|
|
|
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources
|
|
| Home > Questions and Answers > Is Homosexuality a Sin? | Email this article |
|
Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is it a sin?" Answer: I'm a heterosexual person, and I've been this way for as long as I can remember. I don't believe that I chose to be this way, so as far as I know I must have been born this way (which doesn't mean that God caused me to be born a certain way, because there are numerous things which can affect a baby's development in the womb such as genetic issues, and the types of foods that the mother eats during pregnancy, and the types of drugs/nicotine/alcohol that the mother uses during pregnancy, and certain injuries that the mother sustains during pregnancy, and the mother's stress levels during pregnancy, and the mother's illnesses during pregnancy, and even demonic afflictions during pregnancy). If the Bible said that the only acceptable form of marriage is a homosexual marriage, and the only acceptable form of sexual activity is homosexual activity, then I would struggle with that. I don't have any romantic or sexual attraction towards members of my own gender, I'm only attracted towards members of the opposite gender. I would imagine that all heterosexuals feel they were born this way, and they wouldn't want to be told that they must have a homosexual marriage. The same is true for homosexuals, because they feel they were born this way, and they don't want to be told that they must have a heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals can easily understand that it's not a sin to have the feelings described in my first paragraph. But notice that if having these feelings is not a sin, then it's not a sin for homosexuals to have these feelings. In most dictionaries that I've checked, the primary definition for homosexuality is essentially sexual attraction towards persons of one's own gender. Having a romantic or sexual attraction towards someone else is not a sin in the Bible, and therefore homosexuality is not a sin. For example, if an unmarried man and an unmarried woman are romantically and sexually attracted to each other, this isn't a sin in the Bible. If they hold hands, this isn't a sin in the Bible. If they kiss, this isn't a sin in the Bible. Being attracted to someone and holding hands and kissing before marriage, these things are not sins. Therefore, if two unmarried men are attracted to each other and hold hands and kiss, then they haven't committed a sin (and the same is true for two unmarried women). But if homosexuality is not a sin (based on the primary definition of homosexuality), then what about sexual activity between two people of the same gender? Is that a sin? Consider that when we think of sex, we tend to think of it in its most narrow definition, meaning sexual intercourse. In most dictionaries that I've checked, the primary definition of sexual intercourse is the insertion of the penis into the vagina. The secondary definition of sexual intercourse includes other forms of genital contact such as oral sex and anal sex. The Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin (see my article called Is Premarital Sex a Sin?), but the Bible never explicitly defines what constitutes sex. In other words, if two unmarried people begin touching each other in different ways, at what point have they crossed the line and committed the sin of premarital sex? The Bible doesn't give us such specific details. Certainly sexual intercourse would be over the line, but it's possible that God's intention is that all forms of touching between two people for sexual pleasure are meant to be reserved for marriage. What it boils down to is that if two people (not married to each other) are touching in a way which causes sexual pleasure, then they're in the danger zone and they don't really know at what point they have crossed the line into sexual sin. The best way to honor God is to stay out of the danger zone and save all forms of sexual touching for marriage. Therefore, the question of whether sexual activity between people of the same gender is a sin or not is really a question of whether same-sex marriages are acceptable in God's eyes. One obvious place to begin searching for the answer to this question is by looking at the very first couple. Adam and Eve
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." ... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day." (Genesis 1:26-28,31)Here are some interesting points in the above passages:
Homosexuals sometimes say that God included the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis simply because He intended to populate the earth, not because He intended to forbid every marriage model which is different from the Adam and Eve model. In addition, homosexuals sometimes say that the two-person nature of Adam and Eve's marriage wasn't used in Genesis as a reason for forbidding polygamy, and in the same way the heterosexual nature of their marriage doesn't forbid same-sex marriages. Are There Homosexual Couples in the Old Testament?
