Greek interpretation of Romans 1: 26-28

Daniel Presley said:

Currently I'm not into Greek and may never be. So, I bring my case here for help.

I am in discussion on Romans 1: 26-28.

I take the verses for what they say from the King James Bible. But I have someone telling me that my interpretetion is wrong, and that in Greek context,  the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share.  He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

I need help with this one and would appreciate anyone with some Greek knowledge to let me know if he is right or wrong on the context. 

Thanks for your time.

May Christ be with you all. 
 

First of all, you need to get a little more context.  Beginning in v 18 ff it speaks of the fact that mankind is subject to wrath due to their failure to acknowledge God and rather equated him with the creation.  Because of that God has given them over to their own dishonorable cravings (πάθη ἀτιμίας).    I don't see how one can get around the fact that it states that the women exchanged normal relations for those contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν).  Similarly men exchanged the customary relationship with women for that with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν).  This in no whay relates to temple worship but is the outgrowth of a failure to recognize and honor God. 

I would caution you, however, that although this is an evidence of a failure to follow God's law, you should never be overly condemnatory toward them since each of us has our own failures which can also be seen as a result of our own failure to follow God's laws so that we are in reality no better than they.  Speak of God's love and compassion rather than of judgment.

Daniel,

there are several arguments used to defend homosexual behavior.  

Daniel Presley said:

the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share.  He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

These would be that Paul in Romans is talking in reference to temple prostitution, pederasty, or to have a homosexual relation when you are not by "nature" homosexual.  Hopefully, the following commentary excerpts will be helpful in addition to what has already been posted.

Lauren

Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person’s natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (V 2, pp 443–444). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

26  In many Jewish polemical works, the gross sexual immorality that the Jews found rampant among the Gentiles was traced directly to idolatry. Thus, to cite Wisdom of Solomon: “the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life” (14:12). Paul follows this genre by making the same connection but differs from it by attributing the connection to the act of God. As in vv. 23–24, people’s “exchange” of the true God for idols (v. 25) is the cause109 of God’s retributive “handing them over.”110 And that to which they are handed over, “dishonorable passions,”111 here corresponds to the “uncleanness” of v. 24. Paul’s use of the word “passions,”112 combined with what he says in vv. 26b–27, makes clear that he refers to illicit sexual passions. For the last clause of the verse illustrates these “dishonorable passions.”113 In yet another similarity to Jewish criticisms of the Gentile world, the sexual sin that Paul singles out is homosexuality: “women114 exchanged the natural use of their bodies for that use which is against nature.” The verb “exchange,” which has been used twice to depict the fall into idolatry (vv. 23, 25), is now used to characterize this tragic reversal in sexual practice. The “natural use” has been replaced with one that is “against nature.”115

The extent to which Paul characterizes this exchange as a violation of God’s created order depends on the significance of the words “natural” and “nature” in this verse. Paul generally uses the word “nature” to describe the way things are by reason of their intrinsic state or birth, and in these cases there is no clear reference to divine intention.116 Some scholars in recent years especially, noting this, have argued that Paul does not here brand homosexuality as a violation of God’s will. He is only, they argue, following his own cultural prejudices by characterizing homosexual relations as being against what is “usually” the case.117 But Paul’s use of the word “nature” in this verse probably owes much to Jewish authors, particularly Philo, who included sexual morality as part of “natural law” and therefore as a divine mandate applicable to all people.118 Violations of this law, as in the case of Sodom, are therefore considered transgressions of God’s will.119 In keeping with the biblical and Jewish worldview, the heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced to God’s creative intent. Sexual sins that are “against nature” are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to “nature” in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order.120 Confirmation can be found in the context. In labeling the turning from “the natural use” to “that [use] which is against nature” an “exchange,” Paul associates homosexuality with the perversion of true knowledge of God already depicted in vv. 23 and 25. In addition, we must remember that the clause in question is a description of “sinful passions,” a phrase plainly connoting activities that are contrary to God’s will. When these factors are considered, it is clear that Paul depicts homosexual activity as a violation of God’s created order, another indication of the departure from true knowledge and worship of God.121

27  This verse is connected to the last part of v. 26 with “likewise,” as Paul shows that the same “sinful passions” that lead women to engage in unnatural homosexual acts are also operative among men, with similar effect.122 Homosexuality among “males,”123 like that among “females,” is characterized as a departure from nature.124 As in the previous verse, “nature” denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes. Paul uses strong language to characterize male homosexuality: “they burned125 in their desire126 for one another, men with men127 doing128 that which is shameful129 and receiving in themselves the just penalty130 that was necessary for their error.” In calling the homosexual activity that brings about this penalty an “error,” Paul does not diminish the seriousness of the offense, for this word often denotes sins of unbelievers in the NT.131 In claiming that this penalty for homosexual practice is received “in themselves,” Paul may suggest that the sexual perversion itself is the punishment.132 On the other hand, this could be a vivid way of saying that those who engage in such activities will suffer eternal punishment; they will receive “in their own persons” God’s penalty for violation of his will.133 This punishment, Paul says, was “necessary,” by which he probably means that God could not allow his created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment.134  Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (pp 113–117). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

