Romans Commentary Project, chapter 2

Chapter II

1 Therefore you are without defense, O man who is judging all. For in what you judge the other, you condemn yourself, for you judging practice the same

This section turns the anapologetos (?) status onto the circumcised Jew. V.1 is the presummary statement to chapter 2, declaring the physical Jews to be under the same judgment as the idolatrous Gentiles of ch. 1. Judging (krino) is semantically related to condemning (katakrino) There is an important note to make here (to be fully explored in v.6) that the judging Jew is defenseless because of what he does, over and against what he is—a member of the Torah community. But again, I get ahead of myself.

2 And we know that God’s judgment is according to truth upon those doing these

Those doing these refers to the idolatrous Gentiles of ch.1, with Paul here affirming that that the krima (judgment) is neither arbitrary nor tyrannical, but just and true. This may seem to be an obvious conclusion about the actions of the supreme God. It is nuanced for a readership on the one hand that yearned, sang, and celebrated God’s justice throughout the Old Testament, and on the other hand to former pagans who had given up lukewarm gods who catered to the whims of those offering the best sacrifices and were themselves ultimately ruled by the Fates.

3 And you would reason this, O man judging those doing these and doing the same, since you might yourself escape God’s judgment?

Or reckon or account for logize. The tense is subjunctive, and could also be taken in the jussive sense. “Reckon up this then, O judging man!” Most important overarching point: Merely being within the ethnic boundary of Torah does not mean that one receives the justification of Torah. More to come.

4 Or of the wealth of his kindness and forbearance and of patience you despise, not knowing that God’s kindness leads you unto repentance?

Anoches is forbearance, which comes up later. I tend to translate a lot of words with the prefix “fore” when they share the often untranslated Greek prefix pro, but this is one word that doesn’t have it. This helps to preserve the sense that Paul’s language is connoting the temporal Israel story, and not a present interior spirituality. Repentance is the same word as the John the Baptist summons, metanoian.

5 And according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you treasure to yourself wrath in the day of wrath and the revelation of God’s righteous judgment.

Unrepentance (ametanoeton) in direct contrast to the summons of God’s kindness. We return to wrath and apokalupsis as part of the continued argument of Ch. 1. Day of wrath evokes, of course, much of the Old Testament prophetic language, as well as, for the early Christian church, the apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus himself, about which we have different interpretations, but I don’t think that we need to sort those out here to interpret what Paul’s talking about.

6 Which he will repay to each according to his works

See below. Apodidomi for repay, not antimisthian in ch. 1. Psalm 62, by the way.

7 To those on the one hand according to the perseverance of good work glory and honor and they will live incorruptible eternal life

One of the more startling things I’ve come to realize about justification is that in Pauls’ writings it absolutely does not include the concept of salvation. We’ve come to use the word to mean “the whole process of becoming a Christian/salvation,” but in Paul, as we’ll see throughout it means God’s pronouncement of righteousness upon the called/initiated believer. In other words, it is not the process of conversion itself, nor is it the final hope that God will judge for us an ultimate saving rescue. In other words, salvation is not by faith alone. Salvation, soteria, as is the testimony of the entire New Testament, is God’s final judgment according to the whole life lived. Neither is conversion by faith alone, which is a meaning we have collapsed into justification. This for Paul is generally kletos; calling or election. It is entirely by God’s grace, and is inextricably linked to the baptismal event whereby we die and rise with Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. What then is justification? Though it is deeply connected to these other events—a foreshadowing of the one and the consequence of the other—it is yet separate. I understand it, over and against being understood as final salvation or simple conversion, it is God’s forensic declaration of righteousness. In Paul’s context this is the expression of covenant membership, of knowing (this is related to what we might call assurance) “who’s in.” This clarified definition sorts out all of the confusion that will ensue if we insist on reading this verse at lies, and yet holding next to it all of his language about how Gentiles are justified by faith apart from Torah. In other words, the Gentiles, as the Jews, receive the euangelion in faith by God’s grace. Ultimately they will be saved by God’s favorable judgment according to their lives. But how does one know that they are, after receiving the euangelion in faith, within the covenant? The mission sent from James would have them circumcised, and they must keep kosher! No, says Paul, they are covenanted, they are declared righteous, they are justified, not by the actions/works of Torah, but by faith alone.

8 but to those by selfishisness and in disobeying the truth and confiding in injustice, wrath and rage

It reads literally, tois de ex eritheias kai apethousi te aletheia peithomenois de te adikia orge kai thumos. So, and to those by/from selfishness (genitive) and disobeying truth (dative) and confident (dative plural) injustice (dative singular) wrath and rage (nominative.) In other words, there are enough structural parts missing that there could be multiple “valid” translations, so I’m casting with the majority here.

