Part 106
ROMANS 1094
cerning the absolute necessity of the atonement. It is because reconciliation with God is so entirely necessary and yet so utterly unattainable from the human side that it is so highly prized.
dependent upon Isa 52:13-53:12 (LXX), which tells of the Suffering Servant, on whom 'the LORD laid (paredokeri) our sins' (53:6), who 'bore (paredothe) their sin' (53: 12), who will 'justify many' (v. n) (see Cranfield 1979: 251-2).
(5:12-21) Adam and Christ Paul found a prototype for the doctrine of justification by faith in the story of Abraham (ch. 4). He then characterized the justification won by Christ's death as reconciliation with God (5:1-11). Buthow can Christ's work, however meritorious in itself, save others? Can the actions of one individual affect the standing of all other persons? Yes, indeed, if that individual happens to be the archetype for subsequent humanity. In w. 12-21, Paul turns to Adam as precedent (that is, by way of counterexample) for the universality of Christ's atonement. If all of humanity shared in Adam's disobedience, how much more (note, again, the a minori ad maius structure) may all humanity share in the obedience of Jesus, the very Son of God (v. 19; see also i Cor 15:45-9). Paul argues on the basis of Gen 3 only that 'sin came into the world through one man'. (There were of course two human players in the Garden drama. Eve has gone missing.) He does not propound a theory ('original sin') concerning the conveyance of sin, biological or otherwise, from one generation to the next. The proof of the ubiquity of sin is the universality of its consequence: death (v. 12; Gen 3:3). The resurrection of Christ thus overturns death introduced by Adam: 'For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ'
(5:1-11) God's Reconciling Love as the Foundation for Legitimate Boasting Two verbs dominate this section: 'boast' and 'reconcile'. We were told in 4:2 that Abraham had no ground for boasting before God. Similarly, 3:27 made the point that boasting is excluded (see also 2:17, 23). In Rom 5, however, boasting is neither groundless nor excluded: Paul boasts 'in the hope of sharing the glory of God' (v. 2), in 'sufferings' (v. 3), and 'in God' (v. n). The difference, of cours is that here Paul is not, as in 2 Cor 10:13-15, 'boasting beyond limits', claiming as his own achievement something achieved by others. It is perfectly proper to boast in what God has done, rather than in what one has done for God (see ROM 3:24). And what God has done in Christ, according to Rom 5:1-11, is to reconcile (katallassein) humanity with God. 'Reconciliation' is return from alienation, the restoration of relationship. Its use here puts the divine—human rift in deeply personal (as opposed to exclusively forensic) terms, an estrangement that yields only to the prevailing power of God's love (v. 8). The state of reconciliation is described in v. i as 'peace with God'. Because reconciliation is achieved from God's side and offered when most undeserved (v. 8), the believer possesses security in the hope of eternal life (w. 2, 5) and confidence in the midst of earthly trials (w. 3—4). Reconciliation is something about which to boast.
The claim to 'boast in ... sufferings' (v. 3) is distinctly ironic and distinctively Pauline. For Paul, the paradigm of Christian existence, of Christian reality, is the cross (see ROM E. 4). One's faithfulness to the crucified messiah is measured, not in gifts of power or wisdom, but in degrees of sacrifice and suffering (i Cor 4:8-13; 2 Cor. 6:3-10; 11:21-12:21). Against the pretensions of the so-called 'super-apostles' at Corinth, Paul wrote, 'If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness' (2 Cor 11:30). Putting the cross at the centre of his thinking (the gospel is characterized as 'the word of the cross' in i Cor 1:18), set Paul outside normal religious expectation, including the expectations of many of his converts. To Paul, religion was not a means by which to manipulate heavenly powers to earthly ends. God's locus in this world is disclosed in the cross, which is foolishness and weakness in human eyes (i Cor 1:17—19). Therefore, Paul can boast in his sufferings, in the very absence of earthly rescue, in the knowledge that he travels in the footsteps of the crucified messiah, and that he will arrive someday at the place of Christ's resurrection (where 'hope does not disappoint', v. 5). It is consistent with this perspective that reconciliation is a present reality
(i Cor 15:21—2). The proper order of creation, lost in the Fall, is thus in the process of being restored (8:18—25). This two-part story is complicated by the mention of the law in w. 13—14 and 20. Sin existed prior to the giving of the law, but it was not like Adam's transgression, that is, disobedience of an explicit commandment. The law given through Moses served to increase culpability; humans again could transgress as Adam had transgressed (w. 13-14; see 4:15). (One might note that, among other things, Paul's argument 'passes over the socalled Noachic legislation (Gen 9:4—6)'; Fitzmyer 1993: 418.) And, whereas Adam had to obey only one commandment, those living under the law have six hundred and thirteen times the opportunity for transgression: 'law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied' (v. 20). In the light of 7:5-12, a minority of commentators have interpreted v. 20 to mean that the law was given for the express purpose (hina) of increasing (and not merely increasing the guilt of) sin (Murray 1979: 208). This would involve God in the deliberate promotion of sin which is, needless to say, a problematic assertion (cf the relationship between the law and sin in 7:11-12). Moses is a not accidental omission on Paul's short-list of human archetypes. By situating the law where he does (v. 20, it 'slipped in'—partisltihen—between Adam and Christ; see Gal 3:17), Paul indicates that Moses was not the answer to Adam. The law did not provide a way out of the human dilemma; quite to the contrary, it made an already bad situation worse. Whether or not it increased the incidence of sin (a debatable point, both exegetically and practically), it heightened sin's sinfulness by exposing the deliberateness of human
(v. 10: 'we were reconciled' to God, aorist tense), but salvation itself remains a future hope (w. 9—10, 'we will be saved'). (The two are related by means of an a minori ad mains argument: if God has reconciled, how much more will God save.)
In their unreconciled state, humans are described as 'weak', 'ungodly', 'sinners', and 'enemies' of God (w. 6, 8, 10), a portrayal that recalls the description in 1:18—32. That Paul would, by implication, refer to himself and to all other Jews as ungodly and enemies of God is astounding. A less pointed description, however, might undermine his argument con-
io95 ROMANS
change would thoroughly undermine Pauline theology. Paul sets the law and Christ as opposite means: what the law could not do, Christ has done (8:3). But if believers (Christians) are not substantially different from those 'under the law' (nonChristian Jews), then (by Paul's reasoning) Christ has failed. Why frame the argument in this way? Because of Paul's one overriding concern: the present equality of Jew and Gentile (see ROM £.4).
disobedience. The law could not give (eternal) life; it was participant in and not victor over Adam's 'dominion of death' (w. 20—i). In the face of this stark portrayal, one could object that the law did function for many as a positive corrective and guide. A larger problem is that belief in eternal life post-dates Torah. If one enquires, like the 'rich young ruler', 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' (Lk 10:25),one asks a question that the law is unequipped to answer. (Note that Jesus' own answer concerned doing, not merely believing, certain things.) A typical Jewish approach would be to assume that those remaining in covenant with God will inherit eternal life. Paul's answer really is no different, but the obligatory covenant is (i.e. the new covenant of i Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14, etc.). (6:1-23) Dead to Sin and Alive to God Paul has just introduced the notion that there are two dominions, one of death, whose head is Adam, and one of life, whose head is Christ
Paul's second question also concerns the relationship between believers and sin. To paraphrase v. 15, Why not sin if sin is not judged? Are those set free from sin thereby free to sin? Paul answers that such 'freedom' is illusory. People are not transferred from slavery to sin into neutral, non-allied autonomy. Instead, they pass from one allegiance, one 'slavery' (to speak 'in human terms', v. 19), to another. Believers are slaves 'of obedience' (v. 16), 'slaves of righteousness' (w. 18-19), 'enslaved to God' (v. 22). There can be no 'freedom' to sin, since sin itself is slavery. 'Grace and sin are to one another as "either" is to "or" ' (Earth 1933: 217).
