Lonang Commentary on Romans 1

Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.

Paul, An Apostle

Here Paul, as he often does in his epistles, makes a claim to be an apostle. Not as an official or leader of any specific church congregation, but as an apostle of the universal Church, the body of Christ. He clarifies this claim in Gal. 1:1 – “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Very few people today are willing to make such a claim. Paul was not a seminary graduate, at least, he was never formally trained by men in a school for Christians or church leaders, but was only ever trained by men to be a Jewish Pharisee.

Nor, as Galatians later reveals, was Paul ever ordained, commissioned or licensed as an apostle by any man or group of men. How different from today, where in the vast majority of churches and ministries, you cannot become a run-of-the-mill minister of the gospel – much less an apostle – unless you have been trained by other clergy and/or been ordained, commissioned or licensed by other clergy. Not, as Paul said, “not from men nor through man,” but trained, approved and authorized by other men. However, Paul would have none of that. How curious. I hesitate to think what it might mean for the world of full-time Christian ministry if everyone who claims to be an apostle did so on the same basis as Paul, that is, on the basis of their own self-declaration.

But the only reason I even raise the possibility, is that I view apostles as people who have a very limited authority to perform a certain task, but whose positions carry no authority to rule over others. That is, being an apostle puts no one in charge of any people or organizations, nor most certainly, the spiritual bride of Christ. The excesses which flow from so-called new apostolic reforms all trace back to people ascribing authority to the office of apostle that never really did apply to anyone in the past, and certainly don’t apply to anyone now. However, I’ll come back to this question regarding apostolic authority shortly.

How Are Apostles Chosen?

If self-declaration isn’t the way apostles are called, what is the proper method of calling? After searching the scriptures thoroughly, I have found no verse anywhere in the New Testament saying, suggesting, hinting or implying that people who are called by God to serve in the Church should submit themselves for training beforehand. Nor, that such training is best when formalized and standardized, or that the only people fit to serve in full-time church ministry are those who have a college and/or seminary degree, and have been tested and approved by others who minister in the church. Not one verse.

Nor, indeed, that any of the spiritual gifts and offices bestowed by the Holy Spirit are based on any set of qualifications whatsoever. It is exactly opposite of the situation with respect to elders and deacons, which have very specific qualifications listed. And the difference is, elders and deacons are chosen by men, not God. A person can aspire to the office of elder. No one can choose, or aspire, to receive a certain spiritual gift or office, because those are bestowed by God in His divine discretion. The things God bestows, and the things men choose, are not to be intermingled, or the distinctions between them blurred.

Thus, formal education and such things are man invented, not God ordained. God does not need to be told who we think is qualified to minister in His Church. The question is whether the current system of formal education and ordination is the system God designed, that He intended we should adopt, or that He approves us to use in our liberty? If your argument in support of the status quo is church tradition, then I would challenge you to find something actually authoritative in support instead.

Of course, there is another system’ indicated in scripture. When the initial eleven apostles decided it would be good to name a replacement for Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, they limited their choices to “men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us.” Acts 1:21-22. Many people take this to mean these verses in Acts state a rule that any true apostle in the body of Christ must fit this definition.

Thus, when the people of that generation had fully died out by 100 A.D. or so, there would have been no more apostles, nor could there be any new ones after that, who would have walked with Jesus before His death. Paul, who himself in fact did not walk with Jesus before His death, is often considered an exception, since he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:3-5. Although, merely encountering a resurrected Jesus is not the same as walking with Jesus before His death, so this is hardly sufficient to make Paul an apostle. However, since his claim to be an apostle is stated several times in scripture, well, perhaps he is a special case.

Yet, there is a problem. The problem is not whether there is adequate justification to regard Paul as a legitimate apostle. The problem is not whether the eleven were entitled to find a replacement. The problem is the interpretational method used to manufacture – out of thin air – rules, exceptions and qualification which are never once proclaimed to be such by God, or the text. Just because so-and-so (the eleven apostles) did such-and-such (named a twelfth apostle) at a particular time and place, and they prayed about it and had confidence in the Lord they made the right choice, doesn’t mean the Lord was laying down a rule for all Christians to follow for eternity, forever and ever, amen.

Let us assume, arguendo, the eleven apostles were genuinely guided by the Holy Spirit and the Lord approved of what they did. So what? That is simply not how rules are made – not even by God. And God knows how to make rules – usually, by saying “this shall be a statute to be observed by your generations forever” – which rules are part of a covenant of laws. But when the initial eleven apostles chose Matthias: 1) there were no words of legislation or lawmaking; and 2) the apostles were not acting under any covenant of laws. The Lord is not going to skip steps, treat the Church like Israel, or engage in rulemaking by mere implication. If there are no express words of rulemaking, then there is no rule.

