Thoughts of a Living Christian

Musings of an amateur theologian and hopeful writer

Romans 5.1-11


Romans 5.1-11 is an exciting passage in the epistle to the Romans. This chapter is a decisive shift in Paul’s argument as he moves from they why and how of justification, to detailing the benefits of this justification. As a result of being justified we receive peace with God, but more than that – we are reconciled to God. By this, Paul argues that not only are we made innocent before God’s judgment, avoiding his wrath and condemnation through Christ’s sacrifice, we in fact become friends of God, as our relationship is restored and strengthened. Furthermore, we receive absolute assurance that our hope in God and in our salvation will not disappoint us. We objectively understand Christ’s sacrifice but we also subjectively experience God’s love for us. Because of this, we have constant access to God’s love and blessing, and we also have the ability to endure suffering that is inevitable in this world.

The overall message of this passage has to do with the assurance of our hope. We are assured our hope is valid. This will be analyzed in the following exegetical essay. The essay will start by placing the passage in its context, followed by systematic exegesis of the passage. A summary of the major themes of the passage – namely (1) the assurance of hope, and (2) reconciliation – will conclude the exegetical part of the essay, followed by hermeneutical section, applying the passage to a contemporary setting. The essay does, however, argue that the themes are universal and timeless, and, hence, relating the passage solely to a 21st century context is irrelevant. Instead, the essay will attempt to outline the themes in order to make them relevant to any setting.


The exegete is faced with a few problems when interpreting this passage. Whilst the overall message is agreed upon to be an assurance of hope, minor disputations have risen surrounding issues involving some of the theological themes, the use of ‘we’, and the location of the passage within the text. Often overlooked is Paul’s use of ‘we’. Tobin states that “by using the first-person-plural subjunctive (‘we’)…[Paul] rhetorically unites himself with his audience,”[1] and McDonald goes so far as to argue this passage is primarily a bridge between Paul and his audience. In previous chapters, Paul has not used the first-person-plural, however he now uses it eighteen times, speaking of the faith Paul and his Roman audience share. Thus, McDonald concludes that Paul diplomatically establishes himself with his audience prior to this passage, unites them in this passage, and confidently maintains this unity through the rest of the epistle. Paul relates the Christian experience of justification and reconciliation (vv.9, 10) to this unity experienced by Paul and his audience.[2] Whilst providing helpful insights, McDonald places too much emphasis on the use of the first-person-plural, essentially missing the major thrust of the passage.

Some commentators place this passage within Paul’s first argument (i.e. ch.1-5), marking a separation between chapters five and six.[3] Advocates of this structure argue that chapters 1-5 deal with justification, and 6-8 deal with sanctification. However, Schreiner postulates a separation between chapters four and five, arguing that “chapters 1-4 emphasize that God has fulfilled his promises so that both Jews and Gentiles are now part of the family of Abraham, and human beings can enter into the people of God by faith, whereas chapters 5-8 highlight the hope that belongs to those who are right with God.”[4] Moo similarly argues for such a structure, detailing the similarities this passage has with 8.18-39, forming an inclusio for chapters 5-8, thus emphasizing this unity.[5]

Thus far, therefore, we can see a clear unity in chapters 1-4, dealing with justification; 1.18-3.20 detail the need for justification, 3.21-4.25 detail the way of justification.[6] Chapter five marks a distinct shift in Paul’s argument, now detailing the benefits of being justified. According to Fitzmyer, “through the gospel and through the grace of God that it proclaims humanity now finds justification, redemption, expiation, and pardon of its sins…Paul now explains how, as a result of such justification and salvation, human beings are at peace with God, and now God’s love further manifests itself toward them.”[7]

The use of ‘therefore’ in v.1 connects this passage with previous passages,[8] and this verse essentially summarizes the argument of these previous passages.[9] However, Paul continues by explaining the benefits of this justification. Fitzmyer asserts that the translation is literally “justified from faith,”[10] a connotation referring to the once-off action of Jesus Christ. Other commentators, despite a slightly different translation (eg. Schreiner asserts it should be read, “justified by faith”[11] and Moo, “justified through faith”[12]), come to the same conclusion[13]. Following is the first of several benefits of this justification. Paul’s phrasing has been a matter of debate surrounding the nature of the verb (echomen, or echōmen);[14] even so, the argument is clear: justification results in peace with God. An analysis of ‘peace’ is below, but for the moment it is important to understand the interpretation of this to basically mean that Christ has removed the possibility of us receiving God’s wrath.

