Romans 1

CHAPTER I

The Salutation

Romans 1:1

1 Greek and Latin letters began with what we may call the salutation: the writer names himself and salutes the person or the persons to whom he is writing. We thus have 1) the writer’s name in the nominative: “Paul”; 2) the persons addressed in the dative: “to all who are in Rome,” etc.; 3) the word or the words of salutation, an infinitive (in Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1, the ordinary secular χαίρειν) or, as a substitute for the infinitive, two or more nouns in the nominative: “grace and peace.” These three constituents are essential but they are often treated as the framework, any one or all three of them being expanded as the writer may wish. Without amplifications the salutation is merely formal; but when additions are made, these become important, often highly so. They may reflect the writer’s feelings; in Gal. 1:2 the omission of an addition to the second member of the greeting helps to do this. Often the capacity in which one writes is indicated, or his relation to the reader (readers), his attitude, and the like.

Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, one having been set apart for God’s gospel which he promised in advance through his prophets in sacred writings concerning his Son, come from David’s seed according to (his) flesh, ordained as God’s Son in power according to (his) spirit of holiness by (his) resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all nations for his name’s sake, among whom are you also as called of Jesus Christ: to all who are in Rome, beloved of God as called saints: grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!

This salutation is exceptional because of its length, and it is the expansion of its first member (“Paul”) that causes it to become so long. While certain of the Roman Christians knew Paul from previous contacts with him, to the majority of them he was a stranger. At the time of the writing of this epistle he had not come into touch with this congregation even by way of intercourse through one of his assistants. He is now, by means of this letter, establishing the first contact. And this letter is to be delivered by a woman and not by one of Paul’s helpers. Hence this amplified introduction of his own person.

Yet note that, in addition to presenting Paul to the Romans, it also connects the Romans with him. In v. 6 it throws a bond of fellowship around them and him. This is characteristic of Paul, one of his beautiful traits. In Paul’s very first sentence the Romans are made to know and to feel in what capacity and in what spirit he approaches them. On the other hand, Paul’s characterization of the Romans in this salutation shows how he regards them as he now speaks to them in his letter. This, as well as the third element, the salutation proper (v. 7), are brief, properly so, the latter needing no special additions.

The heading of Paul’s letter is thus periodic in form (R. 432) and is interesting already on that account. Moreover, it is packed full of the weightiest concepts and statements; each of these is reduced to the greatest brevity but loses nothing on that account. The Greek reads far more smoothly than an English reproduction, which is due to the nature of these two languages. Paul’s every word is most exact, and each is in the right place. Even the shifting of a phrase in translation may gravely alter Paul’s meaning. It is worth noting, because it is certainly intentional, that the name “Jesus Christ” appears three times in this salutation, the third time significantly at the end.

The English finds itself hampered in translating the many nouns that appear without articles, some of which are untranslatable in this form. In each of them the Greek intends to stress the quality expressed, and some of these unarticulated nouns have genitives so that we have practical compounds, unit ideas of peculiar force, that are only with great difficulty rendered into English.

It has been suggested that Paul wrote over the heads of the Romans, many of whom were merely slaves. As far as the latter are concerned, many of them were better educated and more intelligent than their owners. But the main point is that the divine truth is a stream in which a child may wade and an elephant must swim. All of Paul’s letters were certainly above the heads of their recipients; they are above ours today, and yet they are also under our feet like solid ground. None of them is grasped by the intellect alone, all of them require spiritual insight, and the truer the insight, the richer the appropriation. After you have carried away a good deal in your very biggest basket, more still invites you to come and to carry it away.

It may be well to note that Paul was born a Roman citizen with all the rights pertaining to that civil status. While at the time of his circumcision his father, from whom the son inherited his Roman citizenship, gave him the name of the only Jewish king that descended from the tribe of Benjamin, “Saul,” he also gave him his name as a Roman citizen, “Paul.” He bore both names from the time of his infancy. The Greek boys with whom he played called him “Paul.” In Jewish circles “Saul” was used. After his work among the Gentiles was started he properly went only by the name of “Paul,” Acts 13:9 noting the time. The view that he himself took this name is doubtful.

Paul’s first apposition to his own name is δοῦλοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ, “a slave of Jesus Christ,” which is certainly an Old Testament religious Semitism but not as L. supposes completely non-pagan, for B.-P. 320 cites several pagan examples of its religious use. Yet this designation is so typical that by means of it Paul at once strikes the full Christian note. It is debated whether “slave,” when here and elsewhere it is applied to an apostle and at times includes assistants, refers to office, “apostle” specifying only the particular office, or whether “slave” is to be taken in the broad sense in which all believers belong to their Lord and serve him in complete obedience. In the Old Testament the word is used in both senses, which leaves the question undecided. In the New Testament John, as for instance in Rev. 1:1, often employs δοῦλοι with reference to all Christians, with which passage Eph. 6:6; 1 Pet. 2:16 agree and we may add Rom. 6:16–20; 14:4, 7, 8; 1 Cor. 7:22, together with the statements that we all belong to Christ, are bought by him, and are bound to serve him (δουλεύειν). The fact that Paul, too, was such a slave no one would deny.

We ask ourselves why he should want to stress only his official status by the use of this term when that status is made fully plain in the second apposition, “a called apostle.” Why lose the added meaning found in the broad sense of “slave”? True, “official slave” and “apostle” are not tautological, but Paul would certainly be using two terms in this opening sentence in which the wording is most brief and compact.

We accept the enhanced meaning. Not only in his office as an apostle but already in his status as a Christian Paul is one of the many slaves of Jesus Christ who is owned by this blessed Lord (attributive genitive, R. 496), purchased and won by him, as a slave is wholly subject to him and has no will except this Lord’s will. With this first word Paul does not introduce himself as an apostle but puts himself at the side of all the Romans as being one of them. Although he holds the highest office in the gift of Christ, they are not to feel that he exalts himself above them but is first of all a brother and one of their fellow slaves. John writes in the same spirit, Rev. 1:9. The correct reading is “Jesus Christ,” the personal and the official name in one. “Christ” is no longer appellative: “Jesus the Christ,” but already as Peter used it in Acts 2:38, and as the two names have ever since been used also in the confessional form “our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 7).

Yet even then “Christ” (really the verbal adjective χριστός from the liturgical verb χρίω, “to anoint”) retains its original appellative force and names Jesus as God’s Anointed, our Prophet, High Priest, and King in one. This is Paul’s blessed Master under whom, like Paul, all the Romans, too, are δοῦλοι.

Paul’s letter is, however, due to his apostleship. Not as being only another slave of Jesus Christ, one among thousands, does Paul write, but as one of this great number who, like only a few others, has been singled out by Jesus Christ as an “apostle.” This slave Paul has apostolic work to do and in its prosecution he writes. Ἀπόστολος, as its derivation shows, is one sent on a mission and is thus in Heb. 3:1 applied even to Christ himself. In the New Testament the term is also applied to the helpers of the apostles, yet the Twelve plus Paul are distinguished even from these as apostles in the stricter sense, and in later times the wider sense of the term was entirely dropped even as it is now. The fact that Paul intends that “apostle” is here to be understood in the narrow sense of the term is assured by the addition of the verbal κλητός which is like a past passive participle: “called,” or “one called,” implying the preceding “Jesus Christ” as the agent. The immediate call by Jesus is referred to, the one Paul had received according to Acts 22:21; 26:17. Those termed apostles in the wider sense had only a mediate call.

In the epistles “call” and καλεῖν always denote the effective call which includes acceptance; in the Gospels the word is used also with reference to those who decline the call (Matt. 22:14). This difference in use is important. Paul says regarding himself that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision (Acts 26:19).

“A called apostle” implies the existence of others who had the same immediate call, namely the Twelve. While Paul plainly associates himself with these he does so without special emphasis. The Romans had heard the wonderful story of his conversion and of his call to the apostleship. Paul merely calls that fact to mind as being the basis for all his work in the church. That is enough. Paul is not vindicating the parity of his call with that of the Twelve, for no one in Rome questioned this parity. Nor does “called” connote “genuine” as though this word distinguished Paul from pseudo-apostles who had no call, mediate or immediate. We have no reason for inserting this idea into a letter which does not even name false apostles.

In the church as in the world titles have a tendency to puff up their ecclesiastic bearers. There is nothing of this attitude in Paul’s self-designation. He has just called himself “a slave of Jesus Christ” like all other believers. “A called apostle” is not intended as a title, for it states only the special hard work to which Paul was called as twelve other slaves of the Lord had been. When the Romans note his apostleship they are to think of this Lord who called Paul, of the mission on which this Lord sent him, of the value to themselves of the message this Lord sends to them. The Lord gave some (to the church) as apostles for the perfecting of the saints, etc., Eph. 3:11, etc.

We must regard the perfect participle as another apposition to “Paul”: “one having been set apart for God’s gospel,” the phrase meaning, “for the work of promulgating the good news of salvation in the world.” Note the absence of the article. Paul is not “the one thus set apart.” The Lord set apart twelve others in the same immediate way and for the same task. The participle does not modify “apostle,” nor does it modify the verbal, “called by having been set apart.” One should not emphasize the participle, for the advance in thought lies in the added phrase which is, therefore, also expanded in the following modifiers. The fact that Paul, one of the Lord’s slaves, one of his called apostles, was also one set apart goes without saying. The fact that he was to be used by the Lord for promulgating the gospel in an office that had been especially designed by the Lord is the real point of this final apposition. “Jesus Christ” is evidently intended as the agent of the passive “having been set apart,” and the perfect tense with its present connotation refers, not to the special act by which Jesus set Paul apart, but makes plain what Paul now is: one thus set apart, one separated from the many other slaves of the Lord, from all other relations and activities for this gospel work that had been arranged by the Lord.

“Having been set apart” does not differentiate Paul from the other apostles but puts him in the same class with them. Matthew 10 shows how the Twelve were set apart; Acts 1:8, how they were sent into all the world (see also Matt. 28:19), and Paul was to be the Lord’s witness in this same way, Acts 22:15; 23:11; 26:22. Paul does not as yet refer to his work among the Gentiles. We have no reason to introduce Gal. 1:15, for no reader could catch the thought that Paul is referring to God’s purpose as being present already when Paul was born. Acts 13:2 should not be sought in the participle even in a secondary way, for Paul’s setting apart by the Lord antedates the Spirit’s setting apart, the latter carried the Lord’s purpose into execution.

It has been suggested that the participle hints at the Hebrew pharush, “Pharisee,” which means “separatist.” Paul was at one time a Pharisee, a separatist who had separated himself by a perverted separatism; now the Lord had made him a separatist in a higher and in the true sense of that word. But this is rather superficial. The Pharisees were a large Jewish party, the apostles were just thirteen men. What sense would there be in Paul’s presenting himself to the Romans as a new kind of separatist (Pharisee)? Such a thought was far from his mind and from the minds of the other apostles.

The development of εὐαγγέλιον and the corresponding verb can be traced in the Gospels, notably in Luke’s, and in the Acts from the more general meaning of “good news” and “to proclaim as good news” to the specific sense of the gospel and to proclaim the gospel, that great news which tells of Jesus Christ and his salvation. In v. 16 we find the word without a modifier and with the article: “the gospel,” but “God’s gospel” in this opening verse is certainly the same gospel. Whether we add the article when translating makes no difference; for, as is the case in regard to Θεός with or without the article, only one gospel, only one God exists, and this one gospel is here made specific by the added genitive, relative, etc. This εὐαγγέλιον refers to the substance, the blessed contents and not to the activity of conveying it although it exists only for the purpose of being conveyed. The salutation does not make the work of preaching prominent; we find no term for that activity. We have, however, “apostle” and “apostle-ship,” on the one hand, and “obedience of faith” on the other (v. 5), between which lies the work of preaching. The message produces this obedience and not the act of conveying it although conveying, like hearing it, is included, and apostleship exists for that purpose.

In the Greek εὐαγγέλιονΘεοῦ is a practical compound noun: Gottesbotschaft, and in a connection such as this “of God” can refer only to the author, owner, and sender of the good news even as “apostle” is one to whom that message is committed. The gospel is “God’s” apart even from the men set apart for conveying it. Any positive, especially one in which the quality is stressed, excludes its corresponding negative. Here it is not merely the genitive “God’s” but all that Paul says of himself as Jesus Christ’s slave, a called apostle, a man set apart for God’s gospel which excludes any idea of his operating on his own responsibility with a human gospel or with a humanly modified gospel. Nothing is conveyed beyond this natural implication, no thought of doubt on the part of the Romans in regard to Paul or to his message.

Romans 1:2

2 When Paul adds the statement that this is the gospel “which he (God) promised in advance through his prophets in sacred writings,” some are of the opinion that the age of the gospel is referred to, that it is not at all new although the Romans may think it new and strange. But these people were surely better informed than that. The Old Testament was not a closed book to them; it was read regularly in their Sunday worship. They not only knew what the prophets had said but believed in Jesus Christ as the Savior because he had fulfilled the ancient prophecies given by God through those prophets. It is not an advance to say that εὐαγγέλιον refers only to the message as a message and not to the contents of that message, and that Paul says no more than that God promised to send some message. The very passages quoted in support of this claim such as Luke 4:18; Isa. 61:1, state the contents of God’s promised message. It is beyond question that in their writings the prophets stated the full contents of the gospel message in advance; to which we must add that all the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in these very contents.

Place the emphasis where Paul has it, on the aorist “he promised in advance” and consider the truth that, while this promise offered the full contents of the gospel, the prophets had them only in the form of advance promise. This was the reason that they could not deliver the gospel once for all. The very promise of God which they were chosen to convey told of a fulfillment to come. In the fulness of time the fulfillment was accomplished by Jesus Christ. That sealed all the advance promises of God, sealed them forever. But we see that the apostles had to follow with the identical gospel, with the selfsame contents, but now with the addition of the great fulfillment and all that this implied. Thus “promised in advance” points forward to Christ and also to the apostles who succeeded him.

The preposition διά confronts all the deniers of the divine inspiration of the holy writings. Count the many times we meet it in Holy Writ. It is God who did this promising, the prophets were only his media who were used by him as such. Διά denotes the medium, “through” or “by.” Moreover, promises are conveyed in words; we still have the words, in writing at that, black on white. “Through” means that God used the prophets for conveying these words. Did they change these words according to their own ideas? Then it would not have been God promising and speaking “through” them; he would have needed and, we must say, would also have found a better medium.

“In holy writings” is significant because the prophets first spoke orally and afterward put the divine words and promises into writing. Their audible words were intended for those who lived at their time and could hear them, their writings were intended for all coming generations and nations. It is incredible to think that God would leave the whole world in uncertainty as to what his advance promises really were. It is equally incredible to think that God could not have provided a fully reliable medium for conveying his promises to all men. The fact is that he enabled the prophets (finally also the apostles) to transmit his words exactly as he wanted them transmitted. This is Verbal Inspiration, not in any sense a “theory” but the simple, straightforward fact. Its briefest statement is found in this διά phrase; fuller statements are found in passages such as Matt. 1:22.

“In holy writings” again lacks the article and thus again stresses the quality expressed by the word. It is not the esteem of men which gives these writings their character of holiness as this is the case with regard to all the so-called “sacred books” of other religions. The writings of the prophets are holy irrespective of any judgment of men, irrespective even of ours who realize their holiness, for the reason that God, the All-holy, speaks in and through them. The expression is definite despite the absence of the article, for at this time only one group of these holy writings existed, that which had been gathered into the Old Testament canon. We may note that the divine promise they record reaches back to Adam, and that not one of these holy writings would exist except for that blessed promise. This is also true with regard to the New Testament and its record of the fulfillment of that promise.

Romans 1:3

3 The one reason that “concerning his Son,” etc., should be construed with “God’s gospel” is the historical tense of τοῦγενομένου, “come (he who came) from David’s seed,” etc. As another reason we may add the tense of τοῦὁρισθέντος because its time is fixed by the phrase “by (his) resurrection from the dead.” Both tenses place us into the fulfillment of the promise. Those who construe the phrase with the relative clause: “which (gospel) he promised in advance … concerning his Son,” break the close connection of the two attributive participles with their governing noun “his Son”; they leave “his Son” back in the Old Testament promise and place the two modifying participles into the New Testament fulfillment. This wide leap is unnatural. The idea that this construction has an advantage by connecting “his Son” with even the Old Testament promises is incorrect; for in both Testaments the gospel is one, and the fulfillment of its promise was accomplished through the Son only for the reason that the original promise dealt with the Son.

Nor does the grammar compel us to construe with the relative clause as some assert. Especially in the Koine a phrase may be attributive without a preceding article; in the present instance to τὸπερί might also include some feature that is not concerned with God’s Son, Paul referring only to the phase connected with the Son. The objection that εὐαγγέλιονπερί is improper has been met by pointing to ὁλόγοςπερὶαὐτοῦ in Luke 5:15; 7:17, and other examples and by the question, “What other preposition would be better?”

God’s gospel deals with God’s Son, does so from beginning to end. To interpret the term “his Son” exhaustively one should have to treat practically everything that is said about him in the entire Bible. This has been done ages ago and has been redone down to the present day. The fact that Paul has in mind the Second Person of the Godhead as confessed in the ecumenical and in other Christian creeds never admitted of either question or doubt. Those who dissent must do so on other than Biblical grounds, which dissent places them outside of the Christian pale. The modernistic plea that “God’s Son” is only a title, a synonym for “Messiah,” a Jewish term that is akin to the pagan conception of sons begotten by gods, an “outworn category or pattern of thought,” is the confession of radical unbelief, akin to which are the speculations of theologians who think that the Sonship starts with the birth of Jesus or with the end of his earthly career. All these and all others like them dismiss, perhaps do not care to ascertain, what the revelation of God concerning his Son in the Scriptures is.

The two participial modifiers attached to τοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ are not loose additions but integral descriptions of the Son who is the heart of the gospel of God. The first states how in his incarnation he entered the state of his humiliation for his saving work; the second how he then as our Savior entered into the state of exaltation, the state in which he now is. Both rest on his existence as the Son from all eternity. The two participial modifiers are paralleled and without a connective; both are aorists to indicate historical facts; each is followed by a κατά, phrase, these two phrases being contrasts.

“Come from David’s seed according to (his) flesh” states the literal fact that the eternal Son of God became man as a descendant of David and at the same time entered the state of humiliation. John 1:14 is a close parallel, for in this passage we have the same verb, the finite aorist ἐγένετο, instead of Paul’s aorist participle γενομένου, and likewise σάρξ. The English has difficulty in translating the participle. “Was made” is found in the A. V., “was born” in the R. V., literally it means, “came to be.” The incarnation is referred to, the conception and the birth as man in lowliness and humiliation. Paul is not sketching the history of Jesus and lifting out a few notable features; he is sketching the two states of Jesus and these in so far as they form the very heart of the gospel promise in its fulfillment.

As regards the first state the wonderful and the blessed thing is that God’s own Son became a descendant of David in lowliness. He who was God became man without ceasing to be God, without a change in his deity. And this took place κατὰσάρκα: God’s Son came to be man in a state that was “according to flesh.” He lived as a man of flesh, bore the weakness and the sufferings of flesh. “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Rom. 8:3. In connections such as this σάρξ, the Hebrew basar, has no connotation of sin but only that of the limitations and the weaknesses of our human nature.

The commentators who note the human nature plus the lowliness which the Son assumed often do not discuss the reason for his coming to be of the seed of David. Yet Paul himself has referred to God’s advance promise, that recorded in 2 Sam. 7:12, 16; Ps. 132:11; repeated in Luke 1:69; Acts 2:30. The Son did not merely become man but man “out of David’s seed,” which means man as the Messiah. Since he was this promised descendant of David, all the Messianic promises centered in him.

