Understanding the Indictment of Homosexual Conduct in Romans 1:24-28

There are two arguments made to suggest that the words of Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, do not condemn homosexual behavior per se, but only certain types of same sex conduct. Although these arguments are very weak, they warrant a response because many people are being deceived by them.

Before I address these two common myths it is important to issue a warning against a mistake that has been made by many Christians; the mistake of dehumanizing people who struggle with same-sex attraction. Some Christians read Romans 1:26-32 and focus singularly on Paul’s indictment of homosexuality to the neglect of the other sins listed. It is so easy for us to view the sins of others as worse than our own. That’s the point Jesus made when he taught us to take the log out of our own eye before trying to take the speck out of our neighbors. It might be helpful for us to consider that Paul’s sin list in this passage includes the practice of deceit and gossip right alongside homosexual activity!

Before continuing, this is a good time to be reminded of Paul’s words in Romans 3:22-24:
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

The reason homosexuality needs to be addressed specifically is due to the fact that, unlike the other sins listed by Paul, it is the only one that our current culture is calling virtuous and beautiful. Homosexuality is the only sin in this list that people, outside and even inside the church, are trying to remove from the list. Therefore, we need a response to the attempts to reinterpret the scripture so as to deny its condemnation of homosexual behavior.

This suggestion is based on the fact that in ancient Rome it was not uncommon for a free adult man to have sexual relations with adolescent boys (pederasty), and male slaves. Male sexual behavior of this sort was largely considered to be about dominance, not loving affection. However, Paul’s wording clearly demonstrates that he is indicting all same-sex activity, not merely this common form coercive and exploitative homosexual conduct.

First of all, Paul refers to both male-male and female-female sexual relationships. There is simply no evidence historically of “exploitative” lesbian relationships in ancient Rome.  The second problem with this interpretation is that Paul writes about men being “consumed with passion for one another”. The sexual desires and conduct he describes were felt and expressed mutually. These were consensual relationships, not coercive relationships. Third, when Paul writes that “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” and “men abandoned natural relations with women” the key words are “exchanged” and “abandoned”. These words describe people who were engaging in strictly homosexual behavior. The common coercive and exploitative same sex conduct practiced by many men in Rome was not in place of, but in addition to, their sexual relations with women.

Finally, Paul’s understanding of sexual immorality would have been informed by Judaism, not pagan Greco-Roman culture. In the Jewish scriptures (i.e. The Old Testament) there was a blanket prohibition against homosexual behavior.

This assertion is usually accompanied by the argument that neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other person in ancient times was aware of committed, loving homosexual relationships between people with an exclusively homosexual orientation.

Unfortunately, this argument is assumed rather than defended. There is not a hint in the scripture or in any other ancient Jewish or Christian writing indicating that homosexual activity would be acceptable on the condition that it occurred within committed, loving, monogamous relationships. On the other hand, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that committed homosexual relationships were not foreign to Paul. Prof. Robert Gagnon, the author of the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of the Bible and homosexual practice, wrote the following in an online article:

“...contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women ... contrary to nature ... marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3).” (What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues,  robgagnon.net March 14, 2009)
 
In the same article, Prof. Gagnon provides the following quote from the book, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, by classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (University of California Press, 2003, pg. 386)
“Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation.”
 
In addition, the suggestion that Paul used the words “nature” and “natural” to refer to an individual’s inherent sexual attractions is wishful thinking. Assigning that meaning to “nature” is contrary to the plain reading of the text within the broader context of Romans, Judaism, and Greco-Roman culture which use “nature” to refer to God’s creational purpose for our physical bodies. Ben Witherington writes the following about Paul’s description of homosexual conduct as “unnatural”:
“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’s Letter to the Romans, Eerdmans, 2004, pg. 69)

About 35 years ago I was discussing the subject of same sex marriage with the youth in the church where I served as the Youth Pastor. Most of them agreed that homosexual activity was sinful but when I challenged them to explain why, the only response I was received was, “Because its gross”. Needless to say, the morality of a given behavior is not determined by whether someone finds it disgusting or attractive. After all, most teenagers find themselves “grossed out” by the idea that their parents are sexually intimate. The reason homosexual behavior and all other non-marital sexual behavior is considered sinful according to the ethics of the New Testament is due to the fact that they violate God’s creational purpose.

In Romans 1 Paul described homosexual desires as “dishonorable passions” and homosexual conduct as a “dishonoring of their bodies”.  Why is that so?
In her book, Love Thy Body, Nancy Pearcey writes, “Many people denounce biblical morality as harsh and judgmental. But in reality it is based on a respect for our biology an an integral part of the person. A Christian worldview reveals to us that our bodies form part of our identity.”
Whether or not the person engaged in the behavior realizes it, homosexual acts are acts of rebellion against God’s intentional creation of humans as “male and female” (Gen 1:27). God created humans as male and female in order that we might function as complementary sexual beings.

In Romans 1:18-20 Paul tells us that God’s wrath is poured out on those who suppress the truth about God revealed through the created order.  This suppression of truth is a failure to honor God.  In vs 24-28 Paul adds that those have dishonored God by suppressing the truth have actually “exchanged the truth about God for a lie”; indicating they have set themselves in opposition to God as enemies of His truth.  To illustrate this dishonoring opposition to God, Paul uses homosexuality as his lead-off example. When men and women suppress the truth about the physical and psychological sexual complementarity of male and female clearly evidenced in nature, and engage in same sex activity, they set themselves against God. To dishonor God with our bodies is to dishonor the very bodies given to us by God. When we dishonor our bodies we dishonor ourselves since our bodies are integral to our humanity.

Although this post deals specifically with the indictment of homosexual practice found in Romans chapter 1:24-28, it is vital to understand homosexuality in light of the overall context of the Old and New Testament scriptures. The perspective on homosexuality throughout scripture is clear and consistent. The following quote by Prof. Robert Gagnon is a profound summary of the biblical perspective on this issue:
 
“Scripture’s male-female prerequisite for marriage and its attendant rejection of homosexual behavior is pervasive throughout both Testaments of Scripture (i.e. it is everywhere presumed in sexual discussions even when not explicitly mentioned); it is absolute (i.e. no exceptions are ever given, unlike even incest and polyamory); it is strongly proscribed (i.e. every mention of it in Scripture indicates that it is regarded as a foundational violation of sexual ethics); and it is countercultural (i.e. we know of no other culture in the ancient Near East or Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin more consistently and strongly opposed to homosexual practice). If this doesn’t qualify as a core value in Scripture's sexual ethics, there is no such thing as a core value in any religious or philosophical tradition.” (More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus  Dec 10, 2008 @ robgagnon.net )