What do you think?
Rate this book
Romans: A Handbook on the Greek Text
In Romans , Stanley E. Porter and David I. Yoon provide a foundational examination of the Greek text of Romans. The analysis is distinguished by the detailed yet comprehensive attention paid to the text. The authors' exposition is a convenient pedagogical and reference tool that explains the form and syntax of the biblical text, offers guidance for deciding between competing semantic analyses, engages important text-critical debates, and addresses questions relating to the Greek text that are frequently overlooked or ignored by standard commentaries. Beyond serving as a succinct and accessible analytic key, Romans also reflects the most up-to-date advances in scholarship on Greek grammar and linguistics. This handbook proves itself an indispensable tool for anyone committed to a deep reading of the biblical text.
416 pages, Paperback
Published September 1, 2023
2 people are currently reading
3 people want to read
About the author
Stanley E. Porter
192 books34 followersStanley E. Porter (PhD, University of Sheffield) is president, dean, and professor of New Testament, and Roy A. Hope Chair in Christian Wolrdview at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. He has authored or edited dozens of books, including How We Got the New Testament and Fundamentals of New Testament Greek.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 30, 2025
On Πἰστις Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:21–26
(3:22) “πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This word group has garnered much scholarly discussion, often called the “πίστις Χριστοῦ debate.” While this is not the place to go into extensive discussion on this topic, the major issue is whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a subjective genitive or an objecutive genitive, i.e., whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the subject (‘Jesus Christ’s faith/faithfulness’) or object (‘faith/faithfulness in Jesus Christ’). Neither of these is meant by the genitive. Our view is that the genitive case reflects the one broad semantic feature of restriction—the genitive case restricts or limits the head term to restrict or specify its referent—but we see the use of the genitive as having any number of different uses in discourse. The so-called subjective genitive can be explained by other functions, such as possessive, origin, or source. For instance, some might wish to view the word group ἔντολη θεοῦ as a subjective genitive, that ‘God’ is one who ‘commands,’ but it may be better explained as having a possessive or source function: the commandment (keeping the noun a noun instead of making it a verb) that belongs to God or comes from God (see Porter 1994a, 92–97, describing the various functions of the genitive case). In the same way, the so-called objective genitive can be explained through other categories, such as genitive of definition or description. The word group πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ restricts πίστεως to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which functions here as definition or description, further defining or describing what kind of ‘faith’ is being identified, i.e., faith that is related in some way or restricted to “Jesus Christ” (see next entry for more). The attempt to identify the correct category of the genitive here does not solve the issue, as seen in the number of pages spent trying to argue for a reading based on genitive categories (see Porter 1994a, 95; Porter and Pitts 2009; Porter 2015, 94; and the essays in Bird and Sprinkle for further discussion, among the many other sources on this topic. See also the next entry for more on the genitive).
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Genitive of description, modifying πίστεως (see above entry). Faith is further described as and delineated to Jesus Christ. If we were to use the subjective/objective genitive categories, our interpretation would correspond most with the objective category, seeing that Jesus is the object of faith—but we affirm that the genitive does not connote subject/object relations. However, the reason we translate this phrase (including πίστεως) as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ is due to co-textual factors, including the phrase being used following the preposition διὰ restricting the meaning of πίστις to ‘faith’ and not ‘faithfulness’ and hence to a meaning closer to the objective genitive regarding Jesus Christ (Porter and Pitts 2009, 48–51; see 3:26, where ‘faith in Jesus’ makes better sense). While Χριστοῦ is not a proper noun, it has come to be a title for Jesus that has become his name (see comments in 1:1)” (75–76).
(3:26) “Ἰησοῦ. Genitive of definition or description, modifying πίστεως.
