logo-small

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:
Read Chapter 1

Ambrosiaster

AD 400
Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry. Those who interpret this differently do not understand the force of the argument. For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore, if this is the part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if they had not had this use given to them by nature? This is why he said earlier that they had been handed over to uncleanness, even though he did not explain in detail what he meant by that. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles. ...

Clement Of Alexandria

AD 215
Amorem puerorum repellens, eum appellate bestiam, quod frenum mordentes, qui se voluptatibus dedunt, libidinosi, quadrupedum coeunt more, et filios seminare conantur. Impios "autem tradidit Deus "ut air Apostolus,
< 1 min2/10

Cyprian of Carthage

AD 258
And I beg you not to wonder at the things that persons of this kind speak: the offence of their mouths in words is the least of which they are guilty.
< 1 min3/10

George Leo Haydock

AD 1849
God delivered them up. Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins. (Challoner)
< 1 min4/10

John Chrysostom

AD 407
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, They changed the truth of God for a lie. And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, Leaving the natural use of the woman. And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that...
17 mins5/10

John Chrysostom

AD 407
No one can say that it was by being prevented from legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insanity…. What is contrary to nature has something irritating and displeasing in it, so that they could not even claim to be getting pleasure out of it. For genuine pleasure comes from following what is according to nature. But when God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down. Thus not only was their doctrine satanic, but their life was too…. How disgraceful it is when even the women sought after these things, when they ought to have a greater sense of shame than men have. ...

Oecumenius

AD 990
God gave them up because that is what they wanted. .
< 1 min7/10

Tertullian of Carthage

AD 220
Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural,
< 1 min8/10

Tertullian of Carthage

AD 220
When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way.
< 1 min9/10

Thomas Aquinas

AD 1274
146. Having set forth the sin of ungodliness [n. 141], according to which they have sinned against the divine nature, he now sets forth the punishment whereby they have been reduced to sinning against their own nature. First, he mentions the punishment; secondly, he explains it, there [26b; n. 148] at For their women; thirdly, its fittingness, there [27b; n. 151] at the recompense. 147. Therefore, he says, for this reason, i.e., because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, God gave them up not, of course, by impelling them to evil but by abandoning them, to dishonorable passions, i.e., sins against nature, which are called passions in the sense that a passion implies that a thing is drawn outside the order of its own nature, as when water becomes hot or when a man becomes sick. Hence, because man departs from the natural order, when he commits such sins, they are fittingly called passions, as in Rom (7:5): "The passions of sins." They are called dishonorable passions, because ...
14 mins10/10

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20

App Store LogoPlay Store Logo