Romans Chapter 1: One Passage At A Time

leecappella · Hamster Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 89

There is more to this chapter than meets the eye. You have to take into consideration the mind and personality of Paul. If we could know in great detail his cultural surroundings, influences, and what he thought about everything he knew of and his opinions about those things, we would have a better understanding as to where he was coming from in Romans 1. In our day and time, we have our lingo, language, slang, etc. and we know what is meant by certain words and phrases, for the most part and if you are hip to these things. In Paul's day and time, I would imagine that they had words that meant certain things in one way and other things in another way, as we do. If we could only know what their language and slang was like and what it meant, for sure. We can only work with what we have and what we know for certain or within possibility of the sources we access. For Paul to make mention of the gospel's availability to ALL people and then express his obligation to preach it to all classes and kinds of people and thereafter talk about a particular group of people as if they were exempt from the gospel's effects makes no sense. It would only make sense if that group of people he were describing were people who refused to hear the gospel, cared not for the gospel, and were in opposition to it and the God who gave it. This is exactly what he is speaking of, in my opinion. Using the King James bible and definitions using Strong's concordance, consider the following information. Please note that some Strong's definitions also include definitions of the related words that belong to any said term.

Romans 1:18 is where Paul's writing takes a different turn in contrast to its opening verses up to verse 17. Paul opens as an advocate for the gospel and its power of salvation to ALL who hear it and believe. He is in great support of the good news and how it can benefit EACH and EVERY soul of any class and kind. Verse 18 is where the subject changes.

1. Romans 1:18
**This verse makes mention of God's anger towards ungodly and unrighteous people who know that God's existence is truth and yet they continue to act and live as if He never existed while they hold the truth of His existence in themselves. This could be anyone.

2. Ungodliness #765 - godlessness, irreverent in thought and action. (verse 18)
**This definition establishes persons who are without God, who do not reverence God in any way shape or form in their lives. This could be anyone.

3. Unrighteousness #93 - wrongdoing, wickedness, to hurt, to mistreat, to injure, unjustness. (verse 18)
**This definition applies to all humans. Anyone who is biased in their view that homosexuals are 'against nature' would apply this term to homosexuals. Since my premise is just the opposite, I do not believe that this definition refers to sexual orientation in general.

4. Romans 1:20
**This verse is clear in its context about supporting God's existence and how we as humans are made aware of His existence by means of things He created. It ends stating, "...so that they are without excuse". Clearly, the context thus far in this chapter from verse 18 onward pertains to those who deny God's existence and His position as Creator of the world. This refers to persons who deny these facts.

5. Romans 1:21
**Obviously, "...when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,..." refers to those who have denied God and His existence. Paul describes these people as those who have abandoned God in thought, understanding, emotion, and in their souls. Their judgments, thoughts, and emotions were darkened with ignorance (lacking intelligence and knowledge). These are people who appear to have never been told the truth of God at all, although the truth was made manifest in them, according to verse 19.

6. Romans 1:22, 23
**These verses seems to say that the persons Paul is describing thought highly of themselves apart from God. In doing so, they became fools in their selfishness and eventually made attempts to convey to themselves what and who they thought God was. Despite the fact God has made Himself known in us, according to previous verses, these people undoubtedly rejected the one true God and in their foolishness and vain imaginations, they sought to create their own concept of the Divine in the form of images and idols. They took what God Almighty had created and made idols of His creations, be they animal or human imitations.

7. Romans 1:24, 25
**Verse,24 in the King James, begins with 'wherefore'. This means 'for this reason' or 'because of this'. The reason is given in the previous verse or verses. Verse 23 mentioned that these persons made God into a corruptible god in the form of idolatrous images resembling humans and animals. FOR THAT REASON (wherefore), God gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts. This 'giving up' does not mean God caused them to be unclean, but it means that because they abandoned Him for false gods, He gave them up or abandoned them to do what they willed through the coveting and cravings of their own hearts. Much like when the parents of a troubled teen try all they can to get through to their child and nothing works. Some parents kick the child out or allow them to stay at home and continue to live as they want. They give them up, in a sense, to do as they wish.

