The Bible and Homosexuality
Pro homosexual interpretations refuted by the word of God.
At the heart of the claim that the Bible is clear "that homosexuality is forbidden by God" is sound historical biblical scholarship versus a modern cultural bias that reads into the Bible what it can only wish was actually taught therein. By "homosexuality is forbidden" what is meant here is that same-sex attraction is one of the disorders resulting from man's disobedience to God, and that homosexual relations are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with in the word of God. For God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified. (Mt. 19:4–6)
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His accounThanks be to Godt, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. (Acts 10:36-47) Thanks be to God.
Note: I would recommend you see the newer and more extensive and referenced treatment of this issue, "Homosexual relations and the Bible"
Exegesis versus eisegesis
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob (Is. 41:21).
(All Scriptures from the King James Version)
God's laws are "holy, and just and good" (Rm. 7:12) and are given of necessity (Gal. 3:19) for our benefit, thanks be to God. Obedience to God brings life, while sin works death. The latter is clearly the case as regards the practice of homosexuality, which the Bible manifestly condemns in all it's forms (Gn. 19:1-11; Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:17; Jdg. 19:22; 1Ki.14:24; 22:46; 2Ki. 23:7; Rm. 1:26, 27; 1Cor. 16:9; 1Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7). For me to state such is not “homo-phobic” as is typically charged, but is an expression of love. The two greatest commandments call for complete love for God first, and then (in the light of God's word) to love one's neighbor as himself. And we do neither if we fail to warn of a practice that can send one to an early grave1 and will send the unrepentant to an eternal Hell, and thus urge them to “forsake the foolish and live” by turning to the “Prince of life” – Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again– and live for Him!
This treatise was originally written in response to some of the attempts by homosexual apologists (apologist meaning one who offers an answer) to distort the intent or meaning of the Biblical prohibitions against the practice of homo-sexuality, which effectually works against the purpose of the laws of God, that of both the spiritual and temporal well being of souls. Realizing that the Bible is the ultimate authority of truth which condemns their deleterious practice, certain homosexual apologists have spent an inordinate amount of time and seeking to both negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality, and force sexual meanings into places where they simply do not belong. Overall, this requires deviation from necessary and established rules of interpretation (hermeneutics) which are critical for sound exegesis, the rejection of which has the effect of making the Bible to be a book into which most anything can be read (eisegesis), and negating it as a moral authority. However, sound Biblical scholarship evidences that the Bible was given by God though Divine inspiration to be obeyed, giving us immutable moral and spiritual laws, and which works for the good of man and the glory of God. History has and will testify to the wisdom of the laws of God, and of those who reverence and obey them, and the foolishness of those who rebel against God.
Most but not all of the above Biblical references will be dealt with, as I will be examining the principal ones which the adversaries to truth must seek to distort. In this response, there will sometimes be found some some redundancy in answers, as some points are applicable to more than one question, and which may help the issues to be answered somewhat independently.
The reader is urged to prayerfully consider the following, with a heart that truly wants nothing less than total submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, The Way, The Truth, and The Life," and "who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Eph. 2:20). Amen!
Table of Contents [TOC]
Biblical provision for heterosexual marriage versus homosexual fornication
Romans 1:22-28: To what does it apply?
Genesis 19 and Judges 19: Interrogation or sodomy?
Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?
Jude verse 7: Strange men or angels?
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Universal or limited: Do they only apply to Levitical priests? Are they more than simply a ritual purity laws, or for idolatrous sodomy, etc.?
Are the laws regarding slavery in the Bible like the ones against homosexuality?
Deuteronomy 23:17: Does the condemnation of idolatrous sodomites only apply to that manner of homosexuality?
To what does “Arsenokoitēs” apply
Ruth 1:14 and 1 Samuel 18:3-4; 18:20-21, 4; 2 Sam. 1:26; Ruth and Naomi; David and Jonathan: Platonic or perverted?
Only JESUS can set you free!
Genesis 2:24 and beyond: Biblical provision for heterosexual marriage in contrast with homosexual fornication
The premise of homosexual apologists is that relations are normal and good, and have a claim to be equal to heterosexual relations, but if that is the case, and we believe the Bible to be the word of God, in which He has made His will evident — especially for basic human behavior — then we rightly expect to see homosexual relations explicitly sanctioned by marriage. Instead the only instances in which homosexual relations are explicitly dealt wit, they are condemned. If, like sex between men and women, homosexual practices are only conditionally wrong (according to time (before marriage), place (public) and circumstance (lust, not love), then where is the expected and necessary provision of marriage that would make it right? The Lord from the beginning to the end of the Bible sanctions and affirms marriage for heterosexuals, but nowhere for homosexuals. Attempts to make David and Jonathan bisexual and married to each other are manifest as a move of vain desperation. And if they cannot marry, then they are guilty of fornication Fornication itself is wrong (and will send one to Hell), and the homosexual engaging in such is condemned on that basis alone, in addition to the perverse manner of their activity.
Let us briefly look at the God-ordained institution of marriage in the Bible.
In Gen 2:18-24, we read, "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
We see here then that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. Note that the word for "wife" in Scripture (ish-shaw', naw-sheem') is feminine, and is found 776 times in the Old Testament (KJV), singular or plural, and when used in reference to a person(s) it NEVER REFERS TO A MAN. Likewise the word for wife (goo-nay') in the New Testament. Hereafter the only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists absolutely zero evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.” (Robert J. Gagnon)
Notice God was not creating women simply due to a need to propagate mankind, though that is an overall priority which the women is uniquely superbly provided for, but because man was alone. Eve was to be a help mate, and not simply to procreate. No animal would do, and thus laying with animals is forbidden (Lev. 18:23). And neither would any man do, and so that is likewise is forbidden and condemned (Lev. 18:22). Instead, God made man and women to be sexually joined, which is clearly manifest by design and decree. And while we now, due to the fall of men, have various contrary desires other than what God ordained, that cannot justify acting them out. Cain wanted to kill his brother, but God counseled him to resist sin, which he had ability to do (Gn. 4:7).
In addition, under the New Covenant, marriage is only reaffirmed as the union of opposite genders, with this unique union being evident in their complementary positional differences, which are based upon creational distinctions after the Divine order. Jesus affirmed this union in Matthew 19, specifically including that it was opposite genders that were joined:
(Mat 19:4-6) "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause' shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis. It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." (Keil and Delitzsch commentary)
Later on in the New Testament the Spirit of the LORD, 1 Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which in every aspect is contrary to a man to man union:
(1 Cor 11:3) "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
While some attempt to make this positional distinction culturally caused, the context reveals that this is a creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, as it is based upon the Divine order between the Father and the Son. This is directly related to the creation of women for the man, as we next read, states that man "is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Cor 11:7-9)
The mutual unique interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12
"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."
In contrast to these explicit declarations and the principal behind them is the idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid, yet such is without any support, and is contrary to the foundational declarations and explicit examples of what gender was created to be the mate of man in sex and in marriage. To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creational differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.
Jame B. De Young (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon), writes in his book “Homosexuality,” The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.
Robert J. Gagnon (Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) states, The text states four times that the woman was “taken from” the “human” (adam, thereafter referred to as an ish or man), underscoring that woman, not another man, is the missing sexual “complement” or “counterpart” to man (so the Hebrew term negdo, which stresses both human similarity, “corresponding to him,” and sexual difference, “opposite him”). Within the story line man and woman may (re-)unite into “one flesh” precisely because together they reconstitute the sexual whole.
Seeing that the provision for literal marriage is only given throughout the Bible for men and women, let us look at the figurative use of the word. In Isaiah 54:5, God is called Israel's husband, and the context makes it it clear Israel is the wife. In Jeremiah. 3:14, God is said to be married to Israel, and while God always uses the male pronoun to refer to Himself, Israel is referred to as the women (vs. 7, 8). In Hosea the male - female typology between Yahweh and His (backsliding) people is made more abundantly clear.
In the New Testament, the church is shown to be the bride, which is female (Rev. 21:2, 9, 17), and in Ephesians :22-33, that relationship is used as an illustration for male husbands and their female wives. This arraignment also hearkens back to the original providence of Genesis 2:23, 24 (v.31). Fast forward to Revelation, and we see again marriage being between male and female. "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" (Rev. 19:7, 8; cf. 21:2, 9, 22:17).
And while the emphasis in the New Testament is not longer on procreation, yet rather than long term sexual abstinence, conjugal relations are actually enjoined (1Cor. 7:4,5). In addition, while they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection of the just shall “neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:35), even the church is metaphorically a female, as it also is based upon marriage in Genesis with it's union of different but complementary genders, purposely made to be so.
While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) .
Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage.
Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3), as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.
Physically, man is not designed for sexual relations with those of the same gender. Heterosexual marriage is the only kind of physical union that can fulfil one of it's primary functions (Gn. 1:28). The human anatomical problems in male copulation are anti life by nature and are also resulting in increased rates of certain diseases and death.
As for animals, for which God also provides no positive sanction (for man to animal marriage), sexual union therein is Divinely declared to be confusion. It is also possible that AIDS was passed onto humans through sexual relations with apes (or blood to blood contact), and as history shows, AIDS was initially spread primarily through the homosexual community, and often still is.
Neither is the absence of the institution of marriage for homosexuals, as some might dare to insinuate, because God was sensitive to cultural feelings, as if homosexual marriage was "too much" for them to bear. To the contrary, not only is God committed to giving us what is "holy, just and good" which His laws are, but in so doing He often expressly contradicted cultural norms, especially in fundamental practices, in establishing a "holy" nation." The commanded holiness for Israel and the condemnation of the practices of other nations were not simply for purposes of distinction, but because the foundational laws and the required behavior was holy in and of itself, and the contrary practices foundationally inherently evil.
Thus the only provision for marriage is given to heterosexual unions, both literally, typologically and spiritually, and the manifest absence of the required positive sanction for homosexuals unions is alone sufficient to disallow homosexual unions, and is confirmatory of the aforementioned negative prohibitions against men sexually lying with men.
The absence of provision for homosexual marriage, and the contrasting clear provision for heterosexuals cannot be explained, except that only one kind of union, that of heterosexuals, has any kind of approval.
In summary, all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this. In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept, rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.
Gn. 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
1. The word "know" used in Gn. 19: (yâda‛) is rarely used for sexual knowledge, and as used for that it only refers to voluntary intercourse or regarding a womens virginal status, and here it means to violently interrogate. Likewise, in the parallel account of Judges 19, they wanted to “know” the man by killing him.
