Romans 9-16, Volume 38B

By James D. G. Dunn

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

 

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author’s own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author’s notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.

General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliography contains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Jan 9, 2018
• ISBN: 9780310588313

James D. G. Dunn

James Dunn (Ph.D., Cambridge) was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham. Since his retirement he has been made Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He is a leading British New Testament scholar, broadly in the Protestant tradition. Dunn is especially associated with the New Perspective on Paul, a phrase which he is credited with coining during his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture. His books include Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (2010), The New Perspective On Paul (2007), A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed (2005),The Theology of Paul the Apostle (1998), The Acts of the Apostles (1996), and The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (1996).  In 2005, a festschrift dedicated to Dunn was published, entitled The Holy Spirit and Christian origins: essays in honor of James D. G. Dunn, comprising articles by 27 New Testament scholars, examining early Christian communities and their beliefs about the Holy Spirit. 

Book preview

Editorial Board

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011–)

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013–)

Past Editors

General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012–2013)

Bruce M. Metzger (1997–2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977–1996)

Glenn W. Barker (1977–1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977–2011)

James W. Watts (1997–2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977–2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997–2013)

Volumes

*forthcoming as of 2014

**in revision as of 2014

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 38B

Romans 9–16

James D. G. Dunn

General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker

Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN

Romans 9-16, Volume 38B

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Previously published as Romans 9-16.

Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub edition January 2018: ISBN 978-0-310-58831-3

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211

The author’s own translation of the text appears in italic type under the heading Translation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

EDITOR’S NOTE

For the convenience of the reader, content headings for both volumes of this commentary on Romans (38A and 38B) are included below. Headings included in the volume in hand are printed in boldface type, while those for the other volume are in lightface.

In addition, all of the front matter from Vol. 38A but the Introduction has been repeated in Vol. 38B so that the reader may have abbreviations, bibliography, and other pertinent information readily at hand.

Editorial Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

General Bibliography

Commentary Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

1. THE AUTHOR

Romans within the Context of His Life and Work (Including Date and Place of Origin)

2. THE RECIPIENTS

The Origin and Character of the Christian Community in Rome

3. THE PURPOSEOFTHE LETTER

Stated Objectives and Structure of the Letter

4. THE FORMALAND THEOLOGICAL COHERENCEOFTHE LETTER

5. THE NEW PERSPECTIVEON PAUL

Paul and the Law

ROMANS 1–8: TEXT AND COMMENTARY

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1–17)

A. Introductory Statement and Greetings (1:1–7)

Explanation

B. Personal Explanations (1:8–15)

Explanation

C. Summary Statement of the Letter’s Theme (1:16–17)

Explanation

II–V. THE RIGHTEOUSNESSOF GOD—FROM GOD’S FAITHFULNESSTO MAN’S FAITH (1:18–11:36)

II–III. THE RIGHTEOUSNESSOF GOD—TO MAN’S FAITH (1:18–5:21)

II. THE WRATHOF GODON MAN’S UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (1:18–3:20)

A. God’s Wrath on Humankind—from a Jewish Perspective (1:18–32)

Explanation

B. God’s Wrath on Jew First As Well As Gentile (2:1–3:8)

1. The Impartiality of God (2:1–11)

Explanation

2. Possession of the Law No Safeguard (2:12–16)

Explanation

3. Favored Status No Security (2:17–24)

Explanation

4. Circumcision No Guarantee (2:25–29)

Explanation

5. What Then of God’s Faithfulness? (3:1–8)

Explanation

C. Conclusion: God’s Judgment on All without Exception (3:9–20)

Explanation

III. GOD’S SAVING RIGHTEOUSNESSTO FAITH (3:21–5:21)

A. To Faith in Christ Jesus (3:21–31)

1. The Decisive Demonstration of God’s Righteousness in the Death of Jesus (3:21–26)

Explanation

2. The Consequences for the Self-Understanding of the Jewish People (3:27–31)

Explanation

B. Abraham as a Test Case (4:1–25)

Explanation

C. First Conclusions: The New Perspective of Faith in Relation to the Individual and to Humanity at Large (5:1–21)

1. The New Perspective on the Believer’s Present and Future (5:1–11)

Explanation

2. The New Perspective on God’s Righteous Purpose for Humankind (5:12–21)

Explanation

IV–V. THE OUTWORKINGOF THIS GOSPELIN RELATIONTOTHE INDIVIDUALANDTOTHE ELECTIONOF GRACE (6:1–11:36)