Bruce argues that ‘access’ (v.2) is appropriate[15], but Stott claims ‘introduction’ is a better translation, arguing that ‘access’ “might suggest that we take the initiative to enter” whereas ‘introduction’ “acknowledges our unfitness to enter, and our need for someone to bring us in.”[16] Hence, “through [Jesus] we have been introduced (by faith) to this grace” would be a better understanding of this verse.[17] MacArthur notes that to stand in God’s grace “refers to the permanent, secure position believers enjoy,”[18] and not necessarily access to God Himself, but to his grace, a permanent “state” Christians are in, in which God’s giving never ceases.[19] While Paul condemns boasting in human achievements, he here states that boasting “because of the gracious provision of God in Christ is entirely appropriate”[20], where boasting could further be understood as exultation.[21] In other words, it is okay – even encouraged – to boast in God and the hope we have in our future salvation. Further, boasting in God is a humble act of “turning away from efforts to claim superior honours.”[22]

Paul here (v.3) contrasts a rejoicing that is to be expected – in God, and in our salvation – with an unexpected rejoicing, that of suffering. Whereas it is good to rejoice in something that leaves behind suffering (future salvation), it is also good to rejoice in present troubles.[23] This should not be understood as a form of masochism, rather a joyous recognition of the inevitability of difficulties and the fact that, through God’s grace, we can withstand it.[24] Dunn notes that through suffering, Christians share Christ’s suffering, and, furthermore, suffering is not to be avoided, but endured patiently.[25]

The reason why we are to learn to endure suffering is because endurance produces character. This character is to be understood as ‘proven’[26] or ‘tested’[27]{MacArthur, 2007 #4} character, thus through enduring suffering, “a strength of character develops that was not present previously.”[28] This character in turn generates hope, as character is evidence of transformation, thus providing assurance.[29] Stott notes Christians have hope because “the God who is developing our character in the present can be relied on for the future too.”[30] Moo notes that hope – like a muscle – needs to be used to be strengthened.[31]

In verse five Paul explains why hope is to be treasured. Some translations use “disappoint” but some commentators, such as Dunn and Schreiner, argue the word kataischynein, preferably understood in the future tense, should be translated as “put to shame”, i.e. “hope does (will/shall) not put us to shame.”[32] In a society that places great emphasis on shame and honor, to believe in a hoax was ultimate humiliation,[33] thus Paul is arguing that this hope will not prove false; God will save us. We can be assured of this because of the subjective and emotional realization of God’s love for us, provided through the Holy Spirit. As Moo states, “it is the Spirit, dwelling in the heart of believers, who communicates God’s love to us.”[34]

Where verse five argues for a subjective assurance of our salvation, verses 6-8 argue for an objective assurance, in that Christ died for sinners.[35] Bruce asserts that the “right time” (v.6) refers to that of our “greatest need”[36]; MacArthur argues it should simply be understood as “the moment God had chosen”[37]; whilst others understand it as relating to the “weak”.[38] Considering Paul does not expand on this issue, it could be assumed to be emphasizing the weakness of the ungodly, who were doomed to perish if God did not intervene at some point. “Ungodly” refers to the refusal of worshipping God, thus emphasizing God’s love in that Christ died for those who rejected him.[39]

In order to understand verse seven, it is important to decipher why Paul distinguishes between a ‘righteous’ and a ‘good’ man. Interpretations of this vary greatly, but the tension is relieved in verse eight, as Paul’s aim is to emphasize God’s love for us, by contrasting it with human love. Some commentators argue that ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ are essentially synonymous,[40] others argue they are identical, with the ‘good’ being slightly more noble. Some argue it is referring to a good cause,[41] and some interpret it as referring to a benefactor,[42] as ‘good’ was often used in the first century to the social elite and to benefactors. Clarke argues this is the case in this instance, as “obligations which were owed to one’s benefactor were socially binding, and it would not have been unthinkable for a man to lay down his life for such an honourable person,”[43] thus God’s love for us is exemplified in that Christ died for us despite us having no claim over him. However, Martin cites several ancient authors (such as Philo, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria) and other instances in the New testament, where ‘good’ refers to the deity. Therefore, Martin concludes that in this instance Paul is essentially arguing that whilst rarely would a person die for another person (even a just person), a person might dare die for God.[44] Schreiner’s argument, however, is preferable, arguing that dikaiou and agathou are both masculine, referring to a human being, concluding “that in verse 7b he [Paul] is speaking of a person whose goodness is palpable.”[45]

The point is that God’s love is emphatically and gratuitously shown through Christ’s sacrifice and provides objective proof to the hope we have in our salvation. This is made clear in verse eight. The phrasing is similar to verse six, placing emphasis on Christ. Furthermore, by using “Christ” Paul is asserting Jesus’ messiahship is not disproved by the crucifixion.[46] According to Moo, “sinners” refers to those “hating God, in rebellion against him,” hence “the awesome quality of God’s love for us is seen in that Christ died for us while we were [hating him].”[47]