2. The reason that the angels were sent to destroy Sodom was not because of homosexuality, for the Bible states that the iniquity of Sodom was "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezk. 16:49). Jesus referred to Sodom as an example of inhospitality, and it was destroyed for a "serious breach of hospitality” toward Lot's guests.
1. While this account does not evidence consensual homosexual relations but assault, it defines the perverse form of fornication which the term “sodomite” is associated. In Genesis 19, two angels sent by God to Sodom because the sin of Sodom was "very grievous" (Gn. 18:20), arrive in Sodom and meet Lot at the gate. They are willing to stay in the street, but Lot constrains them to abide with his family. Once there, "the men of Sodom, compassed [surrounded] the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Lot, being a resident of the city, understands what they want and goes out, closes the door and pleads with them, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" (v. 5). He then goes on to offer his virgin daughters, "which have not known man", that they may do what they please with them, i.e., that they may sexually “know them” just as they sought to “know” the men. However, the men of Sodom will have nothing to do with it, and threaten to do worse to Lot: "And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."
The typical homo-apologist interpretation of Gn. 19 refuses to allow that that the men of Sodom outside Lot's door wanted to sexually “know” the men inside, as Adam did to his wife and Cain did to his (Gn. 4:1, 17, 25) and like instances:
(Gen 4:1) "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."
(Gen 4:17) "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
(Gen 4:25) "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."
(Gen 19:8) "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
(Gen 24:16) "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up."
(Gen 38:26) "And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more."
(Num 31:18) "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
(Num 31:35) "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him."
(Judg 11:39) "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,"
(Judg 19:25) "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."
(Judg 21:12) "And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."
(1 Sam 1:19) "And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her."
(1 Ki 1:4) "And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not."
(Mat 1:24-25 – New Testament) "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Instead, homosexual apologists insist that the men of Sodom were alarmed that the strangers in Lot's house posed a danger to Sodom, and thus they wanted to "know" them in the sense of violently examining their purpose, etc. These interpretations contend that since the Hebrew word "know," (yâda‛ [Strong's number 3045], used in the Old Testament) most often denotes non-sexual knowledge, then it's use in Gn. 19 supports their interpretation that to “know them” was by interrogation or violence, rather than being a euphemism to know the men sexually. But while yâda‛ is most often used in a non-sexual way, what is relevant is that out of the over 940 times that the Hebrew word for “know” is used, when occurring in a Gn. 19:5 type grammatical construction (knowledge of a human by physical meeting; to “know/knew/them/her” personally by such) and as a primary verb, it is most often used (according to my examination) as a euphemism for sexual knowledge (6 other times in Genesis alone; 13 times besides Gn. 19:5). And in contrast to the homosexual scenario, yâda‛ is never used as a euphemism for gaining personal knowledge by forced interrogation or doing violence.
It is also sometimes contended that yâda‛ is only used sexually for marital voluntary intercourse or to describe virginal status, but yâda‛ also describes illicit as well as forced sex (Gn 38:26; Jdg 19:25). And since yâda‛ is describing the actual realization of sexual knowledge, rather than the sexual method or the morality of the act, which words such as “lay” (shakab), or “ravish” (shagal =rape) can respectively denote, then it's use to describe the kind of knowledge the men sought of men, and demonstrated in Jdg. 19:25, is entirely fitting.
And as noted before, the context of Gn. 19 itself also heavily favours “know them” as meaning to sexually know, by observing that that Lot offered his daughters to them as women "who have not known man” that they may do to them as is good in their eyes:" Thus Lot interpreted the Sodomites demand to “know” his male guests as to know sexually, and so offered substitute bodies for them to “know,” rather than such “wickedness” being done on the men. Some suppose that the offer of virgins was an attempt to “buy off” the men with heterosexual sex, rather than allow the men to interrogate Lot's guests, but nowhere in Scripture do we see such an exchange, but would indicate that they “knowing” they sought was sexual. And as other uses of “know her/him/them in Hebrew are very often sexual (especially in Genesis), and for which reason Lot could offer his daughters, then to disallow that this is how the Sodomites wanted to “know” the (likely handsome) new men is contrary to what the text most clearly intimates. Rather than seeking to interrogate or do non-sexual violence, the grammar and description is more of a crowd filled with fornicating lust (see Jude 7 below). Lot knew the crowd was seeking something sensual, namely that they might "know" the men as they might "know" the proffered daughters, if they were so inclined. But being homosexual, they refused, as they lewdly demanded the “fresh meat,” that being the male strangers.
In an extra biblical account, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom:
"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).
In summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus stated: “About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (''Antiquities'' 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96). Such helps define what manner of fornication (Jude 1:7) Sodom was given to.
That sexual knowing was what was sought in Gn. 19 is further evidenced in the parallel account of Judges 19:14-25. In this episode, a Levite (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine. Finding no one that would receive him in a strange city, Gibeah, he is taken in by an old man, a resident of the town. No sooner had they eaten, then "certain sons of Belial" came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the man beseeches them “do not so wickedly” (v. 23), and then offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing." The Hebrew word for "vile" is almost always used in sexual sense when referring to an action. At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine by the man, "they abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."
Here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is indicated by the context and language. The men come seeking to “know” the male stranger, and the native (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) offers substitute bodies for sex. That this is what they sought is evidenced by what they did with the substitute, which was not to kill her as the Levite did fear (20:5), but they “forced” her (as in 2 Sam. 13:14, 22, 32) and committed lewdness (a word most often used sexually) and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6). The only real difference was between Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer (which was also sin).
Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind, clearly referencing to the Biblical account in Gn. 19.
And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it.
2. As for the argument that Sodom was most noted for being inhospitable, while "pride, fulness of bread", love of leisure and indifference to the plight of the poor ( Ezek. 16:49), these were general sins, yet Sodom is mostly noted for sexual sins, and as history shows, prevalent homosexuality tends to be a product of and concomitant with pride, affluence, idleness, and selfishness. In the Bible we see that there are two types of sins, those of the heart and those which follow, that of sinful actions. Sins which Sodom is linked to include adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14); unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12); careless living (Lk. 17:29) fornication (Rev. 11:8; cf. 17:2, 4); and overall “filthy conversation”[G766], which means sexual sins (lasciviousness: 2 Pt. 2:7; cf. Mar_7:22, 2Co_12:21, Eph_4:19, 1Pe_4:3, Jud_1:4; or wantonness: Rom_13:13, 2Pe_2:18). Thus in examining the physical sins Sodom is most often associated with, we see that it was those of a sexual nature.
Contrary to the apologists who seek to protect that sin, Jesus did not invoke Sodom as an warning to cities because the were generally inhospitable, rather He foretold that cities that would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12). While any sin can dam us, to reject Christ – who alone can pay for our sins and can take them away – is the ultimate sin of damnation. Thus this sin of the heart is worse than Sodom's most notable sin of the flesh, and which Sodom would have repented of if they had been given the great grace the cities which heard Jesus and saw His miracles (Mt. 11:23, 24).
Yet the chief sin of any man or society is idolatry, whether it be formal or informal, statues or in the heart, and which sin is that of worshiping anything less than the One True God, and out of which all else flows. As Romans 1 shows, homosexual activity is a sin which is a product of idolatrous steps of degeneration, and it is likely that the practice of what came be called sodomy was a latter development, a practice which they did in their "idleness," and which they, like today, took pride in, and which was the principal example of their iniquity going before to judgment. Sodom was thus destroyed (physically), and nations who do follow after Sodom and will not repent must fear the same. And true Christians must seek to turn them to righteousness, without hypocrisy.
Jude v.7, which deals with the end of spiritual and moral declension, declares: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
As the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” the meaning is unclear. It could be that the condemnation of Sodom was that they sought to commit fornication with angels, referring to the book of Enochian legends.
This is usually an attempt to negate Gn. 19 (and by implication, Jdg. 19) as examples of homosexual lust. Yet Jude 7 is not referencing the extra-Biblical book of Enoch, as unlike Gn. 19, Sodom nor sex with angels (appearing as men) is never mentioned therein. Nor do we ever see men going after angels for sex except in Gn. 19. And rendering “strange flesh” to be that of going after angels negates the argument that the demand to “know” Lot's guests was non-sexual. Given the fact that Sodom's most singularly noted sin was fornication, which they were “given to,” and which included a most perverse kind, this not only places the reference in Jude 7 to Gn. 19, but confirms that the sin of Sodom therein was indeed sexual.
The only question is, did the men of Sodom know they were seeking angels? This would be quite a foolish thing to do, as angels are not to be messed with (2Kg. 19:5), and nothing indicates they did know. Their own words (Gn. 19:5) indicates that the men of Sodom believed Lot's guests to be men. The only other possible instance of sexual relations between angels and men is in Gn. 6:2-4, but if the “sons of God (cf. Job. 1:6; 2:1) were angels then it would be male angels going after women, and not as in Jude 7 and Gn. 19. The word for “strange (heteros) does indeed mean “another/other” and most often refers to humans, including in reference to having unlawful union with another, that of someone who is not lawfully one's spouse (Rm. 7:3), or a false gospel (Gal. 1:6). As such it easily fits the sexual description of Gn. 19, in which men of Sodom, being confirmed fornicators, seek to perversely have sexual relations with “another flesh,” that being other than that which is lawful and normal, which was with men.
Gn. 19, Jdg. 19, Jude 7 in Summation
Yâda‛ is used to denote sexual knowledge very or most often when used in the grammatical construction of Gn. 19:5 as a personal noun, and as thus used yâda‛ denotes not only marital sex or virginal status but illicit (Gn 38:26) as well as "forced," "lewd," "vile" sex (Jdg 19:25; 20:6), with sex being what the sexual grammar and description (virgin daughters as substitutes) most clearly indicates (both lewd and vile are most often used to denote sexual sins when describing actions, while “forced” can mean to sexually humble: 2Sam. 23:14). The "knowing" that they sought to do to the Levite was also a "vile" thing (19:23). In contrast, yâda‛ is never used as a euphemism for gaining personal knowledge by forced interrogation or by doing violence.
In both cases (Gn. 19:8; Jdg. 19:24), virgins are offered in response to the demand to "know" the men, but nowhere in the Bible do we see sexual gratification offered as substitution for violence. And the understanding of natives as to what their countrymen seek should be considered more accurate than a strangers impressions (Jdg. 20:5).
Sodom is predominately linked to sexual inequity as regards physical sin (Jer. 23:14, 2 Pt. 2:7; Rev. 11:8; cf. 17:2, 4), including that of a perverse manner of fornication (Jude 7), with fornication being stated to be the most singular cause of it's damnation, yet the impenitence that was causative of the particular inhospitality of certain cities toward Jesus' disciples is the ultimate sin of anyone's damnation (Mt. 11:20).
Sodom being "given to fornication" and that of a perverse kind finds it's clear reference in Scripture to Gn. 19, and even the attempt to make their sin that of seeking sex with angels refutes the entire non-sexual (in this instance) gang theory of Gn. 19. The real question would be whether the men of Sodom knew they were angels (who would be foolish to tangle with, and is not indicated) or whether their sin was going after flesh "other" than that which was lawful, going after men unaware that they were angels.
While the most strongly indicated understanding of Gn. 19 is that the type of “knowing” sought therein was sexual, this would only deal with homosexual rape, while the universal moral (not ceremonial) command, given to all Israel (Lv. 18:2), that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22; cf. 20:13) covers all such fornication, and for which union God never provided marriage by which it may be sanctified, which He clearly and abundantly provides for heterosexual relations.
Lev. 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Rather than accepting the plain meaning of such texts, homosexual apologists vainly seek to explain away such prohibitions, and in so doing essentially all the moral laws.
1. The Levitical commands (18:22; 20:13) are just part of the Levitical holiness code for priests, and do not apply to all persons (various expressions of this type of deception follows, as does some repetition in refuting them).
2. These Levitical commands were simply part of the law contrasting pagan nations with Israel, of contrasting idolatry with the worship of the one true God, so that commands in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only condemn sodomy in the context of idolatry, that of homosexual practices which were part of pagan idolatrous practices, and which are forbidden in Dt. 23:17 1Ki.14:24; 22:46; 2Ki. 23:7
2a The death penalty is only given more than once for other prohibitions while the prohibition against men lying with men is given only once, as it was simply part of the ceremonial laws for uncleanness, which was later done away with for Christians (Acts 15:19, 20).
3. The use of the term "sodomites" for homosexuals is wrong.
4. The word "abomination" only refers to ceremonial violations rather than to things that are inherently evil.
5. As euphemisms are used for sex they may not mean that.
1. This first objection is easily refuted by observing to whom these laws were addressed: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them .." (Lev. 18:2). A full reading of the rest of the laws in Lv. Cps. 18 — 20 also makes it clear that they (including 18:22 and 20:13) are universally applicable, and are part of the transcendent moral law of almighty God, and were in no way restricted only to the priests, such as ones in chapters 21 — 20 were. It is no more right for an American to lie carnally with his neighbor's wife (18:20) than it is for clergy. The prohibition against woman sexually lying down with a beast (18:23; 20:16), also shows the universal application of these laws before it, as there were no women priests. The command, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," like the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt not"), applies to every individual2. Likewise the command, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them," applies to every man, not just to a specific "profession," though the punishment may not be carried out today. ^
2. It is argued that in the light of Dt. 23:17, Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 only refer to homosexual prostitution, and thus do not forbid homosexual relations except in the context of formal idolatry. However, Dt. 23:17 is not the basis for Lev. 18:22 but rather the opposite it true, as these more culturally applied laws are based upon basic transcendent moral laws which preceded them, with temple prostitution being wrong because fornication and prostitution is universally wrong. Male temple prostitution in particular was not forbidden because it made one ceremonially unclean, but because it was based upon the universal prohibition against men lying with men as with women.
The foundational error of the homosexual argument here is to suppose that a law given in response to pagan nations is only wrong when part of that religion or nation, by which logic most any law in the Bible could be rejected (which many people actually desire today). The hermeneutic that is used in seeking to negate Lev. 18:22 must also disallow the rest of the moral laws in that chapter, such as familial nakedness and incest, bestiality (lying with animals), killing ones children as an offering to a false god, stealing, lying, disrespect to parents, hating your neighbor, etc. The fact is that even the 10 commandments have (Egyptian) idolatry as a backdrop, with Israel being a "holy nation" distinct from pagans, and Paul's admonitions to sexual purity in Ephesians and other texts were in the context of not being like pagans, and his censure of a false gospel (salvation on the basis of merit) in Galatians was in the context of the Judaizers, yet these are all applicable to all and for all times, and ultimately all sins are the fruit of idolatry). While we must take into account the context in which something is written, simply because it was given in response to a particular manifestation of evil by a certain religion, or if basic practices (prayer, etc.) were commanded as part of it, this usually does not restrict it's prohibitions or application to that context.
This is not to say that there are not beneficial purity laws (dietary and sanitary) that were given primarily to make Israel distinct from the pagans, as well as ceremonial one distinctly pertaining to temple service, but these are distinctly manifest by their type, and often by their context, with the fullness of revelation making it evident that regulations concerning diet and ritual cleansing and Old Testament liturgical seasons were typological (see below), while immutable moral laws are clearly upheld as a class and abundantly individually. The specification of the sin in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is not that of the doing so in conjunction with false gods, as is specified in the case of child sacrifice (v. 21), but it is that of the act itself - a man lying sexually with man. And unlike heterosexual fornication, there is not even a hint that it is only conditionally wrong. When something so basic is only conditionally wrong then it is evident that God provides the conditions in which it may be sanctified, which in the case of sexual relations is by marriage between man and a wife, which is uniquely consistently and abundantly affirmed. In stark contrast, homosexual relations is one of the few practices in the Bible that is unconditionally, inherently wrong (sex with animals being another), as nowhere is marriage (or “civil unions”) provided by God for homosexual relationships, or in any way clearly affirmed by God in the Scriptures, nor by design and original normality. Neither can any deviations from the latter, due a fallen nature, justify acting it out. Nor can homosexual marriage be extrapolated out of the clear provisions for heterosexual marriage (Gn. 2:24; Mt 19:5; with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife always denoting a female when used for a person).
The next verse after Lev. 18:22 also belongs to the category of unnatural sex, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith", and likewise is a universal prohibition which cannot be simply relegated to a prohibition against a religious cultic practice. Like all the other (approx. 20) sexual sins in this chapter (uncovering the nakedness of ones kin, incest, adulteries, etc.), the prohibition against homosexual fornication applies to our time and all cultures. The injunction against burning up your kids to please false gods is culturally dependent, yet as with laws against temple prostitutes, it is based upon basic immutable moral laws and is applicable in essence to all cultures perpetually.
The practice of homosexual temple prostitution is also especially condemned in Dt. 23:17 for another reason. The morality sanctioned in the holy "temple" (the house of God) sets the standard for all that is under it. If they did such things in the temple you can be sure it happened in the houses (perhaps even “bath houses”). Lev. 18 and 20 deal with the latter, Dt. 23:17 with the former. If it is stopped in the temple in a theocratic society, all else must follow. Thus the principal “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1Pet. 4:17; cf. Ezra 9:6)
Transcendent moral laws versus typological ceremonial laws.
Under the Old and New Testament it is manifest that there are different classifications of laws. Overall the law can be divided into there types: moral, ceremonial, and judicial, but there
A. Transcendent moral laws, which deal with fundamental human behavior and tendencies, which basically are directly applicable to all cultures and current times (Worship God alone, not idols; honoring parents, murder, stealing, fornications, etc.).
B. Culturally applied moral laws, such as related to appearance and practices that were uniquely (versus common things like prayer) part of the worship of idols: weird haircuts or cuttings in their flesh, etc. While these laws were enacted is response to idolatrous practices, that does not disallow them from being applicable today to the church in accordance with the immutable moral law they are based upon. Witchcraft as well as temple prostitutes were pagan practices of Israel's neighbors, yet the injunctions against them are culturally and historically transcendent, and are based upon basic immutable laws.
Some laws in this category deal with practices that may not part of idolatry or necessarily be sinful in themselves, but are applicable according to the principal behind them. While a strange haircut today may not signify formal worship of demons, Christians are to “avoid all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22), which would include imitating distinctly demon-influenced pagan behavior (such as wearing the Hindu Tilaka). And while the cutting of one's flesh may be necessary in surgery, needless self-mutilation (cuttings) can often be an manifestation of demonic influence which would be contrary to the Spirit of Christ.
C. Judicial and Civil laws, which are based upon purely moral law, and like the preceding, can be adaptable to any culture according to their underlaying principal (put a fence around your roof = thou shalt not murder = present laws against negligence). These also include laws of jurisprudence, such as the requirement for eyewitnesses and punishment for perjury (though shalt not bear false witness).
Certain laws within this category of civil laws are regulatory in nature, such as laws regarding concubines as well as slavery, being intractable cultural institution allowed in condescension to mens hearts and or culture for their times but modified in order to bring it more into line toward an original standard, which is effectively enjoined enabled through the outworking of the New Covenant.
D. Typological laws are in a class by themselves as they were related to the sacrificial system (Heb. 9) and ritual cleanness and deal with amoral aspects of times, washings and diet, and are manifest as being abrogated under the New Covenant. The ritual observance of Jewish “days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal,. 4:10) and dietary laws (Col. 2:16) and various “washings imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10), as well as the entire sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18) are never commanded under the New Covenant but are stated to be examples of spiritual realities which Christ would manifest and enable. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17). Nothing of this sort is said about moral laws, in which all sexual laws fall. The scapegoat and unblemished animal of Lev. 16:and 17 are prime examples of things clearly fulfilled personally by Christ (Isaiah 53; Mt. 27; 1Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:21-24; 3:18), thus no more animals are offered as Jesus is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). Praise the LORD! The forbidden foods under the dietary laws were a type of the Gentiles, now made clean under the New covenant (Acts 10:1-17), and what comes out to the heart defiles, and includes fornications (Mk. 7:20-23), not food that goes in the mouth. The physical defilement of touching such things as lepers under the Old Covenant represented moral defilement under the New (Mk. 7:18-23; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), of which illicit sex (1 Cor. 6:18, etc.) is still a part. More examples can be seen here. While Christians no longer need to literally fulfill these multitudes of laws (under which one was unclean till the evening for much life: Lev. 11 + 15), we are to act in accordance with the holiness they enjoined: “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1Cor. 5:8). While Christians are edified if they observe the health benefits that such things as dietary and sanitary regulations provided, yet apart from an overall unhealthy diet, it is not necessary a sin to eat a hot dog much less touch a leper. But again, the moral law is clearly and abundantly upheld, such as in "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4), and “Flee fornication...” (1 Cor. 6:18).
