“Homosexuality is not just another sin” — or so says Scott Lively, the recent author of a brochure by a similar title. He has even gone as far as to say homosexuality is “worse than murder.” The issue of homosexuality, and in particular, same-sex marriage, is a big important issue to the church. It raises a lot of good questions to which there are few good answers. According to Lively, there is an uprising of “gay theology” in the church. In other words, there is a wave of professing, dedicated Christians who wish to be affirmed in their Christian liberty by living an openly gay lifestyle in the name of Jesus, and many are doing that and backing themselves with biblical scholarship. This is tricky business…for all of us.

One thing I’ve done recently is I’ve taken a long, hard look at Scott Lively’s brochure to try to understand his argument. After that, I sat out to write for all of us a “theology,” if you will, of homosexuality in the Bible to look closely at what the biblical witness to homosexuality is from start to finish. This blog is that attempt. The first part, roughly 3/4, is a passage-by-passage look at every place homosexuality comes up in the Bible, and the last portion is a section-by-section response to Mr. Lively’s brochure. At the bottom you can find the contents of this post in a Word document for download if you wish.

The way that our senior pastor, David Dudenhofer, and I have read the text of the Bible, the Bible’s witness to this issue falls on neither side…The Bible does not support those who wish to be affirmed in their liberty by being openly gay in the name of Jesus, nor does it fall on the side of saying homosexuality is elevated in its sinfulness beyond all other sins. This is a long post, yes, but I hope you take the time to read it and join the discussion.

Here are my goals for this project.

1. Support and maintain biblical gender distinctives as good and pleasing to God as part of His created order and therefore functionally significant; or else, find solid biblical warrant for abrogation of those distinctives (if there is no functional significance of gender roles then it becomes very difficult, even if still possible, to defend them)

2. Take each biblical statement regarding homosexuality in its unique context, historically, literarily, culturally and theologically.

3. Not allow emotion to interpret Scripture for or against homosexuality. [1]

4. Take into consideration the biblical witness regarding homosexuality in relation to other sin issues; in other words, carefully distinguish, and show the relationship between (1) the identification of certain behaviors as sin, and (2) the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone.

I. Gender Distinctives in the Old Testament

A. Genesis 1:26-27. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them.” 

i. When God made mankind in His image, according to the way verse 27 reads, being created in the image of God results in gender roles. The result of being made in these differing genders is the reproduction of life. Flourishing is a result of God’s image, a result of being aligned with God’s intentional design. Failure to be aligned with the created order would lead to whatever the opposite of flourishing would be. Notice, this has nothing to do so far with any legal “sin,” but practice that is in accordance with how things function by design.

B. Genesis 2:18. “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’”

i. The Hebrew word the NASB translates as “helper” is a word that is used most often of God as a “helper” to people. The word translated “suitable” means opposite or corresponding. The idea is of two like beings which are opposites, complementing and completing each other.

1.  As a side note, “helpmate” is not a biblical word. It comes from the KJV, which says “a help meet.” “Meet” is an adjective, an archaic word that means complementary or suitable. “a help meet for him,” not “a helpmate.”

II. Gender Distinctives in the New Testament

A. Without having the time to drag out every single relevant passage in the New Testament, it is sufficient to point out that gender roles are enforced in the New Testament. When qualifications for things like church leadership are listed, (1 Timothy 2: 8-15, 3:1-7, 8-13, see esp. vs. 11; Titus 1:6-9, 2:1-8), or when there are instructions given for worship in the church (for example, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16) there is a clear distinction between the roles of men and women.

B. Conclusion Regarding Gender Roles: A person’s gender should not be violated, just as their ethnicity should not be violated. Gender roles are sacred. The first three details given about people in the Bible is that they are (1) created in God’s image, which means reproduction of life and complementary genders, and (2) they are to rule over the earth as God’s appointed vice regents. Gender is as sacred as the calling of mankind to be God’s vice regents.

