|
|
Introduction
Letters customarily opened with the name of the sender, the sender’s titles (if any were necessary), the name of the addressees and a greeting. For example: “Paul … to the church at … greetings.” Persuasive letters and speeches often began by establishing the speaker’s credibility, what the Greeks called ethos. This beginning did not prove the speaker’s point but disposed the audience to hear him respectfully.
1:1. The apostle begins with a simple identification of his name. As a Roman citizen, his name was Saul. But he became Paul, the one who was radically transformed on the Damascus road. The theologian extraordinaire of the early church identifies himself humbly and simply as Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. The Greek word doulos, which is the word servant in the KJV, is more accurately translated by the word slave. In Greek culture it is most often referred to the involuntary, permanent service of a slave, Paul elevates this word by using it in its Hebrew sense to describe a servant who willingly commits himself to serve a master he loves and respects (Ex. 21:5, 6; Gal. 1:10; Titus 1:1; cf. Gen. 26:24; Num. 12:7; 2 Sam. 7:5; Is. 53:11). A slave of someone in high position had more status, authority and freedom than a free commoner; the emperor’s slaves were some of the highest-ranking people in the empire, as the Roman Christians would know. In the Old Testament, prophets from Moses on were generally called “servants” or “slaves” of God. In the ancient world a servant was a hired employee who could come and go and even resign if he wanted. But a doulos was owned by a kyrios, a master or lord. He was the purchased property of the slave owner. This imagery is frequently used in the New Testament to reflect the relationship between Christ and his people. We belong to Christ—our kyrios, our Lord and Master. He has the right of an owner to impose obligation on us. Because Paul so clearly understood that believers have been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, he called himself a doulos, or slave, of Jesus Christ. By nature humanity stands in bondage to sin. We are bondservants to our own evil impulses and fallen nature. Yet we are told that where the Spirit of the Lord is—where the Spirit of the kyrios is—there is liberty. Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–32).Jesus addressed those words to people who were not free, but were in abject bondage. But the irony is this: A person’s only freedom is to become a slave to Jesus Christ. Freedom from Christ means slavery to self. But one enslaved to Christ knows the royal liberation that only Christ can bring. So Paul, in citing his own credentials, looks to his highest virtue—that he is a slave to Jesus Christ. Paul, who had once been an agent or commissioned messenger (apostle) of the high priest (Acts 9:2), was now a representative for God. The ideas of being “called” and “set apart” go back to Old Testament language for Israel and, more important here, Israel’s prophets. apostle: The Greek word means “one who is sent.” In the NT, it primarily refers to the 12 men Christ chose to accompany Him (Mark 3:13–19) and Matthaias, whom the other apostles chose to replace Judas (Acts 1:15–26). Christ gave them power to confirm their apostleship with miracles (Matt. 10:1; 2 Cor. 12:12), and authority to speak as His proxies—every NT book was written either by an apostle or under his auspices (cf. John 14:26). Their teaching is the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Christ Himself selected Paul for this position (Acts 9:15; 22:14; 26:16; cf. Gal. 1:1) and trained him to fulfill this ministry (Gal. 1:12, 16). An apostle had to be a disciple of Jesus and an eyewitness of his resurrection. As you might imagine, a controversy arose when Paul claimed to be an apostle, because he had not been a disciple and had not known Jesus until after the ascension. Even though Paul’s call was dramatic and extraordinary, he could not begin his ministry until he was first received and endorsed by the rest of the Twelve, whose credentials were not in question. It is theoretically possible for someone today to make the claim that God has called him directly and immediately to be an apostle. Joseph Smith did and started Mormonism. But it is impossible for that person to meet the biblical requirements for an apostle and to have his claim substantiated, corroborated, and confirmed by other apostles. gospel of God:Used in its verb and noun forms some 60 times in this epistle, the Greek word for this phrase means “good news” (see Mark 1:1). Rome incorporated it into its emperor worship. The town herald used this word to begin important favorable announcements about the emperor—such as the birth of a son. But Paul’s good news is not from the emperor but “of God”; it originated with Him. Its message that God will forgive sins, deliver from sin’s power, and give eternal hope (1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–4) comes not only as a gracious offer, but also as a command to be obeyed (10:16). Paul was consumed with this message (1 Cor. 9:23).
1:2 which He promised before. Paul’s Jewish antagonists accused him of preaching a revolutionary new message unrelated to Judaism (Acts 21:28). But the OT is replete with prophecies concerning Christ and the gospel (1 Pet. 1:10–12; cf. Matt. 5:17; Heb. 1:1). His prophets: All the writers of the OT. The “Law and the Prophets” constitute all the OT (Acts 24:14). But the law—or the Pentateuch—was written by Moses, whom Scripture also calls a prophet (Deut. 18:15). Holy Scriptures: While the rabbinical writings popular in the first century—and often studied more diligently than Scripture itself—may not have taught the gospel of God, the divinely inspired OT certainly did (cf. Luke 24:25, 27, 32; John 5:39; Acts 3:18; 7:52; 10:43; 13:32; 26:22, 23). The prophets spoke clearly of a New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:25–27; cf. Heb. 8:6–13) and of the Messiah whose sacrifice would make it possible (Is. 9:6, 7; 53:1–12).
1:3 born: Jesus was conceived in a virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; cf. Is. 7:14), and was delivered normally. This word emphasizes that He is an actual historical figure. Many well known ancient writers, including the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44), the familiar Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, 2.18.3), and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10.96, 97) verify Jesus’ historicity. seed of David: The OT had prophesied that Messiah would be in the lineage of David (2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 89:3, 4, 19, 24; Is. 11:1–5; Jer. 23:5, 6). Both Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 3:23, 31), and Joseph, his legal father (Matt. 1:6, 16; Luke 1:27), were descendants of David. Paul’s words here would appeal to Jewish readers. “Through his prophets” concurs with the Jewish doctrine of the Old Testament’s inspiration and final authority; “according to the flesh” (NASB) means simply that Jesus was physically descended from David. John makes believing that Christ has come in the flesh a crucial test of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2, 3). Because He is fully human—as well as fully God—He can serve as man’s substitute (John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21) and as a sympathetic High-Priest (Heb. 4:15, 16).
1:4 “Spirit of holiness” was a common Jewish name for the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. A regular synagogue prayer regarded the future resurrection of the dead as the ultimate demonstration of God’s power. declared: The Gr. word, from which the English word “horizon” comes, means “to distinguish.” Just as the horizon serves as a clear demarcation line, dividing earth and sky, the resurrection of Jesus Christ clearly divides Him from the rest of humanity, providing irrefutable evidence that He is the Son of God. The phrase “Son of God” meant many things to many different people in the ancient world, but it could strike Roman pagans as portraying Jesus as a rival to the emperor; in the Old Testament it referred to the Davidic line, thus ultimately to the promised Jewish king (see 1:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:27). This title, used nearly 30 times in the gospels, identifies Jesus Christ as the same in essence as God (cf. Heb. 1:5; 2 Sam. 7:14). Paul here regards Jesus’ resurrection as the Spirit’s coronation of him as the Messiah and as humanity’s first taste of the future resurrection and kingdom.The resurrection clearly declared that Jesus was deity, the expression of God Himself in human form. While He was eternally the Son in anticipation of His incarnation, it was when He entered the world in incarnation that He was declared to all the world as the Son of God and took on the role of submission to the Father. Spirit of holiness:. In His incarnation, Christ voluntarily submitted Himself to do the will of the Father only through the direction, agency, and power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:1; John 3:34). resurrection from the dead: His victory over death was the supreme demonstration and most conclusive evidence that He is God the Son (cf. Acts 13:29–33; 1 Cor. 15:14–17). Paul goes on to tell us that not only is Jesus the Christ and the direct descendant of David, but he is our Lord. The word Lord has enormous significance because it was the title ascribed to God in the Old Testament. Kyrios, the Greek form of the Hebrew adonai, means “the sovereign One, the One who reigns over us.” He is God in the flesh. He is “the sovereign One, the One who reigns over us.
1:5 grace The unmerited favor which God shows guilty sinners. This is the book’s first reference to the most crucial part of the gospel message: salvation is a gift from God wholly separate from any human effort or achievement (3:24, 27; 4:1–5; 5:20, 21). apostleship. Although the term “apostle” refers to the 12 in a unique way (see note on 1:1), in a broader and less official sense it can describe anyone whom God has sent with the message of salvation (cf. Acts 14:14; Rom. 16:7; Heb. 3:1). obedience to the faith. True saving faith always produces obedience and submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ (16:19, 26; cf. 10:9, 10; cf. Matt. 7:13, 14, 22–27; James 2:17–20). The Old Testament promised that a representative remnant from among the nations would turn to God; Isaiah associated this remnant with the mission of the servant (42:6; 49:6; 52:15). Because the Roman church clearly included Jewish Christians, “Gentiles” (NIV, NASB, NRSV) is better translated here “nations” (KJV; cf. TEV); the term was used to mean both “nations,” excluding Israel, and “peoples,” including Israel. Representatives of all Mediterranean cultures resided in the great urban center, Rome.
1:6 called: See note on 1:7. Always in the NT epistles the “call” of God refers to God’s effectual call of elect sinners to salvation (cf. 8:28–30), rather than the general call to all men to believe (cf. Matt. 20:16).
1:7. beloved of God, called … saints: The Gr. text records these as 3 separate privileges: 1) God has set His love on His own (5:5; 8:35; Eph. 1:6; 2:4, 5; 1 John 3:1); 2) He has extended to them not only the general, external invitation to believe the gospel (Is. 45:22; 55:6; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 11:28; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17), but His effectual calling—or His drawing to Himself all those He has chosen for salvation (8:30; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; 2 Tim. 1:9); and 3) God has set believers apart from sin unto Himself, so that they are holy ones (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Grace … peace: Paul’s standard greeting (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3).
