Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Newbie]

From a biblical standpoint, why are gay rights any different from women's rights? Scripture prohibits homosexuality just as it prohibits many activities of women, especially in church. Society has found a way to ignore the prohibitions against women and embrace women's rights. Actions by women that were once clearly sin are no longer considered sin. Why are the prohibitions against homosexuality so different from the prohibitions against women's equality?

[jimwalton]

The Bible has nothing to say about gay rights. In the Bible, homosexuality was considered to be an abomination, but being a woman was never considered to be an abomination, immoral, or idolatrous. The Bible prohibits homosexuality, but it doesn't prohibit female-ality (I made up that word, in case you couldn't tell.) The two "categories" are in completely separate arenas, one in the moral area, and the other in appropriate behavior area. The two arenas have nothing to do with each other and no intersections as far as Biblical teachings.

[William Hendershot]

Even though I believe that both were prohibitions pertaining to activity, I'm not trying to use one "category" to justify the other "category". As society gradually accepted women's rights, the Church followed suit and now we have Christians explaining why the prohibitions should be ignored. I'm comparing the response from the Church to the women's rights movement to the response from the Church to the gay rights movement. The similarity is that both movements go against prohibitions in scripture.

[jimwalton]

OK, I get that, but I'm not sure where that gets us. Scripture has prohibitions against lying and stealing. We all (I would hope) understand those to be moral dictums. The Bible, in Acts 16.6, forbids Paul to go into Bithynia. Does this mean we're all prohibited from ever going to Bithynia? Of course not. One is a behavioral mandate regarding a particular individual for his particular circumstance, while the other is a moral practice for all people and all time. The injunctions about women's behavior (stay silent, wear a head covering, etc.) are rules for particular people in particular circumstances, but the writing about homosexuality is a different sort. Because of the individualistic and cultural nature, in one town women are urged to silence (1 Tim. 2.12) and in another she is encouraged to speak (1 Cor. 11.5). You never see that sort of thing about homosexuality.

Also, remember the cultures. Their culture was patriarchal, and the biblical writing about women is advice about how best to behave within those cultural constructs. But their culture (Canaanite, Greek, and Roman) allowed homosexual practice within certain parameters, and the biblical writing about homosexuality is counter-cultural. Just because both movements go against prohibitions in Scripture is a point that doesn't take us anywhere.

[William Hendershot]

Most prohibitions in the Old Testament could be argued to be solely for Israel. It can even be argued that all of Jesus' instructions were for Israel as well. Once we open that door, all we're really left with for Gentiles is what Paul wrote.

The reason I am comparing these two particular issues is that they are the only two I can think of that have a social movement to make them no longer considered sin. It isn't a matter of legalization or social acceptance. It is an effort to take something forbidden in scripture and gradually change minds regarding the sinfulness of it.

It's no longer considered a sin for someone to plant two different kinds of grapes in one vineyard, but that issue did not involve a major social movement fighting against the majority of people who believed it still should be a sin.

I see three possible explanations for this:

What God considered sin in the past may not be considered sin today. Or What God considered sin in the past is still considered sin today, and we just ignore it. Or Some of the laws written in the Bible came from man and not from God.

[jimwalton]

I agree that the Law given to Israel by Moses was for Israel. No problem there. The laws about shellfish and mixed fabrics, etc., were for no one else but them. Obviously the laws about the abomination of homosexuality in Lev. 18 and 20 were part of that law, and meant for Israel. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn. 19.1-19), however, doesn't fall under the category of Law. It aligns homosexuality with reprobation, and the context (with the end of chapter 18) pertains to righteousness vs. sin. The city of Sodom is literarily portrayed as an archetype of godlessness, the poster child of Canaanite wickedness. Two things come to mind at this time: (1) The issue is not homosexual rights; (2) the Bible never has teachings about women in this kind of mindset, context, or condemnation.

You say you have put them together because our society considers them to be social movements. The Bible does not speak of homosexuality as a social movement.

"All we're really left with for Gentiles is what Paul wrote." What Paul wrote in Romans 1 is a tour de force on the question of the legitimacy (morality or immorality) of homosexuality, lifting the question out of the Law of Moses and talking about it in terms of us all. His argument is like a hammer on an anvil, smashing into our minds several points:

- All people are guilty of sin before God
- All people are subject to the bondage of the sin of which they're guilty
- No one is capable of saving him or herself through obedience to any law, including God's law

Paul is offering a diagnosis of the entire human condition, which is corrupt. He cites as evidence the fact of widespread homosexual behavior (in the Roman empire as it had been in the Greek) as manifestation that humanity is in rebellion against their Creator. Homosexuality was not the provocation of God's wrath, but one of the consequences of human following their own futile thinking and desires instead of God's ways.

Again, may I say with clarity, this is a complete different arena of teaching and force of instruction from anything he says about women. to juxtapose the two is an American way of thinking, not a biblical one.

