Homosexuality: Romans 1 (Long version)
Paul’s directions for the women’s head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 presents us with a concrete example of a biblical precept that wouldn’t apply today- nor does it represent God’s view- since it is based on a flawed scientific understanding. It is not possible that God would base his morality in scientific error, being all-knowing, and the ultimate architect of our world.
In the passage about head coverings, Paul uses the word “nature” in a sense that ultimately refers to these misinformed scientific beliefs, rather than God’s design. When we come to examine Romans 1, Paul appeals to “nature” again to condemn gay sex. He uses the same Greek word “phusis” here that he uses in 1 Corinthians 11. We have contended that “nature”, or “phusis”, in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to the flawed science of Paul’s day, though Paul intended to make his argument based on what he thought was scientific and true, equating “nature” with God’s design. If “nature” in one area of Paul’s work does not reflect reality- and therefore, the thinking of God- then here in Romans 1, the reasoning may similarly be rooted in Paul’s limited human thinking, rather than representing God’s unchanging viewpoints. There are in fact reasons to believe Paul did base his argument against homosexuality in Romans 1 in limited human reasoning, rather than the reality with regards to homosexuality. Let us further examine the relevant passage in Romans 1:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Plato (lived from ~428 B.C.E to ~348 B.C.E)
Plato appears to have denounced male-male intercourse, independently of the Jews. However, Plato and the Greeks accepted homosexual romance within the context of pederastic relationships (p40-41, p66). These relationships involved an older man mentoring an adolescent in exchange for his bodily favours and companionship (p45). It was conducted with the aim of mutual growth in virtue (p45). While these types of relationship were held in high esteem and considered superior to marital relations (since women were not considered capable of understanding philosophical matters (p43)), the act of anal penetration was considered shameful. This was due to convention that the role a Greek took in sex reflected their standing in society (p43-44). To take the passive role in sex was considered shameful and unmanly for free men, since it was naturally the role of women or slaves (whom were considered naturally inclined to be submissive) (p44). Thus, if sex was practiced in these relationships, it was of an intercrural nature (p44), where the active partner would face the passive and perform intercourse between the legs, just below the testes (p44). Greek men would however, perform anal sex on slaves; since it was not considered violate their low status (p44).
Thus, it was only the act of anal penetration that was considered wrong by Plato, and not same-sex romance itself. Similarly, wasting semen outside of the womb was a frowned upon, so ejaculation with a male would be seen as unnecessary pleasure (p50).
The Roman Stoics
The Roman Stoics generally considered the body more corrupt than the Greeks, so were less inclined towards sexual indulgence altogether (p72). They were less favourable to same-sex relationships, owing to the Platonic stance that homosexual intercourse was “contrary to nature” (p67). They also valued marital relationships much more than their Greek predecessors (p70-72), since they saw women as more virtuous than the Greeks did (p70-72). Similar to the Greeks, a free man could not be penetrated, as it was seen as degrading. Taking this further, the Romans made the penetration of free boys illegal (p68). This meant the Romans were much less fond of pederasty than the Greeks. The wider Roman society however, sidestepped this law by allowing the penetration of slaves carte blanche (p69).
Jewish thinkers
Paul naturally was influenced by Jewish thinkers of his time. These of course, took the Old Testament stance on homosexuality. The best known of these was Philo Judaeus (born ~15 B.C.E)). Like Paul, Philo was a Hellenistic Jew, and Roman Citizen. Like Paul, Philo was educated in a Greco-Roman context (p78), and also took influence from the Greeks and Roman Stoics. To look at these similarities between Philo and Greco-Roman thinkers- and how they ultimately influenced Paul- we must look at the cosmologies of the Greeks and Roman Stoics and how they were adopted by Philo as a Jewish predecessor to Paul.
We shall look at the cosmology of the Plato, the Roman Stoics and Philo respectively. By cosmology, we mean their view of god, the universe and its laws, and the nature of human thought and behaviour. These views, for each school of thought, informed how humans should conduct themselves in a wise and prudent manner. We need not go into full detail about these cosmologies, but only need to include the general picture and the elements that most relate to Paul’s own worldview.
Plato
In Plato’s cosmology, a single creator, known as the Demiurge (p32), made the universe based on pre-existing models of eternal realities, known as “forms”. Earthly things reflected the heavenly reality (p32). One example is that to Socrates, the beauty of a partner was reflective of the heavenly “form of beauty” (p46), and the creator was himself the “form of the good” (p33). In this sense, our world is an imperfect reflection of a heavenly reality (p33), and Plato considered it to be in constant flux (p33), making knowledge from observation unreliable. The truth existed in the "world of the forms" (p33), but since our bodily senses were tied to the illusion of our world, it was hard to tap into this realm (p33). However, our soul was considered to have access to this world by way of the rational soul (p33), which had a divine element and access to the "world of the forms" (p33). This higher soul served a reliable measure of what was right or wrong (p33). In Plato’s worldview, god was not active in the universe but merely let events play out (p57).
Rationality then was considered the key to true knowledge and upright conduct (p31). However, the soul had two other, lower components: the spirited and the appetitive soul (p33). These were the appetites and desires of the spirit, which were considered irrational. Since they were joined to the body with its cravings for things such as food or sex, they could easily run out of control and become problematic (p33).
Therefore, Plato saw a constant need to exercise the authority of the rational soul over the soul’s two other corrupted parts (p34). This was done by striving towards a state of being known as “enkrateia”, which was exercising self control over the appetites of the body (p34). Since Plato considered sex as essential for survival as food was, then the key was to apply moderation and restraint (p31, p41). The self control of "enkrateia" was to be applied in tandem with an attitude of moderation towards pleasures, known as “sophrosyne” (p32). These two states of being, he thought were the key to happiness and virtue (p32, p34). Thus, Plato believed we must be in a state of righteousness to act correctly.
In Plato’s worldview, Socrates, his teacher was seen as the ideal standard of moral excellence (p31-32, p47).
The Roman Stoics
The Stoics took a lot of influence from Socrates and the Greeks (p56). Stoicism was popular amongst the Roman elite, and not necessarily the views of the Roman populace (p55). The Stoics believed Zeus created the universe from a creative fire known as “ousia” (p55). This comprised of active “pneuma”, which could act on passive matter to fashion and form the universe (p56). They believed Zeus pervaded the entire cosmos, such that every void was filled with pneuma, or the divine soul (p56-57). Unlike the Platonic Demiurge, Zeus was directly involved with the universe (p57), being the cause of all events and so, omnipotent (p57). Since the divine soul of Zeus, or pneuma, spread through the entire cosmos, he was omnipresent. Stoics believed Zeus controlled all events in people’s lives. This determinism extended so far that they believed that the creation and destruction of the universe repeating in an endless cycle of the same events playing over and over. Therefore, the Stoics believed that a person could not change their circumstances (p57).
They could however freely choose how they reacted to events in their lives- in a positive or negative manner (p58). Since god was all-present in the universe, they believed the human mind possessed a substance of divine rationality, known as “nous”, as well as every human soul being filled with the omnipresent pneuma (p58). Thus, the human soul was considered perfectly in tune with divine rationality (p58). However, humans were still considered capable of being irrational, since the outside world and circumstances presented the mind with “impressions” about reality which could be true or false (p59). Wise conduct then was about reacting to the external world with correct attitudes. If a person acted under false impressions, it would produce agitating passion, derailing the soul from harmony with divine rationality, and engender irrational behaviour (p59).
Contentment in life then consisted in achieving a constant state of correct impressions of the world and always being rational (p59). This state was known as “apatheia”, similar to the Socratic state of enkrateia (p59). Thus, the Stoics believed we need to live in a state of righteousness. Like Plato, the Stoics saw Socrates as the model of ethical perfection (p61-62).
