Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Gospel Reveals God’s Righteousness and Humanity’s Sin (Romans 1) | Colin G. Kruse

Transcript

The Gospel Reveals God’s Righteousness and Humanity’s Sin (Romans 1) | Colin G. Kruse · Reformed Thinking

0:00
When you get an e-mail today, you expect a very specific,
0:04
predictable format. Oh yeah, usually something like
0:08
hope you had a good weekend and then boom, right to the point.
0:10
Right. It's brief, it's clean, you
0:12
break the ice and you move on to the business at hand.
0:14
It's efficient. Yeah, very.
0:16
So welcome to Reformed Thinking for today's Deep Dive.
0:20
Our mission is an extensive verse by verse investigation
0:24
into Colin G Cruz's commentary on the 1st chapter of the
0:27
Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.
0:30
We are going to look really closely at verses one through 32
0:33
today. And you know, imagine opening a
0:36
letter from a complete stranger, someone you have never met in
0:39
your entire life, right? And instead of a polite hope you
0:42
are well, the sender hits you with this meticulously
0:46
structured, world altering theological thesis before they
0:49
even finish saying hello. Yeah, that's what you're looking
0:52
at today with Paul. He just completely upends the
0:55
normal greeting process. It's intense.
0:57
It is. It's a striking departure from
0:59
the norm of the ancient world. So to set the stage here, we
1:03
have to look at the historical context.
1:05
OK, lay it out for us. Well, Paul is writing to a Roman
1:08
church he did not plant. He's writing to a congregation
1:11
full of people he has never met, and they're situated right in
1:14
the capital of the known world. The absolute center of the
1:17
Empire. Yeah, so he has a massive task
1:20
ahead of him. He has to establish his
1:21
credentials with strangers, explain the divine message he
1:24
carries, and lay out this absolutely uncompromising
1:30
critique of human rebellion and. The standard format back then
1:34
was a lot simpler, wasn't? It oh much simpler.
1:36
The standard format of a Greek letter at that time, which we
1:39
know from like thousands of papyri recovered in Egypt, was
1:43
very brief. Just A to B greetings.
1:45
Yeah, pretty much. Paul takes that standard Greek
1:48
form, which makes sense since he was writing to a largely gentile
1:52
audience, but he expands it drastically.
1:54
He really stretches it out. He does.
1:56
He uses direct second person address to create a sense of
1:59
intimacy, but he he balances that by immediately asserting
2:04
his official status. He needs to secure a good
2:06
hearing. And while this text is millennia
2:08
old, it addresses universal questions that you ask yourself
2:11
today. Oh, definitely.
2:12
Like, how do we actually know God?
2:14
Why is the world so broken? How does faith operate in real
2:17
life? These are not dusty ancient
2:20
questions. No, they're the questions of the
2:21
human heart. So let's look at how Paul
2:24
introduces himself right out of the gate.
2:26
Let's do it. He uses his Roman name, Paul,
2:29
rather than his Jewish name, Saul.
2:31
Which is an interesting choice. The commentary points out that
2:34
this was a really common practice for Jews in that era to
2:38
have a gentile name. It likely facilitated his
2:41
travels around the Mediterranean.
2:43
Right, it made doing business easier.
2:44
But then he immediately calls himself a slave of Christ Jesus.
2:48
Yeah, that is a heavy term to drop in the very first sentence.
2:52
An incredible, really heavy term, and it carries dual
2:56
connotations that we really need to unpack here.
2:58
OK, what's the first one? On one hand, for the 1st century
3:00
Roman audience, a slave was someone who belonged entirely to
3:05
another person. Absolute obedience could be
3:08
expected. Because Roman society was
3:10
basically built on the backs of slaves.
3:12
Yeah, and Paul is completely comfortable with that
3:14
application. He believed he belonged to
3:16
Christ and owed him full obedience.
3:18
But there's another angle too, right?
3:20
Right, there is a massive Old Testament background here,
3:23
particularly in the Septuagint. That's the Greek translation of
3:26
the Old Testament for those listening.
3:27
Yes, in the Septuagint the title Slave of the Lord or servant of
3:31
the Lord is used for these towering legendary figures like
3:35
who? Like Moses, Joshua and Jonah,
3:38
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are called slaves of God.
3:43
Wow, OK. So when Paul uses this term, he
3:47
is claiming a title of exceptionally high status.
3:50
He is aligning his calling with the great prophets and leaders
3:53
of Israel's history. Though the commentary notes the
3:56
humility aspect is still there, right?
3:58
Yeah, the connotations of humility and devotion are always
4:00
primary, but it's a strong claim.
4:03
I think about that in terms of a modern applicant writing a three
4:06
page cover letter for a job where no one knows them.
4:09
That's a great way to picture it.