“Saints” or “those who have been set apart” goes back to the Old Testament image of God’s people as set apart for himself. Like Paul (see comment on 1:1), they too are “called” (1:6–7); Paul embraces them as fellow heirs in the mission, not as inferiors.The standard Greek greeting was “greetings” (chairein—Jas 1:1) a Greek term related to “grace” (charis); Jewish people greeted one another with “peace,” and Jewish letters often began, “Greetings and peace.” Paul adapts this standard greeting, a well-wishing, into a Christian prayer: “The grace and peace of God and Jesus be with you.” Placing the Father and Jesus on equal footing as providers of grace and peace elevated Jesus above the role given to any mere human in most of Judaism. “Father” was also a title for God in Judaism (usually “our Father”).
Q: Here and 1 Cor 1:3, since the Greek word kai can mean "even" as well as "one", does this mean that Jesus is God the Father, as some Oneness Pentecostals teach?
A: No. Let’s look at this objectively.
1. All agree that "and" is the primary meaning of the Greek word "kai", but it does sometimes mean "even also".
2. You cannot prove Oneness, Trinity, or any doctrine, based on a word that could be translated either way.
3. In this chapter of Romans, Jesus is distinguished from God the Father in Romans 1:9. Jesus is not an orphan, neither is He a Fatherless Son.
4. Jesus also is distinguished from the Father in many places in Scripture, including but not limited to Ephesians 1:3,17; Matthew 3:16-17; 12:18; Mark 10:38-40; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:1,33; 6:38; 14:16,26,28,31; 5:26; 6:28; 7:5; Acts 5:31-32; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:25-28; Hebrews 1:9; 5:7-8. At Jesus baptism, Jesus was not practicing a ventriloquism act.
Paul’s Thanksgiving
If one follows all the “fors” or other “cause” words (in some translations, e.g., NASB, NRSV), Paul’s argument continues without pause through the chapter. Like prayers, thanksgivings were fairly standard in the openings of the bodies of ancient letters, and when Paul omits one (Galatians) it is conspicuous.
1:8 I thank my God: In every letter Paul wrote, he expressed his gratitude for those who would receive it (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:4), except in his letter to the Galatians, whose defection from the true gospel caused him to dispense with any opening commendations (Gal. 1:6–12). your faith: The genuineness of their salvation. The testimony of the church in Rome was so strong that in A.D. 49 the emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews because of the influence of “Chrestus,” which was undoubtedly a reference to Christ (cf. Acts 18:2).“All roads lead to Rome”; due to the connections of the whole empire with Rome, Christians everywhere knew about the faith of believers in the capital. throughout the whole world: As the center of the Roman Empire and the inhabited world, whatever happened in Rome became known universally.
Q: How was the Roman Christians’ faith be known throughout the whole world?
A: This has the same meaning as 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Given the size and influence of the city of Rome, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Roman church had a great part in many people’s first impressions of Christianity. "All roads lead to Rome" was a very popular saying back then.
1:9 serve with my spirit: In the NT, this Greek word for “serve” always refers to religious service, and is sometimes translated “worship.” Paul had seen the shallow, hypocritical religion of the Pharisees and the superstitious hedonism of pagan idolatry. His spiritual service, however, did not result from abject fear or legal obligation, but was genuine and sincere (cf. Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; 2:22). For “in my spirit” (NASB) the modern idiom would be “from the bottom of my heart,” “with all my heart” (TEV; cf. NIV). It was common to call as witness the one who knew one’s heart—God—although Paul avoids oath formulas like those mentioned in Matthew 5:33–37 (swearing by something). Recurrent prayer was sometimes described as “remembering,” “reminding” or making mention to God.
1:10. Devout Jewish people might spend several hours a day in prayer; many did so at the times of morning and evening offerings in the temple.in my prayers: Paul frequently recorded the content of his requests (Eph. 3:14–19; Phil. 1:9–11; Col. 1:9–11; 2 Thess. 1:11, 12) and urged his readers to join him in prayer (15:30–32; 1 Thess. 5:17; Eph. 6:18). will of God God’s sovereign orchestration of Paul’s circumstances (cf. Matt. 6:10; Acts 21:11–14; James 4:13,14).
1:11 Longing to see a friend was a conventional matter to mention in ancient letters, which were used to convey a sense of one’s presence when the writer and reader were (as often) far apart. spiritual gift: The Gr. word translated “gift” is charisma, which means a “gift of grace”—a spiritual enablement whose source is the Spirit of God. Romans uses this same term to describe: 1) Christ Himself (5:15, 16); 2) general blessings from God (11:29; cf. 1 Tim. 6:17); and 3) specific spiritual gifts given to members of the body to minister to the whole (12:6–8; cf. 1 Cor. 12:1–31; 1 Pet. 4:10, 11). Paul probably intends to encompass all 3.
Q: Here and in Rom 15:29, isn’t Paul a bit conceited to tell the Romans he wants to come to give them a spiritual gift?
A: If Paul was an ordinary man, perhaps. But since Paul was an apostle of Christ, Paul was being both candid and truthful without overstatement. It is ok to tell someone you can benefit them if that is the truth.
1:12 Paul. He was brilliant, strong, heroic, and the church’s most gifted theologian, but his most conspicuous characteristic was a pastoral heart. When placed in a powerful position within the early church and exalted as apostle to the Gentiles, he kept his gifts in perspective and realized that his gifts were not for his own benefit but for the entire church. With genuine humility (cf. 1 Peter 5:3,4) he told the rank and file of the church at Rome that he longed to come to them, not only that he might minister to them, but “that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith”. A healthy and spiritually vital church today will model this same kind of mutual faith.
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries claim that Paul uses Gnostic terms and that his genuine letters are "full" of "distinctively Gnostic doctrines." They us these two verses 11 & 12,to promote their view:Freke and Grady translate this as, "that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charismata," and ask, "If Paul wants to urgently share something...why doesn't he write it in his letter?" They reply that it is because Paul wants to share a secret and personal "initiation." If this is the case, if a secret is in the offing, one wonders why Paul would say so in a letter to be read to the entire congregation and addressed to the entire congregation. That would seem rather counter-productive. That said, what of these gifts? The word is used of the gifts of tongues and healings, of the gift of ministry (1 Peter 4:10), and of a gift to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14). It means any divine imputation and as such is no more unique Gnostic property than the word "gift" used today. Paul's "gift" in mind here is that his presence would mutually encourage the faith of himself and the Romans (v. 12, which Frank & Grady neglect to quote). This can indeed only be transmitted in person (as a visit today is much better than a phone call) but it hardly requires secrecy, and this announcement in a public letter read aloud to the congregation makes no sense under Freke and Grady's Gnostic interpretation.
|
1:13. Addresses such as “beloved” or “brothers and sisters” were common in letters. On “Gentiles” see comment on 1:5–6, although in 1:13–15 one should keep in mind Paul’s special call to the Gentiles (11:13). Ancient cities were cosmopolitan, but the closing of sea travel for winter, needs of other churches and the expense of travel could all have delayed Paul’s coming. fruit Scripture catalogs 3 kinds of spiritual fruit: 1) spiritual attitudes that characterize a Spirit-led believer (Gal. 5:22, 23); 2) righteous actions (6:22; Phil. 4:16, 17; Heb. 13:15); and 3) new converts (16:5). In this context, Paul is probably referring to the third one—a desire that was eventually realized during his imprisonment in Rome (Phil. 4:22). among the other Gentiles: This implies the church in Rome consisted primarily of non-Jews. Paul will introduce the Jewish division of humanity in verse 16, but here he uses the Greek one; in both cases, he affirms that God is for all peoples, regardless of race or nationality.
1:14 debtor He had an obligation to God (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16–17) to fulfill His divine mandate to minister to Gentiles (1:5; Acts 9:15). Greeks. People of many different nationalities who had embraced the Gr. language, culture, and education. They were the sophisticated elite of Paul’s day. Because of their deep interest in Greek philosophy, they were considered “wise.” Because of this prevalence of Greek culture, Paul sometimes used this word to describe all Gentiles (cf. 3:9).Greeks considered everyone else in the world “barbarians” (cf. “non-Greeks”—NIV); they also usually considered themselves wise and others foolish. Some educated Jewish people classed themselves as Greeks, but Greeks considered them barbarians. A derisive term coined by the Greeks for all who had not been trained in Gr. language and culture. When someone spoke in another language, it sounded to the Greeks like “bar-bar-bar,” or unintelligible chatter. Although in the narrowest sense “barbarian” referred to the uncultured, uneducated masses, it was often used to describe all non-Greeks—the unwise of the world. Paul’s point is that God is no respecter of persons—the gospel must reach both the world’s elite and its outcasts (cf. John 4:4–42; James 2:1–9). Paul will introduce the Jewish division of humanity in verse 16, but here he uses the Greek one; in both cases, he affirms that God is for all peoples, regardless of race or nationality.
1:15 gospel: See note on 1:1.
1:16. Verses 16–17 seem to be the propositio, or thesis statement, which begins Paul’s argument.—the gospel of Jesus Christ—which Paul will unfold and explain in the following chapters. Paul stresses that the good news is for all peoples; if to both Jews and Greeks (Greeks were the most anti-Jewish), then to all peoples between Jews and Greeks.
1:17. In the Old Testament (and in the Dead Sea Scrolls), “God’s righteousness” is that aspect of his character on account of which he vindicates his people and shows their faithfulness to him to be right. Martin Luther was turned upside-down as he prepared lectures on the Book of Romans. Recalling that incident, Luther related that when he prepared this particular text, a gripping new insight broke through to his consciousness, and his life was unalterably changed. Luther had read this passage innumerable times, but every time he read the words “the righteousness of God,” he assumed that Paul was speaking of that righteousness by which God himself is righteous—the righteousness that belongs to the character of God. However, as he read the statement on this particular occasion, it suddenly dawned on him that the righteousness of God spoken of here by the apostle Paul is not the righteousness by which God himself is righteous, but it is, instead, a revelation of the righteousness that God is making available to us. It is a righteousness granted to us, not according to our obedience or our merit, but a righteousness given as a gift we receive by faith. Luther wrote that when he understood this, “the doors of paradise swung open and I walked through.” He knew, as we can know, that God alone gives us the righteousness that enables us to withstand his judgment. He alone provides the righteousness that makes it possible for us to come into his presence. Thus God’s righteousness relates directly to “justification,” or legal acquittal and vindication. (In Romans, many English versions translate the same Greek word as both “righteousness” and “justification.”) The Hebrew and Greek versions of Habakkuk 2:4 differ on a pronoun, which Paul omits (since the disputed detail is irrelevant to his argument anyway). In the context of Habakkuk 2:4, the righteous are those who will survive the judgment because they have faith (i.e., are faithful to God). (Biblical saving faith was not passive assent but actively staking one’s life on the claims of God. It was a certainty sufficient to affect one’s lifestyle; cf. Rom 1:5.) Paul applies this text to those who trust in Christ and so are saved from the final judgment. That his contemporary readers would understand his application is made clear by the similar application of Habakkuk 2:4 in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Willful Idolaters
Paul’s argument is similar to one in the Wisdom of Solomon, a popular Jewish work widely circulated by this period. His arguments would thus have been timely and easy for his readers to follow.
1:18 wrath of God This is not an impulsive outburst of anger aimed capriciously at people whom God does not like. It is the settled, determined response of a righteous God against sin (cf. Pss. 2:5, 12; 45:7; 75:8; 76:6, 7; 78:49–51; 90:7–9; Is. 51:17; Jer. 25:15, 16; John 3:36; Rom. 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:5, 6). is revealed More accurately, “is constantly revealed.” The word essentially means “to uncover, make visible, or make known.” God reveals His wrath in two ways: 1) indirectly, through the natural consequences of violating His universal moral law, and 2) directly through His personal intervention (the OT record—from the sentence passed on Adam and Eve to the worldwide flood, from the fire and brimstone that leveled Sodom to the Babylonian captivity—clearly displays this kind of intervention). The most graphic revelation of God’s holy wrath and hatred against sin was when He poured out divine judgment on His Son on the cross. God has various kinds of wrath: 1) eternal wrath, which is hell; 2) eschatological wrath, which is the final Day of the Lord; 3) cataclysmic wrath like the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; 4) consequential wrath, which is the principle of sowing and reaping; and 5) the wrath of abandonment, which is removing restraint and letting people go to their sins. Here, it is that fifth form, God’s abandoning the wicked continually through history to pursue their sin and its consequences (vv. 24–32). “Heaven” was a Jewish circumlocution for God, and the phrase is a typically Jewish way of saying “God is angry.” (Paul uses “revealed” to parallel v. 17.) The truth that the wicked suppress is the truth of God’s character (1:19–20), which they distort by idolatry (1:23). ungodliness This indicates a lack of reverence for, devotion to, and worship of the true God—a defective relationship with Him (cf. Jude 14, 15). Unrighteousness This refers to the result of ungodliness: a lack of conformity in thought, word, and deed to the character and law of God (see note on 1:17). suppress the truth Although the evidence from conscience (1:19; 2:14), creation (1:20), and God’s Word is irrefutable, men choose to resist and oppose God’s truth by holding fast to their sin (cf. Ps. 14:1; John 3:19, 20).
Q: How can people hold the truth in unrighteousness?
A: It is all too easy for people to at least partially agree on the truth of what is right and best for others, and not to practice it themselves.
1:19 is manifest in them God has sovereignly planted evidence of His existence in the very nature of man by reason and moral law (1:20, 21, 28, 32; 2:15). Stoic philosophers argued that the nature of God was evident in creation; Cicero at that time could even assert that no race of humanity was so uncivilized as to deny the existence of the gods, and along with others he argued that the human mind points to what God is like. Jewish people scattered throughout the Greco-Roman world used this argument to persuade pagans to turn to the true God. Even the rabbis tell delightful stories about how Abraham reasoned back to the first cause and showed his fellow Gentiles that there was really only one true God. According to Jewish tradition, God had given seven laws to Noah, for which all humanity was responsible (including the prohibition of idolatry). But unlike Israel, who had to keep all 613 commandments in the law (according to rabbinic count), most Gentiles disobeyed even the seven laws of Noah.
|
1:20 invisible attributes This refers specifically to the two mentioned in this verse. by the things that are made The creation delivers a clear, unmistakable message about God’s person (cf. Pss. 19:1–8; 94:9; Acts 14:15–17; 17:23–28). His eternal power The Creator, who made all that we see around us and constantly sustains it, must be a being of awesome power. Godhead. That is, His divine nature, particularly His faithfulness (Gen. 8:21, 22), kindness, and graciousness (Acts 14:17). they are without excuse God holds all men responsible for their refusal to acknowledge what He has shown them of Himself in His creation. Even those who have never had an opportunity to hear the gospel have received a clear witness about the existence and character of God—and have suppressed it. If a person will respond to the revelation he has, even if it is solely natural revelation, God will provide some means for that person to hear the gospel (cf. Acts 8:26–39; 10:1–48; 17:27).
Q: In Rom 1:19-20, how can everyone know of God through nature?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. We can know many things about God through nature. For example, no created thing could create itself. There is a Creator, who is greater than created beings. We also can see God’s majesty, power, and beauty in Creation, though Creation is fallen.
2. People can make up their own strange interpretations of the facts. For example, the idea of spontaneous generation, a "scientific fact" of the Middle Ages, said flies could come from rotting meat, and life could come spontaneously from non-life.
3. Many important things about God we cannot know through nature. For example, the Trinity, Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus coming again.
4. While nature is not sufficient to teach the entire gospel of salvation, it is sufficient to teach people there is a God and to look for Him.
5. If someone rejects the truth that they know about the Most High God, God has not necessarily obligated Himself to give them more truth.
Canst thou by searching find out God? (Job)Doesn't this contradict Rom. 1:20, which says God is obvious? No, first because it is merely a quote of Zophar the Namaathite, Job's discussion partner, in a back and forth about life, the universe, and everything -- all that is said by people in the Bible is not necessarily endorsed by the sponsor. Second, the context indicates that the question is whether one can match God in knowledge and power, not merely find Him. ("If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?")
Q: Are all non-Christians going to Hell?
A: There is only one correct answer, but there are two aspects to it: no and yes.
No, for four reasons
N1. No, because some people who are not yet Christians will become Christians in the future and go to Heaven. The Biblical term for those who ultimately will be in Heaven is "the elect".
N2. No, because in the Old Testament, many godly Jews, who obeyed the Law, died anticipating the coming of the Messiah, without knowing the Messiah. (Ephesians 3:4-6; 1 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Peter 1:19; Hebrews 12:39-40)
N3. No, because God revealed Himself through Abraham, even though Abraham did not have the Law. God is able to work "outside the box" of our preconceptions, and to bring people to Himself through Christ as He chooses. We can be assured that all who died never hearing of Christ today, be they babies, the severely retarded, or people with severe ignorance, will be judged fairly by God, who is also merciful. (See Romans 4:15; 5:12; ~John 9:41)
N4. Some Christians think Christ preached to those who had already died based on 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) in Stromata 6:6 said those who were righteous according to God’s Law, only faith was wanting. For those who did not have the Law, but were righteous according to their philosophy, they needed both faith and repentance of idolatry. "Straightaway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of the previous [idolatrous] conduct." Ante-Nicene Fathers 2 p.490. Other Christians disagree with this though.
Yes, for four reasons
Y1. All who are, were, or will ever be saved, are saved through the One and only Mediator and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Acts 4:12; John 10:7-8; John 10:26-28;
Y2. All need Jesus. Jesus told even the religious Jewish Pharisees, that if they did not believe in Him, they would indeed die in their sins. (John 8:24). Jesus warned them that their rejection of God would send them to Hell (Matthew 23:33-36).
Y3. Even infants who died before knowingly committing any transgression still need Jesus to sanctify them and cleanse them of their sinful nature. While they made no sinful choices, and never intended to do wrong, they still have a selfish, sinful nature and need transformation through Jesus before going to heaven.
Y4. Since Jesus saves everybody who will be saved, then everyone who will be saved, sooner or later, will believe in Christ. (Romans 14:10-11; Philippians 2:9-11; John 6:37,45)
On point Y3, a Christian once disagreed with me on this, and said, that if they cannot make a decision for Jesus, then they cannot go to heaven. However, we have to see, at the most basic level, what is the one "thing" that saves us? Ultimately it is not our decision that saves us, because it is not even "us" that saves us. At the most fundamental level, it is God who saves us. He saves all the saved through Jesus, but He can save infants, those who lived before Christ, etc. however He wants, because He is God.
Q: To what extent can people learn God’s truth and the Gospel from observing Creation?
A: We can learn three things, but not learn a fourth thing.
1. The existence of some kind of Creator (personal or impersonal) from the existence of Creation.
2. God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20)
3. Some understanding of God’s moral law (Romans 2:14-16).
From creation, people cannot learn of the mystery of Christ. (Ephesians 3:4-6,9; 6:19; Colossians 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; Romans 16:25-26; 1 Peter 1:10-12.
Q: In (KJV) (NKJV) (Green’s Literal Translation), should this word be translated "Godhead" or "divine nature" as the NASB, NIV, and NRSV say?
A: New Age Bible Versions Refuted p.23 points out that in the KJV "godhead" is used three times: in this verse and Acts 17:29 and Colossians 2:9. In each case it is a different Greek word. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, and Green’s Literal Translation lose precision here, as they translate three different Greek words with the same English word. The point Paul is making here is that they are denying what they see of God’s divine nature.
1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools Man rationalizes his sin and proves his utter foolishness by devising and believing his own philosophies about God, the universe, and himself (cf. Pss. 14:1; 53:1).
|
1:23 changed the glory … into an image They substitute the worship of idols for the worship of the true God. Historians report that many ancient cultures did not originally have idols. For example, Persia (Herodotus; The Histories, 1:31), Rome (Varro in Augustine; The City of God, 4:31), even Greece and Egypt (Lucian; The Syrian Goddess, 34) had no idolatry at their founding. The fourth-century A.D. historian Eusebius reported that the oldest civilizations had no idols. The earliest biblical record of idolatry was among Abram’s family in Ur (Josh. 24:2). The first commandment forbids it (Ex. 20:3–5), and the prophets continually ridiculed those who foolishly practiced it (Is. 44:9–17; cf. 2 Kin. 17:13–16). Although the false gods which men worship do not exist, demons often impersonate them (1 Cor. 10:20). Imagine it: A man buys a costly block of wood, brings it back to his workshop, and then uses all his artistic skills to carve that block of wood into the likeness of an animal or person. He sands, polishes, and varnishes it, and when he is done he cleans his tools, returns them to their places, and sweeps the wood shavings from the floor. He then takes his carving to a religious leader for consecration, returns home, sets the statue in a prominent place, spreads a mat, and bows before it in prayer. There he implores the very wood he has carved with his own hands to help him through difficulties and bring him safely into the afterlife. Can you imagine anything more irrational than for a man to worship the product of his own hands? That’s what idolatry is. It substitutes the corrupt things of this world for the majesty of God. The glory of God is traded in for the “glory” of a snake, or of a crocodile, or of a block of wood.What would we think of a woman who, after receiving a new mink coat as a gift, stuffed it into a garbage can and pulled soiled rags from the can to wear instead? Of course we would be appalled. Onlookers might whisper, “What’s wrong with this nut? Doesn’t she have any taste, any idea of glory?” Yet, in many respects, that is how irreverently humankind has treated God’s glory. But the analogy is a poor one, for the difference between the glory of God and the glory of the crocodile is an infinite gulf. There is no comparison. God alone deserves worship. He will not share his glory with another. In later Jewish tradition, idolatry was the final stage of sin to which the evil impulse would reduce a person; it was one of the worst sins. Yet the language Paul uses to describe pagan idolatry is drawn from Old Testament passages about Israel’s idolatry (Deut 4:16–20; Ps 106:20; Jer 2:11); this is a setup for his argument for Jewish readers in chapter 2.
Other Pagan Deeds
Pagan gods acted immorally in the popular myths; one who worshiped them (1:23) would end up acting the same way. Paul argues that distorting one’s view about God’s character perverts one’s sexual treatment of other people; ancient Jewish people recognized that both idolatry and sexual immorality characterized Gentiles. his section describes the downward spiral of the wrath of abandonment (see note on v. 18) in the life of man when God abandons him. Paul shows the essence (vv. 24, 25), the expression (vv. 26, 27), and the extent (vv. 28–32) of man’s sinfulness.
1:24 God also gave them up This is a judicial term in Gr., used for handing over a prisoner to his sentence. When men consistently abandon God, He will abandon them (cf. Judg. 10:13; 2 Chr. 15:2; 24:20; Ps. 81:11, 12; Hos. 4:17; Matt. 15:14; Acts 7:38–42; 14:16). He accomplishes this 1) indirectly and immediately, by removing His restraint and allowing their sin to run its inevitable course, and 2) directly and eventually, by specific acts of divine judgment and punishment. (1:24, 26, 28) tells how God’s wrath (1:18) works: he lets people damn themselves as they warp their own humanity. As in the Old Testament, God can turn people over to their own hardness of heart (e.g., Is 6:9–11; 29:9–12; Jer 44:25–27; some writers have called this “penal blindness”); cf. Psalm 81:12 (about Israel). uncleanness A general term often used of decaying matter, like the contents of a grave. It speaks here of sexual immorality (2 Cor. 12:21; cf. Gal. 5:19–23; Eph. 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:7), which begins in the heart and moves to the shame of the body. The effect is dreadful. Those who are given over by God to their sinful nature will find that their bodies are dishonored and degraded among themselves. In our age there is a crisis of human dignity, a crisis of honoring one another. But when the honor of God is ignored, it is virtually inevitable that humankind will slide headlong into degradation and dishonor. When God’s honor is exalted and his majesty worshiped, then human dignity is elevated. Conversely, wherever the dignity of God is attacked, sooner or later the dignity of humanity suffers. Since human beings are created in the image of God there is a very real sense in which, as God goes, so goes the image-bearer. If we corrupt and denigrate the living God who is our Creator, then the image of himself, which he has made, suffers accordingly.
1:25 the lie A denial of God’s existence and His right to be obeyed and glorified (vv. 19–21; Is. 44:20; Jer. 13:25; cf. John 8:44).
1:26 God gave them up See notes on vv. 18, 24. vile passions Identified in vv. 26, 27 as homosexuality, a sin roundly condemned in Scripture (Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; cf. Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:3–5; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10; Jude 7). women Rather than the normal Gr. term for women, this is a general word for female. Paul mentions women first to show the extent of debauchery under the wrath of abandonment, because in most cultures women are the last to be affected by moral collapse.
1:27 Greek men were commonly bisexual; not only was homosexual behavior approved (some writers, like speakers in Plato’s Symposium, preferred it to heterosexual behavior), but elements of the culture socialized boys in this direction. Men and women were segregated growing up, and male bonds became close. Apparently due to a deficiency in the number of women (which many attribute to female infanticide), marriages were often made between thirty-year-old men and fourteen-year-old women, whom the men saw as children. Men had access to only three forms of sexual release until such late marriages: slaves, prostitutes and other men. (Introducing boys to homoerotic pleasure was a favorite pastime of Greek men in this period.)Although many upper-class Romans were affected by Greek ideals, many other Romans, especially Roman philosophers, regarded homosexual practice as disgusting. Greco-Roman moralists sometimes opposed gender reversal as “against nature,” which would resemble the Jewish argument from God’s original purposes in creation (Gen 2:18). Although Jewish texts speak of Jewish adulterers and thieves, they nearly always treat homosexual behavior as a Gentile practice. (Socialization clearly affected one’s sexual development.)Paul did not choose this example of sin to be controversial with his readers; his Jewish and Roman Christian readers alike would have agreed with him that both idolatry and homosexual behavior are sinful. But this example is a setup for his critique of sins less often denounced (Rom 1:28–32).receiving in themselves the penalty Here the law of sowing and reaping (Gal. 6:7, 8) takes effect, as Paul refers to the self-destructive nature of this sin, of which AIDS is one frightening evidence.
Q: Does this mean only that one cannot change to be a homosexual, but if one is born a homosexual, it is OK to practice it?
A: No. Romans 1:26-27 says that both men and women sin terribly in exchanging natural relations for unnatural homosexual relations. Now some have suggested that only the "exchanging" is wicked, and it is OK to be homosexual if you were born that way. But this cannot be so. Not only is the emphasis in this verse on the relations themselves being "shameful", the word "exchange", metallaso, is the same Greek word used for exchanging the truth of God for a lie. So the problem is not just the "exchanging", but the "indecent acts with other men" as Romans 1:27 says. Since Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 show that the practice of homosexuality is evil, of course it is never OK to be in an evil state. This is true whether immorality is gay or straight, the point being that we all are born with a sinful nature and need to be born again to be holy. See also the discussion on Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Tertullian in de Corona ch.6 interprets Romans 1:26 as saying males and females changed among themselves the natural use into the unnatural "by way of penal retribution for their error."
Q: How does God give people over to the lust of their hearts?
A: One of the punishments of sin is more desire to sin. A consequence of sin is that it is a vicious circle. You can think of unrepentant sin similar to an astronomical "black hole" that sucks everything around it in. Revelation 22:11 and Daniel 12:10 also imply that good and evil will both multiply.
|
Does this appply to homosexuality?
There's plenty of farcical exegesis floating around which claims that this verse is not addressed to everyday homosexual behavior but to temple prostitution, and non-homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex against their own nature. The latter point, though perhaps an "out" for some exegetes (including Byrne, whose commentary on Romans is our primary source) begs the question of reading modern understandings into an ancient text; and whether indeed homosexuality is a natural inclination, an argument that is beside our mission statement to evaluate. However, taken within the historical and social context, there is simply no way that one can read this as a slam against only "temple" acts which permits a "non-religious" homosexuality. In fact, such a position puts the politically correct cart in front of the exegetical horse.
As Byrne points out [65-9; see also Dunn, Romans, 65-6] Paul here draws upon a "conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its idolatry." The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin -- period. It was regarded as shameful because it "blurred the all-important distinction of gender role." This leads to a conclusion that cannot be got around: Since Paul drew on this conventional polemic, there is no way that this can be an "against temple sex only" position, because according to Jewish thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile idolatry. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from religious considerations.
That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the clear message of Paul -- via his Jewish forebears -- that the homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one.
1:29 Ancient writers (Greek, Roman, Jewish; cf. also Lev 18) sometimes employed “vice lists,” as here. But unlike idolatry and homosexuality (Rom 1:18–27), sins like greed, jealousy, slander, arrogance and ignorance also occur in Jewish lists as sins some Jewish people committed. Like Amos (see Amos 1–2), Paul here sets up his readers for chapter 2: pagans are not the only ones who are damned.
1:32 knowing Not ignorance, but blatant rebellion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
