Jerry Jones

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Six

February 12, 2024 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

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The presuppositions about homoeroticism that shaped the views of ancient writers are now as outdated as any of their judgments about human anatomy and human reproductive system.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?

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

December 26, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

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 Four

July 19, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refer only to abusive relationships and do not address modern same sex relationships.

Key Terms: Arsenokoitai and Malakoi

Some revisionists attempt to make the two texts, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, irrelevant to modern same sex relationships. The main issue lies in the translation of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy 1:10.¹ This is best illustrated in thirteen different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9:²

⁹ Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse. Footnote: or submissive and dominant male sexual partners. (Common English Bible)

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men(New International Version) A footnote says the words “men who have sex with men” is a translation two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals (Today’s New International Version)

⁹ Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, (New Living Translation)

⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, (New King James Version) Footnote: defines “homosexuals” as those submitting to homosexuals and sodomites as “male homosexuals.

⁹ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (King James Version)

⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, 2021). Footnote: the meaning of the two Greek words is “uncertain.”³

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, (New American Standard Bible)⁴ Footnote: The two Greek words could refer to submissive and dominant male homosexuals.

⁹Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (New English Translation)

⁹ Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, (New Century Version)

⁹ Don’t you know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived! Neither immoral people nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor practicing homosexuals of whichever sort, (The Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright)⁵

Robert Gagnon translates the text:⁶ Or do you not realize that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral (pornoi), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate males who play the sexual role of females (malakoi), nor males who take other males to bed (arsenokoitai)…⁷

Considering the translation dilemma, some revisionists have taken a two-fold approach.

According to the first approach arsenokoites and malakos are not unquestionable references to modern same sex relationships. Matthew Vines states:

So even the sexual use of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same sex behavior…as we’ve seen malakos doesn’t refer to merely a single act. It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderations.⁸

So even if the compound word arsenokoitai did originate from Leviticus, that still wouldn’t tell us what it means in 1 Corinthians 6.⁹

Regarding the connection of arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) to the Levitical texts, James Brownson¹⁰ states that linking them “is speculative and lacks external confirming evidence.”¹¹

The second approach maintains that if the texts are describing same sex relationships, they are referring to those that are abusive.

Karen Keen writes:

The apostle Paul likely had in mind what he saw around him namely, pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.¹²

Matthew Vines states:

One of the most prominent forms of sexual exploitation in the ancient world was the practice of pederasty. If arsenokoitai does refer to male same sex behavior, it’s likely that it refers to pederasty.¹³

Such statements seek to eliminate 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 from the discussion of modern same sex relationships. The evidence and information surrounding these texts do not provide as much information as Romans 1:26-27, however they do supply additional information from Paul as to the practice of same sex relationships.

Even though Vines admits arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9) could be connected to the Levitical text¹⁴, he contends that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1 are not applicable to the committed same sex relationships that exist today¹⁵. To support his claims, Vines redefines two Greek words (arsenokoites and malakos) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and uses those definitions to influence his reasoning. He limits arsenokoites to only abusive relationships and he denies malakos refers to the passive person in a same sex relationship. He states:

The word malakos actually was more frequently applied to men who succumbed to the charms of women.¹⁶

So even the sexual sense of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same-sex behavior. In fact, reading it as a reference in same sex behavior is a recent trend in biblical interpretation.¹⁷

Vines’ assumption that Romans 1 does not apply to modern same sex relationships seems to have influenced his understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9. He does not view the clearer text of Romans 1 as relevant to all same sex relationships¹⁸, nor does he use that text to interpret a more confusing text (1 Cor 6:9). Instead, Vines appears to reason backwards. That and his new definitions of the two Greek words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 provide a questionable foundation for God’s approval of modern same sex relationships. Even though Vines contends the Bible is silent “on committed same-sex relationships,” he admits this “silence” does not mean God approved.¹⁹

Definition of arsenokoitai

The word for male in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew bible) is arseno and the word for bed is koite. (NOTE: The English word coitus “sexual intercourse” is a derivative of koite.) The term means sexual acts happening in a bed.²⁰ In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the term arsenokoitai which originates in the Levitical texts.²¹ In both texts he addresses both consensual and nonconsensual same sex relationships. This indicates he chose the compound word²² on purpose and was not just addressing pederasty. If Paul had meant to limit the 1 Corinthians 6:9 text to pederasty it stands to reason he would have chosen paiderastes (lover of boys).

