Monday, August 20, 2007

Sin in Romans 1

The "proposition" of Romans appears in 1:16-17 with statements about how the gospel is the power of salvation for all who have faith and that it reveals the righteousness of God, a reference to God's righteousness, particularly as it is revealed in his salvation.

But the real points of interest for me begin at Romans 1:18. The wrath of God, Paul says, has been revealed against ungodliness (asebeia) and unrighteousness or injustice or wrongdoing (adikia) of humans who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Some view this wrath as a kind of "realized wrath," a wrath that is somewhat passive on God's part as he "abandons" various parties to the consequences of their sins.

To be sure, some of this thinking is present in the chapter. But Paul goes on in chapter 2 in a way that implies that this is only half the story. There will be a real judgment, Paul says, in the future (Rom. 2:5). So this reading turns out to be a subconscious attempt to avoid parts of Paul's thinking that some find distasteful. In my method, that is a matter for theology. Paul meant what he meant and we just have to deal with it.

Interestingly enough, in 1:19-23 seems to imply culpability on the part of humans because they should have known better. In other words, Paul brings consciousness of the truth into the equation of moral culpability for not worshipping God appropriately. Paul seems to imply that the ungodly consciously exchanged the truth of God for a lie in their turn to idolatry (1:23). This of course is a difficult proposition to maintain in mission work, but that's another issue.

Once they have started down this path, however, God "abandoned them" to the desires of their hearts. Somewhat curiously to us, Paul immediately seems to turn to sexual sins. He somehow sees a connection between at least some forms of sexual immorality and idolatry. This of course would be easily explainable if he has temple prostitution in mind, but it seems questionable whether, for example, the kind of homosexual sex he goes on to mention was primarily to be found in conjunction with pagan temples. I rather doubt it myself.

It is generally agreed that Paul is drawing some of his imagery and thought here from the book of Wisdom. Wisdom 14:12 says that "the idea of making idols was the beginning of porneia." Wisdom rails against the stupidity of praying to a piece of wood. Like Paul, it points to a failure of "knowing God": "Then it has not pleased them [simply] to err concerning the knowledge of God, but also living in a great battle of ignorance they call such great evils peace" (14:22). The beginning of every evil is the worship of idols (14:27).

So, because they dishonored God by worshipping idols, Paul says, God abandons them to all sorts of sexual sins. He uses homosexual sex as an example of the kind of shameful behavior that has resulted from an appropriate understanding of God (Rom. 1:27). It is very difficult for us to follow this logic, but this seems to be the train of thought.

But sexual sins of this sort are not the only consequences of a fundamental failure to recognize God as God. Humanity abandoned by God falls into unrighteousness (adikia), wickedness (poneria), covetousness (pleonexia), evil (kakia), full of envy (phthonos), murder (phonos), strife (eris), deceit (dolos), craftiness (kakoetheia), gossips (psithyristes), slanderers (katalalos), God-haters (theostyges), insolent (hybristes), arrogant (hyperephanos), boastful (alazona), devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding (asynetos), without faith (asynthetos), without heart (astorgos), without mercy (aneleemos).

Paul concludes the chapter with somewhat of a generalization. Humanity should have known the "just standard" or "righteous judgment" (dikaioma) of God. What is this standard of rightness? It is "that those who practice such things are worthy of death." Instead, humanity applauded those who practice such things.

What does Romans 1 tell us about sin?

1. As far as definitions of sin, Paul once again connects intentionality in a very broad way with justice. It seems significant to him that humanity know what is right for God to judge us for wrongdoing. Idolatry and sexual immorality feature prominently in this chapter as key examples of humanity's ungodliness and unrighteousness. Indeed, Paul presents idolatry as the fundamental sin from which all other sins result. Other kinds of sins thus follow from God abandoning humanity to its own desires.

2. Paul is not thinking of the believer in 1:18-32. He speaks to humanity under the wrath of God. He primarily has Gentiles in mind, even though he doesn't say so. To some extent, this passage is a "sting operation" to set up the hypocritical individual who calls himself a Jew in Romans 2.

3. For our purposes, the sins of this chapter are generic sins that Paul finds contemnable whether one is a believer or non-believer. Whatever theoretical constructs he may argue for subsequently in relation to the law and the power of sin, the sins of Romans 1 remain a constant in Paul's theology. Although he is not talking about believers in chapter 1, he believes that all who practice such things, believer or non-believer, are worthy of death.

5 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Wasn't Paul about "law and order" when it came to relationships to "things", because he was trained in Pharisaism that was "putting God first" (vs. idolatry)..Interesting, we went this week-end to a play on "The Devil" which was a monologue using many literary texts. One point the "devil" made was that he would not bow to humanity, for God was alone worthy of worship. But, he was judged for that coveteous/envious spirit...John states that Love fulfills that "law and order"....

I believe that wisdom understands humanity's beauty and desires to see it flourish...

Ken Schenck said...

I think you're right that what we are reacting to usually shapes the form of our reaction. In that sense a former enslavement can continue to enslave us even as we fight against it. In my opinion, this is the case with fundamentalism, that reacted to modernism on modernism's terms.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Yes, but there must be some reasoned "faith", as I don't believe that any of us adhere to our convictions mindlessly or we shouldn't....I am trying to "work on that one"...where are my priorities and where is my "heart"...

I believe that is what Luther's "sin" was according to Anglicanism, right, or not? Whereas Wilbur Wilberforce used the government's means to pursue the proper ends...

Ken Schenck said...

In my philosophy, human thought and action is far more determined than we realize. Aside perhaps from some spark of the soul, human freedom is primarily a matter of self-knowledge and as broad an awareness of the world outside ourselves as possible. Only if we are aware of how we might be different from what we are, are we free to change. To give you a Schenck quote, "Most humans are born, live, and die without ever really existing."

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I think "realsim" is indeed an important "demension" to/of/for faith, but the way in which it is manifested may have to be left up to the individual. That was the conflict between Luther and Wilberforce...(the "law" and "faith")....I believe that true faith indeed should be evident, but is not to be gauged by another's "judgement" as to the "form" that it is manifested...that is deteminism and that is not allowing "freedom of conscience", which is THE important dimension affiemation of man made in God's image...Man should NOT be determined by other men....Period....!