Romans 1:23

“`html

An Exegetical Analysis of Genitive Constructions in Romans 1:23

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Genitive Constructions in Romans 1:23 is based on a b-greek discussion from January 29th, 2014. The initial inquiry concerns the grammatical classification of the genitive string in Romans 1:23, specifically the nouns following the `ἐν` clause. The genitive phrase εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν is understood to describe what was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, prompting a need for precise grammatical identification.

The core exegetical issue revolves around accurately categorizing the series of genitive constructions in Romans 1:23, particularly the relationship between ὁμοιώματι and εἰκόνος, and subsequently εἰκόνος and the following list of nouns (φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν). This involves determining whether these are possessive, descriptive, appositional, or other types of adnominal genitives, and how the adjective φθαρτοῦ modifies the subsequent nouns. The precise classification clarifies the nature of the “likeness” and “image” that replaced divine glory, impacting the interpretation of humanity’s idolatry and the severity of their theological misdirection.

καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.

(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No substantive differences are found in Romans 1:23 between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBL Greek New Testament (2010). Both editions present identical readings for this verse.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

From a textual critical perspective, the reading of Romans 1:23 is well-attested. The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) presents the same Greek text as Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010, indicating a high degree of certainty regarding the original wording with no significant variants influencing the interpretation of the genitive constructions.

Lexical analysis of key terms provides further insight:

• ἤλλαξαν (from ἀλλάσσω): This verb signifies “to change, to alter, to exchange one thing for another.” BDAG notes its use in the sense of ‘to exchange for something else, give in exchange,’ highlighting the active decision in turning away from God.
• δόξαν: “Glory, splendor, renown, honor.” BDAG defines it as ‘the state of being brilliant and magnificent, splendor, glory.’ In a theological context, it refers to the divine majesty and intrinsic worth of God.
• ἀφθάρτου: “Imperishable, immortal, undecaying.” BDAG describes it as ‘imperishable, immortal,’ emphasizing God’s eternal and incorruptible nature, which stands in stark contrast to the created things.
• ὁμοιώματι: “Likeness, semblance, form, copy.” BDAG defines it as ‘likeness, image, form,’ signifying something that resembles another. The dative form here is governed by the preposition ἐν, indicating the *form* or *manner* in which the exchange occurred.
• εἰκόνος: “Image, likeness, representation, portrait.” BDAG provides ‘likeness, image, portrait.’ While similar to ὁμοίωμα, εἰκών often implies a more direct or representative image, potentially carrying ontological implications in other contexts (e.g., humans as the image of God). Here, it further specifies the nature of the ὁμοίωμα.
• φθαρτοῦ: “Perishable, corruptible, subject to decay.” BDAG notes it as ‘perishable, subject to decay,’ serving as a direct antonym to ἀφθάρτου and underscoring the ephemeral nature of human and animal life. KITTEL would further elaborate on the theological implications of perishability in contrast to divine immortality.
• ἀνθρώπου: “A human being, mankind.” BDAG: ‘a human being, mankind,’ representing the human species.
• πετεινῶν: “Birds, winged creatures.” BDAG: ‘a winged creature, bird.’
• τετραπόδων: “Four-footed animals.” BDAG: ‘four-footed animal.’
• ἑρπετῶν: “Creeping things, reptiles.” BDAG: ‘creeping thing, reptile.’

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of the genitive string is crucial for a nuanced translation. The phrase τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ presents a straightforward possessive genitive, “the glory of the incorruptible God.”

The primary area of contention lies in the construction ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν. Here, ὁμοιώματι is a dative noun governed by ἐν, indicating the sphere or manner of the exchange. The genitive εἰκόνος depends on ὁμοιώματι. This relationship can be interpreted as an appositional or explanatory genitive, where εἰκόνος clarifies the nature of the ὁμοίωμα. Thus, it is not merely “in a likeness of an image,” but “in a likeness, namely an image of…” This implies that the likeness *is* the image, or the likeness *takes the form of* an image.

Following this, the subsequent genitive string φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν depends on εἰκόνος. These are best understood as genitives of description or content, specifying *what kind* of image, or *whose* image, it is. The adjective φθαρτοῦ (“perishable”) explicitly modifies ἀνθρώπου (“human being”) but, due to the parallel structure and semantic coherence, is implicitly understood to apply to all the subsequent nouns (birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things). All these creatures share the characteristic of being perishable, thereby amplifying the contrast with the “incorruptible God.”

Rhetorically, the extended list of creatures serves to emphasize the profound degradation of the exchange. Humanity’s idolatry is portrayed as a comprehensive rejection of the divine, substituting the eternal glory of God with a diverse array of finite and mortal created beings, from the most exalted (human) to the most humble (creeping things). The antithesis between ἀφθάρτου (incorruptible) and φθαρτοῦ (perishable) is a central rhetorical device, highlighting the immense theological error and the catastrophic consequences of such an exchange.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis confirms that the genitive constructions in Romans 1:23 systematically delineate the nature of humanity’s idolatrous exchange. The genitive εἰκόνος functions appositionally to ὁμοιώματι, specifying the “likeness” as an “image.” Subsequently, the genitive string describing humans and animals clarifies the *content* or *object* of this image, all of which are explicitly or implicitly characterized as “perishable,” standing in stark opposition to the “incorruptible God.”

1. “and exchanged the glory of the imperishable God for a likeness, that is, an image of perishable humanity, and of birds, and of four-footed animals, and of creeping things.”
   This translation emphasizes the appositional relationship between “likeness” and “image,” providing clarity on the nature of the exchanged object.

2. “and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness in the form of a perishable human image, and of birds, and of four-footed animals, and of creeping things.”
   This version uses “in the form of” to convey the relationship between ὁμοιώματι and εἰκόνος, and groups “perishable” with “human image” while still implying its reach to the animal categories.

3. “and traded the glory of the eternal God for images resembling mortal humans, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.”
   This more dynamic translation uses “traded” for ἤλλαξαν and “resembling mortal” to capture the descriptive genitives and the pervasive sense of perishability across all listed creatures.

“`