote serious trouble. Tribulation is inevitable for the Christian (John 16:33); it is a filling up of what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions (Col. 1:24). Sometimes affliction is eschatological (Matt. 24:9, 21); occasionally, as here, it is the lot of the wicked at the Last Judgment (cf. 2 Thess. 1:6).
60 στενοχωρία (twice each in Romans and 2 Corinthians but only there in the New Testament) means literally “narrowness of space”, and thus “difficulty”, “hardship”.
61 Those who see a difference in meaning cite 2 Cor. 4:8 to show that στενοχωρία is the stronger word. Thus SH hold that it means “torturing confinement”, though they notice that “the etymological sense is probably lost in usage.” Cranfield mentions as having “considerable plausibility” the view held by Aquinas, Calvin, and Barth that “when Paul uses the two words together he intends by θλῖψις outward affliction and by στενοχωρία inward distress or anguish.” This may be so, but I see no reason for moving here from the outward to the inward. It seems more likely that the combination simply emphasizes the magnitude of the trouble. Denney discovers the same idea in both, “only intensified by the reduplication.” G. Bertram finds it “well-nigh impossible to differentiate” between them here; “The use of the two synonyms together is for increased effect” (TDNT, VII, p. 607).
62 Literally “every soul of man”, which some have taken to mean that it is in the soul that we are punished (cf. Lagrange). But this is reading something into the expression; NIV is right.
63 Cf. W. Gutbrod: “When he speaks of the Ἰουδαῖος, he does not have in view specific adherents of this nation and religion. He is thinking of a type abstracted from individual representatives” (TDNT, III, p. 380).
64 Commenting on “first”, Lagrange notes that the bad deeds of the Jew are the more blameworthy because they are done despite the greater enlightenment he has received.
65 See the note on 1:16 for the two words and also for their being linked by τε... χαί.
66 Leenhardt sees the principle of retribution here as not in contradiction of free justification: “The two principles have not the same object. In his present discourse Paul is describing the condition of men before God quite apart from the divine grace of redemption.”
67 προσωπολημψία. The Old Testament has a number of expressions that include “face”, such as נשׂא פנים. This can be used in a good sense (Deut. 28:50; Job 42:8–9), but also in a bad sense (“do not show partiality to the poor”, Lev. 19:15; cf. Deut. 10:17; Ps. 82:2; Prov. 18:5). LXX can render it by πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, and it seems that the New Testament derives a group of words from this (cf. Acts 10:34; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Jas. 2:1, 9; 1 Pet. 1:17). The verb προσωπολημπτέω and the noun προσωπολήμπτης as well as our word “are not found in the LXX, and may be reckoned amongst the earliest definitely Christian words” (MM).
68 “The Gentile does not perish for the reason that he lacks the law which the Jew possesses, but because he sins”(Harrison). The Jews sometimes held that the Gentiles rejected the law, but they insisted on the reality of Gentile sins, e.g., “each of the inhabitants of the earth knew when he was transgressing. But My law they knew not by reason of their pride” (2 Bar. 48:40); “Thy law which they have transgressed shall requite them on Thy day” (2 Bar. 48:47).
69 This is Paul’s first use of ἁμαρτάνω in this letter, a verb he uses seven times in Romans and 17 times in all out of its 42 New Testament occurrences (next is 1 John with ten instances). He uses the noun ἁμαρτία 64 times, 48 in Romans, out of 173 times in the New Testament (next is Hebrews with 25). Clearly he is deeply concerned with the fact and the problem of sin. It is not only a matter of statistics: in 1:18–32 he has developed an argument about sin, though without using the term, a phenomenon that recurs throughout his writings.
70 The word is ἀνόμως. The corresponding adjective ἄνομος is used in the sense “lawless”, “wicked” (e.g., Luke 22:37; Acts 2:23), but also with the meaning “not having the law” (1 Cor. 9:21).
71 ἐν νόμῳ. Paul uses ἐν 988 times (172 in Romans), which is more than 36 percent of the New Testament total. Clearly he uses the word so often that it does not always have a precise meaning. Perhaps here the sense is “in the area of law”.
