Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BY
MATTHEW ALAN WILCOXEN
MAY 2007
Wilcoxen, M.A. 2
INTRODUCTION
That is, whence ethical authority? Christians, faced with a culture that tolerates (and
sometimes lauds) homosexual behavior, are forced to question the received tradition
condemning all homosexual behavior. It seems that many, torn between the two
indicates? It is my purpose in this essay to look at the one New Testament text
1
“Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response” (2006),
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html (Accessed May 2, 2007).
Wilcoxen, M.A. 3
which more than others,2 speaks to the issue of the ethicality of homosexuality. That
text is Romans 1:26-27. First, I will provide a short exegetical exposition of these
verses in their literary and rhetorical context in the book of Romans with the
conclusion that the passage does indeed provide a clear, unequivocal condemnation
of homosexuality. Next I will consider two exegetical moves that are representative
grounds. I will attempt to refute these arguments. Finally, my conclusion will draw
out some pastoral and theological implications from Romans 1:26-27 as it relates to
EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS
Context in Romans
within the literary context of Paul’s epistle to the Romans and his argument therein.
Paul’s purpose3 in writing the book of Romans is to bring about “the obedience of
faith” in the Roman church.4 It is likely that this somewhat vague purpose includes
quelling an ongoing dispute between the Gentile majority in the Roman church and
the Jewish minority over various scruples.5 Others have seen Paul as perhaps trying
to bring an independent church under some type of apostolic direction.6 Virtually all
scholars agree that Paul also expected to visit this church and also expected them to
2
1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:8-10.
3
Lest any misunderstand me, I here distinguish between Paul’s main themes and his main purpose. His
purpose is what he hopes to accomplish with his letter, his themes are subordinate to the accomplishing of
this purpose.
4
Cf. Romans 1:5-6; 15:15-16; 16:25-27.
5
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT:Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 19.
6
Ibid. Moo attributes this view to G. Klein but, in what is probably an oversight, provides no bibliographic
information for it.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 4
whatever these tangentially related purposes were, in Paul’s own words, his goal was
“to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of God, so that
the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom
15:16). The “indicative” portion of the epistle (1:18-11:36) must be seen in relation
to this purpose, which is more directly fleshed-out in the “imperative” portion of the
As the outline shows, the first major section (excepting the introduction) is
concerned with establishing the doctrine and reality of what has traditionally been
(3:21-4:25)
7
Ibid., p. 17; Rom 15:22-29.
8
Ibid., 33; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: the English text with introduction, exposition and
notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 34-35; C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.: ICC 45 vol.1-vol.2: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 103-104.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 5
pericope that is designed to confine all Gentiles under sin. The next step in his
argument is to confine the Jews under sin, regardless of their possession of the law or
circumcision. Following this, Paul stacks up a catena of quotations from the Old
Testament to hammer home the point that all people are universally condemned
under sin, and rightly so.9 His argument, having reached its crescendo in putting all
people in a seemingly irresolvable conflict with the Almighty God, now moves to
bring about resolution. He says in 3:21a, “But now the righteousness of God has
been manifested apart from the law”.10 His argument is that the righteousness of
God11 is bestowed upon believers not through keeping law but through faith in Jesus
Christ who was put forth as a “propitiation” for sins (3:21-31). Paul then establishes
the primacy of justification by faith by showing that Abraham, long before the law
was given on Sinai, and before he was circumcised, was justified by faith and not
works (4:1-25).12
Having located our passage (1:18-32) within the broader context of Romans, and
specifically within the first major section containing Paul’s argument for justification
by faith, it remains for us to examine 1:26-27 within the whole of the section
condemning the Gentiles for their sins. Because my focus is so narrow for the topic
of this paper, I will not provide exegetical comment on every issue in every verse
9
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989),
50.
10
Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright 2001 by
Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
11
As this sentence should make clear, I interpret “the righteousness of God” as referring to a forensic status
that is indicative of the Christian believer’s relationship to God. Space does not permit me to entertain or
refute so-called “New Perspectives on Paul.” For a good summary of this topic cf. Moo, Romans, 211-217.
