Excerpts from The New Hampshire Confession (1833) and Commentary from O. C. Wallace (1913)

  

I. Of the Scriptures.

 

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction, that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creds, and opinions should be tried.

 

14. The revelation of God to men was completed in Jesus Christ. The history, the prophecies 2nd the sacrificial types recorded in the Scriptures before he was born looked forward to him. In his person as Son of God and Saviour of men all religious teaching culminated. All that was written concerning his ministry and the ministry of the men who in the generation following him made his teachings known to the world, looked back to him. As the revelation of God culminated in him, when these records has been written other writings were not needed. The message was complete, and the Bible stood forth as “a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction . . . . . . the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried,” to this day the one “true center of Christian union.”  (O. C. S. Wallace, What Baptists Believe: The New Hampshire Confession—An Exposition [Nashville: Sunday School Board Southern Baptist Convention, 1913], 18)

 

 

II. Of the True God.

 

We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth; inexpressibly glorious in holiness, and worthy of all possible honor confidence, and love; that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; equal in every divine perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great work of redemption.

 

12. God is revealed to men as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that there are three Gods: there is only one God. Nor does it mean that the one God is three persons in the complete sense: strictly speaking, there is only One Person. When we speak of the Godhead as including three persons, it is because our language is incapable of expressing the idea more clearly. It means that this One Person, whom we worship as the true and living God, is manifested in three characters, each of these being personal in nature, neither encroaching on the other, neither antagonistic to the other or morally capable of being so, an yet each being distinct and individual.

 

Such is the greatness of the Personality of God that it cannot be manifested to our human consciousness except in a Trinity. We cannot comprehend by an intellectual process the full meaning of the conception “one in three persons, blessed Trinity.” On the other hand we know God immeasurably better as Father, Son and Holy Spirit than we could know Him if we conceived of Him simply as God. IN this as in many other things, in the commonplace of life as well as in its deeper things, we believe even where we cannot fully understand. (O. C. S. Wallace, What Baptists Believe: The New Hampshire Confession—An Exposition [Nashville: Sunday School Board Southern Baptist Convention, 1913], 27-28; note also the use of singular personal pronouns for the Godhead)

 

 

 

 

VIII. Of Repentance and Faith.

 

We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby, being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour.

 

 

10. When the soul responds to these four influences, there will be a three-fold manifestation—“Contrition, confession, and supplication.” There will be contrition. The sense of sin will be actual. It will be more than a flippant admission of moral failure; the feeling of sorrow on account of sin will be real. IT will be more acute because of the new view of Jesus Christ. When we find that we have sinned against him who is not only consummate goodness and love, but one whose goodness and love have sought us by the way of his self-sacrifice, contrition follows.

 

There will be confession. Contrition is not complete until it moves to confession. Refusal to confess our sins is proof that we have not honestly and completely repented of our sins. It is proof that we wish to evade the consequences of our sins, and not the direct consequence only but even those consequences which Christ, who would save us from the great penalties, sees to be needful to our moral amendment. It is when the Spirit of God has had his way in the soul that contrition is followed by confession.

 

There will be supplication. The language of repentance and faith is not simply contrition and confession, but also supplication. The soul does more than tell the story of its sin and sorrow. It supplicates the divine mercy. This is because there is faith. Faith asks for mercy, knowing that there is mercy in Jesus Christ. Faith asks for infinite blessing, having heard from the gospel that there is infinite blessing waiting for those who come to God by him. Forgiveness, grace to help in time of need,--these, with all that they include of richest grace, are properly sought in fervent supplication by him who has been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit. (O. C. S. Wallace, What Baptists Believe: The New Hampshire Confession—An Exposition [Nashville: Sunday School Board Southern Baptist Convention, 1913], 89-90)

 

 

XI. Of the Perseverance of Saints.

 

We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare; and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

 

. . . a man may be self-deceived. He may have refused the complete surrender of his heart which the gospel demanded, believing that he could obtain eternal life at smaller cost. He may have persuaded himself that he has indeed obtained life. In that hope he may have entered into the discharge of the duties of the Christian life, and long have met no test which he did not appear to sustain with fair credit. Self-deceived he has been lulled into a false security. The awakening comes with some unexpected costs, some temptation for which he was not prepared. Then it is revealed that the life of the past was an outer conformity and not the result of an inner change. As long as life lasts there is the possibility of such failure. If it comes even at the last of life, it is as sure proof as if it had come earlier that the soul has not passed from death unto life. (O. C. S. Wallace, What Baptists Believe: The New Hampshire Confession—An Exposition [Nashville: Sunday School Board Southern Baptist Convention, 1913], 121-22)

 

 

Maximus the Confessor on "Forerunner" in Ambigua 49

  

From Saint Gregory’s same oration On Pascha:

 

Having put to death the members that are on the earth, and imitating the cincture of John, the desert-dweller and forerunner and great herald of the truth.

