Homosexuality in the New Testament - Part 2

Romans 1:26-27

            The second New Testament passage we will look at is found in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

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.^[1] (Emphasis added)

            Unlike the passage in 1 Corinthians, there is no ambiguity of terms that might require a significant amount of explanation.  It is important to note that the culture in Rome varied greatly from that of Corinth. 

In the Roman world, by the time Paul is writing this letter to the Church in Rome, pederasty was largely rejected as an acceptable practice.  This may be why Paul seems to not address a specific cultural expression of same-sex sexual acts, but in a broader sense addresses all homosexual sexual activity.  “Homosexuality among ‘males’, like that among ‘females’ is characterized as a departure from nature.  As in the previous verse ‘nature’ denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes.”[2]

It is important to note that ‘natural’ expressions of sexuality, as presented in this verse, presupposes that God is the creator of all things and therefore God is the one who deems what sexual acts are appropriate for mankind.  The verse is not saying that homosexuality does not occur in nature, nor does it suggest that homosexuality cannot be inborn, but rather that it violates the parameters God set out in sexual relationships.

“Most references to homosexuality in the New Testament occur in the Pauline letters.  The clearest is Romans 1:26-27.  In the context Paul is portraying the moral disorder that accompanies the rejection of the knowledge of God in the pagan world.  Exchanging the creator for the idolatrous worship of creatures issues in God’s abandoning of women and men who they forsake ‘the natural use’ of their bodies for a use ‘against nature.’”[3]

            It is sometimes argued that because the appearance of prohibition of homosexual acts appears only in the writings of Paul, he is bigoted against homosexual people and his prejudice may have impacted his writing.

            In order to respond to this allegation we must first understand Paul’s worldview.  Paul was raised as a Pharisee, a Jewish, religious leader.  He was well educated in the Mosaic Law and the prophetic writings of what we now know as the Old Testament.  Paul was a Roman citizen, which afforded him certain civil rights that were not the privilege of all men.  Because of Paul’s education, religious and cultural beliefs, we can safely assume that he was opposed to homosexual sexual acts, as it was taught in the Law (as seen in the passage in Leviticus), as well as being looked down upon in Roman culture.

            To claim however, that Paul was somehow prejudiced against people who participate in homosexual acts does not follow logically.  In Roman culture homosexual acts were rejected as socially acceptable expressions of one’s sexuality, and in Mosaic Law (Jewish culture), homosexual acts deserved the penalty of stoning.  Had Paul been trying to push an agenda of hate, he would have easily been able to impose death or persecution as a response to same-sex sexual acts.  This is not what we see in Paul’s writing.  In both the above-mentioned passages, Paul writes not of persecution of homosexuals, but of restoration to relationship with God.

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is immediately followed by hope of restoration: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” ^[4]  It is important to note that in the verse Paul is speaking specifically to homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation, so he is not suggesting that someone necessarily changed their orientation, but rather, they stopped participating in same-sex sexual acts. 

            Again in the Romans passage, if we follow Paul’s argument to its conclusion, we see the promise of restoration.  Romans 1:1-3:20 present the case that all mankind, regardless of sexuality or the kind of sin in which they participate, are in need of God.  After spending nearly three chapters discussing the fallen state of man, and the separation of man from God, Paul inserts the promise of hope in one of the most powerful passages in all of his writing.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. ^[5]

Here Paul is talking about the righteousness of God being manifested apart from the Law.  That manifestation was in the person of Jesus.  The Law and the Prophets, that is, the entirety of the Old Testament, point to Jesus as the coming messiah and savior of the world.  Paul shows that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus, and that all men have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. 

            If Paul had intended to write hate letters against homosexuals, he certainly had an audience that would have been willing to listen to his agenda.  The letters, however, speak for themselves.  Paul is more interested in the restoration of all people to God than singling out any sub-culture for persecution.  Paul often referred to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (those who were not Jewish), and was willing to give his life (which he eventually did around 64AD), in order to deliver the message of restoration to those who were apart from God, including those who participated in homosexual acts.  It is therefore quite a stretch to think that Paul’s motivation for writing had anything to do with a personal agenda, but rather, Paul genuinely believed that homosexual acts were a violation of God’s moral law.

