http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1401
An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality
[
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second of a two-part series that we authored on the issue of homosexuality. The first part (“
‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene’ ”) appeared in the August 2004 issue of
Reason & Revelation.]
Nothing less than “complete and total acceptance!” This often is the
answer given when homosexual activists are asked what they are seeking
from the public in general. Such activists equate acceptance with civil
liberties and equality. They believe that those individuals who do not
accept the homosexual “lifestyle” are committing the unpardonable
sin—the sin of intolerance (see Bloom, 1987, p. 25). In fact, certain
school systems today actively teach youngsters the idea that we must
embrace every concept that society popularizes, else we will be unloving
and intolerant. Thus, many children are quietly convinced from a very
young age that if they do not give everyone “complete and total
acceptance,” then they are bigoted and mean spirited.
Using books like
Heather Has Two Mommies or
Daddy’s Roommate,
teachers have begun instructing that there are essentially no right or
wrong actions when it comes to relationships and families. Anything
goes, as long as “love” is the ultimate motivation. Consider the message
that children receive when they sit in classrooms filled with pictures
of family units composed of two female “parents” or two male “parents,”
alongside a picture of a husband and wife. [James Dobson, of Focus on
the Family, has suggested: “The number one issue for the family today is
the homosexual activist agenda“ (as quoted in Floyd, 2004, p. 49).]
Homosexual activists argue that some homosexual couples show
more
love than heterosexual couples, so where is the harm? By focusing
attention on love and acceptance, homosexual activists have successfully
taken the spotlight off of their immoral behavior and abnormal acts.
Students are told that homosexual parents are “normal,” and that they
should be “accepted.” If a student rejects that tact, then he or she is
labeled as (gulp!) “intolerant.”
Those who actually graduate from the halls of academia, and yet still
object to homosexuality, are castigated as “homophobes,” “hatemongers,”
“bigots,” “sexists,” “puritanical fanatics,” “religious
fundamentalists,” etc. Homosexuality no longer is referred to as sodomy
(the longtime historical term for same-sex relations), but rather as an
“alternative lifestyle.” The media do not view homosexuality as sin, but
rather as a valuable contribution to “diversity.” Individuals (or
organizations) who dare to speak out against homosexuality in order to
expose it as an immoral practice, often are confronted by militant
activists who work diligently to spin the issue back into a “civil
rights” matter.
Unfortunately, the success of the homosexual movement in this area has
resulted in numerous Christians remaining silent, for fear of being
labeled as hatemongers—or worse. Some Christians seem to have forgotten
the words of the Savior:
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile
you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you
falsely for my sake (Matthew 5:10-11).
Yet, the homosexual’s quest for “complete and total acceptance” often
goes unchallenged because the Scriptures have been twisted and perverted
to accept “alternative lifestyles,” while believers in Bible morality
have been effectively silenced. That silence has allowed the social
engineers of “political correctness” to achieve significant success in
reversing the historically universal rejection by American civilization
of the legality, political legitimacy, and social propriety of
homosexuality, with the most recent being “gay marriages.”
Monday, May 17, 2004, was a day that will live in moral and spiritual
infamy. Homosexual and lesbian couples were granted by the state of
Massachusetts the right to marry—the first state in U.S. history to do
so. On November 18, 2003, four activist justices of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court paved the way for this occurrence by ruling that the
Commonwealth must recognize the right of homosexual couples to marry
(“Is Homosexual Marriage...?,” 2003). Perhaps this should not be
surprising, since only five months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination
of state sodomy laws (“Lawrence...,” 2003)—a reversal of the high
court’s own 1986 decision that upheld state sodomy laws and reinforced
the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right
(“Bowers...,” 1986).
In the midst of this reshaping of societal sensibilities, some who wish
to retain their affiliation with the Bible, but also maintain political
correctness, insist that the Bible itself teaches that same-sex
relations are not inherently sinful. They argue that the Bible, in fact,
condones homosexuality in the same way, and to the same extent, that it approves of heterosexuality.
