"They Exchangedthe Gloryof God

for the Likenessof an Image

IdolatrousAdamand Israelas
in Paul'sLetter
Representatives
to the Romans
A. B. Caneday

"even
A. B. Ganeday isProfessor ofNew Introduction God's universal self-revelation,
Testament andBibllcal
Studies TheologyIn Rom 3:19-20,Paul delivers the coupde though they knew God, they did not glo-
College
atNorthwestern inSaintPaul, grdceof the closing argument of his indict- rify him as God or offer thanks, but they
Minnesota,Inadditonto numerous ment of humanity. becamefutile in their thinking and their
journal heisthecoauthor
articles, foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21).
And we know that whatever the
(with
Thomas R Schreiner)ol TheRace Yet, ashe closeshis universal indictment
Law savsit savsto thosein the Law's
SetBefore Us;A BibllcalThealogyof jurisdiction, in order that every of humans, Paul claims that the Mosaic
(lnterVarsity, mouth may be stopped and all the Law has a function that somehowextends
&Asslrance
Perseverance
world may be liable to God. For on
2001)DrCaneday 1sa frequentcon- the basis of deeds required by the beyond its evident, restricted covenant
to TheSouthern
tributor BaptistJournal law no flesh shall be declared righ- jurisdiction-/l1vs know that whatever
teous, for through the law comes the Law says it says to those who are in
of Thealogy. knowledge of sin.
the Law's iurisdiction' (3:19).The Law
Of the various significant issues that condemnsjews,but the sameLaw silences
exegetesaddress,in this text, one that the whole world of Gentiles also before
receives too little attention is the inner God'sjudgment bar.
logic of verse19.Given Paul'sclaim-"that How does Paul reach the conclusion
whatever the Law saysit saysto those in that the Law's indictment of Jews spills
'hll the world . . . liable to
the Law's jurisdiction"-fis'147does the over to hold
"every
God"? Generally,commentatorspropose
Law's condemnation of Jewsstop
mouth" and hold "all the world. . .liable
that Paul uses an a fortiori (from the
"if
to God"? Expresseddifferently, how does greaterto the lesser)argument: Jews,
the Law's indictment of ]ews stop the God's chosenpeople, cannot be excluded
mouths of Gentilesalsoandholdlews and from the scopeof sins tyranny, then it
Gentiles,together, liable before God? surely follows that Gentiles,who have no
There is no question that, in the tra- claim on God's favor, are also guilty."1 In
dition of Israel's prophets, the apostle Paul's prosecution of jews and Gentiles
Paul indicts Gentiles and Jews alike. alike (Rom 3:9),does his argument draw
He expresslysays as much (Rom 3:9). a tighter relationship between the two
His indictment of Gentiles is clear. He than the passing observation exegetes
grounds his indictment of Gentiles in tend to make when thev identifv the a

31
;-,rtiori nature of his closing argument? tive essay,but he does not address how
rr'hile a fortiori explains the rhetorical Paul integrates his allusion to Israel and
,:atureof Paul'sassertion,is this sufficient to Adam into his argument in Romans.
:o explain the inner logic that allows him Wedderburn devoteshis essayto how the
:urr€;lsofi from the Law's indictment of story of Adam shapedPaul'sargument in
.:scovenantsubjects,the lsraelites,to the Rom 1:18ffandZ:7ff.His discussioryhow-
rndictment of the whole world? ever, does not address Paul's interlacing
I will argue that Paul's summary of the story of Adam's idolatry with the
.:ssertionin Rom 3:19-20is fitting, not story of Israel's idolatry. Consequently,
:rincipally becausethe functions of Torah Wedderburn offers no integrative sense
-ind of Natural Law coalesceto indict concerning how Paul's subtle allusions
iveryone, but because,like Adam, Israel to Israel and to Adam in Rom 1':21'25
ills the representativerole of humanity.2 figure in the Letter to the Romans, par-
Soth Adam and Israel cameunder God's ticularly Paul's concluding statement of
:ommandment. Both became idolaters. his universal indictment of humanity in
\s Adam, so also Israelserved as a reP- Rom 3:19-20.
:esentativetype for all humanity. It is In his recent commentary, Ben With-
"that erington seemsto overreact against Hyl-
for this reasorLthen, that Paul says
rr'hateverthe Law saysit saysto those in dahl's and Hooker's insights as if they
"the story of Adam into Rom. 1:18-
:he Law's jurisdictiory in order that every forced
mouth may be stopped and all the world 32."8Offering little reflection upon any
may be liable to God." Old Testamentallusionsin Paul'saccount,
"the real echoesare
Witherington asserts,
Echoes of Adam and Israel in of Wisdom of Solomon10-14.'tRegrettably,
Romans 1z2L-25 exegetesdo not adequatelyteaseout how
Long ago scholars commented on Paul's subtle but sure evocative linkage
echoesof Adam and of Israel that they of Israel and Adam in Rom 1:21-25estab-
heard in Rom 1:23.3Taking cues from lishes the apostle's allusive and express
Hyldahl's short study, Morna Hooker use of Israel and of Adam in his Letter
offeredaninsightful and suggestiveessay to the Romans as playing representative
that has received inadequate attentioo roleswith referenceto humanity's corrup-
especially given the surging interest in tion and plight. This is not to suggestthat
intertextuality. Hooker focusesher essay no essayistdemonstratesthe role of Adam
upon echoesof the Genesisnarrative con- and Israel in Paul'stheology.loNor is it to
cerning Adam.a She suggestsnumerous imply that all commentatorshave failed
Old Testamentpassagesthat surface in to draw links forward in Romans from
Romans1 as Paul indicts Adam's descen-1,:21,-25.11Whatis lacking is an adequate
dants.sIn a later essay,Hooker teases unraveling of Paul's allusive entangling
readers with an intriguing linkage of of Adam and of Israel as typological
Adam and Israel,but leavesdevelopment representativesof humanity as he pros-
of the associationfor others.6 ecutes God's indictment of unrighteous
A. I. M. Wedderburn examines Hook humanity within Rom 1:18-3:20. What lies
er's thesisin his own essayon'Adam in beyond this essayis the programmatic
Romans."7FIeengagesHooker's Provoca- theological significance that this double

ol-
3J
 allusion-Adam and Israel-in 1':21'25 tively and typologically set forth by God.
bears throughout the apostle'sjustifica- The apostle's allusion in'J.:23 to Israel's
tion of God's righteousnessin his Letter idolatry grounds his presentationof Israel
"the whole world"
to the Romans.12 as representative of
As Paul begins prosecuting his charge as he closeshis indictment of humanity
against the Gentiles, he argues God's in 3:19-'And we know that whatever the
Law says it says to those who are in the
lawsuit against the Gentiles first, but he
does so with strong echoesof Old Testa- Law's jurisdictiory in order that every
ment narratives concerning both Adam mouth may be stopped and all the world
and Israel. In particular, in Rom 1:21-25 may be liable to God."r4
Paul adeptly, though in a veiled manner, Following in the tradition of the
links Israel'sexchangeof the glory of God prophets, Paul prosecutesGod's lawsuit
for the image of a grass-eatingbull with against humanity by defending God's
Adam's exchangeof the truth of God for righteousnessand by indicting human-
"firstborn son" ity as unrighteousness.As he begins
falsehood.l3Israel, God's
(Exod 4:2223),traded away "their glory;" his arraignment of humanity before
they swapped their glory, Yahweh who God's judgment bar, Paul punctuates his
has no form, for the form of a bull that prosecutorial charges with reverberat-
has no glory but eatsgrass. ing echoesfrom the Old Testamentthat
The apostlesynthesizesIsrael'strading eventually converge upon the Genesis
away their glory, Yahweh, and Adam's narrative of creation and fall.
substituting falsehood for the truth of Though Paul makes no explicit men-
God into a representativeportrayal of tion of either Adam or Israef his allusions
the primal sin of all humanity that incurs are too evident to dismiss the roles both
the plight of God's wrath. This suggests Adam and Israelplay inhis prosecutionof
that Paul understands Israel, like Adam, humanity.ls PaulweavesIsrael'sexchange
to have a representativeand typological of the glory of God for the image of a
role. Adam, who was a "type of the one beast together with Adam's exchangeof
who was to come" (Rom 5:14),was also the truth of God for falsehood as repre-
representative of all humanity. Though sentative of humanity's rejection of God
Paul does not expressly identify Israel for idols. Humanity's fundamental sin is
as filling this role, sufficient indicators idolatry, forsakingworship of the Creator,
in the text of Romans suggest that he the one true Go4 to worship the creature.
viewed Israel as recapitulating Adam's Paul expresseshumanity's primal sin:
"even though they knew God, they did
representativeand typological role. Both
Adam and Israel, stood representatively not glorify him asGod or offer thanks, but
for all humanity while they also presaged they becamefutile in their thinking and
Messiah who would come as the faithful their foolish heart was darkened."16
and obedient one to take upon himself
God's wratlu thus revealing that God is Echoes of lsrael's lilolatry in
righteous, keeping his covenant. Paul's Romans 7:23-24
veiled interlacing of Israel'sidolatry with It is not surprising that the tone and
'J.:27-25
Adam's idolatry in Rom anchors vocabulary of Paul's prosecution of
his use of both in his letter as representa- humanity for idolatry bears resemblance

36
:o the prophets' indictments of Israel. In use of sllsssa. . . en denoting'txchange"
Rom 1:21Paul seemsto allude purposely occurs only in Rom 1:23,followed inL:25
:o Jeremiah'slawsuit by way of tone and andl:26, where Paul usesthe compound
',.ocabulary.This is apparent with Paul's Iorm, metallasso . . . eis,
. . . en and metallassd
use of emataiouth€san ("became worth- respectively.Whether Paul substitutesthe
-ess;""became futile"l the verb the LXX activeform (ellaxan)
for the middle form of
'-:sesto translate "they went after the LXX (ellaxanto)or whether he reflects
Jer2:5,
;.,'orthlessthings and becameworthless an extinct Greek version of the Psalms,22
:hemselves." his use of the non-compound form in 1:23
|eremiah's lawsuit against the house- signals an allusion to Ps 106:20where
rolds of |acob and of Israel, to which the LXX (Ps 105:20)uses the same idiom
i'aul alludes, calls to memory the exodus employing the same verb form (cllaxnnto
;enerationthat fell in the wilderness.Paul te-ndoxan. . . en homoiomati\.
