The Journal of Biblical Literature
is one of the leading journals in the field of biblical studies. In a
recent issue, Jeramy Townsley analyzes Romans 1:23-28, arguing that
“several lines of research converge to allow an interpretation that
rejects the assumption that Paul here condemns “gays” and “lesbians”
(Townsley, Jeramy. “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans
1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 130, n.4, (2011): 708).
The “Several lines of research” to which Townsley refers are the following:
First, Townsley argues that it is dubious that first century people thought in terms of gay or lesbian identities.
Second, Romans 1:26 does not refer to “female homogenitality” (i.e. sex between women).
Third, Romans 1:26-27 refers to actions, not “identity” or sexual orientation.
Fourth,
the unnatural behavior which Paul discusses refers to “non-procreative
sex (or perhaps an inversion of patriarchal gender norms).”
Fifth, the usual interpretation of this passage makes the passage incongruous.
Sixth,
Paul’s “era witnessed the wide growth of goddess sects whose
cross-gender and sexual practices violated patriarchal norms” and this
is what Paul was referring to in Romans 1.
Townsley
says that this last line of evidence is the core of his article and
supports his “first five pieces of evidence” (708-709).
Townsley’s first and third “pieces of evidence” are not evidence at all. They are merely asserted, not argued, and have little relevance to Townsley thesis (In fact, they are points on which I agree)!
Townsley’s second and fourth “pieces of evidence”
are actually part of the same argument. Townsley goes to great lengths
trying to show that Paul was not condemning lesbian sex in Romans 1:26b
(“For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are
contrary to nature”). Townsley says that what was really being condemned
is heterosexual sex that does not lead in procreation (for example, men
having anal or oral sex with women). Townsley says it is necessary to
“problematize the ‘lesbian identity of the subjects in 26b” in order to
understand that Paul is continuing his attack on idolatry.
It
is difficult to understand why Townsley thinks an understanding Romans
1:26 as a reference to lesbian behavior jeopardizes the view that Paul
is continuing his attack on idolatry, nevertheless, Townsley frames the
argument saying, “Not until John Chrysostom (ca. 400 C.E.) does anyone
(mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between women.
Early commentators interpreted this passage as a reference not to female
homogenitality but to nonproductive heterosexual acts” (710-711). In
the last paragraph of the article Townsley writes, “at least six sources
from the early church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to
heterogenitality…” (728).
Townsley’s
first source is Clement of Alexandria who writes that “we should reject
sex between men, sex with the infertile, anal sex with women, and sex
with the androgynous.” Townsley’s conclusion from this passage is that
the issue for Clement was the wasting of sperm and that sex between
women was not the issue. While the spilling of sperm for non-procreative
reasons was certainly an issue for Clement, this church father simply
does not tell us how he interpreted “their women exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature.”
For
a second source, Townsley says, “Bernatette J. Brooten quotes an early
Christian commentator, Anastasios, who, in a marginal note on the above
passage, dismisses the view that Paul was describing female homogenital
acts, specifying that women were not going to each other, but ‘offer
themselves to men” (712). I must admit that I was not familiar with
Anastasios so consulted some reference sources. I didn't find anything.
For example, the massive 1,786 page Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
lists no one named Anastasios and only three named named Anastasius.
Those three lived lived in the sixth, eighth and ninth centuries, long after the time of Chrysostom.
The second century Apocalypse of Peter
is the third source Townsley uses to demonstrate that Romans 1:26 is a
reference to heterosexual sex. Townsley writes, “the text specifies men
with men, and some kind of relationship between men and women, but absent is any clear reference to relationships between men and women” (emphasis mine).
In other words, Townsley himself acknowledges that the Apocalypse of Peter
does not interpret Romans 1:26 as a reference to heterosexual sex. But
remember that Townsley said that “at least six sources from the early
church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality…”
(728). The Apocalypse of Peter was one of those sources.
The fact is that the Apocalypse of Peter says nothing about how the writer interpreted Romans 1:26. In fact, the Greek text of the Apocalypse of Peter (as opposed to the Ethiopic text which Townsley cites) discusses the eternal torture of women "who behaved with one another as men with a woman” (Schneemelcheer, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha vol. 2, 631; emphasis mine).
