Romans 1 vs 26 - Working the Word - 5a
Publication Date: 1973
Victor Paul Wierwille was a Bible scholar and teacher for over four decades.
By means of Dr. Wierwille's dynamic teaching of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, foundational class and advanced class graduates of Power for Abundant Living have learned that the one great requirement for every student of the Bible is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Thus, his presentation of the Word of God was designed for students who desire the in-depth-accuracy of God’s Word.
In his many years of research, Dr. Wierwille studied with such men as Karl Barth, E. Stanley Jones, Glenn Clark, Bishop K.C. Pillai, and George M. Lamsa. His formal training included Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Theology degrees from Mission House (Lakeland) College and Seminary. He studied at the University of Chicago and at Princeton Theological Seminary from which he received a Master of Theology degree in Practical Theology. Later he completed his work for the Doctor of Theology degree.
Dr. Wierwille taught the first class on Power for Abundant Living in 1953.
Books by Dr. Wierwille include: Are the Dead Alive Now? published in 1971; Receiving the Holy Spirit Today published in 1972; five volumes of Studies in Abundant Living— The Bible Tells Me So (1971), The New, Dynamic Church (1971), The Word's Way (1971), God's Magnified Word (1977), Order My Steps in Thy Word (1985); Jesus Christ Is Not God (1975); Jesus Christ Our Passover (1980); and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed (1982).
Dr. Wierwille researched God's Word, taught, wrote, and traveled worldwide, holding forth the accuracy of God's "wonderful, matchless" Word.
Romans 1:26
Lesson 5a
Working the Word
I thought tonight I’d show you, or work with you a little bit as to how I really work the
Word when I work it. And I trust this will give you an idea of the stuff that you go through
when you really are interested in rightly dividing the Word and not handling it deceitfully,
because, it has to be all tied together. And I’d like to begin tonight with verse 26 of
Romans 1.
Now I need my books up here that Donna brought. And Bernita and Walter, I’ll need
your help in this tonight from Aramaic and Greek, too, okay? Not being able to read
Aramaic, I can’t work it, because I don’t know it. But being able to work my way through
the Greek stuff, one of the first things I always do is I get my Greek text out and I put it in
front of me and you’ll notice what else I carry. Working in the New Testament here if I
need the Old Testament, I’ll go back to it but I carry a concordance, a Bullinger
Concordance. I carry a good English dictionary and I carry a Young’s down here,
concordance.
Now, we may need other things tonight, if we do it will come to my mind. But these
are just essentials with which I work to begin with. Now, I have maybe four, five, six other
concordances that if it gets too tough. Or if I can’t find what I believe is the answer, then
I’ll look up in all the rest of them. And this is why sometimes it’s a long procedure to get to
some stuff. But basically, if you have this kind of stuff and I’ll show you why tonight. I can
work it from this pretty accurately. I wish I knew Estrangelo Aramaic as well as I am able
to trace Greek. Then I could help myself more only from a checking point of view. But one
of the reasons that I many times feel that I don’t need the Estrangelo Aramaic is because by
the time I get through working it with my years and years and years of working it and
experience in working of the Word, I just know that I’ve got it rightly divided. And since
nobody has ever done the kind of work that I know of in Estrangelo Aramaic, I have no
quick source of reference even if I was able to read the words and check them out. I still
wouldn’t have the checking positions because I do not believe that as far as the work is
concerned, for instance in Estrangelo Aramaic, Bernita that we have anything available like
this concordance by Bullinger for instance. And therefore nobody has ever done it. That’s
why years and years and years ago when I saw this already I started Jim Chamberlin out
thinking you know, he’d really stick and work that thing. Then we would have produced an
Estrangelo Aramaic, things like this is. I’m going to get with Bernita tonight on one word, I
think it’s changed. In verse 26, where we’re going to work verse 26. You see the word
“change” in verse 26? It’s the same word in verse 25. In verse 23, do you see it in 23? It’s a
different word. To a degree. Now, what I would do you know, if I were in Estrangelo
Aramaic now, I would have this all checked through. And this Bernita will be checking this
to show you beautiful this thing could be done in language form. Now, many times in
Estrangelo Aramaic, you will find it’s the same word. In verse 23, or wherever it was.
