Let’s take the conservative interpretation and assume that the referent of ‘they/them/their’ is ‘all homosexuals.’ Is this a good description of the origin of homosexuality, and of the behavior of all homosexuals? Well, first of all, if you hold to this interpretation you must believe that there is one and only one cause of homosexuality, and that is excessive idol worship. Remember, we aren’t talking about the metaphorical stuff here, but literally bowing down to statues. This contradicts what most conservatives say. I commonly hear from people like James Dobson that homosexuality is a result of suffering child abuse at an early age, overexposure to girl’s activities at a sensitive age, not having a strong father presence, or even overexposure to pornography. But if all homosexuality really is a punishment (“God gave them up”) for excessive idol worship, then people like Dobson flatly contradict their own interpretation of Romans 1. Whatever it is that is described in vv.26-27 is a clearly a punishment for too much idol worship. To diagnose someone as being homosexual because of sexual abuse as a child and then to say that Romans 1 is about them is absurd.
Then there is the issue of those nasty character qualities in vv. 28-32 that ‘they’ have as a further result of ‘their’ punishment. Tony Campolo sometimes tells a heart-wrenching story from his childhood of a gay kid named Roger. Roger was identified as gay because of some physical characteristics, and so he was relentlessly teased for his obvious “transgression” of “nature’s law.” One day, 5 boys ganged up on Roger and shoved him down in the shower room, and took turns holding him down and urinating on him. Roger went home that night, waited until his parents went to bed, and then hanged himself in his basement. Try reading through that list of adjectives again in vv.28-32, and then ask yourself who the unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, strife-filled, deceitful, gossiping, slandering, God-hating, insolent, haughty, boastful, evil-inventing, parent-disobeying, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless ones are in that story. Do you think it was Roger, or the boys who urinated on him? Do you honestly believe that this description fits all gay people? If you think the “they/them/their” in Romans 1 is the group of homosexuality, then you are committed to this absurd belief.
On the other hand, if we interpret the ‘they’ referent as the orgy-having, idolatry-loving Corinthians, this passage goes from making no sense to making perfect sense. Those people without a doubt deserved a condemnation, and although I don’t know much about these perverted worship services, I am sure that Paul accurately describes their crime, the punishment for their crime, and the result of the punishment. This condemnation, then, is no more a condemnation of all homosexuality than condemning heterosexual orgies is the same thing as condemning all heterosexuality.
One worry is still remaining. Perhaps you will ask, “Alright, I understand that Paul was primarily addressing those worshippers of Aphrodite. But still, can’t we read vv.26-27 as applying to all homosexuals? I mean, even though Paul’s rant wasn’t primarily about all homosexuals, he still calls all homosexual acts and passions “contrary to nature”? Perhaps it was incidental, but don’t we still get a condemnation of homosexuality in this text?” And that’s a good enough question to be the subject of the next blog.
4.19.2009
Homosexuality, Part VIII: Romans 1
Romans 1 is often taken as the clearest Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But in my final three blogs on this subject, I will attempt to demonstrate that while Romans 1:18-32 is certainly condemning something, it is not at all a condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, only a certain kind of same-sex is condemned here. We can focus our question this way: what group of people is being referred to in this passage? By my count, there are 24 uses of a plural pronoun in verses 18-32: in the subjective case (they) it is used 12 times, in the objective case (them) it is used 6 times, and in the possessive case (their) it is used 6 times. So who does this they/their/them refer to? It turns out to be quite vague: the description is only “those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v.18). This ambiguity gives rise to two interpretations of the passage, one arguing that the referent of “they/them/their” is “all homosexuals,” the other arguing that the referent is a much smaller group: not all homosexuals, but a certain group of people who practice same-sex activity. Since Paul never specifies his referent, we will have to decide which interpretation is appropriate by looking at the rest of the passage.
