롬 11:26-27 부끄러운 욕심-동성애

26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 1:26–27.

26절) 앞서 하나님의 진리를 거짓 것으로 바꾸어 창조주보다 피조물을 더 경배하고 섬기는 것으로 인해서 하나님께서 그들을 부끄러운 욕심, 수치스러운 열정에 내어버려두셨다. 이로 말미암아 여인들이 순리대로 행하지 않고 이치를 거스려 행하게 되었다. 본문에서 말하는 순리는 바로 하나님의 창조 섭리를 말한다. 하나님께서 원래 처음 창조하셨을때 피조물들의 행동 원리들이 있는데 이것을 거스렸다는 것이다.

- Paul again follows OT and Jewish tradition in singling out homosexual relations as an especially clear indication of human sinfulness (see especially Gen 19:1–28; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 23:17–18; in the Apocrypha, see The Wisdom of Solomon 14:24–31; in the OT pseudepigrapha, see Sibylline Oracles 3.594–600). unnatural ones. Could also be translated “those that are against nature,” where “nature” refers to the created world as God intends it to be (see also “abandoned natural relations” in v. 27). In making humans beings male and female (Gen 1:27; 5:2; cf. Gen 2:24), God manifests his intention for human sexual relations.

Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2293.

594 the Eternal, and after him their parents: and more than any 595 men they are mindful of the purity of marriage. 596 Nor do they hold unholy intercourse with boys, 597 as do the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Latins, 598 and spacious Hellas, and many nations of other men, 599 Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing 600 the holy law of the immortal God which he ordained.

Sibylline Oracles 3.594–600

Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 389.

본문에서 말하는 부끄러운 욕심은 일반적으로 성적인 욕망을 말하는데 이는 남자와 여자로 더불어 행하는 옳지 않은 관계를 포함한다.

본문에서는 순리와 역리를 대조해서 사용한다. 순리는 '피시스, physis'로 자연, 기원이라는 의미이고 역리는 '파라피시스'로 자연에 반대되는의 의미를 가진다. 바울은 이 본문에서 동성애는 자연스러운 성적인 관계가 아니라 하나님의 창조에 의도된 원리에 반대되는 것이다라고 말하고 있다.

27절) 남자들도 마찬가지로 순리대로 여자와 관계를 맺는 것을 포기하고 서로 음욕을 불태웠다. 이렇게 남자가 남자와 행하는 부끄러운 행동은 그들의 잘못에 대한 벌을 그들 자신에 받았다.

그러므로 우리는 순리가 무엇인지 명확하게 알아야 한다. 순리를 거스리는 것은 너무나도 많다. 그래서 그것을 계속해서 알아가고 따라가기란 불가능하다. 하지만 원래의 기준, 진리는 하나이므로 이것을 바르게 아는 것이야 말로 우리로 하여금 역리에 빠지지 않도록 도와줄 것이다.

불일듯 하매, Consumed or inflamed라는 표현은 매우 강력한 표현으로 파괴적인 내적 욕구를 나타낸다.

- Consumed (or “inflamed”) gives a strong image of a powerful but destructive inward desire.

Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2159.

죄에 대한 보응은 필연적인 모든 결과와 함께 죄 그 자체이다.

- The penalty for sin is sin itself with all its inevitable consequences. Because people failed to glorify God and give him thanks, God gave them over “to sexual impurity” (v. 24). Because they exchanged the glory of God for a lie, he gave them over to the “passions that bring dishonor” (v. 26).29

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 82.

성적인 충동자체는 유익하고 선하다. 이것은 즐거움과 후손을 주시기 위한 하나님의 방법이다. 그런데 이것이 동성을 향한 방향이 될때 이것은 하나님이 주신 목적을 버리게 되고 저급한 열정이 된다.

- The sexual drive itself is wholesome and good. It is God’s way of providing both pleasure and progeny. When directed toward a person of the same sex, it abandons its God-given purpose and becomes a degrading passion.

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 83.

모든 죄에 대해서, 특별히 동성애와 관련된 죄에 대해서는 뉴턴 운동의 제 3법칙이 정확하게 작용한다. 이는 작용, 반작용의 법칙이다. 힘을 가하면 이 힘의 반작용으로 물체가 움직이게 된다. 마찬가지로 도덕적인 실패, 죄를 짓게 되면 반드시 이 결과로 심판을 받게 되는 것이다. 더욱이 동성애는 하나님의 의도하신 관계를 깨뜨리는 것으로 이는 반드시 파괴적인 보응을 수반하게 되는 것이다.

