So what is the Cause?

[Falco Knotwise]

Delete

[Ken]

In Romans 1, Paul is very obviously and explicitly talking about the Cult of Isis which was a very popular and competing religion to Christianity at that time in the Roman Empire. The cult of Isis emerged out of Egypt and used Egyptian iconography including people dressed up with the heads of animals and the use of Egyptian hieroglyphics and pictures depicting birds and other animals. So, for example:

The Isis cult also contained bizarre and promiscuous sex rites and devotees would go to the Isis temples for sex but the cult also had celibate priests who gave up sex with women (but apparently not with other male priests).

Now read Romans 1 versus 22-25 in this context (especially verse 23):

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

Paul was writing to a group of Roman Christians warning them specifically about what was an extremely popular cult at that time that was in direct competition with Christianity. Can you extract from that a message against all forms of homosexuality for all time? Maybe. But that is most certainly not the context in which Romans 1 was written.

1. Where's the "explicit" reference to the Cult of Isis in Romans? That may be a very good inference, but it's still just an inference.

2. Even assuming the Cult of Isis context is correct there's no "extraction" needed to see that Paul considers the behaviors he mentions to be sinful, for all times, and not just in a town where the Cult of Isis was practiced.

Are you suggesting his point that it has something to do with the loss of contact with transcendent reality can only be valid within the context of particular cults?

Even if I accept your context, i read it more as a criticism of the influence of the cult on the surrounding society, which i think would relate to the place of ideologies influencing our own today.

read Romans 1:22-23:

• "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Scholars believe this is an explicit reference to the Cult of Isis in that the Egyptian cults and specifically the Cult of Isis are the only ones during that time period that iconized humans into bird and animal forms such as the example that I depicted above. Other fringe religions at that time did not do this. So if you are talking about a religious cult that uses human/bird imagery in First Century Rome, that can only be a reference to the Isis Cult.

Plus, his description of the sexual immorality matches other historical references to this cult. In other words, it was an actual sex cult. There are lots of historical descriptions of the this. Read up on them and see how those descriptions match Paul's language in Romans.

Does that mean he isn't also condemning homosexuality in all forms for all time? Not necessarily. Maybe he is. But the very extreme language in Romans 1 is clearly a criticism of the Isis Cult and a warning to Christians in Rome (it is a letter to Roman Christians) to stay far away from it.

[Bootstrap]

read Romans 1:22-23:

• "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Scholars believe this is an explicit reference to the Cult of Isis in that the Egyptian cults and specifically the Cult of Isis are the only ones during that time period that iconized humans into bird and animal forms such as the example that I depicted above.

Some scholars believe this. I'm not at all convinced that most scholars do. I don't think it matters that much for interpretation of this passage. I agree with this understanding:

QUESTION—What does it mean to exchange the glory of God for images?

They exchanged the worship of God for the worship of idols [BECNT, Mor, NTC, SSA, WBC]. They substituted the indirect and shadowy experience found in idolatry for direct contact with the glorious presence of God [NICNT]. The idea of exchange means that instead of doing one thing, they did another [SSA]. To exchange his glory is to give up acknowledging, honoring, and worshipping the true God, whose existence and being are revealed in his glory, and worshipping idols instead [TH]. In so doing they exchanged something of genuine worth, God’s glory, for an image with no value at all [Mor].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1–8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 87–88.

QUESTION—What relationship is indicated by the use of διό ‘therefore’?

Paul now begins to speak of the consequences of refusing to worship God and of choosing sin [AB, BECNT, Gdt, Ho, ICC2, Mor, NAC, NICNT, SSA, TH]. God did this because they rejected the knowledge of God that was available to them and worshipped idols [BECNT, Mor, NICNT, SSA, TH], because they forsook him [Ho]. Immorality is a consequence of idolatry [AB, BECNT, NTC, St]. This particle links what follows to what has preceded [ICC2, Mor]. The conjunction is an inferential one, but the content of the verses following indicate that Paul presents the first in a set of consequences resulting from the rejection of the knowledge of God [SSA].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1–8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 90.

There are two distinct interpretations of this next bit ... some commentaries go with #1, others with #2. FWIW, I'm in the #1 camp on this.

QUESTION—What is meant by παρέδωκεν αὑτοὺς ὁ θεός ‘God gave them over’?

1. God is seen as taking an active role in this process [BECNT, Gdt, HNTC, Ho, ICC2, Mor, NTC, WBC]. This in not an impersonal working out of moral law, but it involves an active personal decision and response by God [BECNT]. God was not merely passive in the sense of abstaining from something, he actively withdrew the force of his restraining hand [Gdt, NAC]. God does not compel men to do evil [Gdt, ICC2], but he does withhold his help, which is the only thing that would prevent such a thing [ICC2]. God withdraws his blessings and restraints, allowing moral degradation to pursue its course; moral perversion is a result of God’s wrath [AB]. God abandons them to their sin, letting them go their own way [TH]. He removes the restraints of his providence and grace, abandoning them to be dominated by sin [Ho].
2. God does even more than remove his restraint, he actively delivers them up to ever increasing wickedness [ICC1, Mu, NICNT]. Their being handed over is not merely a matter of God passively withdrawing his influence, but his taking an active role as the initiator of the process, handing them over to the terrible cycle of ever increasing sin [NICNT]. Although there is a natural law of consequence at work here, God’s consigning them to retribution means that they are actively abandoned to a more intense and aggravated cultivation of their own lusts, with the result that they reap an even greater retribution for their sin [Mu].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1–8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 90.

