Jeff’s Errors on Homosexuality, pt. I
|
Everything Jesus Said About Homosexuality:
|
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!
Cory,
Thanks for the post. I’m glad you have responded to Jeff’s errors because I’m pressed for time and cannot really exegete all of those passages in context. Your last statement: “He [Jesus] would accept homosexuals,” is, I think, right on the mark with certain prerequisites understood. Thus, Jesus’ welcoming is no different for the repentant homosexual than it is for the repentant drug abuser or ax-murderer. The problem, as I cannot seem to convince Jeff and other’s, is that Jesus calls on all of us to repent of all sin. When one begins with the premise that certain behavior is not sin, it is easy to see how one can say one doesn’t need to repent of that sin or submit to the Lordship of Jesus or submit to the revelation and testimony of Scripture. Nor do they seem to understand that homosexuality, as with any sin, is simply incompatible with Christianity. But This is what happens when we disregard the content of Scripture as I noted in my most recent post on Scripture’s inerrancy, infallibility, and authority.
Thanks again for the reply, and for visiting Jeff’s blog–he’s one unbeliever that I actually enjoy speaking with.
jerry
If you don’t mind the link,
http://dangoldfinch.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/the-scripture-inerrant-infallible-and-authoritative/
jerry
Thanks for the response, Cory. It’s always fun matching wits a little bit.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I can anticipate what you will say on that final point, but I’ll let you say it.
My point wasn’t so much that the Bible doesn’t explicitly say God is against homosexuality but that it also says God is against/for plenty of other things that most Christians ignore. Clearly, the Bible can be interpreted that some of the statements in it aren’t applicable to modern times or that certain statements don’t make sense in the context of God’s overall love for His creation or that the people who wrote the Bible had certain motivations behind their writing and included many inconsistent passages.
So my point is, why is this particular point beyond interpretation while others are not? If you don’t treat women as an inferior sex, for example, why do you have to treat homosexuals as an inferior group?
It’s a slippery slope. Once we start “interpreting” passages as inapplicable, where do we stop?
I mean, we once had kings and emperors. We had slavery. People couldn’t get divorced. Women knew their “proper place”. All of it was based on the Bible–the Divine Word. And now homosexuality is being accepted.
The above is irony, of course. Many injunctions once considered “Biblical” are now no longer considered so. I think it’s foolish to condemn homosexuality, yet accept divorce, decry slavery, view women as equals, etc. This is cherry-picking. Take it all–or nothing. It’s God’s eternal law, right?
That might make you a little unpopular, but didn’t Jesus say all along you’d be hated for your beliefs? (John 15:19)
Jerry,
Yes, you’re starting to hit it right on the head with what I’m going to say in my next piece. For that, I thank you. You have helped to prove a point I made in another post that Christians who take the Bible seriously will be united on what it says. The “33,000 denominations arise because of sola scriptura” argument, proposed by both Catholics and atheists, is just nonsense. The Bible says what it says and it should be clear to all who take it as the inspired Word of God.
Jeff is fun to match wits with because he listens. So many other atheists (read: the Rational Response Squad) are just so concerned with their agendas that they seldom listen to good, sound Christian answers to their arguments. (That’s why I follow Frank Walton, even though I disagree with his name-calling and vitriol; it is very interesting to watch him refute the RRS but see them just ignore it and go on not believing.)
Anyway, I’m a bit pressed for time as well but I just had to make time to answer Jeff’s article because it is so typical of the arguments that I hear against the morality of homosexuality and the Bible’s clear teachings on it that I thought that God could use my article to reach many people who feel the same way. He can use it to show people His truth. That’s really what my site is all about.
Robert, you said:
Did my introductory paragraph not end thus:
Of course I expect that people will torture me because of my beliefs. I find it odd that many Christians are taken aback by this simple fact of Scripture. The servant is not greater than his master; we must expect more trials and more pain than Christ bore on our behalf.
Hi Cory, thanks for your response. I think you missed the larger point of my reply.
If you want to stand up against homosexuality, then why not divorce as well? Is not the latter just as sinful in God’s eyes as the former? Malachi 2:16, 1 Cor. 7:10, etc.
If a Christian wants to own slaves, is he not permitted?
Abolition and divorce, to give but a couple examples, might be unpopular positions in a culture that “hates truth”. But if you’re “true to Scripture”, what does it matter? You “must take a stance against” them.
Robert,
Speaking for myself, I do not think it’s a matter of cherry-picking which Christian values to hold up and which not to. It’s that homosexuality is one sin whose participants by and large do not believe is a sin. “Accept the sinner but not the sin” is the Christian way. Drug addicts don’t have to be convinced. Most divercees either. Even football players who gamble on dog fights admit their sin on national TV. Homosexuals however see no sin to admit. They take rejection of their sin as rejection of them, consider the church’s sincere acceptance as double-talk. It makes it very hard to come to a meeting of the minds, let alone hearts. It makes it hard to agree on good laws, and acceptable insurance benefits policies. In my opinion, homosexuality isn’t singled out as much as it just stands out.
Robert:
I do stand up against divorce. I believe it is sinful. My stand on divorce, however, is one of action, not one of words. I endeavor and work very hard at loving my wife and being the best husband that I am able to be. We have had a very rocky marriage so far, and I don’t expect that to end anytime soon. With a daughter on the way any day now, I will also work hard at being a great father.
For slavery, remember that slavery in a Biblical sense was actually an indentured servitude. (More on that here. Here is a list of works by Christian abolitionists.) As I’ve stated in this post, Paul wrote quite a bit about removing gender and class roles. Specifically, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, and Colossians 3:11 speak of removing these gender and class roles.
“I do stand up against divorce. I believe it is sinful. My stand on divorce, however, is one of action, not one of words.”
Why only action against divocre? Why not try and change divorce laws? If it is sinful then there are millions more people sinning through divorce than through homosexuality. Why wouldn’t you focus on the sin more people are committing?
Actions speak louder than words.
I don’t care if divorce is a choice for other people. It is not a choice for me.
Everyone knows divorce is sinful and why. With homosexuality, the problem is more subtle because people don’t understand why it is a sin–they need to be educated about it.
As a fruit of that education, people who call themselves Christians will do the same as I do with divorce: they won’t choose homosexuality. They will undoubtedly struggle with the sin, but they won’t give in to the temptation.
I have never rallied against laws being put in place for gay marriages; my platform is showing that the behavior is sinful and urging those who profess faith in Christ to honor God.