Veni Quid Veniat

     It is sometimes puzzling which topics become controversial among Christians. In some areas, it is easy to see how two earnest Christians could disagree, with both sincerely believing their position to be the Biblically correct. Such disagreements are possible even on relatively major areas of doctrine and practice, although not in matters required for salvation. Other areas, however, are less ambiguous, and some are so clear it is mind-boggling that any earnest Christian could be confused. Nevertheless, debate sometimes arises on such points, and it is worth addressing the conversation, if for nothing less than as an intellectual exercise in advancing logically in the face of unadulterated nonsense.
     Particularly at issue today is the assertion that "true" Christians do not call homosexual behavior sin. This view has been put forward from a variety of sources, but most recently by Wilson Cruz, head of GLAAD, in response to comments from 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson's that homosexual behavior was sin. Cruz's response is the most recent and notable example, but it is hardly isolated. Homosexual groups seem particularly concerned with establishing that homosexual behavior and Christianity are compatible. Their efforts impart a certain amount of irony to the situation, however: God took special care to establish that they are positively not compatible. There are gray areas in Christianity, but this is not one of them.

     We'll start in the Old Testament. Many would like to simply disregard every teaching of the Old Testament, but here they are in error. The same God gave both the Old and New Testaments - times may have changed, and applications may have changed, but God's principles are unchanging. The challenge is to discern the universal principle and separate it from the specific application. In many cases, this is difficult. Fortunately, that is not the case here. The Old Testament verses which address the matter make it quite clear that they are establishing a universal principles. The first can be found in Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination.

And again, in Leviticus 20:13, where God establishes the civil penalty for such behavior for the nation of Israel:

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.

To be perfectly honest, we could probably stop there. The Author is using "lie with" as a euphemism for sexual relations, and doesn't just forbid them, He calls them an abomination. Few behaviors in the Bible are met with  such strong condemnation - murder, for example, while straightly forbidden, isn't even called an abomination. Those who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior really have little to say in response to this verse. The most common response is to point out that the Old Testament also prohibits many other things, which we now do. This is true, but not particularly relevant. When God forbade, for example, eating pork, it was clear that He did so not because of something about eating pork (although it was probably wiser to refrain from pork, given the state of sanitation at the time), but in order to make His people separate. He made no statement about the intrinsic nature of eating pork. In contrast, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 make a very strong statement about the intrinsic nature of homosexual behavior. If we set aside the specific applications of the law, as the New Testament implies, but retain the principles, we are still left with the universal principle that homosexual behavior is an abomination.
     If the reader remains unconvinced that the Mosaic Law reveals unchanging principles, he need only look at the topic of the next verse. Theoretical discussions about the divide between specific applications and unchanging principles aside, we are left with the very practical consideration that the Mosaic Law is the only part of the Bible that says anything about bestiality. If we are to pretend the Mosaic Law reveals nothing about what is right or wrong, we must allow that bestiality is perfectly acceptable. This example shows quite effectively that God is revealing more than instructions for the historical nation of Israel, He is revealing unchanging truths. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

     Lengthy as that was, we've only just started. Clear as the Old Testament is, the New Testament is even clearer. Romans 1:26-27, for example, is quite direct:

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.

We could also stop there (but as you might have guessed by now, we won't). This passage also includes women, lest the previous passage was unclear on that point. Beyond that, however, it states that homosexuality is a punishment from God for "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18). Because they ignored the truth of God that is evident within them, God gave them over to "degrading passions" (v. 26).
     Now, those who claim that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible do have a response to this. The passage, they claim, refers to those with heterosexual urges who suppress those to engage in homosexuality. The real message of the passage is thus that we should not deny our own nature. This, although perhaps appealing to those who would like to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, is not particularly cogent. It's primary flaw lies in the fact that it is completely without support from the text. It isn't just that the support is disputable, it isn't there. Nothing in the text suggests that the people he's talking about are heterosexual - read in context, he's talking about those who do not believe, and nothing narrows that scope. Indeed, they engage in homosexuality because they give themselves over to the lusts of their own hearts and their own degrading passions - one hardly sees a contradiction between their desires and their actions here. The passage incontrovertibly states that, because those who do not believe have denied what was evident, God has given them over to utter depravity, no longer protecting them from their own base urges.

