Skip to comments.Homosexuality: The Biblical Witness
Posted on 09/24/2013 3:15:26 PM PDT by James R. Aist
The Bible identifies several kinds of sexual sin, including fornication, adultery, incest and homosexuality. Homosexual behavior is unequivocally and consistently portrayed in the Bible as sin (Genesis 19:5 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10). The biblical witness on this point could not be any clearer.
(Excerpt) Read more at ipost.christianpost.com ...
You're the one who posted the scriptures. What do you think.....
As I was taught that God destroyed Sodom and Gammorah because of homosexuality and bestiality. Please prove He didn’t.
Great article, from what I’ve read of it so far. Thanks for posting, James.
I think James’ question was meant to be rhetorical.
What do you think I think?
Well I know for a fact that Obama says he is a Christian, and he is a great and learned man. If Obama says Homosexuality is fine who is God to deny it?
You also don’t need the Bible to know that bug chasing and gift giving are wrong, but the left expects us to accept that behavior as if nothing was wrong with it.
They left out Exodus 20:17.
Depends on the translation. If they are using the NLGBTV, probably not.
I meant, it probably doesn't condemn it.
Note to the humor impaired: this is quite possibly sarcasm.
I assume you are referring to the so-called “Queen James Version”? Yes, it does exist.
In general terms it is associated with increasing social anarchy. Rome is always a good example. Homosexuality was so remarkable that Livy even named the first instance of homosexuality in Roman history.
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” _Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice)
My views (quoting scripture, but in the hope that God’s words will speak for themselves, rather than for my own ends):
- Genesis 19:5: “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”
If this passage stood alone, one could be convinced (as liberals argue) that the sin of Sodom was homosexual rape, not homosexuality.
- Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
This passage has no reasonable ambiguity, whether in translation (check the Hebrew), in scriptural context (this condemnation is between general condemnations of child sacrifice and of sex with animals, not in some specific setting that narrows the applicability), or in historical context. This has nothing to do with rape or with prostitution. This is about gay men acting on homosexual urges, but it says nothing about celibate men with homosexual orientation or about lesbians. This passage’s position on male homosexuals acting on that urge is absolute. It’s not saying they are wrong to be attracted to men, just that they are wrong to act on that desire.
- Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
[Same comments as Leviticus 18.]
- Deuteronomy 23:17: “ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”
If you accept the liberal interpretation of Genesis 19:5, this can be dismissed.
-Judges 19:22: “Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.”
- 1 Kings 14:24: “And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.”
- 1 Kings 15:12: “And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”
- 1 Kings 22:46: “And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”
- 2 Kings 23:7: “And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.” [Same comments as Deuteronomy 23:17.]
- Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
As with Leviticus 18:22, this is a clear and unambiguous condemnation of homosexual actions. This broadens the Leviticus position to a condemnation of lesbian acts as well. Some liberals argue that Romans 1 only condemns homosexual sex among those who are not attracted to the same sex (for them, homosexual actions are “against nature”), but that is clear nonsense. Reading this in Greek, the meaning is unambiguous and could not have been confused by cultural differences.
- 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”
Liberals who argue that this does not apply to homosexuals may actually be correct, but I am uncertain. This is one of the rare times when the subtleties of the words really do introduce (at least to my mind) the ambiguity that the leftists claim. They are obviously wrong on what scripture as a whole says, but I would not go to this passage to support that position.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-10: “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 and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”
As with 1 Corinthians 6:9, this is not the passage I would go to to argue that the Bible condemns homosexual actions. I think it’s clear, but the reading is more difficult than many of the others, without being quite as ambiguous as 1 Corinthians 6:9.
I believe we should the sinner, as Jesus does, and hate the sin. I especially hate that they are trying to deem it normal and require the rest of us to bow down to their wishes.
They should pick up a Bible and learn what the pagans were doing to honor their gods. These people are performing the same acts.
You don’t happen to work for MSNBC, do you?
I think many today don’t seem to realize that more than being anti-homosexuality, the Bible is very much in favor of the procreation of the species and the continued creation of human beings who might come to faith in God through Christ. Homosexuality is just one of many things that work against that possibility.
It is not an abnormal trait in pagan societies, at least in the West. Western Civilization, though, was made possible by its suppression and the control of sex.
Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
Sorry this is not a link. I can't make a link work today. It works with cut and paste, though.
This is a Catholic explanation and it is wrong. Please consider the following scripture:
Please consider the following excerpt from Ligonier:
But if that is true, what are we to think of a passage like Romans 1:2627? The Bible defines homosexual desires as contrary to nature, not an equal alternative orientation. Homosexuality is a dishonorable passion that consumes men and women, leading to shameless behavior. The strong emotional pull of lust and the affections shared between persons in a homosexual relationship whatever those affections may be called cannot properly be called love. After all, love does not rejoice at wrongdoing (1 Cor. 13:6), and homosexuality is wrongdoing. Moreover, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah over what today would be called private decisions indicates that lust is a serious social problem.
And herein is the ultimate problem with lust: Those overcome with lust receive in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:27) and will face the Lord as an avenger in all these things (1 Thess. 4:6). God keeps the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Peter 2:910). Lust blinds men to the fact that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God.
BTW-Except for this one sentence I thought your article was excellent.