Philo (~15 B.C.E to~50 C.E)
Although Philo Judaeus was Jewish, he adopted Greek and Stoic ideas during his education (p78). He adapted these ideas to his Old Testament worldview. Philo borrowed elements from both Platonic and Stoic cosmology and grafted them into his Judaism (p79).
Like Plato, he believed the world was an imperfect copy of heavenly realities based off eternal forms (p79). He added though that Yahweh had imprinted his wisdom (logos) on matter during creation (p79). This connected our universe to the divine world of the forms. So the universe was more easily intelligible than to Plato. This logos was similar to the Stoic pneuma- an extension of god in the universe (p79-80). However, this logos was not considered God in essence as the Stoics believed, but as something that flowed from God (p79-80). Philo believed we should act according to God’s laws (p80), which he believed were revealed to us in the Law of Moses itself (p80). This meant a Jew was never in any doubt as to what was in accordance with God’s will (p80).
Philo reasoned that the soul comprised of two parts: the higher and lower soul (p80). The higher soul was perfectly in tune with God, even to the extent that it contained a perfect copy of God’s logos (p80). This served as a trustworthy moral guide. However, the lower soul was tied to the body and the senses and capable of discursive reasoning that took place in autonomous thought, apart from God’s logos, and so could easily run awry (p81). Thus, a person had to always strive to live in accordance with the higher soul, which Philo believed was only possible by living in a state of God’s grace (p81).
This view of a higher and lower soul is similar to Plato’s distinction between the rational soul and its conflicting lower parts, consisting of the spirited and appetitive soul. The lower soul’s capacity for incorrect reasoning resembles the Stoic notion of wrong impressions from the outside world.
Philo viewed Moses standard of perfection, equivalent to Socrates in Plato’s worldview (p80).
Similarities of Paul’s Worldview to Greco-Roman Thinkers
Since Plato and the Stoics both believed in a single creator, their worldviews were compatible with both Philo and Paul as believers in the Judaic worldview. Thus, they were inclined to adopt elements of the philosophies of Platonism and Stoicism. Again, Philo and Paul were both Hellenistic Jews and Roman citizens who were educated and influenced by Greek and Roman ideas. Let us examine the specifics of these similarities to Paul’s worldview.
Central to the teaching in Paul’s letters, is the need to have faith in Jesus. This is essentially a state of righteousness and God’s favour, that a person needs as a foundation of true religion (p83). This need of a state of righteousness is similar to the Socratic enkrateia and the Stoic apatheia, as well as building on Philo’s need for God’s grace.
Paul frequently exhorts his readers to exercise self control, which is a Socratic trait. Paul in fact uses many Platonic and Stoic phrases in his works: He uses the Socratic word “enkrateia” in Galatians 5:23 (KJV), translated “self control”. The word “sophrosyne” appears twice in 1 Timothy 2 (KJV), in verses 9 and 15, which is translated “sobriety”. These two practices are central to the Socratic ethic (p32).
The thrust of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that incorrect beliefs about God have led to improper practice, typified in homosexual activity (p84-86). This behaviour would be seen as shameful to Jew and Greek alike, so appears to be reasoning by use of a common example. This is idea of incorrect reasoning leading to error in conduct resembles the Stoic concept that incorrect impressions of reality lead to actions according to the passion of the body. To Paul, there can be no bigger error in reasoning than rejecting the true God himself, so little wonder these people err in practice and can engage in a something as abhorrent as homosexual sex (p86).
Paul appears then to have endorsed Greco-Roman philosophy. In fact as Márquez says, it is possible these Greco-Roman ideas served as a common language between Paul as a Jew and the Gentile communities he sought to reach (p82). So Paul may have used Greco-Roman ideas to frame his ideas in a way familiar to his Gentile audience.
Nature in Romans 1
Paul draws his argument from nature in Romans 1 in a sense that it is patently obvious from observation and reason that homosexual behaviour is unnatural. The sense of “nature” here seems more reflective of Stoic thought than of Plato (p74). Unlike Plato, the Stoics believed god was a part of nature, existing in all places (p74). Therefore, to go against the natural order of the world would be a direct act of rebellion against god (p61). Whereas, Plato believed we must act according to the principles of nature (p61), but he also believed that the natural world pointed less directly to the heavenly realm, since the world was merely an imperfect copy of heavenly reality (p32, p74).
Paul takes the Stoic view that homosexual sex is a crime against nature, and therefore God. The Stoics took greater exception to homosexual intimacy altogether than the Greeks, and so anal sex was especially frowned upon. Not only did they consider it degrading for a male to be penetrated, but it was to choose to go against god’s natural order when they could just as freely choose virtuous marital sex.
The following describes how the Roman Stoics viewed nature:
“This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man) to designate as the end “life in agreement with nature” (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us... Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience with the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus;
“for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is. And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe.”” (Emphasis added)
(Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 7, translated by R.D. Hicks. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1925, vol 2, p86-88) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p60-61)
Furthermore, Seneca stated that:
“For man is a rational animal. Man's ideal state is realized when he has fulfilled the purpose for which he was born. And what is it that reason demands of him? Something very easy—that he live in accordance with his own nature. (Emphasis added)
(Seneca Letters to Lucilius 41) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p61)
Quotes of Greco-Roman and Jewish Thinkers of Paul’s Day on Homosexuality
As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, Paul in Romans 1:26-27 appears to use three themes that seem consistent with the thinking of his day. Namely, that homosexual activity was:
“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)
As we discussed, Plato influenced the Greeks (p32) and Roman Stoics after him (p56), as well as Jewish thinkers such as Philo (p78-79). Here, we will look at quotes of the influential and contemporary thinkers to Paul, showing their similarity and thus, their influence on Paul with respect to these three characterisations of homosexual activity. It is to be noted, many of these quotes predate Paul’s letter to the Romans significantly (Plato lived from ~428 B.C.E to ~348 B.C.E, whereas Romans was written ~57 to 58 C.E). It is likely that Paul was familiar with some, if not many of these texts, as an educated Hellenistic Jew and Roman Citizen.
(NOTE: there will be some overlap in these quotes as some of them include more than one of the three bullet points. Emphasis and parenthesis is added.)
Homosexuality as Chosen Behaviour
"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"
""-...is there any pleasure you can name that is greater and keener than sexual pleasure?
-No; nor any that is more like frenzy.
-Whereas love rightfully is such a passion as beauty combined with a noble and harmonious character may inspire in a temperate and cultivated mind. It must therefore be kept from all contact with licentiousness and frenzy; and where a passion of this rightful sort exists, the lover and his beloved must have nothing to do with the pleasure in question.
-Certainly not, Socrates.
- It appears, then, that in this commonwealth we are founding you will have a law to the effect that a lover may seek the company of his beloved and, with his consent, kiss and embrace him like a son, with honorable intent, but must never be suspected of any further familiarity, on pain of being thought ill-bred and without any delicacy of feeling.”" (Emphasis added)
(Plato Republic, translated by Francis McDonald Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960, 403a-c) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., p49, 2011)
As we discussed earlier, Socrates and Plato advocated same-sex pederastic relationships with a view towards growth in virtue, but as is shown here, they appeared to draw a line at ejaculation and anal intercourse. As we discussed, these were seen to exceed the basic requirements of pleasure for survival, which was Socrates’ golden rule on sex (p4, p51, p72).