Verses nine and ten share some parallels, one being Christ’s death, of which Bruce argues should be understood in a sacrificial sense.[48] This recalls the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, and, thus, justification “was free but not cheap. It was obtained at the cost of Christ’s blood.”[49] Paul, here, argues from the greater to the lesser[50] leading Moo to conclude that if Christ has completed the ‘hard’ job of securing our salvation, how much ‘easier’ would it be for him to deliver believers from God’s wrath.[51] This wrath is to be understood as “being manifested at the eschaton, at the time of judgment.”[52]

Verse ten, according to Moo, restates what was said in verse nine, and the following layout expresses the parallels evident between these verses:[53]

v.9                                                       v.10

                                                                        If, while we were enemies,

Having now been justified                  we were reconciled to God

Through his blood                               through the death of his Son

How much more                                 how much more

                                                                        Being reconciled

Will we be saved                                 will we be saved

From wrath

Through him                                       through his life

The major difference, as can be seen, is Paul’s use of “reconciled”, rather than “justified”. Whereas justification has a forensic sense, reconciliation is more relational. Reconciliation is virtually unheard of in other religions, as Christianity is nearly unique in that the deity wishes a relationship with the human.[54] Furthermore, by labeling humans ‘enemies’ furthers this point. However, it is unsure whether Paul was referring to God’s enmity toward humans, or humans’ enmity toward God. Human beings are under God’s wrath; humans have rejected God, worshipping false gods. Therefore, Schreiner concludes that the enmity mentioned here refers to both enmity toward humans from God, and enmity toward God from humans.[55]

Verse eleven acts as a general conclusion to this passage, serving to reemphasize “the reconciliation accomplished was a gift from the Father and Son, and the human response is simply to receive gratefully the gift given.”[56] Furthermore, Dunn adds that “his chief intention seems to be to gather up the whole of the preceding paragraph by drawing into a single sentence two of the key terms from the beginning and end of the paragraph,”[57] namely boasting/rejoicing in God, and reconciliation.

The two major theological themes in this passage are the assurance of hope and reconciliation. The hope we have is to be at peace with God (v.1), share in the glory of God (v.2), and to be reconciled to God (v.10). This peace refers to humans no longer being at war with God,[58] which links to verse ten; we are no longer God’s enemies. This peace is eschatological in nature and denationalizing.[59] But is more than merely the absence of hostility; it is “the objective state of harmony with God.”[60] The remainder of this passage explains why this hope is reliable.

The second theme evident is reconciliation. Whilst ‘reconciliation’ and ‘justification’ should not semantically be separated completely, they have connotative differences. Whereas justification has a legal, forensic sense, reconciliation has greater emphasis on relationship. Reconciliation refers to the coming together of two previously hostile parties,[61] in which friendship and intimacy is experienced.[62] This theme is rare in Pauline theology, detailed in only four of Paul’s works (Rom 5.1-11; 2 Cor. 5.11-21; Eph. 2.11-22; Col. 1.15-20). Reconciliation cannot occur until justification has occurred, and – being virtually synonymous with peace – places Christians as ‘friends’ of God. This reconciliation can only occur through the death of Jesus Christ.[63]

Contemporary Relevance

Peace with God. Paul asserts that the relationship between God and humans is a hostile relationship. As Witherington notes, Paul uses a “crescendo of terms” to describe humans: weak, ungodly, sinners, and enemies.[64] These terms carry no light connotation. On the contrary, Paul’s pessimistic view of humanity is exemplified in this passage. However, this serves to demonstrate God’s incredible love. For while we were sinners, Christ died for us (v.8); while we were enemies, God longed for us (v.10). Because of this love, shown through Christ’s sacrifice, that hostility exists no more. In fact, we become God’s friends as our relationship is restored with him.

The LXX incorporates eirene as a translation of the Hebrew shalom.[65] The former has more to do with the ending of hostility, the latter – as stated above – harmony with God. Both fit the themes of justification and reconciliation of this passage, but it seems the context suits shalom, a term which further occurs as a blessing; “Paul transfers the term peace from the national blessing of Israel to the personal experience of every believer.”[66] Thus, peace – in any age and setting – is important and liberating for everyone, in order to receive comfort and blessing from God, knowing his wrath will not be felt.