IV. THE OUTWORKINGOFTHE GOSPELIN RELATIONTOTHE INDIVIDUAL (6:1–8:39)

A. Does Grace Encourage Sin? (6:1–23)

1. The Believer Has Died to Sin (6:1–11)

Explanation

2. The Believer Should Therefore Live to God (6:12–23)

Explanation

B. What Role Does the Law Play in All This? (7:1–25)

1. The Believer Has Been Released from the Law Which Condemned to Death (7:1–6)

Explanation

2. But the Law Is Still Exploited by Sin and Death, As Experience Demonstrates (7:7–25)

Explanation

C. The Eschatological Tension and Fulfillment of God’s Purpose through the Spirit (8:1–30)

1. The Spirit of Life (8:1–11)

Explanation

2. The Spirit of Sonship (8:12–17)

Explanation

3. The Spirit as Firstfruits (8:18–30)

Explanation

D. Second Conclusion: The Triumph of God His Faithfulness and the Assurance of Faith (8:31–39)

Explanation

V.THERIGHTEOUSNESSOFGOD—FROMGOD’SFAITHFULNESS:THEOUTWORKINGOFTHEGOSPELINRELATIONTOISRAEL(9:1–11:36)

A. What Then of Israel? Paul’s Concern for His Kinspeople (9:1–5)

Explanation

B. The Call of God (9:6–29)

1. The Character of God’s Free Choice (9:6–13)

Explanation

2. Those Not Chosen Are Still within the Purpose of God (9:14–23)

Explanation

3. Those Called Include Both Jews and Gentiles, As Prophesied (9:24–29)

Explanation

C. The Word of Faith (9:30–10:21)

1. Israel Has Misunderstood God’s Righteousness (9:30–10:4)

Explanation

2. The Righteousness from the Law and the Righteousness from Faith (10:5–13)

Explanation

3. Israel’s Failure to Respond to the Gospel (10:14–21)

Explanation

D. The Mystery of God’s Faithfulness (11:1–32)

1. The Remnant according to Grace and the Others (11:1–10)

Explanation

2. The Hope of Israel’s Restoration (11:11–24)

Explanation

3. The Final Mystery Revealed (11:25–32)

Explanation

E. A Concluding Hymn of Adoration (11:33–36)

Explanation

VI.THEOUTWORKINGOFTHEGOSPELFORTHEREDEFINEDPEOPLEOFGODINEVERYDAYTERMS(12:1–15:13)

A. The Basis for Responsible Living—the Christian’s Worship (12:1–2)

Explanation

B. The Body of Christ as the Social Context of Faith (12:3–8)

Explanation

C. Love as the Norm for Social Relationships (12:9–21)

Explanation

D. Live as Good Citizens (13:1–7)

Explanation

E. Love of Neighbor as the Fulfillment of the Law (13:8–10)

Explanation

F. The Imminence of the End as Spur (13:11–14)

Explanation

G. The Particular Problem of Food Laws and Holy Days (14:1–15:6)

1. The Problem Posed: The Challenge to the Weak (14:1–12)

Explanation

2. The Responsibility of the Strong (14:13–23)

Explanation

3. Christ as Exemplar (15:1–6)

Explanation

H. Concluding Summary: God’s Mercy and Faithfulness—Jew First, but Also Gentile (15:7–13)

Explanation

VII.CONCLUSION(15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s Mission and Travel Plans (15:14–33)

1. Paul’s Mission (15:14–21)

Explanation

2. Paul’s Travel Plans (15:22–33)

Explanation

B. Final Greetings (16:1–23)

1. Commendation of Phoebe (16:1–2)

Explanation

2. Greetings (16:3–16)

Explanation

3. A Final Personal Note (16:17–20)

Explanation

4. Additional Greetings (16:21–23)

Explanation

C. Concluding Doxology (16:25–27)

Explanation

Indexes

Table of Contents

Editorial Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

General Bibliography

Commentary Bibliography

V. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD—FROM GOD’S FAITHFULNESS: THE OUTWORKING OF THE GOSPEL IN RELATION TO ISRAEL (9:1–11:36)

A. What Then of Israel? Paul’s Concern for His Kinspeople (9:1–5)

Explanation

B. The Call of God (9:6–29)

1. The Character of God’s Free Choice (9:6–13)

Explanation

2. Those Not Chosen Are Still within the Purpose of God (9:14–23)

Explanation

3. Those Called Include Both Jews and Gentiles, As Prophesied (9:24–29)

Explanation

C. The Word of Faith (9:30–10:21)

1. Israel Has Misunderstood God’s Righteousness (9:30–10:4)

Explanation

2. The Righteousness from the Law and the Righteousness from Faith (10:5–13)

Explanation

3. Israel’s Failure to Respond to the Gospel (10:14–21)

Explanation

D. The Mystery of God’s Faithfulness (11:1–32)

1. The Remnant according to Grace and the Others (11:1–10)

Explanation

2. The Hope of Israel’s Restoration (11:11–24)

Explanation

3. The Final Mystery Revealed (11:25–32)

Explanation

E. A Concluding Hymn of Adoration (11:33–36)

Explanation

VI. THE OUTWORKING OF THE GOSPEL FOR THE REDEFINED PEOPLE OF GOD IN EVERYDAY TERMS (12:1–15:13)

A. The Basis for Responsible Living—the Christian’s Worship (12:1–2)

Explanation

B. The Body of Christ as the Social Context of Faith (12:3–8)

Explanation

C. Love as the Norm for Social Relationships (12:9–21)

Explanation

D. Live as Good Citizens (13:1–7)

Explanation

E. Love of Neighbor as the Fulfillment of the Law (13:8–10)

Explanation

F. The Imminence of the End as Spur (13:11–14)

Explanation

G. The Particular Problem of Food Laws and Holy Days (14:1–15:6)

1. The Problem Posed: The Challenge to the Weak (14:1–12)

Explanation

2. The Responsibility of the Strong (14:13–23)

Explanation

3. Christ as Exemplar (15:1–6)

Explanation

H. Concluding Summary: God’s Mercy and Faithfulness—Jew First, but Also Gentile (15:7–13)

Explanation

VII. CONCLUSION (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s Mission and Travel Plans (15:14–33)

1. Paul’s Mission (15:14–21)

Explanation

2. Paul’s Travel Plans (15:22–33)

Explanation

B. Final Greetings (16:1–23)

1. Commendation of Phoebe (16:1–2)

Explanation

2. Greetings (16:3–16)

Explanation

3. A Final Personal Note (16:17–20)

Explanation

4. Additional Greetings (16:21–23)

Explanation

C. Concluding Doxology (16:25–27)

Explanation

Indexes

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: David A. Hubbard

Glenn W. Barker*

Old Testament: John D. W. Watts

New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Author’s Preface

To write a commentary on the apostle Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome is a daunting undertaking. Paul’s letters are such a dominant element in the New Testament, and so form a central part of the Christian scriptures, the constitutional documents of the Christian faith, which have exercised an influence quite literally beyond measure on Christian faith and life and on Western culture for more than nineteen centuries. And of all Paul’s letters the one to Rome is the fullest and most carefully constructed statement of the Christian gospel and of the faith it called for during the foundation period of Christianity. To grapple with Romans is to engage in dialogue with one of the most creative theological minds of all time from the most creative period of Christian thought. Its influence on seminal theologians like Augustine, Luther and Barth has often been noted. And certainly it seems to have attracted more commentaries of note than any other NT or biblical writing. On not a few occasions during the writing of this commentary I have felt that even to attempt to follow in the train of commentators of the stature of Calvin, Godet, Sanday & Headlam, Lagrange, Michel, Kuss, Käsemann, Cranfield, Schlier and Wilckens is an act of foolhardiness at times bordering on impiety.

When the possibility of contributing Romans to the Word Biblical Commentary was put to me ten years ago I almost declined the invitation. I had of course worked with Romans frequently in the past, had indeed learnt the AV/KJV translation by heart as a young Christian, and relished the possibility of a sustained inquiry into this most systematic contribution of one whom I personally regard as the greatest theologian of all time. But with so many commentaries of high merit already on the shelves, why inflict another on fellow students of the NT? Not another commentary on Romans! was a frequent response when I described my research project in the early’80s. A sentiment that echoed my own first reaction. After such a wealth of scholarship has been expended on Romans over the years, is there anything fresh or original to be said? Would I not simply fall into one of the worst errors of the commentary genre—that of simply repeating the thoughts (in a different mix) of those who had gone before?

On further reflection, however, I came to the conclusion that there were probably two areas where a further contribution would be possible and indeed desirable, two deficiencies which affected most previous work on Romans in greater or less degree. One was that in many large commentaries readers were frequently prevented from seeing the wood for the trees. With the commentator immersed in meticulously detailed word study, or complex debate regarding alternative renderings, or lengthy analyses of previous interpretations, the movement of Paul’s thought was often lost sight of, and readers could find themselves very easily lost in a maze of detail. A letter written to be read out as a live exposition, and to be heard (and understood) at one or two sittings, had too often become as it were an antique corpse to be dissected over and over again in the mortuary of Christian curiosities so that its individual parts and limbs could be held up to mawkish display. Of course there had been several attempts to provide brief overview commentaries, some of them singularly successful on the whole, but mostly they had either skimmed the surface without penetrating into the depth of the argument, or they had succumbed to the second deficiency. This second weakness was the failure of most commentators to penetrate more fully into the historical context within which the letter was written and to which the letter was addressed, the life-setting in which it was first heard to speak as the word of God. The blinkers which for centuries have narrowed and distorted Christian appreciation of first-century Judaism also affected the view of Paul in relation to his ancestral faith, a relationship so very much at the heart of this letter in particular. But with the perspective-shifting work of E. P. Sanders fresh in mind it quickly became clear to me that a major attempt to set Paul’s letter to Rome within the new perspective on Paul could and should be undertaken.

My first objective therefore was to grasp the movement of Paul’s thought, the logic which led him from verse to verse and chapter to chapter. The format of the Word Commentary series lent itself to the endeavor in that I decided to use the final part of each section (Explanation) to write a running commentary on the letter as a whole. The first part of the commentary to be written therefore was the Explanation of chaps. 1–11, written over a period of two years with the aim of grasping the inner coherence of the text, the flow of Paul’s argument and its theological logic within its historical context. I deliberately restricted my use of technical aids to concordances, lexica and the Kittel-Friedrich Wörterbuch (ET: TDNT), following up all cross-references and possible parallels of language and thought in other sources of the period, but allowing only a minimal reference to one or two recent commentaries, in the hope that the resultant exposition would be determined more by the questions arising from the text itself than by the history of its interpretation and the debates which have marked that history. All the while I tried to remember that the letter was written to be heard as it was read out in a congregation in Rome in the mid-first century A.D. All the while I was asking, What would this have meant to them? What understanding could Paul expect his readers to have of what he wrote? One of the immediate corollaries was an increased readiness to let ambiguities in the language stand as ambiguities, recognizing that Paul may have intended to be deliberately ambiguous, or at least that occasionally he so formulated his thought as to allow his readers/hearers some freedom to hear it with different nuances. I hope that by such frequent reminders of original context I may enable the modern reader to experience again something of what the first readers experienced and to recover something at least of the freshness of the original text, or at least to share something of the excitement I experienced as the text became alive for me and I became aware of hidden currents and interconnections in arguments which had previously seemed obscure or confused.

A further corollary is that the Explanation section can be read through as a continuous, nontechnical, indeed almost independent commentary. The nearest parallels would be the excellent commentaries of Schlatter and Barrett; and if I have achieved only part of the insight they have derived from the text I will be well pleased. It also means that the more extensive, detailed and technical treatments in the Comment sections may be regarded as equivalent to footnotes to the Explanation. It was a matter of some encouragement (and relief) to find that when I came to engage in the detailed interaction with other commentaries for the Comment sections it was only occasionally necessary to make a major revision of the Explanation section (3:9 in particular). For the most part the feel I had gained for the argument in that initial running commentary exercise I found to be sustained or sustainable in the face of other interpretations.

In consequence readers of this commentary who want to do more than consult specific verses or issues are advised to read first the Explanation, and only then to consult the Comment. The Explanation is not a mere summary of the main line of exposition, or of the findings of the Comment section. It is a full exposition of the argument in which I have attempted so far as possible to get inside the thought, to fill out the allusions and sentiments which Paul’s words would have prompted in the minds of those who heard the letter first being read to them in Rome. Where the argument is tightly packed or the logic less clear to modern ears I have not hesitated to develop and explain it. Anyone reading lengthy sections of the commentary at a single sitting will inevitably find a degree of repetition—something which cannot be avoided since the more normal episodic use of a commentary requires that each section be sufficiently self-contained to be meaningful for such usage. Repetition of key points of Paul’s argument, not always appreciated in their historical context and force, may be no bad thing anyway. But I am not sure that the balance between exposition in the Explanation and detailed analyses in the Comment has always been successful, though I have at least attempted to maintain a full cross-referencing in the Comment section, so that consultation of any verse in which a word or theme occurs should find a clear reference to where that word or theme is more fully treated. For briefer treatments and overviews the Introductions to lengthier passages and Form and Structure sections will usually be sufficient. I hope readers will find the format valuable and will welcome comments on the success or otherwise of my endeavors at this point.

With regard to my second objective, it should already be clear that for me the first task of exegesis is to penetrate as far as possible inside the historical context(s) of the author and of those for whom he wrote. So much of this involves the taken-for-granteds of both author and addressees. Where a modern reader is unaware of (or unsympathetic to) these shared assumptions and concerns it will be impossible to hear the text as the author intended it to be heard (and assumed it would be heard). In this case, a major part of that context is the self-understanding of Jews and Judaism in the first century and of Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism. Since most of Christian history and scholarship, regrettably, has been unsympathetic to that self-understanding, if not often downright hostile to it, a proper appreciation of Paul in his interaction with that self-understanding has been virtually impossible. But with the new perspective on Paul it has become possible to gain a more sensitively historical and theological appreciation of Paul’s interaction with his own past, with his ancestral faith and with his fellow Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus. It has been my second major objective to understand Romans within this new perspective. What this means in terms of the principal themes of Romans I begin to spell out in more detail in §5 of the Introduction. But perhaps I can convey here something of the excitement that the resulting insight brought to me as I began to work with the text both in its continuity of thought and in its detail, an excitement frequently renewed as fresh overtones and undertones came again and again from long-familiar passages.

The conviction began to grow in me that the reasons why Romans is such a powerful piece of writing, and why it has been so influential in Christian history, are one and the same. Because in it we see the emergence of Christianity from Judaism actually taking place; we see Paul the Pharisee, Paul the apostle, caught in the tension between his Jewishness and the impact of the risen Christ, between his inability to escape from the Jewish conviction of God’s special choice of and revelation to Israel and the impact of a gospel that came to him independently of his Jewishness and despite his Pharisaic zeal for the law. We see Paul the Jew wrestling with the implications of his own and his converts’ experience of grace and Paul the Christian wrestling with the implications of his Jewish heritage. We see in Romans Paul operating at the interface between Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity, and the transition from the one to the other in process of being worked out.

That, I would suggest, is why the letter has always struck a chord in those of subsequent generations conscious of a similar tension, caught at a similar point in time when long established traditions came under question from their own insight and experience, when well entrenched institutions and ideologies ceased to provide an answer to the sharpest of the new questions. That is probably why it exerted such a powerful influence on such as Augustine, Luther and Barth. Not for its literary or aesthetic appeal; not because they saw it as some dogmatic treatise; but because they too were at similar transition points in history (the disintegration of the western Roman Empire, the breakdown of medieval Christendom, the profound shock of the 1914–18 war on the old European empires and on the hitherto dominant liberal optimism). And in the Paul of Romans they recognized a kindred spirit whose wrestling with the tensions between his tradition and his experience spoke with word-of-God power to their own situation.

This also points up the importance of maintaining the right hermeneutical balance, why the attempt to get back into the historical context of the letter is so important. Because it is when Paul is most clearly seen within his own times and context, when the function of Romans is most clearly understood as Paul’s thinking out the questions which deeply disturbed and profoundly affected him as a Jew who believed in Messiah Jesus as Lord, it is then that we come closest to Paul. And it is as we learn to hear him speaking to the reality of his own situation (not compiling an abstract treatise) that we begin to recognize that such periods of transition and tension are not new within the purposes of God, we begin to hear him speaking to our own situations of transition and of confusion in personal and national identity.

One of the most challenging lessons about Romans then is this: the more we see it as a dogmatic treatise which speaks the same message to every age, the less able are we to hear it in the way it was intended to be heard; whereas when we hear it in all its historical relativity, then we may begin to appreciate the full power of its message to the great moments of crisis in world and ecclesiastical (as well as personal) history. To rediscover Romans as a statement sketched out on the interface between diverse traditions and visions and cultures is to liberate it to speak with fresh force to those concerned at the interface between Christianity and modern cultures, at the interface not least between Judaism and Christianity. To appreciate something of its power as word of God to the Christians in first-century Rome may be a vital first step to hearing it as God’s word to equivalent situations today.

If there is anything in this, another volume would be required to work it out. I had envisaged a brief Conclusion at the end of the volume to develop these ideas, but that I fear would be inadequate since the temptation to read it without reference to the commentary itself would be unavoidable; and a lengthier treatment would extend still further an already too long manuscript. On reflection it seemed better to send forth the commentary as it is, as the indispensable exegetical foundation for such a theological endeavor. As part of an ongoing dialogue (I would never presume that anything I wrote was the last word on a subject) it would be better to let the commentary draw out the necessary and desired response of comment and criticism. If the foundation proves solid enough in the light of inspection by others, then would be the time to see what could be built on it; and if not, better to refrain from building on unsure foundations. It would be my hope, then, God willing, to return to the subject in a few years time, to attempt, in the light of any comment and criticism received in the interval, a fuller and integrated description of Paul’s theology at the time he wrote Romans, and if possible to reflect on its continuing significance for today.

