SERMON: “Does God Condemn LGBTQ+ Lifestyles? Part 3” (Various)
“Does God Condemn LGBTQ+ Lifestyles?
Part 3” (Various
Texts)
Series: “LGBTQ+
Issues” #4 Text: Various Texts
By: Shaun
Marksbury Date:
June
16, 2024
Venue: Living
Water Baptist Church Occasion:
PM Service
I.
Introduction
We’re
continuing what we were considering last Sunday and this morning. We
are looking at, not six, but eleven points where God condemns LGBTQ+
lifestyles. In fact, I’m only giving a
summary. As I noted, I’m actually
summarizing some connected passages into points, meaning that the Bible says
much more on this if we were to expand upon those summarizing points. Moreover, there are many other passages we
have not looked at, such as the sexual sin in Genesis 6 which triggered the worldwide
flood, or the adultery which marred King David’s life and service. God condemns sexual sin throughout the Bible.
Originally, I wanted to get through the rest of these this
morning, and then at least half.
However, it was worth slowing down and considering what happened in
Sodom and Gomorrah and what God said in the rest of the Law. So, we only got through some Old Testament
passages.
That leaves us, this evening, with what the New Testament
has to say on this subject. Is there a
difference between the testaments that would support the view that the Bible is
only “whispering” about this subject? Let’s
continue our look by considering these final six points and whether God is
condemning this in our culture.
II.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ through His Son, Jesus
Christ (Mark 7; 10; Matt. 19)
However, that doesn’t mean He didn’t address it. He affirmed all that Scripture said,
including the original creation. Considering
His lofty view of Moses and His condemnation of those who did not believe Moses
(cf. John 6:45–47), it seems incongruous that Jesus would have a different view
of homosexuality than Moses would. He
never suggested that His audience misunderstood Moses on the original creation.
Let’s consider some examples. In Mark 7:20–23, Jesus describes sexual
immorality (porneia) as one of many sins proceeding from the heart and
defiling the individual. Then, in Mark
10:6–8, Jesus affirms the original creation of marriage, pointing His audience
back to the inspired Torah. Jesus there
identifies marriage as involving a male and a female (v. 6), as being a family apart from parents (v. 7 — it’s not
incestuous), and as involving marital relations (v.
8), implying male headship (vv. 7, 9).
Jesus similarly affirms the original creation of marriage in
Matthew 19:3–6. He affirms the same Scripture
and truths, as well as how high a view of marriage God has (vv. 7–9). Because of this, His disciples respond, “If
the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to
marry” (v. 10). He replies, “Not all men
can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been
given. For there are eunuchs who were
born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made
eunuchs by men; and there are also
eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it”
(vv. 11–12). In other words, citizens of
the kingdom who are unmarried are to live like a eunuchs, i.e., celibate lives.
Jesus does not allow a category for people to have sex
outside of marriage, which practically eliminates all the sexual colors on the current
pride flags. Someone may not be in a
same-sex relationship, and certainly may not be in a bigamous or polyamorous
one. No one may change their gender and
express their sexuality that way. They
also may not consume pornography.
Remember, Jesus could see into the heart of man (John 2:25). He chose not to create a framework for fornication
of any kind, and though He corrected so much thinking, He never hinted that the
Jews of His day misunderstood same-sex relationships and transgendered
lifestyles. Jesus offers no room for
sexual expression among Christians outside of the bond of marriage between a
man and a woman. He acknowledges that
people won’t want to accept this, but it is nonetheless the truth of the Lord.
III.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ in the Cultural
Downgrade (Rom. 1:18–32)
One possible cause is that the vast majority of men (and
many women) are currently caught in the web of pornography, more than ever
before. The term pornography comes from pornos,
the Greek term Scripture uses for sexual immorality. Even those who view or read heterosexual porn
are having their minds altered by it, and studies have been done it even alters
the chemistry of the brain and what can be done about it.[2] We cannot overstate the danger of those smart
phones in your hands and the computers in your homes.
If you think honestly about it, it makes sense. There was even a study in 2013 that
demonstrated that pornography consumption prompted more attitudes of acceptance
toward homosexuality.[3] In fact, as reported by the New York Post,
another informal study reports that the more porn people watch, the more likely
they are to be bisexual.[4] It’s clear that pornography is a means by
which God gives us over to our passions.
If you are consuming porn, you should stop, knowing that it is changing
the way you think and feel, as well as knowing that the Lord condemns it as
sexual immorality.
IV.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ by Commanding the
Church to Deal with Sexual Sin (1 Cor. 5)
This was not likely to be a one-time only sin. It was something known and the church was
purposefully turning a blind eye to it in the name of grace. That means that it was an ongoing sexual
relationship. In that way, it gives us a
glimpse into the argument today, “What if those involved in these relationships
are committed to one another?” Many professed
Christians would be willing to extend such grace and even advertise it (e.g.,
“All are welcome here!”).
