Homosexuality and Kevin Rudd
Some today still consider homosexuality an evil, others including the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd march for the rights of those they believe to be simply practicing an acceptable alternative lifestyle that expresses their sexual preferences.
Though Genesis 19 is not a story about the evils of homosexuality, the narrative has traditionally been a starting point for discussion of the biblical view of homosexuality. Nonetheless, given the prominence of the issue in contemporary society, a brief comment is in order.
The sin of Sodom. The first question to be asked is whether the text of Genesis 19 portrays homosexual behavior as the sin of Sodom. Modern interpreters inclined to come to the defense of the homosexual community, the Metropolitan Community Church and Freedom2b have suggested that the offenses committed by the mob are best identified as threat of violence and neglect of hospitality norms.
Though Genesis 19 is not a story about the evils of homosexuality, the narrative has traditionally been a starting point for discussion of the biblical view of homosexuality. Nonetheless, given the prominence of the issue in contemporary society, a brief comment is in order.
The sin of Sodom. The first question to be asked is whether the text of Genesis 19 portrays homosexual behavior as the sin of Sodom. Modern interpreters inclined to come to the defense of the homosexual community, the Metropolitan Community Church and Freedom2b have suggested that the offenses committed by the mob are best identified as threat of violence and neglect of hospitality norms.
The former is an obvious element, and the latter is shown to be an issue both in the context of Lot’s hospitality and in a parallel situation (Judg. 19:23), where the host specifically protests that he cannot accede to their request because the man is a guest. Proponents of this view also point out that when the rest of the Old Testament refers back to this incident, homosexuality is not the issue but various forms of injustice. By the intertestamental period, however, it is undeniable that the offense is viewed in sexual terms, namely homosexual acts.
W. Fields summarized the evidence:
Sodomites “defile themselves and commit fornication with their bodies.” They “practice uncleanness on the earth,” giving rise to the expression “uncleanness of the Sodomites” (Jub 16.5, 6). The Sodomites commit “fornication, uncleanness,” and “mutual corruption through fornication” (Jub 20.5). Phrases such as “sexual relations like those of Sodom and Gomorrah” (T. Levi 14.6) may be taken as a description of homosexual relations; equally so, the expression “departed from the order of nature” (T. Naph 3.4).
Nonetheless, W. Brueggemann insists that the Bible gives “considerable evidence that the sin of Sodom was not specifically sexual” and will concede little ground. He concludes, “It may be that sexual disorder is one aspect of a general disorder. But that issue is presented in a way scarcely pertinent to contemporary discussion of homosexuality.” The claim is made that condemning homosexual violence is not the same as condemning a homosexual lifestyle. This argument lacks evidence even credibility.
Homosexuality and the Bible. The Holiness Code in Leviticus makes it clear that male homosexuality is detestable (Lev. 18:22) and punishable by death (20:13). In the former context it is grouped together with adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality. In the New Testament the treatment is no less harsh. Homosexuality is clearly not one of the practices that Christian liberty or the age of grace made more acceptable.
Sodomites “defile themselves and commit fornication with their bodies.” They “practice uncleanness on the earth,” giving rise to the expression “uncleanness of the Sodomites” (Jub 16.5, 6). The Sodomites commit “fornication, uncleanness,” and “mutual corruption through fornication” (Jub 20.5). Phrases such as “sexual relations like those of Sodom and Gomorrah” (T. Levi 14.6) may be taken as a description of homosexual relations; equally so, the expression “departed from the order of nature” (T. Naph 3.4).
Nonetheless, W. Brueggemann insists that the Bible gives “considerable evidence that the sin of Sodom was not specifically sexual” and will concede little ground. He concludes, “It may be that sexual disorder is one aspect of a general disorder. But that issue is presented in a way scarcely pertinent to contemporary discussion of homosexuality.” The claim is made that condemning homosexual violence is not the same as condemning a homosexual lifestyle. This argument lacks evidence even credibility.
Homosexuality and the Bible. The Holiness Code in Leviticus makes it clear that male homosexuality is detestable (Lev. 18:22) and punishable by death (20:13). In the former context it is grouped together with adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality. In the New Testament the treatment is no less harsh. Homosexuality is clearly not one of the practices that Christian liberty or the age of grace made more acceptable.
For Paul it represents the epitome of depraved conduct (Rom. 1:24–32). His inclusion of homosexuals in the list of the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), as well as in the list of those for whom the law serves a necessary and continuing function (1 Tim. 1:10), shows us that his disapproval cannot in any way be viewed as limited to his particular time, culture, or situation.
The Bible is clear that homosexual practice is wrong and sinful. It is not just wrong insofar as it is promiscuous. Rather, as with adultery, incest, and bestiality, it is wrong because of the nature of the sexual partner. An illicit sexual partner may be married to someone else (adultery), may be a close relative (incest), may be an animal (bestiality), and may be someone of the same gender (homosexuality). Monogamous homosexual relationships are no more acceptable than only committing adultery with one person.
This does not mean that a homosexual inclination is sinful, though it may be a reflection of the fallenness of the race. Sexual desires often provide an arena of temptation to sin, whatever one’s sexual orientation may be. As believers, we are called upon to resist those temptations both in thought and in deed. In this sense, the plight of the homosexual is similar to that of the heterosexual.
The Bible is clear that homosexual practice is wrong and sinful. It is not just wrong insofar as it is promiscuous. Rather, as with adultery, incest, and bestiality, it is wrong because of the nature of the sexual partner. An illicit sexual partner may be married to someone else (adultery), may be a close relative (incest), may be an animal (bestiality), and may be someone of the same gender (homosexuality). Monogamous homosexual relationships are no more acceptable than only committing adultery with one person.
This does not mean that a homosexual inclination is sinful, though it may be a reflection of the fallenness of the race. Sexual desires often provide an arena of temptation to sin, whatever one’s sexual orientation may be. As believers, we are called upon to resist those temptations both in thought and in deed. In this sense, the plight of the homosexual is similar to that of the heterosexual.
Sexual fantasizing only worsens the situation, makes resistance more difficult, and may lead to sin even though no sexual act is committed (Matt. 5:28). The only biblical solution to homosexual inclination is disciplined purity of thought and a celibate lifestyle.
What is true for all Christians is also true for homosexuals—behavior must transcend feelings. What the Bible calls evil, the church, even Prime Ministers and politicans like Kevin Rudd must not deem excusable under the pressures of society, the media and aggressive homosexual advocates who demand and push and will sue anybody who disagrees with their sinful dogma.
Walton, J. H. (2001). Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary (pp. 489–490). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Walton, J. H. (2001). Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary (pp. 489–490). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