9 Tribulation and distress, upon every soul of man having worked ill, both of the Jews first and Gentile.

Agan, ethnic Judaism does not provide protection from the revealed wrath of God, and in fact, as is spelled out later, is perhaps cause for more severe judgment, which is according to those things done.

10 But glory and honor and shalom to all working good, to the Jew first and to the Gentile.

As according to the covenant promise to Abraham in Genesis. Its interesting to read Romans 1-4 as a solution to the Adamic problem as well as the fulfillment of the covenant to Abraham; and of course the giving of the Torah at Sinai is the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham, as is ultimately the incarnation and the cross—which, of course, are ultimately the solution to the Adamic problem. Not enough time to go into any detail here, but we’ll be going through all of these throughout the book.

11 For there is no favoritism before God

Para is tricky to translate. Could also mean alongside or with. Possible reference to Deuteronomy? (Takes no bribes, shows no partiality.)

12 For those without the Torah sin, and those without Torah are lost, and those under Torah sin, and will be judged through Torah

The word anomos here is usually translated lawless in the NIV and others, but the context of the entire argument here is that Paul is referring to the Jewish law specifically, not Kant’s categorical imperative. Lost is apolontai, which can also mean perish. The very law which the Israelites are unable to keep becoming a judgement to them is fully spelled out later.

13 For the hearers of Torah are not just beside God, but the doers of Torah will be justified.

Ethnic Israel is not made just (dikaioi) or righteous, but spiritual Israel will be justified/righteousized. (dikaiothesontai) The verse works much better when you realize it’s a play on the same word. The word hearers denotes Israelites to second temple Jews in a special sense, as cowboys would designate Americans or frogs the French, because of the daily Shema prayer (Shema is Hebrew for “hear”) recited in Hebrew: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one. The Shema will actually show up in chapter 3 as part of Paul’s argument.)

14 For when the Gentiles not having the Torah by nature do those things of Torah, these not having the Torah are Torah to themselves.

Nature is again phusis here. In other words, those not having God’s revealed seal of election, when they act as God’s elect, become sealed themselves without the phusis sign—circumcision, of course.

15 These are indicated Torah’s work written in their hearts, their fellow-witnesses of conscience and among one another their accusing reasonings or even defending

A dense sentence for sure, and I’m not sure I understand Paul’s point at the end of it. This is not Paul’s only reference to inscribed commandments, as he will later contrast the inscription in the heart by the spirit with the inscription on the stone. I think the sense of the second half of the verse is that the Gentile’s consciences are fellow witnesses (in the legal sense) with their hearts of a moral compass not wholly given over to sin, as was the case of the idolatrous Gentiles shown in chapter 1. They among one another (metaxu allelon) feel the keen edge of accusing (kategorounton) and defending (apologoumenon—as earlier) reasonings or arguments. (logismon) This sensitivity to the dik, even when not wholly realized, is the evidence of their election, though not yet Paul’s justification. If anyone has a clearer interpretation I welcome it.

16 In the day when God judges men’s hidden things according to my euangelion through the Messiah Jesus

We have here a reference to the apokalupsis of the opening chapter. Things is not specified, but is just the generic article ta krupta. Keep in mind that Paul’s euangelion is not the same thing as we mean when we carelessly use the word gospel, referring to an abstract system of salvation or private religious experience. Paul’s gospel contains those things, but is primarily the pronouncement he made in chapter 1—that Jesus has been determined the Messiah and Lord by God’s mighty action of raising from the dead. This helps clarify the possessive article Paul affixes—it isn’t Paul’s euangelion because the salvation system is unique to Paul, but it is Paul’s news because it is the news (in the most headline-flashing sense of news you can think of) that Paul is running around the Mediterranean announcing. One last note on this verse: krupta doesn’t necessarily need to mean “dirty secrets.” The whole problem that Paul is addressing in this chapter and the next is that Gentile Christians are being asked to make dramatic public actions to demonstrate their covenant membership. God judging the hidden things is not an outing of everyone’s sexual imaginations (though it may include that too) but a celebration of one’s interior covenant-keeping, over and against the exterior covenant-keeping practices of keeping kosher, getting circumcised, etc.

17 And if you might name yourself Jewish and rest upon Torah and boast in God

I’ve long wished we had a better English word to use for kauchaomai, but I’m afraid that boast is still the best we have. (Vaunt and pride would be the runners-up.) In Paul’s writing kauchis (boasting) is always the opposite of tapeinos (lowliness), and it’s hard to capture the sense of elevation, rather than pure puffery. The sense remains clear though—Paul is taking the ethnic Jews to task for their presumption to the moral high ground. Torah again in the specific sense of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, food laws—those things which separate them from the Gentile dogs.

18 And you know (his) will and you discern those superior instructed by Torah

Know could also be recognize. (Ironical, of course.) The superior are the diapheronta, possibly also the worthy or worthsome.

19 And trusting yourself to be a guide of the blind, a light of those in darkness

This section is all the more striking in light of the Jewish national hopes of the 1^st century, in which the national consciousness of Israel was perpetually ready for violent revolt against the Roman oppressors from their moral high ground. The sense in which Jesus acted against that hope by refusing to be a revolutionary military figure and instead announcing that revolt against Rome would only lead to calamity upon the land and the temple is continued by Paul in this passage. Ethnic Israel is only fooling itself when it follows false Messiahs into the desert.

20 A teacher of the foolish, an instructor of infants, having the forms of knowledge and of truth in the Torah

Morphos (form) is also sometimes translated nature. The second temple Jewish claim is not to have a truth-claim which rivals that of the Pagans, but one which is as superior as a man would be to his beasts. (Hence some of the rabbinic complaints about being ruled by mere animals.)

21 Therefore you teaching the other why do you not teach yourself? You heralding not to steal why do you steal?

The next few verses are fairly straightforward. The people of Torah have committed grievous hypocrisy, and this is Paul’s polemic against it. I would guess (and it’s only a guess) that Paul aims these barbs at the Jewish state as it exists piloted by the Hasmonean dynasty, as well as against your average Joe Jew and his private behavior. But this is just a guess, based on how the very public moral failures of the Herods would have been much better known, and a much more serious count against the possibility of the Jewish “state” as it was being reckoned as morally superior to their pagan oppressors.

22 You saying to not to commit adultery, why do you commit adultery? You detesting idols why do you (commit sacrilege?)

Again, the actions of the Herods would have specific reference in this verse through the Salome and Siloam incidents and many others. (I’m afraid I don’t know nearly as much about Israel’s civil government in Paul’s generation as I do about it in Jesus’ time. Perhaps it’s time to reread some Josephus)

23 (Those) which in the Torah to boast, through the overstepping of the Torah you dishonor God

To boast in the infinitive, which doesn’t translate perfectly. Bear with me preferring crude accuracy to intelligibility. Overstepping is parabaseos, rather than hamartia, drawing attention to the way in which their having of the Torah makes their trespass the worse. Keep in mind as well that dishonoring God isn’t merely a social error, but the opposite error of Paul’s foundational humanness which honors and worships him.

24 For God’s name through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, just as it is written (Is, Ez)

Paul’s quotation here (echoing Isaiah 52 and Ezekiel 36) is very interestingly not a reference to God’s anger against Israel’s sinfulness, but a sense of shame that they’ve allowed themselves to be degraded into exile. (As was, and this is very important later, admonished to them as the great punishment at the end of Deuteronomy) The Gentiles might blaspheme God’s name because the Jews are sinful, but what’s even worse than that obvious meaning is that the Gentiles blaspheme God’s name because it looks as if he and his people have been defeated, pillaged and carried off.

25 For on the one hand circumcision profits if you might practice the Torah; but on the other if you might be an overstepper of Torah, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

Another men…de sentence. As it would mean to 1^st century Jewish ears, if you truly are the people of God, your circumcision is advantageous. (What else does practicing the Torah mean but the boundary-marker of who is and who is not God’s covenant people?) But if you overstep Torah, as did the Herods and the compromised aristocracy, and all those who are responsible for the present shameful exile, you may be physically circumcised, but you are no better than the pagan dogs. Your circumcision means nothing. Uncircumcision is very interestingly not aperitomen, as would expect from the way the language behaves every other way, but akrobustia. There’s a lot of confusion about this word. It probably means “foreskinned,” but linguists aren’t sure whether it came from Hebrew or Greek roots. (Or both.) In either case, it isn’t, like so much Pauline contrariety, a simple negating prefix.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcised might keep the Torah’s justices, will not his uncircumcision be accounted unto circumcision?

Dikaiomata. Right requirements, righteous requirements, just requirements all fine. Again, logisthesetai could also be reckoned or reasoned.

27 And the uncircumcision by nature judges himself accomplishing the Torah which through the letter and circumcision the overstepper of the law

It would be helpful to render “he” here, but akrobustia is actually a feminine noun. (Yet it means foreskin?) By nature, ek phuseos. Krinei can and most often does mean judging in a process sense, but can also mean “deliver a verdict,” which makes sense here.

28 For he is not in that shown Jewish neither is this is the shown flesh uncircumcision

Shown is phaneron, which some have paraphrased outwardly, probably the correct equivalent.