In
a footnote Townsley simply dismisses the Greek version arguing that the
Ethiopic text is original (712 n.15). Whether the Ethiopic text is the
original or not (the issue is disputed), the Ethiopic text simply does
not support Townsley’s contention and the Greek text clearly contradicts
Townsley’s interpretation.
Townsley’s fourth Source is Augustine who writes:
“But
if one has relations even with one’s wife in a part of the body which
was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature
and indecent. In fact, the same apostle said the same thing about women,
For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature” (712; emphasis his).
In
the passage by Augustine under consideration (On Marriage and
Concupiscence, 35 [XX]), Augustine clearly regards any kind of sex to be
sinful if it is “not meant for generative purposes.” This is true,
Augustine says, whether a man has anal sex with his wife, or whether
women are exchanging “natural relations for those which are against
nature.” Augustine seems to be contrasting sex between a
man and his wife with sex between women. In other words, Augustine
actually seems to contradict Townsley’s interpretation of Romans 1:26.
Townsley’s
fifth source is from Didymus the Blind (AD 309-398) who comments on
Romans 1:26-27 saying that “Men, having intemperate desires for other
men, working disgrace; and their females left the natural use of females
for that which is unnatural and pathological; and women had whorish desires for women” (713, emphasis mine).
Since
this quote clearly contradicts Townsley’s assertion that no one before
Chrysostom interpreted Romans 1:26 as lesbian sex (and, therefore, one
has to wonder why he included it as part of his six sources) Townsley
tries to explain it away by asking why Didymus “would add the clarifying
note that ‘women had whorish desires for women,’ if this was already
implied in the previous clause, i.e. that “their females let the natural
use of females” (The obvious answer, of course, is that Didymus felt
the previous sentence needed clarification).
Townsley’s
answer is to speculate that in the fourth century there must have been a
“controversy regarding Paul’s intent and that Didymus added what he
felt Paul had mistakenly failed to include in his original condemnation
of deviant sex” (713).
Whether
Didymus misunderstood Paul is entirely beside the point. The point is
that in Didymus we have someone writing prior to Chrysostom who
interpreted (Townsley would say, misinterpreted) Romans 1:26 as a
reference to lesbian sex.
As
a sixth source, Townsley notes that “Ambrosiaster is cited as an early
source documenting Romans 1:26b as clearly referring to female
homogenitality” (713). Townsley argues, however, that this is only true
in the two later recensions of Ambrisiaster. In another place, however,
Ambrosiaster also wrote, “Paul tells us that these things came about,
that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at
the human race because of its idolatry” (Ancient Commentary on
Scripture. Vol VI Romans. 46). It seems clear that Ambrosiaster,
contrary to Townsley, understood Paul as condemning lesbian sex.
Finally,
Townsley was apparently unaware that as early as Tertullian (AD
160-220), Romans 1:26 has been read as a reference to lesbian sex.
Specifically mentioning Romans, Tertullian writes, “Yes, and also in the
first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts
that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural” (Tertullian. De Corona. Ch. 6; emphasis mine).
The
fact is that Townsley’s assertion that no one before Chrysostom
interpreted Romans 1:26 as lesbian sex is factually wrong as is his
statement that “at least six sources from the early church imply or
state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality…” (628).
Unfortunately for Townsley, no one before Chrysostom interprets Romans 1
the way Townsley does (in fact, I suspect that no scholar or church
father has ever interpreted Romans 1 the way Townsley does until very
recently when interpreters with ulterior agendas have come along).
Townsley’s fifth “piece of evidence is that the usual interpretation of this passage makes the passage incongruous.
The
first major section of Townsley’s article (Roman numeral I) is
entitled, “Romans 1:23-28—Gays or Idolaters?” In this section, Townsley
emphasizes how the structure of Romans 1:23-28 centers around the three
parallels of “exchanged” and “God ‘surrendered’ them” (or “gave them
up”). The first and second parallels specifically address the idolatry
that was so common in the first century: “In each passage, the people
actively exchange something holy and true to worship that which is not
YHWH, and God surrenders them to eroticisms” (709).
Townsley
argues, however, that the third parallel does not fit the pattern. In
the third parallel, women exchange natural relations for relations that
are against nature. Townsley argues that “that the entire passage is
about idolatry, with the third parallel referring to sacred sex, a
common practice of certain sects in the first century” (710).
