Romans

Home A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Abbreviations Glossary

---

Romans, by John E. Toews (Believers Church Bible Commentary)

Introduction

Relevance

Romans is Paul’s longest and most comprehensive and nuanced presentation of key elements of the “proclamation of well-being” (euangelion; aka, “gospel”) that he preaches. This letter-essay-homily addressed to “all God’s beloved in Rome” (1:7) is enormously relevant for Christian reflection on faith and practice in varied contexts around the world for many reasons (Scripture translations throughout are by the author). It is relevant today chiefly in terms of its own overall purpose and strategy: Romans is designed to offer a framework for bringing an increasingly diverse and divided church—both locally in Rome and across expanding regions—into a greater sense of unity, while respecting difference, whether cultural, theological, or ethical difference. The inclusive emphasis on the “all” of God’s beloved is powerfully presented throughout, through the binary framework of both ioudaioi (Jews-Judeans, “those of Judah”) and ethnoi (Gentiles, “(people of) the nations”).

Romans is not designed as a systematic theology pronounced for all times and places. Rather, what we have in Romans is the contingent articulation of a practical, pastoral theology that Paul hopes can unify a movement that is on the verge of disintegration into factional divisions. Romans is more about resolving a crisis of relationships (along with realizing true justice-righteousness in the world; see below on 1:16-17) than about depositing a book of unchanging doctrines on how a private and isolated individual can get right with God (the classic Protestant view of “justification by faith”). Further, it is far more about clarifying the character and action of the God who saves, than about specifying what humans will or can get.

Date, Setting, and Author

Paul in Corinth. In order to understand Paul’s multi-layered and multi-purposed letter, one must appreciate its context. In the winter months of early 56 CE (give or take a year or two), Paul is lodging in Corinth at the house of Gaius, host-patron of the whole assembly (Rom 16:23). Paul is enjoying a short calm in the midst of turbulent times. He has just come out of a harrowing experience of imprisonment, torture, and hardship in Asia (where he was “unbearably and utterly crushed” so that he “despaired of life itself,” 2 Cor 1:8) and then in Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5-6), the immediate impetus for his reflections on the meaning of suffering in Romans (5:1–5; 8:17-39; cf. 2 Cor 1:3-11; 11:23–12:10). He fears mounting opposition in Judea (Rom 15:30-32), and in just a few more months he will be back in Roman detention, as things erupt in Jerusalem (Acts 20–25).

We can imagine that during a few months of reprieve (Acts 20:1-3), then, Paul is resting and convalescing, nursing his physical and psychological wounds, while reflecting, studying Scripture, and praying. He is no doubt rejoicing that he has won back the Corinthian congregation after years of protracted tensions, and especially that they have contributed to the relief fund for the poor of Judea (Rom 15:27-27), a project that has occupied him for six years (Zerbe 2012b). He has travel plans on his mind, both east and west (Rom 1:10-15; 15:22-24), but for the moment he must wait, as all the major sea-faring ships are moored at port for the winter season (usually from mid-November to mid-March). Many of the distinctive features of Romans (e.g., its length, careful construction, extensive citation of Scripture) are made possible by this moment of relative reprieve.

Factions in Tension. Paul is especially contemplating what is happening on the horizon. From a vantage point a few hundred meters from town, he can see the sun rise on the sea to the east, and he can see the sun set on the sea to the west. Looking east, he thinks of Jerusalem. He has not been there for eight years, and the last time he was there, after receiving support for the “gospel that he preaches among the (people of the) nations,” he agreed to a formal “partnership” with the leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, on the condition that he would “remember the poor” (Gal 2:1-10). But the tensions between the mother church and his network of assemblies outside of Judea have only heightened, and he fears a growing divide on the horizon (Rom 15:30-31). Once travel season opens, he hopes to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16) to deliver practical assistance to the poor of Judea, suffering from famine and an unjust system of imperial tribute (Acts 24:17). Paul sees this undertaking especially as a token of unity and “partnership” across the waters that divide and as a way of enacting the fulfillment of prophecy—that at the dawn of the age to come, the nations would make pilgrimage and bring their tribute to Jerusalem, reversing the outflow of wealth experienced for hundreds of years (Rom 15:17-29).

Turning toward the horizon to the west, Paul sees opportunity in Spain (Rom 15:22-24, 28), but also foreboding crises in Rome. Though he has never been to Rome, he has numerous friends and coworkers there (Rom 16), and through correspondence with them he has kept up on the dynamics of this strategically located center. The Jesus loyalists in Rome are found in multiple house assemblies (five groupings noted in Rom 16:3-16), and increasing disputes have meant that not all remain “in communion” with each other. Paul describes the two main factions as “those who are weak in fidelity-faith-conviction” (see on 1:16-17 for this translation issue) and “those who are strong-powerful” (notably 14:1–15:6). This simplistic binary (not unlike that of “conservative” vs. “liberal”) involves convictional (and cultural) differences, while also reflecting socio-economic divisions. What we can discern is that the “weak in fidelity,” who appear to be primarily from a Judean-Jewish heritage, were biblical traditionalists, claiming ancient biblical and unchanging standards for conduct. Paul perceives this group as especially prone to claiming special status (Rom 2:17-20, 25-29) and “judging” (2:1-5; 14:3, 4, 10, 13). By contrast, the “strong-powerful,” who appear to be from both Jewish-Judean and non-Judean backgrounds, were messianic revisionists, claiming a new framework for conduct revealed through Messiah (Christ) Jesus, stressing “fidelity and conviction” over detailed rules propounded by Moses in the Law (Torah). Paul perceives this group, whose position Paul endorses (14:14), as especially prone to arrogance (11:13-25) and “despising” (14:3, 10); and Paul challenges them even more forcefully (about their need to accommodate to the other group) than he does the “weak in fidelity.”

This cultural and convictional divide has been exacerbated by recent events. In the year 48 CE, all Jews-Judeans were expelled from Rome, including Jews affirming Jesus as Messiah (e.g., Acts 18:2). This meant that the non-Jewish group became the only form of the Jesus movement in Rome, until the lifting of the expulsion order in 54 CE (so that, for instance, Prisca and Aquila could return to Rome; Rom 16:3-5). We can surmise that this has left the original Jewish-Judean core of the Jesus movement in Rome decimated, in relative financial hardship, and marginalized both in relation to the imperial-civic order and in relation to their now more “powerful” non-Jewish colleagues in the faith.

(Note: the modern English term “Jew” emerged from an elision of the “d” sound that was originally part of the word “Judean.” When Paul uses ioudaioi, he references an identity that is ethnic, religious, political, and geographical, all in one. In Paul’s time, the majority of “Judeans” are ex-patriots, like Paul, usually maintaining close ties or emotional connections with the homeland.)

This local divide in Paul’s view appears to replicate the mounting global gulf among Jesus loyalists. Though not a simple binary, at one end are mainly Jewish-Judean Jesus Messianists (“Christians”) committed to a detailed, literal interpretation and application of Torah centered in Jerusalem, with thousands embracing this perspective (Acts 21:20-21; Rom 15:31). Paul knows that his presentation of the “gospel for the (people of the) nations” differs on some points from that of the Jerusalem apostles (thus “my gospel,” Rom 2:16; cf. Gal 2:1-10). On the other side there are the overwhelming majority of non-Judean adherents (alongside a core group from a Jewish-Judean heritage, like Paul himself), who see themselves as free from many of the regulations of Torah (the Law). What it means to be “practicing” (in regard to regulations for “walking,” the prevailing Jewish-Judean metaphor for ethical conduct: Rom 6:4; 8:4; 13:13; 14:15) is thus a hotly contested matter, and the cause of increasing tensions and divisions. The letter is deliberately addressed to “all God’s beloved,” embracing all the factional components now tearing the community of Messiah Jesus apart (14:1–15:13). Along the way, Paul makes it clear that both those of Judean heritage and those of non-Judean heritage are equally named specifically as “beloved” (9:25-26; 11:28).

