Romans 1

Having completed his opening greeting, Paul now turns from introducing himself and his Gospel to speaking personally to the believers in Rome. Before entering the theological arguments that will dominate the epistle, he expresses his gratitude for them, explains his desire to visit them, and describes the obligation he feels to proclaim the Gospel throughout the Gentile world.

These verses reveal something important about Paul. Theology and ministry are never separated in his thinking. The great doctrinal arguments that follow are not merely intellectual exercises. Paul is writing to real people whom he desires to strengthen, encourage, and serve.

Romans 1:8–10

A Faith Spoken of Throughout the World

Paul begins: “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world”. Before Paul teaches them, corrects them, or enters into theological argument, he begins with thanksgiving. That is significant. Paul had not founded the church at Rome and had never personally visited it, yet he does not approach these believers as though nothing worthwhile existed among them until an apostle arrived to instruct them. He recognizes what God has already accomplished among them. Their faith has become known.

“I Thank My God Through Jesus Christ”

Paul says that he gives thanks: “to my God through Jesus Christ”. The words “through Jesus Christ” should not simply be passed over as part of Paul’s customary religious language. Paul understands our relationship with God as mediated through Christ. We receive God’s saving grace through Christ, but our response of prayer, thanksgiving, and worship also comes before God through Him. This is consistent with the wider New Testament presentation of the risen Christ as our High Priest and intercessor before the Father. Christ’s work did not cease at the resurrection or ascension. The Jesus whom Paul has just described as raised from the dead and established as the Son of God in power continues to occupy a central place in the believer’s relationship with God. Paul therefore does not merely thank God for Jesus Christ. He thanks God through Jesus Christ.

“Your Faith Is Proclaimed in All the World”

Paul gives thanks: “because your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Make a note to recall this verse when in Romans 9 -Regarding the Pharaoh). We should be careful not to make “all the world” say something Paul plainly does not require it to mean. Paul is not claiming that every human being on earth had personally heard about the faith of the Roman Christians. That would be particularly difficult to maintain when Paul himself was still actively carrying the Gospel into places where Christ had not been proclaimed.

This is ordinary expansive language. The point is that the faith of the Roman believers had become widely known. Rome stood at the center of an enormous empire. People continually traveled to and from the city, and news naturally traveled with them. The existence of a growing Christian community in Rome would therefore become known among believers elsewhere. Their reputation was not based upon wealth, political influence, impressive buildings, or social standing. What people had heard about was their faith. There is something worth considering in that. A church can become known for many things. Paul gives thanks because these believers were known for their faith in Christ.

Paul Calls God as His Witness

Paul continues: “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers”. Calling God as his witness emphasizes the sincerity of what Paul is saying. The Roman believers could not observe Paul’s private prayers. They had no way of independently confirming how frequently he prayed for them. God could. Paul therefore appeals to the One who knows whether his words are true. Notice also how Paul again describes his service: “whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son”.

In verse 1 Paul was set apart for the Gospel of God. Here he serves God “in the gospel of His Son”. These are not competing Gospels. The Gospel belongs to God, and the Gospel concerns His Son. Paul’s ministry is centered upon both.

Paul’s Desire Submitted to God’s Will

Paul says that he continually asks: “that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you”. Paul genuinely wants to go to Rome. Yet wanting something—even something good and related to ministry—does not mean Paul assumes that it must happen simply because he desires it. He submits the matter to God’s will. There is an important distinction here between God’s providence and human planning.

• Paul makes plans.
• Paul desires particular outcomes.
• Paul prays for opportunities.

Yet he recognizes that his plans remain subject to God’s direction. We should not conclude from this that Paul believed planning was unnecessary because God is sovereign. Quite the opposite. Paul planned extensively. Neither should we conclude that every obstacle Paul encountered necessarily represented God’s disapproval of what Paul intended to do. Paul desired to visit Rome and had repeatedly been prevented from doing so. Nevertheless, he continued praying for the opportunity.

That gives us a much more balanced biblical understanding of providence. Human beings plan and act. Circumstances sometimes prevent those plans. God remains sovereign over the circumstances. And the believer continues seeking God’s will rather than pretending to possess exhaustive knowledge of it. Ironically, Paul would eventually reach Rome—but not in the manner he probably imagined while writing these words. He would arrive as a prisoner. God answered the desire, although the road by which Paul reached Rome was very different from what he might naturally have expected.

Romans 1:11–12

Mutual Encouragement

Paul explains why he wants to visit: “For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you”. At first glance, this could sound somewhat one-directional. 

• Paul has something. 
• The Romans need it.
• Paul will come and give it to them.

But Paul immediately qualifies his statement: “that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine”. That qualification is important.

What Is the “Spiritual Gift”?

Paul does not identify precisely what he means by “some spiritual gift”. Because Paul elsewhere discusses supernatural spiritual gifts, it is possible to read that meaning into this expression. But the immediate context does not require it. Paul tells us the intended result: “to strengthen you”. And then he explains further: “that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith”. The safest interpretation is therefore not to identify a specific miraculous gift when Paul himself does not identify one.

Whatever Paul intends to impart through his presence and ministry, its purpose is the strengthening and encouragement of believers. Paul certainly possesses apostolic authority, but notice how quickly he prevents that authority from becoming a picture of spiritual superiority. He does not say merely: I will strengthen you. He says: we may be mutually encouraged. Paul expects to give. But Paul also expects to receive. Their faith can encourage him just as his ministry can strengthen them.

Authority Without Spiritual Arrogance

That is particularly striking when we consider Paul’s background. Paul had been educated under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He possessed extensive knowledge of the Scriptures. His writings demonstrate considerable intellectual ability, and his apostolic calling gave him an authority these Roman believers did not possess. Yet Paul does not approach them as though apostolic authority makes him spiritually self-sufficient. He needs encouragement too.

Paul even acknowledges elsewhere that polished public speaking was not necessarily his greatest strength: “Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge” (2 Corinthians 11:6). Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 2:4–5 he deliberately contrasts dependence upon impressive human rhetoric with dependence upon God’s power.

This does not mean Paul lacked intellectual ability. Quite clearly he did not. It means Paul refused to make human ability the foundation upon which faith should rest. There is a valuable principle here for Christian ministry. Authority and humility are not opposites. A person can possess genuine responsibility to teach others while still recognizing that God can use those same people to encourage and strengthen the teacher. Paul does not need to diminish his apostolic authority in order to acknowledge the value of the Roman believers. Nor does he need to diminish them in order to establish his authority. Both can be true.

Romans 1:13

A Harvest Among You

Paul continues: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles”. Paul now makes explicit something already implied in his prayers. He had tried to reach Rome before. He had been prevented. The text does not tell us here precisely what prevented him, and we should resist the temptation to fill in information Paul does not provide. What matters is that his absence was not evidence of indifference. Paul had repeatedly intended to come. 

“Some Harvest Among You”

Paul describes his desired result as: “some harvest among you”. Harvest imagery appears throughout Scripture and is often associated with bringing people to God. But we should notice that Paul is writing to people whom he already regards as believers.

• He has already thanked God for their faith.
• He has called them beloved of God and saints.

Therefore, “harvest” here should probably not be restricted to initial conversions. Spiritual fruit can include conversion, but it can also include growth, strengthening, obedience, ministry, and the further spread of the Gospel through an established church. Paul expects his ministry in Rome to produce fruit. And he places Rome within his wider Gentile mission: “as well as among the rest of the Gentiles”. This is another indication that the Roman Christian community included a significant Gentile element and that Paul viewed Rome as belonging within the sphere of his particular apostolic commission.

Romans 1:14

A Debtor to All

Paul then makes a remarkable statement: “I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish”. The idea translated “under obligation” carries the sense of indebtedness. Paul considers himself a debtor. But in what sense could Paul possibly owe the Gospel to people he had never met?

The answer lies in the commission he has received. Paul has been entrusted with something that is intended for others. Imagine someone giving you money specifically so that you can deliver it to another person. You are now indebted to that person—not because you borrowed anything from him, but because something belonging to him has been entrusted to you for delivery. Something similar is happening with Paul. God has entrusted Paul with the Gospel and commissioned him to carry it to the nations. Therefore, Paul has an obligation to those to whom he has been sent.

• He has received grace.
• He has received apostleship.
• He has received the Gospel.
• And having received it, he is responsible to proclaim it.

Greeks and Barbarians

Paul says that this obligation extends: “both to Greeks and to barbarians”. The word “barbarian” did not necessarily carry precisely the same connotations that the English word often carries today. From the Greek perspective, the distinction commonly separated those who participated in Greek language and culture from those who did not. Paul’s expression therefore reaches across cultural divisions.

The Gospel is not merely for the educated Greek-speaking world. Neither is it merely for those outside it. Paul owes the same Gospel to both. He reinforces the point with another pair: “both to the wise and to the foolish”. Again, the point is comprehensiveness.

• Educated or uneducated.
• Cultured or uncultured.
• Intellectually respected or dismissed by society.

The Gospel does not change according to the social status of the hearer. This connects directly with what Paul has already said in verse 5: “among all the nations”. Paul’s Gospel recognizes no cultural class of people who have outgrown their need for Christ. 

• The philosopher needs the Gospel.
• The laborer needs the Gospel.
• The educated need it.
• The uneducated need it.
• The powerful need it.
• The powerless need it.

Human distinctions may determine how society evaluates people. They do not eliminate anyone’s need for salvation.

Paul’s Preparation for Gentile Ministry

Paul’s life had placed him at the intersection of several worlds that would later become important in his ministry. He was a Jew, had studied under Gamaliel, came from Tarsus in the Greek-speaking world, and possessed Roman citizenship by birth (Acts 22:25–28). Those facts did not create his apostleship, but once Christ called him to carry the Gospel among the Gentiles, they became remarkably useful. Paul could understand Jewish concerns while also moving through the wider Greco-Roman world in which his mission would unfold.

That order matters. We should not reason backward from Paul’s qualifications and conclude that God called him simply because he happened to be the most naturally suitable candidate. Paul grounds his authority in Christ’s call, not in his résumé. His education, citizenship, linguistic ability, cultural familiarity, experiences, and even the failures of his earlier life could all be taken up and used in the ministry Christ gave him, but none of them was the source of that ministry. Providence may prepare the circumstances through which a calling is carried out; the calling itself still comes from God. Paul’s background helped him serve. Christ gave him the commission.

Romans 1:15

Eager to Preach the Gospel

Paul concludes: “So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome”. The word “so” connects Paul’s eagerness with everything he has just said.  He has been entrusted with the Gospel. He is obligated to proclaim it. That obligation extends throughout the Gentile world. The believers in Rome fall within that mission.

Therefore: Paul is eager to preach the Gospel in Rome. But there is something interesting here. Paul is writing to Christians, yet he says he wants to “preach the gospel” to them. That tells us something important about what Paul means by the Gospel. The Gospel is certainly the message through which unbelievers hear of salvation in Jesus Christ. But Paul does not regard the Gospel as something Christians hear once, believe, and then leave behind while moving on to more advanced Christianity. He wants to preach the Gospel to people who already believe. Why?

Because the Gospel is not merely the doorway into Christianity. It is the foundation of the Christian life. The doctrines Paul is about to explain—sin, justification, faith, union with Christ, sanctification, life in the Spirit, Israel and the promises of God, Christian conduct, and the believer’s relationship with others—all flow from the Gospel. The Roman Christians therefore do not need something beyond the Gospel. They need to understand more fully the Gospel they have already believed. And that brings Paul directly to Romans 1:16–17.

• Bringing Romans 1:8–15 Together
• There is a natural progression through these verses.
• Paul thanks God for the Roman believers.
• He prays for them.
• He desires to visit them.
• He wants to strengthen them.
• He expects to be encouraged by them.
• He desires to produce fruit among them.
• He recognizes his obligation to proclaim the Gospel to every class of people.
• And therefore he is eager to preach the Gospel in Rome.

The movement is important because it prepares us for what comes next. Paul is about to make one of the most important declarations in the entire epistle: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel…”. But before telling us why he is not ashamed of it, Paul has shown us what the Gospel has done to him.

• It has made him a servant.
• It has given him a commission.
• It has created an obligation toward others.
• It has produced love for believers he has never met.
• It has caused him to pray.
• It has caused him to plan.
• And it has made him eager to proclaim Christ wherever God gives him opportunity.

For Paul, the Gospel is not merely something to be defended. It is something to be lived, shared, and proclaimed. And now, in Romans 1:16–17, Paul is ready to explain why.

---

Romans 1:16–17

The Power of God for Salvation

Paul has explained who he is, the Gospel he has been commissioned to proclaim, his desire to visit Rome, and his obligation to carry that Gospel to people without distinction. He now arrives at what is commonly recognized as one of the central statements of the entire Epistle to the Romans: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”. These two verses are enormously important because they introduce themes Paul will spend much of Romans developing: the Gospel, salvation, faith, righteousness, Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between faith and life. But once again, we need to allow Paul to define his own terms as his argument unfolds.

Romans 1:16

“I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel”

Paul begins: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel”. The word translated “ashamed” is ἐπαισχύνομαι (epaischynomai), Strong’s [G1870]. It carries the idea of being ashamed of something or shrinking back from it because of shame. Paul’s statement should probably not be read as though he were confessing some private temptation to deny Christ. The context points in the opposite direction. Paul has just said: “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome”, then: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel”. Paul is expressing confidence. And that confidence is striking when we consider what preaching the Gospel had already cost him. Paul had experienced opposition, beatings, imprisonment, ridicule, rejection, and persecution because of the message he proclaimed. The Gospel did not make Paul’s life easier. Yet none of those things caused him to conclude that the Gospel itself had failed.

A Crucified Messiah

The message Paul proclaimed was not naturally impressive according to the standards of the surrounding world. To many Jews, the idea of a crucified Messiah presented an enormous difficulty. Crucifixion represented humiliation, rejection, and curse—not the victorious messianic kingdom many expected. Among Greeks, the difficulty was different. Greek culture highly valued philosophy, rhetoric, and intellectual sophistication. The proclamation that salvation centered upon a Jewish man who had been executed by Roman crucifixion could easily appear foolish. Paul explains this elsewhere: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Yet Paul does not redesign the Gospel to make it more respectable. He does not remove the cross for the Jew. He does not replace revelation with philosophy for the Greek. He proclaims Christ. Why? Paul immediately tells us.

“For It Is the Power of God”

Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel: “for it is the power of God for salvation”. The word translated “power” is δύναμις (dynamis), Strong’s [G1411]. It carries the idea of power, strength, ability, or might. Notice carefully what Paul says. He does not say that Paul is the power of God for salvation. He does not say the preacher is the power. He does not say eloquence, persuasion, education, philosophy, religious ceremony, or human wisdom is the power.

The Gospel is the power of God for salvation. That immediately places Christian evangelism in its proper perspective. The messenger matters because the message must be proclaimed faithfully. But the power does not originate in the messenger. Paul cannot save anyone. Neither can any pastor, evangelist, theologian, church, denomination, or religious institution. The servant proclaims. God saves.

But What Does Paul Mean by “The Gospel Is the Power”?

We should be careful here as well. Paul does not say that the Gospel possesses some independent mystical power apart from God. He says it is: “the power of God”. God works through the Gospel He has provided. This agrees with Paul’s later statement: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). God has chosen proclamation as the means through which people hear of Christ. That means the Gospel is not merely information about salvation. It is the God-appointed message through which salvation is announced and received. And this immediately raises an important question. Who receives it? Paul answers: “everyone who believes.”

“To Everyone Who Believes”

This phrase deserves to be allowed its full force. Paul does not say: to everyone who performs sufficient works. He does not say: to everyone who possesses Jewish ancestry. He does not say: to everyone who has kept the Mosaic Law. He says: “to everyone who believes”. The word translated “believes” comes from πιστεύω (pisteuō), Strong’s [G4100], meaning to believe, trust, or place confidence in. This connects directly with Paul’s previous expression: “the obedience of faith”. The Gospel is proclaimed. The hearer is called to believe. And the Gospel is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes. That qualification matters.

Universal Provision Does Not Eliminate the Necessity of Faith

There are two truths here that should remain together. The Gospel is not restricted by ethnicity, social standing, education, nationality, or human achievement. It is for everyone. Yet Paul does not say everyone is automatically saved. He says: “everyone who believes”. Therefore, the universal scope of the Gospel does not eliminate the necessity of personal faith. Neither does the necessity of faith diminish the universality of the Gospel proclamation.

These are not competing truths. The Gospel can genuinely be proclaimed to all while its saving benefits are received through faith. This is consistent with the wider testimony of Scripture in which people are repeatedly commanded to repent and believe. Faith is therefore not an unnecessary consequence that occurs after salvation has already been completed in the individual. Paul places believing directly within his statement concerning the Gospel’s saving power: the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

Is Faith a Work?

This will become increasingly important as Romans develops. Paul will strongly reject justification by works. But that does not mean Paul rejects the necessity of faith. The mistake comes when faith itself is treated as though believing were a meritorious work by which the sinner earns salvation. Paul does not reason that way.

• Faith does not create the Gospel.
• Faith does not produce Christ’s righteousness.
• Faith does not accomplish the cross.
• Faith does not raise Jesus from the dead.
• Faith does not place God in the sinner’s debt.
• Faith receives what God has provided.

That distinction allows us to affirm both truths without contradiction: Salvation is entirely provided by God’s grace. And: God requires the sinner to believe. The provision belongs to God. The response is faith.

“To the Jew First”

Paul continues: “to the Jew first and also to the Greek”. The word “first” deserves attention because it could easily be misunderstood. Paul is not establishing two different ways of salvation. Neither is he saying that Jewish people are saved on more favorable terms than Gentiles. The Gospel is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes. Jew and Gentile therefore stand under the same requirement of faith. So why “to the Jew first”? Because the Gospel arose within a particular redemptive history. God called Abraham. God established His covenant promises.

• Israel received the Law.
• Israel received the prophets.
• The Messiah came through Israel.

Jesus Himself was descended from David according to the flesh, as Paul has just told us. During Christ’s earthly ministry, the Gospel was proclaimed first within Israel. The earliest Church was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. Even Paul’s missionary practice commonly involved entering a city and going first to the synagogue. The priority is therefore best understood as historical within God’s unfolding revelation, rather than as a statement of superior human worth.

Israel received enormous privilege. Paul will later say explicitly: “To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Romans 9:4). But privilege does not create an alternative Gospel.

• The Jew must believe.
• The Gentile must believe.
• There is one Gospel.

“And Also to the Greek”

Paul immediately adds: “and also to the Greek”. That little word “also” matters. The Gospel came through Israel, but it does not terminate with Israel. It goes outward. This continues what Paul has already said: “among all the nations” (Romans 1:5). And: “both to Greeks and to barbarians” (Romans 1:14). The Gospel crosses the ethnic boundary between Jew and Gentile. This will become one of the great themes of Romans. Paul will eventually declare: “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22–23). Later: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all” (Romans 10:12).

• There is equality in humanity’s problem.
• And there is equality in God’s Gospel solution.
• Jew and Gentile alike are sinners.
• Jew and Gentile alike need Christ.
• Jew and Gentile alike receive salvation through faith.

Romans 1:17

The Righteousness of God Revealed

Paul now explains: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith”. The word translated “righteousness” is δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē), Strong’s [G1343]. The word can refer broadly to righteousness, justice, uprightness, or what is right. But the expression Paul uses here is more specific: “the righteousness of God”. This phrase has generated enormous theological discussion, and we should not settle the entire question too quickly.

It can naturally direct attention toward God’s own righteousness—His righteous character and action. But Romans will also develop the truth that God provides righteous standing to those who believe. These ideas should not necessarily be placed against one another. Paul is going to explain how the righteous God can justify sinful human beings without ceasing to be righteous Himself. That becomes explicit in Romans 3:26, where God is described as: “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus”. That is one of the great questions Romans will answer. How can a perfectly righteous God declare guilty sinners righteous without compromising His own justice? The answer is not that God simply ignores sin. The answer is found in Jesus Christ.

Righteousness Is Revealed, Not Achieved

Notice Paul’s wording: “the righteousness of God is revealed”. The Gospel reveals something. Human beings do not discover God’s saving righteousness by climbing upward toward God through philosophy, morality, law-keeping, or religious achievement. 

• God reveals what He has done.  This again keeps the initiative with God.
• God provides the Gospel.
• God sends His Son.
• God accomplishes salvation through Christ.
• God reveals His righteousness.
• The sinner receives what God has provided through faith.

Paul will soon spend considerable time demonstrating why human beings cannot establish righteousness before God through their own works. That argument has not yet been fully made in Romans 1:17, so we should not force all of Romans 3–4 backward into this single verse. But Paul is already preparing us for it. The righteousness revealed in the Gospel does not originate in human accomplishment. Its source is God.

“From Faith for Faith”

Paul then uses one of the more debated expressions in the passage: ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (ek pisteōs eis pistin), commonly translated: “from faith for faith”, or in older translations: “from faith to faith”. The precise force of the expression has been debated for centuries. Some understand it as from beginning to end by faith. Others understand it as describing a movement from God’s faithfulness to human faith, although that interpretation requires additional argument. Others see it as an emphatic way of saying that righteousness is entirely on the basis of faith.

Here again, we should distinguish what is certain from what is possible. What is certain is that faith dominates Paul’s statement. Paul has just said: “to everyone who believes”. He now says: “from faith for faith”. And immediately afterward he quotes: “The righteous shall live by faith”. Whatever nuance we assign to the exact expression, it would be very difficult to remove faith from the center of Paul’s argument. Therefore, a cautious conclusion is preferable: The righteousness revealed in the Gospel is inseparably connected with faith from beginning to end. We need not force the phrase to say more than that before Paul develops the subject further.

“The Righteous Shall Live by Faith”

Paul concludes by appealing again to Scripture: “as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’”. The quotation comes from Habakkuk 2:4. That is important for the same reason Romans 1:2 was important. Paul is not presenting justification by faith as though Christianity invented an entirely new principle after abandoning the Old Testament. He appeals to the Old Testament itself. The Gospel was promised beforehand through the prophets. And now the principle of faith is supported through the prophets.

But Habakkuk deserves to be read in its own context as well. The prophet was struggling with God’s coming judgment and the apparent triumph of wickedness. God’s answer contrasted the proud with the righteous person who lives by faith or faithfulness. Paul takes that statement and sees within it a principle entirely consistent with the Gospel he proclaims. Life before God is not grounded in proud human self-sufficiency. The righteous live by faith.

“Shall Live” — More Than Merely Existing

The word translated “live” comes from ζάω (zaō), Strong’s G2198. Within Paul’s developing argument, life will become much more than physical existence.

• Sin brings death.
• Christ brings life.
• The resurrection brings life.
• The Spirit gives life.
• And those who belong to Christ possess the hope of eternal life.

Paul has already introduced resurrection in Romans 1:4. Now he connects righteousness, faith, and life. Those themes will eventually converge powerfully when Paul reaches Romans 5–8. For now, however, Paul’s statement is simple enough: The righteous shall live by faith.

Is Romans 1:16–17 the Thesis of Romans?

These verses are frequently called the thesis statement of Romans, and there is good reason for doing so. They introduce themes that dominate the letter:

• Gospel.
• God’s power.
• Salvation.
• Faith.
• Jew and Gentile.
• Righteousness.
• Life.

But we should recognize that calling these verses the “thesis” is our description of their literary function. Paul himself does not label them that way. Still, structurally something significant clearly happens here. Paul has finished explaining why he wants to preach the Gospel in Rome. He now explains why he possesses such confidence in that Gospel. And immediately afterward, beginning in verse 18, he starts explaining the human problem that makes salvation necessary. That gives us a natural progression:

Romans 1:1–15 — Paul and his Gospel mission
Romans 1:16–17 — The Gospel is God’s power for salvation
Romans 1:18 onward — Why humanity needs that salvation

That progression is difficult to miss.

Bringing Romans 1:16–17 Together

Paul’s argument is remarkably compact. 

• He is not ashamed of the Gospel because it is God’s power for salvation.
• That salvation is available to everyone who believes.
• It came historically to the Jew first, but extends also to the Gentile.
• Within the Gospel, God’s righteousness is revealed.
• That righteousness is inseparably connected with faith.

And Paul grounds his proclamation once again in Scripture: “The righteous shall live by faith”. There is therefore a pattern developing from the very beginning of Romans.

1. God acts.
2. God reveals.
3. God provides.
4. God sends.
5. God saves.

But human response is not thereby erased. The Gospel is proclaimed so that it may be heard. God commands the obedience of faith. The Gospel saves everyone who believes. And: “The righteous shall live by faith”. Divine provision and human response are not presented by Paul as competing explanations of salvation.

• The saving power belongs entirely to God.
• The Gospel belongs to God.
• The righteousness comes from God.
• Christ is God’s provision.

And the sinner is commanded to believe. Faith contributes no merit to Christ’s work. It adds nothing to the cross. It creates no righteousness of its own. It simply receives what God has provided. That is why Paul can simultaneously proclaim salvation as the power of God and say without hesitation that it is: “for salvation to everyone who believes”. And with that foundation established, Paul is ready to explain why everyone needs this salvation in the first place. Beginning in Romans 1:18, he turns from the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel to the wrath of God revealed against human unrighteousness.

---

Romans 1:18–20

The Wrath of God and the Testimony of Creation

Paul has just declared that in the Gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed”. He now introduces a second revelation: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. The contrast is deliberate and important. The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, while the wrath of God is revealed against human ungodliness and unrighteousness. Paul is beginning to explain why the salvation he has just described is necessary. Before we can fully appreciate what humanity needs to be saved to, we must understand what humanity needs to be saved from. Paul’s argument begins not with humanity’s lack of opportunity, but with humanity’s response to what God has already revealed.

Romans 1:18

“The Wrath of God Is Revealed”

Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. The word translated “wrath” is ὀργή (orgē), Strong’s [G3709]. When we hear the word wrath, we can easily imagine uncontrolled human anger, rage, loss of temper, vindictiveness, or an emotional outburst. That is not how God’s wrath should be understood. God does not lose control of Himself or respond impulsively as sinful human beings often do. His wrath is the righteous response of a holy and just God toward that which is evil and contrary to His character.

This distinction matters because God’s wrath must be understood together with His other attributes. The God who judges sin is the same God who loves and who has provided His Son for sinners. God’s love does not require Him to cease being just, and His justice does not mean that He ceases to love. In fact, a God who was completely indifferent toward evil would not be morally good. If God looked upon murder, cruelty, oppression, abuse, hatred, deception, and every other form of wickedness and simply did not care, such indifference could hardly be described as love. Justice requires a righteous response to evil. God’s wrath therefore should not be understood as a contradiction of His love, but as part of His righteous opposition to everything that is evil.

“Against All Ungodliness and Unrighteousness”

Paul says God’s wrath is revealed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. The word translated “ungodliness” is ἀσέβεια (asebeia), Strong’s [G763], and refers broadly to irreverence or a lack of proper regard for God. “Unrighteousness” translates ἀδικία (adikia), Strong’s [G93], and refers to unrighteousness, injustice, or wrongdoing. A useful distinction can therefore be made between the two terms. Ungodliness emphasizes humanity’s wrong relationship toward God, while unrighteousness emphasizes what is contrary to what is right and just, including wrongdoing toward others.

We should not make this distinction so rigid that the two words can never overlap, because they certainly can. Together, however, they describe the breadth of the human problem. Sin affects humanity’s relationship with God, and it affects human relationships with one another. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of morality cannot finally be separated. When humanity rejects the Creator and His rightful authority, that rebellion eventually expresses itself in the way human beings think, worship, live, and treat one another. Paul will demonstrate this progression throughout the remainder of Romans 1.

“Who Suppress the Truth”

Paul then identifies these people as those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. The word translated “suppress” is κατέχω (katechō), Strong’s [G2722]. Depending upon its context, the word can carry the idea of holding, holding fast, restraining, hindering, or holding something down. In this context, “suppress” communicates the thought well.

This is an important part of Paul’s argument because he does not begin by saying that humanity possesses no truth about God. He says humanity suppresses the truth. There must therefore be something available to suppress. Paul is not describing people who have been given absolutely no revelation and are then condemned for failing to discover something God completely concealed from them. Rather, he is describing a sinful response to truth that has actually been made available. Paul immediately proceeds to explain both the source and the content of that revelation.

Romans 1:19

God Has Made Himself Known

Paul continues, “because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them”. Notice where the initiative lies. God has shown something. Human beings are accountable because God has provided revelation. Paul’s argument is not that humanity, through sufficient intelligence, philosophical inquiry, or intellectual achievement, eventually reasoned its way upward until it discovered God. The movement is in the opposite direction: God makes Himself known.

Revelation therefore begins with God. Human beings can know something about Him because He has chosen to reveal something about Himself. This principle applies both to what theologians commonly describe as general revelation and to God’s more particular or special revelation. These are theological categories rather than expressions Paul himself uses in Romans 1, but they are useful for distinguishing between different ways in which God has made truth known.

General and Special Revelation

General revelation refers to what God makes known broadly through creation and the created order, while special revelation refers to God’s more particular communication of truth, especially through Scripture and ultimately through Jesus Christ. Romans 1:19–20 is primarily concerned with what we commonly call general revelation. Paul is arguing that something about God can be known from the world He has created because God deliberately made that knowledge available.

This distinction is important because general revelation and special revelation do not communicate exactly the same information. Creation can reveal that there is a Creator and can display something of His power and divine nature, but creation does not tell us that Jesus of Nazareth died for our sins and rose from the dead. We cannot discover the cross, justification by faith, the New Covenant, or the historical identity of Jesus merely by studying mountains, stars, animals, or the laws governing the universe. Those truths require additional revelation from God. General revelation therefore provides genuine knowledge of God, but it should not be confused with the Gospel itself.

Romans 1:20

God’s Invisible Attributes Seen Through What He Made

Paul writes, “For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, being understood through what has been made”. At first this sounds almost paradoxical. How can something invisible be perceived? Paul’s answer is that these things are perceived “through what has been made”. God Himself is not part of creation, and we do not literally see God when we look at a mountain, a star, a tree, an animal, or another human being. Nevertheless, creation communicates something true about the One who made it.

An effect can reveal something about its cause. The existence, order, complexity, regularity, life, and power displayed throughout creation point beyond themselves. Paul specifically identifies God’s eternal power and His divine nature as things that can be perceived through what He has made. Creation therefore does not tell us everything about God, but according to Paul it tells us enough to know that the created order points beyond itself to a Creator who possesses power and divinity.

What Does Creation Actually Reveal?

This is an important place to be precise because we can easily make general revelation say either too much or too little. Paul does not say that creation reveals the Gospel. A person cannot examine the stars and discover from them that Jesus Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. A mountain cannot explain justification by faith, and a sunrise cannot explain the New Covenant. Creation cannot identify Jesus of Nazareth or explain His atoning work. Those truths require God’s special revelation and the proclamation of the Gospel.

But neither does Paul say that creation reveals nothing meaningful about God. He specifically says God’s “eternal power and divine nature” are perceived “through what has been made”. We should therefore preserve the distinction. Creation reveals the Creator, while the Gospel reveals God’s saving work in Jesus Christ. Both originate with God, and both are genuine forms of revelation, but they do not communicate the same amount or kind of information.

“Clearly Perceived”

Paul’s language is stronger than merely saying that creation provides a vague suggestion that perhaps some kind of higher power might exist. He says God’s invisible attributes have been “clearly perceived”. The word translated “clearly perceived” is καθοράω (kathoraō), Strong’s [G2529], and carries the idea of seeing distinctly or perceiving clearly. Paul therefore places real responsibility upon humanity for its response to the revelation God has provided.

The progression in Paul’s argument is important. In verse 18, human beings “suppress the truth”. In verse 19, Paul says that God has “shown it to them”. In verse 20, God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly perceived” through what has been made. Paul is therefore not describing a humanity that has received absolutely nothing from God. He describes God revealing, humanity perceiving, and humanity suppressing what has been revealed. That sequence forms the basis of the accountability Paul is establishing.

Does Everyone “Know God”?

This becomes particularly important when Paul says in the next verse, “although they knew God”. We need to distinguish between different kinds of knowledge. Paul obviously does not mean that every human being possesses a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If that were his meaning, the argument that follows would make little sense. The knowledge described here is the knowledge of God that arises from the revelation He has provided through creation.

Humanity therefore knows enough about God to be accountable to Him, but that is very different from knowing God through reconciliation and faith in Jesus Christ. This distinction prevents us from confusing knowledge that God exists and possesses divine power with saving knowledge of God through Christ. A person can know something true about God and still refuse to honor Him, worship Him, or submit to Him. In fact, that is precisely the condition Paul begins describing in the verses that follow.

“So They Are Without Excuse”

Paul concludes, “So they are without excuse”. The word translated “without excuse” is ἀναπολόγητος (anapologētos), Strong’s [G379], and carries the idea of being without defense or without an excuse. This is the conclusion toward which verses 18–20 have been moving. Human accountability rests upon revelation. God has revealed something of Himself, human beings have perceived that revelation, and their failure to respond properly leaves them accountable before Him.

Paul therefore does not portray God as creating human beings in complete darkness, withholding every indication of Himself, and then condemning them for failing to discover Him. His argument is quite the opposite. God has shown Himself through what He has made. Creation bears witness to its Creator, yet humanity suppresses the truth revealed through that witness. Consequently, Paul says “they are without excuse”.

General Revelation and Salvation

This naturally raises another question. If creation reveals God, can creation itself save? Paul does not say that it can. In fact, what he has just said in Romans 1:16–17 points us elsewhere. The Gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”. We therefore need to distinguish between revelation sufficient to establish accountability and revelation sufficient to communicate the Gospel.

Creation reveals enough about God to make humanity responsible for its response to the Creator, but creation does not tell humanity about Christ’s death and resurrection. That requires the proclamation of the Gospel. This distinction helps explain Paul’s later argument in Romans 10 when he asks, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”. Paul clearly sees the proclamation of Christ as necessary. General revelation should therefore never be treated as a substitute for evangelism. Creation establishes humanity’s accountability, while the Gospel announces God’s provision for salvation.

An Important Question About Human Ability

Romans 1:18–20 is also important when considering the effects of sin upon human beings. Paul unquestionably presents humanity as sinful and says that people suppress the truth “in unrighteousness”. But notice what Paul does not say. He does not say that sinful human beings are incapable of perceiving any truth about God. Quite the opposite, he says God’s attributes are “clearly perceived”.

The problem Paul identifies here is therefore not an absolute absence of perception, but a sinful response to what is perceived. Sin corrupts human thinking, desires, worship, and conduct, but we should be careful about moving from moral corruption to claims of absolute inability unless the text itself makes that move. Here Paul says humanity receives revelation, perceives something true about God, and then suppresses that truth. That is a serious indictment, but it is not identical to saying that humanity possesses no capacity whatsoever to recognize divine revelation. Paul’s emphasis in this passage is upon culpable suppression, and culpability matters because his entire argument concerns God’s righteous judgment.

Revelation Before Judgment

There is a larger biblical principle worth noticing here. God provides revelation before holding people accountable for their response to that revelation. We see this pattern repeatedly throughout Scripture. God speaks, commands, warns, and provides opportunity; human beings then respond, and judgment follows their response. Romans 1 follows that same basic pattern. God has not left humanity entirely without witness because the created world itself continually testifies that there is a Creator.

That does not mean creation gives humanity the Gospel, but it does mean that the God who judges humanity has not left Himself without testimony. This is important for understanding God’s justice because His judgment is not presented as arbitrary. Paul is establishing moral accountability in response to revelation. God has made truth available, and humanity is responsible for what it does with the truth it has received.

Creation as Witness

The idea that creation bears witness to God is not unique to Romans. Psalm 19 declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork”. The created order continually points beyond itself to the One who made it. Day follows night, the heavens display extraordinary order, life reproduces, and the natural world demonstrates remarkable complexity and regularity. Human beings themselves possess consciousness, rationality, morality, creativity, and an awareness of meaning. Paul does not stop in Romans 1 to construct a philosophical argument for God’s existence; rather, he states that creation communicates something genuine about its Creator.

