First off, this book is quite possibly one of the most complex letters ever. Books have been written about books that have been written about [sic] Romans. Paul's theology in a nutshell, scribed to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in the metropolis that was Rome; a place and people, also, Paul had never visited29 (unlike with many of his other letters, which were "follow-up" epistles, reinforcing what he had already said, in person, during previous visits30).
Ergo, it is misguided foolhardiness of the greatest order, to presume to pick a couple of verses out of context, expecting to glean a correct and enlightened message from them. But we do it anyway.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator...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 recompence of their error which was meet."31
At least Paul is less vague and ambiguous than the Old Testament authors. Well...at face value.
One challenge Paul faced in writing to the Romans, as mentioned, was that he hadn't met them. How, then, could he relate to these people? For the Jewish citizens of Rome, the answer is simple: quote and/or paraphrase Jewish writings32. For the Gentiles? Well...all the cool kids were down with the Greek Philosophers. So why not borrow some of their phrases and writings?
The concept of "natural" or "unnatural" acts is not a Jewish one. It appears nowhere in the Old Testament. Naturalism33 is a philosophical concept. The first recorded use of the term "nature" was by Homer34. By definition, the phrases have nothing to do with the theological or divine moral implications of an action, as the endeavour is to explain actions and beliefs via factual and causal observations, excluding any deity or supernatural authority. Something that is "according to nature", is controlled, logical, reasoned, within Custom and Law; "against nature" is out of balance, uncontrolled, driven by emotion. Also, those terms were often used in a proscriptive manner, not descriptively (e.g. in Stoicism).
To simplify with a relevant example, for a man to have sex with a woman in order to produce offspring is a natural act; the causal result - the reason behind the action - is the production of an heir, continuation of a bloodline, help around the house, security in old age, et al. But for a man to have sex with a woman utilising prophylactics because she is hawt, is unnatural; for it is an act of lust, ruled by self-gratification and passion. Even more so when the act leads to loss of self-control and addiction.
Important to note that the Greeks viewed sex as a purely physical act, in which one body used another body as an object; it had no connection with today's concepts of romance35. Men were assumed to have high sex drives, and this desire was good in that it defined manhood, which itself was the central virtue of humanity. This force was dangerous, but needed to be sated more than it needed to be restricted to particular "objects"36.
Going back to the passage in Romans, Paul is referencing Plato:
"And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure."37
Keeping in mind what has thus far been mentioned, it follows that homosexual intercourse is deemed a prime example of "unnatural acts" because in the eyes of Ancient Greek philosophy, there is no visible result other than personal gratification of the penetrator using the submissive partner's body. Taken in further context, the passage in Plato was a dialogue with a Cretan, renound for prolonging the sexual erastes/eromenos (man/pubescent boy) relationship beyond the point of the boy reaching full maturity, which went against cultural norms. The passage starts out mentioning crass jokes made about the matter. The acts are then compared to drunkenness/alcoholism, which becomes the focus of proceeding chapters.
It is not homosexuality being critisised, here, but "slavery to pleasure". Excess, loss of control; Passion.
To further emphasise "passion" as the misdemeanor in question, five seperate forms/parts of "passion" appear in these few verses Paul wrote: Epithumia38, Pathos39, Ekkaio40, Orexis41, and Plane42.
Which is a moderately overwhelming way of concluding that, actually...Paul isn't condemning homesexuals at all.
Fortunately (!) it doesn't end there. For the purpose of Romans Chapter 1 doesn't appear to be deliberately setting out an exhaustive list of sins to avoid, or people to condemn. Taken in context with Romans Chapter 2:
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. 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 recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"43
What an unfortunate choice that scholar made, all those years ago, to separate Romans Chapters 1 and 2 where he did. Paul wasn't making a list of people headed straight for Hell; he was preaching against hypocrisy! The end of Chapter 1 might be imagined to make Paul's Roman audience think, "Wow, yeah, despicable heathen Romans with their orgies and debauchery, thank goodness we're not as bad as that..." only for Paul to turn round and say "Don't be so smug! Don't judge! You're exactly the same!" He goes on to preach against legalism, a common problem, and a common theme in many of Paul's writings (i.e. most of the New Testament...).
No comments:
Post a Comment