Paul’s epistles are known to consist of
distinct doctrinal and hortatory or practical sections. The doctrinal section
contains fundamental Christian beliefs such as justification by faith,
election, Christology and eschatology. The practical section is a call-to-action
exhorting Christians to live in light of what he has taught in the doctrinal
section. However, there have not been many studies that link specific commands
in the practical section with the doctrinal section in a particular epistle.
This paper attempts to establish a relationship between the command not to take
revenge in Romans 12:19[1] with the doctrinal section
of the epistle in chapters 1 to 11. The command in 12:19 is an integral part of
12:14 and 17-21. It consists of a negative prohibition in the form of
imperatival participle[2] μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες
followed by a positive command in imperative form δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ. Paul then adds a partial quotation from
Deuteronomy 32:35, ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω. It
appears that he uses both the OT manuscript[3] and the LXX[4] in this verse; ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις is taken from the
original Hebrew לִי נָקָם while ἀνταποδώσω is taken from the LXX.
There are at least three topics related to
this verse that scholars have been debating on. First, whose wrath is Paul
taking about? He only says, “Give place to the wrath.” Smothers goes through the
history of exegesis on this subject that boils down to two options: God’s wrath
or the enemy’s wrath with the conclusion that the former is the majority view.[5] The latter view is
proposed in light of Paul’s allusion to Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the
Mount. If 12:14 teaches us to bless our persecutors that seems to allude to
Matthew 5:44 (also Luke 6:28),[6] then “give place to the
wrath” in 12:19 resembles the command to turn to the other check in Matthew
5:39. However, if this is indeed the case, what is Paul’s point of quoting
Deuteronomy 32:35, whose context is God’s judgment against the enemies of his
people and connecting it with δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ using the conjunction γάρ instead of quoting Jesus’ non-retaliatory
verses in his Sermon on the Mount? The purpose of 12:19 is to balance 12:14 and
12:17. The believers’ responsibility is to do good to their persecutors. This
doesn’t mean that their wrongdoing will go unpunished, but it is God’s
prerogative to assume the role of a judge.[7], [8] For this reason I
agree with the majority view that the wrath Paul refers to is God’s wrath.
Second,
does “wrath” ὀργή refer to
eschatological punishment or does it include the present execution of divine
judgment? Schreiner believes that the use of this word in Pauline epistles is
usually eschatological in nature including in 12:19.[9] Others like Dunn, Bruce
and Moo[10] think that the word also
includes the present judgment. In the OT God’s wrath is not reserved for the
end-time only but is displayed in the destruction of pagan nations and even his
own people for their disobedience. The uses of שִׁלֵּם in the context of present judgment include
Isaiah 34:8 where retribution is associated with the destruction of Edom and
Hosea 9:7 where God’s retribution is directed against Israel. שִׁלֵּם is also implied in Ezekiel 25:8-11, 12-14,
15-17 and 26:1-21 that speaks of the Lord’s repaying the evil that pagan
nations had done to his people. The uses of נָקָם in the context of the present judgment
include Ezekiel 24:8 speaking of the judgment against Jerusalem and Isaiah 63:4
also speaking of the judgment against Edom. Furthermore, ὀργὴ θεοῦ
in 1:18 is spoken of as αποκαλύπτεται, being revealed through
the litany of sins that follows in 1:21-31 which suggests that the wrath of God
is a present reality. With these passages in mind, there is no compelling reason
why Paul intends to limit the scope of God’s wrath to the eschaton only
in 12:19.
Third,
who is the object of God’s wrath, which is related to who the persecutors διώκοντας are that Paul speaks of
in 12:14? Are these individuals within or outside the Christian community i.e.,
the church? Some tend to go with the latter option[11] but Yinger, drawing from
the OT and extra-biblical Jewish sources concludes that the persecutors are
“persons within the fellowship.”[12] To support his claim, he
argues that the entire chapter 12 is written for Christians. Otherwise, if
12:14-21 is about believers’ relationship with those outside the church, why does Paul insert 12:15-16 that seem to
interrupt his flow of thoughts on this subject since these two verses talk
about relationships within the
church? I think the distinction should not be between those inside and outside
the visible church, but between Christians and non-Christians, between the
regenerates and the unregenerates.[13] This is evident from the fact that the word ἐχθρός
in 12:20 referring the object of God’s wrath in 12:19 and its cognates (8:7,
11:28) are used in Romans only for the unregenerates. The vengeance that the
Lord is going to carry out in Deuteronomy 32:35 is against the unbelieving
enemies of Israel. But the verse does not apply strictly to non-Israelis
because there are Jewish proselytes from pagan nations such as Rahab, Ruth and
Naaman where the verse does not apply in their case. There are obvious
non-Christians outside the church who are hostile towards Christians such as
the Jews in Paul’s days, Nero and other Roman imperial regimes known as some of
the greatest persecutors of the followers of Christ. Then there are individuals
who appear to be “members” of the church such as Judas Iscariot and Demas (2 Timothy
4:10) but in the end are proven to be unbelievers. Therefore, it is unlikely
that 12:19 speaks about relationships with fellow Christians if this is what
Yinger implies, but the non-Christians in 12:19 are not necessarily outside the
visible church.
With
the three issues above settled, we can now turn to the relationship between
12:19 to the doctrinal section of Romans divided into three parts: with respect
to the persecutors, the believers and God. These three links to the doctrinal
section can be fit into the situational, existential and normative elements,
respectively of Frame’s Triperspectivalism.[14] With respect to the
persecutors against whom Paul prohibits believers to take revenge, chapter 1
and 5:12 give us a perspective on why unbelievers hate Christians. It is rooted
in the noetic effect of the original sin that fatally incapacitates fallen man
from having a favorable view of God. The gradual progression that gravitates to
hatred towards Christians is described in 1:18-32. Fallen man suppresses the
truth because of their depraved morality as evident from the use of the words “ungodliness”
and “unrighteousness” in 1:18. Suppressing the truth doesn’t imply lack of
knowledge of the truth but prevention of the truth from bringing the positive
effects it ought to bring particularly in the moral and religious realms.[15] It begins with the denial
of God’s existence despite clear evidence in general revelation through
creation and providence (1:19-20). The problem of unbelief then, is not an
intellectual but moral problem. Deep down in the unbeliever’s conscience
(2:14-15), they know that God exists but refuse to express this acknowledgement
in worship because by nature they hate God as alluded in the use of the word ἔχθρα;
enmity or hostile in 8:7. The next stage in the progression of sin is the stage
of idolatry. If God’s existence is not acknowledged, something else has to take
his place as the object of worship as described in 1:21-23.
These
fundamental theological errors[16] inevitably lead to
fundamental anthropological errors beginning with one’s view of self that
results in the defilement of his or her body (1:24-25) and the body of others
through illicit heterosexual and homosexual relationships (1:24, 26 and 28).
The sexual sins are followed by other sins associated with one’s relationships
with his or her fellow human beings summarized in 1:29a: unrighteousness, evil,
covetousness, malice.[17] This general list and the
more specific list given in 1:29b-31 are not specifically directed towards
Christians. Nevertheless, there appears to be a peculiar hatred that increases the
level of intensity of these sins towards Christians due to unbelievers’ hatred
toward God and therefore, his people as well. Jesus affirms this reality as he
reminds his disciples proleptically in John 15:18-21.
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If
you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I
chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember
the word that I said to you: “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will also
persecute you. But all
these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
Hatred
towards Christians is not merely expressed by blatantly pagan groups of people
past and present,[18] but surprisingly by Jews
as well, a people supposedly endowed by and embraced the true knowledge of God
through special revelation (2:17-23).[19] Paul was a living
testimony of the latter since he was a Jewish persecutor of Christians before
becoming a believer (Acts 8:1, 9:1-2) and he himself was persecuted by Jews as
a follower of Christ (e.g., Acts 9:23). Why is this the case? Paul connects the
challenge to his fellow Jews in 2:17-29, the fact that mere knowledge of God’s
special revelation in the Mosaic Law without perfect obedience to it will not
save them, to 9:32 and 10:3-5. The Jews want to justify themselves by relying
on their own merit to gain God’s acceptance. Paul’s gospel that insists on the
absolute necessity to rely on the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ
to be saved offends the Jewish pride by exposing their soteriological error. This
error uncovers a subtle connection between Jewish self-justification and
self-idolatry that ultimately boils down to self-glorification in 1:21-23 (cf.