12
Cf. Gal 3:17 for another place in which Paul makes the same point. That is, he establishes the antiquity
of justification by faith.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 6
within the section; neither in the body of this essay, nor in the footnotes. Rather, my
goal will be to follow Paul’s argument and to highlight the salient points and
As noted above, this passage is concerned with the revealing of God’s wrath
against the Gentiles, and it serves the rhetorical purpose of being part and parcel of
an argument that confines all people under sin and condemnation in order that it may
be clear that God’s righteousness is revealed by faith. The first section of Paul’s
polemic against the Gentiles (1:18-23) is concerned with showing what it is that the
Gentiles have done to deserve God’s wrath. The following sections (1:24-25; 26-27;
28-32) provide elaborations on the ways in which God’s wrath is being revealed.
1:18-23: Paul says that the wrath of God is revealed against all the
ungodliness of people, “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (1:18). The
plain sense of the text is that the wrath of God is presently being revealed from
heaven, and indeed this is confirmed by the Greek13 and some notable
commentators.14 The reason that these Gentiles, who have not special revelation,
may be seen as suppressing the truth is that the knowledge of God has been made
“plain to them” by God (1:19). How has God made the knowledge of himself “plain
to them”?15 Calvin saw this as a reference to the human conscience. That is, that
13
Ajpokaluvptetai ga;r ojrgh; qeou;: although the present tense verb does not necessarily indicate
anything about the time of the action, in light of the rest of the passage it seems correct to see the revealing
of God’s wrath as something that is happening presently. This in no way, however, precludes the final,
apocalyptic revealing of God’s wrath that is present elsewhere in Paul.
14
James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC: Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003) 54; Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB: New York: Doubleday, 1993) 277-
278; Moo, 99-100.
15
. gnwsto.n tou/ qeou/ fanero,n evstin evn auvtoi/j
Wilcoxen, M.A. 7
God has made knowledge of himself readily available in the human person.16 Most
others have seen this phrase as referring to God’s works of creation and providence.17
It seems like both could easily be in view here. God provides knowledge of himself
in the Imago Dei, and within his other works of creation. The following verse (1:20)
confirms the latter, claiming that God’s “eternal power and divine nature, have been
clearly perceived…in the things that have been made.” The result is that people are
simply “without excuse.” But, some may ask, without excuse for what? They are
without excuse for “suppressing the truth” (1:19), a crime which Paul describes in
even more detail in vv. 21-23. He says that Gentile humanity, “although they knew
God,”18 did not render to God the worship that he was due. Instead, their thinking
became depraved and “their foolish hearts were darkened” (1:21). How did the
people grow dark in their minds and hearts? They rejected the knowledge of God
that had been made known to them and, considering themselves to be wise in their
own right, became fools (1:22).19 Their foolishness was their idolatry as they made a
very unprofitable move, “exchanging” the glory of God for “images resembling
With statements like those found in v.18-23, Paul echoes the standard Jewish
polemic against idolatry derived from the Old Testament and inter-testamental
literature which refer to Israel’s idolatry or the idolatry of the nations.20 It also seems
16
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 1540, Reprint, Trans. by
John Owen, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 70.
17
Moo,103 n. 56; Cranfield, 113-114.
18
When Paul says “although knowing God” (gno,ntej to.n qeo.n), it seems clear from context that he
does not mean that these Gentiles had a saving relationship to God. Rather, As Fitzmyer says, “the word
gnontes connotes an inceptive, theoretical sort of information about God, which Paul thinks that pagans
could not help but have.” (Fitzmyer, 281)
19
This wisdom to man/foolishness to God theme is expounded upon in greater detail in 1 Cor 1-4.