CONFUSION EVEN WITHIN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
As the militant pressures of homosexual activists penetrate various
realms of society, homosexuality slowly but methodically has begun to
spread into various denominations. Homosexual theologians and
individuals with a specific agenda have been effective at obscuring the
true issues. For instance, Peter J. Gomes, a self-confessed
homosexual—and a Baptist minister—alleges that the use of the Bible to
condemn homosexuality is the end result of simplistic interpretative
methods that reflect a failure to comprehend the context in which the
Scriptures were written. Such proceduralism he calls “textual
harassment.” These attacks flow easily, of course, from those who reject
the plain testimony of God’s Word in the interest of their own personal
agenda. For example, Gomes tries to create an artificial distinction in
types of homosexual relationships. At first, he contends that Paul, in
his various letters, merely was condemning the “debauched pagan
expression” of homosexuality; later, he alleges that the apostle hardly
can be faulted for his ignorance, since he knew nothing of “the concept
of a homosexual nature” (1996, p. 158). He also suggests (p. 25) that
there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan—a notion
not even remotely reflected in the Old Testament narrative regarding
these great men. Gomes obviously is desperate to find some semblance of
support for his aberrant lifestyle.
On March 7, 2004, V. Gene Robinson—an open homosexual who has lived
with his “partner” Mark Andrew—became the ninth bishop of New Hampshire
for the Episcopal Church. During his investiture, he remarked: “Journeys
of faith, you know, are a risky business. God is always calling us out
of our comfort zone” (see Diocese of New Hampshire, 2004). At the
conclusion of that service, Robinson disclosed: “I’m just having the
best time being your bishop. The rest of the world is watching us. This
is going to be a great adventure.” Adventure indeed! Currently Michael
W. Hopkins and Susan N. Blue, two priests who favor same-sex blessings,
are leading an Episcopal diocesan task force to develop a same-sex
“blessing ceremony” (Benson, 2004, p. 19). The Episcopal Church is
struggling to prevent a major split in that denomination between those
who disagree with Robinson’s appointment as bishop, and the new
direction that the Episcopal Church is going. As Ronnie Floyd put it in
his book,
The Gay Agenda, when the decision to accept Robinson as
a church bishop was made, “both rejoicing and lamentation broke out in
that denomination as never before” (2004, p. 14).
This major news story fell on the heels of other denominations that
already have begun to accept homosexual preachers or priests. In
America, five of the major denominations openly “ordain” homosexuals as
ministers, and recognize same-sex marriages (Floyd, p. 46). In
Australia, the Uniting Church—the third largest church in the
country—has become that country’s first mainstream denomination to
accept homosexual priests (Little, 2003). The president of Australia’s
Uniting church, Dean Drayton, said that the church had been living in
what he referred to as “the messy middle” for six years, and thus has
voted to formalize the unofficial tolerance and allow the ordination of
openly gay ministers (Little, 2003).
The United Methodist Church (
UMC) also is trying
to maintain some sense of direction, having “been in turmoil over the
issue for decades” (Floyd, p. 48). In fact, in early 2004, the
UMC
carried out an ecclesiastical trial (and subsequent exoneration!) of
self-professed lesbian “minister” Karen Dammann. The Methodist
Book of Discipline
contains a number of clauses relating to homosexuality, such as, “Since
the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,
self-avowed practicing homosexuals
* are not to be accepted as
candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in The United
Methodist Church.” The asterisk (
*) by the word “homosexuals”
refers to a footnote at the bottom of the page, which reads as follows: “
‘Self-avowed practicing homosexual’ is understood to mean that a person
openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district
committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry or clergy
session that the person is a practicing homosexual” (Par. 304.3). And
yet, 13 ministers from Dammann’s own conference did not uphold these
basic tenets. Her defense counsel, Robert Ward, observed that the Church
should not elevate “a few, select paragraphs” of the
Discipline
above another passage that spoke in vague terms of “inclusiveness”
(Vitagliano, 2004). Georgia Methodist bishops Michael Watson and Lindsey
Davis protested vociferously:
[I]t is a clear sign of rebellion when a group chooses to flagrantly ignore [The Book of Discipline], substituting their own perspective for the corporate wisdom [of the church] (Vitagliano).
In many instances, the Bible has been completely discarded, as many
denominations not only overlook the sin of homosexuality, but even
embrace it. Groups such as “More Light” (a Presbyterian organization
that is “seeking the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the
Presbyterian Church”) are becoming common within denominations that are
trying to bolster their numbers. Church slogans with words like
tolerance, inclusiveness, and love are now being touted, and are paraded
on banners and in commercials—neglecting any precepts from the Word of
God. Thus, religious groups all over the world are scrambling to
determine on which side of the homosexual fence they want to be found.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
Homosexuality in the Patriarchal Period
What, precisely, is God’s will concerning human sexuality? That will
was demonstrated originally in the creation of the first human beings:
“Male and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27). God’s decision to
create a female counterpart to the male was not coincidental. The female
uniquely met three essential criteria: (1) “It is not good for man to
be alone” (Genesis 2:18); (2) a helper,
suitable to him, was
needed (Genesis 2:18,20); and (3) the human race was to be perpetuated
through sexual union (Genesis 1:28). Both Jesus and Paul reiterated this
same understanding (Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2). So the woman
was: (a) the divine antidote to Adam’s loneliness; (b) a helper
fit for him; and (c) the means of the propagation of the human race. Here, we see the divine arrangement for the human species.
