Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

For many years now, many people have begun rethinking its attitudes toward homosexuality. This movement has not been lost on the Christian community. But what does the Bible have to say? Many make it an issue of hate and intolerance. Admittedly, there are many people out there who ignorantly, and foolishly make it an issue of hate and intolerance and use the Bible as an excuse. Believe me, with or without the Bible, these people would find a way to be hateful (the Bible teaches that we should love our neighbor as ourselves-go figure).

No, the issue is neither about hate nor intolerance. Nor is it simply about condemnation of any one group. The issue at hand is whether, biblically, homosexuality is morally right.

One of the most important Scriptural pronouncements on homosexuality is the creation account in Genesis. Creation serves as the context for all subsequent biblical pronouncements on sexuality. Jesus Himself unequivocally links proper sexuality with creation (Matthew 19:3-7), as does Paul's teaching on homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, which is linked with the creation as well.

The Pharisees approached Jesus in Matthew 19, "tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The topic at hand, of course, is divorce. But it can also be applied to the issue of homosexuality. God created humans as male and female. This is the order that He has established, and it is "for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife". This was the original intention by God. In the divine order of things, men and women are meant to be together.

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God" (1 Corinthians 11:11-12).

Man and woman are joined together by God, and what "God hath joined together, let not man put asunder".

According to Genesis 3:16, Eve was told: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband".

God's mandate was that this would be her natural affection. The apostle Paul understood this, and with the proper understanding of Creation, boldly states:

"For 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 men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27).

Many will point to the fact that many animals have been observed to engage in same-sex behavior. Therefore, they conclude, they must have been born this way, and that it must be natural. How can God condemn something that is perfectly natural? To answer this, one must understand a few things:

The world as we know it is not in its natural state. When God created the universe, and everything in it, it was good. Everything was perfect. But when sin entered into the world, the curse of sin and its consequences turned the world upside down. We know this from Genesis, after sin entered into the world, God pronounced a curse not only on mankind, but also on the creation. We know from experience, the world is not perfect. With sin, death entered into the world, and everything death entails: suffering, pain, decay. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22).

Yes, animals may exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild, on their own. But rather than proving that it is natural, it helps to validate the biblical view that the whole of creation is corrupted by sin.

The Creation narratives of Genesis clearly demonstrates the sexual model for relationships that mankind is to follow.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Inhospitality?

God tells Abraham in Genesis 18 that He will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah "because their sin is very grievous" (Genesis 18:20). What were the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? In the previous article written in "The Aztec", we are told that it is inhospitality, rather than homosexual behavior. Is this stance valid? Let us examine the inhospitality position.

In Genesis 19, two angels come to Lot's house in Sodom, where they stay with him. While they were there, "the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young…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 (note: 'to know' means to have sexual relations)". Fully aware of their wicked intentions, Lot pleads with them to "do not so wickedly".

The word that is translated as "to know" in the King James is the word yadah. Other versions translate it as "get familiar with" or "be intimate with". So, did the men of Sodom just want to become acquainted with the two strangers in the city, or did they want to have sex with them? To those who subscribe to the inhospitality explanation, they would say the former. The proponents of the inhospitality explanation argue that the Hebrew word for yadah, literally means "to know" or "become acquainted with", and has absolutely no sexual connotation when connected to the men of Sodom.

But this explanation naturally has many flaws. To be fair, even if Sodom's sin was inhospitality, wouldn't their sexual desires toward the two men be a major part of their inhospitality? Moreover, much can be garnered very simply from the context of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, which leads to the conclusion that their sins at least included homosexuality.

We are told that when Lot settled in Sodom that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly" (Genesis 13:13). Who do we find outside Lot's door? It is the men of the city, both old and young. Did they merely want to get to know the two men better? Lot's reaction is very telling. His immediate reaction is to rebuke the crowd "do not so wickedly". Lot then offers his daughters to the crowd instead: "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" (Genesis 19:8). Lot's own use of the word yadah to refer to his daughters "which have not known man" very clearly shows the sexual motive of the crowds request. Otherwise, the statement that his daughters "have not known man" makes absolutely no sense at all, if we accept the inhospitality explanation. In fact, the Hebrew word yadah is used many times in Scripture to refer to sexual activity. This practice is not unique to the Jews, either. The Egyptian word rh, which means to know, very frequently carries a sexual connotation.