29 But he in the hidden is Jewish, and circumcision of the heart in the spirit not in the letter, whose praise not from men but from God.

In krupto, which goes nicely as inward (instead of secret), and means unable to be seen or visibly shown.

Romans Commentary project, Chapter 1

A few months ago, J's Father and I agreed to send back and forth a collaborative commentary on Romany in an effort to address some theological points at which we found ourselves in friendly disagreement. (Specifically, the modern significance of ethnic Israel, eschatology, and the apparatus of salvation.) I've hacked rather badly at some Greek here, stolen freely from N.T. Wright, and blundered through topics far too complex for me to even bother attempting. It's been great. I can't remember a project ever being so enriching. I'll post what I've come up with so far, because I'm finding that I don't have enough time to write a weekly blog entry and a weekly commentary update. I'd appreciate any comments you have to offer. (Calvin especially, please double check my Greek notes...I'd hate to find that I'm abusing my claim to the language) I need honest criticism about what follow, not because it will ever be published or lectured publicly, but so that I don't wander off into catastrophic error while terrain too difficult for me.

Romans 1

1 Paul a servant of the Messiah Jesus, called an apostle appropriated unto God’s euangelion

doulos could also be rendered slave, but though it might be a more accurate description. I’ll be using Hebraic language throughout on purpose, translating Christ “Messiah,” law “Torah,” and peace “Shalom” among others where Paul refers to a clearly Jewish concept that has survived in transliteration to us and might be vivified by that usage. It will also be a part of my interpretative case to argue that Christ, far from being some sort of surname, is both a title and in some sense incorporatative. I had half a mind to render kletos “elected” rather than “called,” but don’t want to imply the election language of the determinism debate that’s quite unrelated. It is worth noting that kletos is not called in the sense of “called by name,” but “called” in the elective sense, echoing the thread of Judaic theology as Israel being God’s “chosen” or “elected” people throughout the O.T. aphorismenos is not rendered “appropriated” against “set apart” but as a restatement of the same idea. I’ll be translating eis as “unto” throughout simply to mark it, and clarifying as needed. I’ll also transliterate euangelion and its various cognates to avoid the heavy-handedness of “gospel” and lack of a verbal form for “good news.” 

2 (the euangelion) which he forepromised through his prophets in the holy writings

Forepromised is proepengeilato, which could be stated more grammatically, but not without splitting the word. Important to note for later development that Paul insists the euangelion was exactly what the prophets did forepromise, not a surprise development unrelated to Israel’s promised eschatological hopes. The word forepromised is the prefix pro and the noun epangelion, which is enormously important in the theology of Galatians. (I think it’s developed in Romans as well, though not to the same extent. We don’t catch it in English, but euangelion (good news) and epangelion (promise) are cousins from angelos. (message, messenger) I chose to translate graphais as writings because the body of literature held holy by 1^st C. Jews would have included more than what we know as the Old Testament scriptures, including the apocrypha and several books of rabbinical writings.

3 concerning his son born from David’s seed according to the flesh

Son of God probably primarily as relates to his Messianic, not divine, identity. (Not that these are unrelated, but it’s not Paul’s agenda to demonstrate Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, rather as the promised Messiah, to which a promised appellation was son of God, but without the eventually-worked out conclusion that implied his membership in the Godhead.) Sonship from David also correct. According to the flesh is sarka, not soma, which will have to be distinguished later.

4 determined God’s son in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, the Messiah Jesus our Lord

Designated or appointed would also be appropriate translations of oristhentos, and reinforces sonship as a Messianic concept. In power (dunamei) is contrasted elsewhere by Paul as the means of demonstrating the gospel, opposed to lofty speech or sophistical wisdom. Jesus is determined the Messiah by an act, and by a mighty act (same word as the miracles of Jesus) not by private gnosis. I don’t know why Paul chose pneuma hagiosunes (spirit of holiness) and not pneuma hagion (holy spirit) and I’d welcome any insight. Presumably that’s the same agency? By means of the resurrection, which is an enormous and largely ignored theme in Romans, especially as it pertains to Jesus’ Messianic identity. Subject at the end for emphasis. This is, in the one sense, Paul’s thesis. Everything else that he says comes back to Jesus being demonstrated Messiah and kurios by the resurrection.

5 through whom we received grace and mission unto faithful obedience among all the gentiles for the sake of his name

Charin is related to grace, forgiveness, and gift. I’ll usually translate grace and mark when necessary. Mission is apostolen, a different form of apostolos. hupakoen pisteos is better as faithful obedience than the obedience of faith, and it does matter how one sets the precedent for the subjective genitive of pistis, which is later enormously important. En should be among, not to the Gentiles.