Living in God’s grace and love. According to Dunn, “Paul’s thought is of the infinite resource of God’s favor (including the royal power to translate that favor into practical effect)…it is that which Christ has secured for those who seek to approach God through him, trusting themselves to him.”[67] In other words, through Jesus’ sacrifice we have direct and constant access to God who loves us and wishes to pour his blessing into our lives. Furthermore, Schreiner adds that the hope we have in God and in our salvation is unlike any other hope, in that this hope will never put us to shame.[68] Hence, living with the knowledge that we have eternal access to God, who loves us dearly, who will never put us to shame and will not visit his wrath upon us; contrarily, God will reconcile us to him, pouring his love through his Spirit into our hearts. The only appropriate response humans can give is to accept Christ’s sacrifice and God’s love through the Spirit, and to boast and rejoice in God.

Assurance of hope. The above two themes deal with God’s love for us, our being justified and reconciled to God. Further, we have hope – hope unlike anything that this world can provide – proven through: a) the subjective realization of our justification, reconciliation and God’s love for us, provided to us and proven via the Holy Spirit given to us; and b) the objective understanding of our justification and God’s love for us, proven in the historical act of Jesus’ sacrifice. This hope will not disappoint, and will be with this always, as we are in a constant state of grace, no matter what.

Endurance of suffering. Because of this hope we have, through Jesus Christ, we can endure suffering. As Moo points out, suffering is inevitable as “we still live in a world hostile to God and his values,”[69] and this suffering strengthens our faith. God does not wish for suffering, but he uses this for our advantage, if we let him (Cf. Rom. 8.28). Furthermore, it is not the suffering itself that is to be rejoiced in, rather we rejoice in the midst of this suffering. We have hope that one day God will remove all suffering.[70] Our hope is strengthened from enduring suffering,[71] and learning endurance strengthens our resolve, giving us courage, determination and focus to achieve what must be achieved, and to bring God glory.


Chapters one through four of this epistle detail the need and way of justification. This passage, supported by following chapters, details the benefits of having received this justification. Paul here is emphatically encouraging a unity of believers by using “we”, thus as Christian individuals and community, we have peace – with God, and with each other. The three main benefits of this justification are peace with God, reconciliation with God, and a hope that God will be victorious and spare our lives. Firstly, we are no longer enemies of God; the hostility between humans and God has been removed. Secondly, we have a relationship with God, a relationship in which God’s love and blessing are constantly poured into hearts. Furthermore, we have constant and eternal access to God, as we stand in his grace. Thirdly, we need not worry or become depressed in this world, as we have hope that God loves us, that he has (and will) save us, that he allows us to share in his glory, and helps us endure and be strengthened by the trials of this life.

Because of these three benefits, we can, today, experience God’s love and blessing, provided through the Holy Spirit. We have peace with God, thus liberated from his condemnation. We can rejoice in God and in our hope. We can also rejoice in our suffering. This is not enjoyment of pain, but a confident understanding that God helps us endure this suffering, and allows us, even, to benefit from it, helping us to grow through our trials. Lastly, we will not be disappointed as we have both objective and subjective proof that Christ has saved us. The only appropriate response is to love God in return.




Bruce, F. F. Romans Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.

Clarke, Andrew D. “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7.” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990): 128-142.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38a World Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1988.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1993.

Garlington, Don B. Faith, Obedience and Perseverance. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994.

Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Jewett, Robert. “Romans.” In The Cambridge Campanion to St Paul, edited by James D. G. Dunn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

MacArthur, John. The Macarthur New Testament Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007.

Martin, Troy W. “The Good as God (Romans 5.7).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25, no. 1 (2002): 55-70.

McDonald, Patricia M. “Romans 5.1-11 as a Rhetorical Bridge.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40 (1990): 81-96.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

Moo, Douglas J. The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 1998.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Romans Bible Speaks Today. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Witherington, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary”. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.

[1] Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004). 159.

[2] Patricia M. McDonald, “Romans 5.1-11 as a Rhetorical Bridge,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40, no. (1990).

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1988). Also, F. F. Bruce, Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985). and John MacArthur, The Macarthur New Testament Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007).

[4] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 1998). 245.

[5] Douglas J. Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000). 169. Cf. Robert Jewett, “Romans,” in The Cambridge Campanion to St Paul, ed. James D. G. Dunn(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). And Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience and Perseverance (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994). Garlington argues that there is an element of Christology evident in each of the four chapters (5-8), thus emphasizing their unity.

[6] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans, Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). 138.

[7] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1993). 393.

[8] This, however, does not contradict what was said above, regarding the separation of chapters 4 and 5. The separation refers merely to the overall theological themes, but by using ‘therefore’ Paul is thus building on his last argument i.e. human beings need justification, provided through faith in Jesus Christ, and now ch.5 details the benefits of such justification.

