Interpreting what the Bible says requires an approach which looks carefully at the context. Both literary and community contexts are always important. So, before considering particular verses in Romans 1, we need to look at the wider narrative context.

“The letter to the church in Rome is Paul’s longest letter, and his most intricate argument. Many have seen it as a complete overview of Christian doctrine, but others feel Paul was dealing with a very specific issue as the ex-Jewish rabbi who became the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.” [2] As Graeme Codrington explains: “The view of Romans as a systematic theology has always been problematic, especially in how to integrate chapters 9 – 11 into the flow of the book. Any explanation of the purpose of the letter must result in a consistent exegesis that makes sense of the whole letter. And seeing it a summary of the Gospel does not achieve this.” [2]

So what might Paul be doing in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Romans? And indeed, throughout the whole of the epistle?

It seems to me that the traditional reading of Romans 1, that sees homosexual activity as part of a decent into immorality and, along with other things, a sign that God has abandoned people into the sin that they have chosen, is not an unreasonable initial reading of the immediate text of Romans 1: 16-32. A caveat to this comment must be that the verse which immediately follows this passage (Romans 2: 1) begs a question regarding Paul’s purpose in writing as he does in Romans 1: 16-32 and in the whole of the epistle. Is Paul, in some way, responding to Jewish views about Gentiles?

If these verses express Paul’s consider opinions, they might be better read as Paul having a specific set of excessive sinful behaviours in mind, rather than just homosexuality in general. A better reading of Romans 1: 16-32, is to see Paul speaking to a group of people who have “taken their sexuality to excess and gone against nature, descending into sexual depravity.” [2] In addition, it seems that the traditional reading of these verses fails to consider fully, given the ‘therefore’ of Romans 2: 1, the wider context of Paul’s concerns and hence his careful argument in the letter to the Romans. If either of these questions has some merit, then, as well as seeking to understand what particular excesses Paul is speaking of, we need to:

• take time to understand exactly who is being talked of;
• carefully ask whether this is Paul’s thinking, or whether he is effectively quoting others before then going on to comment on their beliefs, and if so, who they might be, and why might Paul be doing so;
• think about what having ‘gone against nature‘ means.

Graeme Codrington comments that, “most scholars believe that Paul was mainly addressing the issue of Jews and Gentiles and how they were to integrate in the New Testament era. He uses the central theme of covenant and God’s faithfulness and righteousness in covenant relationship to us as his main argument.” [2]

He quotes N.T. Wright as saying that Romans is primarily, “A Jewish Theology for the Gentile world, and a welcome for Gentiles designed to make the Jewish world jealous. … The creator/covenant god has brought his covenant purpose for Israel to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah, Jesus…. The actual argument of Romans, the ‘poetic sequence’ of the letter, relates to this underlying ‘narrative sequence,’ that is, the theological story of the creator’s dealings with Israel and the world, now retold so as to focus on Christ and the Spirit.” [1]

“In fact,” Codrington continues, “Wright goes further to suggest that Paul’s specific reason for writing the letter to church in Rome was to ensure that Jews and Gentiles in Rome worked together and acted as a unified church, in order to provide a base for his missionary activities in the West. This is a very compelling reading of the whole letter.” [2]

In the first of a series of articles about Romans, Daniel Castello explains it as follows:

“Here in the Epistle to the Romans, [Paul] is advocating something that earlier in his life he would have found detestable: the inclusion of the Gentiles in Israel. What a turn of events! When Paul says he is crucified with Christ, he is not just saying something platitudinous; he speaks this way out of a reality, one that undoubtedly causes him shame, inspires within him humility, and perhaps creates within him sympathy for his fellow Jews. And yet this gospel occasioned for Paul tortuous forms of physical hardship and persecution (including stonings and lashes).

