An Analysis of Romans 1:18-32, Part 2
A Giving Over to Lustful, Dishonoring, and 'Unnatural' Sexual Behavior
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE:
PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY
By Bruce L. Gerig
7.The first “giving
over” (Rom 1:24-25): Heterosexual practices which dishonor the body. Then Paul writes: “[24] Therefore God gave them up [i.e., these God-rejecters] in the lusts [epithymiai] of their heart
to impurity [akatharsia, KJV-ABS:
‘uncleanness’], to the degrading [atimazō, KJV-ABS: ‘dishonoring’] of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged [metallassō, G3337] the truth about God for a lie [lit.,
“the lie,” see Van der Pool; Harrison in Gaebelein 10 1976, p. 25] and worshipped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen” (NRSV). Because these Gentiles refused to worship the
true God and thank him for their creation (Rom 1:18-20), they were left with
the folly of worshipping their own man-made idols and gods (1:21-24), which
were a fake. But God
also “gave them over” (NRSV, paredōken
autous, G3860, G846) in three other ways: (1) to engage in sexual
activities which ‘dishonored their bodies’ (1:24-25), (2) to exchange ‘natural
sexual use’ for ‘unnatural sexual use’ (1:26-27), and (3) to create a social
world of chaos and cruelty (1:28-31). Yet Rom 1:24-27 is not easy to understand
because Paul employs general, somewhat ambiguous terms; and one has to read the
original Greek text very carefully to discover all of its clues.
Epithymiai (G1939) is
best translated as “lusts” (KJV-ABS
1962, Green 1986, UNASB 1995, ESV 2001), for although this Greek word could
point simply to ‘strong desire[s]’ (Mark 4:19), most generally in the Bible it
has negative (sexual) connotations—although the Bible does not depreciate
the use of sex in proper ways.1 Akatharsia (G167) is usually
translated as “impurity” (NRSV 1989,
UNASB 1995, ESV 2001) or “uncleanness”
(Green 1986, Van der Pool 2006). In the Greek Septuagint, akatharsia appears in OT
passages which declare menstrual blood and human semen “unclean” Lev 18:19;
15:16, 32) and which forbid the touching of a dead animal or the eating of
certain forbidden meats (Lev 5:2, 20:25)2—although James Dunn notes that akatharsia here in Rom 1:24 has lost its earlier cultic connotations and simply carries a
moral sense of “sexual immorality”3—although this meaning still remains frustratingly
vague.
Atimazō is usually
translated as “dishonoring [of their
bodies]” (cf. Green 1986, cf. UNASB 1999, ESV 2001, cf. Van der Pool 2006),
or “degrading [of their bodies]”
(NIV 1978, NRSV 1989).
Caught in the clutches of intense
sexual passions, these people turned to what Paul considered “filthy [practices]” (NJB 1985, akatharsia), or doing “shameful [things with their bodies]”
(CEV 1995). But what
kinds of specific things did Paul have in mind here—relating to
heterosexual behavior, since 1:26-27 later seems to turn to homosexual
behavior? First, 1 Cor
10:7-8 and Acts 15:20 suggest that Paul’s biggest sexual problem in his
churches were converts who continued to attend the free pagan temple feasts,
which generally ended in heavy drinking and group debauchery (cf. the
“drunkenness, orgies” in Gal 5:21; and “reveling and drunkenness . . .
debauchery and licentiousness, Rom 13:13, NRSV), where prostitutes were also
present.4 The Jewish historian
Josephus tells of the lady Paulina
engaged in sex all night in the Isis temple precincts in Rome with Mundus, whom
she thought was the Egyptian god Anubis (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.65-80).5 Paul was aware of the sizable number of slaves
in his churches (see ‘the lowly and despised things,’ 1 Cor 1:26, and cf.