20
Dunn, 61. Dunn connects Paul’s language especially to Ps 106:20, but also says that it seems very clear
that Paul has in mind Jer 2:11 and Isa 44:9-20. It is also likely, according to Dunn, that Paul has portions of
the Wisdom of Solomon in mind.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 8
that, with the threefold division of the animal kingdom, Paul is alluding to the
creation story. Paul is probably, though, not describing either Adam and Eve’s fall or
the various sins of Israel, but rather he is describing “the terrible proclivity of all
people to corrupt the knowledge of God they possess by making gods of their
own.”21
1:24-25: Now Paul says that because22 of the exchange of the knowledge of
God for idolatry, God “gave them up”23 to follow the evil dictates of their lustful
hearts (1:24). And again Paul restates the reason for God’s giving the people up,
“because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen” (1:25).
and v. 28 sees God’s handing over of pagans to their sin in a similarly broad way,
vv.26-27 get surprisingly specific as Paul trots out homosexuality as one of the
results of God’s turning-over of humankind to sin. “For this reason,” Paul says,
21
Moo, 109-110 n. 85; Moo says that a reference to Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden is unlikely because
“in Gen 1-3, “idolatry”…precedes the fall; in Rom 1, a “fall” precedes idolatry.”
22
The conjunction that stands at the beginning of this verse, Dio;, indicates that Paul is basing his present
assertion on what immediately precedes it.
23
Gk. pare,dwken. This idea of God’s “handing over” to sin is central to the passage, as the repetition of
this verb shows (cf. v. 26; 28).
24
“The introductory phrase Dia. tou/to explains the deliverance to dishonest relationships as the fitting
response to the deceptive assault of humankind on the status of God.” (Robert Jewett, Romans: A
Commentary, ed. Eldon Jay Epp (Hermeneia: Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 172.
25
Moo, 114.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 9
He declares that “their women26 exchanged natural relations for those that are
contrary to nature; and the men27 likewise gave up natural relations with women and
were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with
men and receiving in themselves the due penalty from their error” (1:26b-27).
But why does Paul single out homosexuality as an example of the gross
depravity that has resulted because humankind has rejected the knowledge of God?
Doubtless it is because it was a particular moral issue that would have caused
revulsion in the Jewish and Christian communities of this time, as well as among
traditional Romans.28 Bringing to the fore such a despicable vice would surely draw
his audience into the argument that he is making; namely, that the Gentile pagans
stand condemned by God for idolatry. It is also possible that Paul’s example would
have achieved an even greater rhetorical effect due to the mentioning of lesbianism
first, and Murray notes that the text could be rendered thus, “for even their
too commit abominable sexual acts and receive, “the due penalty for their error.”
What is this penalty? And what is their error which earns the penalty? The error is
not the homosexual behavior. Rather, the error is the quenching of the truth (v. 18)
and the idolatrous exchange (v.25). The penalty then, is the abandonment by God to
gross eroticism.30
26
Gk. Qh:leiai. As Moo shows, Paul’s use of qh:luV/ajvrshn (male/female) instead of
guvnh/ajnhvr (man/woman) highlights the sexual distinctiveness of men and women. This is probably
also a direct reference to the creation account which says that God “made them male and female” (cf. Gen
1:27). Cf. Moo, 114 n. 114.
27
Gk. avjrsenes. See n. 22.
28
Jewett, 173. Jewett notes that Nero was castigated by the Roman people for “dressing Greek” and
expressing bisexual desires.
29
Murray, 47.
30
Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Romans, Trans. by A. Cusin (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880), 181.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 10
1:28-32: In his last section airing dirty Gentile laundry, Paul continues with
the same “exchange” theme. Since humankind did not decide (and does not decide)
what ought not to be done” (1:28). And the result of God’s handing them over is the
produces a litany of Gentile sins in the form of a typical Hellenistic Jewish “vice
list.”31 It is difficult to discern a hard and fast arrangement to the vice list, but it
seems that there is at least a general structure. Moo notes that the first four terms are
malice.” The next five revolve around “envy” and all the things that go in her
basket. The structure in the last twelve vices is a little harder to make out. And at
this point Moo provides priceless insight, “Paul focuses on social ills…leaving out
sins against God directly. The purpose of this recital…is to show the general scope
of social evils produced by the “unqualified mind” to which God has handed sinners
over.”32 Paul concludes this section with by saying that the Gentiles, even though
they know that their engagement in the vices of vv.29-31 will incur guilt and lead to
death, not only carry out their sins but approve of their sins and encourage others to
Exegetical Conclusion: For centuries, and I would contend, since the ink dried on
the papyrus of the Romans autograph, Christians have read this first chapter of
31
Dunn, 67; Moo, 118.
