Romans 1:18 As Key To The Structure Of The Letter

By John M. Scoggins Jr.

[John M. Scoggins Jr. pastored churches in Texas, Washington, and California. He was senior pastor at Rosedale Bible Church in Bakersfield, California, for fourteen years until his retirement in 2015.]

Abstract

In his introduction to Romans, Paul moves topic by topic to a juncture at 1:18, where his argument reverses itself and revisits those same topics and eventually concludes with a doxology that contains significant lexical parallels to his beginning salutation. Arranged this way, Paul’s introduction in 1:1–18 mentions every topic he will discuss in reverse order in the remainder of the letter.

Introduction

Whether they treat Romans as ancient epistolography,[1] a repository of theology,[2] discourse rhetoric,[3] or ancient diatribe,[4] commentaries on Romans follow a predictable paradigm. First, they develop Paul’s argument in a strictly linear and forward-looking manner.

That is, they begin at 1:1 and end at 16:27, assuming that they do not rearrange the debated segments of the final chapters of the letter. Second, with few exceptions, they end Paul’s introduction to the letter at 1:17 and begin the main body at 1:18. This article will suggest that the grammar of 1:18 requires a paradigm shift in how verse 18, the introduction to Romans, and the structure of the entire letter are understood.

It will propose a chiasmlike,[5] extended, inverted parallel structure for Romans. This structure answers why Paul wrote what he wrote where he wrote it, throughout the entirety of Romans, and does so in a way that strictly linear and forward-looking arrangements do not—or cannot—do.

Unlike strictly linear and forward-looking arrangements, an extended, inverted parallel structure explains why Paul placed debated passages where he did, including chapters 9–11, his plans to visit Rome and his Gentile mission in chapter 15, the various greetings in 16:1–24, and the closing doxology in 16:25–27. The path between two points (1:1 and 16:27) in Romans is not a straight line.

The Importance Of The Conjunction Γάρ In Romans 1:18

The validity of this premise hinges on Paul’s use of the conjunction γάρ (“for”) in Romans 1:18. Admittedly, that places a lot of weight on what Pridik says “is the fourth most common conjunction in the NT.”[6] Dunn goes so far as to say that taking verse 18 as subordinate to verse 15 “is to overload the significance of γάρ.”[7] Frankly, as with this case in verse 18, there are times when γάρ does not get the attention it deserves. Perhaps because it is so common, it is sometimes treated as all but insignificant, which is why Pridik says, “In some cases γάρ apparently neither expresses grounds nor functions as an intensifier. It might be that γάρ in these instances is a meaningless connecting particle.”[8] Rather than being a meaningless connecting particle in verse 18, however, γάρ has an importance in this verse that is due largely to how it is repeated.

Most scholars correctly define the inferential relationship between verse 18 and verse 17 by noting how verse 18 explains verse 17. Writers who address the connection between the two verses include Schreiner, who says, “γάρ can bear a colorless meaning, but that this is the case here is doubtful since it is placed at a critical juncture in the epistle.”[9] He adds, “But how should we explain the logical relationship between God’s righteousness and his wrath? The question is particularly acute since verses 17 and 18 are linked by a γάρ.”[10] Similarly, Jewett writes, “As a ‘marker of cause or reason,’ γάρ indicates that the discussion of wrath directly supports the thesis about the gospel in 1:16–17 rather than expressing its antithesis.”[11] Finally, Cranfield says, “We must first try to decide what is the connection of thought between this verse and what precedes it.”[12]

Two Problems With The Treatment Of Γάρ

There are two problems with the way γάρ and verse 18 are treated by some commentaries and a few modern English translations. First, some writers and translations ignore or minimize the role of this conjunction in verse 18. Second, commentators who rightly identify the inferential relationship between verse 18 and verse 17 nevertheless disconnect verse 18 from Paul’s introduction to the letter.

The Conjunction Is Sometimes Ignored Or Minimized

A few translations either ignore the conjunction or leave it untranslated. These include the New International Version, New Century Version, New Living Translation, Today’s New International Version, and Good News Translation. Other than the New Living Translation, these translations also leave γάρ untranslated in its first occurrence in verse 16. Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich specify that γάρ may be left untranslated “in questions, where the English idiom leaves the word untranslated.”[13] Yet the tendency to leave it untranslated in locations such as Romans 1:18 obstructs an accurate interpretation of the verse.

