The Biblical view of homosexuality

[heal103]

I am the parent of a college age daughter who was raised in a LCMS Christian church. In the last several years she has drifted away from her faith primarily due to the churches stance on homosexuality. She sees how the evangelical church in general treats homosexuals and rejects them. Often they are rejected by their own family. I am agents this and love everyone as Jesus taught us to do. However the church teaches that although we are to Love all, we can not condone behavior the Bible clearly says is wrong.This is where I'm completely confused. When I read the verses in the bible mentioning homosexuality, it seems pretty clear that it's very much against it and it is wrong. I dont understand why but that is what it says. I know there is a belief among progressive christians that this is a misunderstanding and it means something else. I would love to believe that but all of the verses Old and new testamentsay it is a sin. I want to understand. I was hoping someone can explain to me the case for homosexuality not being a sin. I really do want to understand. I've read some posts on here regarding this but it seemed so complicated and confusing and hard to interpret. Can someone explain to me in lay simpler terms how those verses do not consider homosexuality an abomination? I truly would love to understand so I can better talk to my daughter. I dont want her to reject Christianity because of this. She loves her friends gay and straight and can not accept a faith that rejects them. Thank you so much. I look forward to your replies

 

[Ricky M]

Homosexuals in the church often quote the passage where Jesus does not condemn the woman in adultery. They claim that by doing so, Jesus said it was ok. But they conveniently leave out the part where Jesus told her to 'go and sin no more'.

I've also heard arguments to the effect that heterosexuals are violating Biblical rules by fornicating outside marriage, so why shouldn't gays be allowed to do so as well?

You are correct in your studies.

One other note, the Bible says we are to welcome sinners, but shun a believer who does not accept correction. Gay unsaved friends you can hang out with, to show them God's love. Gay saved believers, you offer correction, and if they don't take it you leave them.

 

[Andrewn]

I dont want her to reject Christianity because of this. She loves her friends gay and straight and can not accept a faith that rejects them. Thank you so much. I look forward to your replies

Christianity doesn't reject anyone. God is love and Christianity is relationship with God. We, human beings, have different sinful tendencies. Some actions may be obviously damaging. Other sins my seem harmless. We struggle with our sinful tendencies without asking God to change His word. He knows why certain actions are not appropriate. And He still loves the world He created.

 

[Andrewn]

Gay unsaved friends you can hang out with, to show them God's love. Gay saved believers, you offer correction, and if they don't take it you leave them.

Does this make sense?!

 

[Ricky M]

Does this make sense?!

Yes

 

[PloverWing]

The main relevant passages are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Genesis 19; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; and I Timothy 1:10. To address them briefly:

Leviticus is part of the body of Jewish law that includes also various dietary laws, calendar observances, rules for uncleanness, and so on. Possibly Orthodox Jews are still bound by this covenant, but it is not our covenant if we are Gentile Christians.

Genesis 19 is about gang rape, probably intended to show dominance over and humiliation of the visiting strangers. How anyone sees this as a portrayal of loving homosexual intimacy is beyond me.

Romans 1 is probably the strongest basis for an anti-gay argument. If one reads the whole of Romans 1-3 together, though, the flow of it is that Paul describes some things about Gentiles that would make a Jewish reader say "Yes, that's right, those Gentiles are awful sinners" -- and then Paul turns around and says that the Jewish readers are sinners like the Gentiles they just condemned; all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. It's not clear whether Paul is setting out a law against homosexuality in Romans 1, or whether he's just calling up a particular picture that will get a reaction from his Jewish readers.

The trouble with the lists of vices in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 is that we see single words whose meaning isn't clear. A single ambiguous word is a lot to base a doctrine on.


Also to be taken into account is Paul's repeated insistence that we are not bound by the law -- so it's odd to see him creating a new law for Christians to follow.

And, a verse that has haunted me ever since I became aware that several of the young people in our church are gay: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6) If I look at these young Christians and say "Be celibate, or get out of my church", I know there's a millstone waiting for me.

 

[JackRT]

I am the parent of a college age daughter who was raised in a LCMS Christian church. In the last several years she has drifted away from her faith primarily due to the churches stance on homosexuality. She sees how the evangelical church in general treats homosexuals and rejects them. Often they are rejected by their own family. I am agents this and love everyone as Jesus taught us to do. However the church teaches that although we are to Love all, we can not condone behavior the Bible clearly says is wrong.This is where I'm completely confused. When I read the verses in the bible mentioning homosexuality, it seems pretty clear that it's very much against it and it is wrong. I dont understand why but that is what it says. I know there is a belief among progressive christians that this is a misunderstanding and it means something else. I would love to believe that but all of the verses Old and new testamentsay it is a sin. I want to understand. I was hoping someone can explain to me the case for homosexuality not being a sin. I really do want to understand. I've read some posts on here regarding this but it seemed so complicated and confusing and hard to interpret. Can someone explain to me in lay simpler terms how those verses do not consider homosexuality an abomination? I truly would love to understand so I can better talk to my daughter. I dont want her to reject Christianity because of this. She loves her friends gay and straight and can not accept a faith that rejects them. Thank you so much. I look forward to your replies

