Paul and Sex(uality) “According to Nature”

May 28, 20084:41 pm cheapham Comments

Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural (παρα φύσιν), and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27

Perhaps no two verses have played a larger role in modern Christian discourse over sex and (homo)sexuality than Romans 1:26-27. Certainly, with the recent events in California, many are certainly turning to these verses for support of their angered positions…while others read them with disdain. I come to them now asking what role these verses really should play in our modern Christian constructions of what constitutes “proper” sex and sexuality (according to nature?). To begin, I’ll take a peak into the world of Paul…to see what (homo)sex(uality) meant for his contemporaries…to see how Paul’s words would work within antiquity’s discourse over such things. As it turns out, sex(uality) in antiquity was a performance that reflected and reinforced social hierarchy, which has startling (potential) ramifications for our reading of Romans 1:26-27.

To begin, many studies have shown that Greco-Roman conceptions of sex(uality) are quite different from our own. As Stephen Moore states, “the ‘logics of sexuality’ that underpin Romans 1.26-27, on the one hand, and the modern logics or sexuality, on the other, are so drastically different as to preclude any paraphrase of this passage that would attempt to assimilate it to the modern concept of homosexuality.” [1]

Greco-Roman notions of sex(uality) did not run strictly along the male/female dichotomy as many see it today.** While such a divide was strong, when it came to sex(uality), that line was quite permeable. Much more defined is the division between “active” and “passive,” between “hard” and “soft,” between “penetrator” and “penetrated,” and most importantly: between “superior” and “inferior.” While men were always the proper actors of the former categories…not all men could perform those roles. Those of the former categories are “honored,” while those of the latter categories are “shamed.” Here is where “sex” and “gender” become very different things in antiquity, and here is where we see their stark difference from modern times.

In antiquity, not all males were men: youths, slaves, eunuchs, and “sexually passive” males were something else. The highest status one could have was that of a free adult male (esp. rulers, magistrates, heads of elite households, patrons, etc.), everything/one else was considered “unmen” or at least “not fully men,” something less (women, youths, slaves, ‘effeminate’ males, eunuchs, ‘barbarians,’ etc.).

These lines of demarcation brought forth notions of “proper” behavior…behavior that was “according to nature.” While ancient writers often made appeals to “nature” for proper sexual behavior…they were really appealing to the reinforcement of their society’s hierarchical structures. Case in Point: Dio Chrysostom (2^nd c. CE) castigates “the man who is never satiated,” who through repeated sexual indulgences ultimately seduces young men of good families who are destined to hold public office. Dio deems this most offensive deed as “against nature” (Greek: παρα φύσιν) (Oration 7.151). For Dio, this crime “against nature,” is actually the treating of the city’s future leaders as if they were common slaves. It is a crime against class, against social hierarchy, for the young man is dishonored. He is dishonored not because he is damaged goods for his future marriage, but for his future standing in society. The crime here is treating upcoming “men” as “unmen,” making those who should be “active” actors into “passive” actors. Such deeds damage the integrity of the Greco-Roman social hierarchy, and are thus deemed “unnatural.”

Furthering these notions is the Oneirokritika of Artemidoros of Daldis (2^nd c. CE), an itinerant dream analyst who interacted with much more “common” people. It reflects relatively general understandings accepted by the public (free males that is) at large, and is called by some “a kind of ancient Kinsey report.”

The Oneirokritika separates sexual acts into different categories, most important of which are those that are “according to nature” (κατα φύσιν) and those “against nature” (παρα φύσιν). Intercourse “according to nature” is sex with a social inferior, which includes women, prostitutes, and slaves. The prostitutes and slaves can be male so long as they are the passive partner, for “to be penetrated by one’s house slave is not good” (1.78). This is not because of the sexual act itself, or even because of the slave’s maleness…the problem is that a social inferior is represented as a sexual superior.

Intercourse “against nature” in the Oneirokritika encompasses many activities, including (but not limited to) the penetration of a woman by another woman, bestiality, and necrophilia. Since sodomy of prostitutes/slaves/boys was ok, the dividing line of “according to/against nature” certainly is not reproductive potential. Rather, unnatural acts either do not reproduce social hierarchy or run counter to it. Bestiality and necrophilia are not “perversions” in the modern sense, but rather are outside conventional fields of social signification. If a man gains advantage over a sheep or a dead body…so what? Perhaps most telling is the prohibition of women “penetrating” other women. This is not simply “lesbian sex” in the modern notion, but rather a woman (a social inferior) performing the work of a man (a social superior). “Let not women imitate the sexual role of men” warns the Hellenistic Jewish author known as Pseudo-Phocylides (192).

Sex “according to nature” thus becomes a game of active/passive, penetrator/penetrated, and most importantly: social superior/social inferior. The act of penetration “reproduced” the societal notions of honor and shame, of status and class. To be the penetrator was to be the social/sexual superior (adult free males in all cases), and to be penetrated was to be the social/sexual inferior (women, prostitutes, boys, slaves, etc.). Any sexual activity that violated this social hierarchy could thus be categorized as “against nature.

So What?
What does this mean for Romans 1:26-27? Well, being that we can never truly lock down “authorial intent,” we can see how one’s language would fit into the discourses of their day. Given the very specific language of Paul, especially in comparison with his near contemporaries (esp. παρα φύσιν)…it seems that Romans 1:26-27 reflects/participates in particular notions of superior vs. inferior, of penetrator vs. penetrated. The “sexual logic” of Romans 1:26-27 thus comes from a societal hierarchy entirely different from our own. With this in mind, Stephen Moore offers an “amplified” version of these verses (based on the RSV with his own notes in parentheses):

Their women exchanged natural relations (of domination versus submission, designed to display social hierarchy, they themselves assuming the inferior position by accepting male penetration) for unnatural relations (in which no display of domination or submission occurred and consequently no social hierarchy was exhibited, because no penile penetration took place), and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (the male assuming the dominant position, penetrating the woman and thereby exhibiting and reaffirming his social superiority over her) and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men (in which one partner would necessarily end up the loser in the zero-sum game of honor versus shame, passively accepting penetration and thus defeat at the hands of another). [2]

So, what does all of this mean? It means that Paul’s condemnation of these acts comes from a cultural logic that simply does not work for us. Sex and sexuality in Paul’s world was based on a very particular social hierarchy (free adult males “on top” with women, slaves, boys, etc. below). The question becomes, if we have a very different notion of society and what sex(uality) represents…how do we read Paul? Can we simply adopt his prohibitions wholeheartedly, despite the fact that the Greco-Roman societal/sexual logic behind them contradicts and offends our own? Should we, as Christians, uncritically conform ourselves to a 1^st c. CE worldview? What role, if any, should verses such as this play in our own formations of proper sex(uality)?

“the notion of homosexuality is plainly inadequate as a means of referring to an experience, forms of valuation, and a system of categorization so different from ours. The Greeks did not see love for one’s own sex and loves for the other sex as opposite, as two exclusive choices, two radically different types of behavior. The dividing lines did not follow that kind of boundary.” – Michel Foucault. The Use of Pleasure. [↩]
From Moore’s article “Que(e)rying Paul: Preliminary Questions” in: Auguries: The Sheffield Jubilee Volume. Much of the references and the argumentation here comes from this article (in an admittedly abbreviated form), which is an excellent read and comes highly recommended. Moore gives far more examples and presents them in a much more eloquent way than I ever could. [↩]

Edit in Admin

Henry M. Imler

Hank,

I did not mean to make you feel that way in the least. It was more a stream of thought than a upset attack. My apologies for making you feel that way. I am behind on homework, so I cannot deal with all your questions. I'll try to address the two questions, explaining what I mean by "sometimes it's not theology" and "not using it directly."

Firstly, when I say "If our sacred scripture is where history meets theology, then we need to realize and actualize through our teaching and scholarship that sometimes it ain’t history and sometimes it ain’t theology," I mean in the last clause that some stuff contained in our texts is not theology. There is Paul giving his opinion on cultural matters, there is straight history, there are genealogical lists. These things are not straight theology (although they feed into and can be used by theological sections). This really was a minor point and I don't mean anything substantial by it. The main point here is that sometimes it isn't history (by our standards).

Secondly, I was talking about how Paul is cannot be directly speaking about homosexuality as we conceive of it because it did not exist as such back then. Sure, the physical relationship looks similar on the outside (and I think you can construct a case that is similar to Paul's for our conceptions of sexual relationships), but it is not the same thing as what Paul is directly arguing against.

