“The Clearest Anti-Gay Verse. Or Is It?”

When words of salvation are turned into weapons of exclusion.

The Smoking Gun

Out of the six verses that speak against same sex activity in the whole Bible, this one seems the strongest of them all:

^“…….for this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercoursefor unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercoursewith females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27

This passage is frequently quoted in sermons and social media debates as the final word: “God’s unmistakable judgment on same-sex relationships”.

But is it?

Or have we turned a warning against judgment into a weapon of judgment itself?

The Crucial Question

In order to get to the root of what this passage actually teaches, we must first ask:

Is Paul condemning all same-sex sexual activity in every context?
Was Paul describing exploitative, idolatrous practices, or loving, mutual relationships?
Was his concern rooted in biology or something else?

To understand what Paul is truly addressing, we must look deeper—into both the biblical and historical context.

The Historical Context

The Jews had been expelled from Rome in 49 CE by Emperor Claudius. So the Gentiles started growing the house churches without Jews present, bringing new leadership, new culture, and new rules.

When the Jews started returning in 54 CE after Claudius died, they found the house churches to be very different than when they left! Rules had changed. Rules that they considered required for salvation. They felt that the Gentiles had brought “sin” into the church.

The Biblical Context

The book of Romans is a letter that Paul wrote to the church in Rome because they were fighting. Composed of Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles), these house churches were arguing over who was more righteous, who was really saved, and which rules to uphold.

Jews thought the Gentiles needed to follow Jewish law (Torah) to be fully included. While the Gentile believers, not raised under Torah, relied on grace and faith in Jesus alone. There was tension over how to relate to issues like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath keeping.

So Paul writes to confront them.

He wants to tell them to stop judging each other. We have all fallen short of God’s standard, neither group is better (Romans 3:23) and salvation is through Jesus alone, not by the works we do. God shows no partiality (2:11), and we are given true life as a gift (3:24).

Paul’s Confrontational Method

To address the tension, Paul chose a method that scholars like Walter Brueggemann call the rhetorical entrapment, when the accuser describes the extreme sinfulness of others to get the listener on board, only to turn the judgement around to point at the listener for conviction.

An example of this is the prophet Nathan confronting King David in 2 Samuel 12:1–13. David had had an affair, got the girl pregnant, and then kills her husband. So God sends the prophet Nathan. Rather than accusing David outright, Nathan tells him a parable about a rich man who steals a poor man’s only beloved lamb. David’s sense of justice and compassion provokes him to outrage at the rich man’s cruelty. Then Nathan turns the pointing finger around to David, and reveals the truth with a piercing line: “You are the man!”

By letting David first condemn the injustice from a safe emotional distance, Nathan bypasses the king’s defenses and leads him to self-awareness and repentance. It’s a masterclass in confrontation—conviction through story rather than accusation.

Paul uses this rhetorical entrapment to confront the churches in Rome. He tells of horrible sins that are well known at the time, gets everyone nodding in agreement before flipping the script.

We see this in the first part of the chapter, Paul uses “they“, as he speaks of those terrible sinners:

“They changed the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles [idolatry]. Therefore God gave them over [lets them] in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. Theyexchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever [idolatry]. For this reason God gavethemover to dishonorable passions. Their …. their ….their …. they …. them ….They …. they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet theynot only do them but even applaud others who practice them.” Romans 1:24-27

Paul is speaking of well known sins the audience would be aware of, but the purpose of his teaching is not “they” in the first chapter. His main point is in chapter 2, where he turns the pointing finger back round and addresses “you”.

“Therefore, youare without excuse..when you judge others, for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you,the judge, are doing the very same things.. Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged in accordance with the law. …You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? Youwho boast in the law, doyoudishonor God by your transgression of the law? Romans 2

The Irony

Chapter 1 is Paul’s setup: those sinners
Chapter 2 is Paul’s punch line: you are no better.

Many people have used the setup (chapter 1) as the punchline (chapter 2), missing Paul’s main point all-together.

Paul’s goal wasn’t to single out certain sinners. His goal was to expose the self-righteousness of those doing the judging.

What was meant to be a mirror of conviction, we’ve turned into a weapon of exclusion.

Who were the Sinners in Paul’s Example?

Paul was never vague in his writing. He was known for his sharp (and often uncomfortable) words and didn’t shy away from bold language or provocative examples.

He chose words and examples that his audience would immediately recognize. Paul was aiming for rhetorical impact, deliberately referencing well-known practices that would provoke strong moral reactions.

That was the point: to get his listeners nodding in agreement—before turning the judgment back on them.

So who were the sinners he described?

The text gives us some clues and what we know about the culture:

People involved in idolatry

The first part of the passage explains the idolatry:

“They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Romans 1:22–28

Note:

In the Greco-Roman world, sexual practices in pagan religious contexts were linked to power, hierarchy, and spiritual ritual (not loving, mutual relationships). For instance, followers of Cybele, the “Mother of the Gods,” included male eunuch priests known as galli who castrated themselves and adopted feminine attire in service of the goddess. Similarly, the Dionysian (Bacchic) mysteries involved nocturnal celebrations where men and women freely mingled and engaged in ritual dances, wine-fueled ecstasy, and sexual behavior as part of worship.

Idolatry same sex orgies were also well known among the Canaanites, Babylonians, Sumerians, Akkadian, Assyrians, and Mesopotamians, who worshipped a sex goddess named Ishtar/Inanna. Part of the offering rituals were male same sex activities and prostitution, with occasional inclusion of the women.

The List of their sins

The second part of the passage gives a direct list of specific sins

“They were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.” Romans 1:29–32

What’s striking is that same-sex behavior isn’t included in this list. Instead, it appears in the prior section, closely tied to idolatry. That placement seems intentional, aligning with what we know of Greco-Roman cultic practices, where ritual same-sex acts were often part of idol worship.

Married Couples

In Romans 1:26, Paul mentions it was men and “their women” (θήλειαι αὐτῶν). The word “their” implies ownership. If ownership is the case, it would refer to husbands and their wives both going to same-sex orgies.

Ancient poetry of that day (ie Juvenal’s Satire 6) tells us of same-sex orgies (men with men and women with women) that would occur in elite social spaces and certain religious or ritualistic contexts, where entertainment often included drinking and sexual encounters with slaves or foreigners.

Was Paul speaking same sex relationships?

Could “the sinners” in the example be people that were in same sex loving relationships?

While same sex sexual activity was common in pediastry, orgies, and idolatry, faithful and loving same sex relationships of same age and status were not. These did exist, but were hidden, not socially acceptable, and not well known (unless you were part of it or a close friend was).

Famous same sex relationships in the history books give us a glimpse into the difference between public and hidden same sex relationships of Paul’s day:

Roman Emperor Nero (66CE) married a boy. He took a slave boy named Sporus that Nero, castrated him and forced him to marry him, wear women’s clothing and pretend to be his dead wife (who Nero had kicked to death when she was pregnant). Nero also raped temple priests and committed incest with his mother. Not the best marriage example.
Plato’s Symposium describes a long-term same sex relationship of a young boy and an older male. Their relationship was not exclusive and the story tells how the younger boy was “penetrated by many men”.
Achilles and Patroclus (homers Iliad) was not a commitment and not monogamous, as both men were also sleeping with females.
Xenophon is an Ephesians tale” is a story of two young boys inlove (teenagers) and who are hiding their love. They hid it because it was not acceptable. They were of the same age and same status.
Achilles Tatius is a novel of hidden lovers of same age. Leucipoe and clitophon (20 and 16), but one was about to go marry a woman.
Encolpius and Ascyltos is a story of two older men that compete aggressively to have sex with a 16 year old boy, who was Encolpius’ slave.

Paul’s Word Choices

Paul was known for taking cultural examples, words, and norms to explain a truth to his audience. Whether Paul agreed or disagreed, he often used cultural analogies in his teachings.

His analogies or cultural vocabulary didn’t mean he agreed. He used them as hooks and attention grabbers.

He knew what he was doing, and used words he knew would be exactly what his audience needed. In their context. In their culture. In their language. In their idioms.

Let’s look at a few of his phrases or words:

“Due Penalty”

What is Paul referring to when he says that they (both men and women) received the “due penalty” of their actions? Some people believe that he is referring to the “Aids/HIV” virus, but this interpretation is widely rejected by most biblical scholars today for several reasons, some of which are:

AIDS did not exist in Paul’s day, nor did the virus appear until 1981. The book of Romans was written in 58 CE.

If AIDS had been a homosexual punishment, all the lesbians would be getting it as well. Estimated Percentage of HIV Diagnoses in the US: 70% gay men, 25% straight men, 1% lesbians Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

There are serious sexual viruses that spread through heterosexual sex as well, but that does not automatically mean heterosex is a sin.

What was Paul referring to? Scholars disagree on what “due penalty” refers to in Romans 1:27. Several possibilities have been proposed:

God’s Punishment – The penalty that comes from disobeying God, often understood as alienation from God or spiritual death.
Cultural Shame and Dishonor – The loss of social standing, reputation, or identity from violating Stoic ideas of what was “natural.” In Greco-Roman society, non-procreative sex, excessive indulgence, or same-status same-sex acts could bring public disgrace.
Natural Consequences of Sin – Emotional, relational, or spiritual fallout that arises naturally from destructive choices. Rather than direct divine punishment, God allows people to experience the outcome of their own actions.
Physical Consequences – Some suggest Paul may have been referring to sexually transmitted diseases, which were common in ancient contexts involving prostitution and ritual sex.
A Rhetorical Device to Set Up Chapter 2 – Some scholars (e.g., Walter Brueggemann) believe “due penalty” is part of Paul’s rhetorical trap. It builds a sense of judgment that is flipped in Romans 2 when Paul turns the finger toward the reader: “You, therefore, have no excuse.”

“Unnatural”

Paul calls these same sex activities “unnatural” in Romans 1:26–27. Does that mean they go against the biological plan of God?

Paul says that Gentiles being included in God’s covenant is “unnatural” in Romans 11:24.
Paul calls long hair on men “unnatural” in 1 Corinthians 11:14.
Stoic Philosophy said that sex was for procreation only, it was unnatural for pleasure.

Paul’s use of “unnatural” (παρὰ φύσιν, para physis) does not imply moral evil or biological dysfunction. It is tied to a cultural norm. Paul was speaking to a culture that widely accepted Stoic Philosophy, a cultural agreement about rational harmony. Having lived in Sweden for a bit, I completely understand the deep roots this takes into every area of life and thought. Whether something is correct or not, it can be “un-natural”. That does not mean it is a sin outside of biological function. In Sweden, it’s called lagom, a philosophy of moderation, balance, and sufficiency. It deeply shapes Swedish culture, promoting balance, humility, and collective harmony. It discourages excess, celebrates moderation, and values fitting in over standing out. This mindset closely parallels Stoic philosophy, both which prioritize equilibrium: in emotions, desires, and behavior.

Paul’s use of the word “unnatural” does not automatically reflect his personal views, but rather a rhetorical move: using a culturally loaded Stoic term to grab the attention of his listeners and draw them into his argument. He’s describing “those people” in language his audience would recognize and affirm as breaking the norm—not necessarily because he fully agrees with it, but because he’s setting up a confrontation they won’t see coming.

Paul’s View of Gay Marriage

What does this passage tell us about Paul’s view of gay marriage?

Well, actually, nothing.

The same-sex activity Paul describes in Romans 1 is clearly condemned, but the behavior is tied to idolatry and exploitation. Of men leaving their wives to have sex with others. Public same-sex acts in Paul’s world was about power, payment, or ritual worship.

The acts described in Romans 1 are not about same-sex marriage or committed loving relationships. To use this passage to condemn all gay marriages today is like using a warning against pagan orgies to condemn all heterosexual marriages.

That prohibition is simply not there.

Conclusion

As sinful as the actions described in this passage may be, there are two things that are clear:

The sins used as an example in this passage are not happening within a loving committed relationship.
Paul’s purpose was not to invite judgment on others, but to confront judgment itself.

How tragic that his words have been used for the exact opposite of his intent—to decide who is sinning, who is righteous, who is saved, and who is not.

To weaponize Romans 1 against others is not just a misreading—it’s a reversal of Paul’s entire argument.

What Paul meant to unite, we’ve used to divide.