The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Three

Paul was only opposing pederasty (sexual behavior between an adult male and adolescent boy) and other abusive/non-consensual sexual relationships in Romans 1 and does not address modern same sex relationships.¹

Jewish morals contrasted with those of other nations in second century B.C.E. “{Jews} are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children as Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations and others. Persians and Galatians and all Asia transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed.” Sibylline Oracles 3.595-600 quoted in The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues (3rd ed) by Victor Paul Furnish, 66-67.

In the high cultural circles of ancient Greece same sex relationships between older men and young boys were common.

Linda Belleville writes:

Unlike today, same-sex relationships in antiquity were largely confined to the upper crust of Greek society. Also, unlike today, it was considered an “honorable service” for a young Greek male student to be intimate with his male mentor.² Linda Belleville, “The Challenges of Translating Arsenokotai and Malakoi.” In 1 Cor 6:9; A Reassessment in Light of Koine Greek and First Cultural Mores,” Bible Translator 62 (2011), 25.

To responsibly address Assumption Three, a couple of issues need to be addressed:

• Was Paul only opposing pederasty and other abusive same-sex relationships in Romans 1?
• Does Paul address modern same sex relationships in Romans 1?

Issue One: Was Paul Only Opposing Pederasty and Other Abusive Same-Sex Relationships in Romans 1?

Affirming writers Matthew Vines and Robin Scroggs maintain pederasty and abuse are a central focus of the same sex relationships of Romans 1.

In 2014 Matthew Vines wrote:

Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and same-sex between masters and their slaves…

Paul viewed same-sex relationships as stemming from excessive sexual desire and lust, not as a loving expression from a sexual orientation.³ Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014),130.
Robin Scroggs believes Paul was opposing pederasty in Romans 1:
I know of no suggestions in texts that homosexual relationships existed between same-age adults…Thus what the New Testament was against was the image of homosexuality as pederasty…⁴ Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 35, 126.

Much of my argument depends up on the judgment frequently stated above, that the only model of male homosexuality was pederasty, and that even deviations in the usual age patterns of pederasty did not disturb the functioning of the modeI itself….I do think I have presented enough to demonstrate amply that pederastic model was at the very least the dominant and always assumed pattern for male homosexual relationships.⁵ Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 130.

Response to the Pederasty and Abusive Relationships Only Explanation of Romans 1

To responsibly speak to this analysis, three areas need to be considered.

• Other affirming writers (Loader, Brooten, and Crompton, Via, Pronk) do not agree with the pederasty and abusive relationship only argument.
• Specific terms were used in the Greek language to describe pederasty.
• The practice of pederasty experienced a transition in the ancient world.

1). Affirming writers with a different perspective

Affirming author Bernadette Brooten disagrees with the early writings of her predecessors (John Boswell and Robin Scroggs) regarding Romans 1:18-32. She states:

This material runs counter to John Boswell’s view that premodern Christians accepted love and marriage between women. Further, the ancient sources which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’ theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty.⁶ Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 361.

In noting Robin Scroggs’ inconsistency with the men and women in Romans 1:26-27, Brooten writes:

If however, the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? Scroggs concedes that ancient authors normally did not assume a pederastic model for female-female relations.⁷ Brooten, Love Between Women, 253 (n 106).

Brooten further explains that Romans 1:27 cannot be limited to pederasty:

If Paul directed Rom 1:27 mainly against pederasty out of humanitarian concern for the passive boy partner, several interpretive problems emerge. Why does Paul apply the phrase “deserve to die” (Rom 1:32) to the foregoing acts, not distinguishing between victims and perpetrators?⁸ Brooten, Love Between Women, 256-257.

Even though Bernadette Brooten affirms Paul’s opposition to all same sex relationships in Romans 1, she supports the affirming community in the practice of modern same sex relationships.⁹ Brooten, Love Between Women, 302 “I hope that churches today, being apprised of the history that I have presented, will no longer teach Rom 1:26f as authoritative.” Bernadette Brooten thinks that Paul maintained “a gender asymmetry based on female subordination.” Perhaps this weighs into her reasoning.

Affirming writer William Loader also opposes the pederasty only interpretation of Romans 1. He concludes:

Our discussion above also reflects the widespread nature of such relations, including those under attack, which included, but by no means, limited to exploitive pederasty. The broader nature of the phenomenon, the reference to lesbian relations which does not fit pederasty…¹⁰ William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 324-325.

He is not just talking about exploitation of slaves or about pederasty. He is talking about those whose passion is mutual, of consenting adults (with or for one another, Rom 1:24, 27).¹¹ Preston Sprinkle, (ed), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016) William Loader, Response to Megan K. DeFranza, 105.

Nothing, however, indicates that he is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable. It is all an abomination for Paul. The mutuality implied in his description of what is attacked “for one another,” makes it unlikely that he is addressing only one-sided exploitative relations as in pederasty.¹² William Loader, Making Sense of Sex (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 137.

Affirming author Louis Crompton concurs. Even though he died an active gay man at age 84, Crompton states the following about same sex relationships in Romans 1:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. . The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.¹³ Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 114.

In a discussion of homosexuality with Robert Gagnon, revisionist Dan Via stated:

Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal with specifically homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.¹⁴ Dan Via and Robert Gagnon, Homosexuality in the Bible: Two Views. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 93-94.
Revisionist Pim Pronk agrees the scriptures do not support homosexuality:
Christians, as a matter of course, appeal to the Bible for their position on homosexuality, be it pro or con. It is for them a faith position, after all the people are eager to see it supported by the Bible. In this case that support is lacking.¹⁵ Pim Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 323.