 

The one who imitates the “cincture” of John is he who by the power of reason tightly binds the fecundity of his soul in actual practice informed by knowledge, thereby preserving it from diffusion in matter. A “desert-dweller” is he [1365D] whose habit of mind is purified of the passions. A “forerunner” [GK: Προδορομος]is he who through his genuine repentance herald the righteousness that follows it, and through his outward virtue herald the knowledge that eventually will descend upon both. A “great herald of the truth” is the man whose own life confirms the word of teaching spoken by his mouth. [1368A] (Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to John: Ambiguum 49, in On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, 2 vols. [trans. Nicholas Constas; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014], 2:223)

 

Further Reading:

Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) on John the Baptist being compared to "Elijah" and there being many "forerunners" (προδομος)

Brian S. Rosner and Beverly Roberts Gaventa on "mercy seat" as the preferred translation of ιλαστηριον in Romans 3:25

  

Sadly, most of the proposals for translating ιλαστηριον are obscure in English. “Propitiation” and “expiation” are not modern English, “atonement” is a good novel, but also not in common usage. “Mercy seat” has the benefit of an established use in the OT and is used in Heb 9:5, with the NIV an outlier, rendering the word in Rom 3:24 and elsewhere as “atonement cover.”

 

The mercy seat interpretation connects directly to the temple theme in Romans and thereby the third pillar of Judaism. Although Paul never explicitly rejects the Jewish Temple and its priesthood and sacrifice, he implies as much in his use of cultic imagery to refer to the work of Christ. With respect to the temple in Romans Paul identifies Christ as the mercy seat (3:21-26), calls on believers to offer their bodies as living sacrifices with cultic terminology in 12:1-2, and Paul characterizes his mission in terms of “priestly service” in 15:17, but not, it must be said, in the Jerusalem Temple. Once again, we observe a pattern of rejection, though in this case implicit, and elaborate reappropriation of a central symbol of Judaism.

 

The purpose (εις + accusative) of God displaying Jesus as the mercy seat by his blood is to demonstrate his righteousness. How does it do this? God’s righteous character might have been called into question since he had passed over sins prior to the sacrifice of Christ without punishing them. But the death of Christ vindicates God’s righteous character in the present era “showing that the forgiveness granted did not compromise his justice” (Schreiner, Romans, 204); thus God remains righteous when declaring righteous those who believe in Jesus.

 

A possible weakness of this interpretation of 3:25b-26 is that the demonstration of God’s righteousness here is his judging righteousness rather than his saving righteousness. However, δικαισυνη θεου appears in Rom 3:5 as God’s judging righteousness and the cognate term, δικαιοκρισια, in Rom 2:5 refers to God’s “just verdict” in punishing sinners. (BDAG s.v. δικαικρισια [246]) And as Schreiner points out, “the presence of δικαιον [in 3:26] indicates that God’s righteousness can’t be confined to his saving righteousness.” (Schreiner, Romans, 206) In other words, not only God’s saving righteousness but also his judging righteousness are displayed in the death of Christ. (Brian S. Rosner, "The Revelation of God’s Saving Righteousness (Romans 3:21-31)," in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Theological Essays, ed. Douglas J. Moo, Eckhard J. Schnabel, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Frank Thielman [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2023], 121-22)

 

 

The linguistic evidence overwhelmingly favors the rendering “cover of the ark of the covenant.” Hilastērion in the LXX regularly appears as a translation for kapporet (the cover of the ark of the covenant; e.g., Exod 25:18-22; Elv 16:2, 13-15; Num 7:89; and see Heb 9:5). Kapporet appears four times in the Dead Sea Scrolls, always with reference to a feature of the temple (4Q364 17.3; 4Q365 8a-b.1; 11Q19 3.9; 11Q19 7.9; similarly in Philo, Cherubim 25; Flight 100; Moses 2.95-96). Hilastērion can also be used for gifts offered to the gods, as an offering made to Athena (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 11.121), or a tomb built by Hyrcanus (Josephus, Ant. 16.182). The word is used metaphorically in 4 Macc 17:22, where the phrase “the hilastērion of their death” refers to the death of martyrs; yet this phrase, like Rom 3:25, seems to be the figurative use of a conventional term for a place or a thing rather than an abstract concept (Baily 2000).

 

Despite this strong evidence, translating hilastērion as a figurative reference to the cover of the ark of the covenant prompts some objections. One such objection is grammatical; in the LXX hilastērion virtually always carries the definite article, as it does in Heb 9:5, but there is no definite article in 3:25, leading to the conclusion that the referent is a general act of mercy rather than a specific place (Cranfield 1:214-15). However, hilastērion is a predicate accusative, which does not regularly take the article (Smyth 1956, §1614); in addition, hilastērion could be understood by Paul as a one-of-a-kind object, which again does not require the article (Wallace 1996, 248).

