Earlier I posted part II of this essay. I decided to go ahead and post the review of
the key Bible passages, as well. I did a
quick review and believe it is up-to-date.
Obviously, the recent news regarding the Supreme Court’s review of the
issue of same-sex marriage and the Southern Baptist Convention’s commitment to
traditional marriage makes this material even more relevant. I hope this material clarifies what the Bible says and makes it clear there is no justification for treating homosexuals as special objects of God's wrath; they, like all of us, are objects of God's love and stand in need of his grace.
The Challenge of Homosexuality
Jim Hickman
Part I:
Introduction and Review of the Biblical
Material
I presented the first edition of this essay a few
years ago. At that time, the issue of
same-sex marriage was frequently in the news but I’m not sure how many of us
took the threat seriously.
There were, of course, petitions were being
circulated urging support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as
the union between a man and a woman. Even among those who opposed same-sex marriage
that seemed to be excess; the likelihood same-sex marriage would become a
national right seemed unlikely.
Yet,
since that time the effort to make same-sex marriage legal nationwide has
become something of a juggernaut, rumbling along without fear of being stopped
no matter how resolute the opponents. A
major political party has made the legalization of same-sex marriage a plank in
its platform; thus, it was hardly surprising that President Obama voiced his approval
of such unions. A same-sex couple,
complete with adopted daughter, is featured on TV’s most popular sitcom Modern
Family; other homosexual couples appearing on other programs are presented
as “the new normal.” All of this has
prompted me to revise and expand this material.
Still, I would insist this essay is seminal, rather than comprehensive.
I wish to avoid stereotypes when discussing
homosexuals. Those familiar with the
spectacle of a gay-pride parade may find it easy to embrace misconceptions
about homosexuals.
True, there are homosexuals whose lifestyle
displays the flamboyance of the Village People.
In their case, as someone said, “The ‘love that dares not speak its
name’ has become the love that won’t shut-up.” Others, often coworkers or neighbors,
live and work quietly among us keeping their personal lives to themselves to
the degree we are actually surprised when they finally trust us enough to share
their secret with us.
Both the homosexual whose antics offend us and
the homosexual whose hard work and dignity win our admiration, need to hear the
gospel—not because they are homosexuals, but because they are sinners—like us.
The opportunity to rationally discuss the
correctness of homosexual behavior has hardly improved since I wrote the first
draft. I know there may be some who
would cry, “Homophobe” after reading what I’ve written. “Homophobia,” a term which first appeared in
the 1950s, once described those who possessed an irrational fear of
homosexuals, irrational to the degree would respond with violence or abuse
toward any homosexual they might encounter.
Unfortunately, the term has been pirated to
describe anyone who tries to have a rational discussion regarding the negative
aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.
It’s especially used of those who might try to interject the Bible’s
perspective on the issue. Call a person
“Homophobe” and you end the discussion.
Please, read the entire essay before you pass
judgment on the Bible’s message to homosexuals.
Review of the Biblical Material
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association,
bowing to social and political pressure, removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, the massive reference book
that serves as a kind of Bible for the mental health community. The decision to no longer view homosexuality
as a mental disorder was greeted with enthusiasm by the homosexual community,
yet the decision also meant that critics of homosexual behavior might feel
vindicated in insisting on an older explanation for the behavior. They could use the APA’s decision to support
the old view that homosexual behavior was rooted in the choices of the
homosexual.
It’s hardly surprising that soon afterwards
homosexuals began using “homosexual orientation” to describe their behavior
rather than “homosexual lifestyle or preference.” Within my lifetime,
homosexuals have moved from proudly describing their lifestyle as a matter of
choice to explaining their lifestyle as rooted in some organic or biological
determinant. Thus, homosexuals who once
loudly protested any suggestion that there were biological reasons for their
behavior now ask non-homosexuals to understand that they were “born this way.”
The origins of homosexual behavior may elude
explanation. Bias on both sides of the
debate may keep us from ever discovering the precise reasons why individual men
and women are attracted to members of the same sex or why some homosexuals
claim to have known they were “different” from earliest childhood.
At this point most explanations for homosexual
behavior are suspect. For example, back
in 1991, Dr. Simon LeVay claimed to have found differences between the brains
of homosexual men and heterosexual men, specifically related to a bundle of
neurons next to the hypothalamus.
