1. Please note that in general, when the authors discuss words in the original biblical languages, the series uses a general rather than a scholarly method of transliteration.
1. See Patrologia Latina, vol. 17, col. 46. Church tradition in the fourth century (the Catalogus Liberianus) names Peter as the founder and first bishop of the Roman church. But earlier tradition has both Peter and Paul involved in the founding of the church (Ireneaus, Adv. Her. 3.1.2; 3.3.1). Most modern scholars agree that Peter had no role in founding the church at Rome (see, e.g., Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962], 72–157).
2. See Philo, Embassy to Gaius. Note the discussions in W. Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate, ed. K. Donfried (2d ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 86–92.
3. Reference to the edict of Claudius comes in Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25.2. The date of this decree is debated, some scholars putting it later than A.D. 49. But a strong case for the A.D. 49 date, first mentioned by the fifth-century writer Orosius, can be made (e.g., E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule [Leiden: Brill, 1976], 210–16). The A.D. 49 date also fits perfectly with the chronology presumed in Acts 18:2.
4. See esp. Wiefel, “Jewish Community,” for the implications of this scenario.
5. See esp. T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—and Others,” in The Romans Debate, 3–15.
6. See esp. the thorough treatment of Harry Gamble Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
7. This was the view of the influential nineteenth-century “Tübingen” scholar, F. C. Baur (Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine [2d ed.; 2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1876], 1:331–65). See also, e.g., F. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986), 103–7.
8. See esp. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959), 200–209; A. Jülicher, Introduction to the New Testament (London: Smith and Elder, 1904), 112–15.
9. For a representative statement, see Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 309–11.
10. See esp. Gunther Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” in The Romans Debate, 16–28.
11. Jacob Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” in The Romans Debate, 53–64.
12. See esp. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 17.
13. See esp. Paul S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Letter to the Romans (Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1971); Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 92–104; W. S. Campbell, “Why Did Paul Write Romans?” ExpTim 85 (1974): 264–69; Karl Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate, 46–48.
14. The title of A. J. M. Wedderburn’s monograph, in which he argues precisely this point (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).
15. See J. A. Jervis, The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), esp. 158–63.
16. Luther, “Preface to the Epistle to the Romans” (1522).
17. See esp. Wilhelm Wrede, Paul (London: Philip Green, 1907), 123–25; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A. & C. Black, 1931), 205–26.
18. Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199–215.
19. J. C. Beker, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 64–69.
1. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7.
2. Most recent commentators take en dynamei (lit., “in power”) with “Son of God” rather than with the participle horisthentos, “declared” (see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 48).
3. For more on the flesh/Spirit contrast in Paul, see esp. the Bridging Contexts section on 8:1–13.
4. The word pisteos (the genitive of pistis) is then a genitive of source. See, e.g., G. N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4 (JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 25–30.
5. The word pisteos is then an epexegetic genitive. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 14–15.
6. See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 53.
7. See, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 40.
1. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 17.
2. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 485–86.
3. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 21.
4. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 78–79.
5. Fitzmyer, Romans, 250–51.
6. See on this esp. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
7. Peter T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).
8. I want to thank Peter Dybvad for drawing my attention to these texts.
9. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 26.
10. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 90.
11. Paul Bowers, “Fulfilling the Gospel: The Scope of the Pauline Mission,” JETS 30 (1987): 198.
1. See esp. Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980):241–90.
2. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 91–99.
3. See, e.g., Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 70–75; Dunn, Romans, 40–43.
4. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 98; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:33.
5. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 101–2.
6. For more detail on these points, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 79–89.
1. See esp. Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond: John Knox, 1959), 42–43; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 106–8.
2. See, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 41.
3. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 107. Chrysostom, one of the great patristic commentators on Romans, held a similar view.
4. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:53. Paul may again reflect Jewish tradition here: “The two-faced are doubly punished because they both practice evil and approve of others who practice it; they imitate the spirits of error and join in the struggle against mankind” (T. Asher 6:2).
5. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York: Harper and Bros., 1932), 50. See also, for a similar approach, A. T. Hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb (London: SPCK, 1957), 84–85.
6. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 114–15.
7. See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980), 111.
8. For an excellent response to Boswell’s interpretation (which has been picked up by many other interpreters), see Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” JRE 14 (1986): 184–215. See also Hays’ larger discussion of homosexuality in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper, 1996), 379–406.
9. John Calvin, Institutes 1.5.14.
1. E.g., Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 83–84; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 42–43.
2. So most commentators; see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 128.
3. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 140–41.
4. See, e.g., Ps. 25:7; 31:19; 68:10; 119:48; 145:7; note also the intertestamental book Pss. Sol. 5:18.
5. Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:17; 2:3; James 3:14, 16.
6. The two terms (thymos and orge) occur together with no distinction in meaning elsewhere in both the Old Testament (Ps. 77:9; Dan. 3:13; Mic. 5:15) and New (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Rev. 19:15).
7. This view was especially popular in the patristic period; see, e.g., Chrysostom.
8. See, with variations, Godet, Commentary on Romans, 119; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 151–53.
9. See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 123–35. He thinks the tension may exist because Paul has taken over in chapter 2 a Jewish synagogue homily.
10. See, e.g., Augustine, On Grace 7.17; Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace—to the Doers. An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93.
11. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:78–79.
1. See m. ʾAbot 1:17.
2. See Godet, Commentary on Romans, 122; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 154–55; Dunn, Romans, 97–98.
3. See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 155–56.
1. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 315.
2. See esp. Diss. 2.19–20; 3.7, 17. On the whole subject, see esp. S. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981), 112.
