1 Romans Chapter One

Rom 1:1-32

Verse 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.

All letters and other written communications, in New Testament times, were written upon parchments and conveyed to their recipients in rolled-up form; and that ancient style of letter required, as a practical consideration, that the signature of the writer be at the beginning. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to unroll the entire scroll to find the name of the sender. Therefore, Paul followed the custom of the times in placing his name along with the salutation in the beginning of the epistle.

Up until the time of his conversion, Paul was known as Saul of Tarsus. SAUL, the first name under which this great man appears in the New Testament, means DEMANDED, and ranks among the great names in Jewish history, that being the name of their first king. PAUL, on the other hand, means LITTLE, and could have signified Paul’s smallness of stature; however, the name is Gentile, being the name of the apostle’s first distinguished convert, Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, and Hodge suggested the possibility that the new Gentile name of the apostle derived from that conversion. ^F1

It was common among the Jews to mark some outstanding event in a person’s life with a change of his name, as in the case of Abraham (Gen 17:5</desk/?query=+Gen 17:5>), Jacob (Genesis 32:38</desk/?query=Genesis+32:38>), and Peter (John 1:42</desk/?query=+John 1:42>); and thus it appears that even in such a detail as this, Paul was "not a whit behind the chiefest apostles" (2Co 11:5</desk/?query=+2Co 11:5>). The first use of the name PAUL for this apostle is recorded in Acts 13:9 upon the occasion of the proconsul’s conversion; but, significantly, it appears to be a name that was already his, and is mentioned before the conversion took place. Despite this, the dramatic switch from one name to another certainly took place on that occasion; and if, indeed, the name PAUL was adopted at that time out of regard to so distinguished a convert, this great apostle reminds one of Hercules, who, in the first great labor of strangling the Nemean lion, took the lion’s skin and wore it ever afterwards, Paul forever afterwards wearing the name of the proconsul of Cyprus. Both names were appropriate for the great ambassador to the Gentiles, and it is altogether possible that his parents gave him both names, providentially, and that his great mission to the Gentiles naturally resulted in the shift of emphasis to his Gentile name.

Servant of Jesus Christ ... The Greek word [doulos], from which the English translation "servant" is taken, actually means BONDSLAVE and is a very strong word indicating a number or very important things. It means that, as Christ’s slave, Paul was entitled to hearing and obedience on the part of all people, it being an ancient axiom that the honor and dignity of the owner were inherent in his slave, mistreatment of the slave being legally construed as mistreatment of the owner. Thus at the very outset, Paul announced the premise upon which he was entitled to be heard even in Rome. The use of the term BONDSLAVE also means that in conscience, doctrine, and conduct, Paul’s life was utterly in subjection to Christ. In the third place, due to the frequent use of this word in conjunction with APOSTLE, it implies an official capacity in the person so designated. Therefore, Paul was not claiming by use of this word, merely that he was living the Christian life, but that as a bondslave of Christ he had a message from God that all people are obligated to heed. That such was his intent derives from the fact that he immediately connected the office of a bondslave with that of an apostle.

Called to be an apostle ... The words "to be" are usually printed in italics to show that they were not in the Greek and were merely supplied by the translators; and in this instance they would have been better left out. As Whiteside expressed it: "Paul was not telling what he was called to be, but what he was!" ^F2 Although the title of apostle has been somewhat loosely applied, the meaning is rather strict. As Hodge noted: As a strict official designation, the word "apostle" is confined to those men selected and commissioned by Christ himself to deliver in his name the message of salvation. ^F3 In this context, it should be noted that Christ himself is the one who selected the apostles and conferred upon them that name. "And of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles" (Luk 6:13</desk/?query=+Luk 6:13>). It is precisely in that strictest meaning of the title that Paul’s salutation and identification of himself as an apostle should be understood. He was a "called" apostle, not by men, but by Christ himself; and he invariably laid claim to the full authority of the office.

CONCERNING APOSTLES The apostles of Jesus Christ constituted the most interesting group of men ever to live upon earth. They were men of humble origin, men that the world would hesitate to call learned or wise when measured by ordinary standards, men who were never honored by any university with a degree, or elected to any learned society of intellectuals, men who never wrote any books, as the term is usually understood, who were never elected to any pubic office, who never became wealthy, and who, with the possible exception of Paul, would never have been remembered by posterity, had it not been for their association with Jesus Christ. Their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, projected them into the spotlight and focal center of all subsequent history. For nearly two thousand years already, children have learned with eagerness the names of the Twelve Apostles, and gray-headed men and women have gone down to the grave repeating the blessed words these men delivered to the human race. It must be conceded that the apostles of Christ have exerted and continue to exert a greater influence upon humanity than that which may be attributed to any other human source. Who were permitted to serve as apostles? (1) Only those whom Jesus chose for this office were ever, in any real sense, apostles, this being a necessary deduction from Acts 1:24, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen." In that remarkable event, the apostles themselves had been able to narrow the choice for Judas’ successor to the two men alone who fulfilled the other qualifications for the apostleship; (2) having been companions of the Master from the time of John’s baptism until Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:22</desk/?query=+Acts 1:22>); and (3) having been witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, that is, having seen him alive after his death and burial (Acts 1:22</desk/?query=+Acts 1:22>). Paul’s apostleship was different only in this, that he had not been a personal companion of Jesus during the Lord’s ministry, as were the others; but, by special appearances to Paul, the Lord commissioned him as a true "witness" of the resurrection (Acts 26:16</desk/?query=+Acts 26:16>), that commission as an apostle being by Christ himself and not by men (Gal 1:1</desk/?query=+Gal 1:1>).

