Norman Shepherd is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. His article is timely and significant in view of the recent decision by the 1973 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church on Homosexuality.
The report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality submitted to the recent Synod of the Christian Reformed Church distinguishes between homosexualism defined as overt homosexual practice, and homosexuality defined as a constitutional disposition to homosexualism. The report further acknowledges that the apostle Paul does not make this kind of distinction.
Although Paul does not make this particular distinction, he does make a distinction which is akin to it and which is of the greatest significance in our assessment of the value of Synod’s distinction and the consequences to be drawn from it.
The Romans 1 Passage – In Romans 1:24, we read, “Wherefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them” (NASB). It is readily apparent that there is in the understanding of the Apostle a distinction between what he calls “the lusts of their hearts” and the dishonoring of their bodies. The latter refers to the overt acts of homosexual practice. These acts do not occur merely as external phenomena apart from what men are in their hearts. What characterizes the heart comes to expression in deed. It is the lust of the heart which gives rise to the deed, and the one may not be isolated from the other.
Paul speaks of the same relationship in verses 26 and 27 when he writes, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their ~omen ex· changed the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” These indecent acts which he dwells on at some length, are of a piece with the “degrading passions” and “desire.” Those passions are invisible to the human eye, for they reside in the heart; but they give rise to the observable phenomena we call homosexual behavior. “Degrading passions” is simply another way of indicating the “lusts of the heart,” and the indecent act of verse 26 is the dishonoring of the body in verse 24.
Jesus in Sermon on the Mount – The kind of distinction which Paul employs in Romans 1 is similar to one which our Lord employs in the course of the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:27,28, our Lord teaches us, ”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ hut I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Jesus begins by quoting the seventh commandment. Far from suggesting that this law was valid only for a tribe of nomads some 1400 years previous to his ministry, Jesus enforces the binding character of it with respect to his own generation, and by implication, for succeeding generations. Put in its simplest terms, adultery is having sexual intercourse with another’s marriage partner. This is the most pointed application of the commandment—you are not to go to bed with someone else’s wife.
But now our Lord brings to the fore the fact that the commandment has always forbidden more than just the overt act of adultery; it also forbids the lust or the desire which gives rise to the act. It forbids what Peter calls “eyes full of adultery” (II Peter 2:14). This aspect of our Lord’s teaching is frequently transgressed in practice, but it has received rather full attention from the pulpit. So much so is this the case that occasionally one gains the impression that the prohibition of the lustful look is the central meaning of the commandment, with the implication that the overt act of adultery is of only peripheral significance. This is a distortion. The central thrust of the commandment is against adultery whether the offense he with the heart, or with both heart and body. Our Lord does recognize a distinction, nevertheless, between the lust of the heart and the overt act. He excuses neither. Both are transgressions of the commandment; both are sin.
The teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount has obvious bearing upon our understanding of Paul’s teaching in Romans 1. It is impossible to argue that what Paul condemns as sin against God is simply the overt homosexual act but not the lust, or the passion, or the desire from which the act arises. We have already noted how the Sermon on the Mount can be distorted as though Christ set himself not so much against the deed as against the lust. The same distortion is sometimes found in the interpretation of Romans 1, but in an inverted form. Paul is understood to be condemning homosexual relationships willfully entered into. It is then not so much the will, but the willful act that is wrong. The passionate or lustful will may also be sinful, but it is said to be, at least in some instances, “natural” to the constitution of the individual and therefore to some extent excusable.
The teaching of Matthew 5:27, 28 is undoubtedly to the effect that whatever the origin of the desire for a proscribed relation may be, it is as sinful and inexcusable as the overt act of adultery. The fact that the lust is traceable ultimately to the individual’s involvement in the sin of Adam, and in that sense is beyond the personal responsibility of the individual, did not prevent the Lord from condemning it. Our Lord sets forth a perfect standard of righteous and holy living and at the same time makes evident that the attainment of it is only by virtue of sovereign recreating grace.
Paul to Thessalonians – In 1 Thessalonians 4:4, 5 Paul instructs us that each must know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, “not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.” For the Apostle, as for the Lord, lust is wrong; it is sin. But more than that, the two words used in I Thessalonians 4:4, 5 are identical with those used in Romans 1:24 and 26. In view of that, and in view of the fact that the Gentiles are exemplary of this lustful passion in both passages, it would be wholly arbitrary to restrict the application of I Thessalonians 4:4, 5 only to the passions which arise between members of the opposite sex.
Therefore, when Paul commands us to abstain from sexual immorality (I Thess. 4:3) he includes immorality of both the heterosexual and the homosexual varieties, and he includes the desire as well as the act. Thus the bearing of Matthew 5:27, 28 on the interpretation of Romans 1:24 and 26, is confirmed by reference to I Thessalonians 4:3–5. We simply may not conclude that the desire of the heterosexual for a sinful act is sin but that the desire of the homosexual for a sinful act is not sin.
Redemptive Provision – What is now the relevance of the redemptive provision of Jesus Christ with respect to the sin described in Romans 1:24 and 26 f.?
Jesus came into the world to bear the penalty of sin on the cross. However, our view of his redemptive accomplishment is seriously impoverished unless we also realize that Jesus came to destroy sin itself. As the apostle John writes, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose that He might destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). One of these works which Jesus destroys is homosexuality, not simply in general, but in particular. Paul says explicitly in I Corinthians 6:11, “And 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.” What Jesus came to do, He actually does; and Paul bears witness to it from his own observation.
One may argue that in I Corinthians 6:11 Paul does not distinguish between the lust of the heart and the overt act, and that what he really has in \·iew is the overt act. The man who openly pursues his passions will not inherit or enter the Kingdom of God. However, this interpretation would leave us in the uncomfortable position of having to say that the passions and lusts of Romans 1 remain in one whom Jesus has washed and sanctified. Or to put it even more pointedly. contrary to His own teaching, Jesus simply washes the outside of the cup, and the fruit of His death and resurrection is the whited sepulchre.
We dare not restrict the efficacy of the atonement in this way. The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of righteousness, and the whole man is transformed according to the pattern of the Redeemer.
A Manufatfured Justification? – We began by noting how the synodical report, designed for purposes of instructing the churches of Christ in the righteousness of the Kingdom of God, distinguished between homosexualism and homosexuality without claiming biblical warrant for the distinction. If we were to equate homosexualism with overt act. and homosexuality with lustful passion. we would indeed have biblical warrant for the distinction; but by the same token we would have clear Scriptural condemnation of both.
However, it is probably more in line with the intention of the report not to interpret constitutional homosexuality as identical with what Paul calls lustful passion, but rather to see both lustful passion and overt act as included in homosexualism. The fact that this term, homosexualism, is defined in the report as homosexual practice just underscores how the lust which is so much to the fore in our condemnation of adultery, recedes into virtual obscurity in connection with homosexualism.
The report adopts the position that there is such a thing as a homosexual constitution and produces scientific evidence to warrant this conclusion. Critics of the report cite other scientific evidence to demonstrate that there is no such homosexual constitution but only learned behavior.
It really makes little difference which of these positions is adopted as far as the teaching ministry of the church is concerned. For “practical” purposes, the church need pay no more attention to the question than did the apostle Paul—and that is none at all.
Let us suppose there is such a thing as a homosexual behavior. This does not alter the condemnation voiced in Romans 1, nor does it reduce the efficacy of the atonement. If Jesus Christ brings homosexual behavior to an end in an individual and, more than that, destroys the passionate desire for such behavior. are we really saying anything meaningful with the expression “homosexual constitution”? It appears suspiciously like a manufactured justification for what Scripture condemns. Even if something scientifically significant is conveyed by the phrase, it is of no consequence for the church’s understanding of what the Lord requires of us.
A Blind Alley versus Gospel – For the church to talk in terms of a constitutional disposition to homosexuality by virtue of which homosexual desire (and how are we to escape the inevitability of the practice flowing from it? In any case, Jesus equates the desire for adultery with adultery) is both understandable and excusable, is to lead the Lord’s people down a blind alley of utter hopelessness in this life. Romans 1 makes perfectly clear that by way of judgment the Lord abandons men to do what they are intent on doing. “God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1:24). However, the church may not, in effect, assume this prerogative of judgment to itself by condemning a member to homosexuality, and then compound the injustice by calling this redemption. Moreover, the hopelessness is not limited. to this life; for we know full well that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God and this specifically includes the homosexual (I Cor. 6:9).
