Understanding how the Biblical text was originally written sheds light on how the anti-gay section of Romans 1 is not an argument made by Paul.
Biblical Punctuation Primer
The casual reader of Scripture needs to know that Scripture originally had no punctuation. The Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament, as written, contain no punctuation–or very little punctuation in some sections of the Greek New Testament. The above is a picture of the Gospel of John–where do the sentences end and begin? Translators have to take into account the structure of the sentence and the argument to determine where punctuation goes.
Punctuation matters because where one places a comma or a period affects the reading of the text. Dr. Benjamin Shaw reflects:
For example, Ephesians 1:3-14 (one extended sentence in Greek) is divided into three sentences by the KJV, and up to fourteen or so sentences by some of the modern simple language translations. But this punctuation is a matter of editorial choice.
So for example, in Eph 1:4, the KJV reads, “that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” The ESV reads, “that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love” (with the sentence then continuing into verse 5). The difference between the two renderings is that in the KJV, the phrase “in love” is understood to go with what precedes, as is indicated by the punctuation. In the ESV, the phrase “in love” is understood to go with what follows, again as indicated by the punctuation.
As biblical transcription and comparison efforts are more holistic, as we cross-reference how an author uses words or phrases in other sections of texts–as well as how the corpus of literature at the time used the phrases–our understanding of biblical texts becomes better over time and we can get closer to the intended wording of the text.
And in at least one case, proper punctuation severely diminishes the argument that Romans 1 is anti-gay.
Romans 1: Secretly Plagiarized?
Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted to support arguments that the Bible renders same-gender relationships to be anathema to God. However, many scholars are persuaded that Romans 1 is another passage that contains both Paul’s writings and an extended quotation of a theological opponent or strawman who is then refuted in Romans 2. Theo Geek writes:
Romans 1:18-32 seems to be an instance of an ancient literary device called “speech-in-character” (prosopopoeia). Or, more simply put, is what we would call a “dialog” or “debate”, with Paul deliberately presenting an opposition viewpoint and responding. It is now well-established that in Romans 7 Paul uses a lengthy speech-in-character without warning his readers. Equally, in many part of Romans that take a question and answer format, Paul is obviously engaging in a pseudo-dialog with opposing viewpoints.
Dr. James McGrath uses technology in some of his biblical critiques and writes:
As Paul piles on the insults aimed at the character of Gentiles, in a manner typical of Jewish polemic in Romans 1:29-31, BibleWorks was able to tell me something that other sources did not: just how many words are not merely rare, but the only instances of Paul using the word among the entirety of the authentic epistles…
Why is Paul’s language so different here? One plausible explanation is because he is mimicking the speech of one or more others. Indeed, it is not impossible to envisage him actually drawing on some other person’s well-known tirade against Gentiles in order to make his depiction of that position particularly relevant and poignant, quite possibly specifically that in Wisdom of Solomon 12-14.
And so, the rhetorical turn indicated by the vocative at the start of chapter 2, the move to condemn the speaker voicing the point of view articulated in chapter 1, and the distinctive vocabulary do all seem to reinforce this point: The views articulated in Romans 1:18-32 cannot be treated as Paul’s. This doesn’t mean that Paul disagreed with all the points, any more than it can be assumed that a Christian and an atheist, or two people of different political parties, will disagree on everything, even when they quote one another polemically or satirically. But it does mean that one ought not to use Romans 1:18-32 to determine Paul’s own views.
The problem of traditional translations means that we’ve turned Paul’s argument from a polemic into plagiarism. And that’s being unfaithful to the text.
By assigning the opinions about gay people to Paul’s lips instead of his opponent, we’ve weakened the argument he’s trying to make and stunted the biblical witness against rushing-to-judgment that Romans 2 makes.
The Need for Proper Punctuation
So how can the scholar inform the casual reader of Scripture that the above is a quote, not Paul’s words?
