04.03. LESSON 3

LESSON 3

Paul’s readiness to go to Rome is in marked contrast with Moses’ unreadiness to go to Egypt. Moses, even after his "heavenly vision" at the bush and other miracles, reluctant to undertake freeing the Hebrews from bondage, so multiplied excuses that God became angry with him: whereas Paul, "obedient unto the heavenly vision," which he saw near Damascus, asked at once, "What shall I do, Lord?" After Moses had timidly taken up the task, and after his first attempt had but increased the miseries of the slaves, how he complained against God! with his wail: "Lord, why hast thou sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath dealt ill with this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all" (Exodus 5:22-23). How does this compare with Paul’s, "I am ready?" or with his, "But thanks be to God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ?" As natural men, both Paul and Moses were very superior. The chief difference between them was in their religion—the difference between the law and the gospel. Paul was "in Christ." Inasmuch as Romans makes much of this difference further on, study of the matter is deferred until later.

"The Wrath of God"

Centuries after God had said he could "by no means clear the guilty (impenitent sinners)" (Exodus 34:7), he reaffirms his unchanging nature in the statement, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). Ungodliness and unrighteousness are terrible opposites of the two tables of the Decalogue, and of Christ’s double commandment (Love for God and love for man) upon which "The whole law hangeth and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40).

God’s wrath is no mere sentimental passion; it is his eternal, legal, judicial decree against lawlessness. It is as inherent in and as essential to his nature as is love; indeed, love and wrath are the poles of God’s holiness. Of Christ, it ’is written: "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity" (Hebrews 1:9). God abhors sin worse than a very temperamental musician abhors discord. God’s love does not violate equity; the hand that offers forgiveness must dispense justice as well. "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne" (Psalms 89:14). Without stern aspects, nothing loftier than facile good nature and guilty indifference to sin is possible. In maintaining moral order in the universe, God’s wrath is inevitable and inexorable. God’s wrath is God’s love smitten with a dreadful sorrow—his love in agony. A mother loves a good son in joy; she loves a bad son with a love that hurts. So God. He is the God of both Esau and Jacob. Goethe said that were he God, sin would break his heart. Should God clear the guilty, would not he himself break the deepest moral law? The divine love and law at the heart of the universe are stern, splendid things—deep and tragic. God is good, but he is not goody-goody. He has irrevocably decreed that "The wages of sin is death," and as long as he reigns willful sinners must pay and pay both before and after death. Were it otherwise, God would be a God, not to love and trust, but to fear and dread. May it not be said that the wrath of God is his righteousness apart from Christ?

Responsibilityof the Heathen In unfolding the philosophy of Christianity, Paul begins by showing that all men, Gentile and Jew alike, are "by nature, children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), under condemnation, "fitted unto destruction." This makes sense, for unless men are universally condemned, to provide universal salvation would be as useless as to build a great bridge where there were no river to cross.

Romans 1:18-32 concerns the responsibility, guilt and punishment of heathen Gentiles. Paul argues that visible things in nature since the creation of the world are proof of God’s invisible attributes, "even his everlasting power and divinity." Instead of this Scripture teaching that the divine unity, almighty power, and infinite goodness and faithfulness of the Creator as seen in nature are sufficient and final for all of man’s religious needs, it teaches that man, created in the likeness of God, has lying at a deeper level than his susceptibility to nature, a spiritual nature and conscience, fitted to hear God’s moral voice as is his ear to hear sound, and that, therefore, he should be thankful for, but not satisfied with, nature; and consequently follow on, ever seeking more of God’s invisible traits. If men, being what they are and seeing what they see, so constituted and so circumstanced, do not glorify and thank God, it is because they "hinder the truth in unrighteousness’ and insincerity. Truth that is not lived out honestly in the life cannot continue to live in the mind.

Man’s moral nature is the basis of all religion. His capacity for discerning God, more than any other human gift, distinguishes him from the animals. In fact, this is the only absolutely differentiating faculty, for animals, though they are not qualified for religious experience, do in a measure feel, remember, and think. Without this human endowment, men could never receive either law or gospel from God. But they are born immutably religious. The most benighted peoples of today have a. concept of a supreme deity, and of immortality; they have moral standards, which none of them profess to attain. Hence, their altars, priests, and sin offerings. Whether Paul preached to barbarians at Lystra (Acts 14:1-28), or to Greek philosophers at Athens (Acts 17:1-34), he preached primarily to their conscience, for it is God’s point of personal contact with his human creatures.

Men who refuse to acknowledge their knowledge of God, close the two eyes (worship and praise) for seeing and knowing God better, and turn their back on light to walk in their own shadow are "without excuse" for their ignorance and sin. Of course, inasmuch as fidelity to opportunity is the measure of responsibility, if they had never had any knowledge of God, their status would be different. But, if rejecting even what is revealed of God in creation and conscience does not make men inexcusably guilty, Romans 1:1-32 has no meaning. Verily, sin is not a chance, but a choice. Moreover, that God from the very first supplemented this rudimental testimony with personal instruction and communion emphasizes God’s fidelity and man’s infidelity. For one to remember that Lamech, Noah’s father, was born before Adam died makes him wonder if the flood might not have been averted by oral teaching and tradition. Nature reasons well in her domain, but in the higher domain of personal, maturing religion, she must be content to be only handmaid.

Questions