< Romans ' Understanding the Gospel: Justified by Faith
(March 26, 2020 version)
Paul generally had met or started all of the churches he wrote to except the Roman church. Paul undoubtedly knew a few individuals, but Paul had never been to Rome. Ultimately Paul wrote Romans because God wanted Paul to. But Paul served as an apostle not just to the churches he started, but he was an apostle of Christ for all believers. Romans is generally considered the most logical and organized book by a well-organized author who generally wrote logically. Paul wanted to write to them prior to his visiting them, and lay out, in detail, what is the gospel, why do we need it, and how does it work. He also wanted to explain salvation in the context of Jew and Gentile. Two main points in Romans are justification by faith, and life in Christ.
Sequence and Dating of Romans: Paul started his trip from Corinth to Ephesus, to Jerusalem, to Caesarea Philippi, and then on to Rome in the spring of 57 A.D. Paul died under Nero in 67 A.D. So Paul wrote before 57 A.D., probably from Corinth.
The 24 Pre-Nicene (up to 325 A.D.) writers who quote from Romans
|
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) |
Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) |
|
Polycarp (c.150 A.D.) |
Moyses et al. (250-251 A.D.) |
|
Theophilus of Antioch (161-181/188 A.D.) |
Seventh Council of Carthage (258 A.D.) |
|
Christians of Vienna and Lugdunum (177 A.D.) |
Dionysius of Alexandria (c.246-265 A.D.) |
|
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) |
Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) |
|
The Muratorian Canon (190-217 A.D.) |
Victorinus of Petau (martyred 304 A.D.) |
|
Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) |
Peter of Alexandria (285-311 A.D.) |
|
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) |
Methodius (c.250-312 A.D.) |
|
Hippolytus (222-235/236 A.D.) |
Athanasius (318 A.D.) |
|
Theodotus, probable Montanist (ca.340 A.D.) |
Lactantius (c.303-c.20/325 A.D.) allusion |
|
Origen (225-254 A.D.) |
Alexander of Alexandria (313-326 A.D.) |
|
Novatian (250/254-257 A.D.) |
Eusebius of Caesarea (318-325 A.D.) |
|
Treatise Against Novatian (254-256 A.D.) |
|
They have 524 quotes from Romans, quoting 60% (259.7) of the 433 verses.
Earliest manuscripts of Romans
|
p27 (3rd century) |
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) |
|
p40 (3rd century) |
Sinaiticus (Si) (340-350 A.D.) |
|
p46 (100-150 A.D.) |
p10 (4th century) |
|
Green's Collection (3rd century) |
Old Syriac (c.400 A.D.) |
|
p113 (3rd century) |
Bohairic Coptic (3rd/4th centuries) |
|
Uncial 0220 (c.300 A.D.) |
Fayyumic Coptic (3rd/4th centuries) |
|
|
Sahidic Coptic (4th century) |
p46 covers 227 verses of Romans, and p40 covers 33 1/5 verses.
An Outline of Romans
Rom 1:1-17 Paul's urgent message
Rom 1:18-3:20 Our Condemnation for Sin
- Rom 1:18 God's wrath against serious, spiraling, deadly sin
- Rom 2-3:20 Both Jews and Gentiles are without excuse, responsible for their guilt
Rom 3:21-5 Our Justification by Faith
- Rom 3:21-31 Christ justified us, not our works
- Rom 4 Abraham: Justified by faith
- Rom 5 Christ's death gave our justification
Rom 6-8 Our Sanctification United with Christ
- Rom 6 We have been declared dead to sin
- Rom 7 Our ongoing struggle for sanctification
- Rom 8 The Holy Spirit: power for holy living
Rom 9-11 God's Sovereign Choice in Israel & Us
- Rom 9 God's past choice of Israel
- Rom 10 God's choice today
- Rom 11 God's future choice for Israel fulfilled
Rom 12-16 Living Out Our Salvation in Christ
- Rom 12 A consecrated life serving God & others
- Rom 13 A submissive life
- Rom 14 Loving the brethren
- - Without judging them or stumbling them, but as Christ would
- Rom 15:14-16:27 Paul's future plans and appreciation of others
Romans 1 Paul's Urgent Message
1. In Rom 1:4, since Jesus was declared the Son of God, was He the Son of God before?
2. In Rom 1:7 and 1 Cor 1:3, since the Greek word kai can mean 'even' as well as 'one', does this mean that Jesus is God the Father, as Sabellians, Modalists and some (but not all) Oneness Pentecostals teach?
3. In Rom 1:8, how was the faith of the Roman Christians known throughout the whole world?
4. In Rom 1:11 and Rom 15:29, isn't Paul a bit conceited to tell the Romans he wants to come to give them a spiritual gift?
5. In Rom 1:13-14, why was Paul prevented from seeing the Romans earlier?
6. In Rom 1:14-15, since Paul had never met most of them, how did Paul have a 'debt' to pay to them?
7. In Rom 1:17, what does 'from faith to faith' mean?
Romans 1:18-23 First the Bad News for Humanity 1
1. In Rom 1:18, how can it be true that God never gets angry?
2. In Rom 1:18, when God's wrath is revealed, does it mean God wrath is revealed at the moment the gospel is preached, as Karl Barth taught, or is this preaching reminders of actions revealed in history?
3. In Rom 1:18, how can people hold the truth in unrighteousness?
4. In Rom 1:18, how did people suppress the truth?
5. In Rom 1:19-20, how can everyone know of God through nature?
6. In Rom 1:19-20, are all non-Christians going to Hell?
7. In Rom 1:18-23, how do you explain to non-believers that people have an obligation to God?
8. In Rom 1:20, to what extent can people learn God's truth and the Gospel from observing Creation?
9. In Rom 1:20, could someone possibly be saved solely by believing what can be learned from Creation?
Romans 1:24-32 First the Bad News for Humanity 2
1. In Rom 1:24,26,28, since God does not like ungodliness, then why did God desire to give ungodly people over to greater ungodliness?
2. In Rom 1:24,26,28 three times it says 'God gave them over'. How does God give people over, and are there different levels?
3. In Rom 1:24,26,28 was God handing them over for correction of themselves, or others, or punishment?
4. In Rom 1:25, the Greek does not say 'for a lie', but 'the lie'. What exactly is the lie?
5. Does Rom 1:26-27 mean only that one cannot change to be a homosexual, but if one is born a homosexual, it is OK to practice it?
6. On Rom 1:26-27 the skeptic Bart Ehrman writes, 'In thinking about which parts of the Bible have something to say in the modern context, it is important to recall the historical view that the biblical authors were all living in a different world from ours and reflected the assumptions and beliefs of people in their world. Their world, to pick a particularly cogent example, had no concept of what we think of as homosexuality. To put it differently, homosexuality didn't exist in that world. Why? Not because men didn't have sex with men (they did) or women with women (they did), but because there was no sense of sexual orientation in that world, or any world, until the notion of sexual orientation developed among Western thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.' (Jesus, Interrupted p.280)
'' Ehrman uses the two preceding examples to generalize. 'So, too, with all the Bible's teachings ' about women, about same-sex relations, about extra-marital sex, about capital punishment, about war, about wealth, about slavery, about disease, about ' well, about everything.' (Jesus, Interrupted p.281)
7. In Rom 1:26-27, how does God give people over to the lust of their hearts?
8. In Rom 1:30, how do some 'invent ways of doing evil'?
9. In Rom 1:32, why is agreeing with evil almost as bad as doing it, if you are not the one doing it?
Romans 1:1-17 Paul's Urgent Message ' some brief answers
1. In Rom 1:4, since Jesus was declared the Son of God, was He the Son of God before?
A: Yes. Someone can be something before they are declared that to the world. Jesus is the Son of God in two distinct ways.
Before time began, Jesus was begotten (not created) of the Father. There never was a time before Jesus was the Son of God.
On earth, Jesus was asexually conceived by the virgin Mary. Genetic material not supplied by Mary (the Y-chromosome, etc.) was miraculously created by God the Father.
So while Jesus was always the Son of God, God waited until Jesus was born on earth to declare this to humanity.