As far as why we don't follow any of the Levitical laws anymore, it's because Jesus fulfilled them (Mt. 5.17). The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not one part of it. He “fulfilled” it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we’ll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don’t do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’ example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

> What God considered sin in the past may not be considered sin today

Christ fulfilled the law, but he didn't change morality, which is based in the character of God. We mix fabrics, but it's still wrong to tell lies. Since Scripture puts homosexuality in the "morality" category, that's not abrogated by the coming of Christ. Women's rights, as I've explained, is culturally conditioned and therefore changeable.

> What God considered sin in the past is still considered sin today, and we just ignore it.

Well, that's true, but it shouldn't be. We ignore sin to our detriment, for sin will meet its just punishment (1 Thes. 4.1-7).

> Some of the laws written in the Bible came from man and not from God.

As someone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, I can't go with this one at all.

I guess my conclusions in response to you would be as follows:

- While many prohibitions in the Bible are just for God's people, homosexuality isn't one of them.
- The morality of homosexuality and women's rights are two different questions in two different arenas, regardless of how Americans try to juxtapose them.
- When Christ fulfilled the Law, he made it all void. The Law no longer provides the framework for relating to God, Jesus now provides that. So what are we to do with all of these laws? We have to approach them as revelation of God (which they still are), not as rules for society (which they once were) or means of salvation (which they never were). That means that as we look at each law, whether it is one of the Ten Commandments or a law about mildew on the wall of a house, our first step is to try to understand what that law revealed about God to the Israelites. Once we understand that, we must make a cultural transfer to formulate a general principle about what that law reveals about God to us. Then we can use that principle to try to apply the revelation of our world in specific ways of acting and thinking. It is not the ancient law itself that carries the authority of the text. Authority is found in the revelation of God that is offered through the principle behind the law.
- As such, some of what God considered sin in the past may not be considered sin today. The NT makes clear that the sacrificial and ritual laws have been fulfilled by Christ and are no longer necessary. It also teaches us that the food laws, symbolic of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, have been abolished in Christ (Eph. 2; Acts 10).

The best way to derive principles fro the OT law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose. This list comes from Christopher Wright:

1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent?
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed?
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable?
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection?
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why?
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld?
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life?
8. What principle or principles does this law embody or instantiate?

[William Hendershot]

If you wish to assert that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexual behavior, it would help if you would first assert that the two cities consisted solely of sexually active males.

So, are we down to saying that Paul said homosexuality is a "BIG" sin but certain acts by women are "LITTLE" sins?

Or are we saying that God's law changes and evolves along with society? (Except for the one about homosexuality)

[jimwalton]

> If you wish to assert that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexual behavior, it would help if you would first assert that the two cities consisted solely of sexually active males.

I wouldn't assert that at all. There were obviously women in the city, for one, since Lot's wife and daughters were there. It's very reasonable to assume there were children there also who were prepubescent.

Sodom has a context in Genesis leading up to chapter 19. It's first mentioned in 10.19 in the context of Canaan, the one one who had been cursed in chapter 9, so Sodom is associated with the people of sin who had been cursed. In chapter 13 Sodom is portrayed as the choice of the one who was not the paragon of righteousness and faith, giving the impression that it was an archetype of godlessness. Gn. 13.13 then says it plainly: the men of Sodom were wicked and sinning greatly against the Lord. In Gn. 14, again, Sodom is portrayed as the sinful city with which the righteous Abraham will not associate. In 14.22-23, Abraham aligns with Jerusalem, not Sodom (both are archetypes here). These is so much more to be said, but I think you're getting the flow. Sodom is portrayed as the poster boy of godlessness. By the time we get to 19, Sodom's depravity is so sordid the city is beyond help and hope. The experience of the heavenly visitors confirms it at every turn. The narrative elements take on a spiritually symbolic function. The city of Sodom represents godlessness (Isa. 1.10-25, esp. 21), and that godlessness is most graphically represented through its sexual immorality. This is to be expected, for the other two cities that come to represent godlessness, Babylon and Rome, will also be Biblically represented through sexual immorality. Sexual union in the Bible is deeply metaphorical, and there’s no reason to think that isn’t in play here. Sexual relations are a sort of bodily language in which meaning is enacted and conveyed. This chapter is deliberately marking out a nadir that will last through history of sexuality and spirituality.

> So, are we down to saying that Paul said homosexuality is a "BIG" sin but certain acts by women are "LITTLE" sins?

We know there is such a thing. In John 19.11, when Jesus is on trial, he says, "...Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." But I'm not sure I would label the "certain acts by women" as "sins" at all. I think they were written about as cultural improprieties.

> Or are we saying that God's law changes and evolves along with society? (Except for the one about homosexuality)

Certainly not. Not saying that at all.

[William Hendershot]

"But I'm not sure I would label the "certain acts by women" as "sins" at all. I think they were written about as cultural improprieties."

Just how much of what Moses, speaking face-to-face with God, asserted to be laws directly from God, were actually something else?

[jimwalton]

Hm. Curious question. In the context of the discussion, do you mean "What laws of Moses about women sinning when they were exercising any rights were actually something else going on?" Or do you mean "What laws of Moses [in any category] were actually something else?" I need some clarification to proceed. Thanks.