109 διχαίωσις .
MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan: The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914–29)
106 ET, L (1938–39), p. 298. Most commentators ignore Taylor’s discussion of this preposition. Apart from 3:25–26 (the passage he is discussing) he holds that “the only possible New Testament example” is the present passage, and he maintains that “in spite of the opinion of Sanday and Headlam, it is extremely doubtful if this is an exception.” See the note on 3:25.
107 Cf. Robinson, “Clearly there is no separation or antithesis intended here between the cross and resurrection. It is a characteristic piece of Hebrew poetic parallelism—he died and rose for our justification from sin.”
108 The word for sin here is παράπτωμα, “a fall beside”, and thus “a false step”, “a sin”. Paul uses the term 16 times, nine in this letter. W. Michaelis regards it as a synonym of ἁμαρτία, and distinct from παράβασις, which latter “is oriented to the presence of the Law … it implies transgression of a commandment … παράπτωμα, however, goes further; it refers directly to the disruption of man’s relation to God through his fault” (TDNT, VI, p. 172).
109 διχαίωσις.
a 1 Or let us; also in verses 2 and 3
1 Paul’s words are εἰρήνην πρὸς τὸν θεόν (for the construction cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.396). Of this construction W. Foerster says, “the reference is to a relationship with God” (TDNT, II, p. 415). Haldane comments, “Through this sense of the pardon of sin, and of friendship with God, the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keeps his heart and mind through Christ Jesus.” This is true, but it is not what Paul is saying. That is rather the force of ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ (Phil. 4:7).
2 Lagrange says that the subjunctive ἔχωμεν is “the only admissible reading”, while Leenhardt states emphatically, “it is impossible to adopt it”! It is strongly attested (א* A B* C D K L 33 etc.), while support for ἔχομεν is definitely weaker (א1 B3 Ggr etc.). A majority of Metzger’s committee held that the context looks for a statement rather than an exhortation, and therefore favored the indicative. Tasker prefers the subjunctive to “the weakly attested ἔχομεν. ” He points to the repeated χαυχώμεθα (vv. 2 and 3), and sees “three hortative clauses”. Most, however, consider the other two to be indicatives. It has been pointed out that in the early church there was a strong tendency to exhort and that this may have led some scribes to change from the indicative. Denney cites a number of passages where critics agree that o should be read, not w, despite the MSS, and remarks, “they are quite enough to show that in a variation of this kind no degree of MS. authority could support a reading against a solid exegetical reason for changing w into o.” Nygren cites Leitzmann for another important point: “Since, as early as the first century, men no longer made any difference between long and short ‘o,’ it cannot be proved that there was a long ‘o’ in the original; and even less can it be shown that Paul so dictated it. He may have said ‘echomen,’ meaning ἔχομεν, but Tertius wrote ἔχωμεν. This could be the case, even if the w could be traced back to the original. The meaning here must carry more weight than the letter. Only ἔχομεν gives Paul’s real meaning.” Cf. 14:19; 1 Cor. 15:49; Gal. 6:10.
† χαυχώμεθα is probably indicative, though the form is identical with the subjunctive and some take it that way. The verb is mostly used of blameworthy speech, but sometimes believers can boast rightly (see on 2:17). The matter for boasting is usually indicated by ἐν, sometimes by ὑπέρ or περί.
3 προσαγωγή means “a bringing to” and thus “introduction”. The result of this is, of course, access, and it is this that leads many translators to choose it. MM cite evidence that the word can mean “a landing stage”; if that meaning were acceptable, there would be a nautical metaphor, perhaps with χάριν meaning “haven” and προσαγωγή the “approach” to it. But this is a rare usage, and there seems no reason to adopt it here. “Introduction” is the meaning.
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
4 ἑστήχαμεν, used intransitively in the sense of the present (cf. John 8:44; 2 Cor. 1:24).
RSV The Revised Standard Version
5 The words are included in א A C K P, some OL, boh etc., and absent from B D G, some OL, sah. Since there is not much support for ἐν, it should not be read.
GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
6 Cf. BAGD, “this state of grace in which we stand”. It is a state brought about by God’s grace. Murray sees a reference to justification.
7 James P. Martin remarks, “The justified man is not only freed from past guilt … but also is freed for the new future and consequently for a new present” (Interpretation, XXV [1971], p. 315).
NEB The New English Bible
Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)
TH Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)
Phillips J. B. Phillips: Letters to Young Churches (Melbourne, 1952)
9 Stott points out that Paul gives “a beautiful summary of the Christian life” as it relates to God: “In the word ‘peace’ we look back to the enmity which is now over. In the word ‘grace’ we look up to our reconciled Father in whose favour we now continue to stand. In the word ‘glory’ we look on to our final destiny….”
10 ἐν may mean “in the middle of” or “on the basis of”; here the latter is much more likely (Cranfield, Käsemann, etc.). Turner sees the ἐν as causal, “because of” (M, III, p. 253).
11 δοχιμή is a purely Pauline word in the New Testament (seven times, twice in Romans), and no example of it is known before Paul. It connects with δοχιμάζω, “to test”, and is the quality of having stood the test.
12 The genitive ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ is found again in 8:39; Luke 11:42; John 5:42; 2 Cor. 13:13; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 2:5; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3; Jude 21 (τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 8:35; 2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 3:19). In some cases it may denote the love of people for God (Luke 11:42[?]), but mostly it is the subjective genitive and means God’s love for us. This must be the meaning here (cf. v. 8). Calvin says of Augustine’s view that Paul is speaking of our love for God, “This is a devout sentiment, but not what Paul means.”
Dodd C. H. Dodd: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1944)
Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation
13 For the form of the verb see the note on 3:15. The perfect points to a continuing state after a past action, and Godet finds this the reason for the preposition ἐν (“in”) rather than εἰς (“into”). This verb is usually followed by εἰς or ἐπί; this is the sole use of ἐν with it in the New Testament.
14 We expect a verb like “poured out” to be used of the Holy Spirit rather than of love (e.g., Acts 2:17–18, 33; Tit. 3:6), and some think we should see this here. Cf. M. Bouttier, “M. Dibelius proposes to transpose the terms: ‘ “Poured” is said with reference to love, but thought of with reference to the Spirit.’ So we should have to interpret thus: ‘Hope does not deceive us, because, through the Spirit that has been poured into our hearts, God’s love has been pledged to us.’ This interpretation slightly changes the emphasis of the last phrase, but it has the advantage of taking better account of the verb ἐχχέχυται” (Christianity according to Paul [London, 1966], p. 88 n. 78).
15 There is a variety of readings, such as εἴ γε... ἔτι (B sah); εἰ γάρ γε (1852 vgmss); εἰς τί γάρ (D2 F G); ἔτι γὰρ... ἔτι (א A C D*). The trouble is that, while the reading with two ἔτι’s is best attested, it is grammatically very difficult. Paul may have wished to emphasize that we are still sinners, and therefore put ἔτι early in the sentence. When he used it again, he was perhaps not bothered by the repetition owing to the exigencies of dictation or simply trying to give even more emphasis. It is a frequent word of his (15 times, five in Romans). It may be temporal or nontemporal, the former being somewhat more usual.
16 Moule regards this as an “impressive example of bringing the emphatic words near the beginning of the sentence” (IBNTG, p. 166).
17 Barth emphasizes that “the new man lives by the dying of Christ” and proceeds, “Now, the life of Christ is His oboedientia passiva, His death on the Cross. It is completely and solely and exclusively His death on the Cross.” He thinks that the traditional view of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King “obscures and weakens the New Testament concentration upon the death of Christ; for there is no second or third or any other aspect of His life which may be treated independently or set side by side with His death.” He goes on to develop the point that “Everything shines in the light of His death, and is illuminated by it.”
NIV New International Version
18 ἀσθενῶν. Paul uses the term 15 times out of 25 in the New Testament, but only here in Romans.
19 χατὰ χαιρόν; the expression is not common (elsewhere 9:9; John 5:4; Acts 19:23). Since John 5:4 is not part of the true text, and since the other two have the article, this is the one place in the canonical New Testament where this precise expression occurs. According to Blass, it is a formula from an earlier, anarthrous stage of the language, meaning “at the right time”, or possibly “while we were yet in the period of weakness” (BDF 255[3]). Käsemann rejects the former meaning in favor of “then”, i.e., “Christ did his saving work at an unexpected and, morally considered, even inappropriate moment” (p. 137). He cites BAGD in support, but, while this lexicon gives “who at that time were still godless” as a possible meaning, it says that the expression “is more naturally construed with ἀπέθανεν” and includes it under the heading “at the right time” (sub χαιρός, 1 and 2a). So Barrett, Cranfield, Michel, and others.
20 ὑπέρ (see on 1:5) generally means “on behalf of”, but on occasion it means “in the place of”, i.e., the preposition can have a substitutionary meaning. There can be little doubt but that that is its significance here (cf. John 11:50). It occurs four times in vv. 6–8. Moule lists its use in v. 7 as the first of his passages illustrating Winer’s point: “In most cases one who acts on behalf of another takes his place” (IBNTG, p. 64), and Käsemann sees both meanings. Shedd thinks that the reason ὑπέρ is more frequent in the New Testament than ἀντί in references to Christ’s death is that “ὑπὲρ having two meanings can teach the two facts that Christ died in the place of, and for the benefit of, the believer, while ἀντί, having but one signification, can mention but one of them. The more comprehensive of the two prepositions is preferred in the majority of instances.”
21 For ἀσεβής see on 4:5.
22 Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., remarks, “Paul knew about martyrs, who had given their lives for God, or for a cause, or for people in whom they believed. But self-renunciation involving excruciating pain and death in torture for the benefit of one’s opponents and adversaries—this could be interpreted not as human but only as divine” (Adopted in Love [New York, 1978], p. 34).
