Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome to the Harvester podcast.
We're glad that you can join us today.
This is season two, episode number six, and we're going to be dealing with homosexuality
for the next few episodes.
And I'm your host, Brian Kenyon, along with Steve.
Forest Antemesaris
George Beals
and this uh...
time we have a guest speaker with this george deals he just introduced himself but he is
uh...
i would consider him very informative and very informed on this subject he is actually
held two debates public debates one in nineteen ninety four at the university of michigan
the Saffold-Mayes-Beals Debate and then one in two thousand twenty three with Andy
Oliver in St. Petersburg Florida
on the subject of the sin of homosexuality and so he is going to have a lot of good stuff
information during this podcast and we look forward to this and this first episode on
homosexuality, the sin of homosexuality we want to look at what does the Bible actually
teach about homosexuality and so George start out and if you have your Bibles please turn
to Romans chapter one
Thank you, Brian.
Looking at Romans chapter 1, 26 and 27 in just a moment.
Let me just mention at the outset that no sinful behavior can be the basis of identity or
dignity of the human being.
But we are all made in the image of God.
That would be homosexuals, heterosexuals, and everyone else.
According to the Bible in Genesis 1, 26 and 27,
before sin entered into the world and all of us still are made in the image of God after
sin entered into the world as demonstrated by Genesis chapter 9 verse 6.
So human identity and dignity however is not based upon what the Bible teaches is a sin
and as a matter of fact the Bible does teach that all homosexual behavior is sinful.
There's no better passage that teaches that than Genesis 1, than Romans 1, 26 and 27.
So let me read this first from the New King James.
For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions, for even their women exchanged the
natural use for what is against nature.
Likewise, looking at verse 27, likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman.
burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and
receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Unquote.
So let's examine this very carefully, looking first of all at the passage, noticing that
it uses condemnatory language, vile passions, verse 26.
The word for four.
in verse 26 signals to the reader that the first part of verse 26 is now going to be
explained.
And read on and notice the explanation, quote, even their women exchange the natural use
for what is against nature, end of quote.
We'll return to this in a moment, but notice also shameful in verse 27, penalty in verse
27, error in verse 27.
So the behavior under consideration in the passage is being forbidden.
That's very good, good information, and we'll get into this as he goes along, but those
words right there, there's no way we can look at those words, shameful and all of that,
and come away with, it doesn't matter to God just as long as we love one another.
All right, any further thoughts on that anybody?
I would just add that when we look at a topic such as this, we should not relegate it to
subjective terms like to say, you know, homosexuality is gross or I don't like it, it's
nasty.
It's not those things.
It's sinful, it's vile, it's unnatural.
So if we use biblical terms, I think that takes it out of the realm of subjective.
So it's not like, that's just not your taste.
It's just not your bag.
It's no, it's against the nature of God.
I think it's important to point out that there are several objections to what we're going
to be saying here, looking at Romans 1, 26, 27, and in an upcoming session, I would like
for us to examine some of those objections in detail.
So that was first observation.
Second observation with respect to this passage, the expression, quote, men burned in
their lust.
toward one another." And, with men, verse 27, show that the passage is talking about sex
between men.
The word translated as men here is from the Greek word arsane, which means male as opposed
to female.
It's the same word that the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses when discussing
creation in Genesis 1.27.
That passage reads, He made them male and female.
And as expected, Jesus used the same word in Matthew 19, verse 4, when He quoted Genesis
1, 27.
And so then, in Romans 1, 26, 27, we have homosexual behavior between men covered.
Further, notice again the term burned in their lust in verse 27.
Sexual desire also was discussed in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
Verse 9 there reads, if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to
marry than to burn, unquote.
This other chapter, 1 Corinthians 7, encourages the sexual use of the wife's body by the
husband and the sexual use of the husband's body by the wife.
See verses 1 through 5.
In fact, verse 5 says, depriving one another.
Why is the man and the woman in 1 Corinthians 7 encouraged to marry and thereby satisfy
their sexual passion, whereas the people in Romans 1.27 are not encouraged to marry but
are condemned for their sexual passion?