'' So is Jesus equal to God the Father or subordinate to God the Father? Let's first detour and answer a simpler question; then we will use that answer to get back to this question. On earth is your little son equal to you or subordinate to you. If you say he is not equal to you, I think that is the wrong answer for two reasons. If there was some natural disaster and only one of you could live, would you choose to save yourself because your son is not so important as you (think you) are? If your son is less than you, then by the same logic is your father greater than you? Was his father greater than him? And his father? Then was your great-great grandfather superman? No, your son is by no means less than or not equal to you. But does your son obey you (at least hopefully most of the time). Or do you obey and submit to your son? I am sure it is the first, and not the second. You and your son have different roles, at least until he grows up and has children. Similarly, the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal in nature, glory, and honor. But they differ in role and rank. On earth, Jesus submitted (Hebrews 5:7) and learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8). But even now the Father can be titled as the God of Jesus Christ in Ephesians 1:3. (Unfortunately some Christians, such as Augustine of Hippo and Ambrose of Milan) would disagree on the last point.
2. In Rom 1:7 and 1 Cor 1:3, since the Greek word kai can mean 'even' as well as 'one', does this mean that Jesus is God the Father, as Sabellians, Modalists and some (but not all) Oneness Pentecostals teach?
A: No. Let's look at this objectively.
1. All agree that 'and' is the primary meaning of the Greek word kai, but it does sometimes mean 'even also'.
2. You cannot prove Oneness, Trinity, or any doctrine, based on a word that could be translated either way.
3. In this chapter of Romans, Jesus is distinguished from God the Father in Romans 1:9. Jesus is not an orphan, neither is He a Fatherless Son.
4. Jesus also is distinguished from the Father in many places in Scripture, including but not limited to Ephesians 1:3,17; Matthew 3:16-17; 12:18; Mark 10:38-40; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:1,33; 6:38; 14:16,26,28,31; 5:26; 6:28; 7:5; Acts 5:31-32; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:25-28; Hebrews 1:9; 5:7-8. At Jesus baptism, Jesus was not practicing a ventriloquism act.
'' To support a doctrine on an ambiguous use of a word, where the primary meaning is 'and' and it is only a rarer meaning of 'even', if this is the best they got, this is not much of anything.
'' Sabellianism did not appear to have a wide following, except for a brief period in Rome. Here is some of what the pre-Nicene Christians taught that the Father and Son are distinct, yet they did not teach that they are separate.
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) says the Father, Son, and Spirit have distinction in unity. A Plea for Christians ch.12 p.134
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) 'The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers,'' A Plea for Christians ch.10 p.133
Theophilus (168-181/188 A.D.) (partial) 'God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.' Theophilus to Autolycus book 2 ch.10 p.98
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) says 'the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation.' He then goes on quoting Proverb 3:19,20 and so forth, showing that the Holy Spirit is the third person. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.20.3 p.488
Tertullian (c.213 A.D.) 'And if, to quote another passage, 'Thus saith the Lord to my Lord Christ,' the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a distinct Being. Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, 'That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge,' He must be other (than Christ), who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we may not wander through every passage, He 'who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also to raise up our mortal bodies,' must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the dead Father, or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father.' Against Praxeas ch.28 p.625
Hippolytus (222-235/6 A.D.) wrote an entire work against Noetus who 'alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died.' Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.1 p.223
Hippolytus (222-235/236 A.D.) 'He [Jesus] did not say, 'I and the Father am one, but are one.' For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.' and quotes 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.7 p.226
Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) 'Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.' Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.' Commentary on John book 2 ch.2 p.323
Novatian (250/4-256/7 A.D.) (implied) spoke of Sabellius' heresy as sacrilegious in believing Christ is not the Son, but the Father. Treatise on the Trinity ch.12 p.621-622
Dionysius of Alexandria (246-265 A.D.) 'The plant that springs from the root is something distinct from that whence it grows up; and yet it is of one nature with it. And the river which flows from the fountain is something distinct from the fountain. For we cannot call either the river a fountain, or the fountain a river. Nevertheless, we allow that they are both one according to nature, and also one in substance; and we admit that the fountain may be conceived of as father, and that the river is what is begotten of the fountain.' On the One Substance p.120
Lucian of Antioch (c.300-311 A.D.) 'clearly of the Father who is really a Father, and of a Son who is really a Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is really a Holy Ghost; these names being assigned not vaguely or idly, but indicating accurately the special personality, order, and glory of those named, so that in Personality they are three, but in harmony one.' Creed of Lucian of Antioch in The Creeds of Christendom by Philip Schaff vol.2 p.27
Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) 'For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty. For not on that account is the Son of God called king, because for our sakes He was made man,' Oration on Psalms ch.5 p.397. (also The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8 ch.10 p.338 and ch.11 p.339)
'' See When Cultists Ask p.207-208, 221 for more info.
