^1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [n. 123]
^1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they had not glorified him as God or given thanks, but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. [n. 126]
^1:22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [n. 131]
^1:23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things. [n. 132]
^1:24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves, [n. 137]
^1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [n. 141]

123. After showing that truth about God was known by the gentiles, he now states that they were guilty of the sins of ungodliness and injustice.

First, he shows this with regard to the sin of impiety;

second, in regard to injustice, at and as they liked not to have (Rom 1:28).

But someone might believe that they would be excused from the sin of ungodliness on account of ignorance, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Timothy: I received mercy, because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim 1:13).

First, therefore, he shows that they are without excuse;

second, he states their sin, at and they changed the glory.

124. In regard to the first it should be noted that ignorance excuses from guilt, when it precedes and causes guilt in such a way that the ignorance itself is not the result of guilt; for example, when a person, after exercising due caution, thinks he is striking a foe, when he is really striking his father. But if the ignorance is caused by guilt, it cannot excuse one from a fault that follows. Thus, if a person commits murder, because he is drunk, he is not excused from the guilt, because he sinned by intoxicating himself; indeed, according to the Philosopher, he deserves a double penalty.

125. First, therefore, he states his intention, saying so, i.e., things about God are so well known to them, that they may be without excuse, i.e., they cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance: whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:17); wherefore, you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1).

126. Second, he proves his statement at because that, when they knew.

First, he shows that their first guilt did not proceed from ignorance;

second, that their ignorance proceeded from this guilt, at but became vain.

127. That their basic guilt was not due to ignorance is shown by the fact that, although they possessed knowledge of God, they failed to use it unto good. For they knew God in two ways: first, as the supereminent being, to whom glory and honor were due. They are said to be without excuse, therefore, because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, either because they failed to pay him due worship or because they put a limit to his power and knowledge by denying certain aspects of his power and knowledge, contrary to Ecclesiastes: when you exalt him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30).

Second, they knew him as the cause of all good things. Hence, in all things he was deserving of thanks, which they did not render; rather, they attributed their blessings to their own talent and power. Hence, he adds or given thanks, namely, to the Lord: give thanks to him in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18).

128. Then when he says but became vain he shows that in their case, ignorance was the result of their guilt.

First, he states his charge;

second, he explains it, at for, professing themselves.

129. First, then, he mentions the guilt which caused their ignorance, when he says, became vain.

For something is futile when it lacks stability or firmness. But God alone is changeless: I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6). Consequently, the human mind is free of futility only when it leans on God. But when God is rejected and the mind rests in creatures, it incurs futility: for all men who were ignorant of God were foolish and could not know God from the good things which are seen (Wis 13:1); the Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain (Ps 94:11). In their thoughts they became vain, because they put their trust in themselves and not in God, ascribing their blessings not to God but to themselves, as the Psalmist says: our lips are with us; who is our master? (Ps 11:4).

130. Second, he mentions the ignorance which followed, when he says was darkened, i.e., by the fact that their foolish heart was darkened, i.e., deprived of the light of wisdom, through which man truly knows God. For just as a person who turns his bodily eyes from the sun is put in darkness, so one who turns from God, presuming on himself and not on God, is put in spiritual darkness: where there is humility, which subjects a man to God, there is wisdom; where there is pride, there is a disgrace (Prov 11:2); you have hidden these things from the wise, as they seemed to themselves, and revealed them to babes, i.e., to the humble (Matt 11:25); the gentiles live in the futility of their mind; they are darkened in their understanding (Eph 4:17).

131. Then when he says professing themselves he explains his statement.

And first, how they became futile in their thinking, when he says professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Professing themselves, i.e., ascribing wisdom to themselves as of themselves: woe to those who are wise in their own eyes (Isa 5:21); how can you say to Pharaoh: I am the son of the wise, a son of ancient kings? Where now are your wise men? (Isa 19:11).

Second, he explains his statement that their foolish heart was darkened when he says they became fools to the point of acting contrary to divine wisdom: every man is stupid and without knowledge of his own on which he presumed (Jer 10:14).