Verse 23, 25 and 26, it will be the same word in Estrangelo but not in Greek. Now that
gives me a wonderful privilege. Now working the Word each word within the verse,
understand, in relationship to the usage of that word, the word in the context, that gives me
a wonderful privilege to see exactly that I could use that same word in verse 23 and it
would fit in 25 and it would fit in verse 26 in the whole pattern. And that becomes real
handy, spiritually. Because then many times you can tie the word together in all of its
accuracy.
Now, Walter you have your Greek text, I think I’ve checked them here, all except two
words I haven’t, come see it. In verse 26 the first preposition for – dia, see it? All right,
here’s what you do in the class. You write down verse 26, Romans 1:26.
Romans 1:26:
[For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did
change the natural use into that which is against nature:]
Now, you write down the word “for.” Now, leave some room, under the word “for.”
And go down to the word “God,” put the word “God” below it. See like I do? Like that,
and of course in parenthesis I’ll put (this cause) on the first line. God, see? Now, in verse
26 gave them up. I go down a few more lines and write down “gave them up.” Now, the
second preposition there Walter, is the word “unto.” We’ll be back to all of this for a
minute. I’m just setting up the format for you, and Walter will help us here in a minute on
all of these prepositions, because it’s going to be real interesting. Gave them up unto, next
word “vile,” see it? And I’ll put down also the English word “affections” underneath it
about a line or two, “vile affections.” Then we’re down to a preposition, what? “For.” Then
we’re down to the word “even.” Then we’re down to their women. We don’t have to write
it, their women. Did, don’t have to write. Now, here we’re down to another word “change.”
The, then we’ll put down the word “natural.” And underneath that I’ll put the word “use.”
Then I’ll put the preposition “into.” That which is - then I’ll put down the word “against.”
Now, I’ve broken the verse up for myself. And you see why I’ve done this is to get the
words that I have to double check and triple check on out by themselves so I can begin
writing. Because what I’m after is always a literal translation according to usage. That’s
what I’m after. And do you understand what I mean by that when I say a literal translation
according to usage. That is the greatest truth that the Word has, if we can get it. If we can
get a literal translation according to usage, then we have the greatest knowledge of the
truth that the Word has available to us. You hear us say at times that, you know, you can
read a verse and then study it and a year later you study and you see more light? That’s true,
but I’d like to turn it around the other way; it is possible to get all of the light that there is
on the Word from the Word if you work it. Not every word because you don’t understand it
all, but if you really understand it and you’ve got it accurately then there is no more light in
that verse. Now I’m not going to say this publically, you know, to the rank and file,
because they’ll say, well, you know the senseless world will pick it up and our critics will
say, look they’re the only ones that rightly interpret it; they’re interpretation is the only one
that is true. That’s how they’d say it, that’s not what I said. Why should we study to show
ourselves approved unto God if we could never know the answer? Then God would ask us
to do something which is what? Impossible. Study to show ourselves approved unto God a
workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth. I know scientists
that in certain categories can do their experiments perfectly. They never flub up. When
they do that experiment over and over again teaching it to their class, they always do it the
same way; it comes out the same place. If a scientist can do that in the senses world then
we as men and women of God can so work the Word of God that we can say yes! As far as
I know that’s all the light there is on that verse. Now, that’s possible.
Let’s take the prepositions first and define them tonight, which I think Walter will be
able to help us with, won’t you? The word “for,” this cause – I write behind that the Greek
word and it is what? {dia}
DIA, d-i-a. All right, then I go to the word “unto” and the word “unto” is what in the
Greek? {eis}
EIS, e-i-s, got it? I put it down. What is the word “for” in front of the word “even”?
