ScareChrist

We all do it.

Some do it more than others.

The people in the Old Testament did it a lot. Come to think of it, so did folks in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, they did it directly to Jesus after the Resurrection on the road to Emmaus. Call it a case of mistaken identity. Call it a misguided attempt to worship God without first understanding who and what God is based on knowledge of Scripture. Scripture which is God’s chosen way to reveal His attributes and character. 

Mere men vainly attempting to paint God into a corner. Mere men making God something less than Scripture defines Him as, at least in their minds. Mere men…committing idolatry while simultaneously believing they are revering God.

As I said, we all do it.

We try to make God into an image that we can accept. Sometimes it is an attempt to make Him graspable in our mind. Sometimes it is just spiritual laziness. In terms of fallacies it is called a Straw Man Fallacy. A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of another's argument or proposition. It is a false representation created so that the person can then tear down a weaker version of whatever it is they’re dealing with.

No one’s arguing or debating when it comes to idolatry you say? I beg to differ.

Some would say that when we make a false representation of Jesus or God in our minds we are not arguing or debating with anyone but ourselves, merely thinking critically about reality. Are we really? This is a bad inference because we most certainly are. We are creating a false image of God in defiance against God Himself. When we chose to think in a manner other than in the way Scripture has prescribed, we literally wage ware against God and His word with our minds. We are in rebellion. The Word/Scripture which is what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. In so doing we find ourselves at odds with God. It most certainly is a straw man argument, it just happens to take place between God and ourselves, mostly through bogus mental constructs. We argue against precepts through our action and the way we live our lives in our behavior. We are commanded specifically to do just the opposite.

2 Corinthians 10:3-4 ~ “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…”

We deceive ourselves for lack of true knowledge of Scripture. In so doing we then try to bring God down to our level while lifting ourselves up to His level. Pure idolatry. Attempting to exalt something of the Creation to the level of God…even if it is only an idea.

The sad fact of the Straw man argument is that when we attack God’s Scriptural truth by replacing it with our own mental construct of God, we in our own minds believe that our argument has refuted or defeated God’s revelation of Himself. We then live as if it has. If we have not dealt with the sin we are trying to protect by reshaping God, we are accumulating wrath against ourselves from God. The only one we fool is ourselves.

In other words, we create a false caricature of God. Shape our lives around it. When confronted with our error we argue erroneously from our opinion and emotion and justify our God based on how we feel and not Scripture (usually). A straw man argument pretends that something false is true, so it is intellectually dishonest…and we do it all the time to suit our sins. Only the honest man, led by the Spirit even knows the truth. Sometimes even many of them are blinded to…yes, even the elect. Are the elect saved? Yes. Can they be deceived? Of course they can!

In creating a false image of God. We commit idolatry. Our minds are geared for doing it. I’ve heard it said our minds are idol factories and the only thing that stops them from manufacturing idols is death. We construct a false god that is more friend or buddy than a holy and just judge. I believe we do this so that the god we create will accept the sins that we are unwilling to let go of. We create a Jesus that is not in the Bible that will turn a blind eye to our favorite entrenched sin.

I'll admit outright that the imagery in this post including the picture above is twisted and off-kilter. I have done so intentionally to show just how close to the real Jesus some people can come only to be dealing with a deadly haunting caricature that isn't even Him. Those that have prosperity through sketchy means construe the Bible in such a way that they get a wink-wink and nudge-nudge from a prosperity pimping Jesus. Pray for wealth and you will receive it. 

You know, the cosmic vending machine Jesus. Then we have the sexual immorality Jesus too. This is the one that unrepentant adulterers and homosexuals believe in. They therefore proclaim that they’re a gay Christians or Christian swinger. Embarrassing as the Biblical illiteracy is, they believe their own lies anyway. Why? Because their sin blinds them to their blindness. It’s the old adage: When does a fool realize they’re a fool? Answer: Never…because they’re a fool.

These aforementioned are some of the more extreme examples. The subtleties and hues of sin obviously can obviously get harder to distinguish but we all are guilty to some level. There is the legalistic straw man Jesus created in the mind of the legalist who must be scared or terrified into specific behaviors or works righteousness. It doesn’t matter if it’s The Law of the Old Testament or self-imposed rules. 

It is a ScareChrist…if you will permit the analogy. A false Christ that stands on the edge of our spiritual peripheral vision haunting our walk with the One True God. Our salvation is not works based (Ephesians 2:8). If a person repents they are forgiven in Christ. These monstrosities are indeed scary in that it will not save us from God's wrath because they are not the real Christ of the Bible, only our own creation. Just like the wood and stone idols of the Old Testament. 

The Bible says we are to conform to His will, He does not conform to ours. We do not treat Jesus as a bendy twisty Jesus that we can put into any position we want Him in like a bendy-twisty Easter rabbit but that does mean Jesus is required to comply.

They are Straw men arguments, one and all. People construct a version of Jesus that they want and then worship that image. I’m here to tell you it is pure spiritual adultery and idolatry. Jesus Himself even said so…

Matthew 7:21-23 ~ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

It’s as if we have made an idol of straw…an exaggerated or puffed up false image. Stuffing an image of our own creation with straw, just like a scarecrow. Straw which can be easily burned up in the fire of our judgment.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 ~ “But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

We need to avoid this if only so it does not bring ill-repute on the Faith of Jesus Christ. We certainly must do it so that we are sure of our salvation. Committing to the wrong thing could cost greatly on the eternal timescale.

