Romans 1

I. INTRODUCTION, 1:1–15

Letters in antiquity, as in every age, had a conventional form. Whereas we begin with our address and the date, after which we greet our correspondent as “Dear ——————” (though he may be our worst enemy or a total stranger), the ancients had the sensible custom of starting with the name of the writer. They followed this with the name of the recipient and a greeting, giving the formula “A to B, Greeting.” There was usually a little prayer. In letters of a formal character written to strangers that was all. But titles were added to the names in official letters and expressions of warmth and esteem in more personal letters. The prayer might be no more than conventional good wishes (“May the gods preserve you”). Or it might be a genuine thanksgiving for blessings received. Here is the opening of a letter which survives: “Serenus to his beloved sister Isidora, many greetings. Before all else I pray for your health….”¹Notice the use of the third person, which was normal.

Paul follows the usual pattern in all his letters, though with some significant modifications.² He takes his letter openings more seriously than do his more conventional contemporaries, and he makes them the vehicles of important Christian teaching. This ordinarily means a somewhat longer introduction than was normal. Nowhere is Paul’s ability to use the framework more apparent than in Romans. This opening is longer and much more formal than in Paul’s other letters—perhaps because he was not personally known to the Roman church, perhaps also because he did not want anyone to doubt his position as an apostle. It will be convenient to divide his opening into two parts, dealing first with his greeting and then with his prayer.

A. Salutation, 1:1–7

¹Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— ²the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures ³regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, ⁴and who through the Spirit^a of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. ⁵Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. ⁶And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

⁷To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

In this opening Paul speaks of his relationship to Christ and to the gospel, of the purpose God worked out in Christ’s saving work, and of the nature of Christian service. These first seven verses are one complicated sentence in Greek (Paul often uses such long, complicated sentences).

1. Normally Paul associates others with himself in his opening greeting.³ The absence of this feature marks Romans as highly personal. The name Paul is first used in Acts 13:9. The apostle’s original name, “Saul”, is from a Hebrew word with a meaning like “asked”⁴ (cf. Samuel, 1 Sam. 1:20). It was not uncommon for a first-century Jew to bear two names, a Greek or Roman name as well as his original Hebrew name. Since Paul was a Roman citizen he would have had three names, but it is understandable that he would not have emphasized his superior status when writing to fellow Christians who were mostly from the lower orders. “Paul” derives from the Latin paulus, meaning “little”. This may mean that the apostle was short of stature (is this meant in 2 Cor. 10:1, 10?),⁵ or it may be due to nothing more profound than that the name had a sound resembling Saul.⁶ For some reason he seems to have been known generally by his Latin rather than his Hebrew name.

He calls himself a servant of Christ Jesus, servant being a strong term meaning “slave”⁷ (used in similar fashion in Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:1; Jas. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1). As the Christians used it, the term conveys the idea of complete and utter devotion,⁸ not the abjectness which was the normal condition of the slave.⁹ Paul is affirming that he belongs to Christ without reservation.¹⁰ The term is applied to Abraham (Gen. 26:24), to Moses (Josh. 1:2), and to the prophets from the time of Amos (Amos 3:7; Isa. 20:3). Paul may thus be quietly affirming that he stands in the true succession of the prophets.¹¹ If this is in mind, it may be significant that he speaks of himself as the slave, not of God (as the prophets did), but of Christ. He puts Christ in the highest possible place.¹²

The probability is that he here calls his Savior Christ Jesus¹³ (though some hold that the order of the words should be reversed). “Christ” of course means “Messiah”, and many think that Paul normally uses the term as a title.¹⁴ But Vincent Taylor argues convincingly that we should usually understand the word as a proper name in Paul.¹⁵ This is supported both by the way Paul uses it and the frequency with which he employs it. In all Paul uses the term 379 times out of its 529 New Testament occurrences (65 in Romans). The highest total in any non-Pauline writing is 25 in Acts. It is thus to Paul that we owe our habit of calling our Lord simply “Christ”. The Gospels show that during his lifetime the title was used of him but rarely and that Jesus himself preferred “the Son of man”. In the other non-Pauline writings “Christ” is used on occasion, but some other name is more usual. But Paul habitually used the term, and from him it has passed into the common Christian vocabulary. This does not mean that he has forgotten that it is a title with the meaning “Messiah”; sometimes he uses it in the strict sense. But usually we cannot press it. Jesus the human name, of course, means “Savior”. Paul uses it 37 times (38 if 16:24 be accepted) in Romans and 213 (214) times in all (John with 237 references is the only writer with more). While he does not employ it as frequently as Christ, clearly Paul loves the human name. When he combines the two he prefers the order “Christ Jesus” to “Jesus Christ” by a margin of 73 to 18 (omitting 24 cases where the MSS are divided). But if he includes “Lord” the order is reversed, with “Jesus” coming first 49 times and “Christ” eight times.

He proceeds to say that he is called to be an apostle. Since the Greek has no “to be”, we could take the words to mean “a called apostle” (as Boylan does). Nothing has to be supplied to get this meaning. But few accept it because it would imply that some other apostles were not called, and on Pauline premises this would be an absurdity. NIV is surely correct in supplying “to be”. The idea of a divine call is important for Paul, as we see from the fact that he uses the adjective called¹⁶ in seven of its ten New Testament occurrences. It stresses the priority of the divine (“neither self-appointed nor chosen by men”, Hodge). We should notice that for Paul the idea of call includes the notion of response. The “called” are those who have not only heard but have obeyed the divine call. Paul thinks of an “effectual call”.¹⁷ In stressing the thought of call Paul is not making an innovation. Many Old Testament worthies were called by God, such as Abraham (Gen. 12:1), Moses (Exod. 3:4ff.), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:4ff.), Amos (Amos 7:15), and especially Isaiah (Isa. 6). Paul sees his task in life (like theirs) not as self-chosen, nor as mapped out for him by men (cf. Gal. 1:1), but as God’s own call.

His call is to be an apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1).¹⁸ Paul makes a good deal of use of this term. Perhaps surprisingly he rarely uses it of the Twelve. Mostly he uses it of himself or of apostles generally.¹⁹

The word means “someone who is sent, a messenger”. Paul had been “sent” as well as “called”. In the New Testament apostles were men of high dignity, owing their appointment directly to God (Gal. 1:1) and being mentioned first in the list of those appointed in the church (1 Cor. 12:28). They were concerned with establishing and caring for churches. The Twelve whom Jesus called were held in high honor, but Paul does not see his apostleship as in any way inferior to that of any (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11). He had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) and had been commissioned by him (Gal. 1:1). He had manifested the signs “that mark an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). He had a special responsibility as “the apostle to the Gentiles” (11:13).²⁰

Paul says that he is set apart for the gospel of God. He uses this verb of his being set apart “from birth” (Gal. 1:15; there also it is linked with the idea of call; cf. Jer. 1:5; Acts 9:15). It is used of the setting apart of Barnabas and Saul for missionary work (Acts 13:2). Interestingly, it is connected with the root from which the Pharisees delighted to derive their name. They held that “Pharisee” means “separated one”,²¹ and Paul would have regarded himself in this light when he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5). Now, however, he is separated to a greater purpose. We often understand separation negatively, as separation “from” something. But here it is positive. Paul is separated “to” the gospel (cf. Acts 13:2). Gospel is a definitely Pauline word (60 times in Paul out of its 76 New Testament occurrences; nine times in Romans and Philippians is the most in any one book).²² It is found in every Pauline writing except Titus. The word basically means “good news”.²³ In a Christian context there is no good news to compare with the news of what God has done in Christ for man’s salvation.²⁴ It is this for which Paul is set apart. Some understand this to mean “set apart to preach the gospel”. It certainly includes this, but it is surely more. It means to live the gospel. Preaching is important, but then so is living. Paul’s call was to a way of life as well as to a task of preaching.

The gospel is the gospel of God (as in Mark 1:14; Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 4:17). Elsewhere Paul sees it as “the gospel of his Son” (v. 9), “the gospel of Christ” (15:19; it centers on his saving work), and “my gospel” (2:16; 16:25; the preacher must make the gospel his own). When the gospel is spoken of as God’s, it is referred to its ultimate source. It is rooted in God’s eternal purpose. It is promised in Scripture (v. 2). It takes its origin in God’s concern for his people and his will to save them.²⁵

God is the most important word in this epistle.²⁶ Romans is a book about God. No topic is treated with anything like the frequency of God. Everything Paul touches in this letter he relates to God. In our concern to understand what the apostle is saying about righteousness, justification, and the like we ought not to overlook his tremendous concentration on God. There is nothing like it elsewhere.²⁷

2. Paul’s emphasis on the divine continues. That the gospel is part of God’s unchanging purpose is evident from the fact that it was promised beforehand²⁸ in the prophetic writings. It is God’s gift, part of his purpose for his people. In that he has now fulfilled what he promised it is plain that God can be trusted and the gospel accepted. Notice that the prophets are called his prophets. Paul is not speaking of men of vision in general, men who by their innate abilities could discern the signs of the times. He is speaking of men who belong to God, the vehicles of his message. When a promise is given through (not “by”) such men, then clearly it is the promise of God. We are probably right in interpreting the term prophets as not only the prophets in the strict, technical sense, but all the Old Testament writers (cf. Heb. 1:1).²⁹ So Paul proceeds to locate the promise in the Holy Scriptures, or, more exactly, in “holy writings”.³⁰ The expression normally has the article (as NIV), but twice, in 16:26 and here, the Greek has the plural without the article, the noun being there qualified by the adjective “prophetic” and here by “holy”. This use is distinctly exceptional. It would be possible to recall the original meaning of the word and translate here by “holy writings”. But the reference to the prophets makes it clear that Paul has in mind the Old Testament. We should thus translate by “holy scriptures”. But by omitting the article Paul is emphasizing the character of these writings as “holy” (for this term see on v. 7)³¹ rather than following his usual practice of making them definite with the use of the article. It may well be that his gospel of grace had been misunderstood and that he had been accused of putting out teachings which destroyed the Old Testament. It was important to Paul, as to all the early Christians, that the gospel was the fulfilment of the Old Testament. It is the realization in action of what God had promised through his own prophets. It is the fulfilment of promises which had been recorded in writings which must be received with reverence, for they are holy.

3. That the gospel concerns the Son³² points to the central role of the Son in salvation. The title is one of high dignity, as is fitting for one who accomplished so great a work. As Paul uses the term, it involves community of nature with the Father.³³ That the Messiah would be a descendant of David is taught in the Old Testament (Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5–6; Ezek. 34:23–24, etc.) and elsewhere.³⁴ The idea is found in a number of places in the New Testament. Paul’s expression here means “became³⁵ of the seed of David according to the flesh”, “the seed of David” being referred to on a number of occasions besides the present passage (John 7:42; 2 Tim. 2:8). Jesus is also called the “Son of David” a total of 12 times,³⁶ and there are other references of a somewhat similar character.³⁷ Jesus does not call himself “Son of David” and indeed on occasion seems to distance himself from the title (Mark 12:35–37).³⁸ But we should not exaggerate the significance of this, for when the title was directly applied to him he did not reject it (Mark 10:47–52). The facts seem to indicate that it was widely expected that the Messiah would be of David’s line and that Jesus knew that he was of Davidic descent. But presumably because of popular messianic expectations he put no emphasis on the fact.³⁹ The Davidic descent is thus of importance for an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship. It is, however, an aspect of the Messiah which evidently did not mean much to Paul, for he does not specifically mention it elsewhere (though 15:12 comes close).

Many hold that in vv. 3b–4 Paul is not composing freely but making use of a primitive Christian creed. This is supported by the structure of the section (parallelism and the like), the reference to David, some un-Pauline vocabulary,⁴⁰ and some theological implications of what is written which scholars find difficult to ascribe to Paul.⁴¹ It is quite possible that Paul is referring to a traditional summary of the faith familiar to the Romans. It would make good sense for him to assure them of his orthodoxy by citing words they accepted and with which they were familiar.⁴² But the credal hypothesis is not as certain as many assume. There is no way we can be sure of it, and in any case there are difficulties. Thus we have no real evidence for fixed credal forms until a considerably later time. Such “credal” fragments as scholars discern in the New Testament differ from one another whereas it is of the essence of creeds that they do not (there is no point in having a creed if people are free to modify it as they will). Further, the question arises as to whether the “creed” Paul uses is Roman or, say, Corinthian. If it was Roman, how did Paul come to know it? If it was Corinthian, how would the Romans recognize it? Such questions may have answers, but we should not assume that they do not arise. And the possibility must be kept in mind that Paul was not so much quoting a creed as making free use of traditional expressions.⁴³ In any case, if Paul is quoting we have no reason for thinking anything other than that what he has quoted he has made his own.⁴⁴

Paul proceeds to qualify his reference to Christ’s descent with as to his human nature, or more literally, “according to the flesh”. He uses the term “flesh” in a bewildering variety of ways and characteristically of the moral frailty which is so much a part of human life (see the note on 7:5). Here, however, the meaning will be as far as human nature, or perhaps physical descent, is concerned. On the level of flesh, of human life, Jesus really was a descendant of David (cf. 9:5). Theodoret, a fifth-century writer, pointed out that this way of expressing it carries the implication that there is more to be said. “The addition ‘according to the flesh’ is not predicated of those who are merely what they are seen to be”, and he cites the absence of the expression from Matthew’s genealogy to prove his point.⁴⁵ The words imply that Jesus was more than human. Otherwise it would be sufficient to say that he was of the seed of David.