The Pharisees knew that the Christ was to be David’s son; they refused to believe that he would at the same time be David’s Lord, God’s Son. As Jesus avoided use of the title “Messiah” when he spoke to the Jews because of the earthly, political hopes they connected with it, so he accepted the designation “son of David” openly and freely only at the end of his ministry (Matt. 21:9), when all these false hopes of the Jews were about to be blasted. David’s was a royal line; “from David’s seed” thus points to the kingly feature of the Christ’s office as we catch a glimpse of it in his royal entry into Jerusalem although its full glory is found in the enthronement in heaven. This royalty is referred to when Paul adds the name: “Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

Romans 1:4

4 Ὁρισθέντος is a companion to ἀφωρισμένος in v. 1, save for the ἀπό of the latter. One does not see why our versions fail to abide by the translation “ordained” which they use so properly in Acts 10:42, in a very similar statement about Jesus; “declared” and “determined” (margin) are not so proper. In Acts 2:36, ἐποίησε helps to elucidate this ordaining act by expressing it through another word. God’s ordaining “made” Jesus what Paul here says about him. Because the governing noun in περὶτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ is in the genitive, the participles and thus also the predicative υἱοῦΘεοῦ are in the same case. If the second participle were active it would be followed by two accusatives: God “ordaining him as God’s Son in power.” It ought to be obvious that here the predicate is not “God’s Son” but “God’s Son in power,” that “in power” modifies “God’s Son” with which it is connected and not “ordained” from which it is separated. Luther’s kraeftiglich erweiset must be corrected.

This was God’s Son even before he came from David’s seed and during the entire time when he was in the humble state “according to the flesh.” John says that during the entire time when he dwelt among them he and his fellow apostles beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, John 1:14. He could not, therefore, be ordained (made) God’s Son.

The Son, who as a descendant of David and of royal blood lived like other men after the fashion of the flesh, in the earthly mode of existence, was ordained of God to enter into an entirely different state, one that was marked by power, the divine power, its exercise and its glory. The state of humiliation gave way to the state of exaltation. The Son became David’s descendant κατὰσάρκα and while he remained David’s son was by God’s act set forth as God’s Son in power κατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης. Both of the pivoted κατά phrases are parallel and in contrast. The prepositions name the norms; the normation of the flesh gave way to the normation of the spirit of holiness.

There has been much wrestling with κατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης. Few would today uphold the old patristic idea that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit so that the genitive would be adjectival, used in place of ἅγιον but with a stronger force, and that the thought would be that God’s ordaining act which made the Son “the Son in power” brought him into accord with the Holy Spirit who had been poured out upon him. While, in one sense, this is not far removed from what Paul says, we at once see that it removes the parallel between the two κατά phrases by making “flesh” match the Third Person of the Godhead—a strange thing in itself and more so when the rare word ἁγιωσύνη (found only three times in the New Testament) is to substitute for ἅγιον in the otherwise constant designation of this Person as ΠνεῦμαἍγιον.

Some good men maintain that “spirit of holiness” designates the Son’s divine nature. Paul is regarded as saying that the Son was constituted “God’s Son in power” in accord with his divine nature. After being in accord with the lowliness of his flesh as David’s son while he was here on earth, he entered into a state that accorded with his deity. This “spirit of holiness” is called “the divine principle in Christ” (which sounds philosophical), “the other higher side of his being,” “the unique nature of the Son of God”; and his “holiness” is called his Ueberweltlichkeit, that which sets him above the world. Or it is changed from Heiligkeit (the state marking his spirit) into something “that produces holiness,” which would really be Heiligung (an activity of his spirit). Aside from this strange language which one hesitates to adopt, “flesh” seems to be made coextensive with the Son’s human nature, and “spirit” coextensive with his divine nature, thus at least trenching on Apollinarianism which was so thoroughly rejected as heretical by the ancient church, the doctrine that the divine Πνεῦμα took the place of the human πνεῦμα in Christ.

Our apprehension is increased when we note that John 4:24 and 2 Cor. 3:17 are introduced to emphasize the claim that Christ’s divine nature is “spirit.” We must certainly let nothing dim the fact that Christ possessed and still possesses a human πνεῦμα which he commended into his Father’s hands and yielded up in death (Luke 23:46; John 19:30). All that can possibly be said is that the human nature lacked human personality (the ἐγώ), and that the divine personality or ἐγώ took its place so that Jesus was in truth the Son.

Let us look at Paul’s words. If he should say that God ordained the Son as the Son in power in accord with his divine, superworldly nature, i.e., as the Son, this would be a mere piling up of words: Son—Son—Son. All of the pivotal terms are muted, are at least thrown out of control. For this is what Paul says: God ordained his Son, come from David’s seed as the Messianic King, as the Son in power in accord with his spirit of holiness by his rising from the dead. All of the pivotal words are soteriological; all of them speak of the Son’s two states as Savior. We are to correlate the spirit of holiness with the Son in power as a result of (ἐκ) his resurrection, in particular we are to see the accord (κατά) of this holiness with the power.

Need we say that Paul is here not speaking of the divine attribute of holiness possessed by the Son from all eternity in his Ueberweltlichkeit? This indicates the wrong feature of the view that makes “spirit of holiness” refer to the divine nature. We have Paul’s own exegesis in Phil. 2:6–11. This holiness is the holy obedience which Christ, although in the form of God, rendered in his human nature after taking the form of a δοῦλος or slave, the climax of which was the death on the cross. It was for this that God exalted him “in power,” in that very nature by which the holy obedience was rendered, i.e., gave him the name which is above every name, every knee bowing before him, etc. Thus the power is accorded with this spirit of holiness.

Add John 17:4, 5: because Jesus has glorified the Father on earth and finished the Father’s work on earth (in holy obedience), the Father is to glorify him (in power). Again, he was crowned with glory and honor (in power) because (διά) of his suffering and his death, Heb. 2:9. What these passages state outright runs through about every Scripture statement regarding the two states of Christ. Paul puts it into a few words as something that is well known and is not in any way difficult for an intelligent Christian reader.

We are thus relieved of confining the contrast to the terms “flesh” and “spirit” and of having to think of them as opposites, either of the natures as such opposites or of the two sides of the human nature, on the one hand the visible human flesh and on the other the invisible human spirit. The latter goes to pieces in its description when the flesh is said to be subject to human evils while the spirit is said to be full of holiness—evils and holiness are not a contrast. Moreover, the human nature cannot be divided in such a fashion. When Jesus came of David’s seed according to flesh he came as a man having body, soul, and spirit, and suffered human inflictions in all three. When he rendered his holy obedience he did so in all three and by no means in his human spirit alone. The real contrast (not opposition) lies in the clauses themselves and is thus marked by the κατά phrases.

The second member of the contrast is superimposed on the first, rests on it, and crowns it. Without flesh as David’s seed no spirit of holiness and thus, of course, no resurrection and no Son in power as to his human nature.

Let us not forget that this spirit of holiness had to extend from the conception to the death on the cross; not until then (“It is finished!”) came the resurrection with the Son in power. Yet not the flesh as flesh (body, soul, and spirit) reached this consummation but the spirit of holiness manifested in the flesh. The objection that this “spirit of holiness” would be a moral quality while “flesh” would not be is the demand that we must have direct opposites, that a parallel contrasting is not enough.

The genitive ἁγιωσύνης is qualitative but denotes complete holiness and not only incipient or partial holiness. The exaltation of Jesus was not to be a gradual evolution or development; God ordained that it should come in an instant out of (ἐξ) Totenauferstehung. The anarthrous nouns are again qualitative, the second is even a plural to denote the general idea and merely a genitive: “of (the) dead,” not “from, ἐκ, (the) dead.” Ἀνάστασις is active: “a rising up” of the Son himself, and not passive: “a being raised up by God.” So God ordained the entrance of his Son into a state of power according to (his) spirit of holiness; and the fact that what he ordained had occurred long ago Paul did not need to add.

After thus showing us what the substance and the contents of the promised gospel are which he has been divinely commissioned to preach, namely the Son, first in humiliation and then in exaltation, Paul sets down this Son’s name and does it in the form in which it was commonly confessed by all the δοῦλοι who bowed to it in faith and in obedience: ἸησοῦΧριστοῦτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν, genitive because it is in apposition with τοῦυἱοῦ in v. 3. Thus for a second time to record this sacred name with formal fulness and as a climax to what precedes must impress the reader.

We think it insufficient to say that the name was introduced in order to afford an easy transition to the following relative clause. In the A. V. the name is omitted, and the transition is just as easy and as smooth. “Our Lord” contains the full confession and acknowledgment of faith. But the whole name is soteriological just as we have noted this with regard to the two participial clauses to which the name is a conclusion. “Lord” is he who owns us, has purchased and won us, on whom all our trust and obedience depend. “Our” unites Paul and the Romans. “Jesus Christ” is the same as it was in v. 1. It has often been claimed that Paul never called Jesus God’s Son. A look at these introductory verses shows how fully and emphatically Paul did this, and what we must think of such claims.

We are also often informed that only Matthew and Luke speak of the incarnation, that Paul disregarded it. Claims such as that deserve to be contradicted with sharpness. Here Paul states even more than the fact of the incarnation, namely the incarnation “from David’s seed.” And this settles another point, namely that Luke 3:23, etc., does not offer the genealogy of Mary, that it is immaterial whether she was of David’s blood, to which some add that σπέρμα, as here in v. 3, refers only to the male line, hence to Joseph and not to Mary. The decisive passages are either misinterpreted or passed by. Unless Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, how could Jesus be “from David’s seed” if Mary was not of Davidic descent? How could he be “of the fruit of thy (David’s) belly,” Ps. 132:11; “seed … which shall proceed out of thy bowels,” 2 Sam. 7:12; “fruit of his loins according to the flesh,” Acts 2:30?

See the writer’s exposition of Luke 3:23, etc. (also Luke 1:27, “of the house of David” as modifying “virgin”), and Acts 2:30. How one can believe in the virgin birth and yet deny Mary’s Davidic descent passes our comprehension.

Romans 1:5

5 The solemn mention of the holy name focuses all that has thus far been said about Jesus on Paul as “the slave and called apostle” of this Jesus; for Κύριος is correlative to δοῦλος and ἀπόστολος. And now Paul adds the statement that “through” this Son of God who has been described in his two soteriological human states and named as Jesus with his soteriological titles “Christ, our Lord,” we have received grace and apostleship. It is admitted that διά names Jesus as the medium for this gift, yet some labor to make this preposition equal to ὑπό as though, after all, Jesus is here made the agent, the author and efficient cause of the action; some deny that the Father is conceived as the agent. But this view misunderstands the force of the preposition. It overlooks all that Paul has said about Jesus, regarding what had to take place before he could become the medium (διά) for giving us grace and apostleship. Back of these acts concerning Jesus was God. and so God is equally back of this our reception of grace and apostleship “through” Jesus Christ, our Lord. Διά is exactly right, for by making Jesus the medium it leaves the connection with God as the ultimate agent. Paul’s description surely makes plain what an exalted medium Jesus is.

We cannot agree with the exegesis which passes over the plural “we” with the remark that Greek writers often used this literary or editorial plural as a substitute for ἐγώ and then, instead of looking at the present connection, investigates also Paul’s other writings in search of other such literary plurals. What Paul may or may not have done elsewhere in this regard settles nothing as to what he does here, and much less does what other Greek writers have done settle this issue. But does not “apostleship” refer only to Paul? As an answer to that we have already seen that “a called apostle” in v. 1 implied that there were twelve others in this class. But what about ἐνπᾶσιτοῖςἔθνεσιν? Does this not refer to the Gentiles and to Paul’s specific apostleship among them? We shall see that this phrase means “among all nations” and offers no support for a literary plural.

Let us note that ἡμῶν is almost in front of ἐλάβομεν: Lord “of us”—“we did receive.” If Paul was “literary” to any degree he used these two “we” forms in the same sense. In “our” Lord he combines himself with all the Romans and in “we received” he retains that combination. It is unthinkable that any writer should in one and the same sentence, one heading a letter at that, speak of himself in the singular, then use a “we” form to designate himself and his readers, and almost in the same breath a second “we” to refer to himself alone. Here it would be even a leap from the third person singular to the first person plural and not, as in Greek writers, an ἑγώ gliding over into ἡμεῖς, one first person into another first person. Paul says: through our Lord Jesus Christ we have grace and apostleship, we believers, we his church. We have the same thought in Eph. 4:11, where he says that the glorified Lord gave to the church some as apostles.

So we disagree with the interpretations that Paul’s “we” is a plural that includes his assistants or, if not these, then also the other apostles. As for his saying that he (literary plural) had received apostleship, that would be a strange repetition of what “a called apostle” already states sufficiently at the very start (v. 1).

The point to be noted is that in v. 5, 6 Paul is combining himself with the Romans; hence he writes “we received” and then “you are” people called of Jesus Christ as Paul himself was. After connecting himself with Jesus Christ as his slave and as his apostle he proceeds in his typical Pauline way to bring also the Romans into this connection. For they are in this connection, and because of this connection Paul writes and feels that it is proper for him to write to them, and that they will also feel that. This is the reason that “grace and apostleship” are neither a hendiadys nor joined by an epexegetical καί: “grace, namely apostleship.” Conscious of the grace he had received in becoming a slave of Jesus Christ, one of the whole blessed number, Paul now reaches out and joins the Romans to himself by saying, “through our Lord we have received grace,” etc., and it is this very title “our Lord,” connoting, as it does, his δοῦλοι, which links together Paul and the Romans.

This pertains also to the “apostleship” which denotes the office which this “our Lord” established for his church, the abstract term being so plainly used to designate the office as held by all of the apostles and not only by Paul. His share in this office Paul has already connected with the Lord who called him to it (v. 1). Now he advances and connects it with the church, in particular with the Romans to whom he is writing.

He makes this connection, not by saying that the office and its bearers benefit the church of which the Romans are a part, but by bringing out the thought that as a part of the church both the apostles and the Romans are concerned with the great aim and purpose of this office: through our Lord, Paul writes, we received it “for (εἰς, aim and purpose) the obedience of faith among all nations for his name’s sake,” etc. Here we have the correct view of the apostleship and of what it is to achieve. While the apostles alone are apostles, not they alone as separate from the church are to produce the obedience of faith among the nations but they in conjunction with all who have already been brought to the obedience of faith because this office with its especially called bearers is the Lord’s gift to the entire church, a gift that remains to this day. While the church at Rome was not founded by an apostle, it, nevertheless, was founded by the apostleship; for those who started the congregation in Rome had been converted by apostles, i.e., had received the apostolic gospel concerning God’s Son described in v. 2–4. By being thus connected with the great apostleship all the Romans were most vitally concerned in winning also others for the obedience to faith. Although the apostles have been dead for a long time, their apostleship still speaks, and all of us, because of the obedience of faith it has brought us, are happy to spread this same obedience everywhere. The Lord’s gift still holds good, and its aim and purpose are still operative.

In v. 1 the purpose introduced by εἰς is the promised gospel concerning God’s Son, our Savior-Lord; the second εἰς in v. 5 advances the thought by carrying the purpose to “the obedience of faith.” Again this expression is without articles and is practically a compound: Glaubensgehorsam. The gospel is intended for this obedience of faith, and the obedience of faith rests on this gospel. Both εἰς phrases are pregnant, the first implying the proclamation of God’s gospel, and the second the production of faith’s obedience by such a proclamation. It is worth noting that throughout this salutation Paul links one expression to the other and advances step by step. He does so here. This means that he does not connect εἱς with χάριν in a direct way but only with ἀποστολήν, but with it only as being added to χάριν.

Both are bestowed on us and received by us for our own benefit, in order to work obedience of faith in us and to increase this day by day; but here Paul takes that purpose for granted and at once advances to our part in bringing others to this obedience. A great assumption underlies the phrase, namely that, like all Christians, the Romans are moved by Paul’s own desire for extending faith’s obedience among all nations. The missionary impulse is native to the church.

After all the wrestling with ὑπακοηπίστεως we are only the more convinced that “faith’s obedience” is only one concept, the genitive making it definite, for there is only one such obedience, that of faith. Paul has in mind the obedience that belongs to the very essence of faith. Πίστεως is not the attributive genitive: obedience marked by faith; or the objective genitive: obedience to faith (the doctrine or the act of faith viewed objectively); or the epexegetical, appositional, definitional genitive: obedience which is faith—though this is not far wrong. The subjective genitive is still nearer to the real meaning: faith renders obedience. It is the genitive found in the German compound noun: Glaubensgehorsam, “faith-obedience” (although in English we do not use the genitive when compounding); let us say it is the genitive of possession, of Zugehoerigkeit. The view that it is the subjective genitive is usually rejected because the obedience which faith renders is thought to be that of works (Zahn, for instance, referring to Gal. 5:6; James 2:14, 22). The same objection would hold good against “faith-obedience” if works were referred to.

But here the obedience lies in the very act of believing and not in the category of works. God’s gospel calls on us to acknowledge, receive, and appropriate it as what it is; and doing this by the power and the grace coming to us in the gospel, in full confidence and trust, is this essential obedience of faith.

Our Lord gave us grace and apostleship for spreading such faith-obedience “among all nations.” Those who regard ἐλάβομεν as a literary plural so that the clause states what only Paul received translate ἐνπᾶσιτοῖςἔθνεσιν, “among all Gentiles,” which would mean that Paul has received this apostleship among the Gentiles. These commentators appeal to ἔθνη as being the regular term for the Hebrew word goyim, Gentiles over against Jews, and to passages in which Paul is spoken of as being the apostle to the Gentiles. But the question does not revolve about ἔθνη or τὰἔθνη but about the significant πάντατὰἔθνη, which Paul uses again in 16:26, and again combines with “for faith-obedience.” He is undoubtedly speaking of “all nations” and not of Gentiles only. Jesus so used this expression in Matt. 28:19 when commanding the church to disciple “all nations,” repeated this expression in Mark 13:10, and Luke 24:47, defined it as “the whole world” in Matt. 24:14, and in Acts 1:8 specifically included Jews in addition to Gentiles.

We add that if Paul is here speaking only of his apostleship “among the Gentiles,” the addition of “all” is a redundancy—“among the Gentiles” would be enough. But if he is speaking of the whole missionary work of the church and thus of “nations,” “all nations” is correct as it is in the parallel passages cited. It has also been pointed out that from the start Paul has spoken of himself only as an apostle in general, as being one in a class to which all the other apostles belonged. The plea is not valid that he is now presenting himself as the apostle to the Gentiles since he is writing to a Gentile congregation. He is writing to a congregation that contains Jewish converts in addition to Gentile converts. Is his letter not intended also for the latter? The fact is also overlooked that about all the nations were represented in Rome, and that there were many Jews in this city, enough to furnish membership for at least seven synagogues.

The final phrase, “for his name’s sake,” is to be construed with all that precedes it in the clause. It is both a part of the entire thought expressed by this clause and also joins the end to the beginning, for “his name” reverts to “through whom,” the great person, “our Lord.” Here we meet ὄνομα, NAME, and should by all means note that this word occurs throughout the entire New Testament. A study of the word in all its connections is highly instructive. “Name” is always the revelation by which we know and apprehend the Person indicated. It includes all the specific names but only as they focus all the blessed realities revealed about each Person. Especially important are the phrases with ἐν, ἐπί, and now ὑπέρ. Our reception of our Lord’s gifts for their world-wide purpose is concerned with the revelation he has made of himself, is thus in its behalf, for its sake, so that its purpose may be realized. “For the honor of his name” is too narrow, and the idea of honor is not expressed.

Romans 1:6

6 The Greek is so flexible that one relative clause may be attached to another. Paul has already included the Romans in ἐλάβομεν; now he indicates in what sense he does this. “Among whom are you also as called of Jesus Christ” with its emphatic predicate brings out this thought: like Paul and all other believers, the Romans, too, are “people called,” called of Jesus Christ. The passive idea in the verbal is so strong so that we cannot make “of Jesus Christ” only a genitive of possession; it is the genitive of the agent (compare κλητός in v. 1). When it is stated that God always does the calling, 8:30; 9:24, and other passages, this is no more than an usus. No one can deny that Paul himself was called by Jesus and that he has Jesus in mind when he mentions his call in 1:1; which fact convinces us that here in v. 6 he again makes Jesus the one who called the Romans. In Gal. 5:8 the contetx points to Christ as having called the Galatians.

How many times did Jesus call, “Follow me”! And all the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa.

We have already (1:1) stated that in the epistles “called” includes the acceptance of the call by the obedience of faith. Here “called” agrees with the mention of this obedience. But much more must be said. Paul has a steady advance of thought: the gospel of God with the Savior-Lord as its contents, and the apostle-ship with its obedience of faith and world-wide mission, and the final thread now woven into this cloth of gold, the call of Christ, and this is expanded in v. 7 by making the called “the beloved of God as his saints.”

One of the titles of believers is “the called.” In “called” there lies the gospel, the apostleship which transmits its grace for faith-obedience. Paul repeats none of these; he does not say, “among whom you have received grace, or are believers,” but completes the circle of concepts with that of the call. “You also” is emphatic and points to all the rest of the called. All form one great spiritual body. “Among whom are you” bars out the idea of Gentiles exclusive of Jews, for some of these called Romans were Jews. How many nationalities were represented in the Roman church at this time is a question, but there must certainly have been not a few.

Romans 1:7

7 Not until Paul has thrown a strong tie around the Romans and himself does he go on with the second element of the salutation, the dative of the persons for whom the latter is intended: “to all who are in Rome beloved of God as called saints.” The reading which omits “in Rome” and has ἐνἀγάπῃ instead of ἀγαπητοῖς lacks all evidence, and no argument can supply weight enough to have it take the place of the accepted reading, especially not the assumption that in Eph. 1:1 “in Ephesus” is likewise to be canceled, for also “in Ephesus” is genuine. The scroll on which the letter was written very likely bore an inscription stating for whom the letter was intended although no such inscriptions have been preserved; but this has nothing to do with the designation of the recipients of the letter in the salutation at the head of the letter itself. “In Rome” is especially necessary as stating that only the Christians in this city are referred to and not all Christians everywhere. As in v. 6 the predicate should not be abbreviated, so here we cannot read: “to all who are in Rome” but: “to all who are in Rome beloved of God as called saints,” with the emphasis on the final designation. While this designation is brief, it states adequately just how Paul regarded the people to whom he was writing. What he writes is intended for them as God’s beloved who are called saints; and as such they are to receive what he writes. That this would, in great part, fit also others who are like the Romans is at once apparent but is true of all the divine truths stated in any apostolic letter.

Why does Paul add: “to all”? Some have thought that he does so because he has introduced himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and yet wants it understood that his letter is intended also for the Jewish Christians. But he has introduced himself only as an apostle in general and has dropped no hint that there were two types of Christians in Rome. Others think of parties and divisions or two congregations, one made up of Jewish, the other of Gentile Christians, at least various groups (basing this on 16:5, 14, 15) which Paul is seeking to harmonize. We have already dealt with the idea that Romans is an irenicon. The answer seems to be that Paul had not a few personal friends among the Roman Christians—see the greetings he sends to so many in chapter 16. Not to these alone but to all believers in Rome, whether they are known or unknown to him personally, this letter is addressed.

He has already characterized them in a manner in v. 5, 6, but now he does so formally and with additional terms. The Romans are to Paul people “beloved of God as called saints.” This is one designation: people who as called saints are beloved of God. The genitive “of God” is to indicate the agent involved in the passive idea of the verbal “beloved” exactly as “of Jesus Christ” is to designate the agent with the verbal “called” in v. 6. God loves the Romans; and his ἀγάπη, as always, is the love of full comprehension plus a corresponding blessed purpose, which is far above any mere affection (φιλία). But here we do not have the antecedent love that is bent on the conversion of the Romans (John 3:16) but the love toward them as being already converted, as God’s “called saints,” i.e., saints because called. Κλητοῖς is used as an adjective modifying ἁγίοις (in v. 6 κλητοί is used as a noun), hence not “called to be saints” as in our versions. Having been effectively and successfully called, by virtue of that call the Romans were “saints” and as such “God’s beloved” on whom he lavishes all his gifts of love.

This love and these gifts God could not bestow upon the world because the world would not receive them, but the hearts and the lives of his saints he can, indeed, and actually does bless to the utmost with this rich, intelligent, and glorious love. Paul addressed also the Corinthians as “called saints,” 1 Cor. 1:2. The fact that the beloved of God return his love is self-evident (8:28), and it, too, is the love of intelligence and purpose.

Trench (Synonyms) comes nearer to the sense of ἀγαπᾶν as distinct from φιλεῖν than C.-K. 9, etc., where the former is referred to the will, the latter to the affections. In his intensive study (Christian Doctrines) Warfield thinks the former always sees something valuable in the loved object; but this idea cannot be carried through consistently, especially not in the demand that we “love” our enemies or in defining God’s “love” for the world. The clear distinction between the two types of love appears in John 21:15–17 (see the author’s exposition). Ἀγαπᾶν has a most interesting history. In the LXX it still descends to lover levels, but in the New Testament it consistently moves on the highest level as the love of full comprehension following out its corresponding purpose, this is true even when it is used regarding sinner loving sinner.

“Saints” is found already in Acts 9:13 in the mouth of Ananias, and Luke uses it repeatedly; Paul also uses it here, in 8:27, a number of times besides, and finally in 16:2, 18, and also in his other letters. We have ἅγιοι and also ἡγιασμένοι. Both are always plurals and both contain the idea of separation from the world and from sin and thus a setting apart for God. “Saints” carries no idea of perfectionism, not even in the case of the most saintly such as Paul (Phil. 3:12) or John (1 John 1:8). While ἅγιοι marks only the quality, the perfect passive participle ἡγιασμένοι brings out fully the passive idea back of this quality; we are saints because God has made us saints, namely by his call. Our justification by faith constitutes us saints because it has removed our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. The fact that these saints also begin to lead holy lives and are thus also separated from all worldlings follows in the nature of the case. Here on earth these saints still sin daily, yet daily they are washed by pardoning grace and thus retain their sainthood.

Paul regards the Romans as people “beloved of God as called saints” in the great world capital. Although he has as yet never been in Rome he addresses them as such. This, with the addition that he intends to come to them, explains his entire letter.

The third member of the salutation is the greeting itself in the same form that is used in other letters of Paul (First Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians): “grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The grammarians supply the optative of wish εἴη or some other verb form (R. 396), but we prefer to regard the nominatives as exclamatory and thus as needing no verb form even in thought. Χάρις is here the same as it was in v. 5 and with εἰρήνη takes the place of the secular χαίρειν, “that ye rejoice.” Paul’s is a Christianized greeting that is deep and rich accordingly.

“Crace” always denotes the undeserved favor Dei as existing in God’s heart together with all the gifts of that favor, here those needed by the persons addressed. Paul’s meaning is: “May God and the Lord graciously grant you the rich abundance of his undeserved gifts!”

Εἰρήνη is the Hebrew shalom, the German Heil, and denotes the condition when God is our friend and all is well with us. The objective condition of “peace” is always the fundamental thing, which, of course, then also has accompanying it the subjective feeling of peace, namely rest, satisfaction, and happiness in the heart. The condition is constant and essential, the feeling may or may not always be present. The condition is to be our fixed possession, and that will assure us that, when the feeling fluctuates and at times disappears, it will revive and become strong. The order of these two, grace and peace, remains as here indicated, grace is always first, peace always second. This is due to the fact that grace is the source of peace. Without grace there is and can be no peace; but when grace is ours, peace is ours also.

In order to characterize the exalted value of these gifts Paul adds the modifiers: “from God, our Father,” etc. The preposition ἀπό conveys the idea that the blessings indicated are to flow down to us from above. The thought of origin is also included. Since only the one preposition “from” is used, the two objects, “God, our Father,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” form a unit, and the two are thus placed on a level of equality. In the Greek this is so self-evident that no scholar would attempt a denial. Yet subordinationism, to say nothing of those who in other ways modify or cancel the Godhead of Christ, lowers the position of Christ in Paul’s phrase. One way in which this is done is to center on the two names “our Father” and “Lord” and to read a difference into these names, one by which Christ’s deity is either lowered or entirely lost.

To be sure, not only the two persons here mentioned but even all three persons of the Godhead have different names. All the Scriptures tell us that. But how this fact involves a subordination of one person to the other is not apparent. The fact that one person is called our Father and the other our Lord Jesus Christ does not lower the second. It merely shows that in the Holy Trinity all three persons were not fathers, all three were not incarnate, etc., but each bears a distinct relation to us and to our salvation that is unaffected by the identity of their essence. The names which Paul uses here and elsewhere apply to the revelation which the persons have vouchsafed to us in connection with their work of saving us.

The first person is “our Father” because we are his children in Christ Jesus; and the second person is “the Lord” or “our Lord” (v. 4) because he has redeemed, purchased, and won us so that we are his own and live under him in his kingdom and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness (Luther). As long as this one preposition coordinates our Father and our Lord and makes them one fountain of saving grace and peace, no ingenuity of men will be able to sever them and to introduce a subordination.

Introduction and Theme

Romans 1:8

8 The salutation is followed by a brief introduction of a personal nature which in a simple and most natural way leads to the statement of the theme or subject of the entire letter (v. 16, 17).

In the first place I thank my God through Jesus Christ concerning you all that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world. For my witness is God whom I serve in my spirit in connection with the gospel of his Son how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers asking if somehow now at last I shall be prospered in the will of God to come to you. For I long to see you in order that I may impart to you some spiritual gift for you to be confirmed, but that is, to be jointly comforted with you through each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

Paul opens the body of his letter by telling the Romans that he thanks God in regard to all of them that their faith is proclaimed in the whole world. Πρῶτονμέν means that with this statement about his thanks he begins his letter, and it naturally implies all that follows without a following “furthermore” or “in the second place.” Paul wants the Romans to know that this prayer of thanksgiving rises from his heart as he begins to dictate his letter to them. The present tense means, “I am now thanking my God.” When he says “my” God he touches his personal relation to God but without emphasis. “Through Jesus Christ” simply adds the mediation by which alone we are able to approach God as our own God and lay our thanks, praise, and petitions at the foot of his throne. The threefold mention of this holy name which marks the Savior’s incarnate person and his Messianic office in the preceding salutation is thus recalled by a fourth mention in this opening sentence of the letter proper.

Περί is not ὑπέρ, “in behalf of” or “for” (our versions) but “in regard to you all,” i.e., as I now think of you all. And he again (v. 7) adds “all” in order to indicate that he is not thinking only of those in Rome who are personally known to him. The thought that some might be hypocrites is not allowed to intrude itself when Paul thinks of the congregation to whom he writes; in Christian love he thinks of all the members as believers and leaves any who might be insincere to the Knower of hearts.

Nor for the faith itself of the Romans does Paul thank God but for the publicity their faith has obtained in the whole world. The underlying assumption is, of course, that theirs is a genuine faith. Although no apostle had founded the church at Rome, its faith is here acknowledged by this apostle as being of the right kind. While this is only an implication, some implications—and this is one of them—say more than outright statements. What rejoices Paul especially is the fact that the faith of the church in Rome is proclaimed in the whole world. “Proclaimed” is a strong word; the fact that in the very capital of the world a congregation of believers was established was advertised everywhere, in other countries and other cities, of course, by those interested, namely other Christians. “In the whole world” is called hyperbolical, but it conveys Paul’s meaning very well. The inspired writers use no misleading hyperboles. The fact that an excellent congregation flourished in Rome itself encouraged all other congregations; and now that Paul is putting himself in connection with this congregation, his heart swells with gratitude toward God for what the existence of it meant in regard to himself and the great gospel work.

Romans 1:9

9 The Romans will better understand (explanatory γάρ) the thanks which Paul now offers to God when he tells them that he constantly includes them in his prayers and adds the petition that God would soon shape his course so that he himself could get to Rome. When Paul says that “God is my witness” he is not meeting doubts on the part of the Romans as though without God’s testimony they might question what he says about constantly mentioning them in his prayers. Such an implication would be shameful to Paul and insulting to the Romans. No; the apostle is speaking of his secret prayer life, the inwardness of which only One knows and can know, namely God. We still do the same when, for instance, we refer to our secret thoughts and our deepest motives which are open only to the eye of the Omniscient and then say, “God knows.” But to mention God’s knowledge and testimony in this way always indicates warmth of feeling, and that is exactly the case here with regard to Paul. From start to finish his letter is not cold and didactic, not held in restraint and guarded, but glowing with the full fervor of his heart so that again and again it becomes intense and even dramatic. Paul is revealing himself to the Romans so that, although by far the most of them have never met him, they may, nevertheless, now feel real contact with his very soul.

That, too, is why he adds the relative clause: “whom I serve in my spirit in connection with the gospel of his Son.” The service implied by λατρεύω is that of worship which is obligatory upon all who approach God, in distinction from λειτουργέω, the official service of a priest or in this connection of Paul as a called apostle (v. 1). This verb was used with reference to the service of offerings, and some have therefore thought that Paul intends to say that in all his gospel work as an apostle he serves God with his very spirit and not merely in a mechanical way. That thought is true enough, but it would certainly require the use of the other verb. Paul is speaking of his personal relation to God, of the inward worship of his own spirit, of his connection with the gospel as a believer even as he makes God the one witness of what transpires in his secret prayer life. Paul’s spirit rests in the gospel and thus turns in worship to God who knows what is in his worshiper’s spirit. We here catch a glimpse of the soul of the man, of his own inner spiritual life and contact with God. This underlies all his official apostolic work as it ought to underlie the work of all Christians, whether they are serving in specific offices or not.

The genitive “of his Son” is often regarded as denoting the contents of the gospel, but with περὶτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦκτλ., Paul has already stated the contents most adequately in v. 3, 4 and there is no reason why he should repeat it in even an abbreviated form. The genitive is not to mark the object but the author of the gospel; “the gospel of his Son” is the counterpart to “God’s gospel” in v. 1. The presence or the absence of the articles does not alter the sense of the genitives. “God’s” gospel is proper where the connection is the thought that he promised this gospel in advance through the prophets (v. 2); equally proper is the gospel “of his Son,” when the connection is now the worship of Paul’s spirit rendered to God. A further difference is the fact that in v. 1 Paul’s having been set apart for God’s gospel refers to his apostolic connection with it while here, where he speaks of his personal worship in his own spirit in prayer, it is Paul’s personal spiritual connection with the gospel that is indicated. Thus in the case of Paul, “the apostle,” we have God’s gospel with its contents “concerning his Son” as the message he is to preach; but in the case of Paul, the worshiper, we now have the Son’s gospel as enabling his spirit to draw near to God. Those who here, too, think of the apostle feel that they must again have the gospel contents.

Romans 1:10

10 Paul assures the Romans “how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers asking if somehow now at last I shall be prospered in the will of God to come to you.” When it is noted that ὡς is to be construed only with the adverb and not with the whole clause, it will not be regarded as equal to ὅτι. It is “how unceasingly” and not, “how I make mention,” although R. 1032 regards it as the latter. As happens so often in the Greek, the participial addition and not the finite verb carries the main thought, for Paul’s constant mention of the Romans occurs in his always asking in his prayers if finally God will let him get to Rome. We must punctuate as is done in the R. V., and not as in the A. V.; “always in my prayers asking” is to be construed together. “How unceasingly” is defined by πάντοτε, “always” in the sense of “on every occasion,” with which ἐπί agrees by indicating periods of prayer, “at my prayers,” R. 603.

It says a good deal that Paul thought so constantly about the Romans and prayed so regularly about getting into their midst. From Acts we know how the Lord determined his course, at one time directing him away from the province of Asia and that of Bithynia and on into Macedonia (Acts 16:6–10). So he was now under the Lord’s direction as to what new territory he should enter after visiting Jerusalem.

He thus writes εἰ, an indirect question which God will answer in due time: “if somehow now at last I shall be prospered (indicative: as I hope I shall be) in the will of God to come to you.” Here we have an instance in the Koine of what R. 1145 aptly calls “the witchery of the old Greek particles” which is so delightful in the classics—four of them in succession: εἴπωςἤδηποτέ, the last two having the idea of culmination (R. 1147): “now at last.” Since Paul is speaking of travel, we may retain the figure of the way on which one is favorably brought (εὖ plus ὁδός), and the aorist ἐλθεῖν is the infinitive of contemplated result: “shall be favorably brought on my way to (actually) come to you.”

Some are satisfied with the generalized sense: “shall be prospered to come.” The matter rests “in the will of God,” in his θέλημα or volition. We know that the divine decision was communicated to Paul by means of a special revelation (Acts 23:11). But when Paul asked God regarding his will he did not know in what way God would answer, whether by a direct revelation or by providential indications. Even the apostles generally depended on the latter. It is also worth noting that Paul asked God for a long time and waited most patiently when he was left without an answer. He must have begun asking when his thoughts first turned to Rome.

Here we have a case of persistent prayer. Moreover, εἰ states that God might have willed it either way, that Paul was to go or not to go to Rome, and Paul would have considered a divine indication in either way as God’s answer. See how he submitted to God’s will and even brought others to that submission in Acts 21:13, 14.

Romans 1:11

11 With γάρ Paul explains that his request in some way to be furthered to go to Rome is due to his longing to see the congregation there. But his motive and the purpose (ἵνα) of his desire are not merely to visit the city, meet his old friends there, and get acquainted with the congregation as such; they are that he may impart some spiritual gift to them in order that they may be confirmed. Μεταδῶ means to communicate what one possesses yet so as not to deprive oneself; by imparting to others Paul would not have less, and the aorist subjunctive expresses the actuality. All the contents of the gospel are thus communicated; the most generous communication never impoverishes in the least. The separation of τί from χάρισμα gives the latter a certain emphasis. The same is true regarding πνευματικόν which is also separated from its noun by another word. Paul longs to visit and to see the Romans in order that through his personal contact with them he may let them share to some degree the gracious gift God has bestowed upon him, meaning the gift the nature of which is spiritual. By saying “some” he implies that the Romans already have a goodly measure of this gift and that they may receive and will be glad to receive still more of it.

“Some” also marks the modesty of Paul. He uses the singular χάρισμα not the plural χαρίσματα and thus refers to the entire gift of divine grace with which the Lord has enriched him. We may think of John 7:38: “He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” i.e., he shall be a source of spiritual blessing for many others. “Spiritual” is added in order to show that Paul is speaking of what pertains to the spiritual life, πνευματικόν, as coming from the ΠνεῦμαἍγιον.

Εἰςτό with the infinitive is one way of expressing purpose. What Paul longs to communicate to the Romans is to make them firm, to establish them in their spiritual life. The aorist indicates actuality and a definite result. The supposition is that the Romans are already rooted in the faith and yet can be rooted in it more deeply and will themselves desire this and will thus welcome Paul’s coming.

Romans 1:12

12 The τοῦτοδέἐστι occurs only here in the New Testament. It is weightier than the contracted τουτέστιν which is often used to elucidate only a single concept. Here Paul elucidates the entire purpose clause from ἵνα onward and not merely στηριχθῆναι. This is evident also from what follows which shows more fully what Paul means: not merely being confirmed but imparting some spiritual gift for confirming.

Some regard this as a correction. But if Paul had desired to make a correction he would have had Tertius erase what had just been written and would have substituted the correct wording. He, indeed, purposes to impart some spiritual gift to the Romans in order to confirm them—that statement he does not even modify. “But this is,” etc., only brings out more fully what this statement contains. Imparting some spiritual gift to others for their confirmation is not a one-sided act, it always has a mutual effect as well upon him who imparts as upon them who receive. It is this added effect to which Paul draws the attention of the Romans. He is concerned about its not being overlooked because it involves also himself.

Then συμπαρακληθῆναικτλ is not Synonymous with στηριχθῆναι as if both meant being strengthened, so that by strengthening the Romans Paul himself hoped to be strengthened. Nor is συμπαρακληθῆναικτλ. a parallel to the ἵνα clause, a restatement of what this clause contains. “In order that I may impart to you some spiritual gift,” etc., is not the same as “to be jointly comforted with you through each other’s faith,” etc. The two thoughts are quite different and distinct. “But this is” does not make them practically alike. Συμπαρακληθῆναι is the nominative predicate of τοῦτο (R. 700, 1059), and since τοῦτο refers to the entire ἵνα clause, its nominative predicate infinitive clause, like any predicate, states what imparting some spiritual gift for the confirmation of the Romans is in addition. For Paul thus to confirm them means something also to him, namely being jointly comforted with them. When, after coming, Paul does the one thing, the imparting, another thing is at once accomplished by the very nature of this imparting. The one cannot be done without bringing about the other.

The one is μετά (in the verb), the other that results is σύν (in the infinitive). The first comes from Paul to the Romans, the second is for Paul and the Romans together.

Here again, as in v. 5, Paul unites himself with the Romans in a most intimate fashion; in v. 5 he speaks of what “we received” (past), here of what he and they are jointly to receive (future). The infinitive means to be jointly comforted, encouraged, cheered, and this in the widest sense of the term. “Jointly,” σύν, prevents ἐνὑμῖν from meaning “in your midst.” Since the preposition refers to the Romans, and the implied subject of the infinitive is Paul, we translate: “to be jointly comforted with you.” Most interesting is the way in which Paul amplifies and thus emphasizes this union of himself with the Romans in a blessed joint experience. What is implied by σύν is expanded by the attributive ἐνἀλλήλοις and then fully stated by ὑμῶντεκαὶἐμοῦ: jointly comforted with you through each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

In these expressions Paul presses the Romans to his heart in fervent love. He longs for the cheering contact of their faith and his own, the faith that each finds in the other. This is the force of ἐνἀλλήλοις. We may translate: “through our mutual faith.” Paul is thinking of this faith in its expression as revealing itself as what it is by means of confession, love, and other evidences. One of the happy experiences, especially of the ministry, is this enjoyment of comfort to which Paul looked forward with such desire, and it is the sweeter because of the mutuality which it involves.

Romans 1:13

13 Paul’s thought makes a steady advance. In v. 9, 10 we hear that he is praying to get to Rome. In v. 11, 12 we have the personal purpose of the desired visit for the Romans and for Paul. Now in v. 13–15 we see his official apostolic purpose in getting to Rome, his hope to obtain some fruit of his apostolic labors also in this great city, this, as we may add from 15:24, before going on to Spain. The apostolic interest, held in abeyance in v. 8–12, is now clearly voiced. Indeed, as much as Paul might desire to strengthen the faith of the Roman believers and enjoy the mutual encouragement that would result, this alone could scarcely be his entire purpose in seeking to reach Rome.

So he now adds: And I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that often I actually formed the purpose to come to you (and was hindered until now) in order that I might get to have some fruit also among you even as also among the rest of the nations I am debtor to both Greeks and barbarians, to both educated and uneducated. Thus is the willingness on my own part to proclaim the gospel also to you who are in Rome.

The reading οὐκοἴομαι in place of οὐθέλω is textually far too weak to be considered although, taken by itself, it would be attractive. Paul would say: “I do not think that you are ignorant (of the fact) that I often purposed to come to you,” meaning that some of his friends, like Aquila and Priscilla (16:3), on going to Rome had told of his various attempts to get to this important place. Paul, however, wrote: “I do not want you to be ignorant,” etc., an expression he often employs when introducing something he desires to have especially noted. It is a kind of litotes for “I want you to note well.” The insertion of “brethren” likewise makes plain that Paul is now stating his main purpose in having wished to get to Rome, for the emphasis of his statement is on the ἵνα clause which, therefore, also is expounded by the clause with καθώς. It was his desire to obtain some fruit of his apostolic labors in Rome just as he felt himself a debtor also to all other nations. As “brethren” the Roman Christians will understand and appreciate this purpose of his.

He has spoken of his desire and his prayers in regard to his coming to Rome. He now adds that he had actually resolved, and that often, i.e., on repeated occasions, to make the journey; προεθέμην, “I set before myself,” means that at various times he had actually made plans. With the parenthetical καί (R. 1183) he at once states that until the present moment he was hindered in the sense of prevented from carrying out the resolutions and plans he had formed. He does not need to state what had interfered; it could have been only the imperative need for his presence and work elsewhere. We here once more see how, in their ordinary movements, the apostles were directed by the compulsion of the situation in which they found themselves.

With his personal longing to see the Romans Paul connects the personal purpose of reciprocal encouragement between them and himself (v. 11, 12). With his actual, though frustrated, planning to extend his apostolic travels to Rome he now connects the direct apostolic purpose of spreading the gospel among those not as yet won for the faith. “In order that I might get to have some fruit,” etc., speaks of the regular fruit of his apostolic labors. The fact that καρπόν contains the figure of a farmer or a gardener is evident from both the verb (ἔχειν) and its tense (σχῶ). If the figure were that of the soil or of a tree, the verb employed would be φέρειν or ποιεῖνκαρπόν, “to bear or produce fruit,” as in Phil. 1:22, καρπὸνἔργου, “fruit of work.” The aorist σχῶ, “might get to have,” points to the final moment when the work would be completed in Rome and Paul would have “some fruit” as the net result. Souls won by the gospel are this fruit. “Some” is modest, indeed, but not in the sense of “a little fruit” but of fruit additional to what the Roman congregation had already garnered. This shows that ἐνὑμῖν means, not “in you,” but “among you.” The Roman Christians had already been won for the gospel and could not be the fruit of Paul’s evangelical labors; but among them in the great city of Rome all sorts of opportunities for winning new converts, opportunities beyond such as the Christians themselves could embrace, were waiting.

Paul’s thought is simple: he desires to get some fruit in Rome just as he is under obligation also to the rest of the nations. To him Rome is the center of one nation, and just as his obligation extends to the other nations so he regards it as extending also to this most important one of all. The wrong punctuation and verse division have divided the καθώς clause and thus leave an incongruous tail for v. 13, and make a separate sentence of v. 14, the asyndeton of which is likewise incongruous. But when we try to complete the καθώς clause apart from v. 14 we not only find difficulty but also get a wrong thought. We cannot well supply the subjunctive σχῶ after καθώς, for a subjunctive does not fit the thought: “Even as I might get to have some fruit also among the rest of the nations.” Nor can we convert the subjunctive σχῶ into the indicative ἔσχον, for this would have Paul say that he had already secured fruit among the rest of the nations. On the supposition that Paul really intended to say this we are told to take this statement with a grain of salt.

This, however, is stating it mildly, for too many nations had not as yet been reached by Paul. These difficulties disappear when we construe without a break: “even as also among the rest of the nations I am debtor to both Greeks and barbarians, to both educated (cultured) and uneducated (uncultured).”

Romans 1:14

14 Paul’s apostolic debt is immense. It extends to Greeks and barbarians, to educated and uneducated among all the nations, with Rome representing one nation to which “the rest” must be added. Exercising exact care to attain precision in expression, Paul does not say that he is debtor to the nations but to the two classes found “among” the nations. He is planting the gospel in each nation. Acts shows how he worked in the central cities and also how from these centers the gospel spread into each surrounding province; note Acts 19:26, and how in 2 Cor. 11:10 Paul speaks of “the regions of Achaia.”

The expression τὰἔθνη should not be translated “Gentiles.” Paul is not distinguishing between Gentiles and Jews but is referring to the great classes found in each nation as a nation. In the Roman Empire the political grouping was made according to provinces and subject kingdoms. The inhabitants of any one of these groups he calls an ἔθνος or “nation.” The great distinction that prevailed at that time was that between Ἕλληνες and βάρβαροι, “Greeks and barbarians,” a division that included all men irrespective of their racial extraction. “Greeks” includes all those possessing Greek culture; “barbarians,” the natives who lacked this prized advantage. Greeks of this type were found everywhere, and also barbarians of this type. The former looked down on the latter, the latter envied the former, and all aspired to the higher standing.

In Acts 28:2 the βάρβαροι were the Punic natives of Malta; in Acts 14:11 the Lycaonians were likewise natives. All of them spoke the Greek language so that Paul had no difficulty in communicating with them but they lacked the Greek culture. But take a city like Rome. In addition to the Latins there were found in it national Greeks, Hellenists, Jews, Syrians, Egyptians, Africans in general, Celts, Germans, and others. A similar situation obtained in other cities. All of these were divided into two great classes, “Greeks and barbarians.” The line between the classes was not in every case sharply drawn.

Thus a Jew who was still strongly Aramaic would be called a barbarian by those who regarded themselves Greeks, and a thoroughly Hellenized Jew would deem himself a Greek even if superior Greeks still looked down on him. We must also not forget the multitude of slaves that were found in the empire, captives of war from many countries who had been sold into slavery. Many of them became freedmen, some rose to high positions and thus became “Greeks.” Felix and his brother Pallas may serve as examples. The great mass of slaves were regarded as “barbarians.”

Σοφοί and ἀνόητοι, men with and men without Greek education, help to define “Greeks and barbarians.” This double distinction held good everywhere, “among all the rest of the nations,” and thus certainly to the fullest degree also in Rome. But as far as Paul’s apostolic work with the gospel was concerned, he was a debtor to both. It makes little difference whether ὀφειλέτης is regarded as meaning “debtor” or as meaning “one under obligation” without the figure of a debt; the sense does not become clearer by eliminating the figure. 1 Cor. 9:16 explains Paul’s indebtedness. His apostleship made him the great debtor who could discharge his heavy obligation only in gospel coin. The distinction obtaining among men in the world exempted him from payment to neither of the two great classes. The foolishness of preaching was what the cultured Greeks needed and what Paul owed them, and for the barbarians and the uncultured this same preaching, which makes wise the simple, was the supreme requirement.

By placing the other nations beside Rome καθώς quietly conveys two thoughts. After all, and especially as far as Paul’s obligation to obtain fruit was concerned, Rome was not different from other localities—it, too, contained only these two classes of men. Paul wants to obtain fruit in Rome in the same way as he is indebted to Greeks and barbarians everywhere. When he writes this to the Romans he thus tells them that, in coming to them, he merely expects to continue his usual apostolic labors. Then, to get fruit by paying a debt and to get it “even as” or in correspondence with the paying, is strangely paradoxical. Ordinarily, paying a debt makes poorer, but in the apostleship and in the ministry it makes richer.

The two figures are not mixed, they are merely exact. “Debtor” connotes the compulsion under which Paul worked—woe unto him, if he did not preach the gospel, 1 Cor. 9:16. Yet “fruit” always comes naturally, also the fruit of believing souls that follows upon gospel preaching.

Romans 1:15

15 “Thus,” Paul adds, “is the willingness on my own part to proclaim the gospel also to you who are in Rome.” Οὕτω links into καθώς: “just as” the apostle is debtor to Greeks and barbarians, learned and unlearned among the rest of the nations, “just so” is his willingness to discharge this debt also in Rome. His readiness to preach in Rome is quite like his readiness to preach elsewhere where his apostolic obligation calls him. This οὕτω following καθώς keeps a balance: Paul is not excited about coming to preach in Rome nor is he hesitant. To him Rome is the center of another nation, and with his usual readiness, since the time is apparently approaching, he is willing to do some gospel work also in this place. He leaves the Roman Christians under no false impression as though he was overelated at the prospect of coming, or as though he had misgivings. His eagerness is the same old fervor that has carried him thus far.

Εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is the verb that matches εὐαγγέλιον, and the aorist infinitive is constative as summing up the entire work of proclaiming the good gospel news which Paul hopes to do in Rome. We must regard as one concept καὶὑμῖντοῖςἐνῬώμῃ, “to you those in Rome,” meaning not merely to the Christians in Rome—to say that they were in Rome would be too trivial—but to the inhabitants of Rome of whom ὑμεῖς, the Christians, were representatives. The apostle means that, while he is in Rome and in fraternal fellowship with the Christians there, he would preach to the inhabitants of their city, whether they were Greeks or barbarians, learned or unlearned, as he had done elsewhere and considered it his duty to do everywhere. His willingness was not merely to visit Rome and to see the Christians there but to prosecute his apostolic mission among the Romans generally by reaching as many of the unconverted as possible.

Note that καί is found in both statements of the comparison: “also among you even as also among the rest of the nations” (v. 13), and then once again: “also to you who are in Rome.” Κατʼ ἐμέ is a classic substitute for the genitive (B.-D. 224, 1) but is stronger than a genitive (R. 608), was mich betrifft, “as regards myself” (B.-D. 266, 2). The phrase is attributive: “my own willingness.” Some think that τὸκατʼ ἐμέ may be regarded as a nominative, the subject of ἐστί understood, and πρόθυμονκτλ., as the predicate: “Thus the thing regarding me is a willingness to preach,” etc. (R. 486). This construction loses the correspondence between καθώς and οὕτω and makes v. 15 a deduction. When this letter was read, no reader would think that “is” was to be supplied before πρόθυμον, and that to τὸκατʼ ἐμὲπρόθυμον was to be divided. Nor could anyone explain why Paul used so queer a combination of words for saying: “Thus I am ready to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.” What he wrote was different and far more to the point, namely that his personal readiness to preach in Rome was exactly like fulfilling his obligation toward the rest of the nations.

Romans 1:16

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone believing, first of all for both Jew and Greek. For God’s righteousness is revealed in it from faith to faith; even as it has been written, But the righteous shall live from faith.

What Paul says about getting some fruit in Rome in accord with his debt regarding the other nations and his corresponding willingness to preach also in Rome he now explains (γάρ) by a reference to his own attitude toward the gospel (“I am not ashamed”) and furthermore (two more γάρ) by a reference to the nature of that gospel (“God’s power”) and a reference to its contents (“God’s righteousness”). This is the line of his thought. With it he presents the theme of his entire letter:

The Righteousness of God Revealed from Faith to Faith

“I am not ashamed” is a litotes: Paul is proud of the gospel. He has already intimated quite plainly that “just as” (καθώς, v. 13) he is a debtor to the rest of the nations with their Greeks and barbarians, etc., “thus” (οὕτω in v. 15) and in no other way is he willing, as soon as God permits, to preach also in Rome. He has intimated that he will find these same classes of men also in the world capital. He had thus far worked only in eastern countries, but this had not been done because he had sought to avoid Rome but only because he had been prevented from getting there. Even at this time he intends to make Rome only a waystation, his great aim being to reach the far western lands, namely Spain (15:24). Any idea, therefore, on the part of the Romans that Paul was ashamed of the gospel and thus hesitant about facing Rome with it, would be wide of the mark.

Certainly, Rome was Rome, and no city in all the world was comparable to it, the world’s center of power, glory, and magnificence. And Paul was a mere provincial who had been born in Tarsus but was identified with insignificant Judea. One might draw the strongest kind of a contrast between Rome and Paul. Yet, equipped with the gospel, Paul towers above Rome as he does above all of Rome’s provinces. He “ashamed”? Nay, he was truly proud, because he is conscious of what the gospel really is.

The A. V. has the inferior reading: “the gospel of Christ.” On εὐαγγέλιον see v. 1.

It is because the gospel is “God’s power unto salvation,” etc., that Paul is not ashamed of it. The Roman Christians will certainly share his feeling when he thus recalls to them what the gospel to which he was devoting his very life really is. Paul’s statement about himself automatically suggests to every reader the vital question: “What do I think of the gospel?” We show in many ways what our estimate of it is; often enough that we do not glory in it as Paul did and as we, too, should.

In “God’s power” note the absence of the articles. It is like “God’s gospel” in v. 1, “God’s righteousness” in v. 17, “God’s wrath” in v. 18, and the genitive makes the terms concrete, definite, and practical compounds. “God’s power” is the predicate of the sentence, is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and defines the gospel from the angle of what it is able to do. The fact that it deals with God’s Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, has already been stated in v. 3, 4, which must be recalled when Paul now adds additional features; for it is the gospel concerning God’s Son that is God’s saving power. In the expression δύναμιςΘεοῦ the first word has no more emphasis than the second; nor does γάρ separate the two words in order to produce an emphasis, it is used only postpositively.

We need scarcely say that “God’s power” does not mean God’s omnipotence. To quote Eph. 1:19 for the claim that omnipotence produces faith is to overlook the fact that Eph. 1:19 in no way deals with the production of faith. Calvinism teaches an irresistible grace. In order to escape this Calvinism those who claim that omnipotence produces faith advance the further claim that omnipotence is of two kinds, one that is irresistible, the other, resistible, and that here Paul has in mind the latter. The Scriptures know nothing about resistible omnipotence.

The gospel is God’s power of love and grace toward sinners. It is wholly unmerited by them and is embodied in the gift of his only-begotten Son, John 3:16. It has been well said that love is the strongest power in the world, and God’s love in Christ Jesus is the greatest love of all. All this power of love and grace is found in the gospel. God himself and all his love and his grace are ever in the gospel. God and his saving Word cannot possibly be separated from each other. Even omnipotence cannot save sinners, but God’s power of grace in the gospel can and does save them. God’s grace produced the gospel as the one means by which to reach the sinner’s heart in order to bestow salvation upon him.

Because the gospel is “news,” tells about God’s love in Christ Jesus, teaches and informs us, we might think of it as being only a message, something composed of words only that the mind should retain. Such an estimate of the gospel must be revised upward. We must think of the gospel in terms of power. The gospel is no less than the power by which God saves every believer. It is thus the very opposite of the impotency of all the means to which men resort in seeking salvation by their own efforts.

We usually call the gospel the means of grace, i.e., the channel through which grace reaches us. The apostle goes beyond that; he calls the gospel itself the power that is operative for our salvation. When we come into contact with the gospel in any way we come into contact with this blessed power, and when Paul and when we preach the gospel we bring others into contact with this power. In all the universe there is no other power that can save as much as a single soul. To reject the gospel is thus to reject salvation. To substitute something in place of the gospel is to substitute the loss of salvation for salvation. To dilute or to alter the gospel is to reduce its power, possibly to a point where its power can no longer save.

“Power” and “salvation” are correlative, for it takes power to save. In fact, it takes God’s own power, for all the human power in the world is unable to save even one little babe. In the whole Roman capital, yea, in the whole empire, no power existed that could save even one lone beggar. “Salvation,” σωτγρία, and its cognates to “save,” “Savior,” “the saved,” denote both the act of delivering from mortal danger and the resultant condition of safety. The word itself has a passive sense for those who are saved, and this is strong here where God’s power is mentioned as the saving agency.

Εἰς is the preposition for denoting purpose, in the present connection even more, namely result. The gospel as God’s power effects salvation. The danger connoted is the destructive, damning power of sin and death, Satan and his kingdom of darkness and doom. What human power is able to effect an escape from that? The security connoted is that of pardon, peace, union with Christ and God in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God, children of light, heirs of heaven. What human power is able to achieve these? In words so few Paul puts the gospel into its true light for the Romans. Viewing the gospel thus as God’s power for salvation, all its blessedness shines out gloriously, draws and attracts us so that we, too, may be saved.

“Salvation” does not here refer only to the entrance into heaven in the hour of death. The present participle “for everyone believing” ought to prevent such a view. These substantivized present participles describe a person according to the enduring quality inhering in him. He who goes on believing does not need to wait until death in order to obtain salvation but has it from the first instant of faith, ever and ever as he believes, and at death only enters into the glories of this salvation. In regard to πίστις, the noun corresponding to πιστεύειν, see v. 5. The analysis of faith into knowledge, assent, and confidence, with emphasis on the latter, is undoubtedly correct. When Anerkennung, acknowledgment, is stressed, this only emphasizes the fulness of the assent which is the basis on which the corresponding fulness of the fiducia or confidence rests.

As “power” and “salvation” are correlatives, so also are “gospel” and “believing,” and this in the same complete way. This power does all of the saving, and nothing outside of it contributes even the least toward the saving. So the good news of the gospel kindles faith, and nothing outside of this gospel in the slightest degree contributes to the production of faith. But this pair of correlatives forms a unit: the gospel which works faith is the power which saves the believer. It is the very nature of the gospel to make him who hears it a believer, thereby saving him. The gospel is not only truth and divine reality, it is the most blessed truth in the universe, the most personal truth for every sinner, that reaches into his inmost soul in order to save him from the curse and the doom of his sin by making him God’s own through the Savior Christ.

Truth, and above all truth, this divine, personal, saving truth, works faith, confidence, trust. Woe to him who rejects it and trusts the lie! Paul here says that the gospel as God’s power saves the believer. There is no power even in God to save the unbeliever.

The emphasis is on the dative “for everyone believing,” to which, therefore, an apposition is added. “Believing” excludes everything except the confidence wrought in the soul by the divine power of the gospel and by this alone. Being saved is simplicity itself: by working confidence in the heart the gospel bestows salvation. Alas, it seems too simple for many who proceed to add something of their own doing and thus lose salvation. “For everyone believing” is universal: faith is the one door to salvation for all sinners.

While “first of all for both Jew and Greek” is in apposition with παντί, it by no means says that every believer will be either a Jew or a Greek. The πρῶτον cannot be construed only with “Jew” and translated as do our versions: “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Nor can we regard “Greek” as meaning “Gentile” and thus refer to every non-Jew. This view is barred by v. 14 where Paul has just used “Greeks” in opposition to “barbarians.” See that passage. Τε—καί, “both—and,” makes a close pair of these two opposites, “Jew” “Greek.” Πρῶτον, placed between the connectives, is to be construed with both Jew and Greek. The Jew had his Old Testament, the Greek had his culture; these two stood highest among men. Therefore Paul singles them out. The gospel is the power of God for salvation “in the first place for both Jew and Greek,” which implies that it is then certainly also such a power for all others, call them barbarians or what you will.

Πρῶτον is not temporal as though the gospel was offered to the Jews before it was taken to the Gentiles. Nor is it temporal with reference to Jews and (cultured) Greeks combined as though these upper classes were to hear the gospel before the lower classes got to hear it. Nor is the idea one of degree as though Jew and Greek needed the gospel more than the rest of mankind. “First” is comparative. Paul takes up this double class and passes over all the rest for a specific reason. As far as the gospel and salvation are concerned, no one is to think that, because of their high prerogatives, Jew and Greek have less need of it than others or have some advantage over others. Take Jew and Greek first, Paul says, and each obtains salvation through God’s gospel power only as believing persons.

By saying that regarding Jew and Greek he does not need to add a word about others. But this does not imply that hitherto the gospel had been preached only to Jew and Greek; Acts 14:11 alone is enough to refute this opinion but add also 1 Cor. 1:26–31. Nor can we conclude that Paul’s word about Jew and Greek implies that the Roman congregation consisted only or even mainly of these two classes; it certainly contained not a few common slaves. Yet this word, “in the first place both for Jew and Greek,” eminently fits this apostolic letter which is being addressed to Christians in the world’s capital city, the center of the world’s culture, pride, and prominence, the residence also of many Jews. Take the highest classes to begin with—for them, too, the gospel is God’s power for salvation only as they become believers. When Paul comes to Rome he will act only on the basis of this conviction, in which, of course, the Roman Christians have always concurred.

Romans 1:17

17 With a third γάρ Paul elucidates still further and thus proves what he has just said about the gospel’s effect “for everyone believing.” It saves the believer because it reveals God’s righteousness. This statement is the climax of the entire paragraph and enunciates the theme of the entire letter: God’s Righteousness Revealed from Faith to Faith. The letter form remains, and the epistle is not converted into a treatise or a thesis by a formal announcement of the theme. Paul knows perfectly how to embody in a genuine letter all that he desires to convey regarding the central doctrine of the Christian Faith, Justification by Faith Alone.

ΔικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ introduces the sentence just as δύναμιςΘεοῦ introduced the previous one and does so with the same emphasis. We naturally compare εὐαγγέλιονΘεοῦ (v. 1) and ὀργὴΘεοῦ (v. 18), especially the latter, because it, too, is used with the verb ἀποκαλύπτεται, both God’s wrath and God’s righteousness are revealed, the one in the law, the other in the gospel. The new fact, which elucidates v. 16 and the fact that the gospel is God’s power that saves every believer, is that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel from faith unto faith. The gospel tells all about this righteousness which has nothing whatever to do with works, neither springs from (ἐκ) works of ours, nor aims at (εἰς) such works, but has its source (ἐκ) only in faith and thereby is intended only for (εἰς) faith.

The emphasis is on δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ and on ἐκπίστεωςεἰςπίστιν. This wonderful righteousness of God has to be revealed otherwise none of us would know the least feature about it; for the only righteousness of which men can think is a righteousness of their own: “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God,” Rom. 10:3; see the same contrast in Phil. 3:9.

In v. 16 Paul speaks concretely: “to everyone believing”; he now speaks abstractly: “from faith unto faith.” To be sure, faith exists only in a person. There is no faith apart from one who believes. But by stating this truth abstractly the entire emphasis is thrown on faith which, therefore, also is mentioned twice: “from faith unto faith.”

We need not hesitate in making Θεοῦ the genitive of the origin and of the author. We have the same type of genitive in “God’s gospel,” “God’s power,” “God’s wrath”—all denoting what proceeds from God. This is very clear in Phil. 3:9: τὴνἐκΘεοῦδικαιοσύνη, “the righteousness out of or from God,” over against that righteousness which is ἐκνόμου, “from law.” We frequently encounter the remark that here Paul does not intend “righteousness” as an attribute of God, and that this attribute is revealed already in the punitive judgments of God, for instance in his wrath (v. 18). These statements are useful for warding off an approach to the view of Osiander that through the gospel and faith the justitia essentialis enters into us and makes us righteous. Yet, as C.-K. 313 points out, the justitia essentialis is the basis of the righteousness revealed in the gospel. This is very clear in 3:26: “that he might himself be righteous and accounting righteous him who has faith in Jesus.” Every verdict of God is just, right, righteous, and will be established as such before the whole universe and reveal righteousness as an attribute of God, in particular also this verdict which pronounces the believer righteous.

C.-K. makes Θεοῦ a subjective genitive: “God’s righteousness” = God bestowing the status of righteousness upon the believer by his righteous verdict. This differs only formally from the genitive of the author or of origin.

It was the happiest day in Luther’s life when he discovered that “God’s righteousness” as used in Romans means God’s verdict of righteousness upon the believer. He says that it was like opening Paradise to him, that he at once ran through the Scripture with ecstasy, seeing everywhere how this righteousness opened salvation and heaven to him. This joy is ours today. ΔικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ is the status of righteousness into which faith and the believer are placed by the judicial verdict of God. It is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is the sum of God’s gospel, yea, its very heart. It is this that makes the gospel the power of God’s grace for everyone believing.

This is righteousness not of our own (10:3), impossible for us to attain, but God’s gift to the believer, bestowed by God’s verdict upon him. This is the end of all our own righteousnesses which are not righteousness at all but only filthy rags; this is God’s righteousness made ours by his verdict the instant faith is kindled in us by the gospel which reveals this righteousness and so kindles faith.

It is essential to know that δικαιοσύνη is juridical: by his verdict God, the Judge in heaven, pronounces the believer righteous and by that pronouncement places the believer into the status of righteousness where he remains as long as he is ὁπιστεύων. It is fatal to eliminate the forensic idea from δικαιοσύνη. This cannot be done linguistically, save by changing the sense; it cannot be done doctrinally, save by rejecting the central doctrine of all Scripture.

Luther’s translation of Θεοῦ as a kind of objective genitive is justly famous: die Gerechtigkeit, die vor Gott gilt, “the righteousness that avails before God.” It is Luther’s aim to let the Holy Spirit speak German so that German readers may easily understand. In this instance Luther’s translation is interpretative. As such it conserves the forensic idea of δικαιοσύνη even better than our English versions which translate literally. Yet Luther’s rendering really states, not the idea of the genitive itself, but the resultant idea of the noun plus its genitive. A righteousness that God’s verdict establishes is one which beyond question is valid in his court, before his judgment seat. Men bring so many false righteousnesses to him, which they think he must allow to stand yet which he as the righteous Judge must condemn as not at all being righteousness.

This is the one righteousness that avails before him. We know it avails, for it is the substance of his own verdict.

A word of caution is necessary: while we fix attention upon each single concept we must ever keep the sentence just as Paul wrote it, each concept where he placed it, each lending its proper part to the great thought: “For God’s righteousness is being revealed in it out of faith unto faith.” The emphasis is not on ἐναὐτῷ. If Paul had intended to have it there he would have placed the phrase at the head of the clause or in some other emphatic position; the Greek would have compelled him to do so. Nor is the emphasis on ἀποκαλύπτεται; neither phrase nor verb occupy an emphatic position. The emphasis is on what is revealed in the gospel: “God’s righteousness is revealed in it”; the next emphasis is on the way in which this righteousness is revealed, namely “out of faith unto faith.” The passive, of course, implies that God does the revealing even as this is his gospel. The great point is that he does this revealing “out of faith unto faith.” The fact that the double phrase, striking because it is double and not connected by καί, modifies the verb should be evident. How can it be taken from the end of the sentence and made to modify the subject at the head of the sentence?

It is not convincing to point to 3:22: δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦδιὰπίστεωςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ, for there the phrase adjoins the noun while in our passage it adjoins the verb. Paul does not write: “God’s righteousness out of faith unto faith is revealed in it”; he writes: “Is revealed out of faith unto faith.” The objection that the latter would make faith precede the preaching of the gospel does not note ἐναὐτῷ, namely that the revealing takes place “in it,” i.e., in the preached gospel, i.e., in connection with the saving power of the preached gospel which is so efficient to create faith in the heart.

In v. 16 Paul places the full emphasis on “everyone believing,” Jew or Greek or any other man. In exactly the same manner he now places the full emphasis on “faith” and even repeats this word. The gospel with its salvation (v. 16) and thus also with its saving revelation (v. 17), both as being God’s saving power of grace (v. 16) and as revealing God’s righteousness (v. 17), pertains to the believer, to absolutely every believer (v. 16), pertains to faith, yea to faith (v. 17), and to nothing but faith.

The two statements are typically Pauline: in one instance the verb πιστεύειν (in the participle τῷπιστεύοντι), next the abstract generalizing noun πίστις and this repeated; in one instance the concrete person, “the one believing,” next the principle itself, “faith, faith.” Even the added quotation drives home “faith” and even uses the important preposition ἐκ: “But the righteous—out of faith shall he live!” As regards salvation, as regards true righteousness, as regards life spiritual and everlasting, and that means as regards the gospel, all else is excluded, race, nationality, culture (Jew, Greek, barbarian), law, works, human prerogatives, claims, and everything else, and only the believer, only faith—faith—faith (Paul has the word three times) is included.

This saving revelation never occurs except ἐκπίστεως, “out of faith.” When the heart hardens itself, prevents faith from being kindled, all remains dark, no revelation takes place, no righteousness is pronounced by God, no salvation is obtained, no life enters. All these come about only “out of faith.” This does not imply that faith is first, and that these result; all are simultaneous, occur in the instant that the power of the gospel penetrates the heart. To think of a before and an after is out of place. “Out of faith” is at the same time “unto faith” or “for faith,” εἰςπίστιν, i.e., intended for, directed to, aimed at faith—faith and ever more faith. This ἐκ could not be without εἰς, nor vice versa. It is, however, the ἐκ that arrests attention. In fact, it disconcerts and upsets all who have a wrong conception of πίστις, of either its origin or its nature.

Does Paul attribute too much to faith when he writes that God’s saving gospel righteousness is revealed “out of faith,” that our justification comes “out of faith,” is due to faith, yea, as he says elsewhere, that “faith” itself is reckoned unto us for righteousness, and when our fathers similarly declared that we are elected “in view of faith”? All misgivings disappear when we have the Scriptural conception of faith. It is the operation of God (Col. 2:12), wholly and in all its stages. There is absolutely no synergism in either its inception or in its continuance. No synergistic faith ever existed save as a figment in men’s minds. Faith, even common human faith in some man, in some human institution, in some man’s promise, to say nothing of faith in God, Christ, the gospel, etc., is passive as to its production and its nature: it is kindled, is awakened, and then is kept alive.

It is never self-wrought—to think so is an illusion. God, Christ, the gospel are absolutely trustworthy. Is it, therefore, surprising that they should awaken and then sustain trust in us, and that they do it, yea, must do it, altogether by themselves, and that no help from any other source is possible in producing this trust?

But this non-synergism is only the half of it. The other non-synergism lies in the object of faith. Faith is ever filled with its object, wholly filled, never, and in no way, empty. Faith may be great or small, but whatever its size, its object fills it. Without that object it ceases to exist. In fact, that object produces the trust that holds it.

Every time we read the word “faith” in the Scriptures, the object is included, whether that object is stated or not. It is because of the great object of faith that the Scriptures attribute so much to faith and never to faith apart from that object. Draw even a hairline between the two, and faith does not exist because it cannot exist without its object, and, of course, also its object has disappeared because there is not faith in which it may rest. Regard Paul’s double phrase “out of faith unto faith” in this sense, and joy will fill your heart, misgivings will disappear.

The great theme of Romans is the Sinner’s Personal Justification by Faith. The fact that the basis of this personal justification is Christ’s blood and righteousness, which became effective for the whole world on the days that he died and rose again, Paul states in many places, beginning with 3:22, etc. Especially noteworthy Isaiah 5:10, 11, where we have Paul’s own term for what Christ has done: καταλλαγή (καταλλάσσειν), “reconciliation” (“to reconcile”). This reconciliation embraced the whole world of sinners and was thus “without faith, prior to and apart from faith.” When Christ died on the cross he cried: Τετέλεσθαι, “It has been finished!” (i.e., and stands so forever). Then and there the whole world of men was reconciled to God by Christ. The resurrection of Christ only corroborated the tremendous fact of the world’s reconciliation.

The Scripture term for this is καταλλαγή, “reconciliation,” the whole world of sinners was made completely other (ἄλλος; κατά is perfective). Christ’s resurrection shows that God accepted Christ’s sacrifice for the world, that Christ’s blood had, indeed, reconciled the whole world to God.

One may call God’s raising up of Christ God’s declaration to this effect, and, because it is such a declaration, one may call it “the universal justification of the whole world.” Yet to use the word “justification” in this way is not a gain, for it is liable to confuse the ordinary man; we are fully satisfied with the Scriptural word “reconciliation.” Based on this ἀπολύτρωσις (“ransoming”) or καταλλαγή (“reconciliation”), 3:24; 5:11, is the individual’s Personal Justification in the instant the power of the gospel brings a sinner to faith.

When it is thus correctly used, we may speak of allgemeine Rechtfertigung and of persoenliche Rechtfertigung. Since both are equally objective, both judicial declarations made by God in heaven, it should be seen that it is confusing to call the one “objective justification” and the other “subjective justification.” This terminology is inexact, to say no more. In these high and holy matters inexactness in terminology is certainly to be avoided.

The danger is that by use of the term “subjective justification” we may lose the objective divine act of God by which he declares the individual sinner righteous ἐκπίστεωςεἰςπίστιν in the instant faith (embracing Christ) is wrought in him, leaving only the one divine declaration regarding the whole world of sinners, calling this an actus simplex, the only forensic act of God, and expanding this to mean that God declared every sinner free from guilt when Christ was raised from the dead, so many millions even before they were born, irrespective of faith, apart from and without faith. This surely wipes out “justification by faith alone,” of which the Scriptures speak page after page. No sinner is declared righteous by God save by faith alone. Only his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. This righteousness is the theme of Romans which so mightily emphasizes ἐκπίστεωςεἰςπίστιν and διὰπίστεως. Any confusion on this supreme matter is bound to entail the most serious consequences.

What Paul thus states is not at all a new doctrine but only a restatement of one that is as old as the Old Testament (3:21). Thus, out of and unto faith the gospel revealed God’s righteousness to the old covenant saints and gave them life and salvation. The Old Testament was the Bible of the Roman Christians, was read constantly at their services, taught to all, and expounded on all vital points, especially on this central point as to how the sinner is justified by faith alone. Freely and frequently Paul thus quotes the Old Testament to the Romans. This does not indicate that most of them were former Jews and would thus understand. Would Paul neglect the former Gentiles? He knew that all would understand. Καθὼςγέγραπται, “even as it has been written,” means that what Paul says is in perfect accord with what Hab. 2:4 has recorded; and the perfect tense “has been written” is used, here as elsewhere, to indicate literal quotation, and to state that what was once recorded in the sacred record stands as thus recorded, stands for all time.

There is a close correspondence between the apostle’s and the prophet’s word, namely with respect to the three points: righteousness—faith—life (salvation). It is even closer, for we must add the vital relation of faith: ἐκπίστεως, “out of faith.” “But the righteous shall live from (ἐκ) faith.” Paul’s word agrees (καθώς) with this statement of the Old Testament. Paul is not offering proof, for none of the Romans will in the least question what he says. He is pointing to agreement, to close correspondence, and thereby emphasizing and more deeply impressing what he says. We often do the same especially in the case of very important statements. The adversative δέ is retained, which shows that Paul quotes literally although “but” is not needed to express Paul’s thought as such.

But the LXX μου is dropped because it is incorrect, for the LXX thought that Habakkuk meant that the righteous shall live by “my,” namely God’s faith or faithfulness. Here we have an instance where an apostle uses but corrects the LXX. Yet Paul does not add the Hebrew “his,” i.e., the righteous one’s faith, because he wishes to stress the function of faith as such.

Here we have a case where the phrase adjoins the preceding substantive and thus might modify it: “the one righteous from (out of, due to) faith,” and some construe thus. But this would not reproduce the sense of the Hebrew original. In the Hebrew this phrase is marked by the tiphcha in order to indicate that it bears the emphasis because it is to be construed with the verb; in English we should underscore the phrase: “The righteous—from faith he shall live.” That, too, is exactly what Paul has just said with his strongly emphatic final phrase: “from faith unto faith.” Both Paul’s and the prophet’s word climax in faith. Not to note this is to fail to get Paul’s exact meaning. Those who reduce faith wipe out this twofold most important emphasis. It is not correct to state that we have two thoughts here: 1) the righteous shall live; 2) he shall live by faith alone. There is but one thought: the righteous—by faith (alone) shall he live.

Habakkuk says that the Chaldean is puffed up and not upright in his soul; he vaunts himself, his soul is crooked and not honest. The deduction is evidently that he cannot thus stand in God’s judgment, cannot live. But it is different with regard to the righteous: by, from, or due to his faith he shall, indeed, live. The LXX rightly translate ʾenunah πίστις, for the word does not signify “the honest mind,” Treue, faithfulness, but, when it is used with reference to man’s relation to God, firm attachment to God, unshaken confidence in the divine promises, firma fiducia and fides. The prophet is speaking of a vision that tarries but will surely come at last. Thus it is not the righteous man’s truthfulness, reliability, uprightness, virtues that he may have (which may waver) but his faith. The prideful Chaldean disregards God and his promise and is thus lost, the righteous man trusts, believes and thereby lives.

Some restrict “shall live” to the attainment of life at the time of the final judgment or to the heavenly life at the moment of death. They interpret that as the final outcome of his faith, the righteous shall get life and thus live. Are the righteous man and his faith dead until that time? Such a thought is impossible. In John 3:15, 16 Jesus twice says: πᾶςὁπιστεύωνἔχῃζωὴναἰώνιον, “everyone believing has (has all along, present subjunctive) life eternal,” has it as and while he is believing. This is the so-called logical future: ζήσεται, “shall live”; right out of his faith, in the very first instant of its existence springs life. Reborn in faith, he lives spiritually with the life that is to last eternally.

Ὁδίκαιος corresponds to δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ. To the abstract “righteousness” Paul adds the concrete person, “the righteous person.” The term is again forensic: he who is righteous as having been acquitted, as having been pronounced free of all guilt and as being just by God, the Judge, in his heavenly court. This is personal justification. About this Paul writes to the Romans. But the truth is not that a man is pronounced righteous by God—that he then gets faith—and that he then lives. The three are again simultaneous.

Just retain the fact that all three come from God: the pronouncement—the faith—the life, all in the same instant. No man is righteous for even one second before he has faith, or has faith for even one second before God declares him righteous, and the same is true with regard to his being alive.

Since so many have difficulty in regard to faith, let them remember that God alone creates and fills it by the gospel. And that is why Paul is able to use this important ἐκ. We might identify them and say that faith itself is the spiritual life. The prophet and Paul in agreement with him, place the emphasis on faith. Righteousness and life are inseparable from it. To say that the gospel is left out in the prophet’s word is to forget the connection in which Paul places that word, the inseparable connection of the gospel with all three of the prophet’s concepts. Men ever incline to discount faith, to elevate something else, but God centers everything in the faith he creates by the gospel: ἐκπίστεωςεἰςπίστιν righteousness, life is mine.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD FROM FAITH TO FAITH

PART I

The Righteousness of God Is Identical for All Men, 1:18–4:25

The Unrighteousness of Men, 1:18–32

Paul unfolds his great theme by first showing at length that all men are utterly lost and cannot possibly be saved except by the wonderful gospel righteousness of God. The righteous shall live by faith, “for” (γάρ) outside of this righteousness from faith no hope or help exists, nothing but unrighteousness and the wrath of God.

Romans 1:18

18 For there is revealed God’s wrath from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what is known regarding God is manifest in them, for God manifested it to them. For the things unseen regarding him, by being perceived from the world’s creation on by means of the things made, are fully seen, both his everlasting power and divinity, so that they are without excuse.

Both ἀποκαλύπτεται and ὀργὴΘωοῦ are counterparts of ἀποκαλύπτεται and δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ in v. 17, and ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ is in contrast with ἐναὐτῷ (εὐαγγελίῳ). God has made two revelations: one of his righteousness in the gospel, which is salvation and life; the other of his wrath from heaven, which is damnation and death. The one is “from faith to faith” and deals with “everyone believing,” the other is “upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” etc. Yet the emphasis is shifted; it is now on the verb which is placed before the subject as if to say: “Revealed indeed and beyond question is God’s wrath,” etc. “Is revealed” is identical with “is revealed” in v. 17, also in tense, and thus cannot refer only to the final revelation of wrath at the time of the last judgment but must refer, first of all, to the revelation of wrath which is now in constant progress. Always and ever God is against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men and visits his wrath upon them.

The contention that the present tense is sometimes used with reference to the final judgment, and that this is also at times called a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις), does not apply to our passage. Does Paul in one instance (v. 17) say “is revealed” now and in the next instance (v. 18) “is revealed” at the end of the world? And why postpone the revelation of wrath until the final judgment? Are we to think that men are without such revelation now? Does Paul not say that men know God, even his power and divinity, so that in their ungodliness they are without excuse (v. 19, 20)? When do they know this if not now?

“God’s wrath” is practically a compound like “God’s gospel” (v. 1), and “God’s righteousness” (v. 17), and the genitives indicate origin, if not more. This “wrath” is not fiction nor a figure of speech but a terrible reality, the constant, unchanging reaction of God’s holiness and righteousness to sin. The attempt to eliminate it by speaking of it as being a sinful passion like the outbreaks of human anger is only one of the many exhibitions of ungodliness which would suppress the truth (reality) about God. Paul’s emphatic “is revealed” reads as though he intends to say: “Despite all denials of God’s hatred of sin or even of God’s very existence his wrath is constantly being revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” The passive denotes that God himself does this revealing. God’s righteousness is being revealed in the gospel, for it is a mystery which needs this special medium for its revelation; God’s wrath needs no special medium, for it is revealed “from heaven” the world over “upon (or against, ἐπί) all ungodliness and unrighteousness,” etc.

Paul speaks of the revelation that is found within man’s own moral nature, his conscience, his sense of right and wrong, his feeling of responsibility and accountability, his sense of justice which assents to the punishment of all wrong. The revelation of the wrath occurs in an endless succession, man’s moral nature perceiving God’s stern opposition in every punishment of sin. We have a striking example in Acts 28:4, in the “vengeance” that would not let a murderer live. This was the conviction of barbarian pagans.

Paul states the great fact and lets that suffice. This fact of the wrath “from heaven” constantly breaks through the

clouds of human perversions, false reasonings and philosophies, blatant denials and lies, beneath which men seek to hide in helpless efforts to escape. Man’s moral mind cannot avoid connecting flagrant sin and crime with its due punishment, especially when such punishment descends in striking ways and crushes the offenders with fearful retribution. Clearly or more dimly men see the mighty hand of God reaching down “from heaven” to destroy the wicked. We must not be confused by the follies of atheists and moral perverts or by heathen blindness concerning God. Man’s moral nature remains and instinctively responds to the revelations of this wrath wherever they occur. Conscience makes cowards of us all. It is a hopeless effort to destroy man’s moral nature and to rid him of his reactions to the judgments of God.

Paul includes the two sides of sin, includes them completely: “upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” any and every form of irreligion and of immorality, all transgressions of both tables of the law. Ἀσέβεια is the negation of εὐσέβεια or godliness, and ἀδικία the negation of δικαιοσύνη or righteousness. When it is used with abstract terms, πᾶς needs no article, the distinction between “all” and “every” coalesces. The two terms always go together and should not be separated to designate two kinds of sin. All ungodliness is also unrighteousness, and vice versa. Irreligion manifests itself in immorality (violation of the norm of right), and immorality is the evidence of irreligion (contrariness to God). God sees these two in every sin.

It is he who is insulted when his norm of right is trampled under foot, and his answer is the judgment of his wrath. Paul is stating the full, clear fact as such. The clearness of its perception on the part of men may vary; the point Paul makes is that the perception is never lost. Whenever God’s wrath strikes, a great wave of perception is the result: men’s hearts tell them that it is God’s awful hand.

Ἀνθρώπων without the article is all-comprehensive, it includes all humanity and excepts no one. It has been said that we might have had the adjective in place of the genitive: “all human ungodliness and unrighteousness.” The genitive, however, enables Paul to add a participial modifier which brings out the worst side of men as evidence of their ungodliness and unrighteousness: “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Κατέχειν means not merely “to hold” (A. V.) but “to hold down,” thus to suppress, to prevent the truth from exerting its power in the heart and the life. The truth is not merely quietly held while men go on in immorality, for it is the nature of truth to exert itself, make its power felt; it is held down so that it shall not exert itself.

Here Paul explains in one little clause how, despite the constant revelation of God’s wrath, men go on in their wickedness: whenever the truth starts to exert itself and makes them feel uneasy in their moral nature, they hold it down, suppress it. Some drown its voice by rushing on into their immoralities; others strangle the disturbing voice by argument and by denial. Take the subject of hell. Again and again we meet violent, passionate denials of its existence. But if a man is convinced that there is no hell, he ought merely to smile in a superior way when the subject is mentioned. Take God’s wrath.

Why these assaults against it? Or the existence of God—if no God exists! These denials and these arguments are not altruistic; they are the efforts of the ungodly to suppress the disquieting truth in the interest of their own ungodliness. They face an inescapable alternative in their moral nature, an either—or: either to yield to the truth and to give up ungodliness and unrighteousness, or to hold firmly to these two and then of necessity to squelch the truth.

This is the fact that we should note well when we meet these arguments and these denials. Crush them as we may, back of them is the ungodly, unrighteous will that is determined to restore them ever anew in its own self-defense. Ἀλήθεια is “truth” in the sense of “reality,” that which is actually so. The context points especially to God and to his wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Instead of allowing this truth its proper control in their hearts men hold it down. That, of course, is all they are able to do. They are not able to destroy this or any other reality. Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the Clamor and the shouting against it and in the end judges every man. Woe to him who has refused to yield to it his heart and his life!

Men hold the truth down “in connection with unrighteousness”; this the force of ἐν. The idea expressed by the preposition is that of sphere. Strange that truth should still be present in such a connection; but that is due to God’s revelation and to man’s moral nature. Significantly Paul repeats the ἀδικία or unrighteousness in connection with this maltreatment of the truth. It constitutes both the evil motive and the evil purpose. Godlessness and irreligion culminate in unrighteousness, in all sorts of acts that are contrary to the divine δίκη or norm of right, and in order to go on in these the opposing truth must be opposed and overridden. The moment truth is allowed the control, evil thoughts, words, and deeds would be cast out, and thus godliness would enter in.

Paul is describing men in general, hence the participial clause should not be understood as limiting his statement to only one class. While this is true, the entire context implies that some men are brought to obey the truth, escape God’s wrath by obtaining God’s righteousness, receive salvation “out of and unto faith.” The old and still prevalent opinion must be given up that Paul is describing the Gentiles in this section (v. 18–32) and that in chapter 2 he considers the Jews. Paul is speaking of “men,” the word “Gentiles” (ἔθνη) does not occur. He is speaking of “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” of all who hold down the truth in the interest of their unrighteousness. How can this exclude the Jews? Their long history is full of ungodliness (even of idolatry) of the worst kind, and as an instance of unrighteousness consider their treatment of Jesus and of the apostles and of Christian believers. When he describes the wickedness of all men Paul naturally demonstrates this by referring to many forms of its manifestation among pagans, but we shall see that the worst of these are also Jewish, although it makes no difference to Paul where they occur.

In 2:1 Paul does not turn to the Jews. The two vocatives occurring in 2:1 and 3: ὦἄνθρωπε, especially the first with the addition πᾶςὁκρίνων, “everyone acting as judge,” are not addressed only to a Jew. Not until 2:9 is “Jew” mentioned and then it is combined with “Greek” (not “Gentile,” see 1:16). In 2:11–16 Jews and Gentiles are compared, and after that, in a direct address, the Jew is answered in comparison with the Gentile (2:17–29), and Paul concludes with the combined condemnation of both Jews and Greeks (3:1–20). In 1:18–32 Paul does not confine himself to the Gentiles, and in 2:1–3:20 he does not confine himself to the Jews. Recognizing this, we shall avoid faulty exegesis.

Romans 1:19

19 Revealed is God’s wrath on men as here described “because what is known regarding God is manifest to them,” etc. Διότι depends on ἀποκαλύπτεται and states the reason that God reveals his wrath as he does. It is done because men know about God; if they did not know, they could at least offer this ignorance as an excuse (v. 20). Διότι is not γάρ and does not merely explain τὴνἀλήθειαν, i.e., that men know the truth to which reference is had. The contention that, if the clause states the reason for God’s revelation of wrath, Paul would have to add the thought that, although knowing about God, men do not apply this knowledge, overlooks the fact that Paul has already made this very statement: men actually hold down, suppress the truth.

The methods employed by some exegetes are hard to understand. They hold that in v. 18, “Is being revealed” refers to the last day because sometimes the present tense is used with reference to the final judgment; yet here τὸγνωστόν, although in the New Testament it always denotes what is known, is in this one passage taken to mean what it means only in profane literature, that which is knowable. Pray, why? In order to escape a tautology. These commentators are not always consistent. They let the examples cited prove various statements.

If “what is known” is a tautology, “what is knowable” may lead to something worse, something that is quite untrue. Many things regarding God are knowable but are not known by men generally since they lack the necessary revelation. Paul is speaking only of the known regarding which all men have a revelation. Moreover, there is no reason for here naming the knowable, for the contrast is not between it and the unknowable, the impenetrable mysteries in God, but only between it and the unknown, that which is not at once known by men generally but needs the gospel to make it known. So the analogy of Scripture holds with reference to γνωστός as here used. “That which may be known” as found in our versions seems to mean “the knowable.” The genitive “of God” is not partitive but objective: “regarding God.” He is the object known.

Paul says that τὸγνωστόν regarding God is φανερὸνἐναὐτοῖς, is “manifest,” clear “in them,” i.e., in their consciousness. It is by no means hazy, indistinct, and thus useless. For, he adds, God himself made it manifest, clear, distinct to them. Men cannot charge God with hiding himself from them and thus excuse their irreligion and their immorality. The aorist expresses the fact. The present tense would not do so well, for, although God is still making himself manifest to all men, the present tense might be understood as meaning that this is not yet complete.

By his whole work of creation, by countless beneficent providences, by ever-renewed retributions, and by man’s own mind, especially by his moral nature and his conscience, God made manifest and most clear what is known concerning him by the world of men. God made all this so clear in order that men should seek God, feel after him, and find him, Acts 17:27. But in their ἀδικία men go counter to this mass of truth regarding God, reject this right norm and principle for their hearts and their lives and invent ungodly and wicked norms instead.

Romans 1:20

20 With γάρ Paul at once explains how this φανέρωσις or making manifest and clear took place, in fact, still takes place: “For the things unseen regarding him, by being perceived from the world’s creation on by means of the things made, are fully seen,” etc. We have a striking oxymoron in “the things unseen—are fully seen,” for how can unseen things be seen, to say nothing of being fully seen (κατά in the verb is perfective)? The solution of the apparent contradiction is at once supplied: “by being perceived by means of the things made.” The visible things of God’s creation reveal to man’s mind the invisible things regarding him (αὐτοῦ is again objective), which Paul also names. In τὸγνωστόν, the singular, this knowledge is viewed as a unit: “the thing known,” but in the plural τὰἀόρατα, “the things unseen,” the parts are spread out, God being known by his attributes. Paul is master in this use of the singular and the plural; his mind penetrates into the subject in every way.

Clearly seeing the unseen regarding God is simplicity itself. It is done with the mind or reason (νοῦς) by means of a mental act (νοεῖν), one that is not abstract speculation but sane and sober thought on the things made by God, all of which advertise his existence and his power and divinity. The verb is exactly right: “being perceived,” νοεῖν, a mental act, yet one that does not exclude sense-perception. “From the world’s creation on” is a temporal modifier of this perceiving and yet includes all men who have ever lived and brings out the thought that in the things which God made all men have ever had a great revelation concerning God. Man’s mind is bound to reflect on “the made things.” He has had a long time to do it. All that is mind in the human race has contemplated the made things. All of them proclaim God, have proclaimed him from creation onward. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard,” Ps. 19:1, etc.

Paul is even more specific, with a brief apposition he states what “the unseen things” are which are thus perceived regarding God: “both his everlasting power and divinity.” This apposition is not “dragging” but forceful diction. Because they have been held back until this place is reached these vital terms flash a brilliant light over all that is being said. Whatever power exists in any creature is bound to fade and to die out, but behind this world of created things there is a power that never grows old or infirm or fades out: the everlasting power of omnipotence in God, ἀΐδιος, from ἀεί, ever-enduring. One article combines this δύναμις with θειότης and makes a unit of the two, while τε—καί still marks them as being two concepts. There is no everlasting power without divinity, and no divinity without this power.

Distinguish θεότης, “Godhead,” being God, derived from τὸθεὸςεἷναι, from θειότης, “divinity,” being divine, derived from τὸθεῖοςεἷναι. Correct the A. V. accordingly. The use of τε helps to show that “everlasting” modifies only power and not also “divinity.” “Divinity” is broader than “Godhead”; the latter is his being God, his essence, the former is all that belongs to God, his attributes, the vast sum of his perfections. The everlasting power is one of these, and it is here mentioned together with the divinity because in the work of creation the power is outstanding, even as also in the Creed we confess: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty”; but God’s divineness includes also his knowledge, wisdom, goodness, kindness, justice, and all else that his great creation reflects.

“From the world’s creation on” does not modify “the unseen things,” for there is no reason for dating their unseen character; the phrase modifies “being perceived,” for Paul is speaking of all men, all of whom perceived what he says from the creation onward. To think only of Gentiles is out of line, for the phrase goes back to a time before the distinction between Jews and Gentiles was made. Τοῖςποιήμασι is the dative of means with the act of perceiving; “the things made (by God)” are the means by which our minds see the unseen things regarding God. We see the things made, see them with our physical eyes, but they convey more to us than their own undeniable existence; having a mind, by mental perception and by means of the visible we fully see the invisible, God’s omnipotence and divineness. This is natural theology which is universal in scope. The Scriptures record its contents in many places, one of the most notable being Acts 17:24–29. What men do with this theology and how they render it ineffective Paul proceeds to state most fully.

While εἰςτό with the infinitive is one of the standard forms for expressing purpose, it came to be used also to express intended and even actual result. The R. V. regards it as expressing purpose (the A. V. margin likewise), some commentators think it expresses intended result, the A. V. (text) translates it as actual result, not “that they may be without excuse,” but “so that they are without excuse.” This is one of the numerous instances where the A. V. understood the Greek better than the R.

V. R. 1090 is right, here it is hard to deny actual result. Paul is stating simple facts throughout, and he does so in the case of this phrase. Men who suppress the manifest truth, which God makes them see so clearly and so fully, are without excuse. The fact that they should be so is, indeed, also in a manner God’s purpose, but this being without excuse is simply an actual fact. No man is able to offer the excuse that he could not see, that it is God’s fault and not his own that God is hidden from him.

The man who would try to offer this excuse would at once be silenced by the overwhelming testimony of the whole world of created things including his own wonderful being, especially also his own mind and his soul.

Those who regard εἰςτό as expressing only purpose encounter the difficulty that, as stated by Paul, the purpose would be monstrous; for to say that by the very creation of the world it was God’s intention to make men without excuse would be saying that he intended that men should fall into sin. In order to escape this difficulty the purpose is made conditional: “in order that, in case they should fall into sin, they might be without excuse.” Then Paul left out an essential point—a thing he never does. A further difficulty is then not noticed by these commentators, namely that Paul continues to write about actuality only—a thing that is unlikely after a conditional purpose clause. These viewpoints of the thought vanish when we see that εἰςτό states actual result, and that Paul is recording a straight line of facts. The statement that εἰςτό never indicates result has been aptly called a piece of grammatical terrorism and is refuted by B.-D. 402, 2: “designation of purpose or of result as it seems without differentiation from τοῦ with the infinitive (§ 400),” in which paragraph τοῦ with the infinitive is listed as also being consecutive. That takes care of the grammar.

Some who think that it expresses purpose insert a reduced condition: “in order that, if men fail to use what they see, they may be without defense.” The object of this reduction is to make the revelatio divina naturalis, the natural cognitio Dei, a means of grace, the right use of which would save those who make this use of it. This idea is widely held: salvation by faith in God and a moral life without Christ and his atonement for sin. Heaven is opened to noble pagans. But this is not Biblical teaching. Moreover, Paul is not speaking only of the final judgment and of being without excuse at the last day. Men have been, are now, ever will be without excuse—how can εἶναι be restricted to the last day? What are men now?

The old pagan philosophers have left statements regarding God’s revelation in nature that more or less resemble what Paul here says, and commentators have collected them as being worth preserving in this connection. Modern philosophers somehow also arrive at God by means even of the most abstruse speculations and reasonings. The thing to be noted here is that Paul is speaking of all men, of what all of them have before their eyes, of what God constantly reveals to all of them. This is vastly more than the philosophizing of a few intellectualists. While by means of νοούμενα, “being perceived,” he refers to the mind, he has in mind the whole of mankind as being impressed by the things God has made. Paul is speaking of what even the common laborer, the simple savage has and not merely of what some philosopher arrives at by speculative reasonings. Even the philosopher has vastly more than his reasonings.

Romans 1:21

21 While it is grammatically subordinate, the εἰςτό clause is really pivotal. All men are without excuse because antecedently, to begin with, from the creation onward God is seen clearly (v. 20), but also because subsequently, in their lives and their actions they maltreated their knowledge of God. From what God gave them to see Paul now turns to what they did with what they saw. Διότι is again “because.”

Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks but became empty in their reasonings, and their senseless heart became darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image-likeness of corruptible man and of flying things and of four-footed things and of creeping things. Indeed, men are without excuse!

The aorists are in place because they recite the facts as facts. The idea that Paul here describes the historical origin of paganism misunderstands his purpose; nor is he speaking only of the Gentiles, because Israel, too, was guilty of idolatry (Acts 7:40–43, and the history of the exile). The apostle is sketching what men did with the knowledge of God; all of the aorists are constative, all of them sum up. The aorist participle γνόντεςτὸνΘεόν is concessive: “although they knew God,” realized his existence, his “everlasting power and divinity.” It is misleading to speak of the antecedence of the participle: “after they knew God.” In spite of the fact that they knew, knew at that very time, they did not let this knowledge control or even check them. “They did not glorify him as God or give thanks” to him as God. They refused to treat him as God. Men cannot add to the essential glory of God; he is what he is irrespective of them. They glorify him only when they recognize who and what he is and act accordingly, worship, honor, praise, and serve him.

The two verbs “glorify” and “give thanks” should be kept distinct as “or” indicates; the thought is not “glorify by giving thanks.” Ordinarily “or” connects alternatives, only one of which the writer takes while rejecting the other; we may call it the disjunctive “or.” But here the “or” is conjunctive, the writer accepts both alternatives: men did not glorify or give thanks, they did neither. In fact, no one would or could do just the one alone and omit doing the other.

It is well to recognize this conjunctive “or,” for by mistaking it for the disjunctive the sense is misunderstood. In regard to the interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:27 this mistake has even precipitated controversy and caused a change of text. “Or” is conjunctive when “and” might be substituted for it save that “or” bids us distinguish and look at each member separately. To glorify God as God is to think of him alone; to give him thanks is to think of ourselves, of what we have received from God. The second is less than the first, or shall we say more? To think also of God’s benefactions when giving thanks is more; to thank him at least because of gratefulness is less.

With ἀλλά Paul does not add the corresponding positive actions after having stated the negative, the refusal to glorify and to give thanks. He goes far deeper by at once penetrating to the frightful inner condition: “but became empty in their reasonings, and their senseless heart became darkened.” We hesitate to insist on the full passive force of the two verbs especially when making God the agent: “they were made empty, their heart was darkened,” i.e., by God in just retribution. Paul makes clear the retribution in v. 24–32, he scarcely does so already in this verse. The idea to be expressed is that men’s own refusal to glorify and to thank God caused them to get into this pitiful state.

The first verb is derived from μάταιος, “empty,” failing to attain its purpose or goal (κενός means empty as having no inner content). The plural μάταια is often applied to idols as being gods that serve no purpose such as gods are supposed to serve. Διαλογισμοί are “reasonings,” but in the New Testament this word is always used in an evil sense as being equivalent to rationalizing. Men reasoned and reasoned about God. They are always bound to do so, especially the philosophers and the skeptically inclined. Every man has his little rationalizations about God. But all this thinking about him is utterly useless, leads to nothing, gets to no real goal. Instead of arriving at God, it only thinks it arrives or ends by denying God.

Note the strength of the statement, which is not that the reasonings became empty but that men in their reasonings became so. They themselves arrived nowhere. We now see how Paul can say that, although men knew God, they became empty in their reasonings about God. If they did not know they would not stop to reason and rationalize. It is because they do know, because through the created world God obtrudes himself upon them, that they keep reasoning as they do. But they get nowhere because they do not glorify him for what he really is or thank him for what he really does, and they refuse to do either because of their ἀδικία, their immorality (v. 18), their determination not to let God’s norm of right rule them and their lives. They suppress the truth by their unrighteousness and thus despite all their reasonings end in emptiness.

So also “their senseless heart became darkened,” completely so. Paul properly says “senseless,” for the heart is the seat of the reasonings, especially of those concerning moral and spiritual subjects, and when all these reasonings get nowhere, the heart is senseless, has no comprehension and understanding. In a word, it becomes darkened. Light, indeed, abounds, all nature radiates it and seeks to illumine the heart, but this senseless heart sees and yet does not see, knows and yet does not know.

Romans 1:22

22 Still worse: claiming to be wise, they became foolish. Reasonings that get nowhere are truly foolish. A senseless heart that even prides itself because of such reasonings is utterly foolish. The verb is derived from μ̇ωρός which means “silly”—“became silly” is correct. It has always been the boast of the ungodly and the unrighteous that they are “wise,” scientific in their thinking, use their reason, and so forth. They look down on the believer for his faith in God and in Christ. “Silly” is Paul’s verdict, just plain silly.

Any heart and all reasonings that because of the love of unrighteousness refuse to bow to what all creation proclaims concerning God are silly. Some think that the asyndeton (lack of a connective) indicates a new line of thought or a new paragraph; but the thought simply continues and advances to the final silliness of abject idolatry. The asyndeton only arrests the attention before the final step.

Romans 1:23

23 Καί adds the climax of this silliness. In v. 22 we have the general statement about becoming fools, in v. 23 the actual supreme folly itself. What astounding fools men became when they boasted about being wise! They actually exchanged or traded the glory of the incorruptible God for an image-likeness of corruptible man and of even lower, yes, the lowest creatures. Can folly go farther? By stating this extreme folly all its lesser degrees are also included.

Thus when murder is forbidden, this includes all else of the same nature (Matt. 5:21, etc.). The Scriptures constantly name the extreme when all that intervenes is also included. Every false conception of God is folly, utter folly. Only a fool would trade the glorious, true conception for a fiction that is empty and worse than empty, namely false, degrading.

The glory or δόξα of God is the sum total of his attributes as these constitute his essence, the sum of the perfections of his being, but as shining forth to us and revealing what God is for us, C.-K. 347. The glory of God is infinitely great in itself and infinitely blessed for man. “This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. The “incorruptible” God, imperishable in his being and his attributes, is in contrast with “corruptible” man and lower creatures, and this contrast brings out the full, desperate folly of the exchange. For these two adjectives refer to men, to what they give up and what they choose in preference. The infinite, imperishable fountain of blessing which God intended for them by their true knowledge of him they trade for even less than a corruptible man, from whom they might hope for a little, at least for a few years, for only an image-likeness of a corruptible man, from which they can derive absolutely nothing, yea, for such a likeness of brute creatures, including the lowest that crawl.

The construction ἀλλάσσωἐν is not Hebraistic (L.); nor is the genitive in the phrase ἐνὁμοιώματιεἰκόνος appositional or epexegetical, “a likeness that is an image,” for this would make the genitive superfluous. While the two words are synonyms, εἰκών always denotes an image in the sense of Abbild that is derived from a Vorbild, while ὁμοίωμα is only a likeness or resemblance in general. Trench, Synonyms, refers to Augustine who says that imago involves similitudo but not the reverse. The sun reflected in the water is an image derived from the sun; but one flower resembles another yet is not derived from the other. Paul says that men make a likeness of an image of a man or of some creature. He wants to emphasize the lowest form of idolatry, not merely creature worship (deified men, heroes, actual animals of various kinds) but image worship.

He therefore needs both terms. The figures (images) of men and of animals were copied in likenesses, and these likenesses were worshipped. For instance, someone made what he supposed was an image of Jupiter; others did not make other images but merely copied the accepted one, and these likenesses were worshipped. What folly!

This is controverted on the plea that Israel’s idolatry is here described, the transgression of the command given to Israel in Exod. 19:4, etc., the idolatry that made supposed images or likenesses of the true God, saw this God in the golden calf of Aaron, etc., when there was absolutely no likeness to the true God in such an image. But Paul is describing pagan worship and not even that form of it which saw divine beings represented in the images and worshipped those beings by means of the images, but that form which descended to worshipping the mere images themselves, the copies of some standard forms. Israel often joined in this idolatry. It began with a four-footed creature, the Egyptian Apis or bull although it sought to connect God with this image-likeness.

Paul follows the natural order: man—flying things—four-footed things—creeping things. Man is naturally put first, but the other three are named in the order of Genesis one. While “corruptible” modifies “man” since he is the chief creature, all the other members of the list are no more enduring. God made man in the divine image; but when man lost that image he made God like his sinful self, yea, like the lower and the lowest creatures, and as their worshipper put himself beneath them. Although he was intended to worship God in his everlasting power and divinity and to derive eternal blessings from that worship he descended to a worship of mere creature likenesses made of gold, or silver, or stone, graven by his own hands (Acts 17:29). Ps. 106:19, 20 castigates this in the case of the Jews: “a calf—the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.” Isa. 44:9–20 ridicules this type of idolatry unmercifully.

But this is what the wisdom, the philosophy, and the science of man has repeated again and again. Pretending to be so proud and so high that it cannot accept God and his revelation, it degrades utterly. It turned God into a piece of wood, stone, and the like; today it wipes him out entirely and converts man into a descendant of the brute with morals accordingly.

Romans 1:24

24 Διό in this verse is followed by διὰτοῦτο in v. 26, and by καθώςκτλ., in v. 28; thus three statements describe the divine punishment for the rejection of God. In each of the three verses referred to we have παρέδωκεναὐτοὺςὁΘεός like a terrible refrain: “give them over did God,” the emphasis being on the verb because it is placed before the subject. The three penalties are not conceived as progressive stages or intensifications of the divine judgment; Paul presents three great features of this unit judgment, three terrible sides of it: “uncleanness”—“vile passions”—“a reprobate mind.” In each of the three statements the preliminary connective reaches back to v. 18–23, to the basic sin, the ἀσέβεια or ungodliness, which is thus kept before the readers. The entire section speaks of those who turned from the true God, of the world of men in general, of the worst sins into which their ungodliness plunged them. All lesser sins are thus again included. The idea that the Jews are not referred to is untenable; they are included to the degree to which they, too, forsook God. Paul’s description of the punishment of godlessness fits the world today even as far as the extremes which it reaches in vileness and viciousness are concerned.

Therefore, give them up did God in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, to be themselves dishonoring their bodies in themselves, they such as exchanged the truth regarding God for the lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed unto the eons. Amen.

The aorist “did give them up” is constative and includes God’s entire treatment. This is more than permission to fall into uncleanness, and it is less than causing this fall. God’s action is judicial. At first God always restrains by moral suasion, by legal and other hindrances; but when God is completely cast off, when the measure of ungodliness overflows, his punitive justice hands the sinners over completely (παρέδωκεν) to their sins in order to let the sins run to excess and to destroy the sinners. Thus God uses sin to punish itself and the sinner. Since they are determined on self-destruction, justice decrees that destruction.

“In the lusts of their hearts” describes the condition of these men. The preposition is not εἰς but ἐν, and εἰς follows. God finds them in these lusts and so hands them over to uncleanness. The ἐπιθυμίαι are all the evil desires, and these are described as being located in the heart, καρδία in the Biblical sense, the center of the personality, mind, feeling, and will, thus the very ego. Men who so love the cesspool of sin are sent into it by justice; what they want, they shall have. “Uncleanness” is general, the opposite of ἁγιασμός and ἁγιωσύνη, sanctification and holiness, thus any and every defilement and by no means only sexual filth.

Τοῦ with the infinitive may be considered epexegetical (R. 1087 and elsewhere): “into uncleanness, that is to be dishonoring,” etc. At the same time, however, this infinitive may denote purpose or even result (B.-D. 400, 2 = ὥστε, etc.). The latter would mean: “so that they were dishonoring”; the former: “in order to be dishonoring.” We have no way of deciding between the two. The infinitive is durative, it indicates continuous dishonoring. Why ἀτιμάζεσθαι is regarded as a passive, and not as a middle by some interpreters, is not clear, especially since ἐναὐτοῖς follows, which B.-P. 189 translates: dishonored “by them.” Who does this dishonoring? Evidently, not God.

The only agent left is men themselves. So even if we preferred the passive we should have the equivalent of the middle. This removes the question regarding “their bodies,” which in the case of the passive might be the subject: “their bodies dishonored,” or the adverbial accusative: “they were dishonored as to their bodies.” The effectiveness of the middle is clear: “to be themselves dishonoring their bodies in themselves,” ἐναὐτοῖς, as often, being reflexive. The curse is that men disgrace themselves, their own bodies, in themselves. Nobody needs to do this for them, they themselves attend to it.

The thought is paradoxical and profoundly true. Would men dishonor themselves, especially their own bodies, which all men see? Is it not the desire of all ungodly men to get as much honor as possible, especially also to make their bodies as grand and as beautiful as possible? But look at the ungodly. Even their bodies wallow in the uncleanness of moral filth, they disgrace themselves before the whole world. Hearts steeped in lusts, bodies made vile by excess! These are the wise who are fools. Yes, they must live the life, they must be free of all restraint, they must get drunk with every pleasure—their very bodies pay for it all.

Romans 1:25

25 Οἵτινες so often has a causal sense and is here also emphatic and is construed ad sensum in the nominative: “they such as” (because being such as). Being dramatically intense, this statement once more brings out the root of sinning and its judgment, the underlying cause, the godlessness. The blessed God no longer controls these men, hence the wreck. Μετήλλαξανἐν is only a little stronger than ἤλλαξανἐν in v. 23, and in both cases ἐν is not εἰς (contra R. 585) but the preposition preferred with these verbs. They made a deliberate, voluntary trade, threw away “the truth regarding God” (objective genitive as in v. 19) and embraced “the lie” in place of it. see v. 18 on ἀλήθεια. It is the truth in the sense of reality. This word is comprehensive, it is not merely some true statement or doctrine concerning God but all these as presenting God in his actuality.

One might say, they exchanged God himself; but “the truth” adds the medium by which we know and actually have God. This they traded for “the lie” and not “a lie” (our versions), some false notion about God, but the specific lie, idols and image-likenesses. The word ψεῦδος refers to the unreality which is imagined to be reality, it is the exact opposite of ἀλήθεια or reality, even as “idols” are called “nothingness” in the Old Testament, and St. Paul writes: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world,” 1 Cor. 8:4. These gods are not gods, and thus “the lie”; so also are the images and the likenesses of them; so also “the God” which men make for themselves today when they, too, reject “the truth regarding God.” What a frightful trade!

Καί amplifies by showing concretely what is meant: “And they worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Thus the truth was exchanged for the lie. Σεβάζομαι, found only here in the New Testament, is the same as σέβομαι, and worshipping the creature instead of the Creator is the ἀσέβεια, “ungodliness,” of v. 18. Paul adds λατρεύειν (cf., v. 9), to serve by obligatory acts of the cultus exterior. The first verb emphasizes the religious veneration, to which the second adds the religious cultus acts; with both of these men turned to the creature instead of to the Creator.

Παρά, “beside,” is not local as though they adored and served also the Creator besides the creature but is to be taken in the sense of passing by the Creator as though he did not exist; they venerated the created thing, the graven likenesses. By their worship they made the creature what it is not and abandoned the Creator as being what he is. This was the great double lie. Paul calls God the Creator, ὁκτίσας, and uses the aorist participle and names him according to the one work of creation: “the One who did create,” the creature being the product brought into existence (see v. 20). This remains on the plane of natural theology and the natural knowledge of God which is revealed alike to all men. The Roman emperors had the deifying title Σεβαστός, in Latin, Augustus.

In order to express his own abomination at the thought of this idolatry Paul adds to “the Creator” the doxology, “who is blessed to the eons. Amen.” This is a common Hebrew formula: “Der Heilige, gepriesen sei er!” Paul employs it repeatedly in its Greek form. Εὐλογητός is the verbal with the force of the passive past participle, “praised” in the sense of alone worthy of receiving blessing or praise from all nature and all his creatures who know him. The Greek has no word for “eternity” but uses “eon,” the plural “eons” (here), or the intensification “eon of eons” instead. “Unto eons,” cycles and cycles, means “forever.” “Amen” is a transliterated Hebrew word meaning “truth” or “verity” which has passed into other languages and is used by us as Paul here uses it, at the end as a seal of verity. Being strongly emphatic, this one word stamps the speaker’s or writer’s conviction and faith regarding the utterance just made. Jesus used “amen” in a singular and a striking way as an introduction to his utterances and doubled it as John shows, not as voicing only his own assurance, but as sealing his utterances for those who heard them. C.-K. 141, etc.

Romans 1:26

26 Διὰτοῦτο is parallel to διό used in v. 24; as the latter refers to the ungodliness described in the previous verses, so does the former save that this ungodliness has been described anew in v. 25. For this give them up did God to passions of dishonor; for as well their females exchanged the natural use for that contrary to nature as likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, became inflamed in their sensualness toward each other, males with males performing the unseemliness and duly receiving in themselves the recompense of their aberration which was due.

For a second time Paul writes, “give them up did God.” But whereas he first spoke of lusts and of uncleanness in general he now advances to vile passions and specifies the vilest of these. So also after saying that God abandoned men in their lusts he now says that he abandoned them to their passions; he uses a stronger word. An ἐπιθυμία is a single evil desire, a πάθος is a constant burning passion. The former may be checked like a fire that is just starting; the latter is a conflagration that overwhelms all constraint and controls a man completely. God removed all constraint so that the desires grew to passions, and from the desires he gave them up to these passions. The judgment is increased.

Base desires carry men into acts of vileness, but, reaching their climax in passions, they not only plunge men into scattered vile acts, they drown them in the vileness. The adjectival genitive “of dishonor” (R. 651) is stronger than the adjective “dishonorable” and is in line with the infinitive used in v. 24, “so as to be dishonoring themselves in themselves.” It is all nothing but disgrace.

Γάρ often introduces a specification, an example or illustration. So here it introduces the vilest practices as samples of the “passions of dishonor” to which God had to give men up. Note the connectives τε—τε, “as well—as,” or “both—and,” which put the females and the males on the same base level. Both practice homosexual vices. Paul does not say “women” and “men,” he says θήλειαι and ἄρσενες, “females” and “males.” To say that this is done in order to denote sex is too weak, for “women” and “men” would certainly fully denote sex. When women and men are called females and males in a connection of the lowest vices such as this, the terms are degrading. They descend to the brutish level of being nothing but creatures of sex.

It is τε—τε that indicates why females are mentioned first: they “as well” in these passions of dishonor “as also” (adding καί) the males. By reaching this lowest level the females were as bad as the males. Paul again writes μετήλλαξαν, the same verb used in v. 25 and very nearly the same as ἤλλαξαν used in v. 23—throughout a frightful exchanging, a horrible trading and perversion. They exchange “the natural use for that contrary to nature”; εἰς is used in the same sense as ἐν with the two previous verbs and is merely a variation. The Greek idiom in παρά is that a thing is left lying aside and is thus discarded; the English views the relation differently, namely as opposition, “against,” “contrary to.”

Paul’s statement is veiled and reticent, more so about the females than about the males. The females abandoned the natural use of the female organ for the unnatural one; they violated even nature. How they did this Paul does not care even to indicate except that by speaking of females by themselves homosexuality is implied. “The natural use” disregards the question whether the legitimate use in marriage or the illegitimate use in adultery and fornication is referred to. The females viciously violated even nature in their bodies. It was bad enough to sin with males, vastly worse and the very limit of vice to sin as they did. Let us say that this and the following vileness is defended to this day as not being immoral in any way.

In 1931 a book came off the press which fully corroborated Paul, for this book propounded a code of sexual ethics that was uncontrolled by God. Let go of God, and the very bottom of filth will be reached. Even the most unnatural will be called quite natural. The lie about God who made nature then lies about even this nature.

Romans 1:27

27 With ὁμοίως and καί Paul places the vileness of the males on the same level with that of the females. He states their abomination more plainly but not offensively. There is a line which neither the holy writers nor tactful preachers cross when dealing with sexual matters. A chaste mind knows intuitively where that line lies and automatically keeps on the right side. “Having left the natural use of the female” means that they dismissed this, and the expression again refers not only to the point of nature but again brings out the enormity of violating even nature itself. “They became inflamed in their sensualness toward each other, males with (in connection with, ἐν) males performing the unseemliness,” describes the positive actions. We place the comma before ἄρσενες and make this appositional to the subject of the main verb and modified by the following participle. “Males with males” could also be the apposition. The passive ἐξεκαύθησαν is best taken in a middle sense, “became inflamed,” because no agent but they themselves can be named even if we prefer the passive, “were set on fire.” Note the perfective ἐκ in this verb and κατά in the participle.

“The unseemliness,” definite, well enough known, which a decent person will not further describe. We must not lose the force of this apparently extremely mild term which calls pederasty something that is contrary only to the proper σχῆμα or form when it is so positively forbidden in Lev. 18:22, 24, 25 as a pagan abomination and defilement. The milder the term, the more damning it is when one is not condoning but indicting. Full severity has its place and must be used in its place, but so has this restraint of mildness. As one is damned by faint praise, so a sin and a crime are damned the more by restrained indictment. The prevalence of this beastly sin in the whole Greek and Roman world of Paul’s day which was practiced and fully defended by the most prominent men in that age, is well known.

Paul cites these sexual violations of nature as marking the depth of immorality to which godlessness descends, because sexual degradation always constitutes such a mark. The moment God is taken out of the control in men’s life the stench of sex aberration is bound to arise. It is so the world over to this day. Without God sex runs wild.

Of course, Paul’s own revelation is expressed by the addition, “and duly receiving (ἀπό in the participle = duly) in themselves the recompense of their aberration which (literally) it was necessary (for them thus to receive).” Πλάνη is derived from πλανᾶν and πλανᾶσθαι, “to deceive and to be deceived,” and thus means “deception” or “aberration” (better than “error” in our versions). Some apply this to the aberration regarding God which replaces him by the creature; but this aberration is not mentioned in this paragraph, and when it was mentioned Paul has described it as being something far worse, namely a wicked rejection of God that is due to men’s ἀδικία or love of unrighteousness. Here “their aberration” is closely connected with the sexual vices just described, the participial clause mentioning the requital of their aberration that follows hard upon the one stating what these vices are. Thus these vices are the aberration for which men duly receive the inescapable recompense. The connection with the ungodliness is not in the least lost, it introduces the whole paragraph with the διὰτοῦτο of v. 26. The primal aberration, the ungodliness, results in all manner of further aberration, in the uncleanness in general (v. 24), in the basest sensuality (v. 26, 27), and in the multitude of other vices (v. 28–32).

When this is understood, we shall not state that “the recompense” duly received for “the aberration” (ungodliness) consists of these vices of sensuality. Paul has already said this: “God gave them up to passions of dishonor” (v. 26); why should he repeat it and say it far less clearly than before? The due and the necessary requital of this “aberration” (sexual violation of nature) is too obvious. Paul even adds that men receive it “in themselves,” in their own persons. Furthermore, he says that this is the recompense “which it was necessary (that they receive),” necessary in the nature of the case. That recompense is the vicious effect of the unnatural sexual vices upon men’s own bodies and their minds, corrupting, destroying, disintegrating.

The thought is this: deliberately rejecting the knowledge of God which they had by nature because they loved all sorts of unrighteousness which this knowledge would most certainly have condemned, God gave men over to the sin they would not let go at any price, to its most disgraceful and disgusting forms, and in their delusion practicing these, they received as due reward the awful results in their own corroding bodies. It is noteworthy that in the Scriptures as in human experience sexual sins, and not only the worst form of these, carry a special curse; they not only disgrace, they wreck; their punishment is direct, wretched, severe. For this reason Paul is justified in taking them out of his general catalog given inv. 28–32 and in treating them separately.

Romans 1:28

28 But the ὀργὴΘεοῦ, the wrath (v. 18), extends farther. In this paragraph we see the floodgates opened wide, and the frightful torrent engulfing the ungodly. Our dailies record their constant devastation. The question is ever debated by the alarmed as to what can be done to check at least the worst damage. Impotent reformers set up their little dams only to see them swept away. Legislation and the courts are able to do all too little. The one hope, putting the real fear of God into men’s hearts from infancy, is still rejected by the mass of men, and modern educators rather destroy the fear of God. The world is ripening for its doom.

And even as they did not approve God to have him in realization, give them up did God to a reprobate mind, to do the things not fit, having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, baseness; full of envy, murder, strife, cunning, malevolence; slanderous whisperers, inventors of cruelties; disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, loveless, merciless; such as, although having realized the righteous ordinance of God that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only keep doing them but also keep applauding those practicing them.

In v. 26 διὰτοῦτο was ample to connect with the godlessness because this was restated in v. 25. Here the godlessness must be made plain by means of a clause: “even as they did not approve God,” etc. Δοκιμάζω and the following adjective, which are chosen to match the verb, are best understood by a comparison with their use with regard to coins; these were tested, and only those having full weight in gold or silver were approved and accepted, the rest were disapproved and rejected. So men tested God, did not approve of him, refused “to have him in realization,” we might say, “in consciousness.” They did not let their γνῶσις of God produce ἐπίγνωσις, did not permit the natural intellectual “knowledge” which was thrust upon them to yield the permanent possession (ἔχειν) of full inner “realization” so as to control their hearts and their lives. One should note the difference between these words (like Kenntnis and Erkenntnis) and not think only of intellectual knowing.

For the third time Paul states the significant judicial act: “give them over did God,” this time with the phrase that corresponds: “to a reprobate mind.” Ἀδόκιμον—ἐδοκίμασαν; νοῦν—ἐπιγνώσει; τὸνΘεόν—ὁΘεός a striking paronomasia. They scorned God, God was compelled to give them up. They reprobated him, their own mind became reprobate; any test would discard it. That is the mind they got, the reason of which so many of these wise fools (v. 22) are proud, when their inner grasp of mind (ἐπίγνωσις) threw out God.

Ποιεῖν is the epexegetical infinitive (R. 1086); “to do the things unfit” displays the reprobate mind, which itself is fit for rejection only. God gave men up to a mind that acted the fool in moral matters. Instead of doing what their own natural moral sense approved as fitting and proper from the moral standpoint (τὰκαθήκοντα) they kept doing what they themselves adjudged as not being fit and proper morally (τὰμὴκαθήκοντα). Reprobating God, the only effective moral guide and control, their own mind became reprobate by leading them to doing constantly what even they knew and acknowledged as bad. What do you think of a mind which reasons like that?

Romans 1:29

29 Now follows the catalog of vices (omitting those of sex which have already been treated) regarding which we note the following. The construction is appositional, plural accusatives after αὐτούς understood as the subject of ποιεῖν. All of the vices here listed hurt and harm also fellow men. Excepting literal murder, all are vices and not mere individual wrong acts. We find four groups, arranged rhetorically in part. Four nouns ending in -ια form the first group, and four adjectives converted into nouns, all with a privativum, form the last group (v. 31).

In the second group φθόνου and φόνου are placed side by side because they are similar in sound; likewise in the fourth group ἀσυνέτους and ἀσυνθέτους are arranged accordingly. The assertion that the catalog is loosely strung together and is not a carefully arranged chain is answered already by these formal observations.

The godless “have been filled” and thus are ever full of hurtful evil; “all” is to be construed with each of the four nouns. 1) Ἀδικία is “unrighteousness” as opposed to God’s and to man’s norm of right; 2) πονηρία is active wickedness or viciousness; 3) πλεονεξία is covetousness or greed; 4) κακία is baseness, meanness, Schlechtigkeit. Delete “fornication” (A. V.) and disregard textual transpositions which shift κακίᾳ; the datives denote means. The four denote qualities of character, of course, as governing the life and its deeds. The line of progress is plain: 1) the moral principle itself (δίκη) is overthrown; 2) a general viciousness results; 3) a part of which is the greed for what belongs to others; 4) and the general effect is baseness or meanness.

The second group has the accusative adjective “full,” which is to be understood in the same sense as the previous participle “having been filled,” which, however, requires genitives of which there are five: “full of envy—murder—strife—cunning—malevolence.” The latter (from κακός plus ἧθος, base character), found only here in the Bible, is defined by Aristotle as the vice of taking everything in the sense that is worst, Boeswilligkeit, a character set on doing as much evil as possible, hence “malevolence.” These five certainly belong together, not in the sense that one leads to the other, but that all blossom out from the same poisonous root, and that in many instances all of them or most of them occur together.

Romans 1:30

30 In regard to the third group there is a debate as to whether there are seven vices or, making pairs of the first six, there are four. The great majority share the former view, very few the latter. These latter are right. Rhetorically it would scarcely be expected that Paul would make groups consisting of 4–5–7–5, but that he would make groups consisting of 4–5–4–5, the first 4 corresponding to the third, the second group of 5 matching the last. Those who find seven sins in this third group have one impossible member, θεοστυγεῖς, which so obviously disrupts the group that the number seven must be discarded. This word is passive, always so, “godhated” (“hateful to God,” R.

V.), and never active, “haters of God” (A.V. and R. V. margin). Although it is advocated already by a few fathers, the idea of the active is due to the difficulty of finding seven designations in this third group; “hated of God” is so out of place among the other designations that “hating God” was preferred. But this thought, too, is out of line, apart even from its linguistic incorrectness. Those who retain seven and see that the passive sense alone is correct resort to strained explanations of the “godhated.” They either say frankly that Paul inserted this word without much thought or, regarding Paul more seriously, they say that by means of this term he expressed his own feeling of revulsion regarding all the vices he had already named: “godhated”—the whole mass of them! But this again is but the invention of necessity which seeks somehow to justify the use of the term in a list of seven.

Pray, why such a feeling at this strange point? If feeling were to be expressed, feeling in regard to all previous vices, the one and only place for this would be at the end of the entire catalog and not in the middle of one of its groups, not after sins of the tongue.

Combine θεοστυγεῖςὑβριστάς, “godhated insolents,” and these difficulties disappear. But if this combination is Paul’s intent, then he pairs also “slanderous whisperers” and “arrogant boasters” and ends with another two-term designation, “inventors of cruelties.” Thus rhetorically we get not only a second group of four members but also the good rhetoric of double terms in this advanced group.

“Slanderous whisperers” is certainly an adequate combination; we may retain the translation of our versions: “whispering backbiters,” men who spread evil about others by whispering into the ears, secret defamers—the world knows them only too well, it has even coined the expression “whispering campaigns.” Next, “godhated insolents,” men who are insolent and insulting in the injury they inflict on others and hateful to God on this account. Third, “arrogant boasters” who lift themselves above others. Finally, “inventors of cruelties,” κακῶν, of base, mean things, merely to hurt others, inhuman tyrants. We thus have 1) detraction, 2) insolence; 3) boasting, 4) tyranny.

The only difficulty left is that in number one we have two nouns while in number two and number three we have an adjective plus a noun. Regard those two nouns in the first expression as a sort of compound: “whisperer-slanderers.” Those who divide into two separate designations regard “whisperers” as secret slanderers and “slanderers” as open ones. But Paul always mentions the worst so as to include the bad and the worse, and the whisperers who engage in slander are the worst because they cannot be reached.

Romans 1:31

31 The fourth group which is again composed of five, starts with “to parents disobedient.” Beginning life viciously, the young are bound to go on in life in a vicious way. The present cry is lack of parental control, the rebelliousness of youth. Godless parents raise godless children and thus get to taste the bitter fruits of their own sowing in their own offspring. The fear of God is the only true source of filial obedience.

The next four, all with α privativum, our un or less, “senseless, faithless, loveless, merciless,” picture the results of vicious youth. See “the senseless heart” in v. 21. What an indictment is this lack of sense, the inability to put two and two together in the moral life! One could point to an endless number of illustrations. The senselessness of all criminality is apparent even to the world. Men ever believe that their sins will not find them out, that “they can get away with it” although all the millions who have tried it have failed. Can one outrun or outwit his own shadow? The shadow of his sin is his guilt and his penalty.

“Faithless” (using an adjective compounded with less) means false to covenants, agreements, the given word; συντίθεσθαι = to make an agreement. Even their strongest promises, their sworn word, cannot be trusted. “Loveless” is derived from “love” in the sense of the common, natural human affection. Even brutes show such love. Monstrous examples of lovelessness abound: patricide, matricide, fratricide, etc., (think of Herod the Great, Nero, etc.). One father cares for ten children, but ten children are unable to care for one father (mother)—that statement is proverbial.

Often even natural affection has wilted, is dying, is dead, where nature itself should lead us to expect it. It is no wonder that Paul adds “merciless,” callous, unfeeling hearts, that are impervious to pity, exploit the weak and the helpless, let them die and perish in their misery, crush them with an iron heel. The priest and the Levite passed by on the other side; the debtor whose enormous debt was cancelled choked and haled into prison the debtor who owed him a trivial sum. The more godless, the more merciless. Might is right.

Paul’s picture is only too true. Paganism manifests all these vices; what Judaism was capable of, its treatment of Jesus, of the apostles, and of the Christians shows. Paul felt its implacable hatred. Nothing was too low, too outrageous to stoop to to attain its ends. Christianity has spread its healing and elevating influence, but the old vices flourish even in its very shadow. Paul is not denying that godless men still have natural virtues, such as they are. These constitute the heritage of the general image of God still left in them. But this remnant in no way alters the facts regarding the desperate and deadly fruits of immorality to which God is compelled to abandon the ungodly.

Romans 1:32

32 The full guilt of men is now emphasized by means of the qualitative οἵτινες, “such as,” they who are such as are now described, men who realized (not only knew) the righteous ordinance of God, die Rechtsordnung Gottes. Paul at once states what this guilt is, “that those practicing such things are worthy of death.” Yet they are such as not only keep doing them but also applaud those practicing them. The ungodly cannot plead ignorance as an excuse for all this vice and this viciousness. Ever and ever creation manifests God’s existence to them, and they cannot escape the revelation of his wrath (v. 18–20). Not for one minute does Paul let us forget this fact.

All the atheists in the world may ridicule the very idea of God, deny the existence of a human soul and its accountability to God, they are still, like all other men, absolutely subject to the fact of God’s manifestation and his wrath’s revelation. What men can do is only to reprobate God so as “not to have him in their realization” (v. 28). Hence there ensues all this abomination of immorality, which is both the cause (ἐνἀδικίᾳ, v. 18) and the punitive consequence (“therefore,” v. 24: “because of this,” v. 26; “even as,” v. 28; and the three “give them up did God”) of their godlessness. But while they reprobate him from their realization (ἐπίγνωσις, v. 28) they are unable to get rid of realizing (ἐπιγνόντες, the identical word but now a participle) the righteous ordinance of God, that they who practice these things are worthy of death. If that is paradoxical, it is nevertheless the fact. One thing that must be remembered with regard to Paul is that he always deals with the facts (the ἀλήθεια, reality) and that he never theorizes, philosophizes, speculates. He has facts, so many, so tremendous, that he has no time for theorizing.

God’s δι̇καίωμα is his judicial righteous finding, call it verdict, ordinance (our versions), or law. Paul is not speaking of it as it is embodied in the Mosaic law but as it is ineradicably embedded in the human conscience. Let men do what they will, fight against it if they will, it clings to them, not merely in their γνῶσις but in their ἐπίγνωσις because they are moral creatures, because they are, therefore, accountable. And this is God’s dikaiōma, the right as a general verdict or law established by him alone (“of God” here too is cause, author, source) that is impressed upon man’s inner consciousness. Man’s natural sense of justice is the reflex of this divine ordinance. By naming it as God’s Paul goes back to the ultimate source, God himself. But by stating its substance he names not only what God has decreed as right but what man in his own nature also realizes as right: “that those practicing such things are worthy of death,” not fit to live and to continue in their vicious course among other men.

Men may deny that their sense of justice, the conviction that such are not fit to live, is the contents of God’s own righteous ordinance and may try to explain this sense by means of evolutional, sociological hypotheses and regard it as the consensus of the human herd which developed so that the antisocial were abolished. That, however, is only reprobating God from the consciousness (v. 28) as Paul has already stated; this “right” remains in full force in the universe of men and, as Paul states, remains as God’s ordinance.

Even pagans instinctively trace this right back to deity (a sample occurs in Acts 28:4: “whom vengeance suffereth not to live”). When wrath (v. 18) strikes down some of those that are not fit to live, the invisible higher hand is felt and perceived by them. The true religion has always aided this realization among men generally. All human moral laws, although they are often imperfect, have this background. Justice may miscarry, may not be able to reach the culprit, but it ever remains; and although human retaliation fails, the dread power of justice with its mysterious, inescapable power, like the sword of Damocles, remains.

The participle is concessive: “although having realized.” Frightful as is the guilt of practicing such things, the ultimate of this frightfulness is that men are “such as not only keep on performing them but also keep on applauding those practicing them” in the face of their realization of the death-bringing character of what they thus do. Ποιεῖν and πράσσειν here have no appreciable difference in force, the latter, like our “practice,” “commit,” sometimes has an evil sense; the former is merely our “perform” (M.-M. 533). Συνευδοκέω = to deem with others that something is “well” (εὖ) done, is good. Paradox?—most certainly, even extreme: doing what is death-worthy, applauding and encouraging others in doing the same. So did Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5; so do the criminal gangs in the face of prison and the chair or the noose; so evildoers in every line. Applauding others, they also applaud themselves. And yet, not only does God’s eternal right stand, men’s conviction regarding it likewise stands. Man himself justifies God’s righteous wrath.

It has been remarked that this indictment of mankind was written in Corinth, the Paris of the Roman world. While this is true, the implication that Corinth as such helped to produce this indictment, that it could not have come from Paul’s pen for instance in Ephesus, is unwarranted. Paul’s view and grasp are cosmopolitan.

Did Paul draw on the Old Testament apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon? Sanday and Headlam (International Critical Commentary) print in double columns Paul’s words and words taken from different chapters of Wisdom. But nowhere does the correspondence go beyond allusion, never is there quotation or even adoption of language. If Paul had Wisdom in mind, his consciousness of it was not very distinct. Especially German commentators have tried to trace the influence of Stoicism in Paul’s letters, often carrying their efforts to extremes. Thus far their efforts have been rather barren.

The fact that Paul, who could quote Greek poets, knew the current philosophies and their peculiar terms, needs no proof. But the claim that he copied either the thought or the wording of any of them when presenting his own thought, needs far more proof than has been hitherto supplied. Paul’s written source was the Old Testament. He ever deals with the facts and does so at first hand. A catalog of virtues or of vices drawn up by him is worth vastly more study than similar catalogs drawn from common Jewish or Greek philosophic sources.

In v. 28 Paul wrote τὰμὴκαθήκοντα. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, introduced the positive term τὸκαθῆκον as a term for “duty.” The term became current, and many of Zeno’s followers wrote works περὶτοῦκαθήκονος, “Concerning Duty.” Cicero called this De Officiis in the Latin. But Paul has the negative plural and not the positive singular. The most that one can safely say is that he, too, uses a form of καθήκω in a moral sense, which does not take us beyond the general fact that Paul uses the language of his day for his own purposes and employs it adequately so that his readers understand him even if they have no knowledge of philosophy. See L. 32, etc., for elaborate investigations regarding Jewish literature and Paul’s writing.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

L. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus. 1. An die Roemer. D. Hans Lietzmann. 2. Auflage.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.