The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Six

Paul had no knowledge of the modern concept of sexual orientation.

Some revisionists assume Paul did not know about same sex orientation from birth and this influenced his perspective of sexuality. They support their claim with two presuppositions:

(1) Paul saw sexuality as only heterosexual.
(2) The medical world at the time of Paul did not know about orientations and genetic tendencies toward certain behaviors.

Victor Paul Furnish states:

The presuppositions about homoeroticism that shaped the views of ancient writers are now as outdated as any of their judgments about human anatomy and human reproductive system. Especially because of the knowledge that has been gained about sexual orientation and the complex factors that are involved in its formation, the ancient presuppositions about sex and gender have been rendered obsolete.¹

Matthew Vines writes:

And we are about to see, the new information we have about sexual orientation actually requires us to reinterpret Scripture no matter what stance we take on same-sex relationships. If non-affirming Christians choose to maintain their interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality, they will have to change their interpretations on something else: celibacy.²

The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation—or the expression of that orientation.³

James Brownson agrees:

Writers in the first century, including Paul, did not look at same-sex eroticism with the understanding of sexual orientation that is commonplace today.⁴

This distinction is, of course, a modern one that would make little sense in the ancient world, where the notion of sexual orientation was absent.⁵

Karen Keen believes same sex orientation is unchosen, yet indicates for some it is not permanent:

The church began to acknowledge that same-sex attraction is unchosen, often shows up during puberty, and does not change for the majority of people.⁶

Concerning same sex orientation and science she writes:

He (Paul) assumed same-sex attraction is caused by rejecting God, an assertion we know is not scientifically accurate.⁷

Knowledge of Same Sex Orientation During the Time of Paul⁸

Like other issues that surround the LGBTQ+ conversation, revisionist authors don’t always agree on whether the genetic tendency for same sex orientation was known during the time of Paul. Consider the following affirming writers:

William Loader states:

Plato certainly knew of theories about sexual orientation, such as the one espoused by Aristophanes which offers an explanation of why some women are attracted to women, some men to men, and the rest of us to the opposite sex (Plato Symposium 189-193). This was known. Philo cited it (Contempl. 57-63) and, like Plato, did not agree, but with more substantial grounds, for it contradicted Genesis. God created only male and female. Paul similarly assumes that all people are male or female and that their natural orientation is towards the opposite sex. This, he argues, was distorted not because of Adam’s fall but as a result of a perverted understanding of God, producing in them a perverted orientation towards members of their own sex.⁹

It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand, as does Philo… He would have stood more strongly under the influence of Jewish creation traditionwhich declares human beings male and female, to which he may have well be alluding in 1:26-27, and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people (all of whom he deemed heterosexual in our terms) as flouting the divine order.¹⁰

Bernadette Brooten believes sexual “orientation” was acknowledged in Paul’s day and was thought to be arranged by the stars. She writes:

Although they considered female homoeroticism unnatural, ancient astrologers mentioned it dozens of times, attesting to broad societal recognition of the phenomenon. Further, contrary to the view that the idea of sexual orientation did not develop until the nineteenth century, the astrological sources demonstrate the existence in the Roman world of the concept of lifelong erotic orientation. Because of a particular configuration of the stars…determined a woman’s erotic inclination for the duration of her life.¹¹

In 2006 James Brownson commented on the relationship between orientation and action:

One is not morally responsible for one’s orientation, but one is morally responsible for one’s behavior…This distinction between inclination and action assumes something enormously important for moral thinking: the centrality of the will. At the heart of moral responsibility is our ability to choose. We are morally responsible for what we choose to do (and the subsequent implications and consequences of our choices); we are morally responsible, however for what we have not actively or passively chosen. Moreover, the distinction between inclination and action is critical for understanding human freedom. We are not slaves to our impulses, but have the ability to control them and to choose the good. This assumption is the foundation of human society. So there is good reason to distinguish between orientation and behavior, between inclination and action.¹²

He reverses his thinking in a later book written in 2013.¹³

Justin Lee addresses both orientation and source:

…the question of orientation origin has become a battleground for gays and Christians on all sides of the issue. In actuality, these arguments are built on nothing. Gay sex could still be sinful even if same-sex attractions are inborn; we humans are born with all kinds of sinful temptations.¹⁴

At this point, the evidence makes it look very likely that biology has something to do with sexual orientation, but scientists are still learning, and nothing is set in stone. It’s not only that we don’t know what causes people to be gay; we don’t know what causes people to be straight, either!¹⁵

Paul’s world view was impacted by his understanding of Torah. Because of this, if he had known about same sex orientation there is no indication he would have considered it acceptable.

Genetics and Same Sex Orientation

Modern day affirming authors also represent different viewpoints regarding same sex orientation and its relationship to same sex activity today.

