Josiah Concept Ministries

Haven’t we seen signs like that? Jeff Haws has written an interesting commentary in response to this entry from Dan Goldfinch. The reasoning behind that sign underlies Jeff’s entry. Although Dan has already rebutted here, I wanted to take a moment to examine some of the errors that Jeff has committed, since his position is actually typical of Christianity’s detractors. Christians who are true to Scripture must take a stance against homosexuality. For this, we take much heat. We should expect that when we stand up for truth against a culture that hates it.

I understand that most Christians have interpreted certain passages in the Bible to say homosexuality is a sin and all that. I think it’s yet another example of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible to adhere to and which ones not to, but that’s really beside the point. What I don’t understand is why a Christian (no, wait, a “Christian” because Christians like to call the messenger into question when they don’t like the message, like when they say someone isn’t a “true” Christian because they did something bad) would not just say this person is wrong but that his statement is “beyond offensive.” (emphasis added)

First of all, this isn’t a matter of interpretation. As I thought I had made clear here, the passages that rail against homosexuality are abundantly clear. No honest Christian can say that these five passages say anything but “Homosexuality is a sin.” Let’s take a quick peek at those passages now, just for clarity:

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” This is from a book of priestly codes, so men would be the target audience of this command. This sounds pretty straightforward. Some gay theologians have argued that this refers to temple service only, based on its place in the book of Leviticus. But, in context, this verse is in a section that begins with the Lord telling Moses to explain these precepts to the people of Israel, not the Levites.

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” This second passage actually provides a penalty for the action, and it clearly specifies men lying with other men. This is in the section that follows the infractions; it is in the penalty section.

The New Testament also has several passages that forbid homosexuality. The first (and most famous) is Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Before, in the Old Testament, there was only be condemnation for men. Now there is condemnation for both men and women who commit the sin of homosexuality. Paul was all about removing the distinctions between gender and class, a subtlety that most people seem intent on ignoring in the apostle’s writings.

Finally:

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10, emphasis added)

And:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)

The two “list” references have come under some attack by the gay Christian movement as there are two references to homosexuality in each list, though the ESV (which I quote here) combines the two references as a singular one.  Paul uses two words, malakos and aresenokoites, to mean “homosexual.”

Some people think that Paul was describing a practice for which we have no modern equivalent.  These same people, all of them part of the gay Christian movement, say that there is divided scholarship on aresenokoites, and that modern etymologists have no idea what that word means.  This is misleading at best, a lie at worst.  Scholarship is fairly unified on that word: they believe that it refers to the manly male participant in homosexual sex.

Some think Paul was inventing words.  I think that he was attempting to be as precise as possible.  Do the words “top” and “bottom” hold any significance to any gay readership?  It should.  Last I heard, this is what modern gay culture calls the “type” of partner.  Tops, the more common among gay males, are the “manly” partner.  They do the penetrating.  The bottom takes on the role of the “feminine” partner. They are penetrated.  Usually, a gay man only likes one or the other.

This connection becomes crystal clear when a person studies the words malakos and aresenokoites.  Malakos means “soft.”  Aresenokoites is a compound word; areseno- means “lift,” is a male verb, and implies an act of strength or aggression; -koites implies a marriage bed, synonymous with the act of consummation.  This means that malakos could refer to the “bottom” and aresenokoites could refer to the “top.”

So, first and foremost, the Bible is very straightforward as to the sinful nature of homosexuality.  But, some people still like to throw out the sign that I reproduced at the start of this post as so-called “evidence” that Jesus may have, in fact, condoned homosexuality.  After all, He never specifically said anything about it!

Well, He never explicitly called corporate embezzlement a sin, either.  No serious Christian would excuse Enron from responsibility on the basis that Jesus didn’t specifically say that what they did was a sin.  I think we can agree that it is.  Jesus affirmed so much of the other Scriptures, we can infer that He upheld homosexuality is a sin as well.

For example, Jesus told the Pharisees that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that marriage is indissoluble, in Matthew 19:1-12.  This affirms those famous words in the book of Genesis: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24).  If Jesus agreed with that statement, if follows that He would agree that homosexuality is a sin.

Tomorrow, I’ll touch on more errors in Jeff’s post.  I’ll also specifically address the most often-repeated argument against the last statement: “Jesus accepted so many other sinners.  I’m sure He’d accept homosexuals, too.”  My answer will surprise you: I agree!  He would accept homosexuals. In fact, He calls them home to the Kingdom!