It was previously shown that Romans a could not be referring to homosexuals in general, for that would commit us to the absurd positions that a) all manifestations of homosexuality and same-sex behavior are punishment for the sin of literal idol worship, and b) all homosexuals are guilty of hating God, disobeying parents, and 20 other nasty character qualities. Anyone serious thinker knows that those things are false. On the other hand, if we assume that Paul is speaking of the Aphrodite-worshipping Corinthians, this passage makes perfect sense.
But one question still remains – despite the context of the passage not being about homosexuality, it seems that Paul goes on to condemn all homosexuality and same-sex activity in vv. 26-27. Perhaps it was not his intended target, but he does seemingly call same-sex lust “shameful,” “unnatural,” and “indecent.” Doesn’t this amount to a condemnation of homosexuality?
The question is, why are the activities and dispositions given in those verses wrong? Are they wrong because they are homosexual, or are they wrong because they are unnatural? This doesn’t seem like much of a difference perhaps, but it makes all the difference in the world. If we have read the passage thus far as if Paul intended to condemn all homosexuality, then vv. 26-27 seem to be merely more of the same. But if we think that the perverted Corinthian worshippers are the object of wrath here, then we must wonder what is being condemned. Could it not be that they are doing some actions which are against their own nature, and hence are indecent and shameful? These actions are indeed homosexual, but only incidentally so. That is, the homosexual aspect of them is not what is being condemned. The problem with that particular manifestation of homosexual activity, then, is not that it is homosexual activity, but that it is a violation of their own God-given nature. It is a true rebellion against God – the final rebellion which started with there worship of idols, despite their knowledge of the one true God.
So the homosexual activity of these people is condemned as “unnatural,” indecent”, and “shameful” because they all had heterosexual natures, and flipped genders only in order to engage is these orgy worship services. This condemnation then, says nothing about homosexuals who did not choose or create their own homosexual disposition.
A traditional objection to this analysis, recently articulated by Richard Hays in his book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, is that Paul could not have been condemning these folks for rebelliously transgressing their God-given nature, because the Greeks – and therefore Paul – had no conception of a same-sex nature. Unfortunately for Hays, he had just finished insisting only two pages earlier that the proper translation for arsenokoitai was homosexual! So if Hays insists on retaining the translation of ‘homosexual’ for arsenokoitai, which he and those who want to find a condemnation do, then he has to withdraw his objection that the Greeks had no conception of a sexual nature.
Alright, I am seriously tired of talking about this issue. I'm going to start blogging about money next week.
