AND, ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW THE ORDINANCE OF GOD: hoitines to dikaioma tou theou epignontes (AAPMPN): (Ro 1:18,21; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5,21, 22, 23)

The late Dr. R. H. Graves of Canton, China, said that a Chinaman who read these verses declared that Paul could not have written it, but only a modern missionary who had been to China. It was such a perfect description of Chinamen! (Romans 1)

Know (1921) (epiginosko from epí = upon, an intensive which gives force of “fully” + ginosko = to know) (See also the discussion of the related noun epignosis) means to know fully, to know with certainty, to become thoroughly acquainted with or to know thoroughly. Epiginosko means to possess more or less definite information about, and can imply a degree of thoroughness. It speaks of full or added knowledge (see epignosis).

In fairness, it should be noted that a few sources (J. Armitage Robinson in his commentary on Greek text of Ephesians) see no significant difference in meaning between epiginosko and ginosko and thus do not favor the idea of a more thorough or complete knowledge with the epiginosko/epignosis word group.

Friberg (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker Academic) in fact divides the definitions of epiginosko as follows...

(1) with no emphasis on the epi-prefix;

(a) recognize, know (Mt 11.27; cf. Lk 10.22);
(b) perceive, notice, become aware of (Mk 5.30; cf. Lk 8.46);
(c) learn of, find out (Lk 7.37);
(d) acknowledge, understand (2Co 1.13);

(2) with the preposition (epi) intensifying the meaning;

(a) know exactly, fully, completely (Lk 1.4);
(b) especially in relation to higher and spiritual knowledge received through revelation fully know, perfectly know (Col 1.6)

Wuest explains that epiginosko is...

“knowledge gained by experience,” thus, a personal knowledge. This is the meaning of the simple verb (ginosko). The prefixed preposition epi is perfective in meaning, intensifying the already existing idea in the verb. Thus, the compound verb means, “personal knowledge gained by experience and which is clear.” (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans or Logos)

Epiginosko also means to recognize a thing to be what it really is, to acknowledge, to understand (1Co 14:37, 16:18; 2Co 1:13, 14)

Here in Romans 1:32 epiginosko denotes the clear discernment which these suppressors of the truth about God in fact had of God's regulations of "right and wrong".

Robertson writes that

The heathen knows that God condemns such evil practices

Why did they know "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Paul explained...

that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them...so that they are without excuse...they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (see exposition of Romans 1:21ff)

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Romans 2:14,15)

Epiginosko in Ro 1:32 is in the aorist tense which indicates that they had been effectively made aware of God's ordinance. These men have a full experiential knowledge not only that the things they practice are wrong but also that they themselves are deserving of death. They know this is God’s verdict, however much they seek to rationalize or even legalize these sins (cp states sanctioning gay marriage in the United States!). But this knowledge does not deter them from indulging in these forms of ungodliness (which speaks to the power of the fallen flesh!) In fact these truth rejecters unite with others to promote ungodly behavior and feel a sense of camaraderie with their partners-in-sin.

Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament) has this note on epiginosko...

Arndt and Gingrich feel that in some cases (e.g., 1Co 13:12) epiginosko means "know completely," but that most of the time it is simply equivalent to ginosko. The same would go for the nouns epignosis and gnosis.

Thayer puts the case more strongly. After noting that "epi denotes mental direction towards, application to, that which is known," he gives as the first definition for epiginosko: "to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly; to know accurately, know well" (p. 237).

For epignosis he gives: "precise and correct knowledge."

Trench agrees with this when he writes

Of epignosis, as compared with gnosis, it will be sufficient to say that epi must be regarded as intensive, giving to the com­pound word a greater strength than the simple possessed (p. 285)

Likewise Cremer says that epignosis signifies

clear and exact knowledge, more intensive than gnosis, because it expresses a more thorough participation in the object of knowledge on the part of the knowing subject (p. 159).

Lightfoot concurs. Commenting on this passage (Col 1:9 - which uses the noun epignosis), he writes

The compound epignosis is an advance upon gnosis, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge (p. 138).

Epiginosko is used 44 times in the NT -- Mt 7:16-note, Mt 7:20-note; Mt 11:27; 14:35; 17:12; Mk 2:8; 5:30; 6:33, 6:54 (to know fully by experience, to recognize Jesus, knowing full as nearly all did by now); Lk 1:4, 22; 5:22; 7:37; 23:7; 24:16, 31; Acts 3:10; 4:13; 9:30; 12:14; 19:34; 22:24, 29; 23:28; 24:8, 11; 25:10; 27:39; 28:1; Ro 1:32; 1Co 13:12; 14:37; 16:18; 2Co 1:13, 14; 6:9; 13:5; Col 1:6-note; 1Ti 4:3; 2Pe 2:21-note

In the NAS epiginosko is translated -- acknowledge(1), ascertain(2), aware(2), find out(1), found out(2), fully known(1),know(7), know fully(1), known(2), knows(1), learned(3), perceiving(1), realized(1), recognize(5), recognized(6), recognizing(1),take note(1), taking note(1), understand(3), understood(1), well-known(1).

There are over 90 uses in the Septuagint - Gen. 27:23; 31:32; 37:32f; 38:15, 25f; 41:31; 42:7f; Deut. 1:17; 16:19; 21:17; 33:9; Jdg. 18:3; Ruth 2:10, 19; 3:14, 18; 1 Sam. 26:17; 2 Sam. 19:7; 1 Ki. 20:41; Ezr. 3:13; Neh. 6:12; 13:24; Esther 1:1; 3:5; 4:1; Job 2:12; 4:16; 6:17; 7:10; 24:13, 16f; 34:27; Ps. 103:16; 142:4; Prov. 14:8; 24:23; 27:23; 30:18; Is 61:9; 63:16; Jer. 4:22; 5:5; 24:5; Lam. 4:8; Ezek. 5:13; 6:7, 10, 14; 7:4, 9; 11:10, 12; 12:20; 13:14, 21; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21; 20:38, 42, 44, 48; 21:5; 22:22; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 14, 17; Dan. 2:3; 4:31; 6:10; 11:39; Hos. 2:20; 5:4; 7:9; 14:9; Joel 2:27; 3:17; Jon. 1:7; Hab. 3:2; Hag. 2:19; Zech. 2:11; 4:9; 6:10, 14; Malachi 2:4

John Piper notes that...

This is an astonishing affirmation about human nature. Everybody has knowledge of God and the moral law of God, whether they have seen a Bible or not, or whether they live in America or in an undiscovered people group of Irian Jaya...The second observation is that this knowledge means people are without excuse before God not only because of the way they treat God, but also because of the way they treat each other. (Romans 1:28-32 Doing and Endorsing Evil)

Haldane writes that...

This the heathens knew, from the work of the law written in their hearts. Although they had almost entirely stifled in themselves the dictates of conscience, it did not cease, in some measure, to remonstrate against the unworthiness of their conduct, and to threaten the wrath of God, which their sins deserved. They recognized it by some remains they had of right notions of the Godhead (Editorial note: One example is the worldwide existence of the remnants of covenant - see H Clay Trumbull's fascinating work "The Blood Covenant" the second edition published in 1885) and by which they still understood that God was judge of the world; and this was confirmed to them by examples of Divine vengeance which sometimes passed before their eyes. They knew it even by the false ideas of the superstition in which they were plunged, which required them to seek for expiations. That they knew it in a measure is evident by their laws, which awarded punishments to some of those vices of which they were guilty. (Haldane, R. An Exposition of Romans.)

Albert Barnes writing about their knowledge of God's ordinance says that this is substantiated by the secular writings...

Livy says of the age of Augustus, in some respects the brightest period of the Roman history, "Rome has increased by her virtues until now, when we can neither bear our vices nor their remedy." (Preface to his History.) Seneca, one of the purest moralists of Rome, who died A. D. 65, says of his own time, "All is full of criminality and vice; indeed much more of these is committed than can be remedied by force. A monstrous contest of abandoned wickedness is carried on. The lust of sin increases daily; and shame is daily more and more extinguished. Discarding respect for all that is good and sacred, lust rushes on wherever it will. Vice no longer hides itself. It stalks forth before all eyes. So public has abandoned wickedness become, and so openly does it flame up in the minds of all, that innocence is no longer seldom, but has wholly ceased to exist," Seneca de Ira, ii. 8. Further authorities of this kind could be easily given, but these will show that the apostle Paul did not speak at random when he charged them with these enormous crimes. (Romans 1)

Ordinance (1345) (dikaioma from dikaióo = to justify <> díkaios = just, righteous <> dike = right) refers to what God has declared to be right and here referring to His decree of retribution which has the force of law. Dikaioma is used elsewhere in this Epistle with its other meaning of “righteousness” (see table below).   Strictly speaking dikaioma is what God establishes as just.

Dikaioma is found 10 times in the NT (Luke; Romans 5x; Hebrews 2x; Revelation 2x) and is translated as - act of righteousness, 1; justification, 1; ordinance, 1; regulations, 2; requirement, 1; requirements, 2; righteous acts, 2 (NASB)

In simple terms, as used here by Paul dikaioma is God’s declaration about what is right and just.

Kenneth Wuest writes that dikaioma is...

Primarily that which is deemed right, so as to have the force of law; hence an ordinance. (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans or Logos)

Paul's point in this verse is that these men with depraved minds were aware of God's regulations for right living and had an  innate knowledge that the things they were doing were wrong and deserving of His retribution. Simply put they knew they were doing wrong and justly deserving of punishment but they simply don't care!

Godet writes that because of God's workings men had ..

moral light...produced in them as well as religious light (see Ro 1:21). The words following indicate the contents of that sentence which God had taken care to engrave on their heart. What appeals to God's justice do we not find in the writings of Gentile historians and philosophers! What a description in their poets of the punishment inflicted on malefactors in Tartarus! (Godet, F: The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans)

Vine writes that dikaioma refers to...

what God has declared to be right (dikaioma), here referring to His decree of retribution. The relative pronoun “who,” as in verse 25, suggests that what is now to be stated concerning the sinners mentioned is the cause of the evils just enumerated. The evils are the effect of the refusal to accept and follow what they know to be right. Man’s conscience and experience tell him of the evil character and effects of impurity and cruelty, and their Divine condemnation. (Vine, W. Collected writings of W. E. Vine. Nashville: Thomas Nelson or Logos)

Dikaioma has 3 basic meanings in the NT:

(1) Dikaioma most often refers to a regulation relating to a just or right action, especially in reference to God's requirements, ordinances or regulations. In other words, dikaioma is used to refer to an act which is in accordance with what God requires. It is an appointment of God having the force of law.

And they [Zacharias and Elizabeth, parents of John the Baptist] were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements (dikaioma) of the Lord." Luke 1.6

If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements (dikaioma) of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Romans 2:16
 

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement (dikaioma) of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4

Now even the first covenant had regulations (dikaioma) of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. Hebrews 9:1

since they (Jewish gifts and sacrifices called for under the Old Covenant) relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations (dikaioma) for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
 

(2) Dikaioma can refer to the fulfillment of a legal requirement, a righteous deed or an act of justice, by Christ (Ro 5.18), by God (Rev 15.4) or by saints (Rev 19.8).

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness (dikaioma - here a reference to the Death of Christ, an act accomplished and consistent with God's character) there resulted justification of life to all men." Romans 5:18 Here the a righteous act is that of our Lord Jesus Christ in satisfying the demands of the law which mankind broke.

"Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy; For ALL THE NATIONS WILL COME AND WORSHIP BEFORE THEE, For Thy righteous acts have been revealed." Rev 15.4

And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

(3) Dikaioma is used once to signify the clearing of someone of a violation as an act of justification. In this use it equates with the removal of guilt or granting of an acquittal.

And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification (dikaioma = here refers to a "declaration of righteousness"). Romans 5.16

THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS: hoti oi ta toiauta prassontes (PAPMPN):  

Practice...practice - The first verb is prasso and the second verb is poieo. See discussion of these verbs under prasso below.

Practice (4238)  (prasso) means to practice but is distinguished from poieo which means "to do", because prasso expresses a course of conduct (even the present tense of poieo expresses a series of repeated acts -- see note by Vine below).

The predominant idea conveyed by prasso in its NT uses is to bring about or accomplish an objective through some activity (Ro 1:32, 2:3, Ac 5:35, 26:20, 2Co 5:10, etc). In a few NT uses prasso means to engage in activity or behave in a certain way (Acts 3:17, 17:7).

Prasso has an rare meaning of to collect what is due in Lk 3:13, 19:23.

Vine adds that prasso...

signifies to practise, though this is not always to be pressed. The Apostle John, in his Epistles, uses the continuous tenses (present tense ) of poieō, to indicate a practice, the habit of doing something, e.g., 1Jn 3:4 (cp poieo in 1 Jn 3:8, 9 where the sense of practising is the meaning). John uses prasso twice in the Gospel, Jn 3:20 and Jn 5:29. The Apostle Paul uses prasso in the sense of practising, and the R.V. so renders the word in Ro 1:32; 2:2...

