Romans chapter 1 considered

Notice that the acts of rebellion in this chapter are all of a very serious nature and seem to involve whole communities in the worship of false gods and idols:

v.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

v.23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Verse 25 clarifies that this sexual immorality is in the context of turning away from God and worshipping false Gods and idols. So it would most obviously apply to sexual orgies connected with pagan worship or to the use of male or female shrine prostitutes. If it involved whole communities participating in homosexual activities, then that would explain what Paul means in verse 27:… the men abandoned natural relations with women and … Men committed indecent acts with other men. This implies that heterosexual men indulged in homosexual activities, presumably because of cultural pressure and pagan religious rites.

 Paul has not mentioned Adam and Eve, but all this about mankind’s fall away from God is similar to a progressive turning away in the early chapters of Genesis. All through Romans, Paul assumes that his readers know Genesis very well! He uses the story of Abraham to explain justification by faith (chapter 4), and, in chapter 5, he discusses Adam's transgression (verses 12-19), all on the basis that his readers are familiar with this background. Then, in chapter 9, he uses references to Abraham and Isaac and the story of Jacob and Esau. He is basing his argument on Genesis.

This would hardly surprise us in view of Paul's background and normal practice. The Old Testament was Paul’s Bible, and it was also his history book. Furthermore, it was a common history that he knew his readers would be familiar with. Paul is describing events in the past that illustrate our fallen nature, and his account starts with ‘since the creation of the world’ (verse 12). He is assuming his readers will know he is talking about the Genesis account, and so he expects that they will understand what he means!

We read in Romans 1:26: their women exchanging natural desires for unnatural. Why does Paul not add any clarification? It seems that he expected his readers to know what this verse was about: that it was part of a well known narrative. How could it be something that we’ve heard nothing about before, especially if it’s a major part of this rebellion against God? Isn’t there anything in the Bible that fits?

There is a passage which we rarely study because it seems so strange to us: Genesis chapter 6 verses 1-5: ..the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose .... the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them … The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

We think of this as a rebellion of the angels while the women's part is not really dwelt on, but the account does not say that they were unwilling participants. This is clearly something that was offensive to God and that compounded man's wickedness in His eyes. It’s part of the main history of the growing sinfulness of mankind. Paul would not skip over it lightly, and he would know that his readers were familiar with the passage. They would turn to the scriptures to see what he was talking about, and then the reference to unnatural desires of the women becomes clear! Paul talks about the women first because this event happened first! I can’t see the logic of putting that verse first otherwise.

Then, it would be reasonable to look in Genesis to see how the men sinned in a similar way, and we have the well known account of man's wickedness in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Isn't it reasonable to assume that Paul was keeping close to the Old Testament in his whole argument? We all know that the treatment of Lot’s visitors by the men of Sodom was not gay sex but homosexual rape: no one asked the 'young men' if they were willing. In fact it was even more shocking in that all the men of the city were involved. This implies that this was a normal practice in that culture, so heterosexual men would be coerced to participate. This makes sense of Romans 1:27: ‘The men also abandoned natural relations with women.’ It's obvious that, by anyone's standards, this is unnatural and that it has nothing to do with gay relationships. However, it did involve a form of homosexual practice, which Romans 1:27 is specific about, while verse 26 is not: it only says 'unnatural behaviour!'

The similarity that exists with the unnatural behaviour of the women could just be that both sins were sexual and both rebellion against God. However, if the men of Sodom knew that Lot's visitors were not just young men but supernatural beings (they were angels), we have a closer connection. This might lead to another interpretation of the men's demand to have relations with them. However, whichever view we take of this, it's not about gay relationships.

Now, I re-emphasize Paul is talking about something which happened in the past, and it must be something that his readers would be familiar with. He sees no need to explain himself: he expects them to know what he means. Does it seem unlikely that his readers would make the connection? Well, not if this is a well known narrative.