Does the Bible Call Homosexuality a Sin?--Political Issues Series

            The interaction between homosexuality and Christianity today is rather interesting and unprecedented. Everyone agrees that Christians have traditionally considered homosexuality to be a sin, but rather than forsake the Church altogether, some homosexuals have tried to argue that Christians have simply misread the Bible for the last 2,000 years! They claim that if we look behind biased English translations of the Bible to the original Hebrew and Greek copies, we will discover that the Bible does not, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

            This approach seems to be completely unprecedented. Compare this approach, for example, to something like adultery. Adultery has become far less taboo over the last few decades, but I have never heard anyone make the claim that for all of these years, Christians have been misreading what the Bible says about adultery! I think virtually everyone who has desired to commit adultery has simply turned away from the Bible and the Church to follow their own desires.

            Yet some homosexuals—and a growing number of denominations—have set out to revise Christianity’s historic opinion on this issue. So we need to clear the air about this question—does the Bible call homosexuality a sin? Today, I want to address the most common claims made by pro-homosexual interpreters and writers. You will likely run across these claims at some point if you haven’t already. For example, I just encountered them again the other day in an opinion piece on CNN.com.

            I am going to address eight claims concerning passages from Scripture and traditional Christian morality. I will be touching on several stories from Scripture, and for the sake of time I’m going to assume that you are familiar with these stories. If you are not, I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of this sermon, then read the stories later and go over the sermon again.

Claim #1—God’s anger toward the people of Sodom was directed toward the act of rape, not specifically the act of homosexuality.

            Pro-gay interpreters have been very fond of saying that the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 has nothing to say about God’s opinion of monogamous homosexual relationships. They claim it simply shows God’s disapproval of rape. Now it is certainly true that the men of Sodom weren’t trying to form civil unions with the angels whom they thought were ordinary men. But does this story say anything about homosexuality itself? I believe it does.

            Several pro-gay interpreters have tried to use Ezekiel 16:49 to say that the overall sin of Sodom was a lack of concern for the rights of others. That verse says, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” But several interpreters whom I read left off the next verse: “They were haughty and did an abomination before me (Ezek. 16:50).”

            Now what was this abomination? The Bible never uses that word to describe rape. That doesn’t mean that God approves of rape, it simply means that He used different language to condemn that sin. The Bible does, however, use that word to describe homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22. Now, the Bible does attach that word to refer to other sins as well, but this language certainly makes it at least possible that the abomination of Ezekiel 16:50 refers to homosexuality.

            I think Jude 1:7 really settles the matter. That verse says, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities…likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.” This verse is a more general reference to the sexual behavior of Sodom and the cities around it, and as such it gives a picture of their typical sexual behavior beyond simply the incident recorded in Genesis 19. Their typical behavior involved “unnatural desires”—desires that did not conform to God’s created order. It is not at all unreasonable to interpret this statement as a reference to homosexuality.

Claim #2—Commands against homosexuality in the Old Testament Law are irrelevant for homosexual behavior today.

            The commands in question here are found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13:

·         “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

·         “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

            Pro-gay interpreters have long amused themselves by pointing out strange quirks in the Old Testament Law. They say that if we’re going to point to the Old Testament Law to condemn homosexuality, then we should also stop eating pork and wearing shirts made of a poly-cotton blend! They are correct in saying that such actions were forbidden under Old Testament Law, and they are correct in saying that we do not live under such commands today. The New Testament makes it clear that in the unfolding of God’s plan for salvation, the Old Testament Law has served its purpose of pointing out sin and pointing to Christ. Thus, it is no longer directly binding on us today.

            But does that mean that the Old Testament Law no longer has any relevance for us? Certainly not! When we consider moral questions in particular, the Old Testament Law still gives us a picture of God’s opinion on the matter, because God’s moral opinions do not change. Thus, if He considered homosexuality to be a sin in the Old Testament, we can safely conclude that He still considers homosexuality to be a sin today.

Claim #3—Romans 1 condemns heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior—NOT people who are homosexual by nature.

            Romans 1 is without a doubt the central passage in the biblical debate about homosexuality. Let’s take a look at what it says in context [READ Rom. 1:18-28]. The main verses in question are vv. 26-27, which pro-gay interpreters have tried to place against the backdrop of sexual orgies which occurred in pagan temples in the culture of that time. Their main argument is that Paul is condemning heterosexual people who engaged in homosexual acts in these temples. These heterosexual people thus “exchanged natural relations”—in other words, the relations which were natural to them as heterosexual people. The pro-gay conclusion is that Paul is not talking about people who are homosexual by nature, and thus he is not offering a condemnation of all homosexual acts.

            This argument is filled with errors on several fronts. First, it misunderstands the language of “exchange” in this passage. That word occurs three times in the context—in v. 23, v. 25, and v. 26. In each verse, the exchange involves giving up something that fits with God’s created order for something that is a perversion of God’s created order:

·         “[they] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (v. 23)”

·         “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (v. 25)”

·         “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (v. 26).”

