Homosexuality And The Bible

Understanding the Topic of Homosexuality in the Bible. Before I begin, let me state two things: 1) The Bible nowhere used the term “homosexual” in the original languages because the word did not exist at the time of the biblical authors, rather, the Biblical authors used descriptive words and phrases to express what we, today, consider “homosexual behavior. 2) Homosexuals are no more “hell bound” than any other sinner. Sin is sin. Whether committed by two men or a man and a woman. That being said, there are passages in the Bible which have become a point of debate where the issue of homosexuality is concerned. Attempts to revise their applications have produced everything from essays to large volumes, such as those written by Dr.John Boswell. These attempts often rely on a modern exegetical approach known as “Gay Liberation Theology,” a theological stance rooted in the Marxist approach once taught by Priests in the South Americas. The first application of this approach comes when one looks at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, chapter 19. Recapping the Sodom Story. The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a study in God’s wrath upon those who stray from His design for man. Gay apologists and others, however, try to tell us that the two cities were destroyed because they were “inhospitable” to strangers. Let’s look at the story itself which begins, not in chapter 19, but (in terms of Lot’s involvement) in chapter thirteen: “And Lot lifted his eyes and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go toward Zoar. Then Lot chose for himself all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east. And they separated from each other.” Lot and Abraham were parting ways. Abraham offered Lot “first pick” of the lands which both of them were looking at settling in. And Lot “pitched his tent even as far as Sodom.” This was no accident. The region was lush, would be good for grazing and raising crops. But was it a good place to raise a family? In verse 13 we read that: “…the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” Apologists who say the sin of the men of Sodom was “inhospitality” need to take a good hard look at the above passage. Remember: this was before the incident in Genesis 19. And, Sodom welcomed Lot and his family (he would later be found sitting at the Gate in Genesis 19:1, which signified his having good status in the community.) The next question about the Genesis 13 passage we have to ask is: what is meant by “the

men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly?” In the Hebrew, the word “exceedingly” is meh·ode' in this passage it’s a masculine adjective “much force”. So, whatever their sin was, it wasn’t a passive sin. In fact, it was descriptive of the men (and the passage meant MEN, not men and women) in terms of their behavior and persona. The use of the term “wicked” is also in adjective form (descriptive of behavior) and means exactly what it says. This could apply to inhospitality I suppose, but then we have the term “sinners” this seems to clarify the issue. The word “sinner” is chatta' in the Hebrew and it means (as a masculine noun) one who is “exposed to condemnation, reckoned as offender”. This isn’t a “group” thing, though it does encompass a group. Instead, it deals with the group person by person. So whatever their sin was, apparently ALL the men of Sodom (with, as we will see, the exception of Lot) imbibed in the behavior. Now the question is: is it reasonable to believe that ALL the men of Sodom participated in homosexuality? If homosexuality is defined as same-sex sexual encounters, it wouldn’t be a far stretch to believe so. Remember: the Bible doesn’t use the term “homosexual” rather, it describes the behavior. Did men back then have homosexual relationships as we see now? Where Adam and Steve want to set up house and call themselves married? Yes, it did. And from time to time there have been revivals of this phenomenon. For example, the Spartans began homosexualizing boys shortly after their seventh or eighth birthday and were paired with an older man who acted as mentor and lover. These “love” relationships would continue until the young man was forced (yes, forced) into a heterosexual marriage in order to procreate for Sparta. Needless to say, the young man had a few problems having sex with his wife. To ease this transition (albeit, a transition which did not usually stick) the young bride would have her head shaved and change her appearance to seem more “manly” so that her husband would be more comfortable in having sexual relations. More often than not, these men would go back to their male lovers, visiting their wives only to make more offspring. To say Sodom’s sin couldn’t have been homosexuality because, after all, there was no such thing as a “homosexual preference” in any culture; or to say gay men never have sex with women (which obviously there were women in Sodom) is absurd. Gay men have sex with women all the time! Just ask Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches in America and a father (though he and his wife have long separated). Or ask Mel White, or any other number of gay men who had married women and fathered children. Premature deaths due to disease, accident, and childbirth complications, having an exclusive homosexual relationship was considered a luxury most societies could ill afford.

