Homosexuality: The Bible Against Itself
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
On Saturday, May 19, 2012, a letter to the editor was published in the Orlando Sentinel, which is typical of what is wrong with modern society. The writer displays what some would call "fermented ignorance." Only in this case, such a label is not sufficient. The more appropriate term would be "fermented ignorance squared." An individual, whom we will only refer to as Virginia, begins her message by asking: "Why use the Bible to condemn homosexuality?" Well, how about this for a reason: "Because the Bible condemns homosexuality." Not only does it condemn it, but it does so under all three covenants: the Patriarchal system (Gen. 19; cf. 18:20); the Mosaic system (Lev. 20:13); and the Christian system (Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Jude 7). Needless to say, Virginia does not list these Scriptures nor discuss the contents of them.
Instead she blithely says: "The Bible is a book about God, not sex" (all quotes are from Virginia's letter on page A20). If the laughter has died down, we will proceed with our response. The previous statement attempts to form a false "either-or" situation. Either the Bible is about God, or it is about sex he Bthe Bible is about sex—as if both could not be true. The Bible is about many things. God revealing Himself is certainly one of the most important, but the Bible also reveals the nature of man—that we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Without knowing God, we would have no standard of comparison; so Virginia is right as far as this point goes, but then she loses her grip on reality.
One of the things we learn about God in the Bible is that He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa. 6:3). He also commanded human beings to be holy as He is holy, which was true both under the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:2) and in the Christian system (1 Peter 1:15-16). He did not leave it to man to define holiness; God defines what is acceptable behavior and what is immoral. Many of His definitions involve sex. Virginia, if she thinks really hard about it, might remember that God put one restriction about sex in the Ten Commandments that He gave to the Israelites: "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). The first three of the commandments were about God, but the last six were about relationships with other people. Taking Virginia's approach, one might as well ignore, "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13) and then proclaim that the Bible is not a book about justice (which is another of God's attributes).
The Bible is about many subjects: love, holiness, grace, mercy, justice, sin, and redemption. In the course of developing all these ideas, the Bible also deals with the correct way of responding to God and the ethical way we treat our fellow man. The book of Galatians teaches that the follower of Jesus should abstain from the works of the flesh. Among those works are the following: adultery, fornication (the Greek word includes homosexuality), uncleanness, and licentiousness—all of which are sexual sins. Virginia cites the book of Galatians; so it is possible that she might read these words (although there is no evidence of it). The concluding thought is that "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21). This is what the Bible teaches.
The verse she makes reference to is Galatians 3:28, which says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." She erroneously believes that the meaning of this verse is that no one "can separate anyone from God." How could anyone so misread a passage? In the first place, Paul is not talking about everyone in the world; he is talking about Christians—those who "were baptized into Christ" (Gal. 3:27). In the second place, Paul commanded brethren in the Corinthian church to separate themselves from the man living with his father's wife (a sexual sin) (1 Cor. 5). Any who call themselves Christians who are practicing sexual immorality must be excluded from the fellowship of the church (1 Cor. 5:10-11).
Man has nothing to do with the message God has communicated to him; his only responsibility is to obey what God says. God is the One who says: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). The reader will notice that these all involve sins of a sexual nature. Men did not make the decision that these things were wrong. In fact, a large percentage of couples choose to live in fornication prior to or in place of marriage, God's Divine institution. This is evil behavior which He will judge (Heb. 13:4); it matters not whether society accepts it or not. Sin is what separates man from God (Isa. 59:1-2).
Using the Bible
Virginia accuses those who say what the Bible says on the subject of homosexuality of trying to make homosexuals feel "ashamed and unworthy," alleging that we are trying to sully God's relationship with one of His own. Virginia missed her calling as a stand-up comedian. How can mere mortals interfere with God's relationship with anyone? Of course, practicing homosexuals are not God's own; only those who have repented of such ways can belong to Him, as already shown. No one has any primary intention of making someone feel ashamed and unworthy (although it results from knowing the truth). The goal is to get people to humble themselves before God and give up their sins.
