Romans

What kind of book this is

Romans is a letter — but a letter unlike Paul’s other correspondence. Paul’s letters to Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica are responses to specific church situations; they argue particular cases against particular problems. Romans was written to a church Paul had never visited (1:10, 15:22-24). It is more systematic, more sustained, more comprehensive in its theological argument than any of his other letters.

Most scholars place its composition around 56-57 CE, written from Corinth on the eve of Paul’s planned trip to Jerusalem (15:25-26). The letter is carried, the text suggests, by Phoebe — a deacon (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae — named in 16:1-2. Paul writes the letter both to introduce himself to the Roman church and to enlist their support for his planned mission to Spain (15:24).

Authorship

Pauline authorship of Romans is undisputed in modern critical scholarship. It is one of the seven Hauptbriefe (chief letters) — Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon — universally accepted as authentically Pauline. The internal evidence (vocabulary, theology, biographical details) and external attestation (very early citation by Christian writers) leave no significant doubt.

Some scholars have questioned whether chapter 16 — with its long list of greetings — was originally part of the letter or was added later. The textual situation is complex (different manuscripts place the closing doxology in different locations) but the standard scholarly position now treats chapter 16 as Pauline.

The most famous — Romans 8:28

“And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28, BSB)

Often quoted as a stand-alone promise that everything will turn out well. The conditional clause — for those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose — is almost always retained in English translation but frequently dropped in popular citation. The promise is to a particular group, not unconditional.

The Greek synergei eis agathon — “works together for good” — has a textual variant in some early manuscripts (Papyrus 46, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus) that adds ho theos (God) as the explicit subject — God works all things together. Other manuscripts have all things work together. NA28 and most modern translations follow the reading that makes God explicit.

The verse sits within Romans 8 — Paul’s most extended treatment of suffering, hope, and the work of the Spirit. The chapter concludes with the famous neither death nor life […] will be able to separate us from the love of God (8:38-39) — see our /for/ entry on feeling unloved.

The most misquoted — Romans 3:23

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23, BSB)

Universally quoted in Protestant evangelism. The Greek is more precise than English usually conveys:

• pantes (all) hēmarton (sinned, aorist active indicative) — completed past event
• hysterountai tēs doxēs tou theou (are falling short of the glory of God, present middle/passive) — ongoing state

Paul names two claims, not one. There is a completed event (the sinning, in the past, by all) and there is a present state (the ongoing falling-short). The English collapses both into a smooth declarative. The Greek distinguishes them.

The verse also belongs to a particular argument. Romans 1:18–3:20 is Paul’s case that both Gentiles (1:18-32) and Jews (2:1–3:8) stand under judgement. Romans 3:9-20 brings the case to a head with a chain of OT citations. Romans 3:21 then turns: but now, the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Romans 3:23 sits between the diagnosis and the offered remedy. See our /meaning/ entry on “all have sinned”.

Surprising content — Junia named as apostle (Romans 16:7)

“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16:7, BSB)

The Greek name is Iounian — accusative form. The accusative form is ambiguous between masculine Iounianos (Junias) and feminine Iounia (Junia).

The historical evidence is striking:

• In Greek: Iounianos (Junias) is otherwise unattested in any ancient source. It is a name no one has ever found anywhere else. Iounia (Junia) is a common Roman feminine name attested in many ancient inscriptions.
• Patristic reception: John Chrysostom (4th c.) read the name as feminine and praised the woman: how great the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the appellation of apostle.
• Later medieval Latin manuscripts: some translations and commentaries from the 12th–13th centuries onward rendered the name as masculine.
• Modern critical editions: NA28 and UBS5 print Iounian with the feminine accent (Iounían), reflecting the consensus that the name is feminine.

Paul names a woman as outstanding among the apostles (episēmoi en tois apostolois). The phrase has been parsed two ways: (1) “outstanding among the apostles” (i.e., she is among the apostles and is outstanding within that group), (2) “well known to the apostles” (i.e., she is not herself an apostle but is known by them). Most scholars take the first reading; the Greek genuinely allows debate. Either way, the name is feminine.

See our /figure/ entry on Paul on women for fuller treatment.

Other surprising content — Romans 12:2

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2, BSB)

The Greek distinguishes two verbs:

• syschēmatizesthe — “be conformed” — from schēma (outward shape, form). To take the outward shape of something.
• metamorphousthe — “be transformed” — from morphē (essential form, substance). To change in essential form.

Paul calls his readers not to take the outward shape (schēma) of this world but to undergo essential change (metamorphosis) in their thinking. The English word metamorphosis descends from this Greek verb. See our /meaning/ entries on “do not conform” and “transformed by the renewing of the mind”.

The pistis Christou debate

Romans 3:22, 3:26 contain the Greek phrase pistis Christou Iēsou — literally “faith of Christ Jesus.” The genitive Christou can be read two ways:

• Objective genitive: faith in Christ (the believer’s faith, with Christ as object)
• Subjective genitive: the faith of Christ (Christ’s own faithfulness)

The two readings have substantially different theological implications. Most English translations have used the objective (“faith in Christ”). A growing body of scholarship since the 1980s argues for the subjective (“the faithfulness of Christ”). Both readings are grammatically possible. The debate is one of the most active in Pauline studies. See our /meaning/ entry on faith (pistis).

Romans 9–11 and election

Romans 9-11 contains Paul’s most extended treatment of Israel and the Gentiles. The argument moves through Israel’s election (chapter 9), Israel’s current rejection (chapter 10), and Israel’s future restoration (chapter 11). The chapter contains the famous declaration all Israel will be saved (11:26) — the meaning of which has been debated for two thousand years.

The chapters generated the Calvinist–Arminian debate over predestination, free will, and the meaning of election. The verses I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated (9:13) and Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated (quoted from Malachi 1:2-3) have been at the centre of theological argument since Augustine. See our /meaning/ entries on election and predestination.

Other key passages

• Romans 1:16-17 — Paul’s thesis: the gospel is the power of God for salvation
• Romans 3:21-26 — justification through faith, the hilastērion (atoning sacrifice / mercy seat) verse
• Romans 5:1-11 — peace with God, suffering producing perseverance
• Romans 7 — the divided self, what I want to do I do not do
• Romans 8 — no condemnation, the Spirit, the love that nothing can separate
• Romans 12 — the living sacrifice, the body with many members

Original language

Greek throughout — the koine Greek of the eastern Roman Empire. Paul’s Greek is generally regarded as competent but not literarily refined. He dictated the letter to a scribe named Tertius (16:22), who identifies himself in the closing greetings — one of the few places in the New Testament where a scribe is named.

Key Greek terms with their own QFB entries: pistis (faith), dikaiosynē (righteousness), charis (grace), agapē (love), eirēnē (peace).

The dikaiosynē theou question

The Greek phrase dikaiosynē theou — “the righteousness of God” — appears repeatedly in Romans (1:17, 3:5, 3:21, 3:22, 3:25, 3:26, 10:3). What Paul means by it has been debated for centuries:

• Imputed righteousness (Luther’s reading): God’s righteousness is given to the believer — credited to their account
• God’s saving activity (much modern scholarship): God’s righteousness is God’s own faithfulness in saving
• God’s covenant faithfulness (E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright): God’s commitment to fulfil promises to Israel

The Reformation was, in significant part, a debate over this phrase. Modern Pauline studies — the new perspective on Paul and its critics — continues the debate. See our /meaning/ entry on righteousness.

Why this book matters

More books, sermons, and commentaries have been written on Romans than on any other letter in the New Testament. Augustine’s conversion was triggered by Romans 13:13-14 (let us walk properly, as in the daytime…). Luther’s breakthrough on justification by faith came from Romans 1:17. Calvin’s Institutes is built on Romans’s structure. Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans (1919, revised 1922) shaped 20th-century Christian theology decisively.

The letter has been the engine of major theological revolutions. It has also been the source of theological positions that have done damage — readings of Romans 13:1-7 (every soul be subject to the governing authorities) have been used to legitimate authoritarian regimes; readings of Romans 1:26-27 have featured prominently in debates over sexuality. The letter rewards careful reading and resists easy summary. It is dense, sometimes tortuous, sometimes (as Paul himself notes) hard to follow. It is also, by general agreement, the canon’s most sustained piece of theological argument.