And three distinct interpretations of this next bit. FWIW, I'm in the #2 camp on this.

QUESTION—Is the intent of this ‘giving over’ reformative, to bring about repentance, or is it punitive, to bring judgment?

1. It is retributive or punitive [AB, HNTC, Ho, ICC1, Mu, NAC, NICNT, NTC, TH, TNTC]. It is the judgment of letting people have their own way [NAC, TH]. They are enslaved by the very freedom they demanded and received [TNTC].
2. It is intended to bring about repentance [Gdt, ICC2, Mor]. Some people can only come to their senses by the very excesses of their own corruption [Gdt]. God, who smites in order to heal, gave them over as an act of judgment as well as of mercy, so that they might learn to hate the futility of a life lived apart from the truth of God [ICC2]. God allows people to experience the consequences of their sin so they will repent and seek his mercy [Mor].
3. While it is punitive, it is also at least potentially redemptive if it causes people to recoil from the degeneracy to which their sins lead [WBC].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1–8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 90–91.

[Bootstrap]

Paul was writing to a group of Roman Christians warning them specifically about what was an extremely popular cult at that time that was in direct competition with Christianity. Can you extract from that a message against all forms of homosexuality for all time? Maybe. But that is most certainly not the context in which Romans 1 was written.

There is no direct evidence of this, Ken. Romans 1 does not explicitly reference the Cult of Isis or any other specific cult or deity. As far as I know, neither Romans nor other sources written at that time talk about the Cult of Isis as an issue in the Christian church in Rome. Do you know of any that do?

Romans 1 is a general discussion of human sinfulness, idolatry, and moral degradation. It addresses broader themes related to the fallen human condition and the rejection of God's truth. While it acknowledges idolatry, it does not focus on specific cults or religions. The religious landscape of ancient Rome was highly diverse, with many cults, gods, and religious practices.

Even if Paul was writing about the Cult of Isis, he clearly does not think gay sex is OK. You are implying that Paul might be OK with the sins on the list except that he didn't want people to worship ISIS. Would you say that for every one of the sins mentioned in this passage, or are you giving gay sex special treatment?

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 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.

[Ken]

Paul was writing to a group of Roman Christians warning them specifically about what was an extremely popular cult at that time that was in direct competition with Christianity. Can you extract from that a message against all forms of homosexuality for all time? Maybe. But that is most certainly not the context in which Romans 1 was written.

There is no direct evidence of this, Ken. Romans 1 does not explicitly reference the Cult of Isis or any other specific cult or deity. As far as I know, neither Romans nor other sources written at that time talk about the Cult of Isis as an issue in the Christian church in Rome. Do you know of any that do?

Romans 1 is a general discussion of human sinfulness, idolatry, and moral degradation. It addresses broader themes related to the fallen human condition and the rejection of God's truth. While it acknowledges idolatry, it does not focus on specific cults or religions. The religious landscape of ancient Rome was highly diverse, with many cults, gods, and religious practices.

Even if Paul was writing about the Cult of Isis, he clearly does not think gay sex is OK. You are implying that Paul might be OK with the sins on the list except that he didn't want people to worship ISIS. Would you say that for every one of the sins mentioned in this passage, or are you giving gay sex special treatment?

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 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.

Obviously there is no definitive reference to the meaning of any book of the Bible. Scholarly and theological opinions vary on every book and verse from Genesis to Revelations.

That said, it seems compelling to me that Paul, in writing to Christians in the city of Rome during the middle of the 1st Century, when Rome itself was in the grip of the Cult of Isis, was making reference to this cult. The animal imagery and sexual aspects all ring true. Augustus found it to be pornographic and too licentious just like Paul and discouraged it to little avail as even his own daughter was a member. Augustus' opposition was also due to the fact that his rival Mark Anthony was based in Egypt with his mistress Cleopatra and Cleopatra actually declared herself the reincarnation of Isis. Several decades later, Caligula legitimated the cult during his reign and allowed temples to be built and allowed the rites of the cult to be celebrated during the official calendar of the city. This continued into the reign of Nero which would have been contemporary to Paul.

Does that mean Paul was approving of homosexuality outside of this particular cult? No, there is no evidence of that. But when I read Romans 1:22-28 I think it is pretty clear he is referencing the Cult of Isis.