7:20-21 and Rom 16); and he no doubt had heard wrenching stories of how
good-looking, especially younger slaves, of both genders, were often sexually
abused by their Roman masters and mistresses.6 Because these God-rejecters had “project[ed] the
sexual license they desired onto their gods,” this left them “free to follow
their own unbridled passions” in many and varied ways.7 When Paul visited the public baths, in some
places he may have seen erotic scenes like those pictured in the dressing room of
Suburban Baths in Pompeii, which showed: a woman mounting a man, a woman
performing fellatio on a man, a man performing cunnilingus on a woman, two
women copulating (apparently using a dildo), a threesome with two men and a
woman, and a foursome with two men and two women, etc.8 As a Jew brought up to
consider any display of the naked body as “an exposure of the most shameful
kind,”9 Paul ‘had come a long way,’ to win Gentiles to Christ, in ignoring the
Romans’ casual, everywhere picturing of nudity, sex and phalluses; yet he still
felt that in many ways these people were dishonoring (or degrading) their
bodies, treating them “in a way lacking [due] respect.”10
One approach to
understanding how Paul viewed “nature” here is to see how he speaks about this
elsewhere in his letters.
For example, he writes of those being “uncircumcised” as being Gentiles ek physeōs (“by nature,” G1537, G5449, Rom 2:27, KJV-ABS), while the Jews are Jews (or
circumcised) “by nature” (physei, G5449, Gal 2:15,
KJV-ABS). He notes
also that idols “by nature” (physei) are not gods” (Gal 4:8,
KJV-ABS) and that unbelievers, as “children of [God’s] wrath,” are sinful “by
nature” (physei, Eph 2:3, NRSV). All these references seem to point to a “cultural
distinction”12 or to an “inborn character”13. Then, amazingly, Paul writes that God has “cut [Gentiles] from what is by
nature [kata physin, G2596,
G5449] a wild olive tree” and has
“grafted [them], contrary to nature [para physin, G3844, G5449]” onto “a cultivated olive tree,” i.e.,
he made them part of his people (Rom 11:24, NRSV, italics added)—and if
the Almighty can do something “contrary to nature,” this can hardly mean
“sinful per se.”14 Indeed, God
sometimes acts in a way that is “more than” or “beyond” nature—and as
Strong’s concordance shows, para (G3844) can mean “other than,
more than” just as well as “contrary to, against.” Then Paul also writes: “Does not nature teach you
that if a man wears long hair [NEB: ‘flowing locks’], it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is for her
glory?” (1 Cor 11:14-15, NRSV, italics added)—and the criteria for
“nature” here seems to be “widespread social usage.”15 So in his letters Paul uses
“against/beyond nature” or “unnatural” (para physin) as a synonym for “(seriously)
unconventional”16 or for something that is “surprising
and out of the ordinary”17. So
when we come to Rom 1:26-27, para physin is not about a violation
of the order of Creation18—the word “nature” never appears in the Hebrew Bible—but
it simply means that the Gentile world was no longer the world that it
originally was.19 In the end, we are best to
consider Paul’s “unnatural use” here as referring to something that is very “unconventional.”