Did Jesus make men feel ashamed and unworthy when He told them that lusting after a woman was committing adultery with her in their hearts (Matt. 5:27-28)? Did Jesus make people feel ashamed and unworthy when He told them that they were committing adultery when they divorced and remarried unscripturally (Matt. 5:31-32)? And what are we to make of the fact that Jesus taught that "many" are on the broad path of destruction (Matt. 7:13-14)? Surely, false teachers felt uncomfortable when Jesus called them "wolves in sheep's clothing" (Matt. 7:15). All of these are teachings from the "Sermon on the Mount."
If anyone is going to repent of his sins, he must first know what they are. Delineating these things is not intended to shame anyone or make them feel unworthy. It is nothing more than loving someone enough to tell them the truth concerning where they are spiritually. However, if someone believes the Word of God, it should make them ashamed—ashamed that they have acted in such a way as to offend a holy God. It will give them a sense of unworthiness. David was a man after God's own heart, but he sinned with Bathsheba and was rebuked for it. He needed to hear God's rebuke for his sin. Did he feel ashamed or unworthy? He wrote the following words concerning himself in Psalm 51:2-3, 10:
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me…. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
When we realize that our actions are actual sins that will separate us from God eternally, then we will experience shame and a sense of unworthiness. If human beings were not valuable to God, He would not try to get us out of sin into a state of forgiveness. If He did not want us to repent of our sins, He would remain silent. If Christians did not love the souls of men, for which Christ died, they would be silent as well. We desire to shame no one, but we believe all men need to have access to the truth.
It is Virginia, not Christians, who have missed the whole point of the Bible. Those who have not read the Book should not try to lecture those who have. The point of the Bible is redemption. God created a perfect world (Gen. 1-2), which was marred by man's choice to sin (Gen. 3:1-6). The rest of the Bible is the history of God's plan for redeeming man, beginning with the promise of a Savior (Gen. 3:15). God prepared for that day by choosing a man and a race with which to bring Jesus into the world. The New Testament shows the fulfillment of those preparations and explains how and why Christ died for our sins. Revelation closes with a glimpse of heaven, which is what God wants for everyone (1 Tim. 2:4) but which He will only grant to those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9).
God Created Homosexual Animals?
An entire paragraph deals with the fact that God created all things (which is true) and that some animals are homosexuals; therefore, the practice must be good for humans as well. We have no idea how old Virginia is, but it seems safe to say that she has not been around six millennia. How does she know the behavior of animals at the time of creation, when God pronounced the world "very good" (Gen. 1:31)? If they could change later on from being herbivores to carnivores (Gen. 1:29-30; 9:3-4), could it be that some other things changed (if her unproven assertion were true)?
Besides, when did animal life become a pattern for man? Some animals are monogamous, but most mate with any other animal to which they are attracted. Humans, not animals, are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). God did not authorize marriage for animals but for human beings. He never authorized two men to be married or two women or a multiplicity of either. He created one Eve for one Adam.
Marriage is God's perfect blender,
But it takes one of each gender.
God has no law for animals that prohibits them from committing fornication. He issued no adultery restrictions. Animals are not human beings; they cannot read or write or comprehend His teachings. God gave morality to human beings, along with the ability to reason. Why would anyone appeal to the animal kingdom as a basis for behavior in human beings? This type of thinking is bizarre at best and dangerous at worst. Shall we be like black widow spiders who eat each other or like various predatory animals?
Civil Rights
The writer next tries to compare the acceptance of homosexuality with civil rights, which involves a tremendous fallacy. Blacks were wrongfully denied fundamental human rights and dignity. Many were brought to this country as slaves and deprived of freedom. They were not just hired as workers; they were forced to work as their "masters" required. Both England and America eventually did away with slavery. People do not choose their skin color or to be slaves. Homosexuals have several choices. First of all, they can choose to change. This option should not be ignored. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that it can be done (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Does anyone really want to argue that all of the men of Sodom were "born that way"? If so, how did they come to be born at all?