III. Verses that mention homosexuality

Old Testament

A. Genesis 19:1-11. Men—all of them apparently—from the city of Sodom attempt to rape two angels (angels in the Bible are always portrayed as male) that visited Lot.

i. In chapter 18 God says to Abraham that the sinfulness of the city was so great that He intended to destroy it. It seems to me that it would be an unfair reading of the story to assume that the men intending to rape the angels means necessarily that homosexuality was the reason Sodom was so wicked. If a person was told “Don’t go to Las Vegas because it’s so wicked,” and the first day of their visit to the city their car was stolen, he would probably be wise not to label Vegas as “a city of car thieves.” The immediacy of becoming a victim of crime is more indicative of rampant sinfulness in general than the specific crime committed.

ii. Here’s a question worth considering: Was it a bigger deal that the men of the city wanted to rape a man, or that they wanted to rape a human being? If the angels were women, wouldn’t we label Sodom as a city of rapists?

iii. Sodom’s sin was later clarified by a prophet. Ezekiel 16:49-50a. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.” Here God identifies the sin of Sodom as quite a bit more than just homosexuality. I imagine most readers would assign the attempted rape to “abominations” in this text from Ezekiel, and probably rightly. What is an abomination? According to word usage in the Old Testament an abomination is a “detestable act.” More on this in the Leviticus verses.

 B. Leviticus 18:22. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

i. Leviticus 18 is a slew of regulations about wrongful sexual relations, including sex with father, mother, father’s wife and other relatives. This chapter, taken as a unit, heavily emphasizes the one-flesh union of marriage. I say this because phrases like “You shall not uncover the nakedness (a euphemism for intercourse) of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” indicate that a married couple are indivisibly one to such a degree that if a person has sex with a married person, they are in effect having sex with that person’s spouse too. This whole chapter is book-ended (compare vs. 3-4 and 24-30) with the fact that Israel was moving into Canaan where people did not know God, and the people were to behave according to God’s laws while in Canaan. Interestingly, just as in the Genesis passages, the emphasis is on gender roles and marriage, and why God made things that way.

1. Over the last couple of years, the more I’ve read the Bible, the move I’ve noticed that a biblical sexual ethic begins with marriage. Everything regarding sexuality must be understood in relation to marriage. This is hugely significant …more on that later.

ii. Moses, via the Holy Spirit, is saying homosexuality is an abomination, a “detestable act.” It’s the only act in this chapter that is specifically called an abomination…however, in verse 26 every act in the whole chapter is referred to as “these abominations.” Let’s be fair and balanced in our interpretation. Can we really say it’s an abomination any more than other sexual sins in Leviticus? Wrong, yes. More wrong? Well, that’s not quite so certain.

C. Leviticus 20:13. “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

i. Chapter 18 of Leviticus expresses more of the sexual ethic Israel was supposed to live out, whereas chapter 20 expresses the lawful penalty for violations of this ethic. The list of violations is much the same as that of Chapter 18, with the death penalty being called for in all of these situations. Again there is heavy emphasis on Israel behaving in stark contrast to the way Canaanites lived. The whole purpose for Israel following God’s law was to be a light to the nations. The penalties of violations to the law has to do with being a light to the nations and less to do with the specific sins mentioned, especially since the penalty is the same for all the sexual violations.

D. Judges 19:16-24. Members of the tribe of Dan do essentially the same thing the men of Sodom did, although they add to it by raping a concubine to death. This is arguably the most chilling account in the entire Bible. A very very dark time. The same comments I wrote for Genesis 19 apply here.

E. 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12. “There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel.” “He (Asa) also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols his fathers had made.”

i. Not much needs to be said here. Just a statement of fact that these people were present. This appears in a list of the religious practices Israel had adopted from the surrounding peoples who practiced many detestable things before God, including sacrificing children to the god Molech. Notice homosexuality surrounded by a myriad of other sins.

F. 2 Kings 23:7 “He (the King of Judah) also broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women were weaving hangings for the Asherah”

i. Same thing as 1 Kings 14-15.

New Testament

G. Romans 1:18-32

i. I recently preached a sermon on Romans 1:18-2:5, in which I discussed this issue. You can listen to this here if you want to: click here 

ii. In the first part of this passage Paul explains that God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven to earth. His wrath is coming against ungodliness, which is idolatry, and the resulting unrighteousness. The “vertical” relationship with God, being broken, produces unrighteous “horizontal” acts. The resulting acts, sinful behaviors, are the symptoms of the real problem, idolatry, the rejection of God in favor of created things.

1. It should be noted that Romans 1:26 is the only place in the Bible where lesbianism is specifically mentioned. Homosexuality was a fairly common practice among men in the Roman Empire of Paul’s day, although it was typically practiced by men married to women. Same sex marriage was virtually unheard of (although Nero had a man or two among his spouses). Some have attempted to argue that what Paul had in mind for immoral homosexuality was coerced same-sex relationships or pedophilia. However, Paul’s specific mention of lesbianism alongside this teaching makes it clear that despite culture Paul is addressing same-sex relationships as contrary to human design.

iii. The three ways Paul says God’s wrath is revealed are giving people over to impurity (1:24), giving people over to degrading passions or sinful predispositions (1:26), and giving people over to depravity (1:28). Let’s look at that middle issue, verse 26.

1. If God gave people over to degrading passions, or sinful predispositions, then we are forced by the text to say that confused sexualities of different sorts (vs. 27) are not the cause of God’s wrath, but a consequence of it. In other words, God is not angry because there are people with confused sexualities; there are people with confused sexualities because God is angry at being rejected and replaced in the heart of mankind with creation.

2. This is enormously significant, because this shows that those who say that homosexuality brings the wrath of God are backwardly mistaken.

3. So God gives people to these proclivities….for this reason, the question of whether or not people are born gay is often irrelevant. Some do choose same-sex relationships from trauma or rebellion, but many do not choose it, but rather hate it. The same way some Christians struggle with kleptomania, or with a pull to pornography or pedophilia, the way some Christians struggle with these things is the same way some Christians struggle with same-sex orientation. So does this mean God is to blame for these persons’ sin? No, because of the last part of verse 27 where Paul says they “received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” God is not to blame. Why? Because a proclivity is not sin; it is a pull, a tendency toward a particular sin. Part of God’s wrath displayed in the world is societal curses (this goes back to disrupted relationships at the fall in Genesis 3) that disrupt human flourishing. The way I understand these things, this simply underscores the absolute necessity of depending on God’s grace to be in alignment with the creation order. We are incapable in every conceivable way of obedience to God. This includes the area of sexuality. Jesus didn’t come to improve our sinful nature, but to kill it and give us His own.

H. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

i. Here Paul gives a list of the kinds of people who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The list here: sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners (NET’s translation), practicing homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunks, verbally abusive and swindlers.

ii. Here Paul is shaming (vs. 5a) the Corinthian believers for submitting to unbelieving people to settle disputes between those in the church. Paul is shaming them because believers are those who were saved from out of the world’s system, so it makes no sense for a believer to submit himself for a ruling to the world’s system, a system that is corrupt. He then goes on to say that those in the world’s system who act immorally are not inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (the administration our decisions should be based on). He then describes some of the immoral practices from the world’s system as examples. He then says “Some of you once lived this way,” but that they have been saved from out of that system, therefore they should not submit themselves to the world’s system for their cues in life.

iii. The overall question of Paul in these chapters is found in 3:3, “Since there is still jealousy and dissension among you, are you not influenced by the flesh and behaving like unregenerate people?” (NET) In other words, “If you’re Christians, why are you acting just like the world?

iv. Bottom line here, homosexuality is not the big issue in this passage. It’s one dysfunction in a list of many that describe people who are not going to heaven. Does that mean anyone who gets drunk, who has a greedy moment, or who commits adultery are going to hell? Paul is describing descriptive characteristic qualities; he is not writing a law.

 I. 1 Timothy 1:8-10.

i. Paul, in verses 4-7, describes people in the church (who need to be silenced and corrected) who want to teach strange doctrines and be teachers of the Law of Moses but don’t understand it. He then says that the Law is good if it’s used lawfully. The law then is not for righteous people, Christians, but shows what is against the character of God. He then gives a list similar to that in 1 Corinthians 6.

ii. The point in this passage is that it is not the Christians’ job to tell the world what they’re doing that’s so wrong, and it’s not the pastor’s job to apply the Law of Moses to believers. That’s the whole point. Pretty simple. Still, we’re not elevating homosexuality to anything any more condemning than anything else.

