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 offers an answer) to distort the intent or meaning of the Biblical prohibitions against the practice of homo-sexuality, which effectually works against the purpose of the laws of God, that of both the spiritual and temporal well being of souls. Realizing that the Bible is the ultimate authority of truth which condemns their deleterious practice, certain homosexual apologists have spent an inordinate amount of time and "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, though i can provide comments by some such men . 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 which 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). Amen!

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

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

1. The word "know" used in Gn. 19: (yâda‛) is rarely used for sexual knowledge, and as used for that it only refers to voluntary intercourse or regarding a womens virginal status, and here it means to be acquainted, to interrogate, or to do violence. The men of Sodom came to Lot's house because they wanted to know who the strangers were, or do them violence. Likewise, in the parallel account of Judges 19, they wanted to “know” the man by killing him.

2. The reason that the angels were sent to destroy Sodom was not because of homosexuality, for the Bible states that the iniquity of Sodom was "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezk. 16:49). Jesus referred to Sodom as an example of inhospitality, and it was destroyed for a "serious breach of hospitality” toward Lot's guests.

ANSWER:

Such an interpretation is easily seen as non-sense when the account is read in it's entirety and the grammar is also examined. (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.” Lot, being resident of the city, understands what they want and goes out, closes the door and pleads with them, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" (v. 5). He then goes on to offer his virgin daughters, "which have not known man", that they may do what they please with them, i.e., that they may sexually “know them” just as they sought to “know” the men. However, the men of Sodom will have nothing to do with it, and threaten to do worse to Lot: "And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

The typical homo-apologist interpretation of Gn. 19 refuses to allow that that the men of Sodom outside Lot's door wanted to sexually “know” the men inside, as Adam did to his wife and Cain did to his (Gn. 4:1, 17, 25) and like instances:

(Gen 4:1) "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

(Gen 4:17) "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

(Gen 4:25) "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

(Gen 19:8) "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

(Gen 24:16) "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up."

(Gen 38:26) "And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more."

(Num 31:18) "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

(Num 31:35) "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him."

(Judg 11:39) "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,"

(Judg 19:25) "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

(Judg 21:12) "And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."

(1 Sam 1:19) "And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her."

(1 Ki 1:4) "And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not."

(Mat 1:24-25 – New Testament) "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Instead, homosexual apologists insist that the men of Sodom were alarmed that the strangers in Lot's house posed a danger to Sodom, and thus they wanted to "know" them in the sense of examining their purpose, etc. Or that they just wanted to slap them around and do violence to them. These interpretations contend that since the Hebrew word "know," (yâda‛[3045], used in the Old Testament) most often denotes non-sexual knowledge, then it's use in Gn. 19 supports their interpretation that to “know them” was by interrogation or violence, rather than being a euphemism to know the men sexually. But while yâda‛ is most often used in a non-sexual way, what is relevant is that out of the over 940 times that the Hebrew word for “know” is used, when occurring in a Gn. 19:5 type grammatical construction (knowledge of a human by physical meeting; to “know/knew/them/her” personally by such), it is most often used (according to my examination) as a euphemism for sexual knowledge (6 other times in Genesis alone; 13 times besides Gn. 19:5). And in contrast to the homosexual scenario, yâda‛ is never used as a euphemism for gaining personal knowledge by forced interrogation or doing violence anywhere.

It is also sometimes contended that yâda‛ is only used sexually for marital voluntary intercourse or to describe virginal status, but yâda‛ also describes illicit as well as forced sex (Gn 38:26;Jdg 19:25). And since yâda‛ is describing the actual realization of sexual knowledge, rather than the sexual method or the morality of the act, which words such as “lay” (shakab[7901]), or “ravish” (shagal [7693]=rape) respectively denote, then it's use to describe the kind of knowledge the men sought of men, and demonstrated in Jdg. 19:25, is entirely fitting.

And as noted before, the context of Gn. 19 itself also heavily favours “know them” as meaning to sexually know, by observing that that Lot offered his daughters to them as women "who have not known man” that they may do to them as is good in their eyes:" Thus Lot interpreted the Sodomites demand to “know” his male guests as to know sexually, and so offered substitute bodies for them to “know,” rather than such “wickedness” being done on the men. Some suppose that the offer of virgins was an attempt to “buy off” the men with heterosexual sex, rather than allow the men to interrogate or do violence to Lot's guests, but nowhere in Scripture do we see such an exchange, and as other uses of “know her/him/them in Hebrew are very often sexual (especially in Genesis), and for which reason Lot could offer his daughters, then why is it necessary to disallow that this is how the Sodomites wanted to “know” the (likely handsome) new men? Rather than seeking to interrogate or do non-sexual violence, the grammar and description is more of a crowd filled with fornicating lust (see Jude 7 below). Lot knew the crowd was seeking something sensual, namely that they might "know" the men as they might "know" the proffered daughters, if they were so inclined. But being homosexual, they refused, as they lewdly demanded the “fresh meat,” that being the male strangers.