Creation therefore functions as a witness, but a witness can be rejected, evidence can be suppressed, and truth can be resisted. This is precisely where Paul’s argument is heading. The problem is not that God has provided no testimony of Himself, but that humanity refuses to respond rightly to the testimony He has provided. The created order that should direct humanity toward its Creator will instead become, in the verses that follow, something humanity turns into an object of worship.

Bringing Romans 1:18–20 Together

Paul has now established the first stage of his case concerning human accountability. God’s wrath is revealed against “all ungodliness and unrighteousness”, while human beings “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. Yet they cannot claim that God has provided no revelation of Himself because “God has shown it to them”. His “eternal power and divine nature” are perceived “through what has been made”, and therefore Paul concludes that “they are without excuse”.

The sequence is important: revelation leads to perception, perception is followed by suppression, and suppression establishes accountability. Humanity’s problem, according to Paul, is therefore not merely intellectual ignorance but moral resistance to what God has made known. The evidence of creation should lead human beings to acknowledge, honor, worship, and give thanks to their Creator. Instead, beginning in verse 21, Paul explains that humanity refuses to honor God, refuses to give thanks, becomes futile in its thinking, and ultimately exchanges the glory of the Creator for the creation itself.

Romans 1:21–23

The Dark Exchange: From Glory to Idols

Paul has established that humanity is “without excuse” because God has made something of Himself known through creation. He now explains what humanity did with that revelation. The problem was not that people perceived God and simply failed to understand what they were seeing. Paul says, “although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him”. What follows is therefore not primarily a story of innocent ignorance but of rejection. Humanity receives revelation of the Creator but refuses to respond to Him as Creator.

These verses describe a progression. Knowledge of God is followed by a refusal to glorify Him, the refusal to glorify Him is accompanied by ingratitude, futile thinking follows, the heart becomes darkened, supposed wisdom becomes foolishness, and finally humanity exchanges the glory of the immortal God for representations of the creation itself. Paul is describing not merely individual acts of sin but the corruption of worship that occurs when the Creator is rejected.

Romans 1:21

“Although They Knew God”

Paul begins, “For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him”. This statement confirms the distinction we made in the preceding verses. The knowledge Paul describes cannot mean saving knowledge of God through Jesus Christ, because these are people who refuse to honor God. Rather, Paul is referring to the knowledge made available through the revelation described in verses 19–20. They know something true about God because God has made it known through what He has created.

This is significant because Paul does not describe humanity’s fundamental problem as a complete inability to recognize that God exists. He has already said God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly perceived”. Now he says “they knew God”. The failure occurs in humanity’s response to that knowledge. People possess enough revelation to recognize the Creator, yet they refuse to acknowledge Him as God. The problem is therefore moral as well as intellectual. Humanity does not merely fail to discover God; humanity refuses to give the God who has revealed Himself the honor that belongs to Him.

“They Did Not Honor Him as God”

Paul says that although they knew God, “they did not honor Him as God”. To honor or glorify God as God means recognizing Him for who He actually is. If God is Creator, then the creature owes Him recognition, reverence, worship, and submission. Humanity’s rebellion begins when the creature refuses to occupy the place of the creature and instead attempts to live independently of the Creator.

This refusal is deeper than failing to participate in religious ceremonies. A person can engage in religious activity while still refusing to honor God as God. Paul’s concern is not merely whether human beings acknowledge some form of spirituality or believe that something greater than themselves exists. The question is whether the true God receives the place that belongs to Him. Humanity’s fundamental disorder begins when God is removed from the center and something else takes His place.

“Or Give Thanks to Him”

Paul joins another failure to humanity’s refusal to glorify God: “or give thanks to Him”. Ingratitude might initially appear less serious than idolatry or the other sins Paul will soon describe, but Paul places it near the beginning of humanity’s downward progression. That should cause us to take thanksgiving more seriously than we sometimes do.

Thanksgiving recognizes dependence. To thank God is to acknowledge that life, creation, provision, ability, opportunity, and every good thing ultimately come from Him. Ingratitude moves in the opposite direction. It allows the creature to enjoy what God has provided while refusing to acknowledge the Provider. Humanity receives the gifts while rejecting the Giver.

There is therefore a close relationship between ingratitude and pride. Once human beings cease recognizing God as the source of what they possess, it becomes easier to imagine that life, ability, wisdom, success, and accomplishment originate entirely within themselves. Thanksgiving keeps the creature conscious of dependence upon the Creator, while ingratitude encourages the illusion of independence.

“They Became Futile in Their Thinking”

Paul continues, “but they became futile in their thinking”. The word translated “futile” comes from ματαιόω (mataioō), Strong’s [G3154], and carries the idea of becoming vain, empty, futile, or purposeless. Paul’s argument is not that human beings cease to think. History provides overwhelming evidence of humanity’s remarkable intellectual capacity. Human beings reason, invent, discover, calculate, build civilizations, develop philosophies, create art, investigate nature, and acquire enormous amounts of knowledge.

The problem is not the disappearance of intellectual ability. It is what happens when human reasoning is separated from the truth about the Creator. A person may possess extraordinary intelligence and still begin with a fundamentally false understanding of reality. If the Creator is excluded at the foundation, even brilliant reasoning can be directed toward conclusions that fail to acknowledge the most fundamental truth of all: that creation exists because God created it.

Paul is therefore not condemning reason, education, science, philosophy, or intellectual inquiry. Those things can be valuable precisely because the human mind is itself part of God’s creation. His criticism concerns thinking that becomes futile because it refuses to acknowledge the God whose creation it is attempting to understand. The problem is not thinking too much, but thinking while deliberately excluding a truth God has already made known.

“Their Foolish Hearts Were Darkened”

Paul then says, “and their foolish hearts were darkened”. In biblical language, the heart frequently represents much more than emotion. It can encompass the inner person, including thought, desire, intention, understanding, and moral orientation. The darkening of the heart therefore describes a corruption affecting the way humanity understands and responds to truth.

Again, we should not make Paul say more than he says. He does not claim that human beings cease to possess reason or become incapable of recognizing any truth whatsoever. In fact, the preceding verses explicitly say that something about God is “clearly perceived”. The darkening Paul describes follows humanity’s refusal to honor and thank the God it knows. The sequence matters because Paul is describing what happens as truth is resisted rather than claiming there was never any perception of truth in the first place.

This helps us understand the relationship between sin and human reasoning. Sin does not necessarily eliminate intellectual ability; it corrupts the moral direction in which that ability is employed. A brilliant mind can still rationalize evil, defend falsehood, or construct elaborate explanations designed to avoid an unwanted truth. Intelligence alone therefore cannot guarantee wisdom because wisdom requires more than the ability to reason. It also requires a proper relationship to truth.

Romans 1:22

“Claiming to Be Wise, They Became Fools”

Paul summarizes the irony of humanity’s condition in a short but powerful statement: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”. Humanity considers its rejection of God an expression of wisdom and independence, yet Paul describes the result as foolishness. The creature looks upon the Creator’s world, perceives evidence of divine power and nature, refuses to glorify the One who made it, and then congratulates itself for having become wise.

Paul is not attacking genuine knowledge or suggesting that Christians should distrust learning. Scripture repeatedly values wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and careful thought. The issue is wisdom that begins by rejecting the source of wisdom itself. Proverbs declares, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”. If God is truly the Creator of reality, then any worldview that deliberately excludes Him begins with a fundamental distortion of reality regardless of how sophisticated the reasoning that follows may become.

There is also a warning here against confusing human confidence with truth. A belief does not become true because a civilization embraces it, because intellectual authorities defend it, or because those who hold it consider themselves enlightened. Paul measures wisdom by its relationship to truth, and particularly by its relationship to the God who is the source of all truth. Humanity can therefore be highly educated and technologically advanced while remaining spiritually foolish.

Romans 1:23

Exchanging the Glory of God

Paul now describes where this supposed wisdom leads: humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things”. The word “exchanged” is particularly important because Paul does not describe humanity as merely adding alternative objects of worship alongside God. Something infinitely greater is surrendered for something infinitely less.

The contrast could hardly be stronger. God is immortal, while the things chosen in His place are mortal. God is the Creator, while the objects receiving worship belong to the creation. God possesses glory inherently, while idols are fashioned from things that derive their existence from Him. Humanity therefore takes what should have pointed toward God and turns it into a substitute for God.

This is the tragic reversal at the center of idolatry. Creation was intended to testify to its Creator. The heavens declare God’s glory, and the created order reveals His eternal power and divine nature. Yet rather than allowing creation to direct worship toward God, humanity takes the creation itself and makes it the object of worship. The signpost is worshipped instead of the One toward whom it points.

From Man to Birds, Animals, and Creeping Things

Paul describes images resembling “mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things”. There appears to be a descending movement in his description. Humanity exchanges the glory of the immortal God first for images of mortal humanity and then for various forms of animal life. Whether Paul intends a formal hierarchy at every point should not be pressed too far, but the contrast between the immortal Creator and mortal creation is unmistakable.

The irrationality of idolatry lies in worshipping something that owes its own existence to the God being rejected. A bird cannot explain its own existence. An animal cannot create the universe. A human being cannot give existence to the Creator. Yet the creature takes something God made, fashions an image from it, and gives that image the worship belonging to God.

This recalls the repeated criticism of idolatry throughout the Old Testament. Isaiah 44:9–20 famously describes a craftsman who cuts down a tree, burns part of it for warmth and cooking, and uses another part to fashion an idol before which he bows. The absurdity is intentional. The same material that serves ordinary human purposes is fashioned by human hands and then treated as though it were divine.

Idolatry Is Larger Than Carved Images

Paul’s immediate historical world contained literal idols and temples devoted to many gods, so we should not remove his words from that setting. Yet the principle behind idolatry extends beyond carved statues. The fundamental exchange occurs whenever something belonging to creation is given the place, devotion, trust, allegiance, or ultimate value that belongs to the Creator.

Wealth can become an idol. Power can become an idol. Pleasure, political ideology, religious tradition, human reason, personal achievement, another person, or even the self can occupy the place that belongs to God. Modern people may consider themselves far removed from ancient idol worship because they do not bow before carved animals, yet the underlying exchange can remain exactly the same. The form of the idol changes while the fundamental act of replacing the Creator with something created remains.

This does not mean that money, government, pleasure, knowledge, achievement, or human relationships are inherently evil. Created things can be good gifts from God. The problem arises when the gift takes the place of the Giver. Idolatry does not require us to hate creation; it occurs when we give creation the devotion and ultimate allegiance that belong to God alone.

The Progression of Rebellion

Paul’s progression through verses 21–23 deserves careful attention because each stage prepares for the next. Humanity first receives knowledge of God through what He has revealed. Instead of glorifying Him, people refuse to honor Him as God. They also refuse to give thanks, thereby denying their dependence upon Him. Their thinking becomes futile, their hearts become darkened, and while claiming wisdom they become foolish. Finally, the glory belonging to the immortal Creator is exchanged for representations of mortal creation.

The progression is therefore not simply ignorance → idolatry. Paul’s argument is much more morally significant than that. It is revelation → rejection → ingratitude → futile thinking → darkening → false wisdom → exchange. Humanity does not arrive at idolatry because God completely failed to reveal Himself. According to Paul, idolatry develops in the presence of revelation that has been rejected.

This also helps explain why Paul treats idolatry as something deeper than merely one sin in a long list of sins. Idolatry represents a fundamental disorder in humanity’s relationship with God. Once the Creator is removed from His rightful place, the rest of human life becomes disordered because the foundation upon which everything else should rest has been displaced.

Bringing Romans 1:21–23 Together

Romans 1:21–23 continues the argument begun in verses 18–20. God has revealed something of Himself through creation, and humanity has perceived that revelation. Yet instead of responding with worship and thanksgiving, humanity suppresses the truth, refuses to glorify God, and turns toward the creation itself. Paul therefore presents idolatry not as the result of God hiding Himself from humanity, but as the result of humanity exchanging what has been revealed for something it prefers.

The tragedy of the exchange becomes apparent when we compare what is surrendered with what is received. Humanity exchanges the glory of God for images, the immortal for the mortal, the Creator for the creation, and true wisdom for foolishness. What humanity regards as liberation from God becomes, in Paul’s description, a descent into futility and darkness.