Although his claims were quickly picked up by the mainstream media as
proof people are born homosexual or born heterosexual, others found fault with
his research. Even San Francisco’s Bay
Area Reporter (5 September 1991) discounted the findings, suggesting the
doctor had used circular reasoning in proving his point._
Are homosexuals (including lesbians) born or
made? Is their behavior a matter of
nature or nurture? There doesn’t seem to
be a clear answer. What is clear is that
no discovery has eliminated the relevance of what the Bible has to say about
this lifestyle. Nor is any discovery
likely to.
With that in mind, let’s review what the Bible
has to say about our sexuality in general and homosexual behavior in
particular.
Male and Female, He Created Them
It’s sometimes argued by those outside the church
that Christianity believes all expressions of human sexuality are wrong or
something to be tolerated but not enjoyed.
Unfortunately, some Christian writers have fueled
this notion. Augustine, for example,
wrote negatively of marital intercourse.
His thinking reflected the influence of Greek
dualism which saw the body as intrinsically evil and the memory of his own
pre-conversion weakness in the area of sexual temptation.
The truth is the very first chapter of the Bible
tells us that humans were created to be spiritual, social, and sexual
beings.
Even before the Fall, God commanded the Man and
the Woman to “Multiply and fill the earth….”
The Bible very often celebrates our
sexuality. At the same time, the Bible
honestly acknowledges that our sexuality, like every human faculty, was
impacted by the Fall.
The Bible allows certain sexual behavior and
prohibits certain sexual behavior. It
does so, not because sex is so
bad but because sex is so good. As a consequence, what the Bible says about
our sexuality includes both positive and negative statements.
Sexual relations between husband and wife are
always spoken of positively. The writer
of Hebrews said succinctly, “Marriage must be held in honor by all, and the
marriage relations kept sacred.” (Heb. 13:4)
In this statement, the writer rejects any suggestion that marriage is
either evil or a burden. Through the
centuries, the church has said that three elements are necessary for a marriage: Consent (this rules out rape as forming a
“marital” bond), commitment (this rules out casual sex or cohabitation as
establishing a marriage) and consummation.
Sexual relations outside of marriage are spoken
of negatively. True, some Bible heroes
engaged in extra-marital relations but never with God’s approval and they
seldom escaped serious consequences (David and Bathsheba, for example). The consistent condemnations of adultery and
fornication reflect this perspective.
Homosexual behavior is always spoken of
negatively. Most critics of the
traditional Christian view of homosexuality acknowledge this. Some, however, try to reinterpret key scripture
passages to argue that the Biblical writers were only condemning certain types
of homosexual practices. The consistent
way in which the Bible treats homosexual practices and the absence of any
approval of homosexual behavior whatsoever makes it difficult to sustain this
argument. These arguments are, at best,
a failed attempt to try to remain true to both the Bible and the canons of
modern social theory.
“If God had approved homosexual marriage, he
would have created Adam and Steve!” That
quip, which is sometimes quoted in casual debate on the issue, probably
shouldn’t be introduced as real evidence for the Biblical view of sexuality but
neither should it be discarded as mere flummery. It does remind us of an important concept in
Old Testament thought. Old Testament
Jews--and many Christians after them--believed the Creation accounts contain
the norms for human behavior. The
so-called Creation mandates reflect God’s will for all of humanity. Thus, when the account pictures marriage as a
relationship between one man and one woman it is, in fact, defining marriage.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the key passages
which address the Bible’s perspective on homosexual behavior.
The Old Testament
Genesis 6-9
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of
humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of
their hearts was only evil continually.”
The situation described in Genesis 6:1-2 in not
entirely clear. However, every
interpretation concedes that what is described reflects some violation of God’s
standard for sexual behavior. This
behavior was only part of the reason why God sent the Flood.
While the Biblical story of the Flood does not
mention homosexuality within the Pre-Flood civilization, several Jewish
interpreters believed that homosexual behavior was part of the catalog of sins
which brought the watery judgment. One
rabbi gave the story an interpretation which is particularly interesting in our
day. Writing about the eleventh century
after Christ, Rabbi Akiva explained, “The generation of the flood was not
blotted out from the world, until they took to composing nuptial songs for
marriages between man and man and man and beast as for man and woman.”_
Obviously, the rabbi’s statement involved a
degree of imagination but other scholars see an implicit condemnation of
homosexual behavior in an event which took place immediately after the Flood.