3. In Rom 1:8, how was the faith of the Roman Christians known throughout the whole world?
A: This has the same meaning as 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Given the size and influence of the city of Rome, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Roman church had a great part in many people's first impressions of Christianity.
Rome was known throughout the whole world. Soon after this there were even contacts between Rome and China. They already knew about India on the east, and Caledonia (Scotland) and Hibernia (Ireland) on the west. So Paul was excited that the message could spread from Rome to the entire world.
4. In Rom 1:11 and Rom 15:29, isn't Paul a bit conceited to tell the Romans he wants to come to give them a spiritual gift?
A: If Paul were an ordinary man, perhaps. But since Paul was an apostle of Christ, Paul was being both candid and truthful without overstatement. It is OK to tell someone you can benefit them, if that is the truth. Paul does not have in mind a charismatic gift here, but rather the gift of understanding of God and salvation.
5. In Rom 1:13-14, why was Paul prevented from seeing the Romans earlier?
A: Paul does Not say it was due to Satanic opposition, as he does in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. Rather Paul had a lot of ministry to do where he east in Asia Minor and Greece. He also had to find a means of getting there. Sometimes it is Ok if fruitful ministry in one place delays you going to a second place. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.17 for more info.
6. In Rom 1:14-15, since Paul had never met most of them, how did Paul have a 'debt' to pay to them?
A: There are two kinds of debts. In the first type, you loan me money and I am in debt to you until I pay it back. The second type is that Jack gives me money, and I won't see Jack for a while, but John will. So, I give the dept repayment to John to give to Jack. Now John, as the transfer agent, owes that money to Jack. Paul was in debt to these people to give them the riches of the gospel which Paul received from God.
'' If someone asks you what right you have to share the gospel with them, you can tell them 'because I owe you a debt.' Salvation comes from God not from me. I am no more than one beggar telling another where to find bread. But since God has entrusted me, as well as every Christian, with the obligation to share the message of his riches, I am in debt to you to convey the message for your benefit.
'' See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1677 for more info.
'
7. In Rom 1:17, what does 'from faith to faith' mean?
A: There are three possibilities
God's faith to our faith.
Our faith is growing more and more
Starting with faith and finishing with faith
It is speaking of our faith, not God's faith or faithfulness. It is not speaking of multiple faiths, but of our faith that started when we believed God and grows and carries us through to heaven.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1677 for more info.
Romans 1:18-23 First the Bad News for Humanity 1 ' some brief answers
1. In Rom 1:18, how can it be true that God never gets angry?
A: Let's ask the people of Sodom and Gomorrah! God never getting angry is wishful thinking that goes against scripture. Unfortunately, this error of wanting our own thinking, instead of believing what scripture says, goes back to the Epistle to Diognetus (c.130-200 A.D.) Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) and Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) are inconsistent on this. However, 19 early Christian writers accepted that God has wrath: Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Commodianus, Novatian, Treatise Against Novatian, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Victorinus of Petau, Peter of Alexandria, Methodius, Lactantius, Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea (318-325 A.D.). The heretic Marcion in copying Romans translated 'wrath' instead of 'wrath of God' according to The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8 p.94.
'' See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.22 for more info.
A: It is the second way, People experienced God's wrath even in Old Testament times before the gospel was given. See The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8 p.95 for more info.
3. In Rom 1:18, how can people hold the truth in unrighteousness?
4. In Rom 1:18, how did people suppress the truth?
A: There are many ways, but here is one actual blatant way. The Romans had many pagan sacred institutions that they believed they had for various divine or miraculous reasons. Many of them were started by the early Roman King Numa Pompilius. The Roman historian Varro records that a Roman farmer Terentius, while plowing near the tomb of Pompilius, turned up books of Pompilius, in which were written the causes of the sacred institutions. He turned them over to the Senate, who after seeing the real reasons for the institutions, ordered the praetor to burn the books. You can read about this in Augustine of Hippo's City of God (413-426 A.D.) book 7 ch.34 p.141-141. When people burn the earliest copies of books of their own religion that they allegedly believe, you have to wonder about their commitment to truth.
'' See The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8 by Douglas Moo p.91-92 for more info.
