Does God condemn the gay or lesbian lifestyle? Is it a sin to be gay or lesbian? This question is one of importance and should be diligently researched before making any conclusions.
Join me, as we go through each and every scripture that mentions homosexuality and consider the truest meanings of each word within the scriptural context (i.e. ~ Greek and Hebrew definitions, to avoid error):
- There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. - Deuteronomy 23:17-18 - Well, interestingly on this passage, the Hebrew term for "whore" actually refers directly to a "female temple prostitute" and the term "sodomite" here actually refers to a "male temple prostitute". See for yourself: #06945 qadesh, #06948 kedeshah, or just click on the verse reference and click on the Hebrew numbers there. So, in actuality, this verse here can not be used to condemn standard gay and lesbian activity. Related Scriptures: ( 1 Kings 14:22-24, 15:22, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7)
- 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 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. 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door. 19:10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 19:11 And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. - Genesis 19:4-11 - First thing to note, is that these men wanted to "forcefully rape" visitors to their city. Now, it is obvious, that it would be gay sex, however, homosexuals generally do not gang rape visitors (not from my experience). So, to say they were smote because of gay activity is not what this passage or other passages (Deut. 29:23, 32:32; Wis. 19:14-17; Isa. 3:9, 13:19; Jer. 23:14, 49:18, 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46-48; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:29; Rom. 9:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7) state, as it is more likely because they were trying to gang rape people. So, to say they were smote because they were homosexual seems to be overstepping what the passage actually states. So, I do not believe this passage should be used to condemn or prove God was against gay activity. Also, if you look at Ezekiel 16:49-50, it states that Sodom's sins were pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness and forgetting the poor. So, no direct correlation, to "standard" gay activity as being the main reason for the punishment, but there is potentially some allusion to it. Something to also consider is the warning here about pride, abundance of idless and fullness of bread, which seems to describe more Westernized countries. (Judges 19:22, Jude 6-7; 2 Peter 2:4, 6-8.)
- 1:26 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: 1:27 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. - Romans 1:26-27 - We also know from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 that God has an Old Testament commandment against male-male sex (or possibly idolatrous male-male sex), so gay sex among men is condemned. However, note, we can not infer this to mean men can not have love or closeness with another man, but rather, they can not have sex or related together. Now, many assume that Romans 1 is refering to two women having sex. Not strict lesbianism, per se, but rather bisexuality within women (considering polygamy was permitted by God). However, seeing that Romans 1 is the only passage that may relate out of 33,000+ verses within the Bible and seeing it is not direct or clear as to what is meant by "against nature", we can not easily conclude it is talking about two women having sexual relations (as the two Leviticus passages never mention it being a sin, or any other passages: 1, 2 ). The reason I state this is because there is more than one potential type of "against nature" activity. For example, woman lying with with a beast would be against nature. Or, if you take the common understanding of sexual identity in Paul's time, it could be refering to how women ought to be passive and men active, yet in the case of Rome's idolatrous atmosphere, the temple prostitute women would sleep with many men (being "active" - against nature) and the consecrated eunuch men unto this false god (Cybele, for insance) were passive as many men would have anal sex with them (against nature). So against nature would be refering to women and men exchanging their passive/active roles (as we also see in feminism). Since the idea of heterosexuality and homosexuality was understood differently than today, as they actually had maybe six orientations instead of two (homosexuality was broken into a few categories in Paul's day). Also, consider that polygamy in the Old Testament permits more than one woman to have sex with a man. So, to "assume" Romans 1 is refering to two women interacting sexually in all scenerios is to conclude without proof and seeing that Jesus did not make any new morality, we should see an example in the Old Testament condemning, women with women. However, I would say that there is no such thing as lesbian marriage or strict lesbianism, as God did not create such an institution. The only marriage models found in the Bible are either one man and one woman (God's ideal) or one man and more than one woman (polygamy). So, for gay men or women to marry, that is error before God, because marriage is only designed for between opposite sexes. Since God is smarter than you or I and would know that such a topic would be relevant today, I am sure he would have made it clearly obvious, if it was a sin for women to have sex together. However, at most, only gay male sex could be argued as a sinful activity from scripture. With regards to lesbianism, there is one vague verse which could mean a myriad of things. If you were God and wanted to tell people lesbianism was a sin, would you do this, or would you make it very straight forward and clear?
Regarding Homosexuality, I do believe it is possible for two men to have love or a close relationship with each other. As we see examples in the Bible of such relationships (David and Jonathan for instance). Yet, the Bible states that gay male sex is "unseemly" and that it is "in error". So, even if you want to say this is talking about just male temple prostitutes in Romans 1, Leviticus 18 and 20, there seems not to be much in positive gay verses in the Bible (possibly Jesus statement about natural born eunuchs?). So, I believe the point is that God has created some men to love other men, but they appear to be forbidden to have sexual relations with each other. There are actually examples of relationship in the Ancient church between two men who were celibate. They had a love for each other, but were celibate, so as to not have sexual relations with each other. Should such a union ever happened in history? I would have to say the agreement between David and Jonathan could have been one of these non-sexual close friendship type agreements.