23 μόλις (here only in Paul) = “with difficulty, hardly, scarcely” (AS). Cf. J. Schneider, “it is unlikely that any would give himself for a righteous man” (TDNT, IV, p. 735).
24 BDF see this as “a gnomic future” used “to express that which is to be expected under certain circumstances (as in classical)” (349 [1]).
25 τάχα, “perhaps, possibly, probably” (BAGD); only in Phlm. 15 again in the New Testament.
26 Cf. Lightfoot, “Shylock might be δίχαιος, but he was not ἀγαθός. ” Hodge sees the distinction as that between the “just” and the “kind”; cf. SH, “The δίχαιος keeps to the ‘letter of his bond’; about the ἀγαθός there is something warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion” (they cite Irenaeus for the Gnostics who called the God of the Old Testament δίχαιος and the God of the New ἀγαθός). Others, however, deny a distinction between the terms here (e.g., Murray, Hendriksen). Some regard τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as “his benefactor” (Cranfield, Boylan), but this seems too definite. It is possible to take ἀγαθοῦ as neuter, “for a good cause”, but it is better to understand both adjectives as masculine. Gifford (in a note) holds that there is no article with δίχαιος because the proposition is virtually negative and the word is thus indefinite; in the affirmative proposition Paul does have the article. Moule sees this article as “deictic”, i.e., “as pointing out some familiar type or genus”; here “for the good type of man … , or, as colloquial English might put it, for your good man” (IBNTG, p. 111).
27 For συνίστημι see on 3:5; here demonstrates is undoubtedly the meaning. εἰς ἡμᾶς might grammatically be taken with the verb, giving the meaning “God demonstrates to us his love”. But this is less forceful and less likely. NIV is better. Notice the present tense. The cross is an event of the past but it keeps showing the love of God.
Nygren Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)
28 For ἁμαρτωλός see on 3:7.
29 οὖν; see the note on 2:21.
30 For διχαιόω ἐν see on 3:4; it refers to justification “by means of”. Cf. BAGD, “the means or instrument, a construction that begins w. Homer … but whose wide currency in our lit. is partly caused by the infl. of the LXX, and its similarity to the Hebr. constr. w. בְּ” (sub ἐν III). BDF see a genitive of price as in 3:25, “at the price of his blood” (219 [3]).
31 πολλῷ μᾶλλον. For πολύς see on 3:2. μᾶλλον is the comparative of the adverb μάλα (“very, exceeedingly”), and means “to a greater degree, more”. Paul combines it with πολλῷ on a number of occasions, but the four occurrences in Romans are all in this chapter (vv. 10, 15, 17). It is important for the contrast between Adam and Christ.
32 “Reconciliation took place, Paul says, ‘while we were God’s enemies.’ That is a troublesome statement for every subjective theory of the atonement which sees in the atonement only a change in man’s attitude toward God” (Nygren).
33 See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London, 1965), ch. VII, and the literature there cited. Since the New Testament never speaks of God as being reconciled, and some conclude that reconciliation means no more than a change in sinful people. But it is the wrath of God, not of people, that has to be dealt with, the demand of God that we live uprightly that must be reckoned with. Moreover, v. 11 speaks of receiving reconciliation, which was thus in some sense wrought before we received it. It is also true that the first change is not in the sinner’s feelings, but in his state (Gifford). The death of Christ puts away our sin, which had aroused not our opposition but God’s.
34 Cf. Barrett, “it is not probable that Paul means to suggest that Christ’s death effects one thing, his (resurrection) life another; that is, the contrast is rhetorical rather than substantial.”
35 Bultmann says, “By virtue of his resurrection his death received its decisiveness. Thus instead of ‘by his life’ one could also say ‘by his resurrection’ (cf. 4.25 and especially II Cor. 4.14” (W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation [New York, 1962], p. 149). He complains that Barth “emphasizes the resurrection, to which only verse 10 alludes, more strongly than the death, on which the emphasis of the text lies (vss. 6–9 and especially 10)” (ibid., p. 150). Parry finds a reference to “the resurrection life of the Lord as the sustaining environment and inspiration of the new life of the Christian.”
Gifford E. H. Gifford: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886)
36 Instead of the indicative we expect (read by a few MSS, as L 104), we have the participle χαυχώμενοι (for this verb see on 2:17). Moulton says, “That the participle can be used for indicative or imperative seems to be fairly established now by the papyri” (M, I, p. 222). Similarly Moule sees it as an example of “the use of the participle where normal Greek would have used a finite verb or imperative” (IBNTG, p. 179).
37 Turner regards ἐν as causal, “because of” (M, III, p. 253).
38 Cragg sees joy as characteristic of the Christian life, and he differentiates it from pleasure: “Pleasure, when chosen wisely and used in moderation, may do much to mitigate the rigors of experience; but it can never create the atmosphere with which joy surrounds the man who has found it.” Joy “is inseparable from a discovery of our proper relationship to God.”
39 The Death of Christ (London, 1905), pp. 144–45.
40 There is a useful note on reconciliation as mutual and not on the side of man only in SH; so also in Knox.
41 Cf. Parry, “This is perhaps the most condensed passage in all S. Paul’s writings. It is consequently almost impossible to give an interpretation with confidence.” This is perhaps too pessimistic, but it is well that we bear in mind the difficulty posed by the compressed language.
42 Lloyd-Jones sees it as “the very heart and centre” of the epistle (p. 176), and Griffith Thomas as “the great central feature and focus of the Epistle”.
43 He begins with ὥσπερ, but there is no corresponding οὕτως (as there is, e.g., in v. 19). It is generally agreed that οὕτως later in this verse does not correspond to ὥσπερ (though see BAGD sub οὕτως 1a; under ὥσπερ 1, however, this lexicon refers to an anacoluthon here). Many point out that to see this χαὶ οὕτως as completing the construction is to confuse χαὶ οὕτως with οὕτως χαί.
44 Elsewhere Eve is linked with Adam in the first sin (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13–14) and her part is emphasized in some Jewish writing (e.g., “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”, Sir. 25:24). Paul does not mention her here, probably because he is thinking of Adam and Eve as one in their sin (cf. God “created them male and female … and called them Adam”, Gen. 5:2).
45 Jewish thinkers in antiquity sometimes thought that Adam would have been immortal had he not sinned; thus “God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world…” (Wis. 2:23–24; J. Cambier thinks that Paul is here adapting this Wisdom passage [NTS, XI (1964–65), pp. 231–32]). C. S. Lewis has an interesting argument that death was not inevitable for our first parents: “Man, as originally created, was immune from it.” At that time his spirit was able to keep the forces of dissolution at bay: “The spirit was once not a garrison, maintaining its post with difficulty in a hostile Nature, but was fully ‘at home’ with its organism, like a king in his own country or a rider on his own horse—or better still, as the human part of a Centaur was ‘at home’ with the equine part. Where spirit’s power over the organism was complete and unresisted, death would never occur”; “when God created Man he gave him such a constitution that, if the highest part of it rebelled against Himself, it would be bound to lose control over the lower parts: i.e. in the long run to suffer Death” (Miracles [London, 1952], pp. 152, 156). A number of writers have thought that if Adam had not sinned he would have ended his earthly course by being “changed” (1 Cor. 15:51), but not by undergoing death.
46 διέρχομαι (here only in Romans, five times in Paul) seems a curious verb in this context, with its meaning “go through”. Perhaps the force has been weakened (BAGD, “come, go”); perhaps, with SH, we should take the διά seriously and hold that the verb “contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to each individual member of the race’ ”.
47 Many statements from Jewish thinkers emphasize the evil Adam brought on his descendants, e.g., “For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how much ungodliness it has produced until now, and will produce until the time of threshing comes!”; “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants” (2 Esdr. 4:30; 7:118). Such statements do not show that Paul was repeating a Jewish commonplace, for none of them goes as far as does the apostle. But they do show that his position developed naturally from his Jewish background.
48 There is a problem with the meaning of ἐφʼ ᾧ (= ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, BDF 294[4]). Many accept the meaning “because” (BDF 235[2]; BAGD sub ἐπί II.1.b.γ; IBNTG, pp. 50, 132; M, III, p. 272; RSV, NASB, JB, etc.). Some take ᾧ as masculine and find a reference to Adam “in whom all sinned” (the view of Augustine; in modern times cf. Turner, “death passed upon all men through him in whom all men sinned” [Grammatical Insights, p. 116]). But this gives a strange meaning to ἐπί, and “one man” is a long way away, with nothing to show that they are connected. F. W. Danker argues that ἐφʼ ᾧ in both classical and Koine Greek expresses “the formal contractual basis on which reciprocal obligations are met”. He sees here the meaning, “on the basis of what (law) they sinned”, i.e., “And so death passed to all men, on the legal basis in terms of which all (including the Gentiles) sinned” (NTS, XIV [1967–68], pp. 429–31). Other suggestions include the view of E. Stauffer (and earlier writers) that the pronoun refers to θάνατος (New Testament Theology [London, 1955], p. 270 n. 176), or that the meaning is “in view of the fact that” (M, I, p. 107), or “wherefore, from which it follows” (Black, following Lyonnet), or “that is the reason” (John J. Scullion, ABR, XVI [1968], p. 35), or “inasmuch as” (Moffatt).
49 The classic statement is that of Bengel, omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, “in Adam sinning, all sinned”. Cf. Nygren, “Paul’s main idea is entirely clear and beyond doubt: it was through one man, Adam, that all men are sinners and are subject to death.” Boylan cites the Council of Trent for a view like this and agrees with it himself.
