There is increasing pressure in our culture to affirm same-sex relationships, including marriage. What about the Bible? Is trusting the Bible unreasonable because of its statements on homosexuality? Some answer this question by arguing that the Bible isn't really against homosexuality. I understand the motive for doing so, but the problem is that the Bible is so clear on this subject, it amounts to an argument that you cannot understand anything in the Bible. After all, if we can't know what the Bible teaches on this subject, how can we know what the Bible teaches on any subject? In this post, I will demonstrate from three places in Scripture what the biblical position is. In my next post, I will answer ten common arguments that the biblical position is unreasonable.
I must deal with one immediate objection before moving into the biblical passages. There is an assumption that simply explaining what the Bible says on the topic is unloving. On the contrary, I believe that all of God's commands are given in love, with our best interest in mind. The same Jesus that died on a cross in order to pay for our sin (nothing could possibly be more loving than this), taught that sexual relationship are limited to one man and one woman. Jesus loves more than anyone, so his position must be the loving position, not the other way around. Anyone teaching that biblical commands are wrong or can be ignored is misleading people and putting them on the wrong path, this is not love. I write not to attack any person or group of people, but defend the truthfulness of the most loving message ever written, the Bible.
There are numerous passages that show plainly what the Bible teaches, but I will focus on just three.
1. First, Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." I don't know how anyone could argue that this verse does not declare homosexuality a sin. However, many people do question the relevance of the passage. After all, they say, "Doesn't the Bible also condemn the eating of shellfish, and Christians don't have any problem doing that, right?"
This amounts to an argument that biblical teaching is out of date and everyone must pick and choose what they will believe. Notice first of all that Jesus completely rejects this kind of view of the Bible. He teaches that, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18). Jesus is specifically affirming the relevance and authority of every Old Testament command.
So, does Jesus require all Christians to stop eating shellfish, as Leviticus 11 teaches? Well, no. In fact, that is not what the passage teaches.
Context is the key. In Genesis 12:1, God tells Abraham, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you." This verse does not mean that I must leave America and go to who knows where. The verse was clearly written to Abraham for a specific time. This verse is still relevant and authoritative over me, because it teaches me to live by faith, like Abraham. But it is not a specific command for me. In the same way, prohibitions against shellfish (which, by the way, are not as strongly worded as prohibitions against sexual sin, including homosexuality) are authoritative and relevant, but not directed to me, they are directed to Israel. I can learn from this command that every area of my life should conform to God's standards, without specifically obeying a command that never addressed Gentiles living after the time of Christ's death and resurrection. The same thing is true about many passages in the New Testament. It is always a matter of context.
Leviticus 18:22, however, comes with a different context. It is for all nations. In Leviticus 18:24, God declares, "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled." In other words, God holds all nations accountable to the standards outlined in Leviticus 18, not just the Israelites. One can chose to reject the Bible (and Jesus) and affirm same-sex relationships, but you cannot study this passage and conclude that both are right.
2. Romans 1:27, "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men." The passage addressing homosexuality is much longer than what is quoted here and the context makes it even more clear that homosexuality is wrong. Or does it? Recently, gay-affirming Bible interpreters have offered the possibility of a new understanding of this passage.
The "new understanding" offers two possible explanations. First, Paul may not have been aware of loving, long-term same-sex relationships. He is not addressing all homosexual relationships, but only those that are "inflamed with lust" or "indecent." If he knew about the homosexual relationships of today, he would not oppose them.
There are several problems with this argument. First, Paul most likely would have known of various types of homosexual relationships. There were a broad range of same-sex relationships in his time, and he was a well educated and well traveled person. Suggesting he wouldn't know is at best a weak argument from silence. Furthermore, regardless of what Paul knew or didn't know, the text itself does not support a position that is open to same-sex relationships. The text speaks of men abandoning "natural relations with women." We can't simply guess at what Paul's view was and force that on our interpretation of the text. The text itself is very clear. Remember, Jesus taught that the text itself is the very Word of God.
The second possible explanation is that Paul did know and understand about loving, long-term same-sex relationships. Not only that, he believed that same-sex attraction is something that people are basically born with or have no control over whatsoever. When he speaks of abandoning "natural relations," he is talking about going against one's sexual orientation. In other words, it is only wrong to engage in homosexuality if you are a heterosexual. If you are a homosexual, it is fine. Notice though, that this forces the absurd conclusion that Paul is saying a man who is a homosexual would be sinning if he married a woman, he would then be abandoning what comes natural to him! It is also not what the text says. The text is speaking about abandoning "natural relations with women," not abandoning one's sexual orientation. Once again, this is an argument from silence, based on an assumption about Paul's views that has no supporting evidence, that is used to force a rather strange interpretation that the text does not support.
3. Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he <Jesus> replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Those affirming same-sex relationships often say that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. True, Jesus never used the word homosexuality, but he clearly addressed the topic. In answering a question about divorce, he explains the purpose of sexual relationships and bases it on Genesis 2. Here he speaks of a "man" and "wife" joining together, with the man leaving "father" and "mother." He could have left it at that, but he also pulls a quote from Genesis 1, "male and female" and attaches it to the quote from Genesis 2. He goes out of his way to stress that sexual union was created by God to be a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.
In addition, as I have already stated, Jesus gave the strongest endorsement possible for every command in the Old Testament, which includes Leviticus 18:22.
Furthermore, even if we didn't know of these two strong statements, the idea that Jesus may have approved of homosexuality because he didn't address it is at best a weak argument from silence. He didn't address it directly because no one would have wondered what his position was. In a first century Jewish context, people would assume that a Jewish rabbi was opposed to homosexuality. Jesus was not afraid of controversy, if he held a position so at odds with the rabbis of his day, one that affirmed same-sex relationships, we would almost certainly know about it. However, we don't have to wonder because he does make his position clear in Matthew 19.
One final point, the argument that Jesus did not oppose homosexuality because he didn't directly address it assumes that Jesus' words during his earthly ministry are more important than the rest of the Bible. It concedes that other parts of the Bible oppose homosexuality, but those parts are suspect because they are not contained in quotes attributed to Jesus. That assumption is based on the idea that we might trust Jesus, but we cannot trust the Bible. However, Jesus himself taught that he is God and that the Bible is the Word of God. If anyone thinks that they can follow Jesus and yet reject, say, Leviticus 18:22, they are making a huge mistake. First, they are rejecting what Jesus told his followers to think about the Bible.
Second, they must reject Jesus' teaching that he was God, or reject his teaching that the Bible is God's Word, or both. If Jesus is God, and the Bible is God's Word (both essential beliefs of the Christian faith), then everything, including Leviticus 18:22 is just as much the words of Christ as the "red letters." Rejecting Romans 1 or Leviticus 18, according to Jesus, is the same thing as rejecting the teaching of Jesus.
In the next post, I will respond to ten common objections that the biblical position is unreasonable.
Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here.Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. You can listen to previous programs online here: http://www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html
No comments:
Post a Comment