88 γινώσχω .

88 γινώσχω .

⁸⁵ Luther comments on “I am carnal”: “Because it is characteristic of a spiritual and wise man that he knows that he is carnal, that he is dissatisfied with himself and hates himself, and that he praises the law of God because it is spiritual. Conversely, it is characteristic of a foolish and carnal man that he thinks he is spiritual or that he is satisfied with himself and that he loves his life here in this world.”

⁸⁶ πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. The perfect participle points to the continuing state. This is the only New Testament passage where this verb is followed by ὑπό.

⁸⁷ Cf. Packer, “ ‘I am carnal, sold under sin’, is stated categorically and without qualification, not because this is the whole truth about Paul the Christian, but because it is the only part of the truth about himself that the law can tell him” (Studia Evangelica, II, p. 627).

⁸⁸ γινώσχω.

⁸⁹ It is usual to draw attention to pagan parallels such as Ovid, “I see and approve the better course, but I follow the worse.” Closer to Paul is Epictetus, ὃ θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ χαὶ ὃ μὴ θέλει ποιεῖ (ii.26.4). These are interesting, but we must bear in mind that Paul is not discussing an interesting psychological phenomenon. He is rebelling against indwelling sin, which he considers as an alien intruder. He is discussing the problem in the light of God’s law. There are differences.

⁹⁰ Käsemann comments, “What a person wants is salvation. What he creates is disaster” (p. 203). He also reminds us that “we constantly show ourselves to be the captives of our own arrogance, passions, caprice, and stupidity.” Paul, he says, “affirms, not just the contradictoriness of existence even in the pious, but the entanglement of a fallen creation in all its expressions in the power of sin” (p. 204).

⁹¹ ἀλλʼ, “on the contrary”.

⁹² Krister Stendahl may perhaps not be giving sufficient attention to this when he says of Rom. 7, “The possibility of a distinction between the good Law and the bad Sin is based on the rather trivial observation that every man knows that there is a difference between what he ought to do and what he does”; “what to him and his contemporaries was a common sense observation appeared to later interpreters to be a most penetrating insight into the nature of man and into the nature of sin” (Paul Among Jews and Gentiles [Philadelphia, 1976], p. 93). Whatever be the truth of Stendahl’s view on “the introspective conscience of the West”, he seems to have missed some at any rate of what Paul is saying in this chapter. The apostle is not making “a rather trivial observation” and not repeating a first-century commonplace, but dealing with the truth that it is the law of God that people have broken.

Denney James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)

⁹³ SH distinguish between χατεργάζομαι, “put into execution”, πράσσω, “act as a moral and responsible being”, and ποιέω, “produce a certain result without reference to its moral character.” Barrett doubts whether Paul is distinguishing between “practise” and “do”. Cranfield points out that χατεργάζομαι and ποιέω are used of effective action, and πράσσω of action disapproved (it is never used of God or Christ). C. Maurer agrees in distancing πράσσω from the other two verbs. He sees it used here of a “doing” “which is not orientated to fulfilment” (TDNT, VI, p. 636). Shedd sees the present as pointing to intermittent action, not invariable action.

⁹⁴ εἰ with the indicative.

⁹⁵ σύμφημι is found here only in the New Testament.

⁹⁶ χαλός.

⁹⁷ ἀλλά, the strong adversative.

⁹⁸ οἰχέω (eight times in the New Testament, all in Paul) and ἐνοιχέω (six times, also all in Paul) have similar meanings—“live in”, “inhabit”, or the like. They derive from οἶχος, “to live in as in a house”. Most accept ἐνοιχέω here. Both verbs are used in the New Testament largely of God or of spiritual qualities (good or bad) dwelling in people.

⁹⁹ Cf. O. Michel, “The dwelling of sin in man denotes its dominion over him, its lasting connection with his flesh, and yet also a certain distinction from it” (TDNT, V, p. 135). The rabbis could say of sin, “At first it is like a (passing) visitor, then like a guest (who stays longer), and finally like the master of the house” (Genesis Rabbah xx.6).

¹⁰⁰ See, e.g., the discussion in W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), pp. 25ff.

Black Matthew Black: Romans (London, 1973)

¹⁰¹ παράχειταί μοι, “lies to my hand” (SH). The verb occurs only here and in v. 21 in the New Testament.

¹⁰² Accented οὔ is the firm negative “No”, and not simply “not”.

¹⁰³ Michel sees the use of “the ‘good’ (ἀγαθόν, χαλόν) of the fulfilling of God’s demand, the ‘evil’ (χαχόν) of the performance of men which corresponds to lust.” Maurer comments on the use of πράσσω: “Life is lived … in the stupid doing of the evil which is not willed, and this is expressed by πράσσειν” (TDNT, VI, p. 637).

¹⁰⁴ εἰ with the indicative.

¹⁰⁵ For ἄρα see on 5:18. This is the first example without οὖν in this epistle; there does not seem to be much difference in meaning.

RV The Revised Version

¹⁰⁶ Note the repeated ἐμοί, in each case early in its clause (cf. Gifford’s note).

¹⁰⁷ Paul has used the verb παράχειμαι of the presence of the good will within him (v. 18), and now of the evil, τὸ χαχόν.

¹⁰⁸ His verb is συνήδομαι (here only in the New Testament), “rejoice with someone”; here it is “I (joyfully) agree with the law” (BAGD). The thought is of agreement with the law, but not in the sense of a grudging assent. Rather, it is a joyful acceptance of all God has given in the law (cf. the many expressions of joy in the law in Ps. 119).

¹⁰⁹ χατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. ἔσω is found here only in Romans, but in Paul four times out of nine in the New Testament.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Barrett, “The ‘inward man’ belongs to the Age to Come, just as the ‘outward man’ belongs to the present age.” There is certainly a reference here to the present age, but there may well also be an eschatological reference (see on v. 25).

¹¹¹ ἕτερος is probably used here in the sense “of a different kind” (so BAGD). The word strictly means “other of two, contrasting a definite person or thing w. another” (ibid.); it is used also where more than two are in question and sometimes as more or less equivalent to ἄλλος. But where two are contrasted they are different, and it is this that we apparently have here.

¹¹² ἀντιστρατεύομαι, “make war against”, occurs only here in the New Testament. It is another example of Paul’s love of military metaphors.

¹¹³ BAGD define νοῦς as “the mind, intellect as the side of life contrasted w. physical existence, the higher, mental part of the natural man which initiates his thoughts and plans”. J. Behm says, “This is the moral consciousness as it concretely determines will and action…. The ‘I’ of R. 7 realises that it is bound by the νόμος of God according to the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (v. 22)” (TDNT, IV, p. 958).

¹¹⁴ αἰχμαλωτίζω (from αἰχμή, “spear”, and ἁλίσχομαι, “capture”, AS) is another piece of military imagery. Paul uses it in three of its four New Testament occurrences. He likes military terminology.

¹¹⁵ The nominative will be the nominative of address (Shedd). Cf. BDF 147. It is typical of Paul’s terse, forceful style that there is no verb.

¹¹⁶ Thus Denney says, “The words are not those of the Apostle’s heart as he writes; they are the words which he knows are wrung from the heart of the man who realises in himself the state just described.” Over against such views Stott can say, “The unbeliever is characterized by self-righteousness, and would never acknowledge himself a ‘miserable creature’, which is the NEB version of ‘wretched man’. The immature believer is characterized by self-confidence, and does not ask who is going to deliver him. Only the mature believer reaches the place both of self-disgust and of self-despair.”

¹¹⁷ “Let us cease to know that we are ‘carnal, sold under sin,’ sinners enmeshed in a sinful world, desperately in need of redemption—and all too quickly we shall be anchored in complacency”(Smart, p. 100).

¹¹⁸ ῥύομαι is found in Paul in 11 of its 16 New Testament occurrences. It is sometimes followed by ἀπό, and sometimes, as here, by ἐχ. In the New Testament it is used of God as he saves people. W. Kasch points out that the term often has an eschatological content in the New Testament (TDNT, VI, p. 1003).

NASB The New American Standard Bible

¹¹⁹ ἐχ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου. The problem is whether to take τούτου with the whole expression or with θανάτου.

¹²⁰ This view is taken by Turner, M, III, p. 214. Lenski accepts it and cites Zahn in support. Zahn’s point is that the genitive θανάτου is attributive like an adjective (cf. BDF 165), and “such genitives never have a pronoun or some other modifier that make them definite, for they would then cease to be adjectival.”

¹²¹ There is a textual problem here. Most critics accept χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ with א^a C² Ψ 33 81 etc. ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ is read by D and some MSS of OL, ἡ χάρις χυρίου by G with OL support, εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ by א* A K etc. The first reading has respectable support and explains the other readings, so it should be adopted.

¹²² Robert Banks, in his article “Romans 7:25A: An Eschatological Thanksgiving?” ABR, XXVI (1978), pp. 34–42, draws attention to other exclamations in Paul involving χάρις, especially 1 Cor. 15:57. He argues convincingly that the expression must be understood eschatologically.

¹²³ ἄρα οὖν; see the note on 5:18.

