What are some opinions as to the meaning of Romans Chapter 1 verse 26?

Answer 1

This verse reads:

" Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones."

Some have used this verse as 'proof' that homosexuality is wrong. Unlike the reference in 1 Corinthians which is simply a reference to a particular situation in a particular church at a particular time, many have said that because Romans is Paul's admirable text book on theology, this is categorically an indictment against homosexuality, and specifically lesbianism. Moreover, the next verse seals this belief:

" In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error"

And this indictment seems to be the case if the verses are read at face value.

However, examination of the nuances of the Greek tell a different story.

In verse 26, the emphasis in the Greek is on the word 'lust' and also on the exchange of natural relations for unnatural ones. There are those who preconceive what these 'unnatural' relationships are - namely lesbian relationships. But the words do not state this. The nuances of the Greek suggest this interpretation:

" Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts".Lusts not love. The emphasis is that lust is wrong, but love is good and wholesone whatever shape or for that love takes.

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." For lesbians, natural relations are with another woman. For heterosexuals this is with a man. And this verse is therefore indicting those forced, coerced or tempted into relationships that are against there natural sexuality whatever that may be.

In the subsequent verse the emphasis in the Greek is on the exchange of lust in place of love. Again, the term 'natural' refers to heterosexual men, but homosexual men - whose natural sexuality would be drawn to loving relationships with other men, - are not mentioned. Nor is any indictment of their homosexuality.

A loving relationship between two men is never mentioned or condemned; only 'lustful' acts between two men. In modern society this would allegorise as an acceptance of a lovingrelationship between two gay men but a condemnation of, as an example, a sexual predator picking up one-night stands at a gay bar.

In both these verses we must also look towards the teaching of Jesus. He never mentions sexuality of any sort (except the rules governing marriage, divorce and treating women as lust-objects and as possessions) and so we must infer that for him it was no big deal.

Furthermore, Psalm 139 maeks it clear that God created each and every one of us as we are, warts and all. And we are all made in the image of God. Homosexuality is not a deliberate lifestyle choice, nor an 'illness' but simply something in the way we are made by God. Therefore, looking at this scripture, and the teachings surrounding it in The Bible, there is no reason at all to suggest that it speaks of homosexuality as being sinful. It is far more likely that those who regard it thus are cherrypiciking scripture somewhat to erroneously back up their own preconceived prejudices.