 

A second objection to translating hilastērion as a figurative reference to the cover of the ark of the covenant is that gentiles among Phoebe’s auditors at Rome would not understand the reference (Käsemann 97). This objection loses considerable force, however, if the Roman gentile Christians are understood as sebomenoi who are familiar with Scripture—knowledge of which is certainly presumed in the letter.

 

Third, the identification of Jesus with a “thing” even with “a piece of furniture” (Cranfield, 1:215), proves unimaginable to some, yet this objection misunderstands the role of the cover of the ark of the covenant, to say nothing of misconceiving metaphorical language. It appears not to be problematic when the Johannine Jesus compares himself with a vine or with bread (John 6:31-58; 15:1-6), and it should not be problematic in Romans if Paul compares Jesus Christ with the cover of the ark of the covenant.

 

To the contrary, the identification of Jesus Christ with the hilastērion is a powerful one. Among the most obvious features of the ark of the covenant is that human beings constructed it following God’s specifications. The instructions in Exod 25:10-22 repeatedly insist, “You shall make” or “You shall put.” In Romans, of course, it is explicitly God who puts Jesus forward as the cover. Consistent with the contrast between divine and human action elsewhere in this letter, Paul once again draws attention to God’s role in making this hilastērion happen.

 

More to the point, Scripture identifies the hilastērion as the place at which God makes himself known. Culminating the building plan in Exod 25 is the declaration “There I will meet you, and from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will tell you all that I am commanding you for the Israelites” (Exod 25:22 NRSVue). This point comes to expression even more forcefully in Lev 16, with God’s instructions regarding the Day of Atonement ritual. Aaron is warned against coming before the hilastērion at any time other than the Day of Atonement, because he will die there, so powerful is God’s holy presence in that place (16:2; and see Num 7:89). (While the term hilastērion has clear association with the Day of Atonement, that does not necessarily mean that Paul sees Jesus as a replacement for the temple sacrifice, a move that would be more at home in the book of Hebrews than in Paul) In the Second Temple there is, of course, no ark of the covenant, and thus no hilastērion. As Josephus writes (J.W. 5.219), at the very center of the holy of holies there is nothing. Yet an association is made between hilastērion and God’s glory (as in Philo, Moses 2.95-100; Cherubim 25). The identification of Christ Jesus with this hilastērion, then, also calls up the very holiness of God and God’s self-revelation. Jesus is put forward as the holiest place at which God makes himself known to humankind. Given the emphasis in the early chapters of Romans on the glory of God and of humanity’s refusal to acknowledge that glory, this reference to Jesus as the center of the holy of holies is significant.

 

One thing that should be noted here is the easy way in which Pual refers to “his” blood and then “his” righteousness, without carefully sorting out which “his” belongs to which agent. This slight unclarity may suggest that disengaging the two agents is less an issue for Paul than for his interpreters. To be sure ,the actor here is God, but the notion that redemption is “in Christ Jesus” already indicates that God is not acting with this agent in the same way as God acted with Moses or Abraham or David. God’s self-revealing act is bound up with Jesus.

 

Construing the relationships among the string of prepositional phrases that follow is a challenge. The hilastērion is said to be both “through faith” (dia tēs pisteōs) and “by his blood” (en tō autou haimati), which can be rendered “through faith in his blood,” as in the KJV and the NIV. Nowhere else, however, does Paul or any other NT text refer to belief in the blood of Jesus. Paul rarely follows either the noun pistis or the verb pisteuō with en, as in “belief in” or “believe in.” (Rom 10:9 refers to the location of trust or belief as “in your heart,” and Gal 3:26 to faith or trust “in Christ Jesus”) It is also unclear how God’s offering of Jesus as the cover of the ark of the covenant is accomplished through belief in blood. Instead of linking “through faith” with “by his blood,” the two prepositional phrases stand in apposition: God acted through faith, that is, through God’s own faithfulness, as in Rom 3:3, and God acted by means of Jesus’s blood. Coupled with the reference to the holy of holies, the graphic reference to blood suggests a connection to sacrifice, but that connection should not be overstated, especially at 5:9 again uses “blood” metonymically to refer to death. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 113-15)

 

Notes from Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary (2024)

  

Rom 3:20:

 

Therefore, from observance of the law no flesh will be rectified before God, since through the law comes recognition of Sin. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 91)

 