50 Dodd does not, of course, accept the view that all sinned in Adam, but he reminds us that “The isolation of the individual is an abstraction. None of us stands alone. What we are and what we do is largely affected by the forces of heredity and environment, i.e. by the place we occupy in the structure of society as an historical whole.” Cf. Hunter, “This passage has much to say about the solidarity of men in evil—a fact which has been ruthlessly forced home on us to-day by the grim logic of history.” A. J. M. Wedderburn holds that we must retain the tension between the universal and the individual in Paul’s thought: “To obliterate the responsibility of the individual or to make him guilty of that for which he was not responsible may be unethical, but it is equally false to deny that de facto it is human to sin and to die and that socially and physically we are thus inevitably involved in a situation from which only Christ can release us” (NTS, XIX [1972–73], p. 354).
51 Barclay says of the view that, “because of his heredity, man is inevitably predisposed to sin” that “To the mind of a modern man (it) is undoubtedly the most acceptable; but equally undoubtedly it is not what Paul meant” (ET, LXX [1958–59], p. 173).
52 Luther argues strongly that Paul means original sin, not actual sin.
53 According to TH, “Paul is saying that death became a universal experience because all men sinned”. Not surprisingly these authorities find the next verse “difficult to follow”; once the emphasis is put on the individual sinner and Paul’s concentration on “the one” is ignored, of course, the passage is difficult. This view is an interesting illustration of Nygren’s point that “More or less consciously interpreters have acted on the assumption that something which is so foreign to today’s thought as to seem unreal cannot have been of decisive importance to Paul either.” O’Neill points out that “the sentence does not allow us to go to” a view like this. Cf. v. 19.
54 Cf. Barclay, “It means that sin and death entered into the world, not because all men sin, as it were habitually, but because all men sinned. Further, if we are to give the aorist tense its full value, and in this argument we must do so, the more precise meaning will be that sin and death entered into the world because all men were guilty of one act of sin” (ET, LXX [1958–59], p. 192).
Bruce F. F. Bruce: The Letter of Paul to the Romans2 (Leicester, 1985)
55 Lloyd-Jones finds truth in each of two ways of understanding this: “Adam was the totality of human nature” (p. 213) and we are all in him (in much the same way as Levi was in the loins of Abraham and paid tithes, Heb. 7:9–10), and again Adam was the representative, the federal head, of all the race (p. 216). Whether we see the essence in either or both of these, the passage does say that we are all caught up in what Adam did. Olshausen uses an illustration from the army: if a general is defeated, every one of his soldiers is defeated.
56 Paul is not denying human responsibility, for, as Bultmann points out, “He insists that for each man death is the punishment of his own sin” (TDNT, III, p. 15). But the question is, Is this all he is saying?
57 Hodge makes the important point that “Neither the corruption of nature, nor the actual sins of mean, and their liability on account of them, is either questioned or denied, but the simple statement is, that on account of the sin of Adam, all men are treated as sinners.”
58 The preposition is ἄχρι (BAGD point out that the form is Attic; the Hellenistic ἄχρις is found twice only in the New Testament, both times before vowels). It means “until”. “Until law” is a curious expression, but the meaning is clear enough. Despite the NIV, there is no article with law.
59 ἐλλογεῖται; the verb is found only here and in Phlm. 18 in the New Testament. It does not seem to occur before this time, but it is found in the papyri, where it is a technical term for charging to someone’s account (MM). H. Preisker remarks, “What is meant is that the sin of man as rejection of the revealed will of God is ‘taken into account’ or ‘charged’ ” (TDNT, II, p. 517; he thinks that Paul is denying this for the time between Adam and Moses, “but it is the more decisively affirmed of the time after Moses”).
60 Murray argues that “the underlying assumption of [Paul’s] thought is that the universal reign of death cannot be explained except in terms of violation of an expressly revealed commandment of God, a violation that cannot be predicated of each and every member of the race in his own individuality and particularity. The only sin that provides the explanation is the sin of Adam and the participation of all in that sin” (p. 191 n. 23).
61 ἀλλά.
62 μή is absent from a few MSS, 614 1739* 2495* d Ambst and some MSS of Origen. But it is not easy to think that this is the correct text. There may have been an accidental omission or a scribal “correction”.
63 παράβασις = “transgression”; see on 4:25. On the time between Adam and Moses J. Schneider remarks, “in this intervening period there was no express statement of God’s commandment. Hence ἁμαρτία was present … but not παράβασις” (TDNT, V, p. 740).
64 I.e., if we take “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression” with “those who did not sin”, as most exegetes do. Vincent P. Branick has argued that we should take it with “death ruled”; he sees the sense of the passage as “Death rules from Adam to Moses on the basis of the ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδαμ, the concrete perceptible expression of Adam’s transgression” (CBQ, 47 [1985], pp. 258–59).
65 Cf. Shedd, ”The relation between their sin and Adam’s is not that of resemblance, but of identity.”
66 RSV and others have “was”, but ἐστιν means “is”; the “type” is a present setting forth of the truth.
67 Paul uses τύπος eight times out of 14 in the New Testament, but twice in Romans is his most frequent use (three times in Acts). It meant the impression left by a blow, thence an image or copy, and then a form or pattern. It come to be used “of the types given by God as an indication of the future, in the form of persons or things” (BAGD).
68 The expression is ὁ μέλλων, which Nygren sees as equivalent to ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Vincent Taylor discusses this latter as one of Jesus’ titles under the heading “Messianic titles”, but he does no more than quote Nygren’s reference to ὁ μέλλων, “for as ὁ μέλλων He is the head of ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων” (The Names of Jesus [London, 1953], p. 78 n. 2). Edersheim denied that “The Coming One” was a messianic designation (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I [London, 1890], p. 668). More recently Käsemann also denied a messianic reference (p. 151).
69 Käsemann rejects all examples “of the way in which modern exposition tries to avoid apocalyptic…. The bearer of eschatological salvation is the only alternative to the first Adam. These two—and basically these two alone—have determined the world as a whole” (pp. 152–53). That Christ is the bearer of “eschatological salvation” is clear enough, but that the whole passage is eschatological is not. Bultmann thinks that here Paul “reaches for the gnostic myth of the original man, so that he can affirm the presence of life” (W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation [London, 1962], p. 154). Both scholars appear to be reading something into the text.
70 Better, “lapse” (παράπτωμα; see on 4:25). It is not so much the breaking of the law to which the term points as a disruption of the relationship with God. Paul uses this word again in vv. 16, 17, 18, and 20.
71 χάρισμα (see on 1:11). The word is connected with χάρις, “grace”. The idea of gift is stressed; it occurs five times in vv. 15–17, with three different Greek terms.
72 Grace is linked with God in 3:24; 15:15; 1 Cor. 1:4; 3:10; 15:10 [ter]; 2 Cor. 1:12; 6:1; 8:1; Gal. 1:15; 2:21; Eph. 1:6; 2:7; 3:2, 7; Col. 1:6; Tit. 2:11, a total of 18 times, 19 with this passage. It is connected with Christ in 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 8:9; 13:13; Gal. 1:6; 6:18; Eph. 1:7; Phil. 4:23; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; Phlm. 25, a total of 11 times. It is linked with “Lord” in 2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Tim. 1:14, with both in 2 Thess. 1:12 (or is this with Christ?), and with either in Tit. 3:7. Our familiarity with the formula “The grace of—“ inclines us to link grace especially with Christ, but the evidence is that Paul is as apt to connect it with the Father as the Son; outside closing greetings it is more often linked with the Father.
73 δωρεά; the word is found five times in Paul out of 11 in the New Testament.
74 περισσεύω; see on 3:7.
75 The word is δώρημα, an unusual term (it appears again in the New Testament only in Jas. 1:17). Paul may want some variety after using δωρεά (v. 15), and the word puts some stress on free bounty.
76 δέ answers to the preceding μέν.
77 χάρισμα, as in v. 15. We should understand ἐστιν or ἐγένετο.
78 This is probably the way we should take it, but Paul says simply “of one”, which could be taken to mean “of one man”. But it is the one sin of the one man, so perhaps there is not a great difference.
CBSC The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
79 “The starting-point was not one act extending to many; but conversely many acts leading to one”(Lightfoot).
80 χατάχριμα; the word occurs only here, in v. 18, and in 8:1 in the New Testament; judgment renders χρίμα (see on 2:2). While χρίμα can mean a negative judgment, a condemnation, χατάχριμα is a stronger term and definitely means “condemnation” or even “punishment” (BAGD). The judgment is “out of” (ἐχ denotes origin) one and “into” (εἰς) condemnation.
81 The word is διχαίωμα (which properly expresses the result of an action), not διχαίωσις (the action itself), which is the term that might have been expected. The reason is probably that just here Paul is using a succession of nouns ending in -μα (there are four in this verse); he conforms this one to the others.
82 The aorist ἐβασίλευσεν is ingressive (Black, Michel): “death gained its sovereignty” (GNB, “began to rule”).
Lloyd-Jones D. M. Lloyd-Jones: Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20–8:39, 6 vols. (London, 1970–75)
83 Or “lapse”; παράπτωμα, as in vv. 15, 16, 18, and 20.
84 Calvin suggests that one thing Paul omitted because, though important, it is not connected with the argument here is this: “we are condemned by Adam’s sin not by imputation alone, as though we were being punished for another’s sin; but we suffer his punishment because we too are guilty, since God holds our nature, which has been corrupted in Adam, guilty of iniquity.”
85 περισσεία; in the New Testament three times in Paul, once in James. Other words from the root are more frequent (the verb περισσεύω occurs in v. 15); they all stress the idea of abundance.
Goodspeed Edgar J. Goodspeed: The New Testament: An American Translation (Chicago, 1923)
JB The Jerusalem Bible
86 It is possible to take τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς διχαιοσύνης in the sense “the gift that comes from God’s righteousness”. But even if we accept this (and not many do), the gift will be that of “right standing”, so the sense of NIV is to be accepted. Barrett thinks that in any case each of the two ways of taking the words presupposes the other.
