Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

These verses are important in the debate about homosexual practices.  The discussion turns, to a considerable extent, on what Paul means by ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ in this context.

1. Some think that Paul referring to those behaviours that are ‘unnatural’ to the practitioner.

The apostle, according to this view, is speaking of homosexual acts carried out by heterosexual people.  This view was championed by John Boswell.

David Instone-Brewer uses this line of argument in Moral Questions of the Bible.  He writes:

‘We know that Paul wasn’t describing men who can’t be aroused by women because he says that they “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural, and “abandoned natural relations with women” (Rom 1:26–27). These men changed from having relations with women (probably lots of them) to having those same relations with men—and they probably changed back again, too, perhaps during the same party.’

So, also, in Science and the Bible: Modern Insights For An Ancient Text:

‘The words “exchanged” and “abandoned” imply that their original nature and lifestyle was heterosexual, but they deliberately took up homosexual behavior. He isn’t referring to those who find that they can’t respond to the opposite sex—that is, those who were born that way. Instead, he specifically refers to those who have “abandoned natural relations with women”—that is, they already had heterosexual relationships that were “normal” to them and then chose to pursue homosexual relationships.’

Elsewhere, the same writer expresses his understanding like this:

‘He criticised those who engaged in homosexual behaviour because they ‘exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature’ (Romans 1:26, ESV). The word ‘exchanged’ implies that their original nature was heterosexual. He doesn’t merely mean that they should have been heterosexual, because he later states that they already actively were heterosexual before they decided to try something different: ‘the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another’ (v27, ESV). In other words, the grossness of their sin lay in the way they acted contrary to their own nature; contrary to the life the Lord had assigned to them.’

Instone-Brewer further explains his position:

‘I think it is much more likely to mean ‘individual nature’ in Rom 1:26 because this aids Paul’s argument, whereas ‘general nature’ gives his detractors a way out. If God is condemning people for choosing to go against their specific individual nature, then they are clearly guilty. But if they are going against general nature by following their individual nature, then they could reply that the fault lies at least partly with their creator. Seeing as Paul is trying to convince the reader of human sinfulness, it would be perverse of him to choose an example where a detractor could reply: But in this case, it is the creator who is at fault!’

Similarly, Matthew Vines argues that what Paul means by exchanging the ‘natural’ for the ‘unnatural’ relates to what is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ for the individual person:

‘Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with.’

But this interpretation is very much in a minority amongst New Testament scholars, and with good reason.  It is objected that this distinction is foreign both to Paul’s thought and to his thoughtworld.  The biblical writers know nothing of a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts.  In fact, according the historian Michel Foucault, such a distinction was unknown before 1870.  Before that date, the terminology referred to sexual acts alone, and not to identity.  For Paul, ‘nature’ refers to God’s created world, not to ‘what is natural to me’.  And at the beginning God created male and female, and instituted marriage as a heterosexual union, Mt 19:4ff; Gen 2:24.  (See Greg Downes’ article in Christianity, Feb 2013, p32)

John Pike writes:

‘Many scholars believe that St Paul himself would have been aware of people who were naturally attracted to people of the same-sex, and who formed loving relationships or even formal unions, but we cannot be certain about this, since most of the materials we have were neither precisely contemporaneous nor originating in places where he worked, and none are directly related to him. Some of the manifestations of homoeroticism that Paul would probably have been familiar with, including paedophilia, pederasty and prostitution (especially with slaves), are very far removed from loving, committed, faithful gay relationships today. However, although Paul does not specifically exclude loving relationships from his teaching in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (if it is indeed by him), a key point, as Preston Sprinkle and others note, is that for St Paul and many of his contemporaries, same gender sexual behaviour was “contrary to nature” and was therefore not tolerated in any circumstances.’

John Stott, in his commentary on Romans, writes:

‘Some homosexual people are urging that their relationships cannot be described as ‘unnatural’, since they are perfectly natural to them. John Boswell, for example, has written that ‘the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual people’. Hence Paul’s statement that they ‘abandoned’ natural relations, and ‘exchanged’ them for unnatural (26–27). Richard Hays has written a thorough exegetical rebuttal of this interpretation of Romans 1, however. He provides ample contemporary evidence that the opposition of ‘natural’ (kata physin) and ‘unnatural’ (para physin) was ‘very frequently used … as a way of distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behaviour’. Besides, differentiating between sexual orientation and sexual practice is a modern concept; ‘to suggest that Paul intends to condemn homosexual acts only when they are committed by persons who are constitutionally heterosexual is to introduce a distinction entirely foreign to Paul’s thought-world’, in fact a complete anachronism.’