3. The verb diaphero, used in the participial form as the object of “approve,” can mean either “be worth more” (Matt. 6:26; 10:31; 12:12; Luke 12:7, 24) or “differ” (1 Cor. 15:41).
4. So most commentators. See, for instance, Godet, Commentary on Romans, 129; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:84; Dunn, Romans, 114–15.
5. See esp. D. Garlington, “IEROSULEIN and the Idolatry of Israel (Romans 2.22),” NTS 36 (1990): 142–51; see also Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 169–70; Fitzmyer, Romans, 318.
6. Schreiner, Romans, 134–35.
7. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:85–86; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 171–72.
8. Therefore, for instance, Murray, who holds our view on vv. 8, 10, and 14–15, thinks that Gentile Christians are in view here (The Epistle to the Romans, 1:86–87).
9. The clearest example of this approach is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), see esp. pp. 99–108.
10. See, for instance, Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 56–57.
11. This point is implicit in Paul’s claim in Gal. 5:3: “Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”
12. D. A. Hagner, “Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 128–50.
13. See, for instance, D. S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe? (New York: Schocken, 1995); N. De Lange, An Introduction to Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
1. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 132.
2. This interpretation depends on reading the verb krinesthai in the second line of the psalm quotation, as the NIV does, as a middle (so most commentators; see Matt. 5:40; 1 Cor. 6:6) rather than as a passive, “when you are judged” (in favor of this reading, see, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 81).
3. See, for instance, Godet, Commentary on Romans, 137.
4. I took this view in my earlier commentary; see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 194–95.
5. See, for instance, G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1:370–77.
6. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983).
1. See the margin notes of the NIV, NRSV, and REB; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 76; Fitzmyer, Romans, 330–31.
2. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 190. The only other occurrence of the phrase in the New Testament has this nuanced meaning (1 Cor. 5:10).
3. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 86.
4. See Davies, Faith and Obedience, 82–96.
5. Dunn, Romans, 150.
6. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:106–7.
7. The best representative of this general approach in Romans is Dunn, Romans; see, e.g., Romans, 158–60.
1. Margin of the Luther Bible, on 3:23ff.
2. See esp. L. T. Johnson, “Rom 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus,” CBQ 44 (1982): 77–90; R. B. Hays, “PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?” in SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (ed. E. H. Lovering Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 714–29.
3. This is the view of most commentators; see esp. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:363–74; Dunn, Romans, 166–67; Schreiner, Romans, 181–86.
4. See esp. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 9–26.
5. See, e.g., ibid., 136–56.
6. See esp. C. H. Dodd, “ἱλάσκεσθαι, Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms in the Septuagint,” JTS 32 (1931): 352–60.
7. This interpretation, which was held by a number of older commentators (e.g., Luther, Calvin, and Bengel), is growing in popularity with modern commentators also (e.g., Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 77–78; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349–50; Schreiner, Romans, 193–94).
8. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor (rpt.; New York: Collier, 1986).
9. See esp. Paul Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974): 131–63.
10. James Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Tyndale, 1951), 98.
11. Pascal, Pensées, 508.
1. Dunn, Romans, 185–86.
2. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 219–20; Dunn, Romans, 185–87.
3. See Godet, Commentary on Romans, 166; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 105.
4. See Andrew J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964), 99–100.
5. See Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:124–25; Schreiner, Romans, 207–8.
6. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 367.
7. The best presentation of this evidence is found in Heikki Räisänen, “Sprachliches zum Spiel des Paulus mit NOMOS,” in The Torah and Christ (Helsinki: Kirjapaino Raamattutalu, 1986), 119–47.
8. See Michael Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of νόμος in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 92.
1. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 169–70; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 99–100.
2. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:129–30; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 228.
3. O. Palmer Robertson, “Genesis 15:6: New Covenant Exposition of an Old Covenant Text,” WTJ 42 (1980): 265–66.
4. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 198.
1. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 116–17; Fitzmyer, Romans, 381–82.
2. See the discussion in George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (rpt.; 2 vols.; New York: Schocken, 1971), 1:323–35.
3. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 117.
4. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 209–10.
1. See esp. Halvor Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 113.
2. The verb “promise beforehand” (one word in Greek) occurs in 1:2.
3. See, e.g., Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 94–95.
4. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 176–77; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 240.
5. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:143.
6. E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 385.
7. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 244–45.
8. Some commentators, however, do include spiritual as well as physical descendants of Abraham in the “nations” of ch. 17 (see, e.g., G. C. Aalders, Genesis [2 vols; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 1:305).
9. See, e.g., Terrence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 98.
10. God’s life-giving power is featured in a liturgy that all first-century Jews were familiar with: the Shemoneh Esreh, or “The Eighteen Benedictions.”
1. For the traditional view, see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 231; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:211–12. Several modern commentators, while not necessarily subscribing to the “justification” and “sanctification” labels, also argue for a major break between chs. 5 and 6 (e.g., Dunn, Romans, 242–44). For putting the major break between chs. 4 and 5, see esp. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 187–89; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 252–54.
2. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:158.
3. See esp. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 120; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:158–59. In textual criticism, the lectio difficilior is often the preferred reading since in manuscript transition, scribes tended to make grammar easier rather than more obscure.
4. Most modern commentators agree.
5. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:167. Other interpreters think the phrase could suggest that it was the “right time” in world history for God to bring salvation (cf. Gal. 4:4; note, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 127).
6. The church father Irenaeus, for instance, said that the Gnostics characterized the God of the Old Testament as “righteous” and the God of the New Testament as “good” (Adv. Haer. 1.27.1).
7. See on this point esp. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 386.
8. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 139.
9. E.g., Ralph Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 144.
10. Most commentators agree that both are included here.
1. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 269; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 228.
