#21. Romans 1:18 - Indignation (Indignation Series Prologue: NOT the Evangel)

 Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

For God’s indignation is being revealed from heaven on all the irreverence and injustice of men who are retaining the truth in injustice…

The indignation of God is a topic of great scrutiny and heavy debate among the most renowned scholars of the last 2,000 years. This section – Romans 1:18-3:20 – puts this debate to rest.

Beginning here, we will be conducting an in-depth study on this indignation; both the “indignation” itself, and especially the purpose of the indignation. The biggest point of controversy against the Bible’s “good news” is found here, in Romans 1:18. God is “good,” but the verse above doesn’t sound very good. It sounds angry. Frustrated. It reminds us of the angry God in the Old Testament – the God that flooded the entire earth and left a boatload of zoo animals instead of people. That God that performed genocide against the Amalekites. That God that left His people stranded in Egypt for 400+ years before dragging them out into the desert. It sounds like the God that forsook His Son at the cross, leaving the holiest Creature in the universe to cry, “My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?”

This is… well, it’s rather jarring, on a first read. Come on! We were doing just fine, God, until you brought this up. I thought we were about to read about Your righteousness? This amazing “evangel” You wouldn’t shut up about?? What is this? Are You pulling the rug out from under us?

Well, let’s start with something that should be obvious: The indignation of God is not the evangel. It is an aspect of God, yes, but not His evangel. It is not “the good news” that God seeks to impart. Indeed, much of what we are about to read has already been inferred or understood in our basic, day-to-day connections with other people (not to mention many other portions of the Old Testament.) Thus it could not be the evangel, as the evangel was unknown until Paul was brought to the forefront.

What was said about humanity in Rom. 1:16-17 was concerned with belief, emphasis on God’s choice and ability to enforce said belief. This verse, verse 18, shifts the focus while maintaining the thought. The focus is no longer on God’s enforcement of belief, but of man’s lack of knowledge or ability to acknowledge God. Paul did not shy away from humanity’s second-most confused, pressing issue: why is God’s indignation going to occur?

As we have covered, there are three main aspects to Romans’ theme:

1)    God’s power into salvation

2)    God’s righteousness revealed in the evangel

3)    God’s indignation revealed against irreverence and unrighteousness

These three aspects are closely joined together. They may not look it on the surface, but these three concepts are connected, and no piece can be reasonably removed without damaging the argument as a whole. The “indignation of God,” as we will see, is not some secret, evil part of the evangel, but is as necessary and integral as any other part of the letter.

We cannot deny its existence. Many who adhere to the doctrine of “universal salvation” typically dismiss any form of punishment that humanity would face for their sins. This is, of course, illogical, for there must be a consequence for travesties such as rape, murder, adultery, and more. For as small as we are in this vast, expansive universe, these things hurt, and we can’t just randomly let these things go, can we?

Let me show you what I mean. To understand, first, why Paul brings this up here specifically, we must finally consider the structure for Romans 1:16-18, shown in the picture below:

As we can see, the entire portion of this letter is bound together with four uses of the preposition gar, meaning “For.” This is one of (if not my favorite) word in the entire scripture, for, without it, we would not have a tightly-woven narrative around the bigger nouns and verbs!

Paul told us back in Romans 1:16 that he is “not ashamed of the evangel.” He then proceeded to list three reasons why he is unashamed of it. The first two were understandable, from our point of view, but the third… well, it needs some elaborating (hence the elongated explanation provided between Rom. 1:19-3:20.) Our attention is drawn to the power, righteousness, and indignation of God, all in one brief paragraph. Paul will now cover his reasoning for each of these points in reverse order.

This third reason, the “indignation” of God, is set in its context, right at the beginning of the letter. While the first two reasons considered portions of the evangel’s function, this third reason sets the stage for the evangel to be unfolded. Just as we require a black sky to spot bright, shining stars, so also we need this dark backdrop for the evangel of God to take center stage. Just as the good guy must fight a villain to indicate that he is, indeed, “a good guy,” so also we must consider the evangel of God’s Son against the backdrop of sin and shame. Without sin and shame, we could not apprehend the evangel – hence the necessity for God’s indignation to remove this sin and shame once the evangel is fully apprehended.

No one is perfect. God will take this to its honest extreme – no one can be perfect, and all are capable of the worst kinds of sins. Moreover – that we are all imperfect highlights that we all have sinned: both the Jew and the Greek, the wise and the foolish, the loving and the hateful, the sorrowful and the spiteful. We are all flawed, and we have no ability to reverse our past faults, or their effects.

Here’s the rough part: there are an increasing number of us that believe that the only course of action for the unrepentant sinners is “eternal torment.” They believe that “indignation” of God may be a placer word for this idea, and that the only course of action is for us snobbish sinners to “choose Christ” before time runs out. This stresses a focus on you, not on Christ. Advocates for this idea do not spread the evangel of God, but the “evangel of themselves.”

No, I’m not kidding. What we have read in Romans 1:16-17 is already completely opposite of our religious upbringing (through no fault of our own.) The issue here is with the religious institution and the lies it conveys to the general public. Any appreciation of God’s grace is removed when we come to believe we are saved when we accept God’s grace. I will kindly remind any religious folk reading this that God’s grace (which is, by definition, unmerited favor,) is no longer grace if your acceptance is the contingency on which salvation lies. These people would tell me (in so many words) that salvation lies within, and that it is up to you to take hold of something for Christ, so that you can be in Christ.

