(Rom 2:6-7,10 ESV)

At first glance, what Paul says in Romans 2:7 (and 2:10) seems to be that you can earn your salvation by good works. The big problem with that, is that he categorically contradicts that idea elsewhere (for example, Rom 3:20 which states that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law). So what exactly does he mean?

Naturally, some are willing to suggest that Paul has indeed contradicted himself, but this seems like a colossal blunder to attribute to someone who is such a coherent thinker.

An alternative approach, is to assume that Paul is speaking hypothetically here. That is, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment”. In many ways, this is a good solution, since it harmonizes well with what Paul says later in chapter 3, while still fitting in with the overall argument of 2:6-11.

However, Schreiner has come up with an alternative and intriguing suggestion:

Paul elsewhere teaches that works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God (cf,. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21). Since Paul asserts that works are necessary for salvation and also that one cannot be justified by works of the law, it is probably that he did not see these two themes as contradictory.

He thus concludes:

in verses 7 and 10 Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit

Apparently he defends this view further in his commentary on 2:25-29, which I haven’t got to yet. In many ways, this idea is connected with his take on “the righteousness of God”, being both “forensic” (it is a declaration) and “transformative” (it actually changes us). Here again we see a synthesis between the two potentially competing concerns of salvation entirely based on grace not works, and a strong expectation that those who receive that salvation will indeed experience a transformation of behaviour.

1. Righteousness of God = Believer’s Status

This is Luther’s understanding of the term (Schreiner also lists Calvin, Bultmann, Cranfield and Moo amongst others as proponents). Luther rejected two competing understandings of “the righteousness of God” that were common in his day:

• that it refers to God’s justice whereby he judges all people impartially
• that it refers to an infusion of righteousness that would effect inner transformation, or moral renovation

In other words, for Luther (and many others), “the righteousness of God” refers to, and only to, a declaration of right standing before God. It is a purely forensic (legal) term, meaning we are declared not guilty.

2. Righteousness of God = God’s Saving Power

This second point of view, growing in popularity (including Dunn, and Stott recently) does not deny that a righteous status is given, but sees the term “righteousness of God” as more broadly referring to God’s saving power. In other words, it is not only something God gives us but something God does in us.

3. Schreiner’s Synthesis: Righteousness as Forensic and Transformative

Schreiner initially sets out a strong case for a forensic understanding of “the righteousness of God”, from which he concludes that righteousness does indeed have a forensic dimension that is not intrinsic to human beings by nature, but is a divine gift.

But then he goes on to point to the large amount of evidence supporting the second point of view. He therefore concludes that the term “righteousness of God” is both forensic and transformative (though both senses are not always present every time the term is used). These two meanings are not incompatible since “those whom God has vindicated, he also changes”.

He explains the synthesis of these two positions a little more fully here:

The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ’s atoning death. Yet God’s declaration of righteousness – which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age – is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God’s grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God’s grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God’s saving work. … The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other.

What do you think? Is Schreiner trying to have his cake and eat it, or has he uncovered a false dilemma?

In the introduction, Bruce warns against modernizing Paul, insisting rather that a man of Paul’s calibre must be allowed to speak for himself. He also discusses the evidence concerning whether chapters 15 and 16 formed part of the original letter. He sees no compelling reason to doubt that chapter 16 could have been written to the Roman church. There are some useful definitions of terms such as flesh, spirit and law. The introduction ends with a very brief paraphrase of the whole letter, which is a great way of explaining what the main themes and argument of the book are.

The brevity of the commentary means that some controversial issues are not discussed at all, while others (such as the “New Perspective”) are mentioned only in passing. He does however take the time to reject the idea that the wrath of God is merely “impersonal”. He shows how Paul is concerned to demonstrate that God can justify the ungodly whilke remaining righteous himself.

He views the “I” of Romans 7 as basically autobiographical, but through it Paul is speaking of universal human experience. It describes the conflict of living in the overlap of the old age and the age to come. It speaks of life under the law without the aid of the Spirit. It also paints a picture of fighting under our own resources – and fighting a losing battle. In these broad terms he manages to encompass pretty much every view of Rom 7 I have come across.

He suggests that to be “in Christ” essentially means to be in the church – the body of Christ, and to “put on Christ” is to emulate his character. He discusses the relationship between glory and suffering in a number of places. Suffering is viewed as the normal Christian experience, and glory is not the compensation, but the outcome of that suffering.

Chapter 9 is not a parenthesis but a theodicy, and it is here that he briefly mentions Sanders and covenantal nomism. Bruce prefers to think of Paul as opposing salvation by works, but adds that he would be equally opposed to seeking salvation by the ‘old’ covenant.

Chapters 12 onwards are introduced as the ethical outworking of the doctrine of earlier chapters, and Bruce points out the similarities with Jesus’ teaching. He speaks of Paul being so free that he was not “in bondage to his emancipation” (i.e. he was free to do the things he was free not to do).

This is not by any means an exhaustive commentary on Romans, but it is an instructive one, and will shed fresh light on different passages. It is probably still a bit heavy-going for the general reader who is not accustomed to using commentaries, but those who want to get a better grasp of Romans without having to read a massive volume may like to give this a try. I still prefer Stott’s commentary for readability and Moo’s for comprehensiveness, but am glad I took the time to read this one too.