The first thing we notice in the passage itself is that Paul puts this list of spiraling sins within the context of idolatry (a familiar theme). When people reject the God of creation they, in their wickedness, invent gods out of creation; animals and birds and reptiles. One follows the other. When we refuse to worship the only One worthy of worship, we will find other things to worship. Worshiping seems to be one of those inborn needs of mankind.
    But Paul has a broader net to cast here than simply to list the sins of man. He will, in the first three chapters of Romans, show everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We all stand in need of a salvation we cannot achieve or earn or purchase.
    Here Paul is simply giving a natural progression for those who reject God and turn to idol worship. He is not at all saying that this is the totality of their wickedness or that idol worship is the only thing that can produce this type of wickedness. He was, in reality, targeting the Jews by exampling one group who stand exactly opposite their supposed position with God. When he gets them set up... when they are thinking, "Thank God I'm not like those people," Paul nails them in chapter 2. In the end it is clear we are all sinners and all need the salvation God has provided in Christ Jesus; that no one, either Jew or pagan or Gentile, stand closer to God than anyone else.

Genesis Leviticus Judges Corinthians Timothy Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

    When all is said and done, as a species mankind is greedy, depraved, envious, and disobedient of our parents. Regardless of our heritage, we all stand before God in need of Christ.
    But, at the same time, the fact that Paul did couch this progression within the framework of idol worship does limit the scope of its use when simply looking at this passage by itself. All these things stand condemned here as they were (or are) practiced by idol worshipers. Every Israelite in Paul's day would have remembered the Leviticus passages we looked at earlier. Anyone of the day would have had to look no further than the temple of Aphrodite's in Corinth to find examples of sexual behavior used for the worship of the goddess.
    While Paul does eventually make it clear we all stand guilty of sin before God, here he is giving us examples of behavior of which few among us have any first hand knowledge. We cannot, therefore, apply the passage, and especially the verses in question specifically, to situations that stand outside of the context Paul used.

    This is the area you rarely hear about when someone is trying to prove homosexuals stand condemned. Why? Because their argument falls apart when we get back to the original language and meanings of words. They much prefer to stay with the black and white translations, transliterations and paraphrases of today. Of course they ignore the fact that many modern translations do not agree with each other on specific points throughout Scripture.
    Essentially, I have come across three interpretations of this passage - specifically verses 26 and 27.
    The first one is that these verses don't mention sex or sexuality at all, or, if they do, they don't necessarily mean homosexual behavior but rather are talking about any non-procreative sexual behavior. This view, like the view that says Genesis 19 is only condemning inhospitality, does damage to the Scripture in my opinion. It does not allow Scripture to speak for itself. Instead it forces an unsupported interpretation into the words. I fully reject this viewpoint.
    Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly refer to sexual behavior and specifically to homosexual behavior. And they clearly allow homosexual behavior (remember the context!) to stand condemned. What they don't do is condemn homosexuals or homosexuality or homosexual behavior per se.

Genesis Leviticus Judges Corinthians Timothy Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

    The second argument is that this passage condemns at least homosexual behavior and very probably homosexuality across the board. Obviously if I agreed with this viewpoint I wouldn't be here writing this page. For now, let it be enough to say I disagree with this viewpoint for basically the same reason I disagree with the first. As we go along in this study I will be comparing this interpretation with the third interpretation.
    The third argument is the position I hold. It is that Paul condemns homosexual behavior when it is performed by heterosexual people. Specifically here that behavior is condemned within the context of idol worship. However, considering the larger context in which this passage is placed and Paul's obvious intent through the first three chapters of Romans, it is, at best, a weak argument that limits this passage strictly to idol worship.
     The problem revolves around the Greek words para physin. The NIV translates these two words as against nature. The argument on both side of this issue (at least in the last two viewpoints I mentioned) hinge on the meaning of these two words.
    Those who condemn gay people from this passage interpret the word physin (nature) as being a universal law of nature. Indeed, physin is the root of the English word physics. Also, that use of the word was common among the Stoic philosophers that Paul undoubtedly had read. So, admittedly, there is some evidence for that interpretation. And, if that interpretation is correct, homosexual behavior does, indeed, stand condemned because it flies in the face of the natural order of the universe regardless of whether or not it is practiced in the worship of idols.
    However, since Paul wasn't using this passage to set up Stoic philosophers, but Jewish legalists, it calls into question whether that is the meaning he had in mind. Since the Jewish legalist would be more concerned with God's Laws than with universal laws it seems less likely that Paul would have turned to a meaning that held little importance to his audience.
    The other side of the coin says the words para physin, as Paul used them, refer to a personal or societal nature. As an example, I live in Colorado. Especially for those who live in the Denver area, it might be considered para physin not to watch the Denver Broncos when they play. It is, in many ways a natural (physikan) societal ritual. For me personally it is certainly physikan to be in front of the TV on game day.
    Good scholarship requires us, then, to determine exactly what Paul meant. The easiest way to do that is to compare his use of the same term in other places. Fortunately, this instance is not the only time Paul used the phrases. So let's begin by taking a look at the other passages in which he employed para physin or physikan. As we do, try out the two possible interpretations of the words used. Which one fits best; a natural or spiritual law of the universe? or a natural personal or societal behavior? I will underline the words that are translated from physikan or para physin or their variations.

Genesis Leviticus Judges Corinthians Timothy Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

Romans 2:14
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Romans 2:27(NIV)
The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
Romans 2:27(KJV^†)
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.