Although the phrase ergon nomou, translated literally, is “works of law,” that rendering readily feeds the perception that Paul is actually contrasting “works” or “working” faith “faith” or “believing.” The more capacious word “observance” not only avoids that difficulty but reflects the historic insistence on “keeping” or “observing” the law, as in, e.g., Exod 18:20; Deut 31:12; 1QS 5.21-22 (Martyn 1997a, 260-63; Bell 1994, 224-37). Despite energetic arguments that Paul’s use of the phrase concerns only certain boundary-making practices of the law (esp. circumcision and food laws) rather than observance of the law in toto, Paul’s comments do not lend themselves readily to restriction (contra Dunn 1:153-55, 158-60; Wright 460-61). That is particularly the case in Rom 3, because what the catena in vv. 10-18 attacks includes corrupt attitudes towards God, toxic speech, and deadly action. (Ibid., 92 n. k)

 

Rom 5:1:

 

Therefore, since we have been rectified by faith, let us enjoy the peace we have with God through hour Lord Jesus Christ (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 139)

 

After giving an overview of the textual difference (εχομεν vs. εχωμεν):

 

Resolving this particular problem matters less than it may seem, because the exhortation is based entirely on God’s work, as is clear in the rest of the passage, and because the exhortation is to “have peace” rather than to “make peace.” (Ibid., 139 n. a)

 

With the words “Let us enjoy the peace we have with God,” we come to the exhortation that might have been expected following 3:26 but never materialized. And yet it is a peculiar exhortation, which may account for the conflicted manuscript tradition (see translation note a on v. 1). What makes the exhortation peculiar is that nothing follows to indicate what exactly the exhortation means. It is not that “we” can do something to bring peace about; on the contrary, everything that follows indicates that God has already acted to bring about peace. “Let us enjoy peace” captures the sense of this exhortation as an invitation to celebrate God’s intervention in Jesus Christ, and that invitation in turn coheres with the numerous doxological elements throughout the letter.

 

The language of peace may seem surprising, as it has scarcely entered the letter before this point. God is the one who grants peace, whether it is in the greeting of the letter (“grace and peace from God”; 1:7), in the eschatological gifts promised Jew and gentile alike (2:10), or in prayer (15:33). Among Paul’s designations for God is “God of peace” (15:33; 16:20; 1 Thess 5:23; Phil 4:9; see also Heb 13:20). Reference to peace with God is especially apt here, whether Paul is about to demonstrate how humanity has been at enmity with God due to its enslavement to Sin and Death.

 

This particular phrase (“peace with God”) is not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, but the LXX does associate peace with divine activity (as in 1 Chr 12:19; Ps 84:9; Isa 26:12; 54:1) as Paul has already done in 2:10. The notion of peace with God is especially urgent for Paul, giving his analysis of the human situation. This phrase recalls 3:17, with its citation of Isa 59:8: “They do not know the way of peace.” The way of peace that humanity does not know now becomes the peace with God that humanity knows and enjoys because of God’s actions in Jesus Christ. (Ibid., 140-41)

 

Rom 9:5:

 

Theirs are the fathers, and from them is the Christ, physically speaking, the one who is over all—God be blessed forever. Amen! (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 267)

 

Paul does identify Christ closely with God, but he nowhere else directly names him God. No other doxology in Paul’s letters in ascribed to Christ. Even assuming Paul would call Christ “God,” the question remains whether he would do that as this point in this letter. As he takes up the fraught discourse about God’s dealings with Israel (and the gentiles), it would be ill-advised for Paul badly to identify Christ as God. The “Amen!” that follows invites Roman auditors to join in, to lend their assent to the doxology, so that Paul can begin the long journey to 11:26. Does he really want to set the teeth of his auditors on edge at the very beginning, especially when he is about to narrate a rather peculiar version of Israel’s history? Paul does challenge his auditors at a number of points, as with the shift to accusation at 2:1, the insistence that “we” were weak, ungodly sinners in 5:6-11, and especially the challenge to gentile arrogance in 11:18-19, but it is hard to see why he would insert this direct challenge at this juncture in the letter.

 

The translation above seeks middle ground by inserting a dash between “the one who is over all” and “God,” leaving interpretation to the ear of the audience. In fact, resolving this ambiguity has every little consequence for understanding the argument Paul is undertaking (Keck 229), despite the vigorous discussion it has generated and even its potential significance for understanding Paul’s Christology. On either reading, Paul has firmly identified the Christ as biologically connected to the Israelites, and on either reading the Christ is one of the gifts God has bestowed on the Israelites. In addition, on other reading, the doxology, one of several in the letter (also 1:25; 11:36; 15:33), invites the auditors to join in Paul’s praise for all God’s gifts. Paul presumably hopes that the auditors in Rome will also listen generously to what comes next. (Ibid., 272-73)

 

Rom 11:17-21:

 

Paul’s depiction of grafting a wild shoot into a cultivated tree prompts questions about actual practice. A near contemporary of Paul, Columella, wrote extensively about the cultivation of trees in De res rustica and De arboribus. In one passage, he describes what appears to be a therapeutic treatment for unproductive olive trees, by which the tree itself is rejuvenated through the insertion of a “green slip taken from a wild-olive tree” (Rust. 5.9.16). Yet nothing in Rom 11 suggests that Paul understands the tree itself as needing rescue (as distinct from certain branches; contra Baxter and Ziesler 1985). In addition, Columella elsewhere describes grafting at some length, which seems to be distinct from this process of rejuvenating an unproductive tree (Rust. 5.11; Esler 2003a).