And this prepares us for the next major movement in Paul’s argument. Beginning in Romans 1:24, Paul repeatedly uses one of the most sobering expressions in the chapter: “God gave them over”. Humanity has exchanged God for the creation, and God’s judgment now takes a form that is particularly striking. He allows human beings to pursue the desires they have chosen, and the consequences of rejecting the Creator begin to work themselves out within human life itself.

---

Romans 1:24–25

God Gave Them Over

Paul has described humanity’s deliberate rejection of the revelation God has provided through creation. People “knew God”, yet refused to honor Him as God or give thanks. Their thinking became futile, their hearts were darkened, and while claiming to be wise they became fools. Finally, they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God” for images of created things. Paul now introduces one of the most sobering expressions in Romans 1: “Therefore God gave them over”.

This expression marks an important development in Paul’s argument because it shows us a particular form that God’s judgment can take. We commonly think of divine judgment as God actively bringing punishment upon sinners through some external event. Scripture certainly contains many examples of that kind of judgment. Here, however, Paul describes something different. God’s judgment consists in giving people over to the direction they have already chosen. Humanity rejects God, suppresses His truth, exchanges His glory, and turns toward creation. God then permits that rebellion to produce its consequences.

The expression “God gave them over” will appear three times in this portion of Romans 1—in verses 24, 26, and 28. This repetition is important because it provides a structure for the remainder of Paul’s description. Humanity repeatedly rejects what God has revealed, and God repeatedly gives humanity over to the consequences of that rejection. We should therefore pay careful attention both to what humanity does and to what God does in response.

“Therefore God Gave Them Over”

Paul writes, “Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies were dishonored among them”. The word translated “gave them over” is παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi), Strong’s [G3860]. The word can mean to hand over, deliver, surrender, or give someone into the custody or power of another. It is used in a variety of New Testament settings, including people being handed over to authorities and Jesus being delivered up for crucifixion.

The significance here is that Paul does not say God placed evil desires into otherwise innocent people. The desires are already described as “the desires of their hearts”. The sequence established in the preceding verses also matters. Humanity first suppresses God’s truth, refuses to glorify Him, refuses to give thanks, exchanges His glory for created things, and then God gives humanity over. Whatever precisely we understand “gave them over” to involve, Paul’s sequence does not portray God as initiating humanity’s rebellion. The rebellion is already present.

This distinction is consistent with James 1:13, where we are told that God does not tempt anyone with evil. God can judge sinners without becoming the author of their sin. Romans 1 therefore presents a form of judgment in which God hands people over to the sinful course they themselves have embraced. The judgment is particularly sobering because the sinner’s desire itself becomes part of the punishment. What humanity insists upon having, God permits humanity to pursue.

Does “God Gave Them Over” Mean God Removed All Restraint?

We should be somewhat careful when describing this judgment as God “removing His restraining hand”. That is a reasonable theological description of what may be occurring, but Paul does not use those exact words here. What the text explicitly says is that “God gave them over”. We should therefore begin with Paul’s language before expanding it into a larger theological explanation.

At minimum, the expression means that God judicially allows humanity to proceed into the consequences of its chosen rebellion. Whether that means God removes every form of restraint is more than this particular verse tells us. In fact, elsewhere Scripture shows God continuing to restrain evil in various ways even within a sinful world. Therefore, it is safer to say that God gives people over to the sinful direction they have chosen, rather than suggesting that He necessarily removes every restraint upon them.

This distinction may seem small, but it reflects an important principle of interpretation. We should distinguish between what the text explicitly says, what the text reasonably implies, and what we conclude theologically after comparing it with other Scripture. All three can be valuable, but they are not exactly the same thing.

“In the Desires of Their Hearts”

Paul says God gave them over “in the desires of their hearts to impurity”. The word translated “desires” is ἐπιθυμία (epithymia), Strong’s [G1939]. Depending upon context, the word can refer simply to a strong desire, but it is frequently used of sinful desire or lust. Here the connection with “impurity” makes the negative sense clear.

Notice again where Paul locates these desires: “their hearts”. In Scripture, the heart is not merely the location of human emotion. It commonly refers to the inner person, including desires, intentions, thoughts, affections, and moral orientation. The outward behavior Paul is about to describe therefore does not suddenly appear without an inward source. Conduct grows out of what the person desires and values.

This is another reason we should not portray God as manufacturing the evil. Paul identifies the desires as belonging to the people themselves. God’s judgment is to give them over in those desires. Humanity has rejected the proper object of worship, and that disorder in worship is followed by disorder in desire and conduct.

Judgment Through Consequences

There is a significant principle here concerning the nature of judgment. Sometimes judgment consists of receiving the consequences of what we demanded. Human beings can imagine freedom from God’s authority as liberation, while failing to recognize that God’s boundaries are not arbitrary restrictions imposed merely to prevent enjoyment. If God is Creator, then His design reflects the purpose for which His creation was made. Departing from that design therefore carries consequences within the creation itself.

Romans 1 presents this in a particularly striking way. Humanity does not want to retain God in His rightful place. God does not immediately destroy humanity for that rebellion. Instead, He gives humanity over to the direction it has chosen. The supposed freedom from God becomes bondage to corrupted desire. What appears to be liberation from the Creator eventually demonstrates why the creature needed the Creator’s order in the first place.

This does not mean every negative consequence experienced in life can automatically be identified as a specific judgment of God. Scripture does not give us permission to make that conclusion whenever someone suffers. Paul’s point here is much more specific. He is describing humanity’s broad rejection of God and God’s judicial response to that rebellion. We should preserve Paul’s argument without turning every earthly hardship into evidence of a particular divine judgment.

“To Impurity”

Paul says God gave them over “to impurity”. The word is ἀκαθαρσία (akatharsia), Strong’s G167, and can refer to uncleanness or moral impurity. In this context, Paul connects that impurity specifically with the dishonoring of the body.

This is significant because Christianity does not regard the human body as inherently evil. The biblical account begins with God creating human beings physically and declaring His creation good. The Son of God Himself truly became human, possessing a genuine human body. The Christian hope includes bodily resurrection. The problem therefore is not that human beings possess bodies, but that sin can distort the purposes for which those bodies were created.

Paul’s argument is consequently not based upon contempt for physical existence. He is concerned with the misuse of something God created. The body that should be used in accordance with the Creator’s design becomes dishonored when the creature rejects the authority and purposes of the Creator.

“Their Bodies Were Dishonored Among Them”

Paul describes the consequence as “their bodies were dishonored among them”. This continues the theme of exchange that dominates the passage. Humanity refuses to give God the honor that belongs to Him, and humanity ultimately experiences dishonor within itself. There is a moral correspondence between the rejection and its consequence.

The body is not unimportant to God. Scripture does not present salvation as the liberation of a good spirit from an evil physical body. Human beings were created as embodied creatures, and what we do with our bodies therefore has moral significance. Paul will later develop this principle much more fully, particularly when discussing the believer’s relationship to sin and the presentation of the body to God.

Here, however, Paul’s immediate concern is the consequence of rejecting the Creator. When the One who designed human existence is removed from His rightful place, human beings begin redefining for themselves how the creation—including their own bodies—is to be used. The resulting disorder is not merely physical. It reflects a deeper spiritual disorder produced by the rejection of God.

Romans 1:25

Another Exchange

Paul now explains why this judgment has occurred: “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. This is the second major exchange in the passage. Verse 23 said humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God” for images of created things. Verse 25 says humanity “exchanged the truth about God for a lie”.

The repetition shows that Paul is describing deliberate substitution. Humanity is not merely lacking something; humanity possesses one thing and exchanges it for another. God’s glory is exchanged for created images, and God’s truth is exchanged for falsehood. This strengthens Paul’s earlier argument concerning suppression. The problem is not simply that truth never reached humanity. Truth is present, but humanity rejects and replaces it.

There is an important difference between ignorance and exchange. A person cannot exchange something he never possessed in any meaningful sense. Paul’s repeated use of exchange language therefore reinforces the accountability established in verses 18–20. God reveals truth, humanity perceives something of that truth, and humanity then substitutes something else in its place.

“The Truth About God”

Paul speaks of “the truth about God”. In the immediate context, this truth concerns the Creator who has made His eternal power and divine nature known through creation. Humanity has sufficient revelation to recognize that creation points toward God, yet instead of worshipping the Creator, humanity turns toward the creation itself.

Paul is not saying that every human being possesses complete theological knowledge and deliberately rejects every doctrine later revealed in Scripture. That would go beyond his argument. The truth under consideration is the truth God has made available through the revelation Paul has just described. Humanity is accountable for its response to the revelation actually given.

This distinction is important because accountability should correspond to revelation. Paul does not need to claim that every person knows everything about God in order to establish guilt. He needs only to demonstrate that God has genuinely revealed something of Himself and that humanity has responded improperly to that revelation. That is exactly the case he has been building.

“For a Lie”

Paul says humanity exchanged God’s truth “for a lie”. Some translations and interpretations render this idea as “the lie”, emphasizing the fundamental falsehood underlying idolatry. The Greek construction can support understanding the expression in this definite sense, although we should be careful not to build too much theology upon the English article alone.

The fundamental falsehood is clear from the immediate context regardless of whether we translate it “a lie” or “the lie”. The lie is that something within creation can occupy the place belonging to the Creator. Once humanity accepts that substitution, countless forms of idolatry become possible because virtually anything created can be elevated into the position that belongs to God.

There is certainly a broader biblical connection with the deception introduced in Genesis 3, where God’s word is challenged and the creature is encouraged to act independently of the Creator’s command. However, Paul does not explicitly mention Satan or Genesis 3 in Romans 1:25. That connection may be theologically appropriate, but it should be recognized as a broader biblical comparison rather than presented as though Paul explicitly makes it here.

“Worshiped and Served the Creature”

Paul explains the practical result of this exchange: humanity “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. This statement summarizes the essence of idolatry. Worship and service properly belong to God, yet humanity redirects them toward something God has made.

The distinction between Creator and creation is fundamental throughout Scripture. God is not merely the greatest being within the universe. He is the One from whom the universe receives its existence. Everything else belongs on the created side of that distinction. Human beings, angels, animals, stars, planets, material objects, governments, institutions, possessions, and every other existing created thing owe their existence to God.

Idolatry therefore reverses reality. Something dependent upon God is treated as though it were ultimate. The thing that should lead us to recognize the Creator instead becomes His replacement. This is why Paul’s argument about creation in verses 19–20 leads so naturally into his argument about idolatry. The very creation that reveals something about God becomes the thing humanity worships instead of God.

Modern Forms of the Same Exchange

Paul lived in a world filled with temples, statues, household gods, and religious images, so literal idolatry belongs directly to the historical setting of his words. We should not erase that context by immediately turning every idol into a metaphor. Nevertheless, the principle Paul identifies extends beyond carved images because he defines the fundamental problem as worshipping and serving “the creature rather than the Creator”.

Anything created can therefore become idolatrous when it receives the ultimate devotion, allegiance, dependence, or value belonging to God. Wealth can become an idol when it becomes the ultimate source of security. Political power can become an idol when loyalty to a political movement overrides loyalty to truth and to God. Human reason can become an idol when humanity treats its own judgment as the final authority over the Creator. Religious traditions themselves can become idolatrous when preserving the institution becomes more important than obedience to God. Even the self can become an idol when personal desire becomes the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong.

The problem is not that all these created things are inherently evil. Money, government, reason, tradition, relationships, pleasure, and human achievement can all have legitimate purposes. Idolatry occurs when something created is moved into a position it was never intended to occupy. The gift replaces the Giver, the creation replaces the Creator, and humanity begins serving what was originally intended to serve God’s purposes.

The Creator Remains the Creator

Paul concludes the verse with an unexpected expression of praise: “who is blessed forever! Amen”. Even while describing humanity’s rejection of God, Paul pauses to acknowledge God’s eternal worthiness. Humanity may refuse to glorify God, but that refusal does not diminish God’s glory. Humanity may exchange God’s truth for falsehood, but falsehood does not make God’s truth less true. Humanity may worship creation, but creation does not thereby become divine.

This is an important distinction because human rebellion changes humanity; it does not change God. People can reject God’s authority, but they cannot remove it. They can refuse to acknowledge Him as Creator, but they cannot cease being creatures. They can direct their worship elsewhere, but they cannot make the object of their worship worthy of the honor they give it.

Paul therefore ends this description of idolatry by doing exactly what humanity has refused to do. Humanity does not glorify God as God, but Paul blesses Him. Humanity refuses to acknowledge the Creator, but Paul explicitly identifies Him as “the Creator, who is blessed forever”. His brief doxology is therefore especially appropriate within the argument.

Divine Judgment Follows Human Rebellion

The sequence through Romans 1 has now become even clearer. God reveals Himself through creation. Humanity perceives something of God but suppresses the truth. Humanity refuses to glorify Him or give thanks. God’s glory is exchanged for created images, and His truth is exchanged for falsehood. Humanity then worships and serves the creation rather than the Creator. Therefore God gives them over.

This sequence matters when considering the relationship between God’s sovereignty, human sin, and judgment. Paul does not describe God as first causing humanity to reject Him and then condemning humanity for the rejection He caused. The order presented in the passage moves in the opposite direction. Human beings suppress, refuse, exchange, worship, and serve what is created. God’s giving them over is presented as a judicial response to that rebellion.

This does not diminish God’s sovereignty. It tells us something about how the sovereign God chooses to exercise judgment. God can sovereignly permit creatures to experience the consequences of choices for which He holds them responsible. Sovereignty does not require God to be the efficient cause of every sinful desire in order for Him to remain sovereign over the sinner and the consequences of sin.

When the Desired Path Becomes the Judgment

There is something particularly sobering about the form of judgment Paul describes because God does not always need to create an entirely separate punishment for rebellion. Sometimes the chosen path carries its own destructive consequences. When humanity insists upon separating itself from the Creator’s authority and design, God can judge by allowing humanity to experience more fully what that separation produces.

This does not mean sin punishes itself completely or that there is no future judgment. Romans will clearly teach otherwise. Paul’s point here concerns a judgment already operating within human history. God’s wrath is being “revealed”, and one way that wrath is revealed is through God giving rebellious humanity over to the direction it has chosen.

There is therefore a terrible irony in sin. Humanity demands freedom from God, but separation from God does not produce genuine freedom. It produces increasing slavery to corrupted desires. Humanity believes that removing God’s authority will allow the creature to flourish independently, but the creature was never designed to flourish independently of the Creator.

Bringing Romans 1:24–25 Together

Romans 1:24–25 introduces the first of Paul’s three declarations that “God gave them over”. The order is essential. Humanity first suppresses God’s truth, refuses to honor Him, refuses to give thanks, exchanges His glory for images, exchanges His truth for falsehood, and worships the creation instead of the Creator. God’s judgment follows that rebellion as He gives humanity over “in the desires of their hearts to impurity”.

Paul therefore presents judgment and human responsibility together. The sinful desires belong to humanity, while the judicial handing over belongs to God. God does not need to create evil within people in order to judge them. He can allow people to pursue the rebellion they have already chosen and experience what that rebellion produces.

The fundamental exchange remains at the center of the passage: the Creator is rejected for the creation. Once that relationship is inverted, disorder spreads into human thinking, desire, worship, and conduct. Paul has now introduced the first “God gave them over”. In Romans 1:26–27, he introduces the second, and the connection is explicit: “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions”.

---

Romans 1:26–27

Dishonorable Passions and the Rejection of God’s Created Order

Paul now introduces the second of the three declarations that structure the latter portion of Romans 1: “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions”. The words “for this reason” are important because they connect what follows directly to the exchange Paul has just described. Humanity has exchanged the truth of God for falsehood and has “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. What follows is therefore not presented as an isolated category of sin disconnected from the rest of Paul’s argument. It is another consequence within the progression that began with humanity’s suppression of God’s revelation.

The order should remain before us as we interpret these verses. God revealed Himself through creation, humanity suppressed that truth, refused to honor Him or give thanks, exchanged His glory for created things, exchanged His truth for falsehood, and worshipped creation rather than the Creator. God then “gave them over”. Paul is describing what happens when humanity rejects the authority of the Creator and increasingly attempts to define the purpose and proper use of creation for itself.

Romans 1:26

“For This Reason God Gave Them Over”

Paul writes, “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions”. This is the second occurrence of the expression “God gave them over”. In verse 24, God gave humanity over “in the desires of their hearts to impurity”. Here He gives them over “to dishonorable passions”. The repetition shows that Paul continues to describe divine judgment as God’s judicial response to humanity’s rebellion.

As we saw in verse 24, we should be careful not to make Paul’s statement mean that God creates sinful desires within human beings and then condemns them for possessing what He caused them to desire. That is not the sequence Paul presents. Humanity has already rejected God and exchanged His truth before God gives them over. The desires belong to humanity, while the judicial act of giving them over belongs to God. Divine judgment follows human rebellion.

The phrase translated “dishonorable passions” combines language of dishonor with strong desires or passions. Paul has already spoken of bodies being “dishonored” in verse 24. There is therefore a continuing contrast between humanity’s refusal to give God the honor belonging to Him and the dishonor that develops within humanity itself. The creature refuses to honor the Creator, and disorder subsequently appears within the creature.

The Importance of Creation in Paul’s Argument

To understand verses 26–27 properly, we need to keep Paul’s larger Creator-creation argument in view. Paul has repeatedly directed our attention back to creation. God’s invisible attributes are perceived “through what has been made”. Humanity then exchanges the Creator for created things. Now Paul turns specifically to the way human beings use their own created bodies.

This matters because Paul’s argument is not merely that certain sexual behavior violated the customs of first-century Jewish or Roman society. His reasoning reaches deeper than culture. The controlling distinction throughout the passage is between the Creator and the creation. Humanity’s rejection of God’s authority leads to a rejection of the purposes for which God created what He made.

Sexuality therefore enters Paul’s argument as part of his larger discussion of creation. If God is Creator, then human beings did not create themselves, did not design their own bodies, and did not originate human sexuality. The question is therefore not merely what human beings desire or what a particular culture approves. The deeper question is whether the created order has a purpose established by its Creator.

“Their Women Exchanged Natural Relations”

Paul continues, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature”. Once again, the language of exchange appears. Humanity exchanged God’s glory in verse 23, exchanged God’s truth in verse 25, and now Paul describes another exchange involving sexual relations.

That repetition should not be overlooked. Paul is deliberately connecting these behaviors with the larger pattern of exchanging God’s order for something else. The fundamental rebellion occurred when humanity exchanged the Creator for creation. The subsequent exchanges demonstrate how that original disorder works itself outward into human life.

Paul first refers to women who “exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature”. The interpretation of “natural” and “contrary to nature” is therefore central to understanding his statement.

What Does Paul Mean by “Nature”?

The word translated “nature” is φύσις (physis), Strong’s [G5449]. Depending upon context, the word can refer to nature, natural condition, inherent characteristics, or the ordinary order of things. The important question is what Paul means by it here.

Some have argued that Paul is referring only to personal disposition or to the social conventions of his time. On that reading, “contrary to nature” might mean behavior contrary to an individual’s own customary sexual preference or contrary to accepted cultural practice. But that interpretation encounters difficulty when Paul’s immediate argument is considered as a whole. Paul has been speaking repeatedly about God as Creator, about what has been made, and about humanity exchanging the Creator for creation. The creation context gives strong reason to understand “nature” here in relation to the created order rather than merely personal preference or temporary social convention.

That does not mean the word physis always means “God’s creation order” everywhere it appears in the New Testament. Words receive their precise meaning from context. Here, however, the Creator-creation framework is already firmly established. Paul’s appeal to what is “natural” therefore appears to reach beyond first-century custom to the way human sexuality corresponds to the created distinction between male and female.

The Creation Account Behind the Argument

Although Paul does not explicitly quote Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 in these verses, the creation account provides an important biblical background for understanding the distinction he makes. Genesis says, “Male and female He created them”, and then describes the union in which a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife so that the two become one flesh.

Jesus Himself later appealed to this same creation account when discussing marriage: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”. He then connected that created distinction with the one-flesh union of husband and wife. We should distinguish this broader biblical background from Paul’s explicit wording in Romans 1. Paul does not stop to quote Genesis or provide a complete theology of marriage in verses 26–27. Nevertheless, because his entire argument is framed around Creator and creation, the creation account provides a natural background for understanding what he means by sexual relations corresponding to “nature”.

Romans 1:27

“Likewise the Men”

Paul then turns from women to men: “Likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with passion for one another”. The word “likewise” connects the two examples. Whatever principle Paul applies to the women, he applies correspondingly to the men. His argument is therefore not directed at one sex while excusing the other.

The phrase “abandoned natural relations with women” is particularly significant because Paul identifies what he regards as the corresponding natural relationship. He does not leave “nature” entirely undefined. The contrast is between men having sexual relations with women and men becoming sexually involved “with one another”.

This makes it difficult to reduce Paul’s argument merely to abusive relationships, prostitution, or particular exploitative practices common in the Roman world. Such practices certainly existed, and Paul would undoubtedly have regarded sexual exploitation as sinful. But his wording here is broader. His stated contrast is between “natural relations with women” and men becoming “inflamed with passion for one another”.

“Inflamed With Passion for One Another”

Paul says the men “were inflamed with passion for one another”. His description focuses upon desire as well as conduct. The behavior is not presented merely as something externally forced upon unwilling participants. Paul describes mutual sexual passion: “men with men”.

This observation is important when evaluating interpretations that restrict Paul’s condemnation exclusively to coercive or exploitative homosexual practices. Exploitation was certainly present in the ancient world, and exploitation is condemned by biblical morality regardless of the sex of those involved. But Paul does not identify coercion as the reason the behavior is contrary to nature in Romans 1. Instead, he places the behavior within his Creator-creation argument and contrasts it with “natural relations with women”.

We should therefore be cautious about narrowing Paul’s statement to a category that Paul himself does not specify. Historical information about Greco-Roman sexual practices can help us understand Paul’s world, but historical reconstruction should not be allowed to replace the actual wording of the text. Paul’s argument must first be allowed to say what it says.

Does Paul Address Sexual Orientation?

Another distinction is important when applying this passage today. Paul does not use the modern psychological category of sexual orientation. His language concerns passions, sexual relations, conduct, nature, and the Creator’s order. We should therefore be careful about simply inserting modern categories into Paul’s terminology as though they were identical.

That does not make Paul’s teaching irrelevant to modern questions. It simply means we should distinguish between what Paul explicitly addresses and the terminology developed much later. A person may experience desires that he or she did not consciously choose to experience. The existence of a desire and the moral evaluation of acting upon that desire are not necessarily the same question.

This distinction applies far beyond sexuality. Human beings experience many desires that arise without a conscious decision to produce them. Scripture’s moral concern is not exhausted by asking whether a desire exists. It also asks whether our desires and actions correspond to God’s will. Christianity does not teach that the mere presence of a desire automatically makes the fulfillment of that desire morally right.

“Men Committing Shameless Acts With Men”

Paul continues by describing “men committing shameless acts with men”. His moral judgment upon the conduct is therefore unmistakable. Whatever disagreements may arise concerning some of the surrounding details, it would be difficult to argue from Romans 1 that Paul regarded same-sex sexual relations as morally neutral or acceptable.

At the same time, we should be equally careful not to make Paul say something else he does not say. He does not say this is the only sexual sin, the worst possible sin, or an unforgivable sin. Nor does he give Christians permission to isolate one group of sinners as though the remainder of humanity stands innocent before God.

That would actually work against the larger argument of Romans. Paul is moving toward a universal indictment of sin. Romans 1 exposes Gentile rebellion. Romans 2 will turn toward those who judge others while practicing sin themselves. Romans 3 will bring the argument to its sweeping conclusion: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

One Sin Within a Much Larger Indictment

This context is particularly important because contemporary discussions can become so focused upon Romans 1:26–27 that the remainder of Paul’s argument disappears. Some readers treat these two verses almost as though Romans were written primarily to condemn homosexuality. That is not Paul’s purpose.

