Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Paul and sexuality

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Paul and sexuality
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:44:24 -0700


Loren Rosson wrote

It has even been claimed that Rom 1:26-27 condemns only heterosexual
people who engage in homosexual activity (and so, by
implication, homosexual people who engage in
heterosexual activity), which is rather desperate
eisegesis; Paul didn't distinguish sexual orientation
from sexual activity.

I agree that it is disingenuous to suggest that Paul was only speaking of those who were "straight" engaging in homosexual activities. My contention is that I see no reason to believe that Paul really thought about "orientation" at all. It has been suggested that there might have been some in the ancient world who DID think in such terms, but I see no reason to suggest that Paul should be included in that list. I suspect that Paul really didn't *think* about homosexuality too much at all. I think he operated on more of an unreflective level. It is my hunch that he pulled it out of his assumed bank of ethical assumptions about what is good and what ain't and put it into service in Romans. I think it important to consider that Paul in this portion of his letter is NOT building a systematic ethical statement (which he begins more to do (sans the "systematic" part) in chapter 12 and following) but more of a theological statement. The *real* point he is trying to make in chapter 1 is not really sexual at all - but regarding idolatry!!! Homosexuality is (in Paul's [mistaken] view) what happens when you "worship and serve created things rather than the creator". I suggest that even the discussion about idolatry isn't ultimately about idolatry!! I think Paul is "encouraging" the readers to feel smug about their moral superiority to these "moral slime-balls" being described in Ch 1. (...filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless, murderers of kittens and puppies) To do this he unreflectively pulls out of his mind what he believes to be "obvious" moral short-comings - what he believes his audience will see as "obvious" moral short-comings. This is all done as a foil for ch 2. There he "pulls the rug" out from under the self-righteousness that the readers have been indulging in in ch 1. It is my suggestion that the REAL agenda for Paul (which seems to be an important thread in much of what is to follow) is the righteousness which is of God vs. the righteousness which is of humanity.




(My interpretation might be accused of having more than a little of the likes of Barth lurking in the background... oh well, I try my best...)

--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page