Ascension at LCS Devotions

I gave this talk this morning at LCS. As I recently told Calvus, "It's much better to be an amateur theologian, because the pay isn't any worse, and you don't have to cite your sources." In the interest of due credit, however, I owe much (most) of this to N.T. Wright and J.I. Packer. Thanks to J, Mom, Calvus, and Dad Davis for contributing edits.

The last time I presented a devotional here I spoke about Paul’s exposition of the Resurrection in I Corinthians 15, and especially about how that text ought to inform the way we think of heaven and the afterlife against the dualistic popular notion that heaven is the place where we go after we die to live in an eternal state of disembodied bliss. Having just completed the Easter season and celebrated the bodily resurrection of our Lord, with all the rich and joyful implications of that event, I thought I might talk a little this morning about the great event that followed shortly thereafter: his Ascension. The Ascension is approached in all four of the gospels, but given its fullest treatment in Acts. From Chapter 1, Verse 1, Luke writes:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, ² until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. ³  He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. ⁴ And while staying^[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; ⁵ for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized in^[b] the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” ⁶ So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time reestablish the kingdom to Israel?” ⁷ He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. ⁸ But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” ⁹ And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. ¹⁰ And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, ¹¹ and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

I have a suspicion that this passage is misunderstood in modern popular theology, not because anyone disbelieves the core points, but because they have slightly forgotten what the core points are and gone on believing other things in their absence—as has happened with the resurrection. We are just now at that time of year when everyone has been reminded of the importance of the bodily resurrection, and it all seems clear again, but after a month or two we might revert back to some muddled compromises. The central truth of the Ascension, as far as I can see, is the entrance of Jesus into heaven as King and Ruler, rather than as a departure away from earth. In short, the Ascension doesn’t mean absence, it means sovereignty. I’ll briefly talk about what this sovereignty means, how this event was anticipated in the Old Testament and by Jesus himself, and what it means for us in the present.

No Christian would dispute the claim (just as no one would dispute the claim that Jesus is raised from the dead) that Jesus is Lord. But what does that really mean? The Evangelical movement in which most of us have served has taken great care to emphasize how Jesus is Lord of our personal and individual lives. We’ve been deeply concerned, and rightly so, with bringing people to confession of personal faith that Jesus is Lord. Thanks be to God, however, that he is not merely the Lord of our private interior lives, but is also the world’s one true Lord in the cosmic and political sense. To put it another way, he is not only a religious Lord, but the Lord of all lords, and all things are subjected to and summed up in him—one need not look further than Ephesians 1 for a great summary of this high Lordship. It is sovereignty in this sense that the New Testament writers meant when they announced the gospel to the 1^st century Mediterranean world. To call someone kurios kai huios theou—the Lord and Son of God—was not to use religious language, but political, and political language that threatened the other man who laid claim to such titles: the Caesar of Rome. When the New Testament writers call Jesus Lord, they do not mean only that we owe him private obedience, but that he is in fact the world’s true king, and Caesar, or whoever else might be claiming power against him, is not. What’s this to do with the ascension? Keep in mind that the ascension was not merely an entrance into heaven, but an entrance into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God the father. If your controlling metaphor for heaven is someplace a long way off where eventually we might go to strum ethereal harps in disembodied bliss, you might mistake the ascension as a departure story—E.T. getting back into his spaceship and returning home, only with the second person of the Trinity. If however, you draw from all the biblical language portraying heaven as the control room of earth—which is as much as to say, God’s domain—then Jesus’ enthronement at the Father’s right hand is about becoming the world’s true sovereign. When he said in Matthew, all authority in heaven and on earth is given to me, he meant it! We are even given a glimpse of Jesus in his glorified state in Revelation 1—where he is described as the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Thus was the language the New Testament writers used to describe the ascension event—an event prophesied in the Old Testament and looked for by expectant 1^st century Israel. The ascension was not an afterthought to Jesus’ Messianic career, nor was it a tidy wrap-up to the gospel accounts. Rather, it was the final task of the Messiah as foretold in Daniel 7: And behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. Though there were many varieties of Messianic expectation in second temple Judaism, all camps were roughly agreed that God’s Messiah would be the one to put an end to exile, drive out the pagan oppressors, restore the true temple worship of YHWH in Jerusalem, and lastly to share YHWH’s throne ruling as the king of Israel and the world. Jesus was keenly aware of all of these Messianic vocations, which he fulfilled in unexpected ways. His ascension represented the completion of this final task, having, as was foretold in Daniel, defeated Israel’s monstrous enemies, he went upon the clouds to share God’s throne, with all authority given to him for the everlasting kingdom he proclaimed. This would not only have been looked for by the Jews of his day, but was clearly anticipated by Jesus himself. Being tried by Caiaphas, he was asked directly whether he was the Messiah, the son of God. He answered thus: You have said so, and I tell you from now on you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and going on the clouds of heaven. When asked directly whether he was the Messiah, Jesus replied to the Jewish leaders that indeed he was the son of man foretold in Daniel, the one who would defeat Israel’s enemy—by his death on the cross—and would be exalted to share the throne of the Ancient of Days, being given the everlasting power and kingdom, that Kingdom not from this world, but the Kingdom from heaven, which Jesus at the ascension received as coronation.

This brings me to my third and most important point—that Jesus’ omnipotent rule and kingdom are a present as well as a future reality. As I said earlier, the meaning of Jesus’ ascension is not absence, but sovereignty. I believe, and am willing to discuss with any interested party, that the last 150 years of popular eschatology has misunderstood this badly, though it’s not my task to address eschatological questions here. As the people of God on earth we are not called to bemoan the degradation of a world ruled by evil—we are to remind the world that it already has a King. Some here might quickly object that the world does not look as though anyone were in charge, let alone the supposed son of God. But keep in mind, it was no ordinary king who ascended to the right hand of the Father—it was the man whose kingdom looked like peasant fishermen, and whose crown was made from thorns. The Jesus of the gospels rarely ruled as the kings we know, those kings who are but a parody of his power. Rather, his kingship is through service and suffering; ultimately, through sacrifice. It is in this present reality of his Lordship that the church is to act for the world, in religious and public life. We do not fill the vacuum of his absence. Rather, we pray, work, play, and act as the subjects of the already-crowned king. We should be constantly asking ourselves, “What would it look like if God were in charge here?” For in and through Jesus, he is. Ask yourself today, “What would it look like if God ran the show at Lima Christian School? Not, keep in mind, the God of watery Deism who looks down from way up high and pulls the puppet-strings, but the God who in and through Jesus forgives prodigally and feasts and creates. Or what would it look like if our Lord ran the city of Rochester? We remind those in power who is the true Lord of the world. We take care of the poor and widowed, we reflect the creator God, and we tell stories of his exalted Messiah—the Messiah whom God raised to heaven to share his throne. His ascension does not mean absence, but sovereignty.

Let us pray. Almighty God, we thank you this morning that you have raised your son Jesus to the right hand of your throne, and him we do confess to be our Lord, he to whom all authority and power is forever given. We pray that we might be faithful stewards of his kingdom on earth, and that through our efforts and the working of the Holy Spirit that kingdom might be realized on earth as it is in heaven. Give us, O Lord, the courage and wisdom to bring Jesus’ kingdom to the world’s believing and unbelieving, and especially to our students. To you be all glory and praise forever more, our gracious God. All these we ask in the name of your son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 5

Chapter V

1 Therefore being made righteous by faith we have shalom to God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah.

v. 1-2 are an early statement of what will be fully said in 8:31-39, what would be, in musical terms, the development of Paul’s argument so far. Having established that God is faithful to his promises through the Messiah Jesus, Paul now begins to explain how the privileges which ought to have been enjoyed by Israel are now given to the people of the Messiah, through the Messiah’s re-making of the Israel story around himself. First off is the peace with God, standing against the wrath of God which is to be poured out against the ungodly earlier.

2 Through whom we also have the coming-near [in faith] unto this grace in which we stand and we boast upon the hope of God’s glory

Just as the Messiah people now have the shalom to God that should have been the privilege of God’s elect, so also they have the entrance before—prosagogen—that would have been associated with the approach to God’s dwelling in the holy temple on Mount Zion, and a portion of the hope of his glory, which was, as God’s elect, to have been the privilege of ethnic Israel. Remember that the entrance before God was not a spiritual abstraction. In temple language, God really did dwell on Mt. Zion. (At least he did in the old temple) To enter higher and further within the temple really was to approach God. That privilege, through the Messiah, is now given to the Messiah’s family—Gentiles are allowed within, regardless of their status to purification, circumcision, or Torah.

3 And not only this, but we also boast in troubles, knowing that trouble produces endurance

Paradoxically, the situation of the persecuted early Christian is to glory in his distresses, for this is how the Messiah accomplished his great victory. It was not by raising arms and striking his enemies, but by submitting to their strikes. Boast is kauchometha again.

4 And endurance character and character hope

Dokime can mean character, worth, proof, or evidence.

5 And the hope is not disgraceful, since God’s love is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us.

Kataischunei is often translate “disappoint,” but I think that Paul writes about the Christian dokime in contrast with that of pre-Messianic Judaism, which was disgraced because it had, through its disobedience, allowed itself and its God to be shamed by the pagans who had taken it and subjected it to troubles. In contrast, the people of the Messiah, looking to him as their model, expect and glory in the troubles they are given. Again, Paul is not writing in abstract spiritualisms when he talks about God’s love in the Holy Spirit—it is as concrete as the glory which once filled the temple, but now is indwelt within the Christian heart.

6 For the Messiah with our yet being weak at the right time for the sake of the ungodly died

Ungodly (asebon) might also be irreverent? If vv. 1-5 are a preview of ch. 5-8, vv. 6-11 are a sort of recap of the letter so far. Paul restates the propitiatory death of the Messiah for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely will anyone die for the sake of the just. For concerning a good man someone might dare even to die

I’ve always wondered (and I can’t find any footnotes to see if anyone else has followed this up) if Paul is quoting from another source here. He breaks the line of his argument, and the sentence just doesn’t quite sound Pauline. But I have no real evidence for this. It just doesn’t sound quite right. Dik language again.

8 But God demonstrated his love unto us, that with our yet being sinners the Messiah died for our sake.

Though we (the Messiah people) were not worth saving, the Messiah made God’s rescue by sacrificing himself to suffering and death. Keep the verse within the context of the argument before and after. (Although, of course, it is one of the key verses of whatever atonement theology ought to be drawn out of the New Testament.)

9 Therefore much more being justified now in his blood we are saved through him from wrath

Justified is again dikaiothentes, which ought to be read as a shorthand way of saying “given covenant membership.” The problem of God’s just wrath in ch. 1 is addressed by the sacrifice—which is somehow a temple sacrifice—of Jesus.

10 For if being enemies we are reconciled to God through the death of his son, how much more being reconciled will we be saved in his life?

Reconciliation here and throughout is katellagemen, which could also be read as “being put into friendship” but comes from a term from the reconcilement of an estranged man and wife. Here is powerful resurrection language—as the cross has accomplished covenant membership through sacrifice, so also will Jesus’ victory over death be translated into our final salvation. (Note, this is a future salvation)

11 And not only this, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah through whom now we receive reconciliation.

Parallels v. 3, concluding the expository section.

12 On account of this just as through one man sin entered unto the world and through sin Death, even thus unto all men Death spread over, upon which all sinned.

Paul now begins to retell the whole Israel story, starting with Adam and the problem of sin. Adam is the type of the Messiah, but everywhere he has failed Jesus has conquered. Spread over is dielthen, which also could mean passed through.

13 For before Torah sin was in the world, but sin was not charged with the Torah not being

A complex sentence grammatically. Basically it means that there was Sin before there was the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and though the penalty was paid for Sin (Death), sin could not be charged in the same way. (I’ll get a little ahead of Paul’s argument and say that the giving of Torah served as a warning against sin but also as a stumbling block by which Israel and the world would be convicted.)

14 But Death ruled from Adam until Moses and upon those not sinning upon the likeness of the overstepping of Adam who is the type of the intended one

Without sin, Death held dominion. (ebasileusen, was king.) Overstepping is again parabasis. Adam is the typos—model, figure, example--of the intended one, who is the Messiah.

15 But not as sin, thus even the gift. For if by one all die in sin, how much more the grace of God and the gift in grace of the one man the Messiah Jesus unto all abounds

The original word order makes less sense. The meaning is, “but the gift of the Messiah is not as the sin of Adam.” The Messiah not only counteracts, but does more than Adam, for the gift abounds. (or overflows)

16 And not as through one sinning the gift. For indeed the judgment from one sin unto condemnation, but the grace from many sins unto justification

The first part of the verse (all the references to one, one, one are comparing to Adam to the Messiah) says that the gift is not as the sin of the one sinning. Though it was but by one sin from the one first sinner that death/condemnation came, the gift can and does cover many sins. Dik language implying covenant again.

17 For if by one in sin Death ruled through the one, how much more those the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification receiving in life will rule through the one Jesus the Messiah.

Death did rule the world through the one sin of Adam, but we will rule the world in Death’s place through the gift and justification of the Messiah.

18 Therefore then as through one sin unto all men unto condemnation, thus even through one righteousness unto all men unto justification and life.

Righteousness and justification, here as always, cognate through dik.

19 For just as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, thus even through the obedience of one many will be made justified

Many are entered into the covenant by the obedience (which elsewhere, Paul calls faith) of the one man, in contrast to the disobedience of Adam. Will be made might also be translated “proved” in a legal sense, continuing Paul’s courtroom metaphors.

20 And the Torah arrived, that Sin might abound. But where Sin abounded, Grace overabounded.

Paul doesn’t leave us hanging with this mysterious statement that Torah came and Sin abounded—this will be the task of ch. 7-9 to explain. But please do read as “Torah came, with the result that Sin abounded.” Abounded (epleonasen) becomes overabounded (upereperisseuesen)

21 That just as Sin ruled in death, thus even Grace might rule through justification unto eternal life through the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Where Sin had dominion (ebasileuisen) now Grace has dominion unto the covenant justification, and ultimately eternal life (the victory over death) through the Messiah.

For Men Only, by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn

I suppose the best preliminary question is not whether this particular book is any good, but whether it's even possible to write a good book--at least one that isn't mealy sentiment and common nonsense--about one gender to another. Whatever might be generally true of enough women that someone might dare to write it down, is astonishingly false about some other woman somewhere. Writing about the genders is like writing about America. Whatever you say is true, the opposite is true somewhere else. Confusing this further, there are several truisms about women espoused in For Men Only that might be vaguely correct about American women between the ages of 26 and 49, but are certainly not at all descriptive of African women, or Victorian women.

