The Epistle to the Romans

By Leon Morris

In this now-classic commentary, first published in 1988 in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series, noted biblical scholar Leon Morris unravels Romans and the complexities of faith and interpretation associated with the epistle.

In his introduction Morris deals with matters of authorship, destination, date, occasion, and contents in a brief but helpful way. The commentary proper consists of careful verse-by-verse exposition of the text along with full and informative footnotes. Though he interacts considerably with the immense body of literature on Romans, Morris’s approach to the study of the epistle remains clearly his own. His thorough exegesis enables readers to understand Romans as one of the greatest and most spiritually significant books in the Bible.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Sep 6, 2018
• ISBN: 9781467451444

Leon Morris

Leon Morris (Ph.D. University of Cambridge) now in his retirement, was formerly Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, and has served as Visiting Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Book preview

Romans 1

I. INTRODUCTION, 1:1-15

Letters in antiquity, as in every age, had a conventional form. Whereas we begin with our address and the date, after which we greet our correspondent as Dear---------- (though he may be our worst enemy or a total stranger), the ancients had the sensible custom of starting with the name of the writer. They followed this with the name of the recipient and a greeting, giving the formula A to B, Greeting. There was usually a little prayer. In letters of a formal character written to strangers that was all. But titles were added to the names in official letters and expressions of warmth and esteem in more personal letters. The prayer might be no more than conventional good wishes (May the gods preserve you). Or it might be a genuine thanksgiving for blessings received. Here is the opening of a letter which survives: Serenus to his beloved sister Isidora, many greetings. Before all else I pray for your health….¹ Notice the use of the third person, which was normal.

Paul follows the usual pattern in all his letters, though with some significant modifications.² He takes his letter openings more seriously than do his more conventional contemporaries, and he makes them the vehicles of important Christian teaching. This ordinarily means a somewhat longer introduction than was normal. Nowhere is Paul’s ability to use the framework more apparent than in Romans. This opening is longer and much more formal than in Paul’s other letters—perhaps because he was not personally known to the Roman church, perhaps also because he did not want anyone to doubt his position as an apostle. It will be convenient to divide his opening into two parts, dealing first with his greeting and then with his prayer.

A. SALUTATION, 1:1-7

¹Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— ²the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures ³regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, ⁴and who through the Spirita of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: fesus Christ our Lord. ⁵Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. ⁶And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

⁷To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord fesus Christ.

a4 Or who as to his spirit of holiness

In this opening Paul speaks of his relationship to Christ and to the gospel, of the purpose God worked out in Christ’s saving work, and of the nature of Christian service. These first seven verses are one complicated sentence in Greek (Paul often uses such long, complicated sentences).

1. Normally Paul associates others with himself in his opening greeting.³ The absence of this feature marks Romans as highly personal. The name Paul is first used in Acts 13:9. The apostle’s original name, Saul, is from a Hebrew word with a meaning like asked⁴ (cf. Samuel, 1 Sam. 1:20). It was not uncommon for a first-century Jew to bear two names, a Greek or Roman name as well as his original Hebrew name. Since Paul was a Roman citizen he would have had three names, but it is understandable that he would not have emphasized his superior status when writing to fellow Christians who were mostly from the lower orders. Paul derives from the Latin paulus, meaning little. This may mean that the apostle was short of stature (is this meant in 2 Cor. 10:1, 10?),⁵ or it may be due to nothing more profound than that the name had a sound resembling Saul.⁶ For some reason he seems to have been known generally by his Latin rather than his Hebrew name.

He calls himself a servant of Christ Jesus, servant being a strong term meaning slave⁷ (used in similar fashion in Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:1; Jas. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1). As the Christians used it, the term conveys the idea of complete and utter devotion,⁸ not the abjectness which was the normal condition of the slave.⁹ Paul is affirming that he belongs to Christ without reservation.¹⁰ The term is applied to Abraham (Gen. 26:24), to Moses (Josh. 1:2), and to the prophets from the time of Amos (Amos 3:7; Isa. 20:3). Paul may thus be quietly affirming that he stands in the true succession of the prophets.¹¹ If this is in mind, it may be significant that he speaks of himself as the slave, not of God (as the prophets did), but of Christ. He puts Christ in the highest possible place.¹²

The probability is that he here calls his Savior Christ Jesus¹³ (though some hold that the order of the words should be reversed). Christ of course means Messiah, and many think that Paul normally uses the term as a title.¹⁴ But Vincent Taylor argues convincingly that we should usually understand the word as a proper name in Paul.¹⁵ This is supported both by the way Paul uses it and the frequency with which he employs it. In all Paul uses the term 379 times out of its 529 New Testament occurrences (65 in Romans). The highest total in any non-Pauline writing is 25 in Acts. It is thus to Paul that we owe our habit of calling our Lord simply Christ. The Gospels show that during his lifetime the title was used of him but rarely and that Jesus himself preferred the Son of man. In the other non-Pauline writings Christ is used on occasion, but some other name is more usual. But Paul habitually used the term, and from him it has passed into the common Christian vocabulary. This does not mean that he has forgotten that it is a title with the meaning Messiah; sometimes he uses it in the strict sense. But usually we cannot press it. Jesus, the human name, of course, means Savior. Paul uses it 37 times (38 if 16:24 be accepted) in Romans and 213 (214) times in all (John with 237 references is the only writer with more). While he does not employ it as frequently as Christ, clearly Paul loves the human name. When he combines the two he prefers the order Christ Jesus to Jesus Christ by a margin of 73 to 18 (omitting 24 cases where the MSS are divided). But if he includes Lord the order is reversed, with Jesus coming first 49 times and Christ eight times.

He proceeds to say that he is called to be an apostle. Since the Greek has no to be, we could take the words to mean a called apostle (as Boylan does). Nothing has to be supplied to get this meaning. But few accept it because it would imply that some other apostles were not called, and on Pauline premises this would be an absurdity. NIV is surely correct in supplying to be. The idea of a divine call is important for Paul, as we see from the fact that he uses the adjective called¹⁶ in seven of its ten New Testament occurrences. It stresses the priority of the divine (neither self-appointed nor chosen by men, Hodge). We should notice that for Paul the idea of call includes the notion of response. The called are those who have not only heard but have obeyed the divine call. Paul thinks of an effectual call.¹⁷ In stressing the thought of call Paul is not making an innovation. Many Old Testament worthies were called by God, such as Abraham (Gen. 12:1), Moses (Exod. 3:4ff.), Jeremiah (Jer. l:4ff.), Amos (Amos 7:15), and especially Isaiah (Isa. 6). Paul sees his task in life (like theirs) not as self-chosen, nor as mapped out for him by men (cf. Gal. 1:1), but as God’s own call.

His call is to be an apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1).¹⁸ Paul makes a good deal of use of this term. Perhaps surprisingly he rarely uses it of the Twelve. Mostly he uses it of himself or of apostles generally.¹⁹

The word means someone who is sent, a messenger. Paul had been sent as well as called. In the New Testament apostles were men of high dignity, owing their appointment directly to God (Gal. 1:1) and being mentioned first in the list of those appointed in the church (1 Cor. 12:28). They were concerned with establishing and caring for churches. The Twelve whom Jesus called were held in high honor, but Paul does not see his apostleship as in any way inferior to that of any (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11). He had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) and had been commissioned by him (Gal. 1:1). He had manifested the signs that mark an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). He had a special responsibility as the apostle to the Gentiles (11:13).²⁰

Paul says that he is set apart for the gospel of God. He uses this verb of his being set apart from birth (Gal. 1:15; there also it is linked with the idea of call; cf. Jer. 1:5; Acts 9:15). It is used of the setting apart of Barnabas and Saul for missionary work (Acts 13:2). Interestingly, it is connected with the root from which the Pharisees delighted to derive their name. They held that Pharisee means separated one,²¹ and Paul would have regarded himself in this light when he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5). Now, however, he is separated to a greater purpose. We often understand separation negatively, as separation from something. But here it is positive. Paul is separated to the gospel (cf. Acts 13:2). Gospel is a definitely Pauline word (60 times in Paul out of its 76 New Testament occurrences; nine times in Romans and Philippians is the most in any one book).²² It is found in every Pauline writing except Titus. The word basically means good news.²³ In a Christian context there is no good news to compare with the news of what God has done in Christ for man’s salvation.²⁴ It is this for which Paul is set apart. Some understand this to mean set apart to preach the gospel. It certainly includes this, but it is surely more. It means to be a gospel man, to live the gospel. Preaching is important, but then so is living. Paul’s call was to a way of life as well as to a task of preaching.

The gospel is the gospel of God (as in Mark 1:14; Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 4:17). Elsewhere Paul sees it as the gospel of his Son (v. 9), the gospel of Christ (15:19; it centers on his saving work), and my gospel (2:16; 16:25; the preacher must make the gospel his own). When the gospel is spoken of as God’s, it is referred to its ultimate source. It is rooted in God’s eternal purpose. It is promised in Scripture (v. 2). It takes its origin in God’s concern for his people and his will to save them.²⁵

God is the most important word in this epistle.²⁶ Romans is a book about God. No topic is treated with anything like the frequency of God. Everything Paul touches in this letter he relates to God. In our concern to understand what the apostle is saying about righteousness, justification, and the like we ought not to overlook his tremendous concentration on God. There is nothing like it elsewhere.²⁷

2. Paul’s emphasis on the divine continues. That the gospel is part of God’s unchanging purpose is evident from the fact that it was promised beforehand²⁸ in the prophetic writings. It is God’s gift, part of his purpose for his people. In that he has now fulfilled what he promised it is plain that God can be trusted and the gospel accepted. Notice that the prophets are called his prophets. Paul is not speaking of men of vision in general, men who by their innate abilities could discern the signs of the times. He is speaking of men who belong to God, the vehicles of his message. When a promise is given through (not by) such men, then clearly it is the promise of God. We are probably right in interpreting the term prophets as not only the prophets in the strict, technical sense, but all the Old Testament writers (cf. Heb. 1:1).²⁹ So Paul proceeds to locate the promise in the Holy Scriptures, or, more exactly, in holy writings.³⁰ The expression normally has the article (as NIV), but twice, in 16:26 and here, the Greek has the plural without the article, the noun being there qualified by the adjective prophetic and here by holy. This use is distinctly exceptional. It would be possible to recall the original meaning of the word and translate here by holy writings. But the reference to the prophets makes it clear that Paul has in mind the Old Testament. We should thus translate by holy scriptures. But by omitting the article Paul is emphasizing the character of these writings as holy (for this term see on v. 7)³¹ rather than following his usual practice of making them definite with the use of the article. It may well be that his gospel of grace had been misunderstood and that he had been accused of putting out teachings which destroyed the Old Testament. It was important to Paul, as to all the early Christians, that the gospel was the fulfilment of the Old Testament. It is the realization in action of what God had promised through his own prophets. It is the fulfilment of promises which had been recorded in writings which must be received with reverence, for they are holy.

3. That the gospel concerns the Son³² points to the central role of the Son in salvation. The title is one of high dignity, as is fitting for one who accomplished so great a work. As Paul uses the term, it involves community of nature with the Father.³³ That the Messiah would be a descendant of David is taught in the Old Testament (Isa. 11:1,10; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 34:23-24, etc.) and elsewhere.³⁴ The idea is found in a number of places in the New Testament. Paul’s expression here means became³⁵ of the seed of David according to the flesh, the seed of David being referred to on a number of occasions besides the present passage (John 7:42; 2 Tim. 2:8). Jesus is also called the Son of David a total of 12 times,³⁶ and there are other references of a somewhat similar character.³⁷ Jesus does not call himself Son of David and indeed on occasion seems to distance himself from the title (Mark 12:35-37).³⁸ But we should not exaggerate the significance of this, for when the title was directly applied to him he did not reject it (Mark 10:47-52). The facts seem to indicate that it was widely expected that the Messiah would be of David’s line and that Jesus knew that he was of Davidic descent. But presumably because of popular messianic expectations he put no emphasis on the fact.³⁹ The Davidic descent is thus of importance for an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship. It is, however, an aspect of the Messiah which evidently did not mean much to Paul, for he does not specifically mention it elsewhere (though 15:12 comes close).

Many hold that in vv. 3b-4 Paul is not composing freely but making use of a primitive Christian creed. This is supported by the structure of the section (parallelism and the like), the reference to David, some un-Pauline vocabulary,⁴⁰ and some theological implications of what is written which scholars find difficult to ascribe to Paul.⁴¹ It is quite possible that Paul is referring to a traditional summary of the faith familiar to the Romans. It would make good sense for him to assure them of his orthodoxy by citing words they accepted and with which they were familiar.⁴² But the credal hypothesis is not as certain as many assume. There is no way we can be sure of it, and in any case there are difficulties. Thus we have no real evidence for fixed credal forms until a considerably later time. Such credal fragments as scholars discern in the New Testament differ from one another whereas it is of the essence of creeds that they do not (there is no point in having a creed if people are free to modify it as they will). Further, the question arises as to whether the creed Paul uses is Roman or, say, Corinthian. If it was Roman, how did Paul come to know it? If it was Corinthian, how would the Romans recognize it? Such questions may have answers, but we should not assume that they do not arise. And the possibility must be kept in mind that Paul was not so much quoting a creed as making free use of traditional expressions.⁴³ In any case, if Paul is quoting we have no reason for thinking anything other than that what he has quoted he has made his own.⁴⁴

Paul proceeds to qualify his reference to Christ’s descent with as to his human nature, or more literally, according to the flesh. He uses the term flesh in a bewildering variety of ways and characteristically of the moral frailty which is so much a part of human life (see the note on 7:5). Here, however, the meaning will be as far as human nature, or perhaps physical descent, is concerned. On the level of flesh, of human life, Jesus really was a descendant of David (cf. 9:5). Theodoret, a fifth-century writer, pointed out that this way of expressing it carries the implication that there is more to be said. The addition ‘according to the flesh’ is not predicated of those who are merely what they are seen to be, and he cites the absence of the expression from Matthew’s genealogy to prove his point.⁴⁵ The words imply that Jesus was more than human. Otherwise it would be sufficient to say that he was of the seed of David.

4. The verb rendered declared has been variously understood. Cognate with the word for a boundary, it means something like bounded, marked out, designated⁴⁶ (as RSV, NASB, NEB, GNB, Goodspeed, etc.). If we accept this, we will see the meaning as that the resurrection showed Jesus to be the Son of God. Others prefer the meaning appointed (as in Luke 22:22; Acts 10:42, etc.). If this be accepted, it will be in the sense that he who was Son of God in weakness and lowliness during his earthly life Through the resurrection… became the Son of God in power (Nygren).⁴⁷ Paul would not have accepted a view that Jesus was not divine until appointed Son of God (cf. Phil. 2:5-11).⁴⁸ Leslie C. Allen stresses the link with Psalm 2:7 and sees the meaning as "decreed to be the Son of God.⁴⁹ K. L. Schmidt argues that there is no great urgency to decide between declaration or decree and appointment and institution because a divine declaration is the same as a divine appointment: God’s verbum is efficax."⁵⁰ It would seem that declared is the better way to understand the expression, but that appointed is possible in a sense which safeguards the truth that Jesus was Son of God before as well as after the resurrection.⁵¹

There is an ambiguity in that the words with power might be taken either with declared (powerfully declared, as NIV, GNB, SH, etc.) or with Son of God (declared to be the powerful Son of God, as JB, Käsemann, etc.). Grammatically either view is possible. Perhaps it is a little more likely that Paul has the latter meaning in mind. There is a sense in which Jesus was the Son of God in weakness before the resurrection but the Son of God in power thereafter. Elsewhere Paul can say that Christ was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power (2 Cor. 13:4), and it seems that he has in mind something of the same sort here. Jesus used the title Son of God very little (though cf. Matt. 27:43; John 10:36). He preferred Son of man. But Jesus’ own name for himself for some reason was not acceptable in the early church (it is found outside the Gospels only in Acts 7:56). Instead such a title as Son of God was favored, perhaps because it expressed so plainly what the early Christians thought about Jesus. The word here rendered power is used in the Synoptic Gospels for Jesus’ miracles, the mighty works.⁵² Paul is fond of contrasting mere words with power. The gospel does not simply offer people some bright ideas and then leave them to put them into practice as best they can. Christians live out their faith in a strength not their own, the power of God’s Holy Spirit. Here the note of power receives stress. The resurrection introduces us to that which overcomes death, a power alongside of which the mightiest of human forces is seen for the puny thing it is.

Through the Spirit of holiness⁵³ introduces a further ambiguity. This might mean according to his (the Son’s) holy spirit and refer either to the human spirit of Jesus⁵⁴ or to his divine nature.⁵⁵ Or it might mean according to the Holy Spirit.⁵⁶ There are difficulties with all these views. The view that it refers to Jesus’ human spirit is supported by the fact that there has just been a reference to the flesh which, it would seem, should be balanced by one to the spirit. Lagrange argues that just as flesh points to Christ’s humanity, so does spirit to his divinity. But against such views Jesus’ human spirit is never elsewhere referred to in terms anything like a spirit of holiness or a holy spirit. This sounds so much like a reference to the Holy Spirit as to be confusing. It is objected to the view that the Holy Spirit is meant that he is not normally associated with the resurrection. This is usually reinforced by the requirement for an antithesis to the flesh in verse 3. Hodge, indeed, is so impressed by this that he thinks a reference to the Holy Spirit destroys the antithesis. Paul, however, is not such a systematic writer that this is decisive. He quite often fails to supply antitheses we might think required, and we cannot insist on one here. And, while it is true that the Holy Spirit is not normally linked with the resurrection, it seems too much to say that he never can be.⁵⁷ Paul seems, then, to be speaking of the power of the Holy Spirit of God as shown in the resurrection and the designation of Christ as the powerful Son of God. A less probable alternative is that the sending of the Holy Spirit by the exalted Jesus (cf. Acts 2:33) is evidence that the Son has truly been exalted in power.⁵⁸

The words rendered by his resurrection from the dead could also be understood in the sense from the time of the resurrection from the dead.⁵⁹ There is certainly some reference to time, but this is not primary. Rather, the emphasis is on the fact that the resurrection is that whereby Christ is seen to be the Son of God in power. There is no his in the Greek and the resurrection from the dead would normally be taken to refer to the general resurrection at the last day (the identical or almost identical expression is taken in this way in Matt. 22:31; Luke 20:35; Acts 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 1 Cor. 15:12,13, 21, 42; Heb. 6:2).⁶⁰ But the words apparently can mean the resurrection of one man (Acts 26:23).⁶¹ This is the meaning required here. It is Jesus’ own resurrection of which Paul is writing. But we should not overlook the fact that he chooses to do this in a way more commonly used to denote the general resurrection.⁶² As Nygren puts it: "the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are not two totally different things…. For Paul the resurrection of Christ is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead." Elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20), and it may be that it is this that is behind the present expression (cf. 8:11). Christ’s resurrection is no isolated event, but has important consequences for mankind at large. The emphasis is not, however, on this, but rather on the fact that the resurrection shows Jesus to be the powerful Son of God. In the light of the resurrection he is not to be classed with the generality of mankind.

Paul goes on to give him the full title Jesus Christ our Lord. For Jesus Christ see on verse 1. Paul uses the title Lord 275 times (out of 718 in the New Testament). This term could be no more than a polite form of address like our Sir. But it could also be used of the deity one worships.⁶³ The really significant background, though, is its use in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to render the divine name, Yahweh. Where the Hebrew has this name of God the LXX frequently translates with Lord. Christians who used this as their Bible would be familiar with the term as equivalent to deity. They were thus taking a significant step when they used it of Jesus. In referring to Jesus Paul is fond of compound expressions. He uses the combination Jesus Christ 15-19 times in this letter (the exact number depending on the resolution of textual problems) and the reverse, Christ Jesus, 13-16 times. Lord is combined with one or both of these names 17 times, to which our is added 12 times and your once.⁶⁴ In all he uses the full expression Jesus Christ our Lord about 68 times, whereas the rest of the New Testament has it but 19 times (CGT). From all this it is clear that Paul is fond of compound names. Perhaps they helped him bring out something of the majesty of the Savior.

5. Through him appears to mean that the gifts in question come from God the Father and that he gives them through the Son. This gives good sense and may well be right. But the Greek preposition rendered through⁶⁵ may on occasion denote the ultimate source (as it does in 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:9; Gal. 1:1). Paul may thus mean from God. But even if the preposition has this meaning, Paul seems to have in mind that Christ is the giver. These uncertainties do not affect the main sense, namely that the apostle is speaking not of human achievement but of a divine gift. He often emphasizes that he owes all to Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:1, 12, 16).

We should probably take his we as an epistolary plural with the meaning I (in English we have the royal plural and the editorial plural; in Greek the writer of a letter sometimes says we where we would use the singular). The point is that apostleship is not a gift common to Christians at large, so that Paul can scarcely mean you Romans and I.⁶⁶ Some scholars think that the meaning is we apostles. This is not impossible, but it does raise the question of why Paul should drag in a reference to other apostles which he does not follow up. This would be all the more curious in the salutation of a letter from Paul alone, not from Paul and other apostles.

Grace is a typically Pauline word. It is found in the apostle’s writings no less than 100 times out of its 155 New Testament occurrences, so that Paul uses it approximately twice out of every three times it is found in these books. He uses it 24 times in Romans, the highest number in any one book (next is 2 Corinthians with 18, then Acts with 17). The word is cognate with that for joy, and the basic meaning is that which causes joy. We still retain some of this meaning when we speak of, say, a ballet dancer moving gracefully, that is, in a pleasing, joy-giving manner, or when we refer to the social graces. In a Christian context nothing brings joy like that great, inexplicable⁶⁷ saving act of God in Christ in which he freely brings about our salvation without any contribution from our side. The term thus comes to us rich with ideas of joy and bounty. Grace may be specifically opposed to what is due (4:4), or again, to works (11:6). The thought is of something completely unearned and unmerited. The word may be used of salvation in general (by grace you have been saved, Eph. 2:8),⁶⁸ but here it is a gift for service.⁶⁹ It is the free, divine gift which enables Paul to carry out the task allotted to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:12-14). Here grace is linked with apostleship.⁷⁰ The meaning may well be that Paul received grace for his work as an apostle (grace of apostleship), though it is also possible that he refers to grace as that which enables him to live the specifically Christian life in common with other believers, and apostleship as the peculiar gift God had given him for his ministry. Either way grace is not regarded, here or elsewhere, as a gift given for the recipient’s personal and private enjoyment. It is given in accordance with God’s will and to further God’s purposes.

Paul goes on to the purpose of the gift. The word rendered obedience⁷¹ is not found in pre-Christian writings (apart from one occurrence in LXX and one in Aquila). Christians did not, of course, bring the concept of obedience into the world. This virtue was known and appreciated long before, even if it found expression in other words. But certainly Christians gave it a new emphasis. Obedience follows from the truth Paul expressed in his opening line when he described himself as a slave of Christ. Believers belong to Christ without reserve. Therefore they owe him the most complete obedience. It is not without interest that this epistle, which puts such stress on the free salvation won for us by Christ’s atoning act, should also stress the importance of obedient response.

This is further brought out with a characteristic reference to faith.⁷² In the New Testament this noun normally denotes the attitude of trust, though sometimes it refers to what is believed, that is, the faith (e.g., Jude 3). In the present passage the expression is literally to obedience of faith,⁷³ an expression which recurs in 16:26 and which may be taken in any one of a number of ways.

(a) The genitive may be objective and faith mean the faith, the body of teachings held by Christians. Thus Moffatt translates, to promote obedience to the faith (cf. 6:17; Acts 6:7). The absence of the article tells against this; therefore some adopt the variant, obedience to the authority of faith, or even obedience to God’s faithfulness. The last two are possible, but they do not spring to the mind.

(b) The genitive may be subjective and denote origin, obedience which springs from faith (BAGD), or obedience which faith demands.⁷⁴

(c) The genitive might be epexegetic, meaning obedience which consists in faith⁷⁵ (so Murray, Cranfield, etc.).⁷⁶

The absence of the article makes (a) less plausible. There is more to be said for (b), and in any case it expresses an important truth. Many favor (c), but there is a problem in that, while faith and obedience go together, they are not identical. Why use two words for one meaning? It seems rather that the gospel is seen as demanding the response of faith. Accordingly, the way to obey is to believe. But obedience is more than faith, and faith is more than obedience.

Whichever way we take the expression, obedience is not an option (cf. 1 John 3:23-24). It is binding on all Christians. Faith’s obedience is a reminder that, as Paul understood it, faith is not an easy out for those who find a strict morality irksome. When anyone is saved through faith, it is with a view to obedience. The life is given in service to the Lord in whom one has come to believe. In some modern discussions Paul is seen as a charismatic, impatient of rules and institutions. Whatever be the truth about that, he clearly valued obedience. He was not free to innovate where God had made his will known.

For his name’s sake means something like for his sake.⁷⁷ In New Testament times the name had a much fuller significance than with us. We see it as a label, a way of differentiating one from another. But in antiquity generally it was held that in some undefined way the name summed up the whole person. That is the significance of changing a person’s name. God changed people’s names at times when he bestowed a new character on them (e.g., Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:28). When one person changed another person’s name it emphasized his lordship (2 Kings 24:17, etc.). Here name stands for the whole person.⁷⁸ Paul’s obedience was to all that Christ stands for.⁷⁹

In Paul’s case this was to be worked out among all the Gentiles. All is a word of which Paul is fond, and he uses it in over one third of its New Testament occurrences.⁸⁰ It may perhaps indicate the largeness of his vision. He was not apt to concentrate on some insignificant segment of any matter with which he was dealing.⁸¹ The word Gentiles is one he shares with Acts.⁸² Paul saw his vocation as specifically to the Gentiles (11:13; Gal. 2:9). This was a tremendous step of faith for a Jew, a Pharisee, and a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:4ff.). And when he turned to the Gentiles, he saw not a part only but all the Gentiles as coming within the scope of his commission. There was nothing small-minded about Paul.⁸³

6. Paul’s correspondents, whom he has not yet seen, come under the heading Gentiles. This may mean that the church at Rome was predominantly Gentile (so SH, Barrett, Bruce, etc.). Or it may point to its geographical location at the heart of the Roman Empire, and thus of the Gentile world (Cranfield). The former seems more likely, but either way this justifies the apostle of the Gentiles in writing to the Roman believers. Actually the Greek is not unambiguous, and it may be that we should take you also not with the preceding (the Gentiles among whom you also are) but with the following, as NIV, which groups the Romans with others who are called. But it seems better to take them with the preceding, as RSV, GNB, etc. In that case Paul is saying that the Romans are among the Gentiles and then goes on to refer to them as called. He used this word in verse 1 (where see note) of his own special call as an apostle. Now he balances this with the reminder that, while great apostles are certainly called by God, this is also true of every humble believer. When we think of our position as Christians we are inclined to think first of what we do, and so we speak of our faith or our commitment or the like. But Paul stresses God’s initiative. Christians are people whom God has called. He goes on to speak of being called to belong to Jesus Christ. There is a responsibility attaching to call. Those called belong to Christ. Their lives are his.⁸⁴

7. We come to the address: To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints. We have already noticed Paul’s fondness for the word all (see on v. 5). He leaves out nobody as he greets the church.⁸⁵ He proceeds to speak of the Roman Christians as God’s beloved.⁸⁶ It is only because of God’s self-giving love that the gospel, and hence the church, exists at all (cf. 5:5, 8; 8:35ff.). That Christians are loved by God is not a truism but a truth to be received with awe and wonder.

For called see on verse 1. The call of the rank and file of the Roman church balances that of the great apostle. Great leaders are called, but then so are all God’s lowly people. Saints is a term frequently used in the New Testament to denote Christians in general. Some deduce from passages like 15:25 and Ephesians 2:19 that the word was used by Jews or Jewish Christians as a self-designation to link them with the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:22; cf. 27). If so, Paul is putting the Gentile believers in the same class. The term reminds us of the essential character of being Christian. The word⁸⁷ basically signifies set apart, separated. We normally use this concept in a negative way and after separated we naturally supply from. But the separation of which Paul writes is not so much a separation from anything as a separation to God. It is positive, not negative. The saints are peculiarly God’s. They are set apart for him, called to be his dedicated people (NEB).⁸⁸ The word contains a challenge to faithful Christian service, for saints should live in accordance with the character implied in being thus set apart. At the same time their being saints at all is by virtue of their divine calling, not their own moral achievement.

We should not overlook the plural. We sometimes speak of an individual man or woman as a saint or refer to St. Peter, St. Mary, or the like. This is not a New Testament usage. The word is never used there of any individual believer. It is always plural when used of believers, and the plural points to believers as a group, a community set apart for God. Again, the term does not convey the idea of outstanding ethical achievement which we usually understand by saintliness. While the importance of right living is insisted on and may even be implied with this very term, the main thrust is not there. It is rather in the notion of belonging to God.

The rest of the verse contains Paul’s standard greeting, a form which other Christians apparently took over from him. While in a general way it corresponds to openings to letters at large, the precise form Paul gives it is not found before his time. The Greeks normally began with Greeting,⁸⁹ a word which in sound, though not in meaning, is close to grace. Peace reflects the usual Hebrew salutation. Thus Paul’s opening combines features from both groups.⁹⁰ For grace see on verse 5. The combination grace and peace is found already in Numbers 6:25-26.⁹¹ Peace is only slightly less Pauline than is grace. Paul has almost half the New Testament occurrences of the word.⁹² The Greeks generally understood peace as a negative thing, the absence of war. But in the New Testament the word has much of the positive connotation of the Hebrew shalom, which it constantly translates in LXX. For the Hebrews and the people of the New Testament peace was not so much the absence of war or strife as the presence of positive blessing.⁹³ In this greeting it always follows grace. It may not be pressing this unduly to see that it is only God’s grace that brings real peace.

Among Christians the characteristic name for God is Father.⁹⁴ This term is, of course, far from being confined to Christians. Pagans also used it, but for them it was not typical and for Christians it was (and is). The word expresses something of the love and tender concern that God so constantly shows his people. In the first century it also conveyed the thought of absolute rule, for the father in those days was supreme in his family (among the Romans the head of the house even had the right to put members of his household to death, even if this was done very rarely; cf. Gen. 38:24). But the main thing is the love and care which God never fails to show. As he does habitually, Paul links the Lord Jesus Christ with the Father in this salutation.⁹⁵ We should not overlook the very natural way in which the two are linked. St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it (SH). The same writers see this as pointing to the Trinity: There is nothing more wonderful in the history of Christian thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths.⁹⁶ In view of later church history this may be a trifle optimistic, but the New Testament usage is noteworthy. It is impossible to think of any other than Christ as being linked to the Father in this way. The formula tells us something important about the person of Christ.

B. PRAYER, 1:8-15

⁸First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. ⁹God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you ¹⁰in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

¹¹I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— ¹²that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. ¹³I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

¹⁴I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. ¹⁵That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Some pious expression was often found at the beginning of a first-century letter. It might be a little prayer that things would go well with the recipient(s) of the letter,⁹⁷ or perhaps a thanksgiving for blessings received. Paul makes something very real of this feature of early correspondence,⁹⁸ and we find a thanksgiving at this point in all his letters except Galatians (which has instead, I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting …). It is not surprising to find him praying for his converts, but it is interesting that he here prays for the Roman Christians, whom he did not know. Clearly his prayers were wide-ranging. This prayer expresses some of the intensity of the feeling with which the apostle had longed to visit Rome to work among the Christians there and to preach the gospel to the heathen. We gather incidentally from his words something of the reputation the Roman Christians had at that time.

8. Paul proceeds to thank God for what he had done among the Romans. The apostle begins with First, but he never does get around to a corresponding second.⁹⁹ This phenomenon may be due to a combination of the tumultuous way Paul’s thoughts tumbled out and the method of writing, by dictation to a secretary,¹⁰⁰ a procedure which does not make for the smoothing out of all grammatical irregularities. He begins with thanksgiving.¹⁰¹ He has used the epistolary plural in verse 5, but here, writing more personally, he uses the singular. He addresses God as my God, an expression he uses but rarely (2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 1:3; 4:19; Phlm. 4; some MSS of 1 Cor. 1:4). It reminds us that personal relationship is important in religion, a truth brought out by the frequent use of this kind of language in the Psalms.¹⁰² He offers his thanksgiving through Jesus Christ, another unusual expression;¹⁰³ neither Paul nor anyone else can presume to approach God of himself (cf. Heb. 13:15). The matter of his thanksgiving is that the faith of the Roman Christians is being reported¹⁰⁴ all over the world (cf. 1 Thess. 1:8 and, from another standpoint, Col. 1:5-6). He uses two different words for all (in all of you and all over the world),¹⁰⁵ but there seems no difference in meaning; we should see the change as stylistic. Both are a trifle hyperbolic. Paul did not know all the Romans or indeed many of them. And it is possible that some parts of the world did not speak about their faith. But the statement is meaningful. It brings out the facts that Paul is happy with what he knows about the whole church and that it had a good reputation throughout the world of the day. Faith is what really matters, and clearly Paul could take it for granted that the Romans were in agreement on the point.¹⁰⁶ Without it neither a person nor a church has claim to the name Christian. Sometimes the apostle’s words are taken to mean that the Romans were outstanding, as when Barrett sees the meaning as, " ‘the faith as you hold it’, that is, the understanding, constancy, and charity with which you hold it. Barth’s position is more in accordance with the text: Paul does not thank God for the piety of the Roman Christians…. He simply gives thanks for the fact that there are Christians in Rome" (so Nygren, Lagrange, Leenhardt, SH, etc.). It must have meant much to the scattered little Christian communities¹⁰⁷ that the church was established in the world’s capital city. So they spoke of it with satisfaction, and Paul gives thanks for it. World is largely a Pauline and Johannine term in the New Testament.¹⁰⁸ In Romans the word normally means the world at large, as here, or else the inhabitants of the world; it is not used of the world in opposition to God as often in John and sometimes elsewhere in Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:21).