Luke 18:11-12) leading to the same downward path of sins in 1:24-32. Therefore,
Paul rightly concludes that “both Jews and Greeks are under sins” (3:9).[20]
The
relationship between 12:19 to chapters 1 and 2 discussed above focuses on the
persecutors, the reason behind their shameful treatment of Christians and their
fellow human beings in general, namely it is a natural consequence in the
degenerative process of sin as a result of their depraved morality. We should
also note the divine role highlighted in the word παραδίδωμι used three times in chapter 1 (1:24, 26 and 28). This
word is used to support the fact that God’s wrath is a present reality in what
Moo calls the sin-retribution pattern.[21] The successive sins after
the initial sin of atheism and idolatry are expressions of God’s wrath in the
withdrawal of his exercise of common grace that restrains more depraved
expressions of sins: the sexual sins (1:24, 26-27) and the sins that affect
one’s neighbors in a greater way (1:29-31). Therefore the unbelievers’
persecution against Christians that 12:14-21 speaks of and included in 1:29-31
is both sin and God’s judgment of their prior sins.
Moo
then brings up a further question about the nature of God’s wrath through his
judgment; whether it be reformative or destructive. He cites Chrysostom who
leans towards the former view, “the depth of sin in which the idolater is
plunged is designed to awaken the sinner to the awful seriousness of his or her
situation.” On the other hand, Moo acknowledges that this is not always the
case, as “both biblical and secular history afford us many examples in which
such punishment has not led to spiritual reformation.”[22] My response to this
question is there is no definite answer based on Paul’s coverage of God’s
sovereign election in chapter 9. Although chapters 9-11 are primarily concerned
with the status of the Jews as God’s elect in Paul’s day in light of their
apparent wholesale rejection of the gospel, Paul’s answer to this question in
chapter 9 incorporates the doctrine of
God’s sovereign election that applies to non-Jews as well (9:16-33). The
question whether or not God’s judgment on sinners in chapter 1 has reformative
purpose is his hidden decree which may or may not be revealed at the present
time.
In
the case of Pharaoh, God’s repeated judgment in the end was intended to destroy
him. Pharaoh and multitudes in his army are God’s object of vengeance, his vessels
of wrath “prepared for destruction” (9:17 and 22). It is easy to see that Paul
uses 9:17 and 22 to explain the ultimate reason why unbelieving Jews reject the
gospel which can be extrapolated to Gentiles from nations other than Egypt. But
Paul reminds the readers that there are Gentiles who are also God’s vessels of
mercy (9:24-26) just like the elect Jews. For elect Jews of all ages, God’s
judgment was also an expression of his wrath and in some way his retribution of
not necessarily their sins, but the sins of their nation’s leadership. The
difference is that this judgment is his means to lead them to repentance. They
are vessels of mercy, “prepared beforehand for glory (9:23). Although this is
only implicit in chapter 9, there is more explicit evidence in the Old
Testament. For example, Isaiah 10:20-22[23] has in view the return of
Israel's remnant after the end of their exile under Assyria. But this return is
not merely a return to their homeland but more importantly highlights that the
exile, i.e., God’s judgment brings about a genuine repentance and faith. The
word בֶּאֱמֶת,”in truth” in verse 20 is used to convey
the idea that Israel's turning from sin and to the Lord is real. Their
spiritual gesture of leaning on God alone as their only hope of salvation is
genuine.
Just
as there is a dynamic involved in 11:11-32 in the interactions between Jews and
Gentiles where God uses the conversion of Gentiles to bring about the conversion
among the Jews throughout the ages, God may do the same in 12:19 in the context
of persecution of believers in 12:14-21. No one knows what God’s decree is in
regards to a person’s eternal status whether he be an elect or a reprobate, but
12:14-21 implicitly encourage us to assume the former case. Believers are
encouraged to treat their enemies with kindness (12:14, 20-21) with the hope
that this gesture represents God’s kindness that he would use to lead them to
repentance (2:4).
It
is incorrect to conclude that 12:19 is concerned only with God and the unbelieving
persecutors as discussed above without having anything to say about the
persecuted believers.[24] Paul uses the word
“beloved” to remind his brothers and sisters that despite the suffering they go
through in the hands of those who hate them, they are beloved by God.[25] Therefore, there is an
existential element in 12:19 where they can reap benefit from the persecution
they experience. We can elaborate this existential element implied in the word
“beloved” by discerning a relationship with the justification and sanctification
sections in chapters 1-5 and 5-11, respectively of the epistle under the
overarching heading of 8:28. As beloved of God, believers can rest assured that
God has sovereignly ordained only those events intended for the good of his
people including the suffering as a result of persecution by unbelievers. But what
specific good does God bring about?
