...to Rome. (Part 1 of ?)
“Everyone soon or late comes round by Rome.” – Robert Browning, English Victorian poet
This final entry (or more correctly entries) has possibly been the hardest to concisely place in a means adequate of it’s importance, both in the life of the man from Tarsus, and also in the ramifications it rightly carries as being the most important book in the New Testament aside from the Gospels and Acts (respectively).
It is fitting, then, that this man be named.
I have strayed from a name until this point for the empathetic purpose of placing myself in this man’s shoes. I have been called by Christ (Tarsus), and have publically been called Christian (Antioch), but I have yet to reach the full fruition of my faith, the very thing this man from Tarsus received in his final missional journey to Rome. When I say fruition, I do not necessarily refer to passing from this life to the next, but moreso the ability to see that the garden God has grown through my planting. This man from Tarsus was able to see (to his exceeding joy; Philippians 4:1) this fruition, and, Lord willing, someday I will be able to see the same.
His name was Paul, and he was an apostle to Jesus Christ.
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 1:1-7)
The encouragement of this opening greeting, in its foundational doctrine, bears with it the advent of one of the hardest eras of Christianity- the persecution of the Christians by the Roman emperor Nero.
“…your faith is spoken of throughout the world.” (Romans 1:8)
Paul knew what it meant to be persecuted, almost as well as he formerly knew how to persecute. Perhaps it is fitting irony that his life, as it is believed, was ended on the command of Nero himself.
Paul knew the inevitability of that potential persecution that lay in store for him in Rome. “I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also… for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” (Romans 1:15-16)
The gospel of Christ, a power leading unto salvation, a portrayal of the righteousness of God.
God, by His very righteous nature, condemns the sinner- a condemnation unto death. It is important to say “by His very nature,” for it saves from any contradiction, and it paints vividly the “God-ship” of God. We see, as with the Ark of the Covenant, the severity of this righteousness. To touch the ark, as a sinful being, meant certain and instant death, much like looking on the face of a Holy God (Exodus 33:23).
I see it as a grace that God commanded Moses to construct a veil between The Holy of Holies and the rest of the tabernacle. As we well remember, the nation of Israel quaked when God descended to earth at Mount Sinai. In Revelations, we read that men will wish for mountains to fall on them to hide themselves from the “wrath of the Lamb.” (Rev. 6:16) Paul draws from these truths when he states, “…the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” (Rom. 1:18) The Greek word Paul uses for “reveal” may also be translated as “lay open that which has been veiled.” The veiling of wrath brings imagery of temporal grace, yet when this veil is removed, Paul makes it clear that the wrath of God is due to the unrighteousness caused by the suppression of truth.
As Pontius Pilate so aptly put it, “What is truth?” (John 18:38)
In Romans 1:19 we see “what may be known of God is manifest in them.” Interestingly enough, the word for “know” (gnōstos) here can be understood as a “common perception”, or “common knowledge.” The word “manifest” may also be translated as “made evident.” In Romans 1:20, we see that God’s invisible attributes are “clearly” seen, and in verse 21, we see that they “knew” (ginōskō) God. Both highlighted words imply a certain degree of "thorough perception."
In other words, the common (and I would argue intrinsic) understanding of God leads to an evidential, thorough perception.
Think of it this way: if God had not revealed Himself in a way common to all men (i.e. through nature, testimony of our conscious, Jesus Christ), evidential perception would not be distorted, for there would be no truth to suppress. If there was no truth to suppress (and truth is a prerequisite for righteousness) then Paul would have no grounds for his statement. Therefore, Paul lays out his argument, beginning with the perception of God made evident, and only then makes his condemnation on those who suppress the common knowledge of God when He has been made evident in them, and all of this pointing to the righteousness of God….in all of this, God has done right…
All who reject stand condemned, and all have rejected, therefore all stand condemned.
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 1:24-25)
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:28)
It would be very hard for me to reconcile these two verses. To give someone up to something, especially something that will inevitably reap terrible repercussions, is never an easy thing to do. Perhaps this is why God proclaims in Ezekiel:
“Say unto them, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Ezekiel 33:11
The two condemning words in Romans 1:24-25, 28 are “because” and “since.”
“…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie…”
“…since they did not see fit to acknowledge God…”
And the most condemning verse of them all …
“Although they know (epiginōskō; recognition, associated with) God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:32)
For why will ye die…?
For why will ye die…?
Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways!
Do you not know that it is God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death?
“The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.” (1 Corinthians 15:56)
Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways!
See, has not Christ torn back the veil?
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…” (Gal. 3:13)
Flee to Him, flee to the mercy seat.
Dead men walking…may Christ have mercy…
NOTE: As I have repeatedly inferred, the original post length for Romans was about 3 posts, but now it is looking as if it may be much longer, bear with me on this one. I'd love to hear your comments!
9 comments:
Joe,
Nice thoughts.
I have a quick question for you. You said, "In other words, the common (and I would argue intrinsic) understanding of God leads to an evidential, thorough perception." Just so we are on the same page, I agree that there is a common and intrinsic knowledge of God. Calvin and Plantinga (to a lesser degree) have argued extensively the sensus divinitatis (or the divine sense). What I am curious about is what you mean when you say this intrinsic knowledge of God leads to an evidential, thorough perception. I would make some guesses but I don't want to misrepresent your opinion.
And I have a quick observation. It is interesting that in verse 28 God gives the people up to a "debased" mind, which in turn leads to acts of unrighteousness. Why is that interesting? Because I am beginning to be more and more completely convinced that thoughts are the seeds of actions. This, however, does not appear to be what most think in our Christian culture, as we stress orthopraxy over orthodoxy.
Also curious about one more thing I just thought of. How does one reconcile Romans 1 with Ezekiel 33? I am wondering, if God orders all things according to His will, then can we say that it is the will of God that some should perish? Or when they were disobedient were the hindering the will of God?
Any thoughts?
Grace.
Kyle, I really enjoy the fact that you don't just post replies, but leave excellent questions/feedback, so I'll give this my best shot.
1) When I say "...the common (and I would argue intrinsic) understanding of God leads to an evidential, thorough perception (of Him)," I would say two things. Firstly, I am trying my best to be true to what the text is saying, and trying to put together a concise statement summarizing what Paul is stating in Romans 1:19-21. Now, I will be the first to say that I am no Greek linguist, and I am more than ready to accept correction as to how I have understood the Greek Paul was using. Secondly, I put the word "intrinsic" in parentheses for the specific reason that it is not directly stated in the text, but I believe it is implied. Romans 2:14-15 states "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." Now, where the law is written on the hearts of the Gentiles, the intrinsic nature of the law does not suffice it's existence on the heart, but instead, a Law-Giver is required to fulfill a written law. When I say "evidential," I refer to Paul's words "what can be known of Him," or "what is manifest of Him." They are aware that the law has been broken, for it is written on their hearts, and their heart's condemn them, and there, I believe in the truest sense, they perceive God, or more appropriately, they perceive the justice and righteousness of God has been sinned against, although a debased mind would never admit this truth.
2) Good point on verse 28. I see it as the natural conclusion of suppressing the truth. It is interesting that Paul says "debased mind" instead of "debased heart," but again, I think this lead's to the point he is making with the suppression of truth. I could say more on this subject, but I may actually save that for a later post.
3) I would like to say that Ezekiel 33 is one of the most convicting chapters in the entire Old Testament in regards to my own missional works. Eze 33:8 “If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Notice that the sin (e.g. iniquity) lies on the sinner, but the life of the sinner (e.g. the blood) lies on those who did not warn him to turn from his way. I would pair this with v. 11, and point out that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, a death leading from sin. This passage is not saying that God has any displeasure in his own justice and righteousness. I believe this passage is saying that, just as God hates sin, God hates the effect of sin (e.g. death), and His verdict on sin and death was carried out by His Son on the cross, a verdict being “I hate sin, and that which comes from sin, namely, death!” I do believe that it is the will of God that some should perish, a truth which causes me to quake at the majesty of grace that has been given to me. I do not believe, however, that this truth should be regarded as anything other than God glorifying Himself in this action. We are not called to glorify God by withholding the gospel based on our assumption that someone is perishing. On the contrary, the gospel of Christ must be preached, and whether or not it is accepted is ultimately up to God. We are, however, allowed to “shake the dust of the unbelieving city from our sandals.” (Mark 6:11) In reference to hindering the will of God, I believe that what makes God happy, and what He wills, can be different, and I believe the best truth of this is sin. Disobedience does not hinder will, but it may not necessarily bring pleasure. Again, God gave his verdict concerning sin and death on the cross of Christ, He hates it, but He allows it to the glory of the goodness of His grace on all who believe, to the Jew first, and also the Greek. Amen.
To close, one of my favorite John Piper quotes regarding the holiness of God’s righteousness, "the miracle is not whether or not God will heal your runny nose or pad your bank account, the miracle is that God didn't kill you in your sleep last night." (my own paraphrase)
Joe,
Thanks for the thoughts.
1. I am still wondering about your use of the words "thorough perception (of Him)." I agree that the Gentiles have the law, as you pointed out Romans 2:14-15 is so clear! But I think the word "thorough" can be problematic here, if read the way I am reading it. I agree with the Thomist and Calvinist point that natural man has an "ex parte rationis" or an awareness of certain general principles. This is an innate or implanted awareness of the divine law. In this sense, God's general moral revelation is impressed upon our conscience. However, I think the question that must arise is "how well" do the pagans actually know this divine law; how much content does the natural man know? This seems to be where the Thomasits and Calvinists differ. Thomasits (and medieval scholastics)say that reason causes man towards a natural tendency of good. Thomas had in mind that the law is nothing more than reason. Calvin accounted more the epistemic and noetic effects of the fall so that though man has an implanted notion of the law, sin has obscured his understanding of that law. Moral perception then is diminished, but not extinguished (thus he protected the fact that the pagans have the law and supress the truth as obscure as their understanding is, and may still be held accountable). Thus, following with the Reformations principle of Sola Scriptura, Calvin found that Scripture, and special revelation, was necessary for truly knowing and apprehending the law of God.They need God to correct their obscured vision of the law. Luther seems to defend a similar position to Calvin especially in his commentary on Romans 2.
In light of all that, can you see why the words "thorough perception" may cause *some* concern. It may very well be that I have totally misunderstood you on this point and misread that, if that is the case forgive my rambling. But I am wondering if you could elucidate that point just a little bit. I think the opening chapters of Romans are a wonderful display of the universality of sin, the universal knowledge of God, the weakness of natural reason, and the ethical system that the world is to run on. Because it bears such weight I think all Christians need to seriously consider what is being said in these chapters, so thanks for posting your thoughts!
I like the way our discussion has been narrowed down to one word. I agree with you; after rereading the text, my subsequent post, and then your responses, I think it would be both wise and prudent to clarify “thorough.” I will first attempt to explain why I chose this word, or more specifically, the phrase “thorough perception.”
Returning to my original post, I mentioned the use of God’s invisible attributes being “clearly” seen (v. 20), and that they “knew” God (v. 21). First, to whom is Paul referring? Romans 1:18 makes it clear that Paul is referring to people who practice ungodliness and unrighteousness. So, in other words, these ungodly people have clearly seen the invisible attributes of God and have known him. Now I will look at the two Greek words specifically.
The Greek word used here for “clearly” is only used once in the entire New Testament. It is the word kathoraō. Since this word is only used once in Scripture, it is very hard to cross-reference it to see how the author uses this word elsewhere. According to Thayer’s Lexicon, the word most frequently was used in ancient times to mean “to look down, see from above, view from on high.” (see Homer, Plato, etc) As the word is understood in Scripture (i.e. Romans 1:20) and also classical Greek, Thayer translates the word as “to see thoroughly, perceive clearly, understand.”
The Greek word here for “knew” is used throughout the New Testament, and is a very common to both Paul and the gospels. It is the word ginōskō. Thayer’s Lexicon translates the word ginōskō as “to become acquainted with, to know.” Thayer describes it in this specific instance in Romans as “employed in the New Testament of the knowledge of God and Christ, and of the things relating to them or proceeding from them.” In Romans 1:21, Thayer comments that the use of “know” here is meant to show the “one, true God in contrast with the polytheism of the Gentiles.”
I chose the phrase “thorough perception” mainly from how Paul may have been using kathoraō, but it gets a bit more tricky with ginōskō. Since it is such a common word, and it is used in many different ways throughout the N.T., it becomes more an issue of surrounding text rather than actual word definition. The nature of Romans 1 has a great deal to do with truth, the perception of that truth, and the state of one’s mind. Referring back to Thayer, we see that ginōskō was relating to the knowledge of God. Therefore, it may potentially be understood that this “knowledge” being spoken of is more of a mental ascent to evidential truth, and not a direct revelation by God’s Holy Spirit. Please correct me if you feel otherwise, but this may potentially be the fulcrum we are looking for to balance our scales. Again, perhaps this lends credence to Paul referring to “debased minds” instead of “debased hearts.”
Based on our discussion, I also decided to look up other verses in which Paul used ginōskō to attempt to ascertain how “to know’ was being used in other places of Scripture, places which may give credence to mental ascent. Here are some good examples of what I found:
“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have *known* sin. I would not have *known* what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” - Rom 7:7
Here, Paul seems to be saying that the law leads to an understanding of sin based on knowledge, or in other words, a mental ascent.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to *understand* them because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1Cr 2:14
Here, Paul seems to be differentiating between knowledge (as a mental ascent) and spiritual discernment.
Well, I hope this gives you a better idea behind my reasoning. Hope to see you in the near future!
Joe,
It does help me a bit. But if I might add one more thought. How "well" do people perceive/know God from creation? Or rather, how much can they ascertain about God from pure reason? Can they only tell that there *is* a God? Can they ascertain, from nature, that God is three in one, or infinitely good, loving, just, and merciful? Can they ascertain the providence of God? From viewing nature can they have "redemptive" knowledge? Do you get what I am asking?
I guess what I am trying to get down to, is how thoroughly can one know God from the light of reason? This may sound like a silly question, but it is one that has been debated for centuries, and a lot of modern apologetics revolve around this question. So when Paul says that they can look and see the "invisible" qualities of God, what qualities is he talking about? Any thoughts?
Grace.
I'm actually off to church, but just a quick comment.
First, a note from Paul:
“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet *he did not leave himself without witness*, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” - Acts 14:15-17
Second, a note from Matthew Henry:
"Though God be not the object of sense, yet he hath discovered and made known himself by those things that are sensible. The power and Godhead of God are invisible things, and yet are clearly seen in their products. He works in secret (Job 23:8, 9; Ps. 139:15; Eccl. 11:5), but manifests what he has wrought, and therein makes known his power and Godhead, and others of his attributes which natural light apprehends in the idea of a God. They could not come by natural light to the knowledge of the three persons in the Godhead (though some fancy they have found footsteps of this in Plato’s writings), but they did come to the knowledge of the Godhead, at least so much knowledge as was sufficient to have kept them from idolatry. This was that truth which they held in unrighteousness."
Hope this helps!
OK, back from church!
1. How "well" do people perceive/know God from creation?
I would say that the idea of “God” could be perceived. I would also say that the idea of natural order could be perceived. I believe that our hearts bear testimony against us of our sin, and therefore a moral order can be perceived. I believe death, and the idea of death, points to God (anyone who says there is nothing after death, and lives like they believes the same, is either or a fool or deceiving themselves). Ultimately, Christ points to God. (John 1:18 compared with John 14:9)
2. Can they only tell that there *is* a God?
All I would add to this is that they are aware they have also *sinned* against this God.
3. Can they ascertain, from nature, that God is three in one?
I would say no.
4. Infinitely good, loving, just, and merciful?
To certain extents, they may see this weakly.
5. Can they ascertain His providence?
“God makes the rain to fall on the wicked”…I would say to a certain extent yes.
6. From viewing nature can they have "redemptive" knowledge?
No, this comes through the quickening of the Holy Spirit.
7. I guess what I am trying to get down to, is how thoroughly can one know God from the light of reason?
Going back to the first question (#1), I would say naturally and morally.
8. So when Paul says that they can look and see the "invisible" qualities of God, what qualities is he talking about?
I feel Matthew Henry answered this well (in my previous post), and I also feel that, ultimately, the answer to this question is Christ, going back once again to those passages in John.
****Well, I hope that gives you a good fitting on my personal answers to your questions. I didn’t do too much digging beyond what I haven’t already talked about, so if you wanted to talk more about a specific point, I’d be happy to. Sorry if some of my answers were overly short, and that I didn’t use too much Scripture this time, but I think this topic could be given more than ample treatment given a more extensive study.****
Joe,
Thanks for the comments, even if it was on the Sabbath ;-)
I agree wholeheartedly with you.
We want more! We want more!
Post a Comment