In describing the fallen state of man, the Apostle Paul mentions many sins of mankind, including ignoring Jehovah’s godship, idolatry, envy, murder, strife, deceit, and … homosexuality.
“That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.” – Romans 1:26, 27
Pro Gay Argument #1
Paul was describing heterosexuals who “changed the natural use of themselves” and commit homosexual acts. He was not describing true gays, to whom same-sex is natural. He is only condemning those to whom homosexuality doesn’t come naturally.
Response #1
This argument is invalidated by the context. Paul is not arguing about what is “natural” or “unnatural” to different people. Romans chapter one is all about the fallen state of mankind.
Paul opens his argument saying “For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way.” – Romans 1:18
He then sets out his argument, saying “they did not glorify him [Jehovah] as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.” – Romans 1:21 - 23
So, the whole chapter is about the fallen state of mankind. It is not an argument over whether certain things are natural, or unnatural to certain persons.
Joe Dallas writes “There is nothing in his wording to suggest he even recognized such a thing as a ‘true’ homosexual versus a ‘false’ one. He simply describes homosexual behaviour as unnatural, no matter who it is committed by.”
This is even supported by the Greek words Paul used. When he says “males” and “females” he chooses to use the Greek words that most emphasise gender. The words ‘arsenes’ and ‘theleias’.
Dallas writes “Both words are rarely uses in the New Testament; when they do appear, they appear in verses meant to emphasize the gender of the subject, as in a “male child” (arsenes). In this context, Paul is very pointedly saying that homosexual behaviour committed by these people was unnatural to them as males and females … he is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural – not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.”
Additionally, the scripture itself doesn’t match up with Boswell’s theory. The scripture says the homosexuals became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another”. Does that sound like heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality? Or does it sound more like the activities of gay men?
This final point is also important: Paul’s argument doesn’t stop when he mentions homosexuality. Straight afterwards he goes on to mention other things too.
“God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless”
So if – as Boswell believes – Paul’s argument isn’t about the fallen state of mankind, but about things that come “naturally” and “unnaturally” to different people, how should these verses be viewed? Are the above things, including fornication, strife, covetousness, and others, perfectly alright provided they are committed by people to whom they come naturally?
Of course not! Boswell’s argument is thoroughly flawed.
Response #2
Paul said that mankind had “changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature.” What do you think the “natural use” and “nature” of the male and female bodies would be to the 1st Century Apostle Paul? No doubt this: that the male member is designed to fit into the female in the natural reproductive way.
Surely the “change of natural use” would be any deviation of that obvious design in nature. When Paul said those words, he did not have in mind the 20th Century erroneous concept of genetic causes to homosexuality, nor did he have the gay rhetoric of homosexuals being “born that way” in his mind. He had no concept of a “true” or “false” homosexual.
To the Christians of the 1st Century, anyone not using his sexual organs in the natural way would be using them “contrary to nature.”
Pro Gay Argument #2
Paul was talking about people who commit idolatry, and then commit homosexual acts as part of their false worship. This is totally different from the gay relationships we see today.
Response
While Paul does mention idolatry as part of his argument, it is not the theme of his argument. As said earlier, the theme is the fallen state of mankind.
Paul is not saying that when someone worships an idol he becomes a homosexual. He is outlining the fallen state of mankind, of which false religion, homosexuality, and many other things, are all a part.
Most importantly, can we really accept that all the bad things in his argument, homosexuality, wickedness, covetousness, badness, envy, murder, backbiting, etc, are all perfectly permissible provided they are committed without any idolatry? No – a thinking person cannot accept that.
Conclusion
Mankind is in a fallen state, and have rebelled against all of God’s original purposes and intentions – even to the point of changing “the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature.”
< Back to the Mosaic Law | Main Menu | NEXT: Letters of Paul >