Based upon their understanding of the Scriptures, affirming authors William Loader, Bernadette Brooten, Louis Crompton, Dan Via, and Pim Pronk believe Romans 1:18-32 includes both pederasty and consensual same sex relationships.¹⁶ Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue), Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2015), 192. “Call me old-fashioned but I do believe that Paul’s word in Romans 1 is authoritative for Christians.” Another affirming author Joel Hollier states ¹⁷ Joel Hollier, A Place at His Table: A Biblical Exploration of Faith, Sexuality, and the kingdom of God (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019), 122. that “the majority of scholars” do not believe the Scriptures condemn monogamous same sex relationships. This seems to indicate his lack of knowledge of other scholarly affirming writers (specifically) and their understanding of the scope of Paul’s opposition in Romans 1.

2). The Greek language and pederasty

If Paul had wanted to only describe pederasty in Romans 1, he could have used specific Greek terms.¹⁸ Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 116, 189. Pederasty comes from a compound word paiderastes ¹⁹ παιδεραστής meaning the lover of boys. Paid means boy or child and erastes²⁰ ἐραστής is connected to love, hence together meaning “lover of boys.” Historically an erastes was usually an older man and the boy or slave an eromenos.²¹ ἐρώμενος Richard Friedman and Shawna Dolansky provide the following description of ancient pederasty:

The most common and idealized form of homosexual relationships between aristocratic males in Greece was known as paederastia: “boy-love.” An older male citizen, known in Athens as an erastes, would court a young adolescent youth of a good family much in the way a man might court a future wife. If his courtship was successful, the youth would become the eromenos to the erastes, and the erastes would educate, protect, and offer love to the eromenos. Social conventions dictated that when the youth became a man, the sexual nature of the relationship must end in order to avoid the shame associated with a full- grown male citizen being penetrated by a social equal. One could be an eromenos only in one’s youth, before becoming a citizen. In fact, while the eromenos must honor and respect his erastes, even as a youth he was never to reciprocate the sexual desire of the erastes, for this would bring shame on himself and his family.²² Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, The Bible Now (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 33.

Historically these words were used by Jews, Christians, pagans, and anyone else who spoke Greek.²³ Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 116. In fact, it is not plausible that anyone would write or talk about pederasty without using the term paiderastes or other terms derived from it.²⁴ Sprinkle agrees. “There were many Greek words used to describe pederasty (paiderastes [“the love of boys”], paidophthoros[“corruptor of boys”], paidophtoreo [“seducer of boys”]), and none of them are used here. Neither is there any explicit mention of master-slave relations, rape, or prostitution.” Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook. A Debate About Homosexuality: Part 5 “The Sin ‘of’ Homosexuality.”

3). The practice of pederasty experienced a transition in the ancient world

Even though other same sex activity continued, about four hundred years before Paul pederasty began to decline and the Romans started to view it as a “vice of the Greeks.” Mark Smith writes:

By the early second century BCE Rome had passed the Lex Sac(n)tinia and the edict De adtemptata pudicitia which made pederastic behavior and even the attempt to seduce a freeborn boy, liable to criminal prosecution. By the time of the Principate, pederasty becomes extremely rare in the sources, while at the same time there appears to be a significant increase in homosexual activity among consenting adults.²⁵ Mark Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of the America Academy of Religion IXIV/2, 233.

This decline indicates Paul’s instruction to the Romans included all same sex relationships—not only pederasty. Mark Smith further explains:

In sum, the extant sources for Greco-Roman homosexual practices demonstrate many exceptions to pederasty and a decline in the prominence of pederasty in the last three centuries immediately preceding Paul. Very few references to specifically pederastic activity occur in the literature and art of the last century before Paul’s era. Considerations of space prevent us from exploring the evidence for homosexual use of male slaves (which was commonplace) and the role of male homosexual prostitutes (both active and passive) for which there was apparently a viable market. Suffice it to say that they only offer a yet more varied picture of homosexual life in the ancient world, and none of these can be construed to conform to the “model” of pederasty.²⁶ Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 237-238.

Although pederasty was considered normal and acceptable by the Roman conquerors during the period when the New Testament was written, first century Rome saw a transition from the Greek, romanticized view of homosexual activity to such activity being more abusive. Historian Thomas Hubbard writes:

Literature of the first century C.E. bears witness to an increasing polarization of attitudes toward homosexual activity, ranging from frank acknowledgment and public display of sexual indulgence on the part of leading Roman citizens to severe moral condemnation of all homosexual acts, even with slaves. One no longer finds the idealized and romantic images of Vergil and Tibullus, inspired by Greek models, but instead an obsessive interest in the most graphic and salacious aspects of same-sex relations.²⁷ Thomas K. Hubbard, (ed.) Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook Basic Documents. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 383.

According to David Wright, Jewish and Stoic writers alike opposed pederasty. He writes:

Although Paul said remarkably little about homosexuality…what he does say reveals a remarkable originality, in part by adopting the broader perspectives of the tradition that derived from the Old Testament and from Leviticus in particular.²⁸ David Wright, “Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible,” Evangelical Quarterly 51:4 (1989) 300.

Mark Smith summarizes the sexual situation of the Greco-Roman world and its possible relationship to the modern world in this way:

I have no doubt that Greeks or Romans would agree that Kinsey’s continuum also represents their behavior, albeit with some differences in cultural expression. We have our Man-boy Love associations, our bathhouses, our bisexuals, and our committed monogamous homosexual relationships, as well as our faithful and less-than-faithful heterosexual marriages. On the one hand, then, we must conclude that there are significant similarities in the cultural expression of sexual activity between the Greco-Roman world and our own. On the other hand, we must be careful not to minimize the remaining cultural differences. The Greeks idealized youthful male beauty; we do not. Many Greeks and at least some upper-class Romans were widely tolerant of male homosexual activity, within certain limits; our culture tends to treat homosexuality as one of the more heinous of evils, perhaps as a result of our medieval European heritage. Women in Greek, and to a lesser extent in Roman, culture were held in extreme subjugation to their male superiors (Cantarella 1987), a far cry from our cultural assumptions and practices. Our conceptions of romance, dating, and meaning of marriage are to a large extent foreign to ancient cultures (Boswell 1994: 3ff.) Pederasty, in our culture, would be translated as sex with a minor and prosecuted as Lewd and Lascivious Conduct or Statutory Rape. If bisexuality was considered “normal” in Greco-Roman culture, it is not in ours, which emphasizes heterosexuality as the only “normal” sexual option. The distribution of sexual activity along Kinsey’s continuum may have looked somewhat different for ancient people than it does for modern Americans. Perhaps homosexual activity was more widespread among Greeks and Romans, as a result of the relative acceptability of such behavior in their cultures (though the evidence is by no means sufficient to make any judgments about relative frequency). These are legitimate distinctions between two cultures, and I have no doubt others could be added.²⁹ Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 248-249.

In Karen Keen’s dialogue with Wesley Hill in Chicago in April of 2022, she admits she has some doubt as to what Paul was opposing in Romans 1.

In my own process of studying this, I was not able to come to an affirming position on the basis of exploitative argument. It is a credible argument and may well be the reality that all the passages that refer to this in scriptures are pertaining to exploitation. But I could not prove that was the only reason they condemned it.

Matthew Vines does not believe the New Testament addresses modern same sex relationships and has some doubts as to them being blessed:

Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed.³⁰ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131.

Justin Lee expresses a similar doubt about Paul and Romans 1:³¹ Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel-vs-Christians Debate. (New York: Jericho: 2012), 183.

Perhaps he would have condemned the gay sex even if it weren’t in the context of idolatry.

Despite Matthew Vines’ question regarding the Bible’s blessing same sex relationships and Justin Lee’s doubts about the influence of idolatry on Paul’s condemnation of gay sex, Karen Keen uses them to support her position of God’s approval of same sex partnerships:

Gay-affirming evangelicals believe that same-sex partnerships can be blessed by God. Prominent leaders in this group include Justin Lee and Matthew Vines.³² Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018) 13.

Neither Vines nor Lee see themselves as scholars on the matter. Matthew Vines writes:

I am not a biblical scholar, so I have relied on the work of dozens of scholars whose expertise is far greater than my own.³³ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 2. According to Christopher Yuan, Vines “attended Harvard for three semesters and never received a bachelor’s degree.” (See: Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, 149).

Justin Lee admits he is not “a preacher, or a theologian or a scholar.”³⁴ Lee, Torn, 210.

These statements by Karen Keen, Matthew Vines, and Justin Lee indicate they are not 100% sure their understanding of Romans 1 is correct. This is significant, especially considering the firm opposition of their fellow affirming scholars including Loader, Brooten, Crompton, Via, and Pronk.

Issue Two: Does Paul Address Modern Same Sex Relationships in Romans 1?

Some affirming writers believe Romans 1 is not applicable to modern same sex relationships. Consider the following six examples:

1). Matthew Vines clearly states he does not necessarily believe same sex marriages are blessed, however earlier in the same book he makes the following observation:

…he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can’t reasonably be called the same issue.³⁵ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 106. Throughout his book, Vines maintains Paul does NOT condemn modern-day same sex behavior. “We’ve found that, while Paul’s words are certainly negative, they appear in a context that differs greatly from the debate taking place within the church today.” (114) “…the context in which he would have been making that statement would differ significantly from our context today.” (126)

…what Paul was describing is fundamentally different from what we are discussing.³⁶ Vines, God and the Gay Christian,103.

That isn’t to say that no one pursued only same sex relationships or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love. But such examples were rare…³⁷ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 104.

It is important to observe that six years later Matthew Vines changed his understanding of “same-sex unions” from being “rare” to no longer existing “in ancient times.”³⁸ Matthew Vines, For the Bible Tells Me So: Hermeneutics and the Debate About LGBTQ Inclusion (You Tube) (March 6, 2020).

Even though same-sex marriage is not mentioned in any part of the bible because same-sex relationships between social equals were not even on the radar screen in ancient times…

The notion of two men or two women of equal social status entering into a lifelong monogamous relationship would not have been accepted even by the most “progressive” Greeks and Romans, as such an arrangement would have undermined the patriarchal foundation of their societies.

A comparison of Matthew Vines’ writing from 2014 and his teaching in 2020 appears to show a progression in his efforts to justify modern same sex relationships.

Vines also states:

Ironically, that means the equal-status gay marriages we see today would not have been accepted in most of the ancient world.³⁹ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 37.

2). Robin Scroggs does not believe the bible addresses modern same sex relationships:

The fact remains, however, that the basic model in today’s Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met.⁴⁰ Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality,127.