So Socrates did not seem opposed to same-sex romance, as portrayed by his student Plato, However, he saw anal penetration as a vicious indulgence. Later in life, Plato further denounced same-sex penetration, advocating more towards heterosexual, marital sex for the purpose of procreation. In Laws, Plato sets out his ideal for sex through the characters of the unnamed Athenian, the Cretan and the Spartan. Note: Laws models Plato’s rules for an ideal state, Magnesia, so he may not have applied it to the real world as rigidly (Note how non-procreative sex and wasting semen is denounced here):
“that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn't wish your sperm to grow. If this law becomes permanent and hold sway (if it were justly victorious in the other cases, as it is now in regard to intercourse on the part of parents), tens of thousands of good things would result. For in the first place it is laid down according to nature; then too, it will prevent erotic frenzy and madness, as well as all adulteries, and all excessive drinking and eating, and will make men familiar with and dear to their own wives.” (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
He goes on to reiterate his ideal of heterosexual penetration only, using the natural world as the standard:
“I assert that the only thing left for our custom to do is to plunge on, saying that our citizens must not be inferior to the birds and many of the other beasts, who are born amid great flocks and live celibate, pure, and chaste, until the time of child-rearing; then when they arrive at this age they pair off, male with female according to preference, and female with male, and live out the rest of their lives in pious and just fashion, remaining steadfast to the first agreements of friendship. Now surely they ought to be superior to the beasts, at least! But if they become corrupted by the other Greeks and most of the barbarians, by seeing among themselves and hearing about the very great power of the so-called “disorderly Aphrodite,” and so are incapable of mastering it, then the Guardians of the Laws, becoming lawgivers, will have to devise for them a second law.” (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 840d-e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
However, he goes on to state that he does not outlaw romance between males, just anal sex:
“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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
The above quotes show Socrates and Plato advocated same-sex romance, but drew a line at anal sex and ejaculation. They also advocated marital relations for the purpose of procreation as the only acceptable act of bodily penetration. Thus, they both had a bisexual view of eroticism, where erotic acts with males were a choice, which a person could decide to take up or not.
Greek
Although Plato outlawed anal sex, this was unlikely the view of the wider Greek populace, who did not strive after the Socratic ideals, as is shown is this quote from the play “Clouds” by Aristophanes:
“Just consider, my young friend, everything that's involved in being 'good' (sōphronein), and all the pleasures you're going to miss; boys, women, kottabos-games, good food, drinks, laughs. But what's the point of living, if you're done out of all that?” (Emphasis and parenthesis added)
(Dover, KJ, Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p136) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p53)
Roman
Although the Stoics had a general dislike of sexual excess (and even bodily passions in general (p72)), the rape of male slaves was commonplace in wider Roman society, as Seneca the Elder said:
“impudicitia (passivity) is a crime for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman” (Parenthesis added)
(as quoted by Cantarella, Bisexuality in the ancient world, p99, as seen in Wikipedia)
Here is another quote from Seneca:
“Another (slave), who serves the wine, must dress like a woman and wrestle with his advancing years; he cannot get away from his boyhood; he is dragged back to it; and though he has already acquired a soldier’s figure, he is kept beardless by having his hair smoothed away or plucked out by the roots, and he must remain awake throughout the night, dividing his time between his master’s drunkenness and his lust; in the chamber he must be a man, at the feast a boy”
(Seneca, Letters to Lucillius 47. From https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Romans-have-sex-slaves)
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust
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”
But he does not outlaw romance between males, just anal sex and ejaculation (or 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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
Greek
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. (Note the same-sex act here is described as shameful and effeminate):
“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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p43-44)
Stoic
The following is a quote from Plutarch (born ~AD 46) (Note: here the same-sex act is considered weak, effeminate and shameful):
“But to consort with males (whether without consent, in which case it involves violence and brigandage; or if with consent, there is still weakness and effeminacy on the part of those who, contrary to nature, allow themselves in Plato's words “to be covered and mounted like cattle”)—this is a completely ill-favoured favour, indecent, an unlovely affront to Aphrodite.” (Emphasis added)
(Plutarch Dialogue On Love 5 in Moralia, translated by Edwin L. Minar, Jr., F. H. Sandbach, and W.C. Helmbold. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, vol 9, 751d-e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p68)
Here is a quote from the Stoic Pseudo-Lucian, where he makes an argument from nature as god's design to advocate for opposite-sex eroticism only:
“If each man abided by the ordinances prescribed for us by Providence, we should be satisfied with intercourse with women and life would be uncorrupted by anything shameful. Certainly, among animals incapable of debasing anything through depravity of disposition the laws of nature are preserved undefiled. Lions have no passion for lions but love in due season evokes in them desire for the females of their kind. The bull, monarch of the herd, mounts cows, and the ram fills the whole flock with seed from the male. Furthermore do not boars seek to lie with sows? Do not wolves mate with she-wolves? And, to speak in general terms, neither the birds whose wings whir on high, nor the creatures whose lot is a wet one beneath the water nor yet any creatures upon land strive for intercourse with fellow males, but the decisions of Providence remain unchanged...If each and every man should choose to emulate such (same-sex) conduct, the human race will come to a complete end” (Emphasis and parenthesis added)
(Pseudo-Lucian Affairs of the Heart, in Lucian translated by M. D. Macleod. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, vol 8, p22) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p75)
Quotes From Philo on Same-Sex Eroticism
Philo was contemporary to Paul (~15B.C.E to ~50C.E). Here is Philo speaking on pederasty. Naturally, he takes a hostile stance, due to the Old Testament view on same-sex activity. (Note: he calls the penetrated shameful and effeminate, and speaks against wasting semen):
“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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
Romans 1 is likely referring to homosexuality within the context of temple shrine prostitution, which was probably the most common expression of same-sex sex in Paul’s day. In this practice, men would have sex with male prostitutes at an altar of a temple. This link is confirmed in the following:
“At all events these hybrids of men and women can be seen swaggering about in the crowded market-places, at the head of festal processions, appointed, unholy as they are, to serve as ministers of holy things, presiding over mysteries and initiatory rites, and celebrating the feasts of Demeter. Those of them who, desiring to prolong their youthful beauty, have desired to be completely transformed into women and have castrated themselves, and have clothed themselves in purple robes, and are surrounded by an escort like the great benefactors of their native lands, stride in front, drawing the attentions of passers-by to themselves.” (Emphasis added)
(Philo On the Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p291) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p89-90)
Conclusion
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:
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”
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:
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:
In the passage about head coverings, Paul uses the word “nature” in a sense that ultimately refers to these misinformed scientific beliefs, rather than God’s design. When we come to examine Romans 1, Paul appeals to “nature” again to condemn gay sex. He uses the same Greek word “phusis” here that he uses in 1 Corinthians 11. We have contended that “nature”, or “phusis”, in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to the flawed science of Paul’s day, though Paul intended to make his argument based on what he thought was scientific and true, equating “nature” with God’s design. If “nature” in one area of Paul’s work does not reflect reality- and therefore, the thinking of God- then here in Romans 1, the reasoning may similarly be rooted in Paul’s limited human thinking, rather than representing God’s unchanging viewpoints. There are in fact reasons to believe Paul did base his argument against homosexuality in Romans 1 in limited human reasoning, rather than the reality with regards to homosexuality. Let us further examine the relevant passage in Romans 1:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
~ Romans 1:1-32 (NIV)
Paul begins by painting a picture of humanities’ rejection of the true God. In his eyes, it has manifested in idol worship. He then derives that this rejection of God has led to improper behaviours, using the example of homosexual activity in v26-27. In Paul’s eyes, this degenerate behaviour is a direct result of abandoning knowledge of the true God. It is to be noted that there is no sense in which Paul blesses any same-sex relations here- it is an outright denunciation of all such behaviour. He sees it as a vile perversion of God’s complementary created order of male and female. This example of the consequences of denying the true God, as represented in homosexual behaviour, would be seen as shameful to both his Judeo-Christian audience, as well as the intellectuals amongst his Greco-Roman peers (as we shall discuss further).
The language Paul uses betrays the philosophical mores of the culture around him. We can see from the words he chooses that he is in agreement with the Greco-Roman and Jewish thinkers of his day with respect to homosexual intercourse. Paul uses three key themes in his passage that align with the sentiments of his Greco-Roman and Jewish peers:
That homosexuality was:
The thrust of my argument, as we shall discuss more later, is that today, we see homosexuality as more of an orientation, than something people choose. It is not a “sinful choice” (as the church has gleaned from this passage), but rather, a sexual preference that is something that merely happens to a person as they develop into adolescence. In Paul’s day, sexuality was thought of as fluid, where everyone was considered more like bisexuals today. Same-sex or opposite-sex activity was thought of something that could be freely taken up by the individual. Whereas, today we conceive of sexuality as being much more diverse: some are exclusively heterosexual, some are exclusively homosexual, and some are bisexual. There wasn’t the concept of orientation in Paul’s day that we have today, where sexuality is discovered at puberty, rather than chosen.