87 The future tense has been variously understood. Thus Parry holds that “The future is used because of the hypothesis implied in οἱ λαμβάνοντες”. Michel sees “an old apocalyptic tradition” in which the saints reign (as in 1 Cor. 6:2). Cranfield speaks of “the eschatological fulfilment”.
88 Godet comments, “life does not reign; it has not subjects; it makes kings” (p. 378).
89 Paul does not explain the meaning of “reigning in life”, but (with Lloyd-Jones, pp. 263ff.) we may think of the fact that sin has no dominion over the believer (6:14), believers are “more than conquerors” (8:37), and they can do all things through Christ (Phil. 4:13). And, of course, they look forward to a more complete reign (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 1:6; 3:21). Adam’s sin brought condemnation, but grace reverses this. And not only does it reverse it, but it does much more.
90 ἄρα is an inferential particle, meaning “so, then, consequently”. In the classics it never begins a clause (as it does in Matt. 7:20; Luke 11:48, etc.). Paul is fond of the word and uses it 27 times (out of 49 in the New Testament), 11 being in Romans (the most in any one book). The form ἄρα οὖν (never elided) is peculiar to Paul (eight times in Romans, 12 times in all). The combination indicates a strong, if not strictly grammatical connection, like “wherefore therefore”. Like διὰ τοῦτο (v. 12) it refers to the previous discussion, but stresses the logical connection more strongly.
91 For χατάχριμα see the comment on v. 16. εἰς denotes result rather than purpose—the end result was condemnation.
92 For διχαίωμα see the note on 1:32, where AS is cited for the view that the word means an “ordinance” or a “sentence”. AS also says that the term may mean “a righteous act”, which he finds here and in Rev. 15:4; 19:8. Clearly the word has to do with declarations of various kinds, and it is a question whether it should be taken to signify a deed in the three passages listed. Charles sees the meaning in Rev. 15:4 as “the judicial sentences of God”, and we should see a similar meaning or “sentence of justification” in Rev. 19:8 (that we stand in heaven clothed in our own righteous deeds is not a New Testament thought). See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London, 1965), pp. 287ff. O’Neill thinks we must keep to the same meaning here as in v. 16 (he sees “vindication” in both places). Leenhardt cites a view that to regard the word as an action here would be tautologous with ὑπαχοή in v. 19 (though he nevertheless favors “just deed”).
Parry R. St John Parry: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Cambridge, 1912)
93 διχαίωσις occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 4:25 (where see note).
94 Other ways of taking the genitive have been suggested, e.g., that it is appositional, “justification which is life” (M, III, p. 214). Murray, however, says, “This cannot mean that the justification consists in life”; rather, it is “unto life and issues in life”. Leenhardt suggests “the idea of a justification which is here and now realized in a life which concretely practises righteousness”. Cranfield sees a genitive of result, and Wuest a “genitive of description … describing the quality of the righteousness bestowed upon man”.
95 παραχοή = “hearing beside”, then hearing amiss, unwillingness to hear, disobedience. It is found three times in the New Testament, twice in Paul. Refusal to hear God is sin (cf. Jer. 11:10; Acts 7:57).
96 χαθίστημι. This is not a common Pauline word (twice in Romans, three times in all; 21 times in the New Testament). It means something like “to set down” (AS), and thus has a meaning here like “set down as, show to be, constitute as” (Shedd, “to place in the class of”; Hodge, “were set down in the rank or category of”). Barrett comments, “Adam’s disobedience did not mean that all men necessarily and without their consent committed particular acts of sin; it meant that they were born into a race which had separated itself from God.” According to Gifford, the word “points to the formal essence, to that which constitutes men sinners.”
Harrison Everett F. Harrison: “Romans” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 10 (Grand Rapids, 1976)
97 Bultmann rejects the meaning “they will be regarded as those who are righteous” in favor of “they will be made to be righteous”, because righteousness here is not ethical but forensic. “The believing one is the righteous man as one who has been acquitted by the judicial sentence of God” (Current Issues, p. 159).
Denney James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)
98 Käsemann puts the point at issue this way: “between Adam and Christ, and the worlds inaugurated by them, there is no third alternative, namely legal piety” (p. 158).
99 There is no article with νόμος (despite NIV). What Paul says is relevant to the law of Moses, but he is not confining sin to the Jews who were born under that law, so he may have in mind law in general. Hodge thinks the term signifies “the whole of the Old Testament economy”. But it may well be wider.
100 The verb is παρεισέρχομαι, again in the New Testament only in Gal. 2:4. It means “1. slip in, come in as a side issue, of the law, which has no primary place in the Divine Plan” (BAGD; their 2. is “slip in w. unworthy motives, sneak in”). It points to the subordinate place of the law in God’s saving plan. NEB translates “intruded”; Moffatt, “slipped in”. Cranfield, however, denies that the sense is pejorative; he thinks that the verb here means that the law was later than Adam’s fall. Certainly such a meaning as “sneak in” is impossible here, for the law was given with publicity and splendor. The meaning is that it had a secondary place, not one of prime importance.
101 ἵνα introduces a clause of purpose. We should understand this not in the sense that God designed to produce more and more sin, but rather that he planned that the law should more and more show sin for what it is. People might not recognize themselves as sinners without the law (v. 13), but after the law had been brought in the fact of sin is plain. This is not the whole purpose of the law; other purposes are given elsewhere (e.g., 3:19; Gal. 3:19–25; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). It is, of course, possible to take ἵνα as indicating result (so Lenski, citing Robertson, p. 998), in which case the whole is simpler. But this is not the usual sense of ἵνα, and we should understand it as purposive.
102 Increase translates πλεονάζω, a verb used by Paul in eight of its nine New Testament occurrences (three in Romans). It might be transitive (“to increase the trespass”, RSV; “multiplied the offence”, Goodspeed) or intransitive (“that the offence might abound”, KJV). As in Gal. 3:19, the function of the law is to produce the knowledge and conviction of sin.
103 Hendriksen points out that a magnifying glass does not increase the number of dirty spots, but it does make them stand out more clearly and brings to light some that the naked eye cannot see.
104 ὑπερπερισσεύω is an unusual compound, not found before Paul and used by him elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 7:4 (of his overflowing with joy). It points to a more than abundant supply. There was plenty of sin, but much, much more grace. Paul has used περισσεύω in v. 15. That verb means “abound”; with ὑπέρ prefixed we have the thought of “superabound”.
105 We might have expected an imperfect, bringing out the thought of continuous happening. The aorist is constative, viewing the reign as a whole, perhaps as a completed whole, for it no longer operates where we are in Christ. For the verb see on v. 17.
1 How the letter should be divided is a matter of dispute. Käsemann holds that “one should not put ch. 5 in the previous section of the epistle and find the beginning of a new one only with ch. 6”. Lloyd-Jones also denies that there is a new beginning here; he sees chs. 6 and 7 as a parenthesis. But they are too important for that. Lagrange, by contrast, sees a new section beginning here, and Murray says, “The transition from one phase of teaching to another at the beginning of this chapter is quite conspicuous.” Some such view should surely be held. What impresses those who hold to the former point of view is the close connection between justification and sanctification. That these should not be separated in practice is plain, but that does not mean that they cannot be discussed separately.
2 Cf. Foreman, “God is not a vast forgiving-machine. There is no such thing as justification all by itself … justification when it is real always is wedded to sanctification.”
3 Bruce N. Kaye holds that “the rhetorical question in Rom 6.1 does not necessarily imply an objector and thus a digression from the main theme of the letter” (The Thought Structures of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6 [Austin, Texas, 1979], p. 23). Kaye finds 74 rhetorical questions in Romans (p. 14); they are used in a variety of ways, but often to advance the argument.
4 ἐπιμένωμεν might be deliberative (as NIV, Shall we go on sinning… ?) or hortatory (“Shall we say, ‘Let us go on sinning in order that grace may increase’?”). Most translations take it in the former sense, but the latter is quite possible. The verb occurs in Paul nine times out of 15 in the New Testament (three in Romans). The ἐπί may strengthen the idea of continuance contained in the uncompounded verb.
NIV New International Version
5 ἵνα is telic.
NEB The New English Bible
RSV The Revised Standard Version
6 οἵτινες. Paul uses this relative 44 times, and ὅς 366 times. There is often little difference between the two, but ὅστις can point to the quality, and Moule classes this among passages where a distinction “certainly improves the sense and may have been intended” (IBNTG, p. 124). BAGD also class it with a use “to emphasize a characteristic quality”. This is further emphasized by putting the clause first.
Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)
GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
7 V. P. Furnish draws attention to an interesting point: “Nowhere does Paul say that sin has, as such, been abolished. It is not sin but the sinner who has ‘died’ (vss. 2, 10, 11; cf. 7:4, death to the law) … Paul speaks not of the Christian’s freedom from sinning, but of his freedom from the power of sin” (Theology and Ethics in Paul [Nashville, 1968], p. 173). Godet speaks of the “mirage of an absolute deliverance, which had been reflected in the eyes of so many souls thirsting for holiness, soon vanishing before the touch of experience.” Paul is not setting forth a doctrine of sinless perfection, but of freedom from sin’s domination. The Christian may sin, but sinning is out of character. It is a declension from his norm, not his habitual practice.
8 Moule sees the future here (“how shall we live… ?”; NIV inserts can in place of the future) as an example of the unusual linear future; the future is normally punctiliar (IBNTG, p. 10).
9 Cf. Denney, “To have died to sin is to be utterly and for ever out of any relation to it.” Paul can express this in other ways, e.g., by saying that Christ’s people “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24).
