Refuting Gay Scripture Twisting 1

Title: Refuting Gay Scripture Twisting 1
Text: Thessalonians 5:21, Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 2:18, 20-24, Matthew 19:4-6
Time: February 17th, 2015

For two nearly thousand years the question of homosexuality has been a settled issue within Christianity; add another thousand years on to that if you include Judaism. So for at least three thousand years of biblical tradition, homosexuality has always been seen as a sin, in fact, an abomination or really bad sin, for the faithful. This position is based on the clear and plain reading of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. But recently, in the last few decades, there have arisen voices within the Christian community that challenge the biblical understanding of homosexuality. They claim the Bible really doesn’t talk about homosexuality per se, or if it does, it doesn’t present the blanket condemnation that we’ve always thought it did. So in an effort to reinterpret or revise the Bible’s teaching on the sinfulfulness of homosexuality, these new voices within Christianity have gone through each verse that speaks about homosexuality and gives a new spin. But here’s the problem – the reinterpretation of the Bible on this issue fails miserably; it just doesn’t work. In every instance that revisers try to put a new spin on the old sin of homosexuality in the Bible they fail, they fall flat on their faces. Why? Because the Bible is so obviously clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality that only a stubborn insistence that the Bible must ok gay sex motivates these people. For example, there’s the case of a so-called Christian scholar who for years and years advanced the traditional and straightforward interpretation of the Bible on the sinfulness of homosexuality, then, after his own son came out as gay, suddenly finds himself changing positions and advocating a “gay” reading of the Bible in favor of same sex relationships. Now why didn’t this so-called scholar read the Bible that way before his son announced himself to be gay? It’s obvious that this scholar is letting personal considerations interfere with his academic work. He’s plainly letting his emotions and feelings for his son obscure his scholarship. And this kind of thing is happening all the time within Christianity, as more and more people are basing these new interpretations on feelings and emotions rather than faith and reason. As Christians we must return to the Bible and let God speak from himself on this and every other topic. We are told in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” We must test all things by the Word of God, not feelings, not emotions, not popular opinion or any other thing. So let’s now turn to God’s Word and test all the so-called “gay” reinterpretations of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality. Let’s examine Genesis 1 and 2.

First, God created male and female. Genesis 1:27-28, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. . . .” Here is God’s pattern and design for male and female, both made in the image of God. They were created by God to be fruitful and multiply or reproduce. That isn’t all that they were created to do, but it’s an important part of their original created purpose by God. Christians often repeat the phrase, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” to communicate that God made men and women heterosexual not homosexual. Gay activists make fun of this saying because they say it doesn’t apply to homosexuality per se, or in other words, it’s beside the point. Activists acknowledge that Adam was male and Eve was female, but that, they claim, doesn’t mean other relationships aren’t possible. Correct, the fact that God made Adam and Eve doesn’t rule out same sex friendships but it does establish the created order or ideal for marriage. There is nothing in creation that even hints that male on male or female on female sexual relationships are legitimate – and plenty of direct and indirect information that shows that they would be out of order. For example, God charges Adam the male and Eve the female to “be fruitful and multiply,” something that same sex couples can’t do. Now gay activists counter by saying that not even all heterosexual couples can have children; there are plenty of normal couples who can’t have kids. Yes, true, but that’s due to something wrong, some problem in either the male or female or both that prevents children. If whatever is wrong or out of place is corrected, then, it’s possible for the infertile couple to have children. But with gay couples, it’s not even possible in principle for them to have children. Why? Because their bodies were not made to reproduce male with male or female with female. God didn’t create two women or two men to reproduce. It’s unnatural to think of two men or two women bearing children; it goes against the created order of things, God’s created order. We have both the natural order of things and the divine revelation of the Bible to point to in defending the traditional interpretation of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality. Marriage is the binary relationship of male and female. There is no mention, no hint, no room for any other definition of marriage in the Bible. Any gay spin or reinterpretation of the Bible must be made from silence – and that’s always a shaky foundation to stand on. But there’s more.

