The Bible and Homosexual Practice
I hold no ill-will against homosexuals; however, a rigorous critique of same-sex intercourse can have the unintended effect of bringing personal pain to homosexuals, some of whom are already prone to self-loathing. This is why it needs to be stated right up front that to feel homosexual impulses does not make one a bad person. Whatever one thinks about the immorality of homosexual behavior, or about the abhorrent of elements within the homosexual lobby (see The Marketing of Evil, by David Kupellian, WND Books, Nashville, TN, 2005), homosexual impulses are just like all other sinful impulses of the flesh (Romans 7:14-25). A homosexual impulse cannot give birth to sin unless one gives in to it (James 1:13-15). The person with homosexual temptation, or practice, should evoke our concern, sympathy, help, and understanding, not our scorn or hatred. Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin (see the commentary on The Life of Christ, to see link click Em – Whoever Blasphemes Against the Holy Spirit Will Never Be Forgiven). We should love the sinner, but hate the sin.
A distinction in one’s head, on the one hand, and one’s heart, on the other hand, are two different things. For homosexuals, a denunciation of homosexuality may feel like an indictment of homosexuals. Regrettably, some of this pain may be unavoidable in the hope of doing away with the greater pain of living outside God’s redemptive plan. There can be no complete transformation so long as homosexuals live in a fantasy world, including the false belief about the Bible’s view of homosexuality. When a homosexual holds out hope that something in the teachings of Yeshua, or in the Scriptures generally, speaks positively about homosexuality, naturally there is going to be disappointment and sadness upon the discovery that nothing of the sort exists. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue; it is a sin issue.
One is reminded here of Paul’s sober remembrance of his tearful letter to the Corinthian believers (Second Corinthians 7:8-10). For Paul, causing them sorrow was not the objective. In reality, Paul regretted that they had to feel any sorrow at all, though from Paul’s perspective it was unavoidable. The objective was rather to wake up the Corinthian believers to the seriousness of the matter at hand so that the end result might be something greater than emotional tranquility . . . the salvation of those involved.
Introduction: I want to make two main points. First, there is clear, strong, and credible evidence that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin. Second, there exist no valid hermeneutical arguments, derived from either general principles of biblical interpretation or contemporary scientific knowledge and experience, for overriding the Bible’s authority on this matter.5
A. The Witness of the TaNaKh: Anyone wanting to know about the witness of the TaNaKh (or the Old Testament) to homosexual practice would expect to focus primarily on two texts: first, the narrative of the description of Sodom and Gomorrah (see the commentary on Genesis Eq – The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) and, second, the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness Code in Leviticus 18:22-23 and Leviticus 20:13. Indeed, attention to these texts is justly deserved. Yet a proper treatment of homosexual practice in the TaNaKh requires expanding the discussion to other key areas.
1. The Genesis creation stories (Genesis Chapters 1-2). The creation stories do not speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice. However, they do supply us with the broader context of ADONAI’s grand purposes at creation. As such, important implications for acceptable sexual practice arise out of them. The pinnacle of God’s creative work is human beings as creatures capable of receiving and carrying out commands from YHVH in relation to the rest of creation.
The creation of human beings corresponds closely to the attention given Sabbath rest in Genesis 2. This is so because only human beings, made in the image of YHVH and given the task of ruling the creation on His behalf (Psalm 8:5-8), are capable of, first, responding to ADONAI’s command to rest after every six days from the work of subduing the earth, and secondly, consciously worshiping the Creator on the seventh day. The pinnacle of God’s creative work is thus human beings as creatures capable of receiving and carrying out commands from Ha’Shem in relation to the rest of creation. Populating the earth is a precondition for ruling it, and procreation is a precondition for filling the earth. Males and females complementing each other is thereby secured in the divinely sanctioned work of governing creation. Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness! Let them rule over the fish . . . birds . . . cattle . . . wild animals . . . and over crawling creatures that crawl on the land. God created him in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them (Genesis 1:26-27). The family unit, and procreation, are vital for God’s people to discern His will for the created order and for communicating His will to the next generation.