The account is found in Genesis 9:20-24. What terrible act did Ham commit? Generally this passage has been taken to mean
that Ham showed profound disrespect for his father, who had fallen asleep drunk
and naked. However, Donald Wold and a
few others argue that the phrase “saw his nakedness” actually implies an act of
homosexual rape.
Obviously, not every interpreter understands the
story in this way; some commentators are incensed at the very suggestion that
Ham’s act was incestuous. Personally, I
believe it may be going too far to see a homosexual assault in the story. However, the story suggests that sin had
survived the Flood._
The next passage we consider is more to the
point.
Genesis 19:1-11
The English word “Sodomy,” used to describe the
crassest form of homosexual behavior, comes from Sodom, one of the cities
destroyed by God.
Why did God destroy these cities? According to what God told Abraham, the
cities were to be destroyed because their sin was “exceedingly grave.” (18:20)
Since the decision to destroy the cities had
already been made, the action of the mob was a symptom of the sinfulness which
doomed the city.
Some modern expositors have tried to interpret
the passage in a way which does not imply a condemnation of homosexual
behavior.
These interpreters insist that the mob was
violating the laws of hospitality. In
other words, they were being rude rather than perverse.
Neither the context nor the language of the
passage supports this interpretation.
Genesis 19:4 says the entire male population surrounded Lot’s house and
demanded the right to “know” Lot’s guests.
The word “know” (yada) was frequently used
as a euphemism for sexual relations.
Some translations state this plainly.
NKJV:
“Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.''
Living Bible:
“…so we can rape them.''
New Jerusalem/New American: “…so that we can have intercourse with
them."
New Living Translation: “… so we can have sex with them."
That Lot offered his daughters as a substitute
(19:8) for the visiting men further points to the sexual overtones of the mob’s
demand.
The story of Sodom’s wicked mob might easily
cause us to miss danger implicit in Lot’s position. His evident compromise with his culture had
robbed him of any credibility and influence when it really counted.
Of course, as Robertson McQuilkin points out, it
doesn’t matter if this episode is dealing with homosexuality behavior. Such behavior is amply condemned elsewhere in
the Bible.
Centuries later, the prophet Ezekiel would use
Sodom as an illustration in a sermon condemning the sins of God’s people
(16:46-58). The prophet indicates that
Sodom was guilty of a haughty pride, self-indulgence, indifference to the poor,
and spiritual insolence, as well as what Ezekiel describes as “doing loathsome
things,” reminding us that the sins of most cultures involve a complex web of
behavior. He goes on to say Judah was
actually guilty of worse sins, sins which reflected the free choice of the
people, sins which dishonored God and defiled the nation. Yet, Ezekiel reminds his audience, there is
hope of spiritual restoration to those who repent.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Found in a lengthy condemnation of such practices
as incest and bestiality, Leviticus 18:22 appears to clearly condemn same-sex
intercourse. The New Living Translation
even renders the verse, "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable
sin.”
As clear as this condemnation seems, there are
some who have tried to say the passage condemns homosexual behavior only when
it is part of idol worship. The
proponents of this position argue that the term translated “abomination” in
many English versions, always refers to ritual sin. (Seemingly, this would mean that incest was
wrong only when associated with idol worship.)
I believe Wold has effectively demonstrated
that “all same-gender sexual relations
are categorically forbidden by the Hebrew terms.”_ His study has shown that the term is used in
a variety of ways, not simply to refer to acts which are ritually defiling.
We should note that a review of how the Hebrew
word is used in the Old Testament shows that, while idol-worship is the chief
example of abominable behavior, other behaviors—in addition to those in
Leviticus 18—are also considered to be abominations. For example,
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands
that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans, feet
that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers._
Cheating in business, social injustice, and
hypocrisy are mentioned elsewhere as abominations.
While this does not diminish the condemnation of
the behaviors listed in Leviticus 18, it does remind us that focusing on one
behavior as an “abomination” may be biased.
Wold points out another insight from
Leviticus. All of the behaviors
condemned in both Leviticus 18 and 20 are acts of the will; they reflect a conscious choice.
The Leviticus 20 passage repeats the prohibition
and adds the death penalty for homosexual behavior. Walter Kaiser, Jr., sees the imposition of
the death penalty as further evidence that the prohibition of homosexual
behavior concerned more than ritual uncleanness. He says, “the death penalty demanded for its
violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial
legislation.”_
The imposition of the death penalty for
homosexual behavior certainly demonstrates the seriousness of the offense. But was every person found guilty of
homosexual behavior executed? Apparently
not.
