# Greek of Romans 1:18-23



## Bryan (Jun 7, 2004)

The following was posted on another message board I'm on. Now I don't know Greek, but the author of this seems to be going against what I clearly read in the english (From what I understand, it's kinda rambled how it was written). I'm wondering if anyone on here can offer me any help to understand if what this guy is saying about the greek holds any weight or not. He's commenting on Romans 1:18-32:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 18 and 21 list for us the proper subject of the entire conversation and dicusses it in terms of the genetive of adikai. It comes to those whose worldliness clouds or stifles the truth as being the subjects of god's wrath. Ungodliness also works as injustice, and no clear indication necessitates either translation. The individuals without excuse in verse 21 are not homosexuals, but worldly individuals who god has left to their passions.

24-25: epithumiais refers to desires and cravings in general, strong ones but not necessarily sexual ones. It's also highly general, making no clear distinction as to what is being done, save a loss of control of one's passions.

Consider this from grecian and roman perspective in light of aristotelian and epicurian ethics. This loss of passion is inexcusable and Paul is speaking to a roman audience.

26-27: Pathos-strong desire or passion. Atimias-dishonorable. The phrasing of relations between men here is something closer to rape than it is to just homosexual relations. In many ways, the situation is similar to sodom and gomorrah. The punishment is the &quot;due for their actions,&quot; and is without otherwordly connotations. They destroy themselves in the midst of their own inflamed passions, their fates similar to the completely lost causes of the two ancient cities.

This standpoint seems even stronger considering the continued theme through verses 28-32. It doesn't present this as being against a particular sin, but about a degradation of society.

Other comments: This is not like god made these populations gay in response to their godlessness. We're not talking about strictly heterosexual societies that Paul is writing to. There were long-standing bisexual tendencies in the societies.

While the presentation I give is hardly the clear answer, it brings to light the fact that Romans 1:18 on is not so clear-cut as we like to think. The passage cannot be taken out of context, and some of the translation is occassionally quite suspect. It feels as if Paul is speaking of more than homosexuality here, and is commenting on something else entirely. 
------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 7, 2004)

*This is somebody with their mind made up already*

First problem. The supposed ambiguity of &quot;the genitive of adikia&quot; in verse 18 (oooooooooh, Greek. Sounds like he must know what he's talking about!). Well, what about verse 17?????? There you have the positive term dikaiosunae. So, right off the bat no matter what you have the two contrasting terms &quot;righteousness/justice&quot; and &quot;unrighteousness/injustice&quot;. So, whichever nuance is emphasized (and a study of the whole book shows which it is) it is positively an attribute of God, it is defined by his revelation in Scripture, his laying down his law by which he executes his judgment. Righteousness or justice in men then is conformity to the God-standard. True unrighteousness or injustice is SIN. 

Oh. Did I forget to mention? &quot;Adikian&quot; is in the [b:734ed818c4]accusative[/b:734ed818c4] case, not the genitive (no variants). The 'case' has everything to do with the associated preposition, giving &quot;epi&quot; a particular cast of meaning, here &quot;against&quot;.

Second problem. He suggests that typical exegesis/understanding of the passage starts with importing homosexuality into the verses from 18-23. That's rot. No good interpreter mistakes the general statements Paul makes in the beginning of this passage for &quot;veiled expressions&quot; of later explicit ones. It is subtrefuge and equivocation to point to those general expressions and say that, as Paul develops his point, he does not lay hold of homosexuality as indicative of the general comments he made at first.

Third problem. Epithumias or lust is a general term, but it is more explicit than the term unrighteousness. Hmmmm. Is Paul actually [i:734ed818c4]going somewhere[/i:734ed818c4] with his argument? the term means &quot;strong desire&quot;. Here it is certainly evil desire because it is coupled with &quot;uncleanness&quot; and &quot;dishonor&quot; (beside being the result of judicial abandonment by God). The fact that Paul is moving in the direction of denouncing sexual sin is more than hinted at in the language &quot;dishonoring their bodies among themselves.&quot;

Fourth problem. [quote:734ed818c4]Consider this from grecian and roman perspective in light of aristotelian and epicurian ethics. This loss of passion is inexcusable and Paul is speaking to a roman audience.[/quote:734ed818c4] Mumbo jumbo. First, the writer is unclear because he means (I think) that the loss of CONTROL is inexcusable in these ethical systems. Second, Paul is not writing about these ethical systems, or even taking them much in mind (not that most of his audience would be likely to be familiar with such systems anyway), but of biblical ethics. The ethics of Roman Christians who are in possession of God's Word that reveals his righteousness. You know, its almost funny the ignorance, but the Greco-Roman world was not exactly known for the dignified restraint of its populace.

Problem five. Rape not homosexuality. OK. Now we know what is the man's true agenda. &quot;Yes,&quot; say the ones with a hidden agenda, &quot;I will agree that over here, on this end, is where we all agree that such things are wrong. But homosexuality as such, that's not wrong.&quot; He's trying to get you to agree that rape is sin. Huh? Of course. But Paul is not talking of rape here. How does the web writer get that from verse 26, where Paul speaks of homosexual females? Female homosexual rape? Who can find that in the text without reading it in? And verse 27 then is an echo of verse 26, borrowing the same language, except talking about homosexual men. By speaking first of the female, Paul has actually [i:734ed818c4]excluded[/i:734ed818c4] the view that this is rape. 

Problem 6. Does this writer believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? By themselves? By God? With an &quot;otherworldly&quot; judgment? Was Sodom destroyed because of the intentions of the populace against the angels and Lot? Or was their fate largely determined already when the angels went in to extricate Lot and his family? The homosexuality in both Genesis and Romans is indicative of the far gone depravity present already in men and which summons the holy justice of God. The Romans passage actually implies more of the [i:734ed818c4]natural consequence[/i:734ed818c4] of homosexual sin, &quot;receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error,&quot; than it does final judgment. The writer is correct that the focus of God's judgment is much larger than only homosexuality. And the final verses of the chapter are a catena of the sins of men. Not surprising, Paul initiates with the broad term for sexual sin. He has just been using that sin (the case of homosexuality in particular) as his exemplar. 

Problem seven.[quote:734ed818c4] This is not like god made these populations gay in response to their godlessness. We're not talking about strictly heterosexual societies that Paul is writing to. There were long-standing bisexual tendencies in the societies.[/quote:734ed818c4] Here again we find dissimulation. The text says pretty much the opposite of this conclusion. I for one have no problem recognizing the hand of GOD in allowing homosexuality to burgeon in a society that has forgotten him. But worse, in his statement, is the subtle contrast he insinuates between strictly &quot;gay&quot; no one hand and moderately &quot;gay&quot; on the other--a tolerant, ambiguous bisexuality that is &quot;innocent&quot; and &quot;harmless&quot; and is not worthy of our (or God's) condemnation.

Problem eight. [quote:734ed818c4]While the presentation I give is hardly the clear answer, it brings to light the fact that Romans 1:18 on is not so clear-cut as we like to think. The passage cannot be taken out of context, and some of the translation is occassionally quite suspect. It feels as if Paul is speaking of more than homosexuality here, and is commenting on something else entirely.[/quote:734ed818c4] This statement is more of a self-condemnation than anything else. OK. He doesn't like virtually every published translation of Scripture, because it &quot;reads&quot; against his preferred interpretation. Oh well. At this point, nothing he [i:734ed818c4][b:734ed818c4]thinks[/b:734ed818c4][/i:734ed818c4] is really worth paying attention to.

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------

