preview

Martin's Argument On Homosexuality

Better Essays

In recent years, Dale Martin has pioneered the idea that Paul did not, in fact, condemn the practice of homosexuality. Martin argues that Paul was too defamiliarized with the notion of “homosexuality” to pass a judgement on it. Thus, the apostle was neither supporting it, condemning it, or even taking a neutral stance on it. Paul was, according to Martin, completely oblivious to the concept. While Martin’s case is admittedly compelling, I would assert two major flaws in his argument. Traditionally, the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans has been used as evidence for New Testament condemnation of homosexuality. Scholars who argue against homosexual condemnation must interpret men who “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” as being something other than homosexual. Most commonly, such a scholar claims that Paul was speaking specifically on the issue of pederasty, not globally on the issue of homosexuality. This claim falls short when one comes to appreciate how well understood pederasty was in antiquity. Unlike homosexuality, pederasty was well defined in Greek thought as a relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos). If Paul were really condemning only pederasty, he certainly would have employed erastes/eromenos rhetoric in doing so. The second flaw in Martin’s claim about Paul is that Martin neglects to acknowledge Paul’s Greek/Jewish duality. Martin, who specializes in the social

Get Access