 J. Jude 7. “So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”

i. This one is tricky. Jude is arguably the most cryptic book of the New Testament. It is difficult to say anything much certainty from this book. However, some things can be said with certainty.

ii. Jude, in verses 5-7, is comparing some false teachers (vs. 4) with three groups, (1) Those Israelites who were saved from Egypt who did not believe and were destroyed by God in the desert, (2) angels who refused to stay within their proper domain so were made to stay chained in darkness (3) and Sodom, compared directly with the angels, who practiced homosexuality.

iii. The main point of Jude seems to be that those who reject Christ will incur eternal judgment. Grace does not eradicate judgment. That seems to be the bigger picture here. Is homosexuality part of the picture? Yes, but pictured in a way that says “These guys strayed from the plan and were judged for it, therefore grace doesn’t mean we get to do whatever we want and still think God is happy with it.”

IV. Homosexuality in Relation to Justification by Faith

There is something troubling below the surface of the sorts of debates going back and forth between those who are hard against homosexuality and those who want to be affirmed in their Christian liberty to openly live a homosexual lifestyle. This “trouble brewing” below the surface is, I think, part of what Paul talks about in the passage cited above from 1 Timothy. “The law is good if it is used lawfully.” What is “unlawful” use of the law? In context, this would be applying it to believers who are not under the law. It is necessary here to explore the relationship between the Law and the New Testament, and the Law and the Gospel.

There are several different ideas about how the Law relates to the New Testament. The most prominent in Christian circles is that championed by John Calvin. Calvin’s idea was that, since the believer is not under the Law—that is, the Law of Moses in Exodus-Deuteronomy—then its laws are not binding on the believer; however, if an Old Testament law is repeated in the New Testament, then it is binding. In this view, the Law is broken up into different categories of laws, such as ceremonial laws, moral laws, food laws, etc. In this view, since we are no longer under the sacrificial system, it is the moral laws that Christians are required to keep.

Despite the popularity of this view, there is no indication in the Bible that the Old Testament’s laws for Israel are categorized in this way, and there is even less of an indication that believers are legally bound to any of the Mosaic legislation. Furthermore, the teaching of Paul regarding the relationship of the believer to the Law is much more distant than Calvin would have us think.

The starting point for understanding Paul’s teaching about the believer’s relationship to the Law is to ask the question “What is the Law?” The clearest answer comes in Romans 2:12-16.

For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous. For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. (NET)

Paul is saying that for Jews the Law is the Law of Moses, the Ten Commandments and the following chapters of legislation derived from the Ten Commandments. For Gentiles, however, the Law is something in their conscience. “The work of the law is written in their hearts.” So if all people have access to the same law, a moral law code evidenced in our conscience, then what is the point of the Jews having the Law of Moses? Paul answers this in the next chapter:

Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (NET)

Even without going further it is evident what Paul is saying. God’s righteous standard may be written on the hearts of all people, but His special revelation is not. General revelation, what God has revealed about Himself to all people through creation—including human nature—functions as the Law does: it makes people guilty, not righteous. God’s special revelation, His announcement of salvation by faith, made in Scripture is what shows people the way to be righteous, through His Son. The Jews were given the Law as special revelation because they were supposed to be a light to the nations, revealing God’s special revelation to those around them.

This raises our focus, when considering “the law” to something higher: the righteousness requirements of God as equally binding on all humankind. So what is the relationship of God’s righteous requirements to the believer? Colossians 2:8-15 is very helpful here:

Be careful not allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. In him you also were circumcised—not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ. Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions. He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

We typically read this and think that a list of our sins was nailed to the cross. However, a closer reading reveals something much bigger going on. Paul does not say that anything from us was nailed to the cross, but something against us was. The word translated “certificate of indebtedness” refers to a certificate written with one’s own hand [2]. The word translated “expressed in decrees” is the word δόγμα, dogma. So the record of indebtedness consists of dogmas, which means “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed,” or “formalized sets of rules, ordinance, decision, command.” [3] The NIV accurately renders this “the written code.” New Testament scholar Richard Mellick gives the following explanation in his commentary:

