Comment

1 ὀφείλομεν δὲ ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ ἀσθενήματα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν, “we, the strong, ought to support the weaknesses of those without strength.” For ὀφείλω + infinitive in the sense “be obligated,” so “must, ought,” much the most common NT usage, see BGD, ὀφείλω 2aβ, TDNT 5:559–64. Such a sense of obligation can arise for Paul from more general considerations (cf. 1 Cor 11:7, 10; 2 Cor 12:14), but here it is clearly tied to the immediate thought of what Christ has done and the character of it (v 3; cf. 14:15); see also 15:27. The ἡμεῖς is no doubt deliberate, emphasizing (as the previous first person plurals had not [14:7–8, 10, 12, 13, 19]) Paul’s stance as one of “the strong.” That Paul is referring specifically to those greeted in chap. 16 is possible (Wilckens), but the appeal probably has in view the too confident gentile Christians in general (cf. 11:18; 12:3, 16). On this issue Paul the Jew feels more at one with the gentile (and more liberated Jewish) believers than with the majority(?) of the Jewish Christians.

οἱ δυνατοί = “powerful people” would be a familiar usage in Greek (BGD), including the regular usage in the historical books of the OT/LXX = “the mighty men” (1 Sam 2:10; 17:51; 2 Sam 1:25, 27; 10:7; 16:6; etc.; so also 1 Macc 4:3; Acts 25:5; 1 Cor 1:26). The implication is of a strength or power which gives prominence and the possibility of dominating others. Hence the thought of greater responsibility (cf. Wisd Sol 6:6—a parallel which suggests a certain continuity of thought with 13:1–7). For Paul, of course, the thought is not of physical strength, but the strength of superior knowledge and understanding of how God’s grace works (cf. 2 Cor 12:10; 13:9). This does not, however, imply a claim to a particular charismatic endowment (cf. Michel), simply an appreciation of what Paul regards as the basic character of the gospel and of faith.

ἀσθένημα, “weakness” is a little used word, and only here in biblical Greek; “failing” (RSV, NIV) is unnecessarily pejorative, ἀδύνατος, “one who has no ability, capacity or strength,” “one who is incapable or incompetent” (TDNT 2:285). As almost all agree, βαστάζειν here must be taken in the sense “carry, bear, support.” The sense “bear patiently, endure, put up with” is certainly possible (BGD; RSV, NIV, NJB; Kirk, Barrett, Black), and the ambiguity of the word may include this sense. But the meaning here should not be confined to the latter. To reduce this final exhortation merely to a call for tolerance would be too much of an anticlimax following the strong counsel of 14:13–21 (NEB is better, “accept as our own burden”; see particularly Schlatter, Gaugler, and Cranfield). In view of Matt 8:17 an allusion to Isa 53:4 may be present (Michel); βαστάζειν became more prominent in the later translations of the OT and is used by Aquila in Isa 53:11 (see also SH). The parallel with Gal 6:2 suggests further that Paul made the double tie-up between Isa 53:4, Christ’s own ministry as the servant of Yahweh, and the obligation on the followers of Jesus to “bear one another’s burdens” (cf. Wilckens; see further Form and Structure).

καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν, “and not to please ourselves.” For ἀρέσκω see on 8:8. It is characteristic of “the mighty” of this world, of course, that they can simply “please themselves” (cf. T. Mos. 7.4). The contrast here probably echoes teaching of Jesus such as we find in Mark 8:34–36 pars. and particularly 10:42–45 pars., and is characteristic of Paul (1 Cor 10:24; 10:33—11:1; 13:5; Phil 2:4, 21). See further Kleinknecht, Gerechtfertigte, 357–63.

2 ἕκαστος ἡμῶν τῷ πλησίον ἀρεσκέτω εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, “let each of us please his neighbor with a view to what is good, for upbuilding.” The emphasis on the mutual responsibility of each (ἕκαστος) is typical of Paul and follows from his concept of the congregation as a charismatic community (Küsemann); cf. 12:3–6 and 1 Cor 12, particularly vv 7, 25. The use of πλησίον no doubt deliberately recalls the use of Lev 19:18 in 13:9–10 (these, together with the citation of Lev 19:18 in Gal 5:14, are the only occasions on which Paul uses πλησίον; though also in Eph 4:25). Thus the impression is strengthened that here too Paul is consciously drawing his inspiration from the teaching (as well as example [v 3]) of Jesus. See further on 13:9.

Elsewhere Paul regards mere “man pleasing” as highly undesirable (Gal 1:10; Col 3:22; 1 Thess 2:4; also Eph 6:6; see also on 8:8). Hence the qualification of the double purpose phrases (εἰς . . . πρός . . .); cf. particularly 1 Cor 10:33. As usual in Romans ἀγαθός is chosen for its generality (cf. particularly 2:10; 5:7; 9:11; 12:9, 21; 13:3; 14:16), not just eschatological good (8:28), but what people of good will would widely commend as “good” (εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν—13:4; 16:19). For οἰκοδομή see on 14:19. The phrase does not have the individual as such in view (“for his edification”) but, as the metaphor implies, the growth to maturity of the whole congregation πρὸς οἰκοδομήν—1 Cor 14:12, 26; Eph 4:29; εἰς οἰκοδομήν—2 Cor 10:8; 13:10; Eph 4:12, 16); or more precisely, the growth to maturity of the weaker brother as part of the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 14:4); cf. Fitzmyer, NEB, NJB.

3 καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν, “for the Christ too did not please himself.” The definite article with Χριστός should be given weight—“the Christ,” titular significance, as in v 7 (Michel, Cranfield; see further on 14:18). For ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσκειν see on 15:1. The appeal is not to incarnation (rightly Lietzmann) but primarily to Christ’s denying himself by submission to the cross (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5–8; see below on the use of Ps 69:19; cf. 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 1 Pet 2:21), but the close parallel with 1 Cor 10:23—11:1 (Cranfield) suggests that the model of Christ’s whole ministry (his earlier ministry consistent with and climaxed by his passion; cf. Mark 10:43–45; John 13:1–15) may also be in view (Schulz, Nachfolgen, 280, n. 95); hence the echoes of the Jesus tradition in 14:13–18 and 15:1–2.

ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται, “but as it is written”; see on 1:17. The question of why Paul cites an OT passage rather than an example from the Jesus tradition can certainly not be answered by inferring that such tradition was unknown either to Paul or to the Roman churches: churches which did not cherish at least a substantial portion of the Jesus tradition as an integral part of their founding tradition, which gave them their distinctive identity, are hardly conceivable; and the layering and diverse patterning of the Synoptic tradition points firmly in the same direction. We must deduce rather that the living quality of the Jesus tradition made allusion easier and more effective than formal quotation (see further on 12:14); and/or that at this stage a formal quotation from the (Jewish) scriptures could be expected to carry more weight, particularly if the significance of what Jesus actually did teach on the issue of clean and unclean was not entirely agreed (see on 14:14).

οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπʼ ἐμέ, “the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.” The quotation is verbatim from the LXX of Ps 69:9 [LXX 68:10]. The psalm is one of the most powerful cries of personal distress in the Psalter, and for that very reason would hardly commend itself to Jewish thought as messianic in character. Just as naturally, however, the earliest Christians scanning the scriptures for prefigurations of what had happened to the Messiah in the event found this psalm to become luminous with meaning in the light of Jesus’ suffering and death. After Pss 2, 22, 110, and 118, it is about the most quoted psalm in the NT (see on 11:9–10)—the most explicit allusions usually with direct reference to Christ’s passion and the events surrounding it (Mark 15:23, 36 pars.; John 2:17; 15:25; 19:28–29; Acts 1:20). Despite Hanson, it is highly unlikely that Paul or his Roman audiences would intend or understand such usage as words spoken by the preexistent Christ (Interpretation, 115; cf. Harrisville), in reference to whom the past tense would have been meaningless; a typological interpretation (the suffering righteous as type of the suffering Jesus [Lagrange]) is much more natural.

The citation may be more apposite than is generally perceived. In the psalm, one devoted to the Lord laments his affliction at the hands not only of his enemies, but also, it would appear, of his own people and kinsfolk (69:8, 28). Implied therefore is the sort of sharp differences (over what loyalty to God and to covenant obligations involved) which Paul knew all too well, which he envisaged among the Roman Christians, and which he saw bound up with Jesus’ own ministry (the echo of Mark 7:15 in 14:14, 20) and in his death (Gal 3:13). Perhaps implicit therefore is the thought that the reproaches directed against God (σέ [against SH]) included those which traditionalist Jews leveled against the thought that God was equally God of the Gentiles as of the Jews, and that it was just these reproaches which fell on Jesus, since it was precisely by such teaching (Mark 7:15) and by his death (Gal 3:13) that the way had been opened up to the Gentiles to receive “the blessing of Abraham” solely by faith in this Christ (Gal 3:14).

4 ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, “for as much as was written beforehand was written for our instruction.” The explanation is not in addition to v 3 but provides the larger principle which justifies the use just made of scripture; cf. 4:23–24; 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11 (Küsemann). The ὅσα of course denotes all scripture. In προεγράφη the thought is very similar to the προεπηγγεἰλατο of 1:2 (cf. 3:21). διδασκαλία, “teaching, instruction,” features little in the early Pauline correspondence (elsewhere in the early Paulines only at 12:7), but becomes a key word in the Pastorals (15 out of 21 occurrences in the NT). Underlying both 2 Tim 3:16 (πρὸς διδασκαλίαν) and here may be a rabbinic-type expression ; cf. b. Sanh. 73a (BGD, διδασκαλία; see further Michel, n. 13). The thought is very close to that of Philo, Abr. 4. The sense of scripture as the living word of God is strong here (cf. Gaugler).

ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίσα ἔχωμεν, “in order that through patience and through the comfort of the scriptures we might hold fast hope.” There is general agreement among the most recent commentators that the two διά clauses are independent, the first διά of attendant circumstances, the second causal (see, e.g., Küsemann, Schlier). So we could translate “with patience and by means of the comfort . . .” It is implicit, of course, that the patience is modeled on and inspired by that of the suffering righteous individual (as expressed in Ps 69 and climactically by Christ), but the comfort which stories of such patience vindicated would provide may be said to be the more direct or immediate effect of such scriptures. For ὑπομονή see on 5:3. For παράκλησις see on 12:8 (Barrett’s translation, “exhortation,” has gained no support); Küsemann cites the apposite parallel of 1 Macc 12:9 (other references in Schlier). For ἐλπίς see on 4:18 and 5:4; the thought is clearly similar to that of 5:2–5 and 8:24–25. There should be no need to ask why Paul speaks of hope here (cf. Cranfield): it is fundamental to Paul’s argument that the gospel’s embrace of Gentile as well as Jew is the beginning of the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological hope; consequently the harmony of Jew and Gentile in the new Christian congregations is an important landmark on the way to the complete fulfillment of that hope; hence also the concluding sequence in vv 7–13 with the same climactic reference to hope. The vision of what should and will be needs to be sustained (ἔχωμεν, “hold fast,” not just “hold” [Michel, Cranfield]) in order to maintain the motivation for communal harmony and the self-denial necessary for upbuilding.

5 ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως δῴη ὑμῖν, “may the God of patience and of comfort give you.” The form has a liturgical ring and suggests that Paul wrote with a view not only to winding up the section (see Form and Structure) but also to the letter’s being read within the context of a congregation gathered for worship (Küsemann; cf. SH, Lietzmann). The phrases, “God of . . . ,” in themselves carry a note of praise (15:13, 33; 16:20; 2 Cor 1:3; 13:11; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 5:10); here repeating the words of v 4. The unique use of the optative (δῴη) is also distinctive of the “prayer wish” form (Michel, Cranfield)—2 Thess 3:16; 2 Tim 1:16, 18 (BGD, δίδωμι; BDF §95.2); see also 15:13.

τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλήλοις, “to live in harmony among yourselves”; see on 12:16.

κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, “in accordance with Christ Jesus.” As the equivalent κατά phrases indicate, the phrase here probably refers primarily to the will of Christ (κατὰ κύριον—2 Cor 11:17; κατὰ πνεῦμα—Rom 8:4–5) (TDNT 4:669 n. 18, Küsemann, Cranfield). But reference also to the example of Christ should not be dismissed so quickly as those just cited do (contrast, e.g., SH, Lagrange, Knox, T. W. Manson, Murray, Kleinknecht [363], NIV, NJB): Christ has just been evoked as an example (v 3), and the echoes of the Jesus tradition in the preceding exhortation (14:13–15, 18–19; 15:1–2) suggest conduct modeled “after Christ” in a fuller sense (see also on 6:17); Christ functions as κύριος to the believer’s slave (14:4–8), but the absence of κύριος here may be significant for that very reason; and in the other similar κατά phrases the double thought of “modeled on and obedient to” seems likewise implicit (Col 2:8 follows 2:6—“as you received the traditions concerning Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him”; Eph 4:24—the thought, of course, is of “the new man” modeled in accordance with the image of God = Christ; cf. 13:14 and 2 Cor 3:18, 4:4, 6).

