Reflections on Romans #8

ROMANS 1:18:

GOD’S WRATH REVEALED

Lloyd-Jones says in many ways this is the most crucial part of the Epistle.[1] It is the introduction as to the need of salvation (1:18-32). Without seeing our need, we will never come to God by faith. It is a counterpart to the righteousness of God; it is the wrath of God. Both are revealed (1:17, 18) in the gospel. It is a universal statement: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” This is the negative form of verse 16.

It has been popular among scholars to see the source of this section as being from the extra-biblical account of the Wisdom of Solomon.[2] However, Longenecker seems to negate this indicating that much wider sources were available to Paul: Scripture, other Judaism writings, the message of the Baptist, and, or course, Jesus own teaching.[3]  The exact identification of the source is almost impossible, and it is best the not speculated.

There is a natural contrast between verse 18 with verses 16-17. The theme of the verse is the negative side of verse 16 presenting salvation, but here the theme is the wrath of God. The wrath of God is not a human emotional response, but a display of God’s character. It is righteous anger against injustice and unrighteousness. Godet notes that “wrath appears as the holy disapprobation of evil, and the firm resolves to destroy it.”[4] Wrath is not a passion in God: “Fury is not in Me”; in Him, it is the principle, the love of order, a determination to maintain equity, a resolution to punish sin. It results, therefore, from the perfection of His nature.

· The verse opens with the same preposition—gar (for or because). There is some debate as to the exact use of the preposition. Is it an explanatory conjunction, or adversative conjunction? It seems to me that the word as a somewhat transitional from verses 16-17. I agree with Douglas Moo that the word “for” is best taken as explanatory.[5] It answers why the gospel is needed. It is also transitional from the gospel to the plight of humanity. Just as the gospel is revealed, so is the wrath of God. The world revealed connects God to both. Paul uses it as both eschatologically and presents judgments. For Paul, the full disclosure of the gospel and wrath of God is eschatological anticipated in history, yet a present reality which is moving toward the final disclosure.

The student of the Word should notice three things:

· The word revealed is present tense, which carries the idea of a continual event. It is a present reality. Wrath is revealed now and moves toward a goal of the last judgment. Morris brings out that the wrath of God is not a human discovery, but is something made known.[6] How it is revealed: conscience, the Word of God, and by active providence. It cannot be escaped because God is Holy, Just, and Omniscience.

· Its focus: “against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” The nature of God is against either the offense or the offender. Some think this refers to the gentiles. However, the text uses the more generic men. Nowhere within this section of the text does use the term gentiles or Greek come into view.[7] Paul is referring to the general sinfulness of fallen men no matter the nationality. Man have renounced their creator and his gifts to them, willfully withholding their knowledge, thanks, and worship. It indicates impartiality. Men had the truth, but muted it in unrighteousness; and therefore, they are “without excuse.” The phrase two nouns introduced the adjective “all” has the idea of hendiadys (one idea by roughly two synonymous).[8] Stam simply a definition of the two synonymous: “ungodliness is simply a disregard for God and His claims. An ungodly person is one in whose life God and His claims.”[9]

· It significance: [1] It supplies a warning to sinners. [2] It urges the necessity of salvation.

---

[1]  D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, ROMANS: THE GOSPEL OF GOD, [Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1985], 310.

[2] Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam, ICC: A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO ROMANS, [Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1895], 52. James Dunn, WBC; ROMANS 1-8, [Nashville, Word, 1988]

[3] Richard N. Longenecker, NIGTC: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016], 195.

[4] F. Godet, OMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapid, Zondervan, reprint 1956]. 99.

[5] Douglas J. Moo, NICNT: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996], 99.  C.E.B. Cranfield, ICC: ROMANS [Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1980), says there is no justification for taking it any other way, 106.

[6]  Leon Morris, PNTC: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988], 77.

[7] C.E.B. Cranfield, ICC: ROMANS, 1:105.

[8]  Richard N. Longenecker, NIGTC: ROMANS, 203.

[9]  C.R. Stam, CMMETARY ON THE EPISLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, [Chicago, Berean Bible Society, 1981]. 42.