The crucial pastoral word that concludes the body of the letter thus includes a prayer for their unity “in accord with Messiah Jesus,” so that they may all glorify God “with one voice, all together” (15:5-6), and a strong admonition to mutual “welcome,” in the manner of Messiah’s own welcome of all (15:7). Along the way, each side has been both affirmed and targeted or challenged: both groups are supposed to hear what is said to the other. And accordingly, Paul highlights his current major preoccupation in delivering relief support to the Judean sector of the Jesus movement as expressing specifically a “partnership” (koinōnia), even if the mutual contributions are not reciprocally the same: the more impoverished Jewish sector has contributed “spiritual things,” obligating the Gentiles in turn to respond with “fleshly things” (material-financial aid, Rom 15:25-27; Zerbe 2012b).

Phoebe: Letter Carrier and Oral Spokesperson (16:1-2). When it comes to the first reception of this letter in Rome, one must consider the special role and responsibility that Paul gives to his trusted coworker Phoebe. She was undoubtedly the letter carrier. Moreover, the letter-essay-homily was designed to be presented orally (one-and-a-half to two hours!), and she will presumably have been responsible to make connections with the various factions/groups among the Jesus followers in Rome, arranging for meetings when she could read the letter in its entirety, giving it special diction and pathos, while also offering comment and answering questions. We can also surmise that she was directed by Paul to arrange for and facilitate, as mediator, meetings with leaders or representatives of the various factions/grouping so that they could come together (14:1; 15:5-7).

Form and Rhetoric

A Convergence of Multiple Motivations and Purposes

The key question is: What prompts and explains the nature of the main body (1:16–15:13) in relation to the letter frame (1:1-15; 15:14–16:23)? Paul evidently writes for multiple purposes:

(1) To prepare for his anticipated arrival in Rome in the near future (1:10-15; 15:22-32). His stated hopes for this visit to Rome (which are related to the purposes of the letter) are: (a) to impart some “gracious spiritual favor” (charisma pneumatika) to strengthen them (1:11), though he immediately clarifies that he hopes for bilateral “mutual encouragement” (1:12); (b) “to reap some harvest” among them, “as he has among the rest of the Gentiles/nations” (1:13); (c) to gain their support (moral, prayer, and financial) for his mission to Spain, “to be sped on my journey” by them (15:24); and (d) to come “in the fullness of the blessing of Messiah” (15:29).

(2) To establish, explain, and strengthen his apostolic credentials and reputation (1:1-15; 15:14-21) among the diverse house assemblies in Rome, building on his existing network of coworkers, friends, and compatriots who already reside in Rome (16:3-15). Since his stated policy was not to encroach on (impose his apostolic authority upon) assemblies that he had not actually founded (15:20-21; cf. 2 Cor 10:7–12:13), we see in Romans a nuanced combination of apostolic initiative and assertiveness (admitted “boldness,” 15:15) alongside affirmation (1:8; 15:14; 16:19), deference and invitations to mutuality (1:11-15; 15:14-21, 30-32). One wonders if his real intention was actually to make a significant and strategic impact in the imperial capital, not just to stop in passing.

(3) To gain support for the version of the “gospel” that he preaches among the Gentiles, “the (people of the) nations,” alongside promoting his apostolic credentials. Specifically he does this through an extended and nuanced exposition and clarification of key aspects of that gospel. Extremely important are the status and inclusion of both Jew and non-Jew (Gentile) in Messiah’s new community regarding which he highlights their mutuality and interdependence (e.g., 1:16; 4:9-16; 9:22-26; 11:25-32; 15:5-13). But in addition, he seeks to directly counter incorrect or slanderous claims about himself and the gospel of grace that he preaches (e.g., 3:5-8, 31; 6:1, 15; 7:7). Thus, for instance, he demonstrates how God’s radical grace and inclusion can still have a robust ethic among the non-Jews, even though different from traditional Jewish Torah observance, highlighting key aspects of the social formation and ethical rigor of the new Messianic community (6:1–8:13; 12:1–15:7).

(4) To offer a pastoral and apostolic word (climaxing in 14:1–15:13), directly inserting himself into the affairs of the divided congregations in Rome. He apparently articulates his presentation of the gospel specifically to support the climaxing call “to welcome one another” (15:7); and he also addresses some key problematic issues concerning relations with the broader society that were relevant especially for Jesus loyalists in Rome (notably 12:14-21, Zerbe 2012c; 13:1-7, Zerbe 2003). Moreover, at the close he offers a sharp warning “to beware of and to avoid” those who create “dissensions and difficulties in opposition to the teaching” which they “have been taught” (16:17). He directly and indirectly both challenges and affirms the main factions present in Rome, hoping that each faction hears also what is being said to the other: he challenges Gentile (non-Jewish) arrogance (chap. 11) but also undermines claims of Jewish superiority (2:1–3:20), while still admitting to Jewish special status and priority (1:16; 2:10; 3:1-4; 11:1-32), proudly affirming his own Jewish identity (9:1-5; 11:1) and highlighting many in Rome as “fellow (Jewish) compatriots/relatives” (16:7, 11, 21). Finally, knowing something of their own trauma (or potential trauma), Paul hopes to enliven among “God’s beloved” in Rome a powerful sense of hope in God’s imminent and comprehensive victory throughout the world (1:16; 8:14-39; 12:21; 13:11-14; 15:8-13; 16:20).

Rhetorical Features

Overview. The body of the letter (1:16-15:33) is a combination of exposition and exhortation (thus “essay-homily”), though closely correlated with the letter frame: the body should not be considered as an extractable “summary” of the gospel, unaffected by the pastoral exigencies/contingencies prompting the letter. The first three “movements” (1:17–11:36) are mainly exposition and argument (theological, biblical, ethical, historical), while also including direct exhortation (6:11-13; 8:12-13; 11:17-25). The fourth “movement” is mainly exhortation, while also containing supporting exposition (12:4-5; 13:2-4; 13:9-10; 14:4-9, 14-15; 15:3-4, 8-12). These four distinct and yet thematically interconnected major segments (“movements”) are of similar length, following an overall thesis statement (1:16-17), and marked by a closing crescendo (4:25; 8:31-39; 11:33-36; 15:7-13), or transitional markers or segments (4:25; 5:1-11; 9:1-5; 12:1-2).

Tone. While Paul admits that he has “written boldly on some points” (15:15), the overall tone of the argument is irenic and nuanced, especially in comparison to other letters where Paul covers some of the same themes (e.g., Gal, 2 Cor). This is undoubtedly because his perceived audience in Rome is diverse and divided, and his rhetorical aim is to bring them together.

