PRO HOMOSEXUAL INTERPRETATIONS (AND MARRIAGE) REFUTED BY THE WORD OF GOD

(All Scriptures from the King James Version)

 
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob (Is. 41:21).

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 will send one to an early grave¹ and an eternal Hell, and 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 gives 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. Evidently realizing that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth which condemns their deleterious practice, certain homosexual apologists have spent an inordinate amount of time and "creative writing" seeking to distort the Biblical teaching concerning homosexuality. However, 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, i will not appeal to "church fathers" on this matter, or other fallible ecclesiastical authorities. Rather, i will stick with that which has been tried and found to be faithful in giving us what we need for life and Godliness, the Word of God. There will sometimes be found some some redundancy in answers, as some points are applicable to more than one question, and also helps 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).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

 OBJECTION

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). The word "know" as used in Gn. 19:5 means to be acquainted. They men of Sodom came to Lot's house because they wanted to know who the strangers were. Their sin was that they were inhospitable to the strangers and thus were destroyed for a "serious breach of hospitality."

ANSWER:

Such a theory is easily seen as non-sense when the account is read in it's entirety (Gn. 19).

The angels, sent by God to Sodom because their sin 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 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. But Lot goes out, closes the door and pleads with them, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" (v. 5). He then goes on to even offer his daughters, "which have not known man", that they may do what they please with them. They will have nothing to do with it, threaten to do worse to Lot: "And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door But the men [angels] put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 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." All this is supposed because (as some suppose) they wanted a non-sexual acquaintance with the men.

 
The homo-apologist position is that the crowd outside Lot's door were alarmed that the strangers in Lot's house posed a danger to Sodom (which they certainly did!), and thus they simply wanted to "know" them in the sense of examining their purpose, etc. This interpretation is disallowed by the use of the word "know." That the word "know" here means sexually, as it does in a few other instances in the Bible (such as in Gn. 4:17, 25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17, 35, 1 Kg. 1:4; Mt. 1:25), is obvious by observing that that Lot offered his daughters to them as women "who have not known man." This cannot simply mean acquainted, as it cannot be believed that Lot's daughters were never acquainted with men! Rather, Lot presented his daughters as virgins (even though v. 14 indicates Lot lied to protect the angels, as they apparently were married). What advantage would it serve for Lot to offer his daughters as women who had never "known" man, if all they wanted to do was to interrogate the men? And though women were afforded lower status than men, it seems unlikely that interrogating women would not be wicked but interrogating men would be. Instead, the whole description is one of a crowd filled with 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. It is thus that Lot told them they could do with his daughters as they pleased. But they would have none of Lot's offer, and threatened to do worse to Lot than they would to the men, and "pressed sore upon the man."

One only has to look at a similar occurrence, in Judges 19:14-25ff, to see this was of sexual intent.

In this account, a man (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine. In a strange city, and finding no one that would receive him, he is taken in by an old man. No sooner had they ate, but "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 offers his own daughter and the other man's concubine, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing" (the word for "vile" is most often used in sexual sense). At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine, "they abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." The man later declared that they "committed lewdness [a word always used sexually before this] and folly in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).

It should be quite obvious here that, as in Gn. 19, the crowd's desire to "know" the guest (s) was clearly sexual The only substantial difference was that they finally took the substitute offer (which was also sin). It is also of note that nowhere else but Gn. 19 is there an similar occurrence of the phraseology (that we might know him/them) in dealing with intruders. 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. As we shall see, there is no provision for any sanctified kind of homo-sexual activity, such as is provided by God for heterosexuals by marriage. And all sexual unions outside marriage is fornication (and that of homosexual relations is of a most perverse manner).

As for the basic iniquity of Sodom as seen in Ezek. 16:49, while "pride, fulness of bread" and indifference to the plight of the poor were their overall sins, not all of what they did is stated (other Biblical summations do likewise). As Jude declares (see below), they were "giving themselves over to fornication." Genesis 19 deals with a specific manifestation of that fornication (sex outside of marriage). Yet the chief sin of any man or society is idolatry, worshiping anything less than the One True God, out of which all else flows. As Romans 1 shows homosexual activity to be a sexual culmination of idolatrous steps of degeneration, 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 was the capstone of their iniquity going before judgment. Sodom was thus destroyed (physically)!

TOC

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jude v.7, which deals with the end of spiritual and moral declension, declares: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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."

 OBJECTION

As the word for “strange” (heterosis) basically means “other” (as in other than normal) or different, another, 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.

ANSWER

The context in which we find the above word use above is that of sexual deviancy, and the above speculation certainly affirms that the purpose of the men of Gn. 19 was that of fornication, so rather than strengthening the homosexual position (which typically seeks to make the offense of Gn. 19 that of inhospitality) it actually weakens it. The purpose of the men wanting to "know" the angels appearing as men (and who, being angels, were probably handsome) becomes more obviously sexual. And by their own words it is also quite evident that the men of Sodom believed Lot's guests to be men (if not, who would even dare to mess with angels?). The parallel account to Gn. 19 is found in Judges 19 which confirms the "men with men" sexual intent of Genesis 19, and no where is their any instance or intimation of men seeking sexual relations with angels. Thus, as it is clearly stated and evidenced that Sodom and Gomorrha were giving themselves over to fornication, and presumed the angels were men, the "strange flesh" aspect is that it is indeed "strange" or aberrant for men to lust after men, as the men of Sodom were manifestly given to do.

['Note: As concerns fornication, the Bible condemns fornication of any sort, but unlike that for heterosexuals, nowhere is any provision made for any kind of sanctified sexual union between people of the same gender. Therefore all sexual activity between those of the same gender is condemned, just as premarital and extramarital relations is between those of opposite gender.]

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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 and clear meaning of such texts, homosexual apologists vainly seek to explain away such texts, and can be quite inventive in doing do. Consider the following:

 OBJECTION

1. This is part of the Levitical holiness code for priests; it does not apply to all persons .

2. . This is part of the law contrasting pagan nations with Israel, and idolatry with the worship of the one true God: Therefore it only condemns things like temple prostitution that were part of pagan idolatrous practices. Other prohibitions (and death penalties) are repeated elsewhere, but the prohibition against men lying with men is not, because it refers to religious, "ritual uncleaness."

3. This is simply part of the ceremonial laws for uncleanness, which was later done away with for Christians (Acts 15:19, 20).

4. The word "sodomy" or "sodomite" is not a Biblical word.

5. The word "abomination" refers to ceremonial violations rather than to things that are inherently evil

ANSWER

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. 18:1). These were laws which Moses, the law giver, was instructed to give to all of Israel. A fuller reading of the rest of the laws makes it clear that they (and 18:22) are universally applicable, and were in no way restricted only to the priests. It is no more right for an American to lie carnally with his neighbour's wife (18:20) than for an average Israelite or a Levitical priest. The prohibition against woman sexually lying down with a beast (18:23), also shows the universal application of the verses before it, as there were no women priests. Furthermore, the nations to be conquered were judged for practicing these sins.

2. Such a conclusion is based upon a strained, complex but vain attempt to link the plain prohibition in Lv. 18:22 (and 20:13) against men lying with men to Dt. 23:15 in order to negate the universal application of the former. The reasoning is that if homosexual fornication is only condemned if done as part of a pagan temple activity, then sodomy would only be conditionally wrong. However, the Levitical prohibitions do not lend themselves to such a limited application, and to relegate such to only that category would logically would require that other things listed in Leviticus 18 (as well as the whole address), such as familial nakedness, bestiality (lying with animals), killing ones children as an offering to Molech (a false god), stealing, lying, disrespect to parents, hating your neighbor, etc., be held as wrong only if it was done in conjunction with formal temple idolatry (though again, all sins are ultimately because of idolatry). Yet it is manifest that such things are basically evil themselves and the condemnation of them transcends mere religious uncleanness, etc. That practice of homosexual temple prostitution is especially condemned in Dt. 23:15 for good reason. What morality is 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 (including “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 “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1Pet. 4:17; cf. Ezra 9:6).

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 (by description) in the Bible, and one mention of it's death sentence.

Yet neither an absence of a specific prohibition against men lying with men where accompanying commands are reiterated (such as in Deuteronomy 20), nor only one mention of it's death penalty warrants relegating it to a prohibition that simply addressed a more immediate problem of pagan temple prostitution or any other application that negates it's universal nature. If the reason the death penalty is not reiterated is because it only related to acts of homosexual temple prostitution, then considering the recurrent problem with such in back-slidden Israel (1 Kg. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kg. 23:7), a reiteration of the death penalty (as well as general prohibitions) regarding it would have been in order. Surely the homo-apologist does not presume that God commanded capital punishment only for homosexual practices if coupled with Canaanite idolatry at that time, but He did not mandate it for whatever syncretistic brands of idolatry they practiced it with hundreds of years later? Rather, it is more likely that less repetition of the prohibition against men lying with men and the penalty thereof was due to such an practice being so manifestly unnatural (like bestiality) and shameful, and far more rare than other capital punishments.

According to the principal in which the law was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19), the unnatural and (normally) shameful nature of homosexuality is so self evident that i should think the two fold specific condemnation of it in Leviticus (under the giving of the law) should be sufficient. In addition, the destruction of Sodom had become legend among the people of Israel. Genesis 19, Judges 19, and Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexual lust, which again God makes no provision for, is at the end of degeneration. Abhorrent practices like bestiality also have less mention than idolatry, the latter for which Israel in general had a manifest proclivity for. All in all, homosexual relations are prohibited in the O.T alone just as clearly as sexual relations with animals.

Furthermore, that the two Levitical prohibitions are universal in scope is clearly evident in the language of these two commands, which yields nothing that even intimates that it has only a unique religious application. The address "Speak unto the children of Israel" which Lv. 18 begins with, is not to just to temple workers but to the people in general, and under it comes both ceremonial (which do have efficacy themselves) and transcendent moral laws. 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." The specification is the act - a man lying sexually with man - and unlike heterosexual fornication, there is not even a hint that it is only conditionally wrong. The next verse, which also belongs to the category of unnatural sex, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:" is also a universal prohibition, one that cannot be simply relegated to a prohibition against a religious cultic practice. Like all the other (17) sins in this chapter (uncovering the nakedness of ones kin, incest, adulteries, etc.), the prohibition against homosexual fornication transcends time and culture. Men not lying with men as with women is an UNCONDITIONAL command. Even the injunction against burning up your kids to please false gods has both an immediate application and a universal, perpetual one.

Though the rather sparse prohibition against men sexually lying with men and a solitary mention the death penalty for it may seem interesting, both the language, context, and larger principals of the Word of God support it's universal, unconditional prohibitive meaning. There simply is no real basis for applying the clear prohibitions of Lv. 18 and 20 solely to participation in pagan ceremonies.

Neither were the Levitical prohibitions given simply to give Israel some distinction from the other nations (like having team colors), rather they were and are to be distinct in the light of their holiness in separation from practices that are inherently evil. It is such iniquity as we see proscribed in Leviticus 18 that brought about the destruction of the nations Israel displaced, and which, being evil in and of themselves, the Lord therefore warned them not to follow. 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). 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 accompany the injunction against sodomy. Rather 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 (as fornication alone) is indeed a work of the flesh.

Neither is it of radical significance (as the pro homosexual thesis requires) that these prohibitions were made against the backdrop of pagan idolatry, for the larger backdrop of the whole Bible is against idolatry in it's broader sense. The list of curses seen in Dt. 28:15-26 begin with "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, ..", yet we cannot say such things as land theft (v. 17) only pertain to formal pagan idolatry.

The 10 commandments themselves are in the context of Israel being a "holy nation" distinct from the Egyptians, yet the holiness of the laws which God gave them transcend mere specific cultural distinction with Egypt. Likewise, when Jesus proscribed "vain repetitions" in prayer (Mt. 6:7), He was not saying such empty rote was wrong only if done to the wrong god, but it was wrong in principle. Simply because many Catholic priests were condemned as pedophiles does not mean that pedophilia is wrong only in the "temple," or if practiced as part of a particular idolatrous religion (sanctioned or not). Rather, such is unconditionally perverse. So it is with homosexual practices as we shall continue to see.

In short, 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 Levitical prohibitions are not described as simply prohibiting sodomite prostitution. That related aspect, which is even more grievous, is addressed separately, condemning the same practice within a different and (what should have been) hallowed context. 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 sins of pagan nations inherently evil. And in specific regard to “men lying with men as with women,” though 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, the Bible makes this clear and gives evident provision for it's legitimate practice. But unlike the heterosexual relations, in no place does God sanction homosexual relations by marriage (nor 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). The ways of the righteous are often contrasted with the ways of the unrighteous, and the particular expression of wickedness has deeper roots (this will be further expanded upon later in dealing with Romans 1).

3. This is an aspect of the above, and is the most common attempt to nullify this clear prohibition against homosexual relations. However, it fails to discern what was ceremonial and what was strictly moral and the basis for each. The fact that eternal moral laws were sometimes mixed with laws which obviously could not be perpetually kept 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 relegating 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.

Transcendent moral laws versus typological ceremonial laws.

Under the New Covenant instituted by Christ's sacrificial death for us sinners, we are neither saved by our own righteousness (as under the Law) nor are we enjoined to observe the ceremonial laws according to the letter. Christians "are not under the law" 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). Instead, under the New Covenant the righteousness of Christ - who took and paid for our sins - 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, saving faith, if it is true, will have it's outworking in a love-response of obedience to the Lord Jesus. In so doing he will seek both to keep the moral law and the intent of the ceremonial law. Not as sinner 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. 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 act, etc.), it is rare that one can obey the intent of the moral law without obeying it in letter. The same is not true of the ceremonial laws. For instance, modern technology allows us to wear clothes of diverse threads without risking tears that might expose nakedness (Lv. 18:19).

But what just is the ceremonial law, and are the injunctions against homosexual relations part of it? Both questions are answered rather easily in the light of the New Covenant, in which we see a distinction made between such things as the ritual observance of days, Jewish religious ceremonial practices, and dietary laws in contrast to transcendent moral laws. The ceremonial laws and moral laws each have distinct characteristics, with ceremonial laws being related to diet, religious observation of times, religious dress and rites, such as animal sacrifices, circumcision, mixing linen with wool, the wearing of fringed garments, the Aaronic Priesthood and it's rituals. These things are never enjoined upon believers under the New covenant, are expressly declared to be allegorical in nature. For instance, while all 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the New Covenant, there is neither any command given for keeping the Sabbath nor any instance when a formal New Testament church was specifically so doing (unlike meeting on the 1^st day of the week: Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:2). Instead, the sabbath prefigured Christ, who gives rest to the souls of those who trust and obey Him (Mt. 11:28-30; Heb. 4). The Galatian church is chastised by the apostle Paul for it's ritual observance of "days, and months, and times, and years" (Gal. 4:10) as such was concomitant with regression into Judaism. Though dietary laws do have a beneficial effect themselves, and the Spirit – led believer will seek to eat healthy, their larger purpose was that of showing things to come, pointing men toward Christ and the New Covenant realities. And seeing that such laws regarding diet and liturgical days were a figure, or “shadow” of Christ (the Body who made the shadow), believers are warned in Colossians 2:16, "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." Likewise it is stated that the regulations regarding "meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances" of the Jewish Temple were things "imposed on them until the time of reformation" (not Luther's but the New Covenant - Heb. 9:10).

Under the New Covenant we see the realization of things foreshadowed under the Old. 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). More examples can be seen here. Moreover, many of the ceremonial laws required the existence of the Jewish Temple and theocracy in order to be obeyed, but which Temple was destroyed as Christ predicted. On the other hand, the moral law reflects the immutable holy and omniscient character of God, such as the relationship between man and women revealing the Diving order between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and His church (1Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23 - and which again militates against homosexuals). And as such, they are timeless, with any kind of sexual immorality belonging in the strictly moral category.

