Since 1980, scholars have debated the translation and modern relevance of New Testament texts on homosexuality. Three distinct passages – Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 – as well as Jude 1:7, have been taken to condemn same-sex intercourse, but each passage remains contested. Whether these passages refer to homosexuality hinges on whether the social context limits the references to a more specific form: they may prohibit male pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars hold the position that these passages forbid sex between men in general. Another debate concerns the translation of key terms: (), (), and () in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9. Meanwhile, other passages in the New Testament, such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Centurion's Servant, and Jesus's teaching on divorce, might or might not refer to homosexuality.
Romans 1:26–27
The context within Romans 1:26–27 is Paul's mission to the gentiles, the gospel being "to the Jew first and to the Greek" (1:16), followed by a description of pagan idolatry in verses 1:21–25. The phrase "passions of dishonor" (KJV: "vile affections") translates , meaning 'dishonor, ignominy, disgrace'.
In the expressions "natural use" and "contrary to nature", "nature" translates , . The term error translates , ().
David Aune says Paul is taking a protreptic approach, meaning that Paul taught on homoeroticism orally and then consolidated these views into written text in order to bring people to the gospel.
Furthermore, some contend 1:18–32 represents not Paul's own position but his summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism. Calvin Porter, for example, concludes that "in 2:1–16, as well as through Romans as a whole, Paul, as part of his gentile mission, challenges, argues against, and refutes both the content of the discourse [of 1.18–32] and the practice of using such discourses. If that is the case then the ideas in Rom. 1.18–32 are not Paul's. They are ideas which obstruct Paul's gentile mission theology and practice."
Natural law The authors of the New Testament had their roots in the Jewish tradition, which is commonly interpreted as prohibiting homosexuality. A more conservative biblical interpretation contends "the most authentic reading of [Romans] 1:26–27 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity".
Underlying Paul's thinking is Genesis 2:22–24, "The Lord God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; ...That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." For Paul, God's intended order is for male and female sexual relationships, united in marriage. Unnatural law is also related to who is being penetrated. Plato argues that homosexual penetration disrupts the hierarchy of men on top and women being mounted. That is what he saw as natural, and therefore same-sex relationships were unnatural. In 1 Romans, Paul is giving examples of what happens when people abandon God's plan.
The passage has been described by David Hilborn of the Evangelical Alliance as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate".Hilborn, D. (2002) Homosexuality and Scripture. Evangelical Alliance. In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.
Yale University professor John Boswell (1980) speculated that the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, but rather "homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons". Boswell argues that the conceptual modality (natural laws) which would provide the basis for the condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior to the Enlightenment era. Richard B. Hays argues that Romans 1:26–27 is part of a general condemnation of humans, in which males and females, have rejected their creational (as in Genesis) distinctions, with homoeroticism being intrinsically wrong.
John J. McNeill (1993) also invokes "heterosexuals" who "abandoned heterosexuality" or "exchanged heterosexuality for homosexuality". Joe Dallas (1996), opposing what he saw as "pro-gay theology" behind such interpretations, contended that the apostle Paul is condemning changing "the natural use into that which is against nature" (Romans 1:26–27), and to suggest that Paul is referring to "heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires unreasonable mental gymnastics".
Idolatrous practices Jeramy Townsley goes on to specify the context of Romans 1:26–27 as the continuation of Paul's condemnation of the worship of pagan gods from earlier in the chapter, linking the 'homosexuality' implied in Romans 1:27 to the practice of temple prostitution with castrated priests of Cybele, practices condemned more explicitly in the Old Testament (1 Kings 15:12, 2 Kings 23:7), the same religious group that violently attacked Paul in Ephesus, driving him from the city (Acts 19). The implication is that the goddess religions, the castrated priests and temple prostitution had a wide impact in ancient Mediterranean culture so would immediately evoke an image for the 1st-century audience of non-Yahwistic religious idolatry, practices not familiar to the modern reader, which makes it easy to misinterpret these verses. Brooten notes that the idea of sexual acts between women were disapproved by pagan gods as well, noting that Isis turned Iphis into a male to cure "monstrous" love between Iphis and Ianthe, meaning gentile sin in pagan idol worship can not be directly linked to same-sex love. On the other hand, Brooten notes that Clement of Alexandria likely interpreted Romans 1:27 as a condemnation of lesbians. Mona West argues that Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation. West argues that Paul is speaking to a gentile audience, in terms that they would understand, to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Female homosexuality In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26–27 (ESV), Paul writes, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature". This is only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Most interpreters assume that, due to the analogy with same-sex lust between males, Paul is referring to female same-sex behavior, although this assumption is not conclusive, and it remains difficult to discern exactly what Paul meant by women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural.Nissinen, M. (1998) Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. .
"Unnatural" intercourse between women can also link to the passive-active role that was present in Roman culture. A female acting as a penetrator or a male acting as the penetrated would unhinge the standards of masculinity and femininity at the time.
While Paul does not explicitly address female same-sex relationships, Harper suggest that his silence speaks for itself and that Romans holds unspoken prejudice about the passive partner.
Brooten cites both Anastasios and Augustine as explicitly rejecting the 'lesbian hypothesis'. Hanks asserts that "not until John Chrysostom () does anyone (mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between two women". Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the 'lesbian' hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria.
Translating key terms
The Greek word appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, Paul says:
The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version), "sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation), or "homosexuals" (New American Standard Bible), "men who practice homosexuality" (English Standard Version), "those who abuse themselves with men" (Amplified Bible), "for those who have a twisted view of sex" (New International Readers Version), "for sexual perverts" (Good News Translation), "for abusers of themselves with men" (American Standard Version) or, in German and several other Northern European languages, as "pederasts." The original term is unknown before it appears in Paul's writings. (), meaning 'a male who lies down with a male' (, , 'male'; , , 'bed'), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9–10.
The term is thought to be either a Jewish coinage from the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 20:13, or even Paul's own coinage:David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, 1990. Page 213: "The details of Boswell's argument have been challenged by several scholars — to this nonspecialist, persuasively.166 These challengers suggest that arsenokoites was coined in an attempt to render the awkward[Page 214] phrasing of the Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 into Greek,167 or that it derives from an almost identical construction in the Septuagint translation of the Leviticus prohibitions.168 A neologism was needed precisely because the Greeks did not have a word for homosexuality, only for specific homosexual relations (pederasty) and roles ..."166 G. R. Edwards (1984:82), D. F. Wright (1984), Johansson (1985). The arguments are technical and cannot be summarized here.
Arguments against a reference to homosexual behavior In contrast, John Boswell argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul, and that given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common pagan Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether it referred only to anal sex of any form. Other translations of the word, based on examinations of the context of its subsequent uses, include Dale B. Martin's (1996), who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader", and Boswell's (1980) who argued it referred to "homosexual rape" or homosexual prostitutes. Like Martin Luther, Scroggs perceives it as referring to exploitative pederasty.
The term was rarely used in Church writings (Elliott 1994) with Townsley (2003), counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature, although St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time, and Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of with their wives" (Townsley 2003). Moreover, Hippolytus of Rome in his Refutation of all Heresies describes a Gnostic teaching, according to which an evil angel Naas committed adultery with Eve and with Adam.Hippolytus. Refutation of all Heresies. Book V, Ch 21 The context suggests the translation of as pederasty, although it might have a different meaning.Martin, D. B. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences
John Boswell argues that in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers specifically to male prostitution.
In his 2006 book Sex and the Single Savior, Dale B. Martin discusses examples of the word's usage outside of Paul's writings and argues that "no one knows" what it meant but that "It is certainly possible, I think probable, that referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex."