Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 483:
Line 483: + + Line 488:
Line 490: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − Countering such renderings is the traditional means of exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff) including repentance from all sexual immorality.<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17</ref> Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation to given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) which results in judgment by God in delivering them up unto progressive moral declension, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex, this being contrary to nature, referring to God's revealed creation design and normalcy.<ref>Gill; Vid. R. Sol Jarchi in Gen. xxiv. 16</ref> (Rm. 1:24-27) As regards women, some understand this may refer to the use of unnatural means. Further fruits of idolatry and its resultant moral declension are manifest in various iniquities, (1:28-32) similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13) Paul will then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, convicting them as sinners disobedient to God by the more precise and comprehensive revelation of the Scriptures.<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible</ref> This twofold use of revelation (natural and written) is seen elsewhere in Paul's preaching to both groups respectively. (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29; cf. Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23) Paul can thus conclude in the next chapter that “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”, (Rm. 3:9), before moving on in the proceeding chapters to establish how convicted sinners may be justified before the holy God of both creation and Scripture, and live accordingly.+
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 21:04, March 29, 2009
, 21:04, March 29, 2009→Romans 1
==Romans 1==
==Romans 1==
''See also [[The Epistle to the Romans]]''
While Lv. 18:22; 20:13 is the primary injunction against homosex in the Old Testament, Romans 1:26,27 is the main condemnation of such in New. But as with the former, it is part of a larger discourse.
While Lv. 18:22; 20:13 is the primary injunction against homosex in the Old Testament, Romans 1:26,27 is the main condemnation of such in New. But as with the former, it is part of a larger discourse.
===Overview===
===Overview===
As with the Levitical texts, prohomosex revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> Boswell and others assert that “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) refers to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals.<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-09</ref>) Still others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D., A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref> And which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying, as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref>
As with the Levitical texts, prohomosex revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<re>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> Though he will attempt to restrict the homosex of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him. Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref> And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homosex, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>) Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homosex but supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homosex as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homosex due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>
Countering such renderings is the traditional means of exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff) including repentance from all sexual immorality.<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17</ref> Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union, which idolatry corrupts, with homosex itself being a manifestation of idolatry. And which is revealed more precisely in His word. Gagnon notes eight points of correspondence between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27 , in a similar relative order, between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27: human, image, likeness; birds, cattle, reptiles; male, female.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture]</ref>
Craig R. Koester also notes, “His [Paul's] statements do not finally depend on the notion - now often disputed - that homosexual relations are more lustful than heterosexual ones. Paul's comments reflect a scriptural understanding of who God created people to be as male and female. Second, Paul did not single out homosexual behavior for special condemnation, but extended his argument to proclaim a judgment on all humanity. By including covetousness, malice, envy, and other common forms of sin in his list, Paul showed that all are "without excuse" before God<ref>The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester. . On Paul's use of a rhetorical strategy that effectively condemns all humanity see Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural," 195</ref>
Beginning in Rm. 1:28 further fruits of idolatry in moral declension are described, similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, which to some degree Paul reminds Christians later they were doing, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”, (Eph. 2:3) the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13) Gagnon comments, "Those who disoriented themselves by a turn from the true God were more likely to be disoriented in their behavior...Gentiles were rendered liable because they sinned against the revelation about God and God’s will available to them in creation/nature.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref> Paul will then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, indicting them also as capital sinners, disobedient to God by the more precise and comprehensive relation of the Scriptures.<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible</ref> This twofold use of revelation (natural and written) is seen elsewhere in Paul's preaching to both groups respectively. (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29; cf. Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23) Paul can thus conclude in the next chapter that “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”, (Rm. 3:9), before moving on in the proceeding chapters to establish how convicted sinners may be justified before the holy God of both creation and Scripture, and live accordingly.
=== Uncleanness and Nature ===
These words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between different prohomosex interpretations, as well as being contrary to the basic traditional position.
Hank's radical and complicated compiled attempt is one which reasons that since God is said to have grafted the Gentiles into Israel, contrary to nature, and by circumcising Jews is acting contrary to nature, then Paul is actually sanctifying Gentiles who practice homosex, as part of a psychologically driven polemic against Jews. This idea also depends upon categorizing the “uncleanness” in Rm. 1:24 to that of ceremonial laws which Christians need not observe, (Col. 2:16,27)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref> and which “uncleanness argument” Countryman also attempts, and which looks to Rm. 14:14,20 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 homosex, so as to allow such.
This polemic is evidenced as being contrary to the traditional exegesis in every level. The first is that the word uncleanness in v. 24 (akatharsia) as used in the New Testament always denotes, not ceremonial, but moral uncleanness, (Mt. 23:37; Rom. 6:19, 2Cor. 12:21, Eph.4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5, 1Ths. 2:3; 4:7) and which category sex with illicit sexual partners always falls into, and which fornication is abundantly condemned. At the outset this works to contextually define the morality of acting contrary to “nature.” In Rm. 1:26 it is stated that God gave them up unto “vile affections”, which word (vile) denotes dishonor and shame in all its uses, as does unseemly. In a brief statement but similar in principal as seen in Rm. 1, Paul lists lasciviousness and uncleanness in Eph 4:17-19, both of which terms infers sexual sins, as being a result of a darkened mind. Therefore both the tenor and the grammar of 1:24 shows that “to dishonour their own bodies between themselves” and what follows is moral iniquity. And as can be seen in the proceeding verses, Paul is showing a progression of degeneration, and not simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul will later sanctify, as the prohomosex polemic imagines.
The idea that Paul is simply seeking to trap Jews in their hypocrisy, or is motivated by vengeance against them, is itself 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 a more minor aspect, some see "O man" in Rm. 2:1,3 as referring to a particular Jewish hypocrite, but this is evidenced to be a rhetorical means of addressing a group as individuals. (Rm. 9:20; 1Cor. 7:16; 1Tim. 6:11)
''Nature'' as used here is that “even their women did change the natural [phusikos] use into that which is against [para] nature [physin (or phusis)]. And again, “likewise also the men, leaving the natural [phusikos] use of the woman,...” ''Phusikos'' comes from phusin, and is only used once again in the New Testament, in 2Pet. 2:12, to denote men who are like “natural brute beasts” who are made to be taken and destroyed.” As used there, the word indicates ''natural'' as in accordance with animal instinct, denoting cruel animals fit to be killed, in contrast with men, unless they acted as such animals. This penalty relates to Paul's conclusion in Rm. 1:32.
“Physin” can denote
1) produced by nature, inborn
2) agreeable to nature
3) governed by (the instincts of) nature<ref>Thayer’s Greek Definitions</ref>
As used in the New Testament it can denote nature as relates to innate disposition, depraved (Eph. 2:3) or good, in the latter such as Gentiles who act according to the light given them, (Rm. 2:14) and even the holiness of the nature of God (2Pt. 1:4). In addition, physin can denote that of a class, such as Gentles, (Rm. 2:27) or Jews in contrast to sinners (Gal. 2:15), or species of animals. (Ja. 3:7) Or more precisely, nature as that of ordained design, manifested in normality. (Rm. 11:21,24; 1Cor. 11:14)
De Young reports that word occurred often in secular Greek literature, changing meanings in different times and contexts, though no one applied it to homosexual desires. It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Hayes defines it contextual use here as appealing to “an intuitive knowledge of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God. Those who indulge in sexual practices “para physin” are defying the Creator and demonstrating their own alienation from Him.”And that in sometimes Greek Stoic philosophers sometimes thought of physin as a an ideal norm or correct reason, and in general, approved ''kata physin'' (natural) and condemned ''para physin'' (unnatural). However, this is shown to be still too subjective, and the higher authority is presented to be the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)
The prohomosex polemic at issue attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homosex (thereby shocking the Jews). The first text is a misappropriation due to a misunderstanding of the text. It is thought that “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 refers to the act, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Gentiles by nature, just as Jews are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15. 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 attempt is shown 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)
*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)
*3. This grafting in is done in the spiritual realm, as are things like “eating” God's words (Jer. 15:16) and the abolition of marriage, (Mt. 22:30) which does not translate into a change in physical laws relating to such. Like the essential spiritual equality of all believers (Gal. 3:28) does not alter the basic positional/functions distinction between the man and the women (1Cor. 11:3), so the grafting in of Gentiles does not relate to or change injunctions against sex with same genders, or the foundational basis against such and for heterosexual marriage, and which is clearly affirmed. (Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 5:31)
Some may seek to use atimazō in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, which they seek to make it. However, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour, shame, blush, etc. describe a consequence of something, and depends upon context to define a moral connection, and the word ''atimazō'' clearly is contextually used to denote morality. Its next use is in Rm. 2:23, in which one dishonors God by breaking His moral laws, including those against sexual sins. Likewise the word ''atimia'' (dishonors) in 1Cor. 11:14. Its next use is in 1Cor. 11:22, to denote evil treatment being done to people by not sharing food with poor and hungry fellow members of the body of Christ, while the accused feasted. As used in Rm. 1:24 the dishonoring is done toward each other by perverse sexual (implied) practices, while vs, 26,27 are specifically sexual and perverse.
Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homosex, but sees Romans 1:26,27 as condemnation. But he convolutes “nature” as to mean heterosexuals acting as homosexuals; inferring an ignorant Paul would not have understood homosexual desire as normal, and could not have operated out the concept of “natural law,” but only condemned heterosexuals going against their normal desire. However, the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals the contrary.
*1. The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting in an allowed preferential matter, though contrary to someone else, but that of being contrary to what is ordained of God. The Gentile idolaters are not condemned because they were monotheists/Jews/Christians worshiping idols, but because idolatry itself is wrong, and is unconditionally forbidden as is homosex. Some false gods themselves were portrayed as being homosexual. Verses 1:26,27 are a progression of acting contrary to nature as originally revealed and immutably upheld, and which declension includes other iniquities. (Rm. 1:28-32)
*2. Paul was indeed using a form of “natural law,” that of what God has revealed by design and originally by innate knowledge. The invisible God was manifest by His visible creation (Rm. 1:20) and it was obvious by such that mere corruptible men (by nature, as opposed to the incarnated Christ) or animals did not create the cosmos, and that such were worthy to be worshiped. But what Paul further describes is not simply worship as a product of ignorance, but of changing what they did know, referring to an original monotheism (for which there is even more evidence of late), to idolatry. As creation does not represent the moral authority the Creator is, it is seen today that such an exchange of worship of God for worship of nature is taking place, in order to escape moral conviction of personal sin, which is also manifest in making God into an image more in conformity to contemporary immorality in order to justify it. Write comments, "while Paul may be describing something in the remote past in presenting a Decline of Civilization narrative, the pattern may be repeated: whenever humans opt for idolatry they are abandoned to their lusts."<ref>Wright, N.T. “The Letter to the Romans,” The New Interpreter’s Bible. Leander E. Keck, ed. Vol X. Nashville: Abingdon, 393-770.</ref>
*3. The word “likewise” in the beginning of v. 27 denotes a like contravention of the natural order by men as with women. Whether contrary to nature in v. 26 refers to women using devices, as some suppose, or sex with other women, is not a relevant distinction, as both were unnatural. There is however, evidence that what is referred to as homosexuality existed among women,<ref>Seneca the Elder [55 BC - 40 AD]; Martial, [40-103/4 AD]; Dorotheos of Sidon (25-75 CE) (implied); Pseudo-Phoc/kylides, 30 BC-40 AD; Brooten, pp. 43-47, 19-123, 63-64, 248, note 99</ref> such as expressed in such works as Amores of Lucian, in which Charicles argue in support of heterosexism, “you will have to sanction carnal intercourse between them; monstrous instruments of lust will have to be permitted, in order that their sexual congress may be carried out; that obscene vocable, tribad [lesbianism], which so rarely offends our ears--I blush to utter it--will become rampant, and Philænis will spread androgynous orgies throughout our harems."
*4. As we are all born with sinful nature and its affections, but are called to resist sin, (Gn. 4:7; Col. 3:15) we cannot justify actions that are contrary to the Bible based upon our desires. As Schmidt notes, Boswells solution “shifts the meaning of "natural" from Paul's notion of "that which is in accord with creation" to the popular notion of "that which one has a desire to do." But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity.”<ref>http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T348 Thomas E. Schmidt, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Homosexuality, Romans 1:26-27]</ref>
*5. Evidence indicate Paul would have indeed been culturally enlightened, having been born and educated in Tarsus in the region of Cilicia, one of the three centers of Greek culture in his day (Acts 21:39). E. M. Blaiklock states that Tarsus "became the Athens of the eastern Mediterranean, the ancient equivalent of a university city, the resort of men of learning, the home town of Athenodorus (74 B.C.-A.D. 7), the respected teacher of Augustus himself, the seat of a school of Stoic philosophers, a place of learning and disputation, and the very climate in which a brilliant mind might grow up in the midst of stimulus and challenge and learn to think and to contend."<ref>Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. Tarsus, by E. M. Blaiklock, 5:602). Also see P. Michael Ukleja, "The Bible and Homosexuality; Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 354.</ref> And that Paul manifested extensive awareness of Greek culture, as "He could talk and think like a Gr. and quote his native Cilician poets to the intellectuals of Athens. He could write strong Gr. in closely argued documents."<ref> Blaiklock ibid.<ref> Malick notes that Paul was hardly an isolated Jew in a Greek world, and would thus be well aware of the homosexual activities of his time without depending on "Jewish rumor mills."<ref>David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref>
===Pederasty===
The common theme of the various prohomosex polemics is that none of the Biblical condemnations against homosex provide enough details to exclude sanction of "loving monogamous" same sex relations, though the word marriage is usually not used. As with the Levitical injunctions, those substantiating the traditional position evidence that all the prohibitions of illicit sex partners are motive exclusive, and that reading a motive clause into such texts is unwarranted, and would justify even consensual adultery. And that when motive is a factor as determining lawfulness, then it is specified. (Num. 35:21)
== See also ==
== See also ==