2. Melanchthon took this approach.
3. The Greek construction is dia touto. We are taking dia to indicate a “final cause” and touto to refer to the promise of final salvation in vv. 9–10. See, for more detail, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 316–18.
4. Beker calls this idea in Paul “total death” (Paul the Apostle, 224). Most of the commentators agree with this idea. But commentators who think the death here is physical only include Godet (Commentary on Romans, 205) and Murray (The Epistle to the Romans, 1:181–82).
5. We are assuming, with most scholars, that the Greek construction eph’ ho means “because” (see, for detail and argument, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 321–22).
6. Luther and Calvin both defend this view (although Calvin appears to go further in his Institutes [2.1.5–8]). Many others who do not think the phrase means this nevertheless think a “missing connection” must be added in Paul’s argument: All people sin (individually) because all people inherit a sinful nature from Adam as a result of his sin (see, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 134; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 274–81).
7. Perhaps the best defense of this view is John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959).
8. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 209–10 (he thinks the death, however, is physical only).
9. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 286.
10. See esp. J. Jeremias, TNDT, 6:536–41. However, he exaggerates the frequency of this usage.
11. See, e.g., Augustine, Spirit and Letter 4.6.
12. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 292–93.
13. The only relevant text is the intriguing reference to Adam’s breaking of the “covenant” in Hos. 6:7.
14. See esp. A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The Theological Structure of Romans V.12,” NTS 19 (1972–73): 338–39.
15. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 124.
16. C. W. Carter, “Hamartiology: Evil, the Marrer of God’s Creative Purpose and Work,” in A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology (ed. C. W. Carter; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 1:267.
17. A good discussion of the whole matter of original sin is Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 154–67.
18. Pascal, Pensées 445.
1. See Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 246 (although he does not exclude reference to water baptism as well).
2. E.g., Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6.
3. See, e.g., Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 129.
4. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 133.
5. The other uses of this word in Paul are equally contested; see Rom. 1:23; 5:14; 8:3; Phil. 2:7.
6. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 243–44; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 308.
7. Most commentators agree that the verb is true future.
8. John R. W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5–8 (London: Inter-Varsity, 1966), 45.
9. The verb is katargeo, which is distinctly Pauline in the New Testament (25 of its 26 New Testament occurrences are in Paul). For parallels to his usage here, see esp. Rom. 3:31; 4:14; 7:2, 6; Gal. 3:17; 5:4; Eph. 2:15.
10. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 313–14.
11. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 250; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 316.
12. The construction of me with the present tense that we find here does not always, or even normally, connote the idea of ceasing an action already engaged in (see esp. J. Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” Acta Classica 2 [1959]: 43–57).
13. See, e.g., Calvin, Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 233; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:229; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 319–20.
14. So also Schreiner, Romans, 326–27.
15. We discuss the whole matter of the Christian and the law in more detail in conjunction with 7:1–6.
16. Only in Mark 10:38–39 (parallel Luke 12:50) does baptisma not refer to immersion in water. Even here, however, Jesus’ application of this term to his death rests on his own water baptism as his point of identification with sinful people (see Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives [Sheffield: Almond, 1983], 116–20). On baptisma, see esp. J. Ysebart, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origin and Early Development (Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt, 1962), 51–53.
17. James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM, 1970), 145, etc. See also D. A. Tappeiner, “Hermeneutics, the Analogy of Faith and New Testament Sacramental Realism,” EvQ 49 (1977): 40–52. My own view on baptism has also been influenced strongly by the fine study of G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1962).
1. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 322.
2. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 255.
3. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 181.
4. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:234–35, for the former, and Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 169, for the latter.
5. For a defense, see, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:235–36.
6. The latest editions of the Greek New Testament adopt this punctuation; see esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 328.
7. Michael Parsons, “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing,” EvQ 88 (1988): 99–127. This essay has been reprinted, along with an excellent selection of other essays on Paul’s ethics, in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
8. Saints’ Treasury 46, quoted in E. F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study of Puritan Theology (rpt.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 236.
1. E.g., Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 260.
2. The Greek is a bit different: a literal translation in 6:16 is “do you not know” (ouk oidate); here in 7:1 it is “or are you ignorant” (e agnoeite). This latter construction occurs only here and in 6:3 in Paul’s letters (another minor agreement between the chapters).
3. See especially Minear, The Obedience of Faith, 62, 64.
4. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 172; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 187.
5. b. Shabb. 30a; bar. Shabb. 151.
6. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 339–40; Dunn, Romans, 366–67.
7. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 265. See also Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 172–73.
8. For elaboration of this view, with response from scholars holding different views, see The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views, ed. Wayne Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).
1. See esp. Robert H. Gundry, “The Moral Frustration of Paul before His Conversion: Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7–25,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 232–33.
2. Both Philo (Decalogue 142–43, 173) and the author of 4 Maccabees (2:6) use the tenth commandment to summarize the Mosaic law.
3. See again Gundry, “Moral Frustration.”
4. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.9; Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 255; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:251.
5. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 196–97; Dunn, Romans, 378–86.
6. See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 423–31.
7. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 179.
8. Moises Silva, “The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs,” in Pauline Studies, 184–207.
9. See, e.g., m. Pesah 10, and the discussion in W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948), 102–4.
10. This is, in fact, the direction taken in one of the most influential books ever written on Romans 7, Werner Georg Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1929).
1. Many commentators agree. See esp. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:256–59; Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 284–97; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 151–53; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 344–47; Dunn, Romans, 387–89, 403–12; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 284–88.
2. We cannot here give the evidence for this assertion. But, among the commentators, see esp. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 292–93; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 199–212.
3. This view is found more among popular expositions than in the scholarly literature; see, for a good defense, Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7:1–8:4, 229–57. Another compromise view holds that Paul is describing the sin-prone nature found in every person, Christian or not (Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty [rpt.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976], 109–16; Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, 134–49; David Wenham, “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experience in Paul,” in Pauline Studies, 80–94).
4. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 357–58.
5. J. Jeremias, “ἄνθρωπος,” TDNT 1:365.
6. See most of the commentators; note esp. the argument in Winger, By What Law? 186–88.
7. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 395; Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution for the Problem of Paul and the Law,” JSNT 32 (1988): 106–7.
8. See esp. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:268; Dunn, Romans, 397.
9. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 289–90; Gundry, “Moral Frustration,” 239.
10. See his commentary, esp. pp. 411–12; also his article, “Rom. 7:14–25 in the Theology of Paul,” TZ 31 (1975): 257–73.
11. See his “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension?”
1. This is the interpretation in most of the commentaries (e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 297; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 375–76; Fitzmyer, Romans, 482–83). And see esp. the article of Leander E. Keck, “The Law and ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Rom 8:1–4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980), 41–57. The view that the “law of Spirit” is the Mosaic law operating in the context of the Spirit is not yet well represented in the commentaries. See, however, Dunn, Romans, 416–18; note also Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence,” 99.
2. Note that throughout this chapter, I will frequently be using “flesh” as a translation for sarx, but will not note it each time. The NIV rarely uses this translation.
3. See, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 404–8.
4. See, e.g., Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 316–20; Fitzmyer, Romans, 487–88; see esp. the excellent discussion of Paul’s ethics in Deidun, New Covenant Morality in Paul, 72–75.
5. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 305; Fitzmyer, Romans, 491.
6. So most contemporary commentators; see, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 390; Dunn, Romans, 431–32. See also the discussion in Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 550–51.
7. “Through his Spirit, who lives in you” rests on a disputed variant reading (dia plus the genitive); the alternative, strongly advocated by, e.g., Fee (God’s Empowering Presence, 543, 553) would be translated “because of his Spirit, who lives in you” (dia plus the accusative).
8. See, e.g., the history of research in Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 49–95.
9. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1980).
10. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:294.
1. Although most early Christian interpreters understood guidance to be the topic here.
2. The Greek uses the passive of the verb ago, “lead,” with the dative pneumati, “by the Spirit.” On its meanings, see Brendan Byrne, “Sons of God”—“Seed of Abraham”: A Study of the Idea of Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979), 98.
3. E.g., the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, who created a sense of slavery and fear in people through the law (so many Puritans; cf. Kevan, Grace of Law, 88–89).
4. See esp. Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 67–99.
1. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 410–13.
2. In favor of Adam, cf., e.g., G. W. H. Lampe, “The New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis,” SJT 17 (1964): 458; in favor of Satan, see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 314–15; in favor of God are almost all modern commentators.
3. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 318.
4. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 473–74.
5. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 320; Dunn, Romans, 476.
6. See esp. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:310–11.
7. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 239–42; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 577–86.
8. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 422.
9. E.g., Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 326–28.
10. See, e.g., Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 588–90.
11. This would be the required reading if the textual variant that adds ho theos (“God”) were correct. It has support in some good manuscripts (the early papyrus P46, and the two early Alexandrian uncials A and B). But most modern interpreters dismiss it as an early scribal attempt to clarify the verse (see, e.g., Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971], 518). But “God” could still be the understood subject of the verse (see, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 215; Byrne, Sons of God, 113–14).
12. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 424–29.
13. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 324–25.
14. See, e.g., Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (3d ed.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1982).
15. See, on this text, Fred van Dyke, et al., Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996), 85–88.
16. For an excellent taxonomy of Christian views on the environment, see Raymond E. Grizzle, Paul E. Rothrock, and Christopher B. Barrett, “Evangelicals and Environmentalism: Past, Present, and Future,” TrinJ 19 (1998): 3–27. See also other articles on environmentalism in that volume and also in TrinJ 18 (1997).
17. See the standard lexicons.
18. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 322–23.
19. A good overview of this approach is found in R. Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election (Springfield, Mass.: Westcott, 1970), see esp. 45–55, 154–55. See also Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2.
1. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 329; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 434.
2. E.g., E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London: John Murray, 1886), 161.
3. Chrysostom, from his homily on this passage of Romans.
4. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 251.
5. N. Maclean, A River Runs Through It (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976), 56.
6. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:332–33.
7. The Greek phrase here, threskeia ton angelon, is debated. Some commentators think it means “the worship done by angels”; but it probably refers to the worship given by Christians to angels. See Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 120–21.
1. See, e.g., Dodd, Epistle to the Romans, 149–50; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 225.
2. Augustine took this approach (see the analysis in P. Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9–11 in Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine [New York: Edwin Mellen, 1983], esp. 1–3, 190–91, 232–33).
3. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 454–57; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 558.
4. This pattern is esp. clear in 1 Maccabees; see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 561.
5. See esp. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:4–5.
6. See esp. Bruce M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), 95–112; Murray J. Harris, Jesus as “God”: Theos as a Christological Title in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 144–72.
7. This same perspective will emerge again in Romans 11, when Paul talks about his own ministry to Gentiles and, indirectly, to Jews (11:13–14). The salvation-historical significance of Paul has been highlighted esp. by Johannes Munck (e.g., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind [London: SCM, 1959]), although Munck takes the idea too far.
8. See esp. Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Press, 1987), 135–50; John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983), 197–212; S. G. Hall III, Christian Anti-Semitism and Paul’s Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 88–93, 113–27.
