Reading Romans 1 recently, I was struck by the apparent linkage between Rom 1:15 – 18. Naturally, we would expect such linkages in sentences and words written so closely together. Yet at the same time most English Bibles will place those 4 verses in separate sections.
Verse 15 ends the section on Paul’s concern and eagerness to preach to the people of Rome. Verses 16-17 are famously set off as the summary of Paul’s message: the righteous shall live by faith–the ship that launched the Reformation. Verse 18, however, is much darker, announcing the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of human beings.
What if verse 16 explains Paul’s eagerness to go to Rome to preach the gospel? A gospel which announces that God’s righteousness is revealed, a righteousness from God that comes by grace (so verse 17) and a righteousness of God in punishing sin (so verse 18).
This gospel, then centers itself at the cross, where God’s righteous anger is revealed in all of it’s awful reality. While at the same time, the righteousness from God is purchased by His grace through Christ’s death in taking the full load of human sin on Himself as the revealed Son of God (verse 4).
If God’s anger at sin is fully exhausted on Christ at the cross, and the Cross is the full revelation of God’s righteousness (both moral and imputational), how does this change our reading of the rest of Romans 1? Verses 19ff all seem to be written in past tense, whereas verses 8-18 seem to be all present tense.
Could it be that Paul is laying out a case that all of these sins, as repugnant as they are to God, have been dealt with at the cross by God’s righteous grace? Would this make sense of the “Therefore” at the beginning of Chapter 2 as the reason we have no right to judge?
Just some food for thought. I need to go find my Greek New Testament and dig through the original language a bit more.
Or you might look at Martin LLoyd Jones Commentary on Romans. Very good and will give you some insights.
That is a good commentary. I left my copy overseas when I left the mission field 4 years ago. These days I mostly use Doug Moo’s commentary in the NICNT, though I haven’t kept up to date on scholarship in Romans.
Thus the question about Rowan Williams’ thoughts on Romans 1.