Romans 12
LenskiCHAPTER XII
PART IV
The Righteousness of God Produces a Life of Righteousness, 12:1 to 15:13
The Christian among Christians, chapter 12
In other letters addressed to congregations Paul follows the same course as he does here and leaves the admonition concerning the Christian life to the last. So he begins with the fundamental transformation and then marks the range of his first admonitions: the Christian as a member of the spiritual body created by faith in Christ (12:4, 5). He shows: The Christian among Christians.
In the grand section chapters 6 to 8 the great fundamentals of the Christian life have already been fully presented as the results of the righteousness of God apprehended by faith. There we are shown as such results: Newness of life and salvation (chapter 6); deliverance from the law (chapter 7); guidance of the Spirit (8:1–17); consolation of hope, etc. (8:18–39). The present section concerning the details of this life might have followed at once, but Paul chose to insert the intervening sections as to how the mass of Judaism lost God’s righteousness by unbelief and how God shaped his plans accordingly. How justification by faith governs this life in its details is thus reserved for the last and is unfolded with proportional fulness. By placing this portion with its details last Paul helps to round out the great subject of the letter even formally in an excellent way.
Romans 12:1
1 The very first words strike the new note: παρακαλῶὑμᾶς, “I admonish you” (C.-K. 570), scarcely “I beseech” (our versions). I admonish you, therefore, brethren, through the compassions of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God—this your reasonable cultus. And be not outwardly conformed to this world age but be inwardly transformed by the renewing of the mind so that you test out what the will of God is, the thing (really) good and well-pleasing and complete.
The search for a close connection of thought to explain the use of οὖν finds nothing in the preceding paragraph. The idea that the phrase “through the compassions” points to a connection of thought with the unmerited “riches” mentioned in v. 33 or 36 overlooks the fact that riches and compassions do not suggest each other. Οὖν reaches back much farther. The phrase about God’s compassions removes all vagueness by fixing our attention on all that Paul has said about the mercy of God as the source of our justification. We see, too, that “brethren” are now not the Gentile Christians as in 11:25 (11:13) but all the Roman believers (v. 3).
Paul extends his admonition and wants the Romans to receive and to act on it “through the compassions of God.” The very word οἰκτιρμοί is unusual, meaning, as it does, tender pities, and, as is always the case with the transitive attributes of God, it includes also the acts and the gifts that result from these attributes. Paul’s meaning is: I am letting my admonition come to you through God’s compassions which have had pity on you and have brought you from your former pitiful state to your present high and blessed state, and, coming to you thus, they will find response in you as helping to further what his compassions are seeking to complete in you. When the readers think of the compassions they have received and still receive they will gladly heed the admonitions addressed to them in the name of these compassions. This new term “compassions” prevents us from thinking of any special passage but bids us rather to find whatever conveys the thought of God’s pity for us sinners in all that precedes. The plural “compassions” corresponds to the Hebrew rachamim but is also a native Greek idiom.
Luther writes: “He does not say: ‘I command you!’ for he is preaching to those who are already Christians and godly through the faith in the new man, who are not to be forced with commands but to be admonished to do willingly what is to be done in regard to the sinful old man. For he who does it not willingly, solely as a result of admonition, he is no Christian, and he who compels it from the unwilling with laws, he already is no Christian preacher or ruler but a worldly clubwielder. A lawdriver insists with threats and penalties; a preacher of grace lures and incites with divine goodness and compassion shown to us; for he wants no unwilling works and reluctant services, he wants joyful and delightful services of God. He who will not allow himself to be incited and lured with such sweet, lovely words about God’s compassion, so abundantly presented and given to us in Christ, so that with delight and love he also does as bidden for God’s glory, to the good of his neighbor: he is nothing, and everything is lost on him. How will he become soft and delighted by laws and threats who will not melt and soften before such fire of heavenly love and grace?”
The aorist “to present” = present completely, which thought the present imperatives (some texts have infinitives) in v. 2 spread out in its full, extended course. When Paul mentions only the presenting of our bodies, we must not overlook the fact that we ourselves are to present them. In 6:13 he bids us not to present our members to the sin power but to present ourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and thus also to present our members. Our body is the organ for our actions, and when we present that to God, it means that all our actions together with their instrument are to be directed solely by him.
Then, too, in this physical world it is our body which meets the sinful contacts and impacts by which the power of sin invades our entire being. Let us not forget that Satan’s lies use our ears as a means of entry, also our eyes through the printed page, to mention only this use of the bodily avenues. After our whole body has been presented to God by a voluntary act, all these roads into our being are to be open only to God. Paul intends to set forth in detail all that this presenting of our bodies involves.
The striking thought is that our bodies are to be “a living sacrifice.” The very words show that θυσία (from θύω, to let go up in smoke) does not refer to sacrifices in general but to a sacrifice that is slain; the expression is not “a living προσφορά, offering.” Here there is a strong paradox: our bodies are to be presented like those of the animals but not like them to be slain, yet like them so completely to be made God’s that during their whole life they are as good as slain. The thought goes deeper than is generally supposed; this implies more than a complete surrender of the body to God. As stated in 6:11, this surrender takes place by means of a death and a life combined. And the sacrificial death that Paul has in mind is crucifixion, which we gather not so much from 6:6 as from Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14. The likeness to Christ in this “living sacrifice” extends also to his resurrection and his life; “as living from the dead” (6:13; compare 6:10, 11).
“Your bodies a living slaughter sacrifice” is one of Paul’s wonderful expressions; it strikes a chord of many notes: likeness and difference as far as all Jewish and all pagan bloody animal sacrifices are concerned; the difference implying a vast superiority, for these are our own bodies, and when the slaughter sacrifice is completed, these bodies not only live, they partake of a higher life, one that, even as far as the bodies are concerned, shall end in blessed eternal life. And this fact that we are such a sacrifice and yet live not only duplicates Christ in his death and his life, it is the result of his death and his life. However, the duplicate in us is not one that expiates, for a genuine expiation admits of no repetition, nor is it needed; the duplication in us, i.e., in our bodies, is the evidence of our union with Christ, the evidence of the effectiveness of his truly expiating sacrifice in us.
When we understand “living sacrifice” thus, the full significance of the epithets appears. “Holy,” set apart and devoted to God, “well-pleasing to God,” a delight to him and accepted by him. With regard to the Jewish animal sacrifices it was always a question as to whether they were holy and well-pleasing to God. Read some of the denunciations of the sacrifices which the Jews presented (Prov. 15:8; Isa. 1:11–15; 66:3; Jer. 6:20). Also hypocrites brought animal sacrifices; the sacrifices were often a mere formality. Presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice is always a sacrifice that is holy and well-pleasing to God. A few construe: “to God well-pleasing,” and those who adopt this sense in spite of textual evidence say that the emphasis thus placed on “to God” means, “not only to man.” But this introduces a foreign idea, for the contrast is clearly drawn between well-pleasing or not well-pleasing to God.
The apposition to the whole infinitive clause, “this your reasonable cultus,” sheds a wonderful light on the whole and at the same time states what makes this sacrifice holy and well-pleasing to God. On λατρείς see 9:4. This sacrifice is the cultus and worship that Jesus calls “worship in spirit and in truth,” John 4:23. We have no fully adequate translation for λογικός; the Germans have geistig (distinct from geistlich). “Spiritual cultus,” as some interpret, is not what Paul says although, of course, this cultus is also spiritual. The word has nothing to do with logic as though this cultus is the only logical one, “reasonable” in this sense, for true Christians.