The Bible and Homosexuality XXI: How We Deal With Sin Shouldn't Be A Sin

To wrap up this series I offer a few thoughts.

Truthfully, this series was not being written with the intent to agitate or be polemic but the very nature of this topic has become intensely polarizing (Holtam 592). The issue has been handled so poorly by the both the liberal and at times the conservative church, that it needs to be addressed before communication shuts down completely. It has already gotten to that point of wariness in many quarters. Mention homosexuality in a negative manner or call it sin and you are condemned for using hate speech. The divisive and confrontational nature of this topic and the way it has forced people to take sides has caused many to retreat into silence for fear of being ridiculed or persecuted.

In the Church, liberal theology adherents are inviting homosexuals into leadership so quickly they are practically tripping over themselves to open the door to let them in. On the conservative side many adherents seem to be tripping over themselves running in the other direction. What both views appear to be failing to address is how to properly assimilate practicing homosexuals into the church and help them find ways to stop their sin(s) (Holtam 592). It seems that both sides, if they are not avoiding the issue for fear of being misunderstood, then we are just not handling situations well when they arise because of a proclivity for hasty generalizations in this polemic issue.

Evangelical Christians need to address the issue of homosexuality the same as adultery and other sins. We cannot reject it outright in disgust because of its divergence or repulsiveness in comparison to the way we think or worse we often tiptoe around it avoiding it completely. We need to address it head-on as the sin it is defined as in the Bible. We need to continue to teach what the Bible teaches. We must accept people into the church and feed them the word of God so that it will take hold of their heart. We must preach the Gospel boldly.

We need to treat all people in a manner which we ourselves would want to be treated if we were dealing with sin. We are not behaving in a Christian manner when we condemn homosexuals and look away in antipathy?

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

An entrenched sin is something we have all fought at one time or another. A sin that clung so tenaciously it was like a parasite in/on its host. It is a sin that we had even come to accept in our own lives because we couldn't shake it off. Homosexuals as all other sinners are enslaved to sin. We should have sympathy or a compassion for these people, not hostility. They are lost in their sins just like we were before we came into the faith but now we are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God, just like homosexuals could be if they see the error of their ways and turn to God. 

Who better can bring them the message of the Gospel in an understanding and loving manner than we as repentant sinners. Sinners that have struggled and continued to struggle in sins. We help not because we wish to be sanctimonious or to try to act as if we are on higher moral ground. We try to help because we too are flawed in sin and wish to come alongside our brethren to lift one another up and guide others to the answer...which is Jesus Christ.

An Addendum:

Because of the misapplication of Scripture and poor biblical teaching, many are lead astray for want of proper biblical teaching.

Proverbs 5:23 ~ “He will die for lack of instruction, And in the greatness of his folly he will go astray.”

Jeremiah 50:6 ~ “My people have become lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; they have gone along from mountain to hill and have forgotten their resting place.”

Isaiah 9:16 ~ “For those who guide this people are leading them astray; And those who are guided by them are brought to confusion.”

Such is the case with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. This church has pretty much turned on its ear the idea that we are to hate the sin and lovingly correct those that are in error in their sins (Holtam 593). They are the people we read about and see in the news that protest the funerals of service men/women. When we see the ungodly antics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the labels of “intolerant” and “hater” are well-earned. Due to the actions of a vocal minority that claim to be Christian, they help reinforce the stereotypes that Christians are naturally hateful and ignorant. It is what I have deemed the “God Hates Fags” Disorder. It is a cross between the actions of this small vocal minority claiming to be Christian and the broad generalizations or stereotyping of Christians by non-Christians in the culture.

It is the demonization of all Christians through logic errors like Fallacy of Composition or Broad Generalization. These broad generalizations usually occur (similar to Muslims) when people uneducated in the truths or doctrines of Christianity generalize and paint all Christians into the same category and mentality as that of members of the Westboro Baptist Church and their leader Fred Phelps. They are self-proclaimed Christians who are virulently and hatefully anti-homosexual in their approach to dealing with the sin of homosexuality. Whereas the mantra usually says that Christians hate the sin not the sinner, it appears Westboro Baptist hates the sin and the sinner when they parade around with derogatory signs that state: “God Hates Fags.”

God does not hate or abhor the sinner; He hates the sin as noted in my section on Leviticus 18:22. Even a precursory perusal of the Westboro Baptist Church‟s website shows this organizations extremely un-Christian behavior, not to mention an extremely poor grasp of the Bible (Underwood).  Not only are members of Westboro Baptist Church poor representatives of Christianity due to being educated in what appear to be non-Christian principles, it is also a horribly unfair stereotyping by non-believers to compare true biblical Christians to the likes of Fred Phelps. 

Unfortunately, when people hear the name Christian, it is often the likes of Fred Phelps that come to mind because this is the stereotype pushed by the media and those with pro-homosexual agendas in an effort to silence Christians completely. I hope and pray that through this series I have cleared a few of the misconceptions and spoken in truth to the glory of God. Homosexuality is still a sin but the way we address it as Christians should not be. We should not be singling out any particular sin as a black sheep because that too is preferential treatment and the Bible frowns upon that too.

The Bible and Homosexuality XX: Jesus Loves Gays and Expects Repentance

The Gospel

If this series of posts ends in what seems like one large evangelization of the Gospel, perhaps that is what it is? It was my original intent to show a biblical view of homosexuality in this series. I believe I have done that earlier in the body of this work. The clear biblical view of homosexuality based on this series is that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is something that needs to be forgiven and that is only possible through repentance and acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Erickson 250, Grudem 695). A choice to repent is a choice to not sin.

