Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 1

A few weeks back, I preached a sermon, titled, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?” The answer is, “Yes,” and we will examine that point later. A response appeared on Youtube, which I was only made aware of recently (since I’m unfamiliar with those matters). He (presumably a male) did not give a name, which is fine, but in this response he shall be designated as DS.

One further bit of information before beginning the response involves me personally. I have never had a same-sex attraction and therefore do not understand it. Therefore, I cannot personally sympathize with this tendency any more than being addicted to alcohol or drugs. Many others probably fit into this same camp; however, we all struggle with sin, and we all know the problem of overcoming sin in our lives, whatever it might be. Therefore, we can be sympathetic to someone else’s illicit attraction—even if we do not share that particular one. Furthermore, God created us and knows us thoroughly, and if He classifies something as wrong, then that settles the matter. He declares Truth, and we must conform our actions to it.

DS was not at all belligerent, but he disagreed on some matters, which we will now look at. He says he agrees that fornication (involving the same sex or the opposite sex) is wrong. But he surely knows that male homosexuals have numerous partners. Is he willing to condemn all of them? Just wondering. He said there was “no question” about such fornication being wrong.
But his main thesis is:

I disagree that the discussion [of, GWS] homosexuality as a consensual act is at all settled by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as that was a hostile gang rape.

This is not a new argument. Basically, the premise is that the Bible does not condemn a consensual homosexual relationship—only something as aggressive as the behavior of the men of Sodom. However, what they attempted to do on the occasion of the arrival of the two angels (who had the appearance of men), was not the reason Sodom was destroyed. In my sermon I quoted Genesis 18:20, which states that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great,” and that “their sin is very grave.” (Major translations use either “grave” or “grievous.”)

Is God’s description only pertaining to forcing others to be involved, or was it that the men constantly engaged in such behavior consensually—or both? DS cannot answer that. The best he could do is allege that the men of Sodom sinned in practicing fornication or adultery (against their wives). However, in my sermon, I never said this incident settled the issue. It is
only one passage of many that deal with the topic. We will get to more shortly.

At this point, DS includes a number of questions that have no relevance. No one thinks that Lot was right in offering his daughters to the mob. DS asks questions that no one can answer or needs to answer before resuming his theme that this case is too extreme to draw conclusions against the practice of homosexuality. Admittedly, it is an extreme example, but how did the men of Sodom get to be the way they are when we meet them in the Scriptures? Both old and young men desired to participate in the proposed sin (Gen. 19:4-5). Obviously, there were women in the city, not to mention families. We don’t have a specific answer to that question, but experience tells us that the full perversion of the city probably was a gradual process. The problem does not just surface with a rude greeting to strangers; it began with consensual relationships with familiar friends.

Fornication

In the sermon DS is responding to, below is what I presented about fornication.

Jesus’ Teaching Against Homosexuality

Matt 15:18-20. Things that man devise in the heart defile him. Among those things is “fornications,” from the Greek word porneia, from which we get pornography. Fornication is not a word generally in our vocabulary any more, but it is so serious a sin that it is the only reason for a divorce (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). If a mate is not put away for fornication, and that person remarries, both that person and the new spouse live in adultery.

But what is fornication? Thayer: “properly used of illicit sexual intercourse in general.”

Kittel (Vol. VI:587) under Later Judaism, which includes the NT era: “Porneia can also be ‘unnatural vice,’ … e.g., sodomy.”

VI:590 (“The New Testament”): “The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse.”

Some might respond by saying: “But aren’t there some specific words that Jesus could have used?” Yes, but is there something wrong with using a broad, general term? That way, one does not need to list six or seven sexual sins for
a divorce— just one that covers everything.

DS did not deal with any of the definitions except to say that homosexual fornication is wrong. He missed the point. The definition of fornication includes homosexuality, period. Perhaps he missed “unnatural intercourse,” but it is clearly part of the definition.

