Romans Commentary Project, chapter 11

Chapter 11

1 I say then, has God rejected his people? May it not be! For I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Rejected is aposato, which means “pushed aside.” Read in context of the previous argument of chapter 10. Paul’s point in asking this question, then affirming his own ethnic heritage, is to identify the terms of the “remnant.” So then, can any ethnic Jews be saved?

2 God has not rejected his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know in Elijah what the scripture says, that he pleaded to God on account of Israel?

Paul argues here to the precedent of God’s sparing a holy remnant when Israel as a whole was lost. Foreknew is proegno.

3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have destroyed your altars, and I alone am left and they seek my life

Quotation is from 1 Kings 19.

4 But what did the oracle say to him? I have kept to myself seven thousand men, which did not bow a knee to Baal

Oracle is chrematismos.

5 In this way then even in the present time there has become a remnant chosen by grace

Remnant is leimma, chosen eklogen. “In this way” is houtos, which is vitally important to how we understand v. 25. Here, as there, it functions as the conclusion of an argument by demonstrating manner, not time.

6 And if by grace, neither by works, since grace would no longer by grace

The definition of grace precludes the possibility of election by national privilege—works of Torah. Therefore the remnant is not defined in this way, but rather by charitos

7 What then, what Israel sought, this it did not obtain, and the chosen found it, but the rest were hardened

Chosen is again ekloge. As shown in 9:30-31, the unlikely according to birth have found that which ethnic Israel thought it would claim for itself. Note here that what is being “sought” must be covenant membership—dikaiosune; not a personal deliverance from the guilt of sin. Otherwise the remnant language makes no sense.

8 Even as it is written God gave to them a sluggish spirit, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, until this very day

Echoing Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and of course, Jesus.

9 And David says Let their table be to them unto snares and unto a trap and unto a stumbling block and unto a retribution

Table is trapeza, which would of course have the implication of a ceremonially clean table from which Gentiles were excluded, for a Jew. Stumbling block is skandalon (cause for sin) again and antapodoma is retribution. (An unfavorable ruling in the law court that must be exacted.) The reference is from Ps. 69/35

10 Let their eyes be darkened not to see and their backs bent forever

Ethnic Israel, called to be a light, is gone dark. Ethnic Israel, which told its own story in terms of liberation and freedom, is by its own sin bent under the yoke of slavery again. But the point of this is not to show an absolute condemnation, but rather to define the terms of the remnant.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they might fall? May it not be! But by their stumble salvation to the Gentiles is come unto their being made jealous

Here Paul makes his case for “some hope yet.” I think this passage is clarified further in the terms of his practical purpose in writing the letter. (Establishing Rome as a missionary base to Spain, as Antioch was to him for Asia Minor.) The following passage is not, as some commentators, a sudden extension of universal salvation back to the Jews after it was retracted in chs. 9-10, but rather a personal note of hope on a deeply painful subject despite the surprising and paradoxical way in which God has acted through the Messiah. Paul doesn’t change his mind in the next 13 verses…rather, upholding his argument throughout the book, he cautions the Roman church against the same mistake by which the Jews excluded themselves. Stumble is eptaisan. Jealous is parazelosai.

12 And if their stumble is riches of the world and their defeat riches of the gentiles, how much more their inclusion

How much more wonderful should it be that a remnant of Jews would be included in the covenant people! This must be told to the Roman church especially in light of the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, and the retraction of the edict under the newly ascended Nero, which would have brought the Jewish Christians back into an uneasy fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Rome who apparently needed reminding that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

13 And I speak now to you, Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I myself am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry

Here Paul makes his direct plea to the Gentile party The second half of the sentence is a particularly convoluted bit of Greek. The rhetorical force of the men…de relationship with v. 15 is lost in English, but there should be a sense of “since v. 13B&14…then clearly v. 15.” In short, Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, somehow has a unique ministry to the exiled Jews as well by rousing their jealousy at Gentile inclusion.

14 in order to make my flesh (people) jealous and save some of them

Flesh is sarka, “Israel-according-to-the flesh.” Save is soso. Implication is that kai has a thereby or “thus” effect.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what would their acceptance be but life from the dead?

If by the rejection of the Messiah (and here you see a reference to everything about the aggregation of sin/trespass in the argument in ch. 7 referenced AND the idea of Jesus as the representative of Israel according to the flesh) is the means of reconciling the world into God’s family, how much more would the resurrection of Israel from their death in sin mean? The sense is, the re-inclusion of Israel must be very desirable.

16 And if the first-portion is holy, also the whole batch. And if the root is holy, also the branches.

First-portion is aparche again. The leavening yeast and the branch-nourishing root are O.T. images of Israel that are carried into the words and teachings of Jesus. It’s a side-note, but worth mentioning that this verse ought to carry into the discussion of the question “to what extent was Paul exposed to the written/oral traditions of Jesus?”

17 And if some of the branches are broken off, and you being a wild olive are grafted in upon them and made in fellowship of the rich olive root

If the Gentiles are grafted in replacing that which was of the desirable olive by “the flesh”

18 Do not boast over the branches. And if you boast do not bear yourselves over the branches, but the root over you

…then they ought not to boast themselves on some sort of privilege over and against those branches which have now been denied access to the root. The proper thing to do is not to compare yourselves to one another, but to recognize the “rich root.” There is no national privilege.

19 Then you would say Branches were broken off that I should be grafted in

Paul acknowledges with a good (Kalos) that this dangerous statement is true.

20 Good. By their faithlessness they were broken off, but you stand in faith. Do not think in pride but in fear.

Faithlessness is apistia, also possibly “disobedience.” Do not be minded (phronei) high, but of fear.

21 For if God did not spare the branches according to nature, neither will he spare you

Paul’s analogy begins to cut across some traditional Protestant thinking about “assurance of salvation,” but when we take his words as we find them their meaning is sobering. God has not and will not let anyone but himself determine the terms for who his people are.

22 See then the kindness and severity of God. On those falling the severity, but on you the kindness of God, if you might remain in kindness, otherwise then you would be cut off

Kindness is chrestoteta and severity is apotomian.

23 And even these (of Israel), if they might not remain in faithlessness, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again

Simply kakeinoi in the beginning of the verse, but the contest implies “of Israel.” Though they have been cut off in God’s severity, God is able (dunatos) to graft them in again. N.B. The text does not say that God will graft them in again. The rest of Paul’s argument about the terms of the covenant people still stands.

24 For if you having been cut off from what is according to nature a wild olive are grafted into a cultivated olive, how much more would these according to nature be grafted onto their own olive.

