(More Bible Studies Available At www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Romans 1:26-27-For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Homosexuality is often practiced in the animal kingdom.
So was Paul scientifically incorrect when he declared that homosexuality was against nature?
Let’s study.
First, it is a commonly known fact that animals practice homosexuality. This is hardly a shocker. Yet it is interesting to observe that this has been commonly known since long before the time of Christ.
One scholar has noted:
“The history of animal homosexuality in Western scientific thought begins with the early speculations of Aristotle and the Egyptian scholar Horapollo on “hermaphroditism” in hyenas, homosexuality in partridges, and variant genders and sexualities in several other species. 2 Although much of their thinking was infused with mythology and anthropomorphism, and there are notable inaccuracies in their observations (the Spotted Hyena, for example, is not hermaphroditic), the discussions of these scholars represent the first recorded thoughts on homosexuality and transgender in animals. The earliest scientific observations of animal homosexuality are those of the noted French naturalist (and count) Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon, whose monumental fifteen-volume Histoire naturelle générale et particulière (1749—67) includes observations of same-sex behavior in birds. Additional observations on homosexuality in birds were made in the eighteenth century by the British biologist George Edwards, and (as indicated above) they also include some of the first pronouncements about the supposed “causes” and “abnormality” of such behavior. 3”. (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions (Paperback)), 84 (Kindle Edition); New York, NY; St. Martin’s Press)
Throughout his book, Bagemihl notes many examples of homosexual behavior in various kinds of animals in the world. Indeed, such have been thoroughly documented and observed through the ages.
Second, as evident as homosexuality is among the animal kingdom, it is obviously not as prevalent as heterosexuality. Indeed, some of those contemporary with Paul observed this:
“Another minor argument for the unnaturalness of same-sex intercourse was an appeal to the norm of heterosexuality in the animal kingdom. The argument appears in the works of some Greco-Roman philosophers and moralists. The classic text is in Plato’s Laws, where the Athenian speaker contends that a strong case can be made for “following nature” and outlawing joining with males and boys in sexual intercourse as though with females, adducing as evidence the nature of animals and pointing out that (among them) male does not touch male for sexual purposes, because that is not natural. . . . Our citizens must not be worse than birds and many other animals which . . . when they reach (the) age (for breeding) pair off male with female according to instinct and female with male and for the remaining time they . . . (remain) firm to their first agreements of love. (836C, 840D-E) Likewise, in Plutarch’s Whether Beasts Are Rational (ca. 100 C.E.), Gryllus, who had been turned into a pig by a spell from Circe, now refused Odysseus’s offer to be turned back into a man: “Until now the desires of animals have involved intercourse neither of male with male nor of female with female. . . . even men themselves acknowledge that beasts have a better claim to temperance and the non-violation of nature in their pleasures” (990D-F). 23 In early Jewish texts, the primary reference to this argument is found in Pseudo-Phocylides: “Don’t transgress the limits of sexual intercourse set by nature with (or: for) unlawful love. Not even to animals themselves is intercourse between males pleasing” (190-91). 24 Modem zoology recognizes this as an oversimplification, yet as a general observation or as an observation applied to many species it retains persuasive force. In other words, we human beings should emulate not the worst of animal behavior but the best.” (Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, 205-206 (Kindle Edition); Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press)
Third, since it was a commonly fact in Paul’s day that animals practice homosexuality, what did Paul mean when he said that homosexuality is “against nature?”
The phrase that Paul uses here had reference to “nature” as God originally intended it, and this “natural” use is still displayed in “nature” (although sometimes obscured by it).
Moo has written:
“But Paul’s use of the word “nature” in this verse probably owes much to Jewish authors, particularly Philo, who included sexual morality as part of “natural law” and therefore as a divine mandate applicable to all people. 118 Violations of this law, as in the case of Sodom, are therefore considered transgressions of God’s will. 119 In keeping with the biblical and Jewish worldview, the heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced to God’s creative intent. Sexual sins that are “against nature” are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to “nature” in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order. 120 Confirmation can be found in the context. In labeling the turning from “the natural use” to “that [use] which is against nature” an “exchange,” Paul associates homosexuality with the perversion of true knowledge of God already depicted in vv. 23 and 25. In addition, we must remember that the clause in question is a description of “sinful passions,” a phrase plainly connoting activities that are contrary to God’s will. When these factors are considered, it is clear that Paul depicts homosexual activity as a violation of God’s created order, another indication of the departure from true knowledge and worship of God. 121 27 This verse is connected to the last part of v. 26 with “likewise,” as Paul shows that the same “sinful passions” that lead women to engage in unnatural homosexual acts are also operative among men, with similar effect. 122 Homosexuality among “males,” 123 like that among “females,” is characterized as a departure from nature. 124 As in the previous verse, “nature” denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes. Paul uses strong language to characterize male homosexuality: “they burned 125 in their desire 126 for one another, men with men 127 doing 128 that which is shameful 129 and receiving in themselves the just penalty 130 that was necessary for their error.” In calling the homosexual activity that brings about this penalty an “error,” Paul does not diminish the seriousness of the offense, for this word often denotes sins of unbelievers in the NT. 131 In claiming that this penalty for homosexual practice is received “in themselves,” Paul may suggest that the sexual perversion itself is the punishment. 132 On the other hand, this could be a vivid way of saying that those who engage in such activities will suffer eternal punishment; they will receive “in their own persons” God’s penalty for violation of his will. 133 This punishment, Paul says, was “necessary,” by which he probably means that God could not allow his created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment.” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 114-116 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
Fourth, the “nature” of the world that we live in reflects a world that has been corrupted by sin. When Adam and Eve sinned against God, suffering and death entered into the world (Genesis 3:17-19). Paul wrote about this later in Romans:
Romans 8:18-22-For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
The entire Creation began to come unraveled (so to speak) when sin was introduced into it. The following illustration is helpful:
“To help understand Creation and the Fall, the image of three iron rings suspended from a magnet is helpful. The magnet symbolizes God; the first ring, the soul; the middle ring, the body; and the bottom ring, nature. As long as the soul stays in touch with God, the magnetic life keeps flowing through the whole chain, from divine life to soul life, body life and nature life. The three rings stay harmonized, united, magnetized. But when the soul freely declares its independence from God, when the first iron ring separates from the magnet, the inevitable consequence is that the whole chain of rings is demagnetized and falls apart. When the soul is separated from God, the body is separated from the soul-that is, it dies-and also from nature-that is, it suffers. For the soul’s authority over the body is a delegated authority, as is humanity’s authority over nature. When God the delegator is rejected, so is the authority he delegated. If you rebel against the king, his ministers will no longer serve you. Thus both suffering and sin are traced to man, not God.” (Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions, 135 (Kindle Edition); Downers Grove, Illinois; InterVarsity Press)
Due to the fallen nature of the Creation, it is not surprising that the universe often evinces this fallenness (such as in the form of homosexuality in the animal world). Yet even the corrupted and fallen form of nature reflects the fact that heterosexuality is the “natural” venue of sexuality as God created and designed it (both in the animal world and in the world of man).
Paul was not mistaken when he points out that homosexuality is “against nature.” The misunderstanding arises from the understanding of the word “nature” as he used it, versus how we often use it.
Finally, consider this. Another researcher has pointed out another problem with the argument often made that homosexuality should be accepted in the world of man because it is sometimes practiced in the animal kingdom:
“If the investigation turns up little evidence of homosexual activity, the skeptic might argue that there would be more evidence if the researchers or their sources were not homophobic. If, on the other hand, the evidence is plentiful, such evidence has little or no bearing on the moral question. In either case, I find the subject interesting but far removed from the contemporary moral question. Some mammals eat their own young, and some of history’s most advanced cultures practiced human sacrifice, genocide or slavery. The highly civilized Greeks made the abuse of boys a way of life. Not that all these practices compare morally to modern homosexuality, but they are natural in the sense that they are observable practices: they occur in nature. The point is that something is not moral merely because animals or people do it. Numerous studies of the animal kingdom reveal indiscriminate mounting behavior, usually to express roles of dominance and submission, but animals do not engage in long-term homosexual bonding as humans do. 1 Some monkeys and apes mount or fondle each other to the point of sexual arousal, but even this behavior involves numerous qualifications: most important the behavior does not continue when the individual matures and has a heterosexual option. 2 The consensus of research is that “no evidence has as yet emerged to suggest that any nonhuman primate studied to date would rate a 6 [exclusively homosexual] on the Kinsey scale of heterosexuality/ homosexuality.”” (Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow?: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, 134 (Kindle Edition); Downers Grove, Illinois; InterVarsity Press)
The forgiveness of Christ extends to the repentant homosexual as it does to every sinner who turns to the Lord in obeying His plan of redemption (Acts 2:37-47; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.