Reading through my Bible during my quiet time, I was caught by the words of Romans 1:26, “
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.”The context of the verse is the rejection of God by the crown of His creation (both men and women) and the subsequent replacement of Him by man’s own creation; namely, the worship of himself and in this case, herself.
What grabbed me was the word we have translated and use here as “nature.” Shouldn’t we expect Paul to have written, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the
created function for that which against
creation”? Why is the word “nature” there? I thought “Nature” was a general reference to the Universe, only with God removed from the picture—an impersonal force that “controls” everything? This world considers “Nature” as the mother terra firma who drives the evolutionary cycle.
Is “nature” the best word to use here?
The Greek reads, “Δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο Θεος εις παθη ατιμιας. α τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν,”
For those who slept through Greek class, we are focusing on the word φυσικην, or “physiquen” from φυσικός (“physicos”) or φυσιν, “physin” (from the same root).
The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament reports as φυσικός “as belonging to the naturally regulated order of things instinctive, natural, by nature”
[1] Another source defines φυσικός as, “Natural, as established by God in nature (Rom 1:26, 27); like natural or wild beasts, i.e., unreasoning, yielding only to baser instincts (2 Pet. 2:12).”
[2]Other sources refer to those “pertaining to things in accordance with nature, instinctual things,”
[3] “in accord with nature; mere brute beasts, mere wild animals”
[4] and “being in accordance with the basic order of things in nature, of human behavior natural (Dionys. Hal.,
Plut. et al. φυσικ χρσις) [and] of animals, whose natural destiny is to be the victims of predators in accordance with nature γεγεννημένα φυσικ ες λωσιν κα φθοράν (mere) creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed .—
DELG s.v. φύομαι C 6.
M-M. Sv.”[5]The problem is two-fold. First, the lexicons provide a circular argument for we find the word we are actually trying to define in the very definition. Second, men (generally speaking) are lexicographically being equated with animals, and Paul is saying they are men (generally speaking) who have preferred the creation over the Creator, who in turn, have turned them over to dishonor their bodies among themselves, worshipping the creature and not the creator. J.A. James, who finds himself often quoted lately in this blog, stated, “As to the gratification of our animal appetites, it should not be difficult to persuade us, that to sink to the level of the brute creation, and hold communion with swine, and goats and rats, cannot be the chief end of a rational being.”
[6]I think what has happened is that an untranslated Latin word has influenced the translation of the Greek and we have in a sense, defined a word by itself, which is misleading. We are also in danger of accepting a term (“nature”) that assumes there is no creator and implies the maintenance of all things by brute force.
The Latin Vulgate of Romans 1:26 reads, “propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam.”
Our English word “Nature” (a noun), is from the 14th century Latin natura, and its root, natus. The dictionary entry describes this as, “the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing” and as a past participle, “to be born”.
[7] It is the “sum of an individual” that includes physical functions and genetically controlled qualities.
Note: instinct is nowhere mentioned. Instinct is reactionary to the environment. Man has conscience and is held responsible to his choices. The Lexicons would have us believe that man is instinctual and he is not. In this light, I suggest that those lexicons that draw attention to 2 Peter 2:12 and argue animal instinct for men are doing great harm to biblical anthropology.
The miss the word "like" that makes the description metaphorical, not and equation.
The Vulgate gives us “nature” where the Greek gives us “physical”, not “cosmos.” Natura refers to the property, quality, character of a thing; though sadly, even the Latin dictionary will later commit the sin of using the word to define itself.
[8]I venture a preferred reading is ““For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the physical function for that which is against the physical.”
I suggest the word παρα φυσιν would be better understood as “physically impossible.” This would be consistent with the context because here men and women are exchanging what God has intended with a replacement, yet demanding the replacement act the same way as it should in the preferred system. This would also be consistent with the rest of scripture because in other places we find descriptions of man doing the impossible, what the rest of creation cannot: He rejects his creator while the rest of creation is groaning in waiting for the consummation of redemption. In speaking of the way man uses his mouth, James asks, “Does a stream give forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? Can a fig tree bear olives or a grapevine bear figs?”
[1]Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library, Page 403. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000.
[2]Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed., G5446. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993.
[3]Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament). electronic ed., GGK5879. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
[4]Newman, Barclay Moon. Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament., Page 195. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1993.
Plut Plut , I–II a.d.—List 5
et al. et al. = et alii (and others)
DELG DELG = PChantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque—List 6
s.v. s.v. = sub voce (under the word, look up the word)
M-M M-M = JMoulton/GMilligan, Vocabulary of Greek Testament—Lists 4, 6
Sv Sv (at the end of entries)=HSieben, Voces—List 6
[5]Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker.". 3rd ed., Page 1069. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[6] “The Great End of Life”
http://www.gracegems.org/21/christian_father24.htm[7] Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster, 1996, c1993.
[8] Harper’s Latin Dictionary, 1879.