The best resolution lies in understanding the different aspects of the Mosaic law as Paul addressed them in the New Testament. The word “regulations” (dogmasin) naturally refers to an organized and purposely arranged list of laws—a code. It refers to the law of Moses. [4]

What then is the result of the Law being nailed to the cross of Christ? Nothing less than the absolute pointlessness of a believer attempting to keep the Law. Why is this? Because Paul uses the language of realm transfer to describe the believer’s relationship to law and grace. It is not that because of the cross, there is forgiveness for every sin a believer commits as long as he or she asks for forgiveness. Grace doesn’t just keep one step ahead of sin; it displaces Law altogether. 2000 years ago all of mankind was included in the death of Christ and is freed from the requirements of the law. This is why 2 Corinthians 5:14 says “that [Christ] died for all, therefore all died.” All died with Christ somehow, being included in His death, although not all are included in the resurrection of Christ, so not all are saved. It would seem those who are born again are those whose eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit to understand what happened to them in Christ. Those who reject their Savior go to eternal torment.

So what about the believer and sin? What about the believer and moral commands in the New Testament? Are we saying believers are free to live an openly homosexual lifestyle?

The question about the believer and sin is answered by the question of the believer and the law. Of course, it also comes from our definition of sin. If by “sin” we mean “breaking the law of God,” we have a few verses to observe in Romans:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. (Rom. 7:5)

I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:7b-8)

For sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me. (Rom. 7:11)

…for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. (Rom. 5:13)

Carefully consider these two phrases: “apart from the Law sin is dead,” and “sin is not imputed where there is no law.” So if by “sin” we mean “breaking the law of God,” the believer cannot and does not sin because there is no binding law to break. You cannot break American laws if you have moved your citizenship to Australia and you live there. The believer has been transferred from the realm of law and placed permanently into the realm of grace. “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). This is why Paul can say triumphantly, “Therefore there is now no condemnation (a declaration of guilt) for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:1, 2).

We can also talk about other kinds of “sin,” in a way that simply means activity that falls short of representing the will and character of God. Because we are not slaves to sin, it will not permanently control us. We are spiritually alive, but still have the flesh attached to the sin nature, so we struggle between which side we allow control. The best picture in the Old Testament of this is the story of the Exodus. Israel is redeemed from slavery in Egypt, brought into the desert and made into a nation, given the Law, etc. What is equally significant in the story is what we usually forget: the tabernacle. The majority of the second half of the book is dedicated to instructions about the construction of the tabernacle, the tent where God’s presence would dwell with His people and they could meet and relate to Him there. So you could say that the first half of Exodus is God getting Israel out of slavery, and the second half of Exodus is God getting slavery out of Israel, and He accomplishes this with His abiding presence with His people.

A believer today is legally freed from sin-guilt, having been removed from the realm of law. A believer is experientially freed from the presence of sin in His life by the abiding presence of God in the Holy Spirit. A believer will experience freedom of sin to the extent of his total legal freedom from sin to the degree that he lives in moment-by-moment dying to self and walking in the Spirit. This is why Paul said “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” In no way does Paul ever say we are to rely on our willpower to avoid sin in our life, but to intentionally plug-in to the Holy Spirit in total reliance and Christ will animate our lives in growing righteousness.

Now, let us return to the issue at hand. What does any of this have to do with homosexuality? Better yet, let’s reverse the question: What does homosexuality have to do with the gospel? There are two truths we must hold in balance: (1) Every sin was paid for at the cross 2000 years ago, therefore sin in a person’s life is no stumbling block to their eternity which is secured by Christ on the cross and the Holy Spirit quickening them, and (2) Grace is not a license to live out of accordance with God’s intention for His world expressed in the creation order.

There are many who hold a view that says God would want us to do whatever makes us happy, and if we can only be at peace with who are by living out same-sex orientation, then that is actually the godly thing to do. The problem here comes when a person reading the Bible takes terms (such as love, happiness, compassion) out, redefines them and then absolutizes them so as to overshadow biblical evidence, saying, in effect, “Well, it can’t mean THAT.” The other problem lies in elevating happiness (as defined by the individual) above how Scripture defines happiness, and then absolutizing that as justification for leveraging personal happiness over and above Biblical happiness, which is glorifying God by being happy in Christ.

