The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

The term unnatural (against nature) refers to heterosexual men and women engaging in non-procreative sexual relations.

Romans 1:26 and the interpretation of the word “unnatural” is a critical part of the LGBTQ+ conversation:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (phusikan: φυσικὴν) sexual relations for unnatural (para physin: παρὰ φύσιν).

Affirming Scholars Who Exclude Lesbian Activity in Romans 1:26

James Brownson:

…Romans 1:26…was understood to refer, not to lesbian sexual activity, but to nonproductive forms of heterosexual intercourse.¹

…in Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.²

Therefore, there is good reason to question the contemporary assumption that Romans 1:26 refers to lesbian sexual behavior.³

But as I have repeatedly noted, broad and generic concepts like “homosexuality” did not exist in the ancient world; and it is considerably less clear that Romans 1:26 even envisions same-sex eroticism between women.⁴

In this context, the reference to “their women” in Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.⁵

In other words, the “lesbian” reading of Romans 1:26 is completely unattested in the early church in the first 300 years of its life, despite fairly common discussion of this text among patristic commentators.⁶

Brownson’s current understanding that Romans 1:26 does not refer to lesbian sexual behavior represents a 180 degree change from his teaching in 2006:

Such behavior is rejected not only because of its links with violence, idolatry, and lust, but more importantly because 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…I believe that when Paul speaks in Rom 1:26f. of “nature,” he is referencing God’s creational intent, that God intends genital sexuality to be expressed exclusively in the faithful union between a man and a woman in marriage, and that Paul speaks against homosexual behavior because it does not express that creational intent.⁷

During a question-and-answer period connected to the Reformation Project in Los Angeles on October 22, 2016, Brownson was asked about his understanding of lesbian activity in Rom 1:26. The following was his answer:

The most objective data about this is the fact (and I have looked very hard for information that contradicts this) to my knowledge that the first 300 years of the churches’ life, nobody read Romans as referring to lesbian sex and there are multiple instances of this referring to women engaged in oral or anal sex. Non-reproduction sex is sex that is contrary to nature. I know scholars who disagree with me and affirming scholars who disagree with me.

However, he expresses doubt to his conclusion:

I am not willing to die on this hill.

James Miller⁸

That verse 27 condemns male homosexual practice is clear. However, verse 26 does not specify that the unnatural sexual partner of the women is another woman… There is little reason to read Romans 1:26 as a reference to female homosexuality and strong reason to understand Paul’s comments as a rejection of some or all unnatural (non-coital) heterosexual intercourse, the type of intercourse used in verse 27.⁹

If a woman wishes to have non-coital intercourse with a man her options are those of the homosexual male, for once the woman decides not to use her vagina she has no other gender-distinctive orifice. In other words, the remaining options for the woman are oral intercourse, anal intercourse and intercourse which does not involve penetration.¹⁰

Miller also ascertains lesbian activity was not a targeted issue for rabbis:

A similar situation may be found in Jewish culture. In the Mosaic code male homosexuality is condemned but female homosexuality is ignored…The only restriction the rabbis placed on practitioners of female homosexuality was that they may not marry a priest, presumably because they do not quite measure up to the standard of virginity required in Leviticus 21. The rabbis were familiar with the issue of female homosexuality, but in spite of their distaste they apparently knew of no tradition which forbids the practice outright and thus they gave it a marginal status in Priestly law.¹¹

(3) Karen Keen:

However, it’s important to realize that early on Romans 1 was not always understood and interpreted as referring to female same-sex relations. This underscores the importance of entering the world of the biblical authors rather than super imposing our modern assumptions on them.¹²

Keen expresses her reluctance to discuss Romans 1:26 by stating:

I will not be discussing the debate on whether Romans 1 refers to female same-sex relations. The evidence is ambiguous.¹³

Two years later in a second book Keen states:

Significantly, Romans 1:26 is the only possible place in the Bible that refers to female same-sex relations. But even this is not certain. The text does not specify with whom the women exchanged the natural for the unnatural. It doesn’t specifically say women were having sex with other women. Some early church fathers, including Augustine thought Romans 1:26 referred to women having anal sex with men (likely as birth control).¹⁴

Keen appears to support a double standard for men and women regarding same sex relationships:

This is likely why Israelite men are prohibited from same-sex relations, but women are not. Procreation potential was thought to reside in male ejaculation.¹⁵

