Read Pt. 1 here.
Read Pt. 2 here.
As I read through 1.18-25 last week I decided to list statements that sounded like references to Adam. I have compiled this list:
v. 18b τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων (“suppress the truth in unrighteousness”): Adam received the law of God yet he did nothing to defend his wife Eve while she was being deceived by the serpent.
v. 19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν (“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them”): Who personifies this reality better than Adam. While the Apostle is writing his condemnation of humanity in general in vv. 18-32 it should be noted that Adam is the paradigm. He was the only person who can really, really fit this description while rejecting God. Everyone else has very indirect interaction with God in contrast.
v. 2ob ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου (“since the creation of the world”): While it would appear that this indictment covers everyone (and I think it does) there is only one person who was around at the very beginning of the biblical narrative: Adam. No one else would have known the “power” and “deity” of God like him.
v. 21 διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν ἀλλὰ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία (“For even though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened”): Adam (and Eve) knew God as God. Yet they listened to a serpent instead. This is a denial of God as God. Their obedience toward the serpent was motivated by their desire for the one thing that God denied them: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They ignored everything else that God had given them. There is no better way to describe this than that they were simply not thankful. This resulted in “futile thinking” and a “darkened heart”.
v. 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν (“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”): The serpent tricked them into seeing themselves as being able to know things like God knows things. They assumed that they were able to handle the knowledge of good and evil. They affirmed the serpent when he proposed that maybe God didn’t want them to be like him. In the end, they became fools.
v. 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν (“and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human being and birds and beast and reptiles”): It is here we began to see the transition toward “Adam as humanity”. It appears to me that the “glory of the immortal God” is another way of describing what we would call the imago Dei or what Gen. 1.26 describes as the “image…and likeness” of God. In 2.7 those who seek “immortality” receive it. This seems to indicate that humans get to share in the “immortality” of God that they once forsook.
Likewise, these categories match the LXX in Gen. 1.20-27. We find the birds, the beast, the reptiles (or “creeping things”), and, of course, humanity. What Adam and Eve were created to rule it appears they worshiped according to the Apostle. It would seem that the best example of this was their obedience of the serpent rather than they “subduing” of creation (cf. Gen. 1.28). For Paul this obedience is reenacted whenever humans create idols worshiping the animals they were supposed to control in honor of the Creator (see v. 25b as well)
v. 25a οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει (“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie”): While the grammatic construct ἐν τῷ ψεύδει can mean “for a lie” because it is part of a prepositional phrase, it would seem to me that even if we use the indefinite article there is a particular “lie” in place. Another option would be that there is a general “error” into which all humans fall. Yet the flow of this whole passage makes me think that whether we say “the lie” or “a lie” this whole thing is informed by Gen. 3.4 where the serpent tells Adam and Eve that God was wrong and that their disobedience will not lead to death.
In v. 32 Paul clearly points out abouts the sins he just listed “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Yes, the “righteous decree” is embodied in the Law (for the Jew, 2.12b) first and foremost, yet there is a “law” that has been embedded in the human psyche that holds all humans accountable (see 2.12a). Adam’s reception of God’s commandment in Eden is an good example of this.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
I think that with good certainty, τω ψευδει should be understood as definite. I think the problem would come if it didn’t have the definite article because then it could be understood as either definite or indefinite, and one would have to argue harder for its definiteness.
@JohnDave: The lack of the article would guarantee that it is indefinite, though the presence of the article doesn’t guarantee that it is definite. I do think that in this case the article makes sense to point toward a particular lie. Even if translated as “a lie”, which all English translations which I have read do, it would be very nuanced in that there is a type of lie which everyone believes.
Brian,
I think the reverse is true: if a word lacks the definite article, it can be either definite or indefinite. So says Wallace,
“It is not necessary for a noun to have the article in order to be definite. But conversely, a noun cannot be indefinite when it has the article. Thus it may be definite without the article, and it must be definite with the article” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 243).
I wasn’t able to see exactly how Wallace defined “definite” because I looked GGBB up on Google Books but I would think something like the word ἡ χάρις, even though it has the article, isn’t a particular grace, but is pointing toward conceptualization.
@JohnDave: But I think this is different when the article is in a prepositional phrase, which is the case here. No?
I don’t think so. I didn’t find anything about articles in a prepositional phrase. Do you have Wallace or Mounce on you?
I don’t have it on me but when I wrote part one of this series someone pointed it out. I browsed through my Mounce and Wallace, but I couldn’t find it. I do vaguely remember learning it in class though. That being said, vaguely isn’t very assuring.
I’ll check it when I get home tonight. I wonder if Stanley Porter has something on that. As I think about this, I think that articles follow a noun point more toward conceptualization, at least, according to Wallace, that is the basic force of the article. The only problem I have is that a lie is generally not a concept, so I think the definite article points to a specific lie here.
Sounds good, let me know what Porter says. I need for grammar resources at home.
I couldn’t find Porter but I found Wallace’s toned down syntax. He says,
“Thus, when a noun is the object of a preposition, it does not require the article to be definite: if it has the article, it must be definite: if it lacks the article, it may be definite” (p. 110).
In the full syntax GGBB the page should be 247.
I need to learn Greek. I’ve concentrated so much on Hebrew that I have never taken the opportunity to learn. I do have Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. Is that a good book to use or do you recommend a different source?
@JohnDave: That is interesting. It would run contrary to what Ray Aguliar said here as a comment in the first part of the series. It would also run opposite to how every English translation interprets it. I have found nothing but “a lie”.
@Ryan: Mounce is good for learning to read. If you want to be a grammarian then I would find Mike Aubrey’s blog and ask him what textbook he would recommend.
the ‘a lie’ consensus among English translators is the best option. ‘A lie’ there implies a definite lie. This lie is not named. It is as definite as ‘the truth’ about God.