1. For the arguments about this text and a defense of the conclusion we adopt here, see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1990), 297–99. For an alternate view, taking “Israel of God” to refer only to Jewish Christians, see esp. Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969), 74–84.
2. See, e.g., N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 238.
3. See, further, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 575.
4. E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 563.
5. See R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 305; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 480.
6. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 480–81; Fitzmyer, Romans, 562–63; and the useful broader discussion in William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 173.
7. See esp. Schreiner, Romans, 497–503; Piper, The Justification of God, 45–54.
8. For the statistics, with analysis, see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
9. For this approach in general, see esp. Klein, The New Chosen People; H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel: An Exposition of Romans 9–11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966).
10. See, on this, my essay “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).
11. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 261–66.
12. Piper, The Justification of God, 45–54.
13. Predestination of the Saints 17.34.
14. See esp. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 248–50; Godet, Commentary on Romans, 348–49; Jack W. Cottrell, “Conditional Election,” in Grace Unlimited (ed. Clark Pinnock; Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975), 51–73.
15. Piper, The Justification of God, 45–54.
16. On the larger theological and philosophical issues involved here, see esp. John Feinberg, “God Ordains All Things,” in Predestination and Free Will (ed. D. and R. Basinger; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986), 17–43; D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: Knox, 1981), 201–22.
1. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 484–85.
2. See, e.g., Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 366; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 491–92; H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth, 1950), 40–42.
3. See Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:32–33; Piper, The Justification of God, 174–83.
4. See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 604–5, for a full discussion.
5. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 355; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 361–62. See also Klein, New Chosen People, 166–67.
6. See esp., for this line of interpretation, Greg K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9,” TrinJ 5 (1984): 129–54.
7. E.g., F. Prat, The Theology of Saint Paul (2 vols.; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1952), 1:257.
8. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 361–62; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 368.
9. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 271–72; Piper, The Justification of God, 194.
10. The logical sequence of God’s decision to create people, the fall, and his decision to damn people is a matter of controversy among Calvinist theologians. I don’t think it serves our purposes to go into this issue here.
11. J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975), 158.
1. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 238.
2. See T. Laetsch: “Very clearly God here prophesies the admission of the heathen into covenant relations with God” (Bible Commentary on the Minor Prophets [St. Louis: Concordia, 1956], 75).
3. J. A. Battle Jr., “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25–26,” GTJ 2 (1981): 115–29.
4. See, e.g., S. Lewis Johnson, “Evidence from Romans 9–11,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus (ed. D. K. Campbell and J. L. Townsend; Chicago: Moody, 1992), 207–10; J. Ridderbos, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 565–66.
5. Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 41.
1. E.g., Gifford, Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 182.
2. So almost all modern commentaries.
3. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 279; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:43.
4. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 507–10; Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 71–79.
5. For this general approach see, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 536–38; Westerholm, Israel’s Law, 127.
6. See, e.g., Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961), 177–79.
7. Dunn, Romans, 587–88. Many others, of course, hold Dunn’s view on this matter.
8. See esp. Schreiner, Romans, 843–44; see also Westerholm, Israel’s Law, 114–16.
9. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:49–51; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 379–81. Most who hold this view think Paul is viewing the law from a Jewish perspective: Christ ends the false understanding of the law as a means of salvation.
10. See esp. Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Approach to the Old Testament in Rom. 10:6–8,” TrinJ 6 (1985): 8–9, who does a thorough survey of the construction we find in verse 4.
11. For this view, see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 376; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 282–83; Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 379–80.
12. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 516–19.
13. See esp. Robert Badenas, Christ, the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985); cf. also Fitzmyer, Romans, 584–85.
14. For this general approach, see esp. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 197–98; Dunn, Romans, 589–90. For more detail, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 638–41.
15. See, e.g., Walter J. Kaiser Jr., “Leviticus and Paul: ‘Do This and You Shall Live’ (Eternally?),” JETS 14 (1971): 19–28; cf. also Gordon Wenham, A Commentary on Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 253.
16. See, for this general approach, Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:249–51; Bryce L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 139–40.
17. For similar views, see esp. Seifrid, “Paul’s Approach,” 35–37; Godet, Commentary on Romans, 378–83; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:52–53; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 524–26.
18. Note also the parallels between this text and 8:33–34.
19. Hays, Echoes of Scripture.
20. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 287–88; Fitzmyer, Romans, 589–91.
21. At least, they occur only here in the LXX that Paul generally seems to have quoted from.
22. E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 589.
23. For a useful survey of the main views, see Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed. Wayne Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
24. I am, of course, aware of some Christians, usually called “theonomists,” who maintain the relevance of the civil law (see the article by Greg Bahnsen in Five Views on Law and Gospel). But the view is confined to a small minority of believers.
25. We will discuss the Sabbath issue further in the Contemporary Significance section on 14:1–12.
1. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 295; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 533.
2. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 294; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:60; Dunn, Romans, 620.
3. In Greek outside the New Testament, horaios usually means “timely” (BAGD), and the relevant Hebrew word in Isa. 52:7 can also have this meaning (nawu; cf. BDB). But the other three occurrences of horaios in the New Testament all mean “beautiful” (Matt. 23:27; Acts 3:2, 10).
4. E.g., Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 95–99.
5. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 198.
6. See, e.g., S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 365–66.
7. See, e.g., C. F. Keil and F. Delitszch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1: The Pentateuch (reprint; 3 vols. in one; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 3:477–78.
8. See esp. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 175. The lack of an introductory formula, in contrast to the clear introductions in vv. 16, 19, 20, and 21, may suggest that Paul intends less than a “proof” from Scripture. This is the view of many of the Greek Fathers; and see also Godet, Commentary on Romans, 388; Dunn, Romans, 624; Fitzmyer, Romans, 599.