Old Testament sex laws do not prohibit female same sex activity because for Israelite authors sex requires penile penetration and ejaculation.¹⁶

Keen believes while women are not condemned for same sex relations, they are forbidden to have sex with animals because of possible penetration:

Israelite women are however, prohibited from having sex with animals, a bizarre act, but one that hypothetically allows for penetration (Lev. 18:23; 20:16).¹⁷

Even though Keen denies women are even engaged in same sex relations with one another in Romans 1:26 and female same sex relations are not condemned in scripture, in her later book, The Bible and Sexuality, she entertains the “possibility” that same sex relationships between women are condemned:

Both traditionalist and progressive scholars agree that the biblical authors condemned male (and possibly female) same-sex relations…The references are too few and inconclusive for either traditionalists or progressives to dogmatically assert why same-sex relations were condemned.¹⁸

Keen further supports her understanding by redefining “unnatural”:

In common Greco-Roman and Jewish usage, the term “unnatural” often referred to sex that was non-procreative or violated the dominated/submissive paradigm for gender norms. We don’t have clear evidence that the objection to same-sex relations was violation of anatomical complementarity only by itself.¹⁹

If Keen’s interpretation of “unnatural” as a non-procreative sexual relationship is correct, Abraham’s sexual relationship with Sarah was “unnatural.” Sarah’s womb was dead and Abraham’s “body was as good as dead” (Rom 4:18-19). The same would hold true of a married couple who because of age or medical issues could not conceive a child.

Keen makes a case for the exclusion of homosexual women in Romans 1:26, however she shows the tentative nature of her position by using qualifying words and phrases in her writings:

This is likely why Israelite men…
The only possible reference to female same sex activity in the Bible is Romans 1. However, the text does not specify with whom women exchanged the natural for the unnatural…Thus, when Romans 1:27 says men did “likewise,” the biblical author intends to make a connection to sodomy with women.
If this interpretation is accepted, the concern might have beenthat anal sex was used to prevent pregnancy, thereby enabling promiscuity. In other words, men were wasting their seed²⁰ and women willingly participated…
It’s reasonable to conclude that when Paul refers to para physin, his concern includes the non-productive nature of same sex acts.²¹

In summary, Brownson, Miller, and Keen agree women are not involved in lesbian activity in Romans 1:26²² but men and women are engaged in non-productive sex.

Affirming Scholars Who Include Lesbian Activity in Romans 1:26

It is not uncommon for affirming scholars to reject what other affirming authors have written:

(1) Louis Crompton

Another controversy centers on Paul’s reference to “changing” or leaving the “natural use” of women. 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.²³

(2) Bernadette Brooten:²⁴

Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond JJ], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond JJ], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.²⁵

As we have seen, nearly all of the extent Roman-period sources on female homoeroticism condemn it as monstrous, unnatural, diseased, and more. Similarly, early Christian sources strongly condemn the sexual love between women.²⁶

Since, however, Paul was trained as a Pharisee and continued to view himself as “a member of the people of Israel,” we need to consider at least briefly his condemnation of female and male homoeroticism in the context of Judaism…Paul presents homoerotic behavior as contrary to nature, and he discusses female and male homoeroticism side by side.²⁷

The type of sexual relations engaged in by women most often called “contrary to nature” (para physin) in the Roman world sexual is relations between women.²⁸

This verse (Romans 1:27 JJ) makes explicit what v. 26 leaves open, namely the precise nature of the unnatural acts. The phrasing is parallel: just as the females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, so too do males give up the natural use of women.²⁹

According to Brooten the terms “natural” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 are dealing with “unnatural relations” between women and “unnatural relations” between men. Paul is NOT contrasting the “natural” with the “unnatural” between women and between men.³⁰

With this analysis of the text, women having sex with other women (exchanged) and “in the same way” (Rom 1:27a) men having sex with other men (“for one another” Rom 1:27b) are considered “unnatural.”³¹

(3) William Loader:

Female to female eroticism was more widely condemned in the Greco-Roman world than male, so that perhaps Paul chose to begin with the most abhorred, but this is not certain.³²

