I've been procrastinating on posting this because I have the feeling I could come up with a lot more, but if I do, I can always post it later. It's time to get moving on this again. So here's what I came up with a few days ago on the question of what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote of "nature."
Other passages
Romans 2:14 — "When Gentiles … do by nature what the law requires…." Brendan Byrne notes that the Stoics believed that there was a law of nature which the wise could understand and conform their conduct to (whereas others need to be led by written laws which are in conformity with the law of nature), and that Hellenistic Jews identified the content of the law of nature with the law of Moses. This seems to suppose a universal morality, as opposed to one which differs from person to person.
Romans 11:24 "For if you [Gentiles] whose natural belonging was to a wild olive tree have been cut off from that and grafted, contrary nature, onto a cultivated olive tree, how much more will those [the Jews] who belong to it naturally be grafted back into their own olive stock." (Cf. Jeremiah 11:16 and Hosea 14:6 for the image of Israel as God's olive tree. See also John 15:1-6 for the parable of Jesus as the vine and his followers as the branches that will be cut off if they do not remain in him.) Here the Gentiles have a different "nature" from the Jews. But it does not mean that there is a different morality for them. If there were, Paul would not have found their misconduct so blameworthy in chapter 1.
Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18; 2:22-25 "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply…." — ""The Lord God said: 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.'" — "…. When he brought [the woman] to the man, the man said: 'This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called "woman" for out of "her man" this one has been taken' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and his wife were both naked yet they felt no shame." Since St. Paul seems to go along with the contemporary identification of the law of nature with the requirements of the law of Moses, it is, as Byrne notes, reasonable to understand Paul's view of nature as corresponding to what God created. It seems to me that this creation includes the complementarity of the sexes both for the sake of procreation and for suitable mutual support. Their nakedness in each others' presence does not have the shamefulness of the conduct of men with each other which Paul speaks of, because the nakedness of the man and woman is according to nature as God created it.
6 comments:
In one of my last posts I reffered on my connection toward my muslim friends. I now plan to do a further posr on how is homosexuality seen by them an the Qur´an and my catholic friends and me and rhe Bible. Mind to help me out a little more as w/St. Paul? Propz Pilgrim
Do we then say that all the Old Testament law is a guide to the right way of nature?
I guess that's about the only comment I have, but I'm still reading.
P.S.. there is a post b< Forsaken, could you please tell him, that he?s so wrong! Thx in advance, John.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
@ James — I don't think "we" say that. But I think we say that much of what the OT law prescribes apart from the purely ritual prescriptions, is knowable by the light of human reason. I think that when we read Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, we see how far human wisdom can arrive at correct understandings of right and wrong. A believer might say that their areas of agreement with OT morality shows what reason, when unclouded by self-interest, can do. An unbeliever might acknowledge that at least some of scriptural morality is well-founded.
@ Pilgrim —which post do you have in mind?
I've read his posts, and I can find things I consider questionable, but I'm not sure precisely what it is that you object to. At the rate I write, I couldn't possibly refute everything that is wrong on every blog I read. So if you give me the title, and tell me what the error is, I'll see if I share your assessment of it. And if I agree with you, I'll be happy to try to show him where he went wrong, when I have a chance.
But it might make more sense for you to tell him yourself, since you have detected the error.
Oops! 1. it wasn´t Forsaken, it was David Delacruz. 2. Prob already solved. ...how about my question for aid?(see above) Propz Pilgrim
@ Pilgrim — There are the passages from Corinthians and Timothy which I mentioned when I began the series. I'l publish my posts on them when I have time to write some more, but I can't promise that I'll have the time within the next few days.
Post a Comment