As for Paul, there is no evidence anywhere in scripture I can find that he is an exception to any so-called rule about who can be an apostle. The only evidence we have, if one wants to consider the evidence, is that Paul merely claimed to be an apostle. That’s it. And Paul’s status as an apostle was distinct from Matthias in two key respects: 1) Paul did not walk with Jesus before He died; and 2) whereas Matthias was chosen by men, Paul clearly was not. In fact, when Paul was called by God, he made it a point to avoid seeking out the eleven’ for their approval. Gal. 1:16-17.

And then there’s the fact Paul refers to himself, Silvanus and Timothy, collectively, as “apostles of Christ.” 1 Th. 2:6. I’m not aware either Silvanus or Timothy walked with Jesus, were selected by the original eleven, or had a Damascus road type of experience. By what rule – or set of criteria – were Silvanus and Timothy made apostles? All we know for sure is that none is stated in scripture. Which leads me to believe there was no rule. For how can we define that which is unknown?

Perhaps you believe that because the eleven cast lots, that means Matthias was chosen by God, and not men. Allow me to suggest (playfully, I might add) that if it was good for them then, it is good for us now. And I’m just rolling with it here, as a possibility – that if choosing apostles by lots is the way to go, maybe it holds true for evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers as well. I mean, why not? Is this God’s methodology, or isn’t it? I suppose we could always consult the Urim and the Thummim as an alternative. Ezr 2:63. Or, to update things a bit, let anyone who would be an apostle or pastor, etc. choose a number between 2 and 12, then roll the dice to see if God agrees, and let that always be the rule which controls the outcome.

Yes, of course I’m being facetious, but it’s to make a point. I suggest there never was, in fact, a rule stated by Peter that governed the selection of apostles ever after. Nor any rule that no apostles would arise after the initial generation of them died off. Otherwise, there would be no reason for Paul to say, long after Christ’s resurrection and Paul’s conversion, that the Lord was still giving apostles “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” Eph. 4:11-13. Nor would he have occasion to say nearly the same thing again in 1 Cor. 12:28. Both these verses indicate apostles are very much involved in the ongoing work of the Church right up to the present.

Instead of grafting Paul into the framework of the original twelve (including Matthias), perhaps Paul is actually the model for all later apostles instead of the framework used for Matthias. It’s not like merely graduating from a school is evidence of God’s selection, is it? Is that the way God reveals His will? No one can be called by God unless they have a college degree? Well, hey – if it was good enough for Noah, Daniel and Job, then it’s good enough for me.

The Authority of an Apostle

But, what is an apostle, anyway? I suggest that an apostle is merely someone who plants, or starts, new churches – for that is most certainly what Paul did in his ministry. And as far as I can tell, that is pretty much what all of the initial apostles first chosen by Jesus did – they started churches. As for the authority of an apostle, each apostle has the exact same authority as any other member of the Church to carry out the Great Commission, which necessarily includes the authority to start new churches. Which means, effectively, that any and every Christian can start a church – it requires no special dispensation of grace. It’s just that some people are called to make a career of this, as it were. But that doesn’t mean they have any special authority given to them by God.

Apostles are simply ordinary believers who start new churches, find righteous men to lead them, and then leave that church to start another. They don’t stick around being the big man in charge in an ecclesiastical hierarchy. And Lord help us, they don’t sit at the top of any so-called shepherding pyramid by which they distribute authority down to other pastors. They are not vested with any extraordinary powers to heal, perform miracles, or write scripture. People make the mistake of thinking that because God did some extraordinary things through the apostles in the early Church, there must have been something special about the individuals themselves, or of the apostolic office. There wasn’t, and there isn’t.

Just because the initial eleven apostles were the only ones to hear the Great Commission first spoken (Mat. 28:16), does not mean the authority Christ granted to the Church flowed through them. Sure, when they heard it, they told others about it, and so on, but that doesn’t mean God appointed them as mediators between Christ and the rest of His body to carry out its terms. There is no mediator in the Church except Jesus Himself. 1 Tim. 2:5. And ever since the book of Matthew was written, certainly, knowledge of the Great Commission no longer depended on word of mouth or any human transmission system (except perhaps the invention of the printing press).

Most importantly, Christ never put the apostles – not the first eleven, not Paul, not any of them – in charge of the worldwide Church. It never was within the authority of any apostles to govern the Church, to rule over other believers, to set rules or policies for the Church, or to have any special power to receive extra-biblical revelation straight from God. Such concepts are mere myths and fabrications. God never gave the Church any internal governing structure, nor any internal hierarchy of authority (see below). All Christians, regardless of office, gift or title, have equal authority with each other before God. This will all be made clear as we go through the rest of Romans.