 

Other ancient texts reflect a practice directly contrary to Paul’s language: cultivated shoots are grafted into wild trees, not the other way around. Theophrastus recommends grafting cultivated slips into wild trees and explicitly warns against the opposite strategy (De causis plantarum 1.6.10). Theophrastus was writing in the third century BCE, which might undermine his relevance. Yet several of Paul’s early interpreters, including Ambrosiaster (209), Augustine (Enarrat. Ps. 72.2; Burns 275) and Pelagius (129), comment that Paul has reversed standard practice. Augustine explains, “We never see a wild olive grafted onto a cultivated olive tree. For whoever did such a thing would find nothing but wild olives.”

 

This reversal of normal practice may be deliberate (so Esler 2003a), in keeping with Paul’s strategy elsewhere (see e.g., on 9:25; 10:5-8). The lack of verisimilitude should not be overinterpreted, however; Paul will shortly opine that the branches that have been cut off can be grated back into the tree, a prospect so wildly unrealistic as to suggest that Paul is scarcely concerned with agricultural practice, not even with the intentional undermining of agricultural practice. In both cases, that of the initial engrafting and that of the return of the missing branches, Paul’s picture is contrary to nature, consistent with his depiction of gentile believers in v. 24 (as well as in 9:25-26, 30). God can accomplish this unnatural act, which rules out any gentile boasting (as he will shortly emphasize in v. 18). (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 314-15)

 

Rom 13:1-7 and Rulers belonging to God:

 

Quite apart from this complex history, numerous challenges arising from the passage itself make it difficult to gain interpretive leverage. Paul’s announcement that everyone should “submit” to the governing authorities arrives with no fanfare. The transition from the end of ch. 12 is abrupt, and no word of introduction hints at the reason for Paul’s comments (by contrast, e.g., with 7:1; 1 Cor 8:1; 1 Thess 5:1). Here the focus is on a single issue, for which Paul provides an extended argument, by contrast with the numerous topics introduced in Rom 12. In addition, no parallels to this passage elsewhere in his letters provide points of comparison or possibly supplement understanding.

 

A further puzzle posed by this passage is the extent to which it appears to contradict what Paul has said earlier in the letter about the inability of the human to do the good. The first half of the letter depicts the human being as subject to the power of Sin, unable to do what is right, producing evil when desiring the good (see above on 3:10-18; 5:12-21; 7:7-25). Yet Rom 13 claims that rulers both know and serve the good (although see below for qualifications of those claims), an optimistic assessment hard to reconcile with Paul’s insistence in chs. 1-8 that all human beings are subject to the power of Sin (see Gaventa 2017a for further discussion of this point).

 

Some scholars have taken these peculiarities as indications that the passage was not part of the letter originally but was inserted by a later editor (e.g., Barnikol 1961; Walker 2001). Such arguments have not won wide acceptance because no manuscript evidence supports a version of the letter without this passage. Another strategy of accounting for the passage is to contend that Paul is speaking with irony (Carter 2004) or, more popularly, that this is a “hidden transcript,” a public document whose subversive meaning is accessible to believing insiders but veiled from others (N. Elliott 2008, drawing on J. Scott 1990). Yet Paul did not write Romans for a larger audience, but only for those in Rome who are “called to be saints” (1:7), so there is little reason to imagine a need to conceal meaning from outsiders (Barclay 2011, 382-83; Robinson 2021).

 

This reminder about the letter’s audience can provide an important curb against some egregious interpretations. Paul does not appear to be addressing the authorities themselves, who stand outside the passage as a third party. His instructions aim to shape the behavior of the addresses, who are believers, rather than their rulers. That means this is not a treatise on rulership, as is Seneca’s De clementia, which purports to advise the emperor Nero on the differences between a tyrant and a good ruler. Treating Rom 13 as an address to rulers can promote the presumption that God sanctions any and all action by rulers. Far from providing rulers with unrestricted authority, however, Paul’s assertion that God puts authorities in place means that a their authority is derivative and is subject to withdrawal, recalling what he has already said about Pharaoh in 9:17.