And how much easier would it be for those which were the covenant people according to its flesh become members of the covenant according to grace since their flesh knows that “sap.”

25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be wiser besides yourselves, since a hardening from part has come to Israel until when the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in

Wiser beside yourselves is really “cleverer than you ought to be.” This clearly belongs to the preceding argument: You Gentile Christians ought not to vaunt yourselves over the Jews. The second half of the verse is NOT a future prediction that Paul was suddenly struck with in contradiction to the entire argument of the letter so far. Rather, it is a description of what has already happened and been accomplished through Jesus. The mystery/marvel is what Paul has been explaining. The Jews were hardened in part until the justifying death of the Messiah, at which point the full number (pleroma) of the Gentiles was able to come in. (as was promised to Abraham.)

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, even as it is written He saving will come from Sion, he will turn ungodliness from Jacob

It is in this way—the coming in of the Gentiles—that All Israel will be saved. What is Paul saying? He is saying that Israel is not defined by the flesh, nor is it defined by the observance of Torah. Rather, in fulfillment to the promises the Covenant God made to Abraham, Israel, which was chosen by grace and justified by faith, shall all be saved in the way that he has described throughout the letter to the Romans. The Gentiles and the remnant are “Israel.” The whole process is God’s way of saving his covenant people; that is the meaning of kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai.

27 And this will be my covenant to them with me, when I take away their sins

The one saving is gone/come (there is no distinction is Gk., but the tense of the verb is undeniable) from Sion, and he has fulfilled the covenant and dealt with sin. This is no apocalyptic prediction, but a description of what Jesus has done.

28 According to the gospel they are enemies to you, but according to election they are beloved on account of their fathers

Paul now draws his conclusions for instructing the Jew-Gentile relations in light of these truths. According to the gospel of grace there is no room for the Jews, but we love them on account of the flesh which they overprize.

29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable

They will never lose the gift (charismata) or the call (klesis). Note that klesis is an important technical term in Paul’s “salvation process” as the first step before faith.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now you have received mercy in their disobedience

Apeitheia, not apistia. Keep in mind the argument of 9-10 throughout…God used Israel’s disobedience paradoxically to give mercy and deal with sin.

31 In this way they now have disobeyed that, by the mercy given to you, they also now might receive mercy.

Another example of houtos, always as demonstrative of manner, never temporal. The mercy which came through Israel’s disobedience is not out of their reach. They might have it. (Not must)

32 For God has imprisoned all unto disobedience that he might have mercy on all.

There are none that do not need God’s mercy. It is on the terms of his mercy through Jesus that we will receive his dikaiosune.

33 O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God. How unfathomable are his judgments and unsearchable are his ways

I’ll be treading much more lightly from here out. The rest of the chapter is an epilogue to the section of 9-11, and then 12-16 is largely practical advice in light of the letter’s theological argument.

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Is. 40, Job. 15, Jer. 23

35 Or who has given to him even that it will be repaid to him?

Job 41. Note that Paul always denies man’s ability to demand from God.

36 That from him and through him and to him are all things. To him the glory unto eternity, amen.

In his rapture, Paul wrote a Greek sentence without a subject or a verb! But amen, nonetheless!

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 10

9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles not seeking for righteousness have received it, and that righteousness by faith

9:30-10:21 recapitulates Paul’s argument about the “fall” of ethnic Israel, stated first within the historical words of YHWH through his prophets, now through the events of the Messiah’s actions and the new covenant life through faith being preached to the Gentiles—and that through faith, not works of Torah. Righteousness here is, again, dikaiosunen. Keep in mind that our functional definition is “covenant membership.” The following verses will serve to sharpen and enhance that usage in the preceding chapters. The Gentiles, not looking for covenant membership, have received, and that by faith.

31 But Israel seeking the Torah of righteousness unto Torah did not attain it.

Or, “looking for righteousness/covenant membership/dikaiosunen in Torah did not attain (ephthasen) it.

32 Why this? Since not by faith but as by works. They have stumbled upon the stumbling stone

Dia ti. Probably means: “and why not?” (dialectical) Since [their dikaiosunen] is not by faith but by the works of Torah. These works of Torah seem to be the stumbling stone that was part of the plan all along. (see next verse)

33 Even as it is written Behold I am placing in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock to make them fall, and he believing upon it will not be put to shame

Upon it could also mean upon him. Rock to make them fall is petran skandalou (hence the stone of scandal of old translations.) The closest meaning of skandalos is “that which causes sin.” It was YHWH’s intent, paradoxically, to cause the stumble and the failure. (With the purposes of ch. 7-8 in mind.)

10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God concerning them is unto salvation

Paul again states his deep personal affectation. He does not wish this upon his kinfolk.

2 For I witness for them that they have zeal of God but not according to knowledge

Knowledge is epignosin. Witness is marturo, legal language of testifying.

3 For not knowing God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to God’s righteousness

The second dikaiosunen is not attested in all manuscripts, but the sense remains the same. Israel’s sin is not only personal shortcomings within Torah, but also an attempt to twist Torah into something it was never intended to be—an ethnic marker of covenant membership. In doing so, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness/justification/covenant membership. (Which is, by faith.)

4 For the climax of Torah is the Messiah unto righteousness for all believing

Telos nomou could be translated a number of different ways: The end, the perfection, the completion or the satisfaction—and I like N.T. Wright’s take on it: The Climax of the Covenant. Righteousness is, again, dikaiosunen. Special weight on all.

5 For Moses writes the righteousness from Torah is “The man doing these will live by them”

Paul does not quote from Leviticus here to show the old “bad” way of doing Torah in contrast with the good new Christian one. Rather, as in the similar passage in Galatians, he is demonstrating that the true keeping of Torah is what he describes, whether for Jew or Gentile: hearing and believing.

6 And the righteousness from faith thus says “Do not say in your heart, who will ascend unto heaven? (That is to bring the Messiah down)

These two verses could easily become a quagmire if we assume that Paul, when speaking about ascending to heaven and descending to the abyss, is writing from our familiar concerns of “going to heaven or hell when we die” as the principal concern of religion and the only terms of post-mortem experience. Observe the context: the “do not say in your heart” comes from Deut 9:4—the first stern warning to Israel as it prepared for conquest that it was not from their righteousness that they would inherit the land, and that they are indeed unworthy of it because of their sin and failure. Following Moses’ guarantee of Israel’s failure in ch. 30, he tells them in v. 12-14 not to wish for someone to ascend into heaven or cross the sea that they might be able to keep Torah. (v.11 says “it is not too hard for you, nor far off.”)