For Paul as for Philo and other Jews of the time, contrary to nature is contrary to God’s created order…Paul is not just writing about acts or even intent to act, but about what he sees as a twisted orientation which is a manifestation of a twisted response to God. Something has gone wrong with the mind. It is darkened (Rom 1:21) and unfit (1:28). Its orientation, not just the actions, is contrary to God’s creation. For on the basis of his reading of Genesis 1:27, Paul, like other Jews of his time, believes that human beings are only male or female—in our terms, heterosexual. Anything other than that is a perversion.³³

Loader also expresses his understanding of Philo’s (Paul’s contemporary) beliefs about sexuality in ancient Jewish and Christian thought:

In Philo we find the most extensive discussions of same sex relations…he targets both pederasty and adult-adult consenting sexual relations, including between women…³⁴

He (Philo) gives us by far the most extensive repertoire of arguments against same-sex relations…What is not according to nature is not according to God’s creation and is to be condemned…He also condemns same-sex relations between women and between men where the context is not pederasty but consensual adult behavior.³⁵

Loader and Wesley Hill agree on the meaning of “contrary to nature”:

I very much concur with Wesley’s understanding of “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26-27 as alluding to what God created people to be.³⁶

Even Keen highly esteems Loader for his understanding of ancient sexuality among revisionists. She writes:

Loader is a top scholar on the subject of sexuality in ancient Jewish and Christian thought.³⁷

(4) Matthew Vines:

But in two verses (Rom 1:26-27), he described lustful same-sex relations between men, likely between women as well, and his words were starkly negative.³⁸

Even when not dealing directly with Romans 1:26, Vines believes women as well as men were involved in same sex relationships:

While female same-sex relations were condemned nearly unanimously throughout the ancient world, they often didn’t draw as much attention as male same-sex relations.³⁹

Vines admits that Brownson wrote “the finest theological treatments of this issue” and his “biblical analysis is extraordinary careful and thorough” and shows an “uncompromising fidelity to the authority of scripture.”⁴⁰

However he disagrees with Brownson’s exegesis of Romans 1:26 and sides with Brooten:

I’m inclined to agree with Brooten’s argument here, even though it isn’t definitive.⁴¹

The inclusion of lesbian activity in Romans 1:26 by these four affirming authors (Crompton, Brooten, Loader, and Vines) is significant. Perhaps by taking the stand they do, Brownson Miller, and Keen are attempting to soften the teachings of Romans 1:26-27 against all same sex relationships.⁴²

“Natural” and “Unnatural”

Definitions connected to creation
“Natural” (physin)⁴³ refers to a predetermined social or biological behavioral conduct and means “God’s created order” or his intended purpose for the world and his people. Acting “against natural” (para physin) violates the order established by God. In the LGBTQ+ conversation “against natural” is a rejection of the procreative complementarity established by the creation of male and female as defined in Genesis 2:24. To support their position, revisionists have seemingly changed the definition of para physin (against natural) to “against one’s personal (sexual) nature.”⁴⁴

When the Creator is rejected (Rom 1:23) it follows that God’s created order is also rejected. Paul states they “exchanged the natural (ten physiken) for what is against nature (para physin).” This “unnatural” activity is a perversion (Rom 1:27). For Paul, “natural” is what God created.⁴⁵

Same sex relationships are an example of the “unnatural.”

2. “Natural” and “unnatural” defined by three non-affirming authors

Robert Gagnon provides the following translations of para physin:

Fifth, the translations “beyond nature” and “contrary to nature” for para physin cannot be played off against each other and, moreover, “nature” here has little to do with innate desires. The meaning “beyond” (the more common and general meaning of para with the accusative) and “contrary to, against, in opposition to” (a specific sense of this general meaning) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Same-sex intercourse is “beyond” or “in excess of” nature in the sense that it transgresses the boundaries for sexuality both established by God and transparent in nature even to gentiles.⁴⁶

He further explains:

However, Rom 1:27 is quite explicit about what “the natural use of the female” was exchanged for: sex with members of the same sex. For the “likewise” of 1:27 to be appropriate, both the thing exchanged, and the thing exchanged for must be comparable. Hence, sex with members of the same sex, not non-coital sex, is the point of comparison between 1:26 and 1:27.⁴⁷

Richard Hays states:

There are abundant instances, both in the Greco-Roman moral philosophers and in literary texts, of the opposition between “natural” (kata physin) and “unnatural” (para physin) behavior. These categories play a major role in Stoicism, when the right moral action is closely identified with action kata physin. In particular, the opposition between “natural” and “unnatural” is very frequently used (in the absence of convenient Greek words for “heterosexual” and “homosexual) as a way of distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behavior.⁴⁸