The Hebrew equilavent of the compound²³ Greek word²⁴ arsenokoitai²⁵ used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is mishkav zakar (“who sleep with other males”). Arsenokoitai is defined in the Greek English Greek Lexicon as “a man who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex.”²⁶ It is quite possible mishkav zakar was commonly used in Paul’s day and being bilingual, he decided to use the Greek equivalent. The Hebrew phrase “lying with a male” (mishkav zakar) is used synonymously with same sex relationships regardless of age or role of either male. Leviticus 20 condemns the behavior regardless of age or motive of the participant.

James DeYoung expresses the same understanding:

Paul coined arsenokoitai from Leviticus 20:13, which forbids adult homosexual behavior without distinguishing forms. Paul does not make distinctions. Also, Leviticus holds both partners morally culpable to the point of being put to death and being “cut off.” Adult mutuality in same-gender behavior must fall within the parameters Paul gave the term. Finally, Leviticus influenced Paul to use two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, in 1 Corinthians.²⁷

Torah and arsenokoitai

Same sex relationships are opposed in Torah (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13). Paul was a well-educated Jew and as such he would have found harmonizing such behavior with creation and the ethics of Torah basically impossible. When writing to the early Christians (who knew only Greek) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, it was natural for him to use arsenokoitai,the Greek equivalent of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.²⁸ Even though this was the first and only time the word is used in the New Testament, evidently Paul believed his readers would understand it.²⁹ It is unimaginable that Paul could have approved of same sex relationships in a consensual, committed, monogamous relationship and condemn same sex relationships either in a casual or an abusive/non-monogamous context.

Revisionist writers, arsenokoitai, and the Levitical texts

Several influential revisionist writers admit the Levitical texts supply the background for Paul’s use of arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9:

(1) Robin Scroggs states:

I have argued above that in early rabbinic legal discussion, the term most often used to describe male homosexuality is mishkav zahur, ‘lying with a male.’ Arsenokoites can be seen as a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase.³⁰

(2) Matthew Vines concedes:

So it’s possible that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai based on his familiarity with the Greek translation of Leviticus 20. ³¹

(3) WilliamPetersen believes arsenokoitai connects to Leviticus and should be translated:

the ones (masc.) who lie/sleep with men.³²

(4) Williams Loader agrees:

Exploitation was a common feature in most same-sex encounters, but not all. Thus it is better to take the word as closely cohering with what Paul condemns in Romans 1 and reflecting the prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 on which it appears to be built. ³³

(5) David Wright is convinced the parallel text in Leviticus 20:13 (meta arsenos koiten gynaikos)³⁴ is so close to Paul’s arsenokoitai that it is “surely inescapable.”³⁵

Definition of malakos

The word malakoi (μαλακοὶ)³⁶ in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is translated “sexual perverts” (Revised Standard Version) and “passive homosexual partners” (New English Translation). Because there is no background information for malakoi its definition is more ambiguous. Consider the following:

(1) It can mean “soft” as in describing a garment (Matt11:8; Luke 7:25).³⁷

(2) It can mean “pleasant” (Pro 26:22).

(3) It can mean “gentleness” (Pro 25:15).³⁸

Sexually, the word refers to someone who is penetrated while arsenokoitai refers to the penetrator. The term has been used to describe effeminate³⁹ boys or the “passive person” in same sex relationships, but it should not be assumed every malakoi was involved in same sex activity.

Arsenokoitai and malakos as descriptive of same sex relationships

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads “neither the adulterers (οὔτε μοιχοὶ), neither the malakoi (οὔτε μαλακοὶ), neither the arsenokoitai (οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται).” The term malakoi is found between two immoral active behaviors—adultery and same sex activity—and can easily imply “soft.” This understanding of malakoi ⁴⁰ is also supported by Greek lexicons that define the term: “to be passive in a same-sex relationship.”⁴¹ Michael Ukleja makes the following observation about the definition of malakos when used with arsenokoitai:

While there is some ambiguity with regard to μαλακός, it is not beyond reason to use the word representing the passive parties in homosexual intercourse.