            This comparison reveals that when Paul talks about “nature” in v. 26, he is not talking about an individual’s personal desire or inclination. Rather, he is talking about the natural world as God created it, so homosexuality is a violation of the world as God created it and thus it is a sin against Him.

            Second, the pro-gay argument misunderstands the language of God “giving mankind up.” This phrase is also used three times in the context—in v. 24, v. 26, and v. 28. This phrase refers to an act of judgment from God in which He allows mankind to take one more step down the path of sin that we have chosen. Verses 18-23 tell us that humanity has chosen idolatry over the worship of God—which again is an exchange, a perversion of God’s created order. As a result, God has allowed us to take further steps away from His created order, which leads us to descend into a situation in which women are sexually involved with other women and men are sexually involved with other men. Such acts are a violation of the way that God created humanity, since, as Genesis 1 tells us, He created us male and female so that we could multiply and fill the earth.

            Third, the grammar of this passage shows us that the homosexuality of vv. 26-27 is logically subsequent to the idolatry of the preceding verses. Words like “therefore” and “for this reason” tell us that Paul is moving forward in his train of thought. This progression means that Paul is viewing homosexuality as a consequence of idolatry—not simply as an action that took place within the context of pagan worship, even though that may have been true. As Paul states it here, homosexuality is the result of humanity’s embrace of idolatry; thus, we cannot say that Paul is only condemning homosexual acts that took place in pagan temples.

The next two claims involve relationships that are mentioned in the Bible.

Claim #4—Naomi and Ruth were involved in a lesbian relationship.

            Pro-gay interpreters make this claim despite the fact that both Naomi and Ruth were married to men when we meet them, and much of their story is about Naomi’s efforts to get Ruth married to another man after their husbands pass away. But pro-gay interpreters have pointed to the verb in Ruth 1:14, which says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” That same verb is found in the famous “marriage” passage in Genesis 2:24, which says, “a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife.” Thus, since the same verb occurs in each of those verses, pro-gay interpreters claim that Naomi and Ruth established a lesbian relationship at that point.

            This argument is simply a classic example of disregarding the context in which a word is used. For example, at a wedding, people may say things about the bride and groom like, “They’re getting hitched,” but no one looks behind them to see if they’re towing a trailer! Context tells us how we should understand the words that are being used.

            Now, the same verb is used in chapter 2 when Ruth is told to “stay with” the harvest workers who were working in the fields of Boaz. Now clearly, we are not to conclude that Ruth married all of the harvest workers—she simply stayed with them. The context in which a word is used tells us the idea that it conveys; thus, Ruth 1:14 simply means that Ruth chose to stay with her mother-in-law after her sister-in-law Orpah left.

Claim #5—David and Jonathan were involved in a homosexual relationship.

            Though the Bathsheba incident tells us that David was clearly attracted to women, pro-gay interpreters have seized on a statement that David made in order to argue that he had a homosexual relationship with King Saul’s son, Jonathan. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David is lamenting Jonathan’s death in a recent battle when he says, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.”

            Pro-gay interpreters today have been very quick to insert erotic overtones into every biblical story that they can—as we have already seen with the story of Naomi and Ruth. But when we read this statement from David in the overall context of his life, we find no reason to think that this statement reflected anything more than a deep friendship. We know that Jonathan and David were both married to women, and David’s affair with Bathsheba reveals that he had a strong sexual attraction to women. Moreover, it is unthinkable that David could have become such a hero to the Jewish nation if he had an openly gay relationship, since such relationships were forbidden under the Law of Moses.

            Pro-gay interpreters seem unwilling to consider that such a thing as brotherly love exists. In their zeal to find God’s blessing for their own lust, I believe they are simply projecting their lust onto the pages of Scripture.

Claim #6—Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, therefore He was not opposed to it.

            Pro-gay interpreters have long pointed to Jesus’ silence about homosexuality in the Gospels as support for their position. But this claim is riddled with errors. First, it is simply an illogical argument. This kind of argument is what philosophers call an “argument from silence,” which basically means that these interpreters are putting words in Jesus’ mouth. If Jesus never spoke about the issue, it is illogical to say that His silence equals approval.

            Second, we really don’t know if Jesus ever spoke about homosexuality; it is possible that He did. The Gospels are not a collection of every word that Jesus ever spoke. But if He ever did talk about this issue, we actually have good reason to think that He would have condemned homosexuality. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus revealed His clear approval of the Old Testament Law when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” If Jesus approved of the Old Testament Law, then He also approved of the Law’s commandments against homosexuality.

            Third, this argument illegitimately puts the words of Jesus in a different category than the rest of Scripture. If all Scripture is breathed out by God, as 2 Timothy 3:16 claims, then we should not elevate one part of Scripture over another. It makes no difference whether the words came from the lips of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, or whether they came from the pen of men who were directed by the Holy Spirit to write the words that they wrote. Every word of Scripture is equally authoritative.

Claim #7—Homosexual desires are God-given at birth, therefore it is acceptable to act on them.