That sexual knowing was what was sought in Gn. 19 is further evidenced in the obvious parallel account of Judges 19:14-25. In this episode, a Levite (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine. In a strange city, Gibeah, and finding no one that would receive him, he is taken in by an old man, a native of the town. No sooner had they eaten, then "certain sons of Belial" came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the man beseeches them “do not so wickedly” (v. 23), and then offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing." The Hebrew word for "vile" is almost always used in sexual sense when referring to an action. At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine by the man, "they abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is indicated by the context and language. The men come seeking to “know” the male stranger, and the native (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) offers substitute bodies for sex. That this is what they sought is evidenced by what they did with the substitute, which was not to kill her as the Levite did fear (20:5), but they “forced” her (as in 2 Sam. 13:14, 22, 32) and committed lewdness (a word most often used sexually) and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6). The only real difference was between Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer (which was also sin).

Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind, clearly referencing to the Biblical account in Gn. 19.

And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it.

2. As for the argument that Sodom was most noted for being inhospitable, while "pride, fulness of bread", love of leisure and indifference to the plight of the poor ( Ezek. 16:49), these were general sins, yet Sodom is mostly noted for sexual sins, and as history shows, prevalent homosexuality tends to be a product of and concomitant with pride, affluence, idleness, and selfishness. In the Bible we see that there are two types of sins, those of the heart and those which follow, that of sinful actions. Sins which Sodom is linked to include adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14); unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12); careless living (Lk. 17:29) fornication (Rev. 11:8; cf. 17:2, 4); and overall “filthy conversation”[G766], which means sexual sins (lasciviousness: 2 Pt. 2:7; cf. Mar_7:22, 2Co_12:21, Eph_4:19, 1Pe_4:3, Jud_1:4; or wantonness: Rom_13:13, 2Pe_2:18). Thus in examining the physical sins Sodom is most often associated with, we see that it was those of a sexual nature. As Jude 7 states, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, [were] giving themselves over to fornication. And Genesis 19 and Jude 7 deal with a specific manifestation of Sodom's fornication (sex with “other” than that which is lawful and right), that of homosexuality, for which union God never provided for homosexuality.

And contrary to the apologists who seek to protect that sin, Jesus did not invoke Sodom as an warning to cities because the were generally inhospitable, rather He foretold that cities that would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12). While any sin can dam us, to reject Christ – who alone can pay for our sins and can take them away – is the ultimate sin of damnation. Thus this sin of the heart is worse than Sodom's most notable sin of the flesh, and which Sodom would have repented of if they had been given the great grace the cities which heard Jesus and saw His miracles (Mt. 11:23, 24).

Yet the chief sin of any man or society is idolatry, whether it be formal or informal, statues or in the heart, and which sin is that of worshiping anything less than the One True God, and out of which all else flows. As Romans 1 shows, homosexual activity is a sin which is a product of idolatrous steps of degeneration, and it is likely that the practice of what came be called sodomy was a latter development, a practice which they did in their "idleness," and which they, like today, took pride in, and which was the capstone of their iniquity going before to judgment. Sodom was thus destroyed (physically), and nations who do follow after Sodom and will not repent must fear the same. And true Christians must seek to turn them to righteousness, without hypocrisy.

TOC

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

Jude v.7, which deals with the end of spiritual and moral declension, declares: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

 OBJECTION

As the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” the meaning is unclear. It could be that the condemnation of Sodom was that they sought to commit fornication with angels, referring to the book of Enochian legends.

ANSWER

This is usually an attempt to negate Gn. 19 (and by implication, Jdg. 19) as examples of homosexual lust. Yet Jude 7 is not referencing the extra-Biblical book of Enoch, as unlike Gn. 19, Sodom nor sex with angels (appearing as men) is never mentioned therein. Nor do we ever see men going after angels for sex except in Gn. 19. And by rendering “strange flesh” to be that of going after angels negates the argument that the demand to “know” Lot's guests was non-sexual. Given the fact that Sodom's most singularly noted sin was fornication, which they were “given to,” and which included a most perverse kind, this not only places the reference in Jude 7 to Gn. 19, but confirms that the sin of Sodom therein was indeed sexual.

The only question is, did the men of Sodom know they were seeking angels? This would be quite a foolish thing to do, as angels are not to be messed with (2Kg. 19:5), and nothing indicates they did know. Their own words (Gn. 19:5) indicates that the men of Sodom believed Lot's guests to be men. The only other possible instance of sexual relations between angels and men is in Gn. 6:2-4, but if the “sons of God (cf. Job. 1:6; 2:1) were angels then it would be male angels going after women, and not as in Jude 7 and Gn. 19. The word for “strange (heteros[2087]) does indeed mean “another/other” and most often refers to humans, including in reference to having unlawful union with another, that of someone who is not lawfully one's spouse (Rm. 7:3). As such it easily fits the sexual description of Gn. 19, in which men of Sodom, being confirmed fornicators, seek to perversely have sexual relations with “another flesh,” that being other than that which is lawful and normal, which is with men.

Gn. 19, Jdg. 19, Jude 7 in Summation

Yâda‛ is used to denote sexual knowledge very or most often when used in the grammatical construction of Gn. 19:5, and as thus used yâda‛ denotes not only marital sex or virginal status but illicit (Gn 38:26) as well as "forced," "lewd," "vile" sex (Jdg 19:25; 20:6), with sex being what the sexual grammar and description most clearly indicates. (both lewd and vile are most often used to denote sexual sins when describing actions, while “forced” can mean to sexually humble: 2Sam. 23:14). The "knowing" that they sought to do to the Levite was also a "vile" thing (19:23).

In contrast, yâda‛ is never used as a euphemism for gaining personal knowledge by forced interrogation or by doing violence.

In both cases (Gn. 19:8; Jdg. 19:24), virgins are offered in response to the demand to "know" the men, but nowhere in the Bible do we see sexual gratification offered as substitution for violence. And the understanding of natives as to what their countrymen seek should be considered more accurate than a strangers impressions (Jdg. 20:5).

Sodom is predominately linked to sexual inequity as regards physical sin (Jer. 23:14, 2 Pt. 2:7; Rev. 11:8; cf. 17:2, 4), including that of a perverse manner of fornication (Jude 7), with fornication being stated to be the most singular cause of it's damnation, yet the impenitence that was causative of certain cities particular inhospitality toward Jesus' disciples is the ultimate sin of anyone's damnation (Mt. 11:20).

Sodom being "given to fornication" and that of a perverse kind finds it's clear reference in Scripture to Gn. 19, and even the attempt to make their sin that of seeking sex with angels refutes the entire non-sexual (in this instance) gang theory of Gn. 19. The real question would be whether the men of Sodom knew they were angels (who would be foolish to tangle with, and is not indicated) or whether their sin was going after flesh "other" than that which was lawful, going after men unaware that they were angels.

While the most strongly indicated understanding of Gn. 19 is that the type of “knowing” sought therein was sexual, this would only deal with homosexual rape, while the universal moral (not ceremonial) command, given to all Israel (Lv. 18:2), that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22; cf. 20:13) covers all such fornication, and for which union God never provided marriage by which it may be sanctified, which He clearly and abundantly provides for heterosexual relations.

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 meaning of such texts, homosexual apologists vainly seek to explain away such prohibitions, 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 (various expressions of this type of deception follows, as does some repetition in refuting them).

2.This is part of the law contrasting pagan nations with Israel, and as they are in the context of contrasting idolatry with the worship of the one true God, thus homosexual practices can only be conditionally wrong.

3.The commands in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only condemn sodomy, that of homosexual practices that were part of pagan idolatrous practices which are forbid in Dt. 23:17 1Ki.14:24; 22:46; 2Ki. 23:7, and not normal homosexual unions.

4.Other prohibitions with their death penalties are repeated elsewhere, but the prohibition against men lying with men is not, because it refers to religious, "ritual uncleanness."

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

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

7.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. 18:2). A full reading of the rest of the laws in Lv. 18 — 20 also makes it clear that they (including 18:22 and 20:13) are universally applicable, and are part of the transcendent moral law of almighty God, and were in no way restricted only to the priests, such as ones in chapters 21 — 20 were. It is no more right for an American to lie carnally with his neighbor's wife (18:20) than for an average Israelite or a Levitical priest. 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 acts are unconditionally sinful. So it is with homosexual practices as we shall continue to see. The prohibition against woman sexually lying down with a beast (18:23; 20:16), also shows the universal application of these laws before it, as there were no women priests. The command, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," like the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt not"), applies to every individual². Likewise the command, " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them," applies to every man, not just to a specific "profession." 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. If it were, then like heterosexual sex, then marriage would be provided to sanctify it. But it nowhere is marriage (or “civil unions”) provided for homosexual relationships. 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 (approx. 20) sins in this chapter (uncovering the nakedness of ones kin, incest, adulteries, etc.), the prohibition against homosexual fornication transcend 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, spiritual and perpetual one. Furthermore, the nations to be conquered were judged for practicing these sins (20:23), revealing their inherent iniquity. ^

2. The Levitical prohibitions were not given simply to make Israel distinct from the other nations — like having team colors — rather God commanded Israel not to practice these sins that were prevalent among pagan because they were inherently evil, and therefore the nations to be conquered were judged for practicing these sins (20:23). And again the description of these sins reveals they were not simply those which were part of temple idolatry, but were part of their general universal iniquity, an the holiness of such laws which God gave to all Israel transcend mere specific cultural distinctions with pagan nations. Negating the universal application of commands that are given in the context of Israel being distinct from pagan nations and their idolatry would disallow not only the 10 commandments but all the moral laws of God from their universal application, as all these commandments are in the context of Israel being a "holy nation" distinct from the Egyptians, and avoiding idolatry. The second of the ten commandments states, “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,“ but it is undisputed that the rest of the moral laws contained therein do not simply apply to priests but all mankind.

