Romans 1

Introduction

(1:1) “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.”

“Called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.” This could be an allusion to Jeremiah’s calling: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). Paul didn’t create his own calling to be an apostle. Rather, Jesus personally called Paul to this role (v.5; Acts 9). Similarly, as Christians, we don’t place ourselves into roles, but rather, God calls us to them (Lk. 14:7ff; 1 Cor. 12:18; Eph. 2:10; Acts 13:25; 20:24; 2 Tim. 4:7).

(1:2) “[The gospel] which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.”

Throughout this letter, Paul grounds his ideas about salvation in the OT. The gospel was not a revision of God’s plan, but was his plan all along. Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophecy (see “Jesus and Messianic Prophecy”). Paul elaborates on the Jewish basis of the gospel throughout the letter, demonstrating that this was God’s plan all along, being “promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.”

(1:3) “Concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh.”

In order for Jesus to be the Messiah, he needed to come from the line of David. This must be an extrapolation from verse 2—namely, Jesus was from David’s line and this was promised all along. Moreover, he was born as a human being “according to the flesh.” He was flesh and blood.

(1:4) “[Jesus] was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

“Declared… by the resurrection from the dead.” If Jesus hadn’t been raised from the dead, we would likely believe that he was a dead messianic pretender. There would be no reason to believe in his radical claims of self-authenticity. However, God’s resurrection of Jesus validated his life, ministry, and teaching. The resurrection didn’t change the “essence” of who Jesus is, but it did change his “status.”[] That is, he was recognized for who he truly is through the resurrection.

“According to the Spirit of holiness.” Mounce understands the “spirit of holiness” to refer to Jesus’ “own inner spirit.”[] However, we agree with Moo[] that this refers to the Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. For one, the text doesn’t say “his Spirit of holiness,” but rather, “the Spirit of holiness.” Second, the contrast with “flesh” and “spirit” most naturally contrasts the natural from the supernatural—the physical from the spiritual. This becomes a major theme throughout Romans: the flesh versus the Spirit. Third, the mention of the Holy Spirit fits well with the assertion that Jesus was a descendent of David “according to the flesh.” While Jesus was truly human (“according to the flesh”), he was also supernaturally empowered by the Holy Spirit (“according to the Spirit”).

(1:5) “Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake.”

Paul viewed his unique calling as an apostle as being a gift of God (“grace”). Paul viewed his role as a privilege—not an obligation.

(1:6) “Among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.”

Gentiles (v.5) constituted many of the Christians in Rome.

“You also are the called.” In context, the rest of the “called” are “all the Gentiles.” If “called” (klētos) refer to the Elect, then this would imply that “all” Gentiles are elected. This implies that being “called” does not refer to unconditional election. Rather, many are called, but few are chosen (Mt. 22:14).

(1:7) “To all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We are not lovable, but we are loved (agapetos). God doesn’t love use because we are lovely, but because He is loving. Indeed, this text doesn’t state that we act as “saints” (hagiois); instead, we are called or declared saints by God. The “as” in the NASB is not in the original Greek. God simply calls us saints (i.e. holy). Paul will later unpack this “forensic righteousness” in the rest of his letter.

(1:8) “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all.”

“First…” What was at the top of Paul’s list of subjects to communicate to the Romans? The first subject on his list—his top priority—was giving thanks to God for these believers. This gives insight into how Paul operated in ministry. He remembered to give thanks for people who were following Christ, many of whom he’d never met.

“Because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” Since Rome was at the center of the known world, it would make sense that “everyone” was hearing about these believers.

(1:9) “For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you.”

Paul “serves” (latreuo; literally “worships”) God through his ministry of sharing the gospel. Evangelism is a form of worship.

“God… is my witness.” Paul might have used this phrase to demonstrate that he “was not using idle rhetoric regarding his concern for them.”[]

(1:10) “Always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.”

Paul kept praying for an opportunity to come to Rome. Paul writes about this at the end of his letter (Rom. 15:22-32). This implies that Paul wanted to discover and follow God’s will and timing for his plans in travelling to Rome.

(1:11) “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established.”

This “spiritual gift” probably refers to seeing people come to Christ (v.13) through his teaching (v.15).

(1:12) “That is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.”

Paul didn’t take a celebrity approach with these believers. He wanted to approach them as a fellow brother in Christ. At the end of this letter, Paul writes, “[I hope to] come to you in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in your company” (Rom. 15:32). Tim Keller writes, “This is striking! Since Paul sought out encouragement from other believers, and since if Paul sought that encouragement in the faith of other believers, how much more should we?!”[]

(1:13) “I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.”