            It seems that we’re hearing this claim more and more, especially as researchers try to find genetic causes for homosexuality. Let me point out a few flaws with this argument. First, even if a person has homosexual desires from birth, it does not logically follow that those desires came from God. The presence of sin in the world has wreaked havoc on God’s creation, extending even as far as the desires that we feel. As we learned recently in our series on abortion, King David wrote that he had a sinful nature from the moment he was conceived (Psalm 51:5). In reality, we all have sinful desires from birth, but these desires came not from God, but from our own sinfulness.

            Second, the idea that my personal desires determine what is right and wrong for me is not a legitimate ethical standard. It violates our common intuition that certain acts are right and certain acts are wrong regardless of how anyone feels about them. It is simply a fact that no one consistently lives out the idea that right and wrong are simply matters of personal desire or opinion. If someone tries to tell you that they are, then just do something that they think is wrong and see how quickly they try to force their personal opinions on you! There are objective moral standards laid out by God, and His standards tell us what is acceptable and unacceptable—what is right and what is wrong.

Claim #8—The morality of biblical times is not an appropriate moral guide for today.

            This argument reveals the tremendous irony of pro-gay interpretation. They want so badly to find approval for their behavior in the Bible, but if it turns out that the Bible really does call their behavior “sin,” they’re ready to throw it under the bus!

            The gist of this argument is that times change and cultures change, so likewise, acceptable morality changes as well. This argument is another one with multiple problems. First, it rejects the idea that the authors of Scripture were guided by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. This argument views the Bible as simply a product of its times—not the product of a God who is capable of authoritatively speaking once to all times and all places.

            Second, this argument embraces the false idea that morality is a product of one’s culture rather than universal principles that are binding on all cultures. The problem with such an idea is that it is self-defeating. When someone claims that morality simply comes from your culture rather than universal principles, they believe their opinion is true of all cultures—in other words, they are claiming that their opinion is a universal principle, which isn’t supposed to exist according to their opinion! Ultimately, this idea shoots itself in the foot; it proves that it is false because it claims to be the very thing that the claim says it cannot be.

            We have put in a fair amount of time today assessing pro-gay interpretations of the Bible. It is very clear that they have put in a lot of time to try and find approval for homosexuality in the Bible. But why are they going to all this trouble? As I mentioned earlier, this effort is unprecedented—most people just immediately dismiss the Bible when it disagrees with what they want to do. But why can’t a significant number of homosexuals seem to be able to just walk away from the Bible?

            In my opinion, this quest represents a lack of inner peace within these individuals. They know that true peace can only come from God, and so they seek His approval, but at the same time they are desperately seeking to hold onto sin—the very thing that keeps them from God’s approval. In the end, the one hope for homosexuals is the only hope that exists for any of us: that Jesus became sin on the cross though He committed no sin, so that we could become the righteousness of God—accepted!—in Him (2 Cor. 5:21).

Responding to Our Culture of Abortion--Political Issues Series

            Back in January, the National Right to Life Committee examined information from the Center for Disease Control and other organizations and concluded that since 1973—when the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal in the US—roughly 54 million abortions have been carried out in the United States. That is close to the population of California and New York combined. By contrast, the total number of US war casualties over our entire history stands at 1.3 million.¹

            The statistics on abortion are staggering and numbing to both the mind and the soul. So how can we respond to an issue such as this that feels so overwhelming? Last week, we conducted a biblical examination of abortion and concluded that Bible-believing people should be morally opposed to the this practice. Today, we are going to talk about how we can respond to the culture of abortion that now exists in our nation. I am going to focus primarily on how you as an individual Christian can respond to this issue which often seems so overwhelming that we feel helpless to do anything about it.

            Last week, I stated that we were going to talk about responding to abortion with our head, our heart, and our hands, but I think John 1:14 provides a much better framework for discussion through its description of Jesus Christ: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” That final statement is profound. Jesus taught the truth and put it on display by the way He lived, but He always did so with grace by carrying out acts of service from a heart of compassion.

            This framework of “grace and truth” is the framework that I want to use this morning. I want to begin with “truth” because I think we need to spend more time with “grace.”

1. How can we respond to our culture of abortion with truth?

            A. Be informed about the facts

            We can’t spread the truth until we know it ourselves. That’s what last week’s sermon was all about. Last week, we talked about essentially four basic facts which show us that the baby in the womb is a human being in its own right, and thus it deserves the same dignity and protection that we would give to any other human being. I think we can remember these four facts fairly well with the acronym B.A.B.Y.:

·         B—Biblical teaching. The most important point to remember from our study of Scripture last week is that the baby in the womb has its own soul, which makes it distinct from its mother. Many of you already remember that Psalm 139 talks about the unborn child in the womb. If you can remember that reference and the idea that the child has its own soul, then you’ve got a good, basic grasp of the biblical teaching.

·         A—as in DNA. We noted last week that the child in the womb has its own unique DNA, which shows that it is distinct from its mother.