,,choesJeremiah'slawsuit against lsrael Paul's allusive use of Psalm 106 does
--nceagain in Rom 1:23with the words, not terminate upon the psalm itself
they exchanged the glory."17Paul's becausePsalm 106,like Psalm 10$ recites
:ndictment of humanity's idolatry-"they the Lord's mighty deeds on behalf of
:€came fools and exchangedthe glory of Israel who responded with rebellion and
:he incorruptible Godpr the likeness of with idolatry. Reflecting a senseof both
:heimageof corruptible manl'-resembles historical and literary continuity with
Teremiah'scharge against Israel-"Has a the Pentateuch,the psalmist succinctly
ration changedltsgods,even though they captures in song the gravity, irony, and
rre no gods?But my people have changed treacheryof Israel'sidolatry, harking back
"They
:heir glorypr that which doesnot profit" to the incident of the golden calf.
ler2:5,nsv).The echois muted somewhat exchanged their Glory for the image of
recausethe LXX of ler 2:17 uses allasd a bull that eats grass" (Nrv).Psalm 706:20
"their glory" (ten doxanautanfrxxi
erchange)without en.Nevertheless,men- reads
"the
:ion of glory (doxa)asthething exchanged and kabodamfurr]),but Paul writes,
:rn'ayreinforces the echo of fer 2:11.18 glory of the incorruptible God," under-
Whether Paul'swords merely resemble standing "their glory" as a metonym that
cr purposely allude to feremiah 2, it can substitutes the attribute (glory) for the
"their
hardly be disputed that Rom 1:23delib- person (God).Thus, God himself is
eratelyechoesPs106:20(105:20, We glory."z3Given the sardonic humor in the
t-xx).1e
hear an echo concerning worship of the psalmist's portrayal of Israel'sexchange,
golden calf in the first phrase of 1:23with choosing "the image of a bull that eats
:tllassa. . . en,whichpreserves the Septua- grass," is it conceivable that the psalm-
gint's rigid rendering of the Hebrew idiom ist accentsIsrael's exchangeby injecting
(mur . .. b")which denotes"exchangeof subtle and wry humor ashis own literary
one thing for another."'oBy using this exchange,substituting the circumlocution
"their glory" by way of metonymy for
rather wooden Greek expression Paul
"God"? It seemshe does.
signals that he purposely preserves the
LXX Hebraism as he alludes to Ps 106:20. By alluding to Ps 106:20 Paul draws
Within the New Testament, allassopri- into his readers' purview the full litany
marily means "change."2rThis Hebraic of Israel's treachery and unfaithfulness

37
 to Yahwehfrom exodusto exile recitedby of a bull, which eatsgrass" (Ntv).
the psalm. Though privileged with God's Not only does Paul frame his indict-
covenantblessings,Psalm 106 portrays ment of humanity against the backdrop
Israelas essentiallythe sameas the Gen- of Israel's apostasy in the wilderness,
tiles who were outside Yahweh s covenant. he also expressesGod's punishment for
Israel's unfaithfulness, though, does not idolatry with an allusion to Ps 106:41.His
"he gaaethemooer
nullify God'ssteadfastloae(106:1)'Rather, thrice-used expression
Israel's redemption is owing entirely to . . unto" (paredoken autous. . . els;Rom
the fact that God remembershis coaenant 1.;24,26,28) seemslikely to echothe same
"he
and relents according tohis stendfastloae words from Ps 106:41', gaztethemoaer
(106:45). into thehands of the Gentiles" (pnredoken
Paul fuses his allusion to Psalm 106 autouseis;105:41.,rxx) which in turn reflect
with allusions to other Old Testament the repeated clause in Judges(2:14;6:1';
passages.His allusive use of Ps 106:20, 13:1)and in numerous other passages'
"the glorY of
itself, entails allusion to Exodus 32-34' Humanity's exchange of
the account of Israel'sexchangeof God's God for the image of the likeness of cor-
glory for the image of a creature.2aScott ruptible man and birds and animals and
Hafemann demonstratesthat the Exodus reptiles" receivedGod's ironic measure-
"cteatiotf' at for-measurepunishment onesubstitution
narrative associatesIsrael's
"fall" inthe incident of for another,the exchangeof natural rela-
Sinai and Israel's
the golden calf with the creation-fall nar- tions for those that are contrary to nature
rative of Genesis1-3. (Rom1:26,met€Ilaxant€nthusik€n chcsineis
"God handed them over
ten paraphusin).
