20 Bible statements on homosexuality in response to liberal pastors
 |
| The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah THIS IS A RESPONSE TO BRAD CHILCOTT AND TONY VENN BROWN |
Old Testament Questions
Creation
1. Does the Creation account of Genesis 1 preclude homosexuality when it presents God’s design for the creation of man and woman in the “image and likeness” of God?
The Revisionist Answer
The Creation account is concerned solely with reproduction—multiplying and filling the earth. The design of the creation of human beings does not inherently oppose homosexuality as an identity for some people.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 1:26–30 testifies that man and woman were made complementarily for each other; together they were made for God and form the image of God. Only the couple, man and woman together, reflects the totality of this divine image. A homosexual couple mirrors only themselves, two males or two females who come together (pp. 31).
2. Does the account of the purpose and plan for marriage in Genesis 2 exclude a homosexual relationship?
The Revisionist Answer
The purpose of the account of the making of a woman for man is to empower the reproduction and preservation of the species. It does not inherently condemn homosexual unions, any more than it would condemn celibacy—a position the church has recognized and accepted throughout the ages.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 2 gives special attention to the making of the woman, Eve, for the man, Adam. This incident is unique in the Creation account. No comparable level of attention is given to the making of female animals for male animals. This suggests that, although reproduction is the focus of the creation design for animals, human creation looks to purposes that transcend reproduction and species survival. Reproduction is important, but human beings are more than the sum of their physical and nonphysical attributes. Spiritual, emotional, and physical aspects interplay in the definition of human being (pp. 32).
Sodom and “Cult Prostitutes”
3. What does Genesis 19 tell us about the sin of Sodom?
The Revisionist Answer
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality toward Lot’s guests. The context of Genesis 19 does not mention homosexuality. The meaning of know in 19:5 refers to identifying the visitors. The corresponding Hebrew word is used more than nine hundred times with the meaning of “to become acquainted”; relatively rarely does it have the meaning of “to know sexually.”
Even if homosexuality was involved at Sodom, it was rape, which had nothing to do with consensual, mutual same-gender behavior as it is now defined. Homosexual rape was an especially humiliating form of conquest over victims. Victors raped the vanquished.
The Biblical Answer
The words of the text describe the evil intent of the Sodomites. In light of Sodom’s reputation recorded earlier in Genesis (13:10, 13; 18:20–21, 23ff.), the behavior of the sodomites was known to be particularly despicable. However important hospitality was in that society, inhospitality does not fit this description.
The meaning of the terms in any text is defined by the context. The meaning of know in Genesis 19:5 must be considered by the use of the same word in 19:8, where it has an unmistakably sexual meaning: Lot said his daughters had not “known” a man. This use argues strongly that the same word has the same meaning within the scope of four verses, unless there is strong contrary indication. But all other evidence supports, rather than weighs against, a sexual connotation. “To have sexual intercourse” must be the preferred translation for know.
The literary form of the larger context, in which the incident describing Sodom occurs, argues strongly for a sexual nature to the sin of Sodom. The events at Sodom pose a threat to fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding a seed and a land (Genesis 12, 15). Sodom threatens the fulfillment of God’s larger promise and plan to bless the Gentiles through Abraham and to bring about a just society (pp. 32–36).
It is correct that rape, or homosexual conquest, was the intent of the men’s actions. Yet Sodom is used frequently in Scripture as an illustration of depravity or judgment in which rape or conquest does not fit or is inadequate; the full range of homosexual thought and behavior does fit. Among the thirty-nine such applications of Sodom are Deuteronomy 29:23 (cf. vv. 19–21); 32:32–35; Isaiah 1:9–10 (cf. vv. 4–5); 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40 (cf. vv. 31–32); Lamentations 4:5–8; Ezekiel 16:44–50; Amos 4:11 (cf. ch. 4); Zephaniah 2:8–10. “Sodom” takes on the broader connection with homosexuality throughout the rest of Scripture, having implications of pride, in addition to violence or inhospitality. The passages mentioning Sodom never suggest the idea of homosexual rape over conquered foes (pp. 34–47; 74–104).
4. What was the sin committed at Gibeah as recorded in Judges 19–20? In particular what is meant in 19:22?
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” (NIV)
The Revisionist Answer
The same kind of behavior that occurred at Sodom satisfies the account of the sin of the Benjaminites at Gibeah: homosexual rape.