[9] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996). 298.

[10] Fitzmyer. 395. Cf. Dunn. 245.

[11] Schreiner. 253.

[12] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 297.

[13] Including, MacArthur. 429.

[14] “let us have peace” places the verb as subjunctive, echōmen; “we have peace” places the verb as indicative, echomen. Stott argues that the former must be understood as an exhortation, contrary to the paragraph, consisting of affirmations and no other exhortations. Therefore, he argues echomen is preferable. (Stott. 139.)

[15] Bruce. 127.

[16] Stott. 140.

[17] Dunn interprets this verse similarly, (Dunn. 248.) Fitzmyer holds to a traditional translation, but postulates a message virtually synonymous with Stott, arguing that Christ has “escorted them into the royal audience-chamber of God’s presence” (Fitzmyer. 396.)

[18] MacArthur. 429.

[19] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 170.

[20] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 302.

[21] Schreiner. 255; Exulting, rather than boasting is – according to Schreiner – more appropriate in this context.

[22] Jewett. 95.

[23] Something of Paul’s eschatology (as will be noted later) is discerned here. The ‘already/not yet’ theme that appears in common New Testament theology is currently being expressed, as Paul notes that while we have access to God and his grace now, total salvation – and complete peace, lack of suffering – is yet to come. Cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. And A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002).

[24] Cf. Stott. And Dunn. Further, Witherington notes that Romans was written at a time of great oppression for Christians, thus by providing the Romans with a reason for their suffering, he provides them with hope (Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004). 134.

[25] Dunn. 251.

[26] MacArthur. 429.

[27] Dunn. 251. Dunn notes this word is exclusive to Pauline theology.

[28] Schreiner. 256.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Stott. 142.

[31] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 303.

[32] Dunn. 252; and, Schreiner. 256.

[33] Witherington. 136.

[34] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 172.

Furthermore, Schreiner points out that God’s love should be understood as his love for us – contrary to Pelagianism – and Paul is here alluding to Pentecost. However, rather than the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, God’s love is poured out through the Holy Spirit. God’s love and the Holy Spirit should not be separated, thus Paul is arguing for a subjective experience of the Spirit in a believer’s life. Hence, “believers know now in their hearts that they will be spared from God’s wrath because they presently experience God’s love for them through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.” (Schreiner. 257.)

[35] Schreiner. 259.

[36] Bruce. 127.

[37] MacArthur. 430. Cf. Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 172.

[38] Schreiner outlines a couple of positions regarding the appropriateness of the time. However, he seems hesitant to come to a conclusion. (Schreiner. 260.)

[39] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 172.

[40] Andrew D. Clarke, “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7,” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990). 128.

[41] Origen took this interpretation, believing it to refer to martyrs who died for God. (Grieb. 63).

[42] Schreiner. 261.

[43] Clarke. 141.

[44] Troy W. Martin, “The Good as God (Romans 5.7),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25, no. 1 (2002).

[45] Schreiner. 262. Schreiner also argues that there is good evidence for it to be understood as a benefactor, such as in Clarke’s argument.

[46] Dunn. 254. Dunn further argues it was in the crucifixion itself that Jesus’ messiahship was, in fact, proved. Cf. 1 Cor. 1.23; Gal. 2.20-3.1.

[47] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 172.

[48] Bruce. 128.

[49] Schreiner. 263.

[50] Ibid. 262.

[51] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 172.

[52] Fitzmyer. 400.

[53] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 309.

[54] Ibid. 311.

[55] Schreiner. 264.

[56] Ibid. 265.

[57] Dunn. 261. Dunn further adds that Paul is referring back to his argument against Jewish boasting and pride. When Paul here argues to “boast in God” is encouraged, “it is precisely the same boasting of which Paul spoke critically in 2:17. What was presented as improper there is now presented as wholly proper and appropriate. The crucial difference is that Paul now describes it as boasting ‘through our Lord Jesus Christ’ – not a boasting in God which is coordinate with a boasting in the law.” (269).

[58] Jewett. 95.

[59] Dunn. 263.

[60] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 170. This understanding of peace – the Old Testament shalom – is preferred in this instance as it is substantiated by Paul’s later argument of reconciliation, as well as the eschatological protection (by Jesus Christ) from God’s wrath.

[61] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 311.

[62] Fitzmyer. 401.

[63] Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001). 222-225.

[64] Witherington. 137.

[65] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 173.

[66] Ibid. 174.

[67] Dunn. 263-264.

[68] Schreiner, Romans. 253.

[69] Moo, The Niv Application Commentary: Romans. 177.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 303.


Single Post Navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: