VII. OUR SPIRITUAL SERVICE: THE PRACTICE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (12:1–15:13)
OVERVIEW
Readers of Romans are bound to be conscious of a distinct break in the train of thought as they move from 11:36 to 12:1. The theological exposition (or argument) of Romans, centering in the problem of how sinful humanity can be put into right relationship with God, is now over. But there is more to be said, because those who are made right with their Maker need to know what difference this makes in their relationships with their fellow human beings. They need to know what is expected of them and how to apply their new resources to all the situations confronting them. Paul never tolerated the idea of justification by faith without consideration of the necessity of a lived-out righteousness in those who are justified. This last main section of the epistle is designed to meet these needs (see the similar turning point in Eph 4:1).
A useful way of understanding the relationship between doctrine and ethics in the NT is to think in terms of two types of verb—the “indicative” and the “imperative” (M. Parsons, “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing,” EvQ 60 [1988]: 99–127). The one expression covers what God has done in terms of the gospel; it deals with divine provision. The other deals with what Christians are expected to do by way of working out the salvation that has been given them (cf. Php 2:12–13); consequently it majors in exhortation. It is, therefore, surprising that the key word “righteousness,” which has so dominated the book up to this point, occurs only once in the closing chapters (14:17), where it is used not in the forensic sense denoting right relationship with God but rather in the practical meaning of right relations with others. The hortatory element includes both commands and prohibitions and is spread over various areas of application, including Christian conduct toward fellow believers, toward society (especially in meeting hostile reactions), and toward the state.
A. The Appeal for Dedication of the Believer (12:1–2)
OVERVIEW
This introductory portion is a prelude to the discussion of specific duties of the believer. It sets forth the fundamental obligations one must meet before one is prepared to face the challenge of living as a believer in this world. Only an intelligent commitment of life in the light of God’s gift of salvation will suffice.
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
COMMENTARY
1 The important “therefore” establishes a connection with the entire foregoing presentation rather than with chs. 9–11 alone. Indeed, the whole of the preceding material serves as the basis and motive for the present exhortations. The connection is particularly close with 6:13, 19, as a comparison of the terminology will show. The apostle begins now to “urge” his readers instead of simply instructing them. He chooses to use the word parakaleō (GK 4151), i.e., to motivate on the basis of what has been argued earlier rather than simply command his readers.
Though tōn oiktirmōn (GK 3881) is plural (“mercies”), conceptually it should perhaps be thought of as a singular (so NIV), since the possibly underlying Hebrew word raḥămîm (GK 8171) is a so-called intensive plural, meaning “great mercy” or “compassion” (for “mercy,” cf. 11:30–32). Sometimes oiktirmos is used in the LXX together with the more common eleos (GK 1799), as in Isaiah 63:15 and Hosea 2:19 (LXX 2:21). It denotes that typical characteristic of God which moves him to avoid the judgment of sin deserved by humanity and therefore underlies his gracious saving activity in Christ. Here this “mercy” is the leverage for the appeal that follows. Whereas the pagans are prone to sacrifice in order to obtain mercy, biblical faith teaches that the divine mercy already experienced provides the basis for sacrifice as the fitting response.
“Your bodies” (sōmata [GK 5393] hymōn) is prompted by the language of the temple sacrifices, but in the Hebraic view the word “body” stands for the whole person. In the closely related discussion in 6:13, the original text does not have the word “body” but instead has “parts of your body” (ta melē hymōn, lit., “your members”) and “yourselves” (heautous). Both are what the believer is to present to God for his service. Though Greek thought was prone to consider the body as the receptacle containing the soul, this was not the Hebraic concept, which viewed the human being as a unit. So it should be clear that Paul is not urging the dedication of the body as an entity distinct from the inner self; rather, he views the body as the vehicle that implements the desires and choices of the redeemed spirit. (The REB offers an interesting translation: “to offer your very selves . . . , the worship offered by mind and heart.”) The body is essential for making contact with the society in which the believer lives. It is through the body that we serve God in righteousness.
One is reminded by “living sacrifices” that the apostle is using cultic language here (cf. 15:16). Before a priest in Israel could minister on behalf of others, he was obliged to present himself in a consecrated condition, and the sacrifices he offered were to be without blemish (Mal 1:8–13). “Holy” is a reminder of that necessity for the Christian, not in terms of rite or ritual but as renouncing the sins of the old life and being committed to a life of obedience to the divine will (cf. 6:19). The body is not evil in itself; if it were, God would not ask that it be offered to him. As an instrument it is capable of expressing either sin or righteousness. If the latter, then it is an offering “pleasing to God.” The word “living” strongly contrasts with the animal sacrifices of the OT, which once offered no longer possessed life. But it is also a reminder that spiritual life, received from God in the new birth, is the presupposition of a sacrifice acceptable to him. Christian sacrifice, though made decisively and once for all (the force of “offer”), has in view a life of service to God. In Israel the whole burnt offering ascended to God and could never be reclaimed. It belonged to God.
Next the living sacrifice is equated with “spiritual act of worship.” The exact sense of the adjective logikēn (GK 3358) is difficult to determine. “Spiritual” (so too NASB, NRSV) may be an improvement on “reasonable” (KJV; cf. NJB, “that is the kind of worship for you, as sensible people”), since the latter term could be understood in the sense of adequate, seeing that no less a sacrifice could be offered in view of the sacrifice God has made in Christ for our salvation. The idea is rather that the sacrifice we render is intelligent and deliberate, perhaps to be understood in contrast to the sacrifices of the Jewish cultus in which the animals had no part in determining what was to be done with them. BDAG, 598, defines it as “a thoughtful service (in a dedicated spiritual sense).”
“Worship” translates latreia (GK 3301), which Paul has already used for the entire Jewish cultus (9:4). Here he gives it a metaphorical turn—i.e., he spiritualizes it, or transforms it to a new level of meaning. The NASB’s “service of worship” comes close to the intended meaning. It captures not merely the idea of the adoration of God but covers the entire range of the Christian’s life and activity (cf. Dt 10:12). Service is always the proper accompaniment to worship.
2 The dedicated life is also the transformed life. Whereas v.1 has called for a decisive commitment, v.2 deals with the maintenance of that commitment. The stress provided by the present tenses in this verse points to the necessity of continual vigilance, lest the original decision be vitiated or weakened. The threat to Christians comes from “this world,” whose ways and thoughts are so prevalent and powerful. Paul here uses aiōn (GK 172), essentially a time word meaning “age,” but it has much common ground with kosmos (GK 3180), the more usual term for “world.” Christians have been delivered from this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4), which has Satan for its god (2Co 4:4). They live by the powers of the age to come (Heb 6:5), but their heavenly calling includes residence among sinful people in this world, where they are to show forth the praises of him who called them out of darkness into God’s wonderful light (1Pe 2:9). They are in the world for witness but not for conformity to that which is a passing phenomenon (1Co 7:31).
The positive call is complementary to the negative call. That is, with the command to avoid conformity to the pattern of this world comes the command to “be transformed.” (The striking verb is metamorphoō [GK 3565], used of the transfiguration of Jesus [Mk 9:2 par.] and applied to the Christian in 2Co 3:18.) The two processes are viewed as going on all the time, as the present tenses indicate—a continual renunciation and renewal. Our pattern here is Jesus, who refused conformity to Satan’s solicitations in the temptation but was transformed to the doing of the will of God and to acceptance of the path that led to Calvary. As the mission of Jesus can be summarized in the affirmation that he had come to do the Father’s will (Jn 6:38), so too the service of Christians can be reduced to this simple description. They are in the present age to “live a new life” (6:4), to “live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (1Th 2:12), to “live a life worthy of the calling you have received” (Eph 4:1). But they must “test” what is in accord with the will of God, refusing the norms of conduct employed by the sinful world and reaffirming for themselves the spiritual norms befitting the redeemed. Only from Christ do the redeemed “finally obtain the criteria for that which in the world can be called good, well-pleasing, and perfect” (Stuhlmacher, 189).
Crucial to the process of being transformed is “the renewing of your mind” (tē anakainōsei tou noos, GK 363, 3808)—which seems to indicate the necessity of setting one’s mind on the theological truths of the faith—to the basis of one’s original commitment, reaffirming its necessity and legitimacy in the light of God’s grace. It is by means of this use of the mind that transformation and renewal take place. In this activity, the working of the Holy Spirit should no doubt be recognized (cf. Tit 3:5, where the Holy Spirit is the agent of renewal). It appears from the context that the believer is not viewed as ignorant of the will of God but as needing to avoid blurring its outline by failure to renew the mind continually (cf. Eph 5:8–10). Dedication leads to discernment, and discernment to delight in God’s will. That there is an intimate connection between certifying the will of God and making oneself a living sacrifice is indicated by the use of “pleasing” in each case (cf. Php 4:18; Heb 13:16). For the Christian, the will of God is “good” (agathon, GK 19), “pleasing” (euareston, GK 2298), and “perfect” (teleion, GK 5455).
NOTES
12:1–15:13 See E. Käsemann, “Worship and Everyday Life: A Note on Romans 12,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 188–95; R. A. Culpepper, “God’s Righteousness in the Life of His People: Romans 12–15,” RevExp 73 (1976): 451–63; M. B. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
12:1–2 On these verses, see H. D. Betz, “The Foundation of Christian Ethics According to Romans 12:1–2,” in Witness and Existence: Essays in Honor of Schubert Ogden, ed. P. E. Devenish and G. L. Goodwin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 55–72.
1 F. F. Bruce, 226, observes, “It has been well said that in Christianity theology is grace and ethics is gratitude; and it is not by accident that both ‘grace’ and ‘gratitude’ are expressed by the same Greek word, charis.”
B. Varied Ministries in the Church, the Body of Christ (12:3–8)
OVERVIEW
The will of God, concerning which Paul has just spoken, is identical for all believers in respect to holiness of life and completeness of dedication. But what God’s will involves for each person with respect to special service in the church may be considerably diverse. Since individual application is called for in appropriating the teaching, the apostle finds it expedient to remind his readers of his authority to expound this subject, even though he is unknown to most of them and their gifts are unknown to him (cf. 1:5; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:7). But this reminder is not intended to erect a barrier between himself and them, because what he has by way of authority and teaching ability is clearly traced to divine “grace” (v.3)—the same grace that has bestowed spiritual gifts on them.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
COMMENTARY
3 In addressing himself deliberately to “every” (panti) person of the community, Paul seems to be granting that every believer has some spiritual gift (cf. v.6; Eph 4:7; 1Pe 4:10). But the primary purpose in getting the attention of each one in this way is to drive home the necessity of appropriating and using one’s gift for the sake of others with the utmost humility. After all, God was not obligated to spread his gifts around so lavishly. Paul recognizes the danger that the possession of a gift could easily result in a self-esteem that was nothing more or less than wretched pride. His experience with the Corinthian church had alerted him to this problem, and he addressed the matter very similarly in 1 Corinthians 12 (1Co 12:14–31; cf. 13:4; 14:12, 20). In our passage he virtually equates humility with “sober judgment.” The latter will serve as a guard against thinking of oneself more highly than one should. In v.16, Paul returns to this fundamental matter. Obviously, the great danger to be avoided is pride, the exaggeration of one’s own importance.