Christians "are not under the law" also in the sense that in contrast to the Old Covenant, in which justification (a right standing) with God was based of one's obedience in keeping all the law (Dt. 6:25; 27:26; Gal. 3:10), under the New Covenant took responsibility for our sins and paid the price for our forgiveness (Is. 53; 1 Pet. 2:21-24; 3:18), and righteousness is imputed (credited) to the sinner upon true repentant faith in the Lord Jesus, thereby giving him a right standing he would never merit (Rm. 3:10 – 5:1). The soul that does truly believe is thereby saved on God/Christ's blood - expense and on His righteousness. However, repentance and saving faith, if it is true, will have it's outworking in a love-response of obedience to the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:40-47; 26:20; 1Thes. 1:8-10). In so doing he will seek both to keep the moral law and the holiness behind the ceremonial law (keep morally clean above all) Not as sinners seeking to gain acceptance with God by his merit, but from a position of strength as one already "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6), and thus rightly inspired and enabled to live for God. Thus the difference between the ceremonial and strictly moral laws in terms of obedience is that only the latter are enjoined upon believers in Christ. And while we are to seek to fulfil the full intent of moral laws (avoiding adultery in heart, not simply in action, etc.), this usually requires obeying it in letter as well. The same is not true of the ceremonial laws. For instance, we cannot keep many of these laws as they require a physical temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in 70 AD as Jesus foretold (Mt. 23:2), but we are to be a “habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22).
In summation, the attempt to relegate the moral laws which oppose illicit sex, etc., is a most common one but which depends upon ignorance or rejection of the fullness of God's word in which the covenantal distinctions and different types of laws are clearly revealed. This basic homosexual argument also relies much upon the notion that the Bible does not make such sufficiently clear, and thus one can pull anything out of it, which premise many of the homosexual arguments reveal (not all are included here). The fact that eternal moral laws were sometimes mixed with laws which obviously could not be perpetually kept (no temple) does not allow us to place all laws in one category or the other. The same is true with literal things and symbolisms. One cannot arbitrarily relegate whatever we feel like to ceremonial laws, and the attempt to do so with the prohibitions against homosexual relations will not stand the test of Scripture. All told, there is absolutely nothing that renders the moral law's prohibitions against men sexually lying with men to be merely typological, any more than the prohibitions against normal fornication are. They are both immutable, with the condemnation of such literal iniquity being affirmed under the New Covenant in principal and by precept.
Note: it is because such iniquity as we see proscribed in Leviticus 18 was evil in and of themselves that holy Israel destroyed and displaced the nations that practiced them. Israel itself later suffered the promised punishment of continued disobedience (Dt. 28; Lam. 3) after they recalcitrantly walked in the way of the heathen. The same rebellion to the Living and True God and corresponding fleshly indulgence will just as surely bring about the destruction of America as well (from within and without) if she will not repent. And it is the same pro-homosexual twisting of the Word of God that seeks to allow for "Christian" practice of the prohibited sins which accompanies the injunction against sodomy. In contrast to such we are commanded, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rm. 13:14). And sodomy (even as fornication alone) is indeed a work of the flesh. Laws such as are against temple prostitutes are more culturally dependent, but are based upon basic immutable moral laws. ^
2a. As the universal nature of the Levitical prohibitions is obvious, attempts to explain away the clear and basic prohibitions against men lying with men requires more imagination. It is thus that a radical significance is claimed for the presence of (supposedly) only two specific condemnations of sodomy in the Old Testament, and only one mention of it's death sentence. It is asserted that an absence of the prohibition against men lying with men where accompanying commands of Lv. 18 – 20 are reiterated (such as in Deuteronomy 27), and only one mention of it's death penalty (Lv. 20:13) warrants relegating it to a prohibition that simply addressed the problem of pagan temple prostitution prohibited in Dt. 23:17. Apparently, the specific Levitical commands universally prohibiting homosexual sex, one of which declares it a capital offense, amongst the many other condemnations of it in Scripture, are not enough for modern day promoters of such. The attempt to relegate this to temple prostitution is already disallowed by the very fact that the commands in Leviticus 18 — 20 are given to all Israel (Lv. 18:2), and not simply to the Levites. But while God does often reiterate His commands as a body (or chapter) it is not always a complete point by point repetition, and when in His grace God does repeat commands it is because it is needed, as the law itself was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). Thus we see the condemnation of the most prevalent sins repeated often, with the chief one, idolatry, being addressed over 100 times, and illicit heterosexual sex dozens of times, while bestiality is rarely mentioned. Likewise the similarly perverse and relatively rare sin of homosexual sex is addressed much less than illicit heterosexual sex, though homosexual sex in it's general and temple form is condemned up to 14 times in the entire Bible.
A singular mention of it's death penalty (20:13) does not warrant relegating the foundational Levitical commands against homosexual sex to be only that of it's expression in temple sodomy, as not only is it's context that of universal applicability, but the death penalty for some sins is mentioned more than twice (Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7), while for certain specific types of sexual sin or for perjury, the provision of capital punishment is mentioned only once (see here) And though homosexual sex is included in the list of capital offenses in chapter 20, the latter does not specifically condemn all that chapter 18 does, nor does Dt. 27 include all the Levitical prohibitions nor all the capital crimes specified in Lv. cps. 18 + 20, but it does deal with them much as by type, and illicit sex includes men laying with men as with women. Thus we cannot disallow as sins a man laying with his daughter in law (thy son's wife) or with a women during her period, nor that of homosexual sex from being universally applicable. ^
3. This objection is against the use of the word sodomite (Dt. 23:17) to describe homosexuals. The Hebrew word "sodomy"[H6945], basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”[H6942], meaning set part, usually for holy separation, but in this case it indicates a person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated by it's first use in Dt. 23:17,18, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God" This is confirmed by later instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46), and it is always used in a negative sense, including for one who is morally unclean (Job. 36:14). The “whore” describes heterosexual fornication while the “sodomite” (or “dog” according to their perverse manner of relations) applies to homosexual fornication. Like some other words, it derives it's meaning from the city of Sodom (sedôm), which itself comes from an unused root meaning scorch; burnt (Strong's), and “sodomite” was used to denote men who engaged in sexual relations after the manner of the people of Sodom (see Gn. 19 above).
“Sodomite” is applicable to all homosexuals because while the word was used to denote a homosexual prostitutional office in Dt: 23:17, the term was derived from the inhabitants of Sodom in the story of Lot, based on their homosexual practice. Again, the name “Sodom” is based upon what happened to it. This is often the case with ancient names and terms. A homosexual person is referred to as a “dog” in Dt. 23:18 after their perverse manner of fornication. The same term was later applied to Gentiles as a whole, perhaps because they were unclean (Mk. 7:27, 28). In Rv. 22:15, "dogs" represents unbelievers, or sodomites, the morally unclean, which are forbidden entrance into the Heavenly City of God. The corresponding word for sodomy which homosexuals prefer for themselves, is "gay," is itself derived from a word basically meaning “gaiety.” that of light hearted cheerfulness of any sort, though studies* show the opposite of happy "gayness" is often the case, and will be most surely sadly realized by those who continue therein.
That sodomy describes homosexual sex in a religious context and which word became a metonym for all homosexual practices neither negates the universal condemnation of such acts, nor it's use to describe such. This law in Dt. 23:17 was based upon the basic moral law of Lv. 18:22, and male temple prostitution was just one expression of condemned homo eroticism. “Simony” the crime of buying office, is derived from Simon in Acts 8:18-24, but the disallowance of purchase of office is not restricted to the religious sphere. Nor would a law against religious pedophilia. ^
4. The objection here is that word "abomination" used to describe homosexual relations in Lv. 18:22 only applies to ceremonial laws. However, there are the two Hebrew words translated abomination, with “sheqets”[H8263] being exclusively used for ceremonial violations (Lv. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41-42; Is. 66:17; Eze. 8:10), while tô‛êbah is used for idolatry (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4) and collectively for the fruits thereof (which all sins are), including all the sins of Leviticus 18, "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people." (v. 29). As well as other sins: "For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Dt. 25:16). This includes illicit sexual union in Dt. 24:4: "Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." Other specific things which are called abomination include following witchcraft (Dt. 18:12), false weights and balances (Dt. 25:16), the unrepentant (Prov. 13:19), as is the sacrifice, way and thoughts of the wicked (Prov. 15:8, 9 26), and the proud in heart (Prov. 16:5), those that justify the wicked and condemneth the just (Prov. 17:15, and which the promotion of homosexuality manifests), as well as those that will not hear the Law of God (Prov. 28:9). Also, "a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (Prov. 6:17-19). Thus the use of “abomination” as used in Lv. 18:22 includes moral sins including illicit sex sins, of which class homosexual practices supremely are.
5. The use of euphemisms is made evident in the Bible, as they are in real life, and we have already seen how yâda‛ clearly denotes sexual relations in many places, but a grammatical argument similar to the above is that the euphemisms used in the Bible to demote sex are open to another interpretation (rest or sleep) which would disallow sex. In Lv. 18:22 the term “lie[H7901] with[H854] can mean sleep (2Sam. 7:12), and in Lv. 20:13 the word for “lieth (mishkâb[H4904]), as in “lieth” with a women, means bed, and thus the sin would be simply laying in the same bed or place with a man (or an animal). This would hardly constituent a capital crime, rather than the sex act, and the context and grammar here and in other places denotes the latter:
Lev 20:11-12 "And the man that lieth[H7901] with[H854] his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie[H7901] with[H854] his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them." (cf. Gn. 19:33; 26:10; Lv. 20:18,20; 1 Sam. 2:22; Eze. 23:8) “Lie” (as in to lay) also often clearly denotes sex in similar constructions and context (Gn.19:32, 34; 30:15; 39:7, 10, 12,14, etc.).
“Mishkâb,” as used to bed someone, is also used to denote sex,:
"And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying (mishkâb[H4904]), with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan." (Judg 21:12)
(Gen 49:4) "Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed (mishkâb[H4904]); then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch."