What were their powers? They were infallible teachers of God’s word, being inspired in the highest sense of that word, their infallibility being attested by the signs and miracles that accompanied their preaching (Mark 16:20</desk/?query=mr+16:20>). Peter raised the dead to life again (Acts 9:41</desk/?query=+Acts 9:41>); Paul suffered no hurt from the vicious bite of a deadly viper (Acts 28:5</desk/?query=+Acts 28:5>); and many other signs and miracles were wrought by them and all the apostles. They could convey the gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of their hands; and one must agree with Charles Hodge that it was: The power of working miracles in confirmation of their mission ... (It was) this power they could communicate to others by the laying on of their hands. ^F4

It was never claimed by any of the apostles that any perpetual office could thus be transferred; and the notion of any line of succession to such an office as the apostleship is illogical and opposed to the scriptures. Who were their successors? Only one of the apostles ever had a successor, namely, Judas Iscariot, whose successor, Matthias, was chosen by the Lord to take the office from which Judas "by transgression, fell" (Acts 1:25</desk/?query=+>Acts 1:25; Acts 1:25 ), the significance of this arising out of the circumstance that the death of two of the apostles is recorded in the New Testament, whereas only one of them required a successor, it being nowhere recorded that any successor was chosen for James (Acts 12:2</desk/?query=+Acts 12:2>). The difference in there having been chosen a successor for Judas, but none for James, may be explained only by the fact that the scriptures attribute the removal of Judas from his office to his transgression, and not to his death, which leads to the conclusion that death never removed, and indeed cannot remove, an apostle from his office. It is this tremendous truth that underlies the promise of Jesus to the Twelve that, "In the times of the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mat 19:28</desk/?query=+Mat 19:28>). This promise of the Master established the principle that death could not remove an apostle, nor interfere with the discharge of their apostolic duties, their reign being co-extensive with that of Christ himself. As to HOW the apostles are reigning today, it appears that their word, the inspired message which they delivered, and which is still preserved and binding upon the Christians of all ages, that their word is the means of. their continual authority, or reign, over the church. That the apostolic office was unique and limited, absolutely, to the Twelve plus Paul, is further corroborated by the apostle John’s vision of the foundations of the Eternal City, upon which are inscribed "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev 21:14</desk/?query=+Rev 21:14>), Therefore, how impossible it is to believe the claims of any so-called successors to apostolic dignity and authority of the Twelve, whether in this age or any other!

Separated unto the gospel of God ... This reference to separation corresponds to the setting apart of the prophets of the Old Testament for their divine mission, as mentioned in Jeremiah (Jer 1:5</desk/?query=+Jer 1:5>), and strongly suggests the parity of honor and authority which the apostles of the New Testament enjoyed, along with the mighty prophets of the Old Testament. This oneness of dignity, embracing both prophets and apostles, was mentioned by Peter, thus: "Ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles" (2Pe 3:2</desk/?query=+2Pe 3:2>). There is, of course, a certain sense in which all Christians are separated, or sanctified; but far more is intended here. On Paul’s part, there was a total, absolute, and unvarying dedication to the work of preaching Christ to all people.

Verse 2 Which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. This verse seals the identity of the Christian religion with that divine institution set forth prophetically and typically in the Old Testament. The redemptive gospel Paul preached was the very same system proclaimed and partially unfolded in the Old Testament. The identity and character of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, and the ultimate replacement of the old covenant with a new (Jer 31:31-35</desk/?query=+Jer 31:31-35>) - all of these things, and many others, are contained in the Old Testament. By so bold a claim, Paul at once established the principle that any believer of the Old Testament should likewise be a believer of the New Testament; for they surely answer, each to the other, as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment.

Through his prophets ...

Here is a distinction one meets constantly in the Bible, that the words therein contained are not the words of the prophets, but the word of God delivered "through his prophets" (as here), and "through the apostles" (2Pe 3:2</desk/?query=+2Pe 3:2>). (See Mat 1:22</desk/?query=+>Mat 1:22; Mat 2:5</desk/?query=+>Mat 2:5; Mat 2:15</desk/?query=+>Mat 2:15; Mat 2:17</desk/?query=+>Mat 2:17; Mat 3:3</desk/?query=+>Mat 3:3; Mat 4:14, and throughout the ). Paul’s summary of the gospel (1Co 15:3-4</desk/?query=+1Co 15:3; +1Co 15:4>) stresses this same point through the recurrence of the phrase, "according to the scriptures." Bruce’s definition of the gospel is:

(It is) his joyful proclamation of the victory and exaltation of his Son, and the consequent amnesty and liberation which we may enjoy through faith in him. ^F5

Verse 3 Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Having already announced the origin of the gospel in God himself (Rom 1:1</desk/?query=+Rom 1:1>), Paul immediately introduced God’s Son as the central fact of the good news, the gospel having but one center and that in Christ, Christ alone is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the embodiment of all Jewish hopes, the willing sacrifice, the sin-bearer, and the atonement. He, and he alone, is the architect of the crucifixion, the deliverer of God’s redeeming word; indeed, he is that Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God (John 1:1</desk/?query=+John 1:1>). Christ is the Hope of Israel, the Light of the Gentiles, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star, the Fairest of Ten Thousand, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace! Of the seed of David ... The dual nature of Christ, both his divinity and humanity, are affirmed by Paul in this passage. As for the body that Jesus took when he decided to enter our earth life, it was descended through David, as attested by the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke, the very first verse of the New Testament hailing him as "the Son of David." However, it was only the humanity of Jesus that descended through David. In his totality, Christ descended from no man but was co-existent with the Father. Heb 2:14-16 plainly declares that Christ "take hold of" the seed of Abraham, thus affirming that he had an existence before assuming a human body.

Verse 4 Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord. This verse is the antithesis of the preceding verse, that dealing with the human nature of Christ, and this with his heavenly nature.

Declared to be the Son of God with power ... The key words in this passage are "with power." It is not affirmed that Christ was declared the Son of God, merely, but that he was declared so with power. As Greathouse expressed it:

Paul does not say that Jesus was appointed Son of God but that he was appointed Son of God with power. Nygren brings all these ideas into focus: "To be sure, from the beginning, he was the Son of God, but in weakness and lowliness. The divine glory which formerly was hidden was manifest after the resurrection. From that hour, he is the Son of God in a new sense: he is the Son of God in power." ^F6 According to the spirit of holiness ... By capitalizing "Spirit of holiness," the RSV identifies the Spirit mentioned here as the Holy Spirit; and, although Paul nowhere else uses this designation of the Holy Spirit, there seems to be no good reason for denying that he did so here. Certainly, it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that the gospel was proclaimed, including the good news of the resurrection, which is an essential part of it. By the resurrection from the dead ... should be translated "by the resurrection of the dead," the change to "from" having been made by the translators for the purpose of giving a more accurate presentation of what they considered to be the meaning, most of them thinking that the resurrection of Christ was referred to; but the alternative translation in the English Revised Version (1885) margin is undoubtedly correct. This difficult passage was translated "after the resurrection from the dead" by Luther, Erasmus, and others. ^F7 Barrett translates it "after his resurrection from the dead." ^F8 Greathouse, however, protested such translations, writing:

Literally the phrase means "resurrection of those who are dead." Paul says actually that Christ was designated the Son of God with power "by a resurrection of dead ones." Nygren understands Paul to mean: "Through Christ the resurrection age has burst upon us." ^F9

Whosoever believes that Christ is the Son of God has passed from death unto life (John 5:24</desk/?query=+John 5:24>), and thus the expression "resurrection of the dead" is the reference to the power of the gospel to awaken into new life them that were formerly dead in trespasses and sins. Thin does not exclude the resurrection of Christ, but goes beyond it to make the world-shaking power of the gospel to be included also as part of the declarative power demonstrating and advertising Christ as Son of God with power.