[Walter:] That’s a conjuction.
Yeah. Let me look it up in here. In the text here it is ai te gar is that what you have
there?
[Walter:] gar is the preposition “for” - in conjuction.
Right. And the word “even,” is the word what?
[Walter:] There is no word “even”....
Yeah, that’s what they translated even. All right, now, I will write that aside of my
word “for,” I will write the word gar and “even” I’ll write hai....Now, the word “into” is
another preposition and again it is eis, right? {Right.} Now, have I hit all of them in there?
What’s the word “against”?
[Walter:] That’s para, a preposition.
That’s a preposition, right p-a-r-a, underscore those. Now, I talked to you about
prepositions last week or sometime. In the back of Bullinger’s Bible I think it’s Appendix
104 or something, he gives a listing of all the prepositions, the different ones that are used
in the New Testament. The word dia is on page 149 of his appendix (and it’s No. 5) and it
says it governs two cases, the genitive and the accusative. In verse 26 of Romans is it
genitive or accusative? From your Greek text, from English? What is it in English you
English students, you college grads, what is it? Why is it accusative, what makes it the
accusative case? {Direct Object.} Okay, that’s the answer. It’s a direct object of, right?
That’s why it’s in what case? {Accusative.} Accusative. You see, the people who have
been through the Foundational Class, next week they start research, see? They don’t even
know the difference between the genitive and the accusative or any of the rest of the cases.
Now, how in the blazes can you do research unless you know some of stuff. You just end
up in lots of error and your opinions on what the Word really ought to mean and you
confuse people. So, you have to be honest in the case. The word dia used in the accusative,
according to Bullinger he says: it has the sense on account of, or because indicating both
the exciting cause, the impulsive cause or the prospective cause. [REPEATS] – indicating
both the exciting cause, the impulsive cause, the prospective cause. Walter you want to
speak any further on this preposition and its usage?
[Walter:] No. Except normally with the accusative in the Greek grammar, they translate it
on account of, because of.
Now, King James translates it “for this reason.” See? For this reason. Literal
translation according to usage to this kind of preposition in the accusative should be
translated then “because of this.” It isn’t for this, it’s because of it. You know, remembering
what the previous verse is talking about in two verses before. They worshiped, served the
creature more than, what? {Creator.} The creator. Because, they did this, because of this,
not for this. Got it? That’s why now, after the word dia in my line I write: because of this.
Now, the next word in the King James is the word “God” – theos, hotheos. The word
theos generally replaces in the New Testament epistles what the word Elohim is in the Old
Testament, but there again you can not fully go by that. You’ll have to check it to see from
context because if it’s God the Creator, or if it’s God in relationship to what he has created.
Because of this, God. God who? Would this have to be the creator or God in relationship to
what he has created? {In relationship.} No, has to be Elohim. I think so. In verse 25, serve
the creature more than the, what? {Creator.} Creator, there’s my first clue – context! Now,
for this cause, I could in my mind, honestly, rightly divide the Word and change the word
“God” to what? Creator. I’m not going to do it, but I could. And you can see this but I can’t
prove it from the text, you see, the word is not creator in the text, the word is theos. But
when you really work the Word and you really were with men and women who were
honest in their work, you could translate that “creator” even though you didn’t have a
Greek or Aramaic word to do it with. Now, I can’t do this from a text point, not from a
Greek text point of view, so if I would want to clarify it, and if I wanted to really use the
word “creator,” I would put the word “God” in front of it to fool them. You know, honestly
fool them. Not fool in wrong sense, but to get them to think God but what I really was
saying? God as the, what? {Creator.} Creator. See? And if you really wanted to do a literal
translation according to usage, that’s how you would have to go.
