Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part II)

Bible scholar Charles Hodge makes an important observation that relates to the context in which this verse is to be understood. He writes: “The connection between this chapter and what precedes, as indicated by the particle, ‘wherefore’ (or, ‘that’s why’), is somewhat doubtful. Some suppose the inference to be drawn from the doctrine taught from verse 18 of the preceding chapter. God is just, and determined to punish all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men; wherefore they are without excuse who commit the sins which they condemn in others… It is not so much the inexcusableness of sinners as their exposure to punishment, that follows from the justice of God. Most commentators, therefore, consider the inference as drawn from the last verse of the preceding chapter. It is there said that all men knew that those who sin are worthy of death; and the inference is, that they which commit sin are without excuse, however censorious their self-conceit may render them towards others.”¹

However, a more recent commentator points out, the context in which this is said does connect with what was stated in the previous chapter. He writes: “‘That’s why’ (v. 1) connects with the idea of God’s judgment mentioned by Paul in 1:18-19, a judgment that encompasses all of humanity. You have no excuse (or ‘no defense’) picks up the idea from 1:20, where people have no defense before God on the day of judgment, for everyone suppresses and rejects the knowledge of God they have from creation. God’s judgment rightly (lit., ‘according to the truth’) comes upon people. That is, it comes upon them ‘according to the truth,’ according to the facts of how they actually live.”² Needless to say, this must have been hard for these church leaders in Rome to swallow. But as good medicine often does, it may taste bad, except it is so good for you.

John Stott has this to say: “Many commentators (perhaps most) believe that having portrayed and condemned Gentile society in 1:18–32, Paul now turns his attention to Jewish people. This is an understandable viewpoint, since the classification of the human race into Jews and Gentiles is mentioned on numerous occasions throughout the letter, and one of the apostle’s main purposes in writing is to demonstrate that Jews and Gentiles are equal in sin and equal in salvation.”³ Stott goes on to say, that this may be more of a guess than actual fact since it takes until verse 17 before Paul involves a Jew in direct conversation. However, Paul has just finished giving a graphic picture of the ancient Gentile world. Not to condemn them, necessarily, but to show how those converted Jews who feel that simply because they bear circumcision as a mark of being chosen by God as heirs of His promise to Abraham, does not make them morally no better than their non-Jewish neighbors since all men are in need of salvation. Both Jews and Gentiles.

Verses 2-3a: God judges all who do such things, and we know His judgment is right. And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you as well.

Here Paul strikes out at an unfortunate human trait, and by so doing speaks against an attitude prevalent in our own day. How many people have quickly condemned a person who murdered with a knife or gun, while they are attacking other people’s reputations with hate and envy; jealousy and pride; ridicule and rejection, to the point they no longer feel alive? How many are quick to judge a robber while they plagiarize and misappropriate, and act with greed and covetousness toward what others have? How many speak evil of those caught in adultery while they commit adultery every day in their hearts? Paul says that God will judge everyone with justice according to the evidence of their wrongdoing, but these false accusers will get twice the penalty.

Abraham learned this principle of how punishment must fit the crime when he bargained with God to save the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because his nephew Lot and his family lived there. We read: “Then Abraham approached the LORD and asked, ‘Will you destroy the good people while you are destroying those who are evil? What if there are fifty good people in that city? Will you still destroy it? If that happened, those who are good would be the same as those who are evil – both would be punished. As the judge of the whole world, surely you would do the right thing!”⁴ And as we know, not even ten good people could be found in those twin cities so God did exactly what He said He would do.

This same sense of being fair and balanced in judgment was ascribed to God by Elihu in his speech to Job: “Can someone be a ruler if he hates justice? God is not only powerful, but He is fair.”⁵ And in one of David’s psalms, he sings: “You listened to me from your throne like a good judge, and you decided that I was right… The LORD set up His throne to bring justice, and He will rule forever. He judges everyone on earth fairly. He judges all nations honestly.”⁶ And in another psalm, David says: “The LORD always does what is right, and he loves seeing people do right. Those who live good lives will be with Him.”⁷ Then David soars with poetry as he describes God’s judicial ethics: “Your goodness is higher than the highest mountains. Your fairness is deeper than the deepest ocean.”⁸

This knowledge of God’s fairness in judgment led the Prophet Jeremiah to admit: “LORD if I argue with you, you are always right.”⁹ But some in Israel didn’t see it that way. So God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel: “You people might say, ‘The LORD isn’t fair!’ But listen, family of Israel. I am fair. You are the ones who are not fair! If good people change and become evil, they must die for the bad things they do. And if evil people change and become good and fair, they will save their lives. They will live!”¹⁰ Even a pagan king recognized God’s superiority: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, give praise, honor, and glory to the King of Heaven. Everything He does is right. He is always fair, and He is able to make proud people humble!”¹¹ And the prophet Zephaniah came to this conclusion: “The LORD… continues to be good. He does not do anything wrong. He continues to help His people. Morning after morning He makes good decisions for them. Not a day passes without His justice. He never gives a decision that is crooked or is something to be ashamed of.”¹² Why is it so easy then for people today to blame God for everything that goes wrong in their lives, while those who do not acknowledge Him seem to be getting by handsomely? We could say, it is like a western rancher who feeds his prize stallion the same thing he gets for his wild horses because he knows that one they too will be tamed and serve him as he pleases.

Then, there was the time when Paul was in Athens where he spoke to the philosophers and Areopagus council members on Mar’s Hill and said to them: “God has decided on a day when He will judge all the people in the world in a way that is fair. To do this, He will use a man He chose long ago. And He has proved to everyone that this is the man to do it. He proved it by raising Him from death!”¹³ Of course, Paul was talking about Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. Later, when Paul wrote to the believers in Thessaloniki, he told them how proud he was of their faith under persecution and suffering through hard times. Then says: “This is proof that God is right in His judgment. He wants you to be worthy of His kingdom. Your suffering is for that kingdom. God will do what is right. He will punish those who are causing you trouble. And He will bring relief to you who are troubled.”¹⁴ So we see how Paul arrives at God’s fairness in judgment so he can tell the believers in Rome about their conduct in dealing with those around them, be they Jews or Gentiles.

But the main point Paul wants to drive home is that they needed to stay away from the old mindset: “Don’t do as I do, do as I say do.” Wise man Job was dealing with this, and his friend Elihu said to him: “Job, it is not fair for you to say,‘I am more right than God,’ because you also ask Him, ‘What’s the use of trying to please You? What good will it do me if I don’t sin?’”¹⁵ So the LORD asked Job where did he get such foolish ideas? He then cautioned Job, prepare yourself for the questions I’m going to ask you.¹⁶ Then God goes on to ask Job who he believed created everything on earth and in the universe. Job was intimidated and felt so ashamed.¹⁷ So God continues to ask more questions. Finally, Job confesses: “I know You can do everything. You make plans, and nothing can change or stop them. You asked, ‘Who is this ignorant person saying these foolish things?’ I talked about things I did not understand. I talked about things too amazing for me to understand.”¹⁸

It is evident that Paul did not want some of these Roman believers to develop the same attitude that they knew better than anyone else what should or should not be said or done. Especially, when they all ought to rely on the Holy Spirit and God’s Word to guide them in their decisions. It would be far easier to just say nothing and let things work themselves out. I’m sure Paul recalled what God said through the Psalmist: “You sit around talking about people, finding fault with your own brothers. When you did these things, I said nothing. So you thought that I was just like you. But I will not be quiet any longer. I will correct you and make clear what I have against you.”¹⁹

It also might remind us of the time when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Temple guards came to arrest Him, Peter pulled out a dagger because he thought his way of handling this situation was the best way. But Jesus quickly intervened and said to Peter: “Put your sword back in its place. People who use swords will be killed with swords. Surely you know I could ask my Father and He would give me more than twelve armies of angels. But it must happen this way to show the truth of what the Scriptures said.”²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO

Verse 1: That’s why those of you who judge other people have no excuse, O man. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself.

How often do some people condemn gossip, while gossiping themselves? Furthermore, most people gossip to tear other people down. What they are really want to do is make themselves look better by comparison. Not only that but so often they judge and denounce in others what condemns their own behavior. Yet, because they are unable to correct and control their own shortcomings, they condemn themselves by chastising others. But the harsher their words, and the more vehemently they criticize them, it should be known that when they judge others through ridicule, they denounce themselves. To put it bluntly, if people don’t know the truth, how can they judge what’s true; so if they don’t actually know what’s wrong, how can they judge the error involved? It is so encouraging when some who’ve sinned and received forgiveness from the Lord, become compassionate and understanding when they see that same sin in others. But on the other hand, there are those who after being forgiven of the same sin, become extremely vocal and vicious in their condemnation.¹ Paul makes it clear, that what people do in response to others and their shortcomings says more about them than it does the one they are labeling as wrong or unacceptable.

We see this played out so clearly in the encounter between the prophet Nathan and King David after David had Bathsheba’s husband killed so he could marry her. Nathan told a story about a rich man with many sheep who stole the one sheep of a poor man just to entertain some visitors. After hearing the story, David became outraged over that rich man’s wickedness. So he said to Nathan: “’As the Lord lives, the man who did this should die! He must pay four times the price of the lamb because he did this terrible thing and because he had no mercy.’ Then Nathan said to David, ‘You are that man!’”² Also, one of Asaph’s sons writes a hymn on this subject. In the song, we hear the LORD saying: “What right do you have to quote my laws or discuss my covenant with others when you hate to receive instruction from me [so much] that you fling my words behind you?”³

Perhaps Paul heard others tell him about what Jesus taught: “Don’t judge others, and God will not judge you. If you judge others, you will be judged the same way you judge them. God will treat you the same way you treat others.”⁴ If so, it may have inspired the apostle to write these instructions to the believers in Rome. Also, when Jesus was confronted by the elders demanding His verdict on a woman they caught in the act of adultery, Jesus said to them: “Anyone here who has never sinned should throw the first stone at her. When they heard this, they began to leave one by one. The older men left first, and then the others.”⁵

We can also see that Paul and the apostle James were in harmony with this idea of believers staying away from self-incrimination when choosing to judge others. James writes: “Brothers and sisters, don’t say anything against each other. If you criticize your brother or sister in Christ or judge them, you are criticizing and judging the law they follow. And when you are interpreting the law, you are not a follower of the law. You have become a judge. God is the one who gave us the law, and He is the Judge. He is the only one who can save and destroy. So it is not right for you to judge anyone.”⁶

Early church scholars had various views on what Paul was trying to say in this the portion of the letter. For instance, Ambrosiaster sees Paul eliminating all excuses for bad behavior when writing: “Paul shows that the man who does evil and consents to others who do it is deserving of punishment, for fear that perhaps the one who does it and pretends not to approve of others who do it … might think he can be excused because he can conceal his sin for a time.… It is not right to give in to someone who pretends to be better when in fact he is worse. Such a person appears to escape notice and to be worthy of honor when in fact he should be punished.”⁷

Then Chrysostom points to the fact that those for whom Paul meant this message were condemning themselves by their own behavior. He writes: “Paul says this with the rulers of the city in mind because at that time they ruled the entire world. He was telling them … that when they pass sentence on someone, they are passing sentence on themselves as well.”⁸ While most Bible scholars accept that some of these Messianic Jews were leaders in Rome, they were most influential in the community of believers, not among the political class.

Then, in the writings of an early church scholar using the pen name, Constantius, we find where they say: “Here it is shown that each person knows that he will be judged by God in what he judges and condemns another man for doing.”⁹ And the great Augustine of Hippo points this out: “Paul is speaking here of sins already committed. And when he says ‘O man, whoever you are,’ he includes not only the Gentile but also the Jew who wanted to judge the Gentiles according to the law.”¹⁰ Then Pelagius adds: “This concerns those who are in a position to pass judgment. Judges and princes are being put on trial. By a natural process, everyone pronounces a sentence which fits the crime and knows that righteousness deserves reward while wickedness should be punished.”¹¹

Reformer Martin Luther sees this teaching by Paul as a way of pointing out people he calls unconscionable misers who usually accuse and condemn adulterers while they forget their own sins. The result of such an attitude, says Luther, it is impossible for such wicked judges to be guiltless.¹² As we know, Jesus touched on this when he accused people with beams of wood in their eye trying to remove a small splinter from another person’s eye.¹³

Some of the other early Reformation writers have a different take. John Calvin gives his view: “This reproof is directed against hypocrites, who dazzle the eyes of men by displays of outward sanctity, and even think themselves to be accepted before God, as though they had given Him full satisfaction…Now the inference is too simple and plain for anyone to wonder how the Apostle derived his argument; for he makes them inexcusable, because they themselves knew the judgment of God, and yet transgressed the law; as though he said, ‘Though you consented not to the vices of others, and seem to be avowedly even an enemy and an admonisher of vices; yet as you are not free from them, if you really examine yourself, you can not bring forward any defense.”¹⁴

Calvin then goes on to make an interesting point found in the wording of the text. He says: “Besides the striking resemblance there is between the two Greek verbs, to judge and to condemn, the enhancing of their sin ought to be noticed; for his mode of speaking is the same, as though he said, ‘You are doubly deserving of condemnation; for you are guilty of the same vices which you blame and reprove in others.’ It is, indeed, a well-known saying, — that they who scrutinize the life of others lay claim themselves to innocence, temperance, and all virtues; and that those who allow in themselves the same things which they undertake to correct in others are not worthy of any leniency.”¹⁵

The great German scholar Johann Bengel suggests that to fully understand what Paul is saying here we must accept that he now addresses the Jewish component of the congregation in Rome. He points this out by making a note of the phrase Paul uses here which the KJV renders, “O man.” This corresponds with a common term that the Jews later put into use that we know today by the Yiddish¹⁶ word: “mensch.” It literally means “human being,” but philosophically it refers to, “a person of integrity and honor.” This fits the narrative because Paul calls out those Jews who consider themselves superior to the Greeks and Barbarians. Says Bengel: “Self-love – the worse it supposes [of] others, [the more it] thinks the better of [it]self (Galatians 5:4).”¹⁷

Methodist scholar Adam Clarke makes an interesting observation on such hypocrisy by these church leaders in Rome. Says Clarke: “You assumes the character of a judge, and in that character condemn others who are less guilty than yourself.”¹⁸ To put it another way, they were judging others before looking into the mirror to judge themselves. This is good advice for any believer, in that it suggests we should carry around a spiritual and ethical mirror so that just before we criticize another person for their thoughts, actions, or behavior, we look at ourselves first.