In a similar way, a few commentators ignore it. For instance, Kruse ignores it altogether when he writes, “Paul’s devastating critique of the Gentile world in 1:18–32, then, appears to serve a rhetorical purpose.”[14] He mentions no grammatical connection between verses 17 and 18. Likewise, Thiselton makes no mention of the relationship between verse 18 and the preceding context.[15] The same goes for Matera.[16] Keener mentions the connection, but he finds the parallel in repetition of the verb ἀποκαλύπτω, “revealed,” not the conjunction.[17] Without mentioning the conjunction, Osborne writes, “The wrath of God stands over against his ‘righteousness’ (1:16–17) as the two parts of his nature—love and justice.”[18] The phrase “stands over against” appears to express a contrast rather than an inference. Zerwick and Grosvenor assert that the conjunction, “normally explanatory, here merely continues what goes before.”[19]

Commentaries Disconnect This Conjunction From Verse 17

What Paul says about the revelation of God’s wrath in verse 18 is routinely disconnected from Paul’s introduction to the letter. With the exception of Achtemeier[20] (and possibly Stowers[21]), the commentaries end Paul’s introduction at 1:17 and begin the main body of the letter at 1:18. Almost without exception, verse 18 is orphaned, as it were, by a hard break after verse 17. It functions either as part of the body that, in some cases,[22] begins earlier in the introduction, or as the introductory verse to the first main section of the letter.

Furthermore, it is almost universally accepted that verses 16–17 state the theme of Romans. Hahn writes, “Verses 16–17 constitute the thesis statement of Romans. They are Paul’s way of punching in the coordinates for the rest of the letter, setting its trajectory, plotting its course. Much of what he says hereafter will elucidate this important announcement in one way or another.”[23] However, his word “much” says much about this approach to the theme of Romans. That is, by virtue of the common disconnect between verse 17 and verse 18, the revelation of God’s wrath must be excluded from that theme. That is a problem. God’s wrath is the key subject of the first section of Romans, and no theme based solely on verses 16–17 can rightly include the revelation of God’s wrath because that topic does not appear in verses 16–17.

The Dual Function Of Verse 18

Verse 18 should be understood as a Janus, a rhetorical device that is becoming increasingly noticeable in New Testament studies. Janus “was the god of beginnings and transitions in Roman mythology, and presided over passages, doors, gates and endings, as well as in transitional periods such as from war to peace. He was usually depicted as having two faces looking at opposite ways, one towards the past and the other towards the future.”[24] In literature, a Janus is a literary device that looks forward as well as backward. Waltke uses the term “janus pivot.”[25] Parsons and Kselman refer to it as “Janus parallelism.”[26] Whatever the term, scholars have failed to notice that verse 18 might function in this way. If so, it concludes Paul’s introduction and explains why the righteousness from God has been revealed (v. 17). Then, as the introduction to the body of the letter, it introduces the wrath of God that will be developed in 1:19–3:20.

Hypotactic, Paratactic, Or Hybrid?

The significance of this Janus-face relationship depends on the logical structure of verses 16–18. The literary unit begins in verse 15. In that verse, Paul tells the Christians in Rome that he is eager to preach the gospel to them. Verses 16–18 explain why he is so eager to do that.

Many commentaries and translations disconnect verses 17 and 18. In this reading, the first three occurrences of γάρ are interpreted as either coordinate or subordinate conjunctions. The fourth γάρ, though, is seen as beginning a major section of Romans. It is either isolated from Paul’s introduction completely or treated as structurally independent of the other three. The section thus reads:

15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
16 I am not ashamed of the gospel,

because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone

who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed

from faith for faith, as it is written,

“The righteous shall live by faith.”

18 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their
unrighteousness suppress the truth.

In this hybrid model, the second γάρ in verse 16 and γάρ in verse 17 provide logical, subordinate connections to what immediately precedes them. Verse 18, whether γάρ is translated or not, shows no structural connection with what precedes. It becomes parallel to verse 16a. Some writers do not even mention the conjunction in verse 18, nor do their outlines of Romans reflect its presence.

