Changes

Having shown the Gentiles as sinners according to the light given them, Paul can then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, indicting them also as capital sinners, disobedient to God in the light of 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.

Having shown the Gentiles as sinners according to the light given them, Paul can then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, indicting them also as capital sinners, disobedient to God in the light of 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 ===

===Linquistics===

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.

 

''Uncleanness'', ''nature'' and ''dishonor'' 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. 2:16,27)<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 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.   

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. Some seek to invoked apostolic decree from the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in favor of abrogating moral law for Gentiles, yet both the wording there (Acts 15:20,21; cf. 21:25) and the larger context of the New Testament reveals that the moral law was upheld, in particular against fornications and all  uncleanness. (1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.)

 

Paul's use of natural revelation is seen used by him elsewhere, (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-28) 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 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)   

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 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.  

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.  

*3. The 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. The 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)   

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 are traditional responses, which contend 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 are traditional responses, which contend that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,