But, Romans 1.26-27 isn’t about Creation or Homosexuality…

If Romans 1 is accepted as having a clear echo of the creation story, then on a very foundational level we need to recognise that God is imaged by both male and female…

via Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality.

The book looks great, but I wanted to comment on this one little bit.

Romans 1.26-27 MUST BE LEFT OUT of the debate on homosexuality from the perspective that it is Paul’s own words.

Paul actually condemns the statements made in this section of Romans.

Post By Joel Watts (10,051 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

6 thoughts on But, Romans 1.26-27 isn’t about Creation or Homosexuality…

  1. It is very easy to use them that way because “scripture is plain”. But as you have pointed out before, this is a rhetorical device. Romans was never divided into chapters by Paul. This is from where a large part of the issues comes.

    • I’m not sure I understand your question. Do you mean chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis or chapters 1 and 2 of Romans?

  2. //Paul actually condemns the statements made in this section of Romans.//

    Intrigued! Do you mind explaining how not that I disagree – I don’t as it happens – but would be interested in hearing your analysis of these passages.

Leave a Reply, Please!