9. See, most recently, J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), 523. Such scholars argue that the second part of v. 1 should be translated “a nation not called by my name” (the reading of the Masoretic text) and that the verse therefore refers to Gentiles (cf. KJV).
10. This is the majority view among Old Testament commentators. See, recently, John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 636. This majority thinks that the last phrase in the verse should be translated “a nation that did not call on my name,” as the editors of the basic modern Hebrew text (BHS) suggest and LXX seems to follow (cf., e.g., NIV, NRSV).
11. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 175. Italics are original, and he quotes from Thomas M. Greene, The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1982), 39.
1. See esp. Scott Hafemann, “The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25–32: A Response to Krister Stendahl,” Ex Auditu 4 (1988): 45–46.
2. See, e.g., Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 410–11.
3. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 309; Dunn, Romans, 635.
4. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 544–45.
5. So most commentators; see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 391–92; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 299.
6. See, e.g., Munck, Christ and Israel, 109.
7. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 302; Dunn, Romans, 643.
8. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 315; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 404.
9. For a full discussion, see H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth, 1950), and Klein, The New Chosen People.
10. On the remnant see esp. Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1972).
11. See esp. Mark Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 81–133.
1. See Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 320; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 544–45.
2. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 212; Hafemann, “Salvation of Israel,” 50.
3. The only other known occurrences of the word have this meaning (Isa. 31:8; 1 Cor. 6:7); see BAGD.
4. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 401; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 557–58.
5. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:79.
6. Fitzmyer, Romans, 612.
7. So most commentators; see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 403; Dunn, Romans, 657.
8. So many commentators (e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 404; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:82–84; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 411).
9. At least as many interpreters advocate this view, including most of the early Greek fathers, many Puritans (see Ian Murray, The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy [London: Banner of Truth, 1971], 66–72), and many contemporary commentators (e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 307; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 562–63; Dunn, Romans, 658).
10. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 564; Fitzmyer, Romans, 614.
11. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 404–5; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:85.
12. See also Isa. 2:2–3a; 56:6–7; 60:1–7; Tob. 13:11–13; 14:6–7; T. Zeb. 9.8; T. Benj. 9.2; Sib. Or. 3.767–95.
13. See esp. Terrence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 187–97.
14. This is the main theme of Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. We will explore this view more when we come to the collection passage in 15:23–29.
15. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 561.
16. Dunn, Romans, 660–61.
17. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Gentiles: A Suggestion Concerning Romans 11.13–24,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 137–44.
18. See Dodd, Epistle to the Romans, 118: “Paul had the limitations of a town-bred man.”
19. See esp. William M. Ramsay, “The Olive-Tree and the Wild Olive,” in Paul and Other Studies in Early Christian History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), 219–50; A. G. Baxter and J. A. Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:17–24,” JSNT 24 (1985): 25–32.
20. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 405–6; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 565–66.
21. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 327.
22. See, essentially, Nigel M. Watson, “Justified by Faith, Judged by Works—An Antinomy?” NTS 29 (1983): 209–21.
23. See Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 432–33.
24. See Godet, Commentary on Romans, 408.
25. Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 198–99.
26. Schreiner, Romans, 608–9.
1. See esp. Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).
2. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:92–93.
3. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 573–74.
4. See Beker, Paul the Apostle, 333–35.
5. E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 622–23.
6. Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur Interpretation von Römer 11:25–32,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. H. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 559–60.
7. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 313.
8. Most commentators agree; see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 720.
9. See, e.g., Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 436; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 249–50.
10. See, e.g., C. M. Horne, “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved,’ ” JETS 21 (1978): 331–34.
11. See also Num. 16:34; Josh. 7:25; 1 Sam. 7:5; 25:1; 1 Kings 12:1; 2 Chron. 12:1; Dan. 9:11. Also frequently cited in this regard is the rabbinic text, m. Sanh. 10:1, which first affirms, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come,” and then gives list of exceptions.
12. Important proponents of this view are Krister Stendahl, “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles,” in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Gager, Origins of Anti-Semitism, 261–62; P. Lapide (with Peter Stuhlmacher), Paul, Rabbi and Apostle (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 47–54.
13. See Bruce W. Longenecker, “Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9–11,” JSNT 36 (1989): 117; Stuhlmacher, “Interpretation,” 561.
14. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 685.
15. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 412; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:100.
16. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 315.
17. See the discussion in, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 585.
18. It is supported by most commentators; see again esp. ibid., 583–85.
19. See also Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 316; Dunn, Romans, 688.
20. See, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 338–39; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:102–3.
21. See esp. B. Schaller, ΗΞΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο ΡΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes. 59:20f. in Röm 11:26f.,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox (Toronto: Benben, 1984), 201–6.
22. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 577–78.
23. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:99; Fitzmyer, Romans, 624–25.
24. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 314; Dunn, Romans, 682.
25. For criticism of the Sonderweg interpretation, see esp. R. Hvalvik, “A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11:25–27,” JSNT 38 (1990): 87–107.
26. See Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 354–55.
27. Climax of the Covenant, 254.
1. E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 634.
2. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 589. While Paul normally adds a genitive modifier to ploutos (e.g., in 2:4; 9:23), he twice uses the word absolutely in 11:12.
3. T. Paige, “Philosophy,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), 715.
1. For this view, see esp. Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate, 81–84.
2. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:111; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 600.
3. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 710.
4. The only other New Testament occurrence is in 1 Peter 2:2, where its meaning is also debated.
5. See esp. David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 173–76.
6. “Worship in Everyday Life: A Note on Romans 12,” in New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969).