Look at it another way. No where in the Bible does anyone argue against unrestrained capitalism. However, we do see plenty of passages in the old and new testament that argue against principles found in unrestrained capitalism. Same thing is going on here.

henrythomasimler

Honzo,

I don't know, but the tone of response comes across a little overbearing. I feel about three inches tall having read this comment several times today. I guess you really don't like what I had to say or something. However, I love the passion so I'll deal.

Onto the response. First your last paragraph. I remain unconvinced by 'ham's post about homosexuality. The kind of relationship that is being looked at in Romans 1 doesn't seem to have anything to do with social class in light of the fact that Paul is showing how depraved humanity has come since creation when it was man (Adam) having the sexual relationship with woman (Eve). A condemnation of Greco-Roman society for that seems to fit a Jewish world-view given how Genesis records the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and also the final story in the account of the Judges. But the post was a stimulating post, just doesn't convince me.

Second, my point about Acts is that its history is reliable, especially in ancient eyes. Eyewitness testimony, preferably if the author of the work is the eyewitness, is how ancient histories were done. My point was that "Luke," as in his gospel narrative, redacted together eyewitness testimony of the early Christian movement from Jerusalem to Rome. "Luke" is writing in the same manner as other historians of his day (same with Matthew, Mark, and John). Am I prepared to accept Acts as eyewitness testimony, yes. Am I prepared to carefully scrutinize Acts and the history there in, yes. I am unaware of where "Luke" is filling in or modifying but I'm sure you can point me to where this is supposed to be taking place for my further study.

So I agree and whole-heartedly proclaim with all who say that we must realize the intended use of the biblical texts, indeed all texts. I just am not aware of any other Lukan purpose for Acts other than, like the Gospel according to Luke, than to record the spread of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, continuing on the story of the Jesus movement after his resurrection (any other purpose is inferred and explicitly stated--and I do believe that there are inferred purposes).

Also, can you clarify for me, at least, what you meant by "sometimes it ain’t theology" and also "What it does mean is that he is not using it directly." The last one the wording is very tricky for me to follow.

Honzo

Hank,
I would agree that Acts is not a “modern” history, neither are the Gospels, nor any “ancient” history written by Tacitus or Seutonius or Josephus. This does not exclude them from being historical works.

You ready to treat Acts as we treat Josephus and other "historical" works of that time? You ready to say that anything that is not doubly and independently attested and goes against probability and physical evidence was most likely an invention of the author? You ready to look at Acts and look at Paul's letters and not stretch and play the circumstance card each time there is a discrepancy to force a harmony? That is how we deal with all other "histories" of the time. If our sacred scripture is where history meets theology, then we need to realize and actualize through our teaching and scholarship that sometimes it ain't history and sometimes it ain't theology.

That is the thing we gotta do as Christian scholars. We need to realize how these texts were intended to function in their original settings compared to what we wanna do with these texts. Use poetry as poetry, use ancient history as ancient histories, etc. When is Luke recording events and when is he modifying things or plain filling in gaps to further the effect he wants to have on his audience (like Josephus did all the time)? We gotta know that is how these things are written and be able to sort them out by degrees of possibility (given the lack of a time machine, which I am rumored to be minoring in)

With that said, it seems very reasonable and probable that Paul was as well versed in Hebrew as Acts says he was. If we go off of occasional letters written to Roman congregations, why are we not surprised that there are no references to Paul using Hebrew? The selection of our sources stack the deck naturally against such a occurrence. Given what else we think Paul was and did, it is reasonable to think he most likely knew at least Hebrew and prob Aramaic.

But, I think that we have to understand that there no such thing as homosexuality in the culture to which Paul was writing. That does not mean God gives his blessing to this relationship structure, nor that you cannot use what Paul is writing here to build a theory of relationship ethics that exclude homosexuality. What it does mean is that he is not using it directly.

henrythomasimler

Honzo, you said, "[Acts] is not primarily written as a modern history. That is something we need to keep in mind, especially when we go to talk about inerrancy. We need to look at how texts of a similar genre acted and claimed for themselves."