7 Or, Who will descend unto the abyss? This is to raise the Messiah from the dead.

Rather, reading from Deuteronomy in the context of post-exile 2^nd temple Judaism, this is Paul’s sense: Do you want to know what doing the covenant really looks like? It isn’t waiting for someone to go do it by force—we already have a Messiah ruling above! And isn’t to call back one of your old prophets—the Messiah was already raised! Your hope isn’t in some faraway kingdom to be won by swords and Sabbaths—its to hear the word of Jesus.

8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, this is the word of faith which we preach

Here the powerful quote from Deuteronomy is finished. Word is hrema, not logos. Preach is kerussomen, which can also be herald or proclaim.

9 Because if you might confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and you might believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Iesoun is the object, kurion the complement. There’s much that can be said of this verse on any number of levels, but it certainly takes on a new and robust meaning here when placed in the context of “doing Torah” in the Israel story. Incidentally, this verse is a strong endorsement for what I’ve pushed in separate discussions about the original euangelion meaning “Lordship and Resurrection.” Believe is pisteuses. (Have/keep faith) Note the consecutive effect with v. 8.

10 For in the heart one believes unto justification, and by the mouth one confesses unto salvation.

This is the true keeping of Torah…this is what Paul means in v. 5

11 For the scripture says He believing upon him will not be put to shame

Put to shame is kataischunthesetai. Believing is pisteuon. (Have/keep faith). Explains Paul’s contrast to those stumbling in 9:33. (Original reference is Is. 28:16)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same one is Lord of all, generous unto all calling upon him

Distinction is diastole. Generous is plouton. (Enriching) Once again, emphasis on all.

13 For all which call upon the name of the Lord will be saved

Joel 2:32, buttressing salvation by confession of Lordship, which segues quite naturally into the Gentile mission.

14 How therefore might they call unto he which they have not believed? And how might they believe him they have not heard? And how might they hear without someone proclaiming/preaching?

It’s been argued that Paul’s theological point here shares an important practical concern—he wanted to use Rome as a base for a Gentile mission in Spain, as he used Antioch to Asia Minor. Proclaiming/preaching is kerossontos again. Note that Paul regards the mission to the Gentiles as an essential part of YHWH’s covenant purpose…not keeping the Gentiles out by ethnic borders.

15 And how might they preach unless they might be sent? Even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those pronouncing the good news

Sent is apostalosin. (Hence, apostles) The well-known reference is from Isaiah 52 and Nahum. Pronouncing the good news is euangelizomenon [ta] agatha. Good news is euangelion.

16 But not all have obeyed the good news. For Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed our message?”

Paul establishes, not only that “not all” have obeyed the gospel, but that this in fact was foreseen and forepurposed.

17 Therefore faith is from hearing, and hearing through the word of the Messiah

Word is hrematos again, not logos. Lost in translation is the interplay between the word for hearing—akoes—and the word for obedience—upakoes. It might well read “But not all have really heard the good news. Note too that the “hearing” carries with it, not only an aural reception, but an obedience to the hearing.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Indeed, Unto all the land their voice has gone out, and unto the boundaries of the inhabited world their words

Again, have they not obeyed? The particle menounge provides the effect of “on the contrary.” Have they heard? Yes, everyone has heard… Voice is “cry,” “shout,” or “clatter.” (phthongos)

19 But I say, did Israel not understand? First Moses says “I will make you jealous upon those not a nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry”

But Israel did not hear what they heard. They did not understand. What is more, this was done on purpose, that they might be provoked. Indeed, their stumble and provocation is forepurposed. Foolish is asuneto. (Without understanding) The Jews should be jealous of the Gentiles.

20 And Isaiah says in boldness “I am found by those not seeking me, I am become visible to those not asking for me

And Isaiah will come straight out and declare, as Paul began in 9:30, that those not seeking have found, but those seeking are lost.”

21 But for Israel he says “The whole day I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

Again, YHWH is just, for he has been patient with Israel, but they have disobeyed his purposes.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 9

As we enter this most contentious section of the letter I take for granted that Paul is working out the faithfulness of the covenant of God through his Messiah Jesus despite the apparent failure of ethnic Israel. The real question for our purposes is the meaning of 11:25-27, which I will present as the logical outworking of chs. 5-8 in general and chs. 9-11 specifically.

1 I am speaking the truth in the Messiah, I do not lie, by the co-witness of my conscience in the Holy Spirit

Following the conclusion of ch. 8, Paul prefaces his new argument with a solemn oath regarding his own conscience toward his subject matter—the faithfulness of God despite the ‘failure’ of ethnic Israel.

2 Since it is great sorrow to me and constant pain in my heart.

Paul answers in advance any possible interpretation of vengeful anti-Semitism from his Gentile Roman audience.

3 For I pray myself to be anathema from the Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my kinfolk according to the flesh

Kinsfolk are sungenon, sometimes “cousins” or “relations.” Anathema.

4 Which are the Israelites, of whom the sonship and the glory and the covenants, and the law-giving and the worship and the promises

Note that Paul is listing the privileges of Israel which have now, as was demonstrated earlier, been transferred to the Messiah-people. Of particular interest are the law-giving (following my argument about ch. 7) and the worship (latreia), which highlights the often overlooked transference of temple rights to the new Messiah-people.

5 Of whom the patriarchs and from whom the Messiah, according to the flesh, he being upon all blessed of God unto the ages, amen

Patriarchs or “fathers.” (pateres) An interesting alternate translation for this verse is to read Theos eulogetos as the subject instead of predicate—[The Messiah] being the blessed God upon all unto the ages—but the textual evidence is spotty.

6 And this is not that the word of God has failed, for not all those from Israel are of Israel

Ho logos tou theou here does not mean “the Christian Bible.” As in v. 28, logos means more “plan” “purpose” or “action.” (As, especially considering its LXX context, would the Hebrew davar) The sense is: YHWH didn’t mess this up—this was the plan all along. Paul again, as in v. 5, will put forth his theological argument by the characteristic Jewish mode of retelling the Israel story. His purpose here: Exactly because “Israel” does not have to mean “ethnic Jews,” YHWH has been faithful to his promises. (This is very important, obviously, to 11:25-27) I’ll take for granted the following points in the course of this argument 1) Israel’s vocation as the covenant people was always the means of rescuing the whole world. 2) The vocation was distorted by ethnic privilege, but made clear in the Messiah 3) The divine intention (or ho logos tou theou) was always to deal with evil (Sin in ch. 7) in one place (execution and judgment) 4) That place was always to be the Messiah. We must read this section as the defense to the question that Paul answers “no” in v. 14—there is no injustice on God’s part in his actions through Israel.

7 Nor is it that the descendants of Abraham are all his children, but “in Isaac descendants to you will be named”

Throughout descendants are sperma (sometimes seed) and children are tekna. In other words, “not all who can claim Abraham as their forefather are biologically related.” (See ch. 4) Explanation for the second half below.

8 This is, not these which are the children of the flesh, but those children of the promise will be reckoned unto descendants

Instead of succession through the “flesh”—which Paul has likened to the illegitimate Hagar/Ishmael relation—Paul declares that the son of the promise (epangelias) is the legitimate heir.

9 For this is the word of the promise “In this time I will come and a son shall be to Sarah”

epangelias gar o logos. Paul connects the promise to Isaac through the birth of Jacob to Sarah…but the promise had to wait.

10 And not this alone, but also Rebekah had from one husband, from our father Isaac

One husband is koiten “bedfellow.” The implication is “and something like this happened again when Rebekah had her child.” It could become a mare’s nest if not read in the context of v. 12—the similarity comes from the dispute of legitimate succession between two sons.

11 For they not yet having been born nor doing anything good or bad, that the forepurposed election of God might continue,

eklogen prothesis tou theou mene. This was not an after-the fact judgment on God’s part, but his elevation of Isaac was according to his just purpose.

12 Not from works but from the call, It was told to her that “The older will serve the younger”

And that the promise in v. 7 might be fulfilled

13 Even as it is written “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”

The younger son, the son to whom is promise given over the natural birthright or the birth according to the flesh, is preferred.

14 What then will we say? Surely there is not injustice on God’s part? May it not be!

Another me genoito. Paul defends YHWH’s purposes by virtue of who YHWH is as the sovereign God.

15 For he said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Eleeso and oiktireso. Quote is from Ex. 33:19.

16 Therefore it is not then of will nor of exertion but of God’s mercy

What is not of will or exertion? (trechontos) The privilege of sonship (and all the other privileges of 9:4-5) which are claimed via biological succession.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh that “Unto this one thing I have raised you up, that I should demonstrate in you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

As YHWH has done before, he will elevate to one place a means of executing his just judgment.

18 Therefore he then has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens he whom he wills.

And as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so to demonstrate his power, so might he harden Israel to demonstrate his long-promised rescue.

19 You will then say to me: Why them does he yet find fault? For who is able to stand against his will?

The following is one of the hardest passages in Paul to read. He offers no comfort about God’s goodness and kindness…he simply takes away our prerogative to question. Will (boulemati) might make better sense as “choice” throughout.

20 O man, on the contrary, who are you to be answering back to God? Surely that which is molded does not say to the molder “Why have you made me in this way?”

We are, first of all, created beings. The creator is not subject to the created.

21 Or doesn’t the potter have authority over the clay to make form his own lump one vessel of honor and another of dishonor?

Echoes much of the O.T. language about YHWH as the potter and Israel as the clay/vessel. Some translations have atimian as “ordinary use.” (Honor is timen.) One is too harsh, the other too soft, neither quite captures the original verbal effect.

22 And if God willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power carried in much long-suffering the objects of wrath which are supplied unto destruction

Longsuffering is makrothumia. Israel was given plenty of time, but ultimately will function as the means by which God’s judgment is carried out…and that unto apoleian.

23 Even in order that the wealth of his glory might be made known upon the objects of his mercy which he prepared beforehand unto glory

And yet in that same act those which YHWH chose for legitimacy will be given unto glory

24 Which he also called us not alone from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (?)

Not sure whether 24 and 25 are supposed to be 2 clauses (w/a question mark) or one.

25 That even as he says in Hosea “I will call those not my people ‘my people,’ and those not beloved ‘beloved.’

Therefore the call (24) is extended to those “not his people.”

26 And it shall be in the place where it was said to them ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.”

And sonship is extended.

27 And Isaiah cried concerning Israel: “If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved.”

Is. 10:22-23

28 For completely and decisively the Lord will make his word upon the earth.”

Word is logos.

29 And even as Isaiah forespoke: “If the Lord of hosts had not left descendants to us, as Sodom we would have become, and even as to Gomorrah would we be likened.”

Stopping here for now, because the last 3 verses in ch. 9, I think, belong to the next stage of the argument.

Romans Outline Chs. 1-8

While I'm working on Ch. 9 for next week, here's a critical outline of the project's progress so far. Many details within the commentary I've written so far support this structural analysis. Some fine points are much more structurally important than others, but at this moment in our analysis the minutiae start to matter very little. What I think about chs. 9-11 is, however, entirely dependent on the larger shape of chs. 1-8. Please let me know if there appears to be anything suspicious or unfounded in what you see below. If so, that ought to be sorted out before going on to the controversial material.

Romans 1-4 The Faithfulness of God

1:1-15 Exposition, God’s gospel and Paul’s service

1:16-17 The Gospel is God’s righteousness

1:18-32 Idolatrous Gentiles dehumanized by God’s wrath

2:1-16 “You” (judging) also under impartial unfavorable judgment

2:17-“You” the Jew directly challenged

3:1-8 Israel unfaithful but God faithful

3:9-20 Torah indicts Jew and Gentile alike

3:21-26 But now, God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus

3:27-38 One God of One Faith for Jews & Gentiles

4:1-8 Abraham the covenant father (by faith)

4:9-15 Abraham the father by faith, not by circumcision or Torah

4:16-17 Abraham the father of Jew and Gentile faithful

4:18-22 Abraham trusting in him giving life to the dead

4:23-25 And likewise to “us”

Romans 5-8 God’s people in the Messiah

5:1-5 Exposition, hope in suffering

5:6-11 Love demonstrated in the Messiah’s death

5:12-21 The Messiah greater than Adam

6:1-11 Dying and rising (baptism) with the Messiah—Exodus through the waters

6:12-23 No longer in slavery, but redeemed into freedom

7:1-6 Two marriages; being “widowed” to Torah

7:7-12 Is Torah sin? No, but its arrival (read Sinai) is Sin’s opportunity

7:13-20 Torah does not kill “me” (Israel) but Sin through it; Torah and “I” exonerated

7:21-25 The Torah bifurcates and so do “I”—I need rescue

8:1 Therefore, no condemnation

8:2-11 Because God has done what Torah could not in Messiah’s defeat of Sin; gives resurrection life

8:12-17 Therefore we are not people of flesh (circumcision) but heirs in the Spirit

8:18-30 The promised renewal of all things; recap of 5:1-5, hope in suffering

8:31-39 Nothing to separate us from God’s love

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those in the Messiah Jesus

Paul’s conclusion here precedes his minor premise (v. 2-11) given the first premise (Israel’s problem was Sin operating with Death through Torah) in chapter 7. Condemnation is katakrima, renewing the law-court metaphor from earlier. The incorporative sense of “Messiah” is enormously important here. Paul’s argument from 7-8 doesn’t make any sense if you view the escape from Sin and Death as something to be bargained individually.