Like the original creationnarrative,
to dishonorable passions-their women
the re-creation of a people to enjoy
God's presenceat Sinai is followed exchangedthe natural use of their bod-
"'fall" which separatesthem
bv a ies for that which is against nature, and
fiom the glory of God. As such,like
Adam and Eve,Israel'ssin with the likewise the men" (Rom 1':26-27).26
golden calf becomesboth determi-
native and paradigmatic for Israel's Echoes of Adam's ldolatry in
future history asGod'speople,since
it was a denial of the covenantprom- Romans 7:25
isesat their essentialpoint, i.e. the Made in God's likeness, all humanity
revelation of YHWH s character as
has exchangedthe glory of the incorrupt-
revealedthrough his deliveranceof
Israel from Egypt as the means for ible God, reflected in their own likeness
grantingthe promisedland. . . . As of the Creator, for their own creation of
"In
F..P. Carrotlhas observed, the
an image made after their own likeness
overall pattern of the Pentateuch
the rebellion motif functioned in or of the likenessof birds or of animals
relation to the Exodus in the same or of reptiles. Deep irony reverberatesin
way asthe disobedienceof Adam in
theeardenof Edenwhichruined the the echo of Gen 1:20-28,for the incorrupt-
goofnutt of the divine creation'"25 ible God appointed corruptible mankind,
the unique bearers of God-likeness,to
Israel'spleading with Mosesto placea veil have dominion over creatures. Instead,
over his faceto shield them from Yahweh's humanity bows in worship and homage
glory, shining from his face,accentswhat to images made to look like corruptible
the psalmist captures when he wrote, mankind and like creatures.To under-
"They exchangedtheir Glory for an image

3B
rr'rre this tragic irony Paul reiteratesthe such dismissal seems shortsighted.
:rchange in Rom 7:25.Yet,Paul doesnot Humanity's penchant for falsification of
::,erelyrepeathis words of 7:23.Verse25 reality originates from an exchangeof
:' an intensified version of verse 23 with the truthfulness of God for falsehood.
i:ronger echoesof the narrative of Adam's Commentators regularly pass over the
::ll. In verse23 Paul'sveiled referenceto possibility that Paul's use of the expres-
:re creationnarrative concerningmans sion in 1:25foreshadowshis later uses in
'..minion over creatures(Gen 1:20-28) 3:7 and 15:8.Yet in3:7 Pauljuxtaposes
"God's truthfulness" over against "mY
:rompts what seems to be an evident
"unreliability"
:ilusion to Adam's disobediencein Eden [Israel's] falsehood" ot
"They exchanged (heemospseusmati;cf.3:4, ginesthdde ho
,n'henthe apostle says,
:ie truth of God for the lie and worshiped theosalethes.Pasdeanthropos pseut€s).Itis
:nd served the creature rather than the evident that Paul's uses of he aletheiatou
Lreator, who is blessed forever."27 theouin3:7 andin 15:8refer to God's reli-
Eight times in Romans Paul uses ability as do his expressionshe pistis tou
(1:78,25;2:2,B, 20;3:7 9:I;15:8). theou (God's faithfulness; 3:3) and theou
:.,'tlreia
Jf these eight, three use the expression dikaiosun€(God'srighteousness;3:5).The
:aaletheiatou theou(the truthffulnessl of linkage between L:23and 1:25with 3:7is
t od; 1:25;3:7; 15:8).Commentators rou- made more evident by the collocation of
"the glory of
:inely pass over any considerationthat words in the two contexts:
"the truthfulness of God" over
Paul'suse of the expressionin 1:25may God" and
anticipate his later uses in 3:7 and 75:8. against that which is false or unreliable.
\lorris summarizes only three possible Though Rom 1:25likelypicks up Paul's
"the truth of God" (healetheia mention of humanity's suppression of
i€nses for
"the way things really
:ou theou).z8(1) Take the abstract concept truth in the senseof
'truth of God" for the concrete,God are" (healetheis;1:18)the fact that Paul
himself.2eIn such a case, the genitive adds the genitive modifier, tou theouin
itou theou)would be appositional-"the verse25,brings Paul'sfocusonto God him-
true God"-especially if pseudosmeans self.Dunn rightly observesthathealetheia
"idol" as inIsa44:20 (rxx).(2)The expres- tou theouin verse 25 simultaneously con-
"invisible nature"
sion may denote the truth God has made notesthe truth of God's
"the reality consisting of God and "his cosmic power" disclosed in
known,
Himself and His self-revelation."30(3)Or, creationbut also "the implication of God's
"the truth reliability and trustworthiness'"33This
the expressionmay suggest
about God." Missing from Morris' list of is especially true in view of the contrast
plausible sensesfor healctheiatou theouis between incorruptibleGod and corruptible
its evident meaning in Rom 3:7 andll:8, man in verse 23. Bartering away God's
"God's truthfulness," referring reliability for falsehood,which is utter$
denoting
to God's reliability, his steadfastness,his unreliablg is the root of human sinful-
faithfulness to keep his word.3i ness.An echo from Eden seemsevident
Kiisemann expresslYdismisses he an allusion to Adam's exchangeof God's
"ant attri- reliable warning ("in the day you eat of
aletheiatou theou as denoting
bute of God."32Yet, if Paul is alluding to it [tree of knowledge of good and evil]
the narrative of Adam's disobedience, vou will surely die" [Gen 2:17]) for the

39
 serpent'sfalsehood ('You will not surely the two incidents together into a synthe-
Thus, one may translate, sizedindictment of humanity. Israelreen-
die" [Gen 3:4]).34
"They exchangedthe truthfulness of God acted Adam's moral failure. Like Adam,
for falsehoodand worshiped and served Israelplays at leasta dual typological role
the creature rather than the Creator,who in God's drama of redemption. Adam
is blessedforever." and Israel alike serve as types of the one
who was to come,but bound inseparably
Conclusion: Adam and Israel as to this typological role, both also func-
Types in Romans Lz2'1.-25 tion as representativesfor all humanity.
Paul's Old Testament allusions to Thus, when Israel exchanged the glory
Adam's idolatry through Israel'sidolatry of God for the image of a bull that eats
by way of allusive usesof |eremiah 2 and grass, Israel acted out under the Law's
Psalm 106gives warrant to Wedderburn's jurisdiction what the Gentiles did while
observation: not possessingthe Law.3eSo,when Israel
exchangedthe glory of God for the image
In conclusionwe mav therefore sav
that what we have in Rom.7:78fi. of the likeness of a creature privileged
seemsto be a synthetic description Israel reenactedAdam's fall and showed
in which the ideas of Gen.3 have
that they were idolatersjust like the Gen-
played apart, along with other Old
TestamentpassagesdescribingIsra- tiles.aOThis provides warrant for Paul's
el's fall into idolatry and later expe- concluding statementof his indictment of
rience of idolatrv; these different
humanity: 'And we know that whatever
materialshave been superimposed
the one upon the other to produce the Law says it says to those who are
a compositenarrative." under the Law's jurisdiction, in order that
every mouth may be stopped and all the
It is true that Rom 1:21-25doesnot specifi-
world may be liableto judgmentby God"
cally describethe fall of Adam and Eve.36
(Rom3:19).
Flowever, Paul's veiled but purposeful
That both Adam and Israel figure
Old Testament allusions render it too
prominently in Paul's Letter to the
evident to suppressthe fact that he delib-
Romans is unambiguous. That both
erately portrays humanity's wickedness
Adam and Israel represented humanity
in terms of the biblical accountsof Israel's
according to Paul's gospel exposition is
and Adam's commonmoral and spiritual
evident, though Israel's representation
failure-their idolatry.3TIn other words,
is not equally acknowledged or devel-
Paul not only frames his prosecutorial
oped among scholars. That Paul roots
indictment of humanity upon thebiblical
his indictment of humanity within Rom
narrative, borrowing from the prophets'
1:1825in both Adam's and Israel'srepre-
lawsuit motif, but he does so with refer-
sentative and typological roles is largely
enceto Adam but referring back through
passedover by scholarswho nonetheless
Israel, for both are representativefigures
seeeither Adam's disobedienceor Israel's
within the biblical narrative and both
unfaithfulness or both as the backdrop
have typological significancefor Christ
of Rom 7:7-13andT:14-25.a1Given the Old
in relation to his people.38
Testarnentallusions we have pondered
Given the Old Testament'sassociation
in Rom 1:2125,it seemsevident that the
of Israel'sfall at Sinai with Adam's fall in
apostle'sappealto Adam, whether explic-
Ederuit is not surprising that Paul draws

10
 : r' as a type of Christ (5:14)or implicitly
-:: a type of all humanity, is embedded
"',ithin Paul's indictment of the Gentiles Commentary on the New Testament;
- 18-25).Likewise, it seemsevident that Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998),168;C. K.
-'rul's use of Israel throughout 2:1,-3:20 Barrett The Epistleto the Romans(New
-::rdas the typological foil of unfaithful-
:"ess(esp.3:3)in contrast to the faithful-
:.essof ]esus Christ (3:21.ft)and again
:: r€pres€ntativeof the wretched man's
:,ight, knowing the good one ought to
:L)but incapableof doingit(7:14-25)hnds
-:.elf first embeddedin the apostlet case
:qainst the Gentiles where he indicts
::umanity by alluding to Israel'srepre-
.entative role for humanity when God's
.'rr\'€fl?fltpeople exchangedthe glory of
-od who bears no visible form for a bull
:rat has no glory in itself but has visible
:L)rmand eatsgrass.Humanity, appointed
:o rule over the creatures,fell below the
:reature to which they bowed in worship
.rndcameto serve.
Only in Christ will dominion over
--reaturesbe fully restored to God's new
humanity (5:12"those who will reign in
iife") and will "the glory of God" be com-
pletely restored to those who await it in
hope (5:2;8:18,21)to thosewho have fallen
short of "the glory of God" (3:23).Christ,
as the new Israel and as the new Adam
reversesthe fortunes of both the first
-{.damand the first Israel.Christ doesnot
merely replaceIsrael and Adambybfing-
ing forth a new nation or a new humanity,
but he exchangesIsrael's unfaithfulness
with his faithfulness (3:21-31)and he
exchangesAdam's disobediencewith his
own obedience (5:12-19)so that his new
peoplewill be fully redeemed.
ENDNOTES
lDouglas Moo, The Epistleto the Romans
(New International Commentary on
the New Testament;Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 7996),206. Cf. Thomas R.
Schreiner,Romans(Baker Exegetical
York Harper & Row 1957),70; C. E. B.
Cranfield, The Epistleto the RomansQ
vols; International Critical Commentary;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975),1,:196.
2Mark Seifrid fastens attention on Rom
2:I2-16toargue that the MosaicLaw and
Natural Law both leavehumans without
excusebefore God but that Rom 3:19-20
shows the distinctive function of the
Mosaic Law in that it is the outward and
objectiveestablishmentof human guilt.
SeeMark A. Seifrid, "Natural Revelation
of the Law in Romans," TyndaleBulletin
49 (1998):715-29.