Any further pursuit of the meaning of this difficult phrase would only multiply supporting reasons for various positions of scholars; and we shall, accordingly, construe the place as ambiguous, perhaps designed that way by the Holy Spirit, and content ourselves with a few certainties: (1) Christ was Son of God long before his resurrection, and was so confessed by the apostles. (2) Any declaration of Christ, and appointment of him to be the Son of God with power, by means of any such thing as the resurrection, would of necessity apply to some more powerful phase of his Sonship, rather than marking the absolute initiation of it. (3) The resurrection here mentioned, whatever was intended, is indeed one of the centers of the Christian faith. The resurrection of Christ, particularly, is the cornerstone and foundation of the Christian religion. It is the resurrection of Christ that gives credibility to the Gospels, explains the virgin birth, thrills the heart with the conviction that Jesus Christ is indeed God come in the flesh; and, without the hope of the resurrection, Paul himself declared that, "We are of all men most pitiable" (1Co 15:19</desk/?query=+1Co 15:19>). With the sure and certain hope of the resurrection, as set forth in the New Testament, the Christian is endowed with sufficient strength to meet all of life’s challenges. It is surely true, as Paul said in another place, that "Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2Ti 1:10</desk/?query=+2Ti 1:10>).

Even Jesus Christ our Lord ...

There can be no doubt that Paul accepted Christ as far more than a mere human being. This salutation, had there been nothing else, would make that certain. Paul presents himself as the bondslave of Jesus Christ in the very first line of the epistle, and it is impossible to think of Paul’s subjection to any person of mere mortal dignity. Here, Jesus Christ is adored as Lord.

Verse 5

Through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name’s sake. The use of "we" may be viewed either as the editorial plural applied to Paul, or as an inclusion with himself of all the other apostles, all of them having been shareholders in the apostolic commission and beneficiaries of the grace of God.

Obedience of faith ... This is the first mention of faith in the Roman letter, and its being mentioned along with obedience is extremely significant. Paul was about to write the most important document on the subject of faith that the world would ever have, in which, of necessity, there would be written some of those things which even an apostle would consider "hard to be understood" (2Pe 3:16</desk/?query=+2Pe 3:16>); therefore, it was a matter of gracious discernment upon his part that, in the very beginning of the letter, he made it clear that, throughout Romans, "faith" should be read "obedient faith." Evidence is totally lacking that Paul ever considered "faith only" as efficacious in the procurement of salvation; because, as noted here, the apostolic commission was designed to produce the obedience of faith, and not merely faith alone. These same words, conjoined by apostolic authority, stand at the beginning of Romans and at the end, where they are mentioned in the final doxology (Rom 16:26</desk/?query=+Rom 16:26>), thus forming the archway through which one enters the portal and by which one departs this magnificent cathedral of sacred literature.

Among all the nations ... anticipates what Paul was about to say of the forthcoming visit to Rome; because, much as he personally wished to visit there, a much higher priority belonged to his heavenly commission to "all the nations," which, to be sure, included Rome also; but the gospel was already known there. For such reasons as these, therefore, he had refrained from gratifying his personal desire to visit the great capital until it could be fitted into the larger strategy of preaching the gospel wherever it had not previously been proclaimed. The word "nations" here means "Gentiles," and it is so translated by Locke and many others. "For his name’s sake" applies to the entire apostolic commission, with special emphasis upon the purpose of it, namely, to glorify and honor the Lord Jesus Christ. This is evident from the literal meaning of the phrase, which, according to Barrett, is "on behalf of his name." ^F10

Verse 6 Among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ’s. A glimpse of what seems to have been in Paul’s mind when he wrote that line may be seen in Sanday’s paraphrase, as follows:

Among these Gentile churches to which I am especially commissioned, you Romans too are called to the same obedience of faith, and therefore I have the more right to address you. ^F11 The "called" are not merely those who hear the gracious gospel invitation, but are a company made up of the ones who obey. In a certain sense, all are called, in the sense that the gospel is for all mankind; and yet, in the Pauline usage of the word, it is applied to those who have responded to the great invitation. Such a word as "called" emphasizes the divine initiative in redemption.

Verse 7 To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

All that be in Rome ... need not be restricted in meaning. As Macknight wrote: This epistle being written to persuade the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles to embrace the gospel, as exhibiting the only effectual method of salvation, it was fitly addressed to the whole inhabitants of Rome, to the heathens as well as to the Jews and Christians. ^F12 Beloved of God ... here has that great New Testament word for "love," [Greek: agape]. A supreme consciousness of such great love underlies every word of this great epistle; and, again and again, some reference to it surfaces in the main body of the letter. God’s great love for man is the reason for the Cross itself, where Christ died for all, "while we were yet sinners" (Rom 5:8</desk/?query=+Rom 5:8>) and even "when we were enemies" (Rom 5:10</desk/?query=+Rom 5:10>). So great love is shed abroad in the hearts of Christians by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5</desk/?query=+Rom 5:5>), and nothing in the whole universe can ever separate Christians from God’s great love (Rom 8:35-39</desk/?query=+Rom 8:35-39>). As Greathouse put it, "When Paul addresses the Christians as `God’s beloved,’ he uses the word in its deepest and most inclusive sense." ^F13 Called to be saints ...