First,
the reality of unbelief and belief reinforces the nature of biblical
justification, namely by God’s grace through faith. Faith itself is a gift and
therefore an integral part of special grace that God bestows to the elect
(4:2-8). Believers are reminded that there is nothing in them that makes them
inherently better than their persecutors. Calvin warns of the danger of the
manifestation of the spirit of “inordinate love of self and innate pride, which
makes us very indulgent to our own faults and inexorable to those of others”[26] in the exercise of
personal revenge. Believers ought to acknowledge and be reminded always that what
makes a positive difference in their lives is God’s grace in granting them
faith to believe his promise in the gospel through which they are justified
(3:28, 30, 4:5). Before coming to faith, every believer was like Abraham that
4:5 characterizes as ungodly ἀσεβής and therefore, not different from
every unbeliever who lives by the flesh and by nature hates God (cf. the same
cognate ἀσέβειαν used in 1:18 and ἔχθρα in 8:7). Such a realization not only leads
to humility but also encourages believers to use the interaction with their
enemies to display the grace of Christ in order that they too may repent and
follow him.[27]
Second,
suffering of which persecution is a subset brings about greater sanctification.
Paul sets himself as an example of rejoicing[28] in his suffering (cf.
8:36) in 5:3-5 for the benefits it produces: endurance, character and hope. The
three qualities in 5:3-4 suggest a firmness in resolution to follow God and in devotion
to him despite severe hardship along the way most wonderfully emphasized by the
word “endurance” ὑπομονή, a
cognate of ὑπομένω, which means “to
bear up under difficult circumstances.”[29] The word δοκιμή,
a cognate of δοκιμάζω (to test) translated as
“character” in ESV means “evidence, proof of genuineness.”[30] One benefit that
suffering produces is it exposes that one is a genuine Christian through the
evidence of refusing to forsake Christ in order to be relieved from suffering.
For Christians, there is nothing more important than Christ. This priority is
demonstrated by the sincerity of their faith in clinging to him to the end
regardless of the circumstances. Last but not least, suffering reinforces
Christian hope.[31]
It intensifies the longing for the glorification of the saints, the righteous
rule of Christ over all in the world to come where there is no more evil and
suffering. It makes the things of this world “grow strangely dim,”
progressively less appealing in the light of his glory and grace as the hymn
says. It is God’s means to loosen believers’ attachment to things that would
have hindered them from being sanctified or conformed to the image of his Son
(8:29) in a greater way. And 5:5 assures them ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει that their hope will not put them to
shame for its failure to deliver what it promises. Christian hope is not
something that may or may not happen in the future. It is something guaranteed
to be fulfilled on the basis of God’s promise in his Word rooted in his love
for his people.
Third,
suffering motivates believers to cherish their union with Christ more and his
sovereign rule over all for his glory (11:33-36) and for their benefit
(8:31-32). In other words, when viewed rightly from Scripture, the believers’
suffering ought to lead to a greater praise to God. They are secure in Christ
despite all the enemies’ attempts to ruin them. The ground of this security is their
union with Christ in 8:31-38. The question naturally asked during a time of
distress is “Where is God? Does he still love us?” summarized well in 8:35a,
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” He then lists the hardship
that believers are exposed to, alluding back to 8:17 that union with Christ
involves suffering with him. Although Paul has suffering in general in mind in
8:35b, he narrows the scope down to the shameful treatment believers like
himself receive from their enemies in 8:36.[32] His response to 8:35a in
8:37 is a resounding “No!” with an elaboration. He not only affirms the love of
God to his people in 8:37b, but also says something more. Through Christ they
“conquer” all this hardship in the sense that they not only defeat all these
causes of suffering and the evil intention of their enemies by preventing them
from accomplishing their malicious goal, but also make them slaves to bring the
ultimate good instead in the end for God’s people.[33] One example that 8:36-37 alludes
to is Genesis 50:20 where Joseph explains that the evil that God ordained through
his brothers is intended to bring blessing to Joseph and his family in the long
run.
As
a summary, we see that the relationship between 12:19 to the doctrinal section
of the epistle from divine, believers’ and their persecutors’ point of view is
distinct yet interrelated. Unbelievers’ fallen nature that is hostile to God
inevitably results in hostility towards their fellow human beings particularly
those who have a special relationship to him because of his grace in Christ.