According to the Apologetics Study Bible,

‘The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), founded by Troy Perry, was the first denomination started for homosexuals. After studying the Bible, Perry concluded that Christianity and homosexuality were compatible. Yet these verses clearly show that homosexuality is not “natural” but instead is “unnatural” and “shameless.” Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6:9 that practicing homosexuals, along with sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will not enter the kingdom of God. Paul went on to say, “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).’

2. A related view is that the apostle is referring to homosexual (and hererosexual) excess or abuse.

This interpretation constitutes part of the argument by Matthew Vines and others.  Vines supposes that the apostle is speaking of those who abandon their ‘natural’ heterosexual behaviour in favour of a burst of homosexual lust:

Matthew Vines (God and the Gay Christian) argues that Paul is not ruling out all homosexual behaviour, but only that which is excessive:

‘Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation … he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it cannot reasonably be called the same issue. Same-sex behavior condemned as excess doesn’t translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation — or as a loving expression of that orientation.’

Vines adds:

‘And surely it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful, casual behavior. He says nothing about the people in question falling in love, making a lifelong commitment to one another, starting a family together. We would never dream of reading a passage in Scripture about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and then, from that, condemning all of the marriage relationships of straight Christians. There is an enormous difference between lust and love when it comes to our sexuality, between casual and committed relationships, between promiscuity and monogamy. That difference has always been held to be central to Christian teaching on sexual ethics for straight Christians. Why should that difference not be held to be as central for gay Christians?’

Vines thinks that he has history on his side:

‘From the church’s early centuries through the nineteenth century, commentators consistently identified the moral problem in Romans 1:26–27 as “unbridled passions,” not the expression of a same-sex orientation.40 Furthermore, no biblical interpreter prior to the twentieth century even hinted that Paul’s statements were intended to consign a whole group of people to lifelong celibacy.’

The contributor to the Women’s Bible Commentary argues:

‘Paul did not have an understanding of homosexuality as a sexual orientation or sexual identity. In his context, it was assumed that sexual intercourse was the product of lust, and that lust run out of control would lead men to turn from women, their natural sexual partners, to men (as in Philo, On Abraham 135–36; Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 7. 151–52). In other words, same-sex intercourse was not understood as an indication of a different sexual identity but as evidence of an intemperate sexual drive.’

Megan De Franza inclines to a similar view, writing that

‘the overall force of the passage illustrates in graphic detail the downward spiral of sin which begins with a rejection of the true God…The passage is meant to describe the depravity of those who have rejected God, not faithful gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians seeking to solemnize their relationships with the vows of Christian marriage. While “nature” might have grounded the ancient assumption of male-female marriage, the fact that nature was also used to defend slavery (including sexual slavery), prostitution, and rape should caution us against moving from ancient ideas about nature to Christian moral teaching.’

(Two Views of Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church, p85f)

Noting that ‘eighty per cent of the artwork recovered from Pompeii and Herculaneum is sexually explicit’, Steve Chalke urges us to read Paul’s teaching here in the light of ancient sexual abuses and excesses:-

‘Every Christian believes God to be a God of love. It is no wonder that these abusive practices are condemned by inspired scripture. But it is a disingenuous misreading of the text to conclude that what Paul describes in Romans 1 can be used to prevent people forming loving, faithful, and nurturing relationships with people of the same-sex.’

‘In Evangelical circles, there has been a lack of intellectualism, which has meant that we’ve not dealt with these biblical passages as we should…Some biblical scholarship just has not kept up with archaeological discovery; it’s not kept up with wider cultural research and understanding.’

I can only attribute Chalke’s high-handed dismissal of evangelical scholarship (which he dismisses as ill-informed and out of date) to either ignorance or prejudice on his part.  I would not be so unchristian as to accuse Chalke himself of being ‘disingenuous’ (insincere).  I am, however, surprised by his certainty that this text only condemns the sort of eroticism found in Pompeii and Herculaneum.  Paul’s point is not that certain homosexual acts are abusive, but that all homosexual acts are unnatural (i.e. against the will of our Creator).

Indeed, the text is clear that Paul is not making a distinction between excess and moderation, but between what is unnatural and what is natural.  And Paul’s concept of what is natural is surely based on God’s design for humankind, as set out in Gen 1-2.

Robert Gagnon writes:

‘Paul’s own wording in Romans 1:24-27 makes clear that the contrast in his mind is not between exploitative and non-exploitative forms of homosexual behavior but between same-sex intercourse per se and opposite-sex intercourse: females exchanging sex with males for sex with females; males leaving behind sex with women and yearning for sex with other males. In Paul’s view–and indeed in the view of every Jew or Christian from whom we have firsthand written records within a millennium or more of Paul’s day–what was wrong, first and foremost, with two females or two males having sex is the same-sexness of the erotic act, an act that was intended by God to be a reunion of complementary sexual others according to Genesis 1-2.’

