Summary
The impurity mentioned in Romans 1:24 is speaking of moral uncleanness—with overtones of lustful, profligate behavior. We must view sexual sin as unclean (in much the same we would soiled clothing), even if our culture disagrees.
Content
The New American Standard Bible (1995) translates Romans 1:24 as follows:
Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
That’s a decidedly strong rendering. Many other versions translate this word simply as “impurity” or “uncleanness”.
The word here is akatharsia (Greek: ἀκαθαρσία). You might check the concordance on that page if you’d like to see other places in the Bible this exact Greek word is used, and what the context of those other usages is. 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 4:19, Ephesians 5:3, and Colossians 3:5 are good cross-references usage-wise, for example.
The word can mean uncleanness in a physical sense—like soiled clothing. But what is in view here (and in the passages just mentioned as cross-references) is the metaphorical meaning of uncleanness in a moral sense—particularly with connotations of lustful, profligate behavior.
In the context of verse 24 in Romans 1, this word is being used in reference to sexual sin. There is no other way to responsibly interpret it in this passage.
Despite what our culture might say, sexual sin makes us unclean, and it is no small matter (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:18). One might consider the distaste someone might have for a dirty diaper. Do we look upon sexual sin with the same visceral disgust and revulsion as we would that physical object, were it to be held directly before our face? If we cannot honestly answer yes, well why is that?
People have been saying “bah, kids these days!” ever since both kids and days existed, but we would be remiss in not here pointing out that this phenomenon of becoming completely desensitized to the uncleanness of sexual sin actually legitimately is rather new. If someone from the postwar era of the 1950s were to be sat in front of modern advertising and movies, do we imagine they would take it all in without finding it horrifying how openly sexual the stuff on public airwaves is? The stuff put in front of children?
It’s not legalism. It’s not because we Christians are sexually-repressed prudes who have to discuss sex in hushed tones and breathless whispers because we view it as unnatural and even ungodly. (It is neither of these things, in its proper context of marriage). Rather, it is because any sexual relations external to the marriage bed disgust God, and we ought to feel the same way, culture be hanged. Because it is not what our culture says that is important, but what the Bible says.
Compare:
- Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and the following verses here in Romans 1 (particularly verses 26-27)
- Deuteronomy 22:5, and cf. Genesis 1:27 (God created humans male and female, according to the Bible)
The Bible is not unclear on the matters of homosexuality and transitioning genders, but it quite explicitly condemns them. And per our discussion just now, we need to view these things as we would unclean, soiled clothing, no matter what everyone else around us may say.
And so as to not have double standards (like some unfortunately do with regards to areas of sexual sin), we sure better feel the same way about sex before marriage, adultery, and pornography too, among other areas. All forms of sexual sin are abhorrent to God, not just the ones we personally don’t struggle with.