Bible Validity

A Lesson in Linguistics: The Gay Debate – Part 6 (of 8)

Photo by John-Mark Smith on Pexels.com

When I googled the question: “Can a Christian be Homosexual?”, a link to a page by a fellow named Matthew Vines was among the top on the list. Mr. Vines is of the view that homosexuality should be allowed in the Church. A link to his page can be found here: The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality.

Mr. Vines makes several points (the bold is covered in this post, click previous points to see my response):

Vines says that certain compound words which reference homosexual behavior in the New Testament may not apply due to the syntax (the literal meaning) of the word and the context (meaning gathered from the use of the word). The main word that he mentions is Paul’s use of “arsenokoitai,” which is a compound word from two words: one meaning “man” and the other meaning “bed” (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).

His point is that most compound words are put together to create a new word and so the literal meanings of the original words cannot be used to describe the thing the new word was created for. Let’s take a look at a few modern day compound words he mentioned and see if this is true.

Butterfly – a compound word of “butter” and “fly.” If you have ever caught a butterfly, you would understand why it is called this. Butterflies have a powder on their wings that feels and sometimes looks a lot like butter. While the flying insect is not made of butter, it seems that it is aptly named.

Photo by Tinthia Clemant on Pexels.com

Honeymoon – a season of life shortly after one is wed, in which the spouses get to celebrate their commitment to each other in a sensual and enjoyable way. Taking the literal words: Honey – something sweet; and moon – the heavenly body that usually references the night. By combining these two words together you get a literal meaning close to “sweet night.” Being married myself, I cannot disagree with that meaning. 

Now that we understand its It can be used in its original meaning, people have used it in other contexts to refer to a season of easiness or bliss. It can be used in an employment context, for instance when your boss informs you “the honeymoon is over.” That means that the initial part of the job is over and now much more is expected of you.

Understand – This one I admit is more difficult to define by its semantics alone. It means to know another person’s knowledge as they know it. “Under” of course means below. “Stand” – could be a position of a person, place or thing, or it could be referencing an actual physical object. To have “understanding” in this sense would mean that you possess the knowledge that is deeper (underlying) than the superficial knowledge, or that you possess enough basic (underlying) knowledge of a topic upon which to build further knowledge. This could be in the case of anything, whether you are talking about knowledge of a subject, idea, or relationship information. 

My point is this: that even though the compound words do reference a new thing, which has a new definition, often the meaning of the original words are important to that definition. I think we find the same thing with our analysis of Paul’s compound word. If Paul has created a new compound word that means “man bed” or “man bedder,” how else can the insinuation mean but a homosexual act?

Now in regards to context, there are various studies by the Christian gay movement and Vines himself concluding this word is grouped with others that are referencing the immoral situation between men at the time. It was more of a prostitutional situation in which some men were selling younger men and boys to be sex slaves for other men. A lot of sinful things were happening with that whole situation and Paul was right to say these things were wrong (as the proponents for Christian homosexuality would agree). 

However, included in this condemnation is the “man bedder,” the one who is taking advantage of the boy prostitutes. This is the one who is engaging in and initializing the active homosexual behaviors. So what is the sin: the prostitution, the taking advantage of innocent boys, or the homosexual act? Why not all three? It would seem to me that this would fit in the context of the whole Bible. 

“But no,” my gay friends would say. “This does not represent a mutually consenting relationship.” I would agree, but adultery is also a “mutually consenting” relationship which is punishable by death in Old Testament Law (as is homosexual relations), which is still applicable as I have discussed in Point 3. You don’t get rid of sin just because both parties agree to do it. In fact, both parties were supposed to be punished and deserved death for both homosexual acts and adultery. Thus, I think it is best to conclude that the whole mess is sinful.

Another point is that many of those fighting for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Church bring up that Paul is using a rare word that does not have a lot of outside cultural use or reference. The cultural words used commonly would have applied directly to the situation. Perhaps Paul was trying not to be profane in his references to the homosexual abuse situations. Or, maybe Paul was ahead of his time and created the word to apply to such a definition as to match our “modern” definition of the active homosexual, the person with the tendency or “bend” toward homosexual activity who is actively engaging in the behavior.

