Things God Did Not Say

I recently published an article titled, “The Bible on Homosexuality.” My reason for writing was to clarify for myself (and my readers) what the Bible says on this controversial subject. One reason I enjoy writing is because it forces me to gather my thoughts in an orderly way. The reason I wanted to do this with the topic of homosexuality is because a friend and former pastor has challenged my position since he has fallen under the influence of the LGBTQ+ teaching that approves of intimate same gender relationships. I wanted to clarify for myself the core biblical principles that are the foundation of my belief. When my friend read my post, he accused me of committing the logical fallacy of assuming my conclusion. This means he believes my opinion that God prohibits homosexual behavior colors my interpretation of the Bible passages that treat the subject.

My friend’s accusation is ironic because it is exactly what I accuse the LGBTQ+ interpreters of doing. Simply put, they claim that God never prohibited loving, monogamous, covenantal relationships between two people of the same gender. Then they overlay this opinion on the few Bible passages on the subject and interpret them in their own unique way. For example, they say that the verses in Leviticus 18 and 19 which say a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman are in the same passage as the prohibition of adultery. Therefore, since the context of the passage is about adultery, only married men are prohibited from lying with men. The passage says nothing about single men lying with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. So they say.

The LGBTQ+ view of Paul’s condemnation in of men lying with men Romans chapter one takes a similar turn. They take Paul to mean that God’s wrath is revealed against ungodliness (v. 18), and He condemns ungodly men for lying with men. They say that Paul says nothing about godly men lying with men, so that situation is neither approved nor disapproved. God did not openly state that godly men could not lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. Hmm.

These defenders of men lying with men hear Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians concerning pedophilia to be aimed at men who force themselves on children. They say what God disapproves of is anyone using a position of power over another to take advantage of them. God says nothing about children who consent to lying with older men. The LGBTQ+ interpreters make a similar claim about the men of Sodom raping Lot’s guests. They say it was not homosexual behavior that God condemned in Sodom; it was the gang rape committed by heterosexual men against other men. They claim that nothing specific is said against Sodomites who willingly practiced same gender intimacy. Really.

I could almost accept these different interpretations as examples of debates over disputable issues. Almost. However, when I consider the larger implications of their position, I have real trouble believing it is a dispute over a gray area of Scripture. For example, if the passage in Leviticus is primarily about adultery which then controls the rest of the prohibitions, that means an unmarried man could lie with an animal. The same goes for incest which is mentioned in the same passage. A brother could lie with his sister as long as neither is married. I don’t think so.

The same trouble arises with the LBGTQ+ interpretation of Paul. God said nothing about godly men lying with other men; God said nothing about willing children lying with older men. They maintain that because these situations are not mentioned, we must assume they are neither approved nor disapproved. If they are not disapproved, they must be acceptable to God under certain conditions. This is how my friend comes up with his opinion that men are allowed to lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. This is the logical result of saying that if God didn’t specifically prohibit something, it implies tacit approval. That is nonsense.

For one thing, that position stretches credibility to the breaking point. Are we really expected to believe God approves of incest or beastiality in some situations? Are we really expected to believe pedophilia is alright if the child consents? It is true that some issues are not explicitly covered by the Scripture. When we encounter one of those issues, we must use our knowledge of the broader scope of God’s Word to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Christian tradition has always interpreted Leviticus and Paul to mean that God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. As Hodge says, “We are governed by this tradition of truth running through the whole sacred volume. All is consistent. One part cannot contradict another. Each part must be interpreted so as to bring it into harmony with the whole. This is only saying that Scripture must explain Scripture.”^[1]

I am going to repeat what I wrote previously. “While it is true that first century culture was very different from ours, I believe the reason both Old and New Testament passages express God’s disgust with homosexual behavior is not simply cultural; I believe that all sexual perversion tears at the fabric of God’s intention for sexual intimacy…. God created male and female humans in His image and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. That alone eliminates the possibility that same sex relations would fulfill God’s intention. Beyond that, God established the bond of marriage between man and woman as a ‘one flesh’ union.” Paul uses this to explain why sexual sin is in a different category from all others.

We are on shaky ground when we build a theology on what God did not say. If we believe that God’s Word is eternally true, no amount of cultural difference will alter the basic truth it teaches. My friend likes to point out that Christian tradition has been proven wrong on several occasions throughout history. The Crusades represent a centuries-long misinterpretation. The supporters of slavery claimed biblical foundation for their error. Yet when these views were corrected, it was by a large majority of the church which brought unity through its general acceptance. Today’s argument in favor of homosexual behavior is being put forth by a tiny minority, and it is causing broken fellowship wherever it is accepted.

As I wrote years ago in “The Uncomfortable Subject,” the church has a poor track record dealing with sexual sin. We sit alongside gluttons and gossips and scofflaws with little thought for their sins. Yet we recoil at the mention of reaching out to homosexuals with the gospel; perish the thought that we might invite them to join us in the pew. I do not agree with my friend that we must reinterpret the Bible on this sensitive topic. I do agree that the church must find ways to embrace all sinners while not denying God’s judgment of their sin. God does say we should do that.

Related Posts: The Uncomfortable Subject; The Importance of Being Right; Disagree Agreeably

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 113.