Here we have the same gratuitous insertion of "to be" which was noted in verse 1; and, again, the meaning is more evident without the insertion. It is the invariable New Testament teaching that Christians are not merely called to be saints, but they are so. They are called "saints," "holy," and "holy ones." But, of course, the word "saint" has been so abused by the historical church as to have almost totally lost its true meaning. The restriction of the term as a title for dead Christians who have been canonized is a contradiction of the New Testament meaning of the word; but the perverted meaning is so widely received that one is tempted to agree with Lard who wrote that "The word `saint’ should be wholly dropped from the sacred page. It is too vague and too much abused to be tolerated longer." ^F14

Another word with reference to "saints" is in order. There is no apostolic assertion of moral perfection in the apostolic application of the term to the Christians in Rome. They were thus designated out of respect to the ideals they had accepted and were striving to attain, rather than from any certainty that those sacred ideals had actually been achieved. Yet they were very properly addressed as "holy," because that was a means of inspiring them to greater purity and of keeping them in constant remembrance of their sacred duties as Christians. This divine acceptance of the Christian for what he is trying to become, rather than merely for what he is, appears as a dispensation of God’s grace, and is frequently emphasized in Paul’s letters. For example, it would be hard to imagine a church with more imperfections and outright sins than the church in Corinth; yet, even of them, Paul wrote, "I thank my God always concerning you"! (1Co 1:4</desk/?query=+1Co 1:4>). Moreover, they too, just like the Romans, were "called saints"! (1Co 2:1-16).

Grace to you and peace ...

Scholars have noted that Paul’s greeting combines the usual Greek salutation with the customary Hebrew greeting, thus forming a more noble greeting with the highest Christian implications, and yet retaining the best features of both the old ones. The usual Greek salutation, according to Greathouse, was [thairein] (greeting). He wrote thus:

Paul uses a similar word [Greek: charis] (grace), which means the free, undeserved favor of God, and adds [Greek: eirene] (peace), the inner sense of serenity and well-being men enjoy through God’s grace. Since "peace" ([Hebrew: shalom]) was the common Jewish salutation. Paul’s "Grace ... and peace," the salutation of all his letters, combines the Greek and Hebrew forms of greeting. ^F15 This verse ends the longest salutation in the Pauline writings. The salutation proper, without the embellishing clauses, reads: "Paul, to all that are in Rome: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The remainder of these first seven verses is actually a series of statements concerning: (1) himself; (2) the gospel; (3) God’s Son; (4) his apostolic commission; and (5) the Christian community in Rome. These five precisely logical clusters of statements touch upon many of the profoundest themes in Christianity. Attention is here directed to the technical, ingenious manner in which Paul arranged these five groups of statements, which is proof of the forethought that went into their composition.

I. Of himself A. That he is a bondslave of Christ B. A called apostle C. Separated unto the gospel of God II. Concerning the gospel (mentioned in "C" above) A. It originated with God B. Was foretold by Old Testament prophecy C. And concerns the Son of God III. Regarding the Son of God (mentioned in "C" above) A. He descended from David according to the flesh B. Proclaimed Son of God with power C. Through the resurrection of the dead IV. Paul’s relationship to the risen Lord (mentioned in "C" above) A. Received grace and apostleship from Christ B. Commissioned by Christ to preach obedience of faith to all nations C. Such evangelism to be for Christ’s name’s sake V. Concerning the church in Rome (just such a congregation as could have been expected from the activity mentioned in "C" above) A. They are beloved of God B. Called saints C. They are the recipients of Paul’s "grace and peace" That this remarkable paragraph is capable of being so analyzed and outlined is an amazing proof of the planning and thought which preceded its production.

Verse 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world.

First, I thank my God ...

There is no use to look for "second" and "third" in this epistle for no such outline ever entered Paul’s mind. His "first" in this place simply means, "The first thing I want to say is ..." "Thanks to God" is always a good first, no matter what is intended; and, besides, Paul usually began his letters to the churches with thanksgiving to God upon their behalf. In this case, his thanksgiving was no doubt amplified and intensified by the circumstances of the Roman community of believers being so favorably located in the very heart of the great Roman capital, where communications with all the world of that day were centered, where the crossroads of the earth met, and where travelers from all the provinces were going and coming every day. As a result of their strategic location, the Roman Christians had a wide stage upon which to enact their deeds of faith; and Paul’s appreciation of this may be deduced from the fact that most of his own great labors were directed to establishing the faith of Christ in great world-centers like Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch. My God ...

Paul’s use of the possessive pronoun here was not unusual, the same construction appearing in 1Co 1:4; 2Co 12:21; Php 1:3; Php 4:19; and Phm 1:4. Old Testament precedent is "The Lord is my shepherd". And yet none of the apostles ever wrote, "My Father," an expression which our Saviour evidently reserved for himself alone, since he taught the disciples to pray, "Our Father, etc."

Through Jesus Christ ... honors the mediatorial office of Jesus Christ; and as Hodge suggested:

There is no need of the various forced interpretations of the words in the text, which have been given by those who are unwilling to admit the idea of such mediation on the part of Christ. ^F16

Upon the great doctrine of the mediatorial office of the Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament leaves no grounds for misunderstanding.

CHRIST, THE ONE MEDIATOR

John Wesley’s statement that "The gifts of God all pass through Christ to us, and all our petitions and thanksgivings pass through Christ to God," ^F17 constitutes a concise summary of New Testament teaching on Christ’s mediation. The Lord said: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do (John 14:13-14</desk/?query=+John 14:13; +John 14:14>). If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name (John 16:23).

Other New Testament instructions to the same effect are as follows:

Give thanks always for all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father (Eph 5:20</desk/?query=+Eph 5:20>). And whatsover ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Col 3:17</desk/?query=+Col 3:17>). Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually (Heb 13:15</desk/?query=+Heb 13:15>).

Paul himself always carefully followed this rule (Rom 7:25</desk/?query=+Rom 7:25>); and the fact appears that language could hardly be more comprehensive and emphatic in the description of exactly what communications were commanded to be addressed to the Father "through" Christ. "Anything ... whatsoever ... all things ... whatsoever ye do in word or deed" - thus the most comprehensive terminology is marshaled against any exceptions whatsoever.

And, are there mediators other than Jesus Christ? No. Paul said,

There is one God, one mediator also between God and man, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times (1Ti 2:5</desk/?query=+1Ti 2:5>).

