Sermons
Same-sex Marriage and the Bible
Series: HomosexualitySame-Sex Marriage
Part 2: The New Testament
I. Introduction
Last week we examined the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of the Old Testament. For many people, whenever homosexuality comes up, the first things that come to mind are God raining fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah and “it’s an abomination” according to Leviticus. While both of those vivid Scriptures are true and relevant to a certain degree, you’ll find that modern proponents of same-sex marriage point out, correctly I might add, that they do not really have a bearing on the subject of marriages today.
The terrible event described in Sodom was a nightmare scenario of an entire city’s men trying to force themselves on two strangers. Whatever that was, it doesn’t look like two men or two women who mutually want to live together.
And whenever someone brings up Leviticus, you better be prepared to explain why we don’t keep the whole Law of Moses, because they’re quick to point that out.
However, we ended on the oldest passages about marriage, and the one that is in deed most relevant for today:
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
And from the next chapter:
Gen. 2:22-25 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. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
These passages show us God’s original design for humans and his design for marriage. But someone may say—hey, that’s the Garden of Eden. That’s even older than the Law of Moses! Why would we think that is still applicable today?
One good reason is because Jesus himself appeals to the authority of this passage. You can be turning to Matthew 19. So today we will turn our attention to the New Testament passages, and some of the arguments that are made about them.
Part of me thought, “just leave the false arguments out of it. Let’s just look at the simple truth and leave it at that.” But as I said last time, this issue is not going away. And plenty of religious people are making arguments that the Bible doesn’t actually condemn same-sex marriage. I suspect that these argument will continue to gain traction, even among believers. So we need to understand how to answer them.
II. Matthew 19
In Matthew 19, the subject of divorce comes up. Apparently, the Jews debated it just like people do today. When can someone get divorced? Look at how Jesus answers:
Matt. 19:3-6 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
First of all, notice that Jesus went all the way back to creation to answer a question about divorce in his day. What does that say about Genesis 1 and 2? It shows that God’s original design was still what he desired from humans. That passage isn’t just a description of a moment in time, but instead it’s a timeless principle, showing God’s will for marriage as a lifelong bond.
But does it tell us anything else—anything relevant to our topic? Those who argue for same-sex marriage say, “nope. Jesus is not discussing same-sex marriage here, he is talking about divorce.”
Achtemeier says: “Same-sex marriage simply wasn’t on the radar screen as a topic of discussion in the New Testament.”
Well, that’s true to a point. They were talking about divorce. But isn’t it interesting that Jesus chose to quote this verse from Genesis 1:
Matt. 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
How is that relevant to the question of divorce? It doesn’t have anything to do with divorce, so why would Jesus bring it up?
Because he is showing them the original design. The original design was a male and female joined together for life. Achtemeier misses this point. He says:
In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus quotes these Genesis passages about our creation as male and female, and some would say that Jesus citation of these passages must mean he endorses traditional marriage and therefore opposes same-gender relationships. Unfortunately for these critics, this argument depends on a logical fallacy. Jesus' obvious approval of traditional, heterosexual marriage in no way implies that he would necessarily disapprove of same-gender relationships. (Kindle location 1020).
But Jesus is not simply approving of heterosexual marriage. He’s not saying, “yeah, look at Adam and Eve. That’s just great. They stayed together all their lives. I approve of that.” No, he is saying “this is what God intended. And therefore, to go against it is wrong.” And what God intended clearly has two parts: 1) male/female. 2) joined in one flesh. That’s very clear!
There’s a video online by a young man named Matthew Vines, and he gives an hour-long speech on the Bible and homosexuality, trying to show that same-sex marriage is not condemned. And in that whole hour he does not ever bring up this passage in Matthew 19. And yet here we have the Son of God reaffirming the original design and definition of marriage. This is a strong passage on this subject.
III. Romans 1
There are three passages in the New Testament that do directly mention homosexuality—all of them in a context of sin. For tonight’s lesson, we’ll focus on Romans 1. This is the main passage for discussion on this topic for several reasons.
1) It’s in the New Testament. Unlike Leviticus, it was written to Christians.
2) It specifically mentions homosexuality, unlike the passage in Matthew where the topic was divorce.
3) It goes into greater detail than the other two passages that we’ll see, which just mention homosexuality in a list of sins.
So for these reasons, this chapter gets a lot of attention in this discussion, and we’ll spend more time here.
We’ll begin in verse 15 just to get the entire context, and to begin on a positive note:
Rom. 1:15-17 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
The gospel, God’s power to save. And in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. The righteous shall live by faith.
So the gospel is about salvation and righteousness. Our response is faith.
Then beginning with verse 18 and going through the next three chapters, Paul lays out why we all, Jew and Greek, need such a gospel. Why we need saving.
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
See how he contrasts the righteousness of God with the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. These two things are obviously opposed to one another, and the conflict results in the wrath of God.
How does man become unrighteous? It begins with suppressing the truth. About what? About God.
1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
The truth is staring them in the face, but they didn’t want that.
1:21-23 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They traded the true God for a manmade god, an idol. Their hearts were darkened. Their thinking was futile. But did they know this? They claimed to be wise. They thought they had outgrown God. They were smarter now than they used to be. Does this sound familiar?
Their new gods reflected earthly, created things.
Since they rejected God, God gave them up. He let them go.
1:24-25 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Notice specifically the results of being given up: lusts, impurity, dishonoring of their bodies.
1:26-27 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.
Notice the parallel ideas of exchange. In verse 25 they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They turned away from God to idols. And now, they have exchanged natural relations for those that are unnatural.
Both women and men are mentioned. Look at what is said about their behavior. It is “dishonorable passions,” “contrary to nature,” and “shameless acts.”
The very passions themselves are dishonorable, or “vile” in the KJV and NKJV. And the acts that result from these passions are shameful.
It’s very clear, isn’t it? Anybody else ready to shut the book? If this was all we had, it would be plenty to show us that same-sex relationships are part of the unrighteousness of men that angers God.
So what do they say in response? Well, nothing really worth mentioning, but they do have arguments, or attempts at arguments.
1. “Natural” doesn’t mean what you think. In the hour-long video I mentioned earlier by Matthew Vines, he says: “We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.” So he uses nature to refer to how you are born. Therefore he says the real sin here is going against your “orientation.”
Clearly this is not the meaning. Look again at verse 26:
“For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.”
“their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.” (NKJV)
It is the relations themselves that are against nature. Not against the woman’s personal nature, but against nature. That’s something bigger than just one’s own inclination.
Others say that “natural” refers to what was the common views of Paul’s day. Achtemeier says:
In point of fact, Paul uses “natural,” not in a biological or anatomical sense, but as a description of behaviors that are broadly in line with prevailing customs and expectations. (location 1510)
In support of this, they point to:
1 Cor. 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
They say there’s nothing biological that tells us men should not have long hair. This is referring to the custom of the day. It does seem true that “nature” can be used in that way. But how is Paul using it in Romans 1?
Notice again that it is God who gives up on these idolatrous people. Their behavior is ungodly and unrighteous, not because it goes against Roman culture! We all know what is unnatural about it.
2. Some say this has to do with some other kind of behavior.
It’s not what you think, they say. It had something to do with idol worship, like the temple prostitutes. Or it was just passions out of control.
Achtemeier: “Lacking any concept of sexual orientation, the only category available to Paul’s audience for understanding same-sex activity is to view it as the product of out-of-control lust. … None of the same-sex behaviors that were prominent in the first-century world showed the least bit of promise in furthering the purposes of God for love and marriage. They were violent or sacrilegious or exploitative; they arose out of huge power imbalances or unbridled lusts.” (1498)
They point to sex between slave owners and their slaves, men and boys, prostitution, etc. All these were terrible, Achtemeier agrees, but they weren’t what we’re talking about today.
But look again at the text.
Rom. 1:27 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.
This describes a mutual passion. Men consumed with passion for one another. That doesn’t apply to a slave or a child, nor does it sound like anything violent or exploitative. It was consensual between adults—just like what we see today!
But it was based on lusts, they say. Lusts out of control!
Vines: “And surely it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful, casual behavior. He says nothing about the people in question falling in love, making a lifelong commitment to one another, starting a family together.”
Where did Paul say anything about casual? It could be they were in love or maybe they weren’t. That wouldn’t make any difference because the passions are vile and the behavior is shameful. How you feel for one another doesn’t change that.
Basically, they’re saying this doesn’t describe loving, committed, same-sex marriages. But it does describe the sexual behavior involved, and it’s ungodly, unrighteous, unnatural, and shameful.
3. But that’s not the only sin Paul mentions
Some others will say, “Oh, but look, there are other sins here, too!” And sure enough, there are. You can just glance at the verses 29-31 to see many more sins.
On a Facebook post about the same-sex marriages in Alabama, a man recently posted simply the text of Romans 1:21-32. No other comment, just those verses. A lady named Margaret made this reply:
Margaret Fulghum Davis John, you might want to read the rest of the chapter to really follow Paul's argument. And consider well your own sins that are included in Paul's dirty laundry list, which is of course the larger point of Paul's argument. Then, go research homosexuality in the Greco Roman Empire. Lastly, go read conservative evangelical biblical scholar Mark Achtemeir's latest book - free on kindle edition which you can read from any smart phone free Kindle app. May the Holy Spirit guide your discernment and bless you!
See! You’re guilty of sin, too. And you’ve missed Paul’s real argument. Plus you just don’t understand the world Paul lived in.
Achtemeier says the real sin is the hypocrisy mentioned in the next chapter:
Rom. 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
Is hypocrisy a sin? Are those other things sins, too? Are we all guilty? Yes, yes, and yes. But even making that argument means they have to recognize that the same-sex behavior described is indeed sinful. Well obviously it is.
But you sin, too! That’s true. Homosexuality is no worse than other sins. All sin is terrible. But it’s still sinful. Why are we focusing on this one? Because it’s the only one that people are trying to say the Bible actually approves. That it’s not sinful. That it’s a blessing from God. Seriously, that’s what they’re saying.
So that’s why we’re talking about it.
IV. Conclusion
Okay, here’s the principles we have reaffirmed tonight. I know this is nothing new to this crowd. But here they are:
Jesus points back to Creation for the definition of marriage, which is male and female joined by God into one flesh.
Regarding other unions, Paul says that they are unnatural and shameful. Homosexual passions are shameful. Homosexual behavior is against nature and shameful.
These principles are clear and they crush any attempt to justify same-sex marriage as being approved by God. Those who try to do so must twist and distort and plainly ignore what these two passages are saying.
So how should we interact with people over this issue, especially those who may be caught up in it? Lord willing, that’s what we’ll look into next week.
INVITATION