This instance is not unique. There is also another account that parallels that of Lot's. In Judges 19:22, "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." To which this man also replies, "do not so wickedly; see that this man is come into mine home, do not this folly." Interestingly enough, he also offers his daughter and concubine to the men, "but unto this man do not so vile a thing" (Judges 19:24).

Here, the word yadah clearly has sexual overtones, as evidenced by the man's horror and his request to "do not so vile a thing." I mean, if it was just getting to know someone, what would be so vile about it? Futhermore, it says in verse 25 that after giving them his daughter, the men "knew her", which is obviously a sexual reference. Yes, just like in Sodom, these men were inhospitable. But their inhospitality and their sexual desires were not exclusive of each other.

While many would think of Sodom simply in terms of homosexuality, to be fair, it should be noted that Sodom was guilty of more than just homosexuality. The Lord found the city exceeding wicked, including the homosexual desires of the men of the city, and destroyed it.

1st Corinthians 6:9

In 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul condemns both participants in a homosexual act, telling them that they shall no inherit the kingdom of God. "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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (emphasis mine).

In the previous edition of "The Aztec", it is asserted by writer Alan Tsai that the Greek word malakee is never used to describe sexual behavior of any kind, and made the assertion that the Greek word arsenokeeteh is not a clear enough term for homosexuality. Is this the case?

It is of the utmost importance to understand the words used by Paul as they would have been understood by the Corinthian church, whom this letter is written to. Here, Paul's goal is to contrast God's law with Roman customs, making it clear that all homosexual acts were unrighteous. Now, some have come forward to say that Paul was only condemning only certain homosexual acts, such as cult prostitution or child molestation; or that he was only condemning lustful versus loving acts of homosexuality. The sin lies in the motivation, not the actual act, they argue. I would like to show that these explanations rely on assumptions and leaps of logic that cannon be maintained.

1 Corinthians 6:9 tells us that neither the "effeminate" nor "abusers of themselves with mankind" shall inherit the kingdom of God. The Greek terms, as stated previously, that underly these words are malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi literally means "soft" or "soft ones". It is also used elsewhere in the Bible in this manner (Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25). Malakos is also defined as "soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). The word arsenokoitai actually comes from two words, arseno, which means male, and koitai, which literally means bed, and is used as a term for sexual intercourse such as in Numbers 5:20 and in the modern word coitus. This word is used only twice in scripture; once in 1 Corinthians and a second time in 1 Timothy 1:10. It is thought that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai because he is the first person known to have used it. In both malakoi and arsenokoitai, Paul refers to both the passive and active partner in homosexual sex.

For a proper understanding of these words, it is critical to know how Paul's audience would have understood them. It is important to know that Roman law made two distinctions when it came to homosexual intercourse. The first distinction was that Roman citizens could penetrate a non-Roman, while it was against the law to penetrate a Roman citizen. The other was that there was a distinction made between the "passive" participant (the effeminate) and the "active" one. These distinctions within Roman law the context in which he uses these words the way he does. He is describing both aspects of homosexuality.

So why is malakos in this instance a sexually charged word? Because the Romans borrowed this word from Greek. This is what is known as a loanword. Because to the Romans, forms of perversion have a tendency to be ascribed to foreigners, and those perversion are usually described by a word from that foreign language. Many words that have to do with homosexuality in Latin have a Greek origin, such as: pedico, pathicus, cinaedus, catamitus, and malacus-a form of malakos. It is the Roman's use of the term malakos to describe the passive partner in a homosexual relationship, which was looked down upon within Roman society.

The Corinithian church would have understood that malakoi was referring to the passive homosexual partner. In other words, by using the word malakoi, Paul was using a common word that his audience would have been familiar with in referring to the passive homosexual partner.

How about the word arsenokoitai? What was Paul trying to say? The answer comes from Leviticus 20:13, which reads: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed and abomination". In the Greek version of Leviticus 20:13, it reads "kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos", which is "lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman". If you notice the two words arsenos (male) and koiten (bed), they are the two that Paul puts together to form the word arsenokoitai. As the root of Paul's phrase, he is using God's law in Leviticus to reaffirm in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin.

While the Romans detested the passive homosexuals, homosexuality was an otherwise accepted way of life to the Romans. That is why Paul used two different terms to condemn homosexuality.

Romans 1: 26-27

In Leviticus and Corinthians, homosexual acts is listed among a number of other sins without any real explanation of why it is sinful. But in Paul's letter to the Romans, we get the most theological passage on homosexuality. Romans gives us the biblical basis for why homosexual acts are wrong.

In Romans 1, Paul explains that everyone knows that God exists, and yet refuse to acknowledge Him and "hold the truth in unrighteousness", acting contrary to the order of God (Romans 1:18-20). How do people know that God exists? Because it is revealed in the order of creation. It is in the order of creation that the "invisible things" of God are made known, so that those who reject God "are without excuse".

Near the end of Romans chapter 1, Paul speaks about what happens to those who reject the created order, and "change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). There is a created order for things, and they serve to reveal the glory of God, and those who reject it are given "up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" (Romans 1:24). The following verses are the man passages that deal with homosexuality: "For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for 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).

Here, Paul singles out homosexual sex for special attention because it is regarded as a very graphic image of the way human sinfulness has distorted God's created order. Whether they realize it or not, when people engage in homosexual behavior, they are manifesting an outward sign of their inner spiritual corruption: the rejection of the Creator's design. To Paul, homosexuality represents the attitude of exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshiping the creature more than the Creator. They have been given over to a "reprobate mind". They are not only acting against nature, "but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:32). Homosexuality is an idolatrous act, because you have become your own idol. You follow your own rules, and have therefore become your own god. It is also noteworthy that Paul also, in no uncertain terms, condemns in this passage the women who "change the natural use" also. Just like homosexual activity between men, lesbianism is a rejection of God's created order.

But there are some who say that the passage in Romans does not condemn homosexuality. The debate in this passage is over the use of the words "natural" (physikos) and "nature" (physis or physin), as was noted in The Aztec. In the passage, Paul describes those who have given in to lust "to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" and who "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." It is because of this that God gave them over to their own "vile affections." Not just the men, but even the women have changed the phyiken chresin (natural use) for that which is para physin (against nature).

Professor John Boswell, used as a source in The Aztec, argues that para physin is referring to "the personal nature of the pagans." Boswell argues that if it meant otherwise, it would conflict with God's actions that are "against nature"-such as accepting the Gentiles. Boswell argues that something can be unnatural, but not immoral. But it is clear from this passage that Paul is identifying nature with God's created order. For those who indulge in any sexual practices that are para physis, they are defying the Creator and only demonstrating their alienation from Him.

The argument that Paul is using has nothing to do sexual orientation. In those times, there was no concept of sexual orientation-in other words, someone being born gay. It was clearly regarded as not natural at all. Far from having no connection to homosexuality, the phrase para physin was very common in polemic attacks on such behavior. Even in the writings of Plato, he states that homosexual conduct is para physin (against nature). He writes, "When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be natural, but unnatural when male mates with male or female with female?quot; In the book Platonic Studies, Gregory Vlastos says that by para physin, Plato meant something much stronger than "against nature", noting that Plato compared homosexuality with incest. It is known that the most prominent of Plato's writings, all agree that the term para physin used by Plato, is a very firm and unqualified condemnation of homosexual relations.

Similarly, Jewish historian Josephus and Philo both referred to homosexual sex as para physin.

In her article, "Genesis: God's Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Misunderstood", writer Jennifer Pinto states: "Most of the condemnations in the Bible are things people do everyday. We lie, cheat, steal, and murder. We sin every day but God still accepts us and loves us. To choose homosexuality out of all those sins and say that it is something that God is still against is unfair and hypocritical."

Did you know that the Bible says that even if you obey all the laws, but break even one-even if it is the "smallest" one-you are guilty of breaking them all. The truth is, that every single on of us has broken God's law, and deserve nothing but His wrath. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)"

"Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder" as well as homosexuality are still sins. Whether it be heterosexual sin or homosexual sin, sin is sin. And God has not changed his mind about any of them. Just because something has become common place or acceptable socially, does not mean that God has suddenly changed and approves of it, or just ignores it. There is no hope that God will change His mind and overlook your sin, no matter how "small", because He doesn't change. He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8), "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17), "For I am the LORD, I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

But we have hope in Jesus Christ, in whom we have forgiveness of sins. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

--Wai Szeto