MSS Manuscripts

¹²⁴ Cf. Bruce, “it is precarious to rearrange the words of Paul in the interests of a smoother logical sequence.”

¹²⁵ He uses the emphatic αὐτὸς ἐγώ, which Parry explains as “I by myself and apart from any new or other power which may be available to change the balance of contending powers.” Hodge warns against putting too much stress on the expression as though it meant “I alone, without the aid of Christ”: “Paul had not been teaching what his unrenewed, unaided nature could accomplish, but what was the operation of the law, even on the renewed man.” Parry, it is true, does go on to speak of the situation under the law. It is the emphasis on αὐτὸς ἐγώ that is in question.

¹ But see Günther Bornkamm, Paul (London, 1971), p. 156.

^a 1 Some later manuscripts Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

^b 3 Or the flesh; also in verses 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13

^c 3 Or man, for sin

NEB The New English Bible

² χατάχριμα occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 5:16, 18; the corresponding verb χαταχρίνω is found 16 times. F. Buchsel points to the fact that with human judgment there is a distinction between condemnation and its execution (e.g., Mark 14:64), whereas with the divine judgment the two “can be seen as one.” This passage, he thinks, “refers not merely to the divine sentence but also to its actual results” (TDNT, III, pp. 951, 952). Deissmann points out that it is a rare word and argues that it means the punishment following sentence (Bible Studies [Edinburgh, 1901], pp. 264–65), as does MM.

³ οὐδέν is given special emphasis by its position at the head of the sentence and its separation from its noun. It signifies “ ‘not a single one’ of any kind” (Lenski). But this is not a blanket exemption, applying to all people. Paul is speaking of those who are in Christ Jesus (for this expression see on 6:11).

⁴ γάρ.

AS G. Abbott-Smith: A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1954)

⁵ Until now Paul has used πνεῦμα five times only, and some of these do not refer to the Holy Spirit. But in this chapter the term occurs 20 times, the most in any one chapter in the New Testament. By contrast the “I” which occurred more than 30 times in chapter 7 is almost absent from this chapter. Lenski says that the Holy Spirit and his work appears here for the first time in the letter, but this ignores 1:4; 5:5.

Haldane Robert Haldane: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1966 repr.)

⁶ The words ἐν Χριστῷ could be taken with ὁ νόμος or with τῆς ζωῆς, though to make this clear they should be preceded by ὁ or τῆς. The absence of either favors a link with ἠλευθέρωσεν. But this rule is not invariable in the New Testament, so either of the former two is possible.

⁷ σε is read by א B G some OL Tert etc., and με by A C² D K etc. ἡμᾶς has slight support (Ψ boh etc.), but it seems secondary, a way of making the words applicable to all (cf. v. 4). Barrett omits any object on the basis of “slight evidence (mainly from Origen)” and the fact that it is the harder reading. σε has the better attestation and is the harder reading, though it is objected that it could have arisen by the accidental repetition of the end of the preceding word.

⁸ It is an example of the use of the first or second person singular to represent any third person (BDF 281; cf. M, III, p. 39).

⁹ γάρ.

¹⁰ τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου seems to have no grammatical connections. There is difference of opinion as to whether it is nominative or accusative and whether we should take the verbal adjective as active, with the meaning “the inability of the law (was overcome)”, or passive, signifying “what was impossible for the law (was accomplished)”. In the end both possibilities of taking the words must be left open. Turner holds that the article τὸ ἀ. means “the one thing the Law could not do” (M, III, p. 13).

¹¹ ἐν ᾧ, “because” (Cranfield, BDF 219[2]). But it may be a relative, “in which”, i.e., denoting the point at which the law is weak (so Denney, Boylan).

¹² ἑαυτοῦ. Cf. ἰδίου, v. 32. Paul uses υἱός of Christ rather sparingly, there being only eight examples in Romans, three of which are in the opening.

¹³ ὁμοίωμα in Greek generally has the idea of a “copy” rather than the abstract notion of “likeness”, but its meaning in the New Testament is “likeness”. When used of Christ here and in Phil. 2:7, the idea is of being exactly like rather than a somewhat similar copy. J. Schneider says that in this passage the term “indicates two things, first the likeness in appearance, and secondly the distinction in essence” (TDNT, V, p. 196).

¹⁴ Barth speaks of “the likeness of sin-controlled flesh” and refers to Jesus’ “impenetrable incognito”. “Judged by the record of what He did and omitted to do, His sinlessness can be as easily denied as ours can, more easily, in fact, than can the sinlessness of those good and pure and pious people who move about in our midst…. The sinlessness of Jesus is guaranteed only by God….”

¹⁵ Cf. Olshausen, Paul is bringing forward “the affinity of Christ’s nature with ours; he is silent, therefore, on the difference between them.”

NIV New International Version

¹⁶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας.

LXX The Septuagint

¹⁷ T. C. G. Thornton argues that χαί should be taken as “even” and περὶ ἁμαρτίας as “on a charge of sinfulness” or “because of sin”, citing patristic support. Thus he gets the meaning, “condemned sin in the flesh, on the very grounds of its sinfulness” (JTS, N.S. XXII [1971], pp. 515–17). But this view has won little support and does not seem very probable.

¹⁸ ἵνα.

¹⁹ The word is διχαίωμα. Despite NIV it is singular. It signifies “regulation, requirement, commandment” (BAGD), and is often used in LXX for the requirements of the law. There, however, it is plural unless a single requirement is in mind. But Paul uses the term in a way that indicates not a series of different commandments, but one harmonious divine will.

²⁰ χατὰ σάρχα. BAGD class this use of χατά as “according to, in accordance with, in conformity with, corresponding to”.

²¹ “To live kata sarka is to accept the fact of the flesh as one’s sole horizon and criterion”(Robinson).

Lenski R. C. H. Lenski: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, n.d.)

²² γάρ. NIV omits another γάρ at the beginning of v. 6.

²³ Paul’s verb is φρονέω, a word that he uses often (23 times out of 26 in the New Testament). It derives from φρήν, “the midriff”, “the diaphragm”, regarded by the Greeks as “the seat of intellectual and spiritual activity” (G. Bertram, TDNT, IX, p. 220). Here BAGD understand the verb to mean “set one’s mind on, be intent on”.

²⁴ There is no participle ὄντες here, but it is clearly to be understood from the first clause.

²⁵ From the verb φρονέω to the cognate noun φρόνημα, which occurs in vv. 6, 7, and 27 only in the New Testament. It means the “mind” and is generally taken as equivalent to the expressions with the verb in the previous verse. Cranfield, however, objects, holding that it signifies the “outlook, assumptions, values, desires and purposes, which those who take the side of the flesh share”, and correspondingly with “the Spirit’s mind”.

RSV The Revised Standard Version

GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)

²⁶ Gifford speaks of “the holy calm breathed over the soul by the Holy Ghost pouring forth God’s love upon the heart.” Dodd sees “the condition of inward harmony when all elements of the personality are organized about a single centre, and division and conflict are at an end.” W. Foerster discerns an eschatological significance in the term; it is the equivalent of salvation and “is the state of final fulfilment, the normal state of the new creation” (TDNT, II, p. 414).

²⁷ διότι; see the note on 1:19. It means “on this account” and introduces an explanation of what precedes.

²⁸ Paul’s word is ἔχθρα, a strong term which must not be watered down.

²⁹ “All the meditations of the flesh are at war with the will of God, for the will of God can be sought only where He has revealed it”(Calvin).

³⁰ οἱ δέ.

³¹ In v. 5 he had οἱ χατὰ σάρχα ὄντες, in vv. 6 and 7 τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρχός, now οἱ ἐν σαρχὶ ὄντες. These are all ways of bringing out the attitude that Paul opposes, that of being bounded by the concerns of this life. He is not using ἐν σαρχί here in the way he uses it in 2 Cor. 10:3, where it refers to the life we all live in the body; there he contrasts it with χατὰ σάρχα.

³² W. Foerster points out that ἀρέσχω originally meant “to make peace with”, “to reconcile”, from which it comes to mean “to please”. He sees it here as denoting an attitude (TDNT, I, p. 455).

³³ ὑμεῖς δέ.

³⁴ James D. G. Dunn regards this as one of the passages where “σάρξ, as not only mortal but defective, disqualifying, and destructive, is set against the life-giving πνεῦμα” (JTS, N.S. XXIV [1973], p. 46).

³⁵ ἐν πνεύματι. BDF 219(4) note a fluctuation between the local and instrumental meanings of ἐν in this passage. Leenhardt sees ἐν here as instrumental, not locative; the Holy Spirit is not “a quasi-material atmosphere in which the believer had his being”. He sees a reference to “communion with God” and goes on, “The Spirit is at one and the same time the author of this communion, the essence of this communion, and the consummation of this communion.”

³⁶ See further C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 54–69. John has the thought of the mutual indwelling of believers in Christ (John 15:4) and in the Father (1 John 4:15), but Paul prefers to speak of our being “in Christ” and of the Spirit being in us.

³⁷ εἴπερ, “if indeed, if after all, since” (BAGD). JB translates “since” here, and Hendriksen “seeing that”.

³⁸ For οἰχέω see the note on 7:17.

SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)

³⁹ A number of commentators point out also that it is such expressions as “the Spirit of Christ” that justify the Western church in speaking of the Spirit as proceeding “from the Father and the Son” (whereas the Eastern church insists that he proceeds “from the Father” only). To have the Father strengthen us through the Spirit in the inner man is to have Christ dwell in us (Eph. 3:16–17). It is interesting that the letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2 and 3) all begin with some expression indicating that they come from Christ and end with an injunction to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

⁴⁰ Simeon gives three reasons for the expression “the Spirit of Christ”: the Spirit’s “peculiar agency in reference to Christ himself” (as in the conception, Luke 1:35; the coming of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism, etc.), “his subserviency to Christ in the economy of redemption”, and “its being his special office to glorify Christ.”

Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)

⁴¹ Cf. Käsemann, “The Pauline doctrine of the Spirit is constitutively shaped by the fact that the apostle, so far as we can see, is the first to relate it indissolubly to christology. In the Spirit the risen Lord manifests his presence and lordship on earth” (p. 213). This “risen Lord” is the same Lord Jesus who walked this earth.

⁴² Barth comments paradoxically that “Christ in us” is “both the place where we are deprived of our liberty and the place where we receive it”.

⁴³ Haldane comments that there are three deaths: “one is in this life, the other at the end of this life, and the third after this life.” Believers, he thinks, are delivered from the first and the third, but undergo the second.

⁴⁴ R. Bultmann sees a reference to “the divine pneuma, which has become the subject-self, so to say, of the Christian; the contrast of pneuma to soma (‘the soma of sin’) requires this understanding” (Theology of the New Testament, I [London], 1952, pp. 208–9).

Lagrange M.-J. Lagrange: Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains (Paris, 1922)

⁴⁵ Cf. SH, the expression “includes all the senses in which righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then imparted, then practised.” Denney says, “It is probably not real to distinguish here between ‘justification’ and ‘moral righteousness of life,’ and to say that the word means either to the exclusion of the other. The whole argument of chaps. vi.- viii. is that neither can exist without the other.”

⁴⁶ This is the sixth time since v. 8 that he has used δέ. This term is not a strong adversative, but it can set things over against one another. Throughout this section of the letter Paul is setting forth some important contrasts, here the contrast between life here and now and the eschatological consummation.

Way Arthur S. Way: The Letters of St. Paul (London, 1921)

⁴⁷ Bengel finds significance in the change from “Jesus” to “Christ”: “The name Jesus has respect to Himself; the name Christ has reference to us. The former appellation, as a proper name, belongs to the person; the latter, as an appellative, belongs to the office.”

⁴⁸ Bowen speaks of the present activity of the Spirit as assuring believers of the fulfilment of God’s promise. He illustrates this by referring to a young woman who looks at the engagement ring on her finger; the ring “which she has already received, ‘belongs’ to her marriage which has not yet taken place; and so the Spirit belongs to the new age which our bodies have not yet entered, but will enter in the future.”

⁴⁹ There is a textual problem here. τοῦ ἐνοιχοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος is read by א A C etc., and τὸ ἐνοιχοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα by B D etc. There seems no compelling reason for choosing either.

^a 15 Or adoption

^b 15 Aramaic for Father

⁵⁰ ὀφειλέται.

Bengel John Albert Bengel: Gnomon of the New Testament, II (Edinburgh, 1873)

⁵¹ τοῦ with the infinitive often means “in order that” (which Hodge sees as the meaning here). But in Paul this sense is often weakened, and this passage may be one in which there is “a very loose relationship between the substantive and the infinitive” and which “tend[s] toward the consecutive sense” (BDF 400[2]). Moulton regards it as epexegetic (M, I, p. 217). We should probably understand the present infinitive ζῆν to indicate the continuing attitude, the bent of the life.

Lloyd-Jones D. M. Lloyd-Jones: Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20–8:39, 6 vols. (London, 1970–75)

⁵² χατὰ σάρχα; see the note on 1:3.

⁵³ μέλλετε ἀποθνῄσχειν, μέλλετε here “denoting an action that necessarily follows a divine decree is destined, must, will certainly” (BAGD). Cf. Burton, 72.

CBSC The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

⁵⁴ θανατόω, “to put to death”, points to an activity on our part; we actively mortify the deeds of the body. There are passives of what is done to us in 7:4, 6, etc., but this is something we do, not something done to us.

⁵⁵ LSJ note its use in Polybius for “trickery, treachery”.

⁵⁶ SH take the words to refer to the human spirit, being impressed by the antithesis to σάρξ, but they add, “but it is the human πνεῦμα in direct contact with the Divine.” That is the point. Paul is not referring to an unaided human action, just as he is not speaking of a purely divine intervention.

⁵⁷ γάρ.

⁵⁸ ὅσοι; BAGD comment that even without πάντες it has the meaning “all that”.

JB The Jerusalem Bible

⁵⁹ πνεύματι looks like a dative of agent, but grammarians are reluctant to describe it that way. They prefer to see it as the dative of instrument (e.g., IBNTG, p. 44), which seems a curious way to view the Spirit of God. Perhaps this is no more than semantics, for Robertson says of the use of the dative, “no usage of this case is more common than that of means. With things we call it means, with persons agent, though more often the agent is expressed by ὑπό with genitive-ablative” (p. 532).

Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)

⁶⁰ BAGD nowhere include “drive” as a possible meaning for the verb ἄγω; it has this passage under “be led, allow oneself to be led”, which is a long way from “be driven”.

NASB The New American Standard Bible

⁶¹ γάρ.

NBCR The New Bible Commentary Revised, ed. D. Guthrie et al. (London, 1970)

TH Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)

⁶² BAGD say that πάλιν may be used in “expressions that denote a falling back into a previous state or a return to a previous activity.”

⁶³ ἀλλά, the strong adversative, has this force.

⁶⁴ Most involve people with a foreign background, such as Moses (Exod. 2:10) or Esther (Esth. 2:7). Provisions such as polygamy, the giving of a concubine to provide children, and levirate marriage took care of most situations. This probably accounts for the fact that there are no laws on adoption in the Old Testament and that even the word is lacking. Despite this, F. H. Palmer denies a Roman background to the New Testament concept, seeing only “Jewish custom, which conferred the benefits of the family on the adoptee” (IBD, I, p. 17).

⁶⁵ “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—Adoption”, JBL, LXXXVIII (1969), pp. 458–66. His conclusion is “that Paul’s use of the term ‘adoption’ in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians was a deliberate, considered, and appropriate reference to Roman law”(p. 466). In this process, “The adoptee is taken out of his previous state and is placed in a new relationship with his new paterfamilias. All his old debts are canceled, and in effect he starts a new life. From that time the paterfamilias owns all the property and acquisitions of the adoptee, controls his personal relationships, and has rights of discipline. On the other hand he is involved in liability by the actions of the adoptee and owes reciprocal duties of support and maintenance” (ibid.).

⁶⁶ W. von Martitz outlines Greek forms of adoption (TDNT, VIII, pp. 397–98). He says, “The continuity of the family and the family cultus was maintained by adoption…. The adopted son entered at once into the rights of the parent and undertook out of the assigned income to keep the testator and his family to the end of their lives” (p. 398).

⁶⁷ ἐν ᾧ may mean “by whom” or “in the time which” (TH). Most agree that “by whom” is the meaning, but some (e.g., Hunter) agree with RSV in putting a full stop after “sonship” and going on, “When we cry ‘Abba! Father!’ it is the Spirit himself bearing witness….” But it seems better to reject it (with Cranfield, Knox, and others). “By whom” is surely the meaning. SBk find no place in rabbinic literature in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned in connection with an Israelite’s prayer; this is a specifically Christian teaching.

Denney James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)

⁶⁸ Cf. Käsemann, “In it the congregation is uttering an ecstatic cry in response to the message of salvation” (p. 228). But he gives no satisfactory reason for understanding it this way.

⁶⁹ It is a vocative rather than the emphatic state (BAGD), the exact equivalent of ὁ πατήρ which follows.

⁷⁰ Cf. J. Jeremias: “In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus gives His disciples a share in this privilege to address God as abba, a share in His position as the only begotten. He empowers them to speak to their Heavenly Father literally as the small child speaks to his father, in the same confident and childlike manner. This one word abba, if it is understood in its full sense, comprehends the whole message of the gospel” (ET, LXXI [1959–60], p. 144). At the same time Paul’s use is not confined to the Lord’s Prayer or any other liturgical form. It is, as G. Schrenk puts it, “an experience of fundamental significance…. Paul views it as the working of the Spirit of adoption given in the heart” (TDNT, V, p. 1006).

⁷¹ TDNT, V, p. 985.

⁷² συμμαρτυρέω means strictly “bear witness along with another”, though in usage this is weakened to “agree” (cf. 2:15). But if we take it strictly in this place, we are saying “that the spiritual ego of the man in Christ already declares him to be a child of God”. This leads us to see the simple sense “bear witness” (H. Strathmann, TDNT, IV, p. 509).

