Against Nature

In Romans 2:27-28 we read:

Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.

ESV

This translation translates as “physically” and “physical” two entirely different words. In verse 28, Paul designates “true” Jews as having more than a circumcision en sarki “in flesh.” Paul’s use of the term “flesh” is complex. The word has a bunch of biblical associations beyond “physical.”

But in this post I want to consider his terminology in verse 27. There he refers to Gentiles as the ek phuseos akrobustia—the “by nature uncircumcision.”

What?

Peter Leithart makes this observation in the beginning of his book, Delivered from the Elements of the World. I can’t same much about this book (though I have high hopes because all of Peter’s books that I have read have been superb) because I haven’t read much farther. But this insight, by itself, seems revolutionary to me, and I think it should be more widely known.

To a modern reader it is obvious that everyone is “naturally” uncircumcised. You can imagine such a reader exclaiming: “Of course, people are uncircumcised by nature!” After all, male Jewish babies are born with the same kind of genitalia as male Gentile babies. The difference is imposed after birth with a sharp instrument. It requires a wound.

Paul is not using the word, nature, the way we use it. “…he who is by nature uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision” [by your nature]. A Jewish child being circumcised with a knife on the eighth day was “nature” in Paul’s usage. If Gentiles are the “by nature uncircumcision,” then Jews are by nature circumcision. As Paul said to Peter, “We [are] Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:15 NASB).

Without Law by Nature

Paul’s wording in Romans 2:27 supports a translation some have argued for in Romans 2:14. “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.” Notice, I moved the comma. The ESV puts it after the first use of the word “law” so that they “by nature do what the law requires.”

The common translation implies that their obedience is, in conventional parlance, a “natural inclination.” Gentile individuals naturally do some good things.

Maybe, but not necessarily. Paul is saying that the Gentiles are not “by nature” under the Jewish covenant. But nevertheless, they sometimes do what God commands. That may be because they were raised that way by their parents. That may be because they learned about God and revealed ethics from a Jew living in town. We learn from Acts that there were often many Gentiles in the Mediterranean world who gathered at the local synagogue because they were no longer pagans. They had been convinced that YHWH was the true God with by being proselytized or being raised by proselytes.

There natural inclinations are not brought up in the passage. They are irrelevant to Paul’s point.

The Gentiles “do not have the law by nature” and thus are “by nature uncircumcised.” Biology is a factor behind “nature” to the extent that these practices, or lack thereof, are passed on through family lines. But it is human custom. Jewish and Gentile males were born identical. “Nature” refers to traditional practices that follow a heritage.

Against Nature?

This opens up possibilities which need to be given some attention. For one thing, for those of us who think Paul was appealing to contemporary custom in First Corinthians 11:2-16, this may provide some support. “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (vv 14, 15a). These may have been human conventions that, while not mandated for all time and places, corresponded to God’s creation of humanity and male and female and which Paul did not want flouted in the Church.

This also may provide us with some wisdom for what Paul means in Romans

For instance, Romans 1:26ff obviously testifies to God’s plan for sexual relationships. Paul consistently teaches this both explicitly and implicitly. Homosexual practitioners are listed with adulterers, thieves, and others who will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” All such behavior identifies the person as “unrighteous.” And all of these are now in the church and saved because they have repented and been baptized (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). For Paul, heterosexual marriage is the only ethical alternative to celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1-7).

More broadly, Paul commands Christians to be “filled with the Spirit” rather than given over to “debauchery” (Ephesians 5:18). Being filled with the Spilled is then described:

• addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (v. 19),
• singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart (v. 19),
• giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 20),
• submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (v. 21)
• wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord… (v. 22, carrying the verb from v. 21)
• Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land” (6:1-3).

Obviously, I skipped a bit, but my point will withstand scrutiny. Paul’s long sentence describing what “be filled with the Spirit” entails doesn’t end until he after he has shifted from general Christian behavior to specific behavior for Christians in certain roles—Christian husbands, wives, children, fathers, slaves, and masters. All of this is being filled with the Spirit.

And though Gentiles were never under “the written code” the way the Jews were, the Decalogue still has application to them. Obeying the Fifth Commandment in a Gentile way (notice Paul drops off at “land” and doesn’t include the Promised Land as specified in Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16) is being filled with the Spirit. This implies the general “Old Testament” sexual ethic remains God’s will for all, an ethic that is primally rooted in Genesis 1 and 2. In fact, in this passage in Ephesian, Paul both appeals to Genesis 2:24 (5:31) and makes clear that it’s Christological and Ecclesial focus (“This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” v. 32) does not exclude it’s authority for human sexual ethics, but rather enhances the obligation (“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” v. 33).

So it is no surprise that Paul condemns homosexual practice and desire as sin and perversion. His argument that theological perversion leads to sexual perversion (Romans 1:22-27) is quite consistent with his teaching on marriage as an image of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). God’s will for humanity (both Jew and Gentile in Paul’s era) is for them to marry or to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7:1-7; compare Matthew 19:10-12).

But again, I think modern readers tend to assume that Paul is speaking almost of a psychological or “internal” intervention in Romans 1:24, 26, 27. Men and women who would “by nature do what the law requires” (Romans 2:24 mistranslated) have this “natural inclination” removed and replaced with an unnatural inclination.

But does the text necessitate this individual and psychological focus? The idolatry Paul is describing was social and inter-generational. People were raised from birth bowing toward statues of animals and offering sacrifices to them. In Judah, in fact, male homosexuality was a custom which accompanied idolatry (1 Kings 14:22-24). People adopted these practices as a way of life as some kind of strategy for gaining prosperity or at least hedging their YHWH bets with some polytheistic protection. There is no reason to think that homosexuality would spread in human communities differently than any other sinful way.

Or, to look at this differently, do we have any reason to see a qualitative difference between Romans 1:24-27 and the climax or the passage in 1:28ff

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

ES

All of this is sinful and destructive. While homosexual sin is worse than some other sins (a heterosexual couple living is sin often has a much less painful path to repentance set before them than a same-sex couple), it still is casually mentioned as a sin that can be cast off and left behind along with other sins (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Of course, all sin can “cling” (Hebrews 12:1) and we all must be constantly reckoning ourselves dead to sin and alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11), not presenting our body parts to sin but presenting them to God for service (6:13).

What I suspect unnecessarily complicates this duty and privilege is the idea that we should feel naturally inclined in this area. In one sense, of course, we want to feel so inclined to every righteous action and disinclined toward ever unrighteous action. But, in many cases, this takes time and training.

“Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:7–10 ESV).

The comparison to athletic training is helpful. Very few people throw a ball or catch one at first attempt “naturally.” Even a child “naturally” learns to walk by falling and repeatedly trying. Yet, after some training, we do activities without even giving the action a thought. Anyone learning to drive a care will at first see it as a cumbersome machine to be operated carefully. Later, it will seems to simply be an extension of his body. People learn musical instruments and new languages in the same stages. Some have greater aptitudes than others, but the training process is universal.

There was a time in our culture when God”s design for the sexes, what Paul calls “nature” in Romans 1, was widely recognized and, what is virtually the same thing, widely practiced. At present, that is no longer the case in the West. The media, the internet, all institutions, and even all the phones we carry around all day, are designed to make us “by nature” open to homosexuality and other sexual perversions. At the same time, an important part of the recruitment process is to convince a person that, unless he or she feels naturally inclined to various heterosexual activities (which the internet often displays in as twisted a way as possible), they are called to some sexual perversion. Ironically, Christians may be holding to ideas that are not necessarily true and bolster this confusion.

Perhaps Paul’s use of “nature” should give us space to reconsider how we can confidently call people to repent and obey Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20).