In Genesis 2 the human is made even more of a focus of God’s attention than in Genesis 1. Adam is formed before the plants and animals (Genesis 2:5). Then ADONAI Elohim formed the man out of the dust of the ground and He breathed into his nostrils a breath of life (Genesis 2:7). YHVH delayed the creation of plants and animals until the creation of Adam. Animals were for the specific purpose of providing companionship and support for Adam. Yet, they were found to be unsuited for that role (Genesis 2:18-20). The solution that Ha’Shem arrived at was not the creation of another Adam, a duplication of the first, but rather to build a companion from Adam’s own rib (Genesis 2:21-22). The unique complementary relationship is stressed by Adam’s response when his helper was presented to him. This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called woman, for from man she was taken this one (Genesis 2:23). Only a being made from Adam can be someone with whom Adam longs to reunite in sexual intercourse and marriage, a reunion that not only provides companionship, but restores Adam to his original wholeness.
This is the very point made by the Ruach ha’Kodesh in the next verse: This is why a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife; and they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). The sexual union of a man and a woman in marriage, of two complementary beings, in effect makes possible a single, complete human being. So important is the notion of “attachment” and “clinging” taken, that the marital bond between a man and a woman takes precedence even over the bond with the parents who physically produced them. This provides the context for the God-ordained marriage relationship. Nothing is said about the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. The bottom line is that healthy things reproduce. Healthy plants reproduce, healthy animals reproduce, and healthy humans reproduce. Homosexual relationships cannot reproduce. Therefore, by the way God has set up the universe, they are unhealthy. Hence, we can see that from the very start of creation, the male and the female are “perfect fits” from the standpoint of divine design and blessing. Male and male, female and female, are not.6
2. Ham’s act and Noah’s curse (Genesis 9:20-27). Moshe tells us the story of how it came to be that the Canaanites were subjugated by the Israelites. What was Ham’s horrible crime? Was that slavery merely because Ham saw his father’s private parts? I think not. The curse resulted from Ham’s incestuous, homosexual rape of his father. There are six reasons for this conclusion.
First, the act took place inside Noah’s tent. What was Ham doing inside his father’s tent? Possibly the tent was understood to be off-limits to the sons, explaining why Shem and Japheth were outside and unaware. The cloak was Noah’s, why was it outside the tent? Ham brought it with him when he came outside the tent. But why would he bring his father’s cloak outside? You would think that would be the last thing he would want to do! It was the evidence he needed to establish the dominance of his lineage over that of his brothers.
Second, when Noah woke up from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had “done to him” – not the expression one would expect to describe an unintended glance or even voyeurism. The Bible says that Noah was uncovered in his tent (Genesis 9:21). Noah was drunk and passed out. Who uncovered him? The continuation in 9:22, then Ham, Canaan’s father, saw his father’s private parts (which need not be separated from 9:21 with a period) intimates that Ham committed the unspeakable act.
Third, and most important, the language of uncovering and seeing the nakedness connects with similar phrases referring to sexual intercourse. Leviticus uses the phrase uncover the nakedness of to point to incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11 and 17-21). In Leviticus 18:19 the same phrase is used for sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual cycle. The same phrase is used elsewhere in the Bible of prostitution and adultery, and of rape and/or public exposure for adultery (Ezekiel 22:10; Deuteronomy 22:30). In Leviticus 20:17, the expression sees his/her nakedness is used to describe sibling incest; in other instances, the phrase seeing the nakedness of merely implies an opportunity for rape.
Fourth, the claim that the text is concerned with Ham’s homosexual rape of his father is bolstered by the depiction of homosexual rape in a Mesopotamian omen text and the Egyptian myth of Horus and Seth; in other words, as attempts at emasculating, disgracing, and demonstrating one’s power over a rival. By raping his father, taking his cloak outside and telling his brothers of the act, Ham was attempting to establish his right to succeed his father as patriarch.
Fifth, the brothers’ actions in covering their father’s nakedness and taking great pains not to look at him is compatible with an interpretation of seeing their fathers’ nakedness as sexual intercourse. The brother’s actions play on the broader meaning of the phrase. Not only did the brothers not see their father’s nakedness in the sense of having sex with him, but also, they did not even dare to see their father’s nakedness in a literal sense. Where Ham’s act was exceedingly evil, their gesture was exceedingly pious and noble.