10 Whether Paul is indebted to the mystery religions for his doctrine of baptism is a matter of dispute. Käsemann argues that baptism was viewed as “a mystery event” in the pre-Pauline community outside Palestine and that Paul develops this. But the considerations adduced by Cranfield make a reference to the mysteries unlikely. Leenhardt also rejects with decision any connection with the mystery cults. A. J. M. Wedderburn, following P. Siber, argues that the “with Christ” terminology originated with Paul. The mystery religions sometimes refer to a dying and rising deity, but “missing in all this is any hint that the initiate died (in the past) with the deity, and if he or she is thought to die with the deity in the initiation rite our admittedly scanty sources are completely silent about it” (NTS, 29 [1983], p. 345).
11 The question ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε is repeated in 7:1, and the similar ἢ οὐχ οἴδατε in 11:2. In all three places Paul indicates that he expects any Christian to know these things. In 1 Cor. 15:11, after a summary of Christian teaching, he can say that, whoever may have done the preaching, this is what Christians believed.
12 Brown rejects a reference to the physical act of baptism; the words “cannot be understood of the baptism by water…. ‘Baptism into Christ’ is that of which water baptism is the emblem—that union to Jesus Christ….” Lloyd-Jones also rejects a reference to water baptism in favor of the view that it is “a baptism by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). It may readily be conceded that what the Spirit does rather than the physical act of baptism is most important in Christian initiation (cf. Mk. 1:8 and parallels; Acts 1:5; 11:16). But it is quite another matter to say that the language of this verse is such that it does not mean baptism in water.
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)
13 BAGD note the use in non-Christian literature in the sense “plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm”. Paul uses the verb only 13 times out of 77 in the New Testament; it cannot be said to be a theme of absorbing interest to him.
14 Baptism is εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Acts 2:38) as well as “into Christ” and “into his death” (John’s baptism was εἰς μετάνοιαν, Mt. 3:11; cf. εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα, Acts 19:3). A. Oepke thinks εἰς τὸ ὄνομα is from the technical term of Hellenistic commerce, “to the account” (TDNT, I, p. 539). Many commentators draw attention to baptism εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν (1 Cor. 10:2), a baptism that certainly brought the Israelites under the leadership of Moses (Leenhardt develops the point). But it did not indicate a union nearly as close as that between Christ and the Christian. See TNTC ad loc.
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
15 Cf. Furnish, “Sin’s power is not broken by baptism but by Christ’s death and resurrection, his ‘obedience’ and ‘righteousness’ (5:18–19)” (Theology and Ethics in Paul, p. 174). Dodd thinks that Paul could have made his point without reference to baptism. But “here, in this sacrament, is something actually done—a step taken which can never be retraced. Before it a man was not a member of the Church, the people of God; now he is a member. If he should thereafter be unfaithful, that would not simply be a return to his former condition. Something has happened.”
16 Leenhardt comments, “God willed that this death should be my own death; when I look at the cross, I see there the victim who represents me objectively, His death includes my own, His death is mine, it is my death which He dies. In the intention of God with regard to myself, I have died.”
17 If we take the reference to burial with full seriousness, then baptism is not death, but interment: when we believe we die to sin, and when we are baptized the burial is carried out. Gifford sees another thought: “burial, being a sign and seal which attests the reality of death, serves also to attest the reality of the resurrection”.
18 Ernest Best discusses this concept in One Body in Christ (London, 1955), pp. 44–64. See also W. Grundmann, TDNT, VII, pp. 781–86.
19 Parry comments, “It is remarkable that S. Paul, alone in N.T. outside the Gospels, lays stress on the Burial; he alone was not an eyewitness of the circumstances of the Death, and therefore for him the burial was of high significance, in its evidential value.” There may be something in this, but we should bear in mind that it is not only the burial that Paul stresses. He alone speaks in terms of “the death” of Jesus (others refer to “the blood”, “the suffering of death”, etc.). Paul alone, with but one exception, speaks of “the cross”, other, of course, than in the accounts of the crucifixion. All the circumstances of Jesus’ death were of interest to him.
20 συνθάπτω occurs again in the New Testament only in Col. 2:12, also of being buried with Christ in baptism. There the construction is ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι (or βαπτισμῷ), here διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, but probably there is not much difference.
21 The noun βάπτισμα is not found before the New Testament and seems to be a term coined by the Christians. It is used of Christian baptism again in Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21, and 13 times of John’s baptism. Jewish lustrations are denoted by βαπτισμός. The use of the term seems to indicate that the Christians saw their baptism as different from Jewish and pagan rites, but as having some link with John’s baptism. Cf. A. Oepke, “Since the NT either coins or reserves for Christians baptism (and its precursor) a word which is not used elsewhere and has no cultic connections, and since it always uses it in the sing. and never substitutes the term employed elsewhere, we can see that, in spite of all apparent or relative analogies, it understands the Christian action to be something new or unique” (TDNT, I, p. 545). For a detailed discussion see J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology (Nijmegen, 1962).
22 We should take εἰς τὸν θάνατον with βαπτίσματος (as Cranfield, Käsemann, etc.). Some are impressed by the lack of the article before εἰς τὸν θάνατον (but see BDF 272), and take it with συνετάφημεν (as Lightfoot does). But this is unconvincing and yields a curious sense, being “buried into death”.
23 Again, telic ἵνα, “in order that”. This is important. The believer’s “death” is with a view to resurrection to new life. It is not an end in itself or a return to the old life (like the raising of Lazarus).
Calvin John Calvin: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1961)
24 The ideas of “power” and “glory” are, of course, closely connected. Thus G. Kittel, commenting on the use of δόξα in LXX, points out that “power and splendour usually bring honour and renown. They are often the outward manifestation and even the cause of being honoured. Thus the meanings often merge into one another” (TDNT, II, p. 243). John 11:40 refers to “glory” at the raising of Lazarus, a work of power.
25 The verb is περιπατέω, which Paul uses 32 times (four in Romans).
26 χαινότης (again in the New Testament only in 7:6) means “newness w. the connotation of someth. extraordinary” (BAGD).
27 σύμφυτος is found here only in the New Testament; it means “grown together” (BAGD). It is generally agreed that the word derives from συμφύω, “make to grow together”, rather than συμφυτεύω, “plant together”, and it signifies a growing together. Cf. Godet, this adjective “denotes the organic union in virtue of which one being shares the life, growth, and phases of existence belonging to another”.
28 γεγόναμεν.
JB The Jerusalem Bible
29 Gifford sees “the lively turn of the Greek” in ἀλλὰ χαί as scarcely possible of reproduction in English. It points up the contrast: “then also of his resurrection we shall be!”
30 ἀναστάσεως depends on ὁμοιώματι, “the likeness of his resurrection”.
31 From γίνομαι to εἰμί.
32 Without denying the present aspect Wilckens points to the eschatological significance and finds support in v. 8.
33 His verb is γινώσχω, for which see on 1:21.
34 Käsemann appears to miss this when he refers to “the obviously pre-Pauline term παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, which comes from Adam-Christ typology” (p. 169). Why should we ascribe to others a term which is used only by Paul?
35 παλαιός, “in existence for a long time, oft. w. the connotation of being antiquated or outworn” (BAGD, who see it here as “earlier, unregenerate” man). ἀρχαῖος by contrast signifies “what has existed for a long time, ancient”.
Brunner Emil Brunner: The Letter to the Romans (London, 1959)
36 ἵνα.
Moule Handley C. G. Moule: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1896)
IBNTG C. F. D. Moule: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953)
37 Thus Dodd understands the body to be “the individual self as an organism (neither flesh nor spirit being individual, and ‘soul’ being merely the animating principle of the flesh, or physical structure). Thus the sinful ‘body’ is the self as the organization of the sinful impulses inherent in the flesh.” Stott cites and approves NEB, “the sinful self”, and contrasts this with “the old man” or “the old self”, which is “not my lower self, but my former self”. Cf. the dwelling of sin in Paul (7:17, 20).
38 The verb is χαταργέω; see on 3:3. It does not mean “destroyed” but “made impotent”, “nullified”.
39 The construction is τοῦ with the infinitive. Moulton finds it especially characteristic of Luke, who has it 23 times, with 21 more in Acts. Paul has it 13 times, and “there is not one in which purpose is unmistakable”. Moulton notes six examples in Matthew, and one each in Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and Revelation. While he is sceptical about the construction pointing to purpose in Paul as it does in Luke, he sees the present passage, together with Phil. 3:10, as “nearest to pure final force” (M, I, pp. 216–18). Result is possible here, but purpose seems better. Or it may be epexegetic (BDF 400[8]).
40 δουλεύω is a Pauline word; the apostle uses it 17 times out of 25 in the New Testament, seven being in Romans. The most in any non-Pauline writing is three in Luke.
41 Cf. Godet, “fallen Adam reappearing in every human ego”.
42 γάρ.
43 E.g., “Once man dies he is free from (all) obligations, and thus R. Joḥanan interpreted: Among the dead I am free: once a man is dead he is free from religious duties” (Shabb. 151b).
Harrisville Roy A. Harrisville: Romans (Minneapolis, 1980)
44 The verb is διχαιόω; translations like NIV and RSV obscure the connection with doctrine of justification on which Paul puts so much emphasis. It is difficult to think that he uses this verb without having in mind the great doctrine to which it so often refers. The verb is not often followed by ἀπό (though cf. Acts 13:38).
45 NTS, 10 (1963–64), p. 107.
46 Rom. 6:8; 8:32; 2 Cor. 4:14; 13:4; Phil. 1:23; Col. 2:13, 20; 3:3, 4; 1 Thess. 4:14, 17; 5:10.
47 W. Grundmann lists 14 such compounds, most of which are found only in the Pauline writings in the New Testament, and quite a few nowhere before Paul (TDNT, VII, pp. 786–87). It is clear that being “with Christ” is an important category for Paul.
