Homosexuality: Romans 1 (Short Version)
In Romans 1, Paul betrays certain assumptions about same-sex activity that were common to the Greco-Roman and Jewish culture of his day. These are that he believes same-sex activity is:
"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
A choice– Paul says women “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones”, and the men “abandoned natural relations with women”.
This reads like sexuality is something people can freely take up or drop at will.
A sign of excessive lust- Paul says “God gave them over to shameful lusts”, and the men were “inflamed with lust for one another”
Against nature- the women “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones”, and the men “abandoned natural relations with women”
Note that Plato’s language is reminiscent of Paul, calling the practice “contrary to nature”, and a mark of “unbridled lust”. There are many more of these quotes from the Greeks, through to the Roman Stoics, as well as first century Jews such as Philo Judaeus.
We have shown how these conceptions reflect the thinking of the Greco-Roman world Paul was a part of (as well as the Jewish culture of his day). Paul also calls the behaviour "shameful", which is likely because in his Greco-Roman culture, a man taking the passive role in sex was frowned upon. Like in 1 Corinthians 6:9, taking the passive role in sex was considered "effeminate" (KJV), as it was considered that only women and slaves should be penetrated and not dignified members of society. For a free man to be penetrated was shameful and unmanly in Paul's society. Similarly, it was seen as shameful and unnatural, since the active partner would waste their seed outside the natural place of the womb, which was a wanton expression of lust, since it was thought to kill the offspring. These are the reasons why non-procreative sex was frowned upon in antiquity, as shown in the following quotes:
Here in Dover’s rendering of Prosecution of Timarkhos, written by Aiskhines, we read of a man accused of prostitution, which was seen to render him unfit for office. The charges included taking the passive role in homosexual acts:
"Now, when your ancestors distinguished so firmly between shameful and honorable conduct, will you acquit Timarkhos, who is a man and male in body, but has committed a woman's transgressions? Who among you will then punish a woman caught in wrongdoing? Will it not deserve a charge of insensitivity, to deal harshly with her who transgresses according to nature, yet listen to the advise (in council or assembly) of him who has outraged himself contrary to nature?" (Emphasis added)
(Dover, KJ, Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p60) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p43-44)
For a detailed overview of Greco-Roman and Jewish thought on homosexuality, see "PURSUING THE ORIGINS OF “SEX AGAINST NATURE”: A GENEALOGICAL STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAECO-ROMAN AND CHRISTIAN THINKING CONCERNING MALE SAME-SEX SEXUALITY " by Hugo Marquez Soljancic.
Conclusion: Why Paul’s Assumptions About Homosexuality Are Wrong
My contention is that homosexuality is not a choice, but an orientation, which a person has no control over. In Paul's day, they thought of sexuality more like bisexuality than today's conception of orientation. I do not wish to prove that homosexuality is an innocent sexual orientation, rather than a “sinful choice”, since the testimony of gay people themselves should be enough. It appears clear that sexual orientation is more like left or right-handedness, or eye colour- part of our natural biology and beyond our control. We need not to assume the same biblical bias as Paul had. Some people are gay, just as some are straight, and some are in between. People do not choose their sexual proclivities.
Homosexuality is not a mark of excessive lust anymore than heterosexual sex is. It is merely an expression of natural sexual preference.
With regards to Paul calling homosexuality "unnatural", Paul here refers to "nature", meaning the natural world as a reflection of God's design. What Paul considers unnatural is therefore against God. However, in 1 Corinthians 11, we saw how Paul uses “nature” (Greek word phusis) to refer to the natural world, but uses flawed science to form that opinion. Therefore “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11 cannot reflect to God's views, since God cannot be wrong about science.
Here in Roman 1, Paul again refers to “nature” to condemn homosexuality. He uses the same Greek word as in 1 Corinthians 11 (phusis). Paul’s appeal to nature was flawed in 1 Corinthians 11, and here in Romans 1, his conception of homosexuality also appears flawed- we know homosexuality is not a choice, or a mark of sexual excess, but an orientation that happens to a person involuntarily as they develop. Furthermore, homosexuality is unlikely "against nature" (KJV), since there is much of this behaviour in nature, which Paul was not aware of in his day. Homosexuality is of course prevalent in nature, being observed in up to 1500 different species:
"Same-sex behaviours have been recorded in over 1,500 animal species across many major groups, vertebrates and invertebrates alike, from dolphins to dragonflies."