The answer is found in Romans 1.27.
Men burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.
unquote.
Yes, and that's a good point there.
A couple things that stand out to me, of course, talks about the natural use of the woman.
And of course, later on in chapter two, he'll develop that theme a little bit more.
But he's talking about the Gentiles here who didn't have the law, and so they're not being
condemned for what they did not know, but they're being condemned from what they could
have known, should have known by nature, but still went against it.
And then the other thing that stands out here is the lust for one another.
And you'll hear this term nowadays quite a bit, you know, same-sex attraction.
And usually when people talk about it, they'll say, well, you know, same-sex attraction,
we can't help it, it's not sinful, as long as we don't follow through with it.
But if by that they mean lust, this passage here, as well as others, tells you that it is
wrong.
I mean, if somebody means by
same-sex attraction, you know, I wish I had guns like the rock, know, muscles like the
rock, that's one thing.
But if it's a lustful thing, like, I'd like to sleep with him, you know, lust toward one
another, then it falls into this Romans 127 category, and it is sin.
But also, there's a, in the context here, there's a process starting up around verse 19,
20, 21 in there.
It's evident that this is ungodly.
And so for those who would profess to be both homosexual and Christian or godly in that
sort of way, I don't think that can be the case.
Because in verse 21, it talks about how they are not acknowledging God.
They have exchanged their love for God for exchange or worship of things that are not God.
And so there's first the rejection of God.
then there is the acceptance or the rejection of the natural use of, you know, man and
woman.
So the first step though is taking God out of the picture and then comes the unnatural
sexual behavior.
So for those who would promote that they can do both, worship God or have some sort of
religious affiliation and be homosexual, I think this passage absolutely refutes that kind
of a behavior or mindset anyway.
So that was a second observation.
A third, notice the three occurrences of the term men in Romans 1 verse 27.
These men left having sex with women and now carry out sexual passion for men.
Notice again, they have sexual passion for men.
Is this not what determines a person to be a homosexual?
Gay author Eric Marcus answers yes.
Answering the question, what is a homosexual?
He writes quote,
A homosexual person is a person, is a man or a woman whose feelings of sexual attraction
are for someone of the same sex." Answering the question, how do you know if you're gay or
lesbian, he writes, quote, the key is to pay attention to your feelings of attraction,
unquote.
So we can know that the men in Romans 1, 27, men who burned in their desire towards one
another, men with men, we can know these now are homosexuals.
This is what distinguishes a homosexual from a heterosexual.
Furthermore, notice how wide in scope the term, men with men, is in this passage.
This is important because those who claim the Bible allows for some homosexual behavior
have to find certain qualifiers or limitations in the passage to make room for their
doctrine.
For example, they sometimes make a distinction between inverts
and perverts.
These say that invert is the person who is homosexual allegedly by nature.
This is the true homosexual, they say, but the pervert is a person who is heterosexual by
nature and who engages in homosexual activity or the homosexual who engages in
heterosexual activity.
With this set up, they then say this passage is only condemning perversion
not inversion.
That is, they say the passage is not condemning all homosexual behavior by true
constitutional homosexuals.
Rather, is condemning heterosexuals who are engaging in homosexual activity.
But, notice there is no such distinction made in the text.
No qualifier of that nature at all in the text.
And this is where you have to find it.
They are imposing such a qualifier into the text.
But the passage itself employs the wide sweeping term, men with men, and adds no such
qualifier.
Mm-hmm and qualified right there in the text is men not just men with men but committing
what is shameful and men having lust for one another and the reason why I mentioned this
is it came out in public schools in this county several years ago and it was confirmed by
people that didn't know the other person said or whatever but it's that you know, they
were trying to teach these kids in middle school and even upper elementary school that if
you preferred
you if you're a girl and you prefer playing Barbie dolls with other girls then you were
lesbian and there's nothing you can do about it but it's okay it's just go ahead and be
that way or if a guy would rather spend time with a guy playing GI Joe's or going out
whatever then they must be homosexual you were made that way well that's and and that was
confirmed I asked someone about that and they said yeah that's what they taught me in
fifth grade but that's just nonsense you know at that age
what you know lot of girls don't even want to be brown boys they got cooties and all that
stuff and so it's not a natural thing homosexual homosexuality is not a natural thing in
fact the natural thing is men and women not men with men
Right.
also gets into the question of what is meant by nature in the Bible.