Dialogical Style. Paul uses two key dialogical devices to clarify and focus his argument and exposition (Toews 2004: 374, on the “diatribe” form).
(1) Question-and-answer format. He employs this especially to clarify main points of the exposition, often by putting forward a potential consequence of his argument, only to sharply contest the faulty inference, or to set up a clarifying exposition:

• discussing Jewish advantages relative to their present (overall) infidelity (3:1-4, anticipating chaps. 9–11)
• disputing faulty consequences of Paul’s radical theology of grace (3:5-8, anticipating 6:1–8:13)
• introducing the key claim that all have an equal disadvantage before God (3:9)
• articulating the framework and consequences of the new revelation of God’s righteousness through Messiah’s fidelity, appropriated by loyal trust (faith-fidelity) (3:27-31, following 3:21-26)
• explaining the significance of the promise to Abraham for God’s righteousness based on faith-fidelity (4:1, 9, 10)
• focusing the exposition of how God’s grace transforms wrongdoers into doers of justice (6:1, 15)
• defending the essential goodness of the Law (7:7, 13; following 3:31)
• dramatizing the final victory for those who belong to Messiah, as they face the prospect of persecution and suffering, offering a series of rhetorical questions (8:31, 33, 34, 35)
• explaining the mysterious ways of God’s election in the history of Israel, as God chooses some in order ultimately to embrace all (9:14, 30-32)
• indicating how people can come to faithful trust in Messiah (10:14-15)
• explaining Israel’s ongoing lack of faithful trust in Messiah (10:18, 19)
• claiming how it is impossible for God ever to reject the elect and beloved people of Israel (11:1, 7, 11)
  

(2) Addressing a singular “you” (thou). These segments are unfortunately not evident in English translation, but they are key indicators of crucial issues. They should not be treated as merely rhetorical but as targeted to actual points of view (or individual persons) in the Roman assemblies:

• the judging moralizer who stands self-condemned, because as mere mortal that person has presumed on what is God’s exclusive prerogative to judge, and is as much a wrongdoer as those who are being judged (2:1-5).
• the self-identified Jew-Judean who adheres to the Torah (Law of Moses), confident in relation to God, knowledgeable of God’s will and able to discern ethical dilemmas by instruction in Torah, is confronted for actually being no more righteous than those supposedly foolish and blind whom they claim to teach and guide (2:17-24).
• the one who questions God’s mysterious ways in history as just or unjust, that is, putting limits on what God can do in the name of mercy, as God seeks ultimately to bring into God’s new people the fullness of both Israel and the nations (9:19-20 and immediate context).
• the arrogant non-Jew (Gentile) claiming superiority over the Jews-Judeans and happy to disinherit them as a group (11:17-24).
• the one who is engaging in rebellion (counter-imperial agitation) against the governing authorities (13:3-4).
• both the one who is “weak in fidelity-faith,” “judging” others who practice their faith less moralistically, and on the other side, the one who is “strong,” “despising” those who practice their faith according to strict and literalist moral scruples (14:2-6, 10, 15-18, 20-23; cf. 7:6).

Forms. A variety of specific types of materials or stylistic features are incorporated into the letter:

• short confessional statements (1:3-4; 3:24-25; 4:25), which may be quotations or adaptations of common traditional materials (note the reference to a common “tradition,” 6:17; 15:15; 16:17)
• Paul’s personal lament (9:1-5; cf. 11:12, 13-14); his use of “I” in 7:7-25, including the cry of anguish (7:24), is more representative
• quotations and exposition of Scripture: more extensive and frequent than in Paul’s other letters
• use of a common ethical tradition (echoes of the teaching of Jesus in 12:9-21; 13:8-10)
• use of traditional themes or formulations (topoi): the condemnation against Gentile sin replicates standard Jewish arguments (1:18-32)
• doxology (1:25; 7:25a; 9:5b; 11:33-36)
• prayer-benediction (15:5-6, 13; 16:20b)
• elliptical expressions or densely packed segments, more fully understood once the whole argument is digested (e.g., 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 5:18-21)
• digressions that break the flow of the argument (3:1-4, 5-8; 5:13-15), sometimes anticipating later discussion that fully explains the brief digression

Iterative, dialectical and circular, not just linear. Though carefully organized, Romans is not always a strictly linear presentation, but often shows an iterative (repetitious) and circular treatment of topics. Thus, to understand specific parts, one has to digest the whole all together, and reread specific comments in light of the whole argument. When specific statements are taken in isolation without regard to the context and the flow of the whole argument, one is sometimes left with direct contradiction (e.g., “those who do the Law will be justified,” 2:13; “by works of the Law all flesh will not be justified before God,” 3:20; “a human is justified by fidelity apart from works of the Law,” 3:28). It is not always easy to distinguish what is “argument” and what is “conviction.” Some sections appear to function as provisional or hypothetic argument (notably indicating potentialities in the dialectic of mercy and judgment) to set up later claims or conclusions that partly undermine or qualify what was said earlier (e.g., 2:6-16 in relation to 3:21-26; 9:22-29; 11:25-32). One section is designed (in part) to lead some readers into the trap of simplistic moralizing judgment (1:18-32), setting them up for immediate criticism (2:1-24). In some cases, fundamental tension points resist easy reconciling, and the final answer (and Paul’s own perspective) appears to be in holding to two sides of a conundrum at the same time, e.g., God’s justice or “severity” vs. God’s mercy and grace; God’s providential sovereignty (to bring all promises to fulfillment) vs. human agency and choice (that appears to impede the scope of salvation); judgment by works vs. justification by faith-fidelity; priority for Israel vs. God’s absolute impartiality to all; the letter of the Scriptural witness vs. the spirit of Christ-focused, Spirit-inspired understanding. Paul’s statements on the (Mosaic) Law are among the most difficult to fully reconcile into a neat scheme, indicating something of the rhetorical challenge he was facing.

Outline of Romans

Prescript (1:1-15)

Salutation: sender, addressees, grace/peace wish (1:1-7)

Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:8-9)

Disclosure: Desire and Intention to Visit Rome (1:10-15)

The Body of the Letter (1:16–15:13)

Overall Thesis Statement (1:16-17)

First Movement (1:17–4:25)

God’s Restoring Justice is Newly Revealed in Christ, in the face of Divine Retribution

Second Movement (5:1–8:39)

The Regime of Grace-Justice-Life overcomes the Regime of Sin-Injustice-Death, and replaces/fulfills the Regime of the Law

Third Movement (9:1–11:36)

God’s Mercy Ultimately Conquers All Human Infidelity—the Interweaving Stories of Israel and the Nations

Fourth Movement (12:1–15:13)

God’s Restoring Justice in Practice

(Note: 15:5-13 is both the conclusion to the exhortation in 14:1–15:4, but more importantly also the climaxing conclusion of the entire letter, just as the thesis statement 1:16-17 introduces both the first movement and the entire letter body.)

Letter Closing (15:14–16:27)

Disclosure of Plans and Request for Prayer (15:14-33)

Commendation, with clarification of the nature of what Paul has just written (15:14-15a)

Paul’s Apostolic Calling and Ministry (15:15b-22)

Paul’s Plans to Preach in Spain, with hopes for support from his addressees (15:23-24)

Paul’s Current Ministry to the Saints in Judea: A Global Partnership (15:25-29)

Request for Prayer (15:30-32) and Benediction on the Addressees (15:33)

Recommendation of Pheobe (16:1-2)

Greetings (16:3-16)

Greetings to those in Rome (16:3-15)

Greetings to each other (16:16a)

Greetings from “all the assemblies of Messiah” (16:16b)

Closing admonition and encouragement (16:17-19)

Closing promise (16:20a) and grace wish (16:20b)

Greetings from those with Paul (16:21-23)

Final Doxology (16:25-27)

Summary and Comment

“Therefore, welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you” (Rom 15:7). Everything in Romans leads, in one way or another, to this dramatic and concluding exhortation. Brought together is the theological substance of the entire foregoing argument (“as Christ has welcomed you”) with the practical issue of increasingly critical importance (“welcome one another”; Zerbe 2016).

The prevailing theme at the outset is God’s new justice-righteousness and justification (making right) over against universal human injustice and foreboding retribution (1:17–4:25). But that motif is overtaken, as the letter unfolds, by images of reconciliation, mercy, forgiveness, liberation, filiation (adoption as heirs), transformation, victory, re-creation, and ultimately by divine and human welcome.

At the core of Paul’s argument, designed to realize and sustain a unified community into the future, is that Christ welcomes in a way that demonstrates a radically new framework of justice-righteousness, what can appropriately be called “restorative justice.” God’s new framework of justice and justification through Christ is not simply a pardon that otherwise leaves the prior and prevailing retributive justice system intact, where a select few receive a free ticket to heaven while the rest of humanity finds eternal damnation. God’s new system of justice, which truly transforms the offender and reconciles the offender and the offended, involves a complete reorientation and transfer into what Paul calls the Regime of Grace, away from the limited Regime of Law (Rom 5–8). Only by seeing the other through this new lens (by which everyone understands themselves as recipients of grace) can one truly “welcome” and be reconciled with the other (Zerbe 2015).