These many features of his background led him to consider his apostleship with dedication and passion. At one point, he was persecuting fellow Jews for their beliefs in Jesus as Messiah; later, he became the greatest advocate for Gentile Christians among his fellow Jewish Christians. The shift was difficult for onlookers to believe and difficult for Paul to bear. The Jewish-Christian interface is not something that Paul talks about simply; it is the very stuff of his life.” [6]

Paul probably wrote to the Roman church from Corinth. The epistle is dated AD late 55 to early 57. Some textual variants name Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae, as the messenger who took the epistle to Rome. [5] Codrington comments as follows:

“Emperor Claudius had banished Jews from Rome in 49AD, leaving an entirely Gentile church to grow without Jewish influence – a unique circumstance in the early church era. Claudius died in 54AD, and Jews began to return to Rome. Jewish Christians would have come back to the Roman church but probably not welcomed with open arms – there was considerable tension throughout the region between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul was planning to use Rome as a base for his missionary work in the western Mediterranean, but was nervous that Rome would succumb to the problems that had happened in Antioch when he was based there, when Jewish Christians had tried to impose Jewish traditions on the church there, and caused deep divisions between Jews and Gentiles. These problems are explained in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, including a confrontation Paul had with Peter himself over the issue of the divide between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.” [2]

This issue of the divide between Jews and Gentiles was the single most significant issue that the early church had to deal with, and provoked its first crisis.

Codrington argues that it is “no surprise that Paul dedicates a whole letter to the issue, and that in this letter we see some of his most passionate and insightful writings. This letter to the Roman church was written in order to show that the Gospel might have come to the Jews first, but it is intended for everyone. Gentiles should not marginalise Jews, nor Jews impose their Judaistic history on the Gentiles. Gentiles should not look down on Jews for their ancient spiritual practices. Jews should not try and impose these practices on Gentiles. Jews should not look down on Gentiles for some of the cultural practices of the Greeks and Romans. And Gentiles should be careful not to assimilate too closely to the Graeco-Roman culture, especially when doing so caused their Jewish brothers and sisters to battle with their faith. For example, in Acts 15:28-29, in a letter written to the churches, Christians were told that the Jewish law was no longer applicable, but that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality. Paul specifically overrides this in Romans, with a few references to food sacrificed to idols, explaining that there are no issues with this at all in itself, but that Christians should be sensitive to each other, and especially sensitive to their weaker brothers and sisters and those with less faith (see Romans 14 in particular).” [2]

I think that this ‘theory’ about the letter to the Roman church is really quite plausible. If we are willing to accept that this is, at least, one possible way of reading the epistle, then we need to return to the text of its first chapter and look carefully at what Paul may be saying.

It seems to me that Codrington is right to assert that, “Paul begins his letter by using standard Jewish critiques of Gentiles, and especially Jewish critiques of Rome itself. These include the Jewish disgust of public nudity, public displays of sensuousness, the revealing clothes the Romans wore, homosexual relationships, and Gentile eating habits.” [2]

Codrington suggests that Jewish Christians, throughout the Roman Empire, were gravely concerned about Gentile Christians who still frequented the temples and ate food sacrificed in those temples. He says: “All of these issues were general concerns in many locations at the time – passages similar to Romans 1:18-32 can be found in The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example (in fact, some scholars suggest that Romans 1:18-32 are actually part of well-known Hellenistic Jewish literature which Paul goes on to critique in Romans 2.” [2]

Gary Shogren, in a blog which takes a traditional, non-affirming, stance on sexuality, highlights something of the parallel nature of this part of Romans with the text of particular parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“In 1:29-31 Paul writes up a so-called vice list. Vice lists and virtue lists were a common figure of speech in that era, whereby the author would compile a list of [behaviours] and present them with little elaboration, in order to give his readers direction toward holiness and away from wickedness. One example from the Dead Sea Scrolls: “to the spirit of deceit belong greed, sluggishness in the service of justice, wickedness, falsehood, pride, haughtiness of heart, dishonesty, trickery, cruelty, much insincerity, impatience, much foolishness, etc.” (1QS IV, 9-11). Philo wrote one list that contains a whopping 147 elements. We have already mentioned 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; two other vice lists were likewise connected with exclusion from the eschatological kingdom (Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5). The fruit of the Spirit are presented in the form of a virtue list (Gal 5:22-23).