Homosexuals sometimes say that Ruth and Naomi (in the book of Ruth), and Daniel and Ashpenaz (Daniel chapter 1), and David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-4, 21, 20:17, 2 Samuel 1:26) are examples of homosexual couples in the Bible. However, if you read the book of Ruth then you'll find that Ruth and Naomi cared for each other as daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. There are no descriptions of homosexuality between Ruth and Naomi. If you read the first chapter of Daniel then you'll see that it doesn't describe any homosexuality between Daniel and Ashpenaz. Now, consider that two men can express love towards each other, and they can swear an oath to each other, and they can enter into a covenant with each other, etc., without being homosexuals. There are different types of love, and different types of oaths, and different types of covenants, and so on. Therefore, when the Bible says that David and Jonathan "loved" each other, this doesn't prove that they were homosexuals. For example, 1 Samuel 18:16 says that all Israel and Judah loved David, but it would be erroneous to assume that all of the men in Israel and Judah were homosexuals just because they "loved" David. In 1 Samuel 18:1, 3, 20:17, and 2 Samuel 1:26 there are two Hebrew words which are used to describe the "love" that Jonathan and David felt for each other: 'ahab, which can mean "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)," "love," "like," or "friend," according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, and 'ahabah, which means "love," according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary. These two Hebrew words are sometimes used in the Bible to describe the love that a husband and wife feel for each other (e.g. Genesis 24:67 and 29:20), but these two Hebrew words are also used in the following ways: "Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love ['ahab], and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."" (Genesis 22:2)In the above passages we see "love" ('ahab) in the sense of a father's love for his son, and we see "love" ('ahab) in the sense of liking certain foods, and we see "love" ('ahabah) in the sense of God's love for Israel, and we see "love" ('ahabah) in the sense of friendship. Therefore, when the Bible says that Jonathan and David "loved" each other (using the Hebrew words 'ahab and 'ahabah, as in the above passages), this doesn't mean that they were homosexuals. There are no references to any homosexual activity between Jonathan and David in the Bible, so it's reasonable that they loved each other as brothers and that their relationship was forged even stronger as brothers-in-arms during war (an emotional bond which can be deeper in some ways than the love of a woman, as David says in 2 Samuel 1:26, where he specifically calls Jonathan "my brother"). Homosexuals also say that Jonathan and David were homosexuals because they "kissed" each other: "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed [nashaq] each other and wept together--but David wept the most. Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.'" Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town." (1 Samuel 20:41-42)In order to understand what was going on here, we need to look at the context. David believed that King Saul (Jonathan's father) wanted to kill David, but Jonathan didn't realize that his father wanted David dead (1 Samuel 20:1-2). Jonathan said that if his father wanted to kill David, then Jonathan would warn David and send him away safely (1 Samuel 20:12-13). Then Jonathan discovered that King Saul did in fact want to kill David, so Jonathan met David secretly to warn him and send him away (perhaps forever). They "kissed" each other (1 Samuel 20:41, above) and confirmed their oath of friendship (1 Samuel 20:42, above), and then David left. Notice that when David and Jonathan "kissed" each other, the Hebrew word for "kiss" in the above passage is nashaq. This Hebrew word is used when Jacob kissed his father Isaac (Genesis 27:26-27), and when Laban kissed his nephew Jacob (Genesis 29:13), and when Esau kissed his brother Jacob (Genesis 33:4), and when Samuel kissed Saul (1 Samuel 10:1), and when the king kissed Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:39), and when Joab kissed Amasa (2 Samuel 20:9), and so on. This Hebrew word is used numerous times in the Bible when men kissed each other in non-homosexual ways (e.g. on the cheeks), so the above passage doesn't mean that Jonathan and David were homosexuals. In some cultures (especially in the Middle East) it's not uncommon for men to kiss on both cheeks when greeting each other or when departing from each other. For example, a CNN news article about the Middle East said that "Iranian President Mohammad Khatami kissed Prince Abdullah on both cheeks in a traditional greeting" (see Islamic leaders to discuss unity  ,
emphasis added). Jonathan and David lived in the Middle East, and they were departing from each other (perhaps forever), so it's reasonable and normal that they would kiss on both cheeks.
Homosexuals also say that Jonathan "disrobed" in front of David: "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt [or "girdle" in some translations]. Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well." (1 Samuel 18:3-5)Notice that this passage doesn't say that Jonathan removed all of his clothes, and notice that there's no indication of any sexual activity here. This passage simply says that Jonathan was giving some of his possessions to David. Sometimes homosexuals acknowledge this fact, but they say that Jonathan was "turning the symbols of his manhood over to David." However, this interpretation ignores the culture that Jonathan and David were living in. For example, here's what a Bible commentary says about this passage: "3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant --Such covenants of brotherhood are frequent in the East. They are ratified by certain ceremonies, and in presence of witnesses, that the persons covenanting will be sworn brothers for life.So 1 Samuel 18:3-5 (above) describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, and it describes Jonathan bestowing a high honor on David. None of this is homosexual in nature. Another argument that homosexuals sometimes make is that Jonathan had chosen David as his marriage partner: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die." (1 Samuel 20:30-31, KJV)The homosexual argument is that the "nakedness" in the above passage is a reference to sexual relations, and therefore the context implies that Jonathan had "chosen" David in a sexual way (in other words, Jonathan wanted to have a homosexual marriage with David). This argument goes on to say that King Saul was angry at this because Jonathan could not be established as king unless he had a female spouse who could produce heirs for him. However, there are several problems with this argument. For one thing, notice whose "nakedness" is being described in the above passage. The expression "thy mother's nakedness" refers to Jonathan's mother. There are no sexual relations between Jonathan and David being implied here, and there are no sexual relations involving Jonathan's mother being implied here. This passage has nothing to do with sex or marriage, whether homosexual or otherwise. The context of this passage describes King Saul's hatred for David, and Saul's desire to kill David. Jonathan and David loved each other as brothers, and they had sworn a covenant of friendship with each other (as we have seen). In the above passage, King Saul was angry at his son Jonathan for taking David's side against Saul, not because of any homosexuality between Jonathan and David. For example, here's how the NIV translates the above passage: "Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse [i.e. David] to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"" (1 Samuel 20:30-31)When we understand the context of the above passages and we understand the culture in which Jonathan and David lived, it's easy to see that these passages don't describe any homosexuality between Jonathan and David. Were Jonathan and David "Married"?
Homosexuals sometimes claim that Jonathan and David are an example of a married homosexual couple in the Bible. The evidence for this view combines the above arguments (which claim that Jonathan and David were homosexuals) with 1 Samuel 18:21, in which King Saul told David that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David would become Saul's son-in-law a second time. Here is 1 Samuel 18:20-21 in several translations of the Bible: "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."" (1 Samuel 18:20-21, NIV)We can see that Bible translators have had difficulty with the Hebrew wording in this passage and have interpreted it in different ways. It's unclear whether David became Saul's son-in-law a second time, or whether he had a second opportunity to become Saul's son-in-law, or whether Saul spoke to David a second time about being his son-in-law. Homosexuals say that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David became Saul's son-in-law a second time because David was already married to Saul's son Jonathan. However, this assumes a homosexual relationship between Jonathan and David which is not supported in the Bible, and it ignores a more reasonable explanation for how David could become Saul's son-in-law a second time. In order to see how David could become Saul's son-in-law a second time, we need to understand what it meant to be "betrothed" back then. In those days, if a woman was betrothed (pledged to be married), but she slept with another man, this was considered to be adultery even though she was not formally married yet. In order to break a betrothal it essentially required a divorce, even though the man and woman were not formally married yet. Here's what some Bible commentators have said about this Old Testament bond of betrothal: "Adultery in the Old Testament is described as intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man other than her husband." (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, p.201, emphasis added)So an ancient Jewish betrothal was a binding agreement prior to marriage, and the man and woman were considered to be husband and wife even before the official marriage ceremony. Here are some examples of this in the Bible: "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married ['aras, meaning "betroth" or "espouse," according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary] and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife ['ishshah, the same Hebrew word that's used for Adam's wife in Genesis 2:25 and 3:8]." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)In Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (above), notice that "a virgin pledged to be married" was considered to be a wife. In Matthew 1:18-19 (above), notice that Mary was "pledged to be married" to Joseph, and that Joseph intended to divorce her when he found out that she was pregnant. So in those days, if a woman was pledged to be married to a man then she was considered to be his wife, even before the official marriage ceremony. The reason why this is significant is because King Saul had pledged his eldest unmarried daughter, Merab, in marriage to the man who killed Goliath: "David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and greeted his brothers. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. When the Israelites saw the man, they all ran from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, "Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his father's family from taxes in Israel."" (1 Samuel 17:22-25)David was the one who killed Goliath, and therefore Merab was betrothed to marry David. Since a betrothed woman was considered to be a wife, this meant that David was essentially Saul's son-in-law. Later, in 1 Samuel 18:17-18, King Saul offered to "give" Merab to David in marriage (conveniently ignoring the fact that he had already pledged Merab to David for killing Goliath), but then King Saul broke his pledge by giving Merab to another man. Here's what a Bible commentary says about this: "Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife --Though bound to this already [1 Samuel 17:25], he had found it convenient to forget his former promise. He now holds it out as a new offer, which would tempt David to give additional proofs of his valor. But the fickle and perfidious monarch broke his pledge at the time when the marriage was on the eve of being celebrated, and bestowed Merab on another man; an indignity as well as a wrong, which was calculated deeply to wound the feelings and provoke the resentment of David. Perhaps it was intended to do so, that advantage might be taken of his indiscretion. But David was preserved from this snare." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown CommentarySo King Saul had pledged his eldest daughter Merab to David (because David was the one who killed Goliath), and this betrothal essentially caused David to become Saul's son-in-law even before the official wedding ceremony (as we have seen). Saul then broke his pledge and gave Merab to another man (1 Samuel 18:19). This is the context in which Saul said that David would become Saul's son-in-law a second time by marrying Saul's daughter Michal (or that David would have a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law): "Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD." For Saul said to himself, "I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!" But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my family or my father's clan in Israel, that I should become the king's son-in-law?" So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah. Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."" (1 Samuel 18:17-21)This explanation is more reasonable than saying that Saul's son Jonathan was married to David, especially when there's no Scriptural support for the view that Jonathan and David were homosexuals. In fact, if Jonathan and David were considered to be married then the above passage should say that David had a third opportunity to become Saul's son-in-law rather than saying that David had a second opportunity. There's no Scriptural evidence that either Jonathan or David were homosexuals, and there's no precedent in Scripture for assuming that Jonathan and David could have been considered married even if they were homosexuals, and we'll see in a moment that the Law of Moses specifically condemned homosexual activity as a sin punishable by death. Jesus Confirmed the Account of Creation
In the New Testament, Jesus confirmed that the only valid "one flesh" union is between a man and a woman: "[Jesus is speaking] "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [Genesis 1:27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? [Genesis 2:24] So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."" (Matthew 19:4-6)Notice that Jesus quoted from two different parts of the Creation account (Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24), and therefore Jesus gave divine authority and divine approval to the literal interpretation of Creation. Jesus pointed out that the first two humans were created "male and female," and He said that for this reason a man will be united to his wife, and they will become "one flesh." In other words, there's a reason why a man and a woman will get married and become "one flesh." The reason is because the original woman was taken out of the original man, as we saw earlier. Then Jesus said that they are no longer two people, they are one, and that they've been joined together by God. Jesus described all of this in specific reference to a man and a woman, and neither Jesus nor the human authors of the New Testament (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) ever applied this principle to homosexual unions. Two men can't become "one flesh" together, and two women can't become "one flesh" together. Whether we like it or not, we're seeing that the Bible never gives approval to homosexual marriages or same-sex unions. What Is God's View of Homosexual Activity?
