Alan Shlemon shares three reasons why Romans 1 is the clearest and most strategic Bible passage for discussing homosexuality, directly appealing to God’s design for human sexuality.

Transcript

If someone were to ask you what you think the Bible says about homosexuality, even though I’ve listed six possible passages, my suggestion would be not that you turn to Leviticus or the Genesis passage of Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather that you would turn to Romans 1. I think Romans 1 is the most straightforward and defensible text on the topic. And I’ll mention three reasons why I believe it’s the most straightforward and defensible text in a minute. Let’s first look at what it says.

Now, keep in mind Romans is a letter Paul wrote, and in the first chapter, the context is that it is a creation narrative. Meaning, there’s all these references to God creating the world, creating humanity, and designing people to function in a certain way, and Paul says it’s so obvious that God has made what we see in creation. He said it’s so obvious that God’s hand is involved in that, that men are without excuse to believe there’s a God who made what we see. And then Paul says, but some people are rebellious. They reject the obvious evidence of God’s hand in creation, and instead of worshiping God the Creator, they worship the creation.

Then Paul says, these people who are rebelling, God hands them over to their degrading passions. In other words, it’s like a parent who, instead of constantly just disciplining their child, says, “Okay, look, you don’t want to listen to me. Fine. Go do whatever you want,” and just lets them go and run off, you know, following their foolish behavior. And that’s where we come to this passage in Romans 1. That’s what Paul means when he says, “For this reason, God gave them over to the degrading passions.” He just let them go. Like, fine. You don’t want to believe this? Do what you want. And he says, “For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

Now, I want you to notice I’ve given the Greek word there for function. And by the way, I’m using an NASB, which is a very literal kind of translation, to be careful with the words here. But the word “function” is the Greek word “chrésis,” which, according to the standard Greek lexicon, means use, relations, or function, especially of sexual intercourse. And so, notice then, Paul is making a design argument. He’s saying men abandoned the natural sexual function of a woman. So, for men, women are the natural appropriate sexual outlet. And for women, men are the appropriate sexual outlet. But these people that Paul’s referring to said they abandoned the natural sexual function that a woman provides a man, and said these men had sex with other men, and the women had sex with other women. So, it’s very clear here what Paul is saying regarding how humans were designed to operate. Remember, it’s in the context of a creation narrative—how God has made the world—but these people are rejecting that particular design.

Now, there are three reasons why I think this is a very powerful passage, and the one that I would suggest, for strategic reasons, that you turn to this one first if someone’s going to ask you, “Hey, what do you think?”

Number one, Romans 1 is the only passage that mentions both male and female homosexuality in one passage. Other verses in the Bible imply female homosexuality, I think, rather clearly, but they don’t state it specifically. So, this would avoid that potential objection. Like, “What about lesbianism?” You know, again, I think it’s still clear, but nevertheless, this just says it explicitly. So, you’re better off that way.

Second of all, Romans 1 is a New Testament text. Now, what possible objection would you come across if you cited, say, Leviticus 18:22? What might somebody say in response if you cited that passage in Leviticus as to the fact that homosexual sex is considered sin? Does anybody know? So, what they would say is, “Well, that’s the Old Covenant. That’s the old Law.” Leviticus prohibits, you know, people wearing clothes made out of the same kind of linen. It prohibits people from planting two different kinds of crop in the same field. It prohibits people eating pig products like bacon. And we don’t want to follow that, right? I mean, hello. Have you ever had bacon-wrapped filet? It’s amazing, right? Yes. And applause, right? Because filet mignon is one of the most tender steaks, right? It comes from the psoas major muscle in a cow, and it’s super, super tender. Now, don’t get me wrong. I love filet mignon, but unfortunately, sometimes fillets lack a little bit of flavor. Let’s be honest. Okay? Ribeye, for example, is a cut of steak that actually has lots of great beef, but it’s got marbled fat all mixed in with it. So, it has just much more flavor. But ribeye isn’t as tender, I think, at least, as much as a fillet. So, how do you solve this? Like, “Man, I want both.” Bacon-wrapped filet. You get the tenderness of the fillet, you wrap it in bacon, and you get the flavor of the ribeye. So, just, like, a delicacy to be cherished. Right?

Thankfully, Leviticus is part of the old Law, which I’m not saying means we ignore everything in Leviticus. There’s a lot to be said about it. But the person who says, “Hey, look. You don’t follow all the Levitical prohibitions, why do you care about what it says about homosexuality?”—they have a point. There is some truth to what they’re saying. But there is a way to explain how some principles in Leviticus are universal principles that still carry over and apply to the New Testament. But that requires an additional explanation. Romans 1 avoids that liability because it’s not just a New Testament text. It’s written during the New Covenant of Christ, which is the covenant that governs Christian behavior primarily today. Okay? So, that’s another reason why Romans 1 is a good text to go to.

The third thing I’d say is this. Romans 1 specifically details the behavior that is in question. Although the word “homosexual” does not appear anywhere in the text, it’s perfectly clear what behavior Paul’s talking about—the behavior where men abandoned the natural sexual function of a woman and instead had sex with other men. So, it’s perfectly clear what’s going on—what’s being referred to there. So, for that reason, I’d say, yeah, that’s a good passage to turn to.