(Leoma Williams Can animals be gay? 2010
Homosexuality is common in the natural world and of course, among humans, as part of the animal kingdom. Our close evolutionary relatives, the primates, certainly engage in this behaviour as part of their social hierarchical behavioural patterns:
"A much-cited example is that of bonobos. Bonobos are a sister species to chimpanzees, and as such are among our closest animal relatives. They use sex in quite a different way to chimpanzees, however – sometimes described as the apes who “make love, not war”. In bonobos sexual contact, like genital rubbing, is used to greet friends, de-escalate conflicts, and cement relationships, and they seemingly do not discriminate based on sex, with female-female and male-male pairings common. Individuals do not appear to conform to a particular orientation, however. They are also promiscuous rather than monogamous, having many short-term pairings." (Emphasis added)
(Leoma Williams Can animals be gay? 2010
- A Choice
- A sign of excessive lust
- A crime against nature, and therefore God
(See Joe Miller, Jr Homosexuality: A Scriptural Way Forward for the United Methodist Church. 2015, p106-120)
~ Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
A choice– Paul says women “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones”, and the men “abandoned natural relations with women”.
This reads like sexuality is something people can freely take up or drop at will.
A sign of excessive lust- Paul says “God gave them over to shameful lusts”, and the men were “inflamed with lust for one another”
Against nature- the women “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones”, and the men “abandoned natural relations with women”
(Note: for a more detailed account of the Greco-Roman and Jewish influences on Paul's attack on same-sex practice in Romans 1, see my extended chapter on Romans 1)
Homosexuality as a Choice in the Ancient World:
It was common in Paul’s day for men to freely switch between same-sex and opposite-sex activity. There was pedaerasty in ancient Greece. This involved older men mentoring adolescent males in exchange for their bodily favours. Temple shrine prostitution was popular in Paul's Greco-Roman world, where men would use male prostitutes during temple worship rituals. Similarly, in both ancient Rome and Greece, the rape of slaves- male and female- by their male captors was normalised. Thus, sexuality was seen as more fluid for all. They did not have the conception of orientation we have today. Same-sex behaviour was seen as a matter of choice and momentary appetite.
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust and Going Against Nature in the Ancient World:
Homosexuality as a Choice in the Ancient World:
It was common in Paul’s day for men to freely switch between same-sex and opposite-sex activity. There was pedaerasty in ancient Greece. This involved older men mentoring adolescent males in exchange for their bodily favours. Temple shrine prostitution was popular in Paul's Greco-Roman world, where men would use male prostitutes during temple worship rituals. Similarly, in both ancient Rome and Greece, the rape of slaves- male and female- by their male captors was normalised. Thus, sexuality was seen as more fluid for all. They did not have the conception of orientation we have today. Same-sex behaviour was seen as a matter of choice and momentary appetite.
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust and Going Against Nature in the Ancient World:
The Greeks before Paul (and independently of the Old Testament), had spoken against same-sex activity. Plato was the first (born around 428 B.C.E). In his work Laws, we find a direct proscription of same-sex intercourse (although he advocated for same-sex romance within pederastic relationships).
“I think the that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.” (Emphasis added)
“I think the that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.” (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Benjamin Jowett, p15)
Note that Plato’s language is reminiscent of Paul, calling the practice “contrary to nature”, and a mark of “unbridled lust”. There are many more of these quotes from the Greeks, through to the Roman Stoics, as well as first century Jews such as Philo Judaeus.