⁷³ Turner points out that the original meaning of χαί, before it became merely a coordinating particle, was “also”, and cites this as an example (M, III, p. 335).

⁷⁴ The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1898), p. 35.

⁷⁵ εἴπερ does not introduce a doubt about what follows; it “is a rather emphatic term and implies that Paul assumes that his statement represents the circumstances as they do in fact exist” (TH). The verb συμπάσχομεν (used again in the New Testament only in 1 Cor. 12:26) lacks a complement, but there is no doubt that we should supply “with him”, not “with one another”. The same is true of συνδοξασθῶμεν (used here only in the New Testament). Paul has nine different compounds with σύν in vv. 16–29; he is not writing about a religion of solitude.

⁷⁶ “The ἵνα indicates the necessary connection between our suffering with Christ, and our sharing in His glory”(Boylan).

Gore Charles Gore: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (London, I [1902]; II [1907])

⁷⁷ γάρ. See on 1:9 for NIV’s omission of this word. Dana and Mantey say that here and “in several succeeding verses it introduces reasons” (DM, p. 243). TH, however, sees not so much a “logical conclusion” as Paul “making a theological declaration in light of his own faith and hope.” It is possible, however, to recognize the theological importance of these words without missing the logical connection.

⁷⁸ The word is λογίζομαι, of which Boylan says, “it indicates certain knowledge”.

⁷⁹ τοῦ νῦν χαιροῦ.

⁸⁰ ἄξιος is connected with ἄγω. W. Foerster says of it, “Properly, ‘bringing up the other beam of the scales,” “bringing into equilibrium,” and therefore “equivalent” (TDNT, I, p. 379; cf. GT).

⁸¹ BDF note this use of πρός with the accusative as “ ‘In comparison with’ (classical)” (239 [8]). It is not common in the New Testament.

⁸² His expression is τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποχαλυφθῆναι. BAGD include μέλλω here under “be on the point of”, but it seems rather to belong to their classification “be destined, inevitable (acc. to God’s will) ἀποχαλυφθῆναι that is destined to be revealed Gal 3:23.” Moule draws attention to the unusual word order and notes a similar order with the same two verbs in Gal. 3:23; he wonders whether there is “any other evidence in χοινή Greek for μέλλω exercising a disturbing influence” (IBNTG, pp. 169–70). Turner points out that, whereas μέλλω takes the future infinitive in classical Greek, in the New Testament it has the present 84 times and the aorist only five times (as here). Paul’s construction is unusual, but there is no problem with his meaning.

⁸³ Paul uses the verb ἀποχαλύπτω in half its New Testament occurrences (13 out of 26). He is very interested in revelation.

⁸⁴ εἰς (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–4). NEB sees it as meaning “for us”, NASB as “to us”; cf. Godet, “at once for us and in us”.

⁸⁵ ἀποχαραδοχία appears to derive from χάρα, “head”, and Ionic δέχομαι, “perhaps origin. ‘to stretch’ ”, thus “stretching the head forward” (G. Delling, TDNT, I, p. 393; Delling says, “There are no instances of the term except in Christian literature”). The ἀπό may be intensive, or have the thought of stretching the head “away from” the body. Paul uses the word again in Phil. 1:20. Wilckens speaks of creation as “in eager longing” for the future revelation (he sees the idea of eager, anxious waiting in the corresponding verb as well).

⁸⁶ χτίσις, which may refer to the activity of creating or to what is created; clearly it is the latter meaning here.

⁸⁷ Many scholars apparently find the idea of a cosmic fall difficult and opt for a view which in confined in one way or another to mankind. Thus Leenhardt sees the meaning as “the world in so far as it is distinct from the church”, while John G. Gager cites approvingly H. Hommel’s view that in Paul the “primary reference has become the nonbelieving, human world” (JBL, LXXXIX [1970], p. 329). Käsemann similarly holds that “There can be no doubt that non-Christians are included” (p. 233). Manson finds a problem in seeing how the material world can “obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” and settles for “mankind”.

⁸⁸ ἀπεχδέχεται is a double compound with the meaning “await eagerly” (BAGD). W. Grundmann sees “a distinctive Pauline usage” in its use for the “expectation of the end” (TDNT, II, p. 56).

⁸⁹ ἀποχάλυψις points to an uncovering, a revealing. It may be used of the second coming (1 Cor. 1:7)

⁹⁰ The word ματαιότης is found three times only in the New Testament, but 37 times in LXX of Ecclesiastes. Its meaning is “emptiness, futility, purposelessness, transitoriness” (BAGD). In LXX it usually translates הבל, which Brown, Driver, and Briggs define as “vapour, breath,” and go on to say is used “fig. of what is evanescent, unsubstantial, worthless”. μάταιος is the very opposite of τέλειος.

⁹¹ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα. BDF regard this use of διά as classical (222). BAGD include this under the heading “to denote the efficient cause” and translate it with “by”. NIV has inserted the will; it is absent from the Greek.

Robinson John A. T. Robinson: Wrestling with Romans (London, 1979)

O’Neill J. C. O’Neill: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975)

Godet F. Godet: Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1895)

⁹² Cf. Cranfield, “And, if the question is asked, ‘What sense can there be in saying that the sub-human creation—the Jungfrau, for example, or the Matterhorn, or the planet Venus—suffers frustration by being prevented from properly fulfilling the purpose of its existence?’, the answer must surely be that the whole magnificent theatre of the universe, together with all its splendid properties and all the varied chorus of sub-human life, created for God’s glory, is cheated of its true fulfilment so long as man, the chief actor in the great drama of God’s praise, fails to contribute his rational part” (Reconciliation and Hope, ed. Robert Banks [Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1974], p. 227).

⁹³ Unless we accept the reading διότι with א D* G etc; ὅτι is the reading of P⁴⁶ A B C etc. and is probably to be preferred. διότι means “because”, not “that”.

⁹⁴ The genitive is a genitive of quality (M, III, p. 213); Moule points out that it is not a Semitic construction with the meaning “corrupting bondage” (IBNTG, p. 175). “Corruption” may be used with an ethical meaning, but here physical corruption more likely is meant. Death and decay set their mark on all creation (cf. Col. 2:22)

⁹⁵ Cf. SH, “δόξα, ‘the glorified state,’ is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact”.

⁹⁶ For the dignity of creation, cf. Cranfield, “If the sub-human creation is part of God’s creation, if to it also he is faithful, and if he is going to bring it also (as well as believing men) to a goal which is worthy of himself, then it too has a dignity of its own and an inalienable, since divinely-appointed, right to be treated by us with reverence and sensitiveness” (Reconciliation and Hope, pp. 229–30).

⁹⁷ συστενάζει χαὶ συνωδίνει. It is agreed that we should not understand the σύν as meaning “with Christ” or “with believers”; rather, it means “with one another”, “together”; “in all its parts” (as NEB). Both verbs are found here only in the New Testament.

Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation

⁹⁸ οὐ μόνον δέ, “But not only—”, lacks a modifier. But there is no difficulty in understanding “creation” from the preceding expression. δέ will have adversative force, which is strengthened by the following ἀλλά: not only creation, but also believers!

⁹⁹ There is textual uncertainty, but χαὶ αὐτοί seems to be repeated and the emphatic ἡμεῖς is read by important MSS. Paul is clearly emphasizing the truth that none less than believers join in the groaning.

¹⁰⁰ ἀπαρχή is found in Paul in seven of its nine New Testament occurrences.

¹⁰¹ The genitive τοῦ πνεύματος is seen by some as partitive, by others as in apposition. The consideration that it is hard to think of us as having some of the Spirit leads us to see it as apposition. But it would be possible to see the work of the Spirit in us now as partial, a foretaste of the greater things he will do later.

¹⁰² ἐν ἑαυτοῖς points to what is deep-seated within us and is not to be understood as “among ourselves”. Turner draws attention to the use of the third person reflexive in place of second or first, as in LXX “and illiterate papyri” (M, III, p. 42).

¹⁰³ This is a further example of the use of the singular, σῶμα, of something that is true of each member of a group—a Semitic use, as Turner points out (M, III, p. 24).

¹⁰⁴ τῇ ἐλπίδι. The article probably signifies “the hope in question”, “the hope just mentioned”, which is the justification for NIV’s this hope.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. F. J. A. Hort, “a faith without hope, without a glad outlook into the future, would not be such a faith as the Gospel inspired” (The First Epistle of St Peter [London, 1898], p. 86). Cf. also B. F. Westcott, “Faith reposes completely in the love of God: Hope vividly anticipates that God will fulfil His promises in a particular way” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [London, 1892], p. 323).

¹⁰⁶ There are textual variants at the end of this verse, turning on τίς, τί. But there is no real difference in meaning. Again, while some MSS read ὑπομένει there seems little doubt that we should read ἐλπίζει (see Metzger).

¹⁰⁷ ὑπομονή.

¹⁰⁸ TDNT, II, p. 56.

^a 26 Or how

¹⁰⁹ ὡσαύτως (here only in Romans, but eight times in Paul out of 17 in the New Testament). It points to a correspondence. It is possible to take this in the sense, “Just as hope sustains them, so also does the Spirit”. But as the Spirit is at work in the time of hope, it is better to see the meaning as joining one work of the Spirit to another. δέ may, as Lenski thinks, indicate that what is added is of a somewhat different nature.

¹¹⁰ συναντιλαμβάνομαι is found again in the New Testament only in Luke 10:40. Robertson brings out the meaning of the picturesque double compound: “The Holy Spirit lays hold of our weakness along with (σύν) us and carries his part of the burden facing us (ἀντί) as if two men were carrying a log, one at each end” (p. 573). We should, however, not press this, for Paul speaks of a divine work, not of one half-divine and half-human.

MSS Manuscripts

¹¹¹ Paul’s τό turns the following into the equivalent of a noun and the object of οἴδαμεν. Moule thinks that this “may have been a sheer idiosyncrasy of Paul’s” (IBNTG, p. 111), but this scarcely takes notice of Gifford’s point that the construction is found ten times in Luke and five times in Paul. Turner finds no significant difference in meaning (M, III, p. 182).

¹¹² “How”would surely require πῶς.

¹¹³ Bowen aptly quotes John Bunyan: “I find that my heart is slow to go to God; and when it does go to Him it does not seem to want to stay with Him; so that very often I am forced in my prayers, first to beg of God that He would take my heart and set it on Himself, and then when it is there, that He would keep it there.”

¹¹⁴ He says χαθὸ δεῖ, “according to what is necessary” (Chamberlain, p. 175). Michel thinks this should be connected with χατὰ θεόν in v. 27. So Leenhardt, “we must pray according to the will of God”.

¹¹⁵ The strong adversative ἀλλά introduces the activity of the Spirit in contrast to our weakness.

¹¹⁶ Another double compound, ὑπερεντυγχάνω, found only here in the New Testament and not attested anywhere before this. ἐντυγχάνω has the meaning “meet, turn to, approach, appeal, petition” (BAGD), which readily yields the idea of intercession. The preposition ὑπέρ is used to give the thought of petition “on behalf of” (just as χατά that of “against”, as in 11:2).

Olshausen Hermann Olshausen: Studies in the Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, 1983 repr. of 1849 edn.)

¹¹⁷ ἀλάλητος. Lloyd-Jones says, “The phrase means ‘without words’, ‘not formulated in words’ ” (p. 134). He points out that the word is different from that in 2 Cor. 9:15; 12:4. But this is not decisive, and many see the word as “unutterable” (Denney, Shedd, Lenski, etc.).

¹¹⁸ Interpretation, XXXIV (1980), p. 291.

Hendriksen William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, I [1980]; II [1981])

^118a E. A. Obeng points to the Jewish idea that heavenly intercessors are specially effective, and to the fact that Jesus is seen by Christians as a heavenly intercessor. He holds that Paul’s teaching on the Spirit’s intercession is to be understood in the light of such teaching (NTS, 32 [1986], pp. 621–32)

¹¹⁹ Such a view seems to be supported by Hunter, “The ‘sighs’ are no doubt those uttered at church meetings under stress of deep religious emotion”. Cf. G. Delling, “Here the pneuma is not thought of as tertia persona but as having become one with man. It has entered into union with the human χαρδία and there fashions prayers which cannot be grasped by the human understanding and are not immediately adequate before God, but must first be searched out by Him. This pneumatic prayer is a charismatic dealing with God like speaking with tongues, whether with or without the corresponding forms” (TDNT, I, p. 376). Althaus also favors a charismatic reference.

Cranfield C. E. B. Cranfield: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, I [1975]; II [1979])

¹²⁰ Leenhardt sees encouragement for the humble believer: “let him look to God instead of regretting that he is not a virtuoso of prayer like the Pharisee of Lk. 18:10”; again, Jesus warned “against pious chatter”. To know that the Spirit makes intercession through even our groanings is to be delivered from bondage to human achievement in prayer.

¹²¹ Godet thinks that δέ here means “but”; it “contrasts the knowledge of God, which thoroughly understands the object of this groaning, with the ignorance of the heart from which it proceeds.”

¹²² The verb ἐραυνάω is mostly used of human searching. But it is used of the glorious Christ’s searching of the kidneys and the hearts (Rev. 2:23) and of the Holy Spirit’s search of “all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10).

¹²³ ὅτι.

¹²⁴ The simple ἐντυγχάνω scarcely differs in meaning from the compound in v. 26, especially since it is followed by ὑπέρ.

¹²⁵ χατὰ θεόν does not mention the “will”, but it is generally agreed that some such translation as that of NIV is correct (so SH; IBNTG, p. 59).

^a Some manuscripts And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God

¹²⁶ δέ may mean “and” or “but”.

¹²⁷ A useful note accepting this view is found in W. L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939), p. 105 n. 2.

¹²⁸ ὁ θεός is read by P⁴⁶ A B 81 sah etc. This is impressive support, but it is not easy to see how the words could have been omitted by so many MSS, whereas they are the kind of explanation that a scribe may well have inserted.

¹²⁹ The verb συνεργέω is intransitive and means “to work together with”; we would take it here to mean “God works together with all things….” But God is sovereign, not a partner, working “with” the things he has made. It helps to view the verb as an example of the process whereby some intransitive verbs were beginning to take a direct object in Hellenistic times (M, I, p. 65; BDF 148[1]). But Godet points out that there are no examples of the use of this verb in the sense “makes things work together”. Perhaps it is better to see the accusative as an “accusative of respect” meaning “in all things”.

¹³⁰ It is argued by James P. Wilson in his article “Romans viii.28: Text and Interpretation” (ET, LX [1948–49], pp. 110–11). The view is adopted (not necessarily in the same form) by NBCR, Robinson, and others.

¹³¹ Cf. G. Bertram, “God must be supplied as the subject of συνεργεῖ.… God is a helper for good in all things. He turns all for good for the righteous” (TDNT, VII, p. 875). In an excellent discussion of the subject Carroll D. Osborn comes to much the same conclusion; see “The Interpretation of Romans 8:28” (WTJ, XLIV [1982], pp. 99–109).

Dodd C. H. Dodd: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1944)

¹³² Cf. Nygren, “one cannot point out a single place in his writings where the noun ‘love,’ ἀγάπη, clearly means love to God”.

¹³³ τοῖς... οὖσιν; the participle is used in such contexts only when there are further defining words in the clause (M, III, p. 151; BDF 413[3]).

¹³⁴ Cf. C. Maurer, “Paul adopts πρόθεσις in a wholly new sense when he uses it for the primal decision of God whereby the saving event in Christ and the resultant way of the community to eschatological glorifying are established and set in motion.” Here the words “are not a lame appendix but point to the sustaining ground of the hope of the community” (TDNT, VIII, p. 166).

¹³⁵ ὅτι is perhaps explicatory or introduces a reason: we know that God works all for good for us, for….

¹³⁶ προγινώσχω is found twice in Romans, the only Pauline writing that has the word.

¹³⁷ To avoid this a number of suggestions are made: “whom he foreloved” (Murray); “already chosen” (GNB); “foreknown as His by faith” (Godet).

¹³⁸ προορίζω means “set the boundary (ὅρος) beforehand” and clearly points to what we mean by predestination.

¹³⁹ σύμμορφος. In the New Testament it is found again only in Phil. 3:21, where it is followed by the dative. The genitive here is “ablatival” (M, III, p. 215); it means “taking part” etc., here “participating in the form of his image” (BDF 182[1]). And, of course, Christ is in the μορφή of God (Phil. 2:6).

¹⁴⁰ εἰχών may denote a literal image or likeness (like the head of the Emperor on a coin), or more generally may mean the form or appearance. Christ is the εἰχὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) where “all the emphasis is on the equality of the εἰχών with the original” (G. Kittel, TDNT, II, p. 395).

¹⁴¹ εἰς τό with the infinitive surely denotes purpose (MT, 409). Note the dignity of the church; the church is in God’s foreordaining plan “in order that Christ might be the firstborn”.

¹⁴² J. B. Lightfoot has an important note on πρωτότοχος in St Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London, 1876), pp. 146–50.

¹⁴³ G. Kittel reminds us that this has eschatological consequences: “Like all the gifts in which Christians share, the εἰχών is an ἀπαρχή.… This means that it now is, and yet that it is still to be. It is enjoyed, but not yet enjoyed. Its eschatology is even now at work, and its presence has an eschatological basis” (TDNT, II, p. 397).

¹⁴⁴ Cf. Denney, “the tense in the last word is amazing. It is the most daring anticipation of faith that even the N.T. contains”. Nygren cites Zahn for glory as “a renewing of life effected by the reception of the Spirit”; he rejects any idea that Paul is writing “as if” the glory had come: “He speaks of a reality which both has come and is to come.”

^a 36 Psalm 44:22

^b 38 Or nor heavenly rulers

¹⁴⁵ οὖν; NIV, “then”.

¹⁴⁶ πρὸς ταῦτα is perhaps unexpected. Moule thinks πρός is used in the transferred sense of “tending towards, leading to, concerning, against, in view of”; thus “what then shall we say in view of this?” (IBNTG, p. 53).

BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)

¹⁴⁷ The grammarians have a good deal to say about the unusual use of γε with the relative pronoun. BDF point out that it is nearly always used with another conjunction and often becomes “a meaningless appendage”; here without another particle it means “he who” (439 [3]). Turner agrees that it can become a meaningless appendage, but it can also lend emphasis to another word (M, III, p. 331). Lagrange sees a reference to “the same God who…” (cf. Cranfield, Barclay, etc). A. W. Argyle holds that we have here a “clear instance of the causal usage of the relative pronoun in the occurrence of hos ge”, and he translates, “seeing that he spared not…” (JTS, N.S. IV [1953], pp. 214–15).

¹⁴⁸ The same verb φείδομαι is used here and in Gen. 22:16. Jewish thinking paid a good deal of attention to this incident. The rabbis were clear that Isaac was not a small boy but a husky youth and that the aged Abraham could not have bound him on the altar had he resisted. So they made much of the “Binding of Isaac”. H. J. Schoeps thinks that this was in Paul’s mind (Paul [London, 1961], pp. 141–49). But, of course, in Jewish thinking it was important that the sacrifice was not completed, in Paul’s that it was.

¹⁴⁹ ἰδίου distinguishes Christ’s sonship from ours. The same adjective is used of Jesus making God “his own Father” (John 5:18).

¹⁵⁰ Murray cites Octavius Winslow: “Who delivered up Jesus to die? Not Judas, for money; not Pilate, for fear; not the Jews, for envy;—but the Father, for love!” This is a moving statement and expresses an important truth, but it is worth bearing in mind that the verb used here is used also of Judas delivering up Jesus (John 18:5), of the chief priests and elders (Matt. 27:2), of the people of Jerusalem (Acts 3:13), and of Pilate (Mark 15:15). More importantly, we had a part in it, for Jesus was delivered up for our transgressions (Rom. 4:25). God of course gave him up, and in possibly the most moving statement of all Jesus gave himself up (Gal. 2:20).

¹⁵¹ For is ὑπέρ, which Shedd says “is equivalent to ἀντί, by reason of its connection with παρέδωχεν”(for this preposition see my note in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross³ [London, 1965], pp. 62–64). It certainly can mean “in the stead of”, and that seems to be its meaning here. Cf. Lenski, “Substitution is included because only by being delivered up ‘in our stead’ could the Son have been delivered up ‘in our behalf.’ Remove substitution, and nothing of saving value ‘in our behalf’ is left.”

¹⁵² πῶς οὐχί makes for an awkward question. Either could have been used on its own, but the combination is strange; οὐχί is necessary for the sense; it is πῶς that is the problem. BAGD consider it under the heading “in rhetorical questions that call an assumption into question or reject it altogether how (could or should)? = by no means, it is impossible that”. But accompanied by οὐχί “the ‘impossible’ becomes most surely, most certainly”. Cf. 2 Cor. 3:8. Moffatt translates here, “surely He will give us everything besides!”

¹⁵³ The verb is χαρίζομαι, and we should not miss the connection with “grace”. It is sometimes used in the sense “forgive”, but it is difficult to find that meaning here, especially since what we are given we are given “with” Christ.

¹⁵⁴ ἐγχαλέω is the legal technical term for presenting an accusation in a law court (BAGD; cf. Acts 19:38; 23:28–29).

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Leenhardt, “The term articulated the sentiments of pride fostered by religious nationalism. Perhaps the apostle tended to avoid it for this reason.”

¹⁵⁶ There is some emphasis on θεός from its being adjacent to θεοῦ; God will surely justify his own! Cf. GNB, “God himself declares them not guilty!”

¹⁵⁷ The legal term διχαιῶν answers the legal term ἐγχαλέσει. This incidentally is the last occurrence of διχαιόω in this epistle, a verb which has been so prominent in the argument.

¹⁵⁸ Dodd thinks a “sense of sin” a hindrance. He does not distinguish between a religiously healthy recognition of one’s shortcomings and that morbid dwelling on one’s inadequacies which, as he says, “daunts our courage, saps our confidence, and frustrates our effort.” He goes on, “What is the cure for it? Not to repress it, or to sophisticate ourselves out of it. The only cure is ‘justification by faith’—the faith that the infinite love of God in Christ takes charge of our whole life, sins and all.” This conclusion makes a valuable point. When God justifies us, we have nothing to fear.

¹⁵⁹ There is considerable support for the view that we should accent χαταχρινῶν, in which case it is a future: “Who shall condemn?” (Moffatt; cf. BDF 351[2]). It is possible to accent it as χαταχρίνων, making the tense present, and it could be argued that this brings it into line with διχαιῶν. But the future corresponds to ἐγχαλέσει. The future should be accepted.

¹⁶⁰ It is possible, however, to see the participle as having middle force and understand it as “rose” (cf. JB, Moffatt).

¹⁶¹ Hand is omitted, but this is usual (M, III, p. 17). In the New Testament it is usual to have the singular with ἐν and the plural with ἐχ, but there appears to be no difference in meaning.

¹⁶² In some modern writing great emphasis is placed on Christ’s perpetual pleading in heaven. We should bear in mind B. F. Westcott’s note in which he says: “The modern conception of Christ pleading in heaven His Passion, ‘offering His blood,’ on behalf of men, has no foundation in the Epistle (i.e. Hebrews). His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His Presence on the Father’s Throne” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [London, 1892], p. 230).

¹⁶³ Paul uses the verb χωρίζω again in Romans only in v. 39. It signifies “to make a space (χώρα)” and so “to separate”.

¹⁶⁴ Though for different reasons. Thus Boylan looks outward and says, “There are many things, it is true, that might interfere with our love for Christ”, while Haldane looks inward and holds that “A person could not be said to be separated from his own feelings.” They agree that Paul cannot be saying, “Who shall separate Christ from our love?” but must mean, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”

¹⁶⁵ θλῖψις means “pressing”, “pressure” (BAGD); it is used, e.g., of the treading of grapes, the pressure that bursts.

¹⁶⁶ στενοχωρία, from στενός, “narrow”, and χῶρος, “space”, means “straits” and thus “difficulties”. Paul is the only New Testament writer to use it (four times).

Goodspeed Edgar J. Goodspeed: The New Testament: An American Translation (Chicago, 1923)

¹⁶⁷ χίνδυνος means peril of any sort. In the New Testament it used by Paul only (nine times, eight of them in 2 Cor. 11:26).

¹⁶⁸ Käsemann’s preoccupation with apocalyptic comes out in his comment at the end of this list: “Like all that God does, the love of Christ also manifests itself in time under its opposite. Apocalyptic alone can express this and preserve us from the usual edifying interpretation of the text” (p. 250). But Paul is surely referring to real and actual experiences of himself and other Christians, not indulging in apocalyptic speculation.

¹⁶⁹ BDF 157[5] sees ὡς + accusative as used for the predicate accusative and equivalent to the Hebrew ךְּ.

¹⁷⁰ πρόβατα σφαγῆς will be sheep destined for slaughter (cf. Zech. 11:4–7); Shedd comments, “not the sacrificial slaughter … but that of the market. The Roman regarded the Christian as a cheap and common victim.”

¹⁷¹ The strong adversative ἀλλά.

¹⁷² ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν is not what might have been expected. Moule thinks that it means “perhaps in the midst, or in spite, of all these things” (IBNTG, p. 78), while Turner says that it is one of a group that “elude classification” and here may mean “with regard to” (M, III, p. 265). Bruce sees “possibly a Hebraism, meaning ‘despite all these things’, ‘for all that’ ”.

¹⁷³ Brunner regards ὑπερνιχῶμεν as untranslatable but tries with we are “excessively victorious”. W. B. J. Martin says, “Hate can make a man a conqueror, can fill him with furious energy, but only love can make him more-than-conqueror” (ET, LXXXIV [1972–73], p. 276). J. G. McKenzie brings out another aspect of Paul’s meaning with “The true Christian way of living, the true Christian joy in living, comes to us not in spite of tribulation, disappointment, or even sin, but because of them…. We have something left over when life and death have done their worst” (ET, LXXI [1959–60], 319).

Shedd William G. T. Shedd: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980 repr. of 1879 edn.)

Murray John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and 1965)

¹⁷⁴ πέπεισμαι. Brown regards this as “not a matter of opinion, but of assured fact” (p. 275).

¹⁷⁵ Each item in the list is introduced with οὔτε, which is thus repeated ten times in this sequence; it is a way of continuing a negative. Paul uses it 33 times, but this sequence is the only place where it occurs in Romans.

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)

¹⁷⁶ ἀρχαί.

¹⁷⁷ δυνάμεις. There is nothing in the Greek to correspond to NIV’s any.

¹⁷⁸ Leenhardt has another suggestion, “Perhaps the forces of nature which form the physical framework of the Christian life?” But this does not seem probable.