8. Romans 1:26, 27
**Verse 26 begins with 'for this cause'. Another way to put it is 'for this reason'. Because they worshipped idols instead of God, God abandoned them after no success in getting through to them. They wanted to do what they wanted and He yielded to their idolatrous, vile affections. Sources that research the history of pagan idolatrous religions will reveal just what these vile affections were more specifically.

9. Vile #26 - dishonor (treat shamefully), shameful (filthy, sensuality, wantoness(unchaste, undisciplined, no regard for others), lewdness(obscene, vulgar), corrupt in morals, debauchery, to weaken in discipline or spirit, etc. (verse 26)(This defintion also includes related word defintions.)
**These people had affections that were dishonoring, shameful, filthy, lewd, vulgar, undisciplined, etc. It sounds as if a lot of orgy-like things were going on in relation to the new found 'faith' of these idolaters. Their imaginations seemed to have created a concept of what is divine according to their standards, which weren't very high ones. In short, there seemed to be no limits or discipline in regards to anything they wanted to do. They were the creators of these false idols and so all things were justified based upon idolatrous grounds. Historical information regarding the practices of particular pagan religions reveal all kinds of sexual predicaments going on. Vile seems a fitting greek word.

10. Change #337 - to exchange
**This is not hard to understand. We all have exchanged something at one time or another. It implies that one had to have had something in their possession first in order to replace or exchange it for something else. Verses 23, 25, and 26 all include the term 'change' and indicate that possession was had intellectually or in some other way. These person had the knowledge of God, but they changed Him into something else likened to corruptible man and animals (idols).

11. Natural #5446 - pertaining to things of nature; instinctive. (Also related to #5453, to grow up, come up) (verses 26, 27)
**This refers to that which one has grown up with instinctively by nature or what is innately natural to an individual, according to the greek definition. However, if you consider some of Paul's other uses for the term 'natural' and 'nature', you will find that he seems to have a particular view concerning the words 'natural' and 'nature'. In Romans 2:27, he refers to those who are Gentiles (uncircumcised) by nature. In Galatians 2:15, he speaks of those who are Jews by nature. Romans 2:14 has Paul speaking of Gentiles who follow their conscience and do by nature what the law requires. He says in 1Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?". He also refers to God as acting against nature or contrary to nature in Romans 11:24 when making reference to how God grafted the Gentiles into the olive tree, being the Jews, making them both now one and no longer separate in Christ. If to act contrary to or against nature is in some way immoral according to Paul's supposed meaning of 'nature' and 'natural', then he would be implying in Romans 11:24 that God acted immorally, but that is not the case. For Paul, it seems that something is 'natural' when it responds according to its own kind. When it is as it is expected to be. For Paul, it is possible that the word 'natural' does not mean "in accord with universal laws". Instead, to him it seems to mean what is characteristic, consistent, ordinary, standard, expected, and regular. To act as expected and to do so consistently is to be natural. To act in a manner that is surprising, unusual, beyond the routine, out of character is to act unnaturally. This seems to be Paul's defintion of the words. Surely, a man's hair growing long is a natural process and not unnatural. Atleast, not in the defintion of universal laws of nature. However, in regards to the defintions of what is expected, according to its own kind, what is ordinary, standard, and regular, the hair thing in Romans 11:24 would make more sense. This is what I mean when I say we have to know Paul's personality, etc. We can read the bible and have our definitions, but what were Paul's definitions? We read our thing into it, but there could have been an entirely different viewpoint Paul was coming from with definitions and cultural slang from his own upbringing, society, and culture.

12. Use #5540 - relations, functions. (verses 26, 27)
**With the greek definition of 'natural' #5446 above, we can combine the two words together and say that 'natural use' means naturally instinctive relations or naturally instinctive functions. What type of relationship is naturally instinctive or naturally innate to you? All men are not naturally relationship oriented towards women and all women are nto naturally relationship oriented towards men. We know this today, having more knowledge than Paul's world did. I know that a lot of people think homosexuals CHOOSE to be in same sex relationships and that it is not a matter of the heart as heterosexuals may say is the case with heterosexuals. It appears to me that Paul viewed all men naturally inclined or attracted towards the opposite sex and all women in the same manner. It fits his definition of nature and natural as stated above. If he meant it in the context of laws of nature, then it would appear that Paul lacked the knowledge of what is naturally instincitive for one person does not make it also naturally instinctive for another person. We are all unique in this way.

