BHP journal: Romans 1:24-27

Well, he kicks it off the chapter with acknowledgement in the title ("The Witness of Paul and Deutero-Paul") that he allows that the epistles to Timothy were probably not written by Paul. So there's that.

So Gagnon will tell you the Creator of the universe can't pull off a trustworthy revelatory document - Moses didn't write the law, as is the consistent internal witness of the Old and New Testaments, the words of Jesus aren't necessarily the words of Jesus, and someone forged a few letters. But don't worry, Gagnon will tell you just the bits to believe, and they say clearly that if you love someone of your same gender you're going to hell for eternity.

He says,

With good reason, Rom 1:24-27 is commonly seen as the central text for the issue of homosexual conduct on which Christians must base their moral doctrine ... It is the most substantial and explicit discussion of the issue in the Bible ... Rom 1:24-27 is also the most difficult text for proponents of homosexual behavior to overthrow.

Really? Now, I agree that "Rom 1:24-27 is commonly seen as the central text for the issue of homosexual conduct" in the bible. But can it be considered "substantial" with a whopping four verses and considering it's neither prescriptive, nor the subject of the passage that contains it?

So in the first bit, he gives his own translation and commentary on each of the four verses. I guess what stands out for me here is the relationship with idolatry. He quotes something he finds comparable from the Wisdom of Solomon:

For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication. . . . For through human vanity they entered the world. . . . it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God. . . . All is a raging riot and blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption faithlessness, . . . confusion over what is good, . . . defiling of souls, interchange of sex roles, disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery.

So this development is either something historical he's describing - like something that occurred in the past and resulted in the "abominable" phenomenon of people of the same sex falling in love with one another and it continues to this day - and if this is his argument, this historical development cannot be separated from making idols, male cult prostitution, rape and pederasty (and his argument is that homosexual acts without these elements is somehow even worse). Or this is representative of a principle that can be observed throughout time and today, and in that case it's an argument that homosexual orientation develops through some form of idolatry and we know that's simply not true.

And then he connects the text in Romans to his "literary nexus" in the Old Testament of the Levitical law which also has the issues of male cult prostitution, rape, etc. in view. Therefore, I think it's entirely fair to say that Gagnon is not shying away from connecting loving and consensual same-sex relationships directly to all of this disgusting and abhorrent stuff, and I'd say this fits his argument in the introduction that modern homosexuality is related with disease, murder, violence, promiscuity, self-loathing, etc.

There is a section defending Paul's perception of same-sex intercourse as "contrary to nature." I just don't find it that relevant or compelling. My argument does not assume that Paul would not have perceived this, according to both his understanding of nature and same-sex relationships.

Then there's a section on, was Paul against it because same-sex relationships don't make kids? His conclusion I think is, that may have been part of it, but it mainly "for the purpose of avoiding sexual immorality." Fine. I don't see a problem here.

Oh! This is interesting, he asks, "Did Paul think only idol worshipers could engage in same-sex intercourse?" The phrasing of this question betrays a bit of his attempt to simplify opposing arguments, but how he answers the question is interesting and valid,

In Rom 1:18-32 Paul is seeking to explain why homosexual behavior, along with rampant expression of sinful passions in general, is so prevalent among gentiles, at least in comparison with Jews. He is speaking in terms of collective entities, not individuals, and in terms of widespread effect, not origin.

This answers a bit of what I was referring to above. And this is actually one of the best explanations as to why idol worship is involved at all. However, as I state in my presentation (I think) Moo, in his analysis of Romans, admits that the idea of same-sex sex acts was intertwined with idol worship in the mind of Jews. And further, while this is a good explanation, I'm not sure it's how Paul would have explained it. And it's interesting that also in this section Gagnon admits that Paul assumed Adam was a real person, whereas Gagnon does not. So again, Gagnon is willing to admit that Paul's worldview contains significant inaccuracies, but (of course!) nothing that would be relevant to his understanding of sexuality. I mean, the level of picking-and-choosing what is relevant and what is not is just astounding.

Here's another interesting question he asks, "Did Paul not have creation in mind when he spoke of same-sex intercourse?"

I do think it's an interesting and strong point he makes about "the intertextual connection between Rom 1:23 and Gen 1:26 (LXX) is unmistakable." But I feel like this is taking it a little far,

As with Jesus, so with Paul: the creation story in Genesis does not leave room for a legitimate expression of same-sex intercourse.

I'm sorry, however likely you think it is that the person of Jesus would have understood the world this way, if he spoke along these lines, the men who wrote down stories about him did not mention this, and again, if he was not unlike other people of his time, we would not know who he was. This level of cavalier fantasizing is really disappointing.

As for Paul? Sure. Seems accurate. Of course don't forget he also based a lot of his theology on the idea that Adam was a man.

For Paul, the only legitimate sexual union for Christians is that between one and one woman in permanent, exogamous, and monogamous marriage.

What does exogamous mean? Probably something he made up. I just looked it up. I think he's talking about Christians marrying Christians.

Uh, yeah. Of course Paul is going to argue this because this is how he understood scripture and the world. As Gagnon has proven again and again himself. Paul's personal worldview does not translate directly into what we are to adopt ourselves, aside from this being impossible, it would be outrageously unbiblical.

This is interesting, the rest of this section, he talks about I Cor 6:12-20 saying that,

Paul makes a distinction between the moral significance of dietary matters and sexual behavior.

The idea is that because Paul says dietary matters are matters of indifference, but he excludes this for "sexual sins." Again, it's just terrible, outrageously irresponsible interpretation which goes against the thrust of the passage and of the bible. Paul is making a point that we are to be adults about what is and isn't sin, and not to be silly with it, and say something stupid like, "Well, I think sleeping with my neighbors wife is alright so I'm going to do it!" But Gagnon is selectively taking this passage over-literally, so now, it can only possibly apply to diet and nothing else. This interpretation would disgust Paul, it would disgust Jesus, and it disgusts me.

In conclusion, Gagnon plays up the significance of this passage which is neither prescriptive, nor is homosexuality the subject. He doesn't even acknowledge these significant facts. He ties it directly to his "literary nexus" which discusses same-sex sex acts as inseparable from atrocities such as rape and male cult prostitution. And his argument relies on Paul's worldview, which I do agree includes heartily condemning same-sex sex acts as he understood them. There is nothing new here that is not sufficiently addressed in my own affirming treatment of the matter. This was an interesting and helpful read, but if anything, I walk away affirmed in the strength and biblical faithfulness of my position