Whether Paul refers to
pagan Gentiles under Natural Law or to
Christian Gentileswith "thedeedrequired
by theLaw written on theirhearts"in Rom
2:14-15is disputed. For a full discussion
of the options, see SchreinegRomanq
119-26.
3Forexample,seeNiels Hyldahl, "Remi-
niscenceof the Old Testamentat Romans
i.23," New TestamentStudies2 (1956):
285-88.
4M.D. Hooker, 'Adam in Romansl," Nezo
Studies6 (1960):297-306.
Testament
5Hooker observes, "We have already
noted the connexionbetween Rom. i.23
and Ps.cvi (cv).20.Itseemspossiblethat
other passageshave influenced Paul's
thought at this point-in particular the
descriptions of idolatry in fer. ii.11 and
Deut. iv.15-18.. . . The language of Rom.
i.23 is not the only connexion"however,
which this passagehas with the early
chapters of Genesis.In particular, the
sequenceof events outlined in Rom.
It reminds us of the story of Adam
as it is told in Cen. i-iii. Of Adam it is
1T
supremely true that God mani- Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),68. Adam to Lasf (New York: Charles
elbid. That Witherington offers no "Paul sees
fested to him that which can be Scribner'sSons,1962),5:
known of him (a.19);that from the discussionat all Ps 106:20is glar- history gathering at nodal Points,
creationonwards,God's attributes ing since he suggeststhat Paul's and crystalizing upon outstanding
were clearly discernible to him in repeatedexprcssionparedakennutou figures-men who are notable in
the things which had been made, . . . eis(Rom 1:24,26,28)echoesthe themselvesas individual Persons,
and that he was thus without excuse words of Ps 106:41-kai paredoken but even more notable as rePre-
(a.20).Adam, aboveand before all autouseischeiras ethn,n(105:41;lxx). sentativefigures. Thesemen as it
men, knew God, but failed to hon- For this, seep. 65. were incorporate the human race,
'Adam, Israel and
our him as God, and grew vain in roN.T. Wright, or sectionsof it, within themselves,
his thinking and allowed his heart the Messiah,TheClimaxof theCoa- and the dealings they have with
to be darkened (r,.20).Adam's fall enants:Christand theLaw in Pauline God they have representatively
was the result of his desireto be as Theology(Minneapolis: Fortress, on behalf of their fellows. Not that
"jesus, each member of the race may not
God, to attain knowledge of good 7992),40. Wright observes,
and evil (Gen.iii.S),so that, claim- as last Adam, had revealed what and doesnot have his own relation
ing to be wise, he in fact becamea God'ssaving plan for the world had with God; but these fall into a pat-
fool (a. 21).Thus he not only failed really been-what Israel'svocation tern which may be describedunder
to give glory to God but, according had really been-by enacting it, a few names."
becoming obedient to death, even 1sHearthe allusions that draw atten-
to the rabbinic tradition, himself
lost the glory of God which was the death of the cross." tion back to the creation and fall
11Cf., "For
reflectedin his face(u.23).In believ- e.g.,Ernst Kdsemann,Commen- of Adam via Israel's idolatry.
ing the serpent'slie that his action tary onRomans(trans.and ed. Geof- God's invisible attributes, Particu-
would not lead to death (Gen.iii.4) frey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: larly his eternal power and divine
he turned his back on the truth of Eerdmans, 7980),44-47. nature, have been plainly seenfrom
God, and he disobeyed,and thus 12But,cf. N. T. Wright, "The Letter to the time of creationof the world in
gave his allegianceto a creature, the Romans: Introduction, Com- that theywere understoodthrough
the serpen! rather than to the Cre- mentary, and Reflections," in The rphathasbeenmade,for this reason
ator (2. 25).Adam, certainly, knew I'lew lnterpreter'sBible (1'2vols.; they are without excuse.Because,
God'sdikaioma(cf. Rom. v.12-14);by Nashville: Abin gdon, 2002),70:433. even though they knew God, lhey
"For Paul, as did not glorify him as God or offer
eating the forbidden fruit he not Wright comments,
only broke that dikaioma,but also for the psalmist, Israel rejected the thanks, but theybecame futile in their
consented with the action of Eve, covenant God and fell awaY into thinking and theirfoolish heart was
who had already taken the fruit (v. copying the pagans. . . . This not dsrkened.Eventhough they claimed
32)" (Ibid.,300-01). only anticipates the explicit turn to be wise, they becamefools and
5M.D. Hooker, 'A Further Note on in the argument at 2:17,but it also exchanged the glory of the incor-
Studies13
RomansI," I'JeutTestament looks ahead to 7:7-12,where once ruptible God for the likenessof the
ft967):181-83. again the narrativesof Adam and imageof corruptibleman and birds
7A. M. Wedderburn, 'Adam in Israel are woven together." and beastsand reptiles. Therefore
I.
