Some people use Romans Chapter 1 to say that homosexuality is sinful and homosexuals are bad.
SEX BETWEEN FEMALES
Chapter 1 of Romans contains the only reference in the Bible
to females having sex with females. The reference is part of
Paul’s illustration showing how rejection of God can lead to
people doing foolish things.
The New International Version translates verse 26 of this
chapter as:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural ones.
A more literal [and expanded] interpretation of this verse is:
For this reason [honoring and serving created things
rather than the Creator]
God gave them up [gave the individuals freedom to go
their own way] to dishonorable (shameful) passions
for even their females changed (exchanged, radically
transformed) the natural [sexual] use [of the male]
into that use [which is] against (contrary to) nature;
What form of female sexual activity is described in
this verse?
This verse (Romans 1:26) states that the women exchanged
natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations.
While the unnatural sexual relations (literally, use against
nature) involving females could be male-female anal or oral
intercourse, it is unlikely to be so because in Paul’s culture
such activity was not considered as unnatural.
On the other hand, same-sex activity between females was
thought of as unnatural in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s
time because such activity involved one of the women having
an active penetrative role (like a man) in contravention of the
cultural view that women should always be passive in sex.
It is therefore likely that the female acts criticized are anal or
vaginal intercourse between females in which one female
penetrates another with a finger or other instrument. It could
also involve the mutual rubbing of the genital organs.
What points favor verse 26 referring to sex between
females?
• Same-sex activity between females was thought of as
unnatural in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s time
because such activity involved one of the women
having an active penetrative role, thus acting like a
man. This contravened the cultural view that only men
should be the penetrators and women should always
be passive in sex. Paul and his audience shared this
cultural view.
• Many ancient Greek and Roman non-Christian authors
depicted sexual relations between females as
unnatural. The authors include Plato, Seneca the
Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artimedorus, Pseudo-
Phocylides. For details see Chapters 2, 4 and 6 of Bernadette
J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to
Female Homoeroticism, 1996.
• The use of likewise or in the same way in verse 27
means that same-sex activity is referred to in both
verse 27 and verse 26.
• Anal intercourse between women and men generally
carried no stigma in ancient Roman society. No known
ancient source defines anal intercourse between
women and men as unnatural. Therefore Paul would
have no reason to call male-female anal intercourse
unnatural.
• To illustrate one of the consequences of people
refusing to glorify God, Paul chose the most
outrageous form of female sexual behavior in his
culture, i.e. females taking the active penetrative role.
• The early Christian writers, Tertullian of Carthage (De
Corona 6.1) (about 200 CE) and St. John Chrysostom
(Homily 4 on the Epistle to the Romans) (about 400
CE), considered that Paul was referring to female same-
sex intercourse.
• Verses 26 and 27 are an example of parallelism, where
the second verse repeats and extends the meaning of
the first.
What points favor verse 26 referring to male-female
anal sex?
• The use of likewise or in the same way in verse 27
means that the act of anal intercourse is referred to in
both verse 27 (between males only) and verse 26
(between males and females).
• Although verse 26 says that women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones, it does not say that their
male partners were exchanged for female partners. It
is only an assumption that their partners were
exchanged. By contrast, verse 27 does say that males
exchanged their female partners for male partners.
• The early Christian writers, Clement of Alexandria (The
Instructor 2.10.86-87) (about 200 CE), Anastasius and
Augustine (Marriage and Desire 20.35) (both around
400 CE), considered that Paul was referring to non-
procreative, male-female anal intercourse.
What does Paul mean by “nature” in verse 26?
Verse 26 states that the women exchanged natural sexual
relations [literally, the natural use] for unnatural sexual
relations [literally, use against nature].
The question of what Paul means by nature in verse 26 is
important because some people argue that Paul intended
nature to mean God’s plan for the world (including sex roles)
as at Creation and that rejection of God expresses itself in
rejection of God’s design for male and female sexual roles. In
other words, Paul’s describing female-female sex as against
nature (and his use of likewise extends that to male-male sex
in the next verse) would mean that such types of sex are
wrong.
However this interpretation is incorrect. First note that there
is no gender or sexual use of nature, natural or unnatural in
the Bible except in this passage (Romans 1:26-27) and in 1
Corinthians 11:14 (implying that it is unnatural for men to
have long hair but natural for women).
Both passages refer to gender (male and female) roles and
both follow allusions to the Creation (Romans 1:20, 23 and 25
and 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and 12). Despite these allusions to
the Creation in the Corinthians passage, nature in that
passage clearly means custom in Paul’s Greco-Roman
culture.
Now what are the allusions to the Creation in the Romans
passage? Verse 20 says that God’s qualities have been
seen since the creation of the world (stating a time period),
verse 23 refers to images made to look like man and birds
and animals and reptiles (showing the comprehensive nature
of the images or idols), verse 25 talks about people
worshipping created things rather than the Creator
(emphasizing the difference between the types of things
worshipped), and verses 26 and 27 refer to males and
females (indicating that males and females of all ages are
included, not just adult men and women).
Note that the Romans passage does not refer to the Creation
events of male and female persons being created, their sex
roles, or marriage between a man and woman.
Therefore it is logical to assume that despite the allusions to
the Creation in the Romans passage, nature in that passage
refers to custom in Paul’s culture just as it did in the
Corinthians passage. In other words, what is natural for Paul
is determined by what he saw as customary in his culture, not
by reference to the creation order.
This argument is set out in detail in this essay (pdf).
The conclusion that nature refers to custom in Paul’s culture
is reinforced by a detailed analysis of the text, which shows
that Paul referred to male-female sex as natural relations (v
26 & 27) and sex between females as unnatural relations (v
26) but he did not refer to sex between males (v 27) as
unnatural relations. It seems that Paul did not use unnatural
for sex between males because such use would only have
covered passive sex acts in which the males acted contrary to
their expected roles in society, and he wanted to cover both
active and passive sex acts between males. This indicates
that Paul was using natural and unnatural to refer to his
culture and not the creation order.
What is the meaning of “natural relations” and
“unnatural relations” ?
The passage talks about women exchanged natural sexual
relations for unnatural ones (literally, females exchanged the
natural use [of the male] into that use [which is] against
nature) It also talks about men abandoned natural relations
with women (literally, males having left the natural use of the
female). In the context of natural meaning customary (usual)
in the culture, natural use of the male (or female) means
sexual (vaginal) intercourse between males and females.
For the same reason, unnatural or against nature refers to
what is not customary in Paul’s culture and unnatural relations
are any sex acts which are contrary to custom in his culture.
Who is referred to in verse 26?
While not totally clear, it seems that Paul is referring to
groups of people (or even a society) who have changed the
way they express themselves sexually. Nevertheless people
do act sexually as individuals and therefore many individual
women must have changed from having sex with males to
having sex with females. This change may have been
temporary for same-sex orgiastic idol worship in Roman
temples (women having sex with temple priestesses then later
having sex with their husbands) or it could have been
permanent (women giving up sex with their husbands and
having sex only with other women).
Summary of Paul’s criticism of sex between females
It has been shown that the sexual activity referred to in verse
26 is most probably sex between females.
Although Paul criticized sex between females by calling it
shameful lusts and unnatural, he did not forbid it here or
anywhere else in his speeches or letters. However both Paul
and his Roman audience believed that sex between females
was unnatural and should not be indulged in, mainly because
their culture thought it wrong for a female to act like a male
during such sex.
What does the criticism of sex between females
mean for women who are attracted to other
women?
If a woman is attracted to or loves other women without having
sex with them, the criticism of sex between females is
irrelevant. The Bible even praises the non-sexual attraction
and love between Ruth and Naomi.
What does the criticism of sex between females
mean for women who have sex with other women?
The criticism of sex between females can be ignored by same-
sexually active women today for the following reasons:
• This criticism of sex between females is not a moral
principle as it does not have the essential criterion of
being prescriptive (a command). That is, the Bible
doesn’t ever say don’t do it.
• The criticism of sex between females as unnatural is
not drawn from the Old Testament laws. Instead the
criticism is mainly based on the gender-role culture* of
Paul’s time (i.e. a woman should not act like a man
during sex) and this is irrelevant to today’s culture.
• The view of “no sex outside marriage between a man
and a woman” can be ignored for these reasons.
However sex between women should comply with the
Love Commandments and the Golden Rule.
*Using the criteria in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the
Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, by William J. Webb, 2001, sex
between women is cultural or has a mainly cultural component. Paul’s
attitude to sex between women in Romans 1 was the same as the
widespread attitude in the 1st Century Jewish and Greco-Roman
cultures.
SEX BETWEEN MALES
Chapter 1 of Romans also refers to males having sex with
males. The reference is part of Paul’s illustration showing
how rejection of God can lead to people doing foolish things.
Today’s New International Version translates verse 27 of this
chapter as:
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.
A more literal interpretation of this verse is:
and likewise also the males, having left (abandoned, let
go) the natural use of the female (natural sexual
relations with women),
were utterly consumed in their intense lust for one
another;
males in males working out the shameful act,
and received in themselves the inevitable (appropriate)
payment for their error.
What form of male sexual activity is described in
this verse?
This verse (Romans 1:27) states that men who had rejected
God abandoned natural sexual relations with women. The
men’s subsequent activity is described in euphemistic terms
such as consumed in their lust for one another and males
acting shamefully with males (literally, males in males working
out the shameful act). Note that the activity appears to be
consensual.
It is most likely that the male sex act criticized is male-male
penetration (anal intercourse), not other forms of sex between
males (e.g. oral sex, mutual masturbation). See here for why
the reference is only to male-male penetration.
The reference to males acting shamefully with males is a
reflection of the Greco-Roman concept of Paul’s time that the
passive partner in anal intercourse between males was being
penetrated like a woman and this was a shameful thing for a
man to allow or experience.
However the ultimate origin of the Romans 1 criticism of males
acting shamefully with males is the prohibition of sex between
males (don’t let another male penetrate you) in Leviticus 18:
22 and 20:13. As well as the subject matter being the same,
the Greek term for acting shamefully in Romans 1 occurs
many times throughout Leviticus 18 and 20 (where it is
translated as nakedness). Another similarity is that male
(instead of man) is used both in Romans 1:27 and in Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13.
Paul’s criticism of sex between males in Romans 1:27 repeats
his criticism of sex between males (males who have sex with
males) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Who is referred to in verse 27?
While not totally clear, it seems that Paul is referring to
groups of people (or even a society) who have changed the
ways they express themselves sexually. Nevertheless people
do act sexually as individuals and therefore many individual
men must have changed from having sex with females to
having sex with males. This change may have been
temporary for same-sex orgiastic idol worship in Roman
temples (men having sex with male temple priests then later
having sex with their wives) or it could have been permanent
(men giving up sex with their wives and having sex only with
other men). The extreme form of sex between males
described in verse 27 would vividly remind Paul’s audience of
orgiastic idol worship, such as worship of the pagan gods
Cybele and Attis (Aphrodite and Adonis). Descriptions of that
type of worship are given in this comprehensive paper. Note
especially the brief comparison of verses in Romans 1 with
practices of the priests and priestesses of Cybele and Attis.
Further descriptions are given here.
What did Paul think of same-sex behavior?
Paul’s ideas of same-sex behavior would have been partly
formed by his Jewish background and intellectual training.
This would include his acceptance of male-female sex as the
usual practice and his knowledge of the condemnation of anal
intercourse between males in Leviticus. It is likely that his
views would have been expanded by his Greco-Roman
culture, including its basic values of honor and shame.
Hellenistic Jews around Paul’s time were hostile towards sex
between males, especially pederasty (man-boy
relationships). As far as we know, Paul was aware of the
many different types of same-sex relationships in his culture,
including male and female prostitution, pederasty, and
relationships and even marriages between mature men.
Paul’s writings show that he adopted the gender (sex role)
concepts of both the Torah (especially Leviticus) and his
culture, including the maintenance of “male honor”. For
example, in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 he states that man is
head of woman, that it is natural that men and women have
different hair lengths and that women should not speak in
churches.
Also Paul’s choice of the active verbs exchanged and
abandoned reflects his culture’s belief that same-sex behavior
is a freely chosen activity. Similarly Paul’s use of the phrase
utterly consumed with intense desire could reflect the belief of
his culture that same-sex behavior was associated with
insatiable and unbridled lust. That is, men would only be
satisfied if they had sex with other men as well as with
women. And Paul’s remarks concerning the giving up of
natural (opposite-sex) intercourse in favor of unnatural
reflected the belief that same-sex behavior was a violation of
his culture’s natural order, under which male-female sex is the
natural way with males having an active sexual role and
females having a passive sexual role. Paul also describes
same-sex behavior as one result of idolatry.
What was the Roman attitude to sexual relations
between males?