I will first briefly explain the second interpretation. In Corinth, worship services sometimes took a sexual form. Worship services to the goddess Aphrodite, for instance, consisted of the worshippers “flipping” genders in order to experience the other side of sexuality. In their minds, this was probably something holistic and healthy. The claim, then, is that Paul is condemning this group in this passage, which is obviously quite different from the interpretation which says that the “they/them/their” are “all homosexuals.” So which interpretation is more likely?
The passage itself can be divided into three parts: the crime (vv.18-23), the primary punishment for the crime (vv.24-27), and the secondary punishment for the crime (vv.28-32). The crime that ‘they’ committed was clearly idolatry. And this is not some kind of metaphorical idolatry either. No, Paul says quite clearly that ‘they’ (remember, we don’t yet know who ‘they’ is) were bowing down before actual representations of human beings and reptiles and birds and fish, to the exclusion of the worship of God. In vv.24-27 we get a description of the punishment: same-sex desires and same-sex acts. Why does Paul talk about same-sex desire here? The answer is clear – because it is a punishment for the crime of idolatry. The transition is in the word “therefore” in v.24, or “for this reason” in v.26. As a result of the idol worship, God gave ‘them’ (again, we don’t know who ‘them’ is yet) over to these passions. Now we are ready for the third section: what else is true about 'them,' given 'their' punishment? Paul actually gives 22 different adjectives to describe the destiny of this lowly group of folks, including “faithless,” “murders,” “haters of God,” “disobedient to parents,” etc. Some group is clearly being condemned by Paul here, but we still do not know who. Is it likely that Paul meant to describe the condemnation all those who practiced same-sex activity, or is it more likely that his anger was being unleashed on the lecherous, idolatrous Corinthian worshipers? More on this next week.
I will first briefly explain the second interpretation. In Corinth, worship services sometimes took a sexual form. Worship services to the goddess Aphrodite, for instance, consisted of the worshippers “flipping” genders in order to experience the other side of sexuality. In their minds, this was probably something holistic and healthy. The claim, then, is that Paul is condemning this group in this passage, which is obviously quite different from the interpretation which says that the “they/them/their” are “all homosexuals.” So which interpretation is more likely?
The passage itself can be divided into three parts: the crime (vv.18-23), the primary punishment for the crime (vv.24-27), and the secondary punishment for the crime (vv.28-32). The crime that ‘they’ committed was clearly idolatry. And this is not some kind of metaphorical idolatry either. No, Paul says quite clearly that ‘they’ (remember, we don’t yet know who ‘they’ is) were bowing down before actual representations of human beings and reptiles and birds and fish, to the exclusion of the worship of God. In vv.24-27 we get a description of the punishment: same-sex desires and same-sex acts. Why does Paul talk about same-sex desire here? The answer is clear – because it is a punishment for the crime of idolatry. The transition is in the word “therefore” in v.24, or “for this reason” in v.26. As a result of the idol worship, God gave ‘them’ (again, we don’t know who ‘them’ is yet) over to these passions. Now we are ready for the third section: what else is true about 'them,' given 'their' punishment? Paul actually gives 22 different adjectives to describe the destiny of this lowly group of folks, including “faithless,” “murders,” “haters of God,” “disobedient to parents,” etc. Some group is clearly being condemned by Paul here, but we still do not know who. Is it likely that Paul meant to describe the condemnation all those who practiced same-sex activity, or is it more likely that his anger was being unleashed on the lecherous, idolatrous Corinthian worshipers? More on this next week.
4.06.2009
Homosexuality, Part VII: “Arsenokoitai”
Last time it was shown that there is absolutely no reason to assume that Paul’s use of the word “malakoi” has any apparent connection to homosexuality. A better possibility is the next word in the list in I Corinthians 9, “arsenokoitai”, which at least shows up also in I Timothy 1:10. Similar to malakoi, the translations of arsenokoitai are varied depending on the translation (although at least they not conflicting this time). The King James in both translations is “abusers of themselves with mankind”, while the New International Version is more specific than this with “homosexual offender” in Corinthians and “pervert” in Timothy, and the English Standard Version is still more specific by maintaining in the footnotes the arsenokoitai are the active males in gay sex.
