The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Two

The background for Romans 1:18 through 32 ¹

The most radical effort to do away with Rom 1:18-32 as opposing same sex activity has been put forth in Martin Colby’s effort to cast doubt on it being “Pauline writings.” Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality. (John Knox Press: Louisville, 2016), 118. “There is compelling reason to believe that these fifteen verses were not written by, or at least original to, Paul. This composition, word choice, and overall flow of the Greek are notably un-Pauline in comparison to the rest of his body of work.” is the Wisdom of Solomon. 2 In addition to its link with the Wisdom of Solomon, Keen also emphasized “impartiality and divine justice” as the focus of Romans 1. “Paul eventually develops his argument of sin in later chapters of Romans, but at this point he is focused on impartiality and divine justice.” Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38.

Karen Keen maintains the Wisdom of Solomon is the backdrop for Romans 1:18 through 32. The Wisdom of Solomon was written in first century BCE and is considered a non-canonical apocryphal book. She writes:

This connection has long been recognized by scholars…. The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding the meaning of Romans 1. ³Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38.

Paul doesn’t use Wisdom merely to copy it. In fact, he overturns the position of Wisdom that gives Israel greater favor before God than the pagans. ⁴Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. 38. Keen used a commentary by Andres Nygren to support what she has stated. A careful reading of Nygren reveals he attributed his understanding of the Gentles from what anyone would know about them plus what could be understood from the Old Testament in addition to Jewish literature such as the Wisdom of Solomon. The following is what Nygren wrote:  “It is a dark page which Paul writes about the unrighteousness of the Gentiles. He had gathered the material from conditions that were manifest to anyone who observed them, their idolatry and their moral waywardness. He could have found the same in the Old Testament and the wisdom literature of the Jews. (cf. especially the Book of Wisdom, chaps. 13-14) They direct attack against paganism with its idolatry. They marshal tables of indictments” (Emphasis mine JJ) Andres Nygren, Commentary on Romans. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983, 112. Later in his commentary, Nygren will reference the influence of the Book of Wisdom on Romans 2. “These chapters (Book of Wisdom 13-14 JJ) clearly supply the key to the second chapter of Romans.” Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 114.

Instead of Genesis, Paul makes his argument in conversation with the Wisdom of Solomon.⁵Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 37.

Colby Martin agrees:

The tone, language, and arguments of Romans 1:18 through 32 are nearly identical to those found in Wisdom. And this was intentional.⁶Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2016), 123.

Karen Keen’s Thesis About the Wisdom of Solomon and Romans Rejected

Traditionalists and revisionist writers both connect creation with Romans 1 rather than the Wisdom of Solomon. Consider the following quotations from traditionalist writers:

Robert Gagnon writes:

(1) Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male ordained by God at creation.⁷Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 487.

(2) Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner write:

Paul opposed homosexual behavior on the basis of creation theology and because it is marked as a vice in the Torah and was stressed as a vice by Jews. ⁸Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 242

(3) Preston Sprinkle writes:

Homosexual unions violate the boundaries of gender established by God at creation. ⁹Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 526.

The following are five examples from revisionists stressing creation as the backdrop of Romans:
(1) William Loader writes:

The perverted approach to God results in a perverted mind, which produces passions which head in a perverted direction, producing acts which are contrary to what God intended in nature as divine creation. ¹⁰ Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” 145.

The current order of creation as portrayed in Genesis also influences Paul’s stance on same-sex relations. ¹¹William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 496.

On Romans 1, I also find much common ground with Wesley. Clearly Paul has the creation stories in mind, both in his depiction of idolatry and images of animals and when he speaks about same-sex relations. Here I would note in particular the language of “male” and “female” (Rom 1:26-27), which must be alluding to Genesis 1:27.¹² Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,149.

In addition to creation being the basis for Romans 1, William Loader also believes the fall was connected to Romans 1:

Of course, for Paul all sin traces its origin to the fall, and the sin in Romans 1 is no exception. Paul’s argument is Romans 1, however, is not that the particular sin of having a perverted sexual response derives from the fall, but that it derives from having a perverted response to God. One perversion, as he sees it, produces another.¹³Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,149.

(2) Bernadette Brooten writes:

For Paul, same-sex love in Rom 1:26f is a sin against the social order established by God at creation…¹³ Brooten, Love Between Women, 264.

“Men….with men.” The Greek term for “men” is literally “males,” which includes men of all ages. The language calls to mind both Gen 1:27 (that God created humanity “male and female”) and Lev 18:22; 23:13 (on lying with a male as with a woman). Romans, like Leviticus, condemns same-sex relations between males of all ages, not only pederasty.¹⁴ Brooten, Love Between Women, 256.