I would agree that Acts is not a "modern" history, neither are the Gospels, nor any "ancient" history written by Tacitus or Seutonius or Josephus. This does not exclude them from being historical works. I am reading a book arguing that the Gospels are historiagraphical works, rooted in eyewitness testimony, written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses so that the claims of the documents could be verified. On of the primary arguments is that historical credibility is best established upon eyewitness testimony, even better is if the author of the work was actually there first-hand (e.g. Josephus and the Roman-Jewish War of 66-73 CE). Without getting into the name of the author, it is clear that Luke and Acts were written by the same person (see the prologue of Acts 1). The methodology that "Luke" used I assume he carried over into Acts, grounding what he claimed in eyewitness testimony. It could be very easily argued that Acts ends with Paul alive because "Luke" wanted his readers to go to Rome and talk to Paul himself (but that is just speculation). But whoever "Luke" is, the "we" passages gives the author great credibility with his audience as it shows that this "Luke" was there to report on these events. Thus "Luke" would know whether Paul could or couldn't speak/read Hebrew and/or Aramaic. It seems to me that people say that the books of the Bible are too theologically motivated to report accurate history. But from what I have read, we cannot count many "historical" works, including modern works, because of such motivations. Try reading Tacitus' take on Nero, not very objective but is still taken as reliable history by historians. Consider how many biographies of George Washington have been written to show what kind of faith the man had to justify what role, if any, Christianity has in the public square. I think the NT is very reliable history and that history greatly shapes our theology. "The NT is where history and theology meet," Dr. Richard Bauckham would say.

Diane R

Let's see if I understand this. Christian males can have sex with young male boys, [young girls], slaves and women. Women can only have sex with adult free men. Right?

You cannot have it both ways. Either this will be the pattern then AND today or there is a different paradigm at play in these scriptures. I think I must agree with those commenters that are bringing out what God thought rather than what the Roman/Greek societal patterns were, although this post has to be one of the most interesting ones I've read lately. Thanks for posting it.

Honzo

Hank,

The modern historicity of Acts is up in the air for me. However, it is not primarily written as a modern history. That is something we need to keep in mind, especially when we go to talk about inerrancy. We need to look at how texts of a similar genre acted and claimed for themselves. Then, if we take that text and consider it inspired, then we can only claim for the text what texts in that genre claim, not what we claim through the writings of our time. (I think I am going to copy this comment up on your post, hank). With that said, we need to look hard at what "Acts of X" accounts claimed and how they functioned in antiquity.

With that said, there are definite Roman and Jewish elements in Paul. Both sides can't be ignored. While we can't be certain (what can we be certain of when studying a person 200 years ago who resided on the other side of the world) what Paul's original intent was, it certainly is profitable to try and find out. Otherwise, lets pack our bags and go home.

henrythomasimler

'Ham, you said,

"First, Paul was a Jew. But, he was a thoroughly “Hellenized” Jew. He spoke and wrote in Greek, he ministered specifically (and exclusively it seems) to Gentiles, and he appears to have had no knowledge of Aramaic/Hebrew (as far as historians can tell)."

Are you saying that the history found in Acts is unreliable? In Acts 21:40 and 22:2 Luke references Paul as speaking in the "Hebrew language" (ESV). Is this discounted and on what basis? Also, Paul, accepting Acts as historical, was not "exclusively" an apostle to the Gentiles for it was Peter who was the first apostle to preach to the Gentiles and Paul frequently went into Jewish synagogues--usually before he discoursed with Greeks--and tried to persuade the Jews to believe upon Jesus as their Messiah who was raised from the grave. I know of no other way to understand why Paul aches so much over the lostness of his Jewish kinsmen in Romans 9:1-5. I would also say that one cannot let the Hellenization of Paul go too far as his Pharisaical training and theology must play a large role in his thinking.

I like what you are trying to do in the post but I personally still see this text (Romans 1:26-27) as Paul using homosexuality as an illustration of man's depravity (much like the Prophets of the OT would use the Sabbath as an illustration of Israel and Judah violating the whole law covenant, not just one command). I am not sure how this post fits in the overall thought of Paul in Romans 1:18-3:20. I think this would help illustrate (to me at least) what all this information is trying to accomplish in interpreting Paul in Romans.

Travis

Cheapham says:

"I’m sorry, but I must take issue with this. How have you not done this yourself? You’ve claimed that 'the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts' and are simply rolling with it. Shouldn’t you test that hypothesis? What backing does this stance possess? You’ve made a presumption, and I don’t think you’ve adequately tested that presumption…nor do I think the bulk of historical/literary research supports your assumption."

