Changes

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 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),

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.

*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)

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. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l," The Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (Spring 1986), 200; cf. David F. Wright, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 291-300. </ref>  

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. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l," The Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (Spring 1986), 200; cf. David F. Wright, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 291-300. </ref>  

Countering Boswell and related attempts are traditional responses, which contends that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,

As regards rather lesbian sex in v. 26, in which "their women change the natural use into that which is against nature", Derek Sherwin Bailey and Vern Bullough<ref> Bailey, Derrick Sherwin, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Longman, 1955, p.40; Bullough, Vern,, Sexual Variance in Society and History. New York: Wiley, p.180</ref> seek to attribute that to women who adopt the dominant position in heterosexual intercourse, as being contrary to women being in subordination to men (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:8; Tit. 2:5). Others propose it refers to anal intercourse. Hilborn<ref>[http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093 Hilborn vs. Rowan Williams and Homosexuality]</ref> responds that, "Few serious scholars doubt that when Paul here condemns the use of human bodies ‘against nature’ (para phusin)", and the he has in mind sexual acts performed by men with men, and by women with women", and points to the this "the clear rhetorical and grammatical parallels which the apostle is drawing between women and men, the latter of whom are explicitly said to have abandoned heterosexual practices (krēsin tēs thleias) for homosexual ones (orexei autōn eis allēlous). Moreover, both this and the first reading disregard the universal sweep of Paul’s natural theology, focused as it is on sexual relations as such, rather than on specific sexual techniques. Indeed, the fact that Paul uses the more generalised vocabulary of ‘male’ and ‘female’ here (arsenes; thēleias), rather than the terminology of ‘men’ or ‘women’ (gunē; anēr), may well bear this out.<ref>A point made by Cranfield, C.E.B., Romans I-VIII. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, p.125 and Morris, Leon, The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1995, p.92</ref>

 

The following is a summation of and supplementation to traditional responses, which contend 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)