Yet, Paul here is
writing to a primarily Gentile Christian community,20 and so it might be enlightening to see
how secular philosophers (especially Stoic) specifically applied para physin. For example, PLATO (c.429–c.347) wrote in
his Laws (1:636C) that “When male
unites with female for procreation, the pleasure experienced is held to be due
to nature [kata physin], but contrary to nature [para physin] when male
mates with male or female with female.”21 However, Plato was probably
concerned here with pederasty, in the first case, even as the Roman philosopher
PLUTARCH (50–125 AD) contrasted pederasty with marriage, viewing
the former as para physin (“against
nature”), because it was done “either unwillingly with force and plunder or
willingly with weakness [malakia] and
effeminacy [thēlytēs]” (Dialogue on Love 751C–E, 752A).22
However, the Greek Stoic philosopher EPICTETUS (55–136) criticized men who shaved off their body hair to transform themselves into women;
such men act against their nature (physis)
and behave like playboys (kinaidoi), whom
he compares with the Corinthians (Discourses 3.1.27–37).23 Brooten notes that PHILO of Alexandria, a Jewish contemporary of Paul living in Alexandria,
Egypt, used para physin (“contrary to
nature”) three times in his On the Special
Laws (3.7-82), where he applies it to: (1) intercourse between a man and
women during her menstrual period, (2) intercourse between a man and a
boy (pederasty), and (3) intercourse between a person and an animal
(bestiality). He also
calls men who have sex with barren women (instead of divorcing them and
remarrying) “enemies of nature.”24
Then later, ARTEMIDORUS of Daldos in Lydia (an Eastern Roman province in
Asia Minor; 2nd century BC) categorized certain sex acts that could appear a
dream as para physin (“against
nature”), including self-fellatio, sex with an animal, sex
with a corpse, and lesbian coitus—although he only described
coitus between two men as “unconventional” (Interpretation
of Dreams, chapters 78-80).25 One can see that although para physin was applied
to male anal intercourse and women using dildos, it was also applied to a wide
range of other unconventional kinds of sexual intercourse.
Most interpreters see lesbian intercourse (of some kind) as the issue here36—although Martti Nissinen still warns that the textual evidence is “not conclusive.”37 Still, a strong male “hostility” existed toward lesbianism in ancient times38, and numerous ancient sources specifically condemned sexual relations between women as “unnatural,” including Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, and Artemidoros.39 The Roman epigrammatist MARTIAL (40–140 AD) mentions a woman named Bassa whom he considered to be completely chaste because he had never seen her copulating with men but always surrounded by women—until he realized that she was a fatutor (“fucker”), with a “monstrous lust [that] imitates a man” (Epigrams 1.90.8). Martial dedicated two other epigrams to Philaenis, a tribas (Greek and Latin, “lesbian”) who was aggressive toward both boys and girls; and with latter she was “quite fierce with the erection of a husband,” battering up to eleven a day (Epigrams 67.1-3).40 Clearly female eroticism was viewed by the male Roman writers as “outrageous” (Nissinen).41 Robert Jewett notes how PLUTARCH also called lesbianism para physin (“beyond nature,” Amatorius 761e)—although para physin for the Romans really implied a failure to follow what common sense and ‘inner law’ (one’s conscience) dictated.42 Of course, PLATO considered sexual pleasure to be “natural” only when it could lead to childbearing within marriage (Phaedrus 835c-e)—yet there is no reference to procreation in Rom 1, nor does the unmarried and celibate Paul emphasize it elsewhere in his letters. Jewett holds that Paul had lesbian activity in mind here, rather than women engaging in oral or anal sex with males, say—and Paul is confident that his audience will share his negative view.43 Yet, a weakness here is that Paul does not address the fact that Greco-Roman culture viewed ‘conforming to nature’ as defined by the group defining it. And any reading of this passage as addressing women who have a lesbian orientation misreads Rom 1:24-27, since this passage deals with a corporate (societal) distortion of human activity, not with individual sins.44 In the end, Nissinen concludes that Paul would not have accepted women engaged in any kind of sex except with (and submitting to) their present or future husbands, and most scandalous for Paul would have been their crossing the gender boundary.45 The text speaks of women taking an active role sexually, but the vague “unnatural relations” may point to a number of types of unconventional sexual behavior.