Far from leading its members into the blind alley of eternal condemnation. the church ought to lead its members into the full light of the Sabbath day which dawned with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not ecclesiastical rhetoric, but the very practical relevance of the gospel. Paul says, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). Here are the same two words which are found in Romans 1:24 and 26 -passion and desire (lust). We are not to limit the scope of passion and desire to behavior patterns which the unregenerate science of our day assures us may be modified. The church must teach all of its members, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”
We must make no mistake here. The road is not easy. Indeed, broadly speaking it, it is not easy for any of us who bear the name of the Redeemer who suffered unto death. This is true in spite of the propaganda of much contemporary evangelism, including Key 73’s television promotional. There may be stumbling and falling; but there will never be utter desolation (Psalm 37:24). Christians who are insensitive to the struggles of the brethren are forgetful of their own miserable origins. Nevertheless, whatever the burden might be which the Lord chooses to lay upon the shoulders of a man in this life, surely it is infinitely lighter than the intolerable weight of sin, condemnation, and death.
If Christ by his Spirit has done a work of grace in a man so that both the act and the desire for it as contrary to God’s will are destroyed, it is no longer of any practical consequence to talk of an unalterable homosexual constitution. If anything, it is unbiblical to do so. If both the act and the desire have been destroyed in a believing brother, we have no right as Christians or as a church to speak of this brother as a homosexual. Surely that is the implication of Paul’s words, “And such were some of you.” Homosexuals do not inherit the Kingdom of God; but you have been, not simply forgiven, but washed and sanctified—inside and out.
Not for the Public Domain – There are doubtless in the midst of Reformed churches both men and women who have experienced the grace of God just because of which they struggle daily to crucify the flesh with its passions and desires. This they do in company with all the people of God who also struggle against the flesh and the devil, although the attack in their cases comes from another flank. Only condescending pride would move us to bestow on such brethren the privilege of removing their masks and the freedom of moving among us as known homosexuals.
How niggardly is the grace of man compared to the grace of God!
In spite of the struggle with indwelling sin, God says they are not homosexuals, and therefore the church has no right to label them as such, either “constitutional” or otherwise. Moreover, their conflict with sin belongs no more to the public domain than do the failings of other Christians. Within the communion of saints the official and unofficial counsel and comfort of the brethren is available to all on the same basis in order that we might “grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15, 16).
The report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality submitted to the recent Synod of the Christian Reformed Church distinguishes between homosexualism defined as overt homosexual practice, and homosexuality defined as a constitutional disposition to homosexualism. The report further acknowledges that the apostle Paul does not make this kind of distinction.
Although Paul does not make this particular distinction, he does make a distinction which is akin to it and which is of the greatest significance in our assessment of the value of Synod’s distinction and the consequences to be drawn from it.
The Romans 1 Passage – In Romans 1:24, we read, “Wherefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them” (NASB). It is readily apparent that there is in the understanding of the Apostle a distinction between what he calls “the lusts of their hearts” and the dishonoring of their bodies. The latter refers to the overt acts of homosexual practice. These acts do not occur merely as external phenomena apart from what men are in their hearts. What characterizes the heart comes to expression in deed. It is the lust of the heart which gives rise to the deed, and the one may not be isolated from the other.
Paul speaks of the same relationship in verses 26 and 27 when he writes, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their ~omen ex· changed the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” These indecent acts which he dwells on at some length, are of a piece with the “degrading passions” and “desire.” Those passions are invisible to the human eye, for they reside in the heart; but they give rise to the observable phenomena we call homosexual behavior. “Degrading passions” is simply another way of indicating the “lusts of the heart,” and the indecent act of verse 26 is the dishonoring of the body in verse 24.
Jesus in Sermon on the Mount – The kind of distinction which Paul employs in Romans 1 is similar to one which our Lord employs in the course of the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:27,28, our Lord teaches us, ”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ hut I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Jesus begins by quoting the seventh commandment. Far from suggesting that this law was valid only for a tribe of nomads some 1400 years previous to his ministry, Jesus enforces the binding character of it with respect to his own generation, and by implication, for succeeding generations. Put in its simplest terms, adultery is having sexual intercourse with another’s marriage partner. This is the most pointed application of the commandment—you are not to go to bed with someone else’s wife.
But now our Lord brings to the fore the fact that the commandment has always forbidden more than just the overt act of adultery; it also forbids the lust or the desire which gives rise to the act. It forbids what Peter calls “eyes full of adultery” (II Peter 2:14). This aspect of our Lord’s teaching is frequently transgressed in practice, but it has received rather full attention from the pulpit. So much so is this the case that occasionally one gains the impression that the prohibition of the lustful look is the central meaning of the commandment, with the implication that the overt act of adultery is of only peripheral significance. This is a distortion. The central thrust of the commandment is against adultery whether the offense he with the heart, or with both heart and body. Our Lord does recognize a distinction, nevertheless, between the lust of the heart and the overt act. He excuses neither. Both are transgressions of the commandment; both are sin.
The teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount has obvious bearing upon our understanding of Paul’s teaching in Romans 1. It is impossible to argue that what Paul condemns as sin against God is simply the overt homosexual act but not the lust, or the passion, or the desire from which the act arises. We have already noted how the Sermon on the Mount can be distorted as though Christ set himself not so much against the deed as against the lust. The same distortion is sometimes found in the interpretation of Romans 1, but in an inverted form. Paul is understood to be condemning homosexual relationships willfully entered into. It is then not so much the will, but the willful act that is wrong. The passionate or lustful will may also be sinful, but it is said to be, at least in some instances, “natural” to the constitution of the individual and therefore to some extent excusable.
The teaching of Matthew 5:27, 28 is undoubtedly to the effect that whatever the origin of the desire for a proscribed relation may be, it is as sinful and inexcusable as the overt act of adultery. The fact that the lust is traceable ultimately to the individual’s involvement in the sin of Adam, and in that sense is beyond the personal responsibility of the individual, did not prevent the Lord from condemning it. Our Lord sets forth a perfect standard of righteous and holy living and at the same time makes evident that the attainment of it is only by virtue of sovereign recreating grace.
Paul to Thessalonians – In 1 Thessalonians 4:4, 5 Paul instructs us that each must know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, “not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.” For the Apostle, as for the Lord, lust is wrong; it is sin. But more than that, the two words used in I Thessalonians 4:4, 5 are identical with those used in Romans 1:24 and 26. In view of that, and in view of the fact that the Gentiles are exemplary of this lustful passion in both passages, it would be wholly arbitrary to restrict the application of I Thessalonians 4:4, 5 only to the passions which arise between members of the opposite sex.
Therefore, when Paul commands us to abstain from sexual immorality (I Thess. 4:3) he includes immorality of both the heterosexual and the homosexual varieties, and he includes the desire as well as the act. Thus the bearing of Matthew 5:27, 28 on the interpretation of Romans 1:24 and 26, is confirmed by reference to I Thessalonians 4:3–5. We simply may not conclude that the desire of the heterosexual for a sinful act is sin but that the desire of the homosexual for a sinful act is not sin.
Redemptive Provision – What is now the relevance of the redemptive provision of Jesus Christ with respect to the sin described in Romans 1:24 and 26 f.?
Jesus came into the world to bear the penalty of sin on the cross. However, our view of his redemptive accomplishment is seriously impoverished unless we also realize that Jesus came to destroy sin itself. As the apostle John writes, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose that He might destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). One of these works which Jesus destroys is homosexuality, not simply in general, but in particular. Paul says explicitly in I Corinthians 6:11, “And 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.” What Jesus came to do, He actually does; and Paul bears witness to it from his own observation.
One may argue that in I Corinthians 6:11 Paul does not distinguish between the lust of the heart and the overt act, and that what he really has in \·iew is the overt act. The man who openly pursues his passions will not inherit or enter the Kingdom of God. However, this interpretation would leave us in the uncomfortable position of having to say that the passions and lusts of Romans 1 remain in one whom Jesus has washed and sanctified. Or to put it even more pointedly. contrary to His own teaching, Jesus simply washes the outside of the cup, and the fruit of His death and resurrection is the whited sepulchre.
We dare not restrict the efficacy of the atonement in this way. The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of righteousness, and the whole man is transformed according to the pattern of the Redeemer.
A Manufatfured Justification? – We began by noting how the synodical report, designed for purposes of instructing the churches of Christ in the righteousness of the Kingdom of God, distinguished between homosexualism and homosexuality without claiming biblical warrant for the distinction. If we were to equate homosexualism with overt act. and homosexuality with lustful passion. we would indeed have biblical warrant for the distinction; but by the same token we would have clear Scriptural condemnation of both.
However, it is probably more in line with the intention of the report not to interpret constitutional homosexuality as identical with what Paul calls lustful passion, but rather to see both lustful passion and overt act as included in homosexualism. The fact that this term, homosexualism, is defined in the report as homosexual practice just underscores how the lust which is so much to the fore in our condemnation of adultery, recedes into virtual obscurity in connection with homosexualism.
The report adopts the position that there is such a thing as a homosexual constitution and produces scientific evidence to warrant this conclusion. Critics of the report cite other scientific evidence to demonstrate that there is no such homosexual constitution but only learned behavior.
It really makes little difference which of these positions is adopted as far as the teaching ministry of the church is concerned. For “practical” purposes, the church need pay no more attention to the question than did the apostle Paul—and that is none at all.
Let us suppose there is such a thing as a homosexual behavior. This does not alter the condemnation voiced in Romans 1, nor does it reduce the efficacy of the atonement. If Jesus Christ brings homosexual behavior to an end in an individual and, more than that, destroys the passionate desire for such behavior. are we really saying anything meaningful with the expression “homosexual constitution”? It appears suspiciously like a manufactured justification for what Scripture condemns. Even if something scientifically significant is conveyed by the phrase, it is of no consequence for the church’s understanding of what the Lord requires of us.
A Blind Alley versus Gospel – For the church to talk in terms of a constitutional disposition to homosexuality by virtue of which homosexual desire (and how are we to escape the inevitability of the practice flowing from it? In any case, Jesus equates the desire for adultery with adultery) is both understandable and excusable, is to lead the Lord’s people down a blind alley of utter hopelessness in this life. Romans 1 makes perfectly clear that by way of judgment the Lord abandons men to do what they are intent on doing. “God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1:24). However, the church may not, in effect, assume this prerogative of judgment to itself by condemning a member to homosexuality, and then compound the injustice by calling this redemption. Moreover, the hopelessness is not limited. to this life; for we know full well that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God and this specifically includes the homosexual (I Cor. 6:9).
Far from leading its members into the blind alley of eternal condemnation. the church ought to lead its members into the full light of the Sabbath day which dawned with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not ecclesiastical rhetoric, but the very practical relevance of the gospel. Paul says, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). Here are the same two words which are found in Romans 1:24 and 26 -passion and desire (lust). We are not to limit the scope of passion and desire to behavior patterns which the unregenerate science of our day assures us may be modified. The church must teach all of its members, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”
We must make no mistake here. The road is not easy. Indeed, broadly speaking it, it is not easy for any of us who bear the name of the Redeemer who suffered unto death. This is true in spite of the propaganda of much contemporary evangelism, including Key 73’s television promotional. There may be stumbling and falling; but there will never be utter desolation (Psalm 37:24). Christians who are insensitive to the struggles of the brethren are forgetful of their own miserable origins. Nevertheless, whatever the burden might be which the Lord chooses to lay upon the shoulders of a man in this life, surely it is infinitely lighter than the intolerable weight of sin, condemnation, and death.
If Christ by his Spirit has done a work of grace in a man so that both the act and the desire for it as contrary to God’s will are destroyed, it is no longer of any practical consequence to talk of an unalterable homosexual constitution. If anything, it is unbiblical to do so. If both the act and the desire have been destroyed in a believing brother, we have no right as Christians or as a church to speak of this brother as a homosexual. Surely that is the implication of Paul’s words, “And such were some of you.” Homosexuals do not inherit the Kingdom of God; but you have been, not simply forgiven, but washed and sanctified—inside and out.
Not for the Public Domain – There are doubtless in the midst of Reformed churches both men and women who have experienced the grace of God just because of which they struggle daily to crucify the flesh with its passions and desires. This they do in company with all the people of God who also struggle against the flesh and the devil, although the attack in their cases comes from another flank. Only condescending pride would move us to bestow on such brethren the privilege of removing their masks and the freedom of moving among us as known homosexuals.
How niggardly is the grace of man compared to the grace of God!
In spite of the struggle with indwelling sin, God says they are not homosexuals, and therefore the church has no right to label them as such, either “constitutional” or otherwise. Moreover, their conflict with sin belongs no more to the public domain than do the failings of other Christians. Within the communion of saints the official and unofficial counsel and comfort of the brethren is available to all on the same basis in order that we might “grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15, 16).