Nor is the implied contrast some “misguided” cultus. It is the cultus “in spirit,” although it is exercised by the Christian’s whole outer conduct, through the medium of his body yet involving his whole inner rational being. The danger in connection with the ceremonial Jewish sacrifices was that they tended to become formal. This same danger persists in our cultus acts today. The idea that Paul in no way thinks of the pagan sacrifices is insupportable. They were in all respects, save only that they were sacrifices, the opposite of what the true cultus was to be.
Romans 12:2
2 The textual evidence is in favor of the reading that has two imperatives rather than two infinitives. The sense, too, is against the latter, for this negative and this positive are not additions to the infinitive “to present,” they elucidate what this spirit service really requires. The two imperatives are opposites not only in regard to their prepositional prefixes but also in the root words themselves. This difference is lost when we translate: “be not conformed but be transformed,” for the English root word “form” is the same. Σχῆμα is outward conformation, fashion; but μορφή is the essential form which fully expresses the essence or real being. We have the latter in “metamorphosis.” We can do no better in English than to follow Field (M.-M. 613): “be not outwardly conformed but be inwardly transformed.”
The Greek “eon” = a great stretch of time but one that is marked and characterized and thus made a unit by what transpires in it, “world” in this sense, namely when “this eon” is referred to, dieser Zeitlauf. This eon is “wicked,” Gal. 1:4; its god is the devil, 2 Cor. 4:4; it is the eon of this cosmos. It is contrasted with “the eon about to come” which the Parousia ushers in, the eon of eternal blessedness, of the new earth.
Not even outwardly are we to adopt the fashion of the eon in which we now live, the ways of the world. The present imperative asks us to shun this conformity during the entire course of our lives. Even in outward fashion the Christian is to be different, separate from the world. Our visible conversation and life as men see us are to show that their ways are not our ways; our conversation (citizenship) is in heaven, Phil. 3:20. We are only pilgrims here and not citizens. Since we expect to go to heaven, our conduct here reflects that fact and is unlike that of men who seek their all in this eon.
There is danger that the Christian may adopt at least some of the world’s ways, run with worldly men (1 Pet. 4:4), especially when they mock us if we do not. Christians sometimes imagine that they can do this without injury to themselves, can remain unspotted from the world amid worldly, unchristian associations, amid worldly and questionable pleasures. To howl a bit with the wolves, to do as the Romans do because we are in Rome, to avoid the abuse of the world and not to lose all this tainted pleasure and advantage while still holding fast to Christ, does not seem so wrong. The resultant casualties are many and exceedingly sad.
As is the case in so many instances in Holy Writ, the opposite is far more than an opposite: not even outward conformity—no less than constant inward transformation. This is what presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice and thus as our reasonable cultus means. What we do with our bodies and our whole bodily life is to be the evidence of a constant inner metamorphosis, one that is accomplished “by the renewing of the mind so that you test out what the will of God is,” test out “the thing (really) good and well-pleasing and complete,” making our mind conform to this divine newness and rejecting everything else as being spurious. Here there is the same concentrated richness of thought as in v. 1. The inner transformation begins at the moment of our justification and is to advance throughout life until God completes it in death.
The dative of means states that this transformation is effected “by the renewing of the mind.” In 6:4 we have “newness of life,” the condition; here we have “the renewing,” the process. The καινός occurring in both terms is “new” as the opposite of “old” in our old man. And νοῦς is “mind” as “the organ of moral thinking and knowing” (C. K. 764) and thus matches λογικός used in v. 1. The Christian’s inward transformation is effected when his moral mentality becomes renewed, (the very mentality itself, so that it no longer thinks, understands, and judges as it once did but so that it cannot do so because it is in a process of renewal that advances steadily. The Christian minds the things of the spirit, a thing he never did before, and ceases minding the things of the flesh, a thing he always did before (8:5, 6); as a son of God he is led by the Spirit of God in his very mind (8:14). His use of the body shows it.
Εἰςτό with the infinitive, as so often (3:26; 4:11, twice; 4:18), states the result, namely what the mind does in consequence: “so that you keep testing out (durative) what the will of God is,” as men test out coins or metal by accepting the genuine and rejecting and throwing out the spurious. The renewed mind is ever bent on finding out and following God’s will, what God wants of us; it has utterly ceased its old disregard of God’s will, its old folly of contenting itself with its own will.
We do not regard the three following words as adjectives: “the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (our versions). The second is “well-pleasing” and, as in v. 1, means “well-pleasing to God” and hence cannot modify “the will of God.” The third means “complete,” and the implication of an “incomplete” will of God is distressing. These adjectives are substantivized, are treated as a unit (one article), and form an apposition: test out the will of God, (namely test out) “the thing (really) good,” etc. For God ever wills τὸἀγαθόν, “the thing morally good and beneficial,” and never anything that is not good. And this thing is the one “well-pleasing” to him; he says so in his Word which we use as our criterion in making our test. And thus also this good and well-pleasing thing is “complete,” easily distinguished from the reductions to which even Christians at times subject the will of God by claiming he does not will this or that. Worldly tendencies in the church excuse themselves in this way.
This threefold designation is an apposition: “what is the will, namely what is this thing that is at once good, pleasing to God, and complete.” The renewed mind of the Christian ever seeks to prove this in life. We cannot, then, make “the good thing,” etc., the criterion, the touchstone for our testing out what God’s will is. We never say that only what is in our judgment good is God’s will; or what we think is well-pleasing to him; or what we consider morally and spiritually complete. No; testing out what God wants is discovering the thing that is good for us, pleasing to him, complete in itself. And what God’s will is, namely this thing which he wills, we discover from his Word and from that alone, and we subject all our own conceptions of what is good, etc., wholly to that Word. Every test made without the Word is deceptive and wrong.
Does v. 1 apply particularly to the Jewish Christians because it speaks of “living sacrifice”? No more than do 6:11, 13: “alive to God,” “as alive from the dead.” Does v. 2 apply particularly to Gentile Christians? No more than any other verse in this chapter. Just because they are now Christians, Jewish Christians are in just as great danger as are Gentile Christians of being conformed to worldly ways in a great city like Rome which offered so many temptations. It is well known that throughout the Gentile world Jews became loose and lax in their Judaism and fell into many evil, pagan ways. When Paul specifies in v. 3: “I say to everyone that is among you,” the reason is not that, when he used “brethren” in v. 1, he had in mind two groups, v. 1 indicating the one, v. 2 the other; the reason lies in what Paul says in v. 3–8. Verses 1 and 2 befit the whole, in v. 3–8 individualization is necessary.
Romans 12:3
3 Having laid down the fundamentals for the sanctification of body and of mind in the Christian life, Paul proceeds with the details. Those fundamentals apply to all without distinction. When he now begins the details he sees the one body of the church as being composed of many members each member being in his place with his particular qualifications and obligations, all together constituting one harmonious whole. Among them he sees also himself with his own gifts and his work. In a way that is altogether natural and beautiful he advances in these verses.
So I say through the grace given to me to everyone who is among you, not to be haughty-minded, beyond what he must be minded but to be minded so as to be sober-minded as to each one God apportioned a portion of faith.
When it introduces a paragraph, γάρ intends simply to continue the line already begun (B.-P. 239) but now to introduce the details. “I say” is to be taken in the same sense as “I admonish” in v. 1; this is also the case with the διά phrase, which now, however, does not bring out what God bestows on all (his compassions) but what Paul has received as an individual. He is one of the many who constitute the body of which he intends to speak. The Lord has assigned him his place. Mindful of that and taking to heart his own admonition, he admonishes the Romans, “every one who belongs to them,” as to how he is to think of himself in the place assigned to him. In v. 2 he has spoken of the transformed and renewed “mind.” The first object upon which the mind will think is its own possessor. So Paul speaks of this thinking first of all. Each and every Christian must be “minded” rightly in his relation to every one of the rest.
Now there follows a quadruple paronomasia or onnominatio (R. 1201) which is even arranged chiastically, the two compound infinitives being outside, the two simple infinitives inside; this is followed by another: “apportioned a portion,” the verb with its cognate object. This linguistic skill is beautiful. The great fault of the unrenewed mind is “to be haughty-minded,” to think itself “above” (ὑπέρ) others. Now Paul does not say that the Christian is never to think himself above a fellow Christian, is always to think himself beneath all others. This would be false humility, thinking what is not true, a silly inferiority complex. I stand higher than a Christian who is infected with error, higher than one who is morally tainted; and I have a right to think so. “Not to be haughty-minded” is expounded by “beyond what he must be minded.” Δεῖ denotes necessity, here the necessity of actual fact. “Than he ought to think” (our versions) is too weak because it refers only to propriety. We are to think of ourselves only as highly as we are compelled to think by the warranted facts; beyond that lies sin, below it sin, and the sin is falsity in either case.
Each is “to be minded so as to be sober-minded,” sanely minded. This word is used with reference to the fierce demoniac after the legion had left him (Mark 5:15). R., W. P., thinks that self-conceit is here regarded as a species of insanity. Here, too, the addition defines: “as to each one God apportioned the portion of faith.” Sober and sane thinking neither exaggerates nor depreciates such gifts as God himself has bestowed. God made this apportionment (1 Cor. 12:7–11) in his wisdom and his love; to appreciate properly the portion you have received is to honor God, is to be of a sober and a balanced mind in regard to your own person.
The position of ἐκάστῳ makes it emphatic: “each one” has some portion apportioned to him; and when he is satisfied and praises God for that he keeps sober-minded. “Portion of faith” = portion (namely charismatic portion) belonging to faith (simple possessive genitive). Πίστις is personal, saving faith, and in the case of every believer it has and possesses some charisma or other that is to be exercised for the glory of God and the good of the church. Fail not to note “each one.” This relieves us of the forced and unsatisfactory interpretations which think of a partitive genitive because portion and portioning precede. “Portion” is an incomplete concept; but a genitive of a proper kind makes its governing noun definite. That is the case here. Only a few, thinking of a partitive genitive, speak of “a portion of justifying faith” despite the analogy of Scripture which never speaks of such portions and never tells us to be satisfied with a small portion of saving faith.
Some think of charismatic faith (1 Cor. 12:9; 13:2), namely a portion of that. But has each and every Christian some measure of this special charisma? Evidently not. The faith that moves mountains is not a universal Christian charisma. Some other explanations make faith an entirely new thing: “the instinctive confidence” with which any charisma is used; the confidence, certitude, courage, joyfulness necessary for the use of any charisma, a bishop needing a greater portion of it than an almoner; finally, “faith” as the sum of all the charismata, and “portion” the field, direction, opportunities which God portions out for exercising these charismata (C.-K. 892). These are unsuccessful efforts to avoid a difficulty.
Romans 12:4
4 With γάρ Paul explains what leads him to speak of each believer’s having some charisma or other with which he should be humbly content. All of the Christians are one body which has many different members that have different capabilities and different functions, each of which is necessary in its place. It is a briefer exposition than that found in 1 Cor. 12:12–31, but follows the same line of thought.
For according as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same task, so we, the many, are one body in Christ yet one by one members of each other.
The word πρᾶξις means “task,” activity, office. The human body with its many members, each of which has its specific function, yet all of which form one grand unit, is a lovely analogy of the spiritual body and the members of Christ.
Romans 12:5
5 Although we are so many, we are ἓνσῶμαἐνΧριστῷ, “one body in Christ,” not in the sense of an outward organization but of a spiritual organism, the church invisible, the great Una Sancta. We have explained “in Christ” in 6:11. Here, however, it is not the relation of each believer to Christ that is discussed but what this relation to Christ which constitutes all of us one spiritual body causes us to be in relation to each other, namely that thus “one by one” we are “members of each other” reciprocally. Our union with Christ makes us all individually fellow members. As such a member I belong to all the others, and all the others belong to me. With whatever gifts the Lord has blessed me I serve not only Christ but, by serving him, I serve all the others, and all the others serve me.
And the latter should be brought to the consciousness of every one of us; for what is the little I contribute to them compared with the vastness of what they contribute to me? Τὸκαθʼ εἶς is adverbial: “individually.” Κατά is an adverb, and τό helps to mark it as such; the nominative εἶς is not the object of κατά used as a preposition. The whole expression is an idiom of the Koine and not a barbarism or an irregularity.
We now see how Paul regarded himself and what he means by the admonitions expressed in v. 3. He is just one member of this spiritual body, and each of his “brethren” in Rome is another member. He has “the grace given to him,” so has every other member. It makes little difference whether we understand this “grace” so as to include also the grace that saved and justified him (3:24) or restrict it to the grace which made him an apostle and bestowed charismatic gifts upon him. This applies to every believer, for each has his portion of gifts. The δεῖ of v. 3 also becomes clear.
When Paul looks at the Lord who gave him his portion he is utterly humble (1 Cor. 15:9, 10). When he looks at his fellow apostles he is ashamed (1 Cor. 15:8: abortion). But when his office and his work are assailed by others in the church, he must think of himself as highly as this office and the Lord’s gifts for it demand of him; and with proper vigor he defends himself (example 2 Cor. 11:5, etc.). He always writes as an apostle of Christ and never as one who is less or who forgets what he really is. He here bids all other Christians to do the same with the same sanity and balance in whatever station the Lord has placed them among the many other members, in accord with whatever portion the Lord has equipped them so they may contribute to these other members. No Christian is to exceed the estimate he must place upon himself.
Romans 12:6
6 With utmost freedom Paul mixes participles and verbs or omits verbs altogether and uses most striking terseness. On this use of Greek participles see R. 1132–1135; 439, etc.; B.-D. 468, 2. This is not an anacoluthon or an irregularity. Remember, the Greek mind is far, far nimbler than the English when it comes to flexibility in the use of language. For instance, what Robertson calls the witchery of its particles is utterly beyond anything that is possible in English. What we really need for understanding v. 6–21 is a Greek mind; then the nimbleness, the swift terseness, sometimes mere flashes, would give us delight. It helps a little to read aloud with proper inflection. As for our English, well, what can one do?
We supply nothing. This is a Greek vase that is painted in Greek design, and every pencil touch is by a Greek master.
Now as having charismata differing according to the grace given to us: be it prophecy—according to the proportion of the faith! Be it ministry—in that ministry! Be it the one teaching—in that teaching! Be it the one admonishing—in that admonition! He that imparts—in simplicity! He that manages—in diligence!
He that extends mercy—in cheerfulness! The love—not hypocritical! Abhorring the wicked thing! Glued to the good thing! As regards the brother love—family-affectioned towards each other! As regards the honor—leading each other!
As regards the diligence—not slow (R., W. P.: poky)! As regards the spirit—fervent! As regards the Lord—working as slaves! As regards the hope—rejoicing! As regards the tribulation—holding on!
As regards the (matter of) prayer—continuing steadfast! As regards the needs of the saints—fellow-shipping! As for the hospitality—pursuing it!
The rest is in the same strain; the whole is like a film which flashes on the screen one picture of us, the Christians, after another. All of them together form a whole, and each one is in its proper place. This is how the lives of those people look who have been justified by faith. These are the luscious, abundant fruits that make the tree of God’s righteousness by faith alone the very tree of life itself.
In v. 3, where Paul refers to his own charismata, he says: “through the grace given to me”; here, speaking of all Christians, he expands this and says: “having charismata differing according to the grace given to us.” In what sense all Christians have charismatic gifts which are bestowed by pure, unmerited grace, the same grace which also justified them, the rest of the chapter shows. As we pass through it we see that no one is without his “portion” (v. 3). But we also see that “charismata” is used in its wide sense: all gifts that enable us to live any part of our Christian life. Gifts that enable one to do miraculous deeds are not mentioned (as they are in 1 Cor. 12).
Seven specifications follow (6b–8). The first two are impersonal and accusatives: “prophecy—ministry,” and harmonize with the accusative “charismata”; then there follow five singular personal participles: “the one teaching”—“the one extending mercy,” etc. Then there is a break which makes “the love” an impersonal subject (v. 9); this is followed by no less than twelve plural personal designations (eleven participles plus one adjective). But the first group of seven divides into four and three, four each having εἴτε, three being without it. 4 + 3 = 7, and then 12, all are significant figures. The four εἴτε, two with accusatives (impersonal), two with participles (personal), show the first variation and prepare for the following variations. All of this is done beautifully and effectively.
Paul starts with “prophecy,” and how highly he ranks it we see in 1 Cor. 14:1. We need not dispute about what “prophecy” means. The church had prophets who received and communicated direct and special revelations from God, like Agabus, like Paul himself. Paul is not speaking of this charisma, for no other supernatural gift is named in the entire chapter. Whether the Roman congregation had a prophet in this sense we do not know; all that we do know is that the number of these was small in the entire church. But prophets as expositors of the Word and the will of God were numerous, every congregation was blessed with one or with more. Of this gift, so valuable, so edifying (upbuilding to the church), Paul speaks here and in 1 Cor. 14.
The terse phrase: “according to the proportion of the faith” is equal to an imperative as are the six ἐν phrases that follow. The effort to regard v. 6–8 as declarative, the seven phrases being mere modifiers, breaks down of itself, to say nothing of the force of the twelve dicta that follow (v. 9–13). Paul is not describing the gifts: “whether prophecy in accord with the proportion of faith, whether ministry in the ministry, whether one teaching in the teaching,” etc. The farther one proceeds, the less intelligent the phrases become when they are read attributively; Paul is admonishing his readers as to how to exercise the gifts. All the phrases are imperatival and thus resemble exclamations. All verbs are wanting until we get to v. 14; supply none.
The norm, the directive, the boundary (κατά) for all prophecy is “the proportion of the faith.” The lines are drawn between those who hold that faith is here subjective, fides qua creditur, and those who hold that it is objective, fides quae creditur. The statement is made even by C.-K. 893 that πίστις is never used in the sense of “faith which is believed,” that this significance is “superfluous” in the Scriptures, is not necessary for any passage, that the other, “faith with which one believes,” is always amply sufficient. Jude 3 is one striking answer to this claim; the Acts have several more, to search no farther. See B.-P. 1063, etc., for the long list of those who hold the contrary.
The claim that Paul refers to the prophet’s own measure of faith is answered the moment one sees that no prophet is mentioned but only “prophecy.” Now “prophecy” is objective, the contents of what one may prophesy, and it is plain that the controlling norm for this cannot be something subjective, the prophet’s own trust, but in the very nature of the case must also be something objective, “the faith (or doctrine) once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The effort to gain support for the subjective idea from the word ἀναλογία is unsatisfactory. It means neither “portion” (v. 3) nor anything save the objective “right relation to,” “true agreement with” (B.-P. 89) the objective doctrine.
It has been supposed that prophets were in an exalted state when they uttered their prophecies, were liable to be carried away with enthusiasm and thus be inclined to say more than they ought to say. But look at Agabus in Acts 21:11. Can anyone be more deliberate? We mention him because some think that prophets such as he, who had received direct revelations, are referred to. Paul is thinking of prophecy as an exposition of Scripture, and this was ever delivered in all calmness as it is to this day. Paul is not guarding against enthusiasm but against false exposition that disagrees with “the faith” believed, taught, and confessed by the church as it was received from Christ through the apostles.
Why, then, does he not say, “according to the norm of the Scriptures”? Because the New Testament was not yet written, and because the Old Testament did not contain the fulfillment that had come with the fuller teaching of Christ. There is no point, then, in telling us that the prophet must “exercise his own Glaubenszuversicht,” must not shine with words, seek effects, or indulge in unhealthy pathos because of his exalted feeling.
Paul is voicing Christ’s own command as given in Matt. 28:20, according to Luke 10:16. There is, indeed, that which has been called “the analogy of faith,” by which norm all prophecy or what is put forth as exposition and teaching of Scripture is to be judged by the church. Whatever disagrees with “the faith” or doctrine is mistaken, erroneous, or false.
Romans 12:7
7 Paul lays down a norm (κατά) only for “prophecy”; in regard to the other six gifts and their exercise he points to the sphere (ἐν). He has said that charismata differ; so he considers an extended list of them. The next one to be considered is “ministry,” and we should note that it is placed between “prophecy” and “teaching” and hence does not refer to service for bodily needs like the διακονία mentioned in Acts 6:2. The idea that Paul is listing certain offices in the church is untenable. At this time only the office of elders was known. Paul is speaking of functions which any Christian may exercise as his ability and opportunity make this possible.
Διακονία is a lovely word; in 11:13 Paul uses it with reference to his own work in the apostleship. It often has the connotation of service rendered to benefit and to help others, this being the only motive, all compulsion being absent. As in the case of our word “minister” as a designation for a clergyman, the service rendered to others may be manifold. Here it is helpful, voluntary service in keeping with prophecy and teaching, thus of the higher or spiritual type.
The imperative phrase: “in that ministry!” throws this field wide open and bids the Romans plunge in. Κατά restrains, controls prophecy; ἐν releases, urges on ministry. Too little is being done in the church, done just for service’ sake. Note how the noun repeats the noun, and in the next two expressions the noun repeats the participle, in each phrase the noun has the demonstrative article; after which no articles occur in the phrases. There are three with the article, three without it. This is a beautiful linguistic touch.
“Is it ministry for which we have talent and a field? Then in that very ministry let us all exercise our talent!” The ἡμῖν, “to us,” used in v. 6 continues in force until v. 14 where the first “you” appears. Prophecy, ministry, teaching, admonishing (v. 1), imparting, managing, showing mercy—Paul is including himself. When he finally says: “Do you!” “Do thou!” we know that he does not even then exempt himself.
Now follow the five personal participles: “Be it the one teaching—in that teaching!” The change to the person is proper if the “in” phrases (not “to,” “on,” “with,” our versions) are to form the imperative chain. Teaching is instructing, making things plain. It starts with beginners and advances its pupils as far as this is possible. Jesus, the Prophet, the Minister, was also the great Teacher (Rabbi). Paul taught constantly. The church must ever have the right teachers. All Christian parents must teach their children. What a wide, blessed field for everyone who can be a teacher! “In that teaching,” Paul says, let us exercise our God-given charisma. It is one of the best.
Romans 12:8
8 To prophecy, ministry, and teaching the last εἴτε adds “admonition” such as Paul himself is offering here: “I admonish you” (v. 1). Christian teaching constantly passes over into admonition. To make proper use of admonition which all of us so constantly need in order to stir us up to make the instruction effective in our life is a blessed gift. It must touch and stimulate the genuine motives that lie in faith and needs to know and to apply the right human and Christian psychology. Its aim is not legalistic works such as all moralists desire but the true fruit of justifying faith which grows out of the change Paul describes in v. 2 with spiritual naturalness. To enrich the church with such works is a blessed gift and task. “In that admonition!” Paul admonishes, let us use what gift we have and admonish (παρακαλοῦντες, the identical word, Heb. 10:25) each other wherever this is needed.
Now we have three substantivized participles without εἴτε: “He that imparts.” In Eph. 4:28 this word is used with reference to alms; but in Rom. 1:11 and in 1 Thess. 2:8 with reference to spiritual impartation which Paul evidently has in mind. His slogan must ever be: “in simplicity!” which does not mean “liberality” or anything regarding the size or the value of the gift imparted but refers to the giver’s own motivation: that must be single, not double, not covertly seeking to secure credit, praise, honor, reward for whatever he imparts. See the exposition given by Jesus in Matt. 6:1–4, which deals with alms. Some think only of alms; but alms go with mercy and with the necessity of the saints (v. 13).
“He that manages” is not an official designation. This verb is used in various connections, and the participle might be rendered, “he that leads, that presides, that is placed in front.” “He that manages” fits best with the imperative phrase “in diligence!” M.-M. 541; also B.-P. 1134. This may be a reference to the elder in a congregation, to a member of the church council, to the chairman of a committee, to anyone who is placed at the head of others for the purpose of performing some task. And his motto must be: “in diligence!” The word means “haste” in the good sense: prompt efficiency, no delay, no excuses, no dilatoriness.
“He that extends mercy” (Luke 6:36; Matt. 5:7) to relieve anyone in distress. Mercy and deeds of mercy constitute the marks of a true Christian. “In cheerfulness!” is this man’s slogan; ἱλαρότης really = hilarity. He is to greet every opportunity for a merciful deed as a great find that makes him jubilant. Surely, grudging mercy is not to be his manner of doing. Here alms are included but at the same time much more than alms.
The six ἐν phrases denote sphere, the first three the spheres of the tasks themselves, the second three the spheres of the motivation filling the heart, hence there are no articles with these three. How beautifully they accord with the tasks should not escape attention. Single-minded imparting, diligent managers, joyful mercies—these please the Lord, grace the church. The five substantivized participles are present tenses, durative to indicate constantly repeated actions, each expressing the person’s character in accord with what he keeps doing steadily.
With these seven works Paul covers all the main lines of activity in the church. No one line is restricted to any one person. Some persons have gifts for all seven—great grace, indeed; and we may say, all have gifts for more than one—abundant grace for each.
Romans 12:9
9 In the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians Paul discusses the charismata. In the thirteenth chapter he speaks of ἀγάπη, “love.” So after discussing the sevenfold charismatic activity he now points to the ἀγάπη. The article refers to “the love” which, as the essential and the supreme fruit of justifying faith, is and must be found in every believer. Regarding the word itself see 1:7. It is far more than φιλία, the love of affection; it is the love that comprehends and according to that comprehension purposes to do all it can for its object. With this “love” God loved the world, with this love we are to love our enemies. “The love” with its article = the whole of it, every bit that one has.
The imperative idea is now expressed by an adjective: “not hypocritical!” “Hypocrite” was the term for show actor, and the ancient actors always wore a mask while they were on the stage (hence ὑπό in the compound). Genuine love is Paul’s bidding: Not stage-actor love; no mask of love! 1 John 3:18: “Let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” Where love is so highly esteemed as it is in the Christian Church, counterfeit love is often passed out as the real gold coin, and the lack of love attempts to hide itself behind the mask of love and of words that are supposed to have the sound of love.
After eight singulars we now have twelve plurals; besides, each of the singulars is used alone, the plurals occur in pairs or in triplets. Even this variation Paul adds. The first pair properly heads this procession, “the love” closing the first and ushering in the second: “Abhorring the wicked thing! Glued to the good thing!” a negative (ἀπό, from) with its opposite positive. The idea is not that the participles as participles are imperatives; the imperative force lies in the tone and in that alone.
Like “the love,” so “the wicked thing” and “the good thing” are most definite and at the same time comprehensive: the whole thing, everything that is wicked—everything that is good. Πονηρόν is “wicked” in the active sense, it is not merely κακόν, morally inferior. “Wicked” connotes pernicious, malignant, destructive. “The Wicked one” is Satan, Matt. 13:19; Eph. 6:16; 1 John 2:13, 14; and the whole world lies in the wicked one (“wickedness,” A. V.). “Abhor” = to turn from in hate. “The good thing” is also to be understood in the moral and the soteriological sense: morally, spiritually, savingly beneficial. As “wicked” has Satan back of it, so “good” flows from God. “Glued” is passive and is often used with reference to being joined most firmly and most permanently to some object. The subject of these participles is not “the love” but “we,” Paul and the Romans.
Romans 12:10
10 Nine admonitions follow which have nine datives, all are placed forward; in the tenth we have an accusative. It is well to note that these nine datives plus the one accusative are alike, all are datives of relation and the last is an accusative of relation: “as regards,” nine times, and to conclude: “as for.” Regarding these two cases as expressing relation (Beziehung, “with reference to”) see B. D. 160 and 197. Since the dative serves all manner of purposes, the grand line of them which Paul lets file past his readers is often regarded as a confused miscellany. This is done by the A. V., and still more by the commentators and the grammarians who construe each of these nine differently without catching the steady refrain they produce, each even being placed forward, each being thus strongly emphatic, an accusative of relation bringing up the rear in order to mark the close.
“As regards the brother love—family-affectioned towards each other! As regards the honor—leading each other!”—again a pair and marked as such by the two “each other.” “The brother love” = that which is always present among Christians. In English we lose the paronomasia φιλαδελφία—φιλόστοργοι. The brother love of Christians should be like that of the members of one family, we are all Geschwister. In brother love all are alike, stand on the same level. But in a family there is also a difference. There are children, parents, grandparents. Paul adds that: “as regards the honor,” where special honor is due to any one Christian, all the rest should try to be first in according it. Compare the δεῖ used in v. 3, what a Christian must think of himself.
The participle puzzles some; they thus give it an odd meaning and also think that it repeats Phil. 2:3b. M.-M. 540 seek to find something in the papyri to justify this odd meaning: “account others better than or superior to oneself,” although they admit that such a meaning of προηγέομαι is “otherwise unknown.” Luther has the general sense: Einer komme dem andern mit Ehrerbietung zuvor, which our versions follow: “in honor preferring one another,” i.e., happy to help honor another, not jealously seeking honor for self. But the dative is not “in,” and the verb does not mean “to prefer.” The commentators offer “considering” every other Christian “better than or superior to oneself.” But did Paul consider every weak and erring brother better than and superior to himself? No. But he ever bestows all possible and all deserving honor on men, for instance, on his assistants; he leads other brethren in doing this and is never greedy of honor for himself. “As regards the honor” = that which is due. The fact that the accusative occurs here whereas the classics use the genitive or the dative, is due to the Koine.
Romans 12:11
11 After two pairs there follows the first trio: “As regards the diligence (which we all ought to exercise),—not slow!” Such slowness is a common fault; many necessary tasks are put off. “Procrastination is the thief of time.” Distasteful work is avoided, and the like.
So there comes the second admonition: “As regards the spirit (that should be in us all)—seething!” but this participle has such an unusual meaning that we substitute the translation “fervent.” The verb means “to boil or seethe.” In Acts 18:25 the same expression occurs. A man’s spirit must move him to diligence; when enough steam is generated in the boiler, the engine speeds over the rails.
As Paul goes from the diligence to the spirit, so from the spirit he goes back still farther to the Lord. Many are diligent enough, some have fanatical zeal; many glow and literally boil over in their spirit; but so much of the busy effort and the steam back of it is not at all work for the Lord. Hence: “As regards the Lord—slaving!” i.e., working as slaves. If it were not for the eight other emphatic datives, one might call this the dativus commodi or the indirect object. This view has produced some ill results (see below)
The English connotation in “slaving” is the idea of working exceedingly hard; but the Greek idea is that of working as a slave whose entire work is directed by his master’s will. In 1:1 Paul calls himself such a “slave” of Jesus Christ. Some of the Greek and the Roman slaves held high positions of responsibility; the stewards, managers of many great estates, were slaves. But the point of importance is this taking of all orders from the master and never oneself acting as master. And Christ is the Master for these Christians. In all their diligence, in all their inner fervor they heed and obey and do the will of the Master alone.
The very terms match this sense: a κύριος is such for his δοῦλοι; and δοῦλοι always have a κύριος. When we act and work as slaves as regards our Master, all the speed we develop in our diligence, and all the steam we generate in our spirit will be directed in the right channel.
Luther and others who follow him prefer the reading καιρῷ in place of Κυρίῳ although it is textually much inferior. They suppose that some scribe altered what he regarded as a strange injunction by making it what he thought it to have been: “Serving the Lord.” But that would be saying little in this connection. So we are to read: “Serving the time,” the period in which we live. And the progress of thought is then as follows: swift diligence—a fervent spirit—serving our day and age. But this leads to a weak climax. And, “serving the time” is rather ambiguous.
To be a slave to the period in which we live means to take our orders from our own age. To serve our time in the good sense would be διακονεῖν, to benefit our age with our free service. It is of little consequence to say that the Christians are to retain liberty in their service; the participle means the opposite: “being slaves,” doubly so when it is construed with a dative that names the master. Here both textual and inner evidence unite against accepting the variant reading. Eph. 5:16 has a different verb and a different sense: “because the days (of the καιρός) are wicked.”
Romans 12:12
12 After this first trio comes the second: “As regards the hope (which goes with the faith of every believer)—rejoicing!” Compare 5:2: “glory on the basis of hope,” (also 5:5) where “hope” is explained. It may surprise us to note that the Scriptures connect joy, glorying, high delight with “hope,” Here hope is subjective, the sure expectation in our hearts which rests solely on Jesus’ promises.
In 5:3 hope and tribulation are connected; so here, too, ἐλπίς is followed by θλῖψις. Like Jesus, the apostles never mince words on this subject: the world hates us who are not of the world (John 15:18, etc.); through many tribulations (plural) we must enter the kingdom (Acts 14:22); the saints in heaven are called “those that came out of the great tribulation” (Rev. 7:14). Here, too, the article denotes “the tribulation” which belongs to us as Christians. We say: “holding on!” the Greek: “remaining under!” not trying to slip out from under, not trying to evade but, though pressed down by the heavy weight, remaining under it uncomplainingly, quietly, and bravely enduring it.
In the early church affliction was expected as a matter of course; the scars it left were considered medals of honor, bestowed by the Lord’s own hands. Now, most Christians expect to get through unscathed, without even a bruise, and they cry out if they are buffeted a little, as though a great wrong were being done them instead of experiencing something that is altogether normal. So many even try to avoid the world’s hate and to win its favor by shaping doctrine, practice, conduct so as to avoid offending the world. So many Christians resemble the children of this world to such an extent that they cannot be distinguished from them.
Joyful hope lifts us over present affliction, and patient endurance is maintained by steadfastness in prayer, mutual and individual. “As regards the prayer (which is the great resource, refuge, source of strength in all tribulation for every Christian)—continuing steadfast!” This is the same participle that is used to indicate adhering with might and main to the doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42), for adhering together (Acts 2:46), and for adhering to prayer and supplication (Acts 1:14).
Romans 12:13
13 The next pair follows naturally. “As regards the needs of the saints—fellowshipping!” The dative is one of relation and is not governed by the participle. Paul was engaged in bringing his great collection to the needy saints in Jerusalem, in fact, speaks of it in 15:25–28, 31, and uses the terms ἅγιοι and κοινωνία. The noun means “fellowship,” the verb, “to have fellowship.” The dictionaries state that κοινωνία signifies “contribution,” “collection of money,” and the verb, “to contribute”; the words mean “fellowship” and “to fellowship.” To fellowship where the needs of the saints are concerned is to share those needs, to contribute to their amelioration.
The admonition given at this point is general, without reference to the needs obtaining in Jerusalem. Paul is not asking for a contribution from the Romans. The observation seems to be correct that the needs of saints who were outside of the local congregation are referred to; it is taken for granted that the needy at home would not be neglected. see Gal. 2:10, where it may be noted how ready Paul was to relieve need outside of the congregation to which he was writing. He always thought of the church as a whole, and the contributions that were sent to Palestine from far and near helped and were intended to help to cement the whole church together. On the current designation of the Christians as “saints” see 1:7.
“As for the hospitality—pursuing it!” A whole chapter would be needed to set forth this “hospitality” (literally, “love of strangers”) as it was practiced in the early church. The article indicates that it was the regular thing in the case of Christians. Brethren who traveled—think of Paul and his party—others who were persecuted and fled as exiles, some of these being destitute of means, messengers being sent from place to place, were everywhere shown hospitality by fellow Christians. This was a necessity in the world of that day, but it was met with the spirit which considered all Christians as one family (v. 10a), all of them strangers and pilgrims in this world, all of them clinging together as such pilgrims would. Pagans even said that, although they had never seen each other, they treated each other as blood brothers.
The situation obtaining in our land and in our day is vastly different, and such a field for hospitality is virtually closed to us at present. Yet good opportunities still occur. The accusative is not the object: “Pursuing the hospitality.” This is the accusative of reference which is also called adverbial. It occurs frequently in the classics, less often in the Koine, and is appropriate here as the concluding term after a series of nine datives of reference.
“Given to” hospitality removes the distinctiveness of διώκοντες. It is of little help to look at διώκοντας in the next verse and to ask whether Paul’s mind consciously used the two so closely together on purpose and to remark that, if he did, we should understand neither better. Trust Paul for this striking touch! Who would ordinarily say that a virtue like hospitality is to be pursued when this verb is the standard one to indicate persecuting? But many needed hospitality because they had been persecuted, and in the next breath Paul tells us to bless those persecuting us. We understand Paul better when we observe these identical participles.
At the thought of many a persecuted exile he says to the Romans: You persecute (pursue) the due hospitality, that is the kind of persecution in which you indulge and remember, men may and do persecute (pursue) also you so that you may need fellow Christians who persecute (pursue) hospitality toward you! So far is this from a chance use of the two words that the very words touch the motives Paul desires to stir into action. Hospitality is literally to be chased after as one hunts an animal and delights to carry the booty home.
Romans 12:14
14 Now we have two pairs. One is synonymous, the other is a contrast (v. 15); but both linger with the idea of persecution. Bless those persecuting (pursuing) you! Bless, and do not curse! This echoes Jesus’ own injunction given in Matt. 5:44, who used both “bless” and “those persecuting you” and expounded the former by adding “pray for them.” The iteration, “be blessing—be blessing,” emphasizes, and the addition of the negative, “be not cursing,” emphasizes a second time. The natural man curses his unjust persecutors, the regenerate man prays for them that they may repent, and that God may pardon them.
Here we have the first imperatives in Paul’s catalog, present tenses to express iterative actions. They are due solely to the language pattern that Paul is weaving; he could have used other forms. We have three imperatives at the same time. This is a marked change that is intentional.
Romans 12:15
15 Another change: instead of additional imperatives we now have imperative infinitives (R. 1092, “absolute infinitives”). This whole catalog shows the different ways of uttering mild commands in the Greek. The Greek presents a variety in order to avoid monotony; this is one of the skillful features of his language. Except in one instance (v. 19) where it is needed the peremptory aorist is significantly absent. Rejoice in company with (μετά) rejoicing ones! Weep with weeping ones!
In v. 14, “those persecuting you” (article) are definite persons, here we have no articles: any who rejoice—any who weep. The German and other languages use the infinitive as an imperative but not in the mild sense of the Greek present infinitive. The participle repeats the verb in simple, effective beauty. The two verbs and the two participles rhyme, and three words constitute each bidding—all an unsought elegance.
Here, too, more is implied than that Christians rejoice with fellow Christians who experience good fortune. Verse 14 mentions persecutors; remember that, on leaving the Sanhedrn after having been scourged, the Twelve “rejoiced,” yes, rejoiced (Acts 5:41), and that in 5:3 Paul bids the Romans: “Let us glory in the tribulations!” Rejoice and weep are not mere contrasted opposites but go hand in hand. Divided joy is doubled, also this holy joy in being accounted worthy to be dishonored for the sake of the Name; divided sorrow is halved.
Romans 12:16
16 In the new variation three imperative participles (like those used in v. 9) are followed by a present infinitive. We have first a single, then a double, then another single statement. In v. 9 the participles are placed emphatically forward; now they are put emphatically last. Minding the same thing toward each other! Compare v. 3. This is not “loving unanimity” or “harmonious mutual relations” but something far more definite: having in mind for another the same thing that under like circumstances one has in mind for oneself.
I am to want you to have what, if I were in your position, I should want myself to have. I am not generous to myself and niggardly toward you, nor think solely of myself, not of you at all. In 15:5 it is “to mind the same thing among each other,” which is unity; here, however, it is “toward each other,” which is reciprocity. In 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2; 4:2 it is “to mind the same thing,” which again is unity.
This general principle is specified as to things and as to persons: Not minding the high things, but moving along with those (who are) lowly! The ambitious man sets his mind on high and exalted things, of course, in order to attain them only for himself, and thus disregards the interests of others. But he who minds the same thing for others that he does for himself will not withdraw himself from brethren who are lowly. He will “let himself be carried along or away with” them. “Condescend to men of low estate” is interpretative, save that no condescension as from a superior to an inferior is implied in the Greek; Luther: Haltet euch herunter zu den Niedrigen.
There is a difference of opinion in regard to τοῖςταπεινοῖς, which might be neuter instead of masculine; “not minding high things but condescending to low things.” Because the first is neuter, it is concluded that the second must also be neuter. “To be carried away with” is not fitting when one is speaking of things but only when one is speaking of persons. When it is used as a noun in the New Testament, τοπεινός is always masculine; if it were a neuter here, this would be an exception. In these terse dicta Paul would place high things beside lowly persons. But the man who is not set on high things for himself will gladly be moved along with his lowly brethren even as he is minded for them just as he is for himself.
Be not wise in your own conceit! repeats 11:25 (Prov. 3:7) but here makes the injunction general. On φρόνιμοι (“smart” would fit here) see 11:25. Παρʼ έαυτοῖς, “with or by your own selves” = in your own estimation and expresses the opposite of τὸαὐτό, thinking the same thing toward others. Here Paul touches the root of unchristian ambition. In his own mind the ambitious man, because he thinks himself extremely sharp, no longer minds the same thing for others as for himself but wants the high things for himself, no matter what his brethren get, and lets his lowly brethren, who would not be able to advance him, move along by themselves, he considering himself out of their class. In “the high things—the lowly (brethren)” the articles are generic: whatever—whoever they may be.
Romans 12:17
17 To no one giving back evil for evil! Tit for tat. Pay back in the same coin. Wie du mir, so ich dir! The maxim of the Pharisees, Matt. 5:38, 43. Ἀπό in the participle = giving what is due. There is no question that the man who does us evil ought to be paid back with evil in exact proportion. Paul does not annul the principle of strict justice. But if God applied only that principle to us, where should we be? Paul repeats Christ’s injunction to suffer κακόν, base treatment, when it is inflicted on us, and to commend our case to God (1 Pet. 2:23). He does so also in 1 Thess. 5:15, and agrees with 1 Pet. 3:9. Who are we that we should escape base treatment? It is a wonder that more of it is not inflicted upon us considering our own base sins.
Beside the negative Paul places the broad positive: Taking thought for things excellent in the sight of all men! We see that in this verse Paul deals with our conduct as it extends also to non-Christians. Καλά are the opposite of κακόν. Our whole νοῦς, “mind,” is to be set forward (πρό) on things that all men, even those who have only the light of natural morality, must approve as “excellent.” We are not to do this in order to escape from the baseness that is inflicted on us; the motive is higher: by our conduct not to injure the gospel in the sight of men.
Romans 12:18
18 A third imperative participle completes this trio, and since it is the third member it is naturally longer and has varied modifiers: Suffer baseness from any man—plan only things excellent in all men’s eyes—and finally: If possible, as regards what (comes) from you, being at peace with all men!
It will not always be possible. The most peaceful Christian may be set upon by snarling, biting dogs. The most peaceful, irenic Christian may have to defend Christ, the gospel, truth, and right against the attacks of evil men. Then the Christian appears as a knight that is fully armed and enters battle (Eph. 6:10, etc.). “If possible” covers this impossibility. In his own interest the Christian is a pacifist; for Christ he is a militarist; both words are to be understood in the pure sense of the terms. Paul is the example and the Prince of peace the highest exemplar of all.
The caricatures are those who confound the olive branch with the sword. Τὸἐξὑμῶν is the adverbial accusative like τὸκατʼ ἐμέ in 1:15 (R. 486); and ἐκ = origin: “as far as what originates from you.” The Christian starts no strife or contention; only the flesh in him can do that. He becomes involved only when the flesh of others foments strife.
Romans 12:19
19 We come to the last imperative participle, after which the compact structure is allowed to expand and thus to reach its close. Your own selves not avenging, beloved; on the contrary, give place to the wrath! What about justice amid all this peacefulness when the Christian even suffers evil without retaliation? Man’s natural sense of justice is not violated by Christian ethics. Imperial Rome was noted for law, and all equitable human law rests on the human sense of right and justice. This is even intensified when it is viewed apart from legislation and only in its moral bearing and aspect.
If the hand of justice is paralyzed, will not evil and injustice engulf mankind? Here is Paul’s answer. A juster hand than yours and mine rules and will, indeed, in most perfect justice mete out full due to every rascal. All this apart from the justice the earthly government is to mete out, of which the next chapter speaks.
The Christian course of conduct, then, is not to pay back evil for evil (v. 17), not to avenge ourselves. The verb ἐκδικεῖν means to exact justice from someone in the shape of a penalty; the noun ἐκδίκησις follows, “the act of exacting justice.” By not avenging ourselves we do not abandon right and justice, do not enthrone viciousness and injustice, but turn the whole matter of attending to justice over to God.
Especially when the case involves our own persons, we should be too severe. Our own wrongs swell out of proportion in our own minds. By exacting justice we ourselves should fall from justice. Generally speaking, to balance the scales exactly is a matter that is too delicate for us. Hence the example of Jesus, 1 Pet. 2:23. What a relief to be rid of this responsibility for which we are incompetent Even human judges are not allowed to try their own cases. Jesus scores the Pharisees for doing this which is so repugnant to even natural justice.
Only at this point does Paul insert the address “beloved,” which is more affectionate than “brethren,” and, of course, means, “beloved by me.” There is a speculation as to whether conditions obtaining in Rome required a special word on this matter. Not the slightest evidence to this effect is at hand. It would be ethically wrong for us to surmise such a state of affairs. Human nature is reason enough to call forth this address at this point where our being restrained from administering justice seems itself to be injustice.
This restraint is, however, only the negative side of our act; its positive side is that we give place to the wrath. Here we have the only aorist imperative with its peremptory tone of command as if the divine wrath itself gave the order: “Step aside, I will take charge!” This aorist is eminently in place, and we ought to feel its force and its propriety after all the milder imperatival turns which Paul has used. After 5:9 and 3:5 everyone should know that “the wrath” needs no modifier to mark it as being God’s wrath, on which see 1:18. “Give place” befits only God’s wrath and not our own wrath, as if we are to give it time to cool off, or the wrath of him who injures us by getting out of its way. As to the latter, far less injury is done due to anger than to hate and malice.
Τόπος is never used with reference to time; we should not let the Latin “to give spatium to wrath” confuse us because spatium is “space of time.” The Greek word is “place,” i.e., a place to exercise a function. It is so used in Eph. 4:27: “Do not give place to the devil,” a place where he would operate; in Sirach 38:12: “To the physician give place” so that he can treat the patient. “Give place to the wrath” so that it may deal out justice. We are to step aside and not to get into the wrath’s way with our dealing out of justice. The idea is not that we could thereby stop the wrath from reaching him who has incurred it but lest, by our getting into its way, we ourselves may be hurt by it.
Why must we step back in order to let God’s wrath take charge? For it has been written (and still is on record in Deut. 32:35): For me (alone) vengeance (the act of exacting justice)! I (alone) will give back due return! says the Lord. See the doubly compounded verb in 11:35. Heb. 10:30 quotes identically as above, and “says the Lord” is added by Paul in order to state who uttered this word. God has long ago settled the whole matter about exacting justice from wrongdoers. Not one of them will escape. Perfect justice will be done in every case and will be done perfectly. If any of us interfered, it would be the height of presumption.
Romans 12:20
20 Verse 19 deals with the thought that an enemy may be incorrigible so that just punishment is the only thing remaining for him. But is he really beyond hope? We can never know; “love hopeth all things,” 1 Cor. 13:7, down to the very end. For this reason God’s wrath is restrained for so long a time despite our impatience. And now Paul adds our active obligation: we are not merely to endure with patience the wrongs done to us, we are to seek to change our enemy, if possible, to bring him to repentance. How are we to do this? Paul adopts (but does not quote) the language of Prov. 25:21, 22: But if thine enemy come to hunger, be feeding him; if he come to thirst, be giving him drink, for by doing this, coals of fire wilt thou be heaping on his head.
The textual critics cannot decide whether to read ἀλλά (“but” = on the other hand) or οὖν, “therefore.” The other, the more important part of Christian obligation is stated. It is the commentary on Matt. 5:44, the ἀγάπη, the love of intelligence and of purpose we are to extend to our personal enemy (ἐχθρός). Feeding him when he is hungry, giving him drink when he is thirsty are only two instances of this love, but good ones.
The present tenses πεινᾷ, διψᾷ are ingressive: “get to hunger, get to thirst,” ἐάν visualizes such a case; on the forms with α see R. 342. The present imperatives “be feeding him—be giving him drink” picture the actions in their course. Literally it is “morsel him” as morsels are fed to a babe; the other verb is causative (R. 484), “cause him to drink.” These examples are perhaps chosen because hospitality toward a guest, the act of breaking bread with someone, meant so much in the Orient. It always meant safety for a stranger or an enemy. Our idea of charitable treatment is not complete enough.
Heaping coals of fire on the head is also an Oriental figure although it has become familiar to us because of its use in the Scriptures. These coals are not God’s wrath or the Christian’s vengeance. Some think of the shame produced in the enemy; better is the pain of contrition for the enemy’s past meanness. It is worse to have coals on the head than to tread on them with the feet. One would knock them off the head at once; this pictures how the enemy would change forthwith so as not to have benefits act like live coals on his head but act as an honor and as a crown from a friend. Oriental expressions like “coals in the heart,” “fire in the liver” are of the same type.
Romans 12:21
21 The sum of all this regarding evil closes this chapter: Be not being conquered by the evil but be conquering in the good the evil! We regard both present imperatives (the one passive, the other active) as durative and iterative. R., W. P., has the first mean, “Stop being conquered,” for the negatived present imperative often signifies to stop an action already begun (R. 851, etc.). But this charges the Romans with having hitherto been conquered by the evil, the singular second person only individualizes (the representative singular, R. 408). Both imperatives are iterative: “Do not let the evil gain one victory after another over you, but in every battle gain a victory over the evil!” The one would be a sorry course of defeat, the other a happy course of triumph.
“By the evil” personifies: the evil power; κακόν is again “base” with all that this implies. So also “the good” (v. 9), the power that is beneficial in the Christian, is used in the saving sense. Some make “in the good” instrumental and equivalent to, “with the good” (means); but ἐν = “in connection with” the good; that connection helps us to conquer. The repetition of the verb “conquer” plus the repetition of the enemy to be conquered, “the evil,” touches a deep motive, calls forth our power. So the chapter ends with a note of triumph.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.