Townsley
is surely right about the passage being about idolatry (which is
certainly what Paul would have considered “sacred sex” to be), but he
seems to assume that the passage cannot be simultaneously about idolatry
and about sin in general. Townsley seems to ignore the fact that Paul
is saying that because of idolatry, God gave people up to do “what ought
not to be done” (1:28) which includes not only the homosexual behaviors
described in Romans 1:26-27, but also the list of sins in Romans
1:28-32. Townsley seems to be problematizing something which is simply
not a problem.
In
another place, Townsley asks, “If one assumes that 1:26b is a reference
to female homogenitality, the question persists why Paul would bother
to mention it, and especially preceding male sex, when female sex is
rarely mentioned in ancient literature and not at all in the OT.”
Ignoring
the obvious answer that Paul considered lesbian sex to be a problem in
the culture to which he ministered, Townsley writes, “If this passage
about sexual deviance is targeting idol worship rather than sex itself,
it would not be anomalous” (716).
But
again, Townsley has problematized something that is not a problem.
Everyone agrees that Paul is discussing idolatry in Romans 1. Paul’s
point is that “the wrath of God is revealed…against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men” who “suppress the truth” and do not honor or
give thanks to God, but rather exchange “the glory of the immortal God
for images” of men and beasts. So in his wrath, God gave them up to do
what they wanted—to commit “shameless acts,” men having sex with men,
women having sex with women, and “committing all manner of
unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18-32).
The
fact is that there is nothing in this passage that limits this idolatry
to the confines of pagan temples, or that implies that the “shameful”
and “unrighteous” acts described are somehow acceptable if not done as
part of idolatrous worship!
In the sixth “line of evidence”
Townsley says that “Paul would have been familiar with the goddess
religions…” (727). Townsley said this would be the core of his article
(708) and sure enough, roughly half of the article was spent making this
point.
Even
if Townsley had written a 500 page scholarly book proving this point,
however, two things would continue to be true: First, no one disputes
that Paul would have been familiar with goddess religions; and second,
all the scholarly background on goddess religions in the world wouldn’t
determine whether or not Paul approved of homosexual behavior.
In
other words, roughly half of the article is largely irrelevant to the
point Townsley is trying to prove. Excuse my cynicism, but this appears
to be an attempt to overwhelm the casual reader with scholarly
background in an attempt to make the reader think that the author has
proven his point. It is smoke and mirrors.
The
fact is that Paul could hardly have been clearer. In Romans 1:26a he
writes, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.”
Paul then gives two examples of “dishonorable passions.” The first is
that “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to
nature” (Romans 1:26b) and the second is that “the men likewise
gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
one another, men committing shameless acts with men....” (Romans 1:27).
The
second part (Romans 1:27) about men having sex with men is so clear
even Townsley acknowledges that the verse is about sex between men. The
word "likewise” or “in the same way” indicates a parallel. While acts
“against nature” may include such things as anal sex in general (see
Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 35 [XX]) and pederasty in particular (Philo, Spec.
3.37-39), the comparison in 1:26-27 is clear that Paul has in mind men
having sex with men, and women having sex with women. Whether part or
all of the reason for this is lack of procreative possibility, as
Townsley contends, is really beside the point which is that Paul clearly
condemned homosexual sex whether between males or between females.
Townsley
tries to escape the force of this argument by arguing that even though
1:27 is about two men, the word "likewise" "does not lead to the
conclusion that the clause preceding it involves two women, only that
both clauses are examples of some larger idea”. As examples, Townsley
cites behaviors like, a woman using a phallus on herself or a man, or
“that men were having oral or anal sex with women” (715).
But
the parallel in Romans 1:27 involves men having sex with men. Even if
the examples Townsley cites above are examples of behavior against
nature, this does not exclude the obvious parallel of men having sex
with men and women having sex with women. It would just mean that female
homogenital sex and male homogenital sex are not the only kinds of sex
"against nature."
The
comparison (“likewise,” or “in the same way”) is between two specific
types of behavior, not between one specific behavior and some “larger
idea.” Townsley’s contention amounts to something like, “women were
using phalluses on themselves, likewise, men were having sex with men.”
Likewise?
The
comparison of women having sex with women, likewise, men having sex
with men, is certainly the most natural reading of the text. Townsley’s
conclusion (that “It thus seems unlikely that the original audience
would necessarily have heard Rom 1:26b as a reference to ‘lesbians”)
seems very dubious (to put it politely) in light of the fact that Romans
1:26b has been understood as a reference to lesbian sex since earliest
times.