Thus, there are exactly as many mediators as there are Gods, namely, only one. All superstitions to the effect that prayers may be offered to God through various so-called saints, or even through the blessed Mother of Jesus, are flatly contradicted by New Testament teaching. Likewise, prayers which are offered ambiguously, "In thy name," or "In his name," etc., or in no name at all except that of the petitioner, are sinful in the light of these solemn teachings of the word of God. Even the use of such a formula as "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," is not in keeping with the commandments of the apostles, nor did any of them ever use such words in a prayer. True, people were commanded to baptize into that sacred triple name; but no man can show any other example of those holy names thus being subjoined to any other command or petition in the entire Bible. In the verse before us, Paul was scrupulous to express his thanks to God "through Jesus Christ"; and there can hardly be any doubt that his doing so was in keeping with the revealed will of God. As Hodge summarized it,

Such then is the clear teaching of the Bible, that in all our approaches to God in prayer and praise, we must come in the name of Christ, that is, in him, referring to him as the ground of our acceptance. ^F18 For you all ... is the plural of "you"; and the only possible plural of that pronoun capable of including everyone. "You both," "you two," etc., are also grammatical plurals of that pronoun. Thus, the expression "you all" is not a colloquialism but stands in the best tradition of classical English.

Proclaimed throughout the world ...

It was natural that the faith of Christians so favorably located in Rome should be widely known, but also implicit in the fact of their extensive reputation is their evangelical behavior. Their faith was not something which they held privately and selfishly, but a passionate conviction of which they spoke to everyone who would hear and which they preached as universally as possible. The use here of such a phrase as "throughout the world" is understood by some writers as hyperbole; and, although the use of that figure of speech is certainly found in the New Testament, as, for example, in Mat 3:5, that is not necessarily the explanation here. It could be that Paul here employed the prophetic tense (in which future events are spoken of in the present tense), and the view that Paul did so speak here is grounded in the amazing truth that, nearly twenty centuries after his writing, it is literally true that the Christians of Rome have been spoken of, and are continually being spoken of in every village and hamlet of the earth, everywhere the Bible is read! In view of the facts, then, it seems rather arbitrary to limit Paul’s meaning as, "Best understood as `throughout the Christian Church and wherever people knew of their faith.’ ^F19 The similar passage, "The gospel which is come unto you; even as it is in all the world, bearing fruit and increasing" (Col 1:5-6</desk/?query=+Col 1:5; +Col 1:6>), may also be interpreted in the same way.

Verses 9, 10 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may be prospered by the will of God to come unto you. The words "For God is my witness" are actually the highest form of that type of oath defined by Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary as "a reverent appeal to God in corroboration of what one says." Paul used that device frequently, as in 2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; and Philp. 1:8. His special need for emphasizing his truthfulness here derived from the great length of time during which he had been speaking of and promising a visit to Rome; therefore, to protect himself against the possible insinuations of his enemies regarding that oft-promised, but yet non-existent visit to Rome, Paul affirmed, in the most emphatic manner possible, both the sincerity of his intentions and his determination yet to make the visit, provided only that it was God’s will. Some have seen in Paul’s repeated use of this sacred type of oath ample permission for Christians to take the judicial type of oath when giving testimony before a court of law; but, for those whose consciences will not allow even that, out of deference to the Saviour’s command, "Swear not at all," it is far better to use the alternate form permitted in United States courts, in which the witness is permitted to "affirm" rather than "swear." It will be noted that Paul does not "swear," either here or elsewhere in his writings. Whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son ...

What people do with their bodies may be observed and reported by their fellows, but what one does in one’s own spirit is known certainly only to God; and that accounts for Paul’s appeal to God as a witness of his inner sincerity and devotion to the gospel of Christ. Paul’s almost vehement language here showed how deeply he felt the frustrations of being unable to go to Rome, and how diligent he was to counteract the deprecatory remarks that some might have made about it. There he stood in Corinth, not too far away from Rome, really; and to make it appear still worse, Paul was about to leave Corinth, not in the direction of Rome, but in the opposite direction toward Jerusalem, and all this in spite of many promises and expressed intentions of visiting Rome. His wide travels, covering so much of the great empire, were hard to reconcile with any true desire to go to the capital; and there were doubtless some of Paul’s enemies who were willing to suggest that he was ashamed to preach there. It was Paul’s concern for things like that which led him to write so forcibly, calling God to witness, making mention of ceaseless prayers, and assuring the Roman Christians of his sincerity and determination, even at that time, to make the visit, God willing.

Always in my prayers ... The great apostle won many by his preaching, but it is possible that he won even more through his prayers. To the Roman Christians he sent assurance, as to all the churches, that he remembered them before the Throne, not in some perfunctory or occasional manner, but unceasingly and always.

Making request ... that he might be permitted personally to visit them, is a prayer which he had been offering for many years. And why had such prayers remained unanswered? See under Rom 1:13, below. The will of God ...

How significant are these words! It is under the sovereign will of the Father that all things are controlled, for it is in that will that they even exist. Paul made it clear that he was praying for it to be God’s will that the projected Roman visit might actually take place. The Lord himself prayed, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mat 26:39</desk/?query=+Mat 26:39>); and the prayers of all Christians should always be offered upon that same condition. Paul, at last, was privileged to make his journey to Rome; but the circumstances of it must have been utterly different from what Paul had hoped. He finally arrived in the city of Rome as a prisoner, subject to the fickle will of Nero, humiliated by a guard and a chain, and with no pulpit but a Roman barracks. How inscrutable is the will of God! Of mortal men, only they who can bow the head and say, "The Lord willing," shall ever know the real meaning of service to God.

Verses 11, 12 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may, be established; that is, that I with you may be comforted in you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.

Here is revealed the reason why Paul wanted to go to Rome, namely, that he might establish the church there. In a sense, it had already been established there for many years, at least to the extent of its having been able to exist; but Paul saw the advantages that would accrue to the world-wide church by the building up, encouragement, and perhaps better organization of Christians in Rome. Significantly, the church there had no elders and deacons, else they would presumably have been mentioned in the salutation, as in Philp. 1:1. The particular spiritual gift Paul had in mind was not mentioned, and it is pointless to speculate; but one sure conclusion that seems justified from this verse is that no apostle had ever been in Rome at the time this letter was sent; otherwise, the intended spiritual gift would already have been conveyed.

Rom 1:12 was written from considerations of tact. Paul, not wishing to appear as high and mighty above the band of believers in Rome, did not speak merely of his conferring some benefit upon them, but also of the mutual benefit in which he himself would also share. The use of the words "that is" indicates that Paul, after writing the preceding words, sought to soften their impact by mention of the blessing he himself would receive from them. The delicacy, understanding, and humility of this great Christian apostle stand out conspicuously in this warm, personal passage.

