In response to @TheBedKeeper comments of Romans 1 – Part II
Christianity, Current Affairs Jul 18, 2011
Hi Steven (aka @yueh)
Thank you for taking the time to share your considered response.
I was struck by a couple references you made saying that these passages had nothing to do with false prophets or teachers. I agree, however never in the book do I allude to such, so I’m not certain as to why that seems to be the thrust of your response in those occurences.
In your article on the first chapter of Romans, you have referred to “Church Shepherds” a number of times, who is blind to the truth of scriptures, and use it to justify their bigotry for the sake of financial gain or political influence, and you seem to be reading Romans 1 on the basis of Paul is referring to the false teacher and prophets.
You also said God didn’t create gays or lesbians in His creation. However, Jesus would disagree with that, Who taught in Matthew 19:11-12 that indeed there are those who are whom He refers to as “born eunuchs.” They are neither castrated, nor celibate. For 1 thing, He covers those descriptions as well, and for another thing, neither castration nor celibacy are birth conditions, but rather are choices made outside the womb, either by oneself, or by others. These born eunuchs are not heterosexual, or they would not be exempted from heterosexual marriage, and Paul would not have instructed them to marry (each other) in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 for purposes of maintaining sexual purity.
Let’s start by reading Matthew 19:10-12
Eunuchs here are those people who will not be able to have children, not to do with homosexuality. If you read the history of the Greco-Roman culture, most of the immoral sexual acts at the time are bisexual, so you can’t use this text to argue that God creates gays and lesbians. Also, if you say that God created gays and lesbians, verse 26 in Romans 1 pretty much close the case, the Word of God says that such behaviour is not natural; it is against nature as God has created it.
It’s also noteworthy that the men “gave up natural relations with women.” Only heterosexual men would be able to “give up” natural relations with women, and only if they had actually been with women (i.e. they were married). Gay men don’t have “natural relations with women to give up.” Therefore, I stand by the understanding I shared in The Bed Keeper that these were not even homosexual people being described, but were heterosexuals whose custom it was to engaged in same gender sexual expressions as acts of idol worship, especially to the fertility goddess. That is a violation of the First Commandment, “Thou shall have no other gods before Me.” Secondly, if they had previously been with women (most likely married), that is a violation of yet another of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shall not commit adultery.”
Again based on the biblical position, no one was born gay or lesbian, so your statement does not fit within my worldview. But I agree with your point on the first three commandments; it’s not just about a homosexual relationship; even a heterosexuals relationship can be counted as idol worship. If our mind was not fixed on Christ but our friendship, works, relationship, marriage, family…. they are all kinds of idol worship.
Far too many theologians attempt to portray Romans 1 as some kind of typical condition of the people being described, and attempt to portray gay people as bein guilty of all the same sins listed in verses 29-32, all the while missing the big picture of the violations of the Ten Commandments that were being disregarded. However, you are correct to say this is a parallel reflection of the Leviticus verses condemning the very same things: heterosexual married men engaging in acts of idolatry and adultery, and the bestial aspects of idol worship being committed by heterosexual women (who engaged in natural acts), but not with each other…..but with animals…..The translation you share here differs greatly from the phraseology used by Paul to describe the acts the women committed as differentiated from the acts committed by men in both the King James, and Amplified Translations.
I have replied to you using KJV, and I don’t have an issue with using any literal translation as long as it is not paraphrased. Also, the textual differences in Romans 1 are minimal between the Textus Receptus and the UBS Greek text, so I am happy to use KJV.
I want to expand here on why Paul singled out homosexuals in Romans 1. Take a closer look at Leviticus 18:
As you can see here, homosexual and sexual relationships with animals are in the bottom list of the sexual laws given by God, it is the worst case of sexual immorality, and Paul wants to describe the depth of the fall of the human race, he is not here to attack those people who suffer in this condition, he had given all human race a warning on what will happen when we moved away from God. He also went to the homosexual community to know there is a greater love outside of their community, seek the love of Christ and repent their sins.
Finally, as most theologians, you left off the next three verses of Scripture:
The last three verses are pretty straightforward, so I let the text speak for itself.
Unrighteousness includes fornication (sexual immorality), wickedness, and covetousness, which removes God from our thinking. Once God is out of our lives, we become envious, leading some to murder, strife, cheat, plan evil deeds, and whisper those evil plans.
Back talker, which I have to say many Christians do just that. Hater of God (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens….), violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things (not just weapon, but also in Atheist writing, drama, music….), and disobedient to parents, which can be seen in our days.
….. the list never ends
Paul summarises the chapter by saying that all these wicked and sinful acts will only result in eternal destruction; without repentance, we try to establish our own moral and ethical rules rather than follow what is natural. Some people even take it further supporting them.
THEREFORE YOU have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce].
Sorry, I have not yet judged anyone; it is the Word of God that judges people, and I am just referring to it.
[But] we know that the judgment (adverse verdict, sentence) of God falls justly and in accordance with truth upon those who practice such things.
Yes, so what are you going to do about it after reading the Word of our God? Are you going to continue supporting what is wrong and sinful in God’s eyes, or will you repent your sins?
And do you think or imagine, O man, when you judge and condemn those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment and elude His sentence and adverse verdict? Romans 2:1-3
Only God can judge us, but for the case of biblical base support for gays and lesbians, I am willing to take my stand and say you are wrong, and you should repent and reach out to the gay and lesbian community by sharing the true gospel, you should not be ashamed of the truth (Romans 1:16). You are worse than me because you judge God based on your fallen condition. Pray to our Savior, and ask Him to help you and guide you.
Comment (1)
Brian Anthony Bowen
19 Jul 2011 - 1:45 amHi again, and thank you for another thorough and thoughtful response.
I think we’re passing each other in regards to idol worship. While I agree Paul was referencing Leviticus when discussing Romans 1, we also have to keep our focus on the idol worship for a bit. Again, in Leviticus and in Romans, Paul’s language is very specific. In Leviticus, the phrase, “as with a woman” indicates once again that the men engaging in same gender expressions were at one time “with women,” (again married.)
History and Google are replete with the idol worship practices of the Greco-Roman world. When Romans calls relations the women had as “unnatural” it is a reference to the fact that they were having sexual relations with animals, not each other. Notice how different Paul’s language is in describing the acts of the women and the acts of the men in Romans 1.
Another confirmation of this comes from Acts 14 when Paul and Barnbas are in Lystra and heal a man. The people there immediately think Paul and Barnabas are Zeus and Hermes come to them from Mount Olympus in the form of human men. Notice the cult priest immediately goes and fetches “bulls and garlands” in order to worship Paul and Barnabas. Again, this is very different from 2 gay men engaged in expressions of love.
As you noted, there are two simultaneous violations of the Ten Commandments being broken in both Leviticus and Romans, all “deserving of death” as Romans (and Leviticus 20) mention. There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says, “thou shall not be gay.” However, there are mentions of “thou shall have no other gods before Me,” and “thou shall not commit adultery.”
In order for a heterosexual married man to worship an idol, he would have to commit adultery on his wife in order to have sexual relations with a man as part of that idol worship. These, I contend, are what both Leviticus and Romans are referencing, especially in consideration of the specificity of both books regarding the sexual acts of the men in Romans, and the reference in Leviticus right next to bestiality and the sexual acts of the women in Romans.
Both books cover sexual acts with animals, adultery, and idol worship in adjacent verses. This provides the context for our understanding of whom the Scriptures reference. In Leviticus:
20Moreover, you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.
21You shall not give any of your children to pass through the fire and sacrifice them to Molech [the fire god], nor shall you profane the name of your God [by giving it to false gods]. I am the Lord.
22You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
23Neither shall you lie with any beast and defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman yield herself to a beast to lie with it; it is confusion, perversion, and degradedly carnal.
And in Romans:
23And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).
26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another–men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
The parallels, I believe you’ll agree, are striking. We see idolatry and adultery associated with men who were “with women,” had “use of the women,” and were lying with men “as with women.” To say that somehow this is a reference to loving expressions between people of the same gender in a marriage as ordained Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 for same gender couples, and yet *not* a condemnation of the idolatry mixed with adultery, misses the point of both Leviticus and Romans.