Is there some gauge that will enable a person to estimate his or her position with respect to spiritual gifts? Paul answers in the affirmative, pointing to the “measure of faith.” Though this is intimately related to sober judgment, its precise meaning is not easy to determine. We may probably exclude the conclusion that “faith” in this context means “the faith” in the sense of a body of truth that is believed. Such a usage is familiar to us from Jude 3, but Paul seems to avoid it. To him, faith is what the Christian exercises. It is subjective rather than objective. That this is so here is clear from the end of v.3. Faith is what “God has given you.” The “measure of faith” appears to refer to the divine qualification for a task, “the spiritual power given to each Christian for the discharge of his special responsibility” (Bruce, 227–28). C. E. B. Cranfield (“Metron pisteōs in Romans 12:3,” NTS 8 [1961–62]: 345–51), understanding “measure” in the sense of standard, takes the phrase to mean that one’s faith should provide the basis for a true estimation of oneself, since it reveals that one is dependent, along with other believers, on the saving mercy of God in Christ. To be sure, this ought to induce humility. Godet, 429, concludes that “this gift, the measure of the action to which we are called, is the divine limit which the Christian’s renewed mind should discern, and by which he should regulate his aspirations in regard to the part he has to play in the church.” This view brings “measure of faith” into close agreement with the phrase “in proportion to his faith” in v.6. It should be added that faith, as used in this passage, is hardly the initial act of faith that makes one a Christian but faith in the sense of grasping the nature of one’s spiritual gift and having confidence to exercise it rightly.
4–5 To offset the danger of individualistic thinking, with its resulting danger of pride, Paul refers to the human body—an illustration familiar from his earlier use (1Co 12:12–31). Three truths are set forth in vv.4–5: the unity of the body; the diversity of its members, with their corresponding diversity in function; and the mutuality of the various members—“each member belongs to all the others.” Of the greatest importance for Paul is the notion of the church as “one body in Christ,” and he often draws ramifications from it. The unity of the body is never regarded as incompatible with the diversity of the body. The latter is also very important for Paul.
The third item, mutuality, calls attention to the need of the various parts of the body for each other. They cannot work independently (cf. Paul’s classic analogy of the hand/foot and eye/ear in 1Co 12:15–21). Furthermore, each member profits from what the other members contribute to the whole. Reflection on these truths reduces preoccupation with one’s own gift and makes room for appreciation of other people and the importance of the gifts they are called to exercise.
6 The “different gifts” are not gifts in the natural realm but those functions made possible by a specific enablement of the Holy Spirit granted to believers (cf. E. E. Ellis, “‘Spiritual’ Gifts in the Pauline Community,” NTS 20 [1973–74]: 128–44). The gifts do not contradict what God has bestowed in the natural order, and though they may even build on the natural gift, they must not be confused with the latter.
Variety in the gifts should be understood from the standpoint of the needs of the Christian community, which are many, as well as from the desirability of giving every believer a share in ministry. With his eye still on the danger of pride, Paul reminds his readers that these new capacities for service are not native to those who exercise them but come from divine grace. Every time he delves into this subject he is careful to make this clear (1Co 12:6; Eph 4:7; cf. 1Pe 4:10).
Though Paul has spoken of different gifts, he does not proceed to give anything like an exhaustive list (cf. 1Co 12:28). He seems more intent on emphasizing the need for exercising the gifts and for exercising them in the right way—“in proportion to his faith.” He uses this expression only in connection with prophesying, but there is no reason to suppose it is not intended to apply to the other items as well.
What is meant by “in proportion to his faith”? Theologians have tended to favor the translation “according to the analogy of the faith” (transliterating the Greek word analogia [GK 381] and stressing the definite article before “faith”). On this construction is built the Reformed principle that all parts of Scripture must be interpreted in conformity to the rest. This is a valid principle but hardly germane to this context. Another view understands the phrase as referring to the hearers rather than to those prophesying, so that, in framing the messages given to them, those who speak should consider the stage of development attained by their audience. This view, too, may have merit, but against it is the fact that in this passage it is not spiritual gifts that are being treated for the edification of the hearers, as in 1 Corinthians 14, but the proprieties that should govern those who use the gifts.
The most satisfactory explanation is that “faith” retains the subjective force it has in v.3 and that the whole phrase has the same thrust as “measure of faith” there. Prophets are not to be governed by their emotions (1Co 14:32) or by their love of speaking (1Co 14:30) but by total dependence on the Spirit of God.
Paul does not give a definition of “prophesying” here, but if we are to judge from the earlier reference in 1 Corinthians 14:3, 31, the nature of the gift is not primarily prediction but the communication of revealed truth that will both convict and build up the hearers. This gift is prominent in the other listings of gifts (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11), where prophets are second only to apostles in the enumeration. That Paul says nothing of apostles in the Romans passage may be a hint that no apostle, Peter included, had anything to do with the founding of the Roman church (see Introduction p. 21).
7 “Serving” is such a broad term that some difficulty attaches to the effort to pin it down. The Greek diakonia (GK 1355) is sometimes used of the ministry of the word to unbelievers (Ac 6:4; 2Co 5:18), but the gifts in this passage in Romans seem intentionally restricted in their exercise to the body of Christ. (It may be significant that there is no mention of evangelists here, as there is in Eph 4:11.) Despite its place between prophesying and teaching, the narrower meaning of service as “ministration to the material needs of believers” is probable here. The REB translates the word as “administration,” perhaps hinting that the term should be taken as referring to the supervision of the giving of aid to the needy, which was specifically the province of the deacons (cf. NJB, “practical service”). Even so, it should be recognized that others also could engage in a variety of helpful ministries addressing the needs of the saints (1Co 16:15). In fact, Paul inserts in the midst of a catalog of restricted terms dealing with gifts this very broad designation—“those able to help others” (antilēmpseis, GK 516; 1Co 12:28).
The gift of “teaching” (didaskō and didaskalia, GK 1438, 1436) is mentioned next. It differed from prophesying in that it was not characterized by ecstatic utterance as the vehicle for revelation given by the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14:6 teaching is paired with knowledge, whereas prophecy is coupled with revelation. Probably the aim in teaching was to give help in the area of Christian living rather than formal instruction in doctrine, even though it must be granted that the latter is needed as a foundation for the former. Indeed the very structure of Romans attests this. Paul himself gives a notable example of teaching in vv.9–21. In the latter part of this section his considerable use of the OT suggests that early Christian teachers were largely dependent on it for their instruction.
8 The Greek paraklēsis (GK 4155) has a variety of meanings. Only the context can indicate whether the most suitable rendering is “encourage” (so NIV) or “exhortation” (so NASB). They are closely related. In Acts 15:31, encouragement is certainly the idea conveyed. But in 1 Timothy 4:13, exhortation is clearly involved, evidently in application of the OT as it was read in the assembly during worship (cf. Ac 13:15). Assuredly, some encouragement could be included, but exhortation seems to be the dominant meaning here.
“Contributing to the needs of others” has to do with spontaneous private benevolence (cf. 1Jn 3:17–18). This is evidently not intended as a repetition of “serving” (v.7), and this favors the view that the latter activity belongs to the public distribution of aid by the church to its needy. The only doubt concerning this interpretation resides in the words en haplotēti (GK 605). The NIV has “generously” (NASB, “with liberality”; NRSV, “in generosity”), a possible translation but hardly as likely as “with simplicity” (so KJV; cf. REB, “without grudging”)—i.e., with singleness of heart, free of mixed motives, without regret (over having given so much). That wrong motivation could enter into giving is shown by the account of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.
“Leadership” (ho proïstamenos, GK 4613) is the translation of a word that means “to stand before” others, so the idea of governing derives readily from it. The need is for one to carry out one’s ministry “diligently” (en spoudē, GK 5082). Even in church life some people are tempted to enjoy the office rather than use it as an avenue for service. A few interpreters, doubtless influenced by the items immediately preceding and following, favor the meaning of “giving aid,” “furnishing care,” etc., and this is possible. However, the exercise of leadership is the more common in NT usage (1Th 5:12; 1Ti 3:4–5; 5:17). “Diligently” fits well in either case.
“Showing mercy” does not pertain to the area of forgiveness or sparing judgment. It has to do with ministering to the sick and needy. This is to be done “cheerfully” (hilarotēti, GK 2660) in a spontaneous manner that will convey blessing rather than engender self-pity.
Stuhlmacher, 193, draws the following appropriate conclusion concerning this section: The body of Christ can “flourish only when every individual member and group within the church remains mindful of the good of all, and thus sets aside individual interests for the sake of the common life and witness.”
NOTES
3 For a different understanding of the word “faith” here, see Stuhlmacher, 192, who argues that Paul urges his readers “to endeavor to gain that prudence which is measured by the standard of faith which has been established for all.”
C. Principles Governing Christian Conduct (12:9–21)
OVERVIEW
The presupposition here is the dedicated life, which enables one to discover and demonstrate the will of God. Though the division is not strictly adhered to, vv.9–13 tend to deal with the relationship to fellow Christians, whereas vv.14–21 tend to deal with the Christian’s stance toward those who are outside the faith. A considerable amount of material in this section seems to rest on sayings of Jesus (known to Paul through oral tradition) that are eventually taken up by Matthew into the Sermon on the Mount.
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
COMMENTARY
9 “Love” is primary, but if it is mere pretense, acted out rather than being authentic, it does not qualify as love. When one recalls that Paul paused in his discussion of spiritual gifts to interject a chapter on love (the incomparable 1Co 13, which bears a close resemblance to Ro 12:9–21), it is altogether fitting that he should follow his presentation of spiritual gifts here in Romans with the same emphasis. The whole of the believer’s conduct, in fact, should be bathed in love. Love is the rubric for the whole of the Christian life. If a Christian fails to love others, doubt is cast on his or her professed love for God (1Jn 4:19–21). Love is the first of the fruit of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:22. Nygren, 425, has written, “That love has that place does not mean that it is only first in a series of comparable qualities, but that it includes the rest in itself. If love be unfeigned, all that to which Paul exhorts the church will follow.” One is reminded that Jesus (and Paul, following Jesus, Ro 13:9–10) summed up the law in the love commandment (Mt 22:37–40; cf. Mt 7:12).
Love readily suggests purity. The two are found together in God, whose eyes are too pure to look on evil (Hab 1:13) and who cannot be tempted by it (Jas 1:13). The God who loves is also the God who hates evil. The human attitude must follow the divine in this respect, because love and evil are opposites. Therefore to love on the one side, and to hate evil on the other, belong together. To “cling to what is good” (v.9) is to be wedded to it. Total commitment leaves neither time nor inclination to court evil.
10 The apostle has called for love, but lest this be construed simply as an ideal, he now puts it in a living context. Far from being an abstract idea for Paul, love is to be shown to people. He uses a special term denoting “brotherly love” (philadelphia, GK 5789), as also in 1 Thessalonians 4:9 (cf. 1Pe 1:22; 3:8; Heb 13:1). “Be devoted” (philostorgoi, GK 5816) is nearly synonymous, denoting a “heartfelt love” (BDAG, 1059) that customarily denotes the family tie. Believers are members of the family of God, and that family should be characterized by self-giving love.