Now let's take a look at an example of how God feels about homosexual activity: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable [tow'ebah in Hebrew]." (Leviticus 18:22)The NIV says that if a man lies with a man as with a woman, it's "detestable" to God (the KJV, the Amplified Version, and the NASB all translate the Hebrew word tow'ebah as an "abomination"). This verse describes homosexual activity, and God clearly says that He detests it. Homosexuals argue that this verse is not a general condemnation of all homosexual activity because it doesn't include lesbianism. However, what we're about to see is that women were held responsible for sexual sins just as men were. It's important for us to recognize that the activity described in the above verse is "an abomination" and is "detestable" to God. Therefore, we need to make an honest effort to understand what God means in this verse so that we don't do something which God has denounced. To get a better understanding of Leviticus 18:22 (above), let's back up and look at verses 7 through 23: Leviticus 18:7: ""'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."The above verses describe sexual sins, and the majority of these commands were specifically directed to men. Therefore, we might assume that it was not a sin for women to commit similar sexual acts, but our assumption would be wrong. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved must be punished along with the men: Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 (above) describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this doesn't mean that women were excluded from those commands. As we just saw, we must be careful about the assumptions that we make, and we should be careful about assuming that the homosexual activity described above only applied to men. Notice that homosexual activity was so detestable to God that the people involved had to be put to death: Leviticus 20:13: ""'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [tow'ebah in Hebrew]. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."This demonstrates how much God detests homosexual activity. Even though the above Old Testament commands were canceled when Jesus died on the cross (see Part Three of my series called Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments), God's attitude towards homosexual activity hasn't changed. For example, in a few moments we'll look at some New Testament passages which demonstrate that God still detests homosexual activity. He loves homosexuals, always remember that, but He hates all forms of sin. Some homosexuals argue that Leviticus 18:22 (above) refers to cultic idolatry in the form of male temple prostitution, or that it refers to some other specific form of homosexual activity rather than describing homosexual activity in general. Notice that the preceding verse (Leviticus 18:21, above) does refer to a form of idolatry, but it has nothing to do with male temple prostitution. It's a huge stretch to use Leviticus 18:21 for making the argument that Leviticus 18:22 is referring to male temple prostitution. In fact, the very next verse (Leviticus 18:23, above) talks about having sex with animals, which has nothing to do with male temple prostitution. So the context of Leviticus 18:22 does not in any way indicate that cultic prostitution is the sin being described rather than general homosexual activity. In fact, we can demonstrate this even further by looking at Leviticus 20:10-21 (above). In verse 13 we see the exact same reference to homosexual activity, and the entire context of that verse relates to a variety of sexual sins. There's no idolatry in view here. Examples of Homosexual Activity in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament there are two stories which contain homosexual references. The first story takes place in Sodom: "The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."" (Genesis 19:1-8)Concerning the story of Sodom, homosexuals sometimes point out that there are no homosexuals mentioned as living in Sodom, and there are no homosexual acts mentioned as being committed in Sodom, and there are no loving, committed gay relationships mentioned in Sodom, and the Bible never says that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality. In the above passage, notice that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the two male "travelers" (angels) who were staying with Lot. This implies that the men of Sodom were demanding to have homosexual sex with the two travelers, but it wouldn't have been consensual sex. It would have been a gang rape. In that culture, the rules of hospitality said that travelers who stayed with someone were under the protection of their host, which was a responsibility that was taken seriously by the host. For example, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says that "A man who had taken a stranger under his care and protection, was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life" (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, from http://www.e-sword.net/commentaries.html ,
Genesis 19:8). Probably for this reason, Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd rather than violating the protection of the travelers who were under his roof. Lot's decision might be disgusting to us, but notice that the wickedness in this story seems to be more focused on the intentions of gang rape rather than the intentions of homosexual sex. Even so, this doesn't change the fact that the men wanted to have homosexual sex with the two "travelers," which was a sin punishable by death (as we saw a moment ago).
So in the above passage, the men of Sodom expressed their intentions of homosexual activity and gang rape. Now notice what Jude said about these wicked people (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit): "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)In the above verse the NIV uses the word "perversion," but the Greek is more literally translated as "going after strange flesh," as in these examples from other translations of the Bible: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh" (Jude 1:7, KJV)Here's what some Bible commentaries say about this "strange flesh": "going after strange flesh --departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural. In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown CommentaryBible commentaries tend to interpret "strange flesh" as being a reference to homosexuality (meaning that it's "strange" for a man to be sexually attracted to other men). However, homosexuals say that if this passage is meant to refer to homosexuality then it should say "same flesh" instead of "strange flesh." Sometimes people say that the "strange flesh" is really a reference to "angelic flesh." The idea is that the context of Jude 1:7 (above) describes angels who impregnated human women in Noah's time, which implies that the angels had flesh of some kind. According to this view, the sin of the men of Sodom was their desire to have sex with angels, and this type of union was so detestable to God in Noah's time that God wiped out most of the human race in the Flood. Therefore (according to this view), homosexuality was not really the issue in the story about Sodom. One problem with this view is that there's no evidence that the men of Sodom knew that the two "travelers" were angels. For example, Genesis 19:1-8 (above) says that "all the men ['enowsh] from every part of the city of Sodom [said] 'Where are the men ['enowsh] who came to you tonight?'" In other words, the men of Sodom referred to the two travelers as men, not as angels. In addition, Jude 1:7 (above) tells us that not only did the men of Sodom go after "strange flesh," but also the people of Gomorrah and the cities around them committed the same sins. It's very unlikely that the men of Gomorrah and the other cities all had angels that they wanted to have sex with. Rather, it's more likely that the intentions of homosexual activity and gang rape were representative of the types of sexual sins being committed by those people. As Jude 1:7 (above) says, they "gave themselves up to sexual immorality," which indicates a pattern of ongoing sexual sins. So the men of Sodom were not punished for lusting after these two angels (as some people claim), but rather they were punished because they had given themselves over to sexual sins. We can demonstrate this even further by noticing that God intended to destroy Sodom even before the two angels arrived there: "Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." ... Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home. The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground." (Genesis 18:17-19:1)God intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the angels arrived in Sodom, and therefore the sin of the men of Sodom was not that they lusted after these two angels. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for wanting to have sex with angels, nor were they specifically destroyed for homosexual activity. They were destroyed because they had given themselves up to all sorts of sexual sins. Homosexuals sometimes say that homosexual activity was not a sin in the above story of Sodom because throughout the Bible, no other passage about Sodom mentions any homosexual activity. The problem is that this argument is misleading. Apart from the passages we've looked at, Sodom is mentioned in 41 other verses in the Bible (here are the references: Genesis 10:19, 13:10, 12, 13, 14:2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22, 18:16, 19:24, 28, Deuteronomy 29:23, 32:32, Isaiah 1:9, 10, 3:9, 13:19, Jeremiah 23:14, 49:18, 50:40, Lamentations 4:6, Ezekiel 16:46, 48, 49-50, 53, 55, 56, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15, 11:23, 24, Luke 10:12, 17:29, Romans 9:29, 2 Peter 2:6, Revelation 11:8). With only a single exception, those verses don't mention any of the sins of Sodom, and this is why homosexual activity is not mentioned in those verses. Therefore, that argument is misleading. The one passage elsewhere in the Bible which describes some of the sins of Sodom is Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things [tow'ebah] before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekiel 16:49-50)We saw earlier in Leviticus 18:22 that God calls homosexual activity "detestable" (using the Hebrew word tow'ebah), and we saw in Leviticus 20:13 that God once again calls homosexual activity "detestable" (using that same Hebrew word tow'ebah). This is the very same Hebrew word which is used in Ezekiel 16:49-50 (above) to describe the sins of Sodom. The Bible tells us that homosexual acts are "detestable" things (tow'ebah), and the above passage says that the men of Sodom did "detestable things" (tow'ebah). Again, Sodom and Gomorrah were not specifically destroyed for their homosexual behavior, but instead they were destroyed because they had given themselves up to all sorts of sins. The other Old Testament story which contains references to homosexual activity is in Judges 19:20-24, where an old man took in some travelers: "That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?" He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house. We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants--me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything." "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."" (Judges 19:16-24)This story (which took place in Gibeah) describes a situation that's similar to the story of Sodom, and we see the same intentions of homosexual activity and gang rape. Notice that God later used the sins of Gibeah as an analogy to illustrate how wicked Israel had become: "The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac. The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God. They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins." (Hosea 9:7-9)As Bible commentaries sometimes point out, in the above passage God was comparing Israel's wickedness with the sins described in the story of Gibeah. Here's an example: "as in the days of Gibeah --as in the day of the perpetration of the atrocity of Gibeah, narrated in Judges 19:16-22, &c." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown CommentarySo once again we see a story of homosexual activity and gang rape being used as an illustration of "corruption" and "wickedness." Homosexuals say that God certainly condemned the violence and the lust and the gang rape described in these two stories, but they argue that this has no bearing on loving, committed gay relationships. While it's true that the stories of Sodom and Gibeah have nothing to do with loving, committed gay relationships, the problem with this line of argument is that there are no examples of any loving, committed gay relationships at all anywhere in the Bible. There are no examples of homosexual marriages or same-sex unions in the Bible, and marriages throughout the New Testament are always described as having both a husband and a wife. Homosexual Activity in the New Testament
