Changes

These words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between different pro-homosexual interpretations, as well as being contrary to the basic traditional position.

These words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between different pro-homosexual 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 homoeroticism, 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 homoeroticism, so as to allow such.

The radical and complicated compiled attempt by Hank 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. 2:16,27)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref>  This “uncleanness argument” is one which Countryman also attempts, and 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 homoeroticism, 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 pro-homosexual polemic imagines.   

This polemic is seen to be contrary to the traditional exegesis in every level. The word uncleanness in v. 24 (akatharsia) is evidenced in the New Testament to always denote, 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, with fornication being abundantly condemned. Paul's use of natural revelation is seen used by him elsewhere, and is understood as hearkening back to Genesis, including its man/female union, and thus 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 but similar in principal statement 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 it is evidenced that both the tenor and the grammar of 1:24 shows that “to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” is moral iniquity, like as the iniquities that follow. It is further understood that in the proceeding verses Paul is additionally revealing a progression of degeneration, and not simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul would later sanctify, as the pro-homosexual polemic contends.   

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)   

In addition, it is seen that any idea that Paul is motivated by vengeance against them, and seeks to trap Jews in their hypocrisy and 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.) and his upholding of moral laws, and fornication in particular, while listing in contrast the types of laws which were ceremonial. (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10-10:24; (presuming Paul's authorship) Gal. 4:10) 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 Pauline 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.  

The word ''nature'' is focused upon, being used here in  “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

“Physin” can denote

3) governed by (the instincts of) nature<ref>Thayer’s Greek Definitions</ref>

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)  

As used in the New Testament it can denote nature as relates to innate disposition, depraved (Eph. 2:3) or good, in the latter case to denoted Gentiles who acted according to the light given them, (Rm. 2:14) or 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)   

It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Contrary to Boswell's argument that para phusin means "beyond nature," in the sense of "beyond one's natural orientation", Guenther Haas invokes Hayes to point out that para phusin in all its use throughout Hellenistic philosophy and literature means "contrary to nature."  Hayes defines its 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.”<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Relations natural and unnatural", Journal of Religious Ethics, see pp. 192-94</ref>  Guenther Haas further states that, para phusin is frequently used in Greco-Roman moral philosophy and literary texts, as well as in Hellenistic Jewish writers (Josephus and Philo), to categorize homosexual practices as worthy of condemnation.<ref>http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php Guenther Haas, HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE</ref> 

 

Having begun with the basic revelation of original creation, Paul moves on to the higher authority of the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)   

   

   

The prohomosexual polemic at issue 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),

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 grating 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, 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 attempt is shown to be specious in multiple ways.

and then by grating 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 sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)

*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)   

*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)   

An attempt 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, is countered by the argument that, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc., describe a consequence of something, and depend upon context to define a moral connection, with the word ''atimazō'' clearly is contextually being 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.   

An attempt to use atimazō (dishonour) in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, is countered by the argument that, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc., describe a consequence of something, and depend upon context to define a moral connection, with the word ''atimazō'' being 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 homoeroticism, yet he 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. Countering such is a traditional response, which contends that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,  

Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homoeroticism, though he 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. Countering such is a traditional response, which contends that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,  

*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 homoeroticism. 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)

*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 homoeroticism. 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>   

*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."  

*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."