Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 85:
Line 85: − + − + − 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) + + +
→Uncleanness: grammar correction, added comment by Hilborn
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. 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.)
This polemic is seen to be contrary to the traditional exegesis on 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 relationship.<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 invoke the apostolic decree from the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as favoring 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.) In contrast, the ceremonial law is presented as distinct and abrogated. (Col. 2:14-14; Heb. 9:10ff) Moreover, if homosexuality were allowed under the New Covenant, then this it is expected that this radical change would have been made clearly evident, both in doctrinal teaching (Acts 20:27) and by the reaction of the Jews who consistently forbade such.
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, Paul's use of natural revelation is seen used by him elsewhere, (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-28) and is understood here 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 statement but which is similar in principal to that 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. (cf. 1Pet. 4:3,4) By such evidence both the tenor and the grammar of 1:24 is seen to show that “to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” is moral iniquity, are the iniquities that follow (vs. 28-31) are.
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. Hilborn comments that "the fact that Paul declares such hypocrites to be guilty of ‘the very same things’ (gar auta, 2:1) as the sinners they attack only confirms that those ‘same things’ are nonetheless to be viewed as consistently and intrinsically wrong." He adds, "Countryman’s tortuous attempt to recast the vocabulary of Chapter 1 wholly in terms of a superseded Levitical holiness code hardly reflects Paul’s more complex handling of the Law in the rest of the letter (cf. 3:19; 7:7-25; 7:28 etc.), and, as Schmidt shows, would collapse immediately if [even] only one term in vv.24-8 did actually connect with ‘sin’, rather than mere ritual purity.<ref>[Hilborn on Rowan Williams and Homosexuality http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093]</ref>
Finally, 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)
====Dishonor====
====Dishonor====