Making the next generation was a social obligation. Sodom likely fit into this mold and, judging by the events that happened BEFORE the angels went to Sodom, I would say it fit the mold quite neatly. Lot’s Offering of His Daughters. Questioned by many modern theologians (predominantly feminist ones) is the portion of the story where Lot offers his daughters to the ravenous crowd if they would leave the angels alone. The portion of the incident where Lot offers his daughters doesn’t deny the homosexuality involved in the story. In actuality, it supports the idea that the men of Sodom had a marked preference for homosexual sex. In chapter 19, we have the people of Sodom surrounding the house of Lot and demanding that Lot hand over the “strangers” (meaning the Angels) and Lot, trying to dismiss their demand, makes a counter-offer: “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” “‘Get out of our way,’ they replied. And they said, ‘This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them.’ They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.” Lot is making them an offer of sexual gratification which, though repugnant to us, is in no wise approved of by God (certainly God didn’t tell him to “shut up” but nowhere was it condoned, either). But note that the men REFUSED the offer. Let me ask this question: if a gay man has the option to have sex with a man or a woman, which one will he insist upon? It is interesting to note also that in most versions of the Bible, it is the men, not the women of Sodom, who come to the home of Lot and demand the angels. This is significant because, if the “sin” were inhospitality, are we to believe the entire city was destroyed because the men, alone, were inhospitable? Are we to believe there were no inhospitable females? Abraham’s View of Sodom. Abraham’s view of Sodom begins with a war. In this case, a war between kingdoms which resulted in Lot and his family, along with many others, being held prisoner and their goods plundered. We read about this story in Genesis chapter fourteen. And we also read where Abraham came to Lot’s rescue. After the rescue, the King of Sodom comes out to meet Abraham: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tithe of all.” “Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, ‘Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.’ But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have raised my hand to the Lord, God

Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich…’” Why the concern? Abraham was making it very plain that he had sworn to the Almighty that he would take nothing from the King of Sodom. Why? Well, let’s see. Remember: the law of Moses had not yet been given. So what would be so bad about having the King of a city full of Sodomites be responsible for “making you rich?” Putting it that way makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I somehow can’t imagine Abraham was worried about being made “rich” by an inhospitable person. Oh, and by the way, seems the King of Sodom was being quite hospitable! What About Isaiah? The prophet Isaiah’s primary mission was to call the nation of Israel to repentance and to account for it’s own wickedness. In a vision, Isaiah receives a message about the wickedness of Israel and, in Isaiah chapter 10, there are generic descriptions of Israel including calling them sinful, laden with iniquity, forsaking the Lord, a brood of evil doers, children of corruption, etc. None of which is nice, none of which excludes (nor details) sexual perversion, UNTIL the Lord, via Isaiah, makes a startling statement: “Unless the Lord of hosts Had left to us a very small remnant, We would have become like Sodom, We would have been made like Gomorrah.” Remember back in Genesis 19 where Abraham intervenes with the initial intention to destroy all of Sodom and Gomorrah by bargaining “if you can find ten righteous people…?” The passage in Isaiah is drawing a frightening conclusion: “If there hadn’t been any persons who were not homosexually inclined, we could well have been like Sodom and Gomorrah.” Israel wasn’t inhospitable and the passage in Isaiah never claims it was. But Israel DID suffer with sexual perversions. But then, to humble the “whew, we’re safe” crowd, the prophet goes on: “Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, You people of Gomorrah: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? Says the Lord.” Israel was just compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Today that would be like calling someone a “Hitler” or a “Commie.” The Lord was making Israel comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel Wasn’t a Homophobe? Another passage often reinterpreted by Gay Liberation theologians is Ezekiel chapter sixteen. According to the argument, a single verse describes all the sin of Sodom: “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” (verse 49)

Those who site this verse seem to conveniently neglect to mention the next verse: “And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” And the abomination was? Note this is in the singular, not plural (abominations) which seems to indicate there was ONE particular, abominable sin that really pissed God off. The chapter isn’t about defining the sin of Sodom. The chapter is about the sins of Israel and a comparison is drawn between Israel and Sodom in terms of the areas in which they are similar. Apparently being compared to Sodom and Gomorrah was the ultimate insult. Somehow it’s hard to believe this was all over a lack of manners. WDJS? What did Jesus say about Sodom? In Luke, chapter 10, Jesus is instructing his disciples to go out and teach the gospel. He gave them specific instructions and let them know that they could expect some rejection: “But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.” Jesus wasn’t talking to his disciples about a corporate and generic hospitality. Rather, he was talking about the disciples AND THEIR MESSAGE being welcomed. If we try to apply this passage to the Sodom account in Genesis, we would have to say that the sin of Sodom was that they rejected the disciples (who weren’t around back then) and their message (which wasn’t around back then, either.) All this passage is saying is that those who reject the gospel and mistreat those who share it will get worse in the hereafter than Sodom saw at it’s destruction. THE LEVITICAL APPROACH Gay apologists often make the mistake of doing what I call “lumping the law.” Basically that means they take the laws regarding, say, diet and lump them with the laws regarding tort, without really stopping to think about what they’re doing. Often it takes the form of this sort of argument: “Well, the book of Leviticus condemns eating shellfish, too, but I don’t see YOU curbing your pig out at the Red Lobster!” Well then, let’s do away with laws regarding stealing and murder, shall we? Come on now, there’s got to be a better approach than “lumping the law.” In fact, there is. It begins with understanding that ancient Israel went though several different types of rule. In the beginning, when the law was first given, Israel was under a theocratic rule, meaning, God was in charge with a nation of Priests serving Him and the

people. This was followed by the rule of the Judges wherein people were tried before a judge for crimes, including religious ones. And after the judges, came the rule of the Kings. It was the theocracy under which the main bodies of law were formulated. Contrary to what many think, all “laws” were not alike nor did they fit under one single umbrella. Some laws required a death penalty; others did not. Under the generic banner of Levitical law come subcategories such as criminal law, estate law, welfare law, contract law, tort law and yes, religious law. It is interesting to note that dietary law falls under the category of religious law and apparently the consuming of forbidden foods carried with it NO legal penalty. On the other hand, homosexual behaviors came under the category of Criminal law, or the criminal code and carried with it a penalty, as did rape, incest, seduction and adultery. When apologists try to draw from the levitical law to prove that homosexuality isn’t a “sin” unless eating lobster is, they’re either ignorantly or purposefully neglecting the “crime” factor involved. Homosexuality was considered a “crime against persons.” The breaking of a dietary law, which carried no penalty, was not considered a criminal act. And therein lay the difference. When in Rome… Some gay theologians are honest enough to admit that the book of Romans patently condemns homosexuality. In the same breath, however, they desire to shoot the messenger (Paul) by painting him as “anti-woman” because of passages like 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (saying a woman shall be saved IN childbirth isn’t the same as saying she’s saved by giving birth, but they don’t seem to get the poetic phraseology). Recently someone shared with me a little write-up they were given: “If traditional churches wish us to follow Paul's words about Lesbians and Gays then they will also have to condemn men with long hair, women ministers, and state that women will only get to Heaven if they have babies.” A poor exegesis will not make the case that God condones homosexuality. And claiming Paul was “anti-woman” will not deny the facts: Fact 1: Jesus himself spoke of God’s initial design in Matthew chapter 19. In this passage, which condemns divorce for convenience: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.” Fact2: Paul taught that change was possible. In 1 Corinthians chapter six, Paul points to a multitude of sin which encumbered some of the converts to the early church: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 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.” Please note that there is a difference being made in the above passage. One term is effeminate (usually translated homosexuals) and the other is “abusers of themselves with mankind” which is often translated “sodomites”. What makes this distinction? Aren’t they one in the same? Apparently not. Paul saw a distinction. The word effeminate in the Greek is a direct reference to the Catamites, boys who were kept as lovers for older men. But as a slang term of the day, it was also applied (rather insultingly) to any male who submitted his body to “unnatural lewdness” (malakos). On the other hand, the words translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” is often replaced with “homosexuals” in more modern versions. Why the difference? Because “abusers of themselves with mankind” denotes the outcome of homosexuality, at least as Paul saw it. This wasn’t a Brokeback Mountain moment. GRACE UNDER FIRE? The apostle Paul had a great deal to say about grace. But one thing he did NOT say was that grace supplants the moral edicts of the Lord. If that were so, we would have to do away with things like “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not commit adultery.” The difference where the law is concerned, for the Christian anyway, is that we are no longer slaves to the law in order to be saved from sin. By sin, I mean a sinful nature which, under the stain of Adam, condemns us all until we come under grace. Early Israel followed a massive amount of law because they wanted the guidelines. Until the coming of Christ, man relied on priestly representatives to act as go-between. But when Christ was crucified, the veil of the temple was rent in half, thus signifying the entry for all who desire to go into the Holy of Holies and interact with God for themselves, with only Christ as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Is homosexuality a sin in God’s eyes? Yes. And so are lying, cheating, stealing, etc. To try and twist the scripture to say anything else is disingenuous and deceptive. But there is hope! Remember the passage: and such WERE some of you? My personal belief is that God, whom we all agree is all-powerful, can change anyone and cleanse anyone from all unrighteousness. But He will not force us to accept this nor does He promise it will be easy.