The best Bible study on the issue of homosexuality that I have ever found is:

Homosexuality and the Bible by the late Walter Wink,

Former Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.

http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

 

[Aussie Pete]

I am the parent of a college age daughter who was raised in a LCMS Christian church. In the last several years she has drifted away from her faith primarily due to the churches stance on homosexuality. She sees how the evangelical church in general treats homosexuals and rejects them. Often they are rejected by their own family. I am agents this and love everyone as Jesus taught us to do. However the church teaches that although we are to Love all, we can not condone behavior the Bible clearly says is wrong.This is where I'm completely confused. When I read the verses in the bible mentioning homosexuality, it seems pretty clear that it's very much against it and it is wrong. I dont understand why but that is what it says. I know there is a belief among progressive christians that this is a misunderstanding and it means something else. I would love to believe that but all of the verses Old and new testamentsay it is a sin. I want to understand. I was hoping someone can explain to me the case for homosexuality not being a sin. I really do want to understand. I've read some posts on here regarding this but it seemed so complicated and confusing and hard to interpret. Can someone explain to me in lay simpler terms how those verses do not consider homosexuality an abomination? I truly would love to understand so I can better talk to my daughter. I dont want her to reject Christianity because of this. She loves her friends gay and straight and can not accept a faith that rejects them. Thank you so much. I look forward to your replies

 

[Aussie Pete]

Sin is sin. Homosexuality is just one of many sins that disqualifies people from God's kingdom. It's a shame that there has been such and emphasis one one sin, but the gay lobby has not helped. Homosexuality arose because of rebellion against God. The defiance of God's will for humanity is blatant and God has and will judge it. As He will all sin.

Why is homosexuality wrong? It goes to the very heart of God's will for humanity. God created us male and female. Satan's moral gender blender attacks that aspect of creation. God loves sinners, but that does not mean that He overlooks sin. He hates sin for two reasons. First and foremost it offends His holy character, second, God hates what it does to us. People love sin. It is their delight to rebel against God. Satan blinds those who are perishing and people bitterly resent the truth. Now what used to be secret is coming out into the open.

Christians are warned against loving the world. That includes rejecting worldly attitudes to sin. The parable of the sower tells us that the pursuit of riches and caring about the things of the world kill off the growth of the Word in people. No, we do not hate the sinner. But we do not participate in the sin either. If we condone, we are participating, like it or not.

I have a personal interest in this. I lost a friend to AIDS, in the early 1990's. It's killed 32 million people. And still homosexuals thumb their noses at God.

 

[Anthony2019]

Sin is sin. Homosexuality is just one of many sins that disqualifies people from God's kingdom. It's a shame that there has been such and emphasis one one sin, but the gay lobby has not helped. Homosexuality arose because of rebellion against God. The defiance of God's will for humanity is blatant and God has and will judge it. As He will all sin.

Why is homosexuality wrong? It goes to the very heart of God's will for humanity. God created us male and female. Satan's moral gender blender attacks that aspect of creation. God loves sinners, but that does not mean that He overlooks sin. He hates sin for two reasons. First and foremost it offends His holy character, second, God hates what it does to us. People love sin. It is their delight to rebel against God. Satan blinds those who are perishing and people bitterly resent the truth. Now what used to be secret is coming out into the open.

Christians are warned against loving the world. That includes rejecting worldly attitudes to sin. The parable of the sower tells us that the pursuit of riches and caring about the things of the world kill off the growth of the Word in people. No, we do not hate the sinner. But we do not participate in the sin either. If we condone, we are participating, like it or not.

I have a personal interest in this. I lost a friend to AIDS, in the early 1990's. It's killed 32 million people. And still homosexuals thumb their noses at God.

I would be interested to hear what you would have to say about me.
- someone who has had same sex inclinations/attractions ever since his teens, and still even today.
- someone who has fasted, prayed, had Christian counselling, and done everything, time and time again to alter his same sex attractions, but without any change in orientation.
- someone who has never had a same sex relationship, and has always remained chaste and celibate. Someone who still sees men more attractive than women, but finds it easy not to act on those attractions.
- someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, who died for his sins.
- someone who has a faith, who reads and studies the Bible, attends church regularly and has a prayer life.

 

[hedrick]

I think in 100 years people will look back at this whole thing and say “how did people come up with these interpretations?”, just like we now wonder how anyone could use the Bible to reject mixed-race marriages. I’ve looked at those arguments. They use the same approach of removing passages from their context.

I agree that Rom 1 is really the only issue.