Similarly, homosexuality is not any more a sign of unbridled lust than any other heterosexual sex. It is just as much an expression of sexual preference as heterosexual sex is. They are merely acting according to their wiring, and so it is a part of their nature and not as Paul said “against nature” (KJV). A person’s orientation happens to them naturally as an involuntary part of their development. God really ought to know all this. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. Thus, I will conclude that Paul's use of “nature” here in Romans 1 is based in error, as in 1 Corinthians 11.
Let us now turn to the passage to see how Paul’s thinking is typical to his day:
Homosexuality as Chosen Behaviour:
"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."
Here he describes how women “exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones”, and men likewise “abandoned natural relations” for unnatural. In both cases, it sounds as though Paul speaks of it as a voluntary act: they willingly take up this behaviour.
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust:
"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."
Here he speaks of it as shamefully lustful behaviour (v26), and describes how the men were “inflamed with lust for one another”. This seems to speak of unbridled desire.
Homosexuality as Going Against Nature:
"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."
He says the women "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones", and that the men "abandoned natural relations". In the KJV, he speaks of the same-sex act as going "against nature", meaning God’s created order.
We shall further examine how these three themes that Paul uses were common to the Greco-Roman thinkers of the ancient world, along with building upon Paul’s heritage of Jewish thought. Then finally, we shall compare these Pauline attitudes towards homosexuality to modern conceptions, and evaluate Paul’s teaching, especially with respect to it being called unnatural, and ultimately, a crime against God.
For a detailed description of Greco-Roman and Jewish influences on Paul, 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” ~A Thesis by Hugo Márquez Soljancic
(Note: Writing this work as an independent researcher has meant that I do not have access to all the resources that I would have if I was working within an academic institution, such as a university. This has meant that I have had to work with the information that I could access online. The best literature I could find to build on this section about the Greco-Roman influences on Paul, was the paper by Hugo Márquez Soljancic. I am going to cite the information I gained from Márquez, as I found this thesis exceptionally informative to write this section, and I don’t want to be seen to be stealing ideas from this great resource, without giving due credit. In fact, I openly admit, the large majority of this section is based upon this work from Marquez, although I framed the information in my own words as much as possible. Similarly, since I don’t have direct access to the references Márquez cites, I had to use his references).
Influence of Greco-Roman Thought on Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thinkers
(Note: Page numbers in brackets here are the page(s) the information appears in the thesis by Hugo Márquez Soljancic)
Paul appears to have been influenced by the Greco-Roman thought of his day, as well as Jewish thinkers close to his time, such as Philo Judaeus. As a Hellenistic Jew and Roman citizen, Paul would be exposed to these ideas through education and culture (p82). The Roman Stoics as well as Jewish thinkers like Philo, all have Greek influences in their belief systems. Greek thought impressed itself both on the Jewish and Roman world of antiquity: Alexander the Great conquered Palestine during the fourth century B.C.E, and Greek thought was subsumed into Jewish education system (p78). Conversely, the Roman Empire conquered Greek territories during the Macedonian Wars by the second century B.C.E, and Greek culture became very popular amongst the Roman educated elite (p55).
This Greek thought ultimately traces back to Socrates, whose ideas were penned by his student Plato (p32). These ideas were foundational to the Greeks (p32), the Roman Stoics (p61) and were adapted to contemporary Jewish thought (p79). Again, as a Roman citizen and Hellenistic Jew, Paul would be exposed to these ideas through education and culture. Doubtless, they were influential to Paul’s worldview, as we will see. Similarly, these popular ideas of the time were a source of inspiration to early Christianity: Before we received the New Testament, ideas such as love for one’s enemies (p77) and the more humane treatment of slaves (p77), were already circulating through the world of first century Greco-Roman philosophy.
Let us take a closer look at the ideas of these thinkers, especially with regards to sex and more specifically, homosexuality.
General Greco-Roman Philosophy on Sex and Pleasure
(Note: these were the views of the philosophically aspiring of the day and not necessarily the wider populace!! (p41, p52-53, p78))
Socrates, Plato and the Greco-Roman thinkers after him, believed that to act correctly, a person must exercise reason over the desires of the body (p31). The body was considered corrupt (p31), but the reason had a divine quality that could help them act in accordance with God’s will (p31, p59). Enjoying pleasures in moderation was the key to virtuous conduct (p31).
Common to Platonic, Greek and Roman Stoic thinking was the principle that pleasure should be indulged in only to the extent that was necessary for survival, and no further (p4, p51, p72). Thus, anal sex would be considered an unnecessary indulgence and a sign of excess, since it was superfluous to pleasure necessary to merely survive (p4, p51, p72). Moderation was central to their thinking (p31, p32, p48). They all viewed sex as an act that could quickly run out of control if not guided by reason (p41). Sex was considered solely for the purpose of procreation (p4, p65), and “wasting seed” was frowned upon (p50, p51, p73).
Paul begins by painting a picture of humanities’ rejection of the true God. In his eyes, it has manifested in idol worship. He then derives that this rejection of God has led to improper behaviours, using the example of homosexual activity in v26-27. In Paul’s eyes, this degenerate behaviour is a direct result of abandoning knowledge of the true God. It is to be noted that there is no sense in which Paul blesses any same-sex relations here- it is an outright denunciation of all such behaviour. He sees it as a vile perversion of God’s complementary created order of male and female. This example of the consequences of denying the true God, as represented in homosexual behaviour, would be seen as shameful to both his Judeo-Christian audience, as well as the intellectuals amongst his Greco-Roman peers (as we shall discuss further).
The language Paul uses betrays the philosophical mores of the culture around him. We can see from the words he chooses that he is in agreement with the Greco-Roman and Jewish thinkers of his day with respect to homosexual intercourse. Paul uses three key themes in his passage that align with the sentiments of his Greco-Roman and Jewish peers:
That homosexuality was:
- chosen behaviour
- a sign of excessive lust
- against nature
(See Joe Miller, Jr Homosexuality: A Scriptural Way Forward for the United Methodist Church. 2015, p106-120)
Similarly, homosexuality is not any more a sign of unbridled lust than any other heterosexual sex. It is just as much an expression of sexual preference as heterosexual sex is. They are merely acting according to their wiring, and so it is a part of their nature and not as Paul said “against nature” (KJV). A person’s orientation happens to them naturally as an involuntary part of their development. God really ought to know all this. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. Thus, I will conclude that Paul's use of “nature” here in Romans 1 is based in error, as in 1 Corinthians 11.
Let us now turn to the passage to see how Paul’s thinking is typical to his day:
Homosexuality as Chosen Behaviour:
"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."
Here he describes how women “exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones”, and men likewise “abandoned natural relations” for unnatural. In both cases, it sounds as though Paul speaks of it as a voluntary act: they willingly take up this behaviour.
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust:
"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."
Here he speaks of it as shamefully lustful behaviour (v26), and describes how the men were “inflamed with lust for one another”. This seems to speak of unbridled desire.
Homosexuality as Going Against Nature:
"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."
He says the women "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones", and that the men "abandoned natural relations". In the KJV, he speaks of the same-sex act as going "against nature", meaning God’s created order.
We shall further examine how these three themes that Paul uses were common to the Greco-Roman thinkers of the ancient world, along with building upon Paul’s heritage of Jewish thought. Then finally, we shall compare these Pauline attitudes towards homosexuality to modern conceptions, and evaluate Paul’s teaching, especially with respect to it being called unnatural, and ultimately, a crime against God.