Paul mentions 20 elements in this list, ranging from breaking the Ten Commandments (“they disobey their parents”) to the mundane (“boasting”). If the greatest commandment of Torah was to love Yahweh with all one’s being (Deut 6:4), then to be a “God-hater” (v. 30) is the greatest form of wickedness.” [7]

The ‘You, therefore, have no excuse’ (Διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ ὦ ἄνθρωπε = Therefore inexcusable you are O man) at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Romans is very significant. It is difficult to overemphasize its importance. The key question is who is being addressed in these words.

Codrington comments: “The only reading that fits into the overall flow of Romans and makes sense of the message of the letter is that in Romans 2:1 the shift to the direct address (the second person singular), along with the coordinating conjunction (Greek:  Διὸ), indicates that the reader who agrees with or [the person] responsible for writing Romans 1:18-32 is now the person addressed.” [2]

Having used a very Jewish form of critique of the Gentiles, Paul, in continuing his argument (Romans 2) is turning back to face his Jewish listeners/readers and saying: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” [Romans 2: 1, NIV]. This is a rebuke and it is potent! [8][9][10][11]

If this is the case, Paul is effectively saying that those who believe the things stated in Romans 1: 18-32 are the one’s who will face God’s judgement. So, Paul speaks to those who support the words spoken in Romans 1:18-32 and he says:

“Because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:5. NIV)

This is a shocking statement for the Jewish Christians in Rome. Really shocking! Paul speaks to them directly, he quotes their argument/opinions and follows it with this statement: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” [Romans 2: 1, NIV]

Paul goes on, in the verses that follow, to argue that both Jew and Gentile have rebelled against God and that: “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favouritism.” [Romans 2: 9-11, NIV]

It is from this base that Paul develops his argument in chapter 2-8 of Romans. God’s grace and justification ‘through faith alone‘ means that, as Codrington says: “Jews are welcomed equally with Gentiles, not rejected (chapters 9-11). So now the church must live in unity, characterised by love – for each other and for everyone (chapters 12-13). Unity requires agreeing to remain in diversity and accept differences in the way we express our faith (chapters 14-16).” [2]

The whole epistle is essentially the outworking of Paul’s understanding of God’s grace. Codrington points us to what N.T. Wright says: “The poetic sequence of Romans, therefore, consists of a major argument, as is now regularly recognized, running not just as far as chap. 8 but all the way to chap. 11. A good deal of this argument is a matter of setting up the terms of the discussion so that they can then be used quite directly when the real issue is confronted head on. Once the great argument is complete, Paul can turn to other matters in chaps. 12-16. These are not to be marginalized: 15: 7-13, for instance, has a good claim to be considered the real summing-up of the entire letter, not merely of 14: 1 – 15: 6.” [1][2]

Codrington also points us to” “A good summary of … the whole letter to the Romans … in Romans 14:13-14 (similar to 2:1): ‘Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.‘” [Romans 14: 13-14, NIV]

Ultimately, Paul makes his point in summary in Romans 15: 7-13: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” [Romans 15: 7, NIV] … “Jews and Gentiles alike have disappointed God, but God is faithful and has established a new covenant with us, in Jesus.” [2]

So, back to Romans 1:18-32. …

It seems as though Paul’s main concern is not, primarily at least, with the content of these verses but rather with what Jewish Christians might think about Gentile behaviour. Paul is concerned about Jewish judgement of Gentiles. If we are to understand these verses correctly, this is the context within which we must work. It is, effectively, the only way in which things makes sense. The pronouncements in these verses are the self-righteous expression of Jewish condemnation of Gentiles!

As Codrington states: “The list of sins is therefore more about what Jewish people found repulsive in Gentiles than what Paul did.” [2] As the list goes on, it becomes easier and easier to hear a developing bitterness and a repudiation/judgement on virtually every aspect of Gentile life. In fact, the list covers every perceived evil in community, family and individual life that must have also been as true of Jews as well as Gentiles! … For instance, who has never disobeyed their parents? [Romans 1: 30]

The anger and judgement expressed in this passage highlights the importance of Paul’s words about judging others which follow immediately in Romans 2: 1. Paul is not describing homosexuality as worse than any other sin, but rather talking of excesses in the Gentile world. It is difficult to equate the excessive behaviour Paul seems to be describing here, with loving, close and committed same sex relationships.