This is even more reasonable when it is in juxtaposition with ἀρσενοκοίτης which does imply an active homosexual role. It is interesting that in Aristotle’s Problems, a lengthy discussion of the origins of homosexual passivity, he employs the word μαλακός. In its general sense the word does mean “unrestrained,” but not without any particularity homosexual context.⁴²

Robin Scroggs further explains:

If the malakos⁴³ points to the effeminate call-boy, then arsenokoites in this context must be the active partner who keeps the malakos as a “mistress” or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desire.⁴⁴

Bruce Winter writes:

Furthermore, the citing of the term μαλακός first, with its very strong connotations of passive homosexuality, would have automatically expected a word describing an active homosexual. It was not a reference to a male prostitute. If Paul had been seeking a specific term proscribing that profession, the LXX’s choice of πορνεύων in Deuteronomy 23:17 would have provided him with an appropriate one (Cf. 1 Cor. 6:15) …

This interpretation helps to answer the question why Paul used two words to describe homosexual persons (6:9), rather than one general term. He referred to the passive and active partner in homosexual intercourse because Roman society and literature observed such a distinction. Those who engaged in homosexual activity assumed either one role or the other.⁴⁵

Mark Smith observes the following:

Active/passive distinctions between male homosexual lovers have been commonplace in every culture for which we have any evidence of homosexual activity in history, including our own.⁴⁶

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner agree with Mark Smith:

With the next two terms Paul refers to homosexual behavior of one form or another. Rather than referring to “male prostitutes and practicing homosexuals” (TNIV), they are better understood as referring to those who willingly play the passive and active roles in homosexual acts.⁴⁷

William Loader provides his understanding of the two words:

On balance, then, Paul probably uses the two terms with reference to men who engage in same-sex behavior, with the first referring to the willing passive partner, whether by private consent or as a male prostitute, “those who engage in sexual penetration by other men”, and the second referring to “those who engage in sexual penetration of other men”, which would have a broader reference and include, but not be limited to exploitation, also by force.⁴⁸

My own reading of the two terms which appear in the lists of 1 Corinthian 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is close to Wesley’s and concludes on the balance of probability, the words do refer to active and passive partners in male same-sex relations.⁴⁹

The footnote of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the English Standard Version reads: “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.” The footnote in the Christian Standard Bible reads: “Both passive and active participants in homosexual acts.”The footnote in the Common English Bible says they refer to “submissive and dominant male sexual partners.” Considering Paul’s use of Greek words, the situation described in 1 Corinthians 6:9 better fits a consensual same sex relationship than an exploitive one. In addition, the word malakos appears in the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. If Paul had been referring to the practice of pederasty or sex with same sex nonconsensual partners, they would have been considered victims and not guilty participants.⁵⁰

Arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy 1:10

1 Timothy 1:10 appears in the context of behaviors that do not conform to the gospel. While

malokos is not found in 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitai is sandwiched between individuals who are immoral (porneia) and slave traders. This indicates the seriousness of the conduct.⁵¹ Assuming porneia includes adultery, arsenokoitai could be an additional form of “unfaithfulness” in the homosexual world. If that is the case, adultery and homosexuality could be seen as condemned parallels. According to Loader, slave traders could have easily been involved in supplying young boys for older men.⁵²

As a trained rabbi Paul wrote using Torah as a foundation for his teaching. Unacceptable behaviors have strong roots in Torah and 1 Timothy 1:10 closely parallels the fifth through the ninth commandments.

“who kill their fathers and mothers” (Honor your father and mother)
“murderers” (You shall not murder)
“sexually immoral” (You should not commit adultery)
“slave traders” (You should not steal)
“liars and perjurers” (You shall not bear false witness)

Summary of Assumption Four

Some revisionists believe that monogamous, consensual, and committed same sex relationships did not exist in the first century. However, information from secular sources both before and after Paul supports the existence of same sex monogamous relationships in the Greco-Roman era even though they were in the minority.⁵³ For further information consider the following:

Thomas K. Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook Basic Documents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Louis Crompton, Homosexuality & Civilization.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Paul’s stance regarding immoral behavior is pronounced throughout his ministry.⁵⁴

(1) He urges the church to avoid sexual immorality and not live like pagans (1 Thess 4:3-5).
(2) He rebukes the church in Corinth for not standing against a man who is having sex with his stepmother (1 Cor 5:1-11).
(3) He states that Christians must not have sex with prostitutes (1 Cor 6:12-20).
(4) He mentions sexual immorality first in the “sin lists” of Galatians 5:19 and Colossians 3:5.
(5) He emphasizes that Christians are not to have even a “hint of sexual immorality” (Ephesians 5:3).
(6) His possible references to “homosexual relationships” always appear in negative contexts (1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:10).

Judaism rejected same sex relationships regardless of the situation (abusive or consensual). Paul’s writings reflect his love for and respect of Torah, and when Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27 are read without any comment they are consistent in opposing these relationships.

Much of the discussion of same sex behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 has centered on the translation of two Greek words. While arsenokoitai is easily connected to the Levitical texts the word malakoi has been more problematic. Regardless, both texts are included in activities that Christians are to avoid.

In addition to Paul’s use of malakoi and arsenokoitai to describe immoral behavior, in Romans 13:13 he incorporates a different word that is connected to the Levitical texts (as in 1 Cor 6:9). Instead of using the common word for sexual immorality (porneia)⁵⁵ he uses the Greek word for bed (koitais)⁵⁶ which is the same term used for bed in Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20:13. The word is also used in Hebrews 13:4 (marriage bed).⁵⁷

Paul spent 18 months in Corinth and knew the Corinthians quite well as indicated by his “exchange of letters.” That being the case it is very possible he knew of committed and monogamous same sex relationships. Regardless, he makes no distinction between those relationships and other same sex relationships any more than he distinguishes between immoral behaviors committed by Christians and non-Christians.

Paul condemns sinful behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11⁵⁸ but he also stresses how, as Christians, they have been washed, sanctified, and justified. When the Greeks wanted to show a strong contrast, they used the Greek word alla. This term appears before washed, sanctified, and justified therefore emphasizing what they had been and presently were.⁵⁹ Regardless of the motivation for same sex activity, Paul targets the what and not the why. He teaches they could not choose what they wanted to do with their bodies⁶⁰ because they were not their “own” and “were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:19b and 20a). Failure to use one’s body correctly dishonors God (1 Cor 6:20b).

The list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 form an inclusion⁶¹ of those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).⁶² The text has a twofold function:

(1) It reminds the readers of their past.
(2) It provides a warning to not fall back into their previous lifestyle.

He wants his readers to realize they WERE (past tense) among these who would not “inherit the kingdom of God,” but they were not NOW (present tense).⁶³ Paul believes sinful behavior can be altered (1 Cor 6:9).

In a summary of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, William Loader writes:

Nothing in these writings suggests a departure from the wider Jewish rejection of same sex relations rooted in the Leviticus prohibitions and understanding of human beings as created either male or female.⁶⁴

Consider the following:

(1) If same sex, loving, monogamous, Christian relationships are acceptable, does the same hold true for envy, murder, deceit, gossip, and slander (also mentioned in Rom 1:28-29) if engaged in by loving, monogamous Christians?⁶⁵

(2) If God does not bless same sex relationships, is it wise to promote those relationships among God-loving Christians? ⁶⁶

(3) If same sex relationships are only wrong if committed outside of a mutual and committed atmosphere, would incest in a mutual and committed atmosphere be acceptable?

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Three

April 29, 2023 By Jerry Jones Leave a Comment

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

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
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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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 Another affirming author Joel Hollier states ¹⁷ 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 Pederasty comes from a compound word paiderastes ¹⁹ meaning the lover of boys. Paid means boy or child and erastes²⁰ 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 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

Historically these words were used by Jews, Christians, pagans, and anyone else who spoke Greek.²³ 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Lee expresses a similar doubt about Paul and Romans 1:³¹

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

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

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

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

…what Paul was describing is fundamentally different from what we are discussing.³⁶

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

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

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

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

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

4). Jeff Cook agrees and writes:

Monogamous same-sex relationships are nowhere in sight when reading Romans 1.⁴²

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

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

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

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

But the biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today.⁴⁷

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

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

Peer relationships were rare.⁵⁰

Homoeroticism during the Greco-Roman period consisted primarily of pederasty.⁵¹

The apostle Paul likely had in mind the behavior he saw around him, namely pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.⁵²

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

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

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 He makes a general statement about degrading “their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:24b)⁵⁶ 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 In the New English Translation of Romans 1:27a⁵⁸ mutuality is again seen: “were inflamed in their passions for one another.”⁵⁹ Paul’s use of “themselves,” “their,” and “one another” indicate both partners were equally guilty.⁶⁰ In fact mutual responsibility is indicated four times in Romans 1:27b:⁶¹
(1) “toward one another”⁶²
(2) “men with men”⁶³
(3) “in themselves”⁶⁴
(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

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 The word for young (neotez)⁶⁷ is used in 1 Timothy 4:12. The word for child (teknon) ⁶⁸ is used in Ephesians 6:4 and Romans 8:16-17 and 21.⁶⁹ 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 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

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 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 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 and not “men” and “boys.”⁷⁵

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

The final verse suggests that Paul still has same-sex relations in mind when he speaks of people propagating and promoting such sin…⁷⁷

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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 therefore indicating he was aware of different kinds of immoral sexual behavior.⁸⁵ 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

(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 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 as Leviticus 17-18. Because of Paul’s ministry to the gentiles (Acts 9:15), his knowledge of their past,⁸⁹ 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
(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

As in 1 Corinthians, Paul chooses the plural of the term porneia in this text which most likely includes same sex relationships.⁹²

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 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

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 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

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

5. Paul’s Knowledge/Travels⁹⁸ and Covenanted Same Sex Couples⁹⁹

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 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 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 including casual, abusive, consensual, and even those which were committed/monogamous.

Paul was known as the apostle to the gentiles¹⁰³ 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Two

April 13, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

The background for Romans 1:18 through 32 ¹

The most radical effort to do away with Rom 1:18-32 as opposing same sex activity has been put forth in Martin Colby’s effort to cast doubt on it being “Pauline writings.” Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality. (John Knox Press: Louisville, 2016), 118. “There is compelling reason to believe that these fifteen verses were not written by, or at least original to, Paul. This composition, word choice, and overall flow of the Greek are notably un-Pauline in comparison to the rest of his body of work.” is the Wisdom of Solomon. 2

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

This connection has long been recognized by scholars…. The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding the meaning of Romans 1. ³

Paul doesn’t use Wisdom merely to copy it. In fact, he overturns the position of Wisdom that gives Israel greater favor before God than the pagans. ⁴

Instead of Genesis, Paul makes his argument in conversation with the Wisdom of Solomon.⁵

Colby Martin agrees:

The tone, language, and arguments of Romans 1:18 through 32 are nearly identical to those found in Wisdom. And this was intentional.⁶

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

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

Robert Gagnon writes:

(1) Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male ordained by God at creation.⁷

(2) Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner write:

Paul opposed homosexual behavior on the basis of creation theology and because it is marked as a vice in the Torah and was stressed as a vice by Jews. ⁸

(3) Preston Sprinkle writes:

Homosexual unions violate the boundaries of gender established by God at creation. ⁹

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

The perverted approach to God results in a perverted mind, which produces passions which head in a perverted direction, producing acts which are contrary to what God intended in nature as divine creation. ¹⁰

The current order of creation as portrayed in Genesis also influences Paul’s stance on same-sex relations. ¹¹

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

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

Of course, for Paul all sin traces its origin to the fall, and the sin in Romans 1 is no exception. Paul’s argument is Romans 1, however, is not that the particular sin of having a perverted sexual response derives from the fall, but that it derives from having a perverted response to God. One perversion, as he sees it, produces another.¹³

(2) Bernadette Brooten writes:

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

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

She also mentions Clément’s understanding of Romans:

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

(3) Wesley Hill writes:

The backdrop for Paul’s indictment is, however, equally crucial for an understanding of its precise contours. Paul appears to be telling a story rooted in Israel’s Scripture and specifically in the Genesis creation narratives. .…In short, the story of God’s making the world, God’s giving a command to Adam, and Adam’s subsequent “fall” form the backdrop for Paul’s diagnosis of the human condition in Romans 1.¹⁶

Paul’s view of same-sex sexuality appears to be stamped by his reading of God’s design for human beings as found in the book of Genesis.¹⁷

(4) James Brownson writes:

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

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

…it violates the essential creational intent of God regarding sexuality, distorting the “one flesh” union of male and female which is the basis for sexual ethics throughout the Bible. ¹⁹ it does not express that creational intent. ²⁰

(5) Matthew Vines writes:

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

Creation and Pauline Ethics²²

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

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

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

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

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

A strong parallel exists between the information in the first chapters of Genesis and Romans 1.²³ The following topics are significant in both:

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

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

1). Romans 1:23²⁴ repeats some of some the same terms used in Genesis 1:26,²⁵for example: image, likeness, mankind, animals, and reptiles.
2). When referring to women and men, Paul does not use the usual terms for females and males²⁶ but rather employs the words for females and males found in Genesis 1:27 in the Greek Old Testament.²⁷
3). When referencing God, Paul says “Creator” not “Father” ²⁸ (Romans 1:25). ²⁹

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

Indeed, his declaration of perversion applies to both men and women and to both the active and passive partners. The allusion literally to “males” and “females” probably has in mind creation of male and female (Gen 1:27) which along with the prohibitions of Leviticus will have shaped Paul’s stance.³⁰

Because of the many references and allusions to creation that are woven throughout the 24 verses of Romans 1:18 through 32, Paul’s foundation for his denunciation of the gentile world was God’s original intent and creation. In this way, he connects “creation” with “truth.” The condemnation of the gentile world did not rest on their disobedience of the Torah as was the case with the Jews (Romans 2). The condemnation of the gentile world rested on their failure to see God in creation,³¹ as the Creator ³² and to adhere to the law that was “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).³³ For that reason, “the wrath of God” was presently “being revealed ³⁴ from heaven against all wickedness of people who suppressed the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). The “suppression” resulted in both idolatry (vertical) and same sex relationships (horizonal). Whether same sex relationships were done abusively (pederasty ³⁵ or involved consensual, committed, and monogamous individuals, it was against the character of God and the creational intent and design.

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

A New Testament perspective on homosexuality is anchored in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The indispensable framework for interpreting the NT teaching on homosexuality is Genesis 1–2, the creation narrative. We read in Genesis 1:26–27 that God made man in his own image, but the image of God is reflected in two distinct genders, male and female. The distinction between man and woman is underlined in the fuller account of their creation in Genesis 2:18–25. The physical differentiation of the man and the woman, and yet the amazing complementarity of such for bearing children indicates that marriage consists of the union of one woman and one man. The creation narrative, then, functions as the paradigm for males and females, and how they are to relate to one another sexually. The two different genders signify that marriage and sexual relations are restricted to the opposite sex, and that same sex relations are contrary to the created order. ³⁶

Paul’s Use of Non-Inspired Sources³⁷

Paul was widely traveled and well educated, consequently he would have had a broad knowledge base³⁸ of information available in the Greco-Roman world. Quite possibly he could have known about the Wisdom of Solomon as he did other Jewish literature of his time that addressed the wickedness of the gentile world. For example:

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

Because the wisdom of Solomon was probably written around the first century BCE,⁴¹
there is the possibility Paul may not have had access to it.⁴² However, even assuming that he did, it would not have been the norm for him to build an entire case on materials not in the Torah. If he had used the Wisdom of Solomon instead of the creation story as the background for Romans, Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships could have been easily misconstrued as lacking both divine foundation and divine condemnation.⁴³

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

Summary of Assumption Two

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

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

Paul depended on guidance from the Holy Spirit (John 14:6), an understanding of creation,⁴⁶ his respect for the Torah, and his knowledge of Jesus’s teachings ⁴⁷ as the basis for comprehending the will of God.⁴⁸ Even though Genesis does not provide explicit commands about sexuality it does provide a foundation for commands in the New Testament. Attempting to find approval for same sex relationships undermines God’s design and the creational intent.