Sixth, and possibly the most important, understanding Ham’s action as incestuous, homosexual rape of his father explains the severity of the curse on Canaan. According to Leviticus 18:24-30, 20:22-26, the reason Ha’Shem decided to vomit out the Canaanites from the Land was their participation in such abominable practices as incest and homosexual intercourse, which is singled out for special attention as an abominable practice.
The thrust of Genesis 9:20-27 can be seen in the fact that the Canaanites deserved to be driven from the Land and made slaves because they were, and had always been, avid masters of immoral activity. Therefore, the punishment fits the crime. Just as Ham committed a heinous act with his seed (sperm), so too the curse fell on his seed (son, descendants).7
3. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-11). In Genesis 18, Abraham is visited by three “men,” who were actually the pre-incarnate Messiah and two angels. After Abraham’s and Sarah’s show of hospitality to the visitors (Genesis 18:1-8), and an assurance from one of the visitors that Sarah would give birth to a son (Genesis 18:9-15). ADONAI appeared to Abraham and told him that the two angels were being sent to see if the outcry against the people of Sodom and Gomorrah concerning their grievous sin was true (Genesis 18:20-21, 19:3). In the meantime, Abraham secured from YHVH an agreement not to destroy Sodom (the residence of his nephew Lot) if ten righteous people could be found (Genesis 18:22-33). When the two angels arrived, only Lot acted hospitably by taking the visitors into his home and exhibited further kindness (Genesis 19:1-3).
The scene depicted in the next two verses is almost unbelievable, for the true nature of Sodom’s sin is clearly revealed. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house (19:4). The word that these two men were in the city had spread very quickly. This was not an obnoxious minority, they were all there, both young and old. But there was not one righteous man to protest.
They called Lot in a not too subtle way: Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them (19:5). The name that has been put on this sin from that day to this is sodomy. Let there be no mistake about this. ADONAI hates homosexuality and says so in both Covenants. The TaNaKh says: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is hateful, or detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; also see Judges 19:16-23; First Kings 14:24, 15:12 and Second Kings 23:7).
Today gay theology starts with the undeniable truth that everyone, and in particular gay men and women, are included in God’s love. But then gay theology parts ways with the truth by its application. Like the men of Sodom, they preach a Gospel of inclusiveness (Galatians 1:1-9). The gay church cannot tell this truth: While the Gospel is for everyone and must be proclaimed to everyone, it does not include everyone. The ugly truth is that most will hear the Gospel, but never accept it . . . the Gospel divides (Matthew 10:35-66). The way between those who believe and submit and those who refuse and rebel is clear. This is the root of contention between the true believer and those who live a homosexual lifestyle and have not submitted to Yeshua Messiah. There will always be a conflict between true believers and the world around them (Mathew 7:13-14, 13:3-7; Mark 4:3-7; Luke 8:5-7
Paul said: Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. And that is what these men of Sodom were doing, mocking ADONAI. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature he will reap destruction (Galatians 6:7-8a, also see Job 4:8; Proverbs 1:31-33 and Hosea 8:7, 10:12). The Bible calls homosexuality, sin. There is no homosexual gene. That’s the big lie of today. If there were a gay gene then homosexuals wouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their depravity. They want to play the persecuted minority instead of facing their wicked actions. Make no mistake, as we approach the last days this shameless, evil epidemic of homosexuality will do nothing but increase. Like the men of Sodom, they will force you to make a stand. I beg you to make your stand with God and His Word. Thus, just as Canaan was cursed for Ham’s homosexual sin, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as a result of their homosexual sin.
4. Unlike stories, mitzvot are not open to interpretation, they are to be followed. Moses did not hand down the Ten Suggestions. The two mitzvot below occur in the context of a larger section in the TaNaKh referred to as the Holiness Code (Leviticus Chapters 17-26).
You are not to lie down with a man as with a woman – that is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, and they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them (Leviticus 20:13).
Six features are important for interpretation of these two mitzvot. First, Leviticus 18:22 occurs in a larger context of forbidden sexual relations that primarily outlaw incest (Leviticus 18:6-18), and also prohibits adultery (Leviticus 18:20), child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). These prohibitions continue to have universal validity in contemporary society.
