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).