Paul on Homosexuality

Paul on Homosexuality

The New Testament has little to say about the issue of homosexuality, and what it does have to say is not widely understood.

Jesus is never recorded as having ever said anything explicitly about homosexuality or homosexual activity. 

When asked about marriage Jesus refers to the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2: “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh, therefore what God has joined together let no one separate.”

Romans 1:18-32 is the most significant passage as it is the only passage in the New Testament that offers a theological reflection regarding homosexual activity.

Three observations are important here.

1. Paul is laying a trap for his readers in Romans 1:18-32.

2. For Paul in Rom 1:18-32 homosexual activity is the result of God’s wrath, not the cause of God’s wrath. It is evidence that God’s wrath is at work in the world because of the fundamental evil of refusing to honor God as God. So the condemnation of homosexual activity is not the point here. The point is that all human beings stand condemned before God who is at work to save human beings. So the condemnation of homosexual activity is really a step in Paul’s argument here. 

3. Yet while the condemnation of homosexual activity is not Paul’s point here, the argument does assume that homosexual activity is in fact sinful. Without that assumption the argument doesn’t make any sense. So it is accurate to say that Romans 1 does condemn homosexual activity.

What is Paul even talking about?

Scholar Robin Scroggs argues that here Paul is condemning pederasty – that is sex between a man and a boy. He does not condemn all homosexual activity. Scroggs says that pederasty was the norm for homosexual relationships in the Greco-Roman world, so when we see a condemnation of homosexual activity we should assume that that is a condemnation specifically of pederasty. 

However, in Romans 1:26-27 Paul uses words that mean male and female, they don’t necessarily refer to adults. So we can’t turn back Scroggs’s objection on the grounds of vocabulary alone, but when verses 26 and 27 are read in parallel – when they’re allowed to interpret each other – it becomes clear that Paul’s reference is not limited to pederasty. In 1:26 Paul says, “…their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.”

Now this verse doesn’t explicitly speak of homosexual activity, and read by itself it could be taken as condemnation of various heterosexual forms of intercourse that are deemed unnatural. Given, however, the verse’s close connection to the following verse which clearly speaks of homosexual activity among males, verse 26 should be understood as referring to lesbian sex – homosexual activity among women, or among females. 

Lesbian sex in the ancient world took many forms and the evidence suggests that the most prevalent form was consensual sex between women of about the same age. So should we have any real reason to believe that Paul’s reference in 1:26 does not apply to all homosexual activity between adult women? Just as verse 26 should be understood in light of verse 27, so verse 27 should be understood in light of verse 26. if Paul condemns homosexuality among adult women, we have no reason to think that he does not condemn homosexual activity among adult men. 

Further, in Romans 1:27 Paul says, “…the men giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed with passion for one another.” Paul clearly sets up heterosexual activity as the norm from which these men have deviated. For him, what makes this condemned activity wrong is that it involves people of the same sex rather than people of different sexes. He’s not talking about an age difference here. 

Romans 1:26-27 condemns all forms of homosexual activity. 

What is Paul’s Point?

At this point it’s worth mentioning that verses 28 -31 go on to list numerous other evils into which the Gentiles have fallen because of their refusal to honor God as God. Among those evils are haughtiness and rebellion against parents. Paul doesn’t give any indication that he sees those evils as less serious sins than homosexual activity.

So far Paul’s been describing sins that his Jewish readers would readily condemn as evil and disgusting. Now in chapter 2, he turns to the Jews in the Roman congregation. The Jews are right there with him, clapping their hands, cheering him on, telling him to give it to those nasty disgusting Gentiles. Now in chapter 2 Paul says “You have no excuse. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you the judge are doing the very same things.” 

I don’t know if Paul meant that the Jews were doing all of the very same things as the Gentiles, but I do believe he meant that Jews as well as Gentiles – all human beings – were guilty of refusing to honor God as God, to give God the honor due God as God. 

Now Paul’s made his point. All human beings are guilty of refusing to honor God as God. All stand condemned before God. That is why God is at work in the world in Jesus Christ.

What does this mean for us?

Paul assumed the biology of his own century when he argued that certain acts were “natural” or “unnatural,” as we can see here in Romans 1:26-27, but also again in 1st Corinthians 11:14. He also assumes the biology of his own century when he says that “soft” males (Greek, malakoi) would not inherit the kingdom of God in 1st Corinthians 6:9.

And we of course assume the legitimacy of the experimentally based biology of the twenty-first century, that reaches the conclusion that there is some biological determination of human sexual orientation. We must then face the question asked: Do we learn about how God created us exclusively from Genesis 1 and Romans 1, or may we not also learn something new about God’s creation from experimental science? 

Like Paul, we can learn from the biology of our own century that there is some biological determination of human sexual orientation, while we also learn from Paul that compulsive sexual activity is shameful and harmful to others in our homes, churches, and society. This is true whether the sexual activity involved is hetero- or homosexual. A related conclusion follows: If hetero- or homosexual activity is not compulsive, then may it be healthy and good? What do you think? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Dr. J. Edward Ellis. Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire: Paul’s Sexual Ethics in 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 7, and Romans 1. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2007.

Dr. J. Edward Ellis. On Homosexuality in the New Testament. (Lecture presented at Olivet Nazarene University, October 2011.)