In words that remind us of the emphasis in v.3 about humility, Paul writes, “Honor one another above yourselves” (cf. Php 2:3). To “honor” is “to accord recognition and show appreciation.” Presumably, this is based not on some personal attractiveness that is perceived in others or usefulness that is known about them, but rather on the fact that every Christian has Christ in his or her heart and is of the highest worth. Consequently, this recognition is based on the new creation (2Co 5:17) rather than on the old. One honors God when he or she recognizes his transforming work in the lives of others. Christians, like their Lord, care nothing for their own prestige and esteem; rather, they live for the sake of others and their advancement.
11–12 Paul now momentarily directs attention toward the Lord and his service before returning to the horizontal relationship with the body of Christ in v.13. In vv.11–12 he presents a series of six items, only loosely related, that should continually be exhibited in the Christian. The first concerns the importance of not failing in “zeal” (spoudē, GK 5082), that energetic living of the Christian life that is the opposite of spiritual inertia. Along the same line, Paul calls his readers to have “spiritual fervor” (the same language is used of Apollos in Ac 18:25). As happens often, it is not fully clear whether “spirit” should be capitalized and taken as a reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. RSV [but not NRSV], “be aglow with the Spirit”). “Serving [douleuontes, GK 1526] the Lord” is fundamental to the calling and life of the Christian. Though this seems obvious and straightforward, it is a priority that even seasoned Christians have been known to lose.
12 The nature of “hope” (elpis, GK 1828) as confident expectation is something that should always be the cause of rejoicing. But because hope is in reference to something not yet seen, it can often weaken instead of providing the strength that it should. Hope is meant to sustain the servant of Christ and enable him or her to be “patient in affliction” (thlipsis, GK 2568). Paul brought together the same constellation of ideas earlier in 5:3–4. The last item in these verses is the Christian’s need to be “faithful [proskarterountes, GK 4674; lit., “persevering”] in prayer.” Regular prayer, of course, is a characteristic of the vibrant Christian. In brief, the thrust of vv.11–12 is that Christians are called to live in a way that is consistent with the grace they have received.
13 Returning from the vertical to the horizontal or ethical level, Paul comes to the importance of providing material support for “God’s people” (tōn hagiōn, GK 41, lit., “the saints”). A Christian can never become insensitive to the temporal needs of other believers. Care for those who are not a part of the church is also appropriate, but the priority is the supply of the needs of those within the church.
When this sharing takes place under one’s own roof, it is labeled “hospitality.” The Greek term philoxenia (GK 5810) is more expressive than the English word “hospitality,” for it literally means “love for strangers.” Paul’s word for “practice” (diōkontes, GK 1503, “pursue”) is strong (the same word being used in the sense of “persecute” in v.14), calling for an undiminished ardor in extending this courtesy to traveling believers. Jesus had encouraged his disciples to depend on such kindness during their missions (Mt 10:11). Hospitality became very important in the early church (cf. Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:9) and even requisite for one who would become a bishop (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8). Without it, the spread of the gospel during the days of the early church would have been greatly impeded. With it the “house church” became a reality (16:5, 23). What sanctified this practice above all was the realization that in receiving and entertaining the traveler, those who opened their doors and their hearts, as Jesus instructed, were receiving and entertaining Christ (Mt 10:40; 25:40).
14–16 The material in this paragraph is not so easy to characterize as that in the foregoing and following paragraphs. It seems to describe Christians’ relations to their neighbors and friends (not excluding believers), as well as one reference to their opponents, whereas the next section definitely pictures the people of God bearing up under pressure from the unbelieving world. Perhaps the best thing is to view this portion in the light of Paul’s word in Galatians 6:10 and consider it transitional.
14 Paul’s injunction to bless persecutors rather than curse them undoubtedly goes back to the teaching of our Lord (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:28) through oral tradition. The teaching was incarnated in Jesus himself and became clearly manifested during his trial and his suffering on the cross. The word used for “persecute” means literally “to pursue.” Persecution could take various forms, running the gamut from verbal abuse and social ostracism to the use of violence resulting in death. A few years later, Roman Christians were to lose their lives in great numbers at the hands of Emperor Nero. Persecution in some form or another was so common in the experience of the early church that Paul is able to assume as a matter of course that it is a factor in the lives of his readers. To “bless” one’s persecutors obviously includes not responding in kind but forgiving them, wishing them well, and praying for them. This response to one’s persecutors can be accomplished only by the grace of Christ.
15 One charge follows another without any apparent connection as Paul next calls on his readers to share one another’s joys and sorrows. This is not merely a matter of empathy with others; rather, it presupposes the unity of the members of the body of Christ. As Paul expressed the point in 1 Corinthians 12:26, “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored [lit., “glorified”], every part rejoices with it.”
16 The content, and even to some extent the wording, here bears some similarity to the exhortations in Philippians 2:2–3, where Paul writes to dispel the discord in the church. “Live in harmony with one another” (lit, “be of the same mind toward one another”), together with the exhortations against pride, is perfect instruction to guard against strife in the body of Christ. One means to maintaining harmony stressed by Paul as a necessity consists in rejecting the temptation to think high thoughts about oneself, as though one were a superior breed of Christian, and of coming down off the perch of isolation and mingling with “people of low position,” or those of a humble frame of mind. Alternatively, if tois tapeinois (GK 5424) is taken as a neuter, the reference could be to “lowly things,” e.g., “menial tasks.” And lest one consent to do this while still retaining heady notions of one’s own superiority, Paul puts in a final thrust: “Do not be conceited” (cf. Pr 3:7). Egotistical conceit has no place in the life ruled by love (1Co 13:4), and it is destructive of the community that should mark the body of Christ.
17 Paul turns next to explicit counsel about how to face the hostile world. Here again he draws on the teaching of Jesus available to him through oral tradition (cf. Mt 5:39, 44; 1Pe 3:9). “Do not repay anyone evil for evil,” for to do so would be to follow the inclination of the flesh. The remainder of the verse is open to more than one interpretation. It could mean that the Christian should be concerned to do what all persons understand to be right. But this presupposes no real difference between Christians and non-Christians in their evaluation. Consequently, the other explanation is preferable, namely, that since believers are constantly under the scrutiny of both unsaved persons and fellow Christians, they must be careful that their conduct does not betray the high standards of the gospel (cf. Col 4:5; 1Ti 3:7). The verb pronoeō (GK 4629), which the NIV translates as “be careful” is literally “to think of beforehand,” suggesting that the conduct of believers ought not to be regulated by unthinking habit but rather that each situation be freshly considered so that the action taken will not reflect unfavorably on the gospel.
18 The charge to “live at peace with everyone” is hedged about with two qualifying statements. “If it is possible” suggests that there may be instances in human relations when the strongest desire for concord will not avail. The second condition is “as far as it depends on you.” In other words, if disharmony and conflict should come, let not the responsibility be laid at your feet. One may not be able to persuade the other party, but one can at least refuse to be the instigator of trouble. Christians can be peacemakers, as Jesus taught (Mt 5:9), only if they are recognized as those who aim to live at peace with others.
19 This peace-loving attitude may be costly, however, because some will want to take advantage of it, figuring that Christian principles will not permit the wronged party to retaliate. What is to be done in such a case? The path of duty is clear: We are not to take vengeance. This would be to trespass on the province of God, the great Judge of all: “Leave room for God’s wrath.” Such matters are best left with the God who always does what is right. Here Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:35, where the context indicates that the Lord will intervene to vindicate his people when their enemies abuse them and gloat over them. God’s action will rebuke not only the adversaries but also the false gods in which they have put their trust.
20 There is no suggestion that God’s wrath will be visited on the wrongdoer immediately. On the contrary, this wrath is the last resort, for in the immediate future lies the possibility that the one who has perpetrated the wrong will have a change of heart and will be convicted of sin and won over by the refusal of the Christian to retaliate. Here again Paul lets the OT (Pr 25:21–22) speak for him. The course of action recommended is the positive aspect of what has been stated in v.17. Paul again follows the teaching of Jesus, who taught, “Love your enemies” (Mt 5:44), where “love” means acting for their welfare. “Burning coals” are best understood as “the burning pangs of shame and contrition” (Cranfield, 2:649). By going the second mile and showing unexpected and unmerited kindness to those who wish them ill, Christians may well become the means used by the Holy Spirit to attract others to the faith.
21 Guidance on the problem of coping with evil reaches its climax in the final admonition: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” In this context, to “be overcome by evil” means to give in to the temptation to meet evil with evil, to retaliate. To “overcome evil with good” has been illustrated in v.20. Many other illustrations could be given, such as David’s sparing the life of Saul, who was pursuing him to snuff out his life. When Saul realized that David had spared his life, he said, “You have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil” (1Sa 24:17 NRSV). The world’s philosophy leads people to expect retaliation when they have wronged another. The doer of evil expects, and usually receives, evil in return. To receive kindness, to see love when the opposite is expected, can melt the hardest heart. The conduct of the Christian ought regularly to shock a world in which self-centeredness is taken for granted.
NOTES
9–10 Nygren, 425–26, notes the similarity of this passage with 1 Corinthians 13 and supplies a paraphrase of the latter, using phrases from Romans 12:9–21. Cf. D. A. Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9–21,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 2 (1989): 3–22.
11 It is reasonably certain that the variant reading καιρῷ, kairō, “in season” (GK 2789; thus, “serving in season [or “opportunity”]”), found principally in Western witnesses, arose from a misreading of κυρίῳ, kyriō (“Lord”), due to similar-looking abbreviations (κῶ, kō, and κρῶ, krō).
17–21 On the use of sayings of Jesus, see C. H. Dodd, “The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1959), 106–18; D. Wenham, “Paul’s Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples,” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. D. Wenham (Gospel Perspectives 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 7–37; F. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye (BETL 73; Louvain: Leuven Univ. Press, 1986), 265–321; J. D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Knowledge of the Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of Romans,” in Christus Bezeugen: Für Wolfgang Trilling, ed. K. Kertelge et al. (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1990), 193–207.
D. The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority (13:1–7)
OVERVIEW
This is the most notable passage in the NT on Christian civic responsibility. Its viewpoint probably reflects the famous word of Jesus, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mt 22:21). That Paul lived in conformity with his own teaching is apparent from his relation to various rulers as recorded in Acts. Pride in his Roman citizenship and his readiness to appeal to it in critical situations are also reflected in Acts. Because Paul realized that this subject had a definite bearing on the spread of the gospel (1Ti 2:1–7), he saw its relevance in this epistle on the theme of salvation written to the capital city of the Roman Empire.
Some, however, have found it difficult to relate Romans 13 to the flow of thought in the book as a whole. It seems to them detached and so isolated from the material on either side of it as to suggest that it might even have come from a later period when such concerns were more pressing for the church. Nevertheless, it is possible to see in 13:1–7 an expansion and special application of the teaching about good and evil (12:17, 21) and living “at peace with everyone” (12:18). Perhaps the reference to “wrath” (orgē, GK 3973; 12:19) is intended to anticipate the orgē in 13:4, 5 (“wrath” in 13:4; “punishment” in 13:5).
