Lesson #12: Homosexuality

Transcription

1 Lesson #12: Homosexuality Genesis :20, their sin is very grave. - 19:5, And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally. - 19:24, Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. - The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part because of their homosexual behavior. - Ezekiel 16:49-50 does point out that homosexuality was not the only sin of which Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty. Jude 7 - as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. - Jude cites Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of the punishment of God. - Jude references their sexual immorality and going after strange flesh as the reasons for their eternal punishment. - This passage points out that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not just the specific situation of rape in Genesis 19, but that their sin involved all homosexual behavior. 2 Peter 2:6-8 - and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) - Peter also refers to God s judgment on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God delivering His people from evil. - Notice that Peter describes the actions of Sodom and Gomorrah as filthy conduct of the wicked and lawless deeds. 70

2 Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. - This passage is very specific and self-explanatory. - Homosexuality was against the law of Moses. Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - This passage states the consequence of homosexuality under the law of Moses. - Persons guilty of homosexuality were to be put to death. Judges 19: As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally! But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. - This is a very similar story to that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis This act is described in the text as wickedness and an outrage. Romans 1: For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. - Paul describes homosexuality as shameful, against nature, and vile passions. - Homosexuality is against the will of God. - God created sexual activity to be confined to the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. - Two words in this text have to do with homosexuality. - the Greek words translated homosexuals and sodomites. - Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. 71

3 I. Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than any other. - While man might be tempted to view some sins as worse than others, it is not that way with God. - The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 - God makes no distinction in sins. - Neither should we. - The liar needs forgiveness as much as the homosexual. Revelation 21:8 II. We do not hate the homosexual; we simply want him to repent. - We are not gay-bashers any more than adultery-bashers or sin-bashers. - We are simply trying to speak the word of God. - God calls all men to repent. III. There are no commands or examples of acceptable homosexual activity. - Even if someone tries to discount the passages which condemn homosexuality, there are still no commands or examples which establish authority for this lifestyle. - See lesson #3 on authority. IV. The only sexual activity authorized in the New Testament is confined to the marriage between a man and a woman. - Matthew 19:4-5, And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? V. Jesus taught a doctrine built around love; but He also taught obedience to the commands of God. - John 14:15, If you love Me, keep My commandments. - Jesus preached a doctrine of love and grace; but He also taught about obedience to the commands of God. Matthew 7:21 - Love does not demand that we ignore people who break His commands; Love requires that we teach them. VI. God s laws do not change because of modern attitudes and cultures. - Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. - God s will for us was revealed through His Son. - What man thinks about certain subjects has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. 72

4 Is Homosexuality Genetic or Learned? I didn't learn it...that's the way God made me! We are hearing more and more that all the failings of man can be traced to some genetic problem we inherited at birth. Radical, fringe, scientists are now proposing that the pre-disposition to commit crime, sexual orientation or wife beating, for example, is determined at conception, while traditional scientists believe that men learn these things. Jesus did not debate whether the nature of man is genetic or learned, but one thing is sure, He clearly defined what conduct is acceptable before God and that which is not. For example, the natural instinctive response to getting punched in the face is to punch back. Yet Jesus said, "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also" Luke 6:29. Did you catch that? Jesus knew the natural way of responding was to strike back but called us to a higher spiritual standard. In spite of the way God made man, Jesus commanded us to rise above to the divine standard of conduct. Our instinct is to seek revenge when wronged, yet Paul said, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" Rom 12:19. Christians are expected to act in a way differently than how God made us. "You have laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him" Col 3:9. "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed (Greek: metamorphosis) by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is" Rom 12:2. This is the age old battle between the desires of the flesh vs. the spirit. (Rom 7:19) Changing our human nature to conform to God's divine standard is something all Christians struggle with. Christians aren't sinless, they try to be sinless. Like a student that was congratulated on his effort in achieving a 60% grade, God is less interested in our overall performance and more interested in the effort we put forth to imitate God. Christians aren't perfect, they are forgiven. Saying "God made me that way" is no excuse for sinful conduct. One married man said, "I can't help my adultery, it s in my blood, God made me that way". God placed certain desires in mankind for the opposite sex, but He asks man curb his natural desire to have more than one woman and stick solely with the one he married. So even if God did make man with an instinct to sin, we are asked to change. God has made many wonderful promises to us, but we must resist our natural desires. "He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust" 2 Pet 1:4. Yes, we may be born with a nature that causes us to sin. Yes, God may have made us that way. But we are expected to be born again, become a new creature, just as it says, "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" 2 Cor 5:17. Article by Steve Rudd ( 73

5 Excerpts from Article (Homosexuality and the Bible) by Walter Wink For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk. And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case. The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period. 74

6 Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" 8/11/14 Same-Sex Relationships in the Bible: David and Jonathan Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul. Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual. Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. Some important verses which describe their relationship are: - 1 Samuel 18:1 - "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV) - "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV) - Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 75

7 - 1 Samuel 18:2 - "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV) - David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - 1 Samuel 18:3-4 - "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV) - Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical. - 1 Samuel 18: "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV) - In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV) - Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written: - "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." - In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive. 76

8 - 1 Samuel 20:41 - "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV) - Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV) - "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible) - "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible) - "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language) - "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible) - "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version) - "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible) - "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version) - The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. - 2 Samuel 1:26 - "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." - In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan. 8/11/14 77

9 BE READY TO GIVE A DEFENSE Homosexuality and the Bible Leon Mauldin A recent article in the Birmingham News dealt with the subject of homosexuality, featuring two homosexual "deacons." The article was predictably biased, and very obviously designed to push and promote homosexuality as normal and acceptable. It said the Bible contains "fewer than a dozen, mostly ambiguous references to homosexuality, with Romans in the New Testament and Leviticus in the Old Testament frequently cited by traditionalists." My first reaction is this: How many times does God have to say something for it to be accepted as truth? Would two dozen be enough, or perhaps three dozen? I have an idea that if one will not believe when God says something is wrong in a dozen verses, that he would not believe if it were stated on every page. The author reflected either on his intelligence or his integrity (I say that in all kindness) when he said that those references were ambiguous. But let God's word speak for itself: Speaking of the homosexuality of Sodom and Gormorrah, God said, "their sin is very grievous" (Gen. 18:26). Is that really ambiguous to you? Ambiguous means that which is unclear, vague, or indefinite. This passage says homosexuality is a sin, and it is very grievous. There was nothing "ambiguous" about the punishment: "Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens" (Gen. 19:24). Then again, God gave the following law to His people Israel: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. There blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). I really don't have any trouble understanding that, do you? The Romans passage to which the news article referred says, "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie...for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Rom. 1:24-27). I would be ashamed to say that I couldn't understand that, wouldn't you? 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 plainly says that neither "homosexuals, nor sodomites" (NKJV) "will inherit the kingdom of God." Would it not be more honest and honorable for a person to just say that he is stubbornly refusing to accept what the Bible teaches than to say that the Bible is "unclear"? Let God be true but every man a liar. 78