48 TDNT, VII, p. 785. Grundmann notices that in LXX God graciously promises to be with his people, but the preposition tends to be μετά. This is used of God’s promises both to individuals such as Abraham (Gen. 17:4) or Gideon (Judg. 6:12), and to the people as a whole (Deut. 20:1, 4). People are not often said to be “with God”. Grundmann regards Paul’s σὺν Χριστῷ as being “linguistically comparable” to the Greek expressions σὺν θεῷ or σὺν θεοῖς (p. 781), but different in that Paul’s expression “is not orientated to active life on earth. Its primary reference is to eschatological being with Christ as eternal, non-terrestrial being” (p. 781). This must be understood carefully, for several of Paul’s references are to living out life here on earth (e.g., Col. 2:13; 3:3). But the point is that Paul’s usage is distinctive and involves a very high view of the person of Christ.
49 The verb συζάω is found three times in the New Testament, all in Paul. It is another example of his stress on being “with Christ”.
50 Gore points out that moralists in general agree that there is that in man which must be put to death. “But the novelty in Christianity was the emphasis which it laid rather on the living than on the dying … the dying is always made to appear to be in order to a living. The end is always the life.”
CBSC The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
51 The verb χυριεύω is found in Paul six out of seven times in the New Testament, four being in Romans. It conveys the idea of lordship. It is Jesus Christ who is Lord, not death.
52 ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν... ὃ δὲ ζῇ.… This is not a simple ellipsis, for ὃ is neuter. Moule denies that it is “a strictly cognate relative” and favors “whereas he died … whereas he lives…” (IBNTG, p. 131). Murray argues for “as regards”, and SH see “a kind of cognate accus.” Lenski is perhaps best with “his death and all that his death involved”.
Robinson John A. T. Robinson: Wrestling with Romans (London, 1979)
53 The word is ἐφάπαξ, a strengthened form of ἅπαξ, “once and for all”. Stählin considers it “a technical term for the definitiveness and therefore the uniqueness or singularity of the death of Christ and the redemption thereby accomplished” (TDNT, I, p. 383). It occurs twice in Paul and three times in Hebrews.
54 Käsemann objects that this slogan “comes from our idealistic legacy and … leads necessarily to an intolerable formalizing of the problem.” With Bultmann he sees the problem “lifted out of the spheres of mere ethics and a combination with mysticism … and set in the dimension of Pauline eschatology”; he argues that the real issue is not freedom from guilt but from the power of sin. We may agree that the slogan must be used carefully and that freedom from the power of sin is important. But guilt is also important, and Paul does not overlook it.
55 χαὶ ὑμεῖς. It would be possible to punctuate with a full stop after ὑμεῖς, but it is better to take this with the words that follow.
56 The literature on “in Christ” is enormous, but it may be sufficient to refer to Richard N. Longenecker’s discussion in Paul: Apostle of Liberty (New York, 1964), pp. 160–70, and the works there cited; cf. C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 55–69.
57 σώματι is singular, though ὑμῶν is plural. Together they form a Semitic construction, of a kind that Turner finds “contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice” (M, III, p. 23).
58 In Paul εἰς τό with the infinitive mostly denotes purpose, though sometimes result (cf. M, III, p. 143). Here result seems more likely.
59 μηδέ is found 23 times in Paul (four in Romans) out of 57 in the New Testament. Again we find a high proportion in Paul.
60 The verb is παριστάνω, a variant form of παρίστημι. BAGD say it is used as a technical term in the language of sacrifice.
61 μέλος is a thoroughly Pauline word, occurring 29 times in the Pauline writings out of 34 in the New Testament. It is sometimes used of the “limbs”, but this is not invariable and here the parts of the body in general are in mind.
62 The word is ὅπλα, another Pauline word (five times out of six in the New Testament). It can denote any tool or implement, and in the plural it is often used of weapons. Many take it in this sense here, but nothing in the context indicates warfare, so perhaps it is better to see it as instruments with NIV.
63 Barth has an interesting comment: “By weapons of unrighteousness is meant the arrogant behaviour by which, when men identify themselves with God (i.18), this organism is employed as an instrument by which the truth is imprisoned; when, surrendering themselves to this organism as prisoners of sin, they vaunt a supposed freedom and rise up in rebellion.”
64 ἀλλά.
65 This is Paul’s one use of ὡσεί, a particle of comparison meaning “as”, “like”, not “as if”. Paul is speaking of a reality, not a supposition (so Leenhardt, Michel, and others).
66 ἐχ.
TH Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)
67 ET, 93 (1981–82), p. 260.
68 This use of ὑπό is that which BAGD define as “of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc.”
Cragg The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, "The Epistle to the Romans," exposition by Gerald R. Cragg
a 23 Or through
69 Except that there is nothing corresponding to shall we say. BDF, however, hold that there is an ellipsis of ἐροῦμεν (299 [3]).
70 ἁμαρτήσωμεν is a late first aorist form of a kind found in LXX. Some MSS have the future, ἁμαρτήσομεν, but most critics accept the aorist.
71 For μὴ γένοιτο see on 3:4. It is a vigorous rejection of the suggestion.
72 Paul often appeals to his correspondents’ knowledge (see on 2:2), but the use of οὐχ οἴδατε ὅτι is frequent in 1 Corinthians and rare elsewhere (cf. οὐχ οἴδατε, 11:2).
73 Legally, of course, ownership could be shared so that there were two owners. This could lead to anomalous situations, e.g., when one owner freed the slave while the other did not. He was then half slave, half free. Jesus is not denying the legal possibility of shared ownership of a slave; he is denying that a slave can give to more than one person the wholeheartedness a slave owed his master. If there are two owners, he will hate one and love the other.
74 We should not miss the point that the Christians had a very unusual attitude to slaves. The term “slave” was everywhere a term of abuse, even among the Jews (cf. K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT, II, pp. 270–71). Slaves were not accepted into societies as they were into the Christian church. Rengstorf sees “a decisive break with Jewish usage” in the fact that “The Rabbis and Pharisees did not think of themselves as the slaves of God” (p. 274 n. 101). They used the expression for the people as a whole or for outstanding servants of God, but not in the way the Christians used it.
75 Nygren points out that Christians “live their life on the border between the two aeons. They live ‘in Christ’; but have not thereby ceased to share the fate of the children of Adam.” Paul is combating the view that Christians are freed from the pull implied in being children of Adam, but also that which says that they do not belong wholeheartedly to God. He is saying that they are God’s and that, though they may slip, their lives show that they belong to God.
76 ἤτοι occurs here only in the New Testament. The construction seems to imply that these are the only alternatives.
Murray John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and 1965)
77 BDF see this as an example of the use of the imperfect tense where the past is placed in sharp contrast to the present (BDF 327). Olshausen remarks that the former state “is understood as past; for even if sin is not thoroughly removed from the believer, yet it has no dominion”. Paul has emphasized this in the earlier part of the chapter.
78 ἐχ χαρδίας. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:22.
Hodge Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864 edn.)
79 Most commentators refer to the tradition, but F. W. Beare denies this. He holds that Paul is speaking of transfer from one owner to another (NTS, 5 [1958–59], p. 207). While it is true that this transfer is an important theme of the passage, it is not easy to remove completely the thought of the tradition from teaching.
80 The Greek is εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, which seems to be equivalent to τύπῳ διδαχῆς εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε, the antecedent having been attracted into the case of the relative. For τύπος see on 5:14.
81 Deissmann finds here the technical language used for setting slaves free; he points out that ἀπό in passages like this “is also a technical use of language” (LAE, p. 326 n. 1).
Shedd William G. T. Shedd: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980 repr. of 1879 edn.)
82 He has the verb ἐλευθερόω five times out of seven in the New Testament, the noun ἐλευθερία seven out of 11, and the adjective ἐλεύθερος 16 out of 23. He thus uses each of these words more often than all the other New Testament writers put together.
83 This could be understood as “with freedom”, but “for freedom” (as Moffatt, NEB, etc.) is much more in accord with Paul’s use of the concept.
84 According to TH “A much more meaningful equivalent may be ‘We Are under Obligation to Do What is Right’ ”. But this draws some of the sting from Paul’s powerful paradox. He is not saying that the liberated ought to do right, but that they are the slaves of right. D. Daube comments on Dodd’s view that the expression is “sub-Christian” that it is “also ‘sub-Jewish’. There is not a single Old Testament or Rabbinic text with the phrase ‘slaves of righteousness’ or anything like it—say, ‘slaves of the Law’ or ‘slaves of good deeds’. The faithful are ‘slaves of God’; they could be slaves to no one and nothing else” (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London, 1956], p. 284). Paul’s use is distinctive.
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)
85 δοῦλος is normally a noun; indeed, this is the only passage in the New Testament where it is used as an adjective.
Godet F. Godet: Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1895)
86 The point at issue is the meaning of εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν. In view of the parallel with εἰς ἁγιασμόν later in the verse this must surely be taken in the sense “with a view to”, or “leading to”.
87 εἰς ἁγιασμόν. The question is whether this refers to the process of becoming holy or the final state. The -μος termination expresses action (Robertson, p. 151), but nouns are not always used in strict accordance with the way they are formed. Murray and others see the state here, but it seems better to take the word in its normal meaning of process, as Cranfield and Moule.
88 Moule denies that the dative here is ablatival and regards it rather as comparable to the Latin dativus commodi, “free with regard to righteousness”, not “free from righteousness” (IBNTG, p. 46).
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a translation by Geoffrey W. Bromiley of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, 1964–76)
89 τέλος often denotes the end in the sense of “the aim” or “purpose”. But it can mean simply the last in a series (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24; Rev. 21:6, etc.); here it must denote such an end.
90 Some miss this point, as RSV, “the return you get is sanctification”, or Barrett, “your fruit proves to be sanctification”. But we should surely preserve the distinction between χαρπός and ἁγιασμός, especially since the latter is preceded by εἰς. The fruit begins the process of sanctification.