72 διά is another of Paul’s hard-worked prepositions. He has it 291 times out of 666 in the New Testament (about 43%), the next being Acts with 74. He uses it 91 times in Romans.
73 νόμου lacks the article. BDF note the anarthrous use with abstract nouns, other than when used in the generic sense. Paul tends to omit the article with ἁμαρτία and νόμος, and sometimes with θάνατος, but, they say optimistically, the reason is recognizable (258 [2]). Here the reason is perhaps that Paul is referring to law in general as well as the Mosaic law.
74 See SBk, III, pp. 84ff. for the views of the rabbis.
75 Cited from SBk, III, p. 87 (Dodd also has this quotation). The Mishnah has a reference to “honouring father and mother, deeds of loving-kindness, making peace between a man and his fellow”, to which is added, “and the study of the Law is equal to them all” (Peah 1:1). The Talmud records a discussion in which R. Tarfon held to the primacy of practice and R. Akiba to that of study, with the decision of the elders: “Study is greater, for it leads to action” (Kid. 40b; the Soncino edition has a footnote, “This was a practical problem during the Hadrianic persecution, when both study and practical observance were forbidden, and the question was for which risks should sooner be taken”).
76 Cranfield, however, takes the words differently: Paul is “thinking of that beginning of grateful obedience to be found in those who believe in Christ, which though very weak and faltering and in no way deserving God’s favour, is, as the expression of humble trust in God, well-pleasing in His sight.” This way of understanding the passage is possible, but it does not spring to the eye. It seems that Paul is speaking of the way people are in fact condemned, not of the way they are in fact justified. He does not believe that people are ever justified by the way of law (3:20).
77 Turner points out that the construction ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα (with the article following the anarthrous noun) is rare in the New Testament and much more common in the papyri than in the classics. The construction with the repeated article (ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός) he finds common in the New Testament but rare in the papyri (M, III, pp. 8, 185).
78 ὅταν. It is used “of things which one assumes will readily occur, but the time of whose occurrence he does not definitely fix” (GT).
79 In Romans it lacks the article 17 times, seven of which are in quotations; thus Paul himself omits the article nine times (outside Romans he omits it six times out of 25 or 26).
80 For φύσις see on 1:26. There is a question whether it here goes with the preceding (“who by nature do not have law”) or the following (“by nature do the things of the law”). It is usually assumed that the latter construction is correct, but the former is quite possible (cf. Bengel), and elsewhere in Paul φύσις may be held to support this (v. 27; Gal. 2:15; Eph. 2:3). In the end we must leave both possibilities open.
81 τὰ τοῦ νόμου, not νόμον. Paul is not saying that they do the law, but “the things of the law”, i.e., actions which in fact the law prescribes, but not done in obedience to the law, for they do not have it. It is not the law as a whole that they do, but actions which correspond to the parts of the law that prescribe those actions.
82 Calvin gives as examples religious rites, laws against adultery, theft, and murder, and the commendation of good faith in business affairs.
83 Black and others quote Aristotle: “the cultivated and free-minded man is, as it were, a law to himself”; Black adds, “i.e. he does not require rules to be imposed from outside, but has his own self-imposed discipline.” W. Gutbrod says that the Gentiles in question “are herewith ἑαυτοῖς νόμος, i.e., ‘the’ Law, not ‘a’ law, to themselves. If νόμος without article implied here a generalisation of the concept of law, the train of thought would be broken” (TDNT, IV, p. 1070).
84 Cranfield accepts the view he finds in Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Barth that the reference is to Gentile Christians and the works “are the expression of their hearts’ faith.” But it is not easy to see in the simple ἔθνη Gentile Christians; τὰ ἔθνη in 11:13; 15:9 is no real parallel since the context there indicates that believers are in mind. This is not the case here.
85 Cf. Käsemann, for Paul “everything depends on the fact that the Gentiles also experience the transcendent claim of the divine will and thus become, not the law or a law, but law to themselves…. They sense that a person is set in question and that a demand is laid on him from outside, and paradoxically they do so in their inner beings” (p. 64).
86 Barclay adds this comment: “And here is the answer to those who ask what is to happen to the people who lived in the world before Jesus came into the world and who had no opportunity to hear the Christian message. The Christian answer is that a man will be judged by his fidelity to the highest that it was possible for him to know.”
87 The word is οἵτινες (see on 1:25) = “who are of such a quality as to”.
88 ἐνδείχνυνται is present, “show now”.
89 γραπτόν agrees with ἔργον, not νόμου.
90 MM have a different objection: they do not find the word in Epictetus or M. Antoninus. They proceed, “The word would seem, therefore, to have been ‘baptized’ by Paul into a new and deeper connotation, and to have been used by him as equivalent to τὸ συνειδός.…”
91 Bruce points out that the word is not classical and that it appeared only shortly before Christianity. He goes on, “It meant ‘consciousness of right or wrong doing’, but Paul uses it (and perhaps he was the first to do so) in the sense of an independent witness within, which examines and passes judgment on one’s conduct. In Christians this examination and judgment should be specially accurate because their conscience is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 9:1).
92 Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville, 1968), p. 229.
93 Cf. the important work by C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London, 1955); C. Maurer in TDNT, VII, pp. 898–919; Margaret E. Thrall, NTS, 14 (1967–68), pp. 118–25.
Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)
Hodge Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864 edn.)
94 Barrett says, “the conscience bearing witness with the divine law whose imprint it is”; Hodge, “the honestas vitae, the moral acts of the heathen”; Leenhardt, “the ‘heart’ suggests a decision; the conscience supports it by its own testimony”; cf. Moule, “Individual consciences affirm the common conviction of moral distinctions which they find around them” (CBSC).
95 For συν- in compounds with a perfective sense cf. M, I, pp. 113, 115–16. Cf. also BAGD, “the prefix συν- has in the highest degree the effect of strengthening” (sub συμμαρτυρέω).
96 Boylan argues that μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων means “in (their) intercourse with one another”. He sees conscience as part of the evidence and holds that this is supported by the verdicts Gentiles pass on one another’s conduct. He finds it difficult to see how “contending judgments” show the person to be a law to himself: “it would rather show that he is a creature of caprice”. Murray inclines to this view (p. 76 n.30), and it is supported by Haldane, Denney, Parry, and others.
97 Cranfield sees the witness of conscience and that of conflicting thoughts as both referring to Judgment Day. This makes the transition from v. 15 to v. 16 easy and removes a difficulty.
Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)
98 ἢ χαί, “or even”, may imply that excusing is less likely; cf. RSV, “or perhaps excuse them”. It is worth noticing that Paul uses χατηγορέω here only, and ἀπολογέομαι, “make a legal defence”, only once elsewhere; he delights in legal imagery, but it is not the excitement of the court that attracts him. It is the facts of God’s law as the standard and of acquittal through grace.
99 The precise connection has been understood in different ways. Paul may mean that the gospel includes the thought either (1) that God will judge, (2) that he will judge men’s secrets, (3) that he will judge Gentiles as well as Jews, or (4) that he will judge through Jesus Christ. Certainty may be unattainable, but the word order favors the last. The main point, however, is the connection of judgment with the gospel.
100 Elsewhere he insists that there is but one gospel (1 Cor. 15:11; Gal. 1:6–9). This is overlooked by some who seek to interpret this verse by finding something peculiar to Paul. They put too much emphasis on μου, overlooking the fact that the enclitic is not emphatic. In a sermon on these words R. Bethune emphasizes Paul’s point that there is but one gospel and that personal appropriation of the gospel message is in mind here (ET, LXVIII [1956–57], pp. 22–23).
101 χρινει is usually accented as a present (χρίνει), but there seems no reason why it should not be read as a future (χρινεῖ). In either case there is a future reference (cf. BDF 323 for the futuristic use of the present).
102 Cf. SBk: “According to the Rabbinic view it is exclusively God who will judge the world…. In Rabbinic literature there is no passage which unambiguously places the judgment of the world in the hand of the Messiah” (II, p. 465). Cf. also S. Mowinckel, He that Cometh (Oxford, 1959), pp. 313, 319, 336, etc.