She also mentions Clément’s understanding of Romans:

Clément’s view, as a Christian, of what it means to be a human male or female—his theological anthropology—-shapes his condemnation of female homoeroticism. For him, the Genesis creation narratives lay the framework for understand nature as gendered, while Christ’s maleness further helps to delineate human nature.¹⁵Brooten, Love Between Women, 323.

(3) Wesley Hill writes:

The backdrop for Paul’s indictment is, however, equally crucial for an understanding of its precise contours. Paul appears to be telling a story rooted in Israel’s Scripture and specifically in the Genesis creation narratives. .…In short, the story of God’s making the world, God’s giving a command to Adam, and Adam’s subsequent “fall” form the backdrop for Paul’s diagnosis of the human condition in Romans 1.¹⁶Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 134-135.

Paul’s view of same-sex sexuality appears to be stamped by his reading of God’s design for human beings as found in the book of Genesis.¹⁷Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 137.

(4) James Brownson writes:

The purity laws attempt, in general, to replicate the order of the original creation, where there was “a place for everything, and everything was its place.” They tend toward preserving what was perceived as the order of creation, and avoiding inappropriate mixtures. ¹⁸Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 269.

Prior to Brownson changing his position on same sex relationships, he stressed the importance of creation in respect to modern homosexual relationships. He writes:

…it violates the essential creational intent of God regarding sexuality, distorting the “one flesh” union of male and female which is the basis for sexual ethics throughout the Bible. ¹⁹Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation?” 4. it does not express that creational intent. ²⁰ Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation?” 4.

(5) Matthew Vines writes:

It’s true, though, that some aspects of the language in Romans 1 do recall language in Genesis 1”…. Words like “creation” and “Creator,” “females” and “males,” and “image” and “likeness,” among others, appear in both passages.²¹ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 110.

Creation and Pauline Ethics²²Sin can be defined as doing harm against someone else (slander/rape/murder/stealing), falling short of God’s expectations, and transgression (crossing over) but it can also be defined by not living according to the creation design.

The creation account in Genesis 1-2 shaped Paul’s worldview and throughout his letters he uses creation for teaching purposes. For example:

• 1). When Paul deals with the issue of head coverings for women and men in the assembly, he incorporates creation (1 Corinthians 11:8 through 12).
• 2). When Paul addresses the false teachings in the church at Ephesus, including acetic food practices, he alludes to creation (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
• 3). When Paul explains the nature of submission in a marital context, he references creation (Ephesians 5:31).
• 4). When Paul wants to describe the new self of the Christian, he uses the image of the creator (Colossians 3:10).
• 5). When Paul declares Christians “are God’s handwork” he adds they were “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10).
• 6). In a similar way to Colossians 3:10, Paul writes the new self was “created to be like God” (Ephesians 4:24).
• 7). In describing the mystery, Paul refers to “God who created all things” (Ephesians 3:9).
• 8). In dealing with immorality, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 (1 Corinthians 6:16).
• 9). Even though it is not a direct reference to creation, Paul uses Eve’s deception by the serpent to illustrate how the Ephesian women were deceived by false teachers (1 Timothy 2:14). In dealing with the deception of the Corinthian church, Eve is used as an example (2 Corinthians 11:3).
• 10). Paul uses Adam to explain the fall (Romans 5:12 and 14; 1 Corinthians 15:22).
• 11). Paul reminds his readers that God created all things through Jesus (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3) and “everything God created is good” (1 Timothy 4:4).
• 12). When Paul explains Jesus, he uses Adam as the contrast (1 Corinthians 15:45).
• 13). When Paul references “the grace given us in Christ Jesus,” he states it was “before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9).

As Paul taught new Christians how they should see themselves, he incorporates creation. For example:

• 1). As Paul completes his emotional letter to the churches of Galatia, he places the Christian life in proper perspective.
  Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation (Galatians 6:15).
• 2). Paul declares the new creation is the result of reconciliation:
  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ the new creation has come. The old has gone, the new is here (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The Creation Story of Genesis 1 Through 3 Compared to Romans 1

A strong parallel exists between the information in the first chapters of Genesis and Romans 1.²³For Paul to deal with the woman first, (Rom 1:26) follows the “fall story” in Genesis. The following topics are significant in both:

• 1). lie: Romans 1:25; Genesis 3:5
• 2). shame: Romans 1:27; Genesis 3:1 and 8
• 3). knowledge: Romans 1:19 and 21 and 28 and 32; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:5
• 4). death: Romans 1:32; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:4 and 5, and Genesis 3:20, and Genesis 3: 22 and 23
• 5). wisdom: Romans 1:22; Genesis 3:5

The emphasis on creation in Romans 1 is also seen by Paul’s choice of words.

• 1). Romans 1:23²⁴They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images (eikonos) in the likeness of (homoiomati) mortal mankind (anthropou) and birds (peteinon) and animals (tetrapodon) and reptiles (herpeton) Rom 1:23 repeats some of some the same terms used in Genesis 1:26,²⁵ Then God said “Let us make mankind (anthropon) in our image (eikona) in our likeness (homoiosin) so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds (peteinon) in the sky over the livestock (ktenon) and all the wild animals and over all the reptiles (herpeton) that move along the ground” Gen 1:26for example: image, likeness, mankind, animals, and reptiles.
• 2). When referring to women and men, Paul does not use the usual terms for females and males²⁶Paul used θήλειαι (females) and ἄρσενες  (males) instead of the normal words for women and men (andres and gynaikes). but rather employs the words for females and males found in Genesis 1:27 in the Greek Old Testament.²⁷Theleias occurs five times and arsenes occurs nine times whereas gune occurs 215 times and aner occurs 216 times in the New Testament. These were the two words used in the LXX Gen 1:27) in connection with God creating a male and a female. CEB, ASV and NKJV (footnote) have males and females.
• 3). When referencing God, Paul says “Creator” not “Father” ²⁸Eph 1:2, 17; 4:6; 3:14; 6:23 (Romans 1:25). ²⁹ Besides Genesis 1-2 there are forty verses in Psalms about creation and creation was stressed in Isaiah 40-55. In Isaiah 40-55 the following references to creation: (1) “beginning” 40:21; 46:10; (2) “created” 40:26; 41:20; 43:7; 45: 8, 12, 18; (3) “Creator” 40:28; 42:5; 43:15; (4) “maker of all things” 44:24; 45:9; (5) “create” 45: 7 (twice); 45:18. Harold Shank, Listen and Make Room (Abilene: Abilene University Press, 2020), 24.

William Loader connects Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships and creation in the following way:

Indeed, his declaration of perversion applies to both men and women and to both the active and passive partners. The allusion literally to “males” and “females” probably has in mind creation of male and female (Gen 1:27) which along with the prohibitions of Leviticus will have shaped Paul’s stance.³⁰Loader, Making Sense of Sex, 137-138. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 90. “That understanding also sheds light on why Leviticus contains no parallel prohibition of female same-sex relations.”

Because of the many references and allusions to creation that are woven throughout the 24 verses of Romans 1:18 through 32, Paul’s foundation for his denunciation of the gentile world was God’s original intent and creation. In this way, he connects “creation” with “truth.” The condemnation of the gentile world did not rest on their disobedience of the Torah as was the case with the Jews (Romans 2). The condemnation of the gentile world rested on their failure to see God in creation,³¹“exchanged the truth about God for the lie” as the Creator ³²Romans 1:25; 1 Peter 4:19 and to adhere to the law that was “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).³³Gentiles don’t have the Law. But when they instinctively (Emphasis mine JJ) do what the Law requires they are a Law in themselves, though they don’t have the Law Rom 2:15 (CEB) For that reason, “the wrath of God” was presently “being revealed ³⁴ Ἀποκαλύπτεται is a present passive indicative 3rd person singular. There are two revelations in Romans 1: (1) The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel (1:16-17). (2) The wrath of God is revealed through his punishment of the wicked (1:18). With both “revelations” Paul established the fact that God does not punish those who do not know (ignorant) or who are not guilty. from heaven against all wickedness of people who suppressed the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). The “suppression” resulted in both idolatry (vertical) and same sex relationships (horizonal). Whether same sex relationships were done abusively (pederasty ³⁵Pederasty was a sexual practice in the Greco-Roman world involving older men sexually abusing young boys (age), slaves (status) or prostitutes. For the most part the boy might receive some gifts, be prideful for his beauty and some possible educational benefits. Originally the relationship was for mentoring purposes, but this was not always the case. In pederasty there was always the issue of dominance where one was active and the other passive (dominator/dominated). or involved consensual, committed, and monogamous individuals, it was against the character of God and the creational intent and design.

In summarizing creation’s significance in understanding biblical sexuality, Thomas Schreiner writes:

A New Testament perspective on homosexuality is anchored in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The indispensable framework for interpreting the NT teaching on homosexuality is Genesis 1–2, the creation narrative. We read in Genesis 1:26–27 that God made man in his own image, but the image of God is reflected in two distinct genders, male and female. The distinction between man and woman is underlined in the fuller account of their creation in Genesis 2:18–25. The physical differentiation of the man and the woman, and yet the amazing complementarity of such for bearing children indicates that marriage consists of the union of one woman and one man. The creation narrative, then, functions as the paradigm for males and females, and how they are to relate to one another sexually. The two different genders signify that marriage and sexual relations are restricted to the opposite sex, and that same sex relations are contrary to the created order. ³⁶Thomas R. Schreiner, “A New Testament on Perspective on Homosexuality” Themelios 31, no. 3 (April 2006), 1.

