Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 1:18 - 1:32
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Doctrine of Justification by Faith as the Restoration of the true Glorification of God
CHAPTERS 1–11
_____________________
FIRST DIVISION
SIN AND GRACE IN THEIR FIRST ANTITHESIS, THE REALLY RELIGIOUS AND MORAL LIFE. THE ACTUAL ENTRANCE OF CORRUPTION AND SALVATION. GOD’S WRATH AT ALL HUMAN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS; THAT IS, THE WORLD’S REAL CORRUPTION MATURING FOR DEATH, AND HASTENED BY THE JUDGMENT OF GOD; AND THE OPPOSING JUSTIFICATION OF SINNERS THROUGH THE MERCY-SEAT, OR PARDON IN CHRIST IN RESPONSE TO FAITH. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH
Rom_1:18 to Rom_5:11
Second Section.—The development of Gentile corruption under God’s judicial abandonment (the departure of His Spirit, and the decree of ripeness for judgment). From arbitrary symbolism to the worship of images and beasts; from theoretical to practical corruption; from natural to unnatural and abominable sins, to the completion of all kinds of crimes and iniquities, and to the demoniacal lust of evil, and even of evil maxims (Rom_1:22-32).
18For the wrath of God [God’s wrath] is revealed [in opposition to that revelation of God’s righteousness, Rom_1:17] from heaven against all ungodliness [godlessness] and unrighteousness [iniquity] of men, who hold [hold back]73 the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because74 that which may be known [which is known]75 of God is manifest in them;76 for God hath shewed [God manifested]77 it unto [to] them. 20For the invisible things of him [his unseen attributes] from the creation of the world are [are, since the creation of the world,]78 clearly seen,79 being understood by the things that are made [by means of his works], even his eternal power and Godhead [Divinity,80 èåéüôçò , not èåüôçò ]; so that81 they are without excuse 21[inexcusable, ἀíáðïëïãÞôïõò ]. Because that, when they knew God [because, knowing God, or, although they knew God, äéüôé ãíüíôåò ôὸí èåüí ], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful [they did not glorify him as God, nor give thanks to him as God]; but became vain in their imaginations [thoughts], and their foolish heart was darkened.
22, 23Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed [exchanged] the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man [for a likeness of an image of corruptible man], and to [of] birds, and fourfooted beasts [quadrupeds], and creeping things [reptiles].
24Wherefore God also82 gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts [God delivered them over, in the lusts of their hearts, to uncleanness], to dishonor their own bodies between themselves [so that their 25bodies were dishonored among them].83 Who changed [They who exchanged]84 the truth of God into [for] a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more 26[rather] than the Creator,85 who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up [delivered them over] unto [to] vile affections [shameful passions]:86 for even their women did change [exchanged] the natural, use into 27[for] that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust [lustful excitement] one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly [working the (well known) indecency, ôὴí áἰï÷çìïóýíçí ], and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [the due reward of their error].
28And even as they did not like [And as they did not deem it worthy, orworth while, ïὐ÷ ἐäï÷ßìáóáí ] to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate [worthless, ἀäüêéìïí ]87 mind, to do those things which are not convenient 29[becoming];88 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,89 wickedness [malice], covetousness, maliciousness [badness]; full of envy, murder, 30debate [strife, ἔñéäïò ], deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters [slanderers], haters of God,90 despiteful [insolent], proud, boasters, inventors of evil things 31[villanies], disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers 32[truce-breakers], without natural affection, implacable,91 unmerciful: Who, knowing [although they well know] the judgment [just decree] of God, that they which [who] commit [practice, ðñÜóóïíôåò ] such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them [approve of those who practise them, óõíåõäïêïῦóéí ôïῖò ðñÜóóïõóéí ].
General Remarks.—The whole section, in its progress to the end of the chapter, relates more particularly to the heathen world (Tholuck, Meyer). Yet it describes the corruption in its original form as a general corruption of humanity. The antithesis: Heathendom and Judaism was a subsequent development. Rom_1:24, with its causality in Rom_1:22-23, constitutes the more definite beginning of heathenism. Tholuck recommends the treatise of Adam, Exercitationes Exegeticœ, 1712, pp. 501–738, on the section Rom_1:18-32. Tholuck remarks: “What the Apostle says of the relations of the Gentile world, and afterwards of the Jews, to God, naturally applies to their universality, but to individuals only in a greater or less degree.” We add: So that a relative opposition is embraced within the general judgment (see Rom_2:6 ff.).