4. The verb rendered declared has been variously understood. Cognate with the word for a “boundary”, it means something like “bounded”, “marked out”, “designated”⁴⁶ (as RSV, NASB, NEB, GNB, Goodspeed, etc.). If we accept this, we will see the meaning as that the resurrection showed Jesus to be the Son of God. Others prefer the meaning “appointed” (as in Luke 22:22; Acts 10:42, etc.). If this be accepted, it will be in the sense that he who was Son of God in weakness and lowliness during his earthly life “Through the resurrection … became the Son of God in power” (Nygren).⁴⁷ Paul would not have accepted a view that Jesus was not divine until “appointed” Son of God (cf. Phil. 2:5–11).⁴⁸ Leslie C. Allen stresses the link with Psalm 2:7 and sees the meaning as “decreed to be the Son of God”.⁴⁹ K. L. Schmidt argues that there is no great urgency to decide between “declaration or decree” and “appointment and institution” because “a divine declaration is the same as a divine appointment: God’s verbum is efficax.”⁵⁰ It would seem that declared is the better way to understand the expression, but that “appointed” is possible in a sense which safeguards the truth that Jesus was Son of God before as well as after the resurrection.⁵¹

There is an ambiguity in that the words with power might be taken either with declared (“powerfully declared”, as NIV, GNB, SH, etc.) or with Son of God (“declared to be the powerful Son of God”, as JB, Käsemann, etc.). Grammatically either view is possible. Perhaps it is a little more likely that Paul has the latter meaning in mind. There is a sense in which Jesus was the Son of God in weakness before the resurrection but the Son of God in power thereafter. Elsewhere Paul can say that Christ “was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power” (2 Cor. 13:4), and it seems that he has in mind something of the same sort here. Jesus used the title Son of God very little (though cf. Matt. 27:43; John 10:36). He preferred “Son of man”. But Jesus’ own name for himself for some reason was not acceptable in the early church (it is found outside the Gospels only in Acts 7:56). Instead such a title as Son of God was favored, perhaps because it expressed so plainly what the early Christians thought about Jesus. The word here rendered power is used in the Synoptic Gospels for Jesus’ miracles, the “mighty works”.⁵² Paul is fond of contrasting mere words with power. The gospel does not simply offer people some bright ideas and then leave them to put them into practice as best they can. Christians live out their faith in a strength not their own, the power of God’s Holy Spirit. Here the note of power receives stress. The resurrection introduces us to that which overcomes death, a power alongside of which the mightiest of human forces is seen for the puny thing it is.

Through the Spirit of holiness⁵³ introduces a further ambiguity. This might mean “according to his (the Son’s) holy spirit” and refer either to the human spirit of Jesus⁵⁴ or to his divine nature.⁵⁵ Or it might mean “according to the Holy Spirit”.⁵⁶ There are difficulties with both views. The view that it refers to Jesus’ human spirit is supported by the fact that there has just been a reference to “the flesh” which, it would seem, should be balanced by one to the spirit. Lagrange argues that just as “flesh” points to Christ’s humanity, so does “spirit” to his divinity. But against such views Jesus’ human spirit is never elsewhere referred to in terms anything like “a spirit of holiness” or “a holy spirit”. This sounds so much like a reference to the Holy Spirit as to be confusing. It is objected to the view that the Holy Spirit is meant that he is not normally associated with the resurrection. This is usually reinforced by the requirement for an antithesis to “the flesh” in verse 3. Hodge, indeed, is so impressed by this that he thinks a reference to the Holy Spirit “destroys the antithesis”. Paul, however, is not such a systematic writer that this is decisive. He quite often fails to supply antitheses we might think required, and we cannot insist on one here. And, while it is true that the Holy Spirit is not normally linked with the resurrection, it seems too much to say that he never can be.⁵⁷ Paul seems, then, to be speaking of the power of the Holy Spirit of God as shown in the resurrection and the designation of Christ as the powerful Son of God. A less probable alternative is that the sending of the Holy Spirit by the exalted Jesus (cf. Acts 2:33) is evidence that the Son has truly been exalted in power.⁵⁸

The words rendered by his resurrection from the dead could also be understood in the sense “from the time of the resurrection from the dead”.⁵⁹ There is certainly some reference to time, but this is not primary. Rather, the emphasis is on the fact that the resurrection is that whereby Christ is seen to be the Son of God in power. There is no his in the Greek and the resurrection from the dead would normally be taken to refer to the general resurrection at the last day (the identical or almost identical expression is taken in this way in Matt. 22:31; Luke 20:35; Acts 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 1 Cor. 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6:2).⁶⁰ But the words apparently can mean the resurrection of one man (Acts 26:23).⁶¹ This is the meaning required here. It is Jesus’ own resurrection of which Paul is writing. But we should not overlook the fact that he chooses to do this in a way more commonly used to denote the general resurrection.⁶² As Nygren puts it: “the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are not two totally different things…. For Paul the resurrection of Christ is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead.” Elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20), and it may be that it is this that is behind the present expression (cf. 8:11). Christ’s resurrection is no isolated event, but has important consequences for mankind at large. The emphasis is not, however, on this, but rather on the fact that the resurrection shows Jesus to be the powerful Son of God. In the light of the resurrection he is not to be classed with the generality of mankind.

Paul goes on to give him the full title Jesus Christ our Lord. For Jesus Christ see on verse 1. Paul uses the title Lord 275 times (out of 718 in the New Testament). This term could be no more than a polite form of address like our “Sir”. But it could also be used of the deity one worships.⁶³ The really significant background, though, is its use in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to render the divine name, Yahweh. Where the Hebrew has this name of God the LXX frequently translates with “Lord”. Christians who used this as their Bible would be familiar with the term as equivalent to deity. They were thus taking a significant step when they used it of Jesus. In referring to Jesus Paul is fond of compound expressions. He uses the combination Jesus Christ 15–19 times in this letter (the exact number depending on the resolution of textual problems) and the reverse, “Christ Jesus”, 13–16 times. Lord is combined with one or both of these names 17 times, to which “our” is added 12 times and “your” once.⁶⁴ In all he uses the full expression Jesus Christ our Lord about 68 times, whereas the rest of the New Testament has it but 19 times (CGT). From all this it is clear that Paul is fond of compound names. Perhaps they helped him bring out something of the majesty of the Savior.

5. Through him appears to mean that the gifts in question come from God the Father and that he gives them “through” the Son. This gives good sense and may well be right. But the Greek preposition rendered through⁶⁵ may on occasion denote the ultimate source (as it does in 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:9; Gal. 1:1). Paul may thus mean “from God”. But even if the preposition has this meaning, Paul seems to have in mind that Christ is the giver. These uncertainties do not affect the main sense, namely that the apostle is speaking not of human achievement but of a divine gift. He often emphasizes that he owes all to Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:1, 12, 16).

We should probably take his we as an epistolary plural with the meaning “I” (in English we have the royal plural and the editorial plural; in Greek the writer of a letter sometimes says “we” where we would use the singular). The point is that apostleship is not a gift common to Christians at large, so that Paul can scarcely mean “you Romans and I”.⁶⁶ Some scholars think that the meaning is “we apostles”. This is not impossible, but it does raise the question of why Paul should drag in a reference to other apostles which he does not follow up. This would be all the more curious in the salutation of a letter from Paul alone, not from Paul and other apostles.

Grace is a typically Pauline word. It is found in the apostle’s writings no less than 100 times out of its 155 New Testament occurrences, so that Paul uses it approximately twice out of every three times it is found in these books. He uses it 24 times in Romans, the highest number in any one book (next is 2 Corinthians with 18, then Acts with 17). The word is cognate with that for “joy”, and the basic meaning is “that which causes joy”. We still retain some of this meaning when we speak of, say, a ballet dancer moving gracefully, that is, in a pleasing, “joy-giving” manner, or when we refer to “the social graces”. In a Christian context nothing brings joy like that great, inexplicable⁶⁷ saving act of God in Christ in which he freely brings about our salvation without any contribution from our side. The term thus comes to us rich with ideas of joy and bounty. Grace may be specifically opposed to what is due (4:4), or again, to works (11:6). The thought is of something completely unearned and unmerited. The word may be used of salvation in general (“by grace you have been saved”, Eph. 2:8),⁶⁸ but here it is a gift for service.⁶⁹ It is the free, divine gift which enables Paul to carry out the task allotted to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:12–14). Here grace is linked with apostleship.⁷⁰ The meaning may well be that Paul received grace for his work as an apostle (“grace of apostleship”), though it is also possible that he refers to grace as that which enables him to live the specifically Christian life in common with other believers, and apostleship as the peculiar gift God had given him for his ministry. Either way grace is not regarded, here or elsewhere, as a gift given for the recipient’s personal and private enjoyment. It is given in accordance with God’s will and to further God’s purposes.

Paul goes on to the purpose of the gift. The word rendered obedience⁷¹ is not found in pre-Christian writings (apart from one occurrence in LXX and one in Aquila). Christians did not, of course, bring the concept of obedience into the world. This virtue was known and appreciated long before, even if it found expression in other words. But certainly Christians gave it a new emphasis. Obedience follows from the truth Paul expressed in his opening line when he described himself as a “slave” of Christ. Believers belong to Christ without reserve. Therefore they owe him the most complete obedience. It is not without interest that this epistle, which puts such stress on the free salvation won for us by Christ’s atoning act, should also stress the importance of obedient response.

This is further brought out with a characteristic reference to faith.⁷² In the New Testament this noun normally denotes the attitude of trust, though sometimes it refers to what is believed, that is, the faith (e.g., Jude 3). In the present passage the expression is literally “to obedience of faith”,⁷³ an expression which recurs in 16:26 and which may be taken in any one of a number of ways.

(a) The genitive may be objective and faith mean “the faith”, the body of teachings held by Christians. Thus Moffatt translates, “to promote obedience to the faith” (cf. 6:17; Acts 6:7). The absence of the article tells against this; therefore, some adopt the variant, “obedience to the authority of faith”, or even “obedience to God’s faithfulness”. The last two are possible, but they do not spring to the mind.

(b) The genitive may be subjective and denote origin, “obedience which springs from faith” (BAGD), or “obedience which faith demands”.⁷⁴

(c) The genitive might be epexegetic, meaning “obedience which consists in faith”⁷⁵ (so Murray, Cranfield, etc.).⁷⁶ The absence of the article makes (a) less plausible. There is more to be said for (b), and in any case it expresses an important truth. Many favor (c), but there is a problem in that, while faith and obedience go together, they are not identical. Why use two words for one meaning? It seems rather that the gospel is seen as demanding the response of faith. Accordingly, the way to obey is to believe. But obedience is more than faith, and faith is more than obedience.

Whichever way we take the expression, obedience is not an option (cf. 1 John 3:23–24). It is binding on all Christians. “Faith’s obedience” is a reminder that, as Paul understood it, faith is not an easy out for those who find a strict morality irksome. When anyone is saved through faith, it is with a view to obedience. The life is given in service to the Lord in whom one has come to believe. In some modern discussions Paul is seen as a charismatic, impatient of rules and institutions. Whatever be the truth about that, he clearly valued obedience. He was not free to innovate where God had made his will known.

For his name’s sake means something like “for his sake”.⁷⁷ In New Testament times “the name” had a much fuller significance than with us. We see it as a label, a way of differentiating one from another. But in antiquity generally it was held that in some undefined way the name summed up the whole person. That is the significance of changing a person’s name. God changed people’s names at times when he bestowed a new character on them (e.g., Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:28). When one person changed another person’s name it emphasized his lordship (2 Kings 24:17, etc.). Here name stands for the whole person.⁷⁸ Paul’s obedience was to all that Christ stands for.⁷⁹

In Paul’s case this was to be worked out among all the Gentiles. “All” is a word of which Paul is fond, and he uses it in over one third of its New Testament occurrences.⁸⁰ It may perhaps indicate the largeness of his vision. He was not apt to concentrate on some insignificant segment of any matter with which he was dealing.⁸¹ The word Gentiles is one he shares with Acts.⁸² Paul saw his vocation as specifically to the Gentiles (11:13; Gal. 2:9). This was a tremendous step of faith for a Jew, a Pharisee, and a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:4ff.). And when he turned to the Gentiles, he saw not a part only but all the Gentiles as coming within the scope of his commission. There was nothing small-minded about Paul.⁸³

6. Paul’s correspondents, whom he has not yet seen, come under the heading “Gentiles”. This may mean that the church at Rome was predominantly Gentile (so SH, Barrett, Bruce, etc.). Or it may point to its geographical location at the heart of the Roman Empire, and thus of the Gentile world (Cranfield). The former seems more likely, but either way this justifies the apostle of the Gentiles in writing to the Roman believers. Actually the Greek is not unambiguous, and it may be that we should take you also not with the preceding (“the Gentiles among whom you also are”) but with the following, as NIV, which groups the Romans with others who are called. But it seems better to take them with the preceding, as RSV, GNB, etc. In that case Paul is saying that the Romans are among the Gentiles and then goes on to refer to them as called. He used this word in verse 1 (where see note) of his own special call as an apostle. Now he balances this with the reminder that, while great apostles are certainly called by God, this is also true of every humble believer. When we think of our position as Christians we are inclined to think first of what we do, and so we speak of our faith or our commitment or the like. But Paul stresses God’s initiative. Christians are people whom God has called. He goes on to speak of being called to belong to Jesus Christ. There is a responsibility attaching to call. Those called belong to Christ. Their lives are his.⁸⁴

7. We come to the address: To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints. We have already noticed Paul’s fondness for the word all (see on v. 5). He leaves out nobody as he greets the church.⁸⁵ He proceeds to speak of the Roman Christians as “God’s beloved”.⁸⁶ It is only because of God’s self-giving love that the gospel, and hence the church, exists at all (cf. 5:5, 8; 8:35ff.). That Christians are loved by God is not a truism but a truth to be received with awe and wonder.

For called see on verse 1. The call of the rank and file of the Roman church balances that of the great apostle. Great leaders are called, but then so are all God’s lowly people. Saints is a term frequently used in the New Testament to denote Christians in general. Some deduce from passages like 15:25 and Ephesians 2:19 that the word was used by Jews or Jewish Christians as a self-designation to link them with the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:22; cf. 27). If so, Paul is putting the Gentile believers in the same class. The term reminds us of the essential character of being Christian. The word⁸⁷ basically signifies “set apart”, “separated”. We normally use this concept in a negative way and after “separated” we naturally supply “from”. But the separation of which Paul writes is not so much a separation “from” anything as a separation “to” God. It is positive, not negative. The saints are peculiarly God’s. They are set apart for him, “called to be his dedicated people” (NEB).⁸⁸ The word contains a challenge to faithful Christian service, for saints should live in accordance with the character implied in being thus set apart. At the same time their being saints at all is by virtue of their divine calling, not their own moral achievement.

We should not overlook the plural. We sometimes speak of an individual man or woman as “a saint” or refer to “St. Peter”, “St. Mary”, or the like. This is not a New Testament usage. The word is never used there of any individual believer. It is always plural when used of believers, and the plural points to believers as a group, a community set apart for God. Again, the term does not convey the idea of outstanding ethical achievement which we usually understand by “saintliness”. While the importance of right living is insisted on and may even be implied with this very term, the main thrust is not there. It is rather in the notion of belonging to God.

The rest of the verse contains Paul’s standard greeting, a form which other Christians apparently took over from him. While in a general way it corresponds to openings to letters at large, the precise form Paul gives it is not found before his time. The Greeks normally began with “Greeting”,⁸⁹ a word which in sound, though not in meaning, is close to “grace”. “Peace” reflects the usual Hebrew salutation. Thus Paul’s opening combines features from both groups.⁹⁰ For grace see on verse 5. The combination grace and peace is found already in Numbers 6:25–26.⁹¹ Peace is only slightly less Pauline than is grace. Paul has almost half the New Testament occurrences of the word.⁹² The Greeks generally understood peace as a negative thing, the absence of war. But in the New Testament the word has much of the positive connotation of the Hebrew shalom, which it constantly translates in LXX. For the Hebrews and the people of the New Testament peace was not so much the absence of war or strife as the presence of positive blessing.⁹³ In this greeting it always follows grace. It may not be pressing this unduly to see that it is only God’s grace that brings real peace.

Among Christians the characteristic name for God is Father.⁹⁴ This term is, of course, far from being confined to Christians. Pagans also used it, but for them it was not typical and for Christians it was (and is). The word expresses something of the love and tender concern that God so constantly shows his people. In the first century it also conveyed the thought of absolute rule, for the father in those days was supreme in his family (among the Romans the head of the house even had the right to put members of his household to death, even if this was done very rarely; cf. Gen. 38:24). But the main thing is the love and care which God never fails to show. As he does habitually, Paul links the Lord Jesus Christ with the Father in this salutation.⁹⁵ We should not overlook the very natural way in which the two are linked. “St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it” (SH). The same writers see this as pointing to the Trinity: “There is nothing more wonderful in the history of Christian thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths.”⁹⁶ In view of later church history this may be a trifle optimistic, but the New Testament usage is noteworthy. It is impossible to think of any other than Christ as being linked to the Father in this way. The formula tells us something important about the person of Christ.

B. Prayer, 1:8–15

⁸First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. ⁹God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you ¹⁰in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

¹¹I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— ¹²that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. ¹³I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

¹⁴I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. ¹⁵That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Some pious expression was often found at the beginning of a first-century letter. It might be a little prayer that things would go well with the recipient(s) of the letter,⁹⁷ or perhaps a thanksgiving for blessings received. Paul makes something very real of this feature of early correspondence,⁹⁸ and we find a thanksgiving at this point in all his letters except Galatians (which has instead, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting…”). It is not surprising to find him praying for his converts, but it is interesting that he here prays for the Roman Christians, whom he did not know. Clearly his prayers were wide-ranging. This prayer expresses some of the intensity of the feeling with which the apostle had longed to visit Rome to work among the Christians there and to preach the gospel to the heathen. We gather incidentally from his words something of the reputation the Roman Christians had at that time.

8. Paul proceeds to thank God for what he had done among the Romans. The apostle begins with First, but he never does get around to a corresponding “second”.⁹⁹ This phenomenon may be due to a combination of the tumultuous way Paul’s thoughts tumbled out and the method of writing, by dictation to a secretary,¹⁰⁰ a procedure which does not make for the smoothing out of all grammatical irregularities. He begins with thanksgiving.¹⁰¹ He has used the epistolary plural in verse 5, but here, writing more personally, he uses the singular. He addresses God as my God, an expression he uses but rarely (2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 1:3; 4:19; Phlm. 4; some MSS of 1 Cor. 1:4). It reminds us that personal relationship is important in religion, a truth brought out by the frequent use of this kind of language in the Psalms.¹⁰² He offers his thanksgiving through Jesus Christ, another unusual expression;¹⁰³ neither Paul nor anyone else can presume to approach God of himself (cf. Heb. 13:15). The matter of his thanksgiving is that the faith of the Roman Christians is being reported¹⁰⁴ all over the world (cf. 1 Thess. 1:8 and, from another standpoint, Col. 1:5–6). He uses two different words for all (in all of you and all over the world),¹⁰⁵ but there seems no difference in meaning; we should see the change as stylistic. Both are a trifle hyperbolic. Paul did not know all the Romans or indeed many of them. And it is possible that some parts of the world did not speak about their faith. But the statement is meaningful. It brings out the facts that Paul is happy with what he knows about the whole church and that it had a good reputation throughout the world of the day. Faith is what really matters, and clearly Paul could take it for granted that the Romans were in agreement on the point.¹⁰⁶ Without it neither a person nor a church has claim to the name “Christian”. Sometimes the apostle’s words are taken to mean that the Romans were outstanding, as when Barrett sees the meaning as, “ ‘the faith as you hold it’, that is, the understanding, constancy, and charity with which you hold it.” Barth’s position is more in accordance with the text: “Paul does not thank God for the piety of the Roman Christians…. He simply gives thanks for the fact that there are Christians in Rome” (so Nygren, Lagrange, Leenhardt, SH, etc.). It must have meant much to the scattered little Christian communities¹⁰⁷ that the church was established in the world’s capital city. So they spoke of it with satisfaction, and Paul gives thanks for it. World is largely a Pauline and Johannine term in the New Testament.¹⁰⁸ In Romans the word normally means the world at large, as here, or else the inhabitants of the world; it is not used of the world in opposition to God as often in John and sometimes elsewhere in Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:21).

9–10. Paul links this statement to the preceding in logical sequence with “For” (which NIV omits). It is a favorite word of Paul’s¹⁰⁹ and one very much at home in the argumentative style of this epistle. Here it introduces a statement explaining what the writer has just said. He is very much in earnest, as his calling of God to witness shows. This is a kind of oath, a very solemn affirmation of the truth of a statement which could be known only to God.¹¹⁰ The form is purely Pauline in the New Testament (with minor variants in 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10; but cf. Rev. 1:5; 3:14). On this occasion it is clearly very relevant, for (a) Paul had never yet been to Rome though for many years he had been “the Apostle of the Gentiles”, and (b) even as he wrote he was about to go off in the opposite direction, to Jerusalem. As he preaches the gospel Paul has given his life to the service¹¹¹ of God, this God whom he calls to witness, and this in no shallow, surface manner but with my whole heart, or more exactly, “in my spirit”.¹¹² This may carry with it the thought that the service of God must be carried out in the spirit rather than the letter, as some think. It certainly stresses the thought that there is nothing superficial about the apostle’s service. He serves God with his innermost being, with all his might. Hodge sees this as “opposed at once to an insincere, and to a mere external service”, while Cranfield finds a reference to “his praying as being the inward side of his apostolic service contrasted with the outward side consisting of his preaching, etc.”¹¹³

One may characterize the gospel in various ways (see on 1:1). Here Paul speaks of it as the gospel of his Son (cf. 15:19). It centers on Christ’s atoning act. Without that there would be no gospel. In a very special sense it is Christ’s own gospel. Paul speaks of his service of God as “in the gospel” (not in preaching the gospel; he says nothing about preaching, but simply that he serves in his spirit in the gospel). The gospel is central to the living out of the Christian life as Paul sees it; really to understand the gospel and accept it means a change in one’s whole life. It is central to Paul’s preaching, certainly (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17). But that is not his point here.

That for which Paul calls God to witness is the way he prays for the Roman Christians: how constantly¹¹⁴ I remember you in my prayers. He never stops. Remember is more exactly “make¹¹⁵ mention”, and Paul uses his word for “mention”¹¹⁶ seven times but it is found nowhere else in the New Testament. Since Paul has no special corner on any of the other words for remembrance, this is striking, though it is not easy to see whether this has significance. It is used of remembrance in prayer on every occasion but one (1 Thess. 3:6).

At all times¹¹⁷ emphasizes that Paul’s remembrance of the Romans is unvarying, not sporadic. His word for prayers is not found in the classical writers before the New Testament (though it does occur in LXX and the papyri); but the Christians found it congenial and used it often.¹¹⁸

At this point we notice an ambiguity arising from the way we punctuate. The most ancient manuscripts had no punctuation (or very little), and the punctuation we find in modern editions and translations is supplied by editors and translators. Paul says something very like: “how constantly mention of you I make always at my prayers asking….” We could put a comma after “make” to give the sense: “how constantly I make mention of you, always at my prayers asking….” Or we could put our comma after “prayers” thus: “how constantly I always make mention of you at my prayers, asking….” Many modern translations favor the latter (as RSV, NIV, Moffatt), though it is also possible to opt for the former (with ASV, NEB). The difficulty with the former way is that there is nothing in the first clause to indicate that prayer is in mind, and it is further urged that it is doubtful whether Paul in his prayers invariably prayed to go to Rome. The problem with the latter is that “how unceasingly” and “always” appear very awkwardly in the same clause. But, however we resolve the problem, Paul is saying two things: in the first instance he prays for the Roman Christians constantly and in the second he asks God to let him visit them.

I pray renders a word which strictly points to petition from a sense of need,¹¹⁹ though we should probably not stress this. Paul proceeds to pile up a group of Greek particles which are the despair of the Greek student and which NIV reduces to now at last.¹²⁰ Paul does not particularize the method or the time, but he does want to come to Rome. Notice, however, that he slips in the caveat, by God’s will. His primary concern is to follow God’s leading, not to fulfil plans of his own making. He wants to come to Rome, but only in the way and at the time God chooses. The verse contains an interesting combination of Paul’s longing to visit Rome¹²¹ and of respect for the will of God. And it is the will of God on which the emphasis is placed.¹²²

11. But the longing is there—a deep and strong desire (cf. Acts 19:21). Paul proceeds to speak of it, and he makes it clear that it is no selfish desire. He longs¹²³ to see his Roman friends, not primarily to get something out of them, but in order to impart something to them, some spiritual gift to make you strong. In this place spiritual can do no more than add emphasis, for the idea is already there in the noun. Gift renders charisma, the word normally used of the special gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit (such as those discussed in 1 Cor. 12; cf. also Rom. 12:6ff.), gifts of healings, miracles, speaking with tongues, prophecy, teaching, and so on. But the word may also be used in a wider and more general sense of the gift God makes to every believer (5:15; 1 Pet. 4:10). Paul speaks of each as having a gift which determines whether he should live the married or the single life (1 Cor. 7:7). There is no reason to think that Paul has the special gifts in mind here, and the indefinite form of the expression¹²⁴ favors the more general concept. Nor is there any indication that he could have imparted such a gift if he wished to; they seem to have been gifts given by the Holy Spirit when and how he chose. The term is used here in the more general sense of anything that builds up the spiritual life. Paul wanted the Roman Christians to be strengthened in the faith as a result of the gift God would give them through his ministry. He speaks of strengthening them (and gives that as the purpose¹²⁵ of his proposed visit—he was not aimless in anything he did). Life was not easy for first-century Christians. At Rome, as elsewhere, it was important that they be strong.

12. Paul explains his meaning a little more, for what he has just said, though sincere, might seem boastful or patronizing.¹²⁶ Some suggest that Paul checks himself from reasons of policy, but this is not a cunning ploy, calculated to secure a desired effect. It is the simple truth. When he went to Rome the traffic would not be all one way.¹²⁷ Paul would doubtless bring something to the Roman Christians, but they would also help him. They would be mutually encouraged¹²⁸ by each other’s faith.¹²⁹ The mutuality is strengthened by the addition “both yours and mine”¹³⁰ (which NIV omits, thus losing a Pauline emphasis). This is not required by the sense, for the faith in question had to be that of Paul and the Romans. But the addition makes it quite clear that the faith of both was to be a factor in the situation. Paul was sure that the Romans would help him just as he would help them. Actually the translation that you and I may be mutually encouraged slightly oversimplifies the Greek. Paul says, “that is, to be encouraged among you”. He does not specify who is to be encouraged, though clearly he means himself (there is nobody else who is to be “among you”). But at this point he is thus putting more emphasis on his receiving from the Romans than on their receiving from him. He would certainly give them all he could. But he wants to leave no doubt but that he expected to be encouraged by their faith.¹³¹

13. I do not¹³² want¹³³ you to be unaware¹³⁴ is an expression Paul uses four times (11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1), while on two more occasions he differs only in using the plural “we” (2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13). He uses this expression as a rule when he is introducing his readers to something they might not be expected to know but which he regards as important. In this way he emphasizes it to some extent. Paul often uses brothers¹³⁵ as a form of address (in this epistle on no less than ten occasions), but it is rare outside his writings. Luke uses “men and brothers” and James “my brothers”. Normally the term carries overtones of affection, but since Paul had never been to Rome we must take this as an indication of the warmth of feeling he had for all who were kin to him in Christ.

This leads to the statement that he had often¹³⁶ intended¹³⁷ to come to Rome (cf. Acts 19:21), but had always been prevented.¹³⁸ He does not say what had prevented him; his emphatic term, however, implies that he had tried hard to make the trip but that circumstances beyond his control had prevented it. His aim in seeking to come to Rome was in order that I might have a harvest among you. Have a harvest is perhaps more accurately rendered, “get some fruit”¹³⁹ (cf. John 15:16), a term which is not further defined. There may be something of a double meaning: the harvest would be his gain and theirs. Usually in the New Testament “fruit” refers to qualities of character or the like, as when Paul speaks of the fruit of the Spirit as “love, joy, peace…” (Gal. 5:22). It may be that this is in mind here, but on the whole it seems a little more likely that he is thinking of converts. He had been the means of bringing people to believe in Christ elsewhere in the Gentile world (for “Gentile” see on v. 5). Now he looks for the same thing to happen in Rome. The other Gentiles shows that Paul had had a very extensive ministry, but we need not take it to mean that he had worked among all the other Gentiles without exception. The expression also shows that the Roman church had many Gentiles in it, perhaps that it was predominantly Gentile.

14. There is no connecting particle, a fact which Godet takes to indicate feeling. Paul goes straight on to I am bound both to Greeks and non-Greeks. I am bound is more literally “I am a debtor.”¹⁴⁰ Paul uses the concept of debt on a number of occasions (as in 8:12; 15:27; Gal. 5:3). Here he probably means that his commission as the apostle of the Gentiles put him under obligation to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, at Rome as elsewhere. For any of us to receive the gospel is to incur a debt, and Paul shared in this. “Obligation to him who died produces obligation to those for whom he died.”¹⁴¹ Earle speaks of “a vast amount of unnumbered blessings he had received from God” and adds, “All this put him under obligation.” But we should not overlook the fact that Paul speaks of being a debtor not to God, but to the Gentiles. This gives point to Barclay’s comment: “He was a debtor because of all the kindness that he had received, and he was a debtor because of his obligation to preach to them.” Cranfield rejects this and understands the words in the sense “having an obligation to them in the sense that God has laid upon him a duty toward them.”¹⁴² We need not tie Paul down too tightly and insist that his words be given the narrowest possible interpretation, but is this just to the fact that he speaks of himself as debtor to the Gentiles? It is better to see the thought as complex, certainly including all the implications of Paul’s commission to be the apostle to the Gentiles, but with a glance also at what he owes the Gentiles in so many ways. They had contributed to his understanding of life. There may also be the thought that he had “got fruit” among many nations and was thus indebted to them.¹⁴³ It is not completely clear whether Paul’s groups of people are meant to sum up all mankind or only the Gentiles. In favor of the Gentiles is his reference to them at the end of verse 13, but his language is quite general and there seems no real reason for excluding Jews. Perhaps the best understanding of the words is to see the gospel as imposing a debt on all who receive it, a debt which calls for repayment by passing the gospel on to someone else.

Paul lists some of those to whom he is indebted and begins with Greeks.¹⁴⁴ This term can have other meanings than “those of the Greek nation”. In the expression “Jew and Greek” it clearly means “Gentile” (cf. v. 16). Now and then it appears to mean Greek-speaking Jews or Jewish proselytes (John 12:20; Acts 17:4). At this period the Greek language and culture were widespread and people in many places had adopted both. The term could thus mean “people of culture”, which is possibly the way we should take it here. This is supported by the fact that it forms a pair with “barbarians”, and it would form a natural antithesis to see it as meaning “cultured”.¹⁴⁵ It is possible, however, that “Greeks and barbarians” should be understood as NIV, Greeks and non-Greeks, and thus the totality of mankind. “Barbarian”¹⁴⁶ originally meant someone who did not speak the local language. But it came to mean “one who lacks culture”, just as is the case with our word “barbarian”. Greeks and barbarians form a natural pair of opposites and sum up the world.¹⁴⁷ People are either cultured or uncultured.¹⁴⁸

Paul has another pair of opposites, the wise and the foolish.¹⁴⁹ Paul may decry worldly wisdom (as he does, e.g., in 1 Cor. 2), but he is deeply interested in true wisdom. He often reverts to the subject as he distinguishes between the wisdom of this world which he sees as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:20) and the true wisdom that comes from God. Here he is thinking of those the world counts as wise, but he is not contrasting their kind of wisdom with that which comes from God. He is accepting it for what it is and agreeing that it has its values. It is only when people use it to reject the divine wisdom that it is to be condemned. GT cites Aristotle’s definition of wisdom as “mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense.” It is something like this that Paul has in mind here, along with the point that Trench makes, that there is an important ethical element in wisdom.¹⁵⁰ By contrast, the foolish are those without understanding. They are not schooled in the niceties of philosophical debate, but that does not mean that Paul owes them nothing. He is in debt to all people, and he wants to do something to discharge the debt. This second division of mankind is not identical with the first. There could be foolish Greeks and there could be wise barbarians!

15. That is why expresses consequence: “since I am bound to all men” (Hodge). I am so eager is perhaps a little stronger than Paul’s words, which mean rather, “I am ready”. There is a slight difficulty with the Greek, but it appears to mean something like “as concerns me there is a readiness….”¹⁵¹ Whatever had prevented Paul from going to Rome till now had not been his own fault. He himself was quite ready, but matters he could not control had till now prevented him from making the trip.¹⁵² The reason he wanted to go to Rome was to preach the gospel¹⁵³ to the Romans. It is a revealing glimpse of his priorities. He has already said that he is separated to the gospel (v. 1), and it accords with this that when his thoughts turn to what he can do for those at Rome¹⁵⁴ it is preaching the gospel on which he seizes. That is the one thing that matters. The question arises, of course, “Why preach the gospel to Christians?” Our answer should probably be that in this sense he writes to his readers as Romans rather than as Christians (so Godet).¹⁵⁵ In Rome as elsewhere it is to nonbelievers that he would bring the gospel.

II. THESIS, 1:16–17

¹⁶I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹⁷For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,^a just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”^b

These two verses have an importance out of all proportion to their length. The weighty matter they contain tells us much of what this epistle is about. Barrett can say, “Most commentators recognize in them the ‘text’ of the epistle; it is not wrong to see in them a summary of Paul’s theology as a whole.” We have already noticed that the theme of Romans is God. This whole epistle is a book about God. But once that is recognized these verses may be held to give us the thesis of the epistle: they sum up for us what God has done to bring us salvation. Paul declares his adherence to the gospel (which he has already said is God’s, v. 1) and points out that God’s power is at work in it. It is a revelation of God’s righteousness. Paul quotes from the prophet Habakkuk to show that it is no new-fangled fantasy, but God’s way foretold from of old through God’s prophets. All these are characteristic Pauline thoughts and will be developed as we go through the epistle.

16. The verse is introduced by “For”, which NIV omits.¹⁵⁶ It is perhaps a little curious that Paul writes I am not ashamed¹⁵⁷ of the gospel. Why should he feel it necessary to utter this disclaimer? He gloried in the gospel (5:2, 11; 2 Cor. 10:17; Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:7). But it may be that there were people in Rome who despised the simplicity of the message (there were certainly some elsewhere, Acts 17:32; 1 Cor. 1:18, 23). Such people would look down on the Christians and their unusual gospel.¹⁵⁸ Whatever be the case with others, Paul emphatically stands by the message. It had brought him neither ease nor comfort: “Paul had been imprisoned in Philippi, chased out of Thessalonica, smuggled out of Beroea, laughed at in Athens. He had preached in Corinth where his message was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling-block to the Jews, and out of that background Paul declared that he was proud of the gospel” (Barclay). He had certainly had his share of trouble as he proclaimed the message. But the gospel had proved adequate for the needs both of himself and his hearers, and Paul was far from being ashamed of it. Some have thought that he was troubled at coming to so splendid a place as Rome, the capital city of the world, with so simple a message. But, as Adolph Schlatter pointed out, “Reasons for deliberating whether he ought to be ashamed of the gospel were as real in the lowliest house of worship of the Jews as they were in the Roman Forum. Their root lay in the message he came with, in what he called its foolishness.”¹⁵⁹ That might tempt Christians anywhere to be ashamed. But Paul was not of that number.

The gospel is the power of God¹⁶⁰ for salvation (for gospel see on v. 1 and for power on v. 4). Paul is fond of contrasting mere words with power (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:4; 4:19–20; 1 Thess. 1:5; power and the gospel come together again in 15:19; 1 Cor. 1:18, 24; 2:5; cf. 2 Cor. 13:4; Eph. 3:20; Col. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:7). No such contrast is explicit here, but Paul makes it plain that he is greatly interested in the power he sees in the gospel. The gospel is not advice to people, suggesting that they lift themselves. It is power. It lifts them up. Paul does not say that the gospel brings power but that it is power, and God’s power at that. When the gospel is preached, this is not simply so many words being uttered. The power of God is at work.¹⁶¹ When the gospel enters anyone’s life, it is as though the very fire of God had come upon him. There is warmth and light in his life.¹⁶²

The power of God of which Paul writes is not aimless but directed to salvation. It issues in salvation. This is the general term of which justification, redemption, and the like are particular aspects. Leenhardt sees it as signifying “all the blessings which God alone can give in answer to the need and longing of man, who is oppressed and in anguish in face of a destiny which sharpens his need of supernatural beatitude in proportion as it does nothing to satisfy it.”¹⁶³ Salvation is a very positive affair; it brings a rich variety of blessings from God (5:10–11; 1 Cor. 1:18; Eph. 2:13, etc.). But it also has negative aspects. People may be saved from wrath (5:9), from hostility to God (5:10) or alienation from him (Eph. 2:12), from sin (Matt. 1:21), from being lost (Luke 19:10), from futility (1 Pet. 1:18), from “a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1), from demon-possession (Luke 8:36), from sickness (Luke 8:48), from danger (Matt. 8:25–26), from a “corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Salvation has many facets. There is a sense in which it has already been achieved (Eph. 2:5), and another in which it is a present, on-going process (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15), but often the New Testament writers see it as future (13:11; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Tim. 4:18, etc.).

The scope of salvation is universal. It is open to everyone who believes. Paul brings this out further by saying that it is first¹⁶⁴ for the Jew,¹⁶⁵ then¹⁶⁶ for the Gentile (literally “the Greek”). The combination stands for the totality of mankind. The gospel is for all and knows no limitation by race. In the matter of salvation God puts no difference between one nation and another. Paul assigns a certain priority to the Jew but immediately balances it with his reference to the Greek. Historically the gospel came to the Jews first, but Paul seems to mean more than this. The priority was in God’s plan. An electing purpose is expressed in it. But there is not one gospel for Jews and another for Gentiles. All who are saved are saved by the one gospel and are brothers and sisters in Christ. Just as it is true that it is first for the Jew, then for the Gentile, so it is true that “There is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). But if everyone marks the universality, a restriction is indicated by who believes. The powerful salvation of which Paul writes is not the possession of any unbeliever. Each person must make it his own by his act of faith. This does not mean that faith is like another kind of law, but easier, as though God and man were cooperating to bring about salvation. “It is not man’s faith that gives the gospel its power; quite the contrary, it is the power of the gospel that makes it possible for one to believe” (Nygren).¹⁶⁷ Paul is not saying that people achieve power by their own believing effort.¹⁶⁸ He is saying that the power of God is at work in the gospel.

17. Paul proceeds to an explanation, giving the grounds for what he has just said (For keeps the argument in logical sequence). The statements of v. 16 are seen to be true because of what Paul now affirms. For the righteousness of God see Additional Note A. In this passage it is not completely certain whether we should understand the expression in the sense of a quality or attribute of God or of a right standing which God gives. It makes good sense to say, “In the gospel it is revealed that God is a righteous God.” But it also makes good sense to say, “In the gospel it is revealed that people get a right standing, a status of being right, from God.”¹⁶⁹ The following reference to faith seems to show that the righteousness that God gives is primarily in mind, as does the quotation from Habakkuk. Cranfield sees as decisive the further point that the argument of the epistle as a whole supports this view. Up to 4:25 Paul is concerned with the man who by faith is just (it is only after this that he emphasizes that the just “will live”).¹⁷⁰ Here Paul is saying that in the gospel God has acted decisively for our salvation and in a way that is right. The “rightness” of the way of salvation will be further brought out in this epistle as Paul develops the concept of justification. We should further notice that the righteousness of God is here said to be “revealed” in the gospel. That is to say, it is something new, not simply a repetition of Old Testament truth (important as that is).¹⁷¹

This righteousness is revealed.¹⁷² It is not something that people know naturally or can find out for themselves. Unless God makes it known they will never discover it. NIV repeats the word righteousness though it occurs but once in the Greek: a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith. This may well be the way the passage should be understood, for righteousness and faith are certainly linked elsewhere (e.g., 3:22). But we should notice that the word order is “righteousness of God in it is revealed from faith to faith.” This makes it possible to take is revealed and faith together, with the meaning that only faith apprehends the revelation.¹⁷³ While this is true, it does not appear that this is what Paul is saying. It is much more likely that we should accept the sense of NIV and see a reference to that righteousness or right standing which is ours by faith.

NIV’s by faith from first to last is the translation of a very difficult Greek expression.¹⁷⁴ It means literally “out of faith into faith” or “from faith to faith”. Some have stressed this literal meaning and have argued that Paul means that the gospel spreads by a process in which the faith of one reaches out to bring another to faith. Some see the words as pointing to growth in faith (so SH), others that faith is both ground and goal. Manson favors “a revelation that springs from God’s faithfulness and appeals to man’s faith” (similarly Barth and others). An ancient interpretation is “from an Old Testament faith (cf. the quotation from Habakkuk) to a New Testament faith (the gospel)”. There are other views. Such interpretations, however, do seem to be reading something into the expression. It seems much more likely that Paul is simply emphasizing the place of faith: “faith through and through” or, as Ronald Knox renders it, “faith first and last”. The centrality of faith is important and must be clearly seen. Dodd finely remarks that for Paul “faith is that attitude in which, acknowledging our complete insufficiency for any of the high ends of life, we rely utterly on the sufficiency of God. It is to cease from all assertion of the self, even by way of effort after righteousness, and to make room for the divine initiative.” See further on verse 5.

Following his custom Paul drives home what he is saying with a quotation from Scripture. His almost invariable habit is, as here, to introduce it with just as it is written.¹⁷⁵ It is not necessary for him to say where it is written. The central place assigned to Scripture in the early church made that unnecessary. On this occasion he quotes from Habakkuk 2:4 the words, The righteous will live by faith (quoted again in Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38).¹⁷⁶ This message has been understood traditionally as “The just shall live by faith” (KJV), but many now hold that it should be taken as “He that is just by faith shall live.” Grammatically it is slightly easier to take the words as KJV.¹⁷⁷ But the point is not decisive, all the more so since Paul is quoting and may have felt obliged to reproduce the words of the prophet in the text known to him.¹⁷⁸ But a number of reasons may be urged for taking the words in the sense “he that is just by faith shall live.” First, there is the context. Paul is talking about that righteousness which is “from faith to faith”, and he is citing the prophet in support. He is not talking about the way God’s people should live. Second, there is the point made by Nygren that in chapters 1–4 the faith words (“faith”, “to believe”) occur “at least 25 times” and the life words (“life”, “to live”, “to preserve alive”) twice, whereas in chapters 5–8 the figures are exactly reversed.¹⁷⁹ The inference is that at this stage of the epistle Paul is concerned with the fact that it is by faith that God saves people rather than with how they live. Third, the whole teaching of Romans is such as to lead us to connect “righteous” with “faith”. Paul keeps insisting that a person is righteous only by faith (3:20, 22, 24, 28; 4:2–3, 13, etc.; 5:1 is especially important, for in summing up the argument to that point Paul speaks explicitly of being justified by faith). There is no corresponding emphasis on the righteous as living by faith.

The traditional view is sometimes supported by an appeal to the meaning of the original. The Greek which Paul quotes reflects a Hebrew word rendered “faith” but which most agree denotes fidelity rather than trust, or, as Gifford puts it, “the faith which may be relied on, rather than the faith which relies.” But this is not decisive. Long ago J. B. Lightfoot pointed out that the two meanings are not as far apart as they may at first seem, for “constancy under temptation or danger with an Israelite could only spring from reliance on Jehovah.”¹⁸⁰ It should also be borne in mind that Habakkuk is contrasting the man who is “puffed up” with the man of faith. So, however we translate his words, he is speaking of an attitude of lowly dependence on God. Which is basically what Paul is saying. Bruce can say: “The terms of Habakkuk’s oracle are sufficiently general to make room for Paul’s application of them—an application which, far from doing violence to the prophet’s intention, expresses the abiding validity of his message.”

It is quite clear that Paul is stressing the primacy of faith.¹⁸¹ He is telling us that God’s righteousness is shown in the gospel, that gospel which tells us that people must come to God in faith. It is this that he cites Habakkuk to support. It seems, then, that we should take the words in the sense “he that is just by faith will live.”¹⁸² Paul is speaking of the way a person is made righteous, namely by faith, and assuring us that it is the one who is made righteous in this way who will live.¹⁸³

III. THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE, 1:18–5:21

Some modern discussions reduce the Christian salvation to the level of a commonplace. God was always ready to welcome sinners, we are told, and the gospel is simply the proclamation of something already well known, indeed something of a truism. God is a forgiving and compassionate God, and he is well aware of the good intentions people have even when their performance falls short. He makes allowances. All we have to do is come back to him. There is, of course, a measure of truth in this, but such ways of describing the Christian salvation overlook the fact that the gospel tells us of something that happened. The cross is at the heart of it. Christ died for us. His death is meaningful; it is God’s great saving act. That sin was a very real problem is shown by the fact that God’s Son came to die as the means whereby it would be put away. Paul will expound this gospel, but before he comes to the remedy he makes his diagnosis of the disease. He has a careful argument that we are all sinners and this despite our opportunities for better things. Salvation means being saved from real peril. It is only when we realize in the depths of our being that we are lost that we are ready to receive the salvation that God gives. Not until we come to see that our search for God is and must be completely unsuccessful will we discover that God is searching for us.

A. Universal Sinfulness, 1:18–3:20

Paul is about to expound a wonderful salvation. But first he establishes the need for it by showing that all people are sinful.¹⁸⁴ Many of his contemporaries did not agree, with the result that his message seemed foolishness to them. Many of our contemporaries do not agree with him either, with the result that his words are incomprehensible to them, too. It has always seemed to most people that they are, on the whole, pretty decent people. They may not be perfect but they have done no great wrong. Since they are conscious of no really disastrous sin, they feel that they must be right with God. But for Paul the significant thing is not that people have met their own standard but that they have not met God’s. They have come short of his demand. They are in the greatest of danger because they are subject to his wrath.

1. The Condemnation of the Gentile World, 1:18–32

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It is usually held that throughout this section Paul has the Gentile world in mind. This seems to be indeed the case, but we should notice that he does not specifically name the Gentiles here (as he does the Jew in 2:17) and further that some of the things he says had certainly been applied to the Jews (cf. v. 23 with Ps. 106:20; Jer. 2:11). By keeping this section general Paul is really indicting all mankind. He places special stress on two evils: idolatry and immorality. The language he uses is especially applicable to the Gentiles, and we need not doubt that he has them primarily in mind. As a rule they saw no problem in sin. The religions of the day seem to have had easy-going standards, so that people were not troubled by the lives they lived. As long as they avoided the worst excesses they felt that their gods were not going to be unduly concerned. Sometimes, indeed, they thought of their gods as so remote as not to care much what their worshippers did. They were too great to be bothered with the frailties of mortal men. So mortal men were not bothered either. Paul shows that such views are shallow and superficial. Sin is real. It has dreadful consequences. Even though the Gentiles have not had God’s law revealed to them as the Jews have, they know enough about what is right and what is wrong to be in serious trouble when they reject the right way.

18. Once again NIV omits an opening “For”. This word is important because it links this statement to the preceding one and gives a reason for it.¹⁸⁵ The gospel is necessary because there is such a thing as the wrath of God, because only the gospel of salvation by grace through faith (vv. 16–17) brings deliverance from that wrath.¹⁸⁶ Agar Beet perceptively remarks, “the entire weight of vv. 16, 17, which contain a summary of the Epistle, rests upon the assumption that all men are, apart from the Gospel, under the anger of God.”¹⁸⁷ This is the plight of mankind. Apart from this the gospel has no meaning. And since the wrath of God is being revealed against all sin, there can be no way of salvation other than the way that deals with that sin, that is, the gospel.

This is the one place in Romans where we find the expression the wrath of God, but “the wrath” means much the same.¹⁸⁸ Whichever way he chooses to express it, the idea of the divine wrath is important in this epistle.¹⁸⁹ Paul is clear that God is not passive in the face of sin. God is implacably and vigorously opposed to every evil.¹⁹⁰ Ultimately everyone must reckon with this reality. Paul’s reference to revelation, his genitive of God, and his from heaven are ways of emphasizing that the wrath is a divine activity. God is doing something in opposition to sin, not leaving sinners to their own devices.

Some, however, point out that the expression the wrath of God does not occur very often in Paul (again in Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6) and that God is never the subject of the verb “to be wrathful”. They suggest accordingly that Paul thought of wrath in more or less impersonal terms. For example, Dodd tells us that he prefers to translate “the wrath of God” rather than “God’s anger” (Moffatt) “because such an archaic phrase suits a thoroughly archaic idea.” He sees “wrath” as denoting “some process or effect in the realm of objective facts” rather than “a certain feeling or attitude of God towards us,” though he admits that this is “a peculiar extension of meaning.” He sums up the process as he sees it in the writings of the prophets: “sin is the cause, disaster the effect.” Paul, he thinks, had much the same idea, and the apostle retains the concept of wrath “not to describe the attitude of God to man, but to describe an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe.”¹⁹¹ Views like these are widely accepted (cf. Bowen, p. 221). They fit the mood of our time. People today tend to see the truth that “God is love” as the one significant thing. They quite overlook the unyielding moral demand that runs through Scripture.¹⁹²

It is, of course, true that God is love. But it is not true that this rules out any realistic view of God’s wrath. We must bear in mind that the opposite of love is not wrath, but hate. Wrath is perhaps not an ideal term, for with us it so easily comes to denote an emotion characterized by loss of self-control and a violent concern for selfish interests. But these are not necessary constituents of wrath, and both are absent from the “righteous indignation” which gives us the best human analogy.¹⁹³ In any case “wrath” is the word the Bible uses, and we need the strongest of reasons for abandoning it. It is a term that expresses the settled and active opposition of God’s holy nature to everything that is evil.¹⁹⁴ Until some better suggestion is made we do well to stick to the biblical term to convey the biblical idea. What we should not do is to abandon the idea that the wrath is personal. This leads to the position that God does not care about sin, or at least does not care enough to act. It is impossible to reconcile such a morally neutral position with the scriptural teaching about God. The Bible in general and Paul in particular see God as personally active in opposing sin.¹⁹⁵

We should not overlook the further fact that the revelation of the wrath of God is in this context linked with the gospel. We see some revelation of the divine wrath, it is true, in the suffering, frustration, and sheer disaster that are so often the consequence of sin. But Paul is saying rather that it is the cross that shows us the measure of God’s wrath. It is in the events of the gospel that the revelation occurs. Forgiveness is no cheap gesture. It is as costly as the cross. It is meaningless without the wrath (whether we use that term or not—it is the reality that counts). Unless there is something to be saved from, there is no point in talking about salvation. There is considerable agreement that we should understand the wrath in eschatological terms (cf. 2:5–9). That is, of course, true, but we should not overlook the other truth that it is also a present reality, as this passage shows (cf. the present tense, is being revealed, and vv. 24, 26, 28).

The reference to revelation shows that the wrath of God is not a human discovery. It is something that God has made known. The present tense indicates that it is a continuing process. Paul has just referred to righteousness as being revealed (v. 17), and there appears to be a connection. It is part of the revelation in the gospel that God’s attitude towards sin is one of righteous wrath.¹⁹⁶ In that situation his love brings us a righteousness we could never earn. Both the righteousness and the wrath are a matter of revelation.¹⁹⁷ The present tense in both cases indicates that Paul is talking about present realities, not remote possibilities. And this wrath is divine: the use of the phrase from heaven is a reverent way of referring to God (cf. Luke 15:7, 10).¹⁹⁸

God’s wrath is aroused by all the godlessness and wickedness of men. If the two nouns are used strictly, they combine the thoughts of sin against God and sin against men.¹⁹⁹ Both matter. But probably Paul is simply indicating the variety of evil and is not trying to divide it carefully. His all is important. There are no exceptions. Nothing is overlooked. We cannot say that God does not mind some evils. His wrath is revealed against every wrong.

Paul characterizes sinners as those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. There is a problem with the meaning of the verb translated suppress.²⁰⁰ It is a compound of the verb “to have” and could possibly be taken in the sense “possess” (as Hodge, e.g., notes). This would give the sense “who possess the truth but act unrighteously”.²⁰¹ The problem with this is that Paul does not appear to have in mind people who hold true beliefs but live evil lives. Rather, he is describing sinners who, far from responding to God’s truth, oppose it. Suppress (NIV, RSV, etc.) is perhaps too strong. It implies that sinners are successful. Better is “hinder” (Moffatt) or the like. These people do not like the truth and do what they can to oppose it. By repeating the word wickedness Paul brings out that their sinfulness leads to their deeds. It is not possible to have a general attitude of unrighteousness without this finding expression in deeds opposed to God’s purposes. However we translate, we should take the verb as conative. Paul is speaking of what sinners attempt, not of what they succeed in doing (cf. Hendriksen, “attempting to suppress”).

The truth²⁰² here is the general truth that is open to all people, not the truth God has revealed in Christ and the gospel. People are guilty because they sin against the truth they have, not the truth they do not have.²⁰³ Paul evidently thinks of truth as dynamic, for it can be hindered, which means that it must be doing something. This sort of thing may be in mind also when he pictures truth as rejoicing with love (1 Cor. 13:6).

19. The interpretation of verses 19–20 has been the cause of endless controversy.²⁰⁴ Some maintain that they point to a revelation which God has made to all people whereby, if they give due heed to it, they will come to a place of salvation. The words are taken as a charter for a doctrine of “natural revelation”. Others take the opposite view, that Paul is denying any saving revelation of God in nature. They affirm that he sees God as known in Christ, and in Christ alone. What he speaks of here is not a saving knowledge of God at all.

It does seem clear that Paul is not here speaking of a saving knowledge of God. The context is concerned with the condemnation of the Gentile world, not its salvation. The apostle is arguing from the necessity of the saving work which God accomplished in Christ. He is laying it down that God has revealed enough of himself to the Gentiles for them to be blameworthy when they sin and reject his leading. He is not facing the question whether there was enough in the revelation for them to be saved. That is quite a different question, and we should not torture Paul’s words into giving an answer to a question he is not facing. It would probably be a fair paraphrase of his argument to say that people have never lived up to the highest and best that they have known. But God intends that they should. They are guilty in his eyes when they do not. And nobody can say, “I did not know.” Our condemnation in each case lies in the fact that we have sinned against the light we have, not against the light we have never received. Thus, though the Gentiles did not receive the full revelation in the law of the Old Testament, they did receive enough illumination to know what was right. And they followed the wrong.²⁰⁵

Paul’s since²⁰⁶ introduces the reason for the preceding. He proposes to substantiate what he has just said. It is a matter of dispute whether the following expression is correctly rendered what may be known about God or whether it means “what is known about God”. Paul’s Greek term²⁰⁷ strictly means “that which may be known”, “that which is knowable”. But in the New Testament it is mostly used more loosely in the sense “that which is known”. Against the former suggestion it is argued that in that form the statement is simply not true. Many things about God are “knowable”, though not known to people generally since God has not revealed them. Against the latter it is urged that it is tautology (“what people know … they know”). A decision is not easy, but on the whole it seems best to take the word here strictly (as NIV, RSV, Käsemann, etc.). There are things about God which cannot be made known in the natural order, but what can be made known God has made known.²⁰⁸

Such truth is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.²⁰⁹ His action matches the result.²¹⁰ There is a slight problem with the first to them,²¹¹ for the Greek might well be understood as “in them” or “among them”. “In them” would signify that the revelation takes place basically in people’s minds (so R. Knox, “is clear to their minds”). On this view God is at work in them whenever natural revelation takes place. It is God who brings conviction, not some objective feature of the created universe. But some argue strongly for “among them”. The revelation in question takes place, they say, not by some inward knowledge but in the creation in the midst of which they find themselves (so, e.g., Cranfield). But we must bear in mind that Paul uses the preposition “in” very frequently (988 times; this is more than a third of the New Testament total of 2,713). He seems to use it almost from habit, and we cannot always insist on a precise meaning. Since the grammarians usually regard it here as equivalent to the dative case, we should accept to them as the meaning.²¹²

Paul proceeds to emphasize that it is God who has given them this knowledge. In this book about God it is natural that it should be made plain that it is not people’s innate ability or cunning that enables them to rise to the knowledge of God. God can be known only as he chooses to make himself known. The initiative is with him.

20. Paul presses the point. His For explains the “God has made it plain” of verse 19; he has made it plain in that his invisible qualities … have been clearly seen. Paul takes the revelation right back to the beginning of things with his since the beginning of the world. Some, it is true, argue that this expression indicates not so much the origin in time as a seeing of the universe as “the source of knowledge—the basis of a deduction”.²¹³ This is supported by the fact that the word for creation elsewhere in the New Testament seems mostly to have the meaning “what has been created” rather than “the act of creation” (though the form really points to the latter).²¹⁴ This leads on to an understanding like that of Gifford: “ ‘The creation of the world,’ viewed as a whole, is first presented as the source from which man derives a knowledge of the unseen God.” The more natural meaning of the Greek, however, makes the reference temporal (“being understood from what has been made” is Paul’s way of referring to creation as the source). These words mean that the universe has always borne upon it the imprint of God’s handiwork. While many translators refer to the world, Paul’s meaning is, of course, “the universe”.²¹⁵ Order in the heavens as well as on earth bears witness to God. This whole mighty universe has always reflected its Creator.

God’s invisible qualities is a slightly overconfident rendering of a rather indefinite expression.²¹⁶ KJV translates it more literally with “the invisible things of him”. The meaning we give the expression will be determined by our understanding of the following his eternal power and divine nature.²¹⁷ Paul’s word for eternal is unusual.²¹⁸ The more common word²¹⁹ (found, e.g., in the expression “eternal life”) is derived from the word for “age”. Here, where Paul is speaking of God’s essential being, he may well have felt that a word with a fundamental connection with time was not quite what he wanted. He prefers a word stressing “always-ness”. His word for divine nature is another unusual one, found only here in the New Testament. In distinction from power (for which see the note on v. 14), which points to “a single attribute”, it “is a summary term for those other attributes which constitute Divinity” (SH).²²⁰ Paul is laying it down that what is revealed is God himself. In nature we see something of nature’s God.

Have been clearly seen²²¹ translates a verb, found here only in the New Testament, which is used of vision with the physical eye. With such vision we see the things God has created. But “being understood” refers to inner perception. The verb means “to perceive with the mind, understand” (AS). Paul is saying that we see certain outward things and thereby perceive things invisible.²²² What we see is defined as what has been made.²²³ The expression is quite general and does not limit the revelation to any part of creation. God has left his imprint on the entire created universe. But Paul’s main point is that seeing, people do not see; perceiving, they do not perceive. They see creation (cf. Job 40:15–24; Pss. 8; 19; 104; Isa. 40:21–26, etc.).²²⁴ But because they reject the knowledge of God they have thrown away the key to it all.

Most translations of the concluding part of the verse give the impression that Paul is referring to the result of the preceding. But the construction normally expresses purpose rather than result.²²⁵ If we accept purpose here, as we apparently should, then Paul is telling us that God has so made the universe that we are responsible people. This means all people, not only those who have the Bible to guide them. God intends that they will be guilty if they reject the light given them and fall into sin.²²⁶ The sinner may plead that he is ignorant. He does not know God. But Paul’s first point is that his ignorance is culpable. God has given a revelation in nature but people have closed their eyes to it. How then could they possibly see? But it is their own fault that they do not. They are without excuse.

21. Having made the point that there has been some revelation of God to all mankind, Paul goes on to show that this has not been followed by willing obedience.²²⁷ People refused to accept the way of God and suffered the inevitable result. They acted foolishly, and idolatry with all its attendant evils was the consequence. Paul’s For²²⁸ carries on the argument in logical sequence. He affirms that people had real knowledge²²⁹ of God. It is a truth on which he is insisting, for in this passage he has said it four times in one way or another. But, having this knowledge, they reacted in the wrong way. They did not “glorify²³⁰ him as God”. This means a little more than that they did not “honor” God (as RSV, etc.).²³¹ They knew enough about him to know that “glory” was his due, but they withheld it from him. They may perhaps have said polite things about him, but they did not ascribe to him the glory that was his due. They did not act on the knowledge of God they had, but preferred their own way. Presently Paul will show that this led to idolatry. People preferred a “religion” of their own making rather than the divine revelation. “Thus ‘religion’ is born, springing from a rejected knowledge of the true God and finalizing man’s seizure of God, the triumph of gods over God” (Leenhardt, on vv. 22–24). With this Paul links another negative—nor gave thanks to him. It is interesting to see thanksgiving included as a response that might have been expected to God’s revelation of himself, though not as surprising as it might be in another author, for the apostle is fond of this concept.²³² He sees people, then, as always ready to take up an irreligious attitude toward the universe in which they live, despite the many marks it bears of the Creator’s hand.²³³

But²³⁴ their thinking become futile. When people rejected God, it affected their minds as well as other things. The word for thinking (more exactly “thoughts”) is neutral in itself and may be used of all kinds of thoughts. But in the New Testament it is mostly used of evil,²³⁵ which fits this context. This is the one occurrence in the New Testament of the verb “to become futile” (Phillips, “became fatuous”).²³⁶ But Paul uses other words of the word group fairly often. The basic idea is that of pointlessness. The practice of idolatry is inherently futile. What else can be said of offering worship to what one’s own hands have made? Paul is about to refer to idolatry (v. 23). Idolaters are out of touch with divine reality and shut themselves up to futility.

Not only was their thinking futile; it was characterized by darkness.²³⁷ The New Testament often sets light over against darkness and equates sin with the latter. Sin is never an enlightened procedure despite the attitude of “advanced” secularists. It always represents a darkening of some part of us. Foolish²³⁸ signifies “unintelligent”, and this brings out another facet of sin. It is never bright to walk in the ways of evil. What is characterized as foolish is translated hearts in NIV (so RV, ARV, etc.), but “minds” in RSV, Moffatt, Phillips, etc. It is the normal word for “heart”.²³⁹ But whereas with us the heart is used metaphorically of the emotions, this was not the case with the Greek term. In the ancient world the emotions tended to be located lower down, in the entrails (cf. the old-fashioned “bowels of compassion”). The heart stood rather for the entire inner life; in some contexts the emotions are more prominent (e.g., 2 Cor. 6:11–12), in some the intellectual (Rom. 10:8), and in some the volitional (1 Cor. 7:37). The heart is the center of the inner life; from it the person’s direction is determined, his whole course shaped, his basic commitments formed. This passage perhaps places some emphasis on the mind, but the term is comprehensive. When anyone rejects God, not only is his thinking awry but his whole inner life has taken a jolt. His emotions and will are affected, too. The comprehensive word is significant. Dodd reminds us that instances of what Paul had in mind are not hard to find. Though the apostle was not speaking specifically about the higher forms of Greek philosophy, in practice this philosophy “easily came to terms with the grossest forms of superstition and immorality … just as it is a grave count against the lofty philosophy of Hinduism that it utters no effective protest against the most degrading practices of popular religion in India today.”²⁴⁰ All too often in the history of mankind a high level of philosophy has been found consistent with all the degradation of polytheism. The ability to think clearly does not necessarily deliver from superstition.

22. People do not always recognize the realities of their situation. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 4:17). NEB renders, “They boast of their wisdom, but they have made fools of themselves”. “Boast” is perhaps too strong for the Greek, which rather means “affirm”.²⁴¹ But it is not much too strong. Clearly these people prided themselves on their wisdom, as the self-sufficient so often do. In the process they became fools.²⁴² This verb is used by Paul of God’s making foolish the wisdom of this world (1 Cor. 1:20); in its only other New Testament occurrences it is used of the salt losing its savor (Matt. 5:13; Luke 14:34). There is the notion of insipidity about it. Those who in their “wisdom” reject God’s revelation do not enter a wonderfully exciting new life, but a life which, in comparison with the service of God, is flat, tasteless, insipid. Their attempt to be wise makes fools out of them.

23. The summit of their folly was realized in their acceptance of idolatry. They exchanged²⁴³ the glory of the immortal God for images…. Paul sees it as stupid to make a god of one’s own.²⁴⁴ It is to exchange something of real worth (the glory of God) for something of no value (an image). The word rendered immortal²⁴⁵ is more literally “not corruptible”. From the thought of not decaying it is an easy transition to immortal, so we need not cavil at the translation. But it is worth noting that Paul is speaking not so much of eternity of being as of the total absence from God of that liability to decay which is inseparable from our physical existence and which is incompatible with the glory of which he writes. “The glory of the incorruptible God” is a striking expression, bringing out something both of the greatness and the majesty of God.

They exchanged all this for images made to look like mortal man… , or, more literally, “for the likeness of an image of corruptible man”. The “likeness” and the “image” are much the same,²⁴⁶ but the tautologous expression emphasizes the unreality of it all. It was for nothing more substantial than an imitation that they exchanged that wonderful reality, the glory of God. And the imitation was “corruptible”²⁴⁷ at that, forming a further contrast with “the incorruptible God”. When people could and should have worshipped a God not subject to decay of any sort, they chose to worship not even man, but the image of man who wastes away. But the sorry story does not end even there. To the images of man idolaters added those of birds (amply documented in Egyptian worship), of animals (cf. Ps. 106:20), and of reptiles (cf. the serpent of Gen. 3; for the general concept cf. Deut. 4:16–18; Jer. 2:11). Paul links these with “and”; idolaters make all these kinds of images. It adds up to a determined substitution of their own way for that of God.²⁴⁸

24. People cannot reject God and go scatheless. Paul proceeds to draw out the consequences of the pagan world’s refusal to worship God as he is. He draws a horrifying picture of a variety of vices. Contemporary records show that he is not exaggerating. All he says can be documented from the world of his day, and indeed other sins could be added. It is sometimes objected that this is not a balanced picture; the pagan world could do better than this. Of course it could, and Paul shows us something of this in the next chapter. But here he is not trying to picture the total scene. He is pursuing his theological purpose of showing that all people are sinners. In pursuit of this aim he concentrates on that part of the picture which is relevant. This is not to deny that other features exist; it is simply to say that they do not belong here. The good that people do is never a problem. It is something to be thankful about, not something people must be saved from. But sin is another thing altogether. It is a problem wherever it is found. It is Paul’s purpose to show that it exists, and that it exists universally. Wherever pagans are to be found, the kinds of sin of which he speaks will be found also. People are not saved from sin by idolatry.²⁴⁹

Another feature of his treatment of the subject is his insistence that this is not simply an inevitable process of cause and effect which takes place while God stands by, more or less a spectator. God is in all of life. He does not contract out. We have already noticed that God willed that if people sin certain consequences follow (see the note on v. 18). This is a moral universe; sin has inevitable results. But three times Paul says, “God gave them up” (vv. 24, 26, 28). God is active in the process whereby sin’s consequences follow sin.

Therefore²⁵⁰ introduces the reason for what follows and links it with what has preceded in logical order. It was on account of their rejection of the divine revelation and of their preferring idols to the true God that God gave them up to the results of their folly. The verb gave them over²⁵¹ shows that God is active and not passive in the process (cf. Ps. 81:12; Acts 7:42). This does not mean that he is vindictive. That would be untrue both to the facts of the case and to the apostle’s thought. Throughout this epistle Paul insists that God’s purpose is one of mercy (cf. 11:32). Elsewhere the situation is viewed from another angle: people gave themselves up to licentious behavior (Eph. 4:19); they are responsible human beings. But here the thought is that God is active in the process. He shuts people up to the consequences of their sin so that they will see their error and look to him for mercy and for a better way. Notice that Paul does not call on God to punish sinners. Rather, he has the profound thought that their immersion in their sin is itself their punishment (cf. “one is punished by the very things by which he sins”, Wis. 11:16). The first point is that they are given up in²⁵² the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity. Paul’s word for sinful desires²⁵³ is a strong one, denoting “the passionate desire for forbidden pleasure” (Barclay). The addition, of their hearts (see v. 21), shows that Paul is thinking of deep-seated desire, not a surface impulse. They were given up “to uncleanness”,²⁵⁴ a general term suitable to this introduction. At this point Paul is not being precise about the result of people’s sins, but he leaves the reader in no doubt that it is impurity of some kind, with a strong hint at sexual impurity (NIV is too definite). The sinful desires lead to the degrading of their bodies.²⁵⁵ People cannot give themselves to impurity and go scatheless. Consequences follow. Degrading, or more precisely “dishonoring”,²⁵⁶ is another general term; it may indicate an insult, whether in word or thought or deed. But, though the term is general, in the context of the rejection of God’s revelation which leads to idolatry and then to the dishonoring of their bodies,²⁵⁷ there can be little doubt but that Paul is referring to the practice of ritual prostitution which was all but universal in the idolatrous systems of the first century (he was writing from Corinth where there were said to be more than a thousand sacred prostitutes attached to one large temple). “Man has mocked the honour of God by deifying the bodies of creatures erected into idols; God therefore abandons man to passions which dishonour his own body” (Leenhardt). This represents the attempt of man to control his destiny in independence of God. He rejects the revelation God has made and this leads to idolatry as he manufactures idols in the likeness of his body. This in turn leads to immoral types of worship.²⁵⁸ In the nature cults, for example, people thought that they had the secret of fertility. By the use of appropriate rituals (which included the sex act) they held that they could secure growth and vitality. They had become masters of themselves and their environment, or so they thought. They did not realize that they had thrust themselves into the depths of degradation. In every age an equivalent mistake is possible.

Perhaps we should add that in the catalogue of vices which Paul here begins he is following a fairly common custom among the moralists of the time. Dodd points out that it was a usual practice to divide vices into the sensual and the antisocial (p. 27). While there is a slight uncertainty about the precise meaning of some of the terms he uses, it seems that Paul is following some such division. He speaks of sensual sins in vv. 24–27 and of the antisocial in vv. 29–31.

25.²⁵⁹ They exchanged²⁶⁰ the truth of God for a lie (cf. v. 23). There are three ways to understand the truth of God. (1) Taking the abstract for the concrete, we might understand it as “the true God” (as NEB) (Hendriksen sees the genitive as one of apposition and renders, “God, [who is] the truth”, which is much the same). (2) It may mean the truth God has made known, or, as Cranfield puts it, “the reality consisting of God Himself and His self-revelation”.²⁶¹ (3) Some (like RSV and Kertelge) see the expression as meaning “the truth about God”. The second view has the most to be said for it. For Paul truth is an important concept (see Additional Note B), something not known to us naturally but only as God has revealed it. It is usually connected with God himself.

These people might have responded to God’s leading and have entered the joy of the service of God and of all that is true. Instead they gave all this away, and for what? For what Paul calls “the lie”.²⁶² Most versions read “a lie” (NIV, KJV, RSV, etc.), but Paul uses the definite article. He is not thinking of idolatry as no more than one falsehood among many. It is the lie. Elsewhere he speaks of “putting away the lie” and “speak[ing] truth” (Eph. 4:25); again he speaks of some who “will believe the lie” (2 Thess. 2:11). In each case, as here, he is contrasting the lie with the truth. He does not see heathen religion as a partial truth. It is the lie that leads people away from the truth of God. The true God stands in contrast with idols (1 Thess. 1:9). To exchange the worship of God for the lie is the final disaster.

What is meant in this exchange is explained. They worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. The verb rendered worshiped is unusual (here only in the New Testament),²⁶³ but its meaning is not in doubt. They accorded religious veneration to the creature. Served²⁶⁴ is a word which originally applied to the service of gods or people. In the New Testament, however, it is always used of the service of God, so that its meaning is much like that of the previous verb. Paul is simply emphasizing that these people worshipped in the fullest sense. And they gave their worship not to the Creator,²⁶⁵ to whom it was due, but to the creature, in fact to that which they themselves had fashioned, idols.²⁶⁶

The mention of the Creator leads Paul into a little doxology (as is not uncommon with him): who is forever praised. Amen (cf. Ps. 89:52). This is in part Paul’s protest against the failure of the heathen to give God his due. He salutes God as forever praised.²⁶⁷ All the meaning we can put into “blessing” belongs to God, and that not for a moment but forever.²⁶⁸ Paul often tacks Amen to the end of a doxology, but it is not easy to see why. It is really the response of a congregation when a leader says something, usually a prayer, on its behalf. “Amen” is the congregation’s way of giving assent. It makes the words uttered by the leader its own.²⁶⁹ But in a doxology like this one there is nobody to respond. It is all Paul’s. It certainly ends the doxology on a solemn and devout note, and this may be its purpose; it is “the response of worship” (Murray).

26. Because of this²⁷⁰ carries the argument along logically, as often in Paul. The reason in question is not, of course, given in the doxology, but in the idolatry referred to immediately before it. The punishment for the conduct involved in idolatry was their being given over to shameful lusts.²⁷¹ Shameful is cognate with “degrading” in v. 24, and, while there is no kinship of language, lusts recalls the “sinful desires” of that verse. Paul is still moving in the same realm of ideas. He goes on to particularize with his reference to women exchanging natural relations²⁷² for²⁷³ unnatural ones.²⁷⁴ He uses the adjectives “female” and “male” rather than the nouns “women” and “men”, possibly because he is concentrating on sexual differentiation. Hendriksen points out that “A person’s sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not the point at issue. What matters is what a person does with his sexuality!” He goes on to remind us that “According to the plain teaching of Scripture sexual intercourse was intended for a husband and his wife, for no one else!” Paul mentions the degradation of women before he deals with that of men. Hodge thinks the reason for this is that “they are always the last to be affected in the decay of morals, and their corruption is therefore proof that all virtue is lost.” There may be something to this, but it seems more likely that Paul is giving emphasis to the male perversion by putting it last and dealing with it at greater length.

27. The sin was not confined to women. The males engaged in the equivalent evil.²⁷⁵ Paul’s word for abandoned is a rather strong one.²⁷⁶ It is common in the New Testament, but Paul uses it five times only. He has quite a bit of unusual vocabulary here, and his words for were inflamed and lust are found here only in the New Testament.²⁷⁷ The former word has the notion of burning and seems to be used in the literal sense much more often than in the metaphorical sense Paul is giving it here; it is a very vivid term (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9 for much the same idea, though with a different word). Lust (a word with the notion of reaching out to grasp something) signifies strong and eager desire. It can be used in a good sense but also, as here, in a bad sense. Paul is saying in strong terms that the men were burned up with a powerful but unnatural passion.²⁷⁸ He does not define the evil practice that resulted²⁷⁹ but speaks only of indecent²⁸⁰ acts. But there can be no doubt about the particular kind of shamelessness he has in mind. So he says that these sinners received the due penalty²⁸¹ of their misdeeds in themselves. Paul is not so much calling for a penalty as thinking of sexual perversion as itself a penalty (being a sinner is the punishment of sin!). This is sharply different from the general attitude among Greeks and Romans of the day, for they preferred this kind of love to heterosexual love. Paul’s language is perhaps a little stronger than due penalty. He is speaking of a requital which is “necessary”.²⁸² The thought is one of compulsion. Thayer points out that it can signify “a necessity of law and command”, but he sees it here as pointing to “the recompense due by the law of God” (GT). Once more Paul is thinking of what God has decreed rather than simply of the natural result of people’s actions. He refers to such actions as “error” (NIV, perversion); sinners have wandered from the right way.

28. Since (perhaps “as” is better)²⁸³ points to exact correspondence: “The cases are parallel; as they deserted God, so God abandoned them” (Hodge). There is nothing arbitrary about God’s actions. Think … worthwhile renders another word Paul uses often.²⁸⁴ It means first “test”, then “approve” as a result of the test, and so simply “approve”, as here, without any strict notion of test. Paul puts the word God in an emphatic position. It was no less than God whom they did not approve to “have in knowledge”. This latter is an unusual expression, found here only in the New Testament. It is stronger than “know”,²⁸⁵ and thus a number of versions have “acknowledge”. But Paul’s thought is not so much this as that they refused to have God in their knowledge. They thrust him out of their circle of acquaintance. Their ignorance of God was not due to a lack of opportunity to know him, but to their deliberate refusal. They preferred other things to the knowledge of God. And, because they rejected the knowledge of God, God gave them over (the third use of this terrible expression) to the consequences of what they had done in both thought and action, namely to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. The word depraved meant originally “that has not stood the test” (it is related to that rendered think … worthwhile²⁸⁶ in the earlier part of the verse). It was used of coins that were substandard. The choice of words is another of Paul’s ways of bringing out the fitness of things. They did not “approve” to know God and they came to have an “unapproved” mind.²⁸⁷ Paul is not talking about an arbitrary process but about people who received the due result of their evil deeds. Mind is the usual word for the thinking faculty, but it can mean “the intellectual part of conscience” (SH). It is sometimes combined with “conscience”, as when we read of certain people that “both their minds and consciences are corrupted” (Tit. 1:15).²⁸⁸ The result, then, of their refusal to accept the knowledge of God is seen in the way they came to think and the things that their consciences came to approve. Their minds became quite unable to make trustworthy moral judgments. Robinson remarks, “reason as much as anything requires to be justified by faith before it can function truly as reason.” They had cut themselves off from all the joys of the knowledge of God. They were delivered over in consequence to the narrow, joyless existence of base minds and improper conduct.²⁸⁹ It was the only course they left open to themselves. They continually did what is not becoming, not fitting, not acceptable.²⁹⁰

29. Paul launches into a detailed list²⁹¹ of the sins he has in mind.²⁹² He first speaks of the sinners as filled with²⁹³ wickedness, showing that he does not think of them as half-hearted about their sin. They were wholly given over to it. Their exclusion of God left room for nothing else. We should probably not try to delimit too closely the words that follow, for Paul is more concerned to bring out the truth that those who reject God give themselves over to all manner of evils than he is to tell us precisely what those evils are. There must, however, be some significance in his choice of words, and it is worth looking into them accordingly. Wickedness is a comprehensive term,²⁹⁴ so comprehensive indeed that in the opinion of some commentators it includes all that follows. The rest of the list, then, is no more than a filling out of what is meant by wickedness. This may be going too far, but at least we can say that the term covers a great variety of evils.

There is some dispute about the second and fourth members of the list, evil and depravity.²⁹⁵ Some hold that the former points to an active form of wrongdoing while the latter means rather a vicious disposition. Others, however, almost reverse the distinction. It is safest, therefore, not to insist on too sharp a distinction between them.²⁹⁶ What is plain is that both terms denote thoroughgoing evil and that they include both the inner disposition and the active doing of harm to others. Incidentally the two are linked again in 1 Corinthians 5:8. The remaining term, greed,²⁹⁷ means the inordinate desire to have more. It is selfishness unlimited. Although it is often translated “covetousness” (as RSV), we not infrequently use this word in a rather restricted sense, and we should be clear that Paul is talking about the desire to have more as a settled disposition. This covetous person pursues his own desires with a complete disregard of the effect on other people. He does not care about others but is a complete egotist. Paul is talking about one who is never satisfied. He is always anxious to have more of something, and no matter what he gets he remains unsatisfied. Which is, of course, an excellent illustration of Paul’s point that the sinner is handed over to his sin. Evil is its own punishment. The word ocurs in conjunction with evil again in Mark 7:22.

Full of²⁹⁸ introduces another list of terms denoting individual sins. The adjective probably does not differ very greatly in meaning from the participle rendered they have become filled at the beginning of the verse. It simply marks a stage in the argument. Envy²⁹⁹ reminds us that evildoers are not just one happy band of brothers. There is a divisiveness about evil which sets people apart from one another. Evil people are apt to be envious rather than appreciative. From such attitudes springs murder (cf. Mark 15:10), the ultimate outcome of strife.³⁰⁰ Deceit³⁰¹ is basically “bait for fish … hence, any cunning contrivance for deceiving or catching … in the abstract, craft, cunning” (LSJ; they point out that it was used of such stratagems as the Trojan horse). There is nothing straightforward about sin, and sinners do not hesitate to deceive one another if their purposes can be advanced. NEB renders “treachery”. Malice (Phillips, “spite”) is “conscious and intentional wickedness.”³⁰² Gossips,³⁰³ more literally “whisperers”, is a term which may be used in a good or a neutral sense (it was an epithet of the god Hermes). Here, however, it plainly refers to slander, whispering what one does not wish to be heard openly. Some think it refers to slander of those present as against slander of those not present (which is denoted by “slanderers” in v. 30), but most see the distinction rather as between secret slanderers and open slanderers (Phillips is picturesque with his “whisperers-behind-doors” and “stabbers-in-the-back”).

30. For slanderers³⁰⁴ see the note on the previous verse. The word is not attested before this passage, so Paul is not employing a well-known term. He may even have coined it himself. The meaning is clear enough. Evil people are prone to speak evil of others, and it is this to which Paul is objecting. God-haters³⁰⁵ translates another compound word not found elsewhere in the New Testament. The meaning is not certain, for the form could mean “hated by God” (as NEB, “hateful to God”; Moffatt, “loathed by God”) or “hating God” (RSV, “haters of God”; JB, “enemies of God”). The difficulty is that in all earlier references it means something like “hateful to God”, “hated by a god”, “god-forsaken” (BAGD), but in the immediate context all the words refer to human rather than divine activity. On the whole it seems that we should understand it in this second sense, for this is a list of vices. Hating God comes under this heading, but hated by God does not.³⁰⁶

The next three words are all concerned with some aspect of pride. Insolent³⁰⁷ refers to a lofty sense of superiority out of which the insolent person treats all others as beneath him. It is the pride that is totally unaware of its limitations and “goes before a fall”. Arrogant³⁰⁸ does not differ greatly. Barclay quotes Theophrastus, who says that this vice means “a certain contempt for everyone except oneself.” Boastful derives from a word meaning “wandering”³⁰⁹ and apparently goes back to the extravagant claims made by wandering men: merchants with something to sell, quacks with claims to heal, and wanderers in general with tall tales to tell. Since there is no way of verifying or refuting what such people say, they are sometimes given to making claims that cannot be substantiated. The word includes the thought of evil intent; it is not used of harmless, amusing exaggeration.

They invent ways of doing evil suggests a certain ingenuity in devising wrong.³¹⁰ These people are not content to go on in the established paths of evil, but are eager to strike out on new and worse ways. To this Paul adds, they disobey their parents. In a world which took very seriously the obligation to honor one’s forebears this was a grievous sin. It indicates a readiness to be false to those to whom one owes the most. It implies a lack of gratitude and a contempt for family authority.

31. Paul uses four adjectives, each of which commences with a prefix corresponding to the English “un-”. It is difficult to capture the force of this construction in English, though NIV’s succession of words ending in “-less” comes pretty close. Senseless³¹¹means without intelligence; it refers to those who act stupidly (cf. v. 21). Lagrange asks why it is a vice to be unintelligent. The answer must be that Paul includes a moral element as well as an intellectual one. He is saying that to cut oneself off from God is a stupid and wicked procedure. Faithless³¹² is concerned at base with the breaking of agreements. When people enter into solemn undertakings, they should do what they say they will do. Satisfactory living comes to an end when people cannot be trusted to keep their pledged word. But such considerations do not trouble the wicked. Where they see personal advantage, keeping faith does not matter to them. Heartless³¹³ means “without natural affection”. There is every reason to expect that members of a family (or other natural group) will be united in bonds of love and affection, and it is an evil thing when they are not. Ruthless, a word found here only in the New Testament, means “without pity”, “without mercy”. It is significant that, in an epistle that will stress God’s mercy throughout, the list of vices should be rounded off with “merciless”. This is the very depth of evil. The person who shows no mercy can scarcely go lower.

32. We come back to the thought that these sinners do not act out of ignorance.³¹⁴ Granted that no evildoer ever understands all the implications of the wrong he is doing, it still remains that he knows enough to know that he is doing wrong. It is the point that Paul has been stressing throughout this chapter, namely that God has revealed enough of himself for people to know what is right and what is wrong. Decree³¹⁵ is a legal term. It is one of the righteousness words and has a meaning like “righteous (or just) ordinance”. It sometimes means a verdict or declaration that a person is just, but here decree is clearly the meaning. Paul affirms that the decree is God’s. God is sufficiently interested in what people do to lay down his decree for them.³¹⁶ Paul does not, of course, mean that the Gentiles had a codified system of divine laws as the Jews did. He is not concerned at this point with the way knowledge came to them, nor with the precision with which they had apprehended it. He is concerned only with the fact that they have enough knowledge to be sure that they should not act in the way in which they were in fact acting. They know that people who act as they do deserve death. Paul uses this word death 22 times in Romans, which is more than in any other book of the New Testament. Mostly he employs it in connection with sin, as he does here. Of his 22 uses of the word in this epistle, no less than 18 are related to sin (four concern the death of Christ, one of which connects also with sin, and one is linked with baptism).³¹⁷ Many of the “sin” passages are vivid, picturing death as a tyrant reigning over sinners. Here the thought is simply that death is the desert of sin. Some think of physical death as the meaning; it was sin that brought death. Others think of spiritual death. More probably Paul is not defining death closely but simply viewing it as a horror. It tyrannizes the human race and keeps people from the life that is life indeed, whether we think of this world or the next.

Only³¹⁸ is another typical Pauline word. Here it is part of a statement that brings out the enormity of the offence. Not only do these sinners do³¹⁹ evil things, but they also take pleasure in other people who do³²⁰ them. The Greek possibly means a little more than NIV’s approve. It is rather “have pleasure in them that do them” (KJV) or “applaud such practices” (NEB). There are thoughts not only of full support but also of enjoyment. The word certainly includes the encouragement to do wrong. Through the centuries Paul’s statement has caused difficulty.³²¹ Many have felt that it is far worse to do an evil thing than simply to express approval when others do it. But Paul is not talking about people who do not practice vice themselves but simply encourage others. He is talking about those who do evil things (continue to do these very things). Then, not content with vice in themselves, they actively encourage it in others. They heap up vice beyond their own power.³²²

↑ Back to top