1 Corinthians 6:9 is frequently used in the defense of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. This blog challenges that position as it is analyzed by the Free Methodist Church in “Homosexuality in the Bible” as its view on same-sex marriage.
The last post ended with arguments that the Apostle Paul did not admonish certain behavior in this world because we would have to leave this world (1 Cor 5:10). It is befitting that we move into the two other New Testament references used in this discourse.
1 Cor 6:9
The author also addresses 1 Cor 6, which is taken wildly off course. The context is lawsuits between believers. It is restating the concepts in the parable of the unrighteous steward, as it says we need to find a way to win friends for the future during a time we are able to be unrighteous. Paul uses 1 Cor 6 to say it is up to us to discern and man will judge angels.
Paul seems to be saying those with awful traits will not inherit the kingdom of God because everyone will be clean (1 Cor 6:11). In other words it is hope for those who are locked in a certain way of being. This is more of a promise of better things to come. It is probably more directly telling people they will not be locked in their human condition of sinful nature forever.
Paul then breaks into all things being lawful. His point is about lawsuits and how one should behave. Why would another person sue over homosexual behavior between other adults? That sounds ridiculous on its face.
I could spend more time on this, but this seems to be a weak argument at best.
1 Tim 1:10
Paul’s first letter to Timothy is equally inappropriately applied to the topic. Notice the mic drop comment in 1 Tim 1:7. It says the teachers of the law do not even know what they are talking about. It calls back to James 3:2, which says we are all false teachers unless he is perfect. I don’t claim this, but I know enough to know others are not either. This speaks directly to the author’s authoritative understanding. Paul foretold Scripture to be mishandled egregiously. Then scholars grab this out of context and prove him right.
This passage also differentiates between the righteous and the unrighteous. Paul is allowed to speak because he grew in his unrighteousness. The natural, or righteous must follow the law. They are the ones being described by these things. Recall a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. You are who you are, and the law applies to that kind of person. We are to allow people to be the way they are, whether they are eunuchs (Matt 19:12). The wrong, filthy, righteous, and holy are also to be who they are (Rev 22:11, 1 Cor 7:20).
1 Timothy 1:4 is another mic drop moment. It tells Timothy not to listen to strange things being taught because they lead to mere speculation. Why is this a mic drop? Because the word translated to homosexual is the mere speculation Paul quite literally warned against.
The author concludes the Bible repeatedly and roundly condemns these behaviors. I wholeheartedly disagree. The author simply does not apply the context of creation – why we are here. If that was applied, the text would come alive.
Bridging the Gap:
The author could have found ways to potentially bridge the gap but stopped short of finding ways to interpret Scripture in a forgiving way. There are many places this could be done and I am hopeful others can add more to this discourse from a positive and forgiving way.
Specific Opportunities to Improve:
- The author does not apply the context of creation and the meaning of splitting Eve from Adam, which makes two unnatural beings from one uniform man ‘kind’. The unnatural is the issue, but that was created by the Lord. We are all made in God’s image, and according to Jeremiah 50:37, this was by God’s choice, not man’s.
- The author also erred because he did not cite ways or places Scripture could be misinterpreted. Instead, the author only defended an existing position. This is like an insurance adjuster finding a way not to pay the claim instead of finding a way to pay the claim. Like Lot, the author’s righteousness was not righteous.
- The author admits the rarity of homosexual behavior in the culture. For this reason, we must wonder why the first chapter in two citations would include an edge case within a commonly understood reality. Romans 1, Paul’s longest letter, begins with an admonishment interpreted as anti-homosexual. That’s fine, but if so, it would only make sense if it was a prominent social issue of the day, which the author denies is the case.
- Next, from a philosophical perspective, why would God make people in a certain way only to condemn them? Jesus said in Matt 19:12 that if someone is made a eunuch by God, man, or self, we should accept them. Jesus directly says to accept it. The context of that passage is divorce, relative to marriage. If one is unable to marry and is a eunuch, Jesus will save that family line, like the stump of Jesse or the eunuch in Acts 8.