The wrath that a sin incurs from God is the exact thing that Jesus Christ came to earth incarnate to placate or atone for (Enns 233-234, Erickson 253-254, Grudem 574-575). In the end, the proper way to view homosexuality is to view it as a sin that needs to be stopped and repented of on an individual basis (not culturally or in plurality), just as other sins. I am not downplaying its sinful nature but nor am I going to build it up and say it is any worse than adultery or other sexual sins. The bottom-line is that the only way to repent of sin and gain salvation is through an individual choice to trust and believe in Jesus Christ and His message. That message is best summed up by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ~ "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures..."

Humans will never stop sinning and the Bible shows us this clearly but sin should not have dominion over a believer's life either (Grudem 748). We can make inroads with the help of the Holy Spirit to become more holy but while we are in this flesh (sanctification), we will never fully win the battle against sin (Romans 7). It is one of the reasons men are appointed to die once and face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). It is the only way a person stops sinning.

In this series we see with the utmost clarity the truth of the need for the Gospel and the utilitarian nature of the Gospel not only for homosexuals but all sinners regardless of race, gender or sexual inclination. The Gospel is the only answer for our sins and the passage to eternal life. It covers the entire gamut of sins in the Creation including fornication, idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, and of course homosexuality. It covers the sins of all of those that repent and turn the Christ and His Gospel. What we end up seeing is that the root of all depravity and sin including homosexuality starts when we turn our back on God and ignore or avoid God (Romans 1:25) and the Gospel. Our life and salvation comes by turning towards God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in obedience.

We Are To Be Representative of Christ

Even though this series of posts has effectively argued for the unbiblical nature of homosexuality this does not give license to Christians to maliciously malign homosexuals and live up to the stereotype of overzealous hate-driven fanatics. We can easily use Leviticus 18 & 20’s references to abomination, and wickedness to drive home the fact that God views homosexuality negatively but there are gentler ways to reach the lost. Aggressive rhetorical bludgeoning through the use of terms like abomination and perversion have been used before to try and reach homosexuals and it wins few converts to Christianity. It most often sends them sprinting or screaming in the other direction. Although the words in Leviticus are absolutely true as is all of the Bible (Inerrancy of Scripture), and the passages in Leviticus also immediately erect a brick wall and cease dialogue between the two sides of this volatile issue. Although I addressed Leviticus’ passages in this series, they were not the main focus, nor did they need to be.

It’s no different than if I were a doctor and I walked into my office and told someone, "You have cancer, you're chances of survival are zero." Is it telling the truth? Yes. Is it a proper way to do it? No! Where is the compassion for people? Where is the mind of Christ? Sin is just as deadly as any cancer.  Overcoming sin can be daunting for people, especially if they have a lot of it in their life and have become conditioned to accepting it by an immoral and promiscuous culture/society. Even if a person converts, conversion does not guarantee instant sanctification as the sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly illustrates. People are often broken in stages one sin at a time, anger, vanity, arrogance, adultery, homosexuality, etc. In the case of some of these sins, it is an ongoing battle. Rhetorical bludgeoning is counter-productive and ineffective. Judgment and wrath are to be left to God as it is in His perfect judgment in His perfect righteousness if it would be necessary. If Christians cannot explain to sinners the sin that they are committing and why they will be condemned because of them, what good is being aggressive and divisive to begin with?

We must never forget that the focus of Scripture is on the following facts: (1) Sin is an offense to Almighty God. (2) Those that are in this sin are enslaved to it (Romans 1), which is consistent with what we see elsewhere in Scripture about sin in general. (3) Those that are trapped in sin can be set free (1 Cor. 6:9-11). We're in the church are often very good at emphasizing that sin is indeed an offense to God, and arguing over "choice" and the origin of the sin. Unfortunately, we too often forget that people are enslaved to their sin, and the enslaving power of sin. The result is that too often in the church, we give the impression that people need to free themselves rather than turning to Christ to set them free. We give that impression that their sin is worse than ours when all sin is an affront to a holy God. We lose the compassion of God for lost sinners who are in the throes of a sin they simply can't defeat. In sight of this fact, we end up wasting time arguing over the offensiveness to God (which most people internally know, but suppress it). Thereby we give a twisted witness by our aggressive unpleasant behaviors rather than preach the Gospel like we should.

It is clear that most of the church may have missed the boat on this, both liberal and conservative denominations. We have been tolerant of sexually suggestive wardrobes, immoral media and adulterous heterosexual relationships when they are all sins equally denounced by God. We tend to often turn a blind eye to immoral heterosexual interactions and are dragging out the rhetoric and verbosity when we see an infraction by homosexuals. Many churches then set themselves in a real unhealthy position of hypocrisy and project a double-standard to the world when they are found guilty of other sins common to other people while simultaneously hammering on homosexual’s sin. We must denounce all sin equally, not just certain sins unequally because we find certain sins more repulsive.

Practicing Homosexuality is Still a Sin

The bottom-line still remains. Forgiveness does not allow homosexuals (and other sinners) license to pursue their sin recklessly in complete disregard of Scripture (Romans 6:1-2). They will eventually receive in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Romans 1:27). Sometimes the retribution for an unrepentant and wicked life comes in this life, sometimes not. What the Bible is clear on is that it will certainly come at our judgment if we do not repent. In the end, we will all be judged for our sins whether we are straight, gay or whatever. It behooves us to stop our sins now, not justify them and accept them. We are to live our lives in an expectation that Christ could return today. The more we sin without seeking repentance the more we will incur God’s wrath on the Day of Judgment. We are to assume judgment can come at any time and we are to be prepared for it by living biblical lives in accordance with Scripture.

2 Peter 3:10-11  ~ But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.  Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness…?

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 ~ …and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…

Romans 14:10-12 ~ But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

The Bible And Homosexuality XIX: Jesus Loves Gays

Towards A Biblical Conclusion

We have now turned the corner on this series. I’ve completed my examination of Scripture and will now discuss what we should probably take from the last 18 posts and discuss probable applications of what has been presented. Having the information is one thing, using it in a culture that is hostile to the conservative Christian view is another thing altogether. 

By rounding the corner we now set a direction that will steer us directly to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. The first thing we should discuss are the theological and logical consequences of sin since I have clearly shown over the last 18 posts that homosexuality is first and foremost a sin against God Himself, not other people.

The Theological and Logical Consequences of Sin

It is Scriptural fact that humanity (homosexual or not) cannot do things to save themselves from their sins as there is nothing in our natures that is good or righteous before God (Grudem 497). Humans cannot they make themselves more righteous or holy without the assistance of God (Erickson 326, Grudem 753-754). Romans 3:9-20 and then 3:21-26 does an excellent job of showing this.

Romans 3:9-20 “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of god before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to god; because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

We see many things in this lengthy passage but we see a few crucial theological items.

(1) There are none righteous (not heterosexual nor homosexual). 

(2) There are none who do good (neither heterosexual nor homosexual).

(3) There is no fear of God before their eyes (not heterosexual or homosexual).

(4) This means humans in their natural state [1 Cor. 2] that have rejected God have no Godly wisdom since to fear God is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).

(5) This is because a human’s carnal (sinful) mind is enmity against God or hostile towards Him (Romans 8:7). 

(6) Therefore, it is only through faith in Jesus apart from the Law (human works) and not our acts that we break free of sin in God’s eyes.

This is regardless of what sin we are dealing with, homosexuality, thievery, adultery, etc. Obviously, we will not stop sinning but from a legal/divine standpoint our sins can and will be overlooked if we repent and seek the Lord. What is ironic about the Romans 3 passage is that it leads a sinner directly to the answer for their sin in its finale (v.21-26).

Romans 3:21-26 “But now apart from the law the righteousness of god has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of god through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom god displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The answer or antithesis to sin is the righteousness of God apart from the Law in Jesus Christ (Enns 244, Erickson 317, Grudem 204). Specifically it is by grace through faith in Christ (lest any should boast) that we receive His righteousness and that pardons the sin that we cannot rid of ourselves of. There is no distinction between sins in this passage, not heterosexual adultery nor homosexual immorality. All humans have sinned and all are guilty before God (Erickson 204, 311; Grudem 498).

This should give all people pause to reflect before deciding to point the finger at anyone else’s sin. A person who commits a homosexual act is no different than the one who cheats on his wife and commits heterosexual sin outside the boundary of their marriage. In the end, we are justified and redeemed in salvation through Jesus Christ and this is a free gift of God through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

God’s wrath passes over people’s sin that repent and seek His Son Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19). There needs to be a heart change and this is exactly what Paul says about the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which included homosexuality. In other words: To take hold of the righteousness of Christ requires an admission of guilt of a person’s sin and a desire to seek repentance. It means that there should be desire to stop committing sin and if one does commit sin, they are remorseful for doing so. There is no other way to escape the judgment of wrath of God that we deserve for our sins (Erickson 260, 262; Grudem 580).

After our conversion our salvation is further worked out in a joint effort with the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, it is the Holy Spirit that is the seal or assurance that this conversion has taken place (Ephesians 1:14) and an assurance that we are children of God (Romans 8:16) (Enns 267, 279-280, 352; Grudem 644). The signs or manifestations that the Holy Spirit is at work in us working out our salvation through process of sanctification are the Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) (Grudem 804). In opposition, the signs that He is not in us are the sins or deeds of the flesh which include immorality (by implication: sexual, homosexual).

It follows that an unrepentant active / practicing homosexual cannot possibly be Christian. Only someone who is convicted of their sin and are repentant can be saved and this repentance must continue throughout life (Grudem 717). Therefore we cannot be accepting of or allow active homosexuals to stay within the Body of Christ without an expectation that they will at least attempt to cease their behavior in a conscientious manner (1 Corinthians 6). '

To help a sinner by allowing them into the Church and expect them to change is biblical, to bring them into the Church and not expect change/repentance is to be an enabler of sin. We thereby become enablers of sinners. This means that churches that allow practicing homosexuals into leadership or are accepting of overt homosexual behavior without rebuking and correcting it are effectively accomplices of said sin. We are then propagating or enabling unbiblical ideas within the church and we become false teachers and false witnesses of Christ and biblical truth.

2 John 10-11 ~ If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [the Gospel, Jesus Christ], do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

The sine qua non of this series ends up being the same as that of Scripture. It is not what humanity does that makes them align to God. It is what God has done and still does for us. It boils down to sin and the thing that forgives or annuls it: The Gospel. To accept the Gospel requires that the one acknowledge their need for it. This requires that one realize they are a sinner that continually commits sin.

So yes, God loves gays. So should we. Don't forget, Jesus was a friend of sinners. Jesus dined with tax collectors and befriended prostitutes. As a matter of fact He loved gays enough to die for them to atone for their sin. Sin which He clearly hated and still does. He expects them to repent of their sin (1 Cor 6) and turn from it continually, just as He does with all sinners and their sins also. There are no exceptions.