[Sudsy]

'Pray the gay away' ? That is one way it can be removed as God is able to fix any stronghold in our thinking. But if He choses not to, He also will provide the grace we need to live with it and not sin by giving way to it. Same goes for all kinds of other strongholds that show up in our lives.

I believe that a good example is when Paul had this 'messenger from satan that came to buffet him'. Some have guessed this was an eye sight issue but perhaps Paul had same sex attraction issue. Do we really know ? Paul didn't appear too attracted to women. But whatever, Paul prayed for whatever it was to be taken away. God said 'no' but He would give Paul the grace needed to live with this issue. Paul didn't go off whining about having to live with this condition but rather Paul saw it as an opportunity to experience the power of God in his life.

I believe if we take that approach to our sinful struggles to ask God to remove them or if He does not, joyfully believe and receive His power to live victoriously with that condition. Some of us have other issues like anxieties, fears, anger, exaggerations, etc. and I believe God is able to heal us in any of these areas or He will give us overcoming power to not allow them to rule over us.

Either way, God will give us what we need to not let sin reign in our lives. Thats my view.

[Bootstrap]

Obviously there is no definitive reference to the meaning of any book of the Bible. Scholarly and theological opinions vary on every book and verse from Genesis to Revelations.

That sounds almost like we can't apply the Bible to our life because scholars may disagree on anything we think it says. I disagree.

That said, it seems compelling to me that Paul, in writing to Christians in the city of Rome during the middle of the 1st Century, when Rome itself was in the grip of the Cult of Isis, was making reference to this cult. The animal imagery and sexual aspects all ring true.

I don't think that the sexual aspects ring true at all, though.

I think the Cult of Isis emphasized purity, fertility, and family life. The goddess Isis was associated with motherhood, and she was considered a protector of women and children. There was an emphasis on the importance of family and the sanctity of marriage within the cult. I haven't spent a LOT of time on this, but so far, I have not been able to find any indication that the Cult of Isis promoted homosexuality in any way.

Does that mean Paul was approving of homosexuality outside of this particular cult? No, there is no evidence of that. But when I read Romans 1:22-28 I think it is pretty clear he is referencing the Cult of Isis.

The main religions in Rome at the time were (1) Roman paganism, and (2) Emperor worship. The Cult of Isis was also present in Rome, but not at the same level. All three worshiped idols. To me, this seems like he is discussing idolatry in general - it is not specific to the Cult of Isis in any way I can see:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

For instance, I think it would be a mistake to say this does NOT apply to those practicing (1) Roman paganism or (2) Emperor worship, the two most powerful religions at the time. Sure, it also applies to those in the Cult of Isis. But if you want to find homosexuals in Rome, I think (1) and (2) are the religions you would look to first.

Regardless, I think these verses are quite clear that (1) gay sex is seen as a consequence of abandoning God, not as the root cause, and (2) Paul clearly thinks it is not OK for anyone, whether or not they have even heard of Isis.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

[Falco Knotwise]

Just thought of something else to add about the Romans 1 passage:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

"They neither glorified him, nor gave thanks to him." Note that Paul mentions they first forgot their religious pieties (or duties) to God before their fall into immorality.

That's no mere coincidence.

Note that through the courts, in the name of separation of Church and State, the religious pieties of the citizenry were first undermined well before the madness of the sixties was let loose.

Coincidence?

This is a spiritual battle, and it is not accidental. The architects of revolution have long known that the transformation of the West had to come by way of destabilizing the social, familial, and religious pieties of a citizenry.

— Noelle Mering, Awake, Note Woke.

[Ken]

The main religions in Rome at the time were (1) Roman paganism, and (2) Emperor worship. The Cult of Isis was also present in Rome, but not at the same level. All three worshiped idols. To me, this seems like he is discussing idolatry in general - it is not specific to the Cult of Isis in any way I can see:

The Cult of Isis is the only religion at the time that worshiped animal iconography as Paul specifically calls out in Romans 1:23 where he talks about the idolatry of worshiping birds, four legged animals, reptiles, etc.

Roman paganism did not do that at all. Greek and Roman gods were all human form (Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Venus, Minerva, etc. Always depicted in human form. Every ancient depiction of Greek and Roman gods is in human form. Rome and classical museums are full of statues of Roman and Greek gods. They are always depicted in human form. It was really only Egyptian religions that iconized animals as gods. And the cult of Isis was the only prominent Egyptian-based religion in Rome and across the Roman Empire. There were temples to Isis in Paul's home town of Tarsus, for example. So he would have been well aware of it.

In any event, read from beginning to end, it seems clear to me that Paul is calling out a specific group of people who's false religion and animal worship has led them into debauchery and sin and not the other way around.

[ohio jones]

Roman paganism did not do that at all. Greek and Roman gods were all human form (Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Venus, Minerva, etc. Always depicted in human form. Every ancient depiction of Greek and Roman gods is in human form. Rome and classical museums are full of statues of Roman and Greek gods. They are always depicted in human form.

... and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being ...

So he wasn't calling out Roman paganism? Only Isis?