We have shown how these conceptions reflect the thinking of the Greco-Roman world Paul was a part of (as well as the Jewish culture of his day). Paul also calls the behaviour "shameful", which is likely because in his Greco-Roman culture, a man taking the passive role in sex was frowned upon. Like in 1 Corinthians 6:9, taking the passive role in sex was considered "effeminate" (KJV), as it was considered that only women and slaves should be penetrated and not dignified members of society. For a free man to be penetrated was shameful and unmanly in Paul's society. Similarly, it was seen as shameful and unnatural, since the active partner would waste their seed outside the natural place of the womb, which was a wanton expression of lust, since it was thought to kill the offspring. These are the reasons why non-procreative sex was frowned upon in antiquity, as shown in the following quotes:
Here in Dover’s rendering of Prosecution of Timarkhos, written by Aiskhines, we read of a man accused of prostitution, which was seen to render him unfit for office. The charges included taking the passive role in homosexual acts:
"Now, when your ancestors distinguished so firmly between shameful and honorable conduct, will you acquit Timarkhos, who is a man and male in body, but has committed a woman's transgressions? Who among you will then punish a woman caught in wrongdoing? Will it not deserve a charge of insensitivity, to deal harshly with her who transgresses according to nature, yet listen to the advise (in council or assembly) of him who has outraged himself contrary to nature?" (Emphasis added)
(Dover, KJ, Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p60) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p43-44)
Here is a quote from Plato on same-sex eroticism and wasting seed:
"But maybe, if a god would be willing, we could enforce one of two ordinances regarding erotic matters: Either no one is to dare to touch any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife, and no one is to sow unhallowed, bastard sperm in concubines or go against nature and sow sterile seed in males; or we should abolish erotic activity between males altogether." (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L Pangle. New York: Basic Books, 1980, 841d) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
"But maybe, if a god would be willing, we could enforce one of two ordinances regarding erotic matters: Either no one is to dare to touch any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife, and no one is to sow unhallowed, bastard sperm in concubines or go against nature and sow sterile seed in males; or we should abolish erotic activity between males altogether." (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L Pangle. New York: Basic Books, 1980, 841d) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
Here is a quote from Philo Judaeus on same-sex eroticism and wasting seed:
"And let the pederast know that he is subject to the same penalty, since he pursues a form of pleasure contrary to nature, and since, as far as he is concerned, he does his best to make cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the creative seed. And, moreover, he does not shrink from being a guide and teacher of those greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy, adulterating young men when in their prime, and making them effeminate in the flower of their youth, which ought to have been trained for strength and might of body." (Emphasis added)
(Philo On The Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p291) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
"And let the pederast know that he is subject to the same penalty, since he pursues a form of pleasure contrary to nature, and since, as far as he is concerned, he does his best to make cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the creative seed. And, moreover, he does not shrink from being a guide and teacher of those greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy, adulterating young men when in their prime, and making them effeminate in the flower of their youth, which ought to have been trained for strength and might of body." (Emphasis added)
(Philo On The Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p291) (Marquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
For a detailed overview of Greco-Roman and Jewish thought on homosexuality, see "PURSUING THE ORIGINS OF “SEX AGAINST NATURE”: A GENEALOGICAL STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAECO-ROMAN AND CHRISTIAN THINKING CONCERNING MALE SAME-SEX SEXUALITY " by Hugo Marquez Soljancic.
Conclusion: Why Paul’s Assumptions About Homosexuality Are Wrong
My contention is that homosexuality is not a choice, but an orientation, which a person has no control over. In Paul's day, they thought of sexuality more like bisexuality than today's conception of orientation. I do not wish to prove that homosexuality is an innocent sexual orientation, rather than a “sinful choice”, since the testimony of gay people themselves should be enough. It appears clear that sexual orientation is more like left or right-handedness, or eye colour- part of our natural biology and beyond our control. We need not to assume the same biblical bias as Paul had. Some people are gay, just as some are straight, and some are in between. People do not choose their sexual proclivities.
Homosexuality is not a mark of excessive lust anymore than heterosexual sex is. It is merely an expression of natural sexual preference.