6 in which ye are even yourselves called of the Messiah Jesus

vv. 5-6 need to be read consecutively. The name of Jesus as “Messiah” has a corporate sense which includes but also means more than the denotation of the person Jesus. I believe this to be an important concept throughout the book, as it demonstrates the community of the believers in the Messiah as himself the reconstituted Israel. Called is again kletos, echoing the Jewish theology of election.

7 to all which are in Rome God’s beloved, called saints, grace to you and shalom from God our father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah.

Paul finally gets around to the destination address. It’s worth noting that if Paul had access to any form of the written synoptics or the oral tradition from which they came, he would know agapetos was a term in the gospels reserved exclusively for Jesus. If you aren’t aware, it helps to know that the adjective hagios (holy) in the plural becomes saints as a substantive noun. Eirene does mean peace, but Paul almost certainly meant the full and holistic connotations of what we mean by shalom rather than the English word “peace.”

8 First I give thanks to my God through the Messiah Jesus concerning all of you, since your faith is proclaimed in the whole cosmon

There is an untranslated particle men in vv.8 that is used in Greek to contrast two sentences when paired with de. The contrast sentence is either v. 13, with the effect, “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but I need to share with you the euangelion I’m giving everywhere else.” Or v. 12, meaning “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but here’s a spiritual gift, which is the truth I share everywhere else, etc.” The biggest question that comes out of it is, Is Paul being encouraged with the Romans, or are the Romans being encouraged together with themselves, according to the grammar? I don’t know (or remember) nearly as much as I should about the timing of Paul’s trips to Rome, but it may be important for us as we go on to determine whether Paul is addressing a church which he has met and sown personally, and what sort of tensions (if they can be drawn out) he is writing into. Specifically, whether he writing to a Gentile, Jewish, or mixed audience. I’ll probably transliterate cosmos (kosmos), which has some facility of meaning between, system, order, world, and universe. It might be helpful to know that the other options for “world” Paul chooses not to use when he writes kosmos are ge (land) and oikoumene (the inhabited world, perhaps the Roman Empire). 

 9 For my witness is God, to whom I serve in my spirit in his son’s euangelion, that I make your remembrance constantly.I’ll try to note soul/spirit/heart as well; in my spirit here is in pneumati mou, which, as far as I can tell, is the straightforward meaning of how we also would say “I serve in my spirit” i.e. our intangible will and existence. 

 10 Always in my prayers asking how already then I might be well-directed in God’s will to come to youeuodothesomai is a vague word, could also be rendered “have things go well,” “earn” or “make possible.” I chose a bulkier but more part-by-part translation. 

 11 For I yearn to see you, that I might share some spiritual gift unto your strengtheningcharisma pneumatikon is the spiritual gift; I presume the gift is “being encouraged by what’s common to our faith, which is what I preached among the gentiles, which is THESIS” I’d hear a case for the spiritual gift being something unrelated, like a mighty Pentecostal sign, but I don’t thank that accounts for the way in which the grammar of v.8 ties into the grammatical construct of v. 12 or v. 13, or both. Unto your strengthening is an articular infinitive, which has no way of being translated directly into English. (It would be something along the lines of “unto your to be strengthened.”) There are a couple different ways to address that, and there’s much debate on the best way. I don’t remember what they are at the moment, and if we come across a more significant example I’ll get off my behind and look them up.

 12 And this is to be encouraged together among you through what among each other is of your faith and mineencouraged-together is one word, sumparaklethenai, a cognate of that slippery and fascinating word parakalein, which depending on which translation you read, either means to exhort, encourage, or comfort. (This is very important in Corinthians.) I chose to translate allelois to each other instead of one another to sustain the effect that Paul is talking about something (the spiritual gift which is the euangelion) which is common, not just to whatever parties he is addressing in Rome, but also between Rome, Paul, and all others having faith. Here begins a series of te…kai constructions, which link two objects in a “both…and” sort of way, starting with “your faith” and “mine”  

13 But I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that often I forepurposed to come to you, and was hindered while going, so that I might have some fruit among you even as also among the remaining GentilesThe ou thelo humas agnoein is one of Paul’s trademarks, showing up in Corinthians and in Romans, always introducing a new concept or topic. Here I think it’s more linked to Pauls’ being debtor to the Gentiles than to his intentions of coming…we just get to his indebtedness, and hence his gospel, via his willingness to come in person. Among you as among the remaining Gentiles is another te…kai.

14 Both Hellene and Barbarian, both wise and foolish I am debtor

te…kai, te…kai. It’s worth commenting that Pauls’ unique apostleship to the Gentiles is defined in Acts, although I hardly suspect that’s new information to any of you. Also note that the statement “I am a debtor” is related to I do not wish you to be ignorant, not just a throwaway comment. Could also be translated, I am obligated.