McGrath recently highlighted the work of Dan Wilkinson to depict that the offending section of Romans 1 needs to be in blockquotes:
If it’s true that Romans 1:18-32 isn’t in fact Paul’s voice, shouldn’t our English text clearly reflect that? Why not add quotation marks around that passage to set it off from the rest of Paul’s letter? And, while we’re at it, why not add section headers that clarify the rhetorical interplay that’s taking place?
We do this already, especially when the Gospels are quoting prophetic literature. Read a hardbound copy of Matthew and you’ll see the references to Hebrew Bible prophecy are in italics or quoted differently in some way. The above picture is how it looks in my Common English Bible. The translators of Matthew are very clear to note that the prophetic writings are different sources than the Gospel–why can we not do the same with the Pauline scriptures?
Hacking Scripture
Thankfully, this blog is called Hacking Christianity.
So here’s a hack: in your bible, draw quote marks around Romans 1:18-32, or shade them with a highlighter to indicate this is an extended blockquote. Above is how it could look in my Common English Bible. Perhaps with a question mark–whatever helps the reader hold the section in its proper form.
What’s needed in Scripture is precisely this kind of form criticism: clearly articulating who is speaking in each Scripture verse and how the reader is to hold or frame the passage in Scripture. By better visualizing that framework in Romans, we are better able to frame the anti-gay verse as not coming from Paul’s mouth but from that of his opponent–we have no other indicators that he agrees with the quote–and that is of tremendous help to LGBT Christians.
We do a disservice to Christian discourse when we interpret Scripture like infants who stop with the plain reading. Instead, we can find the deeper riches of Scripture when we interpret like adults who use our God-given reason to find the original God-given meaning.
Thoughts?
The most divisive argument in The UMC comes down to punctuation and grammar. Really? It takes an eighth grade education to read the Bible but an advance degree to realize that the Bible does not actually mean what it says.
All we need is a preponderance of scholars to convince us the translation is incorrect, reprint a few hundred million copies of the Bible and we can all get back to business.
Actually, different levels of education are needed to read different versions of the Bible. The King James Version is geared toward someone who has fourteen years of education, whereas The Message can be understood by someone with an elementary school education.
Lynda,
The KJV is an old and very inaccurate translation, if a beautiful one. Simply put, it contains texts that are not in the oldest documents we have, and translates texts in a way that we would not today– we have more access to the ancient texts than they did, and a better understanding of Greek. Within mainline Protestant context, the CEB or NRSV, both with their own agendas (goals and standards) would be better. As all translations are interpretations, learning Classical and Koine Greek for the New Testament would be better, or at least comparing translations.
The issue Jeremy speaks of can also be said throughout the Corinthian letters, where the KJV has Paul contradicting himself all over the place– an issue solved by quotation marks as in Romans above.
No this not a mutilating of Scripture. It is acknowledging that it’s a Book that sometimes quotes opposing views.
Or do you think Job’s Friends were right simply because their words are Recorded in God’s Word? Or how about in Luke 2 when Jesus corrects Mary about calling Joseph His Father? Or do you think Joab was fully justified in shaming David for mourning his Son?
Some also feel the beginning of Proverbs 30 is Solomon quoting someone to then refute that argument. So it’s not as though this is done only with verses that express uncomfortable doctrine.
I think I left that response to the wrong person, sorry.
No true Christian ever, believes or entertains any twisting of the Word. It is pathetic to see people attempting to harass the Bible.
But not Christian cares; all of God ignore anything reaching to say gay is not sin, since it is listed as sin clearly. Also MATT 19 finishes them when Christ says “MALE AND FEMALE” when asked about marriage.
This is why there can be no reconciliation between the two factions on this question. There is no limit to which those who advocate not just tolerance but a full unwavering acceptance of the gay lifestyle. This tearing apart of the Scriptures to torture them to mean what ever we wish them to say for this time and place places the simple meaning of the written word beyond the average reader. this is the attitude that is splitting the UMC, the attitude that a professional class of scholarly Elders are the ones who can determine what God really meant to say be it homosexuality or how the local should respond to their local situation. It really comes down to a power struggle pure and simple.
God have mercy on us!
If it weren’t for scholars, there wouldn’t be the Scripture we have today. Be careful of who you lambast–yesterdays scholars are today’s normative readings.
Lesson from John T: it’s better to torture people than to torture scripture.
There’s no place in scripture where the Bible is called the Word of God. Jesus alone is called The Word. He often spoke in parables so that only those who believed in him would understand what he was driving at. The Bible was not meant to be understood by the intellect alone. To the degree that one knows him experientially is the degree to which she/he will rightly interpret the scripures. Good theology can confirm what one discovers by truly following Christ. Christ bothtaught and exampled what love is. Whatever one reads that doesn’t fit into the love paradigm is being misinterpreted. The Bible was written to point us to Christ. Apart from that it is only a stumblind block.
But guess who is deciding which parts of scripture point to Christ and which do not… you. With this view, it is literally entirely up to you who Jesus was and what Jesus meant by love. Of course we have to interpret the scriptures using human brains, but we have to be seeking truth not justification for ourselves. I’ll admit I often read the scriptures seeking my own justification, but I know this is not the true way. This makes a man a simple product of culture and psychological circumstance, yet he can claim “divine justification” for his viewpoints. The idea of divine inspiration of scripture is clearly supported by Jesus. He never once promotes the idea that the Bible was written by men with a little inspiration from God here or there or wherever we feel like it.
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
-Matthew 4:4
If Jesus is not talking about scripture here what is he talking about? We could literally see anything as the voice of God because we have no litmus test without scripture. And then what becomes our new litmus test for God’s word… you guessed it our culture and psychological circumstances. When our culture and psychology entirely determine our view of Jesus, what is the point? He just becomes our little puppet instead of the one we follow.
No this not a tearing apart of Scripture. It is acknowledging that it’s a Book that sometimes quotes opposing views.
Or do you think Job’s Friends were right simply because their words are Recorded in God’s Word? Or how about in Luke 2 when Jesus corrects Mary about calling Joseph His Father? Or do you think Joab was fully justified in shaming David for mourning his Son?
Some also feel the beginning of Proverbs 30 is Solomon quoting someone to then refute that argument. So it’s not as though this is done only with verses that express uncomfortable doctrine.
Richard Hays does a similar thing with 1 Corinthians 7 to demonstrate that Paul is not anti-sex, but quoting back to the Corinthians their current stance on abstinence. Depending on the translation and where the quotation marks are, Paul is either commanding abstinence or conceding abstinence for people who want it. The difference in translation has dramatically changed the world (looking at you, Pope).
We should not assume that a such an important Text, written long ago, in a different language and context, should be so easy for us to understand.
I’d be interested in reading that if you have a Link?
Jeremy,
Just a question with regards to your work in the Biblical languages and the Masoretic text, as well as the LVV and Nestle-Aland. I am curious the type of perspectives you had from professors at the undergraduate and graduate levels with regards to workings of the texts in the original languages.
-ryan
Hi Ryan, as a clergyperson whose primary vocation is pastoral, I’m dependent on biblical scholars and my own reading regimen. So folks like yourself are helpful perspectives.
I went to Boston University and Oklahoma City University if that’s also what you are asking.
Yes, I am asking that, but really asking more if Biblical languages are part of your own personal education. Now, I had Greek at both the undergraduate and MDiv level and Hebrew at the MDiv level, but I am certainly no scholar. It is helpful though to know where the other person is coming from in having discussions about these types of matters. I don’t want to seem to be at all talking down to anyone, but just trying to understand the level of experience with the languages.
While it is true that Classical and Koine Greek doesn’t have, or rarely has any type of punctuation, it is not nearly as needed as in the English language. Each part of speech in Greek is declined. So when reading uber long sentences in Greek, that are the length of English paragraphs, it is actually fairly easy to tell what is going on because even nouns change form depending on how they are functioning in the sentence. The rules of greek are in some ways so much more precise that punctuation is very much less needed than in English.
That being said, it is a good point that Paul else where either quotes or paraphrases an alternative argumentation. He might even just be making up his own anticipated counter arguments from the reader. Paul uses rhetorical questions within Romans (same book), which he answers somewhat emphatically, ‘by no means.’ So I can square with much of what you are saying about the actual scholarship of the passage.
I think that Paul is using Romans 1 (the second half), to basically set up Romans 2. But the set up, I see, a bit differently than you perhaps. Romans 2 is basically saying that the Jews have no defense before God. In multiple translations Romans 2.1 begins ‘therefore.’ This means that what is about to say is predicated on what was previously stated. Paul is basically saying to Jews or those who judge (I would apply this primary to the Church and all Christian believers today), that when we judge we will be condemned if we were to endure the same measuring rod of justice being used. In other words, Paul is building his argument here that we are all totally depraved and morally bankrupt and totally helpless and thus in need of salvation. That doesn’t mean that anything mentioned in Romans 1 is now morally ok, or not condemned or worthy of condemnation, just that every ‘judger’ in Romans 2 is just as guilty.
This is why I believe that traditionalist, progressive, conservative, liberal, etc etc, in the UMC must contend for and deepen our understanding of original sin. We must teach it. We officially believe that we, are inclined towards evil and that continually and that there is no health in us (I think that is the quote from Article VII of the Articles of Religion). Do we really believe that? If so, then the conservative or traditionalist who is condemning the homosexual community today, better be understanding his own sexual sin is being judged in the same way.
This is why we all need Jesus. Jesus is the point, I believe of Paul’s argument in Romans. It isn’t about condemning homosexuals. It is about the sorry state of deserved condemnation in which we are all living. I will say it this way. I know we disagree on much theology. But I can tell you this. End of the day, I die, Jesus comes. I fall down at His feet and plead mercy and grace through His blood and what He has done. I have no health in me. I have no righteousness apart from Christ. And I believe none of us do.
-ryan
Thanks for the reply, Ryan. I had a year of biblical Hebrew and a year of koine greek, but that’s only useful enough to pronounce things from the pulpit and find root forms to look words up in Bibleworks if need be.
I agree with much of your response, though we would piddle about atonement theology differences. However, I feel our strongest disconnect is that what I’m arguing is not interpretation but a more accurate translation. As Dan Wilkinson concludes:
So the question is whether, in your judgement, Romans 1:18-32 should be set apart as a blockquote consistent with other areas of Romans, or whether it should continue to be written as Pauline attribution.
I don’t think it matters whether Paul is quoting from an opponent verbatim or paraphrase, or whether Paul is writing his own words there. I don’t think it matters, nor really changes the over arching interpretation, or more importantly, the application or Romans 1. Sorry, that sentence it long and convoluted!
I don’t think Romans 1 is about homosexuality. Maybe that is what I ought to be up front about, and say that I think we might agree upon that point. I don’t think it precludes homosexuality, a point we might disagree upon. What is at issue, both in interpretation and application to me with Romans 1, is the thrust of the argument, that we are all sinners. It matters not where we are guilty of law breaking, but rather that we are all guilty due to the fact that we have been born after the likeness and in the line of Adam (see Romans 5). I believe that given the overall context of Pauline argument in Romans, that this is the conclusion we must all draw.
Now, we disagree about the boundaries of right and wrong use of human sexuality. I want to state that up front. But at the same time I think we have some common ground here in Romans as we approach this text. I just have never thought Romans 1 was a passage really about homosexuality or human sexuality so I never really think of it in those terms. I do see it as a passage about our own sinfulness.
One last word about that. Because I see those on the right or conservative, or traditionalist, or other similar term, using Romans 2 type language, then really they are the ones that need to be more concerned perhaps with the warnings of Romans than those in the progressive camp. If any of us start to get too high and mighty, then we need to remember our own total depravity and inclination to sin through our sinful nature born of our original sin. That I believe we would all do well to heed.
And this, I hope understands why I consider myself in a very middle position on many theological matters pressing in upon us today.
-ryan
Candler School of Theology at Emory, MDiv. Four semesters of Greek.
Greek is easy. But rhetoric is more important. The potential double voicing that is occurring cannot be indicated by sentence structure nor interpreted by parsing verbs. The reader should be paying attention to more than just particles and subjunctives. One needs to know greek rhetoric.
There are several places where this has been discussed before. The simple use of ‘they’ in chapter 1 and ‘you’ in chapter 2 tells us something is up. You don’t need to read Greek to catch that.
http://www.donmburrows.com/2011/10/romans-126-27-clobber-passage-that.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/09/the-punctuation-mark-that-might-change-how-you-read-romans/
Hi – Without any reference to any opinions about gay people, this is a highly unlikely view of Romans 1. For the entire book to make sense (at least 1-11), Paul needs to be the one affirming that the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness (the first part of the section in question). That is a central point which is later appealed to in chapter three at another crucial juncture: “For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin” (3:9). From this flows the fact that salvation must be the same for everyone (by faith). Even if Paul were borrowing this text from elsewhere (another highly unlikely proposition) he would be affirming what he was borrowing because it is, again, integral to his entire argument.
As for different terminology as a pointing to non-pauline authorship, this type of argument is not sufficient for such a huge interpretive move. Different topics require different terminology and given that we have only a very small sample of writing from Paul, it is not reasonable to demand that Paul use the same terminology, grammar or style in every chapter and verse. Paul very likely did know a few more words than are written in his corpus! Imagine meeting Paul, hearing him talk, and then saying: “I don’t think you’re really him. You use words that are not in the pauline corpus!”
Wow, you said that so much better than I was trying to say! Yes, I agree. Which is why I don’t think the basic premise in Romans 1 is homosexuality at all, but rather the building of an argument about the unrighteousness of all persons, and that salvation from that unrighteousness if found only in Jesus.
Are we to assume that Paul was also merely “quoting” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10? These Pauline passages explicitly condemn homosexuality as well! The truth is that Paul condemned homosexuality in all three texts, and a pretty good argument can be made for including Jude 7 in this condemnation.
I note your reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. You seem reluctant to alter an understanding with which you have grown up. Yet you would have me change my understanding – for in the time of my youthful education these passages (which use the word “arsenokoitai”) were universally regarded as referring to masturbators. So, if we are to continue with the “traditional” understanding, perhaps you would care to expand upon which “tradition” you mean – yours, presumably? As for Jude 7, I can only say that USA evangelicals might wish to view it in the light in which you appear to, but it was not thus in earlier times in more religiously rational places.
If Paul is truly intending to define who is saved and who is not, where he fails to have backing from Jesus, surely his words must be regarded as mere dross – the ramblings of someone whose cultural traditions have clouded his religious understanding. I do not remember any quotes from Jesus where He included such limitations. Consider, also, his use of what is now merely translated as “effeminate”, the word “malakoi”. If we are to take St. Clement of Alexandria’s understanding of the word, it would probably include you, also (if you shave, take care with your appearance, or wear any scented products such as cologne or deodorant) – yet I do not hear many today who would deem it impossible for the shaven to enter the Kingdom of Heaven – I am sure most would regard this as utterly risible.
This article at least raises the possibility that Paul was not so foolish as to introduce his cultural values into the religion.
I find so many wish to surround themselves, and others, with rules and regulations in order to fulfill a psychological need for order and control – others, it seems, have subconscious prejudices which must be rationalised – Christianity is all too often the vehicle for their satisfaction – with its message entirely lost.
“abusers of themselves with mankind” and “defile themselves with mankind” (King James version) was universally understood to refer to masturbators? Group male masturbation presumably? Logic suggests that interpreting such verses as referring to solo masturbation, would not have been “universal”.
Leviticus 18:22. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
I take exception to the concept of “important text.” My highly conservative Bible College NT prof, one of the NIV Romans scholars said it something like this: Romans 1:17 – 3:23 is the `get them lost before they get saved’ section of Romans and it isn’t preaching material since all it does is set the stage for the gospel.”