2 For the law of the spirit of life in the Messiah Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and of death

Here the bifurcated Torah is denoted. The good and just Torah of life, in the Messiah, is what has freed those en Christo from the condemnation sentence that would be pronounced by Sin and Death.

3 For with the Torah unable in the weakness of the flesh, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sins (as a sin offering), condemned sin in the flesh

Unable is adunaton. Peri hamartias is a construct lifted directly out of the LXX to mean “sin offering,” and probably should not be translated directly as “for the sake of sins.” As that sin offering, the Messiah neutralized the katakrima—the condemnation.

4 That the just requirement of Torah might be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh but according to the spirit

Walking in the sense of living or being. (peripatousin) The contrast throughout this section is sarkos (flesh) and pneumatos (spirit).

5 For those being according to the flesh think of those things of the flesh, but those according to the spirit those things of the spirit

Or “set their minds to” the things of the flesh. Phronousin doesn’t mind thinking as in pondering, but denotes the character of the thinking apparatus. This is not a dualist trap. Paul is not saying that his special gnosis will elevate the mind away from the body and into the spirit. He is saying that the mind enslaved by the flesh is characterized by the rule of Sin/Death, but that mind freed and now animated by the spirit will be transformed into something different.

6 For the mind of the flesh, Death, but the mind of the spirit, life and shalom

Just as the law was bifurcated and became, though holy and good itself, the bringer of death to the flesh, so also the flesh’s phronema is subject to Death.

7 Therefore the minds of the flesh are enemy unto God, for they are not submitted to God’s Torah, neither are they able.

As long as one is in bondage to the flesh, they are at enmity with God and his good Torah. Furthermore, they are unable (oude gar dunatai) to be helped.

8 And those being in the flesh are not able to please God

With the sense of “be pleasing to God.” (aresai)

9 But you are not yourselves in the flesh but in the spirit, since the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any does not have the spirit of the Messiah, he is not His

All 2^nd person plural. The Messiah’s people live in the spirit because God’s spirit inhabits them. Paul uses temple language here. As YHWH’s spirit dwelt in his people’s temple of old, now the spirit dwells in the bodies/body of his Messiah’s people. The indwelling of the spirit is the characteristic of the people “for whom there is now no condemnation” and the proof of their acquittal.

10 But if the Messiah is in you, then the body is on the one hand dead because of sin and on the other hand the spirit is alive on account of righteousness

A clunky translation, but there’s no simple way to highlight the men…de contrast. Because of is dia, not a dative of reference. Righteousness is dikaoisunen. Body is soma, not sarx. Not sure whether to read sin as “Sin” or “sin” here, but the point would be essentially the same.

11 But if the spirit of him raising Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he raising the Messiah from the dead will make alive also your mortal bodies through his spirit indwelling in you

Perhaps my favorite verse in Romans. If the spirit of YHWH temples/tabernacles in you, the one who began new creation in his Messiah Jesus will make-alive (zoopoiesei) your mortal somata through his indwelling—enoikountos.

12 Therefore then, brothers, we are debtors not in the flesh according to the flesh to live

The language switches in v.12-17 to the language of inheritance, which might be more evocative for an ancient agrarian community anyway, not even considering the promises of “inheritance” driving the O.T. Paul may be continuing his deliberate evocation of the O.T. story as we, leaving the Red Sea and Sinai, approach the inheritance.

13 For if you might live according to the flesh, you ought to die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

As your phronemata (mind, mindset) is now led by the spirit, so are your actions. (praxeis)

14 For such by the spirit of God are led, these are the sons of God

Not only offered abstract direction, but led in action. (agontai)

15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again unto fear but ye received a spirit of sonship, in which we cry Abba father

Based on the scholarly work I’ve read I understand the case for Abba as “Daddy” or some similar intimate term to be overstated, but Pauls’ point stands whether “Daddy” or “Father.” The Father receives not in oppression, but in sonship. (Huiothesias might also be the technical term for adoptive sonship.)

16 the same spirit bears witness in our spirit that we are children of God

Not our flesh (as by circumcision) but our spirit attests our status of sonship

17 And if children, also heirs. The heirs of God, and co-heirs with the Messiah, since we suffer with him that we might also be glorified with him.

Hence the promise in v.11 of resurrection. Proper understanding of this verse hinges on the belief that the Messiah, in his ascension to the Father’s right hand, has already been glorified.

18 For I reason that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy of comparison to the glory to be revealed in us

Reason is logizomai. Axia with a genitive of comparison. The glory to be revealed is not personal aggrandizing or braggadocio, but New Creation itself.

19 For Creation’s deep longing awaits the revelation of the sons of God

Not only do God’s people await the New Creation to be revealed (apokalupsin) but the whole of old Creation yearns.

20 For the Creation is subjected to futility, not of its own will but on account of the one subjecting it, upon hope

Just as God gave over the minds of the impious (ch. 1) to futility, so also did he risk giving over his whole good creation to Sin, that by his Messiah’s decisive action against Sin, he should rescue it all. (!)

21 That the Creation itself also might be freed from decay’s bondage unto glorious freedom of the children of God

None of this “far-golden-shore” escapism. Creation will be rescued with us into our shared glorious freedom.

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together and suffering together until now

Both verbs are present tense—the whole creation is groaning and suffering until now.

23 and not alone, but we already having the first-portion of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, awaiting, the redemption of our body.

As Paul goes on to explain, this present suffering, as modeled in the Messiah, is necessary for we who will be redeemed. New Creation comes out of suffering.

24 For in this hope we are saved. But hope seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

The already/not yet dichotomy of the inaugurated kingdom is expressed in 23&24—we already have the first portion of the spirit, but we are a people living in hope.

25 But if what we do not see we hope, through endurance we await

Endurance is upomones.

26 And likewise also the spirit fore-co-aids in our weakness. For if we might pray as is necessary we do not know how, but the spirit intercedes the same with unspeakable groans

There is no simple way to translate sunantilambanetai. Best to read it in the context of vv. 21-25 and especially in weakness. The verb is usually translated “intercedes,” as is uperentugchanei in the later part of the verse. The sense is similar, but not exact.

27 And He searching our hearts knows what is the mind of the spirit, since according to God he intercedes for the sake of the saints

Understanding the “He” of this verse as God, who accepts the spirit’s intercession for us, is the key to understanding this otherwise potentially slippery verse.