So where does that leave the Christian struggling with same-sex attraction? It has been shown over and over again that telling a homosexual that they can be “cured” is psychologically damaging. If the biblical exegesis presented in this paper is accurate, it is understandable why; God gave people to sinful predispositions. It does not seem biblically legitimate to tell a gay person they need to be cured; they need Jesus. An unsaved person especially who is a homosexual does not need to be told he is wrong because he is gay, but that he needs Jesus. A Christian who is homosexual in orientation is not sinful because of the orientation, but when acting on those inclinations. The biblically and practically responsible thing to do with a homosexual Christian is to encourage celibacy to the glory of God. The compassion of Christ comes in when we embrace a person as a fellow believer who struggles with something bigger than he or she can handle and love them like we would love any other believer. Living an openly homosexual lifestyle is a different story, and that would be warrant for the exercise of loving church discipline to restore to fellowship.

There are two points I will leave us with that I see as central to understanding this issue as believers.

(1) Being homosexual does not condemn a person to hell any more than being heterosexual sends a person to heaven. A heterosexual sexual sin is no more or less damning than a homosexual sexual sin. When dealing with these issues, remember that the one sin that sends people to hell is the self-righteous sin of rejecting the Savior. Thus a proclivity to homosexuality is no more or less condemning than a proclivity to any other sin.

(2) Marriage is a pre-political institution, which means it existed prior to legislation, therefore, government does not have the right to define or redefine it. God created marriage as a picture of Himself to leave a certain imprint of the divine on our society, ultimately leading people and praise back to Him. God did not create this thing called Sex and then put a fence called Marriage around it to keep gays and singles out; on the contrary, God created marriage and put a fence of sex around it to protect it. Every part of a biblical sexual ethic must come from a proper understanding of marriage.

---

Response to Scott Lively’s Brochure “Not Just Another Sin: A Biblical Answer to the Question of Homosexuality and the Rise of ‘Gay Theology’ in Today’s Church.”

Summary: Upon a review of the Scriptures and other references used in this brochure, and the claims Lively makes from these references, it seems this brochure was produced with surprising shallowness, filled with clear instances of eisogesis (importing meanings into texts, as opposed to exegesis, which refers to drawing out the meaning that is there) and fallacious reasoning. The following are a few findings:

1. Lively briefly explores Genesis 6-9, a point in time at which mankind reached its lowest point of depravity, God’s justification for the flood of Noah’s time. Lively cites the ancient Jewish Talmud (rabbinic teachings and interpretations, commentary, etc) to interpret some very unclear Bible verses as referring specifically to homosexuality and bestiality. The text he is referring to is the ancient rabbinic interpretation of a Rabbi Judan, quoted in the Talmud. His interpretation of Genesis 6:2 is as follows:

When a bride was made beautiful for her husband, the chief [of these nobles] entered and enjoyed her first. Hence, it is written, For they were fair, which refers to virgins; And they took them wives, refers to married women. Whomsoever they chose: that means males and beasts. [5]

This is the homosexuality and bestiality Lively is referring to. I’m not so sure anyone should take this sort of interpretation seriously. There is no textual basis for this interpretation and should not be taken seriously, especially considering that this is a claim from Jewish rabbinic writings, not from the Bible. It is worth noting that Talmudic interpretation also claims that Adam was “created a hermaphrodite (bi-sexual),” and that Ham was cursed by becoming a black man.

2. Following the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol of His promise to never flood the earth again. Lively makes an irrelevant point that the gay pride movement uses a rainbow flag (although many countries know it simply as the Peace Flag with no homosexual reference). However, if you research this flag you will find that its designer, Gilbert Baker, took his inspiration from the Flag of Races, which was basically rainbow-colored with different colors representing different ethnicities. A connection with the flood rainbow is basically empty speculation.