Is the Bible So Outdated That It No Longer Applies to Gender Orientation? : The Gay Debate – Part 4 (of 8)

When I googled the question: “Can a Christian be Homosexual?”, a link to a page by a fellow named Matthew Vines was among the top on the list. Mr. Vines is of the view that homosexuality should be allowed in the Church. A link to his page can be found here: The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality.

Mr. Vines makes several points. This post addresses his fourth point (in bold). Click on the links below to view my response to them:

Matthew Vines says that the concept of sexual orientation as a means of defining someone is a new idea and therefore the Bible’s doctrine against homosexuality cannot be applied to it because such an idea did not exist back then. Also, he points out that people who are same-gender oriented would agree that the homosexual acts described in the Bible, such as homosexual prostitution and extramarital homosexual intercourse, are just as bad in their eyes as in the Bible’s. According to Vines, Some people are born with a gay bend and there is nothing wrong with it so long as it is done in a committed, loving mutual relationship.

The actions of homosexuality have been around for millennia. The most famous example was Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). It also occurred in Israel (Judges 19). It must have been fairly common practice among non-Jews as God specifically points it out in the Law (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Paul mentions it in the New Testament as something to avoid (Rom 1:24-27; 1 Tim 1:10).

All of these, however, are what Vines calls “immoral” homosexuality. It is a homosexuality of rape, taking advantage, and sometimes even prostitution. He and I can agree on one point, this kind of homosexuality cannot be right. However, I disagree with Vines’ alternative. Is it possible to have a “holy” homosexuality, so long as it is within marriage?

The problem is that we see no Biblical example of this. There has been no unanimous revelation in the Church that it should be allowed. So why would God make people gay without having a way to satisfy that need?

Vines is right that we are probably the first people to define and classify people as homosexual in the sense of an orientation. However, is that classification valid? Are people truly homosexuals because they are born that way?

It seems only natural that what we desire and what we want should be right. That if there is an inborn “bend” toward something, how can we help but pursue that thing? However, may I remind you that we live in a fallen world? “Natural” doesn’t necessarily mean “right.” All people have some kind of bend toward something. Sometimes it isn’t harmful in the sense of certain interests and hobbies. However, some bends, such as addictive and sinful behaviors, are harmful to oneself and others. For instance, a man with a history of alcoholics in his family has a natural “bend” towards drinking alcohol. Should he do this? Is it healthy for himself and his family? Most would say that he should avoid it. However, we encourage homosexuals to continue in their homosexuality, which can be just as dangerous with the diseases that could result. 

The interesting thing is that we can actually see genetically that a person has a history of alcoholism. However, we have not found the “gay” gene. Many people say that they feel it is true, therefore it must be. So I question how “natural” being homosexual actually is.

If we want to say that homosexuality is “natural” in the sense that it is a natural product of a fallen world, then I would agree with that statement. In this sense “natural” doesn’t mean “right.” Since we are sinful beings, it is only “natural” for us to want to sin, even if it isn’t what God intended for us to be and do. 

However, that’s why Christ came into the world: to not only free us from the spiritual consequence of sin (eternal separation from God), but that through him we may begin to untangle the cords of sin that hold us back so that we can truly be the people we are meant to be even while we live here on the Earth.

We don’t really have a full knowledge of the homosexual societies of Sodom and Gomorrah, but we have only a glimpse to know that they were truly evil people. However, the Greeks had prevalent homosexuality in their culture, which started out as  mentor-type relationships. It was definitely a confusing time for the Greeks and not every mentioned homosexual record was the same, but can we really say that all of these lacked the type of commitment Vines describes as more “modern”? Some of the homosexuality was actually quite heroic in that there were groups of men in armies who were supposedly so in love with each other that they fought more valiantly than other men.

So while the idea of sexual orientation is new, it is still an ideal that is totally unhealthy and inaccurate about the way things are supposed to be as God intended.