For those who need homosexuality’s sinfulness to be important in order to support a belief in an ever increasing evil culture that opposes Christ -and that statement by me us not intended to be pejorative or condescending, there are many who love Jesus, the good news of redemption and regeneration, and appreciate the precious price of the spilled blood of The Lamb of God, I validate your sincere passion.
But since the gospels have no reference by Jesus or anyone to homosexuality, and same sex love was as prevelant then as now, perhaps it is not as big an issue as the 21st century church has made it.
Consider this: when we separate our homophobia from what the Bible actually says, our hermeneutic on the issue will be much less passionate.
I AM NOT accusing anyone of homophobia, only the culture. Please don’t be offended, this is not an attack. Homophobia is a cultural phenomenon. Again, consider these statements if they were said today: “David’s love for Jonathan was greater than love for woman,” or “the disciple Jesus loved had his head on Jesus’ breast.” Any young man who did or said that today would be bullied.
Im not certain about that bullying fear, Phil. Young people today seem to vary in their degree of gay fear. I was surprised to witness one young man voluntarily give another a head massage recently. That would have been a no no when I was their age. Maybe these thing vary between schools.
touche
If anyone here is interested in reading a full argument from a “real” scholar on this exact point, it is here:
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html
I see that he’s gay too.
I say ‘too’, because this blog post draws from writings of one of the biggest gay advocates within Christendom on the internet.
This argument calls to mind and resonates with those whose predecessors Jesus rebuked as they subjected Scripture to their own social and political agenda. Apparently it really is true, the more things change, the more things stay the same. All in all, grasping at straws.
So those who attempt to read sexual orientation into the New Testament are the ones “grasping”.
Im not so sure. You dont need to have a modern day term for it, to grasp the notion. And there is evidence that people at that time did grasp the notion.
Noted linguist Dr. Ann Nyland who is an authority on word usages from Greek texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls & other recently discovered documents & has also translated the Books of Enoch says in her Gay Christian Study NT translation’s comments that the section of Romans after the idolatry polemic is reminiscent of parts of the Enoch books & the Book of Jubilees which she connects with the “Watchers” (fallen angels, nephilim, strange flesh, going against nature, Sodom, etc.) who had sex with humans.
2 Enoch states, “They have rejected my commandments and my yoke! Worthless seed has come up! They do not fear God, and they would not bow down to me, but have begun to bow down to useless gods, and denied my unity! They have laden the whole earth with lies, offences, unclean practices, unjust deeds, harlotries and services of idols. For this reason I will bring down a flood upon the earth and will destroy all humans, and the whole earth will crumble together into great darkness.”
The apocryphal (Testament of Naphtali 3.3.4-5) also states the women of Sodom had sex with angels: “In like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.”
And the Book of Jubilees states one of the reasons for the flood was “the Watchers went against the law which they had been commanded, and went a whoring after the human women, taking whatever women they liked. This was the start of ritual uncleanness. They fathered the Nephilim.”
She also thinks Jude 7 also speaks of going after “flesh of a different kind” in the context of angels.
Dean, this is very, very interesting. And it has much to say about not only with how some Jews and Christians read the Bible with phobic-tainted glasses, but also how Muslims read the quranic story of Lot (‘Lut’).
As I’ve been known to say for more than 10 years, of all the references to Sodom in Holy Scripture– 44– only the one in Jude hints at sexual impropriety. This, as Nyland contends, is due to the influence of apocryphal texts, namely, the book of Enoch.
Interesting!
Your quote of Naphatali did include the part that explicitly says it’s about Sodom, that what I find most curios.