It should now be clear that, for all its length, the objectives of this commentary are limited. I have not attempted, for example, to provide a full-scale text critical analysis in the Notes. That is a task for others more proficient than I in the art, though of course I have not hesitated to make decisions regarding various disputed readings when that was necessary. Nor have I given full lists of witnesses for variants: the textual apparatus of Aland²⁶ and UBS will provide sufficient detail for almost all readers. In the Notes I have been content to provide brief explanations for the choice of readings where it is important, and sometimes to point out the significance of the fact that there are particular variants.

Nor have I attempted to provide a history of interpretation of the letter or of particular passages and themes. Here too I have had to leave that to others more proficient than I in the Fathers or medieval and reformation periods. The resulting deficiencies will be obvious to many, and I cannot but envy the depth of familiarity with the scholarship of previous centuries shown by commentators like Lagrange and Cranfield and acknowledge my indebtedness to the history of interpretation excurses particularly of Kuss and Wilckens. Many of the hermeneutical issues have remained little changed over the centuries, of course, but the issues thrown up by modern scholarship are complex and demanding enough, and to extend the hermeneutical dialogue back to earlier centuries would have lengthened to unmanageable proportions the commentary itself and the time needed to write it.

I cannot even claim to have engaged fully in dialogue with all the more recent scholarship on Romans. In fact my main discussion partners have come from the last hundred years, and I have sought out particularly those who have illuminated the historical context through their familiarity particularly with Jewish and Greco-Roman life and thought. But no doubt I have missed not a few contributions even from this more limited period which would have given me further insight into the text and its thought. And such is the flood of publications now on Romans itself that it has been almost impossible to keep up with everything which has been written. I do not therefore pretend to have scoured all periodicals and symposia, particularly of the more popular type, to ensure that the bibliographies are comprehensive. With the explosion of publishing made possible by modern techniques, scholarship will simply have to become more selective anyway or else drown in a flood of words. So too on disputed issues in the text I have attempted simply to be illustrative in the bibliographical references; anything more would merely have produced wearisome strings of names. No doubt here too there are many individual hypotheses and arguments to which I have done insufficient justice. And for that I can only beg indulgence in view of an already-too-well-packed manuscript.

May an author hope therefore that the value of his commentary will be judged in relation to the objectives he set in writing it, and not in terms of what he refrained from attempting.

Finally it is my pleasure and privilege to say thank you to all who have contributed to these volumes in various ways. First of all, there are those who have responded to lectures and papers which emerged as offshoots or firstfruits, or who sent me offprints of their own contributions. The sequence of seminars on Paul at the annual meeting of the Society for New Testament Studies was particularly valuable. And my most helpful critics include the members of the postgraduate NT seminar here in Durham. I am particularly grateful to my own postgraduates, many of whose own work has overlapped or interacted with my own most fruitfully. The theses of Don Garlington and Paul Trebilco appear in the Bibliography. Others in via who have given me valuable help with bibliography (especially in periods when I was under great pressure from other university responsibilities) are David Goh, Dennis Stamps, Lung Kwong Lo, Ellen Christiansen, John Chow and Bruce Longenecker. The Inter-Library Loan service was indispensable and I am grateful to the Libraries of Cambridge and Tübingen, and particularly of Durham, of course, for their ready and efficient help. Above all, my wife Meta has had to bear an increasing burden of backup and support, particularly during the last year when the completion of the commentary seemed to consume more and more of my time. How can I thank her enough?

Two years after starting work on the commentary I had the honor of being appointed to the Chair of Divinity at Durham. The appropriateness of my project quickly became apparent to me. My predecessor, Kingsley Barrett, was appointed to his chair in 1957, the year in which his Black commentary on Romans was published. And his colleague, Charles Cranfield, was awarded his chair in between the publication of the two volumes of his International Critical Commentary on Romans. Clearly then a commentary on Romans is a kind of initiation test for Professors of New Testament at Durham. It is no little relief to have completed the task at last—only five years late! But have I passed?