132. Then when he says and they changed the glory, he mentions the punishment for the gentiles’ sin of ungodliness.

First, in regard to sinning against God’s glory;

second, how they sinned against the truth of nature itself, at who changed the truth.

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he sets forth the sin of ungodliness;

second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

133. Their sin, indeed, was that, so far as in them lay, they transferred divine honor to something else: my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit (Jer 2:11).

First, therefore, he mentions what they changed;

second, that into which they changed it, at into the likeness.

134. In regard to the first, three things should be noted on the part of God.

First, his glory, which he mentions when he says and they changed the glory. This can be interpreted in two ways: first, as referring to the glory with which man gives glory to God by rendering him the worship of latria: to the only God be honor and glory (1 Tim 1:17). They exchanged this, when they paid to others the worship due to God. Second, as referring to the glory with which God is glorious, which is incomprehensible and infinite: he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). This glory, of course, is nothing less than the brilliance of the divine nature; for he dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16).

This glory they exchanged, when they attributed it to other things, for men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood (Wis 14:21).

Second, his immortality is noted when he says incorruptible. For he alone is perfectly incorruptible who is entirely unchangeable; for every change is a form of ceasing to be. Hence, it is said: he alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16).

Third, he notes the sublimity of his nature, when he says God, for it is said: great is the Lord (Ps 48:1).

135. On the part of that into which they exchanged it, three corresponding things are mentioned. For in contrast to glory he says into the likeness of the image, i.e., for a likeness of something produced in the form of an image. For it is plain that the likeness in an image is subsequent to the thing whose image it is. But God’s glory or brilliance is the principle of every nature and form; consequently, when they exchanged God’s glory for images, they put the first being in last place: for a father consumed with grief made an image of his child, who had been suddenly taken from him (Wis 14:15).

In contrast to immortal he says corruptible: what profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? (Ps 30:9), i.e., what good is a dead thing? He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead (Wis 15:17).

In contrast to God he says man: I will not show partiality to any man and I will not equate God with man (Job 32:21).

But what is more abominable, man exchanged God’s glory not only for man, who is made to the image of God, but even for things inferior to man. Hence, he adds of birds, things that fly, and of fourfooted beasts, things that walk, and of creeping things, things that crawl. He omits fish as being less familiar to ordinary human life. Now all these things were put under man by God: you have put all things under his feet (Ps 8:8); go in and see the vile abominations that they are committing here. So I went in and saw; and there, portrayed upon the wall round about were all kinds of creeping things and loathsome beasts (Ezek 8:9).

136. It might be mentioned, as a Gloss says, that from the time of Aeneas’ arrival in Italy, images of men were cultivated, e.g., Jupiter, Hercules, and so on. But after the conquest of Egypt during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the Romans took up the worship of animal images (on account of the figures of animals discovered in the sky), to which the Egyptians, given to astrology, rendered divine worship. Hence, the Lord himself instructed the children of Israel raised in Egypt against such worship, when he said: beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, you be drawn away and worship them (Deut 4:19).

137. Then when he says wherefore, God gave them up he mentions the punishment for such a sin.

Here it should be noted that man holds a place midway between God and the beasts and has something in common with both: with God, intellectuality; with animals, sensibility. Therefore, just as man exchanged that which was of God for what is bestial, so God subjected the divine in man, namely reason, to what is of the beast in him, his sensual desire, as it is stated: man cannot abide in his pomp (Ps 49:20), i.e., understand the likeness of the divine image in him through reason, he is like the beasts that perish. This, therefore, is why he says wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, so that their reason would be ruled by the desires of the heart, namely, lustful affections, about which he says below: make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences (Rom 13:14). But this is contrary to man’s natural order, in which reason dominates the sense appetites: its desire is under you and you must master it (Gen 4:7).

Consequently, he releases men to the desires of the heart as to cruel masters: I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master (Isa 19:4).

138. It is chiefly with respect to the sense appetite that a certain bestial derangement is present in carnal sins. For the pleasures of touch, which delight gluttony and lust, are common to us and to beasts. Hence, they are more detestable, being more brutish, as the Philosopher says in Ethics III.