Incidently, its often hard to keep track of who’s talking in the OT prophets, Revelation, Homer, Russian novelists, and especially T.S. Elliot. It often strikes me how imprecisely God has spoken to us through the biblical writers. Why not legalese? Well, the constitution, federal and state statutes, and the meticulously argued opinions of prior courts are also sometimes unclear to new readers. If God had been smart, he would not have used the sloppy natural languages of human culture to reveal himself but would have made his own formal language –I’d pick LISP–and make sure all of us compilers operate according to pre-written machine code and automatically execute his instructions without crashing in a baze of alternate readings.
If God had wanted us to use LISP, there would be more parentheses in the Bible and fewer commands of “go forth”.
(Sorry, nerd joke.)
Haha, the bible in code should be written in Java. That way we can replace every * with a //. God could just use if/then statements to change the phrasing into a way someone in a given era could understand.
Our lives would be so much easier if the bible existed when modern technology did.
http://youtu.be/BcjIestFVOc
What about Genesis where God created man and woman to be together in the beginning? The bible speaks extensively elsewhere, this is just a case of taking one section of scripture and holding it above all the others on the subject. – I Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband – written without any punctuation in case anyone questions the meaning… Pretty simple to understand, men should be married to one woman, women should be married to one man.
Rob
Clearly you are too simple minded and uneducated to understand scripture. Taking such language out of context leads you to misinterpret the true meaning of the words. You are in need of an enlightened and highly educated teacher who can explain these passages to you in terms you can understand. (That was sarcasm).
What we are seeing here in a modern version of elitism where a select few tell us what scripture means. Reading current translations and arriving at our own conclusions is dangerous. We should remove the Bibles from the hands of the people and tell them what they need to know and believe.
I realize as I write that this is 6 years after your post. Before I read the disclaimer of the first half of your post as being sarcasm, I truly thought it sounded exactly like an “elite scholar” might rebuke someone–obviously forgetting for a moment the perspicuity of scripture!
Ever notice that those who endeavor to correct scripture tend to use form criticism and obscure ancient references to support their arguments, rather than acknowledge the common understanding from the majority of primary sources? I understand the desire to investigate areas God forbids but current culture allows– a heart for those who are hurting is a good thing. But someone standing over scripture as a self-appointed judge and reworking it to allow for those cultural issues is problematic. We are to stand under scripture and allow it to judge our thoughts–not rework passages in isolation of the totality in order to give credence to our desires.
@/Kevin
But if we remove bibles from the people entirely, it’ll be the protestant reformation all over again. We’d end up with another Pope Leo X and be worse off than we were when we started.
And just as no one expected the Spanish Inquisition, no one wants to relive it either.
Also I respect the way you dealt with Rob. Brutal honesty is the best way to go in those circumstances. /serious
I think you’re very wrong on this interpretive angle. I believe, rather, these are Paul’s actual thoughts.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/06/yes-bible-is-anti-gay-contra-deniers.html
Oh, per your last lines, we have no indications Paul DISAGREES with the quote, either.
Arguments from silence in interpretation of ancient texts are usually weak ones.
Romans 2 certainly Refutes the details that God has given up on these people. Which is what the Reprobate Doctrine comes from.
@/Soratic You do realize you invalidated your own opinion when you posted a blogspot article under your username, right? I’d like to see your college degree.
It’s always hilarious when small minded people make such feeble attempts to justify their own disgusting beliefs. If you can’t respect someone for loving someone their gender, than clearly you need to be educated about the meaning of love in the first place.
TL:DR; Clearly you need to buy back your own soul from the devil, because no one asked for your hate, or your uneducated opinions.
Thanks for linking to my post and continuing to draw attention to this important (and interesting!) issue…
Excellent post, Jeremy. Picking up for UM Insight. Hope the family is well.
Scholarly work is important. In fact, it is of the utmost of importance because it helps us know the context and focus of the scripture. When we make statements about the text, “meaning” something or another, it is important that we are accurate in that message.
Is it not enough to say that the sin(s) expressed in the entire book of Romans are completely covered by the death and resurrection of Jesus? Why must we indicate that some of the things stated in the scripture is “not really sin?”
I hope God receives glory from your work! I pray that you will be encouraged as you pursue Him!
