Friday, August 1, 2014

The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality: Romans 1

Romans 1:26&27

First it is imperative to understand the context here. Romans is one of the most important books of The Bible, Chuck Missler often calls it the most definitive statement of Christian doctrine.  But it is compartmentalized in it’s focus. The first 8 chapters are NOT about how Christians should live but about fully nailing down the matter of Salvation. That we are justified by Faith alone, other issues being addressed are incidental. Romans 9-11 are about Israel, 9 Israel’s past, 10 Israel’s present and 11 Israel’s future.  The remainder of the book after that addresses how Christians should live.

One thing Paul is doing here is addressing the prejudices that exist between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. All with the purpose of explaining that there is no difference between a Jew and a Gentile when it comes to Salvation. The first chapter is Paul negatively describing Roman (and probably also Greek) culture from a typical Jewish POV, but he goes on in chapter 2 to turn it on it’s head and inform them that they're not any better.

Next is that the behavior being described is not itself Rome’s problem, but a product of it. It’s earlier in this chapter that Paul says in verses 19-23
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” 
We don’t know a whole lot about very early Roman history, thanks to many records being destroyed by the Gaul’s sack of Rome in 390 B.C. But we know from Plutarch that Numa Pompilius, the second Pre-Republic king of Rome had outlawed Idolatry and frequently used Monotheistic terminology, and his outlawing of Idolatry was kept for over 140 years. Cicero in his Nature of The gods makes, (as a Pre-Christian gentile who died around 40 B.C.) all the basic common sense arguments for Intelligent Design that are so well known today. If your unable to find the book to read for yourself, the key passages are quoted here.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.html

The sin of Rome was rejecting God as the Creator.  And it should be pointed out that the verses in question follow this discussion of Rome's idolatry.

Verse 25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

But also a Strong Argument can be made that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical speech Paul does not agree with, maybe even him quoting someone Else's words, there are similarities to the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and Philo that have been pointed out, a lot of words used here are ones Paul uses rarely if ever in the rest of Scripture, it's generally not his usual style.  And in Romans 2 he refutes that rant.

Here are three sources on Paul refrencing Wisdom of Solomon to refute, but that don't make it about the homosexuality issue.

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh

Now for the two verses in question, 26&27.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Some take the above wording to make this the one passage that does condemn Female homosexual affection.  Even if it is, if you only have one verse on something, you shouldn't build doctrine on it.

That’s really not the case however. There is something “unnatural” being done by women we’re told. Then when we’re told men are doing something "likewise", but it’s specified to be homosexual only for the men, even though it‘s the same thing the women are doing. If this is a specific sexual act, then the implication is it’s something that would have to be a homosexual act for a male to engage in it, but not necessarily so for a female, maybe even just the opposite. The primary act that comes to mind that fits that description is being the passive partner during anal sex.

But so many people I've argued this with just can't comprehend this. To them Paul clearly says "and likewise also", that means they're doing the same thing as in being same-sex relations. But the concept of orientation is a modern 19th century invention. In terms of the actual acts they perform, Lesbians and Gay men do not do the same thing. In fact what they do is arguably even more different form each other then either is from heterosexual intercourse. Lesbians tend to do things involving the parts of their anatomy unique to women. And male homosexuals that which is unique to males. In no way could they actually be confused as doing the same thing. Only a very modern way of thinking puts them in the same box.

"Natural use" clearly means a specific act. In my view that "natural use" being left is the use of standard intercourse involving female anatomy.   I could argue "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman". Is what's defining the similarity, and then the elaboration on Homosexuality is something needed only for the Men. The word for woman in both verses is not Gune, the standard Greek word for Woman/Wife. It's Thelus, a word used in total only five times in The New testament. Twice in these verses rendered woman by the KJV, the other three times it's rendered "female". But it's used in a different form both times here. In verse 26 is the only time it's plural. In verse 27 it's used with a special emphasis qhleiaV, while it's just ghlu the times it's clearly refers to female individuals. I could justifiably translate this "leaving the natural use of the female anatomy", because the root from which the word is derived is frequently used in reference to breast feeding.

The word translated "use" also means function. It is at least an equally valid interpretation that it means the "natural function" of vaginal intercourse in exchange for anal.

Greek is a very precise language, the words translated "receiving" and "recompense", are both economic terms. Meaning in the Greek it’s implied that this is also prostitution of some form. The same kind of ritual prostitution discussed earlier did also go on in ancient Rome, just the names of the goddesses had changed.

The phrase translated "against Nature" is also used of God's actions in Romans 11, grafting gentiles into the Tree of Israel.

1 Corinthians 11:14-15: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

The word rendered "shame" there is the same as Vile in the Romans verses in question. This passage is the most similar to Romans 1 in-terms of how Paul used those key words. Yet we don't interpret them similarly. There are Pastors who take a more Pharasitic approach to this Corinthians passage then I find appropriate, Paul intends this to be advice for how Christians present themselves, not actual Moral Law.  But even they don't interpret this as harshly as they do the Romans 1 usage.

The word translated men is Arsen (Strong # 730), I would render it "males" as I tend to view it basically as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Zakar. This word will be important latter.

In his fourth homily on Romans John Chrysostom (Fourth Century) had a very harsh view of the activity being condemned here.
"for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said: “ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere.”

However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column,that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1,
“ he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each other'.”
This is not helpful particularly for determining what is in mind here, unless it's just a matter of saying lust is wrong but not love. But it shows even early Church Fathers didn't always necessarily view it as condemning all male homosexual affection. I'd add to pointing out that Paul didn't use the word "Eros" that he didn't use "Agape" either, a word he does use often elsewhere, in contexts that definitely include but aren't limited to Romantic Love between a man and a woman.  Nor did he use "Phileo", but that tends to have more brotherly love in mind so isn't very relevant.  The translation in the Link I provided is.
"For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, they burned in their lust one toward another."
Still, being post Constantine, Chrysostom's own views were already a product of much Platonic influence on the Early Church. So I'd hardly endorse him.

One interpretation I've seen some fellow Pro-Gay rights Christians put forward is that this condemns men who aren't "naturally homosexual" engaging in homosexual acts. That is possibly an element of it, but the question is why, why are these men doing something against their general preference?  The cause of this effect is Idolatry.

Another incorrect alternative presented by some is that it just condemns the pederastic relationships common in Greek culture. But this is about Rome where that wasn't as condoned. Though sometimes the relationships Roman soldiers had with male slaves is viewed as analogous to that, but it's really not. There is no good indicator that's what's in mind here.
Philo on shrine prostitution.
“(40) And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women [androgynes] continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals;
and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres
[Ceres is another name for Cybele, the fertility goddess first century Romans referred to as the Mater Deum or Mother of the gods]. Remember, Philo lived from 20 BC to AD 40. He probably wrote this around AD 35.
(41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes...
[Philo here describes the castrated Galli priests who served Cybele or other fertility goddesses worshiped in Rome].
(42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver..." [Moses was the Jewish Lawgiver. Philo refers to Moses' writings in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17]
Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42.

Philo of Alexandria, clearly links the same concerns of Torah passages addressing the Qadeshim to things going on in his contemporary society. Also contemporary with Paul. Philo also condemns Pederasty in this same section of his work. But no evidence he considered all homosexual affection a Sin.

I'm citing Philo even though he is not always in agreement with me on these issues. He has been cited as being the first to insert Homophobia into the Judeo-Christian tradition, including being the first to suggest same-sex affection was the Sin of Sodom.  I think he did so partly in-response to these Pagan practices that were abhorrent to him, and partly from his Platonic influence.

So again, while activity that’s homosexual in nature is relevant, it’s also more specific then that. Paul is not condemning all homosexuals.

Now I want to address something I saw one particular Pastor who I don't want to name say on this passage. He takes "For this cause God gave them up" to mean homosexuals (he prefers to say fags and queers) are not even eligible for Salvation anymore. That, really disturbs me.

He backs this up by saying that the Bible never commands us to preach the Gospel to Homosexuals. There are a lot of specific groups The Bible doesn't specifically say to preach to, that's why we're simply commanded to Preach it to the WHOLE WORLD.

Now, leavening aside for a moment what the sin here is. The concept of God giving people over to a certain Sin appears elsewhere in The Bible. It never renders one ineligible for Salvation, it's often done in reference to people already Saved. This same Pastor happens to agree with me on using the narrative of Saul to back up the Doctrine of Eternal Security. Well the Evil Spirit that troubled Saul came from The LORD.

It may or may not be possible for an unsaved person to reach a point where they're not capable of becoming a Believer anymore, the Blasphemy of The Holy Spirit issue is something I still struggle with. But no specific external Sin should be viewed as evidence of such a thing. It's clear from the context of the entirety of the first three Chapters of Romans that no Sin discussed there is meant to be viewed as beyond the Saving Power of the Shed Blood of Jesus. Because he ultimately tells his readers that they're no better then the unsaved Romans they were criticizing.

Paul says near the end of Romans 11 that God Consigned All to Disobedience so that He might have Mercy on All.

This video's approach to Romans 1 is mostly compatible with my own.  I wouldn't recommend the companion videos on the other passages as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZygH8d0XL0

25 comments:

  1. Hey man. I'm totally into what you're saying here, and I don't know if you'll even get this comment since this post is like, two years old, but I'm a fact-checker, as much as I can be, and I've scoured several different online copies of Chrysotum's 4th Homily on Romans, and I canNOT for the life of me, find that which you quoted: "However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column,that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1,
    “ he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each other'.”
    And I found this very text on the Wikipedia page about the subject. Hey man, c'mon. can you point me to that phrase? please tell me you're not messin' with us, here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the time being I receive Email notifications of all Comments left.

      I thought I had copied quote from Wikipedia somewhere, might have gotten removed. I"ll have to look into it again and if it turns out to be inauthentic I'll remove it.

      Thanks for pointing this out to me.

      Delete
    2. All three quotes I found here

      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

      After doing word searches with my firefox browser for first naked, then pandered and then burned.

      Delete
    3. Actually, I think that link was one of the online copies I looked at. And I found the line! It uses different wording than the Wikipedia quote. "Enamored" instead of "fell in love with", or "passion". That's why I couldn't find it before. Be careful to cite those Wikipedia quotes, man. That whole phrase, including the location of the Chrysostom quote in the homily, is right off the wiki page. I just don't want you to hurt your credibility, because it seems like you're doing some important work here. And btw, it was me that left a similar comment on your personal website, cuz I wasn't sure you'd get the comments posted here. And one final thing: do you cite your credentials anywhere? You seem quite knowledgeable, so I'm wondering if you went to seminary, are a practicing theologian? You refer to this piece on homosexuality as a dissertation. Anyway, I'll keep reading, I'm interested. Cheers

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the advice, I'll be editing this some more soon, after looking for anything else I might wanna touch up.

      I'm not a professional scholar in any way. Just someone trying to do what The Holy Spirit leads me to.

      Delete
  2. Thw whole argument of Romans 1 concludes with the justification of sinners. The sexual union of men and women from the beginning is not a sin post fall .
    yet every aberation of that sexual union is post fall and is a sin.

    Romans talks about the justification of those who commit those sins those aberration,justification of sinners by grace through faith in Jesus Christ God's son.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Was not Chrysostom a Papists?
    A antichrist follower therefore?
    Why are you interested in ANYTHING he said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He certainly like anti christ was if the devil and condemned people to death by execution
      such an individual deserves to be "driven out and stoned".
      He said lol

      Delete
  4. I dont even bother reading what those decieved said lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. His modern day equvilent would be a antichrist pope follower who told you to give money to war efforts and commecial fraud charities and who would nip off to saudi arabia for a holiday to stone someone to death for fun
    But men worship him i see looking at his wiki page
    Lol
    Rofl

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad ( painful) but true

      Delete
    2. Advertisement
      Advertise Here
      Did JESUS mean Eunuchs born that way mean those born with homosexual inclination?


      It is a solid argument given that when Jesus was ruling out divorce except for prostitution being committed, ( not using the word for marrital unfaithfulness but the word for selling the body for sex) he went onto to talk about that word being given to only those it was meant, i.e heterosexual men and women,

      And then said , that some however are eunichs,
      some are born that way, sone made that way by men ( castration of testicles the old form of having the snip) , and some have by own free will ( not a rule of celibacy which would be demonic teaching) renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven . So that those that were born that way a eunoch could mean born homosexual , is avery compelling argument.

      Whatever born that way meant it would certainly be a result of the fall as heterosexual inclination itself has gone through the twisting of the fall also should be said also.


      And is the idea of a eunuch barring them from marriage to a woman , only biologically or by desire?

      Enoch's were castrated as slaves made that way by men ( testicles removed the old form of having the snip) the last categoray was a choice to serve God not marrying( by choice not by a false relgious rule of enforced celabacy that would be demonic anti christ teaching) , but they and those made that way by men are not biologically incapable of sex with a woman and could be tempted and slip up its true, but if one was born that way are we talking as a result of the fall a defunctional pair of testicles that cannot produce sperm? Or a inclination to no interest of having sex with a woman? I.e homosexuality orientation from birth as a result of the fall?

      Such a person as a eunoch by inclination rather than made by men by castration would be far more pleasing to a slave owner who wanted his daughters protected for example, than a hetero man made eunoch who could still force himself sexually onto the rich owners daughters or wife or have an secret affair with them It is true.


      Jesus was talking about THE HEART OF THE LAW which he himself and only he fulfilled
      Then he abolished the law nailing it to the cross with all it commands and ordinaces that were against us.
      The forgiveness of sins and the justification of the sinner being now by grace through faith in Jesus the son of God.

      Jesus was not using the law for his argument he the word of God in the flesh was talking about Gods desire for people never to divorce ( a thing moses permitted) except for prostitution.

      But the important part is understanding what Jesus meant by that was only for those to whom it was given ( married heterosexual men and their wives)
      For some are eunuchs;
      Some born that way - and so cannot marry because of no inclination to the opposite sex and so dont want to marry.
      Some made that way by men - and so are forced not to marry because they are owned as slaves and eunuchs and so not having the freedom to marry.

      Some having renounced marriage by free will individually for the sake of the kingdom of God ( not by a rule such as agreeing to a perquisite demonic enforced celibacy rule)
      And so do not want to marry.

      Delete
    3. Paul was in the last of those eunoch categories yet was NOT a physical Eunoch .

      and Jesus shows that physical castration is not needed just a desire to serve God while not being narried so as to devote more time to God

      ( should be noted Paul was that way before he believed in Jesus christ , back when he was a pharasee opposing Jesus and after he became a son of God. This fits Pauls teaching on staying as one was if not married you dont need to marry , if married dont leave you marriage and if born that way ( homosexual) to not be inclined to marry , remain as you were ,etc etc etc

      Delete
  6. In the end all have sinned ( men / women / straight gay / married / unmarried etc etc jew or greek jew or gentile) and All are freely saved by grace through faith justified by God by believing In Jesus the son of God.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Post: #7heart RE: Was Jesus saying eunochs born that way and so dont marry are homosexual?
    Dead to the law alive to God through Christ


    In the Old Testament:

    No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
     — Deuteronomy 23:1 (ESV

    ReplyDelete
  8. For instance, Lucian suggests two methods to determine whether someone is a eunuch: physical inspection of the body, or scrutiny of his ability to perform sexually with females (Lucian, Eunuchus 12

    ReplyDelete
  9. The papal Antichrist interfered hoping to confuse forever the meaning by this.
    By ordering no eunuch marry.

    Byzantine emperor Leo VI in his New Constitution 98 banning the marriage of eunuchs.