1. See, e.g., Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, 78–81.
2. See, e.g., Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 235; Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 215.
3. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 613–16.
4. On prophecy, see esp. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and in the World Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988).
5. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:122–23; Dunn, Romans, 727–28; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 608–9.
6. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 341–42; Fitzmyer, Romans, 647–48.
7. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 619–21.
8. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 431–32; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:123–25.
9. Dunn, Romans, 731.
11. See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 562–64.
1. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 741.
2. See also KJV; NASB; see, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 632.
3. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 633.
4. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 435; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:130–31.
5. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 346; Dunn, Romans, 742.
6. An interesting textual variant reads “time” (kairo) in place of “Lord” (kyrio); and several commentators support it as the “harder” reading (e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 435; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 346). If so, then Paul is be urging believers to “serve” (i.e., to use advantageously) the time (cf. Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). But “serving the time” in the ancient world usually had the nuance of selfish opportunism, and it is doubtful whether Paul would have used the expression.
7. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 641; Dunn, Romans, 745–46.
8. See, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 348.
9. This interpretation was quite popular in the early church, but not so much recently. See, however, John Piper, Love Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), 115–18.
10. Some Old Testament commentators think that the Proverbs text may refer to a Egyptian ritual in which a penitent carried a tray of burning coals over his head to symbolize his sorrow for sin. See S. Morenz, “Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,” in Religion und Geschichte der alten Agypten: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1975), 433–44.
11. The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 317–46.
1. See, e.g., W. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), 56–67.
2. See esp. Karl Barth, Church and State (London: SCM, 1939), 23–36; Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 55–70.
3. See the esp. good discussion in Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 656–59, all the more significant because he had earlier held this view (“Some Observations on Romans 13,” NTS 6 [1959–60]: 241–49).
4. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 442; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:149; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 663–64.
5. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 762–63.
6. See the discussion in Moulton-Milligan, Greek Vocabulary.
7. See esp. C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (Chicago: Allenson, 1955), 65–71.
8. Se, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 668.
9. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 672 (as possible). Note that 1 Peter 2:17 distinguishes between “fearing” (phobeomai) God and “honoring” (timao) the emperor.
10. Tacitus, Ann. 13.50ff.
11. See, e.g., Paul Achtemeier, Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 205; Franz Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 323–25.
12. See Tacitus, Histories 3.68; cf. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 247.
13. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 8–11.
14. Philo refers to the police in Egypt as “sword-bearers” (Special Laws 2.92–95).
15. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 666–67.
1. Quoted in Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 373.
2. In both Ex. 20:1–17 and Deut. 5:6–21, the prohibition of murder comes before that of adultery. But Paul’s order is found in an important manuscript of the LXX (uncial B) and is reflected elsewhere in early Jewish and Christian texts (e.g., Luke 18:20; James 2:11; Philo, etc.).
3. See H. Schlier, TDNT, 3:681–82.
4. See esp. Schreiner, Romans, 692–95.
5. See, e.g., Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 153; Westerholm, Israel’s Law, 201–2.
6. See the discussion in E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 1:349.
7. See, e.g., T. Iss. 5:1–2: “Keep the Law of God, my children; achieve integrity; live without malice, not tinkering with God’s commands or your neighbor’s affairs. Love the Lord and your neighbor; be compassionate toward poverty and sickness” (see also T. Iss. 7:6; T. Dan 5:3; Philo, Abraham 208; Special Laws 2.63).
1. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:165; Fitzmyer, Romans, 682.
2. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 349; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 680.
3. Calvin, Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 489.
4. For these references and a full discussion, see E. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1963), 10–24.
1. See Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans”; W. A. Meeks, “Judgment and the Brother: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 290–300; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 399–403.
2. See esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 699–700.
4. I say “stop” because I think this is a case in which me + present imperative connotes the need to stop an action that one is engaging in. But the tense itself does not indicate this (contrary to the impression given in some grammars); it is the context that reveals this nuance.
5. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 369.
6. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 385; Dunn, Romans, 803.
7. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:177.
8. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:12, where these two verbs are used in a similar manner: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!”
9. The Greek uses the preposition para, which means here “more than.” So Paul literally says, “One judges a day more important than [another] day.”
10. See, in general, Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 367–68.
11. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:172–74.
12. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 256–57.
13. Matthew Black, Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 190–91.
14. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 442.
15. This is by far the most popular view among modern commentators. See, e.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 694–97; Dunn, Romans, 799–802.
16. A good summary of this perspective is found in Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Press, 1977).
17. See Douglas J. Moo, “Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law,” JSNT 20 (1984), 15–18.
18. See, e.g. George Guthrie, Hebrews (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 159–72.
19. See esp. Dunn, Romans, 805; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 224. For a contrary opinion, see, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:177–78.
20. See, e.g., Paul Jewett, The Lord’s Day: A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
1. See, e.g., M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 163–73.
2. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 718–19; Dunn, Romans, 823.
3. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 362; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:193–94.
4. So most commentators (e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 392; Fitzmyer, Romans, 697).
5. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 362–63; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:195. See, e.g., the NJB: “but all the same, any kind [of food] can be evil for someone to whom it is an offense to eat.”
6. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 378; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 723–24.
7. Augustine, for instance, used this text to argue that any act of a non-Christian must be sinful (Contra Julianum 4.32).
8. See, e.g., Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 85–97.
9. On this point, see Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:260–61.
10. From On the Freedom of a Christian Man.
1. E.g., Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 3:100.
2. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 367; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 381.
3. See his monograph Clothed with Christ.
1. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 844–45.
2. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 846.
3. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 385; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 739.
4. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:204.
5. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 370.
6. This reading takes the infinitive doxasai (“glorify”) in v. 9 as parallel to the infinitive gegenesthai (“become”) in v. 8, with both dependent on the verb lego (“I tell you”); see esp. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 742–44.
7. On this reading, doxasai (“glorify”) is dependent, along with bebaiosai (“confirm”), on the eis to (“in order that”) construction at the end of v. 8. Most commentators support this reading (see, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 398; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:205).
8. The Greek here is peritome, “circumcision” (see NIV marginal note).
9. The Qumran MS is 4QDeuta; cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 707.
10. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 71.
11. See Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Sir. 47:22; 4QFlor 1:11; 4QPat 3–4; Rev. 5:5; 22:16.
12. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 73.
1. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:209; contra, e.g., Cranfield (The Epistle to the Romans, 752), who thinks it means “honesty in dealing with others.”
2. The word can refer broadly to people who serve the Lord or his people in various ways (e.g., 2 Kings 4:43; Ps. 103:21; 104:4) and to court officials (e.g., 2 Sam. 13:18). In the New Testament it can refer generally to “ministry” of various kinds (2 Cor. 9:12; Phil. 2:25; Heb. 1:7). But it also often denotes those who serve in the temple (e.g., Num. 4:37, 41; 1 Sam. 2:11; cf. Heb. 8:2; 10:11), and the cognate leitourgia has cultic reference in Luke 1:23; Heb. 8:6; 9:21. Leitourgos refers directly to a priest in Neh. 10:39 (LXX 2 Esdr. 20:37); Isa. 61:6; and in many Jewish intertestamental books.
3. See, e.g., R. Dabelstein, Die Beurteilung der ‘Heiden’ bei Paulus (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1981), 112–14.
4. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 862–63; Peter T. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion: Paul and the Logic of the Gospel (Homebush West, Australia: Lancer, 1993), 31, 50–51.
5. See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 761.
6. See esp. John Knox, “Romans 15:14–33 and Paul’s Conception of His Apostolic Mission,” JBL 83 (1964): 3.
7. For an assessment of the evidence, see W. P. Bowers, “Jewish Communities in Spain in the Time of Paul the Apostle,” JTS 26 (1975): 395–402.
8. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 402.
9. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:221; Fitzmyer, Romans, 725.
10. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 776; Dunn, Romans, 878.
11. Black, Romans, 177. He refers to the story of Jacob’s wrestling with God (Gen. 32).
12. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:221–22; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 776–77.
13. See esp. V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 120–25.
14. See, e.g., O’Brien, Consumed by Passion, 31–32.
15. See ibid., 31, 50–51.
16. See esp. R. D. Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. XI 25,” NovT 21 (1979): 236–37; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 133–34.
17. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 874.
18. See Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans,” 242–46.
1. See, e.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:226.
2. So most commentators; see, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 388; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 781; Dunn, Romans, 886–87.
3. See, e.g., David M. Scholer, “Paul’s Women Co-workers in the Ministry of the Church,” Daughters of Sarah 6/4 (1980): 3–6.
4. E.g., Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 417–18; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 782–83; Dunn, Romans, 888–89.
5. Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate, 218; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 226–28.
6. NIV; the Greek actually has the shortened name “Prisca,” but the NIV standardizes the spelling of names.
7. See, e.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 391; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 422–23.
8. See esp. Richard S. Cervin, “A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16.7,” NTS 40 (1994): 464–70; see also Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 788–89; Dunn, Romans, 894; Schreiner, Romans, 795–96; Fitzmyer, Romans, 737–38 (with a thorough historical survey).
9. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:229–30.
10. So most recent commentators (e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 413; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 789; Dunn, Romans, 894–95; Schreiner, Romans, 796).
11. See the discussion about Roman Christianity in J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1913), 174–75; cf. also Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 222.
12. See Lightfoot, Philippians, 175.
13. Favoring the identification are, e.g., Lightfoot, Philippians, 176; Godet, Commentary on Romans, 393; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 793–94; Dunn, Romans, 897; skeptical is, e.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 414.
14. E.g., Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 796.
15. His major work is the monograph, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Socialgeschichte (2d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989). A summary of some of his main points is found in his article, “Roman Christians.”
16. See Leon, Jews, 135–70.
17. For further explanation and justification of these points, see my article “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men (1 Timothy 2:11–15)?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem; Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 179–93.
18. See, e.g., Elizabeth S. Fiorenza, “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History,” Word and World 6 (1986): 430.
1. E.g., Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 422, 427–28; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 808; Dunn, Romans, 912–13; Fitzmyer, Romans, 753.
2. E.g., Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:262–68; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 244–46; Schreiner, Romans, 816–17; Larry Hurtado, “The Doxology at the End of Romans,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. J. Epp and G. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 185–99; I. Howard Marshall, “Romans 16:25–27—An Apt Conclusion,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 170–84.
3. E.g., Wilckens, Römer 12–16, 143.
4. E.g., Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 263.
5. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 296.
6. For the former, see Godet, Commentary on Romans, 400; for the latter, see perhaps Dunn, Romans, 909, who states this view is “not impossible.”
7. E.g., Dunn, Romans, 910–11; Fitzmyer, Romans, 749.
8. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 421.
9. See esp. A. D. Clarke, “Another Corinthian Erastus Inscription,” TynBul 42 (1991): 146–51.
10. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 404.
11. E.g., Black, Romans, 212–13.
12. E.g., Godet, Commentary on Romans, 396; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 429; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 252–53.
13. E.g., Dodd, Epistle to the Romans, 242–43.