What troubles me about this post, is that the information sources employ words such as “seems to be” and “One plausible explanation”, when referring to the proposed interpretation, yet despite this level of uncertainty, the post itself informs us that if we interpret using the standard approach, we are being “unfaithful to the text”. Errr how did we go from uncertainty to dogma?
I’m inclined to agree with this view. But I also do not see the statement in 26-27 as condemning all Homosexuality anyway, it’s clearly defined as a specific thing that can only be done with When this excluding Lesbians.
If this is true though, why is it that the early Church consistently rejected homosexuality? Have you ever read the ascetic canons of St. Gregory of Nyassa? The Patristic witness against homosexuality is unaninmous.
For this to be true, there would have to have been a Great Apostasy, and the United Methodist Church has never taught such a thing. Also, there is the Old Testament, which precludes it. If it were just one of these three things: either Romans, or the Old Testament, or Patristoc witnesses, your argument here might work, but as it is, they all say the same thing. For that matter, so does Orthodox Judaism, and so do all the persecuted Christians of the Middle East and Africa.
I would be curious to know what specifically Gregory of Nysaa said about Homsoexuality?
I know he didn’t support the Reprobate Doctrine sine he taught Universal Salvation.
when I found this site I thought “Yahoo!” a site with some understanding of present time. As I read through different discussions on the site, I changed my opinion. What a mess this theology is! I am so glad that you are not a pastor of anyone I know and love. You are incompetent in your handling of the scriptures. Your ability to think and reason is impaired. Of course as long as you keep it from the light of day, as long as you don’t actually face good scholarship, you can write anything you like.
As I read through the various comments I thought to my self, ” oh my Jeremy has gotten hold of some sharpies and has run amuk. Oh dear, where are his parents?”
The word childish comes to mind when reading this site.
The sad thing is that I don’t think you will ever get your act together as an adult and you are in a position of trust influencing others.
Constantly debated topic, and we may never know the true answer. I could go back and forth with people all the time about imperfect translations, punctuations, lack of context, etc. Here’s what’s important though:
While it is important to understand God’s Will and his intentions for human beings, making this conversation relatively relavent, what is more important is what is said in Mark 12:29-31. The Two Greatest Commandments are to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, AND… love your neighbor as yourself. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is not necessarily for me to say. But what I am responsible for is to love my brothers and sisters who are part of the LGBTQ+ just as I would anybody else. If it is a sin, Jesus ate with sinners. He broke bread with the worst of society (that is NOT comparing LGBTQ+ members to that by any means, it’s used as a hyperbolic analogy), and loved them regardless. THAT is our job as Christians. The biggest failure of the church is the failure to love others regardless of their faults. It is not our duty to judge other people based on their “shortcomings” (if that’s what it is, in fact), for we all have shortcomings and faults and failures, it’s what makes us human.
Love others, please. Show people true Christianity through love, not harsh judgement.
It is really very simple, the Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 nkjv
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
In the beginning was man and woman…there was no other combination. I am not a Bible scholar but I take the Word of God for what it says and it plainly says that people of the same sex in a relationship is wrong!! Period end of story! Just like the other things He tells us we should not do,,,
The Bible is not a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose what you like…no veggies and straight to dessert! No compromise!!
Donna it is really very simple, the Bible says in 1 Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” I am not a Bible scholar but I take the Word of God for what it says and it plainly says that You should not be trying to teach us men anything, be quiet.
I trust that you use just as much effort to vehemently argue how sinful it is when an individual looks after another with lust, when others drink to much, when people lie, when others turn away anyone asking for help, when women trying to teach anyone, when Christians judge others?
Last I checked, outside of blasphemy against the holy spirit, all these items were equal in their sinfulness to any other.
Even though your diatribe above just exudes Love, I find it incredibly unlikely that you spend your days admonishing other women in teaching roles, or anyone who lies.
I would highly recommend going back and focus on Jesus’ direct teachings, maybe worry less about the other parts until you get the core message down. Love God First, and Love your neighbor.