This epistle to the Church of Rome is probably the most influential passage in the entire Bible in regards to the Christian view of homosexuality, being the most oft quoted piece of scripture in the condemnation of homosexuals, even before Leviticus 18:22 and 20:18. Its power lays most prominently in the fact that it exists in the New Testament; the second section of the Bible which contains Christian teachings. Similarly influential for the passage’s prominence is its authorship; it was written by Paul upon whose words a large amount of modern church doctrine is based upon. Paul wrote other epistles referencing homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, however this passage is by far the most explicit in its condemnation.
Its literal interpretation is probably responsible for a large proportion of the negative opinion of homosexuality that pervades a considerable section of Christianity, especially evangelical and fundamentalist sects, and is seen by many as one of the most important references in the bible-gay debate. All quotes below are from the English Standard Version.
“26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
It’s important to place the passage within the larger argument of the chapter; Romans 1:18-32 explicitly deals with God’s condemnation, especially on the prevalence of idolatrous worship within the Roman capital. Verses 28-32 specifically focus how ‘unnatural’ sexual relations lead to depraved and wicked behaviour. It’s possible that the passage was in fact in reference to the decline of Greco-Roman society, indeed the Christian Jews and Gentiles (non-Israelites) would have been all too aware of the sexual hedonism of their peers, something which was often associated with idolatry. Before his conversion to Christianity Paul himself was a highly zealous Jew, known then as Saul, who violently persecuted early Christians in his efforts to uphold Judaic traditions; Paul heartily agreed to the execution of Stephen through stoning, a prominent early Christian teacher in Jerusalem. It’s plausible that his zealous nature and Jewish heritage would have been transferred into his Christian teachings and as such would have been quick to condemn the idolatrous behaviour of same-sex intercourse, a sentiment which echoes the teachings of Leviticus 18: 22 and 20:18. In fact Romans 1:24 echoes similar motifs of purity and dishonour stated in Leviticus’ condemnation of pagan, idolatrous practices: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves”. Indeed both Romans and Leviticus state that such practices are deserving of death. If this is the case then Paul is in fact referring to the sexual practices of idolatrous Romans that would appear as an unnatural affront to the ideals of pure, clean worship familiar to Jewish tradition. Thus it’s possible that this was the condemnation of pagan sexual worship that pervaded Greco-Roman culture rather than that of homosexual love.
However Paul clearly places an emphasis on sexual practices that are “contrary to nature”, which suggests a perversion of some kind. The presence of homosexual practices has never been absent from any human culture and, with such an occurrence existing regularly throughout history and across space, it’d be peculiar to see it as a phenomenon outside of nature. If Paul didn’t see homosexuality as anything unnatural, as postulated above, then it’s possible that he was referencing the perversion of homosexuality. Such perversion could have been easily interpreted from contemporary Greco-Roman culture; as well as same-sex idolatrous worship pederasty, the relationship of an older man with an adolescent, was very prevalent and often had a sexual aspect. The most common form of pederasty was the prostitution of young men which, along with female prostitution, is condemned throughout the Old Testament. Male prostitutes themselves were commonly used by heterosexual men for sexual gratification; the penetrative partner was often seen as having the masculine role and the receptive position the feminine, a concept also condemned in Leviticus 20:18. As such it’s plausible that Romans 1: 26-27 was the condemnation of same-sex acts that flouted the traditional Judaic laws that Paul was familiar with, rather than a rebuking of homosexuality itself.
The concept of acting “contrary to nature” may also be applicable to these heterosexual men who willingly used men for sex, which would be seen as the perversion of one’s natural orientation and thus against their ‘nature’. In this sense “contrary to nature’ would not be an allusion to the defiance of natural law but to people defying their own nature. Indeed the use of metellaxan, the Greek word from which “exchanged” is derived, indicates a choice. Thus here Paul is condemning all people rebel against their given sexualities and divulge in “shameless acts”.
