Per our mission of fostering theological conversation, ThinkTheology.org is hosting a conversation between Bill Hoard and our very own Luke Geraty in regards to homosexuality and the Church. This is a six part series where Bill will offer a perspective and Luke will respond (see the first and second exchanges). If you have any questions or comments, feel free to join the discussion below. Our authors will do their best to respond.Â
Bill Hoard’s 3rd Post
Of all the biblical passages cited as proscriptions of gay sex, Romans 1 is probably the favorite and I think understandably so. As I have already mentioned, there are legitimate scholarly debates over the translation of the only other direct mentions of homosexuality in the NT but Romans 1:26-27 seems far less ambiguous since, rather than using a particular term, it describes what it is condemning. Certainly in my own development on this topic, there was a time where everything seemed to hang on Romans 1.
So let me dive in. First, I think the basic assertion I just made is actually fairly problematic. It might be convenient if a basic description of an act could be taken to represent all possible variations of that act but that just isn’t how language and communication work. I think it is fairly certain that Paul is describing gay sex in Romans 1:26-27, but I do not think it is at all obvious that the Romans 1 description should be taken as representing all possible instances of gay sex. What needs to be asked is: “What was Paul talking about when he describes gay sex in Romans 1?” And in order to answer that question we will have to look into connotations of gay sex in the 1st century Hebrew and Roman worlds.
Let me be clear, I am claiming that while Paul may have been aware of something roughly analogous to our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, (though even the classical Greek approach doesn’t map perfectly on to our current model) it is an extreme stretch to claim that our contemporary understanding is what he would have been talking about in Romans 1. If that seems far fetched, let me illustrate with an example of how we use language:
If I were to say that I support the right of parents to have their child circumcised it would seem to be a fairly straightforward statement, and for most practical purposes it is. However, it is possible that some future scholar, studying my life and writings,[1] could legitimately demonstrate that I am aware of the practice of female circumcision and thereby argue that I support the right of parents to have their daughter circumcised. The thing is, our future scholar would be dead wrong. I am entirely opposed to female circumcision. And yet the original statement “I support the right of parents to have their child circumcised” is still a true statement because in our cultural context, female circumcision is not a live option. Female circumcision (excision) is a thing I am aware of and is legitimately within the lexical domain of “circumcision” but it is not what I am talking about when I talk about circumcision in my American context.[2]
Thus to assume that Paul’s description in Romans 1 automatically includes what we might refer to as a monogamous, covenant, gay marriage commits the same linguistic fallacy involved in assuming that I support excision. In order to determine what Paul was talking about, we have to look at the dominant cultural connotations of gay sex.
Contemporary scholarship suggests that there were three cultural understandings of gay sex which would have been available to Paul: The Hebrew, the classical Greek, and the Roman. Of these, I would argue that the Greek, while more nuanced and philosophical than the other two, is essentially irrelevant to Paul who was writing as a Jew to a mixed Jewish/Roman audience in a Latin context[3]. A great deal of ink has been spilled speculating as to whether or not Paul would have been aware of the Greek theories on the subject but at the end of the day, even if he was, his knowledge does not warrant the claim that he was talking about them when he talked about gay sex in Romans 1.
So then what would Paul have been talking about? While scholars can get into all sorts of debate over exceptional, potentially loving, non-abusive instances of gay sex in the 1st century Roman world, they pretty much agree that the overwhelming majority fall under the categories of slave rape, pederastic dominance and abuse, temple prostitution, and adultery. As far as the Roman cultural connotations for gay sex are concerned it is safe to say that monogamous, covenant relationships were not what Romans meant when they talked about homosexuality, they were not a live option in that context[4].
But Paul was educated in a hellenized Jewish context as was a portion of his audience in Romans so that context is relevant as well. I will get more into this in the next post but for now I will maintain that the dominant Hebrew cultural connotation for gay sex included temple prostitution, gentile licentiousness, and adultery and seems to have mistakenly seen them as inseparable from any form of gay sex. As with the Romans, I maintain that monogamous, covenant relationships simply were not what 1st century Hebrews were talking about when they discussed homosexuality.
Furthermore, the immediate context of Roman 1 supports the claim that monogamous, covenant relationships are outside the scope of Paul’s discussion. Verses 26-27 are given as a social implication for refusing to worship God and are followed[5] by a list of other practices which arise as a result of that refusal. The full list is uniformly ugly, other-damaging and blasphemous. The dominant Roman (and Hebrew) expressions of gay sex fit well on the list, but monogamous, covenant, same-sex relationships do not. To claim that 26-27 must include all instances of gay sex one would have to claim that verse 30 must include all instances of a child disobeying their parent. But we recognize that Paul is not condemning the refusal of Christian converts to obey a parent’s order to participate in idolatry or another religion. We see that as a fairly obvious exception, one might even say “when the fruit of disobedience draws someone closer to God, we may safely conclude that we are dealing with a form of disobedience Paul was not talking about in Romans 1:30”. That same statement can be made in reference to Romans 1:26-27: “when the fruit of gay sex draws someone closer to God, we may safely conclude that we are dealing with a form of gay sex Paul was not talking about in Romans 1:30”
In summary:
- The cultural associations that Paul’s audience would have had with gay sex would not have included monogamous, covenant relationships. Therefore Paul should not be assumed to be talking about monogamous, covenant relationships.
- Exegetically there is space in Romans 1 to claim that Paul was not referring to every possible instance of an activity in his list of consequences for rejecting God. Therefore it is exegetically reasonable to claim that Paul’s description of gay sex does not necessarily include every possible instance of gay sex.
My question for Luke:
Do you think that a gay marriage[6] can ever bring its members closer to God?
Luke Geraty’s 3rd Response
First I’d like to apologize for Bill and our readers for such a slow response! Bill sent me his third post months ago and I just got buried with other projects. Such is the life of a husband, father of five, pastor, and gamer (did you know that Call of Duty’s Advanced Warfare came out?!?!). At any rate, I am thankful for the opportunity to interact with Bill again.
In response to Bill I’m going to have to simply say that the scholarly evidence does not line up with his suggestions regarding the cultural context of St. Paul. This has been demonstrated in several of the works I’ve already noted, including William Loader’s The New Testament on Sexuality, K.J. Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, and, to a lesser extent, Bernadette Brooten’s Love Between Women. Any suggestion that Paul or the culture in which Paul wrote would not have had a context for monogamous, covenant relationships is historically unsustainable. This is something I’ve noted in my review of Ken Wilson’s A Letter to My Congregation (reviews 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). You can find direct quotes from these sources that demonstrate that Bill’s assumption is simply incorrect. The scholarly evidence has made it clear that Paul and the culture surrounding him were aware of homosexual relationships that are quite similar to modern homosexual relationships. While the scholarly community is a tough world to “live in” because it’s constantly changing and growing and finding new evidence, on a subject as important as this I believe we need to take the latest scholarly evidence and really consider its implications. According to the latest works (e.g., Loader, Dover, Brooten, etc.), there are good reasons to reject what Bill is suggesting here as simply incorrect. The latest scholarly literature (that I’m aware of) takes issue with Bill’s historical analysis. Furthermore, in addition to these aforementioned scholars, everyone needs to read Kyle Harper’s “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Norm.” The bottom line is that the scholarly guild has made it clear that St. Paul and his cultural context was familiar with monogamous covenantal homosexual relationships.Â
What I will grant to Bill’s view is that he is correct to note that we need to be a bit cautious in how we read into St. Paul’s epistles our own assumptions. For Bill, the assumption is that Paul did not include monogamous covenant homosexual relationships, or at least there should be room for ambiguity. For me, he did, though it’s possible he wasn’t specifically addressing all or just one of those “types” of homosexuality. Why do we reach different conclusions? I’d argue that we reach different conclusions because we have differing understandings related to biblical theology. In fact, I think that starting with the NT texts versus the OT texts is indicative of a problematic approach to biblical theology (as I’ve already stated). Furthermore, I do not view Paul’s Hebrew background as baggage to be overcome but as being quite important to understanding why he takes issue with sexual immorality.