Secondly, the degree of revulsion associated with the homosexual act is suggested by the specific attachment of the word abomination, indicating an obvious violation of boundaries established by Ha’Shem. In the concluding summary in Leviticus 18:24-30 all the practices in the chapter are described as abominations.
Thirdly, the penalty of death is extreme (Leviticus 20:13). Homosexual activity was not merely prohibited, but also regarded as a capital offense. In Leviticus Chapter 18, homosexual intercourse is listed along with other forbidden sexual acts for which an individual should be cut off (Hebrew: karath) from the people (Leviticus 18:29). Failure on the community’s part to take such an action against offenders would lead to the expulsion of the whole community from the land of Canaan, just as the previous inhabitants had been expelled for such abominable practices (Leviticus 18:24-30).
Fourthly, unlike the banning of homosexual rape in Middle Assyrian Laws, the mitzvot in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are unqualified and absolute. They neither penalize only oppressive forms of homosexuality nor excuse either party to the act. The question of whether the homosexual relationship is between an adult man and an adolescent boy does not enter the picture. The prohibition applies not only to the Israelite but also to the Gentile who lived among God’s people (Leviticus 18:26). There were no exceptions, including cultic prostitution.
Fifthly, contrary to the current trend of Jewish and Christian acceptance and accommodation of homosexuality, the entire context of the Holiness Code stresses the distinctive holiness of the people of God. The children of God are to imitate the holiness and purity of ADONAI and not the abominable and defiling practices of the world (Leviticus 18:1-5, 24-30, 19:2). The mitzvot of YHVH, and not the consensus of the surrounding culture, must shape the behavior of God’s people. The relation of the universal Church made up of Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:14) is, at least in part, supposed to be reforming rather than conforming.
Sixthly, as we shall see in C. The Witness of Paul, the prohibition against homosexuality is carried over into the B’rit Chadashah. The position adopted by Paul is not an anomaly but is consistent with the TaNaKh. The two covenants are in agreement.
Does the book of Leviticus in general, and specifically the Holiness Code, have any contemporary meaning to us today since we now live in the Dispensation of Grace and not the Dispensation of Torah? Obviously, on the one hand, one cannot say, “It is in the book of Leviticus, so obey it.” But on the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the mitzvot of the Holiness Code as irrelevant purity regulations for us today. Indeed, most of Leviticus Chapters 18-20 can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the Ten Commandments, which should be thought of as God’s blueprint for living (see the commentary on Exodus Dj – The Ten Commandments). Believers today do not have the option of simply dismissing a command because it belongs to the Holiness Code. The same God who gave us the commandments in the Dispensation of Torah, continues to regulate our conduct through the Ruach today.8
B. The Witness of Yeshua: Messiah made no direct or explicit comments on homosexual intercourse, just as He made no direct comments about many other important subjects. So, many proponents of homosexual relationships put a positive spin on the silence of Yeshua as regards to homosexual behavior. In a large sense, however, the Lord was not silent about homosexual behavior inasmuch as the likely data speaks loud and clear about Yeshua’s perspective. Four points confirm this claim.
1. The absolute stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Isra’el and the Judaism of Yeshua’s day, makes it highly unlikely that Messiah’s silence on the issue ought to be understood as acceptance, particularly given that Yeshua is the Word (John 1:-14), and the Author of the TaNaKh, which includes the Holiness Code. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by His apostles and disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. Moreover, Messiah stated: Do not think I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish, but to complete. Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah – not until everything that must happen has happened (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 16:17 CJB). At several points, Yeshua did prioritize the Torah’s core values and even amended the Torah by closing loopholes and expanding its demands. But at no time did He overturn a specific prohibition of the Torah, let alone a prohibition of sexual behavior serious enough to warrant the death penalty, which is exactly what He would have had to do with regard to the prohibition against homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Although Yeshua does not explicitly refer to homosexual intercourse, implicit references do exist. In Mark 7:21-23, Messiah interprets His saying about what defiles a person as follows: For out of the heart come evil thoughts – adultery . . . sexual immorality (Greek: porneiai) . . . lewdness . . . These are what defile a person (Matthew 15:19-20; Mark 7:21-23). No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20, which included homosexual intercourse. We also see an implicit reference to homosexual intercourse in Yeshua’s response to the rich young ruler who inquired about the requirements of eternal life (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Il – The Rich Young Ruler). Yeshua began by reciting portions of the Ten Commandments, including the prohibition of adultery, which would implicitly reject all homosexual intercourse.
