Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series)

Introduction to Romans

Next to Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul is arguably the most important figure in the Christian faith. His life, letters, and theology have indelibly shaped Christianity in the last two millennia. Some of the greatest church leaders have accorded an exalted place to the apostle to the Gentiles: Peter honored him (2 Pet. 3:15–16); Augustine appealed to him; Luther revered him; Wesley found assurance in him; Barth thundered forth because of him; and proponents of the Old Perspective and of the New Perspective toward Paul alike extol him as their own.[1] And it is no surprise that these people and movements sooner or later based their understanding of Paul on his magnum opus—Romans. Paul and Romans: an unbeatable combination that delivers the knockout punch to any works-oriented righteousness before God; a soothing remedy for the soul that longs for peace with God; and a hopeful proclamation that God has begun to put the world to rights with himself. A commentary on Romans is therefore most fitting. Of course, there are already myriads of works on Romans going back to the early church fathers, but still, each new generation deserves a fresh hearing of this ancient masterpiece that Paul wrote somewhere between AD 55 and 58. Though daunting, that is the joyous task that this present study attempts to accomplish. Before an introduction to Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome, however, some comments are needed about Paul the man: the contours of his world, the extent of his letters, and the center of his thought.

Paul the Man: His World(s), His Letters, and His Theology

Paul’s World(s)

Paul was a product of three worlds: Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian. These influences impacted Paul in increasing significance, like concentric circles. At the periphery of Paul’s world was the Greco-Roman sphere of influence. Like most travelers in the Roman Empire in the middle of the first century AD, Paul spoke the trade language bequeathed to the masses of his day—Koine (common) Greek. Koine Greek was a mixture of classical Greek dialects and native languages of the conquered peoples in the domain of Alexander the Great (ca. 330 BC). Koine Greek was a standard language used for culture and commerce, much as English is in our day. The influence of Greek culture on Paul is evident also in the way he drew upon ancient classical Greek philosophical traditions such as Platonism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. Paul also utilized the tools of Greek rhetoric, such as the diatribe, the fool’s speech, and the peristasis catalogue (a list of afflictions). And, of course, the concept of the polis (city) and even democracy had a constant bearing on Paul’s daily experiences. Mighty Rome obviously cast its long shadow across the Roman provinces, and Paul made much use of its contributions: pax Romana (peace of Rome), brought about by the reign of Caesar Augustus (ca. 31 BC–AD 14) in a world torn by civil war and terrorized by pirates on the sea and bandits on the land; a pervasive and sturdy infrastructure; and a fair-minded jurisprudence system that transcended the petty politics of local towns. Indeed, the last-mentioned amenity ensured Paul an audience with the court of Rome, where the apostle was bound and determined to visit.

An icon of Paul from a larger piece entitled Christ and Twelve Apostles taken from a nineteenth-century AD Orthodox church in the Antalya region of Turkey.

But Paul was born Saul—a Jew by birth and upbringing. Though reared in the Gentile city of Tarsus, Paul probably was taken by his parents as a young person to Jerusalem to be trained as a rabbi (Acts 22:2–3). There he excelled his peers in his grasp of the Torah and the oral tradition of the Pharisees, and in his love for the land of Israel. Indeed, Paul was so zealously Jewish that he devoted himself to stamping out Judaism’s newest fringe group, the followers of Jesus. Paul’s zeal for Moses, loathing of Gentile influence on Judaism, and hatred of Jesus drove him to the point of violence against the church. He relates his passion for Judaism and contempt for the church especially in Galatians 1:13–14; Philippians 3:4–6; and 1 Timothy 1:13 (cf. Acts 9:1–2).

However, a funny thing happened to Paul the Pharisee on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians: he was saved through an encounter with the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:15–16; Phil. 3:7–11; cf. Acts 9:3–18; 22:2–21; 26:4–23). There Paul surrendered to the crucified Jesus, who was none other than the glorious Christ, and, in a divine touché, Paul the Gentile-basher was there and then called to be an apostle to the nations. In a flash, Paul exchanged the law of Moses for faith in Christ, hatred of non-Jews for love of the church, the land of Israel for the kingdom of God, and circumcision and the old covenant for the cross of Calvary. Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus was nothing short of both a conversion and a calling.[2] Indeed, God’s setting apart of Paul to preach to the Gentiles the gospel of Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the end-time conversion of the nations predicted by Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah and Micah.[3]

Paul’s Letters

Thirteen New Testament letters are attributed to Paul, and traditionally they are grouped into four categories: early epistles (1–2 Thessalonians); major epistles (Galatians [which some think was Paul’s first letter], Romans, 1–2 Corinthians); prison epistles (Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon); the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus).

