Re: NO!

At 06:48 PM 5/29/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:

>Debbie wrote, in part: " Romans 1 says that homosexuality, and other
>sins, are due to the fact that men who knew God chose to turn away from God."
>
>That was Paul's argument -- but he did not address
>homosexuality..... ~ Burgy

@ Really????

The Gay Blade

Romans 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Homosexuality James Patrick
Holding http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

No, we're still not going to muck around in the social aspect of this
question; here, we'll just be asking the simple exegetical question,
"What relevance does Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10 have
to homosexuality?"

Let's start with Romans, that makes sense:

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.

There's plenty of farcical exegesis floating around which claims that
this verse is not addressed to everyday homosexual behavior but to
temple prostitution, and non-homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex
against their own nature.

The latter point, though perhaps an "out" for some exegetes
(including Byrne, whose commentary on Romans is our primary source)
begs the question of reading modern understandings into an ancient
text; and whether indeed homosexuality is a natural inclination, an
argument that is beside our mission statement to evaluate.

However, taken within the historical and social context, there is
simply no way that one can read this as a slam against only "temple"
acts which permits a "non-religious" homosexuality.

In fact, such a position puts the politically correct cart in front
of the exegetical horse.

As Byrne points out [65-9; see also Dunn, Romans, 65-6] Paul here
draws upon a "conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its
idolatry."

The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin -- period.

It was regarded as shameful because it "blurred the all-important
distinction of gender role."

This leads to a conclusion that cannot be got around: Since Paul drew
on this conventional polemic, there is no way that this can be an
"against temple sex only" position, because according to Jewish
thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile
idolatry. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the
sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from
religious considerations.

That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could
theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality
being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the
clear message of Paul -- via his Jewish forebears -- that the
homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one.

Now for Corinthians (and Timothy, which we need not quote for it just
uses a word found in Corinthians):

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?

There's also a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that
understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading
and that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to
those who are unreliable or lacking in courage.

That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word
(malakos): Witherington's Corinthians commentary [166] notes uses of
it referring to a "young male prostitute". Lexicons like BAGD, as
Wold notes in Out of Order [189], clearly say that the word is used
of "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" and
cites "numerous examples from Greek literature" of the word used this way.

Critics argue in reply that the word has no specific referent for the
homosexual act, just having feminine characteristics, but of course
the "passive" partner in such a relationship DOES act out that very
sort of characteristic.

In addition, Wold notes [192] that at Paul's time, the common
preference for a "passive" homosexual partner WAS one that was
effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was
for a masculine partner).

Finally, other Greek terms for the passive partner, clearly used in
homosexual contexts, are words that have no "inherent" homosexual
meaning but are borrowed words used to describe the passive
homosexual. Critics have a substantial burden to carry before they
can simply dismiss this word.

The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also
found in 1 Tim. 1:10 (arsenokoitai). Critics try to make some issue
of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it
seems to be the first ever use of it.

The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two
parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul
hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex.

Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of
<http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html>Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which
used the words arsenos koitin and arsenos ou koimethese.

Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of
homosexual relations in Leviticus.

It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover
the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship
[Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.

----------

More: Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn
Homosexuality? http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html

~ Janice
Received on Mon May 29 20:59:55 2006