Skip to comments.Homosexual relations and the Bible
Posted on 12/22/2013 2:54:06 AM PST by daniel1212
Homosexual relations and the Bible
A comprehensive examination of pro-homosexual interpretations of the Bible, by the grace of God. For PDF download of the complete document (over 57 pages), right click here and choose to save. For sectioned series (not as current), see here.
The interpretive conflict regarding homosexuality and the Bible is a relatively recent phenomenon, between two fundamentally different positions and interpretive schools. Historical/traditional scholarship evidences that the Bible contains laws which prohibit homosexual relations (same gender sexual relations; also referred to as homoeroticism or homogenital relations, or homosex), and which are as universal and immutable as laws against illicit heterosexual partners are shown to be, and unlike incest, homosexual relations never were allowed. In addition, the necessary positive sanction of marriage, which is provided explicitly for opposite gender sexual unions, is nowhere established for homosexual unions.
Pro-homosexual polemicists have responded to this problem by asserting all the injunctions against homosexual relations are culture or contextually bound or for other reasons cannot not universally apply today, and or that the Bible is not wholly inspired of God and provides no transcendent universal sexual ethic. In addition, advocates of homosexual relations often propose or assert that homoeroticism and even same-sex marriage can be seen in many close relationships between persons in the Bible.
Those within the former camp see the attempts by pro-homosexual polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist", (James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135) with homosexual misinterpretations being a manifestation of the efforts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the Bible, as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue Biblical meanings, often by sophisticated forms of sophistry. Those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and or being motivated by homophobia. (Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion)
May this web page work salvation and sanctification, and may I grow in the latter, to the glory of God. Amen
From the beginning, God created the male and female as uniquely compatible and complimentary, and only joined them in the sanctified sexual union of marriage. (Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:8-12; Eph. 5:31) All sexual relations with others outside that bond are revealed to be fornication, which is unconditionally (regardless of motive or circumstance) prohibited and condemned. (Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24; Lv. 19:29; 21:9; Dt. 22:13-30; Num. 25:1; Jdg. 8:33; 2Chrn. 21:11; Prov. 7:10-12; Hos. 1:2; Ezek. 6:9; 16:17,36; 20:7,18; 23:7; Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 6:16; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.)
In the Bible, a ''harlot'' or ''whore'' (KJV) was a women who had sex before marriage, and included prostitutes. (Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24 Num. 25:1) If a man engaged in such with a single women, he was required to marry her for life, while the death penalty was mandated for the man (or both if consensual) for engaging in sexual relations with a women who was betrothed (contracted to marry) to another, or for a women who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, and her husband objected upon discovering otherwise. (Dt. 22:13-29) Likewise, spiritual fornication was that of infidelity to God in making an idol to be one's god, (Ezek. 6:9; 23:30; 37:23) with Israel being covenantally "married" to God. (Jer. 3:14; Ezek. 16:8)
In the Gospel of Mark 7:20-23 (cf. Mt. 15:19), Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that proceed out of the heart include fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage. While broader descriptions exist (i.e. "the bed of love": Ezek. 23:17) sexual intercourse is what is usually indicated (by euphemisms) in laws against illicit sex, yet it is generally held that this is not limited to such, but prohibits all sexual eroticism outside marriage (in which it is exclusively sanctioned: Prov. 5:15-20: SoS), and which all "uncleanness" (Rm. 1:24; Eph. 5:3) covers. (Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Eph. 5:3; Albert Barnes, Rm. 1:24)
Though more than one wife was allowed in the Old Testament, and even concubines were wives (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3), the Lord Jesus restored that to the original standard of one man and one women, for life. though most understand the fornication clause as allowing divorce in the case of martial infidelity, as fornication can include adultery. (DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE UNDER GOD By L. S. Boardman) In so doing, (Mt. 19:4-9) Jesus defined the male and the female as constituting the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together", and which, along with other verses, excludes same-sex marriage or any other sexual unions.