Generally speaking, in Paul’s Epistles poieō denotes an action complete in itself, while prassō denotes a habit. The difference is seen in Ro 1:32.

Again, poieō stresses the accomplishment, e.g., “perform,” in Ro 4:21; prassō stresses the process leading to the accomplishment, e.g., “doer,” in Ro 2:25.

In Ro 2:3 he who does, poieō, the things mentioned, is warned against judging those who practise them, prassō.

The distinction in John 3:20, 21 is noticeable: “Every one that does (prassō, practises) ill … he that does (poieō) the truth,” While we cannot draw the regular distinction, that prassō speaks of doing evil things, and poieō of doing good things, yet very often “where the words assume an ethical tinge, there is a tendency to use the verbs with this distinction” (Trench, Syn., § xcvi). (Vine, W E: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 1996. Nelson)

Prasso in Romans 1:32 is in the present tense which emphasizes that this is the habitual practice of these individuals! The old adage "practice makes perfect" takes on an ironic twist in Ro 1:32. Their practice makes them perfectly fit for God's righteous judgment!

Friberg writes that prasso has the following nuances...

(1) transitively (Ed: In grammar, a transitive verb is one which is or may be followed by an object; a verb expressing an action which passes from the agent to an object);

(a) of pressing through on an action carry out, do, accomplish (Ac 26.20);

(b) predominately with a negative evaluation commit, do (Ac 5.35);

(c) as denoting intense preoccupation with something busy oneself with, practice (Ac 19.19); in regard to law practice, observe (RO 2.25); in regard to taxes, interest, toll duties collect, demand, exact (Lk 19.23);
 

(2) intransitively, (Ed: In grammar, an intransitive verb is one which expresses an action or state that is limited to the agent, or in other words, an action that does not pass over to, or operate upon an object) with a qualifying adverb or phrase;

(a) to qualify how someone is acting do (Ac 3.17; perhaps 15.29);

(b) to denote one’s condition be, be situated, be faring (Ep 6.21; perhaps Ac 15.29) (Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker Academic)

Thayer has this entry for prasso (abbreviated) --

1. “to exercise, practise, be busy with, carry on”: Acts 19:19;  to mind one’s own affairs, 1Th 4:11; used of performing the duties of an office, 1Co 9:17. “to undertake to do,” Acts 19:36.

2. “to accomplish, to perform”: has been accomplished, “has taken place,” Acts 26:26; 2Cor 5:10; Ro 9:11, Acts 26:20; add, Romans 7:15,19; Philippians 4:9; to do, i.e. keep the law, Ro 2:25; of unworthy acts, “to commit, perpetrate” is more common in reference to bad conduct; Acts 26:9; 2Co 12:21; “this (criminal) deed,” 1Co 5:2, Lk 22:23; Ac 3:17; 5:35; Ro 7:19; such nameless iniquities, Ro 1:32; Ro 2:1-3; Galatians 5:21; Jn 3:20; 5:29;, Lk 23:15; Ac 25:11,25; 26:31; Ro 7:19; 13:4; Lk 23:41; to bring evil upon one, Acts 16:28.

3. “to manage public affairs, transact public business” (Xenophon, Demosthenes, Plutarch); from this use has come a sense met with from Pindar, Aeschylus, Herodotus down, viz. “to exact” tribute, revenue, debts: Luke 3:13 (here R.V. “extort”); το αργυριον, Luke 19:23 (so agere in Latin, cf. the commentators on Suetonius, Vesp. 1; (cf. Winer’s Grammar, sec. 42, 1 a.)).

4. intransitive, “to act”: contrary to a thing, Acts 17:7.

5. from Aeschylus and Herodotus down reflexively, how I do, the state of my affairs, Ephesians 6:21; Acts 15:29

There are 39 uses of prasso in the NT - Lk 3:13; 19:23; 22:23; 23:15, 41; Jn 3:20; 5:29; Acts 3:17; 5:35; 15:29; 16:28; 17:7; 19:19, 36; 25:11, 25; 26:9, 20, 26, 31; Ro 1:32; Ro 2:1-note, Ro 2:2-note, Ro 2:3-notet, Ro 2:25-note; Ro 7:15-note, Ro 7:19-note; Ro 9:11-note; Ro 13:4-note; 1Co 5:2; 9:17; 2Co 5:10; 12:21; Gal 5:21-note; Ep 6:21-note;