That's a translation of the Greek word phusis, which would be another nice session to have
all by itself.
Yes.
Now, it is sometimes claimed that the Bible writers knew nothing of inversion and that
this is why such a qualifier admittedly is not specified in the text.
But since this is the word of God through Paul and not just the word of Paul,
The absence of such a qualifier is intended and not due to God's ignorance of modern human
quote, wisdom unquote.
God in his sufficient word is able to look down the corridor of time to us.
Another attempt to qualify or limit men with men is that by Robert K.
Neuss.
He says the homosexual activity condemned is limited to the idolatrous behavior in the
preceding verses.
which he says are references to Egyptian idols.
But Robert Gagnon had pointed out that the preceding verses use words found in Genesis 1,
26-27 and thus is reflecting that passage.
And that passage is a foundational text for marriage and clearly is heterosexual, not
homosexual.
Peter Stuhmacher calls woman-woman sex, quote, a sinful reversal of Genesis 1, 27.
That is, 1, 26, and 27, and Romans 1, 26, and 27, combine, showing a wide-sweeping
condemnation of any homosexual behavior, since it is in conflict with the heterosexual
relationship established at creation.
That is an awesome point.
I never thought about that.
Genesis 1, 26 and 27, compared with Romans 1, 26 and 27.
See, you the 1, 26 and 27 right there.
just those two, if those two passages were the only passage we had on the subject, that'd
be enough to say that homosexuality is just not right.
and notice the comp the combined and common terminology yes
this.
Fourth, the expression likewise at the beginning of verse 27 as we continue examining this
passage in detail, fourth observation, likewise, shows there is a parallel between what is
true of the men in verse 27 and what is true of the women in verse 26.
Women in verse 26 translates to the Greek word phalae, female as opposed to male, the
other half of Genesis 1.27.
which Jesus quotes in Matthew 19.4.
This word, meaning human female, is from the adjective phelous, and that could be examined
by looking at any standard lexicon.
Further, notice likewise at the beginning of Romans 1.27, then this translates the Greek
homoios, meaning in the same way.
This parallel between what is said of man in verse 27,
and what is said of women in verse 26 is expressed by the English word also in verse 27.
If I may be technical for a moment to get this into the discussion for anyone's further
study, also in verse 27 translates the Greek expression here, tachai, English both and,
construction which begins in verse 26 and ends in verse 27.
And so then the women also burned in their desire towards one another, women with women.
So we have homosexual behavior between women covered in Romans 1, 26 to 27.
Anybody have any comments on that before I go to a fifth observation?
Yeah, that's...
I'm glad you pointed out the words likewise and also because again it's...
know, it doesn't have to explicitly state the one because the story stated the other and
it connects it with the likewise.
So have all homosexual behavior covered, man with man, woman with woman.
Fifth, the term woman in verse 26 is as wide in scope as the term men is in verse 27.
No qualifier notice, no limitation there.
And sixth and finally, notice the passage is not only condemning homosexual behavior,
but also the homosexual lust behind it, as Brian pointed out.
That it is condemning the uh behavior is shown by the expression committing what is
shameful in verse 27.
That it is also condemning the homosexual lust is evident from the term vile, passion, in
verse 26.
So this reminds one of the heterosexual lust.
to which Jesus referred in Matthew 5 verse 28.
Everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in
his heart.
Sinful lust plus opportunity results in sinful action.
Sinful lust minus opportunity is still sinful.
Compare also Philippians chapter 4 verse 8 which reads, Finally, brethren, whatever things
are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just,
whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report,
if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy, meditate on these things."
And so then these six factors show that the passage, Romans 1, 26 and 27, is a
wide-sweeping condemnation of homosexual behavior between men and homosexual between...
women and therefore the Bible exhortation and the loving thing to do would not be to
encourage people to engage in such sin but rather using the biblical teachings out of Luke
chapter 13 verse 3 and other passages, repent, frankly repent or perish as Jesus put it.
And I think that's a good point also to point out that, you know, I mean, heterosexual
lust is sinful.
And so if heterosexual lust is sinful, as per the Matthew passage, so also would
homosexual lust.
And just like in that section of the Sermon on the Mount, you know, Jesus is saying
basically cut it off at the bud, you know.
if you look on a woman less after her you've committed adultery in your heart already and
so if you cut it out it's impossible to commit adultery if you don't lust after someone
else it's impossible and so you know that just even the thoughts and lust of homosexuality
is sinful and just needs to be cut off there
Yeah, and I appreciate the, I think the repentance is something that sometimes where the
disconnect is.
And I appreciate George saying on the front end that something that is sinful cannot be
where we derive our identity and our dignity.
And I know we'll probably get to this more later, but in my experience, that's a lot of
the struggle because, you know, we're trying to lovingly encourage people to repent.
And the, and their conception is this is the core of who I am.
Right?
And of course that whole thing is kind of a modern novel idea.
wonderful study.
Yeah, but that idea of wait, no, you can.
There's a you that exists or can exist outside of homosexuality, right?
You can be everything God wants you to be and knows you can be without that homosexuality.
And I think that's part of the message too, because of the idea that this is an identity
and this is part of who I am, um that God can change us, you know, and help us to
to show us the truth so that there is of us where we find our dignity and our identity in
God and not in sinful behavior.
Right.
Of course, we are already made on the image of God, and so then we do have oh identity and
dignity in and of ourselves, and so wouldn't be a matter of...
does not acknowledge you know i don't think i was a lot of the people acknowledge that if
they think i'm not who am i want to gain and no reference to god no reference right and
that's where we come in and show them know you you're more than that you know and they
made an image of god
Exactly, and God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son homosexuals,
heterosexuals, everyone.
Right.
So there is a another argument that I'd like for us to examine if we have time We've
looked at Romans 1 26 27 that is a an Argument that appeals to the Bible to show that all
homosexual behavior is immoral sin and of course logically preceding that
is another line of reasoning that we've assumed here.
And that is, mean, someone could raise the question, oh, who cares what the Bible says?
Well, what logically precedes that is uh showing that the Bible is the word of God.
And another study and wonderful uh session we could have on that.
But given that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that there is adequate evidence
that shows that,
then ah what the Bible says does matter and in fact uh is the truth of the matter.
So that's an appeal there to the Bible as uh proof that all homosexual behavior is
immoral.
There is an argument that we could call to folks' attention that is outside of the Bible
and that is, uh it would go along these lines.
uh
you could label this designed for heterosexuality.
this is an independent argument to consider based on God's general, that is natural
revelation, not on biblical revelation.
This presupposes that God designed the world.
Now, admittedly, if one does not include God in the picture, then anything goes,
Homosexual behavior or anything else.
This would be another matter that we could show that in fact God did design the world.
is evidence there as well.
Wonderful study.
given that that is the case, that this world is the result of the intelligent design of
the creator of God, there is another argument for us to examine.
And that is along these lines.
Compare the sexual anatomies of the human male and the human female.
Again now.
We're taking the position that this world uh is the result of God's creative activity.
So as we examine the sexual anatomies of the human male and the human female and consider
how babies are made and the pleasure made possible by the locations of the elements of
that anatomy as they function together, there is an obvious sexual complementarity between
the human male and the human female.
This is God's design.
And so then heterosexual behavior is consistent with God's design and homosexual behavior
is not.
And anything which conflicts with divine intent is immoral.
Yes, and I remember, I don't know if you remember this George, but you taught that in a
Bible class.