 

Chapter 12 suggests an orientation for approaching this passage. Paul’s goal throughout ch. 12 appears to be the strengthening of the vulnerable Roman communities of faith. To some extent that is the case for the whole letter, but it seems particularly clear in ch. 12 (and again in ch. 14), where he is preoccupied with the ways believers engage with one another and encourage one another. If strengthening and protecting are Paul’s major concerns in the preceding passage and again in the one that follows, then 13:1-7 may also reflect his fear that Roman auditors will imperil themselves and one another, in this instance by resisting rulers (whether local or otherwise), particularly by their refusal to pay taxes (see below on vv. 6-7).

 

Attending to the structure of this passage is of critical importance. It open with a call for submission, which is repeated in v. 5:

 

Every person should submit
That is why it is necessary to submit.

 

Between these two imperative formulations, vv. 1b-4 provide an extended defense of the imperative. Prominent in the defense is an insistence on God’s role, but that insistence is coupled with a emphasis on fear:

 

Rulers are a cause for fear not to good work but to evil
You don’t want to fear?
If you do evil, then fear.

 

This extended admonition culminates in the specific instructions of vv. 6-7, introduced by dia touto (“for this reason”). For those who bring to their reading centuries of argumentation focused on vv. 1-5, vv. 6-7 seem to be an afterthought, but the dia touto makes it clear they are crucial. Verses 1-5 justify the admonition, but vv. 6-7 explain why the admonition is necessary, even if the particular circumstances—the details regarding tribute and taxes—remain unstated, known to Pual and presumably his Roman addresses and thus assumed rather than expressed. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 356-58)

 

Rom 16:25-27:

 

These verses appear in brackets, as they do in NA²⁸, to indicate serious doubt that they belong with the letter. Although they do appear at this point in 𝔓⁶¹ א B C D et al., in some manuscripts they are omitted altogether (F G 269), while in others they appear at the end of ch. 14 (L Ψ 0209^vid 1175 et al.), or at the end of ch. 15 (𝔓⁴⁶), or here and at the end of ch. 14 (A P 33 104), or at the end of ch. 14 and again at the end of ch. 15 (1406). Such instability as to the placement of these verses raises serious doubts about whether they belong with the letter at all, and those doubts increase given the content. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 438)

 

This doxology appears in most standard translations of the NT, although it probably represents an early insertion into the letter. (Ibid., 444)

 

The NA²⁸ places lines in brackets, indicating uncertainty as to their inclusion. Although numerous scholars agree that these lines are post-Pauline (e.g., Fitzmyer 753; Byrne 461-62; Cranfield 2:808-9; Jewett 990-1002; Wolter 2:505); others contend that the doxology does belong in the letter (e.g., Schreiner 784-5; L. Johnson 221, 223). Ibid., 444 n. 37)

 

Geocentrism in Maximus the Confessor's The Ambigua

  

In the first place, a “year,” according to our holy and wise teachers, is the periodic return of the sun to the same point from which it began, a circuit which contains the distinctive fivefold characteristic of time. For time is divided and drawn together by units of day, [1357A] week, month, season, and year. The same is true of the year itself, which is divided into units of hour, day, week, month, and season, yet its movement remains continuous and uninterrupted by intervals, so that the divisions perceived in light of its alterations are merely the measurement of time’s continuous and uninterrupted movement.

 

If in such manner, then, the year unfolds for us according to the movement of the sun, it follows that the year acceptable to the Lord (as Scripture calls it), when understood allegorically, is the entire extension of the ages, beginning from the moment when God was pleased  to give substance to beings and existence to what did not exist, and, through His providence—like an intelligible sun whose power holds the universe together in stability and graciously consents to emit its [1357B] rays—He deigned to vary the modes of His presence so that the good things He planted in beings might ripen to full maturity, until all the ages will have reached their appointed limit. (Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to John: Ambiguum 46, in On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, 2 vols. [trans. Nicholas Constas; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014], 2:203, 205)

 

More Instances of Maximus the Confessor predicating θεος of Titus 2:13 to Jesus, not the Father

  

And if the case of Adam the concurrence of the two-fold power of the inbreathing accompanied the moment of his coming into being, what should one say about the presence of both—I mean of soul and body—in the humanity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ [GK: του Θεου και Σωτηρος ημων ‘Ιησου Χριστου], a blending that preserves as much resemblance as is possible to the first Adam? (Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to John: Ambiguum 42, in On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, 2 vols. [trans. Nicholas Constas; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014], 2:141)

 

But who would be able to enumerate all the aspects of God our Savior [GK: του Σωτηρος ημων Θεου], which exist for our sake, and according to which He has made Himself edible and participle to all in proportion to the measure of each? (Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to John: Ambiguum 48, in On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, 2 vols. [trans. Nicholas Constas; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014], 2:221)

 

Further Reading:

Maximus the Confessor Predicating θεος in Titus 2:13 to Jesus, not the Father

Patrick Schreiner, "Ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament Background"

  

 

Ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament Background

 

Paul begins Romans by speaking of the gospel. He asserts he was set apart for the gospel, which God promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). Paul anchors the gospel in salvation history. Therefore, it is to the ANE and OT background that we must turn to understand what Paul means when he refers to ευαγγελιον.