In the Old Testament law there were some eighteen
crimes which carried the death penalty.
This may seem fantastic to the modern mind, but Kaiser reminds us, “It
seems most likely that everyone of these case could have a substitute penalty
except that of premeditated murder.”_
We Christians sometimes forget that the Levitical
sacrificial system, though temporary, provided real forgiveness and real
restoration to those who genuinely repented and approached God in faith.
*****
One other incident in the Old Testament should be
noted. It is the strange story of the
Levite’s concubine found in Judges 19. A
Levite, traveling through the town of Gibeah, was invited to enjoy the
hospitality of one of the city’s older residents. As happened in Genesis 19, the house was
surrounded by a band made up of “worthless fellows” who demanded the right to
have sexual relations with the stranger visiting the city.
Instead, the Levite threw his concubine to the
crowd. The men, perhaps enraged because
they had been denied their ultimate prize, abused her all night; early the next
morning, she died of her injuries.
David Jackman comments on the event, “…
homosexual activity is a rejection and reversal of God’s purpose for human
sexuality. That is why its
characteristic is frustration, which, in the story, explodes into violence.”_
Mosaic Law not only forbids homosexual activity,
it warned of spiritual disaster should the nation permit such behavior. The very Tabernacle would be defiled and the
people would find their relationship with God strained and threatened.
Judges 20 tells the story of the national outrage
which arose following the murder of the Levite’s concubine. The leaders of the other tribes resolved to
punish those guilty. A massive military
force descended upon the region of Gibeah, which was located in the area
allotted to the tribe of Benjamin.
The leaders of the combined forces demanded the
guilty parties be handed over to them; the Benjamites refused. The reason for their refusal is not given but
they were willing to fight their fellow-Israelites to protect those described
earlier as “worthless scoundrels.”
With a vastly superior force, the coalition
attacked Benjamin. The Benjamite forces
quickly routed them, inflicting major losses.
After praying for God’s help they attacked again and, again, Benjamin’s
skilled soldiers won the day.
A second period of prayer, marked by deep
contrition and repentance, brought God’s promise of victory to the coalition
forces. This time the Benjamites were defeated.
Why had the combined forces of Israel been unable
to defeat Benjamin? Was God chastening
them for allowing the spiritual condition of the nation to deteriorate to the
degree that what happened in Gibeah could happen? Of what significance is the fact that the
“side” representing justice and righteousness had to repent before it
experienced victory?
Ultimately, thousands of soldiers from both camps
died and the tribe of Benjamin was almost annihilated.
Interestingly, Benjamin’s perversity was forgotten
within a few generations and Israel chose a son of Benjamin to be the nation’s
first king. Saul, who literally stood
head and shoulder above most other Jewish men, fell prey to the same rebellious
spirit which ignored God’s will that nearly destroyed his tribe years before.
New Testament
Any transition into the New Testament discussion
of a subject demands some consideration of what Jesus said on the matter.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Nothing, directly; however, the attitudes he
expressed in his teaching and the foundations he claimed for those teachings
are relevant.
Early in his ministry, Jesus affirmed the
authority of the Old Testament moral code; in fact, he implied we often fail to
see the full-range of its implications. (Mt. 5:17-30) Therefore, Jesus was ultimately confirming
the Old Testament’s sanctions against homosexual behavior.
On another occasion, Jesus cited, with approval,
the Creation account’s pattern for marriage. (Mt. 19:3-9, Mk. 10:1-12) The context shows Jesus clearly understood
the passage referred to a heterosexual relationship.
Jesus may not have directly addressed the issue
of homosexuality but his silence is no reason to assume his approval.
Romans 1:24-27
The lengthiest discussion of homosexuality in the
Bible is found in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. However, the reference to homosexual behavior
is only incidental to the argument he is making. It appears in a much longer passage
(1:18-3:23) which leads to the conclusion that “all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God.”
Homosexuality is mentioned as an illustration of
just how sinful humankind has become.
Other sins, specifically mentioned in this passage, include idolatry,
murder, greed, envy, atheism, theft, hypocrisy, and even gossip. All of these--and others not listed
here--reflect our estrangement from God.
Ironically, while Paul is careful to remind his
readers that the gossip is wrong just like the homosexual many, today, would
condemn a gossip but excuse a homosexual.