Jude 7

In the sermon, I imagined another response to the definition of fornication including “homosexuality.” Some brethren might say: “But I can’t carry a bunch of Greek lexicons around with me. How can I prove that fornication includes homosexuality?” The answer to that is Jude 7. Consider these comments:

Notice that it refers to Sodom and Gomorrah who were destroyed because of what? Homosexuality. And what does it call their sin? Porneia. The verb form is ekporneuo, meaning “having given themselves over to fornication.” They went after strange flesh—it was strange for men. God punished Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, which he rained down from heaven upon them. And this is the example—to indicate that God will punish those who commit this sin with eternal fire. These words were written by Jude, the brother of Jesus.

The main consideration is that homosexuality is included in the definition of the word used in Jude 7. The Lord’s brother is not discussing the degree of the sin (whether it is rape or nor) but the nature of the sin—that it is men with men instead of women. However, DS draws a faulty conclusion. He says that the reference in Jude to “strange flesh” was not to “human men but angels in male form.” He does not inform us as to the way he deduced that allegation.

How did the men of Sodom know they were angels in human form? Was it something about their hair, the clothes they wore, the way they walked (two feet off the ground, perhaps)? They asked, “Where are the men?”—not, “Where are the angels?” (Gen. 19:5). Even Lot referred to them as men (v. 8). Absolutely nothing in the text indicates that the men of Sodom thought they would have sex with angels. Wouldn’t they have better sense than to think that, angels being of a higher order than men (and thus more powerful)?

At any rate, Romans 1 harmonizes with both Genesis 19 and Jude 7. This was referenced in the sermon and part of it was quoted later, but DS did not deal with these verses. Paul speaks of people (male and female) dishonoring their bodies in Romans 1:24 because God gave them up to “uncleanness.” He further explains that they exchanged the Truth of God for the
lie. Now watch carefully:

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 (Rom. 1:26-27).

Notice that this text discusses the nature of the sin and mentions nothing of excessive force. These words apply to no excessive situation (such as Sodom) but refer only to the concept itself. It is vile and against nature—something that everyone can comprehend. When women are with women and men are with men, it is against nature (even if consensual). Human beings did not come up with these descriptions; God the Creator did. Jude 7 agrees with the definition of “against nature” by saying homosexuality is going after strange flesh. It is indeed strange for a man to seek another man or a woman another woman.

The Purpose of Jude

DS makes some bizarre statements about the Book of Jude. He says Jude was not warning about false converts. He was warning about false ministers. Then he quotes Jude 4. DS is exactly right in saying that Jude is warning against false teachers, but the purpose for warning against them is so that brethren will not be persuaded to be immoral.

For that reason Jude selected three examples where followers of God fell away when they should not have been influenced by Satan. The first refers to those who left Egypt (v. 5). Though they were saved from Egypt, many were afterward destroyed because they did not have faith (even though they had seen God in action) and they disobeyed Him. The second example (v. 6) shows that even angels in Heaven sinned when they followed Satan. The third example (v. 7) is Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham had rescued them from being captured, but they continued in the sin of homosexuality any way. Satan and his band of false teachers led people away from the truth. Quoting Jude 4 is appropriate and accurate, but it does not help DS with his thesis. He adds:

A much more accurate use of Jude would be as a warning to those who are ignoring and even condoning the fornication of the church as fully covered by grace while hating gays outside of it rather than as an exclamation point that homosexuality is sin.

It is not a matter of either/or; it is a matter of both. Assuming that the fornication of the church refers to those in the church committing fornication, we could not agree more. To conclude that fornication and adultery are all right while homosexuality is sinful plainly contradicts the Scriptures. Jude does condemn “sensual” and “ungodly” persons (15, 18-19). If churches are condoning one sin while condemning another, they do not have the Spirit of Christ; they are clearly in error.

The same grace of God that covers adultery covers homosexuality—when a guilty person repents of the sin. If an exclamation point follows Jude 7, however, the reason is that God put it there. As for hatred, Christians are to love all men and bring them to the gospel. We do not hate anyone. We may hate what sin does to people or how it affects society, but we do not hate individuals who sin, or we would hate all mankind, including ourselves. God is very gracious to those who give up sin.

The post Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 1 appeared first on South Seminole Church Of Christ.

View Full Content Source:
http://cocwp.org/?p=6194