3). Justin Lee rejects Leviticus and Romans as applicable to modern same sex relationships:

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships. If 1 Corinthians 6:9 was condemning the same things, or something else like pederasty then the Bible didn’t address committed gay relationships at all.⁴¹ Lee, Torn: 186.

4). Jeff Cook agrees and writes:

Monogamous same-sex relationships are nowhere in sight when reading Romans 1.⁴² Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook Debate. Part 6: “Gay Sex—What is Paul Cranked Up About?”

5). Regarding his understanding of pederasty in ancient literature Joel Hollier writes:

Of course, we know from the vast libraries of ancient literature available to us that there were numerous such models available to them, none of which were faithful, exclusive, or mutually self-sacrificing.⁴³ Hollier, A Place at His Table, 126.

In fact, over the past forty years, the majority of scholars who have written theological works exploring the Bible’s view of homosexuality have concluded that the Bible as a whole does not condemn faithful, monogamous same sex-unions—their pillars have fallen also.⁴⁴ Hollier, A Place at His Table, 122. Because of his book being a recent treatise (2019) there have been no reviews or references made to it by either traditionalists or revisionists.

6). Karen Keen makes the following comment about same sex relationships in antiquity:

But the biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today. To put it simply, to say that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted relationships. That would be comparing apples and oranges.⁴⁵ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

Progressives might respond to this concern by saying that the Bible does not speak to covenanted same-sex relationships and thus we can feel confident in discerning God’s will on the basis of virtues. In this they are correct; the Bible doesn’t address covenanted same-sex relationships as we know them today.⁴⁶ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 57-58.

But the biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today.⁴⁷ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

In essence, Paul does not address the question of gay people who love God and want to share their life with someone in a caring, monogamous relationship.⁴⁸ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 39.

Even so, Keen does not eliminate the possibility that consensual same sex relationships existed in Paul’s day because she uses the terms “rarely,” “rare,” and “primarily,” and “likely” in referring to them. She writes:

Consensual peer relationships are rarely mentioned.⁴⁹ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 17.

Peer relationships were rare.⁵⁰ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

Homoeroticism during the Greco-Roman period consisted primarily of pederasty.⁵¹ Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 17.

The apostle Paul likely had in mind the behavior he saw around him, namely pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.⁵² Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 18.

If, as Keen and others indicate, there is a possibility that Paul knew of “consensual peer relationships,” does it not stand to reason that Paul would have distinguished between them and pederasty and other abusive relationships?

In response to Preston Sprinkle’s review of her book (December 16, 2018) Keen writes:

But we can’t prove that Paul or other biblical authors knew monogamous, covenanted same-sex couples. For all we know their primary exposure was to the predominant exploitative practices. Neither traditionalists nor progressives can make a case on this basis alone. It remains speculative. That is why I focus on the Scriptural basis for mutuality.

Response to Romans 1 Excluding Modern Same Sex Relationships

At the beginning of his explanation of Romans 1, Matthew Vines writes:

There is no question that Rom 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate.⁵³ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 96.

But his words in Romans 1 have long been read as a rejection of all same-sex relationships. What we need to ask is: is that a faithful application of the text today?⁵⁴ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 99.

Vine’s question is a valid one and requires consideration of several topics:
(1) An examination of Romans 1.
(2) An examination of outside literary sources.
(3) The use of porneia in two texts.
(4) The research of Preston Sprinkle.
(5) Paul’s knowledge/travels and covenanted same sex marriages.
(6) Paul and dedicated monogamous same sex Christians.

1). An examination of Romans 1

According to the terms Paul uses in Romans 1:27-28, there is no indication this text precludes the actions from being consensual.⁵⁵ Romans 1 is not a condemnation of only same sex relationships. The phrase of “sexual impurity” (Rom 1:24) includes several types of immoral sexual behavior (adultery, rape, prostitution). He makes a general statement about degrading “their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:24b)⁵⁶ The Greek in Rom 1:24 is: “ho autos soma en autos” (τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς) which is not the exact term as “one another” in Rom 1:27 (ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους). therefore implying mutuality. He describes men abandoning “natural relations” and committing “shameful acts with one another,” and receiving “in themselves due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27b).⁵⁷ It has been suggested the “due penalty” (antimisthian ἀντιμισθίαν) or “recompense” could refer to the soreness both persons could experience in anal intercourse. Sprinkle, (ed) Homosexuality: The Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Homosexuality and the Bible, 42. In the New English Translation of Romans 1:27a⁵⁸ ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν (auton) εἰς ἀλλήλους mutuality is again seen: “were inflamed in their passions for one another.”⁵⁹ The prefix “ek” (exekauthesan: “inflamed”) showed intensity of the verb. Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abington Press, 2001), 237. Paul’s use of “themselves,” “their,” and “one another” indicate both partners were equally guilty.⁶⁰ Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 325. He does not believe Romans 1 is limited to pederasty. In fact mutual responsibility is indicated four times in Romans 1:27b:⁶¹ The CEB translates Rom 1:27b: “Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies.” The YLT:   “and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.”
(1) “toward one another”⁶² See Rom 1:24 for “one another.” εἰς ἀλλήλους is a reciprocal pronoun.
(2) “men with men”⁶³ ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν
(3) “in themselves”⁶⁴ αὐτῶν
(4) “their error”

In commenting about the phrase “for one another,” William Loader makes the following observation:

…Paul’s depiction in 1:27 of mutual desire (εἰς ἀλλήλους) suggest that what he has in mind is not primarily exploitative pederasty and certainly not limited to it. The same applies to Jewett’s speculation that Paul may have sexual abuse of male slaves in mind. Those who have interpreted Lev 18:22 as referring to some form of cult prostitution frequently try to read this into Romans 1, so that Paul’s focus would not be same-sex acts in general but those preformed within idolatrous ritual contexts.⁶⁵ Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 325.

Paul’s terminology is also telling. If Paul had only been condemning older men having sex with boys, he would not have used a reciprocal pronoun “toward one another” and the phrase “men in men.”⁶⁶ εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν The word for young (neotez)⁶⁷ νεότης is used in 1 Timothy 4:12. The word for child (teknon) ⁶⁸ τέκνον is used in Ephesians 6:4 and Romans 8:16-17 and 21.⁶⁹ Obviously the three words have overlapping usages. Because of the terms used there is no indication the “mutual” same sex relationships were with slaves or prostitutes but rather with two equal men. The word used to describe adolescence (that spanned late childhood to early adulthood) is neaniskos. Because Paul held both individuals accountable, it was not reasonable for Paul to have included a “mounted boy.” ⁷⁰ ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης. (Rom 1:27) The text does not imply a power play of an older man with a young male, a master with his slave, nor a rape situation.⁷¹ Playing the part of the woman was degrading for men regardless if the sex act was forced or consensual.

According in the Hebrew Bible when homosexual conduct was mutual BOTH parties were punished (Deuteronomy 22:22-24). When such behavior was not mutual, this was not the case (as seen in rape situations Deuteronomy 22:25-27).⁷² The same use of mutual terms is repeated in Rom 1:24-27. Had Paul been targeting only pederasty, he would have clarified the culpability of the “innocent” party.

The same sex relationships Paul condemns is further defined at the beginning of Romans 1:27. He states, “in the same way” which means the men paralleled the mutual lesbian⁷³ Bernadette Brooten has written perhaps the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relationship to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26). “Lesbian” comes from a 7th-6th century BCE gay poet named Sappho who was from the Greek island of Lesbos. Therefore “Lesbos” is the source for “lesbian.” activity of the women in Romans 1:26. There is no evidence older women exploited younger women, consequently this condemnation references same sex relationships between “men” and “men”⁷⁴ The Greek phrase (“men in men”) and context indicate anal sex. The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as masculi in masculos indicating the nature of the act.It can also be translated “men effecting shamelessness in men”, or “men working genitals in men” – in the LXX is a euphemism for genitals. and not “men” and “boys.”⁷⁵ William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (108:1 2017),140. “As Jewett suggests, anal intercourse might best explain Paul’s additional comment, which would be referring to the soreness of the anus or the penis or both. Jewett translates the words τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι as ‘working (up) shame’ and referring to an erection, and ἣν ἔδει as a reference to construction of tightness, producing the subsequent soreness…But even without these readings which may be claiming too much, I (William Loader JJ) consider Jewett’s proposal the most plausible-thus far of the many suggestions with regard to the meaning of the words τὴνἀ σχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴνἀ ντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. Paul does not appear to assume the principle of matching punishments so that in the broadest sense God’s punishment for human beings’ perverted approach to himself in their minds is abandon them in their minds to a perverted approach to each other. Similarly, the perverted activity with the penis and anus produces punishment though soreness of both.” In connection with the damage of “men in men,” the phrase of “dishonoring their bodies’ (Rom 1:24) and “passion of dishonor” (Rom 1:26) could be added.

The parallel to female behavior stands. Is it possible that limiting Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships only to pederasty is an example of “reading into the text” a window of acceptability which is not there?

As Paul closes his condemnation of the gentiles in Romans 1, he mentions sins God opposes and states in 1:32, “that those who do such things deserve death.” There was no law which demanded death for these sins except murder. William Loader makes the following observations:

It is likely therefore that Paul remains focused here on same sex relations, where Lev 20:13 declares the death penalty for lying with a man as with a woman. The fact that he also attacks those who applaud such practices may well also reflect that focus, since it is a charge expressed, for instance, by Philo, who was concerned about public support for such practices. ⁷⁶ William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time.” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1) 2017, 145. Loader listed the following sources for Philo: e.g. Philp, Specleg IV 89; VitCont 53-56.61).

The final verse suggests that Paul still has same-sex relations in mind when he speaks of people propagating and promoting such sin…⁷⁷ Sprinkle (ed.), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Homosexuality and the Bible, 41.

2). An examination of outside literary sources

According to the cumulative evidence, Paul was probably aware of ongoing consensual monogamous relationships.
(1). Plutarch and Monogamous Covenanted Same Sex Couples

Evidence indicates same sex relationships among equals was practiced in the Greco-Roman world. Mark Smith summarizes Plutarch’s (45 CE to 120 CE) awareness of such behavior in the following way:

Plutarch describes the famous Sacred Band of fourth century BCE Thebes, which became the military powerhouse of Greece. One qualification for membership in this elite military corps was to become the homosexual lover of another band member, on the assumption that lovers would fight more fiercely for each other. There is no evidence that there were any pre-adolescent members of this group; we must assume that they were all of prime fighting age. Pederastic practices would be unlikely in such a context, because they all must fight side-by-side as equals. Plutarch portrays Pelopidas as married at the same time that he was captain of the Sacred Band and, thus, attached to a male lover…Epaminondas, the great Theban military leader, was so attached to his lover, Caphisodorus, that the two fell together at the Battle of Mantinaea and were buried together like a married couple.⁷⁸ Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 236.