Prescript (1:1-15)

The Prescript (letter opening), especially through a significant expansion of the usual “Sender” line, highlights (1) Paul’s calling and mission as an envoy (“apostle”) of the gospel (euangelion) to the ethnoi, which can refer either to the “nations” as collectives, or to individuals from the nations (“Gentiles”), and (2) the divine source and Messianic focus of the gospel itself (1:2-5), dramatized in a loaded enthronement affirmation (1:3-4, focusing on resurrection, lit., “uprising”), which corresponds to a concluding enthronement claim through a citation of Isaiah (15:12, using the cognate verb “to rise up,” Liddell, et al 1940, passim). Both of these offer a bold “political” assertion about the coming world rule of Messiah Jesus, while directly undermining Roman imperial propaganda that Caesar is the son of God and ruler of the world (Toews 2004: 38-41).

The Thesis Statement (1:16-17)

The thesis for the essay-homily flows easily from the prescript. But these two verses are very dense and elliptical, only fully understood in retrospect after one has heard the whole argument, and so each word and phrase must be carefully considered. Over the course of the history of interpretation, many one-sided interpretations have been offered.

1:16 “Salvation.” Paul begins with the assertion that the euangelion “is God’s power for (to bring about) salvation (sōtēria).” It is crucial not to limit the meaning of “salvation” in Paul’s usage, as in Western Protestant Christian usage where it is often constricted to “getting right with God and enjoying eternal life in heaven.” Paul has a much more comprehensive understanding of “salvation,” as the rest of his argument will disclose. The Greek word sōtēria, typically translated “salvation” in English, literally denotes a “rescue to a state of wellbeing and health,” “the state of, or the process of bringing back to, safety, health, well-being, fullness of life,” applicable to many arenas of human life (personal, spiritual, social, political) and the natural world more broadly. (The earliest translation into English rendered this word as “heelthe” [health, wellness, wholeness; Wycliffe 1395], but starting with Tyndale [1525] the Latin loanword “salvacio” became the standard translation; see www.studylight.org.) In Romans, the fullness of “salvation” encompasses the renewal of the entire created order (8:18-25), and the word sōtēria and its cognate verb sōzein (“to save, deliver, bring to health and well-being”) refer specifically to:

• future participation in the renewal of the world, in the age to come (2:7; 5:2, 9-10, 17, 21; 6:5, 22, 23; 8:18-29; 13:11-14; 16:20), made possible by Christ’s victory;
• a restored relationship with God (peace and reconciliation) already in the present (5:1-11), based on having been “reckoned as just-righteous” through God’s intervention in Messiah Jesus (3:21–5:1; 8:24); and
• moral transformation so that God’s expectations/requirements of justice-righteousness can be fulfilled (5:12-8:13), by “walking in newness of life (6:4) and “serving in the new life of the Spirit” (7:6), thereby guaranteeing one’s participation in the life of the age to come (8:1-13), and making possible a new transformed community (12:3-8, 9-21; 13:8-10; 14:1–15:7).

“For everyone who entrusts themselves in loyalty.” Paul immediately highlights salvation’s universal horizon, and the appropriate human response of “entrusting oneself in loyalty,” using the verb pisteuein. The traditional English translation “to believe” for pisteuein is quite inadequate here, since in contemporary English usage it is used mainly to signify “accepting or holding (something) to be true,” as simply a mental or intellectual affirmation. The verb pisteuein, however, entails both (a) committing oneself to something assured to be true, and (b) committing oneself in trust and fidelity to someone proven to be reliable. There is no English equivalent for this term, and thus a few words are needed to fully express the meaning (Zerbe 2012a). This verb and its cognate noun form pistis (see below at 1:17) are crucial terms in Paul’s vocabulary.

“To the Jew-Judean first and also to the Greek.” The universal horizon of “everyone” is quickly clarified as embracing the group identity categories of “the Jew-Judean and the Greek,” with an explicit note of priority “to the Jew first,” which is more than merely chronological. Here the word “Greek” stands for all the “Gentiles” [e.g., 1:13-14; 3:29; 11:9; 15:8-9]: Paul earlier explains his obligation to the “Gentiles” as embracing both “Greeks” and “barbarians” (“babblers,” non-Greeks, 1:14), and both the “wise” (educated, sophisticated) and the “foolish (uneducated, unsophisticated). The jarring word “first” entails a resounding affirmation of the special status of Israel as God’s people (3:1-4; 9:1-5; 11:11-32; 15:8), even as Paul later clarifies their priority as both a negative potentiality for judgment and a positive potentiality (indeed, inevitability) for “salvation” (2:9-11; 11:25-32). But Paul will also later highlight that God is one who shows no “partiality” as “the God of all” (2:11; 3:29-30; 10:12), and that there is “no distinction between Jew and Greek” in God’s work of salvation (3:22; 10:12). Right from the start, then, there is a kind of tension point in the argument, as Paul articulates both a Messianic universalism (that might in theory erase any priority to a particular human collective) and a continuing special regard for Israel as “God’s beloved” (11:1-32; 15:8).

1:17 “For in it [the gospel] the righteousness-justice of God is being unveiled [revealed].” The English word “righteousness” does not capture the full meaning of the Greek word Paul uses, dikaiosynē, which embraces both the notions of (personal) “righteousness” and (social or legal) “justice.” As a phrase, “the dikaiosynē of God” in Romans signals first and foremost (1) the “righteousness” that is God’s own character (especially God’s fidelity [3:3-4; 15:8] to all the promises of the past that pertain to “salvation”) along with the “justice” shown in God’s action, God’s salvation-creating power. Indeed, “God’s righteousness-justice” is “revealed” and “demonstrated” most supremely in an act of pure grace and mercy, in the way God in “forbearance” has “passed over previously committed sins” and now has “put forward” Christ as a means of forgiveness for those very sins, and thereby “justifies the irreverent-ungodly (Gentiles)” (3:21-26; 4:5; 5:6). In important ways, Romans is a “treatise on justice,” and more specifically an argument that God’s justice is a kind of “restorative justice” (Zerbe 2015).

In a further sense, the phrase refers to (2) the “righteousness-justice” that is enacted in humans, or what is possessed by humans, initially as a pure gift that is “reckoned” to them in response to their faithful trust (“believing”; chaps. 1–4), but further also as a transformed reality in the life of a person (“effectual righteousness”; chaps. 6–8), as the counterpart of “reckoning.” This is God’s work of “justifying” (using the cognate verb dikaioun, “to make or declare just-right(eous)”), both in the sense of declaring or regarding humans to be just (chaps. 3–4), and in the sense of actually making them just-righteous (chaps. 6–8).

Finally, (3) the phrase “righteousness-justice of God” refers to the (personal and social) order of life that God desires and calls into being, somewhat synonymous to the phrase “kingdom of God” (cf. 14:17; 2 Cor 5:21).

“Out of fidelity and unto fidelity” (ek pisteōs eis pistin). The full meaning of this elliptical phrase only becomes evident as Paul develops his argument. The key repeated word that Paul uses is the word pistis, the noun form related to the verb pisteuein (1:16). This term has traditionally been translated as “faith” or “belief.” But these translations are now inadequate and are sometimes misleading because they do not fully render the meaning of Paul’s term. The word pistis embraces three senses: (a) “fidelity, trustworthiness, faithfulness, loyalty,” (b) “trust, faith, depending upon,” or (c) “assured conviction, belief, being persuaded.” Though a particular use of pistis can highlight one aspect, the other dimensions are also implied, as in “believing and trusting fidelity,” “faithful and believing trust,” or “trusting and faithful conviction.” Unfortunately, there is no single word in English that can adequately render this key word (Zerbe 2012a).

The preposition ek (“out of”) signals source, but thus also foundation (“on the basis of”) or means (“through”). In the first phrase, Paul appears to signal especially the “fidelity-faithfulness” that is God’s (3:3) and that is demonstrated through Christ (3:21-22, 26). Romans is first and foremost about God, the source of all salvation. In the second phrase eis (“unto, into”) signals goal and purpose, indicating the goal of God’s initiative—to generate the response of “believing and trusting fidelity.” In Paul’s vocabulary “fidelity-faith” (pistis) and “obedience” (hypakoē, lit., “heeding”) can be near synonyms: at the outset Paul states that the goal of his preaching is to bring about “the obedience of fidelity-faith” among “all the nations/Gentiles” (1:5), and in closing he states that his hope is “to win obedience among the nations/Gentiles” (15:18; cf. 16:19).

“The one who is just-righteous out of fidelity (ek pisteōs) shall live.” In this Scriptural citation, Paul abbreviates Habakkuk 2:4, resulting in some ambiguity; but Paul probably does this deliberately to offer double meaning. In its Hebrew original, the phrase reads, “the one who is just-righteous will live out of his fidelity,” where fidelity is probably that of God, but possibly that of the individual, or the people as a whole. In the Greek translation circulating in the time of Paul (which Paul usually quotes), the phrase reads “the one who is just will live out of my fidelity,” where fidelity refers explicitly to God’s fidelity.

The intermediate phrase “out of pistis” could be associated with either the subject (“the one who is just-righteous by faith-fidelity . . . shall live”) or the verb “the one who is just-righteous . . . shall live by faith-fidelity.” Paul perhaps intends it both ways, while probably emphasizing the former in this context. As such, the first part of the quotation (“the one who is just-righteous by faith-fidelity”) signals the content of the letter’s first movement (1:17–4:25), while the second part (“shall live”) indicates the fundamental theme of the second movement (5:1–8:39), namely, that “the one who is just-righteous by faith-fidelity” will both “walk in newness of life” in the present age (6:4), and will experience fullness of “life in the age to come” (poorly translated “eternal life”; 5:21; 6:22-23; 8:13; cf. Luke 18:30). (In the remainder of the first movement, 1:18–4:25, the noun pistis occurs 29 times, and the verb pisteuein occurs eight times, whereas they each occur only two times in the second movement, chaps. 5–8. Counter wise, in 1:18–4:25 the word “life” occurs only once, the verb “to bring to life” appears one time, and the verb “to live” occurs only two times, whereas in chaps. 5–8 the word “life” occurs 12 times, the verb “to live” 12 times, and the verb “to bring to life” one time.)

The citation of Habakkuk 2:4 is also meant to refer to Christ: “the just-righteous one” had become a Messianic title in Jewish hopes. According to Paul, Christ (“the Anointed One”) has manifested human fidelity to God most supremely, becoming the prototype (and model) of all subsequent human fidelity to God. Thus, Paul will highlight later that “God’s righteousness-justice” has been manifested most fully “through the pistis (faithfulness-fidelity) of Christ” himself (3:22, 26), whose “obedience” and “act of righteousness” accomplished God’s saving and transforming work (5:18-19; Toews 2004: 108-112; Zerbe 2012a). Abraham’s fidelity-faith will also be highlighted as exemplary and prototypical (4:11-25).

Paul thus focuses on two sides of the process: a person is “just-righteous” both “out of” God’s and Christ’s fidelity, but also “out of” human fidelity in response. Accordingly Paul later claims that “God’s righteousness-justice is being revealed through the fidelity of Christ, (and effective) unto all who entrust themselves in loyalty” (3:22). Later, the three-way connection of “salvation/being saved,” “justice-righteousness,” and “fidelity, trusting” (as we find it in 1:16-17) is further clarified (in a midrash on Deuteronomy 30:14, “the word is near you, on your mouth and in your heart, cited in Rom 10:8 without the final words “to do it”):

For if you (singular) affirm in oath (confess) with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and have trusting and faithful conviction (believe) in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be rescued unto well-being (saved). For (the word) is entrusted upon (believed) with the heart unto righteousness-justice, and affirmed in oath (confessed) with the mouth unto rescue toward well-being (salvation). (Rom 10:9-10)

The First Movement: From Divine Retribution to God’s Restoring Justice Newly Revealed in Christ (1:17–4:25)

In the first movement, God’s newly revealed justice-righteousness (1:17; 3:21–4:25) is set over against the revelation of impartial divine retribution (“wrath”) in response to universal human injustice-immorality (1:18–3:20; 3:23). In a scathing indictment that first targets the Gentile idolaters (1:18-32), then entraps the self-righteous moralists (2:1-5), and finally challenges the Judeans-Jews (2:17-29), no one individual or human group is left unscathed. Undermining the Jew-Gentile binary (2:9-16), all humanity is equally liable (hypodikos, lit., “under justice,” 3:19). The playing field has been leveled, completely flattened: all human beings are at the same level of disadvantage before God. Human failure in relation to God’s sovereign and impartial retributive justice is total, universal, and absolute (3:23). Using the assumption that both justification and retribution are based on “doing,” he claims that even those who don’t know the Law can perform it, while noting that divine justice will take into account varying awareness of the Law, thereby undermining all Judean-Jewish advantage because they simply “possess” and “hear” the Law (2:12-29).

The traditional interpretation is that Paul is simply setting up the need and plight of all humanity—the utter failure of guilt. But there are hints that there is more to it. Paul observes that the display of divine retribution operates by an exacting measure of the Law (the Law functions to make all humanity liable before God, 3:19; “the Law brings wrath,” 4:15; it “counts” offenses, 5:13), and indeed intimates that the prevailing system of the Law and retribution is incapable of truly resolving the human dilemma (3:20; 8:1-4). Only as the argument progresses into the second movement (5:1–8:39) will we learn that the prevailing system of the Law, along with its retributive aims and assumptions, will itself be undone, as it gives way to God’s new system of a restoring justice under the banner of merciful Generosity (Grace).

When Paul turns to the contrasting revelation of God’s justice-righteousness (3:21–4:25), he thus immediately claims that it is manifested “apart from the Law” (cf. 4:13), even though attested to by the Law and the prophets. Paul makes the following main points: (1) God’s justice-righteousness is revealed through divine initiative and in particular through Messiah’s own fidelity (3:22, 26; Zerbe 2012a); (2) it is displayed and proven precisely in an act of generosity (Grace; cf. 4:4, 16) and forbearance, whereby previously committed offenses are “passed over,” through the sacrificial death of Christ (3:24-25; 4:25); (3) it aims toward and is appropriated through an act of human fidelity-faith (3:22); and (4) it means that the “justification” of those who respond in loyal trust occurs as a pure gift (3:24a), in that righteousness is “reckoned” simply in response to complete “fidelity, conviction, surrender, and trust” (4:1-12, 18-25). As will become clearer in the second and third movements, the display of God’s justice-righteousness precisely through an act of forbearing mercy means that God’s own divine retribution is rendered a mere potentiality (albeit a continuing threat, since mercy cannot be presumed upon: 2:4-5; 11:22-24), and not the final outcome in the world.

Paul knows that he has dealt a decisive blow to the ongoing status of the (Mosaic) Law. He asks by way of clarification, What kind of Law (or “justice system”) is implied by this new way of justice-righteousness (3:27)? He answers: not a Law oriented to exacting “works,” but one oriented to a deeper “fidelity and trusting loyalty” (pistis; 3:27-28; cf. 7:4-6; 9:30–10:12). And while claiming that this new form of righteous-justice through fidelity actually “upholds” the Law (3:31), what he means is that it is attested to by the Law, not that it is ultimately consistent with the Law. The Law contains the promise of blessing and restoration of justification through absolute loyal trust, and this promise is the Law’s own inner meaning. But as a measure and means itself, all it can do is “enact retribution” (4:15); restoration and blessing can only come through the justice-righteousness of fidelity, not through the Law (4:13-15).