The Biblical Answer
The incident at Gibeah is similar to that at Sodom, except that the sin occurs within Israel. The account of Judges 19 is probably consciously modeled on that of Genesis 19. However, nothing in the biblical record differentiates nonconsensual behavior or rape from consensual behavior (pp. 36–37).
5. How does the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C., understand Genesis 19, as reflected in their translation?
The Revisionist Answer
The LXX understood the Hebrew as meaning “to become acquainted.” The simple Greek word for “know” appears in Genesis 19:5, just as in the Hebrew. Neither is a sexual meaning read into Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters, who have not “known” a man, to the sodomites. At this place the translation of the LXX is in error.
The Biblical Answer
The LXX correctly translates know of the Hebrew into the corresponding Greek know in 19:8. Sexual intercourse and acquaintance are within the range of Greek definitions for the word, just as in the Hebrew. Context demands the sexual definition.
In the LXX for Genesis 19:5, translators used a word that more often means “to become acquainted with.” This was not an error, for the word has a sexual meaning in its only other occurrences in the LXX: Genesis 39:10; Judith 12:16; and Susanna 11, 39 (cf. Susanna 37). A sexual use of the word is also found in secular writers of the LXX era. This argues strongly that the LXX translators saw a sexual meaning in Genesis 19:5—where they wanted to represent more explicitly the sexual meaning of the passage than did the Hebrew (see pp. 34–36, 114–21).
6. In Deuteronomy, Kings, and Job, the Hebrew uses a form of qādēš (“cult prostitute”). The LXX uses a variety of words to translate this one term. Is this a reference to homosexual relations, as in the King James Bible and some other translations, which use the word sodomite?
The Revisionist Answer
There is no basis for reading homosexual connotations into the concept of “cult prostitute.” The word qādēš does not demand this, and historical records are silent. The word would more likely mean simply a female prostitute who serviced males. The LXX translates the references to “cult prostitute” in such passages by a variety of terms, showing that even these early Jewish scholars were confused as to the meaning of the Hebrew. None of the terms used suggests homosexuality. The LXX and English versions using sodomite are “mistranslations.”
The Biblical Answer
Context again informs the meaning of the Hebrew word. In Deuteronomy 23:17–18 the text refers explicitly to both female and male cult prostitutes servicing those who come to them, and forbids offering to the Lord the payment or hire for such services. Such offerings are an “abomination” to the Lord. References to the word dog in the Hebrew definitively show it to be a male cult prostitute. Many revisionists accept this translation. Because women were excluded from most pagan worship, the prostitution in view was almost certainly homosexual, making this the predominant form of cultic prostitution. The LXX appropriately uses Greek equivalents to the terms harlot, prostitute, and dog. Dog refers to males who debased themselves in the manner of women, often in the role of acting as agents for a deity. They were devotees of the gods and goddesses.
The LXX adds two clauses to the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 23:17, using terms that mean “sorceress,” “dedicated person,” or “initiated person.” These words refer to female and male prostitutes who were initiated to serve the mystery religions that were rampant in the ancient Near East during Hellenistic times—the era during which the LXX was translated in the third or second century B.C.
The other translations for the Hebrew qādēš include syndesmos (“binding,” “union,” in 1 Kings 14:24); teletas (“initiate,” “devotee,” in 1 Kings 15:12); endiellagmenou (“changed,” “perverted,” in Codex Alexandrinus at 1 Kings 22:47); kadesim (a Greek way to transliterate the Hebrew qādēšim in 2 Kings 23:7); and titrōskomenē (“wounded,” “crushed,” “pierced,” in Job 36:14).
All of these terms represent obvious attempts to use terms correlating to contemporary forms of male cultic prostitution in the mystery religions and elsewhere in their day. Historians of the era of the LXX (e.g., Livy, 59 B.C.–A.D. 17) speak of the homosexuality practiced in mystery religions. Contextualization in the LXX neither contradicts nor violates the meaning of the Hebrew text, because the cultic homosexual idea was there already. The LXX is a reliable translation at these points.
Historical data from all over the ancient East show that ancient peoples practiced homosexuality in various forms. Male temple prostitutes who serviced men were common. Certain forms were punished (see pp. 122–25, 127–30).