·         B—Brainwaves and Beats (as in heartbeats). The child in the womb meets the medical criteria for “life” since it has detectable brainwaves and a detectable heartbeat from its earliest days.

·         Y—“I” sound in that letter reminds us of “immune system.” The mother’s immune system considers the unborn child to be a foreign object in the body, and her immune system would destroy the child were it not for substances secreted by the baby which keep that from happening. Thus, the mother’s own body does not recognize the baby as being just another part of the body.

            With this acronym, you can remember some good, basic facts about a key question in the abortion debate—what is the fetus, or the child in the womb? There are many other ways that you can stay informed as well. You can subscribe to newsletters or magazines from pro-life organizations. I would like to personally recommend a book by Randy Alcorn called “Why Pro-Life?” There are many other good books that you can read as well.

Once you have become informed yourself, you can…

            B. Spread the truth as you have opportunity

            These opportunities may come up in private conversations as we’re talking to friends, family, or co-workers. Many of us are sweating right now at the mere thought of having such a conversation, but if we speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) and balance truth with grace, there is no reason to simply assume that such a conversation will become a fight or an argument.

            You can also spread the truth in public forums. You could write a “letter to the editor” for a newspaper or a magazine. You could make your opinion known at a town hall meeting with our politicians. Now, in our area, we have strong pro-life representation from our politicians at both the state and national levels, and I’m very thankful for that. But our elected officials need to hear that you support the pro-life stands that they have taken because such a stance can get lonely.

            Students, if you have to take a speech class, you could choose to give a speech on the issue. We can also engage people in discussion online through Facebook or e-mail. Now, we do need to proceed with caution when we bring up this subject online. Most of the forwarded e-mails that I receive about a subject like this simply deserve to be deleted because they may speak the truth, but they do so in a spirit of anger or arrogance. I don’t care if the bottom of the e-mail says, “If you really love Jesus, you’ll forward this to everyone you know.” Well, Jesus said, “If you love me, you’ll keep my commandments (John 14:15),” and one such commandment is to speak the truth in love.

            And as we speak the truth, we had better make sure to present the One who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life!” We must present Jesus and proclaim that through Him there is forgiveness for sin! There is forgiveness for women who have made this choice; there is forgiveness for parents or boyfriends or husbands who pressure women into making this choice; there is forgiveness for those who perform these procedures. In Jesus Christ, there is freedom from a life of bondage to guilt and shame!

            If we fail to proclaim forgiveness, then we fail to proclaim the whole truth. If God offers forgiveness to those who acknowledge that they had sinned, then we offer false testimony about Him if we fail to do the same.

           

We do need to be willing to speak up and spread the truth, but our efforts at spreading the truth will be greatly enhanced if respond to this issue with grace.

2. How can we respond to our culture of abortion with grace?

            I think to answer this question, we should think about “grace” in terms of acts of service. Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies give us opportunities to serve both the child and the mother. Let’s think about how we could serve them directly.

            A. Directly

            An unplanned pregnancy could give us many ways to serve the mother who finds herself in that position. In some cases, you may have the opportunity to take a woman into your own home to help her. This situation could be most common with a family member or a close friend. A young lady may get kicked out of her home when she becomes pregnant, or she may be surrounded by people who are pressuring her to abort her baby. Obviously, these decisions require wisdom, but you may be able to take a young lady into your home to provide support for her.

            In other situations, you may be able to provide financial help to a young woman, or household items that she may need to raise a child. You could offer to provide childcare to a woman who doesn’t know how she will juggle the demands of motherhood and work or motherhood and school. Your offer to provide help to the mother after the child arrives may give her just the glimmer of hope she needs to believe that she can get by if she chooses life for her child.

            You could also serve mothers and children by adopting a child or providing foster care. I really think that more Bible-believing people should seriously consider these options. I think they are a logical conclusion from a pro-life position. Sometimes pro-choice people criticize us by saying that we’re not really pro-life, we’re simply pro-birth—we just want to see to it that children are born, but after that we don’t really do that much to help them. Now that criticism is greatly exaggerated, but is there a small degree of truth to it? Maybe not, but even still we should do what we can to just squash that stereotype altogether.

            People who are pro-life should promote and uphold the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and adopting children or providing foster care is one way that we could do that. Now I have been humbled recently by the realization that some of the reasons people give for choosing not to even consider adoption are some of the same reasons that women give for choosing to have an abortion. Consider these reasons:

·         “It will be difficult to raise this child.”

·         “It will be a hard adjustment for the children I already have.”

·         “It will require financial sacrifices.”

            My friends, are we allowing some of the same logic that leads to abortions to keep us from even entertaining the thought of adopting a child? I really am not saying that everyone should adopt a child—I am simply saying that we should examine our motivations.

            B. Indirectly

            There are also many ways that we can serve mothers and children indirectly. Now when you hear the word “indirect,” please don’t think of the word “inferior.” There can be a big temptation to think that Christians who would take a pregnant woman into their home or Christians who adopt are super-Christians, and the rest of us can never hope to reach their level of spirituality. We need to see that temptation as the lie that it is and remember that indirect acts of service are still acts of obedience to God that are pleasing to Him.