It would be impossible to test whether the truths of Scripture are transcendent truths or not. To try to do so would be a fool's errand. And you are right, this is a presumption I have. But what is wrong with that? Everyone here has presumptions concerning cultural, reason, faith, logic, and the principle of sufficient reason. Does that make are presumptions not true? Of course not. Does that make our presumptions unwarranted in believing? In the same way: of course not. So, I do not ever claim to know that the truths of Scripture are transcendent by inductive logic. I think this belief is properly basic, and is in no need of testing through variables and controls in order to prove its truth.

cheapham

I've been traveling and unable to do much with a computer the past week or so...so it appears I've missed a lot of good stuff. I'll address some basic issues before getting into the specifics of the conversation at hand.

First, Paul was a Jew. But, he was a thoroughly "Hellenized" Jew. He spoke and wrote in Greek, he ministered specifically (and exclusively it seems) to Gentiles, and he appears to have had no knowledge of Aramaic/Hebrew (as far as historians can tell). His reading/writing ability in Greek would have demanded that he be trained...and to do so would require interaction with the larger Greco-Roman literary world around him. As many scholars have shown (Stanley Stowers of Brown is a great example), Paul's literary styling and rhetorical constructions are very much reflective of the popular Greco-Roman conventions of his day. Thus, his vocabulary and ideology would certainly be tied into the intellectual world at large.

Further, Paul was writing/ministering to Gentiles (He is the self-described apostle to the Gentiles afterall)...to people in Rome itself with the letter in question. So, regardless of what Paul "intended" in his word choices (which is not something I'm certain we can ever nail down difinitively)...they seem to have held very specific meanings and connotations in the world into which Paul was sending his letters. These understandings are powered by the logic which I outlined above.

Travis, you wrote:

"we must be careful not to forget that the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts, and that it is easy to use inductive slight-of-hand by claiming that if something is probably the case, then something is actually the case."

I'm sorry, but I must take issue with this. How have you not done this yourself? You've claimed that "the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts" and are simply rolling with it. Shouldn't you test that hypothesis? What backing does this stance possess? You've made a presumption, and I don't think you've adequately tested that presumption...nor do I think the bulk of historical/literary research supports your assumption. This is the entire motivation for my intial post...to explore how scripture is not merely reflective of the mind of God, but also of the cultural context from which it came.

Christianity does not exist outside of culture. Christianity in the first century doesn't make sense without Roman Imperialism, nor does it exist without the "Jews" as the consumate "other," nor without the overwhelmingly popular astrology of the day. The theological formations of the NT happened in a specific historical time and place, and that historical time and place played a tremendous role from which the "truths" of scripture simply cannot always be plucked. Just as the movements (and their respective texts) coming out of the Burned Over District don't make proper sense without their 19th century New England context, and The Purpose Driven Life doesn't make proper sense without a late-20th century American context...so many aspects of the NT don't make sense outside of their appropriate context. Not to say that they don't take on new and (il)legitimate meaning(s), but there is still something to be said for looking at the original context of a piece of literature.

And lastly...when did I (or anyone here) say that because the cultural logic of an ethical/theological formation from the NT is different from ours it must be discarded? I'm merely begging the question of what to do when faced with the reality of difference. I would never outright discard anyone's point of view...especially not those of our ealiest forbearers of the Christian faith. However, they are not above reproach (and this includes Paul), and we must recognize the differences and gulfs between us. We must honestly and critically engage these texts to see where our logics and worldviews differ/collide. Then, just as we do today, we must find ways to understand and reconcile differences. If we disagree, do we simply shut eachother out and discard what the other is saying? I would hope not. The same goes for scripture in my opinion. We should honestly and critically assess the arguments Paul is making, and see if we are convinced...see if it fits with our communal and personal understandings of the divine. Lots of people disagreed with Paul during his day (and parts of our own NT disagree with him as well on several issues: Matthew, James, Revelation among them)...so it's not like it's unfounded to do so.

I'll be back to continue this discussion soon. Thanks so much for contributing guys, I've enjoyed reading this.

Travis

JR,

Thank you for your comments. I am not debating that we all write within a certain cultural context; that seems obviously and trivially true. But I read Ham's post as not merely claiming this point though. What was being said was that the language that Paul used in Romans 1 was a reflection/participation of the sexual language of the Roman cultural of Paul's day. But then the conclusion was made that the meaning of the language of the latter was to be found (either necessarily or very probably) in the language of the former. That seemed to me to be and unsound jump from one conclusion to another.

