Beautiful snowy day in Edmonton, the perfect sort of day to enjoy the warmth of thinking about the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, with an end to eventually answering the question: what does the term "wrath of God" mean in Romans? Is it willed or built into the structure of things according to Paul? What has this to do with natural theology.
Again, this is merely for my own amusement, and not your edification, and bits of it are scattered around the virtual office....
<>
Verse 18: Generally, in this verse Paul begins to “shape” the mind of the reader for what is to come. This is done in two ways. First, Paul expresses a contrast between the “revelation” of God’s righteousness in the Gospel, and the “revelation” of His wrath from heaven. This allows us to think of more than one kind of revelation. It also means that divine wrath can be perceived apart from special revelation. Second, having introduced the wrath of God in this way, we can now see that if the wrath of God can be known apart from special revelation, Paul is setting a tone that permits us to think that there are things of God which are known “naturally”. How the wrath is known is tied to our understanding of God as the creator of an ordered universe in which there is an interplay between our ability to discern and God’s desire to have His attributes discerned.
Verses 19-20a: Paul elaborates on the themes introduced in verse 18. Several terms pick up the various threads. To gnoston introduces the question of “knowing” in a direct way, relating knowledge to God’s attribute of “knowability”. Paul’s use of phaneroun and apokalyptein continue the general shape of the argument. The two terms do not refer to the same kind of revelation. What is going on in these verses is not direct revelation. As we saw with wrath, so now we see with God’s “knowability” and attributes: some things are discernible apart from special revelation. The en autois of verse 19 can be understood as meaning (revelation) “to them” or (knowledge) “in them.” It thus introduces further that there are two sides to the equation of natural theology - God’s initiative and humanity’s appropriation. The apo phrase of verse 20 relates all of these to creation, indicating that the created order has been a continuous source for knowledge of God.
We then consider generally the process described in these verses, with reference to the issues raised by the terminology. First we critique those who hold that there is no natural theology here, or a very limited one. Next we show how Paul appeals to divers traditions to posit a natural theology which has its grounding in both Jewish and Gentile tradition, particularly with reference to Wisdom.
Verses 20b-23: Here we have the further specifics of natural theology. The claim is made that “they knew God”. (verse 21) We look at this phrase for further support that there is a claim to natural theology. We then see the initial summary of Paul’s indictment of the Gentiles. The result is idolatry, and a confusion in the minds of the Gentiles. Here again Paul uses arguments typical of Hellenistic Judaism in his indictment, and this we relate to the presence of a natural theology.
further thoughts
There is (and probably will continue to be) a variety of interpretations of Romans 1:18-23. What is important to distinguish in the commentators is their own particular view of what natural theology is, what the limits of human reason are, and what knowledge of God entails for the Gentile mind. Several difficulties present themselves. Paul is writing to a mixed audience, and it is unwise to dwell exclusively on the ‘Jewish’ or ‘Gentile’ aspect of his own thought or on the part of his hearers. With this in mind one can almost rather present the view of the third group: those Gentiles he is indicting, and argue with commentators and the text itself from the point of view of the “virtuous Gentile.”
If Paul’s thesis that all have sinned is proved by his separate treatment of the sins of the Gentiles and the Jews, then there must have been a difference in the kind of idolatry which each group practiced. Dunn’s statement that
what is known of God is an act of revelation personally willed by God (19b) in relation to a created order (20); and man is recognized as a responsible agent in face of this revelation, so that his failure to respond appropriately is not simply a lack of perception, a defect in spiritual capacity, but a moral failure, a culpable act, “without excuse”(20b). (JDG Dunn, Rom)
will not suffice. It is precisely that kind of knowledge which the Gentiles, the ones under indictment, did not have. If Paul is to be successful in his critique of the Gentiles, then he must convict them on their own ground. Paul’s use of Gentile (Stoic and Middle-platonic) language is of no avail - it is a mere rhetorical trick - if the indictment does not convict the Gentiles on their own ground. It does not carry the same weight as an accusation based simply on the Jewish/Christian notions of God as a “revealer”. This would simply be to blame the Gentiles for being Gentiles . As it is, they are without excuse at this point because they did not respond to what their own natures must have known was a distinction between the creator and the creature, and more than that, a failure to respond to the known attributes of what the divine nature must be, given what human reason can ascertain of it through its knowledge of the created order.
For the Jew idolatry was a sin against a divinely revealed decree, and a Jewish hearer would have interpreted our pericope largely in that manner. There would have been no question that natural revelation demanded a response. To a Gentile convert who was familiar with the various cults in the Empire, there are two possible ways of hearing the message. Either as proof of the foolishness of cultic worship and foreign deities, or, if the Gentile was of a more educated school, as an argument concerning a logical contradiction in what was the real knowledge of the thinking Gentile tradition. The latter would have been more likely to take the concept of ‘natural theology’ further than either the Jewish hearer or many modern day commentators of the Protestant variety. Though not absolute, there does seem to be still this distinction between Jew and Gentile, to be seen largely in the division of Roman Catholic (notably in reference to the Vatican I use of this text) and the Protestant “wholly fallen” camps. Paul’s own background was influenced by both sides of the equation; his audience was mixed; his message is not understood fully unless both sides are presented. It is not an either/or situation, nor, in my view is it entirely a both/and situation. It seems rather to be the case that much more needs to be done in the interpretation from the perspective of the question: does Paul adequately indict the highest form of ancient religious thought? The language of Paul, though certainly dependent upon contemporary Jewish and Gentile thought, is addressing a universal situation. It is not enough to defeat a “straw Gentile” so to speak. There is much that has been ignored in the ‘theological’ interpretation of this passage. I have offered only a few positive directions in which this can possibly move.
Recent Comments