            Indirect service simply means that you are helping the people who are directly serving a mother or a child. So you might serve indirectly by supporting a crisis pregnancy center. You could make financial donations, volunteer your time, or provide household items that are passed along to mothers. You could provide accounting services for them or mail out flyers. They could probably find a way to use just about any talent or skill that you have!

            You could also help someone who is seeking to adopt a child. You could help them cover the cost of adoption or provide legal help for them if you have that training. You could provide childcare if they already have children and have to travel to complete the adoption.

            You can also serve indirectly by raising awareness about the issue of abortion and the truth surrounding it. I’m the kind of person who will probably remember my B.A.B.Y. acronym until I go senile because that’s just how my memory works. But you might be able to raise awareness in ways that can be much more powerful than a sermon or a lecture. You might be able to paint a picture that captures the dignity of the child in the womb. You might be able to write a song or a poem that you could share with others. You might be able to write or present a one-man play about this issue and use drama to touch people’s hearts. You might bake a pie for a maternity class at the crisis pregnancy center, and 30 years down the road a mother will remember the taste of that pie, and it will remind her of the kindness that she received when she faced an unplanned pregnancy.

            Sometimes as we consider the reality of our culture of abortion, the needs can feel so overwhelming that we question whether we can really do any good. Let me close with a story that illustrates an important point.

            There was once a young girl who was walking along a beach, and as she looked down into the sand, she noticed a butterfly that was half-covered up. She didn’t know it, but the butterfly had been driven onto the beach by a storm the night before. The little girl thought the butterfly was dead, but she stooped down anyway to pick it up, and to her surprise it was still alive. The butterfly’s wings had become caked with wet sand so that it couldn’t fly, but as the girl gently brushed away the sand, the butterfly was able to escape. The girl was pleased, but as she looked at the sand again, she began to notice that there were hundreds of butterflies in the same predicament. The girl began to frantically attend to one butterfly at a time, desperately trying to save them before they died.

            A man nearby had observed all of this, and he was moved by the little girl’s compassion and by what he perceived as her naïveté. After a moment, the man spoke up and said, “Young lady, I admire your compassion, but you can’t save them all. Your work won’t make much difference.” The young girl never looked up, but simply picked up one more butterfly, brushed it off, and let it fly away, and then she said, “I made a difference to that one.”

            That is truly how great movements and great changes happen—one person at a time! No act of service is insignificant to the person who benefits from it, nor is it insignificant to the Lord. Jesus Himself spoke about acts of service in Matthew 25, and He said, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me (Matt. 25:40).”

Notes:

1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war  Accessed 9/12/12

A Biblical Examination of Abortion--Political Issues Series

            Political discussions are front-and-center right now in the media as we draw closer to the presidential election in November. I rarely speak on political issues from the pulpit for two reasons. First, I think there are many issues on which Bible-believing people can legitimately disagree. For example, the Bible doesn’t directly say how the United States should respond to the civil war in Syria. I think there’s room for Bible-believing people to disagree on that issue. Second, I believe very strongly that the systematic study of the Bible is just simply more important than discussing political issues. Political discussions are not unimportant, they are simply less important than a careful study of God’s Word—particularly in a setting like a worship service.

            However, as we study the Bible, I think we discover some very straightforward teaching about two issues that currently play a big role in American politics. Those issues are abortion and homosexuality. So, because our nation is currently focusing on such issues, we will be taking a biblical look at these issues over the next couple of weeks, beginning today with the subject of abortion.

            The political discussion about abortion in our country brings up many different questions, but I would like to suggest to you this morning that the most important question—from a biblical perspective—is the question, “What is the fetus?” Is it a part of a woman’s body just like any other part—even just a temporary part like baby teeth, which are not meant to be permanent? Or is the fetus a human being in its own right, even though it is located within the mother’s body? If the fetus is a human being, then it should be given all the dignity, respect, and protection that the Bible gives to human beings.

            As we scour the pages of Scripture, we find a very clear answer to this question. Without a doubt, the Bible describes the fetus as a complete human being—a person, who just happens to be in the earliest stages of growth and development. In fact, this conclusion is so overwhelming that I have never once heard someone use the Bible to attempt to prove that an unborn child is not a human being. We can state the complete teaching of Scripture this way:

The child in the womb is a human being from the moment of conception.

Let me show you this morning how we come to this conclusion from Scripture.

1. Children in the womb are viewed as ancestors of future generations (Gen. 25:22-23)

            This passage mentions Isaac, the son of Abraham, and his wife Rebekah becoming pregnant, then it says [READ 25:22-23]. I should point out that the Hebrew word translated “children” in v. 22 is the same word that is used for children who have already been born. So whether a child is in the womb or out of the womb, it is called the same thing in Hebrew.

            Now notice how the children are described in v. 23—they are described as human beings who will become fathers to other human beings. Now we all know that only a complete human being can reproduce. An individual body part cannot reproduce on its own, so these children are not seen as merely a part of their mother’s body. They are already seen as complete human beings who will one day be capable of reproducing. Also, they are human beings with destinies which are already distinct from each other, even though they are still in the womb.

2. Children in the womb are given the same legal protection as adults (Exodus 21:22-25)

            In Exodus 21, we read an Old Testament law about the penalty for a situation that caused premature birth [READ Ex. 21:22-25]. The penalty for harm to the child that is mentioned in vv. 23-25 is the same penalty that was given in Leviticus 24 for someone who caused harm to an adult. The point is clear: the child in the womb is viewed as a human being—just as an adult is viewed as a human being.

            Our own country is sadly and strangely inconsistent on the legal rights of an unborn child. Even though abortion is permissible under federal law, the federal government also passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004, which recognizes unborn children as victims when they are injured or killed during a violent crime. So which is it? Does unborn child deserve the status and legal rights of a human being? According to the Bible, the answer is clearly “yes.”

3. Children in the womb already have a place in God’s plan for humanity (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

            Let’s read about Jeremiah’s call to be a prophet in Jer. 1:4-5 [READ Jer. 1:4-5]. Notice that the Lord’s knowledge of and plan for Jeremiah were actually there before Jeremiah was even conceived! Thus, from the moment he was conceived, God had a purpose and a plan for him. Notice that God also said, “I formed you in the womb.” More on that thought in just a moment.

4. Children in the womb already have a moral identity (Psalm 51:5)

            In Psalm 51:5, King David writes, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Now keep in mind that David is writing about his own sinfulness in this psalm, so he is not saying that his mother committed a sinful act when she conceived him. He is saying that from the moment he was conceived, the moral category of “sinfulness” already applied to him. This statement is significant because sin applies to the human soul, so David’s claim means that he had a soul from the moment he was conceived. This fact would make him distinct from his mother. Various parts of the body do not individual souls—only a complete human has a soul, so the unborn child must be a complete human in its own right from the moment it is conceived.

5. Children in the womb can be filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15)

            Luke 1:15 is part of the story of John the Baptist, whom we might say was like the “opening act” for Jesus. He was supposed to prepare people for Jesus’ ministry. In Luke 1:15, an angel speaks to John’s father and says of John, “he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Now being filled with the Spirit is a spiritual experience, so it is only possible for a human being, who has a spirit or a soul.

6. Children in the womb can experience emotions (Luke 1:44)

            You mothers can probably testify to this fact! This point also comes from the story of John the Baptist. At one point, Mary, the mother of Jesus, came to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, and in Luke 1:44 Elizabeth says, “behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” This child was experiencing emotions, which are reactions that flow from the connection between body and soul. So this child was not just a part of Elizabeth’s body—it was something that possessed its own soul.

7. Children in the womb are the handiwork of God (Psalm 139:13-16)

            Psalm 139 is by far the most familiar passage about the child in the womb. In the first part of the psalm, King David is describing God’s complete knowledge about us and the fact that we are always in His presence. In v. 13, he starts to explain one of the reasons for this [READ v. 13a]. The Hebrew term translated “inward parts” is literally “kidneys.” The ancient Jews spoke of the kidneys the same way we speak of the heart today. When I tell my wife, “I love you with all of my heart,” I’m not talking about the muscle that pumps blood! I’m talking about my spirit or my soul.

            So when David writes in the next line, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb,” what we have is a description of God forming David’s body and soul. Again, this is very important to note, because if the child in the womb has its own soul, then it is a human being, since individual body parts do not have their own souls. Thus, we cannot say that the child is simply a part of the mother’s body like all other parts.

            David’s description continues in v. 14 [READ v. 14-16a]. “Unformed substance” refers to the earliest days of a child’s development—before it has started to look like a human. So once again, the Bible pushes the idea of personhood all the way back to the earliest days of pregnancy—even to the moment of conception.

            Finally, David writes [READ v. 16b-d]. As we read in Jeremiah, the child in the womb is already part of God’s plan for humanity. God knows about every day that the child will live before it is even born.

I think you can see that the Bible is very consistent on this point—the child in the womb is a human being in its own right, not simply a part of its mother’s body. Now because the Bible teaches us this perspective, its not surprising to find that scientific and medical observations agree with the Bible. Let me quickly mention a few of these observations.

Scientific observations confirm the claims of the Bible!

1. The child in the womb has its own unique DNA

            Your DNA is like your genetic fingerprint—it displays your unique identity at the genetic level. So just as two different fingerprints would identify two different people, the difference between the mother’s DNA and the baby’s DNA shows us that we are dealing with two different people.

            DNA has also been called, “the blueprint for your body,” because it contains the information that determines how your body develops. Now if an architect has two different sets of blueprints, he knows that he is dealing with two separate buildings. So the child’s unique DNA shows that it is a unique human being, distinct from its mother.

2. The child in the womb is recognized as a foreign object by the mother’s immune system

            I thought this fact was fascinating when I first learned about it. I’d like to read a quote for you from a medical doctor who describes this observation:

The baby is a completely new individual, with unique genetic material that expresses foreign markers on his cells that are not recognized as "self" by the mother. The mother's immune system should destroy the new baby's first cells within just a few cell divisions, but substances secreted by the placenta and baby promote a complex suppression of the maternal immune response only within the implantation site of the uterus. The placental tissue that touches the uterus has decreased expression of markers that would provoke an immune response, and the mother's body therefore accepts it. Without this immunological acceptance, no baby would ever survive.¹

            This is amazing, and its also amazing that anyone would continue to claim that a baby is simply a part of its mother’s body. How could we make that claim when the mother’s own body doesn’t recognize the baby as being part of itself?

3. The child in the womb meets the medical criteria for life from its earliest days

            Medical authorities determine a person to be “alive” if there is either a detectable heartbeat or brain-wave activity.² A baby in the womb meets both of these criteria from its earliest days. A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as 18 days after conception, and brainwave activity can be detected as early as 40 days after conception. Virtually all abortions occur after both of these criteria have been met, so there should be no doubt that abortion ends a human life.

            So we have seen this morning that the Bible clearly teaches that the child in the womb is a distinct human being, and since the Bible describes the world the way it really is, it is not surprising to find scientific and medical facts that agree with the Bible. Thus, if the unborn child is a human being, then it should be given all of the dignity and protection that Scripture gives to human beings—including the prohibition against murder. Now let me be clear—I doubt if there has ever been a woman who walked into an abortion clinic thinking, “I’m about to murder my baby.” So many people just don’t know these facts, which only compounds the tragedy of abortion since mothers just don’t realize what they are doing. Next week, we are going to discuss how we can offer a biblical response to our culture of abortion with our head, our heart, and our hands, but this morning let us all understand that Bible-believing people should be morally opposed to abortion, and this conviction should influence our voting choices as well as all other areas of our lives.

Notes:

1. Guliuzza, R. J. 2009. Made in His Image: Human Gestation. Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 10.

2. Sanctity of Life, C. Swindoll, Word, 1990, pp. 11-12.

From http://bible.org/illustration/heartbeat  Accessed 9/5/12.

God--The One, True Know-It-All--Attributes of God Series

            Nobody likes a know-it-all—someone who acts like they know everything. That’s why such people are so annoying—because their attitude is only an act, and everyone knows it but them. However, I believe everyone desires the sense of security that comes from knowing that someone really does know it all!

            This morning as we study God’s attributes or characteristics, we will see that God is the one, true know-it-all! According to the Bible, God knows everything that can be known. The big, fancy word for this attribute is “omniscience,” a word that comes into English from Latin. I want to answer a couple of general questions this morning about what God knows and how He came to know it, then we will talk about some comforting and challenging implications of this attribute of God.

1. What does God know?

A. He knows all factual knowledge about the past, present, and future (1 John 3:20; John 21:17)

            This claim will become obvious as we go on this morning, but the Bible does include a couple of short but direct statements to this effect. In 1 John 3:20, John writes about how God’s knowledge is greater than ours, and he concludes the verse by simply writing, “God knows everything.” Also, in John 21:17, Jesus is having a conversation with the apostle Peter in which Jesus repeatedly asks Peter about Peter’s love for him. Finally, Peter simply says, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Peter was affirming that Jesus is God, and as God, He knows everything. So God knows everything that has happened in the past, He knows everything that is happening now, and He knows everything that will happen in the future. But not only does He know what did happen in the past…

B. He knows what would have happened in the past if circumstances had been different (Matt. 11:20-24)

            In Matthew 11, Jesus speaks out against the people of certain cities who refused to believe in Him. In v. 21 he says, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Tyre and Sidon were cities that were frequently criticized in the Old Testament for their idolatry, but here Jesus says that they would have repented if they had seen the mighty works that He was performing! This is a fascinating statement because it tells us that God knows all of the various courses that history could have taken. So for example, He knows how the US would be different if the South had won the Civil War, or if Germany had won World War II. Sometimes when I was on vacation as a child, my dad would ask me how I thought my life might be different if I had grown up in our vacation town rather than my hometown. That was always interesting to imagine, but God doesn’t have to imagine it because He actually knows!

C. He knows my very thoughts (Ps. 139:1-4; Gen. 6:5)

            God not only knows what we actually do—He knows the thoughts that lie behind our actions and the thoughts upon which we never choose to act. In Psalm 139:1-4, King David wrote, “O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.”