¹⁷⁹ ὕψωμα was a technical term in astronomy for the space above the horizon, and of course βάθος was the opposite. The former is used in 2 Cor. 10:5 of every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and nowhere else in the New Testament. The latter is used eight times, but mostly in the sense “depth”. MM cite ὕψωμα from a horoscope of A.D. 138 referring to the height (and exaltation) of Ἡλ(ίου). BAGD say of both terms, “since they are said to be creatures and the context speaks apparently only of supernatural forces, are prob. astral spirits; they are both astronomical t.t. and β. means the celestial space below the horizon fr. which the stars arise”.

¹⁸⁰ The use of ἑτέρα rather than ἄλλη may signify “any other kind of creature” (cf. SH, “ ‘any other mode of being,’ besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world as we see it”). But this cannot be insisted on.

¹⁸¹ BDF 269(2) see the article repeated “for emphasis”. Of the whole expression Parry says, “The full phrase sums up the whole argument from i.16” (CGT), which is in strong contrast to TH, which holds that it “conveys little, if any, meaning to the English reader in this form”. This is an idiosyncratic opinion and more commentators will be found agreeing with Käsemann: “the conclusion, which emphatically at the end of v. 39 again refers to true salvation in liturgical predication of Christ, provides us not only with a summary of the preceding chapter but also with the sum of Paul’s theology” (p. 252).

¹⁸² It is often said that “Paul is no theologian” or the like. Dodd comments on such views: “no one can go honestly through the labour of following the strong and coherent, though complicated, thread of argument, from Rom. i.17 to viii.39, without knowing that he is in the presence of a first-rate thinker, as well as a man of the deepest religious insight.”

¹ Foreman holds that Paul is “thinking out loud as it were” at this point and that he gives no less than eight different answers to his problem. This is perhaps unnecessarily sceptical, but the passage certainly is far from easy, and nothing approaching agreement has been reached.

² Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 4. He also says chs. 9–11 are “the climax of the letter” (p. 85), “The real center of gravity” (p. 28).

³ Romans 8:17–39,  p. 367.

Leenhardt Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)

⁴ We seem to need something like Manson’s understanding: “The first eleven chapters are devoted to a full-dress debate on the question which lay at the root of most of the troubles of the Ephesian ministry, the question, Can one be a good Christian without embracing Judaism? To this Paul’s answer is that the real question, and the only question for Jews, is, Can one be a good Jew without embracing Christianity?” (‍Donfried‍, p. 2).

⁵ Barrett sees a much closer connection between chs. 1–8 and 9–11 than is sometimes maintained. The first part “is concerned with the character and deeds of God who is the source of salvation”, and chs. 9–11 with “the character and deeds of God who elected the Jews and now calls the Gentiles.” James P. Martin sees a sense in which chs. 9–11 “recapitulate the argument” of chs. 1–8: “God has consigned all men to disobedience in order that he may have mercy upon all” (Interpretation, XXV [1971], p. 308).

⁶ ‍NTS‍, 28 (1982), p. 418.

⁷ G. B. Caird points out that some have found a doctrine of double predestination in these chapters, some the view that Paul is talking about a free response to God’s grace, and some the doctrine of universalism. He thinks that Paul holds all three simultaneously (‍ET‍, LXVIII [1956–57], pp. 324–27).

⁸ Cf. ‍Gore‍, “the argument as a whole and its conclusion make it quite certain that what he is speaking of is the election of men in nations or churches (only subordinately of individuals) to a position of special spiritual privilege and responsibility in this world, such as the Jews had formerly occupied, and the Christians were occupying now.”

⁹ John Piper’s “exegetical and theological study of Romans 9:1–23” is significantly entitled The Justification of God (Grand Rapids, 1983). This section of the epistles is taken up with the divine sovereignty.

¹⁰ W. Gutbrod sees the issue here as “one which arises out of the character of the Jews as the people of God. Can the new community trust God’s Word when it seems to have failed the Jews (9:6)? The answer is complete only when it is given with reference to the Jews as Israel, because this is the name which implies that they are God’s people” (‍TDNT‍, III, p. 386).

^a 5 Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!

JB The Jerusalem Bible

¹¹ λύπη and ὀδύνη. The latter seems often to have been used of physical pain, and ‍SH‍ think it “never quite loses its physical associations” (Leenhardt is similar).

¹² Lenski remarks that the use of the dative means “my heart has” rather than “in my heart”. But the difference is small.

¹³ The imperfect ηὐχόμην without ἄν is what Moule calls the “Desiderative Imperfect, because it is chiefly used in expressing a wish”; he translates “I could almost pray to be accursed”, adding “the Imperfect softening the shock of the daring statement or expressing awe at the terrible thought” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 9). The verb means “to pray” as well as “to wish”, and some see here a past prayer of Paul’s. But this is very difficult to accept (when did he pray such a prayer?).

Harrison Everett F. Harrison: “Romans” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 10 (Grand Rapids, 1976)

¹⁴ αὐτὸς ἐγώ. It is nominative though going with the infinitive because the subject is the same as that of the main verb (see ‍M, I‍, p. 212).

¹⁵ From the idea of “laid up” (i.e., in a temple) ἀνάθεμα came to mean what is devoted to deity, and then either consecrated or, since what is thus given to deity is permanently lost to the giver and may be completely destroyed, accursed (see ‍BAGD‍). J. Behm says, “The controlling thought here is that of the delivering up to the judicial wrath of God of one who ought to be ἀνάθεμα because of his sin” (‍TDNT‍, I, p. 354). The word is a dialectal variant of ἀνάθημα and was used along with it in ‍LXX‍.

NIV New International Version

¹⁶ He uses the preposition ἀπό, which here clearly denotes separation, an unclassical use which denotes alienation (‍BDF‍ 211).

¹⁷ He uses ὑπέρ, but this is one of the places where it is hard to distinguish it from ἀντί. Cf. ‍IBNTG‍, p. 64.

¹⁸ W. Michaelis thinks that συγγενής “had now a primary Christian orientation for Paul” and that it is the addition “according to the flesh” that shows that he is referring to the Jews (‍TDNT‍, VII, p. 741).

¹⁹ The relative pronoun οἵτινες often scarcely differs from οἵ but is often the relative of quality, “who are of such quality as to”. Moule points out that here the distinction “certainly improves the sense and may have been intended” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 124; cf. also ‍M, I‍, pp. 91–92).

²⁰ The expression is linked to the previous one with χαί, which is used six times in this sequence. “The glory” without qualification is unusual and appears to be without parallel in the rabbinic literature (‍SBk‍, III, p. 262).

SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)

²¹ Some ‍MSS‍, such as P⁴⁶ B D^gr etc., have the singular, but it is generally agreed that the plural is the harder reading and is to be preferred.

²² See ‍SBk‍, III, p. 262.

²³ νομοθεσία has about it some of the ambiguity of our word “legislation”; it may denote the making of the laws or the body of the laws. The word is found only here in the New Testament.

²⁴ According to the Mishnah Simeon the Just used to say: “By three things is the world sustained: by the Law, by the (Temple-) service, and by deeds of loving-kindness” (Aboth 1:2).

²⁵ Paul is interested in the concept of “promise” and uses the term 26 times (52 in the New Testament).

²⁶ Cragg remarks about the failure of the Jews to recognize this: “It is disastrous to be blind, but to be blind to the crowning glory of one’s own heritage is a tragedy which words alone cannot convey.”

²⁷ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ χατὰ σάρχα, “where the addition of the art. strongly emphasizes the limitation (‘insofar as the physical is concerned’)” (‍BDF‍ 266[2]).

²⁸ This is illustrated by the fact that ‍SH‍ have a note on it covering more than five pages of small type.

²⁹ ‍SH‍ note a further grammatical point: “no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the N.T., of the participle ὤν being used with a prepositional phrase and the noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the substantive verb becomes unnecessary” (p. 236).

³⁰ Hodge says there is no known exception to this (so Denney and others). Lagrange says that this is true not only of the Bible but of Semitic inscriptions as well.

³¹ Among relevant passages we should notice Eph. 1:20–22; Col. 2:9; 2 Thess. 1:12; Tit. 1:3–4; 2:13. In some at least of these the argument against seeing Paul call Christ “God” is mainly that he does not do this elsewhere. How far can this argument be extended?

³² So difficult is the passage that some favor emending the text so as to read ὢν ὁ for ὁ ὤν, “theirs is the God….” But emendation should be resorted to only if we cannot get good sense out of the words as we have them. That is not the case here. There are many good discussions of the passage, but perhaps we should mention that of B. M. Metzger in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 95–112; Nigel Turner, ‍Grammatical Insights‍ into the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 13–17; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London, 1959), pp. 312–13; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), p. 137.

³³ Cf. H. Schlier, “This does not mean, however, the self-confirmation of the one who prays. It expresses the fact that in divine service prayer and doxology have their place before the people whose response they evoke or anticipate” (‍TDNT‍, I, p. 337).

^a 7 Gen. 21:12

^b 9 Gen. 18:10, 14

^c 12 Gen. 25:23

^d 13 Mal. 1:2, 3

³⁴ Cf. Scott, Paul was “facing, quite honestly, one of the mysterious facts of life, perhaps the most mysterious. Why is it that some men, for no fault of their own, are doomed from their very birth to misery, while others have all good things heaped on them without their asking? … Paul is a religious man, and cannot rest in the easy solution that life is all a lottery” (p. 57).