(Num 31:35) "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying (mishkâb[H4904]) with him."
another attempts argument along this line is that
In summation, Lev. 18 and 20 both clearly condemn the whole scope of men sexually lying with men, with the latter making it a capital crime. The commands such as we see in Lv. 18 and 20 are not given simply to contrast Israel with other nations for the sake of distinction, but because His laws were holy in and of themselves, and the foundational sins of pagan nations were inherently evil. The Levitical prohibitions are not described as simply prohibiting sodomite prostitution but forbid homosexual relations in any context, just as it does illicit heterosexual relations. The practice of temple prostitution, which is even more grievous, is addressed separately, condemning the same practice within a different and (what should have been) hallowed context. These are manifestly not part of the dietary and ceremonial law, but are clearly part of universally applicable moral laws against fornication. There are times when something within the moral realm is conditionally wrong when done in the wrong time, place or manner, such as premarital sex, but the Bible makes this clear and gives evident provision for it's legitimate practice. But once again, unlike the heterosexual relations, in no place does God sanction homosexual relations by marriage (or by original design) as he does between man and women. And if they cannot marry, they are committing fornication, and no fornicator has any inheritance in Christ (except ye repent ye shall likewise perish - Lk. 13:3.), but shall sadly have their part in the Lake of Fire (Rv. 21:8). ^
Deu 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."
1 Kings 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."
The Hebrew word for sodomite (found 6 times in the O.T.) , qa^de^sh (kaw-dashe') literally means a sacred (set apart) person, and at worst means a male temple prostitute, and not "loving monogamous sexual unions with the persons same gender."
The feminine of the word “sodomy” (see under #4 above) is translated “whore” and in Scripture means a person devoted to prostitution, as was Tamar as she say by the way to Timnath (Gn. 38), which was not in the temple, while those practicing religious male homosexuality seemed to have worked out of tents in by the temple, where Jehoshaphat broke down their “houses” (2 Ki. 23:7). The income from which was also forbidden by God: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Deu 23:17-18). “The price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself (in Rev_22:15, the defiled are distinctly called “dogs”).
While the word “sodomite” is used to describe homosexual temple prostitution, yet like that of temple heterosexual prostitution, the condemnation of illicit sex in a religious context by no means negates it's universal prohibition, which the Levitical commands to all Israel, as well as and New Testament condemnations definitely establish, while utterly absent is any sanction of homosexual relations by marriage or by design. And we see the good kings of Israel commended for driving such "out of the land" (1Ki. 15:12), and not simply out of the Temple.
There is also another reason why the prohibition against sodomy is mentioned here, and that is because that which is done in the Temple represents the highest sanction, and while Lev. 18:22 as well as other passages in both the O.T and N.T condemn sodomy in general, homosexual temple prostitution is specifically forbidden is because it presumes the highest religious sanction of a sin which is against God's natural order, a sanction that would set the standard for all other authorities to follow. This type of "holy" sanction is what the sodomite movement seeks today in demanding not simply civil unions recognized by the government, but the more religious title of marriage, which the Bible recognizes as only between a man and a woman. There simply is no basis for anything else.
Ruth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
(1 Sam 18:3) Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
The relationship between Ruth and Naomi is one of two lesbians. Ruth 1:14 says that "Ruth cleaved onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "cleave" is the same word used to description heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
David and Jonathan relationship was also homoerotic , as in 1 Samuel 18:3-4; 18:20-21, 4;2Sam. 1:26.
Once again we see vain attempts at eisegesis (reading into the text, not out of it), which depend upon ignorance of the immediate context, as well as that of the culture in which the events took place. In the first instance the same Hebrew word for clave (da^baq) is also used in commanding us to cleave unto God (Dt. 10:20; 11:22, 13:4), or to describe how their enemies of Israel pursued them (1Sam. 14:22). 2 Sam. 20:2 declares that the men of tribe of Judah "clave unto their King" (who had many wives). And even Ruth's future husband (Boaz) even tells her to "keep fast (same word for cleave) by my young men" (Ruth 2:8,,21). Does the homo-apologist suppose "clave" in these instances means sexually? Would Ruth, a "virtuous women (3:11), be told by her future husband to cleave to the young men in the way homosexuals have her doing to Naomi? Furthermore, she was seeking a husband! While certain homo-apologists earnestly desire to see sexual relations where there are none, reading the above verse in context easily reveals that this cleaving means sticking close in non sexual ways (cf. 2:23), as is does in 58 of the 60 places where the same Hebrew word is used!
I Sam. 8
In the second instance the relationship between David and Jonathan is ignorantly (and diabolically) purported to be sexual, despite the fact that God, who does not bow down to culture ("Learn not the way of the heathen" – Jer. 10:2), never sanctions such, as he does between man and woman by marriage.
First, let us consider the overall context:
Saul, Israel's first king, fails critical leadership tests and David is chosen by God to be his replacement, and is therefore anointed by the prophet Samuel. David slays the giant Goliath (1Sam. 17), and proves himself a mighty warrior and gains Jonathan esteem and covenanted friendship, as well as Israel's praises (Ch. 18). Saul would quickly become jealous, and for a few years the future King David would be found escaping Saul's attempts, even though David could have slain him. But it was in the wilderness that David learned to really pray (read the Psalms) and depend on the Lord. And early on the help of one on the "inside" would prove Providential. David would finally realize the Kingdom, but not until not only Saul but also Davids closest and dearest friend died.
At the subsequent meeting after slaying Goliath with King Saul, his son, Jonathan, fellowships with this Godly hero who was zealous for the glory of the LORD. Being uniquely of like heart, spirit and calling, their fellowship must continue. "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).
Without any real warrant from Scripture, those who lust to find some evidence of approved homosexual relations suppose they find it here. First they think “knit” means to be homoerotic as they are, as they seem to have trouble conceiving of true brotherly love that is nonsexual. Many soldiers have had precious war buddy's who would lay their life down for them, as Jonathan basically did for David. Grammatically, the word "knit" is never used sexually, but rather it denotes to be of one heart and soul, "as one man" as in Judges 20:1. Likewise in 1Chrn. 12:16, 17 the tribes Benjamin and Judah are said to be knit with King David (no, they were not homosexual tribes!). Even more closely, the same word is used to describe Jacob's love for his son Benjamin (Gn. 44: 30). It's most prevalent use is in the negative sense, as conspiracy (1Sam. 22:13), in that case also denoting a non-sexual soul-bond.
Neither can we read a sexual connotation into "loved him as his own soul." Soul basically means life. In all 753 instances of the Hebrew word there is nothing sexual about it. Jonathan loved David as his own life, as we are commanded by the Lord to do. In Genesis 44:30 we see that Jacob's life was bound up in the life of his child. Deuteronomy 13:6 speaks about family members which can be as dear to us as our own soul, and we dare not make all such pathos sexual. Though relatively rare, there have been many bonds of friendships similar to David and Jonathan's in which there was nothing sexual. The love of Christ for His disciples, and of most of theirs for Him (especially Peter and John's) is an example of such soul love, and only the most blind and vile soul dare insinuate that there must be something sexual therein.
In David and Johnathan's case, it is noteworthy that previous to their meeting, "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. It is reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who also had some fame as a daring warrior (1Sam. 13:3; 14), sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was. And so, like father like son, Johnathan saw in David a strong and valiant man, and a true comrade, whose friendship and place in the kingdom of Saul must be assured. David was a man who obviously loved God and showed it in action. Likely the king's son was yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, and found in David one of unique likeness of heart for God and in battle. Thus their bond was spiritual, not sexual. And so Jonathan enters into a covenant with him, the making of which, distinct from marriage, was not uncommon in that world (the word is used 285 times in the O.T.). They made another one in 1Sam. 23:18 which affirmed loyalty in a time of life – threatening danger. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another, .etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust.
However, what about Jonathan giving his robe, his garments, "even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1Sam. 18:4) to David? Even though Jonathan did not lay his outer garments aside (“girdle” means armor in 2Ki. 3:21) but gave them to David, homosexuals fantasize this to be erotic, but the imagination of the natural mind (1Cor. 2:14) must be subject to the Word of God (2Cor. 10:5).
So why would Jonathan give David his clothes? The Bible, which interprets itself, shows us the answer. In Numbers 20:26, when transferring Aaron's position as high priest to his son, God commanded Moses "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.” Likewise Jonathan's actions in giving David the garments of the king's son and heritor of the throne signified a transfer of inheritance to David from Jonathan, who both knew the law of Moses and the answer to his father's question, “what can he have more but the kingdom?”
It also fulfilled a secondary necessity in a charitable way befitting of Jonathan. David had just come from come his job as a keeper of sheep, no lofty position, and one that placed him in humble shepherd's clothing, which would have set him apart from the rest of the royal household. In stark contrast, Jonathan was heir to the throne and it is expected that he would be clothed accordingly. And as Saul "would let him [David] go no more home to his father's house" (1Sam. 18:2), Jonathan's action is giving his garments not only signified David's future replacement of Saul (rather than Jonathan), but rectified the situation of David's unworthy clothing, fittingly at Jonathan's own expense.
The details are noteworthy. Instead of the clothes of a poor Shepard, Jonathan gives David his royal robe and garments, which would make him more fit for a job as a courtier (an attendant at the court of a sovereign). And instead of a shepherd's scrip, Jonathan gives David a girdle (either a belt or a sash); and instead of a slingshot, David receives a sword and bow, and armor befitting a soldier in the army of the king. The fact that David now would wear the garments belonging to the heir to the throne not only signified what would eventually follow, but also insured greater acceptance by the rest of the royal staff. " In Esther 6:8 we see how “clothing makes the man” "Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head.."
Thus far there is nothing that warrants anything different than exceptional, but holy affection between two Godly and like-hearted spiritual brothers and warriors in the kingdom of God. It is manifestly obvious that the purpose of Jonathan removing some of his garments (they did wear under garments) was to unselfishly and prophetically give them to David for his future as well as present new position, and not for any erotic purpose.
But what of two chapters later, where we read "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam 20:41). Is this erotic?
The context is that of David leaving the house of Saul. For sometime now his days were numbered, with jealous King Saul (jealous because of Davids fame as a warrior), more than once trying to pin him to the wall with a javelin. Jonathan has warned David of Saul's mind toward him, and incurred the displeasure of Saul himself by his loyalty to David. Now Jonathan gives him a sign by way of a lad shooting arrows. Like the apostle Paul in Acts 20:38, they shall see each others face no more. And like Paul's departure, it is marked by tears and kisses of brotherly affection: “.. and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam. 20:41). "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today. Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Kissing is rarely sexual in the Bible, except between a man and a women in a purposely evident erotic context and place (SOS 1:2; 8:1), and no matter how much homosexuals seek to read eroticism into the text and a cultural practice, it is not there.
