My Romans 1:18-32 Exegesis Translation: Key: [other texts have this information] <my added words to make the sentence make English sense> For God’s wrath from heaven reveals itself upon/against all wickedness and injustice of humans [of God] holding fast/suppressing the truth in injustice, because what can be known of God is visible in them: for God revealed himself to them. For from creation of the world the unseen of him is made understood by what is <or perhaps ‘those who are’> created perceiving itself <themselves> clearly, by both his eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuses themselves; because knowing <him to be> God they neither praised nor thanked him as God, but having been given to worthless/futile speculation in their thoughts and being without understanding, their hearts have been darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became tasteless/foolish and they changed/altered/exchanged/transformed the glory of the immortal God for a likeness/an image/something made to look like that of a mortal human and of birds and four-footed animals and reptiles. [And] Therefore God handed over them in the passions of their hearts into impurity to degrade their bodies in them [themselves]. Since indeed they exchanged the reality/truth of God for that which is unreal/the lie, they have worshipped and served what is created over/against the one who created, who is praised into forever, amen! Because of this, God handed over them into lustful passions of dishonor, for both their women exchanged the natural [creation] function (of sexual intercourse) for the contrary natural [function], and also in the same way/likewise the men leaving the natural function (of sexual intercourse) of the woman have been inflamed (of lust) in lustful passion of them in one another, men in men, overcoming the shameless act/shame of nakedness, and receiving the punishment which was necessary for their error in themselves [helping]. And just as they did not prove to consider God in recognition, God handed over them into corrupted thought, to do those things which are improper, having been made filled with every wicked wrongdoing, evil, greed, full of envy, of murder, of strife, of deceit, of meanness, talebearers, slanderers, hating God, insolent persons, arrogant, prideful, harming schemers, disobeying parents, senseless, faithless, inhuman/lacking normal human affections, unmerciful: those who understand the regulation of God that those people who do similar things are worthy of death; not only [but] do they do them but also those who act so are willing/they approve of <them>. Exegesis: I chose this pericope because of its status as one of the ‘clobber-texts’ of the Bible: those texts used against LGBTQ persons, particularly in denying us personhood and grace. I am an interested reader of this text: I am bi/pansexual, co-chair of my school’s LGBTQ organization, and married to a transgender (male-transgendered-female) person in transition. In the United States, my country, these texts are often used not only to deny us Church sacraments but also legal rights that heteronormative persons enjoy by default. These texts have been used to hurl insults of the Westboro Baptist variety and to excuse or normalize the bullying, beating, maiming, and killing of members of the LGBTQ community. This particular pericope mentions women, and so is commonly thought to refer to lesbians/lesbian behavior. However, a deep exegesis of this text reveals far more than meets the eye during a cursory examination of the English translations. My own translation, above, varies in some ways from the NJB Henry Wansbrough, ed., “Romans 1:18-32, NJB,” in The New Jerusalem Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990). and NRSV Harold W. Attridge, ed., “Romans 1:18-32, NRSV,” in HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Including Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books; Student Edition (New York: HarperOne, 1989). translations of the text. Delving into scholarly debate about this passage shows different ways to interpret the text, depending upon the type of focus given: historical-cultural, text-critical, canon-critical. I first discuss the historical-cultural, canon-critical, and text-critical debates regarding this pericope, and then argue that this text does not actually discuss homosexuality as an orientation, but that its particular details point toward what Paul envisions as the behaviors of those who are a part of God’s kingdom and of those who have turned away from God’s kingdom. Paul writes this letter to the Romans—or, more accurately, to a church in Rome. Duling outlines several possible reasons for Paul’s letter: to resolve a dispute, to gain authority or approval to preach there, as a defense, or as a ‘last will and testament.’ Dennis C. Duling, “Chapter 6: Galatians and Romans: Romans,” in The New Testament: History, Literature, and Social Context, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003), 231–2. We have no sure idea of the why, though Duling favors the last will and testament theory—that Paul sought to work against the troubles to come within the Church. Ibid., 232. In any case, we know that Paul writes regarding the place of Gentiles within the Church. At the time of writing the letter, Paul and other members of the Jesus Movement make waves not only in mixing Jews and Gentiles together for eating and worshiping, but also in setting themselves apart from the Jewish synagogues. Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement: Volume I: Earliest Christianity, vol. I (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2011), 28. As well, the Jews and those of the Jesus Movement were monotheistic in environments that were predominantly polytheistic, such as Rome. Irvin and Sunquist write, “In the cities of the Roman and Hellenistic world, opposition to Judaism was expressed on cultural grounds rather than on imperial political grounds” because of this monotheism and the rituals attendant to it. Ibid., I:19. Furthering this idea of the polytheistic world into which the Jesus Movement emerged, Jeramy Townsley writes, “During Paul’s missionary travels, goddess practices were widespread, and A. T. Fear notes that while ‘mystery religions in general were not a focus of Christian polemic, Attis and Cybele on the other hand appear to have been a favorite target for the invective of Christian writers.’” Jeremy Townsley, “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (2011): 717. These movements subverted the existing patriarchy with their ‘effeminate’ priests, as did the gnostic Nassenes, who made themselves eunuchs with the idea of transcending gender so as to be closer to God. Ibid., 719–723. Subverting the system could be quite dangerous—the Romans are remembered as crucifying those they saw as doing wrong. Thus, Townsley argues that Paul, among other early Jesus followers, may have wanted to distance himself from those who flagrantly challenged the patriarchal system: “Given the spread of castration rituals into the Christian community, likely linked directly to the goddess cults, it seems that theologically there would be heavy internal interest in discrediting goddess beliefs and practices, in addition to the political and social conflict.” Ibid., 728. Thus, due to the polytheistic Greco-Roman world in which Paul wrote, he may have had interest in maintaining distance from those who seemed to go against the grain of the larger society. Canonically speaking, Romans is one of a series of letters that Paul wrote to the emerging churches of the Jesus Movement. Duling notes that it is “the longest and latest of his surviving letters.” Duling, “Chapter 6: Galatians and Romans: Romans,” 230. The letter focuses on the likeness of all people—Jews and Gentiles alike—and of God’s welcome for all people. Ben C. Dunson writes, “Faith is the divinely appointed means of the salvation of the individual as well as of the building up of the believing community in love and self-sacrifice” in Romans. Ben C. Dunson, “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life in the Community?,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no. 1 (2011): 22, doi:10.1177/0142064X11415328. Duling’s sectional breakdowns agree with Dunson’s thesis. Duling, “Chapter 6: Galatians and Romans: Romans.” Thus, for Paul, the actions of the individuals matter not just for individual salvation but also for community salvation. Therefore, members of the churches, whether Gentile or Jew, would need to adhere to a code conducive to communal salvation. This fits with the Greco-Roman context and the eschewing of polytheism and attempts to dissociate from the goddess cults of the time. Closing in a little tighter, Peter Spitaler argues for a ‘synergistic’ reading of Romans 1-3, agreeing that “universal sinfulness functions as a ‘meta-theme;’ it is both part of the text and defines its interpretive horizon.” Peter Spitaler, “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading of Romans 1-3,” Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011): 38, doi:10.1163/156851510X541477. He goes on to show how this theme is developed from his synergism of the text: “The letter section is arranged as a stacked inclusio: outer frame concerning trust and justice (1:16-17 through 3:21-28); inner frame concerning injustice and sinning (1:18-32 through 3:9-20); mixed section concerning just and unjust conduct (2:1-3:8).” Ibid., 51. Thus, my pericope—1:18-32—falls synergistically in the section concerned with injustice and sinning for both Jews and Gentiles. Spitaler writes that these frames “express complementary aspects of the theological conviction that God reckons as just Judeans and Hellenists who trust and live just lives—justice, trust, and ‘doing/being/having’ law are relational concepts.” Ibid., 51–52. Therefore, Paul situates his section on what it means to be unjust and to sin within a larger framework of what it means to live a just life, trusting in God. Delving further into text criticism, Alec J. Lucas discusses the break-down of my pericope. Lucas argues “that Rom 1:22-32, the indictment proper, possesses an a-ba-ba-b structure and that it is preceded by a foundational introduction in 1:18-21.” Alec J. Lucas, “Reorienting the Structural Paradigm and Social Significance of Romans 1:18-32,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 1 (2012): 131. That is, he notes one main break in the text, between Paul’s set-up and Paul’s delivery. Lucas writes, “Although the structure of Rom 1:18-21 is subtle, its function is clear. This section establishes human culpability for suppressing the knowledge of God, a knowledge manifestly discernible in the works of creation.” Ibid. This