Second, if they choose to reject God and the Bible, they have the freedom to sin as they wish. No one forces them to march in parades, exposing themselves to the whole world. If they are proud of their sin, they should not be surprised that others do not appreciate their flaunting it. When a man and a woman choose to move in together and live as husband and wife without being married, they are doing the same thing. Those who take the Lord's name in vain are also offensive. Are people not allowed to react? But the point is that homosexuals have far more freedoms than blacks had, and there is no comparison between the two. All races are acceptable to God; all sexual behavior is not.
The Bible is Irrelevant
Ephesians 6:5 is quoted by Virginia as an example of Scriptures that no longer apply. The verse which exhorts servants to obey their masters "with fear and trembling" may not have a direct application in America (or anywhere else), but the principle is still valid as it relates to employers and employees (Col. 3:22-24). She goes on to write: "It's why civilized nations no longer stone adulterers." Here she shows a manifest ignorance of the different covenants in the Bible. The reason that we do not stone adulterers is that Jesus did not authorize us to do so. It was taught in the Law of Moses, in which the nation of Israel's civil laws and spiritual laws were one and the same. In the Christian system, the civil government handles crime and punishment. Jesus gave laws to the church which He expects to be followed. One might note that the state not caring about adultery has led to the more frequent practice of it. Our civil laws were once opposed to it.
"It's why women can vote." What? Exactly what chapter in the Bible deals with women voting in the 21st century? Hmm. "It's why some states in the Northeast now endorse same-sex marriage." Wow! All of these things are occurring because the Bible is outdated and irrelevant. Nevertheless, Virginia will be accountable to the words of Christ; she will find that the Day of Judgment (which will be the most relevant day she will ever experience) (John 12:48). Her efforts to weaken the Bible fail to diminish it at all.
Does Virginia Really Believe the Bible?
It is always interesting that people who do not read the Bible, live by the Bible, or even understand what it says nevertheless try to use it to prove their position, which, as in this case, is directly opposed to what the Scriptures teach. In Virginia's case, she cites a couple of teachings from it to try to prove her argument but then claims that the Bible is not relevant today, which opens up an interesting line of inquiry. If the Bible is not relevant, then how do we know that any principle Virginia cites is relevant. After all, women are voting; so how do know that we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28)? We are no longer stoning adulterers; so how do we know that we are supposed to love one another?
The problem that she has is that she quotes the Bible to prove her point but then says that the Bible is irrelevant. Well, does she believe it or not? America no longer practices slavery; so are we to refrain from judging one another or not? She puts herself in the unenviable position of just picking and choosing what she wants while badmouthing the rest of it. She does not like what it teaches about homosexuality; so that's wrong, but she likes the part about brotherhood; so that stays in. Now what happens if someone else has different standards than her and says other things are more relevant than Virginia thought? What a mess! Either the New Testament is valid and relevant in all that it says, or it cannot be trusted in anything that it says. Since it teaches against homosexuality, we may imagine what Virginia will decide. But then she should stop trying to use the Scriptures—if she disagrees with them.
The other tipoff as to her rejection of the Scriptures was seen early on. She wrote that people quote Scriptures to condemn homosexuality (actually, whether we use them or not, they do make such a condemnation), and then she tries to apply a principle to offset the verses of which she is probably aware. Whenever anyone tries to pit one Scripture against another, that person does not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, whether it's a denominationalist or an atheist. When someone says, "Sure, that verse mentions baptism, but what are you going to do with this one that says salvation is by faith?" you know they do not believe the Scriptures, or they would not try to get them to contradict each other. There is a difference between harmonization and opposition.
The letter closes with an appeal to just allow people to pursue happiness. Jesus taught what true happiness is, and it begins by being humble enough (poor in spirit) to accept Jesus' teachings—including those that concern morality (Matt. 5:3). It continues by mourning for sins (Matt. 5:4). Solomon sought happiness in fleshly things but concluded that the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecc. 12:13). In the next verse he wrote that "God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil." Let us not be so presumptuous to as sit in judgment on God and His Word; let us be content to believe what it teaches and abide by it.