Paul’s subject is humanity’s rejection of God and its universal need for the Gospel. Same-sex sexual behavior appears here as one manifestation within the broader disorder that follows humanity’s rejection of the Creator. In the verses immediately following, Paul will list envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, arrogance, boastfulness, disobedience to parents, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness. Paul’s net is going to become much wider, not narrower.

This should affect the way Christians use this passage. We should not minimize what Paul says about sexual morality, but neither should we weaponize these verses against one group while ignoring the sins Paul places alongside them. The same Gospel that confronts sexual sin confronts pride, greed, deceit, hatred, gossip, arrogance, and every other form of rebellion against God.

“Receiving in Themselves the Due Penalty”

Paul concludes the description by saying they were “receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error”. This statement has produced considerable discussion because Paul does not identify a specific penalty. We should therefore resist the temptation to supply one for him.

Paul does not say here that a particular disease is the penalty, nor does he identify some specific physical condition as God’s punishment. Attempts to assign a particular modern disease or medical consequence to this phrase go beyond what Paul actually says. The text simply does not define the “due penalty” with that degree of specificity.

The safest conclusion is that Paul sees consequences arising from the rejection of God’s created order. Those consequences can involve the moral, spiritual, relational, and physical dimensions of human existence, but Paul does not isolate one specific consequence here. His emphasis remains upon the fitting relationship between rebellion and its result.

God’s Commands and Human Flourishing

This also helps us understand the biblical purpose of God’s moral boundaries. God’s commands should not be viewed as arbitrary restrictions imposed upon humanity simply to demonstrate divine authority. If God is the Creator, then He knows what His creatures are and the purposes for which they were made. His moral instruction therefore corresponds to reality as He created it.

Human freedom cannot finally mean the ability to redefine reality independently of the Creator. We certainly possess the ability to act contrary to God’s purposes, but the ability to do something does not establish that the action is good or beneficial. A creature can misuse what the Creator has made, but the misuse does not change the purpose for which it was created.

Romans 1 therefore presents an important relationship between creation, moral order, and consequence. Humanity rejects the Creator’s authority, redefines the use of creation according to its own desires, and then experiences the consequences of departing from the Creator’s design.

Judgment Without Self-Righteousness

There is another danger that Paul’s argument itself will soon confront. A reader can agree with Paul’s condemnation of the sins described here and immediately begin feeling morally superior to the people being described. Romans does not allow that response to survive for very long.

Paul will soon turn directly toward the person who judges others. Romans 2:1 begins, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself”. Paul is not withdrawing the moral judgments he has just made. Rather, he is removing the possibility that the person agreeing with those judgments can therefore declare himself righteous.

That distinction is essential. Calling sin sin is not the same thing as claiming ourselves to be without sin. Biblical moral judgment and personal humility are not opposites. We can affirm what Scripture says about conduct while simultaneously recognizing that every one of us depends entirely upon God’s mercy.

The Gospel Remains Available to the Sinner

Nothing in Romans 1:26–27 suggests that people who have committed these sins are beyond redemption. Paul himself makes this explicit elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 6, after listing a variety of sins and sinners, he tells the Corinthian believers, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”.

Those words are enormously important. “Such were some of you” means the church itself contained people whose past lives included sins Scripture condemns. Their former conduct did not place them beyond the reach of Christ.

This is the Gospel Paul announced in Romans 1:16: “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”. The Gospel does not require us to redefine sin as righteousness in order to welcome sinners. It does something far greater. It offers forgiveness, reconciliation, cleansing, and new life to sinners. That applies equally to every category of sinner.

Bringing Romans 1:26–27 Together

Romans 1:26–27 must therefore remain within the larger argument Paul has been developing. Humanity knows something of God through creation but refuses to honor Him. God’s glory is exchanged for created things, God’s truth is exchanged for falsehood, and creation is worshipped instead of the Creator. “For this reason”, Paul says, God gives humanity over to “dishonorable passions”.

Paul then uses same-sex sexual relations as an example of the disorder that follows the rejection of the Creator’s order. Women exchange “natural relations” for those “contrary to nature”, while men abandon “natural relations with women” and become “inflamed with passion for one another”. The Creator-creation framework of the surrounding passage gives strong reason to understand Paul’s appeal to nature as rooted in creation rather than merely in temporary social convention.

But Paul’s purpose is not to isolate one group of sinners as though everyone else stands righteous before God. The argument is moving toward exactly the opposite conclusion. Sin manifests itself in many different ways, and Paul will shortly broaden his catalogue considerably. His ultimate conclusion will be that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The sexual sins described here are real, but they are neither beyond God’s forgiveness nor grounds for another sinner’s self-righteousness. The same Gospel confronts every sinner, and the same Gospel offers salvation to everyone who believes.

---

Romans 1:28–32

A Debased Mind and the Widening Effects of Sin

Paul now introduces the third and final declaration of God’s judicial response to humanity’s persistent rebellion: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done”. This completes the threefold pattern that began in verse 24. First, God “gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity”. Then He “gave them over to dishonorable passions”. Now Paul says God “gave them over to a debased mind”.

The progression is significant because Paul has moved from humanity’s rejection of God in worship to the consequences of that rejection in desire, conduct, thinking, and relationships. The problem is spreading outward. Humanity has suppressed God’s truth, refused to honor Him, refused to give thanks, exchanged His glory for created things, exchanged His truth for falsehood, and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Paul now shows how this fundamental rejection of God affects virtually every dimension of human moral life.

Romans 1:28

“They Did Not See Fit to Acknowledge God”

Paul writes, “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done”. The opening statement is important because it again places humanity’s rejection before God’s act of giving them over. Paul does not say God first gave humanity a debased mind and that this caused people to reject Him. He says “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God”, God gave them over.

The language indicates more than simple ignorance. Paul has already said that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly perceived” through what He has made. He has also said “although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God”. Humanity’s problem is therefore not presented as the complete absence of evidence or the inability to perceive anything true about God. Something of God has been revealed, yet humanity refuses to retain Him in its thinking and give Him the place that belongs to Him.

This continues the distinction we have seen throughout the chapter. Paul’s emphasis is upon suppression and rejection of revelation, not the absence of revelation. Humanity’s moral disorder begins with its response to the Creator. Once God is rejected as the rightful authority over creation, human beings increasingly attempt to determine for themselves what is true, what is good, and what ought to be done.

The Refusal to Retain God

The expression “did not see fit to acknowledge God” carries the idea that humanity did not consider the knowledge of God worth retaining or approving. There is an intentional element in Paul’s description. Humanity does not simply lose God somewhere in the process of intellectual development. God is rejected from the place He should occupy.

This is particularly significant because human beings continue to think, reason, evaluate, and make moral judgments after rejecting God. Paul is not describing the disappearance of the human intellect. The issue is the foundation upon which moral judgment is being made. If the Creator is rejected, then the creature increasingly assumes the authority to define good and evil independently of the One who created both humanity and the world in which humanity lives.

The problem is therefore not that human beings stop making moral judgments. Human societies continually make them. Every culture identifies some things as good and others as evil, some actions as acceptable and others as unacceptable. Paul’s concern is more fundamental: What is the final authority by which those judgments are made? If humanity refuses to acknowledge the Creator, then the creature ultimately places itself in the position of determining morality for itself.

“God Gave Them Over”

For the third time Paul says “God gave them over”. The repetition makes it difficult to miss the judicial character of the passage. God is not absent from humanity’s rebellion. He remains sovereign and acts as Judge, but the form His judgment takes here is particularly sobering. He gives rebellious humanity over to the direction it insists upon pursuing. As with the first two occurrences, we should not interpret this as God forcing people to commit sins they otherwise did not desire to commit. Paul’s sequence says the opposite. Humanity suppresses, refuses, exchanges, worships, serves, and rejects. God’s handing over follows that rebellion.

There is consequently both human responsibility and divine judgment in the same passage. Human beings are responsible for the rebellion they choose, while God remains the righteous Judge who determines how He will respond to that rebellion. We do not need to make God the author of sinful desire in order to affirm His sovereignty over sinful humanity.

“A Debased Mind”

Paul says God gave them over “to a debased mind”. The word translated “debased” is ἀδόκιμος (adokimos), Strong’s [G96]. The word can mean disapproved, rejected, unqualified, unfit, or failing to meet an appropriate standard. It is related to language used for testing something to determine whether it is approved.

There is also a striking wordplay in the Greek that is difficult to reproduce completely in English. Humanity does not approve or see fit to retain God, and God gives humanity over to a mind that is unapproved or fails the test. The judgment corresponds to the rejection. They do not approve the knowledge of God, and their own moral reasoning becomes disapproved.

This does not mean human beings become incapable of reasoning. History clearly demonstrates that sinful humanity can accomplish extraordinary intellectual things. People can study mathematics, medicine, engineering, philosophy, literature, science, law, and countless other disciplines with remarkable ability. Paul’s concern is not the destruction of intelligence but the corruption of moral judgment when the Creator is rejected.

Intellectual Ability Is Not the Same as Moral Wisdom

This distinction between intellectual ability and moral wisdom is important. A person can be extremely intelligent and still use that intelligence to defend something false or morally wrong. Intelligence gives a person the ability to reason, but it does not guarantee that the premises from which the reasoning begins are true or that the desires influencing the reasoning are righteous.

In fact, intelligence can sometimes make rationalization more sophisticated. A person determined to justify what he already desires may use considerable intellectual ability to construct arguments supporting the desired conclusion. The problem is not that the person cannot reason. The problem is that reasoning can become the servant of desires and assumptions that have already been embraced.

Paul’s description of a “debased mind” should therefore not be interpreted as though unbelievers are incapable of discovering any truth, exercising sound logic, or accomplishing anything intellectually valuable. Romans 1 itself prevents that conclusion because Paul has already said that unbelieving humanity “clearly perceived” something true about God. His concern here is moral and spiritual disorder in the mind that refuses to retain God.

“To Do What Ought Not to Be Done”

Paul says the result is that people “do what ought not to be done”. This is a moral statement. Paul does not regard morality as merely a matter of personal preference or cultural consensus. Some things ought to be done, while other things ought not to be done.

That language assumes a moral standard beyond individual desire. If morality were created entirely by human preference, it would make little sense for Paul to say that certain actions “ought not to be done”. Human beings could simply redefine the behavior as acceptable. Paul’s argument, however, assumes that the Creator possesses authority over His creation and that human conduct can therefore be evaluated according to a standard human beings did not create.

This connects directly with everything that has preceded it. The fundamental conflict in Romans 1 is between Creator and creature. Once the creature rejects the Creator’s authority, the creature begins assuming the authority to determine its own moral order. Paul now shows the consequences of that reversal.

Romans 1:29

“Filled With All Manner of Unrighteousness”

Paul begins his catalogue by saying they were “filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice”. His language broadens the discussion dramatically. Anyone tempted to read verses 26–27 as though Paul were concerned with only one particular category of sexual sin now encounters a list that reaches deeply into ordinary human relationships and attitudes.

Unrighteousness is the same broad moral category Paul introduced in verse 18 when he spoke of God’s wrath against “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. Paul has now brought his argument back to that opening accusation. Humanity’s rejection of God produces unrighteousness that expresses itself in many different forms.

Covetousness is especially important because it is often far more socially acceptable than many of the sins listed around it. Covetousness is the desire to possess what belongs to another or an excessive desire for more. It may hide beneath respectable appearances, ambition, competition, or material success, yet Scripture repeatedly treats it as a serious spiritual problem. Paul elsewhere goes so far as to connect covetousness with idolatry because both involve directing desire toward created things in a way that displaces proper devotion to God.

Envy, Murder, Strife, Deceit, and Malice

Paul continues, “They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness”. These sins demonstrate how rebellion against God moves outward into relationships between human beings. The person who refuses the rightful authority of God does not remain isolated from everyone else. Disordered desire affects how people view, treat, compete with, and respond to one another.

Envy resents another person’s good and desires what another possesses. Murder represents the extreme destruction of another human being. Strife describes conflict and contention. Deceit manipulates truth in order to mislead another person. Malice involves ill will and the desire to harm. Though these sins differ greatly in their outward severity and consequences, they share a common self-centeredness in which the interests, dignity, and well-being of others are subordinated to the desires of the self.

