LGBT assault the Bible
Fake Arguments against Romans 1:26–27
Perhaps no New Testament text has suffered more assaults than has Romans 1. Central to the revisionist approach to Romans 1 is the focus on new ways of understanding the meaning of nature (physis) in verses 26–27. The verses read (niv),
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The words for “natural relations” represent more literally “natural use” (physikēn chrēsin). Unnatural relations, then, are “against nature” (para physin). The word for “nature” occurs once as a noun (in v. 26) and twice as an adjective (in vv. 26 and 27).
“Against Nature”—Views of Interpretation
Perverts and Inverts
Some interpreters limit the term natural to “what is natural for me.” This is the view of John Boswell, Letha Scanzoni, Virginia Mollenkott, and others.1 According to them, Paul does not refer to those people whose own nature or primary orientation is homosexual. Instead, Paul condemns heterosexuals who act as homosexuals (perverts) in a context of idolatry and lust.
Paul does not condemn true homosexuals, who are born as inverts, for practising their nature. Boswell renders para physin as “beyond nature.” He writes that the phrase has nothing to do with natural law, since this concept did not exist until many centuries after Paul. Nature refers to the personal nature of the pagans discussed.2
A related view is that the distinction between inversion and perversion in relation to “nature” is now legitimate, although Paul was unaware of it. According to D. Sherwin Bailey, the Bible knows nothing of inversion as an inherited trait or a psychological or glandular condition. The prescientific Paul regarded all homosexual practice as evidence of perversion. Paul could not have distinguished perversion and inversion; these concepts would have been unintelligible to him. Paul’s words have become irrelevant or incomplete on the question of homosexuality.3
Pederasty and Mutuality
Another view asserts that nature has nothing to do with Jewish views of Creation or with theories of natural law. According to Robin Scroggs, the term and its concept are derived from Greek, not Jewish, sources. Paul condemns the currently common practice of pederasty. Hence, Romans 1 has little or no relevance to the modern model of mutual adult-adult homosexuality.4 No one can know whether Paul would oppose “the caring adult relationship of mutuality.”5
A Purity Rule
Still another view asserts that Paul is dealing with a purity rule, not a moral principle. According to L. William Countryman, homosexuality is not sinful, although it is unclean, dishonourable, and socially disgraceful. Homosexuality is physical impurity for Jews, but it is not forbidden to Gentiles. Countryman bases this understanding on Paul’s view of purity elsewhere as metaphorical—impurity of heart—not physical impurity (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:12–14; 2 Cor. 12:20–21; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 4:19; 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5–15; 1 Thess. 4:3–8).
A related view is that the distinction between inversion and perversion in relation to “nature” is now legitimate, although Paul was unaware of it. According to D. Sherwin Bailey, the Bible knows nothing of inversion as an inherited trait or a psychological or glandular condition. The prescientific Paul regarded all homosexual practice as evidence of perversion. Paul could not have distinguished perversion and inversion; these concepts would have been unintelligible to him. Paul’s words have become irrelevant or incomplete on the question of homosexuality.3
Pederasty and Mutuality
Another view asserts that nature has nothing to do with Jewish views of Creation or with theories of natural law. According to Robin Scroggs, the term and its concept are derived from Greek, not Jewish, sources. Paul condemns the currently common practice of pederasty. Hence, Romans 1 has little or no relevance to the modern model of mutual adult-adult homosexuality.4 No one can know whether Paul would oppose “the caring adult relationship of mutuality.”5
A Purity Rule
Still another view asserts that Paul is dealing with a purity rule, not a moral principle. According to L. William Countryman, homosexuality is not sinful, although it is unclean, dishonourable, and socially disgraceful. Homosexuality is physical impurity for Jews, but it is not forbidden to Gentiles. Countryman bases this understanding on Paul’s view of purity elsewhere as metaphorical—impurity of heart—not physical impurity (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:12–14; 2 Cor. 12:20–21; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 4:19; 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5–15; 1 Thess. 4:3–8).