Paul, Not A Lawgiver

Now to complete my thoughts regarding verse 1, I think it important to note what Paul did not claim for himself, here in Romans or in any of his other letters. First, Paul never claimed to be a pastor. Which strikes me as somewhat odd that Paul is the author of three so-called pastoral epistles, especially since not one of them ever uses the words pastor or shepherd, not even once. Second, Paul never claimed to be a legislator or lawgiver. Paul is not the N.T. equivalent of Moses.

The universal or spiritual Church, as such, has no legislature. The body of Christ has no king, no judiciary, and no lawgivers. The Lord is King of the earth, and He was and will be again king of Israel. But then, Israel was and is a nation – and the Church never was or will be a nation. When Jesus returns, He will be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and rule over the whole earth in a literal kingdom. But now, Jesus is in heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father, where He is waiting to receive His kingdom. Lk. 19:12. His kingdom is not yet of this world. Jn. 18:36. He has been granted a kingdom, but is not yet in possession of it. Rev. 11:15 has not yet happened. (“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”)

Therefore the Church, governmentally speaking, only has a head (Christ) and a body consisting of all believers in equal relation to each other. While the Church has various offices and ministries, gifts and callings, the Lord never put anyone in charge of the Church, humanly speaking. The holy Church has no governmental structure, because it is quintessentially a body, not a kingdom or a nation. The kingdom is not yet. None of the offices, ministries, gifts or callings of the Church are ever put in any kind of hierarchy or authority structure. No one has been given the authority to rule over others by God, nor has anyone been given the authority to make rules for other believers to follow.

All authority structures in the Church on earth are entirely 100% man-made. All of the rules and regulations observed by churches are entirely 100% man-made. All sacraments and so-called ordinances of the Church are essentially authorized, but optional and discretionary on the part of every individual believer. None of them are mandated or made a law. Most especially, there are no ceremonial laws of the Church – not from God, anyway. It is my conviction that there are, in fact, no new laws in the New Testament whatsoever. There are some rules occasionally stated in the N.T., but these are merely restating the Jewish law or the laws of nature.

Judaism was all about lawkeeping, remember? But for the Church, we are under grace, and not law, right? Paul said (twice) that “all things are lawful.” 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23. It amazes me how Christians freely quote these verses when it suits them, but then immediately rush to find new obligations for believers that have the effect of merely swapping out an old set of laws and regulations for a new set of laws and regulations. When here I thought that the whole purpose of the gospel was to bring liberty and free us from religious laws. Jesus was sent to bring liberty, not bondage. Lk. 4:18.

If I ever get around to writing a commentary on 1 Corinthians, it will give me a chance to point out many of the verses commonly cited (wrongly) as imposing a rule of behavior on Christians. But for the present purpose, let me merely note that Paul never claimed to be a legislator for the Church, so neither will I read him as performing that function. Bible teachers commonly take the view that most of scripture is to be read prescriptively (that is, as prescribing rules), and not merely descriptively (stating what happened). Or, as philosophers would say, that scripture is normative – not merely describing what is, but what ought to be.

Therefore, I flip the presumption. Yes, there are occasions when rules are prescribed or observed, but for the most part I read scripture descriptively. Rulemaking is the exception, not the, er, rule. For God is the great Lawgiver (Isa. 33:22), yet when He acts in that capacity, He comes right out and says so, usually with words to the effect of, “It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.” You can look up the many references in the O.T. yourself. But these words, or any like them, are never used in the N.T. They simply aren’t there – for there is no need for them to be there. The Church is under grace, not law, after all.

Although scripture often interprets itself, scripture nowhere says that it is to be read prescriptively. And no, neither 2 Tim. 3:16 (scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction), nor 2 Cor. 10:5 (we take every thought captive to obey Christ) stand for such a proposition. Just because scripture can correct wrong ideas and falsehoods, does not mean all things (or even most things) in scripture are expressed as a rule of behavior. Sometimes people say to me, “How can you believe that? Don’t you think the scripture is inspired?” Of course scripture is inspired – that’s not the point. The point is inspiration does not equal legislation. Just because God is speaking authoritatively, does not mean He is speaking legislatively (making a legal rule).

Laws (or “rules,” take your pick) do not arise by implication. Laws do not arise from a change in circumstances. Laws do not arise from something someone once did as an “approved example” described in scripture, such as when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek. Laws are enacted by a legislature, or issued by a lawgiver, promulgated by the organs of government as a law in so many words. Law making words never appear in the N.T., nor does the Church have any legislature or other organs of government, therefore there are no new laws in the N.T. Yes, it really is that simple. And it’s a law – the law of legislation. You’ve heard it said that creation necessitates a Creator – well, legislation (a law or rule) necessitates a Lawgiver or legislature. You can’t get around it.