 

In the OT the root בָּשַׂר occurs 30 times in all, and the root is well attested in the ANE. Akkadian has forms that indicate the word itself was neutral—to bring a message (news)—and can be delineated by adding other terms making it “bad news,” “good news,” or “joyful news.” In Ugaritic, the verb means to “bring glad tidings” and appears three times. First, when Anat brings Baal the joyful news of the birth of a bull calf, he calls it good news. Second, the term is employed in the context of conquest. Finally, the term is used when Anat brings Baal the news that a house is doing to be built for him. Though the first reference is in the more general context of good news, the second two pertains to political, military, and cosmic victory.

 

In the OT, readers find the term בָּשַׂר and ευαγγελιον only occasionally, but usually connected with some sort of political and/or military context. In LXX 1 Sam 31:9 (and LXX 1 Chr 10:9) the Philistines cut off Saul’s head and send the “good news” to all the Philistines. The term is employed in the same context but from the Israelite perspective in LXX 2 Sam 1:20, where David tells the people not to not “tell” (αναγγελλω) of Saul’s death in Gath or “announce it” (ευαγγελιζω) in Ashkelon, because then the Philistines will rejoice. (The same sense is found in 2 Sam 4:10; 18:19-31) In a few instances, it is related to the reward one receives. In 1 Kgs 1:46, Adonijah expects to hear “goods news” from Jonathan in relation to his kingship but ends up by hearing that Solomon has been anointed as king. IN 2 Kgs 7:9, the good news refers to the flight of the Arameans.

 

The Psalms continue this designation when David speaks of the good news of righteousness (δικαιοσυνη; ṣedeq; Ps 40:9 [Eng.]; LXX Ps 39:10). Though this could be interpreted in a more individual or personal way it comes from the mouth of Yahweh who saves and delivers David the king and therefore the nation. Women tell the good news of kings fleeing before Israel in Ps 68:11 (LXX 67:12), and the whole earth is to proclaim the good news of his salvation in the context of Yahweh reigning in Ps 96:2 (LXX 95:2). Already in the Psalms, the בָּשַׂר is beginning to be expanded to cover the whole earth.

 

The prophets also use בָּשַׂר and ευαγγελιον in the contexts of political and military victory or at least the promise of this, but they also begin to expand to something bigger than Jerusalem. It concerns all flesh, all creation, and all nations worshiping before Yahweh. In Joel 2:32 (LXX 3:5), the prophet tells of the day when everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved. He describes the good news. In Nahum “good news” is employed in the context of the defeat of Assyrian’s king, allowing those in Judah to celebrate their festivals (Nah 1:15; LXX 2:1). Lingering in the background of all these uses is the covenant Yahweh has made his people. Good news comes to them because they are his people.

 

Probably the most important context for the NT use of ευαγγελιον comes in the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah employs the term in relationship to the coming reign of Yahweh and the return from exile. Zion and Jerusalem are to proclaim the “good news” of God’s return to establish his rule which is further described as Yahweh shepherding his people (Isa 40:9-11). The prophet also declares the bloodied and dusty feet of those who carry good news are beautiful because they proclaim peace, salvation, and tell that God reigns (Isa 52:7). Isaiah 52:7 parallels the good news with God’s reign which brings peace and salvation. In Isa 61:1, the anointed one announces the Spirit of Yahweh is upon him to bring good news which is further defined as “binding up the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to the captives, the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”

 

The Isaianic gospel therefore pertains to Israel’s national salvation through their Messiah who will return them to their land and restore the fortunes of their kingdom. However, Isaiah also expands this term to mean salvation for the nations. All humanity will see the glory of the Lord when he establishes a new exodus (Isa 40:4-5). IT is Yahweh’s servant who will accomplish this, and he will do so by suffering. “He will sprinkle the nations. Kings will shut their mouths because of him” (Isa 52:15). Israel will enlarge the site of their tent; their curtains will be stretched out (Isa 54:2).

