Condemned or not? St Paul, Romans and homosexuality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Does St Paul condemn all homosexuality, both those who are lesbian and those who are gay, in Romans 1? These are probably the most important verses in the entire Bible for this issue. But I think non-affirming interpretations are wrong. This video explains why.
For those looking to understand more about homosexuality in the Bible, Romans 1:26-27 are key verses. In this video, I explain what Paul was reacting against in the surrounding pagan culture, and how what may seem the 'plain' meaning of scripture to us can be different from how the early church would have understood his letter. If we want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality, we need to understand Roman culture and sexuality.
If you want a more in-depth look at this whole area, Affirmative is a book based on my website, with extra resources and some points covered in more depth. You can get it from all major booksellers here: books2read.com...
You can find more resources and links to some of the scholarship at www.bibleandhom...
Bible and Homosexuality is a channel looking at what the Bible says (and doesn't say) about homosexuality, sexuality and gender. You can find out more at www.bibleandhom...
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](/img/n.gif)
Im on like, my seventh watch through of this series, and I so appreciate the way about which you approach the Bible and this topic. You’re being logical and level headed. You’re doing valuable and theological exegesis. Most importantly (to me), you hold the Bible and it’s words as highly valuable and important to our modern lives. As a queer Christian still navigating what I believe, your voice has been very very helpful. Thank you so much.
Thank you - this is really appreciated.
I had came across your other video first analyzing the passages of Leviticus. It's so strange.....as many times as I've re-read those scriptures I never noticed what you had pointed out in your video.
Thank you for your kind comment. Sometimes, what would have been clearer to someone in the first century is less clear to us, because our context is so different. It is always good to revisit scripture - it has a habit of surprising us.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I see that nobody treats the bible like a history book and really dig into the culture of that time.
As a straight believer, I have to say thank you for this channel. The Mainstream Church are cowards to almost never delve into sexuality the way you're doing. I want to get away from all the hatefulness. I have a question for you: If an otherwise "straight guy" is "trans-curious", what would be the implications?
Hi Steven, thanks for engaging. I'm not really sure how to answer your question. There are many things that might lie behind being 'trans-curious' and the term itself covers a possible wide range. At one end, it might be revisiting assumptions about gender stereotypes and what it means to be male or female. But for another person, it might be the first tentative outward description (a toe in the water) to see the reaction of others. And there's a whole range of other possibilities. Sorry not to be more precise.
@@BibleandHomosexuality -- Thank you so much for responding so professionally, I'm glad to have Subscribed to your informative channel. You're wonderful. You've answered my question quite well based on what little I gave. "...revisiting assumptions about gender stereotypes..." I would like to know more about that, especially in regards to some men being attracted to "trans girls".
I'm hesitant to reply much further, because we are starting to enter sensitive pastoral areas, and UA-cam comments isn't an appropriate place to do that. I would be careful to distinguish between being attracted to 'trans girls' in general, vs a particular person who happens to be trans.
@@BibleandHomosexuality -- For the sake of peace, I suppose I can see the wisdom in what you're saying. "Sensitive Pastoral" is not for YT comments? I guess I understand your trepidation. As for me, I'm not ashamed to ask, and I'm not ashamed to get answers. However, not to be a smart-ass, but I could easily say, "I would be careful to distinguish between being attracted to 'gay men' in general, vs a particular person who happens to be gay." So, please, let's not be disingenuous concerning orientation as a default issue on a channel that deals with such matters. I will continue to examine all your videos yet seek counsel from among the less hesitant.
@@stevenfrasier5718 I separated them because they are potentially separate issues. Being attracted to a woman who happens to be trans is a separate issue from a general attraction to trans women.
My apologies that I am unable to help you further, but I would only work face to face with anyone on any important pastoral matter.
I wonder if Paul was hesitant to say explicitly what "their females" were doing because it was too indecent to say, and instead relied on his Roman readers' general knowledge.
Since he doesn't hesitate to say "males in males", it's unlikely he would have hesitated to say "females with females" if that's what it was. But if it was unconventional behaviour with males, then he would have had to name body parts in order to be more precise. So for the sake of propriety, he's vague about it.
I found this to be a very interesting and helpful explanation. Though I think it would be helpful if you cited sources about priestesses using phalluses and sources going into more detail about the earlier understandings. Do correct me if I missed something.
Hi Frepic Videos, thanks for the feedback - it's appreciated. In the linked website - www.bibleandhomosexuality.org - I give more background and links to the academic sources. A good starting point for this are the articles by Townsley (2011, 2012) which cover both the context of Romans, and also the interpretation of Romans in the early church. I think both are available as free downloads if you google. Hope this helps!