32
Moo, 118-119.
33
Ibid, 121-122.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 11
God, the “due penalty” for the error of exchanging solid knowledge of God revealed
in nature for idolatrous worship. In fact, the view has been that the apostle Paul
recent times, as McLaren’s quote shows, the water has been muddied, even by those
who voice an affirmation for scriptural authority. For this reason I would like to turn
our discussion towards the two main ways in which scholars have attempted to
Scroggs, attempts to show why Paul is not talking about consensual adult
homosexuality. The second interpretation, that of John Boswell, asserts that Paul
orientation. After describing these interpretations (and the exegetical moves made to
arrive at them), I will provide some reasons why these approaches are sorely
deficient.
34
I do not mean that these are the only two ways that people disagree with Paul. However, these are the
two representative ways that people can try to “have their cake and eat it too.” That is, these are both
efforts at continuing, in some manner, to affirm the authority of Scripture without affirming that Scripture
teaches that homosexuality is sinful. A third view of note is that of Margaret Davies. Her article, “New
Testament Ethics and Ours: Homosexuality and Sexuality in Romans 1:26-27,” she advances the argument
that Paul does clearly condemn homosexual sex, but she easily gets out from under this conclusion with the
thesis of her article, which is simply that Paul is inconsistent in retaining this tradition while jettisoning
others (cf. Margaret Davies, “New Testament Ethics and Ours: Homosexuality and Sexuality in Romans,”
Biblical Interpretation 3,3 (1995): 315-333.) Further, I have determined to limit my interlocutors to
scholars who have done academic and not popular work on the topic. I believe this is the best route
because the more popular works are typically dependent upon, and synthesize the work of scholars like
Scroggs or Boswell. For more popular works depending on Scroggs and Boswell cf. Daniel A. Helminiak,
What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (Tajique, NM: 2000) and Walter Wink, “Homosexuality
and the Bible” (Not dated), http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink (Accessed
May 2, 2007).
Wilcoxen, M.A. 12
he argues that the only type of homosexuality that Paul could have possibly had in
mind, and so the only type of homosexuality that Paul could have condemned, was
pederasty.36 He spends much time in trying to establish the fact that this was the
type of homosexuality that was present in the ancient world and that Paul would
have had no construct for man with man, consensual, non-oppressive homosexual
selectivity in displaying evidence for his conclusion. But first we should take a look
First, Scroggs says that we must look at the larger theological context of
Romans 1:26-27. Scroggs says that this passage (Rom 1:18-32), rather than the
humankind.37 He says that Paul is taking this argument from Jewish sources (as
noted above), particularly the Wisdom of Solomon writing. Paul, rather than harping
Scroggs calls “the deepest cause of idolatry, namely that refusal to acknowledge the
true, sovereign God, which refusal brings in its turn, false gods, false world, false
From this theological context, Scroggs says, Paul then gives illustrations of
the results of living in the false world, itself a result of false worship. God’s wrath
35
Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary
Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
36
Pederasty refers to homosexual sex between an older male and a younger man or a boy. Typically the
younger man is the passive partner in this sexual exchange.
37
Ibid., 110.
