15-The worlds sinfulness

The worlds sinfulness In the former of the two Epistles, in which ‘justification’ was regarded from a somewhat narrower standpoint, there was no development of any doctrine of Sin. In the section that follows here we find such a doctrine. The Gospel reveals to men the method of redemption, the means whereby they shall be ‘righted’ with God. Corresponding to this revelation there is another. We read of it in the next verse. This second “is revealed” is not precisely the same (in regard to grammatical value) as the other in the verse above. The Gospel is a new thing: the revelation it embodies is likewise new. That other revelation of the “Wrath of God” is no new thing. It has been going on through the ages, though all have not had skill to read its teachings. The enlightened Christian can. Even the enlightened heathen is not without some power to “discern the signs of the times.”

1:18. “For there is revealed a wrath of God from heaven, on all impiety and wickedness of men.…” The prepositional qualification ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν undoubtedly belongs to the ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, and not to the ἀποκαλύπτεται. It follows, in my opinion, that ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ does too. Heaven is the source of the ὀργή, and not of the revelation. That ὀργή is directed against human wickedness in fullest comprehensiveness. The clause, which completes the sentence, is of singular obscurity. It sets forth the condemnation of mankind as a whole. I would paraphrase v. 18 (continued). “… that check the truth of God by wicked ways.” Of the two senses of κατέχειν (‘hold fast’ and ‘hold down’), the latter alone is possible. “God’s truth” cannot be ‘held’ by men that are wicked at all. They have it indeed potentially: but that is not κατέχειν, in the former of its two senses. Ἐν ἀδικίᾳ is probably instrumental: yet it might be equivalent to ‘being in wickedness.’ In any case the sense is the same. “God’s truth”-His Revelation of Himself in His wonderful works-by rights should make headway. But it does not do so-men will not allow it.

1:19, 20. “For what can be known of God is plain, and they can read it. For He has made it plain to them. For the things the eye cannot see of Him, His everlasting Power and Godhead, are plainly seen and discerned by the works of His hands, since the creation of the world. So that they are without excuse.”

Here γνωστόν might be ‘known’: but it probably is ‘knowable.’ “The knowable of God” is, so much of God as may be known, or apprehended, by men. Ἐν αὐτοῖς (as S. observes) is as the ἐν ἐμοί of Galatians 1:16. The use appears to be of Hebrew origin: ἐν αὐτοῖς means little more than the simple dative. In v. 20 “ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου” is plainly a phrase of time. Where it belongs it is hard to say. It is conceivable the meaning may be, “what the eye has not been able to see since the world began.” Yet it is every bit as likely that the temporal clause attaches to the words that follow. Ever since there has been a world, the eye of the thoughtful mind has been in a position to read the teachings conveyed in that Book the which ‘who runs may read.’ However νοούμενα καθορᾶται expresses rather a potentiality than an actual fact. For the bulk of men it is true, they might have known, but they did not. The evidence was plain; but they failed to read it. The writer goes further here than he did when he spoke at Athens (Acts 17:22-31). The passages should be compared. Verses 30 and 31 there suggest that the ‘revelation’ of ‘the Wrath’ may not be as I have said, a revelation of the centuries; but a revelation of the ‘now’ (compare Acts 17:30). If so, the two ἀποκαλύπτεται’s are precisely parallel. The world will be judged anon: the ‘Wrath’ will fall: but whoso has attained to ‘righteousness’ by faith will escape the impending doom. For, while a ‘wrath’ is unveiled, there is also further unveiled a way of escape from it.

We cannot pursue, in detail, all St Paul has to say about the way of human sin. But the gist of the matter is this. Unworthy conceptions of God, whose nature should have been known-and here, though much of modern thought will not find itself in sympathy everywhere with Pauline exposition, most thinking men would agree with him-unworthy conceptions of God brought in their train a series of dire consequences. The first of these is idolatry. And, as ‘the reward of a precept is a precept,’ so is the reward of error further error. Wrong thought leads on inevitably (so is the Will of God) to wrongful action. So idolatry became the fruitful mother of vice. And history is witness to the truth of what is said by the Apostolic writer. The more we know of idolatrous worship, the more we realise how hopelessly it was entangled with myriad immoralities. Prostitution and sodomy were two of its necessary consequences. Because men refused to know God (v. 28) their whole ideas of life became utterly corrupt. They were ‘delivered,’ in the Apostle’s language, to a ‘reprobate mind.’ The inevitable sequel is that catalogue of sins which occupies four whole verses. And all the time men knew that they were utterly wrong. But they were obstinate in error. Not only did they do wrong, but they also acquiesced, even cheerfully acquiesced, in the wrongdoing of others. In the whole of this dismal indictment, there are two phrases which chiefly grip the mind of the modern student and set him wondering. The first is the γνόντες τὸν Θεόν of v. 21: the other the striking statement contained in the earlier part of the verse which closes the chapter. What shall we say of them? The γνόντες τὸν Θεόν appears of the nature of a paradox. It seems indeed to state what might have been, what should have been, as if it actually were. Yet, for the mind of the ancient world, the existence of a god (or gods) was axiomatic. They ‘knew’; yet they did not ‘know.’ Had they read Nature’s book aright, St Paul implies, they must have known. That they failed to read it so, brought inevitable punishment. Yet, all the same, we are puzzled by the directness of this γνόντες. The other ‘hard saying’ I must paraphrase:

“People who, recognising God’s decree, that they who act in such ways are deserving of death, not only do the things, but go heart and soul also with them that do them.” The word “δικαίωμα” here means ‘that which one thinks right.’ In 8:4 will be found a partially similar usage. Between the ποιεῖν and the πράσσειν I doubt if it be desirable to draw any strict distinction (as is done by many commentators). It is the closing words of the sentence which make such distinction unlikely. But, what of the ἐπιγνόντες? where, when and how did they ‘recognise’ it? Perhaps we ought to conclude that St Paul is appealing here to the universal conscience. This ‘conscience’ is, for him, the revelation of the δικαίωμα of God. For them maybe it was not: but none the less it existed. Wrongdoing they knew as wrongdoing. They could not pretend they did not. And wrongdoing called for punishment; called for the retribution of death. Notwithstanding, there will never be a full realisation of sin, till the Being of God is grasped to an adequate degree.