Justin Lee states:

…so whether behavior is sinful or not doesn’t tell us anything about whether the related attraction has biological roots…We all have inborn tendencies to sin in any number of ways. If gay people’s same-sex attractions were inborn, that wouldn’t necessarily mean it’s okay to act on them, and if we all agreed that gay sex is sinful, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that same-sex attractions aren’t inborn. “Is it a sin?” and “Does it have biological roots?” are two completely separate questions.¹⁶

If one is born with same sex orientation, Lee does not believe it is possible to change and rejects any claims of “success” by reparative therapy. Granted for the most part efforts to change such orientation have failed, however Karen Keen indicates 23% have made that change.¹⁷ Some have changed their same sex orientation (or at least the choice to act upon it) and have gone on to live heterosexual lifestyles, but this has not been the norm. Whether or not people really “changed” as witnessed by the failure of ex-gay and therapeutic organizations is debatable.¹⁸

John Corvina writes:

The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say “God made me this way” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.¹⁹

Science has indeed proven a genetic propensity for alcoholism. That being the case, consider the following questions:

(1) Is drunkenness wrong for one born with the orientation or predisposition for alcohol? Some pedophiles have used the studies on alcoholism to justify their conduct. How these studies relate to same sex orientation is yet to be decided. As far as the medical world can tell there has not been a “gene” discovered establishing same sex orientation.²⁰

(2) If some in the LGBTQ+ community claim they were born with same sex orientation and cannot avoid acting upon that tendency, could those who work with other inclinations mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 claim exemption by saying they were born with a tendency to lie, or be covetous or adulterous, and, as such, are not responsible for their actions?

Michael Uklega summarizes the same observation:

There is no such thing as nonabusive adultery; all adultery is wrong. There is no such thing as nonillicit theft; the Bible clearly states that all theft is wrong. Nor does the Bible teach such a thing as “responsible” covetousness. The Bible emphatically declares that all reviling and swindling is illicit. And without a doubt, homosexuality is placed in the same list of prohibitions in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. In the case of homosexuality, motives are not the issue. To make them such finds no exegetical support in Scripture.²¹

Paul’s Use of “Exchange” in Romans 1

After Paul establishes the need of redemption for the gentiles in Romans 1, his discourse becomes more descriptive. In Romans 1:22 Paul says mankind exchanged worshiping the “Creator” for worshiping the “creation.”²² Perhaps referencing his Jewish roots, Paul uses the term “exchange” that is reminiscent of Israel’s action when they made a “god” in the shape of a calf (Exod 32:4,8).²³ ²⁴ The terminology of Psalm 106:20 is quite like that of Rom 1:23:

They exchanged their glorious God for an image of a bull, which eats grass.²⁵

Three times in Romans 1:23 through 26 Paul uses this term:²⁶

(1) Romans 1:23: “they changed (allasso ἀλλάσσω) the glory of the immortal God for images²⁷ made to look like a moral human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”²⁸
(2) Romans 1:25: “They exchanged (metallasso: μεταλλάσσω) the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things.”²⁹ Paul adds a prefix (meta) here to make the root term more emphatic.
(3) Romans 1:26: The word for “exchange” in Romans 1:26 is μετήλλαξαν—the same term he uses in 1:25: “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.”

Again, the prefix is added for emphasis.

The dual use of “exchange” (metallasso: μεταλλάσσω) in Romans 1:26 and 27 connects rebellion against God and the “shameless acts” of Romans 1:27.³⁰ Each time he uses the term, Paul shows how “foolish” they are even though they claimed to be “wise” (Rom 1:22). The terms for exchange in Romans 1:23 and in Romans 1:26 are “parallel” concepts (idols for God and unnatural for natural) and are connected by the “exchange” of truth “for the lie” in Romans 1:25. Gagnon outlines the results of this “exchange”:

Quite appropriately, an absurd exchange of God for idols leads to an absurd exchange of heterosexual intercourse for homosexual intercourse. A dishonoring of God leads to a mutual dishonoring of selves. A failure to see fit to acknowledge God leads to an unfit mind and debased conduct.³¹

In summary, Romans 1:25-27 says:³²
(1)Instead of being turned toward God, man turned to himself (Rom 1:25).
(2) Instead of women being turned toward men, they turned to other women (Rom 1:26).
(3) Instead of men being turned toward women, they turned to other men (Rom 1:27).

An examination of Paul’s use of the term “exchange” in Romans 1 does not resolve the question of same sex orientation being acquired or hereditary. However, its use does suggest that same sex activity had not always been the case for some who were currently engaged in it.³³

Loader emphasizes Paul’s opposition to all same sex activity regardless of its nature:³⁴

In Romans 1, therefore, the most likely explanation is that Paul assumes that people were created male and female with heterosexual orientation of their natural sexual emotions. Those who denied God’s reality had perverted minds and engaged in perverted acts: they worshipped idols. As punishment³⁵ God gave them over to perverted minds with perverted passions and desires whose intensity they followed by engaging in perverted acts, females with females, males with males, and for both their mindset and their actions they stand condemned. Paul does not differentiate between people of different sexual orientation, either to exempt homosexuals, or to make sure both are condemned. He may have known that some made such differentiation, but he would not have believed it. Nor does he focus only on pederastic relations. Without differentiation he condemns all with such sexual attitudes and desires and all acts which give expression to them. He does so within the context of deliberately highlighting what he assumes his hearers will agree is outrageous sin, in order then to bring them to see that in fact all are under sin and in need of the gospel, including those so willing to condemn.³⁶