Nature is a neutral term that refers to continuity with the past. Gentiles “changed their nature” in the sense that they “lost a certain continuity with their remote past” when God visited impurity on them and changed their former heterosexual desires.6 This view also rests on defining porneia as metaphorical in most passages of Paul where a moral principle is at stake. Paul condemns “impurity of the heart” but not physical “immorality” or “fornication,” that is, illicit sex outside of marriage.7
In part, this interpretation rests on the fact that Countryman equates impurity with greed. He is not defining the term impurity itself, but rather the concept of impurity. His reasoning is contradictory, for Countryman also seems to view sin as greed. Impurity may be greed, and sin may be greed, but impurity is not sin in his reasoning.8
In part, this interpretation rests on the fact that Countryman equates impurity with greed. He is not defining the term impurity itself, but rather the concept of impurity. His reasoning is contradictory, for Countryman also seems to view sin as greed. Impurity may be greed, and sin may be greed, but impurity is not sin in his reasoning.8
Countryman also takes the term improper things in 1:28 to refer back to verses 26–27, where homosexuality occurs. Homosexuality can thus be impurity, but it is not sin. For Countryman, improper things constitute impurity, not sin.
Syntactically, there is a problem with this interpretation. Verse 28 exists in a parallel structure to verses 24 and 26. Context requires that verses 24, 26, and 28 point forward to the list of sins in 29–31, including unrighteousness, wickedness, murder, hatred of God, and invention of evil.
Syntactically, there is a problem with this interpretation. Verse 28 exists in a parallel structure to verses 24 and 26. Context requires that verses 24, 26, and 28 point forward to the list of sins in 29–31, including unrighteousness, wickedness, murder, hatred of God, and invention of evil.
Countryman’s view is not a viable interpretation. Obviously, Paul includes both sinful and impure things in this passage. Some things might be impure and also sinful. This reasoning simply cannot disconnect homosexuality from sinful behaviour by contrasting the two in the syntax of Paul’s Greek.9
Regarding para physin, Thomas E. Schmidt suggests, in disputing with Countryman, that Paul unusually, if not uniquely, condemns both female and male same-gender relations as “against nature” and connects them to mutual desire involving consent.
Regarding para physin, Thomas E. Schmidt suggests, in disputing with Countryman, that Paul unusually, if not uniquely, condemns both female and male same-gender relations as “against nature” and connects them to mutual desire involving consent.
This is adult-adult mutuality.10 Schmidt also points out that Countryman interprets en heautois (1:27) as “among themselves,” so that he interprets homosexuality to be the payback for the error of idolatry among the Gentiles and received from God. However, all reputable translations interpret Paul’s meaning to be that the payback is to come to the homosexual community or individuals, that is, “in their own persons.”
Finally, Schmidt points to the problem of chronology. How would Paul think that Christians in Rome, who had never met him, could follow such obscure, nuanced distinctions between Jewish impurity and sin? If Countryman were correct, Paul would have explained his terms with far more care.
Oppression and Liberation
Another approach is that of liberation theology. This view cannot accept what Paul says in light of modern understanding of sexuality and gay/lesbian liberation. George R. Edwards employs this view in a rhetorical interpretation of Romans 1.11 Edwards believes that Paul uses the words contrary to nature to speak of an oppressive power structure.
Oppression and Liberation
Another approach is that of liberation theology. This view cannot accept what Paul says in light of modern understanding of sexuality and gay/lesbian liberation. George R. Edwards employs this view in a rhetorical interpretation of Romans 1.11 Edwards believes that Paul uses the words contrary to nature to speak of an oppressive power structure.
He places “liberationist thought and sociological criticism” over the instruction of the Old and New Testaments. Following Victor Paul Furnish, Edwards believes that Paul does not answer modern church questions such as homosexual church membership or ordination.12 Rather, Paul’s conception is outmoded when he conceives of homosexual behavior as arising from gross sexual appetites and exploitation, due to deliberate choice rooted in sin.
Contrary to Paul, homosexuality does not always involve rebellion against the Creator and His creation. Nor is it the debasement of one’s own true identity and the exploitation of another’s. It is “the theology of liberation” that is “the appropriate modality for present biblical education.”13
Edwards believes that in Romans 1 Paul takes up a Jewish worldview, derived from the Book of Wisdom to gain the sympathy of his Jewish readers. This worldview rejects all things gentile.
Edwards believes that in Romans 1 Paul takes up a Jewish worldview, derived from the Book of Wisdom to gain the sympathy of his Jewish readers. This worldview rejects all things gentile.
Then, in chapter 2, he turns the Jewish accusation of gentile wickedness against the accusers. Chapter 1 is a rhetorical device, rather than a moral exhortation (parenesis). It is not Paul’s own understanding, for Paul would espouse freedom based on faith for homosexuals. Therefore, Romans 1 must be corrected by the theology of gay and lesbian liberation, just as Galatians 3:28 must correct Paul’s patriarchy.
Edwards supports his position in three ways: First, he presents the theological worldview of Romans 1:26–27 as Jewish, not Pauline. Second, the linkage of idolatry, adultery, and homosexuality comes from the intertestamental Book of Wisdom, not Paul. Third, the contextual significance of these verses in the whole of Romans is rhetorical, not moral instruction. This is why Paul uses wherefore in 2:1. Paul at this point is addressing Jews, not Gentiles.14 Its strictly rhetorical purpose forbids taking the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality in itself.15
For Edwards, modern sexology and liberation theology representing a modern worldview, not the biblical worldview, must determine the meaning of Scripture. If so, then there is no single correct interpretation of Scripture, but rather a broad spectrum of interpretations that are equally acceptable.
Edwards supports his position in three ways: First, he presents the theological worldview of Romans 1:26–27 as Jewish, not Pauline. Second, the linkage of idolatry, adultery, and homosexuality comes from the intertestamental Book of Wisdom, not Paul. Third, the contextual significance of these verses in the whole of Romans is rhetorical, not moral instruction. This is why Paul uses wherefore in 2:1. Paul at this point is addressing Jews, not Gentiles.14 Its strictly rhetorical purpose forbids taking the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality in itself.15
For Edwards, modern sexology and liberation theology representing a modern worldview, not the biblical worldview, must determine the meaning of Scripture. If so, then there is no single correct interpretation of Scripture, but rather a broad spectrum of interpretations that are equally acceptable.
Scripture has lost all meaning in a plurality of meanings. Edwards seeks to constrain such a conclusion by setting forth three criteria for liberating love: constancy, nonviolence, and transgenital awareness (homosexuals are more than sexually defined persons).16 Incest, adultery, and bestiality could fit these criteria.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
1 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 107–17; Virginia R. Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 61–66.
2 Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 110–14.
3 D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955), 38. Bailey’s ideas oppose Boswell.
4 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 116–17, 122, 127–28.
5 Ibid., 128–29.
6 L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 109–17. Countryman also views the “desire” of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:24) as neutral or good, rather than evil “lust.” He rejects any reference to creation as the standard of “nature.” He believes that, while 1:18–23 and 1:29–31 use the vocabulary of sin, the text in-between (1:24–28) does not. Words of “desire,” “dishonor,” “shamelessness,” “passion,” and “error” occur.
7 The obstacles to this view are insurmountable. Countryman’s metaphorical definition of porneia does not do justice to the texts. In 1 Thess. 4:3–8 Countryman overlooks Paul’s words about “possessing one’s own vessel.” His textual argument as a whole begs the question, inadequately defines nature and natural, and most significantly, distorts the literary context. Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 64–85, demolishes Countryman’s thesis that verses 24–28 refer only to impurity. He finds numerous terms that specifically connote sin, including (in the niv): lusts; impurity; dishonor; passions of dishonor; unnatural; passion; shameless acts; penalty; error; and improper things.
8 See Straight & Narrow? 74, 189 n 28, where Schmidt shows that defining impurity as “greed” will not hold up in other passages, contrary to the claim of Countryman. Schmidt points out (84) that the word sin does not occur in all of chapters 1–2 (it is not just lacking from 1:24–28). Yet the chapters clearly intend to describe sin.
9 See also ibid., 76–77, and 190 n 36, where Schmidt critiques other peculiarities of Countryman’s grammatical discussion.
10 Ibid., 82. We will return to this point below (pp. 157–59). Countryman suggests that the term against nature is familiar to the Gentiles, so Paul uses the concept to point out that they are “without excuse” (v. 20).