The believers and unbelievers as well as the persecution itself are an integral
part of divine sovereign purpose. Some of those responsible for the wrong done
to believers are without excuse although ultimately they were ordained as
vessels of wrath, objects of divine vengeance at the present time and at the
consummation. Others like Paul, a former hater of Christ and his followers, repented,
turned to him and thus were proven as vessels of divine mercy. God’s vengeance
is still executed in this case except it was directed to and absorbed by Christ
on the cross. From believers’ perspective, they can be confident of their
security in Christ by virtue of their union with him despite the harm brought
upon them by their enemies. All the malice intended to ruin God’s people is not
only frustrated in the end but also overruled by divine providence to bring a greater
praise to him and the ultimate blessing for them.[34]
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me.
From life's first cry to final
breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand.
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll
stand.
Bibliography
1.
John
Calvin, Commentary on Romans (Grand
Rapids: Christian Classic Ethereal Library, 1974).
2.
James
D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 Word Biblical Commentary volume 38b (Dallas: Word
Books, 1982).
3.
Frederick.
F. Bruce, Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985).
4.
Douglas
J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
5.
Thomas
R. Schreiner, Romans. (BECNT;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
6.
Luke
T. Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary
and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2001).
7.
Daniel
B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basic
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
8.
J.P
Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English lexicon
of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains vol.1 (electronic ed. of the
2nd edition) (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996).
9.
John
M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian
Life (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008).
10.
Edgar
S. Smothers, “Give Place to the Wrath (Rom 12:19): An Essay in Verbal Exegesis,”
CBQ 6 (1944): 205-215.
11.
Krister
Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation , and Love: I QS x, 17-20 and Rom 12:19-21,” HTR 52 (1962): 343-355.
12.
Kent
L. Yinger, “Romans 12:14-21 and Non-Retaliation in Second Temple Judaism:
Addressing Persecution within the Community,” CBQ 60 (1998): 74-96.
[1] μὴ ἑαυτοὺς
ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, γέγραπται γάρ· ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ
ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει κύριος.
[2] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar:
Beyond the Basic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 650-652. Paul uses plural
nominative active and middle-passive participles as commandments many times in
chapter 12 such as ἀποστυγοῦντες, κολλώμενοι (12:9), προηγούμενοι (12:10), ζέοντες, δουλεύοντες
(12:11), χαίροντες, ὑπομένοντες,
προσκαρτεροῦντες (12:12), κοινωνοῦντες,
διώκοντες (12:13) φρονοῦντες, συναπαγόμενοι (12:16) ἀποδιδόντες,
προνοούμενοι (12:17)· εἰρηνεύοντες (12:18).
[4] ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω: In (the) day of
vengeance I will repay. The LXX author turns the noun שִׁלֵּם (recompense, retribution, an act. of just
repayment negative or positive) in the original Hebrew into its equivalent
future-tense verb of ἀνταποδίδωμι.
[5] Edgar S. Smothers, “Give Place to
the Wrath (Rom 12:19): An Essay in Verbal Exegesis,” CBQ 6 (1944) 207-209. Another
minority view is God’s wrath working through governmental authority, see Luke
T. Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth
and Helwys, 2001), 200. Moo suggests 13:4 as a candidate to support Johnson’s
view while he himself believes that wrath refers to God’s wrath. Douglas J.
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 78. Calvin
agrees with Moo (John Calvin, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Christian
Classic Ethereal Library, 1974), 411).
[6] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 Word
Biblical Commentary volume 38b (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 745.
[7] Krister Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation
and Love: I QS x, 17-20 and Rom 12:19-21,” HTR 52 (1962) 346. Stendahl aptly
states that Paul advocates a policy of deference (to God), not indifference,
citing 1 Peter 2:23 as a supporting reference, 346.
[8] Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 412,
“… it belongs not to use to revenge, except we would assume to ourselves the
office of God.”
[9] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans.
(BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 673.
[10] Dunn, Romans 9-16, 749-750. Frederick.
F. Bruce, Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 217. Moo, The Epistle to
the Romans, 99-103.
[11] Dunn, Romans 9-16, 738, 749, and Stendahl,
“Hate, Non-Retaliation and Love,”345. Schreiner only mentions that 12:14, 17-21
speak of “attitude that believers have for those who persecute and oppress
them,” but he implicitly agrees that the persecutors are those outside the
church since on 12:15 he remarks, “Verse 15 appears to return to relations in
the community” (Schreiner, Romans, 667).
