Overview:
Paul’s letter to the Romans is the longest of his letters in the New Testament. It is also the only one that was written to a church that Paul himself did not found. Because it contains the longest and most systematic treatment of Paul’s theological ideas, the letter to the Romans has been considered as Paul’s masterpiece and the go-to document for understanding the essence of Christian theology. However, it remains a letter, not a sustained philosophical treatise, and so displays some of the same weaknesses as Paul’s other letters. In examining Romans, we will find inconsistencies within the letter itself, contradictions with Paul’s other letters, and theological differences in comparison to other New Testament authors. The letter to the Romans was written probably from Corinth, sometime between 55 and 57 A.D., which places its composition after Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and both letters to the Corinthians. (Source: Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.5, pp.816-817.)
1:1 Paul introduces himself as a “servant” of Jesus Christ. Other than Philippians, this is the only genuine letter of Paul where he introduces himself with that term. The Greek word is doulos, which is most properly translated as “slave,” but the modern English translations all render it as “servant.” This is no doubt because of the unsavory political connotations associated with “slave” in our times, but “slave” is the basic meaning of the word, and is more consistent with Paul’s theology. He wrote to the Corinthians that “you are not your own; you were bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Servants are not bought – slaves are.
1:2 This is a key element in Paul’s theology – i.e., the notion that Jesus Christ as savior was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. It is this assumption that allows Paul to argue that he is not inventing a new religion, but simply interpreting the old one as it was meant to be. It also allows him to claim that he is not rejecting the law and tradition of the Jews, but building upon it. By this line of reasoning, it is then the fault of the Jews if they do not see or accept the prophecies contained in their holy scriptures.
1:3 Paul here declares that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh.” This connection with David was necessary in order to support Jesus’s claim to be the messiah. (See, for example, Jeremiah 23:5-6.) However, to say that Jesus was descended from David “according to the flesh” contradicts the virgin birth stories of Matthew and Luke. Both Matthew and Luke, though they trace the ancestry of Joseph back to David in their conflicting genealogies, break off at Joseph and relate that Jesus was sired by the Holy Spirit, so that Jesus has no father in the Davidic line, and is thus not descended from David “according to the flesh.”
1:4 There is a subtle point being made in this verse, which has enormous theological implications. Jesus was designated as the son of God “by his resurrection from the dead.” The theological point in question is whether Christ had always pre-existed as the son of God from the beginning of time, or whether the man Jesus became the son of God during his earthly life. Those who took the latter approach are known as “adoptionists” because they believed that the man Jesus was adopted as son by God, and that the resurrection represents the moment of adoption. Acts 2:36 also represents this view of Jesus. Speaking of the adoptionist view, The Interpreter’s Bible observes that “the earliest Christology was almost certainly of this type.” (vol.9, p.382)
The opposite point of view, that of the pre-existent Christ who existed from the beginning alongside God, and came to earth in human form, is represented in its pure form by the portrayal of Christ in the gospel of John, and is known as incarnationism. Paul straddles the fence, supporting the adoptionist view here in this verse, while elsewhere seeming to take on the incarnationist position (e.g., Philippians 2:6-7). “Paul’s Christology is of the intermediate type and therefore not as coherent and consistent as either the primitive adoptionism which preceded it or the incarnationism which followed.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.383)
But if Paul, the architect of orthodox Christian theology, is not consistent or coherent on the crucial question of who Jesus is, how credible can he be as the representative of a religion which has Jesus Christ at its center?
1:10 In this verse we learn that Paul has not yet visited the Roman congregation. As noted in the Overview, Paul himself had not been involved in the establishment of the Christian church at Rome.
1:13 Paul has wanted to visit the Romans, but has been prevented. He does not say whether it was Satan who prevented him from coming, but that is the excuse he gives for not coming to visit the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 2:18.
The reference to “the rest of the Gentiles” would seem to indicate that Paul is not addressing a congregation which contains a significant number of Jewish converts.
1:14 The “Greeks” mentioned by Paul are not limited to persons of Greek ethnicity. Rather, he means all civilized people of the Greek-speaking world. Recall that Greek was the universal language of the time, and was understood throughout the Mediterranean world, which is why all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Paul thus would have included the Romans in the term “Greeks.” It is not likely that the Romans in turn would have referred to themselves as Greeks, but they would have understood what Paul meant.
1:16 Here Paul presents another major theological tenet. The gospel promises salvation to “every one who has faith.” Not only does this conflict with the letter of James (“Faith without works is dead.” James 2:20), but Paul himself says in this very letter to the Romans that on the judgment day, God will judge every person “according to his works.” (2:6) Reconciling these two conflicting views of salvation – faith vs. works - has occupied Christian apologists for centuries. For a fuller discussion of the issue, see Mike Davis, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament, pp.97-99.
1:18-25 This argument is an attempt by Paul to demonstrate why Gentiles need Christ. Even though God’s law was given only to Jews, Gentiles also are condemned because they had every opportunity to see God in his works, and to honor and worship him in righteousness. However, Paul again conflicts with his own argument in this very letter, because he later says that it is the giving of the law which creates sin, and that without the law, no sin is counted. (Romans 5:13) Compare Paul’s argument here with Jesus’s words in John 15:22, where Jesus declares “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin.” Thus, the Gentiles, to whom no law was given, cannot be held responsible for whatever sins they might commit, which is the very opposite of what Paul is trying to argue in this passage.
1:26-27 Paul continues to recite a litany of wrongs that the pagan nations have been guilty of. (Later, in chapter 2, he will accuse the Jews of similar crimes.) Here he is especially concerned with what he considers as “unnatural” sexual relations – i.e., homosexuality. The “due penalty” which results from these “shameless acts” has been interpreted by some fundamentalists as a warning about HIV/AIDS.
1:29-31 Paul piles on the epithets, calling the pagan nations “inventors of evil,” murderous, deceitful, “haters of God,” and even “disobedient to parents.” That pagan society was not quite so promiscuous as Paul implies is seen in his comment to the situation he describes in 1 Corinthians 5:1. In that passage, Paul describes a man of Corinth – a Christian – who is living with his father’s wife. (Presumably the father has died.) Paul notes that this type of immorality “is not found even among pagans.” (1 Corinthians 5:1). So the invective that Paul spews forth upon the pagans here in Romans must be an exaggeration, in light of the fact that they had prohibitions against such behavior as living with one’s stepmother.
With reference to the situation in 1 Corinthians, The Interpreter’s Bible notes that “this relationship was also forbidden by Roman law.” (vol.10, p.60) “Sexual relations between a man and his stepmother were generally considered incestuous, both in Judaism (e.g., Lev 18:8) and in the Graeco-Roman world.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1116) So perhaps pagan morals were not quite so loose as Paul implies. Also, it is inconceivable that the great achievements of ancient Greece and Rome would have been possible if their societies had really been as Paul describes them – i.e., an unruly turmoil of sex, murder, deceit and greed.
1:32 No source is cited for Paul’s claim that God has “decreed” that those who commit these acts deserve to die. Where is this decree of God written? We have already observed that if no law has been given, then sin is not counted against a person. (See comment to 1:18-25.) To say that Gentiles who have never received any commandments from God nevertheless deserve death for violating God’s wishes, is simply an assertion by Paul without any foundation. The argument of 1:18-20 is insufficient to establish Paul’s case, because he does not show how the observation of nature allows us to infer any kind of moral code whatsoever, much less the specific moral code of the Hebrew god.
2:1 Although it is not explicitly stated in this verse, it becomes apparent as the argument develops that Paul is here addressing the Jews. His point is that the Jews should not feel any superiority or pass any judgment upon the pagans, because the Jews themselves are guilty of the same things. Apparently it is acceptable for Paul himself to pass judgment on the pagans, and on the Jews, too. His assessment is that pagans and Jews alike – the entire human race - are base and wicked, and deserving of extermination. Those who consider Christianity to be an uplifting religion of hope and good news, should take note of this premise on which their religion is based.
2:5 The Jew’s “hard and impenitent heart” prevents him from accepting God’s kindness and patience. But God himself is the one who hardens the hearts of unbelievers. See the comment to 2 Corinthians 4:4 for examples. Apparently, even Jesus’s own disciples were not exempt from this hardening of the heart, according to Mark 6:52.
2:6 Having said that faith is the basis for salvation in 1:16, Paul now says that God will requite everyone “according to his works.” This ignites the whole faith vs. works debate again. Can a person be saved simply by having faith in Jesus’s resurrection? Or are good works (i.e., obedience to the law) also required? The apologists’ standard answer is that both will go hand-in-hand. Those who have true faith will also be motivated to do good works. But this view is not supported by the Bible.
The contrary position to Paul is found in the book of James, where we read that “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:20) That works are not merely incidental is shown a few verses later, where we read that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Thus, the author of James does not simply say that works will naturally accompany faith, but that works are required for an individual to be justified before God. Paul, notwithstanding his contrary stance here in 2:6, is adamant that “a man is justified by faith without (or “apart from”) the works of the law.” (Romans 3:28) Paul, therefore, clearly envisions the possibility that faith may exist without, or apart from, the works of the law, and is in itself sufficient for salvation. Thus, the faith vs. works debate cannot be resolved by assuming that they will both always go hand-in-hand. There is a clear contradiction between Paul’s view and that expressed in the book of James.
