http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=320

This has been a fun experiment. We will do this again.

It looks to me like the text has a meaning of its own independent of the worldview that a reader brings to it, though. Would you agree that Michael is pursuing a reasonable goal in attempting to discover its meaning, rather than projecting a meaning on to it?

ED…

Nothing that physically exists has relevant meaning. The inconsistency of ascribing value to a physical object is that it denies the transcendent relational explanation. Anything that is valued is the result of divine interaction. Relationship cannot be developed through an object that only exhibits motion – that is, the physical characteristic that is only altered by the outside will of a free agent. The greatest sin of man is that he has rejected the great and wonderful imagination of God – and replaced it with a meaningless object.

The plain reality of knowing exists all around us. I know I exists. I have faith that other minds exist. I am a relation being, and survive only when I am connected to others. God is no tyrant, he does not force his relationship upon us. The irony is that some use this aspect of God’s nature to suppose that he does not exist. Likewise, others worship the product of God’s nature – our nature. God, to execute his judgement merely allows us to accept the trivial, counter revelatory meaning we have chosen to create. We either reject God because he requires us to freely chose him, or we create an image of him that is worthless. We are responsible for both actions we may take.

The invisible attribute of an object therefore, is the relevant meaning. For example, the man who values the physical existence of a mattress is quite a fool. The mattress is the means by which the body and spirit find rest. What the man truly values, is the invisible attribute
of the mattress – the refreshing spirit it produces. This is true of almost any object we encounter. A television provides entertainment, a book stimulation. Only through interaction can we experience meaning.

So it is with God. God, in his wisdom has not given us meaningless objects to worship, he given us his true and raw spirit. The nature we exist in, is the product of His nature. What an offence to God, the great artist, to give any glory to anything other than him alone. One can’t help but think of the Exodus. The God of the universe, invading the earth from his high and mighty heavens, providing redemption and exhibiting his powerful miracles – only to be inaugurated by his people with a pathetic image of a golden calf.

These verses lay a powerful apologetic against idolatry, and lay the groundwork to expose anyone who would claim they are not responsible before God.

In the meantime, if you’re feeling up to it, carry on with some observations on verse 21 here:

http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=313

Now, is this an ‘historical’ supposition, used to set up a dichotomy of enlightened versus condemned peoples? Or is this a generalized commentary on the state of humanity? One sense is that he may be pointing back to the OT in the reference to exchanging the worship of God for the worship of natural objects. Somehow, as Paul suggests, the idea of worshiping the object rather than the creator became a mode that led a generation down the path of spiritual desecration.

My take at the moment is that Paul has a specific (though broadly applied) kind of humans that he is referring to, in an attempt to separate himself and his audience from a tradition of unrighteousness and introduce the New Covenant, a new ‘movement’ back to God. That’s the best I can do at 8 a.m.

Ah… this makes a difference… I read the passage and this passage alone without referencing anything else…. D’OH!

In the second group he is addressing unregenerate people.

Nature and the universe is God’s second book, that’s how His invisible attributes are displayed.

God’s anger against the Born Again believer has been taken care by Christ’s penal substitution.

These are my initial impressions of this passage.

It’s good to have an understanding of one’s own brain, and I find this one way to make that assessment.

I found these questions helpful in wrestling with this passage.

How is the wrath revealed from heaven? This looks like it is answered in v. 24. Impurity, dishonour and lies are themselves the punishment for the exchange which ungodliness and unrighteousness makes. In other words, in some senses sin is itself the evidence of its own punishment. As Jesus explained, the trouble with being a liar is that you believe the lie. In the sense that sin has temporal consequences, and that within time we feel those consequences, we discover that God’s wrath functions to make the world a fallen world. Paul is observing, that it is possible, in other words, for sin to have an effect. It is possible for badness to happen, which is what it means for God to be angry. This is true for everyone, Christians, non-Christians, and Jesus Christ himself, who felt it most keenly on the cross, where he began to repair the damage for his own.

