Many passages might be brought to bear on the subject of how we know that God exists through natural or general revelation. There are three passages, however, which are of special importance. Probably the chief, most comprehensive, and most foundational of these three passages is Romans 1:18-23. In the same general section of the same book of the Bible is Romans 2:12a, 14, 15. This passage confirms and, in some respects, adds to the basic teaching of Romans 1:18-23. These two passages in Romans give us Paul’s doctrine or theory of how we know God exists. In the last passage we will study, we will notice how Paul practically applied this theory in his ministry. Here we will study Acts 17:16-34. Tremendous light on how men know of the existence of God (theological epistemology) will be given to us by our study of these passages.
Romans 1:18-23
A. It’s Context
1. A Simple Overview of the Different Views of the Relevant Context
It is generally recognized that Romans 1:18‑3:20 is the backdrop for Paul’s treatment of the revelation of the righteousness of God in the gospel. The theme of Romans 1:18-3:20 is the revelation of the wrath of God. Different views are entertained by expositors, however, on the precise development of Paul’s thought in this section of Romans. Note that this overview deals only with 1:18‑3:8 as 3:9‑20 is less relevant for our purposes and not a matter of so much debate.
i) The View of Hodge and many others: “The Common View”
1:18‑32 Gentiles
2:1‑3:8 Jews
ii) The View of Bruce and many others: “The Moralist View”
1:18‑32 Gentiles
2:1‑16 Moralists
2:17‑3:8 Jews
iii) The View of Cranfield: “The Concentric View”
1:18‑32 Men in General
2:1‑3:8 Jews in Particular
iv) The View of Waldron and Nichols: “The Modified Concentric View”
This is a variation of views b and c.
1:18‑2:16 Men in General
2:17‑3:8 Jews in Particular
Here is an illustration of the modified concentric View:
2. Several Considerations Supporting the Proper Viewpoint
According to my view of the passage, the entirety of 1:18‑2:16 is concerned with all men in general. The following arguments support this view:
(1) 1:16 speaks of Jews and Greeks. There is no narrowing of the scope in verse 18, where those considered are called men, i.e., men in general.
(2) 1:18‑32 is not concerned with Gentiles only. Verse 23 alludes to Psalm 106:20 and Jeremiah 2:11, which speak directly of Jews.
(3) There is nothing to indicate a change of scope in 2:1. The language is universal: “every man of you who passes judgment.” The language is consequential (having to do with the results of something already said). “Therefore,” connects this with the foregoing. The language of passing judgment, while appropriate to Jews, is also applicable to Gentiles (2:15).
(4) Both Jews and Greeks are considered in the body of 2:1‑16. Cf. especially 2:6‑15. How inappropriate to put these verses in a passage that is supposed to be dealing with Jews only!
(5) Note the occurrence of the term men (αvθρωπoς) in both 1:18 and 2:16. Its occurrence brackets the section and suggests that, in its entirety, it deals with men in general.
(6) The transition or shift to Paul’s treatment of Jews in particular is clearly marked. Note verse 17. Throughout 1:18‑3:8, this is the only clear transition or shift in the scope of reference.
3. Several Conclusions from the Proper Viewpoint
(1) 1:18‑2:16 is dealing with the wrath of God on men in general. We may, therefore, expect from this passage to learn about the light which men have by nature. We may expect to learn about the light, the violation of which exposes them to God’s wrath. As a matter of fact, both 1:18‑23 and 2:12a, 14, 15 are intended to justify the justice of God’s wrath by showing the knowledge men have of God outside the circle of special revelation. We are not taking these passages out of context, then, when we ask about how men, by nature, know of the existence of God. They are precisely intended to answer the question, “Do men know God?” They address themselves to the nature and origin of men’s knowledge of God outside the boundaries of special revelation.
