Homosexuality
is a hot-button in our society and there is a lot of confusion concerning how
God's word directs us to handle it. Most of this is due to individuals with
various agendas warping, misquoting, and taking Scripture out of context in
order to bolster their respective position. I thought it good, therefore, to
put together a clear explanation of how homosexuality relates to the Bible as
it is not as simple as a one line answer. Do not misunderstand me, the Bible is
clear about God's position on this subject, but the arguments and
misinterpretations make things complicated and must be addressed. Therefore,
this article is a bit lengthy, but the reason being is that I am attempting to
be thorough with this topic
The Law
The first
thing to look at in the Scripture is the Old Testament Law. Homosexuality is
addressed in the Law along with many other areas of life. There are some things
that need to be understood about the Law, however, before one can properly
apply it to our situation today. People on all sides of the issue of
homosexuality have been guilty of misusing the Law and taking it out of its
proper context in order to make it say whatever helps strengthen their
viewpoint. So we need to obtain an educated understanding of how the Old
Testament Law should be applied to us today.
The Law
was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai so that the Hebrews could be properly
governed, as they were in the process of becoming a sovereign nation. The first
thing one must understand about the Jewish government as it relates to the Law
is that there was no separation between church and state. Religion and
government were not to work independently of one another, but in tandem like
the spirit and physical body are intertwined and work as one. God was forming a
nation that would have Him as their only God. There were no diversities of
religious beliefs. Israel was a nation holy unto God to be set apart from all
other nations. They were to function as a light for all other peoples, pointing
them to the Lord.
Therefore
the Law, for Israel, not only served as a religious creed but also as an actual
law for the conduct of the people as a nation. The Law held a three-fold
purpose for Israel. It served as their moral, religious, and civil law. Again,
there was no separation of church and state here. So the Law gave Israel its
moral commandments (what is right and what is wrong), its religious
commandments (how to worship God), and its civil commandments (legal issues,
crime and punishment).
The moral
part of the Law is universal and based on what God declares to be right and
wrong. It is His universe and He is the absolute standard for what is right so
His morality trumps any other ideas. What God declares to be good is good and
what God declares as evil is evil regardless of what we or society says.
The
religious part of the Law guided Israel in how they should worship God
properly. This involved different rituals, ordinances, special observances, and
feasts. Any proselytes to Judaism were expected to follow the religious
practices outlined in the Law as each had a meaning and a purpose.
The civil
parts of the Law gave the civil code for conduct in the Israelite society which
included crime and punishment. Breaking of the moral or religious commandments
of the Law involved consequences just as much as breaking the law in any
country carries with it certain penalties. If this seems odd, we must remember
that this was a different culture than ours, but we should also keep in mind
that our civil laws are based on morality as well, namely; what we consider to
be right and wrong. The civil law was not universal, in that, while the
breaking of a commandment by a non-Jew (like committing adultery) was still a
sin, the Jews could not simply waltz into another nation and impose the death
sentence on a citizen of that nation for their sin.
So it is
with this understanding in mind that we can now look at what the Law says about
homosexuality.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
abomination. Nor shall you mate with any
animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal
to mate with it. It is perversion. (Leviticus 18:22, 23 NKJV)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their
blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 NKJV)
The two
verses listed above give moral and civil commandments. Homosexuality is morally
wrong. God declares it to be an abomination. There is no getting around that.
It is a sin and therefore universal among all people. The death sentence is
obviously the civil part of the Law for any Jew who broke the commandment. A
Jew could not go to Egypt, for example, and impose a death sentence on an
Egyptian participating in homosexual activity. However, it would still be a sin
and God will judge such sin. Furthermore, while a Jew could not impose a death
sentence upon a citizen of another nation, he could declare to the offender
that his actions are an abomination before God and that he needs to repent in
order to escape the Lord's eventual judgment.
This
point is solidified in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul who was
commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ to preach to the Gentiles (non-Jews).
