Exodus 20:7 tells us not to use God’s name in vain, this is the third commandment that is given to the nation of Israel. It says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” God’s people are His image-bearers. Most people understand this as simply swearing, and it certainly can mean that, but it means significantly more than that.1
The Hebrew word we translate as “vain” (שָׁוְא – shav’) and often is translated as falsely, lie, lying, vain, vanity. Think about the depth of that for a minute. Shav {shav}; comes from the same root as the Hebrew word show’ שׁוֹא in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain).2 In other words, you are giving up your commission as an ambassador of GOOD – TOV – GOD giving it up for the opposite, to be an agent of destruction, idolatry, or deception.
In ancient culture, your name meant something. It had value; it told others who you were. And the same is true with the name of God. His name has meaning and power. It’s holy. Therefore, we shouldn’t use it as if it’s empty, hollow, worthless, or in vain.
From the earliest biblical writings (e.g., Genesis, Exodus), God’s name (often represented as YHWH, sometimes transliterated “Yahweh”) has been profoundly revered. Archaeological finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (which date from roughly 200 BC to AD 70) show extreme care taken by scribes when writing God’s name, indicating the reverence the ancient Hebrews held.3
Misconceptions About “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain”
Misunderstandings often occur when people assume the third commandment merely prohibits using God’s name as an expletive. While profanity is a blatant violation, there are other forms of misuse:
1. Swearing Falsely: Invoking God’s name to lend credibility to a lie or breaking an oath that was made in His name.
2. Empty Rituals: Reciting God’s name thoughtlessly through rote repetition or superstition, stripping it of genuine reverence.
3. Hypocrisy: Claiming to represent God-in speech, action, or attitude-while behaving in a way that contradicts His character and Word.
These violations flow from failing to acknowledge Scripture’s teaching that our speech should be truthful, pure, and honoring to the Lord (cf. Ephesians 4:29; James 5:12).
Broader Implications in Scripture
In the Old Testament, God’s name symbolizes His covenant presence among His people. The prophet Malachi delivers a strong rebuke to priests for not honoring God’s name (Malachi 1:6-14), showing divine displeasure toward leaders who degrade His name by their actions.4
In the New Testament, the principle deepens. Jesus teaches us to pray, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name” (Matthew 6:9). This “hallowing” is the observation of God’s holiness; it is the polar opposite of treating His name in vain.
Proper Use of the Lord’s Name
Rather than merely avoiding sin, believers are to cultivate a holy approach to God’s name:
1. Worship and Awe: Scripture exemplifies worshipers who honor God’s name in praise (Psalm 29:2: “Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name…”).
2. Prayer: Jesus’ model prayer begins with magnifying God’s name (Matthew 6:9).
3. Evangelism and Testimony: Speaking of God’s name reverently when sharing faith with others, representing God’s character faithfully.
When we use God’s name in prayer, worship, or conversation, we affirm His nature and maintain the holiness that sets Him apart from all creation.
Connection to Christ and Salvation
The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation. His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) affirms all He taught, including the necessity of honoring God’s name. Indeed, the apostles proclaim that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
This underscores the idea that God’s name and His power to save are inextricably linked. If we believe that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, rose from the dead, and offers salvation, then how we address and regard His name is vitally important. It is more than mere words; it is our lifeline.
Conclusion
Taking the Lord’s name in vain encompasses every misuse or trivialization of the divine name-whether through profanity, false oaths, or hollow rituals. The commandment, rooted in the holiness of God’s name, remains relevant both in ancient and modern contexts.
From historical manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern theological research, the evidence consistently points to the enormous weight the biblical writers placed on God’s name. The consistent accuracy and transmission of these passages through centuries underscores how believers have guardrailed the truth about such matters. Respecting and revering that name is integral to honoring who God truly is.
For those within the faith, this observance also becomes a testimony of devotion. For those investigating Scripture’s claims, seeing how God’s name is treated with the utmost seriousness offers insight into the Bible’s broader moral and theological framework.