does not completely match with my own translation above; the first paragraph follows this concern about who knows God and how they act. The Greek text itself, in the Nestle-Aland, follows the break-down as I’ve laid it out in my straight translation—my paragraph breaks are larger ‘gaps’ between sentences/verses as they appear in that text. Paul, “Romans 1:18-32, Nestle-Aland,” in Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993). However, Lucas argues that the second part of the pericope begins with “Claiming to be wise….” Lucas, “Reorienting the Structural Paradigm and Social Significance of Romans 1:18-32,” 133. This break does seem to fit with Paul wanting to separate those who know and acknowledge God—the Jews and Gentiles of the Jesus Movement—from the larger community of polytheists and goddess worshippers. Those who are not actually wise do not worship God, according to Paul. The next break—the first b-a pair—fits with my own and the Nestle-Aland’s break above. It involves God handing people over to their desires, since they worshipped the creation instead of God. Ibid. Again, this matches with Paul being concerned to keep polytheism and goddess worship from the Jesus Movement. Lucas’s second b-a pair (vv. 26-27) and final b (vv. 28-32) Ibid. perfectly aligns with the natural breaks as I see them in the Nestle-Aland. Of this break-down, Lucas writes: “The verb , as opposed to  in vv. 25, 26b, identifies section a1 as the foundational idolatrous ‘change.’ This change is then recapitulated in the idolatrous ‘exchange’ of a2.” Ibid. Thus, his sections follow the pattern of Paul’s concern with idolatry. So far, the pericope seems to deal with a special concern with idolatry rather than with homosexuality as an orientation. Canonically, historically-culturally, and textually, the elements of Paul’s writing fit this idolatry theme. But how does this hold up if we focus specifically on the verses that get used out of context against LGBTQ persons? Jamie A. Banister brings tightest focus on these verses (1:26-27) by zeroing in on the word ‘. Banister tackles this word by examining all the ways in which it is used in Christian-related Greek texts. After exhausting the possibilities of parallelism with ‘, Banister writes: Further, in passages in which both clauses are describing the same or similar activity, one finds that what is similar (‘) between the two clauses is clearly indicated in the antecedent clause. Sometimes this point of commonality is repeated or para-phrased also in the homoios clause; however, in no other GNT [Greek New Testament] passage in which the same or similar acts are described would the contents of the homoios clause have the potential to alter significantly one’s understanding of the antecedent clause (when understood on its own) as it would in Rom 1:26-27. Jamie A. Banister, “ ’Omoiws and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (2009): 588. That is, if we read the first part of these verses prior to the ‘ (“Because of this, God handed over them into lustful passions of dishonor, for both their women exchanged the natural [creation] function (of sexual intercourse) for the contrary natural [function]”), we can understand that the women—their women—were not having ‘natural’ sexual intercourse. This says nothing about whether the women were therefore having sex with other women. Lesbianism and lesbian acts are not specified. The second part of the verses, after the ‘(“the men leaving the natural function (of sexual intercourse) of the woman have been inflamed (of lust) in lustful passion of them in one another, men in men, overcoming the shameless act/shame of nakedness, and receiving the punishment which was necessary for their error in themselves [helping]”) specifically mentions that men are having sex with other men. Does this mean, then, that women must be involved with other women in the first half of the verses? Banister argues—and I agree—that it does not, because to read it thusly would be to alter or restrict the meaning of the first half of the verses. Banister adds, “Moreover, it is possible that perhaps Paul did not have something specific in mind when he wrote v. 26.” Ibid. Furthermore, if Paul’s main concern rests with the salvation of the community by policing individual actions in the vein of refraining from idolatry, it makes sense that he would specify ‘unnatural’ acts as male-on-male but not necessarily female-on-female in the polytheistic, goddess-worshipping, eunuch-creating, male-on-male ritual sex of the Greco-Roman world in which he writes. In a brief but thorough study, Justin R. Cannon also engages in close text criticism. He discusses verses 1:24-27, pointing out that the main ideas of the verses are lust, lying, idolatry, dishonorable passions, and giving up something for something else. Justin R. Cannon, “The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality: A Study by Justin R. Cannon, Founder of Inclusiveorthodoxy.org” (Justin R. Cannon (used by permission), 2008), 13. He further illustrates this last point: “There is a movement from point A (having natural relations with women) to point B (giving it up, and having sexual relations with other men)…. How can you give up something you do not have?...These men, we see, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality (natural relations with women), and were