4:10
Like if you are applying for a position at a company where you
4:13
have 0 internal connections, you have to prove your orthodoxy and
4:18
your qualifications right out of the gate.
4:20
You can't just head to sticky note that says hire me.
4:23
Right. You have to show your work.
4:25
So do you think the Romans viewed this massive,
4:28
theologically dense opening as like overkill?
4:33
Or was this recognized as a master class, an establishing
4:36
authority? I suspect the astute listeners
4:39
in that Roman congregation recognize it as a master class.
4:42
Really. Yeah, they would sense from his
4:44
expansion of the standard greeting that he was going to
4:47
great lengths to introduce himself properly.
4:49
Makes sense? He goes on to say he was called
4:52
to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God.
4:55
That phrase set apart is fascinating to me.
4:58
It is often the root word means separating people from contact
5:01
with others, right? How Paul operated when he was a
5:03
Pharisee. Separating himself from anything
5:05
unclean. Right.
5:06
He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, meaning separated 1.
5:10
But here it means being set apart for a specific divine
5:14
purpose. Linking back to the road to
5:15
Damascus, I assume? Yes, his experience on the
5:18
Damascus Road and his conviction, which he mentions in
5:22
his letter to the Galatians, that God set him apart before he
5:26
was even born. So he is telling the Romans that
5:29
his apostleship rests entirely upon grace and a direct
5:33
revelation. No human mediation involved
5:35
whatsoever. He also mentions that this
5:37
gospel was promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy
5:41
Scriptures. Anchoring it in the past.
5:43
Yeah, he's anchoring this new message and ancient promises.
5:47
He does not want them to think he just invented a new religion
5:50
yesterday. Which would have been a huge red
5:51
flag in ancient Rome. They loved old things and hated
5:54
novelty. That's a great point.
5:56
And then we hit what the text identifies as early Christian
6:01
creedal material. Yes, verses 3 and 4.
6:03
Paul describes Jesus as a descendant of David regarding
6:07
his earthly life and appointed the Son of God in divine
6:10
strength by his resurrection from the dead.
6:12
Cruz brings up several arguments for why this is considered a
6:15
pre-existing creed that Paul is just quoting here.
6:17
Let's go over those, because the arguments are quite compelling.
6:20
First you have the beautiful parallelism of the two well
6:24
balanced phrases. Who is a descendant of David and
6:27
who was appointed the son of God?
6:28
Yeah. That is very typical of early
6:31
Creedal formulas. They were meant to be memorized
6:33
and recited by congregations so they had a certain rhythm.
6:36
What's the second argument? 2nd references to Jesus Davidic
6:40
ancestry are actually very rare in Paul's writings.
6:44
Oh really? Yeah, the only other explicit
6:46
mention is in another creedal statement in Second Timothy.
6:49
Interesting. And there's a Third Point about
6:50
the vocabulary, right? For third, the specific use of
6:53
the terms flesh and spirit in these verses is somewhat
6:57
uncharacteristic for Paul, suggesting he is drawing on
7:01
traditional material. He's using someone else's
7:02
phrasing. Exactly.
7:04
Well, I should say that's highly likely.
7:06
And perhaps most notably, if this were Paul's own spontaneous
7:09
summary of the gospel, it is striking that he leaves out any
7:12
reference to the crucifixion. Which is usually absolutely
7:15
central to his preaching. Yes, by quoting this accepted
7:19
early Creed, Paul is showing his Roman audience that his
7:21
convictions are completely orthodox.
7:24
He is building a bridge shared belief before he even starts his
7:28
main argument. Building rapport, basically.
7:30
So let's look at the specific phrase appointed the Son of God.
7:35
That wording has caused a lot of theological debate over the
7:38
centuries. Oh, a massive amount of debate.
7:40
Some translations used declared to be the Son of God to avoid
7:44
any hint of adoptionism. And adoptionism, just for
7:47
clarity, is the idea that Jesus was just a normal human who
7:52
became divine at the resurrection.
7:54
Right, which we reject, but the commentary argues that appointed
7:57
is actually the better translation of the Greek right.
8:00
That is correct. The Greek verb used there never
8:03
means to declare anywhere else in the New Testament.
8:06
What does it usually mean? It means to determine, to
8:08
decree, or to appoint, but we must not read adoptionism into
8:12
it. How does Cruz navigate that?
8:14
Cruz sites Douglas Moo, who points out the tautologist
8:19
nature of the statement. Tautologist meaning that kind of
8:21
repeats itself. Yeah, it is the son who is
8:24
appointed son. Ah, I see.
8:26
This indicates that being appointed Son does not imply a
8:29
change in essence, as if a human Messiah became divine for the
8:33
first time. So what does it imply?
8:35
It signifies a change in status or function.