There, when I read Romans 1, I am inclined to agree with Loader when he writes:
“… Paul sees same-sex intercourse as disorder and sets it in parallel to the disorder when people stop worshipping God and worship idols instead. Not only are the two disorders parallel; one is the consequence of the other. God let people continue their denial of God’s reality into denial of reality in their own lives. So they not only deny God’s reality, they deny their own nature as (heterosexual) human beings, and engage with those of their own sex instead or with the opposite sex. So this is not simply a transgression of a biblical prohibition which Paul assumes (Lev 18:22; 20:13); it is deliberate perversion of God’s intention and their nature.” (The New Testament on Sexuality, 227).
Or Richard Hays when he writes:
“The reference to God as Creator would certainly evoke for Paul, as well as for his readers, immediate recollections of the creation story in Genesis 1– 3, which proclaims that “God created humankind in his own image… male and female he created them,” charging them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1: 27– 28).” (The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 386)
My biblical theology sees homosexual practice (i.e., sex between two people of the same gender) as problematic because of my understanding of creation or “natural law” (Thomas Aquinas is helpful here). Paul’s framework for understanding human sexuality is deeply based on the creation motif and he is simply maintaining the sexual ethics found in the Old Testament.
Thus, when Bill writes that “Paul’s description of gay sex does not necessarily include every possible instance of gay sex,” I want to hit the “pause” button and remind readers that the words “not necessarily” seem to disappear when we understand the basis for Paul’s understanding of creation. Again, Loader and Hays are magnificently helpful here, as is N. T. Wright. Loader being particularly helpful because he isn’t one who holds to any form of a “conservative” understanding of the authority of Scripture. For Loader, Paul is clear… he’s just wrong.
Which brings me to a question I have for Bill. You write that you “maintain that the dominant Hebrew cultural connotation for gay sex included temple prostitution, gentile licentiousness, and adultery and seems to have mistakenly seen them as inseparable from any form of gay sex.” What do you mean by “mistakenly”? How does this impact your understanding of the infallibility of Scripture? Were the Jewish authors of Scripture wrong in what they recorded? Obviously this question has a lot to do with how you understand the nature of Scripture, so you can feel free to respond to that however you want, ha ha!
My response related to Bill’s question about whether or not gay marriage can ever bring its members closer to God is simple: it’s complicated! Ha ha!
What I mean by that is to acknowledge that God works in and through our lives. Things that may be outside of God’s prescribed will are still able to be redeemed or transformed. I have no doubt that God may work in the context of a “gay marriage” to draw someone closer to God. I do doubt whether a person can remain in a sexual relationship that is condemned by Scripture and remain experiencing God’s “shalom.” My inclination is that the community of the kingdom (the Church) should certainly love people where they are at while they disciple them.
I do wonder, Bill, if you have taken the time to read these scholars yet and to assess their work. If you have, I’d be interested to know why you reject their work.
Endnotes
[1] Probably a poor use of their futuristic resources but hey, whatever blows their hair back!
[2] This analogy still holds if I substitute the term “circumcision” with the phrase “surgical removal of genital tissue” so the fact that Romans 1 is descriptive does not substantively change the argument here.
[3] At a time when classical Greek thinking was 300-500 years old and about as relevant to the common person as enlightenment thinking is to my high school students: formative but not conscious and certainly not something they will cite.
[4] Bruce W. Frier and Crompton are particularly helpful on this.
[5] Romans 1:28-32
[6] I realize that many Christians do not recognize gay marriage as a spiritual reality so let’s specify a homosexual relationship which the two participants think of as a marriage and have had it solemnized by a church official.
OK I promise to address all of these great questions Luke but let me clarify two really important things first:
1. By “mistaken” I meant that the worldview contained an unwarranted assumption, not that the Bible is wrong. This would be analogous to the fact that the Biblical authors similarly assumed a geocentric solar system.
2. I also do not see Paul’s Hebrew background as baggage to be overcome. I would characterize it as a lens through which we can better understand what he was and was not communicating. I am not sure (though it is certainly possible) that our biblical theology is at odds here. I would agree that an understanding of the OT background is necessary for a proper exegesis of the NT passages and that in so far as that is the case, I have structured this whole conversation backwards. As mentioned, I thought it would be the way to go because it addresses issues in the order they are generally raised.
I promise I will get to natural law. And yup, St. Thomas is a great resource for it.
Let me hit my books and put together a proper response re: the scholarship challenge (bum bum bum….). Of your “big three” I have read Dover but only engaged with Loader and Brooten in segments and quotes. If you have evidence from them that you would particularly like me to address please let me know.
The short version though is that I do think the scholarship stands behind my points: Notice the difference between a live option – what would have been seen as a standard expression in the culture – and an occasional occurrence which (when noticed at all) would have been seen more as a bizarre aberration than as an alternate model.
OK, here’s a more extended reply re: the claim that my scholarship is off with regard to the existence of a model for same sex marriage in classical Rome.
Luke, you claim that: ” The bottom line is that the scholarly guild has made it clear that St. Paul and his cultural context was familiar with monogamous covenantal homosexual relationships.” But that is simply not borne out by the records and that for two reasons. (I am working here with my best reconstruction of what I surmise is your historical position given that I am not sure of your reasoning).
If your statement is based on the records of wedding ceremonies between Roman men (primarily of certain emperors and secondarily of other upper class individuals) then your first problem is with your dates. The earliest record of such an arrangement (at least that I have been able to find) is of emperor Nero’s “weddings” first to a castrated slave in 64 AD and then to another man in 67. There are further records in a few histories and satires but overall, the descriptions are, to quite Frier,”few, difficult to interpret, and invariably hostile”. Furthermore, the historian’s consensus is that if these ceremonies became commonplace (and that is not at all certain given the shocked reactions to them which are apparent in the original records -Martial and Juvenal in particular), that transition did not happen until the late 1st and well into the 2nd centuries AD. Given that most conservative scholarship dates the letter to the Romans somewhere in the 50s AD, Paul could not have known about Nero’s “weddings” since they had not even taken place at the time of the writing. – Also I don’t really recommend that anyone take Nero’s actions as representative of even his own culture –
But I think the bigger weakness here comes from a confusion of terms. When I claim that the culture would not have had had a mental (much less linguistic) framework for monogamous, covenant, same-sex relationships, I mean that there was no concept of a homosexual relationship which was marriage in its essentials. Certainly there were same-sex relationships which were committed and certainly there were those which could have been monogamous, but there is no evidence (at least that I have found) that there were same-sex relationships wherein the partners (much less society) saw themselves as bound together in just the same way that the heterosexual partners were in contemporary marriages. I cannot, of course, claim that no same-sex pairs ever saw themselves that way as we do not have any first hand accounts from people in such a relationship, but I maintain that the evidence is clear that even in the late 1st century and on into the later imperial period, society saw the marriage ceremonies between men as fitting into their own cultural paradigm. As I have mentioned, Martial (101 AD) and Juvenal (117 AD) both seemed to be scandalized and bemused by the ceremonies. Ultimately a claim that 1st Century Roman society included same-sex marriage as an analog to its cultural category for heterosexual marriage is unsustainable.
