Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa
From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: St. Paul and Homosexuality (I)
Message-ID: <1003@phs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 02:31:53 EST
Article-I.D.: phs.1003
Posted: Thu Mar 21 02:31:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 00:01:29 EST
Organization: Duke Physiology
Lines: 84

[]

Some recent discussion has called into question the teaching of St. Paul
and other New Testament writers on the subject of homosexuality.  Let me
offer some comments on relevant passages, which I hope might be helpful.

Romans 1.26-27

Dia touto paredoken autous ho theos eis pathe atimias: hai te gar
theleiai auton metellaksan ten phusiken xresin eis ten para phusin,
homoios te kai hoi aresenes aphentes ten phusikjn xresin tes theleias
eksekauthesan en te oreksei auton eis allelous, arsenes en arsesin ten
asxemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian hen edei tes planes
auton en heautois apolambanontes.

Therefore, God delivered them to dishonorable passions;  for even the
females exchanged the natural function [of sexuality] for that which is
contrary to nature.  Likewise also the  males left the natural use of
the females, and were inflamed in their lusts toward each other - men
accomplishing shameless actions with men - and received the punishment
which their error necessitated in themselves.


A few notes on some key terms:

The "dishonorable passions" (pathe atimias) are defined by the rest of
this passage.  Specifically, they consist of sexual activity "contrary
to nature" (ten para phusin).  The dominant idea of "nature" (phusis) in
Greek philosophy is one's "constitution"  (Plato and Aristotle),
although in Hellenistic times (c 20 0BC-200 AD) the idea of "universal
nature" or "highest principle of the visible world" was common.  The
Jewish philosopher Philo identifies "nature" with the Law of Moses.  For
specific passages in these writings (and many others), see Helmut
Koester (Harvard), _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_,
"Phusis, ktl.", vol 9.242-71.

Obviously the primary point Paul wishes to make is that the shared
constitution of humankind, the general order of the world, and the Law
of God have demonstrated that some "functions" are legitimate, while
others are not. That the essence of these "functions" (xresin) relate to
sexuality is likely in view of the frequent use of the term for sexual
intercourse (e.g. Plato, Isocrates, and the more contemporary Plutarch).

Likewise males who leave the "natura[sexual] functions" (phusiken
xresin) of females are condemned - their reward is "that which their
error necessitates of itself" (hen edei tes planes).

I am afraid I see no explanation of this passage *except* that Paul is
condemning both men and women who have left the "natural" heterosexual
expression of sexuality for expressions with those of the same sex.  He
thoroughly condemns this activity, and claims that the result of this is
that God "gives them up" to a "rejected" (adokimazein - the opposite of
dokimazein, or approved) mind.

It is also important, however, to note what Paul does not say in this
passage.  First, he does set this homosexual activity in a wider context
of crass rebellion and sin.  Those who have sunk to such depths are the 
same heathen who have worshipped idols and have sought out all types of 
wicked behavior.  They are filled with "dishonorable passions", and their 
hearts "burn with lust."  Presumably, Paul did not intend to address the 
situation of a homosexual relationship based on a mutual love and 
committment.

Likewise, Paul did not appear to address the situation of one who is
homosexual by "nature" (i.e. constitution).  His is not the argument
which would condemn relationships which may be in harmony with one's own
"phusis".

If Paul's argument here is not condemning loving relationships nor the
individual whose orientation is toward others of the same sex, what
exactly is he saying?  It appears that Paul intends to make one point:
that there is a universal principle reflected in the Old Testament Law,
in the social consience of his day, and even (Paul would maintain) in
the created order, that made heterosexual intercourse "natural", and
homosexual intercourse "contrary to nature."  That the behavior he
chooses to illustrate his claim is extreme and morally reprehensible
serves to score debator's points.  Presumably Paul could respond to
questions about homosexual "love" and "orientation", but these would not
change the essential point he makes in Romans 1.26-27 - there is a Law 
of Nature, and (for Paul) that Law makes no provision for homosexuality.

	Jeffrey William Gillette	duke!phs!lisa
	The Divinity School
	Duke University