38
Ibid., 112.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 13
then, for Paul, is revealed in the fact that these pagans are living and acting in this
false world. He illustrates this with three successive “handed over” statements. The
first, vv.24-25, concerns the hearts and bodies and for these Paul provides no
illustration. The second, vv. 26-27, concerns the passions (emotions), and here Paul
gives the illustration of illicit homosexual behavior. The third, vv.28ff, concerns the
mind, and here Paul gives a vigorous vice list. Scroggs says that Paul is “conforming
to his rhetorical instincts, each succeeding section having a greater intensity.” And
from this analysis Scroggs draws the following conclusion: “the illustrations are
that Paul is not judging homosexuality, but it does suggest that the Apostle is not
From the above analysis I deduce that Scroggs is making an effort to soften
the possibility that Paul is actually judging homosexuality. Scroggs though, after
performing perfunctory “exegesis” on the passage, then sweeps away the possibility
that Paul might be making a moral declaration on the topic of homosexuality. How
homosexuality are rhetorical in nature and “do not belong in any way to Paul’s
depend on “Hellenistic Jewish propaganda against Gentiles.”41 And herein lies the
crux of Scroggs’ argument: “While the phrase “males with males” relates to the laws
39
Ibid., 112-114. The emphasis is Scroggs’. If my reader feels hard pressed to understand how Scroggs
comes to this conclusion, I am able to empathize. If Scroggs has sound logic behind the conclusions that he
comes to here, he does not make this explicit. I feel that I have fairly represented his train of thought, but
would encourage my reader to refer to his book to make sure.
40
Ibid., 116.
41
Ibid.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 14
in Leviticus, the likelihood is that Paul is thinking only about pederasty, just as was
Philo. There was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world
which could come to mind.”42 Scroggs’ conclusion is that Paul is using Hellenistic
Jewish rhetoric to advance a theological argument, and that this rhetoric was aimed
Romans 1:26-27 is the central claim of his book: namely, that Paul’s only construct
reader that this is a startling claim and that, if it is correct, it would alter the way in
which we read Romans 1:26-27. But, I ask, is it a true, verifiable claim? There are
at least two main pieces of evidence that leave Scroggs’ claim in ruins.
First, the massive amounts of writing that remain from antiquity do not
confirm Scroggs’ claim that Paul would have known nothing of mutual, consensual,
adult with adult homosexuality. Again, it is not sustainable to say, as Scroggs does,
that the only form of homosexuality that Paul knew of was pederasty. “I know of no
adults.”43 Indeed, if one probes the literature even at a very elementary level, one
Scroggs seems to be aware, at least somewhat, that there are clear instances
42
Ibid. The emphasis is mine.
43
Ibid., 35. The emphasis is Scroggs’.
44
Ibid., 130-139. It is besides the point, but it seems telling that Scroggs has relegated something that
should be central to the argument of his book to an appendix. Why shouldn’t these inevitable objections be
dealt with in the body of the work?
Wilcoxen, M.A. 15
Mark D. Smith, a historian specializing in the ancient Roman Empire, notes that
chronology of the evidence. He does not reckon adequately with the fact
that pederasty was most common among the social elite in some Greek
city-states during the archaic and classical periods—400 years and more
before Paul. From the time of the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BCE),
the Roman Republic, pederasty was considered the “Greek vice,” which
true Romans reviled, but that did not prevent them from engaging in other
Despite the evidence that he cites, he is able to say without reserve that these do
1) The finding of twelve Attic vases that depict at least twelve scenes of
remained together for the duration of their lives, even vowing to be buried side-
7) The Roman emperor Caligula (37-43 CE) is said to have been attached
to Lepidus, a married man, as both an active and passive partner (Cf. Dio Cassius
59.11.1).
his definition.
49
The different examples cited here all come from Smith’s article. Cf. Smith, 234-237.
50
Smith notes that Xenophon quite clearly refers to “men” and not “youths or boys.” Smith, 235.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 17
8) Ancient literature also shows some examples of men who are said to be
married to other males; Cicero refers to Murcus Antonius’ past relationship with
Curio (Philippics 2.18.44-45), and Cicero also speaks of Catilina and his
This brief summary of texts, most of which are completely left out of
these very relevant texts or b) that he was very selective in only choosing texts
that would support his main thesis. His attempt at an appendix, then, does little to
support his assertion that the only type of homosexuality Paul knew was
pederasty.