As to my sources here, As I have mentioned, I am working from Bruce W. Frier, and Louis Crompton as well as Dover, and Eva Cantarella, My reading of Loader (papers and quotes) has done nothing to dissuade me on this (so far as I can tell he would actually agree with my claims here – certainly he is powerfully convinced that Paul was not aware of even the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, much less then that he could have anticipated monogamous, covenant unions between same-sex couples). My suspicion is that a fair number of writers in this field (those who haven’t done much primary research) have been unduly influenced by Boswell and occasionally (Colin Spencer is a fair example here) overstated even his claims regarding 1st century Roman marriage, without providing any additional evidence. Go back and check (and by all means get back to me with the evidence you are referencing) but I think you will find that a) Roman same-sex marriage ceremonies did not amount to the same thing that today’s Christian same-sex couples are claiming to engage in when they are married; that b) Those marriage ceremonies were so much the exception rather than the rule that they cannot be said to have been representative of the culture’s understanding of either marriage or of the boundaries of LGB sexual expression; and finally that c) the trend began sufficiently after Paul’s epistle to the Romans that even if points “a” and “b” are wrong, Paul could still not have been aware of the trend, much less operating within the “emerging” paradigm.
One thought that I had after reading both sides was that the whole argument centered around what Paul thought, what Paul’s context was, what Paul meant, etc. It struck me that the real question is what God meant in His words spoken through Paul. Paul wrote those words, but I think we all agree that anything he wrote was directly inspired by God, and ultimately God has the supreme context of His omniscience and perfect holiness. Yes Paul was writing to a Jewish/Roman group of people, but God was inspiring those words knowing that they would be read by you and I today as well. I’m not smart enough to know to what extent Paul’s own personal context plays a role in this debate, but it just struck me as funny while reading the blog.
Hey Trevor so it looks like you are getting into some really interesting (and important) issues of how the doctrine of inspiration works. That is probably more Luke’s wheelhouse than mine (and Luke, I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on this one) but one response I would have is that you may be asking more of Scripture than it is prepared to give. If you are suggesting the the Bible should be able to be interpreted in the cultural lens of every person who has ever read it and mean the same thing, then I think you are going to be disappointed. I do know that even the many translators of the Bible are aware of the fact that they need an understanding of the cultures in which the Bible was written as well as the cultures of the language they are translating it into if they want to even approach an accurate translation.
For myself, I believe that the Bible certainly is inspired and that in order to understand what God (through the various Biblical authors) was communicating to us, we need to study and understand the worldview, cultural lens, and linguistic styles of the original manuscripts (or at least of the oldest, most reliable manuscripts we have access to and the originals which they represent).
Luke, your thoughts?
Bill, its one thing to hold to your positions, its another to claim that the sources you’ve read claim something other than what the sources themselves, and everyone else who reads those sources, thinks they claim. Either you have not carefully read, or not carefully understood, the arguments of Loader, Brooten, or Dover.
Rather than assume you are intentionally misconstruing these arguments, i will assume that you either have not read them or did not follow their conclusions.
Hey Doug, if you check out my comments above, I think I have responded to you fairly clearly already. If you have some specific passages or evidence which you think I have missed or failed to understand (particularly from Brooten whom – as I have already mentioned – I have not read), please point them out to me.
OK Luke, your challenge has prompted me to go back and re-research my claim as far as I am able to. I have to say that your strongly worded claim that: “The bottom line is that the scholarly guild has made it clear that St. Paul and his cultural context was familiar with monogamous covenantal homosexual relationships. ” is simply unsustainable and frankly untrue (how’s that for a competingly strongly worded claim:p )
I have already mentioned Louis Compton (“Homosexuality and Civilization”) and Frier’s “Roman Same Sex Weddings from the Legal Perspective” ( http://www.umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html ) as disputants to your claim. In addition, Alan Cameron disputes Brooten ( http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/2441/5919 ) on her claims, and David M. Halperin (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1997/97.12.03.html) is critical of her contention that the Roman or even Greek worldview had orientation as a category (As I understand it, Loader is in agreement with Helperin and not Brooten on this point, what is your take on that?). Stephanie Coontz in “Marriage A History: How Love Conquered Marriage” is critical of an equation of Imperial Roman same-sex pairing with marriages of the day, and Karen K. Hersch in “The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity” is decidedly skeptical of those interpretations of Martial and Juvenal which conclude that same-sex marriages were occurring or commonplace. And in all of this, I have been able to discover only one potential reference to any such arrangement which took place in the Roman World prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Romans. A passing reference which Cameron finds in Brooten and dismisses rather convincingly.
Now of course you are free to disagree with these sources (though I would be very interested to read your argument in doing so) but I want to point out that there existence undermines your implicit claim that “the scholarly guild” would dismiss my historical claims.
In Conclusion I am extremely eager to hear what your actual evidence is in contention with my claim rather than a simple appeal to a thoroughly challenged scholarly authority which is in nothing near the agreement which you seem to suggest.
I had the same thoughts reading this discussion. Personally, I’m less interested in finding out if Paul did/didn’t know about monogamous, covenantal homosexual relationships. Rather, I’d like to know why each writer believes that “sexual immorality”(pornea?) does/does not include gay marriage, regardless of when it was invented. Conceivably, there are thousands of types of sexual acts (and their modern contexts) that were not intellectually known to the ancient world… people are creative. That shouldn’t make any difference on whether or not they are sin today. There is something about the traditional marriage covenant that sanctifies sex, puts it in the correct context to make it right. Why does Bill believe that a homosexual marriage accomplishes the same sanctifying context as a traditional one?
Joel, not to be pedantic but on what grounds should I not believe that a homosexual marriage accomplishes the same sanctifying context as a heterosexual one? The Bible speaks to the efficacy of marriage but it does not specify (so long as one maintains the distinction between normative and descriptive language) that a marriage is heterosexual in essence. So of you will permit me a slip into socratic questioning, I would genuinely like to ask how you would defend the claim that a same sex marriage cannot accomplish the “sanctifying context of a traditional one” without using the passages we are debating as that would be the question.
I would be anxious to see the arguments and sources that refute the claims Bill has made as well. The comment seems well fleshed out and reasoned.
Hey bud. In an airplane right now so don’t have access to all my resources. I do, however, think you misunderstood my point about the guild of scholarship or that I didn’t explain that well. What I meant was that the guild of scholarship provides ample evidence that those relationships existed. I didn’t mean to imply all scholars agree with that! I should have clarified that better.
The fact is that there are scholars that have demonstrated that those relationships existed, or at least there is evidence for them. Having read some of the primary sources, I think that point stands (Dover and Loader are both helpful there… and the whole argument of orientation is a tad bit beyond the point.
As with Doug above, I’m not sure you’ve read some of these sources in the way that the author’s intended… but I’m on an airplane.
🙂
Yes, I’m sorry Bill. I don’t mean to completely dismiss your discussion here on Romans 1. Of course, our reading and interpretation of this passage is relevant to the overall topic. It’s clearly on topic. I understand that your argument here is that Paul didn’t know that gay marriage was even possible, so your interpretation of Romans 1 still leaves room for gay marriage to exist and be a good thing. I understand your logic, even though I don’t agree (see my comment above about “new” sex acts and the contexts of those acts).
To answer your question, what comes to mind is the “natural law.” (And I do look forward greatly to your and Luke’s future discussion about that topic.) “Male and female he created them,” and, “Be fruitful and multiply (a gay marriage can never accomplish this).” Also, I would reference 1 Corinthians 7. The only reason the NT gives to affirm entering into a marriage is the “temptation to sexual immorality.” Verses 2-4 clearly outline a traditional heterosexual marriage (although, I suppose that you could dismiss my reasoning here by your same logic about Paul not knowing about gay marriage).
I’m mostly just concerned with your logic here. Like you said, “The distinction between normative and descriptive language.” I don’t know for sure, but I assume that for thousands of years, Biblical scholars have interpreted the language of Genesis 2:24, 1 Cor. 7:2-4, etc. to be normative language, real guidelines on how God defines marriage, and the guidelines that Jesus followers should hold to. But now that we’ve established gay marriage in our human society, does that now give us the right to look at those words as simply descriptive language, words worked for an ancient society, but now have to be broadened in meaning to fit our modern times? Can we rightly conclude that God intends for the true moral of 1 Cor. 7 to also include male/male and female/female marriages? Did we really get new revelation on the meaning of those words, getting closer to truth and God’s heart, or are we only trying to justify sin by explaining it away? It’s a very important distinction to discern.
Hi, guys. Good convo. I don’t know where parts 4-6 are planned to go, but more and more in this conversation I think an important and often undiscussed issue is one Luke raises here. He writes: “I do doubt whether a person can remain in a sexual relationship that is condemned by Scripture and remain experiencing God’s “shalom.”
The question is, how do we answer Luke’s doubts? It’s of course a much more general question than this issue. The question is, how do we know whether something is getting in the way of experiencing God’s shalom? Is this something we can discern in community with one another and conversation with Scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or can we not trust our experience in this area such that we simply have to get a list of ‘shalom-breakers’ prescribed from Scripture?
If I’m reading you both right, I think Luke would have to take the latter position – that despite any experiences in our Jesus communities and anything we might think the Spirit is telling us, Scripture, properly interpreted through the tools of biblical scholarship, holds the trump card on what is and isn’t a shalom-breaker (of course, this means our list is only as accurate as our scholarship, I think, but we can put that aside). Bill, I think, would give more weight to experiences in Christian community and of the Holy Spirit, while of course still taking Scripture seriously (which, from his posts here, he obviously does).
What do you think? Does it come down to this? And if it does, are each of you consistent in how you answer this question when it comes to other shalom-breaking activities?
Actually Joel, I think (hope) my position is a little more nuanced than “Paul didn’t know that gay marriage was even possible”. I don’t think that he did, but my argument is that even if he was aware of the concept, his cultural milieu, together with the form of argument Paul uses in the passage, suggest that it is outside the scope of what he was discussing in Romans 1.
I will definitely get to the question of natural law in a future post (it should be “episode 5” of this debate). I don’t see how the fact that God created humans “male and female” has any bearing on the possibility of same sex marriage, certainly it is not a claim I disagree with. As to the command to “be fruitful and multiply, I don’t think any part of the Church sees that as a requirement for the spiritual authenticity of any marriage. Certainly we acknowledge the legitimacy of marriages between even congenitally infertile persons. But if that command was not for individual couples (which makes sense since it is the first half of a command which continues “fill the earth and subdue it” – a command which cannot have reasonably applied to any individual couple) then it would seem that the command is to humans in general, and not a stipulation of the bounds of marriage.
Regarding 1 Corinthians, I think you are pretty shaky ground if you want to claim that Paul is laying out heterosexual coupling as a requirement for marriage. The meaning of the passage seems rather to be that celibacy is best but where it is not within the gifting of the individual it is better for them to “marry than to burn”. Given that most Gay and Lesbian fold are unlikely to stop “burning” if they enter into a heterosexual marriage, is would seem – contrary to your assertion – that the marriage which is a concession to them is gay marriage, just as heterosexual marriage is a concession to straight people. In effect, marriage (Gay or Straight) is a concession which we should thank God for.
I have to cop to not having done an exhaustive (or even particularly general) survey as to whether the thinkers of the Church have interpreted Genesis 2:24 and Cor 7 as normative or descriptive. The thing is, I am a protestant. So while I realize this is not likely to be at all convincing to my Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic brethren (I don’t know your tradition Joel), as a protestant, I believe that we have the responsibility to do our best to read and interpret the Bible as best we can (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and utilizing the best scholarship and spiritual wisdom we can obtain). As such, it is eminently clear that both of those passages are descriptive and neither normative nor restrictive in their treatment of marriage as a heterosexual affair. I believe (though you are welcome to find good evidence contesting this) that practically any basic literary analysis of these texts would agree with me.
So our “discovery” of same-sex marriage should only impact our reading of the text insofar as it prompts us to ask how the text applies to it. I would definitely say that we can “rightly conclude that God intends for the true moral [message? meaning?]of 1 Cor. 7 to also include male/male and female/female marriages.” I don’t think this comes of new revelation though, it comes from applying the same old revelation to a new social situation, much in the same way we had to apply old revelation to the new situations of representative democracy and cloning when they happened.
Thanks for the comment Brent! I think that is fairly close to my position although I think/hope I see Scripture as ultimately authoritative. I would say that our experiences in Christian community and the Holy Spirit are necessary for determining the meaning of Scripture (and that where Scripture is silent, they are what we have to go on). I hope that I am consistent with than when it comes to other (potentially) shalom-breaking activities or at least that I am open to having my inconsistencies pointed out and repaired by Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and my Christian community.
Gotcha man! Thanks for the clarification. It looks like much of this will come up when you point out the passages you are referring to. In effect though, so far as I have read the same primary and secondary sources, I will maintain that there is little to no evidence that those relationships were sufficiently recognized and formalized by Roman society for them to be within the domain of Paul’s meaning in Romans 1 (Because I think that people are naturally drawn to the good and beautiful act of sexual and emotional fidelity to one another, I would be surprised to learn that commitments like that never happened but happening does not equate to becoming a sufficient social institution to read it into Paul’s language). I realize that I am not here quite contradicting your claim, so maybe there is room for us to meet on the scholarship here 🙂
I agree that the question of orientation is not directly applicable. I included the source only as further demonstration that questions of same-sex love in classical Rome are far from settled.
I hope you have a great flight!
P.S. The chronology thing particularly struck me so I will be especially interested in primary accounts of monogamous, covenant same sex relationships in the Roman world sufficiently prior to Paul’s letter to the Romans that they could arguably have become a recognizable social institution.
Bill, I think there are fundamental flaws in your logic. If I understand your argument correctly you are saying 1) in Romans 1, Paul did not consider a commited monogamous homosexual married relationship, therefore 2) Paul was not condemning it. Luke responded by challenging your first hypothesis, and I lack the scholarly resources to advance that discussion. I only post to say first, non sequitor: point 2 does not derive from point 1; and second in Romans 1, Paul uses very broad language to condemn homosexual activities. The exception you are creating can only be considered an argument from silence, i.e. Paul did not condemn homosexual marriage, therefore it’s ok. I think that misses Paul’s intention.
Heya Jeff, thanks for commenting. I think that is probably a fair summary of my argument (it’s a little vague so we may have different understandings) Let me respond to your two points in order: First, I don’t think that 2 is a non sequitor at all because I think there is a misunderstanding in the last line of your comment. To claim that that which is not forbidden is thereby permitted is not an “argument from silence” (though even if it were, an argument from silence is not ipso facto a non-sequitor) it is as assertion of the principle of Christian liberty. I don’t think there are many Christians who would claim that an act has to be expressly permitted in the Bible in order to be considered non-sinful, yet that would seem to be the implication of your claim here.
To use the language of logic, you have identified what I took to be an implicit premise in the claim “that which is not forbidden is allowed” and as a third premise that “that which is not addressed is not thereby forbidden”, maybe the argument will be clearer. Try it this way:
P1 -I claim that “gay sex within the context of gay marriage” is outside the cultural and therefore lexical scope of Paul’s discussion in Romans 1,
P2 – That which is not addressed is not thereby forbidden
P3 – That which is not forbidden is allowed
Conclusion – “Gay sex within the context of gay marriage” is allowed in Romans 1.
Of course, you may disagree with any of these premises (Luke has challenged me on Premise 1) but the conclusion is certainly not a non-sequitor.
To your second point, that Paul uses very broad language in Romans 1, I completely agree. My task has been to explore the scope of that broad language and I think I have demonstrated that while it is very broad, it does not extend to include “gay sex within the context of gay marriage.”
Just to clarify my last line, while I agree with P3 “that which is not forbidden is allowed” my last line does not contradict that point. Paul condemns all homosexual desires and practices, which includes desires and practices within homosexual marriage. you have not refuted that. you have only said that homosexual marriage was outside Paul’s discussion. but your conclusion does not follow. you have only proposed an exception to Paul’s broad statement that Paul did not create.
in other words, if Paul had known about homosexual marriage, why do you believe his writings in Romans 1 would be any different? there is no logical reason to reach that conclusion from Romans 1.
Paul’s condemnation of homosexual desires and practices is pretty broad.
so I think the proper logical analysis is this:
P1- Paul says all homosexual desires and practices are sinful and derived from idolatry. (Romans 1:24-27)
P2- Paul did not consider the social/legal state of homosexual marriage. (assuming that’s true)
I don’t think there’s any logical conclusion that can be drawn from those two points.
the statement – Paul does not say that homosexual desires and practices within the social/legal state of homosexual marriage is sinful – does not follow.
(I apologize if my cold analysis, including the word “condemnation” offends Christians struggling with this sin. I also struggle with sexual sin and seek God’s forgiveness and victory through Christ daily.)
OK Jeff, I think I see what you are claiming but again, I think you are misunderstanding something. You are claiming that “Paul condemns all homosexual desires and practices” but I am attempting to demonstrate that Paul could not have been condemning all such desires and practices since there are some which would have been outside the scope of his consideration at the time. In fact by asserting that Romans 1 is a condemnation of “all homosexual desires and practices” I would argue that you are anachronistically reading into the passage. The question seems to come down to what is meant when someone makes a blanket statement. Does that statement extend to all possible instances of the activity they are describing, to all instances of which the describer is aware, or to all instances within the reasonable lexical domain of the culture in which the describer is operating? I would argue the third (and that the first would be clear eisegesis)
You claim that there is no logical reason to suppose that Paul would not have considered gay sex within the context of a gay marriage legitimate. But there is similarly no reason to suppose that he would have considered it sinful because, as I have attempted to demonstrate, it can not be what he was talking about.
If I were to remove the anachronistic eisegesis from your version of P1 then, it would read “Paul considers sinful, all the homosexual practices he is reasonably talking about” then of course P2, as you have stated it, does indeed support my conclusion.
P.S. I don’t particularly mind a cold analysis but I wonder if you are in good company in attempting to assert that homosexual desire (in addition to practice) is condemned. Luke will have to weigh in on that but my understanding is that fairly few Christians maintain that it is sinful merely to be attracted to someone of the same sex. Furthermore, I have been operating under the assumption that by “homosexual practice” you are referring to “homosexual sex” since the term “practice” is imprecise and could just as much refer to a gay man buying a shirt at is might to a gay man having sex with a man.
I only refer to “desires” to stay close to Paul’s words in Romans 1:24 “sinful desires” and 1:26 “shameful lusts” (ESV, if that matters). I made no effort to discern when something is temptation-only-not-yet-sin vs. a committed sin. Paul’s choice of words implies that to some extent, a desire itself can be sinful.
I chose the word “practices” to be broader than just intercourse. I’ve heard people justify premarital heterosexual practices by saying “as long as it’s not intercourse, its ok” and I don’t think that holds up to scripture. (Eph 5:3) Paul uses the words “sexual impurity” “sexual relations” and “shameful acts” in Romans 1.
you said “Paul could not have been condemning all such desires and practices since there are some which would have been outside the scope of his consideration at the time.” That’s where we disagree. I believe Paul’s use of the broad language in Romans 1 that I just quoted is intended to encompass those “shameful acts” of which he is actually aware and also those of which he is not. otherwise he should used language that is less broad. Do you really believe that a biblical author must be actually aware of all possible types of sin before writing an effective prohibition in the Bible? that makes no sense. then internet pornography is acceptable because the internet didn’t exist? because videos didn’t exist? because photographs didn’t exist? I refer again to the broad language in Eph 5:3 that I believe covers all of this. Or shall we interpret “do not be drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit” as being silent on cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or other narcotics that may or may not have existed in Roman days? (that’s not even broad language, referring specifically to wine, but isn’t Paul’s intent — no intoxication — clear?)
I think you are creating an exception that is not in Romans 1. I don’t see how interpreting broad language broadly is “anachronistically reading into the passage” or “eisegesis”.
Hey Bill, sorry again if I misrepresented your point of view. I know that there are many nuances that I did not address. I am a Protestant as well, and the Doctrine of Church Tradition which Catholics adhere to certainly falls short of Sola Scriptura. The Word trumps any human tradition, of course.
Thanks for bringing up the “better to marry than to burn” language, and its relation to homosexuality. I know my stance here is different than yours. My reasoning is this: sexual desire is never guaranteed to be pure. A man may lust after another man’s wife. He may lust after his own mother, or his daughter, or an animal. These are things that the Bible says are sexual immorality (in the Law of Moses at least), and you probably would agree with me on these specifically. You may agree, a marriage covenant would not legitimize any of these sexual acts. I believe, based on my reading of the scriptures, that when the apostles in Acts 15 decided to teach the gentile Christians to not engage in sexual immorality, they were talking about these guidelines in the law of Moses. Why? Because sex drives are strong, and they can be confusing. Because sex feels good. Surely, Acts 15 does not encompass every sin (most societies agree that lying, stealing and murder are wrong. They’re not listed), but it mentions the confusing ones. Just because our society has accepted homosexuality, doesn’t mean it’s not a false sexual desire. 1 Corinthians 7, therefore, would not apply to homosexual marriage, just as it would not apply to marrying your own mother, etc.
Regarding your comment on “be fruitful and multiply,” and how it applies to marriage: we read in the Bible of many miracles regarding childbearing. Women’s wombs are healed, opened, miraculously able to bear children at 90 years old, and so on. Of course, as you say, the inability to bear children does not detract from a healthy, legitimate marriage, but God can heal physical childbearing ability if He wills. In a gay marriage, childbearing is not an option, and it can never be. I don’t think it’s presumption to say that the natural, God-designed childbearing aspect of sex is an important one: that’s what sex is. It’s a seed being planted in a womb. The pleasure/emotional connection aspect I’d say is just as important, but they’re designed to work together.
I just want to say, Bill, I love your passion for the Bible. I’m sure you are a much more diligent scholar than I am, and we need people like you to really search the scriptures. Much of what I just wrote is probably just an opinion I learned from someone else, or else my own feeble attempts at putting a logical argument together. Thanks for keeping the conversation going. I’m definitely looking forward to “episode 5” of this series.
OK Jeff, so the reason I think you are being anachronistic and eisegetical with regard to Romans 1 is that you are assuming a scope for the language Paul is using in the passage, and doing so without warrant. You are using, what people today would very reasonably see as the scope of a description and reading that into the Romans passage.
Of course there are contemporary actions which are sinful but are not directly mentioned in Scripture because they were outside the possible consideration of the authors. But we determine that those actions are sinful by observing that they violate the principles of Scripture (ultimately to love God and our neighbor). This is why it is important to look at the general context of Roman 1 and ask what it is that Paul was objecting to in his description of gay sex. As I believe I have shown above, the broader context would suggest that Paul was objecting to the intrinsically damaging aspect of the dominant expression of gay sex in the Roman world of his day.
Now I want to grant that this demands a much wider discussion of the principles at issue. So be it. But to claim that Paul’s description of gay sex in Romans one automatically encompasses a practice which is demonstrably outside the lexical scope of the passage really is both eisegetical and anachronistic.
Hey Joel, great stuff and thanks for pressing in on this issue. I hope I’m not going to be too much of a downer in saying that a lot of my reply to your thoughts here really will come out in the 4th and 5th posts in series. That said, I will make a few observations in response.
Regarding the 1 Cor reference and marriage as a solution to “burning” I agree that people can and do experience desires which cannot be satisfied without doing damage to themselves and/or others. Ultimately, I think the applicability or inapplicability of this passage to same sex marriage is going to depend on whether or not one views same sex marriage as Biblically legitimate. In effect either of us could use the passage to back a position but only by assuming that our position is correct. Since circular reasoning rarely benefits a conversation, I recommend we cheerfully drop it.
Your account of miracles strikes me as arbitrary. Certainly there are a number of accounts or miracles of Childbirth throughout Scripture. Is it, in principle, impossible to have one in which a woman becomes pregnant without the participation of a man? I think it must be ;p But even if you see that particular miracle as excluded, I maintain that there is nothing which would, in principle, prevent a miracle wherein God enable a same-sex couple to conceive. As to the purpose of sex, that will have to await our future discussion of natural law.
Thank you for your kind words and considerate engagement on the issue, Luke has clearly done a great job of cultivating great readers at Think Theology.
Bill, Jeff is no more assuming that than you are assuming it isn’t. It’s the same thing.
That’s why I have stated, numerous times, that we simply don’t know for sure what Paul intended concerning his use of language in Romans 1. But we have a pretty good idea, I think… (as does Hays, etc.).
I just would like to see that nuanced a bit more in your pontification 🙂 ha ha
I can go for nuance, I love nuance!
In keeping with nuance, let me argue that “assume” isn’t quite the right word here. I think the evidence is pretty clear that (contrary to your assertion) gay marriage is outside the possible lexical domain of Paul’s usage. Particularly when one notices the surprise and disdain with which which Juvenal and Martial treat treat the same-sex wedding ceremonies they describe 50 or more years after Paul’s letter.
But even if I were to grant that we are both making assumptions, I think one has to then categorize Romans 1 as “inconclusive” on the question. And I am content with that as I think the overall Biblical message would support acceptance/affirmation if the purported prohibitions are, in fact, inconclusive. But more on that in the final blog.
Thanks for the reply, Bill. I do look forward to your full reply regarding these issues in posts 4 and 5. One final comment: I don’t regard the concept of miracles as arbitrary at all. In fact, “miracles” may be the seat of my conviction on this issue, from the testimony of Scripture and from my experience.
I see a pattern with regard to the Kingdom principle of “restoration.” Healing always restores something that was broken. When God performs a creative healing miracle on the earth today, the human body is always restored closer to its intended, original form. Barren wombs are restored to their intended natural childbearing ability. Legs grow (or shrink) to match their pair’s length, curing back pain. Blind eyes see. Deaf ears hear. The mute speak. The dead are raised. Severed body parts are reattached; it’s a restoration of natural order. I’ve never heard of God miraculously creating extra arms for someone, for instance. I’ve never heard of God giving a man a womb to carry and bear children or a woman a way to produce sperm (not to say that it’s impossible, just an observed pattern).
I see a clear pattern of intent for sexuality in Scripture. And God never abandons us; there is healing, as well as supernatural grace to repent of false desires. That’s all I was trying to say. (Of course, if you don’t believe the same way about “intended/natural” sexual order, you probably won’t reach the same conclusions. I understand that.)
Hmmm… I think we may have found a theological difference regarding miracles. How do you account for the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree or of Paul cursing a false prophet with blindness in Acts 13? It also doesn’t strike me as a miracle of healing per se when Jesus turned the water into wine.
I’m also somewhat interested in what you mean by “false desires” do you mean that the desires of LGB people are not genuinely felt, or that they are somehow different in kind from the desires of straight people?
Actually, I don’t think we disagree when it comes to miracles. Obviously, those things you listed are miracles too. We inherit life and death (1 Cor. 3:22). I was just talking about a specific type of miracle: healing (Mark 16:18c, also, what Jesus did when he traveled around in general).
What I mean by “false desire,” is a desire that is sinful. For instance, lust in Mat. 5:28, or covetousness. I believe that LBG desire is absolutely real, felt, from the heart, mental, emotional, spiritual. It’s real, and can be overwhelming, just like straight people’s sexual desires can be (and “straight” desire can be just as sinful). I mentioned healing miracles, because I believe there is a physical/mental/emotional component to homosexual desire. And Jesus has authority over that, just like he has authority to heal illness/deformity. I really believe that repentance is not just saying, “I’m going to change my mind about this,” or, “I’m not going to do this thing anymore.” There has to be supernatural grace to change, to heal what has been broken or skewed mentally and emotionally.
Gotcha, though I don’t think your account of healing fully accounts for the virgin birth. I’m not really clear why you would call a sinful desire “false” though I suppose there may be some spiritual precedent for it (St. Augustine springs to mind). I suppose then that I would agree with you that “there is supernatural grace to repent false desires” I just don’t think that the desires of LGB people are fundamentally “false”.
Looks like Jim Brownson would agree as well.
https://jimbrownson.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/response-to-gagnon-in-first-things/
Goddard’s review of Brownson would be equally worthy of a read 🙂
http://klice.co.uk/uploads/Goddard%20KLICE%20review%20of%20Brownson.pdf
So I checked Crompton, read Friers, read Cameron, and, quite frankly, don’t find them very convincing. If anything, after rereading sections of Loader, Dover, Smith, Brooten, in addition to large portions of Hubbard, I’m more convinced that the best historical scholarship supports the claim that the ancient Greco-Roman world was well aware of loving and committed monogamous homosexuality.
Do you reject Mark Smith’s AAR paper on the question of “orientation”? It seems like a lot straining of gnats to deal with the word “orientation” (which I think we all would concede is a modern word and not likely a concept that everyone in the ancient world knew of). Hubbard’s work on the diversity of homosexuality is, I think, quite telling.
The point of contention that I have made numerous times is that your view seems to make some major assumptions about the nature and understanding of homosexuality. It doesn’t quite seem to take into consideration what Hubbard notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, who writes of the diversity of natures and understandings quite effectively on pp.7-8, which states:
And more devastatingly to your suggestions, Hubbard writes:
He goes on: and even stating:
Throughout Hubbard are links to the primary source documents which you are certainly free to challenge… but I’m going to assume you’d agree that he’s legit.
My point is this: I’ve readily acknowledged that Paul certainly was addressing pederasty and temple prostitution. I’ve also stated that he was, as the evidence suggests, aware of other “types” or “forms” or “expressions” or “viewpoints” about homosexuality. There is no reasonable reason to believe that Paul was only talking about one type because, as I’ve stated, he would have been aware of them all. Your viewpoint, however, has to maintain that Paul did not know of these relationships and that perspective is, essentially, impossible to prove and looks to be quite difficult to defend.
As you have already read, Thomas Lyons over on the SVS forum responded to some of your questions concerning Dover and Loader (https://www.vineyardscholars.org/forum/index.php/topic,1770.0.html).
At any rate… thanks for encouraging me to go and look. Looking made me more convinced 🙂
Will definitely check it out. I hadn’t hear of this thanks!
You should also get your hands on Preston M. Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality,” BBR 24.4 (2014): 515-28.
Both Sprinkle and Goddard articulate the issues (and more!) that I’ve found with Brownson.
Huzzah!
Thanks for the pushback here, as you reference I have been working on this question a lot in the last three months so thanks to your comments and several others at SVS, I think it is probably appropriate to moderate my argument a little here. I think if I were writing this post again today I would replace the phrase “he overwhelming majority fall under the categories of slave rape, pederastic dominance and abuse, temple prostitution, and adultery.” with “the dominant cultural associations for male gay sex were those of slave rape, pederastic dominance and abuse, temple prostitution, and adultery.” I will take a solid crack at your reading recommendations just as soon as I can scrape together the cash (I have wanted Hubbard for a while but have not been able to make it happen yet).
In response to your claim: “There is no reasonable reason to believe that Paul was only talking about one type because, as I’ve stated, he would have been aware of them all. Your viewpoint, however, has to maintain that Paul did not know of these relationships and that perspective is, essentially, impossible to prove and looks to be quite difficult to defend.” I want to point to my passage about the way we use language. Knowing about a practice and meaning that practice, even when using a blanket term or description, are two different things. That is why I think it is so important to engage with Brownsons arguments about the moral logic in Romans 1.
So I agree (of course) that it is impossible to prove a negative and I don’t intend to try. But I don’t think that I do have to demonstrate that “Paul did not know of these relationships” in fact if you go back and read my original post, I admitted up front that he may have. What I think I should have to demonstrate is that the culturally dominant view of gay sex (the homoerotic meme) focused on slave rape, pederastic dominance and abuse, temple prostitution, and adultery. And this is a position which I think is actually borne out by at least the majority of authors both of us have been referencing. Even those who are claiming that marriage analogous (or fully marital) same-sex relationships did exist in the 1st Century Roman world, generally see it as a minority position. I have yet to read an author (please point me to any relevant passages) which claim that pederasty, slave rape, temple prostitution, and adultery did not form the major expression of homoeroticism.
Even more to the point, as you have pointed out, the most relevant account would be from a Hellenistic Jew and here I think Philo counts very much in favor of my argument. If we take Philo to be representative of the Jewish understanding of Roman homoeroticism, it suggests (positively) that 1st century Jews saw Roman homoeroticism as fundamentally pederastic (in “Laws Book III”) or as adulterous (in ” On Abraham”). Now I will acknowledge that there are some legitimate scholars (though certainly not all) who are reasonably skeptical of the claim that Philo’s views are representative of 1st century Jewish views, however he is about the best, most contemporary source we have on the topic and if he is representative, his account tells in favor of my thesis here.
And yeah, I will definitely be going back to Philo when we get into natural law. 🙂
Any thoughts on how I can get access to the article?
If you don’t have Hubbard you aren’t allowed to comment on this subject ever again.
🙂 ha ha ha
JK… but seriously… get it… (and Craig Williams’ Roman Homosexuality too!
I finally got my hands (well computer monitor) on Hubbard and… I am confused as to why you think he supports your claims. Which part of Hubbard do you see as supporting your position on this one? He is pretty clear that Greek attitudes towards homoeroticism did not carry over into the Early Imperial Roman period.
“In the Roman period, however [in contrast to the Greek period] relationships with slaves received far more attention and became the normative image of pederasty” – p14
Or more thoroughly:
“Literature of the first century CE bears witness to an increasing polarization of attitudes toward homosexual activity, ranging from frank acknowledgment and public display of sexual indulgence on the part of leading Roman citizens to severe moral condemnation of all homosexual acts, even with slaves. One no longer finds the idealized and romantic images of Virgil and Tibullus, inspired by Greek models, but instead an obsessive interest in the most graphic and salacious aspects of same-sex relations” – p383
So again, I think you have some chronology problems. So far as I can tell, Hubbard and his sources would back up and strengthen the claims I have been making about the 1st Century Roman world. Hubbard goes out of his way to make it clear that attitudes towards homoerotic behavior shifted with the rise of Rome and so it is anachronistic to use classical Greek sources as evidence in this debate. Tellingly even the strongest quote you mentioned cites ,as watershed moments, events which postdate the letter to the Romans and would therefore not have been in play yet when Paul was writing.
Also the full text of that PS quote from Taylor is:
“Reciprocal homosexual behavior among males was a common feature of
the fully developed Roman subculture. But it may have taken until the
time of Petronius or Martial for this simple reality to make its way into
the public consciousness and, thereby, into the common vocabulary.”
Petronius’ “Satyricon” postdates the letter to the Romans by several years, While Martial’s “Epigrams” are even later. So Taylor seems to be arguing that such behavior would not have been part of the public consciousness when Romans was written. Also the word “reciprocal” there is being used in a technical sense in Taylor. He is referring to sexual relationships where a given man might be both the penetrating and penetrated partner, not to questions of social status, or power dynamics (most scholars observe that slave-rape and pederasty remained popular and accepted practices well past this time period).
I think you are missing the point I have been making over and over here. Namely that your entire argument suggests that Paul was not aware of or referring to the types of homosexual relationships that describe a very small percentage of today’s LGBTQ community (monogamy, etc.).
I’m simply pointing out to that the history doesn’t line up. Both Greek and Roman culture suggest that to be difficult to square. The chronology challenge (which isn’t really a challenge) isn’t related to whether or not Paul was living in Greek or Roman times. The point is that there is no possible way that you can suggest that Paul would have been ignorant of these types of relationships. It’s tantamount to ignoring Hubbard, which it appears that you have actually done.
But this apparently comes down to how we read scholars… which is something I don’t really know how to engage 🙂
Hey man, I have been saying since the original post that Paul may well have known of particular instances of monogamous gay sex. My point, which nearly all of the scholars we have been referencing, seem to agree with, is that monogamous, marriage analogous gay sex was not the sort of thing Paul or his audience was likely to be meaning when they talked about Homoeroticism. Most of the scholars you site will agree that slave-rape and pederasty were the dominant forms of homoeroticism at the time. They focus on interesting and important exceptions to the dominant theme, while recognizing that pederasty and slave-rape were th dominant theme.
So maybe we aren’t disagreeing as much as it seems. We both agree that healthy same-sex sexual relationships may have been happening (I think it likely even) in the 1st century Roman world. Do we agree that those would have been seen as exceptions and not as standard expressions by contemporary culture? If so then it looks like our disagreement is more about how language communicates meaning than about the historical scholarship. I would love to read your thoughts on that.
Seriously though go back and look. I have not been suggesting that Paul could not have been aware of healthy same-sex relationships, that feels a bit like you have strawman-ed me.
Perhaps I’ve misread you.
In the post I’m currently working on responding to, you write, “I think that it is problematic to claim that any of these passages, much less all of them when taken together, are referring to any and all instances of gay sex.”
The thrust of your argument(s) against Paul (and the NT) has been that they do not mean what the bulk of the Church and biblical scholars have understood them to mean. Fair enough.
But this clarification is quite helpful because you have acknowledged that Paul would have been aware of monogamous homosexual relationships (I would balk at the use of “healthy” in your description). How about his readers? Do you acknowledge that his readers would also have been aware of them?
I have no problem acknowledging that they were not the normative type of homosexuality in the ancient world because Paul meant to condemn them all (which he did). So that doesn’t pose a problem for me 🙂
This is a very curious thing indeed. It’s like you and I read something and then come to completely opposite conclusions about the meaning of the words in the article or book in question. I’ve never had that happen before.
At any rate, do you really believe that Satyricon‘s dating (which is pretty close to around when Romans was written) reflected an entirely new approach that some people in the society would be aware of? Is that how any cultural commentary works? This strikes me as splitting hairs in a direction that almost appears desperate. Taylor’s work demonstrates that around the time that Romans was written there were cultural changes at work that seem to push back against the standard pederasty arguments that have been raised by Boswell and Crompton, etc.
But… alas… we read differently. Or so it seems.
I think we are back on track as to what the historical scholars are suggesting. I don’t think I can go so far as to say Paul “would” have known of monogamous homosexual relationships, but I am happy to say that he “could” have know of some. I think it is at least possible that Paul’s readers would have been aware of monogamous same-sex relationships. The limitations of a church made up (likely) of illiterate people who would most often have been victims of male sexual aggression (both homosexual and heterosexual) given the prevalence of pederasty and slave-rape, make me think it a little less likely that they would have encountered unusual cases that that an educated Roman citizen like Paul would have encountered them, but it does seem possible.
I’ll balk right back at the idea that my argument is against either Paul or the NT, my argument is against what take to be misreadings of Paul and the NT, but I am not even a little interested in setting myself up against either Paul or the New Testament.
Fair enough on my use of “healthy” it is a choice informed by my perspective and unfairly brought in certain psychological associations you probably don’t want to grant. I think I used it out of laziness. Feel free to swap out “healthy same-sex relationships” with “non-exploitative, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships”.
So if you are happy to concede that non-explaitative, committed, monogamous same-same sex relationships were not the normative type of homoeroticism in the 1st century Roman world, how do you conclude that Paul meant to condemn them? I think my circumcision example in the original post makes it clear that while it is legitimate to interpret a word (or the description of an act) as referencing the culturally normative meaning of that word or description, one needs further justification in order to conclude that the word or description should also be referencing unusual “fringe” cases for that culture.
It’s pretty common for cultural commentary to try and determine the time when a given concept or idea moved out of a subculture into the consciousness of a general culture. The ideas Taylor is discussing (the possibility that “active” partners in gay sex might sometimes take the “passive” role and vice versa) first shows up (by Taylor’s account) among certain elite subcultures and only later moves into the conciousness of the general culture. And the Satyricon seems to be the earliest work he cites as influencing popular culture, which would therefore mark the earliest moment that the idea of reciprocal gay sex might have begun to influence popular culture. What is being talked about then is not so much awareness of a thing (that would vary based on the experience of individuals and is really difficult to determine given our chronological distance and the relative scarcity of representative sources) but that things becoming the content of people’s thought when they discussed the issue. In another comment I have used the phrase “the homoerotic meme” and I think that does a decent job of signifying what is being discussed. I take Taylor to be saying that the earliest possible time that reciprocal gay sex entered the homoerotic meme for 1st century Rome was the publication of the Satyricon. But notice that he (in good historical fashion) actually places the introduction of that meme somewhere around or between Petronius and Martial (who comes decades later).
But also keep in mind that the discussion is of reciprocal gay sex. The characters in the Satyricon are far from monogamous and are thoroughly engaged in pederastic dominance and wooing of a slave boy, so we are not talking about something like non-exploitative, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships becoming part of the homoerotic meme, we are talking about an awareness that some men liked both to penetrate and to be penetrated. Notice that Taylor recognizes this difference on page 349 where he says:
“While it is difficult to cite an instance
in Latin literature of a sexual relationship between men of the
same age other than Ascyltos and Encolpius of the Satyricon, there is
ample evidence of the older partner, or the one in a superior social position,
playing the pathic role.”
He isn’t saying that homoerotic meme was expanding to include non-exploitative, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships, he is saying that their definition of pederasty was beginning to expand to include the younger partner penetrating the older.
To debunk your entire argument is easy. The foundation of your argument is that Jesus didn’t know His own creation to allow for marriage of homosexuality because He didn’t know about sexual orientation or a person’s ability or desire to engage in a monogamous relationship within marriage. That’s basically what this debate is reduced to. Jesus didn’t know about orientation of His own creation (John 1) when He preached marriage between a man and woman only as in the beginning and called all sex outside of that union sin (defilement) that excluded from the kingdom of heaven if unrepentant. Jesus didn’t know. Nor did God the Father or the Holy Spirit. That’s the foundation of this argument and why it a false debate.
if you simply look at the context of the Scripture which is who inherits the Kingdom of heaven, and the fact that he is speaking to a Greek speaking audience with a copy of the Greek OT (Septuagint) it is clear Paul is using the punishment Scripture from Leviticus 20:13 when he writes in 1 Corinthians 6. Not as complicated as people make it out to be. However, even if you throw both words out. Porneia has it covered.
Because your reading into Scripture what you want to believe and not what it says. “A text out of context becomes a pretext” R.A. Torey
To justify your pretext, you would have to change God’s intent from His pronouncements in Genesis 2:20-25 .
Homosexuality in and of it self does not allow for procreation. Any sexual activity outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is “sin”, and separates us from God. The good news is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls all to repentance. And if we put our faith in Christ alone and not in our own “good” works we too can be redeemed.
Why did this conversation stop?
I possible it stopped because everybody got really busy (or maybe Luke and Bill changed their mInds and adopted the opposite perspective.
I would like to see the complete cycle or perhaps reset. It could be in the months between other well thought arguments have been published that better articulate. (Daniel Kirk certainly comes to mind as aligned with Bill).
Heya folks. Just revisited this thing. For the record I haven’t changed my mind (I’ll try and check in with Luke next time I see him). I think Luke got to busy to finish the series but for those of you whoa are interested, I did finish my side of the convo over at my own blog. I’ll post a link to part 4 below (On my blog I combined the first two posts so what would have been part 4 here is part 3 there):
http://heavenandearthquestions.blogspot.com/2016/10/note-this-is-part-3-in-series-which.html
Josh Francis. I think I addressed your concerns in Part 4 over on my blog.
http://heavenandearthquestions.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-indirect-texts-my-defense-of-lgb.html
Joel, it took some time, but I did end up putting together a responses to natural law arguments over on my blog.
http://heavenandearthquestions.blogspot.com/2017/09/what-is-unnatural-my-defense-of-lgb.html
Heya Birdog, I think I addressed your concerns in this piece:
http://heavenandearthquestions.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-christian-defense-of-identities-of.html