Again, it is because such iniquity as we see proscribed in Leviticus 18 was evil in and of themselves that holy Israel destroyed and displaced the nations that practiced them. Israel itself later suffered promised punishment (Dt. 28; Lam. 3) after they continually walked in the way of the heathen. The same rebellion to the Living and True God and corresponding fleshly indulgence will just as surely bring about the destruction of America as well (from within and without) if she will not repent.. And it is the same pro-homosexual twisting of the Word of God that seeks to allow for "Christian" practice of the prohibited sins which accompanies the injunction against sodomy. In contrast to such we are commanded, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rm. 13:14). And sodomy (even as fornication alone) is indeed a work of the flesh. ^

3. Such a conclusion is based upon a strained and vain attempt to negate the universal and plain prohibition of Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 by relegating it to ceremonial uncleanness, which they suppose the injunction of Dt. 23:17 was simply about. 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, all the Levitical prohibitions do not lend themselves to such a limited application, and to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only that category would logically require that other things listed in Leviticus 18 (as well as the whole address), such as familial nakedness and incest, bestiality (lying with animals), killing ones children as an offering to a false god, stealing, lying, disrespect to parents, hating your neighbor, etc., 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 inherently evil, and the condemnation of them transcends mere religious uncleanness.

Rather than Dt. 23:17 defining Lev. 18:22, the opposite it true, as is the case with the prohibition of money from a whore in the next verse (18). Temple prostitution is wrong because fornication and prostitution is universally wrong. Likewise, the injunction against homosexual temple prostitution was not because it made one ceremonially unclean, but because it was based upon the universal prohibition against men lying with men as with women. This is inherently evil, and in fact it is one of the few practices in the Bible that is never given a context wherein it could be sanctified, in this case, marriage. Moreover, the practice of homosexual temple prostitution is especially condemned in Dt. 23:17 for another 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 the principal “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1Pet. 4:17; cf. Ezra 9:6). ^

4. As the universal nature of the Levitical prohibitions is obvious, attempts to explain away the clear and basic prohibitions against men lying with men requires more imagination. It is thus that a radical significance is claimed for the presence of (supposedly) only two specific condemnations of sodomy in the Old Testament, and only one mention of it's death sentence. It is asserted that an absence of the prohibition against men lying with men where accompanying commands of Lv. 18 – 20 are reiterated (such as in Deuteronomy 27), and only one mention of it's death penalty (Lv. 20:13) warrants relegating it to a prohibition that simply addressed the problem of pagan temple prostitution prohibited in Dt. 23:17. Apparently, the specific Levtical commands universally prohibiting homosexual sex, one of which declares it a capital offense, amongst the many other condemnations of it in Scripture, are not enough for modern day promoters of such. The attempt to relegate this to temple prostitution is already disallowed by the very fact that the commands in Leviticus 18 — 20 are given to all Israel (Lv. 18:2), and not simply to the Levites. But while God does often reiterate His commands as a body (or chapter) it is not always a complete point by point repetition, and when in His grace God does repeat commands it is because it is needed, as the law itself was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). Thus we see the condemnation of the most prevalent sins repeated often, with the chief one, idolatry, being addressed over 100 times, and illicit heterosexual sex dozens of times, while bestiality is rarely mentioned. Likewise the similarly perverse and relatively rare sin of homosexual sex is addressed much less than illicit heterosexual sex, though homosexual sex in it's general and temple form is condemned up to 14 times in the entire Bible.

Neither does a singular mention of it's death penalty (20:13) warrant relegating the Levitical commands against homosexual sex to that of temple sodomy, as not only is it's context that of universal applicability, but the death penalty for some sins is mentioned more than twice (Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7), while for certain specific types of sexual sin or for perjury the provision of capital punishment is mentioned only once (to my knowledge: Lv. 20:12, 18; Dt. 19:16-19). And though homosexual sex is included in the list of capital offenses in chapter 21, even though the latter does not specifically condemn all that chapter 18 does, chapter 21 does not specifically include all the Levitical prohibitions nor all the capital crimes as specified in Lv. 20. Thus we cannot remove the sins of a man laying with his daughter in law (thy son's wife) or with a women during her period, nor that of homosexual sex from universal application nor from the list of capital offenses (if in the latter case that is what “cut off” signifies). ^

5. 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 Old and New Testament it is manifest that there are different classifications of laws.

1. Transcendent moral laws, which deal with fundamental human behavior and tendencies, which basically are directly applicable to all cultures and current times (honoring parents, murder, stealing, fornications, etc.).

2. Culturally applied moral laws, such as related to appearance and practices that were uniquely (versus common things like prayer) part of the worship of idols: weird haircuts or cuttings in their flesh, etc. While these laws were enacted is response to idolatrous practices, that does not disallow them from being applicable today to the church in accordance with the immutable moral law they are based upon. Witchcraft as well as temple prostitutes were pagan practices of Israel's neighbors, yet the injunctions against them are culturally and historically transcendent, in spiritual ways as well as physical.

Some laws in this category deal with practices that may not necessarily be sinful in themselves, but are applicable according to the principal behind them. While a strange haircut today may not signify formal worship of demons, Christians are to “avoid all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22), which would include imitating distinctly demon-influenced pagan behavior (such as wearing the Hindu Tilaka). And while the cutting of one's flesh may be necessary in surgery, needless self-mutilation can often be an manifestation of demonic influence which would be contrary to the Spirit of Christ.