First Section, Rom_1:18-21
Realencyklopædie. This ὀñãὴ èåïῦ has its ἀðïêÜëõøéò immediately, so far as it is declared to the conscience of man as God’s decree from heaven; but it becomes especially an ἀðïêÜëõøéò by the witness of the law, and is perfected in the light of the gospel. It is revealed in a real manner from heaven, as a message from the height of the holy, supernatural world, and from the throne of Divine government. And it is revealed in an ideal way by the light of righteousness, which, like a flame of wrath from the kingdom of the Spirit, shines down into the realm of consciously guilty human life, and explains its dark fate. The older writers understood by ὀñãÞ , punishment alone, taking metonymically the operation for the cause [metonymia causœ pro effectu = êüëáóéò , ôéìùñßá ]. But we must unite both. The opposite of ὀñãÞ is not merely ἀãÜðç (Tholuck), but ἔëåïò (see my Positive Dogmatik, p. 109). According to De Wette [and Alford], wrath is only an anthropopathic conception of the righteousness of God in punishment; but by this interpretation its procession ἀð ̓ áὐñáíïῦ is obliterated. The internal ἀðï÷Üëõøéò of wrath involves its external öáíÝñùóéò , but it is one-sided to confine it to the punishment which God has determined for the heathen world (De Wette), or the wretched condition of the world at that time (Köllner), or to the manifestation of the punishment in the conscience (Tholuck), or in the gospel (Grotius). From the beginning, the deeds of wrath have ever succeeded the ἀóÝâåéá in its opposition to God’s government and revelation. But the complete ἀðïêÜëõøéò thereof does not appear before the New Testament ἀðïêÜëõøéò of grace. The reason of this is, that the world’s guilt reaches its climax in the crucifixion and death of Christ. The ἀóÝâåéá —the rebellion of unbelief to the revelation of the divine light and life (Rom_2:4-5; Rom_8:6-7)—sums up the whole idea of sin which incurs the guilt of God’s wrath. The idea of the ὀñãÞ itself is God’s abandonment of man to the judgment of death. And the idea of the ἀðïêἀëõøéò of this ὀñãÞ is the entire revelation of the judgment of God in the corruption of the world amid the light of the gospel, for the conscience of humanity, especially the body of believers. The idea of the ïὐñáíüò is the heavenly world in its ideal laws, which lie also at the foundation of the earthly world, and react against all abnormal conduct with punishment and death. The present, ἀðïêáëýðôåôáé , must be emphasized; it is neither merely a historical reference to the misery of the old world (Köllner, and others), nor (with Chrysostom, and others) a reference to the future day of wrath. It means, rather, a progressive revelation of the judgment in opposition to which the progressive revelation of the righteousness of salvation in the gospel acquires its perfect significance and clearness. The ἀð ̓ ïὐñáíïῦ certainly refers chiefly to ἀðïêáëýðãôåôáé , but it is indirectly declared thereby that the ὀñãὴ èåïῦ is from heaven, although, as a judgment immanent in life itself, it breaks forth from its internal state, or is caused by it. Special interpretations of the ὀñãÞ : The religion of the Old Testament (Bengel); storms and natural disasters (Pelagius); external and internal necessities of the times (Baumgarten-Crusius).
Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. The ἀóÝâåéá [godlessness, impiety] is the fundamental form of personal misconduct toward God; but the word is more especially significant in that it describes ungodliness as the absence of reverence for God. See Rom_1:21. The ἀäéêßá [unrighteousness, iniquity] is the correspondent fundamental form of misconduct toward God’s law in life, and therefore not toward our neighbor alone. Theophylact, Tholuck, and many others: Profanitas in Deum, injuria in proximnm. [So Hodge: ἀóÝâåéá , impiety toward God; ἀäéêßá , injustice toward men.—P. S.] Meyer, on the contrary: Irreligiousness and immorality, which is supported by the following description. [ ἈóÝâåéá is the fountain of ἀäéêßá , but both act and react upon each other.—P. S.]—Of men. Antithesis of ὀñãὴ èåïῦ . The word signifies, first, the universality of guilt; second, the weakness of man’s enmity against Almighty God.
Who hold back the truth. Description of the obstructions which, as the wicked reaction against the revelation of God, cause the reaction of Divine displeasure in the form of the ὀñãÞ . The truth is the revelation of God in its most general sense, as the unity and harmony of all the single Divine acts of revelation, with a special reference here to the natural revelation of God (Rom_1:19-20); although the doctrines of the gospel (of which Ammon explains ἀëÞèåéá ) must not be excluded from the general idea, nor must the natural knowledge of God be substituted for the revelation of God. The êáôÝ÷åéí (to grasp, to hold, here with the accessory idea of holding back) strikingly denotes hinderance, keeping back (Meyer, improperly, keeping down); as is the case with êáôáëáìâÜíåéí in Joh_1:5. An odd explanation is this: “Who possess the truth with unrighteousness; that is, sin against, better knowledge” (Michaelis, Koppe, Baur).—In unrighteousness. Not adverbial (Reiche, et al.), but instrumental (Meyer). The word must be understood here in the wide sense, according to which all sin is ἀäéêßá . See 1Jn_3:4. The sentence must be understood, however, in its general force, though with special reference already to the Gentiles. The history of this êáôÝ÷åéí is the history of the kingdom of darkness in humanity, which is consummated in the ἀíôéêåὶìåíïò , 2Th_2:8; comp. especially also 2Th_1:8. According to De Wette, the êáôÝ÷åéí operates so as not to let the truth come to appearance and development. But it also so operates as to pervert the individual elements of the truth into distortions, errors, and strong delusions, and thereby calls down the wrath of God. We must observe how decidedly the Apostle here views the ἀðéóôßá ethically as ἀðåὶèåéá ; and how he derives the errors of unbelief from unrighteousness, and from misconduct toward the ethical laws of the inner life.
Rom_1:19. Because that which is known of God. The äéüôé in Rom_1:19 may be regarded as an explanation of the statement in Rom_1:18, with special reference to the holding back of the truth of God; the äéüôé in Rom_1:21 as the explanation of the preceding ἀíáðïëïãÞôïõò åἶíáé ; and the äéὸ in Rom_1:24, as well as the äéὰ ôïῦôï in Rom_1:26, as the explanation of the revelation of God’s wrath. Though the äéüôé of Rom_1:19 is not to be regarded exactly the same as ãÜñ , it does not serve specially as a proof of the motive for Divine wrath. For more particular information, see Tholuck and Meyer.
The knowledge of God. Tholuck distinguishes three meanings of ãíùóôüí : 1. That which is known of God (Itala, Vulg., De Wette [Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Wordsworth.—P. S.]); 2. what may be known (Photius, and many others; Rückert); 3. knowledge [ = ãíῶóéò . Fritzsche, Tholuck, Hodge.—P. S.]. He shows that ãíùóôüò , according to the classical use of the language, means, what may be known; while ãíùôüò means, what is known. But in the Septuagint and New Testament the signification, known, is undoubted. Nevertheless, many expositors, from the time of Origen down to the present [Theophylact, Œcumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Ewald], have pronounced in favor of the translation, what may be known. But this signification does not make good sense, since it is difficult to distinguish between what may, and what may not be known of God, and since every thing that may be known of God was by no means revealed at the beginning to the nations (see Meyer). We understand what is known of God concretely as knowledge [Kenntniss, ãíῶóéò ], notitia dei—which should become true knowledge [Erkenntniss, ἐðßãíùóéò ] by living appropriation. Luther has made the untenable distinction, that the reason of man can know that God is, but cannot know who or what He is. Tholuck justly remarks that the Apostle immediately afterward speaks of a certain knowledge of the nature of God. [The book of nature is a ðáéäåõôÞñéïí èåïãíùóὶáò , as Basil (Hexaëmeron, i.) calls it, a school of the general knowledge of God, and there is no nation on earth which is entirely destitute of this knowledge.—P. S.]
Is manifest among them. Erasmus, Grotius, Köllner, and Baumgarten-Crusius, adopt this explanation. On the contrary, Tholuck, Meyer, and De Wette—with reference to Rom_2:15; Gal_1:16—strongly advocate Calvin’s interpretation, cordibus insculptum. [So also Beza: “In ipsorum animis, quia hœc Dei notitia recondita est in intimis mentis penetralibus;” and Hodge: “It is not of a mere external revelation of which the Apostle is speaking, but of that evidence of the being and perfection of God which every man has in the constitution of his own nature, and in virtue of which he is competent to apprehend the manifestations of God in His works.”—P. S.] But ἀðïêáëýøáé stands in Gal_1:16; and in Rom_2:15, the question is God’s manifestation by conscience, and not by creation. De Wette says: If the knowledge of God had been something common among them, it would not have been suppressed ( êáôå÷üìåíïí ). But this is not conclusive. We could say with more propriety: If there had been no general knowledge of God among them, there would have been no common guilt. We must admit, however, that among them presupposes in them, or the existence of a knowledge of God in their hearts.—God manifested it to them. This was not first of all ἀðïêÜëõøéò , but öáíÝñùóéò —manifestation through creation. And thus there arose from individuals a manifest knowledge of God—a öáíåñüí . The reference of this öáíåñüí to the gnosis of the philosophers (Erasmus, Grotius) is too contracted. But there was a tradition of the knowledge of God among men which preceded the development of heathenism. (It is hardly worth while to mention the explanation of Luther, Koppe, Flatt, that ἐí áὐôïῖò is the mere dative.) [There is a threefold revelation of God: 1. An internal revelation to the reason and conscience of every man (comp. Rom_2:15; Joh_1:9); 2. an external revelation in the creation, which proclaims God’s power, wisdom, and goodness (Rom_1:20); 3. a special revelation, through the Holy Scriptures, and in the person and work of Christ, which confirms and completes the other revelations, and exhibits the justice, holiness, and love of God. The first two are here intended.—P. S.]
Rom_1:20. For his invisible attributes [ ôÜ , ἀüñáôá áὐôïῦ ]. Explanation of the declaration: “God manifested it to them.” Meyer: “That may not be seen of Him (sein Unschaubares), the invisible attributes which constitute His essence, not actiones Dei invisibiles.” (Theodoret and Fritzsche: In relation to both creation and providence.) The pictures of creation, however, are also permanent actiones, and so far providence is at least indicated. [The ἀüñáôá is subsequently explained by äýíáìéò , and èåéüôçò , and the ôÝ , followed by êáß , as Tholuck remarks, does not annex a new idea (and also), but it partitions the ἀüñáôá into the two ideas of äýíáìéò and èåéüôçò . Paul has in view simply some of the Divine attributes, not the whole Divine being (which would rather require to ôὸ ἀüñáôïí ); the pagan knowledge of God is only partial and fragmentary, though sufficient to leave those who possess it without excuse.—P. S.]
From the time of the creation of the world. Not out of the creation (Luther, and others). This idea is contained in ôïῖò ðïéÞì . (De Wette). êôßóéò , moreover, is here equal to êáôáâïëÞ , (Fritzsche).—Being understood by the things that are made. An oxymoron, Arist., De mundo C. [vi.]: [ ðÜóῃ èíçôῇ öýóåé ãåíüìåíïò ] ἀèåþñçôïò ἀð ̓ áὐôῶí ôῶí ἔñãùí èåùñåῖôáé ὁèåüò . Meyer thus paraphrases the íïïýìåíá êáèïñᾶôáé : It is beheld by being perceived with the reason. We might ask: Should the sentence read, The invisible becomes visible by knowledge, as the means; or, it becomes visible as something known, perceptible to the reason? The latter thought is preferable here, since it is better adapted to the participle, and presupposes the import of the power, the thought-life of man. Philippi also limits himself to the middle form: “The invisible is seen; an oxymoron which is explained and qualified by the addition of íïïýìåíá . It is not seen by the bodily eye, but by the eye of the Spirit, the íïῦò , the reason.” Our view is favored by the original sense of êáèïñᾷí , a conception which passes through looking down and looking over into looking at.—By the things that are made [ by and in (his) works, ôïῖò ðïéÞìáóéí , instrumental dative.—P. S.]. These are therefore signs of the attributes of God. Schneckenburger (after Episcopius, and others) includes among them the government of God in history. But the conception of îòֲùֶׂä , creature, is against this view. Baumgarten-Crusius, following the Syriac and other versions, takes ðïéÞìáóé , in an ablative sense—by the creature—which is quite untenable.—His eternal power and divinity. [ ἀÀäéïò , from ἀäß , ever-enduring, eternal, belongs to both nouns. Here is the germ of the physicotheological argument for the existence of God, as in Rom_1:19 the ontological argument is intimated.—P. S.] Here, as in the Creed [I believe in God the Father Almighty], omnipotence serves as the representative of the attributes of God. Tholuck: “In the contemplation of nature, the first thing which strikes man with overpowering weight is the impression of an infinite, supernatural omnipotence (Book of Wis_13:4). All religion has its root in the feeling of dependence on supernatural powers (?). To the patriarchs God first revealed Himself as ùַׁãַּé , as the Almighty; Exo_6:3” (Gen_17:1).—And his Divinity. èåéüôçò , from èåῖïò , is the summary of the divinities, or divine excellencies, and must be distinguished from èåüôçò , the term which denotes the Divine Being itself. The omnipotence is completed by the remaining Divine attributes, through which it really becomes omnipotence in the full ethical as well as metaphysical sense. It is onesided if Schneckenburger refers it only to God’s goodness. Reiche’s thought is better, that wisdom and goodness are chiefly meant.
So that they are without excuse. Meyer does not regard the åἰò as expressing a consequence—as most commentators do [Vulg.: Ita ut sint inexcusabiles; Chrysostom, Luther, Reiche, De Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Philippi, Ewald, Alford, Words worth, Hodge]—but a purpose (in harmony with Calvin, Beza, and others): In order that they may be without excuse. But this rendering leads to a monstrous view of the purpose of the creation of the world. It is too fatalistic even for the conception of predestination, which it was once designed to support. Meyer urges in its defence that åἰò , in the Epistle to the Romans, when used with ôü and the infinitive, has always a teleological sense, against which [De Wette and] Tholuck (p. 67) protest. Then he insists that the results must also be determined beforehand. But this would be a kind of predestination which is self-contradictory: Predestinated—to have no excuse; that is, predestinated for guilt. The other explanation implies by no means a sufficientia religionis naturalis ad salutem, but it permits the possibility of another form of the course of development from Adam to Christ. [The object here is to show man’s guilt, not God’s sovereignty. Comp. on åἰò ôü the Textual Note. Hodge: “Paul does not here teach that it is the design of God, in revealing Himself to men, to render their opposition inexcusable, but rather, since this revelation has been made, they have in fact no apology for their ignorance and neglect of God. Though the revelation of God in His works is sufficient to render men inexcusable, it does not follow that it is sufficient to Lead men, blinded by sin, to a saving knowledge of Himself.” Wordsworth: “It can hardly be thought that the conviction, confusion, and condemnation of men was any part of the Divine plan in creation, although it followed as a consequence from it.”—P. S.]
Rom_1:21. Because, although they knew God, &c. The äéüôé explains first of all how far they are without excuse; then, indirectly, how their guilt of holding back the truth in unrighteousness commenced. Incorrect construction: cum cognoscere potuissent (Œcumenius, Flatt). Meyer has no ground for opposing the solution of the participle ãíüíôåò into the sentence: although they knew God (not, perceived Him). The contradiction between knowing God and the designated neglect of Him is obvious indeed; but herein precisely consists the inexcusableness. The ignorance ( ἄãíïéá ) of the Gentile world, Eph_4:18, &c., is improperly regarded by Tholuck as an apparent contradiction; for the Gentile world was not such at the outset, and its ignorance is the result and punishment of its great sin of neglect. They lost even their imperfect knowledge ( ãíῶóéò ), because they did not raise it to full knowledge ( ἐðßãíùóéò ) through the labor of the heart, [ ôὸí èåüí , the one true God, in opposition to the false èåïß whom the heathen worshipped.—P. S.]
They glorified him not as God. According to His divinity (Joh_4:24). They were not wanting in worship, but in worship suitable to God. Melanchthon refers äïîÜæåéí to theoretical, and åὐ÷áñéóôåῖí to practical conduct toward God (as recognition and reverence); but Tholuck very justly rejects such an interpretation, and regards äïîÜæåéí as the general term for worship, and åὐ÷ , as the special designation of that species in which the feeling of dependence exhibits itself in the most tender and truly human way. In our opinion, the former denotes rather all worship, so far as it should be preëminently the glorification of God; the latter denotes the same worship as the grateful recognition of the Divine government for human welfare.
