Three Interpretations of Romans 1:26-27

In the past, the Bible has been mis-used to oppose the abolition of slavery, then women’s rights, and then the civil rights movement. Today, it is recognized that the Bible doesn’t actually teach such viewpoints, and that such views are inexcusably backwards. I sincerely believe that the treatment of gay and trans people is the civil rights movement of our time, and that like in these cases, the Bible is being misinterpreted to support incorrect and unloving viewpoints; after all, history does have a way of repeating itself, often in the worst ways possible.

    In this post, we’ll be looking at one specific prooftext that’s often used to support the view that homosexuality is a sin - Romans 1:26-27 - and the different interpretations of this passage that exist today. Here is the entire passage in question, in context:

For having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, or were thankful, but became foolish in their reasoning, and their unwise heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish, and altered the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and birds, and tetrapods, and creeping [things]. Consequently, God gave them up in the covetings of their hearts to uncleanness, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who changed the truth of God into the lie, and revered and served the creation above the Creator, who is blessed for the ages, verily! Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use into the [thing] against nature. Likewise even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness, and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error. (Rom. 1:21-27)

    Interpretation #1: All homosexuality is a sin

This is the traditional interpretation, which sees the passage as saying that

Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use [heterosexual sex] into the thing against nature [lesbian sex]. Likewise [= both homosexual] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female [heterosexual sex], were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [homosexual sex], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error.

According to this interpretation, Paul was condemning all homosexuality as a sin, both lesbian and male homosexuality.

    Advantages

1. Has the advantage of being the traditional interpretation.
   
   
2. The word “likewise” (ομοιως in Greek) at the beginning of v. 27 appears to suggest that the sexual activity in v. 26 is of the same nature as that in v. 27 (that is, homosexual sex).

    Disadvantages

1. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question, whereas - obviously - very few gay people today are pagans and idolators.
   
   
2. The condemnation of lesbianism has no precedent in the Torah, which is supposed to be the full revelation of God’s law. If it is a sin, this would be the only passage to say as much.
   
   
3. In 25 out of the 28 other instances of the word “likewise” (ομοιως) in the New Testament, it would be impossible or illogical to use it to interpret the antecedent clause in the way that it is traditionally interpreted in Rom. 1:26-27 [1]. Thus, v. 26 probably should not be seen as condemning lesbianism.
   
   
4. According to this passage, the desires of those who were condemned were “changed [from] the natural use into the thing against nature.” This doesn’t lend itself to the traditional interpretation that it is referring to gay people, since their desires were never changed.
   
   
5. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action rather than an ongoing one.
   
   
6. Does not explain what the “retribution” was which was received by the males in v. 27.

    Interpretation #2: Temple prostitution is a sin

This interpretation argues that Paul was condemning temple prostitution in this passage. If this is correct, Romans 1:26-27 should be read like so:

Because of this [idolatry and paganism], God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use into the thing against nature [temple prostitution]. Likewise [= both temple prostitution] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [male temple prostitution], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error.

According to this interpretation, not all homosexuality is necessarily sin - at least not according to this passage - but only temple prostitution is inherently sinful and wrong, because of its roots in idolatry and paganism (see also 1 Cor. 6:12-20).

    Advantages

1. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question. This is extremely supportive of a temple prostitution interpretation.
   
   
2. The desires in question were “changed [from] the natural use into the thing against nature.” This fits with certain cults in Rome, in which originally heterosexual men resorted to homosexual temple prostitution and/or heterosexual priests who had taken a vow of chastity were rumored to have homosexual sex with one another [2].
   
   
3. Temple prostitution was already condemned under the Mosaic Law (Deut 23:18) and elsewhere in Paul’s epistles (1 Cor. 6:12-20), so there is precedent for seeing this as sinful, whereas this would be the first (and only) place in which lesbianism is condemned if the traditional interpretation were correct.

    Disadvantages

1. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action rather than an ongoing one.

2. Does not explain what the “retribution” was which was received by the males in v. 27.

    Interpretation #3: “Watchers” and Sodom

This is the newest interpretation of Romans 1:26-27, which sees it as referring (in verse 26) to the events of Genesis 6:1-2, in which angels (called “Watchers” in Jewish intertestamental literature) have sex with human women, and (in verse 27) to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was the rape of (male) angels by (male) humans [3]. This interpretation would read the passage like so:

Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use [sex with humans] into the thing against nature [sex with angels; Gen. 6:1-2]. Likewise [= both unnatural sex with angels] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [rape of angels; Gen. 19:4-7], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error [destruction of Sodom].

If this interpretation is correct, Paul was not condemning homosexuality in general, or even necessarily temple prostitution (although he did so elsewhere), but instead condemning these two specific instances and showing how they can be generalized to the larger pagan population.

    Advantages

1. Takes into account the cultural and literary context of intertestamental Jewish literature, which focuses quite a lot on the sin of the “Watchers” (the angels of Genesis 6:1-2).
   
   
2. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action. This would fit with the Watchers/Sodom interpretation which sees it as referring to the past events of the Genesis account.
   
   
3. Explains what the “retribution” was - the destruction of Sodom - which was received by the males in v. 27.
   
   
4. 2 Peter 2:4-7 and Jude 6-8 mention these two events in conjunction with one another, supporting the idea that Paul may have done the same. Jude even uses the same word as Paul, ομοιως, to connect the two events.

    Disadvantages

1. Greek-speaking former pagans in Rome, and even Hellenic Jews, may not have known the literary tradition of the Watchers.
   
   
2. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question, whereas the Watchers and Sodom events had little to do with idolatry according to the biblical accounts.

    Conclusion

So, which of these interpretations seems the most likely to you? Personally, I favor the temple prostitution interpretation, because it appears to make the most sense in context. However, all of the proposed interpretations have difficulties, most of all the traditional interpretation which sees this passage as Paul’s condemnation on all homosexuality.

    Whatever you take away from this post, though, I hope you are able to see that a blanket condemnation of homosexuality is, by far, not the only (or most likely) interpretation of Romans 1:26-27. Although this is the traditional interpretation, so were the pro-slavery interpretations in the pre-abolition period, and so were the anti-women’s-rights interpretations before the mid-twentieth century. Don’t let history repeat itself. See these anti-homosexuality interpretations for what they are: merely interpretations.

______________________________

[1] Banister, Jamie A. “Ὁμοίως and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 569-590.

[2] Gnuse, Robert K. “Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 45, no. 2 (2015): 68-87.

[3] Provance, Brett. “Romans 1:26-27 in Its Rhetorical Tradition.” In Greco-Roman and Jewish Tributaries to the New Testament, edited by Christopher S. Crawford, 83-116. Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018.