With all that said, For Men Only doesn't come off quite as poorly as you'd expect. It's biggest flaw actually turns out to be the underlying assumption that a happy marriage is one in which the husband and wife keep up the constant sensation of "being in love" for as long and as powerfully as possible. Being in love, of course, and enjoying that love in romantic and sexual fulfillment, is quite pleasant. It is not, however, helpful for very long in building a successful marriage, or in understanding, so far as such a thing can be done, what a woman is. 

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 4

Chapter IV

1 Therefore shall we say Abraham to be found our forefather according to the flesh?

There is some controversy as to the proper translation of this verse. The ESV asks whether anything was gained by Abraham (ti oun eroumen heurekenai), the NIV what he discovered, and the KJV what he found. These are all grammatically sound translations within the context of one verse, but I contend (via Hays, Wright) that the proper way to translate it in the context of the preceding chapter an argument to read Abraham (which is indeclinable in Greek) as the direct object of heurekenai, thus asking whether we find Abraham to be our physical father, not whether Abraham himself finds something. Vv. 4:1-12 then are not a temporary digression to indulge in Lutheran theology via some proof-texts from the Old Testament. (It helps, by the way, to re-read Genesis 15 before going through these verses). Rather, Paul is continuing to show how God kept his covenant promises to Abraham through Jesus to be the father of the covenant people. Therefore, the implied answer to Paul’s question is v. 1 is not “Yes, and here’s what Abraham found.” Instead, it is “no, but according to grace, so the promise might be valid for all.”

2 For if Abraham by works was justified, he has a boast, but not to God

Again, the answer to the question posed in v.1 is “no.” Abraham was not justified—did not receive his covenant membership—by works of Torah, since he was uncircumcised when he received the covenant. V. 3 makes more sense as a premise in this sort of argument than in proof text of Abraham’s salvation apart from the Categorical Imperative.

3 For what does the scripture say? And Abraham believed/was faithful to God, and it was accounted to him unto righteousness

Here Paul is explaining Genesis 15, not citing it. Episteusen de Abraam to Theo kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen. Read: It was not by works of Torah that Abraham became the head of the covenant family. Not: Abraham received salvation by belief instead of a successful moral effort.

4 But to him working the wage is not accounted according to grace but according to what is owed

Paul continues the logize language (accounted in the previous verse) in this metaphor of a worker being reckoned or accounted his wage. The meaning of this verse in the reading I’m proposing is that, “clearly you Gentiles are members of the covenant family by grace, as was Abraham your father according to grace…this is very much unlike the demand of covenant membership as a recompense for the physical works you’d done, as would be the case if you made Abraham your father according to the flesh by undergoing circumcision and whatnot.” What is owed is opheilema, also obligation or due.

5 And to him not working but believing/trusting upon him justifying the irreverent his faith is accounted unto righteousness

To him (the Gentile covenant member) not taking on ethnic Judaism as the covenant demarcation but instead believing in the God who raised the Messiah from the dead, he receives covenant membership by grace through his faith/trust/belief. Pistis and dik language continue throughout.

6 And even as David said of the man which God accounts righteousness without works

As if evidence from Abraham wasn’t enough, Paul cites another Jewish central figure to draw from God’s historically faithful plan. (Ps 32) This looks a bit more like proof-texting, but it is a proof-text in support of Paul’s statement about Abraham and the covenant people according to grace.

7 Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered

Lawlessnesses are anomiai, also iniquities or misdeeds in some translations. Blessed are those Gentiles being forgiven for their sins even though they don’t have Torah.

8 Blessed is the man who the Lord will not account sin.

Continue logizomai language throughout.

9 Therefore is this blessing upon the circumcised or the uncircumcised? For we say Faith was accounted to Abraham unto righteousness

The blessing (taking the form of Ps. 1 or Jesus’ beatitude, a fairly concrete and moveable concept in Judaic theology) which David has been referring to is intended for the uncircumcised Gentiles. Note carefully here that Abraham was uncircumcised at the time of the covenant and his faith being reckoned unto righteousness…hence his being father of the covenant Gentiles according to grace, the covenant to which his God has been faithful. If v. 2-8 are an answer of “no” to the question in v.1 because of dikaiosune through grace, vv. 9-12 are another “no” because of Abraham’s own uncircumcision.

10 How therefore was he reckoned? In being circumcised or uncircumcised? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision

Or what was the manner of his reckoning? I think that the syntax here expresses (with the participle onti) a concept of time, but I’m not comfortable enough in my ability to translate it to say that it should be the absolute and undoubted proper rendering. If I’m right, though, it should say? How was it accounted? Was it before or after he was circumcised? It was not after he was circumcised, but before. The rougher translation I’ve left up carries the same idea but with less temporal definition.

11 And the sign he received of circumcision the seal of righteousness of faith in uncircumcision unto his being the father of all believing through uncircumcision, unto accounting the righteousness also to them

While Abraham was uncircumcised he received faith’s righteousness, and circumcision functioned as a seal of that. I don’t have the time or energy to do an exhaustive study of Paul’s use of the “seal” concept right now, but it would be a very interesting project for someone who does. Therefore (here’s the QED tying back into v.1) Abraham is the father of us who receive covenant membership/justification/dikaiosune not being circumcised.