Now you can see why in the years when I did all of this stuff time and time again,
worked, you see I made all of these notes. How would you explain all of what I just taught
to you in the Bible that was a literal translation, with margin, no notes like Bullinger, how
could you explain it to everybody? I don’t know, it’s almost impossible, you have to give
people an understanding of the word and then they just have to make the Word live. And if
people criticize us on it, we can always come back (if we have to) and work the text and
say look, this is what the text says, this is why it was translated this way, this is what we
know it really says. But if you wanted to come out with a translation of Romans for
instance, you just about have to put down everything I’ve talked to you about so far tonight.
Because, people just don’t have an understanding or knowledge of God’s Word.
Immediately they would say well you’re guessing, that’s your interpretation. It is not in our
interpretation, it’s our working of the Word with the Word’s own interpretation. If they
would say, that’s your work; I would readily agree to it. But it can not and dare not be our
interpretation, because it’s of no private interpretation; but it’s private of our work, we’re
working it not our grandma. I would like to translate this literally according to usage:
Romans 1:26 (Literal):
Because of this, God the creator...
Now, you have any questions, there? Do you understand why?
[Craig:] When you taught us this method with that first verse in Romans, you taught us
this God in relation to His creation. Did you say that’s the definition of the word
Yehoshua, the Hebrew word “Joshua” or “Jesus”?
Yeah, Elohim.
[Craig:] So every time it would be God in relationship to His creation, is it really talking
about Jesus Christ?
No, no, no, no, no. But, it’s talking about the blessing that would come through Jesus
Christ, you know, that’s included. But it’s also talking about the blessings that would come
through the ambassadors in the administration in which we live.
[Craig:] But it couldn’t talk about any Old Testament or anything? It’s God in relationship
to Jesus Christ?
No, in terms of His Word, whether it’s the written Word, revealed written Word, his
son, the prophets. Any time the Word is made known by the creator, it should be Elohim.
As it’s made known to his people and worked out among them, it should be Joshua, or
Yehoshua or Jehovah is the Hebrew of it. That’s what I believe it teaches, all right.
Let’s go on with the words, “gave them up.” Now, we all know from English what
gave them up means. But do we really know the in-depth accuracy of it? The Greek word
is what, Walter?
[Walter:] paredōken from paradidōmi.
All right, it’s spelled p-a-r-a-d-i-d-ō-m-i. Now, paradidōmi the first four letters of that
word are a what, Walter?
[Walter:] Preposition.
And what does that preposition para mean?
[Walter:] Beside, or from beside, or to the side of.
Okay, do it again Walter.
[Walter:] It’s beside, or from the side of, or to the side of, depending on the case. That’s a
general meaning.
Beside, all this, okay. Bullinger in his prepositions on 104, and I think, Walter you did
this in your syllabus. Has he got a diagram in his syllabus of the word usage of the word
para? {Yes.} What is it?
[Walter:] It comes off as a tangent in a circle at the top.
Right, but at the bottom?
[Walter:] No, at the top.
That is truth, now hold that...I’ll stand corrected here, but you couldn’t use para off
the bottom of the circle.
[Walter:] I never worked it then, minutely.
I think it must come off the top of the circle. Okay, got a circle in your mind? Here
circle [SHOWING STUDENTS] Para starts here and goes that way, there’s para. I do not
believe para would go this way. It goes up here, it’s always at the top of the circle. Walter,
translate that again the English word “beside,” what else?
[Walter:] From beside, that’s like the tangent going off the top. From the side of - from
beside. And with the accusative, when it uses nouns, it could also be translated to the
side of as going towards the side of it.
All right, now what is it here?
[Walter:] It’s not used with a case here. Here’s a prefix and I believe with the prefix, it’s
always the connotation of going from the side of, like the tangent.
All right. Now, this word didōmi, what does it come from? And where is it used at any
other place in the Word? To do this, is there no way that you could go in here and see the
usage of this word?
[Walter:] didōmi? Look in the back.