3. Civil laws, which are based upon purely moral law, and like the preceding, can be adaptable to any culture according to their underlaying principal (put a fence around your roof = thou shalt not kill by negligence = present safety laws ). These also include laws of jurisprudence, such as the requirement for eyewitnesses and punishment for perjury.

Certain laws within this category of civil laws are regulatory in nature, that of a cultural practice allowed for the time but modified in order to bring it more into line toward an original standard, such as laws regarding concubines as well as slavery.

4. Typological laws were related to the sacrificial system (Heb. 9), and are manifest under the New Covenant, such as the ritual observance of Jewish “days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal,. 4:10) and dietary laws (Col. 2:16) and various “washings imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10), as well as the entire sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18). Christians observe these by looking to the reality which they represented, and thus they are to act in accordance with the holiness they enjoined: “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1Cor. 5:8). The forbidden foods under the dietary laws were a type of the Gentiles, now made clean under the New covenant (Acts 10:1-17), while the physical defilement of touching such things as lepers under the Old Covenant represented moral defilement under the New (Mk. 7:18-23; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), of which illicit sex (fornications: Mk. 7:21) is still a part. While Christians are edified if they observe the health benefits that such things as dietary and sanitary regs provided, yet apart from an overall unhealthy diet, it is not necessary a sin to eat a hot dog much less touch a leper. But sexual immorality is still sin. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4). “Flee fornication..” (1 Cor. 6:18).

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), under the New Covenant the righteousness of Christ - who paid the price for our forgiveness of 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, repentance and saving faith, if it is true, will have it's outworking in a love-response of obedience to the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:40-47; 26:20; 1Thes. 1:8-10). In so doing he will seek both to keep the moral law and the intent of the ceremonial law. Not as sinners seeking to gain acceptance with God by his merit, but from a position of strength as one already "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6), and thus rightly inspired and enabled to live for God. The difference between the ceremonial and strictly moral laws in terms of obedience is that only the latter are enjoined upon believers in Christ. And while we are to seek to fulfil the full intent of moral laws (avoiding adultery in heart, not simply in action, etc.), this usually requires obeying it in letter as well. The same is not true of the ceremonial laws. For instance, it is possible to eat certain previously forbidden foods if one thanks God for it (Lv. 18:19), and it part of a overall healthy diet (1Cor. 10:31; Eph. 5:39).

But as Jude v. 4 warns, there are those who seek to turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude. 4), and thus the homosexual argument is that the injunctions against homosexual relations are part of the ceremonial laws. That this is not the is seen 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, under which homosexual sex is again condemned. 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, and are expressly declared to be allegorical in nature.

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 (Mt. 24:1, 2). Thus such things are not reiterated under the New Covenant. In contrast, 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 also militates against homosexuals). And as such, they are timeless, and are reiterated under the New Covenant, with any kind of sexual immorality belonging in the strictly moral category.  

That this is true is abundantly confirmed. When Jesus declared that it was out of the heart of man than iniquity was brought forth, He declared that such things as "fornications" were "evil things" which "defile the man" (Mk. 7:21-23). And nothing that defileth, shall enter the Heavenly City (Rv. 21:27). Under the New Covenant fornication is clearly and abundantly condemned (Rm. 1:29; 1Cor. 6:18), including a specific aspect of such, that of men with men consensually working that which is unseemly [shameful] and against nature, that of God's design (Rm. 1:26, 27; cf. Gn. 2:24; 1Cor. 16:9; 1Tim. 1:10). Neither are the moral laws dependent upon the existence of the Temple. And Sodom was destroyed principally because of it's fornication, which included a perverse kind (Jude v. 7). All told, there is absolutely nothing that renders the moral law's prohibitions against men sexually lying with men to be merely typological, any more than the prohibitions against normal fornication are. They are both moral laws, with the condemnation of such literal iniquity being affirmed under the New Covenant in principal and by precept. ^

6, The word translated "sodomy,"[H6945] basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”[H6942], meaning set part, usually for holy separation, but in this case it signifies a person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated by it's first use in Dt. 23:17, 18 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God" This is confirmed by later instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46), and it is always used in a negative sense, even as one who is morally unclean (Job. 36:14). The “whore” describes heterosexual fornication while the “sodomite” (or “dog” according to their perverse manner of relations) applies to homosexual fornication. Like many other words translated from original languages, it derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated (see Gn. 19 above). And based upon that practice sodomy became a metonym for all homosexual sex, in this case usually as prostitutes.

That sodomy describes homosexual sex in a religious context and which word became a metonym for all homosexual practices neither negates the universal condemnation of such acts, nor it's use to describe such. We have already seen the global scope of the prohibitions against men laying with men as with women, meanwhile many words which have a basic meaning are often used to denote something else, Biblically and otherwise, the meaning being defined by their context. We have already seen that “to know” someone physically is often used as a euphemism for sexual relations in that construction, while a homosexual person is referred to as a “dog” in Dt. 23:18 after their perverse manner of fornication. The same term was later applied to Gentiles as a whole, perhaps because they were unclean (Mk. 7:27, 28). In Rv. 22:15, "dogs" represents unbelievers, or sodomites, and are forbidden entrance into the Heavenly City of God. The corresponding word for sodomy which homosexuals prefer for themselves, is "gay," is itself derived from a word basically meaning “gaiety.” that of light hearted cheerfulness of any sort, though studies* show the opposite of happy "gayness" is often the case overall, and will be sadly realized by those who continue therein. ^

7. The word "abomination," applies to both disobedience to God in ceremonial as well as moral law. The fact that the word abomination can be used to describe how Israel was to view forbidden foods (Lv. 11) does not negate it's use to describe things that are shown to be transcendently morally evil. 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), and the proud in heart (Prov. 16:5), those that justify the wicked and condemneth the just (Prov. 17:15), both of which promoters of homosexuality do; as well as 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. and a reproach of the Creator who made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, uniquely joining them together in marriage.

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 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 were inherently evil. Nor are they simply prohibited as part of formal idolatry, but forbid homosexual relations in any context. Likewise, 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. Neither are they part of the dietary and ceremonial law, but they are clearly part of universally applicable moral laws against fornication. There are times when something within the moral realm is conditionally wrong when done in the wrong time, place or manner, such as premarital sex, 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).

TOC

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

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

1 Kings 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

 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:

The feminine of the word “sodomy” (see under #6 above) is translated “whore” and in Scripture means a person devoted to prostitution, as was Tamar as she say by the way to Timnath (Gn. 38), which was not in the temple, while those practicing religious male homosexuality seemed to have worked out of tents in by the temple, where Jehoshaphat broke down their “houses” (2 Ki. 23:7). The income from which was also forbidden by God: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Deu 23:17-18). “The price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself (in Rev_22:15, the defiled are distinctly called “dogs”).

While the word “sodomite” is used to describe homosexual temple prostitution, yet like that of temple heterosexual prostitution, the condemnation of illicit sex in a religious context by no means negates it's universal prohibition, which the Levitical commands to all Israel, as well as and New Testament condemnations definitely establish. And we see the good kings of Israel commended for driving such "out of the land" (1Ki. 15:12), and not simply out of the Temple.

There is also another reason why the prohibition against sodomy is mentioned here, and that is because that which is done in the Temple represents the highest sanction, and while Lev. 18:22 as well as other passages in both the O.T and N.T condemn sodomy in general, homosexual temple prostitution is specifically forbidden is because it presumes the highest religious sanction of a sin which is against God's natural order, a sanction that would set the standard for all other authorities to follow. This type of "holy" sanction is what the sodomite movement seeks today in demanding not simply civil unions recognized by the government, but the more religious title of marriage, which the Bible recognizes as only between a man and a woman. There simply is no basis for anything else.

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.

(1 Sam 18:3) Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

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). 2 Sam. 20:2 declares that the men of tribe of Judah "clave unto their King" (who had many wives). And even Ruth's future husband (Boaz) even tells her to "keep fast (same word for cleave) by my young men" (Ruth 2:8,,21). Does the homo-apologist suppose "clave" in these instances means sexually? Would Ruth, a "virtuous women (3:11), be told by her future husband to cleave to the young men in the way homosexuals have her doing to Naomi? Furthermore, she was seeking a husband! While certain homo-apologists earnestly desire to see sexual relations where there are none, reading the above verse in context easily reveals that this cleaving means sticking close in non sexual ways (cf. 2:23), as is does in 58 of the 60 places where the same Hebrew word is used!

I Sam. 8

In the second instance the relationship between David and Jonathan is ignorantly (and diabolically) purported to be sexual, despite the fact that God, who does not bow down to culture ("Learn not the way of the heathen" – Jer. 10:2), never sanctions such, as he does between man and woman by marriage.

First, let us consider the overall context:

Saul, Israel's first king, fails critical leadership tests and David is chosen by God to be his replacement, and is therefore anointed by the prophet Samuel. David slays the giant Goliath (1Sam. 17), and proves himself a mighty warrior and gains Jonathan esteem and covenanted friendship, as well as Israel's praises (Ch. 18). Saul would quickly become jealous, and for a few years the future King David would be found escaping Saul's attempts, even though David could have slain him. But it was in the wilderness that David learned to really pray (read the Psalms) and depend on the Lord. And early on the help of one on the "inside" would prove Providential. David would finally realize the Kingdom, but not until not only Saul but also Davids closest and dearest friend died.

Key details:

At the subsequent meeting after slaying Goliath with King Saul, his son, Jonathan, fellowships with this Godly hero who was zealous for the glory of the LORD. Being uniquely of like heart, spirit and calling, their fellowship must continue. "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).

Without any real warrant from Scripture, those who lust to find some evidence of approved homosexual relations suppose they find it here. First they think “knit” means to be homoerotic as they are, as they seem to have trouble conceiving of true brotherly love that is nonsexual. Many soldiers have had precious war buddy's who would lay their life down for them, as Jonathan basically did for David. Grammatically, the word "knit" is never used sexually, but rather it denotes to be of one heart and soul, "as one man" as in Judges 20:1. Likewise in 1Chrn. 12:16, 17 the tribes Benjamin and Judah are said to be knit with King David (no, they were not homosexual tribes!). Even more closely, the same word is used to describe Jacob's love for his son Benjamin (Gn. 44: 30). It's most prevalent use is in the negative sense, as conspiracy (1Sam. 22:13), in that case also denoting a non-sexual soul-bond.