the notion that Paul is speaking of all homosexual activity and not merely
pederasty.51 This statement can be confidently made because of the fact that, by
lesbianism that do appear in the literature are quite clearly in reference to adult
51
I am here operating on the nearly universal assumption that Romans 1:26 contains a clear reference to
female homosexuality, pederastic or not. I am not unaware of James E. Miller’s argument that this verse is
referring to unnatural heterosexual practices, while 1:27 condemns male homosexuality. Miller’s
interpretation is too eccentric to be taken too seriously. Plus, he seems to completely ignore the parallels
between this verse and Plato and Philo (see below). Cf. James E. Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26:
Homosexual or Heterosexual?” Novum Testamentum 37 (Jan 1995): 1-11.
52
Scroggs, 140.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 18
not allow for the goal of reproduction to occur. Consider the fact that:
1) In the Timaeus, Plato depicts the male penis as something which originally
served only to empty the bladder. After the creation of the desire for reproductive
intercourse, the gods bored a hole in the penis into the marrow which would allow
the life-giving sperm to come out (91a). The penis, at this point, became a living
creature with a “nature”; the nature of the penis was to procreate (91b). A parallel
story is contained in the Timaeus to account for the “nature” of the woman’s
womb.54 Similarly the Laws contains prohibitions against intercourse which does
2) Philo, following Plato, condemns all sex that does not have at least the
possibility of procreation. This includes sex with a menstruating wife (Spec. leg.
These two authors, who do mention lesbianism in much the same manner
as Paul does,56 both serve to confirm the notion that when Paul was condemning
what was “against nature” he was not condemning female with female sex that
was a use of sex that was not in accordance with its original use and intention
53
Gk. para; fusin, the same term that Paul uses in Romans 1:26 to condemn the sexual acts depicted
there.
54
Roy Bowen Ward, “Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27,” Harvard Theological
Review 90:3 (1997): 264-267.
55
Ibid., 268-269.
56
Both texts use the male/female language instead of man/woman language (see n.27). Also, both texts use
the similar “against nature” language.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 19
parallelism present in vv. 1:26-27. The women are said to exchange natural
relations for those which are “contrary to nature” (1:26). It is then asserted that
the men similarly are guilty of giving up natural relations (1:27). Since it does
seem clear that the only construct that Paul had for speaking of female sex was a
broadly defined lesbianism that was not specifically or necessarily pederasty, and
since the language Paul uses to refer to this lesbianism does not speak of any age
differential, it seems most natural to read the parallel “men committing shameless
refers in Plato and Philo (two widely known authors in antiquity) to sex that does
not serve a procreative purpose, it seems most natural to think of Paul as using the
Thus, I conclude that it is not a sustainable claim to say that Paul is only
condemning pederasty in Romans 1:26-27. When Scroggs says that Paul’s only
he must be speaking of that practice in Rom 1:26-27, Scroggs begs the question.
57
James B. DeYoung, “The Meaning of “Nature” In Romans 1 And Its Implications For Biblical
Proscriptions Of Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31/4
(December 1988): 439.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 20
around a total condemnation is to say that when Paul condemns that which is
“against nature” he is speaking only of things a person does that are against his or
done by people with a heterosexual orientation and not homosexual behavior that
Boswell’s analysis of the passage goes something like this: 1) he notes that
the interpretation which says that Rom 1:26-27 condemns only temple prostitution
is patently not the crux of this argument”;60 3) Boswell says that what Paul
condemns here are not homosexuals per se, but rather they are “homosexual acts
a caveat into the equation; now we have two different types of people: those who
acts.
Boswell supports this claim with two lines of reasoning: First, he says that
universal law or truth but, rather, a matter of the character of some person or
orientation and not a universal moral law or design.62 So when Paul says “against
nature,” Boswell sees this as referring to the individual personal nature of the
from John Chrysostom to the effect that those involved in the activity of Rom
1:26-27 were those who left the natural enjoyment of the opposite sex, and b) that
Paul only thought of heterosexual people committing homosexual acts and may
not have even been aware of the fact that gay persons exist.64
prefers to render the phrase as “in excess of nature.”66 This translation softens the
Boswell sees it, “it signifies behavior which is unexpected, unusual, or different
from what would occur in the normal order of things: “beyond nature,” perhaps,
but not “immoral.””67 To show that the phrase does not necessarily have a
negative connotation he cites Rom 11:24 which says that the Gentiles were
“grafted contrary to nature [para; fusin] into a good olive tree.”68 From this he
concludes that because the Gentiles rejected the knowledge of God they likewise
rejected their own sexual “nature” and went beyond what was natural. “It cannot
be inferred from this that Paul considered mere homoerotic attraction or practice
62
Ibid., 110-111.
63
Ibid., 111.
64
Ibid., 109. The quote from John Chrysostom comes from In Epistolam ad Romanos, homily 4 (PG,
60:415-22).
65
Gk. para; fusin
66
Boswell, 109.
67
Ibid., 112.
68
Ibid. Boswell cites the KJV.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 22
morally reprehensible, since the passage strongly implies that he was not
argument that Paul had no concept of “natural law” we should note that most
scholars agree that there are many instances in the Greco-Roman philosophical
brother-keeping is able to refer to Aphrodite as one “whose name stands for the
natural [kata; fusin] intercourse and union of the male and female” (Discourse
7.135). 70 Another clear example of “natural law” coming from the Greeks is
with the natural “love between men and women.” Daphnaeus continues to
disparage homosexuals when a few sentences later we find that they are said to be
acting “contrary to nature” [para; fusin] when they “allow themselves in Plato’s
words ‘to be covered and mounted like cattle’” (Dialogue on Love 751C, E).
Both of these examples should serve to confirm the fact that, at least in the
classical Greek world, there was a concept that certain sexual behavior was
universally “against nature” and also that there was also a concept of what was
However, some, correctly noting that Paul was not a classical Greek
maintained the same sense of “natural law.” It seems quite clear that they did
retain this concept and language, although they explicitly grounded what was
pseudepigraphical literature we read a warning to the Jews to not become like the
people of Sodom “which changed the order of nature” (T. Naph 3:4-5). Further,
the concept of “natural law” is also present in Philo’s writings. He typically uses
violation of natural law (On Abraham 135-136).72 Though it may not be the only
way that Hellenistic Jews referred to “nature,” it becomes clear that they at least
“nature.”
important to establish the fact that Paul would have undoubtedly had the construct
for thinking of things in terms of “natural law.” The question remains, is this
would contend, of a person’s own personal “nature”? I believe quite strongly that
First of all, Paul uses arguments from natural law elsewhere in his writings. In 1
Corinthians 11:14-15 Paul says “does not nature73 itself teach you that if a man
has long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her
72
DeYoung, 433-434.
73
Gk. fuvsiV
Wilcoxen, M.A. 24
glory?”74 There is no reason, then, why Paul would not or could not argue from
deriving its anthropology from the creation narrative in Genesis, would have seen
humanity. Lastly, Paul’s use of the phrase “natural relations”75 in Rom 1:26 refers
individual’s nature or orientation. Further, when Paul says that they exchanged
the normal relations for what is “contrary to nature,”76 he leaves out any
possessive pronoun that would indicate that he was speaking of the individual’s
silence, the interpretation that sees Paul here referring to people acting contrary to
“nature,” which God himself blessed and called “very good” (Gen 1:31).
as “beyond nature,” I must say that I am unsure of what this would accomplish. Is
Paul is not condemning anything as “immoral” then why does verse 27 conclude
by saying that those spoken of here are “receiving in themselves the due penalty
for their error”? It seems as if Boswell is grasping for straws in trying to get us to
CONCLUSION
74
Cf. David E. Malick. “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27.” Bibliotheca Sacra
150 (July-September 1993): 331-332. In citing 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 I in no way intend to enter the
debate about Paul’s “long hair” discussion or head coverings. This passage does, however, show us that
Paul argues from nature in the sense that he appeals to a universal “natural law.”
75
Gk. th;n fusikh;n crh:sin
76
Gk. para; fusin
Wilcoxen, M.A. 25
Pastoral Considerations:
that Paul condemns, in Romans 1:26-27 especially, all homosexual behavior. The
unique attempts of Robin Scroggs and John Boswell to interpret these verses
differently have been weighed in the balances and found wanting. As believers in
the inspiration and the authority of Holy Scripture, we are left then with clear
world. This is not a happy passage, especially for those who have homosexual
here it is that McLaren gets the question right: what does a pastoral response to
homosexuality look like? The answer to the question, however, is not agnosticism.
are to agree with divine writ as to what is good and what is evil. Though Romans
necessarily the impetus for God’s wrath, 1:32 reminds us that “those who practice
such things deserve to die.” Therefore we mustn’t entertain any soft notions of
depravity. Rather, as the well known quote from the Puritan John Owen goes, we
are to “Be killing sin, or sin will be killing [us].” Homosexuality must be
how those within the church who struggle with this sin are to be counseled and
helped. The first thing to say on this note is that passing off homosexual behavior
counseled other men by telling them that it is okay for them to download porn on
the internet, or that God is fine with them cheating on their wife, or their taxes for
that matter? This would be the worst thing that we could do.
comparison with other sins. The good thing about our culture’s growing tolerance
homosexuality as a sin because of the common notion that some people are “just
born that way.” This may in fact be true, and one conservative theologian is
fact.77 I would like to point out though that Christians have affirmed for centuries
the idea that sin is “inherited corruption,” something that has been passed down to
us from our ancestors dating all the way back to Adam.78 It should come as no
surprise then, that homosexuality may be inherited. This fact should not cause us
Third, we must deal with homosexuality (and all other sin) with an
emphasis on the grace and mercy that flow from the justification by faith that is
emphasize, as Paul does, the fact that we have taken part in a radical realm-
transfer, moving from the realm of sin and death to the realm of righteousness and
desires we must provide them with some affirming reminders. We must remind
them of the fact that they were baptized into Christ’s death and that they were
raised with him in order that they might also “walk in newness of life” (6:4).
They are free from slavery to sin; the fact of the matter is that sin does not now
reign over them (6:6-7). We must remind them of the necessity of “reckoning”
themselves dead to sin. Sin will still be a struggle for them, but God lays some
responsibility on his people to “work out their salvation” with the motivation that
“God is the one who is working” (Phil 2:12-13). And we must also remind them
that we are available to them in all of their struggles to pray with them and for
them, and to stick by them through success and failure. That means, of course,
that we must actually be willing to provide such faithfulness. We are to fulfill the
divine command: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ”
(Gal 6:2).
In our relations with the outside world, we must struggle to make sure that
we are not seen as being particularly opposed to this one sin, homosexuality. We
ought to contend for the faith and to seek the wellbeing of our cities and states by
proclaim Jesus to homosexuals. The church must seek to be known as those who
news of salvation from homosexuality in the same way that we are to bring news
of salvation from greed, anger, abuse, murder, false religions, pride, and all other
Works Cited
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 1540.
Reprint. Trans. by John Owen. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans: 1947.
Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
ICC, 45 vol. 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975.
Davies, Margaret. “New Testament Ethics and Ours: Homosexuality and Sexuality in
Romans 1:26-27.” Biblical Interpretation, 3,3 (1995): 315-31.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 29
DeYoung, James B. “The Meaning of “Nature” in Romans 1 and Its Implications for
Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual Behavior.” The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 31/4 (December 1988): 429-41.
Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2003.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989.
Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. Tajique, NM:
Alamo Square Press, 2000.
Mohler, Albert. “Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What if You Could Do
Something About It?” (2007),
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891 (Accessed May 2, 2007).
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentaries on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for
Contemporary Debate. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Wilcoxen, M.A. 30
Ward, Roy Bowen. “Why Unnatural? The Tradition Behind Romans 1:26-27.” Harvard
Theological Review, 90:3 (1997): 263-84.