Apparently, people think that just because scripture is involved, the process by which God makes laws is different from the way people make laws. It isn’t. The whole process by which humans make laws is essentially borrowed from the way God does things, and then people following His example. That is, in part, what it means for people to be made in God’s image – we follow after His example. Perhaps if we never had the Old Testament, but only had the N.T., one could speculate as to how God makes laws. But with the O.T. in hand, there is no excuse for not understanding that even God uses a legislative process to make laws.

Rom. 1:2-3 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Jesus, Descended from David

Verse 3 brings to mind Mt. 1:1-17, which recites the genealogy of Jesus “the son of David,” as traced through “Joseph the husband of Mary.” This genealogy establishes the right of Jesus to rule the nation of Israel as the heir of David, so it is pretty darn important. And by Paul’s reference to it here, he considers it to be pretty important as well. Except that Joseph was really not the father of Jesus in a biological sense, which throws a wrinkle in the statement here in Romans that Jesus was descended from David “according to the flesh.”

This conundrum is reiterated in Lk. 3:23, being part of (presumably) the lineage of Jesus through his mother Mary, where it states that Jesus was “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.” The genealogy in Luke is presumed to be Mary’s because although she was also descended from David, this genealogy flows through David’s son Nathan, not the royal line flowing through Solomon as in Matthew. Nathan was never king, and no rights to the throne of Israel flow through him.

It’s not that complicated a matter to deal with, but it does turn on a point of law. Namely, the law of adoption. We will have ample opportunity to examine this law in detail later, but for now let me cut to the chase. Of necessity, Jesus was adopted by Joseph. As such, He became Joseph’s heir, and since Joseph was descended from David through Solomon, then so was Jesus. This is true regardless of Mary’s lineage, because for purposes of the throne of Israel, her ancestry doesn’t count. Nor do the ancestries of the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ namely, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (“the wife of Uriah”).

Imagine, if you will, that the Matthew genealogy was defective and insufficient to establish Jesus’ claim to the throne of David. This would be extremely important, as well. And that is exactly the result we should expect – if the right to rule is to be inherited pursuant to the law of genetics, i.e., 50-50 from the father and the mother. Why? Because these four women in the lineage were not Jewish. If the law of genetics is controlling here, Jesus has a real problem.

The scripture does not indicate the nationality of Tamar, but in any event we can be fairly certain she was not Jewish. Why? Because Jews were descendants of the sons of Israel (i.e., Jacob). Tamar, the concubine of Judah, was undoubtedly neither a child or a sister of Judah or any of his brothers, as the sons of Jacob were themselves still in the process of having the first generation of descendants from Jacob. Tamar may have been a remote descendant of Abraham though one of his sons other than Isaac, but at least she was not an Israelite.

Rahab’s ethnic identity is not identified either, but since she was not a part of the Israelite nation which had escaped from Egypt and undergone 40 years of testing in the Sinai, she could not have been Jewish. Most likely she was a Canaanite, since Jericho (where she resided with her father’s household) was located in Canaan. And Canaanites were descendants of Ham, not Shem (of the sons of Noah).

Ruth is specifically identified in scripture as a Moabite (Ru. 1:4), or a member of the nation of Moab, who were descendants of Moab the grandson of Lot (Abraham’s nephew). Thus, she was not a Jew or a descendant of Abraham. Bathsheba’s ancestry is uncertain – the only thing we know for sure is that she married Uriah, a Hittite, not very likely for a Jewish girl, but possible.

But here is the point: none of that matters. In reckoning this lineage, the ethnicity of the mother never enters into the equation. It would not have mattered if every single wife and mother from Abraham down to Jesus was a non-Jew. As long as each male in the lineage was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then the lineage of Jesus as a descendant of Abraham and David is intact due to the operation of the law of inheritance.

Let me suggest that there is such a thing as the law of the nature of inheritance, which is to say, there is a law of inheritance which is part of the law of nature. In biology, the law of genetics is such that each human child takes equally from both parents, one of which must be male, and the other which must be female. However, according to the law of inheritance, each child takes solely from the father and the mother is disregarded. So while genetics says a child takes from his parents 50-50, for purposes of inheritance a child takes 100% from the father and 0% from the mother. Thus the difference between science and law. And as for inheritance, law controls, not science.