6 ἵνα ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι δοξάζητε, “in order that with one mind and with one voice you might glorify.” ὁμοθυμαδόν probably derives from the political sphere = the unanimous wish of an assembled body (as in Acts 12:20; TDNT 5:185; Michel cites Ep. Arist. 178; Philo, Mos. 1.72; Josephus, Ant. 15.277 and notes the frequent use of in the DSS). In the OT it is a favorite word in Job (14 times) and in the NT of Acts (10 times); elsewhere in the NT only here; but in Paul cf. 1 Cor 1:10 and the use of τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (see on 12:16); cf. also 1 Pet 3:8. The emphasis on “mouth” as well as “mind” is important and reflects the same conviction as 10:8–10 that faith and worship must come to speech and cannot remain interior to heart or mind; cf. also 1 Clem 34.7. For δοξάζω see on 1:21. Once again it is not at all accidental that in this winding-up passage Paul recalls one of the key elements in the indictment of humankind and expresses his vision in terms of its complete reversal: when all, Jew and Gentile, will render God the worship which is his by right of creation, and now also of salvation (by narrowing the thought simply to the unanimity of weak and strong Schlier [cf. Leenhardt] misses the wider setting of the whole discussion). Nor is it accidental that Paul expects this unity to come to expression in worship rather than in unanimity of opinion (14:1–6).

τὸν θεὸν καὶ πτέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The phrase is quite characteristic of Paul (2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Col 1:3; also Eph 1:3, 17; 1 Pet 1:3). The clear indication that Paul thought of God as “the God of Christ” should be taken seriously (SH, Cranfield) and not weakened to a formulation like “identify God by reference to Christ [christlich]” (Zeller). Certainly Paul does identify God as the Father of Christ (Wilckens—“as such is he the God of patience and comfort”); the character of the revelation of God through Jesus as Father of the one who so lived, prayed, taught, suffered, died, and rose again is a fundamental distinguishing mark of the God of Christian faith (cf. particularly 1:3–4; 5:10; 8:3, 15–17, 29, 32). But more striking is the fact that Paul speaks of God not only as the God of Christ, but also as “the God . . . of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. also 1 Cor 3:23—God is Christ’s lord; Matt 27:46; John 20:17; Heb 1:9). Here it becomes plain that κύριος is not only a way of identifying Jesus with God, but also of distinguishing Jesus from God (see further on 1:8 and 10:9). In a somewhat dramatic, perhaps even pointed way, therefore, Paul uses the last phrase of the section to confirm the implication of the earlier verses that, at least for the purposes of this discussion, the roles of the one God and of the exalted Christ are kept distinct, with both the immediate authority of Christ and the ultimate authority of God emphasized (see on 14:3).

Explanation

1 Paul sums up the discussion of this very sensitive issue by repeating the main emphasis of the second half of the discussion (14:13–21), and indeed of the whole (14:1): that the primary responsibility is on “the strong” to bear the burden of maintaining the harmony of the community. It is assumed that “those without strength” (“the weak”) are at least willing to accept “the strong” as fellow members of the congregation, otherwise the basis for such talk of mutual responsibility would be lacking. If the conservative are thus willing to restrain their condemnation of the more liberal, then it is for “the strong” to make the concessions necessary to maintain the spirit of community.

For the first time Paul gives a label to those who disagree with “the weak”: they are “the strong.” “The weak” are also identified afresh as “the powerless, those lacking strength.” These descriptions and the talk of “the strong supporting the weaknesses of those without strength” is of course, once again, the viewpoint of “the strong.” There is something slightly unnerving about the self-confidence and somewhat patronizing attitude expressed in this language, and not a little danger of its falling over into an oppressive intolerance, all the more subtle for its claim to consider others: a view or practice characterized as “weakness” is tolerated, not respected. Paul, however, would probably be aware of these dangers, since the whole thrust of his letter has been directed against the presumption of the human species which boasts of its fights and privileges (strength) over against the less fortunate (weak). His address to “the strong” in their own terms, therefore, as also his identification with them (“we who are strong”), is a way of winning their confidence in the hope of gaining a more effective response.

The thrust of his counsel is actually to commend weakness, or at least the weakness of self-denial and active love of neighbor, as the paradigm and model for Christian conduct. (1) The obligation is for the self-styled “strong” to support the weaknesses of the weak. The wording is odd: to bear up the weaknesses of the weak, not the weak in their weaknesses. In fact the Roman readership would quite likely recognize that the language has been drawn from the picture of the suffering servant in Isa 53:4, 11, as reflected also in Matt 8:17. That is to say, what is in view is not commendation of or approval for these weaknesses, but a lived-out, ready acceptance of the consequences of these weaknesses, a degree of identification with those who are weak, so that the weakness becomes theirs in the day-to-day experience of living for one another. The balance which Paul calls for, between disapproval of the attitudes, and sympathetic identification with those who hold them, is presumably modeled on the identification Christ achieved with sinful flesh with a view to its destruction (8:3).

2 (2) In v 2 Paul recalls the two great principles which, as he had already explained, must condition the liberty of the strong and govern their attitudes and conduct in relation to the weak—love of neighbor (13:8–10; 14:15), and the benefit of the congregation (14:19–21). Such self-limitation, as Christ had shown, involves living within the constraints from which they cannot escape. At the same time, Paul evidently does not expect the strong to please the weak in an undiscriminating way. What counts is not merely what the conservatives say will please them, but what is for the good and benefit of the community as a whole. Once again Paul implies that there is a giving way to the conservative which could be bad and would not benefit the church. Love of neighbor needs to be more discriminating than that.

3 (3) Above all is the example of Christ. What had been implicit in the echo of Jesus’ teaching in 14:13–18, in the appeal to Christ’s death “on behalf of” those same powerless ones (14:15), in the echo of the picture of the suffering servant in 15:1 and again of the command by which Jesus summed up all the law affecting personal relationships (15:2), is now brought to the fore with climactic force. The model is Christ: if he was willing to suffer misunderstanding and abuse to the extent of giving his own life, how could those who both gloried in their own strength and called Jesus Lord refuse the much less self-limitation of curbing the liberty of their conduct when it was causing their fellow Christians to fall? Greater strength means greater responsibility for others.