footnote 117

117 To cite a representative work, R. Scroggs, in The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), holds that Paul’s criticism of homosexuality cannot be taken too seriously. He sketches the attitude of the Greeks to homosexuality, which was generally positive. Pederasty, in particular, was widely practiced, accepted, and even honored in some circles. On the other hand, homosexual prostitution was generally condemned (pp. 17–65). In light of this background, Scroggs suggests that, while Paul opposes homosexuality in Rom. 1, Paul gives no real rationale, implying that he is simply following his Hellenistic Jewish model and that Paul himself is not “particularly upset” by the practice of homosexuality (pp. 109–18). Scroggs also thinks that Paul condemns only homosexual prostitution in 1 Cor. 6:9 (pp. 101–9).  Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament

Although verse 26 is ambiguous regarding the precise sense in which women acted contrary to nature, verse 27 clarifies that what is unnatural is same-sex relations.5  That homosexual relations are contrary to nature, in the sense that they violate what God intended, is communicated in saying that women abandoned “the natural use for that which is contrary to nature” (τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, tēn physikēn chrēsin eis tēn para physin, v. 26), and in saying that men “have left the natural use of women” (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας, aphentes tēn physikēn chrēsin tēs thēleias, v. 27). The word χρῆσις is often used of sexual relations in Greek writings (BAGD 886), while the word φύσις refers in this context to what God intended in creating men and women (Koester, TDNT 9:273; Hays 1986: 196–99; cf. De Young 1988). The word φύσις does not invariably refer to the divine intention in Paul (cf. Rom. 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24 [3 times]; Gal. 2:15; 4:8; Eph. 2:3).6 At least two pieces of evidence, however, indicate that an argument from the created order is constructed in Rom. 1:26–27. First, Paul selected the unusual words θῆλυς (thēlys, female) and ἄρσην (arsēn, male) rather than γύνη (gynē, woman) and ἀνήρ (anēr, man), respectively. In doing so he drew on the creation account of Genesis, which uses the same words (Gen. 1:27 LXX; cf. Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). These words emphasize the sexual distinctiveness of male and female (Moo 1991: 109), suggesting that sexual relations with the same sex violate the distinctions that God intended in the creation of man and woman. Second, the phrase “contrary to nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) is rooted in Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions that saw homosexual relations as violations of the created order (see below). The latter point is borne out by verse 27, which specifies in three ways what constitutes the unnatural activity for men: (1) in forsaking sexual relations with women (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας); (2) in burning in desire for other men (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, exekauthēsan en tē orexei autōn eis allēlous); and (3) in doing that which was shameful with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι, arsenes en arsesin tēn aschēmosynēn katergazomenoi).7  Verse 27 gives no indication that only specific kinds of homosexual activity are prohibited. Instead, homosexual relations in general are indicted.

Modern controversy over homosexuality has led to a reevaluation of this text. Some scholars argue that Paul does not condemn all forms of homosexuality but only homosexual acts practiced by people who are “naturally” heterosexual (e.g., Boswell 1980: 109–12). According to this interpretation, to act contrary to nature involves engaging in sexual activity that is contrary to the personal nature or character of the individual. Thus Paul should not be understood as implying that all homosexuality is contrary to what God intended from creation. He speaks only against homosexual acts that are practiced by those who are heterosexuals by nature.8 

This interpretation should be rejected since there is no evidence that Paul understood the “nature” of human beings in the individualized and psychological sense that is familiar to us in the twentieth century. Instead, in accord with Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish tradition, Paul rejects homosexuality as contrary to the created order—homosexual activity is a violation of what God intended when he created men and women (Hays 1986: 192–94; Malick 1993: 335).9  Paul’s prohibition of all homosexual relations is also supported by the unanimous rejection of homosexuality in Jewish sources (see De Young 1990). For instance, Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.24 §199) declares that the marriage of a man and woman is “according to nature” (κατὰ φύσιν, kata physin), and proceeds to say that the OT law demands the death penalty for intercourse between males. Both Philo (Spec. Laws 3.7 §38; cf. Abr. 26 §§133–36) and Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.37 §273) specifically criticize homosexual relations as παρὰ φύσιν. The author of the Testament of Naphtali (3.3–4) sees homosexuality as a departure “from the order of nature,” and his appeal to creation in verse 3 reveals that he understands this in term of God’s created intention.