For a detailed description of Greco-Roman and Jewish influences on Paul, 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” ~A Thesis by Hugo Márquez Soljancic
(Note: Writing this work as an independent researcher has meant that I do not have access to all the resources that I would have if I was working within an academic institution, such as a university. This has meant that I have had to work with the information that I could access online. The best literature I could find to build on this section about the Greco-Roman influences on Paul, was the paper by Hugo Márquez Soljancic. I am going to cite the information I gained from Márquez, as I found this thesis exceptionally informative to write this section, and I don’t want to be seen to be stealing ideas from this great resource, without giving due credit. In fact, I openly admit, the large majority of this section is based upon this work from Marquez, although I framed the information in my own words as much as possible. Similarly, since I don’t have direct access to the references Márquez cites, I had to use his references).
Influence of Greco-Roman Thought on Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thinkers
(Note: Page numbers in brackets here are the page(s) the information appears in the thesis by Hugo Márquez Soljancic)
Paul appears to have been influenced by the Greco-Roman thought of his day, as well as Jewish thinkers close to his time, such as Philo Judaeus. As a Hellenistic Jew and Roman citizen, Paul would be exposed to these ideas through education and culture (p82). The Roman Stoics as well as Jewish thinkers like Philo, all have Greek influences in their belief systems. Greek thought impressed itself both on the Jewish and Roman world of antiquity: Alexander the Great conquered Palestine during the fourth century B.C.E, and Greek thought was subsumed into Jewish education system (p78). Conversely, the Roman Empire conquered Greek territories during the Macedonian Wars by the second century B.C.E, and Greek culture became very popular amongst the Roman educated elite (p55).
This Greek thought ultimately traces back to Socrates, whose ideas were penned by his student Plato (p32). These ideas were foundational to the Greeks (p32), the Roman Stoics (p61) and were adapted to contemporary Jewish thought (p79). Again, as a Roman citizen and Hellenistic Jew, Paul would be exposed to these ideas through education and culture. Doubtless, they were influential to Paul’s worldview, as we will see. Similarly, these popular ideas of the time were a source of inspiration to early Christianity: Before we received the New Testament, ideas such as love for one’s enemies (p77) and the more humane treatment of slaves (p77), were already circulating through the world of first century Greco-Roman philosophy.
Let us take a closer look at the ideas of these thinkers, especially with regards to sex and more specifically, homosexuality.
General Greco-Roman Philosophy on Sex and Pleasure
(Note: these were the views of the philosophically aspiring of the day and not necessarily the wider populace!! (p41, p52-53, p78))
Socrates, Plato and the Greco-Roman thinkers after him, believed that to act correctly, a person must exercise reason over the desires of the body (p31). The body was considered corrupt (p31), but the reason had a divine quality that could help them act in accordance with God’s will (p31, p59). Enjoying pleasures in moderation was the key to virtuous conduct (p31).
Common to Platonic, Greek and Roman Stoic thinking was the principle that pleasure should be indulged in only to the extent that was necessary for survival, and no further (p4, p51, p72). Thus, anal sex would be considered an unnecessary indulgence and a sign of excess, since it was superfluous to pleasure necessary to merely survive (p4, p51, p72). Moderation was central to their thinking (p31, p32, p48). They all viewed sex as an act that could quickly run out of control if not guided by reason (p41). Sex was considered solely for the purpose of procreation (p4, p65), and “wasting seed” was frowned upon (p50, p51, p73).
Plato (lived from ~428 B.C.E to ~348 B.C.E)
Plato appears to have denounced male-male intercourse, independently of the Jews. However, Plato and the Greeks accepted homosexual romance within the context of pederastic relationships (p40-41, p66). These relationships involved an older man mentoring an adolescent in exchange for his bodily favours and companionship (p45). It was conducted with the aim of mutual growth in virtue (p45). While these types of relationship were held in high esteem and considered superior to marital relations (since women were not considered capable of understanding philosophical matters (p43)), the act of anal penetration was considered shameful. This was due to convention that the role a Greek took in sex reflected their standing in society (p43-44). To take the passive role in sex was considered shameful and unmanly for free men, since it was naturally the role of women or slaves (whom were considered naturally inclined to be submissive) (p44). Thus, if sex was practiced in these relationships, it was of an intercrural nature (p44), where the active partner would face the passive and perform intercourse between the legs, just below the testes (p44). Greek men would however, perform anal sex on slaves; since it was not considered violate their low status (p44).
Thus, it was only the act of anal penetration that was considered wrong by Plato, and not same-sex romance itself. Similarly, wasting semen outside of the womb was a frowned upon, so ejaculation with a male would be seen as unnecessary pleasure (p50).
The Roman Stoics
The Roman Stoics generally considered the body more corrupt than the Greeks, so were less inclined towards sexual indulgence altogether (p72). They were less favourable to same-sex relationships, owing to the Platonic stance that homosexual intercourse was “contrary to nature” (p67). They also valued marital relationships much more than their Greek predecessors (p70-72), since they saw women as more virtuous than the Greeks did (p70-72). Similar to the Greeks, a free man could not be penetrated, as it was seen as degrading. Taking this further, the Romans made the penetration of free boys illegal (p68). This meant the Romans were much less fond of pederasty than the Greeks. The wider Roman society however, sidestepped this law by allowing the penetration of slaves carte blanche (p69).
Jewish thinkers
Paul naturally was influenced by Jewish thinkers of his time. These of course, took the Old Testament stance on homosexuality. The best known of these was Philo Judaeus (born ~15 B.C.E)). Like Paul, Philo was a Hellenistic Jew, and Roman Citizen. Like Paul, Philo was educated in a Greco-Roman context (p78), and also took influence from the Greeks and Roman Stoics. To look at these similarities between Philo and Greco-Roman thinkers- and how they ultimately influenced Paul- we must look at the cosmologies of the Greeks and Roman Stoics and how they were adopted by Philo as a Jewish predecessor to Paul.
We shall look at the cosmology of the Plato, the Roman Stoics and Philo respectively. By cosmology, we mean their view of god, the universe and its laws, and the nature of human thought and behaviour. These views, for each school of thought, informed how humans should conduct themselves in a wise and prudent manner. We need not go into full detail about these cosmologies, but only need to include the general picture and the elements that most relate to Paul’s own worldview.
Plato
In Plato’s cosmology, a single creator, known as the Demiurge (p32), made the universe based on pre-existing models of eternal realities, known as “forms”. Earthly things reflected the heavenly reality (p32). One example is that to Socrates, the beauty of a partner was reflective of the heavenly “form of beauty” (p46), and the creator was himself the “form of the good” (p33). In this sense, our world is an imperfect reflection of a heavenly reality (p33), and Plato considered it to be in constant flux (p33), making knowledge from observation unreliable. The truth existed in the "world of the forms" (p33), but since our bodily senses were tied to the illusion of our world, it was hard to tap into this realm (p33). However, our soul was considered to have access to this world by way of the rational soul (p33), which had a divine element and access to the "world of the forms" (p33). This higher soul served a reliable measure of what was right or wrong (p33). In Plato’s worldview, god was not active in the universe but merely let events play out (p57).
Rationality then was considered the key to true knowledge and upright conduct (p31). However, the soul had two other, lower components: the spirited and the appetitive soul (p33). These were the appetites and desires of the spirit, which were considered irrational. Since they were joined to the body with its cravings for things such as food or sex, they could easily run out of control and become problematic (p33).
Therefore, Plato saw a constant need to exercise the authority of the rational soul over the soul’s two other corrupted parts (p34). This was done by striving towards a state of being known as “enkrateia”, which was exercising self control over the appetites of the body (p34). Since Plato considered sex as essential for survival as food was, then the key was to apply moderation and restraint (p31, p41). The self control of "enkrateia" was to be applied in tandem with an attitude of moderation towards pleasures, known as “sophrosyne” (p32). These two states of being, he thought were the key to happiness and virtue (p32, p34). Thus, Plato believed we must be in a state of righteousness to act correctly.