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even
their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing
what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which
was due. (Romans 1:26, 27 NKJV)
Paul
affirms the moral part of the Law. Notice that he speaks of the act of
homosexuality being a sin against God and that it is the Lord who will dispense
the penalty if they refuse to repent. Paul does not call disciples of Christ to
impose the civil part of the Law (the death penalty) upon acts of
homosexuality. So although it is still a sin, it is not the place of a
Christian to carry out punishment. The Christian is called to tell others that
God will carry out punishment if a person refuses to turn to the Lord. (Just
like any other sin.)
The point
is that one cannot make the argument, for example, that because we no longer
put blasphemers to death that homosexual behavior is no longer a sin. Blasphemy
is still a sin. It is God, however, who will sit as judge over these universal
parts of the Law and it is He who will dispense the consequences for those
things. But let it be known that God would much rather have us repent so that
He may dispense mercy.
Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?”
says the Lord God, “ and not that he should turn from his ways and
live? (Ezekiel 18:23 NKJV)
What
did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
The
argument some make is that Jesus never condemned homosexuality in any of His
teachings so He must have approved of it. Of course, this position could bring
one to the conclusion that Jesus approved of rape and kidnapping as well since
He never condemned those acts in any of His teachings either. Let's have a look
at what Jesus did say and teach.
“Do
not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to
destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I
say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no
means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17, 18 NKJV)
Jesus
said He was not going to do away with the Law but that He would fulfill the
Law.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made
me free from the law of sin and death.
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,
God did
by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of
sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that
the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:2-4 NKJV)
Getting
back to Matthew 5, Jesus goes on to clarify things written in the Law.
Interestingly He does not bring clarification to ease up on commandments, but
actually makes the commandments even harder to keep. In part of that discourse
Jesus addresses the topic of divorce.
“Furthermore
it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces
his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his
wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and
whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31, 32
NKJV)
Notice
that Jesus speaks only of a man and a woman being married. He makes no
provision for the acceptance of same sex unions though He is in the process of
clarifying the heart of God's commandments.
One would
think that this would be the perfect time to make any corrections or
clarifications concerning any misinterpretations about homosexuality in the Law
if Jesus felt there were any. However, Jesus makes no such attempt to justify
homosexual behavior as good or okay with God. The fact that Jesus says nothing
about it in this context actually works against homosexuality and not for it,
in that, the silence of Christ on the matter here serves to confirm what was
written in the Law about it being sinful behavior.
Consider
Jesus' statement about marriage in Matthew 19.
And He answered and said to them, “Have
you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male
and female,’ and said,
‘For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh’ ? (Matthew 19:4, 5 NKJV)
Here
again, the silence of Jesus works against the case for homosexuality being
acceptable to God. The Lord is speaking of marriage and talks about male and
female and a man being joined to his wife. This would be a perfect opportunity
to confirm same-sex marriage as a good thing if that were so. However, Jesus
says nothing, implying that such an idea has absolutely no part in God's design
for marriage. Instead He speaks of marriage between a man and a woman as the
plan of the Creator.
What
about other parts of the Bible?
There is
an interesting passage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 where the Apostle Paul
addresses how to handle a situation where one spouse is a believer and the
other is not. This situation would most likely occur when two non-believers get
married and then one of them later becomes a Christian since Christians should not to marry unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14). In this passage the
marriage is seen as honorable between the believer and non-believer as long as
the non-believer desires to stay. There is even the implication that the
marriage of the two former non-believers was still, in fact, a good thing.
However, there is no mention of a homosexual union.
In fact,
nowhere in the Bible is a homosexual union looked at in any kind of positive
light. The absence of such positive remarks concerning homosexuality is a huge
red flag. When speaking of marriage the Bible always speaks of a man and his
wife. Thousands of years of history covered in the Bible and not one attempt to
legitimize homosexual behavior. Couple this with the New Testament condemnation
of homosexual activity (Romans 1:26-27) and the moral parts of the Law found in
Leviticus and you have no basis for truthfully saying God does not consider
homosexuality a sin.
