Notes
Textual notes
Abbreviations,
Bibliography
Paul, having stated his thesis in 1:16-17, that the covenant faithfulness of God is appropriated through faith, proceeds in 1:18-2:11 to establish the universality of sin, reminding self-righteous Jewish believers ("the weak", 15:1) that they too are infected by the stain of sin, 2:1-5, the consequence of which is divine condemnation, 2:6-11. Then, in 2:12-29, Paul examines the place of the law in the righteous judgment of God, making the point that those Jewish believers who have retained their standing under the law, even though circumcised, actually break the law and thus face the curse of the law and the "wrath and fury" of God's condemnation. In 3:1-8 Paul answers two objections to his rather negative view of the standing of Jewish believers under the law, namely, that he devalues the covenant/law and that he promotes libertarianism. Then, in 3:9-20, Paul drives home his conclusion, namely that the human condition of universal sin and its consequence is not avoided by submission to the law, for the law only serves to make sin more sinful. In 3:21-30 Paul draws a conclusion from his argument so far. When it comes to the covenant faithfulness of God, whether in judgment or vindication, there is no "distinction" between a person under the law, or a person outside the law. All have sinned and stand condemned, and all who believe are justified, and this because they rest, not on their own faithfulness, but the faithfulness of Christ - his "sacrifice of atonement." So, for believing Jews, like Paul, there is no ground for "boasting" about their faithfulness under the law, for a person is judged in the right with God ("justified") by faith and not by obedience. From 3:31 to 4:25, Paul explains, with reference to the life of Abraham, how his gospel of right-standing in the sight of God by faith does not "nullify" the law, rather, it "fulfills" the law; faith "fulfills / completes" the justification to which the law of Moses pointed.
Paul now in 5:1-11 draws together the consequence of his argument so far, namely, a believer's "reconciliation with God", Cranfield, before setting out in 5:12-8:39 to examine the fullness of life which belongs to those who are in Christ, to those who are justified. Paul then follows this up by his discussion on the relationship of Israel to God's promises in chapters 9-11.
In chapters 1-8 Paul's argument in Romans moves from establishing how a person stands right with God (justified) to how a person lives right with God, and he does this with particular reference to those believers who see the maintenance of their right-standing before God and the progress of that standing (sanctification) as achieved by obedience to the Mosaic law. Paul's argument is that a person stands right with God by faith, not by obedience to the law, and as a consequence of their standing before God "in Christ", through the power of the indwelling Spirit, they live right with God, and this through the same instrument of faith, apart from the law.
The difficulty lies in identifying the move in the argument from being right with God to living right with God. Clearly, the move takes place and this is easily observed in the word-count of key words. For example, "faith/believe" is found some 30 times in chapters 1-4 and only 5 times in chapters 5-8, whereas "life/live" appears only 2 times in chapters 1-4, but 40 times in 5-8. The argument centers on chapter 5. Morris, Dunn, etc., argue that chapter 5 sits with the argument of chapters 1-4, whereas Moo, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, etc., argue that it sits with chapters 6-8. Dumbrell seems closer to the mark. Romans 5:1-11 "builds on the conclusions" of chapters 1-4 and introduces "the discussion on the status, challenges to, and privileges of the new people of God."
It is possible that Paul has adopted a chiastic structure (a ring composition) for his argument in chapters 5-8. This is suggested by Moo, but such structures are sometimes more imposed than deduced. Anyway, it is important to consider the possibility as it can improve our understanding of the flow of Paul's argument:
A. Assurance of future glory, 5:1-11;
B. Basis for assurance - the work of Christ, 5:12-21;
C. The problem of sin, 6:1-23;
C'. The problem of sin and the law, 7:1-25;
B'. Basis of assurance - the work of Christ through the Spirit, 8:1-17;
A'. Assurance of future glory, 8:18-39.
v1
oun "therefore" - Paul commonly uses this conjunction to link a developing argument. Having established his central thesis on justification, he now moves the argument forward by detailing the natural consequences, here, peace with God / reconciliation.
dikaiwqenteV (dikaiow) aor. pas. part. "we have been justified [through faith]" - having been justified. Forming a participle clause, probably causal, that serves to sum up Paul's argument so far. "Since we have an eternal right-standing in the sight of God, by the grace of God, appropriated through the instrument of faith."
ek + gen. "by [faith]" - Here this preposition, with the genitive, takes an instrumental sense, a common usage in Paul's letters. Faith is the instrument or agent by which the grace of justification is accessed.
ecomen (ecw) ind. "we have" - Interestingly, the subjunctive is better attested, but few accept a hortatory usage here, "let us have" (obtain, get), possibly "let us guard the peace we have", Chrysostom; "let us enjoy the peace which we have with God", Dumbrell; "since we have been justified we have peace; lest us therefore enjoy it", Barrett (an example of brachylogy, brevity in writing). Dumbrell argues for the hortatory subjunctive since it supports his contention that Paul, having completed his exposition of "the need for the revelation of the righteousness of God ... resulting in the equality of Jew and Gentile in sin and salvation", 1:18-4:25, now, in 5:1-11, summarizes this equality of access and looks forward to the celebration of the new creation, 8:31-39. So, for new perspective proponents the "we" is no longer "we Jews", but "we believers, both Jew and Gentile." This, of course, reflects the new perspective view that Paul is not concerned in Romans with the justification of the individual, but of the equal inclusion in Christ of both Jew and Gentile. If indicative, the sense is that on the basis of our justification we have peace with God. The use of the present tense places "have" at the forefront of this sentence, while the aorist moves "justified" to a supporting role, emphasizing what we now "have". The same grammatical construction is used in v3 and 5.
