The Epistle to the Romans

By Douglas J. Moo

Douglas Moo's work on the Epistle to the Romans is part of The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Prepared by some of the world's leading scholars, the series provides an exposition of the New Testament books that is thorough and fully abreast of modern scholarship yet faithful to the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Sep 30, 1996
• ISBN: 9781467422697

Douglas J. Moo

Douglas J. Moo es profesor de Nuevo Testamento en Wheaton Graduate School, Wheaton, Illinois. Anteriormente enseñó durante más de veinte años en Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ilinois. Es autor de muchos libros, incluyendo un comentario a la Epístola a los Romanos.

Book preview

The Epistle to the

ROMANS

---

DOUGLAS J. MOO

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 1996 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Moo, Douglas J.

The Epistle to the Romans / Douglas J. Moo

p. cm.

— (The new international commentary on the New Testament)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

eISBN 978-1-4674-2269-7

ISBN 0-8028-2317-3

1. Bible. N.T. Romans—Commentaries. I. Title. II. Series.

BS2665.3.M55 1966

227′.107—dc20          96-26077

www.eerdmans.com

CONTENTS

Editor’s Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

I. General Circumstances

II. Integrity, Literary History, and Text

III. Audience

IV. Nature and Genre

V. Purpose

VI. Theme

VII. Text and Translation

VIII. Structure

IX. Analysis of Romans

TEXT, EXPOSITION, AND NOTES

I. The Letter Opening (1:1–17)

II. The Heart of the Gospel: Justification by Faith (1:18–4:25)

III. The Assurance Provided by the Gospel: The Hope of Salvation (5:1–8:39)

IV. The Defense of the Gospel: The Problem of Israel (9:1–11:36)

V. The Transforming Power of the Gospel: Christian Conduct (12:1–15:13)

VI. The Letter Closing (15:14–16:27)

Notes

INDEXES

I. Subjects

II. Authors

III. Scripture References

IV. Early Extrabiblical Literature

EDITOR’S PREFACE

With this volume a new day has dawned for this series of commentaries. Not only is it the first volume (not counting my own Philippians) to appear under the third editorship of the series, but it is also the first among several of the new and/or replacement volumes that represent a younger generation of evangelical scholars, thus signaling in part the coming of age of evangelical scholarship at the end of the present millennium.

Dr. Moo, for many years a teacher at the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois) and editor of the Trinity Journal, brings to this commentary the rigors of a first-rate exegete who is equally concerned for the theological and practical implications of the text of Romans. In his Author’s Preface, he details the happy circumstances by which his (now completed) commentary became a part of the present series.

But if this volume in some ways inaugurates a new day for the series, it also has some strong ties to the past. This series began in a context of evangelical theology that was also decidedly within the Reformed tradition. It is therefore fitting that the replacement commentary on Romans in particular, originally written by John Murray (professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary), should be written by someone whose theological sympathies lie in this direction. Although it will be clear to the perceptive reader that Dr. Moo has struck an independent course at many significant places (most notably with his interpretation of 7:7–25), he has nonetheless here articulated a (more traditional) view of Romans that is not notably popular among Romans specialists these days. In so doing, he has put everyone in his debt with his careful and clear articulation of this view, and with his equally knowledgeable and gracious interaction with those who take different views. And his careful work on the details of the text, which made it such a joy to edit, also makes it a must commentary for those who want to get at the meaning of this crucial Pauline letter.

GORDON D. FEE

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

The traditions-history of this commentary is convoluted. In 1983 I was asked by Moody Press to contribute a commentary on Romans to their new Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. I began work and produced the first volume of that commentary in 1991 (Romans 1–8). Shortly after the appearance of that volume, however, Moody Press decided the cancel the series. I therefore began searching desperately for a publisher who would be willing to republish Romans 1–8 along with the second volume of the commentary, on which I was already at work. In the providence of God, the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company was at that very time seeking an author to write a revised commentary on Romans for their New International Commentary on the New Testament series. I gladly accepted their offer to put my commentary in their series.

The very different natures of the two commentary series required rather extensive revisions of my first volume. This I found to be both a curse and a blessing. The curse was having to transfer much detailed argumentation of my Wycliffe volume into footnotes in the New International Commentary series—requiring extensive rewriting of both text and notes. But the blessing was that this rewriting enabled me to sharpen my arguments and improve my style at a number of places. Readers of my Wycliffe Romans 1–8 should know, however, that I made few substantive changes—a nuance here, a caveat there, and, of course, interaction with scholarly literature that had appeared since Romans 1–8.

I wrote in the preface to my Wycliffe volume that I did not (in 1990) regret my decision to write a commentary on the much-worked-over letter of Paul to the Romans. I still do not. For what makes study of Romans so challenging is just what makes it so rewarding—being forced to think about so many issues basic to Christian theology and practice. At the same time I am more convinced than ever of the need for interaction with the new perspective on Paul that I feature in this commentary. I pray that what I have written will be of service to the church and that readers of this commentary will grow in that practical divinity which counts before God: the doctrine of living to God, as the Puritan divine William Ames put it.

Many people contributed to this commentary. Several research assistants at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School helped compile bibliography and proofread various part of the MS: Joe Anderson, Harrison Skeele, David Johnson, Jay Smith, and George Goldman. Many students, too numerous to mention, sharpened my thinking about the text through their papers and class interaction. I am grateful to the Board and Administration of Trinity for their generous sabbatical program. The editors of the Wycliffe volume, Moisés Silva and Ken Barker, helped me think through several issues and polish my grammar; their contributions may still be discerned in this revised commentary. And I want especially to thank Milton Essenburg at Eerdmans and Gordon Fee, series editor, for taking my commentary on and interacting fully with my work.

Most of all, I thank my family, who have supported me and prayed for my work: my wife Jenny, and my children Jonathan, David, Lukas, Rebecca, and Christy. My youngest daughter (twelve years old), Christy, brought home to me just how long they have given this support when she commented as I finished the MS that my Romans was as old as she was.

DOUGLAS J. MOO

ABBREVIATIONS

AAR American Academy of Religion

AB Anchor Bible

ʾAbot R. Nat. ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan

ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAboda Zara

A.D. anno Domini (in the year of our Lord)

Add. Esth. Additions to Esther

Adv. Haer. Adversus Haereses (Irenaeus)

Ag. Ap. Against Apion (Josephus)

Against Jul. Against Julian (Augustine)

ALBO Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia

AnBib Analecta Biblica

Ann. Annales (Tacitus)

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

Ant. Antiquities (Josephus)

Ant. Rom. Antiquities of Rome (Dionysius of Halicarnassus)

Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham

2 Apoc. Bar. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch

Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses

Apol. Apology (Justin)

Apost. Const. Apostolic Constitutions

As. Mos. Assumption of Moses

ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

AusBR Australian Biblical Review

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature

Bar. Baruch

Barn. Barnabas

BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge

BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie

B.C. before Christ

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT

BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the NT

BDR F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT

BET Bibliotheca ecclesiastica. Torino

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie

BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie

Bib. Biblica

Bib. Ant. Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo)

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester

B. Meṣ. Baba Meṣiʿa

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BT Bible Translator

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZHT Beihefte zur historischen Theologie

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

c. circa (around)

CBNT Coniectanea biblica. NT

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CD Church Dogmatics

CD Cairo Damascus (Document)

cent. century

cf. confer (compare)

chaps. chapters

1 Clem. 1 Clement

col. column

CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

Cyr. Cyropaedia (Xenophon)

Did. Didache

diss. dissertation

Diss. Dissertationes (Epictetus)

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

Ebib Etudes bibliques

Ecclus. Ecclesiasticus

ed. editor, edition

EDNT H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the NT

e.g. exempli gratia (for example)

EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

Ep. Arist. Epistle of Aristeas

Eph. Ephesians (Ignatius)

Eq. Mag. De Equitum Magistro (Xenophon)

1 Esdr. 1 Esdras

esp. especially

ET English translation

ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

ETR Etudes théologiques et religieuses

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

EvT Evangelische Theologie

Exod. Rab. Exodus Rabbah

ExpTim Expository Times

FBBS Facet Books, Biblical Series

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

FzB Forschungen zur Bibel

GEL J. Louw and E. Nida (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah

Germ. German

Gk. Greek

Haer. Haereses (Epiphanius)

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology

H.E. Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius)

Heb. Hebrew

Herm. Sim. Hermas, Similitudes

Herm. Vis. Hermas, Visions

Hist. Historia (Polybius)

HKNT Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HNTC Harper’s NT Commentaries

HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

HUTh Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

IB Interpreter’s Bible

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDBSup G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume

i.e. id est (that is)

Int Interpretation

ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

JB Jerusalem Bible

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

Jos. and As. Joseph and Asenath

JPS Jewish Publication Society

Jewish War (Josephus)

JR Journal of Religion

JSNT Journal for the Study of the NT

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the NT, Supplementary Volume

JSOT Journal for the Study of the OT

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

Jub. Jubilees

Jud. Judith

KD Kerygma und Dogma

1, 2, 3, and 4 Kgdms. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kingdoms

KJV King James Version

J.W.

Lat. Latin

LD Lectio divina

lit. literally

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon

LUÅ Lunds universiteits årsskrift

LW Lutheran World

LXX The Septuagint

1, 2, 3, and 4 Macc. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees

Mek. Mekilta

MeyerK H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

Midr. Qoh. Midrash Qohelet

mg. margin

MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament

MNTC Moffatt NT Commentary

MS(S) manuscript(s)

MS(S) manuscript(s)

MT Massoretic Text

MTZ Munchener theologische Zeitschrift

NA Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

n.d. no date

NEB New English Bible

Neot Neotestamentica

New Docs. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity

NICNT New International Commentary on the NT

NICOT New International Commentary on the OT

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of NT Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift

n(n). note(s)

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NRT La nouvelle revue théologique

n.s. new series

NT New Testament

NTA New Testament Abstracts

NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch

NTS New Testament Studies

NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies

Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon

OL Old Latin

OT Old Testament

par(s). parallels

par(s). parallels

Par. Jer. Paralipomena Jeremiou

Pesaḥ. Pesaḥim

Pesiq. R. Pesiqta Rabbati

PG J. Migne, Patrologia Graeca

PL J. Migne, Patrologia Latina

Plant. De Plantis (Aristotle)

Pol. Politica (Aristotle)

P.Oxy. Oxyrhynchus Papyri

Prel. Stud. Preliminary Studies (Philo)

Pr. Man. Prayer of Manasseh

Ps.-Clem. Hom. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies

Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon

Qidd. Qiddushin

1QH Hôdāyôt (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1

1QM Milḥāmāḥ (War Scroll) from Qumran Cave 1

1QpHab Pesher on Habakkuk (Habakkuk Commentary) from Qumran Cave 1

1QpNah Pesher on Nahum (Nahum Commentary) from Qumran Cave 1

1QS Serek hayyaḥad (Rule of the Community) from Qumran Cave 1

4QFlor Florilegium from Qumran Cave 4

4QMMT Miqsat Maʿaseh Torah from Qumran Cave 4

11QMelch Melchizedek text from Qumran Cave 11

RB Revue biblique

REB Revised English Bible

Res. De Resurrectione Carnis

RestQ Restoration Quarterly

rev. ed. revised edition

RevExp Review and Expositor

RevistB Revista biblica

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RevThom Revue thomiste

Rh. Rhetorica (Aristotle)

RHPR Revue d’histoire des religions

RNT Regensburger Neues Testament

rpt. reprint

RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

RSV Revised Standard Version

RTP Revue de théologie et de philosophie

Sanh. Sanhedrin

SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

SB Sources bibliques

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

SD Studies and Documents

SE Studia Evangelica

SEÅ Svensk exegetisk årsbok

S-H W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Shabb. Shabbat

Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles

Sifre Deut. Sifre Deuteronomy

Sipre Lev. Sipre Leviticus

Sipre Num. Sipre Numbers

Sir. Sirach

SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

Smyrn. To the Smyrneans (Ignatius)

SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament

SNTSMS Society for NT Studies Monograph Series

SPB Studia postbiblica

SPCIC Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus

ST Studia Theologica

StrB H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

Tanch. B. Tanchuma Buber

TBei Theologische Beiträge

TBl Theologische Blätter

TBü Theologische Bücherei

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the NT

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the OT

TEV Today’s English Version

T. 12 Patriarchs Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (listed individually)

T. Job Testament of Job

T. Mos. Testament of Moses

Tg. Ket. Targum of the Writings

Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti

THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

TNTC Tyndale NT Commentary

TOTC Tyndale OT Commentary

TP Theologie und Philosophie

Tob. Tobit

trans. translated by

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TToday Theology Today

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

UBS United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 4th ed.

UNT Unterschungen zum Neuen Testament

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

v.l. varia lectio (variant reading)

vol. volume

v(v.) verse(s)

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WEC Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary

WH Westcott and Hort, Greek New Testament

Wis. Wisdom of Solomon

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WW Word and World

Yad. Yadayim

Yebam. Yebamot

Z-G M. Zerwick and M. Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. A NOTE ON THE USE OF PRIMARY SOURCES

Unless otherwise noted, I have used Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger; 27th ed., 1993) for the text of Romans and other NT literature, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolf, 1977) for the Hebrew OT, Septuaginta (ed. A. Rahlfs, 1971) for the Septuagint, Die Texte aus Qumran (ed. E. Lohse, 1964) for the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Loeb Classical Library editions for the works of Josephus and Philo, The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha (RSV trans., 1957) for English translations of the Apocrypha, and The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. Charlesworth; 2 vols., 1983, 1985) for English translations of the Pseudepigrapha.

I have cited texts from the OT according to the versification of the English translations, even when the MT or LXX verse number differs.

II. A NOTE ON THE USE OF SECONDARY SOURCES

The interpreter of Romans is faced with the danger that the text of what Paul himself wrote will become obscured by the reams and reams of material that other people have written about the text. Thomas Hobbes is reputed to have said, If I read as many books as most men do, I would be as dull-witted as they are. Certainly it is easy for the interpreter of Scripture to substitute broad reading in books about the text for deep reading in the text itself. In no book of the Bible is this more of a temptation than in Romans, and I hope I have not succumbed to it.

In any case, I have tried to keep the focus on the text while, at the same time, interacting with as much of the secondary literature as possible. Even here, however, I have been quite selective, citing scholars who are representative of a particular view or who have argued a view particularly well. With respect to this point, the reader should note the difference between a simple reference to a work and a reference preceded by see especially. The former indicates nothing more than that the work in question is representative of those who argue the particular position mentioned, but the latter means that the work in question provides a particularly good argument for the point in question.

I have cited commentaries by the last name of the commentator only; the reader may assume, unless noted, that the reference is to the commentator’s notes on the relevant verse. I have cited several other frequently used volumes in the same way; these are listed under Other Significant Works below.

III. COMMENTARIES

The following list of commentaries is far from exhaustive: Romans, by virtue of its theological importance, has attracted uncountable numbers of commentators (Cranfield [1.30–44] has a particularly good survey of commentaries up to 1973). These range from technical, scholarly tomes, replete with Latin and Greek and extensive interaction with other scholars, to homilies designed to apply, rather than analyze, the message of the letter.

The reader will find few references to the second type because such books, by their very nature, say little new about the meaning of the text. A noted exception, however—if indeed they belong in this category at all—are the edited sermons of D. M. Lloyd-Jones. His very relevant homiletical applications grow out of insightful, theologically informed exegesis, and the reader can see from the notes how much his exegesis has informed my own thinking about the text.

On the other hand, I have consulted as many of those works on Romans that might be accurately termed commentary as I could lay my hands on. Realizing early on in my work that it was both impractical and unnecessary to cite all these works consistently—for there is much repetition of argument and conclusion—I selected twelve commentators for particularly careful study. Three factors informed my selection: exegetical excellence, theological sophistication, and representative significance. These commentaries may be called—to borrow a phrase from textual criticism—the constant witnesses in my commentary, and they are preceded in the list that follows with and asterisk (*). I regard these scholars as my exegetical sparring partners, and I refer the reader to them consistently.

Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. 1845–60. Reprint. Chicago: Moody, 1958.

Althaus, Paul. Der Brief an der Römer übersetzt und erklärt. NTD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Ambrosiaster, in PL 17.45–184.

Augustine. Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans and Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1957.

*Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. HNTC. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1957.

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University, 1933.

———. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. Richmond: John Knox, 1959. (Cited as Shorter.)

Baulès, R. L’Evangile puissance de Dieu. LD 53. Paris: Cerf, 1968.

Bengel, J. A. Gnomon of the New Testament. 5 vols. 1742. Reprint. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1860.

Best, Ernest. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967.

Black, Matthew. Romans. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1973.

Boylon, Patrick. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Dublin: M. H. Gill, 1934.

Bruce, F. F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Brunner, Emil. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.

*Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 1540. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Romans. PG 60.391–682; NPNF 11.335–564.

*Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC, n.s. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975, 1979.

Denney, James. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, vol. 2. 1904. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. New York: Harper and Bros., 1932.

*Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8, Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

*Fitzmyer, Joseph. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

———. The Letter to the Romans. In The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Garvie, Alfred E. Romans. The Century Bible. London: Caxton, n.d.

Gaugler, E. Der Römerbrief. Prophezei. 2 vols. Zurich: Zwingli, 1945, 1952.

Gifford, E. H. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. London: John Murray, 1886.

*Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on Romans. 1879. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977.

Gore, Charles. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. A Practical Exposition. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1899.

Haldane, Robert. Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. 1839. Reprint. London: Banner of Truth, 1958.

Harrison, Everett F. Romans. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Harrisville, Roy A. Romans. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 1886. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Huby, J. Saint Paul: Epître aux Romains. Ed. Stanilas Lyonnet. Paris: Beauchesne, 1957.

Johnson, Alan F. Romans: The Freedom Letter. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1984, 1985.

*Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 (ET of An die Römer [Tübingen: Mohr, 1980]).

Kirk, K. E. The Epistle to the Romans. Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937.

Knox, John. The Epistle to the Romans. IB, vol. 9. New York: Abingdon, 1954.

*Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief. 3 vols. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963–78.

Lagrange, M.-J. Saint Paul: Epître aux Romains. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1950.

Lapide, Cornelius à. Commentaria in Epistolarum ad Romanos Commentarii. Sacram Scriptorum, vol. 9. 1614. Reprint. Paris, 1859.

Leenhardt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans. 1957. ET, London: Lutterworth, 1961.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1936.