The Bible and Homosexuality XVIII: God Made Me This Way, Part II

Reduced To Absurdity

If the previous argument in Part I isn’t enough to refute the pro-homosexual view, the following logic should end the argument. The framing of the “God Made Me This Way” argument as a sinful allowance by God is flawed from a logic standpoint. 

It assumes one that is guilty of homosexual actions is unique in their type of sin. To agree to frame the debate this way is to pay practicing homosexuals special credence for their particular sin. Sin is sin no matter how it’s framed. God views all sin as an affront to His holy nature. To use this leap of logic for homosexuality requires that we also do it for all sin and all sinners and this would lead to reductio ad absurdum. It would mean that God made a thief a thief, an adulterer an adulterer and so on. 

This would implicate God as the source of all sin via human proclivity towards it. This is essentially making people robots like that of hard determinism. This is absurd. It also takes the accountability for action off of all humanity for sin. This is totally against the Bible's concept of sin. People are indeed responsible for their sins and they will be held to account for all of them. The penalty for sin is death and if the sin is not repented of, it will mean eternal condemnation. 

To attribute the blame for sin to God directly violates Scriptural description of God’s attributes and description of His character.

1 John 3:9 ~ No one who is born of God practices sin, because His [God’s] seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Further Flaws of Logic

Furthermore, God didn’t make these sinful people sinful. Although that it is possible that the entire human race’s nature is corrupted via the Fall of Man (Feinberg 382-383), for someone to say that because God has allowed the sins to continue unabated constitutes an approval of them is another fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. This argument goes as follows:

(1) If God allows homosexuality, He approves of homosexuality
(2) God has allowed homosexuality to continue
(3) Therefore God approves of homosexuality.

The problem with this is that is assumes that the only reason God has allowed the sin of homosexuality to continue it because He approves of it. This is not what Scripture tells us. Just because God has allows any sin to continue does not mean He approves of sin. Scripture is clear on this fact.

Romans 6:1-3 ~ What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

What in reality has happened since Genesis 3 and the Fall of humanity is that God through His forbearance and patience has allowed human sins to continue and not judge people for their sin outright which is what they deserved.

Romans 6:23 ~ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some Christians, unsure of Scripture will assume that, for reasons only a God can know, he allows sinners (like homosexuals) to continue to sin in this fallen world and doesn't expect them to change. This is an incorrect assumption. Scripture tells us exactly why God continues to allow sinners to sin and also allows evil and suffering to continue in this world in 2 Peter and it is not because He approves of sin. It is just the opposite reason.

2 Peter 3:9 ~ The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you [a sinner], not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

The truth is that God is extraordinarily patient when it comes to our sin (Erickson 195, Grudem 201-202). He is giving humanity and individual humans every possible chance to repent and turn to Him for forgiveness of the very sins they are committing (Enns 337). In the end, logic and Scripture repudiates the flawed assertion that God makes homosexuals the way they are. This also goes a long way to repudiate the eunuch/homosexual argument put forth about Matthew 19 and the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 that implies some eunuchs are made the way they are by birth (Helminiak 127).

Theological Implications of Human Choice

To wrap-up the “God Made Me This Way” synopsis the following can be stated. Just like any other volitional action whether it is physical, mental, sexual or otherwise, it is a choice. Granted it is sometimes an incredibly difficult choice to stop some of these sins but it is not an impossible task to cease from one’s entrenched sin. 

The question that needs to be asked in this situation is this: Is a sinner expected to try and stop their sin on their own without help? Is that what is truly expected of a sinner? The answer: Yes and no. 

God expects us to turn and repent of sins. In reality, He knows His creation as only a Creator God would know it…and it is the very reason God foreknew that He would send His Son Jesus Christ. We are all slaves to sin and we are all totally incapable of beating sin without God as Romans 3 clearly states. We would need righteousness apart from the Law and human works.

1 Corinthians 5:21 ~ He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Romans 3:25 ~ God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished...

John 3:17 ~ "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The bible tells us that it is impossible to uphold the Bible’s standards of holiness from the human perspective but through God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26-27, Luke 1:37, Philippians 4:13). This includes not only physically resisting of the sin but even the more difficult task of not thinking the sin. The process that lasts throughout our lifetime on earth is called sanctification. It is both a passive and active role that we play. 

By yielding ourselves over to God we depend on God to sanctify us (Erickson 326, Grudem 754). We are to strive for holiness and without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) and we are to abstain from immorality and obey the will of God (1 Thessalonians 4:3) that is our sanctification (Grudem 755). The start of the turnaround is the admission of guilt of one’s sin. God cannot make a person remorseful of sin because this is a volitional act (a choice). Without an admission of one’s sin, there is no repentance (Erickson 279, 308; Grudem 713).

It doesn’t matter if this sin is homosexuality or any other sin. To refuse to admit that a choice is involved here is to deny any culpability in one’s own sin (Grudem 333-334). This is either an inability or it is an unwillingness to take accountability for one’s actions. To take accountability for one’s actions would be an admission of the guilt of the transgressor/sinner. It would force an individual to acknowledge their sin. Sinful humanity will not nor cannot do this as it is not their nature as stated in Romans 3:9-20 (Erickson 190, Grudem 497).

The Bible and Homosexuality XVII: God Made Me This Way, Part I

The Genetics Argument

I believe through a proper theological understanding of Scripture and properly understood logic it is conceivable that this argument can be retired and put away once and for all without getting into myopic scientific minutiae. It is critical to refute this argument because the modern theological division is divided at this point.  I suspect this is the avenue down which I will receive the stiffest opposition and be savagely attacked for this particular argument.

