PO Box 55045, Phoenix Az 85078-5045
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR QUOTED
FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS SHOWN AND
WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Note: Liberated Christians is a primarily about heterosexual relationships.
While we are supportive of all sexual orientations, the leaders do not have the
resources to assist them in their special issues. Thus, our Fellowship groups are
not appropriate for gays/lesbians. However, individually Dave (an extreme heterosexual
- Kinsey Scale= 0) has done extensive biblical research and has been active supporting
biblical homosexuality for many years. However, there is no "official"
stand as an organization on homosexuality other than general support.
The Unnatural In Romans: Women With Women
Since this is the only seemingly direct reference to unnatural sex acts and also
the only place in scripture that refers to two women together being unnatural this
is an important verse to examine regarding homosexuality.
It is not clear from the Greek what Paul meant. But it is clear Paul did not use
the word (physiken for natural and para physin for unnatural) as in the "laws
of nature" modern readers might take it as. His usage was more precise. For
Paul, the "nature" of something was its particular character or kind.
Consider a few of many examples.
In Gal 2:15 Paul speaks of those who are Jews by nature and in Romans 2:27, he speaks
of those who are Gentiles by nature (although the literal reference to the Gentiles
reads "uncircumcised by nature").
In 1 Cor 11:14, Paul writes, "Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that
if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"
In all the cases, and others I didn't list, Paul uses the term "nature"
to imply what is characteristic or peculiar in this or that situation. You would
not expect a Jew to be ignorant of Jewish law, and you would not expect a Gentile
to act like a Jew; that is not their "nature." For Paul, something is
"natural" when it responds according to its own kind, when it is as it
is expected to be.
The Greek word para usually means "besides", "more than," "over
and above.", "beyond." We retain this meaning in many English words
such as a paralegal being someone not totally qualified to be a lawyer, but who
assists a real lawyer."
In a handful of stock phrases, para can also mean "contrary to", so para
physin could be translated "contrary to nature." But given Paul's own
usage of these terms in other verses, the sense is not "in opposition to the
laws of nature" but rather "unexpectedly" or "in an unusual
way," what we might mean if we said" "Contrary to her nature, Jean
got up and danced all night." Even God acts "unnaturally" in Romans
There is no sense whatever in Romans that the same sex references were wrong, immoral
or against God or contrary to the divine order in conflict with the what is universal
nature. The acceptance in Pauls' time of homosexuality as natural will be discussed
There is also the Stoic idea that Paul would have known were any sex that is not
normal unless for procreation. Later this was expanded on to make most all sexual
pleasure wrong but this happened more later in Church history. Clearly, Paul does
not use the term this way and was not concerned about procreation. Paul was expecting
the speedy return of Christ, the end of the world, so nowhere in his writings does
he show concern for sex only for procreation.
What about Lesbian sex?
In verse 26, are the words para physin in talking about women who "exchanged
natural intercourse for unnatural." To Paul it meant nothing immoral but simply
out of the ordinary. If it referred to lesbian sex, yes, homosexuality is out of
the ordinary since only about 10% of people are born homosexual. Many more are bisexual,
but it is still a minority..out of the ordinary. But the reference could mean other
things including sex during menstruation which was definitely immoral, against Jewish
moral law. It could have referred to oral sex, having sex with an uncircumcised
man, sex while standing up, or anything that would be considered the standard way
of having sex.
A reason people might also conclude it refers to female same sex-acts is the word
likewise or in the same way..links verse 26 with verse 27. Verse 27 clearly refers
to male same sex genital (homogenital) acts.
But is the parallel between verse 26 and verse 27 that both the women and the men
perform same sex acts, or is the parallel simply that both the women and the men
gave up the expected way of having sex for something else, whatever it might be?
The latter explanation makes perfectly good sense of the text. The men and women
could both be involved in something "beyond the ordinary" without both
being involved in homosexual acts. Only if it is assumed that para physin means
"unnatural" and that "unnatural sex" necessarily means homogenitality,
does verse 26 have to refer to lesbian sex. But close attention to Paul's usage
shows that those assumptions are very questionable. There is no need to read lesbianism
into verse 26.
In fact, if verse 26 refers to lesbianism, some explanation is needed. Lesbianism
was not a major topic of knowledge or discussion in the Greco-Roman world. We have
only a handful of references to it in all the existing texts from the ancient world
Moreover, lesbianism is not mentioned anywhere else in the Christian Testament.
Why in the world would Paul have brought up that subject and made an issue of it
here? Why, if it is so important is it never mentioned again?
There is also a further consideration, and it is the most telling:
In verse 24, Paul introduces the topic of impurity. At issue is ritual violation
of the Jewish Law. Under this topic Paul mentions what the women do and then what
the men do. As will be shown below this section of Paul's argument is precisely
about uncleanness, not about sin. But the Hebrew Scriptures never mention female
homogenitality. How could it fall under the Jewish heading of impurity? But something
else, like sex during the menstrual period could have qualified both as violating
the Jewish Law and as nonprocreative. Paul must have had something like that in
mind when he spoke of the women doing sexual things para physin or outside the ordinary.
In any case, the burden of proof that verse 26 refers to lesbian sex certainly rests
on those making that claim.
There is a lot at stake in the interpretation of this verse. If this verse does
not refer to female homogenitality, then nowhere does the Bible even mention it,
and condemnation of female homogenitality would have no biblical basis. What sense
would the case against homogenitality make if only male, but not female, homogenital
activity is to be condemned?
On the other hand, if the Bible nowhere condemns homogenitality in itself -- as
is the argument here - then the easier reading stands without problem: verse 26
does not refer to female same sex acts but to some kind of heterosexual practices
that were considered taboo, unusual or unclean, and were perhaps also nonprocreative.
This interpretation seems the more reasonable.
But even if this interpretation is wrong, even if verse 26 is a reference to female
same-sex acts, the general conclusion argued below must still apply: Romans may
refer to same-sex acts, but it intends no ethical or moral condemnation of them.
Social Disapproval, Not Ethical or Moral Condemnation
One more set of considerations supports that same general conclusion. In verses
26 and 27, Paul uses two words to describe the sexual acts he has in mind: "degrading
passions" and "shameless acts." Neither of these words has any moral
connotation. Both refer simply to social disapproval.
Take "degrading passions," for example. The Greek word translated as "degrading"
is atimia. It means something "not highly valued" "not held in honor,"
"not respected." "Ill reputed" or "socially unacceptable"
also convey the sense of the word.
That is the very sense in which Paul commonly uses that word. For example, in 2
Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul applies that word to himself. He notes that he is
sometimes held in disrepute or shame because of his commitment to Christ. Evidently,
then, to be in atimia is not necessarily a bad thing.
Again, in 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul uses the word to suggest that it is "degrading"
for a man to wear long hair. Even though, as we saw above, Paul says this is what
"nature" teaches, it is clear that no moral judgment is intended. Or again,
in Romans 9:21 Paul speaks of clay pots fashioned "for dishonor." That
is a polite way of talking about chamber pots, something people do not consider
In none of those cases does the Greek word express a moral judgment. So when Paul
calls certain passions "degrading" in Romans 1:26, he is not saying they
are wrong; he is merely saying they do not enjoy social approval.
Basically the same meaning applies to the word aschemosyne, translated as "shameless
acts" in verse 27. Literally the word means "not according to form."
You may recognize the English words "scheme" or "schematic"
in the middle of that Greek word. The sense of the word is "not nice,"
"unseemly," "uncomely" or inappropriate."
In 1 Corinthians 7:36 Paul uses that word to describe the father who refuses to
give his daughter in marriage: that is not the socially correct thing to do. In
1 Corinthians 12:23, the prudish Paul refers to the "uncomely" or "unpresentable"
parts of the body. Of course, he means the genitals.
Those references carry no weight of moral judgment. Likewise, then, in using those
words Paul does not imply that male-male sex is wrong. He merely says it is not
looked upon well. It is not considered nice.
Once again the same general conclusion arises. Paul uses certain words to describe
male-male sex. A study of these words shows that he makes no ethical condemnation
of male-male sex. He merely points out social disapproval of it.
A Convergence of Evidence
Without doubt, Romans does refer to homogenital acts. But equally without doubt,
on an historical-critical reading, Romans makes no ethical condemnation of those
acts. Both Paul's peculiar use of the term para physin and his use of atimia and
aschemosyne to describe homogenital acts come together and support the same conclusion
Why Bring Up Homogenitality at All?
If Paul does not think that homogenital activity is wrong, why does he say that
it is uncomely and disreputable? And why would Paul ever say such things when he
is writing to the Romans? Homogenital sex was an everyday part of their world. They
thought it perfectly natural for men to be attracted to other men. While there was
concern about some excessive and abusive practices, the Greeks and Romans saw nothing
improper in such sex in itself. Why does Paul bring up the topic at all?
Social Disapproval and Jewish Uncleanness
Paul states there is something socially unacceptable about male-male sex. You may
recognize here the same sense that we saw in the use of the word toevah in Leviticus.
Translated "abomination," the meaning is "ritual taboo or impurity,"
something unacceptable for Jewish society. The word carries with it a sense of disapproval
or improperness. Likewise, "dishonorable" passions and "shameless"
acts in Romans carry that same sense of "inappropriate," "not socially
The parallel with Leviticus seems to be deliberate. There were words, both Hebrew
and Greek, that meant "ethically wrong." Those words could have been used
in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 but, as we have seen, those words were not used. Similarly,
Paul also had words that mean "ethically wrong," and he could have used
them to refer to male-male sex. But he did not.
In fact, such words of ethical/moral intent occur in that same first chapter of
Romans. They occur before the section on homogenital acts and they occur after it.
But they do not occur within the section on homogenital acts which is clear evidence
they is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.
Confirmation of the Same Conclusion
In Romans, homogenitality serves merely as an instance of Gentile "uncleanness,"
judged by Jewish standards. Paul introduces this "uncleanness" precisely
to make the point that such matters have no importance in Christ. This is clear
from every consideration already presented. Moreover, only if that is really the
case does the whole structure of Romans make sense.
This interpretation completely explains the reference to male-male sex in Romans.
Attention to the terms in the passage, study of the argument of the passage and
analysis of the whole letter converge on the same conclusion. The letter to the
Romans certainly does not consider homogenital acts to be sinful. Indeed, the success
of Paul's letter to the Romans depends on this being so.
A further conclusion follows. Not only did Paul not think homogenital acts are sinful;
more than that, he seems to have been deliberately unconcerned about them. In his
considered treatment of the matter, he teaches that in itself homogenital activity
is ethically neutral.
The Sin that Paul Would Condemn
Once again, a sad irony surrounds this matter. There is a religious lesson to be
A long-standing and naive reading of the Scriptures has led many sincere followers
of Jesus astray. They oppose and oppress lesbian and gay people in the name of the
apostle Paul. Bolstered by societal prejudice and zealous in their sexual self-righteousness
Christians have been misreading Paul's letter to the Romans and rejecting members
of the Christian community because of it.
Yet to insure the unity of believers was a major reason for Paul's writing. Paul
insisted on faith and love as the things that really matter in Christ. But by misunderstanding
Paul's argument, people unwittingly rely on tastes and customs instead of the word
of God. They argue about what's dirty or clean, dispute who's pure and impure, and
pit heterosexual against homosexual. Thus, they divide and splinter the church over
what does not matter in Christ. In God's name they foment hatred and fuel oppression
and disrupt society at large. They commit a grave injustice, the very offense that
Paul's letter meant to counter.
This is a sad state of affairs. It is unworthy of followers of Jesus.
Return To Section Contents Page
Back To Home Page
Copyright © 1997, Liberated Christians, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.