(4) In fact Paul here is simply working out the implications of the whole Christian understanding of “strength”: God’s strength manifested in the weakness of the cross (1 Cor 1:25; 2 Cor 13:4); God’s power coming to perfect expression in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor 12:9–10); true greatness lived out in the indignity of servitude and powerlessness of slavery (Mark 10:42–45). The message which Paul has been working out all along is implicit here too. Strength is illusory if it means claiming independence of God; only in the weakness of confessed dependence on God is there real strength. And strength as a believer is equally illusory if it means claiming independence of other believers; only in the weakness of mutual interdependence as members of one body in Christ is there the full strength of grace. The message then could be as much for the weak, or more precisely for anyone who thinks he is strong and able to discount or disregard others. Paul has no room for a piety which neglects the neighbor. Strength means not only accepting those who differ as brothers, but also a readiness to take responsibility (as Paul does here) for their right to hold these different views.

3b-4 The scriptures contribute to this strength because they show that God’s purpose in salvation-history has frequently worked through weakness and suffering and that God’s purpose is of sure fulfillment. So they both provide support and encouragement from the past and direct the vision beyond the immediate limitations and frustrations to the sure hope of what God will accomplish. Paul does not hesitate to describe the reason why the scriptures were written in precisely these terms: not as a source book for all sorts of information, historical or scientific, but “for our instruction,” to sustain faith and renew hope. And so again the Roman congregations are reminded that all their thinking and doing must take full account of the eschatological tension between what has already been fulfilled in and through Christ and the not yet of hope.

5-6 Paul rounds off this most lengthy exhortation by praying for the harmony and oneness of mind of his readers, Jews and Gentiles, strong and weak, conservative and liberal, traditionalist and nontraditionalist, in this most divisive issue—as in all issues of great moment for the identity of the new churches and for their understanding of the gospel. By the manner of his formulation he reminds them that the patience and comfort and still more the harmony he wishes for them is not of their own doing or achieving. It is God’s, and only as given by him and received from him can it be real and lasting. By adding “in accordance with Christ Jesus” he reminds them also that the mutual responsibility of loving the neighbor has Christ as the exemplar and can only be carried through as service to his lordship. It is also clear that Paul looks not merely for a tacit toleration of differences, but for a mutual acceptance which expresses itself in the common act of worship. Only so is the original failure of humankind to “glorify God” (1:21) reversed, as has now been made possible by “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as part of his overall plan for humankind to unite all, Jew first, but also Gentile, in praise of the one God.

H. Concluding Summary: God’s Mercy and Faithfulness—Jew First, but Also Gentile (15:7–13)

Bibliography

Frid, B. “Jesaja und Paulus in Röm 15:12.” BZ 27 (1983) 237–41. Ljungman, H. Pistis 48–54. Nababan, A. E. S. Bekenntnis und Mission in Römer 14 und 15. Ph.D., Heidelberg, 1963. Schmithals, W. Römerbrief 95–96, 152–61. Skehan, P. W. “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text.” JBL 78 (1959) 21–25. Thüsing, W. Per Christum. 42–45. Williams, S. K. “Righteousness.” 285–89. Zeller, D. Juden. 218–23.

Translation

7Therefore welcome one another, as Christ also welcomed you,aa to the glory of God. 8For I declare that Christ has becomeb servant of the circumcised for the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the promises of the fathers, 9and the Gentiles to give praise to God for his mercy. As it is written,

For this reason I will confess you among the Gentilesc

and sing praise to your name.

10Furthermore it says,

Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people.

11And again,d

Praise the Lord, all the Gentiles,

and let all the peoples praisec him.

12And again Isaiah says,

The shoot of Jesse shall come forth,

even the one who arises to rule the Gentiles;

in him the Gentiles shall hope.

13May the God of hope fille you with all joy and peace in believing,f that you may overflowf in hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Notes

a. ἡμᾶς is read by B D* P and other MSS and is favored by Michel and Schlier; however, ὑμᾶς has the stronger and more diversified support, is in greater harmony with the context, and is preferred by most (Metzger). When Paul addresses “the strong” in v 1 he uses ἡμεῖς; here he is addressing the Roman church(es) as a whole (SH).

b. The aorist γενέσθαι looks like an attempt to conform the tense to what would be the more normal usage.

c. As might be expected, κύριε was later introduced into v 9 to conform to the complete text of Ps 17:50 LXX, and the verb in v 11b altered to ἐπαινέσατε to conform to Ps 116:1.

d. Another typical conforming improvement is the insertion of έγει to match vv 10 and 12.

e. The reading πληεοφορήσαι . . . ἐν) πάσῃ χαρᾷ κὰ εἰρήνῃ (B F G) probably reflects an instinctive and understandable attempt to heighten the plerophoric language even further (similar tendency in 15:29 and Col 4:12); see also Lietzmann and Cranfield.

f. Omission of one or other of the two ἐ- . . . -εύειν phrases (first by D F G, second by B) was presumably due to haplography (see also Cranfield, Wilckens).

Form and Structure

This coda is evidently intended to round off the body of the letter, both the theological treatise and the resulting parenesis, and to link the argument of the letter into the more personal concerns to follow (against Schenke—14:1—15:13 + 16:3–20 to Ephesus; and Schmithals—letter A = 1:1—11:36 + 15:8–13; see already Lietzmann, 119, and Wilckens, 3:104). Thus the opening call for mutual consideration picks up the major theme of 14:1—15:6, with Christ again presented as the pattern to be followed (vv 7–8), and the final triple emphasis on “hope” (vv 12–13) picks up the same emphasis in v 4 (Lietzmann). But Paul’s main concern is to underline once more the twin themes of Christ as guaranteeing both the continuity of God’s purpose to the circumcised and faithfulness of God to his covenant promises (v 8), and of Christ as the one through whom God has opened these promises to the Gentiles (vv 9–12). The vocabulary of vv 8–9 is particularly carefully chosen to tie together central themes in the whole discussion: ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ—the truth (= faithfulness) of God abused by both Gentile and Jew (1:18, 25; 2:8; 3:7) has thus been vindicated; “the promise to the fathers”—2:25–29; 4:9–22; 9:4, 8–9; God’s mercy to Gentiles—9:15–18, 23; 11:30–32; and thus the primal failure to glorify God (1:21) is reversed.

Typical too of Paul the Jew called to be apostle to the Gentiles is the closing catena of scriptures (cf. Fitzmyer, “4QTestimonia,” 66), undergirding his controversial claims as apostle by appealing to the sacred writings of his people (1:1–2). It is possible that he is drawing on a string of OT texts already grouped together thematically, which would explain why they do not wholly reflect the double emphasis of vv 8–9a (Wilckens), but just as likely that Paul held over these texts from the collection used so effectively in chaps. 9–11 precisely with a view to bracketing the whole parenetic section (12:1—15:6) with OT material which tied the intervening section more tightly to the overall thrust of the whole letter. Noteworthy is the success in drawing from all three parts of the OT (Law, Prophets, Writings), and the use of so many different “praise” words—ἐξομολογεῖσθαι ψάλλειν, εὐφραίνεσθαι, αἰνεῖν, and ἐπαινεῖν (Michel). Heirs description of “these stunning scriptural promises,” “these electrifying scriptural invitations” is somewhat “over the top.”