8:38
Following his resurrection, Jesus takes his rightful place
8:41
of supreme authority. He is appointed Son of God with
8:44
a specific divine might. Confronting all the rulers of
8:47
the world, up to and including death itself.
8:50
That sets up a fascinating political dynamic too.
8:52
I mean, think about it. He is writing to people in the
8:55
imperial capital. Right under Caesar's nose.
8:57
Caesar claimed to be the ultimate Lord with political
9:00
dominion over the entire known world.
9:02
And here is Paul stating that Jesus is the Lord who subdues
9:06
all political and spiritual entities.
9:08
It's incredibly subversive. Once Paul secures that
9:10
authority, he shifts his focus. So Paul is offering this
9:14
incredible introduction. But that begs a massive
9:17
question. What does he actually want from
9:19
these people? Right.
9:20
What is the ask? He states that through Christ he
9:23
received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the
9:26
obedience that comes from faith. The phrasing there, Grace and
9:29
apostleship, is a grammatical construction called a hendiadis.
9:33
Hendiadis. That's a fun word.
9:35
It is. It's when 2 words are used to
9:37
convey one single concept. So he doesn't mean two separate
9:40
things. No, Paul does not mean he
9:42
received grace and then separately received apostleship.
9:46
He means he received the grace of apostleship.
9:49
It was a divine gift. He didn't earn it.
9:51
Correct. And his goal with this gift is
9:54
to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.
9:58
And this specific phrase, obedience of faith, is the
10:01
subject of considerable grammatical debate among
10:04
scholars. A lot of ink has been spilled
10:06
over those 3 words. We'll have to work through that
10:08
intricacy because it is crucial for how we understand the
10:11
Christian life. OK, let's break it down.
10:12
Is it obedience that comes from faith, or is it obedience that
10:16
consists in faith? If you take it as a genitive of
10:18
origin, it means obedience that comes from faith.
10:21
Meaning faith is the fruit and obedience is the fruit.
10:24
Yeah, this aligns with many of Paul's instructions where godly
10:28
behavior issues from a core belief in Christ.
10:31
And the other option. On the other hand, if you take
10:34
it as a genitive of apposition, it means obedience that consists
10:38
in faith. So the belief itself is the
10:40
obedience. In this view, the very act of
10:43
responding to the gospel call and believing in God's Son is
10:47
itself an act of obedience. God commands all people to
10:50
believe, so believing is obeying.
10:52
Where does Cruz land on this? Cruz looks at how Paul uses the
10:56
exact same phrase at the very end of Romans in chapter 16.
11:01
There it is closely linked with accepting the gospel message.
11:04
Which would point to. It suggests that the primary
11:06
meaning is the obedience that consists in faith.
11:08
I like to think of this as a 2 sided coin.
11:11
You really cannot have the heads of internal belief without the
11:14
tails of external action. I think that's a very helpful
11:17
analogy. But does that mean work save us?
11:19
Or was Paul's careful phrasing here an intentional safeguard,
11:23
like a safeguard against people assuming that belief requires 0
11:26
subsequent action? I think framing it as a
11:28
safeguard is highly accurate. As the commentary points out,
11:31
quoting Thomas Shriner, we should not sunder faith and
11:34
obedience. As if Christians could have the
11:36
former without the latter, right?
11:39
The belief first exercise upon conversion is validated as one
11:43
continues to believe and obey. James Dunn calls them
11:46
interchangeable ideas, doesn't he?
11:47
He does the response, which is faith naturally produces the
11:51
obedience which stems from faith.
11:53
You cannot separate the root from the fruit.
11:55
Paul's goal is to bring this holistic reality to the
11:58
Gentiles, and he specifies that he is a debtor obligated to both
12:04
Greeks and Mon Greeks. The text translates non Greeks
12:07
as Barbarians. I love the historical detail
12:10
provided on that word. Barbarian is an automatopoic
12:13
Greek word. It sounds like what it means.
12:15
Yeah, to the ancient Greeks, foreign languages sounded
12:19
unintelligible, just a repetition of barbar, like
12:21
stuttering or the twittering of birds.
12:23
He was essentially a term of cultural snobbery.
12:26
Definitely in the Roman period this would have included peoples
12:28
like the Spaniards, Pauls and Germans.
12:31
And Paul feels an intense obligation to all of them,
12:33
regardless of cultural status. He desires to visit Rome to
12:36
impart a spiritual gift, perhaps his clear exposition of the
12:39
Gospel, but then he displays an incredible amount of humility
12:43
here. He quickly clarifies that he
12:45
wants mutual encouragement. That humility is a striking
12:48
detail. Think about it.
12:51
Here is an apostle with massive divine authority carrying a
12:55
revelation directly from Christ. Yet he fully expects to be
12:59
instructed and encouraged by the faith of the Roman believers.
13:02
He recognizes that theology is done in community, not in
13:06
isolation. He does not view himself as a
13:09
dictator over their faith. He mentions that he hopes to
13:12
have a harvest among them, just as he has had among other
13:14
Gentiles. Though he uses a certain
13:16
reserve, he speaks of some fruit, acknowledging that he did
13:20
not plant this particular church.
13:21
But his eagerness is palpable. He says he's eager to preach the
13:25
gospel to them, which leads perfectly into the core thesis
13:28
of his entire letter. Yes, verses 16 and 17.
13:31
Paul declares I'm not ashamed of the gospel because it is the
13:34
power of God that brings salvation to everyone who
13:36
believes, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
13:40
We are looking at the divine ability, the sheer force of God
13:43
operating through this message. The commentary emphasizes the
13:47
honor and shame dynamics of the 1st century Roman world, which
13:51
is vital context for that statement.
13:53
We really need to grasp how central honor and shame were to
13:56
that culture. Almost every social interaction
13:58
was governed by acquiring honor and avoiding shame.
14:01
And Paul was proclaiming salvation through a crucified
14:05
Jewish Carpenter. Crucifixion was the ultimate
14:07
degradation. It was a punishment reserved for
14:09
slaves and rebels. It was designed to strip a
14:12
person of all dignity. To boast in a crucified savior
14:15
was socially shameful in the eyes of the Roman elite.
14:18
It was considered absolute madness.
14:20
But Paul employs A rhetorical device here, doesn't he?
14:23
Yes, Leytotes, it's an understatement.
14:25
Using a double negative by saying I am not ashamed, he is
14:29
forcefully asserting that he is fiercely proud of the gospel.
14:32
He refuses to accept the social shaming.
14:35
Because he is witnessed first hand the divine strength of this
14:38
message, he has seen it also lives, turning people from dead
14:42
idols to the living God. He specifically says the
14:45
salvation is first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
14:48
A very specific order. Was this merely A practical
14:51
touring strategy for Paul? Like we know from the Book of
14:54
Acts that he would typically go to the local synagogue first
14:58
when he entered a new city. Right, which provided him with a
15:00
ready audience who knew the Old Testament.
15:02
So is it just a smart tactic, or is there a deeper theological
15:06
necessity based on God's historical covenants?
15:09
While it was certainly an effective strategy, the text
15:12
insists it was far more than that.
15:14
It was a theological necessity rooted in God's sovereign
15:17
choices. How does Paul build that case
15:20
later in the letter? Later in Romans, Paul details
15:23
the massive advantages given to the Jewish people, the adoption,
15:28
the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of law, the temple
15:31
worship and the promises a rich heritage.
15:34
Because God chose to work out His redemptive plan historically
15:37
through the Jewish people, culminating in the Messiah, Paul
15:40
believed he was under a divine mandate.
15:42
To offer the gospel first to them.
15:44
Yes, their historical privilege carried a corresponding priority
15:48
in the unfolding of the New Covenant.
15:50
And in this gospel, Paul says the righteousness of God is.
15:53
Revealed that term righteousness.
15:55
It occurs 34 times in 29 verses in Romans.
16:00
It is the absolute core of the argument.
16:02
It is the hinge. Everything turns on.
16:04
But how are we to understand the righteousness of God?
16:08
I have always heard it framed strictly as a legal status, like
16:12
a judge slamming A gavel and declaring you innocent.
16:15
That's a very common view. But Cruz is pushing back on
16:18
that, isn't he? It seems like he is arguing it
16:20
is much more active than just a courtroom declaration.
16:23
It is a complex theological term and scholars have debated it for
16:27
centuries. The commentary actually
16:29
identifies 5 different aspects of God's righteousness found in
16:32
Romans. Five.
16:33
OK, let's hear them. First, there is distributive
16:36
justice, where God judges humanity barely.
16:39
Makes. Sense Second, covenant
16:41
faithfulness, where God keeps his promises to Israel.
16:43
OK third, saving action where God provides redemption through
16:47
Christ. Got it?
16:48
4th, The gift of justification, where a right status is bestowed
16:52
upon believers. And 5th the gift leading to a
16:55
righteous life. So it's a very multifaceted
16:57
word. Extremely.
16:59
Some scholars argue that in verse 17 it strictly means the
17:03
status given to believers. Others argue it means God's own
17:07
attribute of uprightness. Where does Cruz land after
17:11
evaluating all that evidence? He looks closely at the Old
17:14
Testament background, especially in Isaiah and the Psalms, and
17:18
concludes that a combined approach is best.
17:20
SO a mix of the aspects. Right.
17:22
He lands on the view that the righteousness of God here is his
17:26
saving action whereby He brings people into a right relationship
17:30
with Himself. Is God taking the initiative to
17:33
rescue and restore it is. Highly active?
17:35
Yes, very active. He then quotes the prophet
17:37
Habakkuk chapter 2, verse 4. The righteous will live by
17:41
faith. Such an important Old Testament
17:43
quote. There is a fascinating divergent
17:45
in the ancient texts regarding this quote, though the Hebrew
17:48
Masoretic Text, the Greek Septuagint, and Paul's own
17:51
quotation all differ slightly. Which gives us a great window
17:54
into how Paul interpreted scripture.
17:56
Breakdown the differences for us.
17:58
OK, so the textual history is eliminating.
18:00
In the Hebrew text, the phrase reads, the righteous will live
18:03
by his faithfulness. Pointing to the human
18:05
steadfastness. Right now, in the Greek
18:07
Septuagint, it reads, The righteous shall live by my
18:10
faithfulness, pointing to God's steadfastness.
18:13
Interesting. And what does Paul do?
18:15
Paul in Romans, in Galatians drops both pronouns.
18:18
He simply says the righteous will live by faith.
18:22
Why does the commentary think he did that?
18:24
The text looks at how Paul uses this exact same quote in
18:27
Galatians to prove the justification is not a reward
18:30
for observing the law, but a declaration by God in favor of
18:35
those who have faith. So Paul modifies the text
18:38
slightly to function as a definitive proof text for
18:41
justification by faith alone, and he says this happens from
18:45
faith to faith. That phrase trips a lot of
18:47
people. Up it does.
18:48
Some interpret that to mean from God's faithfulness to human
18:51
faith, but leaning on linguistic scholars, this is identified as
18:55
a Greek idiom of growth. Precisely, when you look at the
18:58
formula from A to A in ancient Greek literature, the A always
19:01
denotes the same. Give us some examples.
19:03
From town to town, from strength to strength, it implies
19:06
progression or movement. So it can't mean two different
19:10
types of faith. Therefore, from faith to faith
19:13
cannot mean from God's faithfulness to human faith,
19:17
because those are two different types of faith.
19:19
So what does it mean? Instead, it denotes a growth or
19:22
spread of the same kind of human faith.
19:24
In the immediate context of Romans, it most likely refers to
19:28
the gospel starting with the faith of the Jewish people and
19:31
spreading outwardly to the faith of the Gentiles.
19:34
It is a progression of the Gospels reach across the globe.
19:37
Yes, from faith moving to more faith.
19:39
So Paul has just delivered the best news possible.
19:42
The divine saving action is available to everyone who
19:45
believes. But that begs a massive
19:47
question. Exactly, if God is so good, why
19:50
do we even need a rescue mission in the 1st place?
19:53
What is the crisis that makes this gospel necessary?
19:56
This is where things take a dark turn in Chapter 1.
19:58
In verse 18, Paul states that the wrath of God is being
20:01
revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness
20:04
of people. Wrath.
20:06
That's a word that makes modern readers uncomfortable.
20:09
The word wrath can conjure up images of a deity losing his
20:12
temper, right? Like throwing lightning bolts in
20:14
a fit of rage because someone broke a minor rule.
20:17
We have to be very careful to define God's wrath biblically.
20:21
The commentary pushes back hard against the older, more liberal
20:24
view popularized by Chapter Dodd.
20:26
What with Dodd's view? He reduced God's wrath to just
20:29
an inevitable impersonal process of cause and effect in a moral
20:32
universe like gravity. That's a cold system, right?
20:35
Cruz rejects that, but he also clarifies that it is not
20:39
arbitrary human rage or a loss of temper either.
20:42
So what is it? Rather, it is God's personal,
20:45
measured indignation and his inflexible resistance to evil.
20:49
It is the necessary reaction of a perfectly holy God to the
20:53
violation of His creation and His character.
20:55
Paul notes that this wrath is being revealed from heaven.
20:58
Which might be an allusion to the Sodom tradition, where
21:00
judgment rained down from the sky is signaling a clear divine
21:03
origin. And what attracts this wrath?
21:05
Paul says people suppress the truth by their wickedness.
21:08
They hold it down. I think about holding an
21:11
inflated beach ball underwater. You know if you try that in a
21:14
pool, it takes constant, exhausting effort.
21:18
And you look ridiculous doing it right.
21:20
The moment your concentration slips, the ball bursts to the
21:23
surface. Is Paul saying the truth of God
21:25
is buoyant like that? That is a brilliant way to
21:27
picture it. Yes, the truth is entirely
21:30
buoyant. And to build on your analogy,
21:33
humanity is in the pool exhausting itself trying trying
21:35
to hold the ball down. Because letting it surface has
21:38
consequences. Because letting it surface means
21:40
acknowledging the creator. Acknowledging the creator would
21:44
require a change in behavior, a submission of the will.
21:47
So humanity just pushes the truth down.
21:49
And within Paul's theological framework, true atheism does not
21:53
actually exist. That's a bold claim.
21:56
Paul argues that what may be known about God is plain to them
21:59
because God has made it plain. He says that since the creation
22:02
of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal strength,
22:06
the divine nature, have been clearly seen.
22:08
Being understood from what has been made, this brings up the
22:11
concept of natural theology. Now it is crucial to understand
22:15
that Paul is not suggesting people sit down, look at a tree,
22:19
and use sophisticated rational deduction to arrive at a
22:23
systematic theology of the Creator.
22:25
Right, it's not a philosophy seminar.
22:26
It is not an academic apologetic argument where someone works out
22:30
a mathematical proof for God. Right.
22:32
Scholars like Francis Young describe it as an unthematic
22:36
awareness. Unthematic awareness?
22:38
What does that look like? It is a passive, spontaneous
22:42
mental activity, just as you intuitively recognize danger
22:46
when you were thrown into a cage with a lion without having to
22:48
calculate, like the physics of the lion's jaw or the velocity
22:52
with strike. You just know you're in trouble.
22:54
Right. A human being thrown into the
22:55
created cosmos has an intuitive, inescapable awareness of the
22:59
creator's existence and might. God has stitched this
23:02
recognition into the very fabric of the human mind.
23:05
Yes. Because of this inherent
23:07
knowledge, Paul concludes that humanity is left completely
23:10
without excuse. And yet, instead of glorifying
23:13
God or giving thanks, Paul says their thinking became futile and
23:16
their foolish hearts were darkened.
23:18
They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to
23:22
look like mortal human genes, birds, animals and reptiles.
23:25
There's a staggering, tragic irony here.
23:28
It is a total inversion of the Genesis creation account.
23:31
How so? Well, in Genesis, humans are the
23:34
pinnacle of creation, made in the very image of the immortal
23:38
God, designed to reflect his glory and govern the animals.
23:42
But here, humanity willingly trades that supreme glory to bow
23:47
down and worship wood and stone carved into the shapes of the
23:51
very animals that were supposed to oversee.
23:53
It is an intellectual and spiritual collapse.
23:55
Paul notes that they claim to be wise, but they became fools.
23:59
The ancient Jewish writers mocked this a lot, didn't they?
24:01
Oh, heavily. Like the author of The Wisdom of
24:03
Solomon, they pointed out the sheer idiocy of praying to a
24:07
dead piece of wood for life or asking a motionless statue for
24:11
safe travel. By suppressing the truth of the
24:13
Creator, humanity fractures its own mind.
24:15
Absolutely. Because humanity actively
24:17
suppresses this truth and trades the Creator for the creation,
24:21
God's wrath is poured out in a specific, chilling manner.
24:24
The handing over. Yes, three times in this
24:28
section, in verses 2426 and 28, Paul uses a terrifying phrase.
24:33
He says God gave them over. That phrase gave them over
24:38
implies a divine consignment. It's not passive, no.
24:42
It is a word used extensively in the Greek Old Testament when God
24:45
hands people over to their enemies or to judgement.
24:47
Some early Church fathers tried to soften this right.
24:50
Yeah, by saying it just meant God passively stepped back and
24:53
abandoned them. But the commentary argues that
24:55
it involves an active consignment on God's part.
24:58
God hands people over to the tyranny of their own sinful
25:01
desires, their shameful lusts, and eventually a completely
25:05
depraved mind. It raises a difficult question
25:07
though. Does God force people to sin, or
25:10
is the sin itself the punishment?
25:12
I think of it like a parent teaching a rebellious teenager
25:15
to drive Boy. The teenager keeps trying to
25:17
grab the steering wheel, fighting the parent for control,
25:20
determined to drive off the road.
25:21
Sounds terrifying. For a long time, the parent
25:24
fights back, keeping the car safe.
25:26
But eventually, the heartbreaking consequence of the
25:29
teenager's persistent rebellion is that the parent finally let's
25:32
go of the wheel. And the car crashes.
25:34
The resulting crash is the natural consequence of the
25:37
teenager's choice, but the parent actively made the
25:40
decision to stop restraining them.
25:42
That's a good analogy. And to take your driving analogy
25:45
a step further, Paul is saying the crash isn't an accident.
25:48
It is the inevitable physics of taking your hands off the moral
25:52
steering wall. The judgment of God here is
25:54
allowing humanity to experience the full, devastating trajectory
25:58
of its own rebellion. They refused to acknowledge God,
26:01
so God consigned them to a mind that is untrustworthy, a mind
26:05
that cannot properly evaluate moral decisions.