15 Thus the willingness according to me also to you which are in Rome to euangel.

What a hideous sounding sentence. Is it so ugly it’s unclear? I hope not. We get the statement of what the euangelion is coming up, in response to Paul’s being a debtor to the Gentiles and his statement of the euangelion as righteousness by faith being the spiritual gift he wishes to impart.

16 For I am not ashamed of the euangelion, for it is God’s power unto salvation to all believing, both to the Jew and Greek

Not ashamed by the gospel or on the gospel also fine here. It’s a transitive verb with a direct object. Hopefully our reading of the rest of the text clears up the hugely important question of whether Paul intended to have this verse read with the stress of the voice on the word “salvation,” “all,” “believing,” or “both.” I hate that there’s no better way to translate believing. It is the participial form of pisteo, which is easily rendered faith everywhere else. I’ll try to note whenever pistis shows up in some form other than faith. So Paul really says to all faithing, both to the Jew and Greek. (Another te…kai)

17 For God’s righteousness in him is revealed by faith unto faith, even as is written, And he who is righteous by faith will live.

I’ll always translate (if I remember) dikaiosune theou as God’s righteousness, which gets very important in chapter 3. By faith unto faith is ek pisteos eis pistin. The quotation is from Habbakuk, in answer to Habbakuk’s questions “when will you hear cry for deliverance?” and “how is it, everlasting one, we die?” As to whether “by faith” is the agency by which the righteous lives, or denotes the sort of righteousness the righteous “one” has…no idea. Dikaios, which we’ll talk about as we go later, is also the same root for just, or justified, so two more possible translation could be And he who is justified by faith will live, or He that is justified will live by faith. Whichever way, it is Paul’s thesis, one he believes rooted in the Hebrew O.T.

18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven upon all irreverence and injustice of men holding down the truth in injustice

Revealed here is apokaluptetai, the same word as v. 17, (as in the apokalupsis, the title Revelation) and one of what I’d call the three central pillars of Jewish “theology.” (Monotheism, Election, and Apocalyptic Eschatology) It will be an ongoing project to see how these three themes are reworked in Paul’s theology of the Christian message. Injustice is adikia, and Dik is the central idea of this section. It is the dikaios that lives by faith, justification is dikaiothentes, the righteousness now being made known is dikaiosune, and here in the apocalyptic passage Paul indicts those holding down the truth in adikia. It’s extraordinarily interesting that within Christendom there are now two polarized worldviews, one which is deeply concerned with and acting for righteousness, but suspicious of the work for “justice” on the other side, and another that is deeply concerned with and acting for “justice,” but made uncomfortable by the idea of “righteousness” and not really sure what it means. (That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s an exaggeration that aptly describes the difference between Lima Christian School and Gates Presbyterian Church) In Greek these separated ideas are summed up in one word, dik, and I think that to understand Paul’s long argument we have to preserve both English meanings. God’s justice and justification are really about being made righteous, and on the other hand injustice of any sort is really an attack on the righteousness of God.

I translated katechonton “holding down,” but restraining or oppressing are also fine translations.

An important exegetical note: We mustn’t here assume that Paul is talking about the doctrine of Original Sin and begin reading that subject into the text. If we do, I contend that we will misunderstand Paul’s point in chapters two and three, and break the unity of his intended argument. This is not to say that Romans 1 doesn’t share territory with the doctrine of Original Sin; of course it does. But still, the “natural” condition of sinful humanity is not Paul’s object here. His discussion is of the volitional sin of idolatry, and how that sin is the arch-sin meriting God’s wrath and necessitating God’s righteousness through the Messiah. I think we’ll further see how this idolatry with judgement parallels the Old Testament narrative of Israel, which because of its idolatrous unfaithfulness was judged by God, ultimately into exile; the story Paul tells in chapters 2-12 is the narrative of the Messiah, likewise echoing the narrative of Israel, complete with exodus, deliverance, law-giving, and covenant. But I give too much away too soon; it suffices here to say that we mustn’t assume that Paul’s first topic is Original Sin and then his answer to it is a private religious response to that problem.

19 Because God’s knowledge is shown in them. For God showed to them

“Shown” in a very similar sense to revealed, but the word is phaneron instead of apokaluptetai, probably because apokalupsis carries with the “revelatory” meaning a theological sense of climax for Paul. I don’t know whether the best translation of the second half of this verse is “For God showed it (his knowledge) to them” or “For God showed himself to them.” There is no specifying article, so it could be either. All our earliest manuscripts would be without punctuation, so the text in its barest form would simply read that God’s knowledge is shown to them for God showed them. (There would definitely be a separation between what we have as v. 20 and v. 21, however, because of the particle gar.) The total idea of vv. 18-19 is that God’s wrath against the unjust detention of the truth can’t be avoided by pleading ignorance; then the clarification in v. 20.