This is why all the genealogies in the Bible, not just in the N.T. but also the O.T., are father to son only. See, Gen. 5:1-32; 10:1-32; and the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles, etc. It is why the daughters of Zelophehad could not inherit directly, but were required to marry men from their father’s tribe, who were the ones who actually inherited. Num 27:1-7; 36:2-11. It is why the nation of Israel is defined as the sons of Israel. Exo. 1:1 and many others. It is why all the numbering of people in scripture counted the men only. Num. 1:1-3; Mat. 14:21.

If this were not the case, i.e., the law of inheritance is not what I say it is, then the lineage of Jesus would be tainted or polluted by the presence of non-Israelite women in the genealogy. If, on the other hand, the lineage is untainted, then it must be because the ethnicity of the women is always to be disregarded as irrelevant. And if that is true, it strongly suggests that for all purposes with which the Matthew genealogy is concerned, only the fathers are important in determining the character and quality of that inheritance which is passed to the next generation.

Rom. 1:4 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

Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God

Verse 4 recalls Ps. 2:7, “The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” And also Acts 13:32-33, “what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'”

In other words, verse 4 indicates that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God” at the time of His resurrection. Not merely the Son of God from eternity past (though He was that), and not merely the Son of God as was declared at his birth (though He was that, too). But a new declaration, a special declaration, having some special significance.

So in verse 4, we have mention of Christ’s resurrection, and in Ps. 2:7 we have mention of Christ as the begotten Son of God. But Acts brings the two together, linking the resurrection of Jesus with His status as a begotten Son of God. In other words, the resurrection is what made Jesus the only begotten son of God, such that begotten means resurrected. Hence, since Jesus is the only one who has been resurrected so far, (1 Cor. 15:20; Rev. 1:5), He is the only begotten Son of God.

I think it’s shame that nearly all modern Bible translations have abandoned the Textus Receptus as the underlying text to translate into English – the version used to generate the King James Version. I don’t use the KJV myself except for comparison purposes on occasion, but I must say I miss the uses of only begotten Son in John and Revelation, especially, that are found in the KJV but not much elsewhere. I still can’t quote Jn 3:16 without saying only begotten Son.

[Skip Rom. 1:5-15.]

Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

To The Jew First, Then To The Greek

Here Paul states the purpose for writing this letter to the Romans, namely, to explain the gospel of salvation to every one who believes. This is merely an introductory statement which will be developed in detail later. But initially, I merely note that Paul’s statement about salvation in Christ is a declaration that it is nothing remotely similar to being Jewish, following the Jewish laws, or offering sacrifices in the Jewish temple. Salvation in Christ is about faith and belief, not physical ancestry, temples and priesthoods, or ceremonial laws.

Paul states that the saving power of God is given “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” For while the Jews had faith modeled for them in the examples of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as recounted in Heb. 11), Paul is not here saying that faith was or is an intrinsic part of being Jewish. Having faith was neither built into the Mosaic covenant, nor did having faith include or exclude anyone from participation in that covenant. This is the first of several verses where Paul mentions Jews and Greeks (sometimes translated as Gentiles). But in fact the whole book of Romans is a contrast and comparison between God’s revelations to the Jews and what He has revealed to the Gentiles (i.e., Greeks), so this is a major theme of the entire book.

Now this phrase is to be understood in four primary senses: 1) historical sequences; 2) conceptual differences; 3) in Paul’s specific case; and 4) that the Jews will be a significant means by which the Gentiles are eventually reached.

As to historical sequences, the blessings and promises made by God to Abraham in particular were fulfilled first in his physical descendants (the Jews), and only subsequently to his spiritual descendants among the Gentiles. The Jews were a covenant people (that is, in covenant relation with God) 1,500 years before the Gentiles were able to participate in the Church covenant. Similarly, the Aaronic priesthood of the Jews ministered before God 1,500 years before Christ became the high priest on behalf of the Gentiles. The Jews experienced persecution via the diaspora long before Christians were persecuted as martyrs.

Jesus made it quite plain that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e., Jews) in Mat. 15:24, and He warned his disciples to do the same in Mat. 10:5-6. There was no outreach to the Gentiles prior to the ascension of Jesus. The entire book of Acts is essentially the story of how the gospel spread from “Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth,” which completely follows the pattern of Jew first, then the Greek (i.e., all Gentiles). So in all these ways, the Jews came before the Greeks sequentially.

The conceptual aspects of this phrase center around the fact that the scriptures were placed into the hands of the Jews as the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) long before the Gentiles. Thus, while all people had the benefit of the laws of nature (the lex non scripta or unwritten laws of God), the Jews were the first to receive the laws of nature’s God, or God’s laws in written form. By this I refer not merely to the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Jewish laws, but also the book of Genesis, containing the Adamic and Noahic covenants which applied to all nations.