(5:21). The obvious conclusion is that believers now dwell with Christ in the dominion of life. But this cannot be the whole truth: believers sometimes disobey, and all believers die. In what sense and to what extent Christ's dominion is a present reality is the underlying issue in Rom 6. Paul's argument is organized around two questions: 'Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?' (v. i), and 'Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace?' (v. 15). Paul's response is by now anticipated: 'By no means!' (megenoito; see ROM 2:1-3:20). The first question is answered ontologically: 'How can we who died to sin go on living in it?' (v. 2). The believer has already died and 'walks in newness of life'. How? By identification with the death of Jesus in baptism (w. 3-4). It is important to note that this identification is substantial, not moralistic; one actually participates with Jesus in his death: 'We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin'(v. 6). Believers are a'new creation'(2 Cor 5:17), a new kind of person who has the power not to sin (w. 12—14, 18, etc.). (How this portrayal meshes with the description of the 'wretched self in 7:14-25 is a major problem; see ROM 7:14-25.) Of all NT writings, Paul's letters most pointedly exhibit the eschatological tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet'. The obvious counterpart to 'we have been buried' with Christ 'in his death' (v. 4), would be 'and we have been raised with Christ in his resurrection'. This may be the viewpoint of Ephesians (e.g. 2:1—6),butitisnottheperspectiveofRomans. Although the situation of the believer has changed considerably, it has not changed entirely. With respect to the individual Christian, all references to resurrection and eternal life are future tense (w. 5, 8). Believers 'walk in newness of life' (v. 4) and are 'alive to God' (v. n); nevertheless, their experience of the 'dominion of life' is proleptic, not fully realized. Although they have'died to sin' (v. 2), they may yet submit themselves 'to sin as its instruments' (v. 13), may once again come under the dominion of sin (v. 12). The tension between the two realities remains unresolved: humans by nature sin; believers by (their new) nature do not sin (cf i Jn 1:7—2:1 with 3:6, 8—9; 5:18). Believers are human, but believers also represent a new (or 'renewed') type of humanity. One could lower the tension by diminishing the status of believers (that is, by moving towards a more exclusively future eschatology); however, such a
Paul stated earlier that death came through Adam's sin (5:12). w. 20-3 make clear that all sinners earn death as their fitting 'wages' (opsonion, v. 23). The language used to describe sin ('things of which you are now ashamed', v. 21) is reminiscent of the description of human wickedness in 1:18-32 ('shameless acts', 1:27). The alternative is holiness ('sanctification', NRSV) that leads to eternal life (v. 22). Something 'holy' is pure, consisting of only one thing (e.g. 'pure gold'). That believers are to be holy (or sanctified), to be one thing, is the point of the entire chapter.
(7:1—25) The Law and Sin A connection between law and sin was posited in 3:20,4:15, 5:13, and 5:20. This is one of the most surprising and controversial claims encountered in Paul's letter, and it demands elaboration. The discussion in ch. 6, especially the concluding section on slavery and freedom, provides an opportunity for the reintroduction of the subject of the law and sin. The previous paragraphs considered reasons why believers should not sin. In w. 1-6, Paul offers another: the believer has died not only to sin (6:3) but also to the law (w. 1—4), which is itself a cause of sin (w. 5—12). (On the question, 'Of what law does Paul speak?', see Fitzmyer 1993:
455-) The marriage metaphor Paul employs is somewhat forced. The statement that 'the law is binding on a person only during a person's lifetime' (v. i) aligns with the conclusion 'you [therefore] have died to the law through the body of Christ' (v. 4). But the one who dies in w. 2-3 is the husband, not the wife (the believer). Is the law the husband who dies, the 'law' that governs the wife's relationship to the husband, or both? Despite the confusion, the point of w. 2-3 appears straightforward: one who simply disregards the law (e.g. a married person who has an affair) may be judged a sinner ('an adulterer', v. 3), but one who is no longer subject to the law (a widow[er]) may not be judged by the law (may not be called an adulterer when remarrying). Someone reading 'you have died to the law... so that you may belong to another' might well ask, 'Who was the first partner—the law?' On one level, Dunn (1988: 369) is correct to say that the question is 'over-fussy'. The analogy makes a basic point and should not be pushed beyond it. On another level, however, the question is quite
ROMANS 1096
the law will not be taught but rather will be written 'on the hearts' of God's people (v. 33). Paul calls the law, literally, an 'old/aged letter' (palaioteti grammatos), a title conveying (in line with the treatment of the old covenant in Jer 31) both decrepitude and externality. But that's not all: the metaphor of slavery is picked up from the previous chapter and applied, not to sin, but to the law itself (see Gal 4:22—31). w. 4—6 ratchet up by several notches Paul's already negative treatment of the law. The law is no longer just an inadequate solution to the problem of sin; the law itself is the problem. Has not Paul come to the point of equating the law, God's law, with sin? He answers, 'By no means!' (v. 7). It is not really the law's fault; sin is to blame. (That sin could be a responsible 'party' evidences a decided shift in terminology.)
valid and reveals much about Paul's view of Judaism. Whose were those who lived under the law? Although the language is covenantal (i.e. concerning marriage), the prior covenant partner is not God. It is as though the Sinai covenant was made with the law itself.
The mention of bearing fruit in v. 4 fills out the idea in ch. 6 that believers have become 'instruments of righteousness'
(v. 13), experiencing 'sanctification' to God (v. 22). God's will is not only the absence of evil but also the presence of good. Although some commentators have argued that 'bearing fruit for God' means 'begetting spiritual children', it is more likely that Paul is referring to the generation of good character and/ or works (cf Gal 5:22; Cranfield 1979: 336-7). Correspondingly, Paul refers to 'fruit for death' as the product of 'sinful passions' 'at work in our members' (v. 5).
The argument of v. 7 is familiar: the law makes known, discloses, sin as sin (4:15; 5:13, 20). The selection of the tenth commandment (against coveting, see 13:9) is intriguing since it is one of the few OT commandments to prohibit an attitude. It is here that Paul comes closest to locating sin in one's internal states (e.g. one sins by obeying the law for the wrong reasons or by being proud of one's obedience)—an attitude that generations of commentators have attributed to him. It may be that Paul's intuition drew him in this direction, but that he lacked the conceptual tools that would have allowed him to construct such an argument. Such speculation should be tempered by the fact that the idea, if present, is dropped in the next verse: sin now is an external power that acts on the individual. The 'wretched self of w. 14-25 is faulted for wrongful (in)action, not for wrongful thinking or feeling: T can will what is right, but I cannot do it... the evil I do not want is what I dd (w. 18—19). A more likely explanation is that Paul quoted the coveting prohibition because he had in mind the temptation in the Garden (Gen 3:5-6; see the discussion of Adam below): ' "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.' In Rom 6, sin was objectified as a power to which one could yield (v. 13) and be enslaved by (v. 16). The anthropomorphizing of sin is extended in 7:8-23. Twice sin is said to have 'seized an opportunity in the commandment' (w. 8, n). The ultimate expression comes in v. 17: 'It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me' (repeated in v. 20). It is as though sin were a demonic being that overpowers and possesses humans. The effect is to exonerate the law: it is not the law itself that provokes transgression, it is sin's fault. Sin wrests control of the law and uses it as an instrument of death. The T' (as in 'it is no longer I that do it'), being 'in the flesh', is helpless before such an onslaught. In 7:14—8:8, it is this weakness (and not the law, which is 'holy, just, and good') that is the problem. The solution? Believers are empowered to fulfil 'the just requirement of the law' as they walk 'not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit' (8:4; recall again Jer 31).