The sin lists in 1 Cor 6:9 etc, use (1) a word whose meaning we don’t know, because Paul’s usage is the first, and it was unusual otherwise, and (2) a word that mens “soft”, and is used elsewhere in the NT with meanings having nothing to do way homosexuality. The first word has been understood variously. Luther’s Bible translated it as men who abused boys. Others translated it as masturbation. It literally means “male beds.” That could just as well refer to male prostitutes as anything else. Some people think it refers to Lev 18:22, but when you really look at the Greek of that passage, I don’t think that argument is very strong.

So Rom 1. There are several things to note. First, this isn’t about homosexuality. It’s about Gentiles, i.e. pagans. Remember Rom isn’t a book about ethics. It’s a response to the question of whether it’s OK to accept Gentiles as Christians without making them Jews first. It’s written in what is known as “diatribe style,” where the writer quotes an argument and responds to it.

Rom 1 is a classic Jewish view of how evil Gentiles are. There are a bunch of issues with it:

* How likely is Paul to make an argument that opposes his main point? His point is that it’s OK to accept Gentiles. It’s likely that he’s quoting his opponents’ argument.

* The standard Jewish view was that same-sex relations were a result of an excess of passion. When people got tired of normal sex, they turned to same-sex. You can see that in Rom 1:26-27. They were overcome with passion and turned from the natural sex to unnatural. Is this describing modern gays?

Roman sexuality, at least among the upper classes, really did have lots of problems. Many men saw their wives as for bearing legitimate heirs, but got sex elsewhere. The description in Rom 1 surely had some basis in fact.

It’s also worth noting that the ethics of same-sex relations during the period were sort of the opposite of today’s. You’ll sometimes hear that gay relationships were common in the ancient world, and we should follow their example. But the fact is, for a male citizen to act as a “bottom” was considered highly immoral, and at times illegal. An adult man was expected to use a slave or an adolescent as the “bottom.” We would consider both of those violations of informed consent, and immoral. So the only gay relationships we’d consider moral they thought were immoral, and visa versa.

I think there’s good reason to think that Paul wasn’t envisioning the kind of relationship gay Christians have. Remember, Rom 1 isn’t about sexual ethics. He doesn’t describe homosexuality in general or say it’s wrong. He talks about what happens among pagans who are carried away by an excess of passions. It’s about how evil Gentiles are.

But there’s another problem which I also mentioned above. There’s good reason to think that Rom 1:18-32 isn’t even Paul’s view. Why would he start by condemning Gentiles lock, stock and barrel, when the point of the letter is that they’re acceptable as Christians? I think Rom 1 is his opponents view, which he quotes in order to refute.

You can see this refutation in Rom 2. 2:2 quotes 1:32 and then rejects it. Indeed NRSV translates 2:2 as

2 You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.”

He rejects it for two reasons. First, in 2:3 he notes that it’s hypocritical to say this if you sin yourself. But he goes on to say later in chapter 2 that many pagans have the Law written in their hearts. This contradicts 1:18-32, because 1:18-32 argues that as a result of idolatry, Gentiles are inherently immoral.

After arguing in 1 and 2 that Gentiles are capable of being moral, he then moves on the argue that Jews have moral issues, too.

One more thing about 1 Cor 6:9, etc. This refers to things Paul’s converts used to do. It is quite possible that some of his converts had been forced as slaves to accept male sexual abuse. We don’t know the exact social level of his converts, but it’s likely that more had been slaves than masters. Would Paul really condemn people for being victims of sexual abuse?

Today there seems to be a movement for translations done by evangelicals to translate the two words are referring to tops and bottoms in same-sex relations. Here’s the NIV

“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterersq nor men who have sex with men*
* The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.”

HCSB and ESV are the same. This makes perfect sense for modern Evangelicals who want to make it clear that all forms of same-sex relations are prohibited. But does it make sense for Paul, when one of the roles was commonly forced on children and slaves? Personally, I think this is an insult to Paul’s moral sense. Even if some people did it voluntarily, Paul's readers surely included slaves who either actually had experienced abuse or had it threatened. (Apparently it was a fairly common threat to slaves that you thought had gotten out of hand.)

 

[Messerve]

Does this make sense?!

There is a problem with the word "gay". Personally I think when we're discussing this in theological terms we should use "homosexual". First of all, it tends to be used mainly for homosexual men, and secondly it implies someone has given themselves up to that lifestyle which is not indicative of someone truly dedicated to Jesus or indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Not that a Christian couldn't sin in homosexual ways, but to be completely involved in that culture and lifestyle is something else.