Neither can we read a sexual connotation into "loved him as his own soul." Soul basically means life. In all 753 instances of the Hebrew word there is nothing sexual about it. Jonathan loved David as his own life, as we are commanded by the Lord to do. In Genesis 44:30 we see that Jacob's life was bound up in the life of his child. Deuteronomy 13:6 speaks about family members which can be as dear to us as our own soul, and we dare not make all such pathos sexual. Though relatively rare, there have been many bonds of friendships similar to David and Jonathan's in which there was nothing sexual. The love of Christ for His disciples, and of most of theirs for Him (especially Peter and John's) is an example of such soul love, and only the most blind and vile soul dare insinuate that there must be something sexual therein.

In David and Johnathan's case, it is noteworthy that previous to their meeting, "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. It is reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who also had some fame as a daring warrior (1Sam. 13:3; 14), sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was. And so, like father like son, Johnathan saw in David a strong and valiant man, and a true comrade, whose friendship and place in the kingdom of Saul must be assured. David was a man who obviously loved God and showed it in action. Likely the king's son was yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, and found in David one of unique likeness of heart for God and in battle. Thus their bond was spiritual, not sexual. And so Jonathan enters into a covenant with him, the making of which, distinct from marriage, was not uncommon in that world (the word is used 285 times in the O.T.). They made another one in 1Sam. 23:18 which affirmed loyalty in a time of life – threatening danger. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another, .etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust.

However, what about Jonathan giving his robe, his garments, "even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1Sam. 18:4) to David? Even though Jonathan did not lay his outer garments aside (“girdle” means armor in 2Ki. 3:21) but gave them to David, homosexuals fantasize this to be erotic, but the imagination of the natural mind (1Cor. 2:14) must be subject to the Word of God (2Cor. 10:5).

So why would Jonathan give David his clothes? The Bible, which interprets itself, shows us the answer. In Numbers 20:26, when transferring Aaron's position as high priest to his son, God commanded Moses "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.” Likewise Jonathan's actions in giving David the garments of the king's son and heritor of the throne signified a transfer of inheritance to David from Jonathan, who both knew the law of Moses and the answer to his father's question, “what can he have more but the kingdom?”

It also fulfilled a secondary necessity in a charitable way befitting of Jonathan. David had just come from come his job as a keeper of sheep, no lofty position, and one that placed him in humble shepherd's clothing, which would have set him apart from the rest of the royal household. In stark contrast, Jonathan was heir to the throne and it is expected that he would be clothed accordingly. And as Saul "would let him [David] go no more home to his father's house" (1Sam. 18:2), Jonathan's action is giving his garments not only signified David's future replacement of Saul (rather than Jonathan), but rectified the situation of David's unworthy clothing, fittingly at Jonathan's own expense.

The details are noteworthy. Instead of the clothes of a poor Shepard, Jonathan gives David his royal robe and garments, which would make him more fit for a job as a courtier (an attendant at the court of a sovereign). And instead of a shepherd's scrip, Jonathan gives David a girdle (either a belt or a sash); and instead of a slingshot, David receives a sword and bow, and armor befitting a soldier in the army of the king. The fact that David now would wear the garments belonging to the heir to the throne not only signified what would eventually follow, but also insured greater acceptance by the rest of the royal staff. " In Esther 6:8 we see how “clothing makes the man” "Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head.."

Thus far there is nothing that warrants anything different than exceptional, but holy affection between two Godly and like-hearted spiritual brothers and warriors in the kingdom of God. It is manifestly obvious that the purpose of Jonathan removing some of his garments (they did wear under garments) was to unselfishly and prophetically give them to David for his future as well as present new position, and not for any erotic purpose.

But what of two chapters later, where we read "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam 20:41). Is this erotic?

The context is that of David leaving the house of Saul. For sometime now his days were numbered, with jealous King Saul (jealous because of Davids fame as a warrior), more than once trying to pin him to the wall with a javelin. Jonathan has warned David of Saul's mind toward him, and incurred the displeasure of Saul himself by his loyalty to David. Now Jonathan gives him a sign by way of a lad shooting arrows. Like the apostle Paul in Acts 20:38, they shall see each others face no more. And like Paul's departure, it is marked by tears and kisses of brotherly affection: “.. and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam. 20:41). "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today. Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Kissing is rarely sexual in the Bible, except between a man and a women in a purposely evident erotic context and place (SOS 1:2; 8:1), and no matter how much homosexuals seek to read eroticism into the text and a cultural practice, it is not there.

Then we have the poetic description of Jonathan's precious love in David's lament over his death. "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2Sam. 1:25, 26). Johnathan has died with his father in battle, leaving behind at least one child (2Sam. 4:4; 9:3-6; 1Chr. 8:34), and David loses an exceptional and holy friendship that was proved in the most trying time of his life.

But while those who are intent on finding some evidence of sexual love between men hope to find it here, neither the use of the word "pleasant" (which can even describe land - Gn. 49:15) or that the love of Jonathan surpassed that of women denotes anything sexual — and the Bible has no problem making the latter clear when that is the case. The problem is that many of those given to perverse fornication refuse to allow brotherly affection to be nonsexual. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive manner than simple sexually, and the latter may often fail to be even qualify as true love. But David and Jonathan's battle – proven love in friendship would easily be far more rare, needful and appreciated than of the women we see that David had known sexually. His wife, Saul's daughter Michal (1Sam. 18:27), would soon be cursed due to her reproof of him (2Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David, and showed himself a faithful and Godly comrade in helping David escape Saul's wrath on his way to replacing him. And which position David would have never inherited if he were involved in sodomy. There simply is no substance for reading sexual activity in such words, which eisegesis is perverse as is the practices they seek to justify, and which attempts reveals the desperation those who seek to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality face.

Finally, the fact that both Jonathan and David were both married to women, and had children by such testifies to David's heterosexual sexuality, and in the latter's case is further affirmed not only by his many wives, but also (though in a negative context) by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. It is clearly evident that it was not men that David married, but women, and it not men that he was sexually attracted to, but woman (2Sam. 11). Thus if Jonathan and David were in a homosexual relationship through the years, then they would have been adulterous bisexuals! Any kind of homosexual eroticism would also be scandalous in the household of Saul and kingdom of Israel. Rather, any insinuation of a homosexual relationship between these men of God is slanderous.

All told, in David's fitting and heart – felt tribute to his comrade there is nothing to warrant equating pathos (deep human emotions) with eros (sexual love), and the burden of proof is upon those that would do so to prove such. Souls that are utterly dependent on each other necessitate loyalty, and though it is rare to find men whose heart is so loyally knit together in heart, mind and purposes that it is greater than with those whom they are joined with physically, yet it does happen, and it is aptly expressed in David's poetry here. An old saying. "Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self"(Adam Clarke), is quite applicable in this case.

All that has been said must be considered with the realization that God has no difficulty making it clear when love between man and women is sexual. Such instances abound, and require no reading into the texts things that are not there. And as God contradicts established norms and cultures in revealing what is best for man, so we can expect that if in fact homosexual relations were good, then the Lord would make it just as manifest that men lying with men was sanctified, just as with women, but He very obviously does not. Marriage between man and women is specifically ordained of God in the Bible, and reiterated by Christ, with the occurrence abundantly noted, but for homo-sexual practices no such thing exists in the Word of God, rather unions are righteously and wisely prohibited and condemned! Not one instance of a man sexually "knowing" another man as with women is sanctioned, nor one instance of a man taking another man to wife, or was married to one, while Scripture abundantly records this between heterosexuals. And no real instance of approved romantic-sexual love between men is given, despite the desire by some see such!

And while David's expression of his friendship with Jonathan was the greatest one in the Old Testament concerning male to male relationships, David's remembrance stands in clear contrast to the greatest expression of male to female love by the latter's inclusion of the element which is utterly missing from Davids description, that of erotic love. From way before the time of Christ the Song of Solomon has stood in the Bible as the epitome of romantic love between man and woman, and nothing like it is given us even among the closest male to male Biblical relationships. Herein we see how the Creator is not neglectful to give unto us the truth needed for man and women to know and walk in His ways, and how He has made both uniquely compatible and complementary. And in contrast to the prohibitions against men lying with men, in the Song of Solomon the married union of the male and female union is unmistakably exalted, lovingly, romantically, and sexually.

There are perhaps a couple of other attempts purporting to find some intimation of homosexual relationships in the Bible, but they are so lacking in substance that i will not presently take the time to expose them, suffice to say that it is distressing to see souls so desirous to find evidence for God-sanctioned homo-erotic relationships that they read into texts conclusions which simply are not unwarranted, while in fact such are universally condemned.

But i will further address a point touched on before, which is the fallacy that the absence of homo-erotic relationships and of homosexual marriage is because it would have been hard for other cultures to accept homosexuality. Is God bound by culture so that He leaves out something that is essential for man's well-being, as homosexuals purport their relationships to be? An examination of Scriptures shows this is not the case, rather the Lord warned many times against conforming to the sins of other cultures, and it was cultures who practiced such sins as homosexual practices that were judged by God for such. The list of sins in Lv. 18 were things in which all the nations were defiled by, and for which iniquity God them cast out (Lv. 18:25). Under the New Covenant, while men such as Paul adapted to culture in the amoral realm, he preached against fleshly immorality, and warned that fornicators and "abusers of themselves with mankind," would keep one out of the Kingdom of God [while this verse (1Cor. 9-10 and 1Tim. 1:10) and the meaning of "Arsenokoitai" and "Malakoi" could also be examined - which i believe speak of homosexuals - in this treatise i am presently focusing on the more explicit texts concerning homosexual relations].

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 and affirms 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 possible that AIDS was passed onto humans through sexual relations with apes (or blood to blood contact), and as history shows, AIDS was initially spread primarily through the homosexual community.

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 heterosex