I hesitate to write another blog post on any hom*osexual issues, but it breaks my heart when I see thousands of people watching and sharing content that furthers the misconception that God is alright with hom*osexual relationships. This week, a popular hom*osexual “vlogger” released a video entitled, “7 Bible Quotes Supporting Gay Relationships.” Because of the obscenities, I will not link to the video, but I will give you the rundown of all “7 Bible Quotes Supporting Gay Relationships,” according toArielle Scarcella and Matthew Vines.
First, the title of the youtube video is extremely misleading. Of course, they can offer zero Bible quotes which support gay relationships. They do, however, offer seven erroneous arguments about why the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it says. The majority of the seven arguments are actually the same argument said in a slightly different way. Here are their “7 Bible Quotes Supporting Gay Relationships” and my thoughts on each:
1. Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people.
The Bible quote they offer with this argument is Matthew 7:17, “…every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” It is ironic that they would offer this passage as one they suppose, “supports gay relationships.” It is ironic because Jesus was actually warning against false teachers (7:15), telling the people that they could recognize false teachers by the “fruits” of their lives.
Paul uses this same comparison in Galatians 5, when he discusses the “fruit of the Spirit” versus “the works of the flesh.” The very first work of the flesh he mentions is, “sexual immorality” (Galatians 5:19). The term, “sexual immorality” is a translation of the Greek word, “p*rneia” which according to the Strong’s definition includes “adultery, fornication, hom*osexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc.”
To get more to the precise point that condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people, I must strongly disagree. This is afallacious argument. It assumes a great deal. One, it assumes that being in a same-sex relationship is good for anyone. Since we are using the Bible in this discussion, how exactly can they make that point? In fact, the Bible indicates that encouraging same-sex relationships is harmful.
Those of us who teach that hom*osexuality is wrong are doing so because we love people and we want them to be set free from their bondage of sin.
2. Sexual orientation is a pretty new concept.
This is the same argument used throughout the rest of the video. The premise is that Scripture only condemns hom*osexuality in the context of a “vice of excess, like gluttony or drunkenness.” And since Scarcella and Vinesdon’t believe hom*osexuality is condemned in the context of a “loving and committed relationship,” then they believe they can simply dismiss most (in not all) of God’s condemnation of hom*osexuality.
Again, the argument is full of holes. The first of which is that this is a direct contradiction of what the LGBT community has always espoused. They have always espoused that people are – and have always been – born hom*osexuals. Instead, in this video, these two keep saying that exclusive same-sex attraction is “a new concept.” Why would it be a new concept? If people are born with a sexual orientation, then why wouldn’t there have been people in the biblical times who were exclusively hom*osexual?
Biblically, this argument does not hold water. The act of hom*osexuality is condemned, regardless of the context of the act. The most logical way to prove this is by looking at what the Bible says about sexuality and marriage. Biblically speaking, sex is only right when it is in the context of marriage (Hebrews 13:4) and marriage is only biblical when it is between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:5).
Any sexuality, outside of the “marriage bed,” is immoral.
3. Celibacy is a gift, not a mandate.
On this point, they are right. But I have never argued that people with a same-sex attraction are biblically mandated to be celibate. The only biblical mandate, once again, is that sex is only right when it is between a husband and a wife. If you’re not married to someone of the opposite sex, you should be celibate until you are.
There are plenty of people with same-sex attractions, who have married someone of the opposite sex, and have great marriages.This is a quote from Josh Weed, a blogger who is exclusively attracted to those of the same sex, yet has a wonderful marriage:
“In a weird way, the circ*mstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know.”
The Bible does not say that if your temptation is hom*osexuality, you must remain celibate your entire life. However, if a person doesn’t want to remain celibate and he/she wants to be a Christian, their only biblical option is marriage to someone of the opposite sex.
4.Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of arrogance and apathy toward the poor, not for “being gay.”
Like all of the other arguments put forward, this is not a Bible quote that supports same-sex relationships. It is simply the twisting of a biblical account. In Genesis 18 and 19 we are told that Sodom was an extremely wicked and evil place. The only specific act of wickedness we see is that the men of the city tried to rape other men. So there is nothing in that text which supports the argument that the sin of Sodom was apathy toward the poor.
Although it wasn’t stated in the video, I assume Ezekiel 16:49-50 was being alluded to, which says:
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters hadarrogance,abundant food andcareless ease, but she did nothelp thepoor and needy.Thus they were haughty and committedabominations before Me. Therefore Iremoved themwhen I sawit” (NASB).
Obviously, there is some truth to the argument that Sodom was destroyed for the way the people treated the poor, but one has to blatantly ignore the fact that God also saidSodom, “committed abominations before Me” as well.Leviticus 18:22 explains at least one of Sodom’s abominations, “You shall not lie with a male asone lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
5.Leviticus, which specifically condemns hom*osexuality, is never applied to Christians as moral law.
Again, there is some truth to this argument. Although Leviticus 18:22 shows God considered hom*osexuality an abomination under the Old Law, Christians are not under the Old Law today. This is why I have no problem using Leviticus 18 to show that hom*osexuality was one of the abominations of Sodom, but it is not a passage I lean heavily upon to convince people hom*osexuality is a sin today.
That being said, if the New Testament said nothing about sexual immorality, we might assume God’s instructions concerning sexual immorality were no longer applicable today. However, the New Testament says a lot about sexual immorality. In order to understand what is meant by general terms like “sexual immorality,” the Old Testament is a great place to go for definitions. Everything Leviticus 18 says about sexual immorality is applicable today in the sense that it is still sexually immoral and sexual immorality is condemned over and over again in the New Testament.
6.Paul condemns same-sex “lust,” not love.
Even if this argument were true, it would still be far from “a Bible quote supporting gay relationships.” That’s like saying, “My mother only told me I couldn’t slap people, she never said I couldn’t punch people. Therefore, my mother supports me punching people.” It is an illogical argument.
No, Paul does not condemn “love.” Paul condemns the act of sex between those of the same gender. Romans 1:26-27 says:
“For this reasonGod gave them over todegrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which isunnatural,and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,men with men committingindecent acts and receiving intheir own persons the due penalty of their error.”
The hom*osexual act is called “unnatural,” an “indecent act” and “error.”
7. The term, “hom*osexual” didn’t even exist until 1892.
The same argument that has been used throughout the video is again espoused. The Bible quote alluded to here is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Ordo you not know that the unrighteous will notinherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived;neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, noreffeminate, nor hom*osexuals,nor thieves, northecovetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, willinherit the kingdom of God.”
Matthew Vine says this verse should be ignored because people didn’t even know what a true “hom*osexual” was in Paul’s day. Well, the terms translated “effeminate” and “hom*osexual” in this passage are from the Greek words, “malakos” and “arsenokoites.” The first, meaning a man or boy who submits to sodomy. The second, meaning a man who performs the act of sodomy.
Therefore, as we have said before, the New Testament is extremely clear about the condemnation of the sexual act between members of the same sex.
Why Must I Respond?
As Christians, we must stand up for the truth and “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3). When people twist and distort Scripture, they not only do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16), but they also lead others astray. It breaks my heart to think of someone watching that video and coming away with the idea that you can be a practicing hom*osexual and a faithful Christian at the same time.If someone wants to practice hom*osexuality, that is their choice. But I beg you, please don’t try to justify hom*osexuality with Scripture!
I write these things, not to convinceArielle Scarcella and Matthew Vines of their error, although I wish it would. I write these things in an effort to keep anyone from being swayed by their false teaching.
I love you and God loves you,
