Article copyright by Bob Rogers.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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. – Romans 1:26-27, ESV
Gay rights activists often object to this passage, claiming it does not apply to consenting adult homosexuals. Here are three objections they give, and a rebuttal to each:
1) Objection: Some say this does not apply to those whom they claim are “born” homosexual. They say that when it refers to “natural relations,” it means people born homosexual are natural, but if a person is not born homosexual, then it is wrong for them.
Rebuttal: But Paul plainly says that homosexuality itself is unnatural, and so does the rest of scripture. Genesis 1:27 says we were created male and female, and intended for heterosexual relationships. Sodom was destroyed, according to Genesis 19, because of homosexual sin. Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Timothy 1:10 also condemn homosexuality.
2) Objection: Some homosexuals say this verse in Romans only applies to abuse of children, saying it is meant to keep adult homosexuals from sexually abusing children.
Rebuttal: While child abuse is also wrong, notice that verse 27 says “men with men,” not men with boys. It plainly applies to homosexual acts between consenting adults.
3) Objection: Some will admit that the homosexual act is forbidden, but they will say that homosexual feelings cannot be helped, so as long as the person with homosexual leanings remains celibate, it is okay to be homosexual.
Rebuttal: While it is true that feelings cannot be helped, it is also true that feelings and desires, if encouraged, will lead to actions. Notice that verse 26 refers to “lusts,” also translated “passions,” as shameful.
Notice at the end of verse 27, homosexuals are described as receiving “in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The word “error” is the Greek word for “wandering” or “straying” from the truth. It is the same word used for the straying sheep in Jesus’ parable in Matthew 18:12, and for backsliding believers in Hebrews 5:2. And here is where there is hope: sheep and backsliders can return from their wandering, and according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, some of them did! Paul says that former homosexuals were washed and sanctified and changed!
Copyright 2016 by Bob Rogers
Question from April:
Can you tell me where it talks about living together before marriage? Not sex. Just living together? We are talking with my son this weekend and we can’t find it. Thank you 😉
Answer from Dr. Rogers:
I don’t believe there are many couples living together who aren’t also having sex. But the sin is the sexual immorality before marriage. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage must be respected by all, and the marriage bed kept undefiled.”
If a couple were in the same household under the supervision of parents, it might be different, although just sleeping in the same house puts them in a very tempting situation.
The other problem with living together, is that even if a couple was not sexually active, everybody would assume they were, and Ephesians 5:3 says that there should not even be a “hint” of sexually immorality among you. So it harms their Christian testimony.
In addition to the Biblical reasons, there are psychological and social reasons why cohabitation is a bad idea. Couples think they are “trying out” marriage by living together, but it is impossible to “try out” marriage, because marriage is a commitment, and there is no commitment to living together. Either party can leave at any time, so it is not really a test of marriage. And studies show that people who live together before marriage are 50% more likely to get divorced than those who do not. Why is this? Well, if they don’t respect the bonds of marriage before marriage, why should they respect the bonds of marriage after they are married?
Genesis 2:24 says, “This is why” or “This is the reason” that a man and woman get married, and if you study the first two chapters of Genesis, you will see that marriage has three purposes:
1. A REFLECTION OF GOD’S UNITY. There is a unity within the diversity of the Godhead, as He is one God, yet three persons. Genesis 1:26-27 says that the Triune God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image… He made them male and female.” The male-female relationship of marriage reflects a unity in the midst of diversity, much as God is one, yet diverse in three persons.
2. A REALIZATION OF HUMAN UNITY. The husband-wife relationship is a joyful discovery of human fulfillment unlike any other on earth. Genesis 2:18 says that God made a “help meet for him” (KJV), or “helper suitable for him” (NIV) or “helper as his complement (HCSB). The last translation is probably the best, because the Hebrew word is a combination of two words that mean “like” and “opposite.” The wife and husband complement one another in roles in the home, and complement one another emotionally and sexually.
3. THE REPRODUCTION OF CHILDREN. While not all couples can reproduce children, God intends to grow families through married couples. Thus in Genesis 1:28, after making them male and female and in His image, God blesses the man and woman and says, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth…”
There is something very important that we should notice here. Today’s society seeks to redefine marriage to include a same-sex union. Notice that same-sex unions fail to meet all three of these Biblical purposes of marriage. Only a heterosexual union reflects God’s unity in His diversity. Only a heterosexual union can form a relationship where two people complement one another as opposites, yet alike. And, of course, only a heterosexual union can reproduce children. That is why Genesis 2:24 says that a man leaves his parents and is united to “his wife.” This has been God’s purpose for marriage from the beginning of human history.
If you see a video ad below this post, I do not necessarily endorse the product.