If there is a place where the Church is out of its depth knowledge wise it is here.  The Church attempts to take the genetic argument to the opposing side on a scientific level and this is a mistake. By doing this the Church is allowing the other side to define the terms, the rules of debate and even the realm of debate. This is foolhardy for a Christian. It is believed you need to be an expert on genetics and science to refute this assertion. I beg to differ. The assertion that God makes people gay is a theological issue, not a scientific one. 

The Bible defines homosexuality as sin. Sin is a theological issue, not a medical one. We need to stop allowing pseudo-intellectuals to frame this debate in a scientific light when in reality it is a theological one that defines whether or not homosexuality is wrong. It boils down to choice to perform an action, not genes defining behavior. Genes might say that I have a predilection for anger and violence but it is my choice whether or not to physically attack someone in anger.

On one side we have conservative theology that believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and is the position of this paper. On the opposing side are those that believe or accept that homosexuals are made the way they are or have little or no choice in the manner (Holtam 593). The recent trend culturally is that even the wordage of this phenomena has even changed over the last few years to enforce the idea that homosexuality is now an "orientation" rather than a "preference" which would indicate a choice. 

These terms (like those of abortion) become exceptionally important when dealing with legal or litigious issues concerning respective legalities. It needs to also be mentioned that no studies have ever conclusively proved there is any genetic linkage to the behavior of homosexuality. As this is primarily a biblical and theological series on homosexuality and so that I do not bog down this post with unwarranted scientific complexities I reference some of the most recent scientific references here in their source material: 

Mustanski et al-Human Genetics 116, 272–27

Rice et al-Science 284: 665-667.

Having tentatively mentioned that the genetic argument for homosexuality stands on extremely shaky ground, I now move to the main gist of the theological/biblical polemic.

First, based on previous argumentation it can conclusively be shown that homosexuality is a sin (among many others). Sin by its nature is not of or from a holy God per se as this would contradict God’s nature being holy. Therefore God could not have made a human homosexual or sinful. He could allow it for His purposes but through their own freewill, individual people choose to sin of their own volition. Additional Scripture validating the attributes and nature of God are as follows.

1 John 1:5 ~ This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Habakkuk 1:13 ~ Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

When confronted with sinful sexual circumstances including immoral or wicked thoughts humans are confronted with a choice (freewill) to violate the rules and statutes that God has ordained for human sexual activity. The truth is that the only acceptable sex acts are those within the covenant of marriage between man and woman (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5). What we choose to do with our minds and subsequently our bodies when dealing with temptation and sin is choice (Enns 209, Erickson 210-212, Grudem 333). If our fantasies and acts of sexuality are outside of marriage they are in violation of Scripture, therefore they are sin and an offense against God. The Bible is replete with examples of sexual sin being sins of choice. From the mouth of Paul we again see the following about adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, etc.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

The implication in the above passage is that the believers made a choice to believe and become part of the Church. Paul then states that it was a past action / condition. Therefore by entering the Church they were to put away the old behaviors such as homosexuality. It is clear that because Paul needed to address these sins in such a manner, some within the Corinthian church were still choosing to commit the aforementioned sins. They would now need to make a choice to stop committing these sins. More specifically, they having been told these sins are clearly out of bounds for Christian behavior and the Corinthians should at least now be convicted of their immoral behavior enough to feel guilt and wish to stop these sins of their own volition.

When we begin to combine the idea of sexual thoughts / sexual acts being choice with the idea that a person may have homosexual inclinations we see an inconsistency. The first premise logically invalidates the second premise or claim. Even though a person may be homosexual and have homosexual proclivity - like unmarried heterosexuals, they have a biblical obligation to control not only their physical sexual life but also their sexual thought life just as Jesus said:

Matthew 5:27 ~ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Although the passage above does not speak directly to homosexuals the underlying principle is clear. To look at a woman (or object of desire) and have sexual thoughts about her/him outside the bounds of marriage (adultery) is to sin. To think a sin is to have committed the sin in your mind. It therefore follows logically that any sexual thoughts about another human being (or object) outside the bond of marriage is improper and sinful. Since homosexuality is not within the acceptable confines of what is considered legitimate biblical marriage, we see a compounding of sin (Romans 1).

What is additionally interesting about the Habakkuk 2 passage above is that it speaks not only to the fact that God is pure and cannot look upon evil but it also alludes to the idea that God allowed/allows wickedness (therefore sin). It is at from this angle of the pro-homosexual argument that we arrive at the aspect that says homosexuals cannot help that they are or the way they are. It is the idea that God may not have made a person homosexual but he has allowed people a that choice to sin and perform homosexual acts for only reason He could know or understand. 

[Concluded in Part II]

The Bible and Homosexuality XVI: A Case of Homosexuality That Wasn't

Here is another in a long line of interpretive faux pas of Scripture. I present another pro-homosexual misreading of the Old Testament. 

Along the same lines as David and Jonathan we have Ruth and Naomi and the assertion that they were gay. Frankly, there is not much evidence to go on to defend a homosexual relationship in the Book of Ruth (Helminiak 126).  Again we are confronted with a single verse of Scripture to base a pro-homosexual interpretation on. As with Daniel and Ashpenaz, one cannot base an entire theological or interpretive claim on one verse of Scripture without committing a host of logic fallacies and interpretive errors too numerous to list here.

