Introduction
According to James Brownson,
Paul does not have in mind sexual orientation in Romans 1.27 but persons
consumed with desire.[1] The issue is ‘insatiable lust’, not
orientation. He further asserts, without
any proof, that there was no concept of sexual orientation in Paul’s day among Jews and Christians (pp.
155-156, 166, 172, 178). Brownson is
aware that some Greek and Roman writers did have a concept of sexual
orientation (e.g., Plato, Symposium
189C-193D), so his point is that the problem is with Jews and Christians, not
antiquity as a whole. This is a slightly nuanced version of a long-standing argument put out by revisionist interpreters of Scripture that antiquity knew nothing of sexual (and therefore homosexual) orientation. This is patently false.
Brownson’s argument involves
several flaws, including an inadequate awareness of classical texts. Two of the avenues that revisionists who claim antiquity did not think in terms of sexual orientation need to consider are (1) literature on nature and (2) literature on desire/passion. Four texts will be mentioned here as briefly as
possible—readers are encouraged to read the cited passages in context and pursue the topics in antiquity in other literature.
The Connection between
Creation/Nature, Genital Use, and Heterosexuality/Homosexuality
First, Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher (1st/2nd c.), says
something very similar to what Paul says in Romans 1.18-28—the argument linking
the failure to acknowledge the Creator’s workmanship to homosexual acts. Epictetus’ overall philosophy involves living
conformably to nature and being thankful to the Creator for making the world
the way it is (gratitude). He applies this to gender.
As Rom. 1.18-28 and vv. 26-27 in particular, he notes how desire is
related to the construction of biological parts for their proper use in
heterosexual unions by males and females and that this handiwork of the Creator
declares God’s purposes by which we should live:
And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for
conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not
even these declare the workman? (Discourses 1).
This passage is very
similar to Paul’s statement that, by not acknowledging the Creator, females and
males were given over to using their parts in ways for which they were not constructed
(unnatural acts). Paul says,
Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them up in the
lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among
themselves, 25 because they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them
up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for
those that are contrary to nature; 27
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed
with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The problem is not insatiable
lust in a quantitative sense but with dishonorable
and shameless passions in a
qualitative sense: desire that is unnatural because it involves the misuse of
genitals in same-sex unions. What is
transgressed is the boundary between natural and unnatural. Indeed, Paul’s point in Romans 1.18-28 is
that the natural laws of creation are broken as humans pursued idolatry and
homosexuality against nature.
The Quantitative and
Qualitative Progression from Idolatry to Other Sins
The quantitative argument
does not, moreover, undermine the qualitative argument: the progression of sin,
the multiplication of sins, and the extreme degree of sinfulness involve both
an evolutionary expansion of the quantity or number of sins and the particular types
of transgressions. Romans 1.18-28 has a
parallel in the Jewish apocryphal work, Wisdom,
the second pertinent text to consider. The connection between turning from
worship of God to idolatry leads further to other sins associated with
idolatrous practices (including, note, homosexuality—‘disorder in marriages’):
For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by
nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one
who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works; 2
but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the
stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule
the world….14.12 For the idea of making idols was the beginning of
fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life…. 22
Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but though
living in great strife due to ignorance, they call such great evils peace. 23 For whether they kill children
in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels
with strange customs, 24 they
no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either
treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery, 25 and all is a raging riot of
blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult,
perjury, 26 confusion over
what is good, forgetfulness of favors, defiling of souls, sexual perversion,
disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery. 27 For the worship of idols not to
be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil (Wisdom 13.1-2;
14.12, 22-27).
The Psychology of
Orientation: Rationality and Passion
The third text to
consider comes from a Greek author, Plutarch, (1st/2nd c.), in his De Virtute
Morale. Overall, Plutarch argues in
this work that humans have a rational and an irrational faculty, reason and
desire, that explain how they are each ‘governed’ (orientation). That is, he is exploring the psychology of
orientation in terms of reason and desire.