In Plato’s worldview, Socrates, his teacher was seen as the ideal standard of moral excellence (p31-32, p47).
The Roman Stoics
The Stoics took a lot of influence from Socrates and the Greeks (p56). Stoicism was popular amongst the Roman elite, and not necessarily the views of the Roman populace (p55). The Stoics believed Zeus created the universe from a creative fire known as “ousia” (p55). This comprised of active “pneuma”, which could act on passive matter to fashion and form the universe (p56). They believed Zeus pervaded the entire cosmos, such that every void was filled with pneuma, or the divine soul (p56-57). Unlike the Platonic Demiurge, Zeus was directly involved with the universe (p57), being the cause of all events and so, omnipotent (p57). Since the divine soul of Zeus, or pneuma, spread through the entire cosmos, he was omnipresent. Stoics believed Zeus controlled all events in people’s lives. This determinism extended so far that they believed that the creation and destruction of the universe repeating in an endless cycle of the same events playing over and over. Therefore, the Stoics believed that a person could not change their circumstances (p57).
They could however freely choose how they reacted to events in their lives- in a positive or negative manner (p58). Since god was all-present in the universe, they believed the human mind possessed a substance of divine rationality, known as “nous”, as well as every human soul being filled with the omnipresent pneuma (p58). Thus, the human soul was considered perfectly in tune with divine rationality (p58). However, humans were still considered capable of being irrational, since the outside world and circumstances presented the mind with “impressions” about reality which could be true or false (p59). Wise conduct then was about reacting to the external world with correct attitudes. If a person acted under false impressions, it would produce agitating passion, derailing the soul from harmony with divine rationality, and engender irrational behaviour (p59).
Contentment in life then consisted in achieving a constant state of correct impressions of the world and always being rational (p59). This state was known as “apatheia”, similar to the Socratic state of enkrateia (p59). Thus, the Stoics believed we need to live in a state of righteousness. Like Plato, the Stoics saw Socrates as the model of ethical perfection (p61-62).
Philo (~15 B.C.E to~50 C.E)
Although Philo Judaeus was Jewish, he adopted Greek and Stoic ideas during his education (p78). He adapted these ideas to his Old Testament worldview. Philo borrowed elements from both Platonic and Stoic cosmology and grafted them into his Judaism (p79).
Like Plato, he believed the world was an imperfect copy of heavenly realities based off eternal forms (p79). He added though that Yahweh had imprinted his wisdom (logos) on matter during creation (p79). This connected our universe to the divine world of the forms. So the universe was more easily intelligible than to Plato. This logos was similar to the Stoic pneuma- an extension of god in the universe (p79-80). However, this logos was not considered God in essence as the Stoics believed, but as something that flowed from God (p79-80). Philo believed we should act according to God’s laws (p80), which he believed were revealed to us in the Law of Moses itself (p80). This meant a Jew was never in any doubt as to what was in accordance with God’s will (p80).
Philo reasoned that the soul comprised of two parts: the higher and lower soul (p80). The higher soul was perfectly in tune with God, even to the extent that it contained a perfect copy of God’s logos (p80). This served as a trustworthy moral guide. However, the lower soul was tied to the body and the senses and capable of discursive reasoning that took place in autonomous thought, apart from God’s logos, and so could easily run awry (p81). Thus, a person had to always strive to live in accordance with the higher soul, which Philo believed was only possible by living in a state of God’s grace (p81).
This view of a higher and lower soul is similar to Plato’s distinction between the rational soul and its conflicting lower parts, consisting of the spirited and appetitive soul. The lower soul’s capacity for incorrect reasoning resembles the Stoic notion of wrong impressions from the outside world.
Philo viewed Moses standard of perfection, equivalent to Socrates in Plato’s worldview (p80).
Similarities of Paul’s Worldview to Greco-Roman Thinkers
Since Plato and the Stoics both believed in a single creator, their worldviews were compatible with both Philo and Paul as believers in the Judaic worldview. Thus, they were inclined to adopt elements of the philosophies of Platonism and Stoicism. Again, Philo and Paul were both Hellenistic Jews and Roman citizens who were educated and influenced by Greek and Roman ideas. Let us examine the specifics of these similarities to Paul’s worldview.
Central to the teaching in Paul’s letters, is the need to have faith in Jesus. This is essentially a state of righteousness and God’s favour, that a person needs as a foundation of true religion (p83). This need of a state of righteousness is similar to the Socratic enkrateia and the Stoic apatheia, as well as building on Philo’s need for God’s grace.
Paul frequently exhorts his readers to exercise self control, which is a Socratic trait. Paul in fact uses many Platonic and Stoic phrases in his works: He uses the Socratic word “enkrateia” in Galatians 5:23 (KJV), translated “self control”. The word “sophrosyne” appears twice in 1 Timothy 2 (KJV), in verses 9 and 15, which is translated “sobriety”. These two practices are central to the Socratic ethic (p32).
The thrust of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that incorrect beliefs about God have led to improper practice, typified in homosexual activity (p84-86). This behaviour would be seen as shameful to Jew and Greek alike, so appears to be reasoning by use of a common example. This is idea of incorrect reasoning leading to error in conduct resembles the Stoic concept that incorrect impressions of reality lead to actions according to the passion of the body. To Paul, there can be no bigger error in reasoning than rejecting the true God himself, so little wonder these people err in practice and can engage in a something as abhorrent as homosexual sex (p86).
Paul appears then to have endorsed Greco-Roman philosophy. In fact as Márquez says, it is possible these Greco-Roman ideas served as a common language between Paul as a Jew and the Gentile communities he sought to reach (p82). So Paul may have used Greco-Roman ideas to frame his ideas in a way familiar to his Gentile audience.
Nature in Romans 1
Paul draws his argument from nature in Romans 1 in a sense that it is patently obvious from observation and reason that homosexual behaviour is unnatural. The sense of “nature” here seems more reflective of Stoic thought than of Plato (p74). Unlike Plato, the Stoics believed god was a part of nature, existing in all places (p74). Therefore, to go against the natural order of the world would be a direct act of rebellion against god (p61). Whereas, Plato believed we must act according to the principles of nature (p61), but he also believed that the natural world pointed less directly to the heavenly realm, since the world was merely an imperfect copy of heavenly reality (p32, p74).
Paul takes the Stoic view that homosexual sex is a crime against nature, and therefore God. The Stoics took greater exception to homosexual intimacy altogether than the Greeks, and so anal sex was especially frowned upon. Not only did they consider it degrading for a male to be penetrated, but it was to choose to go against god’s natural order when they could just as freely choose virtuous marital sex.
The following describes how the Roman Stoics viewed nature:
“This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man) to designate as the end “life in agreement with nature” (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us... Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience with the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus;
“for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is. And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe.”” (Emphasis added)
(Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 7, translated by R.D. Hicks. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1925, vol 2, p86-88) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p60-61)
Furthermore, Seneca stated that:
“For man is a rational animal. Man's ideal state is realized when he has fulfilled the purpose for which he was born. And what is it that reason demands of him? Something very easy—that he live in accordance with his own nature. (Emphasis added)
(Seneca Letters to Lucilius 41) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p61)
Quotes of Greco-Roman and Jewish Thinkers of Paul’s Day on Homosexuality
As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, Paul in Romans 1:26-27 appears to use three themes that seem consistent with the thinking of his day. Namely, that homosexual activity was:
- chosen behaviour
- a sign of excessive lust
- against nature
“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)
As we discussed, Plato influenced the Greeks (p32) and Roman Stoics after him (p56), as well as Jewish thinkers such as Philo (p78-79). Here, we will look at quotes of the influential and contemporary thinkers to Paul, showing their similarity and thus, their influence on Paul with respect to these three characterisations of homosexual activity. It is to be noted, many of these quotes predate Paul’s letter to the Romans significantly (Plato lived from ~428 B.C.E to ~348 B.C.E, whereas Romans was written ~57 to 58 C.E). It is likely that Paul was familiar with some, if not many of these texts, as an educated Hellenistic Jew and Roman Citizen.
