from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal

He could not be said to have manifested it "to them." The verse, therefore, teaches that there is both an external manifestation of

God to men, and a faculty in them to receive it; and these are the two ideas that are developed in the next verse.

Calvin's note is striking: "In saying that God manifested it, he means that the purpose for which man is created is to be the spectator of the fabric of the world; the purpose for which eyes have been given him is that by gazing on so fair an image he may be led on to its Author."

20. Explanation of the statement, "God manifested it to them."

the invisible things of him.] St. Paul puts in the foremost place the invisible nature of God's attributes, just because men sinned by substituting visible images for His invisible perfections. The plural represents the invisible nature of God in its manifold properties, as explained by what follows.

from the creation of the world.] Most modern interpreters understand this merely as a mark of time, "since the creation." See note at end of chapter. But the older interpretation has more force, and is not really liable to the charge of tautology. "The creation of the world," viewed as a whole, is frst presented as the source from which man derives a knowledge of the unseen God; and then the method is further described; the manifold invisible attributes become clearly seen, being conceived in the mind by means of the various works.

The invisible lying behind the visible as its cause, the unchangeable upholding all the changes of the world, the wisdom whose thoughts are written in heaven, and earth, and sea, the power which makes those thoughts realities, these and the other Divine attriGutes are conceived in the mind (vooúueva), and so discerned by means of the things that are made. The spontaneous act of reason by which the mind grasps in creation the idea of a Divine Author, St. Paul assumes and asserts as an admitted and unquestionable fact; this fact is indeed the true intellectual basis, as conscience is the moral basis, of all natural religion. On the process by which the mind ascends from the sensible impressions of things that are seen to the idea of the invisible God," and so as it were resounds and reechoes back the Great Creator's name," see Cudworth, 'Immutable Morality,' p. 177; and a fine passage quoted from Leibnitz, 'Essais de Théodicée,' Part I., by Saisset,

Essai de Philosophie religieuse,' Part I. $5.

things" of God "power" alone is specified, bis eternal power.] Among "the invisible because it is the attribute first and most prominently displayed in Creation. It is clearly seen to be eternal, because by it all things temporal were created. The other attributes of God which are clearly seen in His works, such as wisdom and goodness, St. Paul sums up in one word, not Godhead, but Divinity: the word is not that which expresses the being or essence of God, i.e. Deity (Col. ii. 9), but a kindred and derived word, signifying the Divine quality or perfection of God as seen in His attributes.

so that they are without excuse.] That they might be without excuse. The words (eis rò elva) express not a mere result, but a purpose. See i. 11; iv. 11, 16, 18; vi. 12; vii. 4, 5; viii. 29; xi. 11, &c.

On 2 Cor. viii. 6 see note there.

Most modern Commentators have missed the true connection of this clause, and of the whole passage (vv. 19–21).

The sentence, "For the invisible things of him . . . . are clearly seen. " is an explanation of the statement God manifested it unto them; and as the mode in which this manifestation was made to them is the mode in which it is made to all men, at all times, the explanation is put in the most general and abstract form (Present Tense and Passive Voice), without any limitation of times or persons; while the preceding and following statements (marked by the historic Aorists) refer definitely to those whom St. Paul is describing (avroîs, v. 19, avtoús, v. 20, avтwv, v. 21), the men that hold down the truth in unrighteousness.

Thus the sense flows on without interruption, and the whole passage may be rendered as follows:-For God manifested it unto them; for the invisible things of him, his eternal power and divinity, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: That they might be without excuse, because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God.

Chrysostom's objection, often repeated by others, that it could not be God's purpose in manifesting Himself to deprive men of excuse, although this was the result, is discussed in the note at the end of the chapter. Here it may be enough to say, God's purpose was

God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

to leave nothing undone on His part, the omission of which might give men an excuse for sin.

21. "That knowledge, or rudiment (scintilla) of knowledge, concerning God which may be obtained by contemplation of His creatures... sufficeth to convince atheism, but not to inform religion. . . . No light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God." (Bacon,' Advt. of Learning,' B. II.) This is true of God's particular will, and of special modes of worship desired by Him; but St. Paul here clearly teaches that men knew enough of God from His works to glorify Him in a way befitting His Divine Nature; but their fault lay in not loving what they knew:-"Minus amant quod summe est." They love not perfectly the perfect Being." (Aug.) "The glory of God is the admirable excellency of that virtue divine which being made manifest causeth men and angels to extol His greatness, and in regard thereof to fear Him. By being glorified, it is not meant that He doth receive any augmentation of glory at our hands, but His name we glorify, when we testify our acknowledgment of His glory." (Hooker, 'E. P.,' Bk. II. ii. 1.)

St. Paul touches the root of sin in the words "when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, or give thanks." This passage seems to have inspired that loftiest strain of Christian adoration: "We glorify Thee, we give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory." The context however leads us to think of God not only in His nature, but in His works, as Creator and Ruler of the world and the source of all natural blessings to mankind. The passage will thus mean: "They did not glorify him as God (in his Divine perfections) or give thanks (to him as God the author and giver of all good." Compare St. Paul's discourses to heathen audiences in Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 24-29.

but became vain.] The direct opposition in act to glorifying God as God, is to exchange His glory for an image, v. 23: but St. Paul first shows the inner root of this opposition. The Hebrew word "breath," "vapour," "vanity," is specially applied to an idol, as in Jer. ii. 5: "they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity (LXX Tv μaraiwv, vain things, i.e. idols) and are become vain" (éparaienσav). See notes on 2 Kings xvii. 15, and compare

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image 20.

1 Sam. xxvi. 21: "I have played the fool (μeparaíwpai) and have erred exceedingly."

in their imaginations.] The word diaλoyouós is commonly used of evil thoughts both in the LXX and New Test. It is variously rendered: "imagination (Lam. iii. 60); "reasoning" (Luke ix. 46); and most frequently "thoughts" (Matt. xv. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 20). Here it means the false notions which men formed for themselves of God in opposition to the truth set before them in His works. "Wherein exactly did this vanity (of their thoughts) consist? In two things: (1) in the absence of a foundation in truth; and (2) in the positive absurdity of the idle fancies embodied in the Heathen Mythology and worship." (Bishop Thirlwall.)

Ps. 106.

and their foolish heart was darkened.] The heart is in Scriptural language the seat of intellectual and moral as well as of animal life, and out of it proceed evil thoughts (Matt. XV. 19, &c.). Thus their heart was already proved to be "foolish" or "void of understanding" when they failed to discern, or discerning did not love, the truth which God had set before them. They turned from the light and their foolish heart was darkened: this was a worse state than the former

(Ephes. iv. 18). The abuse of reason impaired the faculty itself, and by following their vain thoughts they were led into a lower depth of spiritual darkness.

22. Self-conceit and folly go hand in hand: "while professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (1 Cor. i. 19-24). Most modern interpreters agree with Calvin that the Apostle does not refer to the special profession of wisdom among Greek philosophers; for they were not the authors of idolatry, nor was it peculiar to them to think themselves wise in the knowledge of God. He is describing the conceit of wisdom which is necessarily connected with a departure from Divine truth, and out of which therefore idolatry in its manifold and fantastic forms must have sprung. "For heathenism," adds Meyer, "is not the primeval religion out of which the true God; but it is the consequence of men gradually advanced to the knowledge of falling away from the primitive revelation of God in His works."

The same original belief in one God may be traced in Egyptian, Indian, and Greek mythology, and this accordance of early traditions agrees with the Indian notion that

made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them

"truth was originally deposited with men, but gradually slumbered and was forgotten (Rawlinson, Herodotus' Book II., Appendix, ch. iii. p. 297). On the primitive records of a pure Monotheism in Egypt, see note 36 on P. 450 of Vol. I. of this Commentary.

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.] In their folly and as the outward expression of it men exchanged the worship of God for that of idols. The contrast between the incorruptible and the corruptible serves to aggravate the folly.

into an image made like to corruptible man.] Read, for an image of the form of corruptible man. The language, partly borrowed from Ps. cvi. 20, means not that they changed God's glory into an image, for this is not possible either in thought or act; but that they exchanged one object of worship for another. On the grammatical construction see note at end of chapter.

That St. Paul is here describing the origin of actual outward idolatry is clear from the whole context, and especially from the allusions to Ps. cvi. 20 (which describes the worship of the golden calf), and to the Egyptian worship of "birds and four-footed beasts, and creeping things," the ibis, the bull, the serpent and the crocodile. The statues of the gods of Greece by which St. Paul was surrounded at Corinth may have been in his mind as he wrote, but idols in human form were common in all heathen countries, and the Apostle is here giving a view of the origin and growth of idolatry in general, not a description of any particular form of it existing in his time. His language is partly taken from the Book of Wisdom (see xi.-xiii. and particularly xi. 15, xiii. 13) which itself echoes the thoughts of Isaiah (xliv. 13). Compare Deut. iv. 15-18 and Ps. cxv. 4–7.

24-32. THE DIVINE RETRIBUTION. This is shown first in the abandonment of the Heathen to unnatural vices (24–27), and then in their complete and utter depravity (28-32). 24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own bearts.] Read, Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness. What is the nature of this Divine agency?

1. Permissive. Chrysostom (elaσev), Theodoret (ovvexwpnoev), and others reduce St. New Test.-VOL. III.

up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves :

Paul's statement to this, that God simply permitted the heathen to fall into uncleanness. But the force of the Greek words cannot be thus softened down: see 2 Chron. xxxii. 11; Matt. x. 21, xxiv. 9; 1 Cor. v. 5.

2. Privative. "How did God give them over? Not by compelling, but by forsaking them" (Aug., Serm. 59). All history shows that God did not deal with other nations as He

did with His chosen people, raising up prophets and sending warnings and chastisements directly and visibly from Himself to restrain or recall them from idolatry and impurity.

When the heathen turned away from Him, shutting Him out from their thoughts and hearts, and giving His honour to senseless idols, He "gave them over in (not through as A.V.) the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness." God did not cause their impurity, but He abandoned them to the natural consequences of the lusts already working in them. (Aug. on Ps. 35.)

We

is right as far as it goes, but inadequate 3. Judicial. The preceding interpretation unless accompanied by a right view of what are called "natural consequences." learn from experience that one sin leads to another, and that lust indulged gains greater mastery.

"This is the very curse of evil deed,

That of new evil it becomes the seed."

SCHILLER (quoted by Schaff).

What the Apostle further teaches us is that this law of our moral nature is a law of the living God, who Himself works in and by it: and this is not a thought peculiar to St. Paul or his age, but a truth frequently taught in Scripture and acknowledged by every religious mind (Ps. lxxxi. 12; Acts vii. 42).

ward step is the sinner's own wilful act, for It is none the less true that every downwhich he knows himself to be responsible. These two truths are recognized by the mind as irreconcilable in theory, but co-existent in fact; and the true interpretation of St. Paul's doctrines must be sought, not by paring down any, but by omitting none.

to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.] Or, that their bodies should be dishonoured among them. See note at end. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 15-18. It is not necessary to go beyond the Bible for instances of the close connexion between idolatry and impurity (see Num. xxv. 2; Wisd. xiv. 12, 23-27). As the heathen dis

E

vetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, cove

most general term, and one already used to describe the state against which God's wrath is revealed (v. 18).

By "wickedness" (Topía) is meant the active mischievousness which is connected with the inward disposition expressed by “maliciousness” (kakia) (Trench, Syn. of N.T. 2nd Ser.). The two words are connected in 1 Cor. v. 8, the old leaven of malice and wicked

ness.

ency, murder.] The natural sequence of these ideas is made more emphatic in Greek by the alliteration plóvov, pórov. Compare Eurip. Troades,' 763, and Lightfoot, Gal. v. 21. For "debate," read "strife." "Malignity" (kakondeia) is a disposition to take all things in the worst sense, a characteristic of the aged and the calumnious (Arist. Rhet. II. xiii. 3; III. xv. 10).

30. "Backbiters" or "slanderers" is a more general term than "whisperers," including all who talk against their neighbours, whether openly or secretly.

baters of God.] The word elsewhere has always a passive sense, "hated of God" (Vulg. Syr.), and is explained by Meyer in that sense as being "a summary judgment of moral indignation respecting all the preceding particulars, so that looking back on these it forms a resting-point in the disgraceful catalogue." But in the earliest notice of this passage (Clement. 'Ep. ad Cor.' c. 35), an active sense is ascribed to the word (coσTUyia, "hatred of God"); it has the same sense "haters of God" in the Pseudo-Clement, Hom. I. c. 12, and is so understood here by Theodoret, Ecumenius, and Suidas. This active sense is undoubtedly better suited to a catalogue of sins, and the position of the word is most striking at the head of a descending series of the forms of arrogance, first towards God and then towards men. The ascending order is found in 2 Tim. iii. 2 "boasters, proud, blasphemers."

despiteful, proud, boasters.] The worse forms of the sin come first.

The "despiteful," or "insolent" are injurious in act (1 Tim. i. 13): the "proud" overweening in their thoughts towards others; "boasters" vain-glorious about themselves (see Trench). Inventors of evil things" are

66

disobedient to parents.] The want of dutiful affection in the family stands first among a series of sins indicating (by the very form of the Greek words) the want of every principle on which social morality is based (Meyer). The same sin has the same bad pre-eminence in a similar series in 2 Tim. . 2. "Disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers."

31. The word here rendered "implacable," and in 2 Tim. iii. 3 "truce-breakers" has probably been brought in from that passage. Omitting it we may translate the verse thus: Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, without mercy; "Covenant breakers" (ἀσυνθέτους) is the same word which is thrice applied to “treacherous Judah" in Jer. iii. 7, 8, 10.

32. The "reprobate mind” reaches the last stage of wickedness in men that are conscious of the deadly guilt of such sins as have been described, and yet not only do them, but also take pleasure in their being done by others.

On the various readings in this verse see Note at end.

Who knowing.] Men that well knowing, i.e. men of such a character that though they well know, &c.

"the judgment of God" (dikaiwpa) is that just sentence which He ordains as the Lawgiver and enforces as the Judge of all mankind: see ii. 16. St. Paul here speaks of it as a judgment fully known even to the reprobate, and therefore as one that has been stamped indelibly upon man's conscience.

commit.] Read practise: see on ii. 2, 3.