This being said, your are right that we must respect the cultural context within which the NT was written. This will give us a nuanced understanding of what Paul said in the 1st century AD. However, we must be careful not to forget that the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts, and that it is easy to use inductive slight-of-hand by claiming that if something is probably the case, then something is actually the case.

Concerning my use of symbolic logic to analyze the arguments here, I do so to make clarifications, not to obscure what has been said. If I do not correctly or properly capture what has been said, I am more than happy to revise and to be critiqued. That is one of the many joys of dialectic.

jr.

Travis,

When did anyone ever say that we can't use Romans 1 to talk about homosexuality? Ham is calling for a more nuanced and careful reading of the text, one that is faithful to the cultural context in which it's composed. I'm not sure why the fact that we all write from a particular cultural context is even up for debate... that seems to me to be common sense. The new testament has clear mandates on sexual ethic, but our 21st century sexual identity is vastly different from the first century, and it's intellectually irresponsible for us to assume we can just take what any biblical writer says without respecting the culture from which they're speaking.

I appreciate your commitment to think thoroughly through issues, but you often misrepresent arguments when you try to reduce them to a form in which you can use symbolic logic. Having received some training in that myself, I know that you can't always reduce everything down, and especially in theological arguments, you need to be careful.

Travis

Honzo,

To your first post in response to what I said, I was claiming that (1) is a premise of cheapham's post in order for the post to contain some valid reasoning. I did allow for probability (or inductive proof) to be used in order to show the validity of this post, but it is going to have to be a very high probability at the very least. In order to show that (1) is true(in the inductive sense), there must be a terrific amount of evidence that ranges over many eras and times and over many cultures and persons. This evidence must show that for all persons at all times (or for almost all persons at almost all times, for inductive puposes), one's culture dictates and determines one's moral/ethical worldview and perspecitve. This evidence is vey wanting.

Of course, even if this evidence is produced, who is to say that Paul was an exception to the general pattern of individuals in history? From a secular standpoint, this might not be persuasive, but that matters not. What evidence do we have that Paul himself accepted the Roman culture's stance on sexual morallity? Do we find it in his epistles? What about outside sources that Paul wrote? Do we have any? Merely examining what Paul's contemporaries wrote and claiming that Paul must have thought the same is not only unfair to Paul, but intellectually unsound.

As for you last paragraph in your first response, I completely agree with you and it is well-said, except for your caveat that this is an unwarranted assumption. But you already know my stance on that :)

To your second response to my post, all that I meant for why this would be very convenient is that if Paul is merely proponing a view of sexuality because he was influenced by the culture of his time, so that it was his culture and not God that shaped his moral standards for sexuality, that Paul's dictums on human sexuality have no moral weight for us here and now (in our enlightened post-modern world). Thus, we have an easy and conveniet solution to the controversy of homosexauls in the pulpit, as memebers of a congration, as being married to each other, etc. We simply say, "Sure, why not?" Since Paul's epistles carry no moral weight, there is no normative claim that references Paul that can be made by Christians and theologians concerning the ethical practices of human sexuality. So, as the logical positivists once duly claimed, that problem is not solved but "dissolved."

Henry M Imler

Travis,

You write:
It would indeed be very convenient if Paul was using “according to nature” as a mere tool of social hierarchy in order to subjugate women into a categorical box so that men may retain their power and oppress their women.

Where are you getting that from above? Perhaps I missed it...

Henry M Imler

Travis,
You write:
1. If S writes in the cultural setting C, and C adheres to a certain view P, then S necessarily (or very probably) adheres to P.....Premise (1) seems to be prima facie false though. So what evidence to we have for (1)? I am not sure.

We have lots of evidence for 1, but you have worded it too strongly and it is therefore unrepresentative of how most scholars (including Cheapham) view this. Going off of anything prima facie in this field is intellectual suicide. You have to go and look at what people were actually saying and arguing and doing back then. This is a study of real lives and real lived religion (and real constructions of morals and ethics). Your #1 should talk about probabilities, or talk about the best way to see the unseen in a text is not to guess from our position, but to rebuild theirs, which is what Cheapham is doing.

Cheapham has constructed how they viewed sex and sexual relations. I don't think we can assume that this is what Paul thought sexual relations should be like, but we likewise cannot what we are arguing against (in this case God's approval of our notion of homosexuality) and say Paul is directly arguing against it as well, because he is not. That is the strongest point of Cheapham's post.

However, with additional work and a assumption that there is a unified stance towards sex in the Bible (a significant and prima facie unwarranted assumption)we can use what Paul is saying here, and about celebacy, and where Jesus talks about marriage, and things we find in Genesis about gender relations to build up a "biblical" theory of sexuality.

Travis

It would indeed be very convenient if Paul was using "according to nature" as a mere tool of social hierarchy in order to subjugate women into a categorical box so that men may retain their power and oppress their women. If this is the case, a lot of obstacles that Christianity faces (and has faced) concerning what righteous sexual behavior exactly is would be solved. We would be able to simply pass Paul off as a puppet mimicking his culture's stance on sexuality, and simply claim that "according to nature" is a delusion Paul had concocted in him mind in order to justify what clearly are unjust claims concerning sexuality. So, when it comes to matters of the ethics of sexuality today, Paul's view (and let's just say all of the NT, since all the authors lived in such a culture) of sexuality would be irrelevant. Is homosexuality wrong? We cannot go to Scripture, so we could say it is not wrong in any moral sense. Since our culture claims it to be acceptable (at least, in a non-pejorative way), then homosexuality is fine. What about pedophilia? This one is easy too, since our culture sees pedophile as abhorrent, it is thus immoral. Very convenient indeed.

However, I feel that there is some unsound reasoning behind what has been said. Suppose that Paul did not in fact write Romans 1 as the Roman culture viewed sexuality, but according to how God view's sexuality. Suppose that what Paul was claiming was not how men may properly have autocracy over their lovers, but how men and women should practice righteous living according to God's eternal law. If this is the case, wouldn't the views of other Romans and Greeks be irrelevant to what Paul actually claimed in Romans 1? It would indeed, and so for this argument to hold water, one must show that it is not possible (or at least very very unlikely) for Paul to have somehow transcend his culture's influence and write what God's word claimed concerning righteous sexual behavior. What evidence do we have for this? It seems to be very lacking. The argument seems to go as such:

1. If S writes in the cultural setting C, and C adheres to a certain view P, then S necessarily (or very probably) adheres to P.
2. Paul wrote during the culture of the Romans who adhered to a view that proper sexual behavior was for the men to have superiority over there lovers.
3. Therefore, Paul adhered to a view that proper sexual behavior was for the men to have superiority over there lovers (contra to what our culture says today concerning what is proper).
4. Therefore, Paul's dictums on sexual behavior are irrelevant as a standard for sexual behavior today.

Premise (1) seems to be prima facie false though. So what evidence to we have for (1)? I am not sure.

jr.

I dig ur reading ham, and it's one I've been looking into since I read Foucault's History of Sexuality Pt. 1. I would agree that we can't just adopt wholesale 1st century sexual ethic for today. It's different in some ways.

However, in our culture, sex is in many ways still about power, and I think we can balance our understanding of sexuality against Jesus' teachings about power (ala Mark 10, for example).

Additionally, I think we do have to take seriously the idea of created boundaries. If we were created male and female to be mated pairs, then homosexual intercourse is still problematic. Of course, we have to balance the OT elevation of marriage with Paul's call to a single lifestyle in 1 Cor 7.

This is the beginning of a great discussion. Where do we go from here? Do we understand 21st century sexuality well enough to begin to draw some parallels from biblical worldviews?

cheapham

Thanks for the comment! I know it was long, and perhaps not as well put together as I would have liked, so I appreciate you taking the time to read it.

First, I think it's necessary to reiterate that there really is no parallel in antiquity for what we call "homosexuality." The way we view sex and sexuality simply doesn't make sense within the framework of ancient sexual logic. Likewise, the way the ancients viewed sex and sexuality doesn't make sense within our modern sexual logic(s). So, to say that the bible "condemns homosexuality" is fairly anachronistic.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Paul is clearly condeming specific sexual acts (sex between men, and sex between women)...that cannot be denied by any reading of the text (except for heavy allegorization I suppose). What I'm arguing is that the reasons Paul condemns these specific sexual acts is part of an ancient sexual logic completely different from our own.

I'm not arguing that the Bible doesn't condemn or support certain sexual behaviors, I think it very likely does support what you say. What I'm arguing is that the reasoning behind those condemnations/exhortations are heavily embedded in the cultures from which they came. The reason Paul dislikes men having sex with men is based on Ancient notions of social/sexual hierarchy that we don't ascribe to (nor should we IMO).

That leads me to beg the question, if we disagree/differ with Paul's social/sexual logic, should we still fully maintain his sexual proscriptions? Paul's culture had logical ways of supporting slavery and the subordination of women...both of which we can find in his letters. Yet, we recognize the cultural differences between us and them and (hopefully) no longer enslave people nor denigrate women. What I'm showing is that his prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors appear to run along similarly different cultural lines.

FYI - I hadn't read Honzo's comment before this comment, I'll get to it below. :)

Honzo

If I am reading you correctly, you are asserting that it is problematic to read 21st century American Christianity's sexual logic into Romans 1:26-27 because the contemporary official sexual logic simply is not compatible with ours. I agree with this larger point, but I have several other questions, most of which relate to the methodology of the rest of your argument.

You rightly describe notions of sexual hierarchy in the Roman world in the official culture. I think that using Artemidoros of Daldis' Oneirokritika is a good way at getting at more popular notions of sexuality in 2nd Century Roman culture (although, as a writer, it is quite possible he is more representative of official culture than popular culture and perhaps complaints by authorities about sexual practices is the best source for building a baseline of popular Roman culture's view on sexuality - and saying that, I have no idea what the sources are like out there.) You also certainly are onto something when it comes to the use of Chrysostom’s talk of sexuality above. It certainly shows how some of the early Christians conceived of sexuality. But neither of these describes what Paul has in mind as a positive construction of sexuality.

However, I do have some questions and problems with what you might be saying above. Firstly, is it best to use Roman official culture to interpret what Paul is writing? (And you are questioning authorial intent here, otherwise, I don’t think your argument makes sense, cause otherwise it would be historical discovery on how early Christians and 1-2nd century Romans would have interpreted Roman’s 1, which, given your questions at the end of your post, does not seem to be the case) Given that Paul was a “Jewish Roman” and he seems to be critiquing official and or popular notions of sexuality here, is it best to say that we need to consider Roman popular conceptions of sexuality (or what Chrysostom and other Christians ended up doing with sexuality) as the paradigm of sexuality that Paul is arguing for? He is arguing against this, right? He therefore has something else in mind. It is this something else that is the real measure of sexuality. He most certainly has in mind proper relations between the parties he lists.

If you are looking for how the Romans viewed sex, then I think you have succeeded in finding it. If you are looking for how God views sex (or Paul, for that matter, but I am assuming on the basis of faith that it is the same as how God views sex, but I think it is also profitable to talk about Paul without trying him to God's views), I think you have started on the path, but not reached your goal. (Which I don't think you are doing - but I am getting fuzzy here)

If you are wanting to say we need to be careful of using Romans 1:24-27 against our notions of homosexuality, then I think you are providing sufficient warning, because Paul is not arguing against what it looks like to us that he is arguing against. One thing I am not sure of is what exactly you are arguing for here. I don't know how far you are saying Roman ideals (or later Christian ideals) are normative for Paul.

I do look forward to your responses.

Nate

This is an interesting article, and I admire the time and research you've put into it. I've heard arguments like these before, but to me, they still sound as though they are reading an awful lot into them. Just a straight through reading of this passage seems to indicate that homosexuality is wrong.

Furthermore, let's not forget that the Bible also condemns fornication and adultery (Gal 5:19). And the Bible describes marriage as being between a man and a woman (Deut 7:3, Mark 10:6-12, etc).

So even if this passage did refer more to ideas of social hierarchy, it seems to me that homosexuality would still be condemned.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally have nothing against those who practice homosexuality. But I do believe the Bible teaches it is a sin. Some people struggle with that temptation, just as some struggle with the temptation of fornication or adultery.

Theology for the Masses

Paul and Sex(uality) “According to Nature”

Recent Comments

Categories

Tags

Author Blogs

Biblical Resources

Biblical Studies

Biblical Studies Blogs

Blogroll

Christian Commentary/News Publications

Philosophy Resources

Theology Blogs

Theology Resources

Pages

Categories

Meta