20 For his unseen (things) from the cosmon’s creation by his actions have been understood clearly seen, which are both his everlasting power and deity, unto their being without defense.

The unseen things are simply ta aorata. Aorata is adjectival, and the article ta denotes something, but not particularly the word “something” or the word “those” which it alters. The sentence is less bulky in Greek. By his actions is tois poiemasin, which could also mean by his doings, by his work, or by what has been made. The verb is kathoratai, which in the original running of the sentence stands in sharper relief to aorata. (The unseen things…have been clearly seen.) Theiotes might also have the sense of divinity or “godness.” I don’t know that it’s used anywhere else in the New Testament. Without defense is anapologetous, (without apologia), which will come back several times in the epistle.

21 Because knowing (the) God not as God did they glorify or give thanks, but were stultified in their reasonings and their understandingless heart was darkened.

Here begins Paul’s explanation of the net result of their injustice/irreverence. Not only is it disobedient, but it is dehumanizing. Heart, mind, wisdom, and body—those things owed to God in Jesus’ summary of Torah-duty—are all debased by their idolatry. Keep in mind, this is not (yet) an indictment of all humanity, but of those who holding down the truth in injustice practice idolatry. I translated emataiothesan “stultified,” but the net result is “made futile.” It’s worth noting that the proper reaction to knowing God set against dehumanizing idolatry is “glorifying and giving thanks.” These are not optional spiritual disciplines, but vital functions in creational monotheism, as I think we’ll see later.

22 Alleging to be wise they became foolish

I’m interested in hearing interpretations of who these irreverent and foolish idolaters are. I’ve seen them in a category as large as “all pagan Gentiles,” and as small as “the debauched imperial cult.”

23 And they altered the glory of the incorruptible God into the likening of corruptible images of man and birds and beasts and serpents.

I can’t quite tell whether the glory is divinely incorruptible or the glory is of the quality of the incorruptible God. I’ve gone with the majority translation here, but I really need to do some research on genitives. Beasts is tetrapodon, or “four-footers.” Paul is evoking Deuteronomy 4 here, which is of course front and center in Torah.

24 Therefore God handed them over into their heart’s desires unto the uncleanliness of dishonoring their bodies among themselves

Paradoken (from paradidomi) is what Jesus always said the Jews would do to him, and then what Paul always says Jesus did to himself. It’s a theologically charged word that can also mean betrayed or delivered. Desires are epithumias, which include, but are not limited to sexual lusts. Again, Paul in criticizing them for entering unto akatharsian is making a very Jewish job of it. Akatharsis, or uncleanliness, is a violation of Torah. Paul isn’t saying this to recommend that the solution is through Torah, of course, but he is drawing deliberate parallels between the old Jewish narrative and the new Christian story. Bodies here is again, somata, not sarx, which is very important later on.

25 Which exchanged God’s truth unto a falsity and reverenced and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed unto the ages, amen.

I don’t know that that this sudden blessing is a spontaneous rabbit-trail. (I’m sure St. Paul was capable of spontaneous praise, but most of his writings seem pretty deliberate.) It’s rather the close of a section of argument premised on creational monotheism, and when the argument is closed and the next subject taken up (the dehumanizing effects of irreverence) the eulogetos, amen is summative. Unto a falsity is eis pseudei; unto a lie doesn’t quite capture the parodic sense of the word.

26 On account of this God handed them over unto passions of dishonor, for both their women exchanged natural sex unto that contrary to nature

We do not here have St. Paul choosing a group to bully at random and then castigating gays because he wants to get at all the sinners. Rather, the exchange of the natural reverence for the creator for the unnatural idolatry of the created, and the resultant corruption of will uniquely demonstrated in dehumanizing homosexuality. The last part of this verse is ten phusiken chresin eis ten para phusin. A good English language resource for the meaning of phusis (from which we get the words physical, metaphysical, physics) is the first chapter of C.S. Lewis’ Studies in Words. The Latin equivalent is natura, and natura language has been particularly useless in the homosexuality/gender arguments over the past few decades. I think it might be useful to start using phusis language to cover the same territory. For example, there’s no consensus over whether someone can be naturally gay in the same way they are naturally Caucasian, tall, or brown-eyed; but ask whether someone can be physically gay in the way that they are Caucasian, or physically tall, and they might not be quite so ready to use the same arguments by analogy. Para can also be translated “against” phusin. The bashful NIV makes chresin “intercourse,” but it’s more blunt than that.

27 And likewise the men forsaking woman’s natural sex blazed in their lust unto one another, men among men accomplishing shame and receiving the return which is necessary of their error among themselves

Or “forsaking natural sex of/with women.” The cases don’t line up very well. The word shame in this verse is distantly related to the verb in v.16, but I don’t think it’s a close enough kinship to read in any deliberate contrast. The return (antimisthian) might be repayment or wage. I don’t know enough about the history of venereal diseases to speculate on whether Paul was talking about this sort of thing (though I do know that homosexuality was deeply pervasive in late classical paganism, and Paul would not be writing about such practices in newfound shock) but I’d suggest instead that the received “return” was the subhumanizing and dulling narcosis, against which Paul has been arguing in general. I’ll here leave the door open for comments about free will and determinism without saying anything more of my own except that it seems clear to me that God permits the sinful free choices of the idolaters, permits the necessary consequences of their actions, and then justly judges them.

28 And even as they did not discern to have God in acknowledgement, God handed them over unto their corrupted mind, to do those not owed

A slippery verse. Edokimasan can mean test or account, and epignosei can mean acknowledgement, recognizement, or just plain “knowledge.” The paraphrase would be, “and just as they didn’t even think to think about God.” Handed over is again paradoken. First to the dishonorable desires, and then, having made that choice, to the corruption of the instrument by which good desires and ill arise. Those things not owed is ta me kathekonta. It’s a very rare word, and could possibly mean “not fitting,” “not proper,” or “not owed.” It is, in its bare parts, “against will.” (I think)

29 Being filled with all injustice, wickedness, greed, cowardice/vice, full of corruption, murder, strive, deceit, meanness, gossip

Not just a random vice list, but the final result of the idolatrous reverence of the created over and against the creator, with special qualification of having been given over to a corrupted mind/understanding. (noon)

30 Slandering god-hating insolent arrogant boastful schemers of evils, disobedient to parents

31 Understandingless faithless affectionless compassionless

Understandingless is the same word as earlier (asunetous), and is a play on words with the faithless, which is (asunthetous) Affectionless is astorgous; so loveless, but of that particular love storge which is family affection/duty. Aneleemonas could also be merciless.

32 Such knowing God’s judgements, that those doing such are worthy of death, not alone did they do these but approved of those doing them.

Knowing here is epignontes, as in again, recognizing or acknowledging. Out of time and Julie is hastening me out the door.

Prokofiev

When I was in graduate school my trumpet teacher told me that his favorite two composers were Bach and Prokofiev. I thought that was an odd pairing, but it makes more sense to me, at least as a trumpet player, several years later. I spent the last week playing Prokofiev 5 with the BPO, and I'm utterly taken with the piece. I already knew and loved the 4th movement (listen here), which is exciting whether attached to the previous 3 movements or not, and serves as an excellent demonstration par excellence of Prokofiev's style. The earlier movements I was unfamiliar with, except a brief passage in the 2nd movement I'd once worked on for an audition. (As it turned out, I really didn't prepare it very accurately...we played it quite differently than I'd practiced it.)

I'd listened to recordings of the earlier 3 movements before, and had even heard the Chicago Symphony play the whole work in 2005. Yet when I sat in the orchestra, the texture and pace of the work came alive. "This," I thought by Wednesday afternoon "is really incredible music!" It's the sort of music, however, that really has to be heard live. For example, the whole third movement is pure magic in a live concert hall, where there's nothing but the orchestra to look at, and every soft subtlety is hear clearly. Listening in the car or the living room you miss all of the softs and have to turn down the recording for the louds. Classical music really must be heard live! My brothers tell me that there's nothing quite like the exhilaration of a well performed live rock and roll show either, but I don't imagine that the trouble with that genre is the difficulty in appreciating the softs.

It's a very busy week for gigs in the Smith household. I'm back in Buffalo playing the 1812 Overture and other educationalish works on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday mornings, and I'm playing a quintet recital with an Eastman group on Wednesday evening at the Strong Museum. (It's a very long and very demanding program. I learned a good lesson about overprogramming about a month ago, and I may learn it again this Wednesday.) After the quintet concert I have a rehearsal with another quintet for a recital in two weeks, and then Flock of Uncles gigs on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night, and a rehearsal with a choir Saturday morning and performance on Sunday evening.

This past Saturday was a big day for us: James D Bear was baptized at Pearce Memorial Church. I still owe this blog an account of our doctrinal journey to his baptism, but not yet. There were no thoughts of controversy on Saturday, just the deeply moving experience of standing in the family of God with our own families as James by grace was entered en Christo.