In the Greek back here? You want to come up here Walter and look up some of this
stuff here for me, you can see it faster than I can. Now here, you see is your word didōmi,
which is this word without the para, right? {Right.} Now, according to Young’s, this word
didōmi is translated in the King James: adventure-1 (see it?), bestow-2, bring forth-1, and
commit-1. This word “didōmi.”
[Students:] There’s more.
Oh yes, Lord, the next page, 367 times it’s translated give. Now, when I used to work
the Word, in the tough ones – now this isn’t too tough, I’m not going to spend too much
time; I would look up every one of those 367, before I’d ever move off of it. I would look
up every one of these, Walter; check them all out. And whenever I would get a little new
slant, I would make my note, so that I could learn. When I finally had it all checked out
and I was able to fit it from Genesis to Revelation then in my heart I’d say, thus says the
Lord that settles it for me. That’s how I got to what I believe, the Word of God is the will
of God. Isn’t that when you have the Word of God? That settles it. Now, look at the
different usage [didōmi in Young’s Concordance, p. 65]: deliver, deliver up, give, give
forth, give up, grant, make, minister, offer, put, set, show, suffer, take, utter, yield, deliver
(with sōtēria), have power (passive with dative), hinder, receive (dative of autos), give,
show openly (with ginomai and emphanēs), smite with the hand, all of this stuff. So,
there’s a little key in here that I use at times and that is – it’s most frequent usage is, what?
[Students:] Give.
Give, that I make a note of, give. Now, this is how I break a word down. But is that
para in here? [It] should be.
On page 82 of Young’s is paradidōmi fourth, fifth column; five or six up from the
bottom: be brought forth, betray, cast into prison, commit, deliver, deliver up, give, give
over, give up, hazard, put in prison, recommend, commit oneself, commit one’s cause.
Now, then I would check every one of those usages in the whole Bible, wherever
they’re used. Now, you know how to find these, don’t you? In your concordance when it
says, “commit -1”, paradidōmi? Do you know how to find it? Anybody here [that] doesn’t
know how to find it in the concordance? Hold up your hand. Alright, what did I say?
Which word? Commit, okay. Now we’re looking for paradidōmi right? How many times is
it translate “commit” in the King James?
[Students:] Once.
Once. So you go to the word “commit.” All right, it’s on 192. Start down the line. The
first is Hebrew and you know we’re not in Hebrew we’re in, what?
[Students:] Greek.
Greek. Therefore it will come after the Old Testament, so you go down. The line, one
right after the other, second column, number 9, is the first time it’s in John 5, what? {Verse
22.} And it’s the word, what? Didōmi, that’s not the word we’re looking for, is it? So, you
keep going; keep going. Have you found it yet? Paradidōmi? Where?
[Students:] Number 12.
Nope that’s not it. Is it? Nope.
He said it was used once right? But it’s used twice.
[Student:] In the back of page 82, also, at the bottom it had “commit one’s self” used once,
so those two usages are there together.
Oh, we didn’t take that, okay. Commit, once; and commit oneself (commit one’s cause)
is used once. That’s where we missed it then. Yeah should have read it, shouldn’t have I?
So, it’s used twice under paradidōmi and that 12 then would be right; that would be right.
Hailing men and women, committed them unto prison; but committed himself to him that
judged, so forth. Now, that’s how you have to check it out. How can you put in words
paradidōmi? I just don’t know how to put it in words that are the depth of the Word. I
know what it says. Para means “from the side of.” From the side of. Who’s side of?
[Students:] God’s.
The creator. It says King James, he gave them up. You know how much he gave them
up? They were totally released from the side of, and here they are, Walter, dangling. No
attachment back here, don’t you see it? That’s that paradidōmi. Now, how are you going to
tell people that?...
You see, how that has to be? It’s just fantastic. This represents the creator in
relationship to the usage of prepositions. Now, because of this, God the creator, gave them
up paradidōmi. He gave them up so far because they were from here out here and they
were dangling over here away from him that’s paradidōmi. Yes Charlie?
[Charlie:] Why would it have to be from the top instead of from the bottom?
