That which is unseemly (tiv doynywootvny). Primarily, want of form, disfigurement. Plato contrasts it with edoyn- hootvn gracefuiness (‘ Symposium,” 196).
Which was meet (édev). Rey., was due, which is better, though the word expresses a necessity in the nature of the case —that which must needs be as the consequence of violating the divine law.
The prevalence of this horrible vice is abundantly illustrated in the classics. See Aristophanes, “ Lysistrata,” 110; Plato, “Symposium,” 191; Lucian, ‘‘ Amores,” xviii.; “ Dialogi Mere- tricii,” v.. 2; Juvenal, vi. 311; Martial, i, 91; vii, 67. See also Becker’s ‘“ Charicles;” Forsyth’s “Life of Cicero,” pp. 289, 336 ; and Dollinger’s “ Heathen and Jew,” ii., 273 sqq. Déllinger remarks that in the whole of the literature of the ante-Christian period, hardly a writer has decisively condemned it. In the Dorie states, Crete and Sparta, the practice was favored as a means of education, and was acknowledged by law. Even Socrates could not forbear feeling like a Greek on this point (see Plato’s ‘“Charmides”). In Rome, in the earlier centuries of the republic, it was of rare ocurrence; but at the close of the sixth century it had become general. Even the best of the emperors, Antoninus and Trajan, were guilty.
On the Apostle’s description Bengel remarks that “in stig- matizing we must often call a spade a spade. The unchaste usually demand from others an absurd modesty.” Yet Paul’s
eu. 1] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. , 21
reserve is in strong contrast with the freedom of pagan writers (see Eph. v. 12). Meyer notes that Paul delineates the female dishonor in less concrete traits than the male.
28. Evenas. Expressing the correlation between the sin and the punishment.
They did not like to have God in their knowledge (ov« éSoxiwacav). Lit., did not approve. Rev., refused. They did not think God worth the knowing. Compare 1 Thess. ii. 4. Knowledge (érvyvécet) is, literally, full knowledge. They did not suffer the rudimentary revelation of nature to develop into full knowledge—“a penetrating and living knowledge of God” (Meyer). In Dante’s division of Hell, the section assigned to Incontinence, or want of self-control, is succeeded by that of Bestiality, or besotted folly, which comprises infidelity and heresy in all their forms—sin which Dante declares to be the most stupid, vile, and hurtful of follies. Thus the want of self-restraint is linked with the failure to have God in knowl- edge. Self is truly possessed only in God. The tendency of this is ever downward toward that demoniac animalism which is incarnated in Lucifer at the apex of the infernal cone, and which is so powerfully depicted in this chapter. See “Inferno,” ix.
Reprobate mind (dédxipov vodv). Lit., not standing the test. See on zs tried, Jas. i. 12; and trial, 1 Pet.i. 7. There is a play upon the words. As they did not approve, God gave them up unto a mind disapproved. This form of play upon words of similar sound is perhaps the most frequent of Paul’s rhetorical figures, often consisting in the change of preposition in a compound, or in the addition of a preposition to the simple verb. Thus srepitopn circumcision, katatoun concision, Philip. iii. 2, 3. “Our epistle known (ywwoxouevn) and read (avayw- waKkopéevn).” Compare Rom. ii. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 29-31; Rom. xii. 3.* The word reprobate is from re-probare, to reject on a second trial, hence, to condemn.
* See an interesting article on ‘‘ The Rhetoric of St. Paul,” by Archdeacon Farrar, Expositor, first series, x., 1 sqq.
92, WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. I.
99. Filled. The retribution was in full measure. Compare Prov. i. 81; Apoc. xviii. 6.
Wickedness (ovnpia). See on Mark vii. 22.
Covetousness ()eoveF/a). Lit., the desire of having more. It is to be distinguished from ¢vAapyupla, rendered love of money, 1 Tim. vi. 10, and its kindred adjective pidapyupos, which A. V. renders covetous, Luke xvi. 14; 2 Tim. iil. 2; properly changed by Rev. into lovers of money. The distinct- ion is expressed by covetousness and avarice. The one is the desire of getting, the other of keeping. Covetousness has a wider and deeper sense, as designating the sinful desire which goes out after things of time and sense of every form and kind. Hence it is defined by Paul (Col. iii. 5) as ¢dolatry, the worship of another object than God, and is so often associated with fleshly sins, as 1 Cor. v.11; Eph. v. 3, 5; Col. iii. 5. Light- foot says: “Impurity and covetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of selfishness and vice.” Socrates quotes an anonymous author who compares the re- gion of the desires in the wicked to a vessel full of holes, and says that, of all the souls in Hades, these uninitiated or leaky persons are the most miserable, and that they carry water to a vessel which is full of holes in a similarly holey colander. The colander is the soul of the ignorant (Plato, “Gorgias,” 493). Compare, also, the description of covetousness and avarice by Chaucer, “ Romaunt of the Rose,” 183-246.