Then we have the poetic description of Jonathan's precious love in David's lament over his death. "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2Sam. 1:25, 26). Johnathan has died with his father in battle, leaving behind at least one child (2Sam. 4:4; 9:3-6; 1Chr. 8:34), and David loses an exceptional and holy friendship that was proved in the most trying time of his life.
But while those who are intent on finding some evidence of sexual love between men hope to find it here, neither the use of the word "pleasant" (which can even describe land - Gn. 49:15) or that the love of Jonathan surpassed that of women denotes anything sexual — and the Bible has no problem making the latter clear when that is the case. The problem is that many of those given to perverse fornication refuse to allow brotherly affection to be nonsexual. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive manner than simple sexually, and the latter may often fail to be even qualify as true love. But David and Jonathan's battle – proven love in friendship would easily be far more rare, needful and appreciated than of the women we see that David had known sexually. His wife, Saul's daughter Michal (1Sam. 18:27), would soon be cursed due to her reproof of him (2Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David, and showed himself a faithful and Godly comrade in helping David escape Saul's wrath on his way to replacing him. And which position David would have never inherited if he were involved in sodomy. There simply is no substance for reading sexual activity in such words, which eisegesis is perverse as is the practices they seek to justify, and which attempts reveals the desperation those who seek to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality face.
Finally, the fact that both Jonathan and David were both married to women, and had children by such testifies to David's heterosexual sexuality, and in the latter's case is further affirmed not only by his many wives, but also (though in a negative context) by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. It is clearly evident that it was not men that David married, but women, and it not men that he was sexually attracted to, but woman (2Sam. 11). Thus if Jonathan and David were in a homosexual relationship through the years, then they would have been adulterous bisexuals! Any kind of homosexual eroticism would also be scandalous in the household of Saul and kingdom of Israel. Rather, any insinuation of a homosexual relationship between these men of God is slanderous.
All told, in David's fitting and heart – felt tribute to his comrade there is nothing to warrant equating pathos (deep human emotions) with eros (sexual love), and the burden of proof is upon those that would do so to prove such. Souls that are utterly dependent on each other necessitate loyalty, and though it is rare to find men whose heart is so loyally knit together in heart, mind and purposes that it is greater than with those whom they are joined with physically, yet it does happen, and it is aptly expressed in David's poetry here. An old saying. "Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self"(Adam Clarke), is quite applicable in this case.
All that has been said must be considered with the realization that God has no difficulty making it clear when love between man and women is sexual. Such instances abound, and require no reading into the texts things that are not there. And as God contradicts established norms and cultures in revealing what is best for man, so we can expect that if in fact homosexual relations were good, then the Lord would make it just as manifest that men lying with men was sanctified, just as with women, but He very obviously does not. Marriage between man and women is specifically ordained of God in the Bible, and reiterated by Christ, with the occurrence abundantly noted, but for homo-sexual practices no such thing exists in the Word of God, rather unions are righteously and wisely prohibited and condemned! Not one instance of a man sexually "knowing" another man as with women is sanctioned, nor one instance of a man taking another man to wife, or was married to one, while Scripture abundantly records this between heterosexuals. And no real instance of approved romantic-sexual love between men is given, despite the desire by some see such!
And while David's expression of his friendship with Jonathan was the greatest one in the Old Testament concerning male to male relationships, David's remembrance stands in clear contrast to the greatest expression of male to female love by the latter's inclusion of the element which is utterly missing from Davids description, that of erotic love. From way before the time of Christ the Song of Solomon has stood in the Bible as the epitome of romantic love between man and woman, and nothing like it is given us even among the closest male to male Biblical relationships. Herein we see how the Creator is not neglectful to give unto us the truth needed for man and women to know and walk in His ways, and how He has made both uniquely compatible and complementary. And in contrast to the prohibitions against men lying with men, in the Song of Solomon the married union of the male and female union is unmistakably exalted, lovingly, romantically, and sexually.
There are perhaps a couple of other attempts purporting to find some intimation of homosexual relationships in the Bible, but they are so lacking in substance that i will not presently take the time to expose them, suffice to say that it is distressing to see souls so desirous to find evidence for God-sanctioned homo-erotic relationships that they read into texts conclusions which simply are not unwarranted, while in fact such are universally condemned.
But i will further address a point touched on before, which is the fallacy that the absence of homo-erotic relationships and of homosexual marriage is because it would have been hard for other cultures to accept homosexuality. Is God bound by culture so that He leaves out something that is essential for man's well-being, as homosexuals purport their relationships to be? An examination of Scriptures shows this is not the case, rather the Lord warned many times against conforming to the sins of other cultures, and it was cultures who practiced such sins as homosexual practices that were judged by God for such. The list of sins in Lv. 18 were things in which all the nations were defiled by, and for which iniquity God them cast out (Lv. 18:25). Under the New Covenant, while men such as Paul adapted to culture in the amoral realm, he preached against fleshly immorality, and warned that fornicators and "abusers of themselves with mankind," would keep one out of the Kingdom of God [while this verse (1Cor. 9-10 and 1Tim. 1:10) and the meaning of "Arsenokoitai" and "Malakoi" could also be examined - which i believe speak of homosexuals - in this treatise i am presently focusing on the more explicit texts concerning homosexual relations].
Moving therefore onto the Book of Romans in New Testament, we see one the clearest condemnations of homosexual relationships in the entire Bible.
Romans 1:22-28: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;.
1. This only pertains to sexual abuse, as slaves were often forced to commit homosexual acts. It does not apply to consensual relationships.
2. This means that if you were born heterosexual, it would be wrong and unnatural for you to engage in homosexual relations.
3. This only has to do with religious idolatrous practices, and not with consensual relationships.
1. This is wishful thinking, as a careful reading of the text neither explicitly or implicitly conveys such an idea. Rather it deals with the causes and effects of the general degeneration of man, not practices within a specific institution, and which context shall be expanded upon under #3. But the fact that it is clearly said that men "burned in their lust one toward another;" shows it to be indeed consensual, like as is grievously common today, and not slaves forced to commit sodomy (though that likely happened, and is also to be condemned).
2. This strange interpretation is another desperate attempt to escape the obvious. Paul does not say or intimate that normally heterosexual men were somehow denying their natural proclivity, but rather that men left "the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly," or unnatural, and received in their own defiled bodies their just punishment. They were, after all, doing what they had been delivered over to. All souls have sinful desires, and the fact that we are born with sinful desires does no way justify our acting them out. God gives us grace self control and even deliverance, but the more one yields to sin to more he is taken captive by it. And Jesus came to set the captives free who truly want Him. But for those who resist His Spirit there is a point of no return after which they cannot, being reprobate (Rm. 1:28; 2Cor. 13:5-7; 2Tim., 3:8; Titus 1:16). May you who who read this "harden not your heart" but instead "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts," and decide you want Jesus rather than sin, and so truly receive and follow Jesus who died for you, and rose again. Resisting the Spirit and truth of God is very dangerous and Hell is populated by those who did.
3.This attempt to negate Biblical truth hearkens back to the supposition that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is only condemning homosexual acts that are done in conjunction with pagan temple idolatry and or apply to the priesthood. However, not only do those texts stand on their own, but both those and the passages in Romans apply to man in general. Both the preceding verses leading up to the section condemning homosexual practices and those proceeding from it make this clear. The section specifically dealing with homosexuality is part of Paul's declaration of the gospel of Christ, which idolatry and homosexual relations are in contrast with, and continues the theme of obedience to revealed truth and blessing and accountability versus disobedience and deception. Beginning in verse 18, we are warned that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," truth being that which is basically revealed by nature (God's creation), as well as by the explicit and comprehensive revelation of His written revelation (the Word of God, the Bible). And here it should be noted that the revelation of nature manifests that men are physically designed for sexual compatibility with women and not with men (and again, male and female complementary compatibility does not end there). The Holy Spirit then reveals the progressive steps of degeneration, proceeding from continued rejection of truth and leading to men working that which is unseemly, or against nature. Though this was manifested in formal idolatry, it encompasses all all attempts at making God into an image of one's own liking. The delivering over of such to working that which is against nature is not simply relegated to homosexual temple prostitution, but to general consensual homosexual relations, and the offense is not "ritual purity," but sexual perversity contrary to God's design. The text then goes to overall list other fruits of the reprobate mind which are manifest to various degrees, and are the result of resisting the truth of the One True God (relative to the degree they do), as those do who so seek to wrest the Scriptures to fit their unholy ends.
According to the theme of chapter 1, Romans chapter 2 will go on to show that the Gentiles (encompassing all outside the Nation of Israel) had the essence of the Law of God written in their heart. And as other texts show, God is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). And thus when men truly want the Truth, when they wholeheartedly want the Light, then more will be given. Finally, like Cornelius (Acts 10), they will truly hear Christ and receive Him as their Lord and Savior. The opposite is true for those who do not (Jn. 3:19-21). Conversely, in Romans 1 we see that according to the principal of degeneration when man rejects the natural revelation God gives them then they become progressively more blind. They seek to make God after an image more to their own fleshly liking (and render the Bible likewise) - which homo-apologists have effectively done in this case - and eventually in their rebellion become given over to their own fleshly lusts. The fact that the sinful practices of Romans 1 are shown to proceed out of formal idolatry need not mean that such vile physical practices are condemned only if they are conjoined with such evident idolatry, rather it shows perversity as an effect of idolatry, and which can take many forms. We may detail the steps of degeneration that led Germany to follow Hitler, but that does not mean the end result is only wrong if done as part of such manifest "idolatry," and or in obedience to such an idol. As said before, pedophilia is not simply wrong if a priest does it, but the act is wrong at anytime by anyone.
