LGBT arguments VS Apostle Paul and th Book of Romans
Is Paul making a blanket pronouncement that homosexuality is sin against God in Romans 1:26–27 when he speaks of a behavior (“men with men” and “women with women”) that is “against nature”?
The Revisionist Answer
It is not possible to read here a reference to a crime against nature or a so-called “natural law” because such a concept is Greek and was unknown to Paul.
The Biblical Answer
Natural law was known to Philo and Josephus, contemporaries with the apostle Paul, and it is reflected in literature contemporary with, or antecedent to, Paul. For Jews, it represented creation and God’s law brought into harmony.
The Revisionist Claim
In Romans 1, Paul condemns men and women who leave their natural state. He does not condemn those who are born homosexual, who have the homosexual condition, for that is their natural state. Ancient peoples did not know of the modern ideas of a mutual, permanent homosexual union and homosexual orientation. Rather, Paul condemns either homosexuals or heterosexuals who leave their natural condition and act as something else.
The Bible’s Answer
Paul makes no distinction about those who are born in a particular way. Rather, he deals in Romans 1 with how Gentiles reject general revelation of God in the creation and turn to idolatry and accompanying evil behavior, including homosexuality. In verses 24, 26, and 28, he says that God has given people over to evil vices. It is inappropriate to make a distinction to limit homosexuality to a Jewish purity taboo within any one of the groups if one does not do it in all three groups.
The ancient Greeks and Romans both knew of and practiced homosexual mutuality and permanence, and they knew of homosexual orientation. Thus, Paul’s condemnation must encompass them.
The Revisionist Claim
The theology of liberation could never contemplate a situation in which the liberating ethic of love should be restricted by a code requiring a certain kind of conduct or behavior. Homosexuality is the behavior of the strong, which the weak are to recognize.
The Biblical Answer
While the ethic of love is crucial, the Bible calls us to repent of behavior that transgresses God’s holiness. Freedom, or liberation, is found in Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:1). The theology of liberation makes freedom the end, and anything is the means to achieve it. It is totally subjective. Carried to its logical extreme, no behavior is unacceptable, providing it has the motive of love and liberation. The conduct that comes under the strong/weak concern is that which is morally neutral, such as drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. No biblical basis exists, however, for putting homosexual behavior under the classification of moral neutrality.
The Revisionist Claim
One must understand Paul’s words within their context. He condemns Gentiles as part of a rhetorical device. He speaks from the Jewish aversion to gentile homosexuality to gain their attention and favor so that they will listen to his indictment of the Jews’ own hypocrisy. It is not Paul’s idea to condemn homosexuality; rather, he is giving the Jewish point of view. The prohibition of homosexuality is part of the Jewish code of purity derived from Leviticus, and no one ever intended the words to be a universal moral prohibition for Gentiles.
The Biblical Answer
To take chapter 1 as a rhetorical device is unwarranted. The vices of the context before (vv. 24–25) and after (vv. 28–32) the reference to homosexuality (vv. 26–27) are not merely part of Paul’s rhetorical device, but other texts make clear that Paul views these acts as truly sinful behavior. If this is so, there is no warrant for taking the vice of homosexuality as merely rhetorical. This position is reinforced by Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality elsewhere. Further, the prohibitions of homosexuality do not fit Israel’s purity code but are universal
The Revisionist Claim
Romans 1 and Paul’s statements about what is “against nature” cannot be used as evidence against homosexuality. This passage might tell us that homosexuality has a theological dimension and is a concern to God; it does not tell us whether abstention from homosexuality is God’s will for us today. Only the whole community acting in concert and through rational argumentation can decide whether the prohibition still pertains.
The Biblical Answer
This passage not only informs us of the reality of homosexuality as a moral issue, but it implicitly prohibits the behavior by placing those who practice it in the position of being abandoned to evil by God (v. 26), along with the others of verses 24 and 28. Morality is not determined by majority vote of any community or by discussion in the world generally.