The
reason this point (i.e. that Paul is not condemning sex between women)
is so important for Townsley doesn’t become clear until the last
paragraph of his conclusion to the article where he writes, “Further,
considering that at least six sources from the early church imply or
state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality, it seems that the
tradition linking this verse to ‘lesbians’ is dubious, thus
problematizing the idea that in vv. 26-27, Paul is describing the
‘category of homosexuality” (628).
As
we have seen, however, the idea that “six sources from the early church
imply or state that v.26b is a reference to heterogenitality” is
factually false. And while I agree that Paul is not describing a
“category of homosexuality,” that is beside the point. Paul is
condemning homosexual behavior, whether by men or by women. Townsley has
done nothing to undermine this clear reading of the text.
CONCLUSION
Townsley
began his article asserting that “Several lines of research converge to
allow an interpretation that rejects the assumption that Paul here
condemns ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians” (708). Of these “five pieces of evidence”
(708) we have seen that the first and third are merely asserted, not
argued, and have little or no relevance to Townsley’s thesis (and are,
in fact, points on which I agree).
Townsley
completely failed in his attempt to prove the second and fourth
“line[s] of evidence,” i.e. to demonstrate that Romans 1:26b refers only
to heterosexual relations. In the fifth line of evidence, Townsley was
problematizing something which was simply not a problem. Finally, the
sixth “line of evidence,” i.e. that Paul was familiar with goddess
religions—what Townsley described as the “core of this article” (708) is
a point which no one would dispute but which does not prove his thesis.
In
fact, nothing in this article demonstrated that Paul only disapproved
of homosexual sex in the context of idolatrous worship. If that were
really Paul's point, however, then one could ask whether Paul was only
condemning murder, evil, envy, deceit or the other sins in 1:28-32 when
done in conjunction with idolatrous worship.
Regardless
of whether the erotic acts of 1:26-27 are conducted as part of idolatry
or not, Paul makes it perfectly clear that he regards such actions as
impure (1:24) “dishonoring” (1:24, 26), “shameless acts” (1:27) and
“contrary to nature” (1:26). The suggestion that Paul only thought such
actions were impure, dishonoring, shameless and contrary to nature if
they were conducted as part of a idolatrous worship service is
ludicrous.
Finally,
I would argue that Townsley’s article is a brilliant example of
sophistry, i.e. overwhelming the reader with a mass of
scholarly-sounding discussion to the point that the casual reader (and
even the editor of JBL!) thinks the author has made a case.
The
thesis for Townsley’s article is that Paul is not condemning homosexual
behavior as such, but only in connection with idolatrous worship. But
Townsley’s arguments about Romans 1 being about idolatry is a point
which no one disputes and which does not prove his thesis.
Townsley’s
arguments about Romans 1:26b even if true, would only mean that Paul
didn’t specifically single out lesbian sex. Even Townsley admits that
Paul was writing about male homosexual sex in Romans 1:27.
Townsley’s extended scholarly discussion
of goddess cults in the ancient world was fascinating, but did nothing
to prove his point. All the scholarly discussion about ancient goddess
cults in the world would not show whether or not Paul approved of
homosexuality.
Absolutely
nothing in the article demonstrated that Paul was only condemning
homosexual behavior when it occurred in the context of idolatrous
worship. When you strip away the extensive scholarly-sounding arguments
and the fascinating historical background, all that’s left is smoke and
mirrors!
Finally, after a critique like mine, I feel compelled to emphasize
that the same apostle who condemned homosexual sex also condemned (in
the same passage) covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit,
maliciousness, gossip, slander, haughty boasting, and lack of faith
(Romans 1:29-32). Paul goes on to argue that even the religious teachers
have not kept God’s law fully (Romans 2:17-24) and that, in fact, “None
is righteous, no, not one” (3:10), “all have sinned and come short of
the glory of God” (3:23).
The
only hope, says Paul, is to turn our heart over to Jesus Christ in
faith (which I would define as a repentant heart of loving devotion).
For those who would truly follow Jesus and Paul, there is no room for a
self-righteous looking-down-our-noses at other sinners as if we were
somehow better than they (and certainly no room for gay-bashing, whether
physically or verbally). While we must speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), we must speak the truth in love.