But became vain [ ἐìáôáéþèçóáí ]. They became idle, foolish, in devising vanities (Isa_44:9), vain idols, ìÜôáéá (Act_14:15). [ ìáôáéüôçò , çֶáִì , vanitas, is a characteristic term for idol-worship; Deu_32:21; 2Ki_17:5; Jer_2:5; Act_14:15.—P. S.] “As man, so his God.” The axiom may also be reversed: As his God, so man himself (Psa_115:8); They that make them are like unto them. The human mind is made dumb, wooden, and stone-like, by dumb, wooden, and stone idols (comp. Act_17:29). But that vanity began in the inward life.—In their imaginations [thoughts, reasonings, speculations, äéáëïãéóìïῖò ], Tholuck: “We can scarcely coincide with the Vulgate, Fritzsche, Meyer, and Philippi, in translating äéáëïãéóìïß simply by cogitata. But since the word is used usually malo sensu, and the antithesis is more expressive, we may translate it, with Luther: ‘In their imagining;’ Beza: rationibus suis. We need not think exclusively of the reasonings and conclusions of the philosophers (Philippi).” Mythology was complete with its growth of ideals and images long before philosophy proper was conceived.
And their foolish heart was darkened. The supposition that “foolish” ( ἀóýíåôïò ) is used proleptically in the sense that their heart was darkened so as to lose its understanding (De Wette), is not only unnecessary (Tholuck), but altogether irrelevant (Meyer: “because it destroys the climax”). Positive darkness was the result of the negative neglect of the heart to regard the Divine tokens, and to weigh them understandingly. The êáñäßá , the centre of life, is first, darkened; then the äéÜíïéá , the developed thought-life (Eph_4:18), Tholuck: In this section the Apostle coincides so fully in word and thought, with the Book of Wisdom, chaps. 13–15, that Nitzsch regards it “almost impossible” to ascribe perfect originality to him. Yet he himself admits that the fundamental thought—the tracing of idolatry back to sin—was unknown to the Alexandrine author, &c. (comp. Nitzsch, Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1850, p. 387; Bleek, Stud, und Kritiken, 1853, p. 340).
Rom_1:23. And exchanged, &c. They have abandoned the real äüîá [ ëְּáåֹø éְäåָֹä ]—the contemplation of God’s glory—which was communicated to them through the spiritual contemplation of the creation, which was manifested to the Israelites in the Shekinah in the exalted moments of vision, and which was finally communicated to Christians in the righteousness of Christ for faith. They exchanged this glory for their religious images—that is, for vanity, folly, and darkness. “The ἐí cannot be taken for åἰò (Reiche [E. V.]), but is instrumental” (Meyer). It denotes the external element of their exchange. [The verb ἀëëÜóóåéí , when it means to exchange, is usually construed with ôß ôéíïò or ἀíôἱ ôéíïò , permutare rem per rem or re, but in the LXX. with ἐí , after the Hebrew äֵîִéø áְּ , as in Psa_106:20 : ἠëëÜîáíôï ôÞí äüîáí áὐôὼí ἐí ὁìïéþìáôé ìüó÷ïõ , ê . ô . ë . Tholuck quotes also Sophocles, Antig., 1:936, for the same construction. The contrast of ἀöèἁñôïõ and öèáñôïῦ sets forth the folly of such an exchange.—P. S.] Grotius: ὁìïßùìá åἰêüíïò , figura, quœ apparet in simulacro. Meyer quotes Rev_9:7 in favor of this view. But the expression seems to indicate that the worship of images proceeded from an arbitrary, self-created symbolism. They believed that they wisely expressed and maintained the äüîá of God in the symbol or likeness of a human image. For this purpose they naturally made use of the image of the external and therefore perishable form of man. This was specially the case among the Greeks. There were also the Egyptian images of beasts: of birds —the bird Ibis; of four-footed beasts—the Apis, the dog and the cat; and of creeping things—the crocodile and the serpent. Tholuck: The Egyptian worship was at that time domesticated at Rome; and the expression of Paul relates as well to the adoration of the symbol, generally practised by the cultivated classes, as to the adoration of the image itself, as a real idol, which prevailed among the great masses (see Tholuck). [The common people saw in the idols the gods themselves, the cultivated heathen, symbolical representations, or, at best, only the organs through which the gods operated. A similar difference of a gross and a more refined superstition is found in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the images of saints. The Scriptures make no account of this distinction, and denounce all image-worshippers as idolaters.—P. S.] The Apostle traces the downward tendency of heathendom, by passing, first, from the likeness to the image, and, second, from the image of man to the images of creeping animals. [Wordsworth: “ êáὶ — êáὶ — êáß —observe this repetition, marking successive stages of their moral and intellectual degradation: ending in the transmutation of the living God of heaven into the likeness of unclean reptiles crawling upon the earth!”—P. S.]
Rom_1:24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness. The Apostle evidently distinguishes two degrees of this abandonment; Rom_1:24 and Rom_1:26. As the unnatural sins of lust are not mentioned before Rom_1:26, so may we understand Rom_1:24 as referring to the natural forms of sensuality. But lewdness is the sin common to both degrees of corruption. That the Apostle should regard sins of lust as the immediate result of religious apostasy, rests: 1. On the Hebrew idea of whoredom, according to which religious whoredom—that is, idolatry—leads to moral whoredom as its most immediate result (Numbers 25; Ezekiel 23); just as, reversely, moral unchastity leads to religious lewdness (Solomon, Henry IV. [of France]). The heathen forms of worship are therefore connected in various ways with the practice of lust, or they are even the worship of lust. 2. On the ethical law, that moral principles stand in reciprocal connection with religious principles. The image of corruptible man is an image of the natural man, who, like Jupiter, indulges in love intrigues. The image of the bull likewise indicates the deification of the generative power of nature.
Wherefore God gave them up [ ðáñÝäùêåí , delivered them over]. The abandonment must not be regarded, with the Greek expositors [since Origen], as a mere permission ( óõã÷þñçóéò —see Chrysostom’s remarks, quoted by Tholuck [who dissents from him]), nor, on the other hand, as referring to a Divine predestination of abandonment to the judgment of condemnation. (Tholuck, the editor of Calvin’s Commentaries, calls this the Calvinistic view, according to which God is the effective author of sin;—but this he could certainly not prove from Calvin’s exposition of the present passage.) The abandonment is rather the first stage in the exercise of punitive authority (see my Positive Dogmatics, p. 468). God executed this punishment on a grand scale in the origin and growth of heathendom. He allowed the Gentiles to walk in their own ways (Act_14:16; Psa_81:13; Psa_147:20). The permittere in this punishment becomes an effective operation by God’s withdrawal of His Spirit; which measure His holiness requires. Paul has already said that this withdrawal is retributive; but he now makes it especially prominent: in the lusts of their hearts, ἐí ôáῖò ἐðéèõìßáéò , &c. The ἐí must not be understood as instrumental [by or through] (Erasmus [E. V.], and others), nor like åἰò (Piscat., Estius, and others) [but signifies the element or moral condition in which they were already when God, by a judicial act, delivered them over to a still worse condition.—P. S.]. The negative punitive judgment becomes positive in this, that they can no longer control the lusts of their heart after God’s Spirit is withdrawn from them. It is in harmony with God’s righteousness that sin should be punished by sin.—To uncleanness. The sins of thought and heart became sins of deed. The expression filthiness (Unflätherei, Meyer) seems too strong for the beginning of the development of uncleanness. In Gal_5:19 (to which Meyer refers), the description passes from the grosser to the more subtle forms.
So that their bodies were dishonored. De Wette and Tholuck [Meyer, Alford, al.] maintain that ἀôéìÜæåáèáé does not occur in the middle (Erasmus, Luther [E. V.]), but only in the passive voice. The bodies were already dishonored by natural lewdness, by which they lost their dignity as temples of God, and were degraded into instruments of sensual lust (and not merely “woman;” Tholuck). See 1Co_6:16.—Between themselves. Three explanations: 1. The ἐí is instrumental (Theophylact, Köllner). Then the moral subject is wanting. 2. The ἐí áὐôïῖò has a reciprocal signification equal to ἐí ἀëëÞëïéò , reciprocally (Erasmus, De Wette, Tholuck, and others). Meyer: One dishonors the other. This construction is favored by the reciprocal sexual intercourse which disappears in the unnatural lewdness described in Rom_1:26. 3. Reflexive (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others). Tholuck remarks on this, that to themselves does not give clear sense. Comp., on the contrary, 1Co_6:16. We may adopt the second explanation, and yet the third need not be given up—namely, that in natural lewdness not only does one dishonor the other, but each dishonors himself.
Rom_1:25. They who exchanged the truth of God. According to Meyer and Tholuck, Paul returns expressly to the cause of the abandonment. But by this they overlook the definite progress of thought—namely, the argument for the abandonment of the second degree which follows in Rom_1:26. As a punishment of the heathen for squandering the äüîá of God for the paltry sum of images, their own bodies have lost their äüîá . But they are further charged with bartering the truth of God for the lie of idolatry, since they have served the creature ðáñὰ ôὸí êôßóáíôá . Therefore God gave them up to a lie of sexual lust, to a lust ðáñὰ öýóéí . It is from this parallel, which the commentators have overlooked, that exact exegetical definitions on this passage arise.—They who exchanged, Ïἵôéíåò , Quippe qui. The expression denotes them as the same, but characterizes them more fully. The sense is, they exchanged for (sie tauschten um), ìåôÞëëáîáí , which is not merely “more emphatic” (Meyer) than ἤëëáîáí . It includes, with the exchange, a very strong conception of change, of variation.—The truth of God. Explanations: 1. The truth revealed to the Gentiles (Camerarius, Reiche, and others). 2. èåïῦ is genit. object.; therefore the true knowledge of God (Piscat., Usteri. [Alford: the true notion of Him as the Creator]). 3. èåïῦ is genit. subject.; the truth or reality of God, the true Divine essence, according to the analogy ôὴí äüîáí ôïῦ èåïῦ (Tholuck, Meyer). Tholuck (with Theophylact, Luther, and others) takes it exactly as ἀëçèéíὸò èåüò [and øåῦäïò for ïἱ øåõäåῖò èåïß . So also Hodge: a periphrase for the true God—P. S.]. The äüîá of God is God’s revelation in glory, and so is God’s truth the öáíÝñùóéò (see Rom_1:19) of his essential truth in the truthful relations of creation. The name of God is the revelation of His nature; not His nature in and of itself. But this revelation divides itself into the äüîá when we have in view the whole majesty of His name, and into the ἀëÞèåéá when we look at the real harmony of its antitheses. They have forsaken the general manifestation of this truth of God. They have, indeed, utterly squandered it for the gain of a mere lie—for the lying idols. [ øåῦäïò = ùֶׁ÷ֶø , is used emphatically for idols in the Scriptures; Jer_13:25; Jer_16:19; Isa_28:15; Isa_44:20; because the heathen gods do not even exist, and yet they are worshipped in the place of the only true God, who is the Cause of all existence, and the Author of all truth.—P. S.] Idols are lies not simply as dii imaginarii (Grotius). They are embodied lies. Man must make them, and they pretend to represent Him who made man (Isa_40:19-20). They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not (Psa_115:5; Psa_135:16; Wis_15:15). The worshipper of idols has a dark consciousness of this contradiction. Even his worship is mendacious. Tholuck quotes Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. 3 [where it is said of the Israelites who had made the golden calf], Moses wondered ὅóïí øåῦäïò ἀíè ̓ ὅóçò ἀëçèåἱáò ὑðçëëÜîáíôï . Comp. also Isa_44:20; Jer_3:10; Jer_13:25; Jer_16:19.—And worshipped. ÓåâÜæïìáé [only once in the N. T.] denotes religious reverence in general; ëáôñåýù denotes worship [with sacrifice, and other acts and rites]. The conception of the óåâ . passes from fear and reverence to worship. Of kindred but not of identical character is the distinction of Theophylact, and others: internal and external worship.—The creature rather than the Creator. [ êôßóåé , any created being or thing, belongs to both verbs, but is conformed to ëáôñåýù as the nearest, while óåâÜæïìáé would require the accusative.—P. S.] The ðáñὰ ôὸí êôßóáíôá has been interpreted in three ways: 1. More than the Creator [in the relative sense], (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther [E. V., Grotius], and others); 2. against the Creator [contra creatorem; comp. ðáñὰ öýóéí , Rom_1:26], (Hammond, Fritzsche, and others); 3. In the sense of comparison [and exclusion], prœ creators, prœterito, or relicto creatore (Hilarius, Theophylact, Beza, Tholuck, Meyer [Olshausen, De Wette, Philippi, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge], and others). The third explanation is correct in the sense that it includes the second: Passing by one with the disregard and rejection of the same (see Luk_18:14). The ðáñὰ öýóéí in Rom_1:26 perfectly corresponds to this rendering. In both cases, the statement must not be understood absolutely; otherwise heathendom would have been the negation of all religion, and unnatural lust the negation of all propagation of the human race. It denotes the outbreaking sovereignty of a religious vice, which is completed in a sensual one. [Wordsworth derives from this text an argument against the Arians, who assert Christ to be a creature, and yet profess to worship Him; and against those who pay religious worship to any creature, since no one is to be worshipped, according to the Scriptures, who is not Go