I didn’t think that needed a sarcasm sign.
It didn’t. I was just joking.
God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) Homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept.
And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible.
However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.
But the unique compatibility and complementarity btwn male and female, and sexual sanction in marriage, extends beyond procreation. But there is no Song of Solomon glorifying romantic and erotic love btwn same gender couples.
Either way, there’s no such thing as a pro-homosexuality perspective in the Bible. I read where a liberal agreed with this perspective and said something along the lines of “the church didn’t give the world ‘gay rights’. Secularism gave the world ‘gay rights’.” And I have to agree with him. The only reason folks even try to push a non-existent pro-homosexuality perspective into Scripture is that in America and the Western world, Christianity is the dominant religion(at least nominally) and they’re trying to con enough of the nominal and Biblically illiterate folks to believe that so their agenda can be advanced.
“Thus the effect of the prohomosexual hermeneutic is to allow the negation of most any moral command.”
That’s their true goal. In the end, it’s about replacing the church with the all-powerful state.
That criticism (only condemn homosex as part of idolatry due to the cultural contrast these occur in) is so weak that it is not even reasonable. I dismiss it completely.
Yet i believe that beyond that, the devil seeks to defile that which honors God, which both the Bible and the male-female union in marriage does, and the demonic powers behind the homosexual agenda seem to be driven by lust to bring all to affirm the perversity of homosexual relations. The pressed Lot (naively seeking to reason with lust) upon the door to break it down, and today press upon all barriers that are against homosexuality, and fail to affirm it.
Thus they cannot tolerate Scripture opposing them, and therefore they have expended an inordinate amount of labor seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual homosexual relations, and to assert sanction for the same.
And in so doing, as in real life, they force sex into passages it does belong in. To their own damnation, with perverting Scripture being even (not diminishing the other) more damnable.
As you should, but as many others do not, it must be refuted, and is.
The only reason the homo agenda is being pushed is that it is an effective vehicle to achieve the goal of criminalizing Christian beliefs.
Did Satan’s temptations of Jesus lead to sin? You seem to be saying that temptation can lead to sin, which is what I was saying. BTW, I didn’t get my understanding of this point from the RCC; I got it from the Bible. That said, I’m glad you liked the article.
I agree; well put.
Perhaps you would not be confused by the questioned passages if you would read them in modern English translations...any of them. I find it necessary to continually translate the KJV into modern English in order to understand it’s meaning. Or, you could study it out using the KJV and a Strong’s Concordance keyed to it. Then you would not find these passages confusing anymore. At least that’s what I found.
Temptation is defined as "the desire to perform an action" contrary to God. At the risk of sounding like I'm splitting hairs, while our Lord Jesus was certainly tempted, did He actually experienced temptation (the desire to rebel)? I think we would both agree that our Lord never had a desire to perform an act contrary to God, even when tempted.
For sure, the difference between being tempted and experiencing temptation is subtle but important. Being tempted is external just as our Lord was in the wilderness. Experiencing a temptation would have to be internal. We would consider it, think about it, lust after it. This is part of our old nature. Consider the verse in James:
You asked the question, Did Satans temptations of Jesus lead to sin? Although tempted, do you think our Lord ever entertained any of the temptations of Satan in the wilderness?
Ordinarily, “temptation” means solicitation to that which is evil. Hebrews 4:15-”For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we areyet he did not sin.” I do not believe that your distinction is either real or biblical. If you have ever been tempted, then you have experienced temptation. If you nave never been tempted, then you are one of a kind. May the Lord bless you.
This led me to a wonderful book by John Owen's The Three Treatises on Overcoming Sin and Temptation who explains this far better than I ever will. Of course he takes 464 pages but it is a wonderful work for which I would highly recommend.
Excerpt from the book...
Temptation, then, in general, is any thing, state, way, or condition that, upon any account whatsoever, has a force or efficacy to seduce, to draw the mind and heart of a man from its obedience, which God requires of him, into any sin, in any degree of it whatsoever.
In particular, that is a temptation to any man which causes or occasions him to sin, or in anything to go off from his duty, either by bringing evil into his heart, or drawing out that evil that is in his heart, or any other way diverting him from communion with God and that constant, equal, universal obedience,in matter and manner, that is required of him.
For the clearing of this description I shall only observe, that though temptation seems to be of a more active importance, and so to denote only the power of seduction to sin itself, yet in the Scripture it is commonly taken in a neuter sense, and denotes the matter of the temptation or the thing whereby we are tempted. And this is a ground of the description I have given of it. Be it what it will, that from anything whatsoever, within us or without us, has advantage to hinder in duty, or to provoke unto or in any way to occasion sinthat is a temptation, and so to be looked on. Be it business, employment, course of life, company, affections, nature, or corrupt design, relations, delights, name, reputation, esteem, abilities, parts or excellencies of body or mind, place, dignity, artso far as they further or occasion the promotion of the ends before mentioned, they are all of them no less truly temptations that the most violent solicitations of Satan or allurements of the world, and that soul lies at the brink of ruin who discerns it not. And this will be further discovered in our process.
OK, you’re , like, a duct tape salesman, right?
I recognize most sarcasm when I see it.
I guess I should have tagged it as such for those who don’t.