So what does this word really mean? Unlike malakoi, which has no inherent connection to sexual activity, arsenokoitai does indicate something sexual since arsenokoitai is built from the words “male” and “sex.” However, Paul never explains what he has in mind, and so we are left to speculate.
If we know that some word that involves “male” and “sex” is condemned, can’t we assume that Paul is condemning homosexuality? Absolutely not! By far the most common form of male same-sex activity in Ancient Greece was pederasty. Pederasty was a disgusting practice in which an older man “partnered” with a younger man for a mutual exchange: the older man would get the delights of the younger’s body in exchange for being a tutor in whatever field of knowledge in which the disciple was interested. This practice was normal and not at all shameful. In fact, the men who participated were some of the most well-respected men in the community, and they had normal families. Today we would call this child abuse. This exploitive practice was very common in Paul’s day, and certainly deserved a rousing condemnation. Could it be that when Paul condemns arsenokoitai he is condemning adult males who exploit children sexually? If so, then we still don’t know Paul’s feelings about homosexuality. He simply does not tell us here. Further evidence for this interpretation is the remainder of the list in I Timothy, in which nearly all the practices condemned there are exploitive practices, and so it seems that a condemnation of pederasty fits in naturally.
And of course, condemning pederasty is no more to condemn homosexuality than condemning heterosexual sexual abuse of minors is to condemn heterosexuality. These translations are guilty of the same sloppy scholarship, hasty conclusions, and homophobia that I accused them of in their attempted translation of malakoi. For this reason, I have great respect for the translators of the King James Bible – they knew that malakoi and arsenokoitai are ambiguous, and they preserved this ambiguity in their English translation. If Paul were thinking about something specific, we simply don’t know because he never tell us. Of course, that doesn’t stop the translators of the ESV and NIV. They apparently have special knowledge about the meaning of malakoi and arsenokoitai that God never shares with us mere mortals.
So what does this word really mean? Unlike malakoi, which has no inherent connection to sexual activity, arsenokoitai does indicate something sexual since arsenokoitai is built from the words “male” and “sex.” However, Paul never explains what he has in mind, and so we are left to speculate.
If we know that some word that involves “male” and “sex” is condemned, can’t we assume that Paul is condemning homosexuality? Absolutely not! By far the most common form of male same-sex activity in Ancient Greece was pederasty. Pederasty was a disgusting practice in which an older man “partnered” with a younger man for a mutual exchange: the older man would get the delights of the younger’s body in exchange for being a tutor in whatever field of knowledge in which the disciple was interested. This practice was normal and not at all shameful. In fact, the men who participated were some of the most well-respected men in the community, and they had normal families. Today we would call this child abuse. This exploitive practice was very common in Paul’s day, and certainly deserved a rousing condemnation. Could it be that when Paul condemns arsenokoitai he is condemning adult males who exploit children sexually? If so, then we still don’t know Paul’s feelings about homosexuality. He simply does not tell us here. Further evidence for this interpretation is the remainder of the list in I Timothy, in which nearly all the practices condemned there are exploitive practices, and so it seems that a condemnation of pederasty fits in naturally.
And of course, condemning pederasty is no more to condemn homosexuality than condemning heterosexual sexual abuse of minors is to condemn heterosexuality. These translations are guilty of the same sloppy scholarship, hasty conclusions, and homophobia that I accused them of in their attempted translation of malakoi. For this reason, I have great respect for the translators of the King James Bible – they knew that malakoi and arsenokoitai are ambiguous, and they preserved this ambiguity in their English translation. If Paul were thinking about something specific, we simply don’t know because he never tell us. Of course, that doesn’t stop the translators of the ESV and NIV. They apparently have special knowledge about the meaning of malakoi and arsenokoitai that God never shares with us mere mortals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)