[12] Kent L. Yinger, “Romans 12:14-21
and Non-Retaliation in Second Temple Judaism: Addressing Persecution within the
Community,” CBQ 60 (1998) 74-96.
[14] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the
Christian Life (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 131-384. Triperspectivalism
is a Christian framework used to analyze a topic from the normative,
situational and existential point of view.
The situational perspective defines what the problem is, which in this
case is the persecution, the wrong that the believers suffer in the hands of
their persecutors. It then asks what the means are in this particular
circumstance to accomplish God’s purpose. The answer to these questions should
be guided by the normative perspective that asks what God’s Word says. The
existential perspective asks how we should respond when confronted by a holy
God and his will in his Word in light of the situation we are facing.
[15] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 103.
[16] The word “error” “often denotes
sins of unbelievers in the NT” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 116).
[17] Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 57-58,
“Unrighteousness: the violation of justice among men by not rendering to each
his due. Maliciousness is that depravity and obliquity of mind which leads us
to do harm to our neighbor.”
[18] The Jews and the Romans
particularly the Roman imperial regimes were the earliest persecutors of
Christians. Present persecutions of Christians that still occur today are
perpetrated by for example ISIS and Islamic and communist governments that are
hostile to Christianity such as Iran, China and North Korea.
[19] It is true that Jews received
God’s special revelation in the Old Testament. The problem is they reject the
fuller revelation that OT revelation points to, namely Christ.
[20] Needless to say that here Greeks
represent all the Gentile nations.
[21] “Like a judge, who hands over a prisoner
to the punishment his crime has earned, God hands over the sinner to the
terrible cycle of ever-increasing sin,” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 111).
While I agree with the sin-retribution pattern in chapter 1 that Moo discerns,
I hesitate to agree with his view that God has a more active role in this
degenerative cycle of sin beyond the withdrawal of his divine influence because
this sounds dangerously like active reprobation that may potentially lead to
the conclusion that God is the author of sin.
[23] Paul quotes verse 22 in 9:27.
[24] Dunn contradicts himself when he
initially says that in 12:14-21 Paul “urges a policy of living quietly and of
non-response to provocation” while latter he remarks that 12:20 calls “for a
positive response to hostility (by meeting it with acts of kindness) and not
simply as a passive response (leave it to God). Dunn, Romans 9-16, 738, 751.
[25] Schreiner, Romans, 672. “Even
though believers are severely mistreated by others, they should never forget
that they are dearly loved by God and chosen to be his own. Rejection by others
is a deep wound, but the salve of God’s love for us is the best healing for
it.”
[26] Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 410.
He continues, “As then this disease (of self-love and pride) begets almost in
all men a furious passion for revenge, whenever they are in the least degree
touched, he commands here, that however grievously we may be injured, we are
not to seek revenge, but to commit it to the Lord.”
[27] Stendahl demonstrates a lack of
balance when he concludes that 12:19 and 12:14-21 in general are all about
God’s vengeance on behalf of his people and there is no element of compassion
in believer’s response suggested by Paul. Stendahl writes, “The non-retaliation
is undoubtedly based (on) and motivated by the deference to God’s impending
vengeance. It is not deduced from a principle of love or from within the Wisdom
tradition. Neither Qumran nor Paul speak about love for the enemies. The issue
is rather how to act when all attempts to avoid conflict with the enemies of God
and his church have failed,“ 354.
[28] ESV translate καυχάομαι as “to rejoice” but further, the
word means “to
express an unusually high degree of confidence in someone or something being
exceptionally noteworthy” (J.P
Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
semantic domains vol.1 (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition) (New York: United
Bible Societies, 1996).
[29] J.P Louw and E.A. Nida,
Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament.
[30] δοκιμή : that which causes something to be
known as true or genuine, in the sense of being what it appears to be evidence,
proof of genuineness (J.P Louw and E.A.
Nida, Greek-English
lexicon of the New Testament).
[31] ἐλπίς to look forward with confidence to
that which is good and beneficial (J.P Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English
lexicon of the New Testament).
[32] Calvin,
Commentary on Romans, 284, “It is no new thing for the Lord to permit his saints
to be undeservedly exposed to the cruelty of the ungodly.”
[33] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 544.
[34] K. Getty and S. Townend, “In
Christ Alone," Copyright © 2001 Kingsway Thankyou Music.
No comments:
Post a Comment