Comment

7 διὸ προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, “therefore welcome one another.” The διό sums up and indicates the conclusion to be drawn from the preceding discussion. The προσλαμβάνεσθε (see on 14:1) indicates that 14:1—15:6 is particularly in view; the ἀλλήλους indicates that Paul enlarges his appeal to one of mutual acceptance (not just of weak by strong [14:1]); and what follows indicates that Paul is in fact broadening out his perspective to take in the main thrust of the whole letter, both the special priority and privilege of the Jews (v 8 [Cranfield]) and the inclusion of the Gentiles within the covenant promise (vv 9–12). This broadening out should occasion no “surprise” (Michel, 442), nor that the tension and debates of 14:1—15:6 disappear (Käsemann). The point is not simply to confirm that the tension between “weak” and “strong” was in large part between Jew and Gentile (as is now generally recognized), but also to confirm that the specific disagreements regarding diet and days were particular expressions of the larger issue of how Gentiles were to be regarded as heirs of the covenant and how this strange new hybrid community was to understand and identify itself (cf. Wilckens; see further on 12:1—15:13 Introduction and on 14:2). That Paul has in view mutual acceptance among those continuing to maintain different praxis (14:3–6, 23) tells against Watson’s thesis that Paul’s objective was “to convert the Jewish Christian congregation [sic] to Paulinism” (Paul, 97–98; see further Introduction §3.3). That mutual welcome to the common meal is particularly in view is possible (Michel, Black).

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς, “as the Christ also welcomed you.” Some sort of comparison is indicated, otherwise a different conjunction would have been chosen (against Käsemann, Cranfield). What Paul has in mind is not simply the fact of Christ’s acceptance, but the manner of it (διάκονος—v 8): it is precisely the humbling of oneself to a position where one’s own opinions do not count and may not be thrust on another (one’s master!), which both weak and strong, Gentile and Jew, need to practice. Χριστός is again titular (see on 15:3). The use of “Christ” as the subject of προσελάβετο here, whereas “God” was the subject in 14:3, reflects the ambiguity involved in the κύριος title for Christ (see on 14:3 and 15:6).

δἶ δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ, “to the glory of God.” The phrase has a liturgical ring (Michel—3:7; 1 Cor 10:31; 2 Cor 4:15; Phil 1:11; 2:11); or, perhaps more precisely, it is a more literary and syntactical form of the acclamation, “Praise/ glory be to God” (Luke 2:14; 19:38; Rom 11:36; Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20; 1 Clem 20.12; 50.7; cf. Rom 4:20; see further BGD, δόξα 3. For δόξα θεοῦ see on 1:21 and 3:23. The phrase can go either with the main clause (Cranfield, Wilckens) or with the καθώς clause (e.g., SH, Schmidt). In terms of the overall argument the latter makes better sense: Christ, the second man (5:12–21), has reversed the damage done by the first (1:23); but the former would underscore the importance of mutual acceptance among believers for that reversal to be complete. Would Paul want to choose between these alternatives (cf. Barrett)?

8 λέγω γάρ, “for I declare”—“maintain, declare, proclaim” (BGD, λέγω I.1e), “a solemn doctrinal declaration” (Cranfield; cf. Michel and Käsemann).

Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ, “Christ has become servant of the circumcised for the sake of God’s truth.” If the definite article with Χριστός is deliberate in v 7, its absence is probably equally so here: it is “Christ” (the proper name), he who has shown himself to be far more than simply the Jewish Messiah, who became “servant of circumcision”; to say that Jesus as “the Messiah” acted for the Jews would seem to be unnecessarily tautologous. The purpose is to focus on the person rather than on the people as the one in and through whom fulfillment of covenant promise and gentile incoming have been made possible (cf. Zeller, Juden, 220–21). διάκονος has its usual meaning of “servant”; cf. particularly 2 Cor 3:6. In view of the echoes of the Jesus tradition in the preceding section and the allusion to Christ’s self-denial in v 3 (see on 15:3), it is not at all improbable that Paul has in mind the tradition of Mark 10:43–45 (Michel, Cranfield): Christ as the model for service to one’s brothers and sisters; the fact that this is the only occasion in which Paul speaks of Christ as διάκονος (apart from the very different Gal 2:17) may also suggest that he is drawing on a particular tradition and not a general line of exhortation. As in 3:30 περιτομή means “the circumcised”—the Jewish people identified by one of their most distinctive features. It would occasion no surprise that after focusing so much on the Jewish distinctives of food laws and holy days Paul reverts once again to the other striking identity marker of the diaspora Jew, circumcision (see on 2:25). The use of the perfect tense (γεγενῆσθαι) must mean that Paul intends to describe Jesus as “servant of the circumcised” not merely during his earthly ministry (cf. particularly Gal 4:4), but as still so (Lietzmann, Barrett, Cranfield, Wilckens), referring not simply to the continuing result of his time on earth (Käsemann). So presumably his ministry (almost exclusively to the Jews; cf. Matt 15:24) and death are in view (as again the echo of Mark 10:43–45 would imply), but also Jesus in his exaltation (Schlier). The priority of the Jews is thus underlined not simply as a temporary factor now no longer operative (as Williams’s alternative rendering, “servant from the Jews” [“Righteousness,” 286–88] could imply), but as a factor which continues to shape the purpose of God—“Jew first and also Gentile” (see on 1:16; cf. SH; Ljungman, 50–52; Wilckens). For ἀλήθεια θεοῦ, here more or less equivalent to “God’s covenant faithfulness” (Käsemann, Cranfield, Schlier) see on 3:4 and 3:7. Significantly it is God’s faithfulness (ἀλήθεια = πίστις) which, if anything, in this final summary which rounds off the body of the letter, is given more attention than human faith (v 13); this gives added support to the suggestion that ἐκ πίστεως in 1:17 includes the thought of God’s faithfulness (see on 1:17), since it reinforces the bracketing effect of 1:16–17 and 15:7–13 (see also on 15:11).

εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, “to confirm the promises of the fathers.” βεβαιόω has the basic sense of “make firm” (TDNT 1:601) and so can mean “make good one’s word” (Lysias 20.32; LSJ), “prove the promises reliable, fulfill them” (BGD, citing Polybius 3.111.10, Diodorus Siculus 1.5.3 and Priene inscription 123.9). The sense “fulfill” is also preferred by Michel and Käsemann. But the regular technical usage common in the papyri, “make firm” = guarantee (MM), should not be ignored in view of 4:16 (εἰς τὸ ειναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν) and 11:29. The issue is tied up with the question of how v 9 relates syntactically to v 8: does Paul think of the promises as “fulfilled” in the extension of Abraham’s promised blessing to the Gentiles (Gal 3:14, 22), or as “guaranteed” for the bulk of the Jews despite their current unbelief? For ἐπαγγελίαι τῶν πατέρων see on 4:3 and 9:4. Thought and language here are close to that of 2 Cor 1:20–21.

9 τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν, “and the Gentiles to give glory to God for his mercy.” The problem of how to relate this clause syntactically to v 8 has not been finally resolved. In terms of grammatical structure the most natural way is to see it as directly dependent on the opening λέγω of v 8 and so parallel but adversative to v 8—

I declare that Christ became a servant of circumcision for the

truth of God . . . but that the Gentiles glorify God for his mercy—

also keeping the two ὑπέρ phrases in parallel; see particularly the careful argument of Cranfield; also Lagrange; Zeller, Juden, 218–19; and Wilckens. But the resulting thought does not hang together very coherently: Cranfield has to envisage a double ellipsis in both v 8 and v 9, and Wilckens tries to solve the problem by suggesting that v 8 may stem from Jewish-Christian tradition which Paul takes over but completes with a critical twist in the adversative formulation of v 9. The problem in both cases is that reading δέ as a strong adversative here drives a wedge between “the promises of the fathers” and the acceptability of the Gentiles to God, and this seems antithetical to everything Paul has so far argued: 4:16—“to make firm the promise to all the seed”; 9:8—the children of the promise as Abraham’s seed (see particularly Schmidt—δέ, “and so”; RSV, NEB, NIV, and NJB all take v 9 as a purpose clause conjoint with the last clause of v 8). Relevant also is Michel’s observation that ἀλήθεια and ἔλεος correspond to (a regular OT combination in reference to God; BDB, II.2) and function more or less as a hendiadys (cf. John 1:14, 17); Paul would be unlikely to set them over against each other (Schlatter; against SH; to describe the reference to these motifs as “merely ornamental” [Lietzmann] betrays a failure to appreciate the chief thrust of the epistle; see also on 15:11). Above all Paul’s whole point is that Christ became servant of the circumcised not with a view to their salvation alone, but to confirm both phases of God’s saving purpose: to Jew first but also to Gentile (cf. Nabadan, 115–18). Consequently the translation should not be framed in such a way as to exclude this line of thought. Rather we should allow the translation to express the ambiguity and lack of clear connection. Where Paul has left his Greek somewhat obscure it is sound exegesis to clarify the range of possible meanings he might have had in view, but not to tie the reader down to a firm either-or choice.

ἔθνος appears again for the first time since 11:25, confirming the fundamental role of the mission to the Gentiles, and thus both recalling and summing up the earlier stages of the argument in chaps. 2–4 (2:14, 24; 3:29; 4:17–18) and chaps. 9–11 (9:24, 30; 10:19; 11:11–13, 25) and preparing for the transition back to his travel plans (1:5, 13; 15:16, 18, 27; 16:4); the word is used six times in the following four verses (see also on 1:5). ἔλεος likewise recalls one of the principal motifs in chaps. 9–11 (9:15–16, 18, 23; 11:30–32). And δοξάζω links with both the initial indictment (1:21) and the previous climaxes at 8:30 and 15:6. Harrisville is hardly justified in claiming that Paul here “comes as close to asserting the unity of Christ with God as he ever will”; cf. after all 1:7; 1 Cor 8:6; and 2 Cor 5:19.

καθὼς γέγραπται, “as it is written”; see on 1:17 (introducing a catena of OT quotations, as in 3:10 and 11:8). The following quotations (vv 9–12) elaborate principally the latter theme of vv 8–9a, but that simply underlines the fact that Paul has broadened out the whole discussion from the particular issue of 14:1—15:6 to the overall theme of the letter: the inclusion of the Gentiles within the promises to his people. To that extent Käsemann is correct in stressing that the whole line of thought is an expression of justification by faith, so long as the implication is not obscured that justification by faith here, as throughout the letter, has in view (in Käsemann’s own words) “the acceptance of the Gentiles as an eschatological miracle.”

διὰ τοῦτο ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ψαλῶ, “for this reason I will confess you among the Gentiles and sing praise to your name.” The quotation is verbatim from the LXX of Ps 18:49 [LXX 17:50] = 2 Sam 22:50, with the exception that κύριε (following ἔθνεσιν) is omitted. Presumably it is significant that the verse does not necessarily envisage the Gentiles themselves joining in the praise. The implication is either that the passage is being read messianically, as words which express the gentile outreach of the mission set in motion by Christ (so most; hence the omission of the κύριε); or that these are the words of the devout Jew (David) foreshadowing the situation of the diaspora Jew, and now particularly of the Jewish Christian. This latter seems to make better sense since it would give the order: David (v 9), Gentiles (vv 10–11), both (v 12) (Michel). Or indeed, if ἐν ἔθνεσιν could be taken to include both Jew and Gentile in the praise, this first quotation would then serve as a heading (Überschrift) for the complete catena (Schlier). For ἐξομολογέω see on 14:11. On ψάλλω see BGD.

10 καὶ πάλιν λέγει, “furthermore it says.” καὶ πάλιν occurs frequently in a series connecting things which are similar, and, in Christian literature, linking a series of scriptural quotations (BGD, πάλιν 3), reflecting also Jewish usage (Str-B 3:314); in Paul also 1 Cor 3:20. The implied subject of λέγει is probably γραφή (4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2).

εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “rejoice, Gentiles, with his people.” The quotation is verbatim from the LXX of Deut 32:43, the last verse of the song of Moses. But the LXX at this point is markedly different from the MT: in place of the four (half-)lines of the MT we have eight lines in Greek (mainly by addition of lines calling for heavenly rejoicing as well; hence also the quotation in Heb 1:6); more important, however, is the transformation of the equivalent Hebrew line—

Praise his people, O you nations (RSV)—

(though the Greek phrase does raise the question as to whether the is original; see further Lagrange, and Skehan [21–22]). Whatever the facts of the matter on this point, the verse’s original Hebrew was clearly intended as a strong promise of God’s covenant faithfulness to his people, with more than a hint of the “us/them, God’s people/others” attitude (“he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people” [RSV]). The expansion of the Greek allows not only a much more universal perspective, but the crucial reading μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ transforms a potentially very hostile meaning into one much more sympathetic to the Gentiles. This is only hinted at in the LXX, which retains all the threatening language of the Hebrew, but would make it less offensive in a diaspora context. But it enables Paul to lift out this single line and to use it as an expression of his own theology, that in accordance with God’s original purpose and promise the covenant made to Israel is now open to all who believe.