28 And we know that to those beloved God works together all things unto good, to those according to his purpose being called

“Called” (kletois) is the first category of the list in v. 29&30, which is Paul’s theological description of the Christian process

29 Since those he foreknew, he foresaw sharing-the-likeness of the image of his son, unto his being firstborn among many brothers

Likeness-sharing is summorphous. Here begins the summation of Paul’s work so far, the description of how God through his Messiah has fulfilled his glorious purposes of salvation and restoration for Israel (through the Messiah) and for his Creation. What follows in ch. 9 will be the specific problem that Paul wishes to address in light of this.

30 And those he foresaw, these he also called; and those he called, these he justified; and those he justified, these he also will glorify.

Foreseeing (or predestination), Call, Justification (edikaiosen) and Glorification. These might not be absolutely airtight theological compartments, but they are distinct, and Paul’s whole corpus is vivified when read in these categories.

31 What therefore shall we say to these? If God is for us, who is against us?

What then of the problems of suffering and weakness raised?

32 Which his own son did not spare but for our sake gave him over, how with him will all things not be granted to us?

Gave him over is again paredoken. The “all things” should be read not only in terms of favorable judgment for eternal life, but that (incredible enough) and all of the covenant purposes from the O.T.

33 Who will accuse against God’s called? It is God who justifies

Vv. 34&35 in affirmation of 8:1.

34 Who is he which condemns? The Messiah [Jesus] which died, and more was raised, and which is at God’s right hand, and who intercedes for us

Identification of the Messiah with the Spirit, but with yet another word (entugchanei) for intercession.

35 What will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Expected answer, “no,” of course.

36 Just as it is written that For thy sake we die the whole day, we are reckoned as sheep of the slaughter

Here is the paradox of the gospel, that this confidence and justification comes in and with the imitation of suffering, following the suffering King.

37 But in all these we are overconquerors through him loving us

Yet in that suffering we are more than conquerors—hupernikomen.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers

39 Nor height nor depth nor any other created thing is able to separate us from the love of God in the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Only, Amen.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 7

1 Or do you not know, brothers, I speak to those knowing Torah, since the Torah lords over a man upon what time he might live

Chapter 7 begins continuing the theological theme of chapter 6 (deliverance from Torah) with a new analogy. (Release from matrimony instead of exodus from slavery.) Both analogies are explanations of 5:12-21. Those in the Messiah are no longer bound to Adam and the Adamic problems, but are now free to be bound to the Messiah. Paul will explain in v.7 how the entrance of Torah into the Adamic problem (sin and death) creates a complex bifurcation, but these first verses serve to restate in different language the bond/freedom idea of the previous chapter. The marriage language starts in this chapter. When Paul speaks to those knowing (ginoskousin) Torah he uses the same term for a man’s “knowing” a woman. In other words, he speaks to those bound by covenant to Torah. “Speaking to” is the best way to render the cases, but it doesn’t mean that Paul is addressing Jews and everyone else doesn’t need to listen…rather Paul is speaking about or with reference to those “knowing” Torah. “Lords over” is kurieuei, from the same stem as kurios. Simplest way to translate the end of the verse is probably “as long as he’s alive.”

2 For a married woman is given by law to a living husband. But if the man might die, she is released from the law concerning the man

By law could also be according to or in the law. (I’m translating nomos as law instead of Torah a few times here for clarity’s sake, although it’s really continuing to evoke the specifically Jewish law as well.) Released is the same word (katargeo) as nullify earlier, but it changes meanings in the passive with the preposition apo. Nomos and andros are both in the genitive, nomos because of the preposition. Could also be translated with some liberties: the bond to the man is nullified/emptied of power. (Basic idea: Death ends the power of Torah.)

3 Therefore she is called adulterer if she come to another man with her husband yet living. But if the man might die she is free from the law

The Torah has power as long as the old bonds are intact (i.e., there has been no redemptive death) and that power is quite real, enough to make one an adulterer. This passage is about the Torah’s authority, not about practical advice for church discipline.

4 So that, my brothers, you also have died with reference to Torah through the body of the Messiah, unto your becoming to another, to him raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God

By participating in the Messiah’s death the bond to the old man (still referencing Adam here) is broken. In that sense we really have “died.” We are now bound (become, as in v.3) to another man, in order that we might bear fruit to God. The bearing fruit idea completes the marriage analogy, because offspring are a necessary part of a successful and blessed marriage in the ancient world, not just an extra bit of trivia on the “happily ever after” page. Our marriage to the Messiah is a blessed and fertile one.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which were enroused through the Torah were in your members, unto your bearing fruit unto death

The only hope we had of offspring (and hope of/for offspring is another major O.T. theme) in our bond to the old man was unto death. We have here the beginning of the bifurcation language that gets sorted out in vv. 7-25. Though the Torah was the covenant marker and blessing from God, somehow it was Torah that enroused (energeito) the passions of sins, leading ultimately to a legacy of death.

6 But now we are released from Torah dying to what we were held down by, so us to serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter

Released is katergethemen again. In the Messiah we have died to what bound us. Not quite sure how to translate the end. There is no subject, “us” appears to govern the verb, and there is no object. Some have read new life and old life, but zoe doesn’t appear anywhere. I think I’ve seen “new” and “old” modifying spirit and letter respectively, but that doesn’t seem right either. I welcome an explanation.

7 What then will we say? That the Torah is sin? May it not be! But I did not know sin except for Torah. For I did not know coveting except the Torah said You shall not covet

One of the more controversial points I’ll argue here (argued much more convincingly elsewhere by Wright, to whom I owe pretty much everything I’ll say about the next chapter and half) is that the following passage is not Paul speaking autobiographically. Rather, the I (ego) is a continuation of the discussion started in 7:1 (I speak now concerning those knowing/bound to Torah) and the larger narrative of the Israel story redone by the Messiah, which began in ch.5 in Eden, went to Egypt and the Red Sea in ch.6, and now is at Mt. Sinai. We should not, then, read the following chapters as a revelation of Paul’s personal interior sin. (As some would have it, his discovery of sexual desire around the time he started reading the Pentateuch for his Bar-Mitzvah.) If you presume a personal reading the argument is full of starts and stops, and makes no sense. Context demands that, as elsewhere, Paul writes the “I” as Israel. (He writes vv. 7-12, by the way, the aorist tense—as history, and vv. 13-24 in the present tense as the “current problem.”) There’s a lot more to say about why Paul did this, but I’ll leave the argument hanging for now.