Second, God created man and woman to compliment each other. Genesis 2:18, 20-24, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now none of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Here again is the pattern of God’s created order for men and women. The body of the man is fitted for the body of a woman, and vice versa. There is also complimentarity of mind and spirit as well – something not possible in homosexual same sex relationships. Yet gay activists try to argue from this passage for gay marriage, oddly enough. They claim that when it says when God creates a “suitable helper” for them with same sex attractions, this would require God creating another male for a man, or another female for a woman in order to be completely suitable. In other words, if a person has the disorder of same sex attraction, then God is obligated to created for them a complimentary disorder to fulfill their disordered state. This is a perfect example of twisting or distorting or disordering the Bible. One must start with the disorder of homosexuality, absolutize it, and then reinterpret the Bible to conform to this disorder, rather than starting with the Bible and interpreting reality accordingly. The gay activist’s hermeneutic or interpretive principle is to start with self and read into the Bible one’s self, instead of starting first with God’s Word and allowing it to interpret itself. Clearly, when God’s Word states that no suitable helper was found for Adam, and then God creates a suitable helper in Eve, the definition of “suitable” is established. For a man, a suitable helper is a woman; for a woman, a suitable helper is a man. There simply is no middle ground. There is no room for other forms of sexuality. Why not, if we allow the gay activist’s revision, bisexuality? A suitable helper for a so-called bi-sexual person might be both another man and another women; a three person marriage? Anything other than the original created order described in Genesis becomes an absurdity.

Third, Jesus Christ reaffirmed the original male and female created order of marriage. Matthew 19:4-6, “’Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” For Christians, we not only read the Old Testament, but we read the New Testament also. In fact, the New trumps the Old as a rule. Here we see Jesus the Christ, the Lord, the Savior, going back to the Old Testament teaching in Genesis and reaffirming the original created order of male and female. If there were any good time for Jesus to make allowance for so-called same sex relationships here was that time; but there is no allowance, not even the hint of it. He reaffirms the original pattern of heterosexual marriage. He notes that a man or male will leave one heterosexual family situation (and enter into another heterosexual living arrangement or marriage. There’s no hint that at some future point it might be legitimate for a man to leave his two mothers or two fathers in some kind of same sex so-called marriage. Or there is no hint that Jesus would approve of the man leaving his parents and joining together with another man in a so-called gay marriage arrangement. But that’s how we’d have to understand Jesus if we allow for some kind of “gay” interpretation of the Bible. No. The Bible is very clear on the subject of marriage, and it doesn’t allow any kind of deviation from the standard and basic male to female relationship. Certainly there were homosexuals back in ancient times, especially during the time of the Roman occupation of the Holy Land. Jesus would have known about the permissive Greco-Roman world that allowed for same sex relationships between men and men or women and women. He could have opened the door for such relationships if he had wanted to, since he wasn’t afraid to speak contrary to established teachings when he felt compelled to do so. But there is no hint that he did in respect to alternative marriages. No, Jesus affirmed and taught the traditional marriage vision outlined in Genesis 1 and 2 from the verses we just outlined. This is the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the Bible on the subject of marriage and there is no compelling reason to alter it. Only by bringing in an outside and external agenda to the Bible can we somehow twist the original meaning of the scripture passages to include same sex relationships. But this shouldn’t be done or permitted.

Now usually gay activists won’t even bother messing around with the Bible to defend or justify same sex marriage. Most activists rightly see it as a lost cause for homosexuality. But some gay activists don’t want to reject the Bible outright; they want it both ways. They want to hang on to biblical Christianity and they want to justify homosexuality. There’s Matthew Vines, a young gay activists who wants to be gay, wants to promote same sex marriage and wants to do so within the Christian church. He refuses to “write off” the Bible, but instead he wants to “re-write” the Bible to include homosexuality as acceptable. In fact, he’s started the absurdly named “Reformation Project” to convert Christians to accept same sex marriage. He wants all churches to eventually perform gay marriages, and so he’s promoting the reinterpretation and revision of the Bible to leave room for homosexuality. As we’ve already shown in just a few verses, this project is futile simply because the Bible doesn’t leave room for “gay” interpretations even when they are done by sophisticated scholars or whether they are done by popular activists like Vines. God created, in the beginning, male and female; that’s a fact. He created two sexes for marriage and reproduction. Gay same sex couples can’t be considered a married couple because they don’t fit the original pattern established by God, neither can they reproduce, even in principle. Yes, God’s original pattern has been distorted by polygamy, men taking more than one wife, but even in this departure from God’s original ideal with polygamy, there was no basic and essential swapping of the male/female arrangement like so-called same sex marriage would be. Gay marriage crosses the line of any biblical definition of marriage. Only by starting from one’s disordered fallen sinful state, as Matthew Vines does, and then reading into the biblical text one’s own disorder can one arrive at a “gay friendly” interpretation. But this isn’t a legitimate way of reading the Bible; it isn’t honest to the text. What gay activists, like Matthew Vines, need to realize is that the reason most homosexuals don’t try to use the Bible to justify their sinful lifestyle or orientation is that it can’t be done, it doesn’t work. It’s like trying to square a circle or circle a square; it can’t be done. Reinterpreting the Bible to allow for same sex relationships or unions or marriages is an impossible task. Only gross ignorance of the Bible by Christians would permit this to happen. We must resist any and all efforts to so distort the Bible to allow for homosexual relationships.


%d bloggers like this: