Josiah Concept Ministries

I’ve taken her on before, and after almost a month-long delay, I’m here to take her on once again. Elizabeth Schmitz, of Schmitz Blitz, has this article in response to me. Elizabeth has posted an article that has a four-part argument in favor of Naomi and Ruth being lesbian lovers. The first part is the use of language; specifically, the word cleave, which is used to describe both Ruth and Naomi as well as marriage in general. The second part is the existence of many non-traditional relationships in the course of the Bible. The third part is the importance of lineage to the Hebrew people. And the final part refers to Ruth 4:16-17, where Naomi is like a second mother to Obed.

Elizabeth admits that the lack of detail within the text is a problem. This creates a bigger problem than Elizabeth may be aware of. This allows us to use a rabbinical argument from silence, which basically states that if the Bible doesn’t explicitly state it, it didn’t happen.

The argument of He. 7 is similar to the rabbinic argument from silence, which assumed that nothing exists unless Scripture mentions it. Since Genesis says nothing of Melchizedek’s parents, genealogy, birth, or death, he serves as a type representing the eternal Son of God (v. 3). . . . In rabbinical logic and reasoning, statements could be made which were “arguments from silence.” If the Bible didn’t specifically say something about a person, place, or incident, various conclusions could be drawn for the sake of the claim or discussion being presented. (source)

So, for the sake of this discussion, I can conclude that nothing happened between Ruth and Naomi. Even a casual search of the Bible will reveal that it is explicit where sex and sin occur. It rarely just says that two people bore a child; it explicitly states that the two people in question had sex. And it states that in unmistakable terms.  The same is true with sin.  The Bible deals very frankly with those subjects.

What about the rest of Elizabeth’s arguments?  First, in regard to language, she points out that “cleave” is used in both Genesis 2:24 to describe marriage, and in Ruth 1:14 to describe Ruth and Naomi’s relationship.  Granted, but there is no specific talk of sex or sexuality.  As I explained above, the Bible is very frank when discussing sex between two people.  It wouldn’t have stopped here.

Next, Elizabeth brings up several non-traditional relationships that occur in the Bible.  While she mentions Jacob having multiple wives, she neglects that this is not uncommon during patriarchal times.

Then she mentions Judah and Tamar.  I will only point out that the sex between these two is explicit in the text.

Abraham and Hagar is another relationship that Elizabeth mentions.  I should note that God honors His promise to raise a nation from Abraham’s offspring by promising Ishmael that he will sire 12 princes, but that the covenant promises will only be given to Isaac, as Isaac is the descendant that God promised Abraham.

Likewise, with David and Bathsheba, God took their first child as punishment for the adultery and murder.  None of these non-traditional relationships help make a case for Ruth and Naomi being lesbian lovers.  Ruth and Naomi would have clearly been in the wrong, as with Abraham and Hagar and David and Bathsheba.  God punished those couples.  There is no reason to assume that He wouldn’t have punished Ruth and Naomi.

The third part to Elizabeth’s argument is that lineage is very important in the Old Testament, and that people go to great lengths to preserve their lineage.  True, but irrelevant.  No lineage is possible from a homosexual couple, and the lineage is the man’s, not the woman’s.  This argument merely strengthens the position that Ruth and Naomi had only a platonic relationship.

The final piece of Elizabeth’s argument is that Naomi acts as the “second mother” in the way one would expect a modern lesbian couple to behave.  This argument is blatant eisigesis.  Nursemaids are not uncommon in the Bible.  What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.  No one in that day would see Naomi as a “second mom” the way a lesbian life partner acts today because that practice was unheard of in those days.

The Bible, despite its frank dealing with sex, never mentions a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi.  Of the non-traditional relationships it mentions, the ones that are sinful in God’s eyes are punished by Him swiftly.  Lineage is irrelevant to a homosexual couple.  Nursemaids are not lesbian life partners.  Elizabeth’s arguments fall apart easily under scrutiny.

This portion is easy to answer:

But let’s say he doesn’t. Let’s say this Christian is merely speculating based upon what he knows of Jesus’ life. And, as a Christian, let’s say you think he’s wrong. Why is his opinion “beyond offensive”? It seems like it has some reasonable historical data to back it up. And even if you do, in fact, believe God really hates homosexuality, is it that hard to believe that Jesus might not agree with every single opinion of his Father? Maybe they differed on this particular issue. Maybe they didn’t, and Jesus took just as hard a line on this as God allegedly did. But this statement by a Christian isn’t completely without merit. (source)

Well, Jesus and His Father not being in complete agreement. That sentiment betrays Jeff’s misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually is. Each Person–Father, Son, and Spirit–is an individual person with all of the faculties of a person. But each is of the same substance: God.

I’ve covered elsewhere that each Person of the Trinity has a unique ministry, and the idea that each is present with the others during the execution of these ministries actually strengthens the notion of each Person’s individuality rather than diminishing it. Jesus, as if proving Jeff’s point that He has a different will than His Father, prayed on the night of His execution, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Lk 22:42).

Jesus is nothing if not consistent. It is pointless to argue whether or not He had different opinions than His Father. He consistently argued, and prayed for, His Father’s will–not His own–to be done.  Jesus’ own opinion is moot in this case.  Jesus would have wanted whatever His Father would have wanted.

Continuing this series, let’s examine more of Jeff Haws’s errors regarding homosexuality and the church.

How do we know everything Jesus said? Everything we know about Jesus indicates he was accepting of a lot of people who most people didn’t accept. All the historical accounts we have show Jesus to have been a man who was drawn to outcasts, at least partly because he was a sort of outcast himself. It seems entirely within Jesus’ character to have said homosexuality was OK. And I’ve said Maybe this Christian knows something you don’t. (source)

The short answer is that we don’t know everything that Jesus said (Jn 21:25). But Jesus consistently upheld the Bible, and even told us to observe the law (Mat 23:1-3; cf. Mat 5:18; 1 Jn 5:3, 2 Jn 6). So for this premise to be valid, Jesus would have had to have said something that didn’t fit with the Bible that no one recorded. As much as the scribes and the Pharisees hated Christ, if He had ever said something that contradicted the Scriptures, these guys would have had a field day. They would have written it down, they would have told every one of Jesus’ disciples. In short, the scribes and the Pharisees would have formed any single contradiction in Jesus’ teachings into a cornerstone of their case against Him. They never did that, so I think it is reasonable to conclude that He said no such thing.

Homosexuality is against the Law of God (Lev 18:22, 20:13).  Jesus said that He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law (5:17-20).  Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that Christ would have done anything except condemn homosexuality.

That said, I agree with Jeff in spirit.  I believe that Christ would have consorted with homosexuals, with the added caveat that He would call them to repentance.  He would have ministered to them, but He would have–by the grace of God–forgiven their sins and told them to sin no more, as He did with others.

As the apostle Paul put it, we are now a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).  We, saved by the grace of God, should not continue to sin so that grace may abound–we are dead to sin, so we should not live in it (Rom 6:1-2).

Elizabeth Schmitz left a comment on my blog that was a verbatim repost of her latest entry.  I decided to check out what she had to say, on the off chance that it might be interesting or informative. Her blog was plain, and no different than any other anti-Christian social issues blog I’ve ever seen. I dug a little bit on her blog and found this post, which bears commenting on.

Elizabeth says that this is one of her favorite passages in the Bible:

But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Her thought, shallow and unsophisticated though it is, on that verse is:

That is one woman speaking to another (Ruth to Naomi to be exact). The religious right tries as hard as it can to demonize the love between two individuals of the same sex, but this passage shows that it was alive and celebrated in the Bible, as I wish it only could be today.

First of all, no one demonizes love between the same sex, particularly if it is the same sort of love that Ruth is demonstrating to Naomi. There are a few things that Elizabeth is neither telling us nor considering into the context of this passage. There is also at least one underlying assumption she betrays that is false.

First, Elizabeth is skirting the issue of who these women are. Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women. Naomi is older, too old to find a husband (1:12). Later in the story, Naomi helps Ruth find a husband, Boaz (Ruth 3). They marry and bear a son, Obed (Ruth 4) who is the grandfather of King David (verse 17).

The rest of the story shows that this statement made by Ruth is one of loyalty, not romantic love. Were these two lovers, would Naomi really have helped Ruth find a new husband? More importantly, would Naomi be as bitter as she was when she first returned home with Ruth (1:20-21) if the two were lovers?

The underlying assumption that Elizabeth betrays is that she thinks that all outward shows of love must be romantic love. Why can’t this be simple loyalty? Naomi was the family that Ruth was close to, so it make sense that she would cling to her mother-in-law after the death of her husband. Why return to her own family if they weren’t close? Choosing to stay with Naomi in this case isn’t a case of romantic love, but one of family loyalty.

So, who is Elizabeth Schmitz? Well, her About page is very mysterious. However, I have noticed the similarity in tone and opinion to someone I’ve taken on before. That is Eliza from DefCon. I think that Ms. Schmitz and Eliza are one in the same.

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!

The Penitent Atheist says:

As it turned out, the issue of homosexuality, among others, helped me see that the Bible, and Christianity, were false. It is very simple, really. If homosexuality is not a choice, then Christianity is wrong. And it is patently clear that homosexuality is not a choice; it is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. (source)

And then:

Someone will counter my arguments here by asking if we should also be tolerant of pedophiles. After all, one might argue, they don’t choose their sexual preference either. But there is a very significant difference between homosexual sex between two consenting adults and sex between an adult and a child. The child does not, cannot, consent, and is severely harmed psychologically by the experience. The vast disparity of power between an adult and a child, both physical and psychological, makes it sexual activity harmful.

Actually, I wouldn’t counter the argument by arguing for pedophilia. But I’m glad that our penitent friend recognizes that lack of choice in the manner or method of sexual attraction does not equate to said manner or method being correct behavior. That will form the foundation of my counter-argument.

I will assume that a lack of a conscious choice in the matter will mean a genetic predisposition toward the behavior, in this case, homosexuality. The penitent atheist, in his reverse example, doesn’t consider environmental factors so I believe that I’m safe in assuming that he is primarily arguing on genetics. So, let’s ask ourselves: Does a genetic predisposition to something automatically mean that this is a desirable state of being? Consider that alcoholism (or any addictive behavior, for that matter), heart disease, high blood pressure, emphysema, rage, Down’s syndrome, and cancer are all influenced by genetics. That is why this line of reasoning is fallacious. There are many negative traits that are also genetic.

The entire “homosexuality isn’t a choice” argument automatically assumes that because something is hard wired into our being that it is a good thing. That is clearly and demonstrably false. I struggle with an addiction. I have anger management issues. I’ve survived cancer. These things are likely hard wired into my DNA, but I don’t believe that any of those things affect me positively, and I certainly won’t submit to addiction or just tell my wife that she’ll have to deal with my rage because that stuff is genetic and I don’t have a choice in the matter.

The truth is that I do have a choice in the matter. I can recognize those attributes, such as addiction and rage, for the corrupting influences that they are. Homosexuality, whether it is hard wired or a personal preference, is no different. The homosexual must realize, first, that this behavior is a corrupting influence. Then, he or she must act on this realization and surrender to the authority of God through Christ Jesus. That is only the first step. I do now and always will struggle with my addiction. So will these saints. But they will be saved by the same grace that saved me, and in time, they will come to terms with that sin as I have. They will struggle with it, but they will be equipped to face it head-on.

But don’t take my word for it. Read the testimonies of people who have been positively impacted by taking those steps with homosexuality, and now embrace freedom in Jesus Christ.

There isn’t a cure for homosexuality. No one is trying to claim that. But there is hope for those that struggle with it. The feelings won’t go away, but over time these feelings can be dealt with in a positive, God-glorifying way.

I bashed Steve Ray’s take on the Assumption of Mary, but now I have to agree with this piece on his blog.

I’m so tired of seeing the “gay isn’t a choice” rhetoric posted everywhere.  I’m happy to see a website telling stories of people who were formerly gay who gave their lives to Christ and let His Holy Spirit set them free.  We Christians aren’t trying to change gay people: we are truly trying to set them free with the liberating blood of Jesus Christ, who is big enough to overcome any and all sin that a person brings to Him.

We must never forget that Jesus “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25).  And “neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).  These are powerful, biblical truths that so many of our gay brothers and sisters deny in service to an idolatrous lifestyle.  If only they would turn themselves to Jesus, He will save them.

Thank you, Steve Ray, for telling the truth about this prickly issue.

I was scanning the blogosphere this morning and found this gem from The Atheocracy:

Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.

So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source)

I actually agree with Jeff right up to this point.  However, he concludes that “. . . if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.”  Huh?  Now that sounds like Jeff has just concluded what a person with an evolutionary mindset would conclude.

Let me explain.  Starting from the premise that we are nothing more than animals–highly evolved ones, but animals nonetheless–we look at how the other animals handle sex and monogamy.  Well, except for certain birds, monogamy is all but unheard of.  Sex is had wherever, whenever, and with whomever it is desired.  Now, since we evolved from animals and are really animals ourselves, then there is no reason to obey any sort of etiquette about sex–especially when it’s derived from a 4000 year old book.  We’re so much smarter now.

So much smarter, in fact, that we are removing restrictions placed on which consenting adults can have sex, and thus stepping backwards to behavior found in lower forms of life?

Interesting.

Praise God! A new magazine is out that preaches the possibility of “recovery” from a gay lifestyle. “Recovery” really isn’t the best term, I don’t think. Perhaps the word I used so prolifically in my previous post on David Vitter will work here as well: repentance.

Venus Magazine is a relatively new publication (so far as I can tell) that preaches a message of hope and deliverance from the sin of homosexuality. They feature the testimonies of former gay activists and generally encourage people who are “in the lifestyle” to seek a right relationship with God.

This is all so very counterculture. While society rattles on about how homosexuality is a state of being, ministries like this one–staffed by former gays and lesbians–preach a message of hope for all that this lifestyle is a choice. Deliverance and repentance come from Jesus Christ, by the grace of God.

Keep up the good work!

Related Links

• Interview with the founder of Venus Magazine
• About Hope/Not Hatred Ministries
• Genesis Counseling
• NARTH

I’m writing this entry because a lot of what is contained herein needs to be said, and it needs to be heard by Christians who are confused by the whole issue of homosexuality. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. It is quite the hot potato within the church today, and I have made it perfectly clear that I believe with all of my heart that the church is handling this issue in the worst possible way. What I have not made clear is the appropriate way to handle this issue, because a way to handle the issue never presented itself.

First, let me make it clear that I do not accept that homosexuality is “normal.” I do not believe that it is inborn, either: we are not born gay, nor are we born straight. I will cover that momentarily. I believe that it is a perversion of the plan God has set forth in marriage, and I believe that the Scriptures that condemn it are quite clear on this fact. There have been many attempts by gay theologians and “gay Christian” activists to muddy the clear teaching of Scripture in this regard.

Some people may not be familiar with the Scriptural arguments in favor of homosexuality, so I will pause here to briefly explain them. There are six main Scriptures to which the gay community refers to as the “clobber passages.” They are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Pro-gay theologians have argued that these passages don’t really condemn gays, and that modern people are misinterpreting them.

Gay theologians say that the passages in Leviticus merely refer to temple prostitution and ritual sodomy, not the loving relationship shared by modern gay couples. This is probably going to surprise many people, but I’m actually not going to argue with that statement. The book of Leviticus was devised as a holiness code for priests, and it is only fitting that such a statement is referring specifically to that practice, and not to a loving relationship between people. I therefore agree that this is misused to clobber gays.

Deuteronomy is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel. Between God and a specific nation that existed in a specific time–the physical descendants of Abraham, not the spiritual ones. Modern Christians, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, can refer to this book to identify the sorts of practices that God disapproves of, such as homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc., but also can reason that some of these things are not applicable today. There is much theological debate about what parts are still applicable and what parts not, so we cannot say for certain here that we should condemn homosexual behavior on the basis of Deuteronomy.

I can say, with a degree of certainty, that it stands up to reason on the basis of this passage and of the account of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:23-24) that a strong case against homosexuality can be made. The honest gay theologian should at least be able to agree with me on that point.

Leviticus, a holiness code for priests, and Deuteronomy, a suzerainty treaty that is no longer in effect because of the disobedience of Israel, are hardly the most appropriate books of the Bible to use to condemn this behavior. They are important to discern which behaviors are acceptable to God and which are not, but they cannot be used the way that many Christians today try in regard to homosexuality. It then becomes open season for the detractors to throw out the ridiculous rules contained in these books, pointing out (rightly) that if we have dispensed with those rules, why not this one? I’ll cover why we should not soon, but for now, let’s look at the Pauline passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy as a group, because the same primary argument is used in an attempt to toss both of them out wholesale: the Greek words μαλακός (malakos) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs).

The pro-gay argument is that latter word has an unclear meaning, and that it is only ignorance that would have us translate the word as “homosexuals.” But this translation really isn’t far off if one pays close attention to the context:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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]

What is translated “men who practice homosexuality” here in the ESV are two Greek terms, μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης. The former literally means “soft,” and the latter is subject to much etymological debate. Can we ever know what Paul meant by these words, or is the meaning obscured by time?

Pay attention to the list itself: notice that it is divided into categories: sexual sins, covetousness, and finally, “white collar.” We have good reason, therefore, to believe that ἀρσενοκοίτης has a sexual connotation, since it follows sexual sins. It precedes sins of coveting, which could imply some sort of envy.

This fits homosexuality perfectly: they envy the rights granted heterosexual couples who marry, especially in today’s society. Therefore, putting this sin between sexual sins and sins of coveting is a nice fit. But this still doesn’t address another concern of the gay community: why did Paul use these terms instead of the most common Greek term describing homosexuality?

I believe that there are two reasons. First, the common term would have brought to mind the common practice of the day: an older man taking a young boy under his wing (among other things) to educate him and “make him a man.” Essentially, that term would condemn only this practice, not homosexuality in general. Paul wanted to use language that would have condemned all homosexuality, not just the practice of the day. He wanted terms that were more generic, terms that would survive the times. Why those particular words were chosen leads me to the second point.

The second reason is that Paul was trying to be descriptive of how a homosexual couple actually works. This way, he condemns both parties in the couple, not just one or the other. Nowadays (and I can assume in Paul’s day as well), gay couples consist of a “top” and a “bottom.” The top fills the role of the man, he is the one that “goes into” or “knows” the other, to put it King James language (ἀρσενοκοίτης implies a strong man and a marriage bed). By contrast, the bottom fulfills the role of the woman; he is “went into,” so to speak (the literal translation of μαλακός is “soft,” which fits the implied meaning nicely). Put another way, had Paul been writing today, he may have written “neither the sexually immoral, people who worship things of this world, cheats, homosexual ‘tops’ and ‘bottoms,’ thieves, money grubbers, drunks, crooks, nor embezzlers will inherit the Kingdom.”

This same argument works for the translation of 1 Timothy 1:10.

The pro-gay argument against the passage in Romans is that this refers to lustful relationships, not pure loving relationships. While I can’t disagree with this argument in spirit, since it does match the context of Romans 1, there is one flaw in this reasoning. Everything mentioned in Romans is going against God’s plan, God’s natural order of things. This implies that the gay theologian understands that God has the right to order creation as He sees fit. The gay theologian must also accept the Bible as the Word of God, the same way I do. It is standard practice to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So, are there any Scriptures that set a natural order to sexual relationships?

Of course there are! Genesis 2:21-24 tells us that God took a part of man to make woman, and that in order for a man to be whole again requires a woman, not another man. The same is also true for women. This account is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew, when the Pharisees ask about divorce laws. We can then assume that Jesus also intended marriage to be between a male and a female, not between members of the same sex.

I think that I have established that homosexuality is, indeed, a sin. It violates God’s natural order and has been consistently taught against in crystal clear Bible passages. The issue here is not weather a gay person is born or made, nor weather God still loves them or not; the bottom line is “According to the Bible, is homosexuality a sin?” I don’t think that any reasonable argument can be proposed contrary: homosexuality is a sin.

The problem I have lies in articles like this, from Dr. James White yesterday:

Homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives. It is a difficult thing to wrestle constantly with your conscience, to put out so much effort into convincing yourself that your sin is good, to call light darkness and darkness light. It is toilsome. Because of their state, homosexuals are particularly angered by anyone who would say “homosexuality is unnatural; it is directly opposed to God’s creative order, it is sinful, life-destroying, and God demands you repent from it.” And so, they are willing to lend their considerable financial (and hence politically powerful) support to any politician who will help them to suppress such speech, or to put it bluntly, to give them super-rights. They wish to be able to say, and do, anything at all: but, at the same time, they are willing to see the rights of others, especially their free-speech rights, denied. [source]

Again, I agree with Dr. White’s statements here. But the last statement ignores the fact that Christians, despite having God’s truth on our side, are no better than the homosexuals in our treatment of them. We somehow act like homosexuality is some kind of unforgivable sin, when some of us are guilty of it (and worse) in our lives. We treated these people, who want nothing more than equal rights with everyone, like dirt–as if their sin is somehow contagious. Adulterers, drug addicts, gamblers, and even child molesters are given second chances in church without batting an eyelash. Why not homosexuals? Why are they treated as some sort of heart-hardened unrepentant group that is seeking to destroy us?

To that end, I can’t say that I disagree with Lynette1977 in this post, where she asks the ultimate question: Why do gays stay in a religion that calls for their persecution? Christianity doesn’t call for the persecution of gays, but is it any wonder Lynette and others believe that it does? Look at the way Christians–even prominent apologists like Dr. White–behave toward gays!

The problem is that we’re putting the cart before the horse. The only existing condemnation for homosexuality is the Bible. I’m not denigrating the Bible’s importance, but I am trying to point out that fewer and fewer people are accepting it as a source for morals. This is the real problem that we, as Christians, must address first. We need to call for society to come back to a Biblical understanding of morals and creation first, then we can reason with them from Scripture to understand why something like that is wrong through God’s eyes.

To that end, organizations like Answers in Genesis are very worthwhile causes to support. Dr. Ham works tirelessly to promote a better and more Biblical understanding of the world.

Christians have lost the focus we once had on discipleship: building relationships with people without judging their lifestyle, and leading them to God’s truth through the Bible rather than trying to slap their faces with it.

So what’s my recommendation for dealing with the homosexual? Well, evangelize him or her the way you would anyone else, and then live your life according to God’s commands. Talk about it. Show them from the Bible why you do what you do. Let the Word of God speak for itself. If that person is truly motivated to shed the harmful behavior out of reverence for a new faith in Jesus, then great! You won a convert, you have a new disciple, and you didn’t even have to give away a new car to do it!

In short, I believe in relationships being the key to solving this problem, changing it one heart at a time, not proselytizing the entire group. As individuals accept Christ, Christ will motivate them to change in His time. Meanwhile, as for legislative measures to legalize gay marriages, I don’t see that we have other choice: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” [Mat 5:39]. It is obvious that God is sending our gay brothers and sisters a powerful delusion, so let’s not resist that overall. Let’s instead fight it by living the lives Jesus called us to live, and show the ones God draws to Himself how to do the same. Just like Proverbs also states. Pray for the wisdom to discern the difference.