JAMES D. G. DUNN

January, 1988

University of Durham

Note on bibliographical references and cross-references within the text:

(a) Commentaries as such have usually been cited by name alone and without page reference, the location of the reference being given by the verse commented on. Full details of the commentaries can be found in the Commentary Bibliography (p. xxxviii).

(b) In the case of other references, full details will be found either in the Bibliography section at the beginning of the passage; in the General Bibliography; or, in the case of chaps. 9–11, in the Bibliography at the beginning of chaps. 9–11.

(c) Cross-references usually take the form see on 7:8, see on 14:2, etc. Unless otherwise stated the reference is to the Comment on the passage indicated.

Abbreviations

General Abbreviations

For abbreviations of Greek MSS used in Notes, see Aland²⁶.

B. Abbreviations for Translations and Paraphrases

C. Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials

D. Abbreviations for Books of the Bible with Apocrypha

OLD TESTAMENT

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

Josh

Judg

Ruth

*1 Sam

*2 Sam

*1 Kgs

*2 Kgs

1 Chron

2 Chron

Ezra

Neh

Esth

Job

Ps (Pss)

Prov

Eccl

Cant

Isa

Jer

Lam

Ezek

Dan

Hos

Joel

Amos

Obad

Jonah

Mic

Nah

Hab

Zeph

Hag

Zech

Mal

NEW TESTAMENT

Matt

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Rom

1 Cor

2 Cor

Gal

Eph

Phil

Col

1 Thess

2 Thess

1 Tim

2 Tim

Titus

Philem

Heb

James

1 Pet

2 Pet

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Rev

APOCRYPHA

Texts used:

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77, 1984.

Septuaginta. Ed. A. Rahlfs. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, ⁷1962.

Novum Testamentum Graece. Ed. E. Nestle, K. Aland et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibegesellschaft, ²⁶1979 = Aland²⁶

*Note: to avoid unnecessary repetition and possible confusion I have almost always cited 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Kgs and 2 Kgs as above, rather than using the LXX titles, 1–4 Kingdoms, when referring to the Greek text.

E. Abbreviations of Other Early Jewish Literature (usually called OT Pseudepigrapha)

Texts used:

Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. Ed. M. Black. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca. Ed. A.-M. Denis. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Septuaginta. Ed. A. Rahlfs (as APOCRYPHA). For Pss. Sol. and 3–4 Macc.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Ed. M. de Jonge. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Ed. R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.

The Apocryphal Old Testament. Ed. H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. London: Darton, 1983, 1985.

F. Abbreviations of Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, and Josephus

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

PHILO

JOSEPHUS

Texts used:

Die Texte aus Qumran. Ed. E. Lohse. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964, 1971.

The Temple Scroll. J. Maier. JSOTSupp 34. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Tr. G. Vermes. Harmondsworth: Penguin, ²1975.

The Essene Writings from Qumran. A. Dupont-Sommer. Oxford: Blackwell, 1961.

Josephus. Ed. H. St. J. Thackeray et al. LCL. 9 vols. London: Heinemann, 1926–65.

Philo. Ed. F. H. Colson et al. LCL. 12 vols. London: Heinemann, 1929–53.

G. Abbreviations of Early Christian Writings

Texts used:

The Apostolic Fathers. K. Lake. LCL. 2 vols. London: Heinemann, 1912–13.

Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. NovTSupp 36. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. K. Lake and J. E. L. Oulton. LCL. 2 vols. London: Heinemann, 1926, 1932.

The Apocryphal New Testament. M. R. James. Oxford University, 1924.

New Testament Apocrypha. E. Hennecke. Ed. W. Schneemelcher. ET ed. R. M. Wilson. 2 vols. London: Lutterworth, 1963, 1965.

For Gnostic and Nag Hammadi texts:

Gnosis. W. Foerster. ET ed. R. M. Wilson. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972, 1974.

The Nag Hammadi Library. Ed. J. M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977.

H. Rabbinic writings

Tractates

Texts used:

The Mishnah. H. Danby. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933.

The Babylonian Talmud. I. Epstein. 34 vols. Soncino, 1935–52.

Midrash Rabbah. H. Freedman and M. Simon. 10 vols. Soncino, ²1951.

The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targums I–II. J. W. Etheridge. London: Longmans, 1862–65.

Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de la Bibliotheca Vaticana. A. Diez Macho. 5 vols. Madrid, 1968–78.

For other ancient classical texts such as Epictetus, Juvenal, Seneca, LCL was used: GLAJJ also includes many relevant excerpts.

General Bibliography

Alexander, P. S. Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. ZNW 74 (1983) 237–46.

Allison, D.C. The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels. NTS 28 (1982) 1–32.

Amir, Y. "The Term Ἰουδαϊσμός: A Study in Jewish-Hellenistic Self-Identification." Immanuel 14 (1982) 34–41.

Aune, D. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Chap. 6.

Aus, R. D. Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom 11:25. NovT 21 (1979) 232–62.

Baeck, L. The Faith of Paul. Judaism and Christianity. New York: Harper, 1966. 139–68.

Baird, W. On Reading Romans Today. Int 34 (1980) 45–58.

Banks, R. Paul’s Idea of Community. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.

Barrett, C. K. From First Adam to Last. London: Black, 1962.

Barth, M. Was Paul an Anti-Semite? JES 5 (1968) 78–104.

———. Justification: Pauline Texts Interpreted in the Light of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Bartsch, H.-W. Die antisemitischen Gegner des Paulus im Römerbrief. In Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament. Ed. W. Eckert, et al. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. 27–43.

———. The Concept of Faith in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. BR 13 (1968) 41–53.

———. Die Empfänger des Römerbriefes. ST 25 (1971) 81–89.

Bassler, J. M. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom. SBLDS 59. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

Baumgarten, J. Paulus und die Apokalyptik. WMANT 44. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975.

Baur, F. C. Paul. 2 vol(s). London: Williams & Norgate, 1873, 1875.

Beare, F. W. St Paul and His Letters. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

———. The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. HTR 79 (1986) = Christians Among Jews and Greeks. FS K. Stendahl, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and G. W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. 10–16.

Benoit, P. Jesus and the Gospel. Vol. 2. London: Darton, 1974.

Berger, K. Zum traditionsge-schichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel. NTS 17 (1970–71) 391–425.

Betz, H. D., ed. Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

———., ed. Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

———. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Bindemann, W. Die Hoffnung der Schöpfung: Römer 8:18–27 und die Frage einer Theologie der Befreiung von Mensch und Natur. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983.

Bjerkelund, C. J. ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟ: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalo-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967.

Blank, J. Paulus: Von Jesus zum Urchristentum. Munich: Kösel, 1982.

Bloch, R. Midrash. In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. W. S. Green. BJS 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. 29–50.

Boers, H. The Problem of Jews and Gentiles in the Macro-structure of Romans. Neot 15 (1981) 1–11.

Bornkamm, G. Early Christian Experience. London: SCM, 1969.

———. Paul. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971.

———. Paulinische Anakoluthe. Das Ende des Gesetzes. Munich: Kaiser, 1952. 76–92.

———. The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1–3). Experience, 47–70.

———. The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament. In Donfried, Debate. 17–31.

Bousset, W. and Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. Tübingen: Mohr, ⁴1966.

Brown, R. E. and Meier, J.P. Antioch and Rome. London: Chapman, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977.

Bultmann, R. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910, 1984.

———. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vol(s). London: SCM, 1952, 1955.

———. Glossen im Römerbrief. Exegetica. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. 278–84.

Buren, P. M. van. A Theology of the Jewish Christian Reality. 2 vol(s). New York: Harper & Row, 1980, 1983.

Byrne, B. Sons of God—Seed of Abraham. AnBib 83. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979.

Cambier, J. Romans. In Introduction to the New Testament, ed. A. Robert, et al. New York: Desclee, 1965. 447–470.

———. L’Évangile de Dieu selon l’épîltre aux Romains. Bruges: Brouwer, 1967.

Campbell, W. S. The Romans Debate. JSNT 10 (1981) 19–28.

———. Romans 3 as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter. NovT 23 (1981) 22–40.

———. The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel. JSNT 13 (1981) 27–45.

Carcopino, J. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Yale University, 1940.

Cerfaux, L. Christ in the Theology of St Paul. Freiburg: Herder, 1959.

———. The Church in the Theology of St Paul. Freiburg: Herder, 1959.

———. The Christian in the Theology of St Paul. London: Chapman, 1967.

Childs, B. S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. 243–63.

Collins, J. J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. New York: Crossroad, 1983.

———. A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century. In To See Ourselves As Others See Us: Christians, Jews, Others in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. 163–86.

Conzelmann, H. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM 1969.

———. Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus: Theologie oder Anthropologie? Theologie als Schriftauslegung. Munich: Kaiser, 1974. 191–206.

Canfield, C. E. B. A Commentary on Romans 12–13.

Reviews for Romans 9-16, Volume 38B

[정용택 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Please upload this book’s previous book, namely WBC Romans 1-8!!!