26:08
The first manifestation of this consignment that Paul addresses
26:11
is a descent into sexual degradation.
26:13
Yeah, he says, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie,
26:16
and as a result, God handed them over to the great, getting their
26:19
bodies with one another. This leads right into verses 26
26:22
and 27. And as we move into verses 26
26:25
and 27, we are obviously hitting text that generates a lot of
26:29
modern cultural discussion, definitely.
26:31
So I want to state clearly to you, the listener, that our goal
26:34
today is not to take a political stance or endorse a specific
26:38
side of that modern debate, right?
26:40
Neither of us is taking a side here.
26:42
We are acting as a mirror for the commentary simply to
26:45
understand how Colin G Cruise parses Paul's 1st century Greek
26:49
context. In this specific passage, we are
26:51
just conveying the ideas found in the source material.
26:55
And looking at the linguistic analysis, the text goes into the
26:58
historical context of Paul's statements.
27:00
Paul writes that even their women exchange natural relations
27:03
for unnatural ones, and in the same way, the men also abandoned
27:07
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
27:10
another. The commentary notes that the
27:11
Greek word used here for nature is physics.
27:15
So to understand what Paul meant by contrary to nature or
27:18
paraphysm, the author examines how this term was used by
27:21
ancient writers. Writers like Plato, Philo and
27:24
Josephus. So what does the historical
27:26
record show about the cultural usage of the term physics?
27:30
The author finds that these writers consistently used physis
27:33
to describe the natural created order of the world.
27:37
For instance, Plato condemned pederasty and marriage between
27:40
men as contrary to nature. And Philo.
27:43
Philo combined the Greek notion of things contrary to nature
27:47
with a Jewish idea of things contrary to the law, regarding
27:51
such aberrations as violations of the law of nature.
27:54
And Josephus. Josephus describe the union of a
27:56
man and a wife as according to nature, while describing sodomy
28:01
as unnatural. The text reports that Paul's
28:04
usage aligns with this broader cultural and religious
28:07
understanding of the era. Yes.
28:09
The commentary also addresses debates regarding the specific
28:12
types of practices Paul might have had in mind.
28:15
Because some people argue he was only talking about specific
28:17
abuses, right? Yes, the author evaluates
28:20
arguments that Paul might have only been condemning specific
28:23
cultural practices of the time, such as pederasty, the
28:26
exploitation of boys by adult men, or heterosexual individuals
28:30
acting against their own personal orientations.
28:33
What conclusion does the source material draw?
28:36
Based on the text, the conclusion drawn is that Paul's
28:39
condemnation was broad and rooted in the Genesis creation
28:42
model. The specific phrasing Paul uses,
28:45
referring to males with males and the mutual nature of the
28:48
error, argues for an assessment of adult adult mutuality rather
28:52
than being limited to pederasty or specific exploitative
28:55
practices. The text states they received in
28:58
themselves the due penalty for their error, which the author
29:01
interprets as the baleful effects of being handed over to
29:04
the tyranny of those practices. After addressing that, Paul
29:07
broadens his critique significantly.
29:09
He opens it up to a huge list. In verse 28 he says that because
29:13
they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,
29:16
God gave them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not to be
29:19
done. And then he lists a
29:21
comprehensive, devastating catalog of 21 vices. 21 He says
29:25
they are filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and
29:29
depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
29:32
strife, deceit and malice. It is an exhaustive list.
29:36
The commentary breaks down some of the specific terms to show
29:39
how deeply this rot goes. Like the difference between
29:41
gossips and slanderers. Yeah, in an oral culture where
29:46
reputation was everything and you could not just issue a press
29:49
release to clear your name, gossip was lethal.
29:51
Gossips are those who secretly whisper their misrepresentations
29:54
into a listener's ear. Which, Cranfield notes, is the
29:57
more vicious kind because the victim has virtually no defense
30:01
against it. Slanderers, on the other hand,
30:04
proclaim their calumnies openly. Paul also lists God haters, a
30:08
term that denotes active enmity toward the divine.
30:12
He lists the insulin too. Which refers to people who rely
30:14
on their wealth, status or strength to treat their fellow
30:18
humans with contemptuous arrogance.
30:20
In the Roman patronage system, the rich often treated the poor
30:23
with brutal insolence, thereby affronting the majesty of God,
30:27
who created all people. One inclusion in that list that
30:30
always catches modern readers off guard is disobeying parents.
30:34
Yeah, it seems that a place to us today.
30:35
Paul places it right alongside murder, malice, and inventing
30:39
ways of doing evil. To us today, a disobedient child
30:42
might just seem like a normal phase of growing up.
30:44
Maybe a teenager slamming a door.
30:46
But in the ancient world, this was viewed with absolute dread.
30:50
We have to view that through the lens of ancient Roman and Jewish
30:53
law. In Deuteronomy, a persistently
30:56
rebellious and disobedient child could face capital punishment.
31:00
While there is no evidence this was widely enforced in the 1st
31:03
century, the principle of absolute honor and respect for
31:06
parents was bedrock to society. Roman law was even more severe.
31:11
Fathers held the ultimate authority, the patriotestas,
31:14
which included the right to execute a recalcitrant child.
31:18
Filial rebellion was seen as a threat to the entire social
31:21
fabric. If the basic unit of the family
31:23
broke down through disobedience, the whole civilization was at
31:27
risk of collapsing. So Paul includes it as a primary
31:29
symptom of a depraved mind. Paul finishes the list with four
31:33
rhyming words in the Greek that all begin with an alpha
31:36
privative. That is a negative prefix, like
31:39
how we put a in front of theist to mean without God.
31:42
Paul says they have no understanding, no fidelity, no
31:45
love, no mercy. One translation captures it
31:48
brutally, without brains, honor, love, or pity.
31:51
It is a rapid fire listing and a synditon that creates a complete
31:55
hollowing out of humanity. And then we reach verse 32, the
31:58
climax of this dark chapter. Paul says that although they
32:02
know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve
32:05
death, they not only continue to do these very things, but also
32:09
approve of those who practice them.
32:11
This is the absolute bottom of the barrel.
32:13
The descent and descent is bad enough, but here humanity
32:17
systematically redefines evil as good.
32:20
They do not just fail morally, they throw a parade for the
32:23
failure. As Ambrosi Esther noted in the
32:25
early church, those who do evil but recognize it as evil are not
32:29
as far gone. They still have a conscience.
32:31
But those who actively encourage others to do evil, who attempt
32:35
to persuade society that there is nothing wrong with these
32:38
actions, have entirely lost their moral compass.
32:41
They are actively desiring the increase of evil in the world.
32:44
And this brings us to a brilliant rhetorical maneuver by
32:47
Paul. He has just spent 14 verses
32:49
painting the bleakest, most devastating picture of the
32:52
Gentile world. Any Jewish reader or any highly
32:55
moralistic gentile reader who would be nodding along
32:58
vigorously. You can almost hear them saying
33:00
yes, Paul, you are absolutely right.
33:02
Those pagans out there are terrible.
33:04
They are idolatrous, immoral, and deserving of judgement.
33:08
Spot on is a brilliant rhetorical trap.
33:11
A trap. He builds this massive,
33:14
undeniable case against the blatant sins of the world,
33:17
getting his readers to align with his righteous indignation.
33:21
But he is setting them up for Chapter 2.
33:23
Because the moment they say yes, those people deserve judgement,
33:27
Paul is going to spin around. Right, he's going to say you
33:30
therefore have no excuse. You who pass judgment on someone
33:34
else for whatever point you judge another, you are
33:36
condemning yourself because you who judge practice the very same
33:40
things. He traps the moralist in their
33:42
own self righteousness. He levels the playing field
33:44
completely. No one gets out unscathed.
33:47
We have covered an immense amount of ground today.
33:49
A huge amount. We saw how Paul masterfully
33:52
introduces his credentials, leaning on his calling as a
33:54
slave of Christ and an apostle set apart.
33:56
We unpacked his core thesis, The saving grace of the gospel, the
34:00
divine strength that reveals the righteousness of God from faith
34:03
to faith. And then we witnessed how He
34:05
proves the absolute necessity of that grace by exposing the fatal
34:09
condition of the human heart, how humanity suppresses the
34:13
truth, exchanges the Creator for the creation, and is
34:16
subsequently handed over to a depraved mind.
34:19
It is a dark diagnosis, but it is necessary to understand the
34:23
magnitude of the cure he will present later in the letter.
34:26
So true. As a final thought for you to
34:28
Mull over, consider the political reality of the
34:31
original audience sitting in those house churches in Rome.
34:34
They lived in the shadow of Caesar, a man who demanded to be
34:37
worshipped as a God, who claimed to hold the supreme authority of
34:40
life and death, and who defined the moral order of the empire.
34:44
How subversive and how incredibly dangerous must it
34:47
have been to sit in a room in the capital of the Empire and
34:49
read letter out loud that claims every human authority who sets
34:53
themselves up as a God is actually a fool whose mind has
34:56
been darkened? To publicly declare that the
34:59
true Lord is a crucified Jewish Carpenter and that the empire
35:02
celebrated moral flexibility is actually evidence of divine
35:06
wrath. That required a faith that was
35:08
not just intellectual, but a radical allegiance.
35:10
Thank you for joining us on Reformed Thinking.
35:12
Keep examining the text on your own, keep asking the hard
35:16
questions, and we will catch you on the next deep dive.