5. In Rom 1:19-20, how can everyone know of God through nature?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. We can know many things about God through nature. For example, no created thing could create itself. There is a Creator, who is greater than created beings. We also can see God's majesty, power, and beauty in Creation, though Creation is fallen.
2. People can make up their own strange interpretations of the facts. For example, the idea of spontaneous generation, a 'scientific fact' of the Middle Ages, said flies could come from rotting meat, and life could come spontaneously from non-life.
3. Many important things about God we cannot know through nature, such as the Trinity, Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus coming again.
4. While nature is not sufficient to teach the entire gospel of salvation, it is sufficient to teach people there is a God and to look for Him.
5. If someone rejects the truth that they know about the Most High God, God has not necessarily obligated Himself to give them more truth.
'' See Now That's a Good Question p.18-20 for more info.
6. In Rom 1:19-20, are all non-Christians going to Hell?
A: There is only one correct answer, but there are two aspects to it: no and yes.
No, for four reasons
N1. No, because some people who are not yet Christians will become Christians in the future and go to Heaven. The Biblical term for those who ultimately will be in Heaven is 'the elect'.
N2. No, because in the Old Testament, many godly Jews, who obeyed the Law, died anticipating the coming of the Messiah, without knowing the Messiah (Ephesians 3:4-6; 1 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Peter 1:19; ~Hebrews 11:39-40). They died before Christ, but are in heaven.
N3. No, because God revealed Himself through Abraham, even though Abraham did not have the Law. God is able to work 'outside the box' of our preconceptions, and to bring people to Himself through Christ as He chooses. We can be assured that all who died never hearing of Christ today, be they babies, the severely retarded, or people with severe ignorance, will be judged fairly by God, who is also merciful. (See Romans 4:15; 5:12; ~John 9:41)
N4. Some Christians think Christ preached to those who had already died based on 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Clement of Alexandria in the Stromata (193-202 A.D.) book 6 ch.6 p.490, said those who were righteous according to God's Law, only faith was wanting. For those who did not have the Law, but were righteous according to their philosophy, they needed both faith and repentance of idolatry. 'Straightaway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of the previous [idolatrous] conduct.' See also Stromata book 6 ch.6 p.492. Irenaeus of Lyons (Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.27.1 p.499), Hippolytus (Fragment from Commentary on Psalm 19 or 20 p.170. Also ch.7.14 p.189), and Origen (Origen Against Celsus book 2 ch.43 p.448) also taught that Christ preached to the dead to convert some.
Other Christians disagree with this though.
Yes, for four reasons
Y1. All who are, were, or will ever be saved, are saved through the One and only Mediator and Savior, Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; John 10:7-8; John 10:26-28).
Y2. All need Jesus. Jesus told even the religious Jewish Pharisees, that if they did not believe in Him, they would indeed die in their sins. (John 8:24). Jesus warned them that their rejection of God would send them to Hell (Matthew 23:33-36).
Y3. Even infants who died before knowingly committing any transgression still need Jesus to sanctify them and cleanse them of their sinful nature. While they made no sinful choices, and never intended to do wrong, they still have a selfish, sinful nature and need transformation through Jesus before going to heaven.
Y4. Since Jesus saves everybody who will be saved, then everyone who goes to Heaven, sooner or later will believe in Christ (Romans 14:10-11; Philippians 2:9-11; John 6:37,45).
'' On point Y3, a Christian once disagreed with me on this, and said, that if they cannot make a decision for Jesus, then they cannot go to heaven. However, we have to see, at the most basic level, what is the one 'thing' that saves us? Ultimately the root cause is not our decision that saves us, because it is not even 'us' that saves us. At the most fundamental level, it is God who saves us. He saves all the saved through Jesus, but we do not exactly how He will to that for infants, those who lived before Christ, etc.. What we know is that He is God!
'' See When Critics Ask p.437-438 and Now That's a Good Question p.301-303 for more info. Read the book Eternity in Their Hearts, for how the true God may have revealed Himself to others apart from Bible, as God revealed Himself to Abram.
7. In Rom 1:18-23, how do you explain to non-believers that people have an obligation to God?
A: Whether growing up or as adults we have obligations to our parents. In school we have an obligation to obey the teacher. As we drive cars we have an obligation to obey the laws, and obey the instructions of a policeman. With all of these obligations, which most people, outside of prison, accept, why would we think we don't have any obligation to our creator?
