Changes

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.

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.

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.

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. 2:16,27)<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 idea that Paul is only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals is "strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible.", with the Bible recognizing only one valid natural sexual relationiship. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=iwc91epptG4C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=homosexual+relations+and+the+bible&source=bl&ots=J-4pUlDeHm&sig=xUAQXrzIswuLYqUhVv2uHzMKcRQ&hl=en&ei=EooySuPqEtGntgf_mdn4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=32#PPA444,M1 The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas]</ref>  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 infer 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 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)   

In addition, it is seen that 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.) and 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) 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 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 here, as it occurs 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

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 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>  

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)   

   

   

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),

The pro homosexual 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 aspects.

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 aspects.