I have cited these texts at some length because they demonstrate that in Paul’s time the categorization of homosexual practices as para physin was a commonplace feature of polemical attaches against such behavior, particularly in the world of Hellenistic Judaism. When this idea turns up in Romans 1 (in a form relatively restrained by comparison to some of the above examples), we must recognize that Paul is hardly making an original contribution to theological thought on the subject; he speaks out of a Hellenistic-Jewish cultural context in which homosexuality is regarded as an abomination, and he assumes that his readers will share his negative judgment of it. In fact, the whole design and logic of his argument demands such an assumption. Though he offers no explicit reflection on the concept of “nature,” it is clear that in this passage Paul identifies “nature” with the created order. The understanding of “nature” in this conventional language does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists; instead, it appeals to an intuitive conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God. Those who indulge in sexual practices para physin are defying the creator and demonstrating their own alienation from him.⁴⁹

Paul Pollard provides the following summary of “against nature” and “according to nature”:

The problem with homosexual lesbian sexual activity for Paul was that it is unnatural. The phrase he used, παρὰ φύσιν (para phusin, “against nature”), has a long and interesting history. In Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions, homosexual practices were seen as “violations of the created order” and “contrary to nature.” Early traditions stemming from Plato, to the Hellenistic Judaism of Philo and Pseudo-Cyclades used language very similar to Paul’s in 1:26, 27 in the following ways: (1) All the texts opposed same-sex intercourse by both men and women; (2) they describe such acts as “against nature” (para phusin) the same words used by Paul; and (3) they use the same words for “male” (arsen) and “female “(thelus) in reference to sexual activity “according to nature” (κατά φύσιν, kata phusin). Paul’s language does not come from Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, neither of which mention same-sex female acts or any appeal to “nature.” In contrast, the writings of Plato, Philo, and Pseudo-Phocylides do appeal to “nature.” Evidently Paul knew other ancient traditions making similar arguments to his, and he may have drawn from these Hellenistic Jewish arguments against homosexuality.⁵⁰

3. “Natural” exchanged for the “unnatural”⁵¹

The women are targeted first for engaging in unnatural (para physin) relationships because they had turned away from “natural sex” (passive receptacles) to “unnatural.” The New Living Translation translates Romans 1:26:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Wesley Hill (a gay celibate Episcopalian priest) connects idol worship and same sex relationships to the meaning of “exchange”:

Finally, in Rom 1:26-27, God gives humanity up to same-sex sexual coupling—which is itself described as an “exchange” that illustrates or symbolizes the previous two. Paul is giving same-sex intercourse a theological interpretation. Such sexual coupling is not simply transgression of an arbitrary divine norm; it is, rather, a departure from the structures of creation, on a par with Israel enacted with its worship of a self-made golden idol.⁵²

N.T. Wright translates Romans 1:26-27:

So God gave them up to shameful desires. Even the women, you see, swapped natural sexual practice for unnatural; and even the men, too, abandoned natural sexual relations with women, and were inflamed with their lust for one another. Men performed shameless acts with men, and received in themselves the appropriate repayment for their mistaken ways.⁵³

4. The term “likewise” in Romans 1:26-27

⁵⁴

Paul begins 1:27 with the “likewise” (homoios)⁵⁵

“in the same way.”⁵⁶

The term refers to what the women were doing—that is having sexual relations with other women (Rom 1:26). Both the women and the men of Romans 1:26-27 are guilty of sexually crossing the gender boundaries of creation.⁵⁷

Some revisionists have attempted to negate this wording.

James Miller explains Paul’s use of “likewise in Rom 1:27:

Thus the similarity in function described in Romans 1:26 refers to non-coital sexual activities which are engaged by heterosexual women similar to the sexual activities of homosexual males.⁵⁸

William Loader states:

The connecting phrase at the beginning ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες makes good sense if Paul in 1.27 is similarly talking about the same kind of behavior as in 1.26, this time between males.⁵⁹

The men had “abandoned natural relations with women “in the same way” as the women when they “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.”