While the attempt to make the condemnation of consensual homoerotic relations that of only pagan idolatry is a vain one, the fact which Romans makes clear is that idolatry leads to progressive degrees of blindness and captivating and devastating sin. The truth is that all sin is a manifestation of idolatry. The first commandment is to love the God of the Bible with all we've got (Dt. 6:4). If we do so we will neither be following after false gods nor doing the things which are the result of such. And idolatry is not limited to formal deities. Whenever we worship/obey an idea of deity that is made like to corruptible man, being the fruit of the carnal mind (which is "not subject to the law of God" - Rm. 8:7 - as homosexuality is not), then we are in fact guilty of idolatry. Whatever we live for at any given time is our god at that time. Whether it be "the lust of the flesh" (sensual pleasures), or "the lust of the eyes" (possessions), or "the pride of life" (prestige-ego fulfillment), it is all idolatry whenever they become our chief love and or source of security. Only God is almighty and eternal, whereas the rest are finite created things that cannot deliver us nor truly satisfy the soul. But Jesus is the Bread of Life, and as He promised "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst" (Jn. 6:35). And he who writes these things testifies that such "is truth and is no lie." My basic soul hunger was and is satisfied since i truly repented and received the Lord Christ at age 25 (though i was brought up "religiously" as a Catholic). His Spirit came in me and changed my heart in essential ways i neither sought nor could do . I do, however, need and must seek for more and more heart righteousness, till all that is within me cries glory!
Mark 10:35: And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
Requiring that moral law be limited to only what the Jesus personally on earth specifically said in the 4 gospels is unwarranted, unBiblical and contrary to Christ's explicit provision. In the issue at issue, the Lord affirmed the Scriptures and the moral law (Mt. 4:4; Jn.10:35) and which condemns men lying with man, and promised further revelation after His resurrection, and it is in the light of the completed New Testament that we see homosexual relations additionally condemned. As concerns just the gospels themselves, while the Lord Jesus may not have specifically spoken on many diverse issues such as infanticide, incest, rape, bestiality, etc., yet He covered them in warning of iniquities under the general heading in which they fall.
As concerns homosexual relations, the Lord Jesus clearly declared that "fornications" (plural) was one of the things that made one unclean and thus unfit for Heaven (Mark 7:21; Rv. 21:27). And in Matthew 19 (see below). the Lord Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage was between a man (male) and a women (female).
As concerns the revelation of the rest of the New Testament, in John 16:12, 13, the Lord promised, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and He will show you things to come." (Jn. 16:12, 13). And this further revelation likewise condemns “men with men working that which is unseemly [unnatural and perverse], and affirms the creational differences by which man and women are uniquely complementary, and compatible (1Cor. 1:3; Eph. 5:24, 25).
(1 Cor 6:9-11) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitēs], Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
(1 Tim 1:8-10) "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [arsenokoitēs] for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
Here the attempt is made to prevent “malakos” and arsenokoitēs from referring to homosexuals due to the rarity of the words. The word (arsenokoitēs) means “soft” (Mt. 11:8; Lk. 7:250 and it is certain that simply being “soft” in skin is meant, but as Paul elsewhere places two very similar sins together (proud, boasters; adultery, fornication), so we must take note of the adjoining terms here. Occurs as part of a list of sexual sins ( fornicators, idolaters, adulterers) with the next one indicating the same. Writing in the same century as Paul, Philo of Alexandria’s used words related in nature to refer to the effeminate male partner in a homosexual union, while there is evidence of occasional Greco-Roman usage of malakoi (comparable to the Latin “molles”) to denote effeminate adult males who were disposed to homogenital relations.
The next word is an unusual term, and is understood to mean "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; κοίτην [koitēn] "sexual intercourse"), which ia not the same word as normally used for such in the Greek culture. “With regard to arsenokoitai note: (a) clear connections of this word to the absolute Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13), evident from the fact that the word, exclusively used in Jewish and Christian contexts until late in antiquity, was formulated directly from the Levitical prohibitions, that ancient rabbis used a parallel Hebrew term, mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), to apply to all men-male sexual bonds, and that 1 Tim 1:10 explicitly connects opposition to this vice (among other vices) to the law of Moses; (b) early Judaism’s univocal interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions against men-male intercourse as allowing only sexual relations between a man and a woman (e.g., Josephus, Philo, the rabbis); (c) the singular use of arsenokoites and related words subsequent to Paul in connection with male-male intercourse per se, without limitation to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes; (d) the implications of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-7, given the parallel case of adult, consensual incest in ch. 5, the assumption of consent in the vice list in 6:9-10, the citation of Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16 (see also 11:7-9, 12), and the presumption everywhere in ch. 7 that sex is confined to male-female marriage; and (e) the fact that the Greco-Roman milieu considered it worse for a man to have sex with another adult male than with a boy because the former had left behind his “softness.” — http://www.robgagnon.net/winterrmiltonresponse.htm
What about Eunuchs?
Faced with the foundation of marriage from the beginning of the Bible, in which only the women was distinctly created for the man, and which unique joining of opposite genders and it's foundation is only affirmed and linked to under the New Testament, some homo apologists (such as Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men) seek to create a back door for homosexual marriage. This is done by postulating or asserting that the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals. And as love is basically made to trump other restrictions, and as for many it is unthinkable that Jesus would have them abstain from sexual activity, and since sex outside of marriage is fornication, then the provision of marriage for eunuchs, which Malik makes out to be all homosexuals and vice versa, would be implied. However, this polemic makes unwarranted presumptions, while duplicitously employing a rule of interpretation which is the opposite of a faulty hermeneutic pro homosexuals use to negate the unconditional injunction against homoerotic relations in Lv. 18:22. While it may be true that in other nations eunuchs were sometime homosexuals and who sometimes could procreate (Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young), yet rather than being like other nations, homoerotic relations was one of the inherently evil sins which God declared Israel was not to do, in contrast to pagans (Lv. 18:24,27). In seeking to disallow that universal prohibition, the homosexual apologist almost always relegates that moral law to the category of ceremonial laws, using what might be called the “shellfish hermeneutic,” thereby abrogating the literal application of this and (effectively) all such laws outside of formal idolatry. But as was evidenced under Leviticus 18, the Bible itself specifies which type of laws were typological (Col. 2:16; Heb. 9:10), while consistently affirming moral laws, the applicability of which are not dependent upon a specific culture, and under which category laws condemning illicit sex manifestly stand (Mk. 7:21; Eph. 5:3). However, in response to the need to find sanction for homoerotic relations, here the homosexual apologist supposes that Israel was like the other nations, while the opposite was to be the case. Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83).
Finally, any idea that Jesus' reference to eunuchs may imply sanction for homosexual marriage is destroyed by the context of Mt. 19:12, in which eunuchs are established as a class of persons which do not get married (Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D). In the light of this, it is not surprising that the actual effect of the employment of specious homosexual hermeneutics is to negate the Bible as a moral authority, with the requirement of marriage for sexual relations being a specific causality.
The Biblical references to eunuchs includes both those who were born without the ability to reproduce, or who were castrated (Dt. 23:1; Isaiah 39:7; 56:4,5; Mt. 19:12), the latter of which could be spiritually under the New Covenant and it's spiritual kingdom. As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning (see above ref.), while under the New Covenant no physical deformity excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral behavior denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).
Laws regarding slavery versus those regarding homosexual relations
Another attempt to negate the immutable laws against homosexual relations is based upon the premise that since Christians reject the Biblical sanction of slavery, then they should also reject commands regarding homosexual relations. While this argument at least recognizes the Bible does forbid same gender sex, it fails to consider the critical distinctions between laws regarding slavery and those against illicit sex and such like.
First, let us briefly examine slavery. The Bible deals with slavery extensively as an established and intractable institution, by which was by no means monolithic. This is helpful to understand, as relation to the use of the term slave, which is usually more evocative rather than analytical. In the Old Testament slavery usually was “initiated by the slave, not the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic. In cases of State slavery, as in Greece and Rome, individuals were used for building projects.” See this worthy source link in regard to this subject. As in other cultures, slavery was both a means to provide labor for an agrarian economy and usually large households, as well as to deal with captives of war. “The idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the Ancient Near East” (Anchor Bible Dictionary). In a world of much injustice, the laws of the Bible actually radically worked toward justice and righteousness, and which included judgment upon societies whose destructive iniquity was of a long time pervasive, persuasive and perverted. Slavery in the Old Testament was regulated by God, who provided laws for how servants were to be treated. The only place where slavery was mandated was in relation to Israel taking captives as part of warfare (Dt. 20:10-15), in which cities might be taken. Israel did not travel to war against distant nations, and this was not a primary source of servants, and the laws at issue here were applicable under a certain cultural context, that of Divinely ordained wars of conquest under a theocracy. God also gave instructions in the taking of wives from among captives (Dt. 21:10-14), or concubines, which were a type of secondary wife (Gen 25:1; cf. 1Ch 1:32; Gen 30:4; cf. 35:22), and for how they were to be treated, but these were situational and are further revealed to be temporary, being contrary to the original ideal (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31-33; 1Tim. 3:2). Elsewhere, laws regarding slavery are presented more as an allowance, with it's forms being regulated to prevent abuse. and while they had less rights than freemen, even in the Old Testament this required superior treatment for servants than in other cultures, as in requiring the death penalty for a master who killed his servant (see Exo 21:20-21; with v. 12 and v. 24; also Lev. 24:21-22). Slaves could be bought and sold (Lev 25:45-46), and one could sell himself (Lev 25:47) or his children into servitude (Exo 21:7). God required Israel to treat foreigners dwelling among them charitably (Lv. 19:18,34), and in fact they could even purchase Hebrews who sold themselves into servitude. They were reminded to care for the plight of the poor and oppressed, and give food and just wages, not charge interest on loans to their brethren, and every 7th year Hebrews slaves were to be offered freedom, and all debts were canceled. And those who choose freedom received abundant “severance pay.” And ever 50 years any land they had sold went back to them. etc. Foreign servants were theirs perpetually, but unlike hired servants, all purchased servants in the household of Abraham were circumcised and so would enjoy special benefits under the Abrahamic covenant, and all servants of Israelites were to enjoy the religious feasts in the land of Canaan with the master's family (Deu 12:12; 16:11). But nowhere is this or slavery given as a type of imperative transcendent command such as moral laws are, which in contrast must be obeyed despite civil laws to the contrary (Dan. 4).