Not long after God set into motion the created order—which He had
pronounced as “very good” (Genesis 1:31)—man began to tamper with the
divine will, and altered God’s original intentions concerning human
sexuality. Lamech—not God—introduced
polygamy into the world (Genesis 4:19). God could have created two women for Adam, but He did not. Rather, He made
one man for one woman for life.
That is the divine will—“male and female He created them” (Genesis
1:27; cf. Matthew 19:1-9). Genesis 19:1-11 now comes into view.
Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both
young and old, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house.
And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to
you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So
Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and
said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two
daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to
you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men,
since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to
sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you
than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came
near to break down the door. But the men reached out their hands and
pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck
the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small
and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door (vss.
4-11).
Defenders of homosexuality who seek justification for their viewpoint
from the Bible have pursued a revisionist interpretation of the account
of the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (along with Admah
and Zeboiim, Deuteronomy 29:23). This passage has traditionally been
understood to be a denunciation of homosexuality. This understanding has
been so universal that the word “sodomy” was incorporated into English
vernacular as referring to “any of various forms of sexual intercourse
held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or
bestiality” (
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
2000, p. 1651). How may the account of Sodom be reinterpreted to place
same-sex relationships in a favorable light? Two explanations have been
offered in an effort to promote the biblical legitimacy of
homosexuality.
(1) Inhospitality or Homosexuality?
The first claim maintains that the men of Sodom simply were guilty of
inhospitality. The text says that the men of Sodom insisted on Lot
bringing the angelic visitors out to them, “that we may know them”
(Genesis 19:5). It thus is argued that “know” refers to their intention
to meet, greet, get to know, or become acquainted with the visitors.
However, contextual indicators exclude the feasibility of this
interpretation.
First, while the Hebrew verb translated “know” (
yada) has a wide
range of meanings, including “to get to know” or “to become acquainted”
(for the most part, the nuances of the Hebrew verb parallel the
corresponding English verb), Hebrew, in common with other ancient
languages, also used “know” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse
(Genesis 4:1; 19:8). Other Semitic euphemisms similarly used include
“lie with” (2 Samuel 11:4), “uncover the nakedness of ” (Leviticus 18),
“go in unto” (Genesis 16:2; 38:2), and “touch” (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs
6:29; 1 Corinthians 7:1). Ancient languages that shared this figurative
use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic (Botterweck,
1986, pp. 455-456,460), as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek
(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334). When Hebrew scholars define “know,” as used in
Genesis 19:5, they use terminology like “sexual perversion” (Harris, et
al., 1980, 1:366), “homosexual intercourse” (Botterweck, 1986, 5:464),
and “crimes against nature” (Gesenius, p. 334).
Second, if “know” simply means “to get acquainted,” why did the Bible
writers repeatedly use forms of the word “wicked” to refer to the
actions of the Sodomites? Lot pleaded, “Do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis
19:7). Moses, by inspiration, already had given God’s assessment in the
words, “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against
the Lord” (Genesis 13:13); “their sin is very grievous” (Genesis
18:20). Peter referred to the “filthy conduct of the wicked” sodomites
and their “lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:7-8). But “getting acquainted” is
not “wicked”! In fact, if the men of Sodom were nothing more than a
group of friendly, civic-minded neighbors who sought to make the
visitors welcome to their city, God surely would have
commended them—not
condemned them!
Third, if “know” simply means “to get to know,” then why did Lot offer
his virgin daughters to the men? He would not have offered his daughters
for the purpose of the men “getting to know” or “becoming acquainted”
with them. The daughters were already residents of Sodom, and would have
been known to the men. Lot was offering his daughters to the men as
sexual alternatives. Lot specifically said: “I have two daughters
who have not known a man”
(Genesis 19:8, emp. added). “Known” is another reference to sexual
intercourse. Lot referred to their sexual status for the very reason
that these men were interested in sexual impropriety. As astonishing and
objectionable to us as it may seem for a father to sacrifice his own
daughters in such a fashion, it verifies the fact that the unnatural
lust of homosexuality was considered far more repugnant than even
illicit heterosexuality. Scholars have further noted that in antiquity, a
host was to protect his guests at the cost of his own life (Whitelaw,
1950, 1:253).
Fourth, the men of Sodom threatened Lot with the words, “we will deal
worse with you than with them” (Genesis 19:9). If their intention was
simply to “get to know” the male visitors, what would “dealing worse”
with Lot entail? Perhaps it would have entailed their becoming so
thoroughly “acquainted” with Lot that they would perpetually remain in
his presence and make a pest of themselves? Maybe they intended to
impose on Lot’s hospitality to the point that they would monopolize his
living room couch, consume all of his snack foods, and refuse to vacate
his home at a courteous hour?
In a further effort to achieve sanction for homosexuality, attention
has been directed to the words of Jesus in His commissioning of the
Seventy. He instructed them, in their evangelistic travels, to enter
into those cities that would receive them and to feel free to partake of
their hospitality (Luke 10:7-8). However, should a city fail to receive
them, they were to shake the dust off their feet against the city (Luke
10:10-11). Jesus then declared: “It will be more tolerable in that day
for Sodom than for that city” (Luke 10:12). Defenders and practitioners
of same-sex relations claim that Jesus was drawing a comparison between
the inhospitality of Sodom and the cities that the disciples would
encounter. They claim that the inhospitality of a city that would reject
Christ’s emissaries would be a greater evil than Sodom’s inhospitable
treatment of the angelic visitors.
However, if “hospitality” was the issue at stake in Sodom, the
Sodomites should have been commended, since they only wanted to “get to
know” and be hospitable to the visitors. In fact, Lot should have been
the one condemned, since he attempted to deter the hospitable overtures
of the “Welcome Wagon.” In reality, the words of Jesus in Luke 10 were
not directed against the cities’ refusal to be hospitable toward the
disciples. Rather, He condemned them for their refusal to accept the
teaching of the disciples. Jesus pinpointed their task when He warned:
“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16).
Jesus placed Sodom at the top of the list of the most notoriously
wicked cities of antiquity. He stressed the fact that to reject Christ
and the Gospel would be a far greater offense than what the most wicked
city in human history ever did. What the inhabitants of Sodom did was
repulsive, repugnant, disgusting, and incredibly depraved. But to reject
the antidote to sin is the
ultimate insult and the final infraction against God!
Yet another argument marshaled in an effort to justify homosexuality
concerns the allusions in the prophets to Sodom. Isaiah (3:9), Jeremiah
(23:14), and Ezekiel (16:49) all refer to the sinfulness of Sodom, but
none explicitly mentioned homosexuality as the problem. In fact, Ezekiel
pinpointed the specific sins of “pride, fullness of food, and abundance
of idleness,” as well as her unwillingness to aid the poor and needy.
In response, we should not be surprised that a city that was guilty of
sexual perversion also would be guilty of additional violations of God’s
will.
Isaiah, in his discussion of Sodom, did not specify a particular sin,
but merely noted how brazen and open the Sodomites were with their sin:
“The look on their countenance witnesses against them, and they declare
their sin as Sodom; they do not hide it.” Interestingly, this depiction
is very apropos of the “in-your-face” attitude of those who seek to
advance the homosexual agenda in our day. Jeremiah made essentially the
same point in his comparison between Judah and Sodom when he wrote that
“no one turns back from his wickedness.” He, too, was noting the
sodomites’ blatant, unbending, determined intention to proceed with
their sin. Ezekiel, though mentioning the additional sins that we have
listed above, nevertheless referred repeatedly to Sodom’s “abomination”
(16:50; cf., vs. 43,47,51,52,58). Moses also linked “abomination” with
homosexual activity (Leviticus 18:22).
(2) Homosexual Rape?
The second explanation offered to justify homosexual relations is that
the men of Sodom were not condemned for their homosexuality, but for
their inhospitable intention to engage in homosexual rape. Rape, some
suggest (whether homosexual or heterosexual), being nonconsensual, is
wrong, and is worthy of condemnation. However, this extension of the
inhospitality quibble is likewise contextually indefensible. First, if
gang rape was the issue, why did Lot offer his daughters in exchange for
the visitors? Rape would have been at issue in both cases. Lot’s offer
of his daughters indicated his clear concern over gender and same-sex
relations. Second, the men of Sodom were declared wicked and guilty of
“very grievous” sin before the visitors ever came to town (Genesis
18:20).