            Also, just before the global flood in the Book of Genesis, we read this: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5).” The Lord not only saw the people’s wicked acts, He understood their thoughts as well. And not only does God know the thoughts of my heart…

D. He knows my heart more accurately than I do (Jer. 17:9-10; Ps. 139:23-24)

            It is very easy for us to act a certain way and tell ourselves that our motives were good and noble when in reality they were anything but. But God is not fooled by our mind games. Jeremiah 17:9-10 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

            Now this idea of self-deception is a little disturbing, because we may think, “How will I ever know if I’m deceiving myself?” Well, we can pray the same prayer that King David prayed at the end of Psalm 139: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting (Ps. 139:23-24)!” David is admitting that even he doesn’t understand his own heart the way that God does, so he asks God to search him and then lead him. That is the same prayer that we should pray as well.

Well, we have seen now the basics of what God knows, now let’s answer the question…

2. How did He come to know it?

A. Not through the instruction of anyone else (Is. 40:13-14; Rom. 11:34)

            In Isaiah 40:13-14, Isaiah asks some rhetorical questions about God. He writes, “Who has measured the Spirit of the Lord, or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?” Since these are rhetorical questions, the obvious answer is—no one! He has not consulted with anyone to acquire His knowledge; no one has taught Him anything. He just simply knows what He knows! This reality is true largely because…

B. He knows the future because He has planned the future (Eph. 1:11; Is. 46:9-11)

            From the moment that God created the world, He had a plan in mind that He is now carrying out. Ephesians 1:11 says, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” When the Apostle Paul wrote those words, He may have had a passage like Isaiah 46:9-11 in mind, which says, “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” According to these verses, why is God able to declare the end from the beginning? Because He has a purpose or a plan that He is able to carry out.

            I used this illustration a few weeks ago, but it bears repeating here. When God tells us about the future in the Bible, He is like an architect giving someone a tour of a job site. The architect is able to tell you what the final product will look like because he has already planned it, and now he is just carrying out his plan.

            God’s knowledge operates the same way. Now, this does not mean that you and I are merely puppets or robots who don’t make any real choices. The Bible always speaks to us as creatures who make real choices for which we are responsible. I’m afraid we’ll just have to wait for God to explain all of this to us someday, but suffice it to say that God’s knowledge comes from His plan for all things.

Let’s conclude this morning by thinking about a few comforting and challenging implications of the fact that God knows all things.

3. Some comforting and challenging implications

A. God knows my needs even before I ask Him to meet them (Matt. 6:7-8)

            Jesus specifically makes this point in Matthew 6:8. This thought is very comforting because we have many daily needs about which we simply forget to ask! For example, when is the last time you asked God to protect you while you sleep? We don’t think about that often around Montezuma, but it’s a real need!

            We also never need to worry that we’ve failed to give God enough information about our needs. We never need to think, “Oh no! I forgot to tell God when that bill is due! How will He ever know?”

            We also have needs come up that can drastically change our lives, like medical problems or a death in our family. Sometimes we’re unprepared to deal with the needs that come during these times, but God was not caught off guard! He knows His plan to help us before we even know we need help!

B. God’s knowledge about my life is first-hand knowledge

            God doesn’t learn about us through some heavenly game of “Telephone” where one angel talks to another angel who talks to another angel until the news finally reaches God. He doesn’t need to rely on anyone else for His knowledge about us.

            Sometimes people treat us unfairly because they received bad information about us. Friends may pull away because they’ve heard some rumor about us, or they may assume that we’ve had bad motives for some decision that we’ve made. But we don’t have to worry about unfair treatment from God! We will never hear Him say, “Rumor has it…!”

C. God knew about all of my future sins when He gave me the gift of salvation

            This is a very comforting thought. In our series on eternal security, we learned that when God grants me forgiveness for my sins, God as my Judge is declaring that my “debt to society” (so to speak) has been fully paid. When He rendered that verdict, He did so not only with knowledge of all my past sins, but with knowledge of all my future sins as well, and He declared that all of them had been paid for by the blood of Christ.

            So you can rest assured that there is no skeleton in your closet that will cause God to re-open the case against you! There is no new evidence against you that will come to light because God already knew about all of the evidence. This thought gives us the confidence and reassurance that we need to thrive spiritually because we never have to wonder if God will change His mind about adopting us into His family.

D. I cannot hide anything from God (Heb. 4:12-13)

            God knows me inside and out, so consequently, I can never fool Him! I could be two-faced and live a double life for a long time, and its possible that my secrets might never get out. But no matter how many people I fooled, I would never have fooled God for a single moment.

            This thought is very sobering. It means that my life is an open book to God. Hebrews 4:12-13 states, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” I think the author of Hebrews may have had Genesis 3 in mind when he wrote that last sentence. After Adam and Eve sinned against God, the Bible says that they sewed some fig leaves together to hide their nakedness, because now all of a sudden they were embarrassed and ashamed. But God wasn’t fooled by a few fig leaves, and He’s not fooled by our attempts to hide our sins today. He’s not fooled when we delete the browsing history on the computer; He’s not fooled when we say hurtful things and then try to pass it off as a joke. Its just fig leaves! King David’s prayer is worth repeated here: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting (Ps. 139:23-24)!”

            May we be corrected today by understanding the depths of God’s knowledge, and encouraged by basking in His greatness. As the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways (NASB)!”