How
can anyone condemn what someone else feels?
The
answer is quite simple. We do this all the time. No society allows people to do
whatever they feel like doing. There are things that are wrong and carry
punishment regardless of how one feels about them. We don't say it's okay to
steal if someone has an irresistible urge to steal. We don't condone the
behavior of a pedophile even though that person obviously has very strong
attractions to children. And we don't excuse murderers simply because they may
be born sociopaths. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone just
did what they felt like doing?
Let me be
clear before someone feigns offense and accuses me of comparing the act of
raping a child to the acts of sexual relations between two consenting adults. I
have not done that, but such an argument is often made to deflect attention off
of the real point. The point being made was about the feelings a person has and I used examples of acts most people agree
are unacceptable to highlight the fact that just because someone feels a
certain way doesn't automatically justify it.
However,
just so we don't get caught up with those examples let's use one more;
adultery. Here are two consenting adults who will almost always say that they
are in love. Yet, adultery is a sin! You can't get around that. It's even one
of the Ten Commandments. So even though these two consenting adults have
intense feelings for one another and are choosing to love one another they are
also choosing to sin. One may argue that the spouse who is being cheated on is
being hurt so that makes this a different situation then homosexuality where
supposedly no one is being hurt. What about "swingers" then? All
parties are consenting to have sex with someone they are unmarried to. However,
it's still adultery and therefore it is still a sin despite feelings,
consenting, and "love".
"Love"
is the word being thrown about quite a bit on this issue. The argument is that
people should be free to love whomever they want. Love without boundaries. I
have already shown the fallacy of this argument with the examples of adultery
and "open marriages", but let me also point out that this love
without boundaries still has boundaries. The line has simply been moved. One
person believes that this type of love should only be between a consenting
adult male and a consenting adult female. Another person believes that this
type of love should be between any two consenting adults regardless of their
gender. Notice, however, that both beliefs have a boundary. This boundary
excludes people who believe they should have many spouses or open marriages
where they are free to "love" many partners. So where is the equality
for these people and their beliefs? Are their feelings somehow not legitimate?
Let's
look back at what the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even
their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing
what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which
was due. (Romans 1:26, 27 NKJV)
As we can
see, Paul acknowledges the feelings that are driving men and women into
homosexuality. Feelings are not the issue; acting on them is. In these verses
it is confirmed that people have these passions, but God says those particular
passions are vile. There is certainly plenty of intense feeling present, but
that doesn't justify acting on it anymore than intense anger justifies assault
or murder.
The whole
essence of committing sin is that we feel like doing something that is contrary
to God's commands and then act on the feeling rather then obeying the Lord.
Adam and Eve sinned by eating a piece of fruit from the one tree they were told
not to touch. Why did they do that? Because they felt like it. The Bible tells
us that our flesh often opposes the will of God.
Because the carnal mind
is enmity against God; for it is
not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot
please God. (Romans 8:7, 8 NKJV)
In other
words, just because we feel a certain way doesn't justify it as good and
therefore something to act upon nor does it suggest that God gave us those
feelings. Of course, it is taboo in our society to suggest that someone's
feelings are wrong when it comes to certain things. But whose standard do we go
by to determine what feelings are right and wrong? God's unchanging moral
standard or our standard which varies depending on our feelings?
There is
a strange psychological disorder known as Body
Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Individuals suffering from this believe
that one or more of their limbs does not belong and therefore they want them
amputated. (BIID can also be associated with apotemnophilia which is sexual arousal based on the image of one's
self being an amputee.) In each case the sufferer of BIID believes the limb(s)
they want amputated are a mistake and that they should have been born without
them. So deep rooted is this feeling that it has driven some people with BIID
to great lengths to rid themselves of the unwanted limbs. There are various
stories of BIID sufferers seeking amputation by finding doctors overseas who
will perform operations like this or even attempting to get severe frostbite on
purpose requiring amputation.