- 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry. 19:11 But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given. 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. - Matthew 19:10-12 - With this scripture here, some say that a "eunuch" that was "born from mother's womb" is what we would today call a "homosexual". A eunuch according to the greek is one who abstains from marriage, or one who is castrated, or one who serves to protect women in harems, etc.. And the one definition from the greek that homosexuals are refering to is "1c) one naturally incapacitated". So the debate is, are they born without a penis/testicles, or is it refering to them born naturally disposed to not want women (hence wanting men).. To me, even if it did not mean a man born without a penis/testicles, it could instead mean a man who just doesn't want to get married to a woman or a celibate man who has love for a man.. Does this mean that they are gay? It is possible, as most eunuchs in Jesus' time were gay, as can be seen in the usage of the word in various other greek writings of that time. The assumption then is, if they do not want to marry a woman, they would want a man, which may or may not be the case. I guess, the point is, you can not justify gay male sex within the Bible, though, it is possible Jesus was refering to gay men when he spoke of naturally born eunuchs. But, can we conclude a great deal from this? Does it mean Jesus doesn't have a problem with gay sex. The problem is there just not a lot of data in the Bible to make strong declarations either way. As you can easily build a plausible case for or against the idea of men being born gay. If you look at Romans 1, you could argue that it is an "unseemly" desire. However, some gays just argue that this "unseemly" desire was not refering to all gay desire (but its an uphill fight). So, we can see, the scripture is not really clear on this topic, as some may imagine it to be. As I have seen even 15 different viewpoints on Romans 1:26 alone (conservative and liberal)! What that tells me is there is a lot of opinion parading around as fact.
- 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. 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. - Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - With reference to this passage, it actually defines a common homosexual activity of men having sex with other men (yet, there is some odd wording surrounding the passage in chapter 18 & 20). I believe it is likely focused on gay temple prostitution unto Molech (and gay sex in general). Now, some may argue that this passage only applies to that time period, to distance themselves from the culture around them, etc. However, the fact is, the only time gay sexual activity is mentioned in the scriptures, it is condemned when used in idolatry or shown in bad light in general. God maybe ok with same sex platonic relationships (if the men are celibate), but we can not say God is ok with same-sex unions, where the men are sexually active together. So, the point is, its a very close friendship, not a sexual relationship. Even health statistics for gays who participate in gay sexual lifestyle illude to its harmful nature (See here: 1, 2, 3, 4). It should be pointed out, it does not mention women lying with women. I believe this is because men are the head of families and to have two family heads having sex together is to put one man as the head, while the other man as a woman (in passive mode), contradicting God's design. Assuming God is logical in his method of writing, we can see in Leviticus 18, that "men lying with beast" and "women lying with beast" are both sins.
- 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. 1:10 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; - 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 - On this one, the term "effeminate" or mal-ak-os' 3120 means either a male prostitute, or a boy slave used for gay sex, or a male who submits himself to unnatural lewdness. If you take the root meaning of the greek word it is: "male bedder". Knowing a lot of words in the greek New Testament are derived from doctrines and scriptures in the Old Testament, it appears to be an illusion to Leviticus 18 and 20 (men shall not lie on bed with men). However, Leviticus 18 and 20 also seem to have some odd wording surrounding them, which brings about some circumstancial evidence that it maybe focusing more so on the practice of gay temple prostitution. So, to me, this one is a little difficult to know if it is refering to all sexually active gay men. It could be refering to all gay men (who put their desire above God) or it could be little less broad (male temple prostitutes?). I do not believe it is refering to men who have a love or close friendship with another man (otherwise, potentially John, the disciple whom Jesus loved (platonic love), would not have been his disciple).
- 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that [was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 20:3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly [as] the LORD liveth, and [as] thy soul liveth, [there is] but a step between me and death. 20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do [it] for thee. 20:41 [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 1:25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, [thou wast] slain in thine high places. 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. - 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:3-4, 20:41 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 - Now, I would say these scriptures are perplexing, atleast a little. If you look at the passages as face value, particularly 20:41, you would think its possible you are reading about two gay men who are in love. As I like to read the Bible unbiased, without allowing my doctrine to paint the passage. But, for you who are gay, I would like to ask you something. Is it possible for two men to love each other without having gay sex? In real life, you see platonic relationships between men and women, where they deeply love each other, yet they are not boyfriend/girlfriend and they are not having sex. So, theoretically, is it possible two men could love each other, without being sexual? The Bible seems to condemn gay sex in general. So, with these passages, I can not assume they are sexually gay. This is my logical progression on these passages. So, to assume they were sexually gay because they kissed (which I believe was a custom at the time) I do not believe is enough to show them as having gay relations. So, I think the safest approach would be to say God may honor love between men, but not sexual relations between men. As, it is quite obvious, David hear loved Jonathan more than a woman. But, it does not follow, that he had sexual relations with him.. Also, taking logic here, if a man has sex with a bunch of women, do we assume he "loves" them? Or is he more just a man going around screwing women? So, having sex, does not infer love.
|