While Hays' approach is more direct under which he establishes whether or not the Bible is speaking against homosexual behavior in Romans I and its significance in the modern context, Martin is more concerned with the question of whether the scholars dealing with this particular aspect are as objective as they claim, or are in fact looking at it from a firmly heterosexist perspective.
In order to fulfill his object, Martin has chosen to analyze the above-mentioned article by Hays. For the purposes of our comparison between the articles therefore, we would note the stated issues that Martin finds with Hays' article. We would then scrutinize how effectively Martin is able to present his counter-arguments to determine whether he has the more convincing interpretation of Romans, or whether Hays' interpretation is better argued and supported by evidence.
The issues which Martin lays out against Hays' article are : “1) the claim that the etiology of homosexuality, according to Paul, lies in the corruption of universal human nature that occurred in the fall; 2) the assumption that Paul is differentiating homosexual desire from heterosexual desire in Romans I ascribing the former to the fall and the latter to pristine creation; and 3) the importation of a modern concept of acts “contrary to nature” when explaining Paul's term para physin”.
Dealing with the first point of the etiology of homosexuality, we scrutinize the argument presented by each scholar. Hays asserts that “depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the creature against the creator”, that is, all of humankind has fallen in God's eyes by refusing to recognize Him as the Creator and thus arousing His wrath. ...Show more