Gospel Prism

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

This is perhaps the most quoted text by both sides of the debate. Pro-homosexual exegetes hold that Paul is not necessarily concerned with those who are natural homosexuals, that is, homosexuals born with the disposition to be gay. Rather, Paul condemns the fact that natural heterosexuals have been tempted to turn to the homosexual or lesbian relationship. John Boswell writes: “What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparent heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on.” (Boswell, 109)

Boswell’s entire argument centers on the varying translations and interpretations of para fusin. Most modern biblical texts translate the phrase as “women exchanged the natural function for which is unnatural.” [1] Boswell questions this translation of para and redefines it as “more than” or “in access of.” (Boswell, 111) But even if one were to translate the phrase to mean “against nature,” he notes that it still maintains the interpretation of “going against a moral standard, that is, the nature of God.” He writes:

Romans 1 did not condemn homosexual behavior as “against nature” in the sense of the violation of “natural law.” No clear idea of “natural law” existed in Paul’s time or for many centuries thereafter. To Paul, the activities in question were beyond nature in the sense of “extraordinary, peculiar,” as was the salvation of the Gentiles, described with the same phrase. Moreover, the persons referred to were considered by influential early Christian theologians to have been necessarily heterosexual (i.e., “naturally” attracted to the opposite sex). There was no implication in the passage that homosexual acts, much less homosexual persons, were necessarily sinful. (Boswell, 114)

Boswell’s argument ambiguously portrays the concept of natural law. He contends that Paul intentionally leaves vague the idea of natural law so as to define such laws not on God’s moral standard, but on a “personal” level of morality that is achieved by the individual. In doing so, Boswell lessens God’s moral standard and reduces homosexuality as one’s personal choice, rather than the breaking of God’s moral law. Sinfulness is no longer the correct term, but preference is primary.

However, Boswell’s translation and interpretation of pasa fusin goes against a very common rendering of this phrase, presented by noted biblical translations, as well as New Testament scholars like Leon Morris (Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 92-3.) and James Dunn (James Dunn, Romans 1-8 Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 64.).

Concerning its translation and meaning, Dunn notes the word “nature” maintains a Greek-Stoic meaning of living in harmony with the natural order. But he adds, “The idea of actions as ‘against nature’ is also present, and with particular reference to sexual relations such as pederasty.” (Dunn. 64) In Koster’s word study on fusis, he found that pasa fusin did refer to pederasty that was condemned, even by Greek thinkers. Koster writes, “para fusin is used of marriage in which the woman is in reality a man… In particular these phrases are used in ethical judgments above all with reference to sexual failings. Already in Plato we find a condemnation of pederastry.” (Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 9, 262-3.) One must consider that Boswell’s argument was based on a misinterpretation of para fusin. Paul was clear in stating that gay relations did go against the moral standards of God. The linkage of this text to the idolatry of verse 25 once again emphasizes that homosexuality could be a result of idolatrous worship, as Henri Blocher argued (quoted earlier). Don Williams summarizes, “In conclusion then, in 1:26ff Paul represents homosexual acts as a sign of God’s wrath against rebellious mankind. Giving up the true knowledge of God, we have become idolatrous.” (Don Williams, The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (Los Angeles: BIM, 1978), 80.)

—

[1] NASB, NRSV, NIV renders this phrase as “against nature” or “exchanging natural for unnatural.”