Paul was well educated and assumedly knew the history of the Sacred Band of Thebes and the 150 consensual/committed /monogamous same sex couples willing to die for each other.

(2). Plato and Monogamous Covenanted Same Sex Couples

Several authors have commented on Plato’s acknowledgement of these relationships. Jim Reynolds writes:

Plato’s Symposium contained moving statements about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love, describing various celebrants (including Socrates) during a time of light drinking after a banquet that occurred in 416 B.C. Plutarch’s Dialogues (750 B.C.) contained strong affirmation of loving same-sex relationships contending for their superiority over heterosexual lovemaking. The same attitude was defended in the Pseud-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart (ca. 300 A.C.). These references indicate that the ancient context contained powerful proponents of adult same-sex lovemaking not unlike the contemporary context of the early 21st century.
Then, as now, pagan writers advocated exploitative homosexual acts as well as homosexual acts of love. It is the lack of gender polarity, thereby distorting God’s created intent, that is at the root of the Biblical as well as the contemporary church’s opposition to homosexuality. (Romans 1:18-32, Genesis 1 and 2).⁷⁹ Jim Reynolds, The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church. (Xulon Press, 2007), 151.

Robert Gagnon makes the following observation about Plato (427 BCE to 346 BCE):

Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements about compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the example are the speeches in Plato’s Symposium. In it is narrated a series of discourses on Love (Eros) by various celebrants (including Socrates), during the time of light drinking after a banquet that occurred in 416 B.C.E.⁸⁰ Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 350-351. Gagnon follows with several examples of committed and loving relationships.

James DeYoung summarizes the information from Plato in the following manner:

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.⁸¹ James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications 2000), 157.

Since Plato lived from 427 B.C. to 346 B.C. the discussion among Greek intelligentsia was underway hundreds of years before the apostle Paul. The following portions of Plato also support the view that the Greeks knew of homosexual condition or inversion, as well as the various practices of homosexual behavior. Indeed, some of them touted them as superior to heterosexuality—an early example of “gay pride.”⁸² DeYoung, Homosexuality, 205. DeYoung follows with extensive quotes from Plato and other ancient writers.

(3). During the classical Greek period, pederasty was a common practice among the socially elite Greeks, but this does not mean there were no mutual same sex relationships. Thomas Hubbard summarizes the Grecian influence on homosexual activity:

Greek homosexual activity, despite popular misconceptions, was not restricted to man-boy pairs. Vase-painting shows numerous scenes where there is little or no apparent difference in the age between the young wooer and his object of courtship.⁸³ Hubbard, (ed.) Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, 5.

3. The use of porneia in two texts

(1). Corinthians 7

In Corinthians 7:2 Paul uses of the plural form of “sexual immorality”⁸⁴ The plural form can be used to describe “several acts” and not necessarily “many kinds.” The singular use can describe a “category.” therefore indicating he was aware of different kinds of immoral sexual behavior.⁸⁵ In 1 Cor 7:2 Paul uses the plural form of porneia (πορνείας) to show the extent of immorality in Corinth. He would have been aware of the brothels in the Greco-Roman world. In Romans he claims people were so depraved that “they invented ways to do evil” (Rom 1:30). See Mark 7:21-22. As such, the term could have included the sexual sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9. It is also quite possible the “many people” (Acts 18:8) in Corinth included types of same sex relationships and other relationships considered to be immoral.⁸⁶ Acts 18 10; 1 Cor 1:26-31; 1 Cor 5:1- 2

(2). Acts 15

Paul and Barnabas had had great success teaching the gentiles and consequently the church was confronted with the issue of circumcision and salvation among the gentile converts (Acts 15:1).⁸⁷ Acts 13:46; 14:1, 27; 15:12 To clarify the matter a letter was constructed by the apostles, elders, and the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8, 23, 28) to the gentile churches outlining the behavior they were expected to follow as believers (Acts 15:23). Significantly the letter follows the same order⁸⁸ The original letter mentioned by James follows a different order (Acts 15:20). The abstaining “from food polluted by idols” (ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων) in Acts 15:20 is qualified in Acts 15:29 with “food sacrificed to idols” (εἰδωλοθύτων). “Sexual immorality” is connected to “idolaters.” (Rev 2:14, 20; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19-20 εἰδωλολατρία) or was something to be avoided (1 Thess 4:3). The “what is strangled” is followed by the mention of “blood” (Gen 9:4). Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 118-119. Conzelmann believes the letter (Acts 15:29) follows the order of Leviticus 17-18. as Leviticus 17-18. Because of Paul’s ministry to the gentiles (Acts 9:15), his knowledge of their past,⁸⁹ 1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2; Rom 1:26-27 and his understanding of Torah, it can be assumed he had a major influence on the contents of this letter. Gentiles were expected to abstain from:⁹⁰ Paul alludes to the letter written to gentile believers declaring “we have written to them our decision” (Acts 21:25). This correspondence follows the order of the letter in Acts 15:29. Later Paul adds a note regarding eating foods sold in the market (1 Corinthians 10:25; Romans 14:2).
(1) food sacrificed to idols (Leviticus 17:7)
(2) blood (Leviticus 17:12)
(3) meat of strangled animals (Leviticus 17:13; Genesis 9:4)
(4) (porneia) sexual immorality (Leviticus 18:1 through 23)⁹¹ “Sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29) is the translation of the Greek word porneia. In Acts 15:29 porneia does not appear in the plural as found in Mark 7:21 and 1 Corinthians 7:2. However the singular form could have included several examples of immorality.