Verse 13 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles. This verse shows that Paul had planned to go to Rome and that he had been hindered from doing so. It is immaterial whether the hindering came from Satan or from the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit could have overruled any Satanic hindrance; and, therefore, either the hindrance itself, or its being allowed, must be attributed to the Holy Spirit. Satan indeed was the hinderer on some occasions, as in 1Th 2:18, and, upon other occasions, the Holy Spirit was the hinderer, as in Acts 16:6. Whiteside made a very significant deduction from the circumstances revealed in this verse: This shows that he was not guided by inspiration in forming his plans, for the Holy Spirit would not have guided him into forming plans and then have allowed him to be hindered in carrying out his plans. Paul did sometimes form his own plans or purposes which the Holy Spirit did not allow him to carry out. ^F20 From this it is clear that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Christian lives does not extend so far as helping them to devise ALL their plans. There is nothing in such a deduction to deny that the Spirit might help in forming SOME plans; but there is revealed no way of knowing, for sure, which plans may or may not be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence, the necessity, always, for people to pray, even as Christ did, "Not my will, but thine be done."

Paul’s reasons for thinking he should go to Rome sprang out of his desire, as stated here, to have some fruit among them. Just how long he had wanted to make this journey is not known, but it was surely for "many years" (Rom 15:23</desk/?query=+Rom 15:23>).

Verse 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. In this verse appears that dual classification of all people which was so fashionable in the world of that era. The Hebrews classified all people as Jews and Gentiles; the Romans classified the whole world as Romans and pagans; the Greeks included everyone as Greeks or Barbarians. There were other dual classifications such as wise and foolish, male and female, freemen and slaves, etc. Actually in usage, such classifications really mean "us and everybody else"! Paul’s evident meaning is simply that he felt indebted to all people. Nothing that any man had done had laid this burden of debt upon Paul’s heart; but it was what Christ had done for Paul which had made him debtor to all people of all races and nations. Christ had died for Paul, appeared to him, commissioned him as an apostle, saved his soul from sin, and made him an heir of everlasting life. Such a mighty weight of blessing had produced Paul’s feeling of indebtedness, and where is the Christian who does not feel a similar debt, a debt of such weight and nature that the uttermost limits of one’s ability, resources, and time may be taxed without fully discharging it? This immense and overwhelming debt may, in the last analysis, be relaxed only by the grace of God, as in a court of last resort; because, when Christians have done everything possible for them to do, such payments on their part can never fully discharge such a debt as this.

Verse 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome.

Students of the Greek language are amazed to find that a single word in that language is translated "preach the gospel"; but Macknight’s explanation fully justifies it: The original word was first used by the LXX to signify the publishing of any good news: and, having inserted it in their translation of Isa 60:6; Isa 61:1, where Messiah’s preaching good tidings to the poor is foretold (Luk 4:21</desk/?query=+Luk 4:21>), the apostles justly appropriated it to the preaching of the gospel, as the best news mankind could hear. ^F21 This verse also supports the conclusion that Romans was addressed to all the inhabitants in Rome, and not merely to believers alone, but to Barbarians, foolish, and, in short, all people. The tremendous motivation of Paul’s life appears in the twin declarations, "I am debtor" (Rom 1:14</desk/?query=+Rom 1:14>) and "I am ready" (Rom 1:15</desk/?query=+Rom 1:15>). With this solid shot, Paul dispelled any notion that he had been holding back from a trip to Rome due to any considerations like being ashamed to preach there. Having already affirmed the credentials of his apostolic calling, he waived all privileges of rank and all the honors of such an office and presented himself in this verse to the total population of that great city, not merely as the great ambassador, which he surely was, but also as a human brother, a fellow-Christian who had long loved them, prayed for them, and longed to visit them. Choosing exactly the right words, Paul in this perfect introduction presented himself as one who actually considered himself in debt to the whole community, indeed to all people, and as a brother in Christ who was eager to preach to them. How tender and beautiful are the sentiments expressed upon this sacred page! As Beet put it, Our spirits bowed before one who stood so high in the service of so great a Master. But now the Ambassador of Christ comes to us like one of ourselves. Across the waters which roll between him and us, we hear a brother’s voice, and see a brother’s face. ^F22

Verse 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. With reference to any possible slander to the effect that he was ashamed to preach in the sophisticated capital of the empire, Paul challenged and refuted it with the smashing declaration here. A lesser man than Paul might indeed have quailed before the arrogant sophistication of Rome, but Paul was a man absolutely beyond the reach of snobbish intimidation. Brunner analyzed the situation thus:

What Rome meant then is almost beyond our comprehension. We must imagine as one all of the capital cities of our own day, from New York and London to Tokyo. He, the itinerant Jewish preacher, is to conquer Rome for Christ. By what means? By the message of a Galilean who was executed as a criminal! In face of the wisdom and might of Rome, to set up "the foolishness of the Cross," this glorification of the powerless one! But the apostle’s thought barely touches upon what might have been so natural, namely, the failing of his courage when confronted by this contrast. There are no inferiority complexes here and no false humility, but an unbroken consciousness of power. "I am not ashamed; for it is the power of God." The gospel is not only an epoch-making power for salvation; its effect reaches into eternity, just as itself derives from eternity. ^F23

Ashamed ...

Paul’s mention of not being ashamed of the gospel is appropriate, because in the city of Rome were all the trappings of human glory, pride, selfishness, power, and cruelty, also every extravagance of intemperance, vice, and idolatry. Raw, naked force was enthroned there. Those fierce Romans had controlled the world for centuries; and, in their lustful exploitation of power, they had shamelessly held all human honor and virtue expendable. Ruthless, unprincipled, power-politics sat naked and unmasked upon the throne of the Caesars; and, if there had been a place on earth where the gentle teachings of the Son of God were despised, the great harlot on the Tiber was that city. Jesus had warned his disciples that God himself would be ashamed of any who were ashamed of Jesus and his word (Mark 8.:38); and in this epistolary war-cry, Paul hurled the challenge of his faith in Christ like a steel gauntlet into the face of proud and arrogant Rome. How could he do it? The answer is in the next clause.

It is the power of God unto salvation ...