Now, we
understand that the real problem is not with the limbs but with what people
with BIID are feeling. We don't rationally conclude that because they
passionately feel that their limbs do not belong that they should have them
removed. However, political correctness demands that if someone feels a sexual
attraction to the same sex this must be right. Furthermore, if a man feels like
he should have been born a woman or a woman feels she should have been born a
man, political correctness demands they undergo an operation to alter their
gender to what they are feeling
instead of addressing the issue of
their feelings.
A Last
Ditch Attempt
In the
face of all this, one final (and desperate) argument might be made suggesting
that there are far worse sins than homosexuality in the world and we should be
more concerned about those. This argument may even infer that God Himself is
probably more concerned with other more heinous acts committed by human beings.
This line of thought comes from the man-made idea that there are degrees of
sin. However, the Bible teaches that God sees sin in a totally different way
then we do.
For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in
one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10 NKJV)
From the
viewpoint of a holy God all sin is despicable. Instead of being separate acts
with varying degrees, God reveals that all sin is connected and intertwined.
Isn't
This Just a Bunch of Hatred?
Anyone
who sticks to the Biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin is usually
dismissed as a hateful person. This is the same tactic used by children when
their parents or a teacher attempts to bring correction or instruction that the
child does not wish to receive. Immediately the parent or teacher is accused by
the child of hating them. The child sees the person in question as an
individual who is trying to spoil what they want to do and that is interpreted
as an act of hatred when in fact it is an act of love and concern. It is an
extremely childish defense.
Of course
there are hateful people out there who use the word of God as a basis for their
hatred. But these people are false prophets and teachers who will, themselves,
stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account. The obvious lack
of concern for people's eternal souls is evident in their actions and rhetoric
and they spew their venom unaware that they are placing themselves in danger of
hellfire. However, these people are the exception rather then the rule and
above all they are not true disciples of Christ.
The real
hatred is coming from Christians who believe the word of God but ignore this
issue of homosexuality because they don't want to be called names and
persecuted by society and political correctness. They love themselves so much
that they put their personal comfort above people's eternal souls. That is true
hatred.
A true
disciple of Christ will speak the whole council of God in love. They will be
willing to risk ridicule and even the loss of friends in order to see them
saved. Like family members and friends who may confront a loved one with an
intervention, they will compassionately speak the truth and leave the reactions
be what they may even if they are in turn hated for what they dared to say.
This is actual love; putting oneself at risk for someone else's benefit, not
doing what makes one feel good personally.
I have
friends who are gay and we have had those conversations. I risked loosing them
as friends but I cared for them too much to hide God's word. Thankfully they
are still my friends and even though we no longer live near one another I would
be by their side if they ever found themselves in trouble. My point is that you
can still be compassionate and a friend without compromising the integrity of
God's word.
Conclusion
The end
of all this is that homosexuality cannot be made okay with God's word.
Therefore, the only thing one can do if they are intent on justifying it is
throw out the Scripture. However, that isn't going to change it. Like ignoring
a diagnosis of cancer because the thought of having it and being treated for it
may be unpalatable will lead to death, so ignoring all or parts of God's word
simply because we don't like them or they are not politically correct will not
change the Day of Judgment.
In
confronting this issue I have written it in such a way that it presents the cold
hard facts and therefore may seem to be without much compassion. Let me assure
you that this is written out of nothing but compassion and not out of some need
to have a rebuttal to those who may disagree with me. Therefore, allow me to
offer you one more cold hard fact.
God loves
you! (I am addressing every person reading this article regardless of your
sexual feelings.) There is nothing you can do to make Him love you more or
less. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for all of our sins.
God loves you so much that He provided mercy in order to escape judgment. Now,
will you love Him in return? Will you accept His gift of salvation and allow
Him to direct your life the way He, your Creator, intended it to be? Will you
accept His love and lordship over every part of your life? This is the choice
He leaves to each of us because He loves us enough not to leave us in the
condition we come to Him in.