Romans Chapter 6

What Happens:

“Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Paul writes to the Roman Jews. He explains that being baptized in Christ means being baptized into his death. “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

If we are united to Jesus in his death, then we will also be united to him in his resurrection, Paul says. After baptism, our old selves that were ruled by sin are “crucified” and set free from being slaves to sin. After that, Paul instructs the Jews, they should no longer allow themselves to be used as instruments of wickedness, “for sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.”

Paul rhetorically asks if that makes it ok to sin, now that they are under grace instead of under the law, and rhetorically answers: of course not. “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” He says now that they’ve been set free from sin they have become slaves of righteousness.

“I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations,” Paul says. He reiterates that they used to be slaves to wickedness and reaped no benefits from it. Now they have been freed from sin and become slaves of God, and reap the benefits of holiness and eternal life. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.“

Commentary:

As an editorial note, for some reason the title of the previous post is not showing. Not sure if it’s because of new WordPress changes, or if I messed up the publication. If I did I can’t figure out how.

Anyway, onward!

Paul here moves into the baptism phase of Operation: Evangelize. To recap the previous five chapters down into 3 gratifyingly short bullet points, Paul’s theme of progression has been to:

1)  Convince them of how sinful they were (or are),

2) Convince them that the old Jewish law wasn’t enough to save them,

3) And that actually only Jesus can save them.

Now he’s moving along into the phase where he assumes they’ve been swayed by his arguments and accepted Jesus, and is beginning to tell them what they should do next. Starting with what baptism means. Paul says that baptism means getting “buried with [Jesus] through baptism into [his] death”, and that this leads to participation in Christ’s resurrection as well.

What Happens:

Paul continues his effort to convince the Jewish community in Rome that faith in God is more important than the Law, and that Jesus is humanity’s savior. “Since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul writes, “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts.”

He writes that Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone voluntarily die even to save a good person, “but God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Paul exclaims, “If, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

Paul then compares Jesus to Adam: Adam brought sin into the world originally, and it poisoned everybody. Jesus brought righteousness and justification into the world, and it “resulted in justification and life for all people.”

“Sin entered the world through one man, and … death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. … But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! … For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Commentary:

Paul’s previous couple chapters were about faith in God being more important that following the letter of the law. Now he expands into his next topic of Jesus being both part and parcel of the law and faith. Namely, that he’s both the fulfillment and the undoing of the law, and having faith in Jesus enables you to participate in the new life and reconciliation with God he achieved.

Words like “justification” and “righteousness” are muddy words that you frequently hear thrown around in a churchy context but can never quite nail down exactly what they mean. What exact definition does Paul mean by them? As near as I can tell, “being justified” means “being forgiven for you sins”, and “righteousness” means … basically the exact same thing? Acting obediently to God, maybe? Those seem like decent working definitions, but it also seems clear that Paul means the two words in a very specific way and kind of assumes that the reader knows exactly what those more precise meanings are. It would be easier to make sense of this chapter, and the New Testament in general probably, if we had a better picture of exactly what those two things mean.

Anyway, Paul introduces Jesus as the one who brings hope and peace with God, and who died to save sinners, even though it’s rare that anyone will volunteer to die even to save a good person, much less bad ones. (It’s a re-introduction, really, as Paul gave a brief intro of Jesus back in chapter 3.) It’s actually a pretty bland and generalized description of Jesus, if we’re assuming the Jews of Rome know little or nothing about him as yet. Either A) Paul thinks they already know enough about Jesus from other sources to dispense with a detailed narrative of his life, or B) Paul thinks they don’t know much about Jesus’ life yet but doesn’t think that lack of knowledge matters enough to bother including it in this letter (which seems unlikely to me, personally), or C) there’s a hinted possibility back in chapter 2 that Paul included a copy of the gospel with his letter, and he feels that that’s sufficient to give the Jewish community everything they need to know about Jesus’ life, and he can save this letter for more abstract ideas.

As far as the line: “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” What does that even mean? That the law was put in place specifically to trip people up and increase their sins more? So that “where sin increased, grace could increase all the more”? Whaaaat! How does that even make sense. Just two chapters ago Paul was telling them that they shouldn’t erroneously think that sins bring out God’s glory and use it as an excuse to sin more. Now he appears to be saying that the law was put in place specifically to make them sin more in order to “increase grace” from God’s forgiveness. Hopefully this will be explained in upcoming chapters, but for right now, it doesn’t sound very good.

Romans Chapter 4

What Happens:

Paul continues his logical argument that faith is more important than works. He reminds his readers that Abraham, the forefather of the Jews, was considered righteous by God simply for believing him. “Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God … their faith is credited as righteousness.” Paul reminds everyone that although circumcision is the physical mark of following God’s law, Abraham was accounted as righteous by God before he was circumcised, not after, simply for having faith in God. Thus, Abraham is not only the forefather of the circumcised (the Jews), he is also the forefather of the gentiles, who believe in God but are not circumcised.

Paul asserts that Abraham and his offspring received God’s promises because of their faith, not because of the law. If you depend on the law, then faith means nothing. “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham.” Abraham believed God’s promise to him that he would be the father of many nations, even though he and his wife were far too elderly to have children. This trust in God “was credited to him as righteousness”. In the same way, those who believe that Jesus “was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” will also have it credited to them as righteousness, and will be forgiven and saved.  

Commentary:

This is Paul’s very longwinded way of trying to communicate to the Jews in Rome that they are connected to the non-Jews as well, and that the two groups’ fates are tied together. Paul tries to expand Jewish heritage to include pretty much everyone on earth; I’m not sure how enthusiastic the Jews would have been about that. Also, I’ve never read the Old Testament in full, just dabbled here and there in it, so I don’t exactly know/remember the full story of whatever God promised to Abraham. If faded memories of Sunday School lessons serve correctly, then he promised Abraham a son, but Abraham and his wife Sarah were super old and Sarah laughed and said it wasn’t possible. Then it happened anyway and Sarah named her son “Isaac” meaning “laughter”. Or something like that. We’ll figure it out whenever we actually make it to the Old Testament. Long story short, Paul’s Jewish readers would definitely have been familiar with this story and probably known it like the back of their hands, so Paul’s points here would have been instantly grasped. The main purpose of this whole chapter seems to be to try and convince the Jews that having trust/belief in God is more important than following the letter of the law.

Semi-relatedly, this document is really long for something that’s supposed to be sent as a letter. Seriously, who writes 16-chapter letters? The other books we’ve read so far – the gospels and Acts – were deliberately packaged as books, intended to be read by a wide audience many times, whereas Paul’s letter here is sent to a single group of recipients with a narrower message intended specifically for them. A really long message specifically for them, I mean really, at sixteen chapters it’s the same length as Mark’s gospel, which was a full-fledged book. How much parchment would he have had to use to write this? Many feet of it, surely. And he would have had to send it by a trusted courier because of how bulky such a large volume of paper (or vellum or whatever) would have been. Given that this letter survived for so long – it’s nearly two thousand years later and we’re still reading it – one wonders if he wrote multiple copies of it. Or perhaps the recipients were so impressed by it that they copied it down to share. Perhaps, even though it’s framed as a letter, Paul intended it to be more of a book or instructional manual. After all, he’s probably going to have the same debate with every community of Jews he comes across, so he might as well write up a stock response to save time on explanations when he meets them.

Romans Chapter 3

What Happens:

After berating the Roman Jews for hypocritically ignoring Jewish law, Paul rhetorically asks if there is any value in being a Jew. Of course there is, he answers himself, because the Jewish people were the ones entrusted with the very words of God. “What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all!” Paul argues. Human failings make God’s righteousness more evident. But, he cautions, we shouldn’t erroneously think that sins bring out God’s glory and use it as an excuse to sin more.