 

Though there are a few references that fall outside of the normal political and militaristic contexts, the majority of settings pertain to kings, battles, and victories. What readers will find is that a similar phenomenon occurs in the Greco-Roman background to the term. The Psalms and the Prophets begin to expand this political term to include all nations and all flesh, even giving indications that this victory will be accomplished by suffering rather than the sword. (Patrick Schreiner, "The Meaning of Ευαγγελιον: Lexical and Tradition-Historical Explorations," in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Theological Essays, ed. Douglas J. Moo, Eckhard J. Schnabel, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Frank Thielman [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2023], 88-90)

 

 

A. Andrew Das on Romans 7:2-3

  

Paul concludes that a death must take place to free a person from the law. In the illustration the woman bound to a husband is called an adulteress if she “becomes another man’s” by marriage. (James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 36) The only means for a woman to enjoy a second marriage without being called an adulteress is for the first husband to die. Paul assumes that death is necessary to release a person from the martial bond in vv. 203 and that his audience would take this for granted. He argues from these comments to the need for a death to take place to free a person from the Mosaic law as well. (Stressed also by Witherington, Women in Earliest Churches, 62-64. Only a death dissolves the marital bond) The fact that elsewhere in 1 Cor 7:39 Paul mentions as normative the wife’s being bound to her husband until he dies demonstrates that “the metaphorical use [in Rom 7:2-3] does not cancel out the literal meaning of this law.” (Tomson, “What Did Paul Mean,” 577) Again, Paul assumes the normativity of this legal principle in order to apply it metaphorically: A death must take place for the wife to enjoy freedom from her husband.

 

What is shocking about this illustration is that Paul writes this to the Romans. Roman divorce law allowed either partner to divorce the other (cf. Mark 19:11-12). An ordinary reader in a Roman context would have found Paul’s premise problematic: a woman is not bound to her husband as long as he lives, such that marrying another man would be adulterous. Divorces took place regularly. According to Hellenistic law, for instance, a woman could simply “leave” her husband. As Wolff explains, “Both spouses could dissolve the marriage at will and without formality, by mutual agreement, or by expelling or deserting the other partner.” (H. J. Wolff, “Hellenistic Private Law,” in Safrai and Stern, Jewish People I the First Century, 1:540) Although a wife could freely instigate divorce, if the divorcing woman should later decide to marry another, a second husband would want to be cautious not to violate the rights of a former husband. A former husband’s divorce certificate (annulment) would be prudent. A Greco-Roman parallel in Rom 7:2-3 highlights the differences:

 

If on the other hand he [the husband] were dead, she would be free of the charge [of adultery], for no one exists to suffer the injury of the adultery, and when a marriage lacks a man, it cannot be insulted. But if on the other hand the marriage has not been annulled, because the husband is still alive, then a stranger corrupting the wife has poached on another man’s property. (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 8.10.11-12)

 

What rendered the woman an adulteress after she had married another man while her first husband was still alive was that her original marriage had not been annulled. Without a divorce certificate, a wife was not necessarily entirely free of the first husband. Another husband could be stealing the first husband’s property. Precisely that possibility of annulment or a divorce certificate is what is lacking in Rom 7:2-3. Paul’s illustration omits precisely what the average Roman header would have expected. The point would have been clear.

 

Even the Jews posed two options: either the death of the husband or the divorce bill would allow a woman to enjoy her freedom. “She acquires her freedom by a bill of divorce or by the death of her husband” (m. Qidd, 1:3; cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.7.10 §259). It is no coincidence that Paul’s language in Rom 7:2-3 is identical to Deut 24:2’s in an immediate context of the issuing of divorce certifications: ([εαν] απελθουσα γενηται ανδρι ετερω)! (In view of 1 Cor 7:10-11, the source must be the teaching of Jesus). In other words, both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources regularly identify both the death of her husband and divorce as means by which a wife enjoys the freedom to marry another. The wife could apply pressure for her husband to divorce if she had not initiated it herself. Divorce certificates therefore abounded in this world with their “freedom” for the wife. The apostle conspicuously does not allow divorce as an option here, only the death of the husband—and he assumes this in order to argue another point.

 

Paul addresses the Roman gentiles as those who know the law in Rom 7:1, but this is also an aspect of the law that he had apparently been engaged in teaching, if 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39-40 is any indication. He had been instructing his gentile converts into a very different approach to marriage as a lifelong union. Peter Tomson concludes that an “apostolic marriage law” was widely disseminated in early Christianity. Commentators advocating for remarriage claim that Paul does not mention here the possibility of divorce since it simply was not in view. These interpreters overlook that Paul does explicitly envision a woman married to another man after the first. He then states that it is not possible for her to avoid the charge of adultery in that second marriage as long as the first husband remains alive. The Roman Christ-believing audience would have immediately recognized divorce as an exception to lifelong marital relationships in their larger world—unless there has been prior to the contrary. Paul does not go further to mention divorce simply because, for the apostle, a divorce would not eliminate the adultery in marrying another man or change the situation. As Peter Tomson rightly concludes, Rom 7:3 “is an explicative corollary which excludes divorce as a means of terminating the marriage by stating that, as long as the husband lives, the woman cannot ‘become another mans’.” (Tomson, “What Did Paul Mean,” 576) (A. Andrew Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 226-28)