Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality (ROM 1:26-27 and 1 COR 6:9-11). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment. This letter was originally written in alot of ways specifically to the people of Rome and what was going on in there culture and needs to be inerpreted in that way.
Such is the case with passages in 1 Co which indicate clearly that women should keep silent in church. This command (if taken literally) was not followed in the early church, nor is it followed today. This is/was not because we feel the need to "erase" passages with which we don't agree, but that there is obviously something happening in that situation that we, today, don't understand, since women did in fact teach in the early churches. Moreover, all major theological doctrines in Christianity are built around statements that are repeated several times in Scripture: God loves, Jesus died and resurrected, Jesus is coming back, all have sinned, etc.
The text reads (in the King James Version):
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination."
As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul. "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (KJV)
As stated by Dr. R.S. Truluck, "Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said."
In context, this passage says that those who know God and do not give God credit, God gives over to all kinds of depravity: they become lustful and unloving and gossips, among other things. But funny thing, only one part of this passage is pulled out.
You cannot take one or two verses out of a whole story and interpret them apart from the story. Yet verses 26 and 27 are nearly always used out of context against all gay and lesbian people.
Some important words in Romans 1:26-27:
It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:
About the words "vile affections:"
The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections"
in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as: "vile affections
and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible)
"dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version)
"degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)
"shameful lusts" (New International Version)
"shameful desires" (New Living Translation)
"evil things" (Living Bible)
"shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament)
In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship.
Paul talks about different kinds of lust in this chapter. Verse 22 involved the lust for wisdom, which results in foolishness.
It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." 2 It is describing the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul is referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.
Moreover, not only does Paul tie the sexual behavior described here to his natural theology, but he also ties it to the word exekauthysan, which describes the men as "inflamed with lust" (NIV). This word, which literally means "utterly consumed by fire" (Hultgren), describes a behavior which has nothing to do with a normal, monogamous relationship. This kind of lust is one that grows to control all of one's thoughts and is insatiable. This is not the kind of simple longings and drives described earlier in the passage ("sinful desires"/"epithumiais", "sexual impurity"/"akatharsian", v. 24; "shameful lusts"/"pathy atimias", v. 26, NIV), but describe an all consuming force which takes control and destroys. While this type of phenomenon can admittedly be found in some homosexual relationships, it is by no means limited to homosexual relationships, and it is certainly not typical of homosexual relationships (despite what some tenets of the media would like us to believe). So this is a further exclusion of this passage from referring to all homosexual relationships.
About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:" These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities.
That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires.
In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.
About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as:
"unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)
"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)
"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)
"sin with each other" (Living Bible)
"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:
Paul also used this word in Romans 11:24, where God grafts the gentiles "contrary to nature" onto the Jewish olive tree; Galatians 2:15, where he says Jews are Jews "by nature"; and 1 Corinthians 11:14, where he says that nature teaches that "...if a man has long hair, it is unnatural," in spite of the fact that Leviticus says for a man never to cut his hair or round the corners of his beard (Leviticus 19:27). Even though the Jewish Nazarite vow was to not cut their hair in worshipping God and John the Baptist was a nazarite that never cut his hair. Yet you never heard Jesus say anything about it to John. (This is futher discussed in my Long Hair article)
By Paul's use of this phrase, it appears that "nature" to him is "a matter of training and social conditioning," in other words, what is proper according to custom (McNeill, p. 55).
The reality is that "unnatural" usually means something you don't want to do, rather than something that is really UNnatural. It's unnatural to shave. It's unnatural to eat popcorn from the microwave. It's unnatural -- isn't it? -- to fly in big metal tanks (I mean, if God wanted us to fly, God would've given us wings.) But it sure would be unnatural to give it up now, wouldn't it? Is it unnatural for a certain number of people in every culture and time to fall in love with members of their own sex? Actually, no.
The problem is that, in addition to the structural complexity of the passage, there is an uncertainty in the meaning of certain phrases in the text, primarily "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" (NIV, v. 26b). For example, this idea could (outside of the context of this passage) refer to sex with a barren or pregnant woman, sex with a menstruating woman, pederasty, sex between animals of different species, etc., (Brooten, Bernadette. Love Between Women. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1996. p. 247), 1996; Ward p. 271-273).
Another of the words used, in Romans 1:27 is the Greek word katergazomai. According to Rev. Bob Arthur, former Assistant Dean of Men at Bob Jones University, and Greek and Semitic language scholar, "The work ergazomai alone means to work or accomplish. But when the preposition kat is put with it, the extreme energy required to accomplish that deed is referred to.
"This would indicate a violation of the natural tendencies of that man who has sex with another man. Could the act of rape be indicated by selecting this particular verb? At any rate, for a gay man, whose natural preference is for other men, it would certainly not require katergazomai to accomplish a sexual act with another man" ("Homosexuality and the Conservative Christian," p.11).
Other scholars as well have interpreted the passage in Romans 1:26 to refer to people who have consciously chosen to have sex in some manner which is not normal for them. (And certainly, there are people who do so choose, even today. Most gay or lesbian people have never consciously chosen to be attracted to a member of the same sex.)
The use of another Greek word aphentes, according to Father McNeill (p. 55) "...strengthens the image of a conscious choice...."
Paul in this passage appears to believe that this unnatural homosexual activity was a result of idolatry ("Therefore God gave them up..."). God punished the idolator by allowing them the consequences of their own choice, giving up on them, if you will.
The whole point of the first chapter of Romans is that God's power and reality are obvious to anyone who looks around and that people must consciously choose to turn from God. God's anger is directed against those who deliberately choose to turn away from worshipping God to worshipping or giving magical power to objects, animals, other people, or even to "self."
To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers, homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.
To most religious conservatives, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done. Not by studying homosexuality but by blindy excepting these misinterpretations in the Bible.
About the phrase "just reward:" Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.
The context in which Verses 26 & 27 appear:
It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above:
Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where straight people going against there nature to commit acts of lust with the same sex was both widespread and acceptable by society.
Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior but the sin is going against your nature not homosexuality.
Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics:
Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples.
Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.
Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.
Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women.
Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error.
Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.
In the context of this passage, Paul is exposing the practice of the pagan rites of fertility, common in Rome and throughout the known world of the time. Paul�s concern (rather than a warning against homosexuals) was for the Roman Christian�s involvement in these fertility rites. In Corinth, where evidently a man was sleeping with his father�s wife and all knew of it (1 Corinthians 5:1), but did nothing about it, Paul took authority, exposing him and requiring his expulsion. He must have had a similar concern that the Roman Gentile believers, who had formerly been actively involved in the temple cult fertility rites, might continue to do so. Rather than a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, this passage is a slam against the hypocritical Christians who were themselves continuing to participate in the temple cult orgies. The participants were not predominantly homosexuals, but heterosexuals participating in homosexual acts.
Female homosexuality gets even less attention appearing only in Romans 1, and here with less emphasis than male homosexuality. This is doubtlessly because little was said in the Greco-Roman world about lesbianism, and because in OT law no penalties attached to such female practices. This again suggest pederasty was the vice, not homosexuality in general.
For Roman readers, the connection may have been obvious. Words seldom stand entirely alone. They resonate from the experience brought to them by their readers. Roman readers may well have felt horror from the mention of homosexual acts within a religious context because of the sensationally lurid and grisly example of the priests of Cybele. These fellows worked themselves into a frenzy that culminated in self-castration. Thereafter, they wore female attire and acted as ritual prostitutes, providing the worshipper with a surrogate connection with the goddess. All of this gives "against nature" new meaning. There might also be a subtle invitation going on to compare the scandalous and drastic example of genital mutilation with the mild form - circumcision. In Romans 2:27 Paul writes that "by nature" (physiken kresin, again!) Gentiles are not circumcised (and later he makes clear that this is just fine). Perhaps he is saying, "Jews, in making so much of their custom of circumcision as a mark of belonging to God's people, may be guilty of a sort of religious fetishism that is not entirely unrelated to the forms of idolatry they condemn! In "worshipping" the forms of their religion they may be missing its substance and therefore be guilty of a form of idolatry, themselves."
Spong observes that for Paul, the sin was unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin, but the punishment.
If human beings could not discern the true God, they would be punished with undiscerning minds that would not discern other vital distinctions. It was an unnatural act for a heterosexual person to engage in homosexual behavior, he argued. He did not or perhaps could not imagine a life in which the affection of a male might be naturally directed to another male. (Spong, 150)
Such ideas are contrary to my own experience and to findings of recent research, much in the news, which is beginning to uncover possible biological bases for a homosexual orientation. One of the better expressions I have found is the following:
Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, occurring in every species of animal, including humans, in every part of the world. Most gay and lesbian people say that, looking back, they know about their sexual orientation fairly early in childhood, even if they didn't have a word for it.
