Romans 1:26-27
So far, I have merely followed the syntactical and grammatical logic of the passage (at least in its translation). I don't think anything I have stated thus far could be argued differently, regardless of one's stance on homosexuality. What follows in the next verse is clearly related to what came before it:
Since it is "unnatural" for men to be (sexually) with men, and women with women, according to the Apostle (and God, since the Bible is God-breathed), he describes the sexual acts as "shameless" and "error." There is no qualification here for things like rape or promiscuity or uncommitted, manipulative sex (that is the desperate eisegesis of those who already believe the Bible is neutral on the issue - itself an absurd proposition, in my opinion).
St. Paul makes an argument from nature. He is saying that the very notion of homosexuality is disordered and unnatural. Perhaps his phrase "received in themselves the due penalty for their error" refers to the medical and physiological consequences of these abnormal acts, but that is just speculation on my part.
There were plenty of negative repercussions for health with regard to sodomy before AIDS came around. AIDS is just one more confirmation that unnatural sex is physically dangerous (we know, e.g., that AIDS spread rapidly in Africa even among heterosexuals. Why? Because heterosexual anal sex is prevalent among many Africans - hence the spread of the disease). Sin is always dangerous. God tries to spare us of its consequences, but we are too dense and rebellious to accept Him at His word, and we insist on playing with fire, defying even nature itself, if need be.
Romans 1:18-32 is an argument from nature, a sort of primitive teleological argument (or, argument from design). He implies sins against nature in 1:24: ". . . the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" (RSV). Idolatry is condemned in 1:25: ". . . they . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator . . ." In my opinion, immoral sex amounts to a worship of the physical body as an object apart from the whole person who possesses it, and in defiance of the lifelong commitment within which moral sex is protected and placed in the proper context of whole love relationships with whole people (not just genitals), for a whole lifetime.
St. Paul makes a similar argument from nature (but a bit more sophisticated and theological) in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, by stating that excessive appetite for sex (and also food?) amounts to being "enslaved" (6:12). He exclaims:
One might say that fornication is an "ontological" sin against the moral "concept" of marriage, while homosexual sex sins both against the purpose of sex and the ontological, metaphysical, and spiritual (even physical) nature of sex itself. The next logical step is bestiality. The move has already been made from opposite sex and procreation to same sex and pleasure-only. In so doing, God's laws and natural law are spurned and scorned. So why not make the move to an animal, if the purpose is simply pleasure?
On the other hand, Paul seems to teach that all forms of sexual immorality are a sin against nature and against the Holy Spirit within us. Something bad actually happens in the very real spiritual realm. We become joined with the harlot. We sin against ourselves and our own bodies as well. We violate the temple of God (ourselves, if we are Christians, since the Holy Spirit indwells us).
Various versions of Romans 1:26-27 show us exactly what St. Paul is teaching (in reference to women and men, respectively). He compares and contrasts the natural, moral sexual act, with the unnatural, immoral act:
1) Phillips:
"normal practices of sexual intercourse" ----------> "something which is abnormal and unnatural"
"natural intercourse with women" -------> "lustful passions for one another"
2) Jerusalem:
"natural intercourse" -------> "unnatural practices"
"natural intercourse" -------> "consumed with passion for each other"
3) New English Bible / Revised English Bible:
"natural intercourse" --------> "unnatural [intercourse]"
"natural relations with women" -------> "burn with lust for one another"
4) King James (Authorized) / New King James Version
"natural use" ------> "that which is against nature"
"natural use of the woman" -------> "burned in their lust one toward another"
5) Revised Standard Version
"natural relations" ---------> "unnatural [relations]"
"natural relations" ---------> "consumed with passion for one another"
6) New Revised Standard Version
"natural intercourse" -------> "unnatural [intercourse]"
"natural intercourse with women" -------> "consumed with passion for one another"
7) New American Standard
"natural function" -------> "that which is unnatural" [note: "Lit., 'against nature'"]
"natural function of the woman" --------> "burned in their desire toward one another"
8) William Barclay
Main Index & Search | Marital, Family, Sexual, & Gender Issues
Written in 1998 by Dave Armstrong.