With regards to Paul calling homosexuality "unnatural", Paul here refers to "nature", meaning the natural world as a reflection of God's design. What Paul considers unnatural is therefore against God. However, in 1 Corinthians 11, we saw how Paul uses “nature” (Greek word phusis) to refer to the natural world, but uses flawed science to form that opinion. Therefore “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11 cannot reflect to God's views, since God cannot be wrong about science.
Here in Roman 1, Paul again refers to “nature” to condemn homosexuality. He uses the same Greek word as in 1 Corinthians 11 (phusis). Paul’s appeal to nature was flawed in 1 Corinthians 11, and here in Romans 1, his conception of homosexuality also appears flawed- we know homosexuality is not a choice, or a mark of sexual excess, but an orientation that happens to a person involuntarily as they develop. Furthermore, homosexuality is unlikely "against nature" (KJV), since there is much of this behaviour in nature, which Paul was not aware of in his day. Homosexuality is of course prevalent in nature, being observed in up to 1500 different species:
"Same-sex behaviours have been recorded in over 1,500 animal species across many major groups, vertebrates and invertebrates alike, from dolphins to dragonflies."
(Leoma Williams Can animals be gay? 2010
Here is Zoologist Petter Boeckman explaining the wide variety of species that exhibit same-sex behaviour:
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."
(Petter Boeckman from Ann Sandt Only humans have a problem with homosexuals, 2012
(Petter Boeckman from Ann Sandt Only humans have a problem with homosexuals, 2012
Homosexuality is common in the natural world and of course, among humans, as part of the animal kingdom. Our close evolutionary relatives, the primates, certainly engage in this behaviour as part of their social hierarchical behavioural patterns:
"A much-cited example is that of bonobos. Bonobos are a sister species to chimpanzees, and as such are among our closest animal relatives. They use sex in quite a different way to chimpanzees, however – sometimes described as the apes who “make love, not war”. In bonobos sexual contact, like genital rubbing, is used to greet friends, de-escalate conflicts, and cement relationships, and they seemingly do not discriminate based on sex, with female-female and male-male pairings common. Individuals do not appear to conform to a particular orientation, however. They are also promiscuous rather than monogamous, having many short-term pairings." (Emphasis added)
(Leoma Williams Can animals be gay? 2010
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/can-animals-be-gay/)
Please refer to the above article, which details female same-sex behaviour in the Japanese macaques primates, as well as in the wider animal kingdom. (See also Marquez Pursuing the Origins of “Sex Against Nature”, 2011, p112-117).
Is all this same-sex behaviour in nature a result of the biblical fall, or is it more likely that Genesis is a mythological answer to what people didn’t know in the past, but that we are now discovering through science? (Not that science precludes the possibility of a spiritual or higher dimension. Science cannot explore beyond the limits of the natural realm.)
Thus, I conclude that Paul's conception of “nature” here does not reflect the true nature that God is aware of: Here in Romans 1, just like in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul's use of "nature" is based on flawed assumptions. These flawed assumptions cannot reflect the thinking of an all-knowing God. Therefore, it is unlikely Romans 1 represents the true God's opinions on homosexuality. Romans 1 appears to be inspired by limited human thinking, rather than perfect divine thought. The Bible here is again uninspired.
Please refer to the above article, which details female same-sex behaviour in the Japanese macaques primates, as well as in the wider animal kingdom. (See also Marquez Pursuing the Origins of “Sex Against Nature”, 2011, p112-117).
Is all this same-sex behaviour in nature a result of the biblical fall, or is it more likely that Genesis is a mythological answer to what people didn’t know in the past, but that we are now discovering through science? (Not that science precludes the possibility of a spiritual or higher dimension. Science cannot explore beyond the limits of the natural realm.)
Thus, I conclude that Paul's conception of “nature” here does not reflect the true nature that God is aware of: Here in Romans 1, just like in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul's use of "nature" is based on flawed assumptions. These flawed assumptions cannot reflect the thinking of an all-knowing God. Therefore, it is unlikely Romans 1 represents the true God's opinions on homosexuality. Romans 1 appears to be inspired by limited human thinking, rather than perfect divine thought. The Bible here is again uninspired.
Comments
Post a Comment