Nowhere under the New Covenant are any of the moral laws done away with. Rather they are affirmed, with both sexual immorality between men and women outside of marriage, and as we shall see, sexual relations between men and men are part of the immutable moral law. When Jesus declared that it was out of the heart of man than iniquity was brought forth, He declared that that which the heart brought forth - including "fornications" - were "evil things" which "defile the man" (Mk. 7:21-23). And nothing that defileth, shall enter the Heavenly City (Rv. 21:27). Neither are the moral laws dependent upon the existence of the Temple, and other nations were judged for disobeying them (such as Sodom). 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 finds any fulfillment in Christ and His church (except that we also are to avoid spiritual fornication as well). They are both moral laws, with the condemnation of such literal iniquity being affirmed under the New Covenant in principal and by precept.

4, The word "sodomy," like many other words translated from original languages, derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated (see Gn. 19 above). Dt. 23:18 calls homosexual prostitutes "dogs," obviously after their perverse manner of relations. The same term was later applied to Gentiles as a whole, perhaps because they were scavengers (Mk. 7:27, 28). In Rv. 22:15, "dogs" representing unbelievers, or sodomites, are forbidden entrance into the Heavenly City of God. The corresponding word which homosexuals prefer for themselves, "gay," is likely derived from a light, effeminate characteristic typical associated with them, (though studies* show the opposite of "gayness" as equated with happiness is the case overall, and will be realized by those who continue therein).

5. The word "abomination," applies to both disobedience to God in ceremonial law as well as in moral law. Concerning the latter, all the sins of Lev. 18 (and which are inherently evil) are categorized as abominations (Lev. 18:26), as are the images of false gods(Dt. 7: 25), following false gods (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4), following witchcraft (Dt. 18:12). Also called an abomination are such things as false weights and balances (Dt. 25:16). Later on in Scripture, the unrepentant (Prov. 13:19) are called an abomination, as is the sacrifice, way and thoughts of the wicked (Prov. 15:8, 9 26), the proud in heart (Prov. 16:5), those that justify the wicked [such as sodomites do], and condemneth the just [as they do to them that reprove them] (Prov. 17:15], those that will not hear the Law of God (Prov. 28:9) and , "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). Homosexual practices are indeed just that, an abomination, as well as the insolent proud look that justifies it.

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Duet. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

 OBJECTION:

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."

 ANSWER:

As shown before, the condemnation of sodomy cannot be restricted to homosexual practices in pagan temples, as 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. Jehoshaphat even broke down their houses (2Ki. 23:7).

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 singled here out as 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 "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.

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ruth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

OBJECTION

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.

 ANSWER

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). 2Sam. 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.

In the second instance the relationship between David and Jonathan is ignorantly (or 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. More on this later.

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.

Key details:

At the subsequent meeting after slaying Goliath with King Saul, Saul's 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 require 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? Here the imagination of the natural mind (1Cor. 2:14) of homosexuals, who suppose this to be erotic, must be subject to the Word of God (2Cor. 10:5).

Why would Jonathan give David his clothes? The answer is easily logically surmised.

David had just come from came 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 the heir to the throne and as such was clothed accordingly. And true to form, Saul "would let him [David] go no more home to his father's house" (1Sam. 18:2), Jonathan therefore, quickly acts (perhaps impulsively, but as a true friend), to rectify the situation at his own expense, removing his outer garments (it does not say David did the same) to hand to David.

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 garments befitting a soldier in the army of the king. The fact that David now would wear the same garments as the heir to the throne wore not only insured greater acceptance by the rest of the royal staff, but it also indicated what would eventually follow, which is that (David would take the throne, not Jonathan. It is also possible that this was a tradition in those times.

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 quite 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 new position, not for any erotic purpose. As for David, he removes nothing.

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). Likewise Paul, "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). Moreover, homosexual as well as heterosexual eroticism would be scandalous in both instances. In addition, both David and Jonathan we married (to women)! Only by insisting to see what one wants to see can contrary conclusions be drawn, based upon the plain evidence.

Finally, 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), 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 necessarily denotes anything sexual. That is unless one cannot conceive of such brotherly affection as being nonsexual, which seems to be the problem. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive manner than the singularity of eroticism, which may often fail to be even qualify as true love. David and Jonathan's battle – proved friendship is easily seen to have been far more blessed, rare, needful and appreciated than of the women David had known. His own present wife, Saul's daughter Michal, would soon be cursed due to her reproof of him (2Sam. 6:14-23).

