and many argue forcefully that Paul draws here on a pre-Pauline tradition (Beasley-Murray 1980: 147–54; Dunn 1988: 1:5; Jewett 2007: 24–25, 97–108); their evidence allows this usage but need not require it (see Poythress 1976; Moo 1996: 45–46; Haacker 2003: 108–9; Anderson 1999: 207 n. 45). Paul might simply shift to grand epideictic style, appropriate to discussing the sublime or deities, when elaborating Christology. At the least it cannot be a “hymn,” since it lacks meter.
9. The contrast between “flesh” and “Spirit” here lays emphasis on the divine empowerment involved in the latter (see 8:4, 5, 6, 9, 13). It does not denigrate the fleshly relationship, but relativizes its importance (cf. 4:1; 9:3, 5), perhaps why Paul rarely emphasizes this aspect of messiahship relevant to his contemporaries (but cf. also Mark 12:35–37).
10. On horizō as “appointed” or “established” with reference to Jesus, see also Acts 10:42; 17:31.
11. Although not relevant exclusively to Rome, this central message of Jesus as Israel’s messianic ruler would reaffirm Roman believers who had apparently already suffered for that claim (Suetonius Claud. 25.4; see our introduction). It also contrasted with the “merely procedural” deifications of Roman emperors (Elliott 2008: 71–72).
12. In the second of the “Eighteen Benedictions” (cf. m. Roš Haš. 4:5); similarly in later Islam (Qur’an 42.9; 46.33; 57.2). Contrast pagan deities (e.g., Ovid Metam. 2.617–18).
13. “Spirit of holiness” may associate the Spirit with being set apart for God (1 Thess 4:7–8; cf. Dunn 1970: 105–6; Smith 2006: 98; Keener 1997: 8–10) but is also simply a good Semitic way of speaking of the “Holy Spirit” (for both concepts together, cf. e.g., 1QS 3.7; 4.21).
14. For the Spirit and resurrection, see also m. Sotah 9:15.
15. Some take “among the Gentiles” as indicating that they were predominantly Gentile. Literally, it might simply locate them in the Diaspora; one may infer their largely Gentile status, however, in 1:13–15.
16. Cf. also discussion in Schlatter 1995: 11; Jewett 2007: 110. For the nations’ promised obedience, cf. Gen 49:10; Isa 45:14; 49:23; 60:14. Paul’s vision of Gentiles’ incorporation as Abraham’s children (see ch. 4) contrasts with the empire’s subjugation of nations (see Lopez 2008).
17. Schreiner (1998: 23, 35–36) rightly emphasizes the centrality of God’s glory and honor in this letter. See e.g., Rom 1:21, 23; 2:24; 3:23; 4:20; 9:17, 23; 11:36; 14:6; 15:6–9.
18. Although the churches in Rome may not have been more unified at this time than Rome’s synagogues were, we should not read much into Paul’s lack of mention of “church” here (in contrast to Jewett 2007: 61; cf. Rom 16:5), any more than we should, say, in Phil 1:1.
19. Also of Paul’s (12:19; cf. 16:5, 8, 9, 12).
20. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–40; Cicero Inv. 1.15.20; idem De or. 1.31.143; idem Fam. 13.66.1; Statius Silvae 2.preface; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.5.
21. E.g., Demosthenes Epitaph. 1.1; Chariton Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.5; Josephus Life 365–66; Acts 15:23; Jas 1:1; Deissmann 1978: 150–204 passim; Kim 1972: 10–20, esp. 11.
22. Jewish letters in Greek sometimes combined chairein with “peace” (2 Macc 1:1); a Hebrew letter could combine “mercy” and “peace” in a greeting (2 Bar. 78:2–3). Paul is not the only early Christian writer to combine “grace” and “peace” (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clem. title; cf. Ign. Smyrn. 12.2).
23. If humanity in general can be charged with failing to thank God (1:21), the same charge can hardly be laid against Paul (6:17; 7:25; 16:4; and passim in his letters)! On thanksgivings, see Schubert 1939; esp. O’Brien 1977; cf. e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.41 (56).
24. Letter writers often expressed prayers (or wishes) for their recipients; e.g., P. Giess. 17.3–4; P. Lond. 42.2–4; P. Oxy. 1296.4–5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.2.2; 5.25 (40). “Unceasingly” may involve greater frequency than daily prayer times, but might be hyperbolic (a common figure, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.33.44); “unceasing mention” seems to refer to times of feasts and sacrifices in 1 Macc 12:11.
25. For Jewish people calling God to witness, see e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.40, 46; T. Reu. 1:6; 6:9; among Gentiles, e.g., Homer Od. 1.273; 14.158; Xenophon Cyr. 4.6.10.
26. Letters often expressed a genuine desire to visit (Anderson 1999: 207); even more frequently, they expressed deep affection (Cicero Fam. 7.14.2; Pliny Ep. 3.3.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.3.1–5; 2.2.2; 3.9.1; 4.2.1) and longing (P. Oxy. 528.6–9; Cicero Fam. 1.9.1; 16.1.1; Att. 2.18; 12.3; Dio Chrysostom Ep. 3; Pliny the Younger Ep. 3.17.1–3; 6.4.2–5; 6.7.1–3; 7.5.1–2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.4; 2.10.3; 2.14; 3.9.2; 3.19; 4.5.3; 4.9). One might also explain reasons for one’s delay (CPJ 2:219, §431).
27. A common caveat (e.g., Xenophon Hell. 2.4.17; Anab. 7.3.43; Epictetus Disc. 1.1.17; Josephus Ant. 2.333; 7.373; 20.267).
28. Reciprocity was a conventional expectation (Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Statius Silvae 4.9; Herman 2003; Highet 2003; Harrison 2003: 1, 15, 40–43, 50–53), but Paul expresses it in terms expected for peers. For Paul, “spiritual” alludes to the Spirit (Fee 1994b: 28–31).
29. Ancient culture heavily emphasized obligation (cf. Rom 13:8; 15:1, 27), but the expression was not limited to money and was often used figuratively (Musonius Rufus 17, p. 110.2–3; Dio Chrysostom Or. 44.4; Pliny Ep. 7.19.10), including for a debt to a people (Cicero Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.28; Valerius Maximus 5.6. ext. 2).
30. On Greek disdain for barbarians’ lack of Greek education, see e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.2.6; Iamblichus V.P. 8.44.
31. E.g., Plato Alcib. 2.141C; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.14; 9.12; Diodorus Siculus 1.4.5–6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 3.11.10.
32. E.g., Cicero Inv. 1.24.35; Seneca Dial. 5.2.1; Josephus J.W. 5.17; idem Ant. 1.107. Some texts add Romans as a third category (Juvenal Sat. 10.138; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.24; as Greeks in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.70.5); most included Jews in the barbarian category (Strabo 16.2.38; Josephus J.W. 1.3; 4.45; but cf. Josephus Ant. 18.47).