103 Althaus thinks that this is the sort of thing Paul would have preached in the synagogue.
104 A number of scholars see this section as ironical (e.g., Boylan, Murray, Hendriksen), but this is perhaps unnecessary. Paul had a high view of the place of the Jew in God’s plan, and there seems nothing here on which he would cast doubt. The view that he is using irony is rejected by scholars such as Nygren, O’Neill, and Käsemann.
105 The late MSS, it is true, often read ἴδε (cf. KJV, “Behold”), a reading treated respectfully in BDF 467: “in R 2:17ff. it is possible to transform what appear to be protases without a correct apodosis (21?) into independent clauses by adopting the reading ἴδε”. But Metzger accepts εἰ δέ and comments on ἴδε, “This reading arose either as an itacism (ει and ε were pronounced alike) or as a deliberate amelioration of an otherwise extremely long and drawn out sentence (with the apodosis in ver. 21).” This is surely the way it should be understood.
106 εἰ + present indicative, “If (as is the case)….” Cf. TH, “these ‘if’ clauses are equivalent in force to an affirmative statement”. GNB is so sure of the point that it dispenses with the “if”: “You call yourself a Jew, you depend on the Law….” The Greek has only one “if”, though some translations agree with NIV in inserting the conjunction several times.
107 χαυχάομαι. He uses it in no less than 35 of its 37 New Testament occurrences, and he has a similar near monopoly on other words from the same root; he has χαύχημα ten times out of 11 and χαύχησις also ten times out of 11. The word group may indicate a boasting that is laudable, such as boasting in God (5:11), in Christ (15:17; Phil. 3:3), or in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14). Christians can boast in tribulations (5:3) and generally in the things that show their weakness (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5, 9). Paul sees his converts as a “crown of boasting” (1 Thess. 2:19). Christians can boast in one another (2 Cor. 1:14; 7:4, 14; 9:2, 3), and they can boast in the hope of future glory (5:2). But where boasting centers on one’s own achievements, as it so often does, it is blameworthy. Cf. Bultmann, “For Paul χαυχᾶσθαι discloses the basic attitude of the Jew to be one of self-confidence which seeks glory before God and which relies upon itself.” He goes on to say that Paul sets in contrast πίστις “which is appropriate to man and which is made possible, and demanded, by Christ” (TDNT, III, pp. 648–49). M. Bouttier thinks the word means here not so much boasting, which “hardly brings out the existential content; it is a question of knowing what we make the basis of our life, what gives it its raison d’être and value” (Christianity according to Paul [London, 1966], p. 16). But this scarcely accords with the meaning of χαυχάομαι. See further E. A. Judge, ABR, 16 (1968), pp. 37–50; Minear, p. 59.
NEB The New English Bible
108 Turner sees the meaning of ἐν here as “because of” (M, III, p. 253). TH seems to be in error when it rejects “boast about God”, saying that the Jews were characterized rather by “boasting about their particular relationship with God” (cf. also NIV, RSV). While the Jews may well have had this characteristic, it is not what Paul is saying at this point.
109 This exultation is found also outside Scripture, e.g., Ps. Sol. 17:1: “O Lord, thou art our King, now and for ever: for in thee, O God, our soul shall glory.”
110 Paul uses θέλημα 24 times, of which 20 or 21 refer to the will of God.
111 διαφέρω.
112 Shedd prefers this meaning “because the reference is to casuistry, or the settlement of nice questions in morals, upon which the Jew plumed himself.” So also Robinson, Moule, Godet, etc. Cf. NEB, “you know right from wrong.” Michel thinks Paul means making the distinction between Judaism and paganism, but this seems unlikely.
113 With ASV, RSV, Hodge, Gifford, etc. Denney holds that “There are no grounds on which we can decide positively for either”; Bruce also sets out the alternatives without expressing a preference.
114 χατηχέω. H. W. Beyer says that Paul always uses it in the sense “to give instruction concerning the content of faith”, here of pre-Christian Judaism (TDNT, III, p. 638). In due course it became an important Christian word (cf. “catechism”, “catechumen”). Lagrange points to the present tense as indicating that he is constantly instructed (contrast Apollos, Acts 18:25). Among the Jews great emphasis was given to oral repetition, which fits the meaning of the verb. Cf. Birger Gerhardsson, Jewish study of the oral Torah “is in principle oral repetition: the teacher’s instruction, the pupil’s learning—in fact all study and maintenance of knowledge within the discipline—rests on the principle of oral repetition” (Memory and Manuscript [Copenhagen, 1964], p. 28; cf. also pp. 115–16, chs. 10 and 11).
