Homosexuality: How Should We Read Our Bible?

Having a method to how we study our Scripture is a lost art form. From the person who believes in tongues because they’ve ‘experienced’ it to the pastor at the local Church who believes Jesus turned water into grape juice, the name of the interpretational game today is ourselves. The most common method of interpretation is to read the Bible in a way that only relates to experience, feelings, and tradition. The idea of reading the Bible according to rules and guidelines is almost foreign to most people today. This is one of the major reasons why the homosexual agenda is allowed into our Churches. They set the stage for us by first talking about their feelings, their emotions, and the difficulty of living life as a homosexual. They talk about how their desire to have a lifelong, committed same-sex companion has been denied them based on a Bible that doesn’t address what it is they have experienced. And thus, they set the interpretational guidelines.

There is however, a science to interpreting Scripture. We call it ‘Hermeneutics.’ The word comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was a messenger for the gods, and has the idea of relaying Biblical knowledge to the reader. It’s a broad and deep subject and has all kinds of applications, but we’ll only be going over the basics, as that is all that is needed for our discussions.

Why do we need a systematized method of interpreting our Bible? Basically, because we (ourselves) are poor guides. We are arbitrary. We change our minds, our experiences are vast, and our backgrounds are varied. Thus, our experiences are poor interpreters. Let me give you an example. I was once teaching on Genesis a few years back and got into a discussion with a woman on the interpretation of Gen 3:16, “…Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” I was teaching that the word “desire” (which is only found here and one other place in Scripture) meant a “desire to dominate,” due to the fact that the interpretation here was impossible based on context and the only other occurrence of the word has a connotation of domination. Her argument against me was, “I’ve never experienced this,” and went on to say that she has always viewed her husband as her head, the way she should. So who’s right? Well, I’m not going to emphatically state I am (even though I believe that interpretation is the only one that makes sense). But, what I can say is that her guide is flawed. What concrete reasoning is her experience based on, and does that base have any intrinsic value to the text? The obvious answer is none and no. She was a Christian, and so my answer was simply that her feelings were irrelevant to the text, and that if she didn’t feel that way toward her husband then it simply meant that she was living the Christian life properly. Pretty simple.

            We could say the same thing about the other two examples I mentioned above. When someone says, “I believe in tongues, because I’ve spoken them,” our minds (if we disagree with the tongues movement) naturally go crazy because there is no reason to assume that they are lying to you. But, they don’t need to be a liar to be wrong. It is a matter of asking the right question. Instead of asking, “Are they making it up?” we should be asking, “Was what they experienced the same as what the Bible speaks of?” It has been well proven that the answer is “no.” The “tongues” of the New Testament are “known languages” (a debate for another time :D). The other example, of Jesus turning water to grape juice at Cana, is an example of tradition, or culture dictating Scripture. It is obvious that there are certain Christians that have grown up believing that alcohol is the drink of the devil, and that if you even taste a drop of it, you’re on your way to alcoholism. Thus, there is “obviously” no way that Jesus would have changed the water to actual fermented wine. I mean, let’s ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew, he was serving other Jews at a Jewish wedding, Jews commonly drank wine, and that the word the headwaiter uses for “drank freely” is the Greek word μεθύω (methuo), which means “to be drunken.” We can once again see that when we base our interpretations of Scripture on ourselves, we end up with less than perfect outcomes.

            So, how should we read our Scripture? When I teach hermeneutics, I teach that there is essentially only one rule- context. This can require next to no effort on the part of the reader, or it can require a scholar’s accuracy. It all depends. Nonetheless, it is the best guide. It requires us to ask questions of Scripture in relation to how it was written. Here are some examples.

1)    When was it written?- This can be pivotal for interpreting some portions of Scripture. Sometimes it is a guide for knowing what cultural situation the author is talking about and sometimes it can even affirm or negate an entire theological position.

2)    Who wrote it/ who is speaking?- We believe in plenary inspiration. Therefore, we believe that the author’s style and intent is preserved within God’s Word. So, it is vital to know a little about the authors and in the case of stories, who is speaking. For instance, it is really important to know that Paul was a Pharisee, as it gives his theology more flavor and gives background to some things he teaches.

