Romans

This is the only new testament Bible text that actually discusses homogenital acts at any length, it occurs in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. This verse is used by many to show that homosexuality is "unnatural", that there is punishment for it, and that it also discusses lesbian sex. But considering to whom Paul is writing, how he is making his point, and to what end, all these conclusions seem to be wrong. To understand these verses, one must understand the context of this whole passage. Paul's letter to the Romans raises a question about the "natural" and the "unnatural". He certainly was referring to homogenital acts; but what was he really saying?

PHYSIS is the Greek word for nature. For Paul, the "nature" of something was its particular character or kind. In Romans 2:14, Paul speaks of Gentiles who follow their own conscience and "do instinctively (PHYSEI) what the law requires." But, the Greek text reads "by nature", and the implication is that these Gentiles act as is consistent with the kind of persons they are. For Paul, something is "natural" when it responds according to its kind, when it is as it is expected to be. For Paul, the word "natural" does not mean "in accordance with natural laws." Rather, "natural" refers to what is characteristic, consistent, ordinary, standard, expected, and regular. When people acted as expected, they were acting "naturally". When people did something surprising,s omething unusual, something beyond the routine, they were acting "unnaturally." That was the sense of the word "nature" in Paul's usage.

The Greek word PARA usually means "beside", "more than", "over and above", or "beyond". Given Paul's usage of the term, the sense is not "in opposition to", but "unexpectedly" or "in an unusual way". So, what does it mean when Romans says that the "women exchanged natural relations for unnatrual and the men likewise..."? It means that these women and men were engaging in sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform. The practices were beyond the regular, outside the ordinary, more than the usual, not the expected. There is no sense whatever in those words that the practices were wrong or against God. According to Paul's usage, the words only say that the practices were different from what one would generally expect. This could mean many things. In Romans 11:24, Paul uses the very same words PARA PHYSIN to talk about God. Obviously, the words do not imply any kind of ethical condemnation.

Other verses support the same general conclusion. In verses 26 and 27, Paul uses two words to describe the sexual acts he has in mind: "degrading passions" and "shameless acts". Neither of these words has an ethical connotation. Both refer simply to social disapproval. Take "degrading passions" for example. The Greek word transleates as "degrading" is ATIMIA. It means something "not highly valued, "not held in honor", "not respected". "Socially unacceptable" also conveys the meaning of the word and is the very sense in which Paul uses it. For example, in 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul applies that word to himself. He notes that he is sometimes held in disrepute or shame because of his commitment to Christ. Evidently then, to be labelled ATIMIA is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, in 1 Corinthians 11:14 paul uses the word to suggest that it is "degrating" for a man to wear long hair. Even though Paul says this is what "nature" teaches, it is clear that no ethical judgment is intended. In none of the cases in which Paul uses the word does the word express a moral judgment. So, when Paul calls certain passions "degrading" in Romans 1:26, he is not saying that they are wrong, only that they do not enjoy social approval.

Basically, the same meaning applies to the word ASCHEMOSYNE, translated as "shameless acts" in verse 27. Literally, the word means "not according to form". Again, by using these words he makes no ethical condemnation of homosexuality. He merely points out social disapproval of it. For all of the words Paul used, there were other words that he could have chosen that DO mean "ethically wrong", but they were untentionally never used to describe homosexual behavior.

Why does Paul bring the issue up at all?

Paul does not want false issues to divide them, so he insists "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." (Romans 14:14). Seen in the context of the whole letter to the Romans, the same sex reference serves a rhetorical function. It is part of Pauls' plan to win the good will of these Jewish Christian readers, then uses the same issue to make his point that the ritual requirements of the jewish law are irrelevant in Christ.

Paul mentioned that particular "uncleanness" of the Gentiles, because this was the one thing that they were not still arguing over. It was an obvious point of difference between them, but there was not the arguing about it as there was with the unclean foods and so forth. Thus, he could safely make his point and: 1) gain the sympathy of the jewish christians by seeming to side with their prejudices, 2) next show the Jewish Christians were as guilty as anyone else in breaking the Jewish law, 3) argued that in Christ the Jewish law was superseded and that above all, purity issues in the law do not matter, 4) thus incline the Jewish Christians to better acceptance of the Gentile Christians, and 5) rebuked the Gentile Christians for any superiority they might have been feeling.

In Romans, Paul mentioned homogenitality to merely serve as an instance of Gentile "uncleanness" as judged by Jewish standards. Paul introduced this "uncleanness" precisely to make the point that such matters have no importance in Christ. Moreover, only if this is really the case does the whole structure of Romans make sense. Not only did Paul not think homogenital acts were sinful, he seems to have been deliberately unconcerned about them. In his considered treatment of the matter, he teaches that in itself, homogenital activity is ethically neutral. Instead, his purpose was to create unity between the Jewish and Gentile Christians and teach them the important things in Christ.

It is ironic that to insure the unity of believers was the purpose of Pauls' writing, yet these verses serve today so often to divide and are used to condemn one's brothers and sisters. What would he think of how the verses are being used so often today? Paul insisted on faith and love as the things that really matter in Christ, but by misunderstanding paul's argument, people unwittingly rely on tastes and customs instead of the word of God. They argue about what's dirty or clean, dispute who's pure and impure, and pit heterosexual against homosexual. Thus, they divide and splinter the church over what does not matter in christ. They commit a grave injustice, the very offense that Pauls' letter meant to counter.