Under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant in the New Testament, the primitive church under direct apostolic leadership as an organic community had no slaves (Acts 2-6), as John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), archbishop of Constantinople, testified, and yet necessity later required an allowance of slavery. Slave owners who converted to Christ in the Roman empire, in which up to an est. 30% of persons were slaves (even slaves sometimes had slaves) and which likely would have constituted more in the church, were required to give equal pay and fair treatment to their servants (Col. 4:1), not threatening them, as they also had a Master — in heaven (Eph. 4:9). In addition, in the apostolic letter to Philemon an escaped slave — whom the apostle Paul would have liked to have work with him in his ministry in place of his master — was offered back to his owner (who was noted for charity), on the condition that he be received back no longer as a servant, but as a beloved brother — even as Paul himself. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 7:21 the apostle counsels slaves to obtain freedom if lawfully possible. This, together with the essential equality of all races as stated in Gal. 3:28, and the general commands of love (“kindly affectioned”, “fervent charity”, etc.) towards those within the church, and holy compassion to those without, effectively disembowels slavery and prevents it from being anything less than a mutually gracious employer/employee relationship, with freedom offered to all. An owner reading and obeying these commands could neither treat his help as mere property or as racially inferior or in any way unjust, and should respect the apostle's counsel for slaves to obtain freedom. Yet slavery was not commanded, and though it still could be morally tolerated with such radical regulation, as an intractable economic institution in a society in which the church itself is oppressed and politically powerless, the full application of holy Christian ethos of love is more compatible with the abolition of the institution of slavery than with it, when conditions allow it. Yet when the church once more had freedom to pursue this, and did in fact make progress toward it, due to the church at large taking on the form of the empire (contra Rm. 12:1,2), the formal abolition of slavery awaited a time when the church got back to the Bible and a revival of early faith, and had more freedom to effect such change. Thus it was enlivened evangelical Christians who after the 2ndgreat awakening, were at the forefront of the abolition movement. God be thanked.
Yet in contrast to homosexuality, while slavery was never ordained as a imperative transcendent command, heterosexual marriage and the unique union between man and women with it's positional distinctions was ordained from the very beginning, and confirmed through the Bible to the end. And while the laws in Lv. 18 were radically counter-cultural, and the Bible reveals homosexuality as an irredeemable manifestation of idolatry (which all sin is), and not simply an amoral practice within it, in contrast the transcultural practice of slavery in the Old Testament was used as a form of judgment upon nations such as practiced illicit sex and other moral abominations, as well as being an allowable condescension to the culture towards their own people. The only way the Biblical regulations on slavery were counter-cultural was that the treatment of slaves was better than that of the surrounding culture, and in this it moved in the direction of the fullness of Christian ethos, which moved toward the abolishment of slavery when (under the New covenant) it ceased to be a form of judgment upon other nations, and economic and political freedoms enabled it. However, legalizing same gender unions is a move backward into a manifestation of idolatry and away from God's original precepts regarding sexual union, which do not simply ordain how spouses treat each other, but by design and explicit decree ordain only opposite genders as spouses, and which is explicitly consistently confirmed to the end; both physically and metaphorically. Modifying treatment between humans eliminated slavery and can improve conditions within a marriage, but laws regarding who are to joined in marriage are based upon explicitly manifest creations distinctions and His repeated decree, in which the women alone was made for the man as his paracletal marital counterpart, with purposeful physical, physiological and positional distinctions, making them uniquely compatible and complementary. http://www.psychology-issues.com/psychology-of-man-psychology-of-woman.html#men%20are%20from%20mars
As regards the modern attempt to compare civil rights which disallow slavery with rights for homosexual relations, namely to be married, there is an irreconcilable critical difference between the two. The latter seeks rights for an immoral behavior, which laws must prevent, while civil rights prevent discrimination relative to amoral aspects such as race or origin, or religious or ideological practices, which are even then limited by moral considerations (freedom of religion is itself limited, in which certain practices which may be injurious to health are outlawed). Claiming rights for anyone to act immorally based on either preference or inborn proclivities is not a civil right but a moral wrong, and Biblical laws regarding illicit sex are part of transcendent moral law.
Yet in the West today, homosexuals only have their rights as a person restricted as regards marriage, which is just for a sinful behavior. Others persons who engage in a consensual but illegal activity, such as recreation drug use, realize more a severe loss of rights, and justly so. Some persons may lose rights if only on a medical basis, and if consensually taking part in a practice such as the Lord's supper resulted in a drastically increased rate of infectious diseases and premature death, the participants would realize far greater restrictions than do practicing homosexuals, the majority of which are promiscuous and spread disease. But the immorality of homosexuality is not based on it's deleterious physical penalties, but on the declarations of the only wise God (Jude 1:25) as the Creator and joiner of man and women, which homosexual relations supremely convolute and insult.
The homo-apologist would have us believe that homosexual practices are wholesome, healthy (though numerous studies* militate against it being "wholesome and healthy"), even preferable or necessary for some, and affirmed by the Bible. They would have us believe that homosexuality is something that is so good and necessary for mankind that it ought to enjoy the same sanction of marriage as heterosexuals are given. They would have us believe this despite the plain and clear prohibitions against men lying with men as with women, the condemnation of those who did so, and despite the utter absence of positive Divine sanction for homosexual marriage - the normal and natural provision which is given to heterosexuals. In so doing they would have us effectively believe that God is unwilling to make His will sufficiently clear in this matter (though He has), most specifically being unwilling to provide same sex unions the blessed sanction necessary for their lawful conjugal happiness, even though the blessed provision of marriage for HETEROSEXUALS is clearly and abundantly given.
Finally, having sought to manipulate the Word of God to support them, the typical promoter of homosexuality not only seeks that equality with heterosexuals in this matter be affirmed (being intolerant of any who oppose them), but many demand that they also be called Christians. Yet this is a title that originally was given to those who believed Scripture as God's coherent literal (mostly) spiritual and moral authority. And which is a title no one can earn, but one that can only be had upon "repentance from dead works" and "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Heb. 6:1; Acts 20:21). But which redemption souls spurn as long as they remain obstinate in positively affirming homosexuality (or any sin).
Finally, though "all manner of evil" (Mt. 11) is often falsely said by homosexuals against those who oppose their homosexual activity, yet God declares "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye" (Ezk. 18:32). And how can I myself love a homosexual soul if I do not warn them of a sin which will send them likely to an early grave and surely to an eternal Hell. It is my prayer that every homosexual, and indeed all souls – by the grace of God – will turn from "darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me [Jesus] (Acts 26:18). For help in doing that, PLEASE read the accompanying message "Jesus can set you free" that will follow below.
And let those who oppose homosexuality also take heed to their spirit, for though the practice of sodomy is exceeding unholy and sinful, yet the Scripture states “and such were some of you” (1Cor. 16:11), and thus we must both hate iniquity (in ourselves first) and love righteousness (Heb. 1:9), yet have compassion on the lost, “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) in the holy fear of God. All have sinned, there is none righteous, and nothing that defileth shall enter the Holy City of God, Hell is forever, all must be saved. And which salvation can not be had on the basis of any merit we suppose, nor any sacrifice we make, but only the blood of the sinless Jesus can truly atone for sin and save sinners. And not only save but transform hearts. May all who read this know "so great salvation, " by "the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ"(Heb. 2:3; Titus 2:13). Praise ye the Lord!
For a single sheet handout on the issue of homosexual marriage print out Is-Homosexual-marriage-supported
The following sites offer information on studies of the detrimental effects of the homosexual life, and or examine the Bibles prohibition of homosexual practice.
More information on may be seen at
http://www.afanwpa.org/news%20release%20--%20mayor%20&%20State%20Rep%20partipate%20in%20Erie%20Pride%209.16.03.htm [follow links]
(The above sources are not affiliated with this tract or ministry).
1 A covenant generally entails an agreement among two or more parties to a morally binding commitment, often supported by a transcendent power, and usually for stated purpose. And which agreement can only be voided or ended by mutual agreement by all the parties to it, and often contingent upon the performance of the stated agreement.
2 In the KJV, the difference between singular and plural are seen, "T" as in thou, is singular, while "Y" as in ye, as plural).
Only Jesus can truly set you free
There is a God, your Creator, who has created you to know Him and who has given us both good things and good laws. Yet "All have sinned" (Rm. 3:23), breaking His good laws and misusing the good things which He has given us for our benefit.
Sin has separated you from God, the Source of Life, resulting in Spiritual Death (Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1). Man tries to satisfy the emptiness in his soul by making created things or persons his god. Whether it be the "lust of the flesh" [sensual pleasure], "the lust of the eyes" [possessions] or "the pride of life" [prestige or power] (1 Jn. 2:16), it is all a vain and sinful attempt to find security and fulfillment apart from the True and Living God. Neither can we justify sinful choices by saying "I was born that way."
You were created to be able to enjoy God in Heaven, but nothing sinful will be, or should be, allowed into Heaven (Is. 59:1, 2; Rv. 21:27), If you die in your sins you will not rejoice in Heaven, but will end up in a place that is just the opposite of Heaven, a real place called the Lake of Fire (Mt. 25:41 ; Rev. 20:15; 21:8).
The Only Way you can have your sins forgiven and know God is through the Lord JESUS CHRIST, whom the Father sent to save you (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 13:39; 1Jn. 4:10, 14).
It is this JESUS, the Son of God, who came down from Heaven to live a completely sinless and perfect life, revealing God's grace, truth, love and righteousness,.. Yet after doing everything "right," it is He who took responsibility for all we have done wrong, paying for our sins with His own sinless blood on the cross of His death. Having done all, it is this JESUS who rose from the dead to Heaven as Savior and Judge (Act 10:39-43). God now calls you to turn to Him from sin and receive His Son, Whom He "hath made both Lord and Christ". ( Act 2:36-47; 13:16-41).
What you do with Jesus, "God manifest in the flesh," reveals what you ultimately love and where you will spend ETERNITY. If you die without Christ - if you have not turned to God from sin and cast all your faith upon the Risen Lord Jesus to save you, and had all your sins washed away by His precious blood - then you must face the just punishment which your sins require.
I pray that instead of sin and a sure Hell you will choose Christ and His Life today! Humble yourself as a sinner before God, decide you want Jesus instead of sin and honestly call upon Him to save you. Then be baptized and follow Him with a Bible-believing/preaching church. Those who have truly received Christ are made spiritually alive (born again) by the Spirit of God and want to serve Him (despite persecutions). Praise the Lord!
This work is given with prayers that it will be used to save souls lest sin destroy them, which is what homosexuality does. May we speak the truth in love, knowing that the more we love God, then the more we will love what God loves, and hate what He hates, and react accordingly.
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen"(Jude 21-25). Praise the Lord.
Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless HIS holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all HIS benefits (Ps. 103:1, 2).
Idaho Web Design Tools