v. 5, two new and very important ideas are introduced. The first concerns life 'in the flesh'. Up until now, 'flesh' (sarx) has been used to refer to physicality: Jesus was descended from David 'according to the flesh' (1:3); Abraham is 'our ancestor according to the flesh' (4:1; Paul returns to this usage in 9:3, 5). Now the term takes on board a decidedly pejorative nuance. (Paul's use of sarx is the subject of numerous scholarly studies; summaries may be found in TDNTvii. 98—151; Spicq 1994: 3:231-41; EDNT 3:230-3.) Being 'in the flesh' means being in the (ordinary if not 'natural') state of human alienation from God. The one in the flesh here is roughly equivalent to the 'the old self of 6:6. While 'fleshliness' does include carnality (i.e. improper sensuality), its meaning is broader. 'Flesh' symbolizes 'the weakness and appetites of "the mortal body " ' that were the causes of sin (Dunn 1988: 370; cf. 'sinful passions' here). The juxtaposition of flesh and Spirit (v. 6) does not evidence a true matter/spirit dualism, nor does it demonstrate that Paul was an ascetic (see Kasemann 1980: 188—9). With respect to the last point, one might note that while Paul himself was unmarried, he did not prohibit marriage, and at one point he even commanded married believers to continue sexual relations (i Cor 7:3-5). Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that physicality was, if not denigrated, then at least held in some suspicion by Paul (cf. Rom8:io). He might have allowed for Christian marriage, but i Cor 7:7-9, 28 is hardly a ringing endorsement. The second idea to be introduced in v. 5 is the notion that the law causes (not only exposes or increases the culpability of) sin (see ROM 5:13—14). The contention that dormant passions are 'aroused by the law' anticipates (one might say, necessitates) the discussion in 7:720. Much the same idea has appeared before, in i Cor 15:56: 'The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.' Law is the parental command not to raid the biscuit tin, an injunction that draws attention to and makes all the more desirable the very thing it prohibits. As the saying goes, stolen fruit is sweetest. Nevertheless, one might dispute whether law and sin are always thus related. Does prohibition inevitably increase desire, and does 'sinful passion' require a commandment to be stirred up? Moreover, are the commands that Paul so often includes in his letters (as in Rom 12—14) somehow excluded from this dynamic?
Regarding Paul's treatment of the law in Romans, Sanders comments (1983: 76) insightfully that there is 'an organic development with a momentum towards more and more negative statements until there is a recoil in Romans 7, a recoil which produces other problems'. Among the difficulties: 'The law could no longer be said to produce sin or to
v. 6, the contrast between 'the old written code' and 'the new life of the Spirit' seems to be dependent particularly upon the prophecy of the future covenant in Jer 31:31—4. In contrast to the Sinai covenant ('which they broke', v. 32), in the new order
1097 ROMANS
freedom from sin (already available to believers); Paul awaits freedom from sin's corporeal and cosmic effects.
multiply transgression as part of God's overall plan [the typical view in both Romans and Galatians], since the realm of sin is now considered entirely outside that plan' (ibid. 73). Moreover, God is now credited with having provided a means for attaining life (v. 10; see 10:5) that was incapable of succeeding. In other words, if the law was given to produce transgression, the law is linked to sin (against which Paul 'recoils' in v. 7); however, if the law was given by God to produce eternal life, it was doomed to failure by human weakness (or sin's power). But how could God's plan fail?
v. 25, the final sentence ('So then...') makes the best claim to be a description of believers since it comes after Paul's Christian thanksgiving (v. 24). Some have argued that th verse is simply out of order or that it was originally a marginal gloss. 'For it is scarcely conceivable that, after giving thanks to God for deliverance, Paul should describe himself as being in exactly the same position as before' (Dodd 1932: 114—15). It is striking that the individual is characterized as being a 'slave' to the law and to ('the law of) sin, both 'pre-Christian' categories in Rom 5-6. Moffatt paraphrases the verse: 'Thus, left to myself, I serve...', which may capture Paul's meaning. At very least, one's assessment of v. 25 must take account of 8:1— 7. The person in ch. 7 is 'with [the] flesh' 'a slave to the law of sin', but the believer in ch. 8 is 'not in the flesh' (v. 9) and is 'set free from the law of sin' (v. 2)! Therefore, it is possible in v. 25 that Paul describes a state to which believers may revert; it is clear that it is not the state in which he expects believers to remain.
There are good reasons for thinking that Paul himself is not the implied subject, the T, in 7:7-26. (Compare the universalized Tin e.g. iCori3). Paul never lived'apart from the law', 'the commandment' did not 'come' in his lifetime (v. 9), nor was he 'killed' by sin (v. n). Moreover (and of considerable importance for the interpretation of Paul), w. 14-25 describe a self-perception nearly the antithesis of Paul's own as evidenced in his letters (see ROM 2; Stendahl 1963; Sanders 1983: 76—81). The statement of Acts 23:1, 'up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God', is echoed in passages such as 2 Cor 1:12 and 4:2. The man who wrote, 'as to righteousness under the law, [I was] blameless'
(8:1—17) The Law of the Spirit Having described the dominion of death from which the law offers no rescue, Paul turns his attention to the alternative existence previewed in 7:6, 'the new life of the Spirit' experienced by those 'discharged from the law'. The description in 8:1—17 is rich an(^ densely packed, containing numerous themes that figure prominently in other Pauline texts. Freed from the law, one lives beyond the reach of law's penalty: condemnation (v. i, as in 7:3). A new system or principle, 'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus' (in contrast to the old system, 'the law of sin and of death'), now governs the believer's existence. 'Life' has a double meaning that corresponds to the two ends of the eschatological spectrum: it is a new quality of existence already enjoyed (v. 10), and it is future, eternal existence with God (w. n, 13). The Spirit effectuates both forms of life: in the present, the
(Phil 3:6) and T am not aware of anything against myself (i Cor 4:4) did not suffer from existential angst. The assignment for Rom 7 must have been something other than autobiography.
The one character who qualifies on all counts to be the speaker in 7:7-26 is Adam (see Stuhlmacher 1994: 106-7), the archetypal human in whom all others sinned (5:12-21).
Speaking as Adam, Paul can return to the initiation of'law', the giving of 'the commandment' (v. 9) in the Garden: 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree... or you shall die' (Gen 3:3). Writes Paul, 'The very commandment that promised life proved death to me' (v. 10). Instead of saving them from death, the prohibition was used to lure them to death. The identification with Adam also explains the radical anthropomorphizing of sin in this same section: sin is like the serpent that 'deceived' Adam and Eve (v. n; Gen 3:1,4), enticing them to covet the forbidden fruit. (They ate, desiring to be 'as God', Gen 3:5. Note the description of Eve's response in Gen 3:6.)
Spirit dwells in believers (v. 9) and empowers them to fulfil 'the just requirement of the law' (v. 4) and to 'put to death the deeds of the body' (v. 14); the Spirit leads believers (v. 14), witnesses to them that they are God's children (v. 16), and 'intercedes' for them 'with sighs too deep for words' (v. 26). In the future, God will raise believers to eternal life through the same Spirit (v. n). More than anything else, it is the Spiritthat marks the dawning of the new age (the 'dominion' of grace; 5:21). According to Acts (10:44-11:18), the presence of spiritual gifts amongst Gentile Christians was the decisive consideration in their admission to the church. It is instructive that Paul's first argument against the Galatian Judaizers concerns the presence of such charismata amongst the Galatian converts prior to any law observance (Gal 3:1—5). (Note that Paul refers synonymously to 'the Spirit of God' and 'the Spirit of Christ' in v. 9. See ROM 1:1 above.)
w. 14-24, if Paul is speaking in the place of unregenerate humanity, especially from the perspective of Adam, it follows that these verses do not describe the situation of believers. This is not the way the passage is read by many scholars (e.g.
Schlatter 1995: 160; Barrett 1957: 151-3), but it is the only interpretation that suits the chapter's larger context (cf. Dunn's (1988: 387—99) attempt to resolve the conflict in terms of eschatological tension). The status of the individual in Rom 5:12-7:6 is either/or: either dead to sin or enslaved to sin, either in the dominion of life or in the dominion of death. The same situation prevails in Rom 8: either one is in the
Spirit or one is in the flesh (v. 9). The Christian anthropology of Romans is not an essay in grey. The fault of the law in Rom 7 is that it is powerless (as8:8: 'those in the flesh cannot please God'); it makes no sense in the context of this argument that Paul would describe believers in terms of the problem and not in terms of the solution. If 7:14-24 is a description of believers, then what is 8:1-17? There is indeed a future 'edge' to Paul's eschatological perspective, but it is located elsewhere: the expectation of 8:10-11 and 18-39 has nothing to do with
v. 3, the idea of Christ's atonement, already present in 3:245 and 5:6—9, is reintroduced. God 'dealt with sin', something that law, allied to weak human 'flesh' (i.e. the powerles human will, as in 7:14-25), was incapable of doing. In the death of Jesus, God 'condemned sin in the flesh', that is, the condemnation of v. i was executed on Jesus, the only human (one 'in... flesh') who was undeserving of such judgement. (He was 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', that is, he was human
ROMANS 1098
inclusion of this amendment (cf. i Cor 4:8—13). 'Glory' and its cognates are used 180 times in the NT (cf. 1:23; 2:7,1013:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 8:18, 21; 9:4, 23; 11:36; 15:6-9; 16:27; see TDNT ii. 247-54; ££>NTi:344-9). The linkage between suffering and glory is typically Jewish (Stuhlmacher 1994:132) and is made in a number of other NT writings (e.g. Lk 24:26; Eph 3:13; Heb 2:9—10; i Pet 1:11; 4:13; 5:1,10).
without sinning. Cf. 2 Cor 5:21: 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.' See also Phil 2:5—11.) As before, Paul is more interested in celebrating the atonement than in explaining its mechanics.
The difference between the two types of existence is explained from the human side as a difference of fundamental disposition or direction (w. 5-11). One who lives 'according to the flesh' (w. 5, 12; returning to the meaning of 7:14) has a mind set 'on the things ofthe flesh' (w. 5—6). What constitutes 'the things of the flesh' is not specified, but it must mean something more than 'earthly concerns', such as the provision of food and clothing (cf 'the deeds ofthe body' in v. 13). Such a mindset is 'hostile to God'; it does not—it cannot—'submit to God's law' or 'please God' (w. 7—8). (As in v. 4, Paul assumes that believers are the only ones who 'do' the law.) The best explication of the phrase is found in Rom 1:18-32, which vividly describes human nature at war with God. The essential sin is idolatry, the devotion to something as god that is not God. Again, there is no middle ground, no accommodation, no compromise. Believers are on one side of the line and unbelievers the other.
(8:18—39) The Creation's Eager Longing To the woman... [God] said,| T will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children]...' And to the man... [God] said, |" ... cursed is the ground because of you; | in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants ofthe field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread | ... you are dust, and to dust you shall return.'
According to Gen 3:14—19, nature itself was corrupted by human sin and suffers sin's mournful consequences (see 4 Ezra 7:10-14). The 'peaceable kingdom' of Eden is no more. The poetry and power of 8:18-3 9 betoken the magnitude of Paul's discovery: no less than Paradise returned. God in Christ is not saving individuals only; God is at the task of saving creation, of swallowing up Adam's entire loss in Christ's complete victory. What is the source of Paul's confidence? Christ's resurrection (of which Paul himself is a witness; Gal 1:16; i Cor 15:8), which is no less than the end of history placarded in the midst ofhistory (i Cor 15:20-6). The Garden curse, death, has been broken and remains only to be shattered.
By the logic of Paul's argument, believers should now have the power to do what the 'wretched self of Rom 7 could not, namely, obey the law. Nevertheless, the 'just requirement of the law' (equivalent to 'the law of God' in v. 7) that they fulfil cannot be precisely equivalent to Torah since it does not include such 'optional extras' as circumcision (i Cor 7:19). The use ofthe singular (to dikaioma) 'brings out the fact that the law's requirements are essentially a unity' (Cranfield 1979: 384). For Paul, the will of God is present in but not circumscribed by Torah. The commonplace distinction between 'the spirit' and 'the letter' of the law is not far from what Paul had in mind (Rom 7:6).
As already noted, the reader comes upon the idea of suffering abruptly in v. 17, like fine print at the end of a contract. He or she maybe left second-guessing: Is this 'inheritance' worth its price? Paul is quick to put matters into perspective: seen aright, present suffering is improportionate to future glory. To know things as they are one must recognize the scope ofthe drama in which one participates and the scale ofthe denouement for which one hopes. Present suffering is not merely local; it is cosmic. Future glory is not merely personal; it is universal. All history turns on the events of recent years, all creation awaits their completion, and Paul and his readers are at the epicentre of both. In one sense, the weight ofthe entire cosmos is on their shoulders; in another, the entire cosmos cheers them on. Thus Rom 8:18—39 provides both explanation and incentive. One may better accept suffering if one knows its origin and anticipates its cessation. All the more, one may accept (even 'boast of, 5:3) suffering that advances some great cause. Rhetorically, 8:18—39 is n°t unlike the stirring speech delivered by (Shakespeare's) King Henry V to encourage his outnumbered troops to face the French at Agincourt ('We few, we happy few, we band of brothers', Henry V, iv. iii).
v. 15, the mention of slavery recalls the discussion in 6:16— 23 but also, more fully, Gal 4:1-9 and, especially with its connection to parentage, 21-31. 'Abba' (in Aramaic, an affectionate word for father) is associated with the prayer of Jesus
(Mk 14:36); its presence in the Pauline epistles (here and Gal 4:6) is noteworthy, w. 15-16 were key to Wesley's doctrine of 'Christian assurance', the idea that believers need not doubt their standing with God, being inwardly assured by the Spirit of their adoption (see also 9:1). Paul is careful to show that adoption does not imply an 'also-ran' or second-class birthright; on the contrary, believers are fully 'heirs of God' and even 'joint heirs with Christ' (v. 17; cf. v. 29); that is, by identifying with Christ, they participate fully in the benefits won by Christ. Paul does not mean to imply that believers are equal in every way to Christ.
v. 17, the section concludes quite unexpectedly: [we are] 'heirs ... if... we suffer'. This sudden shift to minor key signals the presence ofthe antagonist, death. Although sin has been overcome, its ravages, its legacy remain. ('The present time'—ho nun kairos, v. 18—is the label Paul gives to this 'time between the times'.) The comments made in connection with 5:3 ('we ... boast in our sufferings'), apply here: for Paul, the shape of Christian life was cruciform ('we suffer with him'; see also ROM 1.4). True spirituality is dangerous and costly (i Thess 3:4). Paul's difficult experiences with the church at Corinth (where he now writes) may well have prompted the
Paul says that creation (the natural world) is 'groaning in labour pains', an image that evokes both the curse (in God's words to Eve) and the promise of its reversal (new life), v. 23 captures the resultant eschatological tension: 'we... who have the first fruits ofthe Spirit [the Spirit's many benefits, mentioned above], groan inwardly'. Believers are now children of God (v. 14), possessing 'a spirit of adoption' (v. 15), yet they must 'wait for adoption, the redemption of... [their] bodies' (v. 23). It is interesting that v. 24 contains the only past tense form ofthe verb 'to save' (esothlmen) in any ofthe undisputed
1099 ROMANS
v. 29: it is God's purpose that believers 'be conformed to the image of his Son'. Certainly, this means sharing in future glory, being one 'within a large family' (cf i Cor 15:20). 'Image' (eikon), echoing the creation account of Gen i (v. 26), invites an additional and fuller interpretation, that believers already share the character of Christ.
Pauline epistles: literally, 'we were saved in hope.' Hope requires both object and absence, w. 18—25 testify to a profound hope fuelled by the certainty and desirability of its object and the profundity of its absence.
v. 20, the identity of'the one who subjected' the creation to futility is the topic of intense debate. The likely candidate is again Adam, the consequences of whose sin surely underlie the reflections of the entire paragraph. But did Adam subject the creation to futility 'in hope'? A variety of attempts have been made to get to grips with this odd phrase. For example, Cranfield (1979: 414) wrote that 'The creation was not subjected to frustration without any hope... Paul possibly had in mind the promise in Gen 3.15 that the woman's seed would bruise the serpent's head (cf. Rom 16.20)'. An alternative solution is to regard the entire phrase 'for the creation... who subjected it' as a parenthesis, and attach the final two words of v. 20, 'in hope', to the next phrase, as does NRSV (the original Greek text did not contain punctuation; where phrases or even sentences begin and end is by no means certain). Thus, v. 21 may complete the thought of v. 19: 'For the creation waits ... in hope that ['or because'] the creation itself will be set free...'
The entirety of Rom i—8 reaches its climax in w. 31—9. Paul's speech is fittingly dramatic, harking back again (ROM 1:16) to Isa 50:7-8 (LXX; trans. Hays 1989: 59-60): 'I know that I shall by no means be put to shame, Because the One who justified me draws near. | Who enters into judgment with me? | Let him confront me. | Indeed, who enters into judgment with me? Let him draw near to me. Behold, the Lord helps me. | Who will do me harm?' By way of encouragement to his readers, Paul wrote earlier of the disproportion between present tribulation and future glory (w. 18-25). To the same end, he now writes of the disproportion between earthly appearance and spiritual reality. For believers, the one true indicator of their position is the love of God demonstrated in the cross of Christ, (v. 32 is especially poignant because it borrows language from the story of the binding of Isaac in Gen22: 'you have not withheld your son, your only son' (v. 12); Cranfield 1979: 436. In Rom 8:32, God makes the sacrifice that even Abraham was 'spared'; note the verbal echoes of Gen 22:12 in Rom 8:32.) With this datum, the 'everything else' of v. 32 is assured. No condemnation is more persuasive than Christ's intercession, no deprivation, no sovereignty, no distance a greater reality. 'In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.' It is a glorious vision.
It is possible that the phenomenon described in w. 26—7 is the gift of tongues, which Paul describes in i Cor 14:15 as 'praying with the spirit'. The statement that 'God... knows what is the mind of the Spirit' could refer to the fact that tongues were unintelligible to the human speaker. (According to i Cor 14:3, the one speaking in tongues 'utters mysteries with his [her] spirit'.) It is also possible that 'untterable groanings' (stenagmois alalltois, v. 26) refers, literally, to inarticulate moans. This interpretation takes into account the fact that w. 26—7 assume universal applicability, whereas, by Paul's own account, all did not speak in tongues (i Cor 12:4-11). On the other hand, it should be said that the second reading has more difficulty explaining the repeated assertion that the Spirit 'intercedes' on behalf of the saints. An unrelated issue concerns the degree of separation between God and Spirit in Paul's description (e.g. 'God knows what is the mind of the Spirit'; see Dunn 1988: 479—80).
God's Righteousness Evident in the Treatment of Israel (9:1-11.36;
(9:1—5) Paul's Lament over Israel In first eight chapters of Romans the Protestant Reformers found the answer to their urgent question, 'How shall we be saved?' Ironically, their close identification with Paul worked both to popularize and to obscure Paul's distinctive theological contribution. In assuming common cause with Paul, they tended to project onto Paul their own struggles with disconsolate conscience and disapproving Catholicism. So Romans came to be viewed as a kind of personal salvation manual, a road-map for guilty, lost souls in search of a forgiving, gracious God. One consequence was the orphaning of the remainder of the epistle, especially chs. 9-11, whose interest in the fate of Israel was scarcely an ongoing or pivotal Christian concern. Recent biblical scholarship has been more successful at placing Rom 9—11 where it properly belongs, at the centre (or, rhetorically, at the climax) of Paul's argument. The concern of Romans is not so much to explain justification by faith in Christ as to explain how such a soteriological system upholds God's righteousness, especially God's righteousness towards non-Christian Israel. Thus, deprived of chs. 9-11, Romans would be gravely deficient; indeed, without reading to the section's surprising conclusion in 11:25—36, one might wonder truly if unbelieving Israel's present status does not expose 'unrighteousness on God's part' (9:14).
v. 28 does not promise that only good things will happen to 'those who love God'. In the larger context of w. 18-39, and the immediate context of w. 29-30, the sentence probably means that the woes that characterize the present age, and the suffering of persecution in particular, cannot thwart God, who uses even these to accomplish the divine purpose.
Paradoxically, Paul assumes both that God predestined humans to a certain fate and that humans are responsible for that fate. Rom 9:14—26 shows that he knows the obvious objection—how can humans be held responsible for God's actions?—and that he does not possess a rational answer. Instead, he responds, 'Who are you, a human being, to argue with God?' (9:20). Here as elsewhere in the NT, predestination is not mentioned abstractly; it usually functions either as assurance (as in Rom 8) or as theodicy (as in Rom 9; really another form of assurance). The essential point is that, despite all appearances to the contrary (the 'all things' of v. 28), God has everything under control.
As was mentioned in connection with ROM 1:16, 'justification' in Romans combines two ideas: that God credits to believers the status of righteousness and that God empowers believers to live righteously. Both meanings may be present in
Moving from 8:39 to 9:1 is like walking off a precipice; having scaled the resplendent heights of ch. 8, one drops by a single step to the shadowy depths of ch. 9. T have great
ROMANS IIOO
it possible to translate the phrase appositionally, i.e. as an explanatory remark concerning Christ (e.g. the NRSV's '... the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever'). Despite Paul's generally high Christology (ROM 1:1-5), it is Ver7 unlikely that he would have referred to Christ as 'God over all'. Some commentators note byway of contrast i Cor 15:24— 8, in which Paul states that Christ himself 'will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all' (my emphasis; Dunn 1988: 535-6).
sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart' (v. 2). Why sorrow if nothing is able 'to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord' (8:39)? Because it appears that Israel is not among the 'us', that Israel is alienated from God's love. This is an intolerable conclusion against which Paul mobilizes two basic arguments. First, he contends that now as in the past, only a portion of Israel has been elect or faithful; therefore, one ought not to regard the present case as being exceptional either from the side of God or of I srael. It is evident that this answer was not fully persuasive even to Paul. The word of God might not entirely have 'failed' (v. 6), but Jewish Christianity remained a disconcertingly small success. Paul's second answer locates the solution outside present history (and therefore beyond the thwarted historical means of the Church's Jewish mission): at the return of Christ, 'all Israel', even 'disobedient' Israel, will be saved (11:25-36). In this belief, Paul finds a solution to the problem of God's apparent unrighteousness: God, being God, must save Israel.
(9:6-29) God's Consistency Evident in the Election of True Israel Once again, the issue of God's righteousness is front and centre. 'It is not as though the word of God had failed' (v. 6). The 'word of God' refers broadly to God's promises to Abraham and through him to his descendants (see 4:13-25). Why might one argue that this 'word' had failed? Because comparatively few who now recognize and experience its fulfilment in Christ are Abraham's offspring. The Jews, who ought to be first and foremost, appear to be last and least (cf. 1:16). Has God's plan for Israel been thwarted? It cannot be so. Paul argues that the divine promises to Abraham were fulfilled by the election of only a portion of Abraham's natural descendants. God chose Isaac over Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn. One might object that of the two sons only Isaac had the right of succession, being the sole child of Sarah, Abraham's wife. Such a protest is impossible, however, in the case of Abraham's grandson Jacob, whose elder brother was his twin (see Gen 25:19-34). The word of God was not frustrated by the 'failure' of Ishmael and Esau to obtain their natural birthright. It was through the second born, the true 'children of promise', Isaac and Jacob, that God's plan was fulfilled. The reference in w. 27—9 to the remnant of Israel (Isa 10:22—3) makes much the same point (see 11:1—5): God's choice of a part of Israel is well precedented; so among contemporary Jews it is the Christian believers who are the elect descendants of Abraham. It is important to recognize that Paul does not maintain this position unvaryingly; in 11:25—32, he will argue for the salvation of unbelieving I srael based upon its continued election. ('For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable', 11:29.) Paul is not making the point that physical descent from Abraham in itself is insufficient to save. For Paul, lineage is simply irrelevant to salvation. Rom 9 harks back to the argument of Rom 4, where Paul stated that Abraham's true descendants are not the 'adherents of the law' but those who 'share in the faith of Abraham' (4:14—16). The contrast between 'children of the flesh' and 'children of the promise' in v. 8 sets up an analogous human-way v God's-way dichotomy. The major difference is that Paul's argument in w. 6—13 only indirectly concerns Gentiles. (In v. 24, he will again include Gentiles explicitly as part of God's people, although he does not employ the idea of 'promise', as he did in Rom 4.) The issue is whether 'fleshly' Israel in toto is the Israel for and in whom God must be shown to have acted faithfully. For Paul, at least in the context of this argument, it is not.
Paul's remarks in w. 1—5 appear to reflect Ex 32:30—4, Moses' offer to be 'blotted out of the book' for the sake of the Israelites, who had 'sinned a great sin' in constructing the golden calf at Sinai. (The Sinai incident also might be in view in Paul's description of human idolatry and rebellion in ROM 1:18-32). Not long before, in 2 Cor 3:4-11, Paul explicitly contrasted (his) Christian ministry with that of Moses at Sinai. This same historical referent might have encouraged Paul to begin speaking of the 'Israelites' (v. 4 and more generally in these three chapters) instead of the 'Jews'. 'Israel' and 'Israelite' are in any case the terms better suited to his argument; they allow Paul to treat past and present Judaism as a whole, they signal continuity with previous 'covenant communities', and they provide the common conceptual thread that runs through a series of arguments concerning the identity of God's true people.
In 3:1, Paul asked, 'Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?' His answer, 'Much in every way,' was ambiguous. The only specific instantiation was Israel's entrustment with 'the oracles of God' (3:2). In w. 4— 5, Paul returns to the question, this time offering a significantly longer list of privileges, the ultimate of which is to provide (by earthly descent, 'according to the flesh') the world with its Messiah. The most unexpected item in the list is 'adoption', which in just the previous chapter had a distinctly—and uniquely—Christian nuance (8:15, 23; cf. Gal 4:5). Presumably, Paul now refers to something different, most likely to God's 'adoption' of Israel in the Exodus (as in Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1). It is interesting to note how such points of continuity both strengthen and weaken Paul's argument. On the one hand, God's work of universal adoption in Christ may be seen to be consistent with (and therefore made credible by) God's previous action in adopting Israel; on the other hand, to the extent that Israel already is adopted, it ought not to require readoption. For this reason, when Paul defends the necessity of Christ, as logically he is forced to do, his argument must lean heavily to the side of discontinuity. Jews cannot have any actual advantage with respect to salvation if Jews and Gentiles are both equally in need of Christ.
v. 13, the severe statement T have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau' (Mai 1:2—3; see WBC1155, on the original, probably less extreme, sense of this verse) pointedly raises the question of God's justice (w. 14-29). Paul's first answer (citing Ex
The enumeration of divine blessings leads Paul into doxology: 'God, who is over all, is blessed forever. Amen' (v. 5). The original Greek text did not include punctuation, which makes
HOI ROMANS
33:19) is that it is no injustice to be merciful, to treat some people better than they deserve. The issue is not God's just or unjust response to human goodness (v. 16); election is a gracious gift, not an achievable reward. Even the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (w. 17-18) was done to advance the cause of God's salvation (Ex 9:16). Of course, things might look different from the perspective of Pharaoh or Ishmael or Esau. Granted that election is undeserved, why elect some and not others? The problem is intensified by positing a 'reverse election' in which God hardens the hearts of the wicked. How can God find fault for what God has caused (w. 18—19)? This is a
uses the term in a distinctly new, Christian sense, even in reference to Judaism. Writes Sanders (1977: 544),
Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term... Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous by works of law, he means that one cannot, by works of law, 'transfer to the body of the saved.' When Judaism said that one is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby stays in the covenant.
Within Judaism, one did not obey the Jaw in the hope of transferring from one peopJe (unrighteous, unsaved) to another (righteous, saved). PauJ's faith/Jaw antithesis presupposes that Jews were trying (and faiJing) by means of the Jaw to attain a status ('righteous' = being 'saved') that couJd be conferred onJy by faith in Christ. Thus the juxtaposition of Jaw and Christ as rivaJ means of saJvation is probJematic; normaJJy, the two serve different functions in different systems. From the side of Judaism, it is an appJes-and-oranges comparison; however, from PauJ's side, witJi the controversy at GaJatia fresh in mind, the opposition between faith in Christ and works of the Jaw was as straightforward as the distinction between chaJk and cheese (see ROM 1.3). One shouJd note how readiJy and frequently a difference in theoJogicaJ nuance or emphasis is transformed poJemicaJJy into an antithesis. A modern exampJe is the contention on the part of some conservative Christians that unJike other churchgoers, they do not practise 'reJigion' but rather experience a 'reJationship' with God. Outsiders might regard the reJigion/reJationship antithesis as quite odd: even the most experientiaJJy oriented Christianity is stiJJ a reJigion; certainJy others (incJuding other Christians) affirm reJationship with God. For insiders, however, the dichotomy heJps to account for the existence of (socaJJed) Christians who reject the group's distinctive cJaims. Such persons can be dismissed as 'unbeJievers' who strive misguidedJy through 'reJigion' to know God. SimiJarJy, Jews who for varying reasons reject Christian cJaims can be depicted as formaJistic Jaw-keepers without faith. In either case, what is offered is an insider's account of the rejection of those outsiders who ought to know better.
problem with a very long history in Judaism. The belief in the omnipotence of the one true God may lead to (or, inversel may be guided by) the conviction that God exerts control over all human circumstances. Thus the Exodus narrative states repeatedly both that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:14, 32; 9:34; etc.) and that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (4:21 7:3; 9:12; etc.). The same perspective is evidenced in passages such as Deut 2:30, Josh 11:20, i Sam 6:6, and—most poignantly in reference to Israel itself—Isa 63:17: 'Why, O LORD, do you make us stray from your ways and harden our heart, so that we do not fear you?'
God's omnipotence is affirmed by means of the potter metaphor (Isa 29:16; 45:9-13; Jer 18:6; Wis 15:7). The potter has sovereign right over the clay, not the reverse. It is significant that Paul links this idea to a statement about God's unexpected patience towards the wicked (w. 22—3; see Wis
11:21-12:22). If God is both just and powerful (as powerful as a potter over a lump of clay), why do the wicked exist, much less flourish? The assertion of God's omnipotence underlies all theodicy; if God controls human action, then human evil itself must originate in God. Negating this conclusion requires a limiting of God's omnipotence (often imagined as a divine
self-limitation: here, for example, judgement is forestalled temporarily by God's patience; see also 2:4; Neh 9:30; i Pet 3:17; and 2 Pet 3:9,15). The problem is as old as the book of Job and remains as intractable. Paul's answer is reminiscent of that of Job's latter chapters: 'Who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?' Logically, this is no answer at all; instead, it is a roundabout affirmation that God can be trusted. This faithful God indeed has done what was promised, calling a people out from among Gentiles (w. 25—6) and Jews (w. 27— 9) alike. In sum, if much of'natural' Israel is not included in true Israel, it cannot mean that God has failed. Then whose fault is it? (9:30-10:21) Israel's Failure Explained In a sense, 9:6-29 explained Jewish unbelief'from above', that is, from the perspective of God's purpose and election. What follows is an explanation 'from below', an account of Israel's response and hence responsibility. Several of Paul's statements in this section are difficult to untangle, but the essential point seems clear enough: Gentiles happened effortlessly upon righteousness by believing the proclamation concerning Christ. Jews, who had worked diligently to be righteous, have rejected faith in Christ, the only thing able to make them truly righteous. For this error they have no excuse.
PauJ's first explanation of IsraeJ's fauJt, in w. 31-2, is notoriously ambiguous. One might have expected PauJ to say that 'IsraeJ had pursued but did not achieve righteousness' (CranfieJd 1979: 507). Instead, PauJ wrote that IsraeJ 'pursued a Jaw of righteousness' but 'did not arrive at' (or 'attain') 'Jaw'. The meaning of'Jaw', 'righteousness', 'Jaw of righteousness', and 'attain Jaw' in v. 31 have been debated extensively with no resulting consensus. It is not even cJear whether it was the 'pursuit' of Jaw itseJf or the inability to 'attain' ('catch up with', Fitzmyer 1993: 577) law that Paul faults. If the former, Paul might be saying that Israel's pursuit of 'legal righteousness' could not lead them to the law's true goal (as possibly in 10:4). If the latter, Paul might mean that Israel attempted but failed to live righteously according to the precepts of the law. In either case, succeeding verses make clear that the actual fault of the Jews is their unbelief in Christ, whom they insensibly overlooked (10:2-3), over whom they have stumbled (9:32-3, a combination of Isa 8:14 and 28:16; the same idea is repeated in 11:9—12; i Cor 1:23; and i Pet 2:6—8). As a result, they are
The meaning of 'righteousness' is fundamental to this passage and has been the subject of intense debate (see Ziesler 1989: 251—2). In large part, the problem arises because Paul
ROMANS IIO2
(Christ as tdos) in essentially opposite ways: the former emphasizes Christ as the law's termination, the latter Christ as the law's goal.
characterized as being unsaved (10:1), 'disobedient and contrary' (10:21), 'broken off, 'cut off, 'fallen' (11:19, 22)> an(^ 'hardened' (11:7, 25). Their only hope is to 'submit to God's righteousness' (10:3), which means specifically to believe in (10:4, 9, n; 11:20, 23), call upon (10:13), and confess (10:9-10) Christ.
Paul's first two elaborations on Deut 30:12-14 ('that is, to bring Christ down', 'that is, to bring Christ up from the dead', 10:6—7) provide 'a scriptural exclusion of any contemplation ofthe kind of human effort the rival mode of righteousness would involve' (Byrne 1996: 318). One need not, indeed cannot, do what God has done in Christ. The common obligation of Jews and Greeks is only to 'believe', 'confess', and 'call on the name ofthe Lord'.
Phil 3:2—9 is a close parallel to Rom 10:1—4 an(^ helps to clarify Paul's distinction between the Jews' 'own righteousness' and the righteousness imparted by God through Christ. In Phil 3:6, Paul says that 'as to righteousness under the law', he was 'blameless', a statement in tension with the interpretation of 9:31 that suggests that the Jews erred by failing to attain just such a status. In Phil 3, 'one's own' righteousness 'under the law' is rejected not because of its unattainability but because of its inferiority. Rom 10:1—4 may be much closer to this sentiment than is Rom 1-7. While it is not stated whether persons may succeed at 'establishing their own' righteousness, it is clear that their attempt to do so misses the point. Another, superior kind of righteousness exists, in the face of which the lesser righteousness is only a distraction. Put differently, the problem is this: Judaism is experienced as a complete, self-contained religious system that does not appear to require faith in Christ. One can be a superlative ('zealous', Phil 3:6; Gal 1:14; Rom 10:2) Jew—the preChristian Paul is Paul's own pre-eminent example—and still be on the wrong side of the line. Essential for Paul is the belief that Judaism without Christ is unfinished, that the law itself points to Christ as its ultimate goal and fulfilment (v. 4, tdos, probably in the sense both of intention and termination; Barrett 1957:197). Paul's characterization of Judaism's incompleteness varies; Paul's conviction of its incompleteness does not.
10:14-17, Paul returns to the matter of Israel's fault. Can it be that Israel's unbelief is occasioned by simple ignorance? Do they fail to call on Christ because they have not heard 'the word of Christ' (w. 17-18)? The 'good news' (Isa 52:7) has been delivered to them, but the report has not been received (also precedented in Isaiah: the nearby 53:2). Paul concludes his argument by offering scriptural warrant for the situation described in 9:30-1. Gentiles 'who are not a nation', 'who did not seek' God, have found God (Deut 32:21; Isa 65:1). By contrast, Israel is a 'disobedient and contrary people' to whom God's hands have been extended in vain (Isa 65:2). Thus, Paul would lay Israel's fault, its unbelief in Christ, at Israel's own feet.
(11:1—36) God's Plan for Israel Once again, Paul advances his argument with a rhetorical question concerning God's faithfulness and constancy. 'Has God rejected his people?' w. i-io reiterate the answers provided in ch. 9. That only a remnant of physical Israel is true Israel is precedented in Jewish history, in this case, in the example of Elijah and the seven thousand (i Kings 19). God has not spurned this Israel, that is, the portion of Israel 'whom he foreknew' (v. 2) and elected (v. 7). Again, Paul speaks of God graciously choosing some and of God hardening others (w. 5—7; see 9:6—18), which Paul again defends by means of scriptural citation (w. 8-10; Deut 29:4; 13329:10; Ps 69:22-3; 8669:17, 25-9; cf. the similar use of Isa 6:9—11 in both the synoptic tradition, e.g. Mk 4:12, and John, e.g. Jn 12:40).
Considerable debate has arisen over the relationship between the key w. 5 and 6, focusing on the force of de ('but') at the beginning of the second sentence. Ifde signals a strong contrast (again, between two forms of righteousness), then Paul is stating quite boldly that Moses was wrong to assert that one could 'live' (in Paul's usage, the word probably refers to resurrection life; see ROM 1:17) by doing the law. In favour of this interpretation one may cite Gal 3:12, which quotes Lev 18:5 to similar effect: Moses' words prove that 'the law does not rest on faith' but on 'works'. One way of diminishing the contrast between the two verses is to take the reference to 'live' in v. 5 in its original sense, referring not to eternal life but rather to 'life sustained by God... in accordance with the... law' (Dunn 1988: 612). But Rom 7:10 speaks ofthe commandment 'that promised' but could not deliver 'life'; there (as possibly in 10:5-6) it is not a question of two kinds of life but of two means, one failed and the other successful, of attaining the one true, eternal life. Other interpreters find continuity, not contrast, in Paul's statements. For example, Hays (1989: 75-7) has argued that w. 6-13 explain v. 5 by indicating what 'things' one must do in obedience to the law to find eternal life: namely, confessing, believing, and calling upon Christ. This view may be supported by the fact that Paul's second quotation, which helps to establish the principle that 'righteousness comes from faith', is also from 'Moses' (Deut 30:12-14, followed by citations of Isa 28:16 and Joel 2:32). It is instructive that those who do and those who do not see a contrast between w. 5 and 6 link Paul's argument to v. 4
v. n, the shift in Paul's argument here is immensely important. Imagine that chs. 9-11 had ended at 11:10: 'let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent'. In that case, Paul might with good reason be regarded as a thoroughgoing Christian supersessionist. 'Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking' (v. 7), and so Israel has been set aside in favour ofthe church. The fact that Paul has been read this way for centuries amply demonstrates that Rom 11:11-36 has not been given its due weight as the conclusion and climax, not only of Rom 9-11, but ofthe argument begun in 1:16—17 concerning the righteousness of God. Paul asks, 'Have they stumbled so as to fall?' For the first time, the possibility is raised of a future change in Israel's status. Their present 'stumbling' is not to be interpreted as a permanent 'fall'. As much as Paul wanted to justify the present reality (e.g. through talk of an elect remnant), he could not accept that reality as permanently justifiable. Here at last Paul offers a strong answer to the persistent question concerning God's faithfulness towards Israel.
In conventional Jewish eschatological expectation, Israel would first be restored, and then into that redeemed Israel
1103 ROMANS
w. 17—24, Paul's understanding ofthe relationship between Gentile believers and Israel is explicated by means ofthe olive tree metaphor. The Gentiles have no true root in themselves; they are wild branches grafted into an already existing, carefully cultivated olive tree. True, they now occupy the place of natural olive branches (Jews) pruned because of their fruitlessness (their unbelief), but they have no cause to be proud. The present situation is temporary: natural branches will be grafted back in, and some wild branches may yet be 'broken off.
would stream believing Gentiles (e.g. Isa 2:1-4; 42:1-9; 49; 55:4—5; 60:1—7; 66:18—23). Paul reveals this 'mystery' (v. 25 Jewish obduracy has led to a reversal of the eschatological timetable. Now is the period of Gentile inclusion: 'through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles' (v. n); 'their stumbling means riches for the world' (v. 12); 'their rejection is the reconciliation of the world' (v. 15); 'you (Gentiles) were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their [the Jews'] disobedience' (v. 30, my emphasis). Precisely what Paul believed happened (or could have happened in its place) is not clear. He might have imagined that Christ would have returned already had the mission to Israel succeeded. It is worth noting that the same train of thought is evident in Acts: the Jews are given a chance to repent with the promise of Christ's return (e.g. 3:17—21); increasingly, they reject the apostles' message, resulting ultimately in the martyrdom of Stephen (ch. 7), a direct consequence of which is the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles (11:19—26). This same pattern—Jewish rejection leading to Gentile opportunity—occurs repeatedly in the accounts of Paul's missionary activity in Acts (e.g. 13:13-52; 18:1-8; 28:17-28). v. 25, the period of Gentile evangelization is impermanent: 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in'. After the mission to the Gentiles is complete, God will act to bring faith to Israel and to complete the eschatological drama: 'So all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins" ' (w. 26—7, quoting Isa 59:20—1; 27:9). 'What will their acceptance be but life from the dead!' (v. 15). Interestingly, the author of LukeActs also maintains the expectation of a Jewish restoration following the Gentile mission (e.g. Acts 1:6—7; cfthe periodization of history in Lk 21:24: 'Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,' my emphasis). Unfortunately, NT scholarship often has overlooked the presence of these ideas in Romans as well as in Luke—Acts.
It should be said that the 'mystery' revealed in 11:11-32 does not follow logically from 1:1-11:10. Stopping at 11:10, one would conclude that only a small remnant of Israel is or ever will be saved. The church's mission to the Jews failed, and that is that. But present appearances belie ultimate realities (cf. 8:31-9). The resolution to Paul's 'sorrow and unceasing anguish' (9:2) is found at length in his trust in the eschatological triumph of God's righteousness. The issue finally is decided, not by reason, but by faith.
Fittingly, Paul's disclosure ofthe divine plan leads him to doxology (w. 33-6), an expression of awe at the greatness of God who uses even 'disobedience' to produce 'mercy' (w. 30-1). Of course, it is not God's inscrutability or power alone that compels Paul's adoration; above all, it is God's righteousness that is proved in God's 'ways' and 'judgments'. In coming to understand God's mysterious plan for Israel, Paul has looked behind the veil and glimpsed 'riches', 'wisdom', and 'knowledge' beyond human calculation. Paul's 'hymn of adoration' (Dunn 1988: 697) crowns chs. 9-11 in much the way that 8:31—9 concluded chs. i—8. Both passages affirm with rhetorical beauty and force the apostle's trust in God's trustworthiness. Disputation at an end, Paul points to God's future, believes in God's triumph, and worships.
The Righteousness of God Evident in the Lives of Believers (12:1-15:13)
(12:1—2) Introduction: The Renewal of Your Minds At 12:1, Romans turns from the conceptual and argumentative to the practical and didactic. This is a shift towards more typical Pauline content; anyone familiar with Paul's Corinthian, Philippian, or Thessalonian correspondence should feel at home in the ethical exhortations of chs. 12—15. Of course, Paul here writes to a church that he neither founded nor visited, a fact evidenced by the fairly general nature of his paraenesis (see ROM c, on the lack of contingency in Romans).
So, when all is said and done, God's election of'all Israel' stands (cf 'full inclusion' in v. 12), and God's righteousness is vindicated (w. 29—32). No details are offered concerning the constitution of 'all Israel'. (All Jews at all times? All Jews present at Christ's return? Cf. Sanday and Headlam (1980: 335):' "Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation," and not... necessarily including every individual Israelite.') At very least, it is clear that this group includes many if not all who are now, from Paul's perspective, 'disobedient' (w. 30-1) 'ungodly' (v. 26, a stunning characterization), and even 'enemies of God' (v. 28). Unlike Gal 6:16, there is no possibility here that Paul is referring to the church as ('spiritual') Israel. Ch. n contains two hints as to the means of Israel's eventual salvation. In w. ii and 14 Paul returns to a point made by his earlier quotation of Deut 32:21 (10:19): Israel will become jealous of the Gentile believers and repent. Perhaps this is sufficient means to win some to faith in Christ (11:13-14)—but 'all Israel'? That will be accomplished by God directly (v. 23), apparently in anticipation or consequence of Christ's return (v. 26; note the eschatologically oriented w. 12 and 15). More than that Paul does not say.
Paul has laboured to defend God's righteousness, in part through attributing to believers a righteousness unrealized by the now antiquated means of law obedience. But it is one thing to speak loftily of fulfilling 'the just requirement ofthe law' by 'walking according to the Spirit' (8:2—4); it is quite another to mark out the steps for such a journey. What does this new righteousness look like in everyday practice? Paul provides an illustrative, not exhaustive, answer in these few chapters.
God's extraordinary mercy was described in 11:30—2. What then is the fitting ('logical', logikos) human response ('service' or 'worship', latreia, 12:1)? It is to present oneself wholly to God, from whom and through whom and in whom are all things (11:36). Offering 'your bodies a living sacrifice' con-
ROMANS 1104