If you read the entire 1 chapter of Romans, he is condemning the act of homosexuality and is calling it unnatural. When the Bible mentions sins like bestiality and murder, it’s wrong but when it clearly condemns homosexuality more than once both in the Old and New Testament, it’s “out of context” and “pagan practices”
Hi holaamigo, I'm sorry but you haven't explained your reasoning at all. Which particular part of the arguments presented in the video are you disagreeing with, and what is your evidence. And are you suggesting that we should utterly ignore the context when we read the Bible?
@@BibleandHomosexuality I think Holaamigo is saying, when the Bible talks about other sins like lying, or even lying with an animal, it's clear but we somehow misunderstand context in regards to homosexuality. I find this to be true also. So my question to you is, did we misunderstand some context or information in Leviticus 18 when he talks about lying with an animal? Thanks for considering the question.
@@jaakanthompson6479 video does mention Genesis and I think he was referring to the sentences about homosexual acts and he did speak on that. I think the video is right, I came to the same conclusion but in a different way because the book of Roman's says other contradictory things to that verse, so you have to try to understand it from another view point or agree that it is a contradiction. The only logical explanation to me was that these were pagan practices because the book of Roman's sayd that nothing can take is is from God's love so how could he hand us over to those acts if we can never be separated from him. We'll what gives us the guarantee that we can not be separated from God? Jesus. So if we have Jesus we are saved no matter what but if we don't we are subject to being given over to these things, we are subject to Jewish law and that means these were pagan acts. That iils the conclusion I cake to when reading this and trying to make sense of it.
."....God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" Romans Chapter 1, verse 26. King James version.
When I read these words I thought St. Paul was referring to sodomy, which you accept is a possibility - but then seem to ignore that it is. Paul goes on to say:- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another." What is that 'likewise'? I think the answer is rather obvious.
Hi Clarence, thanks for the question. There are two possible referents for the 'likewise', and three possible contexts.
First, it could mean (as people often assume) that women were with women, and Paul sees this as against nature. The likewise refers to the similarity between women and women, and men and men.
Why don't I think this is the case? For the reasons set out in the video, plus the fact that (surprisingly to us) that was not a natural comparison at the time, given that sexuality was not thought about in terms of orientation, but in terms of dominance.
Secondly, it could mean women having an unnatural usage through types of intercourse with men (for example, women taking the dominant role or any type of intercourse that Jewish people of the time might have considered unnatural). Here, the likewise refers to both men (through pederasty) and women turning to unnatural use, though both with males.
Thirdly, it could mean women having unnatural usage specifically in the context of temple worship, where the women were dominant, used phalluses on the men, and went beyond the normal bounds of sexual appetites. Here, the likewise refers to the males also going beyond normal bounds in in taking part in the frenzied worship (along with self-castration).
Hope this helps.
Honestly dude, thank you so much for these videos. I left the Church of Scotland when I left school (which coincided with coming out as gay) and didn't look back. The thing is, I loved church and Christianity. These videos have taught me that I can keep my faith and still live truthfully! Thank you!
Thanks for this encouragement David - I'm really glad if you have found the videos helpful.
Romans 1:26-32
Your opinion doesn’t count! If you want it to be okay, that’s your right but God’s Word doesn’t accept sexual immorality! Look closely at verse 32, it says deserving of death, not only the ones who do it but the ones who approve of it!
Hi Debbie, the 'it' you're referring to is quite likely frenzied orgiastic worship of false gods involving self-mutilation. I don't think any of us are saying that that is a good idea.
Are you interpreting scripture that way to suit your wants or are you interpreting or are you interpreting the way God wants you to see it? Leviticus 20:13 is condemning the act of homosexuality and is listed along with adultery and bestiality in that chapter. God says these acts are punishable by death. So if a man was caught having intercourse with another, I don’t think they are going to ask “Is this a pagan ritual or something between you two?” They would drag them out and put them to death as God commands them to. Don’t listen to this liar, remember that the devil said the Jesus “It is written..” The devil knows how to twist scripture, don’t fall for his trap
Hi Holaamigo, I have a whole video on Leviticus. I suggest you check it out. And please don't use insulting language.
At 4:18 you refer to Didache 1:2. I think the quote is 2:2
Good catch! And thanks. I've corrected in in the transcript on the website, and will add an annotation to the video.
Looks like UA-cam no longer supports annotations, so your comment will have to point people to the right place. Once again, thanks.
Very interesting information.
We can disagree on what Paul meant, but what about what God meant?
Do you recognize Scripture as being divinely inspired?
Would you say God is mainly speaking to peoples from Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures or to peoples from all cultures and times?
Hi JeTc. I'm very happy to recognise Scripture as divinely inspired. And God speaks through it both to people of a particular time, place and culture, and to all people. If I didn't think it was important now, I wouldn't be making these videos.
Gods don"t write books
@@BibleandHomosexuality Hi! Thank you for your reply. I was only now notified of it. Good to know we agree on Scripture being divinely inspired. The reason I asked you this is that your argument revolves around what Paul's words may have meant to people of his time, but you don't discuss what God may have meant by this passage.
Lev 18:22: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it's an abomination." That ´s what the bible says and no "hairsplitting" can get away from it. The Speaker tries very hard, but fails in my opinion.
Lev 18.22 says "do not lie with a male bed woman/wife against our religion". It is ambiguous and scholars disagree on what it meant. Ancient Israelite religion is not particularly relevant anyway. We've come a long way since.
Christians don"t live according to the ancient jewish laws of leviticus. The laws of leviticus are outdated and idiotic. But christians love to quote leviticus to attack homosexuals. Leviticus: when a man lie with a man as with a woman....I shall lie with whomever I please. It's n'one of anyone's business.
Some of the laws of leviticus are nowadays even crimes. I hope you never eaten shellfish or you'll burn in everlasting flames. How can you take leviticus/bible seriously?
@@MusicalRaichuit does not say that bro. Show me a positive act of homosexuality in the Bible man. It’s not there. I can show you a book in the Bible where sex between man and woman is applaud. If homosexuality is ok( which it’s not, it is a disgusting gross unnatural sin). Show me a verse where homosexuality is applaud. Pleas I’ll wait.
I have a question. What are your thoughts about the supposed homosexuality in romans 1 being mentioned if in the prior versus idolatry was not mentioned at all??
Hi Jenise, I'm not sure what the point of the question is. The whole of Romans 1 from v.18 is all about idolatry. If you removed that, it wouldn't be Romans any more.
@@BibleandHomosexuality reading it to me it appears the homosexuality that took place was apart of the idolatry practices and worship. Do you think the homosexual acts still would have been mentioned separate and apart from the idolatry?
Hi Jenise, no I don't. Paul is looking for a criticism that Jewish people of the time made of gentiles (so that he can spring a rhetorical trap in chapter 2). He needs a common gentile practice that is condemned by Judaism of the time. Practices linked to idolatry fit perfectly. Beyond that, as indicated in the video, it is possible that he is referring to women and men having anal intercourse, and men practising pederasty with boys, both of which were common in the gentile culture of the time but not in Judaism. Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexualityRomans 1:27 is very clear. You're being deceitful.
@@ricob888”Romans 1:27 is very clear” yet he’s the one doing the exegesis and properly evaluating it using historical- cultural context of the day and devoting a video to study and you’re just saying it’s clear. Where’s your study? There are thousands of different sects of Christian denominations and churches because they disagree.
Enlightening
is there any actual documented evidence that priestesses used devices on galli and other secs activity in pagan worship? I've done a search on the internet and i can't find anything. is there any academic literature that discusses such evidence?
Townsley (2011) has an article that is a good starting point: Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28. You should find it for free with Google. Hope this helps.
This was really helpful. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback - appreciated!
Quick question. I was really intrigued by the idea that the early church didn't view these verses as being about 'homosexuality' until the 4th Century. Do you have any references for that?
Thanks for the question. From memory John Chrysostom (late fourth, early fifth century) is one of the first to suggest that Paul meant female-female same-sex activity. Ambrosiaster (mid to late fourth century in the Latin west) has come to us in different recensions; the earliest understands Paul to be referring to unnatural acts between women and men.
The two articles that deal directly with the understanding that Paul is referring to temple worship are: Jeramy Townsley, “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (2011): 707-28; and Jeramy Townsley, “Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26-27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and “Sex Contrary to Nature”?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion (2012).
There are a number of articles arguing that 'against nature' refers to women and men. In particular:
Banister, Jamie A. “Ὁμοίως and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (2009): 569-90.
Miller, James E. “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual.” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1 (1995): 1-11.
On my companion website I include more resources and comments on these verses, which may also be helpful. You can find it at www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/condemned-or-not-st-paul-romans-and-homosexuality/
Hope this helps!
Hi. Just a note to say that I sent an email through your website, but I'm not sure if it reached you. No worries if you haven't replied yet, but just wanted to make sure it got through. If you haven't received anything, feel free to private message me. Many thanks!
Thanks for your teaching, I am learning from them. On Rom 1 specifically, while I agree Paul wrote it, I do not think it is in Paul's voice, rather it is in the voice of a debate opponent of his, perhaps hypothetical as this part of Romans is in the form of a polemic. You almost say this, but do not, so I thought I would mention it. Doug Campbell says similar things, you might want to check out his book on Romans.
Hi Donald, thanks for the comment. You're right - some commentators, including Campbell, have argued that this part isn't what Paul himself actually thinks in any case. I think this is distinctly possible, but decided that this would introduce extra complexity into the video slightly at a tangent to the main points I was hoping to get across. Whether or not it is in Paul's 'voice', I think most commentators would agree that he is entering into a standard form of typical attacks on paganism.
If one thinks it is in Paul's voice and therefore that he agrees with the statements in it, this means that for many believers (me included) that one is supposed to agree with it as many believers agree that Paul wrote the canonical letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This has many challenges, however.
If it is NOT in Paul's voice, then all those challenges go away. Furthermore, one can assert that one should not derive any (inspired) doctrine from the statements, since for any part, it is simply unclear whether Paul agreed with that part or not.
If people read this discussion, they will at least be aware of this possibility and can investigate more if they wish.
True I do find it very very sad
But you have done a good teaching excellent teaching ,,,,
Thank you! Appreciated.
What are your thoughts around marriage?
I'm all for it. I'm married myself. I guess you mean specifically same-sex marriage - I am in favour.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I suppose I should have been more specific in the formulation of my question. What I really meant was, what is your understanding of what marriage is, its purpose and function. What scripture and Jesus teaches on the subject.
@@anthonygroza2441 male and female. Hard to get around this when Christ himself mentions husband and wife in a singular since.
Amen!
Continuing to add all your videos to our “LGBTQ+ Christian Affirming” playlist.
@Octavius for what reason would ya say that kind stranger?
Hi QCFV, I removed the comment you were replying to, as it was simply insulting.
People will twist and turn the Word to make their own sins justified.
People will make cheap insults rather than actually engage with arguments and the Biblical text.
I'm lost on your reference to it say male on male instead of men on men, were there actual verses that did use male and others that used men? I know man to be understood as humans in general
Hi Aaron, thanks for the question. In Greek, there are three words that can be used: one (anthropos) means human (but it's formally a male noun). One (aner) means man (as in adult male) though in some contexts it can also mean husband. And one (arsenos) means male, and so can refer to a boy or a man. In Romans 1, Paul uses the word 'male' not 'man'. Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I think you actually explain it yourself but miss the relevance because you're biasing your interpretation. As you say, surrounding culture saw sex with other adult men and sex with boys differently - by using 'males' Paul is making sure readers/hearers will understand that all sex with males is equally forbidden, not just sex with adults.
@@stevelangton829This is just your assumption, we have no idea what he meant. And the historical context and evidence from the the way early christians understood it points to Paul meaning boys.
Very sad to listen to this nevertheless it’s just sad self-explanatory most of what God wanted maybe somethings no but most of it’s self-explanatory
Hi Cathy, sorry you found it sad. What is the specific part of the video which you think is wrong, and why?
You can’t do this… “This is my own translation (6:39) “. You have to quote the Bible the way it is, not the way you want it to be.
Well, I'm trying to provide an accurate translation of the way the Bible actually is, by referring to the original Greek it was written in. Please feel free to check with any Greek scholars whether I am being fair or not.
What about Leviticus?
Hi, thanks for the question. I have a video that addresses Leviticus: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html - hope you find it helpful.
it's an unnatural act
If you look through Paul's usage of the word "nature", you'll find natural things that are bad and unnatural things that are good. He just used "nature" to mean what happens as a matter of course, or if there is no intervention, or what is customary.
In Rom 1.26 he meant their females did something you wouldn't expect them to do (whether it was to to take the active role in secs with a man or whatever). In 27 it means that you'd expect males to have secs with females but instead were penetrating males. While the language is negative, he does not go so far as to say that these acts were sinful.
@@MusicalRaichu you acknowledge that homosexual behavior is seen as something negative by the way Paul is describing it. That's all you need. Why would you play with fire and say homosexuality is totally fine. Better be safe than sorry.
@@nancyfancy1956 Paul does not describe homoxesual behaviour. He alluded to some incident involving shameful secs acts by idolaters in ancient Rome. He does not give enough details to pin it down, but there are hypotheses such as involving priestesses of Cybele, galli, and the day of blood.
I'm not "playing with fire" as I'm not gay.
But someone who is gay will want to engage in gay secs, just like straight people like me will want to engage in straight secs. But homoxesual behaviour is not just jumping in bed, it's having an intimate relationship, being in love, looking after each other for better or for worse. Telling people "better safe than sorry" fails to meet their deepest human God-given needs.
I'm not saying it's totally fine either. Is all straight secs is totally fine? Or is it possible to exploit, abuze, cheat, take advantage? Same way I believe gay secs is not right if it hurts someone.
You’re changing The Word of God to fit your own narrative. Take the text in context for what it clearly says without trying to redefine everything to justify yourself.
Hi Ev, if you watch the video you'll find I have taken the context extremely seriously, and are suggesting interpretations used by the early church. This isn't to fit my own narrative; it is to fit Paul's narrative.
Anathema.
Hi Zoe, it's a little vague as to what 'anathema' is referring here.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Napakahiraf sumira sa salita ng Diyos.... tlagang n kulong ako...sa jail... 4 1/2 yers!
Within the first 2 1/2 minutes, you already made several strange claims. I would like to see your historical documentation.
Hi Stephen, all my claims are based on solid scholarship. You can find more details on the linked website page (scroll towards the end where I start outlining resources for each area of the video): www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/condemned-or-not-st-paul-romans-and-homosexuality/
Hmmm!
I see a few problems with your presentation. Starting with lots of stuff about Roman/pagan attitudes - irrelevant, the question is simply what the Bible teaches, Jewish ideas.
Second problem - well two related problems really. Your insistence that Paul is setting up a sting for his Jewish readers/hearers, and that you start right into idolatry and skip Paul’s actual introduction to his case here.
Try this - Paul is writing to Christians in Rome. At this time Rome doesn’t have an apostle there, a major authority on the faith; yet because they are in the Empire’s leading city, it is quite important that they get the Christian message right, or misunderstandings could have undesirable consequences for Christians throughout the Empire. Whence, for instance, what he says later in Chs 12-13 about Christian relations to the surrounding world and particularly what we would call ‘church/state’ relations. In that kind of context why would he spend a long passage just on rather rudely setting up a potentially offensive ‘sting’ against the Jewish believers? Far more practically he is giving a survey of what might be called ‘la condition humaine’ - the mess humans are in and from which the gospel saves them.
And so he doesn’t start with idolatry - he actually starts with the basic idea, the more foundational idea, of sin itself, the human rebellion against God, the “We know better than God” attitude. He then shows how that works out. Vv18-21a show that and then he transitions into how all this human arrogance fails and their ‘wisdom’ leads them astray; they cast aside the real God only to end up needing other false gods. Therefore God ‘gives them up…’ in judgement letting them have their way. They become ‘out of joint’ with reality in all kinds of ways, idolatry being just one of many consequences. Disconnected from God, they also become disconnected/out of kilter even within themselves, instead of gaining God-like control over the world they actually lose control of themselves - as an example of which Paul cites a loss of control over sexuality, and the absurd and rather disgusting things that this leads to. Look, God clearly created sex as a thing for males to do with females through complementary designed anatomy, and men are seen ignoring that and disrespecting it by doing sex up each others’ shitholes! Arrogant human ‘wisdom’ leading to weird folly….
He then follows the argument further - out of joint with God and so also out of joint with each other, leading to all kinds of problems. This isn’t Paul doing an arbitrary anti-Gentile rant to then ‘trap’ Jewish Christians. It is simply a serious analysis of the basic human problem of sin, an analysis valuable to Christians in Rome as they preach to those around them.
But yes, he does then turn to the Jews; obviously with their different background they might think this doesn’t apply to them. So Paul needs to address that by briefly pointing out that they too are sinners and also need the gospel - culminating in the point that “Your own scriptures tell you this - ‘None is righteous, no not one’…” The passage as a whole is all positive, all aimed to be useful to the Roman Christians - Paul isn’t doing anything so destructive as ‘setting up’ the Jewish readers. And your failure to see that casts doubt on your ability as an interpreter here….
As regards homosexuality - the Bible does not, of course, forbid same-sex love; see for example David and Jonathan, even Jesus and John. What it says is that it is inappropriate to express such love by sex - or more accurately, questionable parodies of sex since same-sex couples are not designed to do real sex anyway. Such sexual activity and the desire for it is, like other sinful excesses, part of the ‘out-of-joint-ness’ I mentioned above. And do note that it’s very much NOT about something people ‘are’ and ‘can’t help’ - anal and oral sex are actions, deeds, CHOSEN BEHAVIOUR and not as ‘gays’ pretend in the same moral category as things like ethnic differences which truly just are and cannot be either ‘done’ or chosen.
Hi, thanks for the response - I appreciate that you have engaged with the text and arguments.
However, I think you're wrong. Let me explain why.
First, the stuff about Roman/pagan attitudes is not irrelevant. Paul is writing within a majority pagan culture, to an audience at least some of whom are gentiles. Ignoring this cultural background is going to lead you to miss elements in the text.
Second: is Paul setting up a 'sting'? It's worth saying that I am not out of line with commentators on Romans in suggesting this - it's a mainstream view.
Paul isn't just addressing Christians generally in Rome; he is addressing a situation in which there are both Jewish Christian house churches and gentile Christian house churches (particularly since Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome for a few years). There appears to be friction between the two groups (see Romans 14 & 15). This is the context Paul is addressing.
His response is to say that God addresses both Jews and gentiles in the same way. This is a repeated refrain throughout Romans - Jew and gentile, Jew and gentile. See Romans 1:16; 2:10; 3:9; 3:29; 9:24; 10:12.
So Romans 1 & 2 sets up this pattern. Both gentiles and Jews are in the same bad position, and both gentiles and Jews are saved in the same way.
Hence he begins with idolatry - choosing false gods over God (Romans 1:23 makes this explicit, and it is not something that could be levelled against a Jewish person). This isn't the 'basic human condition' and is not a reference to Genesis 2-3.
The following attack on what happens when people turn to idolatry is similar to other Jewish attacks on idolatry - compare this with Wisdom 14.
In other words, Paul is attacking idolatry here. It should therefore not be surprising if he includes in his attack a description of idolatrous practices.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Hmmm! No, the ‘sting’ view is not ‘mainstream’, it appears to be comparatively recent but to have been picked up by a lot of vocal pro-gay people who think it somehow blunts what Paul actually says. Not interpretation but ‘sleight of hand’.
Start with - well Paul does NOT ‘begin with idolatry’. In vv18-22 he deals with where idolatry comes from; people who knew God but ‘suppress’ the truth. People who fail to give God praise and thanks but think they can know better than God, yet end up with ‘darkened minds’ and their claim to be ‘wise’ leads to folly. “They even altered the glory of God into images…” Idolatry is not itself primary but part of the folly - they thought they would be their own gods but they can’t sustain that and end up in thrall to invented gods. Idolatry is just one example of the results of the bigger thing of distrusting God and thinking they know better.
‘Therefore’ - not just because of idolatry but because of the larger rejection of God - God ‘gave them up’ to their ‘inner cravings’. In judgement (but also in mercy) he lets them have their own way. Being ‘out of joint’ with God indeed leads to idolatry, but also to being ‘out of joint’ within themselves. As an example of which Paul cites sexual disorder - in effect they thought they’d rule everything, but in reality lost control even of their own bodies. From Adam and Eve with dominion over the world, sinful man is in all kinds of ways under the dominion of the world... And as an example of that Paul very clearly cites (not ‘homosexuality’ which is a modern construct, but…) that they end up doing inappropriate sexual acts, specifically “...men… burning up with lust for one another...”. And there is no suggestion that there could be a version of same-sex sex that could be OK. Paul is following the OT as reinforced by Jesus that God made them ‘male and female’ and that that is the meaning of sex and marriage. Precisely because sex is made for males-with-females, what same-sex couples can do is inappropriate…. (And BTW Jesus makes the point in such a way that interpreting it thus is more than just ‘argument from silence’)
From there Paul goes on to show how the basic being out-of-joint with God, and the selfishness that is part of it, leads to us being out-of-joint with other humans with all kinds of wider evil results…. And yes, that whole passage is about the ‘basic human condition’. Your argument that it can’t be so because 1; 23 couldn’t be said of a Jew is illogical. It can be a totally valid exposition of the ‘basic human condition’ but of course a Jew might still say “But because of our special position as the chosen people that doesn’t apply to us”. Which is why after that basic statement Paul turns to dealing with that likely Jewish response. But my point is very much that this wouldn’t be a ‘sting’ or set-up at the expense of Jewish readers - that aspect is simply the natural consequence of the situation since God chose Abraham. I can’t see Paul as the kind of idiot who would, as a ‘sting’ implies, needlessly belittle around half his audience…
A lot of the people putting forth this bizarre ‘sting’ idea suggest that in ch 1 Paul isn’t even putting forth an idea he really believes; supposedly he’s producing a Jewish ‘anti-Gentile rant’ that he doesn’t agree with. But that really isn’t credible. For starters it isn’t just a rant, it is as I’ve said a carefully argued exposition of the human situation. But also all the things Paul mentions are simply sins and he is showing how all these things connect. It’s not a ‘sting’ to set up Jewish readers/hearers, it is just a statement of fact. Paul disapproves of these sinful deeds and so should we all - and the list includes ‘gay sex’ which is clearly deliberately picked out as a particularly bad example of how far human life is disrupted by the basic fact of sin. Why would Paul use up a massive proportion of his writing to ‘set up’ Jewish readers, and how exactly does a reasoned explanation of sin achieve that anyway?
As for arguments from silence - there is one that pro-gay people carefully ignore. If any form of same-sex sex or marriage were allowable it would surely have to be at least mentioned in Scripture somewhere - especially in the NT where the Christian faith is directly engaging societies in which ‘gay sex’ was widely practised. Law codes like Leviticus and Deuteronomy would surely have to cover all the various details that would arise like inheritance rights - these things are not even mentioned. The simple fact is that ‘gay sex’ gets, in those very few texts, all the mention that is deserved by a distasteful act that in God’s world isn’t meant to happen.
And one more comment - there are no 'gay' people anyway in the sense that the 'gays' try to have it. Men loving men is biblically fine, the issue is what is appropriate expression of such love. And doing sexual acts is not the same kind of thing as ethnic differences; as 'doing' it is chosen behaviour, not something anyone 'just is'.
Thank you for your full reply. Let me try to respond to you.
First, let us put to one side the language of 'sting', which I can see you find unhelpful. Instead, let's first lay out some common ground.
Paul is addressing both Jewish and gentile people, and from 1:18 until 3:20 he is mainly showing that everyone, both Jewish and gentile people, are under God's wrath. From 3:21 he will show them how Jesus saves both Jewish and Gentile people.
We can also agree that Paul introduces this in 1:18-22.
However, from 1:23 onwards, Paul's points seem specifically aimed at gentiles. He will then also include Jewish people from chapter 2, in line with his overall argument.
Why do I say that 1:23 onwards is aimed at gentiles? Because it begins with an explicit mention of idolatry - "and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."
This is then followed by a three-fold God giving them up: to impurity, to degrading passions, and to a debased mind. The first 'therefore' is explicit that this is the result of idolatry: 'worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator'. This mention of idolatry is immediately followed by the second 'therefore' which relates to the verses we are most concerned with.
It therefore fits exactly within Paul's argument to expect Paul still to be referring to idolatry or its results. These verses do not fit with condemnation of the whole human race, because on these points (worshipping idols) Jewish people would not be included.
We can check if this makes sense by comparing other Jewish literature of the time condemning idolatry. We have a parallel in Wisdom 14. Here, idolatry leads to fornication and then to a whole host of other sins, for example Wisd. 14:12 'For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication'. Wisdom 14 explains how idolatry began, and then continues, describing idolatrous worship in Wisdom 14:23: 'For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs...'
So here, condemnation of idolatry is followed by condemnation of idolatrous worship, including child sacrifice, mysteries, or 'frenzied revels' - which has strong sexual overtones in the original.
In Paul, we have a condemnation of idolatry, followed by a condemnation of females and males doing things including burning with desire. For the reasons given in the video, the details fit exactly the type of frenzied, sexual worship associated with Cybele and other fertility goddesses.
In other words, Paul is addressing here gentile failings, and in chapter 2 moves onto Jewish failings. The gentile failings include frenzied sexual worship of idols, described in Romans 1:26-28.
Your other point is that you would expect same-sex marriage to have been approved in scripture, quote 'specially in the NT where the Christian faith is directly engaging societies in which ‘gay sex’ was widely practised.' But this is to misunderstand the cultural context of the New Testament. 'Gay sex' between two adult consenting men was not widely practised. The main form of same-sex activity between males was between men (not homosexual men - these would be married, heterosexual men) and boys. It was not between equals, and was not loving (more like a society sanctioned form of rape). There are only a handful of same-sex marriages known about over a period of a few hundred years, and one of the better known examples is Nero 'marrying' his slave. I put 'marrying' in inverted commas here, because I do not believe the slave had any option about consenting to it or not (in other words, it replicates an abusive pattern).
In other words, same-sex marriage is not addressed in the Bible because it was not part of the cultures within which the books of the Bible were written.
I hope this helps, and thanks once again for thoughtful engagement.
@@BibleandHomosexuality So according to you, “In other words, same-sex marriage is not addressed in the Bible because it was not part of the cultures within which the books of the Bible were written”. I assume it hasn’t occurred to you that there is a more likely reason it is not addressed. Put simply, the Bible forbids same-sex sex, same-sex marriage includes same-sex sex, so same-sex marriage is also forbidden…. And seriously the claim that “same-sex marriage is not addressed in the Bible” must pretty much sink your case anyway.
Thing is, you’re trying to make a case that faithful monogamous same-sex marriage is OK. But surely if it is OK now, it must always have been OK and part of God’s intention and design for human sexuality throughout history. God must always have wanted people to have such relationships and show and express such love; he must always have been ‘making people that way’. But if it was indeed always OK, then how come it is “….not addressed in the Bible”?? That is just incredible - to the point of weird. So your case for same-sex marriage is incredible.
I’ve also looked at the Leviticus texts - and again, your view makes a major contradiction. You go on about a supposed ‘context’ of temple prostitution or pederasty - but the text doesn’t mention that, you are bringing that in from outside the text, possibly illegitimately. The text is simply a flat prohibition of same-sex sex between men. But if your case is correct, that’s surely wrong? Surely it will always have been the case that there is/was an exception for faithful same-sex marriage; if I’ve understood you rightly, you think that would be true even about the Genesis texts which Jesus later quoted. You say much about the Leviticus texts being part of the ‘purity code’; but surely the same-sex marriage thing must always have been pure and should not have been condemned by Leviticus?
Or simply, surely Leviticus should NOT simply say don’t do same-sex sex. It should say explicitly don’t do it in contexts like temple prostitution and pederasty, but that it’s perfectly ‘pure’ in a ‘same-sex marriage’ context. And it doesn’t say that - it gives no qualification or exception at all. Which would appear to be a massive problem for your interpretation. And the same-sex marriage thing is surely not the same kind of thing as the mixed fabrics rule; if it is pure now it really must have been pure then. I suspect you have ‘out-clevered yourself’ there.
Going back to Romans. Indeed Wisd. 14:12 may say 'For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication'
- but Paul isn’t making that argument and what he says shouldn’t be forced into that mould. Paul DOES NOT start with idolatry; he starts with vv18-22, and idols don’t come in until after “Claiming to be wise they played the fool” with a bondage to idols as simply one of the first consequences of the folly, the folly of thinking they knew better than God. And that’s why this is not simply an attack upon Gentiles but rather an analysis of the human condition. Yes of course Paul then has to turn separately to the Jews because since Abraham there has been a group outside the general state of humanity and they might think that they are somehow free of the problems obvious in pagan society; and Paul needs to show them that they too need the gospel. But the logical sequence is not as you portray.
Hi, and thanks for your continued engagement. If I may tackle Romans first, then move on to your other points.
You say Paul does not start with idolatry. I have agreed with you already: in 1:18-22 he is introducing the notion that everyone is going to need salvation, both Jews and gentiles. But from 1:23, he is talking specifically about idolatry, and therefore specifically targeting the gentiles. As you say, this is why he then has to turn to the Jews later, and separately. If Paul starts talking about idolatry in 1:23, and links this closely to 1:26, then I don't think it is particularly out of line to think that Paul is still talking about idolatry. Incidentally, you can see this interpretation being followed by early church commentators.
Secondly, why the Bible doesn't address same-sex marriage. I'm sorry, but I flat out disagree with you and with your logic. The obvious reason the Bible doesn't address it is because it wasn't a live issue for people at the time. We can apply this to any number of other issues that are not directly addressed in the Bible. And this is because the Bible is not meant to be the type of book that gives a case-law interpretation for every single type of situation that humanity might find itself in.
This links with your critique of my handling of Leviticus, where you say that I am bringing context in from outside the text. Yes, I am, and I think this is a responsible way of handling the text. Let me give you an example. If I wrote, 'nice to see you, to see you, nice' and it was discovered two thousand years later, people would wonder why I had written that. Why repeat? What is significant about the chiastic structure? However, external context (should it also be discovered) would show that it is simply a catchphrase of a primetime UK entertainer (Bruce Forsyth), and that while he was on TV it was a phrase known by practically everyone in Britain. External context helps us to understand the text in its own context.
Let me give you a different example from Leviticus. Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos. Why do we not worry that Christians now have tattoos? I would suggest two reasons. First, tattooing then was associated with pagan religious identity and festivals (see the similarity to our issue). Therefore, even though this isn't made explicit, we can understand why the command might be there for the Israelites then. Secondly, in any case, we do not follow the Torah, but the law of love, and so do not worry about specific commands in Leviticus (again, see the similarity).
Hope this helps.
This is ridiculous interpretation. Remember Sodoma and Gomorrah finish !
he's done a video on that already