Albert Barnes makes these points: “Remarkable zeal against sin may be no proof of innocence; compare Matthew 7:3. The zeal of persecutors, and often of pretended reformers, may be far from proof that they are free from the very offenses which they are condemning in others. It may all be the work of the hypocrite to conceal some unethical design; or of the man who seeks to show his hostility to one kind of sin, in order to be a balm to his conscience for committing some other. The heart is deceitful. When we judge others, we should make it a rule to examine ourselves on that very point. Such an examination might greatly mitigate the severity of our judgment, or might turn the whole of our indignation against ourselves.”¹⁹

Henry Alford notes, it was known that Jews were very judgmental of others to a great extent, that they were the ones who pronounced all Gentiles to be born in sin and under condemnation. But at the same time, there were doubtless some among the Gentiles some who were also arrogant critics. Yet, they were not the ones to whom this rebuke applied, such were not on the Apostle’s mind. He was singling out those who may have resented that after all these centuries of God’s special relationship with the Jewish people, now Gentiles were being allowed into the family of Abraham without having to go through the required rite of circumcision and adherence to Jewish laws and customs.²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER ONE

Before we begin the study of the next chapter, I wanted to give all of you the opportunity to ask any question, request any additional information, or post any comments on what you read in our study of Chapter One.

This will give you a chance to express yourself on what Paul said in chapter one before we go on to chapter two.

Also, feel free to ask any questions that may relate to the subject of chapter one so that we can deal with it before we move on.

God bless all of you richly for taking the time to study His Word and enrich yourself with the knowledge and instructions contained in the message He inspired through the Holy Spirit for our benefit.

Remember, you are not doing this for me or for yourself, you are doing it for the One who loved you, called you, redeemed you, and sanctified you for His kingdom. I know you don’t want to let Him down.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE

Paul is writing from Corinth to a congregation he had never visited and a church he did not start, nor was it the product of another Apostle’s ministry. But it is evident from the tenor of his writing that he did have some familiarity with several people who were part of this body of Christ in the capitol city of Rome. Instead of beginning the letter with his Jewish pedigree, Paul initiates the conversation with an open and unapologetic claim that the message he had to share was one verified by the Jewish prophets of old: That the Jesus he preached was not only a descendant of King David but the Son of God. Furthermore, because God sent His only Son into the world, he wanted people like Paul to spread the word that salvation is available to all through His grace in a second covenant.

He goes on to share the burden of his heart to visit this great city and share some spiritual gifts with them that God had given him through the Holy Spirit. But above all, to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of which he was not ashamed. This Gospel was so powerful that it was intended not only for the Jews but for every person around the world. Everyone, especially the Jews, was trying their best to get right with God and stay right with Him. And Paul wanted them to know that this could never be accomplished without receiving and believing in the Gospel given to him by Christ. No longer was God pleased with those who tried to get to heaven on their own. There was only one path, and that was to walk by faith in the One who died for all.

Paul spends the rest of this chapter explaining why the Gospel was so important. God despised wicked and evil behavior, whether or not practiced by the enlightened Jews or the barbarous heathens. And even though God had blessed the people of Israel with the teachings of Moses and the commandments, the heathens were also without excuse because God had also revealed Himself to them through creation. Who could look up at the stars at night, and then around them at the beauty of the fauna and flora during the day and not be impressed with its complexity and creativity? But instead of seeking the One who made all these things, they rather decided to worship the objects they saw, even going so far as to fashion out of wood, metal, silver, and gold, statues that resembled the gods of their imagination. Once these things were made, then the heathens began to worship them as though they were bowing before a real God.

As a result, says Paul, things only got worse. They not only wallow in all types of immoral activities, but they excelled in greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, godlessness, and lawlessness, but they promoted and encouraged those who did. It got so bad that they repressed everything they knew that was correct and godly until all that once was bad became good, and all that was wrong became right. But Paul is not finished. In the next chapter he calls into account all those who judge the heathens for their debauchery and revelry, yet practiced some of the same things under the false impression that because they claimed to know God, it was different.

God bless all of you who have allowed God to instill a love for His Word in your hearts and minds, and are committed to being the kind of person King David spoke of in Psalm 1. May the Lord bless you and inspire you to go even deeper in His Word and higher in your understanding.

IF YOU CAN’T TRUST YOURSELF, WHO CAN?

There was a time when every young person recognized his name, William Shakespeare, the brilliant English playwright. One of his most famous lines reads: “This above all: to thine own self be true.”¹ It involves a conversation between Laertes and his sister Ophelia about the trip he is taking. Their father, Lord Polonius walks in and tells his son to hurry up and get going. He instructs him to behave well and not to become involved in things that could lead him astray. He tells him to listen and not talk too much. Also, don’t judge others falsely. But, at the same time not to misrepresent himself with fancy clothing. Then comes these words of advice: This above all: to thine own self be true.

I like the thoughts that psychologist Irene Matiatos who shares that while most of us are familiar with the above quote taking from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but how many of us know the rest of this verse? It goes: “And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” She continues to say that unless we are true to ourselves first, we can’t be true to others. She asks: “How many of us have a hard time being true to ourselves?” In other words, those of us who have turned over the running of our lives to others, thereby loosing who we are in the process, will certainly have a hard time being true to ourselves. Dr. Matiato continues: “Allowing someone else to define who we are, we lose our ability to discover and grow inwardly. We no longer are able to discern truth from a lie. For many of us, we have accepted lies for so long, that finding out what is true takes time. Having done this very thing, I know how difficult the journey to self-discovery can be.”²

It all starts with being honest with ourselves. Believe it or not, when we go to God in prayer, we are sometimes not honest with Him because we are not being true to ourselves. Since God sees, hears, and knows everything, who do we think we are fooling? When it comes to our spouses and our children, don’t be deceived, they know a lot more about our pretensions than we think they do. And what about our friends. The longer we’ve known them, the more they can tell when we are not being truthful with them. As Shakespeare said, the reason we cannot be truthful with them is that we are not being honest with ourselves.

God doesn’t answer prayers like that, and pretty soon both our spouse and children will begin to dismiss much of what we say as being untrue. And our former friends? That’s why they are no longer our friends. So let’s take these words to heart. When we say something, mean it. When we tell someone something, make sure it is true. But most of all, when we look into the mirror, make sure we inform the one we are looking at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us, God. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

This beautiful story may not relate exactly to anything that happened to you or to someone you know, just like many of Jesus’ parables, but the key to this moving saga is how God answers pray in ways we don’t always expect but end up excepting. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

The Old Man and the Dog 
By Catherine Moore

     “Watch out! You nearly broad sided that car!” My father yelled at me. “Can’t you do anything right?”

Those words hurt worse than blows. I turned my head toward the elderly man in the seat beside me, daring me to challenge him. A lump rose in my throat as I averted my eyes. I wasn’t prepared for another battle.

“I saw the car, Dad. Please don’t yell at me when I’m driving.”

My voice was measured and steady, sounding far calmer than I really felt.

Dad glared at me, then turned away and settled back. At home, I left Dad in front of the television and went outside to collect my thoughts. Dark, heavy clouds hung in the air with a promise of rain. The rumble of distant thunder seemed to echo my inner turmoil. What could I do about him?

Dad had been a lumberjack. He had enjoyed being outdoors and had reveled in pitting his strength against the forces of nature. He had entered grueling lumberjack competitions and had placed often.

The shelves in his house were filled with trophies that attested to his accomplishments.

As the years marched on relentlessly, there came the time he couldn’t lift a heavy log, he joked about it; but later that same day I saw him outside alone, straining to lift it again. He became irritable whenever anyone teased him about his advancing age, or when he couldn’t do something he had done as a younger man.