We need to, for the whole section, keep Paul’s question of whether or not the Torah is sin(ful), at hand. It is certainly not (see v. 12) but Sin used Torah, which was holy and good, to accomplish what it couldn’t otherwise. (The image here of the arrival of Torah on top of the mountain is most certainly linked to the arrival of the golden calf below)

8 And Sin receiving the opportunity through the command accomplished in me all coveting. For without Torah sin was dead.

Accomplished (ergazomenoi) could also be worked or wrought. When Israel was bade to have no other gods or idols, they immediately were filled with the lust/desire (epithumia, though Paul is evoking the 10^th commandment specifically from the LXX translation) to have them. As the child who is told to do anything but go in the one closet (which, unbeknownst to him, holds the poisonous spider), the command itself serves to implant the burning desire to disobey it.

9 But I lived formerly without Torah, and receiving the command Sin came to life.

Even though the giving of Torah was supposed to be the initial seal to the life giving covenant, it roused sin to life within Israel and led to all the painful history of Israel’s failure to live up to its covenant vocation. Though the Torah-bound people were supposed to be a light and life to the world, their own failure to keep Torah amplified Sin’s effect. (Still keep the question in v. 7 in mind)

10 And I died and the commandment found to be life unto me, the same was unto death.

So Israel wanders in wilderness and eventually overrun by pagan oppressors, because of their failure to stay faithful to the good law given them…but the same law that convicts them of their failure

11 For sin receiving the opportunity through the command deceived me and through it killed me

Deceived, or led astray, once again using golden-calf language and evoking the failure at the foot of Sinai where, at the giving of Torah, Israel failed

12 So that the Torah is holy and the command holy and just and good.

Here is the answer to the question in 7, although now the question of why Torah must be addressed in the context of God’s faithfulness to the promises for Israel. For the next verses, we’ll see that we’re looking a psychological treatment not of the pre or post conversion Christian, but of the Israel of Paul’s day.

13 Therefore did that good become death in me? May it not be! But rather sin, through the good accomplished death in me, that it might be shown sin, that sin might become overaboundingly sinful through the command.

The concept of this verse is vitally important to all that follows in chapters 8&9, and also serves to explain what Paul mentioned earlier when he said that the Torah came (5:20) that sin might “abound.” What he begins to explain here is that sin, in being made “aboundingly sinful” is collected in one place, or drawn up to its full stature. As we shall see later, the Messiah conquered sin and death by taking this “heaped-up” sin, which was concentrated on Israel, as Israel’s king and representative, upon himself. This is, perhaps of all the verses that follow, the most clearly non-autobiographical verse as well. (Though of course, the sections that follow do find an authentic parallel in the way that most of us deal with the problem of interior temptation and virtue.) Note the question again that Paul seeks to address: Did the Torah become (or effect) death in Israel? (Answer, no)

14 For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am sold fleshly by sin

It is an implicit reference, but the “sold by sin” is a continuation of the slave language from the previous chapter. Vv. 15-19 serve as the explanation for this imbalance. Fleshly is sarkinos, spiritual pneumatikos.

15 For what I work I do not know. For this I will I do not do, but this I do which I hate.

In plainer English (I’ve tried to play the Greek as it lies in the translations throughout) I don’t understand my own actions. I don’t do what I want, but I do the thing I hate. It is very easy to read this, as was said earlier, in context of a private morality struggle, but I think Paul is actually referring to the failure of the covenant people to keep the very laws that sealed their covenant. Though Israel would be the light of the world, they instead are idolatrous, unfaithful, and exiled. The very things they ought to hate, they do.

16 But if I do this which I will not, I agree with the law that it is good.

If I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good.

However, Torah itself is exonerated from the charge of evil, for by my “not willing” to do these things I uphold its goodness.

17 But now no longer do I accomplish this but sin dwelling in me

But it’s no longer me that does it, but sin dwelling in me.

So then, Torah is not responsible for “my” death, but the sin revealed by Torah. Torah is not to blame for the (apparently) catastrophic failure of God’s chosen people Israel in the world, but the sin in that people that their covenant law reveals.

18 For I know that good lives not in me, that is in my flesh. For that present to me to will, and this good to accomplish not.

For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I can’t do it.

Though Israel would do what is right, she is unable, because of the indwelling sin exposed by Torah. In her “practical” living out of the covenant, Israel admits failure. Good does not live in her.

19 For not this good I will do I do, but this ill which I do not will I do.

For I don’t do the good I want, but the evil I don’t want is what I do.

Good and evil/ill throughout are kalon/agathon and kakon.

20 But if I do this which I do not will, no longer do I accomplish it but sin living in me.

Now if I do what I don’t want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.

It’s important to note here that at the end of this analysis Torah and “I” are both exonerated. In other words, God himself is exonerated and can be considered still faithful, for the promise always was that the solution would come through Israel. Since Israel, corrupted though she is by indwelling sin, must be the solution, she must provide a way despite the indwelling sin for God to deal decisively with that sin.

21 Therefore I find this concerning Torah, to do good by my own willing, that evil is present to me.

This verse should NOT read “Therefore I find a law.” The sense in readable English is “So I find concerning Torah that when I want to do good voluntarily, evil is close at hand.” Close at hand/present is parakeitai, which is literally “laid-next to.” I wonder (though I’ve never read it anywhere else) whether this might be evoking the marriage analogies from the beginning of the chapter. Though I am willing and eager to do good, I’m bound, conjugally, to sin and death.

22 For I delight in God’s Torah according to the inner man

Inner man is eso anthropon. Full analysis next verse.

23 But I see another law in those members of mine warring with the law in my mind and making me captive to the law of sin being in my members

But yet I am a bifurcated man. Torah seems good and holy to one part of me, but to another part it is the instrument by which I am sold to the slavery of sin/death. (v. 14 again.) Here is the answer to the question of v. 13. Torah has become to me both a holy thing and a dreadful thing, just as I am become both a holy thing and a dreadful thing. I am split in half.

24 I am a wretched man. Who will save me from this deathly body?

Since I am at war and taken captive/made a slave, who is it that will deliver me? Who will save wretched Israel, will solve this muddle of what was supposed to be God’s faithful promise to fallen humanity, will end the war, and redeem the one sold into slavery?

