Part 2 (New Testament - b): Against the Christian Oppression of Individuals on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Identity
Herein is presented Part 2 in a discussion of the biblical content considered as possibly relevant to the issue of homosexuality. Part 1 examined linguistic issues and the two passages in the writing of Paul which use the Greek word arsenokoites, concluding that the evidence on meaning is inconclusive. This article engages more of a theological discussion of Paul’s comments in Romans 1 about “natural” and “unnatural” sexual behavior and how this text bears upon the issue.
Passage (3): Romans 1:18-32 (Note 6) – On a surface reading it appears that Paul here speaks against homosexual conduct in some respect, although from the reference, the specific prohibition is not clear. The meaning is not straightforward, and comes in the context of a larger theological argument for the gospel in the light of Jewish and Greek religion and philosophy. In the development of the argument, Paul affirms that people have some level of natural knowledge of God’s nature and of morality, and that people have fallen short of even of these moral principles and substituted their own. As part of the explanation of how people have gone their own way, Paul lists a collection of behaviors and attitudes ranging from the very serious and egregious (murder) and including others that we might consider more commonplace and difficult to avoid, though we should not say, less serious, including greed, arrogance, and strife and even being unloving or unmerciful.
He describes natural versus unnatural sexual function, sexual behavior. How is this idea of “natural” used elsewhere in the New Testament? The Greek words are is phusis (φυσις) or phusichos (φσιχος) (both used in Romans 1:26), translated variously as "natural" or "by nature" or "by instinct" in about 13 occurrences as follows: in the two instances under discussion, Romans 1, natural vs unnatural sexual relations; in Romans 2:14, how Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law; in Galatians 4:8, Paul notes that some Christians were formerly in bondage to things which were natural rather than divine; Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 to argue "does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory"; Peter uses the word in 2 Peter 2:2 to speak of natural reasoning as instinctive reasoning and as such, like an animal, exactly the opposite meaning that one would use in an ethical argument; the same is the case in Jude verse 10, in which the word refers to reasoning by instinct, as an animal would reason.
He describes natural versus unnatural sexual function, sexual behavior. How is this idea of “natural” used elsewhere in the New Testament? The Greek words are is phusis (φυσις) or phusichos (φσιχος) (both used in Romans 1:26), translated variously as "natural" or "by nature" or "by instinct" in about 13 occurrences as follows: in the two instances under discussion, Romans 1, natural vs unnatural sexual relations; in Romans 2:14, how Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law; in Galatians 4:8, Paul notes that some Christians were formerly in bondage to things which were natural rather than divine; Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 to argue "does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory"; Peter uses the word in 2 Peter 2:2 to speak of natural reasoning as instinctive reasoning and as such, like an animal, exactly the opposite meaning that one would use in an ethical argument; the same is the case in Jude verse 10, in which the word refers to reasoning by instinct, as an animal would reason.
To reframe the argument, the question is, does Scripture, specifically Paul, advocate that "by nature" or "what is natural" we can determine ethical principles, or alternatively, does Scripture here advocate precepts or principles in a straightforward manner with the claim that "this is right and you can see by nature that it is right." This very limited collection of Scripture really does not give us any reliable basis to interpret the ethical principles in question, in the absence of other Scripture, less opaque in meaning, and more well attested by clear biblical principles.
In different passages and contexts, Paul comments upon a wide range of behaviors which we do not at present regard as binding doctrines or precepts...
With a different Greek word (aischros / αισχρος) but similar in theological reasoning, in 1 Corinthians 11:6, Paul states that it is improper or disgraceful or shameful (depending on translation) for women to cut their hair, and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 Paul states that it is improper for a woman to speak in church. In different passages and contexts, Paul comments upon a wide range of behaviors which we do not at present regard as binding doctrines or precepts, recognizing (a) the unique characteristics of the cultural and religious context which Paul was addressing, which included cultic and religious forms of public sexual behavior and prostitution, and (b) the different cultural context that we operate in presently. These circumstances qualify our interpretation of Paul’s teaching on such topics as (1) proper attire in worship (2) hair grooming (long, short, covered, uncovered) (3) who can speak in church (women generally prohibited from speaking or teaching in various passages) (4) who can teach, prophesy, or interpret what is said in church, and (5) qualifications for church leadership, as a partial list.
And it cannot be that we simply pick and choose the ethical principles within Paul's admittedly erratic and culturally specific behavioral admonitions in a random or arbitrary manner.
Any thoughtful reader or interpreter must admit that we do not take these Scripture at face value. They require sensitive and in-depth interpretation. And it cannot be that we simply pick and choose the ethical principles within Paul's admittedly erratic and culturally specific behavioral admonitions in a random or arbitrary manner. Clearly, for some of these passages, we have to set them aside as culturally specific in a way that may forever be elusive to us. And as a whole, we have to support any prospective ethical or doctrinal prescription with other Scripture that is clearer in meaning and well attested by a reliable quantity of references.
In sum, Paul in Romans 1 speaks of natural and unnatural sexual lusts and behaviors but the specific type of behavior is not clear. Certainly a wide range of behaviors could qualify as unnatural or shameful, but additional Scriptural support or ethical direction is required in order to fill in the gaps of meaning.
In this light, the curious and confusing thing about the Romans 1 passage is that, whereas some of Paul's argument within the passage stands as an example of reasoning by that which is "natural" (or what we could call natural ethics or natural theology), namely, his apparent rejection of some types of sexual behavior by use of the logic of appeal to natural versus unnatural behavior, the overall impact of the passage is to disqualify or debunk the human tendency toward natural theology or what we might see as "self-evident" theology.
In many historical instances, when we as humans rely on our own “natural” reasoning, particularly in the area of morality, we tend toward the selfish outcome of empowering that which serves our interests and demonizing that which is different or with which we disagree. Unchecked, this tendency can corrupt the institutional expression of religious norms. This truth is borne out by Scripture; it is borne out by experience and by history. Humans and human institutions are self-serving, and overconfident, and require continuous correction.
The second half of Romans 1 serves as a set up for Romans 2 in which Paul elevates the kindness, tolerance, patience, and ultimately, the gospel of God over and above the righteousness by law of the Jews and the righteousness by wisdom of the Greeks (treated similarly in 1 Corinthians 1: 18-31). Further, Paul’s argument in Romans 2, as the extension of the set-up in Romans 1, is that those who pass judgment are self-condemning, “for you who judge practice the same things.” So, here in Romans 1, Paul addresses a wide range of sinful behaviors including reference to sexual behavior in some form, without an explanation, and without reference to the Old Testament law, nor with reference to Jesus, but with a reference to "that which is natural." Paul then proceeds disparage the significance of human affirmations of natural theology in developing the larger story of the gospel in the flow of the argument in Romans 1 through 3. (Note 7)
As such, this Romans passage is hardly more substantial in support of a solid doctrine of sexual orientation than the passages above in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, even less so when we realize that these three references constitute the entirety of the New Testament discussion of the issue.
Notes:
(6) Romans 1:26-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
(7) A discussion of natural theology in the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 and 2 is found in my blog post Moltmann: How We Misuse Natural Theology, of August 22, 2019, in review of Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God, chapter 6. There he discusses Martin Luther’s treatment of natural theology in Theses 19 and 20 of 95 Theses. According to Moltmann, Luther’s interpretation was that Paul was putting natural theology in its place, so to speak, in recognizing the limits of human reasoning according to “what is evident to them” in contrast to the primary role of the theology of the cross in revealing the nature of God and of the gospel. Luther’s Thesis 19: ‘He is not rightly called a theologian who perceives and understands God’s invisible being through his works. That is clear from those who were such ‘theologians’ and yet were called fools by the apostle in Romans 1:22. The invisible being of God in his power, Godhead, wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and so on. Knowledge of all these things does not make a man wise and worthy.’ It is difficult to argue with this interpretation of Paul’s line of thought, and as such, it is curious that within Paul’s larger argument about the gospel, he mentions these human behaviors which are apparently deemed sinful by virtue of “nature.” But, as I stated above, Paul does not specify what he means by unnatural sexual behavior, nor does this connect with other Scripture, either Old Testament or New Testament that may be used to enlighten the meaning.
Bibliography
Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Second Edition ed.). (W. F. Gingrich, Trans.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Friedrich, G. K. (Ed.). (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. (G. W. Bromiley, Trans.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans / Paternoster Press.
Jurgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. 1974. Harper & Rowe, Publishers. (First Fortress Press edition published in 1993.)
NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. (1987). (A. Marshall, Trans.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
NCBC - North Clackamas Bible Community. (2010, October 25). Vice and Virtue Lists from the New Testament. Retrieved from Bible Study Resources from NCBC: https://bcresources.net/2200000-nts-frg12-lit-frm-vv-lists-nt-art-bcrx/
Renn, S. D. (Ed.). (2005). Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Strong, J. L. (1984). Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Thomas, R. L. (Ed.). (1981). New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.