Liddon, H. P. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. London: Longmans, Green, 1893.

Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on Epistles of St. Paul. 1895. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Lipsius, R. A. Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper. HKNT. Freiburg: Mohr, 1892.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Romans. 7 vols., variously titled, on chaps. 1 and 3:20–8:39. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970–88.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia. Luther’s Works 25. St. Louis: Concordia, 1972.

Meyer, H. A. W. The Epistle to the Romans. MeyerK. 2 vols. 1872. Reprint. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1881, 1884.

*Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. MeyerK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moule, H. C. G. The Epistle to the Romans. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1887.

*Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. 1944. Reprint. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949.

O’Neill, J. C. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. Baltimore: Penguin, 1975.

Pesch, R. Römerbrief. Die neue Echter Bibel. Wurzburg: Echter, 1983.

Ridderbos, Herman N. Aan de Romeinen. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1959.

Robinson, John A. T. Wrestling with Romans. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979.

*Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902.

Schelkle, Karl Hermann. Paulus, Lehrer der Väter. Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1956.

Schlatter, Adolf. Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1959.

Schlier, H. Der Römerbrief Kommentar. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1977.

Schmidt, Hans Wilhelm. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische, 1963.

Schmithals, W. Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988.

Shedd, William G. T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. New York: Scribner’s, 1879.

Sickenberger, Joseph. Die beiden Briefe des heiligen Paulus an die Korinther und sein Brief an die Römer. Die Heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1923.

Smart, James. Doorway to a New Age: A Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Ed. and rev. by R. D. C. Robbins. Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1862.

Stuhlmacher, P. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994.

Theodoret, in PG 82.43–226.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 1946. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Tholuck, F. A. G. Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844.

Viard, A. Saint Paul: Epître aux Romains. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1975.

Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. 1754. Reprint. London: Epworth, 1950.

Westcott, Frederick Brooke. St. Paul and Justification, being an Exposition of the Teaching in the Epistles to Rome and Galatia. London: Macmillan, 1913.

*Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKKNT. 3 vols. Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener and Zürich: Benziger, 1978–81.

Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1910.

Zeller, Dieter. Der Brief an die Römer. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1985.

IV. OTHER SIGNIFICANT WORKS

Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1951, 1955.

Burton, E. de W. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898.

Byrne, Brendan. ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham.’ A Study of the Idea of Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background. AnBib 83. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979.

Cambier, J. L’Evangile de Dieu selon L’épître aux Romains. Exégèse et théologie biblique. Vol. I: L’Evangile de la justice et de la grace. Brussels/Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967.

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. London: SPCK, 1948.

Deidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. AnBib 89. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate. 2d ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Gamble, Harry, Jr. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism. SD 42. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Gundry, R. H. Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology. SNTSMS 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Hagner, Donald A., and Harris, Murray J., eds. Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University, 1989.

Hübner, Hans. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984.

Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BZHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986.

Kühl, E. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1913.

Longenecker, Richard N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty. 1964. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.

Lorenzi, Lorenzo de, ed. Battesimo e Giustizia in Rom 6 e 8. Monographic Series of Benedictina, Biblical-ecumenical Section, 2. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1974.

———, ed. Die Israelfrage nach Röm 9–11. Monographic Series of Benedictina, Biblical-ecumenical Section, 3. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1977.

———, ed. Dimensions de la vie chrétienne (Rm 12–13). Monographic Series of Benedictina, Biblical-ecumenical Section, 4. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1979.

———, ed. The Law of the Spirit in Rom 7 and 8. Monographic Series of Benedictina, Biblical-ecumenical Section, 1. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1976.

Luz, U. Das Geschichtsverständnis bei Paulus. BEvT 49. Munich: Kaiser, 1968.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Minear, Paul S. The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. London: SCM, 1971.

Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. Vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. 1954. London: SCM, 1959.

Ortkemper, F.-J. Leben aus dem Glauben: Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Römer 12–13. NTAbh n.s. 14. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. New York: George H. Doran, 1915.

Schoeps, H.-J. Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. 1959. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963.

Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. SNTSMS 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986.

Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

———, and Grosvenor, Mary. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. The Schweich Lectures, 1946. London: British Academy, 1953.

INTRODUCTION

The quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine.¹ This description of Romans by Thomas Draxe, a seventeenth-century English Puritan, has been echoed by theologians, commentators, and laypeople throughout the centuries. When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine. Moreover, this response is both understandable and appropriate. As we will see, Paul’s letter to the Romans is thoroughly doctrinal: the purest Gospel, as Luther put it.² But, like every book in the NT, Romans is rooted in history. It is not a systematic theology but a letter, written in specific circumstances and with specific purposes. The message of Romans is, indeed, timeless; but to understand its message aright, we must appreciate the specific context out of which Romans was written. In the pages that follow, I want to fill out this context as a basis for my interpretation and application of the letter.

I. GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES

A. PAUL

Romans claims to be written by Paul (1:1), and there has been no serious challenge to this claim. In keeping with regular ancient custom, Paul used an amanuensis, or scribe, to write the letter, identified in 16:22 as Tertius. Ancient authors gave to their amanuenses varying degrees of responsibility in the composition of their works—from word-for-word recording of what they dictated to quite sweeping responsibility for putting ideas into words. Paul’s method in Romans is certainly far toward the dictation end of this spectrum. For the style of Romans is very close to that of Galatians and 1 Corinthians—and we have no evidence that Tertius was involved in the composition of either of these letters (indeed, see Gal. 6:11).

If the authorship of Romans is not in doubt, neither is the general situation in which it was written. Paul tells us in 15:22–29 that three localities figure in his immediate plans: Jerusalem, Rome, and Spain. Jerusalem is his immediate destination. Paul has completed his collection of money from his largely Gentile churches and is now on his way to Jerusalem to deliver the money to the Jewish saints there. This collection was an important project for Paul, as may be gauged from the fact that he talks about it in every letter written on the third missionary journey (cf. also 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9). Its importance goes beyond meeting the material needs of the poor Christians in Judea; Paul views it as a practical way to cement the fractured relationship between the Gentile churches of the mission field and the Jewish churches in the home country. In chap. 15 Paul demonstrates his concern about how this collection will be received by the saints in Jerusalem. Will they accept the gift and so acknowledge the links that bind Jewish and Gentile believers together in one people of God? Or will they reject it, out of suspicion of Paul and the law-free churches he has planted?

Rome is the second stage in Paul’s itinerary (15:24, 28). But, while sincere in his desire to visit the Christians in Rome, Paul views Rome as little more than a stopping-off point in his projected journey to Spain. This is not to minimize the importance of the Christian community in Rome but reflects Paul’s understanding of his call: to preach the gospel in regions where Christ has not yet been named (15:20). This task of initial church-planting is one that Paul has completed in the eastern Mediterranean: from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum [modern-day Albania and the former Yugoslavia] I have ‘fulfilled’ the gospel of Christ (15:19). As a result of the first three missionary journeys, churches have been planted in major metropolitan centers throughout southern and western Asia Minor (Tarsus, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, and Ephesus), Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica), and Greece (Corinth). These churches can now take responsibility for evangelism in their own areas, while Paul sets his sights on virgin gospel territory in the far western end of the Mediterranean.

When we compare these indications with Luke’s narrative in Acts, it is clear that Romans must have been written toward the end of the third missionary journey, when Paul, accompanied by representatives from the churches he had founded, prepared to return to Jerusalem (Acts 20:3–6). Since Luke tells us that Paul spent three months in Greece before beginning his homeward journey, we can also surmise that while staying here, with the next stage of his missionary career about to unfold, Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. It was probably in Corinth that Paul stayed while in Greece (see 2 Cor. 13:1, 10); and that Romans was written from here is suggested by the fact that Paul commends to the Romans a woman, Phoebe, from Cenchrea, a seaport adjacent to Corinth (16:1–2). Moreover, the Gaius with whom Paul is apparently staying (16:23) is probably the same Gaius whom Paul baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14). (And is the city-treasurer Erastus who sends greetings to the Romans [16:23] the same Erastus who is identified in an inscription as an aedile [city commissioner] at Corinth?³) The date at which Romans was written will depend, accordingly, on the dating of Paul’s three-month stay in Greece; and this dating, in turn, is dependent on the hazardous process of constructing an absolute chronology of the life of Paul. The best alternative is probably A.D. 57,4 though leeway of a year or two either way must be allowed.⁵

What emerges as especially significant from this sketch of Paul’s own situation is that he writes his letter to the Romans at an important transition point in his missionary career. For almost twenty-five years, Paul has planted churches in the eastern Mediterranean. Now he prepares to bring to Jerusalem a practical fruit of that work, one that he hopes will heal the most serious social-theological rift in the early church—the relationship between Jew and Gentile in the people of God. Beyond Jerusalem, Spain, with its fields ripe for the harvesting, beckons. On the way is Rome.

B. THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IN ROME

In reconstructing Paul’s situation when he wrote Romans, we can build on his own statements in Romans, as well as on the evidence from his other letters and from the book of Acts. We have no such direct evidence to use in reconstructing the situation of the Christian community in Rome at the time of Paul’s letter. Its origin is obscure and its composition and nature in Paul’s day unclear.

The tradition that the church in Rome was founded by Peter (or Peter and Paul together) cannot be right.⁶ It is in this very letter that Paul enunciates the principle that he will not build on another person’s foundation (15:20). This makes it impossible to think that he would have written this letter, or planned the kind of visit he describes in 1:8–15, to a church that was founded by Peter. Nor is it likely that Peter could have been at Rome early enough to have founded the church there. Since the traditions we possess associate no other apostle with the church at Rome, the assessment of the fourth-century church father Ambrosiaster is probably correct: the Romans have embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, without seeing any sign of mighty works or any of the apostles.⁷ The most likely scenario is that Roman Jews, who were converted on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (see Acts 2:10), brought their faith in Jesus as the Messiah back with them to their home synagogues. In this way the Christian movement in Rome was initiated.

Ambrosiaster is probably also right, then, when he identifies the synagogue as the starting point for Christianity in Rome. Enough Jews had emigrated to Rome by the end of the first century B.C. to make up a significant portion of the population.⁸ They were not bound together in any single organizational structure. Their many synagogues apparently were independent of one another.⁹ An important event in the history of the Jews in Rome is mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius. In his Life of Claudius, he says that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (25.2). Most scholars agree that Chrestus is a corruption of the Greek Christos and that the reference is probably to disputes within the Jewish community over the claims of Jesus to be the Christos, the Messiah. There is less agreement over whether the fifth-century writer Orosius is right in dating this incident in A.D. 49. But the date is probably correct10 and receives incidental confirmation from Acts 18:2, where Luke says that Aquila and Priscilla had recently come to Corinth from Italy because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. As with similar expulsions of specific groups from Rome, this one did not stay in force for long. Jews, like Aquila and Priscilla (cf. Rom. 16:3), were able to return to Rome within a short period of time, certainly soon after Claudius’s death in A.D. 54.

Nevertheless, since the Roman authorities would not have distinguished between Jews and Jewish Christians, this expulsion, however temporary, must have had a significant impact on the development of the church at Rome. Specifically, the Gentile element in the churches, undoubtedly present before the expulsion, would have come into greater prominence as a result of the absence for a time of all (or virtually all) the Jewish Christians.¹¹ Theologically this would also have meant an acceleration in the movement of the Christian community away from its Jewish origins. The decentralized nature of the Jewish community from which the Christian community sprang would also make it likely that the Christians in Rome were grouped into several house churches. Confirmation that this was the case comes from Rom. 16, where Paul seems to greet several different house churches.¹² It is also possible, though more speculative, that these different house churches were divided theologically.¹³

II. INTEGRITY, LITERARY HISTORY, AND TEXT

Is the letter to the Romans as it is now printed in our Bibles identical to the letter that Paul sent to the Christians in Rome? Many scholars answer no. Of these a few base their conclusions on internal literary considerations alone. Two scholars, for instance, conclude that internal inconsistencies within Romans can be explained only if our present letter is composed of two or more separate letters.¹⁴ Others have identified interpolations in the text: single verses, or more, that have been added to the letter after the time of Paul.¹⁵ But none of these theories can be accepted. They have no textual basis, and Romans has none of those somewhat awkward transitions that have led scholars to question the integrity of other Pauline letters.

But a more serious question is raised by the textual evidence. This evidence has led a significant number of scholars to think that the 16-chapter form of the letter we have in our Bibles was not the form of the letter that Paul sent to the Roman Christians. We can begin by listing the several forms of the text as it appears in the MSS tradition:

1. 1:1–14:23, 15:1–16:23, 16:25–27: P⁶¹?, א, B, C, D, 1739, etc.

2. 1:1–14:23, 16:25–27, 15:1–16:23, 16:25–27: A, P, 5, 33, 104

3. 1:1–14:23, 16:25–27, 15:1–16:24: Ψ, the majority text, syh

4. 1:1–14:23, 15:1–16:24: F, G [archetype of D?], 629

5. 1:1–14:23, 16:24–27: vg¹⁶⁴⁸,¹⁷⁹²,²⁰⁸⁹

6. 1:1–15:33, 16:25–27, 16:1–23: P⁴⁶

Ostensibly, the major problem is whether the doxology (16:25–27) should be included, and if so, where—at the end of chap. 14, chap. 15, or chap. 16? If this were the extent of the problem, we would be faced with a relatively minor textual question. But the different placements of the doxology combine with other textual and literary issues to raise serious questions about the origin and literary history of this letter as a whole. As can be seen above, for instance, several MSS of the Latin Vulgate omit 15:1–16:23 entirely, an omission for which evidence is also found in another Vulgate codex16 and in the absence of reference to chaps. 15 and 16 in Tertullian,¹⁷ Irenaeus, and Cyprian. All this raises the possibility that the 16-chapter form of the letter we now have in our Bibles is secondary to an original 14- or 15-chapter form. When we add to this the fact that a few MSS (G and the Old Latin g) omit the only references to Rome that occur in the letter (1:7, 15), we can understand why various theories of a shortened and more universal form of the letter have arisen.

Lake, for instance, argues that Paul’s original letter was made up of chaps. 1–14 and that he added chap. 15 when he sent it to Rome.¹⁸ But a more popular theory is that the original letter, addressed to Rome, consisted of 1:1–15:33. In both reconstructions, however, chap. 16 is considered to be no part of Paul’s letter to the Romans. This conclusion, which is quite widespread, is based on both textual and literary considerations. The placement of the doxology after chap. 15 in P⁴⁶ can be accounted for, it is argued, only if the letter had at one time ended there.

But more important is the internal evidence of chap. 16 itself. The warning about people causing dissensions in 16:17–20 seems out of place with chaps. 1–15. Particularly striking are the extensive greetings in vv. 3–15. In addition to Phoebe, Paul greets twenty-five individuals, two families, one church, and an unspecified number of fellow believers and saints—all these in a community that he had never visited. Surely chap. 16, it is argued, must be addressed to a church that Paul knows well—Ephesus being the best candidate because Paul singles out for a greeting the first convert in Asia (16:5; Ephesus was in the Roman province of Asia) and because we last meet Aquila and Priscilla there (Acts 18:19). According to one variation of this interpretation, chap. 16 was a separate letter of commendation for Phoebe.¹⁹ According to another view, associated particularly with T. W. Manson, the chapter was added when Paul sent a copy of his original letter to Rome (chaps. 1–15) to Ephesus.²⁰

These theories, however, are almost certainly wrong.²¹ Although there is definite evidence of a 14-chapter form of Romans in the early church,²² the intimate connection between chaps. 14 and 15 makes it impossible to think that Paul’s original letter was without chap. 15.23 How, then, did the 14-chapter form of the letter originate? Lightfoot thought that Paul himself may have abbreviated his letter to the Romans, omitting the references to Rome in 1:7 and 1:15 at the same time, in order to universalize the epistle.²⁴ But it is unlikely that, had this been Paul’s purpose, he would have cut off his epistle in the middle of his argument.²⁵ The same objection applies to Gamble’s theory that the text of Romans was shortened after Paul’s time in order to make the letter more universally applicable.²⁶ The earliest explanation for the shortened form is given by Origen, who claims that Marcion cut off (dissecuit) the last two chapters. Since this explanation offers the best rationale for breaking off the letter at 15:1 (for there is much from 15:1 onward that would have offended Marcion’s anti-Jewish sentiments), I tentatively adopt it as the most likely explanation for the 14-chapter form of the letter.²⁷

What, then, of the alleged 15-chapter form? Textually, this theory is on shaky ground from the outset, for there is no single MS of Romans that contains only 15 chapters. Its only textual evidence is the placement of the doxology in P⁴⁶ after chap. 15; but P⁴⁶ does not omit chap. 16. Furthermore, the internal arguments for omitting the chapter are not strong. The last-minute warning about false teachers in vv. 17–20 has some parallel with Paul’s procedure in other letters; and the special circumstances of Romans explain why it occurs only here.²⁸ The number of people greeted poses a greater problem. But the expulsion of the Jews and Jewish Christians from Rome would have given Paul opportunity to meet a number of these people (like Priscilla and Aquila) during the time of their exile in the east. It has even been argued that Paul would be more likely to greet individuals by name in an unfamiliar church where he knew only those whom he greeted than to risk offending the majority by greeting only selected members in a church he knew well.²⁹ At any rate, the problem posed by the number of greetings is not great enough to overcome the external evidence in favor of including chap. 16 in Paul’s original letter to the Romans.

We conclude that the letter Paul wrote to Rome contained all sixteen chapters found in modern texts and translations.³⁰

III. AUDIENCE

As we have seen, Christianity in Rome began among Jews (see General Circumstances). And, although the expulsion under Claudius eliminated the Jewish element in the church for a time, we can be certain that by the date of Romans at least some Jewish Christians (like Priscilla and Aquila) would have returned. We have no direct knowledge of the origins of Gentile Christianity in Rome; but, if the pattern of the Pauline mission was followed, we can surmise that God fearers, Gentiles who were interested in Judaism and attended synagogue without becoming Jews,³¹ were the first to be attracted to the new faith. Certainly by the date of Romans Gentiles made up a significant portion of the church in Rome (cf. 11:13–32 and 15:7–12). We may, then, be fairly certain that when Paul wrote Romans the Christian community in Rome was made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Paul had both groups in mind as he wrote his letter. It is to the evidence of the letter that we must turn to determine the audience.

Unfortunately, the letter appears to send out mixed signals on this issue. On the one hand, there is evidence to suggest that Paul had Jewish Christians in mind as he wrote: (1) he greets the Jewish-Christians Priscilla and Aquila and his kinfolk (syngeneis) Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion in chap. 16 (vv. 3, 7, 11); (2) he directly addresses the Jew in chap. 2 (cf. v. 17); (3) he associates his readers closely with the Mosaic law (6:14: you are no longer under the law; 7:1: I am speaking to those who know the law; 7:4: you have died to the law); (4) he calls Abraham "our forefather according to the flesh (4:1); and (5) he spends much of the letter on issues of special interest to the Jewish people: their sin and presumption of divine favor (2:1–3:8), the failure of their law (3:19–20, 27–31; 4:12–15; 5:13–14, 20; 6:14; 7; 8:2–4; 9:30–10:8), the significance of Abraham their forefather" (chap. 4), and their place in the unfolding plan of God (chaps. 9–11).

Indications of a Gentile-Christian audience are also, however, evident: (1) in his address for the letter as a whole, Paul includes the Roman Christians among the Gentiles to whom he has been called to minister (1:5–6; cf. also 1:13 and 15:14–21); (2) Paul claims that his argument about the place of Jews in God’s plan (11:11–24) is directed to you Gentiles (v. 13; and note the second person plurals throughout vv. 14–24); (3) Paul’s plea to receive one another in 15:7 appears to be directed especially to Gentile Christians (cf. vv. 8–9).

We appear to be faced with a paradox. As Kümmel puts it, Romans manifests a double character: it is essentially a debate between the Pauline gospel and Judaism, so that the conclusion seems obvious that the readers were Jewish Christians. Yet the letter contains statements which indicate specifically that the community was Gentile-Christian.³² Several options are open to us.

First, we may dismiss or downplay the evidence of a Gentile-Christian readership and conclude that the letter is addressed solely, or at least mainly, to Jewish Christians.³³ But this will not do. Rom. 11:13 may suggest that Gentiles are only one part of the church, but 1:5–6 cannot be evaded (by, for instance, translating among whom [Gentiles] you [Roman Christians] are located—see the exegesis). This verse, standing in the introduction to the letter, suggests strongly that Paul regarded his addressees as Gentile Christians.

A much better case can be made, then, for the view that Paul’s readers were Gentile Christians.³⁴ Not only does 1:5–6 appear to be decisive, but the evidence for a Jewish-Christian readership is not particularly strong. The greetings in chap. 16 show that there were Jewish Christians in the Roman community, but they do not require that the letter be addressed to them. The second singular address in Rom. 2 is a literary device and reveals nothing about the actual readers of the letter (see the introduction to 2:1–3:8). When Paul calls Abraham our forefather (4:1), he may be including with himself other Jews or Jewish Christians rather than his readers. That Paul associates his readers with the law is clear; but, as we argue (see the notes on 6:14 and 7:4), Paul thinks that Gentiles are under the law in some sense. And, even in 14:1–15:13, where reference to Jewish Christians can probably not be excluded, Paul’s argument is directed mainly to the strong in faith.

Finally, while some of the letter is, indeed, a debate, or dialogue, with Judaism (e.g., 1:18–4:25), it is not necessary that Jews or Jewish Christians be the intended audience for the debate. Paul’s purpose may be to rehearse the basic issues separating Jews and Christians and to show what his gospel has to say about them, with the purpose of helping Gentile Christians understand the roots of their faith and their own situation vis-à-vis both Jews and Jewish Christians.³⁵ This purpose certainly becomes evident in chaps. 9–11, where Paul sketches the place of Israel in salvation history to stifle the arrogance of the Gentiles. Galatians, too, demonstrates clearly enough that teaching about the failure of the law and the inadequacy of circumcision was necessary for Gentile Christians to hear.³⁶ Moreover, the Gentiles themselves would have had a more personal interest in these matters than we have sometimes realized. For, as we have suggested, Christianity in Rome began in the synagogue, and the first Gentiles converted were almost certainly God-fearing synagogue attenders. This Jewish matrix for Christianity in Rome meant that even Gentile Christians would have known the law (7:1) and that many of them would likely have been curious about how the gospel related to their previous understanding of circumcision and the law.³⁷

Although this interpretation of the data is generally satisfactory, it must be questioned whether we can eliminate Jewish Christians entirely from Paul’s audience. Paul claims in 1:7 that he is addressing "all those beloved of God in Rome, and it is clear that there were Jewish Christians in Rome. Moreover, Paul’s exhortation to the strong and the weak makes best sense if both groups—roughly equivalent to Gentile and Jewish Christians respectively—were in his audience. And, while Paul’s dialogue with Judaism" in 1:18–4:25 and his sketch of the inadequacy of the law in chap. 7 can be accounted for on the basis of a solely Gentile audience, we must wonder whether these texts are not more adequately explained if there were at least some Jewish Christians in Paul’s audience. These considerations make it likely that the audience to which Paul writes was composed of both Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Granted such a mixed audience, it is possible to suppose that Paul directs different parts of his letter to different groups within the Roman church. The most elaborate and best-defended version of this viewpoint is that of Paul Minear. He distinguishes five separate groups in the community, attributing each section of the letter to one or another of these groups.³⁸ While providing a salutary reminder that the community in Rome should not be simplistically divided into two groups according to ethnic origin, Minear’s thesis goes beyond the evidence. The existence of several of his groups is unclear, and the progressive flow of Paul’s argument in the letter renders a constant shifting in audience unlikely. This means that, with certain exceptions (e.g., 11:13–24), we must assume that Paul has the whole community, a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile Christians, in mind as he writes.

Along with the majority of commentators, then, we think that Paul addresses a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Romans. Some decline to estimate the relative proportion of the two groups,³⁹ but the considerations advanced above show that Gentile Christians were in the majority, perhaps an overwhelming majority.⁴⁰ There is, however, one major problem with this reconstruction: Why, if there were Jewish Christians in the community, and especially if they were being slighted by the Gentile-Christian majority (cf. 11:13–24), would Paul have addressed the community as a Gentile one (1:5–6)?⁴¹ The answer is probably that the community as a whole had by this date taken on the complexion of Gentile Christianity.⁴² Indeed, it is perhaps just this shift from the earlier Jewish matrix of Roman Christianity to a more purely Gentile framework (a process accelerated by the enforced exile of Jewish Christians under Claudius) that has given rise to a sense of inferiority on the part of the Jewish segment. Moreover, the purpose of Paul in 1:5–6 (and 1:13) is not so much to identify the national complexion of the community as to locate it within the scope of his commission to the Gentiles. These texts, then, do not stand in the way of the conclusion that the audience Paul addresses in Romans is made up of a Gentile-Christian majority and a Jewish-Christian minority.

IV. NATURE AND GENRE

Romans is, of course, an epistle, but what kind? Many types of letters were written in the ancient world, ranging from brief, intimate, and informal notes to friends and family members to carefully crafted treatises designed for a large audience. Where within this range we should situate the Pauline letters has been much debated, but they clearly fall somewhere between these extremes.⁴³ Even the Pauline letters addressed to individuals—1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (though cf. v. 2)—have broadly pastoral purposes. And the most general of his letters—Ephesians and Romans—are not only addressed to specific communities (at least in their present form) but also include material, like greetings to individuals, that would be of limited interest.

Nevertheless, while Romans displays clear evidence of its occasional nature in its epistolary opening (1:1–15 [–17]) and closing (15:14–16:27), the really striking feature of the letter is the general and sustained argument of 1:16–11:36. Unlike, for instance, 1 Corinthians, where Paul’s agenda is set by questions and issues raised by his readers, these chapters in Romans develop according to the inner logic of Paul’s own teaching. Even the questions and objections that periodically interrupt the argument arise naturally from the flow of Paul’s presentation.⁴⁴ Not once in these chapters does Paul allude to a circumstance peculiar to the community at Rome, and even the direct addresses of his audience are so general as to be applicable to almost any church: fellow believers (7:4; 8:12; 10:1; 11:25), those who know the law (7:1), you Gentiles (11:13). Nor does the situation change much in 12:1–15:13. None of the issues addressed is clearly local or particular in scope. Some even argue that the section about the strong and the weak (14:1–15:13) has no specific local situation in view.⁴⁵

These features show that the main body of Romans is what we may call a treatise, or tractate. It addresses key theological issues against the backdrop of middle first-century Christianity rather than within the context of specific local problems. Nevertheless, Romans is no timeless treatise. We must not forget that Romans as a whole is a letter, written on a specific occasion, to a specific community. As we have seen, these specifics have not played a large role in Paul’s presentation, but they have undoubtedly determined the agenda of theological and practical issues with which Paul deals. In this regard, we must note that Romans is far from being a comprehensive summary of Paul’s theology. Many issues near and dear to him are absent, or only allusively mentioned: the church as the body of Christ, the parousia, and Christology (in the formal sense). Moreover, the issues that Paul does treat are oriented to a specific, though broad, theological topic: the relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel (see, further, the section on Theme below).

Romans, then, is a tractate letter and has at its heart a general theological argument, or series of arguments.⁴⁶ More specific genre identification is perilous. R. Bultmann compared Romans to the diatribe, an argumentative genre particularly popular with Cynic-Stoic philosophers (the best example is probably the Discourses of Epictetus, 1st-2d cent. A.D.).⁴⁷ Features of the diatribe include fictional conversations and debates, rhetorical questions, and the use of mē genoito (may it never be!)⁴⁸ to reject a line of argument. Bultmann thought that the diatribe had a polemical purpose and read Romans accordingly. But S. Stowers argues that instruction and clarification rather than polemics were the purposes of the diatribe.⁴⁹ Recent research also suggests that diatribe was not so much a genre as a style.⁵⁰ In any case, while parts of Romans use this diatribe style (e.g., 2:1–3:8), the letter as a whole cannot be classified as a diatribe.

Scholars have suggested many other genre classifications for Romans: memorandum,⁵¹ epideictic letter,⁵² ambassadorial letter,⁵³ protreptic letter,⁵⁴ and letter essay,⁵⁵ to name only a few. None quite fits. Certainly Romans has similarities to these genres and to a large

Reviews for The Epistle to the Romans

[hae1yu · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

To start, this is one of the most difficult books I have ever read. I believe a Divinity, Theology, Law, or Linguistics student would be better prepared. Many words which may have a controversial or alternate take are thoroughly examined. I never realized words like "FOR" could be taken in so many possible ways. I thought I was well-read, but this is the first book in years which introduced words and parts of speech I never knew existed. No is not being pedantic: this is a technical book and he uses jargon applicable to the task. Don't be intimidated by the page count. Maybe 1/3 of the actual space is taken up by footnotes, most of which can be ignored by a lay reader not conducting research.Unlike other commentaries, this is not a "jump to it" commentary. I was lost many times and had to restart a section. Like the letter, later sections are built on former.The book IS rewardingAfter chewing this for a while, the unbiased reader will come away with the conclusion that the straightforward meaning really is the most likely take on most verses and, yep, you aren't the only one who sees double predestination in Rom 9.I had the pleasure of learning and sharing that Peter and probably other apostles traveled on missions with their wives. (1Cor9:5). Read it a hundred times and never caught that.My biggest problem is that I always read it out of context. I was told early on "the whole gospel theology in 1 book" and that's how I read it. Paul wrote letters for specific reasons. This one had several, but the main one was unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Instead of just saying "love one another" he threw in a whole theology on the underlying issues, why they should get along, and proactive responses to possible misunderstandings, Judaizers, and so on. The best part of giving it context is that the whole letter flows much easier. It also gives a life and personality to Romans that I hadn't read before.I think for a lay Christian, his NIV Application Commentary may be a better start.

[vanjr-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This a a conservative Christian commentary on the book of Romans in the Bible. It is in what I now consider my favorite series of commentaries-abbreviated NICNT/NICOT-New International Commentary on the Old or New Testament. It is non-partisan. It explains what the text says and does not really try to make the text justify any particular denominational opinion which I really like. Some commentaries are devotional-with a focus on what does the text say to ME or how can this be applied today. This series is not like that-it is more about what does the text mean (and sometimes what text is best or preferred). Highly recommend for anyone wanting a text in that format. For those wanting a devotional commentary then James Montgomery Boice is a good option.

[temsmail · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Moo's commentary on Romans is the modernstandard replacing other, older works, including his own previous edition.