     We have, so far, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that God allows it as a punishment. It doesn't stop there, though. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 we find a condemnation of homosexual behavior almost as clear as the previous two mentioned.

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers [which is also translated "slave traders"] and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

 Here we see that homosexual behavior is included in a list of things which are "contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." While the passage seems quite clear, some have attempted to challenge the translation. Arsenokoitai, the word translated "homosexual," is ambiguous, according to these people, but certainly shouldn't be translated "homosexual" - perhaps "exploitative pedophiles" or "male prostitutes" would be more in order. In general, it is dangerous to claim that every translator made a mistake. At first blush, it smacks of arrogance and ignorance and necessarily posits a far-reaching conspiracy, incredible idiocy, or a remarkable coincidence, but to avoid any ambiguity the claim should be examined.
     The heart of the argument is that Paul coined the word arsenokoitai himself, and thus its meaning is unclear. While it is debatable how convincing this line of argument would be - arsenokoitai is simply a combination of arseno, the word for "man" used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Paul would have been using, and koitai, the word for "lie with" used in the Septuagint - it isn't even true. According to Moulton and Milligan (1997), the word was first used by poets during the Imperial Period (the period of Roman civilization following the demise of the Roman Republic). Paul didn't invent the word himself, but on top of that, its meaning is quite clear: it was used by Greek authors to refer to all homosexual behavior (Kirk 1978). Liberal scholars contend that Greek doesn't include a word for homosexuality; however, it does, and Paul used it. Further, even those liberal scholars admit that Greek does contain words for the other activities described - had Paul intended one of those, he could simply have used one of those words. There is no doubt that this passage is referring to homosexuals, and that it makes clear that homosexual behavior is sin.

     We've looked at three passages, and we've seen that homosexuality is an abomination, a punishment from God, and a violation of the Gospel on par with murder and slave trading. We aren't done yet, though. Perhaps the most well-known passage condemning homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Once again, homosexual behavior is included among a list of sinful behaviors which mark those who are not Christians. Here, two words are used to refer to homosexuality: malakos, translated "effeminate," and the now familiar arsenokoitai, translated "homosexuals." Like arsenokoitai, malakos is used to refer to all homosexual behavior in Greek literature (although in this case the two words appear to be used to reference two different possible roles in homosexual behavior). Obviously, like the passage in 1 Timothy, the passage is referring to homosexuality. Not only is homosexual behavior sin, it is sin which will never mark the life of a believer.

     One could go on. Verses from Jude and Judges appear to condemn homosexual behavior, and Jesus made it clear that marriage was to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, while the rest of the Bible establishes that intercourse is to be reserved for married couples. It would be unnecessary to go on, though. We've already seen five passages condemning homosexuality (for reference, the Bible contains six passages directly condemning murder). God is neither silent nor ambiguous when it comes to homosexual behavior. The Bible leaves no doubt that homosexual behavior is not just sin, but particularly heinous sin. Those who would reconcile the Bible with homosexual behavior have set out to do the impossible. One can choose homosexuality or Christianity, but not both.
     We should not have been surprised by efforts to claim that homosexuality is not sin. Recall that 1 Corinthians 6:9 warns us not to be deceived. God is omniscient; He knows precisely which phrases He needed to include and which He did not. What can we conclude but that an effort will be made to deceive us? It is our duty, then, to hold particularly close to the truth on the topic. We've been told what's coming, and we've been told where to hold the line. Do not be deceived.





Kirk, J. (1978). The homosexual crisis in the mainline church. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.