However, Paul warns that their “boasting is not good” (v.
6), so they were apparently congratulating themselves for allowing such sin to
remain in their midst.
This is a separate issue from those who might visit the
church but who are still identifying with a sinful lifestyle, as that person
may not have yet heard and received the message of God’s transforming
gospel. A church member, on the other
hand, is one who has professed Christ and a rejection of the world and
sin. For a church member to engage in
open, unrepentant sexual sin is to send a message to visitors that Christians
don’t believe and practice what they preach.
This also is separate from a repentant church member. Paul deals with this in 2 Corinthians 2, when
he commands them to “forgive and comfort him,
otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (v. 7).
V.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ in Transforming Us
through the Gospel (1 Cor. 6:9–11)
This is one of the lists of sin that excludes us from the
kingdom of heaven, and in v. 9, the terms “effeminate” and “homosexuals”
appear. The English Standard Version
translates both of these words as “homosexuals,” seeing the link between the
two. These are among the list of vices
that are worthy of condemnation.
The first word that Paul uses here is μαλακός (malakos),
which, outside of sexual contexts, simply means “soft” or even unmanly. In classical Greek, it references both
pederasty and prostitution, the focus being on the “passive” partner (whether a
boy or a male prostitute). One
commentator notes that one author “allows that μαλακός may mean unmanly in
general terms, more characteristically it is used of ‘the youth who consciously
imitated feminine styles and ways.’ This
all too readily slips in ‘passive homosexual activity’ whether for pleasure or
for pay. From the classical period to
Philo extreme distaste is expressed in Greek and Hellenistic literature for the
effeminate male who uses cosmetics and the coiffuring of the hair, for which
Philo sometimes uses the term ανδρόγυνος, male-female.”[5] Those males seeking androgynous or feminine looks
today would be considered malakos by the ancient Greeks.[6]
As to the other term in this passage, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites),
it isn’t found anywhere else in Greek literature prior to Paul’s usage
here. The presumption is that he created
the word from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13: “κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος…” Someone might counter this only
describes a male prostitute, and Paul simply condemns those seeking and selling
sex. It’s true that Paul would also condemn
prostitution, but we’ve already seen what the Torah understanding was. Paul would have used the typical Jewish
understanding, which included the prohibitions in the Torah.
There’s nothing new under the sun. Scripture describes the effeminate or the
passive recipient in homosexuality and the active participant. Someone might counter that the effeminate
individual is simply a male prostitute, and it’s true that Paul would also condemn
prostitution, but there’s nothing in this passage to indicate that he is
restricting the meaning of these terms.
It implies a condemnation of transgenderism, and it certainly is a
condemnation of homosexual acts.
Of course, the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 knocks every
one of us out of the running. There
is not a person who isn’t guilty of one of these sins. We’re talking about homosexuality because it’s
accepted today, but the rest of us sinners face the same, bad news.
The gloriously good news of the gospel comes in v. 11: “Such
were some of you.” We don’t have to
allow these sins to define us. Paul
writes to believers who committed the same kinds of sins that we did, and he
says, “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Just as there were former homosexuals in
Corinth, it’s possible today to be a Christian who glorifies God with the body by
repenting of any aspect of the LGBT+ lifestyle in Christ.
I find the irony interesting with the discussion on gender
and sexuality today. In the past, we
just spoke in terms of male and female, or gay and straight. Now, we have talk of both the fluidity of
gender and sexuality. What the modern
sexual apologist can no longer hold to is the immutability of either gender or
sexuality. This means that, while in the
past folks have said that one can’t change whether they’re gay, now they must
admit that it’s sometimes possible. And
with the gospel, it is.
VI.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ in Restoring True
Marriage after the Fall (Eph. 5:22–33)
Moreover, husbands are not called to domineer, but they are
called to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave
Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). Paul
quotes from Genesis 2:24, comparing the “one flesh” nature of the husband/wife
relationship to the unity between Christ and the church (vv. 31–32). God wants the marriage relationship to be one
of love and commitment depicting the gospel to a watching world.
These kinds of roles exist in other chapters, such as 1
Timothy 3 and Titus 1–2. While we can
imagine that some husbands might abuse this call by demanding submission
regardless of consideration to God, we cannot imagine how this command might be
fulfilled in a same-sex or transsexual marital arrangement. Rather than a husband loving his counterpart,
loving and cherishing her, he now loves a mirror image of himself. The image of Christ and His church is lost.
Moreover, even if the partners in such a union might reflect
differing personalities, this problem is not overcome. Indeed, if the partners in a same-sex
relationship reflect opposing “masculine” and “feminine” traits, at best, the
relationship becomes an ironic parody of the male/female relationship. A man becomes submissive in a gay male
relationship, or a woman practices headship in a lesbian relationship. These issues are further exacerbated in the
event that one or both partners live as a gender other than their biological
sex indicates. They cannot represent
this gospel image.
VII.
God Clearly Condemned LGBTQ+ as Lawless (1 Tim.
1:8–10)
- First and second
commandments: the “lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners,”
- Third and fourth
commandments: “the unholy and profane,”
- Fifth and sixth
commandments: “those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers”
- Seventh and tenth commandments:
“immoral men and homosexuals” (we’ll come back to that in a moment)
- Eight commandment:
“kidnappers”
- Ninth commandment: “liars
and perjurers”
Paul then gives a summation, saying “and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching.” That could
also include the tenth commandment, as people may seek out false teaching based
on a covetous desire, such as a desire to justify homosexuality and other sexual
immorality before God. Still, this is
just the apostle’s summation of possible sins which come from lawless men.
Getting back to v. 10 and the fifth/tenth commandment
violations, he has “immoral men and homosexuals.” The first term is used of those who make
sinful sexual choices — pornos, the general term for sexual sin. The second term is that familiar term arsenokoites,
translated in the ESV as “men who practice homosexuality” and in the NIV as
“perverts.” We can only conclude that
the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saw homosexuality and
sexual sin as lawless and rebellious, examples of what goes against sound
doctrine.
VIII.
Conclusion
This has been a lot to consider. Again, we didn’t consider everything that
there was in Scripture. We didn’t
consider the passages on sexual sin. We
didn’t get into what Jude was talking about with reference to the angels who
sinned in Genesis 6. We didn’t talk
about what how John the Baptist was calling out the sin of King Herod, a sermon
that ultimately cost the Baptist his head.
Scripture says much more about sexual sin than we even wish to consider.
This is why it’s wrong when churches try to downplay the severity
of judgment Scripture gives here. It’s
even worse, as we considered last week, how professed Christians give false hope
by reinterpreting Scripture; they are like the false prophets of Jeremiah’s day
who declare peace when there is no peace with God (e.g., Jer. 6:13–14). We must proclaim what Scripture does.
We speak the truth from a place of love and concern, even if
the world doesn’t want to hear it. God
condemns homosexuality, transgenderism, and queer behavior — it doesn’t matter
how we feel about the subject. While we
sometimes have a negative reaction to the sins of other people, we all realize that
Scripture condemns all our sins, not just these sins. We also recognize that there’s hope in Jesus
Christ, who paid the penalty for all sin upon the cross, making
atonement for all who believe. We don’t
hate by either hiding the truth or by saying the truth; we want to love our
neighbors by pointing them to a true hope in Christ for salvation and the
washing away of even the stain of the LGBTQ+ lifestyle.
Some Christians might reply that it doesn’t matter. They might say that we can just put that sin
aside, try to be as accommodating as possible, and eventually deal with the
issue after the person has become a Christian.
Because of the work of the Holy Spirit, and the freedoms we have here in
our country, they ask, “Should we even care?”
We’ll consider that question next time.
[1] Anders Anglesey, “Pastor Ed Litton Removes Over 140
Video Sermons After Being Accused of Plagiarism,” June 28, 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-ed-litton-removes-over-140-video-sermons-after-being-accused-plagiarism-1604707
[2] For instance, Holly Finn, “Online Pornography’s
Effects, and a New Way to Fight Them,” Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2013,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323628004578456710204395042
[3] Paul J. Wright & Soyoung Bae, “Pornography
Consumption and Attitudes toward Homosexuality: A National Longitudinal Study,”
Humam Communication Research, (Volume 39, Issue 4
October 1, 2013), 492–513,
https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/39/4/492/4093713
[4] Michael Kaplan, “The More Porn You Watch, the More
Likely You Are To Be Bisexual,” New York Post, Feb. 14, 2022, https://nypost.com/2019/02/26/people-who-watch-porn-are-more-likely-to-be-bisexual-study/
[5] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 448–49.
[6] Philo notes, “Moreover, another evil, much greater
than that which we have already mentioned, has made its way among and been let
loose upon cities, namely, the love of boys, which formerly was accounted a
great infamy even to be spoken of, but which sin is a subject of boasting not
only to those who practise it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being
accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women, waste away as
to both their souls and bodies, not bearing about them a single spark of a manly
character to be kindled into a flame, but having even the hair of their heads
conspicuously curled and adorned, and having their faces smeared with
vermilion, and paint, and things of that kind, and having their eyes pencilled
beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such
persons as these a sweet smell is a most seductive quality), and being well
appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to
devote their constant study and endeavours to the task of changing their manly
character into an effeminate one” (Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria,
The Works of Philo: Complete and
Unabridged [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995], 597–598).