Indeed, “the name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe” (Proverbs 18:10). Let it ever be used with reverence and awe.5
Kitz, Anne Marie (2019). “The Verb *yahway”. Journal of Biblical Literature. 138 (1): 39–62. ↩︎
Thanksgiving isn’t a religious Holiday, but it might be rooted in gratitude which is certainly a core Biblical theme.
Prayers of thanks and special thanksgiving ceremonies are common among most religions after harvests and at other times of the year.1 Most people don’t realize that the Thanksgiving holiday’s history in North America is actually rooted in English traditions dating from the Protestant Reformation.2 Special thanksgiving religious services became mandatory by law during the reign of Henry VIII.3 Before 1536 there were 95 Church holidays, plus every Sunday, when people were required to attend church and forego work. The Puritan party in the Anglican Church wished to eliminate all Church holidays apart from the weekly Lord’s Day, including the traditional church feasts (now typically associated with ancient Judaism) which is what started the protest reformation, or “protesting” of the church married government.
So fast forward about 100 years later and you get to the story that you probably thought started Thanksgiving. Thirty-eight English settlers aboard the ship Margaret arrived by way of the James River to Charles City County, Virginia on December 4, 1619. The landing was immediately followed by a religious celebration, specifically dictated by the group’s charter from the London Company, in accordance with the English government mandates still in effect described in the paragraph above. The charter declared, “that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantation in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.”4 Sometimes, I think wouldn’t it be great if our government had that kind of admiration for the Lord, maybe they did at one time. But as history would show, even the conservative Christians still had their sum of issues with that government, and rightly so.
You might have made the connection above; the church of England was actually mandating the celebration of the Biblical feasts given in the Torah to Israel. Which is bizarre to us today, the government in the 1500’s was actually mandating people by law to follow the Bible. I actually don’t like much of any government stipulations telling us what we can and can’t do, but this is still very interesting to me.
Sukkot, also known as the Feast of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths, is a Torah-commanded observance celebrated for seven days, beginning on the 15th day of the month of Tishrei. It was one of the three Pilgrimage Festivals on which Israelites were commanded to make a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. Biblically an autumn harvest festival and a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt.5
The names used in the Bible is specifically “Festival of Ingathering” or “Harvest Festival”, חַג הָאָסִיף, and “Festival of Booths” חג הסכות, this corresponds to the double significance of Sukkot. The one mentioned in the Book of Exodus is agricultural in nature—”Festival of Ingathering at the year’s end” (Exodus 34:22)—and marks the end of the harvest time and thus of the agricultural year in the Land of Israel. The more elaborate religious significance from the Book of Leviticus is that of commemorating the Exodus and the dependence of the Israelites on the will of God (Leviticus 23:42–43). They describe the same observed festival.6
Don’t miss this – the harvest festival was rooted in the work of your hands connected to sacred soil. It was circular (dance of grace language). The Lord gave you a gift of grace tied to a provision in sacred land and connected to Him continually dwelling amongst them. Taking up residence in their most intimate places which culminated in Jesus literally residing in the temple of your heart. The response should be open hands back unto the LORD.
Every time you open your hands unto the LORD you should be reminded of His gift of Grace.
Over the years, Thanksgiving has traditionally become celebrated much later than Sukkot (which was October 7-13 this year, Thanksgiving in the US is the last Thursday in November) and has thus likely separated any sort of comparison or association of the two within the Evangelical United States. But the idea of inviting your family and guests to your Thanksgiving feast and taking on a mindset of Gratitude certainly originated in the Bible around this feast.7
The Hebrew word sukkoṯ is the plural of sukkah (‘booth’ or ‘tabernacle’) – we might simply call these tents in English. As stated in Leviticus these were the fragile dwellings in which the Israelites dwelled during their 40 years of travel in the desert after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt. The Lord resided their with them as an image of enduring faithfulness. For the last several thousand years, throughout those observing the Biblical holiday, meals are eaten inside the sukkah and many people sleep there as well. Within traditional Judaism, this is a mitzvah, or commandment, to ‘dwell’ in the sukkah. There was also an emphasis (as with all the Biblical feasts) to pass this on orally and in spirit to your children.