εὐφραίνω is little used by Paul (two out of the three uses occur in OT quotations—Gal 4:27 and here; the only other reference is 2 Cor 2:2). The note of eschatological rejoicing is present in Deut 32:43 (as in Ps 96 [LXX 95]:11; Isa 44:23; 49:13; as also in Rev 12:12 and 18:20) and reenforces the implication that the final events are being fulfilled in the conversion of the Gentiles (cf. TDNT 2:774–75).

11 καὶ πάλιν, “and again”; see on 15:10. The following quotation is only slightly modified from the LXX of Ps 117 [LXX 116]: 1:

Romans:	αἰνεῖτε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν κύριον καὶ ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί
Psalms:	αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπαινέσατε αὐτόν πάντες οἱ λαοί

The Greek is a close rendering of the Hebrew. Although the psalm is very brief (only two verses) it is noticeable that the reason given for the praise is God’s steadfast love (/ἔλεος) “to us” and faithfulness (/ἀλλήθεια) “for ever.” Awareness of the OT quotations he was going to use may well have influenced Paul’s choice of language in vv 8–9a (see on 15:8). The point once again is that Gentiles can praise God for his “mercy and faithfulness” because it is extended to them, without weakening its enduring validity to Israel.

This is the only time Paul uses these verbs. As usual in such an OT quotation κύριος = God.

12 καὶ πάλιν Ἠσαίας έγει, “and again Isaiah says.” See on 15:10. The following quotation is highly suitable as the climax to the catena, but Paul would probably have been pleased to be able to conclude with his favorite prophet—explicitly named more often than anyone else (9:27, 29; 10:16, 20; see also on chaps. 9–11 Introduction).

ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, “the shoot of Jesse shall come forth, even the one who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope” (cf. Frid). The quotation is verbatim from the LXX of Isa 11:10 without the opening phrase ἐν τῇ ἡνέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, which Paul may have preferred to reserve for the final day of judgment (cf. 2:5, 16; 13:12; 1 Cor 1:8; 3:13; 5:5; etc.). The LXX is different from the Hebrew, but can be regarded as an acceptable paraphrase which does not significantly alter the eschatological prospect of universal peace held out by Isaiah (11:6–10). Michel notes that Isa 11:10 was part of the Passover readings.

The language of the LXX lent itself to Christian interpretation. The “root or shoot (ῥίζα can be taken both ways = the offshoot of an established plant which becomes the root of a new plant) of Jesse” was already established as a title for the royal Messiah (Isa 11:1–5; Sir 47:22; also Rev 5:5; 22:16; cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15; 4QPat 3–4; 4QFlor 1:11; see further TDNT 6:986–87, 988). ἀνίστημι can mean simply “arise” (Cranfield; cf. 1 Cor 10:7), but since it occurs so frequently in reference to the resurrection (not least in the passion predictions of the Gospels; also Acts 17:3 and 1 Thess 4:14; cf. the only other references in the Pauline corpus [1 Thess 4:16; Eph 5:14]), it would be surprising if Paul did not have in mind the double reference (cf. particularly Acts 3:22, 26; 7:37) (so Käsemann, Schlier, Wilckens). The final ἐπίζω enables Paul to turn the slightly more threatening ἄρχειν (cf. Isa 11:4b) to more positive sense. One elaboration of the messianic promise looked for God’s vindication of Israel to include the destruction of the Gentiles (Zeller cites appropriately Pss 2:8–9; 72:8–9; 110:1; and Pss. Sol. 17.30; see further the references listed by Sanders, Jesus, 214; also 11QPs in Hengel, Judaism, 1:176–77); likewise the implication of the Hebrew that the Gentiles would come to Jerusalem (the usual Jewish expectation; cf. again Sanders, Jesus, 214; see on 9:26) has been reversed in the outreach of the gentile mission. In both cases Israel’s typical covenant hope has been transformed.

13 ὁ δὲ θεὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος, “the God of hope.” For the genitive construction see on 15:5; for ἐλπίς see on 4:18 and 5:4 (and Knox—“the heart of the epistle and this benediction.” As in v 5 the thought is of the God who gives hope (Cranfield, Wilckens); however, the thought of God as the object of hope need hardly be excluded (Murray).

πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν, “fill you with all joy and peace in believing.” πληρώσαι is aorist optative (BDF §85); see also δῷη in 15:5. For χαρὰ καὶ εἰρήνη (“two sisters” [Michel]) see on 14:17. Käsemann is correct to object to narrowing εἰρήνη here to “peace of soul” (TDNT 2:412): the social dimension (“well-being in corporate harmony”) cannot be excluded (see on 1:7) and is particularly important here. The final phrase (ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν) is important: not as a scholastic affirmation that joy and peace can follow only from assent to dogma; and not just as underscoring the fact that harmonious unity is possible within mixed churches only when it is firmly recalled that the common ground and only necessary common ground is faith; but also as reminding his readers that openness to God and unreserved reliance on God is the fundamental presupposition of all human good (the double thrust of the whole letter); see also on 15:8.

εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι, “that you may overflow in hope.” For περισσεύειν see on 3:7 and 5:15, and for ἐλπίς again on 4:18 and 5:4. “The verbs πληροῦν and περισσεύειν show that Paul with his words about the dispute between the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ does not want a leveling of Christianity, or a balance of opposites, but ‘upbuilding,’ so a community in which each may take the other along with him forwards, to the complete freedom of the children of God, into the new world of hope” (Schmidt).

ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου, “in the power of the Holy Spirit.” As in 14:17 and 15:16, the ἐν is both locative and instrumental. For δύναμις as divine power see on 1:16, and for πνεῦμα ἄγιον see on 5:5. The two concepts are close associates (1:4; 15:19; 1 Cor 2:4; 12:9–10; 15:43–44; 2 Cor 6:6–7; Gal 3:5; Eph 3:16; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 1:7; cf. Luke 1:17, 35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 6:5/8; 10:38; Heb 2:4; 6:5–6); cf. 14:17 with 1 Cor 4:20. In fact δύναμις (τοῦ θεοῦ) πνεῦμα and also χάρις (“grace”) all overlap substantially in meaning in Paul’s vocabulary and usage (cf. Michel, Schlier).