Paul has not set up the contrast between God’s retribution (1:18–3:20) and God’s righteousness-justice (3:21–4:25) to demonstrate how some few who respond in faith-fidelity and are thus justified can escape God’s system of exacting retribution that supposedly characterizes God’s unchanging and eternal regime. Rather, the point is that a whole new system of justice-righteousness is coming into play through Christ, one that precisely and literally “bypasses” (3:25) the rules of retribution, such that God becomes known especially as the one who “justifies the irreverent-ungodly” (4:5; cf. 5:6-8). Indeed, it is precisely an act of forgiveness and grace that demonstrates God’s own justice and can deem humans just (3:24-26). The prior system of divine retribution can only level the playing field but is otherwise incapable of achieving God’s redemptive purposes in the world, leaving all humanity in a situation of no-exit (see further below on 9:22-32 and 11:32). This framework of Christ’s own merciful generosity will also become foundational and exemplary for bringing feuding groups in Rome to mutual welcome (15:3-7).

The Second Movement: The Regime of Grace-Justice-Life overcomes the Regime of Error (Sin)-Injustice-Death, and replaces (by fulfilling) the Regime of the Law (5:1–8:39)

The second movement is complementary to the first (not simply sequential), emphasizing at the outset that what results from the coming of justice-righteousness through Christ is peace and reconciliation with God, and relief from the threat of retribution (5:1-11). And Paul highlights that this restoring justice for the absolutely undeserving and helpless derives from God’s love in Christ (5:6-8; cf. 8:35-39), even as it engenders love (as becomes clear later: 12:9-21; 13:8-10; 14:15). But the core of the second movement is the dynamism of the renewing Regime of Grace (through the agency of Messiah) over against the Regime of Sin-Injustice (through the agency of Adam), and the Regime of the Law (revealed through Moses) which turned out to be incapable of truly overcoming the regime of Error (Sin)-Injustice and Death (5:12–8:13). The key premise of this unit is that through “baptism into Christ,” a person becomes “organically united” (lit., “grown-grafted together”) with Christ in both death and rebirth (6:3-11), such that they can be considered to be “in Christ” (8:1) or that Christ is “in” them (8:10).

Whereas the first movement stressed the human response of faithful trust in response to the divine initiative (1:16–17; 3:22; 4:1–25), while noting the crucial agency of Christ’s own fidelity itself as both prototypical and salvific (1:17; 3:22, 26), the second movement first puts the emphasis on the agency of Christ (his obedience and righteous act) alongside its universal effect to establish justice “for all humanity, the justice of life” (in direct contrast to the universal effect of Adam’s agency to effect universal Sin-Wrongdoing and Condemnation; 5:12–21). Moreover, the argument next orients the human response of fidelity in the wake of Christ’s fidelity and efficacy as obedient, willful, moral action (6:11-22; 8:5-13), by virtue of being moved, through organic absorption into Christ (6:4-8), from a debilitating Regime of the Law into an empowering Regime of Grace (6:1–7:6; 8:1-4): “You are [now] not under the regime of the Law, but under the regime of Grace” (6:14-15; cf. 7:4-6).

Ironically, only in this new condition and framework of liberation from the Law, Paul argues, can the actual “justice requirements of the Law” be truly fulfilled (8:4). A release from the Law is required before its own justice content can be realized. The assumed, necessary correlation between Righteousness-Justice and the Law has been severed in God’s new restoring justice. Though on the positive side the Law reveals God’s justice requirements that ought to be practiced (8:3-4; 13:8-10) and in itself can be considered “holy, just and good” (7:12–13, 16), it has a limited value: it brings knowledge of injustice-sin (3:20) and allows injustice-error to be carefully counted (5:13). Worse, the Law as a system of justice, even though it promised life, became the occasion for death through its exploitation by the power of Error-Sin in the world (7:10); it was designed as an interim measure to guard humans (7:4-6), but it was used by the power of Error-Sin in the world to deceive, kill, corrupt and enslave (7:11, 13-15); it was rendered powerless and incapable of saving (6:14; 8:3). Ultimately, all the Law could do was enliven and multiply Error-Sin by arousing wrongful passions (5:20; 7:5, 8, 9).

The first two movements are complementary:

• Whereas the emphasis in the first movement is on dikaiosynē (justice-righteousness) as pure gift, “reckoned/counted” on the basis of God’s merciful act of forbearance and forgiveness through Messiah, by which God’s retributive justice (“wrath, condemnation”) is averted; the second movement dramatizes “justification” and “righteousness-justice” as holistic moral transformation and moral obligation and commitment (e.g., 4:25; 5:18-19; 6:7, 16-20).
• Accordingly, the first movement emphasizes Christ’s death, notably as an atoning sacrifice (3:24-25; 4:25a; cf. 5:6-8), whereas the second movement focuses on Christ’s resurrection, as making possible “newness of life” and “new life in the Spirit” (4:25b; 5:10; 6:3-10; 7:6; 8:5-13), and “dying with Christ” is explained as a death to the old regimes (6:1–7:6).
• Whereas the main salvific metaphor in the first movement is juridical-forensic (“justification” as being “reckoned righteousness” in the response of “fidelity”), the main salvific metaphor in the second movement is “participationist,” becoming “organically united” (“grown together with”) Christ, and thus being “in Christ.”
• In this way, the first movement especially elaborates on how “one is just by fidelity,” explained as God’s fidelity, which aims toward responsive human fidelity (1:16-17), whereas the second movement elaborates on how the one who is “just by fidelity” “shall live” (1:17), explained as the enabling of “walking in newness of life” in the present (6:4), but arcing toward experiencing fullness of “life in the age to come” (2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23) alongside the renewal of the entire cosmos (8:18-39).

Third Movement: God’s Mercy Ultimately Conquers All Human Infidelity—the Interweaving Stories of Israel and the Nations (9:1–11:36)

In the third movement, the issue in the foreground is the question of Israel’s failure to respond to Messiah: What was its cause, and what will be the final outcome? The deeper issue, however, is about whether God’s restorative justice as demonstrated through grace and mercy can ever be truly victorious (achieving results) over human infidelity and not merely capricious and seemingly unjust (cf. 3:1–8). Paul will ratchet up his argument by stressing the persistence, efficacy, and justness of God’s mercy in bringing about the complete restoration of the world, while negating any recourse to retributive justice.

Paul asserts that God’s agency always trumps human agency in the bigger scheme of things: the divine economy operates “not by works but by him who calls”; “it does not depend on human willing or running, but on divine mercying” (9:11-17). At the same time, God’s decision to show mercy is never unjust, even though it may appear capricious (9:18-21). God is entirely free to choose the path of mercy at will, even now, without compromising God’s justice. God’s resolve to move away from a system of retribution to one of mercy is compactly expressed in a crucial passage:

But what if God, though wishing to demonstrate retributive justice (“wrath”) and [thereby] to make known his power, (instead) endured with much patience (“long-temper”) vessels of retribution (“wrath”) marked for destruction, in order to make known the abundance of his kindness upon vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory. (Rom 9:22-23)

And the scriptural citations immediately adduced to demonstrate that this mercy now embraces both Israel-Judeans and the nations-Gentiles all emphasize God’s sole agency to make it happen (9:24-29).

An interlude to explain Israel’s temporary and partial failure, however, will turn things around to focus on the nature of human agency that is efficacious toward justice-righteousness in concert with divine agency (9:30–10:13). Israel “pursued a Law of justice-righteousness” but failed to achieve that goal (of justice-righteousness through the Law) because it pursued the Law according to “works,” not by “fidelity” more appropriate to it (9:30-32; cf. 3:27). What the Law in fact proclaims as its inner meaning is

• the crucial response of loyal conviction in God’s power to bring life out of death (4:16-25), alongside
• an oath of surrender and allegiance to Lord Jesus Messiah (10:9-13; see above on 1:16-17).

In this way, then, as a way to achieve salvation and justice-justification, the Law finds it goal in Christ (10:3-8).

But the third movement closes with a return emphasis on God’s sole agency to complete the restoration of the world, by moving from retribution to mercy:

For God has confined (restrained, imprisoned) all humanity into disobedience, with the ultimate aim that God will have mercy on all humanity.” (11:32)

Finally, claiming the universal effects of the decisive interruption of the Regime of Grace in the world, with its universal effects (5:12-21), Paul asserts that divine mercy aims toward a universal outcome. In a grand scheme of interdependency among Israel and the nations, the interim portion of the nations and the remnant of Israel are transformed into the All of Israel and the Fullness of the nations in full embrace (Rom 11:1-32). All he can do is stop and exult with a doxology that highlights the universal scope of the divine will (11:33-36): “For God is the source, guide, and goal of all things [the universe].”

Fourth Movement: God’s Restoring Justice in Practice (12:1–15:13)

The fourth movement (12:1–15:13) contains sustained exhortation pertaining to practice. Crucially, Paul begins and orients the appeal (as a kind of moral code), not by reference to the sanctions of the Law, but by reference to “God’s mercies,” the restoring action of God. In this way, Paul draws upon the entire discourse so far. Foundational is both how divine mercy enacts God’s righteousness-justice and thus overcomes retribution, and how human “justice-righteousness” is a volitional commitment and action in the Regime of Grace whereby one dedicates oneself to a new mindset and pathway (6:1-20). The virtues enjoined are especially social virtues, and the entire obligation of the Law is summed up in the command to love one’s neighbor, such that “the one who loves the other has fulfilled the Law,” an assertion important enough to be repeated, “love is the fullness of the Law” (13:8, 10; cf. 12:9).

The restorative dynamic in human relationships is consistent with the divine-human paradigm. Accordingly, Jesus followers are advised, toward the goal of peace and reconciliation with all people, to give up on their need to find retribution (“not repaying evil for evil”) and instead to pursue restored relationships (by “overcoming evil with good”), even with the enemy (12:14–21; Zerbe 2012c). The issue of finding vindication and vengeance is a matter to be left to the divine sovereign. This does not mean that God is reverting back to the retributive framework, but that Jesus loyalists are to let go of what is God’s prerogative (who may or may not choose actually to be known ultimately by retribution: Rom 9:22-23; 11:32). The same assumption is behind Paul’s advice that those in Christ reject (violent, nationalist) resistance against the imperial authorities (13:1-7; Zerbe 2003). Paul’s advice is partly pragmatic: it makes no sense to resist that which is known especially by its power to deliver retributive justice (with “vengeance” and “wrath”; 13:4), and what is ultimately under God’s sovereignty.

Paul finally comes to the crux of the dispute that is raging locally and globally among Jesus followers, pleading for the “strong” to cease “despising” and for the “weak” to stop “judging.” Christians today are accustomed to thinking that the particular issues at stake (pertaining to rules about food, or observances of days) are inconsequential, not among the things that really matter. But that would hardly have been the view of both parties in Rome. The dispute pertained to the interpretation of the literal moral laws of Scripture. What might have been a matter of relaxed indifference to one group, who considered themselves free from certain rules of Scripture because of Christ (Paul and the “strong”), was a matter that for the other party (the “weak”) negated the very status of the unchanging Word of God, the divinely revealed Torah through Moses.

Though Paul admits to agreeing with the position of the “strong” (14:14; note that Abraham had been described as the exemplar of “strong fidelity-faith,” 4:17b-21), he nevertheless spends more time challenging the “strong,” as they are under obligation to “support the weaknesses of the non-strong” (14:15–16, 20–21; 15:1). All must be attentive to the virtues of love, peace, justice, and mutual upbuilding (14:15, 17, 19). He carefully addresses both sides in the biblical dispute. Drawing on his earlier discourse, he advises that the (Scripture-literalist, Law-oriented) weak must not “condemn” the (more Law-relaxed) strong, “because God has welcomed them” (14:3). Meanwhile, the strong must not “destroy the brothers and sisters for whom Christ died” (14:15). Though addressed differently, both sides of the dispute are invited to welcome the other just as God has already done so. Most notably, Paul realizes that the two sides will very likely not be able to come to unanimity of opinion. It is thus even more crucial that they somehow find a way to be “in communion” with each other, so that they can give glory to God as “one in spirit with a united voice” (15:6). Thus, what he advises is that whereas all Jesus loyalists are ultimately dedicated in service to God, they should all focus on their own lives in relation to God (14:4-8, 22). All must be convinced in their own minds (without prejudging or focusing on the other), ready to give an answer for their own behavior directly to Christ himself, whose tribunal is the only one that truly counts. They are not to be preoccupied about what is wrong with the other (14:5-12, 22-23). And recall what Paul has already explained: the divine tribunal considers all things in the context of God’s restorative plans, especially through mercy, avoiding an exacting application of rules. All will be welcomed on the basis of absolute Grace-Generosity, as God in Christ has already welcomed them (15:3-7).

Letter Closing (15:14–16:27)

As in the prescript (1:1-15), Paul again highlights his calling as “minister of Christ to the (people of the) nations,” and his missional strategy and activities to date (15:15-21). He does this implicitly to seek support for himself and his gospel endeavors among the Roman assemblies, and explicitly in order to

(1) explain his somewhat bold discourse despite his confidence in his listeners (15:14-15), and

(2) explain why he has to date been hindered from coming to Rome, and how he now plans to pass through Rome on his way to Spain (15:22-24). The focus on his calling and mission also sets up

(3) an explanation of his current plans to travel first to Jerusalem in order to deliver the relief funds he has been collecting throughout his churches among the Gentiles (nations) as a crucial expression of a sort of global “partnership” and symbol of unity across the waters that divide (15:22-24), and

(4) his request for prayer, given major concerns on the horizon (15:30-32). A benediction invoking “the God of peace” (cf. 16:20) closes the letter proper (15:33), one of a number of benedictions toward the end of his letter (15:5-6, 13).

Paul then moves to focus on people and relationships (16:1-16, 21-23), beginning with the recommendation for Phoebe, Paul’s designated letter-carrier and oral spokesperson (16:1-2; see above under “Date, Setting, and Author”). What follows (16:3-15) is something unique among New Testament epistles: an extensive listing of individuals and groups to whom greetings are to be delivered (Paul’s other letters only have general greetings sent; see 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21; Col 4:15; 1 Thess 5:26). These greetings provide crucial windows into the diverse community in Rome and Paul’s own network of friends and coworkers. One should also note that the translation “to greet” is one of the metaphorical senses of the verb “to embrace” (aspazomai). Paul specifically “greets” 26 individuals (nine are women; an additional two are named as the head of a group greeted) and five groupings (16:5, 10, 14, 15). Some of these individuals Paul has known personally and/or has worked with (at least 12); some are identified specifically as “relatives-compatriots” (16:7, 11); others he seemingly knows about (probably the last ten, 16:14-15). Many are singled out for their work of the gospel (six women; five men), some of whom are identified specifically as “coworkers.”

Two prominent Jewish couples are given special recognition (Prisca and Aquila, 16:3-5; Andronicus and Junia, 16:7, both as fellow “apostles”), while some others are also given a special designation of relationship or status: “first fruit of Asia for Christ,” 16:5; “my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles,” 16:7; “my beloved in the Lord,” 16:8; “my beloved,” 16:9; “tested in Christ,” 16:10; “my relatives,” 16:7, 11; “the beloved,” 16:12; “elect of the Lord,” 16:13; “(who is) also my (adoptive) mother,” 16:13). The names are mostly Greek (16) and Latin (6), at least two are Hebrew (Mary, Herodion). But etymology does not necessarily indicate ethnicity, as some identified Jews have Greek or Latin names (Prisca and Aquila; Andronicus and Junia; 16:3, 7, 11; cf. three with Latin or Greek names in 16:21 who are identified as Paul’s relatives-compatriots), and some of the Greek and Latin names are attested for Jews in Roman inscriptions (Rufus, Julia). At least eight are from a Jewish background (Prisca and Aquila; Andronicus and Junia; Herodion; Aristobulus, Mary-Miriam, Rufus, mother of Rufus), probably more. As for social status, a few names are typical of those with prominent social standing; but most names are typical of the lower middle classes (slaves, freedpersons, artisan-laborers).