바클레이는 로마의 15명의 황제중 14명이 동성애자였다라고 증언한다.

- Barclay notes that “fourteen out of the first fifteen Roman Emperors were homosexuals.”31

- W. Barclay, The Letter to the Romans (Edinburgh: St. Andrews, 1957), 32. A. M. Hunter quotes Suetonius’s remark that Julius Caesar was “every woman’s man and every man’s woman” (The Epistle to the Romans, TBC [London: SCM, 1955], 33). Cf. Plato’s Symposium and Plutarch’s Lycurgus on homosexuality in ancient times.

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 82.

많은 이들이 이 동성애의 문제를 문화의 문제로 축소시키려고 하고 있다. 당시 헬라문화에서 동성애는 죄가 아니라 도리어 힘의 상징이었다고 말하기도 하고 일반적인 동성애가 아니라 소아성애의 문제로 축소키기기도 한다. 하지만 본문은 분명하게 이것이 특정한 문화가 아니라 하나님의 창조 섭리와 관계된 문제임을 밝히고 있다.

- Now God’s judicial punishment is to give them over to homosexual practices, as women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.* The key term here and in the debate today is nature (Greek physis). Paul uses both the adjective natural and the noun unnatural ones to emphasize that homosexual practices are against God’s created order. The term itself was used in the Old Testament and Jewish world to speak of the created order. By the first century it was seen as a divinely given power that controlled the way things are supposed to be (e.g., Philo and Josephus; see Harder 1976:658–59; De Young 1988:429–41). So Paul is saying not just that this is not the natural way of having sexual relations but that this is against what God intended in creation (see France 1999:249).

It is common today to challenge this interpretation. Some scholars argue that natural should be understood as it is used in the Hellenistic world as a reference to what is the custom from the culture or natural tendencies of the individual (pointing to passages in Paul where physis does not refer to divine intentionality: Rom 2:14; 11:21, 24; Gal 2:15; 4:8; Eph 2:3). In this sense Paul would be saying that homosexuality is wrong only when the culture prohibits it or when the individual does not have that sexual proclivity (so Scroggs 1983:116–28; Mollenkott and Scanzoni 1978:61–66). Since the Greek culture strongly embraced homosexual practices, Paul would only be prohibiting it in these restricted areas. But this would only be true if Paul were writing from a Hellenistic perspective and not a Jewish one. The entire tone of this passage is Jewish, and in verse 27 Paul condemns homosexual practices entirely, evidencing a strong Jewish tone. Natural here refers not to what is natural in the culture but to God’s created order. The Old Testament contains many condemnations of homosexual practices (Gen 19:5, 8; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 23:17–18; Judg 19:22–24; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kings 23:7; Is 1:9; 3:9; Lam 4:6), and these are continued in intertestamental writings (Wisdom of Solomon 14:26; 2 Enoch 10:1–5; 34:1–3; Sibylline Oracles 3:184–86, 596–600; Testament of Levi 17:11; Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5; Philo On the Life of Abraham 135–37) and the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7). In short, Paul is writing as a Jewish Christian and is in complete agreement with the tradition of which he is a part (see also Boughton 1992:141–53).

Paul continues this diatribe in 1:27. Here he turns from female to male homosexuality, pointing out three perversions: abandoning natural relations with women, that is, God’s intention that sex be restricted to male with female; inflamed with lust for one another, with strong language describing them as burning up with desire; and committing indecent acts with other men, stressing the shameful or dishonorable nature of what they have done. Again, it is common for revisionist writers today to reinterpret this. Some (e.g., Scroggs 1983:122) say Paul condemns only pederasty, i.e., men having sex with boys. But De Young (2000:158–59) argues strongly that 1:26–27 is far more general since Paul has men with men (not boys) in verse 27, includes lesbianism (there is no evidence for female pederasty then), and discusses the natural order, all of which center on adult relationships. In other words, all types of homosexual relationships are included. Countryman (1988:109–17) believes the issue is not morality but purity. So they are not sinful but only unclean in a Jewish setting. But this is impossible, for the entire context of 1:18–32, let alone the context of 1:18–3:8, centers on the depravity of humanity. There is no mention of purity issues here, only sin. France (1999:249–51) concludes that Paul unambiguously follows biblical precedent and teaches that “homosexuality … runs counter to the way God has designed human sexuality.” In short, we must say with Hurtado (1996:13–19) that the issue is one of biblical authority. Even when the command runs counter to the current cultural norm, the true Christian must obey God’s command rather than the demands of political correctness.

Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 52–54.