9-10. Paul links this statement to the preceding in logical sequence with For (which NIV omits). It is a favorite word of Paul’s¹⁰⁹ and one very much at home in the argumentative style of this epistle. Here it introduces a statement explaining what the writer has just said. He is very much in earnest, as his calling of God to witness shows. This is a kind of oath, a very solemn affirmation of the truth of a statement which could be known only to God.¹¹⁰ The form is purely Pauline in the New Testament (with minor variants in 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10; but cf. Rev. 1:5; 3:14). On this occasion it is clearly very relevant, for (a) Paul had never yet been to Rome though for many years he had been the Apostle of the Gentiles, and (b) even as he wrote he was about to go off in the opposite direction, to Jerusalem. As he preaches the gospel Paul has given his life to the service¹¹¹ of God, this God whom he calls to witness, and this in no shallow, surface manner but with my whole heart, or more exactly, in my spirit.¹¹² This may carry with it the thought that the service of God must be carried out in the spirit rather than the letter, as some think. It certainly stresses the thought that there is nothing superficial about the apostle’s service. He serves God with his innermost being, with all his might. Hodge sees this as opposed at once to an insincere, and to a mere external service, while Cranfield finds a reference to his praying as being the inward side of his apostolic service contrasted with the outward side consisting of his preaching, etc.¹¹³

One may characterize the gospel in various ways (see on 1:1). Here Paul speaks of it as the gospel of his Son (cf. 15:19). It centers on Christ’s atoning act. Without that there would be no gospel. In a very special sense it is Christ’s own gospel. Paul speaks of his service of God as in the gospel (not in preaching the gospel; he says nothing about preaching, but simply that he serves in his spirit in the gospel). The gospel is central to the living out of the Christian life as Paul sees it; really to understand the gospel and accept it means a change in one’s whole life. It is central to Paul’s preaching, certainly (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17). But that is not his point here.

That for which Paul calls God to witness is the way he prays for the Roman Christians: how constantly¹¹⁴ I remember you in my prayers. He never stops. Remember is more exactly make¹¹⁵ mention, and Paul uses his word for mention¹¹⁶ seven times but it is found nowhere else in the New Testament. Since Paul has no special corner on any of the other words for remembrance, this is striking, though it is not easy to see whether this has significance. It is used of remembrance in prayer on every occasion but one (1 Thess. 3:6).

At all times¹¹⁷ emphasizes that Paul’s remembrance of the Romans is unvarying, not sporadic. His word for prayers is not found in the classical writers before the New Testament (though it does occur in LXX and the papyri); but the Christians found it congenial and used it often.¹¹⁸

At this point we notice an ambiguity arising from the way we punctuate. The most ancient manuscripts had no punctuation (or very little), and the punctuation we find in modern editions and translations is supplied by editors and translators. Paul says something very like: how constantly mention of you I make always at my prayers asking…. We could put a comma after make to give the sense: how constantly I make mention of you, always at my prayers asking…. Or we could put our comma after prayers thus: how constantly I always make mention of you at my prayers, asking…. Many modern translations favor the latter (as RSV, NIV, Moffatt), though it is also possible to opt for the former (with ASV, NEB). The difficulty with the former way is that there is nothing in the first clause to indicate that prayer is in mind, and it is further urged that it is doubtful whether Paul in his prayers invariably prayed to go to Rome. The problem with the latter is that how unceasingly and always appear very awkwardly in the same clause. But, however we resolve the problem, Paul is saying two things: in the first instance he prays for the Roman Christians constantly and in the second he asks God to let him visit them.

I pray renders a word which strictly points to petition from a sense of need,¹¹⁹ though we should probably not stress this. Paul proceeds to pile up a group of Greek particles which are the despair of the Greek student and which NIV reduces to now at last.¹²⁰ Paul does not particularize the method or the time, but he does want to come to Rome. Notice, however, that he slips in the caveat, by God’s will. His primary concern is to follow God’s leading, not to fulfil plans of his own making. He wants to come to Rome, but only in the way and at the time God chooses. The verse contains an interesting combination of Paul’s longing to visit Rome¹²¹ and of respect for the will of God. And it is the will of God on which the emphasis is placed.¹²²

11. But the longing is there—a deep and strong desire (cf. Acts 19:21). Paul proceeds to speak of it, and he makes it clear that it is no selfish desire. He longs¹²³ to see his Roman friends, not primarily to get something out of them, but in order to impart something to them, some spiritual gift to make you strong. In this place spiritual can do no more than add emphasis, for the idea is already there in the noun. Gift renders charisma, the word normally used of the special gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit (such as those discussed in 1 Cor. 12; cf. also Rom. 12:6ff.), gifts of healings, miracles, speaking with tongues, prophecy, teaching, and so on. But the word may also be used in a wider and more general sense of the gift God makes to every believer (5:15; 1 Pet. 4:10). Paul speaks of each as having a gift which determines whether he should live the married or the single life (1 Cor. 7:7). There is no reason to think that Paul has the special gifts in mind here, and the indefinite form of the expression¹²⁴ favors the more general concept. Nor is there any indication that he could have imparted such a gift if he wished to; they seem to have been gifts given by the Holy Spirit when and how he chose. The term is used here in the more general sense of anything that builds up the spiritual life. Paul wanted the Roman Christians to be strengthened in the faith as a result of the gift God would give them through his ministry. He speaks of strengthening them (and gives that as the purpose¹²⁵ of his proposed visit—he was not aimless in anything he did). Life was not easy for first-century Christians. At Rome, as elsewhere, it was important that they be strong.

12. Paul explains his meaning a little more, for what he has just said, though sincere, might seem boastful or patronizing.¹²⁶ Some suggest that Paul checks himself from reasons of policy, but this is not a cunning ploy, calculated to secure a desired effect. It is the simple truth. When he went to Rome the traffic would not be all one way.¹²⁷ Paul would doubtless bring something to the Roman Christians, but they would also help him. They would be mutually encouraged¹²⁸ by each other’s faith.¹²⁹ The mutuality is strengthened by the addition both yours and mine¹³⁰ (which NIV omits, thus losing a Pauline emphasis). This is not required by the sense, for the faith in question had to be that of Paul and the Romans. But the addition makes it quite clear that the faith of both was to be a factor in the situation. Paul was sure that the Romans would help him just as he would help them. Actually the translation that you and I may be mutually encouraged slightly oversimplifies the Greek. Paul says, that is, to be encouraged among you. He does not specify who is to be encouraged, though clearly he means himself (there is nobody else who is to be among you). But at this point he is thus putting more emphasis on his receiving from the Romans than on their receiving from him. He would certainly give them all he could. But he wants to leave no doubt but that he expected to be encouraged by their faith.¹³¹

13. I do not¹³² want¹³³ you to be unaware¹³⁴ is an expression Paul uses four times (11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1), while on two more occasions he differs only in using the plural we (2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13). He uses this expression as a rule when he is introducing his readers to something they might not be expected to know but which he regards as important. In this way he emphasizes it to some extent. Paul often uses brothers¹³⁵ as a form of address (in this epistle on no less than ten occasions), but it is rare outside his writings. Luke uses men and brothers and James my brothers. Normally the term carries overtones of affection, but since Paul had never been to Rome we must take this as an indication of the warmth of feeling he had for all who were kin to him in Christ.

This leads to the statement that he had often¹³⁶ intended¹³⁷ to come to Rome (cf. Acts 19:21), but had always been prevented.¹³⁸ He does not say what had prevented him; his emphatic term, however, implies that he had tried hard to make the trip but that circumstances beyond his control had prevented it. His aim in seeking to come to Rome was in order that I might have a harvest among you. Have a harvest is perhaps more accurately rendered, get some fruit¹³⁹ (cf. John 15:16), a term which is not further defined. There may be something of a double meaning: the harvest would be his gain and theirs. Usually in the New Testament fruit refers to qualities of character or the like, as when Paul speaks of the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace … (Gal. 5:22). It may be that this is in mind here, but on the whole it seems a little more likely that he is thinking of converts. He had been the means of bringing people to believe in Christ elsewhere in the Gentile world (for Gentile see on v. 5). Now he looks for the same thing to happen in Rome. The other Gentiles shows that Paul had had a very extensive ministry, but we need not take it to mean that he had worked among all the other Gentiles without exception. The expression also shows that the Roman church had many Gentiles in it, perhaps that it was predominantly Gentile.

14. There is no connecting particle, a fact which Godet takes to indicate feeling. Paul goes straight on to I am bound both to Greeks and non-Greeks. I am bound is more literally I am a debtor.¹⁴⁰ Paul uses the concept of debt on a number of occasions (as in 8:12; 15:27; Gal. 5:3). Here he probably means that his commission as the apostle of the Gentiles put him under obligation to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, at Rome as elsewhere. For any of us to receive the gospel is to incur a debt, and Paul shared in this. Obligation to him who died produces obligation to those for whom he died.¹⁴¹ Earle speaks of a vast amount of unnumbered blessings he had received from God and adds, All this put him under obligation. But we should not overlook the fact that Paul speaks of being a debtor not to God, but to the Gentiles. This gives point to Barclay’s comment: He was debtor because of all the kindness that he had received, and he was a debtor because of his obligation to preach to them. Cranfield rejects this and understands the words in the sense having an obligation to them in the sense that God has laid upon him a duty toward them. ¹⁴² We need not tie Paul down too tightly and insist that his words be given the narrowest possible interpretation, but is this just to the fact that he speaks of himself as debtor to the Gentiles ? It is better to see the thought as complex, certainly including all the implications of Paul’s commission to be the apostle to the Gentiles, but with a glance also at what he owes the Gentiles in so many ways. They had contributed to his understanding of life. There may also be the thought that he had got fruit among many nations and was thus indebted to them.¹⁴³ It is not completely clear whether Paul’s groups of people are meant to sum up all mankind or only the Gentiles. In favor of the Gentiles is his reference to them at the