'' God gave us life, air, sustenance, and asks us to acknowledge and worship Him. For those who don't want to worship the true God, after death God will set them off in their own universe, apart from Him. Of course, God is the source of all goodness and love. That other universe is the Lake of Fire.
'' See David Geisler's Conversations that Count presentation for more on this.
8. In Rom 1:20, what exactly can we learn to what extent can people learn God's truth and the Gospel from observing Creation?
A: We can learn three things, but not learn a fourth thing.
1. The existence of some kind of Creator (personal or impersonal) from the existence of Creation.
2. God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20).
3. Some understanding of God's moral law (Romans 2:14-16).
'' From creation, people cannot learn of the mystery of Christ. (Ephesians 3:4-6,9; 6:19; Colossians 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; Romans 16:25-26; 1 Peter 1:10-12).
9. In Rom 1:20, could someone possibly be saved solely by believing what can be learned from Creation?
A: No. In reality, none are. Apart from God, none seek God, as Romans 3:9-20 says.
Hypothetically speaking, the question contains a false premise. The question assumes that God is passive, and if someone were seeking Him, God would simply sit there and not desire to draw them into the truth. Actually, God probably wants people to believe the truth more than people want to believe the truth themselves.
Romans 1:24-32 First the Bad News for Humanity 2 ' some brief answers
A: God does not like ungodliness, but if someone wants to be ungodly, God lets them move in the direction they want to go. Romans 1 shows that one of the consequences of sin is the desire for worse sin. Either you are desiring to sin more, or you are hungering and thirsting for righteousness as Jesus commended in Matthew 5:6. By the way, Christians should never stop hungering and thirsting for more righteousness. See Now That's a Good Question p.165-166 for more info.
2. In Rom 1:24,26,28 three times it says 'God gave them over'. How does God give people over, and are there different levels?
'' God handing them over is not just God passively withdrawing His blessing, as John Chrysostom, but also actively bringing enemies as Habakkuk 1 shows.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1678-1679, the New International Bible Commentary p.1319, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.931, and The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary p.105-106 for more info.
3. In Rom 1:24,26,28 was God handing them over for correction of themselves, or others, or punishment?
A: It does not have to be just one. For those who have ears to hear, it can be for correction. For the wise, they can learn from the mistakes of others. But for foolish people who do not heed correction, it serves only as punishment that can lead to further punishment. One can picture these sins as tall metal poles, attached to your roof's wood shingles, during a lightning storm, attracting God's wrath. See The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary p.105-106 for more info.
4. In Rom 1:25, the Greek does not say 'for a lie', but 'the lie'. What exactly is the lie?
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.25 for more info.
5. Does Rom 1:26-27 mean only that one cannot change to be a homosexual, but if one is born a homosexual, it is OK to practice it?
A: No. Romans 1:26-27 says that both men and women sin terribly in exchanging natural relations for unnatural homosexual relations. Now some have suggested that only the 'exchanging' is wicked, and it is OK to be homosexual if you were born that way. But this cannot be so. Not only is the emphasis in this verse on the relations themselves being 'shameful', the word 'exchange', metallaso, is the same Greek word used for exchanging the truth of God for a lie. So the problem is not just the 'exchanging', but the 'indecent acts with other men' as Romans 1:27 says. Since Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 show that the practice of homosexuality is evil, of course it is never OK to be in an evil state. This is true whether immorality is gay or straight, the point being that we all are born with a sinful nature and need to be born again to be holy. See also the discussion on Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. As an aside, the Greek term 'shameful lusts' can also be translated as 'passions of disgrace' according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.443 of 'dishonorable passions' according to Wuest's Translation.
'' Paul was Jewish and other Jewish writes who wrote in Greek use this Greek phrase 'unnatural use' para physin to mean homosexuality in Philo Special Laws 3:39 and Josephus' Against Apion 2.273 according to The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8 by Douglas Moo p.109.
'' Tertullian in de Corona ch.6 p.96 interprets Romans 1:26 as saying males and females changed among themselves the natural use into the unnatural 'by way of penal retribution for their error.' See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.543-545, When Cultists Ask p.210, and When Critics Ask p.438-439 for more info.
6. On Rom 1:26-27 the skeptic Bart Ehrman writes, 'In thinking about which parts of the Bible have something to say in the modern context, it is important to recall the historical view that the biblical authors were all living in a different world from ours and reflected the assumptions and beliefs of people in their world. Their world, to pick a particularly cogent example, had no concept of what we think of as homosexuality. To put it differently, homosexuality didn't exist in that world. Why? Not because men didn't have sex with men (they did) or women with women (they did), but because there was no sense of sexual orientation in that world, or any world, until the notion of sexual orientation developed among Western thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.' (Jesus, Interrupted p.280)
'' Ehrman uses the two preceding examples to generalize. 'So, too, with all the Bible's teachings ' about women, about same-sex relations, about extra-marital sex, about capital punishment, about war, about wealth, about slavery, about disease, about ' well, about everything.' (Jesus, Interrupted p.281)
'' Whatever pagan later people did many centuries later did not affect the concept of same-sex relationships being evil for a Jewish person (such as Saul of Tarsus or even Jesus), because they could read the Old Testament. By the way, long before western nineteenth century thinkers existed, at least 11 early Christian writers wrote specifically against homosexuality prior to 325 A.D. You can see these at www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatEarlyChristiansTaught.html. In my opinion, Ehrman is simply 'amazing' here.
7. In Rom 1:26-27, how does God give people over to the lust of their hearts?
A: One of the punishments of sin is more desire to sin. A consequence of sin is that it is a vicious cycle. You can think of unrepentant sin similar to an astronomical 'black hole' that sucks in everything around it. It is almost like 'leveling up' in a video game, except that instead of winning more and more, the person is ultimately losing more and more. Revelation 22:11 and Daniel 12:10 also imply that good and evil will both multiply. See Now That's a Good Question p.165 for more info.
8. In Rom 1:30, how do some 'invent ways of doing evil'?
A: Doing evil is not limited to things spelled out in the Bible, but going against God's will and the good things in the Bible. 'Do unto others'' vs. thinking of new ways to defraud people, either with small scams, or with investments, or a government official with quirky laws. Another way is thinking of new ways to hurt someone's reputation. torture people, so that you can show it in movies. If a new movie is made showing a new kind of horror, do you want to watch it? If you are God's child, then why?
'' There is a fable about the heart of the wicked called the frog and the scorpion. It has been attributed to Aesop, but actually was not know until it was in two Russian novels in 1933 and 1940. In this fable a frog and a scorpion need to cross a river. The scorpion can't swim, so it asks the frog for a ride on its back. The frog is reluctant because if the scorpion stings him he will drown. The scorpion explains that he won't sting the frog, because if he stings the frog they both drown. So the frog agrees and starts across. Midway through, the scorpion stings the frog. Asa the paralysis comes over the frog, he asks the scorpion why he did that, because now they both will die. The scorpion says he could not help it, it is in his nature. Evil can not only hurt others, but often be self-sabotaging too.
9. In Rom 1:32, why is agreeing with evil almost as bad as doing it, if you are not the one doing it?
A: You are encouraging other people to do evil. It can appear that it is right, or at least not too bad, if you agree with it too.
You are encouraging the people who did the evil to continue on, rather than repenting.
Finally, when you heard your own words enough, you might be encouraging yourself too.
See The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8 p.116-117 for more info.
Romans 2 '' some brief answers
1. In Rom 2:6-7, are good works a condition of salvation?
A: No. Three points to consider in the answer.
1. All should be able to agree that good works have some relationship to eternal life; the two should go hand in hand.
2. Absent from this passage is any concept of Christ's sacrifice being incomplete or insufficient. Also absent is the concept that people merit eternal life.
3. Since works are not a precondition of salvation, and they are related to salvation, then how are they related? Works are related as an output, a result of salvation, as both Ephesians 2:9-10 and James 2:18-26 show. They are a sign of salvation, just as a heartbeat is a sign that a person is alive.
'' See When Cultists Ask p.210-212 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.445 for more info.
2. In Rom 2:6, will judgment be different for different people?
A: Yes, in a number of ways.
For unbelievers, the punishment for some will be more severe than others, as Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24 and Mark 12:40 indicate.
For believers, there will be different rewards in Heaven, as Matthew 5:12; 10:42; 6:19-21; Luke 6:23; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; and Revelation 22:12 teach.
In general, Jesus in Matthew 5:7 says that those who show mercy will be shown mercy.
'' See Now That's a Good Question p.502-503 for a complementary answer.
3. In Rom 2:7, do we get immortal life now, or later?
A: We get the fullness of eternal life later, but we receive the sure promise of it now. See the discussion on 1 Timothy 6:16 for more info. When Cultists Ask p.212-213 shows how a Christian has immortality from the moment she or he first believes.
4. In Rom 2:11, since God is not a respecter of persons, why did He distinguish between Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:1-2), especially Moabites?
A: We first must distinguish between eternal justice and earthly situations and curses. The Bible teaches us that God is not a respecter of persons individually in many ways (such as salvation), but God is a respecter of persons and their nationality in other ways. Note that examples on both sides are found in the same books, so this contrast was not an accidental 'mistake' by various authors, but a deliberate intention by Paul.
God is not a respecter of persons in judgment and for those who seek or reject Him:
For there is no respect of persons with God (or God does not show favoritism) in Romans 2:11 and Acts 10:34-35 (Peter is speaking). All have the same value to God (Galatians 3:28). God saves all who call upon Him (Romans 10:11-12). Salvation the same for Jews and Gentiles (Acts 17:26-27)
God does favor some: Scripture never claims God had everyone born under equal circumstances. Observations of life confirm this. Aaron was ordained to be a priest, and his actions at Mt. Sinai show he was not necessarily more deserving. Everyone in every culture has the opportunity to know enough about God through Creation, that they could seek to know more. Jesus promised in Matthew 7:7-12, that those who ask, seek, and knock, will receive, find, and have the door opened for them.
In summary,
1. In this life some people have better circumstances than others.
2. God judges everyone justly, and He takes all factors into account.
3. No matter what a person's circumstance, nobody has any excuse for not acting on the truth they already have know.
5. In Rom 2:12, are all who never heard of the Old Testament Law or Christ, going to Hell with no chance of being saved?
A: No. Job was not necessarily a Jew, and God revealed Himself to Job. Abraham and everyone up to Moses, who did not have the Old Testament Law. Ultimately, it is not obedience to the Gospel that saves, or even the Gospel that saves. It is God who saves through Jesus, and He can do things however He wants.
'' See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.385-388, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.545-547, and When Cultists Ask p.208-209, and the book Eternity in Their Hearts for more info.
6. In Rom 2:14, how are Gentiles allowed to be a law unto themselves?
A: This does not mean people can make up whatever law and morality they wish to follow. It does mean
1) All have some idea of the truth, in nature and their conscience (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-16).
2) All are responsible to follow all the truth they know (Romans 2:15).
3) All who try to follow the truth they know will fall short (Romans 3:23) and be conscious of that.
4) God is just; sin is not counted where there is no law (Romans 4:15; 5:13).
5) However, some ignorance is not innocent ignorance (Romans 1:21-22,25).
7. In Rom 2:16, does Paul have 'his own Gospel' he preaches?
A: There is only One true Gospel (Galatians 1:8), but it was also Paul's, just as it is our's.
8. In Rom 2:24, how was the name of God blasphemed through the Jews?
A: The Jews were God's chosen people, yet through their disobedience, wickedness, and rejection of the Messiah, they did not act like God's people. The evil actions of those who were considered God's people dishonored God in the eyes of others.
'' Today, every Christian who is known to others as a Christian is a witness for God. The issue then, is not whether or not you are a witness, but whether you are a good witness or a bad witness.
9. In Rom 2:24, why does this blasphemy matter? In other words, who is hearing and seeing this blasphemy?
A: Romans 2:24 says the Gentiles (non-Jews) see the blasphemy by the Jews. It matters in two ways.
1. It tends to drive people away from God to see those who are called God's people blaspheme God's name.
2. God says He is a jealous God. Part of that is that God does not like His name and reputation slandered and dishonored.
by Steven M. Morrison, PhD.
Some Bible passages could start a revival, or even change a whole city. But today we are going to look at a passage that changed half a continent (Romans 3:21-26)
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.7 for more info.
Q: In Rom, what is the difference between an epistle and a letter?
A: An epistle, from the Greek word epistole, is a type of letter that was intended to be read and circulated publicly. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.6-7 for more info.
Habakkuk 2:4 The just shall live by faith