Paul’s Use of Non-Inspired Sources³⁷The only other possible references to apocryphal books would be the citations in Jude 9 (Testament of Moses) and Jude 14 and 15 (First Book of Enoch).

Paul was widely traveled and well educated, consequently he would have had a broad knowledge base³⁸In addition to what he could have learned from Dr Luke (Col 4:14). The books of Luke and Acts support Luke having a broad education. of information available in the Greco-Roman world. Quite possibly he could have known about the Wisdom of Solomon as he did other Jewish literature of his time that addressed the wickedness of the gentile world. For example:

• 1). Paul quotes the poets in (Epimenides and Aratus of Soli in Cilicia)³⁹In addition to what he could have learned from Dr Luke (Col 4:14). The books of Luke and Acts support Luke having a broad education. when establishing the nature of God and his connection to mankind in Acts 17:28
• 2). When Paul opposes the false teachers of Crete in Titus 1:12, he quotes one of their own poets Epimenides (600 BCE) who said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Note: Paul was not indicating ALL Cretans were liars, but he used the quote to shame the false teachers and anyone who would follow them.⁴⁰Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2011), 179.
• 3). The quotation in 1 Corinthians 15:33 was taken from a proverb called Thais written by the Greek poet, Menander.
  When Paul does quote outside sources in his writings, it is clear they are direct quotes. In Acts 17:28 he claims, “your own poets” said “we are his offspring.” In Titus 1:12 he claims one of the Crete prophets said: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” In contrast, Keen provides no examples of any direct quote from the Wisdom of Solomon in Romans 1:18 through 32.

Because the wisdom of Solomon was probably written around the first century BCE,⁴¹Talbert, Romans, 63. Rom 1:22-23 (Wis 14:12); 1:20 (Wis 13:8); 1:24-27 (Wis 14:22-27); 1:29-31 (Wis 14:23-26); 1:28, 32 (Wis 14:22b); 1:27 (Wis 14:31; 16:24); 2:1 (Wis 15:1-6 esp. v. 2).
there is the possibility Paul may not have had access to it.⁴²Brooten, Love Between Women, 294-295. However, even assuming that he did, it would not have been the norm for him to build an entire case on materials not in the Torah. If he had used the Wisdom of Solomon instead of the creation story as the background for Romans, Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships could have been easily misconstrued as lacking both divine foundation and divine condemnation.⁴³Even though Keen believed “Of all the New Testament texts, Romans 1 provides the most information for analysis and remains the text in the church’s debate on same sex relations” she did not devote a large portion of her book to this key text. On whether Romans 1 deals with same sex relations among women she felt the evidence was “ambiguous” and will not discuss it. Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 18, 121 n.14.

Granted, Paul’s denunciation of the gentiles in Romans 1:18 through 32 does hold a striking resemblance to some information in the non-canonical Wisdom of Solomon 13 and 14 which connects idolatry to sins—including sexual ones. It is not beyond reason that Paul would condemn similar sins found in the Wisdom of Solomon and use “creational” understanding to bolster his case.⁴⁴Wisdom of Solomon 14:12: “For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life.”

Summary of Assumption Two

Michael Ukleia summarizes Paul’s knowledge of his world as follows:

As far as Paul’s knowledge of such sins is concerned, it must be remembered that Tarsus was the third intellectual city in the world, ranking behind Athens and Alexandria. Paul grew up there and would have learned about the Greco-Roman world along with its associated philosophies and practices. He could quote Stoic poets. He could cite familiar Stoic virtues. He had learned popular debating techniques. In Tarsus he would have learned about homosexual practice called pederasty. He would have been familiar with the view among the Greeks that homosexual was highly regarded as a form of love.⁴⁵ Michael Ukleia, “The Bible and Homosexuality Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983), 354.

Paul depended on guidance from the Holy Spirit (John 14:6), an understanding of creation,⁴⁶Paul saw God in three roles: God of creation, God of the Exodus, and God/Father of the son of God. God revealed himself by what he did. Paul’s view of monotheism and election shaped his teachings and his life (Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Acts 17:27-28) his respect for the Torah, and his knowledge of Jesus’s teachings ⁴⁷ 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; Acts 20:35; 1 Thess 2:13 as the basis for comprehending the will of God.⁴⁸For the importance of creation in Romans 1, see the following source: Reformed Review 59.1, (Autumn 2005). James Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodations? An Evangelical Pastoral Dilemma and the Unity of the Church,” 3-18. Even though Genesis does not provide explicit commands about sexuality it does provide a foundation for commands in the New Testament. Attempting to find approval for same sex relationships undermines God’s design and the creational intent.