The claim is that Ruth 1:14 is a biblical assertion that these Biblical women were gay. They base a majority of their argument on one passage (like Daniel 1:9) that seems clearly torn from its context of loyalty and family and the overarching theme of the Kinsman Redeemer (Levirate marriage) in the book of Ruth (Cundall 242). It is in this passage that shows Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi (Cundall et al 259) that many within the homosexual community claim is  an affirming “messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people” (Would Jesus Discriminate?-Ruth and Naomi). They claim that in the story of Ruth we see the Bible address the question: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God? They are implying that this loving committed relationship could potentially be sexual.

Ruth 1:14 “And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.”

The focal point in this passage for the gay community is a single word: דָּ֥בְקָה /dabaq or clung. Orpah kissed her mother but Ruth, her daughter-in-law clung to her. The word דָּ֥בְקָה is indeed the exact same term used by Genesis 2:24 to describe the how man will leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife or specifically how Adam was to cling or cleave to Eve. It is a word that does show the unique closeness that can be experience in a marriage relationship (Wolf 522). Interestingly, the word order in the Hebrew places Ruth ahead of דָּ֥בְקָה /dabaq therefore it emphasizes the contrast between the response of Orpah and Ruth. The purpose of the writer of Ruth was to show the two women who were initially viewed as equals to be actually quite different. Orpah goes with a natural course of obeying Naomi’s wishes but Ruth picks the harder spiritual and emotional course but one that is more loyal to Naomi (Block 638).

This is a relationship of closeness founded in faith and loyalty not lust (similar to David and Jonathan). There is a familial relationship taking place here. It is indeed possible to have a very close familial relationship similar to that of a husband and wife in other relationships in a family. It does not follow that the relationship needs to also contain aspects of sexuality or eros like that of Adam and Eve. This is a fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. It is no different than saying: Gay people hug in a loving and affectionate manner, Naomi and Ruth hugged in a loving and affectionate manner, therefore Naomi and Ruth have to be gay. There are other reasons in Scripture that people clung/cleaved and they were not sexual in their motive. Clearly this passage concerning the gleaning of Boaz’s fields that uses the same verbiage is not homosexual in its intent and it resides right within Ruth:

Ruth 2:21 ~ Then Ruth the Moabitess said [speaking to Naomi], “Furthermore, he [Boaz] said to me, ‘You should stay close [cleave/cling] to my servants until they have finished all my harvest."

It is interesting to note that the supposed homosexual passage of Ruth 1:14 is immediately followed by a declaration of faith in God by Ruth (which is conspicuously absent from many homosexual arguments). Had these verse that immediately followed verse 14 been read and taken into account also in this context, it would easily dispel the assertion that Ruth is clinging to Naomi in a sexual or romantic manner. She is clinging physically to Naomi but spiritually and in the context of Scripture, she is clinging in faith to God.

Ruth 1:15-18 Then she said, “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.” When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

Ruth immediately responds to Naomi in a theological manner in verses 15-18, not a homosexual manner. She states that Orpah has gone back to her people and “her gods.” Ruth then followed her initial statement with an immediate statement that she wouldn’t leave Naomi nor would she leave Naomi’s God. Far from being a sexual assertion, this passage is a profound theological statement from Ruth about her faith in Naomi’s God (the God of the Bible) and how that ties into her relation to Naomi (Block 639). This is an issue of spirituality, not sexuality. To read sexuality into this passage is to re-frame the context of the passage.

This scenario also begs the question. If Ruth was indeed a lesbian, why would she inevitably marry Boaz and also sleep with Boaz to produce offspring (Ruth 4:13). At the point of Obed’s birth we see Naomi taking the child, laying him in her lap, and becoming his nurse. This hardly seems like the behavior of a jilted lesbian lover.

The Bible and Homosexuality XV: David and Jonathan...Adoration or Admiration?

David and Jonathan’s Love

Were David and Jonathan gay lovers? Is there an Ancient homosexual love story that unfolds in 1 and 2 Samuel?

In a word: No.

This is one of the most tightly held misinterpretations of Scripture by pro-homosexual advocates. The zeal to view this relationship as gay is justified due to the language content / context but not due to the social and historical context. My explanation will be lengthy but critical to a biblical apologetic. 

Belief that David and Jonathan were gay is an example of difficult but poor interpretation that is further exacerbated by a failure to be able to read/interpret the original Hebrew and understand theological principles. Conversely, a mere dismissive sweeping aside of the pro-homosexual argument is dangerous here because as I’ve said, the language in the passage concerning David and Jonathan is precise and context driven. If one does not view all the contexts with the proper presuppositions they will come away with a distorted view of what is going on between the two men.

“Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt…” 1 Samuel 18:1-4

Pro-homosexual advocates are quick to cite the relationship between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 (secondarily 1 Samuel 20:16-17) as probably being a homosexual relationship (Helminiak 123-125, White et al-Kindle location 104). This is because of the statement in 1 Samuel 18:1 that says the “soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself”, verse 3’s statement that “Jonathan loved him as himself” and verse 4’s, “Jonathan stripped himself…” The wordage that Jonathan stripped himself is often attributed to the fact he was undressing for a sexual act. Jonathan didn’t strip naked here. What happens in this verse is a physical act of disrobing with symbolic implications.

In reality, for Jonathan the heir apparent to the throne to strip of his robe, sword, etc. (royal regalia) and give it to David was an acknowledgement by a King’s son (Saul) that David was indeed rightful heir to the throne and the divine elect of God (Youngblood 707). 

