How homosexuality treats Romans 1:26-27
 |
| Painting by Rembrandt of Paul, one of the most notable of early Christian missionaries, who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, was very influential on the shift of Christianity to Gentile dominated movement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
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 practicing 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 relating to “nature” is legitimate now, 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, dishonorable, 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 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. 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 behavior 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 142–145). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
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 practicing 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 relating to “nature” is legitimate now, 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, dishonorable, 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 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. 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 behavior 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 142–145). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