Understanding that homosexuality is a reflection
of our rebellion against God is crucial to the Biblical perspective on this
lifestyle. It’s also important to
understand that other, less shocking behavior also represents our rebellion.
This is the usual understanding of Paul’s argument
in the opening chapters of this great epistle.
However, some have suggested a different interpretation. Focusing on the words in verses 26 and 27
regarding men and women abandoning their “natural function” (NASB), they argue
that Paul is condemning heterosexuals (both men and women) who have chosen to
engage in homosexual acts. Thus, they
conclude, Paul is not condemning homosexuality in general.
Wold, Hays, and others have countered this
interpretation by pointing out that extra-Biblical Jewish writers use the same
terminology to describe homosexual behavior as a violation of the created order
(which would define “natural function”).
Interestingly, the word translated as “shameful” in most versions can mean
“out of order,” suggesting a departure of God’s intentions.
It’s also significant, as D. F. Wright points
out, that Paul is condemning both male homosexual behavior and lesbianism._ What was implicit in the Old Testament is
explicit in the New.
Remember the times in which Paul wrote. Homosexual behavior was rampant in the
culture. Philosophers wrote essays
praising homosexual love. Several of the
emperors had homosexual companions, some preferred them to their wives. The
Spartan army had a “Lovers” brigade made up of homosexuals who could only join
in pairs. Sexual deviance of all sorts
became a stock theme in Roman entertainment.
The visual arts reflected a persistent preoccupation with the sexual,
including homosexuality._
In such a world, Paul wrote Romans to
declare God’s provision for humankind’s greatest need.
Consider the points Paul is making:
Homosexual behavior is shockingly unnatural. While homosexual behavior was widespread in
the Greek and Roman world, there were pagan moralists who also condemned the
behavior. And, as we’ve seen, Jewish
writers also condemned the behavior as unnatural.
Homosexual behavior involves powerful emotions
and becomes extremely addictive. The
NRSV speaks of women “consumed with passion for one another.”
Homosexual behavior is fundamentally
self-destructive. Williams offers this
translation of a key phrase in verse 27: those who engage in homosexual
behavior find themselves “continuing to suffer in their persons the inevitable
penalty for doing what is improper.”
To some degree, this probably means that being
caught up in the homosexual lifestyle is, in itself, a punishment for their
behavior. (“Sin is its own punishment.
“) At the same time, some interpreters see
in this verse a warning which links physical and emotional problems to
homosexual behavior.
While I don’t agree with those who see AIDS as
God’s curse on homosexual behavior, I do see AIDS and a variety of other STDs
plaguing both the homosexual community and the promiscuous heterosexual
community as a consequence of such behavior.
The simple truth is, a faithful, monogamous
relationship is the best protection against STDs._
Randy Shilts, author of And the Band Played On,
a critique of the Reagan administration’s response to the AIDS crisis, listed
some of the health issues facing homosexuals, apart from the threat of
AIDS. Shilts stated that homosexuals are
five times more likely to have syphilis than straights (in 1976, when Shilts
wrote, half of America’s syphilis carriers were homosexuals) and suggested that
over the year a homosexual man would “contract gonorrhea” every thirty seconds._
Paul follows his catalogue of sins rooted in our
rebellious hearts with a statement which calls for attention. He says, in 1:32--“Although they know full
well God's sentence that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet
they not only practice them but even applaud others who do them.”
Later in the epistle (2:14-15) Paul would argue
there exists a kind of natural law by which individuals _know what God
requires of them. Weymouth translates
the phrase in this way, “they exhibit proof that a knowledge of the conduct
which the Law requires is engraven on their hearts….”
Could it be that the passionate attempts to
reinterpret or deny the Scripture’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior
reflect a desire to reject what many know to be true?
In recent years, it has become common for some to
argue that Paul’s denunciation of homosexual behavior as being against nature
does not necessarily constitute a condemnation of all homosexual behavior. These interpreters argue that Paul is
referring to homosexual liaisons by individuals who are “by nature”
heterosexual; homosexual behavior by those who are naturally homosexual is as
natural as heterosexual behavior by those who are naturally heterosexual, but
it is unnatural (and sinful) to behave against one’s nature.
Others argue that Paul’s use of the nature
argument is relative. What is considered
natural behavior by one culture is unnatural in another.
Obviously there is a certain truth to that. I was a pre-adolescent when my mother’s
youngest sister married a Polynesian. I
still recall him pointing to a rather fat dog and saying, “Back home that dog
would be in danger of being cooked and eaten.”
Although there are cultures where is common to eat dogs, most of us
would consider eating our Welsh Corgi to be unnatural.
To defend their argument that Paul used “nature”
in a relative sense, these interpreters point to his argument against men
wearing long hair and women wearing short hair.
He asks the Corinthians “”Does not nature itself
teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman
has long hair, it is her glory?”_ Craig Keener explains that Paul was using an
argument that many Greeks would have accepted.
Ancient writers, especially Stoic philosophers,
liked to make arguments from nature. Nature taught them, they said, that only
men could grow beards; women’s hair naturally seemed to grow longer than men’s.
Like all urban dwellers, Paul is well aware of exceptions to the rule
(barbarians, philosophers and heroes of the epic past, as well as biblical
Nazirites); but the “nature” argument could appeal to the general order of
creation as it was experienced by his readers._
Generally speaking, most of Paul’s readers in
Corinth would have considered short hair for men and long hair for women to be
natural. As the church expanded beyond
the Roman world, Christians would find cultures where “nature” seemed to
dictate other hairstyles for men and women.
Does this mean Paul’s attack on homosexual
behavior because it is contrary to nature is culturally based?
If so, it was a strange argument. Most Romans (and to a greater extent Greeks)
in a city like Rome would have considered homosexual behavior to be
natural. It was appropriate, they
believed, in a culture where there were fewer women than men and where men
often didn’t marry until they were at least thirty. Keener even suggests that most Greek men were
bisexual at least until they married and sometimes afterwards.
D. A. Carson believes Paul was making an appeal
to natural law, principles rooted in the Scripture.
Paul here agrees with the Jewish tradition—and
the OT—in seizing on homosexual practice as a particularly evident example of
the Gentiles’ rejection of God. Unnatural, applied to homosexual practice in v
26, in this context denotes the practice as one that is against the natural
law, given by God to regulate all people._
Bible students know it is sometimes hazardous to
apply the meaning of a word in one text to that word as it is used in another
text. A well-known example is Paul’s use
of the word “law,” which can mean the whole Old Testament, the Levitical codes,
the Ten Commandments, or the principle of salvation by works.
So, while Paul’s use of “nature” in arguing for
appropriate hair-length may be culturally informed, it does not follow that
Paul’s use of “nature” in discussing homosexual behavior is also shaped by his
culture.
In any case, the Christian objection to
homosexual behavior does not rest solely on Paul’s words in Romans.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
That Paul should have written such a passage to
the Corinthians is hardly surprising. In
the first-century world there was a verb which meant, “to live like a
Corinthian,” implying a life of great immorality. If the members of the Corinthian church had
lived in the city very long, they would have seen the crassest, most licentious
behavior, practiced openly and without shame.
Alister McGrath reports that some scholars
believe Paul's comments about hair-length might have reflected a Corinthian
custom in which male homosexuals wore long hair, while the females wore short
hair. But there's not enough information to be dogmatic on the issue.
Some have tried to say Paul was addressing
prostitution, not homosexuality, in this passage but their arguments are poorly
founded linguistically._
Two terms are important to this review. They are found in the Greek phrase, “ou'te
malakoi' ou'te arsenokoi'tai,” and translated as “nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals” (NASB)._
Malakoi.
This
term seems to have had an almost specialized meaning in the Greek/Roman
homosexual culture. It referred to the
passive partner in a liaison. In fact,
John Darby (1890) translated the term as “those who make women of themselves.”
The word implies “softness” and refers to “soft
clothing” elsewhere in the NT. Still, the sexual overtones of the word are
clearly found in the use of the word outside the NT. According to Arndt-Gingrich, the word was
used by several non-Christian writers in reference “to catamites, men and boys
who allowed themselves to be misused homosexually.”_
Arsenokoitai. Not surprisingly, this term refers to the
“active” partner in the homosexual liaison.
The word is derived from two Greek terms, arseno (“male”) and koitai
(“coitus”) and, thus, refers to “a male homosexual.” (Arndt-Gringrich) A form of the word is used in the Septuagint
(Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Paul’s day) in Leviticus 18 and
20 to refer to “a male who has sexual intercourse with another male.”_
Paul is not using language to perpetuate any
stereotype of homosexual relations.
Instead, he is recognizing that such relationships may be dynamic but
warning that no person in such a relationship is guiltless.
