Changes

Beginning in chapter two, Paul will show the Jews by the law that they are sinners as well, and hypocritical in judging the pagan Gentiles, whose judgment he has shown to be just in the light of natural revelation. This use of two fold revelation for these two different respective classes of people is consistent with his preaching in Acts, where, in addition to the power of God seen in miracles, (Rm. 15:18,19) Paul appeals to the pagan Gentiles by invoking natural revelation, both that of creation and inward light, (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29), while in preaching to the Jews Paul much references the Scriptures. (Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23)  Having both indicted Gentiles and Jews according to the truth of God revealed to them, Paul will conclude, "we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin"...(Rm. 3:9)

Beginning in chapter two, Paul will show the Jews by the law that they are sinners as well, and hypocritical in judging the pagan Gentiles, whose judgment he has shown to be just in the light of natural revelation. This use of two fold revelation for these two different respective classes of people is consistent with his preaching in Acts, where, in addition to the power of God seen in miracles, (Rm. 15:18,19) Paul appeals to the pagan Gentiles by invoking natural revelation, both that of creation and inward light, (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29), while in preaching to the Jews Paul much references the Scriptures. (Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23)  Having both indicted Gentiles and Jews according to the truth of God revealed to them, Paul will conclude, "we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin"...(Rm. 3:9)

==Homosexuality and Romans 1: Prohomosex Arguments versus Traditional Exegesis==

==Homosexuality and Romans 1==

While Lv. 18:22; 20:13 is the  primary injunction against homosex in the Old Testament, Romans 1:26,27 is the main condemnation of such in New. But as with the former, it is part of a larger discourse.  

While Lv. 18:22; 20:13 is the  primary injunction against homosex in the Old Testament, Romans 1:26,27 is the main condemnation of such in New. But as with the former, it is part of a larger discourse.  

De Young reports that word occurred often in secular Greek literature, changing meanings in different times and contexts, though no one applied it to homosexual desires. It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Hayes defines it 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.”And that in sometimes Greek Stoic philosophers sometimes thought of physin as a an ideal norm or correct reason, and in general, approved ''kata physin'' (natural) and condemned ''para physin'' (unnatural). However, this is shown to be still too subjective, and the higher authority is presented to be the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)   

De Young reports that word occurred often in secular Greek literature, changing meanings in different times and contexts, though no one applied it to homosexual desires. It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Hayes defines it 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.”And that in sometimes Greek Stoic philosophers sometimes thought of physin as a an ideal norm or correct reason, and in general, approved ''kata physin'' (natural) and condemned ''para physin'' (unnatural). However, this is shown to be still too subjective, and the higher authority is presented to be the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)   

   

   

The pro-homosex polemic at issue attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homosex (thereby shocking the Jews). The first text is a misappropriation  due to a misunderstanding of the text. It is thought that “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 refers to the act, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Gentiles by nature, just as Jews are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15. 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 attempt is shown to be specious in multiple ways.

The prohomosex polemic at issue 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 grating Gentiles into the true vine of Israel, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homosex (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, 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 attempt is shown to be specious in multiple ways.

*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)

*3. This 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. This 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)   

Some may seek to use atimazō in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, which they seek to make it. However, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc. describe a consequence of something, and depends upon context to define a moral connection, and  the word ''atimazō'' clearly is contextually used to denote morality. Its next use is in Rm. 2:23, in which one dishonors God by breaking His moral laws, including those against sexual sins. Likewise the word ''atimia'' (dishonors) in 1Cor. 11:14. Its next use is in 1Cor. 11:22, to denote evil treatment being done to people  by not sharing food with poor and hungry fellow members of the body of Christ, while the accused feasted. As used in Rm. 1:24 the dishonoring is done toward each other by perverse sexual (implied) practices, while vs, 26,27 are specifically sexual and perverse.   

An attempt use atimazō in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, is countered by the argument that, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc., describe a consequence of something, and depend upon context to define a moral connection, with the word ''atimazō'' clearly is contextually being used to denote morality. Its next use is in Rm. 2:23, in which one dishonors God by breaking His moral laws, including those against sexual sins. Likewise the word ''atimia'' (dishonors) in 1Cor. 11:14. Its next use is in 1Cor. 11:22, to denote evil treatment being done to people  by not sharing food with poor and hungry fellow members of the body of Christ, while the accused feasted. As used in Rm. 1:24 the dishonoring is done toward each other by perverse sexual (implied) practices, while vs, 26,27 are specifically sexual and perverse.   

   

   

Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homosex, but 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. However, the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals the contrary.

Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homosex, yet 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 is a traditional response, which contends 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 homosex. 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 homosex. 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)

*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. 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>

===Pederasty===

===Pederasty===