“[I] have been prevented so far.” Paul planned to come, but he was thwarted. This might relate to verse 10, where Paul was praying for God to open the door for him to come to Rome, but he was “prevented” from coming. This likely relates to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius (AD 49).[] As a Jewish man, Paul would’ve been included in this expulsion. Yet, when Claudius left power in AD 54, the decree was rescinded and the Jewish population was allowed back into Rome. Paul (himself a Jew) wouldn’t have been allowed to return until this time (AD 56-57).

(1:14) “I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.”

Who are the “wise” and “foolish”? Paul unpacks this later in Romans 1, referring to the Gentiles: “Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22). In the Jewish mind, the Gentiles were “foolish” (Rom. 2:20).

In what sense was Paul “under obligation” to them? Tim Keller writes, “It is illustrative to think about how I can be in debt to you. First, you may have lent me $100—and I am in debt to you until I pay it back. But second, someone else may have given me $100 to pass on to you—and I am in debt to you until I hand it on. It is in this second sense that Paul is ‘obligated’ to everyone, everywhere. God has shared the gospel with him. But God has also commissioned him to declare it to others. So Paul owes people the gospel.”[]

(1:15) “So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.”

Paul couldn’t wait to teach to the Romans about the gospel. Moo[] holds that Paul wanted to preach about the gospel to the Christians in Rome. That is, as Christians, we need to be reminded over and over about the good news of Jesus Christ. However, the context refers to the non-Christians in Rome (v.14). Perhaps both are in view.

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

Paul writes about not being ashamed of the gospel in the context of evangelism (vv.14-15; cf. 2 Tim. 1:7-8). Why isn’t he ashamed? Because the gospel is the “power” of Almighty God! The power of the gospel is similar to verse 4—the same “power” that raised Jesus from the dead. The gospel, likewise, has the power to bring spiritually dead people to life. Paul also notes that the gospel is God’s power, which is His role. Our role is simply to trust in this message and “believe” it. Surprisingly, the hardest part of the Christian life is simply believing that God is really this good!

“To the Jew first and also to the Greek.” First, Paul shared about Jesus with the Jews, because they were closer to the God of the Bible. He also believed that they were coming back in God’s plan (11:26-27). Thus, they deserved to hear about the Messiah first.

Keller notes that the gospel is boundless (“to everyone who believes”), but is also boundaried (“to everyone who believes”).[] Thus, it is both radically inclusive (Rom. 3:22; 4:11; 10:4, 11), but also exclusive in its claims.

Referring to the depth of the gospel, Theodoret (a Syrian bishop in the fifth century) writes, “A pepper outwardly seems to be cold… but the person who crunches it between the teeth experiences the sensation of burning fire.”[]

(1:17) “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith.’”

“In it the righteousness of God is revealed.” How does the gospel reveal the righteousness of God? While the answer to this question is multifaceted, Paul’s focus centers on God’s righteousness being revealed through humans becoming righteous through the Cross (Rom. 3:21; 5:17; 10:3; Phil. 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21). Additionally, the righteousness of God is revealed through faith (“revealed from faith”), and the wrath of God is revealed through unbelief (or “suppressing the truth”). Indeed, Paul’s citation of Habakkuk 2:4 focuses on the believer being righteous through his faith in God. Finally, throughout the rest of Romans 1-11, Paul shows how God is righteous in his plan of salvation. So, in some respects, all of these are in view, but the emphasis is on God’s righteousness in saving sinful humans and making us righteous in the process (see Moo[] and Mounce[]).

“From faith to faith.” While this is debated, our view is that this refers to coming to Christ, living for Christ, and being rescued by Christ at the end of history. Thus justification, sanctification, and glorification are all in view, as the rest of the letter unpacks. Harrison writes, “What it conveys is the necessity of issuing a reminder to the believer that justifying faith is only the beginning of Christian life. The same attitude must govern him in his continuing experience as a child of God.”[] Likewise, Mounce writes that this expression “points to faith as the origin of righteousness and the direction in which it leads.”[] This makes sense of Paul’s citation of Habakkuk 2:4 (“The righteous man shall live by faith” in the present tense). How do others interpret this expression?

• Augustine understood this to mean “from the faith in the law to the faith in the gospel” (Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 11.18).[] However, Romans 4 shows that OT believers like Abraham and David believed in grace—not law. So, this interpretation doesn’t fit.

• Karl Barth[] and James Dunn[] understand this to mean something like “from the faithfulness of God to the faith of humans.” This seems to be importing too much into these four short words.