Third, Jude cinched the matter in his discussion of the sin of Sodom.
He wrote that Sodom and her sister cities had “given themselves over to
sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). “Given
themselves over to sexual immorality” is a translation of the compound
word
ekporneusasai, which combines the verb
porneuo (to commit illicit sexual intercourse) with the preposition
ek
(out of). The attachment of the prepositional prefix indicates
intensification, i.e., that the men of Sodom possessed “a lust that
gluts itself” (Thayer, 1977, p. 199). Their sexual appetites took them
beyond the range of normal sexual activity. The idea of force or
coercion is not in the meaning of the word. “Strange” refers to “one not
of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so
pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature”
(Barnes, 1949, p. 392)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the
impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7). The frequent allusion to
“nature” by scholars is interesting, in view of the fact that Scripture
elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature”
(Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural, i.e., out of harmony with God’s original
arrangement of nature (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).
Summarizing, Jude asserted that the sin of Sodom was homosexual
relations—not homosexual
rape.
Fourth, homosexuality itself is specifically condemned in Scripture.
Under the Law of Moses, God made homosexuality a capital crime, and
stipulated that
both participants in the illicit sexual activity
were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). God would not have required
the innocent victim of homosexual rape to be executed along with the
rapist.
American culture may well reach the point where the majority approves
of homosexuality as acceptable behavior. And those who disapprove may
well be accused of being “politically incorrect,” intolerant, and
“homophobic.” It surely is reminiscent of our day to observe that when
Lot urged the sodomites not to do “so wickedly,” the men accused Lot of
being judgmental
(Genesis 19:9; cf. Deuteronomy 23:17-18). Nevertheless, the objective,
unbiased reader of the Bible is forced to conclude that God destroyed
the men of Sodom on account of their sinful practice of homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the Mosaic Period
In addition to the pre-Mosaic, Patriarchal Period of history, God made
clear His will on this matter when He handed down the Law of Moses to
the Israelite nation. In a chapter dealing almost exclusively with
sexual regulations, His words are explicit and unmistakable.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination....
Do not defile yourselves with any of these things,...lest the land
vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations
that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-30).
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood
shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:13).
We suggest that a reader would need help to misunderstand these injunctions.
Another graphic account is presented during the period of the judges,
which was a time of spiritual and moral depravity and decay—the “Dark
Ages” of Jewish history. Judges 19 records that “sons of Belial” (i.e.,
wicked scoundrels) surrounded a house where travelers had taken refuge
for the night. As in Sodom, they desired to “know” the male guests (vs.
22). The host, like Lot, knew exactly what they meant, as is evident
from the fact that, like Lot, he offered them a sexual alternative
(which, of course, God did not approve). Their sexual desire was labeled
as “wickedness,” “outrage,” “vileness,” “lewdness,” and “evil” (Judges
19:23-24; 20:3,6,10,12,13). The rest of the Old Testament corroborates
this judgment of same-sex relations. For example, during the period of
the kings, Josiah instituted sweeping moral and religious reforms,
including tearing down the homes of the Sodomites (2 Kings 23:7).
Homosexuality in the New Testament Period
The New Testament is equally definitive in its uncompromising and
unquestioned condemnation of illicit sexual activity. Paul summarized
the “unrighteous” and “ungodly” behavior of the Gentile nations, and
declared:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,
and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not
fitting. ...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who
practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also
approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:26-32, emp. added).
Observe that “God gave them up” to “vile passions.” Other renderings
include “lusts of dishonor” (Bengel, 1971, 2:26), “passions of dishonor”
(Lenski, 1951, p. 113), and “passions which bring dishonour”
(Cranfield, 1985, p. 125). The passions to which the heathen nations
were given are declared to be vile and debased. Barrett observed: “No
feature of pagan society filled the Jew with greater loathing than the
toleration, or rather admiration, of homosexual practices” (1967, p.
39). In fact, Melina noted that homosexuality is the sin that lies at
the heart of idolatry. Therefore the Jews despised this practice that
defiled both the soul as well as the body (1998, 25:57-68). The “women”
and “men” (i.e., the “females”
and
“males” of verse 26) had descended “to the brutish level of being
nothing but creatures of sex” (Lenski, p. 113; Bengel, 2:26).