In Rome, sexual relations between males were not
condemned as such. But the cultural conventions had to be
followed to maintain male honor.
First, a Roman man always had to give the appearance of
playing the insertive role in penetrative acts (i.e. being the
active, not passive, partner). The Roman view was that
masculinity is domination and penetration is subjugation.
Secondly, freeborn Roman males and females (other than his
wife) were off-limits as sexual partners for a Roman man.
It was understood to be natural and normal for a man to
desire sexual contact with male and female bodies alike.
However the Romans stigmatized effeminate males who
accepted or even preferred the receptive role in intercourse. *
* This answer is derived from Craig A. Williams, Roman
Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, 1999.
Is Paul criticizing same-sex activity wherever it
occurs or just same-sex activity when people
worship idols?
Some people try to minimize Paul’s criticism of same-sex
activity in Romans Chapter 1 by saying that he is only
criticizing same-sex activity as part of idol worship. But this is
not so.
Paul says twice that because people honor and serve created
things (including idols) instead of God (verses 23 and 25),
God allows them to mutually dishonor their bodies sexually
(verses 24 and 26). This is expressed by same-sex activity
(verses 26 and 27). In other words, idols sex idols sex.
The extreme form of sex between males described in verse 27
would vividly remind Paul’s audience of the orgiastic idol
worship in Roman temples.
Nevertheless Paul does not directly refer to pagan temples or
same-sex acts in idol worship in this passage and therefore
the “plain sense” interpretation is that he is referring to same-
sex activity wherever it occurs, both in temples and elsewhere.
Who took part in the same-sex activity?
The same-sex activity was done by (probably married)
persons who usually had sexual activity with persons of the
opposite sex (females exchanged natural sexual relations
[with males] for unnatural ones and males abandoned natural
sexual relations with females [for other males]). It appears
that these persons had pre-existing desires to have sexual
relations with people of the same sex. God gave them over by
allowing them to act on those desires. It is possible that
sometimes the exchange and abandonment was only
temporary while the women and men were having same-sex
orgies (utterly consumed in their intense lust for one another)
with priests and priestesses in the temples. In other cases,
the exchange and abandonment of male-female sex for same-
sex activity may have been permanent.
What is meant by “receiving the due penalty for
their error” in verse 27?
We don’t really know what the due penalty is. However it
might be a sexually transmitted disease, or the same-sex
activity itself might be the penalty for their idolatry. Note also
that error means mistake, not sin.
Summary of Paul’s criticism of sex between males
It has been shown that the sexual activity referred to in verse
27 is male-male penetration (anal intercourse).
Paul criticized this sexual activity by calling it shameful lusts
and shameful acts and states that males were inflamed with
lust for one another.
What does the criticism of male-male penetration
mean for men who are attracted to other men?
If a man is attracted to or loves other men without having sex
with them, the criticism of male-male penetration is irrelevant.
The Bible has positive stories of non-sexual same-sex
attraction and love, e.g. David and Jonathan, Jesus and two
of his followers.
What does the criticism of male-male penetration
mean for men who have sex with other men?
The criticism of male-male penetration does not apply to
straight, bisexual or gay men who have such penetrative sex
provided that no one is harmed, directly or indirectly, by the
penetration. See how this conclusion is reached.
FALSE VIEWS ABOUT VERSES 26 AND 27
Most of the following views (in italics) are those of people who
wish to minimize the significance of Paul’s criticism of female-
female and male-male sexual activity.
This passage criticizes only same-sex activity of
heterosexuals, who usually have sex with persons of the
opposite sex, and in no way criticizes the sexual activity of a
modern person who is exclusively and naturally homosexual.
(this is false)
It is true that the passage criticizes same-sex activity by
people who usually have or had sex with persons of the
opposite sex. This view is supported by St. John Chrysostom
(Homily 4 on the Epistle to the Romans) (about 400 CE).
However the passage also criticizes same-sex activity as such
by using words like dishonorable or shameful passions,
unnatural sexual activity, consumed in their lust for one
another and males acting shamefully with males. This
criticism is made in the context of the Roman ethical system of
honor and shame. It is most likely that the acts criticized are
restricted to anal intercourse between males and anal or
vaginal intercourse between females. Because the criticism is
of same-sex activity as such, it applies to all people indulging
in same-sex acts – straight, gay or lesbian.