In other words…in the time of David, which was approx. 1000 B.C., for a person of position and power to relinquish their weapon, armor and royal robe was to essentially divest themselves of power and hand it to the person they handed these items to. It was the same as handing someone your royal scepter. In this case it is David. Jonathan knew David was truly God’s chosen, not his father - nor himself. By doing these things he was essentially throwing his potential crown he would gain from his father at David’s feet acknowledging David as true king-God's king (Gagnon 150-Homosexual Practice, Merrill 449, Youngblood 707).

Admiration Not Adoration

What we see in this passage is a respect or admiration for David by Jonathan, not a homosexual adoration. This is not imagery of a homosexual tryst. It is the passing of a mantle or rightful transfer of political power. Because we are dealing with David who is God’s chosen there is a covenant aspect to this also (Youngblood 707). How Jonathan's obedience to God and acknowledgement of David as true king can be interpreted as homosexual encounter is hard to accept. This is especially true when the dominate pattern of the Bible that this passage resides in clearly condemns immoral sexual behavior that includes homosexuality or same-sex intercourse. To assume one of God’s chosen or a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22) is homosexual is to smear and defame God’s character / name and it betrays a complete lack of understanding of Scriptural principles.

The homosexual inference is further compounded with 2 Samuel 1:26’s lament from David over Jonathan’s death when David says, “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. It is assumed that the word love here is sexual and above that of women. A gender comparison does not assume a love that is sexual in nature, as this is a fallacy of composition (Jenni et al 48-49). This is a reference again to David and Jonathan’s deep covenant relationship mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:3, 20:8. It is a love of covenant/political loyalty and friendship (Youngblood 816).

It is clear that David and Jonathan really loved one another. The difficulty and point of contention in this passage is here. The question is: Does the relationship as described in Scripture warrant seeing them as homosexuals? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the love between David and Jonathan was deep (real deep). The word love in Hebrew in this and other passages like 1 Samuel is “וַיֶּאֱהָבֵ֥הוּ/aheb” which means to have affection for, sexual or otherwise (Jenni 47). In the political/covenant context of David (God’s true king) and Jonathan (Saul’s heir apparent), this would not make sense (Youngblood 707, 725). What is sad is that this assertion is incongruous to the preponderant pattern of Scripture (Analogy of Scripture) and is totally counter-intuitive in terms of the biblical condemnation of sexual immorality.

When doing hermeneutics and words studies whether they are Hebrew or Greek, the context of the passage and context of Scripture at large need to be taken into consideration. This is not being done with this passage if people believe this relationship speaks of homosexuality. One needs only look at Genesis 22:2 to see the exact same word (love) being used between two other males in the Old Testament…and they are clearly not homosexual (Jenni 48). It is God speaking to Abraham about his son whom he loved in the same manner that David loved Jonathan. We also see it in Leviticus 19:18 when we read that God said, "…you shall love/ahab/ בְּאַהֲבָת֥וֹ your neighbor as yourself” (Jenni 50). If this is homosexual love, this means God is telling the Israelites to love everyone in a homosexual manner. This is wrong to the point of absurdity.

Again, this understanding totally violates the premise of God’s natural order and God’s premise for sexual relationships or any normal heterosexual relationships for that matter because we are called to love all our neighbors. We even see the same word in the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 where believers are called to, “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Jenni 53). God is not calling us to love Him in a homosexual manner. This was it an intense pure covenant love, not homosexual lust. The places where homosexual intercourse are referred to in the Old Testament it is referred to as יָדַע or yada / “to know” as in Genesis 19:5 with Lot in Sodom and Judges 19:22 with the Levite and His Concubine (Block 537). This also seems to show that it isn’t even love related to covenant or loyalty (ἀγάπη / φιλέω) that is being addressed in the strictest sense where יָדַע / yada is being used in these respective passages. It is in reality just a sexual act of lust (ερος).

In 1 Samuel 20:41 we also see, “After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.”

When viewed from a presupposition that assumes homosexuality, it is easy to see how these passages can be misinterpreted. The homosexual view of this is that it is a “homosexual kiss.” Again we revisit context, this time in a cultural manner. Men in the time of David greeting other men in the Ancient Middle Eastern (AME) culture is much the same as it is now. This should be especially evident as all the other actions involved in this passage are in a formal greeting (the acts of bowing). It was and is a common cultural greeting for men in that day to greet one another by bowing/bending and with a kiss. Furthermore, it did not occur until two and a half chapters after Jonathan gave David his clothes (1 Samuel 18 thru 1 Samuel 20). This hardly happens in a single romantic evening rendezvous regardless of what people want to read into the text.

The truth is there is no suggestion in the Bible that David and Jonathan were homosexual. This is misinterpretation of the Hebrew or Septuagint Greek based on the context and is also speculative revisionism. In the larger context of Scripture and David’s life in general, the issue for David does not appear to be an issue of homosexuality; it appears to be an overabundance of heterosexuality. David, like his son Solomon was a heterosexual polygamist based on the evidences of Scripture (DeYoung 290).  David indeed had a problem with sexual immorality but it had to do with quantities, not types.

It seems that this love between Jonathan and David is a covenant love that finds God in the center as witness to it and ironically as the binding agent too (Youngblood 707). Homosexual presuppositions are clearly being read into the text. John Boswell who speaks from a pro-homosexual viewpoint seems to affirm this sentiment about the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi by only stating that they have erotic overtones but he never insists that they are homosexual (Boswell-Kindle location 2878). It doesn't seem that he was bold or foolish enough to bridge that interpretive chasm and jeopardize his academic credibility.