Romans 12:9–21

Original Meaning

The Heading: Sincere Love (12:9a)

JESUS HIMSELF PUT love for God and love for others at the heart of his “new covenant ethics” (Mark 12:28–34 and par.; John 13:31–35). The apostles only rarely call on their converts to love God, preferring to speak of faith and obedience instead. But they follow Jesus almost to the letter in making love for other people the central focus of their exhortations (e.g., Rom. 13:8–10; 1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:13–15; Col. 3:14; James 2:8; 1 John 2:9–11). But “love” can be a vague idea. One of Paul’s purposes here is to specify some types of behavior that manifest “sincere” love.

The Greek behind the NIV’s “Love must be sincere” has no verb; a very literal rendering would be “the love sincere.” Supplying an imperative verb (as almost all the translations do) is not necessarily wrong, but it obscures the fact that these words seem to be a heading for the rest of the passage. It is as if Paul gives a definition: “Love that is sincere will be….” The Greek for “sincere” is anypokritos (lit., not hypocritical). The underlying word was often applied to the actor who “played a part” on the stage. Christians can avoid love that is mere “play-acting” if they put into practice the commands that follow.

Bridging Contexts

THE STYLE OF PARAENESIS. A passage such as 12:9–21 carries a strong temptation for the modern Western commentator. We tend to be quite enamored of our abilities to find structure and movement in the biblical text—that is, to point out to our readers relationships that they may never have seen. How tempting it is, then, to seek structure where it doesn’t exist. Indeed, we sometimes think it is beneath the New Testament writers to write without careful structure.

But the temptation to impose structure on a text is not limited to commentators. In teaching biblical texts over the years, I have seen the same assumption that a biblical text must be carefully and logical organized operating among laypeople. I think, however, that this assumption must be challenged. We seem to assume that the special inspired quality of Scripture demands that it always be logically organized. If God is organized and he inspired every text of the Bible, must not those texts likewise be organized?

Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by organized. Every biblical text is deliberate, in the sense that it was written with a particular purpose; and it is logical, in that, when we rightly interpret it, it makes sense. But not all biblical texts are organized in the kind of neat, logical arrangement we can display in an outline. In fact, I suspect that our tendency to use traditional outlining schemes (A., A.1., A.1.a., etc.) in summarizing biblical texts is a large part of the problem. We are not quite sure how to take a “bird’s-eye” view of a text if we do not impose an outline on it. But communication is much broader than those types that are susceptible of being summarized in such an outline, and such types of communication are no less effective in accomplishing their purposes.

In 12:9–21, Paul writes in an ancient style called paraenesis. Scholars debate about whether we should call paraenesis a style or a genre and how sharply defined it was. But almost everyone agrees that such a style existed and is found widely in the ancient world.

Paraenesis has three main characteristics. (1) It was usually used for moral exhortation—to urge people to adopt certain attitudes or behaviors. (2) It usually depended heavily on tradition. That is, the writer freely borrowed from many sources. Recognizing such allusions, the readers or listeners accorded greater authority to the paraenesis, since they incorporated elements these people already respected. (3) It was loosely structured. The writer or speaker deliberately moved quickly from one topic to another without attempting to pursue a definite line of development. The letter of James is often thought to display a paraenetic style, as are specific parts of other New Testament letters.

Romans 12:9–21 obviously fits the parameters of paraenesis we have just sketched. In no obvious order of logical sequence, Paul exhorts Christians to adopt certain attitudes and forms of behavior, freely citing the Old Testament, Jewish tradition, and the teachings of Jesus to communicate his points.

One of the mistakes we make in looking at possible backgrounds to the New Testament is to assume, as one scholar has put it, that ideas in the ancient world flowed in pipelines. That is, we wrongly expect that a given teaching always remained in a pure and unadulterated form, unaffected by other teachings. Of course, we all understand that the world is not like that. Ideas jostle with each other, and rarely do we encounter one in complete isolation from others like it. So it is also with literary genres and styles. Paul uses the paraenetic style popular in the Greco-Roman world as he writes these verses. But he is also influenced by the Old Testament and Jewish wisdom style that we find, for instance, in Proverbs. The two styles—and perhaps others we have not considered—have merged to some extent, and Paul probably could not have identified just what parts of 12:9–21 come from one and what parts from the other.