More important, however, is the broader connection in terms of thought. Here there are two pertinent elements. One is the natural connection with 12:1–2, where the foundation is laid for Christian service in its various ramifications. The believer’s relation to the state is one of those areas. Another and more specific connection with the foregoing material is possible. Paul may be intent on warning the Roman church, which contained Christian Jews as well as Gentile believers who sympathized with them over the plight of their nation, not to identify with any revolutionary movement advocating rebellion against Rome (cf. Marcus Borg, “A New Context for Romans xiii,” NTS 19 [1972–73]: 205–18). If this need was in Paul’s mind as he wrote, then 13:1–7 may be considered a kind of postscript to chs. 9–11. This would put the apostle solidly behind the stance taken by Jesus, who was faced with pressure from Zealot elements in Palestine but refused to endorse their use of violence. Borg inclines toward the view that the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius (Ac 18:2; cf. Suetonius, Claud. 25:4) was not due to Christian proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah that excited and divided the Jewish community at Rome, but to messianic agitation involving the expressed hope that the deliverer would bring release from the grip of Rome. If this is indeed the background, then Paul was not simply giving counsel of a general or universal nature (though applicable elsewhere), but was speaking to a definite historical situation that could have proved explosive from the Christian as well as the Jewish standpoint. Adjustment to the state was especially difficult for the Jews because, from the days of the OT theocracy, they looked to God as supreme and felt no tension in their own national life between the realms of politics and religion. There is also a possibility that the Jews (including some Christian Jews) who returned to Rome after the death of Claudius were hostile toward the state because of the way Claudius had treated them. These needed to be mollified. On the other hand, Stuhlmacher, 202, urges caution: “We do not know exactly whether among the Christians in Rome there were those who were inclined toward such opposition.”
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
1 The teaching that follows is addressed to “everyone” (pasa psychē), i.e., every believer rather than everyone in general, even though government is necessary for society as a whole. Paul could admonish only Christians. What he requires is “submission,” a term that calls for placing oneself under someone else. Here and in v.5 he seems to avoid using the stronger word “obey” (hypotassō, GK 5718), and the reason is that believers may find it impossible to comply with every demand of the government. A circumstance may arise in which they must choose between obeying God and obeying human authority (Ac 5:29). But even then they must be submissive to the extent that if their Christian convictions do not permit compliance, they will accept the consequences of their refusal.
Those to whom submission must be rendered are called “the governing authorities.” Two different words are used for “authority” in this passage. In v.1, the word exousiai (GK 2026) is not a specific or technical term; it simply means those who are over others. With respect to the second word, archōn (GK 807; v.3), we find Josephus using it, as Paul does, with reference to Roman rulers, but specifically to those who ruled in the name of Rome over the Jews in Palestine (J.W. 2.350).
Paul makes a sweeping statement when he says, “There is no authority except that which God has established.” It is true even of Satan that what authority he exercises has been given to him (cf. Lk 4:6). God has ordained this tension between authority and submission: “God has so arranged the world from the beginning—at the creation, by all means, if you like—as to make it possible to render him service within it, and this is why he created superiors and subordinates” (E. Käsemann, “Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13,” in New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961], 208).
It is probably significant that the name of Christ does not appear anywhere in the passage. The thought does not move in the sphere of redemption or the life of the church as such, but in the relationship to the state that God in his wisdom has set up. While Christians have their citizenship in heaven (Php 3:20), they are not on that account excused from responsibility to acknowledge the state as possessing authority from God to govern them. They hold a dual citizenship.
2 Those who refuse to submit are in rebellion against what God has ordained. To ground refusal on the fact that the believer is “not of the world” (Jn 17:14) is to confuse the issue, because the state cannot be identified with the world, no matter how “worldly” its attitude may be. The world can be set over against God (1Jn 2:16), but this is not true of the state as an institution, despite the fact that individual governments may at times be anti-God in their stance. Midway in v.2 Paul shifts from the singular (“he who rebels”) to the plural (“those who do so”). If this is more than a stylistic variation, it may be intended to recognize that rebellion is not feasible at all unless it is instigated by collective action. Defiance of government is futile on an individual basis except as a demonstration of personal disagreement. Those who rebel “will bring judgment on themselves.” By rendering judgment as “damnation,” the KJV suggests forfeiture of final salvation, which is wide of the mark. From the movement of thought the judgment is to be conceived of as coming from God, in the sense of bearing his approval, even though administered through human channels and in the sphere of human affairs. One may cite the words of Jesus, given in warning to one of his own: “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52). Sufficient illustration is provided by the Jewish war of revolt against Rome that was to begin within a decade of the time Paul wrote. This disastrous rebellion led to the sacking of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation. The question as to whether rebellion is ever justified (in the light of this passage) cannot profitably be examined until more of the paragraph has been reviewed.
3 Here we encounter the most difficult portion of the passage, for the presentation seems to take no account of the possibility that government may be tyrannical and may reward evil and suppress good. A few years after Paul wrote these words, Nero launched a persecution against the church at Rome; multitudes lost their lives, and not because of doing wrong. Later on, other emperors would lash out against Christians in several waves of persecution stretching over more than two centuries. However, the empire did not persecute Christians for their good works, and not directly because of their faith, but rather because they were perceived as endangering the peace and welfare of the state by their refusal to honor the gods.
One way to deal with the problem is to assume that Paul is presenting the norm, that is to say, the state as functioning in terms of fulfilling the ideal for government, which is certainly that of punishing evil and rewarding or encouraging good. If this is the correct interpretation, then we can understand why Paul warns against rebellion and makes no allowance for revolutionary activity. The way is then open to justify revolution in cases where rights are denied and liberties taken away, making life intolerable for freedom-loving men and women, since the state has ceased to fulfill its God-appointed function. However, Christians will not as a church lead in revolution, but only as citizens of the commonwealth. At the very least, under circumstances involving a collapse of justice, the Christian community is obliged to voice its criticism of the state’s failure, pointing out the deviation from the divinely ordained pattern. Subjection to the state is not to be confused with unthinking, blind, docile conformity. An interesting contrast in viewpoint can be seen in Revelation 13, where the Roman state is portrayed as the enemy of God and is symbolized by a beast coming up out of the sea. On the other hand, at about the same time (the turn of the century), Clement of Rome prays a model prayer that embodies the attitude toward the state Paul inculcates in this passage (1 Clem. 60.2–61.2; F. F. Bruce, 235, quotes this long prayer in its entirety).
Another possibility is to introduce the principle of Romans 8:28 whereby God finds ways to bring good out of apparent evil, so that even in the event that the state should turn against the people of God in a way that could rightly be termed evil, he will bring good out of it in the long run. Käsemann (“Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13,” 215) remarks, “Sometimes the Lord of the world speaks more audibly out of prison cells and graves than out of the life of churches which congratulate themselves on their concordat with the State.”
4 The state is presented as “God’s servant [diakonos, GK 1356]” to extend commendation to the one who does good and, conversely, to punish the wrongdoer. This certainly implies considerable knowledge on the part of the governing authority as to the nature of right and wrong—a knowledge not dependent on awareness of the teaching of Scripture but granted to human beings in general as rational creatures (cf. 2:14–15). While “God’s servant” is an honorable title, it contains a reminder that the state is not God and that its function is to administer justice for him in areas where it is competent to do so. Even as God’s servant in the spiritual realm can err, so the state is not to be thought of as infallible in its decisions. Yet this does not entitle the individual to flout the state’s authority when the decision is not to his or her liking.
The warning to the believer to avoid evil carries with it the admonition that if this warning is neglected, fear will be in order because the authority has the power to use the sword. This can hardly have to do with private misdoing that would rarely, if ever, come to the attention of those in power; presumably it refers to public acts that would threaten the well-being or security of the state. Consequently, even though traditionally the bearing of the sword is thought to signify the power of punishment—even to death—which the government rightly claims for itself in handling serious crimes, this understanding of the matter is somewhat questionable because these words are addressed to Christians. Were Christians liable to descend to such things? Interpreters who have assumed that Paul’s allusion to the sword refers to the ius gladii (the “law of the sword”) need to consider the evidence to the effect that at the time of Paul this term had a very restricted application that would not fit our passage. A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 10) states, “For the first two centuries of the Empire the term referred only to the power given to provincial governors who had Roman citizen troops under their command, to enable them to maintain military discipline without being hampered by the provisions of the laws of provocatio.” Provocatio denotes “right of appeal.” So it is probable that Paul is warning believers against becoming involved in activity that could be construed by the Roman government as encouraging revolution or injury to the state. In that case, he is not referring to crime in general. To engage in subversive activity against the state would invite speedy retribution, as the word “sword” implies.
5 In bringing this portion of the discussion to a close, Paul advances two reasons why the Christian must be in submission to the state. One is the threat of capital “punishment” (orgē, GK 3973, “wrath”) if one does not put oneself in subjection. This appeal is based on personal advantage, the instinct of self-preservation. To defy the state could mean death. The other reason is a little more difficult to determine. “Conscience” (syneidēsis, GK 5287) commonly means “the pain a man suffers when he has done wrong” (C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1955], 71). But this meaning of the word is questionable here, because the believer who goes so far as to defy the state could hardly be described as having a tender conscience; in fact, such individuals have steeled their will and suppressed their conscience. More satisfactory is the statement of Christian Maurer (TDNT 7:916): “Syneidēsis is responsible awareness that the ultimate foundations both of one’s own being and also of the state are in God. Members of the community are to have neither a higher nor a lower estimation of the state than as a specific servant of God.” In other words, Christians, by virtue of divine revelation, can have a clearer understanding of the position of the governing authority than officials of the government are likely to have. Let that knowledge guide them in their attitudes and decisions. This usage of the word “conscience” is found again in 1 Peter 2:19.
6 Building on his allusion to conscience, the apostle explains the payment of taxes on this very basis. The clearer the perception of the fact that the governing authority is God’s servant, the greater appears the reasonableness of providing support by these payments. The person in authority may be unworthy, but the institution is not, since God wills it. Without financial undergirding, government cannot function. For the third time, Paul speaks of rulers as “God’s servants,” but this time he uses a different word (leitourgoi, GK 3313), one that means “workers for the people,” “public ministers.” But the relationship to God is added in keeping with the emphasis made in v.4. Their work is carried on under God’s scrutiny and to fulfill God’s will. These public servants give their full time and attention to governing; therefore they have no time to earn a living by other means. This is parallel to the point made by Jesus that “the worker deserves his wages” (Lk 10:7).
7 There is deliberate repetition in the sense that the paying of taxes is assumed (v.6), then enjoined (v.7). But in the repetition Paul adds an important ingredient, found in the word “give” (apodote, GK 625). It is full of meaning, for literally it means “give back.” When Jesus was interrogated on the subject of taxes, his questioners used the word “pay” (dounai, GK 1443; lit., “give”), but in his reply he used “give” (apodote, lit., “give back”; Mk 12:14–15, 17), suggesting that what is paid to the government in the form of taxes presupposes value received or to be received. It is quite possible that Paul, through familiarity with the tradition concerning Jesus’ teaching, was aware of the language the Master had used and adopts it for himself. Some of the reluctance to pay taxes to the Romans that was associated with political unrest in Palestine probably infected Jewish believers at Rome, accounting for Paul’s specific allusion to the subject. But on this point one cannot be sure, since the allusion comes in rather naturally during a discussion of the believer’s relation to the state. Furthermore, the assumption is that the Roman Christians were, in fact, paying taxes (v.6).