Ah, yes. Here is the power to save people from sin, from the inevitable fate of the wicked, and from eternal death. This gospel is power unlimited, eternal, and irresistible within the framework of God’s eternal purpose, and fully sufficient to achieve all that God intended. This tremendous power is primarily the power to save from sin and death, being fully efficacious unto redemption, the nature of which is revealed in the terms of the gospel itself. It is salvation from the wrath of God and eternal death of the soul, a salvation of such a nature that only God could provide it or make it available to people. No human scheme or device could ever be effectual for such a purpose as salvation from sin and death and the endowment of mortals with the glory of eternal life. The gospel ...

And, pray tell, what is the gospel? In a word, the gospel is the good news of salvation from the wrath of God due to man’s sin, a salvation made possible through the death of Christ, and therefore pertaining (as Paul himself summarized it) to the death of Christ according to the scriptures, his burial, and his resurrection on the third day, according to the scriptures (1Co 15:3-4</desk/?query=+1Co 15:3; +1Co 15:4>). By extension, this gospel of Christ is the sum total of divine revelation in the sacred scriptures, that is, the Bible, and is composed of: (1) facts to be believed; (2) commandments to be obeyed; and (3) promises to be accepted. It is a gospel which must be received as the word of God (Acts 17:11</desk/?query=+Acts 17:11>), a gospel which must be believed (as stated in this verse); and it is a gospel that must be obeyed (2Th 1:8</desk/?query=+2Th 1:8>). These plainly documented characteristics of the gospel should be kept in mind at all times, especially in the study of Romans; because advocates of human error have been very diligent to make Paul’s letter to the Romans a charter of salvation by "faith only." If the gospel means that people may be saved by faith only, why did Paul write the Thessalonians that the Lord Jesus would execute vengeance upon them that "obey not the gospel"?

Lard named the three things that must be overcome in salvation as, The world, the flesh, and Satan. These powers must be overcome in salvation; nothing short of God’s power can do this; but the gospel does it, hence the propriety of calling it God’s power for salvation. It is his power because it proceeds from him; it is for salvation, because it is ordained to effect it. ^F24 The salvation under consideration, which is promised in the gospel, is no mere alleviation of social unrest, nor any such thing as the psychological easement of human tensions, nor an infusion of tranquillity for troubled minds. Such results indeed may come as collateral and tangential benefits, but the gospel is designed for something utterly beyond things like that. It is to save people from everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power (2Th 1:9</desk/?query=+2Th 1:9>). Men should therefore reject a commentator’s mild compliment of Romans, which held that it is: A relevant message, for it describes with great accuracy the deep tensions and anxieties of life and holds forth the promise of peace. ^F25 The gospel is not a message of peace for the disobedient, but a message doom, and has the dual character, mentioned by Paul himself, of being either "unto life" or "unto death," as it may be received or rejected (2Co 2:14-16</desk/?query=+2Co 2:14-16>). The power of God ... The word "the" is inserted by the translators but does not add anything to the meaning. Whatever power is needed to convert sinful people, all of that power is available in the gospel; and there is no need for any special illumination of the heart, nor for any fiat on the part of the Holy Spirit, nor for any special act of God to strike the sinner down and convert him. The gospel itself is that illumination that can save him, the fiat of the Holy Spirit making salvation available to him, and the special act of God calling him to be saved. Let the gospel be preached; and, as Jesus himself said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16</desk/?query=mr+16:16>). To every one that believeth ... is a synecdoche, that is, one of a group of related things being mentioned in place of and standing for all of them, and was absolutely not intended to announce faith as the sole condition of eternal life, in the manner declared by Lenski:

"Believing" excludes everything except the confidence wrought in the soul by the divine power of the gospel and by this alone. ^F26 This expositor is absolutely certain that nothing Paul ever wrote was intended to exclude obedience as a precondition of salvation; and, although perfect obedience must surely be reckoned beyond the power of human achievement, the sincere intent to obey and some semblance of compliance with God’s commandments appears to be absolutely required by such statements as those of 2Th 1:8-9, etc. Upon what grounds do scholars like Lenski, and others, declare that "believeth," as used here, "excludes" everything else? If that is what Paul meant, could he not have said so? Was Paul ignorant of such words as "alone" and "only" which come so readily to the lips and pens of scholars today, but which he pointedly omitted using; or, on the other hand, is it that people are guilty of importing their own theories into Paul’s words? And, if it be inquired what are the group of related things represented by "believeth" in this passage, let it be answered that repentance (Luk 13:3-5</desk/?query=+Luk 13:3-5>), the new birth (John 3:5</desk/?query=+John 3:5>), holiness (Heb 12:14</desk/?query=+Heb 12:14>), and obedience (Heb 5:9</desk/?query=+Heb 5:9>; 2Th 1:8</desk/?query=+2Th 1:8>) are all, according to the scriptures, absolutely required of all who hope to be saved. When the Pauline theology, as "discovered" by some commentators, is thought to offer salvation without the new birth, without holiness, without repentance, and without obedience, somebody has simply got to be mistaken. To the Jew first, and also to the Greek ... means "to the whole world." The preference for the Jew, in that he should receive the message first, was just and derived from the Jew’s position among the chosen people. Throughout Paul’s apostleship, he was diligent to observe that priority; and only after the Jew rejected the message did he turn to the Gentiles. Even upon his final arrival in the city of Rome, Paul observed the same order of procedure.

Verse 17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith to faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall five by faith.

First, the expression "a righteousness of God" should be read "the righteousness of God," as in KJV and RSV. One may only conjecture as to why the English Revised Version (1885) translators gave such a rendition, especially in view of the fact that they rendered the parallel expression a moment later, in verse 18, as "the wrath of God." Barmby noted that "`A wrath of God’ has no intelligent meaning," ^F27 and the same is true of "a righteousness of God." As Barmby noted, the two expressions simply mean "God’s righteousness" and "God’s wrath."