• Moo[] and Osborne[] argue that Paul is using intensification, meaning something like “faith and nothing but faith.” This is a rhetorical way of repeating the same word for emphasis.

“As it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith.’” Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4. In the book of Habakkuk, Israel is being judged by the Gentile nations, because they didn’t keep the Law. Therefore, because they didn’t obey the Law, they fell under the curse of God. Habakkuk told his people that the way out from under the curse of God (i.e. takeover by the Gentile nations) was by faith. Nothing has changed in this regard. Paul argues that God would bring people out from under the curse of judgment because of faith during Habakkuk’s time, and he will bring NT believers out from under the curse of judgment by faith during our time.

Questions for Reflection

What do we learn about Paul from verses 1-17? What sort of person was he like? What were his desires? What motivated him and gave him confidence?

What do we learn about Paul’s prayer life from verses 8-10?

What do we learn about the Roman Christians from verses 8-15?

What do we learn about the gospel message from verses 1-17?

Romans 1:18-32 (Judgment based on the revelation of creation)

Paul began to share the good news about the “gospel” (Rom. 1:16-17). However, before he can share the good news about Christ, he needs to share the bad news about the human condition. So, he begins with judgment, or what he calls “the wrath of God.” In our view, this does not describe a specific event, such as the initial Fall of humans (Gen. 3) or the idolatry of Israel (Ex. 32). Instead, we agree with Moo that this describes “describes the terrible proclivity of all people to corrupt the knowledge of God they possess by making gods of their own.”[] We agree that there might be allusions to Genesis 3, but disagree that this refers to the narrative of the Fall. The indicting language is universal and timeless, applying to all people throughout history.

(1:18) “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

“The wrath of God is revealed.” While there is certainly a day of final wrath to come, there is also wrath right now. Paul writes in the present tense, describing how the wrath of God is currently being revealed from heaven. How can we see God’s wrath right now? One sign of God’s wrath is that he doesn’t intervene. This is called God’s passive wrath, where he hands us over to our own devices (v.24, 26, 28).

“Men… suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The problem with people is not the absence of evidence, but the suppression of it. As atheist Aldous Huxley openly admitted, his reason for rejecting Christianity was because he “objected to the morality because it interfered with [his] sexual freedom.”[] We might not be so brazen, but our “unrighteousness” (of various kinds) is at the heart of unbelief. This “unrighteousness” stands in stark contrast to the “righteousness of God” that is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17).

While the wrath of God often offends people, Keller notes, “If you don’t understand or believe in the wrath of God, the gospel will not thrill, empower or move you.”[] After all, from what did God save us if he is not a God of justice?

(1:19) “Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”

The truth of God is “evident” (NASB) or “plain” (NIV, ESV, NET). It is “evident within them,” which can also be rendered “evidence among them.”[] In this case, the evidence would refer to creation (v.20). The term “evidence” (phaneron) means “revealed” or “manifested.” How did God reveal the reality of his existence to us? Paul states that can be perceived through creation itself.

(1:20) “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Paul’s assertion seems to be that creation requires a Creator. When we look at a piece of art, we know certain things about the artist. For one, we know that an artist must exist, because the oil paint didn’t simply organize itself into the form of a landscape or a portrait. Second, we know that the artist has certain attributes: intelligence, creativity, physical ability, etc. Third, we know some of the interests of the artist by looking at his or her art. Of course, we cannot know everything about the artist, but we can infer some basic aspects of what he or she is like.

Similarly, when we look at creation, we know certain things about the Creator (e.g. omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, timeless, spaceless, etc.). Of course, we cannot know everything about the Creator by exploring creation, but we can learn certain attributes. This seems to be Paul’s argument here in Romans 1—namely, humans have sufficient knowledge about God to know that he exists.

How strong is the evidence from general revelation? Paul states that the evidence for God in the created order is so strong that it leaves people “without excuse” (anapologetos). Literally, this word “suggests that from a legal standpoint people had been stripped of any defense.”[]

(1:21) “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

“Even though they knew God.” This must refer to the suppressed knowledge of general revelation in creation from verses 19-20.

“They did not… give thanks.” How did all of this sin enter into the world? The gateway to a rejection of God is not flagrant disobedience or vitriol. Instead, the pathway starts with a lack of thankfulness and gratitude (v.21). When we refuse to give thanks, our minds become poisoned and we can’t think straight. This leads to a slippery slope that can lead to all other forms of unbelief and sin. Paul mentions this in Ephesians 4:18, using the same word (“being darkened in their understanding”).