Scroggs (1983: 109–18) attempts to minimize Paul’s negative remarks on homosexuality in Rom. 1:26–27 by arguing that he is simply drawing on Hellenistic Jewish tradition, that probably only pederasty is being condemned, and that the focus of the section is theological rather than ethical. The first point reveals the weakness of Scroggs’s case. There is no evidence that Paul reverses the unanimous Jewish conviction that homosexuality was sinful (e.g., Gen. 19:1–28; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17–18; Wis. 14:26; T. Levi 17.11; Sib. Or. 3.596–600; see also the above citations of Josephus and Philo; and Boughton 1992).10  Paul’s negative comments on homosexuality, even if they are traditional, signal his acceptance of the tradition. The claim that only an abusive form of homosexuality is prohibited, such as pederasty, suffers from lack of evidence. The wording of Rom. 1:26–27 is not restricted to a specific kind of homosexuality but is a general proscription of the activity. In fact, no mention is made of homosexual relations between men and boys but of “males with males” (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν, arsenes en arsesin, v. 27). Moreover, the idea that pederasty is in view is contradicted by the reference to the homosexual acts of women in verse 26 (Malick 1993: 339; Byrne 1996: 76), for pederasty, by definition, involves men and boys, and evidence is lacking that women engaged in sexual activity with girls. Finally, Scroggs artificially separates theology from ethics in Pauline thought, implying that the vices listed would not be part of Paul’s ethical exhortations. But theology and ethics are closely wedded in all of Paul’s letters. Any attempt to drive a wedge between them is unsatisfactory. The rejection of God theologically is concretely illustrated in evil that is promulgated by human beings.

Sheppard (1985) admits that Paul’s rejection of homosexuality cannot be explained away but argues that loving homosexual relations can be accepted in the light of the canon as a whole and the recognition that our understanding of the Word of God advances as we gain more knowledge about homosexuality. To say that the whole of Scripture supports homosexuality is weak, since there is no canonical acceptance of homosexuality. Sheppard’s argument depends ultimately not on the canon, but on his conviction that recent study and human experience validate homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (pp 94–97). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

BKMitchell said:

evseba,sqhsan (Rom 1:25 translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan (Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in NT.

What in the world is evseba, sqhsan and evla treusan ?  If this is supposed to be Greek, it is not recognizable as such.

Jack Caviness said:

... however, the faulty transliteration makes that difficult to see.

I wasn't using transliteration I was using a true-type font set for Greek though.

What does everyone else use to type Greek here?

George Somsel said:

Whatever you were using certainly wasn't Greek nor recognizable as any legitimate transcription of Greek.

Okay, then how about this? Does, this show up correctly as polyphonic Greek or as gibberish?

Ἀλλὰ χάρις τῷ θεῷ κατὰ πάντων γὰρ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ὁ γὰρ γενναιότατος Γερμανικὸς ἐπερρώννυεν αὐτῶν τὴν δειλίαν διὰ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπομονῆς ὃς καὶ ἐπισήμως ἐθηριομάχησεν βουλομένου γὰρ τοῦ ἀνθυπάτου πείθειν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντος τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ κατοικτεῖραι ἑαυτῷ ἐπεσπάσατο τὸ θηρίον προσβιασάμενος τάχιον τοῦ ἀδίκου καὶ ἀνόμου βίου αὐτῶν ἀπαλλαγῆναι βουλόμενος

Doesn't sound like an argument that appeals to original languages can solve. I would simply look the person in the eye an say..."That's what you believe? Well...good luck with that."

...Luck, of course, having nothing whatever to do with it.

fgh said:

If you click Preview before you post you can see for yourself.

Thank you for your reply,

But, the first font I used showed up on my screen as Greek, rather than the strange transliteration everyone else saw. So, I am afraid Preview wouldn't have helped me in this situation.

Here is, how my first post on thread looks like on my screen:

Notice, the Greek font I used is clearly visible. My problem was that I did not use Unicode fonts on that first post of mine.

BKMitchell said:

I hope that you have had and will have a fruitful discussion with gentleman in question. One never knows if your discussion with this man may have planted some seeds and cause him to think more in the future, if not now.

There is a contention, which I am not able to judge since I am not a biologist, that those who are homosexual have a genetic predisposition to such.  Be that as it may, I also understand that there are those who have a predisposition to dependency (drugs and alchohol) or to anger (battered spouse or abused children).  No one excuses the other tendencies and suggests that alchoholics should simply be allowed to be drunks or that abusive individuals should be allowed to be abusive to others -- generally they are jailed.  It is generally considered that it is the responsibility of the individual to learn to control himself.  I would say that the same would apply to anyone with a homosexual tendency.  Calvin held that with the fall of man the entire creation also fell.  This is a part of man's condition.  I would not recommend viewing homosexuality as "simply another life style."  Clearly when God created man he created him male and female -- as he also did all of the animate (and even non-animate life).  As corny as it may sound, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.  While each of us has different weaknesses, it is still incumbant upon all to seek to overcome such.  We are speaking of the consequences of the biblical fall account.  We must all recognize our weaknesses and attempt to overcome them, not to excuse them.