Certainly, after people scattered around the earth following the dispersion from the Tower of Babel, most of them would have had oral traditions and knowledge passed down to them through the generations, some of which they would eventually put into their own writings. But none of them had the holy scriptures – divinely inspired writings – except for the Jews. So for many years, none but the Jews had the laws of nature’s God even as to God’s universal covenants (Adam and Noah).

And for Paul, this is an idea he takes to heart quite personally, as he explains in Ch. 15. For he, as a Jew, received the mystery of the gospel which he then delivered to the Gentiles. This mystery was not revealed to the Jewish people in general, but only to Paul as an individual Jew. The knowledge Paul thus received went beyond anything Jesus preached as He was telling the Jews about the kingdom of heaven. And Paul, as a Jew, was the initial means by which the gospel spread to the Gentiles, illustrating the fourth sense of Jew first, then Greek. More on this when we get to ch. 15.

Rom. 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

From Faith To Faith

This is quoted from the ESV – both the KJV and NASB translate the phrase as “from faith to faith.” In other words, Paul is going to compare and contrast two kinds of faith which, by outward appearance look different, but upon analysis prove to be the same, or to the same effect.

The phrase “The righteous shall live by faith” is quoted from Hab. 2:4, but is an obvious reference also to Abraham, who believed in the Lord; and God credited it to him as righteousness. Gen. 15:6. Here we must acknowledge that the faith of Abraham, which is a model of faith for all who believe in the gospel unto salvation, never did consist of a knowledge of Paul’s gospel as described in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

For one thing, Abraham had never heard the name of Jesus or knew the identity of the Christ or Messiah. For another, none of the events of Christ’s life, death, burial and resurrection had happened yet, and there is no indication in scripture that these things were miraculously revealed to Abraham 2,000 years beforehand. Even if they had, there is no reason to think he would have believed it, for when Jesus tried to tell His disciples these things would happen shortly, they could not understand it (Mk. 9:32), and they were literally walking with Him. Besides which, according to Paul, his gospel was hidden for ages and generations (Col. 1:25-26), meaning that God absolutely did not tell Abraham about such things.

So whatever faith Abraham had, it was not a faith in Paul’s gospel – even though it was a faith in the same God. Nor was it a faith in the Mosaic law, which had not yet been given. It was a faith, strictly speaking, which most likely sprang from the laws of nature. Which sets up a discussion Paul will carry through the rest of Romans comparing and contrasting these two faiths. Now, don’t get all panicky – everything will be explained and reconciled, and the integrity of the gospel will be maintained. But we’ll get there when we get there. First, Paul is going to set the stage, or the basis upon which his unfolding analysis will rest.

Rom. 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The Creation Speaks Wrath for Everyone

Paul, in keeping with his goals statement in v. 16, to preach the gospel as the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first must lay a foundation. He wants to show the universal need for salvation, before jumping into what salvation looks like. He is building on the foundation laid in Psalm 19, which extolled the virtues of God’s laws as expressed in the creation in non-verbal form, but which did not enumerate any specific laws. Paul, however, is going to get specific.

Paul recognizes what many people over the centuries, including many Christians, have denied. Namely, that nature a/k/a the creation is not neutral but has a moral quality to it. This doesn’t mean God is part of creation for He is above and apart from it, nor does it mean that any part of nature (animals, for instance) are moral actors which can commit sin. It merely means that the creation reflects the will of Him who made all things, and by its nature certain facts about God and certain laws of human behavior are constantly on display. In other words, creations speaks to more than merely scientific “laws” of chemistry, physics, mechanics, etc., but also speaks of spiritual and behavioral things. Nature is not a moral actor, but it is a broadcast system for God, telling all of God’s creatures (including people) about Him.

Paul is writing from the standpoint that none of what he is about to say is new information or a novel idea. These things are, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, self-evident truths. Thus, the invisible attributes of God have clearly been shown in nature since the creation of the world. Adam and Eve knew them, all the patriarchs knew them, and nothing has happened in all of world history – either before Paul’s time or since – to change this situation. So that even right now, the situation is exactly the same. The Fall, the Flood, the coming of Christ, the Church Age, the giving of the scriptures – none of these things have altered the creation, nature, or the information (laws and facts) they convey, since the beginning.

I am so wonderfully thankful Paul bothered to tell us these things in so many words, because if he had not, people would be perhaps justified in being skeptical that nature speaks in this way. But now, thanks to Romans, such skeptics have no excuse either. Yet I hasten to add that these things Paul said are not true simply because he said them, or because they are included somewhere in the Bible. They would be every bit as much true, authoritative and binding as if Paul had never said a thing. It is the fact we exist in a world made by God, that makes them true.

