Homosexuality: A Biblical Inte
Many people site scripture in order to prove that their ideas about what is and is not right concerning homosexual behavior are supported by the Biblical text. In doing so, many will turn to Romans 1:26-27, "Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the man give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing." As a way to compare interpretations of this particular text I would like to compare the exegesis of John Boswell in his book,Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality and Richard B.Hays', Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1 using reference to an article by Peter J. Leithart, Natural Law: A Reformed Critique. Through his exegesis of Romans 1:26-27 Boswell first makes two contentions. First, he believes that the interpretation that Paul is addressing pagan worship rites through prostitution is "inadequate" (108). He addresses three reasons for making this assertion. The first rea
" Boswell claims that the reference to homosexuality is merely used as an analogy to sin. In order to continue his analysis of Romans 1:26-27, Hays finds it important to discuss the various readings of the verb "to exchange" and meaning of the word "nature". We are all created equal in the eyes of God. In the passage, what is being "exchanged" is "the natural use for that which is contrary to nature" (192). Of course, one can speculate about whether he did this on purpose as an attempt to make his position seem more plausible or whether it was one of those basic errors made in the interim of writing a book. The question then becomes what was God's creative intention. And the third reason, Paul is not describing cold-blooded, dispassionate acts performed in the interest of ritual ceremony: he states very clearly that the parties involved burned in their lust one toward another" (108). If that is correct, the association of physin in Rom 1:26-27 with some notion of ideal universal norms, however ill-defined, cannot be dismissed" (196). Not only did Hays point out some problems with Boswell's exegesis, he also left the reader with a new idea to ponder on. " Finally he states that, "there is, however, no clear condemnation of homosexual acts in the verses in question" (Boswell, 107-110). Hays claims that it is very clear that natural use refers to heterosexual intercourse and what is unnatural is homosexual perversion. This is one criteria that I think is important. Therefore, Hays sees no other alternative but to read Romans 1:26-27 as nothing other than, "human beings, created for heterosexual companionship as the Genesis story bears witness, have distorted even so basic a truth as their sexual identity by rejecting the male and female roles which are `naturally' theirs in God's created order" (200). But it abhors the intercourse of males with males, and punishes any who undertake such a thing with death" (193).
Common topics in this essay:
Reformed Critique,
Hays Boswell,
Moses Law,
Hays Stoics,
,
Hays Boswell's,
Hays Acts,
Hays Boswells',
Exegesis Romans,
romans 126-27,
homosexual acts,
John Boswell,
exegesis romans,
homosexual behavior,
para physin,
god creator 191,
boswell's exegesis,
natural unnatural,
god creator,
hays supports,
exegesis romans 126-27,
hays continues,
|
Acceptance Essays