2. Messiah’s appeal to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his discussion of divorce in Mark 10:1-12 confirms His embrace of an exclusively heterosexual model of monogamy. Yeshua, then, understood that marriage was ordained by Ha’Shem from the beginning of creation, as the union of man and woman, not of a man and another man, or a woman with another woman. The creation texts authorized only one type of sexual union. It would have been a foregone conclusion for Messiah that homosexual relationships and bestiality, both forbidden in Leviticus, were unacceptable. The whole point of Yeshua’s stance in Mark 10:1-12 is not to broaden the Torah’s openness to alternative forms of sexuality, but rather to narrow and constrain sexual activity other than a monogamous lifelong marriage to a person of the opposite sex.
In Genesis 2:18-24, Adam is literally dismembered. His side is split open in order to provide for him the companionship of a complementary being. Marriage between a man and a woman reunites these representatives of two genders into one flesh, and is not simply a union of two individuals. The missing part of man is found in women and vice versa. Sexual intercourse or marriage between members of the same sex does not restore the disunion because it does not reconnect complementary beings. An alternative pattern of sexuality requires an alternative creation myth. In short, there simply is no place in the Genesis account to accommodate a basis for same-sex unions.
3. Yeshua’s positions on other matters having to do with sexual ethics were generally more – not less – rigorous than those of His surrounding culture. The impression one gets from Matthew 5:27-32 is that Messiah took sexual sin very seriously – in some respects more seriously than the prevailing culture in first-century Palestine. He regarded all sexual activity (thoughts and deeds) outside of lifelong marriage to one person of the opposite sex capable of jeopardizing one’s entrance into the Kingdom of God. In relation to our own cultural context, Yeshua’s views on sex represent, on the whole, a very conservative position. Those who find in the gospel’s a Yeshua who is a prophet of tolerance, who forgives and accepts all (except, perhaps, the intolerant), regardless of behavioral change, is revisionist history at its worst.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Messiah would have held some sort of secret acceptance of homosexuality in the face of uniform opposition within the Judaism of His day. The portrayal of a Yeshua who was open to homosexual practice is simply not true. All the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Why then, did Yeshua not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that He didn’t encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry, and thus had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also didn’t address other sexual issues such as incest or bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on it.
What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is the historical Messiah is no defender of homosexual behavior, or was even homosexual Himself as some modern-day homosexual supporters’ state. On the contrary, Yeshua, both in what He says and what He fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice. At the same time, the model of Yeshua’s behavior toward sexually immoral people can be compared with the model of His behavior toward those who routinely exploit others for economic gain. The Church can, and should, recapture our Lord’s zeal for all the lost and sick of society, including those engaged in homosexual practice. It is not unforgivable. To be more specific, it means visiting their homes, eating with them, speaking and acting out of love rather than hate, communicating the Good News, throwing a party when they repent and return home, and then reintegrating them fully into the community of faith.9
C. The Witness of Paul: As we have seen, the TaNaKh is unanimous in its rejection of homosexual practice. Yeshua also rejected homosexuality. These are important witnesses for believers to consider, but they are not by themselves conclusive. Yeshua did not speak directly to the issue. However, He confirms the authority of the witness of the TaNaKh against homosexuality. This lays a firm foundation for us, but the Bible is not finished in its objection to homosexuality. It is left, then, to Paul to provide clear instruction for the churches of his day, and ours, on homosexuality.
1. Romans 1:24-27: With good reason these verses are commonly seen as the central text for the issue of homosexual conduct on which believers must base their moral doctrine. This is true for several reasons. It is the most substantial and explicit discussion of the issue in the Bible. It is located within the B’rit Chadashah. It makes an explicit statement not only about homosexuality among men, but also among lesbians. It is also the most difficult text for proponents of homosexuality to refute.
