In Romans 1: 26-27 on homosexuality we find many more questions than answers

Biblical reflections of Don M. Burrows published on his blog UnfundamentalistCharists (USA) on October 1, 2013, free translation by Simone Ramacci

Whenever I discuss with someone who declares a priori that the Bible condemns homosexuality, quoting the unfortunately famous verses 26 and 27 of the first chapter of the letter to the Romans as proof, I answer almost always like this: "What meaning do you attribute to the vocative at the beginning of the second chapter?". The question is, I admit it, pretentious on my part, but I noticed that it works, because how many are quick to mention the Bible as an instrument of authority, they often read it only in translation, nor in a particularly reliable one. But it is not a trivial question.

Anyone who has addressed the question of the relationship between Bible and sexuality will have found themselves at a certain point in front of Romans 1: 26-27: "For this God has abandoned them to infamous passions; In fact, their females have changed natural relationships in those against nature. Similarly, even the males, leaving the natural relationship with the female, turned on for desire for each other, committing male ignominious acts with males, thus receiving in themselves the remuneration due to their transfer."(CEI).

It seems terrible, like the whole second part of the first chapter of the letter to the Romans. Who is talking about at this point in the text? The majority is concluded that these are gentlemen, and that it is yet another Hellenistic Jewish text against them. But the condemnation character of the verses from 18 to 32 is at the same time disharmonious with the rest of the epistle, which passes from the "justice of God"In the first verses to a sudden reference to the" anger of God "in this passage, a wrath that God uses to abandon these people to all kinds of horrible behaviors.

But after all they are kind. They are rotten, terrible individuals. Have you heard what kind of things do they do? As indicated by the scholar Calvin Porter, "they" in this part of the letter recurs in an incredible way, with the repetition of the third -person pronoun αὐτός thirteen times, the reflective ("themselves") one, and verbs to the third person plural again And again: "No other passage in Romani presents such a concentration".

Even more remarkable, known Porter, is the one that follows: a sudden transition to the second person in Romans 2: 1.

"You are therefore inexcusable, whoever you are, or man you judge; Because while you judge others, condemn yourself; In fact, you who judge, do the same things. "

Here, therefore, there is the vocative (a case used when you turn to someone directly): ὦ ἄνθρωπε ("or man") in the Greek text. And this leads us back to the question that I ask those who quote 1: 26-27 as a conviction. Who is the ἄνθρωπος to which Paolo addresses himself? It is a central question.

Criticism has often dedicated itself to the content of verses 1: 26-27 to the point of ignoring its context. Scholars such as James Miller and Mark D. Smith have made mortal jumps to decide whether the behavior described in these verses should be considered "homosexual" from our point of view, or refers to something completely different.
But an even more interesting point of view emerged when Roy Bowen Ward got involved: “It is still the subject of discussion if these two verses represent Paolo's point of view or a rhetorical 'rhetoric in the pass of 18 to 32 , which Paolo criticizes at the beginning of Romani 2: 1 ".

Exact. The most recent criticism, as the best represented by Porter's article, noted that Romani 1: 18-32 does not propose the Paolino point of view, but what many Jews thought of the Gentiles at the time, a thought that the apostle of the Gentili feels compelled to refute. Starting from the analysis of JC O'Neil (which defines the passage "A typical treaty of the missionary literature of Hellenistic Judaism") And EP Sanders (which explains that"Paolo resorts to an incredible amount of material proper to the homily of the Judaism of the diaspora"), Porter concludes that"In Romans 2: 1-16, as in the whole epistle, Paolo-as a missionary with the Gentiles-questioned, criticizes and refuses both the content and the use of such a speech. If so then the ideas expressed in Romans 1: 18-32 are not those of Paolo. These are the ideas that oppose the theology and missionary practice of Paolo with the Gentilthe".

Other explanations on why that ὦ ἄνθρωε are less satisfactory. Some hypothesized that Paul is actually condemning, highlighting (but only in this specific passage) the wrath of God instead of his goodness (as in 2: 4), and that then imagines a hypothetical listener approveing ​​what he is saying , and to contact these and criticize it because it judges, not for this reason, refusing the value of the previously expressed judgment.

Porter's hypothesis (he supported by him with references to rhetorical models of antiquity) has much more sense: the statements present in the last part of Romans 1 were typically used by the Hellenistic Jews to stand out from the Gentiles (hence the continuous use of "they", as previously noticed), and Paolo, as an apostle of the Gentiles, believes them to be problematic and therefore tries to refute them, reaching the same solution as Romans 14:13, which presents an incredibly similar language to 2: 1: " We therefore cease to judge each other; Instead, think of not being the cause of stumbling or scandal to his brother. ".

Paolo continues by offering advice on how to solve the friction between Jews and Gentiles, so Porter's interpretation is intriguing, and certainly the best I read when it comes to explaining to those who turn in 2: 1: "The direct reference , the second singular person, together with the διό conjunction, indicates that the reader who agrees or responsible for what he said in 1: 18-32 has now become the person to whom Paul turns ".

Obviously there will be all sorts of apologetic discussion regarding 2: 1, so that we can continue to use 1: 26-27 as a simple, and at all ambiguous, condemnation of homosexuality, on which to count as a comparison for any kind of discrimination against gays and lesbians. But the avalanche of critical texts in this regard, not to mention the studies dedicated to the individual words of 1: 26-27, should at least make it clear that this is not such a clear text.

It is another example of how an in -depth study of the Bible, in this case on the value of a single word, produces many more questions than answers.

Original text: Romans 1: 26-27: A Clubber Passage that Should Lose Its Wallop