But what about private Roman parties? One Greek red-figured drinking cup (late 6th century BC) in the Louvre shows a group sex scene of men at a symposium (private drinking party) performing oral and anal intercourse with each other, with a female prostitute helping out.50 However, erotic Roman wall and vessel scenes depict only private sex encounters.51. Yet Ben Witherington explains that the communal meal followed by a sacrifice, drinking, and sex-partying by Roman times had moved from the home dining-room to the temple precincts. Still, private home parties, with lively conversation, excessive drinking and sexual dalliance, occurred in Roman times, as well, often including musicians and prostitutes. These were generally all-male affairs, served by male slaves. Wives and daughters might join at the beginning of the feast (although this was not all that common), but then would retire when the heavy drinking began. The wine-server was expected to be especially young and attractive—and Seneca the Younger complained that this slave had to have his hair plucked out, dress like a woman, and take care of his master’s sexual needs, as well as his drinking needs (Seneca, Epistles 47.4). In fact, A. Booth notes that these private male feasts were known as much for their ‘pleasures of the pillow’ as they were for their ‘pleasures of the palette.’52
Robert Jewett believes that Rom 1:27 was meant to apply especially to male slaves (remember all of the slave names in Rom 16) whom the master sexually abused whenever he felt like it—as well as to prostitutes (most of whom were slaves and had no choice but to serve their pimps). This bodies-for-sale trade also supported the cruel practices of kidnapping boys (cf. “slave traders” in 1 Tim 1:10, NRSV)53 and of castrating slaves boys, to serve a special clientele demand. Alice Bellis and Terry Hufford hold that Paul viewed male homosexual relations as “unnatural” because they crossed the male/female gender boundary, and the main area of transgression included the use of slaves and prostitutes.54
But what does it mean,
that these God-rejecters “received in
their own persons the due penalty [antimisthian,
G489; Green: ‘reward’] for their error [planēs, G4106; Green: ‘straying’]” For antimisthian
(G489), Green gives the translation of “reward,” and Strong’s concordance defines the term as “an exchange, penalty,
recompense.” Most
translations choose “penalty” (NIV
1978, NRSV 1989, UNASB 1999, ESV 2001). For planē,
(G4106), Green gives the translation of “straying,” and Strong’s concordance defines the term as “error, delusion, deception.” Most translations choose “error” (KJV-ABS 1962, NRSV 1989, ESV
2001, UNASB 1999), although some choose “perversion”
(NIV 1978, NJB 1985, REB 1989), which is not an unsuitable meaning, if one
views this as referring to heterosexuals who have turned to take up homosexual
activities.
Robert Jewett views the “error” here as the pagans’ suppression of the truth of God’s revelation, and the “penalty” their dishonorable [sexual] relationships themselves.55 Stanley Stowers considers the “penalty” here the males’ loss of their maleness.56 James Dunn views it as the unnatural tastes that they have obtained in their bisexual society.57 Brendan Byrne notes that the “error” here refers to the Gentiles’ original failure to recognize the Creator God, and the “due penalty” for this is—not venereal disease, or AIDS, or even a fixed homosexual condition—but rather a “permanent uncontrollable desire to engage in the activity in question” (having an interest now in both heterosexual and homosexual sex).58 David Frederickson believers that Paul’s “error” here (Rom 1:27) refers to when natural love turns into insatiable erotic lust, which brings the lover into dishonor.59
Now it is important to
look more closely at the Greek here: (1) For epithymiai (1:24), Jay Green in his
super-literal translation of the Bible (1986) translates it as “lusts,” and Strong’s concordance (2001)
defines it as “desires, longings, cravings (G1939). The NRSV renders it as: “lusts.” (2) For akatharsia (1:24), Green
translates it as “uncleanness,” and
Strong defines it as: “impurity, uncleanness, moral filthiness” (G167). The NRSV renders it as “impurity,” and the KJV-ABS as
“uncleanness.” (3) For
tou
atimazesthai ta sōmata autōn (1:24), Green translates this
phrase literally as “to be dishonored the bodies of them” or “their bodies to be dishonored,” and Strong defines the
key word here atimazō (G818) as “to dishonor, to disgrace, to treat
shamefully.” The NRSV
renders it as “degrading [of their
bodies],” and the KJV-ABS as “to
dishonor [their own bodies].”
(4, 5) For the phrase pathē atimias (1:26), Green
translates this as “passions of
dishonor,” and Strong defines pathoi (G3806) as “sexual passions, lusts,” and atimia (G819) as
“dishonor, disgrace, shame.”
The NRSV renders this phrase as “degrading
passions,” the ESV as “dishonorable passions,” and the NIV as “shameful lusts.” (6) For exekauthēsan
en tē orexei autōn (1:27), Green translates this phrase
literally as “burned in the lust of them,” or “burned in their lust,” and Strong defines ekkaiō (G1572) here
as “to burn, to be inflamed [with a strong desire],” and orexis (G3715) as “lust,
desire.” The NRSV
renders the phrase as “inflamed with
lust.” (7) For tēn aschēmosynēn katergazomenoi (1:27), Green translates
this verb with direct object literally as “shamelessness working” or “working shame,” and Strong defines the key word here aschēmosynē
(G808) as “shame, indecent act.” The NRSV renders it as “indecent acts.” All of this analysis may seem
overwhelming, but in the end it clearly shows in this passage (1:24-27) that
Paul uses no less than four words (epithymias,
pathoi, orexis, ekkaiō) meaning “lust[s],” or “inflamed” with it;
and three words (atimazō, atimia,
aschēmosynē) meaning “to dishonor” or “to shamelessly use”
the body. This is in
contrast to only two references to
something para physin (“against nature”), in 1:26-27.
The only word left out here is akatharsia (1:24), “uncleanness” or “impurity,” an OT concept; but elsewhere Paul refrains from “identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code.”60. In fact, he writes in this very same letter, when his discussion turns to OT dietary rules, that “the Lord Jesus knows that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (Rom 14:14, NRSV; and cf. 14:20, 1 Cor 6:12-13). Still, he surely thought that a lot of what went on in Greco-Roman sexual practice was “filthy.” In fact, sexual practices in the first-century Roman world were such that even modern Americans (even most gays) would find them “astonishing.”61 One can remember the scene in Petronius’ Sayricon where the Quartilla, a devotee of Priapus, comes in with her band and they tie up Encolpius and Asclytus so that her men can “hump” the boys, while Quartilla instructs the younger Giton to go deflower her seven-year-old servant girl, before she takes himself for herself. (2.17-25). Or Paul could have considered heterosexuals turning to homosexual anal intercourse as being “defiling,” since that term is applied to the Levitival ban on homosexuality in Lev 18:22, 24).62
Relating to out-of-control passion, Stanley Stowers believers that “self-mastery” would have loomed very large in the thinking of Paul’s audience, in contrast to being enslaved to passions and desires;63 and Paul views Christ as the enabler of mastery over self.64 Yet, this was a gender issue, since it was men who were called to display self-mastery. Masculinity had to be achieved, passions had to be controlled, and men were always in danger of succumbing to softness, femaleness, or servility.65 Instead, Paul admonished believers to order their life with self-control, like an athlete (1 Cor 9:24-27).66 On the other hand, slaves, women, and barbarians lacked control over themselves, and needed a (real) male over them to govern them.67 Men carried about the latent “feminine disease,” which stood for softness, weakness, susceptibility to emotion, uncontrollable desire, and lack of discipline.68 This is why it was so despicable for a male citizen to become the passive sexual partner for another man.69 In fact, David Frederickson believes that Paul’s primary concern here is a lack of control of one’s passion.70 Paul is not speaking about homosexual orientation here, but rather out-of-control lust, which is dishonorable. SENECA THE YOUNGER once wrote that “error” occurred when natural sexual (controlled) desire is replaced with passion, which irrationally directs the way in which things are possessed (Moral Epistles 16.9).71 In fact, “in like manner” in 1:27 may refer to out-of-control passion, “error” to when natural (controllable) sexual desire is replaced by (irrational) passion, and “penalty” to suffering the consequences.72 Dale Martin agrees, that Paul’s (main) concern here is not “disordered desire” but “inordinate desire”73 Jack Rogers believes that the main issues, besides men leaving their proper gender roles, were out-of-control sexual passion and shameful sexual behavior.74
Relating to shameful acts, James Dunn thinks that terms like “shameless” and indecent” have to do with exposure of the sexual organs (especially in the Septuagint, cf. Exod 28:42, Lev 18 and 20). This refers not to a homosexual tendency or desire, but in Rom 1:24-27 to genital acts,75 and more specifically to sexual desires and acts which lack both self-respect and respect for others.76 The problem here, of course, is that “shameful” acts are tied to a particular culture’s views, e.g., Roman wives felt it shameful to show their bodies in any light to their husbands even in the bedroom; and at the same time men bathed nude in the public baths, where they could plainly see each other’s genitals. Meanwhile, the Jews would have considered any exposure of the genitals as “shameful.”77 Yet, God has clearly created sexual desire to propel the continuation of the species; and even though Israelite families arranged their children’s marriages in most cases, sexual passion is still present (cf. Jacob and Rachel, Gen 29:28-30, and David and Bathsheba, 2 Sam 11:2-5). The Song of Songs is full of erotic body descriptions, consuming passion, and dreams of sex. Yet, one often has some control of what he or she seeks sexually; and one does not have to entertain thoughts about sex with other men’s partners, young boys, and other acts that would be harmful to another person. On the other hand, destructive Eros can appear suddenly, causing one to fall head-over-heels in love without reason—wrecking havoc with one’s state of mind, finances, and honor.78 For men the juices will flow, the heat will rise, and passion can consume like a forest fire. Look what gay people have suffered in the past, driven to find that ‘forbidden love.’
REFERENCES:
Bellis, Alice Ogden, and
Terry L. Hufford, Science, Scripture and
Homosexuality, 2002.
Brooten, Bernadette J., Love between Women, 1996.
Bryan, Christopher, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in
Its Literary and Cultural Setting, 2000.
Bryne, Brendan, Romans, 1996.
Clarke, John R., Roman Sex, 100 BC–AD 250,
photographs by Michael Larvey, 2003.
Countryman, L. William, Dirt, Greed, & Sex, 2007.
Dover, Kenneth J., Greek Homosexuality, (1978) 1989.
Dunn, James D. G., Romans 1-8, 1988.
Frederickson, David, “Natural
and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24-27: Paul and the Critique of Eros,” in
Gagnon, Robert A. J., The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001.
Gibbs, John G., “Lust,” in
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 3
Gorman, Frank H.,
“Nakedness,” in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Green, Jay P., Sr., The Interlinear Bible:
Hebrew–Greek–English, 1986.
Harrison, Everett F.,
“Romans,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, 10 1976,
Jewett, Robert, Romans: A Commentary, 2007.
Jewett, Robert, “The Social
Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Paul,” in David Balch,
Josephus, Flavius, The New Complete Works of Josephus, trans.
by William Whiston with commentary
Kraus, C. Norman, “Making
Theological and Ethical Decisions: Contextualizing the Bible,” in C.
Martin, Dale B., “Arsenokoitēs and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences,” in
Robert L. Brawley, ed.,
Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A
Historical Perspective, 1998.
Oakes, Peter, “Rome, Church
of,” in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., New
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Petronius, Satyricon, trans. with notes by Sarah
Ruden, 2000.
Powell, Mark A., “The Bible
and Homosexuality,” in James M. Childs, Jr., ed., Faithful Conversation:
Rogers, Jack, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explore
the Myths, Heal the Church, 2009.
Ruden, Sarah, Paul among the People: The Apostle
Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time,
Skinner, Marilyn B., Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture,
2005.
Stowers, Stanley K., A Reading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and
Gentiles, 1994.
Strong, James, ed., The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible, rev. John Kohlenberger
Van der Pool, Charles, The Apostolic Bible: Polyglot, including
the Septuagint OT and the NT, in Greek
Williams, Craig A., Roman Homosexualities, 1999.
Witherington, Ben, III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2
Photo: Fresco from the Tomb of the Diver, 470 BC. Archaeological Museum of Paestum, Italy
© 2012 Bruce L. Gerig
| Main Menu | Back to Homosexuality & the Bible |