‘Faith’ is described or circumscribed as ‘of Jesus.’ The so-called objective or subjective genitives are neither helpful nor legitimate categories for the genitive (as explained in the Introduction), especially here. The subjective genitive view would interpret τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, for example, as ‘him/her [who is] of the faithfulness of Jesus’ (Wright 2013, 844, suggests ‘everyone who trusts in the faithfulness of Jesus,’ but this requires two occurrences of the ‘faith/trust/faithfulness’ lexeme, rather than the actual one in the verse). And the objective genitive view would interpret it, for example, as ‘him/her [who is] of faith in Jesus’ (cf. Dunn, 1:175, ‘him who believes in Jesus’). Both of these statements may be generally true, but the second option makes better sense than the first in this context (who are those who are of Jesus’ act of faithfulness?). The grammar of the genitive relationship alone does not indicate how ‘faith’ is delineated as to ‘Jesus,’ so other contextual factors must be taken into consideration, including that this phrase follows the preposition ἐκ and restricts the meaning of πίστις to ‘faith’ and not ‘faithfulness’ and hence a meaning closer to the objective genitive regarding Jesus (Porter and Pitts 2009, 48–51; see also the discussion in 3:22 on πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)” (80–91).
On Romans 7
"This is the second sub-section within Rom 7:7–25. It brings the third major section of the body of the letter. It continues the argument from the previous sub-section, as well as the diatribal manner by which Paul makes his argument with his hypothetical interlocutor. The major critical issue often discussed is the shift from present to aorist tense-form verbs. This is a shift in aspect from imperfective to perfective, not a shift in time from present to past, as Greek verbs are aspectual not temporal. Some interpreters have attempted to use this shift to argue that Rom 7:13–25 refers to Paul or a generic past experience (see Seifrid, 226–37, for discussion). This is predicated upon indicative verbs indicating absolute tense. A better explanation is to understand the temporal reference of the verbs within their discourse context. For example, the interlocutor asks the logical question that follows from Paul’s previous argument in Rom 7:7–12, with ‘Therefore, did the thing that was good in me become death?’ not referring to an earlier time but to the consequence of the Christian struggle with sin” (154).
On ‘The Law’ in Romans 7:7
“ὁ νόμος. Nominative subject of verbless clause (with an implied “is” in an English translation). The “law” here is probably a reference not specifically to the Old Testament law, although not precluding it, but a reference to divine principles, even if an example from the Old Testa ment law is given subsequently. Divine principles for life would certainly include the Old Testament law, but the reason for understanding this as divine principles is in light of how Paul refers to the law in this letter as something innately known (cf. 1:19)” (149).
On ‘Predestined’ in Romans 8:28
“προώρισεν. Aor act ind 3rd sg προορίζω. Although this word is frequently translated as ‘predestined’ (as in our translation above), there is unfortunately much theological freight carried with this word, even if a general sense of predestination applies here. However, the semantic core of this lexeme is “circumscribed beforehand,” referring to the idea of setting a limit (ὁρίζω) beforehand (προ), reflecting the prefix and root (see Porter 2015, 172).
(3:22) “πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This word group has garnered much scholarly discussion, often called the “πίστις Χριστοῦ debate.” While this is not the place to go into extensive discussion on this topic, the major issue is whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a subjective genitive or an objecutive genitive, i.e., whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the subject (‘Jesus Christ’s faith/faithfulness’) or object (‘faith/faithfulness in Jesus Christ’). Neither of these is meant by the genitive. Our view is that the genitive case reflects the one broad semantic feature of restriction—the genitive case restricts or limits the head term to restrict or specify its referent—but we see the use of the genitive as having any number of different uses in discourse. The so-called subjective genitive can be explained by other functions, such as possessive, origin, or source. For instance, some might wish to view the word group ἔντολη θεοῦ as a subjective genitive, that ‘God’ is one who ‘commands,’ but it may be better explained as having a possessive or source function: the commandment (keeping the noun a noun instead of making it a verb) that belongs to God or comes from God (see Porter 1994a, 92–97, describing the various functions of the genitive case). In the same way, the so-called objective genitive can be explained through other categories, such as genitive of definition or description. The word group πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ restricts πίστεως to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which functions here as definition or description, further defining or describing what kind of ‘faith’ is being identified, i.e., faith that is related in some way or restricted to “Jesus Christ” (see next entry for more). The attempt to identify the correct category of the genitive here does not solve the issue, as seen in the number of pages spent trying to argue for a reading based on genitive categories (see Porter 1994a, 95; Porter and Pitts 2009; Porter 2015, 94; and the essays in Bird and Sprinkle for further discussion, among the many other sources on this topic. See also the next entry for more on the genitive).
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Genitive of description, modifying πίστεως (see above entry). Faith is further described as and delineated to Jesus Christ. If we were to use the subjective/objective genitive categories, our interpretation would correspond most with the objective category, seeing that Jesus is the object of faith—but we affirm that the genitive does not connote subject/object relations. However, the reason we translate this phrase (including πίστεως) as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ is due to co-textual factors, including the phrase being used following the preposition διὰ restricting the meaning of πίστις to ‘faith’ and not ‘faithfulness’ and hence to a meaning closer to the objective genitive regarding Jesus Christ (Porter and Pitts 2009, 48–51; see 3:26, where ‘faith in Jesus’ makes better sense). While Χριστοῦ is not a proper noun, it has come to be a title for Jesus that has become his name (see comments in 1:1)” (75–76).
(3:26) “Ἰησοῦ. Genitive of definition or description, modifying πίστεως.
‘Faith’ is described or circumscribed as ‘of Jesus.’ The so-called objective or subjective genitives are neither helpful nor legitimate categories for the genitive (as explained in the Introduction), especially here. The subjective genitive view would interpret τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, for example, as ‘him/her [who is] of the faithfulness of Jesus’ (Wright 2013, 844, suggests ‘everyone who trusts in the faithfulness of Jesus,’ but this requires two occurrences of the ‘faith/trust/faithfulness’ lexeme, rather than the actual one in the verse). And the objective genitive view would interpret it, for example, as ‘him/her [who is] of faith in Jesus’ (cf. Dunn, 1:175, ‘him who believes in Jesus’). Both of these statements may be generally true, but the second option makes better sense than the first in this context (who are those who are of Jesus’ act of faithfulness?). The grammar of the genitive relationship alone does not indicate how ‘faith’ is delineated as to ‘Jesus,’ so other contextual factors must be taken into consideration, including that this phrase follows the preposition ἐκ and restricts the meaning of πίστις to ‘faith’ and not ‘faithfulness’ and hence a meaning closer to the objective genitive regarding Jesus (Porter and Pitts 2009, 48–51; see also the discussion in 3:22 on πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)” (80–91).
On Romans 7
"This is the second sub-section within Rom 7:7–25. It brings the third major section of the body of the letter. It continues the argument from the previous sub-section, as well as the diatribal manner by which Paul makes his argument with his hypothetical interlocutor. The major critical issue often discussed is the shift from present to aorist tense-form verbs. This is a shift in aspect from imperfective to perfective, not a shift in time from present to past, as Greek verbs are aspectual not temporal. Some interpreters have attempted to use this shift to argue that Rom 7:13–25 refers to Paul or a generic past experience (see Seifrid, 226–37, for discussion). This is predicated upon indicative verbs indicating absolute tense. A better explanation is to understand the temporal reference of the verbs within their discourse context. For example, the interlocutor asks the logical question that follows from Paul’s previous argument in Rom 7:7–12, with ‘Therefore, did the thing that was good in me become death?’ not referring to an earlier time but to the consequence of the Christian struggle with sin” (154).
On ‘The Law’ in Romans 7:7
“ὁ νόμος. Nominative subject of verbless clause (with an implied “is” in an English translation). The “law” here is probably a reference not specifically to the Old Testament law, although not precluding it, but a reference to divine principles, even if an example from the Old Testa ment law is given subsequently. Divine principles for life would certainly include the Old Testament law, but the reason for understanding this as divine principles is in light of how Paul refers to the law in this letter as something innately known (cf. 1:19)” (149).
On ‘Predestined’ in Romans 8:28
“προώρισεν. Aor act ind 3rd sg προορίζω. Although this word is frequently translated as ‘predestined’ (as in our translation above), there is unfortunately much theological freight carried with this word, even if a general sense of predestination applies here. However, the semantic core of this lexeme is “circumscribed beforehand,” referring to the idea of setting a limit (ὁρίζω) beforehand (προ), reflecting the prefix and root (see Porter 2015, 172).
Displaying 1 of 1 review