Paul asks another rhetorical question: Do Jews have an advantage over non-Jews, because of their access to God’s law? No, he concludes, because “Jews and gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.” He quotes several scriptures that say that no one is righteous, and says that following the law doesn’t make a person righteous; rather, it makes us conscious of our sin.

But now, Paul continues, “apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul says that Jesus was a “sacrifice of atonement” who can be received by faith. In forbearance, God left the sins committed prior to Jesus’ life unpunished. The law required a person to do works to be justified, but the new law requires only faith in Jesus. There will be no more boasting over one’s good works. Paul “maintain[s] that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” God is the God of both the Jews and the non-Jews alike, and both will be justified by faith. “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

Commentary:

The law is obviously a Big Deal for the Jews. We’ve seen this in the past as well – anytime Peter, Paul, or anyone else tries to convince a Jewish population about Jesus’ Messiahship, the Jews freak out and accuse them of trying to overturn the law. Even Jesus himself had to put up with this, e.g. when he healed people on the Sabbath and was accused of breaking the law that said no work was to be done on the Sabbath. Frankly, the Jews are justified in being a little concerned, because accepting Jesus and his message really does mean dropping a lot of Jewish law. Jesus overturned the dietary laws, the Sabbath laws, and no doubt others that I can’t remember right now. Paul’s main argument seems to be that the Law pretty much foresaw its own eventual overturning, and that therefore this overturning is the fulfillment of the law rather than its undoing.

I’m not exactly clear on what being “justified” means, unless it means getting to go to heaven after death. Dictionary.com says the theological definition is “to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.” So evidently it basically means to be forgiven for your sins. Apparently the old school Jewish Law (which today comprises the Old Testament in the Bible, which maybe someday I’ll read if I ever get that far with this,*sigh*) justified/forgave a person for their sins as long as they followed the law, which apparently also included doing good works. But now, Paul says, you don’t have to follow all the labyrinthine works of the law and whatnot to be forgiven, you just have to believe in Jesus. He doesn’t say exactly what one has to believe about Jesus; presumably it’s good enough to believe that he’s the Messiah and the “sacrifice of atonement” sent by God. It makes one wonder if there’s stuff you can disbelieve about Jesus (say, his being the Son of God), while still believing the core message of his atonement, and still get forgiven. Although that does seem like gaming the system.

Also, Paul’s a little hard on people bragging about doing good works and stating that such works are not necessary, only faith is. But if a person really does believe in Jesus, wouldn’t that also mean that they do the stuff that Jesus said to do? E.g. feeding the poor, going the extra mile to help people, etc., which are all “good works”.

Romans Chapter 2

What Happens:

Paul continues his tirade against the Romans. He tells them they have no excuses for their atrocious behavior, and have no right whatsoever to actually pass judgment against other people. He says angrily that they are hypocrites for doing the exact same behaviors that they denounce in others. When they do so, they bring God’s judgment on themselves. They show contempt for God’s kindness and patience, and don’t realize that his kindness is intended to lead them to repentance.

Paul writes that unless they repent and change their ways, they will bring God’s wrath down on themselves. God will “repay each person according to what they have done.” Those who have tried to do good will get eternal life. Those who have rejected the truth and follow evil will get God’s anger. Paul says that there will be “trouble and distress” for anyone who does evil: First for the Jew, then for the gentile. Likewise, there will be peace and honor for anyone who does good: First for the Jew, then for the gentile. “For God does not show favoritism.”

Paul goes on to say that those who claim to follow the Jewish Law will be judged by the Law, and that righteousness comes from actually obeying the law, not just from reading it. God’s law is in fact “written on people’s hearts”, in the sense that non-Jews who have never even heard of the law still follow parts of it by nature. At the end of the world God will judge people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, “as my gospel declares.”

Now, Paul says, if you’re a Jew, if you think you know God’s will from reading his law, if you’re convinced you’re a guide for the blind, a light in the darkness, if you’re a teacher for others, then why do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who denounce adultery, do you commit adultery? You who hate idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you break the law? Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah: “God’s name is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you.”

He concludes that circumcision, the physical sign of Jewish adherence to God’s law, is valuable only if the person actually observes the law. Otherwise, it is worthless, and the person might as well not be circumcised (or Jewish) at all. “The one who is not circumcised physically yet obeys the law will condemn you, who even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” If you’re a Jew only outwardly and your circumcision is solely physical, then you’re not really a Jew. A real Jew is one inwardly. Their circumcision is “one of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” Their praise comes from God, not from other people.

Commentary:

In the previous chapter, Paul was really laying in to some unidentified group in Rome. Although his letter is directed to the Jewish community there, he spent several paragraphs railing against some group of “godless and wicked men”, which he never named but appeared to be the Roman population in general.

However, this chapter extends the tirade to include the Jews. And boy does Paul seem unhappy with them. Especially with their hypocrisy in pretending to follow Jewish Law and then completely ignoring it (plus the added hypocrisy of criticizing the non-Jew Romans for committing the exact same type of behaviors that the Jews are committing.)

Paul’s main intent here seems to be to try and get across to the Roman Jews that their behavior is unacceptable and needs to change, stat. He threatens them with God’s anger and judgment. At one point he mentions “my” (i.e. Paul’s) gospel. Which is confusing since the gospel is about Jesus, not Paul. That wording makes sense only if Paul included a copy of the gospel (“gospel” being the account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection) in with his letter. Given that his audience here seems to be Jewish, not Christian, it’s plausible that he would have included the story of Jesus’ life for evangelical purposes. It’d be easier for Paul to convert them once he gets to town if they already know the basic facts about Jesus. Then all he has to do is prove that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and boom, converts. The only gospel narratives to survive to the modern day (that I know of) are the ones written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which today comprise the first four books of the New Testament. If Paul did include one of those works with his letter, it would most likely have been Luke’s, as Luke and Paul were traveling partners for much of Paul’s journeys. Although, Paul does describe it as “his” gospel. The idea of Paul writing a gospel himself, which has subsequently been lost over time, makes my inner archaeologist rub their hands in glee. However, Paul is also a MAJOR type-A, run everything, everything-is-my-way type of guy, and I can easily see him describing stuff (such as Luke’s gospel) as “his” because he currently controls it, not because he wrote it.

Anyway, this chapter seems mostly a setup for a call to conversion later. He spent the first chapter talking about how morally terrible Rome is, then this chapter telling the Jews how morally terrible they are, and now that they’re convinced that they’re awful and need to change, he’ll probably spend the next chapter(s) telling them how to do that.

Romans Chapter 1

Introduction:

The book of Romans is a letter written by Paul of Tarsus to the Christian community in Rome. According to the NIV notes, Paul probably wrote it during his last missionary trip (which began in Antioch, took him through Asia Minor and Greece, and then to Jerusalem. (Acts 15-21)). The notes suggest that he probably wrote this letter during the tail end of his trip; during Acts 19, he mentioned his strong desire to visit Rome, but wound up going to Jerusalem instead to participate in a big powwow with the Apostles (Acts 21). (Of course, shortly after the powwow he got arrested and his judicial proceedings ultimately took him to Rome anyway. (Acts 22-28) Funny how things work out.)

Christianity and Judaism were banned in Rome by Emperor Claudius and all the Christians and Jews were evicted from the city (link); after Claudius’ death in 54AD, his successor Nero overturned the ban, and the Christians and Jews returned. Thus this letter would have had to be written sometime after 54AD, when the ban was overturned, and before 60AD, when Paul finally arrived in Rome in person (Acts 28, link).

The letter was intended for the (recently-returned) community of Christians in Rome. According to the NIV notes, the theme of the letter is the basic gospel, and God’s plan of salvation and righteousness for all people.

What Happens:

Paul introduces himself and begins his letter: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God – the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son […] Jesus Christ our Lord. …. And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

He tells them that he prays for them frequently, and thanks God for their strong faith. “I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you,” and that he longs to visit them so they can strengthen each other’s faith. He says he has planned many times in the past to come to them, but each time something came up preventing him, until now. He is eager to preach the gospel in Rome just as he has in other cities.

He continues that the “wrath of God is being revealed … against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” He says that the evidence of God is all around, in his creation, and God’s “invisible qualities” such as his power and divine nature are evident in the world, so men are “without excuse.” He says that such people knew of God, but willfully ignored him, and “their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they were fools”, chose to ignore the real God to make idols that were just statues of animals, and knowingly worshiped a lie.

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Because these people “did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”, they developed depraved minds, and lost all their sense of morals. “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity,” Paul says. “They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 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.”

Commentary:

Paul is clearly about to go to Rome when he is writing this letter, which could place its date of writing immediately after the Apostles’ powwow in Jerusalem (in the gap between the powwow ending and getting arrested, Paul could have been planning his next trip, and written this letter.) Or it could have been written a few years later, after his arrest, when he appealed his case to the Emperor and was slated to head off to Rome as a prisoner.

Luke was the author of the books Luke and Acts, which he wrote as a two-part series, detailing Jesus’ life in Luke and the early activities of the Church in Acts – mostly Paul’s missionary journeys. Despite Acts being a fairly comprehensive description of Paul’s activities, Luke never described him writing any letters. It’s possible that Luke just didn’t think letter-writing was a momentous enough thing to merit mention; he intended his book as sort of a history book, a chain-of-events type summary, and excluded many other minor activities of Paul’s. No doubt space constraints for the book were also an issue.

So anyway, on to the letter itself. The first couple paragraphs are mainly introductory: “Hi, I’m Paul, and I’m writing to you guys, the followers of Jesus in Rome, to tell you I’m fixing to come to town.”

There’s an interesting discrepancy between the print and online versions of one sentence, where Paul says, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints.” That’s from the print version; the online version says, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people.” The Greek word is αγιοις (agiois), which means “saints”. Not sure why the online version went with a different word – perhaps they felt that both translations were accurate, in the sense that if the definition of “saint” IS a “holy one of God” then they mean the same thing, but why bother using the clunky and non-literal translation if it’s all the same? My inner conspiracy theorist suspects that the online NIV people thought that “saint” sounded too Catholic, and went with something more Prostestant-y. Being as how the NIV is a protestant translation. This isn’t the first time we’ve run into a similar difference.

Which brings us to the next question of what exactly does “saint” even mean? The definition I usually think of is someone who’s extra holy, or in a non-religious sense maybe just a person who’s a really good person. That’s pretty much exactly how dictionary.com defines it, too. However, there are more precise definitions. In the Catholic Church, a saint is anyone who is in heaven. The Church says that they don’t “make” saints, but merely recognize them; there are many people in heaven, and the Church is able to know of only a few.

For a person to be recognized as being a saint (i.e., how do we know if they’re in heaven?), the Catholic Church uses various criteria, mainly centering around miracles attributed to the person. There have to be at least two, and they have to be posthumous. Evidently the thinking goes that if the person is in heaven, they will be able to do miracles, with the help of God’s divine power; and if they’re not in heaven, they will not be able to do any miracles – presumably if they could do any supernatural activities at all while in hell, any such activities would be evil, not miraculous. So divine miracles from a dead person are held to be pretty conclusive proof that that person is in heaven. Obviously, not everyone in heaven does miracles, or presumably the world would be awash in them, but there are very few (or none, depending on how your beliefs go). (link) Also, the Church can’t erroneously declare someone to be in heaven if they’re really in hell, because the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit (back in Matthew 16, Jesus promised that hell would never prevail against the Church, and the only way for hell to defeat the Church besides outright eradication would be to lead it into error, e.g. getting them to teach falsehoods. Getting people to pray to someone who’s in hell by tricking them into thinking that person is really in heaven would count as a definite example of this, and therefore be protected against by the Holy Spirit. At least according to Catholic thought.)

