Tag Archives: 2:24

THE DIFFICULTY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE IN A MODERN ERA

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

  1. https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_the_bible_say_on_homosexuality.htm ↩︎
  2. Joyce, Paul M. (2009). Ezekiel: A Commentary. Continuum. ISBN 9780567483614. ↩︎
  3. Eisenberg, Ronald (2005), The 613 Mitzvot: A Contemporary Guide to the Commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing, ISBN 0-88400-303-5 ↩︎
  4. Massey, Lesly F. (2015). Daughters of God, Subordinates of Men: Women and the Roots of Patriarchy in the New Testament. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-4766-2143-2. ↩︎
  5. Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. ↩︎
  6. 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.” ↩︎
  7. Meirowitz, Sara N.S. (2009). “Not Like a Virgin: Talking about Nonmarital Sex”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. ↩︎
  8. 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. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. 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. ↩︎
  9.  “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 ↩︎
  10. https://reknew.org/2012/10/homosexuality-and-the-church-finding-a-third-way/ ↩︎