“Paul’s purpose in [singling out homosexual activity for special attention] may not be because he regards it as a more serious sin than others but because he sees it as a particularly clear illustration of the violation of the created order.”[6]  Knowing that God’s intended plan for sexual expression was intended for a man and woman within the confines of marriage, helps us to understand why Paul would use homosexuality as one of the clearest examples of violation of this moral law.

            As much as it is important to understand Paul’s purpose in singling out homosexual activity, it is also important to note that his presentation of sexual violations includes not only homosexual, but also heterosexual sins.

“… in Romans 1:24-27, homo- and heterosexual sins are paired in a way that suggests that neither is any better or any worse than the other.  One can scarcely use these verses to claim that no one can simultaneously be a Christian and engage in homosexual actions unless one is prepared to say the same thing of one who commits adultery or exhibits greed!  But in each of these instances true Christians should acknowledge their behavior as sinful and try to change it.”[7]

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 1:24–27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1996), 116.

[3] Gerald F. Hawthorne and D. F. Wright, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 413.

^[4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Co 6:11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 3:21–26). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[6] Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 67.

[7] Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text--to Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 121.

Jesus and Homosexuality

An argument that is often made against the Christian position on homosexuality is that Jesus himself didn’t say anything about homosexual acts.  Although the assertion that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexual acts is true, in order to understand Jesus’ position on human sexuality, and adherence to laws such as those found in the text in Leviticus, we must look at the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.

            In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus delivers what is famously known as the Sermon on the Mount.  During this sermon He addresses the law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” ^[1]

            Jesus was the fulfillment of the law in that through him we are reconciled to God.  The Law itself was never intended to restore relationship between mankind and God because the flesh weakened it.[2]  Jesus’ statement in this portion of Matthew’s Gospel shows that the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament Scriptures) were not abolished by the advent of Jesus.  Although Jesus served as the fulfillment of the law, He did not do away with the Law.  This is of central importance when discussing the issue of homosexual sexual acts because although Jesus may not have explicitly said homosexual sexual acts are condemned; He did uphold the authority of the moral component of Mosaic Law.

            Another important passage to consider when determining Jesus’ position on homosexual sexual acts is found in Mark 10:6-8.  “[F]rom the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’  ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”^[3]  “Jesus assembles texts from Genesis 1-2 to establish God’s will for sexuality…. How could any departure from this teaching, for the purposes of endorsing other forms of human sexual intercourse, be anything less than a[n] instance of human hard-heartedness?”[4]

            The position that Jesus is taking on the subject of marital relations invokes God’s intention for creation.  In this model, Jesus points out that they were made male and female, thus bolstering support for the idea that two becoming one flesh is reserved for those in heterosexual marital relationships.

            The issue with stating that Jesus’ lack of instruction on the matter suggests that Jesus permits homosexual sexual acts is an argument from silence.  In other words, it claims if Jesus didn’t address the issue, it must not be condemned.  The issue with that assertion is that if we were to apply it universally, we would have to say Jesus also did not condemn pedophilia, as he never spoke explicitly of pedophilia.  We obviously would not agree that Jesus would approve of such acts, yet he never explicitly condemned them.  This would be an argument from silence, and using this example, we can see that the conclusion does not follow naturally or logically.

            The fact that Jesus did not explicitly speak of homosexual sexual acts does not mean that he therefore condoned such acts.  Besides the obvious logical issue with that line or reasoning, we see that Jesus did uphold the Law as the Jewish people knew it, and that he did support a natural or Biblical view of marriage.

            It is also important to understand that part of the reason Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality is because he was teaching in a first century Jewish culture.  In the first century, the Jewish people strictly adhered to the Law, which included Levitical Law.  It was understood by the first century Jews that homosexual practices were forbidden, and as a result, Jesus did not need to address the issue of homosexuality.  If Jesus had been speaking to a Greek or Roman audience, it would have been necessary to address homosexuality, and that is what we see in the New Testament writings of the apostle Paul.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Mt 5:17–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] Rom. 8:3

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Mk 10:6–8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[4] David L. Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000), 191.

The Dividing Wall

A young man stood, inspecting himself one last time in front of the mirror, ensuring that everything about his attire was perfect.  He donned a black tuxedo, which he had picked years earlier, and a brilliant orange vest in keeping with the theme of the autumn wedding. As he reached for his boutonniere the realization that his grandparents would not be around to attend this monumental event hit him; he collapsed on the floor and wept.  As he did he remembered the last words his grandmother spoke to him: “I will be so sad looking down on you in hell when I am in heaven”.  Kevin hadn’t spoken to his grandparents since she shared those words with him.  He had always understood that they didn’t support his relationship with Tyler, but he had not yet been able to figure out how such cold words could come from a devout Christian.  More often than not the Church has failed to effectively communicate love to the gay community; whether it be through careless words, off colored jokes, seemingly graceless sermons, silence on the issue altogether or political agendas. It is no wonder that there has been such disconnect between the two communities.

            Stories like Kevin’s are not uncommon to the gay community. It is amazing how many gay men and women have been hurt by the careless words of Christians who, although intending to communicate an essential Biblical truth, have done so in such a way that cuts the person to their very core.  Careless words take many forms; sometimes, it is an off colored joke that is told within the church that someone struggling with their sexuality happens to hear.  Still other times, as in the story above, it comes from the heart of someone with good intentions, but is delivered in such a way that the truth of love is lost in the pain of rejection.  As Christians, we should choose our words very carefully. The Bible is clear on the power of our words and their consequences: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt 12:36&37).  Too often careless words flow from the mouths of Christians to the gay community. Although we may not have been involved directly we are all part of one body, the Church. It is for that reason we share in the responsibility for the hurt that the body has inflicted on a community already in need of healing.

            This brings us to another important truth: “The reality of homosexuality isn’t ‘out there’.  It’s here, inside the church, in youth groups across the country.” (Chambers 157).  We need to be careful that the Church is a place that is conducive to healing for those struggling with their sexual identity.  We should be intentional about what is taught from our pulpits so as to not appear without grace.  If we truly have a heart for the lost, and we honestly do want to see people transformed through the love of Christ, we will take the time to educate ourselves on the subject matter in order that we might fully understand the pain that someone goes through when dealing with their sexual identity.

            Although hurt can be inflicted, often unintentionally, by the words that we speak, the words we don’t speak can be much more damaging.  When we avoid the issue of homosexuality within the Church, we are not communicating love to those struggling in this area. Instead we are implicitly stating that either we find this sin so repulsive that we need not even bring it up as a topic of discussion, or worse still we are indirectly stating that we don’t have a stand on the issue of sexuality and same sex attraction.  We should be careful not to be silent as our silence speaks louder than our words.

            There is one place; however, we don’t seem to mind breaking our silence, and that is in mainstream media.  In recent years the Church has been quite vocal about our stand on same sex marriage.  We have fought to maintain the sanctity of marriage and to preserve the right that clergy members have to not perform same sex marriages. We have used the media to communicate our disapproval with same sex marriage and we have communicated our point well.  It is important that we share the truth of the Bible with the world and we see by this example that we have used mainstream media as a stage to present the truth about marriage.  Yet in the middle of this heated debate how much of our media time did we dedicate to talking about salvation?  How much time and effort was spent sharing with the world, specifically to the gay community, a God who is filled with grace, compassion, mercy and healing?  The Church has communicated well our opposition to gay marriage, but it seems rare that we speak out against injustices such as; gay bashing, or verbal abuse of gay students in schools or hurtful jokes aimed at the gay community.   If our God is a God of justice, it begs the question: do we truly communicate God’s message and love to a hurting world?

            Although Kevin and Tyler are not yet married, their story is true.  Thankfully Kevin has taken a more Christ like attitude and has worked toward forgiving his grandmother.  Yet the words that were spoken by Kevin’s grandmother almost ten years ago still resonate in his heart and so it is apparent how carefully the Church should guard itself against careless words no matter how they are communicated be it through personal relationships, sermons, public media or silence. We have shared the truth of the Bible but have neglected to communicate the message of God’s love to an entire subculture; a subculture filled with unique gifts and talents that God’s kingdom may very well miss out on if we don’t begin to bridge the gap between the Church and the gay community.  As the church begins on the road to restoring relationships between the two communities, it might serve us well to remember the words once spoken by G.K. Chesterton: “The way to love anything is to realize that it might be lost.”