Changes

Uncleanness and nature are words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between contradictory pro-homosexual interpretations, with their commonality being that they are contrary to the basic traditional position.

Uncleanness and nature are words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between contradictory pro-homosexual interpretations, with their commonality being that they are contrary to the basic traditional position.

A complicated and radical attempt compiled by Hanks<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref> and others is one which reasons that since God is said to have grafted the Gentiles into Israel contrary to nature, and as they see circumcising Jews as another example of God acting contrary to nature, then they conclude that Paul is actually sanctifying Gentiles who practice homoeroticism, as part of a psychologically driven polemic against Jews. This idea also depends upon categorizing the “uncleanness” in Rm. 1:24 to being that of ceremonial laws which Christians need not observe, (Col. 2:14-17)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref>  This “uncleanness argument” is one which Countryman also attempts, and looks to Rm.  14:14 and the absence of sexual sins in the list of Rm. 1:28-32 as indications of  Paul's "deconstruction" of his condemnation of Gentile homoeroticism, so as to allow such.

A complicated and radical attempt compiled by Hanks<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref> and others is one which reasons that since God is said to have grafted the Gentiles into Israel contrary to nature, and as they see circumcising Jews as another example of God acting contrary to nature, then they conclude that Paul is actually [[Holy|sanctifying]] Gentiles who practice homoeroticism, as part of a psychologically driven polemic against Jews. This idea also depends upon categorizing the “uncleanness” in Rm. 1:24 to being that of ceremonial laws which Christians need not observe, (Col. 2:14-17)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref>  This “uncleanness argument” is one which Countryman also attempts, and looks to Rm.  14:14 and the absence of sexual sins in the list of Rm. 1:28-32 as indications of  Paul's "deconstruction" of his condemnation of Gentile homoeroticism, so as to allow such.

This polemic is seen to be contrary to the traditional exegesis on every level.

This polemic is seen to be contrary to the traditional exegesis on every level.

It is understood that both the idolatry that preceded vs. 24-27 and the proceeding verses (29-32) evidence a progression of moral degeneration, rather than simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul would later sanctify, as the pro-homosexual polemic contends. Hilborn comments that "the fact that Paul declares such hypocrites to be guilty of ‘the very same things’ (gar auta, 2:1) as the sinners they attack only confirms that those ‘same things’ are nonetheless to be viewed as consistently and intrinsically wrong."  He adds, "Countryman’s tortuous attempt to recast the vocabulary of Chapter 1 wholly in terms of a superseded Levitical holiness code hardly reflects Paul’s more complex handling of the Law in the rest of the letter (cf. 3:19; 7:7-25; 7:28 etc.), and, as Schmidt shows, would collapse immediately if [even] only one term in vv.24-8 did actually connect with ‘sin’, rather than mere ritual purity.<ref>[Hilborn on Rowan Williams and Homosexuality http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093]</ref>

It is understood that both the idolatry that preceded vs. 24-27 and the proceeding verses (29-32) evidence a progression of moral degeneration, rather than simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul would later [[Holy|sanctify]], as the pro-homosexual polemic contends. Hilborn comments that "the fact that Paul declares such hypocrites to be guilty of ‘the very same things’ (gar auta, 2:1) as the sinners they attack only confirms that those ‘same things’ are nonetheless to be viewed as consistently and intrinsically wrong."  He adds, "Countryman’s tortuous attempt to recast the vocabulary of Chapter 1 wholly in terms of a superseded Levitical holiness code hardly reflects Paul’s more complex handling of the Law in the rest of the letter (cf. 3:19; 7:7-25; 7:28 etc.), and, as Schmidt shows, would collapse immediately if [even] only one term in vv.24-8 did actually connect with ‘sin’, rather than mere ritual purity.<ref>[Hilborn on Rowan Williams and Homosexuality http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093]</ref>

Any idea that Paul was motivated by vengeance against Jews, and sought to justify homosexuality, is negated by Paul's confirmation of the esteem he shows toward being part of the circumcised, and his Moses-like heart toward Israel as expressed so deeply in the same letter. (Rm. 9:1-5; and 20:1ff.) In addition is his upholding of moral laws, and fornication in particular, while listing the types of laws which were ceremonial. (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10-10:24; (presuming Paul's authorship) Gal. 4:10; Rm. 14) In a more minor aspect, while some see "O man" in Rm. 2:1,3 as referring to a particular Jewish hypocrite, this is evidenced to be a rhetorical Pauline means of addressing a group as individuals. (Rm. 9:20; 1Cor. 7:16; 1Tim. 6:11)

Any idea that Paul was motivated by vengeance against Jews, and sought to justify homosexuality, is negated by Paul's confirmation of the esteem he shows toward being part of the circumcised, and his Moses-like heart toward Israel as expressed so deeply in the same letter. (Rm. 9:1-5; and 20:1ff.) In addition is his upholding of moral laws, and fornication in particular, while listing the types of laws which were ceremonial. (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10-10:24; (presuming Paul's authorship) Gal. 4:10; Rm. 14) In a more minor aspect, while some see "O man" in Rm. 2:1,3 as referring to a particular Jewish hypocrite, this is evidenced to be a rhetorical Pauline means of addressing a group as individuals. (Rm. 9:20; 1Cor. 7:16; 1Tim. 6:11)

The prohomosexual polemic at issue also attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and Rm. 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there by physically circumcising the Jews (as uncircumcision is by nature), and then by grafting Gentiles into the true vine of Israel, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homoeroticism (thereby shocking the Jews). Countering this is the traditionalist response which sees these attempts as misappropriations due to a misunderstanding of the text. The prohomsoex polemic first has “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 referring to the act as unnatural, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Jews by birth, just as they are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15, versus being  Gentiles by birth, or by nature. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel.  However, this analogous argued to be specious in multiple ways.   

The prohomosexual polemic at issue also attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and Rm. 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there by physically circumcising the Jews (as uncircumcision is by nature), and then by grafting Gentiles into the true vine of Israel, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homoeroticism (thereby shocking the Jews). Countering this is the traditionalist response which sees these attempts as misappropriations due to a misunderstanding of the text. The prohomsoex polemic first has “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 referring to the act as unnatural, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Jews by birth, just as they are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15, versus being  Gentiles by birth, or by nature. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel.  However, this analogous argued to be specious in multiple ways.   

*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)   

*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not [[Holy|sanctify]] demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)   

*2. Rm. 11:24 is not a negative “delivering up” to iniquity, but a grafting in of believing Gentiles into Israel, and requires repentance from such “Gentile” practices as fornication. (1Cor. 6:9-20)   

*2. Rm. 11:24 is not a negative “delivering up” to iniquity, but a grafting in of believing Gentiles into Israel, and requires repentance from such “Gentile” practices as fornication. (1Cor. 6:9-20)