A person's orientation-gay/lesbian or otherwise-is not chosen but discovered. Our choice, then is not whether to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual, but how to be whoever we are. We make decisions about how to behave, and the question is whether we will choose to behave in ways that are exploitative or caring, selfish or nurturing, violent or loving. (Ann Thompson Cook, And God Loves Each One: A resource for Dialogue About the Church and Homosexuality (Washington: Task Force on Reconciliation, Dumbarton United Methodist Church, 1990), p.6
What of Paul's statement at Romans 1 where "females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust towards one another"? The answer lies in Paul's words in verses 22 & 23: "Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." Obviously, Paul's reference here is to idolatry. As mentioned above in examining the Hebrew scriptures, many pagan idol-worshipping religions of Paul's day taught that by granting sexual favors to the high priest, the one giving the favor would be rewarded with fertility of crops and offspring. It then becomes clear that Paul's reference was not to same-sex, loving relationships, but his condemnations focused on heterosexuals who, going against their own sexual nature, granted sexual favors to the leaders of pagan religions in expectation of reward by the pagan gods.
Verse 27 talks about men allowing sex to become god which leads to them abandoning normal sex for katergazomai.
"Especially for Christian lesbians and gays, "Arthur continues, "This passage should not apply. For to a Christian, God is first in our lives, and all other desires fall into second place. Therefore sex is not a god, and we do not fall under the condemnation described in Romans 1.(Arthur, Rev. Bob. Homosexuality and the Conservative Christian . STI Publications, 1982)
Even to a non-Christian gay or lesbian, who is simply doing what is perfectly normal and natural, "by nature," verses 26 and 27, by themselves do not apply.
When a guy lies about being a regular at a gym so he could meet a girl. The sin was the lie and the punishment is having to work out probably more than he can handle, like he's a regular. Working out is not a sin and alot of people enjoy it and its good for you if you do it rightly. It was a punishment to him because it's out of his realm of experience. The punishment is not the sin.
Another one is when a child is bad so the parent makes him eat brochili. Although eating brochili is good for you. Its a punishment to him because he doesn't like it.
In the same way homosexuality is used here, Paul makes it very clear that it was out of their realm of experience and something they would never do but their sexual lusts over took them (when God gave them over) That is not a form of Love. That has nothing to do with true Love between a responsible caring unselfish consenting gay couple.
There are several reasons that lead me to believe that this passage is not condemning homosexual behavior, but is only condemning temple prostitution/idol worship. First, when looking at the structure of the passage, it seems clear, from a conservative interpretation, that the sin in verses 26b-27 must be somehow related to some concrete form of idolatry, not an abstract concept that describes all homosexual behavior. By the structure of the passages Romans seems to clearly indicate that Paul's intent was to solely condemn homosexual cultic temple prostitution.
Second, one can see that the primary issue of chapter one is that idolatry leads to abandoning the belief in God. The third parallel shows that whatever kind of sexual behavior is referred to, it causes them to stop believing in God (vs 26b-28). However, there is a huge population of gays and lesbians who believe in God. I am personally involved with multiple organizations which contain Christian gays and lesbians, and can bear witness to the existence of such people. These are not people who claim to believe in God, but live lives of promiscuity, etc. These are people who are either celibate gays (looking for a monogamous, long-term relationship), or are in monogamous, long-term homosexual relationships, but who also have strong beliefs in and love for the God of the Bible, and who have a strong commitment to obeying the teaching of Scripture. In the absence of such models, it would be much easier to accept that Romans 1:18-32 claims that all homosexuality is sin, because it would then be obvious that since no homosexuals believed in God, therefore verses 26-27 refer to all homosexual behavior. However, since there are many gay/lesbian Christians (Evangelical/Catholic/Pentecostal, etc.) who have a strong belief in God, then it becomes obvious that verses 26-28 cannot refer to all homosexual behavior, otherwise Scripture would be in error. The final two reasons why I believe this passage is not referring to all homosexual behavior, especially behavior that can be applied to today's culture, is the fact that Paul ties the homosexual behavior to natural theology, which, in other cases of Paul's teachings, seems to limit those doctrines to Paul's own culture, and to the fact that Paul further limits the behavior described in these verses to behavior characterized by an all-consuming, destructive passion, exekauthys
& References
