Chapter 9
9:1-3- The seriousness and sincerity of what Paul was about to say in these verses is prefaced by Paul stating that his conscience testifies with him in the Holy Spirit. In other words, this deep burden for his fellow Israelites to embrace the Messiah wasn’t hollow, it was genuine and these feelings were rooted in his union with Christ and the Holy Spirit. Paul’s very attitude towards Israel was one of “great sorrow and unceasing grief” as they had largely rejected Christ.
Verse 3 is a rather shocking claim and further illustrates the desire that his fellow countrymen be reconciled to God through Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). Despite the impossibility of taking their curse upon himself for their salvation (this was the sole duty of Christ’s atoning work, after all), Paul still feels this deep desire in his heart. Moses expresses a similar sentiment when, after the golden calf incident, he pleads with God on behalf of the people. “But now, if You will, forgive their sin—and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!” -Exod. 32:32. He ends verse 3 by stating that they are his “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” That is, this bond or “brotherhood” is one of ethnic heritage which stands in contrast to those who are his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
9:4-5- In a way, verses 4 and 5 pick up where Paul left off in the beginning of ch. 3. The question was asked, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” -Rom. 3:1. First among these advantages was that the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of the One True God (3:2). However, Paul never lists any more “advantages” despite the implications of more with the phrase “First of all” in 3:2. Here in ch. 9 he seems to finish off the list. To them belonged:
1) “Adoption as sons” (Exod. 4:22, Hos. 11:1).
2) “The glory.” This is a reference to the Shekinah presence of God among His people. (i.e. Exod. 24:15-17, 1 Kings 8:11).
3) “The covenants.” Paul using the plural here most likely indicates not just the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3, 15:1-21), but a summation of all Old Testament covenants with His people. This would include covenants with Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 26:3-5, 28:10-15), Moses (Exod. 19:5-6, 24:7-8), as well as with David (2 Sam. 23:5).
The latter half of verse 4 has Paul repeating the three points. The “giving of the Law” is connected to their sonship, “temple service” is connected with possessing the glory of God (as the temple is where His presence dwelt), and finally “the promises” is connected with the covenants. These can be seen as almost the “results” of the aforementioned benefits. It was because they had been adopted that they received the Law, it was because of God’s glory dwelling with them that they had the temple services, and specifically because of the covenants made that they had promises from God.
Verse 5 contains the ultimate privilege, which is that the human ancestry of Christ, the Messiah, was from the Jews! Paul goes beyond just stating that Jesus was born as a Jew, but that He was in fact God incarnate! Paul’s opening verses of lament culminate by declaring “the Christ, who is God over all.” In the words of Grant Osborne, “Paul wants his people to understand the one whom they are rejecting. He is not only Messiah, but God himself.” While the apostles affirm the deity of Jesus in a variety of ways, seldom do we see them explicitly calling Jesus “God.” This is likely to, as Robert Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski put it, “maintain a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son.” Here, along with passages like Titus 2:13… “our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” and 2 Peter 1:1… “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” we see examples of the apostles explicitly making such a claim. As stated, Paul is lamenting in this part of the chapter that his fellow Jews have rejected their Messiah. This lament culminates in a crescendo as if to say, “Not only did they reject the Messiah, but God in the flesh!”
9:6-9- Paul moves to illustrate God’s prerogative in regards to who He extends His grace to. That is, in this new covenant, Gentiles are now offered salvation by God through their faith in Christ. The main point of these verses is summed up rather simply by Robert Mounce as he writes, “As God chose Isaac rather than Ishmael, so also does he now choose to bless those who by placing their faith in Christ become true children of Abraham.” Seemingly an issue with this is the objection that while Gentiles had been coming to faith, nationally, the Jews had rejected Christ. After “waxing poetically” about the benefits Israel had and the promises they received from God, have they now been abandoned by God? Have these promises not been fulfilled by God? Of course not. It is the faithfulness of God’s people that is in question, not God’s. There was a strong belief that simply because they were descendants of Abraham, this ethnic fact alone was enough for salvation. Paul is showing that this simply isn’t the case, nor is this a sentiment to be found in the Old Testament. Quite the contrary, actually (Num. 14:22-23, Deut. 1:34-35, Psalm 78:21-22, 95:8-11).
They had thought that national heritage meant a right spiritual standing before God. As the above verses point out (and as does Jesus in John 8:31-47), birthright means nothing, but spiritual commitment to God is what matters. God is not turning His back on Israel, but He is clarifying what it means to be a TRUE child of Abraham. In Gal. 3:7 Paul writes, “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.” Earlier in Rom. 4, Paul made this clear. “Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.” -Romans 4:11-12 (NLT). But beyond even that, the Old Testament teaches (as we will see in verse 27), that there IS a remnant of Jews being saved (Paul himself being part of that) which further proves that God’s word has not failed and that Paul’s message and explanation of what is happening in his day is consistent with Scripture.
9:10-13- As Craig Keener remarks, “Paul reminds his contemporaries that not all Abraham’s descendants received the promise, and he could have elaborated further had he so needed; the rest of the Old Testament was clear that many Israelites broke the covenant (Ex. 32:33-35, Num. 11:1, 14:37, 16:32-35, 25:4-5, Deut. 1:35).” Just because one is an ethnic “child of Abraham” doesn’t mean they are the beneficiaries of the promises of God. Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham and so was Esau, but God’s sovereign plan and promises were to be accomplished through Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau. This very much speaks to God’s sovereignty in choosing who He wants to accomplish His purposes on earth. The answer to “why” God chose Jacob over Esau before they were even born was not due to anything good or bad they had done (for they weren’t even born), but simply due to God’s sovereign choice.
In verse 13, Paul references Malachi 1:2-3 to illustrate this. It should be noted that the phrase “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” can be a Semitic idiom meant to strongly contrast two things, the meaning of which is to be understood in a “accept vs. reject” context (see Gen. 29:30-33, Deut. 21:15-16). Similarly to how Jesus says we must “hate” our father and mother in favor of Him (Luke 14:26). Jesus isn’t advocating we violate the 5th commandment (Exod. 20:12), or subvert the first and second greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40). Rather, He is contrasting two things in a strong “rejection of one to accept the other” framework.
Excursus: (God’s Sovereignty in Election)
The context of Malachi 1:2-3 is in regards to two nations, not necessarily a commentary on God’s relationship with two individuals, and thus serves to demonstrate to Israel God’s faithfulness towards them and His justice against those who oppose them. The context of Malachi is that of God affirming His election of them as His chosen people (for His divine purposes) over and against other nations. E. Ray Clendenen says of this passage in Malachi, “The point is that God in the sovereignty of His will had chosen to enter into a covenant relationship with Jacob and his descendants rather than Esau and his descendants. This did not mean that all Jacob’s descendants would be spiritually and eternally “saved” (since the spiritual benefits of election would belong to a subset of physical Israel; cf. Rom 9:6) or that all Esau’s descendants necessarily would be “lost.” ”
Paul’s main point in this chapter is to defend God’s promises and illustrate that He had not failed at any point. Also, it is to show that God can choose whomever He wants to bring about His purposes and in any manner He pleases. We must keep in mind the broader narrative of ch. 9-11 and the overall point Paul is making here, lest we go too far and infer doctrines Paul is not presenting. Namely, predetermining of individuals unto salvation and to eternal damnation (see comments on 8:29-30). In these verses, Paul is not building a case for individual salvation that is based on God’s predetermination, but as Robert Mounce writes, “Rather he was arguing that the exclusion of so many Jews from the family of God did not constitute a failure on God’s part to maintain His covenant relationship with Israel. He had not broken His promise to the descendants of Abraham.”
I think Ben Witherington III is correct when he points out: “Esau’s historical role, however determined by God, does not mean that God cursed Esau and damned him for eternity. As the OT context of the saying “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3) shows, the subject there is two nations, not two individuals, and, as we have said, even when individuals are in the picture, it is not their eternal destiny that is spoken of. The quoted verse, then, may speak of God’s elective purposes, but the concern is with roles they are to play in history, not their personal eternal destiny.” Warren Wiersbe adds: “In election, God exercises His sovereign will to accomplish His perfect plan. Keep in mind that the election discussed in Rom. 9-11 is national, not individual. To apply all the truths of these chapters to the salvation or security of the individual believer is to miss their message completely. In fact, Paul carefully points out that he is discussing the Jews and Gentiles as peoples, not individual sinners.”
9:14-16- As is common with Paul, he throws out an anticipated objection. Namely, that there is a potential accusation of God being unfair or unjust. John Wesley asks the question in this manner, “Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau, or to accept believers, and them only?” The answer Paul gives is an emphatic, No! The accusation is absurd. A foundational understanding of an all powerful, righteous, and holy God is that as the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe, He alone has the prerogative to choose who He wants to accomplish His purposes. He alone has the authority to create life, take life and ultimately decide the fate of the history of the universe He created (Dan. 4:35, Isa. 45:7–9, Pro. 16:33, Col. 1:16–17, Job 42:2, Ps. 115:3, Isa. 46:10, etc). This is especially something modern philosophy in the 21st century has a hard time grasping. Relativism and personal autonomy are thought of as the ultimate philosophical constructs. The concept of a sovereign God having the freedom to do what He wants in accordance with His will could very much seem “oppressive.” Robert Mounce rightly points out: “For the Christian, however, it is important to build one’s theology not on personal perceptions of what ought to be, but upon the biblical revelation of the character and purpose of God.”
This is why Paul quotes Exodus 33:19. God is sovereign and chooses who He extends mercy to and who He doesn’t. I can’t help but think of Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 20:1-16 (parable of the workers in the vineyard). We see at the end that the owner of the vineyard has the authority and prerogative to pay each individual how he wants. He ultimately chose to be fair to the worker who worked the entire day by paying exactly as had been agreed upon, but in his graciousness and generosity, he also chose to pay a full day's wage to those who only worked one hour. How many of us would react like the worker who worked all day, exclaiming the “injustice” of the situation? It seems quite unfair! To which the owner (thus God) responds…“Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’” -Matt. 20:14-15 (NIV)
9:17- Coming off this thought, Paul introduces Exodus 9:16 and uses Pharaoh as another example. God not only raised Pharaoh up for a specific purpose (“in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth”) but also hardened his heart to accomplish His plan. God can use people who set themselves as enemies of Him to accomplish His plans. This is exactly what we have here. The time had come for God’s chosen people, His “firstborn son” to be free in order “that he may serve Me” (Ex. 4:22-23). The time had come for God’s mercy and redemption of a nation be revealed. Not only this, but to show the world the power of the One True God over and against Egypt’s false gods. Indeed, we see by Rahab’s confession in Joshua 2:10-11, that the known world had heard of the great deeds of the God of Israel! Not only was God liberating His people from the oppressors, but God was bringing judgement down upon the oppressors and using their wickedness and rebellion against them in the process to bring about His glory (Exod. 5:2, Exod. 8:15).
Excursus: (God’s Judicial Hardening)
We see in Scripture that God’s hardening is never arbitrary, but because of someone’s prior rebellion against God and is therefore “judicial” in nature. This is certainly the context around Pharaoh in the example that Paul is using. Brian J. Abasciano lays this concept out well when he writes: “Attention to the Old Testament background reveals that God’s hardening of Pharaoh was not unconditional, but a judgement against him for his wicked treatment of Israel and his rebellion against the Lord and in answer to Israel’s prayers (see, e.g. Exod. 2:23-25; Exod. 3:7-10; 5:1-23). Furthermore, a close reading of Exodus reveals that the divine hardening of Pharaoh's heart was not typically a direct, supernatural work in his heart, but rather indirect and natural, often in the form of strategic actions God took (such as withdrawing a plague) that inspired boldness in Pharaoh to do what he already freely wanted to do. This accords with the vocabulary of hardening used in Exodus, which most fundamentally refers to the strengthening of a person’s already freely formed will.”
Wesley writes that “God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest.”
Paul teaches this very concept in Rom. 1:18-25 of people who in “unrighteousness suppress the truth” thereby leading to all sorts of wickedness. As a result, “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” And in 2 Thess. 2:10-12 (ESV), “...because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
In 1 Samuel 6:6, we see the Philistines being given a warning against hardening their hearts as it resulted in freedom for the Israelites and calamity for Pharaoh and the Egyptians. “Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? After he had dealt severely with them, did they not send the people away, and they departed?” (ESV). All to say that Paul is illustrating God’s sovereign prerogative in selecting people for His conventional purposes and even using people who rebel against Him to bring about His plans. As noted, this is all in the context of Paul laying out his argument in defense of the way God chooses to work, especially around the specific topic of these few chapters. That is, explaining the question around Israel’s rejection of their Messiah and Gentile inclusion.
9:18-21- Paul concludes this thought by stating that God has mercy on whom He desires (inclusion of Gentiles and a remnant of Jews) and hardens whom He desires (exclusion of a large majority of Israelites who have hardened their own hearts against God). Verse 19 addresses another “anticipated objection.” The premise is essentially, “Well, it’s not fair that God would find fault with someone He’s judicially hardened! They can’t resist this if they wanted to!” An objection, that on the surface is flawed as we’ve already seen that those who God hardens does so because they’ve first hardened themselves. Paul for his part, would rather show the absurdity of such a petulant attitude in verse 20. Does God not have the right, as the Creator of the universe and every living thing in it to create as He sees fit? As with Jacob and Esau, one He chose to create for “honorable use” and the other for “common use.” Does anyone have the right to tell God He should have done differently? This would be to stand over God as HIS judge! The folly! The hubris! The sheer insanity of such an attitude!
Paul alludes to Isaiah here (Isa. 29:16, 45:9) to illustrate the creator/creation dynamic. What’s interesting about Isa. 45 is that the context around it is in regards to Israel rejecting God’s chosen means of salvation for them (a Gentile king). God, in His sovereignty, chose Cyrus as His instrument to accomplish His plans. In this case, to deliver His chosen people and to show the world that He was the one true God! Again, God has the right to choose who He wants as well as the means by which He accomplishes His purposes.
In verse 21, he continues with the creator/creation dynamic by referring to the potter and clay metaphor found in a few places in Scripture (Isa. 64:8, Jer. 18:1-6), but some scholars will point out that Paul seems to have in mind more specifically teachings from the intertestamental book Wisdom of Solomon. Specifically, Wisdom 15:7 which says: “For when a potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, he fashions out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all in like manner; but which shall be the use of each of these the worker in clay decides.” Grant Osborn notes: “The common theme is that the Creator controls his creation and has the sovereign right to form whatever he wishes in his created order.”
9:22-24- These three verses interpret and apply the previous verses in regards to the potter/clay imagery Paul has been using. But do these verses teach that God predestines some people for damnation and others for mercy (double predestination)? A close reading reveals that Paul distinguishes between God actively preparing vessels of mercy for glory (“which He prepared beforehand for glory”) over and against God enduring with much patience (but not actively preparing) “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Ben Witherington III breaks down the two Greek words in question: “Paul uses two different verbs when talking about the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath. The latter are framed/prepared/fit/put together for wrath, while the former are prepared beforehand for glory. Katērtismena, used of the vessels of wrath, is a perfect passive participle. Proētoimasen, used of the vessels of mercy, is an aorist active indicative. This change cannot be accidental and it suggests that Paul means that the vessels of wrath are ripe or fit for destruction. Indeed, one could follow the translation of John Chrystostom here and understand it in the middle voice: ‘have made themselves fit for’ destruction.”
Everett Harrison comes to a similar conclusion and notes that it is improbable that Paul is teaching double predestination, “because he avoids involving God in this case, whereas he is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy (v.23). Furthermore, God’s patience in bearing with the objects of His wrath suggests a readiness to receive such on conditions of repentance (cf. 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). So ‘prepared for destruction’ designates a ripeness of sinfulness that points to judgement unless there is a turning to God.”
William MacDonald also writes: “They are prepared for destruction by their own sin, disobedience, and rebellion, and not by some arbitrary decree of God.”
As Paul teaches in Eph. 2:3, every Christian was at one time “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (ESV). We all start out as vessels of wrath, but can become vessels of mercy destined for glory by faith in Christ because God endures us with patience and longsuffering! Much like what is mentioned in ch. 8:29-30, God is active in the redemption plan of these “vessels of mercy.” The potter/clay analogy seems even more appropriate when you consider that the illustration God was showing Jeremiah was for the purpose of calling on the nation to repent! Jer. 18:7-8, “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.” We are all vessels made by God, our Creator. Without faith in Christ, we are only making ourselves fit for the wrath and destruction we deserve due to our sin (Rom. 2:5). By faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-24, Rom. 10:8-11) we can be made vessels of mercy destined for glory (Rom. 8:29-30, 9:23). As he does throughout the letter, Paul points out in verse 24 that this includes both those among the Jews as well as Gentiles. He will support this (as he loves to do) with more Old Testament verses, further providing proof of God’s plan.
9:25-26- Paul now quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10. The original context of these verses was very much one of God’s relationship to His chosen people, particularly in their rebellion against Him (playing the part of an adulteress) and His ultimate restoration with them. However, Paul is using it beyond its original context to teach a broader lesson as it relates to Gentile inclusion in being called children of God. F.F. Bruce provides helpful commentary on the matter when he writes: “What Paul does here is to take this promise, which referred to a situation within the frontiers of the chosen people, and extract from it a principle of divine action which in his day was reproducing itself on a worldwide scale. In large measure though Paul’s own apostolic ministry, great numbers of Gentiles, who had never been ‘the people of God’ and had no claim on His covenant mercy, were coming to be enrolled among His people and to be the recipients of His mercy…The scale of the divine action was far wider than in Hosea’s day, but the same pattern and principle were recognizable. Through the Gentile mission, in those lands where the people of God had once been unrepresented, there were now many believers who were acknowledged as ‘sons of the living God.’”
In other words, Paul is showing that if God can have certain principles He applies to Israel, they can also very well be applied to Gentiles. As Douglas Moo says, “We should follow his lead in reading the Old Testament as a single integral story about God’s plan of redemption that finds its fulfillment in Christ.” This is important to keep in mind as we read both the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament isn’t simply the “story of Israel.” It is so much more than that. The entirety of Scripture finds its fulfillment in Christ and the redemptive plan of God for the creation He made in His image.The gratitude I have as a Gentile is immense! I’m so humbled that though ethnically, I’m not part of God’s chosen people, through faith in Christ, God has “called me beloved” who “wasn’t His beloved!”
9:27-29- Paul now reinforces his point with more Scripture by quoting Isaiah. Throughout Israel’s history as a nation, God would bring collective punishment upon the people because of their rebellion and refusal to listen to God’s word through His prophets. However, “remnant theology” is something we also see time and time again. At every point, there is always a “faithful remnant” who have not forsaken God despite the majority turning away from Him. We see an example of this in 1 Kings 19:18 when God tells Elijah, “Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” Despite Elijah feeling like he was the only one in all of Israel who was still faithful, God reminded him of a remnant who were still faithful. Even in times of judgement or exile, God preserved a remnant of faithful people. This is exactly what Paul was experiencing in his day. Though the majority had once again rejected God and this time, not just a mere prophet, but God in the flesh (see Jesus’ words in Matt. 23:37-39, Luke 13:34-35), there was a faithful remnant of Israel who believed in Christ. Indeed, like the thousands who came to Christ on the day of Pentecost and after, Paul was a part of that remnant. Isa. 10:22-23 speaks to this very thing. Only a few would get to return to the promise land.
Grand Osborne summarizes the main point of verses 27-28 well when he states: “So those taken from the innumerable multitude of the Jewish people to constitute true Israel (vv.6-7a) are now linked with the Old Testament concept of the remnant, those among Israel who had remained true to God and had not apostatized like the rest of the nation. For Isaiah this meant that God was still faithful to his promises, for the apostate nation had forfeited its right to be numbered among the people of God; their doom was certain. Paul picks up on this completely, for in his day the nation had apostatized again by rejecting God’s Messiah. Once more a remnant is saved, but that is in keeping with God’s promises.”
Paul uses Isaiah 1:9 in verse 29 to communicate that if God had not preserved a remnant, His judgment would have been such that no one would have survived. They would have been wiped out like Sodom and Gomorrah when the Assyrians invaded, but His mercy preserved but a few.
9:30-33- There seems to be a paradox here. Gentiles, who have never had God’s law and standard (nor have ever sought to keep it), are now attaining righteousness on the basis of faith in Christ, whereas “faithful” Jews have toiled long and hard at meticulously keeping God’s commands, yet not attaining the righteousness they seek. Why? They thought it was specifically because of their merit and dedication to God’s law that could justify them before God and make them righteous. Their efforts were based on personal performance and as we know from Isa. 64:6, this amounts to filthy rags before God. Thomas Schreiner writes: “They did not pursue obedience to the law in humble trust, but tried to make it a means of establishing their own righteousness. Such a use of the law led them to stumble over the stone (which was Christ confronting them), for those attempting to establish their own righteousness see no need to believe in Christ.” In a similar sentiment, Clement of Alexandria says of the Jews: “They had no faith in the prophetic power of the law. They followed the bare letter, not the inner meaning–fear, not faith.”
Paul’s use of Isa. 28:16 and 8:14 in verse 33 is again illustrating this principle from the Old Testament. His point is that the same stone that the Jews stumble over and are offended by will be the very thing that saves all those who believe! Paul’s flow of thought here continues into ch. 10 as we will see, where he continues to expand on righteousness through faith.
Bibliography (Works Cited):
-Grant R. Osborne: Romans, IVPNTC, 2004
-Robert Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski: Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for The Deity of Christ (p.144)
-Robert H. Mounce: Romans, NAC, 1995
-Craig Keener: The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Romans)
-E. Ray Clendenen: Haggai, Malachi, NAC, 2004
-Ben Witherington III: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
-Warren Wiersbe: Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on The New Testament, Romans
-John Wesley: John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Romans)
-Brian J. Abasciano: Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (p. 324-325)
-Everett F. Harrison: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10, Romans, 1976
-William MacDonald: Believer’s Bible Commentary
-F.F. Bruce: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, 1983
-Douglas J. Moo: NIV Application Commentary, One-Vol. Edition (Romans)
-Thomas Schreiner: ESV Study Bible, Romans
-Clement of Alexandria: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 6 (Romans)