#46. Romans 2:5-6 – How to Piss off God (Judgment Series, Part VII)

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

Yet, in accord with your hardness and unrepentant heart you are hoarding for yourself indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God…

Despite the kindness of God, willing one to repentance, people like to say ‘screw that noise’ and do their own thing!

Believe it or not, this makes the Creator of the universe a little pissy.

We have reached the sixth use of the term “accord” in Romans. Through this use, we see God’s indignation parallel hardness and unrepentance of the heart. By rejecting the kindness of God, men refuse to change their mind, leading us back to the core of the issue. The indignation of God must be revealed on the irreverence and injustice of man (Rom. 1:18.) During this time in which He operates in secret (Eph. 3:8, Col. 3:1-4,) mankind hoards for itself indignation on the stated grounds. The issues in Romans 1:22-32 have only been exacerbated as history has progressed. There are literally more individuals, and conceptually greater and more dangerous evils now than there have ever been.

Concerning the day of indignation, then, Paul has little optimism (otherwise, I doubt it could be called the day of indignation.) He summarizes the final years of this eon as “perilous periods” (2 Tim. 3:1.) During this period of time, men will “heap up teachers in accord with their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3.) Most often, the desire of these men is that all do not get saved. Their desire is that most are perpetually burned alive at the hands of Satan. The grandest theories and twisted interpretations are concocted to enforce this radical notion.

Others include the desire to contradict the death of Christ, and establish the individual as the driving force of the narrative – “Will you or will you not accept Him? That is the question!” they say. This is often manifested in the doctrine of free will. Yet if an individual’s salvation ended with their decision, the story would have remained stagnant since Adam’s expulsion from Eden, for, if free will were the stress, the choice to repent could (and should) have been made available right then and there – no need to kill Your Kid (before law was even created) for that to be the case.

Still others contradict His death and resurrection by making Christ a part of a trio of gods. Yet the holy spirit is nowhere said to be a deity (“Holy Ghost” is a mistranslation, and there is no requirement for us to capitalize “holy spirit” in the text, for it would be rooted entirely in our personal opinion – not provable fact.) Further, Jesus Christ, as we’ve briefly read, is entirely distinct from His God and Father (Rom. 1:7, Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:3.) We read in the Old Testament that the Father kills the Son (Is. 53:9-10,) and read later in Rom. 6:4 that the Father rouses the Son from among the dead. We read that the Son is visible, while God is invisible (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15.)

God does not misspeak – these distinctions are not arbitrary. These doctrines deny the fundamental basics of Paul’s evangel (1 Cor. 15:3-4.) In this, they dishonor God, as they forcefully change Him into something He’s not – a divine sadist, a visible deity, or a nonchalant observer (in some groups, he’s all three of these.) By denying these direct claims from God, and turning them into metaphors, we mock and blaspheme Him, shoving words in His mouth that He did not make.

To verify our false positions, we begin playing word games. One of my favorite examples is in the book of Acts. Popular theology credits the book of Acts with the “beginning of church history,” and many phrases are ripped out of context or re-interpreted to account for such a perspective. Yet in Acts 1:3, in the introduction to the account, Luke writes, that Jesus spent forty days “being visualized to them, and telling them that which concerns the kingdom of God.” To paraphrase H.W. Martin, if this verse read that “He was speaking concerning the church, the body of Christ,” then we should find church history, church truth, church government in the book of Acts. Yet we read from the introduction alone that kingdom truth is in view. A kingdom is not a church. We do not need to interchange these two words when it is convenient for us.

It is this kind of changing which costs us our understanding. The phrase in Acts 1:3 is a plain statement which should contextualize figures (such as Luke 17:21, which states that the “kingdom of God is in you,” which must be a figure, for we know throughout the entire Biblical narrative that the kingdom in view is a literal, physical one with earthly boundaries and lasts for a set amount of time upon this earth – or, also, Col. 1:13, which speaks of our pardon in the “kingdom of the Son of His love,” which is a figure for the celestial realm which Christ rules at present.) Taking a simple statement to contextualize the figurative should be our method, not taking complex figures literally with a view to reshape the simple statements. When this is pointed out to people, and they deny it, it is a great example of “profane prattling,” which Paul speaks of in 2 Tim. 2:16, and 3:8, where those averse to the truth actively avoid it.

All of this gives God… a little bit of an attitude, naturally. When you tell your 4 year old, “Don’t pick up that bug off the floor,” and they pick up the bug anyway, does it fill you with glee that they’ve literally done the exact opposite of what you asked? No! It surely makes you want to put them in a time out!

Yet the callous and unrepentant qualities of their hearts builds them wealth on earth, which is repaid with His indignation (this is by design; the sovereignty of God does not deny this dynamic.) For those in the body of Christ, we build up wealth in the exact opposite direction (1 Cor. 3:14-16,) so, in case you were wondering, there is a simple and clean resolution to this issue, through God’s Son, which we are going to get to. But this is, again, toward the vast majority of humanity content on ignoring God’s divine revelations, here. The ignorance stores (hoards) up anger.

Some often use this verse with the previous to attempt to prove that “repentance” is a necessity for salvation – for one who does repent would, naturally, no longer be storing up for themselves indignation. While it is indeed true that repentance averts indignation, it is completely assumed that man has the inherent ability to repent of their sin of their own free will. The argument in view has taken no interest in presenting man as the arbiters of their own destiny. Both in the scriptural arguments and in light of human history, we have seen no one from Adam escape the actions listed in Rom. 1:28-31 (even fewer escape the three charges from 1:18-23, if you can believe it.) One can safely posit that a baby who dies in the womb would have grown up to enact one of the actions in Romans 1. Those with autism or social disorders enact the actions of Romans 1. We all sin, sometimes apart from our own wills, or out of a lack of recognition of sin.

The Methodology of the Just Judgment of God

It is in light of this fact that all, right now, apart from Christ, are hoarding up for themselves indignation in the day of indignation, when God will be provoked by the antichrist’s one world government. God’s patience, forbearance, and kindness, having been unequivocally rejected, necessitates action on His end. Thus God will finally enact an intense, but swift, judgment upon the earth (Rev. 4:1-19:21.)

Many have proclaimed that the judgment of God inflicted in Revelation is unfair in light of His sovereignty. These people have not spent much time considering the cross, however, which reaches out past this short judgment and considers the ultimate reconciliation of every living creature (Col. 1:20.) This is why judgment is presented now, in chapter two, and not later, say, in chapters 5 or 6. When we read this argument, we must keep everything in its proper place. This portion about judgment is still in the “Conduct of humanity” portion of Romans, from 1:18-3:20. Keep in mind, ultimately, that this is a part of the third reason that Paul claimed that he was not ashamed of the evangel (see Rom. 1:16 and 17 for the first two reasons.) Without this impasse in play, mankind would be unable to see the evangel of God in Romans 3:21-32. There are fourteen more chapters after this one which not only structurally highlight this fact, but explicitly says it as well: judgment is not God’s final act upon men, but only a precursor to salvation (Rom. 5:18-19, 8:20-21.) The ends justify the means; the judgment in view educates the sinner, serving as a demonstration of the just Judge.

Of course, this is not the only aspect of the story, for if He were only causing you to fail to show He does not, He would be… well, kind of an Asshole (though, I steadfastly declare, far less of an asshole than if He were to mercilessly burn you alive after impossibly stacking the odds against you by birthing you somewhere you would never hear Jesus’ name, or before Jesus’ death or something.) There is, indeed, an emotional weight to the story as well, where your correction in judgment ultimately brings you glorification. Many who believe now can attest to the fact that their failures, while frustrating in the moment, have served as some of their greatest lessons, and they would not, in retrospect, have it any other way.

I am unsure, at this point, whether the “just judgment” of God is directly in relation to the seven-year tribulation of Revelation, or the scene of judgment at the great white throne. Undoubtedly, the judgment of God as presented in verses 7-10 will unfold at the great white throne, but I lean toward this first declaration of the “revelation of the just judgment of God” taking place during the Revelation period, as it will be a major event where we first have His judgment revealed to us. But, on the other hand, if you told me that this just judgment is firmly revealed at the great white throne, I would probably shrug my shoulders at you. And, I suppose, most of all, that it could simply relate to both periods of time.

Acts, Not Belief

…Who will be paying each one in accord with his acts…

And here, in the middle of Paul’s introduction to God’s righteous judgment, we are told that God pays each one in accord with his acts. This statement encompasses the judgments we have considered hitherto. During the great white throne judgment, each individual who is presented before God will be paid, not in accord with their belief system, or their personal measures of right and wrong, or by any governmental justice. This is the true principle of judgment from God. It permeates all of His judgments, and His payments aptly fit each situation.

God did not flood the earth in Noah’s day because of personal beliefs, but because evil multiplied across the face of the earth. We are undeniably aware of what evil this must be, for here, in 2025, we are face to face with a greater evil than has ever been evident at any prior point in history. God did not merely punish Adam for “eating a fruit,” but for sin, the impact of such a disposition God was especially aware, and had demonstrated already (Gen. 1:2, 2 Pet. 3:5-6.) And, most importantly, His judgment at the cross, of sin itself (Rom. 8:3,) throws right back at sin the very force which it imposed upon Adam to begin with.

We see, through this, a very real heart of the matter. Sin was slaughtered without mercy, while Adam’s death was gradual. And, in grief (Gen. 6:6,) the destruction of the entire earth and its evil was mercifully swift. While each judgment against injustice is death, the context for each is different, for the one(s) which God judges in each situation carries a different motive, and their action in each scenario deserves a different measure of indignant correction.

We see, then, that the “acts” which the just Judge will take into consideration concern the mental fortitude of the one acting (notice that Adam lives for another 900 years, having acted unaware of what he was subjecting himself to, not yet having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,) as well as their opportunity (notice that those before the flood died long before Christ’s advent, and thus could not believe in or on Him in any capacity,) and, of course, the time period in which one lived (sin, having been in view since the Adversary’s inception, received a harsh, merciless murder which afforded it no breathing room – i.e. God had demonstrated there, in full force, His abhorrence of Enmity itself.)

Thankfully, we can read of these events from the circumcision evangel which Paul’s argument here has been built upon. If this is God’s methodology in the past, then there should be no reason to believe that His measure of justice should change in the future. Even the smallest sin is sin, this is true. But even such low creatures as ourselves can note that the smallest sin is a small sin (it is one thing, for example, to steal an apple in light of impending starvation, than it is to steal a purse full of money from a blind woman.) That God will be judging in accord with acts is a revelation so startling and still so thoroughly unknown that it deserves its own article of consideration!

- GerudoKing