In verse 26 the words “unnatural sexual relations” mean
“sexual relations contrary to the nature of the individual
person” i.e. a heterosexual woman having sexual relations
with another woman. Alternatively the words “unnatural
sexual relations” mean “non-procreative sex” i.e. sex which
cannot produce a child. (this is false)
The words unnatural sexual relations (Greek para physin,
literally, against nature) were used in many ancient texts to
refer to same-sex acts. The words were used irrespective of
whether a person usually had opposite-sex relations or same-
sex relations. The words did not mean only sexual relations
contrary to the nature of the individual person. Therefore
Paul would not have adopted this meaning.
Also, although some Jewish-Hellenistic writers (e.g. Philo)
regarded any non-procreative sexual intercourse as
unnatural, Paul’s speeches or letters never refer to any male-
female non-procreative sex as unnatural. Instead, Paul uses
unnatural sexual relations to mean sex acts which are
contrary to custom in his culture, i.e. same-sex acts.
Verses 26 and 27 do not condemn or criticize sex between
females or sex between males but merely show that it is
socially disapproved or is a cultural disorder rather than a
sin. (this is false)
The words used to describe sex between females and sex
between males include uncleanness, dishonorable or
shameful passions, unnatural sexual activity, consumed in
their lust for one another and males acting shamefully (or
inappropriately) with males. Elsewhere Paul uses shame or
shameful or dishonorable to criticize conduct which is not
necessarily evil but may simply be counter-cultural (e.g. long
hair for men). However uncleanness (impurity) usually
appears in lists of sins and lusts is used to indicate evil or bad
desires. Similar meanings would also apply in this passage.
This is confirmed by the sexual actions in the passage being
described as shameful passions resulting from people
honoring and serving created things rather than God the
Creator. Both the turning from God and the resulting sexual
actions are being criticized.
Although he does not use the words sinful or evil or wicked,
and does not say don’t do it, Paul would have considered
male-male penetration to be sinful because of the prohibition
in Leviticus 18:22 (don’t let another male penetrate you) and
he would expect his audience, especially those of a Jewish
background, to have a similar view. Note that Paul also
criticizes male-male penetration (males who have sex with
males) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 (he calls men
who do this wicked and sinful).
By contrast, note Paul’s different description (evil,
wickedness) of the sins (murder, etc) in verses 29-31.
Paul is criticizing only same-sex acts associated with idolatry
or performed as part of cultic temple prostitution; he does not
criticize other same-sex activity. (this is false)
The extreme form of sex between males described in verse 27
would vividly remind Paul’s audience of the orgiastic idol
worship in Roman temples.
Nevertheless Paul does not directly refer to pagan temples or
same-sex acts in idol worship in this passage and therefore
the “plain sense” interpretation is that he is referring to same-
sex activity wherever it occurs, in temples or elsewhere.
Paul does not criticize same-sex acts resulting from love; he
criticizes only same-sex acts that result from lust or
promiscuity. (this is false)
The passage does not say that the activity is limited to same-
sex acts resulting from lust or promiscuity. Therefore the
criticism applies to all same-sex acts, including those resulting
from love.
Paul criticizes homosexual orientation and same-sex desire as
well as same-sex behavior. (this is false)
The passage refers only to same-sex acts, not to same-sex
orientation. The Greek words translated as desires in some
Bible versions really mean lusts and are accompanied by
words such as dishonorable, vile and inflamed with. While the
passage is criticizing same-sex acts and same-sex lust, it is
not criticizing non-lustful same-sex desire. Desire in a sexual
sense can have many meanings ranging from just longing to
be in the beloved’s presence to burning lust.
The death penalty referred to in verse 32 is contextually
connected with homosexuality (this is false)
Verse 28 starts a new section of Chapter 1 as it refers to the
next stage in the spiritual deterioration of the people
mentioned, i.e. they did not see fit to acknowledge God. God
therefore allowed them to do the wicked things mentioned in
verses 29 to 31. It is these wicked things, not the things
referred to in the earlier section (including same-sex activity),
which could lead to the death penalty.
OTHER INTERPRETATIONS AND PAPERS
An excellent interpretation of Romans 1 and its implications
for us today. (pdf)
This interesting paper shows that Romans 1 could be based
on a Jewish best-seller of the period called Wisdom of
Solomon.
Source: gaysandslaves.com