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider their list of saints as an exhaustive list of all the saints (i.e. everyone who is in heaven), but rather as only a list of the small fraction they know of. The Church believes that people on earth can ask the people in heaven to pray for them or intercede for them, just like you can ask a person on earth to pray for you or help you. (Because they believe the people in heaven aren’t dead, they’re just alive in heaven). The “communion of saints” mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed refers to the spiritual union of all members of the Christian Church, both those who are on earth as well as those in heaven. I’m not Catholic, so if I’ve gotten any of this wrong, please correct me.

Protestant churches have dropped most of the Catholic Church’s beliefs regarding sainthood; generally, the newest denominations in Protestantism diverge most widely from Catholicism, and the oldest denominations’ beliefs are the most similar to it. The Lutheran church (founded 1521, by the original Protestant himself) and the Anglicans (founded 1534) share almost all the Catholic ideas about saints except the idea that you can ask them to pray for you. Mormons, one of the newer denominations (founded 1830), use the word “saint” to refer to any living Christians. Most other Protestant denominations use it in the same way, or, more commonly, have abandoned the term altogether, and use it only in the secular sense of “a really good person”, with no religious connotation.

Annnnnd that was way more than I intended to write about saints, so on to a less mystic topic!

Re: “wrath of God is being revealed … against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” At first I took it that Paul was aiming this at the Romans who had previously thrown the Christians out of Rome (“suppressing” their truth), but then his, uh, tirade continued and it appears he was actually referring to a much broader group of people. As far as evidence for God being visible in nature, we’ll get to that in depth once we hit Genesis, so I won’t spend any time on it here.

Who is this terrible group of people he is talking about? Roman pagans? Rome absorbed the religions of the tribes they conquered (some of which were crazier than others), and by the 50’s AD their Empire vast, so there were scores of various religions in Rome. Maybe it’s some hypothetical example Paul is using?  A veiled reference to the aristocracy, or the government? Well, whoever Paul is speaking of, he has plenty to say about them.

This group of people: A) knew good and well that God existed (according to Paul), and consciously chose to ignore him in favor of self-made idols, leading to B) them losing all their morals and sense of right/wrong, and becoming basically greedy, self-indulgent and self-absorbed fools who C) have gay sex, become greedy, malicious, murderous, arrogant, ruthless, etc etc etc.

Paul: Clearly not a fan of gay sex. In fact he spends almost as much talking about that as he does about all their other vices combined. Well, a paragraph each, which isn’t exactly a lot, but it’s a lot more than the single sentence you normally hear anti-gay Christians quote from the OT (“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22. The KJV calls it “an abomination” rather than detestable. Leviticus 20:13 says basically the same thing.) I’m not sure why Christians who believe gay sex is a sin don’t quote Paul’s paragraph from Romans more often; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used (maybe once?), and I’ve been on the intarwebs a long time. I suspect that this is because most of the anti-gay crowd (and maybe Christians in general?) don’t know their Bibles very well.

Anyway, Paul wrote that God “gave them over” to shameful lusts, almost making it sound like God caused it. The notes say that the people chose such behavior, and God let them do it (i.e. gave them over to it), rather than forcibly stopping them. Not sure what the “due penalty for their perversion” was that the gay men received; Paul said that they were not executed. Maybe some kind of STD? Did STD’s even exist in ancient times?

Also, Paul: Apparently a fan of the death penalty. He advocates capital punishment not just for gay sex, but also for the other crimes he listed: murder, evil, gossip, slander, ruthlessness, malice, deceit, and all the other forms of iniquity on the list. I’m not sure if he genuinely advocates death for things like gossip, lying, etc.; or if he’s just giving a lump-sum description of all the awful things these people do and how terrible they are, and finishing off by saying that they’re so terrible that they all deserve death. (Rather than saying that each specific vice listed deserves death in and of itself.)