The various items mentioned in v.7—“taxes,” “revenue,” “respect,” and “honor”—are all classified as obligations to the governing authorities. The word for “taxes” (phoros, GK 5843) often means tribute paid to a foreign ruler and implies a dependent status (it appears in Lk 20:22 in the incident concerning paying taxes to Caesar). “Revenue” (telos, GK 5465) pertains to indirect taxation in the form of toll or customs duties. It forms a part of the word for “tax collector” (telōnēs, GK 5467, Mt 10:3). “Respect” (phobos, GK 5832, lit., “fear”) here seems to mean appropriate respect for the governing authorities. It is just possible, however, that Paul intends “respect” or “fear” to apply to God rather than to public officials (cf. 1Pe 2:17, where the verb phobeomai [“fear”] is used in relation to God and in contrast to honor paid to the supreme earthly ruler). The word “honor” (timē, GK 5507) is very similar in its import and clearly applies to those in public office.
NOTES
1–7 On vv.1–7, see C. K. Barrett “The New Testament Doctrine of the State,” in New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972), 1–19; A. J. Hultgren, “Reflections on Romans 13:1–7: Submission to Governing Authorities,” Dialog 15 (1976): 263–69; J. D. G. Dunn, “Romans 13:1–7—A Charter for Political Quietism?” ExAud 2 (1986): 55–68; R. H. Stein, “The Argument of Romans xiii 1–7,” NovT 31 (1989): 325–43.
1 The term ἐξουσίαι, exousiai (“authorities,” GK 2026), is a matter of keen debate. Does it denote earthly rulers alone, or is it intended to refer also to invisible powers, as in Ephesians 1:21; 6:12? Oscar Cullmann (Christ and Time [London: SCM, 1951], 191–210; The State in the New Testament [New York: Scribners, 1956], 95–114) has advocated the latter position, arguing that the plural form calls for this meaning and that Christ by his death and exaltation has triumphed over these powers of darkness, so that they are subject to him even when they influence earthly rulers. Though it is not possible to delve into the pros and cons of this debate, suffice it to say that victory over the powers of the invisible world does not necessarily mean that Christ has pressed them into his service. If Paul had meant to include them here, it seems logical that he would have made this clear by a more specific description. Paul never suggests that Christians are to be subject to angelic beings. Beyond v.1 he shifts from the plural to the singular, which suggests that the plural is meant to refer to the emperor and subordinate rulers, whereas the singular indicates any official of the government with whom a believer might become involved. It is difficult, furthermore, to believe that Paul could advocate submission to unseen powers, even in indirect fashion, since in Ephesians 6:12–18 he calls for the most strenuous resistance to them (cf. F. F. Bruce, “Paul and ‘The Powers That Be,’” BJRL 66 [1983–84]: 78–96).
REFLECTIONS
Stuhlmacher, 206, summarizes these verses with these words: “In Romans 13:1–7 Paul summons the Christians from Rome to the greatest possible loyalty toward the existing power of the state and sees in it an ordinance of God.” He also cautions that “the fundamental question of how Christians should relate to the power of the state per se should not be decided from Romans 13:1–7 alone, but on the basis of all of the pertinent texts of the Old and New Testaments” (ibid., 204).
E. The Comprehensive Obligation of Love (13:8–10)
OVERVIEW
Though Paul has previously put in an urgent call for love (12:9–10), he now returns to this theme, knowing that he cannot stress too much this essential ingredient of all Christian service. The connection of the present paragraph with the foregoing section is indicated by the verb opheilete (GK 4053, “owe”; NIV, “debt remain outstanding”), which has the same root as “owe” in v.7. There is an effective transition to the very highest demand on the child of God, who owes submission and honor to the civil authorities but owes all people much more.
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
COMMENTARY
8 The NASB’s “owe nothing to anyone” (NIV, “let no debt remain outstanding”) should not be taken as meaning that it is wrong to borrow. If incurring any indebtedness whatever is contrary to God’s will, Jesus would not have said, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Mt 5:42). Of course, to be perpetually in debt is not a good testimony for a believer, and to refuse to fulfill one’s obligations is unacceptable (v.7). Now comes the remarkable exception to the rule. There is one debt owed to all: “to love one another.” One can never say that one has completely discharged it. Ordinarily, “one another” in the Epistles refers to relationships within the Christian community. But such is not the case here, for the expression is explained in terms of one’s “fellow man” (lit., “the other [person]”). Since the passage goes on to refer to one’s “neighbor” (vv.9, 10), we may be reasonably sure that the sweep of the obligation set forth here is intended to be universal. It is, therefore, a mistake to accuse the early church of turning its eyes inward on itself and to a large extent neglecting the outside world. Granted that the usual emphasis is on one’s duties to fellow believers, yet the wider reference is not lacking (Gal 6:10; 1Th 3:12).
In saying that the one who loves “has fulfilled the law,” Paul presents a truth that parallels his statement in 8:4 about the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in those who live according to the Spirit. The connecting link between these two passages is provided by Galatians 5:22–23, where first place in the enumeration of the fruit of the Spirit is given to “love” and the list is followed by the observation that “against such [fruit] there is no law.” So the Spirit produces in the believer a love to which the law can offer no objection, since love fulfills what the law requires—something the law itself cannot do. Paul again follows the teaching of Jesus that love is the fulfilling of the law (cf. Mt 22:39–40; see also Mt 7:12; Jas 2:8).
9 When one seeks to know what the law requires, one is naturally referred to those precepts that pertain to human relationships, since love for one’s neighbor is at issue, not love for God. Consequently, Paul lifts from the second table of the law certain precepts calling for the preservation of the sacredness of the family, the holding of human life inviolable, and the recognition of the right to ownership of property, concluding with the key item that is involved in the other three, namely, the control of one’s desires (“do not covet”; cf. 7:7). The words “and whatever other commandment there may be” reflect not uncertainty but constitute a rhetorical way of saying, in effect, “all other commandments.”
One might object that these prohibitions belong to the sphere of justice rather than that of love, but this limited view is ruled out by the affirmation that these and other demands of the law are summed up in the positive command, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). Once again, Paul follows the Lord Jesus in summarizing the horizontal bearing of the law by this quotation of Leviticus 19:18 (cf. Mt 22:39).
Jesus rebuked the narrow nationalistic interpretation of the word “neighbor” in the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–37). The literal meaning of neighbor is “one who is near.” Both the priest and the Levite found their nearness to the stricken man a source of embarrassment (vv.31–32), but the Samaritan saw in that same circumstance an opportunity to help another. In the light of human need, the barrier between Jew and Samaritan dissolved. Love provides its own imperative; it feels the compulsion of need, or it cannot be said to exist.
10 “Love does no harm to its neighbor” is an understatement, for love will always do positive good. But the negative form is suitable here, because it is intended to fit in with the prohibitions from the law (v.9). By concluding with the observation that love is “the fulfillment [plērōma, GK 4445] of the law,” Paul returns to the statement he made at the beginning of this section (v.8), thus forming an inclusio.
It is clear that for Paul, as for Jesus, love can serve as a summary of the moral law. The person who loves another, in the NT sense of the word, will act only for the welfare of that person. It easily follows that love excludes the doing of harm to another—the very thing that the second table of the commandments speaks to negatively. Love, in its very quality of self-giving, takes one far beyond the commandments. To love is to walk in the steps of Christ: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (Jn 13:34). Love is the essence of the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Paul in this way holds to his conviction that the Christian will fulfill the requirement of the law (cf. 8:4; see T. R. Schreiner, “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT 35 [1989]: 47–74).
Nygren, 435, sums up the matter well: “To live ‘in Christ,’ to walk ‘in love,’ is something entirely different from living under the law and striving to fulfill all its requirements; and yet the law is fulfilled in it. Therefore it can be said at the same time that the Christian is ‘free from the law’ and that in him ‘the law is fulfilled’” (italics his).
NOTES
9 With the quotation of Leviticus 19:18 about loving one’s “neighbor,” compare Leviticus 19:34: “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself.”
Since Paul omits only the ninth commandment (“thou shalt not bear false witness”) from the second table of the law, later manuscripts (TR) felt obliged to add it, and thus this commandment is found in the KJV.
F. The Purifying Power of Hope (13:11–14)
OVERVIEW
Though this passage contains no explicit mention of hope, the idea is obviously in the background. The confidence that the eschaton is “at hand” (v.12) should serve as an important motivating factor in the living out of the Christian life. “And do this” (v.11) is connected to the general moral instruction that Paul has provided in the preceding material. Now he plunges into a delineation of the critical nature of the time that intervenes before the Lord’s return. It is as though he is saying, “Live a life that is consonant with your Christian confession, even as you remain girded with hope and sobriety for the consummation.” The Christian refuses to be conformed to the present age, satisfied with earthly things (cf. Php 3:18–21), but is transformed and galvanized by the approach of the end, so as to be ruled by self-discipline and thereby to escape profligate living.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
COMMENTARY
11 Paul first sounds a call for alertness. The era between the advents is critical because now the promise of the return of Christ hovers over the believer. The Christian must not be lulled to sleep by indulgence in pleasure or be influenced by the specious word of those who suggest that the Lord is delaying his coming or may not return at all. It is important to note that Paul does not say how near the day of the Lord’s appearing is. As a matter of fact, he does not know. He is content to advance the reminder that “salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.” To be sure, salvation is already an achieved fact for the believer (Eph 2:8) and a continuing fact as well (1Co 15:2, where the Greek has a present tense; 1Pe 1:5). But it has also its future and final phase, as Paul here intimates (cf. 1Pe 1:9). With this third aspect in mind, he says elsewhere that “we eagerly await a Savior” (Php 3:20), for only then, at his return, will salvation be complete (Ro 8:18–25).
The time of the appearing is subordinate to the fact of the appearing. Franz Leenhardt, 339, has written, “If primitive Christianity could note, without its faith being shaken thereby, that the ‘end’ did not come within the calculated times, that is just because the chronological framework of its hope was a secondary matter.” The believer is not like a child looking for a clock to strike the hour because something is due to happen then. Rather, the believer is content to know that with every passing moment the end is that much closer to realization. And it cannot be denied that the time is getting closer and closer (cf. E. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament [Lund: Gleerup, 1963], 25–45).
One thing that is known about the time is that it is ēdē (GK 2453, lit., “already”), the time to be fully awake. The statement suggests above all the need for readiness—preparedness—for the return of Christ (cf. 1Th 5:4–9, where there is also the image of putting on armor). The confidence of the approach of the end should awaken Christians out of a state of stupor and instill urgency to live in a way that reflects their discipleship.
12 The line of thought here closely resembles the treatment in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11. Even as darkness is symbolic of evil and sin, the “light” fittingly depicts those who have passed into the experience of salvation. The light of dawn is not far away, and one should live in anticipation of it. “The day” is the day of the Lord, i.e., the day of judgment and blessing—the arrival of the eschaton, the consummation of the Christian hope. There may be elements of baptismal liturgy underlying this passage, especially in the putting aside of the old garments, “the deeds of darkness” that characterized one’s earlier life, and the putting on of new garments, symbolizing the new life. These new garments, however, are unusual. They are likened to “armor,” just as in 1 Thessalonians 5:8 (cf. Eph 6:13–17). Evidently the purpose is to suggest that to walk through this world as children of light involves warfare against the powers of darkness (cf. Eph 6:12–13). Even though the day as an eschatological point has not yet arrived, Christians “belong to the day” (1Th 5:8), anticipating by the very atmosphere of their transformed lives the glory that will then be revealed (2Co 3:18; 4:4).