Sukkot was and is a reminder to return to simple living in gratitude to dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
This brings us to Thanksgiving celebrated in modern America. What do we do with it? Do we make it about Jesus? Well, if you are a devout follower shouldn’t everything be about Jesus? Do we take advantage of the world celebrating a theme that clearly originated in the Bible to invite those into our home and show them the Love of Jesus? That sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it? At least Thanksgiving unlike Christmas and Easter isn’t steeped in all sorts of pagan religion; there is a great argument that it is primarily of Biblical origins.
Thanksgiving is certainly a key Biblical theme, but I prefer the word gratitude.
And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love; and I will meditate on Your statutes. Psalm 119:48 NASB
Lift up my hands – וְאֶשָּׂ֚א כַפַּ֗י אֶל־מִ֖צְוֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָהָ֗בְתִּי וְאָשִׂ֥יחָה בְחֻקֶּֽיךָ
Miṣwâ, is a command language, if your faithful, you do this. Ahēb, to love (“that I love”), and śîaḥ, to meditate (but not silently, aloud in communal part). The verb is nāśāʾ, to lift, carry, or take. But there is no nun in the form in this verse. That is strange, but it is because the future tense drops the nun and becomes (first person singular) אֶשָּׂא. So, we have אֶשָּׂא preceded by the prefixed vav. And that means it should be “I lifted up my hands.” The psalmist isn’t anticipating a future gesture of gratitude to God for His commandments. He has already made the gesture, just as in the previous verse, he has already delighted in the fatherly order God provided. The psalmist certainly believes in this as a command to generations that follow. There are several Torah verses that seem to imply this was perceived as a soft command by Yahweh but we don’t really every get this directly from His hand. Therefore, it hasn’t carried over to evangelical Christianity in that way, although it is certainly counted in the 613 laws. That should hit you a little harder next time you’re in church and people are raising their hands in praise. And some people would believe that Paul was reiterating the keeping of this command in 1 Timothy 2:8 which also takes a similar imperative.
This text finishes with the words “hands” (kappa – kap). Palm of the hand is the best translation here, but kap is also used of hands spread out in prayer in Ex 29:25 and Isa 1:15. “8 The psalmist chooses a rather rare word to describe hands instead of the usual word yad to make sure that we pause and reflect upon a more specific act.
Palms upward is a gesture for receptive gratitude. So as long as you are thinking about this next time you worship, to be precise, your hands are not together like you’re praying on your knees or at the table, not straight up over your head like your praying for fire from heaven, not clenched like the Pharisee, but open to receive which really meant hear according to the Shema – in a submissive posture, and perhaps not even extended above one’s head. This is the posture of a grateful servant who has received something wonderful and valuable from a loving master.
Many scholars believe that Jesus was alluding to this in Matt 6:5. The NIV reads,
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you read the Greek, you will notice that the phrase “standing to pray” comes off as idiomatic. In Greek the words “standing and receive” are connected when is used by Jesus in a clever word play. Standing shouldn’t be read as the emphasis of the verse. The emphasis is posture, but you can see how that then becomes a play on words. Jesus hits it on the head, their “uprightness” was likely showing in their posture of hands “standing” over their heads, it wasn’t a picture of humble submission. Or they were upright not kneeling hands out of submission to the Lord. In other words, you receive what God has for you in submission with a humble heart posture of gratitude. If you miss this, the world is your reward. I also don’t believe the hermeneutic leads us to legalism over the posture of our body or hands, but rather the aims at the heart. Some believe that Jesus here was reminding the church that his mission was humble and as that of a lowly shepherd, not high in the sky as a luminary or god over them. His mission was to invite the world to join this humble calling steeped in devotion. Perhaps the first century religious culture had lost their humble approach to the Lord, and this was in part the emphasis of Jesus. The “euangelion” that brought salvation, freedom and peace wrapped in humility the world couldn’t fathom.
Hands outstretched, palms open to Jesus shows Gratitude bathed in submission and brings devotion ushering heaven to earth.
Brian Zahnd recently challenged some TKC students to return to a humble place of more traditional humility of prayer and worship before the LORD.
Archer, G. L. (1999). 1022 כפף. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 452). Moody Press. ↩︎
Anyone else sometimes feel like our laser and lightshow, skinny jeans and smoke machine Christian culture has sort of lost the sacred approach that seems to be so rich to the textures of the Bible? One prominent blogger says, “My Father’s House Shall be a House of… Entertainment?”1 I agree with much of his sentiment. I grew up attending the classic white steepled church adorned by stained glass telling the story of the covenant community that had faithfully gone before us, and I have to say when I return to a more traditional looking church building there is just something that feels more sacred than the auditoriums parading led walls bigger than the strip of Las Vegas. But perhaps even more than a steeple and stained glass, I long for an antiquated upper room with a table set for me.2But at the same time, I love the diversity of the church and find a place for nearly every recipe of the faith.
Recently TKC students went to a Brian Zahnd Prayer school. Brian started in the Jesus Movement3 and shifted into Word of Faith.4 From there he had a deeper bought with Theology and found himself turning back the pages to a more conservative Anglican5, or Eastern Orthodox6 approach. Amongst other things he brought back the liturgy7 into his prayers. One of the other things that you will see in his church is a return to icons8, specifically Jesus on the cross. Before I go any further, I love Brian Zahnd. If you have a chance to attend one of his prayer schools, you will be immensely blessed. I can’t recommend the school or any of his soon to be 12 books enough. All of it is life changing and will bear great fruit for the kingdom.
As much as I LOVED THIS endeavor, I have to admit, I still found myself struggling with the longer liturgy, iconography, beads, repetition and chants (and I chant in Hebrew regularly). I know so many people that were “saved” from all of this. There are some things about the more liturgical experiences I love, and some things that I don’t. I love the sacred approach and the stressing of Biblical theology; but I also don’t want to harness or put the moving of the Holy Spirit in a box (which to be clear I don’t think Brian does.) I also have never felt good about iconography that leaves Jesus on the cross.
“Being disguised under the disfigurement of an ugly crucifixion and death, Christ upon the cross is paradoxically they clearest revelation of who God is.” – Brian Zahnd
I agree with his quote. In fact, I think it is right on. But I am not sure I want to “stay” there or make that my dwelling place. I feel like to do so sort of takes a perspective similar to when those of the reformed mindset that get so bound by total depravity (and the other TULIP ideology)9 that they can never emerge from that mindset, affirm their new life and identity in Christ and live in victorious sanctified life here and now bringing Heaven to earth – in the words of NT Wright.10
As I write this, I am asking myself (as all good theologians should do)11 to be unbiased and consider what is the best approach according to the scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ. I will invite you to a Mars Hill experience12 with me. Let’s consider the tough questions. Why focus on the image of Jesus on the cross? Some would say we are leaving Jesus on the cross, not celebrating the triumph of the resurrection ascension and enthronement of Jesus that is the completed image of living a complete sanctified life.13
Others will say the cross by itself is an abstraction of Jesus.14
To say it a different way… A beaten, humiliated man dying on a cross doesn’t seem like we “picked a winner…”15 But as you likely know if you are reading this, that is the worlds way of thinking. We as Christian’s see the beauty in the humble sacrifice (Beauty will save the world) and see that through Him the meek will inherit the earth. This is upside down or backwards kingdom ideology – the first shall be last kingdom that Expedition 44 has become known for. Christ (the meek) inherited the earth & we are sons and daughters of God and therefore we also inherit His kingdom. We lead humbly from beneath in peace. Jesus’ way of leading puts devotion and service ahead of prominence and power. This perspective aligns with the concept of servant leadership, where the leader serves others rather than seeking to dominate or assert authority over people. 16
Yes, I know all of that and do my best to live it out. In the same way, I can see how the image of Christ on the cross is a great iconic missional reminder of what we should be doing each and every day.
Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23
However, with all that said, so much of the voice of Jesus and message that follows is to claim the full revelation of Jesus which is post enthronement -His spirit poured out into us that we might represent the One that has “won” or “championed” the world.17
Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the kick butt Jesus icon18 works. I even sometimes struggle with the battle language in Christianity (when the battle belongs to the Lord not us); but Jesus is both the Lion and the Lamb. Let’s not lose sight of either.
My primary problem with leaving Jesus on the cross is that scripture tells me that my identity isn’t in my former defeated person but is now grafted into the glory of the enthroned Christ. In some ways I see the transformation of the cross as a caricature or mosaic (comparison image) of my personal transformation enthroned by Him as a royal holy ruler -not defeated. To leave Christ on the cross doesn’t seem to match the thrust of 2 Corinthians 5 following my example to be like Jesus in total transformation.19
The Greeks believed that peace (eirḗnē) was simply the small intermission between war (pólemos) and war was (and possibly should be) the natural state of the world.20 This Greek idea stands in opposition to shālôm, the Hebraic idea of well-being that was and is the intended condition of humanity. shālôm is the gift of YHVH. But shālôm is not just the peace between the wars, but the balance that found revelation in Jesus Christ Himself. “Peace I leave you, My peace I give you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, nor fearful” (John 14:27 NASB).
I want to dwell on the complete revelation of Jesus, that is a balance of the cross and the enthroned king.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Acts 1, “The eleven were the tenants of the upper room, to which the other disciples resorted for conference and communion”. ↩︎
Bustraan, R. A. (2014). The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution Among the Hippies. Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN978-1620324646. ↩︎
Harrison, Milmon F. (2005). Righteous Riches: The Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary African American Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195153880. ↩︎
Bruce, F.F. The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952). 335. ↩︎
Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 401, 1988: “The theme of Christ’s heavenly session, announced here by the statement he sat down at the right hand of God, .. Hebrews 8:1 “we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”)” ↩︎
Clark, Elizabeth Ann (1999). Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-00512-6. ↩︎
Dallas Willard – Renovation of the Heart proposes that the human self is made up of several interrelated components: one’s spirit, i.e. one’s “heart” or “will”; one’s mind, or the collection of one’s thoughts and feelings; the body; one’s social context; and one’s soul. Willard argues that one’s identity is largely a function of how those components are subordinated to one another, and whether the whole is subordinated to God. Willard argues that popular rejection of subordination to God and the dominance of the body and feelings has resulted in addictions and futile pursuits of stimulation for the body or feelings. Willard argues that the subordinated alignment of one’s being can be corrected through apprenticeship to Jesus Christ, which renovates one’s heart. ↩︎
A Journey of Triumph over TragedyBy Dr. R. Victor Gray
Just keep breathing is a theology in the key of grace. God isn’t distant, He is right there with you, literally residing in the core of your very being. God is love—and love is what holds it all together.
Sometimes we experience tragedy and it nearly kills us. In Chicago, Illinois, on April 10, 1899, Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech based upon his personal experiences, to which he argued that strenuous effort and overcoming hardship were ideals to be embraced by Americans for the betterment of the individual, the nation and the world in the 20th century.1
We would never invite tragedy, nor do the effects of such a thing ever look desirable; however, most would agree those that have weathered extreme tragedy, tribulation, and turmoil often emerge as more admirable spiritual people. It is a strange conundrum. You wouldn’t want this for yourself, your children, or really anyone, yet we all likely would agree that in an eschatological or redemptive sense – we would all be better people should we have to endure such a thing. We see this in many ways such as Christianity traditionally thriving during times of persecution.2 Theologically, (unless you’re an extreme Calvinist) no one believes that God did this to you. That clearly isn’t the character of God. Perhaps or maybe he simply “allowed” it to happen within a fallen broken world. We don’t have His eyes to see these or fully understand such events from the eyes of a sovereign God. But He asks us to trust Him and in our covenant faithfulness, through enduring faith He will walk with us and bear our burdens. My friend Paul Dazet points out that God works relentlessly to heal. Always. Not by force, but by love. Not from a distance, but from within. Healing is slow, stubborn, often unseen—but it’s always in motion.3
Suffering has a way of revealing what we truly believe. When life hurts, faith is tested, and character is refined. James 5:10–11 invites believers to look to the examples of the prophets and Job to understand endurance in hardship. These verses remind us that suffering is not meaningless and that the God of compassion and mercy always perseveres for us.