Explanation

7 As so often, by picking up the language of the adjoining section, Paul succeeds in linking the concerns of the preceding paragraph into what follows, while shifting the focus or theme of the discussion (welcome—14:1, 3, 15:7; glorify/glory—15:6, 7, 9). Here the call to “welcome one another” echoes 14:1, but now as an exhortation to all, not just to the “strong” to welcome the “weak.” The importance of this seeming slight change should not be lost sight of. For it means that after putting so much stress on the obligation of the “strong” to support the “weak” (14:13—15:4), Paul’s final word on the matter is to remind all the parties and individuals involved that acceptance must be two-way, must be mutual if it is to be “in accordance with Christ Jesus.” If the more liberal are to express their liberty by restricting it, so the more conservative have genuinely to accept those who profess commitment to Christ as fellow Christians, and neither to use their particular understanding of Christianity to exclude the other in fact or effect.

8 As in 14:4, 6, the yardstick is acceptance by Christ (which only Christ can apply), and Christ’s acceptance (of faith) is the model. But it is precisely by evoking once again the example of Christ (as in v 3) that Paul is able to broaden the scope of his concern once again to the overall and more fundamental issue of Jew and Gentile within the purposes of God. The significant fact is that it is not only “Christ,” some agent of God so named, but “the Christ,” the Jewish messiah, who has accepted them—Gentile as well as Jew. In immediate terms of the preceding discussion, that is a powerful reminder to the gentile “strong”: as they were accepted by the Jewish Messiah, so they ought to accept the Jewish “weak.” But this is also a climactic feature of the whole sweep of salvation-history, that Christ, the one through whom God is fulfilling his purpose, was a Jew and in his ministry dedicated himself totally to ministering to his fellow Jews (v 8). This proves God’s faithfulness to his original choice of Abraham and his offspring through Isaac and Jacob; the overlap in meaning between “the truth of God” and “the faithfulness of God” (3:3–7) allows him thus to pick up both the thematic statement in 1:17 and the reassurance of chap. 11. And since Christ is still a Jew, still the servant of the circumcised, it means that God’s promises to the fathers are likewise still in place, still secure, even if complete fulfillment is not yet; the echo of 9:4–5 will be in no way accidental.

9 Equally important, however, is the fact that this mission of Christ had the Gentiles also in view. The precise articulation of the first clause of v 9 with v 8 is unclear, perhaps because Paul did not want to specify it more clearly, simply to state that the outcome of Christ’s ministry has in the event been the coming to faith of Gentiles in steadily increasing numbers. This too Paul expresses in a way which chimes in with various notes in his earlier exposition and which broadens the horizon of the discussion once again to the purpose of God as Creator of all. The double reference to the glory of God recalls not only the universal failure of the human species (1:21, 23; 3:23), but the divine countermeasures purposed from the first (9: 23), through Abraham (4:20) and Christ (6:4), and now in process of realization in those of faith (5:2; 8:18, 21, 30). Likewise it was precisely the transformation and abuse of “the truth of God,” like “the glory of God,” which characterized the fall of humankind (1:23, 25) and which is now vindicated and confirmed by Christ’s ministry. And the promises of God thus confirmed to Israel were precisely the promises that Abraham would be “heir of the world” and “father of many nations,” which could only be fulfilled “through faith” (4:13, 16–17).

The effect of this summary intermeshing of key motifs of the whole preceding argument is very powerful. It holds together the most important strands of that argument in an amazingly comprehensive way which prevents the whole fabric from being pulled apart either in theory or (if maintained) in practice. The truth of God as creator, as one with God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel; no dichotomy between creation and salvation. Jesus still a Jew and servant of circumcision, even though now exalted, last Adam and Lord of all; the tension between Jewish priority and universal fulfillment maintained within Christ himself. And not least the unified concept of God’s truth-and-mercy expressing that unity in the combination of his faithfulness to circumcised and mercy to Gentile. It is such fundamental theological insights which lie behind Paul’s concern to unite Jew and Gentile “in Christ,” and on the practical level should provide sufficient impetus for Jew and Gentile to accept each other fully. The Gentiles should never forget that they were called through Jews, and the Jews that their own calling had the Gentiles in view from the first. The Gentiles should remember that Christ was servant of the circumcised, and the Jews that his risen lordship is universal. Clearly implied is Paul’s conviction that God’s glory can only be complete when there is such united and universal praise.

9-12 Characteristically the point is driven home by Paul citing a catena of scriptures. All of them are united by their references to the nations/Gentiles, with the theme of praise a further strong linking factor. The first evokes the devout diaspora Jew confessing God and singing praise to his name among the Gentiles (v 9—Ps 18:49). The second and third call on the Gentiles and all the peoples to join God’s people in a common praise of God (v 10—Deut 32:43; v 11—Ps 117:1). The final scripture, from Paul’s favorite prophet (Isa 11:10), fittingly ties together again the thought of the Jewishness of Jesus (the Davidic Messiah) and of the risen Christ, hope of the nations—an effective recall of the themes of the letter’s opening paragraph (1:2–5). The effect is similar to that achieved in previous catenae, particularly in the Hosea quotations in 9:25–26 (and conversely in the indictment of 3:10–18): Paul takes OT language, which might more naturally hold out hope of (now dispersed [v 9]) Israel’s ultimate dominance over the Gentiles (under the royal Messiah, [v 12]), in fulfillment of God’s covenant faithfulness (v 11), and acknowledged (submissively) by the nations (v 10); and by setting it in different sequence and in the different light cast by the Christ event, he transforms it into an expression of the ideal of a humanity (Gentile with Jew) united in worship of the same God and by hope in the same Christ.

13 The final prayer wish echoes that in vv 5–6, but focuses even more on the theme of hope. The language is rich and immoderate, like all uninhibited devotion (“fill,” “all,”; “overflow”). The reminder of the importance of faith (“in believing”) is not accidental: it ties the end of this lengthy exposition (1:18—15:13) back into one of the central motifs in the primary theme (1:16–17). The two matching “in” phrases (“in believing,” “in the power of the Holy Spirit”) neatly hold together the two principal elements in the divinehuman encounter—God’s powerful outreach to and action in the receptive person. This is the source of two of the great human desirables—joy and peace/well-being. Out of this, despite the still prevailing contradictory and incomplete features, flows and overflows the sure hope that God will yet completely fulfill his original purpose in creation and in the call first of Jew but now also of Gentile.