(1:22) “Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

What terrible irony: At the very moment that these people were saying how wise they were becoming, they were in reality becoming more and more foolish! Mounce explains that turning from truth necessarily results in foolishness: “One cannot turn from knowledge with impunity. The rejection of truth marks the rebel as a fool.”[] Osborne writes, “This is especially true of the Greeks, who developed the greatest concentration of philosophical ‘wisdom’ in history in the midst of one of the most depraved cultures in the ancient world."[]

(1:23) “And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

Instead of recognizing that God made us in His image, people chose to distort God in their own image. In fact, this idolatry rapidly declines—going from bad to worse: from man to birds to animals to crawling creatures. The people shift their focus from honoring God to worshipping “crawling creatures.” This is “spiritual rock bottom.” Harrison writes, “Man is a religious being, and if he refuses to let God have the place of preeminence that is rightfully his, then he will put something or someone in God’s place.”[] John Stott writes, “The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and puts himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives that belong to God alone; God accepts penalties that belong to man alone.”[]

We might compare “incorruptible” metals like gold to “corruptible” metals like rusted iron. Imagine trading gold for a rusted hunk of metal! How foolish! Paul states that this is the deep insanity that resides in the human heart; this is the horror of the human condition (cf. Ps. 106:20; Jer. 2:11).

This passage supports the deity of Christ. Paul was against worshipping humans, but he was for worshipping Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus wasn’t God, according to Paul, this would be tantamount to idolatry.

(1:24) “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.”

“Lusts” (epithymia) is used 17 times in the NT. It is a compound word: epi (“over”) and thumos (“desire”). We might understand this as referring to an “inordinate desire” or an “over desire.” Whenever Paul uses the word referring to himself, it is used in a positive sense (1 Thess. 2:17; Phil. 1:23). However, the other 15 usages are not only negative, but connected with sin (cf. Rom. 6:12; 7:7-8; 13:14; 1 Thess. 4:5).[]

“Impurity” (akatharsia) is used nine other times in the NT. In Romans 6:19, Paul uses this term alongside “lawlessness.” Paul writes of those “who have sinned in the past and have not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced” (2 Cor. 12:21). He writes, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality, impurity, sensuality” (Gal. 5:19). Paul is referring to morality—not civil or ceremonial laws.

“Dishonored” (atimazō) is used several times throughout the NT. It is elsewhere translated as living “shamefully” (Mk. 12:4), treating Jesus with “dishonor” (Jn. 8:49), and how breaking the Law brings “dishonor” to God (Rom. 2:23).

“Gave them over” is legal language. Osborne writes, “The verb for gave them over means to ‘deliver’ them for their punishment… It refers to a judicial act on God’s part.”[] Yet, instead of judging us actively, God does this passively. God hands us over—not to the executioner—but to ourselves! God is so infinitely loving that allowing us to rule our own lives is a form of judgment.

While freedom from God might initially seem liberating, we soon discover that it is deeply degrading. We don’t make something more of ourselves, but something less. Tim Keller writes, “The tragedy of humanity is that we strive for and fail to find what we could simply receive and enjoy. We suppress the truth which would free and satisfy us.”[]

God doesn’t force humans to sin. He gave them over “in the lusts of their hearts.” One commentator describes, “[God] ceased to hold the boat as it was dragged by the current of the river.”[] By contrast, Moo argues that God doesn’t just let go of the boat, but also God “gives it a push downstream.” We see no warrant in the text for God’s active wrath here.[]

God’s wrath is passive: He simply lets us go. Do you really want to hold onto the reigns of your own life? God considers this a form of his “wrath” to allow you to do this! Are you ready to come under the loving leadership of God?

Paul addresses opposite-sex fornication before he addresses same-sex fornication. Many Christians have pre-marital sex. According to a recent study from the General Social Survey, of those in fundamentalist churches, 86% of females and 82% of males had sex before marriage. And this is only after the age of 18, so the percentage could be even higher.[] Paul considers same-sex behavior (SSB) to be immoral. But it is quite hypocritical for these same Christians to denounce SSB, when they themselves engage in fornication.

(1:25) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

This further explains what people did by engaging in rampant idolatry (v.23). This is nothing less than trading a “truth” for a “lie.”

(1:26) “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.”

“Degrading” (atimias) refers to “a state of dishonor or disrespect, dishonor” (BDAG).