13 The approaching of “the day” is the basis for the plea, “Let us behave decently, as in the daytime.” The Christian is to live as though that final day has actually arrived and brought with it the personal presence of Christ. There should be no place, then, for the conduct that so often characterizes pagans in the dark of night. Paul describes this manner of life (all too common in Corinth, where he was writing from) in three couplets, the first emphasizing intemperance; the second, sexual misconduct; and the third, contention and quarreling.
14 In his conclusion, the apostle returns to his figure of putting on clothing (cf. v.12), but now the garment is personified. He urges his readers to “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Col 3:10, “[you] have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator”). This amounts to appropriation—the deliberate, conscious acceptance of the lordship of Christ—so that all is under his control: motives, desires, and deeds. It is true that believers have already clothed themselves with Christ, according to Galatians 3:27, at conversion and baptism. But there is also a sense in which one needs to renew one’s commitment to the lordship of Christ on a regular basis. To be clothed with Christ should mean that believers become like their Lord in his righteousness, so that they can be effective witnesses to the truth of the gospel.
If, however, this putting on of Christ is done in a spirit of complacency, as though a life of godliness and uprightness will automatically follow, disappointment will result. The redeemed person must be attuned to the Savior. In the present complexity of old and new aeons, as well as old and new natures, the Christian must exercise ceaseless vigilance, lest the flesh be allowed to prevail. No thought must be given to satisfying the desires of the old nature, and certainly no provision made for them. Though the language differs from the teaching in ch. 6, the message is the same. If union with Christ is to be experientially successful, even though one is already dead to sin, he or she must accompany that fact with a constant reckoning of oneself as dead to sin and alive to God and his holy will.
G. Questions of Conscience Wherein Christians Differ (14:1–15:13)
OVERVIEW
It is uncertain to what extent Paul possessed definite information about the internal affairs of the Roman church. Consequently, it is difficult to know whether his approach to the problem of “the weak” and “the strong” is dictated by awareness of the precise nature of a problem in Rome or whether he is writing out of his own experience with other churches, especially the Corinthian congregation (1Co 8:1–11:1). His treatment in Romans is briefer and couched in more general terms, though there are obvious similarities, such as the danger that by their conduct the strong will cause the weak to stumble or fall and the corresponding danger that the weak will sit in judgment on the strong. The differences, however, are numerous: there is no mention in Romans of idols or food offered to idols; the word “conscience” does not appear; the strong are not described as those who have knowledge. On the other hand, we read in Romans of vegetarians and of those who insist on observing a certain day in contrast to others who look on all days as being alike. Neither of these features appears in 1 Corinthians.
Probably the “weak” ones at Rome should be identified with the Jewish element in the church (as well as those Gentiles who may have been attracted to their viewpoint), because believing Jews might easily carry over their avoidance of certain foods from their former observance of the dietary laws of the OT. It is possible that information had reached Paul to the effect that with the return of Jewish Christians to Rome after the death of Emperor Claudius in AD 54, tension had developed in the church with the Gentile element that had been able for several years to enjoy without challenge its freedom in the matter of foods. It is unlikely that this problem was caused by the influence of pagan religions.
Judging from the discussion in 1 Corinthians, Paul would place himself among the strong. Yet he was careful not to become an occasion of stumbling to a weak person. He has words of warning and words of encouragement to both groups. His primary concern is to promote a spirit of unity in the church (15:5, 7). The issue clearly does not involve the salvation of either group—something settled some years earlier at the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15)—which is assumed throughout, but rather a question of how the community of the redeemed should live in this age.
1. Christians Must Refrain from Judging One Another (14:1–12)
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’”
12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
1–2 “Eat” (esthiō, GK 2266, v.2) is the recurring verb that characterizes this section. Dietary practices differed, and the differences were bound to be noticed; they became a topic of conversation and a basis of disagreement. “Passing judgment [diakrisis, GK 1360] on disputable matters” (v.1) could well be translated “getting into quarrels about opinions” (BDAG, 231). Paul’s designation for the overscrupulous believers is those “whose faith is weak,” meaning that their faith is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ to partake. The “weak” are not troubled by questions of doctrine but are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this hesitancy is to “accept” them. That this word (proslambanō, GK 4689) is capable of conveying the sense of warm wholeheartedness is shown by its use in Acts 18:26 (“invited”) and 28:2 (“welcomed”). Such acceptance is impossible as long as there is any disposition to pass judgment on disputable matters: “The weak man should be accepted as the Christian brother he claims to be. One should not judge the thoughts which underlie his conduct. This is for God alone to do” (TDNT 3:950). The weak person must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted or “odd.”
2 The specialized use of “faith” (pistis, GK 4411) becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context. As used here, it has the approximate meaning of “conscience” (as in 1Co 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25–29). Some, obviously strong in faith, feel they can “eat everything.” Paul would concur that the believer has this freedom (1Ti 4:3–4). Others, weak in their faith, confine their diet to vegetables. No reason is advanced for this self-limitation. It could have been due to ascetic zeal. Some modern vegetarians believe they are healthier for not eating meat. Others have scruples about eating anything that has been consciously alive (perhaps unaware of research tending to establish that plants also have sensation). But the motive is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of “the strong” to this practice.
3 Omnivorous persons are apt to “look down on” the weak—an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak may retaliate by condemning those who have no inhibitions about their food. If so, the latter need to reflect on the fact that God has “accepted” (the same word as in v.1) such people. And why should they themselves not do so? Paul may again depend in this section on the words of Jesus in oral tradition (cf. Mt 7:1).
4 Paul brings in what must have been a familiar parallel in the Roman Empire: servants are responsible only to their own masters and not to others (cf. Paul’s view of the matter as it bears on those judging him, 1Co 4:3–5). In ordinary life it would be wrong for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the actions of someone else’s servants. It is a matter purely between the particular servant (the word used here is oiketēs [GK 3860], probably a synonym for the more common doulos, “slave” [GK 1528]) and the particular master. The initial word of the sentence, the interrogatory sy (“you,” singular) is emphatic and personal in application (the same device is used in v.10). And in the present instance, Paul says, “the Lord [kyrios, GK 3261; the same word used for “master” earlier in v.4] is able to make him stand”—and presumably this means whether the servant falls into the category of the weak or the strong. There is, therefore, no need for a common mind here, but only an attitude of tolerance and a nonjudgmental spirit. As for the strong, however, Paul clearly affirms that they do not stand on slippery ground when enjoying their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain them: “The Apostle . . . is confident that Christian liberty, through the grace and power of Christ, will prove a triumphant moral success” (Denney, 702, italics his).
5–8 In vv.5–8 the phrase “to the Lord” (contrast the twofold “to himself” in v.7), occurs repeatedly, indicating that whether one is thought of as “weak” or “strong,” the important thing is to conduct one’s life in the consciousness of God’s presence, because God’s approval is more significant than the approval or disapproval of fellow Christians. Eating is still in view, but alongside it Paul places a fresh topic—the holding of certain days as “sacred.”
5 Whether the question of regarding one day as more sacred than another refers to Sabbath observance or to special days for feasting or fasting is not easily determined. Since the early church in Jerusalem almost certainly observed the Sabbath (as well as the first day of the week) because of its Jewish constituency and the danger of giving offense to non-Christian Jews, and since the Roman church presumably had a sizable minority of Jews, it is not improbable that Paul has the Sabbath in mind (cf. A. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 343–412). Perhaps because the observance of the day was not being pressed on the Gentile believers in the church in the way that Jewish sects challenged such believers elsewhere (Col 2:16), it was not necessary to identify the day explicitly. Even so, if the day of worship is in view, it is strange that any believer could be said to consider “every day alike.” It should be noted, however, that the word “alike” is an added word that does not appear in the Greek text. The text as it stands may mean that there were some who esteemed every day as equally holy. The close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul may have in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or fasting. The important thing is that one should “be fully convinced in one’s own mind” as to the rightfulness of observance or nonobservance.
6 More important still is the certitude of believers that their motivation is the desire to honor the Lord in whatever they are doing. It is possible for the observant and the nonobservant to do this, as illustrated by the giving of thanks at mealtime (cf. 1Ti 4:5). Those partaking can give thanks for the meat before them, while those abstaining from meat can give God thanks for their vegetables. The latter should be able to do this without resentment toward those who feel free to enjoy richer fare.
7–8 We should not understand Paul in v.7 as expressing a maxim applicable to all people, as though he intended to suggest the commonplace truth that everyone has some sort of influence with others, even though in some instances it is more limited. Verse 8 shows that he is speaking of believers. The reason Christians do not live to themselves is that they live “to the Lord,” i.e., under his lordship. This defining relationship, which is also an obligation, does not cease with death but carries forward into the next life (Php 1:20–23). Paul has already affirmed that death cannot separate Christians from the love of God in Christ (8:38–39; cf. 2Co 5:8–9). Their death is not merely a transfer from this arena of struggle to a realm of rest. Rather, it is to be viewed as an enlarged opportunity to show forth the praises of the Lord. This inseparable relationship to him is the key to life on either side of the veil.
9–12 In vv.9–12 Paul returns to his opening concern and makes the point that both groups, the strong and the weak, will have to answer to God in the coming day. So it is premature to pass judgment on one another (cf. 1Co 4:5), seeing that an infallible judge will assume that responsibility on the day of judgment.
9 Christ gave his life, laying it down in obedience to God’s will, and thereby purchased the church by his blood (Ac 20:28). But only after his resurrection could he assume the active headship of his people. Though the title “Lord” was appropriate to him in the days of his flesh (e.g., Mk 5:19), the title came into more frequent and more meaningful use after the resurrection, since that event established his claim to deity, Saviorhood, and universal dominion. His triumph included victory over death, so that even though his people may be given over to death’s power temporarily, they have not ceased to be his, as the future bodily resurrection of Christians will demonstrate. He is, in fact, the Lord of both the dead and the living. The order in which these two divisions appear reflects the order in the previous statement about Christ in his death and return to life.
10–12 Against this background the apostle returns to direct address, first to the weak, then to the strong. The former is prone to judge, the latter to depreciate or even scorn. Both attitudes amount to virtually the same thing, for they both involve improper judgment. The only true judge is God, and his time for judging is coming, making human judgment not only premature but also a usurpation of God’s role (cf. Lk 6:37). Notable is the ease with which Paul passes from the Lord (v.9) to God (v.10) in the same milieu of thought. The two are inseparable in their operations. In fact, “God’s judgment seat” is to be identified with the “judgment seat of Christ” (2Co 5:10).
We see the same phenomenon in the quotation introduced here (v.11), which is a combination of Isaiah 49:18 and 45:23. In Philippians 2:10–11 the same two passages from Isaiah are utilized and the deity of Christ comes into focus. In the summary of the situation (v.12), the note of judgment is retained, but the emphasis falls on the fact that each person must “give an account of himself [or herself]”—not of any other—to God (cf. Gal 6:4–5). The same word for “account” (logos, GK 3364) occurs at the end of Hebrews 4:13. Paul’s conclusion in v.12 not only has the effect of invalidating the judgment of others, but it also “increases the importance of the church’s mutual responsibility before the Christ who as the redeemer is at the same time also the heavenly Lord, advocate, and judge of the members of the congregation” (Stuhlmacher, 225–26).