115 The 2nd perfect of πείθω is used with present meaning, “be convinced, be sure, certain” (BAGD 2.b). It is joined to the preceding with τέ, which links clauses “thereby indicating a close relationship betw. them” (BAGD); “In the connection of clauses, τε indicates rather close connection and relationship” (BDF 443[3]).
116 For the Jews’ view of their role as leaders of the blind etc. see SBk, III, pp. 98–105.
117 In Wis. 18:4 the Jews saw themselves as those “through whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world.”
118 The word ἄφρων = alpha-privative + φρήν (“mind”, “thought”); it means “mindless”, “thoughtless”. Here it signifies the Jew’s “judgment on the pagan world around which is designed to express the accusation of ungodliness” (G. Bertram, TDNT, IX, p. 231). He considers ungodliness stupid. “ἄφρονες are, as in the O.T. … persons without moral intelligence” (Denney).
119 So NASV, NEB. Cf. Cragg, “it is not wise to forget that there are many who need the kind of moral and religious teaching that children receive.”
120 Calvin takes the participle causatively, “because you have the form of knowledge” (so NIV).
121 μόρφωσις occurs in the New Testament elsewhere only in 2 Tim. 3:5. J. Behm sees it here as “a physical representation, indeed, the actual embodiment of absolute knowledge and truth, as the true depiction and representation of the idea of a divine norm.” He adds that this “is stated with obvious irony by Paul” (TDNT, IV, p. 754), a judgment from which many dissent.
122 Paul often omits the article, but he is very definite here: he speaks of the embodiment of the knowledge and the truth in the law. The effect is to put emphasis on the supremacy of the revelation God has given in the law.
123 Cf. Manson, “With his pure religion and his lofty moral code he is uniquely fitted, he claims, to assume the spiritual leadership of mankind.”
a 24 Isaiah 52:5; Ezek. 36:22
124 O’Neill sees the whole section 2:17–29 as written by someone other than Paul (as also 1:18–32; 2:1–16). He thinks that this was “a traditional tract which belongs essentially to the missionary literature of Hellenistic Judaism.” But no sufficient reason is urged for this position. The whole section is an integral part of Paul’s argument that all people are sinners, and without it he would scarcely have made his point.
125 Käsemann does not think that vv. 21ff. give us a true picture of contemporary Jews. He says, “In general the life of the Pharisees was strict and not infrequently even attracted Gentiles”. But here “an apocalyptic approach is again presenting what may be empirically an exception as representative of the community” (p. 69). Käsemann’s overemphasis on apocalyptic has perhaps led him astray at this point. While some Jews certainly lived exemplary lives, there is no evidence that the Jews as such were admired and much that they were unpopular and widely criticized. Cf. n. 126† below.
126 Cf. the sorrowful words of R. Johanan b. Zakkai (died c. A.D. 80), in SBk, III, p. 106. Dodd speaks of this discourse as “delivered probably not much more than ten years after the date of this letter, in which he bewails the increase of murder, adultery, sexual vice, commercial and judicial corruption, bitter sectarian strife, and other evils.”
127 οὖν here is probably resumptive. The particle is often inferential, but this sense is not strong here. Paul is quite fond of οὖν and uses it 112 times (47 in Romans), which is more than anyone else in the New Testament other than John (194 times).
128 Thomas brings out the importance of the teacher with a quotation from Nathaniel Hawthorne: “Let us reflect that the highest path is pointed out by the pure ideal of those who look up to us, and who, if we tread less softly, may never look so high again.”
129 Leenhardt follows Michel in differentiating διδάσχων as instruction from χηρύσσων, preaching, and λέγων as “authorized quotation and its explanation”; TH sees teaching, preaching, and “exegesis or interpretation”, but both are getting a lot out of λέγων. Käsemann sees only “a rhetorical distinction” (p. 71), which seems right.