12 And the father of those of circumcision from circumcision alone but even which are walking in the footsteps of the uncircumcision of faith of our father Abraham.

And he is the father according to the flesh of the circumcised, providing that they are not only circumcised but walk in the same faithfulness of the uncircumcised and circumcised Abraham. And there’s your answer to the question in v.1.

13 For not through Torah was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, this to be the inheritance of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.

Now that the question in 4:1 is satisfactorily answered, we come back to the problem that Paul began to address in chapter 3 and foreshadowed in chapter 1. (How would God be faithful to his promises to Israel?) Promise here is again epangelia. In using the language of inheritance (kleronomon) Paul evokes the inheritance language of Israel (that of the promised land) to be reshaped through the Messiah—in the fulfilled covenant people the inheritance is not merely Israel, but the whole world, as we shall see later. And this inheritance comes not through the keeping of Torah, but through pisteos, the only demarcating requirement of covenant membership in God’s Messiah.

14 For if there are heirs by the Torah, faith is emptied and the promise is nullified

Emptied is kekenotai and nullified is katergetai. Kekenotai can also mean “made meaningless,” and katergetai is the same word as earlier. In addition to the following verse (the Torah as the vehicle of judgment against Israel) Paul’s premise here carries an unspoken statement about the heirs by Torah. Clearly a sinful and arrogant people, embarrassing their God by being overtaken by pagan Gentiles, can’t be the mode in which God is keeping this great promise to Abraham? Paul will give a full and compassionate picture of ethnic Judaism as it lay in his time later on, but it’s important to note the implicit premise in this argument as well as the explicit one stated next.

15 For the Torah accomplishes wrath. But where there is no Torah neither is there overstepping.

By taking on the symbols and praxis of Torah, the children of Abraham according to the flesh received God’s oracles but also his judgment because of their unfaithfulness. Where there are not works of Torah, however, there is not the obvious external failures of the Jews (referenced in ch. 2) or the interior impossibility of upright law-keeping (see Paul on coveting later.) Overstepping is again parabasis.

16 On account of this by faith, that according to grace, unto the promise being reliable to all the seed, not to those from Torah alone but also to him by Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all.

One of the most complicated sentences I’ve ever seen. It has neither a subject nor a verb in the original language! Perhaps Paul omits them out of reverence? It certainly is the perfect summary statement of the preceding section. Not by faith, but grace, unto the reliability of the promise to those children of Abraham by faith. Reliability is bebaian, cognate with confirmed, sturdy, or weighty. (Foundational.)

17 Even as it is written I have established thee the father of many nations, before the God he believed life-giving the dead and calling those not being as being.

Nations in Greek (and Hebrew) is the same word usually translated Gentiles. (ethnon, or goyim) Paul, when he speaks of God’s faithfulness to Abraham, deliberately begins to invoke his creative and life-giving/making (same word which he uses to describe resurrection in Philippians, I think) attributes. There’s no good way to translate the second part of the verse and preserve the word order of the original. The God in whom Abraham believed, who is the creator of life and makes things ex nihilo, is the sense of it.

18 Which against hope upon hope he believed unto his being the father of many nations according to that said Thus shall be thy seed

Or as we might say in English, “hoping against hope.” Paul quotes only part of v.15, the other part of course being God’s demonstration that Abraham’s descendants shall be as numerous as the stars. He lives this to be remembered by the reader.

19 And not being weak in faith he considered his own body already deadened, almost being one hundred years old, and the deadness of the womb of Sarah.

Considered is katenoesen—basically means realized or perceived. Again, note that Paul tells the story of God bringing something from unexpectedly from death to life, against all hope, by faith, to the fulfillment of his promise.

20 But unto God’s promise he did not doubt in unfaithfulness but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God

The glory to God bit isn’t a throwaway—rather the appropriate and perfectly natural response to God’s goodness in faith, as in ch.1. Unfaithfulness is apistia, unbelief would be an acceptable translation also, but not in the sense of apostasy, of course. Strengthened is actually “enstrengthened.”

21 And having been assured that he promised is able also to do

Not quite sure the best way to translate plerophretheis. Often it’s rendered fulfilled, but the sense here could mean “assured” or “accomplished.” Basic sense, Abraham trusted that God would do what he promised.

22 Therefore [even] it was accounted to him unto righteousness

Back to the theme of God’s accounting (elogisthe) Abraham righteousness—within covenant membership, as the example of our being accounted to righteousness.

23 And it is not written on account of him alone that it be accounted him

This almost sounds like the part of the discussion where someone explains what the practical application is. But of course, for Paul, it was always God’s purpose through Abraham to bless the whole world. Now he does that.

24 But also on account of us, to whom it was intended to be accounted, to those faithful upon the raising of Jesus our Lord from the dead

Just as God brought death to life in Abraham, thus is Jesus, and to those faithful (faithing) in him the same sentence of the accounting of righteousness applies.

25 Who was handed over for the sake of our sins and was raised for the sake of our righting

Paraptomata, not hamartia, for sins.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 3

Chapter III

1 Therefore what is better of the Jew or what is the profit of circumcision?

This is a dense and confusing section, and I’ll plainly admit I’m not sure I wholly understand Paul’s language. Structurally, it’s clearly a related separate argument to the preceding polemic against the arrogant ethnic Jew, but why is it necessary to include this bit before vv. 9-20? The first few times I read through vv.1-8 I was reading them in the context of Paul’s initial question, What is the advantage of being Jewish? Yet he only gives one reason for this advantage (they were entrusted with God’s oracles) and then goes off talking about something else. I think what Paul’s really getting at in these 8 verses is not about the status of Jewishness, but more a defense of God. This serves to accent God’s faithfulness against Israel’s unfaithfulness in the present context, and anticipates the questions about the covenant that come up in later chapters. (Why would a faithful God make a covenant with a hopeless people doomed from its inception?) If this were true, God would be something like those banks that gave out absurd mortgages to the ill-qualified and unemployed—it would be a slur on his character as well as theirs. Paul will argue later that this covenant has been kept faithful by God and by Israel in the person of the Messiah, by his reconstitution of Israel, Israel itself. But writing to some recently converted ex-pagans, perhaps it makes sense here that Paul would need to shift gears from his polemic against the Jews and reaffirm the transcendent faithfulness of the one God.

2 Much according to every way. [For] first on the one hand since they were entrusted God's oracles

Oracles is logia, a cognate with logos (word, reason, argument, a dozen other meanings) yet used only. Logia is used only twice else in the N.T., once in 1 Peter, and once in Acts where Stephen, in his Jewish-history speech, mentions logia brought down from Mt. Sinai. The meaning here (presumably God’s authoritative revelations to his chosen people) isn’t as obvious to me as Paul presumes it is to his audience, nor is it spelled out why this is advantage of Judaism and circumcision. (Or rather, I think I understand why this is a marvelous advantage, but I don’t understand why Paul doesn’t spell it out fully) Entrusted is episteuthesan, which could also mean enfaithed, cognate with pistis (faith) which remains the central topic of this section. (God’s pistis.) Note that sometimes we translate belief instead of faith, but this is a section where the flavor of the word is savoring much more of loyalty than of mental assent. This becomes very important when we start to talk about whether pistis Christou means faith in the Messiah or the Messiah’s faithfulness.

3 For what? If some were unfaithful, surely not does their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?

Here the metaphor of the irresponsible mortgage-lender (I’m rather proud of that, I think it was apt) seems to be what Paul is getting at. What does it say about God if he entrusted these oracles to an unfaithful people? If he’s God, shouldn’t he know better? If some were unfaithful is ei epistesan (long eta, from the lengthened alpha, from apistos), which could also mean if certain ones were unfaithful. Nullify is katargesei, as in when Jesus denies that he has come to nullify (render ineffective, empty of power) the Torah.

4 May it not be! But let God be true, and every man false, even as it is written That you might be justified in thy words and you might be victorious in thy judging (being judged)

Again, Paul’s famous me genoito. Whatever you would say about men, let God be true/faithful. Note that the Psalm quotation here is from the famous Create in me a clean heart (Ps. 51) and that the following verses tie in to original sin (I was conceived in iniquity) where—finally—we arrive after the initial caution I gave in Ch. 1. The second half of the psalm quotation could also read you might conquer (nikeseis) instead of “be victorious” and since being judged is a dative articular infinitive with the pronoun, could conceivably refer to an acquittal/right judgment on God himself. (I’d need to look up the articular infinitive rules before I made a case for that) This section is one of the central tangles of Romans. God is faithful to his promise, but Israel’s unfaithfulness will demonstrate God’s faithfulness all the more not only because it is God’s character, but God will have his promise kept by Israel through the Messiah.

5 But if our injustice demonstrates God's righteousness, what will we say? Surely not that God is unjust which pronounces (his) wrath? I speak according to man

Back to adikia—dikaiosune language. Paul plays the fool in his “speaking according to man.” Also back to the apokalupsis language of chapter 1, where Paul states that this judgment is taking place in the now.

6 May it not be! Since how would God judge the cosmon?
God’s judgment is at least partially in a positive sense, envisioning, from the Judaic vision of the God keeping his promises to Israel by dealing with evil, the putting to rights of the oppressed and his just ordering and return to the temple. (But of course this can’t happen if you would prevent the judgment, favorable and unfavorable, from coming)

7 But if God's truth in my falsehood abounds unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
I think, though I’d hear arguments to the contrary, that Paul is speaking as ethnic Israel here, not as the Gentile. Presumably he’s at least still tied into his question in v.1, and this makes something of a return to the idea. How am I a Jew, though being God’s elect and contributing to his glory, given the unfavorable judgment.

8 And not as we are blasphemed and as some say us to say that "Let us do evils, that the good might come?" Their judgment is just

A dense verse. The first part should be read parenthetically. Paul is saying that someone else is saying that he is saying that they ought to do evil to the increase of God’s glory. It is the blasphemer’s judgment which is just. (Endikon) Interesting that this same absurd heresy has come up several times in Christian history; God will forgive us, and it glorifies God to forgive us, so let’s give him more to forgive.

9 What, therefore? Are we advantaged? Not by all means. For we Jews and Hellenes are both fore-accused all to be under sin

Best evidence that 7 is meant to be read as Paul as the representative Jew. (Important to note that he does so here, because I’ll give this example as evidence for a later instance.) The we applies to both Jews and Hellenes, and is the first person plural in the verbal form, not a pronoun. Fore-accused could also be fore-charged.

10 Even as it is written that There is none just, not even one

And finally, we get to the explicit statement of Original Sin, but via Paul’s intended background of Gentile idolatry, Jewish disobedience to Torah, and God’s faithfulness/righteous judgment. V. 10 is a reworking of Psalm 14, going backwards from Ps. 14-3 (there is none who does good, not even one) and then going to v. 2, where the Psalm asks a question (The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God) The same idea is recapitulated in Psalm 53.

11 There is none understanding, there is none seeking out God

I’d read seeking out (ekzeton) more broadly than some of our Evangelical “seeker” language. That isn’t to say that it doesn’t matter that people need to search for God’s will and truth in prayer, but in a first century context it probably has more to do with questions of covenant membership and faithfulness qua covenant people than individual private holiness. (Though of course, private holiness is a characteristic of the covenant people)

12 All have turned away together they are become worthless, there is not one doing kindness, [there is not] as many as one

From Ps. 14-3 and 53-3. I don’t know what the Septuagint reads for v. 3. Not sure whether chrestoteta should be goodness or kindness; perhaps either? Clasically it should be kindness, but it looks like most of my Koine sources agree it is goodness in the N.T. and LXX. (I did look it up in the LXX, and it’s chrestoteta.) Achreo properly worthless, but with the sense of corruption or spoilage. Some manuscripts don’t have the last “there is not.”

13 Their throat is an opened grave, with their tongues they have been deceitful

Psalm 5-9, and of course a very dire insult given the uncleanliness of the dead in both the Jewish and Pagan cultures. Deceitful in the sense of making snares, ambushes, tricks. “They are founts of uncleanliness and they trap others as well.” Jesus used some of these same ideas in his critique of the Pharisees in Matt. 21 (?)

14 Whose tongue of curses and bitterness is full

Tongue/mouth are interchangeable meanings of stoma. This is not a separate bunny trail off of Paul’s definition of Original Sin, these are identifying characteristics. Whereas the holy and human image bearing man responds to the world in obedient worship, not electively, but as a consequent response, the image-defaced and sin ruled are v.11 stupid, looking in the wrong direction v. 12 emptied of their value v. 13 unclean and contagiously so, v. 14 brimming over with the opposite of “natural” blessing, thankfulness and worship—curses and bitterness. Ps. 10-7

15 Their feet being swift to shed blood

From the Isaianic discourse on iniquity. C. 59, primarily focused on injustice.

16 Ruin and misery are in their ways

Again, this is not a side road from the definition of Original Sin, but the essence of it—it heads straight for destruction.

17 And the way of shalom they do not know

An appropriate spot for the more robust Jewish vision of “peace” than the contemporary nation states truces.

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Or against their eyes. Ps. 36-1

19 And we know that what the Torah says it says to those under Torah, that every tongue might be silent and the whole cosmon might be answerable to God

Answerable is another dik-root word, hupodikos, or under-judgment/justice to God. I think that vv. 19-20 belong partitioned with 21 and following, not with 9-18, but most Bibles make the break before v. 21 for a more dramatic effect. (Very easy to understand why!) We return here from the discussion of Original Sin in general to the problem of ethnic demarcation by works of Torah. Now that Paul has established universal guilt, he is prepared to show how God has kept his covenant and made his judgment of righteousness—justification—possible.

20 Therefore by works of Torah all flesh will not be justified before him, for through the Torah the recognizement of sin.

Paul comes back to the recognizement of sin part later, and there’s a deep story about Mt. Sinai and the law coming down into sin that we get when he gives it its full treatment. But this is just the first statement. The point is that keeping kosher and getting circumcised aren’t enough to deal with the Adamic problem, the problem of Original Sin.

21 But now without Torah God’s righteousness is shown witnessed by the Torah and the prophets.

I think it’s the NIV that here translates “but now a new way of being made righteousness apart from the law is being made known.” This passage is not, as that translation would suggest, the exposition of a system of salvation. It is the continuation of Paul’s argument about God’s dikaiosune and the first century circumcision controversy. It would be wrong to read into this passage “here’s how Paul tells us how to get saved—not by works.” Rather, the questions of belief, conversion, and baptism having been settled, Paul is telling the Roman church that God has found a way—through Jesus, in the next verse—to open up the forensic judgment of his righteousness to those without the works of Torah, just as was foretold in the Torah in the Abrahamic covenant and reiterated in the prophets. This verse is a continuation (as becomes obvious in v.27) of Paul’s question of whether or not the physical Jew has a boast over the Torah-less Gentile.

22 And God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of the Messiah Jesus unto all believing. For there is no distinction.

Again, the NIV here mistranslates pisteos Iesou Christou as faith in Jesus Christ/Messiah by reading a soteriological statement into it when the syntax demands that Iesou Christou be the subjective genitive—the faithfulness of Jesus Christ/Messiah. In other words, it was the faithful work of the Messiah—trustworthy, and loyal to YHWH as Israel’s representative when Israel herself was disloyal, idolatrous, exiled, and mocked—that procures the favorable judgment of God’s righteousness for the covenant people, of which the sign of membership is belief in him. There is no distinction in that belief, no seal of the flesh, ethnic boundary, or ritual. I cannot stress how important this distinction is. It may seem like splitting hairs, but we will misread the whole rest of the book if we insist that Paul is talking about us having faith in Jesus when he means to talk about Jesus’ faithfulness in his Messianic role…and God’s faithfulness to the covenant through him.

23 For all have sinned and are fallen short of God’s glory

Quod erat demonstratum, vv. 9-18, tying together ch. 1 contra Gentiles and ch. 2 contra Jews. Husterontai (fall short) could also be lack or are in need of. The Jews do not start from the position of teachers or instructors because they possess physical covenant membership. They too are under original sin, and have not “lived up” to Torah.

24 Being justified the gift of his grace through the deliverance in the Messiah Jesus

There is a tense change from usterontai (aorist) to dikaioumenoi (present) which most translators have marked with the word “now.” Again, justified here does not mean “got converted” or “got saved.” Rather, they received God’s favorable judgment or righteousness and covenant membership without the deeds of Torah by the gift of his grace. Apolotroseos (apolutrosis in the nominative) would have for the 1^st century Jew the immediate connotation of deliverance from Egypt. It came through Greek as a slave market word, and was the classic Septuagint term to describe God’s deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt…unto his covenant. En Christo here is an example of Paul’s incorporatative use of the word Christos. It could just as easily read “in Jesus’ Messiah-ship.”

25 Which God forepurposed a hilasterion through [the] faith in his blood unto the demonstration of his righteousness through the overlooking of forehappened sins

An incredible verse. There is some question whether hilasterion (originally, mercy-seat) refers to an expiation (forgiveness of a sin) or propitiation (appeasement of wrath). I don’t have the time or expertise to undertake a full lexical investigation, but I’d cast my pebble with propitiation, which would of course include the expiative force as well. This would tie in again to the whole apocalyptic key of Paul’s writing from 1.18 through the present point in the argument. God’s wrath is being revealed…but here is the propitiation of that wrath. It’s also unclear whether the faith in his blood is our faith, or Jesus’ faith/faithfulness. Unlike v.22, there isn’t a clear grammatical clue. For that reason I’m leaving it ambiguous in my translation, though I’d lean towards the precedent in 22. Forehappened is a crude literalisation of progegonoton, but “sins already committed” would be perfectly fine. First reference to the cross is in this verse.

26 In God’s forbearance, for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, unto his being just and justifying him faithful in Jesus.

Note the “old” covenant in Paul’s theology always did look to the present time. The pronouns are difficult to express clearly in the latter half of the verse, but they express God’s being just (dikaion) and doing the justifying (dikaiounta) of the person (just an article) who is faithful/has faith/believes in Jesus—the exact same pisteos construction as v.22, but expressing a different harmonic idea (to borrow a musical analogy) by the change in syntax to the objective genitive.

27 Where therefore boasting? It is excluded. By what of Torah? Of works? No, but rather through the Law of faith.

As you see, Paul has his argument in 2:17 while he writes this full exposition of the new dikaiosune, and it is to that question, not the question of “how does one get saved” that he addresses the argument. Excluded is exekleisthe, literally “locked out.” By what of Torah (dia poiou nomou) could come out as by what part or sort of Torah? Of the works part? But even if you translate the first instance Torah, the second needs to be Law…a Torah of Faith instead of a Torah of circumcision, etc.

28 For we are accounted to be a man justified by faith apart from works of Torah.

Apart or without. Accounted is logizometha again. Justified as earlier.

29 Or is God of the Jews alone? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles.

Sets up v. 30, which is the shema.

30 Since God is one which justifies the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” Monotheism and Torah, two of the Jewish theological foundations are reworked here in 27-31. Using the words heis ho theos evokes the prayer quite as quickly as the words “I pledge allegiance” or “Our Father which art” or the “Lord is My Shepherd” bring their next lines to us. I’m not going to attempt an exposition of why Paul uses ek for the circumcision and dia for the uncircumcision. We’ll say he was just going for variety.

31 Therefore is the Torah nullified through faith? May it not be! Rather we stand the Torah.

Stand is histanomen, which is a very facile word. Could just as easily be uphold or confirm. Nullified is the same word as earlier, katargoumen. The Torah is not emptied of its power, the Torah is fulfilled.

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.