For our purposes, however, the important point is that Paul writes in a style well known in the ancient world, which was effective in communicating what he wanted to get across to his readers. We need to respect the style he has used and not try to impose on the verses modern assumptions about “correct” structure or logical organization. The style he has chosen to use keeps us on our toes. The commands come rapidly, one after the other, and we have no way of predicting what is going to come next. The very changes of topic that perplex us at one level force us to grapple with each exhortation in its own right.

We are, of course, supposed to think about what Paul is saying. But he is more interested in getting us to react. The rapid-fire style of the text is effective in accomplishing this. If the medium is not entirely the message, as Marshall McLuhan would have us believe, it is vitally related to the message. Paul has arguably chosen here to use a medium that suits what he wants us to hear better than a logical style of arguing would have done.

Contemporary Significance

LOVE IN ACTION. Few terms are as popular among Christians as the term love. And rightly so, for along with faith and hope, love is one of most important ways of expressing what Christianity is all about. The New Testament puts love at the heart of what it means to live as a Christian in relationship to other people. To be sure, we must never allow this horizontal dimension of Christianity to push out or diminish the more basic vertical dimension of our faith. Relationship with God is first and primary; our relationship to others flows from it. The problem with love, however, is that it can be a vague term. People fill it with almost any meaning they want. Particularly in a culture that thinks of love primarily as something that a person can “fall” in and out of, the biblical meaning and significance of love needs careful attention.

Biblical love, as we are constantly reminded, is not an emotion. It is an attitude, a mind-set. This distinction is one that older writers, and a few contemporary ones, try to get at by using the word “charity” to describe what the Bible is talking about. We are commanded to love; it is therefore a choice we make, a matter of the will.

To be sure, I do not think any of us can love in the way the Bible asks us to without the enabling grace of God. Love is not something that can ever be entirely the product of the human will. But our wills are involved. The Spirit may foster love within us. But it is our job to cooperate with the Spirit in developing a consistent mind-set of love toward others and to work actively at putting love into effect in the various relationships we find ourselves involved in. This is precisely the point Paul seems to be making here. “Sincere love,” as we have argued, is the theme of 12:9–21. Paul wants to show what biblical love looks like in practice. The Christian who harbors an attitude of love will act in the ways that he describes here.

“Situation ethics” is no longer a popular movement. But the idea that appropriate ethical behavior takes the form of whatever is “loving” in a given situation is still with us—both in the church as well as outside it. Believers refuse to confront other believers about a sin because it would not be a “loving” thing to do. Sex even outside of marriage cannot possibly be wrong, so we rationalize, because it is the natural outcome of a “loving” relationship. We tacitly begin to define right and wrong by the standard of what is loving—defined, of course, in our terms.

But love must be defined in God’s terms. He makes clear, in passages such as Romans 12:9–21, that the mind-set of love will always result in actions that are in full accord with his good and perfect will (12:2). God establishes the standards of right behavior, revealed to us in Scripture. God inspires love for others within us; the two cannot ultimately be in conflict.

We will all face times when it looks, however, as if they are in conflict. What do we do then? Suppose, for instance, that I can attain life-saving medicine for my child only by stealing it; I cannot afford to buy it, and I have exhausted all means of getting it in any other way. Am I justified in stealing if it saves the life of my child? Should love take precedence over the command of God that I not steal? Christian ethicists have debated questions such as this for years, and no general agreement has been reached, nor is it likely to be reached soon. Some insist that love takes precedence over the law in such cases, and they cite Scripture in support (e.g., Matt. 12:1–8). Others argue that God so providentially disposes of all things that he will never allow a believer to be placed in such an intolerable bind, but will always make it possible for him or her to avoid transgressing the commandments of Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13).