The truths revealed in creation include the fact that God exists, He is the Creator of all things, and there is only one God. The law of nature also reveal all ungodliness and unrighteousness – in other words, the basic principles of morality and a knowledge of what things are immoral according to God. And, importantly, that all immorality is subject to God’s wrath. This revelation – this knowledge – is baked into the universe so that it is impossible not to see it whether one looks for it or not. Only by refusing to look will a person not see it. But that changes nothing as to their accountability.

Everyone, and I mean everyone – no matter where or to whom they are born, and no matter in what condition they are born, whether blind, deaf and dumb, whether with Down’s syndrome, or some mental incapacity or physical infirmity – everyone is without excuse. There are no exceptions. Not even for infants who have not reached any supposed “age of accountability.” This is the nature of the world God has made, and in which all people live. It cannot and will not be changed, until such time as God destroys the current heaven and earth, and creates new ones from scratch. Rev. 21:1.

Which brings me to a little observation about evangelism. People do not refuse Christ as Savior for a lack of knowledge or opportunity. Rather, even knowing the truth, they will choose to refuse Christ anyway, and prefer to be eternally lawless. As Paul says, people suppress the truth. They are not, from God’s perspective, ignorant. Let us not treat people, from a ministerial perspective, as though they are merely ignorant. People will not instantly accept Christ merely because finally, at last!, someone has told them the gospel. It is universal human nature that people will deny and suppress the truth. This is the rule, not the exception.

Now Paul, at this point, is only focusing on the negative – ungodliness and unrighteousness, which only has one result, namely, wrath (condemnation, death, etc.). But remember the context – he is laying a foundation of universal sin, that will create the need for a remedy, that is, salvation in Christ. He is not, I must stress, saying that nature has nothing positive, hopeful, or salvific to say. He is merely reserving that subject for later. Now let’s look at some of the specific laws Paul notes that people can observe in nature.

Rom. 1:21-23 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The Big Three Sins: First, Idolatry

In the history of the world, there have been three major categories of sinful behavior, namely, idolatry (and/or false gods), sexual immorality, and violence. And it is a universal truth, that where you find one of these, the other two will also be present. First up are God’s laws regarding the worship of God and the abhorrence of idolatry, the worship of all false gods, and atheism.

Even though Paul notes that all men know of God’s existence through what has been made, this knowledge does not save them. It puts no one in a right relationship with God. It is merely a starting point, which should spur people to make further inquiry so they can experience true fellowship with the Lord. Which is why, when people swear an oath in court or for some other purpose of civil government, merely saying, “So help me God” is not a religious statement. It signifies nothing about that person’s standing before God. Acknowledging God’s existence is merely observing a natural fact that everyone can plainly see.

On the other hand, failing to recognize the existence of the Creator God leads to all kinds of negative results: futile thinking, foolishness and darkened hearts. All of which ultimately lead to people putting faith in created things rather than the Creator, that is, idolatry and false gods. I know it is a view not everyone shares, but I am convinced that in scripture idolatry, as such, only ever refers to the worship of an actual physical image, or statue. The worship of power, fame, money and similar things are more properly regarded as false gods.

Here I make two observations regarding the Ten Commandments. First, if Paul is correct here in Rom. 1, then the first two of the Ten Commandments were neither revealed nor originated for the first time at Mt. Sinai, but were (like what Paul is doing) merely verbalizing what the laws of nature revealed from the very beginning. In other words, not new information, new commandments, or new obligations. Merely newly put into verbal form for clarification purposes. Better to have it in writing, than to leave it to everyone’s self interpretation of nature.

Second, this is exactly why the first two commandments are two, rather than one. The first commandment prohibits all false gods. The second commandment prohibits idolatry. Both are to the same effect, as I see it – “I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Exo. 20:5-6. “Therefore you are great, O LORD God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.” 2 Sam. 7:22.

And both prohibitions against false gods and idolatry are revealed in nature to the same extent. You can even read Rom. 1:21 as referring to false gods, and Rom. 1:23 to idolatry. In fact, all of the Ten Commandments, I suggest, are laws of nature merely put into verbal form for the first time. Which is why the Decalogue is commonly seen as a universal moral standard for all people, even though it was initially given only to the Jews and served as their national constitution. In a sense, what Paul is doing here is saying that the first two commandments at Sinai apply to all people, for they are revealed by nature.

Rom. 1:24-27 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. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Second, Sexual Immorality

In making the statements, after discussing false gods and idolatry, that therefore God gave them over to impurity, and for this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions, Paul is establishing a definitive link between idolatry and immorality. Essentially, that the first leads directly to the second.

