What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

This issue is a lightning rod in our culture today.  Let me say from the get go, I know people who are homosexual, and I care for them.  I really do.  Most of the time when a position is given that is perceived as ‘against’ one’s family or friends, the hearer becomes defensive.  If a right relationship with God is greater than allowing people to turn away from God and follow other desires, all followers of Jesus should speak out.  In love yes, and in truth, we should speak out of true concern that others are living lives that are not consistent with the reality that God exists, and we exist for relationship with Him.  As sinful people ourselves, we should point out sin and turn toward Jesus.

For most people in support of homosexuality, they base their decision on the rights for others to engage in homosexual relationships and receive the same recognition and benefits, on their feelings towards those that they know are gay, saying nothing in nature prohibits it, it doesn’t effect them, etc.  The problem with this issue (and others) are that since it current laws are just man’s opinions expressed at a given time, they are not transcendent.  In other words, the laws extend to our country, but not others, the state laws extend to our borders, but not into another states’.  There is a limit to our current laws.

However, if we have an all-powerful and just creator, then His word on this subject is authoritative.  Since we are all created by Him, this would supercede or transcend, any cultural or man-given laws.  Given this, we will look at what God’s authoritative Word has to say about this.

God institutes marriage at the beginning of human history, as His perfect way to structure the family.  A man in a sexual relationship with another man, does not have the right to redefine that as marriage. 

 Genesis 2:18 ESV  Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”


Genesis 2:20 b-24 ESV  But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.  (21)  So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  (22)  And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  (23)  Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”  (24)  Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Man was not made out of man, but woman.  It is quite a stretch to read verse 24 and see anything other than the family as made up of a father and mother raising children. God does not institute an exception for homosexuals to raise children, regardless of what current local laws provide for or allow.  On top of this, let’s say the current laws would allow for homosexuality to be defined as ‘marriage’.  Would incest then become OK too?  What would prevent an uncle and a niece from marrying?  It would simply be subjective to the current law of the day, and the current country who’s laws you were under.  So if the US allowed incestual marriages, but over in Saudi Arabi they didn’t, then the ‘right’ as to who can marry is simply dependent upon where you live.

Romans 1:26-27 ESV  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;  (27)  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Now we will focus on the words “natural” in v. 26 and “relations” in v. 26 as well.  Below are the greek deinfitions according to Strong’s Greek Dictionary.

Natural G5446  phusikos  foo-see-kos’

“physical”, i.e. (by implication) instinctive:–natural.

Relations G5540  chresis  khray’-sis

employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the

body):–use.

Anyone reading this text must make a gigantic leap to dance around what the text is saying, if they try to avoid that God is condemning those that are homosexual, both male and female.  The natural or physical function is that man is made for sexual intercourse with a woman, not another man.  The ability to create children is an example of natural relations.  Now not only this, but Paul states a warning for those who approve of homosexuality.

Romans 1:32 ESV  Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

With very strong words, Paul chastises and gives warning to those who seek to approve of the practice.  This a stern warning to us today, when this is such a hot button issue, we must not, and cannot swerve from God’s position on this, regardless of what culture says.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV  (9)  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,  (10)  nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Lastly,  in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul warns again against homosexuality.  While we see very clearly the command to prohibit this, maybe the most overlooked portion is that God says “neither the sexually immoral”…”will inherit the kingdom of God”.  While those who support homosexuals may say those heterosexuals treat them unfairly, the reality is, God hates all kind of sexual sin.  Not limited to homosexuals but to heterosexuals too.  Paul is warning the people of how to be obedient to God, to inherit the kingdom of God and be restored to right relationship with him.  Let us recognize all sinners are in need of savior.  We can turn to Jesus to forgive us of all sin, including sexual sin, to be restored.

Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

Taken from an article by Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, Professor of New Testament studies:

…I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/