Chapter 1 of the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans, specifically Romans 1:26-27, seems clear and categorical in its condemnation of homosexuality. It’s no exaggeration to say that it’s the key New Testament passage for many who defend the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality. But the text presents us with a number of uncertainties and difficulties for understanding it fully and assessing whether it really condemns all modern-day manifestations of homosexuality or not.
Photo by Stockcake.
Issues with the key verses
Below are the two key verses in Romans 1 we’ll focus on to start with. But if you want to see them in context, here are links to the entire passage, as rendered by the NKJV [1] and the NIV [2].
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26‑27, NIV)
As I explain (in more detail) in my book [3], just in these two verses there are at least four uncertainties or difficulties:
1️⃣ Is the comment about women a reference to lesbianism? The modern tendency has been to think so. But it’s not at all clear.
Adaptation of a photo by V T on Unsplash.
For at least the first 300 years of Christianity all those who commented on this passage (the “church fathers”) understood it as simply referring to non-reproductive sex (anal or possibly oral sex) that these women engaged in with men [4].
The connector “Likewise” (NKJV) or “In the same way” (NIV) or similar expression, linking the women’s actions (v. 26) to those of the men (v. 27) is not sufficient to resolve the issue. It may only indicate that both sexual practices were considered equally shameful or unnatural (see the next point).
2️⃣ The real meaning of the Greek expression para physin, translated as “unnatural” by the NIV is also not very clear. The preposition para in front of physin (“nature”) could mean “against” (as in “contrary to”) or “beyond” (“in excess of”). But the main difficulty is that not being “natural” could simply mean not being “normal” or “usual” or “generally accepted”. The Greek physis can have this meaning. We see it in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, when Paul appeals to “nature” (the same Greek word) to defend short hair in men and long hair in women. Hair styles, at least, are generally understood as something cultural, not a divine commandment, in most of our churches.
Photo by Alex Pérez on Unsplash.
3️⃣ What are we to make of the men that “abandoned” natural relations for other practices? Are these men who nowadays would be called “heterosexuals” that wanted to “branch out” and get new sexual kicks? If so, do these verses really apply to people who naturally (as something inherent in their being, not by choice) only experience same-sex sexual attraction?
4️⃣ Lastly, when it says they “received in themselves the due penalty for their error”, what is it referring to? In general, commentators don’t see here a reference to sexually transmitted diseases, and there’s nothing in the text to suggest that. Does it simply refer to the dishonour or shame that these people’s unbridled sexual activity would bring them, in the eyes of their fellow citizens? Nobody knows. But, as I explain in my book [5], a number of theories have been put forward, including a possible reference to the emperor Caligula, whose sexual excesses were legendary, leading him to be assassinated with stab wounds to his genitals (something that the recipients of Paul’s letter, in Rome, would have known about).
Caligula. Photo by Sergey Sosnovskiy [6].
Issues with the whole passage and its place in Paul’s discourse
If we widen our gaze to the rest of Romans 1 and beyond, to Paul’s overall arguments in the letter, we fail to resolve the issues. If anything, just the opposite: our uncertainties increase as we try to make sense of what the apostle says and decide whether it’s applicable to modern-day homosexuality in its most socially accepted forms. Once more, I will point out four difficulties that we have:
1️⃣ Paul starts his argument, in Romans 1:18-25, by describing men that suppress the truth, that turn their back on God to worship idols. Their sin is not homosexuality. That is only the end result, in the form of divine punishment for their unbelief, pride and idolatry. How are we supposed to apply this to gay or lesbian folk who are committed Christians, faithful disciples and followers of Jesus? These people are often already believers when they discover their same-sex attraction in adolescence. What Paul is describing just doesn’t fit in with their lives and experiences.
Photo by Rémi Walle on Unsplash.
2️⃣ Something similar occurs if we carry on reading to the end of Romans chapter 1, with Paul’s graphic description of a spiral of wickedness:
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. (Romans 1:29-31, NIV)
Those of us that personally know gay people are in no doubt that, in general, this description is not applicable. On the contrary, they are mostly very fair-minded, loving and sensitive people, that treat others very well.
3️⃣ The most logical thing is to understand this entire passage in Romans 1 as a crude and exaggerated caricature of pagan society, particularly according to the prejudices of the Jewish recipients of the letter. This is what’s technically known as a “diatribe”. It clearly serves as an introduction to chapter 2, where Paul suddenly changes track, to criticize the hypocrisy of those who judge others.
But then, if we take the Romans 1 passage as a deliberately exaggerated, almost theatrical, rhetorical device, is it really a good basis for establishing sexual doctrine?
Photo by Mark Hayward on Unsplash.
4️⃣ The crux of the message in Romans 2 and the following chapters is precisely that we are not to discredit or judge one another. Because we are all equally in need of God’s forgiveness and grace. And what really counts is faith in Jesus.
If that’s the lesson the apostle Paul wants us to put into practice, doesn’t that rule out judging gay believers? Particularly when they don’t have a decadent lifestyle but healthy, stable relationships characterised by love and faithfulness? As Jesus said on several occasions: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (see, for example, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7).
Where does all this leave us? What conclusions can we draw?
I began this post by saying that the passage in Romans 1 seems the clearest and most categorical in its condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. Having looked at it a lot more closely, frankly it’s “clarity” is pretty limited.
Photo by Houcine Ncib on Unsplash.
It’s also rather doubtful to what extent it can be applied to gay Christians who opt for a permanent relationship of love and commitment with someone of the same sex (a “gay marriage”), but whose lives, in other respects, are exemplary.
So, then, if this passage is the clearest condemnation of homosexuality to be found in the New Testament, perhaps it’s not surprising that more voices are being heard questioning whether the Church’s traditional stance on this matter is as well founded as has been claimed.
At the very least, it forces us to look further, in other aspects of theology and biblical doctrine, to try to resolve the issue. This is what both sides in the debate have been doing. And what I will be commenting on in future posts, God willing.🙋♂️
📌 If you would like to comment on this post (in the language of your choice), you can do so at the end of the Spanish version, here.
Notes
[1] NKJV: The Holy Bible, New King James Version, copyright © 1982 Thomas Nelson.
[2] NIV: The Holy Bible, New International Version® (Anglicised), NIV®, copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®, used by permission of Biblica, Inc.®; all rights reserved worldwide. Unless stated otherwise, all Bible quotes in this post are from the NIV.
[3] See chapter 11 of my book (in Spanish): Nash, Chris, La homosexualidad a debate en círculos evangélicos, Editorial La Calle, Antequera (Málaga), Spain, 2024.
[4] See, for example, chapter 10 of: Brownson, James V.: Bible, Gender, Sexuality – Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013. And it needs to be said that lesbianism was fairly unknown, almost invisible, at that time.
[5] See chapter 11 of my book (in Spanish): Nash, Chris, La homosexualidad a debate en círculos evangélicos, Editorial La Calle, Antequera (Málaga), Spain, 2024.
[6] Bust of Caligula at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen; photo by Sergey Sosnovskiy, used under Creative Commons 2.0 licence, more information here.
.jpg){kind=link}