We cannot even be sure that Paul sees things the way that they are expressed in these verses. Paul is primarily pointing out that seeing other people’s activities as vile and condemning them for acting in this way brings judgement on those making the assessment. … This must give us grounds to take stock of our own attitudes.

On the other hand, neither can we be sure, from this passage, that homosexuality is not sinful. There are two grounds for this.

The first is related to the context in which Paul is arguing – the idolatry of the Gentile world and particularly as it appeared in Corinth and Rome. It is impossible to separate out pagan worship in Rome’s temples or the excesses of Roman patrons to their younger charges, or the behaviour of owners with slaves, from the excesses of which Paul writes. We just cannot tell what Paul or, perhaps, any other commentator would want to say about committed, faithful homosexual relationships which may, or may not have been recognised in the society of the time. We just don’t know.

The second relates to the use in this part of the letter to the Romans of the argument that some things are ‘against nature‘ (παρὰ φύσιν). [Romans 1: 26-27] We will come back to this conundrum in another article.

We cannot legitimately use Romans 1: 16-32 to condemn all homosexual behaviour, nor can we justifiably argue that committed, faithful homosexual relationships are acceptable. That they might not be within the scope of Paul’s developing argument does not, in and of itself, indicate approval.

If, however, we look at the whole of the letter to the Romans, which emphasises God’s love, faithfulness and kindness to us, it is “quite difficult to imagine that Paul would use these verses to speak against lifelong, loving, covenantal same gender relationships. The emphasis of Romans 1 is that people who push the boundaries of their behaviour to unnatural extents are sinning against God. But all of us do this in one way or another, and we’re all in need of God’s grace.” [2]

In this short article, we have, I think, shown that there are at least some grounds for questioning traditional assumptions about the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans. When these verses are, set alongside Paul’s emphasis in the letter on God’s grace, justification by faith, and God’s faithfulness and kindness towards us, they leave us needing to take great care in how we apply them in our own context.

We will be arguing from unsure foundations if we assert that the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans makes an unequivocal statement about lifelong, loving, covenantal same-gender relationships.

We are left, however, with one significant issue to address which might seem to be conclusive – the question of what is meant by something being ‘against nature‘ (παρὰ φύσιν). We will look at this question in another short article which can be found here. Although we will need to continue to bear in mind a reservation/uncertainty about the place that Romans 1: 26-27 has in Paul’s thinking. Is it Paul’s own views, or is he quoting others? Is Paul quoting what many a Jewish Christian might be thinking and then countering it with his ‘you therefore’ in Romans 2: 1? Or is he expressing, in Romans 1:16-32, his own understanding of God’s position?

References

1. N.T. Wright: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/05/07/romans-and-the-theology-of-paul, accessed on 7th June 2024.
2. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 10: Re-read Romans 1; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/10/15/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-10-re-read-romans-1, accessed on 7th June 2024.
3. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 11; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/10/15/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-11-shameful-acts-and-going-against-nature, accessed on 8th June 2024.
4. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 12; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/11/12/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-12-what-romans-1-is-really-all-about, accessed on 8th June 2024.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans, accessed on 9th June 2024.
6. Daniel Castello; Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans; https://spu.edu/lectio/introduction-to-the-epistle-to-the-romans, accessed on 9th June 2024.
7. Gary Shogren; Romans Commentary, Romans 1:18-3:20; https://openoureyeslord.com/2018/02/27/romans-commentary-romans-118-320, accessed on 10th June 2024.
8. https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/2/Romans-2-1.html, accessed on 13th June 2024.
9. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/2-1.htm, accessed on 13th June 2024.
10. Dan Wilkinson; The Punctuation Mark That Might Change How You Read Romans;  https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/09/the-punctuation-mark-that-might-change-how-you-read-romans, accessed on 13th June 2024. Note: this article draws on  reference [11] of which I have not been able to get a copy.
11. C.L. Porter; Romans 1.18–32: Its Role in the Developing Arguement; in New Testament Studies, 40(02), 1994; p210.