11 George R. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim, 1984), 86–93.
12 Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
13 Gay/Lesbian Liberation, 77. According to Edwards, “The theology of gay/lesbian liberation calls for an end to a fire-and-brimstone God who designates homosexuals as objects of divine anger” (88). He condemns biblical pietists and comments that “the liberated homosexual may well renew for us once again the power of prayer and the significance of believing” (89).
14 Ibid., 86–96.
15 Ibid., 98.
16 Ibid., 112–28. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation, 99–100, faces three objections: (1) Since 1 Cor. 6:9–10 is a parenetic use of a list of vices (including “homosexuals”), why isn’t Romans 1? He answers that the theology of gay/lesbian liberation must correct Paul’s parenesis in Romans 1. (2) Does not Rom. 3:9 mean that homosexuals are sinners (with other Jews and Gentiles)? He replies, “yes,” but to require them to “adopt the culture of heterosexuality” reduces grace “to a legal requirement.” The moral life must act out “in freedom … the implications of grace.” (3) Does this foster anti-Semitism? Jewish gays and lesbians must work out their own gay/lesbian liberation, but everyone will have to bring “historic biblical prohibitions … into responsible relationship with contemporary sexology.”
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 142–145). Kregel Publications.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
1 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 107–17; Virginia R. Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 61–66.
2 Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 110–14.
3 D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955), 38. Bailey’s ideas oppose Boswell.
4 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 116–17, 122, 127–28.
5 Ibid., 128–29.
6 L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 109–17. Countryman also views the “desire” of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:24) as neutral or good, rather than evil “lust.” He rejects any reference to creation as the standard of “nature.” He believes that, while 1:18–23 and 1:29–31 use the vocabulary of sin, the text in-between (1:24–28) does not. Words of “desire,” “dishonor,” “shamelessness,” “passion,” and “error” occur.
7 The obstacles to this view are insurmountable. Countryman’s metaphorical definition of porneia does not do justice to the texts. In 1 Thess. 4:3–8 Countryman overlooks Paul’s words about “possessing one’s own vessel.” His textual argument as a whole begs the question, inadequately defines nature and natural, and most significantly, distorts the literary context. Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 64–85, demolishes Countryman’s thesis that verses 24–28 refer only to impurity. He finds numerous terms that specifically connote sin, including (in the niv): lusts; impurity; dishonor; passions of dishonor; unnatural; passion; shameless acts; penalty; error; and improper things.
8 See Straight & Narrow? 74, 189 n 28, where Schmidt shows that defining impurity as “greed” will not hold up in other passages, contrary to the claim of Countryman. Schmidt points out (84) that the word sin does not occur in all of chapters 1–2 (it is not just lacking from 1:24–28). Yet the chapters clearly intend to describe sin.
9 See also ibid., 76–77, and 190 n 36, where Schmidt critiques other peculiarities of Countryman’s grammatical discussion.
10 Ibid., 82. We will return to this point below (pp. 157–59). Countryman suggests that the term against nature is familiar to the Gentiles, so Paul uses the concept to point out that they are “without excuse” (v. 20).
11 George R. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim, 1984), 86–93.
12 Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
13 Gay/Lesbian Liberation, 77. According to Edwards, “The theology of gay/lesbian liberation calls for an end to a fire-and-brimstone God who designates homosexuals as objects of divine anger” (88). He condemns biblical pietists and comments that “the liberated homosexual may well renew for us once again the power of prayer and the significance of believing” (89).
14 Ibid., 86–96.
15 Ibid., 98.
16 Ibid., 112–28. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation, 99–100, faces three objections: (1) Since 1 Cor. 6:9–10 is a parenetic use of a list of vices (including “homosexuals”), why isn’t Romans 1? He answers that the theology of gay/lesbian liberation must correct Paul’s parenesis in Romans 1. (2) Does not Rom. 3:9 mean that homosexuals are sinners (with other Jews and Gentiles)? He replies, “yes,” but to require them to “adopt the culture of heterosexuality” reduces grace “to a legal requirement.” The moral life must act out “in freedom … the implications of grace.” (3) Does this foster anti-Semitism? Jewish gays and lesbians must work out their own gay/lesbian liberation, but everyone will have to bring “historic biblical prohibitions … into responsible relationship with contemporary sexology.”
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 142–145). Kregel Publications.