The contrast between the “natural” and the “unnatural” shows that the Gentiles had “left aside and thus discarded” the
natural form of intercourse between a man and his wife
(Lenski, p. 113). The fact that this exchange involved sexual
intercourse is well established (Bauer, 1979, p. 886; Cranfield, p.
125). And Lenski adds, “It was bad enough to sin with males, vastly
worse and the very limit of vice to sin as they did” (p. 114). Kent
Hughes observed that Paul singled out homosexuality “because it is
obviously unnatural and therefore underlines the extent to which sin
takes mankind” (1991, p. 43). Indeed, same-sex relations were “quite
prevalent in the Greco-Roman society in which he [Paul] lived”
(Fitzmyer, 1993, p. 275).
Paul’s observation that homosexual activity goes “against nature” harks
back to the Creation model when God created the first human beings
(Genesis 1:26). Homosexual practices go against the natural pattern
established by God when He created “male and female” (Deyoung, 1988, pp.
429-441). Such behavior is “contrary to the intention of the Creator”
(Cranfield, p. 123). Therefore, homosexuality goes against the natural
order of
marriage, not of Jews or Gentiles; the marriage bed should be undefiled in
all nationalities and cultures.
The males mentioned in verse 27 are equally as debased as their
previously discussed female counterparts. Being “set on fire” with lust
for each other, one must realize that “[t]he moment God is taken out of
the control in men’s life, the stench of sex aberration is bound to
arise. It is so in the world to this day. Without God sex runs wild”
(Lenski, p. 115). One of the consequences that follows for those who
engage in homosexual relations is that they receive “in themselves the
penalty of their error which was due”—“the vicious effect of the
unnatural sexual vices upon men’s own bodies and their minds,
corruption, destroying, disintegrating” (p. 116).
Such forthright words—“set on fire”—from an inspired apostle are set
against a specific social and cultural milieu. In his survey of
homosexuality in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era
to the 14
th century, John Boswell depicted how Rome had a
severe problem with homosexuality, contributing significantly to the
glorification and proliferation of homosexual activity. He noted that 14
out of the first 15 Roman emperors were homosexuals, and spent 25 pages
detailing facts that prove Rome to have been a hotbed of homosexual
activity. For example, during the Augustan reign, the government not
only allowed male homosexual prostitutes to operate on her streets, but
also taxed them and gave them a national day off work (1980, p. 70). The
Emperor Hadrian, called by some “the most outstanding of the ‘five good
emperors,’ ” according to Boswell, “appears to have been exclusively
gay” (p. 84). Dupont adds that “it was said of Caesar that he was the
‘husband of all women and the wife of all husbands,’ ” identifying his
bisexual nature (1993, p. 117). One needs only peruse any reputable
historical account of the life and times of the average Roman citizen to
see that homosexual activity played a major role in the politics,
recreations, and commerce of the first century. It is no surprise then
that the apostle Paul spoke so stringently on such practices.
Those who attempt to soften or contradict the clear teaching of Paul in
Romans 1 regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality sometimes attempt to
sidestep the clear import of the passage by insisting that it applied
only to its original recipients. Boswell claimed that the idea of the
passage is not to “stigmatize sexual behavior but to condemn Gentiles
for their general infidelity” (p. 108). Martin has suggested that Paul
referred to the Gentile culture, not the “universal human condition”
(1995, p. 338). But is Romans 1:26-27 a “cultural chastisement,” or a
universal condemnation? The immediate context (1:18-3:20) consists of
God’s pronouncement that
all humans in
every culture and
nation are under sin—“all the world” (3:19). In fact, the entire book of
Romans is the New Testament’s flagship declaration of the means of
justification for all persons—“everyone” (Romans 1:16). Hence, the
condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 is parallel to its like
condemnation of murder, deceit, covetousness, and all the other sins
itemized by Paul.
One final observation regarding Romans 1 is noteworthy. Not only is God
displeased with those who participate in homosexual behavior, but Paul
indicates that He is equally displeased with those who are
supportive
of such conduct—even if they do not engage in the activity themselves.
The wording is: “[T]hose who practice such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same but
also approve of those who practice them” (vs. 32). On this count alone, many have earned the disapproval of God.
Compare Paul’s remarks to the church at Rome with the question he posed to the Corinthian church:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.
But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians
6:9-11, emp. added).