Paul offers no reason why some were participating in same sex relationships other than attributing immoral acts to the power of sin (Rom 7:14 through 17). His foundation for opposing same sex relationships are the boundaries established by God in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2 and Holiness Code in Leviticus, “there can be no homosexual acts at all in Israel.”³⁷ By stating that both women and men had “exchanged…” Paul indicates a choice had been made. Preston Sprinkle concludes:

For Paul, the question of orientation is irrelevant. Homosexual unions violate the boundaries of gender established by God at creation.³⁸

Summary of Assumption Six

Even though the “jury is still out” concerning all the implications and questions about same sex orientation, Reynolds offers some interesting insights about the ancient world:

The fact is that the notion of the innateness of homosexual passion in some persons at the time of Paul existed in the myth of human origins expounded in Plato’s Symposium (5^th Century BC) and other influential ancient texts, including the writings of Aristotle (4^th century BC) and later Philostratus (3^rd century A.D.). The ancient pagan cultural context with its myths of homosexual innateness is not all that much unlike the contemporary 21^st century context with its arguments for the innateness and beauty of consenting adult homosexual passion.³⁹

Preston Sprinkle states:⁴⁰

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 assume that Paul could not have had examples of consensual same-sex relations before his eyes when he penned Rom 1.⁴¹

Today, questions still exist as to the reasons individuals might be homosexual.

Justin Lee writes:

…we don’t know what causes people to be straight…we can make only educated guesses and realize that there’s still a lot we don’t know.⁴²

Sprinkle agrees:

Same-sex orientation is way too complicated and we certainly have not arrived at a bulletproof understanding of it…According to everything I have read we still have a long ways to go.⁴³

In her book written in 2008, Lisa Diamond⁴⁴ proposes that sexuality is “fluid”:

Sexual fluidity, quite simply, means situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual responsiveness. This flexibility makes it possible for some women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation. In other words, though women—like men—appear to be born with distinct sexual orientations, these orientations do not provide the last word on their sexual attractions and experiences. Instead, women of all orientations may experience variation in their erotic and affectional feelings as they encounter different situations, relationships, and life stages.⁴⁵

Because some revisionists maintain God is relational and loving and he created some people with same sex orientation, he would not forbid them to act upon that tendency. Consequently, a life of celibacy is not an option demanded by God or the church for gay and lesbian Christians. Undoubtedly, celibacy is not a gift everyone has (1 Cor 7:7;⁴⁶ Paul’s option for celibacy is influenced by his eschatology, present famine, and devotion to God. Matt 19:11 and 12), but both Jesus and Paul taught it was an option for some people.⁴⁷ Concerning lifelong celibacy, Karen Keen writes:

But the reality is that human beings are biologically made for sexual relationships, not for lifelong celibacy. Pretending this is not true will only enhance the disorder evident since the sexual revelation. People will have sex either within marriage or outside of it.⁴⁸

For the most part revisionists do not emphasize the impact families of origin or traumatic life events⁴⁹ can have on same sex attraction. Neither Torah nor the New Testament distinguish between acquired or inherited behaviors. James writes that one is drawn away by his “own evil desire” (Jas 1:14). The “desire” is not the sin, but the action that follows. Individuals can be born tendencies for rage, prejudice, and greed, but that does not mean God approves on the actions that might follow. Granted it is difficult to accept that God holds people responsible for something over which they have no control. However, assuming one is born with a same sex orientation does not provide free license to act on that tendency. Orientation is not a sin,⁵⁰ however acting on an orientation can be.

Without Romans 1:26 and 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10, the New Testament is totally silent concerning same sex relationships. It does seem strange that the Holy Spirit does not provide exception if some same sex relationships were and are acceptable (2 Tim 3:16).

Whether or not Paul knew about people born with same sex orientation cannot be determined. Regardless Romans 1:18-32 is an attack on gentile behavior and their need for justification (Rom 1:17; 3:10, 23). As illustrations to God’s opposition to all ungodly conduct, he uses the term “exchange” twice in reference to idolatry and once in reference to same sex relationships. (Rom 1:23-26). Same sex activity is not the subject of his polemic, but an illustration of behavior God rejects. Even if Paul was aware of same sex orientation, considering his dependence upon Torah and the information revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Thess 2:13; Acts 2:4), there is no indication he would have accepted same sex relationships as approved of God.

Questions For Consideration

(1) Could the attraction to animals (orientation) be considered “inborn” or “acquired?”

(2) If the medical world concludes there is a sexual orientation toward bestiality, what would be the response of the modern affirming community?