Excellent exegesis, brother. I had never made the connection between Romans 1 and Genesis 1. I simply never thought to compare the Greek with the LXX. So what Paul is saying is that instead of bearing God’s image faithfully by worshipping Him and resembling Him, man has rejected God and worshipped idols resembling the things God has made. Secondarily, man is supposed to rule over those things that God had made, yet he has made himself subordinate to those things by worshipping idols of them. As a result, God gave them over to their debased passions, including homosexual activity.
This totally destroys the argumentation from some who try to argue for the legitimacy of some forms of gay sex in the eyes of God by claiming that Paul simply wasn’t aware of any “legitimate” or “monogamous” same-sex union in his day. Sorry, no way — Paul goes all the back to Genesis 1 in order to explain same-sex activity, and that too as a judgement by God, not a provision by Him. Game over! You don’t need to appeal even to the 1 Corinthians or Leviticus passages to argue that *all* same-sex intercourse is a sin.
Just to be clear, when you write about heterosexual trans people, you mean biological men or women with the opposite biological sex, correct? So, two trans people cancel themselves out, right?
So, I understand that homosexual attraction isn't sinful per se, just as thinking about stealing wouldn't be, but then what do we do with Jesus' words about anger and lust being equal to committing murder and adultery in one's heart? (Matt. 5:22, 28)
I haven't noticed Paul using the same vocabulary as Genesis in Romans. I've thought Romans 1:23 was a good verse to apply to believing in evolution over creation, but the way you connect it to Genesis 1:26, it sounds like it can apply to beastiality...
I just recently came across the biblical topic of effeminate men through Douglas Wilson. That may be harder to find in Scripture, but I never understood how one can claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality just because Jesus didn't explicitly condemn it (as if Him and His Word are separate). You've probably even heard the (poor) argument that David and Jonathan were homosexual.
Excellent exegesis, brother. I had never made the connection between Romans 1 and Genesis 1. I simply never thought to compare the Greek with the LXX. So what Paul is saying is that instead of bearing God’s image faithfully by worshipping Him and resembling Him, man has rejected God and worshipped idols resembling the things God has made. Secondarily, man is supposed to rule over those things that God had made, yet he has made himself subordinate to those things by worshipping idols of them. As a result, God gave them over to their debased passions, including homosexual activity.
This totally destroys the argumentation from some who try to argue for the legitimacy of some forms of gay sex in the eyes of God by claiming that Paul simply wasn’t aware of any “legitimate” or “monogamous” same-sex union in his day. Sorry, no way — Paul goes all the back to Genesis 1 in order to explain same-sex activity, and that too as a judgement by God, not a provision by Him. Game over! You don’t need to appeal even to the 1 Corinthians or Leviticus passages to argue that *all* same-sex intercourse is a sin.
Love this stuff! Thanks for writing on this, brother!
Just to be clear, when you write about heterosexual trans people, you mean biological men or women with the opposite biological sex, correct? So, two trans people cancel themselves out, right?
So, I understand that homosexual attraction isn't sinful per se, just as thinking about stealing wouldn't be, but then what do we do with Jesus' words about anger and lust being equal to committing murder and adultery in one's heart? (Matt. 5:22, 28)
I haven't noticed Paul using the same vocabulary as Genesis in Romans. I've thought Romans 1:23 was a good verse to apply to believing in evolution over creation, but the way you connect it to Genesis 1:26, it sounds like it can apply to beastiality...
I just recently came across the biblical topic of effeminate men through Douglas Wilson. That may be harder to find in Scripture, but I never understood how one can claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality just because Jesus didn't explicitly condemn it (as if Him and His Word are separate). You've probably even heard the (poor) argument that David and Jonathan were homosexual.