7. What do later prophets understand the sin of Sodom to be?
The Revisionist Answer
The reference to Sodom in Ezekiel proves that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality (16:49) and pride (16:50). The text refers to Sodom often, yet it never cites homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The rest of the prophets follow the example of Ezekiel.
The Biblical Answer
Sodom was guilty of arrogance, abundance, apathy, and neglect of the poor and needy, according to Ezekiel 16:49. Yet Ezekiel 16:50 goes far beyond pride or haughtiness to cite “abominations” or “detestable things” as the sins of Sodom. The language used is applied to homosexuality in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 18:23 and 20:13 call homosexuality “abomination.” The same Hebrew and Greek terms used in Leviticus for homosexuality occur in Ezekiel for Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Prophets consistently identify the sin of Sodom with such descriptive words as pride, gluttony, and arrogance. While they never say that the sin of Sodom is homosexuality, such terms as abomination take us back to Leviticus 18 and 20. If the prophets do not use the word homosexuality, neither do they say that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality (see pp. 43–47).
Passages from Leviticus 18 and 20
8. How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal?
The Revisionist Answer
The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma).
These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic.
Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance.
The Biblical Answer
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior, with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed in the two chapters, this is the only one singled out as an “abomination,” and this use occurs twice. It speaks to severity and provides a link to Ezekiel 16:50, where the prophet identifies Sodom’s sin as an “abomination” (see pp. 43–45 for an extended treatment of this term).
As a whole, Leviticus 18–20 forms a special section within Leviticus that transcends Israel’s cult or ritual. In significance the text approaches Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Ten Commandments occur. These texts are universal in scope. No mention is made of sacrifice, ritual, or ceremony, as in the rest of Leviticus. The sins of this section, commonly referred to as the “Code of Holiness,” are child sacrifice, religious prostitution, spiritism and consulting mediums, cursing parents, adultery, incest, bigamy, homosexuality, and bestiality. None of these are limited to Israel’s own purity code.
Other considerations support their universal significance. The New Testament cites Leviticus 19 as a universal code. Jesus cites Leviticus 19 as universal (Matt. 5:33, 43; 19:19; 22:37–40), as do Paul (Rom. 10:5; 13:8–10; 2 Cor. 6:14ff.; Gal. 3:12; 5:14), Peter (1 Peter 1:14–16), and James (2:8). Frequently they cite the “second commandment”: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18). Surely they saw this section as embodying universal standards of morality. The prohibitions of Leviticus 19 repeat or reflect on the Ten Commandments, including prohibitions of stealing, lying, deceiving, swearing falsely, and cursing (19:11–12).
Although some instructions and prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are limited to Israel (distinguishing clean and unclean animals and having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period), most are not. The context itself distinguishes limited, cultic prohibitions from universal prohibitions. The reader is able to discern which laws are universal. In addition, the similarity of these chapters to the Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s applications of this section warrant consideration of most of these rules as valid. Prohibitions of homosexuality elsewhere in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testament also justify the interpretation that the prohibition is universal.
Application of the death penalty in 20:13 must be a factor in our consideration. It raises homosexuality from the level of a simple social or civil concern to the category of a crime against society (see pp. 47–59, 63).
Traditional Jewish Literature
9. What is the view of the traditional literature of the Jews? How do the Mishnah and targums view Old Testament references to homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
The traditional literature of the Jews as found in the Mishnah and elsewhere does not interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. This literature is unclear in its understanding of the severity of homosexuality. More recent writings of the Jews have greater importance than does this ancient tradition.
The Traditional Jewish Answer
The Mishnah and those various targums that discuss homosexuality take the biblical passages as condemning it. The Mishnah (Sanh. 7:1–9:1) restates the penalty of death and groups homosexuality with adultery, incest, and murder. Yet it allows for atonement for the sin of homosexuality, as for adultery and murder. Later Jewish writings, such as the works of Philo and Josephus, follow the interpretation of the Mishnah and strongly condemn homosexual vice (see pp. 56–58, 244–48).
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
10. What do the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha say about homosexuality? How does this Jewish literature written between the Testaments understand the references to Sodom and homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
This body of literature does not read the Old Testament passages as condemning homosexuality in general; rather they refer to some other sin, such as pederasty. Sodom is condemned for its pride and inhospitality.
Even if homosexuality is understood to be the sin of Sodom, this interpretation is wrong and linked to the sin of the angels before the Flood. These angels committed a sin “against nature.” In turn, this interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has wrongly influenced various places in the New Testament (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6–8) so that they also link the sin with that of the fallen angels. All of these improper connections arose in the intertestamental literature because of Jewish aversion to Greek homosexual practices.
The Traditional Jewish and Biblical Answer
Various passages in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 16:8; 10:13–18; 49:2) use such terms as abomination and arrogance—terms associated with homosexuality—to describe the sin of Sodom. Wisdom of Solomon 14:23–26 cites “confusion of sex” as one result of idolatry; this phrase may be rendered, “interchange of sex roles.” Wisdom 19:13–17 and 10:6–9 describe the sin of Sodom as inhospitality, as well as “ungodly,” “wickedness,” “failure,” and “folly” (see pp. 72–84).
The Pseudepigrapha even more definitely associate homosexuality with Sodom. Second Enoch 10:4–5a and 34:1–3 use stark language to describe sodomy. Third Maccabees 2:3–6 describes the Sodomites as acting “insolently” and becoming “notorious for their crimes.” Jubilees 7:20–21, 16:5–9, and 20:5–6 describe the sin of the Sodomites as “wicked,” “sinners exceedingly,” “defiling themselves,” “committing fornication in their flesh,” “working uncleanness on the earth,” “fornication and uncleanness,” and “pollution of sin.”
Fourth Ezra 2:8–9; 5:7 and 7:102–31 refer to Sodom as coming under divine judgment. Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5 and 4:1 refer to the sin of Sodom as “wickedness” and that which “changed the order of nature” in a way similar to the sin of the angels before the Flood. Testament of Asher 7:1 connects the sin of Sodom with that of the angels. Testament of Benjamin 9:1 refers to the “fornication of Sodom.” Testament of Levi 14:6 refers to “the union” of Sodom, and 17:8 refers to unmentionable “pollution.” Levi 17:11 makes the only reference to pederasty in all of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, associating pederasts with adulterers, the arrogant, and those who practice bestiality. Other Testaments refer to “revolting gentile affairs,” “the evils of the Gentiles,” or “corruption in fornication.” The Letter of Aristeas 152 indicts gentile men for, among other sins, having “intercourse with men” and “defiling their own mothers and even their daughters” (see pp. 85–104).
The intertestamental literature is frank, not only in associating homosexuality with Sodom, but also in denouncing this as an evil gentile vice. The view of Sodom and its sin flows out of a plausible interpretation of the sin of Sodom found in the Old Testament itself and of the homosexuality described in Leviticus 18 and 20 as “abomination” or “detestable.” This literature does not distort the Old Testament. If certain New Testament passages reflect the terminology of this literature, they do so because this literature accurately reflects the sin of Sodom and the homosexuality of the nations that is prohibited in Leviticus.
New Testament Questions
Homosexuality as “Against Nature” in Romans 1
11. Is Paul making a blanket pronouncement that homosexuality is sin against God in Romans 1:26–27 when he speaks of a behavior (“men with men” and “women with women”) that is “against nature”?
The Revisionist Answer
It is not possible to read here a reference to a crime against nature or a so-called “natural law” because such a concept is Greek and was unknown to Paul.
The Biblical Answer
Natural law was known to Philo and Josephus, contemporaries with the apostle Paul, and it is reflected in literature contemporary with, or antecedent to, Paul. For Jews, it represented creation and God’s law brought into harmony (see pp. 149–62, 239–51).
The Revisionist Claim
In Romans 1, Paul condemns men and women who leave their natural state. He does not condemn those who are born homosexual, who have the homosexual condition, for that is their natural state. Ancient peoples did not know of the modern ideas of a mutual, permanent homosexual union and homosexual orientation. Rather, Paul condemns either homosexuals or heterosexuals who leave their natural condition and act as something else.
The Bible’s Answer
Paul makes no distinction about those who are born in a particular way. Rather, he deals in Romans 1 with how Gentiles reject general revelation of God in the creation and turn to idolatry and accompanying evil behavior, including homosexuality. In verses 24, 26, and 28, he says that God has given people over to evil vices. It is inappropriate to make a distinction to limit homosexuality to a Jewish purity taboo within any one of the groups if one does not do it in all three groups.
The ancient Greeks and Romans both knew of and practiced homosexual mutuality and permanence, and they knew of homosexual orientation. Thus, Paul’s condemnation must encompass them (see pp. 152–53, 205–13).
The Revisionist Claim
The theology of liberation could never contemplate a situation in which the liberating ethic of love should be restricted by a code requiring a certain kind of conduct or behavior. Homosexuality is the behavior of the strong, which the weak are to recognize.
The Biblical Answer
While the ethic of love is crucial, the Bible calls us to repent of behavior that transgresses God’s holiness. Freedom, or liberation, is found in Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:1). The theology of liberation makes freedom the end, and anything is the means to achieve it. It is totally subjective. Carried to its logical extreme, no behavior is unacceptable, providing it has the motive of love and liberation. The conduct that comes under the strong/weak concern is that which is morally neutral, such as drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. No biblical basis exists, however, for putting homosexual behavior under the classification of moral neutrality (see pp. 142–47).
The Revisionist Claim
One must understand Paul’s words within their context. He condemns Gentiles as part of a rhetorical device. He speaks from the Jewish aversion to gentile homosexuality to gain their attention and favor so that they will listen to his indictment of the Jews’ own hypocrisy. It is not Paul’s idea to condemn homosexuality; rather, he is giving the Jewish point of view. The prohibition of homosexuality is part of the Jewish code of purity derived from Leviticus, and no one ever intended the words to be a universal moral prohibition for Gentiles.
The Biblical Answer
To take chapter 1 as a rhetorical device is unwarranted. The vices of the context before (vv. 24–25) and after (vv. 28–32) the reference to homosexuality (vv. 26–27) are not merely part of Paul’s rhetorical device, but other texts make clear that Paul views these acts as truly sinful behavior. If this is so, there is no warrant for taking the vice of homosexuality as merely rhetorical. This position is reinforced by Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality elsewhere. Further, the prohibitions of homosexuality do not fit Israel’s purity code but are universal (see pp. 159–62).
The Revisionist Claim
Romans 1 and Paul’s statements about what is “against nature” cannot be used as evidence against homosexuality. This passage might tell us that homosexuality has a theological dimension and is a concern to God; it does not tell us whether abstention from homosexuality is God’s will for us today. Only the whole community acting in concert and through rational argumentation can decide whether the prohibition still pertains.
The Biblical Answer
This passage not only informs us of the reality of homosexuality as a moral issue, but it implicitly prohibits the behavior by placing those who practice it in the position of being abandoned to evil by God (v. 26), along with the others of verses 24 and 28. Morality is not determined by majority vote of any community or by discussion in the world generally (see pp. 145–46, 165–73).
Arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
12. What is the meaning of arsenokoitai, which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10–12?
The Revisionist Answer
Arsenokoitai cannot refer to “homosexuals” because there is no preceding occurrence of this word with such a meaning. In the lists of vices, the word means “homosexual acts,” “pederasts,” or “active male prostitutes” or refers to ritual impurity. These were the prevalent forms of homosexual activity that found some disapproval in contemporary codes or among the Jews. Paul’s word cannot refer to those of a homosexual orientation or to those who live in a mutually respectful and committed homosexual relationship; these are modern phenomena, unknown to Paul.
The Biblical Answer
The English term homosexuals is an appropriate correspondent to arsenokoitai, given both ancient sexual practice and today’s usage. We have ample evidence that ancient Greeks and Romans knew about homosexual orientation and that some Greeks practiced a mutually respectful, committed homosexual relationship (see pp. 184–95, 205–13).
Arsenokoitai (lit. “male beds”) does not occur prior to Paul, because Paul probably coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos koitēn, “whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a woman”). This rendering suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, lists of vices that correspond, even in word order, to the Ten Commandments. In either list, Paul adds “homosexuals” to “adulterers” to expand and contemporize the prohibition of adultery, just as he does with the other commandments (see pp. 195–99).
The Teaching of Jesus and Other Apostles
13. What was Jesus’ and the apostles’ attitude toward homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we.
The Biblical Answer
Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else (Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter.
Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy. Jesus perhaps hints even at pederasty when He warns about causing little children to sin (Mark 9:42). It is more plausible than not to believe that Jesus would condemn homosexual behavior and thinking (see pp. 218–20).
Four other references to Sodom occur in the New Testament (Rom. 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6–11; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8). Peter and Jude identify homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The apostolic view surely echoes Jesus’ understanding.
Finally, homosexuality occurs implicitly in at least twenty-seven lists of vices or sins at various places in the New Testament. These lists contain general, broad terms from earlier Jewish literature that refer to or encompass homosexual behavior, or they contain words often associated with homosexuality. Specific terms, such as abomination and dog, also build strong connections to Old Testament references to homosexuality. It is a fair observation that the New Testament continues the attitude toward homosexuality expressed in the Old Testament (see pp. 220–22).
The Ethic of Love
14. In the New Testament era, should not the ethic of love prevail, allowing for homosexual or gay living?
The Revisionist Answer
The Bible sets forth the liberating ethic of love as the chief principle of the Christian. Establishing such rules as forbidding homosexual relationships brings Christians under bondage and violates the ethic of love. If our ethic is love, should not freedom prevail in such questions? Isn’t it a question of respect for the stronger (homosexual) brother (Romans 14–15)? The church should accept into its membership and among its clergy, those who live in committed, homosexual arrangements (marriages).
The Biblical Answer
Our attempt to obey the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourselves (Levit. 19:8), cannot violate the first commandment, to love God with our total being (Deut. 6:5–9). A significant way to love God is to “be holy” (Levit. 19:2). Love motivates obedience to God’s commands (John 13:34, 35; 1 John 3:23; 2 John 6). Homosexuality violates any honest definition of purity and holiness. As with other sexual sins, it is not morally neutral, so it does not fall into the category of the “stronger” and “weaker brothers” (see pp. 26–146).
The Revisionist Counter-argument
The voice of the community fashions our morality. Although the Bible can give us our theology, only the whole community acting together can decide which ethical standards should currently prevail.
The Biblical Counter-argument
As much as we might like to customize our morality around current fashion, ethical principles are based in the character of the unchanging God. Neither does God shape morality around majority vote. Would the Israelites have voted for the Ten Commandments? Many of them were violating the laws even as Moses received them on Mount Sinai. God made His will clear, though not many agreed with it (see p. 171).
Other Questions About Homosexuality
Ancient Practice
15. How can we say that homosexual behavior is wrong in light of such biblical examples as David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth, and Jesus and John?
The Revisionist Answer
Examples from the Bible show that homosexual or lesbian couples existed throughout Bible history. It is unfair and un-Christian to forbid homosexual or gay unions because of distaste for homosexuality, where mutual respect and love prevail. The church is large enough to encompass all people, gay and straight.
The Biblical Answer
No evidence within the text of Scripture supports the claims that these or any other godly people of the Bible were part of a homosexual bond or gay marriage or union. The examples from the Old Testament show within the contexts of the stories themselves that these people were married and led heterosexual lives. Indeed, David’s sexual weaknesses lay in heterosexual lust. That these people had a high level of love for and devotion to another person has no sexual connotations. Jesus formed close friendships with men and women and had an especially close relationship with John and perhaps James, but these relationships are never presented as sexual. To the contrary, these persons all lived under a law that clearly forbade a homosexual relationship and set the death penalty for offenders. The Jews’ tradition articulated in the Mishnah and targums similarly would make it impossible to be gay and not to come under the condemnation of both the people and the interpreters of the law (pp. 52–59, 239–46).
16. Since many ancient peoples practiced homosexuality, what role should the Bible’s negative view about homosexuality have in modern thinking and culture?
The Revisionist Answer
Homosexuality existed in many ancient cultures, including Egypt, Greece, and Rome. We can learn from these ancient cultures how to be tolerant of homosexuality alongside heterosexuality. These cultures should contribute to our culture as much as Jewish-Christian views.
The Biblical Answer
All ancient societies whose laws we have discovered restricted homosexual behavior, even though there usually was a level of acceptance. More to the point is the truism that any culture must be wary of tinkering with its foundational ethical underpinnings by embracing other societies’ standards. Other cultures have influenced modern Western culture, yet the morality of the West has flowed from a biblical ethic. Ancient cultures embraced slavery, recreational drugs and alcohol abuse, abortion, the killing of the young by exposure, idolatry, totalitarianism, repression of women, adultery, bestiality, incest, and a host of other sins and crimes that are historically rejected in Western society (pp. 252–58).
17. If ancient peoples, including the Jews, did not know about people born with a homosexual orientation or couples who mutually commit to one another, should their uninformed negative judgments prevail in contemporary society?
The Revisionist Answer
The existence of mutual, respectful, permanent homosexual or lesbian relationships where love prevails was unknown in the past. Ancient disapproval of homosexuality concerns homosexual rape, pederasty, or other aggressive forms that most homosexuals also condemn. It is inappropriate to carry over this situation to address the kind of homosexual living taking place today.
The Biblical Answer
Ancient writings show considerable knowledge of committed homosexual relationships. Probably these peoples knew of respect, mutuality, and love experienced in some homosexual relationships. Symposium of Plato and other sources discusses these matters in a very positive light. Surely, many Greeks and Romans probably lived this way. However, even Plato came to question the costs of this liberality in the last work of his life. In Laws, he called on religion and the state to prohibit homosexual behavior to enable a person to be a virtuous citizen (pp. 189–92, excursus 3).
Restriction of Homosexual Behavior by Law
18. Are the ancient law codes relevant to today’s discussion, either those that tolerated homosexual behavior or later codes that dealt harshly with homosexuals?
The Revisionist Answer
The later Christian emperors used their influence to change the legal standing of homosexual behavior so that law came to restrict it. They did this out of a Christian bias and a misinterpretation of Scripture. These prejudiced laws should have no standing in today’s culture.
The Biblical and Historical Answer
Because proscription of homosexuality begins with regulations of Leviticus 18 and 20, calling for the death penalty, this dismissive attitude seems premature. Paul (1 Tim. 1:8–10) includes homosexuality in his list of immoralities that he believes society should proscribe. The Mishnah and targums, intertestamental literature, Philo and Josephus, and early Christian church fathers share this emphasis in any reference remotely dealing with the subject (see pp. 47–56, 184–201).
Even the Greeks did not allow unbridled homosexual behavior. The increasing restriction of homosexuality by law under Christian emperors was a consequence of decisions informed by biblical conviction. It witnesses to a common Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. The rulers saw the event of Sodom as having portent for future societies, since Sodom itself was a pagan or worldly society. Even before Christ, ancient Greek and Roman law codes began a tradition of restricting homosexual behavior that has carried forward to modern law codes and legislation (excursus 4).
Homosexuals in the Church
19. Should gay people be accepted as members in the community of faith or ordained to church leadership?
The Revisionist Answer
The liberating ethic of love demands that a local church accept gays and allow them to participate fully in membership, including leadership. The Bible does not concern itself with the modern idea of mutually committed relationships of people who have been gay from birth. The Bible does not condemn such. It is obvious, then, that churches should ordain gay people for ministry.
The Biblical Answer
Ample evidence exists that the ancients knew and sometimes practiced gay relationships and mutuality. Paul’s discussion in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:8–10 must include this understanding of homosexual relationships. In addition, Paul’s vice list—including “homosexuals” (arsenokoitai)—occurs in a broader context of those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–11) and who should, like the person involved in sexual immorality, come under the discipline of the church or be excommunicated if there is no repentance (5:1–6:11). Homosexuals should repent, as should all those whose acts and lifestyles are condemned as an offense before God (1 Cor. 6:9–11). Obviously, ordination of homosexuals for ministry violates biblical teaching (see pp. 152–62).
Homosexual Orientation
20. Does homosexual orientation fall within the same scope of biblical understanding as homosexual behavior?
The Revisionist Answer
The ancients, including writers of the Bible, knew nothing of homosexual orientation. Thus, even if Scripture condemns homosexual behavior, orientation cannot come under the Bible’s prohibition. The church should fully accept people who are born gay. At the least, homosexual thoughts arising from homosexual orientation are not sinful.
The Biblical Answer
Homosexual orientation was known in the generations in which Scripture was written. Paul gives no indication that it does not fall under his general condemnations of homosexuality in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. Lustful homosexual thoughts are not as grave in consequence as are the acts, just as adulterous or murderous thoughts have fewer consequences than do the overt actions. But the moral culpability for thoughts is the same as for deeds, as Jesus makes clear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). Scripture certainly associates evil desires and thoughts with the evil deeds belonging to a Christian’s unregenerate past (Eph. 2:1–3). Christians are exhorted to think heavenly thoughts (Col. 3:1–4), right and pure thoughts (Phil. 4:8). We must “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5 NIV; pp. 158–62, 198–201, 268–73).
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 277–294). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