Before we look at another argument that homosexuals often make, let's take a look at a healing that Jesus did: "Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie--the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" "Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me." Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat." But he replied, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Pick up your mat and walk.'" So they asked him, "Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?" The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well." (John 5:2-15)Throughout the Gospels, Jesus always healed people who wanted to be healed, and He never refused to heal anyone for being a sinner (see my article called Every Example of Healing in the New Testament). In the above passage, Jesus asked a man if he wanted to be healed, and then Jesus healed the man. Notice that Jesus told the man to stop sinning or else something worse might happen to him. In other words, Jesus knew that this man was a sinner, yet Jesus healed him anyway. With that in mind, here's a passage which homosexuals sometimes use in order to show that Jesus condoned a homosexual relationship: "There a centurion's servant [doulos], whom his master valued highly [entimos], was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant [doulos]. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant [pais] will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant [doulos], 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant [doulos] well." (Luke 7:2-10)Homosexuals say that the centurion and his servant were involved in a homosexual relationship, and that Jesus obviously approved of this homosexual relationship because Jesus healed the servant. According to this argument, if homosexual activity is a sin then Jesus should have rebuked the centurion and refused to heal the servant. One problem with this argument is that Jesus never refused to heal people because of their sins (as we just saw), so it would be incorrect to assume that Jesus approved of a homosexual relationship just because He healed one of the partners. Another problem with this argument is that there's no Scriptural evidence that the centurion and his servant were involved in any kind of homosexual relationship at all. Homosexuals say that the servant was "precious" and "dear" to the centurion (based on the Greek word entimos in the above passage), but this Greek word doesn't mean that they had a homosexual relationship. Apart from the above passage, this Greek word is used four more times in the New Testament: "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished [entimos] than you may have been invited." (Luke 14:8)Notice that the other occurrences of this Greek word in the New Testament don't imply any kind of sexual feelings or romantic feelings or homosexual behavior. Another reason why homosexuals argue that the centurion and his servant were involved in a homosexual relationship is because they say that back then, the Greek word pais in Luke 7:7 (above) was understood to refer to a same-sex lover. Apart from the above passage (and the parallel passage in Matthew 8:5-13), this Greek word is used 20 more times in the New Testament: In Matthew 2:16, it's used when referring to the boys whom Herod ordered to be killed (so that Jesus would also be killed). In Matthew 12:18, Luke 2:43, Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, and 4:30 it refers to Jesus as a child or as God's servant. In Matthew 14:2 it refers to King Herod's servants. In Matthew 17:18 and Luke 9:42 it refers to a boy who was afflicted by a demon. In Matthew 21:15 it refers to children who were praising Jesus. In Luke 1:54 it refers to God's servant Israel. In Luke 1:69 and Acts 4:25 it refers to God's servant David. In Luke 8:51 and 8:54 it refers to a young girl who was brought back to life. In Luke 12:45 it refers to a wicked servant. In Luke 15:26 it refers to the servants in the household of the father of the prodigal son. In John 4:51 it refers to a boy who was healed. In Acts 20:12 it refers to a young man who was brought back to life. So Scripturally, the Greek word pais refers to a servant or a young person, which is why most versions of the Bible translate this Greek word as "servant" or "boy" or "lad" in Luke 7:7 (above). In the above passage, the servant boy is referred to as a pais one time, and he's referred to as a doulos four times. The Greek word doulos means "a slave...bond (-man), servant," according to Strong's Greek Dictionary. The centurion had a high regard for his slave boy who was sick, but this doesn't mean that he was a homosexual. What it boils down to is that there's no Scriptural reason for thinking that the centurion and his slave boy were same-sex lovers. Now, take a look at what Jesus said about "eunuchs": ""I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs [eunouchos] because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."" (Matthew 19:9-12)According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, the Greek word eunouchos in the above passage means "a castrated person ... an impotent or unmarried man." Bible commentaries tend to describe the above passage in a way such as this: "12. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb--persons constitutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.So in context, Jesus was saying that some people are born in such a way that they won't get married. Homosexuals tend to say that when Jesus referred to people who are born eunuchs, He was referring to homosexuals. They argue that Jesus was exempting homosexuals from the heterosexual marriage paradigm, and they point out that Jesus didn't prohibit same-sex marriages for "born eunuchs." But in the context of the above passage, marriage itself is between a man and a woman, and in this context Jesus described three types of "eunuchs" who will never get married. He made no provisions or exceptions for the case of same-sex marriages. The implication of the three types of "eunuchs" is that they will all remain unmarried and celibate. Another argument that homosexuals sometimes make is that the apostle Paul implied that God didn't give everyone the same sexual orientation, and therefore we should respect each others' differences: "I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." (1 Corinthians 7:7)The homosexual argument is that even though Paul might have wished that all men were like him (heterosexual), the above verse shows that Paul recognized that everyone has different sexual orientations. Since each person has his own gift of sexual orientation from God (according to this argument), we should not force our