What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: Romans 1:26

Romans 1:26

"Their women exchanged natural relations (την φυσικην χρησιν — ten physiken chresin) for unnatural (την παρα φυσιν — ten para physin)" There seems to be no doubt that "chresis" here means sexual activity. So the question, it seems to me, is one of understanding "nature —physis," "natural — physiken," and "unnatural — para physin." Are we to understand it as a single nature, the nature of creation, the nature of a single humanity, or are we to take it, as some have urged, as the personal nature of each individual?

Well, it's a blanket statement. Nothing about doing things contrary to their nature, but simply contrary to "nature." Those who urge restricting the force of this verse and the following one to those of heterosexual orientation acknowledge that Paul knew nothing of orientations, just conduct. So in his mind, there cannot have been a separate nature for the homosexually oriented.

Early writers similarly see nature as a single thing. For example, Tertullian (155/160-240/250) writes, "When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way." And Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) writes,"For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore, if this is the part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if they had not had this use given to them by nature?"

Brendan Byrne, S.J., an Australian Jesuit, wrote the commentary on Romans in the Sacra Pagina series, published in 1996. He is sympathetic to the view that would take modern psychology into account in applying these verses. But he notes that, "The preposition (para) in the Greek phrase para physin here has the strong sense of 'contrary to …' Josephus … uses precisely the phrase para physin in criticism of homosexual union. … Used in this strong sense, the phrase was a commonplace in popular Stoic ethical discussion and features prominently in literature debating the propriety of same-sex love. The Pauline usage reflects a popular appropriation of the Stoic tradition." In another place he adds, "The language reflects the conventional Stoic sense of 'nature' as the established order of things (cf. 11:21,24)."

So it seems to me that the literal meaning of this verse, and the way Paul would have intended it, is to regard all female homosexual behavior as wrong. This also has implications for male behavior, which is explicitly discussed in verse 27.

Because of the length of the discussion, I will stop here, and return with discussion of verse 27 and my conclusions on the nature/orientation question in a subsequent post.