Interestingly, in some cultures the “active”
partner does not consider himself to be a homosexual. That term, viewed negatively by the culture,
is reserved only for the “passive” partner._
Thus, Paul includes homosexual behavior in the
list of those sins which demonstrate a person is not part of the Kingdom of
God. This is hardly surprising knowing
his commitment to the Old Testament moral vision.
But, before the homosexual or the gleeful critic
of homosexuals has time to conclude that they are beyond redemption, Paul
declares, “such were some of you.”
That phrase gives hope to some, infuriates
others, especially those who claim homosexuals can’t change.
Even when faced with the testimonials of those
who claim to have successfully abandoned the homosexual lifestyle, the
resistance is profound. They claim these
“former homosexuals” were never homosexual in the first place; they were, for
some reason, confused about their sexual orientation and finally discovered
they were actually heterosexuals.
Of course, these objections are rooted in the
assumption that homosexuals are “born” as homosexuals. While the evidence for such an assumption is
still being evaluated, it is clear that many homosexuals are convinced they
cannot change.
Yet, some seem to have changed. The road to such change is difficult and,
from a purely psychological viewpoint, the longer a person is in the homosexual
community, the harder the change seems to be.
Yet, change seems possible._
The shape of such change seems to vary. While some who have abandoned homosexuality
marry and have children. Many others
never lose the impulse pushing them toward same-sex relationships; for them
change is manifested as they resist their homosexual impulses and adopt a
celibate lifestyle.
Crucial to such change is repentance, reliance
upon God’s power, and involvement in a healthy, supportive Christian community
which is able to counter the appeal of the homosexual community.
Before the Christian community can have a proper
attitude toward the struggling homosexual, it is important for the Christian
community to have a proper attitude toward itself. Not all of the believers in the Corinthian
church had been involved in the grosser sins Paul listed but all of them were
sinners and all of them had benefited from the work of Christ in their
lives. All of them had entered into a
new relationship with God and were seen, by God’s grace, as holy and righteous.
Simon Kistemaker comments on this change: “We try to fathom the depths of God’s
forgiving love, and we boldly ask whether God will forgive any and every sin
committed against him. Will he pardon
those sins which, as Paul indicates, exclude a sinner from the kingdom of
God? The answer is affirmative to every
sinner who comes to God, confesses his sin, and pleads for mercy.”_ Everyone of us should be thankful for that
truth.
This leads to another important point; it is a
point discovered when we read between the lines Paul has written. To reach those guilty of the sins Paul
mentions in these verses, someone had to get close enough to establish a
trusting relationship that allowed them share the gospel.
In some instances this might not be easy. But, again, perhaps the first step is
recognizing that we are like the homosexuals: sinners helpless without God’s
grace.
Dr. Mark Yarhouse, professor of psychology at
Regent University, has spent years studying sexual identity. He believes the Christian community needs to
weigh its attitude toward the believer who is attempting to leave the
homosexual lifestyle. Yarhouse describes
this new way of thinking: “Sexual
minorities in the church, by which I mean believers who experience same-sex
attraction, are our people.
Framing the issue this way can lead to greater compassion as the church
tries to find ways to provide support and encouragement to those in our own
communities who would benefit from it.”_
Other verses
Two other
verses should be mentioned.
I Timothy 1:10 lists “homosexuals”
as among those who break the Ten Commandments.
Homer Kent argues that Paul lists specific sins which correspond with
each of the commandments. He sees
homosexuality as violating the principle of the seventh commandment, “Thou
shalt not commit adultery.”_
Paul is building toward the declaration in
1:15: “Christ Jesus came into the world
to save sinners.” That saving activity
extends, not only to a former persecutor like Paul, but to all those sinners
listed in 1:9-10.
Jude 7-8 appears in a warning
about false teachers operating in some of the churches. Jude compares those teachers to those from
Sodom who brought such moral and spiritual destruction. He specifically mentions how these teachers
“defiled the flesh,” a reference to their involvement in sexual
immorality. Edwin Blum believes this
would have included homosexual behavior._
Another characteristic of these teachers is found
in their rejection of authority. All
sin, including homosexual sin, involves a rejection of God’s authority over our
lives.
In our culture, however, it seems the defenders
of the homosexual lifestyle are among the most vocal in their rejection of any
authority which would limit a person’s freedom to express their sexuality.
This spirit apparently leads some to disregard, distort,
or deny the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
That Jude saw this happening in the first-century
church should keep us from being too surprised the same issue has arisen in our
day.