My own inclination is to adopt the second of these alternatives. But whichever view on this matter we take, we must recognize that such ethical dilemmas are, at the least, rare. Usually the conflict we experience is between what God has commanded in Scripture and what we think the “loving” thing to do is. In such situations—where, of course, we are sure of our scriptural basis—we must follow the command of God. For he ultimately determines what is loving and what is not. We are all too capable of modifying the application of love to suit our own desires.

Love and violence. Of the various manifestations of love that Paul touches on in 12:9–21, none receives more attention than non-retaliation. Building on Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, Paul calls us to “bless those who persecute you” (v. 14). In verses 17–21, he returns to the same point and elaborates. Believers are to be people who do not adopt the world’s “tit-for-tat” approach to relationships. Recognizing that God will ultimately right all wrongs and avenge all evil, we are not to avenge wrongdoing ourselves but to respond to evil with kindness and love.

Here we find one of the most distinctive of all the characteristics that are to mark Christians. The desire to avenge ourselves on those who harm us is deeply rooted in human nature. It is celebrated in books and in movies (movie theaters erupt in cheers when “the bad guy” gets his due) and is displayed in antagonistic driving on our highways every day. But God calls us, as his children, to be different. We are to imitate Christ, who, when “they hurled their insults at him,” “did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats” (1 Peter 2:23). As Paul makes clear, we are to go beyond refraining from doing evil to those who harm us; we are, positively, to do them good.

Seeking peace—to the extent that it lies with us—is a primary value in the kingdom of God. Imagine the transformation in society that the consistent application of such a philosophy of human relationships would bring! When my wife and I sit in two lines of traffic having to merge into one because of construction, we often remark on how much more pleasant (and safe!) the experience would be if every driver was willing to take his or her own turn.

But how far is the principle to be extended? In a chapter in his outstanding book on Christian ethics, Richard Hays argues that the New Testament calls on believers to renounce “violence in defense of justice.”11 He cites Jesus’ strong condemnation of retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount and then notes passages like Romans 12:9–21 that endorse the same principle. Harming or killing enemies is no longer a justifiable option in the light of Jesus’ kingdom demand. Believers must renounce violence in their personal relationships and avoid governmental positions that might force them to use violence (i.e., serving in the military, as police officers, etc.).

This pacifist understanding of New Testament teaching has a long and respected history. It has a solid basis in the teaching of Jesus (esp. Matt. 5:38–48) and in other New Testament writers. Few, if any, convincing counterexamples from the New Testament can be found (Jesus’ temple cleansing did not clearly involve violence). Moreover, far too many Christians dismiss the pacifist option too quickly and for all the wrong reasons. We protest that we must defend ourselves, for, if we did not, evil would go unchecked: Our wives would be raped, murderers would run rampant, and dictators would impose their evil empires on a helpless world. But God does not always call his people to do what seems prudent, and he reminds us forcibly that he is in control of history. Our job is to obey what he tells us and not to worry overmuch about the results. They are in God’s good hands.

As I have learned well over many years of argument with a former pacifist colleague, the wholesale renunciation of violence on the part of Christians can be persuasively argued. But is it finally a persuasive biblical position? I am not sure. As we will see in Romans 13:4, Paul clearly recognizes the right of the state to punish wrongdoers. To argue that this job must be left to non-Christians comes perilously close to a kind of “two kingdom” ethic in which what is immoral for Christians is allowed to non-Christians. If the state is God’s instrument to accomplish his purposes among them the punishment of wrongdoers, how can Christians be wrong to participate in that service?

An even greater problem for the pacifist view is the Old Testament, where God commands his people to use violence against his enemies. Hays, for instance, admits that the Old Testament legitimizes violence for God’s people on some occasions, but that the New Testament witness is normative. But any view that plays one Testament off against the other is suspect.

