Level 4
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
The Grand Rapids East Report #4
Statement: Is What Is Natural A Perceived Norm?
“Some scholars state that Paul is conflating perceived social and physical norms in his use of the word “natural”— rather than re-establishing gender differentiation as essential to the design for marriage at creation—as he does in 1 Cor. 11:14 when he says that nature reveals it is a disgrace for a male to have long hair (for example, see Brownson).”
.
Response
The report states some scholars believe Paul is referring to perceived social norms and he is not establishing gender differentiation as a biblical norm. The report doesn’t say why some scholars hold that, and that is fine, it was probably beyond the scope of the report to go into all the details. The report does reference Brownson in connection with this point. Brownson also points out the reference to nature and long hair as mentioned in I Cor. 11:14.
On what basis do these theologians say that “natural” refers to a perceived social norm? Unfortunately, like the report, Brownson doesn’t provide much by way of reasoning for his conclusion. He states a number of theologians believe that and he also states that is the message of Scripture, but he doesn’t present the biblical reasons for that belief.
It is true Paul’s reference to length of hair is based on the natural order of things. It has this in common with Paul’s statements on same-sex acts as recorded in Romans 1. However, it would seem very plausible that a wide range of things could be based on natural order. Some things, like the length of hair, could well be temporal in nature, while others such as same-sex acts would be moral in nature and would be for all times. The fact that we do not consider Paul’s comments on length of hair to be binding on Christians everywhere does not mean that statements on morality, which in Scripture are also connected to natural order, are also such as can be set aside.
As a next step forward, the question that must be asked is, is there reason in the Bible to take the statements in Rom. 1 as biblical, not social norms? When Lev. 18 states any male lying with a male is an abomination, that is all-inclusive. I Cor. 6:9-10 says the men who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. These are stated explicitly as biblical principles. In his comments on I Cor. 6 Brownson goes so far as to say the meaning of that passage is difficult to say for sure. He does not state what the meaning of that passage is. It does not suffice to say a passage does not say what it was understood to mean for thousands of years without showing what the meaning of that passage is.
The Greek word translated “shameless” in verse 27, links Rom. 1 very clearly to Leviticus. The various forms of the word are only found three times in the New Testament. Therefore it is a rather unusual term Paul chose to use. In the Septuagint that word appears no less than 30 times in Leviticus 18 and 20. This allusion is another indication that Paul is harking back to Levitical law. That term links his message of Romans 1 to the clear message of Leviticus 18 – one male is not to lie with another male. This is very direct and clear language. So we have here three biblical passages that forbid same-sex acts, and Romans 1 is clearly tied to Lev. 18, a key Old Testament passage. This would seem to indicate that the prohibition of same-sex acts is in fact a biblical norm.