Against Nature - para phusis - What Does That Mean In Romans 1?



Rembrandt's Paul. The Apostle Paul wrote 14 books of our New Testament.


Against nature. Romans 1:26 says the women changed what was natural into that which is against nature. How would a first century Roman understand those words?

A first century Roman would be more likely to understand Paul in the context of Testament of Naphtali, or Wisdom of Solomon or in the context of shrine prostitution, all Jewish viewpoints then current in Rome.

It is unlikely that Paul’s first century readers understood his argument in the context of a twenty-first century, conservative Christian view of lesbianism and homosexuality. Obviously, Paul was not arguing that committed, faithful, same sex partnerships as we know them in the twenty first century, are wrong.

Lacking our twenty-first century, culturally based perspective on lesbianism and homosexuality, Paul’s first century readers would naturally conclude that the phrase against nature, did not imply a universal condemnation of committed, faithful, non-cultic homosexual partnerships.




Pagan temples of ancient Rome.



Paul’s first century readers would be more likely to believe against nature referred to shrine prostitution or street prostitution or non-procreative sex. Some of Paul's readers may also have understood Paul to be referring to pederasty or Roman orgies or women having sex with angels or women and men having sex with the gods, all common, first century viewpoints,.

Romans 1:26, “changing the natural use into that which is against nature” may refer to women having sexual relationships with angels or it may be Paul's restatement of the Jewish viewpoint that non-procreative sex between men and women is unnatural.

The sex with angels viewpoint is based on Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5, a book commonly known when Paul wrote Romans. Testament of Naphtali, written around 137-107 BC, provides historical context for Paul's argument in Romans 1.

Dr. Robert Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader of the twenty first century, alleges that when T. Naphtali says "changed the order of nature" and "changed the order of their nature," that refers to homosexuality. As noted in the yellow box below, it is clear in the quote that T. Naphtali refers to interspecies sex (sex with fallen angels) and not to homosexuality.




Sunbeams through the trees.


Naphtali’s reference to "changing the order of their nature" did NOT address male-female complementarity or lesbianism or homosexuality.



The author of T. Naphtali warned against emulating Sodom, which

“changed the order of nature.”


Instead of condemning the men of Sodom for homosexuality, however, the author of T. Naphtali compares the sin of the people of Sodom to the sin of the Watchers (fallen angels, the sons of God in Genesis 6:2-13). These fallen angels changed the order of their nature and had sexual relations with the daughters of men. And the men of Sodom tried to gang rape the angel visitors. The connection is sex with angels, not homosexuality.

T. Naphtali references interspecies sexual practice - sex between angels and humans as against nature. What is condemned by the author of T. Naphtali, citing Genesis 6 and Genesis 19, is humans having or attempting to have, sexual relationships with angels.

What is against nature (changing the order of their nature), according to the author of Testament of Naphtali (and possibly what Paul referred to in Romans 1), is women having sexual relationships with angels.

Paul may also have been referring to heterosexual women who engaged in anal sex with their husbands, a practice viewed as against nature in ancient times because it was not procreative.

Or Paul may have been referring to the ancient practice of heterosexual women who engaged in anal sex with men to whom they were not married, to avoid pregnancy. This was regarded as against nature because it was not procreative.

This Jewish viewpoint is 2100 years old. It is not an attempt by modern gay Christians to find an excuse for ‘their sin.’ It is the record of history.

A first century Roman would be more likely to understand Paul in the context of Testament of Naphtali (humans having sex with angels) or in the context of shrine prostitution or in the context of heterosexuals having anal sex to avoid pregnancy.

It is not historically accurate to insist that Paul’s first century readers would understand him to be condemning the exclusive, monogamous same sex relationships with which we are familiar in the twenty-first century but which were not a common feature of first century Roman life.

Here is the quotation from Testament of Naphtali.

“The Gentiles went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and obeyed stocks and stones, spirits of (4) deceit. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which (5) changed the order of nature.

In like manner the Watchers [fallen angels] also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.”

-Testament of Naphtali, 3:3-5

The Naphtali scroll would have looked like this.

The author of Testament of Naphtali would vehemently disagree with the way anti-gay Christians misuse his words and rip them out of their historical context.

The issue for the author of Testament of Naphtali was interspecies sexual practice - men attempting to have sex with angels - not a committed, faithful, noncultic relationship between two men or two women and not male-female complementarity.

Paul Was Not Talking About Lesbianism And Homosexuality In Romans 1:26-27.



Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburg Theological Seminary, is the leading
anti-gay evangelical of our time.


Modern Complementarians like Dr. Gagnon believe Paul intended his readers to understand that every instance of lesbianism and homosexuality is against nature. Modern traditionalists interpret against nature to mean against

“the material shape of the created order and against the way God intended human beings to function.”

Is the modern traditionalist, complementarian view grounded in historical fact or is it merely twenty-first century opinion, imposed on first century scripture?

Let’s review the
Complementarian argument.

  1. Men and women are anatomically complementary sexual beings but man and man or woman and woman are not.

  2. God never intended men to be homosexual or women to be lesbian.

  3. Therefore, complementarians allege, Paul, in Romans 1:26-27, must have intended to condemn homosexuality and lesbianism in general.

Every gay person can happily agree with the first point. Men and women are physically complementary sexual beings. That is the norm and everyone understands that. But it does not logically follow that God makes everyone heterosexual.



Wildflowers in Greece


  1. Complementarians believe homosexuality is contrary to the intent of the Creator as expressed in Genesis 2.

  2. Homosexuality is alleged to contradict the sexual complementarity of males and females in God’s original design.

  3. Homosexuality is alleged to contradict God’s plan for male-female sexual union.

  4. If everyone was homosexual, according to complementarians, the human race would die out.

  5. Because homosexuals do not reproduce, complementarians allege that homosexuality is rebellious and against nature, therefore, scripture condemns it.

Gay Christians respond with
logic and common sense.

  1. Scripture condemns same sex shrine prostitution (a pagan religious fertility practice), not lesbianism and not homosexuality.

  2. Celibacy is as against nature as homosexuality.

  3. Celibacy negates the sexual complementarity of males and females because celibates neither engage in sexual activity nor reproduce.

  4. Celibacy is contrary to the intent of the Creator as expressed in Genesis 2.

  5. Celibacy intentionally rebels against God’s plan for male-female sexual union and procreation.

  6. If everyone was celibate, the human race would die out.

  7. If the Complementarian viewpoint is valid, we would expect scripture to condemn celibacy yet scripture commends celibacy, I Corinthians 7:7-8.

Perhaps Complementarians should
rethink their argument.

What did Paul mean when he used the words natural and against nature? The English words physics and physical are from the Greek words phusis and phusikos. In Latin, the words are natura and naturalis, so we translate phusis and phusikos as nature and natural.

  • Natural-kata phusikos has a range of meaning including, "normal behavior, innate, inherent, instinctual, typical, customary, culturally accepted, the expected course of action."

  • Against nature-para phusis has a similar range of meaning including, "contrary to what is normal behavior or innate or inherent or instinctual or typical or customary or contrary to what is culturally accepted or contrary to the expected course of action."

Ruins of pagan Roman temples.


Gentile Idolatry And
Fertility goddess Worship

Gentile idolaters went beyond their nature, by creating idols to worship, in effect taking the place of the Creator. These same Gentile idolaters went beyond their heterosexual nature by worshiping the fertility goddess (Cybele, for instance) through illicit, same sex religious rites.

To illustrate the depravity of the Gentiles in his argument, Paul describes illicit sexuality, a topic intimately familiar to everyone in first century Rome. In ancient Rome, this illicit sexuality manifested itself in five commonly known ways.

  1. Shrine prostitution
  2. Street prostitution
  3. Pederasty, an older male with a younger male
  4. Nonprocreative sexual practice in Roman orgies.
  5. Humans having sex with angels or the gods.

The Consequences of Idolatry - That's The Point Of Paul’s Argument In Romans 1.


If the point of Paul’s argument is to illustrate the sinful idolatry of the Gentiles and the sinful idolatry of the Jews, shrine prostitution as the effect of idolatry, perfectly fits his argument.

On the other hand, understanding vs. 26-27 as a universal proscription of lesbian and homosexual practice, apart from a shrine prostitution context, does not fit Paul’s argument. Instead, such a view imposes twenty-first century beliefs on a first century document. Remember our rule of interpretation.

Scripture cannot mean now
what it did not mean then.



The Bible deals with worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess under the rubric of Molech worship. Such false worship is forbidden.


Moloch or Molech idol


The context of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is the history of Gentile and Jewish idolatry.

Paul illustrates the sinfulness of the Gentiles by tracing their idol making, idol worship and refusal to retain the true God in their knowledge.

The effect of Gentile idolatry was a particular kind of illicit sexual practice, shrine prostitution, which is forbidden from Genesis to Revelation. In their desire to interpret Paul’s condemnation of shrine prostitution as an attack on all homosexual practice, Complementarians lose the logic of Paul’s argument by reading their twenty-first century cultural values into the text.

There is a better way to understand against nature as used by Paul in Romans 1 which is historically and scripturally accurate and which does not require the text-twisting Complementarians must do to support their interpretation.

Did Paul condemn lesbians in Romans 1:26?
No, absolutely not.



Pagan worshipers
at a Molech shrine.


Complementarians believe Paul is condemning lesbian sexuality in Romans 1:26. They interpret against nature to mean lesbianism. Their understanding does not fit the rest of scripture since lesbians are never condemned in the Old Testament.

There is however, one female sexual practice which is condemned in the Old Testament, which is linked to Gentile idolatry and which perfectly fits Paul’s against nature argument. That sexual practice is female shrine prostitution, worshiping Ashtoreth, the fertility goddess consort of the fire-god Molech.

Qedesha-female shrine prostitutes, are mentioned in Genesis 38:21 & 22, Deuteronomy 23:17, and Hosea 4:14. It better fits the context of Romans to understand that Paul is referring to the illicit sexual practice of female shrine prostitutes who serviced men than that, suddenly and unaccountably, he injects into his letter, a one verse condemnation of lesbians.

Remember The Context Of Paul’s Argument



Cybele, known in first century Rome as Mater Deum, "mother of the gods," employed shrine prostitutes in her worship.


The context of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is Gentile idolatry,
not homosexuality and
not lesbianism.


The numerous Old Testament passages which condemn same sex shrine prostitution indicate a consistent trajectory of truth upon which Paul based his idolatry argument.

What is Paul’s point in Romans 1:26?

Has Paul suddenly deserted his argument about Gentile idolatry, to issue a one verse condemnation of lesbians? No, absolutely not. Romans 1:26 is the logical continuation of Paul’s argument about Gentile idolatry.

Since Romans 1:26 continues Paul’s argument about Gentile idolatry, then the behavior Paul describes in v. 26 is related to Gentile idolatry.

Paul has not suddenly veered from his original argument, in order to condemn lesbians.

Instead, Paul describes idolatrous behavior, shrine prostitution, which is against nature. God did not create human beings to worship false gods through shrine prostitution. Idol worship and shrine prostitution are against nature and those are the behaviors Paul deplores in Romans 1:26.

Helpful Links To Excellent Information
About Being Gay And Christian


Remember that the Bible is the top priority when choosing a good church. If they don’t make the Bible a high priority, if they don’t believe and teach the Bible, don’t waste your time.

Find a church where the pastor and the congregation believe the Bible. You’ll be glad you did.

We’ve explored what is against nature in Romans 1. Click Here To Return To Gay Christian 101.com Home Page.

Gay Christian 101 - Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians.

There are four popular analogies which are used to validate Gay Relationships as blessed by God.

Here is a real-life example of a prominent gay partnership in scripture - the amazing true love story of Jonathan and David is the greatest human love story in the Bible.

Jesus identified the sin of Sodom and it was not homosexuality.

I am saying that the Holiness Code was aimed at Israel, in a specific place, the land of Israel, in a specific time period, while Israel was in the land, living under the Law. And what some Christians wrongly interpret as a universal prohibition of all gay relationships is, in reality, a prohibition of shrine prostitution in worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess.

What was a sodomite in the Bible? Was it a homosexual, as many conservative preachers insist or was a sodomite in the Bible always a shrine prostitute who worshiped the Canaanite fertility goddess?

Those who believe that the Centurion’s pais was only a servant and not the same sex partner of the gay Centurion, cite Greek lexicons to prove their case. Since most Biblical Greek lexicons do not mention beloved or same sex lover as possible meanings of pais. Most nongay Christians insist same sex lover could not possibly be the meaning of pais.

In Gay Christian 101: Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians, I list 18 possible ways to interpret the Levitical Holiness Code, where it is alleged to deal with homosexuality.

Family Values in the Bible are very different from Traditional family values as taught by Focus On The Family that modern Christians would totally reject the "family values" practiced by Abraham and Sarah, Ruth and Boaz and many of the heroes of faith in the Old Testament.

Gay Christian 101 - Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians.

There are four popular analogies which are used to validate Gay Relationships as blessed by God.