When Paul uses the idea that creatures can catch sight of the invisible, he is clearly being figurative. How do we read the idea of sight in this context? It must be that he has “perception” in mind, which gives us to understand that he is speaking specifically of created beings endowed with comprehension – the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Us. Me. Also, he is considering the attributes of comprehension. The ideas in the passage of “dishonouring” imply honour too, and if Paul’s concept of humanity is that it has “honour”, from where does it get that honour? Since “the things that have been made” to reflect God’s nature include mankind – who in the image of God have been made – it seems fair that the nobility he has in mind is a reflected nobility, and depends not on innate luminescence, but on God’s.

How does “suppression” operate as the means of exchange? “Knowing” in the sense of “knowing about God”, is not enough to stay wrath. It says elsewhere in the scripture that we have come to know him if we obey his commands, so clearly there is an element of “suppression” which involves “supplanting truth with lie”. Paul draws attention to the need to “honour” and to “give thanks”. It seems that these actions may be summed-up in the expression “obedience”.

What is Paul’s reasoning in the assertion that “wisdom” lies in the province of obedience, against the claims of “folly”? He opposes “images” against “the substance”, and “created things” against “the creator”. He develops the idea that the creation reveals the creator to contrast the immortality of God with the mortality of created things. The argument is not made specifically but implicitly, that death (another word for “futility”, perhaps) is the path away from worship. The blessing of God here is more than a response of gladness on behalf of a creature recognising his glimpse of glory for what it is; it is a statement of the perpetual blessedness of divinity in eternal power and vibrancy. It is a statement, in other words, of the way things are. Amen.

What confidence has Paul for his assertion that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them”? In his argument, which the word “for” – that is, “because” – introduces, he explains that eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. The creation is itself argument for creator. The fact that created things have a beginning forces them to the conclusion and confidence that something exogenous and self-existing brought them into being. The only being who needs no introduction is God. Similarly, the fact that created beings have an end is itself an indication of God’s displeasure.

Why should God get honour and thanks for creating his creation? Because the created things point to his eternal power and divine nature, which are themselves worthy of honour, and require abject thanks. As a revelation of God, they require acknowledgment of the creator’s genius. What this makes patently clear is that there is not one truth for some and another for others. Either God is to be worshiped, or his is not. And he is.

Am I being pedantic here? I’m a bit surprised at v. 25, with the word “a”. I wonder if it should be “the lie” rather than “a lie”? After all, the rest of the passage is oppositional. The purity of the “divine nature” contrasts with the impurity of “the lusts of their hearts”; wisdom contrasts with folly; life contrasts with futility; substantial glory contrasts with image – of man, then beasts, then bugs (and the downward trajectory in the creatures’ nobility is not accidental); the light of knowledge, honour and thanksgiving contrast with the darkness of dishonour, ingratitude and futility. What does this passage teach about impurity? The full horror of (particularly, but not exclusively) sexual ungodliness is that it involves a soul punishment within a human body. Paul explains how “worship of body”, which is the sexual sacrament of popular culture, is something degraded that tends to death. This reminds me of what John wrote in his letter. “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” The same oppositional style characterises John’s understanding of what the truth is about. Paul also shows how godlessness tends to death, but he makes it clear that this is an expression of God’s anger, rather than just “something which happens”, which a reading of John’s letter might not make immediately obvious.

I am not asking that you read this passage and pretend you know no other scripture. It’s more like an exercise to see what you’ve successfully transferred from books to brain in previous times of study.

Does this address your concern?

“Unrighteousness” is more of a long term character trait, IMO. Since we cannot be righteous apart from Jesus, we could all be considered unrighteous at any point in time. It seems that Paul is speaking more to those who have rejected the gospel and made a choice to reject God and His teachings.

1:20 shows that God reveals Himself through His creation, which is a sad commentary on the inaction of Christians who do not follow Christ’s commands about loving others. It is a cruel dichotomy in that the Gospel is designed to unite Christians in love, yet serves as a sword to divide those who speak the truth in love and act on it, as opposed to the “white washed tombs” who claim the title of “Christian”, yet do little to exhibit it. And those claim they never knew? Paul makes it plain they did, and therefore have no excuse for their actions.

I have lots of thoughts on 1:21 -25, some of which may be a little controversial.

I’ll have to think about it a bit more and write something a little more in depth.