Therefore, refers back to the reasons Paul has just given (see the commentary on Romans, to see link click Al – The Evidence Against the Pagan Gentile). God has given them up, literally, God handed them over (as punishment for rejecting the general revelation that is available to them) to the vileness of their hearts’ lusts, to the shameful misuse of each other’s bodies (1:24). There comes a point of no return. YHVH will not violate the free will of the pagan Gentile and force him to do something he does not want to do. And after the Ruach Ha’Kodesh has wooed someone, and that person says, “No,” and hardens their heart over and over and over and over again. ADONAI finally says, “Alright, this breaks My heart, but I am going to accept that you want nothing to do with Me.” And like Pharaoh, Ha’Shem hardens his heart (Exodus 9:12). Ha’Shem doesn’t condemn anyone to hell. But they end up there because they have chosen their own destiny by rejecting the Ruach Ha’Kodesh.
They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And after a while they couldn’t discern the truth from the lie of the Adversary. Scripture often speaks of God as being the Truth, as Yeshua described Himself (John 14:6). To reject YHVH, the Father of Truth, is to become vulnerable to Satan, the father of lies (John 8:44). Paul goes on to say that when people turned from God and His truth, they then worshiped and served created things, rather than the Creator. Perhaps unable to continue discussing such vile things without “coming up for air,” as it were, Paul inserts a common Jewish doxology about the true God, the Creator, praised be He forever. Amen (1:25). He could not resist adding that refreshing thought in the sea of filth he was describing. That word of praise to ADONAI served, by utter contrast, to magnify the wickedness of idolatry and all other ungodliness.
From idolatry to immorality is just one short step. Homosexuality was rife throughout the first-century Roman Empire, as it is today. This is why the “Gay Liberation movement” can gain wide acceptance as it seeks equality, and approval of homosexuals and their behavior. It is why the Metropolitan Community Church, with tens of thousands of members in the United States, can refuse to condemn homosexual behavior as sin, yet seek acceptance as a Christian denomination. It is why unbelievers condemn the Christian community when it rejects MCC’s claim and refuses to recognize homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle.”
Multitudes of activists have succeeded in their goal of transforming society. As public relations campaigns go, it’s been an unqualified success (see The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian). But, because of the mitzvot in the TaNaKh, homosexuality has never been accepted as a part of Judaism. Nevertheless, direct quotes from the Bible regarding homosexuality are routinely condemned as “hate speech.” Their campaign will not end until believers and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor they’ve forgotten about in their cleverness, namely, there is something wrong with homosexuality. Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive.10
For this reason, because of mankind’s rejecting the true God for false gods of their own making, God has given them up to degrading passions, so that their women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural. And likewise, the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with lust for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men, and receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (1:26-27). There is a burning level of lust among homosexuals that defies description and is rarely known among heterosexuals. The homosexuals of Sodom were so passionately consumed with their lust that they ignored the fact that they were struck blind while still trying to get to the two angels to have sex with them (Genesis 19:11). Those ancient people were so morally perverse that in the Bible the name Sodom became a byword for immoral godlessness, and sodomy, a term derived from the name, became throughout history a synonym for homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviation.11
2. First Corinthians 6:9-11: Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t deceive yourselves – people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who are effeminate (Greek: malakoi, meaning soft to the touch) or engage in homosexuality (Greek: arsenokoitai, meaning male-bedders, using the same language as Leviticus 18:22), who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob – none of them will share in the Kingdom of God (6:9-10). Paul’s purpose here is not to give a laundry list of sins that will indicate one has lost their salvation. There are no such sins. Since we can do no work to gain our salvation, we can do no work to lose our salvation. The only unforgivable sin is the rejection of the Ruach Ha’Kodesh (Matthew 12:31). Rather, he is giving a list of unbelievers who are typical of the unsaved, unrighteous, unjustified. If they had not accepted Yeshua Messiah as their Lord and Savior, none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.