3. Taking the Talmudic reference as an assumed premise, Lively then claims that Noah’s son Ham, “corrupted by the pre-flood homosexual culture…passes it to his son Canaan, who sexually molests his grandfather.” By taking a passage from extra-biblical literature and importing it as fact into this passage, Lively doesn’t let the text speak for itself. The text itself gives no indication that Noah was sexually molested by Canaan. It could just as easily mean—as most Bible commentators take it to mean—that Canaan made fun of his father to his brothers. [6] Space does not allow a full explanation, but K.A. Matthews gives a very thorough treatment of this issue in his commentary on Genesis in the New American Commentary series, referenced below.

4. Lively’s next move is saying that Canaan and his descendents “brazenly colonize the Holy Land and introduce ritual demon worship involving child-sacrifice and sexual perversion. He gets this information from Genesis 10:19-20, which reads as follows:

Later the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. (Gen. 10:18a-20)

Lively’s whole interpretation of this still rests squarely on the shoulders of Rabbi Judan’s interpretation of Genesis 6:2 in the Talmud. There is no indication in the biblical text to back his claim.

5. Lively cites the incident of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction in Genesis 19. Sufficient comments on this were made above. The above-cited text in Ezekiel 16 is mentioned nowhere in Lively’s brochure.

6. Leviticus 18. Again, Lively is basing his whole interpretation on the Talmud of Genesis 6:2, assuming homosexuality is the big red flag sin of Canaan. Closer reading of Leviticus 18, as written in section III.B, suggests marriage, and the picture of God that marriage produces, as a light to the surrounding nations is what is being promoted. When God is forbidding certain things that non-believers do, and says “But you, do this instead,” what should our focus be on? The labeling of the sin as especially horrendous, or the glorification of God through seeing the big picture. He is a God who covenants love with people, accepting them and loving them and providing for them…marriage provides a picture of that. The Canaanites lived contrary to this way, therefore Israel was not to indulge in the ways of Canaan. As suggested earlier, Moses labeled every sin in that chapter as an abomination, so we still do not have biblical warrant for elevating homosexuality above anything else.

7. Lively gives reference to 1 Kings 14:5-13 as evidence that God took the kingdom from Solomon and split it in two because of the pagan religious rituals Solomon introduced in Israel, “including homosexuality.” Homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in this text. Some of the pagan religious rituals practiced among surrounding nations at that time included cult prostitutes, both male and female. This is what Lively is referring to. Having said that, is it worse to promote homosexuality or is it worse to promote the worship of other gods besides Yahweh? Likewise, is it worse to promote homosexual cult prostitution than heterosexual cult prostitution?

Lively also assumes it was Canaanite practices introduced by Solomon (still clinging to the Talmud), but in 1 Kings 11:1-6 the picture is quite different. The word Canaan depicts a large geographic area consisting of many city states within that region, with varying, although often similar, religious practices. There was also Canaan proper, a people called Canaanites, but in the Bible the region of Canaan included many others. What 1 Kings 11:1-6 tells us is that Solomon’s many foreign wives turned his heart towards their gods, and he established altars for the worship of “Ashtoreth the god of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.” Worshiping Molech involved a statue of the god with open hands over a fire. Once the fire made Molech’s hands glowing hot the people would sacrifice babies to it, burning them alive. Is homosexuality, which is not mentioned, worse than burning infants alive? And why necessarily find reference to homosexuality when worship of Ashtoreth and Molech are the ones specifically mentioned? Did the author intend for the reader to see homosexuality in this passage?

8. Lively cites Daniel 11:21-39 as mentioning the purposeful corruption of people by introducing homosexual practices. I see nothing in this text that has anything to do with homosexuality. For further evidence, he points to the intertestamental apocryphal book 1 Maccabees, but the reference there is equally uncertain of having anything to do with homosexuality.

End of Review

Notes and References:

1. Two ideas produce this. (1) Most theological positions are reactions to other positions, which produces a large amount of room for error, so we must avoid overstating our case in either direction, and (2) many Christians have an emotional aversion to homosexuality, and this also produces a large amount of room for error if emotional aversion is the starting basis for inquiry. 
2. William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1083.
3. same as #2, pg. 254
   4. Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 263.
4. https://archive.org/stream/RabbaGenesis/midrashrabbahgen027557mbp_djvu.txt
5. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 418–420.

Homosexuality in the Bible and Response to Scott Lively