Because, the Creator never does anything from the bottom he creates from the top.
God is top creator, underneath evolution coming out of the slime he is the creator overall,
that’s why I don’t believe para is ever at the bottom in the usage of God, in connection
with it.
If it was man, I’d put him right at the bottom. You know, [if] para was used of man,
I’d run him at the bottom. But being of God, I’d run him right at the top. Never let
anybody touch God, never bring Him down below, always at the top. It’s the Creator in the
beginning, who?{God.} See how I have the word to back up our knowledge and thinking
on the Word.
[Danny:] The circle is God?
No, it represents in usage of this preposition para in this relationship; it would
represent the Creator, God the Creator. And therefore, para in this usage would be off of
the top of a circle, like God is the Creator from the top. It would be tangent with the circle.
[Danny:] Would this be like in a marriage where a marriage ceremony, where a father
gives away the bride? Is that similar in the idea?
I don’t get the connection or the association that’s in your mind, Danny.
[Danny:] I’m thinking of the word “away” in particular; if the daughter was leaving his
family to another one, just going out of the household.
No, that would have to be a different preposition that would have to come from the
center of the circle out, that would have to be a different preposition. I think you’re going
go to have it after a bit in eis and some of these, but that wouldn’t be here, Danny.
[Student:] Does that relationship of where God and the people are have any bearing? I just
want to understand that relationship that God had with the people at that point in time.
I mean, I’m amazed that they had that close of a relationship with God to begin with.
Before this, the reason the people were burning as you’ll see later on in themselves,
they’ve already – maybe 150, 200 years, their daddy and mommy forgot about God and
now the kids live it up, maybe it’s 50 years, maybe it’s 25, takes it back to the Creator, God.
Maybe I’m not getting clear on your question honey.
[Student:] Well, let me think on it a little bit more in light of what you said.
Alright, Doug.
[Doug:] Didn’t Reverend Cummins say that para was going from the side of?
Yeah, tangent to.
[Doug:] Like first they went away from God, and He gave them up.
Right.
[Doug:] So going from the side, the para part could be them going away from and He gave
them up.
Yeah, that’s what it is. That’s why in the true since, they’re not even dangling, they’re
dropped down in the mud. We’ll see it later in the word “burned.”
[Doug:] They’ve completely broken fellowship with the Father; can you use the word
“fellowship”?
No, I don’t know if it’s good or not. But all I want you to see the picture and see the
depth of the Word and how you have to in research, how you have to take all of these
things into consideration, to get the inner depth of the greatness of that word, the feel for it.
Now you can beg on this stuff, I know it’s an illustration, illustrations always break down.
But the best I know is right there, that’s all I know about its usage like this. And where it is
tangent to the circle, this is the usage of the word para. And it’s a break off. Okay, what
you got, Charlie?
[Charlie:] It couldn’t be coming out from the center of the circle, because it’s no longer
part of it.
That’s right, that’s right. See, and the point is it couldn’t come out of the center, maybe
if it was God; it could come out of the center and still hang out here and drop off. That’s
where husband and wife split up, they come out of the center having committed one to
another in I Corinthians, that’s why you’re head ain’t with it. You’re apt to begin to ask
stupid questions. You got to get either more education, more knowledge or get older one of
the two, because, the thing would bust on here. Husband and wife in commitment are one,
understand? Yet they have a divorce and bust up, they come out of the center and they
dangle and fall off too. That’s used in the Word, Walter like that. Okay that’s enough of that.
Okay, time for me to have a cup of coffee, I guess. Do you know a better translation than
gave them up?
[Bernita:] I have “handed over.”
[Student:] Going from what Doug was saying and how they left and then how God gave
them up, it seems to me that it’s not, you know, they left, you know, by their freedom
of will and then God gave them up and therefore it wouldn’t be God delivering them
or God making them the action. They made the initial action and the outcome was,
you know, they bumped themselves up against the spiritual law and therefore God
gave them up.