Lloyd-Jones D. M. Lloyd-Jones: Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20–8:39, 6 vols. (London, 1970–75)
91 ὀψώνιον is not common in the New Testament, occurring once in each of five books. Derived from ὄψον, “cooked food”, and ὠνέομαι, “to buy”, it was used of “ration money” paid to soldiers. From this it came to be used of “pay” or “wages” in general, though its most frequent use remained that for the pay of soldiers. LSJ attest a use for an allowance given to a slave, but this was not common. H. W. Heidland says it is used “occasionally” outside the military sphere (TDNT, V, p. 591).
92 This is in sharp contradiction of the Greek understanding. E. Rohde can speak of life as the wages of sin (TDNT, I, p. 309 n. 155). He says, “It is in expiation of a fault that the soul is exiled in the body; the payment for sin is earthly life, which is the death of the soul” (ibid., p. 298).
93 TDNT, V, p. 592.
94 The word is χάρισμα, “a gift (freely and graciously given)” (BAGD).
a 5 Or the flesh; also in verse 25
1 CBQ, 46 (1984), p. 90. The whole article, “Paul’s Use of Analogy: A Structural Analysis of Romans 7:1–6”, should be consulted.
NIV New International Version
SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)
JB The Jerusalem Bible
2 The word is ἄνθρωπος, a member of the human race, including females as well as males. It is a word he uses 126 times out of 548 in the New Testament, which is more than anyone else. In v. 2 he uses ἀνήρ, a male, a term for which he has no special preponderance (59 times out of 216; Acts has it 100 times).
3 ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον. The subject of ζῇ could grammatically be νόμος. But this is to be rejected since Paul nowhere has the idea that the law dies.
4 ὕπανδρος is found here only in the New Testament. It means “under” or “subject to a man”, and thus reflects the Jewish understanding of marriage (an understanding widely accepted in the ancient world). It is used of married women in LXX (see Num. 5:20, 29; Prov. 6:24, 29).
5 The perfect δέδεται puts the continuing nature of the tie at its strongest, and the participle ζῶντι puts some emphasis on the husband as living.
6 ἐὰν δέ introduces the contrary supposition, but the form of the conditional implies nothing as to the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition.
7 χατήργηται (for this verb see on 3:3) is mostly used of things rather than persons, but this use is quite intelligible. The perfect points to a continuing result. The preposition ἀπό is not common with this verb, but BAGD note its use for release “from an association….”
8 Many exegetes take the passage allegorically. Long ago Augustine saw the wife as the soul and the husband as the corrupt nature. This kind of thinking continues, though with different symbolism. O’Neill sees the husband and the wife as the body and the soul. See Little, CBQ, 46, p. 86 for other suggestions. I do not discuss such views because there seems no reason for thinking that Paul had this kind of symbolism in mind. If he did, the variety of views shows that we have little chance of recovering it.
9 For ἄρα οὖν see the note on 5:18.
10 ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ. BDF see this as an exception to the rule that the genitive is used when possession is recent or the emphasis is on the possessor, the dative when the stress is on the object possessed (189 [2]). Many translations agree with NIV, if she marries another man, and this is clearly the sense of it, even though Paul does not use the normal verb “to marry”. Kertelge and others render “live with”.
11 Paul uses μοιχαλίς twice in this verse and nowhere else. This is his one use of χρηματίζω (nine times in the New Testament). It refers to transacting business. From this there are two lines of development. One refers to answering questions that arise as business is transacted and leads to the meaning “answer as an oracle”, “warn”, and the like. The other starts from getting a name from one’s business activities (many surnames are still those of a trade) and so comes to mean “to name”, the meaning we have here.
12 Some adjectives are followed by a genitive, but “to be free from” always takes ἀπό (BDF 182[3]).
13 The construction τοῦ + infinitive normally denotes purpose, but Paul frequently has it to convey result. Here Gifford sees purpose, BDF find it epexegetic (400 [8]), and Burton thinks it is result (398). Burton seems to be correct; she is free, and the result of that is that she is no adulteress.
14 ὥστε introduces the consequence. Moule says it is “simply an inferential particle as if ὥς τε, meaning and so, accordingly” (IBNTG, p. 144). The indicative that follows puts some emphasis on the factuality; it really happened.
15 χαὶ ὑμεῖς.
16 The verb is θανατόω, not ἀποθνῄσχω. We are probably to see an action of God, not a death from natural causes.
Calvin John Calvin: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1961)
Knox The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, introduction and exegesis by John Knox (Nashville, 1978)
NEB The New English Bible
GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
17 εἰς τό normally introduces purpose, though Lenski sees it as result here. But purpose fits the context better.
18 γίνεσθαι ἀνδρί is used in v. 3 of being married, and some understand it that way here, as NEB, “you have found another husband in him”. This is possible, but it seems more likely that NIV is correct.
19 γάρ.
20 πάθημα is explained by BAGD as “that which is suffered or endured”; it is mostly used in the plural, as here. Parry comments that the word denotes “concrete instances of πάθος, the state in which the subject is regarded as not active but receptive of experiences.”
21 Cranfield thinks that the plural means “concrete acts of sin” rather than “sin as a condition or principle”.
22 διὰ τοῦ νόμου. BAGD think διά here denotes the efficient cause.
Lloyd-Jones D. M. Lloyd-Jones: Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20–8:39, 6 vols. (London, 1970–75)
23 Cf. Harrisville, “There is no talk here of a transgression of the law. The case is rather that the passions are aroused by the commandment, whether or not the commandment is fulfilled. We are thus sinners even when we keep the commandment!”
Haldane Robert Haldane: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1966 repr.)
24 ἐνηργεῖτο is surely to be understood as middle, giving the thought that the passions worked powerfully and inwardly.
25 μέλεσιν means “members”. Paul is speaking of the parts of our bodies, where NIV refers to our bodies as a whole.
26 The problem is the meaning of εἰς τό. The construction often signifies purpose, but here it seems better to see result.
27 χατηργήθημεν. See on 3:3.
RSV The Revised Standard Version
Phillips J. B. Phillips: Letters to Young Churches (Melbourne, 1952)
Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation
28 The verb χατέχω is used in 1:18 of sinners “holding down” the truth, here of sinners being held down by the law. This is one place where KJV misleads; it translates, “that being dead wherein we were held”. But it is not the law that dies; it is sinners.
29 The construction is ὥστε + infinitive, which leads some to see a possibility rather than a result; Moffatt, e.g., has “so that we can serve”, and Phillips “we are free to serve”, whereas NIV renders so that we serve. But this construction may be used in the sense of result, and it is best to take it this way here (see BDF 391[2], Cranfield, Lenski, etc.).
30 δουλεύειν.
Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)
31 “Oldness”, παλαιότης, is not a common word, being found here only in the New Testament. “Letter”is not so unusual. G. Schrenk comments on the present passage, “Without Christ and the Spirit what is written is absolutely ineffective” (TDNT, I, p. 766). He distinguishes between Paul’s use of γράμμα and γραφή: “γράμμα is not used when he speaks of the positive and lasting significance of Scripture. This positive task is always stated in terms of γραφή. When the reference is to γράμμα, Paul is always thinking of the legal authority which has been replaced” (p. 768).
32 Notice the use of οὐ where μή might have been expected. It makes for an emphatic contrast.
33 Cf. J. Christiaan Beker, “Romans 7 is not a description of Christian life or, primarily, an autobiography of Paul’s Pharisaic life. Rather, a Christian looks here, in the context of an apology of the law, in hindsight at the plight of the Jews under the law and describes their objective condition of despair … a Christian interpretation of Jewish existence under the law is the primary subject matter of Romans 7” (Paul the Apostle [Edinburgh, 1980], p. 238; he agrees that there is “an autobiographical element” in this chapter [p. 240]). D. J. Moo can say, “In vv. 7–12, it seems best to conclude that Paul describes the experience of Israel at Sinai but uses the first person because he himself, as a Jew, has been affected by that experience” (NTS, 32 [1986], p. 129).
34 Hans Conzelmann says, “Here Paul is describing man in revolt…. He is not, however, picturing his feelings before his conversion, but the way in which he later came to know himself through faith. Only faith shows me that without faith I was objectively in despair” (An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament [London, 1969], p. 45). But this seems to be reading a lot into the text.
35 D. J. W. Milne discusses the possibilities in an article entitled “Romans 7:7–12, Paul’s Pre-conversion Experience” (RThR, XLIII [1984], pp. 9–17). He contends strongly for “the autobiographical, pre-Christian view of Romans 7:7–12” (p. 16).
36 “I am using a human exception”(3:5; 6:19) is not a real exception, and the “I” of 3:7; 4:17 does not refer to Paul.
37 Jesus and the Gospel of Love (London, 1931), p. 315. So also Parry, “The personal element is too definite, too sustained and even too passionate, to allow the hypothesis of mere imagination”(p. 217).
38 Cf. Harrisville, “Paul in Romans 7 identifies himself with the sinner, and for this reason uses the ‘I-style’ in vv 7ff., and the present tense in vv 14ff. What he writes, the sinner would have to say if he could speak of himself. But the text is blunter when hastily treated as the introspection of the Christian, or as the confession of the sinner prior to his coming to faith.” Hodge comments, “That he does not speak for himself only; that it is not anything in his own individual experience, peculiar to himself, is obvious from the whole context.”