As in 1 Corinthians, Paul chooses the plural of the term porneia in this text which most likely includes same sex relationships.⁹² As same sex relationships can be included in porneia (Acts 15), according to the LXX the word can also include adultery. In Hosea 2:2b “adulterous” and “unfaithfulness” are both mentioned. “Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.” The first word is zenuniym and means “fornication” or “sexual unfaithfulness.” The second word, na’pupiym, means “adultery.” There does not seem to be a clear distinction between them other than the first term is perhaps broader. The LXX uses the word porneia to describe the “look from her face” and the word adultery moikeia to describe what was “between her breasts.” In three New Testament texts porneia (sexual immorality) and moikeia (adultery) are listed separately: Mark 7:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Matthew 15:19. Because the writers mention “adultery” in addition to sexual immorality, adultery appears to be a subset of sexual immorality (porneia).

In the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Walter Bauer and Frederick Danker translate Acts 15:29 as “abstaining fr. things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and irregular sexual union.”⁹³ Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 103. The lexicon translates “εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας” as: “abstain fr. things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and from irregular sexual union Ac 15:29.” They then refer the reader to Leviticus 18:6-30, especially Leviticus 18:20. By defining porneia mentioned in Acts 15:29 as “irregular sexual union” and referencing the Leviticus texts, it appears their understanding of porneia includes same sex relationships in addition to incest, adultery and bestiality.⁹⁴ The sins of Leviticus 18 are bookended by “I am the LORD your God” (Lev 18:2 and Lev 18:30.) The section begins with the admonishment by God to “Keep my decrees and laws” (Lev 18:5). After the sins are listed God says: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled” (Lev 18:24). Lev 18:27 acknowledges “all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you.”

Question: Would the gentile believers have understood the letter commanding them to abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) ONLY applied to abusive same sex relationships, and not to consensual, monogamous, and committed relationships?
Reply: It was not necessary for apostles and elders to make a distinction between two “kinds” of same sex relationships because Judaism was united in opposition to ALL same sex relationships. A distinction between same sex relationships (abusive/consensual versus polygamous/monogamous) was foreign to Jewish understanding.

4. The research of Preston Sprinkle

In his book Brownson contends Paul does not address consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships⁹⁵ Brownson maintains the bible neither affirms nor condemns committed same sex relationships which means God overlooked these relationships in the first century and continues to do so. and does not know of any such relationships. Preston Sprinkle who has written and lectured extensively on same sex relationships from the viewpoint of a traditionalist summarizes evidence to the contrary:

Paul’s world contained a vast array of perspectives on sexual orientation, examples of consensual and nonexploitative same sex couples, and even homosexual marriages. There is no historical reason why we should not assume that Paul could not have had examples of consensual same-sex relations before his eyes when he penned Rom 1.⁹⁶ Preston Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.4 (2014), 523.

In any case, consensual and loving homosexual relationships can be seen during the Roman period as well. For instance, Xenophon’s second century AD novel An Ephesian Tale depicts a young man named Hippothous who falls in love with another man of the same age named Hyperanthes.⁹⁷ Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 63. See Sprinkle. “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality,” 527 for more examples of consensual same sex love.

5. Paul’s Knowledge/Travels⁹⁸ Preston Sprinkle, Did Adult Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times? 9. With the limitations of the literature from the Greco-Roman era, Paul’s information in Romans 1 becomes even more important. Paul did not have the elite status of other Greco-Roman writers because he was a “leather worker” (Acts 18:3) from Tarsus. He attempts to “level the playing field” (Galatians 3:28) by writing in the common language of his day. and Covenanted Same Sex Couples⁹⁹ Sprinkle, Did Adult Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times? 1-12.

Paul’s world view (Acts 22:3; Philippians 3:5) encompassed the known world as far as Spain (Romans 15:24). He would have crossed paths with followers of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18), those in the slave community,¹⁰⁰ Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; 1 Cor 7:21; Phile 1:16 and those engaging in the “sexual creativity” of Corinth (Acts 18:11). We have already confirmed the possibility of long term committed, loving, and long-term same sex relationships during Paul’s time.¹⁰¹ Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 104. “That isn’t to say no one pursued only same sex relationships or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love. But such examples were rare… “ His numerous travels, knowledge of the Greco-Roman world, education, awareness of contemporary writings, and interactions with people from a variety of backgrounds would have exposed him to various forms of same sex relationships¹⁰² 1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2; 1 Tim 1:10 including casual, abusive, consensual, and even those which were committed/monogamous.

Paul was known as the apostle to the gentiles¹⁰³ Acts 14:46; Rom 11:13; Gal 2:8) which implies his knowledge of their culture. In his letters he mentions the gentiles had turned from idols (1 Thessalonians 1:9), did not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:5;¹⁰⁴ “Not knowing God” is connected to sexual sins (1 Thess 4:1-8). The name of God is mentioned five times in eight verses. Acts 17:23), were sinful (Galatians 2:15), and were engaged in sexual immortality (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Corinthian church had a background of paganism (1 Corinthians 12:2) and in 1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul indicates he possesses detailed knowledge of occurring sexual immorality that was not even tolerated by pagans. In Ephesians 4:17, he instructs his readers to “no longer live as the Gentiles.”