Paul singles out homosexual acts and practices, between both women and men, for special mention. But in fact the laws of nature of immorality include all forms of sexual immorality, debauchery and depravity. And, without a doubt, this knowledge is among those things disclosed by nature to all people, for which everyone is held accountable, and no one is excused. Which is why, in the old statute books in America before 1950, at the state level, the crime of homosexuality was commonly referred to as “the crime against nature.” The common assumption in America for over 300 years was that civil governments were obligated by the laws of nature to punish such immorality as a crime, and not treat it as any sort of victimless nonsense or a lifestyle choice.

This is amply corroborated by Lev. 18:6-23, which describes at length the various forms of sexual immorality as counted by God Himself, namely, incest, lewdness, menstrual sex, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. These last two offenses are referred to as an abomination and perversion, respectively. For most of American history, people would never mention these offenses by name in polite company or in public, because they were too awful to consider.

Then the Lord makes this remarkable statement in Lev. 18:24-25: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” What makes this statement remarkable is that it is made respecting Gentile nations, particularly the Egyptians and Canaanites, who had not been given any of God’s verbal or written laws. Thus, God held the people of Canaan accountable for laws of immorality strictly on the basis of their being revealed in the creation, i.e., the laws of nature.

Which completely agrees with Rom. 1:24-27, that these are God’s laws for human behavior for all people, in all places, for all time. Paul notes that people who do these things will receive in themselves the due penalty for their error. What are those due penalties? I can’t help but think that all sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), and perhaps AIDS to some degree, can be regarded as the due penalty for immorality. And of course, death – both physical and spiritual, by which I mean the second death, or eternal separation from God.

But what should concern all of us is the due penalty mentioned in Lev. 18 – making the land so unclean that it vomits out its inhabitants. The land will not merely vomit out sexual offenders, but in fact everyone who dwells in the land, for they allowed the offenders to commit their foul acts without being punished, and may have even encouraged them to do so as mentioned in Rom. 1:32. What it meant for the Canaanites to be “vomited” out of the land is the same thing it means today: conquest by war, dispossession by enemies, and death.

This terminology in Lev. 18 – that it is the land which vomits out its inhabitants, not God – may strike you as odd. But it is consistent with the context here in Romans, where Paul is talking about the laws of nature and the creation. It presages a topic we will look at in more detail later, namely, the law of the land. The law of the land is a mechanism God has established by which the physical environment is linked to the sinfulness of the inhabitants of the land. But for Paul, the suggestion is that such things are the natural consequences of lawlessness and rebellion against God, meaning that for him as well, the physical and spiritual are linked together.

What this bodes for America is not good – the more we weaken or fail to enforce laws against immorality, the more we as a nation are making ourselves vulnerable to dispossession of our own land, and conquest by our enemies. Sexual crimes are for this reason never “victimless.” The uncleanness of the land can never be removed except by a judgment visited on all the land’s inhabitants. God may defer judgment for a time, but the debt always comes due eventually. The righteous will not be exempt – they will suffer right alongside everyone else, because they failed to enforce God’s laws. If God ever decides to take such actions against the people of America, He will have good cause, and cannot be faulted. We have all been warned. No one is excused.

Rom. 1:28-32 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. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Third, Violence, et al.

In completing his trifecta of categories of sin, Paul then lists a wide variety of offenses everyone does know, or should know, are contrary to the laws of God, including of course that most violent of offenses, murder. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive. He does not specifically list kidnaping or rape, for example, but their inclusion is fairly implied. And since child sacrifice was listed among the offenses in Lev. 18 applicable to all nations, a prohibition of abortion may be implied as well. Violence, in particular, was a fundamental reason why God imposed the great flood. Gen. 6:11.

But interestingly, Paul’s list also includes a number of offenses which are not crimes – such as coveting, envy, gossiping, insolence, haughtiness (or pride), boasting, foolishness, and being faithless. These things we regard as moral wrongs only, wrong in God’s courts but not man’s, things like anger, lust and hate, which God alone enforces. See the last half of Mt. 5.

Yet, Paul notes these moral only offenses are enough to make people deserving of death, every bit as much as criminal behavior. In a sense, you might say there are no little sins. As it says in Jas 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Not merely with regard to the laws of Moses, but the entire law of nature. And by including these moral only’ offenses which do not rise to the level of crimes, but which are still enough to condemn everyone to death, Paul again makes it clear that nature is not morally neutral.

He is not saying that God’s presence is to be found in natural things that He has made, merely that all things He has made are subject to His laws, and reflect His will. For if God is capable of making inanimate things conform to His physical laws, why would He be incapable of making them reflect His laws of morality? Thus, by the laws of nature, every person stands condemned by God for violating His universal moral law. This is the foundation Paul has laid for everything else that follows.