Today nearly everyone I know is facing challenges that can draw parallels from Victor’s experience. In a world where pain and uncertainty are prevalent, Victor’s story encourages believers to hold onto their faith even when answers seem elusive. It emphasizes that questioning and seeking understanding are natural parts of the faith journey. Faithful believers can apply Victor’s example by finding strength in their beliefs, seeking support from their faith communities, and allowing their experiences to deepen their spiritual lives. Victor’s resilience serves as a reminder that enduring hardships can ultimately reinforce one’s faith and provide a sense of purpose and hope deeply within the healing arms of the Savior.
I pray that this work inspires you to persevere, to deepen your faith and trust, and find and flourish in the destiny that Jesus has for you.
May you trust that love is working, even when you can’t see it. May you find courage to say yes to healing, one small moment at a time. And may you know that your story, every broken, beautiful piece of it. Is part of something larger than you can imagine. Amen!
This piece is a foreword by Dr. Will Ryan to “Just Keep Breathing, A Journey of Triumph over Tragedy” By Dr. R. Victor Gray is slated to be released by TKC Publishing in early 2026.
If you know anything about me, you know that I am going to tell you what the Bible says as transparently as possible, present the options and issues and let you come to your own conclusion. Nothing is spoon fed. So, I am not going to approach this very difficult issue slightly differently than I have in the past. I wrote a post of homosexuality years ago and I haven’t changed my perspective on that post, but I have come to also frame the same discussions a bit differently. You might want to read this post first.
What I think doesn’t really matter, it is what the Bible says. However, in any theology and interpretation we have to deduce things. When the Bible isn’t perfectly clear we use our God given minds guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at truth. Sometimes we come to different results, and I would encourage you to honor and respect varied biblically based views.
Homosexuality is Biblically described as sin
The Bible introduces human sexuality within the context of God’s creative design. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This foundational premise establishes the binary nature of human sexuality as woven into God’s original creation. In Genesis 2:24, the union of man and woman is depicted as a one-flesh covenant: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The emphasis on male-female pairing is the template for marriage, consistently referenced throughout Scripture.1
In describing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:4-11 recounts men of the city demanding sexual relations with Lot’s guests, who were angels in human form. The account highlights immoral behavior at multiple levels, which includes homosexual acts. While this passage also addresses other grave sins (Ezekiel 16:49-50 mentions pride, neglect of the poor, and abominable acts), the sexual violation in Genesis 19 is one of the clearest aspects of Sodom’s guilt. Homosexuality is clearly treated as sin.2
Leviticus 18:22 states, “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.” Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 addresses the same practice as forbidden. These prohibitions appear in a broader context that includes various other sexual sins (e.g., incest, bestiality, and adultery), demonstrating that Scripture draws boundaries around intimacy for Israel, reflecting God’s holiness and will for human sexuality.3
Although the Gospels do not record Jesus specifically saying the word “homosexuality,” in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the “male and female” design for marriage reaffirming the OT Genesis covenant by a since of REMEZ which then would carry other OT connotation. Jesus also underscores sexual purity (Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 7:20-23). He does not offer a direct commentary on same-sex relationships in the recorded Gospels, but many will argue that He established framework for marriage, sexual purity, and upholding Scriptural commands providing the overarching context. Matthew 5:17-18 underscores that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not dismantle it. Ethical instructions, including sexual conduct, gain deeper clarity in the New Covenant but remain consistent in reflecting God’s righteous nature. Within this framework, contexts like Leviticus remain relevant as a moral guidepost, interpreted in the light of Christ’s sacrificial redemption.4
Paul’s epistles also touch on the acts in Romans 1:26-27: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…” This passage highlights a departure from God’s design, emphasizing that certain acts are not in line with His created order. Perhaps similar to how Jesus mentioned them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral… nor homosexuals, nor thieves… will inherit the kingdom of God.” Here, Paul places homosexual behavior among a list of sins. Yet in the following verse, 1 Corinthians 6:11, he offers hope: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed…” The emphasis is on transformation and redemption offered by God. This is a challenging interpretation. Finally, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 also categorizes homosexual acts with other sins that contradict “sound teaching,” reinforcing the broader biblical ethic on sexuality. In each instance, Paul addresses same-sex activity as one among various actions deemed inconsistent with the holy living God calls believers to pursue. It seems to treat homosexuality as any other “SINFUL” act.5 Those involved in these acts are missing the mark.