There are no indications in any of Paul’s writings that consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships were not included in his instruction of Romans 1:26-27. If Paul meant to only condemn pederasty and abusive same-sex relationships, and not those in consensual, committed, and monogamous same-sex relationships, it seems he would have made that clear. Just as he did not feel it was necessary to list the different types of incestual relationships (Leviticus 18:7-17), he did not list the types of same sex relationships that violated Christian ethics.

It also stands to reason that Paul was involved in the conversion of people involved in same sex relationships. As part of their response to repentance Paul called all believers out of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:11). The type was insignificant.¹⁰⁵ 1 Cor 1:26; 6:9-11; 12:2; Acts 18:8-11; 1 Tim 1:10; Eph 5:8 He gives no hint that those involved in same sex monogamous and committed relationships could continue in those relationships after their conversion any more than those involved in other types of sexual immorality.

6. Paul and Dedicated Monogamous Same sex Christians

As far as can be determined, Paul was never confronted with committed and monogamous Christians in same sex relationships.¹⁰⁶ Why a person is born with the same sex attraction cannot be answered any more than why a person is born blind (John 9:1-4) or with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7). In the situation of the blind man, Jesus said, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). Of his own situation Paul said, “Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me” (2 Cor 12:7). If he had been:
(1) What would have been his response?
(2) Would he have reasoned that same sex relationships within the context of idol worship were sinful but lawful when engaged in by consensual, committed, and monogamous Christians?
(3) Would he consider same sex relationships today acceptable or sinful based on the circumstances?

We can only surmise Paul’s answers to these questions by using his own words. His attitude toward immoral Christians (assumed to be dedicated and God-loving) in Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:11) is telling. He cautions the churches up and down the Lycus Valley to not even hint (aroma) at immorality by their actions (Ephesians 5:3). He writes to the Thessalonians:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified that you should avoid sexual immorality, that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans who do not know God. (1 Thess 3:3-5)

The Corinthian Christians tried to rationalize immoral behavior because, “I have the right to do anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12), and “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food” (1 Corinthians 6:13). Paul did not agree. In fact, his message was more in tune with, “My only right as a Christian is to give up my other rights” (1 Corinthians 8:9-10; Romans 14). What one could do or could not do with their own body was a major concern for him. Just as Paul’s message was counter-cultural as he opposed consensual, heterosexual, immoral behavior (1 Corinthians 5:9-11),¹⁰⁷ In the Jewish world a Jewish husband could have sex with a non-virgin, a non-married woman, or a non-pledged woman and not be guilty of adultery because there was no property violation. he was counter-cultural in his opposition to same sex relationships.

Summary of Assumption Three
Basis Of Paul’s Opposition to Same Sex Relationships

Even though some teachings from Torah do not appear to be repeated in the New Testament (such as the practice of the levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5 through 10), the same cannot be said for same sex relationships especially in the light of the teachings in Romans 1:18-32.

Paul was opposed to ALL same sex relationships under any circumstances whether by Christians or pagans, abusive or consensual. If same sex relationships among Christians were approved by God, Paul made no attempt to differentiate them from same sex relationships among pagans who had rejected God for idols.

Romans 1 has two revelations: the righteousness of God (Romans 1:16-17) and God’s punishment for ungodliness and unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). As mankind cannot be saved without a knowledge of the gospel (Romans 10:14-15) mankind cannot be condemned without a knowledge of sin. Both gentiles and Jews were without excuse—the Jews had the law (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:1), and the gentiles had creation (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-6, Ecclesiastes 3:11) and the law that was “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). If Paul meant to imply consensual same sex relationships were acceptable to God as opposed to abusive ones (pederasty), how were the gentiles to know the difference having only creation and the law “written on their hearts?” The law “written on their hearts” confirms knowledge that is intuitive, natural, and intrinsic. Both signify same sex relationships were not God’s intention at creation. Even though Paul affirms the capacity of the “heart” to believe (Rom 10:10), scripture also warns the heart can be deceived (Jeremiah 17:9; Hosea 10:2). Such is the case with all sin.

Succinctly put, the “Genesis marriage” is supported both by Jesus (Mark 10:6 through 9) and by Paul’s analogy of Jesus and the church compared to husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21-33). Even though same sex relationships are not mentioned in Genesis:
(1) They oppose the creation ideal found in Genesis. When God created the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, and animals they were designed to work together to accomplish certain purposes. The same was true of man and woman. Veering from this plan creates “irregularity” and can be traced back to the “orderliness” or “design” of creation.¹⁰⁸ “according to their kinds” (Gen 1:12, 21, 24, 25). “And God saw it was good” (Gen 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25). “God saw all that he made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31) Same sex relationships do not fit the “design purposes” of creation.
(2) They oppose the ethics in Torah which are connected to character of God.
(3) They oppose Jesus’ explanation of God’s plan for marriage (Matthew 19:1-12).
(4) They oppose the complementary nature of pairs (male and female), i.e.: man was to leave father and mother (male and female), and man was joined to his wife (male and female).
(5) They oppose God’s plan because of the nature of the partner, i.e.: ¹⁰⁹ Even if done in a mutual and committed manner, none of these behaviors could be considered acceptable. adultery involves sex with someone other than a spouse; incest involves sex with a relative; bestiality involves sex with an animal; same-sex relationships involve sex with one who is biologically the same.