This is designated when he says unto uncleanness, which refers to sins of the flesh, as is clear from Ephesians: every fornicator or impure man (Eph 5:5); because it is especially through such sins that man turns to and is drawn to what is beneath him. For a thing is said to be impure or tainted from being mixed with something base, as silver mixed with lead. Hence, in explanation he continues: to dishonor, by base and unclean acts, their own bodies among themselves, i.e., not as though compelled by others, for example, by savages, but they do this among themselves spontaneously. Below: has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vase for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9:21). Namely, for menial use.

139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).

The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man’s affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one’s first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.

Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

140. It should be borne in mind, however, that sin as such cannot be a punishment, because we suffer punishment against our will, whereas sin is voluntary, as Augustine says. But because sin has certain features contrary to the will of the sinner, it is by reason of them that a sin is called a punishment of a previous sin. One of these features is something preceding the sin, as the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man sins. Another is something that accompanies the sin either interiorly, as that the mind is disarranged; hence Augustine says in Confessions I: you have commanded it, O Lord, and so it comes to pass that every disarranged mind is a punishment to itself; or in regard to its outward acts, which involve difficulties and labors, as sinners aver: we journeyed through trackless deserts (Wis 5:7). The third feature is something that follows the sin, such as remorse of conscience, bad reputation, and so on.

141. Then, when he says, who changed the truth, he mentions the sin of ungodliness committed against the truth of the divine nature.

First, he mentions the sin;

second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

142. The divine nature can be considered in two ways: in one way, as being the first truth. In this respect he says that they changed the truth of God into a lie.

This can be taken in two ways: first, that they changed the true knowledge they received from God into false dogmas with their perverse reasoning; for example when they claimed that certain idols are gods or that God is not all-powerful or all-knowing: they have taught their tongue to speak lies (Jer 9:5). In another way, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, because they attributed the nature of divinity, which is truth itself, to an idol, which is a lie, inasmuch as it is not God: our fathers have inherited nothing but lies; worthless things in which there is no profit. Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods! (Jer 16:19).

The divine nature can be considered in another way as being the source of existence for all things though creation. Consequently, men owed him worship: inwardly, the worship of a pious love: if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, him he hears (John 9:31); outwardly, the service of latria: the Lord, your God, shall you adore and him alone shall you serve (Deut 9:13).

143. Then he continues, charging that they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator. For they worshipped heavenly bodies and air and water and other such things: they supposed that fire or wind or swift air or the circle of the stars (Wis 13:2).

With these words he censures the wise men of the gentiles who, although they never believed that anything divine was present in images, as the followers of Hermes believed, or that the fables created by poets concerning the gods were true, nevertheless paid divine worship to certain creatures, thus lending support to the fables. Thus, Varro supposed that the universe was God on account of its soul and taught that divine worship can be paid to the whole universe, namely, to the air, which they called Juno, to the water, which they called Liaeus, and to other things. Even the Platonists taught that divine worship was owed to all the rational substances above us; for example, to demons, to the souls of the heavenly bodies, and to the intelligences, i.e., the separated substances.

Now, although we should show some reverence to those above us, it should never be the worship of latria, which consists chiefly in sacrifices and oblations, through which man professes God to be the author of all good things. Similarly, in any kingdom certain honors are due the supreme ruler and it is not lawful to transfer them to anyone else.

144. And for this reason he adds who is blessed, i.e., whose goodness is evident, just as we are said to bless God, when we admit his goodness with our heart and express it orally: when you bless him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30).

He adds forever because his goodness is everlasting; it depends on no one else, but is the source of all good. For this reason the worship of latria is due him.

He ends with amen to indicate absolute certainty: he who blesses himself in the land shall be blessed by the God of truth (Isa 65:16). Amen, i.e., it is true, or so be it.

145. It seems that the Apostle touches on the three theologies of the gentiles.

First, the civil, which was observed by their priests adoring idols in the temple; in regard to this he says: they changed the glory of the incorruptible God.

Second, the theology of fables, which their poets presented in the theater. In regard to this he says: who changed the truth of God into a lie.

Third, their natural theology, which the philosophers observed in the world, when they worshipped the parts of the world. In regard to this he says: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.