 

[Messerve]

I would be interested to hear what you would have to say about me.
- someone who has had same sex inclinations/attractions ever since his teens, and still even today.
- someone who has fasted, prayed, had Christian counselling, and done everything, time and time again to alter his same sex attractions, but without any change in orientation.
- someone who has never had a same sex relationship, and has always remained chaste and celibate. Someone who still sees men more attractive than women, but finds it easy not to act on those attractions.
- someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, who died for his sins.
- someone who has a faith, who reads and studies the Bible, attends church regularly and has a prayer life.

Well, for myself I would say you're a follower of Jesus. Nothing else needs to be said. And congratulations on keeping your eyes on the holy! It will be worth it in the end.

 

[public hermit]

There’s good reason to think that Rom 1:18-32 isn’t even Paul’s view. Why would he start by condemning Gentiles lock, stock and barrel, when the point of the letter is that they’re acceptable as Christians? I think Rom 1 is his opponents view, which he quotes in order to refute.

I think this is right. The second half of Ch. 1 is setting up the "Gentile problem." Assuming the church in Rome is a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians, Paul is setting up the so-called "Judiazers" or "legalists." I don't know a better term.

If we think of this as a letter, which might have been publicly read (by Phoebe, perhaps?), then during 1:18-32 the legalists are all in agreement, maybe thinking to themselves, "Yeah, those dirty Gentiles." The whole time Paul is speaking in the 3rd person about "them." It's a rhetorical set-up.

Starting in 2:1, he shifts, and begins to speak in the 2nd person, as if pointing his finger at the legalists, "Therefore, you all have no excuse , whoever you are, when you judge others, for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

What are they doing that is the same? Are they "exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural"? Or, are they "foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless"? Maybe, who knows? That's not the point. The point is that by judging the Gentiles they are "exchanging the truth of God for a lie" by placing themselves in the judgment seat of God. So, it's somewhat ironic when this is used as a proof text to condemn.

Paul is turning the tables on his opponent. Does he think that homosexuality is then wonderful, or even acceptable? I doubt it, but that's not the point. His point is that all are under judgment, i.e. all need grace.

 

[hedrick]

If we think of this as a letter, which might have been publicly read (by Phoebe, perhaps?), then during 1:18-32 the legalists are all in agreement, maybe thinking to themselves, "Yeah, those dirty Gentiles." The whole time Paul is speaking in the 3rd person about "them." It's a rhetorical set-up.

Starting in 2:1, he shifts, and begins to speak in the 2nd person, as if pointing his finger at the legalists, "Therefore, you all have no excuse , whoever you are, when you judge others, for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

As far as I know, everyone doing exegesis of Romans agrees with this. But I think it goes further. Paul could agree with 1:18-32 but still use it as a setup. If all he's saying is you're just as bad, he could still be accepting 1. But I go further. Rom 2 is not just "you're just as bad." It also contains the claim that many Gentiles have a moral sense. Rom 1 doesn't just say that Gentiles are sinners. I think it's a blanket condemnation, implying that they are inherently immoral. I think the acknowledgement that some have the law in their hearts is an actual rejection of 1:18-32.

This doesn't mean that Paul thought homosexuality was OK. If I were in the position he was in, seeing how bad it looked among pagans, I wouldn't think kindly of it. But I don't think he actually says so.

Paul's letters are letters. They respond to actual problems in his congregation. I don't believe any members of his congregations were trying to have gay relationships that meet normal Christian standards for sexual relationships. So he never dealt with that. But I also don't think he specifically condemns all same-sex relationships.

 

[public hermit]

I think the acknowledgement that some have the law in their hearts is an actual rejection of 1:18-32.

I would have to think about that. I'm inclined to say Paul, in line with the position he is laying out, withholds judgement. He does say Gentiles have a moral sense (i.e. the law in their hearts), but he withholds judgment as to whether their conscience ("conflicting thoughts") will accuse them or perhaps excuse them. I hadn't considered the possibility that his allowance for Gentiles having the law in their hearts functions as a defeater for 1:18-32. I'll have to think on that. Whatever the case, I agree it is anachronistic to force the current conversation on homosexuality into Romans 1, and then expect it to provide sufficient answers.

 

[hedrick]

I agree it is anachronistic to force the current conversation on homosexuality into Romans 1, and then expect it to provide sufficient answers.

Sure. Gay Christians trying to live faithfully in marriage are surely not equivalent to the people described in 1:26-27.

 

[JackRT]

l's letters are letters. They respond to actual problems in his congregation.

It is all too easy to forget that when we read the epistles we are actually reading other people's mail without actually knowing the other people.

 

[heal103]

It is all too easy to forget that when we read the epistles we are actually reading other people's mail without actually knowing the other people.

So does that mean that Paul's letters only apply to the churches they were written to and not to all believers? Aren't these letters the inspired word of God speaking to us today?

 

[heal103]

Sure. Gay Christians trying to live faithfully in marriage are surely not equivalent to the people described in 1:26-27.

Does this mean that God recognizes gay marriage ? Would they be married in the eyes of God?