Just think! If this theory were true, every saved person in “heaven” when they die would not say, “Thank you, God, for saving the likes of me,” but “Man! It’s a good thing I picked Christ, whereas all these people – my friends and family, or the like – weren’t able to do this thing! They deserve this eternal torment, because they did not accept the love of Christ (love, of course, must be reciprocated, or it is revoked!) I am here in eternal bliss because I picked God! I did it! Thank ‘God?’ More like, ‘Thank Jeff!’ I managed to do what few others have done – I recognized righteousness, and decided I would just do it! Billions of my fellow creatures are no longer my fellow creatures, for they are able to stay doomed and miserable while I sip mimosas with Abraham! Tra-la-la!”

This is an important discrepancy to get out of the way now. If you’ve never considered this side of eternal torment from the previous paragraph, then you’ve likely not reflected on this doctrine in the light of Paul’s evangel. You may be thinking to yourself, “Man, this kid’s just an asshole! How could he say this about this sacred doctrine that I’ve been reading from my King James Bible my whole life? I’m modest! I would never think that of those poor souls burning! I pity them – I don’t hate them!” And, while I understand that sentiment, I must reply that one does not avoid boastfulness by “being modest.” You could be the nicest person alive, but you’re still holding to a doctrine that places you on a pedestal, and puts everyone else beneath your feet, in some eternal torment chamber. You can only cease to be boastful by ceasing to believe in inherently boastful things.

Does this hurt you? I’m sorry; I don’t want to hurt you. God’s method is best, and I’m merely adapting in my limited, broken form. We simply cannot “give all the glory to God” while simultaneously declaring that salvation is our preference. His method, in informing us of this, is to rip the band-aid off fast – we are not as strong as we think we are. We prefer the prideful doctrines, because they make us feel favored, physically speaking. We prefer the social cliques, the gatherings, the barbecues in Pastor Joe’s backyard, the soul-winning excursions, the prayer circles (sometimes prayer squares,) and we prefer re-committing ourselves to Jesus every week. It’s a nice feedback loop, feeding us the same slop until we pass. He has to show us this reality first, before we can appreciate His love.

If you are an eternal torment believer (or an agnostic eternal torment believer) then you would do well to pause and consider the following three chapters of Romans with me. Let’s go through the oldest Greek manuscripts together! In Paul’s letter to Rome, do we find one reference to this horrific theory? When you find it, please let me know. Remember – we are playing stupid, right now; pretending we are the Greek, hearing the Message for the first time, and verifying it in the Hebrew text (as we did in Rom. 1:17.) For starters, we will not be reading of the word “torment” at all in this letter, and, to everyone’s surprise, we will be reading of a much more righteous, loving, and caring alternative to this “eternal torment” idea.

Some may claim the exact opposite! Simply: God’s indignation is redemptive in some fashion. That God’s indignation is not solely a punishment, but purifying in nature. This is… well, I’ll admit, I find it a little more attractive than “turn or burn.” But the evangel is not based on “which theory is the most attractive,” but a recognition of God’s method and purpose for His indignation. The indignation of God does not save. Salvation is found on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice at Golgotha – nothing else. We may indeed learn through the punishment, but the purification (‘sanctification’) is authorized by God, through Christ

Some may dislike this revelation of God’s indignation on principle. How can “indignation” and “love” conjoin in any way? We will have to read of it here, and see if God’s explanation (apart from our own reasonings on the matter) hold any merit.

And make no mistake! God is going to spend the remainder of this chapter listing terrible and shocking indictments against us all. Most in Christ have an understandable desire to brush past this section of Romans. Yet it is this very section that shows us the need for the rest of Romans. Paul must expound upon the problem in order for us to appreciate the solution.

As such: this is by design. When you inevitably see yourself somewhere in these chapters, do not freak out. By this, I mean: do not try to self-justify. There are a million excuses. These are not being listed to spite you; they are evidential in nature, no more personal than a detective writing a report to his superior. We must be shown the disgusting underbelly of human nature, so that God’s righteousness (which the evangel will reveal in full) can be made known. This contrast is present, not solely in Romans, but in all of scripture (many have taken to calling it “The Contrast Principle.”)

As such, the indignation that we will cover over the next 64 verses, while not the “evangel” itself, is still inherently valuable to our understanding of the evangel that will, ultimately, bless all of us (Rom. 1:16, 5:18-19, 1 Tim. 4:10.) Paul has tightly bound the indignation with the preparatory information necessary to apprehend the evangel. While we can gather most of this information throughout the course of our lives, it is still necessary that this connection is made side by side with the evangel.

The information given is twofold; it is not a mindless insult toward us, but actually serves both ourselves and Himself. On our end, the argument will prove that we need this salvation, and will only have our loving and moral sensibilities permanently satisfied in the revelation of the evangel. And, on God’s end, the argument will prove His critical need to fulfill His purpose and plan for all of creation (He’s a bit of a perfectionist, as we will come to find.) Love must have an object to lavish – another to reciprocate and appreciate it. The sooner we grasp the indignation is the sooner we can grasp the love which is its complement.

- GerudoKing