What is certain is that Paul’s zealous, pre-conversion past directly influenced his opinion on Christianity, seen in how Romans echoes Old Testament motifs and traditional Jewish notions. As Paul himself never knew Jesus, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 he states he converted after a divine revelation during his violent pursuit of the disciples, it’s probable that this attitude was carried over into his ministry and formed the basis for many of his opinions. Although he never violently persecuted any non-Christians during his ministry he enthusiastically condemned sinful acts throughout his works and it’s recorded at points he initiated seemingly fiery arguments with the apostles Peter and Barnabas. This is clear in Romans 1 where from verses 26-32 he states that the acts above, along with others, are deserving of death, echoing the traditional Judaic law set out in Leviticus. However such a stance appears to contradict the Christian laws; in the Torah, the Jewish holy text that lays out religious directive and also the first five books of the Bible, God sets out over six hundred laws, whilst in the New Testament Jesus states only two: “37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22). Furthermore the issue of same-sex is not touched upon in the rest of the New Testament gospels outside of Paul’s authorship, and was a subject Jesus never explicitly mentioned. Due to this Paul probably had a bias towards traditional Judaic scripture that didn’t conform to his contemporaries’ view of Christianity. Thus his condemnations, which were coloured with Old Testament teachings, need to be considered to hold an inclination that isn’t wholly compatible with the original Christian teachings.
With this in mind it is more likely that the opinion of same-sex intercourse stated in Romans holds more to do with gender identity and the traditional Jewish opinion of dishonour associated with a male Israelite assuming a receptive role, a position reserved for the more passive women. Such a role is condemned in Leviticus as bringing dishonour upon the passive male and, due to Paul’s penchant for traditional Jewish values, it’s likely this was carried over into his Christian teachings. This would also account for why Paul gives specific attention to women in the passage, something that’s not done throughout the rest of the Bible; for two women to have sex it would imply that they are assuming the dominant role of the man, extremely controversial for a culture with a prevailing patriarchal system. This can be seen in Romans 1:26 when it states that it was "their women" who indulged in same-sex intercourse, implying women should be submissive to men. Indeed Paul’s traditional stance on gender identity is exemplified by his controversial statement on female and male worship in Corinthians 11: 2-15 (some more irrelevant parts have been edited out for conciseness, full text can be found here):
“3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [...] 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
From this perspective Paul would see that a Christian man assuming a receptive, passive role in same-sex intercourse would be assuming the role of a woman, an ‘unnatural’ role that would be seen as a “disgrace”. This leads to the conclusion that Paul probably saw vaginal intercourse as the ‘natural’ sexual practice in Old Testament terms; where the women assumed the receptive role rather than a man of God, in this sense Paul condemns the pious man being receptive rather than actually condemning homosexuality itself.
It should be noted that a distinction appears between what is ‘good’ and what is ‘natural’ in Old Testament terms; Deuteronomy 22:13-30 dictates the laws on adultery and rape, presenting women in a light similar to property. Indeed verses 23-24 dictate that if a man rapes a married woman within a city, and she doesn’t call out, then they must be executed; the man for violating his neighbour’s wife and the women for not crying for help. The fact that the passage places emphasis on ‘his neighbour’s wife’ suggests that the woman has a passive role akin to property thus fulfilling the accepted gender role of women in society, as such the rape would be ‘natural’ although not ‘good’.
Interpreting Romans 1: 26-27 literally can easily lead to the assumption that God condemns homosexuality by linking the idea of same-sex intercourse with homosexual orientation. However further research, in the light of contemporary society and author bias, seems to suggest that Paul was condemning the perversion of same-sex intercourse; whether through idolatry, pederasty, the subversion of one’s own sexual nature or the defiance of established gender roles. What’s obvious is that Paul’s epistle to Rome is highly influenced by his traditional, zealous Jewish roots which suggest that his words hold a bias that isn’t reciprocated by the other New Testament gospels. Due to this it’s probable that Paul was addressing the pervasion of same-sex in Greco-Roman culture through an Old Testament perception where idolatrous sex and pederasty was condemned and where, in what is probably the most influential aspect of Judaic law, the idea of a passive, receptive male is shameful and unnatural. However a dichotomy exists purposely between the Old and New Testaments; putting it rather crudely the Old Testament dictates the laws that should be upheld whilst establishing the Promised Land and waiting for the Messiah, whilst the New Testament illustrates the teachings of the Messiah and how they should be applied. Paul’s continued advocation of Old Testament values, and their application in Christian teachings, are inappropriate in this sense. Whilst the passage dosen’t condemn homosexuality itself, the condemnation of a receptive male and dominant female within these Christian teachings should be seen as a relic of Judaic law and social structure, something which isn’t applicable for Christians in a post-Messiah world.
No comments:
Post a Comment