Why this is complicated and considerations of homosexuality
Well, the above probably sounds rather convincing. And I think if you are truly unbiased, it should. I would argue there is a strong biblical directive that homosexuality both NT and OT treat the act of homosexuality as a sin. But let’s also consider the other ramifications of the arguments. It seems that much of our evangelical Christian world continues to live in a sinful state. You might reconsider…
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.” Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt. Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?” “No one, Master.” “Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”] Note: John 7:53–8:11 [the portion in brackets] is not found in the earliest handwritten copies. John 8:7-11
The OT is complicated. What do we take with us and what do we leave behind? Most Evangelical Christians I know no longer keep much if any of the law (starting with the most basic 10 commandments of honoring the sabbath – you probably don’t even know when that starts and ends let alone keep it!) What comes with us as Christians and what stays behind as antiquated law that can’t or no longer needs to be followed in the spirit of Romans 7:6? Perhaps the things Jesus restates come with, but then we have the issue that Jesus followed the law to a T (Levitical not Rabbinical law) and we are to follow His example.6
Let me give you a brief example of some of the other difficulties…
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Exodus 21:7 seems to say it is just to sell my daughter to slavery. Exodus 35:2 clearly states violators of the Sabbath may be put to death. Furthermore, homosexuality is often listed with other things that seem much more minor in the OT and could be viewed as premodern-world best practice for health. For instance, Lev. 11:10 says eating shellfish is an “abomination”, and using same words used to describe homosexuality in Lev. 18.7 The argument would then be that perhaps the law suggested things to an ancient world that would keep their nation pure and (sexually) disease free (circumcision, and various purification laws.) Once science caught up with a modern world are these no longer concerns? Do you want to get into a conversation of intention? You might have no issues eating shellfish today but speak up against homosexuality. Is that biased? Did Jesus truly state everything that was important to continue to keep in the law? Does your theology say if Jesus didn’t restate something then it doesn’t need to be followed? He was pretty vague on homosexuality. Some would say if His intention was to call it sin, He could have been much clearer on it. If he was a good teacher wouln’t he have been more clear if that was His intention? What about other simple issues like Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, did you ever consider a football is made of pigskin? Why do some Christians seem to so easily pick and choose what to condemn from the law and what to not even consider? Lev.19:19 indicates we shouldn’t plant two different crops in the same field, or wear garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). You could even argue Lev.24:10-16 makes a case to stone them or that Lev. 20:14 says to burn those caught in incestual relationships. Are you starting to see the complications that might come with being unbiased to the text, trying to decide what still should carry over to us? Why are women in the OT not upheld to the same sexual standards as men?8 What about miskebe issa?9 Do we want to get into that conversation?
Lastly, aren’t we called to strive to live 100% towards the finished eschatological goal? Some have said that there will be no genders in heaven, however I would argue the Bible seems to lean the other way. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates people will lose or change their gender in heaven. On the contrary, the Bible implies that we will remain who we are in heaven, and gender is likely part of who we are. In paradise, Lazarus was still Lazurus, and Abraham was still Abraham (Luke 16:22–24). But make no mistake, the first two chapters and the last two chapters are God’s ideals and at the very least there is gender equality. But that still doesn’t address all the questions or issues eschatologically. Jesus says, “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30 The problem is Angels in Heaven had a distinctive Genesis 6 problem that had to do with all things sexual. What do you do with that? If you are going down this road, you might also consider the texts of Genesis 3:15, Genesis 6:2, Genesis 19:5-8, in comparison to Galations 3:26 and Mark 12:25.
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS
Each person may have a different interpretation of the scripture and be in a slightly different situation. I think we should walk in balance and peace but encourage better Biblical interpretation. Has modernity and science changed over time compared to the law as a stop gap for the coming of the messiah and possibly modern medicine? (Some will argue God uses modern medicine, some see modern medicine as opposite of the healing God offers.) There are several things that should come into your theological lens in terms of agreement within your theology on this matter.