We should be careful, however, about constructing a rigid sequence in which envy always produces murder, murder produces strife, and so forth. Paul gives us a catalogue of sins rather than an explicit step-by-step causal chain. These sins can certainly reinforce one another, but the main point is their breadth. The rejection of God affects the entire fabric of human relationships.

“Gossips and Slanderers”

Paul next describes people as “gossips, slanderers”. These words deserve more attention than they sometimes receive because Christians can readily condemn the more dramatic sins in Romans 1 while treating sins of speech as comparatively harmless. Paul does not permit us to make that distinction so easily.

Gossip can damage another person’s reputation while disguising itself as concern, conversation, or even the sharing of information. Slander goes further by speaking falsely or maliciously against another person. Both involve using speech in a way that harms rather than builds up.

The inclusion of these sins is important to Paul’s larger purpose. The reader who felt morally superior while reading earlier portions of the chapter may now begin encountering sins much closer to home. Paul is steadily removing the possibility that someone can point toward another group and say, “Those are the sinners Paul is talking about”. His catalogue reaches into attitudes, conversations, relationships, families, and everyday conduct.

“Haters of God, Insolent, Haughty, Boastful”

Paul continues with “haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful”. Here the connection between rebellion against God and pride becomes especially visible. Humanity refused to glorify God as God, and now human beings glorify themselves.

Haughtiness and boastfulness elevate the self. Instead of recognizing life, ability, possessions, intelligence, and opportunity as gifts received from the Creator, human beings can treat these things as grounds for superiority over others. The creature who refuses to acknowledge dependence upon God becomes increasingly inclined to celebrate itself.

This returns us to the importance of thanksgiving in verse 21. Thanksgiving acknowledges dependence, while pride imagines independence. Once the creature stops thanking the Creator, it becomes easier to take personal credit for what ultimately depends upon gifts, circumstances, abilities, and opportunities the creature did not create for itself.

“Inventors of Evil”

Paul then uses the striking expression “inventors of evil”. Human creativity is itself a remarkable part of our created nature. Human beings invent tools, develop technologies, create art, solve problems, organize societies, and imagine possibilities that did not previously exist in that form. Creativity can therefore be used for tremendous good.

But the same creative capacity can also be turned toward evil. Human beings do not merely repeat existing forms of wickedness; they can devise new methods of deception, exploitation, violence, corruption, and self-indulgence. The problem is not creativity itself but the moral direction in which creativity is employed.

This again demonstrates that sin does not eliminate human ability. Human beings remain remarkably capable creatures. The tragedy is that capacities given by God can be redirected toward purposes contrary to God. Intelligence, creativity, strength, sexuality, authority, and communication are not inherently evil. Sin corrupts their use.

“Disobedient to Parents”

Paul then includes something that might surprise modern readers: “disobedient to parents”. The phrase appears within the same catalogue containing murder, malice, hatred, and other serious sins. Paul clearly regards the family relationship and the authority God established within it as morally significant.

This does not mean every act of childhood disobedience carries the same earthly consequence or degree of severity as murder. A list of sins does not necessarily mean every sin in the list is identical in seriousness or consequence. What the list does demonstrate is that rebellion against rightful authority belongs within the broader disorder produced by sin.

The inclusion also widens Paul’s argument considerably. He is no longer describing behavior that readers can conveniently associate only with some distant or particularly notorious group. Sin enters the home. It affects parents and children. It reaches ordinary relationships. Paul’s indictment is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to observe entirely from the outside.

Romans 1:31

“Foolish, Faithless, Heartless, Ruthless”

Paul continues with people who are “foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless”. These words describe the deterioration of character and relationships when self-interest replaces faithfulness, compassion, and mercy.

To be faithless is to be unreliable or untrustworthy, particularly in commitments and agreements. A society cannot function well when promises mean nothing and people cannot trust one another. To be heartless describes the absence of the natural affection that should characterize human relationships. To be ruthless or without mercy describes the refusal to show compassion toward others.

These characteristics demonstrate again that sin is not merely a private matter between an individual and God. Sin spreads into relationships and communities. When truthfulness, faithfulness, compassion, and mercy decline, other people suffer. Rebellion against the Creator eventually damages the creature because God’s moral order was never designed merely for His own benefit. His commands also protect and order human relationships.

Not Every Sin Has the Same Earthly Consequence

Paul’s catalogue is comprehensive, but we should avoid an inference he does not make. By placing gossip, murder, disobedience to parents, deceit, arrogance, and other sins in the same list, Paul is not necessarily saying that every sin has precisely the same severity or earthly consequence.

Scripture itself recognizes differing consequences for different actions. Murder does greater immediate harm than an arrogant thought. Slander can destroy a person’s reputation in a way that a private moment of envy may not. Human legal systems rightly recognize differences in the severity of wrongdoing.

Paul’s purpose here is not to erase those distinctions. His point is that all of these belong to the realm of human unrighteousness. Different sins may produce different consequences, but none provides grounds for self-righteousness before a holy God. The person who has never committed murder cannot therefore conclude that he is righteous merely because his sins appear more respectable.

Romans 1:32

“They Know God’s Righteous Decree”

Paul concludes the chapter with another striking statement: “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them”.

Once again, knowledge appears in Paul’s argument. Humanity “knew God” in verse 21, and now Paul says people know something of God’s “righteous decree”. Whatever the precise extent of this knowledge, Paul continues to reject the idea that humanity’s problem can be reduced to complete moral ignorance.

This anticipates Paul’s discussion of conscience in Romans 2, where he will speak of Gentiles who do not possess the Mosaic Law yet demonstrate an awareness of moral obligation. Human beings can suppress truth and still retain moral awareness. In fact, the very act of rationalizing behavior can reveal that some awareness of a moral standard remains. We generally do not feel the need to justify something unless we recognize that there is something requiring justification.

“Deserve Death”

Paul says humanity knows that those who practice such things “deserve death”. This statement connects with the broader biblical relationship between sin and death that will become increasingly important throughout Romans. Paul will later summarize the principle plainly: “For the wages of sin is death”.

Death entered the biblical story in connection with human rebellion against God, and Romans will develop this relationship extensively, especially in chapter 5. Sin is not merely the violation of an arbitrary regulation. It represents rebellion against the God who is Himself the source of life. Separation from the source of life naturally moves toward death.

Yet Romans will not end with death. The same letter that says “the wages of sin is death” immediately continues, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Paul’s purpose in exposing sin is ultimately to demonstrate humanity’s need for the life God provides through Christ.

“They Not Only Do Them”

Paul says people “not only do them”. The problem is therefore not merely theoretical approval of wrongdoing. Human beings actually practice what they know to be contrary to God’s righteous standard.

This exposes an important feature of the human condition. Knowing that something is wrong does not necessarily prevent a person from doing it. Moral knowledge and moral obedience are not identical. A person may possess a functioning awareness of right and wrong and still choose what he knows is wrong.

Paul will return to this tension later in Romans when discussing the relationship between knowledge, law, sin, desire, and obedience. Simply possessing moral instruction does not make a person righteous. The question is not merely whether we know the standard but whether we actually live according to it.

“But Give Approval to Those Who Practice Them”

Paul then takes the argument one step further. People “not only do them but give approval to those who practice them”. Sin moves beyond personal participation into social approval. Behavior that might once have produced shame can become defended, encouraged, celebrated, or normalized.

There is a significant difference between loving a sinner and approving sin. Scripture repeatedly commands Christians to love others, including enemies, and the Gospel itself is God’s offer of grace to sinners. We therefore have no biblical justification for hatred, cruelty, mockery, or mistreatment of people whose behavior we believe Scripture condemns.

But love does not require us to call evil good. If God has genuinely established a moral order, then approving conduct contrary to that order does not become loving merely because approval makes another person feel affirmed. At the same time, speaking truth does not become righteous merely because the statement itself is correct. Truth is to be spoken in love, with humility and with full recognition of our own dependence upon God’s mercy.

Approval Can Become Part of the Rebellion

Paul’s concern about approval is particularly important because communities influence moral perception. Human beings are social creatures. What families, institutions, governments, religious communities, educational systems, entertainment, and cultures repeatedly celebrate can influence what individuals come to regard as normal and acceptable.

This does not mean majority approval determines morality. Paul’s argument actually assumes the opposite. An entire society can approve something and still be wrong because the moral standard ultimately belongs to the Creator rather than the culture. Social acceptance can change, while God’s identity as Creator does not.

Nor should we assume that every cultural change represents moral decline. Societies can correct genuine injustices and abandon sinful practices they once accepted. The standard for evaluating change cannot simply be whether something is old or new, traditional or progressive. The question remains whether it is true and consistent with God’s revealed moral will.

The Danger of Reading Romans 1 Only About “Them”

Romans 1:32 creates a natural temptation for the reader. Having encountered a long catalogue of sins, we can begin identifying which people around us fit each description. We can point toward sexual immorality, murderers, the greedy, gossips, arrogant people, rebellious children, dishonest people, or societies that approve what Scripture condemns.

But Paul’s argument is about to turn directly toward the person doing the pointing.

The very next words are “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges”. Paul has deliberately constructed his argument in a way that can draw moral agreement from the reader before confronting that reader’s own guilt.

This does not mean the sins listed in Romans 1 suddenly cease to be sins when we reach chapter 2. Paul does not retract anything he has said. Instead, he challenges the assumption that correctly identifying another person’s sin makes the observer righteous.

That distinction is crucial.

We can be correct about another person’s sin and still guilty ourselves.

Romans 1 Is Moving Toward Romans 3

The larger direction of Paul’s argument becomes increasingly important as chapter 1 closes. Romans 1 exposes the rebellion and idolatry characteristic of the Gentile world. Romans 2 will confront the moralist and then deal specifically with the Jew who possesses the Law. Paul is steadily closing every possible avenue through which someone might claim righteousness on the basis of belonging to the right group, possessing the right knowledge, or comparing favorably with someone else.

The conclusion will arrive in Romans 3: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

That statement is not an isolated slogan. Paul is building toward it. The Gentile cannot boast. The Jew cannot boast. The moralist cannot boast. The person who recognizes the sins of others cannot boast. The person with the Law cannot boast. Every person ultimately stands in need of the righteousness God provides.

This is why we should be cautious about using Romans 1 primarily as ammunition against other people. Paul intends the indictment eventually to reach everyone.

The Gospel Is Still the Controlling Context

Romans 1 ends with darkness, but we should remember where the chapter began. Paul announced that he was “not ashamed of the Gospel” because it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”. He then declared that in the Gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed”.

Only after announcing God’s provision does Paul begin describing humanity’s condition. That order matters. Paul is not exposing human sin because he delights in condemnation. He is explaining why the Gospel is necessary. The darker the diagnosis becomes, the clearer the need for God’s remedy. Humanity’s problem is not superficial, and therefore the salvation God provides cannot be superficial either.

The Gospel addresses people whose worship, thinking, desires, bodies, speech, relationships, attitudes, and actions have all been affected by sin. Salvation must therefore involve more than improving behavior. Humanity needs reconciliation with the Creator whom it has rejected.

Bringing Romans 1:28–32 Together

Romans 1:28–32 completes the progression Paul began in verse 18. Humanity suppresses God’s truth, refuses to honor Him or give thanks, exchanges His glory for creation, exchanges His truth for falsehood, worships and serves the creature, and refuses to retain God in its knowledge. For the third time Paul therefore says “God gave them over”, this time “to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done”.

The consequences spread throughout human life. Paul names unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hatred of God, insolence, pride, boastfulness, invention of evil, disobedience to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness. His catalogue deliberately makes it increasingly difficult for the reader to imagine that sin belongs only to some especially wicked group of people.

Paul then reaches a sobering conclusion. Human beings possess moral awareness, yet they violate what they know and can even “give approval to those who practice” what is wrong. Sin has moved from suppression of God’s truth to personal rebellion and finally to the approval of rebellion in others. Yet even here Paul’s purpose is not to identify a class of sinners beyond redemption. He is establishing humanity’s universal need for the Gospel.

And just when the reader may be prepared to agree enthusiastically with Paul’s condemnation of them, Romans 2 begins by turning the accusation toward us: “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges”. Paul is not finished establishing human guilt. He is only widening the courtroom.