(2) It is interesting to note that the two classic passages occur at the beginning and end of this section:
[1:18—————————‑2:16]
(1:18b‑23) (2:12a,14,15)
(3) Some have thought that 2:12a, 14, 15 are speaking of regenerate Gentiles. This is a serious misinterpretation of the text. The context shows that these verses cannot be speaking of saved Gentiles. When they speak of those who “do by nature the things of the law” and have “the work of the law written in their hearts,” they are speaking of those who have only the light of nature and who, therefore, cannot be saved.
B. Its Theme
As has been said, our passage falls in the section dealing with the wrath of God on all men in general. This raises an obvious question which Paul proceeds to answer in the opening verses of this section. How is it just for men to be punished who didn’t have the law? What is the basis of God’s wrath (not just on the Jews who had the written law but) on all men in general? What about all those men who didn’t have any knowledge of God? The theme, therefore, of verses 18‑23 is the justice of God’s wrath against men. Paul refers to this theme when he says that God’s wrath is just because it is revealed against truth‑suppressors. Men-‑all men‑-are truth‑suppressors (v. 18b).
The word translated suppress may mean either to “hold fast” or to “hold down” the truth. The meaning “hold fast,” is found in 1 Corinthians 7:30 and 1 Thess. 5:21, but it cannot be the meaning here. Men cannot hold fast the truth in unrighteousness. Rather, they hold down, repress, or suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Cf. for this meaning 2 Thessalonians. 2:6, 7, and Luke 4:42. Dr. James White uses the illustration of someone actively trying to hold down a beach ball under the water!
C. Its Structure
The entire passage flows out of verse 18b. Both verse 19 and verse 21 begin with the same word, dioti, because. Verse 18b is, then, the thematic statement: Men are truth suppressors:
- 19–Because they have the truth
- 21–Because they suppress the truth
These facts about the passage provide us with our outline:
A. Men have the truth [Their Knowledge of God] (vv. 19, 20)
B. Men suppress the truth [Their Ignorance of God] (vv. 21‑23)
II. Men have the truth [Their Knowledge of God] (vv. 19, 20)
In verses 19 and 20, Paul reveals seven things about the knowledge all men in general have of God.
- Its Reality (v. 19a)
The reality of their knowledge of God or the fact that they know God is set before us in the clause “that which is known about God is evident within them.” Two things in this clause assert the reality of their knowledge of God.
(1) Paul mentions “that which is known about God.” In some translations, this clause is translated as “that which may be known about God.” The NIV translates it this way. The word in the original, however, may mean either (1) what is known or (2) what may be known. In the other 14 occurrences of this word in the NT, it always means “what is known.” This makes it certain that its meaning here is “that which is known about God.” Thus, Paul begins by asserting that men do know God. These truth‑suppressors do really possess a certain knowledge of God.
(2) Paul goes on to say that what is known about God by these truth‑suppressors is evident in them. Paul is not satisfied to say, as the NIV translates, that this knowledge is evident to them. No, he uses the Greek preposition meaning “in.” It is evident in them.[1] The point is that this knowledge men have of God is neither distant nor obscure. It is revelation of the divine glory in them. God has made the kind of revelation that actually does make something manifest in men, in their hearts, and in their minds. Men are not totally oblivious to or unaware of God’s revelation. God’s revelation results in men really knowing him.
- Its Author (v. 19b)
The author of their knowledge is revealed in the words, “for God made it evident to them.” These words teach that it is none other than God Himself who is the ultimate source of the knowledge Paul has been discussing. The point is that men may not excuse their deeds by claiming that the knowledge they possess is faulty. No, God, in all the fullness of His power, wisdom, and goodness, is the author of their knowledge. It is not, therefore, faulty in any way. God is not like a poor bugler whose notes are too confused or soft to rouse the soldiers for battle.
- Its Duration (v. 20a)
I believe that it is the duration of their knowledge or possession of the truth which is stated in the words, “For since (or from) the creation of the world.” There is, however, some discussion of the proper translation and interpretation of this phrase: (1) Is Paul saying that men’s knowledge of God is derived from creation? (2) Is Paul saying that men’s knowledge of God has been available “from the world’s creation on?” Though both are true, Paul’s point in this phrase is stated in the second of these choices. Later in the verse, he tells us the means or source of the knowledge of God. Thus, Paul is not emphasizing the source of their knowledge here. Rather, “from the world’s creation on,” men have had the truth. The access men have had to the truth has been neither rare nor uncommon. No, it has been their continuous possession “from the world’s creation on.” It is not like the student who was unable to buy the textbook for a course till the week before the exam. The student might plead this as an excuse. Men, however, have had their textbook on the existence and character of God “from the world’s creation on.”
- Its Means or Source (v. 20b)
The means or source of the truth men have about God is displayed in the words “through what has been made.” The means or source of their knowledge of God was implied in the previous statement. Paul implied this by telling us that from the world’s creation on this truth has been clearly seen. Now he states this plainly. Man knows God through God’s works of creation. Psalm 19, with its emphasis on the duration, source, and clarity of this creation revelation of God’s glory, is a parallel passage. Psalm 19 was probably in Paul’s mind when he wrote these words.
- Its Clarity (v. 20c)
Paul proceeds to emphasize the clarity of their knowledge of God in the words, “have been clearly seen, being understood.” Throughout the passage, Paul emphasizes the crystal-like clarity of God’s revelation to men. Twice he has used the word, evident, in verse 19. This word may be translated as plain, clear, manifest, etc. In verse 20, he reiterates this by saying that God’s invisible attributes are “clearly seen, being understood …” The verb translated “are clearly seen,” is intensive. Its root means to see, but a preposition is added, which intensifies the meaning. God’s glory is really and clearly seen by men. There is a kind of paradox in the original language. Paul literally says that God’s invisibles are clearly visible. In these two verbs, Paul affirms that God’s revelation is clear and that it is understood by men.
- Its Content (v. 20d)
Verse 20d, “his eternal power and divine nature,” is the most important description of the content of the knowledge which all men in general have of God. The phrase may be translated as “not only his eternal power, but also his divine nature.” Many commentators agree that while the first part of this phrase, “eternal power,” is a specific reference to one attribute of God, “divine nature” is a general reference to what John Murray calls “the sum of the invisible perfections which characterize God.”[2]
Paul singles out God’s “eternal power” for mention. The emphasis on this is increased by the use of the modifier or adjective eternal. Why is there such emphasis on this attribute? The reason seems to be this. If men know God’s eternal power, mere self-interest ought to make them fear Him. Man’s failure to fear God is, thus, inexcusable. Though men do not fear God, they do have a deep, innate awareness of God’s power and of their vulnerability before that power. This deep awareness provides us and our preaching with a point of contact in men.
Man’s knowledge of God is not limited to this. The “not only … but even‑-te … kai” construction in the original seems to indicate that this is the really surprising or striking thing about the content of men’s knowledge of God. Paul is asserting that the knowledge of men even includes the divine nature. In other words, it is more extensive than often is realized. Their knowledge is not limited to one attribute. It is the entire divine nature with which they are confronted. Specifically, this knowledge includes not only the power of God but also part of the divine nature:
(1) The Goodness of God (Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:21; 2:4)
(2) The Wisdom of God (Prov. 3:19; Ps. 104:24; Ps. 139:13f.)
(3) The Justice of God‑-including the law of God and the wrath of God (Rom.1:18, 32; 2:14, 15)
(4) The Offspring of God‑-In other words, men know all this about God from the posture of being the offspring of God (Acts 17:28, 29). This knowledge, therefore, is not abstract. Men as the offspring of God know themselves to stand in immediate practical relation to the God they know as eternal, mighty, good, wise, and holy. They have a certain awareness of its demand of fear, thanks, worship, and repentance.