Lionel Windsor observes, "the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest." (The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005) In examining pro-homosexual polemics, it becomes abundantly evident that the revisionist school of homosexual apologetics operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally faulty and aberrant. (Psa 11:2-3) (Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"; Thomas E. Schmidt, THE hermeneutics of homosexuality: recent trends)
As James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell state,
The net effect of this revisionist approach is a novel and destructive twisting of Scripture...The Bible is being reinterpreted according to urges that are "against nature" and then said to support the homosexual agenda...Despite the revisionists' protests to the contrary, their position is in actuality based upon human desire rather than upon biblical authority and interpretation. (The Unthinkable Has Become Thinkable)
Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Divine Biblical inspiration and infallibility, in which God, as the author of Holy Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws on attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the consistent use of proven rules of interpretation hermeneutics, and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's moral laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives are disallowed. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians overall have also seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10) (The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen)
In regards to the issue of sexual unions, this historical or traditional position, especially as substantiated by conservative Christians, holds that the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was created from man and for man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet". And that only this joining of two opposites halves is shown to be what God designed and decreed to make man (for those who so choose to marry) sexually complete, and which no other physical creation could fulfill, (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:9; Eph. 5:31) and which purposefully created physical and positional complementary distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-12) precludes fulfillment by same gender unions. In addition, the explicit and abundant sanction evidenced for heterosexual unions by marriage stands in stark contrast to the lack of any sanction for any sexual unions between "homosexuals". This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to the aforementioned foundational design and decrees of God. (The Bible and Homosexuality by J. Glenn Taylor, Assoc. Prof. Of O.T. at Wycliff College. U. of Toronto)
In addition, and consistent with the understanding that God made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as moral, universal and transcendent from the time of their institution, and directly applicable to today's cultural contexts. In examining such, it is evidenced that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are consistently categorized as fornication. (1Cor. 7:2). And in contrast to heterosexual unions, in the places where homoerotic relations are most explicitly dealt with (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27) they are only condemned, with this condemnation also being universal in scope, and not restricted to certain cultural, behavioral or motivational conditions. (Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO! Wolfhart Pannenberg; Newsweek/Miler response, Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon; Straight or Narrow?,Thomas E.Schmidt; http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/homosex.htm )
German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg stated, "[T]he biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality." (Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church, AgapePress)
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality concludes that while all mankind is prone to sin, the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin. (Final Report of the Task Force on Human Sexuality, Baptist Union of Western Australia, July 1997, ref at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
Evangelical Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen (http://home.comcast.net/~webpages54/ap/biobahn.html) sums up the position of traditional Biblical exegesis in stating, "Gods verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate Gods basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion." (Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.) In P. Michael Ukleja's summation, Only towering cynicism can pretend that there is any doubt about what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. The Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct." (Homosexuality and the Old Testament, BSAC 140 (July 1983): 259.)
Rabbi Dr. Nachum Amsel states, "If not for the fact that homosexuality is prevalent in Western Society today, there would be little controversy about this Torah sin. It is clearly forbidden and never condoned anywhere in the Torah. (Homosexuality in Orthodox Judaism)
Calvin Smith concludes, "the weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals, have led me to affirm the traditional view more firmly than ever. (Concluding remarks, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate)
Duncan Heaster comments, In the light of all this evidence, the question must be asked: Why is there such a desire to twist the evidence? A related question is why so many studies aiming to prove the 'born gay' theory have been found to be faulty (see below); and why the surveys which aim to prove that a relatively high percentage are born gay have been demonstrably 'rigged'. It all indicates that the researchers and theologians are being driven to support their preconceived theories rather than being led empirically by genuine Biblical and psychiatric research. Duncan Heaster, Debating Bible Basics TOC^
It is very lengthy, and was originally written for a conservative wiki (of varying quality), thus its style and extensive references, but its purpose was first and foremost to refute the gross manipulation of the Bible in seeking to negate its injunctions against homosex and (even) to assert sanction for the same.
The end result of which attempts and the hermeneutics employed is to effectively negate the authority of Scripture itself. Like the prostitute who would rather see the baby she claimed was hers be destroyed rather than allow the real mother to have it, (1Kg. 3) the end result of pro-homosexual polemics is that they effectively reject the authority of the very source they seek to use for their own purposes.
If God was prohomosexuality why did he make two sexes....
If only everyone had such common sense.
And the ongoing deconstruction of the words of the Scriptures is only part and parcel of the whole scheme to discredit both the Old Testament and New Testament altogether, and therefore, only the Koran will be THE authoritative text.
Islam was a founded in part as a reaction to the strictures on human depravity that were described in the Bible. The Koran gave them authority to murder, rape and lay waste to their neighbors, first to convert them, then to plunder and eliminate all those who would resist accepting their version of “divinity”. The Secular Progressives have applauded and encouraged this “diversity”, as it supports their own agenda, at least temporarily. Once the infrastructure that supports the older monotheistic religions has been destroyed, the Secular Progressives will then attempt to dismantle the world of Islam.
But the Islamic Jihadists are much more fanatical than even the Secular Progressives, and far more numerous. And they are much better armed. The SP has always relied upon operating within whatever code of law that applies in the territories they seek to dominate, not to comply with the intent of the law, but to find the loopholes and take advantage of them. Shari’a law itself is so full of internal contradictions and amoral constructs, however, that it will be next to impossible to adequately twist the meaning for a way to destroy Islam, or even effect much of a change anywhere in the behavior of Muslims. The Islamic Jihadists will rally to the cause of defeating Secular Progressivism, and SP would be gone within a generation.
Some 95% of the personal woe suffered on this world is self-induced. The rest is from getting in the way of somebody else’s temper tantrum.
We are seeing a temper tantrum on massive scale. Surrendering to it is the part we play in inducing our own set of woes.
Actually, i believe it is part of the atheistic goal to eliminate the real obstacle to man being the supreme authority, for which the atrocities of Islam serve as fodder for their rant against the true and living God and His authority.
Bttt for future reading and reference.
The jihadists may be more fanatical than secular progressives, but they do have a match in ardent Marxists in the fanaticism department, of whom the secular progressives are just the front line to be wiped out.
Homosexuals hate The Lord because He is the antithesis of their god, Satan, and He disregards all they value, which is their sexual deviance and worldly lives. Most of the people around me claim they are atheists and have not been brought up in Christ, have never gone to church, have nothing to believe in but what is in this world. Can you imagine how pathetic your existence must be if you value nothing higher than yourself, your sexual perversion, and the people around you and worship at the altar of homosexuality? No wonder so many atheists and homosexuals kill themselves!
Paul’s writing in Col. 3-5 : inordinate affection and evil concupiscence. Had to look up the definition of concupiscence. Even then homosexualality was trying to invade and destroy the church.
At best, the activity can only produce a gratification of another human's bodily reactions to a calculated stimulation. That is not sexual.
At worst, the object is to defeat the design of the human body which ought to produce concern for others as well as progeny, with the presumed result of propagation of the species through a beneficial symbiotic association. Sex is always a heterogeneous interaction, never a homogeneous one.
Let's keep the perversion of the process at the front, and use the true names associated with it. That is not hatred, it is simply referring to the conduct with truthful terms.
In order to avoid the internal discipline of God’s word the ridiculous argument is made that one can be acceptable as a Christian and a homosexual so long as one does not practice homosexual acts but Jesus’ words on what constitutes adultery puts the lie to such assertions.
Furthermore in order to justify homosexual acts these acts will be redefined as not sexual in their nature. The human ability for self deception appears endless.
You’re cherry picking.
I’m no fan of homos, but live
I dare you.
“If God was prohomosexuality why did he make two sexes....”
I can not see that there is any thing to debate.
There is no debate about if the world is flat or not because it has been proven false.
There has never been any reason to believe that the dirty word is anything except an abomination against God because it is against nature.
This has always been known even by people who did not believe the Bible was anything but a fairy tale.
“You’re cherry picking.”
The left cherry picks. Christians need to understand which laws are still in effect, and which Christ has fulfilled. Read Hebrews. Here is the heart of this epistle.
“(Hebrews 9:8-12) The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
Your Carnal ordinance is no longer in effect. The laws against sodomy still are vital.
That should send libs' heads spinning. Even if they don't believe in God, the same question can be asked of evolution. No way of getting around it.
By the LBQGAFofLCIO God made numerous sexes. But only two make for God centered families.
The psychologist Jung had it that the prevalence of homosexual in modern society as opposed to its occasional practice in traditional societies is owing to urbanization. In the midst of dense populations and with few norms of sexual behavior, sexual roles become confused.
Homosexual acts are mutual masturbation. Their end result is orgasm, the sense of pleasure that nature give us to urge us toward reproduction. They justify their excess on the grounds that society has more children than it needs, and of course that the discipline that traditional morality place on sexuality serves no useful purpose.
No, it is you who are cherry picking, and which type of spurious argumentation the article was written (it is obvious you neglected to read the section on Leviticus) and deals with.
Do you really think all laws are the same, that the Bible makes no covenantantal distinctions btwn laws regarding "meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation, (Hebrews 9:10) or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) Touch not; taste not; handle not" ?(Colossians 2:21-22)
In contrast to basic purely moral laws, which are applicable to all cultures at all times, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23)
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (Mark 7:15)
And do you also think that that the physical penalty for such is also the same?
In addition are culturally applied laws which are applicable in principal by adaptation.
The fact is that the prohibition against sodomy is part of the basic moral laws, and by abrogating that then one can also abrogated laws against any other form of fornication, from bestiality and incest to adultery, as well as child sacrifice.
That is where you argument leads to. Perhaps you are a libertarian fiscal conservative.
Interesting, but the Bible links it with fleshly satiation and selfishness, which does often go with urbanization.
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:50)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.