Regarding the broader question of "the righteousness of God," if this refers to the righteousness imputed by God to human beings (forensic righteousness), or the eternal righteousness of God’s character (intrinsic righteousnesS), the evidence indicates that the latter is meant, not only here, but throughout Romans. We shall not go into the exhaustive dissertations of scholars on this place. The writer finds himself in strong agreement with Barmby; and, therefore, Barmby’s critical exegesis is summarized in that commentator’s own words. Convincing as Barmby’s analysis is, however, the overriding consideration in accepting the "righteousness" of this verse as a reference to God’s intrinsic righteousness, rather than to man’s forensic, or imputed righteousness, is found in Romans itself (Rom 3:25-26</desk/?query=+Rom 3:25; +Rom 3:26>), where God’s righteousness in "passing over the sins done aforetime" is the real key to the meaning of "righteousness" throughout the epistle, plainly referring to an attribute of God, and not to any imputed righteousness of people; and even in the places where the latter is spoken of, the great consideration in the background is always God’s intrinsic righteousness. A paraphrase of Barmby’s summary on this question is:

It is usual to interpret this as meaning man’s imputed or forensic righteousness; but if Paul meant that, why did he not use the words he used in Php 3:9, where he WAS speaking of that? The phrase suggests the sense in which the words are continually used in the Old Testament. The quotation from Habakkuk does not refute this meaning. The Old Testament usage of the term "righteousness" in Psa 18:2 undoubtedly means "God’s righteousness"; and the constant use of the phrase in a known sense in the Orr would naturally lead us to think that when Paul used it, he would have used it in the same sense. It is maintained in this commentary (with all due deference to the distinguished ancients and moderns who have held otherwise) that not only in this opening passage, but throughout the epistle, this phrase means God’s own eternal righteousness, and that even in passages where a righteousness that is of faith is spoken of as communicated to man, the essential idea beyond is still that of God’s own righteousness including believers in itself. ^F28 From faith to faith ...

Hodge declared this to mean "by faith alone"; ^F29 or "entirely by faith"; ^F30 Dodd, as quoted by Murray, rendered it, "by faith from beginning to end"; ^F31 and the New English Bible has "a way that starts with faith and ends with faith." ^F32 The student who strives for accuracy in understanding God’s word will at once be impressed with the truth that such paraphrases as those just cited can in no sense be honored as TRANSLATIONS of what the Holy Spirit wrote through Paul. Upon a disputed passage like this, the greatest degree of accuracy, according to Bruce, is the version used in this commentary, that is, the English Revised Version (1885). He said: The Bible text used throughout, except where otherwise indicated, is the English Revised Version of 1881. This remains, in spite of many more recent translations (including the New English Bible of 1961) the most helpful English version of the New Testament for purposes of accurate study. ^F33

Paul, therefore, wrote none of the phrases mentioned above, but "from faith to faith," and any paraphrase of the meaning would have to be something that does not violate that text. The Phillips New Testament has such a paraphrase, thus: "a process begun and continued by their faith. Certainly, the notion that Paul meant "faith alone" by this expression should be rejected out of hand, especially in view of the fact that the expression "faith alone" occurs never in Paul’s writings, and only once in the New Testament, where James declared that people are "not justified by faith alone" (Jas 2:24</desk/?query=+Jas 2:24>).

"As it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith ..." is a quotation from Hab 2:4 and is understood as Old Testament support of the principle of salvation by faith, it being the great end of the Christian religion to produce faith in all people, inasmuch as it may be possible. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6</desk/?query=+Heb 11:6>); and the statement here that the just shall live by faith is emphasis upon the fact of man’s utter inability to live without it. The two verses just considered are the theme of Bhe book of Romans, namely, God’s Eternal Righteousness as Revealed in the Gospel. Immediately upon announcement of this theme, Paul launched into the section vindicating God’s righteousness in accounting all people sinners and fully deserving God’s wrath.

Verse 18 For the wrath oJ God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness. The wrath of God was upon Jew and Gentile alike, but the Gentiles are that portion of humanity directly under consideration, beginning here and through Rom 2:16. The displeasure of God against the Gentiles resulted not from caprice, or happenstance, but from their unrighteousness and ungodliness, these two words standing for their irreverence and impiety toward God and for their faithless and immoral conduct toward their fellow human creatures. Whiteside noted that,

Ungodliness is worse than unrighteousness, though not generally so regarded. Our first and primary duty is to God. If we revere God as we should, we will respect his word, his church, and his worship. Those who blaspheme the name of God, or speak lightly of any of his commands, are ungodly. Through passion, or some weakness, a person might do wrong to his fellow man, and then be filled with great penitence toward God for the wrong he had done. Such a one still retained his reverence for God. David did that. He did unrighteous things, but his reverence for God was unfailing and always brought him to repentance. The ungodly are not so; they do not take God into account in anything that they do. ^F34 The wrath of God ... is a phrase that describes the antagonism between the Creator and all sin and unrighteousness. As Barmby stated it,

"The wrath of God" is an expression with which we are familiar in the Bible, being one of those in which human emotions are attributed to God in accommodation to the exigencies of human thought. It denotes his essential holiness, his antagonism to sin, to which punishment is due. ^F35

Revealed ... answers to the same word in the preceding verse, thus making the "righteousness of God" and the "wrath of God" antithetical, and both of them to be attributes of the Father. That wrath of God which is here said to be revealed should not be stripped of its emotional overtones when contemplated by sinful people; for it is obvious that the wrath of God is a personal thing. "It is God’s holy revulsion against that which is the contradiction of holiness." ^F36 This wrath is living, active, dynamic, and constantly operational against all evil. God has a score to settle with sin; and some Day he will settle it. Not one little sin will ever be able to crawl by the eyes of the eternal God without being either: (1) forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ, or (2) punished with everlasting destruction from God’s presence.

Hinder the truth in unrighteousness ... This is a reference to the fact that the pre-Christian Gentile world had the truth and that they suppressed it and denied it through their sins and wickedness. This is a most interesting verse, for it immediately raises the question of just to what extent those ancient Gentiles had "the truth." Certainly, they did not know the truth to the extent that it has now been revealed in Christ; and yet a little investigation will show that they had far more than sufficient truth to make their shameful conduct absolutely unjustifiable. Paul, in later verses, here speaks of the obvious truth to be gleaned from the observation of nature and the inner promptings of conscience; but those pre-Christian Gentiles also possessed other very pertinent and significant truth concerning God and his will, as the very next verse will indicate.

Verse 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them, for God manifested it to them. The argument of this verse is simply that those wicked Gentiles were sinners against the light, not being, in any absolute sense, ignorant of God. To be sure, they were not as privileged as the Jews, nor did they possess the type of revelation afterwards to be revealed in Christ; but they knew God. The Father himself had seen to that, for it is categorically stated here that God had "manifested it to them." The true meaning might actually be much stronger than this version indicates. Whiteside noted that: The pronoun "it" is not in the Greek; and it would be more in harmony with Paul’s argument to translate the last clause, "For God manifested himself to them." ^F37 The information thus revealed in this verse is of the first magnitude of importance, because there are still people in the world who