The traditional approach to Paul’s letters, however, has for the last century or so been vigorously challenged by less conservatively inclined scholars. These scholars attribute only seven of the so-called Pauline Epistles to the apostle himself: Galatians, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon; the rest, they think, were written by Paul’s students after the apostle’s death in about AD 64. Therefore, it is argued, the latter pseudonymous writings are not to be given serious attention in discerning Paul’s theology. This wing of Pauline scholarship bases its claim essentially on three arguments. First, the vocabulary of the disputable letters differs from that of the indisputable Pauline Epistles. Second, the history presumed by the Pastoral Epistles matches neither the events of Paul’s letters nor the accounts of Paul’s travels as recorded in Acts. Third, the theology of the pseudonymous letters is at odds with the undisputed Pauline Epistles.

Since Paul’s authorship of Romans is undisputed, a commentary on Romans need not include a full-scale discussion of the issue of how many letters Paul actually wrote, but we should at least note in passing the traditional responses to the foregoing arguments. First, the differences in vocabulary between the disputed and the undisputed letters of Paul can be accounted for by his use of different secretaries for his letters (Rom. 16:22 names Tertius as one of them) and by the differing vocabulary required to address the various circumstances of each church to which he wrote. Second, there is good reason for postulating the theory that Paul was released from his Roman captivity recorded in Acts 28 (ca. AD 62), after which he conducted a mission trip to Spain (see Rom. 15) and perhaps elsewhere, but then was rounded up with Peter and other Christians to be tried by the emperor Nero in Rome. There, reliable tradition tells us, Paul and Peter were martyred for their faith in Christ (ca. AD 64). Indeed, the fact that Luke, Paul’s sometime missionary companion and the author of Acts, does not record Paul’s death in Acts 28 decidedly points toward this theory. Third, the overall theology of the disputed letters of Paul—the overlapping of the two ages (see below)—is also the driving engine of the undisputed Pauline Epistles, as more than one scholar has noted. And if that is the case for the major theme of Paul’s thought, then why should one doubt that it is the same or similar for Paul’s minor themes?[4]

At the foot of the Capitoline Hill, which overlooks the Roman Forum, is a prison built in the seventh to sixth century BC and used until the fourth century AD. Currently located in the lower levels of the church of San Guiseppe dei Falegnami, it is known as the Mamertine Prison. Legend maintains that Paul and Peter were held here while awaiting execution.

Paul’s Theology

Four major options have competed as the proposed center of Paul’s thought: justification by faith; the Tübingen theory; the history-of-religions approach; and Jewish eschatology. My discussion of these themes proceeds from the assumption that if the key to the apostle Paul’s thought can be identified, then therein we find a frame of reference for interpreting his letters.

With the Protestant Reformation, justification by faith became the leading contender to be the center of Paul’s theology (at least among non-Catholics), especially when one takes into consideration Galatians, Romans, and Philippians (chap. 3). The thesis of those letters is that the sinner is declared righteous before God through simple faith in Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law of Moses, the Torah. Certainly, justification by faith is a major player in Paul’s theology, as we will repeatedly see in the letter to the Romans. However, Pauline scholars of the last century rightly observed that although justification is important to Paul, it is not pervasive in the rest of his writings. Rather, the doctrine of justification by faith seems to have been a teaching that Paul explained and defended in response to the Judaizers’ influence on some, but not all, of the churches to which he wrote. In other words, Paul’s apologetic for justification by faith was a polemic against the false teaching of the Judaizers that salvation comes by faith in Christ plus obedience to the Torah. Justification by faith most probably is not, then, the overarching theme driving the Pauline corpus.

The Tübingen theory is named after the university in that German town and was associated with one of that institution’s leading theology professors, F. C. Baur.[5] In the mid-nineteenth century, Baur claimed that the key to understanding Paul, and indeed the entire New Testament, is to see that a theological civil war runs throughout its pages: Paul and the message of justification by faith versus Peter and the message of justification by faith plus works of the Torah (the Judaizers). It was left to the anonymous work of Acts in the second century to paint an idyllic portrait of the early church in which Paul and Peter come across as the best of buddies. Although the Tübingen theory enjoyed enormous popularity among New Testament interpreters in Europe during the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century, its influence all but vanished in the second half of the twentieth century thanks to two considerations. First, scholars recognized Baur’s theory for what it really was, a foisting upon the New Testament of the dialectic philosophy of Hegel: thesis (Paul’s message) versus antithesis (Peter’s message) resulting in a synthesis (Acts’ reconciliation of the two). In other words, the theology of Paul and the New Testament was distorted by an imposition of philosophical categories upon it. Second, fewer scholars today doubt that Luke wrote Acts and that he did so in the late first century, not the mid- to late second century.

Paul developed his theology under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while living in a polytheistic Roman Empire that was rather tolerant of religion and tended to absorb various belief systems into its own pagan system. As the worship of state gods and goddesses became more ritual observance than religious conviction, several mystery religions sprang up. The one that would rise to prominence toward the end of the first century AD was the cult of Mithras. The meeting places of the followers of Mithraism usually contained an image of Mithras preparing to sacrifice the divine bull, like the one shown here from the second century AD.

In the first half of the twentieth century another hypothesis concerning the center of Paul’s theology arose from the history-of-religions school. Although there were various constructs under the umbrella of this approach, they shared the common idea that Paul gave up his Jewish faith for Hellenistic (Greek) religion, whether Greek mystery religions (so Richard Reitzenstein), Hellenistic mysticism (so Adolf Deissmann), or Platonic gnosticism (so Rudolf Bultmann).[6] Today, the history-of-religions approach is still championed by a few high-profile scholars (e.g., the Jesus Seminar, Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman), but most scholars maintain that Paul was true to his Jewish heritage, and that Hellenistic influence was at the periphery, not the center, of his theology. This is so even after we duly note the interpenetration of Hellenism and Judaism in the first century.[7]

The fourth contender for the center of Paul’s thought is Jewish eschatology, but in revised form. Albert Schweitzer in the early twentieth century convinced most New Testament scholars that the two-age structure of the writings of Second Temple Judaism (Judaism in the time between the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem in 519 BC and its destruction by the Romans in AD 70) was the key not only to Jesus’ message but also to Paul’s theology. Apocalyptic Judaism was a dominant strand of Jewish theology by the time of Jesus, teaching that history divides into two ages: the present age of sin and sorrow caused by Adam’s fall, and the coming age of the kingdom of God, a period of unprecedented righteousness and peace; and it would be the Messiah who would establish the latter.[8] Most Pauline scholars today see this as the key to the thought of Jesus, Paul, and indeed the whole of the New Testament.[9] And with this I agree. But there is a significant difference between the ancient Jewish two-age scenario and the New Testament: whereas the former expected that the two ages would be consecutive (when the Messiah comes, he will completely replace this age with the age to come), the latter claims that the two ages are now simultaneous; that is, they overlap. Thus, with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the age to come (kingdom of God) broke into this present age but did not end it. This is often labeled inaugurated eschatology, which holds that with the first coming of Christ the age to come has already dawned, but its completion still awaits the second coming of Christ. The following two charts illustrate the Jewish two-age structure and Jesus’ modification of it:

For our purposes, the book of Romans attests to the importance of the overlapping of the two ages for understanding Paul’s concept of justification by faith: faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the Torah projects end-time justification of the sinner by God into the present age. I will have much more to say on this in the commentary itself; for now, I simply note that inaugurated eschatology (the key to Paul’s theology) and justification by faith are kindred spirits in the book of Romans.

With the preceding background in mind, we may now turn to an introduction of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The Letter to the Romans

This introduction to the book of Romans will follow the usual procedure by discussing its importance in church history, composition, date and place of writing, recipients, theme, purpose, and genre/outline. These opening comments, however, will yield some surprising results, especially regarding the last three items mentioned. Hopefully, these new observations will shed considerable light on the letter as a whole.

The Importance of Romans in Church History

The book of Romans, more than almost any other biblical book, has dramatically shaped church history. This is not surprising, since Romans is the most systematic explanation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that the New Testament contains. We may recall here some of the individuals mentioned earlier in this regard whose lives were forever changed by the message of Romans. Augustine (fifth-century church father) at long last found peace with God after reading Romans 13:14: Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh. Such a challenge was just what the young and restless Augustine needed, and he went on to become perhaps the most important theologian of the church since Paul himself.

Martin Luther in 1517 came to a whole new understanding of the righteousness of God when he meditated on Romans 1:17: For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ Listen to Luther’s testimony about his conversion based on this new understanding of divine righteousness as illuminated by this verse:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners. . . . At last, by the mercy of God, . . . I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. . . . Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. . . . And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word ‘righteousness of God.’[10]

So too did Romans 1:17 change John Wesley, for the mere reading of Luther’s commentary on that verse in Aldersgate Chapel on a night in 1738 brought to Wesley an assurance of salvation that had long eluded him. Wesley wrote of that moment, My heart was strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ; Christ alone for salvation.[11]

Karl Barth’s conversion from liberal theology to a more conservative brand of Christianity (known as neoorthodoxy) stemmed from his sermons on the book of Romans. His 1919 commentary on Romans, which declared that change in perspective, was epochmaking. Barth, armed with the message of Romans, singlehandedly brought about the demise of old-line liberal theology.

Besides the spiritual luminaries just mentioned, we can only imagine how large a number of persons have become believers in Jesus Christ by traveling the Romans road (Rom. 3:23; 6:23; 10:9–10, 13), the present author included.

Yes, the book of Romans has changed the lives of millions of individuals and governed the very course of church history. It deserves, therefore, our respect and even reverence.

The Composition of Romans

What did Romans look like originally? That is, what did it look like when it left the hands of Paul and his professional scribe, Tertius? Four answers have been given to this question throughout the years.

First, the second-century heretic Marcion said that Romans originally consisted of chapters 1–14. But it is obvious that Marcion had a vested interest in propounding this particular theory. It was the church at Rome that branded Marcion a heretic around AD 150, and Romans 15–16 compliments the Christians there at Rome. Moreover, Marcion was declared a heretic because he argued in favor of the recognition of Paul’s letters and a few other portions of the New Testament as Christian Scripture, but not the Old Testament. Romans 15–16 draws heavily in a positive way on the Old Testament.

A second view is that Romans ended originally at chapter 15, but after Paul’s death an editor added chapter 16, thereby redirecting the letter from Rome to Ephesus. Why Ephesus? Because chapter 16 contains greetings to numerous individuals whom Paul knew, but how could Paul know them if he had never been to Rome? It is more likely, so this theory goes, that these are people whom the apostle befriended at Ephesus, a city where he spent three years ministering (Acts 19). But this hypothesis overlooks a key consideration: Paul probably met the folks greeted in Romans 16 during his various missionary travels, and he mentions them here to prepare the way for his imminent arrival at the capital city. In other words, the greetings in chapter 16 point to Rome as the destination of the letter, the composition of which runs from chapter 1 through 16.

Romans was written by Paul and his professional scribe, Tertius (Rom. 16:22). Writing materials during this time period included a stylus for writing on wax tablets, and pen and ink for writing on surfaces such as papyrus, vellum, boards, or pottery. Pictured is a Roman bronze pen and inkpot (first century AD).

Third, the majority opinion today is that Romans originally went from 1:1 to 16:23, thus excluding the doxology in 16:25–27. The many scholars taking this view do so for two reasons: (1) the doxology occurs at different places in the Greek manuscripts of Romans (e.g., after 14:23 or 15:33 or 16:23); (2) the language is liturgical, similar to Ephesians 1:1–14, and many Pauline scholars do not believe that Paul wrote Ephesians. But there are weighty reasons for maintaining that the doxology is original to Romans and occurred at the very end of the letter, where it is found in English translations today. (1) Even though the doxology occurs at different places in some Greek manuscripts, it is found after Romans 16:23 in the majority of the best Greek texts. (2) The theological theme of the doxology—the obedience of the Gentiles—matches the theme of Romans 1:1–7, thus forming an inclusio for the letter as a whole and signaling one of the key purposes of the letter (see the discussion to follow and also in the commentary sections on Rom. 1:1–7; 16:25–27). (3) For those like myself who accept the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, it poses no problem that the liturgical style of the doxology in Romans 16:25–27 matches Ephesians 1:1–14 and elsewhere.

Fourth, although it is a minority view, I side with those who argue that Romans looked in the beginning like it looks today in the English text: it started at 1:1 and ended at 16:27.

The Date and Place of the Writing of Romans

There is little debate today concerning the date and the place of the writing of Romans. Most scholars agree that Paul wrote the letter somewhere between AD 55 and 58, on his third missionary trip. This conclusion is based on two considerations: the intersection of two events on Paul’s second missionary journey with Roman chronology, and the intersection of Paul’s comments in Romans with the book of Acts. First, according to Acts 18, which records events from Paul’s second missionary trip (which occurred before Paul wrote Romans), Paul appeared before Gallio, Roman proconsul of Corinth (Acts 18:12–17). According to Roman records (the Gallio Inscription in particular), Gallio was proconsul of Corinth in AD 51–52. Note that the Roman emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome in AD 49 (see Suetonius, Claudius 25.4; Acts 18:2), but upon the emperor’s death in AD 54, Jews were allowed to return to Rome. Indeed, in Romans 16:3 Paul greets Priscilla and Aquila, a Jewish couple who had been expelled from Rome in AD 49, but who now have relocated back in the city, presumably after AD 54. All this is to say that Paul could not have written Romans before AD 52 or before AD 54. Second, Acts 18:23–21:16 records Paul’s third missionary journey, including a three-year stay in Ephesus. Most Pauline scholars believe that Paul wrote 1–2 Corinthians from Ephesus, sometime around AD 55. Those two letters speak about Paul’s plan to collect from the church at Corinth and others an offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9). By the time Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, the churches of the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (in which Corinth was located) had delivered on their promise to make such a collection (so Rom. 15:25–27). Thus, Romans must have been written after AD 55, the date of the Corinthian letters. From the preceding considerations one arrives at a date for the writing of Romans no sooner than AD 55. But from where do we get the outer date of AD 58 for Romans? The next point provides the answer.

Most scholars agree that Paul wrote the book of Romans from Corinth between AD 55 and 58 while on his third missionary journey. Shown here are the archaeological remains of the temple of Apollo in ancient Corinth with the Acrocorinth, its acropolis, in the background.

It is commonly agreed that after his stay in Ephesus of approximately two and a half years (see Acts 19:8–10), Paul traveled to Corinth for a three-month stay (Acts 20:1–3), and from there he wrote Romans. Romans 16:1 indicates that Paul was writing from Corinth, since he commends Phoebe, a resident of Cenchreae, which was near Corinth, to the congregations of Rome. Moreover, Paul mentions Erastus in Romans 16:23, the same Erastus who was the director of Corinth’s public works. Gaius, who provided lodging for Paul, probably also hailed from Corinth (Rom. 16:23). If indeed Paul was writing the letter of Romans from Corinth, then AD 58 seems established as the outer date for its composition.

The Recipients of Romans

It is clear from Romans itself that the recipients of the letter include both Jewish and Gentile Christians, for both groups are addressed throughout the document (1:1–16; 2:1–3:20; 9–11; 14:1–15:13). The fourth-century church father later called Ambrosiaster no doubt was accurate in saying that the church at Rome was not founded by any apostle (it is obvious that Paul had not visited Rome yet, nor had Peter or any other apostle, for Paul’s practice was not to build on any other apostle’s foundation [see Rom. 15:20–21]).[12] Most likely, it was founded by Roman Jews who were converted in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and returned home to the synagogues in Rome with their newfound faith in Jesus the Messiah. It is also likely that these Jewish Christians led the Gentile God-fearers who worshiped in their synagogues to Christ. The God-fearers were Gentiles who came to believe in the one God of Israel but did not submit to circumcision or the whole of the law of Moses.[13]

The bust of Emperor Claudius, who ruled the Roman Empire from AD 41 to 54

So somewhere between AD 30 and 55 Christianity became established in Rome, with believers probably meeting in as many as five house and tenement churches (see Rom. 16:5, 10–11, 14–15) and with an attendance of perhaps a few hundred (a large house church could accommodate fifty people for worship). From this we can see how the Roman believers could have become polarized into weak (possibly Jewish Christians) and strong (possibly Gentile Christians) factions (see Rom. 14:1–15:13), since they met in various locations. Moreover, most scholars today think that the Gentile Christian element in the house churches became dominant when Jews (Jewish Christians included) were expelled from Rome in AD 49 by Claudius. Suetonius (Claudius 25.4) reports that the Roman emperor expelled Jews from Rome at that time because they were squabbling over the man Chrestus, whose name probably was a corruption of the Greek Christos, meaning Christ. The early second-century Roman historian no doubt was referring to the controversy between Jewish Christians and non-Christian Jews over whether or not Jesus was the Christ. Since Rome did not distinguish between Jewish Christians and non-Christian Jews, but considered them all Jews, Claudius kicked out the whole lot of them. As noted above, Jews were not allowed to return to Rome until after Claudius’s death in AD 54. At that time, Jewish Christians came home to house or tenement churches now dominated by Gentile Christians, making for a tense relationship between the two groups (see Rom. 9–11).

The Theme of Romans

Almost all commentators on Romans look to 1:16–17 as the theme of the letter:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith [Hab. 2:4].

Beyond that, however, there is much debate regarding what these verses actually mean. Three questions perplex scholars: What does Paul mean by righteousness of God? What does the phrase from faith to faith (NIV: by faith from first to last) mean? What is Paul’s understanding of Habakkuk 2:4? I will deal more at length with Romans 1:16–17 later in the commentary section, but here I tip my hand as to what I think Paul means in these critical verses. Paul is drawing on the theme of the story of Israel.

Very simply put, the story of Israel is fourfold in the Old Testament narrative: (1) God’s promised blessing upon Israel if the nation obeyed him; (2) Israel’s repeated sins against God; (3) God’s response of sending Israel into exile, to Assyria in 722 BC and then to Babylonia in 587/586 BC; (4) God’s unwavering promise that Israel will be restored to their land if they repent. In my view, every key word in Romans 1:16–17 is rooted in the fourth point of this story: Israel’s promised restoration. Thus, the words gospel, power, and salvation would have immediately brought to mind Isaiah 40–66 and the promise of the good news that God will restore Israel to their land; this is nothing less than the power of God to save his people, and it will be a demonstration of God’s righteousness (e.g., Isa. 46:13; 51:5–8). And when Israel is restored to God and the land, then the nations of the world will come to believe in Israel’s God and stream into Jerusalem to worship him (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4; Mic. 4:1–3). In other words, first to the Jew would come restoration/salvation, and then to the Gentile. In the meantime, however, according to Habakkuk 2:4, the faithful Jew is to wait in faith on the Lord for the day of Israel’s restoration by obeying the Torah.

In Romans 1:16–17, however, Paul tweaks or qualifies the way Israel understood this Old Testament story. For the apostle to the Gentiles, the good news of the power of God’s salvation and righteousness is not the physical and geographical restoration of Jews to their homeland, but rather the spiritual conversion of sinners precisely because they stop trusting in the works of the law of Moses and place their faith in Jesus Christ alone. Moreover, Paul reverses the order of the restoration of Israel and the conversion of the Gentiles: first comes the conversion of the Gentiles, and then the restoration of Israel (see my comments on, e.g., Rom. 1:1–15; 11:25–27).[14]

The Purpose of Romans

Although the debate continues as to why Paul penned his magnificent letter to the Romans, the apostle himself leaves the reader in no doubt as to his purpose: Paul was divinely called to lead the way in bringing about the end-time conversion of the nations, a mission in which the church at Rome was to play a critical role (see Rom. 1:1–15; 15:14–33; 16:25–27). Thus, Rome was to be the last major stopping point before the apostle launched the final leg of his eschatological mission to Spain, the end of the then-known world (see again Rom. 15:14–33).[15] But to garner the support of the Christians in Rome, the capital city of the Roman Empire, Paul had to accomplish two tasks. First, he had to motivate the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome to start getting along again (see esp. Rom. 9–11; 14–15); otherwise the church would not be sufficiently unified to support him financially and spiritually in his Spanish mission. Second, even before that, he had to convince the Roman Christians that he was a legitimate apostle and therefore worthy of their support. Douglas Moo pinpoints this aspect of Romans very well:

Paul’s ultimate destination is Spain. As he clearly hints in 15:24, he is coming to Rome, among other things, to get the Romans to help him with that mission. But Paul has never been to Rome. Moreover, he is a controversial figure in the early church. As both a faithful Jew and God’s point man in opening the Gentile mission, he has been constantly under suspicion. Jewish Christians thought he was giving too much of the old tradition away, whereas Gentile Christians thought he was still too Jewish. A lot of false rumors about what he teaches and does swirl around him (cf. 3:8). Paul therefore probably knows he is going to have to clear the air if he expects the Romans to support him. Thus, . . . he writes Romans to clarify just what he believes.[16]

During the first century AD, the Roman Empire controlled a vast area. It achieved its maximum size around AD 117 under Emperor Trajan. It extended as far north as modern-day Great Britain and as far west as Spain, stretched into parts of North Africa and Egypt to the south, and reached the border of the Parthian Empire and Arabia on the east. Paul desired to preach the gospel to the western end of the then-known world, Spain.

Paul therefore writes Romans to defend his gospel of the grace of God through Christ by arguing that it is rooted in the Old Testament (Rom. 2–5), providing the disclaimer that it is not antinomian in ethic (God’s grace is not a license to sin [so Rom. 6–8]), and holding out a future for Israel (Rom. 9–11). All of these concerns would have helped to allay the fears of Jewish Christians in Rome that Paul was anti-Jewish. But, from the same chapters, the Gentile Christians in Rome would have welcomed Paul’s teaching that Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ apart from the law, and that the conversion of the nations is a significant part of God’s plan.

In other words, viewing Romans as Paul’s official doctrinal statement designed to introduce him to the congregations at Rome for the purpose of gathering their support for the end-time conversion of the nations seems to explain well the contents of the letter. I will keep coming back to this purpose as we move through the commentary.

Example of a Hittite Suzerain-Vassal Treaty

Preamble:a These are the words of the Sun Mursilis, the great king, the king of Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the storm god, the son of Suppiluliumas, the great king, the king of Hatti land.

Historical Prologue: Aziras, your grandfather, Duppi-Tessub, rebelled against my father, but submitted again to my father. . . . When my father became a god (i.e., died), and I seated myself on the throne of my father, Aziras behaved toward me just as he had toward my father. . . . When your father died, in accordance with your father’s word I did not drop you. . . .

Stipulations: With my friend you shall be a friend, and with my enemy you shall be an enemy. . . . If you send a man to that enemy and inform him as follows: An army and charioteers of the Hatti land are on their way, be on your guard! you act in disregard of your oath. . . . If anyone utters words unfriendly to the king of Hatti land before you, Duppi-Tessub, you shall not withhold his name from the king. . . . If anyone of the deportees from the Nuhassi land or of the deportees from the country of Kinza whom my father removed and myself removed, escapes and comes to you, if you do not seize him and turn him back to the king of the Hatti land . . . you act in disregard of your oath.

Document Clause: (To be placed in the temple)

Appeal to Witnesses: The sun-god of heaven, the sun-goddess of Arinna, the storm-god of Heaven . . . Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Hattarina. . . . Ninlil, the mountains, the rivers, the springs, the clouds—let these be witnesses to this treaty and to the oath.

Curses and Blessings: The words of the treaty and the oath that are inscribed on this tablet—should Duppi-Tessub not honor them, may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with his person, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land and together with everything that he owns. But if Duppi-Tessub honors the words of the treaty and the oath that are inscribed on this tablet, may the gods of the oath protect him together with his person, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his country.

aTreaty can be found in Boadt, Reading the Old Testament, 179.

The Genre/Outline of Romans

The genre or type of literature to which Romans belongs is a hotly contested topic. Is it a letter (as, for convenience, I have repeatedly labeled it so far in this introduction), since it has an epistolary framework (1:1–15; 15:14–16:23)? But if so, why does the bulk of Romans (1:16–15:13) not deal with the specifics of the local congregation in Rome? After all, Paul’s other letters do so with their respective churches, and indeed, ancient letters as a whole likewise dealt with the specific situations of their recipients. Is Romans therefore a treatise, since it is a public declaration of Paul’s theology of the gospel? This would make it more like ancient public speeches, which presented their subject matter for a broader audience. But why, then, use the private/epistolary framework of Romans relating it to the congregations in Rome? Perhaps Romans is a rhetorical speech patterned after the ancient rhetorical handbooks. But if so, which rhetorical pattern is it: demonstrative, or deliberative, or persuasive? The fact that no consensus has emerged among those categorizing Romans as rhetorical speech does not bode well, it seems, for that approach to identifying the genre of Romans.

Most Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties share the same basic components. Pictured is the treaty between Suppiluliuma and Hukkana from the thirteenth century BC. It contains a preamble, stipulations, divine witnesses, and curses and blessings.

I suggest that there is a genre closer to hand for understanding the type of literature to which Romans belongs: the covenant structure/format that is pervasive in the Old Testament and is especially clear in the book of Deuteronomy (upon which Paul draws some ten times in Romans). It has long been recognized that the book of Deuteronomy matches perfectly the ancient Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty, and a close look at that background can help illumine the covenant structure built into Deuteronomy and drawn on by Paul in Romans. The Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty takes us back in history to the second millennium BC. At that time, in what is modern-day eastern Turkey, the Hittite Empire ruled the Levant (ancient Syria and Israel) in the years 1400–1200 BC. That civilization was uncovered in 1906 by archaeologists who discovered, among other things, numerous examples of a contract between the Hittite king and his people, now known as the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty. In these contract documents between the king and his empire, six components can be identified. The first was the preamble, a statement identifying the name of the Hittite king. Second came the historical prologue, which contained a summary description of the king’s relationship to his people, usually his past protection of them. Third, there followed the stipulations of the covenant, especially what the king expected of his people if they were to continue to enjoy his provision and protection. Fourth, a fascinating component, the blessings and curses, followed, whereby the contract or treaty pronounced blessings on the people if they obeyed the king’s stipulations but curses upon them if they did not. Fifth, the document clause was a statement notifying the interested parties that a copy of the document would be placed in a public setting for all to see, usually a temple. Sixth, the king of the Hittite treaty appealed to his gods to ratify, or testify to, the treaty; in other words, the gods were witnesses of the treaty. Though their order might vary, these components were fairly fixed (see sidebar for an example).[17]

From the 1950s onward, scholars have demonstrated that the six components of the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty match the book of Deuteronomy (see table 1):

Preamble (Deut. 1:1–5), which accentuates the most intimate name of God: Yahweh.

Historical Prologue (Deut. 1:6–3:29), which provides a wonderful description of Yahweh’s saving acts on behalf of Israel.

Stipulations (Deut. 4–26), which are divided into two classifications: the Ten Commandments (Deut. 4–11) and those general commandments specified in terms of Israel’s relationship with God and others (chaps. 12–26).

Curses and Blessings (Deut. 27–30), the former pronounced by the Levites on Mount Ebal should Israel prove to be disobedient to Yahweh’s stipulations, and the latter pronounced by priests on Mount Gerizim should Israel prove to be obedient. The blessings and curses alternate like an antiphonal chorus, culminating in Deuteronomy 30:15–20, which presents the two ways tradition: the way of obedience and covenantal blessings, and the way of disobedience and covenantal curses.

Document Clause (Deut. 31:9, 24–26), which specifies that the law on the tablets of stone be placed inside the ark of the covenant for safekeeping. Indeed, Joshua 24 reminds Israelites in the days of Joshua that the law of Moses, now in a book, is to be remembered by setting up a stone of public witness.

Appeal to Witnesses (Deut. 31:26–32:47), where Yahweh appeals not to pagan deities, since he alone is God, but rather to history, which is a witness to God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel.

Table 1: The Hittite-Treaty Structure of Deuteronomy

My contention in this commentary is that the book of Romans amazingly follows the covenant form of Deuteronomy (which in turn is based closely on the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty/covenant format), except that Paul qualifies the old covenant of Moses and replaces it with the new covenant in Christ. Table 2, showing the covenant-treaty structure in Romans as the old covenant is replaced by the new, will serve as our basic outline of Romans, which will be unpacked in more detail as we move through the text itself.

Table 2: Old Covenant Replaced by the New Covenant in Romans

Romans 1:1–7

The Gospel of God in Christ through Paul

Big Idea Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was divinely chosen to preach the gospel of God in Christ, the end-time fulfillment of the twofold Old Testament promise of the restoration of Israel and the conversion of the Gentiles.

Key Themes of Romans 1:1–7

Paul has been called by God to be an apostle, especially to the Gentiles (1:1, 5–7).

Paul’s message is the gospel of God in Christ, which is the end-time fulfillment of the twofold Old Testament promise of the restoration of Israel (1:2–4) and the conversion of the Gentiles (1:5–7).

But Paul reverses the order: first comes the conversion of the Gentiles, and then the restoration of Israel (compare 1:1–7 with 11:25–27).

Paul utilizes the preamble section of the Old Testament covenant format.

Understanding the Text

The Text in Context

Romans 1:1–7 forms the first half of Paul’s introduction to Romans (1:8–15 is the second half). The introduction, or prescript, to ancient letters consisted of three parts: identification of the author, identification of the recipients, and a salutation or greeting to the recipients. Thus, these are the three parts for Romans 1:1–7:

Sender: Paul (1:1–6)

Recipient: To those in Rome (1:7a)

Greeting: Grace and peace (1:7b)

The sender/author component in 1:1–6 is probably so extensive because Paul is introducing himself to the Christians at Rome for the first time.

There is an inclusio—an opening idea of a text that is stated, developed, and then returned to at the conclusion—for the whole book of Romans centering on the gospel (compare 1:1, 2, 9, 15 with 15:16, 19; 16:25–27). Indeed, gospel receives pride of place, occurring in the letter’s thematic statement in 1:16–17. Thus, Paul from the beginning alerts the readers to the letter’s theme: the gospel of God through Jesus Christ.

Finally, 1:1–7, along with 1:8–15, corresponds with the preamble section of the covenant format that is so visible in Deuteronomy. The preamble section of the Old Testament covenant structure introduced Yahweh as Israel’s covenant-keeping God. So does 1:1–15, except that Paul equates Jesus Christ with God, whose new-covenant gospel now impacts not only Jews but also Gentiles.

The following outline will guide the examination of Romans 1:1–7:

Paul is called to be an apostle of the gospel of God in Christ, which is the fulfillment of the twofold Old Testament end-time promise (1:1)

The restoration of Israel (1:2–4)

The conversion of Gentiles (1:5–7)

Historical and Cultural Background

1. Ancient Greek letters contained three parts: introduction, body, and conclusion. The New Testament letters, including Paul’s, do the same.

2. The Holy Scriptures that Paul refers to in 1:2 are the Old Testament, which, in its Hebrew form, is divided into three sections: Torah (Law), Nebiim (Prophets), and Ketubim (Writings). That Paul and the other New Testament authors followed this threefold division of the Old Testament is clear (see Luke 24:27, 44; cf. in other ancient Jewish literature the prologue of Sirach; 4 Ezra 14.37–48; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.37–42).

This is a letter written between AD 97 and 103, which was found in the remains of a Roman fort at ancient Vindolanda (modern Chesterholm, Northumberland, England). Written on a thin piece of wood, it starts, Claudia Severa [sender] to her Lepidina [recipient] greetings. The body of the letter is an invitation to a birthday celebration, and it ends with the greeting section, Give my greetings to your Cerialis. My Aelius and my little son send him their greetings. I shall expect you, sister. Farewell, sister, my dearest soul, as I hope to prosper, and hail (Klauck, Ancient Letter, 107). Two different styles of handwriting are evident, indicating that the majority of the letter was dictated to a scribe and the last two lines were penned by the sender herself.

3. Although the primary source for Paul’s gospel is the Old Testament, his Roman audience would not have missed that the word gospel conjured up praise for Caesar Augustus and the pax Romana, the peace that his rule brought to the Mediterranean world. This study of Romans will show that just as Paul shows the inadequacy of the Old Testament law for salvation, so does he undermine any misplaced confidence in Caesar. Indeed, if Paul has his way, his upcoming mission to Spain at the hands of Roman Christianity will result in the second coming of Christ and the overthrow of the Roman Empire!

4. In 1:1–7 Paul seems to cast himself in the role of the Suffering Servant from the book of Isaiah. Note the following possible connections:

Paul is a servant (compare 1:1 with Isa. 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12).

Paul is called (compare 1:1, 6–7 with Isa. 41:9; 42:6; 43:1; 45:3–4; 48:12, 15; 49:1; 51:2).

Paul is an apostle, a sent one (compare 1:1 with Isa. 6:8).

Paul is sent to share good news (compare 1:1–7 with Isa. 40:9).

Paul is sent to the Gentiles (compare 1:5–7 with Isa. 42:6–7).

Interpretive Insights

1:1 Paul, a servant . . . an apostle . . . set apart for the gospel of God. Paul provides three descriptions of himself. First, he is a servant or slave (doulos) of Jesus Christ. Besides the demeaning connotation of doulos, Paul also may have intended a positive allusion to the Old Testament servant of Yahweh tradition that was applied to Israel (Neh. 1:6; Isa. 43:10), the prophets (2 Kings 9:7; 17:23), Moses (Josh. 14:7; 2 Kings 18:12), Joshua (Josh. 24:29), and especially the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). Paul’s usage of the less common title Christ Jesus, instead of the more common Jesus Christ, may allude to his mystic encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul tends to use Christ Jesus when alluding to his dramatic conversion experience. Second, Paul is called to be an apostle, which means that he has been accorded the same status as the original twelve disciples. This is true even if Paul never knew the historical Jesus. What mattered was that Paul had met the resurrected Jesus (e.g., Gal. 1:15–18; 1 Cor. 15:8). Third, Paul was set apart for the gospel of God. Set apart probably refers to Paul’s divine call from birth to be an apostle of Christ, a call that was actualized on the Damascus road (see Gal. 1:15–18). As noted earlier, the term gospel has its taproot in the promise of the good news of the end-time restoration of Israel (see esp. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1 [cf. Luke 4:18]; also Isa. 60:6; Joel 2:32; Nah. 1:15). Such a message of good news also included the conversion of the Gentiles (see Isa. 2:2–4; Mic. 4:1–3; Rom. 9:25–27; 15:16–33). This is the gospel of God in