³⁵ οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι seems to be a mixture of two constructions, οὐχ οἷον and οὐχ ὅτι (‍BDF‍ 304; ‍M, III‍, p. 47, etc.). It is an unusual construction (‍SH‍ find it “unique”; and Olshausen says, “a precisely parallel idiom is nowhere found”). The meaning appears to be “it is not as though” rather than “It is impossible that” (‍NEB‍; Cranfield rejects this as a mistranslation). οἷος is a Pauline word (ten times out of 14 in the New Testament), but he uses it here only in Romans.

³⁶ His verb is ἐχπίπτω, “fall off, or from”. Figuratively it comes to mean “fail”, a meaning attested outside the Bible but not in ‍LXX‍ (‍TDNT‍, VI, p. 169), and found again in 1 Cor. 13:8.

³⁷ ἐχ is used of origin, and may be used of family, town, race, people, etc. (‍BAGD‍).

³⁸ “As the Puritan John Flavel put it, ‘If Abraham’s faith be not in your hearts, it will be no advantage that Abraham’s blood runs in your veins’ ”(cited in Wilson on v. 7).

Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)

³⁹ ‍Käsemann‍ points out that the problem was faced by others than Paul. The Qumran community had its own radical solution (they alone were the covenant people). “Paul does not adopt the Jewish answer, which could consist only in the demand for closer keeping of the Torah” (pp. 262–63).

⁴⁰ σπέρμα. It is used in 4:16, 18 of the true successors of Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:29), but here of physical descent (cf. 11:1), while the true descendants are τέχνα. In Gen. 21:12–13 σπέρμα is used in both senses.

⁴¹ πάντες τέχνα will refer to children of Abraham, not, as some suggest, to children of God.

⁴² NIV’s translation of ἀλλʼ, the strong adversative.

⁴³ Cf. ‍Calvin‍, “Since it was the will of the Lord that His covenant should be sealed, as much in Ishmael and Esau as in Isaac and Jacob, it appears that they were not altogether estranged from Him, unless perhaps one disregards the circumcision, which was communicated to them by God’s command” (on v. 6)

⁴⁴ χληθήσεται.

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)

⁴⁵ τοῦτʼ ἔστιν.

⁴⁶ Cf. Chrysostom, “In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise.”

⁴⁷ The verb λογίζομαι is a favorite word of Paul’s (see on 2:3). It brings out the point that there is no absolute reason for including them. But in his sovereign freedom God chooses to reckon them as the “seed”. Howard considers λογίζομαι εἰς σπέρμα a Semitism (‍M, II‍, p. 463).

⁴⁸ χατά can have a variety of meanings, but there seems little doubt that “at” is correct here.

⁴⁹ ‍NEB‍ has “At the time fixed”, and ‍JB‍ “at such and such a time”, where the former apparently sees a fixed time and the latter an indeterminate one.

⁵⁰ οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλά is an elliptical construction which Paul uses from time to time (as 5:3, 11; 8:23; 2 Cor. 8:19), but only here “are the words to be supplied not definitely given in the context” (‍BDF‍ 479[1]).

⁵¹ Ῥεβέχχα has no grammatical connection. Paul seems to have begun a parenthesis and not returned to his original construction. Or perhaps, “not only Sarah received a promise, but Rebecca also”.

⁵² χοίτη meant “bed”, then “marriage bed” and thus “intercourse”, and finally “seminal emission” (see ‍BAGD‍). It signifies here “having seed from one”.

⁵³ μήπω is rare (only in Heb. 9:8 in the New Testament), but ‍MM‍ cite it in the papyri. It means “not yet”. γεννηθέντων is a genitive absolute but without the subject being expressed.

⁵⁴ Cf. Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., “Lineage cannot guarantee election; nor does election presuppose righteousness; but God’s election is, rather, a free act of mercy. If either lineal descent or ethical performance could guarantee election, then God’s choice would not be free and would not be an act of mercy” (Adopted in Love [New York, 1978], p. 81).

⁵⁵ This is involved in the telic ἵνα, which is dependent on the later ἐρρέθη (see ‍BDF‍ 478 for moving a final clause forward). ‍SH‍ comment on Paul’s use of πρόθεσις where βουλή was the normal term for “purpose”: “no previous instance of the word πρόθεσις in this sense seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by the Apostle with greater force and originality than by any previous writer, and hence he needs a new word to express it.” Cf. C. Maurer, cited in the note on 8:28.

⁵⁶ This is Paul’s first use of ἐχλογή in Romans; he will use it four times in this letter and five times in all (out of seven times in the New Testament). G. Schrenk sees the word here as denoting the “electing divine will” and as referring “not to salvation, but to position and historical task”; the word “lays emphasis on the free decision of God” (‍TDNT‍, IV, p. 179).

⁵⁷ The verb is μένω, which is not nearly as common in Paul as in John (17 times; John has it 40 times and the Johannine epistles 27). It is the opposite of ἐχπέπτωχεν in v. 6.

⁵⁸ οὐχ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλʼ ἐχ τοῦ χαλοῦντος.

⁵⁹ An exact quotation from Gen. 25:23 ‍LXX‍, which is an exact translation of the Hebrew. The use of “greater” and “less” for “older” and “younger” is more common in Hebrew than in Greek generally, but Cranfield shows that it is found in Greek writers.

⁶⁰ The aorists in the two verbs seem to refer to the act of choice in the womb.

⁶¹ This is the only passage in the New Testament where God is said to hate any person. He hates the deeds of evildoers (cf. Rev. 2:6), but that is quite another matter. In the Old Testament God is more often said to hate, but mostly this means that he hates evil things (Deut. 12:31; Prov. 6:16, etc.), especially idolatrous practices (Jer. 44:4; Amos 5:21, etc.). A few times he is said to hate people, but, apart from the Malachi passage, this seems to refer to “bloodthirsty and deceitful men” (Ps. 5:6) and the like (cf. Ps. 11:5; Jer. 12:8). It cannot be said that hate is at all characteristic of God. Some commentators, however, view God as having “a holy hatred” of evil people. Thus ‍Murray‍ says that the present passage “is not satisfactorily interpreted as meaning simply ‘not loved’ or ‘loved less’ but in the sense that an attitude of positive disfavour is expressed thereby” (p. 23). Wilson says, “Both were hateful on account of Adam’s sin, so that it is in fact easier to explain God’s hatred of Esau than his love for Jacob.” Harrison objects that “Hatred in the ordinary sense will not fit the situation, since God bestowed many blessings on Esau and his descendants.” There is an emotional content in hatred which is not easy to apply to God.

^a 15 Exodus 33:19

^b 17 Exodus 9:16

⁶² Cf. ‍Robinson‍, Paul has brought his analogy in “for one purpose only, to show that the Creator has absolute freedom over his creatures: he is not concerned at this point to find one which will also safeguard their freedom.” ‍Nygren‍ makes a slightly different point: “Men think that if everything rests in God’s hand and depends on His will, there is then nothing that rests with men; so there can no longer be talk of his responsibility and guilt. Paul does not admit that alternative. He can affirm both points at the same time” (p. 368). And in the present argument he is not concerned with how the two points relate to one another.

⁶³ μὴ γένοιτο, for which see the note on 3:4.

⁶⁴ Cf. ‍Lenski‍, “Righteousness (justice) belongs to the very nature of God”; on v. 17 he says, “The fact that God is righteous is axiomatic and is settled as being axiomatic in v. 13. To prove it is like trying to prove that whiteness is white, that the sun is light, that God does not sin.”

⁶⁵ The use of παρά is interesting: μὴ ἀδιχία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; ‍BAGD‍ class its use here with those where the term means “someth. is (not) with or in someone, someone has someth. (nothing) to do w. someth.” Cf. 2:11; Eph. 6:9. Perhaps this way of putting it is due to motives of reverence: Paul asks, “Is there injustice with God?” rather than “Is God unjust?”

⁶⁶ The word order τῷ Μωϋσεῖ γάρ (not τῷ γὰρ Μωϋσεῖ) puts some emphasis on “Moses”; it was to the great lawgiver that God spoke.

⁶⁷ Wuest sees ὃν ἄν as meaning “whoever” and explains the passage in these terms: “ ‘I will have mercy on anyone, whoever he is, that I will show mercy to in the future.’ This emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God in the disposition of His mercy.”

⁶⁸ For ἄρα οὖν (“wherefore therefore”) see the note on 5:10.

⁶⁹ A very different position is advocated in the Jewish Psalms of Solomon: “for thou art a just Judge over all the peoples of the earth. For there will not be hidden from thy knowledge any one who doeth wickedness: and the righteousness of thy upright ones, O Lord, is before thee … we work by free-will and the choice of our own souls to do either good or evil by the work of our hands” (Ps. Sol. 9:4–7). Paul is writing in opposition to views such as this.

⁷⁰ Michel suggests that Paul uses “Scripture says” because this stresses the distance between God and the heathen ruler. But we have a similar locution with Abraham (Gal. 3:8).

LXX The Septuagint

↑ Back to top