Ekkehardt Mueller
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:26, 27.
While most Christians hold that these texts describe homosexuality and reject it in all its forms, considering it to be sin, others acknowledge that the passage is dealing with homosexuality but suggest that the issue here is idolatry and pederasty and that Paul could not have taken into account sexual orientation as we know it today. Furthermore, it is argued that the reference to nature should be understood in the following way:
In describing homosexuality as ‘against nature’ (Rom 1:26 KJV), Paul does not condemn homosexual orientation or any committed mutual relationship. Instead, he condemns the perversion of what comes naturally. It is ‘against nature’ for homosexuals to practice heterosexuality or for heterosexuals to practice homosexuality. Paul does not condemn people for having been born homosexual, nor does he condemn the homosexual orientation (inversion).1
The issue in Roman 1:26, 27 is not whether Paul addresses homosexuality and considers it to be sin. That it is sin can be taken for granted. The issue is whether or not homosexuality in Romans 1 includes all forms of homosexuality and has a universal scope.
Homosexuality in the time of Paul – The ancients not only knew what has been called “contingent homosexuals” (people who are not true homosexuals, such as teenagers and adults who are bored with heterosexuality and get involved with members of the same sex) and most probably “situational homosexuals” (people who for the lack of heterosexual encounters resort to homosexual acts), but they also had some idea or concept of “constitutional homosexuality” (homosexuality that is said to be permanent and may be part of some people’s constitution). The notion, at least that a person is attracted to the same sex because of his or her constitution is found in Plato’s androgynous myth.
In this myth Plato explains that primal man was dual. He had four hands, four feet, two faces and two privy parts, that is, like two people back to back–their faces in opposite directions. Some of these dual, primal creatures were male in both parts, others were female in both parts and yet others (a third sex) part male and part female. These primal creatures were so strong that they became insolent, attacking the gods. Because of their continued insolence, Zeus divided these dual four-legged creatures into two-legged creatures. A dual male became two males, a dual female two females and the male-female (androgynous) became a male and a female. On this basis he accounts for the differing sexual desires apparent in society, for each creature searches out its own or opposite kind, according to its original orientation. When dual parts encounter each other they fall in love. By the creation of this myth Plato attempts to explain the attraction some men and women have for persons of the same sex.2
It is hardly possible that Paul, who was an educated man and who even quoted Greek authors (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), would not have known Plato’s myth and the concept of innate homosexuality. Therefore, there is little justification for the view that Paul was referring to violent or exploitative homosexuality or to pederasty only and not to permanent, caring, one-partner, same-gender relationships supposedly because they were not known in his time.
A. C. Thiselton declares: “Paul witnessed around him both abusive relationships of power or money and examples of ‘genuine love’ between males. We must not misunderstand Paul’s ‘worldly’ knowledge.”3
The universal nature of Paul’s statement – The context of Romans 1:26, 27 is universal in nature. In Romans 1 Paul shows that all Gentiles are sinners; he presents a catalogue of their vices (Rom 1:21-32). Because his Jewish listeners would have applauded him, Paul in Romans 2 points out that the Jews are also sinners. And in Romans 3 he concludes that all people are sinners and that all are dependent on God’s grace as revealed in Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. In Romans 6 Paul elaborates on the fact that all of us have been slaves to sin but that in Jesus we can be set free from sin (6:18). Paul’s argument is not limited to humanity in the first century AD, but encompasses people in all ages. Therefore, the list of vices that includes homosexuality is not limited to a special period of time but is applicable also today. Since Paul does not distinguish different forms of homosexuality, he seems to reject all cases of same-sex intercourse.
Homosexuality and God’s creation – The background for the discussion of homosexuality in Romans 1 is Creation. In Romans 1:20 the Creation of the world and God’s created works are referred to. Paul’s argument is that God can be known through creation but that although the Gentiles “knew God, they did not honor him as God” (Rom 1:21). God was replaced by gods that were nothing more than images of created beings, human beings and animals. The list of creatures and the reference to an image in Romans 1:23 echos Genesis 1:24-26. Romans 1:25 points out that the Gentiles worshiped created things instead of the Creator. Furthermore, Romans 1:26, 27 seems to echo Genesis 1:27 by concentrating on the same terms, namely “male” (arsen) and “female” (thelus), instead of using the terms “man” and “woman.” Since Creation is so clearly referred to in the preceding verses, homosexuality must be understood in the context of Creation. “Idolatry and same-sex intercourse together constitute an assault on the work of the creator in nature”4 no matter which form of homosexuality it is. The Creation account points out God’s intention for man and woman, which is monogamous heterosexual marriage (cf. Mark 10:6-8).
The Creation account points out God’s intention for man and woman, which is monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Paul’s choice of words – Romans 1:26, 27 states that God allowed people to exercise their free will even if the result would be shameful and lead to self-destruction. After a description of lesbianism, male homosexuality is addressed. The Greek word chresis (use) is found in the New Testament only in Romans 1:26, 27; in the context of Romans 1 chresis must be understood as sexual intercourse. The last part of verse 32 mentions the punishment that these sinners receive.
The argument that the phrase “the natural intercourse” and its opposite “against nature” in Romans 1:26, 27 are describing what is natural to an individual is unsubstantiated. Nowhere is the term physis (nature, natural) used in such a sense. In the letter to the Romans itself the noun is found seven times.5 However, the phrase para physin (against nature) occurs only twice (Rom 1:26; 11:24). In Romans 11:24 Paul refers to an olive tree that is wild “by nature” (kata physin). Branches were cut off from this wild olive tree and grafted into the cultivated olive tree “against nature” (para physin). Kata physin (by nature) then means being in harmony with the created order. On the other hand, para physin (against nature) refers to what is contrary to the order intended by the Creator.6 This understanding corresponds with Romans 1, in which Creation is the background for the discussion of idolatry, homosexuality, and other vices. Here, activities and behavior described as being “against nature” imply a negative moral judgment. “ Homosexual practice is a violation of the natural order (as determined by God).”7 This includes all forms of homosexuality.
The laws against homosexuality are universal – Although Paul lived fifteen hundred years after the giving of the law through Moses, obviously the moral law is–in his opinion–still applicable to New Testament times. The mention of adult homosexual intercourse in verse 27 is dependent on Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul even goes a step further by including female same-gender activity, which was not mentioned in the Old Testament. Dealing with the objection that Romans 1 “identifies a temporary Jewish purity rule rather than a universal moral principle,” J. B. De Young insightfully remarks, “God cannot consign the Gentiles to punishment for breaking a Jewish purity law.”8 And since God does punish the Gentiles (Rom 1:27), the laws of Leviticus 18 and 20 must have a moral quality and be universal in nature.
The fact that Paul adds lesbianism to male homosexuality supports the point that Paul considers all homosexual relationships as sin. “Lesbian intercourse in antiquity normally did not conform to the male pederastic model or entail cultic associations or prostitution.”9 It was not exploitative. Therefore, non-exploitative but caring homosexual partnerships must be included in the sins mentioned in Romans 1.
That Paul was not so much concerned with coercion in a homosexual relationship can be derived from Romans 1:27: “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error.” Obviously in such a homoerotic union, both partners lust for each other. Both of them are responsible for their actions, and both of them receive the penalty. God is not so unfair that He would punish a young boy who has been forced to play the female in a homosexual relationship, whether by being raped or by being forced into a pederastic relationship.
Homosexuality in Romans 1 is not limited to a certain time or culture or to certain homosexual forms. The universal context of Romans 1-3 shows that it is sinful behavior in any age and in any culture.
Implications – By pointing out that all forms of homosexuality are sin, our passage warns us not to get involved in such behavior. If we are already so involved, we are called to give it up. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul records that some Christians had experienced such a change. However, Romans 1 and its context do not call us to hate, despise, blame, or ridicule sinners. All of us have sinned and need the salvation offered to us by Christ.
Therefore, as Christians, we should respect all people whether heterosexuals or homosexuals and acknowledge that all human beings are creatures of the heavenly Father whom He loves and who are valuable in His sight. We are opposed to scorning or abusing homosexuals. We love sinners but separate ourselves from sin. We are called upon to support the prevention of homosexuality and to care for homosexuals in various ways, which in some cases may include following Jesus’ advice, outlined in Matthew 18:15-20, in order to save them for the kingdom of God (1 Cor 5:1-5). We support transformation and growth into God’s ideal; and we also support those who are struggling with sin but reach out toward God.1
1 James B. De Young, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in the Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000), 10.
2 Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, 1988), 97, 98.
3 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 452.
4 Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 78.
5 Rom 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24, 24, 24.
6 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, suggests: “… in the context of vv. 19-23, ‘nature’ also expresses for him [Paul] the order intended by the Creator, the order that is manifest in God’s creation or, specifically in this case, the order seen in the function of the sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of children. Paul now speaks of the deviant exchange of those organs as a use para physin” (Romans, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 286).
7 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, 38A (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 74.
8 De Young, 159.
9 Via and Gagnon, 80.
10 Cf. “Seventh-day Adventist Position Statement on Homosexuality,” Statements, Guidelines and other documents (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference, 2005), 58. This statement was voted by the General Conference Executive Committee on October 3, 1999, in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The Colosseum in Rome where many Christians lost their lives.