Bernadette Brooten writes:

Most interpreters believe that v 26 speaks about sexual relations between women, although a few suggest bestiality and anal intercourse. I argue that “unnatural intercourse” refers specifically to sexual relations between women because (1) the “likewise” (homoios) of Rom 1:27 serves to specify the meaning of Rom 1:26; and (2) other ancient sources depict sexual relations between women as unnatural (Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy Artemidoros, probably Dorotheos of Sidon).⁶⁰

This verse makes explicit what v. 26 leaves open, namely the precise nature of the unnatural acts. The phrasing is parallel: just as the females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, so too do males give up the natural use of women.⁶¹

James DeYoung agrees with Brooten:

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 comparison argues for male adult-adult mutuality.⁶²

Ben Witherington writes:

Vv. 26-27 are about as clear a condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior as exists in the NT. Paul speaks of actions, not inclinations, attitudes, or genetics. He says quite literally that those who practice such behavior have exchanged the natural function of intercourse for that which is against nature. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman tradition there was a long history of seeing such behavior as “unnatural” or counter to the way God originally created and intended things to be… Paul certainly believes there is a natural order of things that God put into creation which ought to be followed.⁶³

The New Living Translation translates Romans 1:26b:

Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

This same version translates Romans 1:27 as a direct parallel to Romans 1:26:

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women,⁶⁴

burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

5, “Unnatural” as an inversion

The term unnatural can also be considered an“unnatural inversion.” Paul provides two examples of this:

(1) Man worshipped idols⁶⁵

and not the God who made him (Ps 139:14; Rom 1:25). Idol worship is an“unnaturalinversion” because man was never intended to worship something he created.⁶⁶

(2) Same sex relationships were “unnatural inversions” because man with man and woman with woman lacked “fitness.”

Paul’s use of both words (natural κατὰ φύσιν and unnatural παρὰ φύσιν) in Romans 11:24 supports the concept of “inversion”:

After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν)⁶⁷

were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, thenatural (κατὰ φύσιν ) branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!⁶⁸

Gentiles were not originally part of the olive tree (God’s chosen people), and were “unnaturally” grafted in. Under normal circumstances only the “natural” could be grafted into the olive tree. God did an “unnatural inversion” in making the gentiles joined equally together with the Jews (God’s chosen people). God can change the original design—not man as is the case in Romans 1.

6. Revisionists and the term “natural” in 1 Corinthians 11:14⁶⁹ and Galatians 2:15

To promote their definition of “natural” revisionists use two texts: 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 2:15. According to their interpretation, the term nature (φύσις) in 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26 refers to a man with long hair. The meaning of any word—Greek or English—must be determined by its context.⁷⁰

In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul is dealing with men and women and head coverings. Women were to pray with their heads covered so the glory of God could be seen by the uncovered heads of the men (1 Cor 11:7). The word “nature” in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has nothing to do with ethical behavior as in Romans 1:26. Rather, Paul is referencing a long-standing cultural practice that would have been known by the Corinthians. Robert Gagnon explains:

If in Paul’s view inappropriate hairstyles and head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another male to bed be a shameful act (Rom 1:27), lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did put same-sex intercourse on that level.⁷¹

Countryman summarizes the relationship of 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26:

Here “nature” seems to mean something like “widespread social usage.” Paul draws an argument by analogy from such usage: just as women in his world were expected to wear their hair long and men to wear theirs short, so, too, women ought to wear something on their heads when leading worship while men should not. This usage of “nature,” however, is less likely to be relevant to the passage in Romans 1.⁷²

In Galatians 2:15 Paul uses the term “nature” to mean “birth.”⁷³

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles.⁷⁴

Clearly the use of the term “nature” is not the same in 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 2:15. Because the word for “unnatural” does not appear in 1 Corinthians 11:14 or Galatians 2:15, those texts are not helpful in determining the meaning of “natural” in Romans 1:26-27.⁷⁵

7. The use of “natural and unnatural” by ancient writers

Ancient authors other than Paul use the terms natural and unnatural in referring to heterosexual and homosexual behavior.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE)

In the second century Clement of Alexandria used the phrase para physin to describe women involved with other women:

…women behave like men in that women, contrary to nature, (para physin: παρὰ φύσιν) are given in marriage (gamourmenai) and marry (garousai) other women.⁷⁶

Bernadette Brooten explains:

Like other authors of the Roman period, Clement defined relations between females and between males as unnatural (para physin); his discussion also overlaps conceptually with non-Christian discussions of homoeroticism.⁷⁷

Consequently, in addition to Christian sources, Clement also drew upon non-Christian literature to support his view of same-sexual behavior as unnatural, and he explicitly quotes Plato on this subject. In addition to frequent references to Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Musonius Rufus, and numerous other philosophers whose views shaped early Christian thinking about gender…⁷⁸

Josephus (first century CE)

The Law recognizes no sexual connections except the natural (kata physin) union of man and wife, and that only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males, and punishes any who undertake such a thing with death.⁷⁹

Victor Paul Furnish explains:

This description of the intercourse between husband and wife as “natural” implies that same-sex intercourse is “unnatural.”⁸⁰

The Testament of Naphtali (Second Century BCE)

In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all the products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from [lit.,”changed”] the order of nature.⁸¹

Plato (428-347 BCE)

Concerning “natural and “unnatural” Plato writes:⁸²

One could place the blame for this first and foremost on your two cities and on other cities that are especially devoted to gymnasia. Regardless of whether one approaches this subject in jest or in earnest, there is one thing that one must recognize and that is that the sexual pleasure experienced by the female and male natures when they join together for the purpose of procreation seems to have been handed down in accordance with nature, whereas the pleasure enjoyed by males with males and females with females seems to be beyond nature, and the boldness of those who first engaged in this practice seems to have arisen out of an inability to control pleasure. And we are unanimous in accusing the Cretans of fabricating the story of Ganymede,…⁸³

Joining with males and boys in sexual intercourse as though with females, adducing evidence the nature of animals and pointing out that (among them) male does not touch male for sexual purposes because that is not natural… Our citizens must not be worse than birds and many other animals which…when they reach (the) age (for breeding) pair off male with female according to instinct and female with male and for the remaining time they…(remain) firm to their first agreements of love.⁸⁴

Musonius Rufus (30-62 CE)

Regarding “against nature” Rufus states:

But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature.⁸⁵

Summary of Assumption Five

Greco-Roman history is threaded with all types of deviant sexual behavior. Thomas Hubbard explains:

Just as sexual behavior in Greece and Rome was irreducible to any single paradigm, moral judgments concerning the various species of same-gender interaction were far from uniform. The widespread notion that a “general acceptance” of homosexuality prevailed is an oversimplification of a complex mélange of viewpoints about a range of different practices, as is the dogma that a detailed regimen of protocols and conventions distinguished “acceptable” from “unacceptable” homosexual behaviors. There was, in fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today.⁸⁶

As time passed from the Greek to the Roman period, attitudes about sexual behavior also changed. However, the writers of these two periods are unanimous in their denunciation of same sex relationships. None of the writers of these periods try to justify same sex relationships as “natural.”⁸⁷

Both the ancient Israelites and the LGBTQ+ community agree that bestiality and incest are sinful, but why? Bestially (sex with an animal not a human) is “against nature.” Incest ( sex with relatives Lev 18:6-17) is “against nature.” Pederasty (older men having sex with boys) is “against nature.” Same sex relationships (sex with the same gender) are “against nature.” The common denominator which makes bestially, incest, pederasty, and same sex relationships “sinful” is that they are “against nature.” The gentiles could determine this using only creation (Rom 1:20) and the law “written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15). If same sex relationships are approved of God because they can be mutual and permanent, could not the same be said for an incestual relationship that is also mutual and permanent?

Paul’s opposition to same sex activity in Romans 1 is not based on “procreation” nor the “passive” nature of one person (i.e. a man acting as a woman), but rather it is based on making “difference” into “sameness.” Consider:

(1) Mankind changed from worshipping God (Rom 1:22) to worshipping images “like a mortal human being.” Man worshipped himself (sameness).

(2) Women changed from a sexual relationship (Rom 1:26) with men to a sexual relationship with other women (sameness).

(3) Men changed from a sexual relationship (Rom 1:27) with women to a sexual relationship with other men (sameness).

The revisionists’ interpretations of Romans 1:26-27 do not fit the textual information.⁸⁸

Idolatry and same sex relationships are “reversals” and form the foundation of Paul’s rejection of idolatry and same sex relationships. The only approved sexual expression in Scripture is found in creation (Genesis 1-2) and emphasized by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6.⁸⁹

Foundational to Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships is the nature and character of God.

*The terms “revisionist” and “affirming” are used interchangeably throughout.

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Conference Goals