Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and homosexuality?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <Stephen.Finlan AT durham.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and homosexuality?
  • Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:33:50 +0100


Bob MacDonald
>
> thank you for your response. I have a ... conundrum.

You should get that looked at.

> Bob: Asceticism does not imply sexless being.
> desire of a human is clearly in view in Psalm 42:1; worshipper
wishing to
> come into the presence. In this case God is the satisfier of the
desire.

Right. That's perfectly true about all kinds of ascetic approaches.
I think it is the standard Roman Catholic understanding
of asceticism that one does not lose desire, but makes
God one's whole desire.
Obviously, that does not rule out celibacy, does it?

When I say that Paul was an ascetic and a celibate, I do
not mean that he was devoid of desire, or that sex
was his only moral concern.
Thank you for correcting the following reference (which
made me think of "put to death what is earthly in you,"
Col 3:5).

> Bob: What about 'if you by the Spirit do put to death the deeds of
the body,
> you will live' [Rom 8:13]
> [which means] a deliverance from the kinds of
> excessive covetousness and desire that can afflict a man such as
Paul.

Right. My argument is that when one combines this with the
other passages, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny
that Paul was encratic. And you do allow possibility that:

> he may have sublimated [inordinate sexual desire]
> through his zeal for Israel.

I don't think our positions are very far apart, Bob.

> I read in a footnote in 'Mystery' by Nanos that the prevailing view
> of circumcision was that it reduced inordinate desire.

Philo expressed that view in "Special Laws."

> incarnation ... as experience.... think of .... the many
> indwellings spoken of in the farewell discourse (John 14-16).
> [CS] Lewis [and] Charles Williams ... do not deny sexuality as
> is the common understanding of asceticism.

Right. These are fascinating and brave thinkers. Williams
writes about Romantic Theology. But I don't think that is
Paul's approach. He is much more suspicious of human "love,"
seeing much (most?) of it as impurity and sin.

> John also adds - those who have this hope in themselves purify
themselves as
> he is pure. This is very much in line with Nanos statement of the
intent of
> Romans: worship in purity together, both Gentile and Jew.

Okay. I'm not sure exactly how some of this relates to our
debate, but maybe the debate is not the most important thing.

> Bob: here is the conundrum: Paul has a well developed doctrine of
the Body
> of Christ as temple long before the destruction of the temple. The
people,
> Jew and Gentile together, become the dwelling place for God. What
> relationship does this have to temple as building - past and
present?

I can't help but think it reduces the relevance of the
Jerusalem Temple. Of course, Paul might deny that he intend-
ed to reduce the significance of any Biblical commandment,
but the long-term effect of his typological arguments is,
indeed, to increase the METAPHORICAL significance and to
reduce the LITERAL significance of the Jewish rituals.
The sociological corollary of this hermeneutical position
is to reduce the differences between Jew and Gentile, which,
in fact, allowed the Gentile to become dominant (although
that was not Paul's intent).

stephen.finlan
University of Durham, UK




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page