personal orientations onto other people. However, notice that when we place Paul's statement in its proper context, it paints a very different picture: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)The context here is all about marriage and proper sexual relations (which are only allowed within marriage). In the above passage, Paul said that he was unmarried and celibate, and that he considered his celibacy to be a gift from God. He understood that not everyone will be able to remain celibate, so he said that it's better to get married than to burn with passion (so that we don't become tempted to commit the sin of premarital sex). So when Paul said that each man has his own gift from God, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The context is all about marriage relations versus celibacy, it's not about heterosexuality versus homosexuality. In fact, notice in this entire passage that marriage is meant to be between a husband and a wife. Now let's take a look at some things that the New Testament specifically says about homosexual activity: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator --who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:20-27)The above passage says that certain people's hearts had become darkened because they neither glorified nor thanked God, and then it says that God gave them over to sexual impurity because they worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. Here are some things that Bible commentators have said about this passage: "These people had already wilfully deserted God who merely left them to their own self-determination and self-destruction, part of the price of man's moral freedom." (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New TestamentIn other words, God turned His back on those people (who neither glorified Him nor gave thanks to Him, etc.) and let them go down the path of their own self-destruction. God abandoned them to "shameful lusts," and both the women and the men turned to homosexual activity, which the above passage calls "their perversion." Certainly there are many homosexuals who glorify God and give thanks to Him, but whether we like it or not, this passage uses the terms "shameful" (or "vile"), "unnatural" (or "against nature"), "indecent" (or "unseemly" or "shameful"), and "perversion" (or "error") when it describes homosexual activity. Homosexuals sometimes respond to the above passage by saying that it refers to heterosexuals who went against their own individual natural relations by engaging in homosexual behavior. The argument is that if a person is homosexual by nature then it would not be "against nature" for that person to engage in homosexual activity, and therefore the above passage is not actually referring to homosexuals at all. This argument might be valid if the above passage said that the women exchanged their own individual natural relations for unnatural ones, and that the men abandoned their own individual natural relations with women. But there's no distinction made in the above passage between those who are heterosexual by nature and those who are homosexual by nature. Another way that homosexuals sometimes respond to the above passage is by saying that when people "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," this doesn't necessarily involve homosexual activity. For example, in the Law of Moses it was forbidden for people to have sex with animals (Leviticus 18:23), and it was forbidden for a man to have sex with a woman during her menstrual period (Leviticus 18:19). The argument is that these are examples of "turning from the natural use," and therefore Romans 1:20-27 (above) doesn't necessarily condemn homosexual activity. The problem with this argument is that Romans 1:20-27 (above) specifically says, "In the same way [i.e. in the same way that the women had done] the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men." This is a direct reference to homosexual activities, which the above passage calls "unnatural." Another argument that homosexuals sometimes make concerning Romans 1:20-27 (above) is that the context of Romans 1:18-32 indicates that homosexual temple prostitution (cultic idolatry) is the sin being described rather than homosexual activity in general. However, that argument fails when we notice that these people had degraded their bodies with one another (not by going to temple prostitutes), and that they were inflamed with lust for one another (not that they were participating in cultic rituals). The language of Romans 1:20-27 (above) describes general homosexual behavior, not ritualistic temple prostitution. In fact, that passage says that because of idolatry, God gave them over to shameful lusts and homosexual behavior. This means that the general homosexual behavior described in that passage was not a form of idolatry but rather it was a consequence of idolatry. Now let's look at another New Testament passage: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)In the above passage, the Greek word which is translated as "homosexual offenders" is arsenokoitai, which means: "from arsen (730), a male, and koite (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27])" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.258, emphasis added)In every Greek dictionary and Bible commentary that I have checked, this Greek word is always described as being a reference to homosexual activity. The few times when I've seen this Greek word defined as something other than homosexual activity (such as "a sexual aggressor" or "a man who sleeps around"), it has always been in pro-homosexual literature. People who have studied the few uses of arsenokoit in ancient literature outside of the Bible point out that it was most often used without any definition, but in context it was sometimes used with the meaning of a man who anally penetrates a man or a woman, and it was sometimes used in the context of rape. Homosexuals argue that this word was never used in the context of loving, committed gay relationships. Here's how the above verse looks in a literal translation of the Bible: "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites" (1 Corinthians 6:9, Young's Literal TranslationThis literal version of the Bible translates the Greek word arsenokoitai as "sodomites," which is one of the ways that Strong's Greek Dictionary describes this Greek word. The Amplified Bible translates this Greek word as "those who participate in homosexuality," and the NASB translates it as "homosexuals." The English word "offenders" (in the NIV, above) is not in these translations because there's no Greek word for "offenders" in this verse. Here are some things that Bible commentators say about the Greek word arsenokoitai: "Effeminate. This and the next clause refer to a shameful crime quite prevalent among the heathen, the first submitting themselves to the foul sensuality, and the second actively "abusing themselves with men," contrary to nature. Both are Sodomites. None guilty of any one of the list of vices given can be an heir of heaven." (People's