Moreover, he understands that orientation may be acquired (nurture) or come
naturally. His view is that a person’s
rational faculty needs to rule (not eradicate) irrational desire. In concluding his argument, he says,
And in general … in this world some things are governed by an
acquired disposition, others by a natural [physis]
one, some by an irrational soul, others by a rational and intellectual one; and
in practically all
these things man participates and he is subject to all the differences I have
mentioned. For he is controlled by his acquired disposition, nurtured by his
natural disposition, and makes use of reason and intellect’ (De Virtute Morale 12).
Paul’s argument in Romans
1.24-28 is that the rational faculty is suppressed as an unnatural, irrational
disposition takes hold when humans act against nature. The result is that people begin to see the
unnatural, such as female and male homosexuality, as natural: their minds
become depraved.
The fourth passage to
consider is from Philo, a 1st century, Hellenistic Jew, like
Paul. In his Special Laws, Philo links excessive ‘desire’ (epithymia)—quantitative—to disordered sexuality—qualitative. He discusses not lust and its excesses alone
(quantitative), but also and especially the type of sexual perversion (qualitative) illustrating wrongful desire. Thus, one cannot make the sexual
perversion acceptable by eliminating lust (too much desire).
One cannot, for example, say that adultery or bestiality can be
acceptable if done in moderation or without lust any more than one can contend,
as Brownson attempts to do, that homosexuality is only said to be wrong because
it illustrates excessive lust without an awareness of orientation. Philo goes through a list of sexual sins,
discussing them as examples of transgressing God’s laws on sexuality in book 3
of Special Laws. He expounds the commandment not to commit
adultery under several headings of sexual immorality in general (not limiting
it to adultery per se, cf. 3.8). Philo primarily has in mind the discussion of
particular types of sexual morality in Leviticus 18 here (though he includes
Dt. 34.1ff). Naturally, then, he
discusses homosexuality, since it is mentioned in Lev. 18.22. Note how Philo combines the idea of passion
to crossing the boundary of what is natural (heterosexuality) and unnatural
(homosexuality, illustrated by pederasty and adult homosexuality):
Special
Laws 3:37-38 VII.
Moreover, another evil, much greater than that which we have already mentioned,
has made its way among and been let loose upon cities, namely, the love of
boys, which formerly was accounted a great infamy even to be spoken of, but
which sin is a subject of boasting not only to those who practice it, but even
to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of
being treated like women, waste away as to both their souls and bodies, not
bearing about them a single spark of a manly character to be kindled into a
flame, but having even the hair of their heads conspicuously curled and
adorned, and having their faces smeared with vermilion, and paint, and things
of that kind, and having their eyes pencilled beneath, and having their skins
anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such persons as these a sweet smell is
a most seductive quality), and being well appointed in everything that tends to
beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and
endeavors to the task of changing their manly character into an effeminate
one. 38 And it is natural for
those who obey the law to consider such persons worthy of death, since the law
commands that the man-woman who adulterates the precious coinage of his nature
shall die without redemption, not allowing him to live a single day, or even a
single hour, as he is a disgrace to himself, and to his family, and to his
country, and to the whole race of mankind.
Notice that Philo speaks of homosexuals wasting
away in body and soul, losing the manly character fitting the male gender. He is discussing sexual orientation in terms of gender dysphoria. Similarly, Paul says,
‘… men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their
error’ (Rom. 1.27). Philo makes no
distinction between the excess of passion (lust) and the transgression of
natural boundaries (such as homosexuality): both illustrate breaking the
commandment not to commit adultery, taken as a broad law against all sexual sins.
Clinching
this point is the fact that Philo’s discussion of the 10th
Commandment not to ‘covet’ does explore sins of ‘desire’ (epithymia, which may be translated as either ‘covetousness’ or’ desire’). That is, his discussion of qualitative lusts
like homosexuality or bestiality comes in his discussion of the commandment not
to commit adultery, while his discussion of the quantitative sin of desire,
coveting, comes in his discussion of the last of the Ten Commandments. As with Paul’s discussion in Romans 7 of epithymia and the Law, Philo says,
So great and so excessive an evil
is covetous desire; or rather, if I am to speak the plain truth concerning it,
it is the source of all evils. For from what other source do all the thefts,
and acts of rapine, and repudiation of debt, and all false accusations, and
acts of insolence, and, moreover, all ravishments, and adulteries, and murders,
and, in short, all mischiefs, whether private or public, or sacred or profane,
take their rise? 85 For most
truly may covetous desire be said to be the original passion which is at the
bottom of all these mischiefs, of which love is one and the most significant
offspring, which has not once but many times filled the whole world with
indescribable evils … (Special Laws 4.84-85).
Conclusion
The argument that Paul
has no concept of sexual orientation is simply wrong. I believe it was initially put forward in the
1980s when Plato’s Symposium was
unknown or ignored by an early revisionist author or two, and it has stuck in
one form or another ever since. In
Brownson’s version, Jews and Christians did not know about orientation the way
Greeks and Romans did. (Note: there is
far more evidence than Brownson notes for this point about orientation in
antiquity, and this should have been explored in full in a book making this point its primary argument.)[2] The point made here is that Paul knew about
sexual orientation in the way Greek authors like Epictetus and Plutarch did. Also, while he can argue as other Jews about
a quantitative progression of sin (as Wisdom),
he shares similar views about a qualitative transgression of the natural order
argued by Philo. The argument that
Judaism and early Christianity (particularly Paul) were not aware of sexual
orientation has seemed persuasive to some because, in part, the literature on nature and desire in antiquity that is so
pertinent to Romans 1.24-28 is not engaged.
Indeed, like Philo, Paul is concerned in Romans with the workings of epithymia, desire (the subject of the 10th Commandment), and the human plight;
but, also like Philo, Paul is concerned with the particular transgressions of
the Creator’s world in sins like idolatry and homosexuality—qualitative,
unnatural sins, not just the quantitative sin of excessive lust. As with Plutarch, a Greek author coming not long after
Paul (2nd c.), Paul explains that orientation—the governance of the soul—can
become internally disordered when passion, unrestrained by reason, goes so far
wrong that it even transgresses the borders of nature itself, resulting in a
depraved mind (Romans 1.28) that God alone can restore (Romans 12.1-2).
Brownson is correct about
one thing: attempts to distinguish orientation from behaviour, saying only the
latter is sinful, are pastorally inappropriate and do not represent Paul. Yet he resolves the matter in the wrong
direction, by dismissing Paul as though he did not understand orientation as a
concept, let alone homosexual orientation.
On the contrary, Paul shows a sophisticated understanding of orientation
and similarities to other contemporary authors, both Greek and Jewish. More importantly, Paul proclaimed a Gospel of
transforming grace, that no matter the sinful orientation or how it was
acquired—by the corruption of nature (Rom. 1.18-28), the failure to discern God’s
natural law (Rom. 2.1-16), or the breaking of revealed law (Rom. 2.17-3.20)—God
can, through Christ Jesus, bring redemption to sinners (Rom. 3.21-26), break the chains of sin (Rom. 6), and release us from sinful passion in
a way the Law could never do (Rom. 7.7-25) by means of the empowering presence
of His Holy Spirit (Rom. 8.1-17), such that we might no longer be conformed to this
world but be transformed by the renewing
of our minds so that we can once again discern
God’s will (Rom. 12.1-2, undoing Rom. 1.28). Romans is
a letter about the restoration of righteous orientation
to Spirit-led believers in Christ Jesus.
[1] James
Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality:
Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2013).
[2] Cf. Rollin G.Grams, ‘Notions of
Homosexual Orientation in Antiquity and the Christian Hope of Transforming
Grace,’ Books at a Glance (July 20,
2016); online at: http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/notions-homosexual-orientation-antiquity-christian-hope-transforming-grace/
(accessed 22 November, 2016).
Comments