How the Apostle Paul dealt with LGBTQ culture arguments
Paul uses conventional Greek terminology to express a Jewish-Christian worldview that “nature” and what is “natural” must correspond to what God has created and legislated. It cannot simply be equated with culture.72
While Paul on this occasion uses physis to refer to the creation order, he is borrowing conventional language to express a ktisis (“creation”) idea or worldview. He uses the word exchanged (v. 26) to point to a violation of creation when people make idols and “change” the glory of God into an image made from the Creation.
Also, he may use the term aschēmosynē (“indecent acts”) in Romans 1:27 as a subtle pointer to schēma, which is used by Paul only in Philippians 2:7. In Philippians 2:7, it describes the earthly “form, appearance, or essence” of Christ, suggesting that Christ is the only perfect person, the pattern for all humanity. Those who engage in same-gender sexual intercourse do not emulate Christ as our pattern or image, but rather make an idol from the creation.73
Such reinterpreters as Boswell, Mollenkott, Scanzoni, Edwards, and, to a lesser extent, Nissinen, who read in physis the meaning “what is natural to me,” see a justification for inversion or orientation. But never does the term receive such a meaning in Greek literature or biblical contexts.74
Such reinterpreters as Boswell, Mollenkott, Scanzoni, Edwards, and, to a lesser extent, Nissinen, who read in physis the meaning “what is natural to me,” see a justification for inversion or orientation. But never does the term receive such a meaning in Greek literature or biblical contexts.74
If Plato could earlier write (in Symposium) about Platonic homosexuality and orientation (i.e., “what is natural to me”), he does not connect it with physis. Plato’s last work (Laws) gives no hint of the meaning of “orientation” for physis and makes it clear that homosexuality (apparently in any form) is something that law should legislate as “unnatural” and harmful to society.
Even his Symposium acknowledges the existence of such legislation. Plato seems to present a mixed picture of Greek morality.
What about the nature of the homosexuality involved? If, as some say, physis did not encompass orientation, two questions arise.
What about the nature of the homosexuality involved? If, as some say, physis did not encompass orientation, two questions arise.
- First, was Paul ignorant of orientation (or “inversion”) and knew only about perversion?
- Second, if Paul knew of it, would he approve orientation while condemning homosexual behaviour?
Concerning the first question, we have seen that the ancients (Plato and others) knew of orientation and inversion, so the well-educated Paul was no doubt aware of what the Greeks and Romans said about it. It is hardly conceivable that Paul and everyone else were ignorant of it.
Regarding the second question, Paul would not have approved orientation. Orientation, like homosexual behaviour, violates what God created as His image (Genesis 1, human beings as male and female) and what
He legislated regarding sexual behaviour and marriage (Genesis 2, Leviticus 18 and 20). It violates what Jesus said about marriage. Only a monogamous union of male and female constitutes marriage on the Maker’s model (Matt. 19:1–19).
Contrary to the critics, Paul and other Jews and Christians did have a concept of “natural law.” Using common Greek terminology, it substituted a biblical worldview for the Greek and Roman view by embracing a transcendent Creator (in place of nature deified).
This transcendent Creator made all life and all things, including people and marriage, and He has revealed His law. Homosexual orientation violates the nature and law of this Creator and reflects the fall of Genesis 3. The corporate whole of created humanity “has a heterosexual orientation that has been corrupted by rebellion against God.”75
It seems best to view Paul as encompassing within his understanding of “against nature” and “natural” any and all forms of homosexuality, whether orientation or behaviour.
It seems best to view Paul as encompassing within his understanding of “against nature” and “natural” any and all forms of homosexuality, whether orientation or behaviour.
This means that physis refers to the constitution of man, his being, as derived from the Creator (Genesis 1–2). The terms Paul uses in verses 26–27—female and male rather than woman and man—call to mind the account of human creation as “male” and “female.” The order of “female” before “male” here is a significant cue that Paul has in mind the order of the Fall as well as Creation.
To say that Paul is influenced by Greek thinking is to stand against context. Paul is carefully avoiding Greek formulations as he writes this part of Romans. He avoids the use of physis to refer to the works of nature, so that none will hear him say that nature is self-existent or the source of all.
To say that Paul is influenced by Greek thinking is to stand against context. Paul is carefully avoiding Greek formulations as he writes this part of Romans. He avoids the use of physis to refer to the works of nature, so that none will hear him say that nature is self-existent or the source of all.
Rather, in the immediate context, Paul refers to that which comes from the Creator, to creation (cf. his similar progression in Acts 17). This is the pattern in the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Old Testament. The rest of the New Testament also follows this pattern.76
Because Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul, frequently use physis to refer to “nature,” Paul shows himself to be a Hebraist or biblicist, not a Hellenist.
Because Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul, frequently use physis to refer to “nature,” Paul shows himself to be a Hebraist or biblicist, not a Hellenist.
Although natural moral law is present, Paul prefers to follow the strictly theological and linguistic path of the Old Testament (Levit. 18:22; 20:13)77 and the Jewish intertestamental literature. Koester agrees that this pattern is no accident.
At least partly, he says, it is “a deliberate theological decision which rests on the fact that there is no place for ‘natural theology’ in the thinking of the N.T.”78 Paul also may follow the lead of the Testaments of Naphtali 3:4–5; Asher 7:1; Benjamin 9:1; Levi 14:6; 2 Enoch 10:4–5; 34:1–3; and The Wisdom of Solomon about the nature of homosexuality.
So the claim by Scroggs that Paul “must have had, could only have had, pederasty in mind” (emphasis his).79 is untenable.80
So the claim by Scroggs that Paul “must have had, could only have had, pederasty in mind” (emphasis his).79 is untenable.80
First, Scroggs’s statement rests on his assumption “that Greco-Roman culture decisively influenced New Testament statements about homosexuality” and that “Paul is dependent for his judgment that it is against nature ultimately on Greek, not Jewish sources [, and] … not on some doctrine of creation.”81
Scroggs overlooks the context and the Hebraist Paul’s continual dependence on Old Testament concepts, here as throughout his writing. He preaches the Jewish doctrine of “nature” in relation to ethics and worldview. He is dependent on such texts as Leviticus 18 and 20 that speak of adult-to-adult homosexual practice and says nothing about pederasty.
Second, given Plato and other evidence, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the ancients knew virtually all forms of homosexuality, including orientation, centuries before Paul (see excursus 3). Third, Paul’s words support a much more general idea of homosexuality, including adult-adult mutuality and the homosexual condition:82
1. Paul writes of “males with males committing indecent acts”; he does not say “men with boys” (as Plato is capable of saying in Laws 836a–c). The “male-to-male” phrase appears to be unique to Paul.
2. He compares lesbianism with male perversion (note the use of likewise). Female pederasty was virtually unknown but occurred between adults in mutuality, so the force of the comparative argues for male adult-adult mutuality.83
3. The phrase “the natural use of the female” or “function of the female” (v. 27) argues for activity or “relations” (niv) of adults, not adult-child behaviour. The “natural use of the female” can refer only to adult heterosexual behaviour that has been abandoned in pursuit of adult male homosexual behaviour. These words cannot refer to orientation alone or to a Platonic relationship.
4. The graphic language demonstrates that this is neither morally neutral behaviour nor a Platonic relationship. He refers to “degrading passions” (“shameful lusts,” v. 26 niv), “burned in their desire” (“were inflamed with lust,” niv), “indecent acts” (v. 26–27). This is a harsh moral characterisation, whether referring to propensity, orientation, or activity.
5. The terms, toward one another (involving a reciprocal pronoun), men with men, in themselves, and their error all argue for reciprocal adult mutuality and mutual culpability that would not characterise pederasty. As the error is mutual, so is the recompense.
6. “Exchanged … abandoned natural functions” suggests that adult sexual relations are meant. They assume the normal sexual procreative functions belonging to adults.
7. Paul’s phrasing in Romans 1:32 (“although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death”) suggests that he is reflecting on Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus demanded death for those committing any form of adult homosexual behaviour. This connection allows Paul to prohibit any form of homosexuality, be it homosexual or lesbian, adult mutuality, rape, prostitution, or pederasty.
8. This sexual behaviour is purposefully chosen (“leaving the natural use,” v. 27 KJV). People are held accountable for their choices; they are not “born this way,” without culpability.
If, as some aver, the “model” or form of homosexuality makes a difference, why is Scripture silent on the matter? Why is there no debate over the matter in Philo or Josephus? The Greeks (e.g., Plato in Symposium) could discuss the differences involved when a man has sex with a boy or an adult, but this does not seem to be part of Jewish-Christian discussion.
Second, given Plato and other evidence, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the ancients knew virtually all forms of homosexuality, including orientation, centuries before Paul (see excursus 3). Third, Paul’s words support a much more general idea of homosexuality, including adult-adult mutuality and the homosexual condition:82
1. Paul writes of “males with males committing indecent acts”; he does not say “men with boys” (as Plato is capable of saying in Laws 836a–c). The “male-to-male” phrase appears to be unique to Paul.
2. He compares lesbianism with male perversion (note the use of likewise). Female pederasty was virtually unknown but occurred between adults in mutuality, so the force of the comparative argues for male adult-adult mutuality.83
3. The phrase “the natural use of the female” or “function of the female” (v. 27) argues for activity or “relations” (niv) of adults, not adult-child behaviour. The “natural use of the female” can refer only to adult heterosexual behaviour that has been abandoned in pursuit of adult male homosexual behaviour. These words cannot refer to orientation alone or to a Platonic relationship.
4. The graphic language demonstrates that this is neither morally neutral behaviour nor a Platonic relationship. He refers to “degrading passions” (“shameful lusts,” v. 26 niv), “burned in their desire” (“were inflamed with lust,” niv), “indecent acts” (v. 26–27). This is a harsh moral characterisation, whether referring to propensity, orientation, or activity.
5. The terms, toward one another (involving a reciprocal pronoun), men with men, in themselves, and their error all argue for reciprocal adult mutuality and mutual culpability that would not characterise pederasty. As the error is mutual, so is the recompense.
6. “Exchanged … abandoned natural functions” suggests that adult sexual relations are meant. They assume the normal sexual procreative functions belonging to adults.
7. Paul’s phrasing in Romans 1:32 (“although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death”) suggests that he is reflecting on Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus demanded death for those committing any form of adult homosexual behaviour. This connection allows Paul to prohibit any form of homosexuality, be it homosexual or lesbian, adult mutuality, rape, prostitution, or pederasty.
8. This sexual behaviour is purposefully chosen (“leaving the natural use,” v. 27 KJV). People are held accountable for their choices; they are not “born this way,” without culpability.
If, as some aver, the “model” or form of homosexuality makes a difference, why is Scripture silent on the matter? Why is there no debate over the matter in Philo or Josephus? The Greeks (e.g., Plato in Symposium) could discuss the differences involved when a man has sex with a boy or an adult, but this does not seem to be part of Jewish-Christian discussion.
Even if Philo and Josephus use the biblical accounts of adult homosexuality (Genesis 19) to condemn contemporary pederasty, does this fact not argue that they would view both as abhorrent? If interpreters limit the model in Romans 1 to pederasty, then Paul has no comment on bisexuality or male prostitution (both of which were common in his world) or on adult mutual homosexuality.
Scroggs’s position suggests that the model of adult mutuality was unknown or little known in ancient times. That is a two-edged argument. If it exists now and is a universal cultural phenomenon, or based on genetic disposition, as some who argue the homosexual agenda claim, it certainly would have existed then.84
Scroggs’s position suggests that the model of adult mutuality was unknown or little known in ancient times. That is a two-edged argument. If it exists now and is a universal cultural phenomenon, or based on genetic disposition, as some who argue the homosexual agenda claim, it certainly would have existed then.84
Human nature has not changed, nor has the power of the gospel. Scroggs has no evidence that mutuality is any more common today than it was then.85
72 Pronk, Against Nature? 274–76, while finding the concept of natural moral law in Philo and Josephus, thinks it is not likely for Paul in Romans 1. This is in keeping with his rejection of physis as meaning the normative creation order, and his affirmation that it means conformity with the social conventions of Paul’s day or the biologically natural. So Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 105, defines nature as “culture and the ordinary realm of experience.”
72 Pronk, Against Nature? 274–76, while finding the concept of natural moral law in Philo and Josephus, thinks it is not likely for Paul in Romans 1. This is in keeping with his rejection of physis as meaning the normative creation order, and his affirmation that it means conformity with the social conventions of Paul’s day or the biologically natural. So Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 105, defines nature as “culture and the ordinary realm of experience.”
Contrary to these, Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 152–53, points out that homosexuality is unnatural “in contrast to the nature of the world as it was intended to be—the ideal world.” The term sin, he notes, “points to a standard outside of nature.” In another sense, all sin, including homosexuality, is natural, while God’s requirements are unnatural. There is a fallen natural order.
“Sin is therefore not against nature but against God.” Hays, “Relations Natural,” 188–99, shows by Paul’s argument, rhetorical devices (use of exchange), and conventions (use of nature) that Boswell’s exegesis is flawed. He also questions the credibility of Boswell’s treatment of the historical evidence about early Christian attitudes toward homosexuality (202–3). He both argues from silence and discredits normative judgments, confusing them with description.
73 See Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 184.
74 One searches in vain for a commentator who gives physis this meaning. Even Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality, doubts the validity of such a distinction or its presence here. See also Paul’s use in Rom. 11:21, 24.
75 Straight & Narrow? 83. Paul refers, not to individual instances of orientation, but to collective orientation. See also “Relations Natural,” 200.
76 “Nature,” 660–61. Note that the term never occurs in the more “Semitic” Gospels (nor in John’s and Luke’s usage). This is evidence of the extent to which this more Hellenistic writer was persuaded by a biblical worldview.
77 Note how Paul coins arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:8–10) from Levit. 18:22 and 20:13. We return to this subject in chapter 5.
78 “fusiṣ, fusikoṣ, fusikōṣ,” 271. However, general revelation from the creation and history is in the context of Romans 1. It is revealed natural law.
79 New Testament and Homosexuality, 122. Scroggs’s attempt to limit the form of homosexuality exclusively to pederasty appears to be a myth. He himself admits some texts have examples of permanency (30–31, 57–58), older adults (32–33), and near equals in age (34).
73 See Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 184.
74 One searches in vain for a commentator who gives physis this meaning. Even Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality, doubts the validity of such a distinction or its presence here. See also Paul’s use in Rom. 11:21, 24.
75 Straight & Narrow? 83. Paul refers, not to individual instances of orientation, but to collective orientation. See also “Relations Natural,” 200.
76 “Nature,” 660–61. Note that the term never occurs in the more “Semitic” Gospels (nor in John’s and Luke’s usage). This is evidence of the extent to which this more Hellenistic writer was persuaded by a biblical worldview.
77 Note how Paul coins arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:8–10) from Levit. 18:22 and 20:13. We return to this subject in chapter 5.
78 “fusiṣ, fusikoṣ, fusikōṣ,” 271. However, general revelation from the creation and history is in the context of Romans 1. It is revealed natural law.
79 New Testament and Homosexuality, 122. Scroggs’s attempt to limit the form of homosexuality exclusively to pederasty appears to be a myth. He himself admits some texts have examples of permanency (30–31, 57–58), older adults (32–33), and near equals in age (34).
Indeed, some younger men played the active partners over older men (33, 34). Scroggs’s claim that today’s culture emphasises “the importance of equality and mutuality in all relationships” (36) is a myth. In 1985, only 1 per cent of homosexuals had fewer than eight lifetime partners; 75 per cent of homosexual men report more than thirty partners, and the average homosexual has had between fifty-nine and five hundred sexual contacts, depending on the study used.
Most AIDS victims have had more than one thousand sexual contacts. See Roger Magnuson, Are “Gay Rights” Right? (St. Paul: Berean League Fund, 1985), 68, 77–78; Michael Pollak, “Male Homosexuality—or Happiness in the Ghetto,” in Western Sexuality, 40–61.