When the entire biblical witness is considered, it seems that Christians are tacitly allowed to use violence in the service of the state. But is violence allowed to the Christian in everyday personal relationships? Am I justified in defending myself or others if unjustly attacked? Here the biblical evidence is less clear. Both Jesus in Matthew 5 and Paul in Romans 12 seem to be speaking about such personal relationships, and they do not appear to allow exceptions.

In any case, what they both seem clearly to prohibit is vengeance, that is, taking revenge by exacting justice from those who have done wrong to us. Paul, at least, does not seem to be speaking directly to the matter of violence in defense of the innocent. Jesus seems to suggest a much broader principle: “Do not resist an evil person” (Matt. 5:39). Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul enjoin believers, positively, to bless people who do wrong to us, to seek peace with everyone, and to respond to evil with good.

Whether defense of the innocent in our personal lives is justified biblically is unclear. But what is clear is that believers are to cultivate an attitude of love that puts the focus on the good of the other person and not on the defense of our own rights, dignity, or even, perhaps, our very lives. Lived out consistently, the Christian community can become a genuine counterculture that serves as a witness to a world increasingly caught up in the spiral of violence.

Americans demand the right to carry guns and use them because other people are. Poverty-stricken nations spend billions of dollars on weapons so that they can keep up with their neighbors. Our children are taught to defend themselves, to “fight for their rights,” and so on. Jesus suggests a better way. While it would be utopian for us to think we can transform society by our attitudes, what the church is ultimately called to do is to be a witness.

Original Meaning

Living in Harmony with Other People (12:14–16)

A BREAK BETWEEN verses 13 and 14 is marked by a shift in style and subject matter. In verses 9–13 Paul has used mainly participles to convey his commands; in verse 14 he switches to the more typical imperative mood. He also suddenly shifts his focus from relationships with other believers to the way that same love can be shown to non-Christians. Paul’s commands in verse 14 remind us of Jesus’ famous teaching from the Sermon on the Mount (italics added below):

Matt. 5:44	But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Luke 6:27–28	But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

These similarities suggest that Paul is quoting Jesus’ teaching here. In fact, Paul shows more dependence on Jesus’ teaching in this part of Romans than he does anywhere else in his letters. The way he weaves references to that teaching into his own exhortations without specifically citing Jesus is typical of the way the early Christians absorbed Jesus’ words into their own ethical tradition. Like Jesus, Paul calls on us to turn the other cheek, displaying a love for others that goes far beyond the normal boundaries of human love.

Verse 15 may continue the theme of verse 14, calling on believers to identify with unbelievers in both their joys and their sorrows.7 But the sentiment of this verse is close to that of 1 Corinthians 12:26: “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it” (cf. also that Rom. 12:3–8 is closely parallel to 1 Cor. 12). Probably, then, Paul turns back here again to relationships within the Christian community.

As we noted at the outset, the commands in verses 9–21 do not follow any strict logical order. In keeping with the style he uses, Paul moves rapidly from one subject to another. But we can discern a single underlying concern in verses 14–16: the need to live in harmony with other people, both unbelievers (v. 14) and believers (vv. 15–16). We pursue this goal with unbelievers by meeting their scorn and hatred with love; we display the deep-seated harmony that the Spirit creates among believers by making other believers’ joys and sorrows our own.

The command to “live in harmony with one another” (v. 16a) summarizes the overall thrust of these verses with specific reference to the believing community. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to this unity of mind and spirit is pride. As a result, as he does in Philippians 2:1–4, Paul urges Christians to avoid pride and to humble themselves as the key step toward genuine unity. We are not to “be proud” (cf. Rom. 11:20) but to “associate with people of low position” (NIV). “People of low position” translates a single Greek word that refers either to “humble people” or to “humble things.” Paul is either exhorting believers to identify with “down and outers” in the community or to give themselves to “menial work” (see NIV note; cf. TEV: “accept humble duties”).

In an echo of both 11:25 and 12:3, Paul concludes the brief paragraph by warning us not to think we are wiser than we really are (cf. Prov. 3:7: “Do not be wise in your own eyes”).