Apostle Paul clearly opposed homosexuality

The only model of sexual expression contemplated in Scripture is that which finds its pattern in the Creation model of Genesis 1–2. This is the pattern taught by our Lord and the apostles (see, for example, Matt. 5:27–32; 19:3–12). It is to occur in heterosexual marriage.

If in Romans 1 Paul opposes all forms of sexual expression between people of the same sex, then his judgments are, as Scroggs admits, “eternally valid.” Revisionist interpretations would do well to come under the meaning and authority of Scripture.


So What?

Several reasons seem persuasive that Paul does oppose homosexual lust and expression:

    1.      Paul writes as a Jewish Christian whose theology and ethics are formed by an Old Testament worldview, not Greek philosophy.98 Yet he speaks to Jewish and gentile readers with terms (the natural use and what is contrary to nature) that Greeks and Romans understood.

    2.      For Paul, what is “natural” (vv. 26–27) reflects the being or nature of the Creator (vv. 18–23) and His revealed law (the Old Testament). It is the normative creation order of what, as designed by God, ought to be, not what exists.99 Such terms as unnatural reflect the rebellion of fallen female and male against the order.

    3.      Paul’s teaching remains relevant to the discussion about homosexuality. He sets forth the matter as a continuation of Old Testament moral law and as flowing from the nature of God and human beings. He is in accord with all Scripture elsewhere, and subsequent tradition has interpreted Paul as normative.

      a.      He must have been acquainted with various forms of homosexual expression, including “adult-adult mutual homosexuality,” pederasty or pedophilia, lesbianism, and homosexual prostitution. However, he allows for no acceptance of any of these kinds of behaviors.

      b.      He must have been acquainted with the Greco-Roman view of a homosexual orientation, yet he makes no allowance for it. Although his words pertain primarily to behavior, it is inconceivable that he would tolerate a homosexual orientation or thought life. His instruction about feelings and thoughts can be summarized: “Set your affections (or hearts or minds) on things above, not on earthly things” (Col. 3:2; see vv. 1–3). We are responsible only for our own thoughts, but as a society we are responsible for the control of mutually destructive behavior.

      c.      Nothing is so new that the Bible can be gagged as irrelevant. The ethics of Scripture are pertinent to understanding and defining what is ethical behavior both within and without the church.

    4.      Contemporary homosexual practice is proof that Romans 1:18 still speaks in the present tense. The literary structure of Romans 1 places homosexual behavior under the judgment of God—it is one of the self-destructive sins of judgment that God has placed on people who suppress the truth, who refuse to glorify Him, who are not thankful, and who are idolatrous (vv. 18–23). In a deliberate literary construction, Paul shows that homosexuality is the second of three sins to which God has abandoned people as a consequence for the sins of verses 18–23: sexual impurity (v. 24); shameful lusts, including homosexuality and lesbianism (v. 26); and a depraved mind (v. 28). The implication that homosexuality is judgment from God is a sobering thought for society.

    5.      Even Plato, who glorifies homosexual love in Symposium, calls for legal sanctions to limit homosexual activity in the last work of his life (Laws) as a condition for a prospering society.

    6.      The terms nature and Mother Nature as used for the creation are pagan concepts and inherently void the concept of God’s work as Creator.

    7.      Romans 1:26–27 is written in the context of strong references to pride, arrogance, and rebellion against God. This view continues the Old Testament theme that homosexuality is an expression of sinful pride.

Beyond Paul’s description of homosexuality as against “nature” in Romans 1, current discussions of the morality of homosexuality include two other hotly argued passages: 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11. At the center of the dispute is the question of whether the word arsenokoitai means “homosexuals.” 


De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 163–164). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.