13. Romans 1:28
**This verse states that these people did not like to keep God in their thoughts and He abandoned them to a reprobate mind.

Reprobate #96 - failing the test, rejected (opposite of #1209: to welcome, receive, accept) (verse 28)

**It would appear that God abandoned them because they refused to acknowledge Him. They had minds that rejected God, minds that did not accept God, and minds that failed the test of coming to God in relationship. The result of doing such was a people who led their own lives without God's guidance in the Spirit and led their own way in vain imaginations, concotions, and false idols. In short, they lived life after the flesh.

Either Paul viewed all human creation as heterosexually inclined or he was aware of those who are naturally and instinctivley inclined towards same sex relationships. In either case, Romans 1 takes issue with those who have denied God and do not include God in their scheme of things. This seems to be his central theme. If Paul saw all humans as heterosexually inclined then, in relation to those who reject and are unwelcoming of God, Romans 1 is describing those who simply were acting against or contrary to their naturally innate inclinations toward the opposite sex and burning in lust for the sole purpose of idolatrous related rituals. If Paul was aware of natural homosexuals and not heterosexuals who were inflamed with a burning lust (verse 27) resulting in them acting contrary to their naturally instinctive inclinations for the opposite sex, then in relation to those types of persons who denied God on every level, Romans 1 is speaking ONLY about heterosexuals who simply acted sexually contrary to their natures for idolatrous associated purposes. In short, Paul either saw one, some, or all of the following in light of the many possiblilities in Romans 1:

1. Denying God is something only homosexuals do and this is what he is speaking of in Romans 1.
2. Heterosexuals engage in same sex acts as a result of their denial of God and this is what he is speaking of in Romans 1.
3. One is a homosexual as a result of their denial of God and this is what he is speaking of in Romans 1.
4. If you are a homosexual, you are not accepting of God and this is what he is implying in Romans 1.
5. Engaging in same sex acts causes people who are naturally made heterosexuals to deny God and the results are either a self made homosexual who was originally created heterosexual or a God made heterosexual engaging in same sex acts against his or her naturally instinctive nature and that is what he is saying in Romans 1.
6. Paul was simply speaking of the pagan rituals of pagan religions he had come to know and had heard about and same sex acts were involved in their ritualistic worship. In this case, any of the above theories could apply.

**Please note that I have tried to make a distinction between BEING naturally homosexual and simply ENGAGING in same sex acts. There is a difference in my opinon. After all, are you heterosexual ONLY because you have sex with the opposite sex or is there MORE to being attracted to the opposite sex than the sex itself? When cosidering the first 4 theories above, one must ask the question, "Did Paul believe in naturally made homosexuals or ONLY in naturally made heterosexuals?" The fifth theory answers the question itself. It would also be good to answer true or false to the above theories and see how they stand up to the life of any gay individual you may know personally. Remember, there are homosexual christians as well as homosexuals who are NOT christians.

[This message has been edited by leecappella (edited 12-06-2002).]

[This message has been edited by leecappella (edited 12-06-2002).]

[This message has been edited by leecappella (edited 01-15-2003).]

Tiger75

quote:
Originally posted by leecappella:
[B]There is more to this chapter than meets the eye. You have to take into consideration the mind and personality of Paul.[B]

Why? All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

leecappella · Hamster Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 89

Tiger75:

Please elaborate on what that scripture you quoted means to you. Thanks.

Tiger75

quote:
Originally posted by leecappella:
Tiger75:

Please elaborate on what that scripture you quoted means to you. Thanks.

That scripture tells me that God has given his 'scribes' the words to put in the bible and not left them to give their own thoughts on the matters in hand.

leecappella · Hamster Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 89

Tiger75:

Even so, if that is what that means to you, one would still have to find out the definitons of the words used by those 'scribes'. The language of the 'scribes' was not your language, english, therefore it would seem to me that one would have to find out the meaning of the words used by the 'scribes'. In this case, Romans 1, there are several terms Paul uses and they are defined according to his language and whater else way of speaking he knew of. It seems apparent in his usage of the term "nature" in regards to men having long hair that he is not talking about universal laws of nature like you may assume the term "nature" would mean to you. To determine what an author's definition of a particular word is in his language, one usually looks at other places in scripture where that same author uses that same word and it aids in finding out their understood definition of any given word, which is sometimes different than our english, modern day definitions. So, even if you believe that God gave 'scribes' the word directly and the 'scribes', although fallible humans, received and understood it without any human interference resulting in an infallible retrieving of what God's intentions were, one would still have to find out what the defintions of the words God gave were. That is all I am saying. The scribes did not speak english, so their defintions of particular terms received from God would not necessarily have an english defintition, but a definition in their own language, not ours.

[This message has been edited by leecappella (edited 12-10-2002).]

feetxxxl · Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject:

im having problems with my computer so i will have to answer in parts. in the beginning of romans, paul states that god is against all sin. then paul goes onto say that even those who dont live under the law have no excuse because god communicated his eternal power and divine nature thru his creation. (this is an addition of their creation thru the spirit of christ and his writing his laws on their hearts.) so repeating no one has an excuse to sin, neither those under the law and those not under the law. then paul goes on to lay out the basis for all sin:(1) not honoring or giving thanks to to god(2) exchanging the glory of god for the image of mortal man(3) exchanging the truth of god for a lie.( because we all have gods laws written on our hearts we all are aware of the truth thru his laws)(4) worshipping and serving the created instead of the creator(this means no only man himself but everything he has created: concepts, creeds, wealth, corporations, even biblical interruptations)(john 5: 39) you search the scriptures because you think that in them you will have eternal life;it is these that testify about me;and you are unwilling to come to me so that you may have life.)(5) not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of god. in romans 2 he goes onto say that those who live under the law do the same things as those who do not live under law( example divorce percentages). their judgement will be held against them on the day of gods wrath. not one is righteous, not one. all have gone their own way.

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7003 Location: USA

i was just perusing old topics and ran across this one. Let's take a look at what Lee has to say, and see if he is on track...

First I want to point out one important point which underlies the entirety of lee's post:

Da Blonde Bombshell · Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 10:18 am Post subject:

I've been reading the chapter on Paul in Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally for our Bible study. As always, context is important. Paul's epistles are what we have of written records of Paul's correspondence with the churches he established. We do not have, to complete our view of what was going on, correspondence that went the other way. Borg comments that the epistles are "...conversations in context" but "only one half of a conversation". We should not see the epistles as a summary of Paul's message, Borg warns: "The contents of his letters has little to do with what he thinks most important...the agenda for Paul's letters is not set by him but by them [the Christian communities]." For instance, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 where Paul says "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" he is according to most scholars quoting a member of the Corinthian Christian community-thus Paul's reputation as an anti-sex prig may very well be undeserved!

The verses relevant to the issue at hand, Romans 1:26-27, are part of a litany of sins of "men"-(Romans 1:18)- the obvious antecedent to the "them" and "they" in verses that follow. Orgaistic sex was a common practice in GraecoRoman culture generally associated with spring and fall festivals dedicated to Ceres/Demeter (godess of agriculture), Dionysus/Bacchus (God of wine), and in Roman times, the Saturnalia, or Harvest feast of Saturn (In Greece, Cronus/Saturn was a villian who was king of the Titans who preceeded the Olympians and to the Greeks a representative of a bygone era. Fearing his children would depose Cronus ate five of them. One, Zeus/Jupiter, escaped and returned to slice open his father to free his sibs (Poseidon/Neptune, Hades/Pluto, Hera/Juno, Hestia/Vesta, and Demeter/Ceres). The Romans appropriated the discredited Cronus and renamed him Saturn and made him God of the Harvest. Just like at festivals today, as we can all observe through the miracle of video with titles such as "Girls Gone Wild!" at spring break and Mardi Gras, bad behavior abounded, often fueled by alcohol and other chemicals. It is obvious that is what Paul was referring to in these passages. It certainly does not apply to loving same gender relationships of today.
_________________
"Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials." (James 1:2)

"The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan values and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism." -Reinhold Niebuhr

summertime · Rattlesnake Joined: 21 Aug 2003 Posts: 447

feetxxxl · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:56 pm Post subject:

romans one is about trhe basis of all sin.

summertime · Rattlesnake Joined: 21 Aug 2003 Posts: 447

summertime · Rattlesnake Joined: 21 Aug 2003 Posts: 447