That’s why I think Bernita, “handed them over” would put too much responsibility on
God. He did the handing over when the fact of the matter is, they handed themselves over
and then God had to release it because of the free will of man. Yes, Bob Wierwille.
[Bob:] What’s the word used when Jesus gave leave to the devil spirits to go into the swine?
Same operation, almost.
This paradidōmi, you know, I think it’s used where it says, “he gave up the ghost.”
When he gave up the ghost, did Jesus Christ drive out his spirit or did his spirit leave? And
that’s why he gave it up. It left and that’s why it gave it up. Same here, these people
forsook God. Served the creature more than, what? {Creator.}They did it, therefore God
gave them up.
[Bob:] God didn’t forsake them, they forsook God?
Right. Yes, honey?
[Student:] Something like relinquished, God relinquished them up?
God relinquished them, but that’s not strong enough.
[Student:] How about gave them release? He released them.
You know what it literally says? God kicked them in the butt. [STUDENTS LAUGH]
Don’t tell them that in translation. Because they had forsaken Him, so He said okay get out
of here, gave them up. I don’t know how we’re going to put that in translation. Yes?
[Student:] Now that we’ve worked that word out of paradidōmi, it’s also used in some
surrounding verses, same thing fits maybe in that pattern?
Yes, that’s why I say, no matter how much I show you on how I work this thing, I
can’t even work one verse completely with you at one time because - take a verse like this.
If we were really going to check it, you just about have two weeks of your time, 16 hours a
day, checking every verse in the scripture where it’s used to come up. But you know what
happens in this, you finally get so versatile in this; you’ve checked it so many times that
your retain this in your mind and then pretty soon, not pretty soon, but after you’ve worked
a long time then you become versatile because you’ll remember all of that other stuff.
Words used, how it’s used and all of the different – and you have formulated in your mind
accurate knowledge of the Word, therefore you can come to a conclusion faster. If we were
going to check all of the usages of all of these, and then you run across paradidōmi again,
once you have checked it out, you become versatile in the knowledge of its usage, then you
read this same word “paradidōmi” in another verse, in the same chapter or in five chapters
following, then you hold in your mind what you worked previously and pretty soon you
build a system of working. Okay, let’s just take a couple of minutes off.
Alright, we’re going to the word “unto” and the word is? {Eis.}The word eis. And
Walter its usage, you want to give it to them?
[Walter:] It means unto like the magnitude of a vector, I think in mathematics where it
goes the whole distance from one point to another point, I believe, on a line Bullinger
says. It actually goes the whole distance; it’s not in the direction of. In a vector you
have two components: The magnitude, the whole distance, and you’ve got the
direction in which it goes. The direction is a different Greek word. This eis is like the
magnitude, goes the whole distance. If I go unto New Bremen and I use this Greek
word that means I actually go to New Bremen. But if I say toward New Bremen, I
don’t actually go the whole distance; I just go in that direction.
And if he went the whole way he’d have to use eis. No other word possible.
[Student:] Right, I believe it uses the other word, some places in the Gospels where Jesus
went toward Samaria but then you read he stopped other places.
In Route, that means he didn’t go directly there. I think it will include that word, from
here to here directly without any off roads. Bullinger says here in the paragraph:
From this comes the idea of the object toward which such motion is directed and for or
with respect to which such action or movement is made. And it denotes motion unto an
object with the purpose of reaching or touching it.
Okay, I start at this point, here is my object, I go all the way, that’s the word eis. From
this point [to] there. Now, for this cause God gave them up, unto. To reach, what? {Vile
affections.} No, unto their destination. You know what that tells me? They’re going to
blow it to the ultimate, unto. See why, Walter? They don’t stop just going down the ladder,
you know, they don’t stop just playing a woman playing with another woman, they don’t
stop just with a man playing with another man, but it goes all the way to the total unto
destination. Now, that will include, what do they call it when they whip them with whips?