13OnPaul'suseofpseudosinRoml:25, God handed them over in the
Paul's Letter to the Romans," in
"Is desiresof their hearts to unclean-
studiq Biblicq1978(Shefheld:]soT cf. Isa 44:20, there not a false-
Press,1980),413-30. hood in my right hand?" where the ness, in order that their bodies
8BenWitherington III (with Darlene noun refers to an idol, a false god. would be dishonored among them-
A
Hyatt),Paul'sLetterto theRomqns: laOn the representative nature of selves,because they exchangedthe
Commentary
Socio-Rhetoricql (Grand Israel, cf. C. K. Barrett, From First truth of Godfor thelie and raorshiped

42
 t:i seraedthe creaturerather than place of") and the genitive (Eurip- Gathercole adeptly identifies the
-':l ueator,who is blessed forever. "meas-
ides). Five times the rxx translates concept of God's ironic
{men" (Rom 1:20-25). mur . ., b' with allasso. . . en (Lev ure-for-measure punishment"
*5ee Hooker's comments cited in 27:10[2x], Ps 106:20,Jer 2:11.,and when he contends, "The action
:^:te5 above.SeeHyldahl;'ARemi- Hos 4:7). of the sinful human beings itself
:iscence of the Old Testamentat 21The primary use of allassointhe NT has an ironic element-a reversal
"change" (Acts 6:14;Gal whereby their desire is for the
R.rmansi.23,"286,concerningPaul's is to denote
rllusions to Gen 1:20ff. 4:20;l Cor 15:51,52). exact opposite of what it should be:
L. it plausible that Paul's words in 22Three manuscripts contain the aor- . their exchangeconsistsof getting
'a likenessof an image' . . . in placeof
Rom 1:18-"the wrath of God is ist middle €Ilaxanto(K 9'h c; 6, \2'h
'leing ' gLoryi. . . the contrastbeingbetween
revealedfr omheaoen"- allude c., 630,1,3th
c.).
"8e
:oJer2:12, appalled,O heavens, 23Cf. Leslie C. Alleru PsalmsL05-1.50 what is insubstantial-indeed,being
at this; be shocked,be utterly deso- (Word BiblicaI Commentary ; W aco, hn image of a likeness',it is doubly
late, declaresthe Lom"? The Lonn TX.: Word, 1983),48;and Cranfield, removed from the reality of the
adjuresIsraelthrough Jeremiahby Romans,1:120. object of an already misguided
invoking the heavens,not both the 2aCf.TenanceCallan, "Paul and the worship-and what is 'weighty';
"heavens and the earth" as when 10 (1990):
Golden CaIf," Proceedings . in place of the immortal one, they
God made his covenant with his 1-77. choosemortalobjectsof worship . . .
people (D eut 4:26;30:19
; 31.:28). 2sScott|. Hafemanrr, Paul, Moses, . in place of God,they serve people,
'-A.nyechoof Hos 4:7is more remote nnd the History of Israel (Peabody, birds,animalsandsnakes. . .(162)."
becauseit uses a completely differ- MA: Hendricksorr 1996),229-30.Cf. The primal sin of humanity,
ent idiom to expressthe exchange, Brevard Childs, TheBookof Exodus: namely,idol atry," tur ningin on itself
fithemi.. . eis. Commentary toward self-worship thery leads to
A Critical, Theological
'Nevertheless,some earlier com- (Philadelphia: Westmin ster, 7974), sexual relationships which mirror
mentators offered no awareness 565. Rabbinic literature associ- this sameturrrin se"(164).Gathercole
that Ps 106:20bears any function ates the golden calf incident with accurately identifies this measure-
in Paul's argument. See,e.g.,John Adam's fall, but usually with an for-measurepunishment this way:
"Humanityshouldbe orientedtoward
Murray, The Epistleto the Romans apologeticdefenseof Israel.See,e.g,
New InternationalCommentaryon b. Sanh.38b;102a;Mek. Bahodesh9; Godbutturns in on itself(Rom.1.25).
the New Testamen! Grand Rapids: Exod.Rab.21,.1; 30.7,32.L,7, 11,;43.2; Womanshould be oriented toward
Eerdmans, 7959),42-43.Remarkably, 45.2;46.1;47.72;Leo.Rab.1L.3;Num. man,but turns in on itself (Rom.1.26).
one recent commentary, though Rab.16.24;Qoh.Rab.8.I.3;9.71..L;Lam. Man should be oriented toward
acknowledging an allusion to Ps Rab. 1..3.28;Pesiq.Rab. 74.10;Pesiq. zlJoman,but turns in on itself (Rom.
106:20,suppressesthe significance Kah.37a;Tg.Neof.32.1.,
4, 8,19f,23f, 1..27)"(164).
"Paul Concerning Paul'suseof paredoken
of Paul'sallusive use of the passage 3'1,35. On these, see Callart
to link Israel'sfall into idolatry with and the Golden CaIf,"5,14f. (he gavethem over) Gathercolecon-
Adam's fall. SeeMoo, Epistleto the Simon Gathercole,"Sin in God's
26Cf. vincingly showsthat "God's'hand-
Romans,108-109. Seeesp. notes 83 Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 ing over'here is his personalaction
and 85. and7," in DioineandHumanAgency whereby,without withdrawing his
20ClassicalGreek renders the idiom in PauI and His Cultural Enuiron- presence,he gives the condemned
for '?xchange" differently in that ment(ed.l.M.G.Barclay and S.j. what they want-with the reward
the thing receivedis expressedwith Gathercole; Library of New Tes- ironically corresponding in some
the genitive alone (Aeschylus) or tament Studies; London: T. & T. way to the sin of idolatry-but with
with the preposition anti ("for," "irr Clark, Continuum, 2006),758-72. the result that it ends up compound-

13
 ing the divine judgment" (164).