Paul can hardly bring himself to conclude on the preceding note of warning, especially since it might leave the impression that the Corinthians were actually among the wicked. He brings the whole matter to a close by reaffirming:12 Some of you used to “do” these things. The Bible never uses homosexuality as a noun, it is always, used as a verb. An action, not a state of being. But (Greek: alla) you have cleansed yourselves, but (alla) you have been set apart for God, but (alla) you have come to be counted righteous through the power of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah and the Spirit of our God (6:11). The tenses of the verbs indicate a completed action. And the repeated word but (alla) before each verb in the Greek adds emphasis to their break with the past and has been included in my translation even though it may sound awkward in English.12 Now, because of all that God had done for them (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Bw – What God Does for us at the Moment of Faith), they had an obligation to God to use their bodies for His service and His glory. The Corinthian church, as churches today, had ex-fornicators, ex-adulterers, ex-homosexuals, ex-thieves, ex-alcoholics, and so on. Though many believers have never been guilty of these specific sins, every believer was sinful before he or she was saved. Every believer is an ex-sinner, so to speak. And Messiah came for the purpose of saving sinners (Matthew 9:13). The great strength of the gospel is that no person has sinned too deeply or too long to be saved.13
3. First Timothy 1:8-10: We know that the Torah is good, provided one uses it in the way the Torah itself intends. One of the purposes of the Torah is to show people their sinfulness (see the commentary on Galatians Bm – The Torah Became our Guardian to Lead Us to Messiah). In the context of false teachers who said that salvation was obtained through rigid observance of the 613 mitzvot in the Torah (see Galatians Ag – Who Were the Judaizers?), Paul provided a striking list of examples that seems to be intentionally based on the Ten Words (see the commentary on Deuteronomy Bk – The Ten Words) with three triads. Paul declared that we are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous. The first grouping deals with sins against ADONAI, those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly. The second grouping represents violations of the fifth, sixth, and seventh mitzvot: for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral – both heterosexual and homosexual (Greek: pornos, from where we get pornography). The third grouping pictures the sins of the eighth, ninth, and tenth mitzvot, who are slave traders, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound doctrine. These verses make clear that certain behavior, including certain sexual behaviors, cannot be a part of the life of a faithful believer. Paul notes that, while believers have freedom in Messiah (see the commentary on Romans Bu – The New Freedom in Messiah), we need to live according to God’s Word and not according to our old sin nature.
Paul directly addresses the issue of homosexuality, and rejects such behavior for the believer and unbeliever alike. With regard to Romans 1:24-27, both idolatry and homosexuality are singled out by Paul as particularly clear and revolting examples of the suppression of the truth of God’s Word. In addition, people who engage in homosexual behavior do so in spite of the obvious . . . the parts fit and function appropriately male to female and not male to male or female to female.14 It is important to understand that ADONAI created healthy things to reproduce: healthy plants reproduce, healthy animals reproduce, and healthy humans reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce and therefore homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intended design.
D. The Biblical Witness: Pro-homosexual apologists often claim that biblical prohibitions against same-sex relationships are only found in the TaNaKh. They paint a picture of “the God of the Old Testament” as being “the mean God,” and picture Yeshua as “the good God” of the New Testament going around kissing babies and accepting everyone’s lifestyle because He is the God of love. “Love is love,” you’ve probably heard that one before. But like everything else in the marketing of evil, this is a total lie. On the one hand, there are eleven biblical texts condemning homosexuality in the Bible. Seven in the TaNaKh: Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22, 29-30; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:16-24; First Kings 14:24; First Kings 15:12, and Second Kings 23:7, and four in the B’rit Chadashah: Romans 1:18-32; First Corinthians 6:9-11; First Timothy 1:8-10, and Jude 7. These are some of the words that the Spirit of God uses to describe homosexual behavior: detestable, cut-off, defiled, a wicked thing, vile, an outrageous thing, the wrath of God, godlessness, without excuse, fools, sinful desires, impurity, degrading their bodies, unnatural relations, inflamed with shameful lust and acts, penalty, sexually immoral, perverse, rebellious, ungodly and unholy. On the other hand, there are no positive examples of homosexual relationships in the Bible. These scriptures from both the TaNaKh and B’rit Chadashah are quite sobering.
We must remember that homosexuality in the Bible is always used as a verb and not a noun. Because of our fallen nature, we all have thoughts in our minds that we shouldn’t have, be it money, sex, or power. Therefore, someone who has homosexual thoughts, but does not act on them, is not a homosexual. Hopefully, as we are conformed into the likeness of Messiah (Romans 8:29), the lifelong process of sanctification will aid us in taking every thought captive (see the commentary on Second Corinthians Bt – Winning the Spiritual War).
Leave A Comment