New TestamentAs in the above examples, many Bible scholars interpret arsenokoitai as being a reference to homosexual activity (men who sexually bed other men). Since this Greek word literally means "male-bedders," it's common in pro-homosexual literature to see arsenokoitai defined as "men who sleep around" (or something similar). However, this definition is unlikely for several reasons. First, notice that if a man sleeps around then he's either a fornicator (an unmarried man who is sexually active, whether for free or for a fee) or else he's an adulterer (a married man who has sexual relations with people other than his wife). These are the only two possible meanings of "men who sleep around." With this in mind, let's look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 again: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [pornos], nor idolaters, nor adulterers [moichos], nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, KJV)Thayer's Greek dictionary and Strong's Greek dictionary (and other Greek dictionaries) define pornos (above) as being a fornicator or a (male) prostitute, and they define moichos (above) as being an adulterer. Remember, the only two types of "men who sleep around" are fornicators and adulterers, and Paul described both of these types of sinners using the Greek words pornos and moichos. But then Paul went on to list another type of sin using the Greek word arsenokoitai. When Paul mentioned the arsenokoitai, he had already dealt with unmarried men who sleep around (pornos) and he had already dealt with married men who sleep around (moichos). Since Paul had already described both types of men who sleep around earlier in that verse, it's highly unlikely that Paul then used arsenokoitai as meaning "men who sleep around." For another reason why it's unlikely that arsenokoitai means "men who sleep around," let's look at the only other place in the Bible where the Greek word arsenokoitai occurs: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers [patraloas, "father-threshers"] and murderers of mothers [metraloas, "mother-threshers"], for manslayers [androphonos, "man-slayers"], For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai, "male-bedders"], for menstealers [andrapodistes, "men-stealers"], for liars, for perjured persons [epiorkos, "false-swearers"], and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:9-10, KJV)According to Thayer's Greek dictionary and Strong's Greek dictionary, all of the Greek words shown in the above passage are compound words (i.e. they are each formed from two other Greek words), and the English equivalents of these compound words are shown in brackets (above) based on Thayer's and Strong's Greek dictionaries. Paul's word-play in this passage gives us further insight into the meaning of arsenokoitai. In English, the compound words in the above passage all contain a word which describes a type of person (threshers, slayers, bedders, stealers, swearers), preceded by a word which further defines the sin involved (father-threshers, mother-threshers, etc.). Since homosexuals tend to say that the compound word arsenokoitai ("male-bedders") means "males who bed other people," let's see if this interpretation is consistent with Paul's use of the other compound words in that same passage: 1. patraloas ("father-threshers") are those who "thresh" (kill) their fathers.Compare 4a and 4b (above) with the other compound words in the list. Which interpretation of arsenokoitai is consistent with Paul's word usage here? 4b is the definition which is used in pro-homosexual literature, but it's clear that 4a is the only definition which allows us to be consistent in our interpretation of Paul's compound words. If we say that "male-bedders" means "males who bed other people" or "men who sleep around," then we're being inconsistent in how we interpret this passage. What it boils down to is that there's no evidence that arsenokoitai means "men who sleep around" (or something similar). Instead, all of the evidence points to homosexual activity as the meaning of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Conclusion
We've looked at the main passages in the Bible which directly refer to homosexual activity, and there are other possible references to homosexual activity in Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7, and Job 36:14 (all of which refer to male temple prostitutes), and in Deuteronomy 23:18 and Revelation 22:15 (both of which refer to "dogs," which are often interpreted as meaning male temple prostitutes). I was always taught that homosexuality is a sin, so I wasn't expecting to discover that in fact it's not a sin. In other words, it's not a sin for two men or two women to have romantic feelings and sexual attraction towards each other, and it's not a sin for them to date and hold hands and kiss and so on. These things are never described in the Bible as being sinful for anyone. On the other hand, as Christians it's important to recognize that sexual activity in the New Testament is only proper within marriage, and sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin (see my article called Is Premarital Sex a Sin?). Therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are committing a sin if they engage in sexual activity outside of marriage. This brings us back to the question of whether or not same-sex marriages are acceptable in God's eyes. Throughout the entire Bible, marriage is consistently between one man and one woman, and there are no same-sex unions anywhere in the Bible (as we have seen). In the Old Testament, some men had multiple wives and concubines, but these wives and concubines were all women (because they bore children to the men). In the New Testament, there's no provision for multiple wives or concubines, and there's no provision for same-sex unions anywhere in the Bible. The implication of this is that homosexuals would need to remain unmarried and celibate in order to keep from sinning. I don't believe that masturbation is a sin (see my article called Is Masturbation a Sin?), but I don't see anything in the Bible which allows for marriage or sexual activity between people of the same gender. From a human perspective, this sounds terribly unfair. But God has reasons which we don't always know about or understand (e.g. Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Corinthians 3:19-20), so it's important to base our views on what He says in the Bible rather than basing our views on our fallible human reasonings and feelings. God loves homosexuals just as much as He loves heterosexuals, but for some reason (which I don't pretend to understand) He appears to have forbidden sexual activity between people of the same gender. If you're a homosexual Christian then my suggestion would be to honestly study the arguments on both sides of the issue, seeking to discern God's will. The only viewpoint which matters is God's viewpoint, and to help you discern His will you might consider reading my article called How to Hear the Voice of God. All for Your glory, Lord Jesus! |