eirhnhn (h) "peace" - peace, as opposed to war. Heb. shalom, being at one with God and the world. This state is a natural consequence of justification. The one declared right with God is no longer at enmity with God, but is rather at peace with God. We are best to follow Cranfield who suggests that "peace with God", encapsulated in the notion of "reconciliation" v10, is the subject of this chapter, and as such is the first of the natural consequences or blessings that flow from justification. We who were once enemies of God are now reconciled to him, at peace with him, by grace through faith.
v2
kai "-" - and. "Also", Godet.
eskhkamen (ecw) perf. "we have gained" - we have had, have obtained. The perfect expressing a completed action with ongoing consequences, a "sate of affairs", Moo.
prosagwghn (h) "access" - freedom / privilege to enter. Used of being presented to someone of high station, so "free access" is not quite to the point, rather "a right of access into the presence of God", although particularly, "into the sphere of God's mercy / fidelity"; "we have been brought by our faith into the position of favour in which we stand", Weymouth. Note the textual variant, "by faith"
eiV thn carin tauthn "into this grace" - into this grace. Possibly "into this state of grace", of divine favour, so Barrett, but also possibly referring back to the grace of justification, or even possibly the grace of peace.
eJsthkamen (iJshmi) perf. "stand" - The sense is probably "abide" rather than "stand" or "stand firm / fast."
kaucwmeqa (kaucaomai) pres. ind. "we rejoice" - boast, glory. This is a rather important word. Note its earlier usages, 2:17, 25, 3:27, 4:2. If translated there as "boasting", then obviously here something more like "exuberant rejoicing", "celebrating", "rejoicing in anticipation of eternal glory." Yet, in these earlier passages it is often translated as "glorying", a glorying before God due to the (supposed) advantages of the law. Now, in Christ, we do actually have something to glory about. A second issue with this word is the presence of a subjunctive variant which would best be treated as a hortatory subjunctive, so Jewett. The sense then is "instead of glorying in the law let us glory in the hope of sharing divinity."
elpidi (elpiV elpidoV) "hope" - "A confident anticipation of that which we do not yet see", Cranfield.
thV dokhV tou qeou "[the hope] of the glory of God" - "The hope we have of sharing [objective genitive] God's [possessive genitive] glory", TEV.
v3
ou monon "not only" - not only. The words introduce an elliptical clause: "not only [do we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God], but....."
alla "but" - Here the conjunction carries its full adversative sense.
en + dat. "in [our sufferings]" - Here identifying the direct object of "rejoice", similar to a dative of direct object.
taiV qliyesin (iV ewV) "our sufferings" - tribulations, hardships, sufferings, afflictions. A believer rejoices in their sufferings because the sufferings are a "token of true Christianity: they were a sign that God counted those who endured them worthy of His kingdom", Bruce. Possibly so if the "afflictions" are "on behalf of Christ", Moo, otherwise the idea is somewhat unconvincing. In 2 Corinthians 12:9, Paul says that God's grace is sufficient for him because God's power is perfected in weakness. We will rejoice in our human condition, however that may impact on us, when in faith we rest more securely on God's grace. It is faith that builds perseverance, not suffering. Suffering, by itself, builds only bitterness.
eidonteV (oida) perf. part. "because we know" - knowing. The participle forms a causal clause, as NIV.
katergazetai (katergazomai) "produces" - accomplishes
oJti "-" - that. Here explanatory, the content of the knowledge.
uJpomonhn (h) "perseverance" - fortitude. A constant standing firm throughout the trials of life. "Patient endurance", Barrett. "Steadfast perseverance", Cranfield.
v4
dokimhn (h) "character" - value, worth, character, approvedness. "The temper of the veteran as opposed to the raw recruit", Sandy and Headlam. Our faith is firmed, our hope assured. "Tribulation produces endurance, and endurance a proven/tested character, and proven character hope", Moo.
v5
ou kataiscunei (kataiscunw) pes. "does not disappoint us" - does not put to shame / disgrace, prove illusory. A statement of fact; after all the troubles of life, our hope will not let us down.
oti "because" - This conjunction introduces a clause that tells us why hope does not disappoint us, ie. causal, but it could also tell us why we rejoice in our sufferings, v3, thus making v3-5a a single participle clause.
hJ agaph tou qeou "the love of God" - As is typical of Greek, only the context can determine whether the phrase is an objective genitive (our love toward God) or a subjective genitive (God's love toward us). The verb "poured out" implies that Paul intends "the love of God for us", although Luther disagrees. Zerwick suggests both are intended. Note, "Paul's emphasis on love is strangely overlooked ... the word love occurs 75 time in Paul out of a New Testament total of 116. For this apostle love is supremely important", Morris.
ekkecutai (ekcunw) perf. pas. "has poured out" - has been poured out. In the East, spiritual encouragement (refreshment) is conveyed by the image of watering. Does this pouring out of love produce an inward sense of God's love for us, a confidence in God's love for us, or is something more tangible intended? The pouring out of God's mercy and blessings may well be in Paul's mind, given that it is an Old Testament image, eg. Mal.3:10. Cranfield, also Moo, suggests the sense is of God's love lavished upon us (obviously our salvation by grace through faith, our justification) and this is brought home to us (to our thinking and reasoning self, our heart) by the Holy Spirit. Barrett, on the other hand, suggests that the subject of "poured out" is "the Holy Spirit."
en taiV kardiaiV hJmwn "into our hearts" - in the hearts of us. The preposition "in" rather than eiV, "toward / to", expresses an inward sense, "into / within our very being."
|