The Greek word translated “homosexual” in this passage is a
metaphorical use of a term that literally means “soft,” and when
referring to people, refers to males allowing themselves to be used
sexually by other males. Again, lexicographers apply the term to the
person who is a “catamite,” i.e., a male who submits his body to another
male for unnatural lewdness—i.e., homosexually (Thayer, p. 387; Arndt
and Gingrich, 1957, p. 489).
“Sodomites” (“abusers of themselves with mankind” in the
KJV) is a translation of the term
arsenokoitai. It derives from two words:
arsein (a male) and
koitei
(a bed), and refers to one who engages in sex with a male as with a
female (Thayer, p. 75). Paul used the same term when he wrote to Timothy
to discuss certain behaviors that are both “contrary to sound doctrine”
and characteristic of the one who is not “a righteous man” (1 Timothy
1:9-10).
As D. Gene West correctly observed regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy:
We can see from the context that homosexual activities are classed with
such sins as patricide, matricide, homicide, kidnapping, and perjury.
If we accept that any of these things are sins, we must accept that all
are sins. If it is a sin to be a whoremonger, to pursue a lascivious
life with prostitutes, then it is likewise a sin to engage in homosexual
acts. There is no way to escape that conclusion. If it is a sin to
murder one’s father, or mother, or some other human being, then it is a
sin for both males and females to “cohabitate” (2004).
When Paul said to the Christians at Corinth, “such
were some of you,” he proved not only that homosexuals may be forgiven, but that they can
cease
such sinful activity. Here we have a clear biblical indication that
someone can change their sexual orientation, and can be forgiven of a
past immoral lifestyle. We are forced to conclude that sexual activity
between persons of the same sex is
not a matter of genetics; but is a
behavioral phenomenon associated largely with environmental factors (see the August 2004 issue of
Reason and Revelation).
CONCLUSION
Homosexuality is only one of many departures from God’s will for human
morality and sexuality that society is facing. The Greek term for
fornication,
porneia, is a broad term that covers
every form of illicit sexual intercourse,
including adultery, incest, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, bisexuality,
homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and more. Our sex-crazed society
is so promiscuous, and so estranged from God’s view of human sexuality,
that our public schools consider it appropriate to teach children to
simply “take precautions” when they engage in sexual escapades outside
of marriage. But God
never encouraged people to practice that
kind of “safe sex.” The Bible definition of “safe sex” is sex that is
confined to a divinely authorized, scriptural marriage (1 Corinthians
7:2-5). God insists that people can, and must, exercise self-control,
self-discipline, and moral responsibility. The Bible teaches that we are
not to be self-indulgent. We are to put restraints on ourselves,
controlling our sexual urges in accordance with God’s teachings.
Encouraging young people simply to “take precautions” only encourages
additional illicit behavior. It encourages more promiscuity. It
contributes to an increase—not a decrease—in the number of pregnancies
and sexually transmitted diseases. Despite several decades of having
inundated our schools with sex education and the promotion of so-called
“safe sex,” the statisticians inform us that
in the next thirty days alone, 83,850 unwed girls will become pregnant
in this country (“Teens in Crisis,” 2001, p. 1). The liberals’
“solution” has not worked. In fact, the problem has greatly worsened.
The depths to which our country has slumped morally is evinced by the
legality of the distribution birth control devices to students, and the
illegality
to distribute Bibles or to teach Bible principles. The time has come
for our nation to wake up, and for all citizens to understand that
freedom requires restraint.
Rights require personal responsibility. People must take responsibility
for their personal choices, and accept the consequences of their own
actions. Paul declared: “flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18). He did
not write, “engage in ‘safe’ fornication”! There is no such thing as
“safe” sin or “safe” immorality, because all sin is damning (James
1:15). God said a person must run away from it, resist it, and reject it
(2 Corinthians 6:18). To a youth, Paul said: “Keep yourself pure” (1
Timothy 5:22). The writer of Hebrews insisted that the marriage bed is
to be kept “undefiled.” “[F]ornicators and adulterers God will judge”
(Hebrews 13:4). There should not be so much as a hint of sexual
immorality among Christians (Ephesians 5:3).
Please understand: God loves
all sinners—regardless of the
specific sins they have committed. But it is imperative that we be about
the business of alerting those who are engaged in sexual sin regarding
God’s will, in an effort to “snatch them out of the fire” (Jude 23), and
to “save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20).
One day it will be too late for both those who “not only do the same
but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32). Indeed, the
“sexually immoral...shall have their part in the lake which burns with
fire and brimstone” (Revelation 21:8).
Sexual sin undoubtedly will go down in history as one of the major
contributors to the moral and spiritual deterioration, decline, and
downfall of American society. Homosexuality is one more glaring proof of
the sexual anarchy that prevails in American civilization. One wonders
how much longer such widespread unchastity can continue in our land
before God will “visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the
land vomits out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). We know today that
homosexuality is not caused by genetics (see Harrub, et al., 2004). It
is not “nature,” but “nurture” that is responsible. It is not a life
“style,” but rather a life “choice.” And it is wrong.
Every society in human history that has followed a course of moral and
spiritual depravity has either been destroyed by God or has imploded
from within. Like these previous civilized nations, our society will not
be permitted to survive indefinitely into the future—unless, of course,
God is prepared to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint),
Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—James-Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Barrett, C.K. (1967),
A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Henry Chadwick (London: Black).
Bauer, Walter (1979),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans.,
rev., and ed. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W.
Danker (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.
Bengel, John Albert (1971),
New Testament Word Studies, trans. Charlton Lewis and Marvin Vincent (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
Benson, Rusty (2004), “Paper vs. Practice,”
AFA Journal, 28[5]:17-19, May.
Bloom, Allan (1987),
The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Boswell, John (1980),
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the
Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1986),
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
“Bowers v. Hardwick et al.” (1986), [On-line],
URL: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html.
Cranfield, C.E.B. (1985),
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ed. J.A. Emmerton and C.E.B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: Clark).
Deyoung, James B. (1988), “The Meaning of ‘Nature’ in Romans and Its
Implications for Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual Behavior,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 31:429-441.
Diocese of New Hampshire (2004), “Our Search Process,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.nh episcopal.org/BishopSearch/bishop_search_news.htm.
Dupont, Florence
(1993),
Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. Christopher Woodall (Cambridge: Blackwell).
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1993),
Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday).
Floyd, Ronnie W. (2004),
The Gay Agenda (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press).
Gesenius, William (1979),
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Gomes, Peter J. (1996),
The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart (New York: William Morrow).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Harrub, Brad and Dave Miller (2004), “ ‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A
Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’ ”
Reason & Revelation, 24:73-79, August.
Hughes, R. Kent (1991),
Righteousness from Heaven (Wheaton, IL: Crossway).
“Is Homosexual Marriage a Constitutional Right?” (2003), The Bill of Rights Institute, [On-line],
URL: http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/print.php?sid=430.
“Lawrence et al. v. Texas” (2003), [On-line],
URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol= 000&invol=02-102.
Lenski, R. C. H. (1951),
The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH: Wartburg).
Little, Jane (2003), “Australia Church Accepts Gay Priests,” BBC NEWS, [On-line],
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3075739.stm.
Martin, Dale B. (1995), “Heterosexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1.18-32,”
Biblical Interpreter, 3:332-355.
Melina, Livio (1998), “Homosexual Inclination as an Objective Disorder: Reflections of Theological Anthropology,”
Communio-International Catholic Review, 25:57-68.
Salmond, S.D.F. (1950),
The Pulpit Commentary—Jude, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
“Teens in Crisis” (2001),
Teen Help (Las Vegas, NV: World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1977 reprint),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Vitagliano, Ed (2004), “Mutiny Among the Methodists,”
AFA Journal, 28[5]:20-21, May.
West, D. Gene (2004), “Homosexuality, Alternative or Deviate Lifestyle” [a tract], (Moundsville, WV).
Whitelaw, Thomas (1950),
The Pulpit Commentary—Genesis, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Although
the city of Jericho is mentioned only seven times in the New Testament,
the passages in which the city is found have been under heavy attack by
critics for centuries. Perhaps the most famous alleged geographical
discrepancy surrounding Jericho is found in Luke 10 where Jesus told His
unforgettable parable about the Good Samaritan. Jesus began the story
saying, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho”
(10:30, emp. added). Many through the years have assumed Jesus was
implying that Jericho was south of Jerusalem, since the man “went down”
to get there. However, a quick look at a map of first-century Palestine
(which can be found in the backs of most modern Bibles) shows that
Jericho is several miles northeast of Jerusalem. Without looking any
further into the geographical surroundings, one might assume that this
represents a genuine discrepancy. After all, how can someone go “down”
from point A to point B, if point B is north of point A?