25 But thanks to God through the Messiah Jesus our Lord. Therefore then I myself in the mind on the one hand serve God’s Torah and in the flesh the Torah of sin

This will be done through the Messiah’s victory. (Explained fully in chapter 8.) The contrast between spirit and flesh serve to underscore the state of bifurcated Israel apart from the Messiah’s dramatic rescue. I’ll add as a final note to this chapter that those who insist on reading this passage only in terms of private obedience have been justifiably confused by this “conclusion,” and would be tempted to understand that Paul is advocating them to live as exactly as he has said NOT to in the previous chapters and throughout the rest of his writing: as dualist Gnostics who can do whatever they want in the flesh because their “salvation” is from the head/spirit.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 6

VI

1 Therefore what shall we say? Should we remain in sin, that grace might abound?

Another question as at the beginning of chapter 4.

2 May it not be! Those which have died with reference to sin, how might we yet live in the same?

The baptism language of this chapter actually beings here with “having died,” which is, throughout equivalent to the process of Christian baptism. As we’ll see, it is analogous for Paul with the deliverance from Egypt. A passage through water from slavery on one side to freedom on the other. Likewise, the Christian in baptism passes through death with Jesus from the slavery from sin into freedom from it. All of these “died to sin” bits are datives of reference, not a personal dative—don’t think of it with a capital S, but in terms of reference.

3 Or do ye not know that, such which were baptized into the Messiah Jesus, into his death were baptized?

Baptism here is unto (eis) and not in (en). This is not only the Messiah Jesus the person, but the incorporatative Messiahship of Jesus, in which, as Israel’s representative, the covenant has been reinaugurated. We who are baptized in Jesus’ name are actually baptized into his Messiahship, which is how we can share in his death and come alongside his passage through it.

4 Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just has the Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the father, thus even we in new life might walk

Paul’s statement of new life for the Christian believer—a separate process from justification, which is belief in the Lordship of Jesus. The new life is participation in the burial and resurrection of Jesus. This burial is the baptism required of every believer, which is not symbolic, but a true passage from the old life (though death) unto the new.

5 For if we are become sharers in the likeness of his death, rather even we will be of his resurrection

And expansion of the outos clause at the end of verse 4. Sharers is sumphotoi. The process of dying with reference to sin by participating in baptism is not a mere convenient analogy. It serves instead (analogous to the Red Sea passage for the ancient Israelites) as the physical representation of their deliverance from slavery and entrance to the promise, and now confirms the final hope of life through the resurrection.

6 Knowing this that the old man of us has been co-crucified, that the sinful body might be condemned, of that our no longer to serve with reference to sin.

A complicated passage. The old man (ho palaios anthropos) is a continuation of the ideas presented in chapter 5. The net result of the old man’s death in the Messiah is a solidarity with us for him as the new man—the man who is the new solidarity as Israel’s representative and king.

7 For he dying is justified from sin

That is to say, his service is ended. He has paid the “wage.”

8 But if we died with the Messiah, we believe that we will live again with him

This baptism language is no mere symbolism. By entering into the baptismal waters we truly do participate in the Messiah’s passage through death. In the second half of the verse, there is explicit resurrection language. This hope of living again is not for a disembodied heaven, but is thoroughly rooted in the hope of physically rising in the mode of Jesus.

9 Knowing that the Messiah being raised from the dead dies no longer, for Death no longer lords him

Death no longer kurieuei him. Again, note that the whole chapter is about the escape from slavery.

10 For what he died, he died once for all to sin. But what he lives, he lives with reference to God

The “he” is the same, I just left both pronouns in to preserve the Greek syntax. Dative of reference again to sin. Once for all is the ephapax, something unrepeatable. The life is also dative of reference. Paul doesn’t include the second half of the sentence for balance or contrast—he is speaking of transferred fealty, of a new sort of service, apart from the slavery to sin/death.

11 And thus reckon ye yourselves [to be] dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God in the Messiah Jesus

And as the Messiah has recapitulated this Exodus and deliverance, so we who participate in him now consider ourselves, through our dying and rising with him, to be a liberated people serving God. This (and v. 12) are the answer to the question in v.1

12 Therefore let not Sin hold dominion in your mortal body unto obeying its desires

If you begin to read the discussion of sin in 6 as an unknown question regarding personal behavior, you might miss the narrative structure Paul achieves in vv. 1-11. In v. 12 he does get to the question of personal sin with regard to v.1, but in a way that makes more sense as an auxiliary conclusion. Mortal body is thneto somati, not sarki.

13 Nor present ye your members implements of unrighteousness to sin (or w/ref) but present yourselves to God has from the dead living and your members implements of righteousness to God

You have to see the whole Exodus backdrop to understand the possible resonance of v. 13, but if you accept it so far then you can see the understated point Paul makes in 12-14: since you’ve been liberated, don’t go back to your old slavery. In other words, don’t repeat the grave mistake of old Israel and ask to go back to Egypt. Hopla can mean either weapons or smithy’s tools. (Implements sort of suits both.)

14 For sin now longer lords over you, for ye are not under Torah but under grace

A transitional verse, changing of the key of discussion from deliverance from Sin to deliverance from Torah. This simultaneously sets the stage for chapter 7 (What do we make of Torah’s goodness?) and recalls the Torah discussions of ch. 3, which of course is to Paul’s main point: How would the righteous God keep faithful his promises?

15 Therefore what? Might we sin, since we are not under Torah but under grace? May it not be!

Paul restates the problem of v.1 with regard to freedom from the ethical commands of the Torah.

16 Do ye not know that (w) ye present yourselves servants unto obedience, ye are servants to what ye obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness?

In other words, to yield is to be slaves, but you are no longer slaves of sin, death, or Torah. You are no longer as the old man. Don’t yield to that old slavery, because slavery is death.

17 But thanks to God that ye were slaves of sin but ye are obedient from heart unto the type of teaching which was entrusted

Which is as much as to say a faithful life characterized by baptism (the new exodus) and communion feasts. (the new Passover)

18 But being free from sin ye are enslaved to righteousness

In yielding to these you have transferred your fealty

19 I speak anthropomorphically because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as ye presented your members servants to uncleanliness and to lawlessness unto lawlessness, thus now present ye your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Anthropinon, or in human terms. Lawlessness in anomion, uncleanliness akatharsia.

20 For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free to righteousness

I don’t think Paul’s getting at any incapacity of the non-believer to understand justice; he’s just saying that their ownership was elsewhere.

21 Therefore what fruit had ye then, upon which now ye are ashamed? For the end of these is death

Fruit can also mean reward or wage. Vv. 21 and 22 are an expanded version of 23. Again, this may also pertain to private behavior, but it is primarily a retelling of the deliverance from slavery.

22 But now being freed from sin and serving to God have ye your fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life

The holiness which could not be accomplished through Torah by the old Israel (more on that in ch. 7) is available in service to God, along with the true inheritance promised in the new covenant.

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God eternal life in the Messiah Jesus our Lord