There is no grammatical reason, however, not to give all four occurrences of γάρ their due weight. Doing so reveals a structure that is either hypotactic, in which case each clause modifies the one previous, or paratactic, in which case the four explanatory clauses are parallel and all modify verse 15[.27]

If verses 16–18 are interpreted in a paratactic (coordinate) arrangement, verses 15–18 look like this:

15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel,

for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who

believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith

for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their

unrighteousness suppress the truth.

With this model, verses 16–18 give four reasons why Paul was eager to preach the gospel to those who were in Rome.[28]

On the other hand, if Paul’s arrangement is hypotactic, these verses look like this:

15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel,

for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who

believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed

from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous

shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from

heaven against all ungodliness and

unrighteousness of men, who by their

unrighteousness suppress the truth.

With this model, each “for” introduces a logical reason for what precedes it. Verse 16 explains why Paul was eager to preach to those who were in Rome, that is, he was not ashamed of the gospel. The second “for” explains why he was not ashamed of the gospel, that is, because of the gospel’s saving power for those who believe.

The same goes for verse 17, which explains why the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, that is, because in the gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed.” Finally, verse 18 explains why “a righteousness from God has been revealed,” that is, because “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” The hypotactic structure is more compelling than the paratactic. And if the conjunction γάρ in verse 18 bears the same structural significance as in verses 16–17, then verse 18 is the last verse of Paul’s introduction.[29]

Verse 18 As Part Of Paul’s Introduction

If the fourth γάρ in Romans 1:16–18 is treated in the same way as the other three occurrences, if the four γάρ clauses are understood hypotactically, and if verse 18 serves as a Janus, the result reveals the structure of Paul’s argument for the entire letter. The letter, from the first verse in the first chapter to the last verse in the last chapter, is constructed in the form of extended, inverted parallelism. John Toews observes that inverted parallelism “is common in Romans, as in 1:17–18; 2:7–10; 2:14–27.”[30] Perhaps it also serves as Paul’s intended structure for the entire letter to the Christians in Rome.

This extended, inverted parallelism leads the reader to the end of Romans 16, but not in the linear and forward-looking manner that is found in the commentaries. Rather, this inverted parallelism guides the reader topic by topic through Paul’s eighteen-verse introduction to a juncture (better, a Janus) at verse 18 where his following discourse then revisits (i.e., repeats, rewords, expands, etc.) those same topics in reverse order and eventually concludes with a doxology that parallels his beginning salutation. The reader reaches the end of Romans by returning to its beginning, and that structure begins with the first major section in 1:19–3:20.

The Revelation Of God’s Wrath: 1:18 And 1:19–3:20

There is little doubt that verse 18 contains in nuce the topic that unfolds in 1:19–3:20. Schreiner writes, “The theme of this section, then, is that God’s wrath is being righteously revealed against all people, both Gentiles and Jews, since all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23).”[31] Hultgren comments on 1:18, “The opening verse of the section sets the tone and theme for what is to follow from here to 3:20, a discourse on the wrath of God.”[32] Seifrid gives it the title “The Revelation of God’s Wrath from Heaven.”[33] Käsemann says, “Verse 18 gives the theme of the section, vv. 19–21 characterize the guilt of the Gentiles, and vv. 22–32 portray God’s judgment.”[34] Schlatter uses titles such as “Humans under the wrath of God” (1:18–32), “Humans under the judgment of God” (2:1–16), “Humans under the tutelage of the law” (2:17–29), “Humans who received God’s word” (3:1–8), and “Humans guilty before God” (3:9–20).[35] His emphasis clearly is on the wrath of God. Stuhlmacher states: “The introductory section of the apostle’s indictment is artistically structured rhetorically. Verse 18 offers the overall heading for the explanations from 1:18–3:20.”[36]

The Just Shall Live By Faith: 1:17 And 3:21–5:11

The similarities between 1:17 and 3:21–22 are striking, especially the phrase “righteousness of God” (1:17; 3:22). Though Paul uses different verbs—ἀποκαλύπτεται in 1:17 and πεφανέρωται in 3:21—Mundle comments, “In the NT the meaning of both words is virtually interchangeable, so that, as with the synonymous dēloō, to make known, any attempt at precise conceptual distinction only leads to artificial demarcations.”[37] Likewise, Longenecker, linking 3:21–23 with 1:16–17, says, “When coupled with the restatement, expansion, and development of that same thesis in 3:21–23, these two occurrences are probably best viewed as forming an extended anaphora.”[38] Hence, verses 21–22 introduce the entire second major section of Romans that extends to 5:11.[39] This section exposits what Paul meant in 1:17, where he wrote, “The righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ ”

The Power Of God For The Salvation Of Everyone Who Believes: 1:16b And 5:12–11:36

The terrain between 5:12 and 11:36 is complex but navigable. The discussion connects with verse 16 in Paul’s introduction. There are three divisions in this section, the first of which (5:12–7:25) presents what Paul referred to as “the law of sin and death” (8:2), or the ineffectual alternatives to the saving power of the gospel. Anders Nygren summarizes the unpromising tone of chapters 5–7 in this way:

The dark shadow of death hangs over the old aeon. The idea of death has also rested on all that Paul has said in chapters 5–7, as he showed how the Christian is free from the destroying powers that rule in the old aeon. Even though, in those chapters, he was speaking primarily of Wrath, Sin, and the Law, the thought about death has always lain in the background.[40]

Godet describes the second division (8:1–39) in this section by saying, “If Holy Scripture was a ring and the Epistle to the Romans its precious stone, chapter 8 would be the sparkling part of the jewel.”[41] Boice, referring to 8:1–4, says, “With the words above, Paul opens what I consider the greatest chapter in the Bible.”[42] The chapter turns the reader’s attention away from the ineffective solutions to the sin of mankind. It portrays God’s power in salvation in terms of divine love, as unconquerable and irreversible.

No passage in Romans is more often mishandled than chapters 9–11. Some discuss whether these three chapters are parenthetical.[43] As Cranfield states, that notion comes from “a superficial reading of the epistle.”[44] John Piper insists, “Why these chapters are found in Romans can only be answered when the theological meaning of the chapters both in connection with the rest of Romans and Pauline theology is explained.”[45] Moo writes, “What fills the gap between the end of chap. 8 and the beginning of chap. 12 is Paul’s anguished wrestling with the problem of Israel’s unbelief.”[46] In context, these three chapters explain how Romans 8:39 is true even when it comes to Israel’s status before God. Simply put, nothing can separate God’s elect—including Israel—from his love, because the gospel is “the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, to the Jew first and the Gentile also” (1:16b).

Paul’s Urgent Plea For Bold Christian Living: 1:16a And 12:1–15:13

The next section, 12:1–15:13, contains a paraenetic “plea to bold Christian living.” Paraenesis has been described as a “a list of moral exhortations, including both positive and negative commands, as well as such motifs as proverbial wisdom, lists of virtues and vices, and extended exhortations on a single moral topic.”[47] There is a significant move from indicative in 1:19–11:36 to imperative in this section as Paul moves from motivation to practical application. Thompson includes 12:1–15:13 when he writes, “In some Pauline letters paraenesis is concentrated in a concluding section.”[48] Romans 1:19–15:13 developed the three-part theological basis (the revelation of God’s wrath, the revelation of righteousness from God, and the power of God for salvation) for the paraenesis that begins in 12:1–2.

The exhortations in 12:1–15:13 parallel the paraenetic idea behind 1:16a. Paul’s eagerness to minister to the Gentiles in general and to the Christians in Rome in particular (1:8–15) reflected a boldness that came from his not being ashamed of the gospel (v. 16a). Likewise, the godly living Paul promoted in 12:1–15:13 comes from a boldness that manifests when one is not ashamed of the gospel. The gospel motivated Paul’s way of life and ministry, and his practice and life parallel the believer’s way of life and service. The motivations are the same, and the bold way of life is the same.

Paul’s Concluding Concerns: 1:1–15 And 15:14–16:27

Finally, the issues of 15:14–16:27 are much more than random topics tacked onto the letter. Each topic Paul discusses in this portion relates to parallel topics in the first fifteen verses in the introduction. Morris observes, “At the beginning of this concluding section there are some resemblances to what he wrote in 1:8–15; clearly his mind went over these things again.”[49] The question is, Why here? Why in this sequence?

One can divide 15:8–16:27 into four separate topics:[50] Paul’s burden for the Gentiles (15:8–21), Paul’s plan to visit Rome (15:22–33), Paul’s greetings to those who were in Rome (16:1–24), and Paul’s closing doxology (16:25–27). Each of the four segments relates to a parallel topic in Paul’s introduction to Romans in 1:1–18. Furthermore, these four segments unfold in the reverse order in which they appear in chapter 1.

Therefore, the structural importance of this section rests neither on its length of discussion nor on the depth of its theological content, but on the order of its topics relative to their appearance in chapter 1. Were any of those topics arranged differently, the argument for inverted parallelism would end at 15:7, and the thesis of this article would collapse.

Summary

As Campbell declares, “Any interpretation which makes good sense of only part of the letter is automatically, by definition, excluded.”[51]

This inverted parallel structure makes sense of the entire letter. Identifying the reverse sequence of the first two sections is straightforward. Then, what Paul wrote about God’s saving power in 5:12–11:39 coincides perfectly with 1:16b, so much so that chapters 9–11 amplify the details of Paul’s “to the Jew first” in verse 16b. In the same manner, there is a clear, identifiable link between 1:16a and 12:1–15:13: both contexts deal with bold living that can only come from not being ashamed of the gospel. Finally, the topics in 1:1–15 mirror each topic in 15:14–16:27. The body of Romans develops topics that are first mentioned in Paul’s introduction, and they do so in reverse sequential order.

The structure of Romans can thus be diagrammed in the following two ways:

The Chiastic Arrangement

A. Paul’s Gospel, 1:1–6

B. Greetings to Those in Rome, 1:7

C. Paul’s Desire to Visit Rome, 1:8–12

D. Paul’s Mission to the Gentiles, 1:13–15

E. Not Ashamed of the Gospel, 1:16a

F. The Power of God for Salvation, 1:16b

G. The Just Shall Live by Faith, 1:17

H. The Revelation of God’s Wrath, 1:18

Hʹ. The Revelation of God’s Wrath, 1:19–3:20

Gʹ. The Just Shall Live by Faith, 3:21–5:11

Fʹ. The Power of God for Salvation, 5:12–11:36

Eʹ. Not Ashamed of the Gospel, 12:1–15:7

Dʹ. Paul’s Mission to the Gentiles, 15:8–13

Cʹ. Paul’s Desire to Visit Rome, 15:14–33

Bʹ. Greetings to Those in Rome, 16:1–24

Aʹ. Paul’s Gospel, 16:25–27

The Inverted Shape Of Romans

Introduction	Topic	Body of Romans
1:1–6	Paul’s Gospel	16:25–27
1:7	Greetings to Those in Rome	16:1–24
1:8–12	Paul’s Desire to Visit Rome	15:14–33
1:13–15	Paul’s Mission to the Gentiles	15:8–13
1:16a	Not Ashamed of the Gospel	12:1—15:7
1:16b	The Power of God for Salvation	5:12–11:36
1:17	The Just Shall Live by Faith	3:21–5:11
1:18	The Revelation of God’s Wrath	1:19–3:20

Conclusion

This extended, inverted parallel structure confirms, first, that Romans can only be the deliberate and final composition of one divinely inspired original author, the apostle Paul. It is not the patchwork fabrication of a sequence of redactors. This structure might also quell the debates about the location of certain passages in the letter and the two-letter hypothesis. Second, this model raises questions about the validity of interpretive templates such as the ancient rhetorical discourse model proposed by Jewett, Kotansky, Witherington, and Hyatt or the diatribe model proposed by Tobin. These are strictly linear and forward-looking models. Third, this proposed structure for Romans sheds a dual hermeneutical light on the letter: (1) The inferential relationships within 1:16–18 suggest interesting possibilities about the logical/sequential relationships between the four corresponding sections between 1:19 and 15:13. (2) The explanations developed in those four main sections can be read backwards and enable the student of Romans to clarify the meaning of 1:16–18. Thus, those who study, teach, or preach Romans might have a clearer perspective on what Ellis describes as “the Mount Everest of the New Testament . . . the unconquered peak of New Testament studies.”[52] Fourth, “bringing about the obedience of faith” forms an inclusio in Romans (1:5; 16:26). Although there are multiple and vital imperatives for Christian living in Romans prior to 12:1–2, a person would do well to study the imperatives in 12:3—15:13 in light of what the obedience of faith and not being ashamed of the gospel might mean for the believer today.

Notes

1. For a survey of ancient letter writing, see Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 312–19. See also Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
2. As Jewett and Kotansky observe, “Older commentaries and even some published recently view Romans ‘primarily as a repository of theology.’ ” Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia, ed. Eldon Jay Epp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 23.
3. See Jewett and Kotansky, Romans; Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); and Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).
4. See Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). For a more recent work, see Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 89.
5. McCoy defines chiasmus as “the use of inverted parallelism of form and/or content which moves toward and away from a strategic central component.” Brad McCoy, “Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9, no. 2 (2003): 18.
6. Karl-Heinz Pridik, “Γάρ,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–), 1:238.
7. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas: Word, 1998), 38.
8. Pridik, “Γάρ,” 238–39.
9. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 77.
10. Ibid.
11. Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 151–52.
12. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), 1:106. Other writers who point out the inferential function of γάρ in verse 18 include Everett F. Harrison, William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, James Luther Mays, Charles Hodge, René A. Lopez, James D. G. Dunn, Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, W. Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, Robert H. Mounce, Leon Morris, Stanley Porter, John A. Witmer, Peter Stuhlmacher, Mark A. Seifrid, A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures), Douglas Moo, Paul J. Achtemeier, and Steven E. Runge.
13. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 189.
14. Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 83.
15. Anthony C. Thiselton, Discovering Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 81–83.
16. Frank J. Matera, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 43–48.
17. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), s.v. Rom 1:18.
18. Grant R. Osborne, Romans, IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 46.
19. Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 459.
20. Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1985), 35.
21. Stowers designates 1:18 as the beginning of a section that runs through 2:29 (The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter, 149), but later he writes, “Paul states the theme of the letter in 1:16–18” (182). His comment is unique among commentaries surveyed in including all three verses as Paul’s theme for Romans.
22. See Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 386. He refers to “an extensive body middle” (1:16–15:13). See also Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 125.
23. Scott W. Hahn, Romans, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 9.
24. Greekmythology.com, accessed July 26, 2018, http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Roman/Janus/Janus.html.
25. Bruce K. Waltke, “Fundamentals for Preaching the Book of Proverbs, Part 4,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008): 390.
26. Greg W. Parsons, “Guidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (1999): 407. John S. Kselman, “Janus Parallelism in Psalm 72, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 531.
27. For a discussion of hypotaxis versus parataxis, see Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 667. He observes, “Paratactic structure (i.e., when whole clauses are joined) may or may not reflect the true semantic relationship. Hypotactic structure, on the other hand, does reflect the deeper structure: One does not use hypotactic structure when parataxis is meant, because the more nuanced category reflects the true intention of the author more accurately” (667, n. 2).
28. If the structure is paratactic, the connection between verses 14 and 15 suggests that verse 14 adds a fifth reason Paul was eager to preach to those who were in Rome. He writes, “I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.”
29. While verse 19 also begins with a causal conjunction, the conjunction in verse 19 is διότι rather than γάρ, indicating at least some difference in the connection.
30. John E. Toews, Romans, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2004), 370.
31. Schreiner, Romans, 78.
32. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 89.
33. Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 611.
34. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 37.
35. Adolph Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 28–91.
36. Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 34.
37. W. Mundle, “Revelation,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3:312.
38. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, 155.
39. Where this section ends is debatable. Here, it is taken as the conclusion of Paul’s exposition of justification by faith.
40. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949), 504.
41. Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 295.
42. James Montgomery Boice, Romans, vol. 2, The Reign of Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 781.
43. Bruce mentions and rejects this possibility. F. F. Bruce, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 181. See also R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 579.
44. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 445.
45. John Piper, The Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 18.
46. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 547.
47. Leland Ryken et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 243.
48. Michael B. Thompson, “Teaching/Paraenesis,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 922. See also Michael J. Wilkins, “Teaching, Paraenesis,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 1158; and Malcom D. Tolbert, “Life Situation and Purpose of Romans,” Review and Expositor 73, no. 4 (1976): 399.
49. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 508.
50. The main body of the letter could be seen as ending at 15:7 or 15:13. The issue is best explained by treating 15:8–13 as a Janus. Verses 8–13 look backward to 12:3–15 and forward to 15:14–22. The Scripture quotations, the cessation of imperatives, and the benediction in verses 8–13 bring to a close the entire paraenetic section that begins with 12:1 and the main body of the letter. But they also segue into Paul’s discussion about his ministry to the Gentiles in 15:14–22.
51. William S. Campbell, “Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” in The Romans Debate, ed. K. P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 251.
52. Peter F. Ellis, Seven Pauline Letters (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982), 200.