- The Result of their Knowledge
The practical result of all this knowledge is emphasized in the final words of verse 20, “so that they are without excuse.”[3] All that Paul has said, and especially what he has said about the extensive content of their knowledge, comes together to justify and emphasize this conclusion “without excuse.” Literally, Paul says they are without an apologetic or defense. Paul uses the same root as is found in 1 Peter 3:15. These Gentiles have no defense for themselves.
The connection instituted by Paul here must be underscored. It is because of what these Gentiles know that they are without excuse. Their responsibility is grounded in their knowledge of God. Knowledge of our duty is the prerequisite for accountability.
III. Men suppress the truth [Their Ignorance of God] (vv. 21‑23)
Having expounded the fact that men have the truth, Paul shows now how they suppress the truth and become ignorant of God.
- Its Starting‑Point (v. 21a)
There is a progression in the four parts of verse 21. The starting point of the progression is found in the first phrase: “They knew God.” In this phrase Paul confirms our interpretation of vv. 19, 20 and summarizes them. As a result of divine revelation, men not only could know God, but they actually did know God.
But an important objection must be answered here. In both the NIV and NASB the verb used here is translated in the past tense. They knew God. Someone might ask, “Doesn’t this indicate that men no longer know God?” Aren’t verses 21‑23 speaking of only a past generation? Someone might think, “Surely long ago at the beginning men knew God, but not today.” You may remember that this was Kuyper’s understanding of these verses. Others have also held this view. This view leads to radically different practical conclusions about the meaning of this passage and the nature of biblical apologetics. Therefore, we must respond to it.
My response to this interpretation is that this is emphatically not what Paul is saying. Several important thoughts will show the misguided character of this view.
(1) The aorist tense used here, especially in participles like the one used here, does not always indicate past action. It may indicate the idea of a logical starting point of a process.[4]
(2) The fact that men still know God today‑-present tense‑-is evident in several respects from the context. Both the preceding and succeeding contexts point to this.
Verse 21 is tied to the preceding verses by the connective “because.” It is likely that there is a double reference in this connective. It likely refers to both v. 20 and verse 18.
Whether the reference, however, is to one or both of these verses makes little difference. The point is that both verse 18 and verses 19 and 20 are talking not about a past situation but a present situation. Note the present tenses of verse 18: “is revealed” and “who suppress.” Note the present tenses of verses 19 and 20: “is” and “being understood, are clearly seen.”
Verses 21‑23 are tied to the succeeding context. (Note the “therefore” of verse 24.) This passage, verses 24‑32, is descriptive of a present situation. In verse 31, men are described as God‑haters. In verse 32, they are described as those who, knowing the ordinance, approve of evil men. Verse 32 is clearly descriptive of the present situation. Our conclusion must be that men still know God and yet, in another sense, are at the same time ignorant of Him. Their knowledge of God and ignorance of God co‑exist. Their knowledge of God is the starting point of their ignorance. This is a paradox, but it is an all-important biblical paradox for apologetics.
(3) The misguided view under discussion might appeal to verses 23, 25, and 28 to support the idea that men have lost their original knowledge of God. We will deal first with verses 23 and 25 and then with verse 28.
What about verses 23 and 25, which assert that men exchanged God and the truth of God for an image and a lie? Reymond responds to this question by saying, “They exchanged not in the sense of `giving up’ for this would contradict the earlier assertion that they `suppressed,’ but in the sense that they were satisfied to substitute as the immediate object of their worship the created thing for the Creator. The knowledge of the latter they suppressed.”[5] In other words, Paul is not talking about their innate knowledge of God but about their religion. Natural theology and not natural revelation is under discussion. As to the object of their worship, they substituted idols for the true God. Note verse 26 for a parallel use of this word where it clearly has the meaning, substitute. They substituted a lie for the truth by means of suppressing the truth. The truth of God in verse 25 is the truth about God. The lie is the false god.[6]
What about verse 28? It may be translated “They did not see fit to have God in knowledge, so God gave them over to a depraved mind.” It could be asked, “Doesn’t this teach that men are given over to a state of absolute ignorance of God?” The answer to this question is no. The word Paul uses here for knowledge always designates practical, religious, and moral knowledge in the noun form (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7). It speaks of the saving knowledge of God. The knowledge spoken of in Romans 1:28 is the opposite of merely intellectual knowledge or awareness of God. It is the knowledge which is eternal life (John 17:3). Men may refuse to know God spiritually and savingly, as Romans 1:28 says, but they cannot cease to know God in the sense of Romans 1:18‑21, 32.
- The Efficient Cause of Their Ignorance, v. 21b
The cause of their ignorance of God is revealed in the words, “they did not honor him as God or give thanks.” Men do know God. How is it, then, that they manifest such amazing intellectual ignorance and mental darkness with respect to divine truth? Did God do something? Is this condition a result of some divine intervention? No. (Verses 24, 26, and 28 speak of a divine judgment, but this judgment falls upon men for and because of this pre‑existing state of ethical and intellectual ignorance and wickedness.)
The ignorance of God is due, in the first place, to a failure to properly respond to the knowledge of God they possess. It is their fault, a result of their own actions. The root of men’s ignorance of God is moral. It springs from, is caused by ethical rebellion against the demands of what they know. The problem, then, is not with God’s revelation. The problem is not, first of all, intellectual. The problem is not with the mental equipment God has given man. The problem is not with the rationality of God’s existence. The problem is moral. The rest of the Bible confirms this conclusion by describing atheism as the position of a fool (Ps. 10:4; 14:1). A fool, however, is not one without knowledge but one who hates it (Prov. 1:22).
- The Instrumental Means of Their Ignorance, v. 21c
The means by which they became ignorant of God and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness is stated in the words, “they became futile in their speculations.” The word translated “speculations” is a most interesting word. It means “thoughts” and thus designates intellectual activity. However, every occurrence of this word in the New Testament has strongly ethical shades of meaning. It frequently designates intellectual activity controlled by or arising from an evil heart (Matt. 15:19; Luke 5:22). In Romans 1:21, it designates intellectual activity arising from men’s refusal to honor God. Therefore, I believe it has reference to the intellectual rationalizations of men for this wicked refusal. Conscience says, for instance, “you haven’t honored or thanked God.” Heart replies, “I must have a good reason.” So, it orders intellect to provide a justification or excuse for its sin. Paul goes on to say that out of such reasonings flow atheism, false philosophy, and false religions.
Paul adds one further thought. Such thoughts or reasonings are futile. They are totally fruitless. There can be no intellectual justification for man’s ingratitude. Also, all intellectual systems grounded in refusal to ethically honor God can never attain true knowledge (1 Cor. 3:18‑20).
- The Resultant Condition of Their Ignorance, v. 21d
The condition or state resulting from this process is summarized in the words, “their foolish heart was darkened.” This is the final step in the progression of verse 21. Having given the starting point, efficient cause, and instrumental means of their ignorance, Paul now states the condition that results from this evil moral‑intellectual process. Their foolish heart was darkened.
We have already seen that Paul does not mean to say that they lost or erased their knowledge of God. We have seen that this cannot be Paul’s meaning. Rather, the knowledge of God they possess ceases to be a practical, working, conscious principle that can guide their lives (Prov. 3:19).
- The Pompous Claims of Their Ignorance, v. 22
Verse 22 states, “professing to be wise they became fools.”
Men totally failed to admit or recognize the folly and futility of their intellectual systems. Instead, the authors and adherents of these systems proudly claimed the title of wise men. We must not be upset by the claims of modern wise men. They have always made such claims. God says in the very making of such claims, they become fools.
- The Monstrous Extent of Their Ignorance, v. 23
They substituted idols for the true God in their religion, going so far as to worship animals and crawling creatures. Paul here informs us that false religions are the height and climax of man’s ignorance of God. This is the opposite of the common opinion that the natural man’s religions and philosophies are his closest approach to true knowledge of God. Some have viewed natural religions as partial and valid attempts to worship God, needing only to be supplemented by Christianity. The following diagram contrasts the view of such people with Paul’s view.
Paul views false religions, then, as the worst expressions of human depravity and ignorance. They are emphatically not commendable approaches to God and true religion. This means that we are not to measure man’s knowledge of God by what he admits to knowing in his false religions. He knows far more, which he is suppressing. In fact, everything he admits is perverted. Otherwise, he would not admit it.
This study must not close without noting the progression of three important steps in this passage: Suppression (v. 18), Substitution (v. 23), and Reprobation (v. 24). An illustration of this progression may be helpful. The human heart is like a house with a large light in a big bay window in the front room. Even when the occupants of the house unplug the lamp, it continues to shine. In order to avoid its light, they take the lamp and bury it in their basement–drilling and jack-hammering through the concrete and, then, after burying the lamp, re-cementing the basement floor. Soon they notice, however, that there is a strange glow on the basement floor just where the lamp is buried. In order to disguise the glow, they purchase black lights (ultra-violet lamps), which cast an eerie or ghostly glow in the basement and tend to obscure the glow coming from the basement floor. It is even so when men suppress the truth. The glow of their innate knowledge of God must be obscured by the black lights of false religion.
[1]The commentators, Lenski, Murray, Calvin, Wilson, Hodge, Griffith-Thomas, Denney, Alford, John Brown, and David Brown, all support the translation “in”. Cranfield, Barnes, Erasmus, and Grotius translate “among”. Haldane and Hendriksen translate “to”. The practical importance of insisting on the translation, in, and opposing the translation, among, or, to, is that this translation underscores that this revelation actually “gets through”. It is not simply externally available, but internally known. The translations, among or to, obscure or deny this fact, and it is this fact that is crucial to Paul’s argument. Several considerations constrain the rejection of the translations among or to and the adoption of the translation, in. First, in is the normal and natural translation of this preposition. Second, in alone clearly conveys the idea that God’s revelation “gets through” and grounds human responsibility in an actual knowledge of God. Paul later assumes this in verse 21 in the words, dioti gnontej ton qeon. The assumption of their actual knowledge of God conveyed in these words there is best explained and grounded by the translation in here. Third, the translation, among, ignores Paul’s purpose and does nothing to further it in this context. To what purpose or of what importance is it for Paul to tell us that God’s knowledge is among them? Fourth, the translation, among, if adopted virtually says that God’s revelation in creation is among them. This is a very awkward thought. Fifth, the translation, to, makes en autoij synonymous with autoij in the next clause. If Paul intended these two phrases to have synonymous meaning, one wonders why he did not make it more clear. Sixth, the interpretation of en as equivalent to the dative is rare to non-existent in the New Testament. Of the four possible instances given by BAG only one appears to have substance to it. A. T. Robertson in his Grammar … lists this use of en with a question mark.
[2]Qeioteij is to be distinguished from qeoteij (deity‑Col. 2:9) and means divinity i.e., the divine nature. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 4.
[3]The more common meaning of eij to einai seems to be to convey purpose. Grammatically, therefore, purpose rather than result could be intended by this phrase. The idea of purpose, however, seems unnatural here. It is extremely unlikely that Paul is saying that the purpose of God’s revelation of Himself in nature was to leave men without excuse.
[4]Lenski describes this process when he says, “The idea that Paul here describes the historical origin of Paganism … misunderstands his purpose … In spite of the fact that they knew, knew at that very time, they did not let this knowledge control or even check them” in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1961), 101-102. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1967) on p. 197 assert that “a generally accepted fact or truth may be regarded as so fixed in its certainty or axiomatic in its character that it is described by the aorist.” Dana and Mantey call this the gnomic aorist. It is likely the gnomic aorist which is used here. For the gnomic aorist cf. 1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 23:3, and James 1:24.
[5]Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, 25.
[6]BAG supports this meaning of lie (yeudei).
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