2:10 Paul promises “glory, honor, and peace” to those who do good. But it is an empty promise, for he tells us later that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (3:23)
2:12 Those who are without the law (i.e., the pagans) will nevertheless perish for their sins. But as we have already noted, this contradicts Paul’s statement in 5:13 that “sin is not counted where there is no law.” Paul’s purpose here is to lead to the conclusion in 3:23 that “all have sinned” so that he can then argue that all are in need of Christ’s sacrifice. Despite the contradictions, these first few chapters of Romans constitute the longest and most coherent theological argument in any of Paul’s writings. (In other words, this is as good as it’s going to get.)
2:13 Continuing the theme of justification by works, Paul declares again that it is the “doers of the law” who will be justified. This contradicts Paul’s own words in Romans 10:9, where faith alone is sufficient, as well as John 3:16 and Acts 16:31, which also promise salvation by faith alone.
2:17-24 Paul continues to castigate the Jews for their hypocrisy – boasting of their close relationship with God, even as they violate his commandments. Paul has nothing positive to say about anyone – Jew or Gentile.
Verse 24 cites Isaiah 52:5 to argue that the Jews are responsible for the blasphemy of the Gentiles against God. Paul’s use of this verse is “truly surprising” and “a stunning misreading of the text.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1091.) In fact, Isaiah 52 has Yahweh speaking of the Hebrews’ liberation from captivity, and the name of Yahweh is “despised” by their captors because he has freed them without paying any ransom.
2:25 Continuing to address the Jews, Paul declares that circumcision is beneficial “if you practice the law.” But elsewhere Paul tells his readers that “circumcision is nothing,” and that what really matters is keeping the commandments. (1 Corinthians 7:19) And in the letter to the Galatians, circumcision is positively harmful, because “if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.” (Galatians 5:2)
2:29 Here Paul seems to reject the notion of physical circumcision altogether, and replaces it with the concept of “spiritual” circumcision. Paul does not explain here what this spiritual circumcision might mean, but in Colossians 2:11 it is likened to the removal of the fleshly body which leads to sin.
3:1-2 Paul again proclaims the value of circumcision, in contrast to his comments in 1 Corinthians 7:19. It is, however, possible that Paul is here using circumcision as a metaphor for the Jewish community. If that is the case, then his question, “What is the value of circumcision?” may be taken to mean, “What is the value of belonging to God’s chosen people if God’s grace is for everyone?”
3:4 The gist of Paul’s argument, and the citation from Psalm 51:4, is that the wickedness of the Jews serves to highlight God’s justice and righteousness. But Paul chooses to quote the Psalm passage from the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (Septuagint) rather than from the Hebrew. There is, however, a significant difference in the two texts. The Greek version cited here by Paul ends with a passive verb – “when thou art judged.” The Hebrew version, which serves as the basis for the modern English translations of the Old Testament, has an active meaning – "when you judge.” (NASB) Paul, who claimed to have been educated in the scriptures as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), should have known that the Greek version did not accurately reflect the Hebrew original.
3:5-6 Paul’s argument here is perverse in the extreme: The wickedness of the Jews serves God’s purpose by highlighting his goodness and justice. But even though they are serving God’s purpose, the Jews are the object of God’s wrath. Paul claims that this is not unjust, because otherwise God would not be able to judge the world. Thus God’s ability to judge the world is the primary objective. This judgment is not merely an unfortunate consequence of man’s choosing to sin. Judgment is the goal. It is a rigged system, in which man is created too weak to resist sin, and then is condemned for sinning.
3:9-10 These verses contain the fundamental premise of Paul’s theology: that sin is universal, and encompasses both Jews and Greeks. “None is righteous.” We find the same idea expressed in 3:23. This premise is flawed on several grounds and is subject to the following objections:
1) The word Paul uses is quite literally “Greeks” and thus his premise is not as universal as it might initially seem. As stated, it would not apply to the Germans or Chinese, or to most Americans. Christians would like us to take the word “Greeks” metaphorically to stand for all non-Jews, but their willingness to suspend the literal meaning of the Bible’s words only seems to arise when the literal words create awkwardness for them.
2) By claiming that humans are under the “power of sin,” Paul nullifies a favorite Christian argument for excusing God’s willingness to allow human suffering. The most common argument heard to justify suffering and evil in the world is that God didn’t want to eliminate free will, so gave us the choice whether to obey his commandments or not. Paul’s position is very much against this view, instead positing sin as a cosmic force, which people are powerless to resist, and thus they need to rely on God’s grace to save them from it. Paul’s comment in 6:22 about becoming “slaves of God” puts him even more solidly into the anti-free will camp.
3) The Bible elsewhere contradicts Paul’s claim that “None is righteous.” We are told in Luke’s gospel (Luke 1:6) that Elizabeth and Zacharias (parents of John the Baptist) were “blameless” and kept all God’s commandments. Job was also “blameless” and “turned away from evil.” (Job 1:1) (Look what it got him.) And in the early days, according to Genesis, Noah was equally “blameless.” (Genesis 6:9) Paul even bragged that he himself was “blameless” as to the law. (Philippians 3:6)
So the fundamental premise of Paul’s theology – the universality of sin – does not hold up. How then can the salvation plan founded upon it be taken seriously?
3:20 Here we read that no one will be justified before God by performing works of the law. It appears that this contradicts Paul’s earlier statement that God will render to each according to his works (2:6). But the Christians have an escape from this one. If God renders to each according to his works, but no one is righteous (3:10), then no one will be justified through works. So the verses can be rendered compatible by assuming that no one will actually be able to keep the requirements of the law. However, there remains the well-known contradiction on this point between Paul and the letter of James, where we read that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) See the extended discussion on this issue in the comments to 2:6 and 1:16.
Although Paul claims here that the knowledge of sin comes through the law, the first mention of sin in the Bible comes in Genesis 4:7, where God tells Cain that sin is “crouching at the door” for him. Thus, knowledge of sin must predate the law, which according to Paul in Galatians 3:17 did not come until 430 years after Abraham. And even in the days of Abraham, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were labelled as “sinners” (Genesis 13:13) and were punished for it (Genesis 19:24) long before the Mosaic law was given.
Thus, another of Paul’s theological premises falls. According to the Bible itself, it is not knowledge of the law that brings about sin. Rather, sin was in the world, and counted as sin (contrary to Romans 5:13), and punished as sin, long before the giving of the Mosaic law.
3:23 “All have sinned.” As we have already noted, this fundamental concept in Paul’s salvation scheme is contradicted by other passages in the Bible, identifying individuals who lived blameless lives. See the comment to 3:9-10, point 3.
3:24-25 This is the point which Paul’s arguments have been building to. Salvation does not come through any action on the part of human beings, but through God’s grace, by means of Christ’s redemption.
Apparently, the sacrifice of Christ was not really necessary, it was only to show off God’s righteousness. (v.25) But the “expiation [of sins] by his blood” is a another central element in Paul’s theology. “The feeling that there can be no annulling of sin without the shedding of blood was native to Paul.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.433.) As for how sin can be atoned for, there would appear to be a sharp distinction between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul. “One gets the impression from Jesus’ teaching that he thought of repentance as representing this satisfaction of the law [i.e., the sacrifice required to expiate sin]; but Paul, who makes no theological use of the idea of repentance, undoubtedly finds in the life and death of Christ the indispensable atoning sacrifice.” (ibid., pp.433-434) A vocabulary search shows that repentance is mentioned only four times in all of Paul’s letters. Jesus, on the other hand, taught people to “repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)
3:28 Here Paul emphasizes that faith alone (i.e., apart from works of law) is sufficient to justify an individual before God. He makes the same point in Galatians 2:16. Thus, the contradiction between Paul and James (See comment to 3:20) cannot be reconciled by claiming that both faith and works would naturally appear together.
3:31 Paul claims that “we uphold the law.” Perhaps he is saying this in order to appear respectable to the Roman community, which may have consisted disproportionately of Jewish Christians. But elsewhere, Paul is clear that the law is no longer in force for Christians. See, for example, Romans 8:2; Galatians 3:13.
4:3 This passage is quoted from Genesis 15:6. But the context of the Genesis quote is somewhat more constrained than Paul implies. In it, God (Yahweh) has just told Abraham that his descendants will outnumber the stars, and it is this promise that Abraham believed and which was reckoned to him as righteousness. However, this righteousness was not the reason that God promised such success to Abraham. Rather God's promise was Abraham’s reward for obeying God’s commandments. See the comment below on 4:13.
Furthermore, God promised to make a great nation of Abraham and his descendants well before this alleged demonstration of faith recounted in Genesis 15:6. The promise comes as early as Genesis 12:2, and is not connected with any display of faith or righteousness on Abraham’s part (or “Abram” as he was called at that time).
4:6-8 Paul quotes this passage from Psalm 32:1-2 to support his notion that God does not require works in order to attain righteousness. However, if we read farther in Psalm 32, we find that the means to forgiveness is neither faith nor works, but repentance. “I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Psalm 32:5)
There are actually three different ways to salvation and justification with God, according to the New Testament: faith, works, and repentance. On repentance, see the comment to 3:24-25.
4:11 Paul is incorrect when he claims that Abraham received circumcision as a sign of his righteousness or his faith. The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Abraham and God. (Genesis 17:11)
4:13 This statement by Paul is flatly contradicted by Genesis. Paul claims that God’s promise to Abraham did not come through the law, but through righteousness and faith. However, in Genesis 26:5, God explicitly states that he is promising to multiply Abraham’s descendants and give them the promised lands “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” This contradiction is fatal to Paul’s theology, because he needs to establish that justification by faith predates justification by the law in the Hebrew scriptures, in order to justify his dismissal of the law as the means of salvation. But as the scriptures say, Abraham was favored by God because he kept God’s laws. Obviously, there were laws before the Mosaic laws, and Abraham was rewarded by God for obeying those laws. Paul’s claim therefore has no support from the Old Testament scriptures.
4:15 Both points made here by Paul are contradicted elsewhere in the Bible. He tells his readers that “the law brings wrath,” but Psalm 112:1 proclaims, “How blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments.” And in Psalm 119:47 the psalmist rejoices that “I shall delight in your commandments, which I love.”
The second point, that “where there is no law there is no transgression,” was contradicted by Paul earlier in this very letter, as we have already seen. In 1:18-20, Paul argued that the Gentiles are “without excuse” because they should have inferred God’s laws from observing the world he created. Thus, they deserved his wrath just as much as the disobedient Jews, who had been given the law.
4:16 Here we have the conclusion to Paul’s argument: it all “depends on faith.” But as we have seen, all the points raised in support of this conclusion have been shown to be invalid.
4:19 Paul claims that Abraham “did not weaken in faith” when God told him he would be the father of many descendants, even though Abraham was by that time very old. After God promises the land to him, Abraham asks, “How am I to know that I shall possess it?” (Genesis 15:8) Thus, Abraham was not at first convinced that God was telling him the truth, and God suggests that they perform an elaborate covenant ritual involving slain animals being cut in two, in order to cement the promise.
Also, Paul claims that Abraham believed in God’s promise of numerous offspring even “when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.” But Abraham doubted this too. He was so skeptical of old Sarah’s ability to bear him children, that he “went into” Sarah’s maidservant (at Sarah’s suggestion) and conceived a child by her. How then can Paul assert that Abraham displayed complete faith in God’s words?
4:20-21 Paul continues to stress the absolute faith of Abraham and his confidence in God’s promises, but as we have seen, Abraham displayed no such faith.
4:24 Again, we reach the conclusion of the argument, which has no force because of all the contradictions and inaccuracies that we have already observed leading up to this conclusion.
5:1 “Since we are justified by faith.” Paul assumes that he has adequately proven his case that justification comes through faith rather than works, and now he moves on to discuss the implications of that conclusion.
Although most of the modern translations render the main verb of this verse as “we have peace,” the most reliable Greek texts have it as “let us have peace.” The preference for “we have peace” is based on the fact that it makes more sense in the context. Theologically, it is a minor point, but it shows how translators can be influenced by their understanding of what the author intends to say, rather than being guided by what the text actually says. See a fuller discussion of this verse in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, pp.451-452.
5:3-4 Based on these words, Christians have no incentive to help the afflicted or to reduce suffering in the world. Why would anyone want to relieve suffering when it encourages endurance, builds character, and produces hope?
5:6 Note the use of the adjective “weak” to describe the condition of the proto-Christians before Christ’s death. This fits with Paul’s conception of sin as an external force, which humans are powerless to resist. See the comment to 3:9-10, point 2.
5:9 Here Paul reveals the mechanism by which Christ brings about our justification with God. It is through his blood that sinners are justified. We have seen this theme before – see the comment to 3:24-25. Paul thus sees Jesus’s sacrifice in the context of the sin offerings described in the Hebrew scriptures. Those sacrifices were required to be “without blemish.” (Deuteronomy 17:1) So the sacrifice of Jesus, who was free from sin, would fulfill this requirement. But was Jesus really free from sin? The Bible actually shows that Jesus committed several violations of God’s commandments, and was therefore unfit to serve as the unblemished sacrifice required by Paul’s theology. See “Jesus was a sinner” at bibleblunders.com.
5:12 Paul manages to commit a fundamental contradiction in this one verse, and it is a contradiction that undermines a central premise of his theology. First we are told that sin entered the world “through one man,” i.e., Adam. But then we are told that death came to all because “all have sinned.” So which is it? Are we all sinners because Adam’s sin was passed on to us? Or because we “all have sinned”? The argument Paul makes with regard to Jesus’s sacrifice depends on Adam being the source of sin and death for all. But to say that sin and death came to mankind because all have sinned means that the case for Christ has to be made for each individual person, whose actions must then be examined to determine whether they have indeed sinned. Paul thus manages to squeeze two radically different theologies into the same verse.
5:13 “Sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” We have already noted that this verse contradicts Paul’s earlier claims that the Gentiles nevertheless have no excuse for their sins (1:20) and will perish because of them (2:12), even though they were without the law.
5:18 This is Paul’s argument for salvation through Jesus Christ. It is an argument based on analogy and balance, so is not a real proof, but was the type of argument that would have been persuasive at the time. If sin and death came into the world through one man’s transgression, then it is not that much of a stretch to imagine that everything would be set right again by one man’s act of obedience and sacrifice. But there is a small detail in Paul’s wording that has enormous implications. He says that Christ’s sacrifice brings justification and life “to all men.” Not just to those who believe, but to all men. This conflicts with the alternate view that belief in Christ is necessary in order for an individual to take advantage of the sacrifice. But the universal wording here is more in keeping with Paul’s argument, as it more perfectly mirrors the opposite side of the scale where sin and death came to all men because of Adam’s transgression. No one was asked whether they wanted to opt in to Adam’s sinfulness. It came to everyone, like it or not. Therefore, by analogy, no one should be asked whether they want to opt in to Christ’s sacrifice. It should apply to all regardless of belief, as Paul says here.
But Paul even contradicts himself on this point later in this same letter. In chapter 9, he says that salvation depends not on works but on God’s election and grace. Implicitly then, salvation does not depend on Jesus’s sacrifice either, but only on God’s arbitrary selection. (9:11)
5:20 This is another of Paul’s bizarre and perverse opinions. Essentially, he is saying that the purpose of the law was to increase mankind’s sinfulness, thus requiring an even greater amount of God’s grace to grant forgiveness for the sins. The point, then, is to show off God’s grace, not to prevent sin.
6:1-2 Recognizing the dangerous implications of his statement in 5:20, Paul is keen to counter the possibility that his readers may take him seriously. If the purpose of the law was to increase sin, in order to make God’s grace more apparent, wouldn’t it be a good idea for us to sin even more now, so that God’s grace would be really obvious? This is the conclusion that naturally follows from 5:20, but Paul tries to counter it by saying that those who have died to sin through Christ’s death cannot possibly still live in sin.
6:5 The notion that believers are united with Christ in his death conflicts with the whole premise behind the sacrifice. The point of the sacrifice was that Christ died in our place – i.e., so that we would not have to die, because the wages of sin is death (6:23). If he died in our place, then it makes no sense to say that we are united with Christ in his death, by being baptized into his death.
6:6-7 Paul continues to speak as though it is our vicarious death with Christ that makes us free from sin. But death is what his sacrifice was supposed to spare us from.
6:10 If Christ has died to sin once and for all, it must mean that before his crucifixion he was not dead to sin. Does Paul mean to imply that Jesus was a sinner as well? Or perhaps that he was only tempted to sin, but did not give in to it? We cannot know for sure whether Paul even reasoned this far, but as noted above, it can be shown through various Bible passages that Jesus did indeed sin. (See the link in the comment to 5:9.)
6:11-13 If Christians have been united with Christ in his death, then Christians also are “dead to sin.” It would seem, therefore, that after being baptized, Christians would not again fall into sin. But Paul’s exhortation seems premised on the continuing power of sin over these Christians. Why else would he urge them to not let sin reign in their bodies, and not to yield their bodily members to sin? Wasn’t further sinning prevented by their baptism, in which they died to sin? It seems that after being baptized and accepting Jesus’s sacrifice, Christians are right back where they started – weak individuals subject to the power of sin, against which they wage a never-ending struggle that they can never win. “But according to the logic of Paul’s position in this passage, the believer should be free not only from sin but also from temptation. To say that one is ‘dead to sin’ can hardly mean less than this.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.478.) Apparently, Christ’s sacrifice has accomplished nothing.
6:15-17 Paul now tries to counter another embarrassing consequence of his argument. If Christians are no longer under the old law, doesn’t that mean that they are free to sin? “By no means!” exclaims Paul. There is no freedom. One is either a slave to sin or a slave to obedience. But obedience to what? He can only mean obedience to God’s laws and commandments. He cannot mean that the Christian’s nature has been so altered that he or she would automatically behave according to God’s standards without external commandments, because he still has to warn them against giving in to sinful inclinations. (v.13) Thus, Christ’s sacrifice, which freed Christians from the law, leads them right back to the necessity of following God’s commandments. Paul seems to overlook that the law, especially the Mosaic law, was not some hostile force that sprouted up on its own, but was a collection of God’s commandments to his people. If Christians are still expected to be obedient to God’s standards, even after accepting Christ, it hardly seems like the crucifixion was worth all the fuss.
6:18 The Christians have traded one form of slavery for another. They are now “slaves of righteousness.” We observed earlier how some Christians try to excuse the presence of evil in the world by invoking God’s desire to allow us to exercise our free will. But as this passage and others show, free will is not a Christian value. Obedience and submission are paramount. Therefore, the argument from free will cannot be used to explain the presence of evil and suffering in the world. See also the comment to 3:9-10, point 2.
6:19 Paul reveals that he is speaking only “in human terms” because of his readers’ “weakness in the flesh.” (RSV has “your natural limitations.”) What would he have told them if they had not been limited by this weakness? Is Paul holding something back? Are there other passages in his letters where he speaks only “in human terms” because he thinks his readers’ weakness will prevent them from understanding the full truth? And does he always tell us when he’s doing this, or does he sometimes alter his presentation without telling us that he’s doing it? Indeed, we can find other passages in his letters where he admits to telling his readers only what they are capable of understanding. For example, 1 Corinthians 3:2 and 2 Corinthians 1:13.
6:22 Paul continues to speak of the Christians as having been “freed from sin.” But if they really were freed from sin, he wouldn’t have to warn them against giving in to it.
6:23 “The wages of sin is death.” Note that he does not say that the wages of sin is eternal punishment in hell. In all the letters of Paul, there is not one reference to “hell” or to “hellfire.”
7:1-4 Paul tries to show that Christians are free from the law, but the analogy he uses backfires on him. The gist of his argument is that the law applies to a person only during that person’s life. So since Christians have become “dead to the law” by participating in Christ’s death, the law no longer applies to them – their old pre-Christian self no longer lives. As a proof, he offers the analogy of a woman whose husband dies. After his death, she is no longer bound by the marriage vow, and is free to marry another. But here is the flaw: A person is free from the law when that person dies, not when someone else dies. The proper application of the analogy would be that when the woman dies, she is no longer bound to her husband. So the analogy does not prove or even illustrate Paul’s point. And at the risk of stating the obvious, it is not the case that Christians actually “die” when they are baptized into the faith. It is only a figure of speech. In every meaningful sense, they are still alive, and if they were bound by the law before becoming Christians, they would continue to be bound by it afterwards.
The reason that his followers have “died to the law,” according to Paul, is so that they might “belong to another,” i.e., to Christ. The language reinforces what we said earlier about freedom not being a Christian value. If a human being belongs to another, then that person is a slave. Indeed, Paul used the very word in 6:22 (“enslaved to God”) when describing the relationship of Christians toward God. And in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 he tells them, “You are not your own; you were bought with a price.”
7:6 Paul cannot say it any more clearly than this: “We are released from the law.” This obviously has some very risky implications, and could be taken (and was taken by some Christian factions at the time) to mean that all was permitted to those who had died to the law. Obviously this interpretation is very embarrassing for Paul, and so he tries to show that even though Christians are free from the law, they still need to behave themselves.
7:7-8 Sin, which Paul has previously portrayed as an external force having power over human beings, now is said to be dependent on the law: “I would not have known sin, except through the law.” And “without the law, sin is dead.” So God gave the law, thereby making sin possible. Therefore God created sin. He made it so powerful, that people could not resist it. Then when human beings proved powerless to resist sin, God punished them with death. Later, after many years, he sent Jesus to save them from it. But he did not give this salvation to all people, but only to an elect group which he arbitrarily chose. This is Christian theology in a nutshell, according to Paul.
Even here, though, Paul contradicts himself, because he declared in 2:12, speaking of the Gentiles, that they “have sinned without the law.” Paul’s position on the law, sin, and salvation, is hopelessly incoherent, and there is no way to save it.
7:9-10 Here Paul reveals the power that sin had over him through the commandments. He says that the commandments that promised life, actually brought death to him, by allowing sin to revive in him. This statement, and especially the confessions of verses 15-25, are impossible to reconcile with Paul’s boast to the Philippians that he himself was “blameless as to the righteousness that is in the law.” (Philippians 3:6)
7:12 The idea expressed in this verse is a complete non sequitur. After claiming that the commandments of the law allowed sin to revive in him, and saying that the commandments “proved to be death to me,” Paul now draws the conclusion that the law and the commandments are “holy, and righteous, and good.”
7:13 In another example of perverse reasoning, Paul argues that the purpose of the commandments was to allow sin to become “exceedingly sinful.” He does not finish the argument here, but if we wanted to be charitible and finish it for him, we would say that the reason for producing this extreme sinfulness was to highlight God’s grace even more. The more wicked we are, the more compassionate God is for forgiving us. This concept is really at the core of Paul’s theology. Everything is for the purpose of glorifying God, and the individual sinful human being is nothing in comparison.
7:15-25 This entire section has the appearance of being a personal confession, not a statement of general principles. Paul speaks throughout in the first person singular, and does not distance himself at all by using “we” as is often his practice. This passage is fraught with danger for the Christians, because Paul appears to be describing his current state as a sinner, not his previous condition before becoming a follower of Christ. Most Christian commentators reject this view, but only because it causes them difficulty. “There is nothing in Paul’s language to suggest that he is remembering the past rather than describing the present.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.499.)
Paul confesses that he does not do what he wants to do, but instead does that which he hates. (v.15) “Nothing good dwells within me.” (v.18) He describes himself as a “wretched man” (v.24) and admits that he serves the law of sin with his flesh. (v.25) All the verbs are in the present tense, and there is no suggestion that he is referring to some past period of his life. The intensity of the language indicates that Paul is highly distressed to find that even as a believer and follower of Christ, he still feels powerless to overcome the impulses which lead him to sin. His repeated emphasis on the flesh and on the members of the body lead us to conclude that he must be speaking of some kind of sexual activity, of which he feels intensely ashamed. Paul’s agony in this passage is eloquent testimony to the failure of his theology. Belief in Christ does nothing to change people’s basic human nature. And to label certain natural impulses as “sin” makes them no less natural and no less human.
Note that verses 17 and 20 seem to take all responsibility away from the sinner and attribute sinful behavior to the power of sin itself. This conflicts with the popular conception of Christian salvation, which sees condemnation as the just reward for sins committed by a person who is free to choose good or evil. But in Paul’s view, sin is not a free choice, it is forced upon us by the power of sin, from which God saves us by his grace. He knows this because he himself is eager and willing to do good, but he cannot do it. (v.18) So much for the notion that sin is a choice resulting from man’s free will.
8:2 This verse may seem like a strange continuation after the agonizing confession in the previous chapter. But notice that Paul does not say that the law of life in Jesus Christ has set him free from sin, or from the power of sin, but from the “law of sin and death.” Thus, even though Paul is still in the power of sin, and cannot do what he knows is right, the law of sin and death, expressed in 6:23 (“the wages of sin is death”), has no power over him. But this position is contradicted elsewhere in the New Testament. In 2 Peter 2:20-21 we find that if a Christian falls away into sin after escaping it through knowledge of Jesus Christ, it will be worse for him than if he had never known Christ. And Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us that a person who falls back into sin after becoming enlightened and receiving the Holy Ghost, cannot be renewed again – it is as though they have crucified Christ again. According to these passages, once a person is saved, the expectation is that he will sin no more. Jesus, at least, must have believed that this expectation was reasonable (unlike Paul), because he is recorded twice as telling those he helped to “sin no more.” (John 5:14; 8:11)
8:5-6 Paul must not be living according to the Spirit, because his mind is obviously still on the things of the flesh, based on his confession in 7:14-25.
8:8 In this verse Paul says that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” But in Galatians 2:20 he declares that the life he lives “in the flesh” is lived by faith in the Son of God, and that Christ lives in him. In both cases, the Greek phrase “in the flesh” is the same (en sarki).
8:9 “You are not in the flesh,” Paul tells his readers. But as we saw in the reference to Galatians 2:20, Paul described himself as living “in the flesh” even while Christ was living in him. He also admitted to walking “in the flesh” when writing to the Corinthians. (2 Corinthians 10:3)
8:14 Paul refers to the “sons of God” in the plural. He grants this title to all those who are led by the spirit of God. He uses “sons of God” again in v.19 and in Galatians 3:26 to refer to Christian believers. The gospel of John, however, does not admit of any additional sons of God, declaring Jesus Christ to be the “only begotten son of God.” (John 3:18) The gospels do not support using this title for anyone but Jesus. Luke 3:38 would seem to be an exception, where Adam is identified as the son of God, but Luke uses the genitive case without using the actual word “son.”
8:17 Our own suffering is given as a precondition for being glorified with Christ. In Philippians 1:29 Paul also informs his readers that they are to suffer for Christ’s sake. See also 2 Timothy 2:3. Suffering is a recurring theme among the early Christian writings, but wasn’t the point of Christ’s suffering to spare us from having to suffer for our own sins?
8:18 The sufferings of the present are nothing compared to the glory which is to come. So why make any effort to reduce suffering? Paul has already shown us that he not only is willing to tolerate human suffering, but rejoices in it as a force for building character and endurance. (5:3-4) Nothing in Paul’s theology supports the view that Christians are obligated to improve the lot of their fellow man, or to relieve the suffering of anyone living in the real world.
8:25 Hoping for what one does not see may indicate patience, but it can also indicate delusion.
8:26 If the Spirit helps us in our weakness, why didn’t the Spirit help Paul through his struggles with sin described in 7:14-25? And how can Paul say “we don’t know how we should pray,” when Jesus himself told us how to pray in his Sermon on the Mount? (Matthew 6:9-13)
8:29-30 The theme of predestination arises again, as Paul tells us that those who are to be saved in Christ are predestined as such by God. Salvation thus does not depend on any action by individual Christians. If you are not among those who have been chosen in advance, there is no hope for you. The same idea is expressed in Ephesians 1:4-5.
8:33 The exclusiveness of Christian salvation is highlighted once again. It is only those chosen by God (the “elect”) who are justified and saved.
8:37-39 Paul closes this section with a message of encouragement, telling his readers that nothing will be able to separate them from God’s love which comes through Jesus Christ. Paul might want to reconsider his claim that Christians are free from keeping the commandments of the law (see 7:6, as well as Galatians 3:13), because God’s love comes from keeping his commandments, at least according to 1 John 5:3.
9:1 Paul assures his readers that he is not lying. Was this known to be a problem for Paul? Was he regularly suspected of lying, to the point where he had to go out of his way to deny it? The same expression appears in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:31) and in the letter to the Galatians (Galatians 1:20).
9:2-3 The sorrow that Paul feels is for the Jewish people, who have not, for the most part, accepted the notion that Jesus was either the traditional messiah, or the heavenly Christ. In a statement of supreme arrogance, Paul says that he would gladly sacrifice himself by being cut off from Christ if it only would help his Jewish kinsmen to come into the fold. In other words, Paul would like to be a sacrificial victim for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Wasn’t that supposed to be the messiah’s role?
9:6-7 The exclusion of the Jews from the community of Christ does not mean that God’s word has failed. Paul argues that God’s promise to Israel does not include all Jews, because not all members of the nation of Israel are true Israelites, and not all descendants of Abraham are truly his children. Even if only a few Jews are saved, they can be labelled as the only “true” Israelites, to whom God’s promises were directed. Those whom God abandons, since they are not “true” Israelites, were never part of the promise in the first place. As we shall discover in the following verses, God’s promise was not to the physical descendants of Abraham, but only to those who are chosen by God. No doubt the original Israelites would have preferred to have this distinction explained to them at the time the covenant was entered into.
9:11 Paul now enters a phase of the argument where he speaks of God’s favoritism as based not on works, but on arbitrary election. However, this directly contradicts God’s own words in Leviticus, where God’s support for Israel is explicitly conditioned on performance of the commandments. (Leviticus 26:3-12; and Leviticus 26:14-33 for the consequences of failing to follow God’s commandments.)
9:13 This reference to God’s arbitrary preference for Jacob over Esau is not from the Genesis story of Jacob and Esau, but from Malachi 1:2-3.
9:14-16 God’s arbitrary favoritism which ignores a person’s actual behavior may seem unjust, but Paul rejects this conclusion. His manner of doing so, however, offers no comfort to those who expect God’s standards of justice to coincide with our own enlightened views. Paul instead argues that God is perfectly justified in acting arbitrarily, because of who he is.
9:17 God’s words to Pharaoh are cited from Exodus 9:16.
9:18 This verse especially calls out the inability of individuals to determine their own fate, showing that God “hardens the heart” of whomever he wills, making them unable to understand or accept the divine truth. God’s practice of hardening the hearts of unbelievers is mentioned also in John 12:40. But if God hardens their hearts, how can they be held responsible for their unbelief?
9:19 Paul continues to answer an imaginary opponent, who questions how God can find fault with us when we have no power to resist God’s will. This recalls the complaint of Job (Job 14:3-4), who objected that the imperfections built into man’s nature by God prevent man from rising to the level of righteousness which God demands.
9:20 “Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?” Again, this response echos that given to Job, when he questioned the justice of God’s rule. See Job 9:22, 19:7; 21:7; 24:12 for some of Job’s accusations against God, and chapters 38-42 for God’s response, which is basically the same as Paul’s: God is strong and powerful and can do whatever he wants, and it is presumptuous for human beings to apply their own standard of justice to him.
9:21-23 In this striking metaphor of the potter, Paul vividly portrays the helplessness of those poor creatures of God who are born only to experience destruction. God has created some individuals to show off his glory, and others for menial tasks and ultimate annihilation. Which category you belong to is preordained long before you arrived on the scene. This indeed is a “harsh doctrine.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.549.)
9:25-26 Here Paul is making a case for including non-Jews in the chosen ones of God. But the passages he cites do not prove his point. The first verse is loosely quoted from Hosea 2:23 and the second is from Hosea 1:10. But the context of Hosea shows that the words do not apply to Gentile nations, but rather to the nation of Israel, which has strayed away from God, but will one day be accepted back. Thus, those whom God describes as “not my people” are in fact not Gentiles, but the Israelites, in their state of separation from God. When they reform their ways, and return to the true God, he will call them “my people” again.
9:27 “Only a remnant of them will be saved.” Paul gets this quotation from Isaiah 10:22. His source is the Greek Septuagint, where the verb is indeed “be saved.” But in the modern translations based on the Hebrew texts, the remnant will “return” rather than “be saved.”
9:29 The quotation is from Isaiah 1:9.
9:32 Paul argues that the Jews fell out of favor with God by pursuing righteousness through works rather than through faith. But as we have seen, God himself decreed that performing the works of his law and commandments was the condition for the Jewish nation remaining in his favor. (Leviticus 26:3-12)
9:33 Paul again quotes from Isaiah to argue that God predicted he would lay a stumbling block over which the Jews would fall. The passage is loosely quoted from Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14-15. Isaiah 8:14 also says God will set “a trap and a snare” for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Possibly Paul intends this stumbling block to be Christ himself, but the meaning is not totally clear. A greater question is why would God create such a stumbling block for his chosen people?
10:1-4 Paul’s basic position is that the Jews have misunderstood their own religion. He charges that they are “ignorant” of true righteousness, and that they are misguided in their attempt to find reconciliation with God by following the commandments of the law. The key point that the Jews miss, according to Paul, is that “Christ is the end of the law.” There is a double meaning contained in the Greek word translated as “end.” Telos can imply completion or fulfillment, as well as termination. Thus, to say that “Christ is the end of the law” can mean that Christ is the fulfillment and ultimate purpose of the law, as well as the terminator of the law, which no longer applies to those who have died in Christ. This at least is Paul’s interpretation. There is, of course, nothing in the Old Testament writings that even remotely suggests this, and Paul’s selective use of Old Testament quotations to establish this theological foundation is subject to absolute repudiation, as we have already noted throughout our commentaries on Paul’s letters.
10:9 Here we have another mini-gospel – i.e., a verse that encapsulates the core of Christian theology in just a few words, such as John 3:16. Here Paul says that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” A few verses later, we have a somewhat different rule for who will be saved: “For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” (v.13) If someone “calls upon the name of the Lord” without believing that Jesus was raised from the dead, will that person be saved, or not? The answer is not clear.
But there is a bigger problem for Paul, and that is that his formulas for salvation are at odds with other statements found elsewhere in the New Testament, and specifically at odds with the words of Jesus himself. Mark 3:29, for example, proclaims an important exception, which Paul seems unaware of: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” If a person confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his resurrection, but has been guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, is that person saved or not? Yes, according to Paul; no according to Jesus. In Matthew 6:15, Jesus adds another exception: “If you do not forgive other men, then your Father will not forgive you your trespasses.” So again, what happens to a person who confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his resurrection, but does not forgive others for their transgressions? Is that person saved or not? Yes according to Paul; no according to Jesus. As a final example, consider yet another condition that Jesus puts on salvation in Luke 13:3 – “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
So next to Paul’s simple salvation formula of confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that he rose from the dead, we have Jesus who attaches additional conditions not mentioned by Paul: You have to avoid blaspheming the Holy Spirit; you have to forgive others their sins; and you have to repent of your own sins if you want to be saved. For Jesus, simple belief (i.e., faith) is not enough. For Paul, simple belief is all that’s required.
10:13 Paul is quoting here from Joel 2:32, but again he quotes from the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament, and not from the Hebrew. The modern translations, which are based on Hebrew manuscripts, have the LORD in capital letters, indicating that Yahweh is the name that appears in the text. The Septuagint, however, has the Greek kuriou, which is literally “lord” and thus is ambiguous, not being a proper name. “The early Christians often applied to Jesus Old Testament references to the Lord, which in their original context refer to God.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., p.1372.)
10:14 Paul asks rhetorically, “how can they believe in him of whom they have never heard?” He seems to say that those who have never heard of Christ cannot be expected to believe in him. But in this very letter, he has already argued that whatever can be known about God (which must have included his relationship to Christ) was plainly revealed even to the pagans through God’s visible creation. (Romans 1:18-20) And in verse 20 Paul implies that even the Gentile nations who did not hear about the Hebrew God have nevertheless found him and understood him. Here in 10:14-15 Paul is trying to argue the importance of preaching as a way to reach those who have never heard of the Lord, but his earlier declaration that God’s purpose is apparent for all to see undercuts his point.
10:16 The quotation is from Isaiah 53:1.
10:18-21 “Have they not heard?” Paul is still focused on the Jews, and the question of why they have not accepted his view of Christ. Is it because they have not heard? No, they have heard. Is it because they did not understand? No, because even those who did not seek God (i.e., the Gentile nations) have found and understood him. It can only be because Israel is a “disobedient and stubborn” nation.
The quotations that Paul presents to prove his point are ripped out of their original context and interpreted in such a way as to make them apply to Christ, when there was no such meaning in the original. The quotation in v.18 is from Psalm 19:4, which celebrates the glory of Yahweh as revealed in the heavenly bodies which he has created. It does not by any stretch of the imagination apply to the preaching of Christ to the Jews.
Verse 19 quotes from Deuteronomy 32:21, which says, “I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.” Yahweh is talking here about punishing Israel for ignoring him and turning to foreign gods, but Paul seems to detect a hint that God is promising to provoke the Jews by comparing them unfavorably to the other nations, who are however referred to as “not a people.” In combination with Isaiah 65:1, which immediately follows, Paul’s point becomes somewhat clearer. His argument is that those who did not seek God have nevertheless found him, so why are the Jews so stubborn as to resist believing in Paul’s Christ? “Such a way of interpreting scripture may be, according to our standards, faulty to the point of being absurd, but it conforms to typical rabbinical exegesis in Paul’s time.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.563.) In other words, standards of the time were low, and Paul did not rise above them.
In v.21, the quotation is from Isaiah 65:2. The point is that God would not call the Jews disobedient and stubborn in their unbelief if they had never heard or or understood his message, which includes, in Paul’s mind, the message about Jesus as Christ.
11:1 Paul cites his own Jewish background as proof that God has not rejected the entire Jewish nation. Unlike the similar passage in Philippians 3:5, he does not here identify himself as a Pharisee. Recall that Jesus labelled the Pharisees as “blind fools” (Matthew 23:17) and warned his disciples to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees. (Matthew 16:12).
11:4-5 Citing 1 Kings 19:18, Paul returns to the theme of the remnant, which he took up in 9:27. As long as a remnant is being saved, Paul claims that Yahweh has not broken his promise to Israel. The remnant is chosen by grace, and not by any contractual obligation that may exist between God and the Jews. Recall that Paul went to great lengths in chapter 9 to demonstrate that God’s promise to Israel was never intended to cover all Israelites.
11:6 Paul once again emphasizes that salvation is by grace, and not by works. In this passage, he is still referring to the Jews, but the general argument is clearly meant to apply to mankind as a whole. The logic behind Paul’s position is that if salvation is by works or deeds, then a person who performs the works would be entitled to salvation from God, and God would be obligated to grant it in order to hold up his side of the bargain. But Paul’s view of God prevents any such obligation from arising. God cannot be treated as an equal partner to a covenant or contract. He sets the rules, but is not bound by them. Whatever he grants is granted solely by his own free will. So from Paul’s perspective, it is logically impossible for salvation to depend on works. By viewing the issue in this way, we see the utter incompatibility between Paul’s view of salvation, and that expressed in the letter of James. See the earlier comments on 1:16 and 2:6.
11:7-10 The arbitrariness of salvation through God’s grace is again highlighted. The elect are saved, and the unlucky remainder are hardened so that they cannot possibly see or accept the divine truth. The OT quotations are from Isaiah 29:10 and Psalm 69:22-23. Not only does God harden the hearts of the unchosen, he inflicts them with a “spirit of stupor” and darkens their eyes, “so that they cannot see.” Note that the very purpose of darkening their eyes is to prevent them from seeing. And remember that Paul is not talking about people who have rejected God of their own choice, but those who were not chosen by God to be saved, and who were then deliberately blinded and hardened so that they wouldn’t see the truth. See also 9:18.
11:12 Paul now tries to be inclusive, and alludes to a possible “full inclusion” of the Jews, after they have served the purpose of redirecting the gospel to the non-Jewish world. See the comment to 11:25-26 for the culmination of the argument.
11:14 Paul seeks to make his fellow Jews jealous (recalling the passage from Deuteronomy, cited in 10:19), in order that he might “save some of them.” But how can Paul possibly save anyone by his own actions, when salvation is totally dependent on God’s grace, as Paul himself stated in v.5?
11:23 Those Jews who have been rejected can be restored again “if they do not remain in their unbelief.” But the reason they persist in their unbelief is that God has hardened their hearts and darkened their eyes. (See comments to 9:18 and 11:7-10.) Paul is now trying to blame the rejected Jews for their own persistence in unbelief. But the gospel of John, which Paul did not know, is clear that only God determines who is chosen: “No man can come to me, unless the Father which sent me draws him.” (John 6:44) So if the Jews remain in their unbelief, it is only because God has not determined that they should be included in the chosen ones.
11:25-26 The hardening of hearts among a part of Israel is to last only until the full number of the Gentiles come in – and then “all Israel shall be saved.” This reverses the order of 1:16, where Paul said that salvation will be “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Nevertheless, these verses are of immense theological importance, but are subject to multiple interpretations. What does the “full number” of Gentiles mean? Does it mean that all Gentiles will be saved, or only those who are called and chosen? And the same question can be raised about “all Israel.” If he means literally all of Israel – i.e., every individual among them – then he probably means the same with respect to the Gentiles, which leads to the conclusion that everyone eventually will be saved. No one would be left to go to hell. This is consistent with Paul’s words in 5:18, and perhaps it represents his true view, but it is not consistent with Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:41. There, at the final judgment, those who did not help people in need are cast into the everlasting fire, and in Matthew 25:46, they are said to “go away into everlasting punishment.” Thus, Jesus did not agree with Paul that all would be saved.
But perhaps Paul is not saying that either, but only that some of the Gentiles and some of Israel will be saved – namely, those who are called and chosen by God. So his statement in verses 25-26 may not be so universal as it appears at first glance. Paul may not have been using “Israel” in its narrow geographical or ethnic sense, According to James Dunn, Paul “attempted to redefine ‘Israel’ as the called of God.” (James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 1998, p.531.) We saw this maneuver in 9:6-7, where Paul wrote that not all descendants of Abraham are true Israelites. However, if that’s Paul’s position, then God is subject to the criticism of arbitrariness and injustice – for calling some and hardening the hearts of others so they cannot believe, and then casting the latter into the eternal fire for not doing what they were not able to do.
If verses 25 and 26 can be taken as statements of universal salvation, they represent the climax of a grand drama that begins with the promise to Israel, then continues with their disobedience and hardening, the preaching of the message to the Gentiles and the salvation of their “full number,” followed by the salvation of “all Israel.” It would be a majestic story, even though it does conflict with Jesus’s words about some being condemned to eternal punishment. But if the last act in the play only involves a small portion of both the Gentile and Israelite peoples, then it is not a headline, but a story for the back pages.
11:32 Stressing again the universalist theme, that God will show mercy to all. Once again this conflicts with Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:41,46 where he threatens the unrighteous with “everlasting fire.” Even the city of Capernaum, Jesus’s home base, is destined to be “thrust down to hell.” (Luke 10:15) This is hardly consistent with a theology that envisions universal salvation for all.
11:33 Unwittingly, the words with which Paul describes God could easily apply to Paul’s own muddled thinking: “How unsearchable are his judgments and how unfathomable his ways!”
11:34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” Apparently, Paul thinks that he himself has known it, since he just gave us a thorough explanation of God’s plan of salvation from the beginning of time until the end. The quotation here is from Isaiah 40:13.
11:35 This is a combination of Job 35:7 and 41:11, and seems to emphasize Paul’s belief that one cannot earn salvation by doing good works. Righteousness is not a gift to God, for which he owes us repayment in the form of salvation. See also the comment to 11:6.
12:1 Paul urges his readers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice to God. But wasn’t Jesus already offered as a sacrifice so that we would not have to sacrifice ourselves? Also, sacrifice is not God’s primary desire: “To do what is right and just is more desirable to the LORD than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3) But this would clash with Paul’s notion that actions cannot justify a person before God.
12:3 Confirming that a person’s faith is assigned to him by God, and not freely chosen by the individual. If this is true, then Jesus’s command to “Have faith in God” (Mark 11:22) is pointless, because it is not subject to the individual’s control.
12:4-8 This analogy compares the congregation to the human body, with its diverse members performing different roles. Similarly, the members of the church have their own gifts which determine their roles. Paul makes a similar point in 1 Corinthians 12:4-12, but there the list of gifts is different. Here in Romans, he does not mention the gift of healing, or the ability to work miracles or distinguish between different kinds of spirits, or the gift of speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues – all of which appear in the Corinthians list. The Romans list of gifts leans more toward service, teaching, and generosity – qualities that derive less from superstition and more from a sense of community obligation. Perhaps this hints at a difference in the makeup of the Roman and Corinthian congregations.
12:9 It is not clear whether this maxim and those that follow are intended to be advisory only, or whether they are strict commandments to be followed. Remember that Paul has argued all along that Christians are free from the law (e.g., Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:13). But he also has spoken of the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (8:2), which apparently has replaced the old Mosaic law for Christians. But does he mean that Christians will naturally behave according to these new precepts because they have put on a new nature, or have they simply replaced one set of laws that were impossible to uphold with another equally challenging set of commandments? And if Christians have truly taken on a new nature in the spirit of Christ, why would Paul have to urge them to follow those maxims they are naturally disposed to follow anyway?
12:13 Paul encourages his readers to contribute to the needs of “the saints,” meaning to fellow Christians. But this hospitality is apparently not intended to extend to those outside the Christian community. Paul’s attitude toward non-Christians is expressed in 1 Corinthians 16:22, where he declares: “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed.”
12:14 Notwithstanding his call for a curse in 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul now advises his readers not to curse those who persecute them. Presumably, anyone who persecutes them does not “love the Lord,” so his advice here contradicts his wish in the Corinthians passage.
12:18 Here Paul gives an escape clause for those who find it difficult to live peaceably with everyone. “If possible” and “so far as it depends on you” provide a ready excuse to blame strife and discord on the behavior of others.
12:19 Although Paul advises the Romans to “never avenge yourselves,” he reserves the right of vengeance to himself in 2 Corinthians 10:6. While the modern translations generally have “punish” in the Corinthians passage in place of “revenge,” the Greek text has the same word (ekdikeo) in both Corinthians and Romans.
12:20 The true nature of Christian charity is revealed in this verse. The motivation for helping your enemy is not out of humanitarian compassion, but because it will “heap burning coals upon his head.”
13:1-7 Paul’s advice to obey the governing authorities (“the powers that be”) raises numerous difficulties for present-day Christians. Recall that the “governing authorities” at the time meant the Roman Empire. Indeed, Paul’s ability to travel throughout the Mediterranean world preaching his new gospel was due in large part to Rome’s authority over the civilized world and its success in ridding the area of robbers and pirates, thus making travel safer than it had ever been.
But if Paul’s maxim is taken literally, it means that Christians must be subject to all the commands of the imperial administration, including those that required sacrifice to the traditional Roman deities. Many Christians refused to perform such sacrifices and suffered martyrdom because of their refusal. They are now considered heroes of the church, but in refusing to follow the imperial decrees, they violated Paul’s advice to be subject to the existing authorities. Thus, according to Paul, they should have gone along with the traditional sacrifices, as ordered by the “powers that be.” (See Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind, 2002, p.151.)
However, if Paul’s advice is meant to apply to all Christians in all times (as his words usually are understood by his modern followers), then it means that Christians are obligated to obey all governmental orders, no matter what they are or what kind of government it is. (Remember, the Roman administration that Paul urged his followers to obey was a pagan empire.) We don’t need to mention names here. There have been many governments whose policies have offended our sense of humanity and morality, and to obey them in everything they ordered would make “following orders” a valid excuse for the most heinous crimes against humanity.
Both these points come back to the same weakness in Paul’s argument. What if the governing authorities tell you to do something sacrilegious or immoral? Paul has no answer, because he didn’t follow his thought to its logical conclusion.
Peter, by the way, ignores this teaching of Paul in Acts 5:29. Declaring that “We must obey God rather than men” (RSV), Peter refuses to obey the religious authorities who order him to stop preaching in Jesus’s name.
13:9 Paul sums up all the commandments into one: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But when Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, he set the object of love at a higher level, answering “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37) Jesus assigns loving one’s neighbor to second place. (Matthew 22:39)
13:11-14 Here Paul expresses his belief that Christ will return soon, bringing about the end of the present age. If this had actually occurred, then his instruction to obey the governing authorities would be of less consequence, because they too would have been swept away soon by the coming kingdom of God. Similarly, when Paul advises to “make no provision for the flesh” he obviously expects the fleshly body to be passing away very soon, to be replaced by the “spiritual body” spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:44. Jesus expresses a similar lack of concern for everyday cares in Matthew 6:25-34, for the same reasons. They both were wrong – the kingdom never came, and their advice is ill-suited to the realities of living a normal human lifespan in the real world.
14:2 Here Paul is not passing judgment on vegetarianism as we think of it today. As we saw in chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians, a major issue in the early church was whether it was acceptable to eat food (typically meat) which had been sacrificed to idols. Paul was not totally against such a practice, because idols do not truly exist. But he advised the Corinthians to avoid doing so if eating meat could cause a fellow Christian to stumble. This could occur if the fellow Christian was weak in faith – i.e., believed that the idols, to whom the meat was offered, might actually exist as rival deities, in which case his eating such food would involve him in pagan religious practices.
Considered in this context, Paul’s meaning here in v.2 may be that those brethren who are weak in faith might resort to vegetarianism, in order to ensure that they do not consume any meat offered to idols, out of fear that such an act, even if accidental, might defile them. Those who are strong in their faith would know that idols do not exist, and thus could eat meat without implicitly engaging in practices that honor pagan gods.
14:3 Since both practices are acceptable, neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian should pass judgment upon each other.
14:4 The point here is that all are servants of God, and that a servant answers only to his master for his actions, not to other servants. Therefore, Christians should not judge each other. It is not immediately clear whether Paul intends this advice to apply as a universal precept for all people, or just to Christians. But from the context, it seems to still refer to the two factions who disagree over eating practices. Thus, Paul does not explicitly rule out the possibility of Christians passing judgment on non-Christians.
14:5-6 Here the issue is observance of the sabbath and other holy days or feast days. Paul leaves it up to the individual’s conscience, but Yahweh was not so flexible. He decreed that anyone who works on the sabbath shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:15; 35:2) And Yahweh left no loopholes by which the requirement could be relaxed in later years. He explicitly commanded that the law of observing the sabbath would be a perpetual covenant. Paul seems to be telling the Romans that none of these types of disputes should divide the church, but in taking such a position he diminishes the importance of following the explicit commandments laid down by God centuries earlier.
14:10 Here again, given the context, these remarks appear to be addressed only to Christians, and their dealings with other Christians. The advice applies to the two groups (strong faith vs. weak faith) who have disagreements over what types of food to eat. As such, Paul’s words do not constitute a general moral precept against judging other people’s actions.
14:14 Paul agrees with Jesus’s teaching in Mark 7:19 that all foods are clean. (See also 14:20 here in Romans.) However, his reasoning is not the same as that given by Jesus. Paul states that food can be unclean for those who think it unclean. But Jesus totally rejected the possibility that any type of food could defile a person, because food enters the stomach and passes on, but does not enter the heart, which is where evil thoughts come from.
Both Paul and Jesus thus reject the food laws handed down by God in the 11th chapter of Leviticus and the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy.
14:15 See the comment to 14:2 for background. Paul is saying here that even though someone strong in their faith may eat traditionally banned foods without incurring any guilt, the example of doing so may needlessly tempt a fellow Christian whose faith is not so strong. Therefore, it is better to abstain, so as not to lead others into temptation. It is not a bad sentiment. Basically Paul is reminding us (or rather his fellow Christians) to set a good example, because others may follow your lead.
14:17 This seems like a very enlightened position to take, and will no doubt appeal to the modern spirit of toleration. However, we cannot overlook that Paul is thus dispensing with the entire body of Jewish law and practice. Although he likes to present his teaching as consistent with “true” Judaism, he in fact repudiates its traditions and invents a new religion.
14:20 “Everything is indeed clean,” Paul declares, as did Jesus in Mark 7:19. See also the comment to 14:14. The same teaching is conveyed in the vision of Peter as described in Acts 10:10-15.
14:21 Paul continues with his theme that eating, drinking, and observing religious holidays and practices are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. The only consideration is the affect that such behavior may have on fellow Christians, by perhaps causing them to stumble into sin or unfaithfulness. Apparently, anything you do in the privacy of your own home with nobody watching is OK, since it will not lead anyone astray.
However, as we saw earlier, Paul was not so easy-going about other aspects of his theological doctrine. Recall his fury in 1 Corinthians 16:22, where he called for those who do not love the Lord to be “accursed.”
14:22 In this verse the word “faith” refers to the belief that the strong have about their freedom to eat and drink whatever they choose. If they so believe, says Paul, they should keep it to themselves in order not to lead others of weaker faith into doing something they have doubts about. The Greek word pistis, which is used here, can be translated as either “belief” or “faith.”
15:1-2 These verses continue the same themes already covered in chapter 14, urging tolerance of the weak by the strong.
15:3 One might get the impression that Paul is quoting Jesus here, but the words quoted are actually from Psalm 69:9. In the original verse from the psalm, “thee” refers to God (Yahweh), and “me” is a godly man (the speaker of the psalm) who has served God faithfully, but has nevertheless suffered many distresses. Paul’s context makes it seem that the words are spoken by Jesus, and that “thee” refers to those humans whose sins and burdens he has borne. It is another example of Paul selecting Old Testament passages out of context and assigning them new meaning that was never intended in their original form.
15:4 This seems like an odd remark for Paul to make, given his very free use, and sometimes outright rejection, of the ancient Hebrew scriptures, and especially of the Mosaic law. But perhaps Paul does not intend here an endorsement of the ancient law. Note that he says “the things that were written were written for our instruction.” In other words, they were a learning experience for those of Paul’s generation. This is very different from saying that the Old Testament scriptures represented the enduring commandments of God, and were written for our obedience. Paul’s words here are consistent with his customary use of the Hebrew scriptures. The “instruction” he derives from them is his doctrine about Jesus Christ, as “foretold” by the ancient prophets.
15:5 Although Paul encourages harmony among his Christian brethren, he had a different message for the Corinthians when faced with a case of immorality in the congregation. In that case, Paul ordered the Corinthians to “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” (1 Corinthians 5:5)
15:8 A literal translation would have Christ becoming a servant “of circumcision,” rather than “to the circumcised” (RSV) or “of the Jews” (NIV). Paul follows this with several verses from the Old Testament to show that his view of Christ and Paul’s own mission to the Gentiles was foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures. It is Paul’s closing argument, demonstrating (to his mind, at least) that Christ came to bring salvation to both Jews and Gentiles, and that this was fully foretold by the Old Testament authors. Once again, Paul quotes the OT via the Greek Septuagint translation, and not the Hebrew texts. This accounts for the “differences in wording between the quotations and the familiar texts in Hebrew or English.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.639.) Although Paul quotes from the Septuagint, we must assume he was also familiar with the Hebrew version, given his claim to have been educated as a Pharisee. (Philippians 3:5) But, as the TIB goes on to say, “The context of all of these passages by no means supports Paul’s interpretation of them.”
It is also worth keeping in mind that the word “Gentiles” as a name for non-Jews is actually “the nations” in Greek. In the Jewish view of the world, there were “the people” (i.e., the Jews) and “the nations” (i.e., non-Jews, or Gentiles).
15:9 Paul quotes here from Psalm 18:49. Far from extolling the community of Gentile and Jew in Christ, this psalm is a thanksgiving to God for victory in battle. The speaker gives thanks to God for the victory, in which “I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet.” (Psalm 18:37-38, NIV) This hardly represents a convergence of interest between Jew and Gentile. The verse quoted by Paul refers to praising God among the nations, for the great victory that has been won over them.
15:10 This verse is cited from Deuteronomy 32:43, and invites all the nations to “Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people (i.e., Israel) for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries.” (KJV) So again, the emphasis is on Israel, and not on the common interests of Jew and Gentile.
15:11 The citation here is from Psalm 117:1, and is more consistent with Paul’s position than the two verses previously quoted. Still, there is no hint that Jews and Gentiles are to join in a salvation scheme based on Jesus Christ. Instead, the psalm invites all nations to praise the LORD because of his enduring love for us.
15:12 Here Paul cites Isaiah 11:10. Jesse was the father of David, and Paul surely intends the “root of Jesse” to refer to Jesus. But Isaiah 11:1 is also thought by Christians to refer to Jesus. In the latter verse, however, the opposite metaphor is used. There, it is a shoot or branch that grows out of the roots of Jesse – rather than the root itself – which is assumed to refer to Jesus. In any case, the Septuagint version relied on by Paul for his quotation, lends much stronger support to Paul’s interpretation than the original Hebrew version, as you can see by comparing Isaiah 11:10 in any of the major English translations (based on the Hebrew) with the phrasing of Paul’s quotation here.
15:16 The phrase “Christ Jesus” is peculiar to Paul. With one exception, it occurs only in Paul’s letters, or the ones attributed to him. The single exception is Acts 24:24, which is a description of Paul speaking about “Christ Jesus.” Surprisingly, the reverse of this phrase (“Jesus Christ”) occurs only four times in all the gospels, although Paul uses it about as frequently as “Christ Jesus.”
15:21 We have here yet another instance of Paul misinterpreting Old Testament scripture and twisting the meaning to fit his theology. The verse quoted is from Isaiah 52:15, and features the suffering servant of God. Christians like to claim the suffering servant in Isaiah is a reference to Christ. But it is clear by reading the full context that the servant is actually the nation of Israel, and not Christ. (See Isaiah 41:8-9; 44:1; 44:21; and 49:3, which explicitly name Israel as the servant.) The passage refers to the surprise all the nations will experience when God restores Israel to an honorable place among the nations. The emphasis in Isaiah is on the amazement at Israel’s prominence, while the emphasis in Paul’s interpretation is on the nations’ never having even heard of the servant.
15:22-23 It would appear from Paul’s words that he has long wanted to visit the congregation at Rome, but was too busy preaching the gospel in other lands. In a puzzling statement, he now says he no longer has any room to work in those areas, so now plans to visit Rome on his way to Spain.
15:25 Paul informs the Roman congregations that before coming to Rome, he is going to deliver the contribution he has been collecting for the poor Christians of Jerusalem. This visit to Jerusalem would appear to be the same one described in Acts where Paul was arrested, and which eventually resulted in his transfer to Rome as a prisoner. The final Jerusalem visit in Acts begins at 21:17. But no mention is made of the contribution to the poor, although Acts does record an earlier visit to Jerusalem where relief was sent to the brethren of Jerusalem and delivered by Paul and Barnabas. (Acts 11:29-30) So it would appear that Acts conflicts with Romans on the question of which visit to Jerusalem was the one during which Paul brought the contribution to the poor.
The Acts version of this same visit (i.e., the last one, which ended with Paul’s arrest) continues with Paul meeting James, the brother of Jesus, who greets Paul with suspicion because of rumors that Paul has been teaching the Jews to “to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to follow the customs.” (Acts 21:21) If Acts is accurate, it shows that even at this late stage of Paul’s career, Paul’s belief that the gospel of Christ freed Christians from any requirement to observe Jewish law was not accepted by the Jerusalem branch of the Jesus movement. Since the Jerusalem congregation included such pillars of the movement as James, the brother of Jesus, as well as Peter, an original disciple, one cannot fail to notice the rogue nature of Paul’s interpretation of Jesus and his message.
The chronology of Paul’s life and travels is extremely complex, and much effort has been put forth by scholars trying to reconcile the order of events in Acts with those found in Paul’s own letters. A useful chart comparing the two sources, and showing some of the discrepancies, is found in L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p.148.
15:28 The plan to go on to Spain was never carried out, as Paul most likely died during the visit to Rome, in the early 60s A.D. (White, p.145)
15:31 Paul expresses some doubt as to whether his contribution to the poor of Jerusalem will be acceptable to “the saints” (i.e., the Christian community there). Why would he have reason to doubt this? Based on the words of James, as reported in Acts 21:20-21, we may surmise that Paul was not fully accepted by the Christian congregation in Jerusalem, and perhaps the relief offering was Paul’s own idea, which he undertook for the purpose of winning Jerusalem’s approval of his mission to the Gentiles. James’ pointed remark that the many thousands of Jews who have believed in Jesus are nevertheless “zealous of the law,” stands in sharp contrast to Paul’s notion that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ freed Christians from the requirements of the law. (Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:13)
16:1 The final chapter of Romans has been the subject of intense debate among biblical scholars. It remains an open question as to whether this closing with its many greetings to specific individuals was originally a part of Paul’s letter to the Romans, or was appended from some other source. For the purposes of this commentary, we assume the integrity of the letter as it appears in the New Testament, because the issue of textual variations is of little interest to those who study the Bible for the purpose of identifying internal contradictions and inconsistencies. However, we will simply note that, except for the last three verses (16:25-27), “the tide of scholarly opinion is shifting to a renewed appreciation of the integrity of the 16-chapter version of Romans.” (Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.5, p.819.)
Phoebe is apparently the bearer of the letter to the Romans.
16:3 This Prisca and Aquila are mentioned three times in Acts (18:2; 18:18; 18:26), and also in the closing of the first letter to the Corinthians. (1 Corinthians 16:19) In contrast to Romans, in the Corinthians letter greetings are sent from Prisca and Aquila, rather than to them. This would suggest that they are with Paul in Ephesus, where the letter to the Corinthians was written. Also, in Corinthians Paul mentions the church “in their house,” indicating that Prisca and Aquila live in Ephesus. It is for these reasons that some scholars think the final chapter of Romans was actually written to Christians at Ephesus, and later appended to the letter addressed to Rome. However, this is not a firm conclusion, and as we have noted, there is significant scholarly support as well for the view that the ending was original with Romans. Prisca and Aquila are not totally unconnected with Rome, as Acts 18:2 reports that they previously lived at Rome, but were expelled when the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from the city.
16:6-15 Most of these individuals are not otherwise known or mentioned, outside this passage in Romans. Could Paul possibly have known so many Roman Christians, having never visited the city before? Perhaps. Paul had travelled widely and no doubt had met many Christian brethren on his missionary journeys. Travel during this peaceful period in the empire’s history was relatively safe and easy, so it is not unrealistic to assume that Christians from Rome may have encounterd Paul during the course of their (and his) travels.
The number of women included in this greeting illustrates the prominent role played by women in the early Christian movement. However, Paul writes elsewhere that women should remain silent in church, and should ask their husbands at home if there is anything they desire to know. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
16:17 The “doctrine which you have been taught” is not identified. Since Paul had no role in founding the Christian community at Rome, it is not likely that they were taught his particular doctrine, unless he is referring to the doctrine expounded in this very letter. But the tone of the warning would argue against that. This verse would fit better if addressed to a church that Paul himself had founded, and this is another piece of evidence that leads some scholars to conclude that the final chapter of Romans was originally addressed to a church other than Rome.
Until now, there has not been any suggestion that the church at Rome was plagued by “divisions and obstacles.” Perhaps Paul is only giving a general warning against those who preach a different gospel. But such problems had been known in the other churches, which Paul himself had founded. See, for example, Galatians 1:6 and Philippians 3:2-3.
16:22 Tertius, “the one who wrote this letter,” is the scribe who penned the letter from Paul’s dictation. He is not otherwise known or mentioned.
16:25-27 There is no consensus on whether these final three verses were composed by Paul or by someone else. Raymond Brown notes that the verses are “missing from many mss. and may well be an early copyist’s or editor’s liturgical addition for public reading in church.” (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.575.)
If we take this concluding doxology (praise of God) as it stands, it is very difficult to reconcile with remarks made earlier in the letter. Here in v.25, the author speaks of a mystery which has remained secret for “long ages” but has finally been revealed. Yet in 1:20, Paul wrote that whatever can be known about God has been plain from the beginning, from the evidence of his creation.
BACK TO:
Home