One Question about Romans 1:26

[OllieFranz]

If, as is claimed, the purpose of Romans 1:26-27 is to condemn "homosexuality," Then why did Paul go to great lengths to obscure the fact that the women in the example were having sex with other women?

 

[tanzanos]

If, as is claimed, the purpose of Romans 1:26-27 is to condemn "homosexuality," Then why did Paul go to great lengths to obscure the fact that the women in the example were having sex with other women?

What women?

 

[Jase]

Could you clarify Ollie? I'm not sure Paul ever intended to target women in Romans, since he didn't do it in Corinthians (modern translators made it appear he did, however).

 

[OllieFranz]

Could you clarify Ollie? I'm not sure Paul ever intended to target women in Romans, since he didn't do it in Corinthians (modern translators made it appear he did, however).

In the original, Plato clearly speaks of men mating with men and women mating with women, and the parallel clauses contrast sex which is para physis (against nature -- that is, improper) with sex that is kata physis (in accord with nature -- that is, proper). Paul breaks up the natural flow of the parallel clauses to contrast the women's sin with the men's. And he is careful not to say what the women's sin was.

I contend that he does this because "homosexuality" was never the target of the example. Plato clearly states that the sin is Unbridled Passion. He also clearly admits that he made the example "homosexual" in nature as an ethnic joke against Cretans. Paul tried to separate the joke from the example in order to focus on the sin involved.

Anyone who wants to contend that "homosexuality" is the point of the example and the sin Paul was preaching against has to explain why he would then obscure the fact that "homosexuality" is what the women were doing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think Paul intended to obscure anything. The NT translators did that. It appears to me that sodomy, involving both men and women, was the 'vile' activity here. Sodomy doesn't necessarily denote homosexuality as we understand it. Imprisoned heterosexual men engage in it all the time, but are not 'homosexual' per se. Using the original Greek it is easy to construct a translation that says, "men performing sex with one another as if one were a female."

 

[onemorequestion]

If, as is claimed, the purpose of Romans 1:26-27 is to condemn "homosexuality," Then why did Paul go to great lengths to obscure the fact that the women in the example were having sex with other women?

This is not the place for this discussion.

But . . . obsure???

That's ridiculous:

"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

_________________________________________________

Same gender sexual behavior.

Or as we know it today: homosexuality, gay and lesbian behavior

 

[Monarchist]

doesnt seem obscure to me either

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't think Paul intended to obscure anything. The NT translators did that. It appears to me that sodomy, involving both men and women, was the 'vile' activity here. Sodomy doesn't necessarily denote homosexuality as we understand it. Imprisoned heterosexual men engage in it all the time, but are not 'homosexual' per se. Using the original Greek it is easy to construct a translation that says, "men performing sex with one another as if one were a female."

doesnt seem obscure to me either

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Plato, Laws 1:636c

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27
​

As I said, in the original, Plato spelled out that the women were mating with women. Paul merely says they what they were doing was "contrary to nature" or "against nature" (para physis) -- a technical phrase that merely means sin. Paul does not tell us what their sin was.

And this is not an artifact of translation as oldwiseguy suggests. I can show you both Plato and Paul in the original Greek and point out the fact that Paul has obscured the reference. He could not eliminate the reference, or it would no longer be recognizable as a citation of the passage from Plato, but he could play down the homosexuality which Plato added as an ethnic joke, and try to separate it from the actual sin which was Unbridled Passion.

This is not the place for this discussion.

Are you agreeing that this passage is not about "homosexuality? Because this is one of only two places where discussions about homosexuality, or which touch on same-sex sexuality are allowed here on CF. The other "ethics" forum (in the Christians Only area) is the other. So this is the place for this discussion as long as some people claim that it condemns "homosexuality.

But . . . obsure???

That's ridiculous:

If you prefer "downplay" rather than "obscure," I can agree to the change.

"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

The word that the KJV translates as "use" and your translation renders as "relations" is chresis, which only appears as a noun in these two verses. The verb form, chraomai, appears 11 times. 10 of those times, the KJV translates it as "use," and the actual meaning varies according to the context. It was a choice of interpretation to render the word as "relations." Why, when Plato clearly wrote that the activity was mating, did Paul choose a word that could mean almost anything, forcing modern translators to feel they had to fill in the blanks when they rendered it into English?

Same gender sexual behavior.

But I don't deny that the original included such, nor do I claim that Paul changed that fact. Anyone familiar with Plato could see the connection. His purpose was not to deny that the women mated with women, it was just to try to take attention off the joke and focus it onto the actual sin.

Or as we know it today: homosexuality, gay and lesbian behavior[/quote]

Since in both Plato and Paul there were no actual individual real people involved, but rather hypothetical people for a philosophical/moral/religious discussion, it would be more accurate to say (especially since it began as an ethnic joke) lesbian and gay stereotypes rather than lesbian and gay behavior.