Four days after his sixty-seventh birthday, he had a heart attack. An ambulance sped him to the hospital while a paramedic administered CPR to keep blood and oxygen flowing.

At the hospital, Dad was rushed into an operating room. He was lucky; he survived… But something inside Dad died. His zest for life was gone He obstinately refused to follow doctor’s orders. Suggestions and offers of help were turned aside with sarcasm and insults. The number of visitors thinned, then finally stopped altogether. Dad was left alone.

My husband and I asked Dad to come live with us on our small farm. We hoped the fresh air and rustic atmosphere would help him adjust.

Within a week after he moved in, I regretted the invitation. It seemed nothing was satisfactory. He criticized everything I did. I became frustrated and moody. Soon I was taking my pent-up anger out on my husband. We began to bicker and argue.

Alarmed, my husband sought out our pastor and explained the situation. The clergyman set up weekly counseling appointments for us. At the close of each session, he prayed, asking God to soothe Dad’s troubled mind.

But the months wore on, and God was silent. Something had to be done, and it was up to me to do it.

The next day I sat down with the phone book and methodically called each of the mental health clinics listed in the Yellow Pages. I explained my problem to each of the sympathetic voices that answered in vain.

Just when I was giving up hope, one of the voices suddenly exclaimed, “I just read something that might help you! Let me go get the article.”

I listened as she read. The article described a remarkable study done at a nursing home. All of the patients were under treatment for chronic depression. Yet their attitudes had improved dramatically when they were given responsibility for a dog.

I drove to the animal shelter that afternoon. After I filled out a questionnaire, a uniformed officer led me to the kennels. The odor of disinfectant stung my nostrils as I moved down the row of pens. Each contained five to seven dogs. Long-haired dogs, curly-haired dogs, black dogs, spotted dogs all jumped up, trying to reach me. I studied each one but rejected one after the other for various reasons too big, too small, too much hair. As I neared the last pen, a dog in the shadows of the far corner struggled to his feet, walked to the front of the run and sat down. It was a pointer, one of the dog world’s aristocrats. But this was a caricature of the breed.

Years had etched his face and muzzle with shades of gray. His hipbones jutted out in lopsided triangles. But it was his eyes that caught and held my attention. Calm and clear, they beheld me unwaveringly.

I pointed to the dog “Can you tell me about him?”

The officer looked, then shook his head in puzzlement. “He’s a funny one. Appeared out of nowhere and sat in front of the gate. We brought him in, figuring someone would be right down to claim him. That was two weeks ago, and we’ve heard nothing. His time is up tomorrow..” He gestured helplessly.

As the words sank in, I turned to the man in horror. “You mean you’re going to put him to sleep?”

“Ma’am,” he said softly, “that’s our policy. We don’t have room for every unclaimed dog.”

I looked at the pointer again. Those calm brown eyes awaited my decision. “I’ll take that one,” I said.

I drove home with the dog on the front seat beside me. When I reached the house, I honked the horn twice. I was helping my prize out of the car when Dad shuffled onto the front porch. “Ta-da! Look what I got for you, Dad!” I said excitedly.

Dad looked, then wrinkled his face in disgust. “If I had wanted a dog I would have gotten one. And I would have picked out a better specimen than that bag of bones. Keep it! I don’t want it!” Dad waved his arm scornfully and turned back toward the house.

Anger rose inside me It squeezed together my throat muscles and pounded into my temples. “You’d better get used to him, Dad. He’s staying!”

Dad ignored me. “Did you hear me, Dad?” I screamed.

At those words Dad whirled angrily, his hands clenched at his sides, his eyes narrowed and blazing with hate.

We were standing there glaring at each other like duelists when suddenly the pointer pulled free from my grasp. He wobbled toward my dad and sat down in front of him. Then slowly, carefully, he raised his paw as if to shake hands.

Dad’s lower jaw trembled as he stared at the uplifted paw. Confusion replaced the anger in his eyes. The pointer waited patiently. The next thing I knew, Dad was on his knees hugging the animal.

It was the beginning of a warm and intimate friendship. Dad named the pointer Cheyenne.  Together he and Cheyenne explored the community. They spent long hours walking down dusty lanes. They spent reflective moments on the banks of streams, angling for tasty trout. They even started to attend Sunday services together, Dad sitting in a pew and  Cheyenne lying quietly at his feet.

Dad and  Cheyenne were inseparable throughout the next three years. Dad’s bitterness faded, and he and Cheyenne made many friends. Then late one night I was startled to feel Cheyenne’s cold nose poking through our bed covers. He had never before come into our bedroom at night. I woke my husband, put on my robe and ran into my father’s room. Dad was laying in his bed, his face serene. But his spirit had left quietly sometime during the night.

Two days later my shock and grief deepened when I discovered Cheyenne lying dead beside Dad’s bed. I wrapped his still form in the rug he had slept on. As my husband and I buried him near a favorite fishing hole, I silently thanked the dog for the help he had given me in restoring Dad’s peace of mind.

The morning of Dad’s funeral dawned overcast and dreary. This day looks like the way I feel, I thought, as I walked down the aisle to the pews reserved for family. I was surprised to see the many friends Dad and Cheyenne had made filling the church. The pastor began his eulogy. It was a tribute to both Dad and the dog who had changed his life. And then the pastor turned to Hebrews 13:2. “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”

“I’ve often thanked God for sending that angel to you,” he said, looking in my direction.

At that moment, for me, the past events dropped into place. It completed a puzzle that I had not seen before after that sympathetic voice read the right article to me. Cheyenne ‘s unexpected appearance at the animal shelter and his calm acceptance and complete devotion to my father. Now, the proximity of their deaths. And suddenly I understood. I knew that God had answered my prayers after all.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ONE (Part XXVIII)

The early church Bishop of Laodicea touches on the subject of misleading others into doing wrong: “Here again we see the innocence of God and the guilt of man and the justice of the judgment which is given. For men do these things, being fully aware that they are worthy of punishment by God the judge. For it is clear that they are not unaware of this when they judge others and hand those who do such things over to execution. For when evil men have knowledge of the good and make use of it as if they are not susceptible to pleasures, they bear witness that God’s creation is good.… But those who lead men into wrong, as well as those who follow what is wrong, are both evils.”¹ Then, the early church Bishop of Caesarea gives his view: “Perverted human tradition is the source of great evil for us, in that some sins are denounced while others are viewed with indifference. Crimes like homicide and adultery are the object of a violent but insincere indignation, while others, like anger, reviling, drunkenness or avarice, are not even considered deserving of a simple admonition.”²

Also, Severian, a contemporary preacher of Chrysostom’s, spoke about this: “When Paul talks about the ‘judgment of God’ he means the rightful recompense God gives to everyone according to what they deserve. For men know by their natural reasoning that transgressors will be punished by God, but instead of ceasing from their wicked ways they are actually pleased with those who do such things!… Therefore, God will judge those who do such things as [being] absolutely and without question worthy of death.”³ Then, Chrysostom has this to say: “For what reason does anyone have to say that he does not know what he should do? Even if he does not know, he is still to blame, because he has turned away from the God who teaches him. But Paul has shown by many arguments that he does know and transgresses willingly. But is such a person drawn by passion? Why in that case does he cooperate with it and even praise it? For they not only do such things themselves, says Paul, but they ‘approve those who practice them.’ Paul thus puts the more serious sin first, in order to get it out of the way (for the one who praises the sin of others is far worse than the one who sins himself).”⁴

Three more early church scholars give us their opinions. Augustine writes about their consenting to evil deeds: “Whatever they had done they did without coercion. For when they give their consent to evil deeds, they approve even of things which they did not do themselves.”⁵ And Pelagius notes that worldliness was at the root of this evil. He says: “Even people who did not agree with these doings … nevertheless seem to have accepted them, because they agreed to idolatry, which is the source and cause of them all.”⁶ Then the Bishop of Arles shares his suspicions: “Those who do not admonish adulterers make us suspect that the reason for this failure of reproof is that they commit similar sins themselves.”⁷

John Calvin summarizes this chapter by saying: “The person who feels ashamed still qualifies for rescue; but when such disrespect is contracted through a sinful habit, that vices, and not virtues, please us, and are approved, there is no more any hope of reformation. Such, then, is the interpretation I give; for I see that the Apostle meant here to condemn something more grievous and more wicked than the very doing of vices: what that is I know not, except we refer to that which is the summit of all wickedness, — that is, when wretched men, having cast away all shame, undertake the support of vices in opposition to the righteousness of God.”⁸

John Bengel states that the hallmark of God’s royalty is that He approves virtues, hates vices and that He justly and deservedly visits the wicked with death to show that He is not unjust. God is, therefore, justified in punishing the guilty with death. Bengel says that even among the Gentiles the punishment by death of those who do evil was considered a royal decree. Bengel goes on to say: “He who perpetrates evil is led away by his own desire, and not without condemnation of himself, and even others. And, while approving the law, he who takes pleasure, or approves, with heart and words, has, as the fruit of wickedness, wickedness itself. He feeds upon it, heaps his own guilt with that of others, and inflames others to sin. He is a worse man, who ruins both himself and others, than he who ruins only himself. This is indeed a reprobate mind.”⁹

So often today, the Gospel it preached to the unconverted as though they are victims of sin. Paul sees it just the opposite. God has given mankind every reason to have the chains of sin broken so they can be free from their bondage to that which is wicked, evil, and ungodly. But many have elected to remain slaves to sin. Some have even chosen to make gods of their own invention and claim that they are in fact serving God thereby. For instance, a popular musician dies a miserable death while addicted to drugs and an immoral lifestyle, yet they are immortalized and venerated as having blessed everyone with their music. It is considered, therefore, that by appreciating their talent and music, we are honoring God for having given them to the world. Such convoluted thinking has so permeated society today that it is considered fashionable.

Charles Hodge concludes his commentary of chapter one with this: “As he had before shown that the impiety of the heathen was without excuse, inasmuch as they had a knowledge of the true God, so here Paul shows that their immorality was inexcusable, since their sins were not committed in ignorance of their nature or penalty. This passage also shows that the judicial abandonment of God does not destroy the free agency or responsibility of men. They are given up to work iniquity, and yet know that they deserve death for what they do. The stream which carries them away is not without, but within. It is their own corrupt nature. It is themselves. Notwithstanding this knowledge of the penalty of the crimes above enumerated, they not only commit them but approve of those who do (or practice) them. This is the lowest point of degradation. To sin, even in the heat of passion, is evil; but to delight in the sins of others, shows that men are of set purpose and fixed preference, wicked. Such is the apostle’s argument to prove that heathens are all under sin, that they are justly chargeable with ungodliness and unrighteousness, and consequently exposed to the wrath of God.”¹⁰

Through this, we can see that Paul lived during very wicked times in Rome and throughout the Greek-dominated world. It was a time of great temptation to those who had been delivered from their pagan ways, yet were still surrounded by multitudes who continued such immoral vices and practices. Oddly enough, some two-thousand years later Christians are faced with the same degradation of society and the rise of the occult once again. But just as the community of believers was victorious before, they will be triumphant again as long as those who know the truth remain true to their convictions.

Adam Clarke gives his summation of what Paul has written so far: “The preceding chapter gives us one of the finest views of the Gospel of Christ, to be met with anywhere. It is God‘s method of saving a lost world, in a way which that world could never have imagined: there is nothing human in it; it is all truly and gloriously Divine; essentially necessary to the salvation of man, and fully adequate to the purposes of its institution. Though it is an extension of the old covenant, yet it is almost wholly dissimilar; being as different from that as the person is from the picture which represents it, and as the substance is from the shadow projected by it. It is a scheme as worthy of God as it is necessary for man; hence there are no exclusion clauses in it – it is for the Jew and for the Greek; for the wise and for the unwise; for all the nations of the universe, and for all the individuals of those nations. He blasphemes God who holds a contrary [view].”¹¹

Albert Barnes offers this note: “The charges which the apostle makes here were evidently those who were well-known. He does not even appeal to their writings, as he does on some other occasions, for proof; compare Titus 1:12. So well known were they, that there was no need of proof. A writer would not advance charges in this manner unless he was confident that they were well-founded, and could not be denied. They are abundantly sustained by the pagan writers themselves. This we have in part seen In addition we may adduce the testimony of two Roman writers respecting the state of things at Rome in the time of the apostle. Livy says of the age of Augustus, in some respects the brightest period of the Roman history, ‘Rome has increased by her virtues until now when we can neither bear our vices nor their remedy.’¹² [In the] Preface to his History. Seneca, one of the purest moralists of Rome, who died in 65 AD, says of his own time, ‘All is full of criminality and vice; indeed much more of these is committed than can be remedied by force. A monstrous contest of abandoned wickedness is carried on. The lust of sin increases daily, and shame is daily more and more extinguished. Discarding respect for all that is good and sacred, lust rushes on wherever it will. Vice no longer hides itself. It stalks forth before all eyes. So public has abandoned wickedness become, and so openly does it flame up in the minds of all, that innocence is no longer seldom, but has wholly ceased to exist.’”¹³

John Stott adds these thoughts: “We have come to the end of Paul’s portrayal of depraved Gentile society. Its essence lies in the antithesis between what people know and what they do. God’s wrath is specifically directed against those who deliberately suppress truth for the sake of evil. ‘Dark as the picture here drawn is,’ wrote Charles Hodge, ‘it is not so dark as that presented by the most distinguished Greek and Latin authors, of their own countrymen.’ Paul was not exaggerating.”¹⁴

Jewish theologian David Stern agrees with Bengel’s assessment by saying: “The downward slide gathers speed. With the necessary changes, the above description applies to all kinds of sins. Verses 29–31 are the Bible’s most comprehensive list of the evils people invent for themselves, and v. 32 shows the state of man in deepest depravity, in which not only do they keep doing these things, but they applaud others who do the same, thus forming a godless society opposing everything God wants from His beloved creation, humanity. Even so, in each one, a voice of conscience still protests that it is God’s righteous decree that people who do such things deserve to die, as has been the case from the days of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:17) until now.”¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ONE (Part XXVII)

Verses 28b-31: And so they end up doing the very thing that hurts them because they are filled with all sorts of godless living, wicked schemes, greed, hatred, endless desire for more, murder, violence, deceit, and spitefulness. And, as if that were not enough, they are gossiping, slanderous, God-hating, rude, egotistical, smug people who are always coming up with even more dreadful ways to treat one another. They don’t listen to their parents; they lack understanding and character. They are simple-minded, covenant-breaking, heartless, and unmerciful; they are not to be trusted.

Now Paul offers a long list of character flaws and felonies that these people seem to wallow in with no desire to escape although they are being pulled under into certain agony and death. What makes it so sad is that they know it is bad for them, yet they keep on adding more and more self-inflicted wounds. Paul does not list them in any order of priority or group them into identifiable categories. But we can see a trend: They begin with the way people think, then the way they feel, then; as a result, the way they treat others, and then what all of this does to their character and reputation.

Several early church writers speak concerning this aggregate of wicked tendencies. Ambrosiaster writes: “Paul put wickedness at the head of the list because he thought that evil and covetousness depended on it. He then added malice, from which flows envy, murder, strife, and deceit. After this, he put maliciousness, which generates gossip and slander.”¹ And Chrysostom says: “Notice how everything here is intensive – ‘filled’ and ‘with all.’ Having named maliciousness in general, Paul goes on to discuss the particulars, and these too he mentions in excess – ‘full of envy,’ etc.”² Then Pelagius points out: “Paul shows that wickedness and evil are the chief causes of the vices. Envy is rightly linked to murder since it is the chief cause for this crime. Strife exists when something is defended, not by reason but by a proud spirit. Deceit is secret malice covered in flattering speech. Maliciousness is a wish or a work of malice.”³

This same trio then comment on the consequences of having such tendencies. Says Ambrosiaster: “They were foolish and faithless and had no feelings either for God or for men. That is why they were heartless and ruthless. For someone who is cruel to his own family will be that much more cruel to others!”⁴ Then Chrysostom writes: “Christ Himself mentions this as the cause of wickedness, saying: ‘Because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.‘⁵ Paul says here that they were … traitors to nature. For most of us have a family feeling toward one another, which even the beasts share among themselves.… But these men became even more ferocious than the beasts. The disorder which resulted in the world by evil teachings he proves to us by these witnesses and clearly shows that in each case the malady came from the negligence of those who were disordered.”⁶ And finally, Pelagius opines: “Paul mentions all these sins, set out one by one, with respect to those who have been abandoned by God because they have abandoned Him. Let us, therefore, take care, lest we also are abandoned for embracing one of these evils.”⁷

A stoic Roman philosopher named Seneca, in his work on “Anger”, gives us a clear description of life in Rome during the time of Christ. He writes: “Every place is full of crime and vice; too many crimes are committed to be cured by any possible restraint. Men struggle in a mighty rivalry of wickedness. Every day the desire for wrong-doing is greater, the dread of it less; all regard for what is better and fairer is banished, lust hurls itself wherever it likes, and crimes are now no longer covert. They stalk before our very eyes, and wickedness has come to such a public state, has gained such power over the hearts of all, that innocence is not only rare – it is nonexistent. Is it only the casual man or the few who break the law? No! On every hand, as if at a given signal, people rise up to level all the barriers of right and wrong.”⁸

Reformer Martin Luther treats each one of these vices. But he seems to focus especially on the evil of what the King James Version translates as “maliciousness.” In Thayer’s Greek lexicon we find where Bishop Lightfoot denotes this as having a vicious disposition. Luther remarks: “Maliciousness is the perverse tendency in man to do evil despite the good which he has received; indeed he abuses even the good things which God gives him in the service of evil.”⁹ If there is anything that can get under a believer’s skin and cause the breakout of an indignant rash it is someone who takes something offered in love and kindness, and then uses it in a hurtful and malicious way.

John Bengel points out: “The whole enumeration is wisely arranged: nine members on the affections; two on language; three respecting God, oneself, and one’s neighbor; two on the management of affairs; and six respecting ties to relationships.”¹⁰ Bengel goes on to examine each one of these vices and feels that what bothers him the most is that so many of these are expressions and deeds intended to injure others to the delight of the perpetrator. Not only that but because such people seek satisfaction and contentment outside of God, it drives them into being greedy. As Bengel puts it: “He appropriates for himself the goods of others.”¹¹ As a result of being so covetous, “They drive away from themselves everything that is good and beneficial.”¹²

Based upon this, we can certainly say that the term, “yesterday, today and forever,’ as ascribed to Jesus Christ, is also true when applied to sin. As it was in Noah’s day, David’s day, Christ’s day, Paul’s day, Luther’s day, Wesley’s day, so it is today. Satan’s intended influence never changes. It always eats and corrodes away until it lays bare the most evil and base inclinations of mankind no matter how much moral varnish and veneer has been applied. As long as God commands us to be holy, sin will deprive mankind of that goal unless its hold is broken by the power of Christ.

Albert Barnes in his notes, on this portion, gives us a chilling summary of the evil named in verse 31 as the lack of natural affection. He writes: “This expression denotes the lack of affectionate regard toward their children. The attachment of parents to children is one of the strongest in nature, and nothing can overcome it but the most confirmed and established wickedness. Among the ancient Persians, it was a common custom to bury children alive. In most of the Grecian states, infanticide was not merely permitted, but actually enforced by law. The Spartan lawgiver expressly ordained that every child that was born should be examined by the elderly men of the tribe and that if found weak or deformed, should be thrown into a deep cavern at the foot of Mount Taygetus. Aristotle, in his work on government, enjoins the exposure of children that are naturally feeble and deformed, in order to prevent an excess of population. But among all the nations of antiquity, the Romans were the most unrelenting in their treatment of infants. Romulus obliged the citizens to bring up all their male children, and the oldest of the females, proof that the others were to be destroyed. The Roman father had absolute rights over the life of his child, and we have abundant proof that that right was often exercised.”¹³ While such forms of infanticide are not practiced today, another has taken its place, and that is called “late-term abortion.”

John Stott gives us a good categorization of these evils: “Paul gives a catalog of twenty-one vices. Such lists were not uncommon in those days in Stoic, Jewish, and early Christian literature. All commentators seem to agree that the list defies neat classification. It begins with four general sins with which these people have become filled, namely every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. Then come five more sins which they are full of and which all depict broken human relationships: envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. Next, come a couple on their own, which seem to refer to libel and slander, although J. B. Phillips offers a characteristically imaginative translation: ‘whisperers-behind-doors’ and ‘stabbers-in-the-back.’ These two are followed by four which seem to portray different and extreme forms of pride: God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful. Now comes another independent couple of words, denoting people who are ‘inventive’ in relation to evil and rebellious in relation to parents. And the list ends with four negatives, senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless, which Phillips rather neatly renders ‘without brains, honor, love or pity.’¹⁴”¹⁵

Verse 32: They know God’s law says that anyone who lives like that should die. But they not only continue to do these things themselves, but they also encourage others who do the same.

Here we see the very epitome of man’s depravity. It is one thing to be debased and not know the Laws of God, but it is worse to have knowledge of such divine prohibitions but remain unwilling to break the chain, and so continue on in such practices. But the most sinister of all is not only having knowledge of the rules against such things, but to ignore them; to be cognizant of a way to be set free, but spurn it, and to proselytize others to join in by making such lewd debauchery appealing and socially acceptable. But what seems lost to those who continue in these works of the flesh, is that God’s laws against them and His commandments prohibiting them are for man’s good. God’s opposition to such debauchery is not just to make Him feel good, but to save man from their own destructive behavior.

The Psalmist described such people like this: “You see a thief and run to join him. You jump into bed with those who commit adultery. You say evil things and tell lies. You sit around talking about people, finding fault with your own brothers.”¹⁶ And the Jews wrote about this in their Talmud: “A person does not incur suspicion unless he has done the thing [suspected]; and if he has not done it wholly he has done it partially; and if he has not done it partially, he has a mind to do it; and if he has not had a mind to do it, he has seen others doing it and enjoyed watching it being done.”¹⁷

For many of these despicable people Paul describes here, the one thing that seemed to placate their feelings of guilt and conviction was to get others to join them so that what they were doing began to look like reasonable conduct. No doubt this is why Eve offered Adam the forbidden fruit. Paul wanted the Roman believers not to get drawn into such a trap. If God said it was wrong 8,000 years, or 4,000 years, or 2,000 years ago, it is still wrong today. Since God never changes, and His Word never changes, then right and wrong never changes.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ONE (Part XXVI)

Jewish theologian David Stern leaves no doubt where he stands on this subject: “Homosexuality was rife throughout the first-century Roman Empire, as it is today. This is why the Gay Liberation movement can gain a wide hearing as it seeks equality, acceptance, and approval of homosexuals and their behavior. It is why the Metropolitan Community Church, with tens of thousands of members in the United States, many of them openly active homosexuals, can refuse to condemn homosexual behavior as sin, yet seek acceptance as a Christian denomination. It is why outsiders condemn the Christian community when it rejects the MCC’s claim and refuses to recognize homosexuality as an ‘alternative lifestyle.’ The basic attitude of people who believe the Bible should be to love sinners while hating their sins. But believers must accept the Bible’s judgments on what is and what is not sin. Moreover, denouncing the sin is an aspect of loving the sinner; this is what enables him to repent, be forgiven, and change. All of this can be done compassionately and effectively; the real tragedy is that few Christian churches try to minister to homosexuals.”¹

Verse 28a: In other words, since they have not considered God worth knowing, God allowed them to keep their worthless thinking.

This was another way for the apostle Paul to say that God is tolerant. Many parents have followed this same tactic. No matter how many times they’ve told their child not to touch this, or run with that, or jump off of this, sometimes, the only way they can teach them is by permitting them to suffer the consequences of disobedience. In God’s case, it’s not so much a matter of Him allowing them to get away with sin, but that He is teaching them how dangerous and harmful sin can be. One of the earliest OT writers commented: “How often do the lights go out on the wicked? How often do the consequences boomerang on them? How often does God allow them to feel the pain of His anger by making them blow around like straw in the wind like debris carried off by a storm?”²

It all starts when they take God out of the equation when they do not factor Him into every decision of their lives. It was Solomon who said: “Knowledge begins with fear and respect for the LORD, but stubborn fools hate wisdom and refuse to learn.”³ So, Solomon asks: “How long will you fools love being ignorant? How long will you make fun of wisdom? How long will you hate knowledge?”⁴ So Wisdom was asked how this could happen. She replied: “Fools will call for me, but I will not answer. They will look for me, but they will not find me. That’s because they hate knowledge. They refuse to fear and respect the Lord. They ignore my advice and refuse to be corrected. They fill their lives with what they want. They go their own way so they will get what they deserve.”⁵

But this was all done to teach them a lesson. God is waiting for them to come to their senses and ask: “Why didn’t I listen to my parents? Why didn’t I pay attention to my teachers? I didn’t want to be disciplined. I refused to be corrected. So now I have suffered through just about every kind of trouble anyone can have, and everyone knows it.”⁶ Unfortunately, wisdom is not for sale, it has to be gained through knowledge, and knowledge can only be acquired through study, and study can only be done through dedication and hard work.⁷

What perplexed Paul was the same thing that God noticed: “My people are foolish. They don’t really know me. They are stupid children. They don’t understand. They are so skilled at doing wrong, but they haven’t learned a thing about being good.”⁸ Jeremiah was told by God, people tell lies to cover up their lies.⁹ The apostle Peter believed that a lot of this came about because people conveniently ignored the past. It’s like, that can’t happen to me. But the truth is, says Peter, “These people don’t want to remember what happened long ago.”¹⁰ Of course, he was talking about the great flood that destroyed the earth’s population except for Noah and his family. So he warns them that they are not exempt from a similar judgment if they continue to ignore God and His Word. Peter goes on to say that instead of a flood, this time God will use fire.¹¹

When Paul was writing about such circumstances to young Timothy, he likened this kind of blind rebellion to what happened down in Egypt when Moses was sent by God to free His people. Paul writes: “Just as Jannes and Jambres¹² fought against Moses, these people fight against the truth. Their thinking has been confused. The faith they have and teach is worthless. But they will not succeed in what they are trying to do. Everyone will see how foolish they are. That is what happened to Jannes and Jambres.”¹³ As far as Paul was concerned, these people were speeding down a road known to have a sudden drop-off at the end. And despite the warning signs, they ignored them, thinking they were only put there to keep them away from enjoying the pleasures that lay hidden up ahead. Not only were they foolish, but they were fools for being so foolish.

The great early church preacher Chrysostom had this to say in one of his sermons on this text: “Paul shows that the heathens were responsible for their own sins, and he deprives them of any excuse. For he says that their evil deeds did not come from ignorance but from willful practice. This is why he did not say ‘because they did not know God,’ but rather ‘they did not see fit to acknowledge God.’ In other words, their sin was one of a perverted determination of obstinacy more than of a sudden delight, and it was not in the flesh (as some heretics say¹⁴) but in the mind, to whose wicked lust the sins belonged and from which the fount of evils flowed. For if the mind becomes undiscerning, everything else is dragged off course and overturned.”¹⁵

Martin Luther suggests that the reason God does not immediately punish people for their sins is that His grace outweighs His displeasure. As Luther sees this, God does so because His hidden divine judgment examines every situation for the circumstances involved. This may lead some to repentance while others continue on their way to destruction. Luther remarks: “At any rate, God stops every arrogant mouth in order that no one might prescribe to Him any rule according to which He should punish sin or reward virtue.”¹⁶ This is why Christians are taught to do the witnessing, and let God do the judging.

The great Reformer John Calvin analyses man’s bad choices: “Since they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord let them have a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right. And by saying, that they chose not to, it is the same as though he had said, that they pursued not after the knowledge of God with the attention they ought to have done, but, on the contrary, turned away their thoughts abjectly from God. He then intimates, that they, making a depraved choice, preferred their own vanities to the true God; and thus the error, by which they were deceived, was voluntary.”¹⁷ In other words, as far as Calvin was concerned, the excuse, “the devil made me do it,” is not acceptable or valid.

John Bengel sees Paul comparing the thesis of God “giving them over,” with the antithesis of “allowing them to retain.” In other words, these people wallowed shamelessly in their sins, had the knowledge that it was wrong, but chose not to benefit from their possession of such knowledge. Bengel says: “Such words have both an active and passive sense; so [the Greek word] ‘adokimos’ [is used].¹⁸ Here it means in an active sense: the mind which approves things [that] by no means [should] be approved; to this are given up [by] those who have disapproved what was [now] to be approved.”¹⁹ In other words, those who actively knew it was not approved by God, passively accepted it as being approved.

Adam Clarke proposes that not only did these pagan not have any true knowledge of God other than the rudimentary facts provided by creation, but goes on to say: “They did not search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidence before them of His being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to an unsearching or undiscerning mind. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so nonconsecutively concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.”²⁰ Keep this in mind, although God let them have their corrupt practices so they could learn how bad it was for them, He still did not accept or approve of it.

John Stott points out a play on words in the Greek text which can best be paraphrased as follows: Since they did not see fit to retain any awareness of God, God decided not to retain any awareness of them.²¹ This is another way of saying, that God is no bully. His loving the world is by choice, so He wants loving Him to be by choice. Not only that but by being left to their own devices is a quick way for any person to come to the realization that they need God more than God needs them.

Douglas Moo adds another dimension to this understanding: “Whereas in the previous instances it was to immoral acts that God consigned people, in this case it is to a ‘worthless mind.’ People who have refused to acknowledge God end up with minds that are ‘disqualified’ from being able to understand and acknowledge the will of God. The result, of course, is that they do things that are ‘not proper.’ As in 1:21, Paul stresses that people who have turned from God are fundamentally unable to think and decide correctly about God and His will. This tragic incapacity is the explanation for the apparently inexplicable failure of people to comprehend, let alone practice, biblical ethical principles. Only the work of the Spirit in ‘renewing the mind’ (Rom. 12:2) can overcome this deep-seated blindness and perversity.”²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ONE (Part XXV)

Paul was very much aware that this degenerate form of immoral activity was still prevalent in his day. He had to warn the Corinthians: “Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy His kingdom…men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men… In the past some of you were like that. But you were washed clean, you were made holy, and you were made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”¹ Paul also warned young Timothy: “We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to Him… It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.”²

It is interesting that Paul puts this unnatural desire to be intimate with the same sex in the category of other unnatural instincts. So if one is allowed, what will keep the others from also becoming a natural way of living and conducting oneself? So it goes without saying, that such unnatural tendencies are to be resisted. And only when a person gathers the courage to resist doing what’s wrong and an abomination to God, will He then give them strength to gain victory. So the apostle Jude tells the community of believers: “Remember Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities, following a pattern like theirs, committing sexual sins and perversions, lie exposed as a warning of the everlasting fire awaiting those who must undergo punishment.”³

The stoic philosopher Seneca was bemoaning the depraved condition of those in power who wallowed in immorality because of their lust and wealth. In one of his epistles he mentioned this: “Believe it or not, men live contrary to Nature who exchange the fashion of their attire with women.”⁴ Today this is more commonly referred to as cross-dressing or transgender attire. Also, Clement of Alexandria made this observation: “The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys.”⁵

But this abuse of boys by men was also prevalent among the Greeks. In one of their documents we read: “Phaedo of Elis belonged to that famous Socratic band and was on terms of close intimacy with Socrates and Plato. His name was mentioned by Plato in that inspired dialogue of his on the immortality of the soul. This Phaedo, though a slave, was of noble person and intellect, and according to some writers, in his boyhood was driven to prostitution by his master, who was a panderer.”⁶ For those who bemoan these same conditions in the world today, it’s not new. The body of Christ has endured it before and will persevere again. The only admonition we need to remember is not to give in, for our Lord said: “The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”⁷

One early church scholar who was a contemporary of the great Chrysostom, gives us his impression of what Paul is referring to here. He writes: “Paul did not say this lightly, but because he had heard that there was a homosexual community at Rome.”⁸ And Ambrosiaster speaks out by saying: “It is clear that, because they changed the truth of God into a lie, they changed the natural use (of sexuality) into that use by which they were dishonored and were condemned to the second death. For since Satan cannot make another law, having no power to do so, it must be said that they changed [existing law] to another order and by doing things which were not allowed, fell into sin. Paul says that the due penalty comes from contempt of God, and that it is wickedness and obscenity. For this is the prime cause of sin. What is worse, what is more harmful than that sin which deceives even the devil and binds man to death?”⁹

Reformist John Calvin has this to say about mankind’s condition after rejecting the truth and turning a blind eye to God’s creative glory: “They indeed deserved to be blinded, so as to forget themselves, and not to see anything appropriate for them, who, through their own malignity, closed their eyes against the light offered them by God, that they might not behold His glory: in short, they who were not ashamed to extinguish, as much of the glory of God as they could, which alone gives us light, deserved to become blind at noonday.”¹⁰

Albert Barnes gives evidence as to why the apostle Paul focused in on these homosexual activities among the pagans of Paul’s day. He writes: “It doubtlessly pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius says that in the time of Socrates, this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception.¹¹ Cicero says, that ‘Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.’¹² He also says that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it.¹³ And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general.¹⁴ Xenophon says, that ‘the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is allowed by public laws.‘¹⁵”¹⁶

John Stott also weighs in on this subject: “Verses 26–27 are a crucial text in the contemporary debate about homosexuality. The traditional interpretation, that they describe and condemn all homosexual behavior, is being challenged by the gay lobby. Three arguments are advanced. First, it is claimed that the passage is irrelevant, on the ground that its purpose is neither to teach sexual ethics, nor to expose vice, but rather to portray the outworking of God’s wrath. This is true. But if a certain sexual conduct is to be seen as the consequence of God’s wrath, it must be displeasing to Him. Secondly, ‘the likelihood is that Paul is thinking only about pederasty’ since ‘there was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world,’ and that he is opposing it because of the humiliation and exploitation experienced by the youths involved.”¹⁷

Stott goes on to say: “There is the question of what Paul meant by ‘nature’? Some homosexual people are urging that their relationships cannot be described as ‘unnatural’, since they are perfectly natural to them. John Boswell has written, for example, that ‘the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual people’. Hence Paul’s statement that they ‘abandoned’ natural relations, and ‘exchanged’ them for unnatural. Richard Hays has written a thorough exegetical rebuttal of this interpretation, however. He provides ample contemporary evidence that the opposition of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ was ‘very frequently used … as a way of distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behavior.’ Besides, differentiating between sexual orientation and sexual practice is a modern concept; ‘to suggest that Paul intends to condemn homosexual acts only when they are committed by persons who are constitutionally heterosexual is to introduce a distinction entirely foreign to Paul’s thought-world,’ in fact a complete anachronism.”¹⁸

Here’s what Stott says in his conclusion: “So then, we have no liberty to interpret the noun ‘nature’ as meaning ‘my’ nature, or the adjective ‘natural’ as meaning ‘what seems natural to me.’ On the contrary, physis (‘ natural’) means God’s created order. To act ‘against nature’ means to violate the order which God has established, whereas to act ‘according to nature’ means to behave ‘in accordance with the intention of the Creator.’ Moreover, the intention of the Creator means His original intention. What this was Genesis tells us and Jesus confirmed: ‘At the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one.’ Then Jesus added His personal endorsement and deduction: ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’ In other words, God created humankind male and female; God instituted marriage as a heterosexual union; and what God has thus united, we have no liberty to separate. This threefold action of God established that the only context which He intends for the ‘one flesh’ experience is heterosexual monogamy, and that a homosexual partnership (however loving and committed it may claim to be) is ‘against nature’ and can never be regarded as a legitimate alternative to marriage.”¹⁹

Douglas Moo also adds his insights on this subject: “Paul shows that the same ‘sinful passions’ that led women to engage in unnatural homosexual acts are also operative among men, with similar effect. Homosexuality among ‘males,’ like that among ‘females,’ is characterized as a departure from nature. As in the previous verse, ‘nature’ denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes. Paul uses strong language to characterize male homosexuality: ‘they burned in their desire for one another, men with men doing that which is shameful and receiving in themselves the just penalty that was necessary for their error.’ In calling the homosexual activity that brings about this penalty an ‘error,’ Paul does not diminish the seriousness of the offense, for this word often denotes sins of unbelievers in the NT. In claiming that this penalty for homosexual practice is received ‘in themselves,’ Paul may suggest that the sexual perversion itself is the punishment. On the other hand, this could be a vivid way of saying that those who engage in such activities will suffer eternal punishment; they will receive ‘in their own persons’ God’s penalty for violation of His will. This punishment, Paul says, was ‘necessary,’ by which he probably means that God could not allow His created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment.”²⁰