These greetings play a crucial function: not only do they serve a basic relational purpose, they also have a strategic aim. Paul seeks to highlight the range of connections he has in Rome, adding legitimacy for his involvement in the affairs of the Roman assemblies, and to give Phoebe a starting point for being given welcome and assistance (16:1-2).

Paul then invites his Roman listeners “to greet one another with a holy kiss” (cf. 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26), reflecting a liturgical practice. Paul next sends greetings from “all the assemblies of Christ” (16:16b); by this he means to highlight his Roman addressees’ participation within and unity with the overall community of Christ, expressing an ecumenical aspiration.

And seeming like an afterthought, but with crucial import for the situation at hand, Paul gives a stern warning to watch out for those who foment dissensions and promote perspectives contrary to the established “teaching” (16:17-19), even as he again congratulates them for their general “obedience” (cf. 1:8; 15:14). A solemn promise of victory (16:20a) and standard grace-wish (16:20b) signal closure.

But the final words are additional greetings, this time from eight individuals with Paul in Corinth (16:21-23) given in general to the letter’s addressees: four have Greek names (Timothy, Jason, Sosipater, Erastus), and four have Latin names (Gaius, Lucius, Quartus, Tertius), while three are specifically identified as Jewish (Lucis, Jason, and Sosipater as Paul’s “relatives-compatriots”).

The concluding doxology (16:25-27) is a fitting ending to the entire letter, but is missing in the best manuscripts (as is the grace-wish of v. 24). The usual conclusion is that it was added sometime in the second century, similar to liturgical additions inserted into biblical manuscripts elsewhere (e.g., Matt 6:13b).

Conclusion and the Anabaptist Tradition

Since the 1500s, the interpretation of Romans has been dominated by the Lutheran-Reformed perspective. Core elements of this traditional Protestant paradigm are:

(a) that Romans is a “systematic theology” of Paul’s gospel, whose core is “justification by faith”; understood entirely as a “forensic” (judicial, not ethical) process, addressing a generic human condition;

(b) that Romans is a treatise against Judaism, and that Paul rejected his Jewish heritage and identity; and

(c) that Judaism is a religion of “works righteousness,” by which one can “earn salvation.”

Recent years have seen the dethroning of that paradigm (for a summary, see Toews 2004: 29-31). While sometimes dubbed “the new perspective” on Paul, there are in fact multiple variations among recent understandings of Romans and Paul. Crucial are their common conclusions:

(a) that Judaism is a religion based on God’s mercy, a kind of “covenantal nomism,” by which Torah-observance is a way of “staying in” (not “entering in”) the covenantal relationship established by God’s merciful initiative, and that Paul’s arguments in Romans must not be used to caricature Judaism in general;

(b) that Paul never forsook his Jewish heritage and identity, and as a “Jewish Christian” (Jewish follower of Jesus) and self-identified Jew understood that the Messiahship of Jesus represented the fulfilment of Jewish hopes (see esp. Rom 9–11), and especially the inclusion of non-Jews into the people of God at the close of the present age; and

(c) that “justification by faith-fidelity” is not the only core doctrine in Paul’s theology and that it was hammered out precisely as a way to establish that non-Jewish followers of Jesus could be considered as full, joint heirs to the promises of God to Israel made through Abraham.

Though historically Romans has been considered a “treatise against Judaism,” and the basis for Christian supersessionism (Toews 2004: 288-289), Romans can also be considered a key text for Jewish-Christian dialogue. Romans is most certainly not a general “treatise against Judaism”; rather, it engages in fierce intramural Jewish debate on many matters of Jewish conviction. (Paul does not use the word “Christian,” and would not have understood that term—which simply means “partisan of the Anointed”—to imply something separate from Judaism.)

In many ways, new perspectives on Romans and Paul have leaned toward a more Anabaptist-oriented framework, overcoming (for instance) the classic divide between “imputed” (forensic) and “effectual” (ethical) righteousness. Similarly, it is increasingly understood that Paul’s framework of pisteuein and pistis cannot simplistically be reduced to “believing” and “faith” and should not be divorced from robust ethical commitment (see above on 1:16-17).

Romans has been a classic source for Anabaptist reflection on biblical pacifism (12:9-21) and relations with the state (13:1-7). But the “politics” of Romans cannot be not limited to 13:1-7; the “alternative politics” of Romans is directly announced at the outset (1:3-4) and implied along the way. By this politics Paul claims that it is Lord Messiah Jesus who is the world imperial ruler and bringer of salvation, peace, and justice, implicitly not the Caesar in Rome. Paul proclaims Lord Jesus as true “son of God” and as the true bringer of salvation to the world through his virtuous conduct (Toews 2004: 37-43, 63-64, 149, 324-325; Zerbe 2003).

Now in the “climate crisis” of our own day, Romans 8:18-25 is becoming a key text in Christian reflection on creation care, with its emphasis on the interdependence of humanity and the rest of creation. Paul understands both these realms of creation to be on their way to mutual transformation and renewal, not destruction or replacement. He does not see the hope of the faithful in their escape and departure from earth to heaven, but in their complete renewal in the context of a transformed creation.

Recommended Essays in the Commentary

Death in Romans
Faith in Romans
Grace in Romans
Law in Romans
Obedience
Original Sin
The Righteousness of God
Sin in Romans
Works of the Law

Bibliography

• Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. When in Romans: An Invitation to Linger with the Gospel according to Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
• Gorman, Michael J. Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022.
• Liddell. Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940. (online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu)
• McKnight, Scot. Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2021.
• Reasoner, Mark. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
• Toews, John E. Romans. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA/Waterloo, ON: Herald, 2004.
• Zerbe, Gordon. "The Politics of Paul: His Supposed Social Conservatism and the Impact of Postcolonial Readings," Conrad Grebel Review 21 (Winter 2003): 82-103. https://www.cmu.ca/docs/faculty/CMU-Politics-of-Paul-GZ.pdf
• _____. "Believers as Loyalists: The Anatomy of Paul's Language of Pistis." In G. Zerbe, Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics, 26-46. Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2012a. https://www.cmu.ca/docs/academic/CMU-Believers-as-Loyalists:-The-Anatomy-of-Paul%E2%80%99s-Language-of-Pistis.pdf
• _____. "Partnership and Equality: Paul's Economic Theory." In Zerbe, Citizenship, 75-92. Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2012b.

https://www.cmu.ca/docs/faculty/CMU-Citizenship-Chapter-5-Partnership-and-Equality-GZ.pdf

• _____. "Paul's Ethic of Non-retaliation and Peace." In Zerbe, Citizenship, 141-68. Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2012c.

https://www.cmu.ca/docs/faculty/CMU-Citizenship-Chapter-9-Pauls-Ethic-of-Nonretaliatation-and-Peace-GZ.pdf

• _____. "From Retributive to Restorative Justice in Romans," Direction 44 (Spring 2015): 43-58. https://directionjournal.org/44/1/from-retributive-to-restorative-justice.html
• _____. "Welcoming as Christ Has Welcomed: Paul's Challenge to Christians in Rome," Vision: A Journal of Church and Theology 17 (Spring 2016): 78-86. https://press.palni.org/ojs/index.php/vision/article/view/146/105

Invitation to Comment

To recommend improvements to this article, click here.

—John E. Toews