NOTES
14:1–15:13 See W. A. Meeks, “Judgment and the Brother: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 290–300; R. J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (ed. Donfried), 65–84; F. Watson, “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in The Romans Debate, 203–15.
14:4 Some late manuscripts have θεός, theos, “God,” instead of κύριος, kyrios, “the Lord.” In favor of “the Lord” are P46 
A B C and other witnesses. This change apparently crept into the text as copyists carried the mention of “God” over from v.3.
10 In many textual witnesses, most of them late, the Greek has Χριστοῦ, christou, “Christ’s,” instead of θεοῦ, theou, “God’s,” apparently because of the copyists’ desire to conform the statement to 2 Corinthians 5:10.
2. Christians Must Avoid Offending One Another (14:13–23)
OVERVIEW
In this section, the appeal is directed for the most part to the strong, who are warned that their example may have a disastrous effect on the weak by leading them to do something for which their spiritual development provides no ground of approval (cf. the cognate material in 1Co 8:7–13). The discussion proceeds along the same lines as before, focusing on what Christians should include in their diet. (Wine is included for the first time in v.21.)
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
COMMENTARY
13 The opening statement gives the gist of what has already been said in vv.1–12. Both parties have been guilty of “passing judgment” on one another. Then by a clever use of language, Paul employs the same verb (krinō, GK 3212) in a somewhat different sense (“make up your mind”). He is calling for a determination to adopt a course of action that will not hurt others, a decision once for all to avoid whatever might impede others in the faith or cause them to fall. Though Paul does not single out the strong, it appears that he must have them in mind in this admonition against putting a “stumbling block” in the way of others. A stumbling block (proskomma, GK 4682) is literally something against which one may strike one’s foot, causing a stumble or even a fall. The second term (skandalon, GK 4998; here rendered “obstacle”) presents a different picture—that of a trap designed to ensnare a victim. It is used of something that constitutes a temptation to sin. Jesus applied this word to Peter when that disciple sought to deter him from going to the cross (Mt 16:23, “stumbling block”). In v.13 it could be taken as a stern warning against deliberately enticing fellow Christians to do what for them would be sinful (cf. v.23). Even if such an act were motivated by the desire to get such persons out of the “weak” category, it would still be wrong.
14 In a most remarkable conclusion for a former Pharisee, Paul himself argues, against the weak, “that no food is unclean in itself” (cf. v.20; cf. 1Co 6:12). Elsewhere he affirms in a similar context that “everything God created is good” (1Ti 4:4)—an observation that rests on the record of creation (Ge 1:31). But here in Romans the apostle seems to have reference to some utterance made by “the Lord Jesus” during his earthly ministry. Perhaps he has in mind the words of Jesus in Mark 7:15–23, where he declares that we are not rendered unclean by what goes into us, what we eat, but rather by the evil that comes out of us, from our inner life. Mark adds the comment that in this pronouncement Jesus “declared all foods ‘clean’” (Mk 7:19). Not everyone has been enlightened on this issue, however, and if some are convinced in their heart that some foods are unclean (e.g., in terms of the Levitical food laws), for them such foods remain unclean. Until they are convinced otherwise, it would violate their conscience to partake of them. Even the apostle Peter, who had been with Jesus and had heard his teaching, felt constraint on this point until some time after Pentecost (Ac 10:9–15).
15 Moreover, even if the strong do not try to convince the weak to change their habits, their own practice, since it is known, can become a stumbling block to the others, causing “distress” of soul; indeed, Paul goes so far as to use the strong word “destroy” (apollymi, GK 660). This harm is caused by the callous indifference of the strong. Tragically, this hurt is due to following the example of the strong, by which those who are destroyed find their conscience ablaze with rebuke and their whole life out of fellowship with the Christ. In such a situation, the strong are “no longer acting in love.” But love is supposed to be the supreme mark of the Christian, as Paul has already stressed (13:8–10).
Paul’s basis of approach to the strong has changed from granting them their position on the grounds of their liberty to eat. Now the appeal is not to liberty but to love, which may call for a measure of sacrifice. If such sacrifice is refused, then the strong must face the responsibility for bringing spiritual ruin on the weak. In effect, the strong care only about their liberty and not the welfare of the weak who are a part of their fellowship. Christ died equally for the weak and the strong. A selfish insistence on liberty may tear down and destroy, but love, when it is exercised, will invariably build up (1Co 8:1).
16 Some understand Paul’s exhortation—“Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil”—in terms of possible slander by unbelievers who find occasion to deride the Christian community for its squabbling over such minor matters. But the thought does not necessarily range beyond the circle of the redeemed. The “good” is naturally understood as the liberty to eat, since all foods are regarded as clean. This liberty, however, if resented because it has been flaunted in the face of the weak, can be regarded as an evil thing on account of its unloving misuse.
17 With typical pastoral insight, Paul now lifts the entire discussion to a higher level than mere eating and drinking. His readers—all of them—are the loyal subjects of Christ in “the kingdom of God.” In that sphere the real concerns are not externals such as diet but the spiritual realities motivating life and shaping conduct. Surely the strong will agree that if their insistence on Christian liberty endangers the spiritual development of the community as a whole, they should be willing to forgo that liberty. In this context, “righteousness” (dikaiosynē, GK 1466) is not justification, but the right conduct to which the believer is called in obedience to the will of God (cf. 6:13, 16, 18). This conclusion is supported by the fact that “peace” and “joy” are experiential terms. “Peace” (eirēnē, GK 1645) is sometimes peace with God (5:1), at other times the peace of God (Php 4:7). The second meaning is appropriate to this passage (cf. v.19). Mention of the Holy Spirit is fully in keeping with Paul’s understanding of the work of the Spirit, because “joy” (chara, GK 5915) and “peace” are included in the fruit the Spirit produces in the believer’s life. The list in Galatians 5:22 is not intended to be complete (see Gal 5:23), so we may legitimately claim practical righteousness as also effected by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
18 Further confirmation of this interpretation is furnished by v.18, where Paul links these matters to the believer’s service of Christ. The manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit is not only “pleasing to God,” who provides it, but also to those who see it in operation and experience its blessings.
19 The entire church is urged to pursue peace (harmony between the two groups being the immediate application), which alone can provide the atmosphere in which “mutual edification” can take place. It will be recalled that oikodomē “(GK 3869, lit., “building up”) was Paul’s key word in dealing with the problems created by the manifestation of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian situation (1Co 14:5, 12, 26). Mutual edification implies that the strong, despite their tendency to look down on the weak, may actually learn something from them. It may be that they will come to appreciate loyalty to a tender conscience and begin to search their own hearts to discover that they have cared more about maintaining their position than about loving those who are weaker. Through the fresh manifestation of love by the strong, the weak will be lifted in spirit and renewed in faith and life.
20 Having spoken of the edification of the saints, Paul reinforces his point by warning against the reverse process. The strong of the Roman church must not “destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” If they do, much time and painful labor will be required to restore the edifice to the point where it can function again as the instrument of the divine purpose. It is disheartening to realize that such colossal loss could be occasioned by a difference of opinion over something as trivial as food! The important fact remains that since all food can properly be regarded as “clean” (repeating the emphasis of v.14), it is not wrong in itself for one to eat whatever one finds healthful or desirable. At the same time, however, it is plainly wrong to cause someone to stumble by what one eats. What must be heeded is Paul’s remarkable comment that good things become evil when they are allowed to give offense (cf. v.16).
21 The “good” (kalon, GK 2819; i.e., “noble” or “praiseworthy” but probably here in the comparative sense of “better” [so NIV]) course is to do without meat under the circumstances and to refrain from drinking wine if partaking would be a stumbling block to anyone. Paul extends the principle to include anything that might have this effect. For the first time in the discussion wine is mentioned, suggesting that a measure of asceticism may be in view here. (The apostle may have anticipated this item by referring to drinking in v.17.) The strong stand taken here on giving up one’s liberty, lest one cause the ruin of another, is already to be found in Paul’s dealing with the same question in the Corinthian church (1Co 8:13). Paul here commends to others what has for some time been the rule for himself.
22 Though the language of the opening statement of this section is general (cf. vv.1–2), and could therefore apply to both groups, in all probability Paul is directing his counsel chiefly to the strong. It is most likely the strong who are to keep their convictions “between [themselves] and God.” The obvious explanation is that the exercise of freedom in public would grieve the weak and raise a barrier between the strong and the weak—the very thing to be avoided if at all possible.
The strong are “blessed” (makarios, GK 3421) in the private enjoyment of their freedom, because they are free from doubt and because no one who might be scandalized is looking on. For Paul, it is a happy state to be strong and to know the liberty of conscience that the weak do not know. It should be granted that the language of v.22b can with equal propriety refer to the weak who live in accord with their conscience. But since the next verse is so definitely applicable to the weak, Paul is probably following his practice of having a word of encouragement or admonition for each party. This seems to be confirmed by the way the adversative de, “but,” introduces his remark about the weak in v.23.
23 It is important to understand “faith” here in the same way that it was used at the beginning of the chapter. Again, there is no question of saving faith but only of confidence that one is free to make use of what God has created and set apart for humanity’s good. In keeping with this, “condemned” does not refer to a future action of God excluding one from salvation but, as the tense indicates, means that one stands presently condemned by one’s own act as being wrong. The case of Peter comes to mind. In his actions at Antioch, “he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11 NASB), because out of fear he did not act in a way true to his convictions (note the reference to “hypocrisy” in 2:13). When Paul pointed out his fault, Peter had no defense. He was in the wrong, and he knew it. The issue at Antioch was more grievous because the clarity of the gospel was at stake.
On the relation of our actions to faith, Stuhlmacher, 229, writes: “For every action that does not take place from faith or is not based on it is sin, because and inasmuch as it is determined by other circumstances, regulations, or requisites than those which ought to be decisive on the basis of one confession of Christ, the Lord (cf. 1Co 12:3; Ro 10:9f.). For Paul, this statement has a fundamental significance.”
NOTES
17 See G. Johnston, “‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters,” in From Jesus to Paul, ed. P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier Univ. Press, 1984), 143–56; K. P. Donfried, “The Kingdom of God in Paul,” in The Kingdom of God in Twentieth-Century Interpretation, ed. W. Willis (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 175–90.
19 Though the indicative διώκομεν, diōkomen, “we pursue” (GK 1503), has strong support ( A B et al.), given the context the subjunctive διώκωμεν, diōkōmen, “let us pursue,” expressing exhortation, seems to be the better choice here.
22 The opening words of v.22 can also be translated as a question: “Do you have faith?” Either reading makes tolerably good sense.
23 Since some manuscripts include the benediction of 16:25–27 at the end of v.23, it appears that one form of the letter that circulated very early ended with ch. 14 (see comments at 16:25–27).
The content of ch. 14 centers on the questions of liberty and responsibility and the necessary balance between them. Two famous successive sentences from Martin Luther’s treatise On the Freedom of the Christian Man have beautifully captured the tension: “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Paul had spoken exactly this way in 1 Corinthians 9:19. Augustine’s famous words are also apropos to Paul’s perspective: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials tolerance; in all things love.”
3. The Unity of the Strong and the Weak in Christ (15:1–13)
OVERVIEW
Two fairly distinct motifs run through this section. In vv.1–6 the appeal to both the strong and the weak is grounded on the example of Christ, who did not please himself but gladly accepted whatever self-denial his mission required. Again in vv.7–13 Christ is the key. He has graciously accepted both Jew and Gentile in accordance with the purpose of God. For Christians to refuse to accept each other is to resist this purpose in its practical outworking.
1We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name.”
10Again, it says,
11And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”
12And again, Isaiah says,
“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him.”
13May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
COMMENTARY
1 As Paul draws the discussion of the strong and the weak to a close, he openly aligns himself with the strong: “we who are strong.” They are the ones who hold the key to the solution of the problem. If they are interested simply in maintaining their own position, the gulf between the two groups will not be narrowed and the weak will continue to be critical and resentful. But if the strong will reach out the hand of fellowship and support, this will serve as a bridge. So to the strong belongs the responsibility of taking the initiative. “Ought” (opheilomen, GK 4053) is not to be watered down, as though it meant the same thing as “should.” It speaks not of something recommended but of obligation. The verb “bear” (bastazō, GK 1002) was used in an earlier letter when the apostle enjoined the Galatian believers to “carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Let the strong, then, bear the burden of the scrupulousness of the weaker brothers and sisters. But if they do this in a spirit of mere resignation or with the notion that this condescension marks them as superior Christians, it will fail. When the strong bear with the weak, they must do it in love—the key to fulfilling the law of Christ. The temptation to be resisted by the strong is the inclination to please themselves, to minister to self-interest. This is the very antithesis of love. For example, were the strong to indulge their liberty openly in the presence of the weak, this would be labeled self-pleasing, for it would do nothing for the weak but grieve or irritate them.
2 Indeed, the refusal to live a self-pleasing, self-centered life should characterize every believer, whether strong or weak. Christians should extend their love beyond the narrow circle of like-minded people to all with whom they come in contact—in short, to their neighbors, whoever they may be. This is not a matter of acting merely to please others, for Paul goes on to add the phrases “for his good, to build him up.” In view is the ultimate well-being of the other and his or her spiritual good. The present injunction is akin to Paul’s own principle of making himself all things to all people in order to win as many as possible to the Lord (1Co 9:19–23). There is no conflict between what is advocated here and Paul’s refusal to “please men” (Gal 1:10), since in the latter context he is merely setting himself against any altering of the gospel message designed to avoid giving offense to those resisting revealed truth. The goal to be achieved here is the good of others, their edification (cf. 14:19). This leaves no room for anything like mere ingratiation.
3 For the first time in this letter, Paul holds Christ before his readers as an example. It may well be that we should translate ho christos here not as a proper noun, as is usually the case, but rather as a title—“the Messiah.” It is the Messiah who suffers for his people. The Christ was faced with the same challenge that confronts his followers. Should they please themselves, go their own way, speak what people want to hear—or should they resolve to be guided by their commitment to do the will of God? Jesus affirmed God’s will over his own desires: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mk 14:36; cf. Jn 8:29). The cost was heavy: “The insults of those who insult you [God] have fallen on me” (a quotation of Ps 69:9b, a messianic psalm). Even in Israel, through the years, God’s servants had suffered reproach and insult when they attempted to warn their kinsfolk that their sin and rebellion were inviting God’s judgment. The first half of Psalm 69:9 is quoted in John 2:17 in connection with the cleansing of the temple—“Zeal for your house will consume me.” This is generally interpreted to mean that the opposition stirred up by Jesus would lead eventually to his death. To espouse the cause of God fervently is to arouse the passions of sinners. According to John 15:25, quoted from the same psalm (69:4), Jesus acknowledged that human hatred had dogged his steps, but unjustly. But Jesus did not on this account turn away from the work God had given him to do in behalf of others. Paul would have his readers realize that they are also to seek the good of others, even if they are misunderstood or maligned in so doing.
4 The citation of Psalm 69, portions of which were evidently regarded in the early church as messianic, leads the apostle to a more general statement concerning the usefulness of the Scriptures for the “instruction” (didaskalia, GK 1436; NIV, “to teach”) of Christians—in fact, as deliberately planned for their edification (“was written to teach us”; cf. 1Co 10:11).
The very phenomenon of the regular quotation of the OT speaks loudly of the dependence of the church on the course of redemption history reflected there. Things both new and old enter into Christian faith. The example of Christ was bound to influence the church to revere and use the OT, and this was made easier because at the beginning its membership was largely Jewish-Christian. Stuhlmacher, 231, calls attention to the importance of this perspective on the OT: “Accordingly, the church of Christ may and can relate the Holy Scriptures, read from the perspective of Jesus, to themselves, to their path in life, and to God’s future with the world.” As for the Gentiles, in many cases at least, they had become familiar with the Greek OT (reflected in the LXX) in the synagogue (Ac 13:44–48) before hearing the gospel and putting their trust in Christ.
The use of the Scriptures, Paul adds, promotes “endurance” (hypomonē, GK 5705) and supplies “encouragement” (paraklēsis, GK 4155). Both may be seen in these records of the past. And these two elements are intimately connected with a third, namely, “hope” (elpis, GK 1828), for the endurance is worthwhile only if it takes place on a course that leads to a glorious future, and the encouragement provides exactly that assurance.
5 Endurance and encouragement are ultimately God’s gifts, though they are mediated through the Scriptures. They tend, however, to be individually appropriated, some realizing them to a greater degree than others. So Paul prays for a spirit of unity (lit, “to be of the same mind”; cf. 12:16, “live in harmony”) that will minimize individual differences as all fix their attention on Christ (“as you follow Christ Jesus”) as the pattern for their own lives (cf. v.3). This does not mean that believers are intended to see eye-to-eye on everything, but that the more Christ fills the spiritual vision, the greater will be the cohesiveness of the church. The centripetal magnetism of Christ can effectively counter the centrifugal force of individual judgment and opinion.
6 Though this unity will, of course, help the church in its witness to the world, Paul is more interested here in its effect on the worship of God’s people—that “with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Worship is not merely something the church does; it is basic to its very existence. The unity of the church enhances its worship.
7 As Paul moves forward to the conclusion of his treatment of the strong and the weak, he pauses, good teacher that he is, to summarize what he has already stated. “Accept one another” picks up the emphasis of 14:1, where the same verb occurs, but here the charge is directed to both groups rather than to the strong alone. Each group is to accept the other group as they are, as fully justified members of the Christian church, without prejudice and without the attempt to change them. Then, in line with 15:3, he brings in the example of Christ once more and states that bringing praise to God is the grand objective, in agreement with v.6. It is not fully clear whether this final phrase, eis doxan tou theou (lit., “to the glory of God”; NIV, “in order to bring praise to God”), relates grammatically to the command to receive one another or to the fact that Christ has received them. As far as the sense of the passage is concerned, it could apply to either, but the wider context suggests the former: receive one another to the glory of God.
8–12 From the three elements that constitute v.7 Paul now singles out the second—Christ’s acceptance of all who make up his body—and proceeds to enlarge it, first in relation to the Jewish Christians (v.8) and then in relation to the Gentiles (vv.9–12). The central thrust is to show that in these two directions Christ has fulfilled the anticipations of the OT.
8 The simple, brief statement “Christ has become a servant of the Jews” epitomizes the earthly ministry of our Lord, who announced that he was sent only to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 15:24) and restricted the activity of his disciples during those days to their own nation (Mt 10:5–6). The word “servant” (diakonos, GK 1356) reminds us to what lengths Jesus was prepared to go to minister to the needs of Israel (cf. Mk 10:45). This dedicated limitation of ministry to his own people was in the interest of “God’s truth” in the sense of God’s fidelity to his word, more specifically his promises made to the patriarchs (cf. 9:4–5). God pledged himself to provide for Abraham a progeny that would culminate in Christ himself as the Redeemer (Gal 3:16). God remains faithful to his promises (Ro 11:29). This was a salutary reminder to the Gentile element in the church (the strong) that God had given priority to Israel, lest Jewish believers should feel slighted or depreciated (cf. 11:18). In a fundamental way, Christianity is in the first and primary instance the working out of God’s faithfulness to Israel, and that is why the gospel is “first for the Jew” (1:16). As noted earlier, a similar motive underlies Paul’s treatment of the question of Israel in chs. 9–11.
9–12 Once that point has been made, Paul brings out the truth that God’s purpose was not exclusively directed toward the nation of Israel (cf. Ge 12:3), since from virtually the beginning, already in the Abrahamic covenant (cf. 4:16–18), God’s design to show mercy also to the Gentiles was evident. Consequently, the Jewish believers of Paul’s time should not think it strange for God to lavish his grace on the nations through the gospel.
There is an element of progression in the marshaling of quotations from the OT in vv.9–12. In each of the four quoted passages, the word “Gentiles” (ethnē, GK 1620) features prominently. The first (from Ps 18:49) pictures David as rejoicing in God for his triumphs in the midst of the nations that have become subject to him. In the second (from Dt 32:43), the position of the Gentiles is elevated to participation together with Israel in the praise of the Lord (according to the LXX). The Gentiles rejoice that they are included with God’s people Israel into a status of grace. In the third and fourth quotations, the Gentiles, no longer pictured in relation to Israel, are seen in their own right, whether as praising the Lord (Ps 117:1) or as hoping in “the Root of Jesse” whom God has raised up to rule over the nations (Isa 11:10). The Gentiles find their salvation in the God of Israel.
13 As he had done at the close of the first section in this chapter (v.5), Paul expresses his desire that God will meet the needs of his readers. Although eschatology is a significant feature of ch. 8, eschatology in a formal, structured sense has little place in Romans. Its subjective counterpart, “hope” (elpis, GK 1828), however, is mentioned more often than in any other of his letters, especially in this portion (vv.4, 12–13).
The expression “the God of hope” means the God who inspires hope and imparts it to his children. “Hope” in the NT does not mean “wishful thinking”; quite to the contrary, “hope” in the NT connotes “a confident expectation.” The confidence of Christian hope derives from the fact that God can be counted on to fulfill what yet remains to be accomplished for the church (5:2; cf. 13:11). Likewise, in the more immediate future and with the help of Paul’s letter, they can confidently look to God for the working out of their problems, including the one Paul has been discussing. Hope does not operate apart from trust; in fact, it is the forward-looking aspect of faith (Gal 5:5; 1Pe 1:21). Paul prays that the Romans might be filled “with all joy and peace”—words that remind us of key traits of the kingdom of God according to 14:17. Peace, of course, is very pertinent to the concerns of this portion of Romans.
Paul in his pastoral zeal is not satisfied with anything less than a rich experience of hope that “overflows” (perisseuein, GK 4355), even as elsewhere he desires his readers to abound in love (Php 1:9; 1Th 3:12), in pleasing God (1Th 4:1), and in thanksgiving (Col 2:7). The reason for this emphasis in Paul is that the God who is supplicated here has so wonderfully abounded in the exercise of his grace (5:15) that he can also be expected to enable his people to increase in the manifestation of Christian graces, especially as this is ensured “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” who indwells and fills the inner life.
NOTES
10 This is the third quotation in Romans from the Song of Moses (cf. 10:19; 12:19; also cf. the allusion in 11:11).