39 From very early times Paul’s “I” has been taken to refer to Adam. Käsemann holds that “the event depicted can refer strictly only to Adam…. There is nothing in the passage which does not fit Adam, and everything fits Adam alone” (p. 196). This last statement is certainly exaggerated, for in the Adam story there is nothing about the command not to covet, of which Paul makes so much (Gen. 3:6 is sometimes urged, but this is not a command not to covet). Cranfield cites a number of writers who hold that Paul is speaking in the name of Adam, but he finds this view “forced”. His own view is “that Paul is using the first person singular in a generalizing way without intending a specific reference to any particular individual or clearly defined group, in order to depict vividly the situation of man in the absence of law and in its presence.”
a 7 Exodus 20:17; Deut 5:21
40 For μὴ γένοιτο see on 3:4.
41 This is the force of the strong adversative ἀλλά.
42 The aorist is inceptive. Paul uses two verbs for “know” in this verse, ἔγνων and ᾔδειν. Some see a difference in meaning, but this is not apparent. The difference in tense may be more significant, with the aorist meaning “come to know” and the pluperfect used as an imperfect, “keep on knowing”.
43 The usual translation assumes that in his onward rush Paul has omitted ἄν. Strictly this should have been inserted, but it is sometimes omitted (see BDF 360[1]), so the conditional translation is quite in order. But some prefer to take the words exactly as they stand: “I did not know sin….”
44 τε indicates a close connection (BDF 443[3]; they suggest that we supply here “as well as the ἁμαρτία mentioned above”). Cf. Parry, “This isolated τε introduces a particular example of the effect of law from the 10th Commandment: almost = even, or in particular”.
45 ἐπιθυμία. The corresponding verb follows in Do not covet. LB brings out the inwardness by translating “I would never have known the sin in my heart….” As earlier in the verse, we have the indicative without ἄν, but this time it is not as easy to take it to mean “I did not know” because of the following εἰ μή with finite verb. BDF regard this as an example of the omission of ἄν in the apodosis of contrary-to-fact conditions (360 [1]); μή is the negative with the unreal indicative (428 [2]).
46 “The essential point in ἐπιθυμία is that it is desire as impulse, as a motion of the will. It is, in fact, lust, since the thought of satisfaction gives pleasure and that of non-satisfaction pain. ἐπιθυμία is anxious self-seeking”(F. Büchsel, TDNT, III, p. 171).
47 ἀφορμή (ἀφʼ ὁρμή) is that from which an attack is launched, a starting point, or a base of operations. NIV has opportunity. Paul has the word in all six of its New Testament occurrences.
48 In this passage Paul uses both νόμος and ἐντολή without much difference of meaning. G. Schrenk comments, “the ἐντολή is both the concrete Mosaic Law and the characteristic mark of the Law, i.e. its character as command” (TDNT, II, p. 552).
49 Most translations agree with NIV in taking διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς with ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα. But it is better to take it with χατειργάσατο, “produced in me through the commandment….” This is favored by the word order (cf. v. 13) and the use of διά (the commandment is not that “through” which sin obtained its base of operations, but is that base).
50 νόμος lacks the article, but Paul can scarcely mean law in general. He is speaking about the law of God, the law we see in the Old Testament.
51 The Greek does not supply a verb here. If we understand the words as referring to Paul alone, we should read “was”; if we hold them to have a general reference, then “is” is correct.
51a Cf. TH, “He begins by interpreting his own experience in the light of the account in Genesis 3. But he also assumes that every other man’s experience is similar to his own, and so what he says has relevance for all men in all periods of history.”
52 BDF 281 see the use of the first person in this passage, like the use of the second person in a number of other passages, as a way of referring to any third person in order to illustrate something universal in a vivid manner.
53 ποτέ, “of time at some time or other of the past” (BAGD).
54 χωρίς, “apart from”, is found in Paul 16 times out of its 41 New Testament occurrences.
55 Cf. Harrison, “there was actually no time in his life before his conversion when he was unrelated to the law.”
Hendriksen William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, I [1980]; II [1981])
56 Cragg refers to “The Problem of the Happy Pagan” and speaks of people who take it as perfectly natural to engage in dishonest practices and the like. “For them in any real sense the commandment has not come.”
57 Cf. Simeon, “None are so blind as to think they have never sinned; but the generality suppose that they have never sinned in any great degree.” Not appreciating the seriousness of their sin, they are at ease. Cf. Scott, “The savage who has never learned anything of moral restraint is happy; misery begins when you know better, and are still enslaved by desires and impulses which are destroying your soul” (p. 47).
58 The verb ἀναζάω strictly means “come to life again”, but BAGD see its use here as “spring into life with loss of the force of ἀνά”. NIV well brings out the force of the aorist with sprang to life.
LB The Living Bible
59 Barclay comments, “No man ever took a forbidden thing without thinking that it would make him happy, and no man ever found that it did.” Nonsense. There are and always have been happy thieves. But in them honesty has died. Sin always means death of some sort.
60 εἰς before ζωήν signifies purpose or intended result, while that before θάνατον means actual result.
61 Chrysostom comments: “He does not say, ‘it was made,’ or ‘it brought forth’ death, but ‘was found,’ so explaining the novel and unusual kind of discrepancy, and making the whole fall upon their own pate … the fault is with them that received the commandment, and not of this, which was leading them to life.”
62 Notice his word order in the Greek and the use of the emphatic αὕτη.
63 Paul’s verb is ἐξηπάτησεν, a strengthened form of ἀπατάω, the verb used in LXX of Gen. 3:13. ἐξαπατάω is found six times in Paul and nowhere else in the New Testament.
64 ὥστε, inferential; see Moule’s comment on v. 4.
65 There is no verb in the sentence, and ὁ μέν looks for an answering ὁ δέ, which, however, does not come. Cranfield sees “an implicit contrast between the law and sin”.
66 “It is important to remember that the whole section is an analysis of man’s state under law”(CGT on v. 25). Krister Stendahl says, “Paul is here involved in an interpretation of the Law, a defense for the holiness and goodness of the Law” (Paul Among Jews and Gentiles [Philadelphia, 1976], p. 92). Stendahl perhaps minimizes the autobiographical element in what Paul is saying, but he is right in emphasizing the place of the law in Paul’s argument.
67 Cf. Manson, “In 14–20 man’s predicament is more closely analysed. He is no free agent to say Yes or No to the law’s demands.”
68 Lloyd-Jones comments, “sanctification by the Law is as impossible as was justification by the Law” (on v. 7 [p. 110]).
69 There are many discussions of the problem. Perhaps it will be sufficient to refer to the useful account in Robinson, pp. 81–95.
70 In discussing the contention that Paul is dealing with his inner situation before he became a Christian Knox says, “the only basis for such a judgment lies in this supposed impossibility; there is nothing in Paul’s language to suggest that he is remembering the past rather than describing the present.”
71 Robinson, p. 83. Cf. E. Stauffer, “The Damascus event is hardly the conversion of a despairing sinner but the calling and overthrow of a self-righteous Pharisee” (TDNT, II, p. 358).
Leenhardt Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)
72 “He has in mind the tension which exists, in the Christian life, between will and action, between intention and performance”(Nygren, p. 293).
73 ET, LXV (1953–54), pp. 78–81, 99–103, 132–35.
74 Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation, ed. W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 34–48.
75 J. I. Packer argues that the passage “reproduces Paul’s present theological self-knowledge as a Christian: not all of it, but just that part of it which is germane to the subject in hand—namely, the function of the law in giving knowledge of sin” (Studia Evangelica, II [Berlin, 1964], p. 626).
76 Brown comments, “as he has proved from his own past experience that law cannot make a bad man good, he now proves from his present experience that law cannot make a good man better” (p. 158). He also says that the law “can tell us what we ought to be and do, and what we ought not to be and do: it can tell us what will be the consequences of obedience and of disobedience; but it cannot make us what it requires us to be” (p. 150). Barth points out that the great in all manner of disciplines recognize their shortcomings: “Take the case of any respectable and serious-minded philosopher, poet, statesman, or artist. Does he ever suppose his actual achievement to be identical with what he wished to achieve?” (p. 261).
77 He uses the strong adversative ἀλλά. RSV ignores this emphatic word with its “It was sin”. The Greek sentence is elliptical, but the meaning is reasonably clear. We could supply ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος after ἁμαρτία or alternatively take ἐγένετο with χατεργαζομένη.
78 Cf. Harrison, “the law, which seemed to be victimized by being taken over by sin, emerges as having gained an important objective. It has exposed sin for the evil thing it is.”
79 Sin “in the supreme sense” (G. Delling, TDNT, VIII, p. 521). ὑπερβολή is a Pauline word (eight times out of eight in the New Testament). W. Grundmann explains the passage in this way: “the function which we assert the Law to have in the divine plan for the world is finally achieved when sin is unmasked in its demonic character as utter enmity against God. The state of the world and each individual since Adam has a demonic character as directed against God” (TDNT, I, p. 311)
80 Instead of reading οἴδαμεν Lenski and others prefer to divide into οἶδα μέν, which would accord with the singular throughout the passage. But there is nothing to elicit a μέν, and it is characteristic of Paul to use “we” in an appeal to “a commonly acknowledged truth” (Metzger) (see on 2:2).
81 γάρ.
82 πνευματιχός, an adjective Paul uses 24 times out of its 26 New Testament occurrences. BAGD note that it may be used of Jesus, but “as a rule it is used of impersonal things: the law given by God Ro 7:14”.
Murray John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and 1965)
83 He uses the emphatic ἐγώ six times in vv. 14–25. Käsemann says that here it “means mankind under the shadow of Adam” (p. 200), and thus does not refer to the Christian. But the emphatic pronoun seems rather to draw attention to Paul himself, the Christian.
84 σάρχινος means “made of flesh”, “fleshly”, though it is not always distinguished from σαρχιχός, “characterized by flesh”. Paul uses it three times out of its four New Testament occurrences. It can certainly be applied to believers (as in 1 Cor. 3:1), though indicating their weakness and imperfection. Which, of course, is its point here.
Robinson John A. T. Robinson: Wrestling with Romans (London, 1979)