{Masochism.} Yeah, all of that, it will include bestiality, where you have intercourse with
an animal. That’s what this tells me. You see why in translation you can only give literal
translation according to usage; you can never make it knowledgeable in its greatness or in
all of its depth to all the people. All right, it’s real simple, once people have walked away
from God and they’re no longer attached to God, they’re already as far as we’re concerned
biblically, in whose league are they? {Satan’s.} That’s the ultimate; the other way. That
thing is fantastic. Walter, just for word sake and stuff, how can we translate this? Gave
them up?
[Walter:] All the way unto? All the way in reaching?
I’ll buy this “all the way unto” for a time being. We may add a few words in there
when we do our literal translation later but we’ll hold this all in abeyance in our mind, now.
Collect all the knowledge [that] we can.
I’ll move now to the words “vile affections.” Now, in my head let’s say I’d have a
trouble with the word “vile.” What’s the word “vile” mean? That’s when I go to my
English dictionary to begin with. You know, I have an idea I know what it means, but do I
really? I think Bill Mays tells you this in the class when you start out or something. No, he
does this in salesmanship class, doesn’t he? Like for instance we say. “Power for Abundant
Living, greatest class in the world.” What do you mean? Greatest class in the world, define
it. Now, vile, what does vile mean? Somebody might say if you spit in somebody’s face
that’s vile. So, if you don’t really know, the first place you can start out would be in a
dictionary, just look up the word “vile.” And I’ll look it up in here and show it to you. And
you should have a pretty good dictionary, you know. All of them are pretty good except
sometimes some are a little better. The kind of stuff I’m doing with you now, is how I’d
except you to handle Romans all the way through, we just haven’t gotten around to it, most
likely never will, but I should. It’s what I was going to do that week, when we were
hunting, at least do the first chapter or two. The first two chapters in Romans are really,
really terrific. I guess they all are, but it’s unbelievable how terrific the Word is until you
see it. (Vile, haven’t found it yet.) [Vile:] morally base, despicable, loathsome. Now, in my
head, I will put the word loathsome because that does a reading for me. It may not do it for
you but it does it for me, and I will put that in my head. Shamefully wicked, sinful, corrupt,
filthy. I will put that word in my head, filthy. Why am I going to put this word in my head
because I know they are going to go all the, what? {Way.} The way, therefore, in my head,
I’ll think of it as loathsome or filth, filthily loathsome. See? I’ll hold that in my head:
disgusting, objectionable, brutish, criminal, infamous. I like that; of course I think I used it
in former translation. See? But I keep this all in my head. The word “vile” is the word
atimia, okay so I’ll put this down, A-T-I-M-I-A. And Bullinger says it’s dishonor. Here, it’s
a genitive of dishonor. What’s “genitive of dishonor” mean? A vileness. And it’s used only
once in Romans 1:26, this word “vile,” do you see that? Now, I go to this thing and look up
vile. (Mrs. Wierwille, still here? Well just let her alone a minute, I just want to ask a
question. I got a ten o’ clock phone call coming in. If that’s on 2683 or 2713, I can’t take it
here, can I? Okay, I’ll quit before ten, all right.)
Do you have it on page 1024? Vile: bazah, zulluth, (lightly esteem) zalal, and then
nabel, nebalah, nemibzah, shoar, now we go into Romans in 1:26 atimia. How do you
pronounce it, Walter? Now, what I will do, I’ll read all of those Old Testament ones. Daniel:
in his estate shall stand up a vile person; the wicked walk...when the vilest men; if thou
take...the precious from the vile; see...and consider for am become vile; the vile person
shall be no more called; for the vile person will speak villany; but unto this man do not so
vile a thing; vile and refuse, that they destroy utterly; will make them like vile figs that
cannot; for this cause God gave them up unto vile. Now, I try in my head to remember
every usage in the Old Testament of the word “vile” here, to see if here’s anything here in
the Old Testament that corresponds with the Greek of the New Testament.