Background Material and Argument of the Book

A. Background Material

The following material addresses issues of historical importance for Paul’s letter to the Romans. This letter is arguably the most important document of the Christian faith; it stands behind virtually all great movements of God in the last 1900 years.

1. Author

Although there is no dispute about Pauline authorship, it may be helpful to rehearse, in brief, why that is the case.

a. External Evidence

The ancient writers regularly included Romans in their list of authentic documents. Marcion, the Muratorian fragment, and a steady stream of patristic writers beginning with Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all assume its Pauline authorship without defense.

b. Internal Evidence

“From the postapostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, the Epistle has been credited to Paul. If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly.”¹

In other words, once we adopt some letter claiming Paul as its author (on grounds which are unassailable), then we have a standard of comparison. The Corinthian letters and Galatians have been just such benchmarks of authenticity. And Romans fits in with their style and theological viewpoint; further, it poses no historical or other (e.g., ecclesiological) problems for Pauline authorship.

2. Date and Place of Origin

This epistle can be dated with relative certainty. It was written between 56 and 57 CE. Paul states in 15:26-28 that he has just completed the raising of funds for the poor believers in Jerusalem after visiting the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. This corresponds to Acts 20:1-2, identifying the time of composition as the year after Paul left Ephesus on his third missionary journey.

Paul was in Greece when he wrote the letter, most likely in Corinth. This is seen in two incidental comments: (1) Phoebe of neighboring Cenchrea was apparently the letter-bearer (16:1-2) and (2) Gaius, who is Paul’s host (16:23), was a prominent Christian leader at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14).

3. Destination/Audience

Romans 1:7, 15 identify this letter as being sent to the Christians at Rome. They were predominantly Gentile believers as is evidenced by Paul’s statements to that effect in 1:5, 12-14 and 11:13. But there was probably a strong Jewish element as well because (1) the heavy use of the OT suggests this and (2) since Paul did not found this church, most likely the Jewish element would be stronger than in one of his congregations.

4. Occasion and Purpose²

The occasion and purpose are so intertwined for this epistle that they must be treated as one. Paul expressed his desire to go west all the way to Spain (15:22-24, 28). Since he had already proclaimed the gospel in the major centers in the east, it now seemed good to him to go west. But as was his custom, he needed an “emotional home,” a base of operations. Antioch had provided that in the east and Ephesus had in Asia Minor; Paul was hoping that Rome would in the west. Consequently, he wrote this letter, explaining his gospel carefully and fully, in the hopes that the Roman Christians would embrace him and it completely. Further, since his life had already been in much danger from the Jews (Acts 17:5, 13; 20:3), Paul may have sensed the need to pen his thoughts about the gospel in a systematic way, rather than due to occasional circumstances.³

In sum, Paul’s occasion-purpose for writing Romans is threefold: (1) he was going west and needed to have a base of operations in a church that shared both his vision and his theology; (2) he knew that his life was in danger and wanted to give something of a more balanced, systematic presentation of his gospel, to leave as a memorial; and (3) he detected anti-Semitism arising in the Roman church through the influence of Claudius’ edict (to expel Jews from Rome in AD 49) and wanted to give a theologically-based correction to this attitude.

5. Origin of the Church

In light of Rom 15:20, there is no doubt that the church at Rome was not founded by an apostle. This suggests that Peter was not yet in Rome. Most likely, the church came into existence through the converts who returned to Rome form Jerusalem after the feast of Pentecost in 33 CE (Acts 2:10).⁴ But this church would not have been very well indoctrinated. Mark may well have gone to Rome in the early 50s both to precede Paul’s coming and to shore up any doctrinal holes in the converts.⁵

6. Theme

As the most systematic of all Paul’s letters, Romans addresses in detail the Pauline kerygma, i.e., the gospel of God. Romans 1:16-17, which concludes the salutation/introduction, best articulates the theme of the whole book: “the righteous revelation of God in the gospel.”

B. Argument

Paul opens his epistle to the Romans with the longest introduction of any of his canonical works (1:1-17). Here he greets the saints (1:1-7) whom he had never met, and expresses both thanks for them (1:8-10) and a deep desire to visit them (1:11-15). The theme of the epistle (dealing with the righteousness of God), at the end of this introduction (1:16-17), serves as a bridge into the body of the book.

The transition is especially seen in comparing vv. 17 and 18: in both something from God is revealed. In v. 17 it is God’s righteousness; in v. 18, in order to establish the need for this righteousness, God’s wrath is revealed. This second section of the epistle (1:18–5:11), whose theme is the imputation of righteousness (i.e., forensic justification) essentially deals with two issues: sinners and salvation. Paul first elaborates on the sinfulness of humanity (1:18–3:20), demonstrating the universal need of righteousness. He begins by picking the most obvious example: the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18-32). The reasons for this guilt are first mentioned: they have suppressed the knowledge of God (1:18-23). The result of such suppression is God’s releasing them to the consequences of their sins (1:24-32). But lest the Jews think that they are any less guilty, Paul addresses their sin (2:1–3:8). In fact, he argues that, if anything, they are more guilty than the Gentiles because they have revelation from God and are his privileged people (3:1-8), yet they are hypocritical about true, internal righteousness (2:17-29). Paul concludes the first half of this major section with proof from scripture that “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin” (3:9-20).

Now that Paul has established the need for righteousness for all people, he demonstrates its provision (3:21–5:11). First, it has been revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, being granted to all who put their trust in him (3:21-26). Second, the terms for bestowal of this righteousness (namely, faith) are the same for all, because God is One (3:27-31). Third, Paul backs up this astounding assertion with proof from the life of Abraham (4:1-25). In essence, Abraham is seen to be father both of the Jews and of the Greeks—that is, he is a type of those who are saved by faith. This is illustrated by evidence that Abraham was not justified by works (4:1-8), nor by circumcision (4:9-12), but exclusively by faith in the promises of God (4:18-25). So too his spiritual offspring are justified by faith rather than by law (4:13-17, 23-25). Thus Abraham is seen to be the universal forefather of all believers, whether Jew or Greek.

Paul transitions the faith of Abraham to our faith in Christ (4:23-25), then concludes the section on justification with the implications of this justification (5:1-11). But the “therefore” in 5:1 reaches back behind the illustration of Abraham. In many ways, 3:21–4:25 is an apologetic with 5:1-11 being the application. Since all are sinners and since there is no partiality with God (3:22-23), both Jews and Gentiles must obtain this righteousness in the same way and the same God must be God of all (3:27-31). This new revelation of God’s righteousness is affirmed by the OT (3:21) and illustrated by Abraham’s example (4:1-25). There is no getting around it: if a man has Christ, he has peace with God right now—and the Law adds nothing to his salvation (5:1-2). Consequently, he exults in the hope of the glory of God (5:1-5). This salvation is truly marvelous, for sinners qua sinners were completely unable to deal with their sin. But Christ came at the right time and died for such (5:6-8). The eschatological result of this will be escape from God’s wrath (5:9-11).

Having established the basis of God’s pleasure in us, viz., the imputation of righteousness (or forensic justification), Paul now discusses the impartation of righteousness, or sanctification (5:12–8:39). This is the third major section of the epistle. In some ways there is a neat trilogy found in these first eight chapters. The apostle first discusses justification which is salvation from the penalty of sin (3:21–5:11). Then he deals with sanctification or salvation from the power of sin (5:12–8:17). Finally, he addresses glorification which is salvation from the presence of sin (8:18-39).⁶

Paul lays out his views on sanctification using the twin themes of reigning and slavery. He begins by contrasting the reign of grace with the reign of sin (5:12-21). Although many NT students would place 5:12-21 under the second major section (i.e., under “Justification”), “the words ‘just,’ ‘justice’ and ‘faith’ coming from the first part of the quotation [Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17] as given by Paul, are of very frequent occurrence from 1:17 to 5:11, and almost entirely absent thereafter. On the other hand, the terms signifying ‘life’ (and ‘death’) occur regularly in chapters 5:12 to 7:1.”⁷ Thus the apostle seems to be signaling that he is now picking up a new topic.

In 5:12-21 Paul moves beyond the legal issue of justification. What is essential to get here is that imputed righteousness addresses the condemnation of the law while imparted righteousness addresses the inability of the flesh. That is to say, justification is forensic, stating emphatically that our position before God is one of righteousness. But justification, like the Law, can do nothing against the flesh. That is why Paul now turns to imparted righteousness and gives the basis as our union with Christ. Our union with Christ is more than forensic; it is organic.⁸ As Adam was our representative in sin, bringing death to all (5:12), so also Christ is our representative in righteousness, bringing life to all (5:18).⁹

Since believers are in Christ—and therefore they are assured of their salvation, why should they not continue sinning? Paul answers this in the second portion of this section (6:1-23). First, they should not continue (ἐπιμένωμεν, epuimenōmen) in sin because of their union with Christ—union in his death and his life (6:1-14). Second, they should not sin at all (ἁμαρτήσωμεν, hamartēsōmen) because such an act leads to enslavement to sin (6:15-23). This is especially heinous because our release from sin’s slavery means redemption for the service of God (6:22), since we have been bought with a price.

Having established the reasons why we should not sin, Paul now turns to the issue of how not to sin (7:1–8:17). Negatively, neither our flesh nor the Law can do anything for us in this endeavor (7:1-25). Positively, we are sanctified through the ministry of the Spirit (8:1-17).

Chapter seven is notoriously difficult to interpret. Is Paul speaking here (using “I”) in an autobiographical sense? If so, is he speaking about his former life as an unbeliever or his present life as a Christian? (Can both chapters seven and eight be true of him at the same time?). Or is he speaking figuratively—either of believers in general or unbelievers in general?

In my understanding Paul is primarily dealing with the issue of how one deals with the problem of present sin—regardless of whether he is a believer or unbeliever. This is seen in the following way. The most consistent exegesis of this pericope sees the “I” as the same person throughout 7:7-25.¹⁰ If so, then he is the unbeliever before the Law was ever given (v. 9: “once I was alive apart from the law”; cf. 5:13)—And therefore not a Jewish unbeliever. But he is also the unbelieving Jew: “We know that the Law is spiritual; I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (7:14). Further, Paul had just gotten done saying that believers are not under the Law (7:5). But he is also the believer (v. 25: “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law”; v. 18: “I have the desire to do what is good”; cf. also vv. 21-22; contra 3:12).¹¹ In light of this evidence it seems that Paul is not arguing chronologically in 3:20–8:17 (as if to say, “after salvation, we will deal with sanctification”). Rather, he is dealing with two distinct, though intertwined issues: the imputation of righteousness and the impartation of righteousness. Chapter seven is supremely, then, dealing with the issue of how one fights indwelling sin—and how one attempts to please God. It has its application for all people who attempt to fight sin/please God by subjecting the flesh to external commands, as if this will accomplish anything.

The apostle begins chapter seven, however, with a reminder to believers: we are dead to the Law (7:1-6). Since this is so, we do not have to attempt to please God by knuckling under to its commands. But does this mean that the Law is bad? No, it is simply powerless over sin (7:7-13). The Law may be likened to a sterile spoon dipped into a glass of water with sediment on the bottom (which represents our flesh). When the spoon stirs up the sediment it does not produce sin; rather, it merely reveals it (7:13). But at the same time, it is powerless to clean out the sediment.¹²

As good as the Law is, the flesh is equally bad (7:14-25). And it, too, is powerless to obey the Law. The point of 7:7-25 is that regardless of who attempts to fight sin—whether he is a believer or unbeliever—if his method is to subject the flesh to the Law he will fail. Focusing on the Law, an objective, cold standard, necessitates subjecting the flesh to it, because the Law is the handmaiden of the flesh. But since believers are dead to the Law, they are able to gain victory over the flesh (7:6, 24-25).¹³

Now comes the good news: those who are organically connected with Christ are not only not condemned (8:1), but also are set free from the law which could only produce sin and death (8:2). How is this accomplished? By the Spirit of God who enables believers to gain progressive victory over sin (8:1-8), death (8:9-11), and slavery (8:12-17). The Spirit is not an external, objective, cold standard, but a warm, internal witness to our hearts that God is our Father (8:14-17)—proving that we are organically connected to God the Father, not just judiciously excused by God the Judge.¹⁴

Finally, Paul concludes this section by discussing the goal of sanctification (8:18-39), which is our future glory—based, as it is, both on forensic justification and organic union with Christ (8:28-30). This glory needs to be kept in mind especially during the present sufferings we face simply because the world is not a perfect place (8:18-27). But lest anyone give up, thinking that his participation in glory is in jeopardy, Paul concludes with a hymn of assurance (8:31-39).

The fourth major section now turns to an issue which would have been in the back of his readers’ minds: If God is so righteous, how could he give Israel so many privileges (including unconditional promises) and then reject his chosen people? Chapters 9–11 deal with this issue (note especially 9:6—“It is not as though God’s word has failed”), the vindication of God’s righteousness in relationship to Israel.

Although Paul’s primary concern is to vindicate God’s righteousness, he prefaces his remarks by expressing his own deep sorrow over Israel’s unrepentant state (9:1-5). Then he details how God has dealt with the nation in the past (9:6-33). In essence, God’s choice was completely sovereign and gracious (9:1-29), as can be seen in Israel’s very history (9:6-13), as well as on the basis of the principle of God’s sovereignty (9:14-29). Further, they have rejected their Messiah by clinging to the Law (9:30-33).

God’s present dealings with Israel, then, can only be interpreted on the basis of the past (10:1-21). Once again, Paul prefaces his remarks by expressing his desire for Israel’s salvation (10:1). For the present time, Jew and Gentile have equal access to God (10:1-13). Yet the nation is still unrepentant even though they repeatedly heard the message (10:14-21).

This still does not answer the question of God’s unconditional covenants with his chosen people. Will Israel persist in their disobedience, or will there come a time when they will repent? Paul answers this in chapter 11. He points out, first, that God’s rejection of the nation is not complete, for God still has his remnant in the nation (11:1-10). Further, the rejection is not final (11:11-32). Indeed, the present “grafting in” of Gentiles not only functions to bring salvation to Gentiles, but also should arouse the jealousy of the Jews, hopefully even spurring them on to seek Christ (11:11-24). Once the number of Gentiles is full, then Israel will turn back to God (11:25-32). For this, all believers should be grateful, since the open window of salvation will not last forever. And God is to be praised for his infinite wisdom in how he deals with both Jews and Gentiles (11:33-36).

What remains to be said about God’s righteousness? Only the very pragmatic matter of how it should be applied by believers (12:1–15:13). First, it should be applied among fellow believers (12:1-21). This is accomplished by a consecration of our lives to God, in light of all that he has done for us (12:1-2). Once we have committed ourselves to him, we can begin to serve others. This service should be done by the employment of spiritual gifts for the benefit of the body (12:3-8), and with an attitude of sincere love—both for believers and unbelievers (12:9-21).

Second, the righteousness of God should be applied in the state (13:1-14). We demonstrate God’s righteousness by submitting even to pagan authorities (13:1-7), and by loving our neighbors (13:8-10). The urgency for such action is due to the fact that “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (13:11)—that is, because of our hope of the Lord’s return (13:11-14).

Third, those believers whose faith is strong and who have a good grasp on their death to the Law should not be judgmental on weaker brothers (14:1–15:13). Neither the weak nor strong brother should condemn the other, but instead should recognize the freedom that all have in Christ (14:1-12). But his freedom should not become a stumbling block to the weak: liberty must give way to love (14:13-23). That is to say, one believer’s freedoms should not cause another brother to sin by the latter’s imbibing in something against his conscience (14:23). Ultimately, the strong believer (as well as the weak) should imitate Christ in his selflessness (15:1-13), rather than using liberty as a means to please oneself.

Paul concludes his epistle (15:14–16:27) with a brief explanation of his mission, both in general (15:17-21) and specifically with reference to the Romans (15:22-33), followed by final greetings (16:1-27).

C. Teaching Outline¹⁵

I. Introduction: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness (1:1-17)

A. Salutation (1:1-7)

B. Thanksgiving and Longing (1:8-15)

1. Paul’s Prayer of Thanks for the Romans (1:8-10)

2. Paul’s Desire to Visit the Romans (1:11-15)

C. The Theme of the Epistle (1:16-17)

II. Justification: The Imputation of Righteousness (1:18–5:11)

A. Condemnation: The Universal Need of Righteousness (1:18–3:20)

1. The Guilt of the Gentiles (1:18-32)

a. The Basis of Gentile Guilt (1:18-23)

b. The Results of Gentile Guilt (1:24-32)

2. The Guilt of the Jews (2:1–3:8)

a. The Stubbornness of the Jews (2:1-16)

b. The Hypocrisy of the Jews (2:17-29)

c. The Privilege of the Jews (3:1-8)

3. The Proof of Universal Guilt (3:9-20)

B. Salvation: The Universal Provision of Righteousness (3:21–5:11)

1. Manifestation of the Universal Provision of Righteousness (3:21-26)

2. Unification: The Universal God of Righteousness (3:27-31)

3. Justification of Universal Justification: Proof from the Life of Abraham (4:1-25)

a. Abraham Justified by Faith, not Works (4:1-8)

b. Abraham Justified by Faith, not Circumcision (4:9-12)

c. Abraham’s Seed Justified by Faith, not Law (4:13-17)

d. Abraham Justified by Faith in the Promise (4:18-25)

1) Explanation of the Hope of Abraham (4:18-22)

2) Application: Faith in Christ (4:23-25)

4. Exultation because of the Certainty of Justification (5:1-11)

a. Present: Peace with God (5:1-5)

b. Past: Powerlessness of Sinners (5:6-8)

c. Future: Escape from God’s Wrath (5:9-11)

III. Sanctification: The Impartation of Righteousness (5:12–8:39)

A. The Reign of Grace Vs. the Reign of Sin (5:12-21)

B. The Rationale for Sanctification (6:1-23)

1. Union with Christ (6:1-14)

a. The Divine Reckoning (6:1-10)

b. The Believer’s Reckoning (6:11)

c. The Believer’s Responsibility (6:12-14)

2. Enslavement to Righteousness (6:15-23)

C. The Inability of the Flesh and the Law to Sanctify (7:1-25)

1. The Believer’s Relationship to the Law (7:1-6)

2. The Law is Good but Sterile (7:7-13)

3. The Flesh is Bad and Powerless (7:14-25)

D. The Power of the Spirit to Sanctify (8:1-17)

1. Over Sin (8:1-8)

2. Over Death (8:9-11)

3. Over Slavery (8:12-17)

E. The Goal of Sanctification (8:18-39)

1. Present Sufferings (8:18-27)

2. Future Glory (8:28-30)

3. Hymn of Assurance (8:31-39)

IV. Vindication of God’s Righteousness in His Relationship to Israel (9:1–11:36)

A. God’s Past Dealings with Israel (9:1-33)

1. Preface: Paul’s Deep Sorrow because of Israel’s Great Privileges (9:1-5)

2. The Grace of God’s Election (9:6-29)

a. Seen in Israel’s History (9:6-13)

b. Seen in Principle (9:14-29)

3. The Nation’s Rejection of the Messiah via Legalism (9:30-33)

B. God’s Present Dealings with Israel (10:1-21)

1. Equality with the Gentiles (10:1-13)

2. Obstinance of the Jews (10:14-21)

C. God’s Future Dealings with Israel (11:1-33)

1. The Rejection is not Complete (11:1-10)

2. The Rejection is not Final (11:11-32)

a. The Present “Grafting” of Gentiles (11:11-24)

b. The Future Salvation of Israel (11:25-32)

3. Doxology: In Praise of God’s Wisdom (11:33-36)

V. Application: God’s Righteousness at Work (12:1–15:13)

A. General: In the Assembly (12:1-21)

1. The Consecrated Life (12:1-2)

2. The Use of Spiritual Gifts (12:3-8)

3. The Sincerity of Love (12:9-21)

B. In the State (13:1-14)

1. In Relation to Authorities (13:1-7)

2. In Relation to Neighbors (13:8-10)

3. Because of our Eschatological Hope (13:11-14)

C. Specifics: In Relation to Weak Believers (14:1–15:13)

1. Judging and the Principle of Liberty (14:1-12)

2. Stumbling Blocks and the Principle of Love (14:13-23)

3. Selfishness and the Imitation of Christ (15:1-13)

VI. Conclusion: Paul’s Purpose, Plans, and Praise in Connection with the Dissemination of Righteousness (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s Mission Explained (15:14-33)

1. His Reason for Writing (15:14-16)

2. His Work among the Gentiles (15:17-21)

3. His Plan to Visit Rome (15:22-33)

B. Final Greetings (16:1-27)

1. Greetings to Believers in Rome (16:1-16)

2. Warnings about Divisive Brothers (16:17-20)

3. Greetings from Believers with Paul (16:21-24)

4. Final Benediction (16:25-27)

¹ E. F. Harrison, Romans in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 3-4.

² For a fuller treatment which comports with this view to a large extent, see Harrison, Romans, 5-6.

³ If one only had 1-2 Corinthians, he might conclude that Paul was a legalist; if he only had Galatians, he might conclude that Paul was licentious. Romans is the balance between the other Hauptbriefe, and it is so precisely because there was not a hot need for its production.

⁴ This early date is confirmed by Suetonius’ statement that Claudius’ edict of 49 CE to expel the Jews was because of “disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Claudius 25), in which the Latin probably garbled Χριστός. In other words, Jews in Rome were causing problems because of the spread of Christianity to that city by 49 CE.

⁵ See Mark’s introduction for a fuller elaboration on this hypothesis.

⁶ In our outline, we have put these last two segments together, for glorification is seen as the goal of sanctification and is very much tied to it in chapter 8.

⁷ M. Black, Romans (New Century Bible Commentary), 26.

⁸ This is not to say that 5:12-21 favors the seminal headship view, because the route to our organic union with Christ is still through justification (so 5:18: “the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” [NIV]).

⁹ One proof that Paul is addressing the inadequacy of the flesh more than the condemnation of the law is the fact that he is contrasting Christ with Adam—one whose act applies even to those “who did not sin by breaking a commandment” (5:14), precisely because “before the law was given, sin was in the world” (5:13).

¹⁰ As judicious an exegete as C. E. B. Cranfield is, he stumbles at this point (as do most), by attempting to divorce 7:7-13 from 7:14-25—even though the first person singular is used throughout.

¹¹ The argument that is often used by those who maintain the autobiographical unbeliever view (i.e., Paul before his conversion) is that the present tense verbs are historical presents (so recently, Douglas Moo, Romans [Wycliffe], loc. cit.). But this view is virtually impossible for two reasons: (1) Paul would be the lone exception to his condemnation of mankind in that, as an unbeliever he desired to do good and was a slave to God’s law (7:18, 21-22, 25); and (2) historical presents are always in the third person (see my “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 [1990] 177-205).

¹² Credit is due to S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., for this illustration.

¹³ Those who wish to have their cake and eat it, too—namely, by subjecting the believer to the Law though with the aid of the Spirit—seem to contradict the very strong statement in 7:6 (“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the letter”). Paul spends some time on this point because of the Judaizers who insisted that Gentiles be under the Law, too.

¹⁴ Paul here seems to be subtly indicating that the new covenant is now operative in believers, for we each know God through his Spirit. Thus the kingdom has been inaugurated in the present age. Further, in 8:16 συμμαρτυρέω is used to describe the Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. Although συν- prefixed verbs often carry the connotation of association, this particular verb is merely a strengthened form of μαρτυρέω (so BAGD), indicating that we, not God, are the recipients of his testimony (for further help, see my essay on Romans 8:16 and the Witness of the Spirit).

¹⁵ This outline is an adaptation and modification of the works of Matthew Black, A. Feuillet, and especially S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

1. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:1-7

A. Introduction

The apostle Paul was unreservedly committed to Christ and to the ministry of the gospel. He regarded himself as called to both his master’s side and to the promulgation of the good news—news inextricably bound up with the death, resurrection, and exaltation of his Lord and God’s richest blessing upon sinful, erring human beings. In short, his self-construal was—and always will be—since the Damascus road anyway, one who was a free and willing slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, he could think of no higher calling and privilege.

Dedicated athletes illustrate similar allegiance, trust, and responsiveness to their admired coaches. They often provide examples of belief in another. Indeed, they willingly promote their coach’s agenda in their own lives and in the lives of other players. His goals become their goals. A university basketball player, for example, who believes in his coach because his coach knows what it takes to win (after all, he’s a former NBA champion), will do whatever that coach says. He believes the coach is right. If the coach tells the player to change this or that technique, he will do it even if it feels awkward and initially causes him to shoot poorly. If the coach says to run four miles a day or lift weights thirty minutes a day, the dedicated athlete will do it even though it hurts.

Now, of course, there can be downsides to strong, negative coaching influences, but where the relationship is positive and healthy, why does it happen? Because the athlete believes the coach knows better than he/she does what it takes to play at peak performance and to win under pressure. When you truly believe in a person in authority, you follow that person, gratefully responding to their every direction. Our obedience to Christ is of a similar nature.¹⁶

He who serves two masters must lie to one!
True freedom is found in bondage to Jesus Christ.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

1:1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 1:2 that he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with respect to the flesh, 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. 1:5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. 1:6 You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ. 1:7 To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. The nature of Paul’s Christian vocation was that he was a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God—that is, the promised good news concerning Jesus Christ (his humanity and divine nature)—and that through him Paul received, for the sake of Christ’s name of “Lord,” grace and apostleship in order to lead Gentiles to trust Christ (1:1-5).

A. The nature of Paul’s vocation was that he was a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God (1:1).

1. Paul was a servant of Christ Jesus.

2. Paul was called as an apostle.

3. Paul was set apart for the gospel of God.

B. The gospel of God was promised beforehand through the prophets in holy scripture and concerns Jesus as the son of God—a descendent of David according to the flesh, and the one declared the son-of-God-in-power, according to the Holy Spirit, and by his resurrection from the dead (1:2-4).

1. The gospel of God was promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures of the Old Testament (1:2).

2. The gospel of God concerns Jesus, God’s son, who was a descendent of David according to the flesh (i.e., according to his human lineage; 1:3).

3. The gospel of God concerns Jesus Christ who was appointed the son-of-God- in-power according to the Spirit and by his resurrection from the dead (1:4).

C. Through Christ, Paul received grace and apostleship in order to lead Gentiles to trust Christ for the sake of the name of Jesus, i.e., Lord (1:5).

II. The Roman Christians, to whom Paul gives his customary greeting of “grace and peace,” were called to belong to Christ Jesus, loved by God, and called as saints (1:6-7).

A. The Roman Christians were called to belong to Jesus Christ (1:6).

B. The Roman Christians are loved by God (1:7).

C. The Roman Christians are called as saints (1:7).

D. Paul greets the Roman Christians with his typical greeting of “grace and peace to you from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:7).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. Paul: His Vocation, The Nature of the Gospel, and the Purpose for His Apostleship (1:1-5)

A. Paul’s Vocation (1:1)

1. He Was A Servant of Jesus Christ.

2. He Was Called As An Apostle.

3. He Was Set Apart for the Gospel of God.

B. The Nature of the Gospel of God (1:2-4)

1. It Was Promised in the Holy Scriptures.

2. It Concerns Jesus God’s Son.

3. It Concerns Jesus as a Descendent of David.

4. It Concerns Jesus as the Son-of-God-in-Power.

C. The Purpose of Paul’s Apostleship (1:5)

II. Paul’s Greeting to the Roman Christians: Their Calling, Love from God, Status as Saints, Greeting Proper (1:6-7)

A. They Were Called to Belong Jesus Christ.

B. They Are Loved by God.

C. They Were Called To Be Saints.

D. They Have Grace and Peace from God.

E. Exposition Proper

Before we actually look at the details of Romans 1:1-7, a few things need to be pointed out. First, the actual introduction to Romans begins in 1:1 and ends in 1:17. This unit itself, however, can be broken down into three distinct, yet related sections. The first section is the salutation proper in 1:1-7. It concerns Paul’s apostolic calling and mission, along with his heartfelt, yet semi-typical greeting given to a church. The second section is 1:8-15 and concerns Paul’s desires and plans to visit the church in Rome. The third section, namely 1:16-17, concerns the power of the gospel. It serves as a thematic outline for the entire book. More will be said on these points, their inter-relation and contribution to the book as a whole, as we move through the commentary.

The second point we want to make relates to the nature of the salutation in 1:1-7. The typical format in the Greco-Roman world in Paul’s day was to include the name of the sender, the recipients, and a brief greeting (“From A to B, Greetings”). All of this Paul has done, following the standard formula. He has, however, greatly lengthened the salutation in comparison with other examples from the culture. The lengthening of this section demonstrates the emphasis Paul placed on the gospel and his relationship to it. Thus the salutation has a distinctive theological and christological orientation, something obviously unheard of in the wider pagan world.

Third, the introduction in 1:1-17 is similar in many respects to the ending of the letter in 15:14-16:27 (esp. 15:14-33; 16:25-27). Together they form a kind of inclusio (i.e., book ends) with great stress laid on Paul’s mission to Gentiles, the gospel, and obedience (= faith).

1:1 Paul refers to himself by his Latin (Roman citizen) name Paul (perhaps his cognomen), rather than his Jewish name, Saul—a change which is recorded in Acts 13:9, 13.¹⁷ What is most amazing about Paul the author or Romans is not that he didn’t have the rhetorical skill or intellectual prowess to write well, but that justification by faith through grace should be the subject discoursed upon by this one time persecutor of the church, legalist, and Christ hater. Paul, the converted Pharisee, was the God-ordained, Spirit led author of this marvelous epistle in which he unfolds the gospel of God’s mercy and righteousness. The fact that God used such a man reflects the stunning freedom of His grace and the transformation He brings through the gospel. In short, Paul was a living example of the things about which he spoke (and still speaks) in Romans.

Further, Paul’s name appears alone in the salutation, whereas in his other letters, except Ephesians and the pastorals, he always includes his coworkers with him, if not by name (e.g., 1, 2 Cor) then at least generally speaking (Gal 1:1-2). There is good evidence that he wrote the letter from Corinth and that Timothy was with him (cf. Rom 16:21), so why does he not include him and possibly others in his opening greeting? After all, this appears to have been his habit. First, it must be noted that since Timothy is portrayed in a positive light in 16:21 it does not seem likely that Paul refused to mention him because he had fallen into disrepute with the Roman church. Yet again, Paul does not mention him. The most likely suggestion is that since Romans is Paul’s exposition of his gospel, and since he sought financial assistance from the Romans to preach his gospel into Spain, he mentions only himself in order to take ownership for his doctrine. The letter to the Romans explains the pure gospel he preaches and teaches and this is the gospel the Roman church can be sure he will carry to the west! Mentioning Tertius as the amanuensis need not count against this thesis (16:22). Also, the fact that Paul goes on to label himself “a servant of Christ Jesus, an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…to call people from among all the Gentiles” seems to stress his personal and profound commitment to the preaching of the gospel, a fact further highlighted by the conspicuous absence of any mention of his co-laboring friends.

In Romans 1:1 he gives himself three designations: “slave,” “apostle,” and “set apart.” First, Paul considered himself a slave of Christ Jesus (δούλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, doulos christou Iēsou). While it was unthinkable to a cultured Greek that a relationship with a divine being would involve slavery, it was not at all uncommon for the Jew. Undoubtedly the background for the expression “a servant of the Lord, etc.” is to be found in the Jewish Old Testament scriptures so that it does not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of Israel at times; she was referred to as the “servant of the Lord” (cf. Isa 43:10). But it was especially associated with famous OT personalities including such great men as Moses (Joshua 1:1; 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kings 10:10). All these men were servants of the Lord. Yet, while the expression evokes a tremendous sense of honor, for it was an extreme privilege to serve YHWH, it is not Paul’s desire in this context to simply place himself among venerated OT saints. Neither is it his goal to simply express his gratitude to be a servant of Christ Jesus (though both are true). His aim, rather, is to communicate in plain terms his commitment and devotion to the Messiah Jesus. Though there are several reasons for his allegiance to Christ, it is ultimately due to his recognition of who Jesus is; Paul’s insertion of “Christ Jesus” into the OT formula “a servant of YHWH” shows the high view of Jesus that he maintained. He considered Jesus worthy of the same heartfelt obedience and zealous devotion as YHWH.

Second, the particular nature of Paul’s servanthood or slavery to Christ is further clarified with the designation apostle (ἀπόστολος, apostolos). Apostleship was not something he usurped for himself, as did the false apostles, but he was indeed called (κλητὸς, klētos) by the risen Lord himself (Gal 1:1; Acts 9). While Paul refers to Epaphroditus as an apostle he does so only in the general sense of one who is a messenger (cf. Phil 2:25 and the Net Bible note; see also Rom 16:7). When he refers to himself as an apostle, on the other hand, he is thinking in particular of being one of the select group of people chosen by God and gifted (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11) as an authoritative spokesperson for him. There were certain necessary qualifications (1 Cor 9:1ff) and together the apostles, as recipients of divine revelation, formed the foundation of the church with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Paul had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) and was specifically commissioned by God to carry the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom 1:5). On numerous occasions God confirmed both his choice of Paul and the teaching that the apostle advanced in the church universal (Acts 9:22; 14:3; Romans 15: 18-19; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 2:1-10; 3:5). To the Romans, Paul was an authoritative spokesman for God. They will want to keep this in mind when he covers certain serious issues such as sin and Jew-Gentile relations in the church (cf. Rom 6:17).

Finally, Paul says that he had been set apart (ἀφωρισμένος, aphōrismenos) for the gospel of God. The Greek term translated “set apart” means to “mark off with boundaries.” It is used in Matt 25:32 in reference to setting apart the sheep from the goats in the judgment (cf. Matt 13:49). Paul says that he had been set apart, marked out, as it were, for the gospel—a divine choice not altogether different from God’s call to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5). Though he says that this occurred at his birth (Gal 1:15), the historical outworking of that divine decision came to expression on the Damascus road, some thirty or so years later (cf. Acts 9). Further details regarding the precise nature of this call were concretized in Acts 13:2 when the church at Antioch recognized the Spirit’s timing and choice of Paul for the mission to the Gentiles.

The gospel of God (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, euaggelion theou) is the good news of God’s plan of salvation, including justification, redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, and in the eschaton, vindication. All this comes to realization through the person and work of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as Cranfield points out, the term “gospel” was also used in Greek culture to refer to the birth of an heir to the emperor, or his coming of age and accession to the throne.¹⁸ But, while that may have been good news to some people (and to some not so good news), the gospel of God is good news for all men, Jew and Gentile, the wise and the foolish alike. Paul says that God’s good news is the gospel about his Son whom we find out later in Romans is the true sovereign and savior of all men (cf. 10:9-10).

1:2 Paul makes it doubly clear that the gospel of God, which includes the salvation of the Gentiles, is deeply rooted in OT promise. He is not preaching some foreign idea with no connection to the prophetic scriptures. On the contrary, God had long ago promised the gospel through his prophets in the holy scriptures (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, dia tōn prophētōn autou en graphais hagiais). The coming of Christ is the prophesied culmination to a long history of OT expectation. Jesus Christ is not an afterthought, but the very realization of God’s plan for the world, Jew and Gentile. With his coming, comes the dawn of the much looked for messianic age, when the powers of the future invade the present! Indeed, Jesus himself is the gospel, the heart therefore of the kerygma!

Later on, in chapter four, we will see Paul’s use of OT scripture to flesh out his argument here and that the proper interpretation and fulfillment of OT hope is in Christ. Thus Paul’s new understanding and use of the OT will be critical in his synthesis of Law and gospel throughout Romans and will factor greatly in his extended argument concerning the place of Israel in God’s present administering of the gospel (cf. 9-11).

1:3-4 The “gospel of God” concerns his Son (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, tou huiou autou). While there are some difficulties in the interpretation of vv. 3-4, the important thing to keep in mind is that the idea of Jesus Christ being God’s eternal son precedes any thought of his role in salvation history and the incarnation. He is first of all, the very son of God, before he assumed human nature. Thus the following material in vv. 3-4, which was probably a creed in the early church, relates to his incarnation, work of salvation according to promise, and his subsequent exaltation.

The reference to Jesus as a descendent of David according to the flesh functions on two levels. First, it makes plain that the eternal son of God took on full and complete humanity (John 1:1, 14; Phil 2:6-11) without which there can be no good news for the sons of Adam. Second, the explicit link with David is not just to suggest his humanity, but also to make clear his special relationship to the line of promise. Jesus met the qualifications of one to whom the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 could be made (cf. also Pss 72; 89). This theme of Jesus’ Davidic lineage will surface again in passages like 15:12.

The promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is extremely important in the New Testament and the connection to it here is apparent (e.g., Matt 1:1; Acts 13:34; 2 Cor 6:18). Nathan tells David, among other things, that he will never lack a “son” to sit on his throne. Jesus, by virtue of his obedience and subsequent resurrection, has been appointed (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, tou horisthentos; i.e., in keeping with the language of the appointment of Davidic kings) the “son-of-God-in-power” for eternity (that is, the new and final Davidic ruler). In short, the resurrected messiah (note the stress on Christ Jesus in 1:1) fulfills the promise that one of David’s descendants would sit on David’s throne eternally and rule over the nations. It is likely that OT passages such as Psalm 2:7 stand behind Romans 1:3-4.¹⁹

Thus the use of word “appointed” is a functional comment about Christ’s new role in God’s government of the world and not a statement about his essence before or after the resurrection. There is no adoptionist Christology here! Jesus was, is, and always will be the son of God from eternity to eternity. He entered into, however, the new salvation-historical role of the universal Davidic king (“son”) at his resurrection/exaltation (cf. Luke 2:36). From this vantage point he is the Davidic Son who reigns in-power (ἐν δυνάμει, en dunamei).

At the close of 1:4, Paul refers to Jesus as Jesus Christ our Lord (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, Iēsou Christou tou kuriou hēmōn). The idea of Jesus’ universal Lordship is often connected in the New Testament to his resurrection and exaltation to a place of power and authority (cf. Matt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Phil 2:11). And so it is here, not surprisingly (cf. Rom 10:13).

1:5 Paul says that through Christ we received grace and apostleship. The “we” is probably editorial, that is, it refers to Paul alone. He mentions only himself in 1:1, and the following phrase “for the obedience of the faith among all the Gentiles” seems to corroborate this idea since it was particularly Paul who was called to the Gentiles. Thus Timothy, though a stalwart companion of Paul and minister to the Gentiles (Rom 16:21), is probably not included in this comment.

The expression grace and apostleship is probably intended as a hendiadys meaning “grace for apostleship.” In other words, the nature of the grace (χάριν, carin) to which Paul refers here is linked closely with apostleship (ἀποστολὴν, apostolēn) and must be viewed as that divine enablement which worked itself out in the context of Paul’s apostolic calling and vocation (cf. Gal 2:8-10).

The direction of Paul’s apostolic efforts was to win obedience to the gospel—an obedience which comes about by faith—and this he hopes to achieve among all the Gentiles (ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, en pasin tois ethnesin). Here we have one of the many universalistic statements of Paul concerning the scope of the offer of salvation in Christ (cf. e.g., 1:16). Though Jesus came as the fulfillment of OT promise he is not for the Jew only (cf. 3:27-31), but indeed for all the Gentiles as well (i.e., not just the God-fearers). His name (ὀνόματος αὐτου`, onomatos autou) is that of YHWH and he is Lord over the entire world (10:9-10).

Further, his call as an apostle was to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. The expression obedience of faith (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, hupakoēn pisteōs) has been variously interpreted. Some likely suggestions include: (1) “obedience which springs from faith”; (2) “obedience in the faith where faith refers to the doctrinal commitments of Christianity (cf. Jude 3); (3) “obedience which is faith.” Since the epistle begins with “obedience of faith” (1:5) and ends with the same expression in 16:26, we may well conclude that what comes in between—in chapters 1:18-15:13—is directly related by way of elaboration and clarification. That is, the intervening chapters, chalked full as they are with ideas of sin, justification, and practical holiness “unpack” for us what the expression “obedience of faith” means. Therefore, we ought not to separate “obedience” too far from “faith,” (option #1) nor “personal faith” from “doctrinal commitments” (option #2). Undoubtedly, the vagueness of the expression is meant to capture the breadth of our Christian experience in terms of coming to faith in Christ initially, the nature of true faith as obedience, as well as doctrinal committments believed for those in the faith and living obedient lives. All this is covered in Romans 1:18-15:13 and alluded to in this “short-hand” expression.

Paul makes it clear that the particular sphere of ministry assigned to him by the Lord was the Gentiles. His mission in life was to reach all the Gentiles with the gospel, a task he had been given for the sake of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, for Jesus’ glory and honor. His mission initiatives can be studied in Acts 13-28.

1:6 The Roman Christians should rejoice because they are among those Gentiles who have been called (κλητοὶ, klētoi) by God to belong to Jesus Christ (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Iēsou Christou).

1:7 Further, the Roman Christians, as is the case with every Christian, are loved by God (ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, agapētois theou)—a love which he expressed explicitly in the cross. As Paul will say in chapter 5: “But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). It is that same love that he has also poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (5:5).

The Roman Christians are also called to be saints (κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, klētois hagiois). The term “saints” means to be “set apart.” In this case it is not something that the Roman Christians did by attempting to grow in holiness, but something God did for them when he saved them. He set them apart to himself and his purposes. Thus the term refers more to a positional idea than a practical, ethical idea, though the two are related and must not be separated too far (cf. Romans 6:19). God called them to be set apart for himself; this leads to the logical conclusion that a changed life is in order. Generally speaking, that’s what Romans 5-8 and 12-16 are all about.

The two designations, “loved by God” and “called to be saints,” recall God’s commitment toward and relationship with Israel in the Old Testament. Once again Paul has drawn an organic connection between the OT and the present work of Christ; this time it is not in terms of the promised Son, but in terms of the promised people who will come into being as a result of the work of the Son.

Paul’s greeting of grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ may have been common for him (in one form or another it appears in all his letters), but it was non-existent in the non-Christian world of his day. It is connected uniquely to the person of God the Father and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (8:14-17, 32). The grace of God for those who stand in it (5:1) leads to peace with God, objectively, as well as the subjective apprehension of that peace.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Homiletical Idea: Understand Biblical Authority and Our Mission to the World

I. Respect Apostolic Authority (1:1)

A. Textual Details

1. Paul was a servant of Christ Jesus

2. Paul was an apostle

3. Paul was set apart for the Gospel

B. Application: We are to submit to his teachings as one sent from the Lord

1. Pursue consistent study and application of biblical truth

2. Give serious thought to the issues of our day in light of that truth

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence

II. Understand Apostolic Teaching: Jesus Christ—The Gospel of God and the Fulfillment of OT Promise (1:2-4)

A. Textual Details

1. The gospel of God was promised beforehand in the OT

a. Genesis 12:1-3

b. 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (Isaiah 53, etc.)

2. The gospel of God is centered on a Person and His Work: the incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus Christ.

3. The gospel of God concerns the recognition of Jesus as Lord.

B. Application:

1. Keep Christ central in the interpretation and application of scripture.

2. Do we grasp the singularity of God’s plan and purpose in both the Old and New Testament and in the world today? See Ephesians 1:10-11.

3. Do we realize the implications of the Lordship of Christ for our own lives?

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence

III. Follow Paul’s Apostolic Example: Taking the Gospel to the World (1:5)

A. Textual Details

1. Paul was called as an apostle to bring Gentiles to the “obedience of faith”

B. Application

1. We are not apostles with the level of authority that Paul had; we no longer write scripture and speak directly from God.

2. But, we have all received the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20.

3. It isn’t that we haven’t been sent, but that we are not the originators of the message, God is, and he made it known to Paul. We are to stick to Paul’s message and preach that to non-Christians.

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence to Conclusion

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

1. The Relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament—Romans 1:2-4

There is no little discussion today among Christian scholars and lay people regarding the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. The current setting often involves two different approaches to the synthesis of scripture, namely, the approach of Covenant theology and that of Dispensational theology, with various differences within each “camp.” We may frame the question as follows: How much continuity and discontinuity exists between God’s promises in the OT and the realization of those promises in the church of the NT? Though both theologies recognize at least some fulfillment of the OT in the NT, they differ on precisely what the nature of that fulfillment is and to what extent the church should be related to OT promise.

In any case, both sides must remember that Christ is the central issue in the realization of OT hope. He is the organic connection between the testaments. Paul makes this clear in Romans 1:2-4. Since he now functions as the universal Lord and particular head of the church—in fulfillment of promises like 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (as we saw in our commentary on 1:2-5)—we must be careful not to pull the testaments apart to the point where there is little or no unity between them, especially on the sole basis of a Israel-church distinction. On the other hand, who would argue that his Lordship has been totally realized? Thus it seems that the church as a present and wonderful manifestation of OT promise (though certain aspects of the church cannot rightly have been understood in the OT), cannot exhaust the hope envisioned by the prophets of Israel. There is a structural discontinuity between Israel and the church (Eph 2:11-22²⁰; and thus the testaments) and a soteriological continuity (Rom 4).

The point being made here is not an argument for one view over the other per se, but that Romans 1:2-4 should be examined in the course of one’s thinking on this issue.

2. The “Obedience of Faith” and Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

There is a controversy today in Evangelical circles regarding the biblical response to the gospel. Two general camps have emerged with strong supporters in each. On the one hand, there are those who insist that salvation is by faith where faith does not include such ideas as repentance (unless “repentance” simply means “to change one’s mind”) or the need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord in one’s life. The other camp, those who have been unfortunately dubbed “lordship salvationists,” generally argue that faith involves repentance where repentance includes a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a turning (repentance) from sin, and a personal trust (involving understanding, assent, and embracing) in Christ to save. No informed writer in either camp believes that faith is merely of human origin—it is a gift of God—and no informed writer in the Lordship camp believes that repentance thus understood is a merely human phenomenon.

Whatever camp a person may find themselves in, (s)he needs to consider, despite the exegetical problems, Romans 1:5 and the expression “obedience of faith.” It’s structural role in the letter to the Romans—a letter dedicated to Paul’s exposition of his gospel—demonstrates that this text should be given careful study in light of the “lordship” debate. The expression “obedience of faith” seems to be integral to Paul’s perception of the kerygma. Again, perhaps, there are more exegetically fruitful texts to consider, but Romans 1:5 needs to be kept in mind when we discuss the proper human response to the preaching of the gospel.

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

The passage contributes to discipleship and church mission in at least two ways. First, it clearly teaches us as God’s people that the apostolic witness expressed in Scripture is the primary authority for the faith and life of the church. Paul was an apostle and his teaching is authoritative and primary for the church today—just as it was 2000 years ago. Second, the mission of the church, following the example of Paul, is to carry the gospel to the world so that more and more people may enter into the sphere of God’s blessing in the gospel and live under the Lordship of Christ.

¹⁶ Craig Brian Larson, Choice Contemporary Stories & Illustrations for Preachers, Teachers, and Writers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 22.

¹⁷ See Cranfield, Romans, ICC, 1:48. There have been numerous suggestions as to why Saul of Tarsus “changed” his name to Paul. Some argue that it was changed at the time of his conversion, along similar lines to Peter when Jesus called him into the ministry of the gospel (cf. Mark 3:16). Others, including Jerome and Augustine, maintained, at one time or another, that he changed it to honor his most famous convert, i.e., Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus (see Acts 13:4-12). Cranfield is correct to dismiss these in favor of the probability that as a Roman citizen Paul simply wanted to use one of his (three) Roman names, i.e., his cognomen, because it was distinctive. Thus he really never changed any of his names, but simply wanted to be known and recognized by Paul instead of Saul in his Gentile work.

¹⁸ Cranfield, Romans, 55.

¹⁹ See also the connection Paul makes in Acts 13:33 and 34 between Psalm 2:7 and the democratization of the Davidic covenant through the use of Isaiah 55:3.

²⁰ Israel was a nation; the church is composed of individuals from every nation.

2. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:8-15

A. Introduction

An anecdote survives about Albert Einstein. He was once asked by a student, “Dr. Einstein. How many feet are there in a mile? To the utter astonishment of the student, Einstein replied, “I don’t know.”

The student was sure the great professor was joking. Surely Einstein would know a simple fact that every schoolchild was required to memorize. But Einstein wasn’t joking. When the student pressed for an explanation of this hiatus in Einstein’s knowledge, he declared, “I make it a rule not to clutter my mind with simple information that I can find in a book in five minutes.”

Albert Einstein was not interested in trivial data. His passion was to explore the deep things of the universe, to plumbs the depth of mathematical and physical truth.²¹

The apostle Paul, too, was disinterested in trivial data. But, unlike Einstein, his passion was not to explore the deep things of the universe, but rather to know the Creator of the universe through his Son, Jesus Christ, and then to preach Christ to all creation. It was this very passion for Christ and the gospel that led to Paul’s desire to visit the church in Rome. In short, while Einstein was engrossed in physical reality, Paul was enamored with final reality—the invasion of the eternal into the present.

Passion is the mob of the man that commits a riot upon his reason—William Penn

B. Translation of Passage in NET

1:8 First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, is my witness that I continuously remember you 1:10 and I always ask in my prayers, if perhaps now at last I may succeed in visiting you in the will of God. 1:11 For I long to see you, so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 1:12 that is, that we may be mutually comforted by one another’s faith, both yours and mine. 1:13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I often intended to come to you (and was prevented until now), so that I may have even some fruit among you, just as I already have among the rest of the Gentiles. 1:14 I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 1:15 Thus I am eager also to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. Paul, who serves God with fervency in the preaching of the gospel of his son, gives thanks for the faith of the Romans (since it is proclaimed throughout the whole world) and continuously asks God if he might at last visit the Roman church (1:8-10).

A. The first thing Paul wants to say to the Romans is that he thanks God through Jesus Christ for all of them because their faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world (8).

1. Paul thanks God through Jesus Christ for all the Romans.

2. The faith of the Romans is proclaimed throughout the whole world.

B. God, whom Paul serves with fervency in preaching the gospel of his son, can witness that he continuously prays for the Romans including the request that he might be able to visit them at last (9-10).

1. Paul serves God with fervency in the preaching of the gospel of his son.

2. God is Paul’s witness that he continuously remembers the Romans in prayer.

3. Paul’s prayer is that he might finally succeed in visiting the Romans.

II. Paul, who had hitherto been prevented from visiting the Romans, longs to see them in order to strengthen them and to preach the gospel among them since he is obligated to all men (11-15).

A. The reason Paul wants to visit the Romans is so that he might impart some spiritual gift to them, in order to strengthen them, and that they both might be comforted by each other’s faith (11-12).

1. Paul longs to see the Romans (11).

2. Paul wants to impart some spiritual gift to the Romans (11).

3. The spiritual gift will strengthen the Romans (11).

4. Paul wants to be mutually comforted by his faith and that of the Romans (12).

B. The reason Paul wanted to visit the Roman church in the past (and now currently wants to preach the gospel there), though he had been prevented many times, was so that he might have some fruit among them—just as he had among all the Gentiles—since he was a debtor to Greeks, barbarians, the wise and the foolish (13-15).

1. Paul does not want the Romans to be unaware that he tried several times to visit them (13).

2. Paul was prevented in coming to Rome until now (13).

3. Paul wanted to have some fruit among them (13).

4. Paul already has fruit among the rest of the Gentiles (13).

5. Paul was a debtor to Greeks, barbarians, the wise and the foolish (14).

6. Paul was eager to preach the gospel to those in Rome (15).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. Paul’s Thankfulness for the Romans and His Desire to Visit the Church (1:8-10)

A. Their Faith Is Proclaimed in the Entire World (8)

B. Paul’s Service in the Gospel (9)

C. Paul’s Prayer to Visit the Church (10)

II. Paul’s Desire to Strengthen the Roman Church and His Explanation of His Previous Attempts to Visit (11-15)

A. Paul’s Desire to Strengthen the Roman Christians by Imparting A Spiritual Gift to Them (11-12)

B. Paul’s Previous Attempts to Visit (1:13a)

C. Paul’s Reason for Ministering in Rome (1:13b-15)

E. Exposition Proper

It was common for Paul, having greeted the recipients of the letter, to move on to a somewhat lengthy note of thanksgiving and prayer for the church in question (except, of course, in Galatians where he is constrained to immediately address their defection from the gospel). Such is the case here in Romans 1:8-15.

Paul is thankful to God that the faith of the Romans is well known, undoubtedly due in part to his prayers, and he expresses his deep desire, as an apostle to the Gentiles, to visit the capital city of Rome in order to encourage the church and preach the gospel there too.

1:8 Paul says that the first (Πρῶτον, prōton) thing he wants to mention concerns his thankfulness, namely, that he always gives thanks for the church in Rome because their faith is proclaimed in the whole world. As always in Paul, everything in life, especially his relationship with God and prayer, was approached through Jesus Christ (διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, dia Iēsou Christou). Christ is the center of God’s plan for the world: He is the way in which God reached out to us and the way we in turn approach God. The personal pronoun my (μου, mou) reminds one of similar expressions in the Psalms (3:7; 5:2; 13:3; 22:1; cf. Also Phil 1:3; Phlm 4) and reflects Paul’s deep personal relationship and dependence on God.

But Paul is thankful, not for generalities, but for the specific fact that the church’s faith in Christ had become known in all the world. The apostle most certainly viewed this as the work of God himself, for while he is thankful for the church, his thanksgiving goes directly to God. The expression throughout the whole world (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, en holō tō kosmō) does not mean that every person in the entire world had heard of their faith, but rather that the church had become known throughout the Roman empire (cf. Col 1:23).

1:9-10 The term for links verse 9 with verse 8 by way of reinforcement: Paul has God as a witness that his profession of praying for them is indeed true. The statement God…is my witness (μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ θεός, martus gar mou estin theos) is a very solemn expression, used by the apostle on other occasions. It probably represents an oath he had taken to pray for the church with great constancy (cf. 2 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5, 10). Again, this is not the frivolous kind of oath condemned by Jesus (Matt 5:33-37; cf. Jas 5:12), but rather Paul’s unflinching commitment to pray for the Roman Christians.

The term serve translates a Greek verb (λατρεύω, latreuō) which is connected in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) to ideas of priestly service, ministry, and worship. The expression in my spirit (ἐν τῷ πνεύματι μου, en tō pneumati mou) does not likely mean “by the Holy Spirit,” nor does it refer to the place where this ministry of prayer takes place, that is, in the “inward man.”²² The expression is most likely saying something particular about the fervency of Paul’s service to the Lord. We might paraphrase it: “God, whom I serve with all my heart…” If we take the following phrase, in the gospel of his son (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, en tō euaggeliō tou huiou autou), to mean “in the promulgation of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then it is likely that “in my spirit” means “with all my heart.” The whole expression would then be paraphrased: “God, whom I serve with all my heart in the promulgation of the gospel of his Son….” This work of furthering the gospel would include, but is not limited to, preaching. Indeed, in the nature of the case it involves many other elements, not the least of which is fervent prayer for those who come to respond to the good news. For Paul, it is important that the church in Rome know of his profound commitment to God in the work of preaching the gospel and maturing the saints, for the apostle will soon ask them to support him financially in the work of reaching Gentiles as far west as Spain.

In short, Paul’s desire is that now at last, if God makes a way, he may succeed in coming to Rome. It is not that he had not wanted to come beforehand. On the contrary, on many occasions he had desired to come, but it was not God’s will at that time. Perhaps God will open the way after he finishes his service to the saints in Jerusalem (15:25).

1:11 There is a specific reason why the apostle who has so focused his life on doing the will of God longs to come and see a church he did not found. It is because he longs to impart some spiritual gift (χάρισμα…πνευματικὸν, charisma pneumatikon) to them in order to strengthen (εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι, eis to stērichthēnai) them.

The spiritual gift Paul wants to impart to them is not the sort of spiritual gift mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14. These gifts were given according to the will of the Holy Spirit apart from any human agency (1 Cor 12:11). Also, the explanatory comment which follows in Romans 1:12: “that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith,” indicates that Paul is thinking generally about spiritual encouragement. He is talking about God imparting a spiritual blessing (i.e., encouragement; cf. 15:4) to the church while he is fellowshipping with them in Rome. It is his desire that through being with them, and by the Spirit of God, the church will be strengthened in their faith and fortified in their resolve to live obedient lives for Christ (6:12-14).

1:12 Paul’s humility, though he has been regarded as the greatest of the apostles, shines through in this verse. Not only does he want to bring a blessing to the Christians in Rome, he is certain that he too will be encouraged by their faith, that is, that they will be mutually comforted by one another’s faith (συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, sumparaklēthēnai en humin dia tēs en allēlois pisteōs humōn te kai emou). In short, while they both share the same love for the same Christ, the Roman Christians come from a different perspective and will undoubtedly contribute much to Paul’s personal edification. Paul was a humble man, willing to receive blessing from any source his God might choose.

It is interesting to note that in neither 1:11, nor in 1:12, does Paul mention his plans to visit Spain, but instead waits until much later in the letter (15:24). Why is this so? It seems that he simply does not want the church to misunderstand his motives. If he were to mention it right up front the church might wonder if he were as interested in them as he had claimed to be or if he just wanted to make acquaintances with them to get their money, as it were. To discuss such a matter right up front would surely cause many to take issue with him and so he avoids mentioning it for now. But he will mention it later. It is only after the substance of the letter has been written and his gospel clearly laid out for all eyes to see, that he will feel free to comment on his future plans.

1:13 The Roman Christians are not to be unaware (a common Pauline expression; 11:25; 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; 1 Thess 4:13) that he had tried many times to come to them. But, as he says, he had been hindered. We are not told the nature of this hindrance, but it could have been due to the activity of Satan. Such was the case in his experience with the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:18). Some have also suggested that his inability to get to Rome might have been due to the pressure of the all-consuming work already undertaken in the East (cf. 2 Cor 11:27-28). Whatever the cause, and it certainly was not due to any hesitancy or reluctance on his part (he had tried many times), he was unable to get there. This, he wanted them to know for certain.

But when he comes, and he appears hopeful this time, his desire is to have some fruit among them just as he had among other Gentiles. But what does he mean by fruit (καρπός, karpos) or “harvest” as some translations have it (e.g., NIV)? He is certainly not implying that there were some in the Roman church who were not saved. Some have suggested that since he uses the term “fruit’ in Romans 15:28 in reference to monies acquired in support of the Jerusalem church that he intends “money” by the use of the term in 1:13. There is nothing in the context of 1:13, as there is in 15:28, to support this idea.

Others have suggested that since the term is used in 15:28 in connection with Jewish/Gentile relations, Paul is hinting at some sort of reconciliation, or at least a bolstering of the relationship, between Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church. This is further strengthened in the light of the edict of Claudius in AD 49 when the Jews were expelled from Rome due (most likely) to hostilities over Christ. This means that many Jewish Christians would also have had to leave.²³ When they returned, probably some three or four years later, the church they left had now become primarily Gentile. This may have caused some strife which Paul had later heard about by the time he wrote Romans (ca. 57 or 58). This may also account for the discussion in 14:1-15:13. The biggest weakness of this view is that it is overly subtle for there is nothing in the context of 1:13 to indicate that this was in any way in his mind.

In the end it seems best to take “fruit” as a general reference to spiritual blessing and growth, more in line with its usage in 6:21-22. This may certainly include such issues as Jew/Gentile relations, but to argue that this is the exclusive referent may be a bit too narrow. The reference to “preaching the gospel” in Rome also seems to suggest a broader notion since the gospel entails many ideas (1:15).

1:14-15 The lack of explicit grammatical connection to 1:13 lends a note of seriousness to 1:14. In a matter of fact way, Paul says that he is obligated—not because of anything in the people themselves (cf. 15:27), but because of his calling as an apostle (1 Cor 9:16b)—to the Greeks, the barbarians, the wise and the foolish.

The term Greeks (῞Ελλησιν, Ellēsin) refers to those who were of Greco-Roman status, culture, language, and heritage. The term Barbarians (βαρβάροις, Barbarois) refers to all other peoples outside Greco-Roman language, influence, and culture. Paul is not using the term “barbarians” pejoratively, as it was during the period and as it is often used today (Col 3:11). The reference to the wise (σοφοῖς, sophois) and the foolish (ἀνοήτοις, anoētois) is not a commentary on the first pair, Greeks and barbarians, respectively, but is simply another way of talking about all humanity. There are wise people (or at least they pride themselves on having attained some degree of wisdom) and there are foolish people in all cultures and Paul is a debtor to all of them.

Since he is indebted to all men, he is very eager to preach the gospel in Rome. This does not mean that he feels there are unsaved people in the church, though the tendency for non-Christians to be a part of outdoor meetings was not uncommon. It is rather that the verb to preach (εὐαγγελίσασθαι, euaggelisasthai) sums up Paul’s entire apostolic career and fits well with the breadth of his ministry, covering other aspects such as teaching and discipleship, but nonetheless centered as it was, on proclaiming the gospel.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: Serve Christ in the Mission of the Gospel

I. By Giving Thanks for Other Christians (8-10)

A. Especially When Their Faith Is Proclaimed (8)

B. In Sincere Prayer for Them (9-10)

II. By Seeking to Encourage Other Christians (11-13a)

A. Strengthening Them Spiritually (11-12)

B. Evidencing Genuine Love for Them (13a)

III. By Understanding the Universality of the Offer of the Gospel (13b-15)

A. In Your Immediate Ministry (13b)

B. As Underlying All Mission (14-15)

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

Romans 1:8-15 contributes to systematic theology in at least two important ways, one negative and the other positive: (1) spiritual gifts; and (2) the universal offer of the gospel.

First, in 1:11 it has been contended that some Christians have the ability to give others spiritual gifts. After all, Paul said he wanted to impart a spiritual gift to the Romans. Doesn’t this mean that some Christians can also give spiritual gifts to other brothers and sisters in the faith? The answer is no, at least not according to this passage. We said in our commentary that this is true for at least two reasons: (1) spiritual gifts, like those outlined in 1 Cor 12-14, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12 are given according to the will of the Spirit, not our will; (2) the explanatory comment in 1:12 indicates that what Paul means in 1:11 is general spiritual blessing through fellowship, not spiritual gifts.

The second contribution of the passage to systematic theology is positive. It has to do with the universal offer of the gospel. We must remember that the gospel is to be preached to all men, regardless of their socio-economic station in life, education, race, or whatever. This is true because (1) God is no respector of persons; (2) all men suffer from Adam’s curse; (3) Christ’s death is sufficient for any man; (4) there is no other way of salvation, and (5) Christ has been resurrected, exalted (Rom 1:4), and now reigns over all men and will someday hold all men accountable (Acts 17:31). In short, the universal Lordship of Christ is the grounds for the universal offer of the gospel to all men, whether they be Romans, barbarians, the wise or the foolish (1:14). In keeping with Christ’s Lordship, Paul calls the proper response to the gospel, the “obedience of faith” (1:5).

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

This passage teaches us that as Christians we ought to serve God wholeheartedly as disciples of Christ. Our service should be expressed in many ways including prayer for others, encouraging others in fellowship, and seeking to promote the gospel among the saved and unsaved whenever we can.

²¹ Adapted from R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories and Quotes (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1998), 302; originally cited in R. C. Sproul, “Right Now Counts Forever,” Tabletalk, vol. 11, no. 3 (June, 1987).

²² Cf. Cranfield, Romans, I:76-77.

²³ It is not likely that all Jews had to leave the city, but perhaps, as Acts 18:1-2 indicates, some, perhaps many, did.

4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32

A. Introduction

“Two things never live up to their billing; the circus and sin.”

“It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into nothing. Murder is no better than lies if lying does the trick.”—C. S. Lewis

“The punishment of sin is sin.”—Augustine

B. Translation of Passage in NET

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them; because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling a mortal human being and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.

1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1:32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. The basis for God’s wrath against the Gentiles and the fact that they are without excuse is that they suppress the truth about God and have exchanged the glory of God for idols (1:18-23).

A. The basis for God’s wrath against the Gentiles and the fact that they are without excuse is that through their wickedness they suppress the obvious truth about God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:18-20).

1. God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all the unrighteousness and wickedness of the Gentiles (1:18).

2. The Gentiles suppress the truth about God (1:18).

3. What can be known about God has been made plain to the Gentiles (1:19).

4. Since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen through what has been made (1:20).

5. The Gentiles are without excuse (1:20).

B. The basis for God’s wrath against the Gentiles is that although they knew God, and claimed to be wise, they neither glorified him nor gave thanks to him, but instead they became futile in their thinking, darkened in their foolish heart, and exchanged the glory of God for idolatry (1:21-23).

1. The Gentiles knew God but did not glorify him or give thanks to him (1:21).

2. The Gentiles became futile in their reasonings and darkened in their foolish hearts (1:21).

3. Even though the Gentiles claimed to be wise, they became fools (1:22).

4. The Gentiles exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles (1:23).

II. The result of God’s condemnation of the Gentiles for their suppression of the truth about his eternal power and divine nature is that he has given them over to their desires for sin to the point where they are full of it and encourage others to sin as well (1:24-32).

A. The result of God’s condemnation of the Gentiles for their suppression of the truth about his eternal power and divine nature is that he has given them over to their desires for impurity to the point where they have engaged in sexual perversion and have exchanged the truth about God for a lie, including the worship of creation instead of the Creator (1:24-25).

1. God gave the Gentiles over to impurity and the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves (1:24).

2. The Gentiles exchanged the truth of God—who is forever blessed— for a lie (1:25)

a. The Gentiles worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator (1:25).

b. God is forever blessed (1:25).

B. The result of God’s condemnation of the Gentiles for their sexual perversity and idolatry was to give them over to further sexual immorality including homosexuality (1:26-27).

1. God gave the Gentiles over to dishonorable passions (1:26).

a. Gentile women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (1:26).

b. Gentile men abandoned natural relations with women and became inflamed in their passions for one another (1:27).

2. These Gentiles received in themselves the due penalty for their error (1:27).

C. The result of God’s condemnation of the Gentiles—since they judged it of no value to have God in their knowledge—was to give them over to their sin to the point where they have become full of it and encourage others to sin as well (1:28-32).

1. The Gentiles did not see fit to acknowledge God (1:28).

2. God gave the Gentiles over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done (1:28).

3. The Gentiles are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, and malice (1:29).

4. The Gentiles are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility (1:29).

5. The Gentiles are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless (1:29-31).

6. The Gentiles know that God’s righteous decree means death for those who practice such sin (1:32).

7. The Gentiles continue to practice such sin and encourage others to practice it also (1:32).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. The Basis of God’s Wrath Against the Gentiles (1:18-23)

A. The Gentiles Suppress the Knowledge of God (1:18-20)

1. God Has Made Himself Known (1:18-19)

2. God’s Eternal Power and Divine Nature Can Be Known from Creation (1:20)

3. The Gentiles Are without Excuse (1:20)

B. The Gentiles Are Idolaters (1:21-23)

1. They Do not Glorify or Thank God (1:21)

2. They Became Futile in Their Reasonings (1:21)

3. Their Foolish Hearts Are Darkened (1:21)

4. The Gentiles Exchanged the Worship of the Creator for His Creation (1:23)

II. The Results of God’s Wrath Against the Gentiles (1:24-32)

A. He Gave Them Over (1:24-25)

1. To Impurity/Dishonoring Their Bodies (1:24)

2. They Exchanged the Truth of God for A Lie (1:25)

a. They Are Idolaters (1:25)

b. God Is Forever Blessed (1:25)

B. He Gave Them Over (1:26-27)

1. To Dishonorable Passions (1:26)

a. Female Homosexuality (1:26)

b. Male Homosexuality (1:27)

2. To Receive The Due Penalty (1:27)

C. He Gave Them Over (1:28-32)

1. To Every Sort of Sin (1:28-31)

2. Yet They Know the Righteous Decree of God (1:32)

E. Exposition Proper

The section 1:18-32 is part of the larger section of material in 1:18-3:20 (cf. the teaching outline at the front of the book). The function of this material, as the for in 1:18 indicates, is to confirm that faith alone is the only means of attaining the righteousness offered in the gospel in 1:17.

This is so because all men are depraved and cannot earn God’s salvation by their own works or merit. The point of 1:18-32 is to show that the Gentiles (primarily, though not exclusively) are guilty of sin and the point of 2:1-3:8 is to show that the Jews are equally guilty. Conclusion: all are guilty before God and all are shut up to faith as the means by which they can obtain God’s salvation (3:19-20). This is the point Paul is making through the Habakkuk citation in 1:17.

This section, namely, 1:18-32, can be broken down into two smaller sections, 1:18-23 and 1:24-32. The first deals with the basis for the guilt of the Gentiles (and indeed all men by extension), the second with the consequences or results of that guilt.

1:18 With the introductory word for Paul tightly connects 1:18-32 (and 1:18-3:20) with 1:17: The section 1:18-3:20 will demonstrate the truth of 1:17, namely, that all men need the righteousness of God and that they can only obtain it through faith alone.

The wrath of God (ὀργὴ θεου`, orgē theou) refers not some irrational passion within the Godhead, but to his settled hatred for sin expressed or continually revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται, apokalu„ptetai; cf. 1:17) in his giving people over to their sinful folly (vv. 24, 26, 28). History itself testifies to this process!

There is no reason, however, to necessarily assume that the “giving over” is permanent. There is ample biblical evidence to suggest that often times the goal of God’s wrath is therapeutic (cf. Judges). In other words, God gives people over so that they will experience the ruin of their sin and call out to him for salvation. In the Gospels, it often seems that those who lived the worst kind of lives were the first to come to Christ (cf. John 4), while those who appeared to live moral lives were not interested in his offer of salvation.

God’s wrath is directed at all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of people (πάσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων), that is, their sinful transgressions against God and their corrupted behavior exhibited within human relationships. In short, all of human life is polluted with sin.

Further, people suppress (κατεχόντων, katechontōn) or hinder the truth (ἀλήθεια, alētheia) by their unrighteousness (ἀδικία, adikia). Here “unrighteousness” is not so much a general reference to the way in which they suppress the truth, but a reference to the sinful acts themselves which are used to hold the truth from one’s sight. Nothing could be more futile than to think that we can extinguish or destroy the truth through the means of sin. In the end, all we end up doing is confirming the truth.

But what truth do they suppress? Undoubtedly it refers to the truth about God, i.e., his power, authority, and the fact that we are accountable to him as Creator (1:19-20).

1:19-20 The word because (διότι, dioti) should be understood as explaining why God’s wrath is leveled against all the ungodliness of men who suppress the truth by unrighteous acts. It is because what can be known about God has been plainly revealed to them so that they are without excuse when they deny to God his existence and divine nature. In other words, God has so created man and placed him within creation that for man to deny His existence, power, and divine nature is to commit a crime worthy of punishment, even death, as Paul says in 1:32. God’s punishment is just, according to Paul, because such a denial requires the endless suppression of “mountains” of evidence to the contrary (cf. Ps 19). Such people must be living with a profound and irrational deception, to attempt to make this great exchange, that is, to attempt to deny the existence of God.

The phrase what can be known about God (τὸ γνωστὸν του` θεου`, to gnōston tou theou) is literally “the knowledge of God.” It is obvious from the whole tenor of the passage that the knowledge here is personal, but not saving knowledge of God (cf. 1:21, 32). It is probably the knowledge that God has implanted in us, connected to the Imago Dei (perhaps conscience), and which is sparked or brought to memory through the evidence of creation. Once again, the suppression of this “knowledge” invites the wrath of God for it leaves man without excuse.

1:21-23 Verses 21-23 begin with for (γάρ, dioti) and give an explanation as to why men are without excuse. Even though people knew God in terms of his existence, power, and divine nature, they did not acknowledge him, nor did they give thanks to him or for him. Rather, having suppressed the knowledge of God, they have become futile in their thoughts (ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοι~ς διαλογισμοι~ς αὐτῶν, emataiōthēsan en tois dialogimois).

The term “futile” (the verb and especially the noun) is connected to idolatry in the Greek Old Testament (LXX; 2 Sam 7:15; Jer 2:5) and this is probably the background underlying Paul’s thinking here. Therefore, to suppress the knowledge of God is to engage in the futility of idolatry. It is, in short, to give oneself to "nothing," a non-entity, since an idol is in reality "nothing."

The extent of their futility is clearly evident in that they exchange God himself for images of reptiles, four-footed animals, birds, and even human beings (v. 23). While idols can reduce the demand on a guilty conscience, they cannot save, as God repeatedly warns (Isa 41:9-10, 21-24; 44:6-23, etc.). Idolatry is the replacement of God, and true knowledge of him, with any other, de facto inferior, object of worship.

The ironic thing about all this is that people arrogantly annex for themselves the claim (φάσκοντες, phaskontes) of wisdom when they replace the worship of God who is immortal for the worship of his creation which is mortal.²⁶ In reality they have become fools ( ἐμωράνθησαν, emōranthēsan [cf. 1 Cor 1:18-25]), lovers who will not stay at home, worshippers of something less than even themselves. Is it any wonder that Paul refers to their hearts as senseless (ἀσύνετος, asunetos) and darkened (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisthē) and Isaiah calls them deluded (44:20)?

In 1:18-23 we have seen the basis for God's wrath on the Gentiles and any other person who acts accordingly. In short, people suppress the obvious knowledge of God in creation—a fact which places them under his wrath. In 1:24-32 we will see how he has carried out his wrath against people who suppress his existence, power, and divine nature.

1:24-25 The expression God gave them (παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός, paredōken autous ho theos) over means that the process envisioned in 1:18-32 is not simply the natural course of events but an ongoing history directed by a sovereign God who makes decisions which affect people, societies, and cultures. The thought is truly a frightful one. It is reminiscent of Pharaoh turning his back on God and in turn having his heart judicially hardened by YHWH (Exod 9:16; cf. Rom 9:17).

Though there is no mention of fire and brimstone at this point in Romans, there is a process underway that is not altogether distinct from hell. If people really want their sinful lifestyles, then the awesome reality is God will give them over to it. As C. S. Lewis as aptly remarked, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in hell chose it.” The point is, that although Paul is not talking about hell here, and indeed there is still hope for these people, there is nonetheless a continuum between their present existence and their future plight. If a person really wants God out of their thoughts, as these people most definitely do, Love has decided to provide a place in the end where they can choose to go and never have to think about him again.

There comes a time in the divine mind when people, who revel in the sinful desires of their hearts, are to be handed over to their desire for impurity, in particular, to the dishonoring (του` ἀτιμάζεσθαι) of their bodies with one another. One should not miss the ideological connection here between the Gentiles’ idolatry and sexual sin—a connection which was commonly made in the Judaism of Paul’s day.

Wisdom of Solomon 14:12-14 reads: 12For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life; 13 for they did not exist from the beginning, nor will they last forever. 14 For through human vanity they entered the world, and therefore their speedy end has been planned (NRSV).

Though there is no explicit grammatical tie with verse 24, verse 25 makes it clear that sexual perversion is closely linked with idolatry. People have exchanged (μετήλλαξαν, metēllaxan) the truth about God’s existence and glory for the lie that he neither exists nor merits worship. Indeed, the irony of the whole thing is that they give religious worship and service to this lie (τ῅ ψεύδει, tō pseudei) when they give themselves to idolatry—the worship of the creation rather than the Creator. For idolatry is not just the worship of useless idols, it is the express proclamation that the biblical God does not exist. Such a thought is so abhorrent to Paul that he finds it necessary to invoke a blessing on God: “God is forever blessed!”

1:26-27 Paul repeats his refrain: God gave them over… to their dishonorable passions (πάθη ἀτιμίας, pathē atimias). God gave them over to go against the created order and design. The thought of such judgment is horrifying since the people are totally unaware of it.

And again, there is the centrality of sexual sin, though this time homosexuality, which was rampant and honored in Greco-Roman culture, is particularly singled out: their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones and likewise the men (αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες, hai te gar thēleiai autōn metēllaxan tēn phusikēn chrēsin eis tēn para phusin, homoiōs te kai hoi arsenes).

The concept of “exchanging” links verse 26 with verse 25 and verse 23 where the same idea is found. People could not stomach the truth about God so they sought to exchange it for a lie in order to accommodate their sinful desires and lifestyles. Note: The reason women are mentioned first is difficult to say for certain, though it is unlikely to have any connection to Genesis 3 and the fact that Eve sinned first. It may be that they are placed up front for emphasis, since Paul was more shocked that woman, the more modest of the sexes, should also engage in homosexuality. This, however, is simply conjecture.

The expression inflamed in their passions (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν, exekauthēsan en tē orexei autōn) is a strong expression that once having left the proper course given in the created order, men “burned with intense desire” to be sexually involved with other men in shameless acts. One cannot help but think of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who burned with passion to have sex with Lot’s two guests (Genesis 19:1-11).²⁷

But there are consequences for such perversion. Paul says they received in themselves the due penalty for their error (τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοι`ς ἀπολαμβάνοντες, tēn antimisthian hēn edei tēs planēs autōn en heautois apolambanontes). God could not simply allow man to suppress the knowledge of him and attempt to replace it with idolatrous notions and sexual immorality. There must be punishment for such actions. The penalty, then, for such error or wandering from God, was to give men and women over increasingly to the experience of their own unsatisfying lusts. The experience of internal torment and futility which results is agonizing, and if repentance is not sought, the end is disastrous.

1:28 Continuing on, Paul says that just as people did not see fit to acknowledge God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things that are not fitting. The expression to see fit to acknowledge God is literally “they did not approve to have God in [their] knowledge.” The word approve (ἐδοκίμασαν, edokimasan) means “to test,” “to examine,” “to come to a conclusion based on evidence.” And the idea of knowledge (ἐπιγνώσις, epignōsis) always means “moral or religious knowledge” in the NT. The point Paul is making, then, is this: Men and women tested the idea of God and having concluded that he would destroy their freedom (after all, he is the powerful Creator who has a legitimate claim on all his creation) made the conscious choice to dispel him from their thinking. But since we are instinctively religious we cannot go from God to nothing, for that would be impossible, but instead from God to idols. At least the latter makes no moral demands on one’s conscience and life.

But guess what? People may have disapproved of God, but he has disapproved of them. Paul’s play on words is rich. He says that God gave us over to a depraved mind (ἀδόκιμον νου`ν, adokimon noun), literally, an “unapproved” mind, in order to do things that are not fitting, i.e., things not in accord with the will of God expressed in the created order. Such is the divine response to rejection. We disapprove of God in our thoughts, so he gives us over to disapproved thinking!

1:29-31 Lists of moral vices were common in secular moral writings of Paul’s day and even in the NT. Paul’s list, however, has sufficient differences from Greek or even Jewish sources²⁸ to show that he is not simply taking over uncritically the lists of other ethical systems. There is assonance among some members in the list which tends to support the thesis that the order is not that important.²⁹

The list itself, however, can be broken down into three distinct, yet related sections. The first section begins with the graphic statement, they are filled (πεπληρωμένους, peplērōmenous) followed by four nouns describing that with which the people are filled. The use of the verb “filled” with the adjective “all” suggests that the condition of these people is deplorable and worthy of the most severe judgment. Indeed, it is, but we must remember that it is to these people that the offer of salvation in the gospel is extended: For all have sinned and are justified freely… (3:23-25).

The term unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ, adikia) is the same term Paul used twice in 1:18. The fact that it heads up the list of vices shows it’s broad field of meaning and is probably intended by the apostle to remind the reader that the unrighteous condition of men is due to their suppression of the truth about God (1:18). The term wickedness (πονηρίᾳ, ponēria) means “baseness” or “maliciousness.” Covetousness (πλεονεξίᾳ, pleonexia) means “avarice” or “greediness,” i.e., never being satisfied with what one has. It is a direct indictment regarding God’s ability to provide for his creation. The term malice (κακίᾳ, kakia) means “to have ill-will toward someone,” “to be full of vice.”

In the second section Paul continues by saying that people are rife, i.e., brimming with envy (φθόνου), murder (φόνου), strife (ἔριδος), deceit (δόλου), hostility (κακοηθείας, kakoētheias).

There are twelve nouns in the third section of the list. People are gossips (ψιθυριστὰς, psithuristas) who attempt to destroy others by undermining reputations. Similar to this is the idea of slander (καταλάλους, katalalous). It means to speak evil of someone. Further, they are haters of God (θεοστυγει~ς, theostugeis) as evidenced particularly in their suppression of the truth about his existence, their moral baseness, and their passion for idolatry. The term insolent (ὑβριστὰς, hubristas) may refer to more than impertinently insulting others of lower economic or social station in life, but can involve a measure of violence as well. The term arrogant (ὑπερηφάνους, huperēphanous) is used only in an unfavorable sense in Greek literature and refers to a haughty spirit, to the one who must always show (him)herself above others. The following term, boastful (ἀλαζόνας, alazonas) conjures up similar thoughts as well. These people go beyond the normal sins for they are contrivers of all sorts of evil (ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, epheupetas kakōn). They are able to invent ways of doing evil against God and particularly against their neighbor. They are disobedient to their parents (γονευ~σιν ἀπειθει~ς, goneusin apeitheis)—once again balking the created order. They are senseless (ἀσυνέτους, asunetous), that is, without moral understanding in keeping with truth, justice, and due regret for the heinous nature of their abominable thoughts and acts. The Greek term for covenant-breakers (ἀσυνθέτους, asunthetous) is used in the Greek OT of those who are treacherous with regard to God’s covenant. That is, they are unfaithful to him and to his covenant people (cf. Jer 3:7-13 LXX).³⁰ Further, they are heartless (ἀστόργους, astorgous), i.e., having no natural affection for others even within their own family. They are also ruthless (ἀνελεήμονας, aneleēmonas), i.e., completely devoid of any mercy.

1:32 In conclusion, Paul says one more word of condemnation. He says that even though people know such moral vices are wrong, they not only practice them, but congratulate others who do so also. Paul is not saying that encouraging others to sin is necessarily worse than committing the sins themselves. Instead, he seems to be arguing that we are as equally bent on damning ourselves as we are on delivering other people to damnation (cf. Calvin). The knowledge Paul is referring to here is undoubtedly that to which he has already forcefully made reference in 1:19, 20, 21, and 28. People know via their conscience—which itself is sparked through God’s creation—that such sinful behavior will result in ultimate punishment. But, says Paul, even though they know this firm decision of God, i.e., his immutable decree (δικαίωμα, dikaiōma) to punish sin, they continue in it nonetheless. The knowledge of this decree is not through the Mosaic Law—although that involves a particular instantiation of it—but rather through God’s truth implanted in the conscience (cf. Rom 2:14-15). We must remember that the Gentiles were without the revelation of the law. Therefore, Paul must have in mind here the universal revelation in conscience and the imago dei. Such revelation is certainly enough to condemn, although it is not enough to save.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: How Does God Judge Mankind’s Sin? He Gives Them Over. But first…

I. Why Does God Judge People? (1:18-23)

A. They Suppress the Knowledge of God (1:18-20)

1. God Has Made Himself Known (1:18-19)

2. God’s Eternal Power and Divine Nature Can Be Known from Creation (1:20)

3. They Are without Excuse (1:20)

B. They Are Idolaters (1:21-23)

1. They Do not Glorify or Thank God (1:21)

2. They Have Became Futile in Their Reasonings (1:21)

3. Their Foolish Hearts Are Darkened (1:21)

4. They Exchange the Worship of the Creator for His Creation (1:23)

II. How Does God Judge People (1:24-32)?

A. He Gives Them Over (1:24-25)

1. To Impurity/Dishonoring Their Bodies (1:24)

2. They Exchange the Truth of God for A Lie (1:25)

a. They Are Idolaters (1:25)

b. God Is Forever Blessed (1:25)

B. He Gives Them Over (1:26-27)

1. To Dishonorable Passions (1:26)

a. Female Homosexuality (1:26)

b. Male Homosexuality (1:27)

2. To Receive The Due Penalty (1:27)

C. He Gives Them Over (1:28-32)

1. To Every Sort of Sin (1:28-31)

2. Yet They Know the Righteous Decree of God (1:32)

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

This passage contributes in numerous ways to systematic theology. First, our understanding of bibliology or more specifically, revelation (i.e., the study of how God makes himself known) is greatly enhanced by this passage. Here in Romans 1:18-20 Paul does not appeal to inscripturated truth per se (i.e., truth revealed in the pages of the OT), but rather to the continual revelation of God in and through creation and in his wrath against sin. For Paul both of these continually reveal the character of God. The creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature and God’s wrath against sin reveals his holiness and justice. The reader is encouraged to consult texts on systematic theology to get a better understanding of the discussion surrounding this passage and the whole idea of general revelation.³¹

Second, this passage also has much to say about personal and corporate sin and contributes greatly to the study of sin, sometimes called hamartiology (Greek, hamartia, “sin”). In reading this passage, bear in mind that Paul is speaking to Christians, whereas when he peaches to the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17:16-34 he packages—but doesn't "water down"—the truth of human sinfulness in a little different language.

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

The passage is valuable for doing apologetics, that is, the mission of the church in correctly explaining, defending, and applying biblical truth to/for believers and unbelievers in particular. Doing apologetics well presupposes many things, including a proper understanding of man’s problem.

So then, let us talk, first of all, about man’s problem with God and His existence. We must say, up front, however, that the problem cannot be a lack of information, for the heavens proclaim one continuous, never-ending message about God’s existence and aspects of his nature (cf. Ps 19:1-6). The problem, rather, is rebellion. Unbelievers suppress the knowledge of God and have turned to idolatry in one or more of its varied manifestations. This means that unbelievers are not “neutral” in their orientation toward life and God. Indeed, they maintain a bias against God.

Some scholars argue, however, that we as Christian apologists can argue with non-Christians as if they were coming at the question of God from a “view from nowhere” or “neutrality.” They say or assume that we can discuss with the non-Christian from a place of neutrality to the existence of God, as if God were not a priori, but can be found neutrally at the end of a syllogism.³² Based on Romans 1:21, 28, and 32, this is surely mistaken. Unbelievers, no matter what their claim, do not approach the question of God neutrally, as if all they needed were more information (cf. Ps 19:1-6). Paul argues that we already know God (in some positive sense; see commentary) and this creates a fundamental and incurable positioning of all our “knowing,” on the one hand, and decisively figures our orientation to the world (i.e., “we suppress the truth about God”), on the other. Thus, as Christians, we reason with non-Christians from (not to) the existence of God to their memory and acceptance of this truth, using evidence and argument as appropriate—and, of course, relying on the Holy Spirit to enlighten them. Without the personal convicting, drawing, and regenerating work of the Spirit, no person will overcome their inherent sin and turn to Christ.

²⁶ Notice the irony in Paul’s use of immortal (ἀφθάρτου) and mortal (φθαρτου`).

²⁷ The verb used in the LXX means "to have sex with," but the fact that they passed up Lot’s two daughters and instead demanded to have sex with the two angelic men reminds one of the very thing Paul is saying here in Romans 1:27.

²⁸ Cf. Philo The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 22; 32.

²⁹ See Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, ed. Kenneth Barker (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 112-113.

³⁰ The noun “unfaithful” (ἀσυνθετος, asunthetos) occurs four times in Jer 3:7, 8, 10, 11. Cf. Ps 72:15: 77:57; 118:158 where the cognate verb ἀσυνθετει~ν occurs. Notice too the connection between idolatry and sexual immorality in these passages and that these sins strike at the very heart of God’s covenant with his people.

³¹ See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

³² We note the modernistic, naive assumptions about the process of human knowing involved in the use of evidence in some forms of evidentialism. To be sure, some very good Christian apologists have argued that non-Christians can reason neutrally, but we think that this presupposition creates serious problems with Paul’s description of humanity in Romans 1:18-32 and underestimates the noetic effects of sin. Further, to argue that Romans 1:21 does not apply to atheists since Paul was most likely speaking to polytheists is to miss the point that the ultimate, logical outcome of the “suppression of the truth about God” is indeed atheism. Thus the atheist cannot escape Paul’s indictment. Besides, the revelation of God through nature is a universal revelation, given to all men, and all are held accountable for it. The conclusion in 3:19-20 is that all men are sinful and accountable to God.

5. Study and Exposition of Romans 2:1-16

A. Introduction

Someone has once quipped that the definition of a jury is: “twelve people chosen to decide who has the best lawyer.” With the current state of litigation in America, it’s no wonder that people are openly skeptical about truth and justice in our law courts. Indeed, the problem with justice is that it appears to be no longer admissible in our practice of law.

There is coming a day, however, when things will be different—radically different. It is a day Paul refers to in Romans 2:16 when God will judge men. There will be no need for lawyers; God does not need to listen to crooked defense strategies. There will be no need for remembering what actually happened; God is omniscient and omnipresent. He knows what happened better than we do; indeed he was there when the deeds were done. There will be no need to attempt to discern whether someone is actually telling the truth or not; again, God knows all things. In short, it will be a perfect situation: a holy judge who cannot lie or sin, be bought off or corrupted in any way. He will possess complete knowledge of all mitigating factors and circumstances and his verdict will be just with no opportunity for appeal. Indeed, there can be no appeal, for there is no higher court. It will be a radically different day, for an omnipotent, omniscient, and holy judge will take the stand and settle issues once and for all. The question surfaces, then, “on what basis does God judge people.” Paul provides an answer in Romans 2:1-16: God judges people impartially, according to their works and the truth. Let's take a deeper look now.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 2:3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 2:4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed! 2:6 He will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness. 2:9 There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek. 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. 2:12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. 2:14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. Jews who judge Gentiles hypocritically, thus despising God’s mercy, will themselves be judged by God impartially according to truth and their works (2:1-11).

A. Jews who judge Gentiles hypocritically are without excuse since they practice the same sins and will also be judged by God in accordance with the truth (2:1-4)

1. The Jews are without excuse when they judge Gentiles because they practice the same sins (2:1).

2. Paul and other Jews know that the judgment of God is according to the truth (2:2).

3. Jewish hypocrites will not escape God’s judgment (2:3).

4. Some Jews show contempt for God's kindness, etc. not realizing that his kindness leads them to repentance (2:4).

B. That God’s judgment is impartial is seen in that both Jew and Gentile have law and that both are judged on the same basis, i.e., works (2:5-11).

1. Jews who are hard-hearted and unrepentant are storing up wrath for themselves—a wrath they will receive on the day of God’s righteous judgment (2:5).

2. God will reward each one according to his works (2:6)

3. There will be eternal life for those who by perseverance in good works seek glory, honor, and immortality (2:7).

4. There will be wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth, but follow unrighteousness (2:8).

5. There will be affliction and distress for those who do evil, and glory, honor, peace, for everyone who does good (2:9-10).

6. God is impartial (2:11).

II. God’s impartiality in judgment is seen in that both Jew and Gentile alike are to be judged equally and fairly (2:12-16).

A. The fact that God is impartial is demonstrated in the manner of his judgment: those who sin apart from the law will be judged apart from the law and those who sin under the law will be judged by the law and only those who do the law will be declared righteous (2:12-13).

1. All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law (2:12).

2. All who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the law (2:12).

3. Those who hear the law are not righteous before God (2:13).

4. Those who do the law will be declared righteous (2:13).

B. The fact that God judges the Gentiles, not based on the Law of Moses which they did not have, but on the law of the conscience written on their hearts, demonstrates that he is indeed impartial (2:14-16).

1. The Gentiles are a law to themselves in that although they do not have the Mosaic law, they nonetheless do by nature things required in the law (2:14).

2. The Gentiles show that the work of the law is written in their hearts and their consciences bear witness (2:15).

3. Their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them (2:15).

4. According to Paul’s gospel, there will come a day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ (2:16).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. Jews Will Not Escape God’s Judgment (2:1-11)

A. God Judges according to the Truth (2:1-4)

B. God Judges according to Works (2:5-11)

II. Jew and Gentile Alike Will Be Judged Equally and Fairly (2:12-16)

A. The Basic Principle of Impartiality (2:12-13)

B. The Application to the Gentiles and All Men (2:14-16)

E. Exposition Proper

Romans 2:1-16 is a powerful passage about the nature of God’s justice. That much—and more—is quite clear. But the passage is not without its interpretive difficulties. One such difficulty worth discussing here involves the question of to whom the passage is directed. Some have argued that the principal referent for the passage is the moral Gentile who has not sinned like other Gentiles in the ways Paul has outlined in 1:18-32. Paul wants to have a word with this “moral person” before he moves on to speak to the Jews in 2:17-3:8. The primary arguments for this position are: (1) the for (γάρ, gar) makes good sense if Gentiles are still in view in 2:1-16, and (2) Jews are not explicitly mentioned until 2:17; (3) the Jews did not practice the same sins as the Gentiles so Gentiles must be in view in 2:1.

While this is certainly a reasonable option, it is not the best one. There are many indications in the passage that suggest that Jews are in view: (1) “passing judgment on someone else” is particularly a Jewish habit practiced against the Gentiles; (2) Paul says “we know” which indicates that he and his fellow Jews are in mind since the Gentiles do not know that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth (2:2); (3) showing contempt for the riches of his kindness, etc. is particularly relevant if Jews are in mind since they knew about these truths (i.e., from the abundant witness in the OT; [2:4]); (4) The Jews, not the Gentiles, knew that God’s kindness does not mean weakness, but is intended to lead men to repentance (2:4); (5) the mention of the Jews in 2:17 is abrupt if they are not already intended in 2:1-16; (6) the “for” in 2:1 reads quite well when Jews are in view (see exposition); (7) Romans 2:1-16 may be based on texts like Wisdom of Solomon 11-15 which would indicate that the Jew is the specific target of the passage; (8) the Jews were indeed guilty of some of the same sins as the Gentiles (2:1, 21-24); (9) The manner in which Paul mentions the Jews in 2:17 indicates that they have been in view all along. The reason he waits to mention them explicitly in 2:17 is to prevent them from reacting negatively too quickly, closing him off, and refusing his indictments in 2:1-16. It will begin to dawn on them throughout the passage that they are in view, but this point will be brought home, without doubt, in 2:17ff.

2:1-4 The Jew who judges Gentiles has no excuse because at the same point at which he judges another he condemns himself. Why? Well, when he judges, he admits that such behavior is wrong, and worthy of just punishment from God, yet he himself knowingly commits the same sins.

Paul’s point is that since God’s judgment is based on truth and not on any fudging of the grades for the sake of the “chosen” crowd, the Jew is equally held accountable to God. Jews cannot condemn others for their sins when they practice the same ones. The Jew of Paul’s day knew and approved of the fact that God’s judgement is in accordance with the truth, yet he failed to apply it to himself because, in his zealous criticism of overt Gentile sin, he failed to similarly apply God’s revealed standard to his own life. Paul says that God’s impartial judgment extends to the covenant people as well. When it comes to God’s judgment against sin, we must all examine our lives, for we have a tendency to throw the first stone, all the while conveniently forgetting that we all live in glass houses.

But how then, specifically, does the term therefore (γάρ, gar) in 2:1 relate to what has come before in 1:18-32? We have already argued that 2:1-16 as a whole speaks firstly and primarily to the Jew. But if this is the case, then how does Gentile sin mentioned in 1:29-31 stand as the basis (implied in the “therefore”) for the condemnation of the Jew in 2:1ff? There have been many suggestions.

As we already mentioned, there are those who argue that this fact alone suggests that Jews are not in mind in 2:1ff, but rather Gentiles. Again, we point out that there is simply too much evidence in 2:1-16 that fits the Jew better. Also, the absence of any specific reference to the Jew in 2:1-16 is not difficult to account for.

On the other hand, some argue that perhaps the best way to view the connection is according to what both the Gentiles and Jews have in common, that is, knowledge of God, albeit in different, yet similar ways. Thus the term “therefore” in 2:1 is linked particularly, though not exclusively, with the term “know” in 1:32. The point Paul is making, then, can be put as follows: if the Gentile knows “God’s righteous decree,” then a fortiori the Jew should know it even better; “therefore” he is guilty as well. (The Gentile only had the revelation of God in nature and conscience, but the Jew had the added benefit of the clarifying revelation in the law of God [cf. vv. 12-13]). While this view is attractive in certain respects, Paul’s point in 2:1 and following is not what Jews and Gentiles have in common, per se, that makes them culpable, but rather that God’s judgment is fair and equitable and as such will be applied to all without discrimination. The issue is God’s justice in respect to all men, including the Jew.

Therefore, the best way to understand the connection between 2:1ff to 1:18-32 (esp. 1:29-31), is not according to what the Gentile and the Jew respectively know, but according to what the Jews’ response to God’s judgment of the Gentile reveals. That is, when the Jew heartily agrees with God’s judgment of the Gentile, and when he too condemns the Gentile, he reveals that he believes that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth. The problem is, however, that he somehow thinks he is exempt from God's judgement which will be meted out according to the same truth. Thus he thinks that when he commits the same sins he will somehow escape the judgment of God!

There was a common belief among Jews in Paul’s day (though certainly not all Jews were guilty of this) that they were somehow better than the Gentiles and that God would not equally judge them for their sin. Perhaps the best passage in Jewish writings outside the OT where this is exemplified—and may be a text Paul has in mind here in Romans 2:1-16—is Wisdom of Solomon 11-15, and in particular 15:1-6:

But you, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. 2 For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours. 3 For to know you is complete righteousness, and to know your power is the root of immortality. 4 For neither has the evil intent of human art misled us, nor the fruitless toil of painters, a figure stained with varied colors, 5 whose appearance arouses yearning in fools, so that they desire the lifeless form of a dead image. 6 Lovers of evil things and fit for such objects of hope are those who either make or desire or worship them (NRSV; italics mine).

The point Paul wants to make in 2:4 is that the Jew who thinks he can sin and escape the judgment of God because he has a particular relationship with God—a relationship that the Gentile who was without the Law did not have—is sadly mistaken. This kind of Jew demonstrates contempt for the wealth of God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience and does not realize the true intent of God’s patience; God’s patience and forbearance do not imply that God is weak, but rather they are expressions of his chosen method for dealing with sinners in order to lead them to repentance (μετάνοιαν, metanoian). Holding God’s kindness in contempt is a very serious posture to advance against God and can only lead to divine wrath and anger.

2:5 An attitude of contempt for the kindness, forbearance, and patience of God can only be described as stubbornness (σκληρότητα, sklērotēta), the spiritually insensitive, hard-hearted refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth—an attitude which has dire consequences (cf. Deut 9:27; 10:16; Jer 4:4; Amos 6:8). Further, the person who continues in this posture is unrepentant (ἀμετανόητον) and is ironically storing up (θησαυρίζεις, thēsaurizeis)—not treasure, as one would expect with the expression “storing up” (Matt 6:19-20)—but wrath (ὀργή, orgē). Indeed, such wrath is being stored up for that final day when God’s righteous judgment (δικαιοκρισίας, dikaiokrisias) will be revealed. At the present time, a hypocritical person may seem to escape judgment, but a day of reckoning will come when God’s just judgment will be made manifest to all.

2:6 The manner of God’s righteous judgment will be to reward (ἀποδώσει, apodōsei) each one according his works (cf. Ps 62:12; Prov. 24:12 LXX). Thus Paul shows complete continuity with the Old Testament on the manner of God’s judgment, but speaks of the judgment as futuristic (cf. Hos 12:2; Matt 16:27; 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 4:14).

2:7-11 In vv. 7-8 Paul shows how the principle of God’s judgment finds its way among two classes of people. God will give eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον, zōēn aiōnion) to those who by perseverance in good works (ἔργου, ergou) seek glory, honor, and immortality. To those, on the other hand, who are characterized as having selfish ambition (ἐριθείας, eritheias), that is, who do not obey the truth (ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, apeithousi tē alhtheia) but follow unrighteousness (πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, peithomenois de tē adikia), God will pour out anger and wrath (ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός, orgē kai thumos).

Paul carries on with the same thought in 2:9-10, only here he treats the two groups in the opposite order beginning first with the disobedient. He says that there will be affliction (θλι~ψις, thlipsis) and distress (στενοχωρία, stenochōria) on everyone who does evil. There is coming a time when human evil will be dealt with and no one will escape the judgment; no one will get away with evil (τὸ κακόν, to kakon). All will receive affliction because of their evil and they will suffer the distress that comes from being so afflicted (cf. 2 Thess 1:8-9). On the other hand, glory, honor and peace will be given to everyone who does good (τὸ ἀγαθόν, to agathon).

Thus 2:7-10 evidences a universality and equality in the judgment of God; all will receive according to their deeds. There is, nonetheless, an order to the judgment; it is to the Jew first and then to the Greek. But the order is not just chronological in that the Jews were first in salvation-history to receive the gospel and therefore they should be judged first. There is also a logical priority put upon the Jews. Since they did receive the gospel ahead of the Gentiles, they will be judged ahead of the Gentiles. The reason this is so is because there is no partiality (προσωπολημψία, prosōpolēmpsia) with God (Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; James 2:1). The Jews may have thought that they were the first to receive salvation and the last to receive judgment, but that would make God partial and unjust.

We must also comment briefly on the theology of these verses. At first glance it appears that Paul is referring to any non-Christian and affirming that if they're good enough—as demonstrated by their works—they will be saved. In fact, he has been so interpreted by various commentators. The problem with this view is that it throws Paul into hopeless confusion within himself (cf. Eph 2:8-9), even in Romans itself, and results in a “council of despair.” For in the conclusion of 1:18-3:8, that is, in 3:9-20, Paul emphatically denies that anyone can be saved by their works. It is better to seek another solution.

Others argue that good works (v. 7) means “faith” and that the reference is to the Jew or Gentile who has faith. The problem with this view is that Paul does not use work (ἔργον, ergon) in this way, but instead often draws a sharp antithesis between faith and works (cf. 4:6).

It has been suggested that 2:7-11 refers to a purely hypothetical situation which would have been the case had God’s saving work in Christ not come to expression in history. In other words, had Christ not come, people would have been saved on the basis of their works. There are at least three very obvious problems with this view: (1) that the situation is not hypothetical is clear from the fact that Paul is referring to living Jews who are storing up wrath against themselves because of their unrepentant hearts; (2) the Jew-Gentile order of judgment precludes God’s revelation in the gospel having been already given in history; and (3) Jews were never saved in the OT on the basis of works. This is the heart of Paul’s argument in chapter 4:1-25.

Further, some scholars argue that what Paul means by good works is the evidence of true faith in God whereas those who do evil are self-seeking (not God-seeking) and thus have no faith in God. Their lives evidence no trust in God. In short, the works Paul talks about are simply the evidence of faith or the lack thereof.

Finally, other commentators suggest that what Paul is referring to is the true condition for eternal life—a condition he will demonstrate (by the end of 3:20) that no human being can fulfill. Thus the true condition for eternal life, the very demand of the Law of God, is to produce the good without ceasing and without failure in the outcome, ever. Of course, no one can fulfill the demand.

The last two solutions are the best: (1) they adequately explain the passage internally; (2) they do not put Paul at odds with himself, either in Romans or throughout his writings; (3) they concur with broader NT ideas about the distinct, yet close relationship of faith and works in salvation and judgment (Matt 7:15-27; Gal 5:6, 19-21; 6:7-10; James 2:14-26). To decide, however, between the two, is not easy. In the end, however, we must remember that it is not exactly Paul’s purpose at this point in Romans to discuss how one is saved, but rather to point out the nature of God's absolute justice in his method of judgement. That seems to be his point in 2:1-16.

2:12-13 In vv. 12-13 Paul explains the implications of v. 11 where he said that there is no partiality with God. Since this is true, the Gentile will not be judged by the law, but will perish apart from the law, whereas the Jew who had the law of Moses will be condemned by that law. Thus vv. 12-13 prefigure what the apostle will say in 3:9-20, namely, that all are guilty and will be punished according to God's justice.

But the Jew should not think that just because he was given the law that he is necessarily exempt from judgment, for it is not the one who has repeatedly heard the law read and taught on the Sabbath who is righteous, but only those who do the law will be declared righteous (δικαιωθήσονται, dikaiōthēsontai). To be “declared righteous” does not mean “to make righteous,” but rather to be given a righteous standing before God even though one is still a sinner (5:1). It is only those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Paul could either mean that their obedience is evidence of justifying faith or hypothetically if a person could obey the law perfectly he would be declared righteous. If the latter is the idea, that person does not exist, as 2:17-29 makes plain (cf. also 3:9-20).

2:14-15 The reference to Gentiles (ἔθνη, ethnē) points not to Gentiles who are Christians, but rather to Gentiles as people without the Mosaic law (and by implication unsaved). If this identification is true, the for (γάρ, gar) connecting v. 14 with v. 13 really connects the thoughts of v. 14 with v. 12a. Thus vv. 14-15 are an explanation of why the Gentile without the law perishes. It is because he does have a law which shows that he is guilty.

The Gentiles do by nature (φύσει, phusei) the things required by the law. In the Greek text the term translated “by nature” could go with “who do not have the law” or with the following phrase “do the things required by the law.” Paul uses the word to refer to Gentiles who do not have the law by virtue of their birth (cf. Rom 2:27; Gal 2:15; Eph 2:3) and so it is often assumed that the first interpretation is what is meant here: Gentiles by nature—because they grew up Gentiles and not Jews—do not have the law of Moses.

But Paul has talked about Gentiles possessing knowledge of God in 1:21 and in 2:15 he talks about them having the work of God written on their hearts. Because of this, and the fact that “by nature” can refer to inward realities (Gal 4:8), it seems best to take it with “do the things required by the law.” That is, there are times (cf. the whenever) “when the Gentiles by virtue of their nature do things required by the law.” Paul must be referring in some sense to the image of God in all men vis-à-vis their connection to Adam. The expression they are a law to themselves is another way of saying that the demands of the moral law are written within a man.

Some argue that the expression work of the law written on their heart (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, to ergon tou nomou grapton en tais kardias autōn) recalls the prophecy in Jer 31:33 and that the Gentiles Paul has in mind here are Christians. But while Gentile Christians do share in the new covenant of Jeremiah they can hardly be said to be a law to themselves. Also, the negative tone of the passage and the final clause of v. 15 indicate that Christians are not in view. Again, we return to our earlier stated thesis that Gentile non-Christians are in mind here, i.e., people who are unsaved and do not have the Mosaic Law. The context, it must be remembered, is not about salvation, but about the method of God’s righteous judgment: the Jew by the Mosaic Law and the Gentile by another law, namely, that which God implanted within him to which his conscience bears witness.

The expression “work of the law” can be understood as the work which the law requires that we do. Our conscience (συνειδήσις, suneidēsis) bears witness to those works (attitudes and acts) which we know to be the necessary and right demands of the law, but is not to be identified with them.

Further, Paul says, when our conscience is not at peace, it is engaged in a conflict: it will either accuse (κατηγορούντων, katēgorountōn) or defend (ἀπολογουμένων, apologoumenōn) us. Thus the bottom line is secure: we are spiritually and morally responsible beings. No amount of denial can change this fact. For this reason, Paul says, the Gentile is held accountable before God, just as the Jew is for what he knows. The ultimate day of accountability will come when God finally judges men.

2:16 Unfolding the precise connection of v. 16 with v. 15 or any other part of 2:1-15 is difficult to say the least. Some scholars minimize the future aspects of v. 16 in order connect it closely with v. 15. The problem with this is that “on the day” in v. 16 seems to be a future reference to final judgment. Others say that the “accusing and defending” of v. 15 refers to a future event when Gentiles stand at the judgment before God. But this seems to deny the fact that Gentiles possess a conscience now and the accusing and defending is going on now. It is precisely this rebellion against God’s moral law written on the heart that becomes the basis of their judgment in the future. There are those who argue that vv. 14-15 are parenthetical and v. 16 runs smoothly with v. 13 (see NIV). But to make so much material parenthetical to the point being argued (i.e., God’s righteous judgment) is questionable at best. Perhaps the best way to see the connection is to understand v. 16 as the culmination of a process already in motion. The point is this: the attempt to “accuse and defend” will be brought into broad daylight on the day when God judges the secrets (τὰ κρυπτά, ta krupta) of men. That God will judge men’s secrets is in keeping with the fact sin is often related to the conscience, i.e., the inward and hidden moral reasoning of a man (cf. Heb 4:13). That this judgment will take place, and that Jesus will be the judge, is in keeping with the gospel which Paul preached.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: Understand How God Judges!

I. Understand that God’s Judgment Will Be according to His Truth and Our Works (2:1-11)

A. His Truth and Hypocrisy (2:1-4)

B. His Impartiality and Our Works (2:5-11)

II. Understand that God’s Judgment is Impartial (2:12-16)

A. All Will Be Judged according to the Proper Basis (2:12-13)

1. Those without the Law (2:12a)

2. Those with the Law (2:12b)

3. The Basis of Judgment (2:13)

B. The Proper Basis for the Gentile: The Moral Law (2:14-15)

C. The Time of God’s Judgment (2:16)

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

The passage contributes to our understanding of God, man, and the final judgment. First, we learn from this passage that God’s character is holy and that his justice is equally applied to all men. He judges in accordance with truth and impartiality.

Second, this passage helps us with our anthropology by its reference to the “conscience.” The term conscience is used about thirty times in the NT, but this is one of the clearest uses with regard to a detailed description of how it functions. Man’s conscience responds positively or negatively to the moral law written on his heart and his current experience of this phenomenon testifies to the fact that he is responsible to God.

Third, this passage teaches that there will be a final day of judgment and that men will be judged according to their deeds (cf. Acts 17:31).

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

There are perhaps many applications which flow from this passage. We will discuss only one. Paul’s comment about the law written on our hearts and the function of the conscience has value for apologetics and helping people understand that they are accountable to an ultimate law-giver. The fact that all people appeal to moral law suggests that there is a moral lawgiver. We are not saying that all people’s morals are the same, rather we are talking about the fact of morality. This, no one can deny. And, it is hard to account for morality (the “oughtness” of moral decisions) from chance, evolution, or any non-personal source.

6. Study and Exposition of Romans 2:17-29

A. Introduction

Hypocrisy—carefully presenting one appearance on the outside, while clinging to another on the inside—is declared by Jesus to be like a white washed tomb. Such houses for the dead look great, however, even impressive on the outside, but… and you know how the rest of that goes (cf. Matt 23:27). Two stories illustrate well the nature of hypocrisy and the pain that comes with it.

The first is related by Stuart Briscoe. He tells the story of the time he was in business and had to deal with a coworker who had embezzled a large sum of money from the bank for which they both worked. The reason for the embezzlement was that he had two wives and families and was trying to run two homes. When he was apprehended and fired, he stunned everyone by saying, “I am very sorry for what I have done, and I need to know whether I should fulfill my preaching commitments on Sunday in our local church!” Briscoe says that in the following weeks he spent much time mending the damage done by the man’s inconsistency. To Briscoe’s chagrin, he found that his fellow workers not only despised the man but also “were quick to dismiss the church he belonged to as a ‘bunch of hypocrites,’ the gospel he professed to believe as a ‘lot of hogwash,’ and the God he claimed to serve as ‘nonexistent.’”³³

The second story involves a saloon keeper who sold his tavern to a local church. The members tore out the bar, added some lights, gave the whole pale a fresh new coat of pain, and installed some pews. Somehow a parrot which belonged to the saloon keeper was left behind. On Sunday morning that colorful bird was watching from the rafters. When the minister appeared, he squawked, ‘New proprietor!’ When the men who were to lead in worship marched in, the bird piped, ‘New floor show!’ But when the bird looked out over the congregation, he screeched, ‘same old crowd!’³⁴

The church in the U.S. and Canada has a tremendous crisis of credibility. I realize that some non-Christians, especially those in the media, want to characterize Christians as hypocritical whenever the opportunity arises, but I wonder how much of what they say is true and deserved. Certainly not all of it is, but there are times when the gap between our preaching and our practice resembles a canyon rather than a ditch, and our critics are correct when they dutifully point this out. The immense problem of the current, low morality among Christians—and the obvious indictment regarding the powerlessness of our religion—I am convinced, constitutes the single most damaging blow to the cause of the gospel in America. Based on Christian testimony and lifestyle, it is difficult to see what, if any, difference the gospel really makes. No amount of rigorous apologetic for the faith—as important as that is—will supplant or squelch the consistent noise coming from the moral megaphone of our lives. That “consistent noise” is precisely that Christians are, by and large, “inconsistent.” They proclaim one ethic and live another. Or as one person quipped, “they traffic in unlived truth.” There is, at present, a great and lamentable distinction that needs to be drawn between Christian ethics and the ethics of Christians. The tide will change, however, when Christians repent and seek the living God who reigns from Monday to Sunday.

In Romans 2:17-29 Paul lands squarely on the issue of hypocrisy. Though he talks specifically about the Jews of his day, we would do well to pay close attention to what he says lest we fall into the same error of “claim without conduct.”

B. Translation of Passage in NET

2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God 2:18 and know his will and approve the superior things because you receive instruction from the law, 2:19 and if you are convinced that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 2:20 an educator of the senseless, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth— 2:21 therefore you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law, will he not judge you, the one who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgresses the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. The Jew thinks that through his relationship to the Law he has the essential features of knowledge and truth and can guide and teach the Gentile (2:17-20).

A. Many Jews rely on the Law and boast in their relationship to YHWH and claim to know his will since they are instructed out of the Law (2:17-18).

1. Many Jews proudly call themselves Jews, rely on the Law, and boast in their relationship with God (2:17).

2. Many Jews know God’s will and approve of morally and spiritually superior things because they claim to have been instructed out of the Law (2:18).

B. Many Jews are convinced that since they have the essential features of knowledge and truth in the Law they are de facto able to carry on a mediatorial and pedagogical role in the world (2:19-20).

1. Many Jews are convinced that they are a guide to the blind (2:19).

2. Many Jews are convinced that they are a light to those in darkness (2:19).

3. Many Jews are convinced that they are an educator of the senseless (2:20).

4. Many Jews are convinced that they are a teacher of little children (2:20).

5. The Jews have in the Law the essential features of knowledge and truth (2:20).

II. But the Jew does not obey the teachings of the Law and as a result the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (2:21-24).

A. The Jew who teaches, preaches, and tells others not to steal, commit adultery, and rob temples is himself guilty of the same sins (2:21-23).

1. Many Jews preach against stealing, yet they steal (2:21).

2. Many Jews tell others not to commit adultery, yet they commit adultery (2:22).

3. Many Jews abhor idols, yet they rob temples (2:22).

4. Many Jews boast in the Law, but they dishonor God by transgressing the Law (2:23).

B. The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of the Jews’ disobedience (2:24).

III. The Jew cannot arrogantly appeal to the outward rite of circumcision since (1) the uncircumcised man who obeys the Law will be regarded as circumcised and he in turn will judge the disobedience of the circumcised Jew as uncircumcision, and (2) the true Jew who gets praise from God, not people, is the one who is circumcised by the Spirit inwardly, in the heart, and not by the letter (2:25-29).

A. Circumcision is as uncircumcision when a man continually breaks the Law (2:25).

B. The uncircumcised man who keeps the Law will be regarded as circumcised and he will judge the disobedience of the circumcised man as uncircumcision (2:26-27).

1. The uncircumcised man who keeps the Law will be regarded as circumcised (2:26)

2. The uncircumcised man will judge the disobedience of the circumcised man as uncircumcision (2:27).

C. The true Jew who gets praise from God, not people, is one who is not simply circumcised outwardly in the flesh, but one who has been circumcised inwardly, by the Spirit, and not the letter (2:28-29).

1. A true Jew is not one outwardly and circumcision is not something purely outward in the body (2:28).

2. A true Jew is one inwardly where the circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter (2:29).

3. A true Jew is one whose praise is not from people, but from God (2:29).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. The Claims of the Jew and His Role among the Gentiles (2:17-20)

A. The Claims of the Jew (2:17-18)

1. He Calls Himself a Jew (2:17)

2. He Relies on the Law (2 :17)

3. He Boasts in His Relationship with God (2:17)

4. He Knows God’s Will (2:18)

5. He Approves of Superior Things (2:18)

6. He Is Instructed out of the Law (2:18)

B. The Mediatorial Role of the Jew (2:19-20)

The Jew is convinced he…

1. Is a Guide to the Blind (2:19)

2. Is a Light to Those in Darkness (2:19)

3. Is an Educator of the Senseless (2:20)

4. Is a Teacher of Little Children (2:20)

5. Has Knowledge and Truth in the Law (2:20)

II. The Jews and Hypocrisy (2:21-24)

A. The Jews’ Hypocrisy (2:21-23)

1. The Jews and Stealing (2:21)

2. The Jews and Adultery (2:22)

3. The Jews and Robbing Temples (2:22)

4. The Jews’ Dishonoring of God (2:23)

B. The Result of Their Hypocrisy (2:24)

III. True Circumcision and the True Jew (2:25-29)

A. Circumcision and Disobedience (2:25)

B. The Uncircum. Man and Obedience (2:26-27)

1. His Obedience Is As Circumcision (2:26)

2. He Judges the Disobedience of “the Circumcision” as Uncircumcision (2:27)

C. The True Jew and True Circumcision (2:28-29)

1. The True Jew and Circumcision: General Statement (2:28)

2. The True Jew and Spiritual Circumcision: Specific Statement (2:29)

E. Exposition Proper

What Paul has been saying regarding the Jews, albeit somewhat obliquely in 2:1-16, comes into the full light of day in 2:17-29. The fact of their hypocrisy, alluded to in 2:1-3, is highlighted with full force in 2:17-29.

Romans 2:17-29 breaks down in three smaller units. In 2:17-20, Paul—through the use of a series of conditional statements which are never really formally completed—focuses on the particular claims of the Jew as one who was privileged and sustained a special mediatorial role to world in light of his possession of the Law of God. The emphasis falls on the Jews’ knowledge via the Law and their claim to be teachers of those without such moral and spiritual insight. In 2:21-24 Paul refers to the fact that although they had the Law, and claimed they could teach others, it was obvious that they had not taught themselves; they were committing the same sins for which they had the habit of rebuking the Gentiles. In 2:25-29 Paul focuses on the one thing in which the Jew prided himself as a covenant person—i.e., circumcision. Paul’s interpretation of circumcision, however, was that it was only a sign and that, if the reality was not present, the sign was of no value. We move now to consider the details of the passage.

2:17-18 Paul mentions five things about the Jew in 2:17-18, all of which are connected to the fact that as a Jew he had been instructed out of the very revealed Law of God. When a man referred to himself as a Jew it was done with pride since, as such, he did not commit the same sins as the lawless Gentile—or so he thought—and thus, in his mind, he accorded special favor with YHWH and was specially chosen by him. As a Jew he relied on the law, that is, he derived his sense of security with YHWH from his connection with, and obedience to, the Law. He was also one who supposedly, having obeyed the Law, could boast about his relationship with the true God whereas Gentiles who were guilty of such varied and awful sins could obviously make no such claim. All they could do is hope to be taught by a Jew!

That this is the Jews’ focus in boasting in God is clear from the next claim, i.e., that they know his will (γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα, ginoskeis to thelēma). The term will refers primarily to that revealed in the Mosaic Law and includes spiritual and moral truth. The Jew supposedly knows right from wrong in matters of worship and ethics and claims that he can, therefore, teach others.

As someone who knew the will of God, the Jew could then rightly judge between what was proper, spiritually and morally speaking, and what was not. He was able to approve the superior things (δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα, dokimazeis ta diapheronta), as Paul says, since he had been instructed out of the law (κατηχούμενος ἐκ του~ νόμου, katēchoumenos ek tou nomou). The Jew was to have learned how to discern the will of God through catechetical instruction based on the Law. In short, the Jew’s religion was a revealed religion—God making himself known to man—and as the special recipient of that revelation, he prided himself in his name, position, and knowledge.

2:19-20 Therefore, as someone who knew the will of God through Torah (i.e., the Law), he was confident (πέποιθας, pepoithas) that he fulfilled the chief mediatorial (for God) and pedagogical role in the world. First, he was a guide to the blind (ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν, hodēgon einai tuphlōn); he was supposed to lead those without Torah into a right relationship with YHWH. Second, and intimately related, he was supposed to be, again via his connection with YHWH and the Torah, a light to those who were in darkness (φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότει, phōs tōn en skotei). That is, he was to shine the light of YHWH’s truth upon those in darkness in order to bring salvation and forgiveness to them (Isa 49:6). Third, as someone with wisdom from the Law, he was to be an educator of the senseless (παιδευτὴν ἀφρόνων, paideutēn aphronōn), that is, as an obedient Jew he had knowledge to pass on that would render an otherwise futile existence worthwhile (cf. Prov 11:29; Luke 12:20). Fourth, he was to be a teacher of little children (διδάσκαλον νηπίων, didaskalon nēpiōn). In the eyes of the Jew, the Gentile was basically an infant needing the instruction of one more mature in the knowledge of faith.

While the Gentile had knowledge (1:28, 32; ἐπίγνωσις, epignōsis) of God, Paul says that the Jew had in the law a much clearer understanding of the essential features of knowledge and of the truth (τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ten morphōsin tēs gnōseōs kai tēs alētheias en tō nomō). What was written on the human heart and subsequently obscured through the fall and sin was made explicit in the Mosaic Law—and much more as well. In terms of revelation from God, the Jew was in a position of privilege for he not only had nature and conscience, he also had the Mosaic Law.

2:21-24 In 2:21-24, and indeed throughout the rest of the section, Paul begins to argue that although the Jew has been long on privilege, he’s been short on responsibility; in point of fact, he has not lived up to his calling and as a result the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

The Jews, though perhaps not to the same degree as some Gentiles, were guilty of committing the very things they taught, preached, and spoke against. They preached at others, but failed to listen to their own sermons! They were guilty of stealing (κλέπτεις, klepteis), adultery (not spiritual, as we have in Hosea, but literal; μοιχεύεις, moicheueis), and robbing temples, and not simply in thought (e.g., Matt 5:27-30)—as if Paul were appealing to the Law at the deeper level of sinful thoughts and attitudes only. On the contrary, there were Jews who were guilty of the acts themselves. Paul’s indictment against the Jew could hardly be expected to “stick” if this were not the case—i.e., if they had not really committed these acts.

The meaning of the last sin mentioned, namely, to rob temples (ἱεροσυλεῖς, hierosuleis), is difficult to determine precisely, but it seems to refer to stealing idols from pagan temples in order to use the materials from which they were made. Though the rabbis made numerous concessions, this was prohibited in Deuteronomy 7:25-26. Other commentators, however, have suggested that the term hierosuleis is more general and means “to commit sacrilege” against a temple, and in particular the Jerusalem temple.

In short, the very ones who boast in the Law dishonor God by transgressing the Law. The result of Jewish hypocrisy, as noted above, is that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (Isa 52:5 LXX; Ezek 36:20). Isaiah 52:5 in the MT (Hebrew Bible) does not have among the Gentiles and because of you but this wording is found in the Greek version (LXX) which Paul is chiefly indebted to in this case. The way Paul is using the Isaiah passage is similar to Ezekiel’s words in 36:20.

2:25-29 In 2:25-29 Paul further explains (note the “For” in 2:25) vv. 21-24 by way of the best example he can think of—circumcision. He explains why Gentiles blaspheme the name of God; it is because the Jews, even though circumcised, do not live up to their profession. But Paul also goes further than this in 2:25-29.

Paul says that circumcision (περιτομή, peritomē) is definitely not a “ticket” to the world to come. In short, it is of no value if not attended by faithful practice (πράσσῃς, prassēs) of the Law for which it was a sign. Indeed—and here’s where Paul begins to go further than just to explain the reason for Gentile blasphemy—it is as though the man is not even circumcised. This must mean that such a man is not a true member of the covenant community and is unregenerate, as 2:28-29 would seem to indicate.

Paul continues his argument by asking a rhetorical question that demands a positive answer, though not all Jews would have agreed. He asks: if the uncircumcised man (ἡ ἀκροβυστία, hē akrobustia) keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will he, in contrast to the circumcised man who does not keep the Law, be regarded (λογισθήσεται, logisthēsetai) as circumcised, i.e., a member of the covenant community and heir of the promises of God? According to Paul, he will certainly be regarded as such.

Further, that very man who is uncircumcised by birth and yet keeps the Law, he will judge (κρινει~, krinei) the circumcised lawbreaker as though uncircumcised. And he will do this despite the fact that the man claims to have both the written code (γραμματος, grammatos), namely, the Mosaic Law and circumcision as the sign.

In vv. 28-29 Paul says there is a reason why circumcision by itself guarantees nothing. It is because true religion is first and foremost—and always—a matter of the heart (i.e., genuine faith) or the inner man. To be sure circumcision was a sign of membership in the covenant community of Israel, but it was only a sign. It could not create the reality of participation in the saved community, nor could it somehow replace the means of participation in the covenant community, i.e., by living faith (Rom 4). The true Jew, therefore, as one knowledgeable of what consitututes true religion should know this better than any one.

Thus a true Jew is not one who is merely circumcised outwardly (φανερῷ, phanerō), that is, in the flesh. The true Jew is one who is circumcised inwardly (κρυπτ῅, kruptō), a circumcision of the heart done by the Spirit and not by the written code (ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, en pneumati ou grammati). The circumcision Paul intends here is in keeping with the promise of Jeremiah 31:31-33 and refers to a supernatural rebirth, the same thing about which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (John 3:1ff). These verses here in Romans anticipate the larger discussion about the Spirit to come in 5:1-5 and 8:1-39 (see Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23)

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: Closing the Gap—Restoring the Marriage of Claims and Conduct

I. What Is Our Role in the World (2:17-20)?

A. Our Claims

B. Our Witness

II. Be Careful for Hypocrisy (2:21-24)!

A. What Are Our Areas of Weakness?

B. What Does the Watching World Say?

III. What Do You Cling To As A Sign of Your Christianity (2:25-29)?

A. The Need for Inward Transformation

B. The Centrality of God over Human Opinion

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

This passage speaks strongly against hypocrisy and the futility of trusting in religious rites to sanctify or make one right with God. Thus it speaks directly to the area of personal sanctification as well as ecclesiology and the rite of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

While baptism and the Lord’s Supper are necessary rites, they have no value in and of themselves to save or sanctify. They do not function ex opere operato. In the case of the former, it is an attempt through an outward symbol to capture the inward transformation which has already taken place through being joined to Christ by faith. In the case of the latter it is a memorial designed to proclaim a historical fact, that is, the death of Christ, and remind the church of the basis of her forgiveness before God (1 Cor 15:1-11).

Now, we said that in and of themselves these rites do not save or sanctify, but this does not mean that when the worshiper is right with God through Christ (s)he experiences no grace at all. On the contrary, in the performing of the rite, with a heart surrendered and fixed on God through Christ, God infuses sanctifying grace through His indwelling Spirit.

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

The church, when it proclaims the truth about God and man’s sin, will almost always be hated by the world. But, there are unfortunately times when the church is ridiculed and her God blasphemed because of what she does and the way she does it. There are times when we fail to live up to our profession and the world looks on with a critical eye. Our response to this is not to condemn the world, whether they are right or wrong. Our response, rather, is twofold: (1) to love the world by continuing to serve and proclaim the truth, and (2) to examine ourselves and Scripture to see if the claims are true. If they are, we simply must seek God for forgiveness for dishonoring his name (1 John 1:9). Then let us repent and set out on new and fresh ways of living in the world—ways that honor God’s name and give the unbeliever no basis for accusation (1 Peter 2:11-12; Titus 2:5, 10; 3:8).

³³ R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories & Quotes (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1998), 219.

³⁴ Michael Hodgin, 1001 More Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 168.

7. Study and Exposition of Romans 3:1-8

A. Introduction

“Charles Darwin died in April 1882. He wished to be buried in his beloved village, but the sentiment of educated men demanded a place in Westminster Abbey beside Isaac Newton. As his coffin entered the vast building, the choir sang an anthem composed for the occasion. It’s text, from the book of Proverbs, may stand as the most fitting testimony to Darwin’s greatness: ‘Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding. She is more precious than rubies, and all the things that thou canst desire are not to be compared to her.’”

So wrote Stephen Jay Gould, the eminent Harvard paleontologist, professor of geology, and ardent evolutionist in Discover magazine in 1982.

Darwin was not buried in Westminster Abbey because he was a staunch defender of the faith. While he was not a friend of the church, neither was he an atheist. Continues Gould, “He probably retained a belief in some kind of personal God—but he did not grant his deity a directly and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process.”

Darwin was, however, buried at Westminster because of the profound contribution he made to science. Again, quoting Gould, “Educated men demanded” he be laid there.

All this is not to name Darwin as the lone culprit responsible for the crisis of faith precipitated by evolutionary science. It is merely an illustration full of ironies and one grand truth. It is ironic that his final tribute was a scriptural anthem. Likewise ironic is that his final wishes were not honored and he was buried within the church. Even the choice of Scripture in the anthem is ironic: Proverbs, and the pursuit of wisdom.

The Grand Truth, however, is that Scripture and God have the last word. Darwin’s burial inadvertently acknowledges that faith has the last say over men and their ideas.”³⁵

This is perhaps the central truth of Romans 3:1-8: “Let God be proven true!” Let God have the last word!

B. Translation of Passage in NET

3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3:3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and all mankind shown up as liars, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.” 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances to his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it?” (as some who slander us allege that we say. Their condemnation is deserved!)

C. Full Exegetical Outline

Idea: Though there is advantage in being a Jew this does not mean that unfaithfulness and sin will render God unfaithful or that such behavior will not go unpunished, even if it does demonstrate the righteousness of God.

I. The fact that God does not automatically bless circumcision does not mean that there is no value in being a Jew for the Jews have indeed been blessed, having receiving the very oracles of God (3:1-2).

A. What advantage does the Jew have or what is the value of circumcision (3:1)?

B. There are many advantages to being a Jew including the fact that they have been entrusted with the oracles of God (3:2).

II. The unbelief of the Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness, but rather God will be justified in his words and prevail when he judges, just as it says in Psalm 116:11 (3:3-4).

A. Will Jewish unbelief lead to God being unfaithful (3:3)?

B. God will be proven true and every man a liar (3:4).

C. God will be proven true and every man a liar for this is what Psalm 116:11 says (3:4).

III. The belief that God is unrighteous because he punishes us for sin—sin which enhances his truthfulness and glory—is false for it renders impossible the judgment of the world and leads to the just condemnation of those who argue: “Let us do evil that good may result” (3:5-8)!

A. Even if our sin demonstrates the righteousness of God, he is not unjust to inflict wrath on us (3:5-6)

1. What shall we say if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God (3:5)?

2. God, who inflicts wrath, is not unrighteous, is he (3:5)?

3. If God were unrighteous, how could he judge the world (3:6)?

B. Those who think they can lie and do evil in order that God’s glory might be enhanced and good may result deserve condemnation (3:7-8).

1. Why am I still judged as a sinner when my lie enhances the glory of God (3:7)?

2. Those who say, as they have about Paul, “let us do evil that good may result,” deserve condemnation (3:8).

D. Simple Point Outline

Idea: Privilege and Responsibility—Twin Pillars Undergirding a Healthy Christian Perspective

I. There Is Advantage and Value in Being a Jew (3:1-2)

A. Being A Jew (3:1)

B. The Oracles of God (3:2)

II. God’s Faithfulness in the Midst of Jewish Unfaithfulness (3:3-4)

A. God Is Faithful and True No Matter What (3:3)

B. The Use of Psalm 116:11 (3:4)

III. God Righteousness Enhanced by Sin (3:5-8)

A. Yet He Justly Inflicts Wrath (3:5-6)

B. Yet He Justly Condemns (3:7-8)

E. Exposition Proper

Since the Jew is just as guilty as the Gentile (2:1-5; 17-23) and cannot simply appeal to the token of circumcision to secure immunity from judgment (2:24-29), the question might reasonably be asked—with the intention of impugning God’s character and plan—what advantage is there, then, in being a Jew or what is the value of circumcision? After all, it seems as if Paul just got finished saying in 2:1-29 that there is no advantage whatsoever. Paul answers this question and other related ones in 3:1-8 by saying that there is great advantage in being a Jew but it does not lie in a de facto exemption from judgment—even if that sin magnifies God’s righteousness.

The implication in the above argument is that Paul is still dealing with the Jews in 3:1-8. Some, however, argue that the Jews are in view only through verse 4a. But the most likely and natural antecedent for the pronouns “our” (3:5), “we” (3:5), and “my” (3:7) is the Jews of 3:1-4. Further, the accusation that Paul’s “law-free” gospel leads to greater sinfulness in 3:8 undoubtedly came from Jews who clung to the Law of Moses. Finally, the logic of the paragraph as a whole develops in keeping with the questions asked in 3:1-2—questions which revolve around being a Jew. Therefore, we regard 3:1-8 as dealing with Jews.

3:1-2 In 2:1-29 Paul criticizes the Jew for his misunderstanding of circumcision and for his arrogant hypocrisy. With such a negative analysis, one wonders whether there ever was any advantage in being a Jew. Lest certain people conclude incorrectly, however, Paul turns his attention to this urgent question in 3:1-8. In short, though his denuinciation was severe in 2:1-29, the apostle nonetheless says that there are benefits for those who are God’s chosen people; there is value (ἡ ὠφέλεια, hē ōpheleia; cf. 2:25) to circumcision.

The expression there are many advantages (πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον, polu kata panta tropon) literally reads “much according to every way.” This does not mean that the Jew had advantages in every way without exception, since this interpretation would practically render 2:1-29 and the criticism there obsolete. The point that Paul is making, rather, is that the Jew had advantages in many different kinds of ways. For example, the apostle says, of first (πρῶτον, prōton) importance, they have been entrusted with the oracles of God (ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, episteuthēsan ta logia tou theou). God considered it a trust and took the risk to give Israel a revelation of himself and his purposes.

The oracles of God refer to God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament and may have a particular focus on God’s statements about how he chose Israel to be his people (Exod 19:3-6) and the promises he made, especially those to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15; 17; 11:1) and David (2 Sam 7:8-16; Ps 89; Isa 55:3; Rom 1:3-4; 15:12). The expression might also include the Law of Moses which would place Paul in agreement with the Jew who says that in the law “we have the essential features of knowledge and truth” (2:20).

3:3 Paul now asks a question: If some Jews did not believe, will their unbelief nullify God’s faithfulness? Note the ironic contrast between God entrusting (ἐπιστεύθησαν, episteuthēsan) oracles to the Jews and some of them not believing, i.e., trusting the God of those oracles (ἠπίστησαν, ēpistēsan).

The question is, what in particular did they not believe? The straight forward answer is, “they did not believe the oracles.” But the oracles are not ends in themselves, but rather they speak to the promises and purposes of God. This may indicate an oblique reference to Christ. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to argue that the Jews’ failure to believe the oracles of God is particularly evident in their failure to accept Christ—the Ultimate fulfillment of the promises contained in the oracles (Rom 10:4; 15:12).

But notice that Paul says only some (τινες, tines) did not believe. In light of passages like 11:25 and the dismal overall reaction of the Jews to Christ, we may say that Paul is being gracious here by deliberately understating the case. Indeed, most did not believe God. In any event, there is a believing Jewish remnant at the present time for which Paul is thankful and to which the early chapters of the book of Acts testifies (11:5; Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4).

3:4 The answer to Paul’s question in v. 3 comes in v. 4: it is an emphatic “absolutely not.” There is no way possible for the unbelief of the Jews to nullify or render inoperative the faithfulness of God. God will be true to what he has said. This will be demonstrated in the final judgment.

The purview in v. 4 does not exclude judgment in the present, but the focus is on the final judgment when God will be shown to have been true all along and every man, particularly the Jew, shown to have been faithless and a liar. Paul says that the Jew talked a better game than he ever played, thus he will be shown to have been a liar. The term true (ἀληθής, alēthēs) means that God will act consistently with what he has said he will do. This includes blessing Israel as well as judging her, as the subsequent quotation from Ps 51:4 indicates (Ps 51:6 MT).

The quotation from Ps 51:4 is taken almost verbatim from the Greek OT (Ps 50:6 LXX), with only minor modifications. In Psalm 51 David humbly cries out to God for forgiveness because of his sin with Bathsheba. The point of v. 4 is that David admits he is a sinner against God and therefore God is proved right when he speaks and justified when he judges. Paul says that even the king of Israel, David himself, who enjoyed an excellent overall reputation in first century Judaism, had to be judged for his sin. Thus God is true to bless and to punish no matter who the offending party is. The Jew, then, who thinks that God is unjust and unfaithful when he makes promises to his people on the one hand, and then judges them for sin on the other, is sadly mistaken. In fact, this state of affairs actually proves that God is true and that men are liars.

3:5-6 In 3:5 Paul anticipates what one of his Jewish friends might say and frames the objection in light of a purely human argument, that is, an argument that sounds typical of the kinds of things men say in general. Someone might try to argue that “if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, why is he still just when he inflicts wrath on us?” The obvious answer to this argument—an emphatic denial of its conclusion—comes forcefully in v. 6.

Paul refers here to the righteousness of God (θεου~ δικαιωσύνην, theou dikaiōsunēn). It is unlikely in this context that he is referring to God’s saving activity which formed part of the meaning in 1:17. Neither is he referring to forensic justification or the status of those whom God saves by the power of the gospel. The context is entirely too negative for such interpretations. The best understanding of the expression here in 3:5 is as a reference to the perfect moral character of God, his perfect holiness. The point Paul is making, then, is that man’s sin only serves, by way of sharp contrast, to demonstrate the blinding holiness of God. This means that God is in no way unrighteous (ἄδικος, adikos) when he inflicts wrath (ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν, epipherōn tēn orgēn). Ultimately, on the day of wrath, when he calls all men to give an account, the truth of his righteous character will become universally known (Rom 14:10; Heb 4:13).

3:7 The hypothetical argument laid out in 3:5 is repeated in a slightly different form and with greater emphasis in 3:7. Here the point is not simply that God’s righteousness is demonstrated by my unrighteousness, but rather that my lying or falsehood enhances (ἐπερίσσευσεν, eperisseusen; lit. “overflows” “abounds”) the truth to his glory. The implication is that the glory of his righteousness is realized in ways it otherwise would not be. But while Paul says that it is true that our unrighteousness magnifies and makes visible the sterling character of God, it does not follow in any way, shape, or form, that we should not therefore be judged as a sinner. We most certainly should be, and indeed we will be.

3:8 The punctuation in this verse is difficult to establish with certainty, but the NET Bible has admirably captured what is perhaps the best rendering.

The overall point of the verse, though the Greek is somewhat tangled seems fairly clear enough. The first part of the verse is a rejoinder to the objection outlined in the previous verse. In other words, if a person is going to argue that their sin enhances God’s glory, then why not do more evil so that good (τὰ ἀγαθά, ta agatha; i.e., the realization of God’s glory) may be even more abundant? Such an argument in God's moral universe is absurd to say the least.

Nonetheless, there were certain Jews who had accused Paul of actually teaching this doctrine. This is undoubtedly due to his treatment of the Law and the feeling that if one does away with the Law—like Paul had supposedly done—then sin will run rampant. But Paul never taught the unqualified removal of the Law, only a different understanding of its role in salvation and sanctification (cf. Rom 3:21; 7:6, 12; 13:8-10).

Paul's final comment about such “human” arguments is unambiguous: the condemnation (κρίμα, krima) of those who argue that we should commit sin so that good may come is deserved (ἔνδικον, endikon; cf. Heb 2:2).

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: Be Careful How You Think about Sin!

I. Understand The Blessing of Being a Christian (3:1-2)

A. You Bear the Name Christian (3:1)

B. You Have Received the Word of God (3:2)

II. But Also Understand God’s Faithfulness and How He Judges Unbelief and Sin (3:3-8)

A. Lest We Think God Is Unfaithful When He Judges Unbelief (3:3-4)

B. Lest We Think Our Sin Is in Any Way Profitable Before God (3:5-8)

1. For God Is A Just Judge (3:5-6)

a. The Argument (3:5)

b. The Verdict (3:6)

2. For God Will Judge People as Sinners (3:7-8)

a. The Argument (3:7-8a)

b. The Verdict (3:8b)

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

Romans 3:1-8 contributes to our understanding of sin (hamartiology) and how God will deal with it. We are not to think for one minute that even though our sin demonstrates the infinite righteousness of our perfect God that we are therefore excused in some way from judgment or have thus been given license to sin. Paul reserves strong language for those who follow this train of reasoning. No matter how much glory God receives as a result of our sin, sin will always be punished and God will always remain just.

We need to briefly spell out, however, a more integrated view of the Pauline concept of judgment. First, the deciding factor in judgment concerning our eternal destiny is our relationship to Christ and his saving work. If we have trusted in him (3:21-26) we are saved and saved eternally (Rom 8:38-39). God will, however, discipline us for our sin in the here and now, and we will lose reward at the final judgment (1 Cor 11:30; cf. Heb 12:1-11).

If, on the other hand, we have not trusted in Christ and have no personal relationship with him, we will be judged for our sin with eternal consequences (2 Thess 1:8-9; cf. John 5:28-29). Hell is a reality which eternally demonstrates God's holy justice and which is created for those who just can't stomach having to think about God (so C. S. Lewis; cf. Rom 1:18-20).

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

In our churches we need to ensure that we are not excusing sin under the pretense of grace. This does not entail the idea of “running around” looking for others’ sin, but it does mean staying close to the Lord and keeping a clean slate before him, both in the church and in the world (Ephesians 5:3; 1 Peter 3:15-16)! It also entails the idea of leaders carrying out church discipline in a loving and impartial way.

³⁵ R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories and Quotes (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1998), 239-40.

8. Study and Exposition of Romans 3:9-20

A. Introduction

Many years ago there was a famous correspondence in The Times under the subject “What is wrong with the world today?” The best letter of all was also the shortest, and read—“Dear Sir, I am. Yours faithfully, G. K. Chesterton.” That devastating declaration showed a profound insight into man’s universal malaise, and I believe that it can teach us a deeply challenging lesson. I am convinced that throughout the Christian church there are problems, difficulties and frustrations that would begin to dissolve immediately if only some Christians would be honest enough to answer the question—“What’s wrong?” with the words “I am!”³⁶

This is precisely Paul’s point in Romans 3:9-20. In this passage we are faced with the reality of our sin against God and other people. In short, we are the problem; I am the problem. I cannot escape; the apostle makes it clear—with a litany of OT citations carrying the full authority of “thus says the Lord.” The passage as a whole stands as a fitting climax to this entire section which began in 1:18. Paul says that men are sinners—all of us—and held accountable to God. Here we stand, guilty and convicted. The somber weight of this passage should not be missed. Do not run to the peace of the gospel too quickly, lest you cheapen its message. First, take a good and prayerful look in the mirror of scripture and see if you are not there. Then, look to God for mercy. Then may he give us the same attitude we see in Copernicus: “I do not ask for the grace thou didst give to St. Paul; nor can I dare ask for the grace which thou didst grant to St. Peter; but, the mercy which thou didst show to the Dying Robber, that mercy, show to me.” Having come to see ourselves against the infinite holiness of God and his immutable law in 1:18-3:20, we may then be eager to welcome the message of grace preached in 3:21-31.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 3:10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one, 3:11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 3:12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.” 3:13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.” 3:14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 3:16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

Idea: All men, Jew and Gentile alike, are sinners and will not be declared righteous, i.e., attain a right standing with God, through works of the law.

I. The Jews are no better off than the Gentiles because all alike under sin (3:9).

II. There is no one who has any standing before God on their own, for there is no one who is righteous, understands or seeks God, or shows kindness; together all have become worthless (3:10-12).

A. There is no one who is righteous (3:10).

B. There is no one who understands (3:11).

C. There is no one who seeks God (3:11).

D. All have turned away and become useless (3:12).

E. There is no one who shows kindness (3:12).

III. There is no one who has any standing before God on their own, for their sin with the tongue is evident, deceitful, deadly, and brutal (3:13-14).

A. Their throats are open graves (3:13).

B. They deceive with their tongues (3:13).

C. The poison of asps is on their lips (3:13)

D. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness (3:14).

IV. There is no one who has any standing before God on their own, for violence marks their lives, the way of peace they have not known, and all this because they have no fear of God (3:15-18).

A. Their feet are swift to shed blood (3:15).

B. Ruin and misery are in their paths (3:16).

C. They have not known the way of peace (3:17).

D. They have no fear of God (3:18).

V. No one, not even the Jew, can be declared righteous by works of the law for the law cannot declare righteous, but only bring the knowledge of sin (3:19-20).

A. The law speaks to the Jew (3:19).

B. Every mouth will be silenced (3:19).

C. The whole world will be held accountable to God (3:19).

D. No one is declared righteous by works of the law (3:20).

E. Through the law comes the knowledge of sin (3:20).

D. Simple Point Outline and Homiletical Outline

Idea: We are all sinners, incapable of achieving righteousness on our own.

I. All Are under Sin (3:9)

II. We Sin against God (3:10-12)

A. We Are Unrighteous (3:10)

B. We Do not Understand (3:11)

C. We Do not Seek God (3:11)

D. We Have Turned Away and Become Useless (3:12)

III. We Sin against People with Our Tongues (3:13-14)

A. Our Throats Are Open Graves (3:13)

B. We Deceive with Our Tongues (3:13)

C. The Poison of Asps Is on Our Lips (3:13)

D. We Curse and Are Bitter (3:14)

IV. We Sin against People with Violence (3:15-18)

A. Our Feet Are Swift To Shed Blood (3:15)

B. Ruin and Misery Mark Our Paths (3:16)

C. We Have not Known the Way of Peace (3:17)

D. We Have no Fear of God (3:18)

V. We Cannot Be Declared Righteous by Our Works (3:19-20)

A. We Are Accountable to God (3:19)

B. Our Works of the Law Cannot Declare Us Righteous (3:20)

E. Exposition Proper

The point of this section, made explicit in 3:19-20, is twofold. First, Paul wants to drive home and yet bring to a conclusion his accusations of Gentile (1:18-32) and Jewish (2:1-3:8) sinfulness. His argument is that all men alike are under sin, equally meriting God’s wrath, and that neither has an out of any sort, not even ignorance in the case of the Gentile, or supposed obedience to the Law in the case of the Jew. The use of the many OT quotations is meant to heighten the thesis of the universality of human sinfulness and the repetition of these passages, one on top of the other, in a coherent fashion, is meant to drive the point home with vigor and power. This is a sermon, if you will, not an impassioned comment!

The second purpose Paul wishes to establish with this section, having summarized human sinfulness and guilt, is to introduce his readers to the next specific topic on the agenda, namely, the gospel (3:21-32), as well as to hint generally at other topics to come—topics such as “righteousness,” “works of the law,” and “the knowledge of sin and the law.”

3:9 The punctuation and precise meaning of the first part of this verse is difficult. The introductory question what then (τὶ οὖν, ti oun) is identical with that beginning 3:1. It asks a question in light of the discussion in 3:1-8, and in particular the discussion in 3:1-3. We may understand it as follows: “Since there is value in being a Jew, as far as having received the oracles of God is concerned, “what then” is the benefit in terms of my standing as a Jew before God? This is the point of the next question Paul asks.

Paul follows the question, “what then,” with another question, which, on the surface, appears to be an attempt to clarify what is meant by “what then.” The question, which is simply one word in the Greek text (προεχόμεθα, proechometha), seems to be asking, Are we [Jews] any better off? The answer is, certainly not (οὐ πάντως, ou pantōs). In other words, whatever benefit the Jew obtained through being the recipient of divine oracles, it was not of the sort that placed God in his debt. On the contrary, only the reverse is true. The reason for this, Paul says, is that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin (᾿Ιουδαιους τε καὶ ῞Ελληνας πάντας ὑφ ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι, Ioudaious te kai Ellēnas pantas huph hamartian).

Paul rarely uses sin (ἁμαρτία, hamartia) in the plural to denote sinful acts (1 Cor 15:3), but rather in the singular to refer to the principle of sin. He uses it approximately 48 times in Romans to describe the human condition as inextricably and helplessly (though not innocently) under the power or ruling force of sin and intentionally personifies it as a “lord” or “master” in 6:14. For Paul, sin is a dominating force which has captured all men and which, apart from the intervention of God in Christ, leads to physical as well as eternal death (Rom 6:23).

3:10 In 3:10-18 Paul uses several passages from the OT to demonstrate the thesis that all people are under sin. The expression just as it is written (καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι, kathōs gegraptai hoti) indicates that what follows involves citations from the OT. It also shows Paul’s deep conviction that the OT scriptures correspond to reality as it is found in human experience. He did not need to mention the latest human sin to demonstrate his point; he need only refer to passages from the OT. The OT, for Paul, had as much authority in defining and explaining human experience as it did in outlining human history (1:2-4; 9:1-11:32; 15:12). We might well take a lesson from Paul on this point.

What follows in 3:10b-18 is a series of passages from the OT. It was common practice in the Judaism of Paul’s day for the rabbis to string together many passages in support of an argument. Often these verses were only joined verbally through the use of a similar word of phrase (cf. Acts 2:25-36). In this case Paul cites five texts from the Psalms, one from Ecclesiastes, and one from Isaiah. What holds them together is, of course, the common theme of human sinfulness, as well as the repetition of the phrase “there is no…” (6x). There is also a logical development within the verses as Paul accuses men of sin against God (10-12), sins of the tongue (13-14) and crimes of violence against other human beings (15-17). The fact that there is a focus on God first (10-12), and then, a focus on man (13-17), may reflect a conscience dependence on the two part division of the decalogue (cf. Exod 20:1-11 with Exod 20:12-17).

But why is man so bent on sinning against God and his fellow man? Answer: there is no fear of God. So, just as the fear of God played an important role in the giving of the law, so here men are accused by the apostle of having no proper fear of God. Thus the final structural marker which holds the passage together and which provides an interpretive framework for the sinfulness described therein is Paul’s reference to men having no fear of God. The apostle begins with God and ends with God.

Now that we understand the structure of the passage, let’s begin to look at the details. Paul’s first citation, with certain modifications, is found in Psalm 14:1 (Ps 13:1 LXX; cf. Eccl 7:20). It establishes the general point of man’s undesirable condition before God. There is no one who is righteous (δίκαιος, dikaios), not even one (οὐδὲ εἷς, oude heis)! Every human being who has ever lived or ever will live has been a slave to sin, under its ruling power, and in no way merits in themselves, either through their good works or the right internal character, a secure standing with God. Jesus Christ is the only exception to this.

3:11-12 In 3:11 and 12 Paul carries on with an excerpt from Psalm 14:2-3. He says that there is no one who understands (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, ouk estin ho suniōn). People do not understand God, neither his character, nor his ways. By willingly suppressing the truth about God they become corrupt and unable to remember anything accurate about him (1:18-21). Thus they downplay the one thing they do know, namely, that they will be held accountable for their sin (1:32; 2:14-15).

Further, there is no one who seeks (ἐκζητῶν, ekzētōn) God. The fact that we have become worthless (ἠχρεώθησαν, ēchreōthēsan) indicates that we have become so morally reprobate by our own doing (and God's judgment) that it is impossible on our own to do anything meriting God’s favor.

Thus with the repetition of “there is no one…” in 3:10-12 the point about the universality of sin is made once again.

3:13-14 The progression from throats (λάρυγξ, larugx), to tongues (γλῶσσαι, glōssai), to lips (χείλη, cheilē), to mouths (στόμα, stoma), probably indicates the natural way in which sounds are uttered by a person (cf. Ps 5:9; 139:4; 140:3). The point is to emphasize that the very process of speaking can be sinful.

The reference to their tongues as open graves (τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος, taphos aneōgmenos) stands first in the clause for greater emphasis and evokes vivid images of the stark reality surrounding death and decay. That the grave is open probably means that through the use of the tongue we are able to see the rot going on beneath the surface (i.e., in the heart)—rot that would otherwise be obscured from our vision (cf. Mark 7:14-15).

People intentionally deceive (ἐδολιοῦσαν, edoliousan) others with their tongues by obscuring their intentions to do harm, and as Paul says, the poison of asps is under their lips (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, ios aspidōn hupo ta cheilē autōn). The asp, which was probably the Egyptian cobra, was found in both the desert and in fields, and was extremely poisonous. One can scarcely think of a more graphic way in which to express the pain and suffering caused by vindictive and unjust words (cf. Matt 12:36-37; Eph 4:29).

Finally, in 3:14 Paul says their mouths are full of cursing (ἀρᾶς, aras) and bitterness (πικρίας, pikrias). Paul uses a phrase from Psalm 9:28 to again express the vile nature of sinful human speech. The “cursing” probably expresses the actual manner of speaking, with hints of violence, while the term “bitterness” reflects the condition of the heart. Out of the bitterness of the heart flows the cursing of the mouth.

3:15-17 Paul moves on in vv. 15-17 with a citation dependent for the most part on Isaiah 59:7-8 (cf. Prov 1:16). He leaves the sins involving the mouth and moves forward to enumerate sins involving the imagery of feet. People are swift (ὀξεῖς, oxeis) to shed blood, to commit acts of violence against others. Indeed, ruin and misery are in their paths (ὁδοῖς, hodois); the landscape behind them is littered with the remains of their violence. Everywhere they go people suffer. They have not known the way of peace (ὁδὸν εἰρήνης, hodon eirēnēs), that is, the way of salvation in which God would lead them if they were willing.

In the Isaianic context, the prophet mourns the covenant unfaithfulness of Israel whose sin was so great that justice was said to stand at a distance and to be driven back (Isa 59:9, 14). Paul’s use of this passage probably implies that the Jews of his day were in the same position as those to whom Isaiah originally spoke; they were also in desperate need of the salvation only YHWH’s arm could work (Isa 59:16).

The repeated references to “bodily parts” in this catena of OT quotations reinforce Paul’s understanding of sin as expressing itself through the bodily members (Rom 6:12-13). It is also interesting to note that in this section the passages that refer to the Gentiles in the OT are being equally applied to the Jews. While the rabbis would have agreed that sin is sin, they would not have taken kindly to the notion that they were guilty in the same way and to the same degree as the Gentiles.

3:18 Paul concludes his practical discussion of the sins of humanity with a citation from Psalm 36:1. A lack of the fear of God is at once the root problem for sin and a great sin itself leading to much folly and corruption. Men commit sins because they hold God in contempt and simply have no fear of his awesomeness. But as Nahum declared to Ninevah and the Assyrians, God is not to be trifled with. He is a divine warrior who exacts punishment on his enemies, and does so without mercy. For Christians, one of the most significant revelations of the New Testament is the fact that God is our personal heavenly father (Matt 6:9; Gal 4:6). This wonderful and comforting truth must not be minimized, but it must not be permitted to denigrate into mere sentimentality for we are also commanded to fear and reverence our Father (1 Peter 1:17-19).

3:19 Paul expresses his great confidence in God’s revealed word in the OT for he says that whatever (ὅσα, hosa) the law says…. In other words, whatever the entire Old Testament says, it is right!

Further, whatever the law says, it says it to those who are under the law (ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, hosa ho nomos legei tois en tō nomō lalei). Two things must be mentioned about this translation. First, there are two different Greek words, both of which we have translated, “says.” In actuality there is probably a different nuance intended so that the translation might also be rendered: “whatsoever the law says, it speaks [this] to those under the law.” Paul implies that there are many Jews who know what the law says (legei), but not many who hear it speaking (lalei) directly to them: "he who has ears, let him hear what the law says…."

The second point concerns the translation “under the law.” This is not the same kind of thought we had in 3:9 where Paul refers to the entire world as “under sin.” Literally, 3:19 says, “those in (ἐν, en) the law,” though this English translation is a bit difficult to understand. The point Paul seems to be making is that “those who possess or live in relationship to the OT revelation of God,” are those in the law. In other words, the apostle is referring to Jews as they view themselves in relationship to the Mosaic Law or God's covenant in general (cf. 3:20).

But, if Paul is referring primarily to the Jews in 3:19 (even though the citations in 3:10-18 indict all humanity), how can the whole world be said to be held accountable? The answer seems to be that if the best of humanity (i.e., the Jew) is indicted by God’s words and unable to be saved by works of the law (cf. 3:20), then certainly the rest of humanity doesn’t stand a chance. In an a fortiori argument, it is a foregone conclusion that if the Jew fails, so does everyone else. After all, they had the most opportunity.

3:20 The emphasis on no one (οὐ…πᾶσα σάρξ, ou...pasa sarx) picks up the Jewish element inherent in “those under the law” in 3:19 and broadens it to include all men. “No one” will be declared righteous (δικαιωθήσεται, dikaiōthēsetai), that is, absolutely no one will achieve a right standing with God on the basis of their own works.

The prepositional phrase by works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ex ergōn nomou) stands first in its clause for added emphasis (cf. Rom 3:28; 4:2; Gal 2:16). What are these “works of the law” to which Paul refers? While they undoubtedly include any works done in obedience to the Mosaic law, it seems that Paul primarily intends circumcision because of what it represents to the Jewish mind, i.e., covenantal faithfulness and inclusion (3:28-30; 4:2, 6, 9-10). Some commentators have suggested that ergōn nomou refers to dietary laws, but this is highly unlikely. Paul is not referring to dietary laws, but to the moral law of God which brings knowledge of sin (3:20). Also, it is almost impossible to see how Paul—if he were referring to dietary laws—could ever have made the point that all men are guilty of sin, both Jew and Gentile. Gentiles were never responsible to keep Israel's dietary laws.

The reason (γάρ, gar) works of the law cannot not justify a person is because the function of the law is not to justify and our works, no matter what their apparent merit, can never measure up to the standard set out in the law. The law was never intended to justifiy a person; indeed, it is powerless to aid a person in such a feat. On the contrary, it condemns the entire race, for it reveals both the fact of our sin as well as its heinous and condemnatory character (5:20-21; 7:7-9). In short, it is when we juxtapose our lives and the holy law of God that we gain personal, first-hand, and meaningful knowledge of our sin (ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας, epignōsis hamartias). To use "obedience to the law" as a catapult into fellowship with God is to fail to grasp our complete fallenness in God's eyes. This is, in large measure, Paul's point in 1:18-3:20.

F. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

This passage contributes to the doctrine of the depravity concerning the entire human race and that no person has escaped the grip of sin. Further, no amount of good works, done in accordance with the highest ethical norms, can result in our being declared righteous. The situation is hopeless as far as we are concerned. Our entire heart, mind, and will is enslaved to the power of sin and we stand under the just wrath of God.

G. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

When we preach the gospel we must help people understand that our first and ultimate problem as fallen human beings is not that we do not have what we need or want, but that we are in rebellion against God and are in need of forgiveness, righteousness, and reconciliation. We are under condemnation without Christ. Make no mistake about it and do not allow His profound patience to make a practical atheist out of you. Also, be wary of those who suggest that God will solve all your problems in the here-and-now or that He wants to make you a financial success. This is not the gospel, but a cheap substitute, which is really no gospel at all. To be sure, our Father does provide for his children, and there is coming a day when he will glorify his name by doing away with all our pain, grief, and struggles. But that day is not now. Our present experience is "life between the times." We live in the period of the inauguration of his kingdom, but we must wait patiently for the consummation to come at his return. Thus our present experience, while rooted in deep joy, is not without sorrow, pain, and suffering. We must take up the cross as our master taught us (Luke 9:23).

³⁶ John Blanchard, The Truth for Life (West Sussex, England: H. E. Walter, 1982), 263.

9. Study and Exposition of Romans 3:21-31

A. Introduction

Romans 1:18-3:20 speaks profoundly and frankly into the issue of human sin and responsibility. The night is very black indeed throughout these chapters; there is a deathly chill in the air between God and his creatures and the frightening darkness is looking more permanent with each stroke of the apostle’s pen. But a marked change occurs here in 3:21-31. For the first time (apart from 1:17) we receive hope for daylight, and not just a glimmer of the sun and the enjoyment of its heat, but the expectation of a bright, sunny day—such as one would experience at noonday. But even here we will have to wait for the full light of the sun; that will come in chapters 6-8. For now, it is enough to behold the sunrise—and a beautiful one it is! While sin has left us a glorious ruin, wretched vice-regents as it were, and condemned to death, grace is about to change all that.

“Back in the eighteenth century, a young boy was born into a Christian home. For the first six years of his life, he heard the truths of the gospel and he was loved. Sadly, though, his parents died. The orphaned boy went to live with his relatives. There he was mistreated and abused and ridiculed for his faith in Christ.

The boy couldn’t tolerate that situation, and he fled and joined the Royal Navy. In the navy, the boy’s life went downhill. He became known as a brawler, was whipped many times, and participated in some of his comrades’ being keel-hauled. Finally, while he was still young, he deserted the Royal Navy and fled to Africa, where he attached himself to a Portuguese slave trader. There, his life reached its lowest point. There were times when he actually ate off the floor on his hands and knees. He escaped and then became attached to another slave trader as the first mate on his ship. But the young man’s pattern of life had become so depraved, he couldn’t stay out of trouble. As the story goes, he stole the ship’s whiskey and got so drunk that he fell overboard. He was close to drowning when one of his shipmates harpooned him and brought him back on board. As a result, the young man had a huge scar in his side for the rest of his life. After that escapade, he couldn’t get much lower. In the midst of a great storm off the coast of Scotland, when days and days were filled with pumping water out of the boat, the young man began to reflect on the Scripture verses he had heard as a child. He was marvelously converted. The new life John Newton found is reflected in his own heartfelt words, familiar to millions now:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound—
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.”³⁷

Newton’s experience put into words: the ultimate point of Romans 3:21-31.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him as a satisfaction for sin by his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! 3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. 3:29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! 3:30 Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 3:31 Do we, therefore, nullify the law through this faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

Idea: The way in which God freely and graciously justifies any sinner, Jew or Gentile, as testified to in the Law and the Prophets, is not by works of the Law, but by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice—a sacrifice which demonstrates God's justice in dealing with sin and at the same time excludes all human boasting.

I. The way in which God freely and graciously justifies any sinner, Jew or Gentile, as testified to in the Law and the Prophets, is not by works of the Law, but by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice—a sacrifice which demonstrates God's judstice in dealing with sin (3:21-26).

A. The righteousness of God has been revealed through Christ’s faithfulness and is available to all by grace, through faith, apart from works (3:21-24).

1. The righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law and the prophets (3:21).

2. The law and the prophets testify to the righteousness of God (3:21).

3. The righteousness of God was disclosed through the faithfulness of Christ for all who believe (3:22).

4. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23).

5. All men are justified freely through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (3:24).

B. The fact that God publicly displayed Christ as a satisfaction for sin was to demonstrate his justice in terms of sins committed beforehand as well as to be the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness (3:25-26).

1. God publicly displayed Christ as a satisfaction for sin by his blood through faith (3:25).

2. Christ’s death publicly displays the righteousness of God in dealing with sins committed beforehand (3:25).

3. God is just and at the same time justifies the one who lives by the faithfulness of Jesus (3:26).

II. The reason boasting is excluded from justification is because justification is by faith, apart from works of the law (for both Jew and Gentile), though it does uphold the demands of the law (3:27-31).

A. Boasting is excluded in justification since justification is by faith apart from works (3:27-28).

1. Boasting is excluded on the basis of faith not works (3:27).

2. A person is declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law (3:28).

B. Since God is one, he is the God of both Jew and Gentile and justifies both of them in precisely the same way, i.e., by faith (3:29-30).

1. God is the God of both Jew and Gentile (3:29).

2. Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by that same faith (3:30).

C. Faith does not nullify the law, rather it upholds the law (3:31).

D. Simple Point Outline

Idea: The Righteousness of God: It's Availablility and Impact on Human Arrogance

I. The Way God Made His Righteousness Available Was…(3:21-26).

A. Through Christ (3:21-24)

1. Apart from the Law and Prophets (3:21)

2. His Faithfulness (3:22)

3. To All Men (3:23)

4. By Grace (3:24)

B. Without Compromising His Justice (3:25-26)

1. Christ Satisfies God’s Wrath against Sin (3:25)

2. God’s Justice and Justification (3:26)

II. The Role of Boasting, Faith, and the Law (3:27-31)

A. Boasting: It Is Excluded (3:27-28)

B. Faith: All Are Justified By Faith (3:29-30)

C. The Law: Faith Upholds the Law (3:31)

E. Exposition Proper

3:21 The phrase But now (Νυνὶ δὲ, nuni de) is extremely significant in Romans and marks off the “post-Christ’s coming” era—including the ministry of the Spirit—as a new development in the salvation historical plan of God. Now, Paul says, is the eschatological time of fulfillment in Christ (7:6). So then, νυνι δε is not simply a logical connector, as if Paul were saying, “since no one will be declared righteous through works of the law (3:20-21), therefore, righteousness must come by faith” (3:21-26). Rather, νυνι δε indicates that Paul is thinking in salvation-historical terms, i.e., the time before Christ's coming and the “now time” (3:26) after his coming and the inauguration of the reign of grace in the kingdom (cf. 5:20-21; 14:17).

But the realization of this time of fulfillment has come apart from the law (χωρὶς νόμου, chōris nomou)—the law refers to the Mosaic legislation enmeshed with any current rabbinic legal interpretation which prescribes works on that basis. It is apart from such a works-based-righteousness that the “righteousness of God” has been revealed.

The righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, dikaiosunē theou) refers to the status of those who have been declared righteous by God through no merit of their own. They are declared righteous on the basis of their redemption in Christ.

But while this legal standing before God is given apart from the Law, that does not mean there is absolutely no connection between his righteousness and the Law. On the contrary, the connection is prophetic, for the righteousness of God is attested (μαρτυρουμένη, marturoumenē) by the law and the prophets. As Paul has already stated in 1:2-4, the antecedents of the gospel (i.e., the good news about God’s righteousness given to the believer through Christ), go back deep into OT promise.

Paul uses the verb disclosed (πεφανέρωται, pephanrōtai) twenty-two times, often in connection with the coming of Christ as the definitive revelation of God’s plan. Compare Romans 16:26.

3:22-23 In vv. 22-23 Paul explains further what he means by the “righteousness of God.” It comes through faith, not works, and is available on that basis not to Jews only, but to all who believe (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, eis pantas tous pisteuontas). It is available to the one who is the most vial idolater and sexually perverse (1:18-32) and it is available on the same basis to the Jew who claimed to live according to the law of God (2:1-3:9). In fact, as far as the righteousness of God is concerned, including the manner in which it is received, there is no distinction (διαστολή, diastolē) between Gentile and Jew. The reason for this is simple: since all are sinners and together have fallen short of God’s moral and spiritual perfection (i.e., his glory), all are equally in need of his righteousness and all receive it on the same basis (3:9-20).

This righteousness is made available through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, dia pisteōs Iēsou christou). The text literally reads, “through the faith of Jesus Christ.” An interpretive question immediately presents itself: “What does Paul mean by “the faith of Jesus Christ”? Some argue that the “of” phrase (a genitive construction in Greek) should be understood as indicating possession, i.e., Jesus’ faith. We are then saved through imitating Jesus’ faith. This has little grammatical or biblical/theological support.

A second interpretation is to take the genitive “of” phrase to mean “faith in Jesus.” This is often referred to as the objective genitive interpretation where Iēsou is taken as the object of the verbal noun “pisteōs” (i.e., “faith”). This has been the traditional interpretation and has much to commend it biblically and grammatically speaking.

There is, however, a third interpretation which has been recently advanced and is the one adopted in the NET Bible. In this interpretation, Iēsou is taken as the subject of the verbal noun pisteōs. This indicates that Jesus’ faithfulness is in view and that the righteousness of God has been made known through the faithfulness of Christ (i.e., his obedience to the Father in life and death) and is available to all who believe.

Now it must be said that both Paul and the rest of the NT endorse both these latter two options. This is not a discussion, then, about which idea is heretical and which is orthodox, but rather about the truth to which Romans 3:22 (26) refers.

There are those who suggest, along with other arguments, that an objective genitive is unlikely since the following phrase, “for all who believe,” is rendered superfluous in this interpretation. But this need not be the case at all, for the accent in this phrase is not so much on faith as it is on “all;” it is an emphatic statement on the universality of the offer of salvation.

Nonetheless, it does appear that the subjective genitive is to be preferred—though neither interpretation is without its difficulties. First, the passage focuses on the revelation (cf. phaneroō) of God’s righteousness publicly (3:25). This fits well with the cross obedience of Jesus which itself argues for the subjective genitive. It is difficult to see how the righteousness of God is revealed through our faith in Jesus, but it is not difficult to see how it is revealed by Jesus’ obedience to the Father. Second, when “faith” (pistis) is followed by a personal noun in the genitive case, it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5).

3:24 Though all men without distinction are sinners, they may be justified (δικαιούμενοι, dikaioumenoi), that is, declared righteous and freed from all charges in connection with their sin (Rom 5:1). This is not a reference to being made righteous in any ethical or spiritual sense, but rather to a genuine legal pronouncement involving acquittal (cf. Rom 3:8). And God pronounces a person justified freely (δωρεάν, dōrean) by his grace. The idea of “freely” reaches back to Paul’s comment in 3:21 about the righteousness of God being revealed apart from the law (i.e., apart from works of the law). We cannot do, nor are we required to do—in fact we are forbidden to do—good works in the hope of earning salvation (Eph 2:8-9). Salvation is a gift and is given by God's grace (χάρις, charis).It is given according to his undeserved, completely and utterly, unmerited favor (cf. Rom 4:1-25). While we all fit somewhere in the description of 1:18-3:20, we can nevertheless be freely forgiven and justified through Christ by faith.

Every thought Paul has is focused on the person and work of Jesus Christ in the “now” time of salvation history (cf. the “now” in 3:21). The term redemption (ἀπολυτρώσεως, apolutrōseōs) means to “to buy back” and probably has as its background the manumission of slaves. In our context here in Romans, it is likely that Paul intends the idea that through Christ’s death—the fully paid ransom price—sinners are purchased for God from the enslaving power of sin (cf. Rom 3:9; Mark 10:45; Eph 1:7; 1 Cor 6:20).

3:25a God publicly displayed Christ as the satisfaction for sin. The term publicly displayed (προέθετο, proetheto) is in the middle voice and could be rendered “purposed” or “publicly displayed” (Rom 1:13; Eph 1:9). Both are definitely true, but for a number of reasons the second option seems better in this case: (1) Paul has argued that the righteousness of God has been disclosed, that is, “brought to light.” This accords well with a public event; (2) by his blood (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, en tō autou haimati) focuses on the cross which was a public event; (3) the term demonstrate (εἰς ἔνδειξιν, eis endeixin) argues well for a public presentation; (4) the faithfulness of Jesus Christ refers primarily, then, to his cross obedience which was public; (5) the focus on the present time (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, en tō nun kairō) in 3:26 refers to the present time in light of Christ’s coming, death, and resurrection which was all public; (6) it is connected to the term satisfaction which has as its focus the physical reality of the cross, and is, therefore, external and public in focus; (7) the use of the accusative object complement, i.e., “God publicly displayed him a satisfaction for sin” fits better with the translation “publicly displayed” rather than "purposed."³⁸

There has also been no little discussion over the meaning of satisfaction (ἱλαστήριον, hilastērion). It has been argued that since the term is used twenty-one out of twenty-seven times in the Septuagint to refer to the mercy seat, that this is its meaning here too. Further, the only other NT usage of the term in Hebrews 9:5 suggests that this is its meaning in Romans 3:25. There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies) where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Thus Paul it appears that Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. Thus Christ is the fulfillment or antitype of the OT image. The fact that the definite article is not used with hilastērion is not a serious objection to this view. The contention that such an interpretation requires too much knowledge of the OT cultus is not damaging either. We may be well assured that in a church with both Jew and Gentile, where the LXX was undoubtedly taught, knowledge of Leviticus 16 and the "Day of Atonement" ritual was well known.

Further, some (e.g., Dodd) have contended that all meaning of “just wrath” is absent from hilastērion, but in a context dealing specifically with the wrath of God, i.e., 1:18-3:20, this is most unlikely. The term is best understood, then, to bring together twin aspects of God relationship to sinners, that is, expiation and propitiation. Respectively, God has removed our sin (expiation) and his anger is satiated against us (i.e., he is propitiated toward us).

3:25a-26 Paul says that there was a reason God accomplished propitiation in Christ on the cross. It was to demonstrate his righteousness because up to this point he had not dealt eternally with the question of man’s sin and guilt—he had passed over sins previously committed (τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, tēn paresin tōn progegonotōn hamartēmatōn). The cross, however, is the answer, publicly given, to the accusation that God himself is sinful since he had not openly dealt with sin.

But in the process of demonstrating his deep seated, eternal hatred for sin—i.e., his holiness and justice, he is at once the one who condemns sin as well as the one who justifies the person who lives because of the faithfulness of Christ. The phrase just and the justifier (δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα, dikaion kai dikaiounta) might also be rendered, “just, even when he justifies.…”

3:27 Paul’s point in v. 27 follows naturally from 3:21-26 and indeed from all the previous material commencing in 1:18. When the apostle asks where then is boasting (Ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις, pou oun hē kauchēsis)—a question particularly addressed to the Jews—the answer is rather obvious. Wherever it is, it is not included in salvation. Indeed, it is excluded (ἐξεκλείσθη, exekleisthē), “shut out,” “eliminated,” as it were. There is absolutely no room in one’s salvation for boasting since salvation is, from beginning to end, a work of God on behalf of depraved, lawless people (Eph 2:8-9). The principle of faith (πιστίς, pistis), that is, having to place sheer trust in God, as opposed to my own efforts (cf. 4:1ff), by the very nature of the case, excludes boasting in human achievement.

3:28 Again Paul hammers home his point. A person is declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law (δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, dikaiousthai pistei anthrōpon chōris ergōn nomou). This statement, along with vv. 29-30, brings to a conclusion what Paul has been arguing thus far and prepares the reader for the OT example of Abraham to come in chapter 4.

3:29-30 Since God is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, it follows that justification for all men must come apart from the law which was given solely to the Jews.

The oneness of God was a belief properly basic to Judaism and proclaimed by every devout Jew each day (cf. Deut 6:4). Here Paul appeals to this doctrine, claiming that since God is one (εἷς ὁ θεὸς, eis ho theos), he must have the same salvific concern for the Gentile as he does for the Jew. The Judaism of Paul’s day, however, did not draw the same conclusion from God’s essential unity. The only way a Gentile could be rightly related to God was to become a proselyte to Judaism, including coming under the yoke of the Law. And even then, Gentiles were always Gentiles, never quite up to the level of Jews by birth; in the eyes of the Jew, they had no natural claim on God. Paul says, however, that God is interested in the Gentiles apart from the Law and that contrary to certain Jewish expectations, the Gentiles are saved through the same faith that saves a Jew.

3:31 It is true that salvation is by grace through faith apart from the Law, but this does not mean that it has no essential relationship to the Law. Verse 31, due to the ambiguous nature of the comment, has given rise to various interpretations and modifications within similar interpretations. Two important questions are: (1) what is its relationship to 4:1ff and (2) what is the meaning of “law,” “nullify” and “uphold”? We will treat these questions in reverse order.

First, what is the meaning of “law,” “nullify” and “uphold”? Some argue that what Paul means by “law” is the OT as a whole in that it generally points or testifies to his doctrine of “righteousness by faith apart from the works of the law.” The primary support for this idea is that Paul says as much in 3:21. The problem with this view, here in v. 31, however, is that the term law (νόμος, nomos) stands alone and is not combined with “prophets” (as it is in 3:21) Also, the contrast between “upholding” the law versus “nullifying” it is not well established on this meaning. Further, this interpretation does not seem to give proper weight to the contrast between “works of the law” and “faith” in its understanding of the function of “law” (as “testifying”) in v. 31. Finally, the text does not say, “the law is upheld by this faith,” it says “we uphold” [the law by this faith]. This makes it unlikely that Paul intends here that our righteousness by faith was testified to in the OT. This may be true, but here in Romans 3:31 something other than the prophetic witness of the OT seems to be in mind.

Others argue that faith upholds the law in the sense that since the law condemns us all, as Paul argued in 3:19-20, faith alone is the only means of salvation. This is what the law was meant to teach us and to assert that salvation is by faith alone is not to nullify the law in its condemnatory role, but it is indeed to establish the truthfulness of the law in its evaluation of mankind. This, of course, is similar to what Paul teaches in Galatians 3:19-21, 24. But, it is difficult to see how “nullifying” the law and “upholding” it make much sense in this view.

We have said that the “righteousness of God” refers to a perfect legal standing with God (3:21-25). But Paul has argued that this perfect legal standing with God is not earned by works, rather it is received by faith. But, this doctrine—i.e., that justification comes by faith, not by works of the Law—has led to many Jews indicting Paul for antinomianism, that is, accusing him of a complete disregard for the Law and performing its works. It is to this accusation that verse 31 is ultimately directed. In verse 31 Paul is saying that justification by faith does not nullify obedience to the demands of God expressed in the Law, rather it upholds those righteous demands and is the only way they can truly be met. This interpretation is based on taking Law in v. 31 as referring to the demand of the law not to its prophetic witness to the present age of salvation nor to its role in exposing sin.

Verse 31, then, brings a conclusion to 3:27-31 and does not lead one directly into 4:1ff. The transition to 4:1ff came in 3:27-30. The truth of verse 31, that faith really upholds the demands of the law, is ambiguous and will be further unpacked in light of the ministry of the Spirit in 8:4ff and expressed in the context of the new community in 13:9-10.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: God’s Righteousness Given to Us by Faith…

I. Is Apart from Any Works We Could Do (3:21)

A. Apart from the Law

B. The Law and the Prophets

II. Is through the Faithfulness of Christ (3:22a)

III. Is for All of Us (3:22b-23)

A. For All Who Believe (3:22b-c)

B. There Is no Distinction (3:22c-23)

IV. Is Freely Given via Christ’s Redemptive Act (3:24)

A. By Grace (3:24)

B. Through the Redemption in Christ (3:24)

V. Is Rooted in God’s Justice (3:25-26)

A. Christ as the Satisfaction for Sin (3:25a)

B. God’s Justice Is not Compromised (3:25b-26)

VI. Excludes Any Boasting (3:27-30)

A. Because Justification Is by Faith (3:27-28)

B. All Men Are Justified by Faith (3:39-30)

VII. Upholds the Law (3:31)

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

This passage stands at the very heart of Romans 1:18-15:13 and indeed Paul’s entire doctrine of soteriology (i.e., salvation). First, justification is the act of declaring a sinner righteous and acquitting him/her of all charges and condemnation. Second, the passage clearly affirms that justification is received by faith apart from works of any kind. Third, God justifies sinners by grace on the basis of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Fourth, God’s wrath against sinners has been totally satiated through Christ’s sacrifice. Fifth, in the act of justifying sinners God’s justice has in no way been compromised, for the total just payment for sin has been met in Christ. Sixth, salvation theology and the universal offer of the gospel rest on God’s essential unity and His position as creator of all men; we must never divorce proper creation theology from salvation theology. To do so is to bring an end to biblical Christianity. Seventh, faith does not nullify the righteous demands of the law. Rather, it is through faith that the holy demands of the law are upheld.

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

This passage contributes in numerous ways to discipleship and church mission. We will mention three. First, we must be sure to continue to teach new Christians (all Christians for that matter) that justification is not something people earn, but something that is credited to their account when they believe in Christ apart from works. Once a person has been declared righteous by God, such a declaration forms the basis or foundation upon which God can approach him/her freely and forever. The question of their sin and falling short (3:23) has been forever answered. Therefore, it is spiritually damaging to people to suggest that once God has declared them righteous they can somehow lose that freely given status, i.e., lose our salvation (which involves more than "losing the Holy Spirit"). We were sinners when we received God’s free offer—sinful enough to require a cross as the solution—and we will be sinners (albeit redeemed) until we are with him in glory.

Second, we must also teach our people that true faith does not nullify the holy demands of the law as if to say that trusting in Christ/God leads to lawlessness or a spirit that takes lightly either sin or holiness. On the contrary, as we trust deeply in Christ the demands of the law are met in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (8:4).

Third, the gospel is available to all men; it is “for everyone who believes.” We must give careful thought to reaching out to our neighbors with the gospel as well as pouring God-given time, energy, and resources into foreign missions.³⁹

³⁷ See R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories & Quotes (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1998), 191-92.

³⁸ The translation "purposed" is not impossible on the object-complement construction, but does not seem to fit as well.

³⁹ The American church as a whole is in bad need of reformulating not only it's mission and structures, but more basically, it's theology of itself and its basic nature. See Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).

10. Study and Exposition of Romans 4:1-12

A. Introduction

James Montgomery Boice comments on a Bible tract prepared by some atheists: “Quite a few years ago a society for the spread of atheism prepared a tract containing half a dozen sketches of Old Testament characters combined with a lurid description of their misdeeds. No efforts were spared in describing their sin. One figure was Abraham. The leaflet pointed out that he was willing to sacrifice his wife's honor to save his own life. Yet he was called “the friend of God.” The atheists asked what kind of God this is who would have a friend like Abraham. Another figure was Jacob. He was described as a cheat and a liar. Yet God called himself “the God of Jacob.” Moses was portrayed as a murderer and a fugitive from justice, which he was. David was shown to be an adulterer who compounded the crime of adultery with the murder of the woman's husband. Yet David was called a man after God's own heart.” The atheists asked what kind of God he must be who could be pleased with David.

Remarkably this tract had hit on something which even God acknowledges. God calls himself just and holy. Yet for centuries he had been refusing to condemn and instead had actually been justifying men and women such as these. We might say that for these long centuries there had been a blot on God's name. As Paul says, he had indeed been passing over former sins. Is God unjust? No. In the death of Christ God's name and purposes are vindicated. It is now seen that on the basis of that death, God had justified and continues to justify the ungodly.”⁴⁰

Boice has rightly noted that justification involves God's declaration of acquittal of the ungodly on the basis of Christ's death. At the core of justification is a new legal standing, wherein the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner's account and she/he has been permanently forgiven. This is, in miniature form, the theme of Romans 4:1-12.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? 4:2 For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast about (but not before God). 4:3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4:4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness. 4:6 So even David himself speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 4:8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord does not count sin.”

4:9 Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 4:10 How then was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised! 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them. 4:12 And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised.

C. Full Exegetical Outline

Idea: The way in which God declared Abraham righteous (as an example to us) was by faith, apart from works and circumcision, in order that he might be the spiritual father of the Gentiles who believe as well as Jews who believe.

I. The way in which Abraham was declared righteous was by believing God, apart from works, as David also testifies (4:1-8).

A. Abraham was declared righteous by believing God, apart from works, just as Genesis 15:6 says (4:1-3).

1. If Abraham was declared righteous by works he has a boast, but not before God (4:1-2).

2. Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham was justified by believing God (4:3).

B. Righteousness is credited as a gift, apart from works, otherwise it would be as an obligation (4:4-5).

1. The one who works receives pay, does so not according to grace, but according to obligation (4:4).

2. The one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness (4:5).

C. David agrees that righteousness is a gift, apart from works, and that it includes complete and irreversible forgiveness (4:6-8).

1. David speaks about righteousness apart from works (4:6).

2. Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered (4:7).

3. Blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin (4:8).

II. Since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised he can stand as the father of both the uncircumcised (i.e., Gentiles) who have faith as well as the circumcised (i.e., Jews) who also have faith (4:9-12).

A. Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised (4:9-10).

B. Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he already had by faith with the result that he became the father of everyone who has faith whether they are uncircumcised or circumcised (4:11-12).

1. Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he already had by faith (4:11a).

2. Abraham is the father of all those who have faith yet have never been circumcised (4:11b).

3. Abraham is the father of all the circumcised who also walk in the footsteps of his faith before he was circumcised (4:12).

D. Simple Point Outline

Idea: Justification Is Apart from Works and Circumcision

I. Justification Is Apart from Works (4:1-8)

A. The Citation of Genesis 15:6 (4:1-3)

B. The Nature of “Crediting” (4:4-5)

C. The Citation of Psalm 31:1-2a LXX (4:6-8)

II. Justification Is Apart from Circumcision (4:9-12)

A. Abraham’s Circumcumcision after Genesis 15:6 (4:9-10)

B. Abraham, the Father of Gentile Believers (4:11)

C. Abraham, the Father of Jewish Believers (4:12)

E. Exposition Proper

Paul has just argued in 3:21-31 that justification is by faith and is available to all men. And, since it is apart from any works of the law, all boasting is excluded (cf. esp. 3:27-28). In 4:1-12 he will buttress this argument with proof from the OT and the experience of Abraham and David.

4:1 Paul now turns to the example of Abraham. He asks the question: “What did Abraham find with regard to the manner in which God justifies a person? Was it by faith or by works? Abraham found that it was by faith, not by works.

The use of the perfect tense verb has discovered (εὑρηκέναι, heurēkenai) points to the declaration of righteousness in Genesis 15:6 and the fact that such a declaration formed the lasting foundation of Abraham’s relationship with YHWH.

When Paul says our (ἡμων, hēmōn) father Abraham he is not just referring to the Jews, but is including the Gentiles as well—everyone in the church at Rome.

4:2 Paul says, “let’s see what Abraham found, because if he found that he was justified by works (ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ex ergōn edikaiōthē), then he has a boast, but not before God.” If Abraham earned a legal declaration of righteousness—which itself involves acquittal from any and all sins, as well as the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness—on the basis of his own (meritorious) works, he can boast, but even then, not before God.

But Paul's argument here seems to put him in conflict with James in 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” The obvious answer to this apparent dilemma is that Paul refers to the initial legal justification of a person while James refers to the final vindication of the same person who has claimed throughout his/her life to have faith. Thus the two are using the term "justify" in different, though related senses. In short, there is no real contradiction.

4:3 Picking up on the question of whether Abraham was justified by works (which some Jews held), Paul says: this is not what the scripture teaches. It teaches in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (ἐπίστευσεν δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, episteusen de Abraam tō theō elogisthē autō eis dikaiosunē). In other words, Abraham was declared righteous by believing God concerning the promise for many descendants (i.e., as numerous as the stars). He was not declared righteous on the basis of any works he had performed.

What Paul is saying here flies directly in the face of much of what his contemporaries believed about Abraham. Abraham was held in high esteem in Paul's day, and not necessarily needing God’s grace—that is, grace which was reserved for sinners. He was regarded as the father of the Jewish nation and one who obeyed God implicitly in absolutely everything (Ant 1. 225; Jub. 17:18). Indeed, it was because of his obedience that he received the promise of posterity, not because of his faith apart from works (cf. Gen 26:4-5).

In the Jewish intertestamental book of Sirach, the following is said of Abraham:

19Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations, and no one has been found like him in glory.20 He kept the law of the Most High, and entered into a covenant with him; he certified the covenant in his flesh, and when he was tested he proved faithful.21 Therefore the Lord assured him with an oath that the nations would be blessed through his offspring; that he would make him as numerous as the dust of the earth, and exalt his offspring like the stars, and give them an inheritance from sea to sea and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth (44:19-21; NRSV).

But Paul understands the OT traditions about Abraham to say something quite different regarding the particular question of his salvation and justification. The words it was credited (ἐλογίσθη, elogisthē) translate only one verb in the Greek text. The verb is functioning as a divine passive, meaning that God was the one who did the crediting, not Abraham. Abraham did not earn righteousness by works, rather Gdo credited righteousness to his account by faith. The Greek term elogisthe is used eleven times in 4:1-25 and may also be translated: “to impute,” “to reckon” or “to calculate.”

Now the fact that elogisthe is used eleven times in 4:1-25 (nine in 4:1-12) suggests that the rest of this section is a developed commentary on the meaning and application of the term as understood from Genesis 15:6. Paul also cites Ps 32:1-2 (in 4:7-8) which is related to Genesis 15:6 verbally through the use of the same term, i.e., logisētai. Some scholars, therefore, suggest that Paul’s exegesis is a fine example of Jewish midrash. But while it is quite likely that Paul is following similar Jewish exegetical practices (i.e., joining passages together on the basis of similar catchwords), his use of Genesis 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2 is much more in keeping with their canonical contexts and, therefore, distinct from much of the way texts were handled by the rabbis in their endless discussions. Further, to label Paul’s handling of these OT texts as midrash is really not helpful in the final analysis since the term “midrash” is ambiguous; some relate it to an interpretive method, some to a psychology or mindset involved in the interpretive process, and some to the end product of such methods.

4:4 In vv. 4-5 Paul will take a moment to explain further what he means by the phrase it was credited in 4:3. Then he will confirm his understanding of the term (elogisthe) by citing David’s words on the matter.

The point of v. 4 is that righteousness is not credited like the earnings a person receives when he/she works a job. In this case, the earnings are legally due to the worker as an obligation (ὀφείλημα, opheilēma). This means that they are not freely given according to grace (χάρις, charis), but rather they are earned through hard effort. Indeed, if they were credited according to works, the term “credited” would mean nothing and neither would the term “grace.”

4:5 In v. 5 Paul is not espousing laziness (cf. 1 Thess 4:11-12), but instead argues that righteousness is not credited to the person who trusts in his law-works to save himself, but [is credited to the person who] believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous (πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, pisteuonti de epi ton dikaiounta ton asebē). This person’s faith is credited as righteousness (λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, logizetai hē pistis autou eis dikaiosunēn). That is, it is through this kind of faith that God declares the person righteous and views them with the righteousness of Christ himself.

4:6-8 The truth about God justifying the ungodly apart from works—a state of blessing (μακαρισμός, makarismos) according to David—is found even in David’s own writings, namely, Psalm 32:1-2a in the MT and Ps 31:1-2a in LXX. The quotation functions at two very important levels: (1) it is another witness from scripture, but this time outside the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses); (2) the term logisētai in Ps 31:2a (in 4:8) connects the Psalm to elogisthē in Genesis 15:6 (cited in 4:3) and underscores the forensic or legal aspects of justification in terms of acquittal. Indeed, these verses serve to accentuate the close relationship in Paul’s mind between justification and forgiveness for lawless deeds (αἱ ἀνομίαι, hai anomiai) and sins (αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, hai hamartiai). This justification, about which Paul speaks, then, is available to those in 1:18-32 and those in 2:1-3:8; it means that God has declared them righteous and will never credit their sin to them so as to overturn his verdict of acquittal.

Now this idea of God justifying the ungodly seems at first glance to oppose explicit statements to the contrary in the OT—the very source from which Paul is trying to prove his doctrine. It would have also been quite repugnant to many strands of first century Judaism. Exodus 23:7 (NET) says: “Keep your distance from a false charge—do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I do not justify the wicked.” Proverbs 17:15 (NET) says: “Justifying the wicked and condemning the righteous—both of them are an abomination to the LORD” (cf. Isa 5:23). The primary difference, however, between Paul's argument and these OT citations is the issue of justice. Justice has been satisfied in the case of the gospel (i.e., through the death of Christ), but it has not been met in the case of the OT examples cited.

4:9-10 There are those who argue that v. 9 begins a new paragraph, but this is unlikely since the themes of “blessing,” “crediting,” and “faith” are simply worked out in a little greater detail.

Now a Jew might respond to Paul’s argument by claiming that justification is possible, but only for the Jew as the texts cited from the OT were given to and applied to Jews only. After all, Abraham is their father, and David was their king; indeed most of David's enemies were Gentiles!

The argument of vv. 9-10 is that since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised (29 years by rabbinic calculations), circumcision and being a biological descendant of Abraham (or any manner of inclusion in the nation of Israel) is not the issue as far as receiving the blessing of justification is concerned. What is at issue is expressed in vv. 11-12.

4:11 Abraham received (ἔλαβεν, elaben)—he did not “earn”—the sign of circumcision (σημεῖον…περιτομῆς, sēmeion…peritomēs), that is, the sign which is circumcision. In contrast to rabbinic thinking, Paul argues that circumcision functioned as a sign which pointed toward the superior reality of a righteousness received through faith. It functioned as a seal (σφραγῖδα, sphragida), that is, it was an external confirmation of the righteous standing Abraham had already received by faith (τῆς πίστεως, tēs pisteōs) almost thirty years earlier. Abraham did not receive circumcision as a result of his obedience to the Torah, nor is genuine membership in the people of God based on works, religious rites, or inclusion in the nation of Israel.

Abraham was declared righteous by faith before he was circumcised. The result is that he can be, and indeed is, the spiritual father of every Gentile who believes but has never been circumcised. Note also that Paul mentions the fact that Abraham was the spiritual father of the Gentiles (v. 11) before he mentions that the Patriarch was the spiritual father of those of the circumcision. That Abraham was the spiritual father of the Gentiles, before he was the spiritual father of the Jews, would have fallen on hard times among Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, but it opens up the reality of the universality of God’s offer of righteousness to all men (cf. Acts 13:34, 47).

4:12 Abraham is not only the father of Gentile believers (in a spiritual sense), but also the father of the Jewish nation (physical and spiritual). In this final verse Paul has only one group in mind—Jews who believe. His argument is that Abraham is not the spiritual father of any Jew who is circumcised, and yet has no faith. Rather, he is the spiritual father of every Jew who has faith—the kind of faith, that is, that Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised.

This final comment about “the faith our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised” emphasizes a faith that has no desire to rest on the rite of circumcision or any other foundation (e.g., works) other than God’s grace and mercy.

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Idea: Accept God’s Gift of Righteousness by Faith Alone

I. By Trusting in God and not Your Works (4:1-8)

A. God Doesn’t Justify People by Works (4:1-3)

B. God Justifies the Ungodly by Faith (4:4-8)

II. By Trusting in God and not Religious Rites (4:9-12)

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

Romans 4:1-12 teaches us several things. First, the use of Genesis 15:6 to demonstrate an essential NT doctrine, i.e., justification by faith apart from works demonstrates the essential, salvific unity between the testaments. While the content of the revelation is in many respects different in the NT, the object of faith, namely, God, and the primacy of faith over works, has not changed. In Romans 4:1-12, the presupposition is that the essential prophetic continuity of scripture is affected through promise—the promise to Abraham. Thus the OT can be read with profit by any Christian—a fact Paul appeals to later in Romans 15:4.

Second, and in keeping with the overarching theme of promise, is that justification is by grace through faith involving no merit of our own. This passage affirms that we are unable to save ourselves and that grace is our only hope. This being the case, the observance of religious rites, such as circumcision—or baptism, for that matter—is of no value in securing a relationship with God.

Third, this passage, through the use of Abrahamic traditions, affirms the offer of salvation beyond the confines of Israel. Those who become Christians by faith participate in the Abrahamic promise and are children of Abraham.

Fourth, this passage teaches that an essential element of justification involves the forgiveness of sins.

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

This passage is another reminder in Romans that the gospel is for all men, not just the Jews, nor solely for those who are religious or upright. It is for all men and it is the responsibility of the church to proclaim it to all men. It is by this gospel alone that men enter into a permanent relationship with God in which they can know the complete and eternal forgiveness of sins.

“The wonder of forgiveness has become a banality. It can be the death of our faith if we forget that it is literally a miracle”—Helmut Thielicke

“What I envy most about you Christians is your forgiveness; I have nobody to forgive me”—Marghanita Laski, secular humanist and novelist, before her death in 1988.

⁴⁰ James Montgomery Boice, Awakening to God, Foundations for Christian Faith, vol. 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 76-77.

You are here

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Background Material and Argument of the Book

A. Background Material

1. Author

a. External Evidence

b. Internal Evidence

2. Date and Place of Origin

3. Destination/Audience

4. Occasion and Purpose2

5. Origin of the Church

6. Theme

B. Argument

C. Teaching Outline15

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

1. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:1-7

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

1. The Relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament—Romans 1:2-4

2. The “Obedience of Faith” and Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

2. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:8-15

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

5. Study and Exposition of Romans 2:1-16

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

6. Study and Exposition of Romans 2:17-29

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology

H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Romans: The Gospel of God's Righteousness PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

7. Study and Exposition of Romans 3:1-8

A. Introduction

B. Translation of Passage in NET

C. Full Exegetical Outline

D. Simple Point Outline

E. Exposition Proper

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

4. Occasion and Purpose²

C. Teaching Outline¹⁵