In 1995, Schmidt, Straight & Narrow?, documents similar statistics from non-Christian sources. He concludes that for the vast majority of homosexual men and a significant number of homosexual women “sexual behaviour is obsessive, psycho pathological and destructive to the body” (130). See his chapter 6, 101–30. See also Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 49–70, where Satinover discusses “brute facts” about the desirability of homosexuality. For a similar criticism of Scroggs, See “Relations Natural,” 210. Greenberg, Construction, 156 n 177, cites sources referring to those adult Romans who were exclusively homosexual.
80 This argues as well against Countryman, Dirt, 118f., who takes a more restrained view that this is pederasty. Veyne, “Homosexuality in Ancient Rome,” 33, affirms that the Romans idealised homosexuality as pederasty when in fact they practised every variety of homosexuality. The Romans liked to think that pederasty was typical, for it was the most acceptable form, being passive and fitting the Roman mould of active male leadership. Since marriage was not the central institution, fleeting relationships with boys could exist side by side with marriage (34).
81 New Testament and Homosexuality, 16, 116–17. To say that no Greco-Roman text, nor Paul, seeks to explain why homosexuality is against nature (116) is to overlook the fact that both biblical (Levit. 18:22; 20:13) and nonbiblical (Plato, Laws, 636c) authors compare it to, and contrast it with, sex with women or with animals that do not copulate with the same sex (Laws, 836a–c).
80 This argues as well against Countryman, Dirt, 118f., who takes a more restrained view that this is pederasty. Veyne, “Homosexuality in Ancient Rome,” 33, affirms that the Romans idealised homosexuality as pederasty when in fact they practised every variety of homosexuality. The Romans liked to think that pederasty was typical, for it was the most acceptable form, being passive and fitting the Roman mould of active male leadership. Since marriage was not the central institution, fleeting relationships with boys could exist side by side with marriage (34).
81 New Testament and Homosexuality, 16, 116–17. To say that no Greco-Roman text, nor Paul, seeks to explain why homosexuality is against nature (116) is to overlook the fact that both biblical (Levit. 18:22; 20:13) and nonbiblical (Plato, Laws, 636c) authors compare it to, and contrast it with, sex with women or with animals that do not copulate with the same sex (Laws, 836a–c).
This implies some common point of comparison—the given nature of the creature involved. It could not be as subjective as each personal disposition, propensity or orientation. Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 105, 107, makes similar claims about Greek ideas of nature and rejects a reference to creation.
82 Pronk, Against Nature? 273, affirms that in Romans 1 “the text does not permit a distinction between the ‘act’ and its ‘condition.’ ”
83 Veyne, “Homosexuality in Ancient Rome,” 33, notes that ancient Rome considered lesbianism, especially in the active partner, especially loathsome, illicit, and immoral, because the woman was behaving like a man and “wrecking the natural order.” S
82 Pronk, Against Nature? 273, affirms that in Romans 1 “the text does not permit a distinction between the ‘act’ and its ‘condition.’ ”
83 Veyne, “Homosexuality in Ancient Rome,” 33, notes that ancient Rome considered lesbianism, especially in the active partner, especially loathsome, illicit, and immoral, because the woman was behaving like a man and “wrecking the natural order.” S
imilar disapproval met sex with exoleti (a grown-up boy no longer an adolescent but still used as another man’s favourite), same-gender liaisons within the army, passivity in men, and the prostitution of youths from good families (32–33). Greenberg, Construction, 215, cites references to the presence of lesbianism in Rome, the destination of Paul’s epistle.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
KJV King James Version of the Bible.
84 Satinover, Homosexuality, 103, points out that if it were wholly genetic, homosexuality would have died out in the general population a long time ago. Its incidence is proportionately too small to remain in the gene pool, and it cannot reproduce itself. Homosexuals have no children unless they have bisexual sexual contact.
85 New Testament and Homosexuality, 126–27.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 155–159). 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.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
niv Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®/NIV®. ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
KJV King James Version of the Bible.
84 Satinover, Homosexuality, 103, points out that if it were wholly genetic, homosexuality would have died out in the general population a long time ago. Its incidence is proportionately too small to remain in the gene pool, and it cannot reproduce itself. Homosexuals have no children unless they have bisexual sexual contact.
85 New Testament and Homosexuality, 126–27.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 155–159). Kregel Publications.