    So as to try and never have divorce apply to eunuchs to stop one considering the term to be nothing BUT merely about a defect to do with sexual organs being meant.
    As some eunuchs obviously did marry! EVEN IF BORN WITH DEFECT

    So some from birth from their mothers womb as Jesus says in the greek
    stopping them marrying obviously did mean inclination

    ReplyDelete
  10. The reason the papacy the antichrist ordered by an Emperor that eunuchs never be allowed forever ( he hoped) to marry
    Was because Jesus was saying those born Eunuchs cannot ever marry from birth so the divorce teaching was not meant for them ever!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Papal antichrist had Byzantine emperor Leo VI in his New Constitution 98 banning the marriage of eunuchs.

    So as to try and never have divorce apply to eunuchs

    And so to only have men considering the term born that way to be meaning nothing BUT merely about a defect to do with sexual organs being meant.

    As some eunuchs obviously did marry!

    EVEN IF BORN WITH DEFECT

    So this was proving JESUS MEANT BORN THAT WAY WAS PRODUCING AN INCLINATION WHICH STOPPED THEM MARRYING WOMEN,

    ReplyDelete
  12. How? Because physical from birth fertility does NOT STOP MARRIAGE

    ReplyDelete
  13. Married Eunuchs??

    However, reading through the life of Joseph this morning I saw something that arrested my attention. The translation of the Old Testament that I am relying on as my primary text is the English translation of the Septuagint found in the Orthodox Study Bible. In this text, Genesis 39: 1 tells us the following information about Potiphar, Joseph’s first master in Egypt: he was a eunuch and captain of the guard. A eunuch?

    As is my wont, whenever I encounter something in the Bible that startles me, I immediately checked the original languages. Yep, both in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Septuagint text Genesis 39:1 says Potiphar was a eunuch. But Potiphar had a wife, a wife who tried to seduce Joseph

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sexual pleasure and urge of eunuchs?

    Castration usually means removal of the testicles, which is where the male sex hormone, testosterone, is produced. At various times in history and in various cultures, boys have been castrated to serve as religious figures or servants, or to keep their singing voices in the upper register. These castrated boys are often called eunuchs or castrati. When a boy hasn't gone through puberty yet, castration will result in a less muscular frame, underdeveloped genitalia, lack of body hair, and a voice that doesn't change or deepen.

    Castration can occur by accident (e.g. war injuries, pelvic crushing from auto accidents, severe burns, etc.), as a form of torture, punishment, or self-mutilation, or be the result of surgery, perhaps for a medical condition such as testicular cancer or prostate cancer. Some medicines that treat prostate cancer result in "pharmacologic castration," because they prevent the production of testosterone. Some courts have ordered men who are habitually sexually abusive to undergo injections of medications to stop testosterone production, hoping that this measure will prevent these men from continuing to sexually abuse others.

    At first, a man who has been castrated will still have a sexual urge. Over time, however, because he's no longer producing testosterone, he'll lose much of his libido or sexual desire. Medications can readjust the chemicals in his blood and bring back some sexual desire. Studies have also been done that show with increased stimulation, a castrated man can actually get an erection, have sex, and orgasm (although ejaculate which would be minimal in volume and not contain any sperm).

    ReplyDelete
  15. So if eunuchs can be married and have sexual pleasure
    Still and give sexual pleasure by erections then

    But the important part is understanding what Jesus meant by that was only for those to whom it was given ( married heterosexual men and their wives)
    For some are eunuchs;
    Some born that way - and so cannot marry because of no inclination to the opposite sex and so dont want to marry.
    Some made that way by men - and so are forced not to marry because they are owned as slaves and eunuchs and so not having the freedom to marry.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And Some having renounced marriage by free will individually for the sake of the kingdom of God ( not by a rule such as agreeing to a perquisite demonic enforced celibacy rule)
    And so do not want to marry

    ReplyDelete
  17. Physical from birth infertility does NOT STOP MARRIAGE EITHER

    ReplyDelete