On the one hand, if you are reading this, you most likely believe the Bible is God’s Word and we can’t with integrity deny that it teaches that sex outside the parameters of a monogamous, life-long, marriage covenant is sin, whether it is sex with a person of a different gender or sex with a person of the same gender. We find the arguments of those who try to argue that Rom.1:24-28-, I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 don’t apply to monogamous gay relationships simply aren’t very persuasive. On the other hand, we sense that something is “off” with the stance of the church throughout history, and the stance of most evangelical churches today, toward gay people. Jesus would have unequivocally loved them and invited them to repent and join His kingdom. The approach isn’t consistent or balanced.
As an example, many of us wonder why it is that the church (rightly) embraces without question people who have been divorced and remarried – several times, in some cases –but adamantly excludes committed gay couples – couples who sometimes have a love for one another that puts the love of many straight couples to shame. What makes this question especially important is that the New Testament’s teaching that divorce and remarriage involves sin is much more emphatic and clear than it’s teaching that gay unions involve sin (see e.g. Mt. 5:32; 19:9). In fact, while Jesus taught on the sin of divorce and remarriage several times, he never even mentioned homosexuality. I have said it many times over the years, but once you step away from God’s ideal of 1 man and 1 woman united as one before the LORD in ANY WAY… you are outside of His perfect will for you. In every other situation grace covers you equally. However, we are also told to not continue to live in sin. You might argue that remarriage isn’t necessarily sin but living in homosexuality is. We also have to consider not giving into the tendencies, urge or temptations. What about the one who has the sexual urges towards homosexuality but never gratifies those urges? Isn’t that essentially the same as not giving into any sinful temptation? I think if you are truly approaching this issue with an un-biased approach toward faithful hermeneutical interpretation this subject is going to be far more complicated than you may have ever considered.
Let me get back to grace. My point is not that the church should exclude divorced and remarried people. While divorce and remarriage “misses the mark” of God’s ideal, which is the Bible’s definition of sin (harmartia), I believe that, by God’s grace, this is sometimes the best option for people. My point is rather that there seems to be an inconsistency on the part of the church on this matter, and many of us wonder why.10
Scripture consistently presents homosexual practice, like adultery and various other sexual acts outside of a man-woman marriage covenant, as contrary to God’s design. So, let’s be consistent!
At the same time, the Bible declares the potential for repentance, transformation, and redemption for all people regardless of background or personal history. For many interpreters, this forms the unified, scriptural teaching on homosexuality. In summary, the biblical record reflects a consistent stance on the question at hand-rooted in God’s initial design, repeated in the ethical instructions of both Old and New Testaments, and ultimately encompassed by the message of grace and hope found in Christ.
Coogan 2010, p. 135: “Finally, the Hebrew Bible is silent about lesbian relationships, probably because they did not relate to patriarchy—or, for that matter, to paternity.” ↩︎
Alpert, Rebecca T. (2009). “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 185. ISBN978-0-8147-7605-6. In the Hebrew Bible there is no same-gender sexuality for women and no allusion to female masturbation, whereas lying with a man as with a woman is prohibited at least twice in the Torah.↩︎
“Since illicit carnal relations are implied by the term miškĕbê ʾiššâ, it may be plausibly suggested that homosexuality is herewith forbidden for only the equivalent degree of forbidden heterosexual relations, namely, those enumerated in the preceding verses (D. Stewart). However, sexual liaisons occurring with males outside these relations would not be forbidden. And since the same term miškĕbê ʾiššâ is used in the list containing sanctions (20:13), it would mean that sexual liaisons with males, falling outside the control of the paterfamilias, would be neither condemnable nor punishable. Thus miskĕbê ʾiššâ, referring to illicit male—female relations, is applied to illicit male—male relations, and the literal meaning of our verse is: do not have sex with a male with whose widow sex is forbidden. In effect, this means that the homosexual prohibition applies to Ego with father, son, and brother (subsumed in v. 6) and to grandfather—grandson, uncle—nephew, and stepfather—stepson, but not to any other male.” – Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible vol. 3, Yale University Press, 2007, page 1569 ↩︎
EXPEDITION 44 