If we look carefully at the language Paul uses, we notice that the terminology\u00a0Paul uses for such intercourse\u00a0not that of sin but that of shame<\/em> and dishonor<\/em>. Looking at the background to this\u00a0language may help us understand why Paul could think of homosexuality as a punishment from God. Paul\u2019s viewpoint\u00a0appears to be\u00a0that homosexual intercourse is shameful<\/em> and contrary to nature<\/em>, and it is important to\u00a0look to Paul\u2019s ancient historical-cultural context<\/a> in determining what such language would mean to him and his readers. Our idea of \u201cnatural\u201d intercourse more often has to do with \u201ctab A fitting into slot B.\u201d In Paul\u2019s time, the thinking about nature, gender and intercourse was that men are by nature active and women by nature passive. What would seemed shameful in this ancient honor-shame cultural context was the transgressing of such gender roles, with men demeaning themselves by taking the passive female role, and conversely women taking on the active role which is by nature male.<\/p>\n I suspect most readers are finding themselves instinctively objecting to the above characterization of the \u201cnature\u201d of men and women. And this is the crucial point. If we do not accept what Paul considered \u201cnatural\u201d and thus do not accept that men taking on traditional female roles is inherently \u201cshameful,\u201d then it is clear that in our context we are not going to be able to view homosexuality in the way Paul did. <\/p>\n [Just as a sort of footnote, the idea that an adult male of a greater age and social status taking on the passive role brought shame upon himself is the reason why pederasty was the most common form of homosexual relationship in Greek society. If you look at the images from antiquity I\u2019ve included in this post, you\u2019ll notice they always depict an adult bearded male coupled with a younger one.]<\/p>\n Romans 1 is one of the most frequently-cited passages in the New Testament when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. I considered simply reposting one of my earlier posts on the subject, but it seemed worthwhile taking the time to focus instead on one specific aspect of the passage. In Romans 1, Paul talks […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/0\/0d\/WallPaintingTomb_Paestum_Italy_GreekColony_sm.jpg\")
<\/a>I hope that the aforementioned points about the cultural background to Romans 1 will generate discussion. Ultimately, however, the point in Romans 1-2 is not about homosexuality, either as sin or as punishment. It is to get Jewish readers to agree in thinking of Gentiles in stereotypical ways and condemning them, only to find that they must condemn themselves if they wish to be consistent. And so any Christian who joins in the condemnation found in Romans 1, and does not read on to Romans 2 and come to understand themselves as condemned, has missed Paul\u2019s point entirely<\/a>, and placed themselves in the role of Paul\u2019s opponents rather than\u00a0adopting Paul\u2019s own stance.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-5928902729847198132?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")