I believe it was a Sunday morning Bible class about six years ago here at South Florida
Avenue.
And I can't remember if it was along with Romans 1, 26 and 27, but I do remember and the
students that were here at that time remember it well too.
You had put up two silhouettes, female silhouette and a male silhouette.
And just seeing that picture and you could see the compliment, the complimentary parts.
Now it wasn't that detailed like what you just talked about, but you could see that the
complimentary parts in design.
And I've always mentioned this when I talk about Genesis one about, you know, what the man
lacked, the female had.
And so they just perfectly compliment one another.
And you saw that.
then, then after you had that silhouette,
you put a silhouette of two men up there.
It just didn't have the same force.
But a silhouette of two women up there.
And it just didn't have the same force.
And so you can know that just by not even opening up the Bible, but just by seeing that
imagery and explaining the nature, just nature itself, which is what we have in Romans
1.27, nature itself teaches us that that's wrong.
I think it's important to recognize that uh there is evidence in this world of God's
design.
When we look at this and compare the sexual anatomies of the human male and the human
female, and notice it is the human male and the human female that we're talking about
here, that uh it is, I believe, a...
a reasonable conclusion to say that this is the product of design and therefore the intent
of God and again anything that that conflicts with divine intent is wrong.
One other thing and that is we do not look to the animals in the woods for the basis upon
which we conclude what is moral and immoral for humans.
Again we're looking at the human male and the human female.
yeah there's no doubt the design is there no doubt at all even among animals no doubt the
design is there
Well, even procreation, think, is such a powerful aspect to this, right?
Because for the, for, you know, a defender, I guess, of the morality of homosexuality to
say that homosexual activity is at least as natural as heterosexual activity, to me, at
least, just makes no sense whatsoever.
Because in one case, you have the literal survival of the species.
And in the other case, have, I guess you could say potentially they would argue pleasure,
disease, like all kinds of things that come from it, right?
Rather than if heterosexual sex stopped, the human species would go extinct.
If homosexual sex stopped.
The human species will continue.
exactly, you know, so like I think if you just even if you just were to look at it that
way you could see okay So we know at the very least they're not as natural as each other
There's definitely one that is you know, and I know this isn't argument George is making
but at least from that if even if you take got out of the picture I think you could argue
Hey, if we're trying to survive as a species Which one's more, you know, which is the
natural route and I think I think it's pretty clear to see, you know
But of course today a whole other study with like surrogacy and all that kind of stuff
where they try to have babies without being able to have babies, you know, but all of that
enterprise is an attempt to do what nature, what God through nature has already supplied,
you know, which is heterosexual procreation.
kind of an attempt to try to go around God, you know, to say we don't need God, we don't
need God's design, we can do this ourselves.
I remember a long time ago, it must been in the 80s or 90s, uh Science Magazine, I think
it was, had a picture of a man who was pregnant.
And they had like the, they kind of like mocked the uh Time Magazine that showed the
inside of a womb, you know, it kind of like a...
set up kind of like that where you could see through it and all that.
And then you read the article and read some studies along that time.
And it's like, well, yeah, if you transplant uh female uterus and stuff into a man, you're
not doing anything but taking what God already made and designed and trying to put that in
a man.
you're not, you know, it's just just the arrogance of mankind is involved in this a lot in
this in this movement to try to justify just the arrogance of mankind.
And we see that in the transgender stuff, you know.
a trans i don't know the wording of it now but i mean you know a transgender female which
is actually a man thinks you're gonna have a baby no you can't do that uh...
but a transgender man can have a baby because a transgender man is actually a female body
claiming to be a man but you got the female parts so you know and we do have a in this
season coming up a lesson or two on transgenderism as well but we'll save that for then
Okay, so we appreciate George coming in with this and uh stay tuned for the next episode.
We'll talk a little bit more about this homosexuality and we'll talk about it in the sense
of addressing more precisely some of the objections to homosexuality.
All right, any final thoughts on this?
All right, well we appreciate your joining us in this podcast and we would encourage you
to join us next episode as we continue this discussion.