“We Want to be Fooled”

Sunday, August 06, 2023

I avoid writing articles from a first-person singular perspective, instead using pronouns like he, we, and the occasional you.  But sometimes, there’s just no way to stick to that pattern, and still get the point across in a readable fashion.  I’m sure it’s no surprise that I routinely engage in discussions over what the Bible says on a given topic.  Often, the discussion is with someone who is woefully misinformed about the Bible, and who has never studied it for himself.  Of course, I am not the final arbiter on God’s word, and have been corrected numerous times when I was mistaken; but it’s my job to read the Bible and know what it says, and I was struck by a recent discussion of this sort.

It began when one person confidently presented what he seemed to think was an airtight case, to the effect that what God said about homosexuality was actually not what most Christians think he said.  According to this individual, the Bible doesn’t directly address the topic at all—in fact, he pointed out, forms of the word homosexual didn’t start to appear in English Bibles until after World War Two.  He allowed that there are some concerns about homosexual behavior on the grounds that it’s an affront to God’s commandment, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Ge 1.28, 9.1, 9.7), but in reality—according to this person—when modern Bibles specifically address homosexuality, they’re presenting mistranslations of God’s commandments against men sexually abusing young boys.  That’s the real abomination!

Let’s evaluate.  Some of these points are true.  Forms of the word homosexual, indeed, did not start to appear in mainstream English Bibles until after the War.  Additionally, God did, in fact, instruct mankind to “be fruitful and multiply.”  Further, sexually abusing young boys is, indeed, an abomination.  That’s as much as we can say in agreement, though.  Under examination, it’s clear that his conclusion—that homosexuality is not really an “abomination” in God’s eyes—does not match up with what God has said.

What struck me most was the insinuation that anti-gay bigotry led biblical scholars to insert prohibitions of such conduct into the Bible in the post-war period, evidenced by the absence of the word homosexual in the Bible prior to then.  There are two problems with this.  Let’s take the minor problem first: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word homosexual is first attested in a publication from 1891.  The foremost English Bible well into the post-war period was the King James Version, published in 1611 and most recently revised in 1769.  It is absurd to suggest that the absence, in that translation, of a word not yet coined at its publication date, is evidence of some kind of plot.

Now, the major problem: what we call homosexuality existed long before English  had a word for it.  What did the oldest English Bibles say about the topic?

Thou shalt not lie with mankinde, as with womankinde: it is abomination.

(Leviticus 18.22, KJV, 1611)

And lyke wyse also the men lefte the naturall vse of the woma and bret in their lustes one on another. And man with man wrought filthynes and receaved in them selves the rewarde of their erroure as it was accordinge.

(Romans 1.27, Tyndale Bible, 1526)

Even the Wycliffe Bible of 1382 refers in 1 Timothy 1.10 to “hem that don letcherie with men,” which you can probably decipher.

This is to say nothing of the absolute clarity in the original Hebrew and Greek texts.  Despite the argument that was presented as iron-clad, and despite what any of us thinks or feels about the matter, God’s standards on sexuality are as clear as they can be.

How could the arguer have believed what he said, when two minutes’ reading so easily turned his conclusion on its head?  I don’t know how he got there, but I can tell you how I’ve observed others—including myself, at times!—falling into the same trap.  In most of these cases, it happened, not because we were fooled despite our best intentions and efforts; it happened because we wanted to be fooled.  We had our own, preconceived notion about what must be the truth of the matter.  Based on what?  Perhaps it was experience, or emotion, or ideology, or just the spirit of the age.  We all like to think that we are independent, dispassionate judges making our decisions based on the pure truth of the matter, but in reality, we are fickle, motivated by external cares, and incredibly susceptible to outside influence, especially from our peers and, even more, our idols.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

(Galatians 1.10)

It’s not a lost cause.  In this case, the person who’d presented the falsehoods considered the evidence I put before him and promised to look into it further.  I suspect he had been filled with “plausible arguments” (Co 2.4), by someone whose authority he respected—probably a local church pastor, who may himself have been parroting things he didn’t fully understand, but chose to believe because it made life easier.  And it does make life easier, in the here in now—you get to go along with the crowd!  But one day you will stand alone before the Lord on his throne, and you will not find it so easy to convince him that he really didn’t mean what he said!  In the long run, it’s easier to be the lone voice of dissent on this earth, and to be told on the day of judgment,

“Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.”

(Matthew 25.23)

Jeremy Nettles

Share