I still believe in the basic position I outlined here regarding apologetics.
However, I used Romans 1.18-21:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:18-21; NASB).
The problem is that I no longer believe that this passage is speaking to all men in general in every time and every place regarding the way God is revealed to them. Rather, I think it is speaking of the culpability that exists in the Greco-Roman world in light of the spread of the knowledge of the true God through Israel.
So how do I argue my position from Scripture now?
Why narrow the field to the Greco-Romans only? Wilson proposes in his book 5 Cities That Ruled the World that there may have been a trade route established between what we know of as South America and Israel during Solomon’s reign. Of course this is a strange concept to our modern ears but those Mayans learned to build ziggurats from somewhere. Somehow the ancients learned enough technology to navigate waters all the way to Hawaii. Where did they learn that from? Honestly, I don’t know history like I should but could it be possible the knowledge of the true God through Israel may have spread farther than what we think of as the Greco-Roman world?
When did this start? “For since the creation of the world […]”
Why would it end? Because of the death of the generation that saw God incarnate? That’s not general revelation. Doesn’t the first part of Psalm 19 still apply?
They bear the image of the One they sin against.
Mark,
As John Frame might say, isn’t this a case of both-and rather than either or?
“For since the creation of the world …” points beyond the Greco-Roman world as does “… being understood through what has been made (which is pointing to general rather than special revelation).”
The way I see the passage is perhaps a bit unusual. Since Paul does not identify the culprits, we are left to map the passage and identify some group (whether limited or universal).
As I see it, Paul grants the culprits the privileges of glory, knowledge and truth, privileges he elsewhere grants only to Israel (see Rom 2:20; 9:4). In contrast to Acts 17 (where ignorance is ascribed to gentiles), in Romans 1:18ff Paul ascribes to the culprits the knowledge of God (which he nowhere ascribes to non-Christian gentiles). This is vital to see: Paul here does not write of potential knowledge but actually possessed knowledge, thus parting with traditions of natural theology (traditions he draws from in Acts 17).
In addition, in v.23 Paul distinctly draws from Psalm 106:20 and/or Jeremiah 2:11, passages that describe Israel exchanging the glory of God for images.
What of vv.19-20? Upon examination, one finds that Paul does not use the stock language of natural theology but of God revealing himself via his mighty deeds. Why “from the beginning of creation”? I believe a strong case can be made that Paul’s larger language and thought forms, as well as peculiar grammar, are drawn from Deuteronomy 4. If so, then the temporal reference likely is drawn from Deuteronomy 4:32.
When we look at v.32 we encounter a strong epistemic claim regarding God’s decree(s) that fits only with Israel’s reception of and possession of the Law.
So, what of the same-sex relations? Well, it seems to me that Israel often was guilty of imitating “all the abominations of the nations,” including male temple prostitution and such. In addition, if one looks at the canonical use of the Sodom tradition (describing people in terms of Sodom and Gomorrah), one finds that more often than not, Israel is thus described. Even Paul taps that tradition in Romans 9. And there, in Romans 9, we also find a pronounced constellation of terms that we encounter in Romans 1:18ff: wrath, divine revelation, power, knowledge, etc.
So, my understanding is that Romans 1:18-32 is a stylized recounting of Israel’s history of privilege and participation in the sins of the gentiles. And this leads nicely into the charges of hypocrisy in Romans 2. (I realize this is a dense set of proposals. Sorry, I didn’t feel it right to blather on at length.)
That’s a very interesting position, Kevin. That means that there is not the strong transition from Gentiles to Jews in chapter 1 and chapter 2 that is usually suggested. But he says in 3:9 that he has already charged that both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin–where did he charge the Greeks? If ch. 1 is specifically Israel, Paul hasn’t really charged the Greeks with anything directly…
From other places in Paul, we know that he sometimes puts Jews outside of Christ and Greeks in the same category (e.g., Gal. 4:8-10). In Amos 9:7, God himself challenged the uniqueness of Israel even in the Exodus. Perhaps Paul’s man of Rom. 2:1 is in fact intended to be entirely universal, including Jews and Gentiles. Jews would recognize the Biblical language he uses in ch. 1, as you’ve pointed out, as having to do with the coventantal sins of Israel. But it is also general enough to describe the Gentiles–and much of the covenantal sin of Israel was in doing as the nations did. This then fits with 3:9-19–the equivalent status of Jews and Gentiles, and 3:29. So, from 1:18 onward, the point is entirely universal: whoever judges others is condemned, whether Jew or Gentile. Ch. 1 sets up the full universality–but the Biblical language points at what Paul says explicitly in ch. 2:17ff.: that unbelieving Jews, no matter what their covenantal privileges are, are in the same boat as unbelieving Gentiles when it comes to the wrath of God…
As for Mark’s question, does 1 Cor. 1:18ff provide an argument for presuppositionalism?
Joshua, yours are interesting proposals. As you and I have been in some dialog at my blog, I’ll point others there as well. Here I’ll resign myself to a couple brief points.
First, given the progress of Paul engagement with his interlocutor in Rom 2, it is arguable that the interlocutor remains identical throughout. And the interlocutor is identified as a self-identifying Jew from v.17. In both parts of the chapter, the problems are hypocrisy, presumption, and judgment of uncircumcised gentiles (most likely gentile Christians, as evidenced from 2:14-15, 29ff.).
Second, Paul need not argue that gentiles are sinful or under the power of sin. Certainly he need not argue that at length. His burden rather is to argue that Jews are guilty of the same, despite their covenantal privileges of knowledge, glory, truth, the Law, etc. Israel’s history bears this out.
Third, to hold that Paul implies from 1:18ff that gentiles also share those privileges (viz, universalizing his rhetoric, precisely when he does not) produces a distinct incoherence in his rhetoric, argument and larger theology. Personally, I find that problematic, uncomfortable, and infelicitous.
From here I’ll direct readers to my further thoughts as developed at my blog — though I don’t intend to hijack Mark’s blog. I just don’t want to rewrite everything or take up too much space here.
Cheers!
Joshua, do note that in his Corinthian correspondence, Paul certainly does not attribute the knowledge of God to non-Christian gentiles. That, I believe, is instructive regarding his understanding of divine epistemic grants, if not intentions.