consumed with passion for one another.” Ibid., 14. That is, in keeping with Banister’s study on ‘ and in keeping with Paul’s concerns about idolatry and ‘natural use,’ Cannon sees this exchange as one in which heterosexual persons engage in homosexual acts. Jennifer Wright Knust examines the verses from both text-critical and historical-critical angles. Of the text-critical angle, she writes, “The logic and the syntax of this passage are quite difficult. Still, whatever the precise nuance of Paul’s words, his description of ‘natural’ sex presupposes that nature intends the use of (certain) female bodies by male bodies during the sexual act.” Jennifer Wright Knust, “Chapter 3: The Evil Impulse: Disordered and Ordered Desire,” in Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 87. That is, Paul envisions sex as occurring between men and women—which fits with a desire to separate the Jesus Movement from the sects that practiced same-sex sexual acts as ritual. Of the historical-critical angle, Knust says, “Paul depends upon a widespread ancient point of view—‘maleness’ involves penetration and ‘femaleness’ involves being penetrated.” Ibid. This matches the Platonic and Aristotelian view that held sway at the time: that men were higher than women. Knust continues, “Women, Paul and other ancient authors often assumed, are ‘naturally’ the passive recipients of a phallus during sexual intercourse; therefore, they should not seek to penetrate others. Citizen men, however, are ‘naturally’ dominant, and they dramatize their status as free men whenever they take the active role in sex, whether they are partnering with women, slaves, or boys.” Ibid., 88. Thus, historio-culturally, those who are penetrated are female/passive, and those who do the penetrating are male/active. Seeking to keep order, Paul would then require that sex be heteronormative. This fits with an understanding of pederasty as it existed in the Greco-Roman world (which Knust discusses Ibid., 89.); however, I am not convinced it takes into account all of the ideas that I have examined thus far. Karl A. Kuhn addresses these verses, 1:26-27, from a broad all-Bible canonical approach. He writes, “For some, the notion that God’s Spirit would reveal an understanding of sexuality (or of any other matter) that contradicts what is found in Scripture is simply a non sequitur…. Scripture itself, however, suggests that this might actually be the case.” Karl A. Kuhn, “Natural and Unnatural Relations Between Text and Context: A Canonical Reading of Romans 1:26-27,” Currents in Theology and Mission 33, no. 4 (August 2006): 320. Bringing the Hebrew Testament as well as the Christian Testament into play, he states, “From book to book, and testament to testament, a number of these laws are recast or even superseded by new ones. The fact that these laws develop or are even set aside” shows “an equally important revelation…that God’s Torah, or instruction, changes over time.” Ibid., 321. This instruction is, according to Kuhn, “how humanity is to live out its calling as God’s people changes.” Ibid., 323. This allows room, then, for reinterpretation of texts over time as humanity grows and changes. So, Paul lived and wrote in a world in which pederasty, polytheism, and goddess worship cults existed as the norm. As the members of the Jesus Movement—both Jew and Gentile—sought to separate themselves from the synagogues, they also sought to separate themselves from the culture around them. Canonically, Paul sees this separation as a means of community salvation via individual actions. These individual actions are to avoid idolatry. Thus, as a part of avoiding sin and injustice, people should not give themselves over to ‘unnatural’ lust and sexual acts—but we have discrepancy over what these ‘unnatural’ acts are. Banister’s study on ‘ points out that we cannot say for sure that lesbian acts are mentioned in this verse. Cannon’s study asks the crucial question of how we can see these acts as pertaining to homosexual orientation when the people involved had to give up their natural heterosexual activities—and hence betray their natural heterosexual orientation—in order to engage in homosexual acts. Even if we account for the male-female hierarchy that Knust lays out, I find myself unconvinced that Paul meant to imply that those who are naturally inclined to homosexuality are acting unjustly or in error by engaging in homosexual activity. First, to assume that pederasty and homosexuality are the same is to cheapen the relationships of homosexual persons as we know them today. Pederasty was very much about dominance and passiveness, about asserting control over and being controlled. The one in authority would be dominating the one who was subordinate. Homosexual relationships as we understand them today do not operate in such a manner. As well, though the word ‘homosexual’ did not exist until the 19th century, it does not mean that same-sex relationships did not exist in Paul’s time. Thus, to read Paul’s statements with the idea that pederasty and homosexuality are somehow similar is to engage in eisegesis rather than exegesis. Second, I find myself swayed by Cannon’s argument that one cannot give up what one does not have. I cannot give up heterosexuality, because I am not heterosexual. Were I to behave ‘unnaturally,’ I would have to confine myself to interacting with one gender expression or one type of sexual organs. Were I heterosexual but engaging in same-sex activities, I would be acting against my nature. This analysis deals with the  and  phrases, as well as the ‘ phrase. What is changed——and what is exchanged—? To the first, worship is changed from God to idols—be they birds, reptiles, other humans, or anything else created. This mirrors the exchange of the second, of moving from what is natural to what is not natural. As well, this analysis deals with what  means, as well as Looking in Frederick William Danker’s edition of the lexicon we used for class, I see that  can mean “condition or circumstance as determined by birth,” which is listed as the first definition, and which is used by Paul in Romans 2:27 when referring to “our natural condition.” Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1069. This ‘natural condition,’ Danker points out in the same section, is that of being descendants of Adam; thus, reading  in this manner gives us the argument Cannon and I have both made: that we cannot exchange what we were not born with. Furthermore, Danker includes an instance of ‘contrary to nature’ () in this example, from Romans 11:24a. Here, Paul refers to those Jews who have turned away from God as ‘natural branches’ of an olive tree that God stripped away; in their place, God grafts branches from a ‘wild olive tree’ onto a ‘cultivated’ one, contrary to the nature of the ‘wild’ branches. Harold W. Attridge, ed., The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Including Apocrypha Deuterocanonical Books; Student Edition, NRSV (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006). Romans 11:17-24 The things are similar in nature—both are olive trees—but the wild ones are different enough from the cultivated ones that it would not be natural to graft them; only God could complete such a maneuver. This matches with the idea of  when applied to human sexual behavior: that we have inborn sexuality, and that we cannot exchange the sexuality we do not have for something else. However, Danker also includes as his third definition of  “the regular or established order of things, nature.” Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1070. Here, he specifically mentions Romans 1:26. This seems, on the surface, to be contrary to both my and Cannon’s arguments. However, reading further, I see that he likens it to “those who indulge in Aphrodite contrary to nature.” Ibid. This comes from a text he lists as “Athen. 13, 605d;” though I have not found that text itself, I have come across mention of it in another paper, which states that the remark refers to those who want to honor Aphrodite by having sex with boys. This would be against the nature of honoring Aphrodite, as heterosexual couplings only could honor her. Stephen A. White, “Clearchus on Love” (Social Science Research Network: Tomorrow’s Research Today, December 3, 2001), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310728. Given the idea that Paul would want to separate the early churches from goddess worship, it seems odd that he would associate worshipping God with only heterosexual couplings, in the same manner as one would worship Aphrodite. However, Danker further clarifies the intention here by including a reference from Philo: “a lover of boys pursues unnatural pleasure.” Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1070. Since the Athenaeus text and the Philo text both refer to boys, rather than men, I think we see here a reference to the pederasty which Knust discusses. That is, on the male side of things, Paul doesn’t want the members of the early Jesus Movement engaging in pederasty, as he sees it as being against the natural order of things. But sticking with only this meaning of dismisses the women from the equation, and so I think a true reading of this text holds a tension: that Paul attempts to conflate multiple ideas into one brief mention. I think Paul intends to say that we should not go against our inborn natures, and that he obliquely references the common practices of pederasty and goddess worship when he makes this statement. This seems clearer to me when I read Danker’s definitions of : “the state of being used….the state of being useful….state of intimate involvement w. a person.” Ibid., 1089. He places the Romans 1:26 usage of the word in the third category, showing that Paul had a special interest in our intimate relations with one another. Paul wants us to be ‘natural’ in our relations with one another; we should not be using our sexuality to dominate others unjustly (as in pederasty), to engage in sex purely to satisfy a god/dess (as in the goddess worship cults), nor to be contrary to our natures. Given the nature of the ‘ clause as Banister explains it, this idea fits. This reading, that keeps the tensions of the various meanings of  and , works with the idea that Paul does not specify in the antecedent that the women are having sex with other women. Rather, they are acting contrary to their nature; given the Platonic/Aristotelian logic of the time of women being lower than men, this could mean that women were penetrating men. It could also refer to self-penetration by women, and it could potentially refer to women penetrating other women—but it need not be restricted to that meaning. Thus, the rest of the clause—wherein Paul specifies that men are having sex with other men—makes sense, in that he would be referring to pederasty and the goddess-worship cults. These things do not have to do with orientation and would be against the nature of heterosexual persons, in a world in which women could not dominate men without the men becoming effeminate. Thus, it fits with Paul’s desire to keep the early Church separate from the dominant surrounding culture and from being associated with the patriarchy-subverting goddess cults of the time. Furthermore, even if one is persuaded that Paul really does mean to outlaw all homosexual acts, Kuhn raises the point that God’s law has been interpreted and reinterpreted, made and remade over and over. The revisions within the Hebrew Testament alone mark the passage of time and the development of humanity; the coming of Jesus and the way in which he attends to the law marks further such development. If we limit ourselves to only the letters of the biblical text, then we do not allow for this development to continue—despite the fact that our society is vastly different from the early Church’s, just as its society was vastly different from that of the most ancient Israelites. As I re-read this text with eyes and mind filled with all of these thoughts, I see a text in which Paul wishes to keep the early Jesus Movement members from engaging in idolatry. I see him outlining the idea that the people know God, and that some of them choose to turn away. In so turning, these people choose to worship created things—birds, reptiles, and one another. This last—the worship of one another—takes the form of turning away from one’s natural sexual inclinations to engage in that which is contrary to those natural inclinations. Because these people choose to do this, even though they know of God, God gives them up to these things. God does not force God’s self on these people, but rather leaves free will intact. Paul’s hope is that the people of the Jesus Movement will instead act true to their createdness, living thus in the truth and knowledge of God, and being just. In conclusion, I do not think we can conclude from this passage that Paul intends to argue that all homosexual activity is forever anathema to living a just life in God’s truth. Rather, we can say that turning against our own natures would be to live unjustly. In Paul’s time, such turning against would match with what he knew of the polytheistic and goddess-worshipping cults around him. It matches with his use of ‘and in that particular passage, fits with the pederasty and goddess-worship popular at the time, and makes sense of a difficult passage in which Paul seeks to outline many kinds of unjust acts. And even if Paul meant to outlaw what he understood of same-sex sexual activity, we can read with fresh eyes how God’s law changes as we change, to become ever more inclusive and encompassing of all people. Bibliography Attridge, Harold W., ed. “Romans 1:18-32, NRSV.” In HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Including Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books; Student Edition. New York: HarperOne, 1989. ———. , ed. The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Including Apocrypha Deuterocanonical Books; Student Edition. NRSV. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. Banister, Jamie A. “ ’Omoiws and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (2009): 569–590. Cannon, Justin R. “The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality: A Study by Justin R. Cannon, Founder of Inclusiveorthodoxy.org.” Justin R. Cannon (used by permission), 2008. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Duling, Dennis C. “Chapter 6: Galatians and Romans: Romans.” In The New Testament: History, Literature, and Social Context, 230–245. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003. Dunson, Ben C. “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life in the Community?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no. 1 (2011): 19–46. doi:10.1177/0142064X11415328. Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement: Volume I: Earliest Christianity. Vol. I. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2011. Knust, Jennifer Wright. “Chapter 3: The Evil Impulse: Disordered and Ordered Desire.” In Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, 79–112. New York: HarperOne, 2011. Kuhn, Karl A. “Natural and Unnatural Relations Between Text and Context: A Canonical Reading of Romans 1:26-27.” Currents in Theology and Mission 33, no. 4 (August 2006): 313–329. Lucas, Alec J. “Reorienting the Structural Paradigm and Social Significance of Romans 1:18-32.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 1 (2012): 121–141. Paul. “Romans 1:18-32, Nestle-Aland.” In Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Spitaler, Peter. “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading of Romans 1-3.” Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011): 33–71. doi:10.1163/156851510X541477. Townsley, Jeremy. “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (2011): 707–728. Wansbrough, Henry, ed. “Romans 1:18-32, NJB.” In The New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1990. White, Stephen A. “Clearchus on Love.” Social Science Research Network: Tomorrow’s Research Today, December 3, 2001. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310728. 16 | Gates