Against Scroggs, who thinks that Paul was thinking of pederasty in particular, Dunn comments:

‘Paul’s indictment seems to include all kinds of homosexual practice, female as well as male, and was not directed against one kind of homosexual practice in distinction from another.’

Longenecker discusses the idea that the only forms of homoerotic behaviour that Paul had in mind were exploitative or abusive forms such as male prostitution and pederasty.  He traces this proposal back to the writings of John Boswell (1980) and Robin Scroggs (1983).  Their arguments, says Longenecker, have been ‘devastatingly demolished’ by David Wright (1984), Richard Hays (1986), and Marion Soards (1995).  A key part of the rebuttal is that ἀρσενοκοίτης (in 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), which is ‘almost certainly’ to be connected with ‘male with male’ in Rom 1:27, is clearly formed from two words that occur in both Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13.  It is not plausible that these OT prohibitions were limited to male prostitution and/or pederasty.

William Loader (who affirms same-sex sexual unions) maintains that Paul’s teaching constitutes a very broad condemnation of homosexual behaviour:

‘It is not just on heterosexuals and so not homosexual men; nor on same-sex relations only in cultic contexts, which would make little sense of Paul’s psychological explanations; nor only on pederasty, since Paul also mentions mutuality. Nor is it just on acts and not attitudes, which would be very atypical of Paul’s approach to sin, nor just on same-sex intercourse only when accompanied by excessive passion.’

(Two Views of Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church, p35)

Again, Loader insists that Paul’s argument

‘is not that homosexually directed passions are tolerable as long as they are not excessive, but that homosexually directed passions are sinful because they are wrongly directed, and even more so when acted upon. Something has gone wrong when people are being attracted to those of their own sex, and for Paul this happens because something has gone wrong with their relationship with God.’

Keener asks: ‘did Paul limit his criticism to simply those forms that remain most offensive in Western culture today?’  He replies:

‘The dominant practice was not the only practice, and the word “pederast” was already available. More importantly, as most commentators (e.g., Jewett, Byrne) point out, he specifies lesbian as well as male homosexual behavior, and it is the same-sex element of the behavior that he explicitly targets.’

3. Others suggest that ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ refer to what is, and what is not, customary. 

This might be argued from the otherwise puzzling text in 1 Cor 11:14, where Paul asks: ‘Does not the very nature of things (hē physis autē, lit. ‘nature itself’) teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.’

Vines thinks that what is ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ refers to the cultural mores of his day, where women were held to be ‘inferior’ to men, and so for a man to take on the female role in sexual relations was seen as contrary to nature.

But this is not only in itself a doubtful inference, but it also runs against other Pauline texts where it refers to what people are by birth or character (Gal 2:15; Eph 2:3) or to the natural order of things (Rom 11:21,24; Gal 4:8).

Osborne finds this view to be without merit:

‘Some scholars argue that natural should be understood as it is used in the Hellenistic world as a reference to what is the custom from the culture or natural tendencies of the individual (pointing to passages in Paul where physis does not refer to divine intentionality: Rom 2:14; 11:21, 24; Gal 2:15; 4:8; Eph 2:3). In this sense Paul would be saying that homosexuality is wrong only when the culture prohibits it or when the individual does not have that sexual proclivity (so Scroggs 1983:116–28; Mollenkott and Scanzoni 1978:61–66). Since the Greek culture strongly embraced homosexual practices, Paul would only be prohibiting it in these restricted areas.

‘But this would only be true if Paul were writing from a Hellenistic perspective and not a Jewish one. The entire tone of this passage is Jewish, and in verse 27 Paul condemns homosexual practices entirely, evidencing a strong Jewish tone. Natural here refers not to what is natural in the culture but to God’s created order. The Old Testament contains many condemnations of homosexual practices (Gen 19:5, 8; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 23:17–18; Judg 19:22–24; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kings 23:7; Is 1:9; 3:9; Lam 4:6), and these are continued in intertestamental writings (Wisdom of Solomon 14:26; 2 Enoch 10:1–5; 34:1–3; Sibylline Oracles 3:184–86, 596–600; Testament of Levi 17:11; Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5; Philo On the Life of Abraham 135–37) and the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7). In short, Paul is writing as a Jewish Christian and is in complete agreement with the tradition of which he is a part (see also Boughton 1992:141–53).’

With reference to the denial that Paul had in mind was a natural law which therefore implied a divine mandate, Moo, in a footnote, writes that

‘Scroggs’s interpretation, and others like it, are vain attempts to avoid the obvious: Paul criticized homosexual activity as a particularly clear example of the extent to which people have fallen from a true knowledge of God.’

Among other things, writes Moo, Paul’s presentation of homoerotic behaviour as a perversion of true knowledge of God and as ‘sinful passions’ demonstrates that he regards them as contrary to God’s will.

4. Still others maintain that ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ refer to God’s creational purposes for humankind.

This view finds wide scholarly support.

Edwards points out the place of this section in Paul’s argument:

‘Paul does not condemn homosexuality primarily as a moral aberration (although he regarded it as such); had that been his concern he would have included it among the list of immoralities in verses 29–31. Rather, homosexuality illustrates the theological error he has been expounding since verse 18, namely, the exchanging of something authentic for something counterfeit.’

The same writer adds that homosexual behaviour provides a striking illustration of the nature of sin, understood as idolatry:

‘Paul cites homosexuality…not because it is a worse sin but because it exemplifies better than other sins the very nature of sin, which is the perversion of an original good, and hence idolatry.’

‘As C. K. Barrett puts it: “In the obscene pleasures to which he [Paul] refers is to be seen precisely that perversion of the created order which may be expected when men put the creation in place of the Creator.” Similarly, Charles Cranfield writes that by “natural” and “unnatural”, “Paul clearly means ‘in accordance with the intention of the Creator’ and ‘contrary to the intention of the Creator’, respectively.” Again, “The decisive factor in Paul’s use of it [physis, “nature”] is his biblical doctrine of creation. It denotes that order which is manifest in God’s creation and which men have no excuse for failing to recognize and respect.” Robert Gagnon states that “same-sex intercourse is ‘beyond’ or ‘in excess of’ nature in the sense that it transgresses the boundaries for sexuality both established by God and transparent in nature even to Gentiles”.’

Stott, J., 2006. Issues Facing Christians Today 4th Edition.

New Testament scholar Joseph Fitzmyer comments:

‘Kata physin denotes living or existing in harmony with the native or natural order of things, a peculiarly Greek, especially Stoic, idea. This Hellenistic philosophical notion has colored Paul’s thinking, but in the context of vv 19–23, “nature” also expresses for him the order intended by the Creator, the order that is manifest in God’s creation or, specifically in this case, the order seen in the function of sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of children. Paul now speaks of the deviant exchange of those organs as a use para physin.’

Kruse cites a number of ancient authors (both Greek and Jewish) in support of the view that in this text ‘Paul uses physis/physikos to denote natural and unnatural relations, that is, those consistent with human nature (kata physin) or contrary to human nature (para physin)’

‘For example, Plato condemns pederasty and marriage between men as ‘contrary to nature’;

T. Naph. 3:4–5 charges people: ‘Do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature’;

Philo combines the Greek notion of things contrary to nature with the Jewish idea of things contrary to law, and regards sexual aberrations as violations of ‘the law of nature’ (Abr. 135–136);

Josephus speaks of women’s menstruation and the union of a man and wife as ‘according to nature’ (Ag. Ap. 2.199), while he describes sodomy as ‘unnatural’ (Ag. Ap. 2.275);

Seneca condemned homosexual exploitation (Ep. 47.7–8), and Plutarch regarded homosexual practice as ‘contrary to nature’ (The Dialogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c).

The early church fathers interpreted Paul’s statement in 1:26 that their ‘women [lit. ‘females’] exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones’ as female homosexual practice. For example, Ambrosiaster says: ‘Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry’, and Chrysostom maintains: ‘But when God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down. Thus not only was their doctrine satanic, but their life was too.… How disgraceful it is when even the women sought after these things, when they ought to have a greater sense of shame than men have’. (Paragraphing added)

Edwards notes that for Paul,

‘homosexuality is a forsaking of a natural relationship instituted according to the purpose of the Creator, i.e., heterosexuality, for an unnatural relationship which reverses the Creator’s purpose. Homosexuality changes something originally oriented to the opposite sex as a complement and inverts it to itself, thus perverting the created order. Like all sin, it is a disorientation which leads to confusion. Thus, the dishonoring of God results in the disordering of human life.’

Loader takes the same view, writing that

‘for Paul, what is natural has theological status because it is how God created things to be and so it is what is right (1 Cor 11:16).’

Wright comments:

‘His point is not “there are some exceptionally wicked people out there who do these revolting things” but “the fact that such clear distortions of the creator’s male-plus-female intention occur in the world indicates that the human race as a whole is guilty of a character-twisting idolatry.”  He sees the practice of same-sex relationships as a sign that the human world in general is out of joint.’

Of the alternatives outlined, the last-mentioned has the widest scholarly support and is to be preferred.