Changes

=== Uncleanness and Nature ===

=== Uncleanness and Nature ===

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 contradictory pro-homosexual interpretations, with their commonality being that they are contrary to the basic traditional position.

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.

A 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 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.   

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.   

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)   

In addition, it is seen that any idea that Paul was motivated by vengeance against them, and sought 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)   

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.  

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.  

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)  

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)  

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>   

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 Hays 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)   

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)   

*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>   

In addition, evidence indicates that the concept of "natural law" existed among the Greeks in Paul's time. Stoic-Cynic philosopher Dio Chrysotom referred to Aphrodite as one "whose name stands for the natural intercourse and union of the male and female."<ref>Discourse 7:135</ref> Also in Plutarch, Daphnaues contrasts a "union contrary to nature with males" with the natural love between a man and a women," and goes on to disparage homosexuals as "acting contrary to nature" when they "allow themselves to be covered and mounted like cattle."<ref>Dialogue on Love, 751C, E</ref> furthermore, Plato is seen using "according to" and "contrary to" nature argumentation, and describes sexual aberrations as the latter.<ref>Plato, On Abraham, 135-36</ref>   

*In addition, evidence indicates that the concept of "natural law" existed among the Greeks in Paul's time. Stoic-Cynic philosopher Dio Chrysotom referred to Aphrodite as one "whose name stands for the natural intercourse and union of the male and female."<ref>Discourse 7:135</ref> Also in Plutarch, Daphnaues contrasts a "union contrary to nature with males" with the natural love between a man and a women," and goes on to disparage homosexuals as "acting contrary to nature" when they "allow themselves to be covered and mounted like cattle."<ref>Dialogue on Love, 751C, E</ref> furthermore, Plato is seen using "according to" and "contrary to" nature argumentation, and describes sexual aberrations as the latter.<ref>Plato, On Abraham, 135-36</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. 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>

*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, Boswell's 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> This recourse in pro-homosexual polemics to making one's own inclinations the basis for morality, is seen as being exactly contrary to the commands of God, and to actually be a form of idolatry, making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right rather than the almighty who commands, "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9)

*4. 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."

*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>

*5. Martti Nissinen, who is moderately prohomosexual, and to whom many of that school selectively reference,  acknowledges that, “Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would '''not''' have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior”<ref>Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress, 1998)</ref>

*6 Martti Nissinen, who is moderately prohomosexual, and to whom many of that school selectively reference,  acknowledges that, “Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would '''not''' have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior”<ref>Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress, 1998)</ref>

*6. In no place does the New Testament deal with laws regarding sex between illicit partners as part of the ceremonial law, and as Paul does in other places, he would be affirming such laws in condemning homosex.  All forms of homosexual activity were considered sin by Jewish writers in Paul’s day. Josephus wrote to his Roman readers, “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

 

*7. As Gagnon reveals<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus]</ref>,  even Louis Crompton, a modern homosexual scholar, acknowledges that “However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships…. seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.

 

*8. 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, Boswell's 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> This recourse in pro-homosexual polemics to making one's own inclinations the basis for morality, is seen as being exactly contrary to the commands of God, and to actually be a form of idolatry, making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right rather than the almighty who commands, "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9)

===Pederasty===

===Pederasty===