Changes

While Lv. 18:22; 20:13 is the  primary injunction against homoeroticism (same gender sexual relations)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 homoeroticism (same gender sexual relations)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.  

=== Overview===

=== Overview===

As with the Levitical texts, proponents of pro-homosexual revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homoeroticism. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref>  Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homoeroticism of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him in seeking to change the condemnation of homoeroticism to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homoeroticism, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth. And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homoeroticism, but supposes that Paul's condemnation of same gender relations only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> More akin to Scroggs, Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homoeroticism, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homoeroticism as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homoeroticism due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>  

As with the Levitical texts, proponents of pro-homosexual revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homoeroticism. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref>  Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homoeroticism of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, other pro-homosexual revisionistsgo further in attempting to change the condemnation of homoeroticism to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homoeroticism, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and like Heliminiak<ref>Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay),  p. 76</ref> render it to being a polemic in which Paul quotes Jewish prejudice against homoeroticism in order to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, and have Paul liberating homosexuals from such oppression, by making it part of the abrogated ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon).<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs sees Paul condemning homoeroticism, but supposes that Paul's condemnation of same gender relations only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed any form of it.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> Boswell and many others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned homosexual acts as being “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) but was referring to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” being  choosing one's orientation, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>). Boswell (a Catholic) also argued that the Catholic church did not condemn homoeroticism, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) Comstock holds that there is insufficient evidence for Scrogg's pederasty conclusion as well as the contrary to nature argument of Boswell, and recognizes Paul as condemning homosexuality, equating it to Godlessness. But which condemnation he rejects, and akin to Walter Wink,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html  HOMOSEXUALITY and the BIBLE (Walter Wink refuted)</ref> seeks to use the Song of Songs as a basis for sexual ethics.<ref>Gary David Comstock, "Gay theology without apology." (1993) pp. 27-48</ref> New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early Catholic censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such). She also sees female homoeroticism as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, while allowing that Paul was universally condemning female and male homoeroticism as a violation of the social order created by God. However, she rejects the prohibition of female homoeroticism due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>  

Countering such renderings is the traditional exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible  and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homoeroticism. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union. While idolatry corrupts this, homoeroticism itself is seen as a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.  

Countering such renderings is the traditional exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible  and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homoeroticism. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union.<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21</ref><ref>Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215</ref> While idolatry corrupts this, homoeroticism itself is seen as a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.  

Gagnon notes eight points of correspondence between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27 , in a similar relative order, between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27: human, image, likeness; birds, cattle, reptiles; male, female.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture]</ref>   

Gagnon notes eight points of correspondence between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27 , in a similar relative order, between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27: human, image, likeness; birds, cattle, reptiles; male, female.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture]</ref>   

Craig R. Koester also notes, “His [Paul's] statements do not finally depend on the notion - now often disputed - that homosexual relations are more lustful than heterosexual ones. Paul's comments reflect a scriptural understanding of who God created people to be as male and female. Second, Paul did not single out homosexual behavior for special condemnation, but extended his argument to proclaim a judgment on all humanity. By including covetousness, malice, envy, and other common forms of sin in his list, Paul showed that all are "without excuse" before God<ref>The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester. On Paul's use of a rhetorical strategy that effectively condemns all humanity see Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural," 195</ref>   

Craig R. Koester also notes, “His [Paul's] statements do not finally depend on the notion - now often disputed - that homosexual relations are more lustful than heterosexual ones. Paul's comments reflect a scriptural understanding of who God created people to be as male and female. Second, Paul did not single out homosexual behavior for special condemnation, but extended his argument to proclaim a judgment on all humanity. By including covetousness, malice, envy, and other common forms of sin in his list, Paul showed that all are "without excuse" before God<ref>The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester. On Paul's use of a rhetorical strategy that effectively condemns all humanity see Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural," 195</ref>   

Beginning in Rm. 1:28, further fruits of idolatry in moral declension are described,  similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, which Paul reminds Christians later they were manifesting, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”,  (Eph. 2:3) the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13)  Gagnon comments, "Those who disoriented themselves by a turn from the true God were more likely to be disoriented in their behavior...Gentiles were rendered liable because they sinned against the revelation about God and God’s will available to them in creation/nature.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>  

 

Having revealed homoeroticism as a fruit of departure from the revelation of God and His order, beginning in Rm. 1:28, traditional exegesis recognizes further fruits of idolatry in moral declension being described,  similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, which Paul reminds Christians later they were manifesting, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”,  (Eph. 2:3) the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13)  Gagnon comments, "Those who disoriented themselves by a turn from the true God were more likely to be disoriented in their behavior...Gentiles were rendered liable because they sinned against the revelation about God and God’s will available to them in creation/nature.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>  

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.