3)    Who is the intended audience?- Here is the big trip up for most people. Christians, rightly so, tend to internalize Scripture. We make Scripture to be about us. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. When done correctly, it makes the Bible a living document that transcends time and culture. Done incorrectly, and we turn the intended audience into 21^st century people with all their cultural nuances. For instance, look at how Wiccans react to Levitical teachings about magic. They'll counter by saying that there are different types of magic, and that the Bible only condemns certain kinds. This throws out the perspective of Jews at the time of Moses, and when taken in the appropriate context will show that the Hebrew understanding is that all magic is of the same nature, and is an abomination. Without context, we are led to an incorrect interpretation.

4)    What is the grammatical context?- This could mean an array of things. What language is being spoken? What is the grammatical construction being used? Where else is the word used? How is this word used in the immediate context vs. the larger context? Lots could be said here, but I think you get the idea.

So, as we get into interpreting, let’s remember context. Experience is a poor guide. We, in and of ourselves, are not a good basis for judgment. We need to allow Scripture to speak for itself, and base our beliefs and ideals from what Scripture actually says, based on its own contexts.

In stating this, I’d also like to state that this is indeed a refutation of the homosexual position. Instead of making up a quotation that represents the homosexual position, I’ll use an actual quote. This comes from Matthew Vines, whose speech given on March 8 of this year was really what prompted me to get into this (and even more so, James White’s commentary on Vines’ presentation). Vines states,

It’s because [gay people] have a sexual orientation that we’re able to fall in love with someone, build a long-term, committed relationship with them, and to form a family.

First off, I want to state that this is in the introduction to Vines’ presentation about homosexuality in the Bible. This is his foundation for the interpretations he’s about to address. This isn’t some random gay person stating this, but is someone who intends to Biblically defend the homosexual position. That’s why I’m using it as an example. As we look at this quote, remember all I’ve said about experience, and about how poor of a judge it is in determining the meaning of Scripture, and as you’re reading the quote, think about how loaded the words are. Instead of taking him at face value, let’s ask a few questions about his quote pertaining to Biblical viewpoints.

1)    “…we’re able to fall in love with someone…”- “with someone” obviously meaning “someone of the same sex.” Is what he’s experiencing actually love, as the Bible depicts it? Is it even Biblically possible for a man to love a man in the same exact way a man loves a woman, according to what Scripture says about relational love?

2)    “…build a long-term,  committed relationship…”- What is the Biblical depiction of a relationship? Is what Vines sees as a relationship the Biblical definition for a relationship?

3)    “…to form a family.”- Is how Vines defines “family” the same as how the Bible defines “family?” Is it possible for two people of the same sex to form a Biblical “family?”

By asking these questions, rather than just listening to him and letting his feelings and emotions that he expresses impact our own, we can see that he is allowing those feelings and emotions to define certain words within the Bible. He’s taking for granted that there is a possibility for his definitions to be legitimate, based on what he’s experienced. Back to hermeneutics. We have two words pertaining to this, exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis comes from the Greek word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means, “to lead out.” In theological language, it means “to read out of Scripture.” Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis (εἰς- into), and means “to read into Scripture.” We’ll see this as we get into Genesis 2. The homosexual position will state that Eve was suitable because Adam was a heterosexual, and not a homosexual, in which case a man would have been a suitable partner. This is eisegesis. The plain meaning of the text, which we’ll go over, is that there is only one type of suitable partner for any man- woman.

I’m not going to answer the above questions now, I’ll answer them as we continue, as my intention is to exegete every text in Scripture that deals with homosexuality. In the midst of that, I’m also going to write a post addressing the health risks inherent in homosexual activity- it is not analogous to heterosexual sexual activity and comes with sometimes very serious consequences. I’ll also be doing a few posts on understanding specific contexts, namely, the Christian view of Levitical Law, understanding Jesus’ teachings based on who he was, and understanding Pauline thought. So, much more to come!

Peace be with you,

Mike