27Cf.Hooker's description:"In believ-
ing the serpent'slie that his action
would not lead to death (Gen.iii.4)
he turned his back on the truth of
God, and he obeyed,and thus gave
his allegianceto a creature,the ser-
pent rather than to the Creator (o.
25)" ("Adam in Romans I," 300-01).
28leon Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,
1988),90.
2ecf.F. Godet, Commentaryon St.
Paul'sEpistleto theRomans(trans.A.
Cusin;New York:Funk & Wagnalls,
7892),108.
3oCranfield,Romans,123-24.Cf. Moo,
Romans,112.
Moo'scomments,how-
ever,suggestthat he mergesMorris'
first two senses/for Moo states,
"The ThessalonianChristians . . .
have reversed this exchange;they
'turned to Cod from idols, to serve
a living and true God' (1Thess.1:9)"
(112-13).
31A.B. Caneday,"'Christ hasbecome
a servant of the circumcision on
behalf of God'struthfulness'-jesus
as Isaiah'sServant of the Lord in
Romans15:B?"(unpublishedpaper
presented at the Upper Midwest
Region Meetings of the Society of
Biblical Literature, Aprll 76, 2004),
7-25.
32Kdsemann,
Romans,48. distorted imaging of God."
33JamesD. G. Dunn, RomansL-8 3sWedderburn,'Adam in Romans,"
(Word BiblicalCommentary;Dallas:
Word, 1988),63.
34Cf.A. B. Caneday,"Veiled Glory:
God's Self-Revelationin Human
Likeness-A Biblical Theology of
God's Anthropomorphic Self-Dis-
closure," Beyondthe Bounds:Open
TheismandtheUnderminingofBiblical
11
Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway, n . 8 5 ) .
2003),167-68:"Even though the man "Moo, for example,overstatesHook-
and the woman knew God because
God made them in his image and
likeness,they suppressedthis truthu
and the crafty serpent enticed the
woman. The serpent's temptation
promised knowledge of 'good and
evil,' asGod knows'good and evil.'
The woman expectedthat the fruit
would infuse her with wisdom, so
she ate the fruit and gave some to
the man. Together,they exchanged
the truth of God'swarning forthe lie
of the serpen! 'You will not surely
die.' They believed the forbidden
fruit would make them like God, so
they atein order that on their owr;
they might'be like God, know-
ing good and evil.' Discontented
with bearing God's likenessas his
endowed gift, they pursued what
they were already (God's likeness)
by eating the fruit of the tree that
God forbade.Becausethey heeded
the serpentand did not worship and
servetheir Creator,they exchanged
their created glory as the image of
God for their ironic, elusive, and
futile questto'be like God' on their
own terms. They becameidolaters.
Ironically, their eyesopened,not to
their likeness to God, but to their
nakedness,to their deformed and
419.
35Mooargues, "That Paul may view
the 'fall' of individual human
beings as analogousin someways 3eEdwardMartin Keazirian II, "Old
to the Fall of the first human pair is Testament Parallels in Romans
likely, but the text doesnot warrant
the conclusionthat he is specifically
describing the latter" (Romans,109,
er's argument as if shehad claimed
that Paulis "specificallydescribing"
Adam's fall rather than human
sinfulness.Hooker, however,states
her case carefully: "Parl is . . .
describing man's sin in relation to
its true Biblical setting-the Genesis
narrative of the Creation and the
Fall. . . . It would appearfrom this
remarkable parallelism that Paul's
account of man's wickedness has
been deliberately statedin terms of
the Biblicalnarrative of Adam's fall"
('Adam in RomansL" 30O301).
3sMinimizing Paul's use of Gen 1-3,
Moo makesmuch of the sequenceof
Paul's argument to contrast it with
the flow of the narrative in Gen-
esis 1-3."In Gen. 1-3,'idolatry' (the
desireto'be like God') precedesthe
FalLin Rom. L, a'fall' (therefusalto
honor God, v.21)precedesidolatry.
Then also . . . Rom. 1 focuses on
human neglect of 'natural revela-
tion' whereas Rom. 5:13-14shows
that Paul linked Adam with Israel
in being responsible for 'special
revelation.' Moreover, it is sig-
nificant that, although allusions to
Gen. 1 are found in Rom 1:18-32,
there are no clear allusions to Gen.
3-except,perhaps,with'death in v.
32.. . . Eveneikonphthartouanthrlpou
may depend on the description of
idolatry in Jewish polemic (cf. Wis.
13:13d.. .)ratherthan on Gen.1:26."
(Romans,109-10,n. 85).
1.:23,"(Th.M. thesis; Gordon-Con-
well Theological Seminary, 1993),
27.Keazirian states,"The psalmist
 incorporates the themes of cre-
atiory fall, and redemption into the
psalm'srecounting of' Israel'sstory
in such a way as to universalize
lsrael'sexperienceand present at
least a paradigm, if not an actual
tvpe, of cosmic redemption."
'Callary "Paul and the Golden Calf,"
5.
'For helpful summaries of Adam's
placein Romans7 and the relevant
iiterature see Schreinet,Romans,
i59ff; and Moo, Romans,425ff.

45