Finally, the fact that both Jonathan and David were both married to women, and had children by such testifys to David's heterosexual sexuality, and 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 a man that he was sexually attracted to, but a woman (2Sam. 11).

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. 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, but such is holily and wisely prohibited and condemned! Not one instance of a man sexually "knowing" another man as with women is sanctioned, nor one instance when it is said a man took another man to wife, or was married to one, as it often says of taking a women. And no real instance of approved romantic-sexual love between men is given, despite the desire by some see such!

Instead, 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 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 mode 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 and in fact are condemned.

Let me also address 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 pratices 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 which God cast out before them (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].

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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;.

 OBJECTION

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.

 ANSWER

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!

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

OBJECTION

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

 ANSWER

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).

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Biblical provision for heterosexual marriage in contrast with homosexual fornication.

Relative to this, and as stated before, if homosexual relations are normal and good, and have a claim to be equal to heterosexual relations, then we must ask, just where is the positive sanction for homosexual practices in the Word of God? For 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 andaffirms marriage for heterosexuals (and wife and bride are both always female), but nowhere for homosexuals. And if they cannot marry, then they are guilty of fornication. And in a most perverse manner. Fornication itself is wrong (a denial of Christ as Lord, which will send one to Hell), and the active homo-sexual 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 Genesis . 2:23, 24 we read, "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.

The word "wife" here (ish-shaw', naw-sheem') is feminine, and is found 776 times in the Old Testament (KJV), and when used in reference to a person(s) it always refers to either a women or a wife (singular or plural), but NEVER TO A MAN. Likewise the word for wife (goo-nay') in the New Testament. Every marriage in the Bible is between a man and a women, and never is a man literally a women nor vice versa.

The Lord Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6, also used the above passage as the authority for life-long marriage: "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. And conversely, what God hath put asunder (sexually same gender sex), let not man put together. It is clear both Scripturally and anatomically, etc. that God hath NOT joined men together as with women.

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. When God 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).

Thus the only provision for marriage is given to heterosexuals, 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.

Homo-sexual relations are shown to be wrong in principal as well as by precept. Physically, man is not designed for sexual relations with those of the same gender nor with animals. Heterosexual marriage is the only kind of physical union that can fulfil one of it's primary functions (Gn. 1:28). The human anatomical differences are not complementary, even apart from procreative purposes, and are resulting in increased rates of certain diseases.

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 (Lv. 18:23). It is also posible that AIDS was passed onto humans through sexual relations with apes (or bood to blood contact), and as history shows, AIDS was initially spread primarily through the homosexual community.

Neither is the absence of God-ordained homosexual marriage because procreation was always required, as the attributes of Eve as a help mate went beyond having children. On the spiritual level, God has made women different from men in ways that the strengths and weaknesses of each other are complementary, sometimes symbiotic, and beneficial, making them uniquely compatible. The aforementioned Song of Solomon is not about procreation, and again, neither is there a Song of Solomon for homosexuals in the Bible.

And again as mentioned before, 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 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 laws and the required behavior was holy in and of itself, and the contrary practices inherently evil.

TOC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Summation

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), nor willing to provide the man the blessed sanction necessary for his lawful conjugal happiness, even though the blessed provision of marriage for HETEROSEXUALS is clearly given.

Finally, having sought to manipulate the Word of God to support them, the typical promoter 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 is one that originally was given to those who believed Scripture (contrary to them), and 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).

Though "all manner of evil" (Mt. 11) is often falsely said by homosexuals against 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 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!

TOC

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/IsHomosexualitySin.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas-expanded.html

http://cnlglfg.com/EveNotSteve.html

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/psychiatry.htm

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=17458

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9222793&dopt=Abstract

http://www.rightremedy.org/booklets/54

www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_Educational_Pamphlets.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4835a1.htm

http://www.probe.org/docs/homotheo.html

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

http://www.afanwpa.org/News%20Release%20--%20Mayor%20&%20State%20Rep%20partipate%20in%20Erie%20Pride%209.16.03.htm [follow links]

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/1/21

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11527785&dopt=Abstract

(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.

www.peacebyjesus.com

Email: saved2serve@gmail.com

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).

-TOC

Idaho Web Design Tools