130 χηρύσσω is used of Jewish preaching (Acts 15:21), of the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1), and, of course, of Christian preaching, that of Jesus himself (Matt. 4:17) and of his followers (Mark 6:12). Paul uses the verb 19 times out of its 61 New Testament occurrences (four in Romans). It is not easy to see why RSV inserts “while” into this question; the construction is the same: “You, who preach….”
131 χλέπτειν is an infinitive because of the command implied in χηρύσσων. It is interesting that theft, adultery, and sacrilege are linked by Philo (who adds murder; On the Confusion of Tongues, 163). JB makes this a statement, not a question: “You preach against stealing, yet you steal”, and so with the following.
132 Paul often denounces sexual sin and advocates purity, but he rarely uses the terminology of adultery. This is the one passage where he uses the verb μοιχεύω, and he has μοιχός once only; he never uses μοιχάω or μοιχεία.
133 Consider these statements from the Psalms of Solomon: “his eyes are upon every woman immodestly” (4:4); “all of them committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives” (8:1); “they left no sins which they did not commit, and even worse than the Gentiles” (8:14).
134 The verb βδελύσσομαι (only here and in Rev. 21:8 in the New Testament) is connected with βδέω, “break wind”, and words denoting a smell. It means to turn away from something on account of the stench, and thus to abhor, detest.
135 LSJ define ἱεροσυλέω as “rob a temple, commit sacrilege”. Our problem is that these two meanings are not the same and it is not easy to see which of them Paul has in mind in this passage. BAGD, discussing the cognate ἱερόσυλος, note the general meaning “one who commits irreverent acts against a holy place”; MM see a similar meaning in the verb here.
136 Josephus says that Moses forbade Jews to rob temples or take treasure dedicated to any god (Ant. iv.207; cf. Deut. 7:25–26), from which many draw the conclusion that Josephus was opposing a contemporary practice. This historian also records the slander of Lysimachus that the original name of Jerusalem was Ἱερόσυλα (because of its inhabitants’ temple robberies) and that this was later altered to Ἱεροσόλυμα (Ap. i.311; cf. 319).
137 G. Schrenk holds that we should take the word here in the strict sense of robbing temples (TDNT, III, p. 256). Cf. Moule, “ ‘do you plunder temples’, entering the polluted precincts readily enough for purposes at least equally polluting?” (p. 68).
138 Cf. Barth, “thy righteousness is robbery, for who does not steal? thy purity is adultery, for who is rid of sexuality? thy piety is arrogance, for where is the piety which does not approach God too nearly? Is there any advantage in distinguishing before the judgement seat of God a higher and a lower form of worldliness?”; “If God be not for thee, all is against thee.” The Psalms of Solomon refer to people “plundering the House of God’s Holiness” (8:12).
139 In the previous two verses Paul has used participles, but he now switches to the relative pronoun and the indicative. Some think this means a change from questions to statements (e.g., NEB, SH, Cranfield, etc.). It seems more likely that it is a stylistic variation, for apart from this the structure remains as in the preceding. C. F. D. Moule says it is “clearly an exact parallel to the preceding clauses” (IBNTG, p. 106); that it is a question is accepted by RSV, GNB, Hendriksen, etc.).
140 Turner sees ἐν here as causal, “because of” (M, III, p. 253).
141 He uses γάρ, “for, because”, which NIV omits. For Paul’s use of this conjunction see the note on 1:9.
142 The quotation differs from LXX of Isa. 52:5 only in minor points: διʼ ὑμᾶς is differently placed, LXX has μου where Paul has τοῦ θεοῦ, and it includes διὰ παντός which Paul lacks. None of these differences is major, but the thought of the passage is different. If the resemblance to the language of Isa. 52:5 is close, the resemblance to the thought of Ezek. 36:20–23 is closer.
143 The Qumran community was warned not to harm or rob Gentiles “lest they blaspheme” (Vermes, p. 114).
144 Denney comments, “As if the heathen were saying: ‘Like God, like people; what a Divinity the patron of this odious race must be’.”
145 Some hold that the position indicates that Paul is making a free quotation (e.g., SH, Lagrange, Lenski). Denney, however, rejects this and proceeds: “it is rather that there is a challenge in the words, as if he had said, Let him impugn this who dare contest the Word of God.”
a 27 Or who, by means of a
146 περιτομή is a Pauline word, being used by the apostle 30 times out of its 35 New Testament occurrences. It means “a cutting around”. Here it is followed by μέν, to which BAGD give the significance “for indeed”. Paul also has γάρ, “for” (which NIV omits), which according to Hodge answers to what is implied rather than to what is explicitly said: “You are exposed to condemnation, for circumcision….” Lagrange thinks it is probably because circumcision itself is enjoined in the law.
147 Theodoret, Commentary, p. 47.
148 ἐάν with the subjunctive. Paul is fond of ἐάν and uses it 95 times (20 in Romans). He is even more fond of εἰ, which he has 213 times (46 in Romans). It is a mark of his argumentative style that he so frequently uses conditionals, as he does here.
149 The rabbis did find a way of consigning the very wicked to perdition. The same passage says that Abraham “will remove the foreskin from babes who died before circumcision and set it upon (the sinners), and then let them descend into Gehenna”. But this is distinctly exceptional. The normal, circumcised Israelite had nothing to fear.
150 παραβάτης has regard to the law; it refers not to evildoers in general, but to someone who “transgresses a specific divine commandment” (J. Schneider, TDNT, V, p. 741).
151 The word is ἀχροβυστία (= τὸ ἄχρον τῆς βύστης ἔχων, “having the foreskin”). GT points out that in the classics the word is ἀχροποσθία and think the New Testament word a variant from those who pronounced πόσθη (the male organ) as βύστη. LSJ, however, think it is probably “from ἄχρος and a Semitic root, cf. Bab. buštu ‘pudenda’, Heb. bōsheth ‘shame’ ”. MM note the word (with a fresh suffix) in Hippocrates, and say, “When a word containing a vox obscoena was taken from medical vocabulary into popular religious speech, it was natural to disguise it.”
152 For the connective οὖν (which NIV omits) see the note on v. 21. RSV has “So”. The following words are the logical consequence of what has just been said.
153 The verb is φυλάσσω, which means “guard, protect”, but not infrequently is used of guarding a law from being broken, i.e., by observing its provisions.
154 For διχαίωμα see on 1:32; here it means “righteous ordinances”.
155 Paul uses αὐτοῦ, though the grammatical antecedent is the feminine noun ἀχροβυστία; it is equivalent to ὁ ἀχροβυστίαν ἔχων (cf. BDF 282[2]). Turner thinks it “has no expressed antecedent but again is vague in reference” (M, III, p. 40). Notice further that εἰς is here used of result.
Gifford E. H. Gifford: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886)
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
ARV The American Revised Version
Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation
Godet F. Godet: Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1895)
156 ἐχ φύσεως means “from nature”, not “physically” (though RSV supports NIV). The reference is to the man who is naturally uncircumcised, not the one who becomes uncircumcised (v. 25) by breaking God’s law.
157 τελοῦσα; the participle has here something of the force of a conditional, “if it accomplishes”.
158 τελέω means “to bring to its τέλος”, its end or aim. The verb may thus be used in such a sense as “bring to fulfilment or perfection,” “bring a child to maturity” (LSJ 5).
159 διά will be used here of “attendant circumstances” (so Black, Cranfield, etc.). G. Schrenk rejects this view in favor of “an instrumental significance. It is precisely through what is written and through circumcision that the Jew is a transgressor” (TDNT, I, p. 765). But there seems no reason for taking the word this way, and few have been persuaded.
160 γράμμα may denote a letter of the alphabet, a document, a letter in the sense “epistle”, or a book. Or it may denote what is literal over against “spirit” and the like.
161 The translators of GNB saw the reference to judgment as so significant that they made it a separate clause and began the verse with it: “And so you Jews will be condemned by the Gentiles….” This may be supported by the emphatic position of χρινεῖ, but perhaps Paul is saying that, far from being in a favored position, it is “judged that the Jew will be….” JB has “a living condemnation”, but the reference seems to be to final condemnation, not a present happening.
162 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. BAGD note τὸ φανερόν as “the open, public notice”. In the received text ἐν τῷ φανερῷ is opposed to ἐν τῷ χρυπτῷ a number of times (Matt. 6:4, 6, 18), but this passage in Romans appears to be the only New Testament occurrence in the older MSS.
163 ἐν σαρχί.
164 ἀλλʼ, “on the contrary”. BAGD give as one meaning “The neg. answer is omitted as obvious: (no,) instead of that” (ἀλλά 1.a).
165 As do GNB, NEB, NASV, Murray, Robinson, etc. Cf. Odes Sol. 11:1–2: “My heart was circumcised … for the Most High circumcised me by his Holy Spirit”.
166 So JB, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Barrett, Haldane, etc.
167 οὑ grammatically must refer back to Ἰουδαῖος, but it is probably meant to include “the circumcised man”.
168 Barrett tries to bring this out with “… a Jew, whose due….” SH think Gifford was the first to point this out, but it is older. It is found, e.g., in Haldane. Käsemann, by contrast, rejects it, saying that it would not have been intelligible to the Romans (but Gen. 29:35; 49:8 connect praise with Judah, though without using ἔπαινος, and LXX is freely quoted in this letter as apparently something the Romans would recognize).
169 ἐχ denotes the origin.
170 This is the figure in Morgenthaler’s Statistik, but Aland’s Vollständige Konkordanz lists 74.
171 The law of Moses seems meant in 2:12 (bis), 13 (bis), 14 (bis), 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 (bis), 25 (bis), 26, 27 (bis); 3:19 (bis), 20 (bis), 21 (bis), 28, 31 (bis); 4:13, 14, 15, 16; 5:13, 20; 7:1 (bis), 4, 5, 6, 7 (ter), 9, 12, 14, 16; 8:3, 4; 9:31 (bis); 10:5; 13:8, 10. Cranfield holds that “It is safe to assume that in Paul’s epistles νόμος refers to the OT law unless the context clearly shows this to be impossible” (p. 154 n.2). He is opposing the view that the arthrous form means the Old Testament law and the anarthrous form law in general.
NIV New International Version
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)
172 Hodge thinks that law, “as used by the apostle, means the rule of duty, the will of God revealed for our obedience; commonly, however, with special reference to the revelation made in the Scriptures” (p. 53)
173 There is a notable discussion of νόμος in Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh, 1959), pp. 443–60). Burton thinks that the great majority of New Testament references come under the heading “Divine law, the revealed will of God in general, or a body of statutes, ordinances, or instructions expressing that will” (p. 455). See also Douglas J. Moo, WThJ, 45 (1983), pp. 73–100.
174 Cf. Barrett, “the reader may be reminded that ‘righteous’ describes a relation not a quality, and that accordingly ‘to make righteous’ does not mean ‘to make virtuous’, but ‘to grant a verdict of acquittal’ ” (p. 50). The verb is used 15 times in these early chapters of Romans and in the summing up in 8:30–33, but not at all in 12:1ff. where Paul deals with the formation of Christian character.
175 It is sometimes urged that the verbs ending in -οω are always factitive, with the meaning “to make—”. This is so with a large number of these verbs, but not where some moral quality or the like is in mind. Thus ὁμοιόω means not “to make like” but “to declare to be like” or perhaps even “to show to be like”. Similarly, ἀξιόω means not “to make worthy” but “to deem worthy”, “to count as worthy”. There should be no doubt that διχαιόω means “to declare righteous”, not “to make righteous”. Usage is decisive. It is the ordinary word for “to acquit”, “to declare not guilty”. When the accused is acquitted he is not “made righteous” but declared to be righteous.
176 Any person who is justified in the New Testament sense is, of course, a changed person. As Calvin put it, “those who imagine that Christ bestows free justification upon us without imparting newness of life shamefully rend Christ asunder” (p. 121). Justification and sanctification belong together, and one cannot be justified without being in principle sanctified. That the believer lives on an ethically higher plane than before believing is not in doubt; that this is conveyed by διχαιόω is not supported by the evidence.