(NOTE: there will be some overlap in these quotes as some of them include more than one of the three bullet points. Emphasis and parenthesis is added.)
Homosexuality as Chosen Behaviour
"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"
~ Romans 1:26-27
Plato and the Greeks after him endorsed same-sex marital sex for procreation, as well as homosexual romance for the development of virtue. They considered women as incapable of philosophical insight, so they preferred these perderastic relationships with adolescents for mutual growth in virtue. They encouraged same-sex romance, but drew a line at anal sex and ejaculation. Plato and Socrates both partook in these pederastic relationships, as well as advocating for opposite-sex marital relations for the propagation of the species. Thus, the Greek view of sexuality was more fluid in that of every male could willingly take up partners of either sex. It appears they considered all males to be bisexual rather than “heterosexual” or “homosexual”, as we conceive of today. To quote Márquez:
“It is important to remember that Greek aphrodisia did not make distinctions on sexual orientation, and the common view was that men could choose among women and boys for their sexual partners, making it a matter of circumstantial preference. In modern parlance, this was very much a matter of choice.” (Emphasis added)
(Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., p48. From Dover, KJ Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p65)
Plato
We shall now look at quotes of Plato that show how he advocated for male-male romance (apart from anal penetration and ejaculation), as well as for heterosexual relations. Plato wrote of Socrates engaging in same-sex romance with younger men, as well as advocating for heterosexual marital relations:
In Plato’s Symposium, Socrates is propositioned to become Alcibialdes’ Pedagogue, while they both lay naked in a shared cloak:
“'Socrates, are you asleep?' 'No.' 'Do you know what I've decided?' 'What?' 'I think you are the ideal person to be my lover, but you seem to be a bit shy about suggesting it. So I'll tell you how I feel about it. I think I'd be crazy not to satisfy you in this way, just as I'd do anything else for you if it was in my power—or in my friends' power. Nothing matters more to me than my own improvement, and I can't imagine a better helper than you."
(Plato Symposium, translated by Tom Griffith. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, 218c-218d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p45)
Socrates responds:
“My dear Alcibiades, you're certainly nobody's fool, if you're right in what you say about me, & I do have some power to improve you. It must be remarkable beauty you see in me, far superior to your own physical beauty. If that's the main aim of your deal with me, to exchange beauty for beauty, then you are trying to get much the better of the bargain. You want to get real beauty in exchange for what is commonly mistaken for it, like Diomedes getting gold armor in return for his bronze.”
(Plato Symposium, translated by Tom Griffith. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, 218e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p49)
Socrates does not accept the offer, stating that virtue is more valuable than bodily pleasure, but he does not condemn same-sex romance itself. On the contrary, in Republic, Socrates is portrayed by Plato to embrace same-sex romance in the context of pederastic relationships. Here, Socrates discusses the possible dangers of same-sex passion and romance with a character named Glaucon:
Plato and the Greeks after him endorsed same-sex marital sex for procreation, as well as homosexual romance for the development of virtue. They considered women as incapable of philosophical insight, so they preferred these perderastic relationships with adolescents for mutual growth in virtue. They encouraged same-sex romance, but drew a line at anal sex and ejaculation. Plato and Socrates both partook in these pederastic relationships, as well as advocating for opposite-sex marital relations for the propagation of the species. Thus, the Greek view of sexuality was more fluid in that of every male could willingly take up partners of either sex. It appears they considered all males to be bisexual rather than “heterosexual” or “homosexual”, as we conceive of today. To quote Márquez:
“It is important to remember that Greek aphrodisia did not make distinctions on sexual orientation, and the common view was that men could choose among women and boys for their sexual partners, making it a matter of circumstantial preference. In modern parlance, this was very much a matter of choice.” (Emphasis added)
(Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., p48. From Dover, KJ Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p65)
Plato
We shall now look at quotes of Plato that show how he advocated for male-male romance (apart from anal penetration and ejaculation), as well as for heterosexual relations. Plato wrote of Socrates engaging in same-sex romance with younger men, as well as advocating for heterosexual marital relations:
In Plato’s Symposium, Socrates is propositioned to become Alcibialdes’ Pedagogue, while they both lay naked in a shared cloak:
“'Socrates, are you asleep?' 'No.' 'Do you know what I've decided?' 'What?' 'I think you are the ideal person to be my lover, but you seem to be a bit shy about suggesting it. So I'll tell you how I feel about it. I think I'd be crazy not to satisfy you in this way, just as I'd do anything else for you if it was in my power—or in my friends' power. Nothing matters more to me than my own improvement, and I can't imagine a better helper than you."
(Plato Symposium, translated by Tom Griffith. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, 218c-218d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p45)
Socrates responds:
“My dear Alcibiades, you're certainly nobody's fool, if you're right in what you say about me, & I do have some power to improve you. It must be remarkable beauty you see in me, far superior to your own physical beauty. If that's the main aim of your deal with me, to exchange beauty for beauty, then you are trying to get much the better of the bargain. You want to get real beauty in exchange for what is commonly mistaken for it, like Diomedes getting gold armor in return for his bronze.”
(Plato Symposium, translated by Tom Griffith. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, 218e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p49)
Socrates does not accept the offer, stating that virtue is more valuable than bodily pleasure, but he does not condemn same-sex romance itself. On the contrary, in Republic, Socrates is portrayed by Plato to embrace same-sex romance in the context of pederastic relationships. Here, Socrates discusses the possible dangers of same-sex passion and romance with a character named Glaucon:
""-...is there any pleasure you can name that is greater and keener than sexual pleasure?
-No; nor any that is more like frenzy.
-Whereas love rightfully is such a passion as beauty combined with a noble and harmonious character may inspire in a temperate and cultivated mind. It must therefore be kept from all contact with licentiousness and frenzy; and where a passion of this rightful sort exists, the lover and his beloved must have nothing to do with the pleasure in question.
-Certainly not, Socrates.
- It appears, then, that in this commonwealth we are founding you will have a law to the effect that a lover may seek the company of his beloved and, with his consent, kiss and embrace him like a son, with honorable intent, but must never be suspected of any further familiarity, on pain of being thought ill-bred and without any delicacy of feeling.”" (Emphasis added)
(Plato Republic, translated by Francis McDonald Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960, 403a-c) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., p49, 2011)
As we discussed earlier, Socrates and Plato advocated same-sex pederastic relationships with a view towards growth in virtue, but as is shown here, they appeared to draw a line at ejaculation and anal intercourse. As we discussed, these were seen to exceed the basic requirements of pleasure for survival, which was Socrates’ golden rule on sex (p4, p51, p72).
So Socrates did not seem opposed to same-sex romance, as portrayed by his student Plato, However, he saw anal penetration as a vicious indulgence. Later in life, Plato further denounced same-sex penetration, advocating more towards heterosexual, marital sex for the purpose of procreation. In Laws, Plato sets out his ideal for sex through the characters of the unnamed Athenian, the Cretan and the Spartan. Note: Laws models Plato’s rules for an ideal state, Magnesia, so he may not have applied it to the real world as rigidly (Note how non-procreative sex and wasting semen is denounced here):
“that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn't wish your sperm to grow. If this law becomes permanent and hold sway (if it were justly victorious in the other cases, as it is now in regard to intercourse on the part of parents), tens of thousands of good things would result. For in the first place it is laid down according to nature; then too, it will prevent erotic frenzy and madness, as well as all adulteries, and all excessive drinking and eating, and will make men familiar with and dear to their own wives.” (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
He goes on to reiterate his ideal of heterosexual penetration only, using the natural world as the standard:
“I assert that the only thing left for our custom to do is to plunge on, saying that our citizens must not be inferior to the birds and many of the other beasts, who are born amid great flocks and live celibate, pure, and chaste, until the time of child-rearing; then when they arrive at this age they pair off, male with female according to preference, and female with male, and live out the rest of their lives in pious and just fashion, remaining steadfast to the first agreements of friendship. Now surely they ought to be superior to the beasts, at least! But if they become corrupted by the other Greeks and most of the barbarians, by seeing among themselves and hearing about the very great power of the so-called “disorderly Aphrodite,” and so are incapable of mastering it, then the Guardians of the Laws, becoming lawgivers, will have to devise for them a second law.” (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 840d-e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
However, he goes on to state that he does not outlaw romance between males, just anal sex:
“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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
The above quotes show Socrates and Plato advocated same-sex romance, but drew a line at anal sex and ejaculation. They also advocated marital relations for the purpose of procreation as the only acceptable act of bodily penetration. Thus, they both had a bisexual view of eroticism, where erotic acts with males were a choice, which a person could decide to take up or not.
Greek
Although Plato outlawed anal sex, this was unlikely the view of the wider Greek populace, who did not strive after the Socratic ideals, as is shown is this quote from the play “Clouds” by Aristophanes:
“Just consider, my young friend, everything that's involved in being 'good' (sōphronein), and all the pleasures you're going to miss; boys, women, kottabos-games, good food, drinks, laughs. But what's the point of living, if you're done out of all that?” (Emphasis and parenthesis added)
(Dover, KJ, Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p136) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p53)
Roman
Although the Stoics had a general dislike of sexual excess (and even bodily passions in general (p72)), the rape of male slaves was commonplace in wider Roman society, as Seneca the Elder said:
“impudicitia (passivity) is a crime for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman” (Parenthesis added)
(as quoted by Cantarella, Bisexuality in the ancient world, p99, as seen in Wikipedia)
Here is another quote from Seneca:
“Another (slave), who serves the wine, must dress like a woman and wrestle with his advancing years; he cannot get away from his boyhood; he is dragged back to it; and though he has already acquired a soldier’s figure, he is kept beardless by having his hair smoothed away or plucked out by the roots, and he must remain awake throughout the night, dividing his time between his master’s drunkenness and his lust; in the chamber he must be a man, at the feast a boy”
(Seneca, Letters to Lucillius 47. From https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Romans-have-sex-slaves)
Homosexuality as an Expression of Excessive Lust
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”
~Romans 1:26-27
(Note: Paul calls them “shameful lusts”, which we shall evaluate in the conclusion).
The Greeks and Roman Stoics all followed the Socratic example, which was that sex should only be indulged in to the extent that it was necessary for survival (p4, p51, p72). Thus, homosexual sex, which was superfluous to survival and reproduction, was considered as an expression of excess lust.
A clear and direct example of this can be found in Plato’s Laws, expressed through the character of the unnamed Athenian:
“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)
(Note: Paul calls them “shameful lusts”, which we shall evaluate in the conclusion).
The Greeks and Roman Stoics all followed the Socratic example, which was that sex should only be indulged in to the extent that it was necessary for survival (p4, p51, p72). Thus, homosexual sex, which was superfluous to survival and reproduction, was considered as an expression of excess lust.
A clear and direct example of this can be found in Plato’s Laws, expressed through the character of the unnamed Athenian:
“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)
Homosexuality as “Against Nature”
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.
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.
~Romans 1:26-27
Paul takes the Stoic view that homosexual sex is a crime against nature, and therefore God. As we said, Plato was the first of the Greeks to speak against same-sex intercourse. The Greek thinkers after him, and the Roman Stoics, all followed this Socratic example (p32, p67). Again, in Plato’s Laws, anal sex is condemned as unnatural:
“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)
Paul takes the Stoic view that homosexual sex is a crime against nature, and therefore God. As we said, Plato was the first of the Greeks to speak against same-sex intercourse. The Greek thinkers after him, and the Roman Stoics, all followed this Socratic example (p32, p67). Again, in Plato’s Laws, anal sex is condemned as unnatural:
“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)
Again in Laws, Plato goes on to advocate “natural" sex between males and females. (Note how non-procreative sex and wasting seed is denounced):
“that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn't wish your sperm to grow." (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
Again in Laws, Plato goes on to advocate “natural" sex between males and females. (Note how non-procreative sex and wasting seed is denounced):
“that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn't wish your sperm to grow." (Emphasis added)
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
But he does not outlaw romance between males, just anal sex and ejaculation (or 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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
Greek
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. (Note the same-sex act here is described as shameful and effeminate):
“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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p43-44)
Stoic
The following is a quote from Plutarch (born ~AD 46) (Note: here the same-sex act is considered weak, effeminate and shameful):
“But to consort with males (whether without consent, in which case it involves violence and brigandage; or if with consent, there is still weakness and effeminacy on the part of those who, contrary to nature, allow themselves in Plato's words “to be covered and mounted like cattle”)—this is a completely ill-favoured favour, indecent, an unlovely affront to Aphrodite.” (Emphasis added)
(Plutarch Dialogue On Love 5 in Moralia, translated by Edwin L. Minar, Jr., F. H. Sandbach, and W.C. Helmbold. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, vol 9, 751d-e) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p68)
Here is a quote from the Stoic Pseudo-Lucian, where he makes an argument from nature as god's design to advocate for opposite-sex eroticism only:
“If each man abided by the ordinances prescribed for us by Providence, we should be satisfied with intercourse with women and life would be uncorrupted by anything shameful. Certainly, among animals incapable of debasing anything through depravity of disposition the laws of nature are preserved undefiled. Lions have no passion for lions but love in due season evokes in them desire for the females of their kind. The bull, monarch of the herd, mounts cows, and the ram fills the whole flock with seed from the male. Furthermore do not boars seek to lie with sows? Do not wolves mate with she-wolves? And, to speak in general terms, neither the birds whose wings whir on high, nor the creatures whose lot is a wet one beneath the water nor yet any creatures upon land strive for intercourse with fellow males, but the decisions of Providence remain unchanged...If each and every man should choose to emulate such (same-sex) conduct, the human race will come to a complete end” (Emphasis and parenthesis added)
(Pseudo-Lucian Affairs of the Heart, in Lucian translated by M. D. Macleod. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, vol 8, p22) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p75)
Quotes From Philo on Same-Sex Eroticism
Philo was contemporary to Paul (~15B.C.E to ~50C.E). Here is Philo speaking on pederasty. Naturally, he takes a hostile stance, due to the Old Testament view on same-sex activity. (Note: he calls the penetrated shameful and effeminate, and speaks against wasting semen):
“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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
Romans 1 is likely referring to homosexuality within the context of temple shrine prostitution, which was probably the most common expression of same-sex sex in Paul’s day. In this practice, men would have sex with male prostitutes at an altar of a temple. This link is confirmed in the following:
“At all events these hybrids of men and women can be seen swaggering about in the crowded market-places, at the head of festal processions, appointed, unholy as they are, to serve as ministers of holy things, presiding over mysteries and initiatory rites, and celebrating the feasts of Demeter. Those of them who, desiring to prolong their youthful beauty, have desired to be completely transformed into women and have castrated themselves, and have clothed themselves in purple robes, and are surrounded by an escort like the great benefactors of their native lands, stride in front, drawing the attentions of passers-by to themselves.” (Emphasis added)
(Philo On the Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p291) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p89-90)
Conclusion
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:
- A Choice
- A sign of excessive lust
- A crime against nature, and therefore God
"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."
~ Romans 1:26-27
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”
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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p43-44)
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) (Márquez 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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez 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, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez 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) (Márquez 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) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
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
(Leoma Williams Can animals be gay? 2010
Here is Zoologist Petter Boeckman explaining the wide variety of species that exhibit same-sex behaviour:
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.
"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
"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.)
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