“Passions” (pathē) is only used on two other occasions in the NT. Both refer to sin (1 Thess. 4:5; Col. 3:5). When combined with the term “degrading,” this refers to “illicit sexual passions.”[]

“Their women exchanged.” This passage is parallel with the idolatry mentioned above: Just as all people “exchanged” (metallassō) the truth about the Creator for a lie (v.23, 25), these women “exchanged” (metallassō) God’s natural design for sex. The parallel is with the truth of reality being exchanged for a lie about reality. In this context, it refers to the realm of sexual ethics. Thus, Moo comments, “Sexual sins that are ‘against nature’ are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to ‘nature’ in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order.”[]

“Natural function for that which is unnatural” (physikēn… para physin) refers to God’s created order or his “natural” order. According to Paul, even people without the Bible are able to recognize the natural complementarity of male-to-female biological anatomy for sexuality.

“Function” (chrēsin) is used for both women (v.26) and men (v.27).

(1:27) “And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

The penalty is not God’s active wrath as in 1 Corinthians 6:9, but God’s passive wrath (Rom. 1:18). Just as opposite sex fornication is degrading, same-sex fornication is degrading to God’s image-bearers as well.

“Burned in their desire toward one another.” This does not refer to exploitative sex (e.g. masters with slaves, rich with the poor). This is consensual sex between two men, because both “desire” one another. The term “desire” (orexei) is only used here in the NT, so it is difficult to translate. Yet Dr. Thomas Schmidt notes that the Jewish author Philo “employs orexis fourteen times, always negatively, and twice in discussions of sexual desire.”[]

“Men with men committing indecent acts.” Once again, this does not refer to exploitative sex such as pedophilia. Both people are grown “men.” The text does not say “men with boys,” but “men with men.”

These sexual acts are considered “indecent” (aschēmosunē), which is “behavior that elicits disgrace, shameless deed” (BDAG, p.147).

“Receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” This likely refers to how sexual sin affects us. The context refers to the passive wrath of God (Rom. 1:18). When we flee from God’s design for sex, we don’t find liberation—only degradation. Referring to fornication, Paul writes, “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). Another view is that this refers to eternal punishment, which is the greater context of Romans 1-3. Moo[] holds that both are faithful interpretations. We favor the former view above for the reasons listed there.

(1:28) “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

This whole section can be understood as rejecting God’s will and God’s design for us. If we choose not to acknowledge God, then he will not acknowledge us. And sadly, God gives us over to what we want. Keller writes, “The worst thing that can happen to us is that we are given what our hearts over-desire. Take a man who worships his career. He serves it as what will make him ‘a somebody.’ It drives him, and it dominates his life—everything else is fitted around it. The worst thing that can happen to him is promotion! It allows him to continue to think that he can find blessing in his over-desires. It convinces him that this is ‘real life.’ It enables him to forget the wreckage he is making of his marriage, his family, his friendships, in order to pursue his god. Oscar Wilde summed it up well: ‘When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.’”[]

“Depraved mind” shows the catastrophic result of a life lived apart from God. As Paul already wrote, “They became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). This refers to the noetic effects of sin—whereby sin actually affects our ability to think. This cannot be healed until we experience the “renewing of our mind” through Christ (Rom. 12:2).

Do Paul’s words about carnality lead to self-righteousness? Christians certainly use his words to decry the immorality of others. Yet, this is very far from Paul’s intention. Paul issues a fierce rebuke to the self-righteous in chapter 2, and for now, Paul is in the midst of developing a case for why all people fall short of God’s moral standard (Rom. 3:23). Citing 1 Timothy 1:15, Keller writes, “We only grasp the gospel when we understand, as Paul did, that we are the worst sinner we know—and that if Jesus came to die for us, there is no one that he would not die for.”[]

(1:29-31) “Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.”

No one can get through this list alive. Paul adds sins that are overlooked in our culture today such as “greed… envy… deceit… gossip… slander… arrogance… disobedient to parents.” Regarding this list of sins, Tim Keller writes, “[Paul] has in view people who promote and encourage idolatry. It is easier to see how others do this, and harder to see it in ourselves. But it is worth asking: Do I ever encourage my children to make idols of exam results? How might I nod sympathetically at someone’s envy? Have I allowed gossip to go on around me unchallenged?”[]

While Paul addresses SSB in verse 24-28, he addresses as sorts of various strains and species of sin that plague humanity. There’s no escaping Paul’s indictment: We are all in the same boat when it comes to sin, and that boat is sinking rapidly!

(1:32) “And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Paul himself isn’t being self-righteous. He had been one of the people who gave “hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death” (Acts 8:1).

Questions for Reflection

Does Paul’s description of the human condition fit with what we see in our world today? If so, how?

Does this description of humanity lead you to be self-righteous? Or does it lead you to be heartbroken for those who don’t know Christ?